MEASURE A - Council Compensation Adjustment and Inflation Limitation Measure       Ballot Measure Resolution(Opens in new window)

The following provides information on Measure A, placed on the November 2026 ballot for Roseville voter’s consideration.

Shall the Charter of the City of Roseville be amended to adjust councilmember compensation from the current $600 a month that was established by the voters 26 years ago, to $2,550 a month, with annual incremental adjustments tied to inflation not to exceed 5%, which is less than allowed under State law?

The City Attorney has prepared an impartial analysis(Opens in new window) of the City of Roseville "Compensation Adjustment and Inflation Limitation Measure" showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure.
Measure A is a ballot initiative that would increase compensation for Roseville City Councilmembers.

Measure A would: 
  • Increase councilmember compensation from $600/month (set by voters in 2000) to $2,550/month (which is an amount set by State law for general law cities with the same population as Roseville). 
  • Add annual inflation adjustments based on the California Consumer Price Index (CPI), capped at no more than 5% per year.
  • Maintain the City Charter requirement that any change to council compensation must be approved by voters.
  • Councilmembers do not currently and would not receive any City paid for benefits like medical, dental, vision, etc. 
Voters are being asked whether to amend the City Charter to increase councilmember compensation from $600 per month (set by voters in 2000) to $2,550 per month, with annual inflation adjustments tied to the California Consumer Price Index and capped at 5% per year, which is less than what State law allows for general law cities. 
The City Charter requires voter approval for any change to council compensation. The last adjustment to compensation occurred 26 years ago, when Roseville crossed the 75,000 population threshold and voters approved the current $600/month rate. That measure included no mechanism for future adjustments, so compensation has remained unchanged despite growth in the city’s size and responsibilities since 2000.
The 2020 Charter Review Commission recommended updating council compensation, but the Council did not place that specific recommendation on the ballot at the time. A compensation increase was discussed at public meetings in March 2024, June 2024, September 2025, and February 2026. In 2026, two councilmembers are terming out and would not receive any increase if the measure passes, and two others will term out within two years. As a result, four of the five councilmembers who voted to place the measure on the ballot will receive little or no direct financial benefit from it. 
While Roseville is a charter city, the $2,550 amount is the limit set in State law for general law cities with a population size similar to Roseville.  It also is intended to move Roseville closer to cities with comparable responsibilities, particularly those overseeing municipal utilities and full-service operations.
  • Sacramento City Councilmembers receive a little over $9,000 a month. The City of Sacramento has a workforce of 5,000 and a $1.6 billion annual budget. 
  • Elk Grove, another large city in the region, has a $2,550 salary for councilmembers, however, the City of Elk Grove does not oversee fire, parks and recreation, libraries, electricity, wastewater/sewer, housing, and transit, which are all overseen by separate special districts or joint power authorities. Its budget is $411 million, less than half the size of Roseville’s, and its staff is one-third the size of Roseville’s.  
  • Roseville councilmembers oversee 12 departments, including a municipal electric utility, water, wastewater, solid waste, police, fire, parks, libraries, housing, fire, museums, and transit, along with a nearly $1 billion annual budget. 
Roseville is a full-service city, meaning the City Council oversees a broad range of municipal services such as utilities, parks, libraries, police, and fire that, in many other cities, might be managed by separate and independent agencies, such as the following:

  • Private companies 
  • Special districts 
  • Joint powers authorities 
  • Other agencies 

Since 2000: 

  • The city’s population has more than doubled. 
  • Roseville now operates with an annual budget approaching $1 billion, driven largely by the cost of running full-service municipal utilities and maintaining major infrastructure. 
  • The City employs approximately 1,200 full-time professionals represented by six labor groups, plus a large number of part-time staff. 
  • Council responsibilities have expanded as the city has grown in size, complexity, and regional influence. 

No. Councilmembers may continue to be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in service to the City. These reimbursements are not included when determining salary. 

Councilmembers do not currently receive, and with this proposed Charter amendment, will continue not to receive, any City paid for benefits like medical, dental, vision, etc. 

 

The total annual impact to the City’s budget is $117,000. This is .013% of the City’s total budget of $877 million.

The measure would amend Section 3.05 of the City Charter to: 

  • Set compensation at no more than $2,550/month 
  • Allow annual CPI based adjustments capped at no more than 5% 
  • Clarify that expense reimbursements are separate from salary 

The full text is included in the ballot materials.

Written Arguments and Rebuttals on Measure "A"

Pursuant to California Elections Code §9282, for measures placed on the ballot by the legislative body, primary arguments, which shall not exceed 300 words, in favor or opposition may be filed in the following order:

a) The legislative body, or member or members of the legislative body authorized by the body;
b) The individual voter, or bona fide association of citizens, or combination of voters and associations, who are bona fide sponsors or proponents of the measure;
c) Bona fide association of citizens;
d) Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure.

Primary Arguments Filing Period:  Opens June 15, 2026  and  Closes June 24, 2026
10-day examination period follows

Measure "A" Primary Arguments
Argument in Favor (Opens in new window)
Argument Against (Opens in new window)

Pursuant to California Elections Code §9285, rebuttal arguments to primary arguments, which shall not exceed 250 words, may be filed as follows:

a. The author or a majority of the author(s) of the argument relating to a city measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument or may authorize in writing another person or person(s) to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument,
c. A rebuttal argument relating to a city measure shall be filed with the elections official no later than 10 days after the final filing date for primary arguments,
d. A rebuttal argument relating to a city measure shall not be signed by more than five persons, shall be printed in the same manner as a direct argument, and shall  immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut.

Rebuttal Filing Period:  Opens June 25, 2026  and  Closes July 4, 2026
10-day examination period follows

Measure "A" Rebuttals
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor(Opens in new window)
Rebuttal to Argument Against(Opens in new window)

  • In 2020, the Charter Review Commission recommended updating council compensation along with more than a dozen other charter amendments. 
  • The City Council placed other recommendations on the ballot, and voters approved them. 
  • The Council did not place the compensation recommendation on the ballot at that time due to pandemic uncertainty and concerns it could be perceived as self-serving. 
    • Council compensation was brought back for discussion at public meetings on March 20, 2024, June 5, 2024, September 17, 2025, and February 18, 2026 to provide opportunity for maximum public participation and transparency.
    • In 2026, however, two councilmembers are terming out and would not receive any increase if the measure passes, and two others will term out within two years. As a result, four of the five councilmembers who voted to place the measure on the ballot will receive little or no direct financial benefit from it.
    • While Roseville is a charter city, the $2,550 amount is the limit set in State law for general law cities with a population size similar to Roseville.  It helps ensure a broader range of residents can afford to serve.
    • It partly accounts for inflation and also moves Roseville closer to, but still below, compensation levels in cities with comparable responsibilities, particularly those overseeing complex municipal utilities and full-service operations.