Staff Report
City Council
Item No. 2.B
Meeting Date: November 12, 2025
From: Anne V. Ambrose, Interim City Manager
Eric Vail, City Attorney
Title: Discuss Potential Charter Amendments
RECOMMENDATION:
To discuss whether the City Council desires to consider making amendments to the City Charter.
BACKGROUND:
In the City’s adopted 5-year strategic plan under Goal A – Serve the Community With Pride and Dedication, the City Council identified action item A-2 to explore and solicit public feedback on a potential charter amendment to include term limits, Council salaries, term limits and others.
DISCUSSION:
With the June 2, 2026 primary and November 3, 2026 general elections on the horizon, staff wish to discuss with the City Council whether there is interest in exploring modifications to the City’s charter. There have been three topics raised so far by councilmembers as potential items to amend: term limits, Council compensation, and at-large Mayor.
A. Term Limits
1. Any proposal to limit the terms of City Councilmembers must be submitted to the City’s voters at a regularly scheduled election.
Charter Section 602 states that “Eligibility for the offices of City Council members and City Treasurer shall be as mandated by general law.” Accordingly, Government Code Section 36502(b) states that
“…the city council of a general law or charter city may adopt, or the residents of the city may propose, by initiative, a proposal to limit or repeal a limit on the number of terms a member of the city council may serve on the city council, or the number of terms an elected mayor may serve.”
Further, “[a]ny proposal to limit the number of terms a member of the city council may serve on the city council, or the number of terms an elected mayor may serve, shall apply prospectively only and shall not become operative unless it is submitted to the electors of the city at a regularly scheduled election and a majority of the votes cast on the question favor the adoption of the proposal” (emphasis added). 1 Although the term “regularly scheduled election” is undefined by the statute, at least one court has interpreted the term broadly to include “any regularly scheduled election”. 2 As such, there are two regularly scheduled elections in 2026: one occurring in June and another in November. However, there may be limitations on which election may be utilized due to the nature of Charter Section 605.1.
2. Ordinance versus Charter Amendment for Proposing Term Limits Charter Section 602 states that “[e]ligibility for the offices of City Council members and City Treasurer shall be as mandated by general law.” Government Code Section 36502(b) permits term limits to be proposed to the voters but does not specify whether by ordinance or, in the case of charter cities, a charter amendment. Thus, this and the Charter’s silence as to term limits arguably allows term limits to be proposed by ordinance since eligibility is “as mandated by general law”. However, it should be noted that an initiative measure that attempts to enact an ordinance on a matter in which a charter amendment would be required is invalid. 3 That is, an argument can be made that an amendment to Charter Section 602 is required to impose term limits since Charter Section 602 does not specifically discuss the question of term limits and, instead, discusses eligibility in general. The conservative approach would be to submit such a measure via charter amendment.
B. Council Compensation
Council compensation is set by Charter Sections 605 and 605.1 and, further, implemented by Cathedral City Municipal Code (“CCMC”) Section 2.04.050; however, note this code section provides similar requirements as the Charter sections. Charter Sections 605 and 605.1 state as follows:
Section 605. City Council Salaries. The then-current salary of the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Council Members shall be reviewed and adjusted annually beginning with the first pay period after July 1 of each year based on the change in the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA average for all items, 1982- 84=100, as published by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics or the most closely equivalent successor thereto in the event the index is terminated or changed. The "base index" for the adjustment shall be the index for December 2015. Regardless of the CPI-U, in no case shall the salaries be increased by more than 3% in any given year or exceed a maximum of $2,500 per month.
Section 605.1. City Council Salary Decrease. In the event that the City Council approves or imposes a salary decrease upon a group of City employees represented by a recognized bargaining group for any reason, Council salaries shall be decreased by a corresponding percentage effective at the same time the employee salary decrease becomes effective. If multiple groups of City employees experience reductions in salary that go into effect during the same fiscal year, the City Council’s salary shall be reduced by the largest percentage reduction experienced by an employee group. If multiple groups of City employees experience reductions in salary that are implemented on a staggered basis throughout the fiscal year, City Council salaries shall be reduced by the highest percentage reduction experienced by an employee group then in effect. For example, if one employee group has a salary decrease of 2% effective July 1 and another group has a salary decrease of 3% effective September 1, Council salaries shall be decreased by 2% effective July 1 and on September 1 the Council’s salary shall be decreased by an additional 1%.
The current compensation amount for each of the five members of the City Council is $1,453.41 monthly or $17,440.89 annually.
Any desired change to Council compensation that deviates from these Charter sections will require a charter amendment to be submitted to the voters. Further, any changes to Charter Sections 605 and 605.1 will require corresponding changes to CCMC Section 2.04.050.
C. At-Large Mayor
Charter Section 601 provides for 5 council members through a by-district election system without a mayor elected at large. Thus, in order to switch to an at-large mayor with 4 council districts, a charter amendment proposal would need to be submitted to the voters establishing the at-large mayor; reducing the number of councilmembers from 5 to 4; and, further, redrawing the district maps to accommodate the change in the number of councilmembers elected by-district, which will require compliance with the requirements of the FAIR Maps Act, including any related noticing and public hearing procedures and redrawing district maps).4 If this is desired, further analysis of this approach is recommended, including analysis of whether there would be exposure for the City under the California Voting Rights Act and the logistics of carrying this out (e.g., timing of redrawing of maps, etc.).
D. Charter Amendment Process for Council Submitted Proposals
1. Drafting of Charter Amendment Documents
In general, to send a ballot measure to the voters, Council will need to adopt several election- related resolutions that submit the measure to the voters, call related election, and authorize ballot arguments and impartial analysis. Further, Council will also need to provide direction on the type of Charter amendment desired so that the Charter amendment text can be drafted. However, note that the content of the charter amendment will control when it may be submitted to the voters.
2. Multiple Subjects in a Charter Amendment Proposal
(a) Single Subject Rule
California Constitution, art. II, Section 8(d) states that “[a]n initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.”5 Further, an initiative measure does not violate this rule if all the parts are “reasonably germane” to a common theme, purpose, or subject.6 However, the court in Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles found that an “initiative measure” is not the same as a charter amendment proposed by a city council of a charter city. The court stated that “[t]he common, ordinary definition of “initiative” is “a procedure enabling a specified number of voters by petition to propose a law and secure its submission to the electorate or to the legislature for approval” (citing to the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary).7 Instead, the court stated that Article XI of the California Constitution (“Article XI”) governs charter amendments proposed by the city council of a charter city.8 The Hernandez court further stated that Article XI contains no single subject restriction for such charter amendments and, therefore, the single subject rule does not apply to the charter amendments proposed by a city council of a charter city.9 However, caution should be taken when submitting a charter amendment proposal with multiple subjects. Although there does not appear to be a requirement that various parts of a charter amendment be related in Article XI, the Hernandez court stated as follows “By not encumbering governing bodies of charter cities with a single subject requirement, the framers enabled charter cities to sponsor measures aimed at accomplishing comprehensive reform at the ballot box. Charter cities are also able to group multiple technical amendments into one ballot measure.
Since every ballot question carries significant administrative costs, substantial efficiencies can be achieved by a city council's authority to group technical changes of disparate but reasonably related provisions and statutory amendments into one measure to achieve a common theme or purpose.”10 (emphasis added)
(b) Practical Considerations
Ballot questions are limited to 75 words.11 This means that any charter amendment proposal will need to take this word limit into consideration. For example, too many subjects in a charter amendment proposal may be difficult to fit into the 75-word limit.
3. Optional Public Hearings
Although the public hearing and noticing requirements of Government Code Section 34458(b) must be held prior to submitting a “proposal to adopt a charter” (emphasis added) to the voters, there is no equivalent requirement for charter amendments. However, the City Council should nevertheless consider complying with Government Code Section 34458(b)’s notice and public hearing requirements in order to avoid any arguments that these procedures were not followed. Government Code Section 34458(b) requires at least two public hearings, with the second at least 30 days after the first, to be noticed at least 21 days prior to each hearing. Further, the vote on whether to submit a proposal cannot occur until 21 days after the second public hearing.
4. The City Council must submit charter amendments to the voters; however, the timing of which election may be utilized is controlled by the substance of the measure.
As noted above, the City Council must submit its charter amendment proposals to the voters.12 However, there are limitations of when these charter amendments may be submitted to the voters based upon the content of the charter amendment proposal. The general rule is that all charter amendments must be submitted at a statewide general election, with the next one being in November 2026. 13 However, Elections Code Section 1415(a)(2) provides an exception to this general rule as follows:
“The governing body of a city or city and county may direct that either of the following be submitted to the voters at the next regularly scheduled general municipal election pursuant to Section 1301, or at any established statewide general or statewide primary election pursuant to Section 1200 or 1201, occurring not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election:
(A) A charter proposal that proposes to amend a charter in a manner that does not alter any procedural or substantive protection, right, benefit, or employment status of any local government employee or retiree or of any local government employee organization.
(B) A charter proposal that proposes to amend a charter solely to comply with a court injunction or consent decree or with federal or state voting rights laws.” (emphasis added)
Thus, if a charter amendment meets these requirements, then both June 2026 and November 2026 would be the next available elections to submit a charter amendment.
For example, an amendment that modifies Charter Section 605.1 such that it affects a procedural or substantive protection, right, benefit, or employment status of the City’s employees, must follow the general rule and be submitted at a statewide general election.
Further, given the nature of Charter Section 605.1, an argument could be made that any changes to its requirement that Council compensation be partly tied to employee compensation means that it must be submitted to the voters at a statewide general election since it may affect a substantive right or benefit of a City employee.
E. Community Input
Approximately three years ago, the City conducted a statistically valid community satisfaction survey to solicit the public’s input on the provision of city services. Staff are in the process of engaging FM3 to conduct the next survey and if directed by the City Council, staff could utilize the survey to also solicit feedback any of the proposed charter amendments.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The costs to initiate a charter amendment are not completely known. Based on the 2024 election, the cost of putting a measure on the ballot was $35,255 and staff anticipates a charter amendment question would be of similar cost although Riverside County has not published its new rates yet for the June or November elections. Should the City Council wish to pursue an at-large Mayor, there will be additional costs to hire a demographer to help redraw the maps from five City Council districts to four.
FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal A – Serve the Community with Pride and Dedication
Action A-2 Explore and solicit public feedback on a potential charter amendment to include Council salaries, term limits and others.
___________________
1 Gov. Code Section 36502(b).
2 Jeffrey v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1, 8 [Interpreting Government Code Section 36502(b)’s use of “regularly scheduled election”: “The most natural construction of the words “regularly scheduled election” would be any regularly scheduled election.
The fact that the statute purports to address “a general law or charter city” while at the same time using the phrase “a regularly scheduled election” indicates, if anything, that any “regularly scheduled” election would do.”]
3 City and County of San Francisco v. Patterson (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 95. 4 See, Elections Code Section 21625(a)(4); Gov. Code Sections 34871(c) and 34900 et seq.; Elections Code Section 21100 et seq.
5 Cal. Const. art II, Section 8(d).
6 Brown v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 335, 350.
7 Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 12, 22. 8 Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 12, 22–23. 9 Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 12, 23. 10 Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 12, 23. 11 Cal. Elections Code Sections 13247 and 9051.
12 Cal. Gov. Code 34458(a); Elections Code 1415(a)(2).
13 Cal. Elections Code 1415(a)(1).