55575.18000\44869633.1
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 8, 2026 BUSINESS & LEGISLATIVE
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING MAYORAL
POSITION
FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager
BY: City Attorney and City Clerk
SUMMARY:
At the February 11, 2026 City Council meeting, the Council directed City staff and the City Attorney to bring back an item for the Council to consider, and possibly provide direction, regarding the City’s mayoral position. This agenda item discusses some of the issues, both legal and practical, that the City Council may wish to consider in the context of any possible change in the current mayoral position.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss and provide direction.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Palm Springs currently operates under a “Council-Manager” form of government. Under the Council-Manager form of government, the elected City Council establishes the City’s policy goals, through the adoption of a budget as well as ordinances, resolutions and other similar policy statements. These policies are then carried out by the City Manager and the City staff. The City Manager is hired by the City Council and the City staff report to the City Manager.
On December 19, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1971, which established five (5) “by-district” City Council seats. As a result of Ordinance 1971, the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are to be selected from amongst the City Council, rather than being directly elected by the City’s voters. The result of this is that the City Council would select its own mayor, if and how the City Council determined. This is often referred to as a “rotational mayor” system. Later, on April 17, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 24593, which established a process whereby the City Council would rotate the mayoral position among the Councilmembers each year. The order of service is based on the sequential district number, and each Councilmember has an opportunity to serve
55575.18000\44869633.1
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2026 -- Page 2
Mayoral Position
as mayor for one (1) year. Thus, under the current system, each district within the City has an opportunity to be represented by the Mayor.
The 2018 move to “by-district” elections was the result of a threat of litigation by the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project under the California Voting Rights Act of 20011 (“CVRA”). Under the CVRA, an “at-large” method of election cannot be used if it impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election.
Recently, there has been some discussion within the community about possibly adding a mayoral position back onto the Council. On March 16, 2026, the City received a Notice of Intent to circulate an initiative measure, establishing a directly elected, at-large mayor and providing for a November 2026 election to fill that position if it is created.2 This staff report discusses the potential options for another mayoral position, as well as some issues that the City Council and the public might want to consider in deciding whether and what direction might be taken.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Before diving into the substantive issues, it is worth discussing some definitions. Namely, the three primary forms of mayoral governance. Although there are nearly an unlimited number of variations of mayoral governance, the following are the basics of the primary three forms.
The first is a rotational mayor system. Under this system of mayoral governance, the mayor is elected as a City Councilmember and thereafter selected by his/her Council peers to serve as mayor. The amount of time of service is determined by the City Council, either formally through a policy, or sometimes informally through custom/tradition. Under this form of mayoral governance, the mayor generally has no additional legal authority than the other Councilmembers. 3 Namely, they have one vote, as do their counterparts on Council. They therefore serve primarily to run City Council meetings, and to some extent tend to function as a spokesperson for the City and Council.
The second form of mayoral governance is a directly elected mayor. As the name suggests, this form of governance is different from the rotational form in that the City’s voters directly elect the person to fill the mayoral seat. The fact that a mayor is directly elected does not, in and of itself, provide additional legal authority to the mayor under this 1 Cal. Elec. Code, §§ 14025-14032.
2 On March 20, 2026, the City notified the proponents of the measure of several deficiencies in their filing.
On March 30, 2026, the proponents re-filed their Notice of Intent. 3 The only exception is that, under the State’s open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, the mayor has the legal authority (with or without agreement from the Council) to call a special meeting. (Gov. Code, § 54956(a).)
55575.18000\44869633.1
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2026 -- Page 3
Mayoral Position
form of governance.7 For a charter city such as Palm Springs, the mayor may be provided additional authority. For example, a directly elected mayor might be provided veto power over votes of the City Council.
The third form is a “strong mayor” form of governance. Under this form of government, the mayor serves as the city’s chief executive officer. That is, the mayor performs many of the functions that the city manager performs in the council-manager form of government. At least in California, this form of governance is far less common, and is typically found in larger cities. According to a 2021 article, authored by the Mayor of Riverside, of the 482 incorporated cities in California, only five (San Diego, Los Angeles, Fresno, Oakland and San Francisco) have a mayoral role that has greater governmental powers.
In a publication by Claremont McKenna College entitled, 2025 California City Managers Survey, it states:
California has embraced the council-manager form of municipal government more completely than the rest of the nation. In a 2016 study published by Common Cause, researcher Nicolas Heidorn found that 468 California cities (or 97%) used this system. Only five major cities in the state–Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Fresno, and Oakland–used a “strong mayor” or mayor-council system in which the elected mayor is the chief administrative officer, assisted by an appointed administrative official.
A few small cities in California have decentralized the administration of government, with department heads reporting directly to the city council or to individual council members. As of 2018, California cities used the council-manager system at more than double the national rate. According to the ICMA 2018 Municipal Form of Government Survey, 48.2% of American cities (n = 4,020 cities) reported they used the council-manager form of government, compared with 38.2% that used the mayor-council system.
More locally, here is how Coachella Valley cities are governed:
7 In addition to being able to call a special meeting as mentioned above, a directly elected mayor (at least for general law cities) is authorized by State law to make appointments to City boards and commissions.
However, this “power” is still subject to the approval of the full City Council. (Gov. Code, § 40605.) 55575.18000\44869633.1
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2026 -- Page 4
Mayoral Position
Coachella Valley Mayoral Position
District
Elections
Number of
council
members
Mayor
Elected or
Rotating
Mayoral Term Strong
Mayor?
Desert Hot
Springs
Yes 5 Elected 4 years with a term
limit of 2 terms
No
Cathedral City Yes 5 Rotating Yearly No
Rancho
Mirage
No 5 Rotating Yearly No
Palm Desert Yes 5 Rotating Yearly No
Indian Wells No 5 Rotating Yearly No
La Quinta No 5 Elected 2 years No
Indio Yes 5 Rotating Yearly No
Coachella No 5 Elected 2 years No
Legal Issues
In 1994, Palm Springs voters adopted a City charter, thereby converting the City from a “general law” City to a “charter city”. Charter cities generally have more flexibility with regard to purely local (a.k.a. “municipal”) affairs. The City’s charter serves as a sort of constitution for the City, and City Council ordinances generally must be consistent with the City’s charter.
The City’s charter, since 1994, provided for the election of the Mayor and City Councilmembers.9 The text of the Charter specifies that the mayor is to be filled by direct, at-large election of City voters. (Palm Springs Charter, § 302.) Prior to 2018, the City’s ordinances governing the selection of mayor similarly provided for a direct, at-large election of the mayor. Generally, city charters may only be amended by a vote of the people. And, prior to 2015, an ordinance moving from at-large elections to by-district elections had to be submitted to the City’s voters. (Gov. Code, § 34871.) However, when the Palm Springs City Council considered moving to a by-district election in 2018, California law provided:
9 When the City of Palm Springs was incorporated in April, 1938, the City was laid out in seven (7) Council districts. (Blotter v. Charlie Farrell, (1954) 42 Cal.2d 804. 55575.18000\44869633.1
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2026 -- Page 5
Mayoral Position
“Notwithstanding Section 34871 or any other law, the legislative body of a city may adopt an ordinance that requires the members of the legislative body to be elected by district or by district with an elective mayor, as described in subdivisions (a) and (c) of Section 34871, without being required to submit the ordinance to the voters for approval. An ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall include a declaration that the change in the method of electing members of the legislative body is being made in furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001….” (Gov. Code, § 34886.)
Therefore, when the City Council voted in 2018 to move to by-district elections, pursuant to the requirements of Section 34886, the City Council declared that the purpose of the change in the method of selecting City Council members was to implement the CVRA.
As such, and pursuant to Section 34866, the City Council directed that the following notation be included in the Charter:
“Elements of Sections 301 and 302 of the City Charter that are consistent with an "at-large method of election" as the term is defined by California Elections Code section 14026(a)(3), are superseded by preemptive State law, i.e., the CVRA, pursuant to the court decision of Jauregui v. City of Palmdale, (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 781. To the extent that Sections 301 and 302 of the City Charter conflict with the provisions of Ordinance No. 1971 on file with the City Clerk, the Ordinance shall govern.” That explains why the text of the City’s charter still references a directly elected Mayor.
Legal Process for Extending the Term of Office for Rotational Mayor If the City Council is interested in maintaining a rotational mayor, but extending the term of that service, the City Council could accomplish this by simply adopting a resolution amending Resolution No. 24593. For example, the City Council could maintain a rotational mayor, but have the term of that service be two (2) years (or more) instead of one (1).
Legal Process for Moving back to Directly Elected Mayor If the City Council were interested in moving back to a directly elected, at-large mayor, the question would be, can that be done by City ordinance, or must the matter be submitted to the City’s voters?
As set forth above, Section 34886 allows a City Council to adopt an ordinance moving to an elective mayor, without submitting the matter to the voters. Presumably, although this is not entirely clear, the phrase “an elective mayor” refers to a mayor elected directly and at-large. However, the phrase “at-large” is not used.
55575.18000\44869633.1
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2026 -- Page 6
Mayoral Position
However, in order for the City Council to use the authority of Section 34886, the City Council must declare that the purpose of the change is “in furtherance of the purposes of the CVRA”. The City would need to engage the services of a professional demographer in order to determine whether the Council could find that adding an at-large, directly elected mayor is “in furtherance of the purposes of the CVRA.” Without demographic information supporting such a finding, the legally safest approach would be to submit the question to the City’s voters. This would enable the City’s voters to conform the City’s charter language to the intent of the proposed mayoral governance structure. The proposed ballot measure could also propose conforming changes to the City’s ordinance dealing with the mayoral position.
Separate and apart from the issue of whether the transition is accomplished by a vote of the people or simply by Council ordinance, the issue of the CVRA cannot be ignored. At the time of the Council’s 2018 adoption of by-district elections, the following was said by the then-City Attorney regarding the directly elected vs. rotational mayor issue:
“That being said, transitioning to five districts would be more consistent with the CVRA. Under the CVRA, a city must normally make a change that results in no “at large” elements remaining in the election process. A five- district scenario is more consistent because it leaves no “at large” elements.
Regardless, several California cities have retained at large elected Mayors after going through the CVRA process. Further, the CVRA attorney who most frequently litigates these cases, and who also filed the claim against Palm Springs, appears to be cooperating with this approach. Nevertheless, this is no guarantee that another plaintiff’s attorney would not legally challenge a “4 + 1” structure. Therefore, while this remains a viable approach for the Council to consider, it does not address the CVRA issue as completely as a five-district scenario.” (Open Advisory Letter, Palm Springs City Attorney’s Office, September 25, 2018, available at:
https://destinyhosted.com/palmsdocs/2018/CC/20181210_142/1184%5FA %20ocr%2Epdf )
Therefore, it cannot be assured that a transition to include an at-large, directly elected or strong mayor form of governance would not be challenged under the CVRA.
Should the City Council look at the possibility of establishing an at-large, directly elected mayor, one option that could possibly lessen the chances of a successful CVRA lawsuit would be the establishment of additional Council districts. Although this option has not been thoroughly vetted by the City Attorney and a demographic consultant, it might be theoretically possible to establish one or more additional minority-majority districts with the addition of additional districts. This would lessen the impact of an at-large, directly elected mayor. Again, this option would need to be thoroughly investigated by the City Attorney, with the assistance of a professional demographer, as the City did in 2018. 55575.18000\44869633.1
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2026 -- Page 7
Mayoral Position
As discussed during the 2018 transition to district elections, the cost of an unsuccessful CVRA lawsuit can be significant. For example, the City of Palmdale lost a CVRA lawsuit and was ordered to pay the plaintiffs $4.6M in legal fees. In CVRA litigation against the City of Santa Monica, which started in 2016, plaintiffs have reportedly spent $20M in pursuing the case. 11 If the plaintiffs are successful in that case, they would likely seek recovery of that amount from the City.
One final note on the CVRA, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a case, Louisiana v. Phillip Callais. The Callais case involves the question of whether the State of Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-minority congressional district, pursuant to the federal Voting Rights Act, violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Oral argument before the Court occurred on October 15, 2025. The Supreme Court has not issued an opinion yet, though one is expected before the end of the Court’s session in June of 2026. If the Court weakens the federal Voting Rights Act, California’s CVRA may also be deemed unconstitutional. In the absence of the CVRA, the City Council and its electorate would have more flexibility in terms of how they structure the mayoral position.
Logistics
Depending on the process that the Council might choose, the process for moving to an at-large, directly elected mayor will differ.
Ballot Measure
One option would be for the City Council to put before the City’s voters a proposal to provide for an at-large, directly elected mayor. This would involve directing the City Attorney to draft a ballot measure. In order for the ballot measure to be on the November 2026 election, the City Council would need to adopt a resolution calling the election and specifying the language of the ballot measure by August 7, 2026.
Although the City could not expend City funds to advocate for such a measure, the City can provide neutral educational material to the electorate. In addition, for any ballot measure seeking to qualify by petition initiative, the California Elections Code provides that, during the circulation of the petition, the City Council can refer the proposed measure to City staff to report on the measure’s fiscal impact, or any other matters that the City Council requests to be in the report. (Elec. Code, § 9212(a).) 11 Time to settle this thing?, The Healthy City Local, September 28, 2024, available at:
https://thehealthycitylocal.com/2024/09/28/time-to-settle-this-thing/ Santa Monica is awaiting the second trial after remand from the Court of Appeal. Due to the pending U.S. Supreme Court case, Louisiana v. Callais, the trial court stayed discovery until February 1, 2026. 55575.18000\44869633.1
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2026 -- Page 8
Mayoral Position
City Council Ordinance
As discussed above, should the Council wish to proceed with an ordinance to re-structure the mayoral position either with or without an election, it would best be done following a thorough analysis of demographic data by a demographic consultant, as was done in 2018. The normal process for the adoption of an ordinance involves a first reading (introduction) and a second reading (adoption) at a subsequent Council meeting. The ordinance goes into effect thirty (30) days following the second reading, unless the Council specifies a longer time period.
If the Council’s proposed ordinance involves adopting new district boundaries, then very specific public workshop and public hearing requirements are imposed by California’s Fair And Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities And Political Subdivisions (FAIR MAPS) Act of 2023. (Elec. Code, § 21100.)
Community Engagement
As part of the 2018 move to by-district elections, the City Council created a CVRA Community Working Group to independently develop and present recommendations related to the City Council’s governance structure. In addition to meeting weekly as a group, the CVRA Community Working Group held at least seventeen (17) community engagement events:
The City also coordinated a public outreach program, including the mailing of public notice to all residents regarding the scheduled community engagement forums, English and
55575.18000\44869633.1
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2026 -- Page 9
Mayoral Position
Spanish radio announcements, bus shelter advertisements, and online and print media advertisements.
In addition to the public engagement events listed above, the CVRA Working Group and the City Council Subcommittee attended and/or coordinated the following eleven (11) community engagement events:
In addition, Councilmember Middleton and City staff held nine (9) additional meetings with representatives of each Neighborhood Organization if any map proposed to split that Neighborhood Organization between two districts, as follows:
As can be seen, the City of Palm Springs engaged in a very robust public engagement process when deciding to move to by-district elections. The City Council should consider and discuss whether, and to what extent, it might wish to structure a public engagement process, should the Council wish to explore an alternative form of mayoral position.
Financial Considerations
There would be both one-time and ongoing costs associated with moving to a directly elected or strong mayor form of government. Each is discussed in turn below.
55575.18000\44869633.1
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2026 -- Page 10
Mayoral Position
Election Cost
If an election is called by the City Council (either for a Council-initiated or a voter-initiated ballot measure), there would be a one-time cost of conducting the election. The Riverside County Register of Voters, which conducts elections on behalf of cities, has estimated the following costs:
$33,000- $35,000 to add a ballot initiative.
$105,000 to conduct a City-wide election for the mayoral position.
Ongoing Costs – Salary / Staffing
Depending on what system is selected, there could be additional ongoing costs of salary and benefits. Specifically, if one or more seats were created on Council, there would be additional salary and benefits costs.
Currently, City Councilmembers receive a monthly salary of Three Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars ($3,467) and the Mayor receives a monthly salary of Four Thousand One Hundred Sixty Dollars ($4,160). (PSMC, §§ 2.04.020 and 2.04.021.) So, the annual cost of each additional Council seat would be $41,604. With benefits (i.e., fully burdened), this comes to $82,232 per year.
In addition to the salary and benefits costs of additional Council seats, some cities provide staffing for directly elected mayors. For example, the City of San Bernardino, which has a directly elected mayor, currently staffs the Mayor’s Office with one city employee. At one point, the San Bernardino Mayor’s Office was staffed with three (3) city employees.
Of course, the decision of whether, and how much, to staff a Mayor’s Office would be a policy decision for the City Council to make from time to time. But, it is worth noting that there could be an expectation for staffing with a directly elected mayor position. The position of Executive Assistant - Mayor/Council (funded at step 2) has an annual salary of $85,608, and a fully-burdened cost (i.e., salary and benefits) of $146,816.
Finally, in addition to the salary and benefits costs, additional Council positions would require re-allocation, and possible reconfiguration, of City Hall office space. Currently, the City Councilmembers, including the rotating Mayor, each occupy one (1) office within City Hall. All of the office space at City Hall is currently occupied by City Councilmembers and City employees. Therefore, additional seats on the Council would require reconfiguration of the current office space at City Hall with an estimated cost of $125,000 to $150,000.
In addition, staff estimates that the technological support (hardware and software) would include a one-time cost of approximately $7,500 (computer, tablet, mobile phone) and annual recurring costs of approximately $1,500 (software licensing/cellular subscription, etc.)
55575.18000\44869633.1
City Council Staff Report
April 8, 2026 -- Page 11
Mayoral Position
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
At this point, the City has only engaged in a process of possibly discussing or studying the issue of mayoral restructuring. Thus, no environmental review is called for under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Should the City Council direct City staff to conduct further research, or direct staff to pursue some form of mayoral reorganization, that process would also be exempt from environmental review, since any such restructuring would merely constitute an organizational change with no direct or indirect impact on the physical environment, which is exempt from CEQA under Class 20 Categorical Exemptions. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15320) This exemption applies only if the reorganization does not change the geographical area where existing powers are exercised, ensuring no significant environmental impact occurs.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:
This item aligns with the City Council’s Strategic Plan Foundation to advance fiscal sustainability and organizational resilience.
FISCAL IMPACT:
When the City moved to by-district elections in 2018, the City Council allocated One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) for costs associated with public notification, specialized legal counsel, and a demographic consultant. Should the Council wish to undertake a process for establishing a directly elected or strong mayor, along with additional Council districts, the City might expect to incur similar costs in the process.
In addition, should the matter be submitted to the voters, the City will incur the cost of that election, as indicated above.
Should the City become the focus of a CVRA lawsuit, the City will likely incur significant legal expenses. The December 19, 2018 City Council staff report states, “No city has won a lawsuit in which it refused to transition to districts. If the City Council does not pass an ordinance moving to districts, the City will likely incur millions of dollars in legal fees and still be required to move to district based elections.” Finally, as discussed above, should the Council establish additional Council seats as part of a mayoral restructuring, there would be additional salary and benefits and City Hall office reconfiguration (construction) costs.
REVIEWED BY:
City Clerk: Brenda Pree
City Attorney: Jeffrey S. Ballinger
City Manager: Scott Stiles