Santa Rosa City Council
May 24, 2022

1 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE

FINAL REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
City Council
May 24, 2022
Sue Gallagher, City Attorney
Introduction
 Last August, the Council directed the establishment of a Charter Review Committee to initiate the City’s
decennial review of the provisions of its Charter.
 The Committee, appointed by the Council, is comprised of twenty-one individuals, diverse in age, race, gender, geography, interests and backgrounds.
 Highly engaged, the Committee has worked over the
past seven months, reviewing and making key
recommendations on possible Charter amendments.
2 Introduction
 Committee has now completed its Final Report and
Recommendations.
 Staff will present a summary of the Report and
Recommendations and will seek direction from the
Council for next steps.
3 Issues Considered
A. Council Compensation
B. Directly Elected Mayor
C. Ranked Choice Voting
D. Voting Rights for Noncitizens
E. District-Based Election of Council Members
F. Charter Update and Modernization
4 Committee Recommendations
5 Council Compensation
 Council members currently receive $800 per month
salary, the Mayor $1200 per month
 There has been no increase since 2005
 Charter Review Committee heard of the workload of the Mayor and Council members and recognized the
difficulties of balancing private employment, childcare, family and the responsibilities of Council membership
 Committee also received information on Council
compensation in other Northern California cities
6 Council Compensation
 Committee unanimously agreed that Council
compensation should be increased
 Increase in compensation would:
 Enable a greater diversity of Council membership
 Ensure continued strong commitment and
professionalism
 Reflect fairness and respect for the extensive work
performed by members of the Council
7 Council Compensation
 Recommendation:
 Set Mayor’s salary at Area Median Income for a three- person household
 Set Council members’ salary at 2/3 of Area Median
Income for a three-person household
 Permanently tie Mayor’s and Council members’ salaries to Area Median Income for a three-person household
 Consider establishing a penalty or reduction in salary for unexcused absences, to parallel a city-wide salary
reduction or as otherwise determined by Council
8 Council Compensation
 Alternatives:
 A strong minority recommended a higher level of
compensation at 140% of AMI for Mayor, 100% AMI for
Council members. Motion failed on an 8-11-2 vote
 At least two Committee members recommended Council
utilize existing authority under Charter and state law to increase Council compensation.
 Other options included tying Council salaries to salaries of:
(a) County Supervisors, (b) average or lowest paid City employee, or (c) average of Council compensation in Santa Rosa’s comparable cities
9 Council Compensation
 Existing authority:
 Charter Section 4 ties Council compensation to state law  State law provides a schedule of compensation based on population of city
 For city the size of Santa Rosa, compensation is set at $800 per month. Voters may approve higher rate.
 Council, by ordinance, may increase by 5% per year (not compounded), and increases may accumulate
 No change since 2005, so for 17 yr accumulation. 5% ($40 per month) x 17 yrs = $680 allowable monthly increase
10 Council Compensation
 Dollar figures for options (highest to lowest):
 Tie to Supervisors: Approximately $161,000
 Tie to Average City Salary: Approximately $95,000,
 140% AMI: Mayor $130,130, Council member $92,950
 100% AMI: Mayor $92,950, Council member $61.347
 Average of Comparable Cities: approximately $31,000 for Mayor, $20,150 for Council member
 Existing Authority: Mayor $26,640, Council member
$17,760
 Tie to Lowest City Wage: $15.85 per hour 11
Directly Elected Mayor
 Section 15 of the Charter provides for selection of the Mayor and the Vice Mayor by the Council
 The Council asked the Committee to consider whether
to amend the Charter to provide for a directly elected
Mayor (Mayor elected by city wide vote)
 After presentations and full discussion, the Committee voted to recommend against placing a measure on the
ballot for transition to a directed elected Mayor. Vote was 10 – 7, with four members absent,
12 Directly Elected Mayor
 Those opposed to the proposal voiced multiple concerns:
 Equity concerns were paramount
 High costs of city-wide election precludes those less wealthy  Traditionally higher voter turnout in NE Santa Rosa would refocus election efforts to historically powerful areas  District-based elections have brought positive change for diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging; moving to at-large election of Mayor would be a step backward
 A “solution in search of a problem” – Mayors have properly balanced their dual role.
 Problematic timing – recency of districting / redistricting 13 Directly Elected Mayor
 Those supporting the proposal voiced advantages:
 Directly elected Mayor is a powerful symbol and focal point  Directly elected Mayor speaks for the entirety of the community
 Directly elected Mayor would encourage greater voter
engagement
 Directly elected Mayor would be better regarded by state and federal officials and at conferences of mayors
 Would allow voters to vote for two representatives on the Council
14 Directly Elected Mayor
 Many of those supporting a directly elected Mayor voiced concerns about the potential impacts on diversity, equity and inclusion
 Urged that any ballot measure be linked to measures to mitigate those impacts
 Possible mitigations:
 Term limits
 Two year Mayor term
 Allowance for noncitizens to vote
15 Ranked Choice Voting
 In current City system, voters vote for single candidate  In Ranked Choice Voting, voters rank candidates in
order of preference
 To begin, only first choice votes are counted
 If no candidate wins a majority, candidate with fewest votes is eliminated
 Ballots of the eliminated candidate are re-examined,
the first choice votes discarded and the second-choice
votes are now counted
16 Ranked Choice Voting
 The rounds continue until one candidate wins a
majority of the votes cast in that round
 The Committee heard from the Registrar of Voters as to logistics and costs of a Ranked Choice Voting system
 The Committee heard from the City Attorney as to
results of Ranked Choice Voting in four Bay Area cities 17 Ranked Choice Voting
 Estimated costs include a one-time investment in
software of approximately $350,000
 Plus annual processing costs of approximately $70,000 per year
 Four Bay Area cities currently use Ranked Choice
Voting
 Out of 32 elections in those cities in 2018 and/or 2020, Ranked Choice Voting changed the outcome in one
election
18 Ranked Choice Voting
 Due to the costs, complexity and limited impact, the
Committee voted 17 to 3 against pursuit of a ballot
measure for Ranked Choice Voting
 Those that still favored Ranked Choice Voting
suggested that it would ensure broadly-accepted
winning candidates, would encourage voters to look
closely at the full slate of candidates, and could prove important in the future
19 Voting Rights for Noncitizens
 Suggested by Committee members and broadly
supported by the Committee as a whole
 Those that live, work and pay taxes in Santa Rosa
should have a voice in how the City is governed
 Nothing in federal or state law precludes a local
government from expanding the right to vote in their
own elections
 Would require a Charter amendment
20 Voting Rights for Noncitizens
 Strengthens communities and promotes engagement,
investment and belonging
 Absent voting rights, taxation without representation  When a segment of the community is excluded from
voting, heightened risk of discriminatory policies
 Given high costs and long waiting periods for
naturalization, prohibiting noncitizen voting is unjust and unnecessary
21 Voting Rights for Noncitizens
 Logistical and cost considerations
 Would require entirely separate City voter database,
ballot and procedures
 Separate voting registration system for noncitizens
 Separate development, publication and distribution of ballot containing only City elections
 Separate voting procedures and mechanics
 County cannot assist
 Costs unknown at this time
22 Voting Rights for Noncitizens
 Risks of potential legal challenge
 Possible immigration risks to individuals who
participate
 Numbers of participants in recent SF elections have
been relatively small
23 Voting Rights for Noncitizens
 Recommendation (unanimous vote):
 Move forward with consideration of expanding voting
rights to noncitizens, including:
 Study Session
 Robust community outreach and engagement
 Note: Half of those present would have preferred to
set a deadline of 2026 for the ballot measure
24 District‐based Elections
 California Voting Rights Act prohibits at-large election of Council members, if a city experiences racially polarized voting
 In 2018, an independent analysis of multiple prior City elections revealed racially polarized voting
 In 2018, under threat of litigation, the Council adopted an ordinance to begin the transition to district-based elections 25 District‐based Elections
 Recommendation: Revise Section 4 to provide:
 District-based election of Councilmembers
 District boundaries set by ordinance
 Decennial review of District boundaries following
federal census in accordance with state law
 Additional review of District boundaries if structure of Council is revised
 Revision will ensure compliance with state law
26 Charter Update and Modernization
27 Council Vacancy Procedures
 Section 31: Council Vacancy
 In the event of a Council vacancy, section currently
authorizes Council to either appoint replacement or
call special election
 If appointed, appointee serves temporarily until
election is held, either in a special election or the
next regularly scheduled municipal election
28 Council Vacancy Procedures
 Recommendation: Retain current language
 Gives Council flexibility to address circumstances at the time of vacancy
 Recognizes that appointment may be appropriate:
 Often the quickest and least expensive means of filling vacancy
 Temporary, appointee serves only until next election
 Ensures District representation while important decisions are being made
 Minimizes risks of dead-locks
29 Council Vacancy Procedures
 Primary concerns:
 May result in appointment of a District representative by six individuals that do not live in the District
 If appointment is made, gives appointee advantage
of running for election as an incumbent
 Does not address perceived difficulties in
appointment process
 BUT, selection process is established by resolution
and can be readily revised at Council’s discretion
30 Frequency of Charter Amendments
 Section 12: Charter Review
 Current wording: the Charter “shall be reviewed in
the year 2002 and not less than every ten years
thereafter . . .”
 Revise: “Charter shall be reviewed in the year 2002
and every ten years thereafter . . .”
 Add: “Nothing in this section precludes additional
amendments placed on the ballot by voter initiative
or by Council ordinance at such other times as
deemed necessary”
31 Responsibility for
Emergency Management
 City Code currently designates the City Manager as the Director of Emergency Services
 Charter creates some ambiguity
 Recommendation: To avoid ambiguity, confirm
responsibility of City Manager and Public Safety for
leadership in times of emergency
 Amendments to four sections: Section 15 (Mayor),
18 (City Manager), 21 (Police Chief), 22 (Fire Chief)
32 Flexibility for City Operations
 Section 25: Board of Public Utilities
 Clarify that BPU’s responsibility may, at Council’s
discretion, include stormwater and “dry” utilities,
including electricity, broadband and others
 Section 28: Budget
 Clarify that City Manager may propose a single year or multi-year budget, retaining all procedural provisions
 Section 44: Contract Procurement
 Revise to allow for flexibility and innovation in
contracting for public works, equipment and supplies 33 Clarification of Ambiguities
 Section 19: City Attorney
 Clarify that required three years of California practice need not be immediately preceding appointment
 Section 32: Council Member Recall
 Clarify that a vacancy created by recall will be filled as any other vacancy, in accordance with Section 31
 Section 37: Deputy Officials
 Clarify that officers appointed by Council have the
power to appoint their own deputies without need for
confirmation by Council
34 Gender and Citizenship Neutrality
 Recommendation by unanimous vote to revise Charter
to ensure gender neutral language throughout
 Recommendation by unanimous vote to revise Charter
to substitute “resident” for “citizen” throughout
35 Other Issues Considered
 Committee prioritized those items that would require a Charter amendment to move forward
 Set aside for the moment those that could be
accomplished by ordinance, resolution or City initiative  Due to constraints of time and resources, did not
pursue discussion of:
 Community Advisory Board (CAB)
 Strong Mayor
 Lower Threshold for Ballot Initiatives 36
Questions?
37