Measure A: Measure A – City of Roseville
City of Roseville · Placer County · November 3, 2026
The question on your ballot
Shall the Charter of the City of Roseville be amended to adjust council member compensation from the current $600 a month that was established by 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?
In plain language
Measure A would change how much City of Roseville council members are paid. A YES vote raises council member pay from $600 a month, a level set by voters 26 years ago, to $2,550 a month, with yearly increases tied to inflation that cannot go above 5% a year. A NO vote keeps council pay at $600 a month.
Impartial analysis
This measure would amend Section 3.05 of the Roseville Charter to allow the voters to change how compensation for members of the Roseville City Council is set. Currently, the Charter sets councilmember compensation at $600 per month, with the Mayor receiving an additional $50 per month. These amounts were established by voters in 2000, when the Charter provided for a one-time compensation increase once the City’s population exceeded 75,000 residents. The Charter does not include any additional population-based adjustments beyond this threshold and as a result, council compensation has remained unchanged for the past 26 years. Roseville’s current population exceeds 165,000 people. Because compensation is set in the Charter, any change requires voter approval. State law says a city with a population between 150,001 and 250,000 may set council compensation at $2,550 per month, with annual adjustments tied to inflation. These limits do not apply unless voters amend the Charter. The proposed measure would amend Section 3.05 of the Roseville Charter to: • Set the maximum salary for each councilmember at $2,550 per month, which is $30,600 per year, with no additional monthly amount for the Mayor. • Provide for annual inflation adjustments based on the California Consumer Price Index since January 1, 2026, with any increases capped at no more than 5 percent per year, which is lower than what is allowed under State law. • Allow reimbursement for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the service of the City. Expense reimbursements would not be considered part of salary. The measure does not authorize medical, dental, vision, or deferred compensation benefits, and councilmembers would continue not to receive such benefits. This measure also requires future voter approval for any change to this Charter section. If the proposed measure is approved, the new salary structure would take effect after the election is certified. If the measure is not approved, the current Charter language would remain in place, and council compensation would continue at the levels established in 2000, with no adjustment, unless changed by a future vote of the electorate. Measure A will be approved if it receives a majority of “yes” votes. A “yes” vote is a vote in favor of the proposed amendment to the Charter. A “no” vote is a vote against the proposed amendment to the Charter. This measure is being placed on the ballot by the City Council for the City of Roseville, after receiving input from the public, to allow the voters to decide whether to change how compensation for members of the Roseville City Council is set. The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure A. If you desire a copy of the measure, please call the Elections Official’s office at 916-774-5263 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you. Michelle Sheidenberger Roseville City Attorney
Official ballot arguments
Filed for the official voter guide by each side, printed as submitted.
Argument in favor
For 26 years, Roseville City Council compensation has remained frozen at $600 per month, with the Mayor receiving just $50 more. Since then, Roseville has grown into one of California’s most operationally complex full-service cities, with a population approaching 170,000 residents, a workforce of approximately 1,400 employees, and oversight of about $1 billion in municipal operations.This measure updates compensation to $2,550 per month, the amount authorized under state law for a city of Roseville’s size. Roseville council members don’t receive City-paid health care or other employee benefits, and that won’t change. Future increases would remain limited to inflationary adjustments capped at 5% annually, ensuring accountability and predictability for taxpayers. At about $153,000 annually for the entire Council, this is a modest investment that reflects 26 years of inaction on compensation.Roseville is unique in the breadth and complexity of its services. Unlike many cities that outsource electric, water, wastewater, fire, parks, transit, libraries, and housing services, Roseville operates these in-house. That model delivers local control and high-quality service, and requires substantial time, expertise, preparation, and oversight from elected officials making decisions that directly affect residents’ daily lives and the city’s long-term financial stability.Updating Council compensation helps ensure working professionals, parents, and community members from more backgrounds can realistically consider serving Roseville, easing the financial strain public service requires.Importantly, this measure isn’t designed to benefit the current Council. With election cycles and term limits, two current members will leave office before the adjustment takes effect, and two more two years later. This measure modernizes a compensation structure that hasn’t changed since 2000 while maintaining voter oversight and fiscal restraint. It supports good governance, broadens access to public service, and helps ensure Roseville continues attracting qualified leaders for one of California’s premier full-service cities. Ananda Rochita, President & CEO, Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce David A. Breninger Past President, Sun City Roseville Carol Garcia Past Mayor of Roseville
Rebuttal to argument in favor June 30, 2026 Roseville is indeed a well-run city by any metrics. As a lifelong resident, I agree. Having our own police, fire, utilities and close to 100 parks has made us very attractive to many families who have moved here or chosen to remain. This hasn’t happened by accident. Our status as a charter city has provided opportunities that allow us to prosper. One is determining council pay. Let’s not make it automatic and place the city on auto pilot as is the case with general law cities. We have always been independent and fiscally responsible; let’s keep it that way. The city has prospered because of dedicated council members. They didn’t run for council because of pay or benefits but because they love this city. The council members have been quite diverse. Many have served while fully employed, part time employed, retired, professionals, parents, homemakers and teachers. They wanted to give back to the community and become true public servants. What we don’t need for Roseville’s future are people considering a second job or looking to supplement their retirement. We already have enough of those career politicians serving at the state and federal government. In addition, this amendment does not broaden access to public services or provide for better governance. It’s about salary increases. The amendment has two parts. A pay increase which I support and automatic pay increases which I do not support. Send this back to separate the two proposals. Let the public decide them separately. Richard Roccucci Former Roseville Mayor
Argument against
Ballot Measure A statement against This ballot measure is simple. It contains two parts. Do you want to change council member’s compensation and do you want to approve an automatic increase? For the last several years I have supported a modest salary increase almost to the level proposed by this charter amendment. However I have always opposed an automatic increase. The proposal has been brought forward several times in the past 10-15 years and the council has determined that the time was not right because of economic concerns. Is this time any better? I believe not. In addition, a charter revision commission is formed every 10 years to review the charter and make recommendations to be placed on the ballot. Why this stand-alone charter amendment at this time? It should come forward in 2030 with the other recommended changes. Two separate proposals; increase salary and automatic increase. Why should we have an automatic salary increase for council member compensation when all other city employees do not and are governed by labor agreements which are reviewed and adjusted by the council every couple of years? Do you want to surrender your rights as a charter city to state standards for general law cities? You decide if you want to vote yes for both parts of this proposal at this time. Richard Roccucci Former Roseville Mayor
Roseville's voters deserve a City Council focused on public safety, infrastructure, utilities, parks, and the issues that matter most to our community—not returning to the ballot every few years to debate modest cost-of-living adjustments for elected officials.That's why this measure does two things: it updates Council compensation for the first time in 26 years and establishes clear, voter-approved limits on future inflation adjustments.Any future adjustment is tied to the Consumer Price Index, capped at 5% annually, and can never exceed inflation. It is not a discretionary pay raise. It creates a predictable, transparent process that avoids repeated elections and political debates over small inflation adjustments, allowing the City Council to stay focused on the services and decisions that matter most to Roseville residents.Even the opposition agrees the current compensation is outdated and supports increasing it. The only question is whether Roseville should solve the problem now with clear safeguards or continue revisiting the same issue every few years.Waiting until 2030 only extends a compensation structure adopted in 2000, despite Roseville's tremendous growth and the increasing responsibilities of governing one of California's most complex full-service cities.This measure preserves voter control because only Roseville voters can approve this Charter amendment. It provides a fiscally responsible approach that keeps future adjustments modest, transparent, and tied solely to inflation.I encourage my fellow Roseville residents to vote Yes on Measure A.Carol Garcia, Former Mayor of Roseville
What supporters and opponents say — outside sources (not official ballot arguments)
Statements by campaigns, officials and news coverage, quoted with attribution and linked to the original. VoterDecoder did not write them and does not endorse either side.
Supporters say
No public statements in favor were found.
Opponents say
No public statements against were found.