Overview of Fremont City Charter Advisory Committee

Members of Indivisible Fremont CA prepared this report on Fremont’s charter city effort. Indivisible Fremont CA has not taken a position on the issue. This information is provided for educational purposes to support informed community discussion.

In March 2026, the Fremont City Council assembled an advisory committee to make recommendations if Fremont should become a charter city instead of a general-law city. A charter city has more authority to differ from state law, though exactly how much a charter city can differ from state law is unclear and continues to be an argument in the court system. The advisory committee largely agrees on increasing City Council power, compensation, and staffing, but many of the desired changes can still be implemented in a general-law city. Public feedback has mostly been skeptical, especially on the rushed process and potential tax increases.

Advisory Committee Recommendations

At their final meeting on 4/27, the committee voted to make the following recommendations to the Fremont City Council:

• Government Structure: retain the Council-Manager form of government, but as a charter city instead

• Term Limits: Increase term limits to three consecutive four-year terms (similar to Union City and Newark)

• Council Compensation: add health benefits for elected officials comparable to city employees (~$29,000 value per official)

• Staffing: Add 1.5 full-time staff to support Mayor and Council

• Authority: Give City Council confirmation power over department head appointments

Charter Estimated Costs

Adopting these recommendations would introduce the following costs:

• 2026 November Charter Ballot measure (one-time): $610,690 - $854,966

• Annual council compensation (including increased health benefits): ~$486,472 per year

• Annual cost of dedicated 1.5 full-time staff for council and mayor: ~$253,655 per year

• Estimated net ongoing cost increase: ~$459,014 per year

Key Committee Debates

Throughout the six committee meetings, the advisory committee had several discussions and debates of note. Some of these are captured below.

Charter vs. General Law

• No clear consensus on whether a charter is necessary

  • Many proposed reforms (hiring authority, staffing, transparency) can already be achieved under general law

  • Changes on contracting negotiation powers and councilmember pay increases would require a charter

  • A charter could expand the city’s taxation authorities

• Supporters argue a charter provides flexibility and local control

• Supporters argue that a charter would increase transparency and accountability, giving the council and mayor (elected officials) more power to act on behalf of the public

• Critics see it as unnecessary and risky

Form of Government

• Strong majority (5 out of 7) supports council–manager system (current model)

• Committee unanimously passed a motion to only consider council-manager system (though one strong-mayor supporter seemed to regret their vote)

• Committee passed a motion 4-3 to only discuss charter model of governance

Hiring & Appointment Authority

• Committee voted to recommend council confirmation power over department heads

• Debate on this centered on a tradeoff:

  • Greater accountability to public

  • Risk of politicizing hiring and discouraging candidates

• Several committee members want council to take an active role in the interview process for hiring department heads

Compensation & Benefits

• Committee voted to significantly increase compensation via expanded health benefits

  • Estimated increase: ~$29,000 per official

• One committee member raised a concern on optics, as this would be a large pay increase (95%) without changing council and mayor workload 

Staffing Support and Council/Mayor Workload

• Majority agreement that council lacks sufficient support

• Committee passed a motion to recommend at least 1.5 full-time staff to support council and mayor (~1 for council, ~0.5 for mayor)

• Ongoing debate if elected roles should remain part-time or become full-time

• Some concern on creating “career politician” positions

Public Feedback Summary

Public feedback to the charter was largely skeptical or opposed. Public speakers expressed concerns:

• Lack of a clear need for a charter

• Rushed timeline and limited public engagement

• Fear of increased taxes (charter could expand city’s taxation authority)

• Skepticism that charter change would increase government accountability

A large and well organized group of students from Fremont Youth Vote attended a majority of committee meetings, advocating for the charter to lower the voting age to 16 in school board elections. Committee members did not take a position on this or discuss this in detail during deliberations.

A group of firefighters attended the second committee meeting. They did not speak during public comment.

Key Takeaways

The committee is broadly aligned on expanding council influence, staffing, and compensation. 

The key unresolved question is whether a charter city is required to achieve these goals—or if they can be implemented within the current system. There needs to be a stronger argument on why Fremont needs to become a charter city before council sends the matter to the voters, especially considering that adding this item to the 2026 November ballot would cost over $800,000 at a time when city finances are limited.

The City Council will consider the charter question on June 2 and July 7 at the City Council Regular meetings, with a final vote taking place on July 28. Indivisible Fremont will update this document as discussions on the charter continue forward.

Submitted by Bryan Tor, IFCA Action Working Group-Local Issues