Cities typically convert from a General Law structure to a Charter for two complementary reasons: boosting tax revenues through tools such as a real estate transfer tax, and empowering elected officials in the name of “accountability.”
On Feb. 17, 2026, five Fremont council members voted to fast-track Vice Mayor Zhang’s charter city proposal toward the November 2026 ballot. Councilmembers Campbell and Kimberlin dissented, and both the city manager and city attorney expressed reservations about the compressed timeline.
Zhang was undeterred issuing a rallying cry of “Let’s Go Fremont” and instructed the city manager to deprioritize competing objectives. Without a hint of irony, she lamented the council’s lack of executive power, but in the very next breath she bluntly directed the city manager to make it happen: “We are not in the executive branch; we have no power… if we direct you to do that, I would like you to find a solution to make it work or at least proceed and start.” It seems that greater council control and more executive power starts now.
Charter advocates promise greater efficiency, improved services and a more responsive government. What they have not explained is how the city will pay for the additional staffing, expanded programs and administrative restructuring the charter would require.
The half-cent sales tax increase on the November 2026 ballot would bring in $30-60 million a year, independent of whether the city chooses a charter or stays general law. Staff warned that putting a charter city measure on the ballot could dilute support for the sales tax measure.
The goals and priorities of a charter city are spread far and wide. It starts with giving greater authority to the city council. The council wants to be involved in high-level hiring decisions such as the police chief, more oversight of day-to-day city operations and autonomy from Sacramento mandates. Several council members spoke longingly of a strong mayor structure with a correspondingly weakened city manager role.
Charter city proponents ignore the cost of restructuring. They want to boost spending on homeless encampment enforcement, claiming that enforcement has stalled. They blame this on the council’s inability to compel staff to act, while staff points to limited homeless resources as the actual constraint.
Charter supporters want to give the city council more budget control, though elected politicians are not known for their fiscal prudence. Finally, the backers of this proposal want to add staff to support council members, so elected officials will be the first to benefit.
It seems the transition to a charter city won’t come cheap.
Wm. Yragui
Co-founder, Mission Peak Conservancy
