Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Content Home Rule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee examines charter language on home rule and the preparatory synopsis
Summary
Members reviewed the charter’s preparatory synopsis, the home rule reference, required charter content, and definitions. They requested staff and the city attorney to identify what language is legally required, which parts are historical, and which definitions (e.g., 'municipal corporation', 'contiguous') need clarifying.
Littleton's Charter Review Committee reviewed the charter’s prefatory material and early articles to determine which passages are legally required and which are historical or redundant. The discussion focused on the preparatory synopsis, how the charter describes Littleton’s home-rule authority, and whether definitions — for example the city’s county boundaries or terms such as 'publication' and 'contiguous' — should be clarified.
Why it matters: The preparatory synopsis and definition sections set the charter’s purpose, scope and legal footing. Changes or removals may have constitutional or statutory implications; the committee must avoid language that could inadvertently create conflicts with state law or remove required elements.
Committee members reviewed prior charter-review recommendations from a previous committee and the 2015 packet that left select items on the ballot. Colleen summarized the prior work: “Out of those 30 recommendations, council put 10 questions on the ballot. Sure. And 7 passed. 7 passed, 3 did not.”
City legal staff explained the mechanics and purpose of home rule. The city attorney said home rule “allows us to operate with our own rules. That's our city code, our own laws that we've adopted with our own charter.” He stressed that home-rule municipalities can be stricter than state law in areas of local concern but may be preempted by state law in certain topics; several recent state statutes were cited as examples where the legislature asserted statewide concern, particularly in housing and accessory dwelling unit regulation.
Members asked specifically about several items: whether the preparatory synopsis could be removed (staff advised some prefatory material is required by statute), whether the charter should explicitly state the counties in which Littleton sits (members suggested adding Jefferson and Douglas where annexations occurred), and how the charter’s annexation and detachment clauses operate (Section 6’s 90-day detachment window and majority-vote language prompted questions about whether a majority refers to the newly annexed area or citywide electors). The committee put several of these as research items for staff and legal counsel.
Ending: Committee members agreed to leave the preparatory synopsis in place while staff compiles a list of what statutory elements are required in the charter, what language is historical, and suggested cleanups. They will return with draft options on definitions and annexation wording for later meetings.
