The Prescott Valley Town Council on Sept. 4 heard a presentation from the League of Arizona Cities and Towns about municipal charter authority, including what a charter can authorize, legal limits set by state law and court decisions, and the practical steps and timeline for adopting a charter.

The presentation, led by Tom Belshi, executive director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and an attorney identified as Nancy from the League, explained that a charter functions like a municipal constitution intended to preserve local authority while remaining subject to the Arizona Constitution and state law. "A charter is similar to the U.S. Constitution or the Arizona Constitution... it really is to preserve local authority and autonomy," Nancy said. Belshi added that adopting a charter is difficult and requires substantial community support: "it requires a lot of support in the community."

The discussion focused on three practical points the presenters said towns should consider: what matters are ‘‘local concern’’ and therefore likely durable in a charter; where state law has "occupied the field" and would preempt local charter language; and the procedural steps and timelines if Prescott Valley chose to pursue a charter.

Why it matters: A charter can change how a city organizes local government, regulate use of city-owned property, and set locally specific rules such as term limits or requirements that large expenditures go to a public vote. But presenters emphasized limits: charter provisions that conflict with state statutes or fall in areas the courts view as statewide concerns are vulnerable to being overturned.

Key legal and procedural details given to the council included:
- Eligibility and initiation: Only an incorporated city may frame a charter; presenters said a municipality generally must have a population above 3,500 to adopt a charter. Adoption can be council-initiated or citizen-initiated by petition (petitioners must gather signatures equal to 25% of the voters who voted in the last city election).
- Freeholders and timeline: If voters approve a charter measure, they also choose a body of up to 14 "freeholders" who draft the charter; draft work is time-limited (the statute gives a 90-day window that can be shorter depending on county election deadlines). Presenters noted Litchfield Park submitted early to meet those deadlines.
- Publication and election timing: There are publication requirements and an election occurs 20–30 days after the final publication date; after voter approval the charter is sent to the governor for recognition.
- Areas typically treated as local: Courts have upheld charter authority over city-owned property use and many local election methods (for example, ward systems and methods of selecting local officers). Presenters cited recent rulings that affirmed charter authority over the "method and manner" of local elections when the state failed to show a statewide interest.
- Preemption examples: The presenters described cases in which charter or local ordinances were preempted (for example, some local firearm-disposal rules and certain regulations related to sidewalk signage) and said the presence of statewide statutory schemes (for example, Arizona's groundwater code, impact-fee statutes, and Title 28 traffic statutes) makes preemption more likely.

Council members asked how charters affect specific local policies. Nancy said term limits are commonly included in charters and have been upheld; requirements for developers (dedications or fees) are "tricky" and often constrained by state statutes. On property and sales taxes, presenters said state law (Title 42 and other provisions) tightly controls property-tax procedures and limits what local charters can change; some cities' charters do restrict when sales-tax increases require voter approval.

Councilwoman Greer, speaking for members of the council, praised Prescott Valley's current record of fiscal balance and water-conservation efforts and said, "I see no reason to fix what isn't broken," expressing skepticism about pursuing a charter. Other council members asked about outreach materials; Belshi said the League maintains a public charter publication and appendix of examples the council may post on its website.

No formal motion or council action was taken during the session. Presenters recommended that legal questions be routed through the town attorney if council members want formal opinions specific to Prescott Valley.

The presentation included examples and precedents from Arizona cities (Litchfield Park, Tombstone, Tucson, Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, Gilbert) that council members and League staff discussed during Q&A. The League representatives left the session after their presentation and did not request or receive a council vote on charter initiation.