Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter review commission presents six recommendations, council to consider balloting options
Summary
City staff and the Charter Review Commission presented six proposed changes to the Lewisville city charter — including council pay, ordinance procedures, official roles and candidate filing rules — and asked council to decide whether to place items on a future ballot.
The Lewisville Charter Review Commission and city staff presented six recommendation areas to the City Council on Jan. 27, describing proposed charter changes and a timeline for putting measures before voters.
The presentation, led by Tad Phillips, New Resource Director, and Charter Review Commission member Steven Southwell, outlined recommendations on council compensation, ordinance-passage procedures, the city secretary’s reporting relationship, filing requirements for candidates, the commission’s size and a package of non-substantive corrections to charter language.
The commission recommended monthly compensation of $300 for council members and $400 for the mayor, replacing the current $50-per-meeting provision. Commissioners also recommended eliminating the charter’s three‑reading/emergency language so ordinances generally take effect after a single reading, and moving the city secretary’s appointment and management to the city manager. On candidate filing, the commission favored a “petition only” requirement under state law (the greater of 25 signatures or one‑half of 1 percent of votes in the most recent mayoral election; using the most recent mayoral turnout cited during the presentation, that would be 27 signatures). The commission proposed increasing the charter commission from five to seven members and presented an optional “correction” ballot item to fix punctuation, harmonize conflicting sections and update gendered and obsolete terms (staff estimated about 385 non‑substantive edits across the charter).
Council members asked procedural questions, including ballot timing. City staff said the council could call a May or November election or take no action; staff noted a Feb. 14 deadline for a May election and said council could hold a special meeting between Feb. 3 and Feb. 14 to finalize ballot items. Multiple council members expressed support for placing at least some recommendations before voters and asked staff to prepare ballot language for council consideration at the next regular meeting.
No formal council vote on the charter recommendations was taken at the Jan. 27 meeting; staff told council there will be a regular agenda item at the following meeting to deliberate next steps, draft ballot language and, if the council chooses, call an election.
Council members and commissioners emphasized that the commission’s work was independent and intended to present options for voters to decide. Speakers repeatedly framed compensation as a fairness/equity issue to broaden candidate access rather than a personal benefit for current members.
Next steps noted by staff included drafting clear ballot language, returning the items to council for formal action and, if council chooses, scheduling the charter propositions for a May or November election with the Feb. 14 filing deadline for a May ballot.
