Clovis council asks staff for deeper study on switching to charter city

The Clovis City Council on Jan. 13 directed staff to prepare a detailed analysis of a potential transition from a general law city to a charter city, focusing on legal limits, likely costs and a possible timeline for voter consideration.

City Clerk Brianna Parra opened the workshop by defining a charter as “a document that acts as a constitution for the City” and said the council first gave staff direction in May 2024 to explore the change. Parra and outside counsel Gail from Lozano Smith walked council members through the legal distinctions between general law and charter cities, examples of areas that courts have treated as municipal affairs, and the procedural steps required to place a charter before voters.

A charter gives a city broader authority over “municipal affairs,” Parra said; courts and practitioners commonly treat four categories as core municipal affairs: policing, submunicipal governments, the conduct and timing of city elections, and the manner in which municipal officials are elected. But Gail of Lozano Smith warned that the scope of municipal affairs has narrowed over time as the state has asserted certain issues are matters of statewide concern.

Gail cited recent litigation and legislation involving city charters and housing — including litigation that involved Redondo Beach and changes to SB 9 — to illustrate that courts and the Legislature can limit charter protections when the state deems an issue statewide. Gail also discussed cases involving local election rules (she referenced issues raised in litigation such as a Santa Monica-related case) and described a Huntington Beach example in which city charter language requiring voter approval for certain uses of public land led to a prolonged legal dispute with a communications company.

On specific policy consequences, staff and counsel outlined areas where a charter can make a practical difference: setting a city’s own election rules (within constitutional limits), carving out some local control over prevailing wage rules when projects are funded solely by city charter monies (but not when other state or federal funds are involved), and adopting a municipal fines and penalties structure in the charter (with caution about cumulative fines becoming excessive).

Parra reviewed the procedural steps and timing the council would need to follow if it chooses to proceed: draft charter language (staff suggested a target of spring 2026 for a completed draft), hold two public hearings at least 30 days apart with at least 21 days’ notice before each hearing, and wait at least 21 days after the second hearing before placing the measure on the ballot. Staff also noted the council could use a staff-drafted charter or form a charter review committee (a commission or an ad hoc committee of up to two council members) to develop language for council consideration.

On costs, staff said the city would present a more precise budget if council directed them to proceed. Staff noted election costs “about 70, 75” (as stated in the workshop) and staff estimated that a complete package with legal work, outreach and election costs could be in the range of $120,000, though staff said they would return with a more detailed estimate. Legal costs for defending or litigating charter provisions were repeatedly raised by both council members and members of the public as a point of concern.

Council members asked for comparative examples from recently converted cities and for information about any cities that had reverted from charter back to general law. Several council members said they were interested in the potential for greater local control over issues such as elections and administrative fines, but they also acknowledged the risk that state law could preempt charter provisions.

Mayor Moanatua argued in favor of pursuing a charter pathway as a means to “put things in your charter … [to] keep challenging things that erode local control,” while other council members urged caution and asked staff to present pros and cons, examples of long-term results in peer cities, and clearer cost estimates. During the public comment period, residents expressed both support and concern: Brian Wilson, a Clovis resident, urged broader public participation through a charter commission and warned about the scope of powers a charter might grant; other residents questioned the wisdom of incurring legal expense to contest state actions.

After discussion, council members expressed unanimous interest in receiving further analysis. Staff said they would return with a timeline, a more detailed cost estimate, examples from other municipalities, and an analysis of which local authorities a charter might likely preserve or lose. Staff noted the goal of placing a charter on the November 2026 ballot if the council ultimately decides to proceed and adopted associated public hearing requirements.

Other business at the meeting included routine committee appointment approvals and a proclamation honoring a community member; council approved the committee appointment slate by motion near the end of the meeting.