Council gives staff direction to hold public workshops on proposed town charter; councilors split on moving forward

The Atherton Town Council discussed a draft town charter intended to assert home-rule authority over municipal affairs and directed staff to hold community workshops and public hearings to gather additional input before any decision to place the charter before voters.

Staff (subcommittee of council members Degolia and Vice Mayor Holland) presented a concise draft charter with a preamble and five short articles. The draft emphasizes that the charter is not intended to change existing laws in effect at adoption, clarifies the council/vice mayor/mayor selection method already in municipal code, and adds a provision required by state law to disclose whether the charter would permit the council to change its compensation without voter approval (Government Code section cited in the meeting).

Councilors debated the merits and risks. Supporters said the minimal draft asserts local control and could preserve home‑rule options as state policy evolves. Critics warned it could be used later by future councils to expand taxing powers or require future ballot measures to amend the charter, and questioned the immediate benefit to residents. Some councilors said they were not ready to move forward until all members, including one councilor who was absent, could weigh in.

The town attorney explained a legal disclosure requirement (she referenced Government Code section 34,458.5 in the meeting record) that the ballot description must list new city powers such as whether the council could set its own compensation without voter approval; staff said the draft therefore includes a statement about compensation consistent with the Government Code.

Staff outlined the next steps if the council chooses to proceed: two community workshops and two city-council public hearings prior to placing the charter on the ballot, two additional community meetings for voter outreach after placement on the ballot, and an election in November 2026 if the council directs placement. Staff estimated the added cost and workload would be modest (under roughly $50,000; staff and council discussion put the figure well below six figures) and noted that if the council later wanted to amend the charter it would require another voter approval process.

After discussion a motion to proceed with the outreach steps (public workshops and return to council) was moved and seconded. Council members were split in their remarks and some asked to defer action until a missing member returned; nonetheless staff were directed to schedule two public workshops and return with outreach and ballot materials for council consideration prior to any decision to place the charter on the ballot.