Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs charter changes and a community survey; considers referendum on four‑year staggered terms
Summary
Council debated proposals to amend the city charter, including switching from two‑year to four‑year staggered council terms, whether to place a binding referendum on the November ballot, and deployment of a statistically representative community survey. Staff outlined timing constraints for charter changes and court filing deadlines for ballot questions.
On June 24 the Fairfax City Council engaged in an extended discussion about possible charter changes — chiefly whether to move from the current two‑year council terms to four‑year staggered terms — and reviewed a proposed community survey that would collect resident preferences on governance, services and priorities.
Several council members (notably Council member Bates and Council member Hardy Chandler) argued in favor of four‑year staggered terms to provide continuity and align council elections with state cycles that avoid the presidential or county election years. Council member Hall expressed opposition to four‑year terms and cautioned that prior referenda had failed; others said a referendum would return the decision to voters.
City Attorney Brian Lopkaman outlined two paths for charter change: (1) the council may adopt charter amendments and forward them to the General Assembly through the standard public‑hearing/legislative referral process, or (2) the council can place a binding referendum on the ballot, which requires a court order at least 81 days before the election. Staff advised that meeting internal deadlines is time‑sensitive if the council wishes to seek a binding referendum for the November ballot.
Council sought a mix of public input: staff indicated the community survey (to be administered by ETC) could be mailed in July with results by early‑to‑mid September if edits are finalized promptly, but that survey results could not be guaranteed in time to be the sole basis for a binding November referendum. Council members agreed to pursue both outreach and options for referral: staff will finalize survey edits, and the council signaled interest in placing charter questions on upcoming agendas for potential introduction and a July vote on whether to pursue a referendum.
What’s next: Staff will refine the survey instrument per council feedback, return with any recommended charter language for public hearing, and provide information on petition/ballot procedures that citizens could pursue if they prefer a voter‑initiated path.
