Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter City topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City manager: Atherton’s draft charter offers options but won’t override state housing mandates
Summary
At a town workshop, the city manager said a short draft charter would affirm home‑rule but is silent on taxes and cannot negate state housing laws; the town will hold neighborhood meetings and may present a measure to voters in November.
The Town of Atherton’s city manager told a council subcommittee workshop that a brief draft charter would affirm the town’s home‑rule authority but would not allow Atherton to override state housing mandates, remove prevailing‑wage requirements tied to state or federal funds, or change zoning rules.
At the second workshop, the city manager said the draft is ‘‘a two page, very easy, very straightforward charter’’ that preserves the town’s current council‑manager form of government and covers existing ordinances and policies rather than changing them. The manager added that the charter ‘‘does not change any zoning, density, or manual land use rules’’ and would not impose new taxes or fees as drafted.
Why it matters: proponents had raised charter status to seek greater local control over housing and related regulations. Workshop participants repeatedly noted that where state law designates housing as a matter of statewide concern, local charter status does not displace state authority. The city manager cited recent state housing statutes referenced in the record (transcript: ‘‘s p 9’’ and ‘‘s p 79’’) and broader housing‑element requirements as examples of limits that would remain in place even if Atherton adopted a charter.
Committee members asked whether a charter could change voter thresholds for special or general taxes (for example, shifting from a two‑thirds requirement to a simple majority). The city manager said the current draft is silent on tax thresholds, so state law would apply by default; changing thresholds would require a charter amendment put before voters on a municipal ballot.
On contracting and prevailing wage, the city manager said a charter can give the town more local flexibility in public contracting and employment rules, but that flexibility is constrained when projects use state or federal funds or grants that trigger prevailing‑wage requirements. Participants noted that many large local projects (for example, playgrounds or street work) are funded at least in part with state gas tax or other state funds, which would likely require prevailing wage.
Participants discussed litigation and state responses in other regions: committee members recalled Southern California cases tied to state housing laws and observed that if charter cities attempt to evade statewide mandates, the legislature or courts may act to close loopholes.
Next steps: the city manager outlined neighborhood outreach to groups including the Lindenwood Homeowners Association, William Park Association and Victoria Manor, with an April wrap‑up meeting and consolidated feedback to the city council in May and June. The council will then decide whether to place a charter question on the November ballot.
The workshop included back‑and‑forth among committee members and staff about how much benefit being a charter city would offer given current state law, with several participants calling the meetings a due‑diligence exercise rather than a firm commitment to pursue the change.
No motion or vote was recorded at the workshop.
