Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Final Report topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter Review Committee approves final report, advances several ballot proposals amid debate on fiscal-impact statements and appointments
Summary
The committee approved its final report to City Council, forwarding multiple proposed charter changes (initiative/referral thresholds, petition procedures, periodic review cycle, publication modernization) and debated whether fiscal impact statements should include a one-line estimate, a web link, or fuller explanatory text.
The Charter Review Committee voted May 28 to approve its final report and forward the recommended charter amendments to the City Council for presentation at the June 10 council meeting. The report collects the committee’s recommended propositions, procedural fixes and modernization edits, and staff will incorporate agreed changes before June 1.
Randy Boulderjack moved acceptance of the final report with staff edits; the motion was seconded and carried. The report bundles numerous items for council consideration, including proposed changes to initiative and referendum procedures, clarifications on who may hold elective office, alignment of civil service language with state law, and a proposal to require regular five-year charter reviews rather than every 10 years.
Committee members debated several substantive details before finalizing language. Mason Rutled said the voter-information paragraph should require a fiscal-impact estimate and argued "the fiscal impact number needs to be listed," while others warned that a single short number could mislead voters or invite legal challenges. Members discussed using the statutory 200-word voters’ pamphlet allowance to provide a concise description plus a link on the city website to a fuller finance director statement; opponents noted access-to-internet gaps and the risk that a truncated number could be misread.
The committee also spent time on petition certification and "curing" procedures: staff explained that if a petition falls short by a small margin, the clerk (or auditor) will provide a list of signatures the sponsor can attempt to cure within 10 calendar days before final certification. The deputy city attorney advised caution in listing exceptions to referendum explicitly, noting an exhaustive list could create unintended exclusions if state law also enumerates exceptions.
Members raised governance concerns about the charter-review appointment process. Grant Harrington criticized the process, saying, "There are people in that room that have conflicts of interest that probably shouldn't be on the board anyways," prompting a brief exchange; other members noted the committee’s recommendations are subject to council review and appointment practices could be revisited in the future.
With edits to be completed by staff, the committee directed Jennifer and city staff to prepare the final document for the June 10 council packet. The committee adjourned after taking the vote.
