Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee weighs requiring supermajority to change water policy; legal staff outlines limits of ordinance vs charter
Summary
Members discussed a proposal to require a supermajority or charter amendment before changing key water-policy provisions (notably preventing service outside city limits without annexation); legal staff said an ordinance could be changed later by a future council, while a charter amendment would require voter approval.
The Council Subcommittee on Water Issues on June 2 took up a staff-initiated discussion about requiring a supermajority vote to change certain elements of the city's water policy and related city code language.
Chair Percy Rousin said staff was asked to bring the item forward to explore requiring more than a simple majority for changes to code section 2-1-8 and the water management policy, particularly for decisions that would allow water service outside city limits or remove the water budget from policy. Rousin described past instances in which water service outside city boundaries led to contested outcomes and lawsuits.
Several council members and members of the public argued the city should consider making such protections harder to reverse. "If council wasn't involved in that decision... I would like to know what is in the budget for fiscal year 27," one member said, urging greater council oversight; former Mayor Phil Good urged careful consideration of whether the change should be enacted by ordinance or via a charter amendment and recommended a supermajority threshold (five votes) if the council proceeds.
Legal staff explained that while the subcommittee can recommend a supermajority requirement in the city's water-management policy or an ordinance, an ordinance can later be changed by a subsequent council with a regular vote. A charter amendment, in contrast, would require voter approval and would be more difficult for future councils to overturn, but it also limits the city's flexibility and would require placement on an election ballot.
Committee members asked legal and staff to draft options for future consideration that would tighten the language to avoid unintended consequences ' for example, to permit formation of water improvement districts where a governmental entity or an existing water provider needs to address infrastructure problems without enabling private developers to secure off-limits water service.
What happens next: Staff and legal were asked to draft proposed ordinance and charter-language options and to return with recommended next steps and public-engagement options for consideration by the committee.
