Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter panel urges home‑rule language, updates conduct wording and considers city‑manager option
Summary
The charter review committee proposed adding a formal home‑rule statement, replacing the charter phrase 'habitual drunkenness' with broader substance‑abuse language, allowing a smaller range of charter‑review committee sizes, and exploring either a city‑manager form via referendum or enhanced authority for the city administrator without a referendum.
Commissioners reviewed the charter review committee's recommendations and the draft strike‑through and basis documents the committee prepared. Staff said the first recommended change is to add language to section 1.04 that formally states the city's support for home rule, stressing this is a values statement rather than a transfer of authority.
The panel raised conduct‑related wording. The current charter uses the phrase "habitual drunkenness," which the committee judged out of step with modern phrasing; the recommendation is to replace that term with language covering "alcohol abuse" and "substance abuse" or use a medically neutral term such as "intoxication," with staff asked to research legally sufficient wording.
The committee recommended evaluating a form‑of‑government change. One path would place a city‑manager form on the ballot (which would require referendum approval); an alternative is to keep the commission form and formally delegate more authority to the city administrator in charter language or by administrative action. Staff emphasized that a formal conversion to a city manager form would require a referendum, while delegation to the city administrator could be done without one but could be reversed by a future commission.
Other committee suggestions: allow the charter‑review committee to have five, seven or nine members (instead of mandating nine) to ease scheduling and ensure an odd number for votes; clarify quorum language so it is calculated from the current committee size; and carry forward the committee's justification notes to help future reviewers understand the rationale behind changes.
Why it matters: several proposed revisions would require a referendum (per charter rules) if approved by the commission. Commissioners discussed cost—an election runs roughly $5,000–$6,000 for a typical municipal election and increases as ballot pages are added—and whether to bundle smaller changes with larger, referendum‑worthy measures.
What comes next: staff will mark items that require legal review (for example, the conduct wording) and bring back final language and cost estimates for the commission to decide whether to place items on a future ballot (staff noted the next March ballot as the practical timing for referendum measures).
