Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Councilor Positions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County Councilor Belcott outlines positions on multiple charter amendments before commission
Summary
County Councilor Michelle Belcott presented the council perspective on several charter amendments — opposing nonpartisan-office changes, supporting a supermajority tax rule, backing housing-impact analysis and budget transparency proposals, and expressing mixed views on audits and term limits.
Lede: County Councilor Michelle Belcott spoke to the Charter Review Commission on July 1 and summarized her positions on a slate of proposed charter amendments ahead of the commission’s final votes.
Nut graf: Belcott identified amendment-by-amendment preferences: she opposed 2601 (nonpartisan office elections), supported 2607 (housing impact analysis) and 2608 (requiring a supermajority for county taxes), supported revised budget-transparency measures, and said she favors pairing term‑limit proposals across elected positions rather than targeting only council members.
Body: Belcott opened by thanking commissioners for their service and then walked through specific amendments. On 2601 (clarifying nonpartisan office elections) she said she would vote no, arguing it gives an “unfair advantage to incumbents.” She said 2607 (housing impact analysis) earned a yes from her because it improves transparency about affordability impacts. On 2608 (supermajority for county taxes) Belcott said she was a “yes,” stating, “Rising taxes shouldn’t be as easy as approving proclamations.”
Belcott described 2610 (budget transparency and process) as a “yes,” citing earlier budgeting problems she considered avoidable. On 2614 (performance audits) she said she was “a no, but I support” in that she sees value in independent audits but wondered whether council action could accomplish similar oversight without a charter change. On the question of 2620 (limits on consecutive terms for county council members), Belcott said she was initially a no and worried the amendment targeted council members only; she said she might reconsider if a companion amendment covering executive elected offices were proposed.
Commissioners asked follow-up questions about the fairness of excluding some offices from term limits and about whether funding or campaign considerations would be affected by removing candidates from primary ballots (2601). Belcott referenced the PDC rules and campaign process in that exchange.
Ending: Belcott said she would follow up in writing on additional suggestions and thanked commissioners for their questions; commissioners then moved into committee reports.
