Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-1201 Special Mtg Packet CITY <)F ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, December 1, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street Discussion of Charter Committee Recommendations In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (ITY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). r~' CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication/Special Meeting Discussion of Charter Committee Recommendations Meeting Date: Department: Contributing D Approval: December 1, 2005 dministration ments: Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer M ann@ashland.or.us Secondary Staff Contact: Gino Grimaldi grimaldig@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: 3.5 hours Statement: At the council study session on November 7, the council discussed the Charter Review Committee recommendations with the committee. Specifically, the council was interested in understanding how the committee arrived at the recommendations and why the committee is recommending a change. Discussions centered around three recommendations: #1 Form of Government, #2 Mayoral vote versus Mayoral veto and #4 at large elections. Due to time constraints, the council asked to continue the discussion at a special meeting and invited the Charter Committee to participate. The special meeting allows for council to make decisions, not otherwise permitted during study sessions, and to give staff direction. In addition the length of the special meeting allows enough time to complete discussions with the Charter Review Committee on all the recommendations. Background: The Charter Review Committee presented its final report to the Council on July 19, 2005. The Charter Review Committee recommended adopting the format of the Oregon Model Charter, incorporating specific recommendations and removing outdated and superfluous language and all language associated with salaries, funding, etc. In addition the committee recommended further research into duties associated with the City Recorder, Municipal Judge salary, language related to selling Ashland water and language related to the hospital and cemetery. Staff Recommendation: Discuss the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee; determine which if any recommendations to move forward and to incorporate into a legal draft for council review. Based on conversation from the previous study session there are two decisions to be made per each recommendation: 1) determine if a given recommendation will be brought forward and if so 2) determine if the recommendation to be brought forward should be incorporated into a draft updated 1 charter which is easy to read and free of superfluous language or determine if the recommendation should be a separate measure. Suggested Next Steps for Council · Complete discussions on the recommendations of the charter review committee and determine which recommendations should be incorporated into a draft charter and which recommendations should be separate measures. Both the draft charter and separate measures would then be drafted in legal language. · Schedule a special meeting for council to review the legal draft and to provide an opportunity for the public to comment. A special meeting allows the council and the public to focus on the charter without the time constraints that can occur at a regular meeting. · Schedule a second special meeting for council to approve final ballot language to forward to the county for a future election. A special meeting allows the council and the public to focus on the charter without the time constraints that can occur at a regular meeting Suggested Actions: · Direct staff to engage the services of Tom Sponsler to draft an Ashland charter and incorporate the recommendations of the charter review committee and for Sponsler to draft separate measures for those recommendations the council would like to keep separate. The Charter Review Committee recommended that further research is needed for the following: . Duties of the City Recorder, particularly those associated with treasurer duties, and the current lack of mandatory qualifications for the position as stated in the charter, Article VI, Section 2 and in AMC 2.08.020. · Whether or not there should be compensation for the Municipal Judge. . Clarify current language in Article XVI, Section 2 of the charter regarding water works. The City Attorney drafted alternative language and the committee did not feel they had adequate time to review and understand the particulars and that the language associated with the selling of water should be handled by the Council. . The committee felt it was important to include a reference to the Hospital and the Cemetery in the charter however they did not have a full understanding of the relationships as they exist today and felt it appropriate for the Council to addresses these two provisions. Suggested Actions . Appoint a small committee from the charter review committee to review current duties of the City Recorder (Charter and AMC) and compensation of the Municipal Judge and bring a recommendation back to the council. . Direct the City Attorney to present to the council an overview of Article XVI, Section 2 for clarification purposes and to review current language regarding the hospital and cemetery and draft updated language that reflects the current relationship between the city and the hospital for council approval. Attachments: · Charter Review Committee final report. 2 ASHLAND CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE Final Report & Recommendations July 1,2005 Introduction and Backeround: The Ashland City council initiated a charter review process in May 2004 with the authorization of a 10-member ad hoc citizen Charter Review Committee. The newly constituted committee was directed to conduct an independent assessment of the existing charter (last reviewed in 1978) and, if necessary, to draft a new or amended document suitable to "serve the community well into the future." Appointed by Mayor Alan DeBoer, the committee began work in July 2004. Our ranks included co-chairs John Enders and Carole Wheeldon, and members Hal Cloer, Kate Culbertson, Laurie MacGraw, Pam Marsh, Don Montgomery, Keith Massie, and Michael Riedeman.] The committee quickly realized that the task at hand would require more than a cursory review, and we agreed to undertake a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the charter. After a year of study, we are now forwarding our findings to the City council. In order to be enacted, charter revisions will need to be placed on the ba!lot by the council and approved by voters in a citywide election. Our work was ably staffed by Ann Seltzer, who fielded a tremendous number of requests from committee members and interested residents. City Attorney Mike Franell and Assistant Attorney Mike Reeder provided legal guidance, and Nancy Slocum and April Lucas provided us with minutes. In addition, the city engaged the services of Tom Sponsler, a consultant with expertise in charter reviews and revisions and the author of the Oregon Model Charter, who was contracted to assist the committee. This report summarizes our recommendations and work schedule over the past year. (See Appendix 1: Council Approved Documents Establishing the Charter Review Committee) Public Input Process From the beginning the committee understood that public involvement and testimony were critical to our mission, and we attempted to include the community beyond the requirements of the law. Throughout our deliberations the committee adhered to the Oregon Public Meetings laws, and, whenever possible, meetings were broadcast live on 1 Unfortunately, our tenth member, Roy Bashaw, resigned in December 2004. 1 RVTV (later available as streaming video on the city's website). We scheduled a public input session into each meeting agenda, and we planned a series of public forums and other outreach efforts to solicit comment. These efforts included: ./ Committee interviews with current and former elected and appointed officials. ./ Presentations to the Lions Club, Rotary, Chamber of Commerce, Green Party, and League of Women Voters. ./ Creation of an information brochure for distribution at public events ./ Articles in City Source. ./ Development of an employee survey designed to solicit input from city staff ./ Solicitation of extensive coverage in the Daily Tidings and, to a lesser extent, the Medford Mail Tribune. ./ Submission of letters to the editor and op-ed articles explaining the charter process. ./ Development of research documents (white papers and, later, topic papers) that investigated specific issues. ./ Utilization of the city of Ashland web site. All committee documents have been posted on the web in order to maximize public access and encourage input. ./ Use of a Charter listserv to disseminate information and discussion. ./ Appearances on RVTV. In addition to the regular broadcast of our meetings, committee members participated in two interview shows focused on charter reVIew. ./ Establishment of a public outreach subcommittee to plan and coordinate etTorts. Public forums included: ./ A January 20th meeting at the SOU Rogue River Room attended by approximately 75 community members. This meeting was structured with small breakout groups in order to provide and overview of charter review and to gather initial public comment. ./ An April ih meeting, also at SOU, focused on structure of government attended by approximately 30 people. Roundtable discussions invited residents to discuss the qualities/elements that enable government to provide good public service. ./ Issue forums. In addition, we scheduled a public input session on each specific issue prior to committee debate. Despite our best efforts, the committee was disappointed with the overall level of citizen participation. We realize, however, that the City council has an opportunity to generate significant public input during your review of our recommendations. A later section of this report ("Next Steps) suggests possible courses of action. (See Appendix II: Public Information Materials) 2 Structure of Recommendations Preliminary study and expert testimony enabled the committee to sort potential charter revisions into three areas of concern: 1) outdated charter language usurped by state law; 2) charter provisions that could be better legislated in the form of city ordinances; and, 3) structural and political provisions that seemed to warrant evaluation. Analyses produced by former city attorney Paul Nolte and by committee consultant Tom Sponsler highlighted significant sections of the charter containing outdated or extraneous language. After extensive discussion, the committee decided to adopt the Oregon Model Charter (developed by the League of Cities) as a template for the revised Ashland city charter. Our intent was to produce a document that clearly identifies the authority and accountability of local government and that reflects current state law. At the same time, the new streamlined charter would need to reflect the specific history and character that defines the Ashland community. Eliminating outdated language was easy; tackling sensitive political questions posed a much bigger challenge. As a result, the committee agreed to spend most of our time focused on a few key issues critical to the conduct of local government: ./ The mayor-manager/administrator relationship ./ Mayoral veto/ability to vote on council issues ./ Appointment of city commissions/committees ./ Election of city council by positions ./ Election of the city recorder ./ Election of the municipal judge ./ Election/powers of the Parks Commission and related issues re: the organization of the Parks Department ./ City Band Later in our discussions we identified two additional issues that seemed to warrant investigation: 1) council salaries; and, 2) periodic charter review. Kev Recommendations 1. The City of Ashland should be governed by a partnership between the elected mayor (the political leader), a city manager (the administrative leader), and the council (the legislative body). Elected officials are charged with responsibility for developing policy; the city manager should implement that policy. The manager's administrative powers should be expanded to include staff supervision (hiring, firing, and general accountability). Background: Article 4, Section 2 of the existing charter stipulates that the elected mayor is the "executive officer of the municipal corporation." Article 13 further delineates the mayor's powers, noting that s/he may "suspend and remove any appointive 3 officer at any time." In effect, the charter empowers the mayor to assume a range of administrative powers; in theory, the city administrator is responsible for implementing policy, but hislher managerial authority can be overshadowed by the mayor's broadly defined powers. Discussion: Proponents of the existing language argue: 1) that the mayor's position as an elected official should empower him/her to serve as a hands-on administrator; and, 2) that designation of a city manager could concentrate too much power in the hands of an appointed official. Conversely, critics of the current system believe: 1) that the size and complexity of city issues require professional management; and, 2) that policy is best created and implemented via a respectful partnership forged between elected and appointed officials. Outcome: Understanding and analyzing the appropriate roles and responsibilities that should be assumed by elected and appointive officials consumed months of the committee's efforts and generated significant interest from elected and appointed officials (current and retired) and from members of the public. In the end, the committee approved this recommendation via unanimous vote. In a subsequent motion (approved 7-1), the committee agreed that the council and mayor together should be responsible for hiring and firing the manager. Finally, the committee augmented the recommendation by unanimously voting to adopt language in the model charter that clarifies that the council should "determine the rules governing recruitment, selection, promotion, transfer, demotion, suspension, lay01I, and dismissal of city employees" that will guide personnel decisions. Specific duties delegated to the mayor and city manager are detailed in the appendix. (See Appendix III: Structure of Government) 2. The Ashland mayor should vote on all issues before the council; at the same time, the mayor's veto power should be eliminated. Background: Article 4, Section 3 of the existing charter stipulates that the mayor of the city is allowed to vote on issues before the council only in the case of a tie. At the same time, the mayor is required to approve or veto all measures within five days of passage. The council is allowed to overturn a mayor's veto via a two-thirds (4 of 6) vote. Discussion: Proponents of the existing framework argue: 1) that the mayor's non-voting status better equips him/her to facilitate meetings and provide political leadership; 2) that the mayor's veto power is an appropriate tool used to force the council to re-evaluate hasty or ill-considered decisions. and, 3) that veto power conveys more political leverage than the ability to vote. 4 Conversely, critics state: 1) the mayor's non-voting status clouds the public's understanding of his/her position on the issues; 2) application of the veto produces contention instead of consensus; and, 3) that the mayor's ability to cast a vote is a stronger investment of political power than is contained in the occasional veto. Outcome: The recommendation was endorsed by the committee on a 6-3 vote. A subsequent motion that the veto be retained in addition to the mayor's new voting power failed, 7-2. If approved, the mayoral vote will eliminate an anomaly in the existing charter. Under current conditions, the council is allowed to meet if three members plus the mayor are present. In this circumstance, as few as two council members can constitute a majority. If the mayor becomes a voting member, at least three votes will be required to approve any measure. (See Appendix III: Structure of Government) 3. The mayor should continue to appoint members of city commissions and committees, subject to council approval. Background: Under current practice, the mayor is responsible for appointing members of city commissions and committee members, subject to council approval. Discussion: Proponents of the status quo argue that the mayor's appointment powers allow him/her to appropriately set the political tone and direction of the city. Conversely, critics claim that this structure concentrates too much power in the hands of mayor; they argue that the council should be allowed to nominate and approve candidates for appointment. Outcome: The committee voted 8-1 in favor of the recommendation, effectively retaining the status quo. A second motion that would have specifically allowed Planning Commission members to be proposed and appointed by the mayor and council failed, 7- 1. (See Appendix III: Structure of Government) 4. The current position system for selecting council members should be eliminated in favor of citywide, at-large elections in which the top three vote getters win the council seats at issue. Background: Article 8, Section 2 of the city charter delineates the existing system that governs selection of city council members. Existing language requires council members to be elected by position number (one through six); each candidate is required to 5 designate the number of the council seat to which he or she aspires. A candidate may run for one position in any given election. Discussion: Proponents of the status quo argue: 1) that the existing system produces richer debate and greater clarification of issues; 2) that the position system lends stability to local government by protecting incumbents from political movements that might be orchestrated to sweep sitting councilors from office; and, 3) that the position system may allow less-well known candidates to achieve office. Conversely, critics believe: 1) that the position system can be used to target specific minority candidates; 2) that it unnecessarily complicates the voting process and stymies a citizen's ability to support the candidates of his/her choice; and, 3) that it can allow unchallenged incumbents to avoid scrutiny. Outcome: This was among the committee's more contentious recommendations, approved in a 5-4 vote. Related issues that the committee discussed and dismissed for lack of interest included changing the number of council members, imposing term limits, and adopting a ward system for council election. The committee also discussed the possible adoption of charter language that would permit or enact an instant voter runoff system in city elections. In the end, the committee decided not to recommend IRV, citing concerns regarding cost, legality, and insufficient research. However, the committee did agree to forward to the council excellent background material prepared on the subject by IRV advocate Pam Vavra and to note the substantial public input we received endorsing IRV. (See Appendix IV: Council Election Materials) 5. The city recorder should continue to be elected by the voters. However, charter language that dictates compensation should be removed; responsibility for salary issues would be assigned to the Citizens' Budget Committee. In addition, the city council should appoint a task force or committee to study the issues of the city recorder [and municipal judge] in additional depth. Background: Article 3 of the current charter describes the recorder as an elected city officer; section 3 pegs compensation to the 1974-75 level with specified annual adjustments. Discussion: Proponents of the status quo argue that election by the voters ensures that the recorder will remain independent and available to city residents; they note that the recorder is the only fulltime city official elected by the citizens. Conversely, critics point out 1) that most city recorders are now appointed and supervised by councils and managers; and, 2) that election may not guarantee that the winning candidate has the 6 requisite skills to fulfill the duties of the office. Proponents of the task force argued that the council should investigate whether the recorder should retain treasurer's duties now delegated to that office. Speakers on both sides of the election issue questioned the inclusion of compensation language in the charter, citing the committee's efforts to remove all specific funding notations from the document. Outcome: The committee endorsed the first recommendation unanimously; the task force endorsement was approved on a 5-4 vote. (See Appendix V: Election of the City Recorder) 6. The municipal judge should continue to be elected by the voters. However, charter language that dictates compensation should be removed; responsibility for salary issues would be assigned to the Citizens' Budget Committee. In addition, the city council should appoint a task force or committee to study the issues of the [ city recorder] and municipal judge in additional depth. Background: Article 3 of the current charter describes the municipal judge as an elected city officer; section 3 pegs compensation to the 1974-75 level with specified annual adjustments. Discussion: Proponents of the status quo argue that the election process allows voters to choose a municipal judge who will understand and incorporate local values in his/her approach to the judiciary. Conversely, critics question whether the current system is cost effective. Proponents of the task force suggested that the council investigate the level of judicial salary, imposition of a residency requirement, and the general powers and duties of the judge. As with the recorder, speakers on both sides of the election issue questioned the inclusion of compensation language in the charter, citing the committee's efforts to remove all specific funding notations from the document. Outcome: The committee endorsed the first recommendation unanimously; the task force endorsement was approved on a 5-4 vote. (See Appendix VI: Election of the Municipal Judge) 7 7. Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission should continue to be elected by city voters, and the Parks Department should continue to be administered as an autonomous entity independent of the rest of city government. However, existing charter language should be streamlined to combine the Parks Commission and the Recreation Commission. Finally, charter language that dictates the department's formula should be removed from the charter; the Parks and Recreation budget should be determined via the annual city budget process. Background: Article 19 of the existing charter (part of the original 1908 document) establishes the Parks Commission as an elected body of five residents invested with the control and management of city parkland and accompanying funding. Section 3 grants the commission independent taxing authority (not to exceed four and one half mills on the dollar) necessary to support the parks program. Finally, Article 22 specifies that the Park Commissioners also serve as members of the Recreation Commission. Over the years, the Park Commission's independent funding stream and elected status enabled the establishment of an independent Parks and Recreation department within city government. The Parks Commission hires and fires the department manager, establishes internal policy and procedures, and reviews the annual budget. Ballot Measure 50 (1997) effectively eliminated the department's fiscal independence; Parks and Recreation funding is now established through the Citizens' Budget Committee process, However, the Department continues to be administered as an independent ami of city government. Discussion: Proponents of the existing system argue: 1) that election by the voters provides powerful leverage and independence for the Commission; 2) that the department's autonomy has enabled it to creatively develop and maintain the expansive system of city parks; and, 3) that the city's park system is intrinsic to the aesthetic and character of Ashland, and warrants special charter protections. In turn, critics believe: 1) that the Parks Department is most appropriately administered under the auspices of the city administrator/manager, which would be consistent with the committee's recommendations to place all administrative functions under the city manager; 2) that the autonomy of the department creates inequities among city employees; 3) that the elected Commission usurps decision making powers that rightfully belong to the council; 4) that appointment, rather than election, might attract better qualified candidates for the commission; and,S) that the existence of an elected commission no longer provides fiscal protections for the department, given the passage of Measure 50. Outcome: The recommendation was approved by a vote of 8-1. Our decision to remove moribund funding language from the charter was consistent with our overall attempts to keep the charter free of budget figures. However, the committee 8 acknowledges that Parks funding is integral to its success; we recommend that the council consider implementing an ordinance that would formalize Parks funding. (See Appendix VII: Parks and Recreation) 8. The Ashland City Band should be retained in the charter; however, funding language should be removed and budget issues delegated to the Citizens' Budget Committee. The committee recommends that the Band be placed under the authority of the city Parks and Recreation Department. Background: Article 21 of the current charter requires the council to include in the annual budget an allocation not to exceed six-tenths (.6) mills on the dollar for the purpose of a City Band. By tradition (though not function), the Band falls under the auspices of the city finance director; as a result, the Band often operates quite independently from city structure. Discussion: Proponents of the current charter language argue that the City Band will survive and thrive through the specification of a funding formula embedded in the charter. Conversely, critics suggest that the charter should never cite specific budget numbers; instead, funding should be allocated through the annual budget process. Speakers on both sides of the funding issue agree that the Parks and Recreation Department is the most appropriate home base for the Band. Outcome: The recommendation was approved via unanimous vote. In addition, the Charter Committee notes that preservation of the band's funding is integral to its success; we recommend that the council consider implementing an ordinance addressing the band's funding requirements. (See Appendix VIII: Ashland City Band) 9. Charter language that requires voter approval of all increases in council salaries should be eliminated; salary levels should be established via a city ordinance. Background: Article 3, Section 3 of the current charter requires that changes to the level of compensation received by elective officers (except for recorder and judge) be submitted to a vote of the people. Right now, each city council member receives S350 per year and the mayor receives $500; these pay levels have been unchanged since at least 1976. However, elected officials also receive full medical, vision and dental benefits and a small life insurance policy that covers themselves and dependents. Discussion: Proponents argue that the existing system restrains the council from enacting costly and/or inappropriate pay increases. Conversely, critics of the status quo 9 claim: 1) that salary issues are best delegated via ordinance; and/or, 2) that council members deserve to be paid for the work that they perform. Outcome: The committee endorsed the recommendation via a 7-1 vote, with one member abstaining. Discussion that preceded the vote focused on the generous health benefits package now extended to council members. The committee suggests that council members consider assuming an insurance co-payment equivalent to that paid by city employees. (See Appendix IX. Council Salaries and Benefits) 10. The city council should convene a citizen-based Charter Review Committee at least every ten years. Background: The current charter does not address the question of periodic review. Discussion: Proponents of periodic review argue that a mandatory review process ensures that the charter remains relevant to the conduct of city affairs; critics question the necessity for such a requirement. Outcome: The committee unanimously endorsed the recommendation. Charter Housekeepin2 As noted earlier, analyses produced by former city attorney Paul Nolte and by consultant Tom Sponsler highlighted significant sections of the charter containing outdated or extraneous language, or addressing issues better delegated to a city ordinance. We have used that input to identify sections of the charter that should be eliminated from inclusion in the new model charter; these recommendations are detailed in the chart on the following page. (See Appendix X Charter Mark-ups/Model Charters) Finally, as one of our last actions, the committee attempted to clarify language in Article 16, Section 1 (Public Utilities: Water Works). In response to concerns expressed by City Attorney Mike Franell, the committee unanimously approved an amendment stipulating that city water can be sold to businesses located within city limits. Later, we asked the city attorney to prepare additional wording prohibiting businesses from re-selling that water as a primary commodity. However, after discussion, the Charter Committee declined to take further action, agreeing that issues that might be viewed as amending water policy should be arbitrated by the city council. Mr. Franell's suggested language is contained in the appendix; the council may wish to initiate a task force or committee to look at this issue in the coming months. 10 (See Appendix XI: Suggested Language for Article 16, Section 1) Items to be changed or eliminated in the charter. ARTICLE SECTION TITLE ACTION REASON I 3 Boundaries: 2NU Remove State law ORS sentence ORS 192 OAR 166 III 6 Interest in City Remove ORS 244 Contracts IV 2 Mayor Modify to Complements enumerate model charter powers of section on powers Mayor. See of manager Appendix III item C. VI 2 Recorder; Powers and Remove Covered by Duties municipal code 2.08.020 VII 2&3 Elections; Notice & Remove ORS 254 Special VII 6 Elections; Canvass of Remove ORS 254 Returns VII 7 Tie Votes Remove ORS 254.575 VIII 5&6 Council; Journal, Remove ORS192 Proceedings to the public IX All Special powers of the Remove "Dillon's Rule" Council Where express powers are granted, only those powers and those necessary to carry out the granted power are given. See City of Corvallis v.Carlile, 10 or 139 (1882) Broa.d powers grant overcomes this limitation. XI 1&4 Public Improvements Remove ORS 279 XII All Taxation Remove ORS 294,310 XIII 4 Appointive Officers Remove ORS 244 XIV All Chief of Police Remove Inherent in city structure. Sec. 2 possible ordinance. Consider ordinance to provide for a member of the police staff to be present at council 11 meetings as in Section 2. XV 2 Court Remove This has never been done. XV 3 Court Remove ORS 138 XV 4 Jury Retain Keep per City Attorney Mike Franell XVI 1 Public utilities Study Clarify language see Appendix X, item D. XVI 2 Torts Remove ORS 30 XVI 3 Existing Ordinances, Remove from ORS 30 Acts, Proceedinqs line 3 to end XVI 4 Repeal of previously Remove History of enacted provisions amendments are public record pursuant to public records laws ORS 192 XVII All Hospital Remove Committee is except for uncertain what the Section 1 current relationship Study is with the hospital remaining and is hesitant to sections to remove all explore current language until relationship clarified. Leave with hospital. Section 1 if language is accurate after study. XVIII All Cemeteries Trust Remove all Create ordinance to Fund reference to consolidate. Retain dollars and some reference. dates. XX All Airport Retain Lan~luage unique to Ashland. Next Steps The conclusion of the Charter Review Committee's work marks the end ofthe first phase of charter review2. Weare now pleased to pass the torch on to the city council. We suggest that you consider incorporating the following next steps into your process of reVIew: V oter Involvement: As a first priority, the council should launch a voter awareness campaign designed to provide residents with information on the proposed charter changes 2 See Appendix XII: Summary of Expenses L2 and to establish opportunities for interaction and dialogue. Such a campaign might include: . Media articles, interviews, television, radio. . Mini forum/public hearings, etc. . Informational events. . Talks to civic groups. . Flyers (such as in utility bills, etc.) Ballot Language: After preliminary review, the council should engage Tom Sponsler, the city's charter consultant, to prepare draft ballot language for the proposed charter changes. This can be done either before or after council review of the committee recommendations. As part of this process, the council will need to decide if proposed charter revisions should be presented to voters in one complex ballot measure, or, instead, structured as a series of single-issue measures that allows voters to pick and choose among options. Additional Research Committees: Consider establishing task forces or committees to: 1) pursue additional investigation of specific issues, including the roles and responsibilities of the city recorder and municipal judge; 2) develop city ordinances that might replace charter language; and, 3) conduct legal review of the draft charter. Timeline: Develop a timeline for council actions leading to ballot measures, including conceptual review of recommended changes, draft ballot language, public forums/hearings, and the selection of an election date. Finally, please feel free to engage any of us if you need background information, clarification of our recommendations, or additional insight into our decision rationale. 13