What hasn’t worked that a home rule charter would address?

Having researched and participated in discussions regarding a home rule charter, clarification is warranted. Home rule proponents state “voters would be empowered to require a citizen-proposed ordinance be placed on the ballot after gathering the requisite number of voter signatures” and advocates that voters can force an election to repeal a recently-adopted ordinance.

Response: I have found that citizen advocacy has been effective; changing proposed ordinances (e.g. Walmart expansion) and successfully advocating for new or strengthened ordinances (e.g. acequia protection), and the repeal of an ordinance (e.g. the Kit Carson Park name change to “Red Willow Park” — repealed shortly after the renaming). Is Home Rule legislation required? Could these Home Rule statutes end up limiting our freedom to advocate by requiring 250 signatures before consideration?

Home rule proponents support term limits and recall.

Response: We are a small community with a limited number of people willing to run for office. Is there not something to be said for the institutional knowledge, state contacts and consistency that a veteran councilor brings to the table? Won’t the general elections serve to “recall” and enable “term” limits if the voters are disenchanted? Such ordinances could limit our freedom to choose and cause an emotional reaction based on one unpopular decision to force a dedicated public servant out of office.

Home rule champions forcing the mayor to vote on all motions.

Response: The current ordinance, only allowing the mayor to vote in the event of a tie, forces the council to negotiate a consensus among all factions in order to reach a compromise necessary to achieve a super majority (three of the four members) on ordinances and the most critical issues to the community.

Home rule backers state that a charter would enable town councilors to make commission appointments.

Response: I believe that if the council wished to adopt this measure, they could change our municipal code. Traditionally, the mayor consults with the council regarding his or her proposed nominees and must obtain council approval. Finally, I believe that the proposal for councilors to nominate their personal choices for commissions is already occurring.

Home rule promoters propose that municipal elections be conducted in districts.

Response: Candidates are currently selected at-large by all voters within the town’s voting precincts, allowing everyone to vote on council members and the mayor. Would this proposal inadvertently pit one district against another? (ie: business vs. residential)

Home rule advocates for Ranked Choice Voting.

Response: Currently, home rule is required for Ranked Choice Voting, however, there is already an initiative in the state Legislature to enact this legislation. Though it failed last year, it will be brought back again this year. Wouldn’t it be more cost effective and efficient to lobby our state representatives?

Home Rule supports a $15/hour minimum wage.

Response: Home rule is required for the municipality to mandate a minimum wage greater than the state’s. However, the state has already followed through to raise the minimum wage to $12/hour and ranks 14th in the country. There are currently two legislative proposals to raise the wage to $15 and $16 an hour, as well as a personal leave proposal. Is there a possibility of greater revenue leakage and loss of employment if our local labor costs increase while the surrounding areas are lower? Wouldn’t it be less of a risk to our employers and employment if the town advocated for a statewide initiative?

Here are my concerns. The costs of establishing a home rule charter would be; staffing increases, specialized attorney guidance, outside support services and newspaper publishing of the complete charter. One legal resource stated that the minimum startup costs to establish a home rule charter would cost $250,000. Additionally, annual legislative maintenance costs would also be required.

The town administration has not established the need, the scope of work or a budget for this endeavor.

Now that the mayor and two councilors have questionably approved a home rule commission, I would hope that the commission would review and revise the town’s bylaws and code before determining if home rule changes are warranted.

Mayor and council, please assure that most, if not all of the home rule commissioners be composed of town residents. Already, many sitting on our commissions live outside of the town’s limits.

Do the benefits of home rule outweigh the costs? Wouldn’t the taxpayers’ money be better spent on the council’s number one strategic goal — low income and affordable housing?