The commission’s deliberations on the city clerk ballot language were prioritized due to the approaching deadlines for upcoming elections. The primary discussion revolved around the timing of a special election for this ballot language, with options including a special election on Super Tuesday, a May election, or alignment with the August primaries or November general election. Concerns were raised about the implications of these decisions and the timing of the ballot language’s finalization. A participant pointed out the potential cost savings of aligning the special election with existing primaries or general elections, emphasizing the urgency of completing the necessary work before the March 20th deadline for a May election.

During these discussions, there was a consensus on the importance of clarity and caution, with an emphasis on focusing solely on the ballot language for the clerk position to avoid future conflicts with charter revisions. The language’s refinement became a focal point, with a preference for using the term “hired” rather than “appointed” to emphasize the commission’s authority in the hiring process. The participants worked on ensuring the language met the 75-word limit.

Simultaneously, the commission examined the broader implications of using non-ad valorem assessments to fund municipal projects and services. A participant expressed concern that relying on non-ad valorem assessments for essential services could lead to increased property taxes or a reallocation of general budget funds. The conversation underscored the need for transparency and accountability in how these funds are sourced and utilized.

The debate revealed differing opinions on the utility and risks of non-ad valorem assessments. One participant argued for maintaining the option of non-ad valorem assessments, citing the flexibility it provides to local governments faced with state-imposed limitations. They stressed the importance of allowing local voters to decide on funding mechanisms and election processes, such as ranked-choice voting. On the other hand, there was a proposal to require a higher threshold for funding approval through non-ad valorem assessments.

The legal implications of setting such thresholds were also explored, with concerns about potential lawsuits if proposed funding initiatives garnered significant but insufficient support. The need for effective public communication and education on the role of non-ad valorem assessments in departmental funding was emphasized, with a participant noting the general lack of awareness among residents about how these assessments contribute to city services.

In addition to these primary topics, the commission addressed the possibility of adding a citizens’ rights guarantee to the city charter. This proposal aimed to enshrine certain rights for residents, including access to essential public services like police and fire protection, in the charter. Legal counsel was consulted to assess potential legal issues stemming from such guarantees, particularly in relation to nuisance lawsuits.