AURORA | Aurora lawmakers are considering asking voters to approve a host of city charter amendments with proponents saying they would modernize outdated provisions, improve clarity and promote fairness.
If all are approved by city council, the measures would appear on the November ballot.
The proposed changes encompass a range of topics, from gender-neutral language to council vacancies and term limits.
City Attorney Pete Schulte and Deputy City Manager Jason Batchelor detailed each proposed referendum during a study session Monday.
One of the proposed measures would update city charter with gender-neutral language.
Schulte said that his staff carefully reviewed all 20 pages of the charter and identified each section containing gender-specific terms. These would be updated without altering the intent or meaning of any provision.
“The question is, should those articles, or several of them, hereby be amended to replace gender gender-specific language and gender neutral terms that promote clarity, equality, and consistency, without changing the meaning or intent of any charter provision,” Schulte said.
Another proposal would address how vacancies on city council are filled, depending on the timing of the vacancy. The city council may appoint a qualified person to serve for up to two years, or call a special or regular election, which would add clarity to when appointments versus elections are used, Schulte said. This would influence when or if a councilmember will step down, and whether the rest of city council can reappoint.
Currently, the charter requires the city manager to live within city limits. A proposed amendment would eliminate that requirement, giving the city council discretion to decide residency conditions at the time of appointment. Schulte said this was intended to change what he said is an archaic rule, Schulte said.
“That would be a decision for council to make upon making the appointment, versus having a requirement in the charter,” Schulte said.
Another proposed amendment would remove a ban that prohibits elected city officials from holding another elected public office. It would allow voters to decide if a person can serve in more than one part-time elected position, Schulte said. This would not apply to full-time roles such as a county commissioner due to constitutional restrictions. “I don’t love the idea of people serving in the legislature and council or legislature and school board,” Councilmember Alison Coombs said.
One proposed referendum would change how future raises for city lawmakers and the mayor are pitched and approved. The proposal would eliminate the requirement for council members to vote on their own raises, instead tying salaries to benchmarks such as those of state legislators or county commissioners, Schulte said. “In my 17 years, we’ve only gone to voters once or twice to update salaries,” Batchelor said.
He said that every year, the city council receives the lesser of inflation or the rate of raises employees receive, which operates almost as a ratchet effect, and over time, he found that the city is not keeping up with the needed raises for council members.
“It would be the people voting to make the changes,” Councilmember Alison Coombs said. Mayor Mike Coffman said he opposed the amendment.
The final roposal clarifies term limits for ward and at-large council members. Currently, the charter does not distinguish between the two as separate offices, requiring a councilmember to “take a break” between serving a term in a ward and serving one at-large after reaching term limits.
Councilmember Francois Bergan said it was simply “eliminating the break.”
This change would allow a councilmember who has served 12 years in a ward seat to immediately run for an at-large seat without a break, Schulte said. The mayor position is already set up in this way, allowing a ward or at-large council member to run for mayor after serving 12 years in their previous position. If voters approve it, ward and at-large term limits would be considered separate. If not, the current charter remains, Schulte said.
“That would help us understand moving forward, what the voters think,” Schulte said
Council members should be paid a full-time salary for what is a full-time job.
The current pay is unfair to the families of CMs with young children like Coombs and Gardner who are forced to balance two jobs plus parenting. The current pay also favors the wealthier candidate who can better tolerate the lousy pay whereas most of Aurora can’t.
Most important, the current pay attracts wholly unqualified candidates for whom Council is just an attractive start to their political careers whereas the experienced candidates will not even consider running for peanuts. This leads to CMs strong on extreme ideology but weak on actually solving problems.
The current City Council can’t even agree that the city’s abysmal retail economy is the root cause of so many of the city’s most pressing issues. The ultra-conservatives and Democratic Socialists are in lock-step agreement to keep their heads in the sand on this.
There’s way too much ideology on the current City Council and no one experienced in actually solving complex municipal problems. Nothing will improve unless this changes.
While you’re at it Council, kill two birds with one stone. Eliminate the multi million dollar budget, Charter approved, of the Civil Service Commission. Everything they do can be done by the Police and Fire Department who are already being paid. Get back to simplicity. I believe the citizens, if needed, and educated would vote it out.
I say if you cannot afford to run for council dont do it. Public service is about giving above and beyond your normal self, like a farmer or retiree. The problem is too many want to get rich on government work, or treat it like some career, which you arent supposed to do.If I ran I would not take a salary.