Government by City Charter Isn't for Every Municipality

By BONNIE HAYES

March 3, 1997 12 AM PT

SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

The prospect of having more independence from the state didn’t impress Westminster voters last week. Residents there rejected by 2-to-1 a proposal to convert from a general law government to charter status.

Because officials had spent $45,000 and “countless hours” over the past year promoting the advantages of a charter, the election turnout--fewer than 4,300 in a city of 83,287--was depressing, City Manager Bill Smith said.

“People just don’t realize what the true benefits are of having as much local self-government as you can,” Smith said. “And we obviously didn’t do a good job showing them.”

The first Orange County city in years to pursue charter status, Westminster joined a trend that began in 1993 when general-law cities lost money to the state to offset a budget deficit. The hit, $600,000 a year for Westminster, prompted officials to reconsider autonomy.

California now has 94 charter cities that encompass two-thirds of the state’s urban population; in 1994, there were about 80. Having a charter, essentially a city constitution, enables a community to tailor its laws to local circumstances and have greater control over everything from public works contracts to municipal elections.

The result can save a city money, but unless residents are convinced the change is necessary, a charter sell can be a waste of time, said Mark P. Petracca, a political science professor at UCI.

“People don’t always want more home rule. There’s an additional burden with that: There’s more responsibility,” he said. “Basically, people just want to be left alone.”

If the fine points and benefits of a charter are not presented clearly to residents, Petracca said, the issue will turn into a debate over trust--clearly the case in Westminster.

Residents were suspicious of the proposal, saying a charter would give council members too much control, particularly where taxes are concerned.

Charter cities are exempt from Proposition 62, which mandates a public vote whenever cities want to raise taxes on business licenses, hotel rooms, certain real estate transactions and other items.

“Leave it alone,” said Robert Crossley, who wrote the ballot argument against Westminster’s charter proposal. “The City Council doesn’t need to control everything here. We’ve been doing it this way for 30 years. . . . We’re doing just fine as we are.”

But some city officials insist that the way a community changes over the years, especially if it grows, is a compelling argument for charter status.

For example, Seal Beach officials proposed a city charter in 1964, almost 50 years after the city’s inception with a general-law government.

Voters overwhelming embraced the change, which came during a city population boom: Between 1962 and 1966, the number of residents more than doubled, from 10,050 to 20,700. Since then, fewer than 5,000 more people live in Seal Beach.

“I believe the city was evolving, and people recognized the growth as a sign,” said longtime City Clerk Joanne Yeo, who has studied Seal Beach’s election history.

“They wanted to retain home rule and have more flexibility. They wanted to elect council members by district instead of at large, which the charter allowed them to do.”

Still, the vast majority of California cities--377--have general-law governments, and few in Orange County have even discussed the prospect of a charter in recent years.

Laurann Cook, president of the Orange County division of the California League of Cities, said that, while growth could support creation of a charter, the way a city’s needs are constantly changing could also be a powerful argument against it.

Amending a charter to address current problems requires a public vote, which can restrict officials’ ability to keep up with issues, she said.

“It isn’t uncommon for charter cities to start wondering down the road why certain things were ever written into the constitution,” said Cook, a Fountain Valley City Council member.

Huntington Beach, for example, has amended its charter at least four times, and a complete revision was approved in 1965.

“The way the charter addresses problems that were pertinent back then can become outdated or even cumbersome for cities to deal with later on,” Cook said.

One example is a provision in Newport Beach’s charter that prevents the city from charging residents for trash pickup. When the city’s charter was adopted in 1955, the cost for dumping trash at landfills was less, and officials wrapped the collection fee into city property taxes.

Since then, however, dumping fees have risen, and new state laws prevent cities from setting their own property tax rates. But the 40-year-old charter provision continues to make the city pay for the cost of curbside trash pickup and dumping fees.

“Changing that would require a public vote in which residents would say they didn’t want the city to pick up the tab anymore,” said Robin Clauson, assistant city attorney. “So it’s probably one of those things we have to live with now.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Governing by Charter

General-law cities are ruled by state codes, while charter cities derive laws from a locally written document, often called the city’s “constitution.” Orange County has 22 general-law cities. Its nine charter cities are:

City: Year

Anaheim: 1876*

Cypress: 1975*

Huntington Beach: 1909; became charter city in 1937

Irvine: 1971; became charter city in 1975

Los Alamitos: 1960*

Newport Beach: 1955*

Placentia: 1965*

Santa Ana: 1886*

Seal Beach: 1915; became charter city in 1964

* Year of incorporation; has been a charter city ever since

Source: California League of Cities