Chartered local government
A Charter county or municipality is one that has its own set of laws that forms the foundational governance structure for the local government. Charter counties and municipalities have charters, which stand in the same relationship to a county, city, village or town that a state constitution does to a state, or a federal constitution does to a nation.
Not all states allow the formation of local governments with charters. In the states that do allow local government charters, the significance of the charter related to local autonomy on matters of form of government and substantive policies differs among the states. This depends on the degree of home rule granted to local governments by the state constitution and state statutes.
In some states, state law allows local governments to adopt a charter on their own initiative, often requiring approval at the ballot. The non-chartered counties and municipalities are considered general law or statutory counties and municipalities. General law local governments are governed under the state constitutional provisions and state statutes of the particular state that lay out the fundamental governance doctrine for such local governments. The key feature of adopting a charter is the ability of the local government to differ from state statutes and determine certain aspects of the form of government and substantive policies specific to the particular county or municipality, subject to the degree of home rule permitted.
In other states, a charter is granted to a municipality by the state legislature. This may be because a municipality gains its legal status through incorporation with a state-granted charter, or because the particular municipality has lobbied the state legislature to grant it a charter allowing variation from state statutes. These types of charters generally permit less local autonomy, and charter amendments often must be approved by the state legislature.[1]
Many of the states that allow chartered local governments place restrictions on what types of local governments can adopt charters. These restrictions are often based on population, but sometimes on government structure.
Charter ordinances
A charter ordinance is a related concept used by Kansas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming to grant home rule powers to municipalities. Instead of having a broad municipal charter document, the municipality may adopt specific charter ordinances that differ from certain state statutes or local acts of the state legislature.[2][3][4]
Consolidated charters
A consolidated local government is a city (or other type of municipality) and county that were established or subsequently merged as one unified jurisdiction. As such, the consolidated government exercises the powers and responsibilities of both the municipal and county forms of government. These governments often operate under a consolidated charter, which, like a city or county charter, forms the foundational governance structure for the local government. Consolidated governments may also be referred to as unified governments or, in Tennessee, metropolitan governments.
Some of the most populated cities in each state fall under the structure of a consolidated government, such as New York, Philadelphia, Denver, San Francisco, Anchorage, Jacksonville, and New Orleans. However, consolidation occurs with less populated areas as well, such as Statenville/Echols County, GA and Tribune/Greeley County, KS.[5][6][7]
Advantages and disadvantages of home rule charters
The modern trend of home rule charters provides a county or municipality with more autonomy over local affairs. While this can be advantageous from the perspective of the county or municipality, the manner in which this local power has been used has caused some to desire a return to or to remain as a general law county or municipality.
Advantages
- Four main advantages of home rule charters commonly cited are:
- -the reduction of legislative interference in city affairs
- -it permits citizens to determine the form and administrative organization of their local government
- -the state legislature is relieved of the time-consuming burden of special legislation, and can devote its exclusive attention to state problems
- -it permits citizens to have a greater voice in the determination of local government policies and thus encourages many more citizens to become interested in and participate in local affairs.[8]
- "The Home Rule process can serve as an important vehicle for communities that are seeking to challenge the fundamental structure of law which puts the rights of corporations over those of communities; prevents communities from saying “no” to projects that are harmful for workers, the local economy, livability, property values, or the environment; and ultimately prevents municipalities from creating the economically and environmentally sustainable communities they seek. We are working with communities on Home Rule efforts, as communities are finding that the writing of a local charter of governance allows citizens and municipalities a much broader foundation to work from than the framework of a single ordinance. Adopting a rights-based home rule charter is an obvious step toward community assertion of the inalienable right to local self-government, and a fulfillment of the long-postponed ideals of the American Revolution." -Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund website [9]
- "A charter needs to give a city full control of its municipal affairs, so it can implement lower taxes, reasonable regulation, fiscal responsibility, limited government, local control and more freedom from corrupt urban legislators." -Kevin Dayton, CEO of Dayton Public Policy Institute [10]
- "Escondido's voters have a tremendous opportunity to help solidify their city's future opportunities. Proposition P would establish Escondido as a charter city ---- freeing it of much of the bureaucratic overreach from Sacramento. By returning significant control of local issues facing the city to local officials and voters, we believe Prop. P offers the sort of flexibility needed to address the numerous fiscal challenges facing public agencies of all types." -editorial board of the North County Times endorsing Proposition P, which was defeated at the November, 2012 elections. [11]
Disadvantages
- Four main disdvantages of home rule charters commonly cited are:
- -frequent changes in the charter may cause instability in local government
- -home rule allows local political and interest groups increased freedom from state supervision and interference
- -the system makes the solution of areawide problems more difficult as a local government could refuse to participate
- -due to proposal to amend the charter, ballots may become excessive in length and discourage citizens from casting a vote on each referred issue.[8]
- "Becoming a Charter City is a dangerous and uncertain change for Escondido. Charter cities like Bell, Maywood, and Vernon, California have found themselves embroiled in embarrassing corruption, scandals, and costly litigation. Four charter cities of Escondido’s size (San Bernardino, Stockton, Compton and Vallejo) have recently filed for bankruptcy because of the lack of checks and balances required of general law cities. Becoming a Charter City will shift the power from the people of Escondido into the hands of a powerful few for now and far into the future."- Escondido Citizens Charter Watch[12]
- 31 states allow charter counties.
- 44 states allow charter municipalities.
- States that allow charter counties
- Total charter counties by state
- States that allow charter municipalities
- Total charter cities by state
- States that do not allow local charters
- Alaska for all boroughs (county-like government)
- Arizona for counties with a population of 500,000 or greater
- California for all counties
- Colorado for all counties
- Florida for all counties
- Hawaii for all counties
- Idaho for all counties
- Iowa for all counties
- Kansas all counties are able to enact charter resolutions making every county, in effect, a charter county.
- Kentucky for all counties
- Louisiana for all parishes (county-like government)
- Maine for all counties
- Maryland for all counties
- Massachusetts for all counties
- Michigan for all counties
- Minnesota: only Ramsey County is chartered.
- Missouri for counties with a population of 85,000 or greater
- Montana for all counties
- New Hampshire for all counties
- New Jersey
- New York for all counties
- North Dakota for all counties
- Ohio for all counties
- Oklahoma for counties with a population of less than 550,000 containing a city of more than 250,000
- Oregon for all counties
- Pennsylvania for all counties
- South Dakota for all counties
- Tennessee for all counties
- Utah
- Virginia
- Washington
| Charter counties by state | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Total Counties | Total Charter Counties | % of Charter Counties | |||||
| Alabama | 67 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Alaska | 18 | 10 | 55.56% | |||||
| Arizona | 15 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Arkansas | 75 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| California | 57 | 14 | 24.56% | |||||
| Colorado | 62 | 2 | 3.23% | |||||
| Connecticut | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Delaware | 3 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Florida | 66 | 20 | 30.30% | |||||
| Georgia | 159 | 7 | 4.40%1 | |||||
| Hawaii | 4 | 4 | 100.00% | |||||
| Idaho | 44 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Illinois | 102 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Indiana | 91 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Iowa | 99 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Kansas | 103 | 103 | 100%2 | |||||
| Kentucky | 120 | 1 | 0.83% | |||||
| Louisiana | 64 | 23 | 35.94% | |||||
| Maine | 16 | 3 | 18.75% | |||||
| Maryland | 23 | 9 | 39.13%3 | |||||
| Massachusetts | 5 | 1 | 20.00% | |||||
| Michigan | 83 | 2 | 2.41% | |||||
| Minnesota | 87 | 1 | 1.15% | |||||
| Mississippi | 82 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Missouri | 114 | 4 | 3.51% | |||||
| Montana | 54 | 3 | 5.56% | |||||
| Nebraska | 93 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Nevada | 16 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| New Hampshire | 10 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| New Jersey | 21 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| New Mexico | 33 | 1 | 3.03%4 | |||||
| New York | 57 | 19 | 33.33% | |||||
| North Carolina | 100 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| North Dakota | 53 | 8 | 15.09% | |||||
| Ohio | 88 | 2 | 2.27% | |||||
| Oklahoma | 77 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Oregon | 36 | 9 | 25.00% | |||||
| Pennsylvania | 67 | 7 | 10.45% | |||||
| Rhode Island | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| South Carolina | 46 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| South Dakota | 66 | 2 | 3.03% | |||||
| Tennessee | 92 | 2 | 2.17% | |||||
| Texas | 254 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Utah | 29 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Vermont | 14 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Virginia | 95 | 3 | 3.16% | |||||
| Washington | 39 | 6 | 15.38% | |||||
| West Virginia | 55 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Wisconsin | 72 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Wyoming | 23 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| 1Georgia: permits a county charter only as a consolidated government (county-city or county-unincorporated community). 2Kansas: all counties are able to enact charter resolutions making every county, in effect, a charter county. 3Maryland: 9 counties have charters, another 6 are organized under state law so as to have home rule. 4New Mexico: permits a county charter only as a consolidated government, like the county-city of Los Alamos. | ||||||||
- Alaska for first class cities
- Arizona for municipalities with a population of 3500 or greater
- Arkansas for municipalities with a population of 500 or greater
- California for all municipalities
- Colorado for municipalities with a population of 2000 or greater
- Connecticut for all municipalities
- Delaware for municipalities with a population of 1000 or greater
- Florida for municipalities with a population of 1500 or greater in counties of less than 75,000; and 5000 or greater in counties with greater than 75,000
- Georgia all municipalities are governed under a charter
- Iowa for all municipalities
- Kansas all cities are able to enact charter ordinances making every city, in effect, a charter city.
- Louisiana for all municipalities
- Maine for all municipalities
- Maryland all municipalities are governed under a charter
- Massachusetts for all municipalities
- Michigan for all municipalities
- Minnesota for all municipalities
- Mississippi for all municipalities
- Missouri for municipalities with a population of 5,000 or greater
- Montana for all municipalities
- Nebraska for municipalities with a population of 5,000 or greater
- Nevada for all municipalities
- New Hampshire for all municipalities
- New Jersey for all municipalities
- New Mexico for municipalities with a population of 300 or greater
- New York only for municipalities that have the structure of a city (no population requirement)
- North Carolina all municipalities are governed under a charter
- North Dakota for municipalities with a population of 100 or greater
- Ohio for all municipalities
- Oklahoma for municipalities with a population of 2,000 or greater
- Oregon for all municipalities
- Pennsylvania for all municipalities
- Rhode Island all municipalities are governed under a charter
- South Carolina for all municipalities
- South Dakota for all municipalities
- Tennessee for all municipalities
- Texas for municipalities with a population of 5,000 or greater
- Utah for all municipalities
- Vermont for all municipalities
- Virginia all municipalities are governed under a charter
- Washington for all municipalities
- West Virginia for municipalities with a population of 2,000 or greater
- Wisconsin all cities and villages are able to enact charter ordinances making each, in effect, a charter city or village.
- Wyoming all cities and towns are able to enact charter ordinances making each, in effect, a charter city or town.
| Charter cities by state | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Total Cities | Total Charter Cities | % of Charter Cities | |||||
| Alabama | 460 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Alaska | 145 | 11 | 7.59% | |||||
| Arizona | 91 | 19 | 20.88% | |||||
| Arkansas | 501 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| California | 482 | 121 | 25.10% | |||||
| Colorado | 271 | 99 | 36.53% | |||||
| Connecticut | 179 | 104 | 58.10% | |||||
| Delaware | 57 | 55 | 96.49% | |||||
| Florida | 410 | 410 | 100.00% | |||||
| Georgia | 535 | 535 | 100.00% | |||||
| Hawaii | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Idaho | 200 | 1 | 0.50%1 | |||||
| Illinois | 1298 | 34 | 2.62%2 | |||||
| Indiana | 569 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Iowa | 947 | 5 | 0.53% | |||||
| Kansas | 626 | 626 | 100.00%3 | |||||
| Kentucky | 418 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| Louisiana | 303 | 31 | 10.23% | |||||
| Maine | 488 | 75 | 15.37% | |||||
| Maryland | 157 | 157 | 100.00% | |||||
| Massachusetts | 351 | 150 | 42.74%4 | |||||
| Michigan | 533 | 323 | 60.60% | |||||
| Minnesota | 854 | 107 | 12.53% | |||||
| Mississippi | 297 | 20 | 6.73% | |||||
| Missouri | 955 | 44 | 4.61%5 | |||||
| Montana | 129 | 32 | 24.81% | |||||
| Nebraska | 530 | 2 | 0.38% | |||||
| Nevada | 19 | 12 | 63.16% | |||||
| New Hampshire | 234 | 13 | 5.56% | |||||
| New Jersey | 566 | 11 | 1.94% | |||||
| New Mexico | 103 | 12 | 11.65% | |||||
| New York | 1550 | 62 | 4.00% | |||||
| North Carolina | 553 | 553 | 100.00% | |||||
| North Dakota | 357 | 130 | 36.41% | |||||
| Ohio | 936 | 234 | 25.00% | |||||
| Oklahoma | 594 | 86 | 14.48% | |||||
| Oregon | 241 | 111 | 46.06% | |||||
| Pennsylvania | 2561 | 65 | 2.54% | |||||
| Rhode Island | 39 | 39 | 100.00% | |||||
| South Carolina | 270 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||
| South Dakota | 310 | 10 | 3.23% | |||||
| Tennessee | 345 | 229 | 66.38% | |||||
| Texas | 1214 | 352 | 29.00% | |||||
| Utah | 245 | 1 | 0.41% | |||||
| Vermont | 282 | 68 | 24.11% | |||||
| Virginia | 229 | 229 | 100.00% | |||||
| Washington | 281 | 11 | 3.91% | |||||
| West Virginia | 232 | 108 | 46.55% | |||||
| Wisconsin | 595 | 1 | 0.17%6 | |||||
| Wyoming | 99 | 7 | 7.07%7 | |||||
| 1Idaho: does not permit charter adoption, Bellevue continues to be governed under a territorial charter. 2Illinois: does not permit charter adoption, 34 small villages and towns still hold charters from the 1800's. Although they lack a charter, 209 cities have home rule powers. 3Kansas: all cities are able to enact charter ordinances making every city, in effect, a charter city. 4Massachusetts: this includes 90 cities and towns with home rule charters and 60 with special act charters. 5Missouri: this includes 38 home rule charters and 6 special legislative charters 6Wisconsin: Milwaukee is the only city with a private act charter, but all cities and villages are able to enact charter ordinances making each, in effect, a charter city or village. 7Wyoming: all cities and towns are able to enact charter ordinances making each, in effect, a charter city or town. 7 cities have exercised this power to adopt a charter ordinance | ||||||||
States that only allow general law counties
- Alabama1
- Arkansas
- Delaware
- Georgia2
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Mississippi
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Mexico3
- North Carolina
- South Carolina4
- Texas
- Vermont
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
1Alabama: no county has a charter, but Shelby and Baldwin county have been granted home rule status by special act of the state legislature.
2Georgia: except for consolidated governments (county-city or county-unincorporated community).
3New Mexico: except for consolidated governments, like the county-city of Los Alamos.
4South Carolina: except for consolidated governments, none currently exist.
States that only allow general law municipalities
1Idaho: does not permit charter adoption, Bellevue continues to be governed under a territorial charter.
2Illinois: does not permit charter adoption, 34 small villages and towns still hold charters from the 1800's. Although they lack a charter, 209 cities have home rule powers.
External links
References
- ↑ Encyclopedia of Chicago, Municipal Charters
- ↑ Kansas Constitution, Article 12, Section 5
- ↑ League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Organization and Powers of Cities and Villages
- ↑ Wyoming Association of Municipalities, Home Rule in Wyoming
- ↑ National Association of Counties, City-County Consolidation Proposals 1921-Present
- ↑ National League of Cities List of Consolidated City-County Governments
- ↑ Website of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Stilwell, Jason, The Sales Tax Revenue Implications and Administrative Efficacy of Colorado Municipal Home Rule, 2000 (citing others)
- ↑ Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund website
- ↑ Cal Watchdog, Push for charter cities enrages unions, December 19, 2012
- ↑ North County Times, "EDITORIAL: Yes on P", September 29, 2012
- ↑ Escondido Citizens Charter Watch, "Arguments against Measure P"
See also
