Forty years ago, the National Municipal League (now known as the National Civic League) spearheaded the development of a model county charter. Updated in 1990, that document serves as a guiding force for many charter commissions with its recommendations regarding the power of the county, the structure and operation of the county council, and other matters.
A recent review of existing county charters indicates, however, that each is like a human fingerprint — i.e., unique. Beyond common provisions (e.g., those that establish the form of government and set the terms of office for county officials), each charter reflects the special interests and priorities of the community.
Environmental protection obviously is foremost on the minds of Volusia County, Fla. residents. That county’s charter directs the county government to prevent the development or use of land or activities by persons, partnerships or corporations which will tend to destroy or have a substantially adverse effect on the environment of the County.”
Drafters of the charter for the newly consolidated government of the City of Lafayette and Lafayette Parish, La., for example, took great pains to set forth procedures to govern in the temporary absence of the chief elected official.
They also delineated the standards to be used in determining the disability of the president and detailed the steps to be followed in the event that he/she is physically/mentally unable to perform his/her official duties.
Other charters clearly reflect unique philosophies of county residents toward the management of the public’s business.
Views about the desired role and cost of government are embodied in the charter adopted by Cass County, N. D. voters in 1994, which contains language limiting the county’s taxing authority. Article 9, Section 2 bars the county from levying property taxes in excess of 75 mills unless the levy is approved by county residents at a regular county election. A similar ban applies on the adoption of any new tax.
The growing public emphasis on achieving cost-effective, efficient government is demonstrated by Section 9.25 of the Pierce County, Wash. charter. That provision declares “It shall be mandatory that all County policy makers avoid waste and duplication in equipment, services, and facilities of a nature common to Pierce County and adjacent municipal corporations in such matters as public works, social services, utilities, police and fire protection through common usage wherever possible.”
Although many experts would advise that charters contain only broad guidelines for the structure and operation of a county government, some charters contain very specific directives regarding the administration and management of county government. The Hillsborough County, Fla. charter offers a case in point as it provides, in part, that:
“The county administrator shall be a full-time officer who holds a masters degree in public administration, management, or (a) related field and shall have three years of executive or management experience in public administration. The county administrator shall be appointed by an affirmative vote of not less than five members of the board of county commissioners and may be removed at any time by an affirmative vote of not less than five members of the board or upon the affirmative vote of four members at each of two regular meetings not less than 13 days apart and no more than 28 days apart.”
County officials in San Mateo County, Calif. are specifically required by charter to report all monies received to the controller and to deposit all funds with the treasurer “not later than the business day following receipt unless a later date is authorized by ordinance.”
Placer County, Calif. charter gives preference to vendors residing within the county if “the combinations of price, quality, terms and other conditions of sale are substantially equal.” (San Mateo and El Dorado counties have similar charter provisions.) Furthermore, that document provides for indexing of the threshold amounts at which bids must be sought.
In situations where bidding is required by general law, the threshold amounts must be “adjusted annually by the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Index or subsequent index.”
(Samples of various county charters are available from the NACo research staff by calling 202/942-4285. Copies of the Model County Charter and its companion report, Guide for Charter Commissions, may be obtained from the National Civic League, 1445 Market Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202-1728, phone: 303/571-4343.)
(Research News was written by Sharon Lawrence, research director)