HUTTO — A charter review committee worked for six months to develop a wish list of changes to the document that rules how Hutto is run. In February, City Council approved adding 16 ballot propositions for proposed amendments to the Hutto Home Rule Charter in a special election set for May 4.
Many of the propositions were for clarifying outdated terms or bringing rules into alignment with state law, city leaders said.
“Anytime we can clarify is good. I don’t like contention over what something means,” Council Member Dan Thornton said in a Feb. 15 council workshop to approve the wording that will be on the ballot.
Voters will be asked to vote for or against each of the 16 proposed amendments to the city’s charter. Following is a list of what a “for” vote would mean.
Proposition 1: A “for” vote would change the charter wording to specify the Mayor and City Council receive a salary rather than a “compensation” and add that the salary is subject to limitations imposed by the state.
Proposition 2: A “for” vote would add a provision that Mayor Pro Tem is to be chosen by the newly elected City Council at the first meeting after conclusion of all regular and run-off elections.
Proposition 3: A “for” vote would amend the charter to remove the Mayor and any City Council member from office for failing to maintain the qualifications for office or for a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or being convicted of specified offenses prohibited by Texas Penal Code.
Proposition 4: A “for” vote would amend the charter to reduce the number of City Council members necessary to establish a quorum from five to four.
Proposition 5: A “for” vote would codify that all members of the City Council in attendance at a meeting must vote upon every resolution or ordinance except where there is a conflict of interest or to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Proposition 6: A “for” vote would remove the second reading requirement so that ordinances may be enacted by one reading, as allowed by state law. It would also specify that the caption of the ordinance be published in the official newspaper.
Proposition 7: A “for” vote would delete the requirement that the City Secretary maintain a certified list of voters registered within the city, because the County Elections Administrator maintains such a list.
Proposition 8: A “for” vote would remove the requirement for a city employee to resign before filing for office — the requirement conflicts with state law. It would make a requirement that a petition signed by 25 qualified voters residing in the city is required for a candidate to be placed on the ballot, deleting the existing requirement for signatures from one half of one percent of total votes.
Proposition 9: A “for” vote would amend that a petition for recall could be signed by a minimum of 10% of the number of qualified voters; that the city secretary certify such petition within two working days; that the signer’s signature be added to the petition for recall; and that the petition be circulated by a qualified voter.
Proposition 10: A “for” vote would amend the charter to require signatures on a petition for recall remain effective for 75 days after the petition is certified and that the city secretary is required to verify a petition for recall within 10 days.
Proposition 11: A “for” vote would decrease the number required to sign a petition for initiative or referendum from 20% to 10% and that petitions for initiative or referendum conform to the appropriate Texas Election Code regulations.
Proposition 12: A “for” vote would allow for additional restrictions by ordinance relating to city manager authority to transfer funds for employee separation pay.
Proposition 13: A “for” vote would delete the requirement for original ink signatures on checks in excess of $5,000 to allow for electronic transmission of such checks.
Proposition 14: A “for” vote would lower the number required to establish a quorum to convene a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to four.
Proposition 15: A “for” vote would amend the ethics section of the charter to use the term “substantial interest” as defined in state law; to add procedures for the Ethics Ordinance; to amend the nepotism requirements as required by state law and to add a provision that the Board of Ethics shall review the ethics ordinance annually.
Proposition 16: A “for” vote would change the charter to prohibit discrimination by creed, color, disability, age, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, transgender, gender identity or gender expression and to amend that a person who violates any provisions of that section as evidenced in a final court judgment or final criminal conviction must forfeit an elected position immediately and is ineligible to be appointed to a position in the city or elected to City Council for four years.
By Texas law, a city can only amend its charter once every two years. If any of these amendments pass, the next opportunity for charter changes will be in 2026.
