The committee reviewed the charter’s preparatory synopsis and references to home rule, debating whether portions are redundant and what must remain for legal compliance.

Members said some synopsis paragraphs read as historical or redundant material and suggested those could be trimmed. Colleen and the city attorney explained that certain statements are required in a charter and that during the 1976 codification some language was reinserted or maintained for statutory conformity. Staff also noted the City’s prior charter review group produced more than 30 recommendations and council advanced only a subset for the ballot; the committee said staff-provided materials help avoid redoing prior work.

Committee members asked for clearer in‑charter definitions of “home rule” and other legal phrases and asked staff to identify which synopsis elements are mandatory and which are candidate edits. Staff said it will prepare a memo outlining what must remain for compliance and what could be “wordsmithed” or rephrased for clarity.

No formal decisions were taken; staff will prepare a list showing which parts of the prefatory synopsis are required by statute and which are candidate revisions for the committee to consider.