I am opposed to the City of Orange becoming a Charter City, primarily due to the costs involved. From the costs to place the measure on the ballot, administrative costs of additional time required to prepare nonstandard documents, to the costs of possible litigation risk around governance authority, it doesn't make sense considering our current city funds. It appears that the main purpose of becoming a Charter City is in the area of procurement and contracts. Although a bidding process required by state code may take some time, the rules are clear and protect us. As stated in the Pros and Cons Attachment, becoming a Charter City would not exempt us from matters of Statewide Concerns, which I believe are the most critical areas that are already being addressed. I also don't think it is necessary to be a Charter City to develop a strong local identity. We already have one. At this time, I believe remaining a General Law City is in our best interests for all the reasons clearly stated in the Pros and Cons Attachment. Thank you.
Hello City Council Members and Mayor Slater, I'm a resident of District 1. I'm writing to express my opposition to turning the city of Orange into a Charter City. At this point in time, it seems like it would be a distraction from focusing on the pressing issues that the city is facing. In particular, strengthening the city's finances.
I emphatically OPPOSE the City becoming a Charter City.
Transitioning to a Charter City would create very costly long-term administrative obligations and would limit the City’s ability to maintain Local autonomy. Legal costs would soar. There would be less flexibility in procurement and contracting. There would be continuous difficulty in determining if issues are statewide vs municipal. The charter processes would require a very costly election for voter approval. In light of these and several other concerns, why would the City Council put any more effort in discussing the topic of a Charter City? Really, why? Just stop!
I support moving forward with the charter city process and giving the residents of Orange the opportunity to vote on it. A charter is fundamentally about local control, allowing our community to make decisions about our own elections, governance structure, and municipal priorities rather than relying solely on Sacramento’s one-size-fits-all rules. Charter cities have greater flexibility in areas like procurement, contracting, and local governance, which can help cities deliver projects more efficiently and tailor policies to the needs of their residents.
Most importantly, this process is about transparency and letting voters decide. The proposed timeline provides multiple public hearings and ultimately places the question before the voters in November 2026, ensuring the community has time to review the charter and weigh in before any change takes effect. I encourage the Council to continue engaging residents, refining the proposal, and allowing the people of Orange to determine whether a charter city is the right step.
I am opposed to the City of Orange becoming a Charter City, primarily due to the costs involved. From the costs to place the measure on the ballot, administrative costs of additional time required to prepare nonstandard documents, to the costs of possible litigation risk around governance authority, it doesn't make sense considering our current city funds. It appears that the main purpose of becoming a Charter City is in the area of procurement and contracts. Although a bidding process required by state code may take some time, the rules are clear and protect us. As stated in the Pros and Cons Attachment, becoming a Charter City would not exempt us from matters of Statewide Concerns, which I believe are the most critical areas that are already being addressed. I also don't think it is necessary to be a Charter City to develop a strong local identity. We already have one. At this time, I believe remaining a General Law City is in our best interests for all the reasons clearly stated in the Pros and Cons Attachment. Thank you.
Hello City Council Members and Mayor Slater, I'm a resident of District 1. I'm writing to express my opposition to turning the city of Orange into a Charter City. At this point in time, it seems like it would be a distraction from focusing on the pressing issues that the city is facing. In particular, strengthening the city's finances.
Unintended costs associated with charter would exacerbate the budget deficit.
I emphatically OPPOSE the City becoming a Charter City.
Transitioning to a Charter City would create very costly long-term administrative obligations and would limit the City’s ability to maintain Local autonomy. Legal costs would soar. There would be less flexibility in procurement and contracting. There would be continuous difficulty in determining if issues are statewide vs municipal. The charter processes would require a very costly election for voter approval. In light of these and several other concerns, why would the City Council put any more effort in discussing the topic of a Charter City? Really, why? Just stop!
I support moving forward with the charter city process and giving the residents of Orange the opportunity to vote on it. A charter is fundamentally about local control, allowing our community to make decisions about our own elections, governance structure, and municipal priorities rather than relying solely on Sacramento’s one-size-fits-all rules. Charter cities have greater flexibility in areas like procurement, contracting, and local governance, which can help cities deliver projects more efficiently and tailor policies to the needs of their residents.
Most importantly, this process is about transparency and letting voters decide. The proposed timeline provides multiple public hearings and ultimately places the question before the voters in November 2026, ensuring the community has time to review the charter and weigh in before any change takes effect. I encourage the Council to continue engaging residents, refining the proposal, and allowing the people of Orange to determine whether a charter city is the right step.