The questions below are the ones the committee explored but deliberately did not answer, because they require community input and would need to be resolved before a new charter could be responsibly drafted. These are not gaps the committee overlooked; they are the decisions that belong to Ophir's residents.
Council Size. The range examined was 3 to 7 members. Comparable town data and Ophir's candidate pool both bear on this question. The committee did not close it.
Term Length. Both 3-year and 4-year terms remain open. The appropriate length depends in part on how the term limits question is resolved; neither was settled in isolation.
Term Limits. Whether limits should apply, what the limit should be, and whether a waiting period before re-election would be required were all examined without resolution.
Staggering Structure. Initial terms of mixed lengths would be needed to create staggered elections from the outset. The specific structure was not designed.
Mayor's Between-Meeting Authority. The scope and limits of mayoral authority between council meetings, beyond ceremonial and emergency functions, require both research into comparable-town practice and attorney review of what a new charter may authorize.
Primary Residency Qualification. Whether primary Ophir residency should be an explicit enumerated qualification for council membership, and if so how primary residency would be defined and verified, were both examined without resolution.
Petition-Triggered Community Meeting. Whether such a provision should be included, and if so how it would be structured, remain open. Specific unresolved elements: the petition threshold, the scope of matters that may be brought, the authority of the resulting meeting (advisory vs. binding), and the procedure for calling and conducting it. Attorney review of what is permissible under Colorado home rule law is a prerequisite to any charter language.
Representation Structure. Whether seats should be at-large, geographically distributed, or a combination was examined. Options discussed included guaranteed representation for east Ophir and old Ophir, ranging from one seat per district to two per district with one at-large. No position was reached.
Compensation. The approach, structure, and amounts for council compensation require community deliberation and budget analysis before any figure can be responsibly recommended. Compensation design affects who can realistically afford to serve and is a factor in how the question is framed for community input. The funding source within the town budget requires definition.
Meeting Frequency. Monthly meetings with special meetings as needed is the pattern in comparable towns. The appropriate frequency for Ophir and its effect on total annual meeting load was not specified.
Election Mechanics. How council elections would be conducted, whether the existing January election date structure would carry forward, whether mail balloting would be used, and how the transition from the current GA officer election structure would be managed all require definition.
Vacancies. How mid-term council vacancies would be filled: by council appointment, special election, or advancing the next highest vote-getter. Each approach carries different legitimacy implications.
Recall Provisions. Whether and how the new charter would provide for recall of elected council members. The current charter provides for recall by GA petition with 20 signatures; a council-model equivalent would need to be designed.
Quorum and Supermajority Thresholds. Quorum and any supermajority requirements would need to be specified in the new charter. Under a 5-member council, these thresholds carry significant weight.
Administrative Infrastructure. The Town Manager and Municipal Clerk roles, their authority, accountability structures, and removal procedures, would require explicit definition in the new charter. Whether existing administrative capacity is sufficient or whether additional capacity would be needed is a related question.