The tables below compare the four models across six dimensions. They are intended to describe the models, not recommend one over another.
DECISION AUTHORITY
| GA | Council | GA w/ Select Board | GA 2.0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Who votes on ordinances | Registered voters attending the meeting | Council members | Registered voters attending the meeting | Registered voters attending the meeting |
| Who votes on the budget | Registered voters attending the meeting | Council members | Registered voters attending the meeting | Registered voters attending the meeting |
| Resident direct vote on decisions | Yes, at every monthly meeting | No; council votes on behalf of residents | Yes, at quarterly GA meetings | Yes, at every monthly meeting |
| Accountability to residents | Voters decide directly at each meeting | Voters select council members at periodic elections | GA retains override authority over Select Board; Select Board faces periodic elections | Voters decide directly at each meeting |
MEETING STRUCTURE
| GA | Council | GA w/ Select Board | GA 2.0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary governing body meeting frequency | Monthly | Set by charter; monthly to bi-weekly | GA quarterly; Select Board monthly to bi-weekly | Monthly |
| Quorum | Seven registered voters | Defined in new charter (quorum set relative to council size) | GA quorum: defined in new charter (may differ from current seven); Select Board quorum: set relative to defined board size | Some number or percentage of registered voters (subject to charter amendment) |
GOVERNING AUTHORITY BETWEEN FORMAL VOTES
| GA | Council | GA w/ Select Board | GA 2.0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to act without a vote of the primary governing body | Town Manager carries out GA directives within general administrative authority; no independent legislative or contract authority above $5,000 | Town Manager acts within standing authority delegated by Council; Council itself exercises continuous governing authority | Select Board holds charter-level administrative and executive authority between GA sessions within defined limits; acts by resolution rather than ordinance; Town Manager executes directives from both GA and Select Board | Town Manager carries out GA directives within general administrative authority* |
| Contract authority without a formal vote | No contract authority above $5,000 without GA approval | Town Manager acts within Council-delegated contract limits | Select Board authorizes contracts within defined dollar thresholds; larger contracts require GA vote | No contract authority above $5,000 without GA approval* |
| Emergency authority without a formal vote | Town Manager acts within general administrative functions; no defined emergency executive authority | Town Manager acts within Council-delegated authority | Select Board acts and reports to next GA meeting | Town Manager acts within general administrative functions* |
| Executive session participation continuity | No fixed membership; participants at any given meeting may differ from those at prior meetings | Council members participate consistently across sessions | Select Board members participate consistently across sessions | No fixed membership; participants at any given meeting may differ from those at prior meetings |
EXECUTIVE STRUCTURE
| GA | Council | GA w/ Select Board | GA 2.0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elected positions | Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Town Clerk, Treasurer | Council members; Mayor (elected or appointed per charter) | Select Board members (3-5); existing officer roles reorganized within Board framework | Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Town Clerk, Treasurer (unchanged) |
| Town Manager role | Carries out GA directives; no defined independent authority in current charter | Hired by and reports to Council; exercises significant delegated administrative authority | Reports to Select Board day-to-day; implements policy set by GA | Carries out GA directives; role may be formally defined under structural reforms |
CHARTER AND ADOPTION REQUIREMENTS
| GA | Council | GA w/ Select Board | GA 2.0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charter amendment scope | Housekeeping updates only; no structural change | Full charter rewrite required | Significant new articles required; major revision of existing articles | Varies: some reforms require ordinance only; others require charter amendment |
| Electorate vote required to adopt | No | Yes | Yes | Depends on which reforms are pursued |
| Reliance on established municipal models | Ophir and Ward are the only two examples of this form in Colorado | Extensive Colorado precedent; town attorney can draw on existing templates | No Colorado precedent; design draws on New England Town Meeting tradition | Builds on existing GA structure; structural reforms may draw on precedent or require novel drafting |
| Implementation cost considerations | Attorney review required for housekeeping updates even without structural change | Extensive charter revision and election restructuring | Extensive charter revision and election restructuring | Costs depend on which reforms are adopted |
Methodology note: The tables describe how each model works. When a model does not include a particular body or mechanism, the tables explain how that function is handled instead of treating the absence as a problem. The Charter and Adoption Requirements table explains what would be required to adopt each model; it is informational and not meant to judge which model is better or worse.
GA 2.0 is a range of possible reforms, not a single fixed proposal. The tables show the shared baseline structure. Asterisked cells mark areas where the specific reform chosen would change the outcome.
Note for committee review: The "Reliance on established municipal models" row is under committee review and may be moved or removed in the final version, as it reflects contextual background rather than a governance characteristic.
A Note on Implementation Costs
Every governance path would involve some implementation cost. Even keeping Ophir's current governance structure would likely require attorney review and charter drafting for housekeeping updates the committee identified during its work.
What changes across the different options is primarily the scale of legal and administrative work involved. More substantial structural changes, such as creating a Town Council or Select Board system, would likely require more extensive charter revisions, election changes, and related legal drafting. Some models would also require decisions about compensation for newly elected positions.
The committee has not attempted to estimate dollar amounts. Actual costs would depend on the scope of changes adopted, attorney rates, and future implementation decisions made by the town.