Charter Revision Commission approves sending revised Big Rapids charter to Michigan Attorney General; outreach planned
January 15, 2026 | Big Rapids, Mecosta County, Michigan
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Big Rapids Charter Revision Commission voted on Jan. 14 to submit its revised city charter to the Michigan Attorney General and the governor for review and approval, and discussed next steps for placing the measure on a ballot in 2026.
Commission members agreed they will deliver a clean copy—free of tracked changes and editorial comments—to the Attorney General’s office and await the office’s letter before asking the City Commission to pass a resolution to put the charter before voters. The commission was warned the pre-election ballot-language certification deadline of May 12 could make aiming for an Aug. 4, 2026 primary ballot difficult if state turnaround is slow; the Nov. 3, 2026 general election remains the fallback option. The commission also discussed charter language that sets an effective date for the measure if approved by electors, noting examples in the draft such as Jan. 12, 2027.
Why this matters: approving the submission starts the formal state review and sets the clock for local steps required to reach voters. The commission also set a public-engagement strategy to help residents understand substantive changes rather than distributing the full 39‑page tracked‑change document.
Key facts and procedure
- The commission agreed to remove yellow highlighting and margin comments so a single, clean version can be submitted to the Attorney General and governor.
- Staff noted available funds for outreach: the contracted services account and a supplies line with a balance "close to $8,000" to be used for public information activities.
- The commission discussed several election/timing scenarios: submitting for the August 4, 2026 primary would require meeting the May 12 ballot-language certification deadline; otherwise the charter would be submitted for the November 3, 2026 general election. The draft includes sample effective dates (including Jan. 12, 2027) that will be finalized as part of the submission.
Public engagement plans
Commissioners outlined a staged outreach campaign that they said would avoid overwhelming residents with the full draft. Elements discussed included:
- Small, mixed-focus groups (targeted for March) using survey respondents as an initial recruit pool to test reactions and surface questions for broader sessions; the commission agreed to plan content in February.
- Mail outreach targeting recent voters (household-level sampling to reduce postage), with staff offering to pull voter lists for representative sampling.
- Digital and earned media: a concise explanatory web page showing "old vs. new" language, inserts in the city newsletter, and radio interviews (WYBR) and podcasts to reach local listeners.
- Low-volume yard-sign placement and inexpensive postcard runs as low-cost visibility tools; Brian Paholka was asked to gather sign pricing.
Votes at a glance
- Resolution excusing Foster from the meeting: motion moved and seconded; approved by voice vote (ayes recorded). (Recorded at the meeting; no formal roll-call tally beyond voice vote was provided.)
- Resolution to submit the revised charter to the Michigan Attorney General and governor: motion moved by Stacy Weaver (as agreed) and seconded by James (Jim) Brown; roll call recorded yes votes from Brown, Cochran, Hoganson, Mets, Pahulka and Weaver. Neil was noted absent. (Vote recorded on meeting packet/roll-call.)
What’s next
Staff will prepare the clean submission for the Attorney General and governor and then present the commission’s approved version to the City Commission, which must pass a resolution to place the charter question on the ballot. Commissioners set a follow-up meeting for Feb. 11 to plan focus-group content and outreach logistics.
Attribution note: many substantive comments in the meeting transcript are spoken by participants identified only by in-meeting speaker numbers; where a named speaker is recorded in the transcript (for example in the roll call), the article attributes statements to that named person or otherwise reports the commission’s discussion without attributing unattributed remarks to a specific individual. The article does not infer speaker identities beyond names explicitly used in the meeting record.
Ending
The commission closed the session after finishing administrative items and scheduling the next meeting to finalize outreach details and timing.
Commission members agreed they will deliver a clean copy—free of tracked changes and editorial comments—to the Attorney General’s office and await the office’s letter before asking the City Commission to pass a resolution to put the charter before voters. The commission was warned the pre-election ballot-language certification deadline of May 12 could make aiming for an Aug. 4, 2026 primary ballot difficult if state turnaround is slow; the Nov. 3, 2026 general election remains the fallback option. The commission also discussed charter language that sets an effective date for the measure if approved by electors, noting examples in the draft such as Jan. 12, 2027.
Why this matters: approving the submission starts the formal state review and sets the clock for local steps required to reach voters. The commission also set a public-engagement strategy to help residents understand substantive changes rather than distributing the full 39‑page tracked‑change document.
Key facts and procedure
- The commission agreed to remove yellow highlighting and margin comments so a single, clean version can be submitted to the Attorney General and governor.
- Staff noted available funds for outreach: the contracted services account and a supplies line with a balance "close to $8,000" to be used for public information activities.
- The commission discussed several election/timing scenarios: submitting for the August 4, 2026 primary would require meeting the May 12 ballot-language certification deadline; otherwise the charter would be submitted for the November 3, 2026 general election. The draft includes sample effective dates (including Jan. 12, 2027) that will be finalized as part of the submission.
Public engagement plans
Commissioners outlined a staged outreach campaign that they said would avoid overwhelming residents with the full draft. Elements discussed included:
- Small, mixed-focus groups (targeted for March) using survey respondents as an initial recruit pool to test reactions and surface questions for broader sessions; the commission agreed to plan content in February.
- Mail outreach targeting recent voters (household-level sampling to reduce postage), with staff offering to pull voter lists for representative sampling.
- Digital and earned media: a concise explanatory web page showing "old vs. new" language, inserts in the city newsletter, and radio interviews (WYBR) and podcasts to reach local listeners.
- Low-volume yard-sign placement and inexpensive postcard runs as low-cost visibility tools; Brian Paholka was asked to gather sign pricing.
Votes at a glance
- Resolution excusing Foster from the meeting: motion moved and seconded; approved by voice vote (ayes recorded). (Recorded at the meeting; no formal roll-call tally beyond voice vote was provided.)
- Resolution to submit the revised charter to the Michigan Attorney General and governor: motion moved by Stacy Weaver (as agreed) and seconded by James (Jim) Brown; roll call recorded yes votes from Brown, Cochran, Hoganson, Mets, Pahulka and Weaver. Neil was noted absent. (Vote recorded on meeting packet/roll-call.)
What’s next
Staff will prepare the clean submission for the Attorney General and governor and then present the commission’s approved version to the City Commission, which must pass a resolution to place the charter question on the ballot. Commissioners set a follow-up meeting for Feb. 11 to plan focus-group content and outreach logistics.
Attribution note: many substantive comments in the meeting transcript are spoken by participants identified only by in-meeting speaker numbers; where a named speaker is recorded in the transcript (for example in the roll call), the article attributes statements to that named person or otherwise reports the commission’s discussion without attributing unattributed remarks to a specific individual. The article does not infer speaker identities beyond names explicitly used in the meeting record.
Ending
The commission closed the session after finishing administrative items and scheduling the next meeting to finalize outreach details and timing.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
