BIDDEFORD — In a public hearing Thursday night, the Charter Revision Commission took input from residents on proposed revisions to the city’s charter.

In the end, it decided to withhold revealing ballot details in favor of discussing them at a later date.

The proposed revisions to the charter have been the subject of debate among members of the public and the City Council. On July 19, Councilor Rick Laverriere voiced his strong disapproval of the commission’s proposed six-question ballot, calling it a “disservice to the city” to not lay out all proposed changes as individual questions.

If the commission did put forth each proposed change to the charter as a separate question, there would be 30 individual questions on the Nov. 8 ballot.

“Tonight’s purpose is for us to conduct a public hearing so we can hear from you again on anything we may have missed going through the charter, or maybe that you found something new that we have not done or omitted,” said Paul Therrien, chairman of the Charter Revision Commission. “Our purpose here tonight is to hear from you, the citizens, on the charter.”

Several members of the public spoke in favor of the proposed changes, which include establishing a residency requirement for the city manager and school superintendent unless otherwise approved by the City Council, an exemption that does not currently exist; increases in compensation for city councilors and school committee members; removal of the police and fire commissions; and addressing powers of the mayor and City Council.

City Councilors have taken particular issue with an “All Other” proposed revisions section, which outlines 13 recommended revisions such as the establishment of a five-year capital improvement program for the city and changes to the city’s budget approval process.

“‘All Other’ is a waste of ink, because somebody will find something they don’t like out of those 13,” Councilor Michael Swanton said at Thursday’s public hearing. “As Rick Laverriere pointed out at the last council meeting, he wouldn’t support ‘All Other,’ and I wouldn’t either.

“It’s doomed to fail, because it’s asking questions that are unrelated to each other. The dots need to be filled in. It just doesn’t make sense.”

Swanton’s wife, Susan Swanton, said she doesn’t agree with budget changes to the charter that would automatically approve the city manager’s proposed budget should the council fail to adopt a city budget by the beginning of the fiscal year.

“There are real issues around forcing a budget if the council can’t adopt its budget in the time allotted. I don’t think this city’s professional staff nor its council tries not to pass a budget,” she said. “I would be far more comfortable if they do not come to a decision in the time allotted, that they get to do a month-to-month time continuation.”

Other residents took issue with the suggested funding mechanism for a proposed five-year capital improvement plan, which would be an annual reserve of one-tenth the cost of a citywide revaluation, an amount Therrien said is about $1.1 million a year.

Resident and property owner David Flood said he would be hesitant to approve such a mechanism without seeing exactly how it would affect the city’s tax rate.

“I think there should be a funding mechanism. I just think it’s important that you be transparent to the voters that with the CIP, there will be an added 50 cents on the mil rate. I think it’s important the voters know that can affect the mil rate on a continual basis,” Flood said.

“I think it’s confusing to know what’s being asked,” Flood continued. “I agree with Councilor Laverriere that if you could do each (question separately), at least some of them would be passed. I think it’s more likely that you would get more of what you want if you had individual questions.”

Another major point of contention Thursday was the suggested removal of the police and fire commissions in favor of police and fire advisory groups.

“I think it’s a mistake to eliminate (the commissions). I think we do good work, I think we’re good people, and we serve a purpose in the community,” said Fire Commissioner Roger Gelinas.

Gelinas also said the changes should be presented on the ballot as individual questions and not grouped together.

“I’m not going to vote for something I don’t want. If you group them together with something I don’t like, I’m going to vote no,” he said.

Commissioner Robert Provencher attempted to convince the public of the benefits of a bundled-question ballot.

“We encourage you to look through these items and, if we go with the groupings, if there’s one item you don’t like in there, or two items you don’t like but you can live with it, we would encourage you, if you can live with it, to vote positive,” he said. “It’s a question of, ‘If you can live with it or can’t you?’”

Ultimately, the commission did not decide to discuss the format of the ballot, instead choosing to meet at a later date to go over the final questions once receiving advice from the city attorney.

Therrien said the public would be allowed to speak at that meeting, but that the question bundles as proposed were in the hands of Corporation Counsel and, although not finalized, were “the direction we’re going.”

— Staff Writer Alan Bennett can be contacted at 282-1535, ext. 329 or [email protected]. Marissa Heffernan contributed to this report.