City leaders took a step forward in changing Austin’s charter Monday evening, but work is still left to be done before the document is officially revised — work that will likely spill into early next year.

The city council met with the charter commission to review what has been almost two years’ worth of revisions, which has included shortening the document by roughly 100 pages and making it a more modern text. But for the changes to take effect, the commission needs unanimous council approval.

Getting to that point could take some time. After Monday’s joint meeting, the commission will meet in coming weeks to consider a few recommendations, including two from the League of Minnesota Cities. Then, another joint meeting will be held on Dec. 21 for the two sides to again discuss the document together.

And after that, of course, the city needs to call a public hearing and put the new charter up for a vote.

Put it all together, and sometime in January 2010 looks like a realistic target.

“I hope the council does pass it,” Mayor Tom Stiehm said. “A lot of work has gone into it.”

And the mayor would know, given that he’s sat in on plenty of the commission’s meetings.

Many of those meetings were focused on modernizing the document, through changes such as removing male-only terminology (“policeman,” “fireman”), eliminating archaic language and making the charter more readable overall.

The commission also had to change some areas of the charter that no longer aligned with state statute. After all, much has changed since the charter’s last substantial overhaul in 1923.

But there were also more substantive questions that required many hours of discussion and debate.

For instance, the commission is recommending that the term for mayor and councilmember at-large be bumped from two to four years. They also want to allow the mayor to vote if the council reaches a tie vote, something he or she can’t do currently.

These suggestions largely escaped criticism, but a few council members raised questions and concerns.

John Martin, who said he ultimately didn’t want to see the charter “messed with,” said he was concerned about some items requiring simple majority votes, while others require two-thirds. He also raised issue with how to reach two-thirds with a seven-member council.

City attorney David Hoversten said state statute requires two-thirds votes on certain items and said it is generally understood that this means five votes on a seven-member council.

Councilwoman Marian Clennon said she was concerned with moving job descriptions for certain city workers from the charter to various ordinances. She said having them in the charter makes them hard to change, which she said is good.

However, councilman Jeff Austin disagreed, noting that job descriptions are often fluid and can require regular revisions.

City clerk Lucy Johnson agreed with Austin and said her position has in fact not been recognized in the charter for the more than 20 years she has done it. By moving job descriptions to ordinances, she said, maybe this could change.

“The charter takes too much time and effort to change,” she said.

Brian McAlister, Ward 1 councilman, also said he had a few qualms with the document, but added that the changes represented a “vast improvement.”

McAlister, a former Austin police captain, said it is “no secret” that he doesn’t think the mayor should ultimately be in charge of the police chief and the police department — an item left in from the old charter. Instead, he wants to see the council hold that responsibility. McAlister also said he was concerned with increasing the term lengths of the mayor and councilmember at-large.

But overall, McAlister, along with the council generally, showed support for the revisions.

“I congratulate you on this process,” councilman Steve King said. “There is nothing I would change.”