During a recent government meeting, council members engaged in a heated discussion regarding an amendment to an ordinance related to zoning changes. The meeting began with a motion to approve the adoption of the amendment, which was seconded by Council Member Dickinson. However, Council Member Woodard raised concerns about the timing and appropriateness of the amendment, suggesting that it was coincidental and urging the council to slow down the process.

Woodard proposed a motion to defer the decision for 60 days to allow community members, many of whom were on vacation, to voice their opinions. This motion sparked further discussion, with Council President Kalow expressing support for the referral, emphasizing the need for public understanding of the broader implications of the zoning changes, which could affect the entire city rather than just a single property.

Despite the arguments for deferral, the motion to postpone the decision failed with a vote of 2 in favor and 4 against. The council then returned to the original motion to adopt the amendment. Kalow voiced discomfort with the involvement of department heads and the mayor in facilitating special interest groups to influence council legislation, indicating a lack of support for the amendment.

The meeting highlighted significant concerns about transparency and community engagement in the zoning process, with council members advocating for more public input before moving forward with the ordinance amendment.