Council President opened a lengthy council discussion on July 21 about whether to restore a six-minute public comment period after the council reduced the allotment to four minutes earlier this year.

"Week after week, ... residents coming up to the podium and asking, begging, pleading for their 6 minutes to be restored," the council president said, urging colleagues to consider returning the longer allotment to allow residents more time to finish their remarks and to be on public record.

Council members were sharply divided. Council Member Coyle said he supports restoring six minutes and argued the public's repeated requests should be heeded. "People want to be on public record," he said, pressing that attendees often ask for additional time to make their case.

Other members said the four-minute limit has improved meeting efficiency and that there has not been clear evidence residents are unable to complete substantive remarks within the shorter time. The council vice president asked that data be shared on how many speakers were cut off and suggested looking at other municipalities for comparison before changing the rule.

Several council members noted alternatives: meeting after the formal session to speak with residents, increasing outreach, or restoring limited rebuttal time instead of increasing speaking time for all.

Why it matters: The public comment period is a primary channel for residents to place concerns on the public record. Changes affect transparency, public participation and how the council manages meeting agendas.

What happened next: The council invited public input and signaled it may place the issue on a future agenda for a formal vote; no ordinance repeal or formal vote to restore six minutes occurred during the July 21 meeting.