Council discusses adding charter language to require supermajority for annexations across rural boundary; members ask for clearer drafting

At the end of the work session councilors discussed a late proposal to place a charter amendment on the ballot that would require a four‑fifths council affirmative vote to approve annexations of real property (the draft would add a sentence to section 2.02 of the city charter). Proponents framed the change as an added local safeguard to resist potential state or county efforts to alter or skirt existing rural‑boundary protections.

Council reactions were mixed. Several members said they support stronger local control to protect rural boundary policies; others raised two concerns: (1) the draft language is broad and could unintentionally require a supermajority for ordinary enclave cleanups or small, uncontroversial annexations, and (2) referencing the county’s rural boundary in charter language could create legal fragility if state law later alters that boundary. Several council members asked legal staff to rework the language to target only annexations that cross the county’s rural boundary (or to exclude enclaves) and bring a clarified draft back for consideration.

Next steps: Staff said the supervisor of elections could accept timely submissions if a first reading and adoption schedule is met; several council members asked for time to refine wording and to better define carve‑outs for routine enclave annexations. No formal ballot placement or vote was taken at the session.