Council divides over rushing ballot notification for possible charter amendments; mayor seeks county notice, critics call it process abuse

Mayor opened a council-level discussion about whether to notify the county that the city might submit charter amendments for the November ballot. The mayor described the proposed action as limited: informing the county that the city "may have items" and allowing the city to meet election scheduling deadlines.

Several council members pushed back strongly, calling the approach an "abuse of process" and arguing citizens should have an opportunity to weigh in earlier in the timeline rather than after council's internal decisions. One council member said unilateral agenda changes and last-minute amendments would deprive citizens of meaningful input; another argued elected officials have a mandate to evaluate issues and then involve the public when a measure is settled enough to present.

City clerk staff provided historical ballot-cost figures (example: $4,889 invoiced in the most recent coordinated election and a higher invoice of $21,866 in 2024 when additional notices were required). Legal counsel indicated the latest date for finalizing ballot language would be the first regular meeting in September to meet county schedules for the coordinated election.

Council discussion was heated and procedural: the mayor sought direction and several council members said they preferred more time and public process. The mayor indicated a head nod to amend the agenda and proceed; opponents reiterated they would not support what they described as rushing the effort. No formal action to place amendments on the ballot occurred during the work session; staff noted the city could notify the county and later cancel without cost if it did not submit final language.