Council debates Renshaw ballot wording; city attorney warns against argumentative language

Councilors returned repeatedly to the wording of a proposed November ballot question that would authorize the sale or disposition of the Renshaw Senior Apartments and direct proceeds toward senior services. The city attorney advised that ballot language must be factual and non‑argumentative under the Home Rule Cities Act and that the explanatory statement must avoid advocacy.

Some council members favored simplifying the question to a straight 'sell or not sell' prompt so voters decide the threshold issue without implied uses of proceeds; others wanted the explanatory statement retained to give voters factual context. "The explanatory statement is factual — 'If approved, the proceeds of any sale would be directed towards the sustainment and improvement of senior services' — but we must avoid argument," the city attorney said. Multiple council members asked the attorney to remove the phrase 'but not limited to' and to return a tightened draft for council review.

Council did not take a final vote on the ballot language but asked the city attorney to prepare revised text and to email the council the cleaned version; members discussed that whether proceeds would be explicitly dedicated to senior services or left for council discretion could be clarified in the ballot language or left to post‑vote council action. The item will return to council for finalization ahead of the clerk's ministerial duties to put the question on the ballot.