Council discusses process, timing and term‑limit options for a possible charter election

City Attorney and staff led a work session reviewing the city’s prior charter review (committee meetings, outside consultant support, and the November election that followed) and offered options for any new charter process. The attorney summarized the previous process: council appointed a diverse committee that met eight times, produced multiple propositions that the council consolidated, and then presented ballot language to voters (about 8,900 votes were cast in the prior election).

Council members debated revisiting proposals on term lengths, staggered terms and term limits. The committee’s earlier suggestion included four‑year terms with limits tied to office/seat and staggered elections to preserve continuity; council members noted that when separate proposals were merged in the prior election, voters rejected the combined term‑limit/term‑length proposition while approving other measures.

Members discussed election timing and cost. Several council members said they prefer holding a charter election in May 2027 to align with municipal elections and avoid the full cost of a stand‑alone city election (staff said a city‑only election can exceed $100,000; splitting costs with other entities in November had previously reduced the cost nearer $74,000). The City Attorney outlined procedural timelines: ballot language for a May election is typically due in January/February, so council would need to appoint a committee promptly, begin meetings over the summer and present language for council consideration by fall.

Council also raised process considerations: whether the charter committee’s chair should present the work directly to council (some members said hearing from committee members—not just the consultant—would improve communication) and whether council should be able to place referendum questions or survey voters before finalizing ballot language. The City Attorney cautioned that municipal resources cannot be used to advocate for or against ballot propositions and that staff is limited to educational communications.

No final vote to call an election was recorded in the transcript; council members asked staff to return with options and timing. The meeting record shows broad interest in a measured timeline (committee formation in spring/summer and ballot language by January for a May election) and differing preferences on whether to aim for November or May.