Virginia Beach city council requests residents' input on voting system change into charter
The resolution will be ahead of a city council vote where on May 6, councilmembers will vote on if 'the method of City Council elections set forth in the Virginia Beach City Charter be changed from a 'modified 7-3-1' system to a '10-1' system?'
According to the city of Virginia Beach, a yes vote is in support of the 10-1 system, which was used in the 2022 and 2024 City Council elections. A no vote is in support of the 7-3-1 system, which was used in 2021 and is outlined in the current city charter.
VB city council put the issue to vote in November 2024, where the idea to put the 10-1 system in the charter was voted down due to its failure to at least a three-fourths majority.
Previous coverage: VB council votes down putting 10-1 voting system into charter
During November's vote, councilwoman Jennifer Rouse said she supported the 10-1 system because people in her district (District 10) had never seen anyone campaign in that area before the system's introduction.
'People were able to garner votes just from certain pockets of the city, which then meant many neighborhoods and communities were underrepresented because candidates didn't go and speak to those residents to learn about their issues and then to represent them,' said Rouse.
Mayor Bobby Dyer, who stood in support of the 7-3-1 system since being elected in 2004, told 10 on your side in November the 10-1 system had 'a bunch of ambiguity out there' and that it 'would benefit the public to hear both sides of the equation.'
Previous coverage: VB council expected to vote on 10-1 voting system
The city of Virginia Beach provided ways to give your feedback ahead of the May 6 vote:
Provide thoughts, comments and concerns via SpeakUp VB until 11:59 p.m. on May 3, 2025, using any of the following options:
Leave a voicemail by calling 1-855-925-2801. Enter Project Code 11338
Text referendum to 73224
Attend the April 15, 2025, public hearing at 6 p.m. in City Council Chamber, 2401 Courthouse Drive.
Speak virtually during the April 15, 2025, public hearing. Sign up with the City Clerk's Office by calling 757-385-4303.
Email City Council at .
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
North Battleford councillor resigns after pleading guilty to assault
A North Battleford city councillor has resigned his seat after pleading guilty to assault last month. Ross MacAngus, who was re-elected for a second term on North Battleford council on Nov. 13, 2024, entered a guilty plea to a single count of assault at the Court of King's Bench in North Battleford last month. Battlefords RCMP said last year they received a report of a sexual assault in September 2024. After an investigation, a man from North Battleford was charged with sexual assault on Nov. 26, RCMP said. The City of North Battleford and its council issued a joint statement soon after, saying "transparency is one of the fundamental core values of the city." That statement said MacAngus had been charged with a criminal offence, but without a conviction there was no basis to remove him from council. Last month, the sexual assault charge against MacAngus was withdrawn after the councillor pleaded guilty to assault. Late Monday, the City of North Battleford said MacAgnus had resigned as councillor for "personal reasons." His resignation triggers a municipal byelection for the vacant seat. The byelection must be held within six months, and a proposed date for that vote will be brought forward at a council meeting in September, the city said. MacAgnus will remain a councillor until the end of this month. A sentencing hearing on his assault conviction is set for Sept. 4.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Former Austin mayoral candidate sues over TRE ballot language
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A former Austin mayoral candidate is challenging the city over how it is presenting a tax rate election to voters in November. Last week, Austin City Council approved its budget for next fiscal year and set a property tax rate, which is high enough that it triggers a tax rate election, or TRE, in November. Council members also approved an ordinance ordering that special election to be held on Nov. 4. Austin signs off on $6B+ budget, triggering property tax rate election If voters approve the new tax rate, the average homeowner's property tax bill will go up by a total of $302.14 annually. The ordinance council members passed, ordering the TRE, lays out the rules of the election and what will appear on the ballot for voters. According to the ordinance, the TRE will be under Proposition Q on November's ballot, and it will say, 'this is a tax increase,' and describe what the money will go toward. However, Jeffery Bowen, a candidate in the 2024 Austin mayoral race, filed a lawsuit this week claiming that the ballot language as described in the ordinance doesn't make it clear that the property tax hike would be recurring, and that the ballot's description of what taxpayers would get out of the increase is not clear enough. Austin Mayor Kirk Watson, who defeated Bowen for the seat of city mayor last November, provided KXAN with the following statement: 'The City of Austin is confident the ballot language is appropriate and meets all legal requirements. We also have confidence in the court system and will respond in that venue.' The full lawsuit can be viewed below. Original Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus with App_1755530250Download According to the ordinance, the ballot will be prepared to permit voting 'FOR' or 'AGAINST' Proposition Q, which will state the following: CITY OF AUSTIN PROPOSITION QTHIS IS A TAX INCREASE Approving the ad valorem tax rate of $0.574017 per $100 valuation in the City of Austin for the current year, a rate that is $0.05 higher per $100 valuation than the voter-approval tax rate of the City of Austin, for the purpose of funding or expanding programs intended to increase housing affordability and reduce homelessness; improve parks and recreation facilities and services; enhance public health services and public safety; ensure financial stability; and provide for other general fund maintenance and operation expenditures included in the fiscal year 2025 -2026 budget as approved or amended by City Council. Last year, the ad valorem tax rate in the City of Austin was $0.4776 per $100 valuation. According to Bowen's lawsuit, Bowen hand-delivered a letter to the city council on Aug. 13 that outlined the deficiencies in the ballot language, and demanded that the council 'fulfill its nondiscretionary duty to adopt ballot language for the tax increase election that does not mislead voters about the tax increase proposition.' The lawsuit alleged that, 'instead, the Austin City Council prescribed its own ballot language for the tax increase proposition that will grossly mislead voters and promote its passage.' The first issue the lawsuit alleged was that city council violated Texas law that was set forth by the Texas Supreme Court in Dacus v. Parker (Tex. 2015) because the ballot language does not explain the 'purpose' of the tax increase in definite and clear terms. The lawsuit specifically pointed out the phrase of the ballot that states, 'and provide for other general fund maintenance and operation expenditures included in the fiscal year 2025-2026budget as approved or amended by City Council,' alleging that several parts of the phrase 'mislead' voters. It also said the ballot language fails to meet Dacus standards because 'several of the program descriptions are misleading for vagueness and non-neutral advocacy.' The other issue the lawsuit alleged was that the ballot is also too vague to establish an enforceable 'contract with the voters,' because it does not describe exactly how the current council and future councils could spend the money. The lawsuit said that because the tax increase would be a 'forever tax,' the ballot language should be 'definite and clear and become the foundation on which voters and taxpayers can rely—if the proposition passes—for how this huge tax increase will be spent, not only by this City Council but by all City Councils in the future.' Bowen's suit, which was filed in the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, asks the court to 'issue a writ of mandamus ordering and compelling the Mayor and City Council of the City of Austin to promptly hold a validly called meeting of the Council to adopt ballot language that corrects each the deficiencies in the Council-adopted ballot language noted above so as to have accurate language on the November 4, 2025 ballot.' In other words, Bowen is asking the court to force the mayor and city council to change the ballot language for the proposition. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Medicine Hat refuses mayor's request to cover $70K in legal bills
Medicine Hat's city council has decided against reimbursing its mayor for thousands of dollars she spent on taking the city to court and paying for outside legal advice during a leadership conflict that has dominated much of the last two years. Mayor Linnsie Clark requested compensation from the City of Medicine Hat totalling $76,017.62 across three items. Council decided to vote on each of the expenses separately instead of as a lump sum. The six councillors present at Monday's regular public meeting voted unanimously to reimburse Clark about $5,800 for one of the expenses, but denied her compensation on the other fees worth over $70,000 combined. "I thought that I laid it out fairly clear the cause and effect in relation to my costs," Clark told CBC News in a phone interview Tuesday. "So it was certainly a bit of a surprise and disappointment." Clark's reimbursement request first appeared on a council agenda in April, but she pushed back a vote several times citing the need to collect more information. After a municipal audit revealed an "untenable working environment" at city hall largely caused by a rift between Clark and the chief administrator, the legal fees remained as the only apparent outstanding item of interest after 24 months of division. 'Not just about right and wrong' Due to pecuniary interest rules, Clark was outside of the council chamber for most of the time her colleagues spent debating her payback request. Coun. Shila Sharps, who put forward the reimbursement motion, said Clark shouldn't be responsible for such a large sum because responsibility for the conflict at city hall rests with all of council. "Everybody was at fault ... I don't think one individual here should be picking up the tab," Sharps said. "I feel like we hold her to a higher level than we do our city manager, and that is unacceptable." Councillors who voted against reimbursing Clark for most of the fees said they couldn't justify spending taxpayer dollars on an issue that could've been resolved before lawyers were involved. "This job is not just about right and wrong, it's about working as a team and there was none of that," Coun. Allison Knodel said in reference to the mayor. Coun. Andy McGrogan, who is running for mayor in the fall election, asked Clark if she had attempted to get her legal fees paid through existing city policies. When she answered that she had and found that no options were available to her, McGrogan said he supported repayment for the sake of turning the page. "If there was nowhere for her to go than back to us, then I think we need to pay (the legal fees)," said McGrogan. "We need to heal, and move on." What were the fees for? Clark, who worked as a lawyer in Medicine Hat's solicitor office before running for mayor, paid for a third-party legal opinion on the reorganization of city hall that chief administrator Ann Mitchell carried out in 2023. Lawyer Guy Giorno, a partner at the national law firm Fasken, wrote that Mitchell's restructuring contradicted a city bylaw and was "null and of no effect." Clark used Giorno's opinion at the Aug. 21, 2023, meeting, catching councillors off guard and leading to a sharp exchange between Clark and Mitchell. Clark said she spent $10,500 for Giorno's services. Several councillors raised concerns about Clark's unilateral decision to acquire external legal advice without council approval. "The process has to be honoured or we make a mockery of it going forward and we set a dangerous precedent," said Coun. Robert Dumanowski at Monday's council meeting. With Sharps the only councillor to vote in favour of covering the Giorno expense, the item was not approved for repayment. Mitchell's lawyer sent Clark a letter in November 2023 demanding she "cease and desist" from further defaming the city manager. Council later reimbursed Mitchell the $6,520 she spent on the letter. Clark said she wanted to be remunerated for the $5,841.94 spent on retaining legal counsel after she received Mitchell's letter. "In light of the fact that there were fees covered in a similar vein for the city manager, I think it would be appropriate to do the same here," said Dumanowski. Council voted unanimously to cover Clark's expenditure to respond to the letter — the only of the three expense categories to receive approval. In March 2024, Medicine Hat's council placed several sanctions on Clark after finding she broke its code of conduct during the back-and-forth with Mitchell in 2023. Clark filed for a judicial review in an attempt to get the limitations on her mayoral powers removed, taking the City of Medicine Hat to court in summer of 2024. A Calgary justice ruled the sanctions were "disproportionate" and restored Clark's mayoral powers — while at the same time upholding council's conclusion the mayor broke its code of conduct. Clark reported Monday she spent $59,675.68 on taking the city to court. After some debate and a failed attempt by Dumanowski to get half the costs covered, the motion to cover the court costs failed after a tied 3-3 vote. Paul Salvatore, CEO of the Municipal Experts consultancy firm, said it was a tough decision for council to make after 24 months of controversy. "There is value in turning the page and resetting but I think, at the same token, just spending money for the sake of spending money is not a good way to move forward," Salvatore told CBC News. 'Terribly disappointed' Clark's supporters viewed council's decision not to pay the mayor back for most of fees as an injustice. "I am terribly disappointed," said Shirley Greenfield, a Medicine Hat resident who says she has followed the conflict at city hall for the past two years. "That to me feels like — and seems like — almost a punishment because of what they did to her previously with the sanctions and with cutting back on her income." Donald Knudsen, a declared council candidate for the October civic election, said council's decision was a poor way to put past issues to bed. "They've messed with Mayor Clark too much. She should be paid and move on from there. They'll never move on as long as they do that," Knudson said. After voting on the mayor's expenses, council agreed to seek legal counsel to find out if her reimbursement request falls under an existing city indemnification policy. It wasn't clear at Monday's meeting how that long that process would take.
