On Tuesday, November 3, voters in Charlevoix, Michigan, will answer a question that sounds technical but touches the everyday rhythm of local government: how long should a city council member serve before facing voters again? The ballot proposal would change the city charter so that council members are elected for four-year terms instead of the current two-year terms. It is the only city proposal on the Charlevoix ballot, according to the city’s public notice, and it arrives alongside a mayoral race and council races in which most of the named candidates are running without opposition.
That combination makes this a useful test of how small-city voters think about stability and accountability. A two-year term keeps council members close to the next election, but it also means they are almost always campaigning or preparing to campaign. A four-year term gives a council more time to see a budget, a road project, or a waterfront decision through from start to finish, but it also means a voter who disagrees with a council member must wait longer for a chance to replace that person at the ballot box. Charlevoix voters are being asked to choose between those two trade-offs, not simply to approve or reject a number.
What the Charlevoix council terms proposal would change
Under the charter language now in effect, Charlevoix council members are elected for terms of two years, with each term beginning at the first regular council meeting after the election. The ballot question asks whether several sections of the charter should be amended to increase that term from two years to four years. The city’s notice frames the change as Proposal 1, and the question on the ballot asks voters directly whether those sections should be amended in that way.
If voters approve the change, the shift would not happen all at once. Reporting on the proposal describes a phased transition designed to avoid cutting short the terms of people already in office and to avoid turning over the whole council in a single election. Council members elected in 2026 would serve two-year terms. Those elected in 2027 would serve three-year terms. Members elected in 2028 and afterward would serve the full four-year terms. That staircase approach is common when a city lengthens terms: it protects sitting members, it spreads future elections out more gradually, and it prevents a situation in which every seat changes hands in the same year.
If voters reject the proposal, the current system stays in place. Council members would continue to stand for election every two years, and voters would keep the more frequent check on their representatives that the present charter provides. A rejection would not, by itself, change who sits on the council or alter the mayor’s term, because the proposal as it reached the ballot covers council terms only.
How the proposal reached the November ballot
The idea did not appear suddenly. Council discussion began in February, when members considered longer terms for both the mayor and the council. At that stage, Council Member Janet Kalbfell moved to direct the city manager and city attorney to prepare an amendment that would extend both mayoral and council terms to four years, with elections in even-numbered years. That motion passed unanimously, which suggests that, at least as a starting point for study, the council was broadly open to exploring longer terms.
By June, the proposal had narrowed. The version sent forward for state review addressed council terms only, leaving the mayor’s term out of the question voters will decide. Council Member Phil Parr moved to send the amendment for state review, with Aaron Hagen seconding the motion. Parr, Hagen, and Richard Spring voted in favour, while Dennis Halverson voted against. Kalbfell and Knapp were absent for that vote. The split shows that even within a council that had unanimously agreed to study the idea, the final form of the proposal was not unanimous. One member voted no, and two members were not present, a reminder that charter changes often involve disagreement about details even when the broad direction has support.
That history matters for voters because it shows what the proposal is not. It is not a proposal to lengthen the mayor’s term, even though that idea was discussed early on. It is not a proposal to change the size of the council, the ward system, or the council-manager form of government described in the charter. It is a focused change to the length of a council member’s term, with a transition plan attached.
Who else is on the Charlevoix ballot
Alongside the charter question, Charlevoix voters will choose a mayor and council members. Lyle Gennett is running for mayor, and reporting describes that race as unopposed. Kalbfell is seeking the Ward 1 council seat, and Parr is seeking the Ward 3 seat, and both of those races are also described as unopposed. In a small city, unopposed races are not unusual, but they change the character of election night: the charter question, rather than a contested candidate race, becomes the main decision voters are making about the direction of city government.
The exception is Ward 2. No candidate’s name appears on the ballot for the open Ward 2 council seat. City Clerk Sarah Dvoracek has said that, as of the Friday afternoon before the reporting on the race, Kirby Dipert was the only person who had filed as a write-in candidate for that seat, and the filing deadline had passed. Under state law, the eligible write-in candidate who receives the most votes wins a seat when no candidate’s name appears on the ballot, according to the clerk. That means Ward 2 voters who want to take part in choosing their representative will need to write in a name rather than simply marking a printed name, and they will need to spell it as filed if they intend to support the filed write-in candidate.
For voters, that detail is practical, not abstract. A write-in race rewards voters who have done a little homework before they reach the polling place. It also means that the outcome in Ward 2 could turn on a small number of votes, because write-in contests in local elections often draw fewer total votes than races with printed names. Anyone in Ward 2 who cares about who represents them should therefore check the sample ballot and the city’s election information before voting day, rather than assuming a name will be waiting on the ballot.
When and where Charlevoix voters can vote
Election Day voting in Charlevoix takes place on November 3, with polls open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. The city’s election notice places Election Day voting at City Hall, at 210 State Street, in the Council Chambers on the second floor. Voters can also vote early or by mail using an absentee ballot, and the city directs voters to michigan.gov/vote to check registration, view sample ballots, and find polling locations.
Early voting for the broader election period ran from Saturday, October 24, through Sunday, November 1, at the Charlevoix County Building at 301 State Street, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily, according to the city’s notice. That window matters because it means that by the time many readers see a final reminder, the early-voting period will have just closed and Election Day itself will be the remaining in-person option, alongside absentee ballots returned under Michigan’s rules. Voters who are unsure about their registration or their ward should check before heading to City Hall, because Charlevoix council seats are elected by ward, and a voter’s ward determines which council race appears on that voter’s ballot.
Why term length matters in a small city
In a city the size of Charlevoix, council decisions are often close to home in a literal sense. The council works within a council-manager system, in which the elected council sets policy and direction while a professional city manager oversees day-to-day administration. The charter describes a council of six members, two elected from each of three wards on a non-partisan basis. That structure means each ward has two voices at the table, and each council member is accountable to the voters of one ward rather than to the city as a whole.
Within that structure, term length shapes incentives. A two-year term means a council member who takes office must almost immediately begin thinking about re-election. Supporters of longer terms argue that this short horizon discourages long-term planning, because a member may hesitate to support a difficult but necessary decision, such as a multi-year infrastructure plan or a change to a local ordinance, if the political cost arrives within months. A four-year term, in this view, gives members room to learn the job, to build working relationships with staff and with each other, and to be judged on a fuller record rather than on a single controversy.
Critics of longer terms make the opposite case, and it is a strong one in a small community where residents expect to know their representatives personally. A two-year term keeps the council close to public opinion and makes it easier for a new candidate, including a challenger with a different view of a local issue, to enter the race and win a seat without waiting years. If a council member stops listening, voters do not have to wait long to act. Lengthening the term to four years reduces that frequency, and in wards where races are often unopposed, it could mean even fewer real contests over a decade. A voter who values frequent accountability may therefore see the current two-year system not as a flaw but as a feature.
Neither argument settles the question on its own, because both point to real values: continuity on one side, responsiveness on the other. The phased transition in the Charlevoix proposal tries to soften the trade-off by avoiding a sudden break, but it does not remove it. Voters are still choosing which value to prioritise for the years ahead.
What to watch on election night in Charlevoix
The first result to watch is the charter question itself. Because it is a yes-or-no question, the margin will tell a story beyond the outcome. A narrow win for either side would suggest a divided community that may revisit the issue, while a wide margin would suggest a clearer consensus about how Charlevoix wants its council to work. The second result to watch is Ward 2, where the write-in contest will show whether organised support for a filed write-in candidate translates into votes, and whether voters in that ward turned out in numbers comparable to the wards with printed names.
A third point to watch is turnout in context. Local elections held in odd-numbered years, without statewide or federal races at the top of the ballot, often draw lower turnout than presidential or midterm elections. That makes each vote proportionally more influential, and it makes the charter question especially sensitive to who actually shows up. Residents who feel strongly about term length, about the council’s recent direction, or about the Ward 2 seat have an outsized opportunity to shape the result simply by voting.
It is also worth noting what this vote does not decide. It does not decide the city’s budget, its tax rate, or any specific development project. Those decisions will still come before the council, whoever sits on it and however long they serve. What the vote does decide is the rhythm of accountability for those future decisions: how often voters get a formal say, and how much time a council member gets between those moments to govern.
For a lakeside city where government is close enough that residents can attend a council meeting in person and speak directly to the people making decisions, that rhythm is not a minor detail. It is part of how the city governs itself. On November 3, Charlevoix voters will set that rhythm for the next generation of council members, and the phased transition means the full effect will unfold over the next few election cycles rather than in a single night.
Sources
USN reviewed reporting from multiple outlets for this story. Read more from The Petoskey News-Review, The Petoskey News-Review and City of Charlevoix.