Her reelection settled one of the three council seats on the ballot; two seats remain to be decided in the November 3 general election. The initial field for those seats included Barry Graham, Bob Littlefield, Michelle Ugenti-Rita and Raoul Zubia.

Littlefield withdrew on Aug. 4, 2026. The city says Graham, Ugenti-Rita and Zubia will appear on the November ballot. The two highest vote-getters will be elected, and the city says those council terms also begin in January 2027.

The city’s charter initiative page says information from the final vote will be posted when available. It does not state whether the council approved, rejected, amended or postponed the proposal, or whether a final measure was submitted for the November ballot.

What led to the meeting

The council began the charter-city process on February 17, 2026, and voted 5-2 to pursue an accelerated schedule aimed at the November election. The process included a seven-member Charter Advisory Committee and public hearings on June 2 and July 7.

At the July 7 hearing, the council considered an amended draft and directed staff to add language stating that the charter would not include the ability to impose a real-property transfer tax. The July 28 meeting was scheduled as the third and final hearing and was expected to determine whether the proposal would be placed before voters.

The decision matters because it would determine whether Fremont voters consider replacing the city’s current general-law structure with a voter-approved charter government. The city says the July 28 final-vote information will be posted when available; no ballot placement or final charter text is established by the public update.

The action advances the referendum through Greenville’s municipal process. It does not enact a tax, and it is not a decision by Greenville voters. The proposal would affect the city’s local revenue structure only if it receives the required final approval, is placed on the ballot and is approved by voters.

What remains unresolved

The available records do not confirm whether the ordinance received final approval after its first reading. They also do not establish the final wording that voters would see, how much revenue the proposal could generate or what purposes would receive the money.

Those details matter to the eventual cost and use of the proposed tax, but they are not available in the approved records. No voter outcome exists as of Aug. 8, 2026, because the measure remains a proposal rather than an enacted policy or completed election result.

The next known step is continued consideration through the city’s municipal process. If the referendum receives final approval, the proposed question would proceed to the November 2026 ballot for Greenville voters to decide.

The regular nomination period began July 13. The election will be consolidated with the midterm Congressional Election. The city’s opening notice identified Ray Marquez, Peter Rogers and Brian Johsz as the current incumbents for the three districts; that designation does not establish who completed filing or will appear on the ballot.

Possible extension and next steps

The City of Chino Hills says a district’s filing period may extend to 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 12, if an eligible incumbent did not file by the regular deadline. The available city materials do not say whether an extension applies to any of the three districts.

The city’s election page schedules the Secretary of State’s randomized alphabet drawing for Aug. 13. That drawing will determine the order of candidate names on the ballot, but the final candidate list and ballot order were not available in the supplied records.

The proposed merger is not final, and neither municipality has been identified as having approved the merger itself. If voters in both communities approve the question, the change could affect Mars’s local government structure, services, representation, administration and taxation. The approved sources do not establish what those changes would mean financially or operationally.

How the proposal developed

The process began with resolutions passed by both municipalities on Jan. 5, 2026, to explore a merger. An official public-meeting presentation laid out a schedule that included public meetings, agreement development through June, municipal votes during June and July, and a public vote in November.

Residents, merchants and municipal officials have taken part in public discussions as the proposed agreement has been developed. Those discussions are part of the process of working through the terms before voters are asked to decide.

The proposal would require action by both governing bodies as well as separate voter decisions in Mars Borough and Adams Township. Approval in only one municipality would not be enough for the merger to proceed.

What must happen before November

April reporting said the agreement would need to be submitted to the state elections office by early August to establish a November ballot question. A later report identified Nov. 3, 2026, as the date when Adams Township and Mars Borough voters are expected to decide the proposal.

That timing remains qualified. The sources reviewed do not establish the final ballot wording or whether every state filing requirement has been completed. The November question should therefore be understood as expected, rather than certain, until the remaining steps are confirmed.

What residents know—and what remains open

For Mars voters, taxpayers, residents and local businesses, the next major decision is whether the proposed merger reaches the November ballot and, if it does, whether both municipalities approve it. The current record establishes the proposal, its development timeline and the expected election date.

It does not establish projected tax changes, service cuts, savings, staffing changes or administrative efficiencies. Those practical effects would depend on the final agreement and any additional information made available before the vote.

The measure is scheduled to appear on the Nov. 3, 2026, general-election ballot. The council action moves the issue from City Hall consideration to a citywide voter decision, but it does not enact the tax or establish that it will pass.

What is confirmed so far

The proposal would impose a 1% local sales tax. If voters approve it, the measure would change the local sales-tax burden on applicable purchases in Diamond Bar and provide the city with additional locally controlled revenue for municipal services.

The available city materials do not say how much money the proposal could raise each year or how long the tax would remain in effect. They also do not yet identify the final ballot label or formal arguments for and against the measure.

Those missing details matter because ballot placement is only the beginning of the public decision. The measure should not be described as a tax Diamond Bar is already collecting. Its effect on an individual shopper would depend on the purchases subject to the tax and on applicable state and county rules.

The city says it will add more information, including frequently asked questions and fact sheets, in the coming weeks. Those materials are expected to give voters more context before the November election, although the available notice does not provide a projected annual revenue figure or a tax-duration estimate.

What the measure could mean for city services

The city’s stated local-government rationale is additional revenue controlled locally for municipal services. The approved materials do not identify specific projects, departments or service expansions that would receive money if the measure passes.

That leaves two separate questions for voters. The first is whether they support adding the proposed 1% local sales tax to applicable purchases. The second is whether the possibility of additional city-controlled revenue justifies the cost to consumers. The available documents do not answer either question for voters or predict the outcome.

Because the proposal remains subject to voter approval, the July 21 resolution is a procedural and political turning point rather than a final tax decision. Diamond Bar residents will make the final determination on Nov. 3.

Council races will share the November ballot

The sales-tax measure will appear alongside Diamond Bar City Council contests in Districts 1, 3 and 4. Candidate filing for those seats closes at 5 p.m. Friday, Aug. 7, 2026.

Diamond Bar has five voting districts, with voters in each district choosing one council representative. The three council contests and the sales-tax measure are separate decisions, but they will be presented to voters during the same general election.

The filing deadline is the next identified election date in the city’s notice. It will determine which candidates seek seats in the three districts, while the tax proposal will be decided by the city’s electorate as a whole.

What happens next

The next known step for the sales-tax proposal is the city’s release of additional explanatory material. Voters can expect the city’s FAQs and fact sheets to provide more information as the November election approaches.

For now, the confirmed development is ballot placement: the City Council acted on July 21, the proposed tax is 1%, and the decision is set for Nov. 3. The measure is not enacted, projected revenue and duration remain unspecified in the available materials, and Diamond Bar voters—not the council alone—will decide whether it moves forward.

The ballot package also includes an advisory question about directing increased revenue toward homelessness-related services. That question identifies interim shelter and other services, including transitional housing, encampment closure operations, addiction treatment and job readiness.

The council action moves the proposal to the election stage. It does not make the tax change law, and Oakland voters have not yet approved it.

What the measure would change

The proposed measure would amend Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 4.20, which governs the city’s real-property-transfer tax. The specific change concerns the exception for foreclosure transactions.

The approved record describes the measure as a potential source of new city revenue, but it does not state how much money the change could raise annually. That figure is important for voters weighing the proposal and the related spending question.

The council’s resolution pairs the tax proposal with an advisory measure concerning how increased revenue should be used. The advisory language addresses homelessness services rather than creating a confirmed spending appropriation in the record available for this article.

Potential local impact

If voters approve the tax change, the city could receive additional revenue. The listed homelessness-related categories point to several areas of local policy: temporary shelter, transitional housing, operations connected to encampment closures, addiction treatment and job-readiness services.

Those categories describe the intended focus presented in the ballot package. They do not establish the amount of money available, guarantee that every listed service will receive funding, or show how the money would be distributed.

The advisory question also may not itself legally appropriate funds. The final ballot language and any fiscal analysis will be important for determining what voters are being asked to decide and what legal effect the advisory vote would have.

What happens next

The next defined step is the Nov. 3, 2026, general municipal election, when Oakland voters are scheduled to consider the measure. The City of Oakland’s July 7 council record identifies both the council’s adopted resolution and the election date.

The proposal arrives as the city is also working under a broader five-year economic-development plan covering 2025 through 2029. That plan provides context for Oakland’s stated economic and revenue priorities, including its goal of inclusive growth, but it does not supply a revenue estimate for this foreclosure-transfer-tax proposal.

For residents, the practical question before November will be twofold: whether to change the tax treatment of foreclosure transactions and how to interpret the advisory question about using any increased revenue for homelessness-related services. The available official record confirms the council action and proposed policy direction, while leaving the projected annual revenue and final fiscal details unstated.

The result gives Scottsdale one confirmed council outcome from the primary but leaves the final makeup of the council open until the fall. The City of Scottsdale reported the election information in its official update for the week of July 27.

One council result is settled

Whitehead was the incumbent identified by the city as winning reelection. Her result resolves one of the council contests addressed in the primary and secures another term for a sitting council member.

The city’s update does not provide a vote total, winning margin or turnout figure for Whitehead’s race. It also does not describe the candidates who advanced in the two contests that remain unresolved. Those details are not included here because they are not supported by the approved official source.

That leaves a clear distinction between what the primary settled and what it did not. Scottsdale has a confirmed reelection result for Whitehead, but the city has not yet completed the process of determining the full council field through the information available in the update.

Two seats remain on the November ballot

According to the city, two remaining City Council seats will be decided in the November 3 general election. The contests therefore remain active rather than being resolved by the July primary.

For voters, the practical consequence is that the November election will determine the remaining council positions and help establish the membership that will take part in future city policy decisions. The primary result alone does not show whether control of the council changed.

A single incumbent’s reelection cannot establish the final governing balance when two other seats are still pending. That balance will depend on the November results, not solely on the outcome announced after the July election.

The available city update also does not support conclusions about the competitiveness of the remaining races. It names the number of seats and the election date, but it does not identify the advancing candidates, provide margins or report turnout. Those omissions limit what can responsibly be said about the November contests at this stage.

What happens next

The next known decision point is November 3, 2026, when Scottsdale’s two remaining City Council seats are scheduled to be decided in the general election.

Until then, the confirmed primary development is Whitehead’s reelection to another term. The two unresolved seats keep the council’s complete future composition in play and give the November election a direct role in determining who will serve alongside her.

The City of Scottsdale’s July 27 update is the approved official account for the result covered here. It establishes the primary date, Whitehead’s reelection and the November date for the two remaining seats, while leaving candidate names and detailed vote data outside the information available for this report.

For voters using a paper registration card, the card must be postmarked by Aug. 4 or delivered by the deadline to the appropriate county elections office or voter-registration agency. Merely starting an online application does not meet the deadline, and a paper form mailed after Aug. 4 does not qualify solely because it was sent.

Who can register

To register in Oregon, a person must be a U.S. citizen, an Oregon resident and at least 16 years old. People who register before turning 18 will not receive a ballot until an election held on or after their 18th birthday.

The Aug. 4 deadline is the scheduled election-calendar deadline for the November general election. It is not a new policy or legislative change.

How to register online

Oregon’s online registration system asks for an Oregon driver license, permit or identification-card number issued by the state DMV. If a voter does not have one of those documents, the system can use the last four digits of a Social Security number and a signature.

Voters who have neither an Oregon driver license, permit or ID number nor the last four Social Security digits can still enter their information online, but they will need access to a printer. The system generates a voter-registration card that must be printed, signed and mailed or delivered to a county elections office or voter-registration agency.

For the November election, the online form must be submitted by 11:59:59 p.m. Pacific Time on Aug. 4. Paper cards must be postmarked or delivered by that date.

Already registered? Check your information

Registered voters, and people who are unsure whether they are registered, can use the state’s My Vote service to check registration status, review or update voter information, check ballot status and find county elections contacts and official ballot drop sites.

Voters should update their registration after a move or name change and should make sure the signature on file is current. Address, mailing-address, name and signature updates generally can be made through Election Day.

Party affiliation has a separate primary-election deadline

Party-affiliation changes affect the type of ballot a voter may receive in a partisan primary. Oregon’s Blue Book says party changes must be made at least 21 days before the primary. That rule is different from most other registration updates, which can generally be made later.

Party affiliation does not prevent a registered voter from participating in the November general election. Oregon’s election information says registered voters may vote in the general election regardless of party affiliation.

What happens next

Ballots for the November general election are scheduled to begin mailing Oct. 14. Election Day is Nov. 3. County clerk offices and official ballot drop sites are open until 8 p.m. that day.

Ballots returned by mail must be postmarked by Election Day. Ballots placed in an official drop box must be received by 8 p.m. Nov. 3. The state calendar lists Nov. 10 as the final date for receiving valid postmarked ballots by mail.

Voters with questions about registration, address confidentiality, disability accommodations, military or overseas voting or other special circumstances should use the Secretary of State’s election resources or contact their county elections office.

Sources

• Oregon Blue Book: Voting and Voter Registration

Commissioners Denise Driehaus and Stephanie Summerow Dumas voted for the measure. Commissioner Alicia Reece abstained after proposing a smaller increase that would use some stadium sales-tax revenue to help cover children’s-services costs.

What the proposed levy would cost

The current levy, approved in 2021, generates about $81 million annually and is scheduled to expire at the end of 2026. It costs homeowners an estimated $81 per $100,000 of home value each year. The proposed levy would generate roughly $117 million annually and raise the estimated cost to about $121 per $100,000 of home value.

Those figures are estimates, not universal bills. Actual property-tax effects can vary by property and assessment details. The measure is also only proposed and would not take effect unless Hamilton County voters approve it.

Services supported by the levy

The levy supports Hamilton County Job and Family Services programs that include child-abuse and neglect investigations, foster-care support, adoption and family reunification. County officials said levy-funded services helped more than 13,000 children last year.

Cincinnati residents are directly affected because the city is within Hamilton County. Cincinnati voters would participate in the countywide decision, and Cincinnati property owners are part of the tax base that would finance the levy if it passes.

Why county officials want more revenue

The county’s levy-review documents identify financial pressures including declining levy reserves, rising out-of-home-care expenses, projected deficits and limits on reimbursements for mandated services.

The Tax Levy Review Commission was advisory. It recommended a larger increase than the commissioners’ proposal, while county commissioners said the measure headed to voters sought to address children’s-services needs without imposing the higher tax burden associated with the review commission’s recommendation.

The county’s review findings and projections are not presented as an independently audited forecast. They are the county’s stated basis for concluding that the existing levy is under financial pressure and that additional ongoing revenue is needed.

What Reece proposed

Reece proposed a smaller levy increase of about 10 percent, paired with use of some stadium sales-tax revenue. Driehaus and Summerow Dumas did not support that alternative, and Reece abstained on the measure that advanced to the ballot.

The commissioners’ action begins the ballot process. The Hamilton County Board of Elections lists November 3, 2026, as the general-election date and provides the election calendar, but voters should rely on later official election materials for the final ballot language and voting instructions.

The final decision belongs to Hamilton County voters, including those in Cincinnati. Until the election is held, the higher levy remains a proposal rather than an approved tax.

Sources

• WCPO 9 report on the commissioners’ August 3 vote
• Hamilton County Tax Levy Review Commission 2026 report
• Hamilton County Board of Elections November 2026 election information

The proposal is not an approved tax. It still needs additional council action and voter approval before it could take effect. The referendum must also be finalized and submitted to the Greenville County Voter Registration and Election Board by Aug. 14 to remain on track for possible placement on the November 2026 ballot, according to FOX Carolina.

How the proposed tax would work

If approved by voters, the tax would add 1% to eligible retail purchases inside the city of Greenville. Reported exemptions include most groceries, prescription medicines and gasoline.

City estimates project about $511.6 million in revenue over eight years, or roughly $64 million annually. Those figures are projections, not guaranteed collections.

Property-tax relief and capital projects

At least 20% of the proceeds would be used for property-tax relief for qualifying owner-occupied homes. The city estimates that share at about $102.3 million. According to the city, a qualifying owner-occupied home valued at $250,000 could receive an estimated $300 annual reduction, but that would not apply universally to every homeowner.

The remaining estimated $409.3 million would support a proposed capital program containing 527 projects. The city has organized the projects into priority tiers, so the full list would depend on future revenue and implementation rather than immediate construction of every project.

Major proposed categories include roads, stormwater improvements, sewer infrastructure, public assembly and public safety facilities, and fire-station replacements. Examples of top-tier projects include rebuilding the Queen Street bridge, replacing the West Greenville Community Center, renovating the Greenville Transit Center and improving Wade Hampton Boulevard.

Public feedback and next steps

The July 28 drop-in meeting gave residents an opportunity to review the proposed project list and ask questions about the Municipal Tax Relief Act. FOX Carolina reported that city officials described a program with more than 527 projects and about $410 million available for infrastructure after the required property-tax-relief share.

The second council reading is expected Aug. 10, although residents should check the final agenda for confirmation and any changes to the ordinance or project list. The referendum must be finalized and submitted to election officials by Aug. 14, according to the latest independent report reviewed for this article.

What Greenville residents should watch

For shoppers, the practical question is whether the proposal reaches the ballot and is later approved. For qualifying homeowners, the potential benefit would come through property-tax relief rather than a direct cash payment. Commuters and neighborhoods would be watching whether projects such as bridge, road, stormwater and transit improvements remain in the final plan.

The key decision points are the next council reading, the final project list, formal submission to election officials and, if accepted, the November vote. Until those steps occur, Greenville’s 1% municipal sales-tax referendum remains a proposal.

Sources

• City of Greenville: First Reading on Municipal Property Tax Relief Act Ordinance Passes
• Greenville Journal: Greenville moves forward with penny tax measure
• FOX Carolina: Proposed Greenville sales tax could raise about $410M for projects

The action came from the 15-member commission, which considered changes to the county charter. The measures are expected to proceed toward the November 2026 ballot, but they remain proposals subject to the required ballot-placement process.

The commission’s approval is an important procedural step, not final adoption. The amendments have not been established as law, and the available information does not confirm that every proposal has been certified for the ballot.

Housing analysis proposal is among the measures

One of the proposals, Amendment 26-07, concerns a housing-impact analysis. The broader group of amendments addresses subjects including housing, development codes, permit fees, land supply and the county general fund.

Those subjects place county governance questions involving development and public finances before a process that could ultimately send them to Clark County voters. If measures are placed on the ballot, voters would decide whether to approve or reject the proposed charter changes.

The source material does not provide final text for every amendment. It also does not identify final ballot wording for the measures or provide vote totals for the commission’s actions.

November election remains the expected destination

The proposals were expected to go before voters in the November 2026 general election. Clark County’s Election Department is the county office responsible for ballot and election administration and identifies the 2026 election cycle.

However, the reporting does not establish official certification of all 10 amendments. The next known stage is ballot-placement review, which may involve additional legal, fiscal or procedural review before any measure reaches voters.

That distinction matters for a set of proposals touching on housing policy, development regulation, fees, land supply and the general fund. Commission approval does not itself change development codes, impose permit fees, alter land policy or change county financial rules.

What remains unresolved

Available reporting does not include an independent fiscal or economic analysis of the proposals. As a result, the approval cannot support conclusions about whether the amendments would raise or lower housing costs, permit costs, development activity or county revenues and spending.

For now, the verified development is the commission’s July 8 approval of 10 proposed amendments. Their final status depends on completion of the ballot-placement process for the November 2026 election.

The county held an Industry Day on July 15 at Franklin Township Hall in Hancock to gather public and contractor input on a possible new jail and sheriff’s office. County officials also sought rough construction-cost information from builders, design-build firms and architectural companies.

What the county is considering

County materials describe a potential facility on county-owned property at 19741 Sharon Avenue in Houghton. The proposed building would include space for no fewer than 60 inmates and up to 70 inmates, along with working areas for the sheriff’s office and related support functions.

The proposed site is in Houghton, not Hancock. Hancock’s connection is countywide: residents are part of the county electorate, and county public-safety facilities and funding decisions can affect local taxes, services and government operations.

The July Industry Day was not a bid opening or contract award. The county described it as informational market research and said no contract would be awarded as a result. The county is gathering information to support planning for a potential November 2026 funding measure.

What is not decided

The county has not finalized a construction contract, a formal project budget, the final design or a funding measure in the approved project materials.

That distinction matters for Hancock residents. Updated rough estimates and contractor feedback can help county officials shape a proposal, but they are not the same as a final construction price or an approved project. Residents should also avoid assuming that a November vote is guaranteed.

The county’s project overview says the Board of Commissioners formed committees after an earlier jail proposal was defeated. Those committees are intended to gather public input, examine facility and property options, and help inform future county decisions. The earlier vote is background; the current focus is the summer 2026 planning timeline.

The next date to watch

Michigan’s 2026 election calendar lists 4 p.m. on August 11, 2026, as the deadline for ballot wording for local proposals qualified to appear on the November ballot to be certified to local or county clerks.

That deadline does not mean voters will automatically see a jail proposal in November. It means the county must complete the required certification step if a qualified local proposal is to appear on the November general-election ballot. County action and certified ballot language will be the clearest signs of whether the issue advances.

For Hancock residents, the practical questions are whether county officials approve a funding request, how any proposal would affect county taxes and services, what facility voters would be asked to support, and whether the county has produced enough cost and design information for an informed decision.

Sources

• Houghton County Jail Project Industry Day Notice
• Houghton County Jail Project Overview
• Michigan Secretary of State 2026 Election Calendar
• Daily Mining Gazette: Calling Out to Contractors

The city’s final unofficial results list Whitehead first with 28,338 votes, or 17.48% of the vote. The Scottsdale results page identifies her as reelected, but the result is not legally final until the required canvass is completed.

Four candidates advance for two seats

Barry Graham, Bob Littlefield, Michelle Ugenti-Rita and Raoul Zubia are the four candidates advancing to the November 3 general election. Two council seats remain to be filled, meaning the two highest vote-getters in November will take office in January 2027.

That distinction matters because the November election is not a three-seat rematch. One seat appears to have been resolved in the primary, subject to certification, while voters will choose two winners from the four-candidate field in the general election.

Why the primary produced a November contest

Three Scottsdale City Council seats were contested in the primary. Under the city’s election structure, a candidate who receives a majority can win a seat outright. Seats without a majority winner move to the general election, where the remaining positions are decided.

The official election pamphlet for Scottsdale’s primary explained that eight candidates were competing for the three council seats and that unresolved seats could continue to November. Axios Phoenix also reported before the election that some of the Scottsdale council positions were expected to advance to the general election.

Certification dates to watch

Scottsdale’s results page was last updated July 27 and labels the totals “final unofficial results.” The Scottsdale City Council is scheduled to canvass the election on August 3. According to the city, that process is when the results become official at the local level.

Arizona’s statewide canvass of the July 21 primary is scheduled for August 6, according to the Arizona Secretary of State’s 2026 election calendar. Until those steps are completed, Whitehead is best described as the apparent winner, and the November field should be described as the group of candidates advancing based on unofficial results.

For Scottsdale voters, the next major election date is November 3. That general election will determine which two of Graham, Littlefield, Ugenti-Rita and Zubia win the remaining council seats, with terms beginning in January 2027.

Sources

• City of Scottsdale Election Results — July 21, 2026 Primary
• Arizona Secretary of State 2026 Election Information
• Maricopa County Elections Scottsdale 2026 Primary Election Information Pamphlet

The examination period for the measure’s text, primary arguments and the city attorney’s impartial analysis runs through Thursday, July 30. The City of Highland says physical copies are available at City Hall, 27215 Base Line, and that the measure materials and related documents are available through its elections page and financial-outlook page.

What voters can review

The public review materials include the arguments submitted for and against the measure, along with the impartial analysis prepared by the city attorney. The analysis is intended to explain the measure’s effect and operation in neutral terms.

The city’s public notice also says voters may request a copy of the ordinance or measure from the City Clerk’s Office.

What the proposal would do

The measure would establish a 1% transactions-and-use tax on applicable retail sales in Highland. The City Council describes it as a general tax, meaning the revenue would go into the city’s general fund rather than being restricted to one narrowly defined project or program.

City documents estimate that the measure could generate approximately $6.35 million annually. That is a city estimate, not a guaranteed amount: revenue would depend on taxable sales, and the measure would not take effect unless voters approve it.

The proposed ballot language says the revenue could help maintain police, fire and emergency services and improve critical infrastructure, including roads, bridges, drainage, the 5th Street Corridor interchange and other improvement projects. Those are stated purposes in the city resolution; they do not guarantee that specific projects or spending allocations would be funded.

Why the city is presenting the measure

Highland’s financial-outlook materials point to rising public-safety contract costs, roadway maintenance needs and long-term capital-improvement pressures. The city says it contracts with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement and CAL FIRE for fire protection and emergency response, with those contracts expected to increase annually.

The same city materials say Highland is responsible for more than 159 miles of roadway, has more than $94 million in needed street repairs and faces nearly $225 million in identified needs over the next five years of its capital-improvement program. They also identify storm-drain projects and proposed interchange work as infrastructure needs.

Those figures provide the fiscal context cited by the city for presenting the measure. They describe current and anticipated pressures, not spending that has already been approved through this proposed tax.

What happens next

The City Council approved placing the measure on the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election ballot at its June 9 meeting. Under the resolution, the proposed general tax must receive approval from a majority of qualified Highland voters voting on the question before it can take effect.

For now, the proposal remains undecided. Residents who want to evaluate it before the election can review the ballot measure text, arguments, impartial analysis and related election documents during the public examination period, which ends July 30.

Sources

• Notice of Public Examination Periods