GreenvilleNot a ballot

Greenville · On the record

How the council voted

Every recorded council vote in this guide where two or more of the people we profile voted, side by side. Each line was checked against the meeting minutes it links to. Only candidates and members with a page in this guide are listed; open the minutes for the full roll call.

Greenville voter guide

Budget and rates

May 12, 2026

The 2026-27 city budget, which set a 12.9673-mill property tax levy and proposed a 14% sewer rate increase

Result as recorded: passed 5-0, May 2026

  • YesClaude JohnsonVoted yes on the 2026-27 city budget, which set a 12.9673-mill property tax levy and proposed a 14% sewer rate increase (passed 5-0, May 2026).
  • YesDavid W. SeppalaMoved and voted yes on the 2026-27 city budget, which set a 12.9673-mill property tax levy and proposed a 14% sewer rate increase (passed 5-0, May 2026).
  • YesJames BarrusVoted yes on the 2026-27 city budget, which set a 12.9673-mill property tax levy and proposed a 14% sewer rate increase (passed 5-0, May 2026).
  • YesJeff ScobyVoted yes on the 2026-27 city budget, which set a 12.9673-mill property tax levy and proposed a 14% sewer rate increase (passed 5-0, May 2026).
  • YesMichael MangusVoted yes on the 2026-27 city budget, which set a 12.9673-mill property tax levy and proposed a 14% sewer rate increase (passed 5-0, May 2026).

Greenville City Council minutes, May 12, 2026 (special budget meeting) · May 12, 2026Link

Foremost Farms sewer project

Sep 15, 2026

Tentatively creating a sewer special assessment district under which $552,736.58 of a $603,061.58 project would be paid by special assessment

Result as recorded: passed 7-0, September 2026

  • YesClaude JohnsonVoted yes on tentatively creating a sewer special assessment district under which $552,736.58 of a $603,061.58 project would be paid by special assessment (passed 7-0, September 2026).
  • YesDavid W. SeppalaMoved and voted yes on tentatively creating a sewer special assessment district under which $552,736.58 of a $603,061.58 project would be paid by special assessment (passed 7-0, September 2026).
  • YesJames BarrusVoted yes on tentatively creating a sewer special assessment district under which $552,736.58 of a $603,061.58 project would be paid by special assessment (passed 7-0, September 2026).
  • YesJay McBrideVoted yes on tentatively creating a sewer special assessment district under which $552,736.58 of a $603,061.58 project would be paid by special assessment (passed 7-0, September 2026).
  • YesJeff ScobyVoted yes on tentatively creating a sewer special assessment district under which $552,736.58 of a $603,061.58 project would be paid by special assessment (passed 7-0, September 2026).
  • YesLarry MossVoted yes on tentatively creating a sewer special assessment district under which $552,736.58 of a $603,061.58 project would be paid by special assessment (passed 7-0, September 2026).
  • YesMichael MangusVoted yes on tentatively creating a sewer special assessment district under which $552,736.58 of a $603,061.58 project would be paid by special assessment (passed 7-0, September 2026).

Greenville City Council minutes, September 15, 2026 (draft) · Sep 15, 2026Link

Hathaway Woods development

Jun 17, 2025

Final approval of the Hathaway Woods site condominium and a major amendment to the Hathaway Green planned unit development

Result as recorded: passed 6-1, June 2025

  • YesClaude JohnsonVoted yes on final approval of the Hathaway Woods site condominium and a major amendment to the Hathaway Green planned unit development (passed 6-1, June 2025).
  • YesJames BarrusVoted yes on final approval of the Hathaway Woods site condominium and a major amendment to the Hathaway Green planned unit development (passed 6-1, June 2025).
  • YesJay McBrideVoted yes on final approval of the Hathaway Woods site condominium and a major amendment to the Hathaway Green planned unit development (passed 6-1, June 2025).
  • YesJeff ScobyVoted yes on final approval of the Hathaway Woods site condominium and a major amendment to the Hathaway Green planned unit development (passed 6-1, June 2025).
  • NoLarry MossVoted no on final approval of the Hathaway Woods site condominium and a major amendment to the Hathaway Green planned unit development (passed 6-1, June 2025).

Greenville City Council minutes, June 17, 2025 · Jun 17, 2025Link

Lead service lines

May 26, 2026

Adopting a plan to replace about 1,627 lead or galvanized water service lines with financing from the state's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

Result as recorded: passed 7-0, May 2026

  • YesClaude JohnsonVoted yes on adopting a plan to replace about 1,627 lead or galvanized water service lines with financing from the state's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (passed 7-0, May 2026).
  • YesDavid W. SeppalaVoted yes on adopting a plan to replace about 1,627 lead or galvanized water service lines with financing from the state's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (passed 7-0, May 2026).
  • YesJames BarrusVoted yes on adopting a plan to replace about 1,627 lead or galvanized water service lines with financing from the state's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (passed 7-0, May 2026).
  • YesJay McBrideVoted yes on adopting a plan to replace about 1,627 lead or galvanized water service lines with financing from the state's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (passed 7-0, May 2026).
  • YesJeff ScobyVoted yes on adopting a plan to replace about 1,627 lead or galvanized water service lines with financing from the state's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (passed 7-0, May 2026).
  • YesLarry MossMoved and voted yes on adopting a plan to replace about 1,627 lead or galvanized water service lines with financing from the state's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (passed 7-0, May 2026).
  • YesMichael MangusVoted yes on adopting a plan to replace about 1,627 lead or galvanized water service lines with financing from the state's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (passed 7-0, May 2026).

Greenville City Council minutes, May 26, 2026 (special meeting) · May 26, 2026Link

N. Lafayette lane change

Feb 17, 2026

Supporting MDOT's plan to reduce N. Lafayette (M-91) to one through lane each way with a center turn lane

Result as recorded: passed 6-1, February 2026

  • YesClaude JohnsonMoved and voted yes on supporting MDOT's plan to reduce N. Lafayette (M-91) to one through lane each way with a center turn lane (passed 6-1, February 2026).
  • YesDavid W. SeppalaVoted yes on supporting MDOT's plan to reduce N. Lafayette (M-91) to one through lane each way with a center turn lane (passed 6-1, February 2026).
  • YesJay McBrideVoted yes on supporting MDOT's plan to reduce N. Lafayette (M-91) to one through lane each way with a center turn lane (passed 6-1, February 2026).
  • YesJeff ScobyVoted yes on supporting MDOT's plan to reduce N. Lafayette (M-91) to one through lane each way with a center turn lane (passed 6-1, February 2026).
  • YesLarry MossVoted yes on supporting MDOT's plan to reduce N. Lafayette (M-91) to one through lane each way with a center turn lane (passed 6-1, February 2026).
  • YesMichael MangusVoted yes on supporting MDOT's plan to reduce N. Lafayette (M-91) to one through lane each way with a center turn lane (passed 6-1, February 2026).
  • NoJames BarrusVoted no on supporting MDOT's plan to reduce N. Lafayette (M-91) to one through lane each way with a center turn lane (passed 6-1, February 2026).

Greenville City Council minutes, February 17, 2026 · Feb 17, 2026Link

Public comment

Mar 4, 2025

Limiting the opening public comment period to 3 minutes and adding a 3-minute comment period at the end of meetings

Result as recorded: passed 5-1, March 2025

  • YesJames BarrusVoted yes on limiting the opening public comment period to 3 minutes and adding a 3-minute comment period at the end of meetings (passed 5-1, March 2025).
  • NoLarry MossVoted no on limiting the opening public comment period to 3 minutes and adding a 3-minute comment period at the end of meetings (passed 5-1, March 2025).

Greenville City Council minutes, March 4, 2025 · Mar 4, 2025Link

A “—” means the line records something other than a plain yes or no (a motion, an abstention, or two votes in one line); read the line itself. How this guide works