The petition to amend the Aurora city charter, a proposal that seeks to create a “strong mayor” form of government, received just a little over the required number of valid petition signatures to get on the November ballot.

Under the city’s election rules, the proposal’s signatories have 18 days to protest the validity of their signatures.

Citizen-initiated petitions require 12,017 signatures to qualify for ballot placement, according to the city.

As of Tuesday, the City Clerk of Aurora calculated a total of 12,198 valid signatures, 181 signatures over the requirement. The valid signatures were calculated from a total of 20,409 signatures submitted on June 26.

In a council-mayor form of government, or a “strong mayor” system, the city manager position is eliminated and the mayor becomes the executive in charge of running the city. “Strong mayors” typically prepare the budget, hold veto powers and appoint key department heads, among other duties.

Colorado Springs and Denver have adopted a “strong mayor” system of governance.

Aurora voters have 20 days after the clerk’s determination — by Aug. 14 — to protest the validity of the signatures. Protests must be submitted in writing, with an explanation and specific names they believe are problematic.

Copies of the filed protests will go to the petition’s representatives, and a hearing, open to the public, will be scheduled.

Some city councilmembers are urging citizens to file protest.

“If you were mislead into signing the ‘term limits’ petition, you can file a protest and have your signature removed,” Councilman Juan Marcano said in a tweet on Wednesday.

To critics like Marcano, the yes camp has been disingenuous by emphasizing the proposal’s term limits, presumably because that concept is generally popular. Critics also framed the proposal as being pushed by unknown entities whose funding sources are obscured.

Supporters, meanwhile, cast opponents as powers that seek to maintain the status quo, which has not been as responsive or as directly accountable to city residents as a “strong mayor system.” They also argue that checks and balances in a “strong mayor” system are more efficient — because mayors routinely face elections or even a recall.

If no protests are filed, the city clerk will issue a final determination on Aug. 15 that enough signatures had been filed.

The petition seeks to reduce term limits, add an at-large council seat and eliminate the city manager position, giving the mayor executive powers.

Term Limits for a Better Aurora, the group behind the proposal, said the initiative seeks to “reform” Aurora’s city government by increasing term limits and “empowering citizens to hold city leadership accountable.”

“Aurora voters pick mayors and city council members, but too much power resides with a mostly unknown, unelected city manager who can appoint police and other department heads with no accountability to the voters,” the group earlier said. “It is time to give the power back to the voters and deliver real accountability to the people of Aurora — through term limits and letting voters hold city leaders accountable at the ballot box.”

Critics accused Coffman of seeking power through the proposal, rather than helping the city.

“From a procedural standpoint, I think that this whole thing has been done in secret,” Marcano said.

Councilwoman Danielle Jurinsky added that Aurora’s current system works well and the introduction of a “strong mayor” system would give too much power to one person.

“Aurora is currently represented by ten unique and diverse opinions, viewpoints and backgrounds and to eliminate that and give it to just one person, I just don’t see that working for the city,” Jurinsky said. “This is not about term limits, this is solely for one person to gain more power.”

Coffman, who told the Denver Gazette the move for system reform was his idea, said the city manager form of government worked well when Aurora was a smaller city, but it needs reform as the city grows.

“Now that we have the urban challenges of race, poverty and crime, I don’t think it fits,” Coffman said. “I think you need an elected official that is directly accountable to the residents of the city. We don’t have a leader that can help move a vision forward.”

The current system is working “great” for members of council, but not for the people of Aurora, Coffman said.

“We are a rudderless, leaderless city,” Coffman said. “I get that they want the current system to continue, but it’s just not getting the job done.”

Aurora has operated with a council-manager form of government for several decades, in which a professional city manager is responsible for running the city administratively and enacting local policy passed by councilmembers.

The proposal would give the mayor the powers to veto ordinances, appoint city leaders, hire and fire city staff and department heads, as well as control over city contracts, a news release from the group opposing the initiative said. A supermajority of the council could override the mayor’s veto.

If the mayor’s seat became vacant, the mayor’s chief of staff would be allowed to step in until the council appointed someone to fill the vacancy, but that person is not required to be a city resident.

The proposal would also give the mayor control of the police department in times of emergency, eliminate the city council’s contingency fund and the body’s ability to adopt emergency ordinances, and give the mayor a vote in filling council vacancies.

Denver Gazette reporter Jessica Gibbs contributed to this report.