E. CRC24-013 Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on increasing the two-year Council term to either three or four-year terms.
[Estimated time: 25 minutes]
I support staggered 4-year terms for counsel members. A longer term length gives new counsel members the time needed to more-effectively perform their duties. This should be paired with 8-year term limits to prevent stagnation on the counsel.
I support increasing the city councilor term limits from 2 years to 4 years. So much time is spent on campaigning in a 2 year term that much-needed projects don't get the priority they deserve.
I support increasing councilor term limits from two years to three years because I feel that longer terms would allow for more time to achieve change for the better, as long as the effort put into reaching goals is consistent.
I support increasing the city councilor term limits from 2 years to 3 years, as it would allow the city to actually propose projects and get them done rather than endless limbo
While I believe there are valid arguments on both sides, I lean slightly towards keeping three, two-year terms. I think shorter terms maintains the needed pressure for electeds to keep their word and get things done, lest they be replaced. As growth potentially changes the demographics of districts, they may outgrow the representation they're receiving from the current rep and should be able to elect someone who better represents the district quickly.
The current cadence allows Council direction to change every year. This makes staff reticent to support larger actions we should consider which take more than 6-9 months to implement because staff does not have confidence that Council will still support the action once the policy goes though public feedback and is vetted into a proposed ordinance.
We must slow the cadence of council changes to focus as a community on deeper policy questions more than inconsequential and Nugatory issues.
Extending 2 year terms to three or four years will have a decidedly negative effect on citizen representation and public trust /attitudes toward their CC. Elected officials will see themselves more as long term paid 'staff members' rather than representatives of citizens. While it may be more "convenient" for elected officials, it would have a seriously destructive effect on the relationship between citizens and those who are, supposedly, elected to represent them.
I support staggered 4-year terms for counsel members. A longer term length gives new counsel members the time needed to more-effectively perform their duties. This should be paired with 8-year term limits to prevent stagnation on the counsel.
I support increasing the city councilor term limits from 2 years to 4 years. So much time is spent on campaigning in a 2 year term that much-needed projects don't get the priority they deserve.
I support increasing councilor term limits from two years to three years because I feel that longer terms would allow for more time to achieve change for the better, as long as the effort put into reaching goals is consistent.
I support increasing the city councilor term limits from 2 years to 3 years, as it would allow the city to actually propose projects and get them done rather than endless limbo
While I believe there are valid arguments on both sides, I lean slightly towards keeping three, two-year terms. I think shorter terms maintains the needed pressure for electeds to keep their word and get things done, lest they be replaced. As growth potentially changes the demographics of districts, they may outgrow the representation they're receiving from the current rep and should be able to elect someone who better represents the district quickly.
No need at this time. Lets see what our growth is in the future
The current cadence allows Council direction to change every year. This makes staff reticent to support larger actions we should consider which take more than 6-9 months to implement because staff does not have confidence that Council will still support the action once the policy goes though public feedback and is vetted into a proposed ordinance.
We must slow the cadence of council changes to focus as a community on deeper policy questions more than inconsequential and Nugatory issues.
Extending 2 year terms to three or four years will have a decidedly negative effect on citizen representation and public trust /attitudes toward their CC. Elected officials will see themselves more as long term paid 'staff members' rather than representatives of citizens. While it may be more "convenient" for elected officials, it would have a seriously destructive effect on the relationship between citizens and those who are, supposedly, elected to represent them.