Anticharter commission considers moving council terms to four years, adding term limits

The City of Anticharter Review Commission debated whether to lengthen city council terms and add term limits during a May 21 work session.

City staff outlined options to amend Article 3 of the city charter, including increasing council and mayoral terms from three years to four and adding limits requiring elected officials to sit out one election cycle after two consecutive terms. "There has been a suggestion that the term of office might be increased from 3 years to 4 years for all council members and the mayor," a city staff member said while presenting the draft spreadsheet of recommended changes.

Commissioners and commenters gave competing rationales. Commissioner (unnamed) argued for keeping three-year terms to provide more frequent turnover and to better reflect a population that is still changing: "The turnover in 3 years versus 4 seems to make sense to me at this stage." Another commenter said low voter turnout in recent elections supports four-year terms, citing a study: "I feel like the 4 year term actually makes a lot more sense" and referenced the Institute for Responsive Government's study suggesting fewer elections can increase turnout.

Commissioners discussed pairing four-year terms with staggered elections so not all seats are up at once, and debated implementation mechanics to avoid cutting current members' terms unfairly. Staff told the commission they plan to draft a redline of proposed charter language based on direction from the meeting and bring it back at a subsequent session.

The commission also discussed term-limit design: options included limiting council members and the mayor to two consecutive terms with a required pause (described in the meeting as "sit out an election cycle") before running again, or a lifetime cap. Commissioners asked staff to draft language that would require sitting out an election cycle, not an entire term, to reduce ambiguity about how long a break is required.

Members also weighed whether to move from all at-large seats to a mix of district and at-large seats. One commissioner said Anna is not yet large enough to adopt districts, while another suggested mapping current population concentrations to determine whether district representation would be appropriate in the future. No decision was made; staff were directed to prepare draft amendments for the commission to review.

The commission noted they were not being asked to adopt final language at the May 21 session but to provide direction to staff for preparing a redline to return for possible formal action.

Ending: Staff will prepare draft language reflecting the commission’s direction — including options for four-year terms, two-term consecutive limits with a required election-cycle break, and guidance on district versus at-large representation — and present it at a future meeting for further consideration.