Boerne commission asks staff to prepare ballot language for 3‑year council terms

The Boerne Charter Review Commission voted to ask city staff to draft language for the May election that would ask voters whether council and mayoral terms should change from two years to three years and establish a staggered schedule for seats.

The move follows an extended debate in which supporters said three-year terms would give elected officials more time to learn municipal processes and shepherd projects to completion, while opponents argued the change would reduce voters’ ability to remove officials quickly and could entrench incumbents.

Commission Chair (name not specified) made the motion: “So I’m hearing everybody right. We wanna move forward with Mick to put together the department language to put this on the ballot for the May election,” and members responded with a voice vote of approval.

The discussion touched on several practical points. Proponents said longer terms reduce the frequency of campaign periods and provide continuity for staff and long-term projects. One commissioner summarized that three-year terms would “give us some of the breathing room to not have to worry about that” and allow newly elected members more time to learn complex topics such as water policy and the Unified Development Code (UDC).

Opponents raised concerns that three-year terms would lessen voter control and could enable special-interest groups to influence the council for a longer uninterrupted stretch. Several speakers noted existing recall mechanisms and charter or state-level guardrails but said those were not full substitutes for more frequent elections.

City staff warned the commission that changing to three- or four-year terms affects vacancy procedures. “If we go to 3 year terms and also there is a vacancy, that changes. You can’t just appoint,” a staff member said, noting state rules would generally require a special election for longer terms unless the vacancy falls close to a scheduled election.

Commissioners also discussed how to stagger the new terms if voters approve the change; staff said the transition language would specify which currently seated members would serve shorter or longer initial terms so that elections would rotate. The commission asked staff to return draft ballot language and the statutory mechanics for vacancies and transition timing for the next meeting.

Commissioners noted this is not the first time the issue has gone to voters: a prior citizen charter commission recommended three-year terms in 2020 and that measure narrowly failed. Members agreed the commission’s role is to put a clear proposition before voters rather than to decide the outcome.

Beyond term length, commissioners directed staff to bring clarified language about planning and zoning commission responsibilities and to research whether the charter should require periodic (for example, 10‑year) reviews of the charter itself. The commission scheduled a meeting to review drafts and said it aims to present finalized language to the City Council for a January decision on calling an election.

Next steps: city staff will prepare ballot language and background material; the commission will review the draft at its next meeting (a Dec. 3 meeting date was discussed) and the council would decide whether to call the May election.

Votes at a glance: The commission approved a motion directing staff to draft and return proposed ballot language for a charter amendment to change term lengths to three years and to stagger seats if the measure passes; the approval was by voice/show‑of‑hands; no roll-call tally was recorded in the transcript.