Council debates whether to send term-limit measure to voters this year or later

City staff presented an informational report on the authority to place a term-limits measure before voters under Government Code Section 36502 and outlined questions council must answer about the type of limit (total or consecutive terms), whether partial terms should count, and timing for an election.

Council members split on timing and design. Several members said they supported letting voters decide and favored placing a measure on the ballot as soon as June 2026; other members said a June primary risks low turnout and favored 2028 (presidential-year) or at least 2027, and asked for a fuller cost and outreach analysis. The council discussed possible formulations — for example, three consecutive terms followed by a one-term cool-off — and whether partial terms longer than two years should count as full terms.

Members asked staff to return at the next meeting (March 3) with estimates of election costs for June and November options, recommended language for the proposed limit and rules for partial terms, and an outreach plan. No final decision was made; council provided direction to staff on timing and to prepare a resolution if members choose to proceed.

Quotes from the meeting: “I strongly support term limits,” one council member said. Another warned that term limits can reduce institutional knowledge and urged caution: “To lose the experience at the end of 8 years is problematic.”

Next steps: staff will return with cost estimates, suggested ballot language and options for how partial terms are counted and with outreach plans for community input prior to any vote to place the measure on a ballot.