Council debates possible change to term limits but declines November ballot due to cost and timing

Council Member L. Stone asked the city to consider asking voters to replace the current "two-terms plus breaks" practice with a 12-year lifetime term limit (three four-year terms), arguing that longer continuous service helps elected leaders shepherd multi-year infrastructure and intergovernmental projects to completion.

Staff told council the Aug. 7 county deadline for ballot language to appear on the November municipal election and estimated the cost at roughly $143,000. Council members debated the value of continuity and experience against the expense and timing amid ongoing budget considerations and pending fiscal pressures. Several members said the relationships and institutional knowledge that come with longer service can be valuable for regional boards and grant advocacy; others emphasized fiscal conservatism and that a charter change or a later proposal might be a better vehicle.

After discussion the council did not place the measure on the November 2026 ballot and directed no immediate further action; members signaled willingness to revisit the idea under different fiscal circumstances or as part of a broader charter conversation. Council members also discussed statutory drafting options (e.g., writing the change to be retroactive or prospective) and the difference between lifetime term caps and the current practice of 'term breaks.'

Council did not take a binding vote to move the measure forward; the item was effectively tabled pending future direction and possible inclusion in broader governance work.