Qs from CRC 2/19 meeting to Council

[Paul Prince]

The Charter Review Committee in their 2/19 meeting discussed a number of City Council election questions, including terms and council places, extensively. They requested council provide feedback using the discussion board on their views of the tradeoffs and preferences. Since I was the liaison at that meeting, I promised to initiate the discussion. For clarity I will capture these into distinct sub-topics.

1. Term length. There was consensus on the CRC that moving from the current two year terms to three year terms would be good. Reasons expressed were allowing more time for new members to acclimate before having to run again and reducing the turnover rate. Significant discussion was done by the CRC members on how to possibly handle the transition, noting that we now have 3 council seats elected every year with the mayor as well every other year. The thinking of the CRC seemed to be that an ideal end state would be 2 council seats elected every year with the mayor position every third year. The assumption was made that current 2-year terms would have to be completed. It was also noted that this 3 year cycle would break the current imbalance where even seats are always elected on high turn-out federal election years.
2. Term limits. There was consensus on the CRC that putting term limits in place might be a good idea. The specific length of the limit was somewhat open. There was concern that having both of these in one election might lead to confusion and logistical issues if one passed and the other did not. The consensus seemed to be that asking citizens about changing the Term Length first, with a later ballot measure (perhaps initiated by Council the following year) made sense. E.g. a limit of “3 terms of 3 years” is not the same as “4 terms of 2 years. I noted that my look at the last 20 years of council history showed numerous examples of 8 year terms but none longer. HOWEVER, I have since realized that Randy Kruger did serve for at least 2 years on council before being mayor for 8 years.
3. Geographical places. There were some CRC members who supported the idea, but ultimately there was strong consensus against doing this at this time for primarily logistical reasons (how would we draw the boundaries, would there be candidates that filed in all the locations, etc.)
4. Election by candidates declaring which “Place” they are running for, versus a simple stacked rank using Plurality among all candidates to fill the available seats. It was noted that having a stacked rank approach might be of use in dealing with filling seats that were opened due to a late declaration of an incumbent council member (whose seat was not up for election) resigning to run for Mayor.
5. There was mixed opinion on whether elections should be done in a manner requiring majority vote rather than the current plurality approach (the most votes wins, even if less than a majority). Some members felt strongly that runoffs or other methods to achieve majority results was important. This question was additionally complicated if combined with the idea of #4, going to a stacked rank of all candidates.

 

[Shane Saum]

I do not have a strong opinion on 3 year or 2 year terms, but to problem solve, I asked ChatGPT to use the Texas Senate as an example of how to make the elections even. In the Senate, they serve 4 year terms, but every few years have to draw straws and some Senators get 2 year terms. Below is what input it gave me.

If Lago Vista switched to three-year terms for City Council members but still wanted staggered elections where half the seats are up during high-turnout presidential election years, the transition could be structured using a one-time adjustment period similar to how the Texas Senate staggers its four-year terms.

Proposed Transition Plan:​

1. Keep the Mayor's Term Separate
   • If the Mayor currently serves a two-year term, this could be changed to a three-year term OR kept as a two-year term to ensure frequent voter accountability.
2. Stagger Council Seats in the Transition Year
   • In the first election after adopting three-year terms, half of the council members would be elected to three-year terms, while the other half would be elected to a one-time two-year term to set up the staggered cycle.
   • After those two-year terms expire, those seats would switch to three-year terms going forward, ensuring that half the council is up for election every three years

Example Transition Schedule:​

Let’s assume Lago Vista has six council members plus a mayor:

Election Year	Seats Up for Election	Term Length
2026 (Presidential Year)	Seats 1, 2, 3	3-Year Terms
2027 (Non-Presidential Year)	Seats 4, 5, 6	2-Year Terms (One-Time)
2029	Seats 4, 5, 6	3-Year Terms
2030 (Presidential Year)	Seats 1, 2, 3	3-Year Terms

From 2030 onward, half the council would always be elected during presidential election years, maximizing voter turnout.

Alternative Option: Lottery/Straw Draw System​

If the City wanted to randomly assign the initial transition seats, council members could draw lots:

• Half would receive three-year terms immediately
• Half would receive a one-time two-year term to set up the stagger

This method ensures fairness and prevents political maneuvering over who gets longer terms initially.

Key Benefits of This Approach:​

✔ Higher voter turnout in presidential election years
✔ Maintains staggered elections (avoids full turnover at once)
✔ Ensures continuity & institutional knowledge on the council
✔ Aligns with best practices from Texas Senate & other cities

Would you like a formal transition ordinance draft for discussion at a Council meeting?

 

[Shane Saum]

2. I like the idea of term limits. It is more effective when they are 2 year terms, as you could limit them to 3 or 4 terms with his 6 or 8 years. On a 3 year term, I would be tempted to make the term limit 2 terms, or 6 years, as Councilor Prince noted our City Councilmembers typically serve 8 years at most. If the objective is to get more turnover in councilmembers then 6 years would accomplish that. I would say maybe there is an exception that if you serve 6 years and then run for Mayor, maybe that is viewed differently? But I am not passionate about that.

 

[Shane Saum]

3. I am open to districts, as I have heard historically certain groups were able to dominate the elections and get their folks as the majority of the Council. Districts could prevent one geographic area from having the majority. I would think it would be split up to be those around the airport as one district, Tessera is likely another district, owners around the municipal golf course is another, Southern most Lago and then old lago could be the others. I think you would still want two at large districts, one of which is the Mayor. However, I can understand the pushback on districts as well and I am fine with whatever the CRC decides.

4. I don't support rank choice at this time. I think it would be good to have an answer to how to address a sitting councilmember who is running for Mayor or one who resigns late. That may not be exactly what CRC is asking, but that's all this question made me think of.

5. I think Majority vote makes a lot of sense and ensures when there are 2 strong candidates that a 3rd or a 4th candidate can't be used to water down the votes for the first 2 candidates. Runoffs are important as it gives voters an opportunity to take a 2nd look at 2 strong candidates who were in a larger field.

 

[Kevin Sullivan]

I have a comment on item number one and two and some additional topics that the CRC might want to consider relative to elections.

1.) Length of term. The council and a previous CRC discussed this topic. At the time, the then city attorney provided input on the logistics of making the change. It did not revolve around the timing of elections, but the other things that would need to be changed if we moved to three-year terms. At the time, we did not believe it was worth the hassle to make the change. I'm not suggesting that this CRC abandon the idea, but instead requesting they seek council from legal about what changes the city would have to make and then the CRC can make an informed decision about whether to recommend a change.

2.) Term limits. I have no opinion on this. I've noticed that multiple people have pointed out that most council members serve 8 years or less. I agree with that and more recently, it has trended lower, two terms or 4 years. The exceptions have been former Mayor Kruger as Mr. Saum pointed out and former Mayor Ed Tidwell that has not been mentioned unless I missed it. Mr. Tidwell served about 3 terms as a council member and 3 terms as mayor for almost 12 years on council. I say almost as one of his terms was extended beyond its normal length when the city moved from May elections until November elections. If the CRC decides to recommend term limits, I think it would be good to consider time served as a council member and then time served as mayor separately. I think it is helpful to the city to encourage council members to seek to serve as mayor with the experience and knowledge built up while serving as a council member.

Additional topics around elections to consider:

1.) In 2018, the CRC recommended, council accepted, and the citizens voted on multiple changes to how applying for office takes place in the city. One change was to require that any council member in seat 2, 4, or 6 that wants to apply to run for mayor be forced to resign his/her seat for the year that would remain on their term after the election and that they must apply in the first 15 days of the application cycle. Additionally, it was required that anyone applying for a seat in an election cycle could not retract that application and then change to another position that was on the ballot that cycle.

The first of those, seat 2 applying to run for mayor, applied to me in the 2023 election cycle. In speaking with the city secretary at the time, she indicated that the requirement to apply in the first 15 days was illegal. Every applicant is to be afforded the same application cycle as any other applicant according to state law.

As a result, I'd suggest that the CRC review all of these changes to see if that is indeed true and if the other changes have any legal issues. If that turns out to be the case, the CRC might want to recommend a change to these items to bring us into compliance with state law.

 

[Paul Prince]

I intentionally started this post trying to only state the questions as posed by the CRC. I tried to avoid including any of my opinions. I also declined to answer direct questions posed to me during the 2/19 meeting. Here I am adding my personal thoughts.

1. (Term length). The CRC discussed whether there is a period of getting accustomed to the role, which makes 2 years too short, especially for first terms. I was asked in the meeting for my opinion. My personal experience in coming to the city council office included time spent on multiple committees and commissions so the “start-up” time to be comfortable in the role was very short. So, I do not feel 2-years is too short, but I also do not feel 3 years is too long.
   
   If we did move to three year terms there are several implications to consider:
   A) We have learned from the City attorney that state law requires elections by majority for terms of 3 years or longer, versus the plurality approach we now use for 2 years terms. This would result in the potential for runoff elections we have not needed previously. Whether this is good or bad can be debated.
   B) Eliminating the “Place” based approach becomes impractical. I don’t see a method with an election followed by a single runoff to ensure majority. Maybe the CRC will find a creative idea. If 2 year terms are maintained, a pool of candidates can be selected by Plurality without any runoff.
   
   
2. (Term limits). Perhaps language using years of service could make this independent of the term length question. E.g. Candidates for mayor or council who have already served more than (?) years on the council in any combination of Mayor or Council seats are not eligible to file for candidacy of either Mayor or Council. But, I personally think this is not a problem we have. From my research going back 20 years, Randy Kruger was mayor for 8 years and was already in a council seat in 2005 when my data starts. Thus he served at least 10 years. Ed Tidwell was on Council for approximately 4 years before serving as mayor for 6 years. 10 years total. There have been numerous people who served 8 years. If 8 years is viewed as “too long” by the CRC then a recommendation for some lower limit seems in order.
   
   
3. (Geographical places). I just don’t see it as practical. Maybe when we have twice the population of today in another 15-20 years we’ll have enough voters, and candidates willing to run, to make this work. The only historical case of a contingent potentially being too strong that I am aware of is when council had a majority of golfers. I don’t see going to geography based places having an effect on that.
   
   
4. (election by declared Place vs election of a slate of candidates for all open seats by Plurality). I favor moving to a slate of candidates to allow voters to consider all candidates equally, and avoid the situation where someone who may be the least preferred by voters is unopposed. However, this suffers from making 3 year terms impractical (or impossible).
   
   
5. (Majority vs Plurality election method). I am okay with either in theory, but there are other considerations which lead me to prefer staying with our current Plurality election method.
   
   
6. (Paul’s Summary) All things considered, I see our current “Place” based approach, where each candidate arbitrarily selects which seat they run for, leading to limits on voter choice as a problem. I would like that to change. Since 3 year terms makes this change impossible, I do not recommend moving to 3 year terms. I have no strong opinion on limiting time in office.

 

[Kevin Sullivan]

As you discuss term limits, you will want to be specific. Take a situation like mine. I was originally appointed in June of 2016 to fulfill the balance of a departing council member’s term. I then won an election in November of 2016, lost in November of 2018, won in November of 2020, won again in November 2022, and ran for mayor and won in November of 2023. That lays out like this:

	Years​	Terms​
Appointed in June of 2016	.5​	0​
Elected in November of 2016	2​	1​
Elected in November of 2020	2​	1​
Elected in November 2022	1​	1​
Elected Mayor in November 2023	2​	1​
Totals	7.5​	4​

If you decide you want term limits, how do you define them? Years? Terms? If you set term limits to serving no more than 8 years, does that mean at 7.5 years someone like me can’t run again? Or is it OK as long as you have served less than 8 years when you run?

I counted terms above only when an election took place. Is that the way you would like to define it? Or is fulfilling a partial term included in the count?

In my previous post, I mentioned limits by position, council member and mayor. If you go that route, just be specific in how you define it.

Again, I have no preference either way on term limits, I’m just suggesting that should you go down that route, make the definition as specific as possible so there is no ambiguity.