Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.F.3. Discussion of Term of Office for MayorCITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Discussion of Term of Office for Mayor DATE: November 9, 2010 Comment: Introduction: The Council is asked to give direction as to whether it supports a change in the Term of Office for the mayor of Shakopee, from the current two years, to four years. Background: Earlier this year, the City Council held a preliminary discussion on three proposed changes to the format of government in Shakopee: • Changing the election year from odd, to even • Establishing a municipal primary election • Changing the term of office for mayor from two years, to four years. Of these three discussion items, only the term of the office of the mayor was of interest to the Council. The Council was told at that time that it would be brought back for consideration after the budget process was complete. I have attached the memorandum from City Clerk Judy Cox, and some survey results that had been reviewed in the earlier discussion. The Council is asked to give direction as to whether it wishes to pursue the change. As shown in the City Clerk's memo, the Council would need to adopt an ordinance by July 5, 2011, in order for this to happen. Therefore, there is no hurry, but direction one way or the other would be helpful to staff. Recommendation: Staff has no recommendation on this issue. Relationship to Visioning: This supports Goal F, "Housekeeping". Action Required: The Council should give direction as to whether it wishes to change from two years, to four years for the Term of Office for Mayor. /3. r If it wants to pursue the change, it should direct staff to draft an ordinance change, and bring it back to a future council meeting. If it is satisfied with the current two year term, no action is needed. Mark McNeill City Administrator TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Term of Mayor DATE: May 11, 2010 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: From time to time, various Council members have suggested talking about changing the term of the Mayor from two years to four years. At the request of the City Administrator, I have looked into the process to do so. According to MSA 412.022, the city council may, by ordinance, establish a four -year term or reestablish a two -year term for the office of mayor. The ordinance must be adopted no later than four weeks before the closing date for the filing of affidavits of candidacy for such election. Electing a mayor for a four -year term at the 2011 municipal election would require the city council to adopt an ordinance no later than July 5, 2011. November 8 August 23 July 26 July 21 July 5 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum Election Day Close of filings for office, 77 days prior to election day 4 weeks prior to close of filings, ordinance must be adopted Publication of ordinance setting mayor's term at four years City Council adopts ordinance setting mayor's term at four years The terms of the mayors in some other cities are as follows: 4 -year term: Eden Prairie, Burnsville, Apple Valley, Prior Lake and Savage 2 -year term: Chaska, Lakeville, New Prague, Belle Plaine, and Elko New Market DISCUSSION: The City of Chaska did extensive research on this issue last year. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages is attached. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue with the mayor's term at two years 2. Change the mayor's term to four years RECOMMENDATION: Discuss whether or not to change the term of the mayor from two years to four years and if this is desired, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance and bring it to city council for consideration. h:\judy \termofinayor In 2009, the City of Chaska did research on the experience of other city's with had changed from a two year Mayoral term, to four. A summary of their experiences were as follows: • Bloomington- Saw very little opposition when the change was made in 1995. It was described as a way to build continuity in the position and avoid wholesale change in the City Council every two years. • Carver- Also saw very little opposition when making the change. They felt it was important to treat the Mayor the same way as other Council members, as they have the same voting power. -• Cambridge- Switched to a four year Mayoral term in 2006. They saw the Primary benefit have the potential of having the majority of the Council elected every two years. They felt that it provided for better long term planning and continuity. • Chanhassen- Switched from a two year to a four year term a few years ago, and reported that the transition went smoothly. • Minnetrista — Made the switch from two to four year term, and found that it is little discourse of the subject. • Marshall- Made the switch in the mid 1990's, and reported no negatives. There positives included consistency similar to City Council terms, long term City planning and community leadership, and minimize potential election issues every other year. • Willmar- Made the change a few years, and felt that it went well. They indicated that the extended term allowed for more continuity and planning and budgeting. The only concern was if someone who was not well suited to be Mayor was elected, they would have that individual for four years, rather than two. • Rochester- Went to four year terms several years ago, and reported that it had worked out very well for the City. They avoided the problem of having positions up for election "every year ", and included savings for conducting elections. • Plymouth- Approved an amendment to extend the Mayor's term from two years to four years in 2000. It was approved by voters. The argument against the change at the time of the election was that the majority of the Council could no longer be changed every two years. The primary argument for extending the term was the cost to run even the simple campaign in a city of 55,000 voters. They were also going through a debate on staggering terms at the time, which generated some negative public reaction. • Oak Park Heights- Switched to four years in 1996. They felt that the negative and positives were mirrored each other. • Savage- Went to a four year Mayoral term in 2007. It was felt that having the Mayor run office every two years could potentially provide for disruption. Advantages: Issues relating to changing the Mayoral term of office from two years, to four years 1. Creates more continuity in the position. 2. Avoids having the majority of the City Council turn over every two years. 3. Permits the Mayor to have enough time to learn, and demonstrate success in that first term. 4. Provides equal treatment to the Mayoral position, which has the same formal voting power as do other Council members. 5. May discourage the potential "one issue" candidate, as a four year commitment is required. Disadvantages: 1. May diminish the voice of residents to consider who represents the community at an "at large" basis. 2. If a Mayor is not considered successful, it creates a longer period of time until voters can "unelect" that individual. 3. Removes one member of the City Council that is viewed to have more "accountability" to the public, because they are elected more often. It forces the "door to door" communication with residents every two years. 4. Removes the ability of voters to make wholesale changes to the City Council every two years. 5. If it is not perceived to be a broken system, is there a reason to fix it? Source: City of Chaska survey, 2009