OUR OPINION: Approve all three Wilsonville ballot measures

May primary elections are, at times, the sleepy preludes to the frenzy of November.

Not so in Wilsonville, where residents have been buzzing — often on this opinion page — about three ballot measures: two related to the City Council term limits adopted back in 2020 and the other an advisory vote on the creation of an urban renewal district to support Town Center development.

We think the choices are simple, with some caveats. Voters should approve all three measures.

Measure 3-605 Is an advisory vote — meaning the city isn’t bound by the results — over whether Wilsonville should create a new urban renewal district for Town Center redevelopment. Wilsonville has used urban renewal in the recent past — including for the Year 2000 Plan and the Westside Plan — with positive results, and we see this as the most effective way to fund the infrastructure needed for a vibrant Town Center redevelopment as Wilsonville continues to grow.

Measure 3-608 presents the easiest choice. It addresses a technicality in the city charter that means time served as an appointment to a vacant council position is counted as a full term. The commonly cited example is Mayor Julie Fitzgerald, who was elected to a vacant seat for her first term as a councilor and started early — at the council’s request — as an appointee before the term officially started at the beginning of the next year. That brief time as an appointee currently counts for a full term; the ballot measure would alter the charter so that any time spent as an appointee for under 365.25 days does not count in the years of service calculation. It’s a sensible change.

Measure 3-609 is more substantive. It would alter term limits to allow a two-term city councilor to also serve two terms as mayor in a 20-year period. The current term limits allow for no more than 12 years of service in a 20-year period, and under this measure that would remain the case for those who do not serve as mayor.

The city’s argument is that mayors benefit from experience and the regional connections they build over the years, so being capped at four years after serving eight as a councilor means the city loses the advantages of a seasoned mayor too soon. Those against the measure feel it weakens the limits approved by voters just four years ago.

We see both sides and ultimately feel this is for the voters to decide, though we lean on the side favoring the measure. It is important to remember that this change would simply give representatives a chance for four extra years in office; the voters still decide who wins each term.

As the election approaches, remember that the most important thing is to make your voice heard.

— Spokesman Editorial Board