North Richland Hills residents seemed poised to approve six amendments to their city charter on Election Day.<\/p>\n
The amendments concern term lengths and limits for city council members and the mayor, plus a few other changes.<\/p>\n
With 105 of 215 vote centers reporting, results showed big margins of approval for each of the items on the ballot.<\/p>\n
The city council will canvass votes Nov. 17<\/a>, which means officials will ensure all votes cast are accounted for, including mail-in and provisional ballots.<\/p>\n \u201cCharter elections don’t happen every year, so we really appreciate citizens taking the time to learn about the amendments and understand them,\u201d said Mary Peters, the city\u2019s communications director.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a quick overview of the proposed amendments<\/a> and partial results as of early Wednesday morning:<\/p>\n Proposition A \u2013 Changes the length of mayoral and city council terms from two to three years, requires candidates to win by a majority vote and establishes a phased election schedule to transition to three-year terms. Proposition B \u2013 Establishes term limits, allowing individuals to serve up to three terms as a city council member and three additional terms as mayor, or vice versa. Proposition C \u2013 Requires the mayor and city council members to resign if they become candidates for other elected offices, bringing city law in line with state law. Proposition D \u2013 Removes a requirement that a municipal court judge\u2019s term coincides with the mayor\u2019s term. This gives the council more flexibility to extend a judge\u2019s contract or remove them without the move being tied to the mayor\u2019s term. Proposition E \u2013 Aligns term lengths and appointment schedules of planning and zoning commission members with those of the mayor and city council. Proposition F \u2013 Eliminates $50,000 threshold for competitive bidding, aligning city law with state law. Got a tip? Email Andy Lusk at\u00a0alusk@kera.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n
For 5,393 (77.93%). Against 1,527 (22.07%).<\/p>\n
For 5,521 (79.59%). Against 1,416 (20.41%).<\/p>\n
For 6,217 (89.76%). Against 709 (10.24%).<\/p>\n
For 5,147 (75.79%). Against 1,644 (24.21%).<\/p>\n
For 5,326 (78.34%). Against 1,473 (21.66%).<\/p>\n
For 5,656 (83.85%). Against 1,089 (16.15%)<\/p>\n