Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Term Limits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge voters decide whether to remove county term limits at public hearing
Summary
At a Rio Blanco County public hearing, multiple residents urged eliminating term limits for many county offices to boost candidate recruitment; commissioners said they will hold additional hearings and may place the question on the ballot for voters to decide.
Get email alerts on the Term Limits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
More than a half-dozen residents urged the Rio Blanco County Board of Commissioners on April 28 to let voters decide whether to eliminate term limits for county offices, saying limits make it hard to recruit qualified candidates in a sparsely populated county.
"When we term limit these offices it makes it hard to get good candidates," said Sam Tully, a Rangely resident, arguing that eight-year limits discourage professionals in a small county of roughly 6,000 people. "If you don't like the job they're doing, find a candidate and run somebody against them."
Frank Huitt told the board he supports term limits at state and federal levels but not for local offices, and Roger Bowling urged retaining limits for county commissioners specifically to avoid entrenchment and preserve institutional turnover.
County staff and the chair said no decision would be made that day. "We will do a hearing in Meeker on May 5 and then the commissioners can either choose to make a decision at that meeting or delay it," Chair Cali Stretchfield said, describing options including placing the question on the ballot as a position-by-position choice or a blanket change.
Staff reported a historical review of commissioners' tenure back to 2010, noting only one commissioner had served two full terms during that span. Commissioners emphasized that removing or changing term limits is a policy decision that ultimately may be placed before voters.
The board closed public comment and left the matter for further consideration, with another hearing scheduled in Meeker and a potential ballot decision to be timed later this year.

