Douglas County is one of the fastest-growing counties in Colorado, and its three commissioners are responsible for everything from million-dollar land use decisions to public health oversight. That's a lot of ground to cover — literally and figuratively.

Critics of the current structure say three commissioners creates a system where just two people agreeing behind closed doors can shape county policy without triggering Colorado's open meetings requirements. Supporters of the expansion say five commissioners would spread the workload, reduce missed meetings, and give more residents a seat at the table. Those who oppose it say adding commissioners means adding politicians — and bigger government isn't automatically better government.

How Well Do You Know DougCo's Government?

Four questions. The answers might surprise you.

Douglas County's population today is roughly how many times larger than it was in 1984?

• About 3 times larger — The growth was far more dramatic. Castle Rock alone had just 8,000 residents in 1984 — the whole county had 23,000. Today it's 400,000.
• About 8 times larger — Close in spirit but still well below the actual number. From 23,000 to 400,000 is nearly a 17-fold increase.
• About 17 times larger — Correct. The county went from 23,000 residents to 400,000 — nearly 17 times its 1984 population — while the number of commissioners stayed the same.
• About 25 times larger — The growth was massive, but not quite that large. From 23,000 to 400,000 is approximately 17 times — still a staggering increase for a three-member board.

Why do 3 To 5 supporters argue that a three-member commission creates a transparency problem?

• Commissioners aren't required to publish meeting agendas — Agenda publication isn't the specific concern here. The issue is about private conversations between commissioners.
• Two commissioners can meet privately without triggering Colorado's open meetings laws — Correct. Because a quorum of three is two, two commissioners can talk privately and reach agreements without Colorado's sunshine laws applying — meaning the public may never know.
• Commissioners control their own salaries without public input — Salary isn't the transparency argument supporters are making. The core concern is about informal two-person meetings that don't trigger open meetings requirements.
• There are no term limits on DougCo commissioners — Term limits aren't part of the 3 To 5 campaign's central argument. The focus is on how a three-member board's quorum rules affect public transparency.

What happened at the Douglas County health board's June 11 meeting that 3 To 5 supporters cite as a capacity argument?

• The board voted to cut public health funding — No vote took place at all — that's actually the point. The meeting couldn't proceed because there weren't enough members present.
• Two commissioner-members were absent, leaving the board without a quorum — Correct. Both commissioner-members of the health board, George Teal and Kevin Van Winkle, were absent on June 11. Combined with another member being sick, there was no quorum and no business could be conducted.
• The meeting ran past midnight because commissioners were unprepared — The meeting didn't run long — it couldn't happen at all. No quorum meant the board had to arrange an informal phone meeting the following week instead.
• A commissioner voted against a public health measure for the first time — There was no vote because there was no quorum. The board had to hold a quick phone meeting the next week — which meant the public lost its chance to watch government in action.

Former Commissioner Lora Thomas points to which Colorado counties as examples that already operate with five commissioners?

• Denver, Boulder, Jefferson, and Broomfield — These counties weren't cited in Thomas's argument. She drew on counties she personally worked alongside during her time as a commissioner.
• El Paso, Arapahoe, Adams, and Weld — Correct. Thomas said she worked alongside commissioners from El Paso, Arapahoe, Adams, and Weld counties — all of which have five commissioners — and believes their boards could better distribute responsibilities as a result.
• Larimer, Pueblo, Mesa, and Garfield — Thomas didn't cite these counties. She specifically named El Paso, Arapahoe, Adams, and Weld as her examples of five-commissioner boards she worked with.
• Teller, Park, Clear Creek, and Gilpin — These smaller mountain counties weren't mentioned. Thomas pointed to large, fast-growing Front Range counties — El Paso, Arapahoe, Adams, and Weld — as her comparison points.

3 Commissioners vs. 5 Commissioners: The Debate at a Glance

That's the debate Douglas County voters could weigh in on this November — but only if organizers clear the signature threshold in time. The 3 To 5 campaign is aiming for about 18,000 total signatures, roughly 20% above the 15,040 verified minimum. That buffer accounts for signatures that are disqualified during the county clerk's verification process — which checks that no one signed twice and that every signature belongs to a registered Douglas County resident.

Before submitting to the clerk, organizers run their own pre-validation to estimate how many of their collected signatures will hold up. It's a campaign-within-a-campaign: collecting the raw numbers, then stress-testing them before the official count begins.

What Happens If Enough Signatures Are Collected?

• Signatures Submitted to the Clerk: All collected signatures go to the Douglas County Clerk's office, where each is verified against voter rolls to confirm residency and prevent duplicate submissions.
• Measure Placed on the November Ballot: If 15,040 verified signatures are confirmed, Douglas County voters — not the commissioners themselves — will decide whether to expand the board from three to five members.
• Voters Make the Final Call: As resident Jon Meredith put it, signing the petition doesn't mean you support expansion — it means you believe Douglas County voters should get to make that choice.

Sources & References

• Primary source: local-news — Tyler Melito