Politics & Government
New Lehi Council tables term limits
Nichole Coombs | Lehi Free Press
The Lehi City Council decided not to move forward with plans to implement term limits at this time, but indicated a willingness to revisit the idea in a year.
To open last week’s work session, Council member James Harrison acknowledged the ongoing conversations at all government levels about term limits.
“I think the arguments for term limits outweigh the opposing arguments,” said Harrison.
Harrison, who drafted the proposed term limits, has personally committed to no more than two terms on the council.
“I think it’s always good to see new faces up here,” said Harrison.
But not everyone on the council agreed.
Council member Emily Lockhart said she didn’t see a reason to implement term limits because the residents decide who sits on the council.
“We are placeholders for the next generation,” said Lockhart. “I think the last election showed that Lehi is exercising organic term limits. This doesn’t seem to be a problem affecting Lehi. I would much rather see this on the ballot than the five of us deciding.”
Similarly, Council member Heather Newall said she wouldn’t support the proposal as it’s currently written.
“Passing something like this,” said Newall, “says we do not trust the voters of Lehi. In the last election, our voters showed that they can make hard decisions.”
Newall commented that studies show that second term elected officials who can’t run for a third term may be less productive.
“The first year [on the council] we are gaining institutional knowledge,” said Newall. “We are so new. Is new blood more important than institutional knowledge?”
Council members discussed possibly adding another term to the proposal, allowing elected officials to serve for three terms.
“Three terms are more aligned with other cities,” said Newall. “Saratoga and other cities do three terms. I don’t want anyone to take their second term easy.”
Currently, the city council could vote on term limits, but that decision could be overturned by a future council. Lockhart pointed out that putting the question on the ballot would be the most permanent solution.
“Term limits should go to a vote of the people,” said council member Michelle Stallings. “Ultimately, letting the people decide.”
The council also explored including term limits for appointed officials, considering how long an elected official would need to wait before becoming eligible to run for office again, and debating whether two terms as a city council member would impact eligibility to run for mayor or vice versa.
A majority of the council agreed that a referendum was the best way forward, but noted that timing could affect city costs. If added to the ballot this year, the city would bear the expense, while waiting until the 2027 municipal election would avoid extra ballot costs.
To move forward, the council asked city attorney Ryan Wood to research several options and scenarios, including outlining a timeline for the steps required to place a referendum on the 2027 ballot. The City Council agreed to pause further discussion until they have that information.
