Broomfield council debates local human rights ordinance, leans toward Boulder model and third‑party enforcement

Broomfield city attorneys briefed the City Council on whether to adopt a local human rights ordinance and how the city might enforce it. Attorney Rogers, who led the staff presentation, said the discussion was prompted by a mayoral request and outlined models used in Colorado cities, enforcement options and estimated first‑year costs.

Rogers said Colorado residents who believe they experienced discrimination currently file complaints at the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or, for some matters, the Department of Justice. She presented a range of enforcement models used elsewhere: an internal city office, a contracted third‑party hearing officer, a human‑rights board that acts as a hearing body, charging discrimination as a municipal code violation, a private right of action in court, and treating violations as business license infractions.

Rogers recommended the city initially adopt a third‑party hearing officer model if council chooses to adopt an ordinance, and suggested budgeting $50,000 for the first year from the City and County Attorney’s budget. "My recommendation in the first year would be that if council wants to move forward with this, we do that third party hearing model. And we budget $50,000 that could come out of my budget," she said.

Council members discussed tradeoffs among options. Supporters said a local ordinance gives residents a local avenue for complaints and allows the city to act more quickly than state or federal agencies in some cases. Concerns raised included staff capacity, municipal court workload, whether local action would duplicate state/federal processes, equity implications of a private right of action and the cost of staffing a permanent enforcement office.

Several council members favored a hybrid approach: adopt a local ordinance modeled on Boulder’s ordinance; set up a human‑rights advisory board (initially advisory rather than as a hearing body) to do community outreach and advise council; and use a contracted third‑party hearing officer for enforcement, with regular review after the first year. Rogers said some peer cities have taken that path and that a board without enforcement powers can be useful for outreach and study.

Rogers reported limited local complaint statistics and cited statewide CCRD figures and national EEOC employment figures discussed during the presentation: she said CCRD reported about 1,792 charges statewide in a recent period and that EEOC had about 88,500 employment charges nationally in fiscal year 2024, with about 1,300 filed from Colorado. She and council members acknowledged the limits of available data at the county level.

By the end of the discussion council members directed staff to prepare an ordinance modeled on Boulder’s framework, to pursue a third‑party hearing officer contract (capped at $50,000 for the initial year from the CAO budget) and to bring a resolution creating a human‑rights board modeled on Lafayette’s advisory board. Staff will plan public outreach, including a Broomfield Voice engagement page and stakeholder input, and prepare an RFQ/RFP to identify qualified third‑party hearing officers. Rogers said the city would monitor usage and bring the enforcement approach back for council review after one year.