Douglas County commissioners approve resolution to put Home Rule Charter Commission question on June 24 ballot

The Douglas County Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a resolution supporting the creation of a Home Rule Charter Commission and placing the question before county voters on the June 24, 2025, ballot in Castle Rock.

The resolution, read into the record during the board’s June 10 business meeting, cited state law and the Colorado Constitution and said becoming a Home Rule county would “grant the county an opportunity to create local control, free itself from dangerous state mandates on issues of local concern, [and] protect and preserve Douglas County residents' constitutional rights,” among other aims.

Proponents on the dais and in public comment argued the change would give the county greater authority on issues such as public health, homelessness, land use and property taxes. One commissioner told the meeting that home rule would allow the county to act locally during public-health emergencies and to pursue policy choices tailored to Douglas County’s priorities. Supporters also pointed to the county’s fiscal position and argued local control would protect residents’ economic interests.

Opponents who spoke during the public-comment period raised several objections. Speakers criticized the timing and process for advancing the measure, questioned use of county funds for outreach and materials, and flagged campaign finance concerns: public commenters said the reported donors for the pro-home-rule committee included several large contributions from entities outside Douglas County (names and amounts cited by speakers included Ventana Capital $50,000, Cundy Harbor Irrevocable Trust $50,000 and Westside Property Investment Company $10,000) and contrasted that with nearly 300 smaller donations reported by the organized opposition. Commenters also raised worries about representation (arguing a three-commissioner, at-large structure reduces suburban representation), likened the effort to secession rhetoric, and said the matter should wait for a general election rather than be advanced in an off-year vote. One public commenter said a county survey question on the issue showed 54% voting “against” when asked directly; backers disputed that characterization and pointed to other polling numbers showing interest in local control.

Board members who supported the resolution emphasized that the Home Rule Charter Commission, if created by voters, would itself be elected and would draft any proposed charter for separate voter approval. Commissioners said the county clerk’s office handled ballots for overseas military voters and that the county had paused any immediate policy changes tied to other topics raised during comment, such as primitive camping at Sandstone Ranch.

Votes at a glance: - Consent agenda (items a–x): motion to approve carried unanimously (vote recorded as unanimous). The consent agenda covered routine contracts and operational items; citizen comment on consent items was solicited and none was offered online. - Resolution in support of creating a Home Rule Charter Commission (item 4a): motion to approve carried unanimously; the board voted to read and adopt the resolution and to place the question of creating a Home Rule Charter Commission on the June 24, 2025, ballot.

What happens next: The resolution does not itself adopt a charter. If voters approve creating a Home Rule Charter Commission on June 24, the commission would be formed to draft a proposed charter; any final charter would require subsequent voter approval. Commissioners and county staff said they expect public input through the coming weeks and noted statutory procedures set by the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes for forming a Home Rule county.

The June 10 meeting record shows extended public comment both for and against the proposal; multiple residents asked the board to postpone or withdraw the measure, while county leaders urged voters to consider local control. The board moved on to other business after the vote and recessed for a scheduled land-use meeting.