Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Law Enforcement Infrastructure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Stillwater County approves up to $8.4 million law enforcement and emergency operations center over one commissioner’s objection

Stillwater County Board of Commissioners · March 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Stillwater County Board of Commissioners voted 2-1 to approve a not-to-exceed $8.4 million Law Enforcement/Emergency Operations Center, advancing a one-story, roughly 10,000 sq ft facility after debate about timing and fiscal prudence ahead of upcoming elections.

The Stillwater County Board of Commissioners approved a construction project for a standalone Law Enforcement and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) at a cost not to exceed $8.4 million after a 2-1 vote on March 12, 2026.

Commissioner Steve Riveland, who moved the approval, said the project is part of the county’s Capital Improvement Plan and described a scaled‑back design: a one‑story building of approximately 10,000 square feet intended to serve the sheriff’s office and emergency operations for decades. Commissioner Jeff Ruffatto seconded the motion. Commissioner Roger Webb said he would oppose the expenditure, arguing it was "not fiscally responsible" to commit the funds with a new county commissioner and possibly a new sheriff to be elected in about two and a half months; Webb voted no. The motion passed, Riveland yea, Ruffatto yea, Webb nay.

Facilities lead Chad Coles told the board the sheriff’s office currently occupies roughly 5,000 square feet or less and described needs for expanded dispatch and data areas. Officials said the $8.4 million figure includes data equipment, furniture and extensive civil work for the site; the transcript records attendees noting a per‑square‑foot cost above $800, which project staff attributed to those included systems and site work.

Treasurer Jerry Friend asked whether the new facility would include overnight holding cells and about transportation costs for detainees; Commissioners and facilities staff said current transport processes would remain the same and did not provide a precise transportation cost. The record does not specify whether the new facility will include overnight holding cells.

The board voted on the motion immediately after discussion. No separate amendment to the motion was recorded. The project was presented as part of long‑range capital planning; supporters said a standalone building would allow offices at the west annex to relocate to the courthouse and could facilitate future regional dispatch expansion, while opponents cautioned about timing and fiscal oversight prior to incoming elected officials.

Next steps: The motion approved the project authorization at a not‑to‑exceed amount; the transcript does not record a construction contract award or an implementation schedule beyond general remarks about future use and possible expansion.