Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Construction Management topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Union County hires Mollet Construction as owner representative for courthouse project after split vote

Union County Board of Commissioners · April 14, 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 Union County Board of Commissioners voted 3–2 to hire Mollet Construction as owner representative for the courthouse and sheriff’s office construction project after rejecting a motion to appoint Tegra. The decision follows presentations and roll‑call votes recorded April 14, 2026.

The Union County Board of Commissioners voted to hire Mollet Construction as the owner representative to oversee the county’s courthouse and sheriff’s office construction project, approving the motion by roll call on April 14, 2026.

The board first considered a motion to appoint Tegra as owner representative after a presentation by Tegra earlier in the afternoon. That motion failed on a roll call vote (Dailey — No; Ustad — Yes; Ballard — No; Kimmel — No; Joffer — Yes). The board then approved a separate motion to hire Mollet Construction (Kimmel — Yes; Ballard — Yes; Ustad — No; Dailey — Yes; Joffer — No), resulting in a 3–2 majority in favor of Mollet.

The owner representative role is intended to oversee preconstruction and construction activities for the courthouse/sheriff addition and act as the county’s on‑site representative for project management tasks. Tegra had been present earlier in the meeting to describe the services it would offer as an owner representative for the project.

The selection follows prior discussion between commissioners and department heads about preconstruction matters for the courthouse and sheriff’s office addition. There is no formal schedule or contract text recorded in the minutes; the minutes record only the motions, roll‑call votes and the companies involved. The board adjourned after taking the action; no additional procedural steps or implementation dates were noted in the minutes.