Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Justice Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Custer County reopens courthouse debate after grant-funded redesign; commissioners outline public outreach and possible ballot measure
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a $25,000 grant-funded redesign for a modular, single‑courtroom courthouse and discussed next steps, including architect cost estimates, public workshops and the possibility of placing a funding measure before voters. Residents pressed for clearer ballot language, sunset provisions and lower-cost alternatives.
Chair Bill Cand opened a lengthy public discussion about replacing or modernizing the county courthouse, saying the county must meet state security and accessibility standards and that previous ballot efforts in 2021 were defeated.
"What is by required by law is that every county have a courthouse," Cand said, explaining that a courthouse that meets current safety and ADA requirements is needed and that grants and sales tax options are the typical ways to fund construction.
The county won a $25,000 state grant to revalidate requirements and produce a revised, modular design that would accommodate a single courtroom, jury room and courtroom support spaces. Cand and staff said that design work will allow the county to estimate updated costs and then determine whether to request voter authorization for a funding mechanism.
Multiple residents and civic stakeholders raised concerns at the meeting about timing, transparency and cost. Cindy Howard, speaking from the Zoom audience, pressed the board for details on possible sales-tax increases and whether any ballot proposal would include a sunset clause. She also urged the county to follow newly enacted state wildfire and building-related statutes in its planning process.
"If it's a 1% county sales tax increase, is that sunsetted when it is paid off or is government going to keep that 50% increase in perpetuity?" Howard asked, requesting explicit ballot language and a clear repayment timetable.
Other commenters, including Jim Gilbert and Peggy, said prior outreach had been limited and urged the commissioners to hold larger, focused public workshops before placing anything on a ballot. Several stakeholders suggested the board continue analyzing lower-cost options — for example, renovating existing space where feasible — and make those tradeoffs public.
Commissioners said they have not yet settled on a funding mechanism, tax rate, or ballot language and reiterated that any final plan would be presented to voters for approval. They also said the modular design would allow future expansion if needed and would reuse prior planning work to reduce professional costs.
Next steps described at the meeting include completion of architect cost estimates for the single-courtroom design, a series of public workshops and a timeline that would allow county staff to bring a ballot-placement request to the board if commissioners decide to proceed. No formal action to place a funding measure on a ballot was taken at the May 13 meeting.
