Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Justice Center topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Weld County commissioners direct staff to seek contractor for Justice Center after debate over charter requirement

Weld County Board of County Commissioners · June 22, 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

After public comment urging a referendum and extended legal discussion about Home Rule Charter section 14-8, the Weld County Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0 on June 22 to direct staff to issue an RFP for a construction manager/general contractor to build the Weld County Justice Center as one unified project (Resolution 2026-1553).

The Weld County Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0 on June 22, 2026, to direct staff to issue a request for proposals for a construction manager/general contractor to build the Weld County Justice Center as a single project, approving Resolution 2026-1553.

Commissioner Kevin Ross moved the resolution and Commissioner Jason Maxey seconded. In a roll-call vote, Commissioners Buck, Peppler, Ross, Maxey and Clements all voted yes.

The decision followed public comments urging the board to put the project to a countywide vote and a lengthy panel discussion centered on Section 14-8 of the Weld County Home Rule Charter and the county’s statutory duty to provide suitable court facilities. Elijah Hatch, chairman of the Weld County Council at large, told commissioners that "a public vote is not obstruction. A vote is not delay. A public vote is accountability," and warned that citizens could seek court remedies if they believed the charter had been bypassed.

Sheriff Reams joined public callers, saying taking the matter to voters "would be in alignment with the charter section 14-8" and that it would be "the right thing to do." Natalie Tennant of Severance urged the board to "bring it to the people." Those appeals came prior to the board's substantive debate.

Commissioners described a multi-year facilities planning process that identified a new justice center as a priority and said they had considered multiple sequencing and phasing options. Commissioner Ross said the board had debated whether to break the work into multiple projects but defended treating the work as a single project to maximize efficiency. Commissioner Maxey said legal research and historic charter records led him to the view that Section 14-8 is tied to ad valorem taxation and does not, in the county's circumstances, require a tax vote; he said, "We are not raising taxes for this project." Commissioner Peppler summarized recent legal review, referencing CRS 30-11-104 and charter provisions, and said moving forward as one unified project could save "tens of millions of dollars" compared with splitting the work.

Multiple commissioners thanked county attorneys and outside consultants for research and advice. Commissioner Buck specifically thanked "Matt Conroy and attorney Bruce Barker" for due diligence work that informed the board's decision.

The resolution directs staff to issue an RFP for a construction manager/general contractor (CMGC) to build the Weld County Justice Center as a single project; the RFP timing and procurement schedule were not specified in the public discussion. The board also approved, earlier in the meeting, a separate resolution to temporarily close County Road 34 between Interstate 25 and County Road 13 for final roundabout work from July 8 through Sept. 27, with paved detours and advance message boards.

What remains unsettled in the transcript record is whether the cost estimates cited by public commenters — including a claim that the project's estimated cost "exceeds the current value of all county-owned buildings and real property combined" — are accurate; that claim was presented as a public comment and is noted here as attributable to Elijah Hatch. Commissioners and their legal advisers described the project's scope, statutory duties and charter history as justifying the board's chosen path.

The board adjourned after the vote; staff were directed to proceed with the RFP process under the authority of Resolution 2026-1553.