Weld County needs a new Justice Center.
That is not the hard part of this discussion. The hard part is admitting that a real need can still produce the wrong process.
That is where I believe the Weld Board of County Commissioners is right now. Not because the need is fake. Not because the courts can wait forever. Not because Weld County should pretend growth is something happening to other people somewhere else.
The need is real.
The current path is wrong.
And those two things can be true at the same time.
Weld County courts currently operate across multiple facilities with 23 courtrooms of varying size, function, and capability. The original 10 courtrooms were built in 1914. The remaining 13 have been retrofitted into a building originally designed for something else, which is a polite way of saying county government did what county government often does: made it work until “making it work” became the problem.
Only 10 of the existing 23 courtrooms are presently equipped to conduct jury trials.
The facilities also do not meet the safety expectations of a modern justice center. In-custody defendants standing trial are moved by sheriff’s deputies through the same passageways used by the general public. That is not ideal for the public. It is not ideal for deputies. It is not ideal for court staff, attorneys, victims, witnesses, jurors, families, or even the defendants themselves.
Modern court facilities are designed to separate those movements for a reason.
That matters.
Weld County is growing. Caseload demands are growing. Long-term judicial planning shows the county needs a facility designed for courts, not a patchwork of old rooms, borrowed space, retrofits, shared hallways, duct tape, and institutional optimism.
The new Justice Center is programmed to open with 24 courtrooms, with internal capacity to expand to 33 and the ability to add six additional courtrooms in the future. It would consolidate court operations into one purpose-built building, improve security for everyone who uses the facility, accommodate evolving courtroom technology, and support the long-term needs of Weld County residents.
That is a strong case. I do not dismiss it. I agree with nearly all of it.
But a strong need does not erase the Weld County Home Rule Charter. In fact, the stronger the need and the larger the price tag, the more important it becomes to follow the rules exactly.
Counties Have to Provide Court Facilities
Before getting into my disagreement with the board, we need to clear up one thing.
Weld County has a real responsibility here.
Colorado’s courts are part of the state judicial system. Judges, court structure, and judicial authority come from the Colorado Constitution and state law. But the buildings do not magically appear because someone in Denver adds a judge, expands a docket, or discovers that Weld County is still growing.
Colorado law requires county commissioners to provide court facilities at the county seat. Weld County cannot shrug and say, “Courts are a state problem. Good luck, Your Honor.”
That would be convenient. It would also be false.
Criminal cases, civil disputes, protection orders, juvenile matters, probate cases, felony advisements, trials, hearings, and the basic machinery of due process all need real rooms, real security, real staff access, real public access, and enough space to function without turning justice into a county fair parking problem.
So this is not an argument against building court space. It is not an argument against public safety. It is not an argument against planning for growth.
Weld County has an obligation to provide adequate court facilities.
The question is whether the current board is meeting that obligation lawfully and wisely. I do not believe we are.
The Downtown Decision Was Not a Backroom Deal
It is important to say this clearly: the downtown location decision did not come out of nowhere. The board went through a real public process.
Weld County hired professionals, studied options, reviewed long-term facility needs, and considered whether a new Justice Center should be built downtown or on county-owned land near O Street. When concerns were raised about moving the courts away from downtown Greeley, the board did not simply wave them off. Additional analysis was done.
That was the right thing to do.
The county brought in outside professionals to compare sites, verify costs, examine land issues, and help negotiate with other downtown property owners. The board held public listening sessions. We heard from people who cared deeply about downtown Greeley. We heard from people worried about cost. We heard from people who wanted the county to think beyond the next budget cycle.
That process mattered. I supported the downtown location. I still do.
Keeping justice downtown made sense to me then, and it still makes sense now. A strong case can be made for it. In fact, I helped make that case. I believed the historic courthouse, the civic campus, public access, long-term county operations, and downtown Greeley all pointed toward keeping the Justice Center where generations of Weld County residents have understood the courthouse to be.
So this article is not me trying to relitigate the downtown decision. It is not me saying the public process was fake. It is not me pretending the board acted casually or without serious thought. That would be false.
The problem came later.
The Charter Is Not Decoration
Weld County’s Home Rule Charter matters here.
Not as decoration. Not as a historical keepsake. Not as one of those county documents everyone praises during ceremonies and ignores the moment it becomes inconvenient.
The charter is our county constitution.
Section 14-8 places a voter-approval limit on large capital projects. In plain English, if any one project requires a capital expenditure from ad valorem tax funds equal to a three-mill levy for three years, it must be approved by the voters.
That provision exists for a reason. It is not anti-growth. It is not anti-courthouse. It is not anti-public safety.
It is a taxpayer guardrail.
It says there comes a point where a project is so large, so expensive, and so consequential that the board should not simply nod, vote, and send the bill downstairs.
The people get a say. That is not a loophole. That is the rule. And the board has known about this rule for a long time.
Section 14-8 was brought to our attention shortly after we made the downtown decision. We knew about the roughly $177 million threshold. We knew that if the Justice Center exceeded that limit as one capital project, the voters would need to approve it.
The plan was not to pretend the charter did not exist. The plan was to hire the right professionals and get real numbers.
That is why the county brought in a construction management and owner’s representative firm. That is why the county brought in design professionals. We needed expert help to answer a practical question:
Could Weld County build the Justice Center it actually needs within the charter limit?
About a month ago, we got the answer.
No.
Not even close.
The professional assessment made clear that $177 million would not build the Justice Center Weld County needs. It would get us roughly six courtrooms and the supporting facilities around them.
That does not meet the need of the 19th Judicial District.
Not today. Certainly not for the next 75 to 100 years.
And that 75-to-100-year point matters.
The board wanted a building that would serve the public for generations. I agree with that goal. Nobody should want to spend this much money on a building that is undersized before the paint dries. That is not conservative.
That is just expensive twice.
But once the professional assessment made clear that the real project could not be built under the charter cap, the board had a decision to make.
Commissioner Maxey and I believed the answer was simple. The single project that is the Justice Center exceeds the charter limit. So abide by Section 14-8 and go to the voters.
Commissioners Ross, Buck, and Peppler disagreed. They support what I call the “three-project plan.”
I believe Commissioners Ross, Buck, and Peppler sincerely believe their definition of the three projects complies with the charter.
Commissioner Maxey and I have a fundamentally different interpretation of the Weld County Home Rule Charter.
I Have Respected “The Body.” This Is Different.
I have served in local government for a long time.
I have been one of seven on a town council. I am now one of five on the Weld Board of County Commissioners.
That means I know what it is to win votes. I also know what it is to lose them. I have always respected the outcome of the body.
That does not mean I always agreed. It does not mean I checked my conscience at the door, smiled for the picture, and pretended every majority decision was kissed by angels.
It means I understood the system.
A board does not act because one commissioner has an opinion. A town council does not act because one member pounds the table. The body acts when a majority reaches a decision. That is how representative government works.
But this Justice Center decision is different.
I can respect losing a decision. I cannot respect what I believe is ignoring the charter.
Majority rule is not a permission slip to step outside the rules that created the majority’s authority in the first place. The body matters. But the charter comes first. Otherwise, “the body” is just five people mistaking consensus for authority.
That is why I am speaking now.
Not because I was on the losing side of a decision. I have lost votes before. Losing a vote is not a constitutional crisis. It is Tuesday.
This is different.
I believe the board’s current course goes beyond a policy disagreement and violates the Weld County Home Rule Charter.
After much thought and prayer, I believe I have to break my usual level of decorum and speak plainly. Not to play “gotcha” with my fellow commissioners. Not to embarrass anyone. Not to throw a match into the room and admire the smoke.
But to keep a clean conscience and defend public trust in an institution I believe is worthy of the public’s trust: the Weld County Board of County Commissioners.
The Three-Project Plan
The current board position is that the Justice Center plan can move forward under Section 14-8 because it has been divided into three separate projects.
Those projects are described as the Justice Center parking garage, the Justice Center “core and shell,” and the Justice Center “tenant finish.”
The parking garage is one thing. I can see the argument that it is a separate project. A parking garage can be designed, built, used, paid for, and evaluated as its own facility. It has its own function. It solves its own problem. People know what it is. Nobody has to squint.
But the board’s next move is where Commissioner Maxey and I disagree.
The board now says the Justice Center building itself can be split into two separate projects: “core and shell” and “tenant finish.” In normal construction language, that may describe different scopes of work. Fine. Contractors, architects, and project managers use those terms for a reason.
But Section 14-8 is not a contractor invoice template.
A courthouse “core and shell” without the tenant finish is not a courthouse. It is an expensive empty box. A tenant finish without the core and shell is not a project. It is a fantasy with drywall.
These two pieces only make sense together because they are together. They serve one purpose, solve one problem, occupy one building, and exist to deliver one public facility: the new Weld County Justice Center. That is ONE project.
This is why Commissioner Maxey and I fundamentally disagree with their interpretation of our charter. The Home Rule Charter was not written to let county government rename one building into multiple projects until the voters disappear from the equation.
Calling the parking garage a separate project is reasonable. Calling the courthouse shell and the courthouse finish two separate projects is where Commissioner Maxey and I disagree.
A Phase Is Not Automatically a Project
This is the heart of my objection.
The board is treating construction phases as charter projects. I believe that is wrong. A phase is not automatically a project. A scope category is not automatically a project. A partial building is not automatically a public facility.
If Section 14-8 can be avoided by cutting one large public project into smaller labeled pieces, then it is not a taxpayer protection.
It is a speed bump with a detour sign.
The charter does not say, “Ask the voters unless the board can find a stapler and three project names.”
It says any one project over the threshold must go to the voters.
So the question is simple: What is the project?
Is the project really an empty shell? Is the project really some internal finishes floating in space? Or is the project the Weld County Justice Center?
I believe it is the Justice Center.
That is what the public understands it to be. That is what the need demands. That is what the design work is meant to produce. That is what the board is talking about. That is what the county website is promoting. That is what taxpayers will be paying for.
Public Trust Is the Whole Ballgame
Public trust is not some decorative phrase we drag out during strategic planning retreats.
It is the whole ballgame.
Across the country, people have almost lost faith in their institutions. They think decisions are already made before the public meeting starts. They think legal opinions are used to justify what government already wanted to do. They think public input is often treated like a box to check after the real conversation happened somewhere else.
Look around.
The national tone is poisonous. People are tired of being talked down to by institutions that keep asking for trust while acting like trust is automatic.
Closer to home, Greeley’s recent Cascadia conversation showed how quickly public confidence can become fragile when people believe government is moving faster than the public can understand or accept.
Weld County should not throw gas on that fire. We should be different.
We should work to keep and maintain public trust, not spend it like loose change because a project is important.
Even if someone can make a legal argument for splitting the Justice Center building into “core and shell” and “tenant finish,” the better question is whether that argument strengthens or weakens public trust.
I believe it weakens it.
If ordinary citizens think the county is gaming its own charter, we have already lost something important. And once public trust is gone, good luck getting it back with a ribbon-cutting and a podium.
A courthouse is supposed to represent the rule of law. It should not be built through a process that makes reasonable people wonder whether the rules were bent to get it done.
I Am Willing to Make the Case to Voters
A very strong case can be made for building the Justice Center. A very strong case can also be made that building it all at once saves money, avoids waste, and is the fiscally responsible path.
I am willing to make that case to the voters of Weld County. In fact, I would welcome that conversation.
If the project is necessary (and it is), explain why. If building it now saves money (and it does), show the math. If delaying it creates operational problems for courts, public safety, staff, attorneys, jurors, defendants, victims, families, and the public, say so plainly.
Make the case. Trust the voters. This should not be complicated.
If it is more money than Section 14-8 allows, we ask the voters for permission and we make our case. If they say yes, we build a needed facility. If they say no, the county still has to meet the court system’s needs, and we find another lawful way to do it. Likely spread out over twenty years at a far greater expense to the taxpayers. But they deserve that say.
The Wrong Path
Weld County has a long history of being careful with taxpayer money. That reputation matters. We are not Boulder with a feedlot. We are not Denver with better roads.
We are Weld County.
We have built credibility by being practical, transparent, and allergic to waste. That reputation should make us more careful here, not less.
The Justice Center is needed. I believe that. The downtown plan has arguments in its favor. I believe that, too. Building all at once will save money – a lot of it. That case can be made.
But none of that answers the charter question. The board may be treating Section 14-8 as an accounting problem. I believe it is a self-government problem.
The difference matters.
One is about how to classify spending. The other is about whether Weld County voters still own the guardrails they put in their charter.
The county does not get to bypass the charter because the project is important. Important projects are exactly why the charter guardrail exists. We should build what we need, where it makes sense, at a cost taxpayers can understand, with enough humility to admit that speed is not the same thing as leadership.
This great, constitutional republic was built on the consent of the governed.
Sometimes the most conservative word in government is not “no.”
It is “ask.”
