There are easier ways to spend a Monday morning than voting on the largest capital project Weld County has ever taken on.
But this is the job.
Weld County is moving forward with the new Justice Center as one unified project. Not because the questions were easy. Not because the concerns were silly. Not because anyone on the Board took this lightly.
Quite the opposite.
The earlier idea of dividing the project into the parking garage, core and shell, and tenant finish came from a serious place. It came from a desire to respect the Weld County Home Rule Charter, protect taxpayers, and make sure we were not stepping over a line we swore an oath to uphold.
That instinct was not wrong.
It was cautious. It was taxpayer-minded. It was rooted in the same TABOR mindset that has served Weld County well for decades.
But caution is not the same thing as stopping when new facts become clear.
After more legal review, more historical research, and a better understanding of Section 14-8, I came to a different conclusion.
We are building one Justice Center. We should call it one Justice Center. We should bid it as one Justice Center. We should manage it as one Justice Center.
That is not only the more practical approach. It is the more honest one.
I want to begin where I began in the meeting: with Section 14-8 of the Weld County Home Rule Charter.
I take the Charter seriously. We all should. The Charter is not a suggestion box. It is our law. Every commissioner swore an oath to uphold it, and that oath does not come with a political convenience clause.
My first instinct on Section 14-8 was taxpayer protection. That is still my instinct. I do not apologize for it. If government is going to spend public money, especially on a project this large, the default setting should be skepticism.
Government should be watched like a toddler holding scissors.
But skepticism should lead to better judgment, not permanent paralysis.
Our county attorneys did the hard work. They went back through charter commission minutes, statutes, correspondence, and the historical context from the 1970s. That matters. We revere the United States Constitution, but we understand it better because of the Federalist Papers. In the same way, we revere the Weld County Charter, and we understand it better when we look at what the framers were actually discussing and trying to accomplish.
That review made the meaning of Section 14-8 clearer.
Section 14-8 is tied to ad valorem taxation. It refers to a three-mill levy for three years to fund a capital project. In plain English, it protects voters from the Board raising property taxes for a major capital project without voter approval.
That is a good protection.
I support that protection.
But that is not what we are doing here.
Weld County is not raising taxes for this project. We are not asking voters for a three-mill levy over three years increase. We are not creating a TABOR problem. We are not bypassing TABOR. We are not bypassing the Charter.
We are reading both in context and adhering to them.
The Charter framers understood that future boards would need to build major capital projects. They gave future commissioners a way to ask voters for taxing authority when needed. In simple terms, they gave future boards a credit limit.
But Weld County does not need to use that credit card.
We have the funds available to move forward without a tax increase. That is the point. That is the difference.
If the Charter framers wanted a true spending cap on available county funds, they could have said so. They did not. What they wrote was a taxpayer protection tied to raising property taxes.
And frankly, that proves Weld County has always had a strong fiscally conservative streak.
We were TABOR before TABOR was cool.
Now, saying that out loud does not make the decision small. It does not make the price tag disappear. It does not mean citizens should stop asking questions.
They should ask questions.
This is the largest project Weld County has ever tackled. It should be scrutinized. It should be challenged. It should be watched closely by taxpayers. Public involvement is not a problem. It is appreciated. It makes the process better.
I am grateful for the people who pushed us. The questions forced more review. The objections sharpened the legal analysis. The criticism made us explain ourselves more clearly.
That is how representative government is supposed to work.
But scrutiny is not the same thing as paralysis.
At some point, after studying something from every angle, then studying the angles again, then hiring experts to study the angles we already studied, a governing body has to make a decision.
The Justice Center is not optional in the broader sense.
Counties are required to provide suitable court facilities. That is a core county function. Section 2-1 of the Weld County Charter says the county shall provide all mandatory functions under the Colorado Constitution. Weld County has grown, and our court facilities have not kept pace.
The current courthouse and Centennial Center complex are out of room. We do not have adequate capacity for future courtrooms. We have real issues with security, circulation, and the separation of judges, staff, victims, deputies, defendants, witnesses, jurors, and the public.
That is public safety.
It is not cosmetic. This is not fresh paint and new carpet territory.
We have studied this for nearly two years. We have looked at remodeling. We have looked at building smaller pieces over time. We have looked at location, design, cost, timing, function, and long-term need. We selected an owner’s representative. We selected an architect through a competitive process. We asked hard questions because that is what we should do before spending this kind of money.
Could we spend millions trying to stretch the old buildings a little further?
Sure.
Government can always find a way to spend millions of dollars making an old problem look like a slightly newer problem.
But it will still be a problem.
Putting multi-million-dollar Band-Aids on 50-year-old buildings is not planning. It is not fiscal responsibility. It is kicking a bigger, more expensive can down the road to a future Board of County Commissioners.
That is not leadership.
That is leaving a note on the kitchen counter that says, “Good luck with the mess.”
No thanks.
We were advised that moving forward as one unified project can save tens of millions of dollars compared to splitting the work into multiple projects over multiple years, potentially with different contractors. That matters. Inflation does not wait politely in the hallway while government tries to find better optics. Contractors do not mobilize for free. Delays have costs, and taxpayers eventually get the invoice.
So the fiscally responsible question is not, “How do we make this look smaller today?”
The question is, “How do we do the necessary thing in the most honest, efficient, and responsible way?”
My answer is one unified project – the decision I voted for and the Weld Board of County Commissioners approved unanimously on Monday.
I also want to be clear about something else. I changed my view on Section 14-8 and the project structure because the facts and the legal understanding became clearer.
I am not embarrassed by that.
Public officials should be able to learn something new, correct course, and say so plainly.
Pride is expensive. Weld County taxpayers should not have to pay for mine.
That does not mean the earlier concerns were foolish. They were not. They were rooted in taxpayer protection, and taxpayer protection should always be part of the conversation. But once the legal and historical understanding became clearer, the responsible course was to act on the better information.
There is also a broader point about how the Charter should be read.
Section 2-5 says the Charter shall be liberally construed. That phrase is doing a lot of work. It means we should not read the Charter like a trap, where the county only has powers spelled out in tiny detail and everything else is forbidden. We should read it in a way that allows the county to govern effectively while still respecting the limits placed on us.
What we are doing here is effective governance.
Not flashy governance. Not easy governance. Not everyone-gets-a-cookie governance.
Effective governance.
We have a mandatory function. We have inadequate facilities. We have public safety concerns. We have spent nearly two years reviewing the need. We have the funds available. We can move forward without raising taxes. We can do it in a way that is more efficient and more honest than dividing one project into multiple pieces.
So that is what I support.
Now, some people have argued this should go to a public vote no matter what.
I respect the opinion. Big projects should make taxpayers sit up straighter. But a vote is required when the law requires it. Not every difficult or expensive decision is automatically sent to the ballot because elected officials would rather rent courage from the public for a few months.
We are a constitutional republic. That means people elect representatives to make decisions under the law. Those decisions should be transparent. They should be accountable. They should be open to criticism. But the Board still has a responsibility to govern.
The five commissioners were elected by the people of Weld County. That does not make us kings. It does not make us immune to criticism. It does not mean we get to ignore the Charter, TABOR, or public concern.
It means we are responsible for making the decision in front of us.
This one is heavy. I know that.
Nobody should enjoy voting for a $334 million project. Anyone who enjoys spending that much public money should be kept far away from public money.
But not enjoying the decision is not the same thing as avoiding it.
Avoiding it would be easier. We could delay. We could remodel around the edges. We could phase the project and let a future board deal with the rest. We could preserve today’s comfort and hand tomorrow’s commissioners the same problem, only older, tighter, more expensive, and more legally exposed.
That is not my idea of fiscal conservatism.
Real fiscal conservatism is not simply saying no until the roof leaks and the bill doubles.
Real fiscal conservatism means saving carefully, planning seriously, asking hard questions, avoiding tax increases, and then using available funds to meet real obligations when the time comes.
That is what we have done.
Weld County does not need to raise taxes for this project.
We do not need a three-mill levy over three year increase.
We will not violate TABOR.
We do not need to pretend one building is something other than one building.
We need to build the Justice Center in a way that best serves Weld County for the next 75 years.
That is the standard, and that is what we will do.
Not the next headline. Not the next comment thread. Not the next election-season mailer printed in aggressive fonts.
The next 75 years.
The people using this facility will include judges, jurors, witnesses, victims, defendants, deputies, probation staff, attorneys, families, and regular citizens who may be having the worst day of their lives. They deserve a facility that works. They deserve one that is safe. They deserve one that reflects the reality of the county we have become, not the county we used to be.
Weld County has grown. Our responsibilities have grown with it. The Justice Center is part of meeting those responsibilities.
I know people will continue to question this project. They should. Keep watching. Keep asking. Keep holding us accountable. That is not a threat to good government. That is one of the things that makes good government possible.
But after all the study, all the legal review, all the financial analysis, all the public comment, and all the hard questions, I reached a conclusion.
Moving forward as one project is the honest decision.
Moving forward without raising taxes is the fiscally responsible decision.
Moving forward now is the responsible decision – and Monday we made it.
We are building one Justice Center.
We have said so plainly.
And now we will do the job right.
Source: BizWest
Share your thoughts...