In Colorado’s rural Custer County, the long-running discussion over replacing the county courthouse has resurfaced once again. County leaders are exploring another attempt to secure voter approval for a new judicial facility, despite residents overwhelmingly rejecting a similar proposal just a few years ago. What was previously promoted as a large-scale “Justice Center” project is now being framed more narrowly as a “New Courthouse Building,” but the controversy surrounding the idea has hardly faded.
With a population of only around 5,000 people spread across the Wet Mountain Valley, many residents continue to question whether the county can realistically afford a multimillion-dollar construction project while roads, infrastructure, and other county services compete for limited funding. County officials supporting the effort argue the existing courthouse is outdated, inefficient, and increasingly difficult to operate safely.
Voters Previously Turned Down Major Tax Proposal
The issue first came to a head during the 2021 election cycle, when county voters were asked to approve Ballot Measure 1A. The proposal would have raised local sales and use taxes by 2% to help finance a new justice complex estimated at roughly $18 million, though some projections placed long-term costs significantly higher.
Plans at the time called for a large combined facility that would house court operations, sheriff’s offices, detention space, holding areas, secure victim and witness rooms, and expanded administrative offices. Advocates for the project described the existing courthouse—originally built in 1929—as cramped and lacking modern security features. Concerns included limited courtroom space, inadequate separation between inmates and the public, and aging infrastructure that no longer met modern operational standards.
The proposal ultimately failed by a wide margin. Residents voted nearly two-to-one against the tax increase, signaling strong resistance to taking on additional long-term financial obligations. Had the measure passed, local sales tax rates in the area would have climbed close to 10%, among the highest combined rates in the state.
For many voters, the cost simply outweighed the perceived benefits.
County Leaders Shift Toward Smaller Courthouse Concept
Although the 2021 measure failed decisively, county officials never fully abandoned the broader goal of replacing or upgrading courthouse facilities. Instead, conversations gradually shifted toward a scaled-down version of the project focused primarily on court functions rather than a full justice complex.
In recent years, county commissioners began examining whether grants or phased construction could make a smaller project more politically viable. The detention component was eventually removed from the discussion after the county stopped operating its own jail. Inmates are currently housed in neighboring counties, creating ongoing transportation and housing costs for the sheriff’s office.
Updated concepts discussed publicly over the past two years have included a single courtroom, secure holding areas, office space for law enforcement personnel, improved public access, and enhanced security screening. Even without a jail component, however, projected costs remain substantial once financing and long-term repayment are factored in.
Activity Surrounding the Project Has Increased Again in 2026
Momentum around the courthouse proposal appears to be building again ahead of the 2026 election season.
County officials recently held public discussions regarding what is now formally being referred to as the “New Courthouse Building” project. Additional assessments of county-owned facilities and the existing courthouse were also approved to evaluate structural conditions, staffing needs, future growth projections, and possible construction scenarios.
Commission Chairman Bill Canda has publicly stated that work is underway on possible ballot language for a future funding measure. According to county updates, supporters are attempting to meet deadlines necessary to place the issue before voters later this year.
At the same time, divisions appear to remain within county leadership itself.
Commissioner Lucas Epp has repeatedly voiced interest in pursuing less expensive renovation and security upgrades to the existing courthouse rather than committing to a completely new facility. Commissioner Paul Vogelsong has largely remained quiet publicly as discussions continue.
As of now, county commissioners have not formally approved a final ballot measure.
Supporters Cite Safety and Operational Concerns
Backers of the project argue the courthouse issue goes beyond appearances or convenience. They maintain the county’s current facilities create legitimate operational and safety concerns for court staff, law enforcement, attorneys, defendants, and the public.
Among the concerns frequently cited are limited security infrastructure, lack of secure movement areas for inmates, insufficient office space, and courtroom layouts that fail to meet modern standards. Supporters also point to increasing costs associated with transporting and housing inmates outside the county.
Some officials have suggested a modular or expandable design that could potentially accommodate additional detention space in the future if county needs change.
Critics Say Residents Have Already Spoken
Opposition to the proposal remains vocal throughout the county. Many residents continue to argue that county government should focus first on road maintenance, emergency services, and other core infrastructure needs before pursuing a costly courthouse project.
Others question whether the county’s small tax base can realistically support long-term debt tied to a large construction effort. Critics have also expressed frustration over what they see as a repeated attempt to revive a proposal voters already rejected decisively.
Another concern frequently raised is transparency. With limited public detail currently available regarding final costs, financing methods, or project scope, some residents worry county officials may once again move too quickly toward the ballot box without fully answering public questions.
What Comes Next
If county commissioners ultimately approve ballot language and place the measure before voters, residents of Custer County will once again decide whether they are willing to finance a new courthouse facility through taxes, bonds, or another funding mechanism.
For a county with a relatively small population and limited annual budget, even a scaled-back project would represent a major long-term financial commitment.
The ongoing courthouse debate reflects a broader tension common in many rural communities: balancing the need to modernize aging public facilities while maintaining low taxes and prioritizing essential infrastructure. Whether county officials can present a proposal that satisfies both concerns remains uncertain.
For now, the issue that many thought had been settled in 2021 is once again becoming one of the most closely watched topics in local government.