Daniels County commissioners pause courthouse reorganization after district judge requests more time

Daniels County commissioners agreed to delay a sudden plan to relocate the district judge and several county offices into the courthouse after District Judge Ben Foster asked for more time to review space, cost and confidentiality concerns.

The judge, who attended the meeting to discuss proposed office moves, said he was surprised by the timing and asked for roughly two weeks to a month to evaluate options. “I would respectfully request that you hold off making the decision,” Foster said, adding he wanted time to consider logistics and to preserve a good working relationship with the commissioners.

The commissioners and the judge discussed several possible workarounds. County staff described available rooms on the courthouse first and second floors and said the county’s upstairs floor could be configured to house a judicial suite, clerk space and a shared courtroom area. Commissioners said they want to reduce the county’s rental costs for space currently leased outside the courthouse but acknowledged that the courthouse will require structural and security upgrades.

Commissioners agreed to provide the judge with the cost spreadsheets and utility estimates they have prepared and to leave the final decision open for additional review. At the meeting the judge also raised a separate option previously discussed: turning an office building currently used by the judge into a county-owned facility while he occupies it, then reverting ownership when his tenure ends. The judge said such a deed arrangement could lower long-term costs if the county chose that route.

Commissioners asked county staff to finalize and deliver detailed cost comparisons — rent, utilities, insurance and potential one-time retrofit costs — and to return with a proposed plan. The judge said he would prepare a layout of how he and courtroom staff would use an upstairs judicial suite if the county chose to proceed. Commissioners said they would aim to reconvene on the topic in about a month, though one commissioner suggested a shorter two‑week window for initial figures.

The discussion also touched on related moves affecting other county offices (extension, health department and the extension service) and confidentiality and health-inspection concerns raised by court staff. No formal vote was taken on office relocation during the session; the matter remains under discussion.

The county will publish the financial comparisons and the draft office layouts in advance of the next meeting so the judge and commissioners can finalize a plan that balances privacy and security for court operations with the county’s goal of reducing leased-space costs.

Planning-level details to watch include whether the county pursues a deeded transfer of the judge’s current office, the results of a scheduled structural engineer inspection of the courthouse, and whether any utilities or insurance changes materially alter the budget comparison.

For now, commissioners postponed a final decision and will continue to coordinate with the judge, courthouse staff and department heads to narrow options and report back at a future meeting.