COLUMBIA COUNTY, A state offer to pay for a $10,000 study of a single, screened entrance at the Columbia County Courthouse ran into a wall of questions from county commissioners Wednesday, and a circuit judge told them why the courts want it.
“What I would like is to be able to go to work and not have the fear that someone’s gonna come into my courtroom with a knife or a gun and kill me, or one of the people in my courtroom,” Circuit Judge Nickolas Brajcich told the board, according to the county’s video of the Oct. 28 meeting. “We’re one of the only county courthouses that does not have any kind of screening process for people that come into our courtroom, in the entire state.”
The courthouse at 230 Strand St. has several public entrances and no weapons screening. The proposed agreement, OJD Contract No. 270076, would have the county hire Hart Architects to design a single public entrance with “a weapons screening station equipped with an X-ray machine and a magnetometer,” a desk for two screeners, and a new enclosed hallway along the west side of the building connecting the annex entrance and the elevator. The Oregon Judicial Department would reimburse the county up to $10,000 for the study, which would be due by Jan. 30, 2027. The money comes from the state court system’s marshal’s office, according to the agenda request filed by the county’s Advisory Committee on Court Security.
“Why Do We Need an IGA?”
Commissioners did not vote. Over about 40 minutes, they questioned why the county had to sign anything for the state to pay for a study of a county building, and whether a $10,000 study could do more than confirm that a real fix would cost far more. One commissioner put it at “a $500,000 option.” County Counsel Sarah Hanson said she received the agreement Tuesday afternoon and had not read it; the board asked her to review it and report back, possibly next week.
Brajcich said the state’s own staff told him the agreement is required because “it’s an accounting bill,” and that the county’s position cuts both ways: “It’s not the state’s building, it’s the county’s building. And if the position from the county is we don’t need an [agreement] to do anything, I’d probably take something to say we can do whatever we want with that building, because it’s not ours.”
By the end of the discussion, Brajcich summarized what he was hearing from the board: go ahead, access whatever state funds are available, and bring a plan back to the county, worked out with the sheriff’s office and security experts. “That’s what I’m hearing,” he said. “Okay, I will take that to the state.”
The $2 Million Nobody Can Spend
Behind the argument is a larger pot of money that has sat unused for years. The Legislature directed $2 million through the judicial department for Columbia County courthouse improvements, and the county and the state courts have not agreed on how to spend it. On June 30, 2025, commissioners voted to sign a 180-day extension rather than return the money, and “expressed their disappointment and frustration that no improvement agreements have been made by now,” according to the meeting minutes. In March 2025, the board had weighed three options, including sending the $2 million back to the state general fund, per work session minutes.
On Wednesday, a commissioner said the state’s stance has been that none of the money can be spent on county space, only on court space, while the county’s remodeling needs, including moving the district attorney’s office, have no other funding. “We have zero dollars,” she said. “The two million is the dollars we secured, and it just happened to go through OJD.”
Brajcich, who was appointed to the bench in June 2024, said he had not been part of the negotiations. “In five years, we’re about the same position we were five years ago,” he said. “That’s not acceptable to the people of Columbia County. We can’t just piss away $2 million that’s in there.” He said he, Sheriff Brian Pixley, the district attorney, and another judge have been asked to help mediate.
Brajcich also said the state has courthouse security money the county cannot reach because its building has multiple entrances: “They’ve been prioritized to other courthouses because those courthouses either had or developed a single point of entry.”
What Happens Next
County counsel is to review the agreement and return to the board. The study, if it goes forward, would produce design options and cost estimates by Jan. 30. Any construction would need separate funding.
Also Wednesday, the board approved without discussion a consent agenda that included Order 38-2026, correcting the minimum bids for the county’s Nov. 17 land auction, and an urban reserve management agreement with the City of Scappoose ahead of a Nov. 4 hearing on Scappoose’s growth boundary.