A courthouse that will last

The politically unpalatable line of the year goes something like this: Taxpayers, the Superior Court needs $140 million (give or take) for new digs. And, FYI, the previous administration may have low-balled the estimate by $70 million or so.

Carry on, then.

The expedient response — punctuated by a Will Rogers quote and judge zinger — is to let them eat portables. But the facility crisis has been a long time coming, and it can’t be one-linered away.

After Aaron Reardon’s resignation in May, newly appointed Snohomish County Deputy Executive Mark Ericks inherited the unenviable job of noodling options and expense projections. As The Herald’s Noah Haglund reports, Ericks avoids finger pointing, noting that the cost discrepancy wasn’t deliberate.

Ericks is being charitable. At best, missing the mark this egregiously reflects poor internal communications during the Reardon era. It also violated the Bob Drewel axiom to never be surprised or create surprises for others.

Now, County Executive John Lovick and the county council can approach the challenge de novo and do it right. This includes evaluating whether a new building should also house related departments (the sheriff’s office, county clerk and the prosecutor’s office, for example.) Should a design-build approach trump a standard RFP process?

Location drives costs. As Haglund writes, the original option was a seven-story building just ten feet from the existing courthouse. It was to be a shrink-wrapped, bare-floored facility with “zero setback from the street,” Ericks told the council. The $75 million price was appealing enough to earn a unanimous council nod earlier this year and the issuing of councilmanic bonds (read: bonds not sent to the voters.) The plan was shoehorned into the too-good-to-be-true price, an inverse decision model.

An alternative location is the county’s parking lot on the corner of Oakes Ave. and Wall Street. The estimate is a steep $155 million for a ten-story building. The county would need to buy up adjoining property or impose eminent domain (not a popular course.) Another option is to raze the existing courthouse, a brutalist eyesore circa 1967, and construct a $130 million facility (cue those portables.)

A compounding factor is timing. The bonds expire in three years, and locking in low-interest rates and construction costs requires making a decision very soon. With two members of the county council departing, however, it’s wise to give new members a say.

Finally, as all good Snohomish County children know, Everett stole the county seat from Snohomish in 1895. If history could be avenged, the council might weigh less expensive options outside of Everett.

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, Jan. 16

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Commentary: What’s love got to do with MLK Jr.’s dream?

For King, love was not sentimental; it’s a key part of creating communities that work for everyone.

Wilkinson: Trump may want to rethink his invite to Norwegians

If they come here they’ll just bring their socialized health care, Teslas and stunning good looks.

Harrop: Democrats need to learn how to strike up the band

Modesty is a fine character trait, but it’s sapping Democrats of a message that shows their success.

Saunders: Ethanol fuel mandate no longer makes sense

Intended to reduce reliance on foreign oil, it now only results in higher food and fuel costs.

Housing projects depend on capital budget passage by Jan. 17

Communities throughout Snohomish County and around the state are struggling with an… Continue reading

Where did man who shot, killed deputy get his gun?

Excuse me if you heard this before: “The only way to stop… Continue reading

Rep. DelBene is too rich to represent our district

We need to make Congress normal again. Right now, that’s just not… Continue reading

AG’s proposed assault weapon ban violates state Constitution

Once again Bob Ferguson is insisting on punishing law abiding Washingtonians by… Continue reading

Most Read