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: ‘Harvest Box’ hides deep cuts to families’ food aid

The Trump administration’s suggested changes to SNAP are intended to starve a successful program.

Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, Feb. 20

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

Editorial: Capital gains tax could offer property tax relief

A bill would use tax revenue to keep seniors in their homes and lower the state’s property tax rate.

Robinson: Russia is indeed laughing at us — with satisfaction

The indictment of Russia’s internet meddling offers no cover for Trump’s claims of “NO COLLUSION!”

Harrop: Democrats need an even bigger tent to win midterms

Democrats would do well to appeal to independents — if they want to win outside their strongholds.

Time to vote out opponents of gun safety legislation

Do we value the NRA over children? State Sens. Mark Schoesler, Mike… Continue reading

We need to learn why shootings are escalating?

We should not be quick to place the blame inanimate objects. The… Continue reading

Editorial cartoons for Monday, Feb. 19

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

Free-market capitalism has become crony capitalism

James McCusker’s Feb. 10 column, “Capitalism critics help us understand politics,” starts… Continue reading

Most Read