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 Monday, Dec. 11

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

Editorial: Yet another owner for The Everett Clinic

After its brief time with DaVita, uncertainty returns for the clinic with its sale to an insurer.

Editorial cartoons for Sunday, Dec. 10

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

Burke: If you’ve been away for a bit, here’s what you missed

If you have been paying attention, check below to make sure you’re not missing a reason for anxiety.

Milbank: GOP attacks on FBI meant to circle wagons for Trump

Criticism of Mueller and the FBI by Republicans ignores the GOP credentials of those they attack.

Editorial cartoons for Saturday, Dec. 9

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

Second Amendment doesn’t protect rapid-fire weapons

Regarding the letter to the editor in the Dec. 1, Herald, “Constitution’s… Continue reading

Count freight train vibrations trigger mudslides?

I was lying awake during the 3 a.m. hour recently, when I… Continue reading

Are different standards used regarding sexual misconduct?

Recently news people have been fired as a result of sexual misconduct… Continue reading

Most Read