By George Bowden

So now that the county has spent upwards of $15 million for a new courthouse, what do we have to show for it? A number of upset displaced attorneys and small business owners whose land was taken for a new building that isn’t going to be being built, more studies, another $1 million for more architectural fees, and some stop-gap repairs being advocated by the county executive while plans for a much-needed justice center to replace the aging county courthouse are shelved once again.

The fundamental reasons for building a new courthouse were that it was not cost-effective to renovate the existing building, and it was desperately needed. The current building is simply too old and too broken down to warrant fixing. And there is inadequate security for the public and those who work in the courthouse, which no amount of renovation can possibly address.

Those are not the conclusions of the judges, although we agree with them. Those are the results of multiple studies by experts hired to evaluate the county’s existing needs and options. In 2006, a study by the National Center for State Courts concluded that a new courthouse was critical for any long term strategic plan for the future of the court and campus security. Earlier, in 2002, the NBBJ Courthouse Evaluation and Concept report concluded an extensive expansion or rebuilding of the current courthouse would be needed to fulfill the needs of the county’s judicial facility. Ten years ago it was estimated that a new courthouse would cost over $160 million, so there should have been no sticker-shock over a $165 million price tag today.

While running into a buzz saw of resistance from the city of Everett over the lack of parking (or perhaps a desire for additional parking for Xfinity Arena), the county ignored the most logical site for a new building — the existing old courthouse or Mission Building. The original county courthouse was built on the site of the Mission Building in 1867. It burned in 1909 and was replaced by construction of the Mission Building in 1911.

Two additions have since been added, so the existing building bears at most a superficial resemblance to the original structure. It is on the historic register, but that does not mean a decision cannot be made to raze the building and use that site, which is centrally located and served by an underground tunnel connecting that building to the jail.

And what’s so significant about a Spanish Mission-style building to Everett or Washington state? Using this site would preclude the need for the block of land across the street that was acquired through condemnation, and it would displace fewer employees while a new building is constructed. And the existing garage can provide the on-campus parking the city prefers.

When the existing courthouse was built in 1967, the county population was a little over 237,000. We’re now close to 750,000, with projections of reaching close to 1 million in the next 20 years. In 1967 we had five Superior Court judges; we now have 15 Superior Court judges and five full-time commissioners. One of our elected judges has been pushing a shopping cart containing her office supplies, robe, and name plate for the past four years, as she occupies whatever courtroom may be vacant from week to week or day to day.

Neither the county executive nor County Council seems to disagree about the need for a new courthouse. The decision to scale back and make “essential repairs” at an estimated cost of $75 million is predicated on the executive’s assessment that the county doesn’t have the money to go forward with construction of a new building.

As judges, we accept that conclusion. What we don’t accept is wasting more taxpayer money (and another $62 million is not small change) to try to rehabilitate a building that is not worth trying to fix.

It’s simply irresponsible. And it virtually guarantees there won’t be enough money for this project in the foreseeable future. We’d prefer to see the entire project put on “hold” until the county can see a way to finance construction of this long-overdue building. The need will simply increase year to year.

In the meantime, savings realized by suspending the entire project may be better utilized in funding the county’s work release program which the sheriff plans to discontinue, or expanding drug or other therapeutic court programs, or perhaps hiring more prosecutors to address a backlog of more than 1,000 cases that have yet to be screened for a charging decision.

If there is not enough money or bonding capacity to do the job right, then the county should simply wait until there is funding to do it right.

The Hon. George Bowden is a Snohomish County Superior Court judge. He is joined in this opinion by Superior Court judges Thomas Wynne, Joseph Wilson, Richard Okrent, Marybeth Dingledy and Comissioner Lee Tinney.