Turns out that putting a rebuilt engine in the old car might be the only option available to Snohomish County.
More than three years ago, then-County Council member Dave Somers used that analogy to reject a $75 million plan to renovate the 1967-vintage county courthouse in favor of building a new three-story building, reasoning that building a new courthouse, while more costly than renovation, would be a better value for taxpayers in the long run.
But along with Somers being elected county executive, much has changed since November 2012 to cause Somers and others to reconsider the renovation option, as The Herald’s Noah Haglund reported Friday.
Last summer, among wider budget concerns and a disagreement with the city of Everett over parking, the $162 million construction project to build a new eight-story courthouse was halted while county officials reconsidered their options.
Earlier this year, Somers put together a team that included representatives from the courts, the County Council and Everett to sift through the project, the county’s needs, the project budget and the county’s financial wherewithal.
Initially the group concluded the plans to build the courthouse across Wall Street, on land that had been condemned through eminent domain, would be too expensive, and reconsidered building on the existing campus. Now, after consulting with the team, Somers has concluded the new courthouse, itself, appears out of reach.
While the final decision will be up to the County Council, it’s hard to argue with Somers’ finding that the county has to balance the needs for a serviceable courthouse against what’s possible and responsible to ask taxpayers to support. The county is collecting about $5.5 million a year for the courthouse project, money that still will be needed for renovation.
And a renovation, at the least, is necessary. While 1967 might have been a good year for cars, the current courthouse in its present condition sorely needs that rebuilt engine as well as some bodywork.
The current courthouse presents a safety problem in that defendants are not easily kept separate from the public, judges and court staff and other county employees. The concrete facade is seen as susceptible in an earthquake. The heating and ventilation system is outdated. There are areas where asbestos is present. Access is difficult for those with disabilities. And the building isn’t wired for current technology commonly used in courtrooms.
Presiding Superior Court Judge Linda Krese told The Herald she was skeptical that a renovation will address all of the current concerns with the courthouse. She is not necessarily wrong in her assessment.
But Somers, in making his recommendation to renovate at half the cost of building new, says he is allowing the county to focus attention and appropriately provide support for other needs, including economic development, the challenges of a heroin epidemic and the county’s fiscal health.
Hindsight, which recently had Lasik surgery, would be critical that the county didn’t reach this decision sooner. It’s even more painful when the $3.6 million spent to condemn the properties and the inconvenience and cost suffered by the former property owners, are considered.
But sticking with the plan to build a new courthouse, for the sake of consistency, would have been the bigger folly.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
