Public hearing spotlights divide over $250 million Thurston County courthouse plan
A public hearing Tuesday evening spotlighted the divide in opinions about a plan to build a new Thurston County courthouse in downtown Olympia.
The hearing was on an ordinance to put a property tax levy-lid lift on ballots in April in order to fund the new courthouse. That may sound familiar: The Board of County Commissioners held essentially the same public hearing earlier this year, then passed that ordinance.
But commissioners recently reopened the ordinance and made changes, clarifying that taxpayers who qualify for senior citizen, disabled, or veteran tax exemptions might be exempt from the increased levy. County Manager Ramiro Chavez said the board held Tuesday’s public hearing “out of an abundance of caution,” and that commissioners will vote again on the ordinance.
If it goes on the ballot and at least 50 percent of voters approve the lift, property taxes could increase by up to 47 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value, according to the county’s website.
The county plans to use that additional money to build a new courthouse and county office complex on Plum Street Southeast where the old Olympia City Hall stands. After the public hearing, though, it’s clear the location of a future courthouse is flexible.
The project is estimated to cost $250 million.
County Manager Chavez said the county received eight written comments in support of the measure ahead of the hearing, along with eight written comments against and a petition from Jon Pettit, who has been the courthouse project’s most vocal opponent.
Pettit’s petition included a list of 434 individuals in opposition, Chavez said.
Most of the speakers in favor of the plan Tuesday were attorneys and officials who frequent the courthouse. They cited safety concerns and facilities not built to serve Thurston County’s growing population.
“Construction costs are never going to get cheaper,” County Treasurer Jeff Gadman testified.
Comments in opposition at Tuesday’s hearing often came from county residents who focused on the costs of the projects, critiques of the Plum Street location, and the impact of raising property taxes.
“I take offense to the fact that I have people who make three times the amount of money that I do telling me that I need to give more in order to provide a better work environment for them,” Robert Haskill, a Thurston County homeowner, testified.
Several speakers also took issue with the project while still acknowledging the need for a new space. One of those people was former County Commissioner Bud Blake, who Tye Menser replaced on the board after winning an election last November.
While Blake agreed the courthouse buildings need to be “in the safest mode possible,” he said he “adamantly opposed” funding a new courthouse on Plum Street and that he is concerned about the tax increase’s impact on businesses and homeowners.
At the hearing, Superior Court Judge Carol Murphy emphasized that providing a safe courthouse is the Board of County Commissioners’ obligation: “If this is not the plan you’re going forward on, then what is the plan to avoid the cost of throwing money into an inadequate facility that’s unsafe, the cost of litigation that we know will come because of the risks associated with these buildings?”
Commissioner John Hutchings told The Olympian after the hearing that he heard good points “on each side” and that he’d be open to considering other locations for the courthouse.
The board voted in January to move the courthouse to the Plum Street site, but County Manager Chavez confirmed that the ordinance allows for flexibility around the courthouse’s location.
For now, Hutchings said the focus is on approving the funding measure, then the commission could revisit its options for a site.
Chavez said in an interview that he wouldn’t recommend “going from square one” when it comes to location, since the county already looked at 12 sites and narrowed it down to three: the current hilltop location, the Plum Street site, and undeveloped land on Olympia’s west side.
One contributing factor in the Plum Street decision, Chavez said, was the length of construction time: If the county were to build at the current site, for example, it would take five years versus two years at the Plum Street site.
A feasibility study estimated that building on the west side and current locations would cost $230 million to $250 million to complete, Chavez said, so the funding that would need to be collected through a levy wouldn’t change significantly if the location changed.
The $250 million includes about $20 million assumed to come from the city of Olympia, which has not been officially agreed upon — another common criticism from the plan’s opponents. Chavez said the city has verbally committed to be a partner in the project, and that he’s working on the details as to how it could materialize.
At a work session at 9 a.m. Tuesday, the commissioners plan to discuss the issue with Tuesday’s public hearing in mind.
The full public hearing is available to watch online on the Thurston County Youtube channel.
.jpg)