Thurston commission conditionally approves leasing Atrium building on one condition
A plan to lease a large office building on Pacific Avenue won conditional approval from the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday after a last-minute legal question threatened to derail it.
In a 2-1 vote, the board directed County Manager Ramiro Chavez to sign the lease for the Atrium building at 3000 Pacific Ave. SE if legal counsel can confirm the location is legally permissible. The board added the condition after a citizen raised questions about the Atrium’s location in Olympia.
The move brings the county closer to meeting its urgent space needs. Chavez presented a plan to lease the Atrium and reorganize county offices in April 2021, about a year after the board retracted plans to build a new courthouse in downtown Olympia.
Under the proposed lease, the county would pay MJR Development a total of $11.75 million over seven years for use of the nearly 90,000-square-foot space. Additionally, the county would have to pay for tenant improvements that could cost around $7 million.
These improvements would allow the county to move general government offices to the Atrium while the existing main campus on Lakeridge Drive would be reconfigured into a law and justice center, Chavez said.
The county’s offices must be located within the city limits of Olympia, the seat of county government. Based on the city’s current boundaries, the location of the Atrium meets that requirement.
However, Thurston County resident Jon Pettit argued during the public comment period that the location is illegal because it falls outside of the city’s original boundary.
Olympia annexed the area where the Atrium stands today in 1964, according to a city map. The building is located about 0.8 miles east of the city’s 1880 border, according to the map.
Commissioner Gary Edwards, who has repeatedly opposed leasing the Atrium, responded to Pettit’s comment by asking Chavez if the county had a legal justification for the location.
Based on his recollection, Chavez said he understood the county could not vacate the current campus and relocate outside the initial city limits.
“This is not the case,” Chavez said. “The courthouse campus would remain here. Where you’re talking about is a temporary location, a leased facility.”
However, Chavez said he was not in the position to provide a legal opinion. Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Elizabeth Petrich offered to investigate the matter and provide a legal opinion during a later executive session.
Based on this response, Edwards said he would prefer the board delay approving the lease until legal counsel could review Pettit’s claim.
“It’s going to make us look silly that we don’t have legal knowledge that’s been brought forward by a citizen that has questioned quite a bit of issues,” Edwards said.
Commissioner Tye Menser instead suggested the board amend the proposed motion to say the lease would be approved on the condition the county received a favorable legal opinion on the location. However, Edwards continued to object.
“You’re going to vote against this regardless of how this question turns out so it’s a little bit disingenuous to say you’re really worried about the process,” Menser said to Edwards.
Menser said he was not sure whether the Atrium location would be legally permissible, but he wanted to move this action forward after months of delays.
“We’ve had so many debates about this,” Menser said. “If the only issue is that, then we can decide contingent on that resolution of that issue and we move forward.”
Commissioner Carolina Mejia agreed with Menser. Based on what’s available in the area, she said she has concluded that the Atrium is the only viable option.
“It just kept coming back to this,” Mejia said. “At this time, I’m ready to move forward, contingent on the response we get from legal opinion.”
Once the board amended the resolution, Edwards raised further concerns about the Atrium. He said improving the Atrium seemed like a gift of private funds to the developer and questioned the county’s ability to occupy nearly 90,000 square feet.
Additionally, Edwards took issue with length of the lease period. Though it commits the county to seven years, the lease includes the option for two five-year extensions.
“It sounds like we’re leasing this for 17 years or the potential of 17 years,” Edwards said. “That just doesn’t sound like a temporary location, and I’m afraid that we’re going to end up voting on something completely illegal.”
Menser said he believed leasing the Atrium meets two needs: It temporarily solves a need for more space and allows the county to improve the current campus.
“We can’t just spend the money and only solve one of those problems because we’ll be left with the other problem and no resources in order to do it,” Menser said. “It has to be a two-step process.”
He added he would not be in favor of spending tens of millions of dollars on improving the main campus if the county did not also have a plan to continue county business with adequate space.
In the end, Menser and Mejia voted in favor of the amended motion while Edwards opposed it. Chavez said he will work with Petrich to verify the legality of the location and will present the findings during an executive session.
This story was originally published October 7, 2021 at 2:13 PM.
