The Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) formally adopted a proclamation prioritizing a new courthouse.
The move signaled the abandonment of earlier plans to renovate the aging Courthouse Hill complex.
The “Proclamation – Commitment to Building a Courthouse and Community Trust,” issued at a meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 21, affirms the county’s pledge to a fiscally responsible and collaborative strategy to rebuild a facility that meets modern safety, accessibility and operational standards.
The decision comes after years of deferred maintenance, mounting public concerns and stalled proposals, including a scaled-back $5.5 million renovation effort proposed earlier this month that failed to gain traction.
“Every day we wait, it becomes more expensive,” said Judge Brett Buckley, Presiding Judge of Thurston County District Court.
“We need to commit ourselves to what is the best resolution, which is understanding we need to make a commitment to a new courthouse," he added.
The Courthouse Hill complex, built in 1978, was originally designed to last 35 to 40 years. Officials said the building has exceeded its lifespan nearly five decades later.
On Jan. 8, the BoCC advocated for a scaled-back $5.5 million renovation plan after rejecting a $40 million proposal that was deemed too costly.
The reduced plan included basic upgrades, such as HVAC repairs, ADA accessibility improvements and duress buttons for safety. It was intended to extend the courthouse’s operational life for five to seven years.
However, stakeholders criticized the renovation approach as insufficient to address the facility’s underlying issues.
County Manager Leonard Hernandez acknowledged all the concerns, stating during the meeting that the courthouse had “long surpassed its usefulness.”
“This proclamation … is simply an acknowledgment of what the commissioners have already asserted … that there’s a commitment to look for a long-term solution for our space needs,” Hernandez said.
Hernandez explained that the county is considering multiple configurations for the new courthouse, including purchasing or leasing existing buildings or constructing a new facility.
“There are some parameters like it has to be in the city limits of Olympia,” he noted.
The courthouse’s deficiencies have been evident for years, leading to increased clamor from stakeholders, particularly the judicial leaders.
Judge Buckley recounted the initial push for change, which began in 2013 when county officials first recognized the need for additional space.
“We started conducting studies. In 2015, they did a much more sophisticated analysis of that, and … it became clear that the buildings were wholly inadequate for the purposes of the functions we engage in,” Buckley said.
Buckley criticized earlier renovation proposals, particularly a $50 million plan, as imprudent.
“The concept of spending $50 million to renovate something that is already beyond its useful life … it’s not appropriate,” Buckley said. “The location of the current courthouse is a bad location. It was cheap land at the time, and that’s why it was put there.”
The judge also highlighted the facility’s shortcomings. He cited limited access routes and inadequate design.
“There are two routes of ingress and egress to that courthouse,” Buckley said. “We learned during the Nisqually earthquake … if there’s a fire up on that facility, how do we get there? For two years, we ran the risk of not having proper access.”
Judge John Skinder, Presiding Judge of Thurston County Superior Court, outlined additional safety and accessibility problems within the courthouse.
“This building could fail at any time, and then what would the county do? The county would have to deal with a temporary solution and a permanent solution,” Skinder said.
Accessibility remains a concern, with outdated design elements making the courthouse difficult for individuals with disabilities to navigate.
“If you’re mobility challenged in some way, that courthouse is very difficult to make its way through,” Skinder added.
Skinder then pointed to insufficient jury rooms and office spaces, describing them as “closets” unfit for their intended purposes.
The courthouse’s aging infrastructure also hampers its ability to support modern judicial operations.
Skinder described a recent incident in which only two of six courtrooms were functional due to audio system failures, stating, “This morning, at 7:30 … only two of your six courtrooms can work.”
The courthouse has struggled to adapt to hybrid court operations that require in-person and virtual participation, a practice increasingly necessary following the COVID-19 pandemic.
“These buildings struggle badly with trying to do the technology things that we want to do,” Skinder noted.
With the proclamation in effect, the county aims to address the long-standing challenges of the Courthouse Hill complex.
According to the officials, the transition from short-term fixes to a long-term strategy reflects a commitment to improving Thurston County's infrastructure.
“The justice system and the multiple functions of county government are best provided in fully functioning buildings that reflect respect for the community,” the proclamation states.
Assistant County Manager Joshua Cummings praised the collective efforts of stakeholders and staff in driving the project forward.
Similarly, Marie Doctor, President-Elect of the Thurston County Bar Association, strongly supported the commissioners’ decision.
“There’s overwhelming support from our bar for a new courthouse,” she said, emphasizing that the facility’s deficiencies have long frustrated legal professionals and the public.
Doctor also noted the importance of community education in garnering public support for the project.
The BoCC supported the importance of transparency and public collaboration.
“We’re going to have to reach out, and if we’re in this together, I think it’s going to be more resounding than if we are in different paths,” Commissioner Carolina Mejia said.
7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
JW
Why would we need six courtrooms? With how fast these judges release violent criminals back on to the streets you'd think they could make do with two.
Wednesday, January 22 Report this
JulesJames
Quince Street Village and the Les Schwab site on Plum Street combined together would make for a central appropriate location for the County Courthouse. Or fill in the East Bay mudflats.
Wednesday, January 22 Report this
OlyBlues
While there sis no doubt the county needs a new courthouse, Thurston County government has lost all trust with the public after decades of mismanagement, flip-flopping on various courthouse plans, and approving the overpriced lease for their glass palace aka "The Atrium." County taxpayers paid millions to renovate a leased building that we will not even keep, not to mention the poorly-executed decade long lease. The same commission who voted to approve themselves a 6% pay raise while the lowest paid county employees were only deserving enough to receive a measly 3%? These are the county leaders we are supposed to trust and say they are committed to building trust? We have several commissioners with limited education and experience making decisions experienced CEO's should be making. Clouse has already cost the county $300K due to her bad conduct. We must not forget the county jumping to purchase the Tyson warehouse that sat empty for years or selling the former Youth Service Center for a million dollars, just to turn around and lease it back from the new owner for a million. So much waste, incompetence, and now we see fraud with housing contracts and the Feds ordering the county to repay them for unlawful purchases of furniture for their flashy Atrium palace from Federal funds! County administration went out of their way to strategically not ask the county auditor for her opinion on these purchases because they did not want to hear the answer. This is the context Thurston County taxpayers should be looking at when the commissioners say "trust us." Not a chance.
Thursday, January 23 Report this
fyancey
To quote from the article: “The decision comes after years of deferred maintenance….” So why would a taxpayer support building a new complex when the county clearly has not maintained its present buildings? Just visit the campus and note the lack of any upkeep and maintenance from the walkways to the roofs. Modernization upgrades could have been done in stages on a regular basis but instead the county employees/manager just chose other activities.
Thursday, January 23 Report this
bonaro
When my kids were young and wanted something new I would consider how well they took care of what they already had. Thurston County has consistently failed this test.
The article clearly admits they have deferred maintenance and stalled proposals, why would we expect them to do any different if we gave them a new campus? The roofs on all of the 7 buildings on the existing campus are 10-20 years beyond lifespan along with nearly all of the HVAC equipment. 1970's decor is found everywhere and the main entrance looks like a haunted house. Responsible leadership sets aside money to prepare for major maintenance as needed, they have not.
When they emptied building one in favor of the Atrium, they sold this to the public with the promise to renovate it and turn the existing campus into Law and Justice. Leasing office space it the most expensive course especially considering you own empty space. Now a couple years later and millions in interest payments, no progress has been made and they admit that is not their plan.
The County bought the old Tyson Seafood building in Mottman industrial park for $13 million with the intention making a new jail. Those plans stalled and it was used for storage. 100's of thousands of $ were spent to remodel part of it into a shop and office for the Facilities division, which was never used. A million dollar seismic upgrade and new roof were added. Then they gave away most of the parking lot to accommodate the tiny home village, effectively gutting the value of the property. The remaining building was later sold off at a huge net loss for $3 million .
The original plan for the new jail included all the courts and offices which features huge glass walls, sky bridges and underground tunnels at a projected cost of $140 million. Huge plans were made then they found out it they could not locate Superior Court outside of Olympia city limits and they were forced to downsize to the current jail.
The existing campus is is old but solid. The buildings are essentially large boxes and all of the interior walls can be torn out and reconstructed as they wish. Upgrading the infrastructure in these owned building is by far the cheapest solution.
why would we give them a whole new facility when they can't take care of the one they have?
Thursday, January 23 Report this
Honestyandrealityguy
This is sad. When all the talk began, the expectation was up to $150 million, and that was too high at the time. I was asked to participate in getting to a financial solution. Unfortunately, others had more of a political agenda.
For instance, I was worried about the attorneys who invested a lot (sometimes all) of their savings to be nearby the courthouse. Although I am not known as an attorney fan, their buildings will go down in value and they maybe forced to move to remain close to the courthouse.
A friend of mine had just built a courthouse. It cost $38.5 million at the time. So I thought $150 million was way too much. Then more politics.
So, I wondered why they had to move. There was a vacant building on site that could be remodeled into county offices so some courtrooms could move. Once the vacant building was remodeled, the other county building could be remodeled into modern courtrooms. Once done, the existing cases could move over there until the existing courthouse was remodeled. And, the courthouse needed a new roof (what would we do if our home needed a new roof?). And finally, fencing off an area for the judges to park so as to not get followed to their vehicles.
Total cost at the time was under $9 million. Fast forward to now. WOW! Local politics.
So much more to write; however, I will stop now. This just does make it to common sense. Sad.
Thursday, January 23 Report this
MrCommonSense
It seems Thurston County needs leaders who can re-build trust with the community after past fiscal mistakes before asking for a new courthouse. According to the County website, the County Manager, Leonard Hernandez, has been on the job for about a year. The biography posted on the County's website gives very little information about his background so there is really no way for the public to know whether the Board of County Commissioners made the right choice of someone capable of being the point man on on this project. Also there isn't a track record that the Board of County Commissioners is up to the task.
On many projects like this, the parties (architects, consultants, contractors, Sheriff, courts, other county services) have varying, and sometimes competing interests. And sometimes you end up with a building like Olympia City Hall; a building that simply doesn't fit the character of our downtown. It's cold, with large spaces which are under-utilized.
The Board of County Commissioners and the County Manager need to convince us that we can trust them to organize stakeholders, pick a site, hire the right consultants and architect and oversee creating an attractive, affordable, efficient design that meets the needs of the community.
Of course then there is the disposition of the old courthouse and the question of what to do with the departments that have already moved into leased space; especially if a new courthouse is completed before the lease ends. Hopefully the lease includes adequate protections with some kind of reasonable early termination clause.
It all begins with re-building our trust.
Thursday, January 23 Report this