Thurston County commissioners on Jan. 8 directed staff to move forward with the staff‑recommended, scaled‑back renovation of the Courthouse Hill complex, endorsing a scope that staff estimated at about $4.4 million for interior work and roughly $1 million more for exterior roof work, for a maximum preliminary estimate of $5.5 million. Assistant County Manager Josh Cummings framed the recommendation and asked the board for direction.

The recommendation matters because county leaders said the work is meant to extend the courthouse complex’s operational life while the county evaluates longer‑term options such as lease‑to‑own or acquiring a new facility. County Manager Leonard Hernandez said the aim is to “extend the operational lifespan of the current courthouse complex for 5, 7 years, to give us time to do an analysis,” which would allow staff to pursue a parallel competitive process for potential new facilities.

Staff presented three budget-and‑scope options. Option 1 was roughly $2.3 million and focused on basic upgrades (paint, carpet, HVAC, IT, wayfinding and limited ADA restroom work). Option 2 was about $3.6 million and added additional door and accessibility work. Staff recommended Option 3 as the minimum package to meet stakeholder needs; that scope was listed at $4.4 million for the interior work and included a suggested additional $1 million to repair and restore the mansard roof and exterior surfaces, producing a project total staff described as about $5.5 million. “The needs, the recommendation that staff is making is that to meet all the needs of the stakeholders at this juncture, that we go with the 4,400,000,” Assistant County Manager Josh Cummings said. Cummings also told the board the roof work was added by staff to improve the campus’s marketability, calling the existing “mansard roof, the orange peeling roof” an eyesore noticed by staff and the public.

Members of the board expressed support for the staff recommendation during the briefing. Several commissioners said they were “inclined to go with option 3,” and Chair Ty Menser said, after discussion, “Sounds like we have a concurrence on that.” Commissioners and staff repeatedly credited the county’s project team — including Tom Strumke, Rick and Bruce — for stakeholder engagement and for developing multiple costed options that reduced an earlier $40 million estimate down to the current scaled choices. Judges and court stakeholders, staff said, have agreed to accept a scaled‑back plan now in deference to a longer‑term solution later; staff incorporated multiple iterations of judges’ language into a draft proclamation intended to demonstrate unified support.

Staff gave the board three near‑term steps tied to the direction given: a stakeholder kickoff and consideration of a proclamation at the Jan. 21 meeting (with a follow‑up press release if the proclamation is adopted), a public-facing project/specification sheet and website updates to show preliminary cost and scope details, and a target of bringing a finalized contract value back to the board in the March 4 meeting for approval. Tom Strumke told the board the county expects to work with Mortenson Construction and Miller Hall Architectural Firm on pricing and final design: “Mortenson Construction and Miller Hall Architectural Firm, those are the ones who helped draw these things 5, 6, 7 times, pricing it out so that we gave them the targets,” he said.

Commissioners and staff emphasized transparency around cost estimates. One commissioner asked to receive the financial breakdown that staff used in evaluating the options; staff said the numbers are preliminary but that a project summary sheet would be included with the press materials and posted on the county project web page when drawings are finalized. Staff also said the target schedule is for most renovation work to be done so office moves could begin in the fall of 2025, with the contract value returned to the board in March for final approval.

No formal roll‑call motion or vote was recorded in the work session minutes; staff characterized the board’s direction as a concurrence to proceed with the Option 3 scope and to carry out the listed outreach and procurement steps. The board also requested that staff work with commissioners’ offices to include commissioners’ quotes in any press release following a proclamation or other formal action.

Less urgent items at the end of the work session included commissioners discussing a county volunteer build day with Habitat for Humanity and a review of the year’s list of proclamations (requests mentioned included a fair housing proclamation for April and a prairie appreciation item). Those items were discussed for scheduling and will return on future agendas.