Study: Forming a College Place municipal court would cost hundreds of thousands more than current interlocal agreement

A consultant for the National Center for State Courts told the College Place City Council on Oct. 7 that an independent municipal court would be substantially more expensive than the city’s current interlocal agreement with Walla Walla County District Court and would raise operational and facility questions that the city would have to resolve before moving forward.

“The National Center is not here to say you should do one or the other,” Abby Kushiel, principal court management consultant, said. The city asked the center to analyze whether it should maintain its interlocal agreement, or form a municipal court of its own.

Kushiel said the consulting team reviewed the city’s interlocal agreement (the 2013–2023 agreement was the most recent provided), court case filings, staffing and budgets from comparative courts, and state statutes. The consultants visited College Place in May, interviewed a cross-section of stakeholders, and produced a draft 70-page report that will be finalized in the coming weeks.

Why it matters

The study found that College Place’s current payments for district court services have risen in recent years — the city’s annual payment was about $110,000 in 2020, $151,000 in 2024, and consultants estimate roughly $188,000 for 2025 based on invoices to date. By contrast, Kushiel said the center’s projection for an independent municipal court put operating costs near $690,000 in a baseline year and rising toward roughly $1 million in later years; startup expenses were projected at over $500,000 for items such as furnishings, IT and initial staffing. Kushiel said the analysis used 2026 as a baseline because the city’s interlocal agreement termination rules mean a new municipal court could not begin before 2027 if the city chose to terminate the contract at the next allowable date.

What stakeholders told consultants

Consulted stakeholders generally praised the collaborative relationship between the city and district court but described two competing perspectives on how to reduce repeat offenses. Some interviewees urged stiffer accountability — “more jail time” and cash bail — to change behavior among people repeatedly arrested for theft or driving offenses. Others said incarceration may not address underlying substance-use and mental-health drivers and argued for more rehabilitative options such as community court and diversion programs.

Kushiel said most stakeholders described docket flow and case processing as timely under the district court arrangement, and that stakeholders valued the consistency provided by the judges. Several stakeholders said space limitations at the current courthouse and the aging jail facility are constraints that would need to be addressed if the city formed an independent court.

Questions from council and staff

Council members pressed on whether establishing a municipal court would actually reduce repeat offending. Chief Tomaras told the council the issue is not unique to College Place and that many repeat-arrest cases are driven by substance-use, mental-health and poverty-related issues. “The bottom line is if you are not prosecuting the first case, you’re never gonna get to that third case for that longer sentencing,” Chief Tomaras said during discussion about enforcement and prosecution.

Several council members noted existing local ordinances and earlier actions intended to add ‘‘teeth’’ to sentencing for repeat offenders, and they asked whether those measures are being enforced. Kushiel and Chief Tomaras said a recently contracted new prosecutor has increased filings and jail fees and that the prosecutor and judges are willing to meet to discuss docket frequency, in-custody calendars and other case-flow options.

Termination timeline and legal constraint

Kushiel told the council the interlocal agreement and state law constrain timing. If the city elects to terminate the agreement, the Revised Code of Washington provision the consultants cited requires written notice at least one year prior to Feb. 1 of the year in which district court judges are up for election; that timing means any city-initiated termination would be effective only at the end of a judicial term (the consultant identified 2026 as the relevant term end, making 2027 the earliest realistic start for a new municipal court if the city chose to terminate).

Alternatives short of forming a court

Kushiel said the study identifies operational changes the city could seek while remaining in the interlocal agreement: more frequent dockets (the city currently has municipal court every two weeks), a limited mid-cycle docket for in-custody or urgent matters, and clearer processes for scheduling. Stakeholders also proposed non-structural changes such as increased coordination between prosecutors, defenders and the court administrator to resolve cases outside of court and improve throughput.

Next steps

Kushiel said the center will finalize and deliver the full written report in the next few weeks. The presentation prompted questions from council members about affordability, the cost-benefit tradeoffs of local control, and whether the city should first pursue negotiated changes with the district court. Council members asked staff to continue tracking costs, revenues and program changes and to report back as part of budget planning.

Ending

Council members described the study as useful for setting the scope of possible next steps. No vote was taken at the meeting; the consultant’s final written report will be distributed to council and staff for further review.