Olympia studies moving municipal court to Thurston County as City Hall retrofit costs and logistics loom

Olympia City Council held a special study session June 12 to review options for the future location and operation of the city’s municipal court, including a potential interlocal agreement with Thurston County to provide judicial services.

Assistant City Manager Debbie Sullivan told the council staff presented three paths: lease commercial space, retrofit city-owned buildings (City Hall council chambers and 108 State Avenue), or retain prosecution/public defense while transferring judicial services to Thurston County. “It is my hope that at the conclusion of the study session, you have the information you need to provide staff direction,” Sullivan said.

Why it matters: the city is balancing its “reimagining public safety” goals with a continuing structural budget shortfall. Sullivan said the council faced an $11.8 million budget gap for 2025 and used $4.1 million of fund balance and reduced spending to close part of it; the remaining structural shortfall is a driver behind considering regionalization of court services.

City presentations and cost comparisons KMB Architects partner Bill Valdez and project engineer Fran Eide laid out physical modifications needed to operate a fully functioning municipal courtroom inside the existing council chambers and to relocate court administrative functions, prosecution, probation and public defense to 108 State Avenue. Valdez said the shared‑use courtroom would require security screening, private attorney‑client/victim spaces, a secured route and restroom for judicial staff, and jury accommodations. He estimated gallery seating could be made to fit but called some layouts “tight.”

Sullivan summarized cost estimates presented to the council: a new Justice Center would cost an estimated $89–$94 million (2023 dollars) and more than $50 million if built without a jail, with about $4 million in annual debt service. Leasing a commercial space and building out tenant improvements was estimated at roughly $7 million with an $815,000 annual lease and an additional $3.2 million in one‑time needs that would leave a funding gap. Using city‑owned City Hall and 108 State Avenue to house court functions was also estimated at about $7 million of tenant improvements; that option would require issuing debt to cover a roughly $3.2 million funding shortfall, which staff said would materially affect debt service. As an alternative, Sullivan said keeping prosecution, victims’ services and defense in city hands and transitioning judicial services to Thurston County was estimated to require about $3.8 million in tenant improvements for 108 State Avenue and would rely on sale proceeds and available capital funds so the City would not need to issue debt; she estimated an approximately $80,000 annual General Fund impact in that scenario.

County services and capacity Thurston County District Court Executive Officer Frankie Peters and Judge Sam Meyer described the county’s current services and programs, including pretrial supervision, substance‑monitoring programs, a resource hub that works with people in court, mental‑health and veterans treatment court, and text notifications to reduce failures to appear. Peters said the county has been expanding intensive supervision and mental‑health supports and that many services are available to people regardless of which municipal or county jurisdiction files the case. Judge Meyer said district courts commonly handle civil name changes, protection orders and small claims in addition to misdemeanors and infractions.

Peters and Judge Meyer said the county can absorb additional municipal caseload but would staff up to do so: Sullivan told council the draft interlocal agreement is based on roughly 17 FTEs to support Olympia caseloads (start date shown as Jan. 1, 2026 in the draft), and that county estimates included one‑time tenant improvement planning at roughly $640,000 (county to finalize bids). The draft interlocal agreement term shown to council runs July 1, 2025, through Dec. 31, 2026, with an expectation of a comprehensive rate study before the agreement’s expiration so pricing can inform the 2027 budget.

Operational tradeoffs and public‑access concerns Architects and facilities staff emphasized operational complications of a shared City Hall/courtroom model: screening requirements mean some entrances would be closed for court sessions, people who need the public restrooms would have to exit and be re‑screened to re‑enter, and permanent or semi‑permanent physical barriers and pods in the City Hall lobby would reduce flexibility for other public uses. Council members and staff discussed impacts on regularly scheduled city events, hearing‑examiner and planning proceedings, and the reduced available seating for large council meetings and public hearings.

Sullivan and project staff also reviewed calendar/logistics questions: municipal court currently operates some dockets that begin before City Hall opens to the public, and City Hall is closed Fridays; staff said joint calendar coordination, modified operating hours, or limiting court to morning sessions are among the operational choices that would be needed. The city manager and project engineer said relocation would also affect staff meeting space use across floors and might push some large public meetings off‑site or require rental space.

Municipal court perspective Municipal Court Judge Pam Negara (municipal court judge) attended and described the court’s current programs, community‑facing services and audits. Judge Negara said Olympia’s municipal court already runs therapeutic and restorative programs, a community advisory board, provider coordination and program audits, and stressed the local, day‑to‑day knowledge the current bench and staff offer the city. She provided council a packet of program details and cost analyses and warned the council to weigh the cost of transition against renovation costs and the long‑term value of keeping local control of municipal court services.

Council response and next steps No formal vote or action was taken at the study session. Council members asked detailed questions about costs, staffing impacts on city employees, security and logistics, parking, and how the interlocal agreement would preserve or expand reimagining public safety programs. Several council members said their questions raised at the April 22 meeting had been answered and expressed interest in continuing negotiations; other council members emphasized employee impacts and public access concerns. Sullivan said staff have drafted an interlocal agreement for council consideration and highlighted key terms: the agreement explicitly references veterans/mental‑health/other therapeutic courts, requires the county to provide 60 days’ notice before changing services, provides for an annual review meeting between city and county, and requires a comprehensive rate study before the draft agreement’s expiration. The agreement also includes termination/notice provisions tied to the judicial election cycle and contemplates arbitration or mediation if parties cannot agree on extensions.

The City did not adopt a final decision at the meeting; staff requested direction and said they would return with a finalized interlocal agreement and updated cost numbers as bids and county rate work are completed.

Ending: Council members and staff said they would continue the discussion at future meetings; staff will provide updated budgets, more detailed cost breakdowns and formal interlocal agreement language for council consideration.