Friday, October 2, 2026
Thurston County has officially committed to buying a $34.9 million downtown Olympia property after the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to authorize closing on the deal.
The approval, which came at the board’s meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 30, authorizes the purchase and sale agreement executed on July 29.
The property, which is located at 805 SE Plum St. in Olympia, includes six buildings, staff and visitor parking, and close access to Interstate 5 and public transit connections.
County officials hailed the acquisition as a lower-cost alternative to prior courthouse ambitions, but public testimony alleged the county bypassed review requirements, failed to hold hearings and ignored warnings about seismic risks.
The purchase progressed after months of debate over budget pressures.
Public opposition
Prior to the vote, Olympia resident Jon Pettit voiced his opposition to the purchase during the public comment period. He contended the board failed in “every aspect of making this available for the public.”
Pettit argued the plan had not been referred to the Thurston County Planning Commission, as required by the comprehensive plan, and that no bona fide public hearing had been held.
“The sign over there says transparency and accountability. What transparency has there been? Has there been any public comment? Have you actually sought public comment? Have you had a meeting about public comment?” Pettit asked.
He cited plan provisions requiring a formal amendment for new facilities or capital investments not listed in the capital improvement program. He added while he was “not totally opposed to a new courthouse facility,” the board had allowed the current facility to deteriorate.
Pettit also warned the Plum Street site is located on liquefaction soils.
“That particular location is on liquefaction soils. It is a known place to have a potential problem, and with that, the USGS (United States Geological Survey) has an example of the same exact soil under the Deschutes Parkway, that repair costs $22 million to fix,” he said.
The prospect of liquefaction, Pettit claimed, posed serious concerns for the property. In his view, the soil could collapse parking areas and sever utilities, rendering the site unfit after seismic shock.
On financial limits, Pettit said the county lacked the resources to rehabilitate the site once purchased.
“You need to turn it down, and then you need to change and go backwards to get the $500,000 earnest money that was given, giving it back to the people, to the county funds,” he said.
Officials countered that the property acquisition had been years in the making and was limited to courthouse needs under bond terms.
County Manager Leonard Hernandez said there will be "significant savings” by consolidating leased office spaces.
Assistant County Manager Joshua Cummings noted the apparent contradiction between ongoing cuts and the purchase.
“It may seem odd that the county make a purchase of this magnitude while also discussing a structural budget deficit in the general fund. Both things can be true," he said.
Cummings then detailed the bond’s restrictions.
“The bond can only be used for the purchase or renovation of property and must be used by October 2025 or incur arbitrage penalties," he said.
"The county’s budget cuts are due to underperforming revenues and continued inflationary pressures on ongoing expenses, and this bond cannot be used to address the budgetary situation.”
Cummings stated the process was legally sound.
“Throughout this process, the team followed appropriate legal and procedural steps, including inclusion in the comprehensive plan. We appreciate the review and confirmation from legal counsel and the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and the Central Services team for negotiating a great deal on the purchase,” he said.
Capital Projects Planning Manager Rick Thomas said inspections were completed after the county paid a $500,000 deposit in July.
“This due diligence has confirmed that (the) buildings will meet the needs of the county, resulting in the board providing direction to the county manager on September 9, 2025, to proceed with the final steps in the process of purchasing the property,” Thomas said.
Board Vice Chair Wayne Fournier celebrated the vote as “an exciting moment for Thurston County," as discussion opened on the motion.
He defended it as overdue after years of delays wherein he recalled years earlier the county had weighed a $400 million bond request to cover courthouse and capital needs.
Fournier said the existing courthouse was built in the 1970s and had been constructed poorly. The complex, he said, had been left to deteriorate for decades and no longer met demands.
He said putting $50 million into the old Hilltop campus as a short-term fix “was putting lipstick on a pig,” and such an investment would have gained only a few more years of use.
He also pointed to the county’s continued reliance on leased space at Thurston County Atrium at 3000 Pacific Avenue SE in Olympia, saying “renting right here in this great space” still left the county without long-term stability.
“The path towards financial independence is not renting, it’s owning. So this is a good step forward,” Fournier said.
Board Chair Tye Menser supported that stance and referenced the earlier purchase of the Thurston County Sheriff’s Office facility, which he called a favorable acquisition.
“We recently invested in the sheriff’s office facility, and we got a really good price on a really good building for the sheriff’s office," he said.
"This is even better — so much better that we have a robust budget for the initial tenant improvements, because we put out a bond for $55 million to do renovation on the courthouse. This is a 35, as you’re hearing today, is a $35 million purchase,” Menser said.
Menser added that revenue from the bond and the ability to convert assets at Hilltop gave the county options for further capital work. He said favorable economic conditions also made it possible to buy the Plum Street property “at a much reduced rate.”
8 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
ConservativeHippie
What did the county pay for the remodel improvements to the private property on Pacific Ave?
Thursday, October 2, 2025 Report this
bonaro
"Fournier said the existing courthouse was built in the 1970s and had been constructed poorly."
This is false. The construction was fine, it was 50 years of maintenance that was poor. The County consistently deferred major maintenance which is directly to blame to the current condition. What makes you think they will do any better with a new Courthouse?
The County has wanted a new Courthouse for many years. They moved most offices out of owned space to rented space, which is the most expensive way to do it. Now they are commiting to spend $35 Million while at the same time sounding the alarm about a $36 Million budget shortfall. This makes zero sense.
My confidence in County leadership has never been lower.
Thursday, October 2, 2025 Report this
JulesJames
I'd like a transparent surplus process for the 1970s courthouse site published before year's end. Our generous state legislature passed a law allowing counties to give away public real estate to NGOs to build "affordable" housing. Its not affordable. And giving perfectly good taxpayer-owned land to groups that don't answer to shareholders or pay taxes on revenues is anything but good governance.
Thursday, October 2, 2025 Report this
ReasonAboveAll
Thurston has 30 million budget deficit. I know it's a bond but still absolutely no one goes you know what made me move to Thurston county... A new court house. Last thing a county should be going in debt over. Eminent domain the place it's already at.
Friday, October 3, 2025 Report this
LouBow
Covid funds went into renovation of the Atrium which is a rental property with one of the 3 commissioners, Edward’s dissenting. At the same time, a job study was underway to fix lagging county employee salaries. Sadly the commissioner chose to use these funds for a renovated rental over their workers. This led to to an all time low in worker morale and an exodus of many fine, long time county workers. Regrettably voters voted to add 2 additional commissioners shortly anfter adding more salaries and consequently more beauracracy. Frustratingly, the county currently owns land and property in the hill which could be renovated or expanded as is now pursuing other land in another location. Whilst poor decisions have been made over decades by multiple past and present commissioners and these 5 aren’t to blame for what happened in those past decades, it’s hard to trust them based on the leadership or lack of we’re seeing now.
Friday, October 3, 2025 Report this
ClownPenis88
The only question I have about this purchase with "OUR TAX DOLLARS". Does this mean that Thurston County Courts are ACTUALLY going to enforce the states laws? You know keep our communities "safe" from violent offenders? Holding individuals accountable for laws broken so we can keep buisnesess and growth at our forefront so the next generation doesn't feel like the baby-boomers completely screwed over everyone.
Sunday, October 5, 2025 Report this
ClownPenis88
This will help us through the states litigation process with the KWW ACT. We just need to raise the taxes higher so we can be on track to tackle the climate change crisis. How are we going to re-claim taxes from illegal immigration? And do we TAX higher or lower through the legal immigration process? Maybe well get 3 wishes when we figure out how to stop Donald Trump
Monday, October 6, 2025 Report this
Wesley
First of all, there's no such thing as "SE Plum St" in Olympia. Second, there's only one building at "805 Plum St SE". Where are the other five buildings?
Thursday, October 9, 2025 Report this