March 31, 2015 · Exit133

New Developments Related to the County General Services Building

If you haven't been following the latest on the general services building Pierce County wants to build on the site of the old Puget Sound Hospital, here are a few updates.

In late Feburary, after the County Council approved the building's construction in a 4 to 3 vote, a citizen group based in Gig Harbor filed a referrendum to stop the project, saying they don't trust the County's math, and asking that the project be sent to the voters.

The County then sued the group to block the referrendum, saying that the decision is outside what can be challenged by a referrendum, and that any delays caused by the process would result in an increased overall cost.

The County Council ultimately voted to withdraw that lawsuit, but last week a couple of private citizens, residents of Tacoma's Eastside and the Lincoln District, filed a similar suit to block the referrendum.

The citizen lawsuit, according to The News Tribune, is more or less the same suit filed originally by the County, arguing that a referrendum on this issue isn't legal, as the decision being challenged is an administrative one. The citizens challenging the referrendum say that it could interfere with a negotiated deal with the developer that locks in an agreed to maximum price for the project. Any delays due to the referrendum could lead to increases in the cost to the County - and so to the taxpayers. The County is not a party to this newest suit.

Then yesterday we heard about a new development: County Councilmember Dan Roach is proposing an ordinance that would send the construction project to Pierce County voters, likely making the entire referrendum/lawsuit fight a moot point. Read the full press release on that here.

The County's argument from the beginning has been that the new building will save money on rents, staff, and other efficiencies, and consolidate services for County residents and businesses. The group proposing the referrendum, which could cause a delay, calls themselves "Citizens for Responsible Spending," but a delay could increase costs, and so decrease those savings... It seems that more public process from the beginning on this project have avoided this mess entirely, but without a time machine, it's tough to go back and fix that, so here we are.

As a Pierce County resident, do you want the matter to show up on your ballot this fall, even if it could mean an increased cost if/when the building ultimately gets built?

Filed under: Neighborhoods, Lincoln, Pierce County, General Services Building

9 comments

Jesse March 31, 2015

The County is paying a price for forgetting the most basic rule of the non-profit world. That rule is; always put someone else between yourself and trouble. Spending this amount of money, in a controversial area for this type of building, and not allowing input from any professionals in the relevant areas of expertise, will ultimately implode this project. Proof of ineptitude lies in the fact that the price keeps fluctuating, the details are constantly different, and even the architectural firm said they've never built a mid-rise office tower in a neighborhood before. The mitigations and attached costs have come AFTER the County already started turning the City-County Building in to the virtual jail-yard that's planned there. No experts in urban design, third-party architects, or numerous other experts were given the chance to help create a plan for a new County Building - it's painfully obvious. There's no respect for the massive investments made in downtown to "someday" support this type of larger scale building and the possible density that might follow. The County deserves a better building for the sake of better service and convenience to us residents. Is this the project? I hope not.
- JDHasty March 31, 2015
  
  I have heard enough downtown rah-rah-rah and bla-bla-bla and Jimmie cracked corn and I don't care so long as the influx of tax revenues into that bottomless money pit and den of inequity stops. Almost three decades Tacoma residents were promised that if maintenance on our existing infrastructure were deferred and the "savings" poured into the downtown redevelopment zone that before long that area would be thriving and it would be producing sufficient new tax revenues to "more than make up for whatever increased deterioration happens to our existing infrastructure assets in the intervening time." That was over a generation that the money is still flowing out of our neighborhoods and into supporting that pipe dream. Enough is enough. All of the promises made have not materialized and if history is anything to go by, never will. Actually the whole economic premise behind the "Visualize Tacoma" campaign of the mid-1990's regarding downtown redevelopment zone has been one big FLOP! The new residents and businesses that were forecast would be flocking and herding into downtown Tacoma never came. The only increases in residential population have been freeloaders who moved out of single family homes they had been paying property taxes on and into tax abated condos where they are paying nothing in taxes to support the government services they use. There is no net increase in businesses relocating to downtown Tacoma and it is not exactly what anyone would describe as a boomtown when it comes to increased employment. Fact of the matter is, the influx barely offsets the losses as other companies have moved out. I, for one, don't want to be burdened with pay parking when I visit county offices and I think that it is also in the interest of those Pierce County residents who do not live in Tacoma to have any new county offices located right on the freeway. When I have business to do that requires me to visit the county offices I want to jump into my truck and drive directly there, park, go in, take care of what I need to take care of and leave as conveniently as possible. The offices are supposedly needed in order to serve the population of the county, and that means all of the population of the county. I am not conceding that a new building is needed, but just for the sake of discussion let's say it is needed at this time and if that is the case this Lincoln District location will serve the population of the county better than any location in the downtown are ever would.
James March 31, 2015

All this building needs is some "residential-scale" architectural features on the facade and it will be all good. A gable here, an awning there, and some exposed heavy timber at the entry. Voila. No one will even notice a 9 story tower, surrounded by parking lot, in a residential neighborhood. But seriously. This project is so good, the left and the right don't like it (for very different reasons). Success. *All cynicism.
- JDHasty March 31, 2015
  
  What you say re: residential scale applies in spades to Bill Evans' monstrosity in the Proctor District. One cannot consistently oppose this development, which is sited on a major arterial, and not be opposed to what is being allowed in the Proctor District.
  - James March 31, 2015
    
    Ya. Total hypocrite here. Just so we're clear. A - I expressed opposition to the Proctor, specifically the "skybridge" over the alley that makes it a mega-block building. B - I'm all for housing density, when done right. Mixed-use housing in mixed-use center is very different from a corporate campus tower surrounded by a parking lot in a residential neighborhood. The Proctor's height, bulk and scale issues pale in comparison to the General Services building's complete disregard for current zoning and planning principals, not to mention avoidance of public input during the planning process of a PUBLIC building!
    - JDHasty March 31, 2015
      
      Bullshit.
Elizabeth Burris March 31, 2015

Pierce County Council, please put your Big Adult Leader Pants on and take control of this mess! You, the Council needs to be in charge of this, not the Executive/ Deputy Executive! From the start this project should of included citizens involved with finance, design and construction skills as an advisory group. Outreach sessions throughout Pierce County, to ask the citizens what they wanted. For the person responsible for talking Ms.Young & Mr. Miller into the lawsuit, you should be tarred and feathered!
- Bill Powers March 31, 2015
  
  The common theme here seems to be the lack of public input. Why was this whole process done just in the Exec's office? Who was advising her on how to communicate and get public input? FAIL!! If it was a consultant paid to give advice on communications/public input get your money back, if it was a Pierce County staff person FIRE THEM!!!
Ronnie Bush March 31, 2015

If only.... there had been public input on the site and the design from the beginning. Not ONE mtg for design input there wasn't over 6 million spent in King County already for our county's work the County Exec hadn't said it was "nothing personal" to sue a citizen (is bills to defend himself ARE personal) the powers that be would have allowed voter's voices in the beginning, no need for a Ref now, but too little too late