Tumwater reviews community-center designs and site options; council seeks more outreach and due diligence

TUMWATER, Wash. — At a Sept. 23 work session, the Tumwater City Council and consultants from BRS (Barker Garcia) and partners reviewed design options, programming and six potential sites for a proposed community recreation center and a smaller standalone senior center. Council members asked for additional neighborhood outreach, more detailed cost estimates and environmental due diligence; they did not select a site.

Consultants presented three facility types: a multigenerational recreation center (programmed for all ages and abilities), a larger regional recreation/field-house model and a standalone senior/active-adult center. The consultants described a typical “day-in-the-life” schedule, flexible room uses and adjacencies designed to support seniors, youth, families and athletics. The recreation-center test fit that the team discussed included roughly 77,000 square feet (two floors in the model shown), a multiform gym area (presented as four high‑school‑size courts that could be subdivided), fitness and aerobics spaces, indoor turf, an elevated walk/jog track and space reserved for a future aquatic expansion.

Why it matters: siting, contamination, transit and infrastructure change the cost and timeline. Two of the six sites — properties owned or controlled by the Port of Olympia — appear unlikely without a commercial sale at market value; the consultant flagged a WSDOT “washout” site that has been the subject of environmental investigation and a 24‑acre Kimmy Street site (referred to in the meeting as "Site F") adjacent to a middle school that the Port indicated could be available under a low‑cost partnership or lease. Council members and staff said infrastructure needs — notably a planned roundabout on Capitol Boulevard for the washout site — and potential groundwater/wellhead protections at the Kimmy Street site are key constraints.

Design and programs - Multigenerational recreation center: Consultants said these buildings typically run from about 5,000 to 30,000 square feet for small community centers, with regional centers 50,000 square feet or larger; the Tumwater test fit was a two‑story, roughly 77,000‑square‑foot building with active spaces on a second‑floor mezzanine, including fitness, aerobics, indoor turf and a walk/jog track open to below. - Senior/active-adult center: Presented as a smaller, focused facility (about 18,000 square feet in the consultants’ example) with dining/community rooms and daytime programming; consultants said standalone senior centers often operate primarily weekdays and close earlier in the evening. - Amenities and flexibility: Consultants emphasized flexible, rentable community rooms, a commercial or catering kitchen option, child watch, classroom spaces, and multiuse gym striping for basketball, volleyball and pickleball.

Costs and operations - Consultants said the standalone senior‑center example ranged from about $10 million to $12 million (this figure excludes land acquisition and market‑volatility contingencies). The presentation included an earlier, unclear figure for the larger rec center that was not confirmed in discussion; staff said more detailed cost estimating from a third‑party estimator will be needed once council gives direction on a site. - City staff noted that a project in the $40 million range would create roughly $3 million per year in debt service (example used to illustrate operating/financing implications). The consultants and staff said the feasibility study will be updated with refined pro forma operating assumptions once a site is chosen.

Sites and constraints - Sites reviewed: consultants displayed six candidate locations previously studied in January and in follow‑up site visits: two Port of Olympia parcels along Tumwater/Capitol Boulevard (referred to as Sites A and B), a brewery site (extensive redevelopment cost and floodwork required), a site at 90 Third/99, a WSDOT “washout” site on Capitol Boulevard, and a Kimmy Street ("Site F") parcel of about 24 acres adjacent to a middle school. The Port‑owned sites were described as being held for commercial development and therefore unlikely to be available at the reduced cost the city would prefer. - WSDOT/washout site: Consultants said environmental‑investigation work has been done and that a portion of on‑site cleanup and permitting would be required; consultants and staff said construction could begin on that site as early as 2027 if environmental cleanup and acquisition proceed on schedule. Council members asked for direct outreach to the neighborhood behind that site; consultants said no neighborhood‑specific outreach had yet been done for the washout site beyond the consultants’ public process. - Kimmy Street / Site F (24 acres): Council members praised the size and future flexibility of the 24‑acre site, noting proximity to south Tumwater growth areas and bus/bike access issues. Consultants said the site could accommodate the building, parking (a 1:1 parking‑to‑building‑area rule was used in the test fit), and future expansions including an aquatic center. Staff warned the parcel includes the city’s well in one corner and would require wellhead‑protection review and possibly other critical‑area work. - Access and infrastructure: For the Capitol Boulevard/washout site consultants said a planned roundabout would be important to provide safe, full access and that other sites would require sidewalk/frontage and other improvements; both sites will carry different infrastructure and mitigation costs.

Council reaction and next steps Council members voiced differing priorities: some stressed building for long‑term growth in the south end and favored the 24‑acre site for its expansion capacity; others emphasized downtown place‑making and the brewery site’s symbolic value, while staff and consultants cautioned that the brewery site would require expensive flood and soil remediation. Concerns raised included neighborhood notification for the WSDOT site, potential aquifer/wellhead impacts at Kimmy Street, transit and pedestrian access, and the timing of external infrastructure projects (such as the Capitol Boulevard roundabout).

Council did not vote on a preferred site. Staff and the consultant team said they will: (1) plan additional public outreach to test the two leading options with neighbors and the broader community; (2) remobilize the landscape architect and operations consultant to produce a pro forma and a third‑party cost estimate once a site is selected or additional scope is authorized; and (3) return with refined cost, traffic and environmental information. Consultants said they are aiming to deliver a finalized feasibility study to the city in January 2026 as the next major milestone, contingent on scheduling and the additional work the council requested.

Quotes "These words describe Tumwater, and those affect how we design the actual build," said Corey Wolverson of Barker Garcia, describing the firm's approach to site‑specific design cues. Council member Dalhau said, "I would love, like, as we move forward, that flexibility…to not just segregate demographics," urging schedule flexibility for senior programming that accommodates caregiving schedules. A consultant summarized site realities to the council: "We want to provide a facility that's a good neighbor…we want to have a facility that looks nice, that's easy to maintain, that has nice landscaping, wonderful amenities, that these people are gonna wanna live next to."

What’s next: Staff and the consultant team will scope and schedule further neighborhood outreach and updated third‑party cost estimating; the consultants said they expect to complete the final feasibility study for council review around January 2026, subject to the additional scoping approved by the city.