Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Facilities Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tumwater staff brief committee on 2025 six‑year capital facilities plan; no action taken
Summary
City staff presented the proposed 2026–2031 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) — a six‑year, $25,000‑threshold project list used to inform future budgets — and asked the Public Works Committee for feedback; the presentation was informational and the CFP is not a financial commitment.
City of Tumwater staff on Sept. 18 briefed the Public Works Committee on the draft 2026–2031 Capital Facilities Plan, a six‑year list of projects the city updates every two years to inform future budgets. The committee received the briefing and asked staff to continue outreach; no formal council action on the CFP occurred at the meeting.
The city’s CFP is a planning document that lists capital assets estimated at $25,000 or more; it does not itself obligate funding, Brandon (Transportation Engineering Department presenter) told the committee. “This CFP is not a financial commitment,” he said, adding that projects in the CFP will return to council for individual budget or project authorization.
Staff described two CFP groupings discussed at the meeting: general governmental projects (police, fire, parks, facilities and major equipment) and transportation projects (multimodal and preservation work). The combined draft for those two categories is more than $220 million, the largest combined total staff said they have recorded in at least the past decade. Staff identified the new public works facility and a proposed community center as the primary drivers of the increase.
Brandon walked committee members through project additions, removals and placeholders. Projects removed from the draft list include completed work and items that were consolidated or deferred, such as a prior city hall parking expansion (deferred due to remote‑work changes) and a completed Washington Center renovation. New or emphasized items include a city hall campus facilities initiative to review and repurpose multiple city‑owned buildings; interim improvements at Fire Station T2 tied to an additional medic unit; placeholder planning for a future third fire station (a planning estimate of $8 million appears in future years); and an ongoing Deschutes Valley Trail effort.
Staff spelled out primary CFP funding sources discussed at the meeting: capital funds can be a mix of general fund dollars, grants, portions of utility taxes, real‑estate excise tax (REET), impact and mitigation fees, Metropolitan Parks District revenue, Transportation Benefit District funds and utility rates for enterprise projects. Brandon reiterated that the CFP aggregates projects drawn from previously adopted plans and from staff or council priorities and that numbers will continue to be refined as schedules, cost estimates and grant opportunities evolve.
Committee members pressed staff on public outreach and communications, especially for visible projects such as a new fire station, roundabouts and parks. One council member asked staff to prepare a communications plan so residents understand that inclusion in the CFP is planning, not an immediate construction or land‑use decision.
Staff outlined the next steps: staff will brief the Planning Commission, which is scheduled for a work session and anticipated public hearing in October, and the full council is scheduled to consider the comprehensive plan amendments (including the CFP) in November. Brandon and other staff also offered to meet individually with council members to go into greater project detail.
Ending: Committee members accepted the informational briefing and had no objection to staff continuing outreach and returning to Planning Commission and full council as scheduled. The minutes for the prior meeting were approved earlier in the session.
