Lakewood council studies full- and partial‑build options for Fort Steilacoom H Barn restoration

Public comment and a long study‑session presentation Thursday highlighted community fundraising and tourism potential for restoring the Fort Steilacoom H Barn while flagging sharply higher cost estimates and unanswered delivery questions. City staff and the project architect presented three schematic scenarios and a 30% design cost estimate; council asked staff to continue working with Partners for Parks and other stakeholders to refine scope, funding and alternatives.

The facility’s advocates told the council the barn would fill a gap in Lakewood for year‑round indoor event space. “We’ve already raised $2,800,000 towards our $3,500,000 goal,” Hallie McCurry of Partners for Parks said during public comment, adding the group has “never heard such positive feedback about a project” in the community. Dean Burke, representing the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) and VISIT Tacoma Pierce County, said the barn could drive more overnight stays and support lodging tax revenue.

The project team described three cost/scope scenarios. Scenario 1 is a full renovation and exterior site work; the construction estimate in the packet for that option was roughly $12.2 million for building construction with total project costs (soft costs, contingencies and taxes) rising toward a $14.3 million figure during discussion. Scenario 2 would limit work to the building footprint and defer exterior landscaping or discretionary systems; Scenario 3 would further reduce scope by excluding the south wing and leaving uncertain whether the attached historic portion could remain in place without additional study.

“We feel very confident” in the RLB cost estimator’s work on the 30% design, architect Susan Tillich said, while noting market volatility and contingencies the firm included. Interim Parks and Recreation Director Scott Williams explained that scenario differences also reflect electrical service choices (three‑phase versus single‑phase) and other mechanical/electrical/plumbing implications that materially change costs.

Council members pressed for financial and operational details. Several asked for a business plan showing rentable days, likely event types, and return‑on‑investment comparisons for a new build that retains the silos versus renovating the existing historic fabric. Council member Branstetter said he preferred a single finished product rather than phased work: “The 3 scenarios are not each finished projects. Scenarios 2 and 3 are just interim projects to try to eventually get to something like Scenario 1.”

Staff and council identified steps before choosing a preferred path: further cost/constructability analysis (including a comparison of building new versus adaptive reuse), consultation with the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP) about eligibility and grant opportunities, refinement of a business/operating model, and follow‑up with Partners for Parks on fundraising and possible lodging‑tax or bond financing. City staff said they will meet with Partners for Parks to explore alternatives and report back.

The study session did not include a formal council vote. Several council members and LTAC representatives urged pursuing a solution that balances historic preservation with long‑term utility and affordability. The council recessed after directing staff to return with narrower options and financial scenarios that would show how each approach affects capital need and operating expectations.

Supporters emphasized local demand and tourism benefits while skeptics warned rising estimates and phasing risks. The conversation left open whether to preserve the H Barn’s historic fabric, retain the silos and build a new structure that repeats the barn’s appearance, or adopt an intermediate approach that phases work but reduces re‑mobilization risk.

If council directs the full build, the project will trigger additional funding decisions (including potential lodging‑tax allocation or bonds), historic‑preservation review and a formal construction procurement process.