Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves RFQ for Ellensburg Fieldhouse developer, seeking public-private delivery under RCW 35.42
Summary
The council authorized publication of a request for qualifications (RFQ) for a developer to build an Ellensburg Fieldhouse using a public-private model; staff estimated a 50,000–60,000 sq ft facility and a developer-delivered build cost near $15–16 million under the proposed lease/leaseback model, with off-ramps if funding is not secured.
The Ellensburg City Council on Sept. 15 approved publication of a request for qualifications for a developer to deliver a proposed Ellensburg Fieldhouse using a public-private delivery model authorized by state law.
City Manager Heidi Baron Sternaway told the council the city previously explored traditional design-bid-build alternatives after the loss of a prior recreation facility and that staff now believe a public-private, lease/leaseback approach under RCW 35.42 offers a path to build a multiuse fieldhouse affordably. “This is a model where the developer takes on design and the development risk and the city may lease the facility with potential purchase options,” Baron Sternaway said.
What the RFQ seeks: staff described an early program that would fit roughly 50,000 to 60,000 square feet and include five basketball courts, synthetic turf roughly the size of two full fields, multipurpose courts (volleyball, pickleball), batting/pitching cages and support spaces for storage and offices. Staff estimated, under the RFQ model, a developer could deliver a 50–60k sq ft facility for about $15–16 million, subject to design validation and guaranteed maximum price negotiations.
Timing and financing: managers said the RFQ would be open for a six‑to‑eight week proposal period; responses would return to council for concept review. Staff emphasized that the project will require additional funding (the city currently has roughly half of the estimated total purchase cost) and that off-ramps are built into the process: if the city is not prepared to meet a guaranteed maximum price or to secure debt service, the council can decline to proceed. Councilors asked about aligning the guaranteed maximum price milestone with any secondary funding strategy such as bonds or a public facilities district; staff agreed a deliberate alignment would be required.
Facilities and amenities: Parks staff said the RFQ lists key building components but that full locker-room build-out was not currently mandated; restroom and limited shower support were described as required, and staff noted the fieldhouse would prioritize courts, turf and storage. Parks Director Brad Case said the design work would refine those choices.
Vote and next steps: Council approved publication of the RFQ in “substantially similar form.” If proposals proceed through selection and validation phases, the city would need to resolve funding (bond, public facilities district or other revenue) before a purchase or long-term lease is executed.
Ending: Staff said the RFQ and subsequent developer validation phase include contractual protections and off-ramps; no commitment to construction or financing was made at this meeting.
