Redmond officials outline options after assessment finds extensive deficiencies at Old Firehouse teen center

The Redmond City Council on July 22 heard a facilities condition assessment of the Old Firehouse teen center that found a failing roof and building envelope, hazardous materials present throughout the structure, and seismic and foundation concerns that would require substantial work to correct.

The assessment, presented by Loreen Hamilton, Redmond parks and recreation director, and consultants from Pertit and Mackenzie, noted the building was constructed in 1952, has been subject to a partial seismic retrofit in 2002 and “the roof in and of itself is beyond its serviceable life,” according to consultant Brett Hanson. The team said a range of unknowns — including potential wood rot behind finishes and asbestos-containing material inside concrete masonry unit (CMU) block cores — mean repair costs could rise after walls are opened.

Why it matters: The Old Firehouse is a centrally located, long‑used teen services facility in downtown Redmond. Council members and staff framed the decision as weighing heritage and location against safety, accessibility, long‑term cost and operational needs; staff recommended a public stakeholder process before the council chooses whether to preserve, renovate, rebuild or relocate teen services.

Assessment highlights and options

Consultants said the building shows water intrusion, failing roofing, single‑pane and patched glazing with air infiltration, aged mechanical and electrical systems, plumbing and ventilation shortfalls, and accessibility barriers in interior spaces such as the recessed recording studio and restrooms. Structural reviewers concluded the building “does not conform to performance standards for seismic collapse prevention and life safety for modern building codes” and that the host tower on the building “poses a seismic hazard.” They also noted the state hazard maps put the site at low‑to‑moderate liquefaction risk, and recommended geotechnical study before confirming foundation repair needs.

Staff presented three principal options: a full renovation to bring known issues to current code at an estimated $9,300,000 and roughly an 11‑month timeline (including a four‑week abatement period); a rebuild or full replacement on the same site estimated at about $12,000,000 with a roughly 13‑month project schedule (also including abatement); and pursuing a different site or expanded facility that would increase capacity but require additional time and planning. Hamilton emphasized the estimates do not include potential foundation retrofit costs (a $685,000 figure was cited as a possible additional expense if geotechnical work shows that need) or any large reconfigurations or expansions beyond the 8,600‑square‑foot footprint.

Hazardous materials and investigations

The hazardous‑materials work verified prior findings of asbestos in multiple locations and lead in some pipe elements; the team said they did not discover significant new asbestos sources but recommended targeted testing of CMU cores since vermiculite fill in block cores from the building era frequently contained asbestos. Consultants estimated a geotechnical investigation would take roughly two to three months and may cost $20,000–$40,000 depending on scope. CMU core testing was described as a short, low‑cost sampling and lab turnaround process (a matter of days once samples are taken).

Accessibility, systems and estimated service life

Architects and engineers recommended replacing aging mechanical, electrical, fire‑alarm and plumbing components if the city chooses renovation; restroom and kitchen configurations would need modification to meet accessible‑design standards. Staff said a full renovation and code‑compliant upgrade would likely extend the building’s useful life by about 20–25 years; new construction would be expected to last 50 years or more.

Council questions and staff direction

Council members repeatedly asked about scaled or phased approaches (design‑to‑budget), reserve funding and lessons learned from the Redmond pool and senior/community center projects. Consultants said code triggers and the building’s age mean work tends to “snowball” once abatement and significant upgrades begin, and that repeated partial repairs can increase overall cost and disruption compared with a single, comprehensive project.

Hamilton told council that staff will convene a stakeholder group and work with a recently formed council subcommittee to conduct community engagement and report back monthly, with the goal of bringing a recommendation by the 2025 Q4 or Q1 2026 period. She also flagged an immediate short‑term consideration: staff estimated roof and flashing replacement would be roughly $700,000 and may require action if the roof continues to degrade before the council decides on the building’s future.

Ending

Council members emphasized keeping all options open while centering teen voices in the stakeholder process. No formal motion or vote on the facility’s future occurred at the study session; staff will return with results from the stakeholder engagement, any additional targeted studies the council requests (geotechnical, CMU testing, targeted wood‑rot investigation) and proposed funding strategies for whichever option the council approves.