Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Project Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Consultants estimate $23M–$30M range for Lake Stevens Civic Center; progressive design‑build and private land sale could lower cost

5417622 · July 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Project team presented hard and soft cost estimates for three civic‑center alternatives, described progressive design‑build and tax‑exempt financing as ways to trim costs, and said no funding decisions had been made; agencies will review public input before choosing a preferred concept and considering ballot measures.

Consultants presenting the Lake Stevens Civic Center options told the public the three alternatives cluster closely in size but show different cost implications depending on project delivery and the use of the library parcel for private development.

Bob Stowe of the Stowe Group and project staff presented cost ranges for two bookend delivery approaches: a traditional public design–bid–build method and a more collaborative private‑sector delivery model. The team said the design–bid–build option could result in total project costs in the roughly $25 million to nearly $30 million range (figures stated as 2021 estimates), while a progressive design‑build or P3‑style delivery combined with tax‑exempt debt could lower total development cost to roughly $23 million to $24.4 million.

The team identified progressive design‑build as the delivery approach most likely to yield cost savings; Bob Stowe and Russ Wright cited tax‑exempt financing authorized under IRS Revenue Ruling 63‑20 as a potential financing tool. Stowe and Wright emphasized that those are estimates and that no agencies have decided how the project will be financed.

Potential private‑development revenue and library parcel value The consultants said Alternative 2 was explicitly intended to keep the library‑owned parcel available for private development to generate proceeds that could offset civic costs. The team estimated a fair‑market value of roughly $900,000 if the library parcel were developed for multifamily housing; they described that figure as part of the range of funding options to be evaluated.

Ballot measures and agency roles Presenters said a public vote could supply the bulk of capital funding but cautioned no decision has been made on ballot timing or structure. Project staff told a resident that a single coordinated ballot measure would make financing easier, but multiple measures remain possible and would require coordination. When asked whether the sewer district would issue debt, staff said the Lake Stevens Sewer District was likely to be treated as a tenant rather than as a separate bond issuer, but said that had not been finalized.

Program and size inputs used for estimates Consultants said the underlying program assumptions used to estimate costs included approximately 18,500 square feet for city hall and a library range of roughly 14,000 to 18,000 square feet depending on how much space would be shared. The combined program area used for cost estimates ranged from about 32,000 to nearly 35,000 square feet, the presenters said.

Next steps on financing The team said the agencies will not take any formal financing decision before they complete public engagement and select a preferred alternative. The public survey was scheduled to remain open through April 22; the agencies planned to review survey results in April, refine a preferred concept in May and present that concept in June. Only after those steps would financing models and potential ballot measures be considered in detail.

Community input continues to matter Presenters encouraged residents to use the online survey to indicate priorities such as library size, parking, shared spaces and environmental protection. Russ Wright and other presenters asked residents to be specific in feedback so the project team and agencies can balance program needs, environmental constraints and cost.