Lacey council hears RAC Phase 3 concepts; staff recommends focusing PFD-backed work on East‑side soccer improvements

Lacey — City staff and consultants presented three design concepts and cost estimates for Phase 3 of the Regional Athletic Complex (RAC) on June 10, and staff recommended the council prioritize East‑side soccer improvements rather than a full buildout on the undeveloped west parcel.

"The intent for tonight is to make sure council understands the PFD extension and the rack phase 3 options," Parks, Culture & Recreation staff member Jen said at the start of the presentation. Consultants from SCJ Alliance and ALSC Architects outlined three West Side concepts — a collegiate baseball field plus two softball fields, three softball fields, and a collegiate baseball field with a large multiuse turf field — and improvements on the East Side that would convert Field 2 from natural grass to synthetic turf with sports lighting and portable bleachers.

Staff explained funding constraints tied to the public‑facility‑district (PFD) sales tax. Troy Wu, finance director, reviewed a 30‑year projection showing PFD revenues lagging projected operations and recommended conservative bonding terms. He said Lacey currently receives about 71.77% of the countywide PFD sales tax under the local agreement (Olympia receives the remainder), and that the split will shift when cumulative collections reach $40.5 million. "When we look at what is available for debt service, the 15‑year term gives the most prudent balance," Wu said, noting that a 15‑year amortization at current rates would yield roughly $13 million in bond proceeds under staff assumptions; a 30‑year term reduces annual debt capacity and increases total interest paid.

Design team leads presented concept costs and a smaller phased option. Initial conceptual cost estimates were: Concept 1 ~ $61.7 million, Concept 2 ~ $59.8 million, Concept 3 ~ $61.7 million. By contrast, a minimal East‑side turf‑and‑lighting package was estimated at roughly $9.3 million; a minimal West‑side access/parking and trail package was estimated at about $3.1 million. A more extensive East‑side build (two synthetic fields plus locker rooms, permanent seating and other infrastructure) produced a conceptual estimate near $40 million.

Staff argued the East‑side turf conversion and lighting would likely provide the best near‑term return on PFD bond capacity (more usable field hours and tournament capacity) while keeping long‑term maintenance obligations manageable. The team emphasized phasing and future flexibility: portable bleachers, paved access and utilities staged to allow later growth, and design choices that avoid locking the city into a single expensive footprint.

Council members favored moving forward to more detailed design on the East Side. Multiple council members commented they supported concentrating staff resources and bonding capacity on the East Side improvements and pursuing partnerships for larger buildouts on the West Side. One council member asked about timeline pressure; staff said design work should begin in July to support a February–March 2027 bond issuance and a 2027 construction season, noting IRS rules on expenditure windows for bond proceeds.

No formal vote was taken. Council consensus directed staff to move the East‑side concept to the next design milestone (roughly 30% design), refine cost estimates and phasing, and return with a recommendation by June–early July 2025 for the council to consider (staff had said a June decision would be preferable). Staff will also continue conversations with potential partners (colleges, professional teams, JBLM and others) about cost shares and programming.

The presentation and the council’s direction set the immediate schedule: begin design work this summer, tighten cost contingencies as the design advances, and use the refined estimates to shape any PFD bond package and partnership pitches.