Ellensburg council reviews three field‑house concepts, asks staff to model lease and operating options

City of Ellensburg staff and outside consultants on Feb. 3 presented three alternative designs and associated budgets for a proposed replacement field house at Rotary Park, outlining tradeoffs between hard‑court and turf space, estimated construction and operating costs, and funding options tied to an insurance settlement and potential local partnerships.

Brad Case, parks and recreation director for the City of Ellensburg, told the council the project moved into a validation phase after the Rocket Center fire and contracting with the Helix Design Group and an owner’s advisor. “We’re excited tonight to update you and provide you some information on the work that’s been going on with regards to the Ellensburg Field House,” Case said.

The plans presented to council included three concepts developed with the city’s owner’s advisor, the Winnehaha Group, and design‑builder Absher/Helix. Concept A is a “bit of everything” option with a 12,500‑square‑foot phase 1 (one regulation basketball court, small administration and reception) and a full build priced at about $28 million; the turf component in the full build would be roughly 40 yards, the consultants said. Jake Hartwig of the Winnehaha Group described the draft operating projection prepared by Ballard King as “about a million to run this place, and it may bring in about 628k,” a roughly 61 percent cost‑recovery figure in the draft analysis.

Concept B is a court‑focused design: about 51,000 square feet in full build and roughly $29.6 million in estimated cost that would provide up to five courts and an immediately rentable multipurpose room. Hartwig said that option produced about a 55 percent draft cost recovery. Concept C emphasizes turf (about 70 yards in the full build), produces the lowest draft cost recovery (about 45 percent) and would not meet the hard‑court need without later expansion, the consultants said.

Heidi (city manager) explained project funding and the council’s constraints. She said insurance proceeds included a settlement and that the city has pursued other grants and county lodging‑tax support; “that’s how we got to those 7 to, or the $10,000,000 mark about cash in hand,” she said. The consultants told the council they had targeted concepts in the $25 million to $30 million range so a first phase could more closely match available cash.

Council members expressed mixed preferences and concerns. Several members said hard courts offer broader programming and higher utilization; others urged pausing to fold the project into a parks master‑planning process so voters and residents can weigh priorities such as a pool, tennis improvements or other park investments. At least one council member said they would “lean towards A or B” but asked staff to explore private‑developer or leaseback models so the city would not shoulder the full capital cost and debt service. The council also requested more refined operating projections and an apples‑to‑apples comparison of a city‑owned facility versus lease/private‑operator options.

The council amended its study‑session rules by motion and voice vote to permit short public comments during the session. A council member moved to “amend our study session rules and allow public comment”; a second was given and members voted by voice in favor. The record in the study session shows the motion carried on the ayes called by the mayor, with no roll‑call tally provided.

Public commenters urged an emphasis on court space for tournaments and year‑round rentals and cautioned about optimistic revenue projections. Jennifer Patterson, a county and city resident, said she favored the court‑heavy concept and urged looking at leaseback models. Pat Kelleher raised questions about the operating assumptions, noting the difference between prior operating revenues and the draft projections and suggesting subscription or low‑labor fitness models be examined.

Council direction and next steps: staff and consultants were asked to refine Ballard King’s operating assumptions, model a private‑lease or public‑private partnership scenario (staff was asked to use Concept B as a baseline for lease modeling), and return with an updated validation report and comparative lease analysis. Several council members also recommended advancing the parks master‑planning process alongside further cost modeling so the field house can be weighed against other community priorities.

Background and context: the project began after the December 2022 Rocket Center fire and moved into design‑build procurement and validation in 2024. In May 2024 the state project review committee granted the city permission to pursue a progressive design‑build delivery method, a step required when a municipality has not used that method previously. The city has engaged an owner’s representative and a progressive design‑builder to complete design and budgeting work.