Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Center Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tumwater reviews three community‑center options; consultants present three program sizes and preliminary budgets
Summary
Consultants and city staff presented three program options and three candidate sites for a Tumwater community center — WSDOT site, airport site and brewery property — and gave rough order‑of‑magnitude budgets. Preliminary construction and soft‑cost estimates range from about $24 million to $66 million; site development and land costs were not yet
Get email alerts on the Community Center Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tumwater — City consultants presented three program options, three candidate sites and preliminary budgets for a proposed Tumwater community center at the Jan. 28 City Council meeting.
Chuck Denny, representing city staff, and a design team from Barker Rinker Seacat (BRS) and Ballard King and Associates reviewed project history, community survey results and three program scales — “small,” “medium” and “large” — that reflect differing facility sizes and amenities.
The council was shown conceptual site layouts for: (1) the Port of Olympia/airport site at 1270 Fifth Avenue SW; (2) a 22.2‑acre brewery property that includes existing industrial buildings; and (3) a state‑owned WSDOT parcel on Capitol Boulevard (about 9.9 acres). Consultants said the WSDOT site ranked highest on their evaluation, followed by the airport site and then the brewery site.
The design team described what each program would include. Large‑program features included a large field house (multi‑court), a 12,000‑square‑foot fitness area, an elevated walking track, a multipurpose community hall for about 240 people, classrooms and child watch. The medium program retained many of those elements at reduced scale; the small program would provide core community spaces, a smaller gym and an elevated walking track.
Consultants provided high‑level budget estimates (hard construction costs plus soft costs, sales tax and contingency). For a new, ground‑up large program they reported a preliminary all‑in estimate of about $66.3 million (roughly $46.5 million hard construction cost plus design, FF&E, contingency and Washington sales tax). The medium program all‑in estimate was presented near $45 million, and the small program near $24.7 million. Those totals do not include land acquisition or detailed site development costs; consultants said site‑specific infrastructure and flood‑mitigation costs would add to project totals.
Corey Wilkerson, project manager with BRS, told the council these are conceptual, first‑pass estimates intended to set expectations. “This isn’t meant to scare you all. This is meant to kind of set an expectation,” Wilkerson said.
Consultants highlighted site differences that affect cost and schedule. They said the brewery property presents added challenges: portions of the site lie in a floodplain, the site would require substantial demolition and remediation because of prior industrial use, and access improvements — including a new roadway or viaduct — could be very costly. The airport site requires habitat mitigation for development in some areas. The WSDOT parcel offers strong transit access and central visibility, but consultants said utility and mitigation work could affect schedule.
The design team summarized public input from an online survey that drew 741 responses. Respondents prioritized indoor walking/track space, fitness and court sports and prioritized multigenerational programming; many expected to travel 5–14 minutes to a center. Survey responses also showed a preference for mixed revenue models: many respondents favored covering roughly half the operating cost through membership and user fees and the remainder through taxes and subsidies, though the community also identified a role for scholarships and low‑income access.
Consultants outlined next steps: two more workshops with the project steering committee and executive committee, a final city council presentation in April and development of site‑specific costs and a third‑party cost estimate. They said the project team will return with a recommended site, a recommended program scale and a refined cost estimate.
Council members asked about access, parking, flood risk on the brewery site, whether design guidelines would be applied to building frontage and how fees and scholarships could be structured to preserve community access. Staff said they will continue analysis and that site development costs will be added to the program budgets in subsequent work sessions.

