Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drcc Civic Campus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs DRCC civic‑campus options, asks staff for three conceptual alternatives
Summary
Mill Creek — Council members revisited options for the city‑owned DRCC property on Jan. 21 and asked staff to produce three conceptual alternatives — multipurpose community facility, civic campus with City Hall, or financially oriented redevelopment — with ballpark costs and feasibility notes.
Mill Creek — Council members used the Jan. 21 strategic retreat to revisit the long‑running discussion about the city‑owned DRCC property and whether it should remain a multipurpose community facility, be used as a civic campus that includes City Hall, or be redeployed to maximize financial returns.
Council members described three recurring objectives for the site: (1) a significant multipurpose community asset that provides gathering space, recreational and program space and event capacity; (2) a civic campus possibility that could colocate City Hall, recreation and community programming; and (3) treating the land as a strategic financial asset that could be leveraged to improve city finances. “We want this to be a multipurpose community facility that gathers and serves the community,” one council member said; others urged the council to run options through a financial viability lens.
Why it matters: DRCC is a large, city‑owned parcel whose use shapes recreational capacity, operating costs and the city’s land‑asset strategy. Council members said prior engineering work showed field construction would be expensive and that topography limits some options. Several council members said they want staff to compare “blobs” — conceptual footprints with order‑of‑magnitude cost and operating estimates — rather than commissioning detailed architectural plans before policy direction is set.
Council directions: Staff was asked to return with three conceptual options (staff called them “the three best options”) that map onto the range of council preferences — e.g., (A) multipurpose community facility focused on public programming and recreation; (B) civic campus that incorporates City Hall and community facilities; and (C) financially oriented redevelopment that maximizes return (sale, mixed‑use redevelopment or public‑private partnership). Council asked that each conceptual option include: a rough square‑footage “blob,” high‑level capital‑cost and recurring‑operations order‑of‑magnitude estimates, constraints tied to wetlands and topography, and an assessment of potential partners and funding sources.
Staff confirmed earlier work on wetlands and site feasibility; planning for DRCC has paused pending clearer council guidance. Council members agreed to avoid immediate, detailed design work until they had the conceptual options, and several asked staff to flag policy tradeoffs such as impacts on existing programs (e.g., preschool and recreation), parking and the city’s downtown activation strategy.
Ending: City staff and the planning director committed to return with a short package of conceptual options, cost ballparks and feasibility checks so the council can pick a preferred direction and identify the decisions that would follow.
