Kennewick council okays RFP to study new City Hall and civic campus; renovation analysis to be included as alternate

City staff and council members discussed options for a replacement or renovation of Kennewick’s City Hall and agreed Aug. 25 to move forward with a request for proposals (RFP) that will study a new facility and a civic campus master plan while treating a full renovation/building‑condition analysis of the existing City Hall as an alternate.

City staff member Carrie Erdmann introduced the item and told the council the purpose: “our whole goal tonight is to get a consensus on is it okay to go out for RFP?” She described a three‑part scope of work staff proposed for the RFP: a new City Hall feasibility study (needs analysis, preliminary design concepts, site requirements, cost estimates and a timeline), a civic campus master plan that would integrate prior studies and site options, and an existing‑City‑Hall renovation assessment (building condition, code and ADA upgrades, feasibility and cost estimates).

Council members asked for clarifications on scope, timing and cost. Council member McShane asked whether projected staffing needs would be produced internally and provided to any selected firm; Erdmann said staffing and a city project team would be used to prepare needs assessments. Council members also sought guidance on projected life span for a new or renovated building and whether the RFP should include phasing and expansion options.

Several council members urged that the RFP include both a limited stabilization analysis (a short‑term “band‑aid” to extend safe operations while other capital priorities proceed) and a full renovation feasibility option that would evaluate whether the existing building could be upgraded for long‑term use. Council member Beauchamp said he wanted cost estimates before ruling out renovation: “Before I just buy off in a new building, I'd say at least let somebody ... give me a number,” and warned that a higher‑cost stabilization plan may not be worth doing. Council member Anderson said, "I would agree. I think it's our responsibility to, if there is a potential to make this an excellent building on a remodel and save the taxpayers of Kennewick ... I think this is how we find out."

Staff and council discussed costs and timelines staff expects from the RFP process: the RFP would likely be advertised with a 30–45 day response window; a full study addressing all scopes could take roughly six to eight months after contract award. Preliminary staff estimates for an all‑in study varied in the discussion; one city staff member observed an initial working estimate in earlier drafting of roughly $150,000–$200,000 but cautioned that a detailed building assessment (asbestos, mold, structural work) and a full master‑planning process could push costs higher.

Other cost considerations raised by councilors included demolition expenses (a planning estimate referenced during the meeting placed demo of the existing City Hall at approximately $2,000,000), relocation/temporary occupancy costs if renovation occurred while operations continued, and lifecycle tradeoffs between a phased stabilization versus building new. Several council members said they wanted explicit decision thresholds in the needs assessment (for example, an upper limit for a stabilization cost that would not be worth pursuing).

Outcome and next steps: council members signaled consensus for staff to rework the draft RFP to include the renovation/building‑condition assessment as an alternate and to add a shorter stabilization alternative that would estimate the cost to extend safe occupancy for a limited period. Staff will issue the RFP, solicit proposals (30–45 days to respond), return to council with proposal costs and schedules, and then the council will decide whether to fund the study and which options to pursue. No formal vote was recorded at the workshop; council direction was consensus‑based.