Kennewick staff outline $35.5 million City Hall replacement plan; council agrees to begin feasibility and site planning

City Manager Aaron Erdman told the Kennewick City Council on June 10 that staff will begin feasibility and design work for a proposed replacement of Kennewick’s City Hall, describing location options, project timing, IT infrastructure choices and preliminary budget modeling.

“The goal of today's presentation is to talk about the replacement of City Hall,” Erdman said, framing a staff recommendation to move from discussion to feasibility work. Staff presented three trackable questions for council input: (1) project budget and whether $35,500,000 is a reasonable starting point for design/feasibility, (2) timing, and (3) whether the civic campus should remain the likely location or the city should pursue an alternative site.

Location assessment: staff reviewed alternatives and weighed pros and cons for building at the current Civic Campus (municipal campus cohesion, existing infrastructure, ownership) versus alternative sites the city already owns (Frost Campus, Southridge Sports Complex, Entertainment District adjacent to the Convention Center) or purchasing new property. City staff noted advantages to staying on the Civic Campus — continuity of operations, available infrastructure and ownership — and disadvantages such as poor alignment with population growth and lower visibility to visitors and businesses. The Southridge and Entertainment District properties were noted for population alignment and business visibility but would require greenfield infrastructure work and could lengthen the project timeline.

IT and data‑center choices: staff identified the existing on‑premises data‑center and backup arrangement with Franklin PUD as a major constraint and laid out three primary options: (1) build a temporary outbuilding at the Civic Campus to host a modernized data center and buy time for design (estimated outbuilding and hardware costs scale at roughly $550–$600 per square foot for specialized data‑center space), (2) construct a new physical data center inside a new City Hall (capital‑cost dependent on location and existing infrastructure), or (3) migrate workloads and storage to cloud‑based services and rely on subscription pricing. City technology staff warned that cloud migration reduces some hardware risk but requires a disciplined data‑management program to avoid inflated ongoing storage costs; staff estimated full on‑premises chassis replacement at roughly $1–$2 million.

Current building needs and short‑term fixes: staff identified near‑term capital needs if the city stays on the existing campus: an estimated $4,000,000 roof replacement, a $1,200,000 HVAC replacement, wireless upgrades (~$180,000) and chamber technology refresh (~$70,000). The existing on‑site data‑center requires hardware and framework replacement to remain supported; staff said a temporary outbuilding could buy an estimated seven years of runway while preserving warranty timing for new hardware.

Budget and financing: Finance Director Jessica Platt presented a preliminary financing model. Staff estimated the new City Hall at $35,500,000 funded with a limited‑tax general obligation bond over 20 years at a working assumed interest rate of about 4.5%, producing an estimated annual debt service of roughly $2,700,000. Platt noted the city could use capital improvement funds (sales tax and real‑estate‑excise tax, including REET I) and explore cost‑share with utilities where utility staff would operate from the new facility. The presentation flagged state legal limits on non‑voted debt: Washington’s constitution and state law cap non‑voted debt at 1.5% of assessed value; staff reported current outstanding non‑voted debt of about $85.6 million and a remaining non‑voted capacity figure staff characterized as “just over $6 million” under that ceiling, and noted other planned capital projects (Fire Station 6 and an outdoor pool) would compete for debt capacity.

Council concerns and clarifications: council members asked for more detail on how financing would interact with existing capital plans and how moving City Hall would affect downtown (East Kennewick) economic development. Council members also probed the assumptions behind the $35.5 million estimate, asked whether savings from operational efficiencies or new technologies (including AI and cloud services) had been included, and requested clearer comparisons with similarly sized projects (Richland’s recent City Hall was cited at about $19 million before inflation).

Decision and next steps: after extended discussion, council signaled a consensus to begin the feasibility and design process and to run that work in parallel with a civic‑campus master plan. Staff said the parallel path would allow the city to develop an initial City Hall program and schematic design while also evaluating the best long‑term use of the Civic Campus land. City staff will return with a detailed scope, schedule and cost estimate for the feasibility and master‑planning work and will include exit points if projected costs exceed the city’s comfort level.

Why this matters: the City Hall project has multi‑year budget and land‑use implications. The staff presentation made clear that IT/data‑center timing, short‑term capital repairs and city debt capacity will shape any choice on location and schedule. Council members asked staff to scope consultant work and to provide periodic check‑ins before any binding debt authorization is considered.