Leavenworth weighs adaptive reuse of Osborne School for pool, library and community center

Leavenworth city staff summarized an eight‑year planning effort to repurpose the former Osborne School property and proposed combining an indoor aquatic center, library and community center at the site.

The presentation traced the property’s purchase after Cascade School District declared it surplus, the sale of three building lots used to fund the $719,000 acquisition, consultant‑led community visioning that produced three concepts (a 10,000‑square‑foot community center estimated at $7.4 million; a two‑story 24,000‑square‑foot option estimated at $10–15 million; and a 35,000‑square‑foot full facility estimated at $20 million), and later feasibility and space‑needs work. “There were no decisions made. No directions provided,” city staff told the council about earlier concept presentations.

Why it matters: the proposal seeks to address several city priorities — a failing outdoor pool, limited library space and constrained city office capacity — in a single project meant to leverage multiple funding sources. Council members emphasized the urgency because the existing outdoor pool’s engineering review shows only a small remaining service life.

City staff described parallel technical work: NEC Architects completed an indoor‑pool feasibility study; ARC Architectural performed a library and space needs assessment; an asbestos abatement award of $225,000 through the Department of Commerce Brownfield program was obtained for the old school building; and staff applied for multiple grants (a $2 million library capital request was not funded and staff requested a technical correction to redirect a $941,000 federal earmark). The Legislature’s recent passage of Senate Bill 5365 (referenced in the presentation) was cited as opening new funding eligibility for parks‑and‑rec service areas that host library space.

Financing options discussed include a private fundraising goal cited by community boosters of $11 million for amenities, a PFD that staff estimated could generate about $700,000 annually (via a 0.2 percentage‑point local sales tax), use of existing city funds (roughly $1.6 million currently committed), PRSA levy proceeds, state LCIP/Recreation Conservation Office grants and bonds (staff modeled a $9 million bond payoff over 20–30 years as one scenario). Staff said the $11 million private target is preliminary and based on comparable regional campaigns; no major commitments were reported at the meeting.

Council members pressed staff on operating costs and equity. Staff cited an estimated annual operating cost in the high hundreds of thousands (participants referenced roughly $650,000 annually in discussion), and council members asked how that would be covered long term — options raised included PRSA levy adjustments, PFD proceeds, higher visitor/user fees for non‑residents and an operating endowment seeded by fundraising. Presenters repeatedly noted operating costs and equity concerns must be addressed during fundraising and planning.

Parking, zoning and governance were also discussed. Staff said the property was rezoned to a Recreation Public District earlier in the project timeline. Two building‑layout options were presented — a single‑story footprint with roughly 40 surface spaces and a two‑story design with podium parking that could fit about 80 spaces. Under current code, staff said a structure of the proposed size could require 100–120 parking spaces, and the planning commission is reviewing parking standards and potential variance/alternative‑transportation approaches.

Staff recommended creating a half‑time, dedicated project manager to drive fundraising, grant applications, PFD formation, PRSA coordination and ballot work. The proposed funding for that position would repurpose an existing accounts‑payable specialist allocation (partially PRSA‑funded) and an existing $50,000 lodging/tourism fund allocation used for river recreation; council members voiced support for hiring a dedicated person to maintain momentum and meet ballot timelines.

Council members asked for a clear, phased timeline that aligns grant and ballot processes with the current outdoor pool’s remaining life expectancy. Staff and several council members recommended immediate coordination with the PRSA board and community fundraising groups to prepare ballot language, public outreach and grant requests. No formal motions or votes were taken during the study session.

The council closed the topic by asking staff to return with a realistic, layered timeline, a refined cost and operating plan, and a proposed job description for a project manager that could be hired early next year if council approves funding.