Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ellensburg council directs staff to pursue public‑private field‑house option while scheduling pool study session
Summary
After months of planning and a costly estimate for a city-built field house, the city presented a lease/lease‑back public‑private model under state law (RCW 35.42) that staff said could lower capital cost and deliver a new recreation facility. The council voted to direct staff to continue pursuing the model and to return with firm costs; council
The Ellensburg City Council directed staff July 7 to continue pursuing a public‑private lease/lease‑back approach to deliver a new indoor field house after lengthy staff presentations and public comment focused heavily on the city’s aging pool.
Background and fiscal context: City staff described a multi‑year effort that began after a December 2022 fire destroyed a privately operated “racket center.” An insurance settlement produced roughly $7.2 million in proceeds, and earlier progressive design‑build work produced cost estimates far exceeding city capacity (staff reported conceptual estimates in the tens of millions for a full city‑built facility). To close that gap, staff presented a state‑authorized alternative under RCW 35.42 that would allow a developer to build and lease a facility on city land; the city could structure buy‑back or longer lease options later.
Operations and funding concerns: A Ballard King operational study included in staff materials estimated that a field house could recapture about 60% of operating costs through fees and rentals; the remainder would be a net operating subsidy. Staff noted that some existing city programs and budgets—youth services and youth sports—could be reallocated to offset part of the facility’s operating shortfall and that lodging‑tax (hotel‑motel) capital grants could be sought to reduce capital financing needs. City staff said they had applied for a county lodging‑tax capital grant and requested $4 million.
Public input and competing priorities: Public comment was extensive and sharply divided. A number of residents urged prioritizing the community pool—citing swim lessons, life‑safety concerns (drowning prevention), and frequent pool use—arguing the city should repair, maintain, or replace the pool before building new indoor courts or turf. Others supported a field house, pointing to year‑round recreation, tournament hosting and economic benefits. Multiple speakers noted limited staffing/funding for the pool and the difficulty of sustaining both projects without new revenue.
Council action and next steps: After debate the council voted to instruct staff to continue exploring and scoping the public‑private lease model and to return with more concrete cost, lease and buy‑back scenarios. The council scheduled a study session and site tour of the city pool for Aug. 4 to review pool condition, maintenance history and potential replacement options. Staff also flagged that certain federal planning funds are contingent on moving the project forward; staff will report reimbursement details and any deadlines in follow‑up materials.
