Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Staff recommends removing deteriorated McKinney Building; council to consider costs in next budget review
Loading...
Summary
City staff told the Lacey City Council that the McKinney Building has lost sufficient historic integrity and faces structural failure, and recommended demolition with a nearby interpretive marker; council asked staff to include demolition options and possible trailhead parking in the upcoming budget review.
City staff recommended removing the long‑deteriorating McKinney Building and said the city should honor the site with a historic interpretive marker rather than invest in what staff described as prohibitively expensive rehabilitation.
The recommendation was presented at the March 24 Lacey City Council work session by city staff and a historical researcher. Staff said the building, which dates to a 1931 rebuild of the McKinney resort complex, has sustained recurring vandalism and environmental exposure, has lost exterior historic fabric (doors and windows), and has a roof that is “near collapse.” Staff concluded the structure no longer retains the physical integrity needed to convey its historic significance and recommended planning for demolition now to avoid emergency removal later.
Erin Quinn Valcho, introduced by staff as part of the research team, gave historical context describing Alva and Elva McKinney’s resort operations beginning in 1926 and the site’s later use, including cabins rented to soldiers from Fort Lewis. “Over the last 24 years the building has been subject to recurring vandalism, environmental exposure, and there is a lack of funding for rehabilitation,” Valcho said in the presentation.
Mayor Ryder recalled personal memories of the site and asked whether demolition could be paired with a modest parking area to provide formal trailhead access. “It feels like it’s gonna be lost forever if we just tear it down and chain it off,” the mayor said, urging staff to consider preserving public access to the trails and marker location.
City management and staff responded that funding and regulatory constraints will frame next steps. The city manager said cost estimates for demolition are not yet available and proposed incorporating the demolition option and any related parking or trailhead work into the city’s budget review process so council can weigh the cost against other park priorities. “If there’s no objection, we will take this direction and incorporate it into the budgetary process going into next year,” the city manager said.
Staff also noted the city preserves McKinney‑related records and artifacts at the local museum and that markers for other historic properties (for example, the Jacob Smith House) are funded through existing marker programs; adding a McKinney interpretive marker would follow the same request process.
No formal demolition vote occurred at the work session. Staff said they will return with cost estimates and budget options during the regular budget review process for council consideration.
