Thursday, October 1, 2026
The location of the City of Tumwater’s long-envisioned community center has been narrowed down to two sites.
One potential location is the former Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) building on Capitol Boulevard, while the other site is an undeveloped Port of Olympia property on Kimmie Street.
Representatives from Barker Rinker Seacat (BRS) Architecture, which the city hired to design the facility, delivered an update to the Tumwater City Council at a meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 23.
The briefing marked the first time the Kimmie Street property was brought before the public.
The property, which measures around 24 acres, is more than double the size of the 9.72-acre WSDOT site.
The city previously considered another port property — an undeveloped parcel between 75th and 76th avenues. Since the last update in February, the city also added another port property for consideration — a 22-acre property on the corner of Center Street and 78th Avenue.
Both properties are no longer part of the city’s consideration due to costs and classification as gopher habitats.
BRS Project Manager Corey Wilkerson said the port reached out to the city to offer the Kimmie Street property after the two other properties were ruled out.
The Kimmie Street site would need frontage improvements, while the WSDOT site would require the construction of a nearby roundabout to deal with traffic impacts, as well as to provide additional entry to the property.
BRS developed a scoring criterion for evaluating the properties. Factors included site features, usability and available services, anticipated costs and anticipated community planning issues. Wilkerson added the firm weighed the scores based on community values.
The WSDOT property weighed in at 210 points, while the Kimmie Street property measured 119.
Wilkerson noted the Kimmie Street property scored low in categories, such as distance from the town center, pedestrian and bicycle access, as well as a lack of public transit.
When asked by council members about the potential costs of the two sites, Keith Hayes, a principal of BRS, said costs are relatively the same, but the difference woud be related to other issues.
The cost of the roundabout for the WSDOT site was a talking point, but Mayor Debbie Sullivan said the proposed roundabout stems from a different project and would be funded separately.
Council members also asked for the opinion of the city’s parks department.
Todd Anderson, the city’s recreation manager, said there are positives to both sites, but highlighted the Kimmie Street property offers a lot of space for future growth. It would also complement George Bush Middle School, which sits south of the site.
Council member Leatta Dahlhoff said she preferred the Kimmie Street property, as it would support future growth in the area.
“One of my priorities is building for today and for tomorrow, so just naturally, I'm inclined for the 24 acres,” Dahlhoff said.
“Where our future growth is going to be is in south Tumwater, southeast and southwest, which is exactly where Site F is,” she added, referring to the Kimmie Street property.
Council member Joan Cathey opposed the location, citing environmental issues and its distance from the city center.
Cathey asked whether there would be an issue relating to groundwater supply if the community center is built on the Kimmie Steet site. City Administrator Lisa Parks said staff would have to check with the water resources department.
Cathey also expressed concern about the trees that would have to be cut down for the project. Wilkerson noted at least 10 acres would need to be used for the community center.
“it's not the right place for the time. And I know that council member Dahlhoff is talking about the future, and I fully appreciate that,” Cathey said.
“I think, whizzing all the way out there now for the early years of having a community center out there, rather than closer in, is ... not the timely thing to do right now.”
Council member Kelly Von Holtz said a lot of questions remain and requested more community engagement before the council makes a decision.
“I have so many questions, and I'm sure the community would too,” said Von Holtz said, who also requested on on-site tour of the locations.
Parks agreed, adding staff would have to amend the BRS contract to include additional public engagement work.
“This is a big investment, we need to ensure that you understand and are committed, and feel like you, as a council, are making the best choice. We're not going to rush you into that," Parks said.
3 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
turtleman
A community center is a nice idea, but something Tumwater also needs is a Park & Ride so we can access the bus system. When do we get one of those?
Monday, September 29, 2025 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
Thank you, Tumwater City Councilmembers, for the thoughtful discussion. I was interested in where these sites are located in the big picture, so I created and uploaded some maps that I marked up. The first is an aerial (see https://www.upnotout.net/_files/ugd/f1b9a1_57688512fe584c69bdd1de5414faee1d.pdf) and the second is a map showing the critical aquifer recharge areas (see https://www.upnotout.net/_files/ugd/f1b9a1_751717fe87ff4ad7ac318474d359ed75.pdf).
At the outset, I'd like to challenge the understandable assumption that urban growth will forever be outward. In fact, building up and not out is better for livability and long-term sustainability of natural resources. If one has been to Germany, for example, one will notice small villages surrounded by miles of farmland and forestland. Despite centuries of population growth, they have protected rural lands for the benefit of residents.
The other idea I'd like to suggest is that every decision Tumwater makes about land use may turn out better in the long run if the decision-making takes into account its potential effect on groundwater resources. That is because 100% of Tumwater’s drinking water comes from groundwater, and much of the city’s urban growth area lies within Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas rated “extreme.” These areas are essential for maintaining the quality and quantity of Tumwater’s future drinking water supplies and the salmon runs in the Deschutes River (a treaty-protected fishing area of the Squaxin Tribe and Nisqually Tribe).
For these reasons, I believe the WSDOT site makes more sense for the community center. It is already paved, centrally located, and surrounded by the neighborhoods that will use the facility most. Building there would revitalize land that has already been developed, while avoiding unnecessary impacts to groundwater recharge and salmon habitat. And with 10 acres, the site provides more than enough space for a recreation and senior center with both indoor and outdoor amenities. Typical recreation centers (with gymnasiums, fitness rooms, meeting rooms, and parking) often fit on 5–8 acres. Senior centers alone usually require 1–3 acres. Many YMCAs and municipal rec centers are built on 6–10 acres.
By contrast, the 24-acre Kimmie Street site is completely forested, located far from neighborhoods, and sits directly on an extreme aquifer recharge area. It would create a burden for low-income people who would like to use a community center. They have to have a car to get there.
Preserving that forest is forward-looking because it protects the pocketbooks of people driving to the future community center. It is also forward-looking because it protects Tumwater’s irreplaceable groundwater and salmon resources. Once it is paved over, it cannot be brought back.
Thank you for working on the community center and doing so with transparency. It reflects a deep concern by councilmembers for Tumwater's future.
Tuesday, September 30, 2025 Report this
StopBuilding
It seems like every election Tumwater is asking voters for more money to fund budget shortfalls and then they pursue unnecessary projects like this. How about neither option?
Thursday, October 2, 2025 Report this