Should new $36M city hall stay downtown? Kennewick leaders are divided
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Kennewick council approved planning for a $36M city hall, but they're split on where.
- Current building faces costly repairs, space limits and outdated technology.
- Funding via 20-year bonds avoids tax hike but limits future debt capacity.
It was the “quietest” start to a city council discussion Kennewick City Manager Erin Erdman had seen in her short tenure.
But then the city council jumped in and spent the next hour on Tuesday in robust debate over where to build a new $36 million city hall, whether it was still the right fit or whether they should move to a more centralized location.
In the end, council gave Erdman and her staff the OK to begin the planning process, to consider both options of building at the current site or at a new site, and to draft a broader master plan to guide the future of the civic center campus.
Opinions differed but, in general, the four who favored building at the current 6th Avenue site near the Kennewick Police Department were Council members Gretl Crawford, John Trumbo, Chuck Torelli and Jim Milbauer.
Councilman Jason McShane was torn, but said he wants to look at other parcels and requested a more thorough plan similar to the Three Rivers Convention Center expansion project.
Similarly, Councilman Loren Anderson requested more information and an “outside opinion” from a consultant who could rate the options.
Council member Brad Beauchamp said he also was split, but was leaning toward a new location.
‘Breaking point’ for space
Kennewick’s 60-year-old city hall, at 210 West Sixth Ave., has risen to the top of the elected officials’ list of priorities.
It comes as new development booms in the city’s southern edges, in neighborhoods like Southridge, and as the population center has slowly shifted southwest.
The aging building has a $4 million leaky roof that pours rainwater onto employee desks, a failing HVAC system that needs more than $1 million in fixes, a data center that needs replacing starting in 2027 and a lack of space for it’s staff.
Public Works Director John Cowling says they’re at a “breaking point.”
“We’re at a point where we need to make a decision,” he said. “I think that past councils have kind of had similar discussions and it always just moves down the road, staying here, and we just can’t continue to go on like that.”
Paying for a new city hall
A new city hall won’t require a tax increase under the city’s existing plan. The project will be paid up front with a 20-year limited tax obligation bond sale and repaid with existing revenues. The debt will be paid with 4.5% interest and require an annual servicing of $2.7 million.
The city’s total debt capacity is about $182 million. Combining the convention center and two other high-priority projects — rebuilding the city’s swimming pool and constructing Fire Station 6 out in Southridge — the city will have just $69 million in capacity to cover the cost of the city hall and any other unplanned projects.
Richland opened its new $20 million city hall in 2019 to house its 90 employees on a 1.6-acre parcel a block away from its old facility. It took about two years to build the three-story, 40,000-square-foot building.
Kennewick has some options if it decides to move city hall out of downtown. The city has 50 undeveloped acres across three sites, each with their own pros and cons, that it could consider building a new HQ on.
Those include 19 acres at the Dan Frost campus, 13 acres at the Southridge sports complex and 19 acres off Columbia Center Boulevard.
Plus, the downtown civic campus currently has 11 undeveloped acres it could build on next door to the current city hall.
The city could also go out to buy a commercial parcel — it would need at least 2 acres — but that option could raise the cost of the project.
Pros and cons of downtown
City staff list several pros and cons for choosing the current location or an alternative site.
Remaining downtown would create a “cohesive government center and increased operational efficiency.” New construction could stimulate development and revitalization in East Kennewick, a part of town that has seen little investment in recent years.
Infrastructure is ready, space for future growth is plentiful, demolition work would be minimal and city hall would be able to maintain its close partnerships with Kennewick School District and Port of Kennewick.
At the same time, citizens and businesses would benefit from a more centrally located city hall. Building off Columbia Center Boulevard or in Southridge could stimulate more development, provide visibility to customers and position the city in the heart of growth.
It could be a strategic advantage when meeting with businesses looking to expand.
But both options have their cons.
Remaining downtown provides less exposure, and there are some renovation considerations and space constraints the city would have to consider.
An alternative location would be costly, could further fragment city services and would extend the construction timeline to bring in fiber and infrastructure.
City council debate
Anderson said he’d like to see a location assessment. He doesn’t feel like they have enough information to make an educated decision.
“This is a $35 million commitment and we’re saying we’re going to make a decision on the location based on how we feel? That’s nonsensical,” he said. “I’m not saying don’t build (downtown). I’m saying show me some data that says we should build here. Nobody has shown me the data.”
He criticized the 2014 facilities report and a 2022 update that projected city hall replacement costs as “useless,” comparing it to old medical records.
But Torelli says the city, which is tax exempt, benefits from being in a low-value area. Taking a prime, high-value lot off the tax roll would mean the city loses out on revenue.
He feels there’s plenty of information presented to them already, and that they have to make a decision sooner or later.
“Fundamentally, a majority of our people are downtown,” he said. “Unless there’s a very strong reason, I don’t see any added value in moving away from the civic complex.”
Anderson says it’s good reasoning, but “an emotional plea with a little bit of data.” He wants an “outside, unbiased source” to weigh in.
Beauchamp said he doesn’t believe city hall serves as an economic driver. With customers and developers able to do more work with the city online, he believes visits to their building will continue to decline.
“We’re not the greatest and best use of economic development for this area. I think east Kennewick needs an economic development, something to spur it. In my opinion, that’s not city hall. That doesn’t bring new traffic down here, it brings the same people who were always here,” he said.
Something like a large recreation center or new pool would attract people to come to the area. That would be a beneficial replacement if city hall moves away from downtown, Beauchamp said.
Crawford says citizens through surveys have said maintaining downtown was a priority. The area would take a hit if city hall were to pull out, and she likes being close to their police station and school partners.
Trumbo said he was concerned about how much the public knew about their efforts to rebuild city hall, and that they owe it to the “long timers” to explain the impacts of potentially leaving downtown.
“I came here in the summer of 2000 — almost 25 years ago — and this entire time I have observed downtown Kennewick struggle,” said the councilman who represents the city’s east side.
Beauchamp, who grew up on Auburn Street, didn’t disagree.
McShane said he was probably leaning more on “60 to stay, 40 to go,” but wants to see a more thorough, long-term master plan for the civic center.
This story was originally published June 15, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
