Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Hall Location topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task force leans toward using city‑owned Old Town sites but cautions on costs, phasing and senior‑center impacts
Summary
Task force members favored maximizing use of city‑owned properties—particularly in Old Town—while acknowledging that demolition, parking and the senior center’s heavy use complicate a campus approach. Members asked staff for phased timelines and cost comparisons for using city property versus buying land.
At the May 8 meeting, members of the Issaquah Public Safety and Civic Facility Task Force expressed a preference to maximize use of city‑owned property — especially parcels in Old Town — while acknowledging that Old Town parcels present constraints that could raise costs or require phased implementation.
City staff presented cost scenarios showing a marked cost increase when the city buys new property versus repurposing or building on land it already owns. “It will be significantly more if we’re purchasing property versus leveraging something the city already owns,” a city staff member said, summarizing earlier estimates that guided the discussion.
Several task force members said Old Town is attractive because it already houses civic functions — the community center, senior center, public trails and the existing police facility — and could create a connected civic campus. Proponents argued the adjacency to public open space, trails and existing community amenities amplifies the value of a downtown campus.
Other members urged caution. They noted Old Town parcels are relatively small, parking is limited, and some sites — especially the senior center — are heavily used by residents. Task force member Chris emphasized that recreating senior‑center programming elsewhere would itself carry cost and service impacts. Pickering and central Issaquah were raised as alternatives because those sites may provide larger contiguous parcels and avoid demolition, but would likely cost more upfront.
Members asked staff to prepare timelines that show how quickly each path could move from concept to construction, and to include the funding steps — including bond timelines and likely permitting or wetland studies — that will affect schedule. A number of members recommended a phased approach that prioritizes urgent needs (notably the police facility) while planning a longer‑term campus or standalone city hall that could be implemented in stages.
No formal site decision was adopted. The task force’s working preference is to maximize use of city‑owned land and then evaluate adjacent or acquisition options if necessary; staff were asked to return with comparative schedules, updated cost estimates and phasing options.
