Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elkhorn Site topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parks committee coalesces around Elkhorn as preferred park site, plans formal November recommendation
Summary
Redmond’s Parks Committee discussed Elkhorn as the preferred site for the next community park, asked staff to present two development options (city services via annexation or county services) in October, and agreed to pursue a formal CIP recommendation at the November council meeting.
Redmond’s Parks Committee continued a multi-meeting discussion about where the city should site its next community park, settling on Elkhorn as the committee’s preferred location and asking staff to prepare two development options and cost/land‑use implications ahead of a formal recommendation in November.
Committee co‑chair Erin Triple opened the discussion by asking members to identify next steps after a recent council meeting where Elkhorn was discussed. Staff summarized two paths for development: option A would extend city services through an urban growth boundary (UGB) extension and annexation, which requires more up‑front land‑use work; option B would move forward under county permitting with wells and septic and less initial annexation work.
Why it matters: committee members emphasized that connectivity and safety — including safe routes to the planned recreation center — should guide where parks are built and that earlier annexation and service extensions can reduce long‑term operating costs. Staff said the Elkhorn site currently appears in the CIP schedule for “2829” as presented to the committee and that engineering edits requested by city staff could take 12–18 months to complete; staff estimated construction earliest in the early 2030s if the schedule and approvals hold.
What the committee asked staff to do: members asked for two clear option packages (labeled option A and option B) showing what funds would be reprioritized, what level of land‑use review each path requires, and operational tradeoffs (e.g., hooking up to city water and sewer versus septic and well systems). Staff agreed to present those materials at an October work session and to bring a formal recommendation request to the November meeting so the committee can instruct council.
Context and next steps: staff reiterated that annexation and UGB extension are multi‑step, multiyear processes that often require including broader parcels and substantial capital, and that the committee’s unified recommendation will make subsequent staff work and budget reprioritization easier. The committee also discussed scheduling a site visit and a public outreach plan as part of master‑plan and CIP conversations. The Parks Committee expects a formal motion and vote on an Elkhorn recommendation during the November CIP decision meeting.
