Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Revetment Alternatives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landowner urges district to pick longer‑lasting revetment alternative, citing tree loss and swimmer safety
Summary
Ken McNeil, a landowner at a proposed pump‑station revetment site, urged the committee during public comment to select Alternative E over the staff‑preferred Alternative B, arguing Alternative E’s lifecycle cost is only about 20% higher, preserves large trees and offers safer recreational access.
Ken McNeil, a landowner at the pump station revetment site, told the committee he supports Alternative E over Alternative B for the facility’s revetment work.
McNeil said the staff report emphasized Alternative B’s lower upfront construction cost but compared it only to minimal repairs; he argued that when lifecycle costs are considered, Alternative E is only about 20% more expensive and provides greater longevity and environmental benefits. He told the committee Alternative E would preserve more large trees—helping shade and fish habitat—and would avoid pushing swimmers toward downstream logjacks that he described as a safety hazard.
McNeil also said his property has lost nearly 2 feet per year and referenced the 2018 Snoqualmie reach assessment and the lowering of the Snoqualmie Falls dam as contributing factors to bank loss. He asked the committee to consider Alternative E in light of those factors.
Chair Reagan Dunn thanked McNeil for his comments and said the committee would take his remarks under advisement.
