Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates boardwalk vs. concrete path at Glacier Hills Lakefront; staff eye 2027 construction window
Summary
Staff updated the committee that the Glacier Hills Lakefront project—an estimated $1.1–$1.2 million effort—may replace the previously proposed elevated boardwalk with a concrete path plus a staircase after accessibility and community input; staff expects 100% construction documents by June and is targeting fall 2027 construction, pending geotechnical work and stormwater repairs.
County staff presented an update on the Glacier Hills Lakefront Development, telling supervisors that community feedback and ADA considerations prompted re‑evaluation of an earlier 30% concept that showed an elevated boardwalk. The project manager said the new approach under consideration pairs a winding concrete path with a direct staircase to the lake, rather than the elevated boardwalk previously used in grant materials.
Jamie said the project is currently estimated at $1.1–$1.2 million, that the county will complete 100% construction documents in June and that construction is targeted for fall 2027. The staff presentation said earlier concept imagery had been used to secure endowment funds and grant support but that a grant review panel raised accessibility and usefulness questions about the boardwalk that prompted additional community vetting.
Supervisors discussed tradeoffs. Supporters of concrete cited durability and the ability to provide flat gathering areas; skeptics raised concerns about subgrade preparation, potential retaining walls and erosion control on a steep embankment. Supervisor Conrath asked about runoff and water‑clarity impacts from added impervious surface; staff said stormwater mitigation is an explicit project goal and engineering and geotechnical analysis will guide final material choices. Supervisor Krebs and other members said there is an existing collapsed storm outlet and that the project’s scope should include repairs so surface drainage flows into a new stormwater basin before reaching the lake.
Mr. Bez (a county stormwater/engineering participant) said the project’s grant scope does include construction of a stormwater basin and that the existing sewer and hillside infrastructure would be abandoned or rehabilitated as part of the work: “part of the project…is going to install a storm water basin and the storm sewer is going to flow through that before it gets down to the lake,” he said.
Staff declined to make a final design decision at the meeting and said project engineers will advance geotechnical work, test soils and prepare an opinion of probable cost before returning to the committee. Committee members asked staff to include long‑term maintenance comparisons (10–20 years) for concrete versus alternatives and to confirm whether asphalt was considered.
