Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 1200 Acres County Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Redmond council debates county role in 1,200‑acre master plan
Summary
Councilors discussed asking the county to fund early work on a 1,200‑acre county‑owned property while urging an intergovernmental agreement that preserves Redmond’s design priorities; members split over timing and county capacity to steward the master plan.
Chair opened the council meeting by revisiting the county‑owned 1,200‑acre site and a proposal to ask the county to fund initial work in the 2627 budget cycle to keep development options moving. The chair said he believes the site “is a good project for Redmond.”
Council members expressed competing views on whether the county should lead the planning. One councilor said she feared “the county taking it on is not productive,” warning that county control could shape roads and infrastructure in ways that differ from the city’s vision. Several councilors urged safeguards so the property is not piecemealed and the city retains meaningful input.
Staff told the council county planning staff — including Nick and Peter Katowski — have signaled support for keeping the city’s priorities central, but noted the property is county‑owned and would require county funding if work proceeds. Staff proposed an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) or memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would: set the goal of a single master plan for the full 1,200 acres; budget incremental county steps over the next 2–3 years; and preserve city review at later land‑use stages.
Council members debated timing. Some favored waiting for a more experienced board of county commissioners in 2027 before pursuing a joint venture; others favored advancing a limited environmental assessment in 2627 to identify constraints such as fill from a former dump and homeless encampments. The chair said an environmental assessment “doesn’t change the dynamic of the plan” but would surface key site constraints.
Councilors also discussed whether the city could press for legislative action once feasibility is better known; staff referenced a possible legislative window around 2029 or later if the project moves forward.
The council did not take a formal vote. Members asked staff to draft an IGA or MOU concept and to revisit the item during the council’s 2027 goal‑setting process, leaving options open for an environmental assessment in the near term and more substantive planning later.
