City council stalls improvements for Big Rock Park South
Facing a challenging fiscal outlook, the Sammamish City Council voted 5-2 to reject a contract for a schematic design of Big Rock Park South during their March 3 meeting, putting future park improvements in limbo.
The motion would have authorized a $606,956 contract with HBB Landscape Architecture for the schematic design of Big Rock Park South. Such tasks include designing and engineering, topographic surveys, reports on hazardous materials and resources, and estimating costs. The City is looking to make improvements such as trail restoration, creating more event spaces through building or reconstructing existing structures, and installing universal play areas.
These improvements were part of a long-adopted plan for the 51-acre land donated by Mary Pigott that is now Big Rock Park, split into North, Central, and South portions. Big Rock Park South is the final 15-acre parcel, and is the most undeveloped as a public park.
Schematic design is the initial phase when planners draw scaled layouts to provide a preview of the budget and site constraints. The original project timeline called for design work through the spring of 2027, construction starting in the summer of 2028, and Big Rock Park South opening to the public in the fall of 2029. A total of $17,163,000 in the Parks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budget has been allocated for this project from 2026 to 2029. That entire plan is now delayed indefinitely, as the City did not have plans to proceed with park improvements when this article was published.
While Councilmembers Roisin O’Farrell and Pam Stuart voted to support work on the park, Josh Amato, Debbie Treen, Kent Treen, Michael Boyer and Amy Lam voted against it.
“I am really hesitant to go ahead with schematic when the maintenance cost or the annual cost of this, I think, would be extraordinary. I don’t know how you’re going to do that without knowing how you’re going to use it,” Boyer said.
Lam questioned whether the city can collect enough impact fees to support park costs. Cities typically use impact fees from additional housing development to invest in more parks and open space. She also asked to see an estimate of the operational costs of the park before moving forward.
“I supported this plan last year, but this was a different council. It was a different time, and we were planning on moving forward with the town center, and now it is not the plan anymore,” Lam said. “We’re not seeing a population increase, we’re not seeing more impact fees. So I am more concerned about moving forward with this plan than I was last year.”
Kent Treen doubted whether there really is a need to renovate the Pigott residence that came with the parkland. The City had planned to turn it into a public meeting space.
“I don’t even see a reason to even plan to preserve the building…it’s going to be costly to make it retrofit to work for us and we don’t even know what we’re going to use it for, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense,” Debbie Treen said, concurring with her husband.
Stuart cited strong public support for city parks as the reason for her yes vote.
“I do think that operating costs are going to be a challenge, and you all want to cut costs, and that’s certainly your prerogative. But we heard pretty clearly and loudly from the public that parks are what people want. We can cut everything, but then what do we have?” Stuart said.
