Councilmember Craig Reynolds Shares Meeting Recap: 2026-04-07
CITY GOVERNMENTOPINIONFEATURED
In this column, Council Member Craig Reynolds shares his perspective on recent issues before the Mercer Island City Council as well as insight in to how he votes and shapes city planning and policies.
April 7, 2026 Council Meeting Update
Another Mercer Island City Council meeting is a wrap.
On April 7, 2026, the City Council held its regularly scheduled meeting at the Mercer Island Community and Event Center. All seven councilmembers were present in person. Key agenda items included:
AB 6903: Public Hearing: 2027–2032 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
AB 6902: Deane’s Children’s Park Site Plan
AB 6891: City Hall Facility Full Renovation Cost Estimate and City Council Direction on Next Steps
AB 6903: Discussion: 2027–2032 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Preview
Of these, AB 6902, related to the Deane’s Children’s Park site plan, generated the liveliest and longest discussion and the most community feedback, as is appropriate for such an important topic.
My take on each of these issues is below. If you see decisions that bother you, well, it is time to step up and get involved. Volunteer to serve on a city board or commission. The deadline is May 8. Even better, speak to me about running for Council.
You can offer feedback on these or any city policy issue via email to council@mercerisland.gov. If you have an issue with city services rather than policy matters, email customerservice@mercerisland.gov.
AB 6903:
Public Hearing: 2027–2032 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and
Discussion: 2027–2032 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Preview
The city updates its six-year rolling TIP every year, per state law. You will note this item appears on the agenda twice—once as a required public hearing topic and once as a presentation to Council. The public hearing was the first formal agenda item after roll call, the Pledge of Allegiance, agenda approval, a short city manager report, a very extensive period of “appearances” with about 26 islanders commenting on other matters, and unanimous approval of the consent agenda.
The public hearing was unusual in that we had one person show up to comment. The median and mode for the number of resident comments in a public hearing during my tenure on the council has been approximately zero. This time we had one. Consider this your reminder that influence on local government often comes from being the person who shows up—because usually not many people do.
The council presentation on the TIP, and related discussion, followed. Before the meeting, the city had received dozens of comments on the TIP. The most common theme was advocacy for improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, a goal I share. I was pleased to see that one key bicycle project is being accelerated:
[90.20.0040] ICW Shared Use Path Phase 1 will construct the Shared Use Path from Island Park Elementary to SE 60th Street in 2027, with design completed in 2026 through 90.20.0013. Construction is planned for 2027 due to $743,007 in funding secured through a Washington State Transportation Improvement Board grant.
The discussion itself was uneventful, largely summarizing the process for evaluating roads for necessary improvements.
Did you know that the city has about 83.5 miles of roads? That about 1/3 of these are arterials? The city’s road conditions, as measured by a Pavement Condition Index (PCI), is assessed through an automated process every three years. Staff works to repair roads before they reach a “failed” state, as repairs at that stage can cost 4–5 times more than earlier interventions. I think the staff does a good job with this. They generally prioritize maintenance over improvements, as maintaining prior investments is the most cost-effective way to preserve the integrity of our city streets.
No vote will be taken on the TIP until the May 5 Council meeting. Comments are still being accepted on Let’s Talk until April 21. Staff reviews every comment and provides responses to the Council. You can learn more about the TIP here, and you can offer comments here.
AB 6902: Deane’s Children’s Park Site Plan
This was the big agenda item. The city received dozens of comment letters, including three notable group letters:
One asking for approval of the current site plan, with more than 100 signatories.
One expressing concerns about the site plan from the Island Park PTA Board.
One supportive letter from the officers of the Mercer Island Rotary.
During the “appearances” portion of the meeting, my unofficial count showed 24 speakers, of whom 22 addressed the site plan. I believe about 8 of the 22 supported the site plan as-is, and the others expressed concerns or suggested amendments. The “best comment of the day” prize went to Orna Samuelly:
Q: Why do Mercer Island kids cross Dragon Park?
A: To get to the other slide.
To cut to the chase, the plan was approved (with some minor changes) after a lengthy discussion by a vote of 6–1. I was the one. See here for a recap of some of my concerns about the site plan. To learn more about the plan, you can see prior TalkOnTheRock coverage or, for a more comprehensive view, Let’s Talk.
Key successful amendments included:
An amendment I proposed to move the creation of the through-park accessible path to Phase 1, which passed.
A couple of dueling amendments that, both with 4-3 votes, had the net effect of relocating “forest surprises” elements 26–30 to another portion of the park.
An amendment I offered to reallocate playground equipment so that at least one-third (rather than 7% as in the current plan) of such equipment would target 5–12-year-olds failed 3–4, with support only from Councilmembers Reynolds, Weinberg, and Hsieh. (Note: in fairness, an additional 54% of the equipment is designated for multiple age bands: 2–5, 5–12, and 12+. However, as a couple of young speakers noted, equipment that is safe for and interesting to 2-year-olds is not likely to be very interesting to 10–12-year-olds.)
There is a lot to like about this plan, most importantly the focus on inclusion and accessibility. We absolutely need more of this. But I felt the scope and cost of the plan was just too much. Council had tasked the Parks and Recreation Commission with developing a design without giving them a budget. I think that was a mistake, as they came back with a $9 million plan. I think this is far too much for a city that:
Is facing an approximately $20M shortfall in capital improvement funds over the next four years.
Is facing a $10M shortfall in its street fund over the next six years.
Is facing $7–10M in near-term costs for each of Groveland and Clarke Beach parks, primarily for infrastructure rehabilitation.
Is facing an operating deficit in the general fund that will likely lead to layoffs in 2027.
Has police working in trailers and public works staff working in outdated buildings that are not up to current code, not adequately sized, and not seismically stable.
City staff emphasized that this is just a plan, not a budget. I understand that. I also understand that to do big things, you need to dream big. And I want the city to do big things. But not if it means risking failure to keep up with fundamental infrastructure needs. Yes, the city may get grants for much of this work. But grants are unlikely to cover even half the cost, and we have no concrete plan for how we would fund the remainder.
I am also struggling to see how we respond to inevitable public concerns when we next seek funding for a public safety and maintenance building and hear: “You have a $9M parks plan. You must not really need the money.” I hope those who advocated for this plan so effectively will also advocate just as heartily for the next bond measure.
I also had some concerns with the design. Notably, I think it feels too man-made and unnatural for this park. This design would fit better in Aubrey Davis or Luther Burbank. But I could have lived with that if we had a more modest budget.
So maybe this is just me. Maybe I should dream bigger. Maybe I should be less pessimistic. There is no doubt the rest of the Council, even those who expressed concerns with the plan, was more willing to dream big.
AB 6891: City Hall Facility Full Renovation Cost Estimate and City Council Direction on Next Steps
The former City Hall building was constructed in 1957. It was never designed to be a city hall; it was originally the home of my former employer, Farmers New World Life Insurance, which later moved to the current site of Riot Games and is now located in Bellevue. The building has always been ill-suited for its purpose. It was closed in 2023 due to asbestos contamination.
As part of facilities planning work, the city manager commissioned a project to determine the cost to rehabilitate the building, including asbestos remediation, bringing the building up to code, and upgrades to meet Level IV earthquake safety standards. The estimate came in at $60–63 million.
Essentially, we learned that addressing the asbestos issues and clearly failing systems would incur enough cost that we would need to undertake an almost complete rebuild to meet current safety codes. Voting to instead demolish the building was an easy choice, and the 7-0 vote reflected that.
One resident asked me: Why didn’t we ask what it would cost to build from scratch?
I thought about this but ultimately did not ask, because I concluded it was not relevant. We don’t want to build anything like this. It might address some of the uses of the former city hall, but we largely solved that problem by purchasing the adjacent “9655 building” for less than $10M. The real issue is with police facilities, emergency operations, and public works—they require a completely different type of building.