No resolution was forthcoming from the Sammamish City Council on the 
Tamarack subdivision stormwater drainage issues, but some progress toward one seems to be happening.
The principal sticking point remains how much of a multi-million dollar stormwater control solutions would be for public benefit and how much would be for private (Tamarack) benefit.
State law prohibits using public money for private benefit.
Erosion and damage
Tamarack is downhill from new development approved by Sammamish. Stormwater runoff from this development has caused erosion and damage to some homes within Tamarack. Homeowners, led by advocate Mary Wictor, have been asking a succession of city councils for years to fix these drainage issues.
Some of the runoff, they say, is finding its way into Lake Sammamish, which they point to as a public rather than private benefit issue.
Some movement
“The Public/Private discussion for Stormwater did eventually pass 7-0 that Staff can and should actually look at some solution(s) for Tamarack, with looking at funding possibility with Local Improvement District (which can have multiple challenges) and/or ‘other options,’” Wictor told Sammamish Comment.
“Basically [the] council understands something needs to be done (and sooner than later). But they are wrangling with ‘public benefit’ and obviously very cautious about paying for anything…other than Water Quality, which is finally understood at least to have known/direct public benefits. Funding can be provided where public benefits.”
Sammamish Comment 
As a downstream property owner, I am pleased to read that our Council was able to unanimously agree that a private/public process is the appropriate way to resolve the Tamarack runoff issue; and that they have tasked staff to come forward with alternative solutions. Of course as is often said, “the devil is in the details”. Let’s hope that this spirit of cooperation and compromise continues to the end so that this long-standing issues can be put to bed. Our Little Red Fish should benefit also whichnis certainly in the public interests.
Gee, seems obvious to me that it is just another example of where the city does not hold developers accountable for damage and potential damage they cause. They know who should fix the problem!
A new development, approved by the city, had damaged homes in this neighborhood? How are the developers and city not responsible for this? The plans for development on this land, including risks and mitigation (you know, like runoff) would have been reviewed and approved by the city. Apparently the provisions to handle runoff were not sufficient, and not rigorously reviewed. Am I missing something here?