Tag Archives: Klahanie

Klahanie vote update: debt assumption out, but annexation still possible and too close to call

Posted on by
Reply

The idea of the Klahanie Potential Annexation Area assuming Issaquah debt failed miserably in the vote tonight–60% acceptance is required–but if the vote to annex to Issaquah ultimately passes, then the Issaquah City Council has the option of going ahead with the annexation without assigning past debt to Klahanie.

The State Boundary Review Board says:

If assumption of indebtedness is proposed, the notice and proposition may be on the same ballot or be separate. Generally, a 60% majority of voters (totaling at least 40% of the total votes cast in the last preceding general election) must favor assuming indebtedness. Election requirements may vary slightly depending on circumstances and/or ballot language.

Although the debt assumption was not a separate ballot issue, as it was in 2005 (and which failed then, too), it was incorporated within this year’s ballot. The Issaquah City Council still can decide to proceed with the annexation if the final vote is 50%+1.

However, if the annexation fails to achieve 50%+1, it done. Sammamish will then go after the Potential Annexation Area by agreement with Issaquah or to demand a change and reassignment of the PAA from Issaquah to Sammamish.

Sammamish has also proposed splitting the PAA, with the southern part going to Issaquah and the majority of the remaining area going to Sammamish.

Klahanie area annex to Issaquah too close to call: Yes leads by six votes on election night

Posted on by
Reply

Residents of the Klahanie Potential Annexation Area are evenly split whether to annex to Issaquah; the Yes vote leads by only six votes on election night, making the election too close to call and creates the possibility of a recount.

For Annexation: 1,168, or 50.13%

Against Annexation: 1,162, or 49.87%

Based on my history of participating in elections from 1998-2011 in campaigns and watching voting trends, election night results haven’t varied by more than 1% from the final results, posted about two weeks later. This vote will likely be too close to call for days to come and may require a recount.

The vote is a cliff-hanger for Issaquah and the City of Sammamish. Issaquah is counting on the annexation to give it greater bonding indebtedness and to spread its current debt across the PAA. Issaquah was damaged in its fight with the Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District, when public documents and a highly public dispute revealed Issaquah’s government wanted to inject storm water into a treatment area near a drinking aquifer that the District believed would be inadequately filtered. Issaquah was caught cyber-squatting the District’s websites. Further, Issaquah’s history of demonstrating it couldn’t be trusted with respect to Klahanie was revealed, including a signed Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Issaquah Mayor to turn over the PAA to Sammamish, only to renege a short time later.

For Sammamish, the City Council salivates over the prospect of annexing Klahanie and City Council members campaigned actively to kill the annexation.

Sammamish city officials promised the 10,000-resident Klahanie area tens of millions of dollars in road and parks improvements and pledges of a more sensitive and representative government, better police protection and other services.

On the surface, Sammamish may have had the better case. But hardball tactics threatening to close the fire station 82, more commonly known as the Klahanie fire station, during its bitter negotiations with the Eastide Fire and Rescue District, and a ham-handed last minute effort in the State Legislature to deny annexation transition funds to Issaquah, offended PAA residents. The outcome of the election may well hinge on this last minute tactic and how last minute voters react to it.

Sammamish Councilman Don Gerend objected to our post over the weekend that included a report that four Sammamish city council members were doorbelling in Klahanie against the annexation; he says only one was doorbelling, which is contrary to what we were told by another city council member.

Gerend, a member of the Klahanie Choice anti-annexation group, also objected to our criticism of the city’s tactic supporting a bill in the Legislature seeking to deny funding to Issaquah to ease the transition of the annexation. The Seattle Times has this story, noting that Gerend and Sammamish Mayor Tom Vance testified in favor of the bill.

The Vance-Gerend testimony, and Sammamish’s hand in the bill, will no doubt futher sour already testy relations with Issaquah, and it is an inauspicious start to Vance’s term as mayor.

The King County Elections division will update voting daily in the late afternoon. Election results are scheduled to be certified February 25 if a recount proves unneeded.

Sammamish City engages in underhanded tactic over Klahanie

Posted on by
3

The City of Sammamish, which wants the proposed annexation of the Klahanie Potential Annexation Area by Issaquah, defeated in Tuesday’s vote (Feb. 11), engaged in an underhanded tactic aimed at only the Klahanie vote–a discriminatory effort that I wonder whether it would even survive a legal challenge.

The Sammamish Review article linked above gives the details, but in a nutshell, under state law, cities get a sales tax adjustment when they annex unincorporated areas. This helps the transition of the additional cost to a city of providing services to the area that was previously supported by county taxes. The City of Sammamish succeeded in getting a bill introduced in the State Senate to block this for Issaquah.

The Sammamish Review was right when it said this is sickening. It’s also hypocritical. The new City of Sammamish benefited from the sales tax revenue sharing after incorporation in 1999. The purported excuse that this bill from State Sen. Andy Hill is a state budget-saving measure doesn’t pass the laugh test. If this were a sincere budget effort, the bill should apply statewide and not just to Klahanie. The discriminatory effect is apparent for all to see.

Continue reading →

Sammamish dispute over fire service may be nearing conclusion

Posted on by
Reply

The years-long dispute between Sammamish, the Eastside Fire and Rescue service and its Board of Directors–dominated by Issaquah–may be nearing its conclusion.

Last week Issaquah’s City Council adopted a Resolution virtually identical to EFR partner Fire District 10 saying it will buy Station 83 if Sammamish leaves EFR, as it’s been threatening to do for several years because of a dispute over financial contributions to the District.

Station 83 is the one by Sunny Hills School on Issaquah-Pine Lake Road (at the roundabout). The station was built by the developer of Klahanie and became part of the City of Sammamish when we incorporated in 1999. Most of the fire and EMT calls from this station by far are within Klahanie, Providence Point and adjacent areas within Issaquah; few are within Sammamish, and this has been the rub with the Sammamish City Council, which says our taxpayers have been paying a disproportionate share of financial support to EFR.

But Issaquah’s representatives on the EFR Board, including City Councilman Fred Butler who is the favorite to win the mayoral race, have blocked every effort by Sammamish to adjust the financial formula to one based more closely on call volume than property assessment.

Until now.

The Issaquah City Council, in addition to expressing interest in buying Station 83 has agreed to adjust the formula somewhat, not to the full 50/50 assessment/call-based split Sammamish wanted but to an alternative 75/25 Sammamish suggested. Sammamish threatened to withdraw from EFR and close Station 83 if it did, saying it didn’t make sense for our taxpayers for a fire station making most of its calls outside our city. The prospect of closing the station raised hackles of Issaquah and Fire District 10 because of the downgrading of response time to Klahanie, Providence Point and those other areas of Issaquah served by Station 83.

This movement by Issaquah apparently was behind a decision by Sammamish to delay a recommendation expected from the City Manager to withdraw from EFR.

The whole EFR controversy is the underlying cause of poor relations between the Issaquah and Sammamish City Councils, which has evolved into disputes over the Klahanie annexation and the impact of withdrawing from EFR and closing Station 83; and the dispute between Issaquah and the Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District over Issaquah’s plan to inject stormwater near a well fed by an aquifer than serves about 60% of the city of Sammamish.

The Issaquah/Sammamish Reporter has an editorial that pretty well sums up the disputes and impacts.

Having lived here in Sammamish since before it was incorporated, I’ve watched Issaquah pretty well thumb its nose at us the entire time. Issaquah is a “Gimme City,” that has been unwilling to cooperate with other jurisdictions unless they concede everything Issaquah wants for nothing in return. The long-running fight over EFR is the worst example of the Gimme spirit exhibited by Issaquah.

The problem with the Resolutions adopted by the Issaquah City Council last week is that the city has a history of reneging on agreements, as I’ve pointed out. This is one of those Missouri moments: Show Me you’ll live up to what you say you’ll do, Issaquah.

Addendum:

Within minutes of posting the above, I received the following distribution from Harry Shedd, chairman of Citizens for Sammamish, a watchdog group.

From those supporting present system (FYI)…

On Monday evening, the Sammamish City Council discussed the final report that outlined the future of fire service for local residents. The city is leaning towards leaving Eastside Fire and Rescue and starting its own “bare bones” fire department, which will cost taxpayers more and lower the quality of emergency services that Sammamish families and businesses currently receive.
The final report was incomplete and raised more questions than it answered. Community testimony was substantial:

·         The fire chief for Mercer Island (who is also a Sammamish resident) expressed doubt about the cost analysis in the report. He runs a two station fire department for close to what Sammamish claims it will cost for three.

·         A retired fire chief said regional partnerships were more cost-effective and questioned why Sammamish was the only city in the state considering a standalone department.

·         A local elementary school principal asked the council why the study called for a community based fire service when this was something we already have, as evidenced by the safety and fire prevention programs in our public schools.

·         A firefighter pointed out that local residents rate their fire service as one of the top three city services according to the city government’s own survey from 2012. (City council was sixth!)

·         Even the city’s own consultants were quoted several times as saying they could not make a final recommendation on whether the city should start its own fire department.

We had a small victory by pressuring the city council to allow for additional public input on October 29, November 5, and November 12, when the final vote to leave Eastside Fire and Rescue will happen. All meetings begin at 6:30 pm and are held at City Hall at Sammamish Commons, 801 228th Ave SE. Please plan to attend and tell the Sammamish City Council to maintain the quality and cost-effective fire service we receive through Eastside Fire and Rescue

Issaquah Press rebukes city again, says Klahanie should annex to Sammamish

Posted on by
Reply

The Issaquah Press, which condemned the Issaquah government over its cybersquatting of the Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District websites, rebuked the city again when it editorialized that the Klahanie area should annex to Sammamish.

The same editorial appeared in the sister newspaper, The Sammamish Review.

The Boundary Review Board Thursday night approved Issaquah’s request to proceed to an annexation vote for Klahanie. Members commented about some of the public testimony in opposition to the annexation and about issues related to water and sewer and fire service, but concluded that these “emotional” arguments and inter-governmental agency disputes were not germane to the annexation itself. Essentially, the BRB concluded there was no legal reason to deny the request. In the end, the BRB took the position, “let the voters decide.”

The vote is scheduled for February.