Klahanie annexation

December 31, 2013

By Peter Clark

Residents will vote again on unresolved issue

By Greg Farrar Mike Foss (left), a 13-year resident and vice president of the Brookshire Estates Homeowners Association, and association president Dick L’Heureux, a 27-year resident, recall their involvement in Klahanie’s 2005 annexation attempt into Issaquah.

By Greg Farrar
Mike Foss (left), a 13-year resident and vice president of the Brookshire Estates Homeowners Association, and association president Dick L’Heureux, a 27-year resident, recall their involvement in Klahanie’s 2005 annexation attempt into Issaquah.

On Feb. 11, Klahanie-area voters will decide whether to join the city of Issaquah.

A yes vote would expand the population of the city by one-third its current size. This will be the second vote regarding annexation in the past seven years.

This series about the Klahanie annexation vote will attempt to answer many questions that remain on all sides of this discussion.


Potential annexation areas

Two square miles, 15 neighborhoods and almost 11,000 residents comprise the Klahanie potential annexation area.

After the booming sprawl of the 1970s and 1980s around unincorporated areas, the state of Washington reacted by passing the Growth Management Act of 1991. The legislation envisioned municipalities swallowing up the dangling, developed areas to save financially struggling counties from drowning in expenses.

“Potential annexation areas are successors to what were called ‘spheres of influence,’” Issaquah Mayor Ava Frisinger said. “They were catch-all areas for cities. Pre-Growth Management Act, Issaquah’s included at least half of the plateau and included, I think, almost as far as Mirrormont.”

The quick growth and infighting between municipalities led the way to the Growth Management Act, which insisted regions craft a strategy for their future.

“In the late 1980s and early 1990s, all of a sudden, growth started happening and cities were fighting, trying to pick up the low-hanging fruit from the counties,” Issaquah Finance Director Diane Marcotte said. “That’s when the state stepped in with the Growth Management Act and said, ‘OK, everyone stop fighting and start planning.’”

The state directed cities to plan with surrounding areas and begin exploring future annexations.

“Cities negotiated with those areas to determine boundaries for potential annexation areas,” Issaquah’s Long Range Planning Manager Trish Heinonen said, describing the city’s process of annexing various areas like Providence Point and South Cove. “When the 2000s came in, it seemed time for Klahanie.”


‘It was simply not a subject’

“We were not aware it was unincorporated when we moved in,” Brookshire Estates Homeowners Association President Dick L’Heureux said. “It was simply not a subject.”

L’Heureux, one of the first homebuyers in the master-planned community built in the 1980s, has lived in the area for 27 years. Although his address lists his city as Issaquah, his house has always been in unincorporated King County. It took him and other residents a while to figure out what that meant.

“One of the differences we’ve seen is they’ve got all the services, because the city pays for trucks and plows,” Klahanie resident Rob Young said of Issaquah residents. He’s another who did not realize his home stood outside city lines. “It took years and years to notice we didn’t get these.”

Due to the desire for such services and nearby representation, residents began asking what Issaquah planned to do with the area, since it was in the city’s potential annexation area.

“In 2002, people in Klahanie were asking about being annexed to Issaquah,” Frisinger said. “In the meanwhile, Sammamish had incorporated and they decided that they might like to have Klahanie. The city said, ‘It’s in our PAA and you can’t have it unless we relinquish it.’ So, we held lots of public hearings and people came in to council meetings. It was overwhelmingly supportive of Issaquah.”


‘Frankly, we were snookered’

Based on those hearings and a concerted effort by Klahanie residents, the city launched a study and ultimately a vote for annexation in November 2005.

“Nobody really did anything until that 2005 push,” Young said. “Everyone felt things were taking the right path. When we had that vote in 2005, we thought, ‘OK, this should do it.’”

The vote failed.

An Issaquah City Council decision led to two questions on the ballot, both of which needed 60 percent approval for annexation to happen. The proposition for the area to annex to Issaquah passed with 67 percent of the vote. The second proposition asked if residents would take on the city’s bonded indebtedness. That measure earned only 49 percent.

“It was unusual,” Frisinger said about framing the vote into two questions. “The council felt that it needed to be clear to them that people were deciding both things.”

Another nail in that vote’s coffin, according to some, was a heavily distributed leaflet that asked residents to “consider the facts” and presented a list of reasons why not to annex.

“How did we get ourselves into this predicament?” the flyer asked. “It was forced upon us by secret negotiations between King County Executive Ron Sims and the mayor of Issaquah without any input from Klahanie residents.”

Though all residents and officials can do is speculate, many believe that flyer convinced voters.

“We didn’t know we had any opposition until we were hit upside the head,” L’Heureux said. “We never thought something like this would happen. Frankly, we were snookered.”

Many also believe the divided vote to take on the indebtedness raised fears.

“The assumption of debt was a big issue,” Brookshire Estates Homeowners Association Vice President Mike Foss said. “But, I don’t recall ever moving to a city and saying, I don’t want that park or that city center and I don’t want to pay for those already expensed.”

During the same election cycle, Issaquah gave South Cove the same ballot and received the opposite results.

“It turned out really well with South Cove,” Heinonen said. “We did the exact same process, the exact same outreach, same involvement with the city, but South Cove just reacted differently. They just embraced everything that was going on, made sure everyone knew what was going on. And I think Klahanie just assumed they had it.”


Another campaign, another vote

Movement then stagnated on annexing Klahanie. The 2008 recession halted long-range planning, and rising transportation improvement costs stopped any interest in the area.

“They talked to Sammamish a little bit and we talked to Sammamish a little bit and then the Issaquah-Fall City Road came up,” Heinonen said regarding the $38.7 million estimated in needed repairs to the road. “Somebody had to pay for that, even though it’s regional. So, Sammamish backed off and we kind of backed off. It sort of went dormant because the elephant in the room was the road and someone had to fix the road.”

The question lingered. Five years after the first vote, a group of Klahanie-area residents began another campaign to the City Council, which had started expressing interest in settling the matter.

Young and a group of neighborhood volunteers collected 565 signatures, 10 percent of the area’s registered voters, and approached the council during the 2011 goal-setting retreat.

“We actively called on every single council member and the mayor, saying, ‘We’ve got to get to a spot where you either annex us or you have to release us so we could become part of another city,’” Young said. “There, they voted that they were going to pursue the Klahanie PAA. And if they couldn’t pass it as a line-item issue, they would relinquish us from its PAA. That was a huge, huge thing.”

The citizen response drove the council’s decision as much as the council simply wanted the issue finally decided.

“In between times, we always had Klahanie residents who would come up to us saying, ‘When are you going to act on this? We’re tired of being on the back burner,’” Frisinger said. “It was a response to the citizens that the council made a goal to resolve the topic once and for all.”



Bookmark and Share
Other Stories of Interest: , , , , , , , , , , ,


4 Responses to “Klahanie annexation”

  1. tom masters on January 2nd, 2014 10:18 am

    What advantage is this for Issaquah citizens?

  2. Brad Haase on January 2nd, 2014 12:29 pm

    We (the residents in Klahanie) do not want to become part of a city. We are happy being our own entity and governing ourselves. We do not want the burden of Issaquah’s debt. We do not want Issaquah to pump their contaminated water into our reservoirs. The city keeps trying to resurrect this topic to fool us with their propaganda but we know the truth, and we will keep voting it down.

  3. jeff redding on January 5th, 2014 9:51 am

    if klahanie residents voted once to not be part of issaquah, isn’t that enough of a message to the issaquah city council? why then would 500 people who don’t live in issaquah be able to drive a new process and election as a second chance? who is in charge here – not issaquah residents, not the issaquah city council – klahanie people? really?

  4. Paul Manassero on January 30th, 2014 12:39 pm

    A couple thoughts here:

    – “We voted on this already, let us never vote on it again” doesn’t particularly sound like democracy in action. Clearly times, situations and people change, voting is a good thing; that’s why we do it all the time in America.

    – The argument that debt is always bad is a naive and financially uneducated one. Debt can save you money, especially when the cost of debt is low, as has been the case recently. For example, if the cost of debt over time will be lower than the cost of real estate appreciation over time, then a city would be wise to assume debt to purchase in the short term, (again, say, real estate in this example), versus attempting to accumulate funds and wait for a much more expensive future purchase price (and run the risk of other transactional complications). And that’s only the most simplistic explanation of why debt is just a financial tool. Debt can be mismanaged certainly, but to *automatically* label it as bad by it’s very existence is just silly or disingenuous.

    – For Sammamish backers to tout that city’s $70 million in reserves also seems unsophisticated. Having money sitting and doing nothing seems irresponsible to me. There is a cost associated with your money sitting and doing nothing. Unless Sammamish has a long term strategic or capital plan for this money, they are doing the equivalent of stuffing it in a mattress. And that’s not who I want running my municipal fiscal policy.

Got something to say?

Before you comment, please note:

  • These comments are moderated.
  • Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
  • Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
  • This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.