October 11, 2013
NEW — 1:10 p.m., Oct. 11 2013
In quick order, the King County Boundary Review Board unanimously gave preliminary approval to Issaquah’s annexation request for the Klahanie area Oct. 10.
Two long meetings were held last month where government representatives from Issaquah and Sammamish were joined by a slew of public opinion on the proposed annexation. The Boundary Review Board took the information given and returned with a decision for Klahanie voters to vote on whether Issaquah should include them in its borders.
October 8, 2013
Fire District 10 wants the Klahanie area to know it will have continued service in an uncertain future.
In a quickly planned meeting announced just the day before, administrators of Eastside Fire & Rescue and board members from Fire District 10 met Oct. 3 to pass a resolution seeking the first right to purchase Fire Station 83 should Sammamish decide to leave EFR and close the site. In short work, the leadership discussed the rationale behind the resolution and adopted it unanimously.
“There was a lot of speculation of what was going to happen to the fire protection there should Issaquah annex Klahanie or Sammamish choose to close Fire Station 83,” Fire Chief Lee Soptich said. “We have these different scenarios floating out there. And paramount in my mind is that I think it’s important to let them know that District 10 has a responsibility to continue fire service in that area.”
September 24, 2013
In a meeting that stretched over two nights, the King County Boundary Review Board watched a local tug of war over Issaquah’s intent to annex the Klahanie area.
The Boundary Review Board is responsible for guiding and controlling the growth of municipalities. The quasi-judicial body is empowered to make decisions on incorporations, annexations, mergers and more. It will decide whether to allow an annexation vote to Klahanie-area residents by its next regular meeting Oct. 10. On Sept. 18 and 19, it heard government and public testimony about Issaquah’s intent to annex the potential annexation area and more.
September 19, 2013
NEW — 11:22 a.m. Sept. 19, 2013
Differences became apparent between candidates in the Sept. 17 candidate forum.
The Issaquah Chamber of Commerce welcome the two mayoral contenders and the two seeking a school board position to Blakely Hall for the kickoff of campaign season.
City Council President Fred Butler and Councilman Joe Forkner met each other for a first public appearance directly related to seeking November votes.
Moderated by Erin McCallum, of the Strategic Campaign Group, the forum allowed candidates 90-second answers to a variety of questions asked by McCallum and the audience.
September 2, 2013
NEW — 6 a.m. Sept. 2, 2013
The Issaquah City Council will hold the first of two required public hearings regarding annexing Klahanie at 7 p.m. Sept. 3 at City Hall South, 135 E. Sunset Way.
The Klahanie proposed annexation area consists of approximately 1,243 acres north of the existing city limits, and includes the planned community of Klahanie and several neighboring single-family subdivisions.
The proposed pre-annexation zoning for the area is the Issaquah zoning classification that is most comparable to the existing King County zoning, and would only apply if, and when, annexation to Issaquah occurs.
Learn more here.
July 30, 2013
With a vote of 6-1, the Issaquah City Council decided July 15 to place the future of Klahanie’s residents in the hands of the area’s voters.
As opposed to the vocal public hearings and numerous hours examining the Nesbitt Planning Inc. financial study, City Finance Director Diane Marcotte delivered a short presentation and City Administrator Bob Harrison summarized the Land & Shore Committee’s recommendation that the council send the decision to voters in February.
“When we go through and look at the cost that they’re currently paying, versus what they would pay if they came into the city of Issaquah, they would be paying about $380 less a year,” Marcotte said of Klahanie residents’ property tax. She added that the study found annexation would be beneficial to Issaquah as well. “Each year, we should be having some additional revenue, and that is around $650,000 a year. There still is sufficient revenue, but it may take a little longer to accomplish some of the council’s goals.”
July 16, 2013
Within the next few months, residents of Klahanie will get calls from pollsters wondering how much they like Sammamish.
The triangular wedge of unincorporated King County borders Sammamish on two sides and Issaquah on the third. State law assumes that at some point one city or the other will absorb the area, which is home to more than 10,000 people.
Under current standards, only Issaquah has the option to do so. The city may put it to a vote as soon as April 2014.
July 16, 2013
A potential Klahanie annexation election was to be decided at the July 15 regular council meeting.
Just a week after the City Council referred a resolution calling for an April 2014 election to the Land & Shore Committee, that committee readily handed it back to the council with a full recommendation.
The resolution declares the city’s intent to annex the Klahanie potential annexation area, calls for an election to be held for Klahanie-area voters to decide and asks the voters to take on a proportionate share of Issaquah’s indebtedness. The proportionate share would be determined upon property assessment in the area.
July 9, 2013
Should the City Council decide to put the issue of annexation to the Klahanie potential annexation area citizens, it will not happen until 2014.
During the July 1 meeting, the council passed a bill in the consent agenda that sent an official intent to annex the Klahanie PAA to the Council Land & Shore Committee for review.
Contained within the agenda bill is the administration’s recommendation for adopting the resolution and mentions a later-than-expected date for a prospective vote.
May 14, 2013
Citizens had their first opportunity to ask questions about the city’s approach toward a decision on the potential annexation of the Klahanie area.
The first of two public meetings was held May 8 for Nesbitt Planning Management Inc. representatives Tom Nesbitt and Cynthia Stuart to present the results of their study on the costs and benefits of a possible annexation. They also fielded questions from concerned citizens.