Sammamish says streets in Inglewood are private; council to seek prescriptive easement to continue city services

Sammamish City Manager Scott McCall told a packed community meeting that the city has concluded streets in the Inglewood neighborhood are legally private and plans to ask the City Council to assert a prescriptive easement so the city can continue to maintain and regulate those rights of way.

McCall said the issue surfaced during a late-2024 permit review and subsequent legal research, and that council has already adopted an interim action to keep city services in place. "The permanent solution is called a prescriptive easement," McCall said. "It allows the city to continue to serve and regulate the right of way." He added the city is drafting legislation and hopes to bring it to council by July but said timing could slip to ensure the work is correct.

Why it matters: If a court or statute recognizes the streets as private, the city lacks authority to regulate the right of way or spend public funds on private infrastructure without first establishing a legal basis. Officials said the prescriptive-easement route would recognize as public those streets the city has openly and continuously served for the statutory period (cited by staff as 10 years of continuous, uninterrupted public use), while leaving truly private roads that the city has not served unchanged.

City presentation and legal background City staff told residents they found no records showing that the streets were formally declared public after the 1889 Inglewood plat was filed. Staff said an old "nonuser" statute can vacate a plat dedication if a way is not actively opened or used for a statutory period. According to staff, that gap in the historical record—combined with case-law analysis—led the city to conclude the streets are private absent further legal action.

City Manager Scott McCall summarized the effect: "We found out that the streets in Inglewood are not public. They are actually private. And that means that technically, we don't have authority to regulate the right of way that we have been regulating and maintaining." He told the crowd the council had "unanimously voted to continue serving the streets in Inglewood that the city has historically maintained" and directed staff to prepare a permanent solution.

Resident concerns and legal counterpoints Several residents and attendees questioned the city's analysis and warned of financial and legal consequences. Darryl Mitsunaga, who identified himself during public comment, urged the council to reconsider: "The nonuser statute requires that whoever wants to take the street back has the burden of proof to show that the streets were not open," Mitsunaga said, adding that the absence of a single formal record does not prove nonuse and that case law requires adjudication in many circumstances.

Other residents cited historical evidence they said supports public use: post office records, early directories, county road acceptance resolutions from the 1960s and long-running county and city maintenance. A commenter who identified themself as a resident and former surveyor argued the roads have been used and maintained for decades and that the prescriptive-easement approach could create complicated adverse-possession issues and litigation over lot lines.

City response and safeguards City officials told the meeting they are proceeding cautiously. McCall said the interim directive adopted by council keeps services unchanged "so there will be no disruption in service" while staff works with legal counsel on the legislation. He said the draft asserting prescriptive-easement rights will be released for public review before council action.

Officials also said the prescriptive-easement approach would be limited to the streets the city has historically and openly maintained (illustrated on the map staff distributed at the meeting) and would not apply to private roads the city has never served. The city also plans to develop citywide public-works standards over the next 18 months and said it will collaborate with the neighborhood to recognize the "unique nature" of Inglewood streets.

Open questions and next steps Residents pressed about potential consequences if the city proceeds: tax or insurance changes from additional deeded land, liability and maintenance responsibilities if streets revert to property owners, whether homeowners might need homeowners' associations, and risk of protracted litigation. City staff acknowledged those concerns and said some impacts (for example, whether property tax assessments or insurance would change) would depend on how any court or adjudication treats a prescriptive easement and that staff would seek to answer technical legal questions in follow-up materials.

The city said the draft ordinance or legislation asserting prescriptive-easement rights will be posted for community review before the council votes. Staff reiterated the interim service directive remains in effect and asked residents to use staff stations after the meeting for detailed, individual questions.

Ending The city framed the prescriptive-easement route as a way to preserve existing service and permitting authority while addressing a legal gap the city says its attorneys uncovered. Residents at the meeting expressed strong disagreement about the legal interpretation and warned of financial and property impacts; the city said it will return with draft legislation and additional legal explanations before seeking final council action.