Snoqualmie council delays decision on petition to vacate right-of-way adjacent to 39194 SE Park Street

Councilors in Snoqualmie on April 28 postponed a decision on a petition to vacate a strip of public right-of-way that encroaches on a house at 39194 Southeast Park Street, and set a follow-up roundtable and executive session for May 12 at 6 p.m.

The petition would remove the city’s Schussman Avenue right-of-way where part of a house apparently sits. The issue drew extended discussion about title history, tax assessments and the Riverwalk trail plan, and a member of the public urged council to vacate the right-of-way to protect a nearly century-old home.

Why it matters: Vacating a street or right-of-way is a legislative act the council must make based on a public purpose; councilors said the Riverwalk project is one possible public purpose staff has identified, while petitioners argue the strip serves no public function and should be vacated. Council members also raised legal and financial questions, and staff recommended an executive session to discuss potential litigation and title issues before a final vote.

At the roundtable, Wesley Blaney, a Snoqualmie resident who identified himself as speaking for neighbors, said the home at 39194 SE Park Street has stood since 1938 and that a mapping error left an unused strip of land under part of the house. "This home has been taxed at full value for decades," Blaney said, urging the council to "vacate the unnecessary right-of-way" so the house can remain.

Petitioners and their representatives supplied title and deed-of-trust documents during the hearing. A petitioner’s representative described a series of recorded deeds of trust and foreclosure-related transfers: a 2009 deed of trust for $15,000, a 2012 deed of trust for $141,000, and a foreclosure auction amount cited as $192,000. The petitioner also said they had discussed donating the parcel to a tribe if the city did not make an acquisition offer exceeding $10,000; that speaker described the property’s tax-assessed value as about $574,000.

Council questions focused on whether the encroachment was newly discovered or long-standing, how King County assessed tax value, what documents (surveys/title reports) had been prepared historically, and whether other properties in the city have similar encroachments. City staff and the petitioner said the 1997 recorded survey shows encroachment onto Schussman right-of-way. City Attorney advised that council could go into executive session under the state statute for discussing potential litigation (RCW 42.30.110).

Rather than vote on the vacation, councilors agreed to continue deliberations. The council scheduled a May 12 roundtable at 6 p.m., starting with an executive session under potential litigation, and indicated staff should return with clarified title, tax and acquisition information and any legal guidance needed for a formal action.

The matter remains under discussion and no formal vacation has been approved or denied. Council members identified three formal options going forward: approve the vacation, approve it with conditions (as described in staff memoranda), or deny the petition. The council did not take a final vote on any option at the April 28 meeting.

The next public roundtable on the petition is set for May 12 at 6 p.m.; the council indicated the session will likely begin in executive session to address legal questions before returning to open session for deliberation and any potential vote.