Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Annexation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Enumclaw holds first reading to annex Battersby Avenue to enable road repairs and fish-passage work

2244517 · January 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City staff presented a first reading of Ordinance 2805 on Jan. 27 to annex the Battersby Avenue right-of-way into Enumclaw, aiming to improve grant eligibility and streamline permitting for a fish-passage and road-repair project; council discussion focused on cost scope and grant coverage.

Enumclaw City Council held a first reading of Ordinance 2805 on Jan. 27 to annex Battersby Avenue right-of-way into the city to support planned road repairs and a fish-passage project, Public Works Director Brian Spindor said.

The ordinance would revise the city boundary to incorporate the unincorporated portions of Southeast 244th Street/Battersby Avenue and is being proposed to improve the city’s chances of obtaining grant funding, reduce permitting complexity and allow the city to design and construct both pavement rehabilitation and a fish-passage crossing at Drainage District No. 5, Lateral A, Spindor told the council.

Spindor said the roadway segment currently has a pavement condition index of 41 out of 100 and that King County has no immediate plans to rehabilitate the road. He recommended adoption of Ordinance 2805 so the city could pursue grants and loans to bring the roadway and the fish-passage structure up to standard.

Councilmember Gruner asked whether annexing the roadway would increase the city’s costs for the required fish-passage work. Spindor replied that most of the crossing is already city-owned and he did not expect annexation to increase the city’s costs “significantly,” though it would make the overall project larger because the city would take on portions currently under county jurisdiction.

When Councilmember Martinez asked how much of the project grant funding might cover, Spindor said grant programs could “at least cover 90% of it, if not all of it.”

Because this was a first reading, the council did not vote on adopting the ordinance; councilmembers limited comments to questions for staff. Staff recommended moving forward with adoption at a future meeting after the first-reading process and any required notice and public hearing steps.

The staff report referenced the statutory annexation authority cited in the ordinance (RCW 35.21.210).