Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council takes no action on Mangat manufactured‑home park annexation after lengthy debate
Summary
After extended discussion of infrastructure deficiencies, resident impacts and policy constraints, the Oak Harbor City Council voted to take no action on a petition to annex the Mangat (manufactured‑home) park; staff and council emphasized the property remains under county jurisdiction and the owners must address septic and health concerns.
The Oak Harbor City Council on Dec. 2 voted to take no action on a petition to commence annexation proceedings for a roughly 19‑acre property (referred to in staff materials as Mangat), a manufactured‑home park that the council and staff described as nonconforming to current city land‑use designations.
Principal Planner Rajesh Kakkamak reviewed the site's long history of prior annexation requests (2014, 2017, 2023) and explained staff recommendations that the property remain in the county because annexation would not immediately remedy failing septic and water issues and could impose expensive life‑safety and infrastructure upgrades on city residents. Council members questioned whether annexation would help residents and discussed alternatives: keeping the property in county control while the owner addresses public‑health mandates; installing an off‑site sewer (LOSS) paid by the owner or county; or negotiating a pre‑annexation agreement with sunset provisions tied to a transition plan.
David Toyer, representing the property owner, asked for the opportunity to continue work on a plan and reminded council that annexation is the first step in a longer process. Council members expressed empathy for residents and sharply criticized the property owner for not making required repairs. Mayor Wright and several councilmembers said staff and county staff had already provided options and a deadline; they concluded that without clear owner commitments, annexation could shift large costs and regulatory requirements onto city taxpayers.
Councilmember Stuckey moved (seconded by Councilmember Romero) to take no action on the annexation petition; after debate the motion carried. Council clarified that "no action" preserves the city’s prior denial status and allows the property owner to continue working with Island County on short‑term remedies; it does not preclude a future annexation petition if the owner demonstrates intent to transition and meets conditions.
Next steps: staff will continue discussions with the county and the property owner; the owner may return with more detailed plans or a withdrawal. Council asked staff to keep communication open regarding public‑health deadlines and potential technical fixes (for example, LOSS installations) that could avert displacement.
