Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews two annexation requests and directs staff to prepare modified resolutions
Summary
City staff presented two annexation requests affecting properties on the east and west sides of Enumclaw and recommended modified boundaries; council asked staff to consult the city attorney and return with draft resolutions, likely processed as two separate actions.
City Council members on April 27 reviewed two annexation proposals filed in March that would bring roughly 18 acres (initial requests) into city limits and, if modified to include staff‑recommended additional parcels, about 38 acres with an estimated valuation of roughly $8.5 million.
Chris Massenet, the community development director, described the two areas — one near the Roosevelt Avenue roundabout on the west side and one near the King County Fairgrounds on the east side — and explained the 60% petition method the applicants would use to secure annexation. He told council that water and sewer infrastructure are available to both areas and that staff recommends modifying the proposed boundaries to create a more regular city edge and to align with the comprehensive plan. Massenet said staff favored processing the requests as either a single combined annexation or, as committee members suggested, two separate actions.
Council members pressed staff on process questions. A council member asked whether the Tarragon properties could alone meet the 60% petition threshold; Massenet replied they would not and would need one or more additional landowner signatures. Members also discussed potential county "pocket" effects and noted the Sierra Vista neighborhood previously resisted annexation. City staff and other council members cautioned that annexation carries obligations, including adopting city zoning and potentially assuming a share of bonded indebtedness.
The Community & Economic Development committee recommended requiring applicants to cover consultant costs if necessary to limit staff workload; council asked staff to consult the city attorney about whether that condition could be placed on an annexation filing. Committee members said they favored processing the two requests separately to protect the rights of parcel owners and avoid combining geographically distinct areas.
Council did not vote on annexation tonight. On the record, council members gave staff direction to prepare modified resolutions (likely two) and to return with legal guidance and draft documents so the parties can determine next steps in the 60‑day review window.
What happens next: staff will consult with the city attorney, prepare modified draft resolutions, and return to council with options and any recommended conditions for applicant-funded consulting or processing.
