Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff presents two annexation requests totaling about 38 acres; council asks staff to return with modified resolutions
Summary
Staff outlined two annexation petitions submitted in March and recommended expanding the proposed areas to include additional parcels (combined about 38 acres, assessed at roughly $8.5 million). Council asked staff to prepare resolutions (likely two) and to consult the city attorney about whether applicants could be required to pay for consultant work.
City staff presented two annexation petitions for areas on the east and west sides of Enumclaw and asked the council for direction on whether to accept, reject or modify the proposals.
"Annexation is the expansion of the city boundary," the community development presenter said, explaining that the city received two annexation requests in March for a total of five parcels (initially about 18 acres) and that staff recommends modifying the areas to include additional parcels so boundaries are more regular. With the additional parcels the two proposed areas would total roughly 38 acres and have an estimated assessed valuation of about $8.5 million.
Staff described the principal steps: the 60% petition method (owners representing 60% of assessed valuation must sign), county verification of signatures, a notice of intent to the Boundary Review Board and potential requirement for simultaneous adoption of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The presenter warned that the boundary review board may require modifications if the city does not propose regular boundaries.
Council members expressed different perspectives. One council member urged staff to consult the city attorney about adding a condition that would require applicants to pay for city consultant work because processing two annexations would exceed current staff capacity. Another council member said it made sense to process the two annexations separately rather than combining them because the areas are not contiguous and that running them together could be inequitable for individual parcel owners.
Council did not take a formal vote. Staff left with direction to return with resolutions modified to include suggested additional parcels, likely prepared as two separate resolutions, and to report back with the city attorney's advice about consultant-fee conditions and any procedural steps needed within the 60-day statutory review window.
No final annexation decision was made; the council discussed trade-offs including police and sewer service differences, potential development implications and the Boundary Review Board process.
