Council asks staff to return with options on two annexation petitions; council leans toward separate processing

Enumclaw's City Council on April 27 heard a staff presentation on two annexation petitions submitted in March and signaled that it wants staff to return with draft resolutions to process the requests separately.

Community Development Director Chris Massenet summarized the requests and recommended modifying the applicant‑submitted boundaries to include adjoining parcels so the city boundary would be more regular and comply with the comprehensive plan. "With the additional parcels, it would be roughly 38 acres in total with evaluation of about 8 and a half million," Massenet said.

Massenet explained the most common annexation path is the 60% petition method, under which petitioners must gather signatures representing 60% of the total assessed valuation in the proposed area; the county verifies signatures before materials are sent to the Boundary Review Board. He cautioned that the process requires substantial work and recommended against asking applicants to begin signature gathering if council is not inclined to accept annexation.

Council members discussed whether the two areas should be processed as one combined annexation or as two separate actions. Members who serve on the Community & Economic Development committee said the committee recommended running the petitions separately to avoid equity concerns for parcel owners and to prevent one petition's assessed value from driving outcomes for a geographically distinct area. One council member asked staff to consult the city attorney about whether a condition could require applicants to pay for a consultant to conduct much of the annexation work so city staff are not overburdened.

Council asked staff to return at the required 60‑day point with draft resolutions and legal guidance on consultant‑funding conditions. Council did not take a formal vote; Massenet said staff would prepare two separate proposed resolutions reflecting the council’s direction.

The presentation also noted service and development implications of annexation: city police service and access to water and sewer would become available to annexed properties, zoning would change to the city's R‑2 designation, and certain utility stub‑outs exist near the proposed areas, which could reduce connection costs. Staff flagged that adopting the annexation would require the new area to assume any city‑level bonded indebtedness tied to the jurisdiction.

The council concluded discussion by asking staff to return with the draft materials and legal input rather than making a decision tonight.