Mil Creek council approves consultants to guide annexation feasibility despite objections

Mil Creek’s City Council on April 14 approved two professional services agreements to advance a structured feasibility process for potential annexations, voting to hire 1961 Consulting and SME Consulting and to fund the work with reallocated RPB (recreation, placemaking, and beautification) balances.

City Manager Martin Yamamoto said the $47,250 1961 Consulting contract and the SME Consulting hourly agreement together will fund a multi‑month, decision‑oriented program to get the council to a fall “go/no‑go” decision on whether to pursue annexation and, if so, how to stage implementation. Yamamoto told the council that the contracts will be paid using balances remaining in other RPB projects so the city will not seek new revenue.

Rob Finty of 1961 Consulting described the firm’s role as a facilitator rather than a data contractor: “This doesn’t presume that you’re moving forward. There is a first step in this…to have what I’m calling a go‑no‑go,” he said, describing a study‑session process that will produce decision principles, assumptions on infrastructure and staffing, and a recommended set of first‑step options.

Council debate centered on whether the city should hire external facilitators when staff and prior consultants have produced analysis. Council member Cavaleri said she would not support the 1961 contract, arguing the work was expected of prior consulting or staff and expressing concern about fiscal prudence. “I won’t be supporting it,” she said on the record. Council member Stackler and others argued that an external facilitator is needed to keep the process focused and to deliver a decision within the council’s timeline.

The resolution authorizing the city manager to execute the 1961 agreement passed with the council tally announced on the record as five in favor, one opposed and one abstention. The SME Consulting agreement—presented as a not‑to‑exceed hourly contract to provide scenario analytics and tax/infrastructure modeling that staff said would handle the heavy numeric lifting—was approved in a separate vote with one member recorded as abstaining.

What happens next: staff said 1961 will lead a first study session in May to establish guiding principles and key assumptions, with a sequence of study sessions and analysis loops aimed at a decision by the fall. SME will perform detailed tax and infrastructure modeling to support those choices.

Council members who opposed or abstained said their votes reflected concerns about adding consultant costs while staff capacity remains stretched; supporters said outside facilitation will help the council reach a timely, documented decision.

The council recorded no immediate change to annexation policy or boundaries; the contracts commission the next phase of analysis and facilitation, not an annexation ordinance.

Ending: The city manager said staff will bring study‑session materials in May; councilors asked to ensure deliverables and budgets are clearly itemized and that any early termination provisions be honored if the council reaches an early go/no‑go.