Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears two annexation proposals; staff to return with resolutions after legal review
Summary
Staff briefed the council on two annexation petitions (east and west sides) totaling several parcels; staff recommended modifying boundaries to regularize the city limit, and council asked staff to consult the city attorney and consider requiring applicants to fund consultant review before returning with resolutions.
Enumclaw city staff on April 27 presented two annexation petitions received in March and asked the City Council for direction on how to proceed.
Community Development staff described two proposed annexation areas — one near the Roosevelt Avenue roundabout on the west side and another near the King County Expo on the east side — totaling five initially proposed parcels (about 18 acres). Staff recommended modifying the proposals to include adjacent parcels so the city boundary would be more regular, which would expand the combined area to roughly 38 acres with an assessed valuation of about $8.5 million.
Staff explained statutory procedure for a 60%‑petition annexation: petitioners must secure signatures representing 60% of the total assessed valuation in the area, the county verifies signatures, and the Boundary Review Board may review the proposed boundary. "Once a petition for annexation has been received, the state law states that the legislative body has to set a date no later than 60 days after the filing of the request for a meeting with the initiating parties to determine whether the city will accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposed annexation," staff said.
Council members split on process details. Council member Chance asked staff to consult the city attorney about whether the council could require applicants to pay for a city consultant to prepare annexation materials so staff capacity would not be strained. "We're asking Chris to consult with the city attorney ... about requiring payment to cover the expense of a city consultant to run these annexations," Chance said. Several council members indicated a preference to process the two proposals separately rather than combine them.
Staff did not ask for a final decision April 27 but said they would return with draft resolutions that could: accept, reject, or modify each annexation. Staff recommended including additional adjacent parcels in the proposed boundaries to avoid a fragmented city edge.
Why it matters: Annexation changes which government provides services and sets zoning and utility access for properties; staff and council noted utilities are nearby, which could make development easier and affect future growth management.
What’s next: Staff will consult the city attorney about procedural conditions (including potential applicant-funded consultant support), prepare draft resolution(s) reflecting council direction, and return for council action within the statutory timeline.
