Enumclaw council hears staff overview of two annexation requests and asks for draft resolutions

City staff presented two annexation requests on April 27 that would bring vacant residential parcels into the Enumclaw city limits and asked the City Council for direction on next steps.

Chris Massenet, introduced by the mayor as the staff lead on the item, told the council the city received two petitions in March covering five vacant parcels totaling about 18 acres. Massenet said staff recommended modifying the proposed boundaries to add adjacent parcels “to make the city boundary more regular” and noted that if the areas were combined and supplemented with those additional parcels the total could be roughly 38 acres with an assessed valuation of about $8.5 million. He also told the council water and sewer are available near both areas and that staff’s preferred processing would include applying the city’s future land‑use and zoning designations and requiring assumption of existing bonded indebtedness by any annexed properties.

Community development staff explained the statutory process under the 60% petition method: applicants must secure signatures representing 60% of the total assessed valuation of the proposed area, the county verifies signatures, and the Boundary Review Board reviews any notice of intent. Staff recommended not having applicants pursue signatures until council provided clearer direction because the process is labor intensive for both applicants and city staff.

Council members pressed on practical issues and potential conditions. A council member of the Community & Economic Development committee asked staff to check with the city attorney about whether the council can require applicants to pay for a city consultant to handle annexation work if staff bandwidth is limited. Several council members said they preferred to process the two annexation areas separately rather than as a single combined ordinance and suggested recording notifications for homes near the Expo Center to warn prospective buyers that events there may be loud.

Chris Searcy, responding to a question, said the Tarragon parcels by themselves do not meet the 60% valuation threshold and would require at least one additional property owner’s signature if processed separately. Staff emphasized numerous procedural steps remain, including public notices and possible hearings, and recommended that council direct staff to prepare one or two draft resolutions to accept, reject, or modify the areas so applicants know whether to proceed.

The council did not vote on annexation ordinances at the meeting. Instead, members signaled support for returning draft resolutions (likely two separate resolutions) and asked staff to consult the city attorney about the consultant‑funding condition. Staff said it would return with requested materials and draft resolutions within the statutory timeline.