Council opens review of two annexation requests that would add about 38 acres if modified

City staff on April 27 briefed the Enumclaw City Council on two pending annexation requests on the city’s east and west sides and recommended modifying the proposed boundaries to make them more regular and compliant with the comprehensive plan.

Chris Massenet, the city’s community development director, told council staff had received two petitions in March and that the submissions as filed cover five parcels totaling about 18 acres. Massenet said staff’s preferred approach would expand each area to include adjacent parcels — a change that would produce roughly 38 acres in total and an estimated combined valuation of about $8.5 million. He said both areas are zoned R-2 (low-density residential) and that water and sewer service are available nearby.

Massenet outlined the statutory 60% petition method for annexation: petitioners must secure signatures representing 60% of the total assessed valuation in the proposed area, county staff then verify signatures, and the boundary review process and public hearings follow. “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,” Massenet said.

Council members pressed staff on process details and fairness to existing property owners. Council member Reffler said the CED committee wanted staff to consult the city attorney about whether a requirement could be attached to an amendment — for example, asking annexation applicants to pay for a consultant to handle the technical work if city capacity is limited. “We’re asking Chris to consult with the city attorney…to require payment to cover the expense of a city consultant,” Reffler said.

Staff noted trade-offs: leaving boundaries as proposed might invite modifications by the Boundary Review Board; expanding the area would make the map cleaner and align it with the comp plan but would also require petitioners to gather more signatures. Council discussed whether to process the two areas as one combined annexation or as two separate actions; several members favored two separate resolutions because the areas are not contiguous and are on opposite sides of town.

The council did not act to accept or reject the petitions that night. Instead, members asked staff to return at the next meeting with draft resolutions and with legal guidance on whether the city could require petitioners to help pay consultant costs or otherwise condition processing. Massenet said staff would prepare the materials and that applicants could be expected to provide additional documents if the council directed staff to proceed.