Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews two annexation requests; staff recommends modifying boundaries and returning resolutions
Summary
City staff presented two annexation requests (east and west side parcels) and recommended modifying the proposed areas to make the boundary more regular and comply with the comprehensive plan; staff outlined the 60% petition method, sewer/water availability, and potential assumption of bonded indebtedness and asked council whether to process them together or separately.
City planning staff briefed the Enumclaw City Council Thursday on two annexation requests the city received in March and asked the council for direction on how to proceed.
Community Development Director Chris Massenet told council the city has received two notices of intent—one near the Roosevelt Avenue roundabout on the west side and another on the east side near SunTop and the fairgrounds—covering five parcels totaling about 18 acres of vacant residentially zoned land. Staff suggested modifying the maps to include adjacent parcels and rights-of-way to form a more regular boundary; with those additions the total area would be roughly 38 acres with an estimated valuation of about $8.5 million.
Massenet outlined the state’s 60% petition method: if the city chooses to proceed it must set a meeting within 60 days and, if the applicants pursue the petition route, they must secure property‑owner signatures representing 60% of the total assessed valuation of the area subject to annexation. He told council staff recommends either preparing one resolution to accept/reject/modify both areas or preparing two separate resolutions so each request can proceed independently.
Committee members and staff raised workload and fairness concerns. A council member asked whether the Tarragon parcels alone would meet the 60% valuation threshold; staff said they would not and that petitioners would need at least one additional property owner’s signature. Another council member asked the city attorney whether the council’s consideration on these requests is quasi‑judicial; the attorney replied the process is not the same as a quasi‑judicial hearing but explained many steps and public hearings remain ahead.
Council members signaled openness to returning resolutions that modify the proposed boundaries and asked staff to consult with the city attorney about whether applicants could be required to pay for consultant or city consultant costs given staff bandwidth. No formal vote was taken; staff will return to council with draft resolutions and the attorney’s guidance.
