Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff outlines two annexation petitions; council signals preference to process them separately
Summary
Community Development Director Chris Massenet presented two annexation requests affecting roughly 18 acres of vacant residential parcels and recommended boundary modifications that would increase the areas to about 38 acres; council signaled support for processing them as two separate actions and asked staff about requiring applicant-funded consultant work.
City staff presented two annexation petitions to the Enumclaw City Council on April 27 and asked for council direction on how to proceed within the state’s 60‑day review window.
Community Development Director Chris Massenet described the petitions received March 19 and March 24 for parcels on the city’s east and west sides. He said the parcels are vacant, zoned R‑2 residential, and that water and sewer infrastructure stub-outs are nearby. For the west side, staff proposed modifying the submitted boundary to include adjacent parcels to create a more regular city boundary; with the additional parcels, the two combined areas would total roughly 38 acres with an assessed value around $8.5 million. Massenet said staff recommended the council consider modifying the annexation areas to include these additional parcels and suggested processing either as one combined annexation or as two separate annexations.
Massenet summarized the annexation process, noting that if the council wants to move forward the appellants must secure signatures from property owners representing 60% of the total assessed valuation in the area (the 60% petition method). He warned that annexation carries implications for adopting the city’s comprehensive plan designations and for assuming any portion of existing bonded indebtedness for the newly annexed area.
Council discussion focused on process and workload. One council member requested staff consult with the city attorney about making signature-gathering or consultant costs a condition of the annexation so the applicants would pay for consultant work or otherwise help cover city staff workload. Several council members said they preferred processing the two petitions separately rather than combining them. Staff will consult the city attorney and return with draft resolutions or recommended next steps within the legal review window.
Outcome: Council provided informal direction that staff prepare resolutions to modify and process the annexations as two separate actions and to consult with the city attorney about requiring applicants to fund consultant work or otherwise address staff workload concerns. No formal vote was taken on annexation acceptance at the April 27 meeting.
