Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff outlines two annexation requests; council asks for modified resolutions and possible applicant-paid consultant
Summary
City staff described two recent annexation requests covering five vacant residential parcels; staff recommended modified boundaries to create a more regular city edge and the council asked staff to consult the city attorney about requiring applicants to cover consultant costs if processing both annexations strains staff capacity.
City staff presented two annexation notices to the Enumclaw City Council on April 27 and asked the council whether to accept, modify or reject the proposals within a 60-day timeline under state law.
Community Development Director Chris Massenet told the council the city had received two notices in March covering five vacant, residentially zoned parcels totaling about 18 acres. He said staff recommends modifying the requested areas to include adjacent parcels so the city boundary is more regular and to comply with the comprehensive plan.
"With the additional parcels, it would be roughly 38 acres in total with evaluation of about 8 and a half million," Massenet said, describing staff's recommendation to consider expanded boundaries if the council moves forward.
Massenet outlined the usual 60% petition method for annexation: if the council authorizes the annexation area, the petitioners must secure signatures representing 60% of assessed valuation for the area and then the Boundary Review Board would review the notice of intent.
Several council members urged caution and discussed operational capacity. Council Member Reffler asked staff to consult the city attorney about whether annexation applicants could be required to pay for consultant services or otherwise cover city consultant costs so staff workload would not be unduly strained.
Nut graf: The matter is procedural but consequential: annexation would extend city services and zoning, potentially affect development patterns, and requires a sequence of petitions, county verification and possible Boundary Review Board review before a final ordinance.
Next steps: Staff will consult the city attorney, prepare draft resolutions (the council expressed support for preparing two separate resolutions), and return to council within the statutory timeline for a formal decision. No final annexation ordinance was adopted April 27.
