Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews two annexation petitions and asks staff to prepare separate resolutions
Summary
City staff presented two annexation requests totaling five submitted parcels; staff recommended modifying the proposal to include additional adjacent parcels (bringing the total to roughly 38 acres, about $8.5 million in assessed value) and counsel was asked whether applicants can be required to pay consultant costs. Council gave staff direction to return with resolutions rather than approve annexation tonight.
Mayor Anthony Wright presided over a council presentation on two property annexation requests at the April 27 Enumclaw City Council meeting. Community Development Director Chris Massenet told the council the city received two petitions in March — one east of town near a roundabout and one west of town near the Expo Center — each submitted as residential R‑2 zoned properties. The applicants initially submitted five parcels totaling about 18 acres, Massenet said, and staff suggested modifying the proposed footprints to include adjacent parcels for a more regular city boundary.
"Staff does recommend that it should be processed as one annexation request after but, however, I had a good discussion with the CED committee and they had a lot of good reasons why maybe they should be set processed separately," Massenet said. With the additional parcels staff suggested, he said, the combined area would be roughly 38 acres with an assessed valuation of about $8.5 million.
Massenet described the standard 60 percent petition method under state law: petitioners must collect signatures representing 60 percent of the total valuation in the proposed area, the county verifies those signatures, and staff prepares a notice of intent to the Boundary Review Board. He warned failure to propose a regularized boundary could prompt modifications by the Boundary Review Board.
During discussion, council members raised practical concerns about workload and fairness to individual parcel owners. One council member asked whether the council could require applicants to pay for a city consultant to process an annexation; the council directed staff to consult with the city attorney on whether such a payment condition or fee for consultant support is permissible. Several council members said they prefer processing the two areas separately so individual property owners are treated equitably.
Council did not vote on an annexation tonight. Instead, members signaled support for staff preparing resolutions to modify the proposed annexation footprints and returning to council — likely as two separate resolutions — after the city attorney and staff provide additional guidance. Massenet also noted the practical benefits to property owners of annexation, including access to city water and sewer stub outs in some locations and the ability to use city zoning rules.
Next steps: staff will consult the city attorney about potential conditions (including consultant fees), refine the proposed boundaries, and prepare resolutions for council consideration at a future meeting.
