Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Enumclaw council reviews two annexation petitions, asks staff to prepare separate resolutions
Summary
City staff presented two annexation petitions covering five submitted parcels; staff recommended boundary modifications to include adjacent parcels, expanding the combined area to roughly 38 acres (~$8.5 million assessed). Council asked staff to return with two resolutions and to consult the city attorney on possible conditions, including whether applicants should fund consultant work.
City officials on April 27 reviewed two petitions to annex properties into Enumclaw and directed staff to prepare resolutions for council consideration rather than taking immediate action.
Community Development Director Chris Massenet told the council the city received two annexation requests in March covering five parcels totaling about 18 acres. Staff recommended modifying the boundaries to include adjacent parcels so the combined area would be roughly 38 acres with an assessed value of about $8.5 million, and advised processing the petitions as two separate actions. "With the additional parcels, it would be roughly 38 acres in total with evaluation of about 8 and a half million," Massenet said.
Massenet explained the petition process under state law, noting the most common path is the 60% petition method: petitioners must secure signatures representing 60% of the total valuation of the proposed area before the county verifies them and the matter proceeds to the Boundary Review Board and subsequent city ordinance steps.
Several council members voiced caution about processing both annexations together. Council member Chance (addressed in the meeting as "Chance") said the council should consider requiring applicants to cover consultant costs so city staff capacity is not exceeded. "I'm asking Chris to consult with the city attorney... to require payment to cover the expense of a city consultant to run these annexations," Chance said, reflecting committee concerns about staff workload and fairness among parcel owners.
City staff noted utilities (water and sewer) are available at the sites and that some road stub-outs exist, which can make development feasible. Council members also discussed potential effects on service provision and the importance of complying with the comprehensive plan and Boundary Review Board expectations. Several council members signaled they were open to staff returning with two separate resolutions modified to include additional parcels and to the city attorney's guidance on any conditions applicants should meet.
Next steps: staff will consult with the city attorney, prepare recommended resolutions (likely two), and return to council within the statutory timelines for further action.
