Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City hears staff overview of two annexation requests, asks staff to prepare resolutions
Summary
City staff described two recent annexation petitions — one near the Roosevelt roundabout and one adjacent to the King County Expo — and recommended modifying the proposed footprints to include adjacent parcels; council asked staff to consult the city attorney and prepare separate resolutions for consideration within the 60‑day window.
Community Development Director Chris Masonetti told the Enumclaw City Council on April 27 that the city has received two annexation petitions filed March 19 and March 24 and outlined the 60% petition method for annexation.
"Annexation is the expansion of the city boundary into properties that are currently located outside of the city," Masonetti said, explaining the procedural steps applicants must follow and the city’s role in setting the initial resolution and reviewing petitions. He said the two submitted areas include five vacant, residentially zoned parcels totaling about 18 acres and that staff recommends adding adjacent parcels so boundaries are more regular and comply with the comprehensive plan.
Staff estimated the enlarged footprint would total roughly 38 acres with an assessed valuation near $8.5 million. Masonetti said water and sewer infrastructure is present near both areas and that staff recommends processing the areas as one annexation only if council wants to pursue that route; otherwise staff suggested preparing two separate resolutions.
Representatives for one applicant introduced themselves during public comment. Alex Campbell said he lives outside Enumclaw and was attending to introduce Tarragon, the applicant; a second applicant representative identified himself in the record as a representative of Tarragon LLC.
Council members asked several procedural questions, including how signatures are verified and whether the applicants’ parcels meet the 60% valuation threshold. Masonetti replied that, for the east‑side area tied to Tarragon, the applicant parcels do not by themselves reach the 60% threshold for the larger staff‑recommended footprint and would therefore need signatures from additional property owners.
Council discussion focused on whether the two petitions should be processed together or separately and on staff capacity. Members said a consultant might be needed if both petitions proceed simultaneously. One council member asked staff to check with the city attorney about conditioning acceptance on applicants paying for consultant services to administer the annexation work.
There was no formal council vote on annexation at the April 27 meeting. Masonetti said staff would return with materials and draft resolutions within the statutory timelines; council members offered nods of preliminary approval for staff to prepare two separate resolutions and to consult the city attorney on possible conditions.
Next steps: staff will consult the city attorney, prepare draft resolutions (one or two) as directed by council, and return for formal council action within the state’s 60‑day scheduling window.
