Council reviews two annexation petitions covering multiple parcels; staff asked to prepare separate resolutions

The Enumclaw City Council received an overview of two annexation petitions on April 27 and directed staff to prepare draft resolutions to accept, reject or modify each petition after consulting the city attorney.

Community Development Director Chris Massenet told council the city received two petitions in March (March 19 and March 24) covering five properties totaling about 18 acres; staff recommended expanding the proposed areas to include adjacent parcels so the city boundary would be more regular. With additional parcels included, Massenet said the total annexation area would be roughly 38 acres with an estimated valuation of about $8.5 million. "Staff does recommend that it should be processed as one annexation request after but ... 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.

Massenet described the typical "60% petition" annexation method under state law: petitioners must collect signatures representing 60% of the total valuation of the area, the county verifies signatures, and the Boundary Review Board reviews materials and can modify proposals. He cautioned that annexation commonly requires adoption of comprehensive-plan designations and could require the area to assume existing city bonded indebtedness.

Council members raised procedural and equity concerns. A council member asked whether Tarragon's parcels alone would meet the 60% threshold; Massenet said they do not and would need at least one signature from additional property owners. One council member proposed requiring applicants to pay for a consultant to perform much of the annexation work so city staff resources would not be overburdened: "I've asked Chris to consult with the city attorney. If it's possible as a condition to amend this ... to require Payment to cover the expense of a city consultant to run these annexations because running two annexations ... would be tough with city staff and the current workload," the council member said.

Why it matters: Annexation changes who provides services (police, sewer, water), affects tax and utility rates, and can alter development potential by applying city zoning in place of county rules. Council members emphasized both the benefits of adding tax base and the importance of ensuring equitable treatment of landowners and adequate staff capacity.

Next steps: Council members signaled support (head nods) for staff preparing two separate resolutions to accept, reject or modify the petitions and asked staff to consult the city attorney about whether a condition requiring applicants to pay for consultant services is permissible. No formal vote to approve annexation was taken at the April 27 meeting.