Executive/Council Action Form (ECAF)
ITEM TITLE:
Title
Motion 25-383, concerning the County Council's position on a proposed direct petition method annexation to the City of Monroe; BRB File No. 2025-04 - Conner Annexation
body
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Development Services
ORIGINATOR: Eileen Canola
EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: Approved by Ken Klein 8/11/25
PURPOSE: To review and take action on a motion for a proposed annexation by the City of Monroe
BACKGROUND: The City of Monroe (City) submitted a second amended Notice of Intention (NOI) to the Boundary Review Board (BRB) for the Conner Annexation that the BRB deemed sufficient on July 25, 2025, with BRB File No. 2025-04. The BRB’s 45-day review period ends on September 8, 2025, at 4:00 pm. The City and County lack an existing Master Annexation Interlocal Agreement (MAILA) to govern annexations. The 2008 MAILA expired December 31, 2022. The City and County did not enter into an annexation specific interlocal agreement for the Conner Annexation as the area proposed for annexation did not raise any concerns or issues with County departments other than ensuring that the annexation area includes Tester Rd (with the underlying Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT right-of-way), which it does as described in the legal description in BRB File No 2025-04.Staff from the County’s DPW-TES worked with the City to ensure the annexation of Tester Rd. Further, the annexation area is under ten acres and the assessed valuation is under two million dollars, which are thresholds in RCW 36.93.110 for when BRB review is not necessary. However, the Chair of the BRB denied the City’s request for a waiver from BRB review because the annexation proposal included a ROW owned by WSDOT. Based on the review detailed in the PDS staff report, the proposed Conner Annexation is consistent with the GMA, the CPPs, local comprehensive plans, and the factors and objectives of the BRB. The proposal will have minimal impact to County budget and services. The Conner Annexation proposal furthers the GMA goals and CPP policies that cities should be the primary providers of urban services. The recommendation to the County Council from PDS is to not invoke the jurisdiction of the BRB.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
|
EXPEND: FUND, AGY, ORG, ACTY, OBJ, AU |
CURRENT YR |
2ND YR |
1ST 6 YRS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
REVENUE: FUND, AGY, ORG, REV, SOURCE |
CURRENT YR |
2ND YR |
1ST 6 YRS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
DEPARTMENT FISCAL IMPACT NOTES: Click or tap here to enter text.
CONTRACT INFORMATION:
|
ORIGINAL |
|
CONTRACT# |
|
AMOUNT |
|
|
AMENDMENT |
|
CONTRACT# |
|
AMOUNT |
|
Contract Period
|
ORIGINAL |
START |
|
END |
|
|
AMENDMENT |
START |
|
END |
|
OTHER DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW/COMMENTS: Reviewed/approved by: Finance (Nathan Kennedy 8/8/25)