Yelm council approves interlocal agreement with Thurston County amid resident concerns over annexation and water rights

The Yelm City Council on Jan. 13 approved an interlocal agreement (ILA) with Thurston County that lays out the roles and responsibilities the two jurisdictions would follow if the council later decides to annex parts of the urban growth area.

The ILA does not itself annex land, Planning and Building Manager Gary told the council during a briefing. "What it does is establish what our roles and responsibilities would be between the city and county if at the public hearing the council does decide to approve the annexation," he said, describing the agreement as a "laundry list" covering permit transfers, stormwater fee and project coordination.

Why it matters: The agreement clarifies operational steps the city would take — such as assuming open permits and coordinating stormwater maintenance — before any formal annexation vote. Residents and landowners said the ILA and the prospect of annexation raise concrete local concerns about water rights, conservation easements and how future development would be managed.

During the public-comment period, Lewis Allen, who identified himself as a tribal member, urged the council to confirm tribal consultation and to protect private well rights. "I have a well, and I wanna make sure I keep my water rights," he said, asking whether the city had met with the Nisqually Tribe and whether well owners would be forced to hook up to city water in the future.

Alan McKenzie — identifying himself as a representative of Zone 8 property owners — presented a letter signed by residents asking the council to withdraw Zone 8 from annexation consideration because many properties are covered by conservation easements and the land should remain in Thurston County. "Zone 8 property owners west of 507 respectfully request the city council withdraw our properties from further annexation consideration," McKenzie said.

Elizabeth Burton Crowe, another Zone 8 resident and signatory to the petition, argued the area is chiefly open space and does not address the city’s stated housing needs. She said annexation would add "layers of encumbrance through additional city ordinances and the potential for higher property values, higher property taxes."

City response and clarifications: Mayor Joe DiPena said the ILA had already been approved by the county and that approving the ILA now would make public the terms for how the county would "pass the baton" to the city if the council later approves annexation. On water, the mayor said the city secured water rights in 2022 and would draw from the city's deep aquifer to meet future demand, and that most residents would not be forced off private wells unless a city line was within roughly 200 feet.

Council action: Councilor Richardson moved to approve the ILA; Councilor Arias seconded the motion and it passed by voice vote.

What’s next: The council reminded residents that a separate public hearing and any formal annexation vote will take place at a later meeting (not the ILA hearing), and the ILA defines administrative and operational steps should the council choose to annex territory.