City of Lacey Announces its Intent
to Annex Capitol City Golf Course Estates
The City of Lacey (City) held an open house on January 31, 2017 at Horizons Elementary School to present their plans to annex the Capitol City Golf Course Estates (CCGCE), The Capitol City Golf Course and the area west of CCGCE bounded by 62nd Ave SE, Sugar Maple Lane and 64th Ave SE. Approximately 200 people attended the meeting.
The City indicated that there are a variety of ways that it could proceed with their annexation plans as over three quarters of CCGCE is already surrounded by the Corporate Limits of the City of Lacey. The method that the City presented that night was by the Election Method whereby annexation would be initiated by either the City or, at least 10% of the votes cast at the last general election in the area of CCGCE. See RCW 35.13.015 (ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED AREAS) for complete details on this process.
Making the case for the City of Lacey were Mayor Andy Ryder, Deputy Mayor Cynthia Pratt, City Manager Scott Spence and Rick Walk Director of Community Development.
Highlights of that presentation included:
- Annexation of CCGCE area is well within the Lacey Urban Growth Area as it already surrounds ¾ of the surrounding CCGCE area.
- Generally, property taxes will go down slightly if CCGCE are annexed into the City of Lacey. The City estimates the property taxes for an owner of a home with an assessed valuation of $250,000 will decrease approximately $60 per year upon incorporation. However, utility taxes that the City levies will result in an increase of approximately $175.90 per year for a net tax increase of about $112.00 per year. If annexed CCGCE owners will no longer pay County Road levy taxes or non-resident water service rate from the City for water.
- The County Boundary Review Board would have to provide an OK for this annexation. Lacey’s Deputy City Mayor Cynthia Pratt chairs that group.
- Annexation into the City will not result in mandating that property owners connect to the city sewer system. The only reason that a property owner would be required to connect to the sewer system would be if their septic system has failed and that their house is within 200 feet of a city sewer main, as measured along the most feasible route of connection. The City pointed out that there are several areas in the City that are still on septic systems most notable those along Carpenter Road.
- The City will not assume responsibility to maintain or take over control of CCGCE’s streets. The cost to upgrade our streets to City standards would be extremely expensive and the City does not wish to take on that burden. If the HOA wanted to dedicate streets to the City it would be incumbent upon them to bring our streets up to minimum widths, structural standards, sidewalks, planter strips, signage, striping storm water maintenance and street lighting.
- All legally established existing uses for land use will continue that are within CCGCE’s CCR’s and legal land uses.
- The City of Lacey Police Department will provide police service upon annexation. Law enforcement response times will decrease because of annexation based upon the proximity of City. Lacey already maintains a police substation immediately across the street from CCGCE on Ruddell Road. Fire and medical services will remain the same as the City is already providing those services.
- The City would enforce building codes and occupancy codes which, per the CCGCE Board of Trustees, has become a problem.
- No change in garbage service and school boundaries.
Numerous opposition, affirmation questions and observations were raised by attendees and answered by the City. One attendee indicated that the County lacked resources to provide adequate law enforcement protection because the Sheriff’s Office lacks resources and another said that obtaining a Building Permit was much easier and faster with the City of Lacey vs. the County. The entire meeting lasted about two hours.
Lacey City Mayor Andy Ryder concluded that there was not any timetable for annexation and indicated that there was an obvious need for another informational session with the home owners which as of this writing has not been scheduled.
For more about this, please read the post of January 27th posted prior to this meeting.