Chehalis, County Far Apart on Work Agreement in Urban Growth Area

Posted

Ongoing negotiations between the city of Chehalis and Lewis County over management of the city's Urban Growth Area have the two entities far from an agreement, and the Port of Chehalis has drafted a letter opposing several of the county’s proposals. 

The county is calling for more involvement in how Chehalis manages the UGA than the previous agreement allowed. Demands include traffic impact studies for all development applications, requiring traffic mitigation for all projects, giving county officials greater say in the environmental impact review process and dictating to Chehalis who it may hire for code enforcement in the UGA. 

In 2006, the county and the city created an interlocal agreement on the premise that Chehalis will annex some surrounding land managed by the county as the city grows. It’s also intended to make the permit process simpler for people looking to build in the UGA while keeping in character of the city’s existing neighborhoods. Until annexation, the city is responsible for administering the county’s land use, development and building regulations on behalf of the county. At the same time, the city has certain regulations that apply specifically to the UGA. 

Over the last year, disagreements over management in the UGA between city and county staff escalated to the point when, in September, the county decided to let the old agreement expire on Jan. 30 and create a new one. 

“It feels to me like the county really wants to either have overall control of everything that happens in the UGA or terminate the agreement,” Chehalis City Manager Merlin MacReynold said. “They say they don’t want to control the situation, but the written document implies they do.”

 

County Commissioner Bill Schulte said the county’s draft is largely the same as the former agreement, but specifically addressed roads, water and sewer permits and fill and grade permits in the floodplain for new development. He also said the county wants to make sure the level of service in the UGA doesn’t decline, that the county isn’t responsible for paying for any infrastructure improvements when they should’ve been paid for by a developer and that all fill and grade work meets FEMA standards. 

“It seems like it turned into a turf battle, but it’s not a turf battle because it’s county jurisdiction,” he said. “Somewhere in the city they feel we’re stepping on their toes, but by law it’s our turf, so there should be no turf battle.”

Last year, Chehalis contracted with an employee of Napavine for some permitting work in the UGA. Schulte  added he was concerned that the permitting might not have been done according to FEMA requirements. To address it, the county’s draft includes a condition that the city is to perform inspections, “using its own trained employees” and “not contract with any other entity to provide these services.” 

Schulte said that was a move too far and he retracted it. 

“That was me overstepping my bounds and I dropped that issue and I apologize,” he said. “We’re going to have no say over how they decide to manage, just on those three specific areas.”

But McReynold said he was told by Schulte that the condition would be removed before the draft was released, yet it’s still there. 



“He agreed they’d back away from it, yet they gave us that last draft with the language in it,” MacReynold said. 

 

In a letter to both groups, the Port of Chehalis sided with the city, writing “no one is more impacted by how development is permitted in the Chehalis UGA than the Port of Chehalis. As we see it, the county’s proposal dramatically increases permitting times, adds additional costs and fees, and adds additional bureaucratic ‘red tape’ that applications must deal with.” 

The UGA borders the city to the south and east and is almost equal in size to Chehalis itself. It  includes land from Interstate 5 to the northeast of Jackson Highway down to the Newaukum River, as well as land to the east of Kresky Avenue. 

The Port Commission argued that while traffic impact studies can be necessary for big projects, small ones shouldn’t have to do them because they can cost tens of thousands of dollars to complete and can delay project approval by weeks or months. It also argued against requiring traffic mitigation for projects in the UGA, unless all of them originating in unincorporated Lewis County or inside of Napavine are held to the same standards. 

“This relates primarily to the failing Rush Road I-5 Interchange in Napavine,” the comission wrote. 

It gave it’s own suggestions, recommending that nothing be done to lengthen the permitting process, add no extra fees or costs and do not add to the number of people who can deny or approve a project or development. 

“If we have a project in the UGA, under the county’s proposed ILA language we can’t get approval unless both the city and county interpret the code the same way. If they don’t agree, we can’t move forward,” they wrote. “We firmly believe there should be one approving authority, not two.” 

The two sides are continuing to work on an agreement, and hope to have one in place before the original agreement expires Jan. 30. If they can’t find a solution, then the county will pick up UGA permitting that Chehalis currently handles. If that happens, Schulte said the county will likely have to hire another person to get through the increased permit load. 

“We can’t penalize people with projects in the hopper because we don't have the staff to handle the workload,” he said.