In this aerial photo taken on Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2015, the Chehalis Port can be seen from the northeast.
If reading their correspondence is any indication, all is not well between the city of Chehalis and Lewis County officials when it comes to handling the city’s urban growth area.
In 2006, the county and the city created an interlocal agreement on the premise that Chehalis will annex some surrounding county land as it grows. It delegates certain responsibilities in the urban growth area to both entities. 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.
“... Commissioner (Bill) Schulte was asked to discuss with (Chehalis City Manager) Merlin MacReynold our concerns, which might be characterized as both a breakdown in administration and a collapse in coordination of the regulations,” Lewis County Community Development Director Lee Napier wrote in a Feb. 20 memo to county staff about the interlocal agreement to manage the Chehalis urban growth area.
She also wrote that Chehalis has illustrated “disregard” to the agreed-upon terms of handling the UGA. She questioned “the city’s willingness to comply with the business license associated with marijuana production, processing and retail,” which isn’t included in the interlocal agreement.
On March 4, MacReynold wrote to Napier: “Based upon our discussion, as city manager and chief executive officer for the city, I am volunteering city resources to assist you with improving your administrative breakdown and collapse of regulation coordination. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to accept our assistance.”
Napier wrote in a more detailed letter of the county’s issues with Chehalis that MacReynold attacked county staff personally and didn’t address the dispute.
MacReynold sent another letter on Aug. 6 to the Lewis County Board of Commissioners.
“With reference to my response sent to Lee Napier dated March 4, 2015 .... The two items she used as examples were unsubstantiated with reference to the city, so I assumed she was speaking of the county facing ‘a breakdown in administration and a collapse in coordination of the regulations.’ The claim that my response was an ‘ad hominem attack’ once again reflects the county’s adversarial approach and faulty information,” he wrote.
The Lewis County government and the city of Chehalis have worked together to manage land in the city’s urban growth area for almost a decade, but working relationships between the two entities have deteriorated so much that the county wants to scrap it and start over.
“As times change we’re going to have to change interlocal agreement,” Schulte said. “Things have changed enough in the last eight years.”
Both entities have tried to keep the dispute out of the public eye, but documents recently obtained by The Chronicle through a public records request reveal frustration on both sides over perceived mismanagement, disregard for boundaries and a lack of communication.
MacReynold and Schulte said they believe they’ll be able to come up with a new interlocal agreement for the Chehalis Urban Growth Area. The UGA is almost equal in size to Chehalis itself and 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 fact is I disagree with their reasoning behind opening it up, but if they think we need to, we’re going to have a conversation about it,” MacReynold said in a recent interview.
The agreement allows Chehalis to issue permits in the UGA based on county regulations, some of which were adopted from Chehalis standards. But, for example, the county maintains jurisdiction over certain things such as roads, wells and septic systems. Also, the city is supposed to use certain maps given to them by the county when it determines if a project is in an environmentally sensitive area before permitting anything.
Within the last year, at least, disagreements over certain issues escalated to the point where the Lewis County Board of Commissioners sent a letter, dated July 31, to Chehalis that it intended to terminate the agreement in six months.
Schulte said the move came because the situation had escalated too much and it was better to sunset the old agreement on Feb. 1, 2015 and start new.
“I’m not emotionally invested in these issues, but I recognize the agreement is out of date,” he said.
In 2006, the county commission passed the interlocal agreement during its regular Monday morning commissioner’s meeting. However, it waited for a smaller, update meeting before it voted to end it.
The Chronicle asked Lewis County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Glenn Carter about when the commission voted to send the notice to terminate and if a vote is required before doing so. He said he knew the answer but he wouldn’t comment because the question is “asking for a legal opinion and I’m not supposed to give them willy nilly.” He deferred the question to the commissioners’ office.
Commissioner Edna Fund later said the letter was approved on July 28 during a Community Development meeting, but the agreement had been discussed several other times. Schulte and Fund said it wasn’t voted on during a Monday morning commissioner’s meeting because “it wasn’t a resolution.”
In the letter, the county commission says it is moving to terminate the agreement without cause. It then list wells, city water, septic and city sewer approvals; Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain management; permit review and delegation of permitting authority; and shoreline master plan as examples of why they’re terminating.
“You state you are terminating the (interlocal agreement) without cause and then provide your perspective in the breakdown in our working relationship,” MacReynold wrote in a letter to the commissioners. “With such differing perspectives, how can the county expect the city to approach any discussion about a ‘new agreement’ except as an adversary? I believe your approach is not in the best interest of the citizens we serve.”
Not listed, but stated by Schulte as another reason for termination, is the marijuana industry. Chehalis defers to the state’s stance on pot — which allows it — while the county wants federal approval on marijuana before they permit the businesses operating in the county or the UGA.
“We have five issues not clearly spelled out,” Schulte said.
Schulte said the county wants more say in the qualifications required when Chehalis hires third-party permitting inspectors that’ll be working in the UGA. The county, not the city, he said, is held liable if FEMA isn’t satisfied and the issues can affect local flood insurance rates.
“FEMA calls us, not Chehalis,” he said. “While we can delegate authority we’re still stuck with the responsibility.”
He also pointed to a time earlier this year when the city issued a determination of nonsignificance for an RV business that was proposed to be built in the floodplain. The Department of Ecology sent two letters to Chehalis questioning the determination, saying there are issues that have to be addressed.
The county also wants clarification that county public health and social services has authority over a private water system, after a dispute that arose when two homes in the UGA wanted to share one well, which the city approved. For its part, the city maintains the site that wanted to connect was vested for a well and the county could stop the project at any time.
Because Chehalis is no longer participating in the Shoreline Master Plan interlocal (which the county also shares with Centralia, Morton and Winlock) the county wants to define the responsibility for the UGA.
The old interlocal has language for when disputes arise. When amendments are necessary it calls for them in the form of strikethrough and underline format to be approved by both parties. Should a dispute arise over application, effect or interpretation, the city and the county may take the matter to mediation.
Schulte said mediation would happen when they sit down to rewrite the agreement, which needs to happen anyway. He also said the two governments have drafted an outline of an agenda of things they need to resolve, which MacReynold said they plan to address when the two parties meet within the next couple weeks.
“I think everything will be redrafted and we’ll have a new interlocal agreement by December,” Schulte said.
