After residents spoke up, Lewis County Commissioner Lee Grose wrote a resolution to rescind the current agreement charging residents $300 and a subsequent annual $25 fee to keep Public Works staff from spraying herbicides on their property adjacent to county roads.
The commissioners will vote on rescinding the fee during the April 5 business meeting.
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) passed the resolution implementing the fee system in May of 2020. None of the current commissioners were in office at that time.
Grose said he’s heard from several residents about the fee and took a firm stance against it.
He told The Chronicle last week that Lewis County is the only county in the state with a fee system for its “No Spray agreement” and that it’s one of only 10 Washington counties to have an agreement at all. During last Wednesday’s meeting between county department directors and the BOCC, Grose’s resolution to rescind the fee was discussed, creating some friction between Public Works Director Josh Metcalf and the board.
In an interview with The Chronicle on March 25, Metcalf said the fee was purely set in place for cost recovery, as processing the No Spray application, installing “No Spray” signs and charting which properties have and haven’t been sprayed requires county time and money. Metcalf said this program was the best way to lessen the cost for other taxpayers.
He referred to that article in Wednesday’s meeting, telling the board his position had not changed and reminding them of the importance of vegetation management for the safety and longevity of Lewis County roads.
But all three commissioners expressed dislike of the fee structure, which Commissioner Sean Swope called “punitive.” Swope added he would be open to adjusting the Public Works budget to allow them to continue business as usual without collecting the fee.
Commissioner Lindsey Pollock said she was opposed to the use of herbicides on her own property. Swope agreed.
Grose said he doesn’t mind herbicides, but still thinks the fee structure is wrong.
“I also think it’s necessary that the landowner know that if they don’t maintain that (vegetation), the county will, and/or they will be charged accordingly,” Grose said. “My issue is that upfront cost of $300 and $25 annual renewals is unreasonable, unfair to property owners who already pay substantial amounts of property tax to the county.”
Per the original May 2020 resolution, the $300 fee covers the cost of the erection of “No Spray” signs on the property of No Spray list registrants.
For landowners along two or more county roads, two additional No Spray signs per county road adjacent to their property must be purchased at a cost of $100 per sign. So, residents whose properties are bordered by two county roads would have to pay an initial $500 to avoid vegetation management sprays.
Public Works has also maintained the right to deny applications. Metcalf said residents could only be added to the No Spray list if they provided sufficient justification and that simply disliking herbicides was not enough. Fees were only charged to successful applicants.
This angered residents who were morally opposed to indiscriminate spraying, as one local farmer put it in an email to The Chronicle. For people who are chemically-sensitive, such as Vietnam veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange, herbicide exposure has the potential to exacerbate issues. The No Spray agreement waived fees for chemically-sensitive individuals who were registered with the state as such, but fees were still collected from chemically-sensitive people not in the state’s database.
In a letter to the BOCC, Daniel Barth, a Vietnam veteran who lives east of Centralia, said: “Is making me pay money to the county to protect my health really a way to say: ‘Thank you for your service?’”
Last week, Grose told The Chronicle about his intention to rescind the proposal, asking: “If elected officials don’t stand up for citizens, who will?”
In Wednesday’s meeting, Metcalf asked the commissioners to at least consider maintaining the $25 annual renewal fee for No Spray applicants in order to cover the cost of Community Development staff time to process applications. During a Monday morning meeting, all three commissioners expressed distaste for keeping any fee associated with the No Spray agreement at all.
“Bureaucracy can run amok if you let it,” Grose said.
