The Chehalis City Council voted Monday against the merger of the historic preservation commission and the planning commission by a vote of 5-2 on the first reading.
Councilors John Six and Bob Spahr voted in favor of the merger, while Kate McDougall, Jody Kyes, Kevin Carns, Michael Barton and Mayor Tony Ketchum voted against.
The idea to merge the two commissions into one “planning and historic preservation commission” was first brought to the council by Community Development Director Celest Wilder during its Aug. 25 meeting. In that meeting, the council voted to authorize staff to research and draft an ordinance to repeal a section of the city’s municipal code on historic preservation and amend the section on the planning commission. Wilder cited difficulty in filling vacant seats on both commissions, as well as “chronic absenteeism” in another planning commission seat and cancelled historic preservation meetings due to lack of quorum and agenda items. Additionally, Wilder said the consolidation would save the city money as there would only be one after-hours meeting per month rather than two, reducing employee overtime/comp time by half.
Commissioners from both boards, however, shared their concern with not only the idea of the merger but also the lack of communication from the city community development department. Specifically, commissioners stated that the two committees are not comparable and that complaints of a lack of interested applicants are overblown.
Jo Kuehner, chair of the historic preservation commission, spoke to the city council Monday to oppose the merger and support the city’s mission to preserve its historic feel. She cited a study that Experience Chehalis recently conducted for its Downtown Chehalis renovation plan where “protecting the historic character” of the city was one of the top priorities for residents.
“I’m here this evening to represent 50 years of people who have volunteered for the historic commission. All of those people, for 50 years, have built this beautiful downtown historic Chehalis,” Kuehner said. “I’ve been in Chehalis my whole life, and I’m going to be 89 soon, and let me just tell you that I’m not going to be here forever. I’m only here because I really care about Chehalis, and I really want to see it succeed. It bothers me that we’re kind of leaning away from this historical look.”
One reason that the historic preservation commission hasn’t met consistently, Kuehner said, is because of the community development department, not because of attendance difficulties.
“We had community development directors who just didn’t want to come that night, and they canceled on us. We were never able to have a workshop,” she said. “It’s just been really a nightmare.”
Ketchum later said that he has tried to attend multiple historic preservation commission meetings but that they were not held due to a lack of a quorum.
Kuehner repeated her claim that no one from the city contacted members of the commission for their input on the proposed merger and expressed her frustration with the city’s treatment of volunteers.
“I do my job as a citizen, and I should be able to be heard. I just didn’t appreciate the fact that nobody seems to care about the volunteers,” she said. “Don’t you think it’s a good idea for somebody to pick up a phone and ask? It’s just a courtesy. I taught charm school at Centralia College for years. I would be happy to open up my class again because a whole bunch of people need to have a little bit more charm.”
Wilder told the council that a merged planning and historic preservation commission would have held a total of seven seats with a lean toward keeping the planning side intact, which councilors opposed. Both commissions can hold up to seven seats each, but the historic preservation commission has four seats filled and the planning commission has six.
“I know we’re saying seven [combined seats], but having people on the historic commission and cutting that, I would love to see, if we are melding it, that it has equal representation,” McDougall said.
“We talk about collaboration and merging, and it seems to me that it really is just a dissolution with an added chair or seat to the planning commission,” Barton added. “I too am concerned that there may be conflicting interest in the planning versus preservation of the historic aspects of the city. I do think that is very important.”
If a consolidation were to have occurred, opportunity would have been provided to all current historic preservation commission members to apply for the open seat(s) with the combined commission.
Wilder said exceptions had been made for community members interested in applying for either commission to live outside city limits but have a vested interest or property within the city. Still, she said, neither commission has been fully seated. She added that she has brought just two items to the historic preservation commission this year but that the planning commission has been busy with items such as the comprehensive plan.
Spahr, referencing his Aug. 25 comment that the potential merger could become a “collision course,” said that while the savings of staff time are a plus, the two commissions don’t merge well.
“One of my concerns is the culture of the two different commissions. The historic commission takes care of our past. The planning commission takes care of our future,” Spahr said. “We have a collision there.”
Carns concurred, noting that while he has typically been a "consolidate everything you can” type of councilor, he saw an exception with this proposal. He asked Kuehner if the historic preservation commission could meet quarterly, and after she said that it probably could, Six responded that an issue could arise in residents applying for permitting and waiting a whole quarter to hear back. He acknowledged Kuehner’s concerns about the preservation of the historic feel of downtown Chehalis, including murals on the walls in businesses.
“I want to work with the public to maintain the downtown in a way that’s best historically, not regulate the downtown to maintain it by requirement,” Six said. “I want to work together with businesses. I believe those businesses do own their walls, and they should be able to decorate them the way they want. I don’t know that that’s necessarily something that we as a community should regulate. That’s my opinion.”
In a statement to The Chronicle, Chehalis Historical Preservation Commission member Casey Forsman said, “Preservation is wise. I am thrilled!”
During the initial discussion in the summer, a repeal of the historic preservation chapter of the municipal code, Chapter 2.66, was on the table. After further research, however, staff believed it pertinent to leave the majority of the section in place as the chapter speaks to historic preservation in general, not just the creation of a commission to oversee it.
Instead, staff prepared amendments to Chapter 2.66 and Chapter 2.48, which deals with the planning commission, that would have provided for consistent effective review of all planning, development, historic preservation, and other departmental operations which required commission input.
Historic preservation guidelines would have still existed within Chapter 2.66 if the merger was approved. With one exception in the definitions section, no changes were proposed to the purpose, title, definition, register of historic places, review of changes to the register, or review and monitoring of properties for special tax valuation sections of the chapter. The only other change proposed to Chapter 2.66 was to remove section 2.66.070 — titled “The City of Chehalis Historic Commission.”
To learn more about the proposed merger, visit previous Chronicle reporting at https://tinyurl.com/2t895z9w. To learn more about the commissioners’ reactions to the proposal, visit https://tinyurl.com/wnwmr5sw.
