Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Weed Boards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to alter county noxious weed board geography gets mixed response; staff seeks language changes
Summary
Senate Bill 5018 would change the geographic composition and appointment rules for county noxious weed control boards, cutting geographic areas from five to four, adding an at‑large member, and allowing web posting in lieu of some newspaper notices.
Committee staff described Senate Bill 5018 as proposing three changes to county noxious weed control boards: reduce the number of geographic areas represented from five to four (with an at‑large member as the fifth voting member); remove the requirement that applicants include signatures of at least 10 registered voters supporting a nomination; and provide alternatives to newspaper publication for certain notices by allowing posting on district web sites.
Why it matters: sponsors and some weed‑board members said vacancies and difficulty recruiting volunteers have left some boards without representation. Senator Jeff Wilson told the committee he brought the bill to address boards that cannot fill vacancies and to make appointment and notice processes more flexible.
Support and concerns: Jennifer Colvin (Colvin Ranch) and several local coordinators and commissioners testified in support, saying the bill would streamline participation and encourage volunteers. Mary Phee, executive secretary of the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, and Jennifer Mendoza, a county weed coordinator, asked for caution: they urged retaining the existing geographic model where it already works, keeping the 10‑signature vetting requirement for boards that rely on it, and adding a temporary or alternative structure only where vacancy problems exist. Phee offered to work with the sponsor to craft language that resolves vacancy issues without imposing undue burdens on functioning boards.
Fiscal and legal notes: staff cited a fiscal note of $20,922 for fiscal 2025–27 for implementation costs. Committee members clarified the bill would keep a five‑member voting board (four geographic appointees plus one at‑large member).
Where it stands: Committee discussion focused on crafting a compromise that preserves vetting and enforcement safeguards while addressing recruitment problems; the committee took no formal action at the hearing.
