Lewis County delays annexation vote after residents and fire district raise legal, safety and infrastructure concerns

Lewis County commissioners on Nov. 25 recessed a vote on Ordinance 13-68 — the interlocal agreement (ILA) to annex territory within the City of Chehalis’ urban growth area (UGA) — after extended staff presentations, city remarks, and extensive public testimony raising legal, emergency-service and water-infrastructure concerns.

Mindy Brooks, director of community development for Lewis County, opened the hearing by reviewing the joint process with the City of Chehalis and two ILAs included with the ordinance: the annexation ILA and a UGA co-management ILA that would allow permitting and other work to continue while annexation is pending. Brooks told the board the ILA would take effect through the anticipated annexation-completion date of March 31, 2026, and asked that signatures be expedited so the city could proceed with noticing to the Boundary Review Board.

Stacy Denham, speaking for the City of Chehalis, defended the city’s approach and said the annexation had been researched with county attorneys and other partners. “We believe this is lawful. It is something that’s allowed by the state,” Denham said, acknowledging residents’ concerns about taxes, water lines and fire protection while insisting the city has plans to provide equal or better service.

Speakers opposed to the annexation focused on three recurring themes: (1) statutory process and timing, (2) emergency-service capacity and potential tax impacts, and (3) water-system upgrades in Alderwood Heights. Gregory Green, a commissioner for Lewis County Fire District 6, said the district does not support the annexation in its current form and asserted that statutory requirements were not met because the fire district had not been included as a party to the ILA within required timelines. “Accordingly, we believe the proposed annexation as it currently is presented is illegal and should not be adopted today,” Green said, adding the district may pursue legal action to compel full compliance with statutory obligations.

Residents voiced service and transparency concerns. Mister Goodwillie urged commissioners to oppose the annexation over fire and EMS protection and said petitions had been circulated seeking exemptions for certain neighborhoods. Alderwood Heights resident Charlie Allen said his neighborhood has long suffered inadequate water capacity and pointed to a 1993 agreement that, he said, could require residents to pay for upgrades. “I’m not opposed to annexation,” Allen said, “but I would have preferred the city would have settled with us on some path moving forward to correct the water system before we got to this day.”

City fire leadership disputed the most acute operational claims. Adam Fulbright, representing Chehalis fire, said the city would stand up a south-end station and initially hire six firefighters to staff it, that the city already owns three pumpers and would rely on tenders for hydrant-less areas, and that mutual-aid partners and private ambulance services would augment response. “We will only need to hire six firefighters, in the beginning,” Fulbright said.

Developers urged the board to adopt the interim permitting ILA so projects already underway would not be delayed. Ted Knapp and attorney Heather Burgess, representing developer CRG, said a major industrial project near Jackson Highway needs permitting continuity; Burgess asked the board to approve Exhibit D (the interim permitting ILA) even if the broader annexation is delayed.

Commissioners debated whether to proceed or pause. One commissioner asked for a one-week recess to consult legal counsel and answer outstanding questions about police coverage, fire staffing, water upgrades and permitting impacts. After further discussion, the board voted to close testimony and recess the hearing on Ordinance 13-68 until Dec. 2, 2025, at or after 10:00 a.m. The motion to recess carried unanimously (3–0).

The board did not adopt the annexation ordinance on Nov. 25; the Dec. 2 meeting is expected to include additional legal clarification and opportunity for the parties to respond to the fire districts’ process concerns. In the interim, staff asked whether the board wished to consider separating the UGA co-management ILA (permit continuity) from the annexation vote to avoid disrupting active development permits; that procedural question remained for follow-up before the Dec. 2 session.

Next steps: the annexation hearing is continued to Dec. 2, 2025; staff and counsel will prepare legal analysis in response to the fire district’s statutory concerns and commissioners will revisit permitting and infrastructure questions raised by residents and developers.