Council Legislation

Proposed Ordinance No. O2025-554s2

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Amending Chapter 11.02 of the Pierce County Code, "Storm Drainage and Surface Water Management," to Modify the Surface Water Management Utility Rate Structure and Eliminate Certain Exemptions; Directing Planning and Public Works to Report Back on Surface Water Management Fees; and Setting an Effective Date.

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Jani Hitchen

Final votes

November 18, 2025
Aye Aye Nay Aye Aye Aye Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
Tami Turnbull 11/12/25 5:46 PM ag has lower density, we build gravel areas as part of mud management best practices, roads, gutters and such. This is an economic hardship. Our fields are bio swells and buffers already for the road wash ND run off
Melissa Delvecchio 11/12/25 6:42 PM I oppose the portion of the proposed legislation pertaining to taxes on Agricultural operations and impervious surfaces. This puts a financial hardship on small business who are already trying to use gravel, bioswales and buffers as best practices in managing mud and run-off. Agriculture has lower density and should be exempt from this burdensome portion of the legislation.
Kirsten Conrad 11/12/25 6:58 PM I oppose this legislation on many counts, but specifically how it will affect agricultural land and small farms in our area, where impervious surfaces are large and the taxation would cause undo hardship for many.
Heidi Minter 11/12/25 7:04 PM The new tax increase will be a hardship to our family. We raise cattle and the increased cost of feed building supplies veterinary care fencing weed management fuel seed fertilizer, the list goes on and is a struggle to keep up with.We are doing everything we can to serve our community with beef that is safe to eat and affordable. This tax could shut us down, we are not rich, my sister and I inherited this farm and we are doing all that we can to keep it going. This tax is to expensive.
Dale Maris 11/12/25 7:06 PM This will be the end of farms in pierce county. This proposal will double the total property tax on my farm by 2030. Farms don’t have the ability to pass the cost on as an expense. Farms are the solution to surface water. Not the problem. Farms have always been exempt from impervious surface assessments. Why the money grab now? This amendment is being introduced on the sly without public comment. If this amendment is passed as proposed. It will force many property owners. My self included. To seriously consider selling out to a developer. Dale Maris Maris Farms Member of Pierce County agricultural advisory commission.
Robert powers 11/12/25 7:31 PM This is an assault on small agri business. Farmers and ranchers have gone to great expense to develop slope swales, berms, and ponds to relieve stress on county system. Where is the study indicating that agriculture that generally drains overflow into ponds constructed and maintained by the land owners places an excess burden in city infrastructure. The general public enjoys the benefit of infrastructure and should bear the cost. I’d come to the meeting but I have a date with my horse.
Debra Spencer 11/12/25 8:03 PM I oppose this legislation regarding taxes on impervious surfaces. It puts a financial hardship on the small farmers, small businesses and churches. All of which give back to the community in some way. This proposed legislation would be detrimental to so many.
Ty Spencer 11/12/25 8:04 PM The fact you use faulty “climate change” language as a basis for this ordinance to try and hide your targeting of farms and Christian organizations is disingenuous. A better use of your time and our public resource would be to cut regulation, especially as it relates to your storm water policies. Farmers and Christian organizations seem to be a favorite target in liberal run jurisdictions such as pierce county. I would remind you that without viable farms your door dash order will have nothing to deliver, and with churches many low income families that benefit from their generosity will be harmed. The pierce county council is failing the public it serves with 02025-554s.
Carol Hansen 11/12/25 8:30 PM I am strongly against this proposed legislation! Not only does this place an unrecoverable financial burden on land owners and small farms in Pierce County, it also threatens their continued existence. The majority of these rural enterprises already use good land management practices to survive and prosper.
Lynn Lloyd 11/12/25 9:39 PM If our understanding is correct, you want to make it more difficult for people to engage in agriculture in Pierce County. What would be better for the environment:agricultural use or development? Please don't kill our ag sector.
Wendy Kettering 11/12/25 10:36 PM This proposed legislation is a profound change and will be a hardship for farms and agriculture zoned properties, hindering existing farms ability to continue to operate, and effectively impossible for new farms. Farms incorporate best practices to manage water, mud, run off etc. which is healthier for the land, crops, animals, and communities. We need to protect our ag properties.
Marissa Manning 11/12/25 10:51 PM This is another thinly veiled attempt to regulate rural landowners into selling to developers ie more growth, higher taxes. Our gravel tracts and mud free area are NOT impermeable. They drain quite well through the rock and sand, and enable IMPROVED management, limiting any negative “dirty” runoff by allowing easy thorough collection of any animal or compost waste. This is just another attempt to grab land and give to the developers “donating” to politicians
don printup 11/12/25 11:16 PM I do not see where youve stated what method you would use to determine the impervious surface area of a farm. We have taken great strides in not overgrazing our pastures with decreasing surface run off as one of our goals. I also fear that having a right of way easment across our farm, something we gain no benefit from, would unfairly increase the calculated impervious surface area on our property especially if you use some remote method for determination. Strongly oppose!
Jeff Bryner 11/13/25 6:05 AM The change appears to strike "non-vegetated" from the definition on impervious surfaces which then alters the entire scope of the intended purview. I oppose this seemingly simple but wide-ranging change.
Jerome O'Leary 11/13/25 7:12 AM Dear Pierce County Council Members: I am writing to express my opposition to Proposal 02025-554 Impervious Surface Fee as it relates to Agricultural and Rural Lands in Pierce County. I have several concerns and questions regarding both the process and rationale for this proposed ordinance and its associated amendments. Process and Transparency Concerns, • Were impacted landowners provided adequate notice? • Why was the Agricultural Advisory Commission of Pierce County not informed or consulted? • What is the justification for the accelerated timeline of this proposal? • How was the 2,600 square foot exemption threshold determined? • Was any minimum ratio of land area to impervious surface established to ensure fairness for larger rural parcels? Economic and Land Use Impacts, Many rural and agricultural parcels in Pierce County are already constrained by large-lot zoning (R5, R10, R20, ARL, etc.) and increasingly restrictive land use regulations, including expanded critical area buffers, the removal of bonus density options, and limits on allowed uses and building sizes. These layers of regulation, compounded by the County’s seemingly arbitrary decision-making, create significant uncertainty for landowners, farmers, and small rural businesses. Policy shifts made at whim or without clear economic input and analysis can dramatically affect property values, investment decisions, and long-term land management planning, undermining confidence in the stability of rural land use policy. The Washington State Secretary of Agriculture recently stated that “Agriculture in Washington is in an economic crisis.” Our state is losing an average of two farms per day, with over 3,700 farms closed and 1.1 million acres of farmland now out of production. In Pierce County, USDA data shows that over 78% of farms generate less than $10,000 in annual sales. In this fragile economic environment, unpredictable local regulatory decisions exacerbate financial pressures and accelerate the decline of working farms and rural livelihoods. Agritourism and Economic Viability, As a result of changing regulations, climate conditions, taxes, and economic pressures, farmers have had to pivot and get creative to make ends meet and preserve farmland. Many have diversified through agritourism, such as pumpkin patches, u-cut Christmas tree farms, and wedding venues. These community-supported activities require gravel parking areas and access roads, which are classified as “impervious surfaces.” Applying this proposed fee to such improvements would further erode already slim margins and discourage farm innovation. Importantly, these agritourism operations are the very types of local, family-based agricultural experiences that the citizens of Pierce County value and want to preserve. They strengthen community ties, provide educational opportunities for families, and keep farmland in active, productive use. Recommendation, I strongly advise the County to either exempt agricultural and rural lands from this Ordinance, or re-evaluate how impervious area is calculated, particularly in proportion to total parcel size. Larger agricultural and rural properties provide significant environmental and community benefits through open space, habitat, and stormwater infiltration that are not reflected in this fee structure. This proposal, as written, places an undue burden on agricultural producers already facing economic hardship and regulatory pressure. If agricultural and rural lands are not exempted, the County should delay adoption of Proposal 02025-554 until these concerns are fully reviewed and addressed with true stakeholder input. Sincerely, Jerome O’Leary PC Landowner and Christmas Tree Farmer PC Agricultural Advisory Commission Chair Real Estate Broker and Developer
Lizbeth (Beth) Ness 11/13/25 8:22 AM I am dissapointed in the Pierce County Council Members and their rationale for this proposed ordinance where impacted agricultural land owners did not get adequate notice, and as I understand it, the Agricultural Advisory Commission of Pierce County was not informed or consulted. Is it not the purpose of this commission to work with the county and to know of such ordinance proposals? I strongly oppose this ordinance as it would create a financial hardship for landowners, farmers and small rural agricultural businesses. Our farm, we worked with the Pierce County Conservation district to implement responsible farm stewardship with creating mud free turnouts off our barn stalls, as well as very large mud free turnout paddocks. We also have created a mud free buffer around our manure bunker as to minimize mud and therefore run off of manure and urine. To maintain this level of good husbandry, we spend hundreds of hours physical labor and thousands of dollars in gravel and pea gravel a year to maintain these. To know this ordinance is to tax these surfaces, is irresponsible and reckless on the County's part. This Ordinance does not pencil out to make any sense, and such policy shifts done swiftly and quietly without any pierce county resident awareness or time to respond,and with no care as to how it will dramatically affect property values, long term ability for responsible land management and planning. This dramatically undermines the confidence of sustainable rural land use. I strongly oppose this and encourage the county to remove agricultural and rural lands from this ordinance,as well as talk with actual landowners and the Agricultural Advisory Commission of Pierce County to truly get an understanding of the use and necessity of what they are defining as'impervious surfaces' on rural land. Our mud free surfaces are actually NOT impermeable, and drain through sand, gravel and pea gravel to allow Responsible and improved management. By eliminating mud, we are limiting,and in most cases eliminating, any run off of dirty organic material, as well as allows the cleaning up of animal waste being very thorough. If this ordinance passes, it would have catastrophic financial hardships on agricultural farms, landowners, and small businesses. I strongly feel this is a lack of knowing your rural residents, and or doing your job to represent and be good stewards TO THEM!!!!! In strong opposition of this ordinance, I strongly encourage the County to exempt agricultural and rural lands, and if this does not happen, the County should delay the adoption of Proposal 02025-554 until all of these concerns are fully reviewed and addressed with true input from those who will be affected.
katlin johnson 11/13/25 8:37 AM this proposal seems to be an added tax on parcel owners who already assume large costs out of pocket in order to be responsible stewards of the land. If one owns a rural property they already have the added cost of properly maintaining things such as driveways, mud free access areas, dry emergency and required maintenance access areas, erosion control as well as many other maintenance requirements. Basic infrastructure is not only necessary but in many cases required, not having proper access and safe property conditions is finable by law. So you would be adding another financial toll on people already paying out of pocket for being law abiding. in general AG properties are led towards better land management practices and that includes adding impervious areas for mud and manure management. Unlike non AG properties this is forefront in yearly cost of living and by doing so these properties are doing a major part in maintaining the natural beauty and ecology of our area. In addition, we already perform surface and waste water management for our impervious areas as well as county roads and infrastructure. After reading through the proposed ordinance, this proposal seems to be a way to fill funding gaps created by the salmon recovery actions. Maybe a better rout would be to not pursue already financially taxed economic contributors. I am confident that review of current county incoming funds would find there is already an abundance of capital available. Perhaps a financial inventory and re balancing would be a better use of time and money than pursuing more incoming funds from citizens.
Cathy Ceely 11/13/25 9:07 AM Stop it. All you are doing is increasing taxes continuing the effort to drive people off their land and property. Zero, absolutely zero, benefit is gained from this increased tax outside of lining the pockets of who? You're removing the exemption from churches and community centers? It's already bad enough the current tax base appears to charge a blanket rate on residences, regardless of their size, or not. Further, including gravel as an impervious surface is simply wrong and inaccurate. Gravel, even compacted gravel, is NOT impervious - it is porous. Strongly opposed to this proposal; strongly.
Allyson Kemp 11/13/25 10:10 AM The proposed legislation will adversely affect small farms that are an important part of our food systems and provide valuable educational opportunities for the residents in Pierce County and adjacent counties. Agriculutural lands should be exempt from this proposed ordinance. We use best management practices to manage our impervious surfaces and to protect our local watershed. The proposed changes put an undue burden on small farms who already operate with a small profit margin. Additionally, it is concerning that the Agricultural Advisory Committee was not consulted and the public was not given adequate time to provide comment on the proposed changes.
Kathleen Rose 11/13/25 10:46 AM Dear Council, First and foremost..What is the purpose of the Agriculture Advisory Commission if not to be informed of proposed changes in existing Ag Code that directly affects local farmers? As mentioned in previous comments. Most farmers work very hard to mitigate mud & pollutants through the use of gravel, rain gardens, bioswales, hydrophilic plants and so much more to protect our fragile water shed. Farmers are the few neighbors who actually take these extra steps and added costs to manage water run off properly. Now rather than incentivize best practices, you are proposing to add additional tax burden to on struggling farmers who grow our food? We are asking that this proposal be halted and given more thoughtful consideration and agriculture input. All “impervious surfaces” are not created equal and should be better defined for this purpose and focused on new development. Thank you.
Joshua Johnson 11/13/25 11:07 AM This raises the stormwater fee assessed on property taxes to 150% of its current level. Yet another tax increase with no increase in benefit for residents. This doesn't only affect AG. It affects us all. Vote NO.
Mike Roll 11/13/25 11:26 AM As small farmers, our margins are already extremely thin, and every cost increase directly impacts our ability to stay in business and provide local food to the community. We already take responsibility for managing stormwater and protecting water quality on our property through careful land management, soil conservation, and runoff controls — not because we’re required to, but because it’s the right thing to do for our land and watershed. Increasing stormwater utility rates on working farms penalizes those who are already doing the most to keep runoff clean and controlled. Please reconsider applying these rate hikes to agricultural and open-space properties that actively manage water on-site and contribute to the environmental health of Pierce County. Thistledown Farm - Gig Harbor
yvonne hill-printup 11/13/25 11:32 AM Proposal 02025-554, if passed, will be another burden to farms and ranches in Pierce County.To hear of this late last night with no notification or input from the Agricultural Advisory Commission of Pierce County, is highly concerning. What studies have been done to support this ordinance? The term impervious means water cannot get through. Gravel, sand and rocks are not impervious, they are used to allow drainage, avoid flooding and contamination into water sheds. My farm and the majority of farms use practices to benefit the land,waterways, wildlife and add to the community. Farms and ranches are getting increasingly pushed out by development, increased expenses and practices that make it difficult to survive. Please take the time to accurately assess this situation before any decisions are made.
Janice Bryant 11/13/25 11:43 AM Dear Councilmembers, As a commissioner on the Pierce County Agriculture Advisory Commission, operator of Kaukiki Farm, and advocate for our 1,347 farms sustaining a $150 million agricultural economy, I respectfully dissent from Amendment 7 and the expansion of impervious surface assessments including gravel at full 100% parity (Whereas, Page 2, Lines 21-22). These changes introduce escalating minimum charges ($155.41 in 2026, rising 6.5% annually to $199.93 by 2030; Exhibit A, Table 11.02.050-1, Page 7) on agricultural lands, which could inadvertently undermine the very stewardship that bolsters our shared stormwater goals. I recommend full exemption for ag parcels, and an omission of Amendment 7, to align with equity, GMA protections, and the Comprehensive Plan's vision for rural vitality. Agriculture already partners in resilience: Pastures function as natural bioswales, filtering county road runoff, sediments, salts, and pollutants through vegetative buffers before reaching waterways like the Puyallup, reducing downstream impacts by 40-60% (per SWM Manual Vol. 1). Maintaining these systems requires resources including gravel access paths, weed control and more, yet full fees on such essentials disincentivize investment and disregard the maintenance costs already burdened by the landowner. Similarly, best management practices (BMPs) like sacrifice areas, graveled zones to concentrate livestock and prevent pasture erosion (NRCS Practice 561), and covered manure storage facilities, roofed structures minimizing nutrient runoff during storms (NRCS Practice 313), are now taxed as "impervious," despite slashing pollution 50-70% and fulfilling Comp Plan Policy AG-3.2 (promote sustainable practices). These risks stalling adoption, hastening our 16% farm decline and conversions, contrary to GMA RCW 36.70A.030(8) (designate/protect ag resource lands) and RCW 36.70A.170 (rural character preservation), as well as Comp Plan Goal AG-1 (preserve ag economy) and Policy AG-2.1 (minimize non-ag conversion pressures through incentives). Without prior PCAAC consultation or ag-specific modeling, the process overlooks these contributions and uniformity principles (RCW 36.89.030; Guimont v. Clarke). To bridge this: (1) Renew full ag exemptions wit.h grandfathering (RCW 84.34 vested rights); (2) Strike Amendment 7 from the Ordinance until such time as full consideration may be made Farms are watersheds' quiet guardians, exempting them honors our collective resilience. I welcome dialogue or testimony to refine this path forward. In service to the land we share, Sincerely, Janice K. Bryant Owner, Kaukiki Farm, Longbranch, Voting Comissioner, Pierce County Agriculture Advisory Commission Prior Pierce County Conservation District, Board Member
Marc Christensen 11/13/25 11:44 AM We already paid several thousand dollars to comply with your storm water management requirements. Now you want to tax me for my gravel surfaces. Completely unacceptable. Using the "climate change" grift as the excuse for it is particularly despicable. I vehemently oppose this effort and any other attempt to punish rural property owners. Knock it off.
Justin 11/13/25 11:50 AM It is clear the sponsor of this Bill has NO knowledge of Storm Drainage or Surface Water Management. As a construction engineer this is a horribly written proposal and a grab at additional taxes. The areas affected by this do not receive any of the benefits from the levies and other water resources the county pays for. These residences are standalone properties that must control and manage their own water runoff. This will harm many families that are already struggling to get by with the many increased taxes the state has put forth. Again from an engineering standpoint this change has no benefit and is merely a tax grab. DO BETTER
Lisa pagano 11/13/25 12:28 PM I don't understand why you guys want to screw agriculture. Taxes are high enough in pierce county.Multiple people cannot afford to live here. If you do this Many people will find another place to live. This will impact my farm greatly. it already costs me far more to live here, which will in turn cause me to look for other places to live other than this county. Be smart and don't be screwing around with raising taxes on gravel and runoff
Nicole Bell 11/13/25 12:30 PM I understand adding these taxes to land developers/multifamily/commercial properties. I believe the farms, ranches and other agricultural land should be exempt from these taxes. Most Ag lands already have water management systems in place.
Michele McFadden 11/13/25 12:44 PM Having just been made aware of this proposed ordinance, I must oppose it until I can make an honest evaluation. The Rural area is the buffer for urban areas, please respect it as such.
Anne Wainwright 11/13/25 12:49 PM Pierce county council is at it again!! GRRRRR. NO to increased taxation (especially for gravel) as a new "impervious surface" tax on our ag & farmlands!!!!
Jennifer Parsons 11/13/25 2:26 PM Please pause this ordinance and allow ag communities to provide input.
Tiana Cooper 11/13/25 3:18 PM On behalf of Rainfall Ranch Rescue, located in unincorporated Pierce County, I am submitting this public comment in strong opposition to Proposed Ordinance No. O2025-554s2 due to its disproportionate and harmful impact on working farms, agricultural nonprofits, and rural landowners. Rainfall Ranch Rescue operates an equine rescue that provides sanctuary, rehabilitation, and community programs for underserved and underrepresented individuals, including youth, veterans, LGBTQ+ community members, and rural families. Our operations rely on basic, functional farm infrastructure such as gravel roads, access lanes, and working pads. These surfaces are essential for the daily movement of feed, veterinary care, equipment access, animal safety, emergency response, and year-round operations in all weather conditions. The ordinance’s proposal to treat these fundamental gravel surfaces as fully impervious, thereby subjecting them to new and significant stormwater fees, is neither practical nor reflective of how agricultural properties function. These are not commercial improvements. They are safety-driven necessities that allow us to serve vulnerable horses and vulnerable community members. Reclassifying them as impervious for the purpose of taxation creates an undue financial burden on organizations like ours, which already operate on tight margins in service to the public good. As a nonprofit equine rescue and community service provider, we are deeply concerned that the ordinance has been advanced without meaningful understanding of—or consultation with—the agricultural and rural sectors it will most heavily impact. Nonprofit farms and rescues are already struggling with the rising cost of hay, veterinary care, feed, infrastructure maintenance, and regulatory compliance. Adding additional stormwater fees on basic gravel access infrastructure threatens the survival of the very organizations that provide animal welfare, community education, rural stability, and emergency support within Pierce County. Furthermore, this ordinance would deter the development of agricultural infrastructure that is necessary for humane animal care and safe farm operations. It also creates a chilling effect on young farmers, agricultural entrepreneurs, and mission-driven nonprofits seeking to buy land and serve the community. Pierce County has repeatedly stated its commitment to preserving farmland, protecting rural heritage, and supporting agricultural operations. Proposed Ordinance No. O2025-554s2 contradicts those goals. Instead of imposing new burdens on farms and agricultural nonprofits, we encourage the Council to pursue solutions developed in collaboration with farmers, rural residents, and organizations like Rainfall Ranch Rescue. We respectfully urge the Council to reject this ordinance in its current form and work toward policies that strengthen agriculture, support rural nonprofits, and ensure the long-term stability of local food systems, animal welfare networks, and rural communities. Thank you for your consideration.
Gina Mulderig 11/14/25 10:25 AM This proposal has zero basis in scientific fact. Gravel has a permeability rate of 96.9 % and is one of the most effective measures for reducing stormwater runoff. Charging the same rates for graveled surfaces as paved surfaces makes zero sense from an environmental standpoint. From a practical standpoint, it will cause economic harm to agricultural property owners who rely on gravel for access to fields and mud management. This proposal appears to be nothing more than another money grab from the council which has proven over and over that they value urban development over agricultural.
Cat Pirolo 11/14/25 12:12 PM I hereby oppose the proposal to ordinance O2025-554s. This county has enough tax burden and does not need any more taxes. We do not have much agriculture/farm land left in Pierce County! Adding additional taxation to an already over-taxed state is wrong! You are driving people out of the state with adding additional taxes and it is wrong! Stop with the property taxes! In addition, it is absolutely ridiculous that property taxes continue to increase for property that we own! We pay taxes on the purchase of the property and continue to pay taxes every year!