# Stevens Property Open Space Application — A Committee Deliberation on Conservation and Public Access ## Meeting Overview On a crisp November morning, the Whatcom County Council's Planning and Development Committee convened for what would prove to be a brief but substantive discussion about balancing conservation goals with public access requirements. Committee Chair Ben Elenbaas called the hybrid meeting to order at 10:33 a.m., with only two of the three committee members present — himself and Council Member Jon Scanlon. Todd Donovan was absent, though several other council members joined as observers, including Tyler Byrd, Kaylee Galloway, Barry Buchanan, and Mark Stremler. The sole agenda item was resolution AB2025-769, concerning an application by Colin Stevens to classify just over 30 acres south of Everson as open space land for current use assessment — essentially reducing his property tax burden in exchange for maintaining the land's conservation value and potentially providing public access. What made this case particularly compelling was that Stevens faced a stunning 935% increase in property taxes when the property was removed from a previous open space classification due to technical issues when he purchased it. The application had already generated significant discussion at the Planning Commission level, where commissioners had insisted on public access as a condition for approval. ## The Stevens Property — A Conservation Success Story with Tax Consequences Alexander Harris, a planner from the Planning and Development Services Department who specializes in conservation easements, began his presentation by explaining the broader context of Whatcom County's open space program. Created in the 1970s out of concern over the conversion of resource lands, shorelines, wetlands, and recreational opportunities, the program allows property owners to have their land valued at current use rather than highest and best use, resulting in reduced property taxes. "The idea behind the programme is to allow property owners to have their lands valued at current use instead of the highest and best use," Harris explained. "This results in a reduced property tax responsibility and can act as an incentive for landowners to adopt conservation easements and allow public access." The Stevens property represents exactly what the program was designed to protect: a mature forest over 100 years old with a sophisticated wetland complex, documented bald eagle habitat, and a comprehensive conservation easement through the Whatcom Land Trust. Harris described the property's ecological assets in detail: "There's a mature forest on the property over 100 years old, nice, mature stand of cedar hemlock Douglas fir and, uh, in really good condition. Not a lot of invasives. There's also a pretty sophisticated, uh, wetland complex, uh, that is right in the heart of the property with a creek that runs in and out of that wetland and pond complex." When Stevens took the podium, he provided crucial historical context that wasn't reflected in the application. The property had been enrolled in open space since 1992 as timberland, intended for timber harvest. But in the 1990s, he explained, the previous landowner and county entered into a moratorium on timber harvesting. Then in 2005, the landowner placed a conservation easement on the property — actions that should have triggered a reclassification but didn't because the assessor's office doesn't track conservation easements. "No one knew about it until I bought it and so it got unenrolled," Stevens said. The result was catastrophic from a tax perspective: "I was expecting, like, 30, 50% increase in property taxes. It was actually 935%. So quite the shock." ## The Public Access Dilemma The heart of the committee's deliberation centered on public access requirements. The county's open space program generally requires public access unless the council waives that requirement, often when conservation easements or sensitive habitats make public access incompatible with conservation goals. Stevens originally applied without offering public access, which still earned the property a score of around 50 — well above the 45-point threshold for staff recommendation. The Whatcom Land Trust supported the no-access approach. But the Planning Commission took a different view during their October 9th meeting, deciding not to recommend approval unless Stevens accommodated public access. "The planning commission wanted you to all act on this and give an opportunity for the landowner to amend," Harris explained. In response, Stevens submitted a supplemental memorandum offering limited public access: yellow-marked trails to a large pond, part of the creek, and a picnic area under a cedar grove, plus full property tours organized by qualified conservation groups. Council Member Kaylee Galloway, one of the observers, offered a nuanced perspective: "I am maybe similarly open to full or partial waiver of public access if there's demonstration that public access would impact the habitat. I think it's council's role, not the planning commission's role to authorise waivers." The tension was clear. Stevens preferred guided access with conservation experts who could educate visitors, particularly given the property's sensitive nature. "I would still prefer that when groups are on the property that they're accompanied by experts in conservation and can actually educate people when they're on the property," he said. Council Member Scanlon raised practical concerns about liability and safety: "I would worry about people having liability for their safety with those giant trees and all of those things." Stevens confirmed that while the county would be fully indemnified, he as landowner would not be fully protected from liability for public activities on the property. ## The Conservation Easement Context A significant portion of the discussion focused on how conservation easements factor into both the scoring system and tax assessments. Harris noted that conservation easements are "somewhat rare" among open space applications, making this case particularly noteworthy: "This is a really comprehensive and restrictive easement. So, I think it should count for something." The irony wasn't lost on committee members that the current tax system doesn't adequately reward landowners for conservation easements. "Unfortunately, the current tax system doesn't really reward landowners for their conservation easements in terms of lower taxes," Harris observed. "If Council were interested in incentivising more of these kinds of easements, this programme, this open space programme is the best way really to do that." Council Member Stremler pressed this point: "In the absence of those easements and the highest and best use would be chopping that thing up into 5-acre parcels. And that would probably be worth way more to the landowner than what, anyway." This highlighted the broader conservation value at stake. Without the open space classification, Stevens faces unsustainable property taxes on land that's permanently protected from development through the conservation easement — a classic case of conservation punishment rather than conservation reward. ## Resolution and Committee Recommendation Despite the complex issues around public access, the committee moved efficiently toward a decision. The amended application, with Stevens' proposed limited public access, earned a score of 66.17 — remarkably high compared to the typical scores in the mid-40s that committees usually see. "Most of the time we see these things and the scores are like 47 or 48," Council Member Scanlon noted. "Even at 50 is higher than most of the parcels we've approved. I don't even recall seeing a 66." The committee recognized both the exceptional conservation value of the property and Stevens' willingness to accommodate public access concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Harris assured the committee that staff would work with Stevens to finalize public access rules after council action, developing detailed maps and rules about timing, activities, and restrictions. Council Member Scanlon made the motion: "I move to recommend to council as written." Before voting, he expressed confidence in the ongoing collaboration: "It seems to me that, you know, as if this goes forward, there will be continue to have good conversation and you all will come up with a solution that is acceptable to you and aligns with our code and intent of this programme." The motion passed 2-0, with Donovan absent. ## Closing & What's Ahead Chair Elenbaas reminded Stevens that this was just the committee recommendation — the full council would take up the resolution that evening at 6 p.m. "This is not a done deal. So, you might want to stick around and speak in open session," he advised. The meeting adjourned at 10:58 a.m., having completed its work in just under 26 minutes. But the efficiency belied the complexity of the issues discussed — how to balance conservation goals with public access, how to fairly tax properties under conservation easements, and how to incentivize private landowners to protect critical habitat while managing their financial obligations. Stevens' case represents both a success story — 30+ acres of mature forest and wetlands permanently protected — and a cautionary tale about the administrative gaps that can leave conservation-minded landowners facing punitive tax increases. The committee's recommendation moves the application forward, but the broader policy questions it raises about conservation incentives and public access will likely resurface in future cases. The resolution was scheduled for final consideration by the full council that same evening, where Stevens would have another opportunity to speak during public comment and council members would make the final determination on this unique conservation and public access case.