King Conservation District and King County Task Force and Conservation Panel Partnering Workshop Summary May 8, 2013 10:00 A.M. 3:45 P.M. ATTENDEES: The facilitator opened the joint partnering workshop at 10:00 a.m. at the Mercer Island Community Center. The following members of the King County and King Conservation District Conservation Panel and Task Force attended: Conservation Panel Jim Berger Richard Conlin Reagan Dunn, Co-Chair Chris Eggen Bill Knutsen Fred Jarrett Kate Kruller Kathy Lambert Kit Ledbetter John Stokes Task Force Alison Bennett Siri Erickson-Brown Sara Hemphill Scott MacColl Kathy Minsch Eric Nelson, Co-Chair Mike Reed Carolyn Robertson Dick Ryon Nicole Sanders Christie True, Co-Chair Staff from the County, King Conservation District, and Agreement Dynamics also attended: Tom Goff, Deirdre Grace, Brett Hilyer, Joan Lee, Jeff McMorris, Josh Monaghan, Mark Musick, Ginny Ratliff, Brandy Reed, Joanna Richey, Jessica Saavedra, Jacobus Saperstein, and Linda Vane. Rhonda Hilyer from Agreement Dynamics facilitated the meeting. Fred Jarrett, Deputy King County Executive, welcomed and thanked everyone for attending. His opening remarks acknowledged the substantial changes and challenges that have occurred since conservation districts were first formed. He emphasized the importance of working toward a common focus and moving away from silos. He cited the many tools available to this group to resolve regional issues, including those conservations districts have. He also shared his vision that through a process of working together--and having frank discussions about our interests, concerns and shared issues-- that many great things can be accomplished. Task Force and Conservation Panel members were asked to introduce themselves, describe their background, and share their hopes for the process. Most participants, regardless of where they currently live, referenced rural backgrounds and/or rural connections/experiences which they highly value. Most expressed appreciation for each other s involvement in the process and their hope for success which would benefit the entire region. Many stressed an eagerness to learn about the challenges faced by others around the table. Some emphasized the importance of dealing directly with conflicts and addressing them, including relationships, financial issues, and valuing contributions. 1
OVERVIEW OF THE KCD PURPOSE/PROGRAMS In opening, Eric Nelson stated that the KCD Board views the upcoming meetings as a fantastic opportunity to hold a dialogue with all the stakeholder groups. He noted how much more could be accomplished for the region by working together. He said this will give KCD a full breadth of the issues and that this is the spirit and intent the District brings to the table. He expressed his hope that all members will come to the table with open mindedness and an open heart. He then provided a brief slide show presentation about the history, purpose and programs of the King Conservation District. He explained that conservation districts were created by states in response to the dust bowl in the Midwest in the 1930s, which quickly grew to other areas, including Washington State. There was recognition that healthy soil, water, air--and even scenic beauty --were essential to protect food production and the quality of life and livelihoods of agricultural communities throughout America. States empowered conservation districts to work directly with landowners who asked for help to manage the natural resources under their care, for the benefit of all. The King Conservation District was established in 1949. This voluntary approach was conceived to complement the regulatory approach and thus meet a broader audience. Eric went on to explain that demographic shifts have moved people away from agricultural areas into urban areas, yet more and more farms are being bought by exurbanites interested in sustaining agriculture. He noted the need to support this new generation of farmers, as well as the growing awareness among rural and urban constituents of the need to conserve resources on all land, agricultural, forested or urban. He described the hands-on collaborative programs provided by KCD: farm planning, clearing of invasive species, education and technical support for best practices, rural, upland and shoreline workshops and tours. In addition, he noted that conservation districts are empowered to work directly with landowners to assist them to implement sustainable practices. Given that private land comprises more than 60% of King County s land area, there is a human resource that is currently underutilized. While the legislature envisioned the King Conservation District as a state agency focused on working with private landowners to better conserve natural resources on larger tracks of land, he noted the KCD also provides grants to cities, NGOs and local landowners through the County to encourage conservation stewardship at all levels including support for local farmers markets and urban restoration projects, and for work within communities on conservation planning and natural area management. Conservation districts are, by their nature, local and responsive, Eric said. He explained that KCD is committed to working with all private landowners: residential and commercial, urban and rural. to protect our natural resources. CHARTER INTRODUCTION 2
Christie True, Task Force Co-Chair, explained that County Executive Dow Constantine has asked that she and all members of the Task Force and Conservation Panel work together in a different process--one that focuses on our mutual regional interests and the synergies that can be realized together. In addressing questions raised about the process Christie explained that the County Council, when they adopted the inter-agency agreement, provided for a Task Force that would tackle the issues and concerns related to natural resources. She indicated that with KCD s collaboration a Conservation Panel of elected officials was added to help develop recommendations to advise the King County Council and King Conservation District Board of Supervisors. She explained the compressed timeline and the need to arrive at an understanding of what is going to be in the next inter-local agreement, which isdue to expire in 2014. She drew participants attention to the draft Charter developed by King County and KCD staff in their binders. She emphasized that talking about money would be premature before there had been a full airing of the what, the how and the who of natural resource conservation. She assured the group that this would be a good process for everyone and a great opportunity to get collective issues out on the table. She encouraged the group to be candid and honest with each other, and, in closing, she expressed her appreciation to everyone for participating. Participants responded with comments about improving working relations, the framework for discussions, and reaching consensus. The facilitator explained that a logical progression would be followed, discussing various topics leading to that the money conversation. The group adjourned for lunch at 11:45 p.m. After lunch the facilitator provided training on an interest-based process called RESOLVE that has been used successfully in other complex, multi-party decisionmaking processes involving natural resources. Part one of the training focused on the importance of understanding and effective use of communication styles. The facilitator provided her Success Signals book to participants who self-assessed their communication style. Also, through demonstrations, staff illustrated how to successfully utilize communication style to negotiate positively over differences. Part two of the workshop focused on the intent of collaboration, which is mutual gain in negotiations and relationship building. A step-by-step process was examined of sharing interests (the reasons why something is important, our needs, and concerns), brainstorming for possible solutions, analyzing those solutions using agreed upon criteria, and reaching agreement (see attached materials). Next, Task Force and Conservation Panel members were divided into four groups (based on their common communication styles) and asked to review and discuss the charter, with 3
a specific focus on objectives and to recommend clarifications and modifications to the charter. When the group reassembled, they presented their results. The Brown communication group s results were presented by Christie True. She said the group thought: The basic order in the process seemed right. In addition to #2 (creating an inventory of unmet needs), there needed to be a step to prioritize (these unmet needs). There needs to be criteria to evaluate the various decisions the group will make. Coordination and collaboration should be one of the criterion used for evaluation. The group agreed that there should not be redundancy or duplication. When we talk about King County, we must distinguish between a governmental jurisdiction vs. the geography of the County. Regarding #4, the group would like to identify, agree upon and secure sources of funding. The group agreed on a desire to increase awareness of what KCD does and is capable of doing. Additional comments by members of the group included a mention of the 80% rule: to start with what provides the greatest benefit; a desire to be inclusive; and to consider the effects on the equity and prosperity of the region. Speaking for the Blue Group, Josh Monahan presented the following comments: - There is a discrepancy in the placement of funding (3 rd in Purpose, 4 th in Objectives) - Wording in #3: the group recommended to delete to input for the sake of brevity. - The group stressed working together with a common vision and single focus. - They also said that current institutions should be updated so that they address present and future (rather than past) concerns. In addition, group members expressed a desire to have localities work together for the entire region and to develop a plan that will work well in both rural and urban areas. Presenting for the Green Group, Chris Eggen suggested the following comments: - The goals and objectives are appropriate as they are. - Acknowledge the goal of maintaining farms and the rural lifestyle, but not necessarily add it to the charter goals or objectives. - Identify partially met needs and distinguish them from unmet needs. - Need to identify next steps. - Is the role of KCD well defined in the statue? - There was a question of what services are already addressing conservation. 4
- The Task Force and Conservation Panel could hear from farmers, forest managers, and habitat restoration experts to solicit recommendations and concerns. Speaking for the Red Group, John Stokes presented the following comments: - There is concern about time: too much to do in a short period. - Regarding #1-2, the group suggested that staff do that work. - There should be a statement about what KCD can and should do. - That the group should not spend Task Force time on defining KCD s scope. - Regarding, #3-5, there is a concern that local municipalities may not understand KCD and the benefits/costs involved or may perceive inequities in benefits received from contributions made. - There should be a solid base of understanding for the KCD s mission, mandate and scope. - There should be a campaign to educate and inform local residents and leaders about why this work is important (elevator speech). - Public relations campaign should precede discussion around what KCD can and should be doing, and other issues such as funding. Following group presentations, a discussion ensued involving the entire group. One member suggested that of the tasks, staff could work on #1 and #2, while the panel would address #3-#5. Another member mentioned the need to have the information necessary to explain to the community what KCD does and how it benefits them/the region at large, in addition to explaining legal and funding issues. The Facilitator summarized the discussion as follows: - The Charter is generally acceptable and will be finalized with this input at the May 15 Task Force meeting. - Suggested changes include adding criteria for prioritization and some wordsmithing. - In addition, some things could be prepared by staff o What does KCD do? What is their legal authority? What exists in other jurisdictions? An elevator speech should be developed out of answers to these questions. - Objectives 3-5 would be a primary focus of Task Force and Conservation Panel work, with staff doing as much as possible to address Objectives #1-2. Resuming the discussion, one attendee suggested examining the efforts of other conservation districts to look into other possible models and ideas. Another member asked what a failed program would look like and suggested considering the consequences of KCD s failure (example of Kent valley shown in the Powerpoint presentation). Another attendee mentioned the lack of understanding on the part of constituents and local leaders and the need to educate voters on the importance of funding KCD, as well as the benefits of sustaining rural land for both rural and urban communities. Echoing this, another member stated that it is important to make available information on how KCD benefits local landowners (which is often indirect), making a case with specific 5
examples. One member pointed out that KCD offers support both to incomplete programs and offers services where there is little or no support, which is a unique value provided by the district. Another attendee expressed concern that Staff must know what questions are requiring answers. One member emphasized the need to promote local food growth in the region. The Facilitator ended the session by stating that there was a consensus view that this group would like to think in a more systematic way, regionally, looking at the connections and synergies some of which haven t been thought of before and potentially redefining value more inclusively in terms of benefits. The Facilitator thanked all the attendees for their participation and collaboration. The workshop adjourned at 3:45 p.m. 6