UPDATE Headed to Snohomish...
UPDATE
Just wanted to take this space to pass on some thoughts as to Snohomish's perspective on this UGA issue. After doing some research and speaking with several different people involved in the docket request, here are some reoccuring themes that Snohomish puts forward:
If Snohomish was attempting to annex any given area where the residents said they identified with a different city, they would not move forward.
The major issue that LS needs to recognize in order for negotiations to move forward is that Snohomish has a role north of US-2.
Were it not for the developer, Snohomish would not be pursuing the proposal at this time, and probably would not have even begun to consider the possibility until they had annexed the south side of US-2.
While the Snohomish Station project has increased revenue, the City still needs to the commercial area north of US-2 to remain viable long term.
Just because the developer is a coapplicant does not mean he controls the City. Should LS and Snohomish reach a mutually beneficial agreement that the developer didn't approve, this would not prevent the City from moving forward without him.
Most importantly, all options remained on the table for the purposes of negotiation. Specifically, short or long term revenue sharing and/or a creative redrawing of boundaries are possibilities.
Snohomish realizes that just carving out the commercial spots and leaving the rest might not be the answer. They may be open to taking in a larger area with more residential responsibility.
...to meet with City Administrator Larry Bauman. We are going to discuss Snohomish's point of view in regard to my column earlier this week.
I am willing to make any corrections should factual errors be brought to my attentiont, but I'm also hoping for some transparency, as my public records request for an action item from the last Snohomish City Council meeting has not yet been granted.
More later...
Just wanted to take this space to pass on some thoughts as to Snohomish's perspective on this UGA issue. After doing some research and speaking with several different people involved in the docket request, here are some reoccuring themes that Snohomish puts forward:
If Snohomish was attempting to annex any given area where the residents said they identified with a different city, they would not move forward.
The major issue that LS needs to recognize in order for negotiations to move forward is that Snohomish has a role north of US-2.
Were it not for the developer, Snohomish would not be pursuing the proposal at this time, and probably would not have even begun to consider the possibility until they had annexed the south side of US-2.
While the Snohomish Station project has increased revenue, the City still needs to the commercial area north of US-2 to remain viable long term.
Just because the developer is a coapplicant does not mean he controls the City. Should LS and Snohomish reach a mutually beneficial agreement that the developer didn't approve, this would not prevent the City from moving forward without him.
Most importantly, all options remained on the table for the purposes of negotiation. Specifically, short or long term revenue sharing and/or a creative redrawing of boundaries are possibilities.
Snohomish realizes that just carving out the commercial spots and leaving the rest might not be the answer. They may be open to taking in a larger area with more residential responsibility.
...to meet with City Administrator Larry Bauman. We are going to discuss Snohomish's point of view in regard to my column earlier this week.
I am willing to make any corrections should factual errors be brought to my attentiont, but I'm also hoping for some transparency, as my public records request for an action item from the last Snohomish City Council meeting has not yet been granted.
More later...
Labels: uga
posted by Kevin Hulten at
3:05 PM
1 Comments:
So, did you get any answers? Or was it the usual "grip 'n grin"?
Post a Comment
<< Home