Border Battles Revisited

So, I've kinda backed away from the Lake Stevens vs. Snohomish turf battle over the last week, but I thought we should note that the County Council voted 4-1 today to throw both the Lake Stevens and Snohomish/Mike Reid proposals off the docket - effectively telling both cities that no one entitity was gonna grab all the goodies for themselves.

We first wrote about this a few weeks ago, and I editorialized in my OtR/LS Journal column that the County Council (and Council President Dave Somers) would be wise to junk both proposals.

A bit later, The Herald covered the issue with a sprawling (and quite good) front page feature and arrived at the same conclusion that we did earlier in an excellent editorial they ran Sunday.

And to the haters: this isn't an "I told you so" post. Or maybe it is?

Related:

Will Somers, County Council Allow Border Landgrab?

Guest Commentary from LS Mayor Vern Little

Myth Versus Fact: LS UGA Expansion Proposal

Stealing from the Comment Section

Headed to Snohomish

Letter: LS Always Shortchanged by County

Is Snohomish/Developer Relationship Inappropriate?

LS Chamber Moves on Docket Issue

Stealing from the Comment Section

Hi Malcolm! Thanks for stopping by - K.H.

Malcolm McNaughton said...

This rings very true. after thinking a little more about this issue I am left to wonder if Mr. Reid will sue Snohomish or Snohomish County or the City of Lake Stevens yet again when things don't work out his way. In my humble opinion it is one of the main reasons that there have not been serious discussion between the two cities. As a planner by training and a developer by practice and as a resident of the area it is tough to see when politics and land grabs get in the way of good planning that will benefit the area, no matter which City you call home, for the long run.

I was recently polled by Hebert research as to what I would like to see in the area. I can't wait until the pull selected results from that poll out to bolster their arguement. The first thing I would do is challenge them to publish their entire poll all questions and answers and make it available for everyone to analyse for themselves. Its pretty intersting that they would poll someone like me that lives in the City of Lake Stevens when they themselves are saying that we should have no say in what goes on down there. I am not really sure what kind of logic that is but it seems pretty fuzzy to me.

I testified at council sometime back encouraging to submit and go forward with the docket proposal to ensure their seat at the table and to continue to work the issue. I am glad to see that they have followed through on this and that the Council, Mayor and staff have all made it a priority.

Letter: LS always shortchanged by County

OtR friend and all-around good guy fired up the computer and produced the following letter, also published in tomorrow's Herald:

I have lived in the Lake Stevens area my entire life and have yet to understand the logic of Snohomish County with regard to planning for growth management. It is almost as if they are looking for a way to keep Lake Stevens a bedroom community for the benefit of everyone else.

In 2000-2001, the county adopted a subarea plan for Lake Stevens. This plan eliminated the potential for commercial development along Cavelero Hill. In 2005, they upzoned properties to create more dense residential development in Lake Stevens, while giving Marysville the land adjacent to Lake Stevens for Marysville to obtain commercial and retail development along Highway 9. Ironically, they also approved a site-specific rezone for property adjacent to this area (the former Hewlett Packard site), which was in the Lake Stevens urban growth area, to convert it from commercial to residential. Looking back on it, I'll bet everyone involved is proud of that ridiculous move.

Now the County Council is entertaining a proposal by a developer and Snohomish to take the land to the south of Lake Stevens and add it to the city of Snohomish for commercial and industrial development. Am I missing something here? Oh, yeah, I am: a job in my community.

How can the county keep giving Lake Stevens the short end of the stick? Don't they know we'd like to have some jobs and services in our town so we aren't driving everywhere all the time? The fact is that county buildable lands figures show that Lake Stevens ranks near last among all the county's cities in jobs per household at 0.42. Until the county and stakeholders can produce a sensible plan to handle the growth in the Lake Stevens and Snohomish urban growth areas, I am pleading with the council to hold off on approving any expansions at this time.
Brent Kirk
Lake Stevens

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...

LS Chamber Moves on Docket Proposals

from a Chamber email blast:

CHAMBER MEMBER CALL TO ACTION

Support the City of Lake Stevens’ Docket Proposal


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Issue:

· The Chamber has endorsed the City of Lake Stevens’ efforts to create additional revenue through new commercial development.

· The City of Lake Stevens has proposed Snohomish County, City of Snohomish and City of Lake Stevens jointly plan the area between Lake Stevens and Snohomish for the benefit of all three communities, which means not acting on current docket proposals submitted by each city.

· The County Council will hold a hearing on the City’s request on June 9th at 1:30pm and again at 6:30pm in the First Floor Public Meeting Room of Admin Bldg East.



Why:

· The City of Lake Stevens currently has less commercial, office and industrial development than it needs in order to provide services for its entire UGA upon annexation.

· The City needs an increased tax base in order to make future annexation fiscally viable and provide a high level of municipal services.



Quick Facts:

· Compared with fifteen Puget Sound jurisdictions of similar size, Lake Stevens ranks last in per capita sales tax revenues at 70.25, whereas the median is 206.41.

· County buildable lands figures show that Lake Stevens ranks near last among all the County’s cities in jobs per household at 0.42. Only Woodway, Gold Bar and Brier have fewer jobs per household.

· Comparing Lake Stevens to Snohomish and Monroe, Lake Stevens has only 8% of the industrial zoned lands and 22% of the land zoned for office space, which is far less than needed.



How You Can Help

· Chamber members are encouraged to send letters or emails to the County Council and to the Editor for publication in the Herald. CONTACT INFORMATION BELOW

· Chamber members should ask the County Council to exclude the City of Snohomish (SNO1) and the City of Lake Stevens (LS1) Docket Requests from Docket XIII and support developing a coordinated master plan for the RUTA area between the City of Snohomish and City of Lake Stevens.

· Chamber members and residents of Lake Stevens are encouraged to attend the hearing.



Who to Contact:

· County Council – contact.council@co.snohomish.wa.us or County Council, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Everett, WA 98201

· Letters to the Editor of the Herald – letters@heraldnet.com or Herald-Letters, PO Box 930, Everett, WA 98206



Questions:

Jan Berg, Lake Stevens City Administrator, 425-334-1012, jberg@ci.lake-stevens.wa.us

Live at City Council...

Pretty slow night...I talked to City Administrator Jan Berg and Mayor Vern Little in between the workshop and the meeting. Both said that the City is working behind the scenes to negotiate a good-faith compromise in the on-going south UGA docket issue.

The City of Snohomish is holding a workshop this Wednesday on the issue, and the County Council will hear the matter on June 9.

For More on Southern UGA Expansion...

...check the City's page dedicated to the issue.

Is Snohomish/Developer Relationship Unethical? Resident Comments on City of Snohomish Survey

From FCS Group, Inc. 1 March, 30, 2008
City of Snohomish Public Opinion Survey – UGA Expansion
Question 9 – Survey Comments

The financial arrangement that the Snohomish City Council has with Mike Reid & Associates (developer and financer of docket proposal) gives the appearance of collusion in what should strictly be an administrative process of one Governmental body dealing with a higher governmental
body.

The contractual arrangement with Mike Reid & Associates (if such an agreement exists) gives the appearance of city government allowing a private individual to have special privileges and preferential treatment in the exercise of governmental processes. It is absolutely certain that the city of Snohomish will at some time in the near future find itself in the position where it will have to compensate Mike Reid and Associates in some special and valuable way for having carried the ball for the city in this land acquisition process. Is it the intention of the city council to declare eminent domain over the annexed area once it is acquired? If so, is it then the city council's intent to assign development rights to this chosen developer and his associates? Since it appears that this may be the intent, judging from the favoritism already shown this developer, we may have to reconsider rendering support to the city of Snohomish regarding the proposed annexation.

In as much as this survey is a document open to public scrutiny, I request that a representative of the city council contact my wife and me before any of my comments are made public. If these remarks are made a matter of record, I reserve the right to present my concerns to the media that they may exercise their investigative prerogatives.

If I may be so bold, I recommend that the Snohomish City Council abrogate all contractual arrangements with Mike Reid and Associates, that they reimburse him for financial effort and payments he has so far provided on behalf of the City of Snohomish, and that the City of Snohomish alone and entirely on its own initiative and expense proceed with the process of adding the property of interest to the Snohomish UGA.

Furthermore, we advice that Mike Reid and Associates be instructed that they must stand aside and not interfere with the organizational activities of the residents of the affected area, that he make no further attempt to obtain property by any means within Joywood Development, that he present no more documentation to the County Council, or County Planning Department except through the appropriate person or authorized committee of the City of Snohomish.

Furthermore it should be made absolutely clear to Mike Reid and Associates that they have incurred no special rights or privileges as a result of any activity done on behalf of the City of Snohomish and that they must not interfere with the activities of any other interested investor or developer, as well as existing property owners, who may have similar interests in the area under consideration by the City. It is further recommended that the Snohomish City council advise the Snohomish County Council that any maps, charts, and/or documents submitted by Mike Reid and Associates to them are for planning purposes only. The land use charts represent only one person's concept how the land could be utilized, that they do not meet with the approval of residents of the area, and that ultimate zoning may be based on different criteria that those used by the developer.

Thank you for soliciting our input. Please read it carefully, your response is anticipated, expected and welcome.

Ted and Joy Beckmeyer, Owners of Joywood Division 4

City of Lake Stevens Myth Versus Fact: Southern UGA Expansion

From City public workshops:

The Myth: The City of Lake Stevens Proposal is "aggressive or unwarranted."

Fact: Lake Stevens has included the project areas its planning for the past 15 years.

The Myth: The City of Lake Stevens proposal is "developer driven."

Fact: Lake Stevens has been planning in the area for the past 15 years. No developer is involved. The City is asking the citizens for their vision of the future of this area.

The City of Snohomish application to expand the UGA was proposed by a developer; the City of Snohomish joined int the application later in partnership with the developer.

Myth: Lake Stevens doesn't need more land.

Fact: Lake Stevens completed a Buildable Lands Analysis in conjunction with the Snohomish County's effort in 2006-2007. Results show the City of Lake Stevens does not currently have the land capacity to accommodate its mandated jobs target.

The City of Lake Stevens is working with the County to increase the job target for a more sustainable future and to create land capacity for family-wage jobs on this side of the US2 Trestle.

Myth: If area does not come into a city's Urban Growth Area, nothing will change.

Fact: Piecemeal development will continue without coordianted services and transportation planning based ont he County's land use designations.

If this area is not comprehensively planned, the opportunities for a high level of open space land preservation and long-term community sustainability will be lost. The City wants to plan for this area as a whole.

Myth: If this area is added to the City of Snohomish UGA, the area will not change.

Fact: The developer submitted to the City of Snohomish and Snohomish County a limited land use proposal that contains increased density of residential uses and also includes commercial industrial land.

Myth: Area is Rural -- No Change can occur.

Fact: The County has designated this area as rural residential with a Rural Urban Transition Area designation where ciaties are expected to look for next planning efforts and/or expanisons.

Myth: Lake Stevens will destroy this area with poor development.

Fact: Long-term targeted planning of the project area will create a land use pattern that will have a good network of services and/or systems such as transportation, sewers, parks, et.

Reader: Bickering between cities could cost us the UW

By now, you all know how much I detest anonymous posts, so I hesitate to call attention to this comment - but it definitely makes for an interesting read.

Let me know what you think. I'll lead off in the comment section - KH

Mr. Hulten,

I am tired of listening to a bunch of uninformed citizens from Snohomish and Lake Stevens argue about land that should be developed. It seems like the only people who are educated spoke last Friday night and they have the means to destroy something good because nobody will talk to them or listen to them. Why were those three people who aren’t even in our city more informed than we are? But can you really blame the rest of us for our naivety? No. When are our elected officials going to realize the citizens who elected them to office are owed due diligence in keeping US informed about these sorts of issues.

The only thing that is going to happen around here is...well...did you watch the Husky game last night? We, both communities, will come ever so close to accomplishing something that only happens every 40 years or so, only to lose because of "dumb" mistakes and plays that should have been made early in the game.

Our leaders need to keep us informed, stop the bickering, and not succumb to the pressure of special interest groups. It makes me ill that the LS chamber president used a council meeting to position himself with a five g check, but I am disgusted that the city did not revoke the check. Who is running the show here? Our leaders or special interest groups? And Snoho, you are not immune to this either! Co-Applicants?

We are going to lose the UW, just like we lost to USC by a field goal because our coaching is flawed. Please Mr. Hulten, tell these two cities to stop squabbling, work issues out like adults, and keep the community informed before WE the PEOPLE, and the cities lose our shot at something of historic proportions!

Sun Sep 30, 01:00:00 PM