The site of a proposed casino along Interstate 5 in La Center.
The La Center City Council decided to leave a resolution opposing the proposed Cowlitz casino on the books.
After 10 minutes of discussion at its workshop Wednesday night, the council decided not to rescind or revise the resolution — at least not right now. About 20 people attended the meeting.
Last month, Mayor Jim Irish proposed repealing Resolution No. 07-279, which was passed by the city council in May 2007. The resolution lists 10 concerns the city has regarding the Cowlitz Tribe’s proposed casino west of the Interstate 5 junction and demands the tribe or federal government mitigate the impacts.
Irish said Wednesday he believed rescinding the resolution would make it easier for any landowner to develop property at the junction. Rescinding the resolution would not change the city’s stance on the casino, he said.
Tip: you can interact with this map using your
fingerscursor (or two fingers on touch screens)cursor.
Map
“To be successful, I think we need to remove barriers for all property owners at the junction,” he said.
Irish said previously he worried the resolution set a negative tone toward businesses wanting to develop in the area. Irish met in April with business people who were interested in learning more about the city’s plans to extend sewer service to the junction and annex land to I-5. They were exploring options and learning more about various junctions along the interstate and were not connected with the tribe or proposed casino, Irish said.
Those businesspeople told Irish they thought the resolution made the city seem opposed to development at the junction. Irish agreed and placed the resolution repealing the 2007 resolution on the consent agenda of the council’s April 14 meeting. The issue was tabled for further discussion Wednesday night.
But Wednesday, the council members agreed to postpone taking any action regarding the resolution.
“I think Resolution 07-279 should just be left alone at this point,” Councilman Al Luiz said.
Councilwoman Linda Tracy said nothing in the resolution prevents the city from communicating with property owners and developers or stands in the way of annexation.
“We will deal with it in a different way in the future,” Tracy said.
Instead of discussing the resolution, the council opted to refocus on its top priority: annexation.
The city is moving forward with plans to annex about 1,675 acres from its urban growth area to make the 650-acre city nearly four times its current size. The change would stretch the city to I-5 and allow for industrial business development along the corridor. Project consultants have been testing the water with property owners facing annexation and are preparing to launch outreach efforts.
City Public Works Director Jeff Sarvis supported the council’s decision. Rescinding the resolution now would be premature, he said.
“It seems to be getting in the way of what council’s goals and priorities are,” he said.
