Council discusses Mile Sand and Gravel proposal on school-district land; city says it submitted county comments opposing impacts

City staff and council members spent an extended portion of the meeting discussing a proposed Mile Sand and Gravel operation on land the school district owns north of Arlington and reported the city submitted comments to Snohomish County raising concerns about water-supply and traffic impacts.

Public works staff member Jim Kelly described the proposal and the city's response. He said the proposal began as a conditional-use-permit application to Snohomish County in 2021 and that the city submitted comment letters when the proposal was refiled. "We submitted our comment letter when they proposed this for a second time," Kelly said, citing two grounds: the proposal "threatens our source water" and would impose heavy traffic on Burke Avenue and other local streets.

Kelly said engineering estimates provided with the application projected 205 daily truck trips, with 164 of those trips expected to travel through Arlington on Burke Avenue at the stated extraction production level; he added that those estimates could increase if demand rises. He described the proposal as a long-term operation, noting the applicant described a 25-year expected life and that actual operations could extend longer.

Councilmembers pressed staff on mitigation and communications. One councilmember asked how quickly heavy dump trucks might damage recently rebuilt roads; Kelly said many trucks already "meander through Arlington" and that the city is concerned about wear and commuter impacts. Councilmembers also noted prior commitments by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) tied to a planned SR 530 realignment and that promised improvements (signals or roundabouts) have not occurred.

Kelly said he spoke with the school district superintendent and that the superintendent faces a difficult position because the district had entered an option contract with the applicant; he urged the district to reconsider the sale given community impacts. Kelly also said a local group (noted in the meeting as "Grama scribe") opposes the development.

The council discussed the city's position. Kelly and others said the city has submitted comments opposing the proposal as presented and has asked for mitigation measures that would protect city infrastructure and water supply; the meeting transcript records the city submitting comments to the county but does not show a formal council vote to adopt a city resolution on the matter. Councilmembers requested better advance notice when staff takes a public position so elected officials can be informed; staff said it acted quickly because of the county timeline and the city filing deadline.

Next steps: The application is in the county permitting process; the city has submitted comments opposing aspects of the application and has requested mitigation measures. The school district's contract status and any mitigation requirements were described as uncertain; no formal council vote on the sale or a binding city resolution was recorded in the meeting transcript.