NOTE:  Although I requested (see below statement) a change in a material error contained with the City's minutes, no council member came forward to request the correction.  Anticipating this, I presented the below document to City Clerk Koenig at the meeting.

QUESTIONS:

1. DID YOU KNOW that the only legally-acceptable official record of Sultan council meeting proceedings (even in lawsuits) is a certified copy of the Clerk's minutes of the meeting?
2. Thus, in instances where the city has approved Minutes within which they know contain material errors of fact, are they, or the city, then libel?  And would that culpability leave them open to personal liability if a legal decision rests on that (erroneous) material fact?

_______________________________________

L. STORM PUBLIC COMMENTS FEB. 22, 2007:

I am asking that a council member request a revision to the Minutes of the 2/8/07 Ramirez Twin Rivers hearing, or, if that is denied me, then I'm requesting that this statement become a permanent part of those minutes.

On Page 10:  The first part of my statement is recorded as:

"It is not logical to follow the Hearing Examiner's recommendation."

My actual statement, which was the opposite of what is recorded in the Minutes, was:

"It's actually very illogical for the proponent to argue, and for the council to follow, the decision of the DCD [i.e., the Director of Community Development; "DCD" is the term used in Galt's written recommendation] based upon Galt's own admissions in the last two recommendations of how erratic and inconsistent staff's recommendations, and council, have been."

RE - CITY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING:

My strong admonitions over the last couple of years regarding the city's lack of any transportation planning, as well as failing to increase its traffic impact fees since 1999, have been ignored.  Josie Fallgatter's recent petition and appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board on the city's lack of transportation planning has resulted in a Final Decision and Order.  Here are a couple of quotes from the Board's decision:

Re the City's arguments before the Board that it has a noncompliant Transportation Plan, The Board states: "…it finds the City's argument unconvincing….Under the GMA, the citizens of Sultan are entitled to coordinated and comprehensive planning for growth in their community, including transportation planning that goes beyond ad hoc project approvals."

The Board found the City's adoption of RES. 06-10, its 6-year TIP "was clearly erroneous and does not comply...."

Last, the Board quoted the following Fallgatter statement: "At what point does this Petitioner find a remedy from filing PFR after PFR in order to compel the City to follow through on its statutory duty to accommodate growth?  More importantly, at what points does this Petitioner find relief from the unplanned and uncoordinated growth caused by the City's distain (sic) for its planning duties?"