CORRECTIONS TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER BART DALMASSO'S MATRIX ON TESTIFIERS' PREFERENCE FOR A GROWTH SCENARIO FOR THE SULTAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN


(Corrections or omissions from Dalmasso's report shown in red. For this to make sense, we encourage all to read the transcription of Dalmasso's comments at the August 19, 2003 planning commission meeting, wherein his matrix was presented.)

Name of Person

Testifying at Comp Plan Hearing(s) on June 17, 2003 and the continuation hearing on July 1, 2003

Location (Where the person resides now, shown as one of the growth alternatives)

Alternative Growth Scenario preferred by person testifying at hearing

Comments


(Differences or clarifications from Bart Dalmasso's matrix)

0

1

2

3

Joe Downs

3

No preference stated.

Mr. Downs never stated a preference for an alternative, but it was clear from his comments that he sought one greater than zero or low growth. He wishes to be included so he can hook up to the Sultan water line that runs past his property.

Kelly Korn

2

X

Cole Auckland

2

Kay George

0 - City

X

Jim Flower

0 - City

X

Sue Shawger

3

X

      

Dalmasso's matrix omitted Shawger's stated preference of No Growth, made during the 7-1-03 continuation hearing.

Paul Tortorice

2

X

Jean Roberts

2

X

Loretta Storm

3

X

Ron Olson

0-City

X

Randy Johnson

0-City

X

Lola Weisenberger

1

No preference given.

(1) Comm. Dalmasso's matrix incorrectly indicated that Mrs. Weisenberger had voiced a preference for the medium-to-high growth scenario. She did not.

(2) Mrs. Weisenberger never gave any growth preference, except to say: " I think zero [unintelligible] is great, if we don't have any more kids." But she clearly felt the zero growth alternative was not enough.

Merle Cushing

0-City

No preference stated.

(1) Comm. Dalmasso's matrix indicated Mr. Cushing had voiced a preference. He did not.

(2) Mr. Cushing comments put him in the "we need more people in order to fix Highway 2" camp.

Mark Fallgatter

2

X

Jackie Allen

3

No preference stated.

(1) Comm. Dalmasso's matrix indicated Jackie Allen had voiced a preference for the Low growth scenario. She did not.

(2) Ms. Allen never gave a preferred scenario, but she did mention traffic as her prime concern. Comm. Dalmasso indicated she voted for a Low Growth scenario.

Ray Kistenmacher

3

X

Margaret Skoglund

0-City

 

No preference stated.

(1) Comm. Dalmasso's matrix indicated Mrs. Skoglund had voiced a preference for the medium-to-high growth scenario. She did not.

(2) Ms. Skogland never mentioned any alternative except to say, " And as far as the urban growth boundary goes, I don't know that we really need to change it a lot. Maybe a little bit, but that can be adjusted as time goes on." It was clear, however, that she'd like to see a higher-growth scenario. Mrs. Skogland has long wished to develop her property at a healthy profit.

(3) Interestingly, Commissioner Dalmasso included Mrs. Skoglund's comments, which were from the 7-1-03 hearing, but not Mary Lowry's or Kirby Nuff's, who also gave new testimony at the 7-1-03 hearing.

Mary Lowry

3

X

      

Commissioner Dalmasso omitted Ms. Lowry's stated preferred growth scenario in his matrix. It was given during the 7-1-00 hearing.

Kirby Naff

2

X

      

Mr. Naff [phonetic spelling] testified during the 7-1-03 continuation hearing. It was omitted from Commissioner Dalmasso's matrix.