The recently-proposed Ordinance 770 is a perfect example of the fox guarding the hen house. Everything about this ordinance is wrong: Its scheduling, its notice, Its intent, and most assuredly, the potential negative impacts it may cause to the people of Sultan. If this ordinance had been in place when the Broughton short plat was reviewed, it would have been a simple slam-dunk approval. Public comment and participation should be encouraged, not discouraged.

The method of scheduling the hearing for the ordinance was wrong. Per our code, this hearing should have been requested by the city council. It was not. It was scheduled by city staff. But that's okay, I guess, because before the city even began taking testimony, the council voted to waive this "minor" code requirement, at the suggestion of the city attorney, waived, since it could create a possible legal hitch on appeal.

The notice of the hearing for this ordinance was wrong. Not illegal, simply wrong. In accordance with even the most minimal of legal advisement requirements, notice for this hearing was posted in the back of the legal section in the Herald, and it was posted on the city's bulletin board. Underneath another flyer, At the very tippy top of the board. It was not posted on the door of city hall, nor upstairs at the counter, nor at the post office bulletin board (where most people might have seen it), nor on the city's website, nor on the city's TV "Mouthpiece" via Channel 28. Why doesn't the city post its public notices everywhere that people -- especially those who spend 11-12 hours per day outside of Sultan -- on its website, on the front door of city hall, in the post office, etc.? Why doesn't it advise actions on the school reader board? My goodness, the Sultan Bakery has a mobile reader board to advertise its business and "products," why not the city? Could it be because they don't WANT public input in the process?

The non-availability (publication) of the proposed draft was wrong. There was no copy of the ordinance in the city's council packet for people to review so that they could comment, should they wish to do so. There was no copy on the city's website for people to read, should they wish to do so. There was no copy at the front counter of city hall to review and read, should they wish to do so. (We had to make a special trip to city hall and have the clerk drag one out from somewhere within the secret and hallowed chambers of city hall.) The electronic council packet stated: "The e-mail version may not include copies of all documents." (Ya think?) It's not as if these documents are etched in stone with a chisel, or painstakingly copied in ink by little monks who scurry around in the deep archives of city hall, so how difficult would it have been to include in this packet?

The Intent of this ordinance is wrong. The intent of this ordinance, quite simply, is to REMOVE public input. It will make the approval of short plats a city administrative decision. It virtually REMOVES all public input from the process. Any public input that is received will have to depend upon -- again -- a legal posting in the back of a newspaper or word-of-mouth by property owners who live within the 300-foot legal advisement area.

The appeal process of this ordinance is wrong. In order for a Sultan citizen to appeal an incorrect or illegal administrative decision by the city, they will have to pony up several hundred bucks for the privilege of hearing the case in front of the hearing examiner. And even if the decision is illegal by city code standards, the examiner has a habit of pulling RCWs or other higher authority justification out of the hat to uphold the city's decision. (Does the community remember the infamous "Bruner Rubber Stamp Signature" with regard to an Eagle Ridge driveway permit application that was appealed by Ron Kraut and Keith Kummerfeldt?) Of course -- IF -- the appeal is upheld by the Hearing Examiner, the cost of the appeal will be reimbursed. But the chances of any appeal being upheld is slim.

But the most WRONG thing about this ordinance -- even if it complies with state law to some extent -- is that once again, the taxpayer, the public, the individual citizen who will have to live with the mistakes made by a government agency at the swipe of a pen stroke -- has been removed from the process.

And even if we assume that the new city planner (Rick Cisar) has excellent credentials -- which he very well may have -- still, we need to point out that the deeply-flawed Bob Broughton short plat process happened under his watch and with his apparent approval. Yes, he was new. And yes, the then-current city engineer (Berryman and Henigar) for that project was the "lead," functioning as the city engineer. But we will argue that if Mr. Cisar's experience is as great as it appears to be, then why weren't the problems within that process discerned, questioned and corrected at the city staff level, as this ordinance calls for? Wouldn't a request for a modification to decrease the required 60-foot right-of-way road to 20 feet have run any alarm bells with Mr. Cisar? And if not, why not? The answer, I'm afraid, lies in the overall philosophy residing within city hall walls.

This is not being said to take a personal pot shot at Mr. Cisar. My experience with him thus far has been positive. What I am trying to point out is the gaping and intentional holes that exist in the city's current system for public review and input. This new ordinance will tighten the "flow" of I & I (Input and Information) coming into city hall down to a trickle, and will put yet another gag on the public process. The city is saying the ordinance is needed in order to remove the short plat process from the political arena in order to make it less controversial. Following that line of logic, perhaps we might also wish to consider removing the election of our representative officials from the "political arena" as well? The reason the process has become "controversial" is not because of the process itself, but because of the overt favoritism and selective application of the process by city administrative staff. There have been several short plat applications which have gone through quite smoothly without a hitch. The problems arise when there's apparent favoritism by city hall. So, instead of removing the fox from the hen house, the solution will be found in placing the fox in charge of hen house security.

Bottom line, in reality what this ordinance means is that virtually any short plat request will be a done deal, especially if the request comes from the in-city in-crowd. Short plat actions for mayoral cronies such as Bob Broughton, whose disastrous short plat application request was barely averted through hard work by diligent citizens; or Ed "Chico" Boucher's short plat action which has become ensnared in the morass of legal requirements caused by his own flouting of the laws, would have been approved without question or comment. Worse, once approved under this ordinance, it will require a taxpayer to plunk down good solid green for the privilege of appealing a jaundiced administrative decision by the city.

The city attorney and most of the council is anxious to pass this ordinance by saying it is "mandated by the state." It is true that RCW 58.17.060 states that a city "shall adopt regulations and procedures and appoint administrative personnel for the summary approval of short plats…." However, this statute only says that the city shall adopt such procedures, it does not stipulate that they must be used. That may seem like a fine point to make, but I will counter that criticism with a question: Why does the city always seem to take a bite out of whichever side of the bread government is buttering for developer actions? In the case of Bob Broughton's short plat, the city not only courted his development, but held his hand throughout the process by automatically renewing applications which had lapsed, spoon-fed him direction and guidance in the form of continued communication and copies of documents he had mislaid to encourage continuance of his application, and then spent hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of dollars hiring a consultant to whitewash the request for the Hearing Examiner consumption, all of which are highly-suspect actions. The city never seems to find the time to provide widespread notification -- sometimes even legally-required advisements -- to its taxpayers, yet always finds the time to assist developers. And, if called on a point of law the city might "forgotten" or "overlooked" during the advisement process, will simply have the city attorney serve up a helping of legal gobbledygook by which the action can be justified.

Newly-elected council members take note: Any council member who votes for this ordinance without a revision to include widespread public notification (such as on the city's website), and opportunity for public input, will be encouraging the non-taxpayer-friendly atmosphere that has been the guiding standard within city hall. But in a day when taxpayers pay many thousands of dollars each year for a "city" attorney who seems to represent the city administration rather than its citizens, as well as paying thousands of dollars to publish and distribute a newsletter that is nothing more than a commercial advertisement for the city administration, is this so surprising?

back to top