Willow Run/Willow Trace/Amberwood

210 Woodwind Place

Sultan, WA 98294

February 6, 2003

Laura Koenig John E. Galt C. H. Rowe, Mayor

City of Sultan c/o City of Sultan City of Sultan

319 Main Street 319 Main Street 319 Main Street

Sultan, WA 98294 Sultan, WA 98294 Sultan, WA 98294

Dear Ms. Koenig, Mr. Galt and Mayor Rowe:

This letter serves to respond to the invoice sent to us by City of Sultan staff in connection with the Boucher Short Plat Appeal, filed on June 17, 2002, by residents of Willow Run/Willow Trace/Amberwood (the "Residents"). Furthermore, this letter informs the city staff and the Hearing Examiner that there was falsification of facts presented by the City during the appeal process, clouding the issues raised by the appellants and, as a result, making the outcome of the appeal uncertain at best.

The issue of properties contained in the Osprey Park annexation was raised by the Residents as a point of contention, giving ample reason for the short plat not to be approved. Specifically, under Sections VI of our June 17, 2002 appeal, we asserted that the property was not within city limits. It is clear, by the public documents submitted in December 2002 by the City to Snohomish County regarding the Osprey Park Annexation, that our claim was, and still is, correct.

1. On June 17, 2002 the Residents filed an appeal against the City’s decision on the Boucher Short Plat (File No. SP00-004). The appeal stated, under the header "Legal Arguments", sub-section VI, the following:

"We contend the southern portion of the sight [sic] lies either within Snohomish County jurisdiction, or if that is not the case, it has been already annexed into the City as a portion of the Osprey Park Annexation, Ordinance 740-00, which, thereby, does cloud any claim to title for land in the Boucher application. Current Snohomish County assessor maps show all lands within the application site that lie West of Trout Farm/First Street to be under Snohomish County jurisdiction. The Sultan Zoning Map Dated July 11, 1995 shows land in the vicinity, West of Trout Farm/First Street to be under Snohomish County Jurisdiction. A recent annexation of property, (Attachment "N") Ordinance 740-00 indicates the legal description of land annexed into the City on February 28, 2000. The annexed lot abuts approximately two thirds of the western border of the site. The newly annexed lot claims title to all land west of Trout Farm/First Street within the site of the Boucher application. This irrefutable boundary dispute must surely cloud the title of parcel 2064. (Note: Remember, the text of the council- approved annexation ordinance clearly states " the annexation includes only city owned properties…".)

"RCW.58.17.164 requires that "every plat and short plat containing a dedication filed for the record must be accompanied by a title report confirming that the title of the lands as described and shown on said plat is in the name of the owners signing the certificate or instrument of dedication". No such document is found within the attachments of the City Decision. Due to the boundary dispute cited in Section VI, paragraph 1, and due to the unambiguous language of RCW 58.17.164 this appeal must be upheld."

2. In the City of Sultan’s Response to Appeal dated July 5, 2002, under Section IV (Appeal Response), sub-section 6, the following was entered into record by the City of Sultan:

"The entire area of the subject property is shown as within the city limits on the county map included in the Staff Report and Decision. To further verify that the area south of Trout Farm Road is within the city limits, a copy of the Osprey Park Annexation ordinance and a copy of a letter from Gary Bourne, Acting City Engineer, to Laura Koenig, City Clerk, with legal description of the annexation are attached. In short, the legal description of the annexation area includes all land between First Street (sometimes referred to as an extension of Trout Farm Road) and the Sultan River, from the previous city limits north to the quarter-section line. The Lion's share of this area is Tract 999 of the Riverwood Plat. However, as Mr. Bourne’s letter indicates, the annexation area also includes a strip of private ownership between Osprey Park (Tract 999) and First Street."

(Note: This contradicts, the text of the council-approved annexation ordinance, which clearly states " the annexation includes only city owned properties…".)

3. In the Hearing Examiner’s Decision of the Boucher Appeal (SP00-004), dated July 24, 2002, Mr. John Galt states, under Conclusions, Appeal Issue 6, he states:

1. On December 27, 1999, a letter from Gary Bourne of Berryman & Henigar to Laura Koenig (subject Osprey Park) states: "During research of the legal boundaries of this parcel to be annexed we uncovered information that would indicate there is a strip of private ownership on either side of First Street (Trout Farm Road). It is my opinion this ownership should be resolved in order that the City have title to any property between Osprey Park (Tract 999, Riverwood) and 1^st Street. In addition, ownership of the strip…. should be resolved." (Attachment "A")
2. On August 15, 2001 Ordinance 740-00 was amended to correct a legal description error. The amendment was never recorded at the auditor’s office. At the August 15, 2001 council meeting, the corrected legal description error was passed as a Consent Item (#C-7) with the following explanation: "The change was a minor one."
3. On December 12, 2002, Ordinance 740-00 (Amended) was filed by the City of Sultan at the Snohomish County Assessor’s office. (Attachment "B")

1. The City had been paying taxes to the County on the Osprey Park property under the proper tax code area ("TCA"). The TCA for the City of Sultan is 00805, yet the TCA on Osprey Park has been 03366 (unincorporated Snohomish county land) through the year 2002.
2. In conversations with county staff in the past two weeks, we have learned that the city claims the Osprey Park Annexation now includes two additional parcels of land (privately owned) in addition to the Boucher property. Specifically, these include parcel numbers 2803200204600 and 280832002002500. However, the amended annexation language does not include the aforementioned parcels. (Note: This contradicts the text of the council-approved annexation ordinance that clearly states: "… the annexation includes only city owned properties….")
3. In conversations with the Snohomish County Assessor Office, they confirmed several communications with City staff in their attempts to obtain legal documents necessary to correct the legal description of the February 28, 2000 Osprey Park Annexation filing.

1. The Snohomish County Assessor’s office had been in contact with city staff on several occasions in regards to the errors contained in the filing of Ordinance 740-00 on February 28, 2000. The City's knowledge of the errors contained in the Osprey legal description is well documented, likewise knowledge by Berryman and Henigar, author of the city staff report on the short plat. Thus, the City submitted false information in their decision, compounding that falsification during the appeal, into evidence of the appeal (previous few words are confusing and awkward)and, thereby , liedlying under oath on several occasions during the appeal process.

Berryman & Henigar and the City of Sultan have enjoyed a business relationship for many years, working closely together on numerous projects. Of course, the December 27, 1999 letter from Gary Bourne, of Berryman & Henigar, to Laura Koenig, city clerk, previously mentioned further evidences that the representatives from Berryman & Henigar were aware of the irregularities of the parcel in question during the appeal process.

2. The February 8, 2002 letter from Mr. Boucher to the City offering to donate the parcel south of Trout Farm Road and west of First Street, evidences that the City did not have ownership of the property.
3. Evidence of the city's full awareness that the Osprey Park Annexation was not legally sufficient regarding the disputed privately owned Boucher land on June 17, 2002 is the amended Ordinance 740-00 filed December 12, 2002 with the County Assessor's office. This land donation was accepted by the city during the September 4, 2002 council meeting. Moreover, the delayed submission to the county assessor of the corrected language for Ordinance 740-00, which was approved as Consent Item C-7 on August 15, 2001, was purposely delayed until the troubled Boucher short plat proposal was resolved. This was a purposeful, premeditated obfuscation of both land use actions.
4. The language of the Osprey Park annexation is very specific. It states: "WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Annex was initiated by the City for a municipal annexation on January 10, 2000, and …". Mr. Galt is a professional Hearing Examiner and should have known based upon the text of the annexation ordinance, that the Osprey Park municipal annexation, could only have occurred if the City had legal title of the property at that time. I submit that the Residents, based upon the text of the Osprey Park Annexation Ordinance, were correct in their argument that the entire Boucher property was not and could not have been in City limits at the time of the appeal. The Hearing Examiner chose to ignore the facts submitted to him and failed in his quasi-judicial duties.
5. During the August 21, 2002 council meeting, the city attorney advised the city council to require a complete title search for the southern tip of the Boucher property before accepting the donation into the City. (Once again the property’s legal description was put into question, as stated by the Residents in their appeal of the short plat.)
6. On September 4, 2002, Mr. Cisar overcame the attorney's caution by stating that the City had sufficient evidence with the submitted title report and that the property could be safely accepted by the Council as a donation to the City. The Council voted to accept the property in spite of previous and lingering doubts of the title’s veracity.
7. Pursuant to the Snohomish County Assessor’s office, the Tax Code Area ("TCA") for the ‘annexed’ Osprey Park property is for unincorporated Snohomish County, not the City of Sultan’s TCA. This is further evidence that the Osprey Park Annexation, based upon the recent, untimely filing of documents with the county assessor by city staff, was not, at the time of our Appeal, a legally sufficient document with which to include the Boucher property as part of the annexed land.

The questions raised during the Residents' appeal on the question of legal status for the Osprey Park Annexation go to the heart of our appeal. Because of the evidence uncovered in recent days, it is apparent to the Residents that the City staff and its representatives were fully aware that the Osprey Park Annexation had no legal status regarding annexation of the Boucher property on June 17, 2002. Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner, so intent on denying our appeal of the short plat, ignored facts that were presented to him at the hearing and his written appeal mocked our submission of the facts surrounding the Osprey Park Annexation. In light of the substantial legal "irregularities" existent in the Gohr Road/Willow Avenue/Trout Farm Road locale previous to the appeal hearing (Mr. Galt had already judged two previous hearings that touched on some of these), it was unprofessional for an experienced hearing examiner to not seriously question and address any legal description and ownership.

Whether one interprets the submission of false facts by the City under oath during the appeal proceedings, and the blatant omission of the Hearing Examiner to fully explore all of the facts of the appeal documents as acts of corruption or malfeasance, is not for us to judge. But it is clear by facts presented by documentation, that, at the least, premeditated deception took place. It's our contention that RCW 42.20.040 was violated. This statute states "Every public officer who shall knowingly make any false or misleading statement in any official report or statement, under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor."

In the light of the evidence submitted herein, the Residents contend that all expenses for the appeal are to be borne by the City, including our legal expenses incurred during the appeal (verification of which will be submitted at a later date). Furthermore, we demand that a refund of the $1,500.00 deposit for the Appeal and Reconsideration of Appeal be returned to the Residents immediately. Please make the check payable to Jeff Kirkman for disbursement to the individual Residents.

We request your response to this request within ten (10) business days.

Sincerely,

Jeff Kirkman

Willow Run/Willow Trace/Amberwood Residents

enclosure

cc: Dustin Boucher, Council Member

Bruce Champeaux, Council Member

Jeff Everett, Council Member

Perry McPherson, Council Member

Jim Porter, Council Member

Mark Raney, Council Member

Thom Graafstra, City Attorney