TRANSCRIPTION: EXCERPTS FROM JUNE 8, 2005 SULTAN COUNCIL
MEETING REGARDING THE CITY OF SULTAN V. FALLGATTER/KIRKMAN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PUBLIC
COMMENTS:
Josie
Fallgatter In response to the petition for Review filed
with the Growth Management Hearings Board by Jeff Kirkman and myself, the City
requested that we seek settlement through a mediator appointed by the
Board. We agreed to this process, and in
good faith entered into a settlement agreement with the City that was approved
by the Council on May 25th [2005]. One week later, this settlement agreement
was broken by the City. The Agreement states in paragraph 2.B., “Any oral
remarks made in county planning meetings by members of the Sultan Planning
Commission, shall indicate that the spokesman is a planning commissioner with
the City, but speaking in an individual capacity.” But the June 1st Snohomish County
joint Planning Commission/Council meeting [i.e.,
hearing] held in Monroe, Planning Commissioner Dalmasso identified himself
as a planning commissioner for the City of Sultan, but did not state that his
comments were made in an individual capacity.
Further, regarding the proposed inclusion of the watershed in the UGA
expansion, the City agreed in Paragraph 2.C. that, “Though the City will not
withdraw this request, we will not further advocate this expansion in any
proceedings.” This Agreement was clearly
broken when both Commissioner Dalmasso and Councilman Flower advocated its [the watershed] inclusion during their
comments at the June 1st county meeting [hearing]. Perhaps city
staff failed to inform Mr. Dalmasso and other planning commissioners of the
terms of the agreement, as they were directed to do. But Councilman Flower was a participant in
the mediation process, and has no excuse for breaking the settlement agreement
and putting the City in such an awkward position. Claiming First Amendment freedom of speech
rights is no defense for blatantly disregarding an agreement which was entered
into voluntarily, and at the City’s initiation.
The City has continually made much of the notion that we simply do not
trust them. The City, by its actions, has repeatedly proven that they cannot be
trusted to do the right thing. The trust
issue reaches far beyond the settlement agreement with Mr. Kirkman and
myself. It is a perception problem that
plagues the city, and hinders the City’s attempts to market itself as a worthy
place to live and to do business.
Breaking this agreement was not only an invitation of a lack of
trustworthiness, it was also dishonorable. Thank you.
Loretta Storm I’d like to echo what Josie just said so
eloquently. I’m sure Thom Graafstra will
argue that the City did not break the agreement in terms of comments on the
watershed because Jim Flower was only one of several councilmen, but
unfortunately he is representing the City, even if its only one-seventh of the
council. Clearly, the City agreed to the
settlement in poor faith. At least, certain members did. And the Agreement was broken. Another point is that before you tonight is,
uh, some changes to a development regulations amendment procedures and public
hearing and participation process. This was one of the documents that was
presented to the Growth Management Hearings Board by Rick Cisar as a procedure
that has been followed in response to one of Fallgatter’s and Kirkman’s
complaints regarding public process. But
the one you – and it was also the one that was agreed to in the
settlement. But the one that you have
before you, the changes you have, the ink isn’t even dry on the settlement, and
these changes are changes an agreement that was agreed to. I mean, clearly it was agreed to in poor
faith. That’s unfortunate. Thank you.
Jeff Kirkman I just want to add to what Josie Fallgatter
and Loretta Storm just said. And I am
concerned about this Exhibit 1 that was agreed to. I don’t see anywhere in the agreement that
the City made with us that there’s wiggle room to change it. The changes do take away from this particular
resolution. It gives the city wiggle
room to not put stuff on public access and not put things on the website. And
you know, I’m – it says, “If available.” Well, I already know what will
happen: The next thing you have
something that comes up, you’ll say, “Well,
it didn’t get on the website because it wasn’t available.” I wonder what that would be? A nuclear holocaust? Something like
that? I’m being absurd on purpose. But
let’s do the Agreement the way we saw it and we agreed to. Thank you.
Storm Mr. Mayor, can I make a comment?
Tolson You may make an addendum.
Storm Addendum. I’m sorry. One quick note that reminded me -- Jeff’s comments reminded me, I guess. Because of the change indicating “when
available on the website” for these, for the announcements and notices, I went
on the City’s website and took a couple of hours just [unintelligible]. Haven’t
been to it for quite awhile, actually, because it just was static and nothing
was ever on it. And I documented what
was in on the website and what has been on the website and [unintelligible]. And actually, the notices and some of the very
timely citizen and public participation issues haven’t been updated since last
July. That’s almost a year. That’s pitiful in a city that’s trying to represent
itself as a very dynamic, pro-economic development city. It’s…it’s unfortunate. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER
& MAYOR COMMENTS
Jim
Flower Yes, thank you all for coming. I guess I’m kind of put in the spotlight
right now. I’ve been accused of dishonorable breach of contract and I find that
curious, as I was here for all day working out that agreement and it was my
understanding that it was the City’s position to stand by their desire to
retain the watershed in the UGA, although we agreed not to pursue it on appeal,
if the county decided it was not to be done.
It is in the county’s hands. And
we were – and my understanding [is that] we were given full permission to
advocate it after discretion of the county council.[1] If you find that to be a breach of contact,
if you find that to be dishonorable, that’s your choice. I’m sorry.
But I do represent the City and I will stand by that. I am not going to be a milquetoast,
middle-of-the-road moderate. I was
elected to this position because have some very strong views, and that position
got me a very large percentage of the vote.
And so if (sic) I can sit here in this chair and say that I do represent
the City. And if that bothers you
because you believe that that’s a breach of contract, I’d encourage you to read
it again, because we were only…not pursuing it past the point of [county]
council. Maybe, uh, the attorney can
correct me if I’m wrong, and if indeed there was a breach of contract, it was
not with my knowledge. I believe that I
was given the okay to advance the City’s position and for the mayor at the
county hearing. That’s all I’ve got.
Boyd I just would like to ask, Bart, did you speak up as planning
commissioner down there?
Dalmasso I identified myself as a planning commissioner with the
City.
Boyd Were you not…instructed not to?
Dalmasso No I was not.
Boyd You weren’t?[2] Well, somebody’s head was somewhere, because
I definitely was [unintelligible] that you guys were told not to speak as
planning commissioners and I hope you didn’t, and if you didn’t, I thank you
for that.
Dalmasso [unintelligible] Ms. Fallgatter. And [unintelligible] herself as a planning commissioner also.
Tolson And as a private citizen, as I recall. She spoke –
Dalmasso I identified myself not as Bartholomew as a 1000 hats, but
Bart as representing three different hats. One as a private citizen, one as a [unintelligible] and one as a planning
commissioner [unintelligible] the
city.
Boyd And even as a [unintelligible],
no city councilman can speak for the city council, unless there is a resolution
as such saying it – which I asked for – I didn’t want Jim to go down there and
speak up as the city council unless he had such a resolution. Evidently that wasn’t -- he wasn’t given
one. So as far as I’m concerned, Jim
Flower spoke for Jim Flower as a city council member. I understand that’s, you know, beating around
words, but give us – and I appreciate you pointing out your opinions on this
resolution, but at least give us council a chance – this is the first time I’ve
seen it tonight. Which in itself is a
problem. So give us a chance to do what
we’re supposed to do.
Tolson [regarding the agreement
language only] In regards to the city’s website, Loretta, you’re absolutely
correct. This has been one of the…more frustrating things for myself and
working with staff on this. Once Monroe Internet pulled out and yanked the cord
on our website, we have been literally at a loss. One, we do not currently post our own
website. That is being hosting by the
high school, is that correct [this
question is asked of Rick Cisar]?
Cisar Yeah.
Tolson It is being hosted at the high school server. We have limited access because of the
struggles that we had. There was a virus that came through and just created
literally – we have had very limited availability to that. I instructed staff and will continue to
follow up with that. One of the things we have to be published or posted on
that website that are, that…were just absolutely wrong. I mean, so…that was not a shining moment for
the city as far as technology. And we
will acknowledge that. I do believe
that, that I can’t say for certain with first-hand knowledge that to the extent
available is probably the issue at this point of time. It has been just a nightmare for us to try
and maintain that without the extra moneys and the time to put into an IT
person. We have limited availability with
Mr. Moon from the school district at this time.
My, uh…my, uh…my personal observation regarding what has taken place at
the Growth Management Hearing Board and follow-up conversation with the city’s
attorney needing clarification that that agreement was not held. And I do apologize. I, I wish that I could have had clear
understanding in going into that to restate that. But on further review with that, it does
appear that there was errors made. To
the point of my personal consideration regarding the watershed consideration to
the county, although that would have to be a council determination, uh…to try
and address this. I don’t know if we, we
can do that, but that…in following up on that, we will have discussion, I’m
sure, continued discussion in that area…. [Mayor
Tolson’s comments related to curb-address painting were not transcribed, then
he continues with the subject of the broken agreement.] Inasmuch as, uh…Mr. Flower, I’m curious. You said something to give you the okay to
comment. Was that just in reflection
upon your understanding at that meeting, or did somebody give you an okay to –
did you talk to about the agreement to discuss this?
Flower It was my understanding on my instructions from our attorney that
it was -- the limits on what the City would do is that we would not appeal the
county’s decision, but we were free to advocate it. And the City was
maintaining its position, but that we would not appeal it past their, past their
decision.
Tolson I know that was part of our discussion that night. But I was trying
to get some clarification –
Boyd Mr. Flower, with respect to Thom, he sat there and specifically
said it, “Jim Flower should not be down there speaking with that resolution to
the council. They would not look
favorably. That’s what was said.
Tolson Okay.
[long pause]
Flower My recollection of that same conversation is that he told me that
it would be very helpful if I did do –
Boyd Yes.
Flower -- [unintelligible] –
Boyd I agree with that. But I
would not want to sit there and… It’s
not worth discussing anyway. It wasn’t —
whatever. It does not look favorable.
Flower I agree. If I have brought
disfavor upon us, I apologize for that. But I do not believe I had a breach of
contract.
Tolson Well, we will [unintelligible]
continue on this.
[end of transcription of
these excerpted comments.]
[1] The City/Fallgatter-Kirkman settlement agreement, Item 2.c. regarding the City’s watershed states, in part: “…Though City will not withdraw this request [to include the watershed in its proposed UGA], it will not further advocate this expansion in any proceedings and will not appeal an adverse determination….”
[2] Item 2.b.
of the Settlement Agreement allowed Commissioner Dalmasso access to all appeal
and settlement agreement documents in order that he could author a PC Majority
Report, which was issued to the County for their consideration. The specific language in the settlement
agreement stated: “Any oral remarks made in