Fallgatter Let me try it one more time. I move for a hybrid between the No Action and the Moderate Growth, where we don't bring in any residential properties. We only bring in the one property on the east end of town.

Cisar How about the [unintelligible] property?

Fallgatter Reese Park Also.

Cisar And the water treatment.

Fallgatter Does that create any islands that are not --

Cisar [simultaneously] No, it squares it off. It squares it off.

Fallgatter -- in the urban growth -- ? It squares it off and it only brings in city-owned property?

Cisar Right

Fallgatter Then, yes. Those two as well. But no residential property.

Cisar Well, this, this and then this.

Donk What is "this-this"? The first two "this" "this"? [laughter]

Fallgatter The square on the east end of town, the water treatment plant and Reese Park.

Donk Okay. The hybrid plan for No Action on the Low Growth, east park, water plant and the property on east end of town.

Cisar Yeah. But it zoned MD. MD-dash-ED.

Donk Okay.

Fallgatter Tell me when I can go on, Cyd.

Donk Okay.

Fallgatter Okay, and then adding language to deal with the trails conflict. There were some things in there that, that don't make sense. And adding language to deal with levels of service for parks, transportation, roads and trails. Well, trails are all part of that [unintelligible].

Seehuus Is that your motion?

Fallgatter Yes. And it's actually a hybrid of three of the --

Donk But did you say something about no residential? Or is that --

Fallgatter Right. Right. It's to exclude from the hybrid scenario the residential areas.

Cisar So you want to say the Tortorice Property? The Downs Property? And the property east of the water treatment plant?

Fallgatter Yes. I'm excluding those.

Donk And east of the water treatment plant?

Cisar Yeah.

Fallgatter [unintelligible] I'll make an amendment if I’m not.

Seehuus Okay. Do we have a second?

Kirkman I'll second that.

Green You made reference in the motion to language pertaining to it. What's the language?

Kraut I would think the language, just so people don't get the impression that they are bound to the, those easements that, where the trails lie.

Green This includes other things about…uh, including land use to cover transportation and --

Fallgatter Well, these are service. We need to identify levels of service.

Seehuus That's something that we can do in this, this process right here. We can identify those as our first order of business, correct?

Fallgatter Correct.

Botting Ron? Do you feel that that covers your, the trail going through yours?

Kraut As long as it, you know, it's like -- what they're saying if the trails are listed like the North Trail or Eagle Ridge Trail or something like that so people don't get the impression, like on mine, going to use something that they can't use for a trail system. And the same thing with the people who own the pipeline easements, saying, Okay, now they can use this for a purpose that's not allowed to be used. That's all I'm asking for. It doesn’t have to be omitted. It can still be there, but I just don't want people to misunderstand.

Fallgatter They're confusing points, the way they're --

Botting Right. I like they way we worded it because we're not saying a specific piece.

Fallgatter And then…for discussion purposes, I'll throw this out. Is it something where we can amend it where we say, "The first order of business"?

Seehuus [unintelligible].

Fallgatter Well, you know, I mean, I guess it gets into the area of what is our role, or not, but I don't see how we can do anything without a capital facilities plan. And it makes sense to me that that's something that we address as a planning commission. I mean, how do you establish priorities for --

Botting Can we make it a the top of our agenda at our next agenda to make up a list of things that we need to address.

Seehuus We can set anything we like on our agendas.

Botting We need to be specific and say by a certain date we need to have lists, or a list, made up of things that need to be addressed.

Kraut Well, can we, upon approval of our recommendation by the state, then we know we have a recommendation that will go forward to the council, can we address those issues?

Cisar Well, realize council may change that.

Kraut Well, I understand that.

Fallgatter But I think we need to tell the council that we're missing elements in this comprehensive plan. They need to know that.

Seehuus [unintelligible] to be addressed?

Kraut Actually --

Fallgatter Yes.

Kirkman Just a question. I mean, we are trying to get levels of service and we're doing it per, let's say, population per thousand, then actually, that’s an element we can actually work on before the comprehensive plan has been adopted by the council. Because it is per thousand, it is driven not by what you're going to actually -- what your UGA is going to look like or --

Cisar What you gotta do is look in your, look in your code for the impact fee, and you'll see a, there'll be a formula in there, how it's determined. That'd be a good start for you.

Fallgatter Right. But my whole concern in bringing it up is it needs to be something for the vision of the city. It needs to be more than just a formula. Because the formula we have in there, it gives us tot lots and picnic benches next to the wetlands.

Seehuus Isn't that something we can work out at our next meeting? Can we have that on the agenda? Actually to sign that document. It's something we're all going to do, right? Again, we're making a recommendation to the council.

Fallgatter I see what you're saying, John, but I don't see how we can send it on to the council without it being in the comp plan.

Kirkman I'm sorry, but wouldn't the recommendation be -- if we, let's say adopt whatever you just made, and we sent that onto the state. And in that time, we come back -- because we know what our recommendation is -- and take some hard numbers and look at them, the absolute, you know, the parks, the policies, strategies and goals and all that. And add that in as a part of it.

Seehuus How long is the state process? 60 days? That gives us plenty of time.

Fallgatter And then I would like to amend it to do what [unintelligible] to say, and to add that annexation policy.

Seehuus In fairness to Cyd… [laughter, a bit of chit-chat about how fast she is.]

Seehuus You got it, then? I'm impressed. Well, for my --

Male [unintelligible].

Seehuus Got a second on the amendment?

Kirkman I'll second the amendment.

Seehuus All right. Discussion on the amendment?

Kraut And the amendment was --?

Seehuus That's what I was going to ask.

Donk [unintelligible].

Fallgatter The amendment was what Jeff said. Did you get what Jeff said?

Donk Oh, what Jeff said. He said -- about the hard numbers?

Kirkman Oh, we, we, we come back to council. We come back to the planning commission in future meetings to work out all of the elements we have discussed, put simply.

Seehuus Levels of service.

Kirkman Levels of service, etc.

Seehuus 'Cause basically what it boils down [to] for all --

Kirkman For all --

Seehuus -- components. And I'm probably going to amend that to add in annexation policies.

Fallgatter Yes. We have been working on the annexation policy and it should be a part.

Seehuus Is the annexation policy part of the comprehensive plan?

Cisar It's a policy's [unintelligible] all here. It's a -- [unintelligible] dealing with policy.

Kirkman It's referencing --

Kraut So it's [unintelligible]. So it's [unintelligible] part of the comprehensive plan.

Cisar Yeah. [unintelligible].

Green So I second that amendment.

Seehuus Okay. So we're getting close.

Kraut I just -- now, the timeline for these issues we're going to address, what is the timeline for this?

Kirkman 60 -- the next 60 --

Kraut Okay, so 60 days --

Kirkman So we can give it to council --

Seehuus Personally, I would want to make that our sole agenda item --

Kraut I like that.

Seehuus How do the rest of you -- how do you feel about it Bart? Janie? Everybody? [inaudible, mostly head-shaking responses].

Green I call for the question on the amendment.

Seehuus On the amendment. Okay. Janie?

Botting Aye.

Seehuus Jeff?

Kirkman Aye.

Seehuus Tom?

Green Aye.

Seehuus Ron?

Kraut Aye.

Seehuus Josie?

Fallgatter Aye.

Seehuus Bart?

Dalmasso Aye. I make an amendment to --

Seehuus You're making an amendment to our amendment?

Dalmasso [unintelligible] But we're told we don't listen to people, yet Joe Downs and Tortorice, one of them, their property's divided by the UGA (see endnote #1 below), and I think at least that one should be included. So I'd like to make an amendment that the Downs and Tortorice properties be included in our increased UGA boundaries.

Green I second that.

Seehuus Discussion?

Fallgatter I don't think we can justify adding residential areas until we have an economic base to support it. That's what all of our numbers say. And I understand the guy wants it, I feel bad saying no to him, but I think we're obligated to say no.

Dalmasso Well, I think the other alternative, we have to take -- for owners to give up their properties divided in half to take it out of our UGA. And I don't think we want that, either. So I think it needs to be all or none, or part of, or all of the area, whether that's Downs or Tortorice. They both want to be part of the UGA.

Green Well, I feel strongly, because they have a need for water. And we can't give them water if they're not in the UGA.

Fallgatter We can't give them water, Tom, because we can't afford it.

Kraut Why give something to somebody that's not in the city limits? He's not in the city limits -- [simultaneous comments]

Green And neither is Josie? Don't you have city water?

Fallgatter Yeah, and I think I've had it since 1950 when the house was built.

Green [unintelligible].

Kraut See, this is the --this has been my argument all along. This is the problem that gets us into these binds and keep getting us to where we - "Gee, they want water." And so we let them in, and then we find out it's going to cost us $1 million to give them water.

Green [unintelligible] water. [unintelligible] own property?

Fallgatter Then why bring them into the --

Kraut What's that?

Green The water is right in front of his property. It goes along the street right in fron t of his property.

Kraut Right.

Dalmasso And it's not going to cost him $1 million.

Green Right. If he wants to hook up to water, he's going to pay $4,800 or $4,500 and he's going to dig a hole and pay the $500 to [unintelligible] and he's going to have to put a pipeline up to his house, and the city doesn't do anything.

Kraut We are planning for the City of Sultan, for the City of Sultan's best interest.

Seehuus But just the city. Not the people in the surrounding areas.

Kraut Right now we're planning for the city --

Seehuus [interrupting] Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.

Kraut We're, we're planning for the City of Sultan's future.

Seehuus For the City of Sultan's future?

Kraut Um-hm. So we, we are planning what is best for the City of Sultan. Now, this proposal sounds like it's very good for Tortorice. You know, that's great. But I don't know that annexing Tortorice property plus six other properties --

Dalmasso How you figure six other properties? I said Tortorice [unintelligible].

Kraut Okay. I'm sorry. I was looking at the entire "island" here, the entire block highlighted on our map, okay? Thank you.

Dalmasso [unintelligible].

Kirkman Could you specify that? You're just saying Tortorice's property and Downs?

Donk Tortorice and Downs.

Kirkman And Downs?

Botting That's all he said.

Dalmasso That's all I said.

Botting That's all he said.

Fallgatter I, I disagree with that. I don't think that it's in the City's best interests. Kelly Korn came and asked for a soccer field and we can't say, Well, Kelly Korn wants a soccer field, we're going to amend it to give Kelly Korn a soccer field.

Botting Yeah, but that would cost us a lot of money.

Fallgatter So would providing services to these other properties at this point.

Green It's not going to cost a penny to the city to service those properties.

Kirkman I'm disagreeing. We are not at a level of service in this city to include any more UGA areas that would include potentially a lot of residential. And that's been the whole theme of this. I have seen no numbers. I have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever that we are at the level of that.

Fallgatter And it may change, once we bring in this economic development area. We might get so much development the City'll have to ask to extend their services.

Dalmasso [unintelligible] hook up to Everett water, then we'll have plenty of water. And the people pay for it. If they want to bring a pipeline up to their property, they have to pay for it. The city doesn't pay for it. In fact, I don't know why it costs $4800 for them to hook it up to a water [unintelligible].

Seehuus Excuse me. I'm sorry to cut you off here, but [unintelligible] somewhere.

Male [unintelligible].

Dalmasso Call for the question.

Male Call for the question

Seehuus Okay. Janie?

Botting Aye.

Seehuus Jeff?

Kirkman No.

Seehuus Tom?

Green Aye.

Seehuus Ron?

Kraut No.

Fallgatter No.

Seehuus Bart?

Dalmasso Yes.

Seehuus [pauses] I'd like to ask if I can ask a question [unintelligible].

Seehuus Aye. Okay.

Green I call for the question on Josie's amendment now, motion. As amended.

Seehuus Could you read that? I gotta go back and discuss it, I'm sorry. Do we have a second?

Dalmasso I'll second.

Seehuus Discussion? I'd like to ask that you read Josie's motion. Back aways…

Donk Um-hm…you said the hybrid plan? No? Or was it --?

Seehuus I don't know. Was that it, Josie?

Fallgatter Yes.

Donk Move for the hybrid plan for the low option and the low growth, Reese Park and the Water Treatment Plant, the MD/ED [unintelligible], adding language to deal with the [unintelligible] conflict. Some things in there need, some things in there do not make sense. Adding language that deals with the level of service for parks, transportation, roads and trails. Excludes Tortorice, Downs and east, and east of the Water Treatment plant.

Dalmasso [unintelligible]?

Donk Yeah.

Dalmasso Tortorice and Downs and all that?

Donk Yeah.

Green And the…

Donk Just the (sic) east of the water treatment plant.

Fallgatter Which takes away the hybrid….of going with the no residential development and only economic development, which defeats the purpose of the motion.

Green It includes, or adjusts the amendment, too.

Male [unintelligible]

Green I call for the question, then.

Male [unintelligible] minutes.

Seehuus Bart?

Dalmasso [pause] Yeah.

Seehuus Josie?

Fallgatter No.

Seehuus Ron?

Kraut No.

Seehuus Tom?

Green Aye.

Seehuus Jeff?

Kirkman Aye.

Botting Yeah.

Seehuus Aye. Where does that leave us, folks? I'm getting pretty tired.