Gravel/ESCC Update
Highway 2 Safety Coalition
PC hearing on Industrial Park Plan Revision - Proposal to focus on Commercial/Retail
City Communication
A "City" Newspaper?
Emergency Siren Test"
Transition to 800 Mhz Emergency Frequency
Better Information and Detail Requested
The Tourist Information Center "chugs" along…
City PA System and Recording
Computer Viruses
Rowe/Porter Recall Expense Reimbursement
G.R.I.T. v. G.R.I.T.
Rowe/Koehler-Koenig BLA
Ordinance Revisions Hearing: Reshaping our future
Restraining Order on ittakesgrit.org

Folks who came to participate in a workshop on the new comprehensive plan were treated instead to a 50-minute presentation and 25-minute Q&A by Craig Bruner, the city's Building Official, on the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan. Now, what's wrong with that? one might well ask.

For starters, the event was supposed to be a Comp Plan workshop, and this "hearing" never should have taken place as it did.

Next, doesn't anyone ask why Mr. Bruner is involved in the review/approval and recommendations of this plan? This is a major component of our new comp plan. Mr. Bruner, who is our building official, does not have the required qualifications and training or the knowledge and expertise required to address this subject effectively. He was nonetheless making the presentation and answering questions from Planning Commissioners as a qualified "expert" on the subject of flood plains and future flood hazards for Sultan.

Also, this "hearing" was scheduled by city staff, not the city council, as mandated by code, a violation which continues being engaged in by this administration.

In addition, there were several "irregularities" (at the least) about the way in which the public notice was given for the hearing, the first part of which was held March 5^th. The "legal notice" for this hearing appeared in the Announcements section of the Herald, something the Herald staff person who handles this function says "never happens." But the city missed the deadline which calls for ordering the ad two days prior to the publication date. And instead of rescheduling the hearing, the staff person decided to simply plop it into a questionable, perhaps "illegal" area of the paper. Additionally, the hearing was advertised for a 7:30 start time, but started at 7:00 p.m.

And why was a notice of hearing on this issue published Saturday, Feb. 23^rd, when a notice for a DNS was subsequently published on Tuesday, Feb. 26^th? And why is the city so generally reluctant to provide effective notice on public issues of concern? And why didn't the planning commission, when these irregularities were pointed out to them, close the hearing and recommend that it be scheduled by the council, as our code dictates?

Other "irregularities" have occurred relative to the public notice and scheduling for this hearing. First, the hearing notice stated that a council hearing on this issue would be held at 6:30 on March 20^th. Following a legal hearing by the planning commission, the PC's recommendations are forwarded to the council, and that body will review/revise or deny/approve. How can a March 20^th council hearing be published before a PC hearing is actually held? Again, it's my understanding that the council sets that hearing, not the mayor, city staff or the planning commission.

One more strange occurrence about this "hearing": Even though the questionable notice was published February 23^rd, the February 26^th Herald issue ran a "Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)," notice which stated: "The City of Sultan has determined that this proposal does not have probable significant adverse impacts on the environment." Huh? How could it NOT have an impact? (In "layman's language," a DNS is an administrative decision on a proposal or action that does not require a hearing. You folks remember the MDNS that was issued by DNR for the Powerhouse Project? That notice said pretty much the same thing: "Nothing to see here, folks. Move along…")

There's absolutely no argument that this plan is important to the city, and is a significant improvement over previous documentation and FEMA ratings. It will greatly assist in helping homeowners and businesses obtain flood insurance. So why wasn't this plan more broadly advertised so, at the least, folks could attend and learn more about the plan?

During the Bruner's presentation, PC member Ron Kraut asked why the Wagley's Creek Industrial area was not included in the new plan, an area of significance. To which Mr. Bruner responded it was due to the expense of doing a study. Upon closer questioning by acting PC Chairman John Seehuus, who gently pressed Bruner for a "ballpark" figure for such a study, Craig Bruner responded that he estimated it might cost in the neighborhood of $50,000, although he wasn't sure. And, as mentioned previously, Mr. Bruner is not schooled or trained in these issues, so this is only a guesstimate. The city council should insist that a study be performed for the Wagley LID-97-1 area (or at the least, check into costs for the study) as part of this flood hazard proposal, as well as making it part of our new our comp plan. Its absence by omission is a gaping hole in the plan, one that should be plugged prior to development of that area begins in earnest.

Copies of this flood management plan are available for purchase at city hall for $7 (which was a suggestion I made by which the city could defray printing costs and make a bit of money for the city in the bargain). However, an electronic copy for posting on my, or the city's, website continues to be elusive, despite a public information request placed March 7^th by me, and a promise by Craig Bruner to supply it to another resident in electronic format.

But despite objections from myself and others, the Planning Commission went ahead and held the hearing on the 5^th, and then "continued" it last night, even though, again, proper advisement was not given and the folks who showed up last night were there to participate in a comp plan workshop.

Before the lights went out, Tom Beckwith got far enough along in his presentation to advise workshop participants that they are reviewing three growth scenarios: low growth, moderate growth and high growth. The low growth scenario basically keeps most of the city's UGA boundaries "as is." The High growth scenario indicates expansion of the city's UGA boundaries northward to 124^th and eastward from Rice Road. Historically, the city has shown an active appetite for annexations, adding new UGA area to existing boundaries (despite the lack of capital facilities to support those enlargements) Therefore, our recommendation would be to opt for the most conservative scenario, and add land area as/if it's needed.

The meeting ended prematurely following the loss of electricity, which was about 5 minutes into Tom Beckwith's (our comp plan consultant) long-awaited presentation. This workshop would satisfy Item #18 of the 26-step comp plan review process. But we're certain that it will be rescheduled and properly advertised so that anyone who wishes to attend will be able to do so.

Oh, a bizarre turn of events here: Because of electronic problems, John Seehuus asked if we could make a copy of the tape for the city, a request with which we will wholeheartedly comply, as we try to suppress a giggle.

24 out of 61 property owners in the LID-97-1 wrote protest letters lodging complaints on the cost of the assessments, and in many instances, the manner in which they seemed to be performed. In some cases owners were assessed four times the original estimate. It's our understanding that approximately 20 owners also made oral testimony.

The appraiser admitted he did not personally check many properties. In one instance a gentleman with less than 3 acres on land that hosts an unnamed and as-yet-unclassified meandering stream (with a potential for 100-foot buffers), and is severely land-locked had a preliminary assessment of $3,743 which ballooned to $14,484. In another instance, one property directly adjoining a virtually identical property was assessed nothing, while some owners who were part of the Bethany Terrace/Pacific Development LID along SBR were assessed, but had previous mayoral promises this would never occur until hook-up triggered an assessment. And on and on….

Among those filing written protests were Mayor Rowe and ex-mayor Larry Koehler, Councilmember Jimmy Porter, and the McDonald's Corporation.

We Will be posting these letters (or most of them), as we have time to do so.

One of our sources told us that Mayor Rowe made testimony during the March 27^th hearing, and asked Hearing Examiner Tanaka who he could speak to about the assessment. To which Mr. Tanaka responded: "Your city officials." When Mayor Rowe confessed that he was the mayor of the city, Hearing Examiner Tanaka replied, "Then I can't help you."

Keep in mind that any monies not paid by property owners will eventually be picked up by the taxpayers directly through taxes.

This hearing is to be continued, although we do not yet have the date.

(More on this subject later…)

Steve Higgins, Gold Bar Councilmember and organizer of the multi-city coalition to address transportation concerns for the county's Draft EIS on their Comprehensive Mineral Plan, indicated that a meeting has been scheduled with officials of the ESCCC and the county's Planning Director, Faith Lumsden, and other county planning officials. It is scheduled for March 27^th (time and place TBA).

The ESCCC will be meeting again at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, March 29^th in Monroe's Council chambers. The public can attend, but cannot provide input.

NOTE: During the February ESCCC meeting with the county and Washington Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald, the county said their plan was to try to get this issue to the county's planning commission for a hearing by the end of May/early June.

7:00 p.m., March 18^th - All are welcome to attend. This group is actively seeking new members and helping hands. The meeting will be in the Community Center at City Hall (319 Main Street). This committee will play a vital role in lobbying the Washington Legislature and Congress for funding on Route 2.

Scheduled for Tuesday, March 19^th at 7:30. Once again, a planning commission "hearing" on which we did not receive any notice. It's our understanding that the city administration is putting forth a revision on this plan to advocate for retail/commercial development rather than family-wage jobs provided by industrial and manufacturing concerns. This proposal, along with the unbelievably numerous code changes being proposed by the city administration, is being done in order to provide greater financial benefit to LID property owners. And, while we have no problem with property owners making a profit, are Sultanites willing to rubber stamp either a "Monroe II" or a "Monroe, too!" scenario? If not , you need to let the mayor, City Planner Rick Cisar, and all council and planning commission members know what you think. (Links to council member and planning commission member email addresses are on the front page of our website. The city's phone number is 360-793-2231. You can also write out a letter or a note and drop it by 319 Main Street, or email city employees using this formula: their first name, then a period, then the initial of their last name, then "@cityofsultan.com" name initial@cityofsultan.com" (i.e., for Laura Koenig, the address would be: laura.k@cityofsultan.com ) Note: Several of us cannot seem to get emails through to Craig Bruner.

Communication with the city continues to deteriorate. Some of us have stopped receiving notices of hearings and other events. And some of us are having a problem with emails to city staff being rejected. Also, proper publication of legal notices are being handled in an ever more easy-going manner than they were previously.

As an example, the legal notice for the city's "special meeting" (executive session) on the subject of the LID-97 assessments, which was scheduled and held on February 27^th, was not published in the Herald until the following day, on the 28^th.

And speaking of communication, I've noticed that copies of the Sky Valley Weekly News are being given away free on the counter at city hall. Does this mean that the city is formally confirming this publication as the de facto city voice, as its "Official" voice? Or does this mean that the city will "make a place" for complimentary copies of other publications, such as my update, the Everett Herald and The Monroe Monitor and Valley News?

There will be a test of our emergency siren system on April 18^th at 10:00 a.m. Please let others know about this who may not receive our notice or be internet-capable.

Chief Walser gave a presentation on this fed-mandated emergency frequency changeover during the 3-6-02 council meeting. (The full transcription is on or website.) Total start-up costs to Sultan are around $300,000. This is a FCC-mandated requirement for fire, police and other emergency services, and it is line-of-sight (like your digital phone).

We have been proponents of better and more in-depth information for council members and planning commission members, ever since we began our watchdog activities in April of 2000. In fact, that was one of our first introductions to city communications, when we received a copy of the information packet that council members received for York's 40-acre annexation, which included a sketchy map and a copy of his boilerplate petition. We were appalled at the lack of detail.

As time has passed, I have found it increasingly strange that both council members and PC members seem to simply accept what the city gives them in terms of support and documentation. In our 2002 environment, with the threat of legal and insurance liability constantly swirling around us, it would seem prudent to make more information available by which we make our decisions, not less.

As far as residents are concerned, even assuming the city properly and thoroughly communicates that a hearing will be held on an issue, they are seldom given draft copies of ordinance changes, proposals and plans being considered on projects with long-term ramifications to review in advance. As I have said so many times it sounds like a broken record: How can one comment on what one doesn't see?

It's the Year 2002, folks. Let's get this stuff up on the city's website, in the library, on our website, and have the full text of ordinances published in the Herald, Monitor and even the Sky Valley Weekly News. At the bottom of each notice of application, hearing advisement or ordinance revision a note where folks can find and read this information -- at a place OTHER than 9-to-5 at city hall. (Most of us commute, leave home around 5 or 6 and don't kept home until well after the city offices close.) Let's make this information readily available for folks to access and review BEFORE the city holds a hearing. Try to keep in mind that residents are not being paid to review and comment on issues. We have to steal time from our jobs, families, homes and recreational time by which to get smart and become involved. And the easier it is to access that information, the better informed will be our comments, and the city's decisions. (Do you think the city already knows this? Nah!!!)

An alternate proposal for this long-beleaguered project has been put forth by Jerry Senner of the Western Heritage Center for a narrow-gauge steam-powered choo-choo and Valley Museum located on the eastern end of town. A suggestion was put forth during this presentation and Q&A following that Sultan could adopt a "railroad" theme, complete with downtown storefront motiffs. (Read the complete transcription of this presentation and Q&A on our website.)

While this sounds like a good and exciting idea on the surface, one question that screams to mind is: What happened to the last council's mandate to the mayor and city that he move ahead with the location on the south side of Route 2 (which would eventually eliminate the angle parking in front of the Sultan Bakery)?

One possible concern is the strict and constant vigilance required for an operational steam engine. Non-polluting, perhaps; but more than one such device has been known to blow sky high.

But for this project to fly -- or in this case chug along -- quality implementation is the key. And at the risk of sounding negative, I have to state what I said during a recent planning commission hearing: Sultan has a poor track record.

But I promise I will be the very first person to yell "Kudos!" if I prove to be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last.

But I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on this one…

This desperately- and long-needed PA system looks as if it might actually happen. According to Councilmember Mark Raney, the city has agreed to hire a professional audio consultant to fix these problems. We hope. Otherwise, we will continue to hold our breath, fearing an ADA discrimination lawsuit from those who are hearing-impaired (and those of who are just getting old, like us!).

We have said this before, but it bears repeating. Never, EVER open any files with a ".exe" suffix, unless you have verbally checked with the person who sent it to you. There are many hackers out there who can hack into your computer, steal the addresses from your email directory, and send you a seemingly-harmless file from a person you know or might expect an email from.

The council has approved reimbursement of Mayor Rowe and Councilmember Porter's recall expenses, to the tune of over $17,000.

And remember the extraordinary fussing and yelling from certain "Friends of the City" about Coucilmember Raney's bill for $5,000 because there were two lawyers shown on his legal bill his recall action? Well, we obtained a copy of Rowe/Porter's bills and there are a total of FOUR LAWYERS listed, plus paralegals, a legal Intern, and someone referred to as "LC." (By the way, the "second lawyer" listed on Councilmember Raney's bill who sent certain individuals into a frothing frenzy was Bill Trippett, who held a 20-minute [unsolicited] conversation with Dr. Raney's lawyer. But what the heck? Mr. Trippett is being blamed these days for everything from the LID-97 to Willow Run to Date Street Condo problems to the recent Flood Hazard Management Plan public notification screw-ups. Seriously.)

A Summary Judgment action is scheduled for Superior Court Judge Kenneth Cowsert to decide whether this action, and other legal issues, gets dismissed or goes to trial. It is scheduled for Friday, March 15^th in Cowsert's courtroom in the Snohomish County Courthouse.

There is a boundary line adjustment action currently under review. Keep an eye on our website for further details. We have a request into the city for more detailed information. Hopefully we'll receive it before the deadline for comment. By the way, the Koenig in this instance is not the city clerk, Laura Koenig, but her father-in-law. Either way, we are hoping neither city staff nor the city's de facto city engineer, Berryman and Heniger, reviews this action, but assigns it to an objective third party.

The city is trying to push through multiple ordinance changes, all designed to loosen and relax our development constraints. Is this a good thing? Given previous problems with development, we think the city's going in the wrong direction. We should be shoring up and tightening our development codes, NOT relaxing them. That is, if we DON'T want Sultan to be another Monroe. Your choice.

There is a hearing scheduled on these codes (the draft text of which we are still waiting for from the city) for:

Remember Mr. Ed Boucher's request in Evergreen District court for a restraining order on our website? Which a judge granted him until our November 5^th hearing? Well, we were interviewed recently by personnel from The Seattle PI and this individual was aghast and appalled at that action, and said that if the judge had upheld the temporary action, the ACLU would have been all over this one. Good to know.

________________

Please let me know if you wish to be removed from this report. We would appreciate folks forwarding this onto others they know may have an interest.

Loretta Storm

360-793-6683