Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at the Franklin Saddle Club on Road 60 at 6:30 pm
Guest Speaker: Brad Peck, Franklin County Commissioner - will give annexation update
TELL YOUR NEIGHBORS!!!
MORE INFORMATION
LINKS
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
RCW 35A.14.295
RCW 35A.14.295
This may actually be the City's fall back as opposed to the Petition (annexation agreements) method. Under RCW 35A.14.295, minimal notice is required for a public hearing. Also, it appears that the phasing in the map we handed out is designed to meet the 80% boundary requirements of 35A.14.295. So, in other words, if RCW 35.14.480 (Fire District method) fails, it is easier for the City to pursue
35A.14.295.
This may actually be the City's fall back as opposed to the Petition (annexation agreements) method. Under RCW 35A.14.295, minimal notice is required for a public hearing. Also, it appears that the phasing in the map we handed out is designed to meet the 80% boundary requirements of 35A.14.295. So, in other words, if RCW 35.14.480 (Fire District method) fails, it is easier for the City to pursue
35A.14.295.
Letter to the Editor - Rick White
Annexation myths
As Pasco's community development director, I'm writing to dispel two of the common myths about annexation of the "doughnut hole" in Pasco.
Myth: Farm animals are not allowed in the city.
Fact: The city's zoning rules for farm animals are identical to Franklin County, so farm animals are, in fact, allowed in the city under the same
conditions as allowed by Franklin County (the city does cap the number of fowl and rabbits at 40).
Myth: If my property has nonconforming status, a subsequent owner cannot continue the status.
Fact: Any nonconforming activity lawfully existing at the time of annexation is permitted to continue and can, in fact, be continued by the subsequent
owners.
One can easily check these facts by contacting either the city (545-3441) or county (545-3521) planning offices.
RICK WHITE, Pasco
As Pasco's community development director, I'm writing to dispel two of the common myths about annexation of the "doughnut hole" in Pasco.
Myth: Farm animals are not allowed in the city.
Fact: The city's zoning rules for farm animals are identical to Franklin County, so farm animals are, in fact, allowed in the city under the same
conditions as allowed by Franklin County (the city does cap the number of fowl and rabbits at 40).
Myth: If my property has nonconforming status, a subsequent owner cannot continue the status.
Fact: Any nonconforming activity lawfully existing at the time of annexation is permitted to continue and can, in fact, be continued by the subsequent
owners.
One can easily check these facts by contacting either the city (545-3441) or county (545-3521) planning offices.
RICK WHITE, Pasco
Meeting Minutes - September 21, 2011
REVIEW OF MAPS: Mark Macfarland and Roger Lenk reviewed various annexation maps, including one provided by the Franklin County Fire District on planned annexation phasing. Copies were handed out to all in attendance. Attendees were also asked to sign up for Block Captain responsibilities based on their respective residents relative to locations blocked our on the phasing map. This will allow for greater interaction with those affected, and improved communications.
BRIEFING ON ANNEXATION AGREEMENT: Roger Lenk provided a briefing on his ten reasons to oppose annexation. He also reviewed the annexation agreement/integrated map with the City of Pasco which was provided by the Franklin County Fire District #3. Roger indicated that all doughnut hole residents were to be annexed starting January 2012, continuing though completion by January 2016.
NEW ORGANIZATION:Mark Macfarland noted that the Citizens for Lifestyle Preservation had been approved by the Secretary of State as a non-profit organization. Copies of the notice were handed out. Darlene Zable was appointed Treasurer and in the process of obtaining a bank account. Requests for membership in the organization were handed out. A $10.00 membership fee was established for administrative expenses, and voluntary donations were requested for purposes of legal consultations, with the understanding
that litigation may be required. While the membership fee was not refundable, unused donations would be proportionately refunded if not utilized. A post office box had been established to receive correspondence. $440 was received at the meeting.
WEBSITE/BLOG/EMAIL: Mike Vermillion discussed the blog site established for communicating issues and documents related to the annexation issue. Many positive comments were received. The URL is http://www.franklincodonuthole.blogspot.com/.
POLITICAL ACTION: Doug Gould discussed issues related to the City of Pasco City Council. Doug indicated that only the only Pro-Annexation council member up for election, Rebecca Francik, had an opposing candidate in the upcoming election.
BRIEFING ON ANNEXATION AGREEMENT: Roger Lenk provided a briefing on his ten reasons to oppose annexation. He also reviewed the annexation agreement/integrated map with the City of Pasco which was provided by the Franklin County Fire District #3. Roger indicated that all doughnut hole residents were to be annexed starting January 2012, continuing though completion by January 2016.
NEW ORGANIZATION:Mark Macfarland noted that the Citizens for Lifestyle Preservation had been approved by the Secretary of State as a non-profit organization. Copies of the notice were handed out. Darlene Zable was appointed Treasurer and in the process of obtaining a bank account. Requests for membership in the organization were handed out. A $10.00 membership fee was established for administrative expenses, and voluntary donations were requested for purposes of legal consultations, with the understanding
that litigation may be required. While the membership fee was not refundable, unused donations would be proportionately refunded if not utilized. A post office box had been established to receive correspondence. $440 was received at the meeting.
WEBSITE/BLOG/EMAIL: Mike Vermillion discussed the blog site established for communicating issues and documents related to the annexation issue. Many positive comments were received. The URL is http://www.franklincodonuthole.blogspot.com/.
POLITICAL ACTION: Doug Gould discussed issues related to the City of Pasco City Council. Doug indicated that only the only Pro-Annexation council member up for election, Rebecca Francik, had an opposing candidate in the upcoming election.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Request for Public Records - City of Pasco
Request for Public Records - City of Pasco - Printable form
Use this form to request a copy of your Utility Agreement (aka Water Certificate)
Use this form to request a copy of your Utility Agreement (aka Water Certificate)
Thursday, September 15, 2011
LINKS
Mission, Vision and Values
RCW 35A.14.295
Letter to the Editor - Rick White
Meeting Minutes - September 21, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011Request for Public Records - City of Pasco
MAPS - West Pasco Annexation Phasing Concept
Membership Form
Pasco City Council Webpage
September 13 Meeting Minutes
Top Ten Reason Not To Go Along With Annexation
Proposed 2011 Annexation
Lenk Farms Interview with KEPR
Preferred Comment Format
RCW 35A.14.295
Letter to the Editor - Rick White
Meeting Minutes - September 21, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011Request for Public Records - City of Pasco
MAPS - West Pasco Annexation Phasing Concept
Membership Form
Pasco City Council Webpage
September 13 Meeting Minutes
Top Ten Reason Not To Go Along With Annexation
Proposed 2011 Annexation
Lenk Farms Interview with KEPR
Preferred Comment Format
September 13 Meeting Minutes
Any information that you would like to share (maps, documents, online links) please get to Karen Vermillion 2129 Road 64 or email to: knefous@yahoo.com
Minutes
Introductions were made around the room
We were initially told that the County had 45 days to respond to the City, or the City would move forward with annexation. We were also told that the City had 45 days after that to respond back to the County. Actually, there is no "end time". Additionally, the City hasn't approached the County to initiate annexation. If the City doesn't respond to the County, the County can send a letter to the City stating they believe that the City will not move forward with annexation and that they consider the matter closed.
There are three ways that the City can annex the "donuthole".
1. Using the water certificates. While the legallity of the water certificate has not yet been determined, the City is putting forth the "idea" that County residents that have signed the certificates are "stuck" and have already "cast their vote" in favor of annexation. PLEASE - contact the City and request a copy of the water certificate signed by you. We called and while the City had our name on the their "list", they did not have a certificate signed by us. It was signed by the previous owner of our property and the City tried to tell Mike that the "vote", once signed, applied to the property, not the current owner. This is not correct. Mike requested that our name and our property be removed from the water certificate list and the assessed value of our property be removed from the overall annexation numbers.
Bear in mind that once the City has delivered water to a given property, they CAN NOT stop delivery, just because you won't sign a water certificate.
2. The City must have 60% of the assessed value of a given area to AGREE to annexation AND...
3. 10% of the residents in that area need to sign a formal petition requesting the City to annex.
"Agenda 21" - (more information will be available on this later)
Upon annexation, the City MUST rezone the area, and despite what the City tells you, the City Zones are not the same as the County Zones.
Top Ten Reasons Not To Annex - Read by Roger Lenk
Minutes
Introductions were made around the room
We were initially told that the County had 45 days to respond to the City, or the City would move forward with annexation. We were also told that the City had 45 days after that to respond back to the County. Actually, there is no "end time". Additionally, the City hasn't approached the County to initiate annexation. If the City doesn't respond to the County, the County can send a letter to the City stating they believe that the City will not move forward with annexation and that they consider the matter closed.
There are three ways that the City can annex the "donuthole".
1. Using the water certificates. While the legallity of the water certificate has not yet been determined, the City is putting forth the "idea" that County residents that have signed the certificates are "stuck" and have already "cast their vote" in favor of annexation. PLEASE - contact the City and request a copy of the water certificate signed by you. We called and while the City had our name on the their "list", they did not have a certificate signed by us. It was signed by the previous owner of our property and the City tried to tell Mike that the "vote", once signed, applied to the property, not the current owner. This is not correct. Mike requested that our name and our property be removed from the water certificate list and the assessed value of our property be removed from the overall annexation numbers.
Bear in mind that once the City has delivered water to a given property, they CAN NOT stop delivery, just because you won't sign a water certificate.
2. The City must have 60% of the assessed value of a given area to AGREE to annexation AND...
3. 10% of the residents in that area need to sign a formal petition requesting the City to annex.
"Agenda 21" - (more information will be available on this later)
Upon annexation, the City MUST rezone the area, and despite what the City tells you, the City Zones are not the same as the County Zones.
Top Ten Reasons Not To Annex - Read by Roger Lenk
Top Ten Reason Not To Go Along With Annexation
As read by Roger Lenk at the County Commissioner's Meeting...
Honorable Members of Franklin County Commission:
My name is Roger Lenk. I reside at 1817 N. Road 76, Franklin County, Washington 99301. I will try to be brief.
I appreciate your continued concern regarding this matter. You may not know it, but this body has devoted more public meeting time to hear out constituent concerns than the last two governing bodies combined. The other two have devoted absolutely no time, only indicating that they wish to do so after an agreement is reached. Thank for being the only adults in the room regarding this matter.
I will give you the top 10 list of reason not to go along with the annexation hustle being proposed by the City and Fire District.
Reason 10: Why add a new layer of ineffective Government? The service provided to us by the County is great. All our needs are met, in a timely manner, very effectively. We appreciate a governing body which takes the time to understand the impacts of what it is approving, as opposed to doing only that which is in the best interest of the individual members of the governing body.
Reason 9: The opposition you have here today. Those of us in the Doughnut Hole support their county residency 100%, and vehemently opposed being forced into the City of Pasco.
Reason 8: The Negative impact on remaining Franklin County residents. Franklin County has a very tight budget, with no room to trim staff nor expenses. The loss of property taxes and assessed valuation from the doughnut holes will have a extremely negative impact on Franklin County finances. Further, the County will see significant increases in refuse rates.
Reason 7: The disparities in land use densities. My County neighbors take exception to the City's high density policies. Those of us West of Pasco understand when we purchased these lots that they were located in a very low density environment. Unfortunately, the City is bent on changing this low density environment into a higher density environment in order to reap the higher taxes and fees associated with such developments. There is no mechanism, permitted by state law or Pasco Municipal Code to include density standards in an interlocal agreement. The only means to maintain our preferred densities and lifestyle is to remain County residents. While 2 houses per acre is high, five or six per acre, or greater, is obscene. We also take offense that our agricultural uses and farm animal will become "non-conforming" in the City, thus limiting sales potential, animal rotations, etc.
Reason 6: The shake down doughnut hole resident will get. Of course, we get a new layer of unresponsive government and tossed our of Franklin County Fire District #3. We will become City of Pasco residents, and as such will be required to pay the Fire District for its lower ambulance access fees, the cost of Station 32 when the City buys it, even though we already own it and paid for it, as well as in lieu payments to the First District for lost property tax increment. The Fire District will retain its level of revenue, receive a lump sum payment for Station 32, lower its cost, and have less area to be responsible for. What a deal! No wonder they kept it under wraps!
Reason 5: The havoc and animosity doughnut hole resident needs may provoke between the City, County, Fire District. If annexation foes forward, doughnut hole residents may be forced to push a referendum for reduction of Pasco City limits. Voters have the option of excluding a specifically identified area from the Pasco City Limits. Given the high level of animosity toward the City, we can easily speculate what would occur if the voters are given their choice. RCW 35.02 also provides for the authority to incorporate a new City. A committee of citizens could easily map out an economically viable, tax self-sufficient, and well balance municipality say starting with the eastern boundary of Road 68, traversing west and south to the river front. Extraordinary assessed valuation, great sales tax base, good public and private school, nice low density environment. But, we don't want to do that as we are very happy now.
Reason 4: This is wrong annexation process to use. RCW 35A.14.480 does not allow County residents a proper voice in the annexation process. Under this imperfect system of annexation crafted by the Washington Fire Commissioners Associate, Counties have no ability to negotiate favorable terms for their residents. No density limitations, no service or improvement requirements, no lifestyle guarantees, no protections at all. Period. In order to obtain favorable treatment for its officers and organization, Fire Districts surrender their constituents to the foe much like soldiers and chattel given up on the field of battle. General Lee received much better terms for his troops from General Grant at Appomattox. If we must be annexed, all us the dignity of receiving individual notices from the City, and the ability to plead our case in front of the Pasco City Council, at a formal public hearing, utilizing the process provided for vie the annexation agreement. The folks who successfully avoided a Water Agreement annexation over on Argent Road a few years ago understand the ability to fend for themselves. This fight would not be possible if you agree to allow this process to go forward.
Reason 3: The Fire District thoroughly botched its execution of this process. Throughout, it referred to RCW 35.13.238 related to annexation. This includes formal minutes, letters to the City and to County. A completely different section, RCW 35A.14.480 is the controlling legislation for a Code City. In addition, the Fire District did not take formal public action on its acceptance to go forward with the negotiation process. Its August 3 acceptance letter to the City, and it August 15 and 16 letters to this body, are now formally characterized as "personal opinions" as opposed to public policy directives. What about their August 3rd, 10th, and 17th testimony made before this body? You need to change your meeting minutes. It was not based on public actions nor policy, but personal opinion. After I made an August 17, 2011, public records request for authorizing documents, the Fire District held a special meeting and approved entering into the annexation process. I had to wait until after it retroactively cleaned up its mess to receive the documents. It appears that a significant amount of public agency time and resources were devoted to espousing personal political opinion. We trust the District to fight fires, but not to negotiate an annexation agreement on our behalf.
Reason 2: The agreement of February 24, 2011, is illegal. I know you are saying to yourself "we were told we had to enter into this process BEFORE we could negotiate an agreement." That is true according to http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35A.14.480. The City and Fire District told you that you had to buy the horse before they could build the cart. However, since your last meeting, we discovered that the City and the Fire District have been in negotiations regarding this annexation since September 2010. In other words, the building of the care took place out of the public eye and without public authorization by their respective governing bodies. The City and the Fire District were not "thinking" about an agreement, they specifically formalized it in writing. The County, a necessary party to such an agreement, was never notified nor advised of these shenanigans.
An agreement was consummated or about February 24, 2011. It was put on hold until after the primary election filings to avoid political landmines. When it was clear that the incumbents were sage in their chairs, the City Manager brought the idea to negotiate forward, and pushed hard at three (3) meetings. It was approved at a special workshop meeting where no attends. I provided the Clerk of the Board the complete text of the agreement and all other documents.
Among other things, that agreement provides for transfer of one Fire District employee to the City. This is against the State of Washington Civil Service Provisions for Public Safety Officers (RCW 41.08), and a violation of the City of Pasco Municipal Code. The agreement also provides for the sale of Station 32 to the City and rezoning it for commercial purposes. The rezoning provisions is a violation of Washington State law RCW 35A.63, and the Pasco Municipal Code. Only the Planning Commission or a Hearings Examiner is granted that authority, after proper notice, and conduction a public hearing. Along with other favors, the agreement also includes "quid pro quo" payments from the City as the Fire District increases its levy rate.
Reason 1: Your counter parties to an interlocal agreement are untrustworthy. The City and Fire District intentional violated the provisions of RCW 35A.14.480 by covertly negotiating an agreement prior to the formal process being adopted by all three (3) agencies. Mr. Crutchfield lied to his governing body, lied to this governing body, and lied to the public at large. The heads of Franklin County Fire District #3 are conspirators to this felony, and committed serial omissions. Moreover, they made public policy statements which were in fact personal political opinions in drag. The more gentile among us would call this group consistent. Since the City and Fire District did not want the County's help or input when they were negotiating the interlocal agreement, it would be prudent not to led your authorization now. The Dictionary defines "scofflaw" as a person who flouts the rules, conventions, or accepted practices. You can't negotiate a deal with a scofflaw. The outcome is always the same and will be at our peril.
In closing, throughout this process, we citizens have observed the differences between good and bad government. Again this body has shown extremely good judgement in listening to the voices who lent them temporary custody over our sovereignty. The City of Pasco and Fire District #3 clearly lack integrity, ethics, honesty, candor, competence, accountability, and moral compass in conducting the public's business. Their behavior in this matter is abhorrent, yet typical.
We recommend that the County Commissioners vote against wasting everyone's time and entering into a specious negotiation process where we already know the outcome. Doughnut Hole residents thank you in advance for your consideration of their concerns.
Honorable Members of Franklin County Commission:
My name is Roger Lenk. I reside at 1817 N. Road 76, Franklin County, Washington 99301. I will try to be brief.
I appreciate your continued concern regarding this matter. You may not know it, but this body has devoted more public meeting time to hear out constituent concerns than the last two governing bodies combined. The other two have devoted absolutely no time, only indicating that they wish to do so after an agreement is reached. Thank for being the only adults in the room regarding this matter.
I will give you the top 10 list of reason not to go along with the annexation hustle being proposed by the City and Fire District.
Reason 10: Why add a new layer of ineffective Government? The service provided to us by the County is great. All our needs are met, in a timely manner, very effectively. We appreciate a governing body which takes the time to understand the impacts of what it is approving, as opposed to doing only that which is in the best interest of the individual members of the governing body.
Reason 9: The opposition you have here today. Those of us in the Doughnut Hole support their county residency 100%, and vehemently opposed being forced into the City of Pasco.
Reason 8: The Negative impact on remaining Franklin County residents. Franklin County has a very tight budget, with no room to trim staff nor expenses. The loss of property taxes and assessed valuation from the doughnut holes will have a extremely negative impact on Franklin County finances. Further, the County will see significant increases in refuse rates.
Reason 7: The disparities in land use densities. My County neighbors take exception to the City's high density policies. Those of us West of Pasco understand when we purchased these lots that they were located in a very low density environment. Unfortunately, the City is bent on changing this low density environment into a higher density environment in order to reap the higher taxes and fees associated with such developments. There is no mechanism, permitted by state law or Pasco Municipal Code to include density standards in an interlocal agreement. The only means to maintain our preferred densities and lifestyle is to remain County residents. While 2 houses per acre is high, five or six per acre, or greater, is obscene. We also take offense that our agricultural uses and farm animal will become "non-conforming" in the City, thus limiting sales potential, animal rotations, etc.
Reason 6: The shake down doughnut hole resident will get. Of course, we get a new layer of unresponsive government and tossed our of Franklin County Fire District #3. We will become City of Pasco residents, and as such will be required to pay the Fire District for its lower ambulance access fees, the cost of Station 32 when the City buys it, even though we already own it and paid for it, as well as in lieu payments to the First District for lost property tax increment. The Fire District will retain its level of revenue, receive a lump sum payment for Station 32, lower its cost, and have less area to be responsible for. What a deal! No wonder they kept it under wraps!
Reason 5: The havoc and animosity doughnut hole resident needs may provoke between the City, County, Fire District. If annexation foes forward, doughnut hole residents may be forced to push a referendum for reduction of Pasco City limits. Voters have the option of excluding a specifically identified area from the Pasco City Limits. Given the high level of animosity toward the City, we can easily speculate what would occur if the voters are given their choice. RCW 35.02 also provides for the authority to incorporate a new City. A committee of citizens could easily map out an economically viable, tax self-sufficient, and well balance municipality say starting with the eastern boundary of Road 68, traversing west and south to the river front. Extraordinary assessed valuation, great sales tax base, good public and private school, nice low density environment. But, we don't want to do that as we are very happy now.
Reason 4: This is wrong annexation process to use. RCW 35A.14.480 does not allow County residents a proper voice in the annexation process. Under this imperfect system of annexation crafted by the Washington Fire Commissioners Associate, Counties have no ability to negotiate favorable terms for their residents. No density limitations, no service or improvement requirements, no lifestyle guarantees, no protections at all. Period. In order to obtain favorable treatment for its officers and organization, Fire Districts surrender their constituents to the foe much like soldiers and chattel given up on the field of battle. General Lee received much better terms for his troops from General Grant at Appomattox. If we must be annexed, all us the dignity of receiving individual notices from the City, and the ability to plead our case in front of the Pasco City Council, at a formal public hearing, utilizing the process provided for vie the annexation agreement. The folks who successfully avoided a Water Agreement annexation over on Argent Road a few years ago understand the ability to fend for themselves. This fight would not be possible if you agree to allow this process to go forward.
Reason 3: The Fire District thoroughly botched its execution of this process. Throughout, it referred to RCW 35.13.238 related to annexation. This includes formal minutes, letters to the City and to County. A completely different section, RCW 35A.14.480 is the controlling legislation for a Code City. In addition, the Fire District did not take formal public action on its acceptance to go forward with the negotiation process. Its August 3 acceptance letter to the City, and it August 15 and 16 letters to this body, are now formally characterized as "personal opinions" as opposed to public policy directives. What about their August 3rd, 10th, and 17th testimony made before this body? You need to change your meeting minutes. It was not based on public actions nor policy, but personal opinion. After I made an August 17, 2011, public records request for authorizing documents, the Fire District held a special meeting and approved entering into the annexation process. I had to wait until after it retroactively cleaned up its mess to receive the documents. It appears that a significant amount of public agency time and resources were devoted to espousing personal political opinion. We trust the District to fight fires, but not to negotiate an annexation agreement on our behalf.
Reason 2: The agreement of February 24, 2011, is illegal. I know you are saying to yourself "we were told we had to enter into this process BEFORE we could negotiate an agreement." That is true according to http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35A.14.480. The City and Fire District told you that you had to buy the horse before they could build the cart. However, since your last meeting, we discovered that the City and the Fire District have been in negotiations regarding this annexation since September 2010. In other words, the building of the care took place out of the public eye and without public authorization by their respective governing bodies. The City and the Fire District were not "thinking" about an agreement, they specifically formalized it in writing. The County, a necessary party to such an agreement, was never notified nor advised of these shenanigans.
An agreement was consummated or about February 24, 2011. It was put on hold until after the primary election filings to avoid political landmines. When it was clear that the incumbents were sage in their chairs, the City Manager brought the idea to negotiate forward, and pushed hard at three (3) meetings. It was approved at a special workshop meeting where no attends. I provided the Clerk of the Board the complete text of the agreement and all other documents.
Among other things, that agreement provides for transfer of one Fire District employee to the City. This is against the State of Washington Civil Service Provisions for Public Safety Officers (RCW 41.08), and a violation of the City of Pasco Municipal Code. The agreement also provides for the sale of Station 32 to the City and rezoning it for commercial purposes. The rezoning provisions is a violation of Washington State law RCW 35A.63, and the Pasco Municipal Code. Only the Planning Commission or a Hearings Examiner is granted that authority, after proper notice, and conduction a public hearing. Along with other favors, the agreement also includes "quid pro quo" payments from the City as the Fire District increases its levy rate.
Reason 1: Your counter parties to an interlocal agreement are untrustworthy. The City and Fire District intentional violated the provisions of RCW 35A.14.480 by covertly negotiating an agreement prior to the formal process being adopted by all three (3) agencies. Mr. Crutchfield lied to his governing body, lied to this governing body, and lied to the public at large. The heads of Franklin County Fire District #3 are conspirators to this felony, and committed serial omissions. Moreover, they made public policy statements which were in fact personal political opinions in drag. The more gentile among us would call this group consistent. Since the City and Fire District did not want the County's help or input when they were negotiating the interlocal agreement, it would be prudent not to led your authorization now. The Dictionary defines "scofflaw" as a person who flouts the rules, conventions, or accepted practices. You can't negotiate a deal with a scofflaw. The outcome is always the same and will be at our peril.
In closing, throughout this process, we citizens have observed the differences between good and bad government. Again this body has shown extremely good judgement in listening to the voices who lent them temporary custody over our sovereignty. The City of Pasco and Fire District #3 clearly lack integrity, ethics, honesty, candor, competence, accountability, and moral compass in conducting the public's business. Their behavior in this matter is abhorrent, yet typical.
We recommend that the County Commissioners vote against wasting everyone's time and entering into a specious negotiation process where we already know the outcome. Doughnut Hole residents thank you in advance for your consideration of their concerns.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
PREFERRED COMMENT FORMAT
Karen Vermillion
2921 Road 64
Please use this format when posting a comment. That way someone can contact you if they need clarification.
To post a comment, click on "# Comments" after each post.
Type your comment.
Click on the drop-down window next to "Comment as:", and click on "Anonymous" at the bottom.
Click on "Post Comment"
If you already have an existing profile, you are free to use it if you prefer, but please include your name and address at the beginning of each posted comment.
2921 Road 64
Please use this format when posting a comment. That way someone can contact you if they need clarification.
To post a comment, click on "# Comments" after each post.
Type your comment.
Click on the drop-down window next to "Comment as:", and click on "Anonymous" at the bottom.
Click on "Post Comment"
If you already have an existing profile, you are free to use it if you prefer, but please include your name and address at the beginning of each posted comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)