Posts

Showing posts from 2010

Will I or Will I not get a meeting with and explanation from the City Finance Director?

From: finis tupper Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 9:09 AM To: adrienne monillas (adrienne.monillas@ci.edmonds.wa.us); 'Diane Buckshnis'; dj wilson (djwilson@ci.edmonds.wa.us); michael plunkett (michaelppp98@yahoo.com); steve Bernheim (council@stevebernheim.com); strom peterson (peterson@ci.edmonds.wa.us) Subject: FW: Ogden Murphy Wallace Law PLLC 2009 Legal Costs Although gambling isn’t allowed in Edmonds, thanks to Mr. Orvis – how about getting our Mayor to start a pool on whether I get a meeting with Mr. Hines. ______________________________________ From: finis tupper Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 8:59 AM To: 'Hines Jr., Lorenzo'; 'Chase, Sandy' Subject: RE: Ogden Murphy Wallace Law PLLC 2009 Legal Costs Dear Mr. Hines: Were you being disingenuous when you stated that “I’m always open to meeting with members of the community to provide clarifying information”? If you are not aware, I am currently a member of the community. My calendar is open Ju

Who's confused?

My email to Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director - City of Edmonds Dear Mr. Hines, Thank you for your offer to meet with the public and explain the accounting information provided by your department. Recently, you provided two different reports accounting for the same check payments to Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC. The first report was a Vendor Master Report and the second report was Check History Listing Report. I am perplexed by your claim that the Vendor Master Report contained duplicate entries "due to an isolated software issue that only affected that report." Please understand my skepticism that only this report would be impacted by some unexplained and "isolated software issue". The "Vendor Master Report/Vendor Check History" Report lists check number 111583, dated May 7, 2009, related to invoice # 674159 in the amount of $56,381.98. Under "Stat", it indicates "C", which I believe means the check Cleared the bank. The report als

City Attorney payments

The City of Edmonds Finance Department explains the duplicate payments to Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC. The Council approved payments were voided How to Neutralize Dissenters Make the whistleblowers, instead of their message, the issue: Discredit the dissent by attacking the dissenter's professional competence or virtually anything else that will work to cloud the issue.products and expanded co-op principles -Courage Without Martyrdom: A Survival Guide for Whistleblowers, by the Government Accountability Project

City Attorney legal expertise

If you get a chance read the May 18, 2010 - City Council Meeting Minutes - Agenda 12 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON REQUEST TO MAYOR OF CITY OF EDMONDS BY EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL FOR INFORMATION REGARDING LEGAL FEES PAID BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS FROM JANUARY 1, 2009 THROUGH APRIL 28, 2010. The Mayor doesn't want to provide the information to the City Council. The City Attorney states the Mayor doesn't have to provide financial information to City Council citing Ch. 35A.012.030 RCW Eligibility to hold elective office. It appears that the City Attorney has received $81,194.27 in duplicate payments for same the invoice in 2009. Unbelievable.

Edmonds Comprehensive Plan - Changes!

EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MEETING - MAY 12, 2010 Update on Comprehensive Plan purpose, effect, and context amendments and Hearing Examiner comprehensive plan review requirements. 7PM The purpose of a Comprehensive Plan is to establish a long-range plan, looking into the future, addressing the needs and vision relating to land use, transportation, parks and open space, community facilities and economic development. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan sets a foundation for decision-making from a broad and far-reaching policy standpoint for all governmental action even though the plan itself is not regulatory. The most important power and duty granted to the City of Edmonds is the authority and responsibility to regulate land-use for the sole purpose of protecting and promoting public health, safety and general welfare of current and future citizens. All private projects requiring city review and approval should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. All public projects should ha

Hearing Examiner - No Work - Great Pay - Continues!

Image
TOWEILL RICE TAYLOR STILL CASHING IN FOR NO WORK! AGENDA HEARING EXAMINER Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North MAY 20, 2010 3:00 P.M. _______________________________________________________________________ THIS MEETING CANCELLED DUE TO A LACK OF ITEMS

No Work - Great Compensation $3,500 per month expense!

Image
CANCELLED AGENDA HEARING EXAMINER Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North MAY 6, 2010 3:00 P.M. THIS MEETING CANCELLED DUE TO A LACK OF ITEMS scoreboard update Number of Hearings 15 Hearing Examiner Contract Expense $56,000.00 minus City of Edmonds Revenue $20,017.00 = Loss $35,98300

Skipper's Property

APRIL 20TH - 7:00PM Edmonds City Council Meeting Agenda Item: 9 Public Comment on possible purchase of Skipper's Property 102 Main St. Agenda Item: 10 Public Comment on Budget Cuts.

The City of Edmonds has no MONEY!

City of Edmonds financial situation prevents purchase of the Skippers property on Main Street. DJ Wilson says, "We just don't have the money" - When in fact there is no way anyone can know because the City's financial reports are incomplete and tardy. The Council as well as the Citizens are in the DARK. Show me the 1st Quarter 2010 and 4th Quarter 2009 Budget Reports. Tell us what financial figures, DJ Wilson, you base your assertion there is no money. The City’s check book has not been balanced. Those that have studied the City Financial Forecast spreadsheets have discovered errors. We have brought those errors to your attention only to be ignored. The City of Edmonds Financial Forecast is a trumped up inaccurate spreadsheet of numbers designed for the sole purpose of floating a levy. You enjoy digging into the pocketbooks of the citizens. DJ Wilson has supported tax after tax. All the utility taxes were increased in 2008. DJ Wilson supported the Transportations

Tall Buildings proposed on Edmonds Waterfront

Image
This morning the City of Edmonds published notice of  SEPA Determination of Significance and Request for Comments  for 190 Sunset Ave N. Public Comment Welcomed but most likely ignored! Last Saturday April 10th, Mayor Haakenson posted a comment on the My Edmonds News  - "Tall building “fever” strikes again in Edmonds!" Haakenson couldn't have been more on point, but instead of being factual he went on to say, "Let’s take some deep breaths folks and act on facts not rumors." Councilman DJ Wilson went on thanking the Mayor for this post and saying "There are no proposals on the table – in fact there is barely a process begun." Your comments on the proposed rezone of ESC Associate property for a contract rezone from Community Business (BC) to General Commercial (CG and CG2), which would allow for the development of Sunset Landing, a mixed use, transit oriented development. Sunset Landing is two structures that include two levels of parking wrapped by

Okay Mayor - Where's is the 2009 4th Qtr Budget Report

It's April 10th, 2010 . So far, the Mayor hasn't presented a 2009 4th Quarter Budget Report from the Finance Office to the citizens and Council. The 2010 - 1st Quarter Budget Report is missing and not available too! Why? Instead - On Tuesday, the Council Finance Committee will hear a General Fund Report from the Finance Director. The actual report isn't available to the public. HEARING EXAMINER V. CITY OF EDMONDS -SCOREBOARD UPDATE- BOTH HEARING EXAMINER MEETINGS IN APRIL CANCELLED - DUE TO A LACK OF ITEMS - THAT MEANS THE CITY LOSES ANOTHER $3,500.00 AND PAYS FOR NOTHING.

Edmonds Dictionary

College Professor and Edmonds City Councilman D.J. Wilson has a completely different dictionary than everyone else. At the April 6, Council meeting Mr. Wilson proclaimed "Secret is different than Private ". The following is from www.dictionary.com. se·cret   /ˈsikrɪt/ Show Spelled[see-krit] –adjective 1.done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others: secret negotiations. 2.kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged: a secret password. 3.faithful or cautious in keeping confidential matters confidential; close-mouthed; reticent. 4.designed or working to escape notice, knowledge, or observation: a secret drawer; the secret police. 5.secluded, sheltered, or withdrawn: a secret hiding place. 6.beyond ordinary human understanding; esoteric. 7.(of information, a document, etc.) a.bearing the classification secret. b.limited to persons authorized to use information documents, etc., so classified. –noun 8.something that is or is kept secret, hidden, or

Adopt an Edmonds Park

City Council member Diane Buckshnis promotes a new citizen involvement program “ Adopt a Park .” With over 60 parks the City of Edmonds could use some elbow grease and volunteer effort. Councilmember Diane Buckshnis said, "In line with fulfilling our Comprehensive Plan for Community Health and Environmental Quality, I think it is time to start working on our environment at a grass-roots level by helping keep our parks clean." "So why not continue to inspire, educate and engage our children and others on the importance of giving back to the environment and our City by adopting an area/park or street." "Let's lead by example and be leaders. It's as easy as contact the City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Department and asking for the forms. Get your neighbors involved and if you don't have a park close, just do a neighborhood clean-up day or contact any local organizations such as the Edmonds Backyard Habitat Group and ask them where you can help.&qu

Edmonds Hearing Examiner - Scoreboard

Image
January 2009 - 1 Hearing = expense $3,500.00 (City revenue $1,155.00 fee) February 2009 - 2 Hearing = expense $3,500 (City revenue $4,030.00 fees) March 2009 - 1 Hearing = expense $3,500 (City revenue $1,330.00 fee) April 2009 - 1 Hearing = expense $3,500 (City revenue $1,948.01 fee) May 2009 - 0 Hearings = expense $3,500 (City revenue ZERO) June 2009 - 3 Hearings = expense $3,500 (City revenue $4,624.00 fees) July 2009 - 0 Hearings = expense $3,500 (City revenue ZERO) August 2009 - 0 Hearings = expense $3,500 (City revenue ZERO) September 2009 - 2 Hearings = expense $3,500 (City revenue $2,915.00 fees) October 2009 - 2 Hearings = expense $3,500 (City revenue $1,605.00 fees) November 2009 - 1 Hearing = expense $3,500 (City revenue ZERO) December 2009 - 0 Hearings = expense $3,500 (City revenue ZERO) January 2010 - 0 Hearings (No Work) = expense $3,500.00 (City revenue ZERO) February 2010 - 1 Hearing 1 advisory report = expense $3,500.00 (City revenue $705.00 fee) March 2010 - 2 Hearing

City Hearing Examiner Contract - Another example of Government Waste

Image
Go figure, what information was provided to the Edmonds City Council prior to accepting and entering into a contract that costs the Edmonds Taxpayers four times the amount the very same firm charges the the City of Everett ($120.00 per hour, not to exceed $10,000 in a calendar year)? On February 20, 2007 via the consent agenda the Edmonds City Council approved a contract for Hearing Examiner services with the law firm Toweill Rice Taylor. This contract calls for a $3,500 per month compensation or $42,000 annual expense. Folks that's $126,000 expense over the 3 year contract compared to $30,000 expense for Everett over the same contract term. No wonder the City financial situation appears dire. In 2009 the Hearing Examiner conducted 11 hearings or $3,818 per hearing. Another way to evaluate the contract $42,000 divided by $120 per hour, 350 hours divided by 11 hearings - 31 hours per hearing and decision. It makes no sense. The City of Edmonds sends Toweill Rice Taylor a check for $

Fire District One Contract

Now that the City of Edmonds January 25, 2010 financial forecast completely discloses the myth of any savings for contracting with Fire District One for fire/emergency medical services, the city council should re-evaluate the proposal. The questions are: Was the city administration's financial analysis of the proposal accurate? Is Fire District One providing fire/emergency services for the actual cost of service or is the fire district making a profit? The Council has a fiduciary responsibility in light of the new financial numbers demonstrating "no savings" to answer these two questions.

Sounds like the City of Edmonds

An Interesting Analogy with the recent FD1 sale and the financials. Let’s all think we are shareholders in a company that has been around for over a century. We are a major manufacture of widgets in Edmonds and have many people employed in the various service levels of this popular and family friendly business. The Board of Directors is thinking of issuing more bonds to gain money and spend hundreds of hours trying to convince shareholders. Instead the CEO and CFO in April get together with the unions and decide that regionalization and combining services of our beloved team to a larger corporation is the best way. The Board of Directors becomes engaged and in October, the “latest” executive summary numbers and contract of services are provided with various scenarios of only selling service and/or buildings and with service. The shareholders are also given a few months to review the details but the information is disjointed and some shareholders question both the executive summary numb

5 MILLION DOLLARS SAVINGS

SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 - MAYOR'S FIRE DISTRICT 1 PRESENTATION CITY OF EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT SLIDE #8 TOTAL COST = 9.6 MILLION DOLLARS SLIDE #9 TOTAL REVENUE = 6 MILLION DOLLARS SLIDE #10 GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY = 3.6 MILLION DOLLARS FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT SLIDE #11 FIRE DISTRICT CONTRACT 2010 = 6.2 MILLION DOLLARS PLUS NON-DEPARTMENT COSTS $800,000 TOTAL COST = 7 MILLION DOLLARS SLIDE #13 COMPARSION KEEP EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY = 3.6 MILLION DOLLARS CONTRACT WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY =2.8 MILLION DOLLARS (THIS CONTRACT PROVIDES FOR SAVINGS IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $800,000 THE FIRST YEAR!) SLIDE #14 THE FUTURE IN 2015, FIVE YEARS LATER, THAT NUMBER ESCALATES TO OVER 1 MILLION. AND WILL CONTINUE TO RISE... Where's the 5 million dollars savings - Mayor?

Where's the savings - Mayor?

On January 1, 2010 - The Edmonds Fire Department was transferred to another public agency, Snohomish County Fire District No. 1. The Edmonds City Council based on Mayor's Haakenson statements has contracted with Fire District 1 for 20 years to provide Fire and Emergency Medical Services. The Edmonds City Council approved this business transaction based on false and misleading financial forecasts. The Mayor in his 2009 " State of the City " address said the City's cost to provide fire and emergency medical services was 8 million dollars. For some unexplained reason, on September 15, 2009, the Mayor inflated this fire department cost figure to 9.6 Million ( council meeting agenda powerpoint presentation ). See the September 15, 2009 City Council Agenda. The Council and most everyone listening assumed that by contracting for service there would be a 3 Million dollar yearly savings. On January 25, 2010, approximately three months later, Edmonds Finance Director Lorenzo Hi

Is it ever WISE to break the law?

Mayor Gary Haakenson sends an email to City Councilman Michael Plunkett. Mayor Haakenson tells Councilman Plunkett that City Council President DJ Wilson is out to get him. Former Councilwoman Mauri Moore and Finis Tupper are investigating the issue. Mayor Haakenson's battle-cry to Plunkett " RALLY THREE VOTES ", if Councilman Michael Plunkett thinks it is wise. The Mayor can't vote on the meeting agenda or create the Council agenda, but objects to any Council discussion of the Street Vacation ordinance and (illegal) Temporary Construction Easement. Here are a couple of emails between Councilman Michael Plunkett and Councilman Dave Orvis providing clear and cogent evidence of Plunkett's intent to " RALLY THREE VOTES " against hearing Item 9 on the November 2, 2009 City Council Meeting Agenda. (Note: Plunkett has cut and pasted the Mayor's email into the body of his email without disclosing the information and request originated from Mayor Haakenson

Please explain your motion, Mr. Wambolt.

Edmonds City Council Meeting Minutes November 2, 2009 - At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would be meeting in executive session to receive legal advice regarding pending or threatened litigation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Haakenson , Councilmembers Orvis , Wambolt , Plunkett , Bernheim , Peterson. Olson and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder, Attorney Stephanie Croll , and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced to the public that an additional 15 minutes would be needed in executive session. At 7:15 p.m., Mayor Haakenson again announced to the public that an additional 15 minutes would be needed in executive session. The executive

MAYOR, YOU'RE RIGHT - IT’S ALL ABOUT APPEARANCES

On the November 2, 2009, Edmonds City Council Agenda THERE was Item 9. AM-2579 – Review of construction easement reserved by Ordinance No. 3729. The easement involves the vacated right of way of a platted but unbuilt public alley lying between the reserved construction easement is for the installation of a driveway and retaining wall on property lying north of the alley and east of 8th Ave. N. Backroom politics and interference - made the council remove this discussion outside of public view. Mayor Gary Haakenson objected to Council review of this ordinance. By email from his personal email account, Mayor Haakenson violated the Open Public Meetings Act, Ch. 42.30 RCW Here’s the verbatim email sent by Mayor Haakenson to Councilman Plunkett. For clarity I've added the information in parentheses (). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gary haakenson ghaakenson@yahoo.com Sub

Appeal 20090004

In Re the Appeal of: Kenneth & Vera Reidy 771 Daley St. • Edmonds WA 98020 Appeal No. AP20090004 Finis Tupper Declaration & Brief COMES NOW, Finis Tupper testifying in support of the Kenneth & Vera Reidy Appeal and recommending the Hearing Examiner grant the appeal. Introduction Before the Hearing Examiner, the City of Edmonds and City Attorney request enforcement of Ordinance 3729, this Notice of Code Violation exceeds statutory authority of police power, absent both a rational basis and reasonable relationship to public necessity, public welfare, health and safety. In this code violation action, the City of Edmonds acts absent statutory authority, in bad faith, fraudulently, arbitrary and capriciously by defying Federal, State and Local laws. The City Attorney has acted arbitrary and capriciously by using the code enforcement violation process to run-over the appellant’s substantive and procedural due process rights, right to privacy and taking of his real property withou

Thank you.

Really, I want to thank all of you that have called and emailed me offering your support and encouragement in my efforts to preserve Edmonds and trim the sails of the wayward ship, Edmonds City government. Since my blog post and last weeks Council Meeting, the response and support is overwhelming. If you left a voice mail message and I haven't returned your call, please accept my apology. Keep the Dirt coming by calling (425) 778-9465 or emailing me finistupper@hotmail.com . Even though my Just Dirt file is filling up it's one of the necessary components to grow flowers. I'm just amazed at the number who have stepped up to say the injustice must stop. Thanks for reading my blog and for your many kind thoughts and recommendations. The concern and kindness you have shown and displayed to me and my family is most appreciated. As always, I'm here to assist you too! Finis

UNTRUTHFUL CITY ATTORNEY

CLAIM: At January 19, City Council Meeting the City Attorney claimed the city refunds the Appeal Fee to a prevailing appellant. TRUTH: The City of Edmonds does not always refund a successful appellant as the citizen claimed at the Council meeting AND SCOTT SNYDER REBUTTED. In the following matter, the staff changed the type of hearing midstream by renaming an appeal to some unknown and uncodified type of hearing not found in the City Code and referred to as an Exception Hearing. Then the staff denies the Appellants request for refund of Appeal Fee saying only successful appeals to the City Council are refunded. Here's the letter from Public Works Director Noel Miller to the Appellant denying refund of the Appeal Fee. File number APL 20090003. APL is an abbreviation of the word appeal. On the bottom of the page, below Mr. Miller's signature (JZL744973.DOC/00006.900000/). JZL stands for J. Zachary Lell an Attorney with Ogden, Murphy Wallace Law Firm . https://permits.edmonds

Good Stuff / If the City actually did it!

Code Enforcement Frequently Asked Questions How do I request code enforcement action or file a suspected violation complaint with the City? In emergency situations involving activities which must be stopped immediately to prevent irreparable harm, please contact Development Services during office hours or the police (911). On evenings, weekends, and holidays dial 911. Non-emergency complaints must be submitted in writing. The complaint must be signed and include the following: The address and telephone number of the person making the complaint. A clear description of the nature of the alleged violation. Location of the alleged violation and name of the alleged violator (if known). Any other pertinent information. To initiate a non-emergency investigation a "Request for Code Enforcement Action" (RCE) form should be completed. The form is available on-line and at City Hall. It can also be emailed, mailed or faxed to you. Although the form is not required, the RCE form will help

ENFORCEMENT REQUEST

Image
Edmonds is a great place to live, work and play. For over 30 years, my family has resided in downtown Edmonds. For many years I've been involved in City government and the administration of the Edmonds Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. Last week, I was sadden to learn of John LaTourelle passing. John was the City Consultant that wrote the original Comprehensive Plan Chapter 15 of Edmonds Community Development Code. Of course, John had a lot of assistance from a truly dedicated group of citizens, who provided important input. Most of their work has endured and preserved the Edmonds quality of life. Edmonds "The Gem on Puget Sound" is a true statement. The Edmonds' quality of life could be even better though, but for City Attorney W. Scott Snyder and the Ogden Murphy Wallace Law Firm butchering the city codes and Comprehensive Plan. Last weeks, Council meeting was a classic example of his poor work product and his dereliction of duty to the citizens and

City of Edmonds - Standard Modis Operandi

This morning I realized that I relied on the Code Section cited on City form. What a silly mistake. There is an old saying always verify any information you get. Especially when it's the work of Scott Snyder and Odgen Murphy Wallace. It's the old saying "you get what you pay for" From: Thies, Mike [mailto:thies@ci.edmonds.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:16 AMTo: Finis TupperSubject: RE: Code Enforcement Form I don’t recall exactly. Whenever it was brought to my attention that the particular code had been revised. I believe in early 2009. -----Original Message-----From: Finis Tupper [mailto:finistupper@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:05 AMTo: Thies, MikeSubject: RE: Code Enforcement Form When was it updated? From: Thies, Mike [mailto:thies@ci.edmonds.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:54 AMTo: Finis TupperCc: Grant WeedSubject: RE: Code Enforcement Form Apparently, you must have the old form. Please find the updated form attached. --

Who's mistake is it anyway?

Claim: Comprehensive Plan is not self-executing. ECDC needs implementation language for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Truth: Effect of Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan clearly states the requirement for the Hearing Examiner advisory opinion of compliance prior to Council decision in 1.) Street Vacations and Dedications and 2.) Public Projects. Furthermore, ECDC 20.70.080 Staff Report preparation (A) (3) states the staff shall conduct, “An analysis of the requested vacation in relation to the provisions of this chapter and the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan…” Which document is it, The Comprehensive Plan or Edmonds Community Development Code that the staff fails to comprehend. The City Attorney advises the City Council the ECDC requires new language and legal services to straighten out the wordsmith quagmire of his own execution. For many Years, Ogden Murphy Wallace Law Firm has represented the city. The City Attorney should know the code forwards and bac

Your Story Please

Have you never email the City and been ignored? I would like to hear from you. Which city official ignored you and the circumstances. You may comment on the blog anonymously or email me. Thanks.

Hiding under the covers!

Image
PLEASE READ THESE EMAILS IN REVERSE ORDER. Mr. Tupper, Your inquiries are being forwarded to Grant Weed for response. Sincerely, Mike Thies -----Original Message-----From: Finis Tupper [mailto:finistupper@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 8:10 AMTo: Thies, MikeCc: Haakenson, Gary; 'Stephen A. Bernheim'; daveandmarthaorvis@gmail.com; Wilson, DJSubject: RE: Email Followup Dear Mr. Thies: Please be more specific. Are you denying me the opportunity to meet with you to discuss your actions prior to the matter being referred to Weed, Graafstra and Benson? It is very clear to me you choose to ignore my email of January 8th requesting an appointment. What City Policy or Official Direction did you rely on to determine no need for response? Or do you make it a habit to ignore citizen requests? Thank you, Finis From: Thies, Mike [mailto:thies@ci.edmonds.wa.us] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 7:43 AMTo: Finis TupperCc: Haakenson, Gary; Stephen A. Bernheim; daveandmarthaorvis@gmai

Edmonds Code Enforcement, Mike Thies

My email to the unqualified investigator of Code Violations. No response. But I will keep you all informed in the process. Dear Mr. Thies: At your convenience, please schedule an appointment time for us to discuss the efforts your office took to resolve my code enforcement request, faxed on December 9, 2009. My desire is for a better understanding of the actions you as the Code Enforcement Officer accomplished prior to the involvement of Attorney Grant Weed, Esq. Please contact me to arrange for a mutually convenient appointment time. Thank you. Finis Tupper

Conflict Council (sic) Email

Mr. Tupper, As you know, our office has been requested to assist with review and response to your request for code enforcement action received by the City on December 9, 2009. Your request alleges that the City failed to follow the Growth Management Act and Edmonds Comprehensive Plan regulations when it purchased and developed certain property. Because the request appears to center on issues concerning State law (the GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan, legal review is necessary in order to respond. Review of this nature is generally outside of the expertise of a code enforcement officer. Because there is some history relating to this matter we will need some time to investigate, obtain relevant documents, and research the law. Following our review we will provide you with a written response to the complaint. I do have one question for you. Is there a specific section of City code that you allege has been violated? If so, what section? Sincerely, Grant Weed Weed, Graafstra &