" From the information in the article, it would appear the city council took at face value the statements of one person. Having lived in the same house in the affected area of North Hill for 30 years, I would ask my mayor and council members to investigate the validity of the information they acted upon. The Southwest Suburban Sewer District would be a good place to start. I suspect they just might find they were led far astray by a non-resident of North Hill who merely wants to make a buck at the expense of those who DO own property in the affected area. "

" As a resident in this effected area, who might potentially have to pay 22,740, + the cost of a side sewer, just to hook up to my house, it’s GREAT to hear that it won't cost the city of Des Moines a dollar. Thanks for supporting us. It’s good to see that ONE council member voted by US, gets why this is an illegitimate project, proposed to you by someone who is not a resident of North Hill. "

" On July 10, a group of North Hill neighbors presented a counter petition to the SW Sewer District showing that a MAJORITY of single family home owners oppose the proposed sewer project. As a result, the sewer commissioners refused (not once, but twice) to accept the original petition presented by Ms. McCwethy in support of the project. Again, it should be noted that single family homeowners have soundly rejected this project and any majority percentage of pro votes are solely based on properties which are slated for development! It should also be noted that the SW Sewer Commisioners made a point of letting residents know this project IS NOT being requested as the result of a public health issue. The City of Des Moines is acting irresponsibly by further supporting the conversion to sewer of effiecently running septic systems in the North Hill area. It is a little known fact that Puget Sound area sewer districts regularly allow overflow of raw sewage into our waterways (this occurs primarily during heavy rains). Why would the city of Des Moines advocate adding another 134 parcels to a system that is sanctioned to further pollute? There are a number of reasons why area residents would want to convert to sewer--including the need to satisfy building permit requirements of the City of Des Moines or the need to replace a sluggish septic system--however, these residents have other rememdies that do not involve collectively burdening working class families and these options need to be further explored. "

" I am an actual resident of the area impacted by this sewer system - unlike Ms. McWethy who is a developer trying to save money by cramming this project down everyones throat by any means possible. She did not even contact my husband or I about this sewer project (we believe) because we have a fairly new drain field and thus would have voted no to the project (I guess blank is better than no when you are not a member of the community and don't really care about the neighborhood). She was apparently offered a way of getting hooked up to sewer that would not impact our community but has pushed this through because it will save her money. I carried the petition around on my block and I listened to my neighbors - Some stated that they felt deceived by Ms. McWerthys' claim that she was a "Neighbor" in distress. Others felt that she mislead them about the cost. I am very disappointed in my City Counsel members for not questioning this project at all, especially since Ms. McWethy herself indicated that there was opposition to the project. I was not contacted for my input at the city counsel meeting and did not even know that MY community was on the agenda. The last I heard the Southwest Suburban Sewer District Leadership (elected officials I believe-who have all of our best interests at heart) was researching the legality of Ms. McWerthys'"signature" collection project due to the perception that she had mislead people in the area in several ways about the impacts of the project. The following is Ms. McWerthys' letter that she hand delivered to the residents of the impacted area: Cheri McWerthy Petition Carrier for Proposed ULID 79 Dear Residents: I am writing to inform you my understanding of a great loss of neighborhood unity and what is really happening. I Cheri McWethy, petition carrier for proposed ULID 79, began as follows: February 2007-informal survey residents of who is interested in sewer? yes or no Informal survey 62% residence no land volume said yes I'm interested March 8, 2007-Sewer District mailed information letter out to all residence(all residence is underlined-unable to do so in this format), frequently asked questions, estimated costs, procedures timeline. March 12, 2007-I carried the legal petition and knock on every door, let them know they received the information, would they like to proceed with sewer installation by signing petition. Some persons understood immediately and signed, some had additional questions, some said no and by not signing the petition meant they were not interested in sewer. At that time a informal payment schedule was available for persons. March 16, 2007-Letter mailed to all residnets-Informational Meeting held at Trinity Church. This was to asked questions for persons. We had 4 Big Mouth opposes who disrupted the meeting prior to the presentation being competed, and questions many persons had did not get asked. April 12, 2007-I gave Financial payment schedule to petiton signers. April 15, 2007-All signatures obtained on petition expecept 5 persons who who request one-on-one meeting with Jodi Baker. June 18, 2007-Jodi Baker completed requested meetings: like show me where my line is goint to go, etc. June 26, 2007-Over 51% signature approval, names were certified as legal authorization to sign petition. We were not able to be placed on that evening Board of Commissioners Meeting for formation. July 3, 2007-Board of Commissioners Meeting Canceled July 10, 2007-Petition received and accepted by Board of Commissioners(we waited 3 weeks to be on agenda) at the same meeting 4 Big Mouth opposes submitted document stating 14 persons wanted to remove names from petition. After examination, out of the 14 that signed the document saying they signed the petition only 4 had actually signed. The Board of Commissioners Bent the rules of allowing the documents to be submitted without being scheduled on the agenda. the Board of Commissioners failed according to RCW 57.16.060 to motion formation of sewer. Advising attorney wants to remove the 4 names against RCW 57.16.060, form a resolution, have the opposes overturn with 40% opposition. July 17, 2007-The General Manager Southwest Suburban Sewer District stated at meeting petition signers have met all legal obligations and procedures and advised the commissioners to move forward, President Commissioner Bill Tracy made the motion to second. the decision is made only by the 3 commissioners. Commissioner Genzale, Commisioner Hilsen refused to make the motion. July 20, 2007-A formal complaint has been filed and received with Washington State Auditors against Commisioner Genzale, Commissioner Hilsen, Attoreny Eric Frimodt for failing to act according to RCW 57.16.060, responding to public health issue. A formal complaint had been filed and received with Governor Gregoire against Commissioner Genzale, Commissioner Hilsen, Attorney Eric Frimodt for failing to act according to RCW 57.16.060, according to Governor Gregoire act to clean up Puget Sound, request for removal of their commissioners seat, A formal complaint has been filed and received by the Washington State Attorney General against Commissioner Genzale, Commissioner Hilsen, Attorney Eric Frimodt, for failure to act according to RCW 57.16.060, for the benefit of public health. A formal compaint is in the process of being filed with Wahsington State Bar Association against Attorny Eric Frimodt, for failing to read RCW and consulting only in executive session. If you are an oppose, please don't feel this is a victory. Because one way or another the sewers will absolutely come thru with these as options: 1. Change the boundary of ULID-cut-out properties north of S. 202nd St. on 1st PL.S. and 2nd Ave. S., and south of 202nd St. Plumb-Henline and Kurosu-Hargreaves. This would give the new proposed ULID boundary a 56.6% landowner approval. It would cut-out the verbal opposes except Pam Huffman. This would not be beneficial for the north residents, because the opposes south of 202nd St. on 2ndAve.S. would still have the benefit of conneciton at the current estimated cost. But the north residents would in the future connect at a estimate of $30,000 plus interest. Why should the north 13 residents be penalized because of the opposes. They should not be cut-out. 2. If the petition was formed by resolution and overturned with 40%, the public health dept.would then step in and red flag failing systems. Where are these residents to move to until a correction is done or sewer installed. This would than force the installation of sewer and none of us would get to vote based on cost. We would be responsible whatever the cost would be. Estimated at 6% higher annually. 3. Let's say the sewer fight falls apart and goes away. Confirmation from the City of Des Moines, sewer will be installed by order in 3 years expected not later than 5 years. We know the cost increase if 6% annually. Of what benefit would that be? This sewer project is not about me and my little piece of property. I've assisted persons of over 51% who want sewer plus have become more enlighten on what the City and Districts already have in the works. At what price? That is the question. Thank you for reading my opinion Sincerely, Cheri McWethy (this was typed as written, the errors are in the original document which I am in possession of) I believe the City Counsel members are obligated to hear all sides of this issue before acting upon Ms McWethys' demands. Sincerely, Karen Kurosu North Hill Resident impacted by proposed ULID 79 "

" Request to Correct the record: Counsil Member Dave Kaplan voted "yes" support of sewer. Counsil Member Carmen Scott (realtor) voted "no" "