The URL can be used to link to this page

2010.08.10 CC Committee Meetings Agenda Packet AGENDA City Council Committee Meetings August 10, 2010 5:30 p.m. - Executive session regarding labor negotiation strategy. 6:00 p.m. - City Council Committee Meetings The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not public hearings. The Committees will meet in separate meeting rooms as indicated below. 1.Community/Development Services Committee Meeting Room: Jury Meeting Room A. (30 Minutes)Continued discussion regarding a proposed “Tree Board.” B. (20 Minutes)Removing leashed dog restrictions in Hutt Park and the asphalt areas of Brackett's Landing north and south of the ferry terminal. C. (30 Minutes)Discussion on possible 'green' initiatives and zoning clarifications for downtown business zones. D. (10 Minutes)Proposed 8th Avenue South pathway south of Alder Street. 2.Finance Committee Meeting Room: Council Chambers A. (15 Minutes)Review Hearing Examiner contract. B. (10 Minutes)Discussion and review of debt service in Funds 125 and 126. C. (15 Minutes)Second Quarter Budget Update. D. (10 Minutes)Revision to City's Water Leakage Policy E. (15 Minutes)Discussion and action on a new 45-year wholesale water supply purchase contract with the Packet Page 1 of 210 E. (15 Minutes)Discussion and action on a new 45-year wholesale water supply purchase contract with the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District (AWWD). The existing City contract with AWWD expires in September 2010. The Cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace have negotiated a new wholesale water purchase agreement with AWWD that will provide 100% of Edmonds water supply for the next 45 years. F. (15 Minutes)Fees for murals. G. (15 Minutes)Discussion of Mayor discretionary pay increases for vacant position. H. (15 Minutes)Discussion on unexpended wages and benefits. I. (10 Minutes)Public Comments (3-minute limit per person) 3.Public Safety Committee Meeting Room: Police Training Room A. (10 Minutes)ILA between the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds School District for football game security. B. (30 Minutes)Residential fire sprinkler stakeholder discussion. Packet Page 2 of 210 AM-3272 Item #: 1. A. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 08/10/2010 Time:30 Minutes Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Information Information Subject Title Continued discussion regarding a proposed “Tree Board.” Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward the draft ordinance to the full Council for consideration. Previous Council Action (See Exhibits) Narrative Continued discussion regarding a proposed “Tree Board.” There are 7 attachments to this agenda memo. The current draft of the proposed ordinance is contained in Exhibit 2. Attachments Attach 1 - Bernheim Memo to CSDS committee Attach 2 - 1 Tree Board Ordinance Attach 3 - 3 Benefits of Being a Tree City at arborday org Attach 4 - Spehar e-mail Ordinance_Proposed Tree Board Question Attach 5 - A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming Attach 6 - Tree Board Ordinance Status Attach 7: Tree City USA Standards Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Planning Department Rob Chave 08/05/2010 02:45 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 03:53 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/05/2010 04:17 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 04:26 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/05/2010 09:39 AM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2010 Packet Page 3 of 210 Memo to CSDS committee From Steve Bernheim Re: continued discussion re: “Tree Board” Date: August 2, 2010 There is proposed an ordinance that would create a Citizens’ Tree Board of up to seven members with an alternate, chosen by the City Council. The Board would be empowered to advise and recommend regarding: 1. Developing a tree ordinance designed to preserve and protect existing trees, encourage additional trees, appropriately safeguard trees in construction areas, and encourage active stewardship of the urban forest. 2. Increasing community outreach and education regarding the value of trees, proper selection of trees, and correct methods for planting of and caring for trees. 3. Organizing invasive plant removal and native vegetation planting 4. Facilitating grant applications 5. Sponsoring an annual Arbor Day Event, and 6. Working towards achievement of Tree City USA® status Attached is a draft of the proposed ordinance, which already is the result of some prior collaboration and review among city staff (Rob Chave), city council (Steve Bernheim) and residents (Laura Spehar, Barbara Tipton, Richard Senderoff). At present, 77 cities in Washington are official Arbor Day Foundation Tree Cities, including Lynnwood (11 years), Burien, Everett (17 years), Issaquah (17 years), Lake Forest Park, Marysville (one year), Port Townsend, Poulsbo, Redmond, Sea Tac, and Woodway (4 years). Standards and Benefits of becoming a “Tree City” are attached. Attached is an Email from Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat regarding some areas of concern. Also attached is an email raising a question as to how a future tree ordinance might look to view impacts, or also might consider impacts on solar power systems or neighbors. However, we are not drafting a tree ordinance tonight, only an ordinance authorizing the creation of an advisory board. Also attached is a publication of the Washington State Department of Commerce discussing elements of a local tree protection program. Recommended Action: The committee should review the proposed ordinance and forward it to city council with recommendation for adoption. After the Tree Board is appointed, it can assist city staff with development of a tree ordinance and gaining Tree City designation from National Arbor Day Foundation. Packet Page 4 of 210 Page 1 Ordinance Number [City Clerk, please fill in number] An ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, Amending the Edmonds City Code, Title 10 to add a new Chapter 10.95 ____________________________________________________________________________ Citizens’ Tree Board WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council developed a sustainability agenda during their 2009 retreat; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council enacted Resolution 1129 to adopt the United States (US) Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd Annual US Conference of Mayors; and WHEREAS, old growth forests have been heavily logged in the Pacific Northwest section of the US resulting in a significant loss of native conifers; and native deciduous trees including big leaf maples and red alders are in decline; and WHEREAS, urban forests provide habitat for wildlife, including migratory birds; and WHEREAS, urban forests lessen the effects of storm events by slowing the rate of surface water runoff and thus reducing the need for construction and maintenance of flood control structures; and WHEREAS, tree roots stabilize steep slopes minimizing the amount of soil erosion; and WHEREAS, urban forests improve air and water quality and sequester carbon; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council finds it to be in the public interest to establish a Citizens’ Tree Board, one of the four steps to becoming a certified as a Tree City USA® by the US Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Program. NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, does ordain as follows: Section 1: The Edmonds City Code, Title 10, is hereby amended by the adoption of a new Chapter 10.95 Citizens’ Tree Board to read as follows: 10.95.010 Board created – membership 10.95.020 Officers of board – meetings – forum 10.95.030 Powers and duties 10.95.010 Commission created – membership A. There is hereby created a Citizens’ Tree board consisting of up to seven (7) members plus one (1) alternate. Citizens must be Edmonds residents. It is recommended the Packet Page 5 of 210 Page 2 board include citizens from throughout the city (representing different watersheds and neighborhoods). Additionally, those with professional or hobbyist interest/experience in urban forestry, horticulture, and habitat enviroscaping are preferred; these may include arborists, botanists, horticulturists, native plant experts, master gardeners, wildlife experts, and related. The members shall be appointed in the following manner. Within thirty (30) days after this ordinance is passed, the city shall draft and publish an announcement seeking applicants for board membership. The standard City of Edmonds Citizen Board and Commission Application will be used. Prospective board members will have thirty (30) days to submit their application. Initially, each Councilmember will appoint one (1) Tree Board member within thirty (30) days following the close of the application period. The alternate member shall be appointed by the Council President or Mayor (as determined by the Council). The selections shall be made based on the qualifications described per the applications; Councilmembers may also interview applicants at their discretion. Subsequent to the initial appointments, recommendations for renewal/replacements, when required, will be made by the Council President or Mayor (as determined by the Council) and approval of by the full Council. B. The term of appointment shall be four (4) years. However, initially, to ensure transitional consistency 4 (four) members shall be appointed to 4 (four) year terms and 3 (three) members (plus the alternate) shall be appointed to three (3) year terms. Each member, at his or her discretion, may seek renewal for one additional term. 10.95.020 Officers of board – meetings – forum Members of the Commission shall meet and organize by electing, from the members of the board, a chair and vice chair and other officers as may be determined by the board. It shall be the duty of the chair to preside at all meetings. The vice chair shall perform this duty in the absence of the chair. A majority of the filled positions on the board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The board is expected to meet monthly or as otherwise agreed to by the board. The regular public meeting of the board shall be held at such time or place as may be determined by the chair or a majority of the members of the board. 10.95.030 Powers and duties A. The board is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council and, as appropriate, to the Planning Board and other boards or commissions of the city on such matters including but not limited to: 1. Developing a tree ordinance designed to preserve and protect existing trees, encourage planting of additional trees, safeguard trees on parcels where construction or renovation is occurring or planned to occur, and encouraging the Edmonds citizenry to become active stewards of the urban forest. Comment [rs1]: Or the existing Board members may make recommendations? Packet Page 6 of 210 Page 3 2. Increasing community outreach and education regarding the value of trees, proper selection of trees, and correct methods for planting of and caring for trees. 3. Working with civic, religious, and citizen groups to organize invasive plant removal and native vegetation planting in accord with the Department of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services. 4. Coordinating with other citizen groups on specific projects. 5. Facilitate relevant grant applications supporting ecology and watershed protection projects. 6. Sponsoring an annual Arbor Day Event 7. Working towards achievement of Tree City USA® status B. The board shall provide an annual report to the City Council in December of each year Section 2: Sunset Clause. The provisions of this ordinance will not be subject to a sunset clause. This ordinance may be repealed or amended by act of the Edmonds City Council. Section 3: Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effective five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH CITY CLERK: Packet Page 7 of 210 Page 4 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NUMBER: Packet Page 8 of 210 Benefits of Being a Tree City at arborday.org http://www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/benefits.cfm[8/2/2010 3:42:33 PM] cart | wish list | sign in Tree City Benefits Every community, regardless of size, benefits in different ways from being a Tree City USA. Reports of these benefits have reached The Arbor Day Foundation through the years and are summarized below in six general categories: Framework for Action Meeting the four standards for becoming a Tree City USA provides initial direction for an urban or community forestry program. Like the first rungs on a ladder, the standards help get a community started toward annual, systematic management of its tree resources. Education Education begins with discussion of the standards and getting organized to apply for Tree City USA status. It continues as the desire for Tree City USA recognition leads to contacts with the state forester’s staff. In turn, this can set in motion aid from a variety of professionals in the form of technical advice, literature, films, and other assistance. Public Image A community’s public image is a very real phenomenon and important in many ways. Being a Tree City USA helps present the kind of image that most citizens want to have for the place they live or conduct business. The Tree City USA signs at community entrances tell visitors that here is a community that cares about its environment. It is also an indication to prospective businesses that the quality of life may be better here. It has even been known to be a factor in where meetings or conferences have been held. This reason alone caused a motel owner to start action for his community to join the network! Citizen Pride Pride is sometimes a less tangible benefit. Gaining and retaining Tree City USA recognition is an award to the tree workers, managers, volunteers, tree board members and others who work on behalf of better care of a community’s trees. Non- involved citizens, too, often share a sense of pride that theirs is a Tree City USA . This may translate to better care of trees on private property or a willingness to volunteer in the future. Home | Trees | Membership | Programs | News | Arbor Day Farm | Lied Lodge | Shop | Careers | Take Action You are here: Home → Programs → Tree City USA → Benefits of Being a Tree City Tree City USA Tree City USA Home About Us Is Your Community a Tree City? Benefits of Being a Tree City Tree City Standards Request an Application Tree City Growth Awards Tree City USA Bulletins Tree City USA Supplies Community Foresters Directory Get Our E-Newsletter About Our Programs Related Programs Tree Line USA Conservation Trees See All Programs Shopping Tree City USA Supplies Arbor Marketplace Buy Trees and More Packet Page 9 of 210 Benefits of Being a Tree City at arborday.org http://www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/benefits.cfm[8/2/2010 3:42:33 PM] Financial Assistance Preference is sometimes given to Tree City USA communities over other communities when allocations of grant money are made for trees or forestry programs. The reason is that there are invariably more requests than available funds when grants are available through state or federal agencies. If requests are equally worthy, some officials tend to have more confidence in communities that have demonstrated the foresight of becoming a Tree City USA. Publicity Presentation of the Tree City USA award and the celebration of Arbor Day offer excellent publicity opportunities. This results not only in satisfaction for the individuals involved and their families, but also provides one more way to reach large numbers of people with information about tree care. As one forester put it, “This is advertising that money can't buy—and it is free!” More Read our list of 15 reasons to become a Tree City. More Information Call: 402-474-5655 Monday–Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST Tree City USA is supported by the USDA Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Program. 1-888-448-7337 | donate now | privacy | about us | contact us | site map | your state Packet Page 10 of 210 From:Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat To:Steve Bernheim; council@stevebernheim.com Cc:Barbara Tipton ; Richard ; Valerie Stewart; Gary Smith ; Susie Schaefer ; Mcintosh, Brian; alan.mearns Subject:Tree City USA/City Ordinance/Proposed Tree Board Question Date:Thursday, July 15, 2010 4:11:45 PM Attachments:A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming.pdf Hi Steve & Happy Summer, I just received an email from Rich Senderoff stating the following: Hi Laura, The Tree Board Ordinance is finished, including attorney review. It was set to be presented to the CS/DS committee this week, but was displaced by the Mayor candidate interviews. I‛ve asked Council President Bernheim to bypass the committee that is already aware of the concept (just not the finished form) and take it straight to council, so it doesn‛t have to wait another month. My question for you is where is the City/ Edmonds at the moment with the Tree Board Ordinance, and has it already been adopted or passed? Last I knew about any of this was the "discussion of proposed Tree Board" at the August 10th Council meeting. I can't locate anything else on the City's website. If you have a copy of this ordinance to share or can let me know where to view it.. myself and Barbara Tipton would love to take a look at it. We are still completely engaged in pursuing an ordinance and or board and helping the City as volunteers to obtain Tree City USA status. Our hope is through obtaining this status and setting up this criteria that our city will not only gain a national recognition but locate funding sources for future tree conservation projects which educate local residents about tree planting, health, and overall care of before just grabbing the chain saw... Please let me know what you would like the citizens and volunteers of Edmonds to do to help move things along. As you well know, we have all been reviewing the City of Shoreline & Lake Forest Park meetings as they amend and revise their tree conservation codes/ordinances. The Mayor of Lake Forest Park established an Urban Tree Task Force to look at the existing tree preservation ordinance, and make recommendations to changes to the City's Municipal Code if necessary. My friend and Edmonds Planning Board Commisioner, Val Stewart recently attended a Urban Forest Symposium in Seattle. Val has shared many of the great tree resources gained from that symposium with Barbara and myself. One of the main focal points of the workshops was creating and implementing an urban forestry board within our cities... One of the documents cited/ taken from symposium: The Urban Forestry Program is lead by a board of volunteers. The board advises the city council on matters pertaining to the promotion, improvement and protection of the urban forest. The board's mission is to provide wise stewardship and leadership to ensure that we protect our existing trees and encourage proper selection, planting methods, and maintenance of our new trees so that we continually enhance the quality of life in our city. The board pledges to increase community understanding of the value of our urban forest Packet Page 11 of 210 and to take responsibility for the education and publicity of those values. This is done through a variety of educational initiatives in cooperation with local elementary schools, the Boys' and Girls' Club and other groups throughout the city. Edmonds is definitely at a residential crisis point with tree regulations as seen by the volume of tree clearings in recent months, and letters to the Editor in regards to the issue. In fact, one resident and EBWH Project Steering Team member, Alan Mearns (NOAA Scientist/local resident) has been working this past year on documenting and monitoring the tree removal or canopy loss in his Maplewood Neighborhood. This information could possibly act as baseline data for monitoring habitat conditions in the future. On Tuesday evening my husband Paul and I along with Barbara & Jim Tipton (whom worksfor the Nature Conservancy btw) attended the Cascade Land Conservancy's CompleteStreets meeting at the Frances Anderson Center. We all signed up to help with theEdmonds campaign. I left a packet of the evenings information for Brian McIntosh, andstill have more packets if you would like one. With this campaign will come dialog aboutstreet trees in business areas for sure. With all of this happening in our city; I cannot but think this is the time afterappointing a new Mayor to proceed with our tree preservation and conservation efforts.I also truly believe that we have a wonderful Parks Dept., and that through it will comeour best ally in tree education and conservation training. Please let myself and Barbara know where and when you need our help in pursuingthe ordinance, board and or future tree related projects. Same goes for everyone else Ihave cc'd in this email. I know you all to be interested in tree preservation andeducation. Steve, I would appreciate hearing back from you on this email as well as others. Yourtime & energy on these efforts is appreciated! My Best, Laura Spehar Note: Here are a few good websites for all to check out, and see what options are outthere and could be possibly implemented for Edmonds (thinking positive!): **also attached to this email is a great document called : "A GUIDE TO COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAMMING" http://www.seattleurbannature.org/Projects/newprojects.html http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/PubWorks/strees.aspx#Programs http://www.cityofshoreline.com/index.aspx?page=501 http://www.cityoflfp.com/city/taskforce/forest/documents/20100311CFMA-PUB.pdf http://www.saveseattlestrees.com/Save_Seattle_s_Trees.html http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/planning/SeattlesTreeRegulationUpdate/Overview/default.asp Packet Page 12 of 210 http://www.bellevuewa.gov/pdf/Development%20Services/CG_DevStds2010_BMPT101.pdf -- Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat Project http://edmondsbackyardwildlifehabitat.org"Fostering a Community that Lives in Harmony with Nature"18104 76th Avenue West, Edmonds, WA, 98026 (425) 672-2150Follow us on Twitter, http://twitter.com/edmondsbwh Packet Page 13 of 210 A GUIDE TO COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAMMING JUNE 2009 WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF COMMERCE EVERGREEN COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP TASK FORCE Packet Page 14 of 210 Packet Page 15 of 210 i A GUIDE TO COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAMMING WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND THE EVERGREEN COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP TASK FORCE CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 2. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND BENEFITS ..................................................................................... 2 3. PRINCIPLES FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................. 6 4. COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY ........................................................................................ 9 5. ELEMENTS OF COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY ..................................................................10 6. ELEMENTS OF A COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY ORDINANCE .............................................12 7. EVERGREEN COMMUNITIES RECOGNITION ...............................................................................24 8. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................28 9. URBAN FORESTRY RESOURCES ..............................................................................................29 10. EVERGREEN COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP TASK FORCE ...........................................................33 11. BACKGROUND OF THE ACT ....................................................................................................35 Packet Page 16 of 210 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Washington State Department of Commerce Leonard Bauer, Managing Director, Growth Management Unit Micki McNaughton, Urban Forestry Specialist Crystal Harper and Cynthia Ritchey, Support Staff Washington State Department of Natural Resources Sarah Foster, Program Manager, Urban and Community Forestry Program Linden Mead, Inventory and Assessment Specialist, Urban and Community Forestry Program We gratefully acknowledge the dedication and hard work of the members of the Evergreen Communities Partnership Task Force in 2008-2009 as they developed guidance for community and urban forestry policies, ordinances and management plans, as well as drafting a proposal for an evergreen communities recognition plan. The Evergreen Communities Partnership Task Force Stephen Bernath, Washington State Dept. of Ecology Kathleen Wolf, Washington Community Forestry Council Alternate - Jana Dilley, University of Washington Bruce Wishart, People for Puget Sound Alternate - Cyrilla Cook, People for Puget Sound David Erickson, City of Wenatchee Parks and Recreation Janet Way, City of Shoreline City Council Alternate - Chris Eggen, City of Shoreline City Council David Grimes, Chelan County Development Alternate - Keith Goehner, Chelan County Commissioner Joseph Scorcio, Pierce County Public Works & Utilities Alternate - Anne-Marie Marshall-Dody, Pierce County Public Works & Utilities Phil Harlan, Keller Williams Realty Olympia, Washington Association of Realtors representative Alternate - Jeanette Samek-McKague, Washington Association of Realtors Brian Ross, YarrowBay Group Alternate - Katherine Orni, YarrowBay Group Charles Kahle, Audubon Washington Alternate - Matt Mega, Seattle Audubon Ara Erickson, Cascade Land Conservancy Green Cities Program Alternate - John Floberg, Cascade Land Conservancy Courtney Sullivan, National Wildlife Federation Brian Carlson, City of Vancouver Public Works Director Alternate - Charles Ray, City of Vancouver Urban Forester Beth Rogers, Puget Sound Energy Alternate - Janet Brown, Puget Sound Energy Paula Swedeen, Pacific Forest Trust Sandy Salisbury, Washington State Dept. of Transportation Alternate - Mark Maurer, Washington State Dept. of Transportation Elizabeth Walker, Sound Tree Solutions Adrian Miller, Washington Forest Protection Association Packet Page 17 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 1 June 2009 1. INTRODUCTION Healthy community and urban forests are a valuable and potentially powerful tool to support economically viable, sustainable urban areas in the State of Washington. The 2008 Evergreen Communities Act (ECA; ESSHB 28441 and RCW 35.1052) seeks to assist municipalities and jurisdictions across the state to better manage existing urban forests and plan for improvements to urban forests to increase the value of the ecological, social, and economic services that urban trees provide. The ECA created the Evergreen Communities Partnership Task Force (the Task Force) to develop model urban forest management plans and model ordinances to provide this assistance, as well as an awards program to recognize all communities that plan and manage their community forests. Funding for work directed by the ECA, however, has been suspended for the State Fiscal Biennium 2009-2011. Recognizing the possibility of a loss of funding early in 2009, the Task Force members expedited a compressed work program so that tangible resources could be produced by June 30, 2009, to guide local communities in urban forestry programming efforts during the unfunded interim. This document provides a resource for local governments interested in creating or enhancing community and urban forestry programming, and discusses a possible approach to a future awards program to recognize communities who excel in planning and managing their community and urban forestry resource for maximum benefit. During the unfunded interim, guidance and technical assistance for communities working to build or enhance community and urban forestry programming is also available through the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Urban and Community Forestry Program. Contacts there include • Sarah Foster, Program Manager, (360) 902-1704, sarah.foster@dnr.wa.gov • Linden Mead, Urban Forestry Specialist, (360) 902-1703, linden.mead@dnr.wa.gov • Micki McNaughton, Urban Forestry Specialist, (360) 902-1356, micki.mcnaughton@dnr.wa.gov In addition to providing interim guidance for communities who wish to move forward with incorporating urban forestry principles and practices into both current and long-range planning, this document provides a strong platform from which to launch continuing work under the authority of the ECA when funding resumes. A. CONTENTS OF THE REPORT The report • Describes social, ecological and economic benefits of healthy community and urban forests. • Discusses policies that relate to those benefits and functions, and includes examples, when appropriate, from existing urban forestry programs in municipalities throughout the State. • Reports briefly on the related work of developing inventories and canopy assessment protocols and methodologies, accomplished by the Technical Advisory Committee (the TAC) convened by the DNR. A link is provided to the full TAC report. 1 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2844&year=2007 2 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.105 Packet Page 18 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 2 • Provides broad guidelines for the direction and intent of urban forestry management plans. Development of model urban forestry management plans is currently on hold, pending funding. • Presents suggestions for addressing the tree ordinance components listed in Section 12 of the ECA, along with other points important to consider in crafting an ordinance. The purpose for each component is discussed, with portions of code from local jurisdictions throughout the State offered as illustrative examples where appropriate. Development of a model tree ordinance is currently on hold at this time, pending funding. • Proposes a structure of an awards program that incorporates incremental awards and incentives that support excellence in urban forestry programming at a variety of levels. Development of a recognition program is currently on hold. • Lists urban forestry resources available for reference and guidance. • Provides background of the ECA, together with challenges and recommendations for the future. B. HOW TO USE THIS REPORT The report is designed for people who wish to incorporate community and urban forestry into the comprehensive planning efforts of their communities, and may be used as a springboard for community discussion that focuses on the role of community and urban forestry in creating and supporting the vital, healthy, sustainable communities that we all want to live in and bequeath to our children. Although this report does not contain fully developed models of management plans and ordinances, the guidance and assistance offered here covers important policy, planning, and ordinance elements that should be considered during development of a new community and urban forestry program or enhancement of an existing one. Full citations for printed sources referred to in the text are gathered in a References section at the end of this document. Online web addresses (URLs) are footnoted at the bottom of each page for those interested in investigating sources in more depth. This document is available online as a fully-linked webpage at 2. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND BENEFITS PROVIDED BY COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTS The concept of “ecosystem services” has recently emerged to describe the tangible and intangible contributions that natural systems provide for human life support, and human health and well-being. Some ecosystem products have obvious market value, such as timber or mineral ore; others have been identified by scientific study, but do not yet figure widely into market-based planning. Many of the benefits and services provided by community forests, for example, are not yet easily assigned a dollar value but are, nonetheless, absolutely essential for vital, livable communities. Community and urban forests are defined by the DNR as “that land in and around Packet Page 19 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 3 June 2009 human settlements ranging from small communities to metropolitan areas, occupied or potentially occupied by trees and associated vegetation. Community and urban forest land may be planted or unplanted, used or unused, and includes public and private lands, lands along transportation and utility corridors, and forested watershed lands within populated areas” (RCW 76.151). Below is a selection of ecosystem services provided by trees and associated vegetation in urban areas, based on the most current scientific research. • Stormwater, Water Quality, Flooding and Erosion As noted in the preamble to the ECA, trees and forests play a major role in reducing the stormwater runoff, flooding, and erosion that contribute to degraded water quality in urbanized areas. While urban forests are typically not as effective as large, intact forest stands, they can help to lessen the volume and velocity of surface water that moves through urban areas, reducing the need for highly-engineered man-made structures as well as mitigating the negative impacts of stormwater discharge into lakes, rivers and other public water bodies. Before precipitation reaches the ground, the leaves, branches and trunks of trees intercept moisture or facilitate evaporation (Schwab 2009). When native vegetation and soils are removed or compacted, infiltration is limited, groundwater recharge is reduced, and surface runoff and erosion occur, all of which may contribute to flooding, loss of stable and diverse aquatic habitat, loss of nutrient cycling, an increase in suspended particulates in the water column, and increases in water temperature (Schwab ed. 2009). Preserving and retaining trees and forested areas in appropriate places within a community may reduce the need for built stormwater controls and increased water quality treatment in urban areas. Research indicates that a healthy forest canopy may reduce stormwater runoff. Local jurisdictions may benefit from community and urban forestry programs that provide guidelines for builders and developers during the development process to offset the loss of the ecological services of forested areas when such sites are converted through development. For additional guidance on planning stormwater mitigation measures using urban forestry principles and practices, see the Department of Ecology’s stormwater management manuals for eastern2 and western3 Washington. • Air Quality Trees and forests improve air quality in urban areas in many ways (Wolf 2004). Trees remove carbon dioxide and release oxygen through photosynthesis. Forest canopy can remove tons of material from the air across a city as particulates, or fine dust and pollutants, settle in the leaves of trees. Some emissions from vehicles and industry undergo chemical changes, or may generate “bad ozone,” under certain atmospheric conditions. The effects on human health of both particulates and chemical compounds are extensive and can include breathing disorders such as asthma and bronchitis, sensitivity to allergens, eye irritation, and even dizziness and nausea (AIRnow 2007). Direct sunlight and hot weather drive formation of the airborne chemical irritants. Trees are an effective way to reduce surface temperatures as they block solar radiation from heating paved surfaces. Reducing urban heat island effect reduces the formation of harmful compounds in the air. 1 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=76.15 2 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/easternmanual/index.html 3 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/manual.html Packet Page 20 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 4 • Economic Development and Aesthetics Many people recognize that trees contribute to more beautiful urban settings. Trees also have a positive effect on economic development and community vitality. Well-planned tree plantings have positive impacts on retail sales and consumer behavior. Studies done at the University of Washington indicate that shoppers claim to spend up to 12 percent more for goods and services in shopping districts having a quality tree canopy. Shoppers say they will spend more time in well-canopied business districts and perceive the merchandise to be of better quality in these areas (Wolf 2009). Many studies show that trees, landscape, and natural parks increase the value of nearby homes. Residential properties that are attractively landscaped may increase up to 7% in value, and those located near forested open spaces and parks may have up to 20% greater value (Wolf 2007). Trees have a positive effect on commercial property as well; one study found that building rental rates were 7% higher for office complexes having a quality landscape (LaVerne & Winson-Geideman 2003). • Human Health and Well-Being Many people enjoy working with plants or in their gardens, yet many studies tell us that simply having views of trees and nature in urban areas can have a positive effect as well (Wolf 2008a). Patients in hospitals heal faster when they have views of trees and greenery. Office workers are more productive when they can take brief breaks in natural settings. People feel less stressed when they view trees and green space. Pediatric researchers have also noted less frequency, and milder attacks, of childhood asthma in urban areas with greater tree canopy coverage. Trees also contribute to solving the obesity epidemic by enhancing recreation and walkability through attractive tree-lined routes for pedestrians and bicycle riders (Wolf 2008b). Street trees are one approach to safer streets (Wolf 2006). The line of trees between the curb and sidewalk forms a barrier, both visual and physical, between traffic and pedestrians that creates a feeling of greater safety. Drivers respond to tree-lined streets by driving more slowly, adding another potential level of safety. Trees, and tree-planting events, have been linked to a greater sense of community connection that may help neighborhoods become safer and less susceptible to crime (Kuo 2003). Conversely, a sense of social malaise may be triggered in a treeless urban landscape. The Trust for Public Land1 has measured a variety of values that urban parks bring to a community, including user happiness and health, and “neighborhood social capital.” • Land Use, Climate Change, Energy and Carbon Regional land use patterns have a significant influence on global climate change and the overall livability of communities, neighborhoods and rural areas. Coordinated urban development that promotes higher density in established urban centers while incorporating community and urban green space and forests helps to create attractive, livable communities with efficient regional transportation and land use patterns that reduce development pressures on rural and wildland resources. Additional benefits of compact development include reduced single-occupancy vehicle trips and the associated greenhouse gas emissions; multi-modal transportation networks; and retention and conservation of farmland, forests, and open space in rural areas. Community and urban forests also mitigate climate change through energy use reduction. Properly sited trees may provide significant energy savings by reducing heating and cooling energy requirements through both direct protection of buildings from sun and wind, and the use of vegetation to reduce the amount of thermal gain across large urban areas, commonly referred to as the “urban heat island effect”. Forested neighborhoods (i.e., those with 40 percent tree canopy coverage) may save homeowners more than 4 percent in heating costs in the 1 http://www.tpl.org/ Packet Page 21 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 5 June 2009 winter and 10 percent in cooling costs in the summer. Energy savings may be as high as 30 percent when trees are properly sited to protect the home from the effects of sun and wind (Akbari et al. 1997). Community and urban forests may also help mitigate climate change by sequestering or storing carbon, although the benefits and tradeoffs of urban tree sequestration are still under investigation. At the present time carbon markets are not well-established nationally and current markets are extremely administratively intensive. Communities may wish, however, to position themselves for participation in future carbon markets by considering steps such as baseline inventories and management programming as recommended by the TAC and DNR, and the 2008 Climate Action Team’s Forest Sector Working Group1, convened by Washington’s Governor and Legislature. Carbon gains in urban areas are more likely to be found through reduced energy use as described above, which in turn reduces carbon emissions associated with energy production. In addition, tree-lined transportation corridors provide pleasant, safe walkable routes that people may choose to experience by walking or bicycling, thereby reducing vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. • Wildlife, Fish and Habitat Urban trees provide nesting and roosting sites for birds and other wildlife, as well as a wide range of insects and fruits that serve as important food sources. Urban trees also play a role in protecting aquatic habitats used by salmon and forage fish through their shade which cools water, better water quality through stormwater and erosion control, and nutrient cycling. In an urban setting, green corridors may support diverse wildlife species as well as provide important connectivity within an often fragmented landscape. Forested riparian corridors may enhance salmon survival by shading water to maintain cool water temperatures and ensuring a diversity of microorganisms and other food sources (Brennan 2007). Trees adjacent to marine shorelines harbor terrestrial insects that provide food for salmon and other fish species, and moderate beach temperatures, reducing the potential for desiccation of fish eggs (Brennan 2007). In the Pacific Northwest, urban stream corridors often connect the marine or riverine environment to smaller stream networks upstream, and thus can support—or disconnect—water quality and fisheries enhancement efforts. Although urban forests cannot fully mitigate the hydrologic consequences of urban development, they can help to keep streams healthy by reducing the extremes of stormwater discharge, which in turn helps to reduce erosion and allows for more consistent, long-term groundwater discharge. Such moderation provides more water in streams during summer low- flow periods for salmon and other aquatic species. Roots of live trees also protect against erosion and sedimentation of streams and shorelines (EnviroVision 2007). Forest structure is a critical component of wildlife habitat. Structural elements that contribute to healthy wildlife populations include a diversity of tree species, ages and sizes, with an understory of native shrubs and ground cover. Snags (standing dead trees) and nurse logs (downed dead trees) also provide important structural elements for wildlife habitat, and should be considered during planning. Finally, urban trees help keep people connected to the natural world through wildlife viewing as well as their own intrinsic nature. 1 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/2008FAdocs/11241008_forestreportversion2.pdf Packet Page 22 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 6 3. PRINCIPLES FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT The following elements are important considerations in developing a program that supports healthy urban forests and the ecological, social and economic benefits they confer in an efficient, effective manner that is consistent over time. Community and urban forestry policy typically includes references to natural as well as human systems, and may include discussion of both tree-related and broader community-based goals and objectives. Policy principles communicate the shared vision that a community has for, and about, its trees. Such principles, expressed as brief statements, may be found in a community’s comprehensive plan, in its urban forestry management plan, and/or as the opening statements of a tree ordinance. Public discussions about such statements help to build public awareness of the importance of the community and urban forestry resource. Referencing best practices supported by current science makes the policy statements credible throughout community debate about policy priorities. A. POLICY PRINCIPLES The following policy principles offer several ideas to begin the process of expressing the values that a community holds for its trees. The list below, while not all-inclusive, serves as a framework for discussion about the benefits and challenges of trees within communities. Principles such as these should be incorporated into ongoing planning and management efforts, while also bearing in mind the community’s other activities, programs and goals such as the location and intensities of land uses, parks and open spaces, and the location of major utility and infrastructure corridors. • General Statements of Vision and Purpose A healthy urban forest contributes to the economic vitality of the community, provides environmental stability and resiliency, and ensures a better quality of life. Trees provide important ecological, economic and social functions and benefits in urban landscapes that should be recognized, protected, and enhanced where possible. Protecting the environment and conserving natural resources is a priority and is essential to maintaining healthy, vital and safe neighborhoods. Urban natural resources and urban natural systems, including trees and forests, are important for public health, economic development, education and community values. • Protect, Preserve, Restore and Enhance the Community and Urban Forest Protect, restore and improve existing vegetation that has environmental, wildlife and aesthetic value. Such vegetation may include groves of trees, significant individual trees or tree stands, forested hillsides, and vegetation associated with wetlands, stream/wildlife corridors and riparian areas. Healthy retained and restored forests and natural systems provide benefits and services that are essential for human health and well-being. Forested natural areas form the green infrastructure of a community, contributing to better air and water quality, as well as benefiting other ecosystem services. Invasive species that are destructive to forest health must be controlled and eradicated where possible. • Manage the Community and Urban Forestry Resource for Maximum Benefit Initiate and promote appropriate urban tree management practices in high density, mixed-use areas in order to improve quality of life for all district users and create more Packet Page 23 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 7 June 2009 livable conditions, to include visual amenities, environmental services and economic development. Trees and understory vegetation retain stormwater, reduce erosion, buffer water bodies from polluting runoff, and clean the air of airborne pollutants. As the extent and health of an urban forest increases, so does its capacity to provide these green infrastructure benefits in greater amounts. An urban forest that is managed sustainably is healthier—allowing more trees to mature and more species to thrive. Healthy forests ultimately increase the ecological, social, and economic benefits of the forest and improve forest management. Encourage the use of science-based Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect and enhance community trees and forests. A well-managed community and urban forest builds capacity for increased benefits and services over time, one of the few municipal assets that appreciates in value and capacity over time. Each community department with responsibility for the urban forest should share standardized maintenance practices. Standardized practices increase overall consistency in how trees are maintained, resulting in better tree health and longevity. • Promote Stewardship and Enable Community Education and Action Develop community-wide programming to enhance the community’s awareness of the value of trees and the urban forest. Knowledgeable citizens improve and enhance the quality of the urban forest through greater engagement in the care and maintenance of trees and related resources. Educate families and children about the natural world to benefit the health and wellness of people and wildlife. Develop programming that leverages the commitment and interest of citizens to support environmental stewardship that works collaboratively to increase wildlife habitat and other natural systems, and to generate greater public awareness of community and urban forestry issues. Benefits of community stewardship are numerous: increased community leadership and civic engagement; creation and protection of more viable habitats for wildlife; improved greenways and stream corridors; and a greater understanding by citizens of their individual and combined impacts on natural systems. • Optimize Opportunities for Partnerships in Urban Forest Preservation and Enhancement A community—residents and businesses alike—that is provided a clear picture of the priorities, scope, timing, and resources for achieving a thriving urban forest is more likely to invest their energy and resources to help achieve that vision. Community trees must be actively cared for and managed to maintain a healthy, safe existence and coexist well with homes, streets, infrastructure/utilities, businesses, parks, and natural areas. An urban forest management plan that provides the public with a vision for a healthy and sustainable urban forest, as well as a roadmap for getting there, will inspire more people to become informed and involved as stewards to guide and support future sustainable tree practices and policies. Outreach programming should inspire community partnerships with other local organizations, schools, and agencies, and will result in greater awareness and understanding of the importance of protecting and caring for community and urban forests. Packet Page 24 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 8 • Promote the Use of Incentives to Leverage Community and Urban Forestry Goals Broader community support for tree conservation and planning can be built through positive appeals for best practices that include voluntary and incentive-based programs, such as stormwater utility credits, certified wildlife habitat, density/building height bonuses, streamlined permit review, adjusted setback or parking requirements, and property or impact fee reductions. • Provide Urban Forest Resources Equitably Across the Community The local jurisdiction (city, town, county or tribe) and its partners (e.g., local communities, organizations, etc.) should allocate community and urban forest resources in a manner that recognizes geographic, racial and social equity. Community and urban forest benefits should be equitable for all residents of a community. All residents within a jurisdiction deserve the benefits of a healthy urban forest. • Transportation and Utilities Planning and management of urban forests and trees must take into account urban utility infrastructure. Location and type of trees in proximity to aboveground and underground utilities must be considered in order to avoid damage to both the utility’s infrastructure as well as to the forest and trees. Transportation corridors may provide excellent opportunities for tree and shrub planting when safety and design guidelines are taken into consideration. Partnerships with public works departments, transportation and utility organizations are encouraged. B. CONSIDERATIONS FOR POLICY IMPLEMENTATION • Costs Local governments must consider the costs associated with community and urban forestry programs in addition to the benefits of a local urban forestry program. Careful planning of program costs will help provide a defensible basis for budget requests and grant proposals, as well as determine eligibility for federal, state, and local funding assistance. Program costs that may be considered include inventory and assessment of the community’s trees; long-range implementation plans; development of a management plan including maintenance activities; formation of a tree board or urban forestry commission; the adoption and enforcement of ordinances and code; public outreach and education; and tree evaluation and appraisal. • Relationship to Other Programs, Plans and Policies Vital, livable communities have a number of responsibilities and requirements to fulfill toward their citizens, both residential and commercial. Community and urban forestry principles and practices should be integrated into the land use, transportation, parks and open spaces, and capital facilities plans and programs to maximize the ecosystem benefits described elsewhere in this document. These elements should be crafted collaboratively with reference to each other to avoid unintended consequences and the highest achievement of community benefits. It is important that there be deliberate discussions about the tradeoffs that will occur over time to accommodate future growth and change as policies are established concerning the location and maintenance of trees within a community. A thoroughly integrated program may also assist with compliance and implementation of other state and local programs. As local governments are increasingly being held responsible for implementing pollution control and ecosystem restoration projects, community and urban forests, along with other green infrastructure features, should be viewed as strategic tools for compliance. For example, community and urban forestry programs may help communities Packet Page 25 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 9 June 2009 manage flooding and stormwater runoff to mitigate discharges into Puget Sound, as required in the Land Use Element of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070(1) Land Use Element1). In addition, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for both Phase I and Phase II stormwater permits allow communities to include urban forestry in their best management practices. Programs that protect and restore trees in riparian areas may work hand-in-hand with local Shoreline Master Plans, which must ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions (WAC 173-26-2212). Protecting and enhancing community and urban forests may also help meet air pollution mandates as well as mitigate the effects of greenhouse gases. Because smog formation is directly related to air temperatures in the lower atmosphere, the ability of trees to moderate temperatures in urban areas may also help to reduce smog. • Evaluation, Monitoring and Adaptive Management Communities that incorporate community and urban forestry principles into planning processes must consider how to evaluate their programs to ensure maximum efficiency and effectiveness. Clear, measurable goals and objectives must be set, with reasonable timelines for implementation. Management plans must have the flexibility to adapt to new information as a result of monitoring outcomes, or changes in best management practices based on best currently available research. 4. COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY INVENTORY AND CANOPY ASSESSMENT The DNR Urban and Community Forestry Program (UCF), with the assistance of the Technical Advisory Committee (the TAC), is charged with the development of inventory and assessment protocols along with a project implementation plan under the ECA. The TAC and UCF have worked closely with CTED to assure that inventory criteria are designed to meet the goals and objectives of urban forestry management plans and tree ordinances. Similarly to CTED and the Task Force, funding is not available for the Fiscal Biennium 2009-2011, causing a suspension of activity in this arena as well. The Task Force and the TAC recognize, however, that evaluation of the resource through inventories and assessments are an important first step toward sustainable community and urban forestry management and programming. An inventory catalogues existing trees and their associated attributes while an assessment evaluates the state of the existing forest resource. Both are valuable and essential tools in identifying current maintenance and management needs and setting future goals. Analysis of the resulting information may be used to determine both baseline conditions and to set long- term goals regarding specific achievable conditions for a community’s forest resource, which are important both to develop an accurate, effective management plan for the resource and to set measurable goals to evaluate program efficiency and efficacy. 1 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.070 2 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-26-221 Packet Page 26 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 10 Community and urban tree inventories typically focus on city-managed street, park and/or natural-area trees. It is important to remember, however, that a community forest is much larger than the public tree component; the majority of trees comprising a community forest canopy are actually located on private property. Forest canopy assessment through the use of remote sensing technology such as aerial photography or satellite imagery captures the total effect of all trees within a community and, thus, is a major component of the ECA recommended inventory and assessment protocol. The core data set recommended by the TAC for use in ground-based inventories is designed to provide communities sufficient information to assess the forest resource, address local management needs, and develop a site-specific management plan. This basic data set will also provide the information necessary to use the i-TREE1 analysis tools developed by the USFS, should a community desire to do so. Communities may choose to collect additional information beyond the required data elements to address their particular management goals. For more information about the work and recommendations of the TAC, as well as the pilot project details, please refer to the TAC report2 available on the DNR website. 5. ELEMENTS OF COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLANS While the Task Force did not have time to fully develop model community and urban forestry management plans, the following elements are important points to consider when developing a strong, thoughtful management plan, an important step in fostering sustainable community and urban forestry programming and achieving healthy forest systems. A management plan conveys a vision for the resource in practical terms, based on the distinctive character and context of a community, and helps to establish consistency and coherence in long-range planning even should changes occur in local administration. A management plan is an expression of purpose that identifies how community and urban forests and other ecosystems may aid the community in achieving its broader planning goal. An urban forestry program may also be guided in its larger purpose by a strategic plan. Strategic plans establish long-term over-arching goals and objectives for a community’s urban forestry efforts in order to provide a logical process for programmatic development, and may function as a framework for interagency cooperation toward the incorporation of urban forestry principles into general community planning and infrastructure maintenance. Management plans, by contrast, tend to be more specific to the field operations of a tree program. This section focuses on recommendations for urban forestry management plans. A. SCOPE OF A MANAGEMENT PLAN A key decision early in the process of drafting a management plan is the scope of applicability of the document. Most plans begin by addressing those trees under the jurisdiction of the community or municipality, such as trees in parks, open space lands, street rights-of-way, and other publicly-owned properties. The next tier may include trees on properties owned or managed by other public entities such as school districts, water districts, and public utility 1 http://www.itreetools.org/ 2 http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/urbanforestry/pages/rp_urban_eca_tac.aspx Packet Page 27 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 11 June 2009 services. A final management arena, perhaps the most difficult to scope and implement, involves trees on privately-owned property, including trees in commercial areas such as parking lots and commercial building complexes; residential areas, including both single and multifamily housing; dedicated open space lands owned and managed by homeowners’ associations; and vacant lands that may be subject to future development. Trees in some of these designations may have been protected or planted as a condition of development plan approval. B. CONTENTS OF THE PLAN Management plans will be as varied as the communities they serve, but most contain the basic elements discussed below. A good management plan is a clear representation of the unique characteristics of the community’s forest resources and the values that local citizens hold concerning trees. In addition, the level of detail will vary among communities according to staff and other resources available. • Executive Summary An abbreviated version of major findings and recommendations should be provided, with more extensive, supporting detail following. • Introduction/Rationale The introduction should answer the key question, “Why was this plan developed?” That answer may address forest loss, forest health, community aesthetics, and environmental conditions, among others. A summary of benefits based on scientific research and studies may provide strong justification for subsequent policy and action recommendations. • Community Context A quick overview of the status of the urban forest resource should be provided, connected to the historical and cultural background of the community. Economics and trees of past times may be discussed. Heritage, historic or landmark trees in the community and their social significance may be described. The status and primary activities of any existing urban forestry program should be detailed. • Assessment Outcomes Results of a forest assessment such as a street tree inventory or canopy cover analysis should be summarized. Maps are often the best way to highlight key information provided by an assessment. Challenges, such as canopy loss, should be described and discussed. Previous past programmatic successes should be highlighted. • Needs Needs of the forest resource, the existing program, and management efforts should be described and related to the broader needs and desires of the community, such as meeting the environmental elements of the community’s comprehensive plan. • Concept and Vision The management plan builds on what has already been achieved and guides future action. It discusses specific local concerns and issues in terms of the forest resource. Some communities emphasize green infrastructure, the idea that connected forest systems across the community provide cleaner air and water, mitigate stormwater effects and reduce energy use. A related concept is that of ecosystem services, the idea that trees provide tangible and intangible goods and services that sustain basic needs, and improve human health and well-being. Communities may plan to promote a systems approach toward planning the forest resource, rather than planning for single trees or small groves, depending on the needs and desires of their citizens. Packet Page 28 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 12 • Review of Current Practices The management plan needs to provide the context that links background information and previous actions to existing activities and practices. It should report the current work plan (e.g. conservation, planting, stewardship), along with those responsible for the work (e.g. government departments, community organizations, a tree board). Current planning documents and code/ordinances that apply to trees should be included or summarized. • Plan Goals and Objectives The management plan establishes a framework of long-term, comprehensive intentions, and becomes the “road map” for future actions. Clear goals and objectives provide a consistency and continuity of purpose and outcome over an extended time period. • Implementation Actions and Timeline Specific actions to meet the goals and objectives must be included, with detailed specifications as to who will do the work and timelines for accomplishment, with phases of work coinciding with the community’s budget cycle. Programs should be monitored so that outcomes can be measured over time, providing feedback on effectiveness and efficiency of the work plan. Goals and actions may need periodic adjustment to reflect updated information and conditions. Adaptive management through a monitoring and feedback informational loop will produce best results over time. • Appendices Appendices provide technical documentation to support the plan’s assessment and implementation efforts. This reference material may be too complex or lengthy to present in the main body of the document. 6. ELEMENTS OF A COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY ORDINANCE While the Task Force did not have time to fully develop model community and urban forestry ordinances, commonly referred to as “tree ordinances”, the following elements are important considerations in developing a program that supports healthy urban forests and the ecological, social and economic benefits they confer. Elements may be scaled to the size and needs of the community, depending on resources available and support dedicated to community and urban forestry programming. A well-crafted community and urban forestry ordinance should include discussion and support of these items: • Establishment of priorities for tree removal and replacement, possibly placing more rigorous standards for higher valued trees and higher functioning forests • Conflict resolution • Cross-referencing to other local, state and federal policies • Inclusion of urban forestry policy in the community’s Comprehensive Plan • Tree recognition program (i.e. significant trees, historical trees, Tree City USA) • Incentives for tree retention and tree maintenance (tax credits, etc.) • References to existing professional, accredited maintenance and management standards and best management practices rather than including technical detail in the ordinance itself Packet Page 29 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 13 June 2009 Elements listed below include several important points that the Task Force recommends for consideration in addition to those listed in Section 12 of the Act. The underlying purpose of each element is described, considerations are discussed, and references to existing programs, code language or other helpful resources are given where appropriate examples are available. A community may develop topics or elements in addition to those listed, based on their own needs or desires; if such additional items are included in a management plan or policy statement, be sure that they are addressed in the related ordinance. Further ordinance-writing references and guides may be found in the Resources section at the end of this document. • General Purpose Statement Purpose: A clear purpose statement is an important organizing element in an effective tree ordinance. It states the reason for having a tree ordinance as part of an community and urban forestry program, and sets the overarching goals of the program. Considerations: A tree ordinance provides the legal authority to manage and maintain community and urban forests. Clearly identify which trees are regulated by the tree ordinance: public, private, those on the right of ways, in parks, in city jurisdiction, etc. References: International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree Ordinance Guidelines1 Model Tree Ordinances For Louisiana Communities2 - scroll down to Section 2 Lacey Title 14.32.0203 Purposes and permit criteria • Tree Canopy Cover Purpose: For the past decade, the benefits of urban forestry (stormwater/runoff abatement, pollution, shade) have been quantified through analysis of tree canopy cover for a community, with optimal percentages proposed for various land uses, as well as target coverages for a community working toward realizing maximum benefit from its urban forest. A goal that states an optimal percentage of tree canopy cover that a community wants to pursue will further support its ordinance and urban forestry program. Considerations: Canopy coverage goals should be included in purpose and intent sections of an ordinance as an overall goal. References: DNR’s TAC inventory and assessment report4 American Forests Ecosystem Analysis5 NCDC Imagining, Inc. projects6 • Tree Conservation and Retention Purpose: Tree conservation encompasses all aspects of tree management – installation, maintenance, retention, preservation, removal and replacement. Tree ordinance components and requirements must point to the ultimate goal of appropriate tree conservation to ensure optimal benefit and provide a firm basis for continuing tree care and public education. 1 http://www.isa-arbor.com/publications/tree-ord/ordprt1a.aspx#Goals 2 http://www.greenlaws.lsu.edu/modeltree.htm 3 http://www.ci.lacey.wa.us/lmc/lmc_main_page.html 4 http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/urbanforestry/pages/rp_urban_eca_tac.aspx 5 http://www.americanforests.org/resources/rea/ 6 http://www.ncdcimaging.com/page.asp?id=175&name=Projects Packet Page 30 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 14 Considerations: Retention and conservation goals should be included in purpose and intent sections of an ordinance as an overall goal. References: Olympia Title 16.561 Landmark Tree Protection Olympia Title 16.602 Tree density protection and replacement Bellevue Title 20.20.9003 Tree retention and replacement • Tree Density Purpose: Promoting a target tree density in a community helps to further conservation efforts toward optimal tree canopy cover. Considerations: Minimum tree densities are typically required for sites under development or redevelopment, when appropriate, to ensure a minimum canopy coverage is achieved through a combination of retention, allowable removal and required replacement. Other opportunities to address tree density occur when tree removal is requested that is not related to development. Examples of density measurements include actual measurements of tree crowns through aerial photography analysis, stem counts that enumerate actual trees, and diameter measurements that correlate to predetermined “tree units”. The most popular is the diameter measurement due to ease of administration and a reasonable correlation of density to a common measure. References: Vancouver Title Section 20.770.0804 Tree Density Requirement Kirkland Title 95.355 Tree Retention, Protection and Density Olympia Title 16.60.0806 Tree density requirement • Tree Spacing Purpose: Tree spacing ensures adequate space for individual trees to grow, develop and thrive in order to provide the highest possible benefit and services. Considerations: Growing space both above and below ground must be considered. It is best to link to outside documents (such as American National Standards Institute [ANSI] standards, BMPs, etc.), rather than spell out detailed specifications in the ordinance itself, as this allows for more flexibility and more timely updates as best practices improve through research, and precludes the need to amend the ordinance for such changes. References: street tree specifications from other jurisdictions public works street specifications and standards experienced urban forestry consultants 1 http://olympiamunicipalcode.org/ 2 http://olympiamunicipalcode.org/ 3 http://www.cityofbellevue.org/bellcode/Bluc2020.html#20.20.900 4thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_20&ch apter=770&VMC=080.html 5 http://kirklandcode.ecitygov.net/KirklandZC_html/kzc95.html#95.35] 6 http://olympiamunicipalcode.org Packet Page 31 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 15 June 2009 • Vegetated Stormwater Runoff Management Purpose: Trees and associated vegetation coverage are directly linked to stormwater mitigation and should be aligned during planning to ensure proper placement of increased community and urban tree cover in order to reduce and filter stormwater runoff. Considerations: Consult with local, state, regional and/or federal stormwater management manuals for guidance. Prioritize locations for tree and vegetation retention and replacement; for example, stormwater facilities and buffers for sensitive areas can be high priority locations for retention and replacement efforts. Trees intercept and store precipitation in leaves and bark, as well as storing water in trunk, twig and leaf tissues. For example, a mature Douglas-fir may hold up to 300 gallons of water throughout its structure. References: Department of Ecology (DOE) Stormwater Manual for Western Washington1 DOE Stormwater Manual for Eastern Washington2 US Environmental Protection Agency report, “Using Smart Growth Techniques as Stormwater Best Management Practices3,” identifies urban tree canopy as an innovative and sustainable means to dramatically reduce stormwater runoff and the costs associated with stormwater management. • Clearing, Grading, Protection of Soils Purpose: Vegetation protects soils, provides permanent erosion control and reduces surface stormwater runoff. Erosion control should be specified for projects requiring manipulation of the soil in order to preserve this precious resource to the best extent possible. Clearing for new development must take into consideration not only possible required tree retention, but ensuring that tree tracts preserve the best trees in the healthiest way possible within the site constraints. Manipulation of the soil such as grading has potential detrimental impacts on tree roots, and should be conducted in accordance with best management practices for protection of critical root zones. Considerations: Consult with stormwater manuals for information about clearing and grading impacts. Protection of water quality is a major consideration in developing erosion control specifications. Protection of the critical root zone around urban trees during construction, planting, and maintenance will help to preserve their health and structural integrity to ensure maximum ecological benefit and ongoing safety. References: Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specification for Road Bridge and Municipal Work4, 1-07.16(2) WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual5 City of Olympia Urban Forestry Manual6 1 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0510029.html 2 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0410076.html 3 http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/sg_stormwater_BMP.pdf 4 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/M41-10.htm 5 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M31-16/HighwayRunoff.pdf 6 http://www.olympiawa.gov/city-government/departments/community-planning-and-development/forms- and-brochures-cpd.aspx#Urban Packet Page 32 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 16 • Appropriate Tree Selection and Siting Purpose: Planting the “Right Tree in the Right Place” eliminates many potential future conflicts, particularly with overhead utilities. With the advent of solar and wind-generated power, it becomes even more important to plan tree planting locations and choose an appropriate tree variety. Maintenance costs may be considerably reduced through choosing varieties that are not only of correct size and shape, but are adapted to local climate and conditions. Tree care costs related to pest and disease control and irrigation may be significantly reduced through selecting trees appropriate to the local conditions. Considerations: An ordinance should link to a list of recommended trees rather than contain it, so that the list may be reviewed and updated as new information becomes available. Some jurisdictions find it useful to also have a “prohibited” or “restricted use” list of tree varieties to reduce the use of problematic or invasive trees. Adequate growing space both above and below ground will ensure well-shaped trees that are healthier and structurally safer for maximum cost/benefit. Line-of-sight standards and utility constraints must be considered when siting trees; guidelines for utility-appropriate trees are typically available through utility providers or wholesale nurseries. ANSI A300 standards for nursery stock may be linked to the ordinance to ensure quality young trees are provided for projects; minimum size standards for different planting types (i.e., street tree planting, reforestation/restoration planting) may be indicated as well. References: “The Right Tree for the Right Place” – Tree City USA Bulletin #41, The Arbor Day Foundation ISA BMP - Tree Planting2 Refer to local public works standards for line-of-sight clearances, side sewers, water lines, and any on-site drainage requirements. Consult with utilities regarding potential utility conflicts. Check tree selection and spacing guidelines in tree manuals and nursery publications. • Native Species and Non-native Species Diversity Purpose: Diversity of tree ages and species ensures a healthier, more resilient ecosystem capable of responding more easily to insect and disease threats, and changes in climate and other environmental conditions. Considerations: Planting native vegetation species should be encouraged where appropriate; however, in many urban settings, native soils and hydrology have been severely impacted. Native tree species may be less capable of coping with urban stresses than introduced varieties. To the extent possible, match what is known of the native habitat of a tree species with existing conditions. Consult with surrounding communities and the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service (WSU Extension) to avoid introducing invasive tree species. Jurisdictions should plan for diversity in planting to avoid losing major tree canopy through epidemic disease such as Dutch elm disease or infestation such as emerald ash borer. An up-to-date inventory can help to plan continuing tree planting efforts in order to maintain tree age diversity as well. 1 http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=129 2 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Tree-Planting- P256C59.aspx Packet Page 33 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 17 June 2009 References: Local knowledge of successful tree species and varieties is extremely helpful. Local nurseries, the WSU Extension and Master Gardeners are useful resources. Experienced urban forestry consultants • Centralized Tree Management Purpose: This element ensures that there is a responsible party to administer and enforce the code, as well as carry out the planning and maintenance activities described elsewhere in the ordinance and/or management plan. Considerations: A department, tree commission or board, or designated staff position must be given the authority to manage the urban forestry program. There may additionally be a requirement that all departments that perform work related to trees (including planning, street and sidewalk maintenance, signs and signals, public utilities, transportation, parks, field inspectors, etc.) shall coordinate efforts and perform work to the same standards. Several jurisdictions further add that “no person may prevent, delay or interfere with this person, department, or any city employee in the administration or enforcement of this ordinance.” References: Vancouver Chapter 12.021 URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION Walla Walla Chapter 12.49.0302 Municipal arborist – Duties and powers Everett Section 8.40.0703 Tree committee • Tree Maintenance Purpose: Correct, timely maintenance of trees protects the public’s investment in the urban forest resource and enhances the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The community and urban forest constitutes a vital environmental, historic, visual, and economic resource that provides benefits to all who live, work, play and shop in a community. Considerations: Clearly identify who is responsible for tree maintenance. In some jurisdictions the property owner is responsible for public trees adjacent to his/her property; in others the local jurisdiction is responsible for all public tree maintenance. Permitting may be required of residents for work they wish to perform to trees regulated by the local community. Professional standards such as those outlined in the ANSI A300 standards for tree care and maintenance should be linked to the ordinance, and enforced. All departments that perform work related to trees should be fully trained in proper maintenance activities and coordinate efforts. Standards and specifications should reference not only street trees, but all trees on publicly-owned properties (parks, stormwater facilities, etc.). Some jurisdictions require all tree workers working within their boundaries to be certified by a professional arboricultural organization. References: ISA BMP – Tree Pruning4 ISA BMP – Integrated Pest Management5 1thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_12&ch apter=02&VMC=index.html 2 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/WallaWalla/wallawalla12/wallawalla1249.html#12.49.035 3 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/everett/everet08/everet0840.html#8.40.070 4 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Tree-Pruning- P177C59.aspx 5 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Integrated-Pest- Management-P308C59.aspx Packet Page 34 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 18 ISA BMP – Tree and Shrub Fertilization1 Vancouver Chapter 12.042 STREET TREES ANSI A300 standards – Integrated Vegetation Management, Pruning and Fertilization3 Everett Chapter 8.40.0404 Management program Port Orchard Municipal Code §16.20.7005 - View Protection Overlay District • Street Tree Installation and Maintenance Purpose: The points made above in “Appropriate Tree Selection and Siting” and “Tree Maintenance” apply here as well, with the additional responsibility of managing trees in corridors of high traffic volume and greater potential risk to public safety. Considerations: Developers of new residential and commercial development are responsible in many jurisdictions for planting street trees, but bear no further responsibility for maintenance or care. A few jurisdictions require performance bonds ranging from 3 to 5 years to ensure adequate establishment of required tree plantings. In some jurisdictions, property owners have the responsibility to install and maintain street trees and reduce tree related hazards. However, due to increased risk management issues, many jurisdictions prefer to install, maintain, and care for street trees themselves, particularly on major arterials. Proper selection, installation, siting, and maintenance has been shown to significantly reduce risk associated with street trees in high traffic corridors, as well as potentially increasing the services and benefits that such trees provide. Minimum standards for quality and size must be provided, and enforced. References: ISA BMP – Tree Planting6 ISA BMP – Tree Pruning7 ISA BMP – Integrated Pest Management8 ISA BMP – Tree and Shrub Fertilization9 Vancouver Title12.0410 STREET TREES Olympia Title 1211 - STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES Edmonds Chapter 18.8512 STREET TREES 1 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Tree-and-Shrub- Fertilization-P174C59.aspx 2thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_12&ch apter=04&VMC=index.html 3 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Combo-packages-C36.aspx 4 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/everett/everet08/everet0840.html#8.40.040 5 http://www.cityofportorchard.us/docs/city_clerk/Land_use_devl_reg.pdf 6 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Tree-Planting- P256C59.aspx 7 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Tree-Pruning- P177C59.aspx 8 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Integrated-Pest- Management-P308C59.aspx 9 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Tree-and-Shrub- Fertilization-P174C59.aspx 10thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_12&c hapter=04&VMC=index.html 11 http://www.olympiamunicipalcode.org/A55799/Oly-muni- PUBLIC.nsf/1.%20Title/Chapter?OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=12.12] 12 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds18/edmonds1885.html Packet Page 35 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 19 June 2009 • Tree and Vegetation Buffers Purpose: Healthy and sustainable vegetated buffers help to ensure optimal functionality of wetlands, riparian zones and similar locations. Well-planned tree retention tracts and buffers reduce utility conflict through assessment and analysis of potential locations within a development site. Considerations: Planning and design for tree and vegetation buffers must consider the inherent risk to transportation and utility corridors, as well as potential risk to homes, schools, hospitals and other structures. Jurisdictions should work closely with local utility providers to identify utility corridors and coordinate planning and development of retained tree tracts and buffers. Long, narrow tracts or buffers consisting of retained native trees should be avoided, as these are particularly prone to windthrow once the supporting stand has been removed. Retention of single trees has not been successful over the long term using dense development standards; such individual trees tend to sustain considerable root damage during construction and are easily blown over due to both root damage and to loss of the supporting stand. References: Buffer requirements for sensitive areas may be found in community development and critical area codes Riparian buffer regulations Consult with local utility foresters to learn more about local utility concerns and issues. • Tree Assessments for Site Permitting Purpose: Assessment and evaluation of trees and tree stands during site planning and permitting ensures retention of healthy trees in the most appropriate manner, as well as adequate protection of viable trees during the development and construction processes. Considerations: A complete forestry report by a qualified professional that contains an inventory of trees on the site and discusses the health, structural integrity and risk assessment should be part of the permitting process for new development and/or redevelopment. Trees adjacent to the development site that may be impacted by development and/or construction processes should be included in the documentation. Particular site-related issues that may impact the long-term viability of the retained tree tract (steep slopes, laminated root rot, etc.) should be noted and discussed in detail. Long, narrow tracts or buffers consisting of retained native trees should be avoided, as these are particularly prone to windthrow once the supporting stand has been removed. Retention of single trees within a development have not been shown to be successful over the long term; such individual trees tend to sustain considerable root damage during construction and are easily blown over due to both root damage and to loss of the supporting stand. References: Kirkland Chapter 95.351 Tree Retention, Protection and Density Olympia Chapter 16.60.0502 Tree plan required Vancouver Section 20.770.0503 Tree Plan Required 1 http://kirklandcode.ecitygov.net/KirklandZC_html/kzc95.html#95.35 2 http://olympiamunicipalcode.org/ 3thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_20&ch apter=770&VMC=050.html Packet Page 36 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 20 • Tree Protection During Construction Purpose: Protecting existing trees from damage or removal on a site is important in retaining the ecosystem services those trees contribute to the community. Protecting trees during construction ensures that trees identified as having long-term benefit to the community retain their health and structural integrity, which is necessary for continued public health and safety. Considerations: Trees and their root systems require protection from disturbance and compaction during construction in order to remain healthy and safe. The ISA has developed a “rule of thumb” guideline for the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) area of retained trees that should be protected from construction impacts: one foot from the base of the trunk (radius) for each one inch of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above grade. Several jurisdictions have detailed specifications for protection measures, including fencing of the CRZ during construction, especially on new construction. Missing or inadequate safeguards may render a tree tract hazardous through damage to trunks and roots, thereby raising risk factors to an unacceptable level. References: ISA BMP – Managing Trees During Construction1 WSDOT Standard Specification for Road Bridge and Municipal Work2, 1-07.16(2) Vegetation Protection and Restoration Redmond Chapter 20D.80.20-1003 Protection Measures Olympia Chapter 16.60.0904 Tree protection during construction City of Olympia Urban Forestry Manual5 • Forest Condition for Different Land Use Types Purpose: This element is intended to provide options and a range of forestry opportunities for the possible range of land uses in communities. Considerations: Community and urban forests consisting of different species, sizes, densities, percent canopy coverage, and heights may be indicated for different land use zones, such as residential, commercial, parks, etc. A jurisdiction may also incorporate additional opportunities, such as the retention of existing trees on site, supplemental planting, or the creation of stands of trees. Vancouver and Kirkland have different retention requirements for single-family, multi- family and commercial. Maintenance and management of view corridor planning overlays, if identified, must be taken into consideration as well. References: Bellevue Chapter 20.20.9006 Tree retention and replacement. Sections D, E, F, and G contain different requirements for differently zoned development. Clyde Hill Chapter 17.387 View Protection and Tree Removal 1 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-BMP-Managing-Trees-During- Construction-P394C59.aspx 2 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/M41-10.htm 3 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/redmondcdg/cdg20D8020.html#20D.80.20-100 4 http://olympiamunicipalcode.org/ 5 http://www.olympiawa.gov/city-government/departments/community-planning-and-development/forms- and-brochures-cpd.aspx#Urban 6 http://www.cityofbellevue.org/bellcode/Bluc2020.html#20.20.900 7 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/clydehill/clyde17.pdf#Page=31 Packet Page 37 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 21 June 2009 • Public Education and Support Purpose: Urban forestry can be a powerful tool to aid in building strong, vital, sustainable communities. Establishing an environmental and stewardship ethic helps bring the importance of the tree canopy—a community asset that functions for the common good—to the forefront of public awareness. Such awareness is important to create and foster ongoing support for future program development and needs. Considerations: Development of a citizen tree board or commission in addition to municipal staff can be useful in implementing educational programs and soliciting community engagement in urban forestry programming. Celebrate Arbor Day. Partner with local organizations such as schools, garden clubs or libraries to provide educational events. While the level of public education and outreach will be largely dependent on jurisdiction’s resources, explore partnerships with local organizations to increase outreach potential. A public well-educated about best tree maintenance practices will be more engaged in day-to-day care of the community-based forestry resource. References: “Handbook for Tree Board Members” – available through the Arbor Day Foundation1 “Trees Are Good2” - ISA public education website Alliance for Community Trees3 • Tree Account Purpose: A dedicated tree account will allow penalties, fines, fees or payments in lieu of required planting and/or donations to be directly received by the urban forestry program in order to be used by the program for replanting, maintenance, additional planting, education and other activities. Considerations: Financial challenges are an ongoing concern for most community and urban forestry programs. A mechanism to capture funds associated with regulating a community’s trees provides a method to leverage those funds from tree-related fines, fees, etc. to increase the efficacy of the overall program. Some jurisdictions also provide for replacement fees or fines based on appraised replacement value of trees that have been damaged on publicly-owned property through vehicle collision or vandalism. References: Vancouver Title 20.770.0404 City Tree Account Lacey Title 14.32.066(B)5 City Tree Account Olympia 16.60.0456 City tree account • Permits and Appeals Purpose: Permits provide a standardized platform to review and approve or deny tree-related actions to ensure quality and consistency of the work. An appeal process should be linked to any permitting process, to provide for equitable conflict resolution. 1 http://www.arborday.org 2 http://www.treesaregood.org 3 http://actrees.org/site/index.php 4thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_20&ch apter=770&VMC=040.html 5 http://www.ci.lacey.wa.us/lmc/lmc_main_page.html 6 http://olympiamunicipalcode.org/ Packet Page 38 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 22 Considerations: Permits may be required for removal, planting, pruning or any other tree-related work within the right-of-way at a minimum or be more far-reaching, as desired by the community. Some jurisdictions require that any and all tree work performed within jurisdictional borders must be performed by a tree worker certified by a professional arboricultural organization. Some jurisdictions require permits for tree work performed on private property as well, at no charge, in order to have the opportunity to review the intended work. Particularly in the case of tree removals, staff may use this opportunity to educate the consumer on other options that may be available, as well as discuss minimum tree density requirements with the consumer, if such exist. References: Vancouver Section 12.04.0401 Street tree work permit Walla Walla Section 12.49.2002 Appeals Lacey Section 14.32.0403 Permits • Enforcement and Penalties Purpose: Ordinances must have enforcement capabilities in order to be effective. Penalties help ensure compliance and may require restitution, such as civil fines or site restoration, for non- compliance. Considerations: Incentives and education may render enforcement obsolete; however, it is always wise to have enforcement capability associated with a tree ordinance to protect this valuable community resource most effectively. Because enforcement happens within an urban area, fines and fees should be calculated on appraised landscape value rather than wildland timber value. Fines, fees or other restitution or penalties should be received by the Tree Account to be used to support the urban forestry program, as detailed earlier in this document in the discussion of Tree Accounts. References: Vancouver Title 12.04.1004 Enforcement “Guide for Plant Appraisals, 9th Edition” - Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, available through the ISA5 Olympia Chapter 16.58.0706 Penalties • Alternative Compliance Purpose: Other approaches that incorporate ‘green’ elements into a site design may be offered for review; alternatively, a site that cannot comply with the provisions of the ordinance but does or can provide benefits as stated in the purpose/intent section of the ordinance will have the legal opportunity to offer valid options. Considerations: Requests to use alternative measures and procedures should be reviewed by the staff responsible for urban forestry programming to ensure that issues and concerns are adequately covered. Examples include retaining specimen or landmark trees or low impact 1thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_12&ch apter=04&VMC=040.html 2 http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/WallaWalla/wallawalla12/wallawalla1249.html#12.49.200 3 http://www.ci.lacey.wa.us/lmc/title_14/chapter_14-32.htm 4thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_12&ch apter=04&VMC=100.html 5 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore 6 http://olympiamunicipalcode.org/ Packet Page 39 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 23 June 2009 development techniques, including such programs as Green Building Design or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), which demonstrate a significant reduction to stormwater runoff from the site. References: Kirkland Zoning Code Chapter 95.251 Alternative Compliance Redmond Chapter 20D.80.10-0302 Unique or Special Circumstances • Alternatives for Safety Purpose: Potential high-risk situations must be addressed in an orderly manner to preserve public safety. This element should provide criteria by which a community or its citizens may remove trees on both public and private property which are deemed to be a severe risk to public safety and critical infrastructure. Considerations: Trees identified as “hazardous” or “at risk” should be identified as such by a certified arborist using a validated method whenever possible. Owners of trees deemed to be an imminent hazard on private property should be notified prior to removal or abatement whenever possible. Procedures for tree removals or other hazard abatement processes should be clear and flexible to protect public and property safety in the event of emergency situations. References: “A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas” - Metheny and Clark, 1994. “Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural Interface3” Vancouver Chapter 12.084 HAZARDOUS VEGETATION • Alternatives and Exemptions for Utility Companies Purpose: Washington State requires utilities to provide for “the safe and uninterrupted delivery of service.” Cooperation among jurisdictions, citizens and local utility providers is essential to meet this requirement and still retain healthy, viable trees, and vegetation. Considerations: Utility providers may be granted ‘self-permitting’ privileges with an annual review of work to be accomplished within a jurisdiction. Jurisdictions and utility providers may collaborate on arboricultural training for utility workers and public outreach and education to consumers. Utility providers must be exempt, within reason, from lengthy review and permitting processes during storm events and emergency response. Exemptions or a high degree of cooperation are required for utilities in order to meet certain federal standards in conjunction with state and local mandates with regard to tree pruning and removal practices along critical infrastructure. An annual integrated vegetation management plan may be useful in addressing such issues in a positive, time-sensitive fashion. Street tree work should be coordinated with utility providers and local public works departments, including both above- and belowground disturbance such as trenching, pipe installation, curb cuts, sidewalk installation, sign installation, etc., and traffic control when needed. 1 http://kirklandcode.ecitygov.net/KirklandZC_html/kzc95.html#95.25 2 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/redmondcdg/cdg20D8010.html#20D.80.10-030 3 http://www.pnwisa.org/TRACEBulletin.pdf 4thttp://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_12&ch apter=08&VMC=index.html Packet Page 40 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 24 References: ANSI A300 Part 1: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance--Standard Practices, Pruning1 ISA BMP - Utility Pruning of Trees2 “Trees and Overhead Electric Wires: Proper Pruning and Selection” – available through ISA3 • Variance to Address Conflicts Purpose: Clear criteria and an equitable process should be designed for parties to work toward resolving conflicts involving trees and other structures such as solar panels, wind towers, view corridors, and utilities. Such criteria should enable a conversation about the benefits and contributions of trees that lead to a practical and workable alternative solution to removal without replacement. Considerations: Ordinances dealing with this issue emphasize a conflict resolution process rather than litigation. Proper valuation of the benefits and services of trees must be taken into consideration. The lifespan of the impacted tree versus the lifespan of the proposed structure should also be considered. Reference: Clyde Hill Chapter 17.384 View Protection and Tree Removal Redmond Section 20D.80.10-0305 Unique or Special Circumstances • Definitions Purpose: A section of definitions will provide clarification for terminology in ordinance elements, so that all users understand concepts and principles contained in the code without uncertainty regarding technical jargon. Considerations: Definitions should be simple and accurate, and reflect the intent of the ordinance. 7. EVERGREEN COMMUNITIES RECOGNITION Section 6 of the Evergreen Communities Act sets out the framework for an evergreen communities recognition program, codified in RCW 35.105.0306, which builds upon the existing Tree City USA program, created and administered nationally by The Arbor Day Foundation. While the Task Force did not have time to fully develop a recognition program, the following considerations are essential to a future program that supports healthy urban forests and the ecological, social and economic benefits they confer. Further development of program criteria and establishment of the recognition program will resume when funding is restored. 1 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/ANSI-A300-Pruning-Standard-2008-Edition-P20C21.aspx 2 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Best-Management-Practices-Series-BMP-Utility-Pruning-of-Trees- P230C59.aspx 3 http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstore/Trees-and-Overhead-Electric-Wires-Proper-Pruning-and- Selection-P26.aspx 4 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/clydehill/clyde17.pdf#Page=31 5 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/redmondcdg/cdg20D8010.html#20D.80.10-030 6 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.105.030 Packet Page 41 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 25 June 2009 • The award program should enable every Washington State community (city, town, county or tribe) to attain recognition. • Outstanding achievement should be rewarded with higher recognition. • The recognition program should provide for flexibility concerning community context, rather than a list of absolutes uniformly applied across all communities. A. BASIC EVERGREEN COMMUNITIES RECOGNITION The first four steps toward attaining Evergreen Community status as described in the ECA are essentially the same as the four requirements to become a Tree City USA, and will be applicable to all jurisdictions including those not currently eligible for the Tree City USA program: • The development and implementation of a tree board, tree department, or responsible department; • The development of a tree care ordinance; • The implementation of a community forestry program with an annual budget of at least two dollars ($2) for every resident; and • Official recognition of Arbor Day through a celebration and proclamation by the mayor or other community dignitary. The Task Force strongly urges any community interested in participating in the Evergreen Communities Program and its incentives to begin by implementing the Tree City USA standards, with or without recognition through the Arbor Day Foundation. Basic evergreen communities recognition as laid out in the ECA requires a fifth step in addition to the four above: • The completion of an updated community and urban forest inventory for the city, town, tribe or county or the formal adoption of an inventory developed for the city, town, tribe or county by the DNR (RCW 76.15.0701). B. PROGRAM-BUILDING STEPS A second graduated step of designation as an Evergreen Community includes adoption of evergreen community management plans and ordinances that exceed the minimum standards adopted under RCW 35.105.0502. While development of criteria and programming toward this step and any other additional graduated steps wait upon renewed funding of the ECA, the Task Force offers the following approach toward building an evergreen communities recognition program when funding becomes available. A 3-tiered (or “step” as described in the legislation) system of awards is recommended, similar in concept to LEED certification rankings of Silver, Gold, and Platinum. A community is recognized as it completes each step’s designated product, while maintaining the requirements for all prior steps that are achieved, thus building integrated urban forestry programming that builds strength upon strength incrementally. The Task Force believes that this proposal lays out a framework for an evergreen communities recognition program that potentially: • enables every Washington community to attain recognition, but also rewards ever higher achievement; 1 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=76.15.070 2 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.105.050 Packet Page 42 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 26 • provides for flexibility concerning community context by offering a palette of choices or options, rather than a uniformly applied list of requirements across all sizes and types of communities; and • builds excellence in urban forestry programming that is integrated into long-range community planning through preferential access to a wide range of State grant and loan opportunities. • Step 1 The first step of recognition is explicitly defined in the ECA and largely adopts the requirements of the Tree City USA designation as described above, then adds a tree inventory requirement. Because Tree City USA is currently available only to cities and towns, these recognition requirements will be adapted to apply to counties and other non- municipal jurisdictions as well. • Step 2 The ECA then specifies that the second graduated step must include adoption of an urban forestry management plan. This step should include an update to the tree ordinance that is part of Step 1 in order to address the management plan’s vision and goals. • Step 3 Finally, the ECA states that the “department may require additional graduated steps and establish the minimum requirements for each.” The Task Force proposes a third step, in which a community must adopt an urban forest management plan with higher level visions and goals, and update the tree ordinance to address those. This highest level of recognition would acknowledge continuing excellence in urban forestry programming that is comprehensive and visionary in tree policy, programs, and actions. Under this vision of the recognition program, Step 3, and to some extent Step 2, would reward increasingly expanded urban forestry programming that addresses: • planning, protection, conservation and management of trees and forest groves on private property as well as public properties; and • planning and management of trees and forest groves to develop higher percentages of community canopy coverage and performance of ecosystem services. C. RESOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES The Task Force recognizes that each of these steps represents a substantial commitment of staff and administration by a community. Renewed full funding of the ECA will ensure that resources and assistance will be available to communities. Section 3 of the ECA (RCW PLUS Packet Page 43 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 27 June 2009 76.15.0701) indicates that the DNR will conduct a statewide community and urban forestry inventory and that these data will be made available to communities as the inventory proceeds. Sections 8 and 19 (RCW 35.105.0402; RCW 76.15.0303) provide for grants and technical assistance to communities for inventories, management plans, and code development when the Program is fully funded. Section 9 (RCW 35.105.0504) provides for the development of model management plans and ordinances by CTED and the Task Force to serve as guides for the development of locally appropriate urban forestry management plans and tree ordinances. D. INCENTIVES Sections 26 through 30 of the ECA list a wide variety of infrastructure and environmental grants and loans available through several State agencies that will provide preferential consideration to applications from communities that have achieved recognition as evergreen communities. • Section 26 (RCW 43.155.0705) – Grants and project funding through the Public Works Board • Section 27 (RCW 70.146.0706) – Water pollution control grants or loans • Section 28 (RCW 89.08.5207) – Water quality improvement and habitat protection grants • Section 29 (RCW 79.105.1508) – Aquatic lands enhancement project funding through the recreation and conservation funding board • Section 30 (RCW 79A.15.0409) – Habitat conservation grants or project funding through the recreation and conservation funding board These incentives will become operational one year after adoption of the model management plans and ordinances developed by CTED staff and the Task Force; as with the rest of the ECA, this portion is on hold due to budget constraints. 1 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=76.15.070 2 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.105.040 3 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=76.15.030 4 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.105.050 5 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.155.070 6 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.146.070 7 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=89.08.520 8 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=79.105.150 9 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=79A.15.040 Packet Page 44 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 28 8. REFERENCES AIRnow. 2007. Quality of Air Means Quality of Life. Washington, D.C. Available online at http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=jump.jump_ozone. Akbari H., S.E. Bretz, D.M. Kurn and J.W. Hanford. 1997. Peak Power And Cooling Energy Savings Of Shade Trees. Energy and Buildings 25:139-148. Brennan, J.S. 2007. Marine Riparian Vegetative Communities of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-02. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, WA. EnviroVision, Herrera Environmental, and Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group. 2007. Protecting Nearshore Habitat and Functions in Puget Sound, An Interim Guide. October 2007. Page II - 42. Kuo, F. E. 2003. The Role of Arboriculture in a Healthy Social Ecology. Journal of Arboriculture 29(3):148-155. Laverne, R. J., and K. Winson-Geideman. 2003. The Influence of Trees and Landscaping on Rental Rates at Office Buildings. Journal of Arboriculture 29(5):281-290. Schwab, James. 2009. Branching Out. Planning Magazine, March 2009, 11-15. American Planning Association. Schwab, James, ed. March 2009. Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community Development. American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service, Report Number 555. 154 pp. Wolf, K. L. 2004. Trees, Parking and Green Law: Strategies for Sustainability. Stone Mountain, GA. Georgia Forestry Commission, Urban and Community Forestry. Available online at http://www.naturewithin.info/transportation.html. Wolf, K. L. 2006. Roadside Urban Trees: Balancing Safety and Community Values. Arborist News, December 2006, 15(6 ) pp. 56-58. Wolf, K.L. 2007. City Trees and Property Values. Arborist News, August 2007, pp. 34-36. Wolf, K.L. 2008a. With Plants in Mind: Social Benefits of Civic Nature. MasterGardener, Winter 2008, 2(1) 7-11. Wolf, K.L. 2008b. City Trees, Nature and Physical Activity: A Research Review. Arborist News, 17, 1:22-24. Wolf, K.L. 2009. More in Store: Research on City Trees and Retail. Arborist News 18, 2: 22-27. Packet Page 45 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 29 June 2009 9. URBAN FORESTRY RESOURCES GENERAL URBAN FORESTRY REFERENCE A City Among the Trees: an urban forestry resource guide. City of Seattle Urban Forest Coalition. October 1998. In collaboration with Arai/Jackson Architects & Planners. 204 pp. A Handbook for Tree Board Members. Gene W. Grey. 1993. The National Arbor Day Foundation. 50 pp. A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability. J. R. Clark, N. P. Matheny, G. Cross, and V. Wake. January 1997. Journal of Arboriculture 23(1 ): 17 – 30. Available online at www.naturewithin.info/Policy/ClarkSstnabltyModel.pdf. A Technical Guide to Urban and Community Forestry in Washington, Oregon and California. World Forestry Center, Portland, OR, and Robin Morgan, urban forestry consultant. March 1993. In partnership with USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest Regions, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Oregon Department of Forestry, and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 49 pp. Community Forestry and Urban Growth: A Toolbox for Incorporating Urban Forestry Elements into Community Plans. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. December 1994. In partnership with USDA Forest Service and Washington Community Forestry Council. 19 pp. Department of Natural Resources Urban and Community Forestry Program website online at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/UrbanForestry/Pages/rp_urban_comma ndurbanforestry.aspx. Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington Urban Forestry webpages online at http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/environment/urbanforest/urbtrees.aspx. Northern Mountain and Prairie Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting. McPherson, E.G., J.R. Simpson, P.J. Peper, Q. Xiao, S.E. Maco, and P.J. Hoefer. 2003. Center for Urban Forest Research, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 92 pp. Appropriate for northeastern Washington. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/tree_guides.php. Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community Development. James C. Schwab, general editor. March 2009. American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service, Report Number 555. 154 pp. Temperate Interior West Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting. Vargas, K. E.; E. G. McPherson, J. R. Simpson, P. J. Peper, S. L. Gardner, Q. Xiao. 2007 General Technical Report PSW-GTR-206. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 108 p. Appropriate for southeastern Washington. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/tree_guides.php. Packet Page 46 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 30 Urban & Community Forestry: A Practical Guide to Sustainability. James R. Fazio. 2003. The National Arbor Day Foundation. 75 pp. Available online at http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=81. Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planning. McPherson, E.G., S.E. Maco, J.R. Simpson, P.J. Peper, Q. Xiao, A.M. VanDerZanden and N. Bell. 2002. General Technical Report International Society of Arboriculture, Pacific Northwest Chapter. 76pp. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/tree_guides.php. INVENTORY AND CANOPY ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE How to Conduct a Street Tree Inventory – Tree City USA Bulletin #23; available through the Arbor Day Foundation online at http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=108. Placing a Value on Trees – Tree City USA Bulletin #28; available through the Arbor Day Foundation online at http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=113. Public Property Tree Inventory and Assessment Report, March 2007. City of Renton. 67 pp. Available online at http://www.rentonwa.gov/living/default.aspx?id=16702. STRATEGIC AND MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDANCE Guidelines for Developing Urban & Community Forestry Plans, Strategic Plans & Management Plans for Street and Park Tree Management. Vermont Urban and Community Forestry Program. 23 pp. Available online at http://www.vtfpr.org/urban/documents/PlanGuid.pdf. How to Plan for Management – Tree City USA Bulletin #29; available through the Arbor Day Foundation online at http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=114. How to Fund Community Forestry – Tree City USA Bulletin #34; available through the Arbor Day Foundation online at http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=118. Urban Forestry Best Management Practices for Public Works Managers: A Technical Guide to Developing Urban Forestry Strategic Plans & Urban Forest Management Plans. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Forestry. 28 pp. Available online at http://www.apwa.net/Documents/About/CoopAgreements/UrbanForestry/UrbanForestry- 4.pdf. COMMUNITY AND URBAN FORESTRY ORDINANCE GUIDANCE Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances. Elizabeth A. Bernhardt and Tedmund J. Swiecki. 1991, updated 2001. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Urban Forestry Program. 76 pp. 2001 edition online at http://www.isa- arbor.com/publications/ordinance.aspx. How to Write a Municipal Tree Ordinance – Tree City USA Bulletin #9; available through the Arbor Day Foundation online at http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=96. Packet Page 47 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 31 June 2009 Louisiana State University Green Laws website online at http://www.greenlaws.lsu.edu/. Tree Protection Ordinances – Tree City USA Bulletin #31; available through the Arbor Day Foundation online at http://www.arborday.org/Shopping/Merchandise/MerchDetail.cfm?id=116. SPECIAL TOPICS RESOURCES The Arbor Day Foundation Online at http://www.arborday.org/. Center for Urban Forest Research, Pacific Southwest Research Station Online at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/. City of Portland and Multnomah County Action Climate Plan 2009 – Public Comment Draft. See Chapter 4 – Urban Forestry. 59 pp. Online at Human Dimensions of Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, Dr. Kathleen Wolf. Online at http://www.naturewithin.info/. Municipal Research and Services Center Urban Forestry webpages Online at http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/environment/urbanforest/urbtrees.aspx. Trees Are Good! International Society of Arboriculture consumer education website Online at http://www.treesaregood.org/. USDA Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Online at http://www.fs.fed.us/ucf/. Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington Online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0510029.html. Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Eastern Washington Online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0410076.html. Packet Page 48 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 32 This page left intentionally blank Packet Page 49 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 33 June 2009 10. EVERGREEN COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP TASK FORCE Chair: Joseph Scorcio Vice Chair: Beth Rogers Note: Task Force members are listed in the following format: • Interest group, agency or organization as described in Section 17 of the ECA Primary representative of the organization Alternate representative of the organization, where designated • Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Leonard Bauer, Washington State CTED Growth Management Services Micki McNaughton, Washington State CTED Urban Forestry Specialist • Department of Natural Resources Sarah Foster, Washington State DNR Urban and Community Forestry Program Linden Mead, Washington State DNR Urban and Community Forestry Program • Department of Ecology Stephen Bernath, Washington State Dept. of Ecology • A statewide council representing urban and community forestry programs authorized under RCW 76.15.020 Kathleen Wolf, Washington Community Forestry Council Jana Dilley, University of Washington • A conservation organization with expertise in Puget Sound stormwater management Bruce Wishart, People for Puget Sound Cyrilla Cook, People for Puget Sound • At least two cities, one from a city east and one from a city west of the crest of the Cascade mountains David Erickson, City of Wenatchee Parks and Recreation • At least two cities, one from a city east and one from a city west of the crest of the Cascade mountains Janet Way, City of Shoreline City Council Chris Eggen, City of Shoreline City Council • At least two counties, one from a county east and one from a county west of the crest of the Cascade mountains David Grimes, Chelan County Development Keith Goehner, Chelan County Commissioner • At least two counties, one from a county east and one from a county west of the crest of the Cascade mountains Joseph Scorcio, Pierce County Public Works & Utilities Anne-Marie Marshall-Dody, Pierce County Public Works & Utilities Packet Page 50 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 34 • Two land development professionals or representative associations representing development professionals affected by tree retention ordinances and storm water management policies Phil Harlan, Keller Williams Realty Olympia, Washington Association of Realtors Jeanette Samek-McKague, Washington Association of Realtors • Two land development professionals or representative associations representing development professionals affected by tree retention ordinances and storm water management policies Brian Ross, YarrowBay Group Katherine Orni, YarrowBay Group • A national conservation organization with a network of chapter volunteers working to conserve habitat for birds and wildlife Charles Kahle, Audubon Washington Matt Mega, Seattle Audubon • A land trust conservation organization facilitating urban forest management partnerships Ara Erickson, Cascade Land Conservancy Green Cities Program Director John Floberg, Cascade Land Conservancy • A national conservation organization with expertise in backyard, schgoolyard, and community wildlife habitat development Courtney Sullivan, National Wildlife Federation • A public works professional Brian Carlson, City of Vancouver Public Works Director Charles Ray, City of Vancouver Urban Forestry • A private utility Beth Rogers, Puget Sound Energy Janet Brown, Puget Sound Energy • A national forest land trust exclusively dedicated to sustaining America’s vast and vital private forests and safeguarding their many public benefits Paula Swedeen, Pacific Forest Trust • Professionals with expertise in local land use planning, housing, or infrastructure Sandy Salisbury, Washington State Dept. of Transportation Mark Maurer, Washington State Dept. of Transportation • Professionals with expertise in local land use planning, housing, or infrastructure Elizabeth Walker, Sound Tree Solutions • The timber industry Adrian Miller, Washington Forest Protection Association Packet Page 51 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming 35 June 2009 11. BACKGROUND OF THE ACT The portion of the 2008 Evergreen Communities Act (ESSHB 2844; RCW 35.105) that is administered by the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) is intended to assist local jurisdictions to make best use of the benefits and services that trees in urbanized areas provide by offering technical guidance for communities through the development of model tree ordinances and model urban forestry management plans. Such management programming may include urban and community forestry assessments and inventories, tree ordinances, management plans, maintenance programs, partnerships, and community involvement. In addition, CTED staff and the Evergreen Communities Partnership Task Force (the Task Force) are responsible for creating an awards program to recognize those communities who work toward developing excellent management programming that enhances the capacity of their urban and community forests to provide ecological, social, and economic services. The Act directs CTED to complete the following tasks, subject to available funding: 1. Form the Evergreen Communities Partnership Task Force (RCW 35.105.110); 2. Develop model tree ordinances suitable for use as a guide for jurisdictions of all configurations throughout the State (RCW 35.105.080); 3. Develop model urban forestry management plans suitable for use as a guide for jurisdictions of all configurations throughout the State (RCW 35.105.070); 4. Develop and implement an Evergreen Communities grant and competitive awards program to provide financial assistance to towns, tribes, cities and counties to develop, adopt and implement Evergreen Communities management plans or tree ordinances (RCW 35.105.040); and 5. Create an Evergreen Communities recognition program built upon the Tree City USA award program to recognize communities for their work in developing excellent urban forest management programs (RCW 35.105.030). CHALLENGES Funding for work directed by the ECA has been suspended for the Fiscal Biennium 2009-2011. The timeline for work proceeding under the ECA, therefore, was reduced from more than two years (a deadline of December 2010) to one year, ending on June 30, 2009. During the funding hiatus, the Act will continue to provide a statutory platform for cooperation and collaboration among agencies, organizations and communities that work to build or improve urban forestry programming. The Task Force Report will function as a valuable outreach tool for CTED, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Washington Community Forestry Council (WCFC; RCW 76.15) to support urban and community forestry programs around the state until CTED, the DNR and the Task Force are funded and reconvened to finish their ECA work. NEXT STEPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS During the one year of funding for the Evergreen Communities program, CTED has worked with its partner agency, the DNR, and with the Task Force toward completion of tasks #2, #3, and #4 above. Although fully-developed model ordinances and management plans were not possible due to the shortened timeline, the Task Force has worked diligently to provide this document as basic guidance to local jurisdictions desiring to better manage and plan for improvements to their urban and community forests during the unfunded interim. The resources and recommendations offered in this Task Force Report provide an excellent foundation for local jurisdictions to establish or expand urban forestry programming. Through these resources, Packet Page 52 of 210 A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming June 2009 36 communities can increase the value of the ecological, social, and economic services that urban forests provide. This document was completed through the tremendous efforts of the members of the Task Force. Recognizing the possibility of a loss of funding in early 2009, the Task Force members expedited a compressed work program so that tangible resources could be produced by June 30, 2009, to guide local communities in their urban forestry programming efforts during the unfunded interim. Due to the time constraints, the Task Force, CTED staff and the DNR were unable to present the resources and recommendations in the Task Force Report to the public for review and feedback, but will do so once funding is restored and the development process can be resumed. The commitment and dedication of the Task Force has resulted in these additional resources becoming available to communities that choose to enhance the quality and capacity of their urban forests, thereby improving their ability to manage stormwater, reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere, lower the cost of heating and cooling of buildings, and experience the many other benefits and services of community and urban forests, as discussed elsewhere in this document. When funding is again available for CTED, the DNR, and the Task Force to return to their tasks as assigned in the ECA, this document will provide the foundation to fully complete the development of the tools described in the Act without delay or “backtracking” on work that has already been completed. The Legislature will need to adjust the deadlines in RCW 35.105.050(5) to provide adequate time for completion of the assigned work. Packet Page 53 of 210 From:Chave, Rob To:Barbara Tipton ; Richard Senderoff Cc:Steve Bernheim Subject:RE: Tree Board Ordinance Status Date:Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:24:28 AM I believe your next stop with the draft ordinance is the Council’s Community Services/Development Services Committee. Re: incorporating view issues into the Whereas clauses. Personally, I see Scott’s point, but I am ambivalent about it being included in the ordinance setting up the Tree Board. I tend to agree with Barbara that it can be left to future issues the Board may decide to wrestle with rather than raising it at this point in time. I’d suggest you proceed with scheduling on the August Council Committee? Rob Chave Edmonds Planning Manager From: Barbara Tipton [mailto:barbaratipton@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:26 PM To: Chave, Rob; 'Richard Senderoff' Cc: 'Steve Bernheim' Subject: RE: Tree Board Ordinance Status Gentlemen: I’m back from sunny California and responding to e-mail messages. I was afraid that the “view” issue would be raised. I intentionally left it out of my “whereas” statements, because I had hoped to tackle the “view” issue once the Tree Board was formed. It is a thorny issue. In communities with restrictive covenants, it is clear cut. The covenants often include specific language regarding view preservation. There might be covenants in specific neighborhoods in Edmonds where view protection is referenced. One could make a good argue for protection of views from streets, parks and public areas. It is more difficult to make an argument for private easements in neighborhoods not covered by restrictive covenants. My good friend, Seattle resident Wallie Harrington says: “If you don’t want your view blocked, you have to buy tickets in the front row.” My preference would be for us to engage in conversation with the Planning Board rather than include it in the “whereas” section. If your preference is to include a reference to views, please let me know and we can discuss this further. I am flexible. Once we decide whether to include view preservation in the “whereas” section, do I ask to get on the agenda of the Planning Board? Or, is it more appropriate for Mr. Chave to make that request? Thank you, Barbara Packet Page 54 of 210 From: Chave, Rob [mailto:Chave@ci.edmonds.wa.us] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:53 PM To: Richard Senderoff Cc: Steve Bernheim; Barbara Tipton Subject: RE: Tree Board Ordinance Status Scott’s comments were minor -- he suggested the following: “One big picture issue and one minor item. Big picture: in a view sensitive area like Edmonds, the ordinance fails to take into account or balance the value and preservation of views. My take is that the council should acknowledge that in certain areas of the city, a proper balancing of neighborhood needs and values may result in a different approach to trees. For example, limiting the planting of street and subdivision trees to those with a growth pattern appropriate to the preservation of views. I.E. don’t plant Douglas firs down slope from a neighbor with a 180 degree view. I would recommend that the powers and duties section be amended to take differing needs and views into account—“balancing the need to protect and preserve scenic public and private views while preserving and planting trees appropriate to the particular area or neighborhood.” Small item: Section two is completely unnecessary. I’ll take care of that when and if this moves forward.” I suppose the first comment could be incorporated as a ‘whereas,’ or left up to the Board to figure out. I agree that Section 2 of the ordinance could just be deleted… just states the obvious. The attached is the last version of the ordinance I saw (and was the one I forwarded to Scott). Rob Chave Edmonds Planning Manager From: Richard Senderoff [mailto:richsend@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 10:53 AM To: Chave, Rob Cc: Steve Bernheim; Barbara Tipton Subject: Tree Board Ordinance Status Hello Mr. Chave, I was just wondering and curious as to whether you received the Tree Board ordinance document with suggested edits back from the City Attorney, Scott Snyder. If so, could you please share the current version? Thanks, Rich Packet Page 55 of 210 Richard I. Senderoff, Ph.D. Precinct Committee Officer- Edmonds 34, 21st Legislative District, 1st Congressional District Commissioner- Edmonds Citizens Economic Development Commission Steering Committee- Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat Community Certification Project Board Member- Rose House Preservation; Center for Creative and Humanitarian Endeavors 18823 81st Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 425-778-9746 Packet Page 56 of 210 Tree City USA Standards at arborday.org http://www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/standards.cfm[8/2/2010 3:43:38 PM] cart | wish list | sign in The Four Standards for Tree City USA Recognition To qualify as a Tree City USA community, a town or city must meet four standards established by The Arbor Day Foundation and the National Association of State Foresters. These standards were established to ensure that every qualifying community would have a viable tree management plan and program. It is important to note that they were also designed so that no community would be excluded because of size. 1. A Tree Board or Department 2. A Tree Care Ordinance 3. A Community Forestry Program With an Annual Budget of at Least $2 Per Capita 4. An Arbor Day Observance and Proclamation These standards were established to ensure that every qualifying community would have a viable tree management plan and program. Photo by Paul Collins Tree City USA Standards More Information Call: 402-474-5655 Monday–Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST Tree City USA is supported by the USDA Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Program. Home | Trees | Membership | Programs | News | Arbor Day Farm | Lied Lodge | Shop | Careers | Take Action You are here: Home → Programs → Tree City USA → Standards 1-888-448-7337 | donate now | privacy | about us | contact us | site map | your state Tree City USA Tree City USA Home About Us Is Your Community a Tree City? Benefits of Being a Tree City Tree City Standards Request an Application Tree City Growth Awards Tree City USA Bulletins Tree City USA Supplies Community Foresters Directory Get Our E-Newsletter About Our Programs Related Programs Tree Line USA Conservation Trees See All Programs Shopping Tree City USA Supplies Arbor Marketplace Buy Trees and More Packet Page 57 of 210 AM-3196 Item #: 1. B. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 08/10/2010 Time:20 Minutes Submitted By:Brian McIntosh Department:Parks and Recreation Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Removing leashed dog restrictions in Hutt Park and the asphalt areas of Brackett's Landing north and south of the ferry terminal. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Staff recommends that on-leash dogs be allowed at Hutt Park and that the prohibition of dogs on-lease at both Brackett's Landing North and South continue. Previous Council Action The subject of permitting dogs on-leash on Sunset Overlook Park, Hickman Park Trails, and Haines Wharf Park were discussed and recommended at a City Council public hearing April 20, 2010. Narrative At the April 20, 2010 public hearing (minutes attached) City Council was asked to consider recommendations for dogs to be on-leash at Sunset Overlook, Hickman, and Haines Wharf Parks. It was suggested that Hutt Park also be considered as an on-leash park. Staff was not opposed but suggested input be sought from the neighborhood first as the public hearing posting for April 20 did not include an opportunity for public discussion of Hutt Park as an on-leash park. At this public hearing staff, Council and citizens also commented on the suggestion that on-leash be allowed at both North & South Marina Beach Parks. Again, for the reasons outlined in the attached memo "Dogs on Public Grounds Memo Feb. 09", staff does not recommend on-leash dogs be allowed in these two waterfront parks. Attachments Dogs on Public Grounds Council Minutes April 20 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 09:22 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/05/2010 04:16 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 04:26 PM Form Started By: Brian McIntosh Started On: 07/06/2010 04:28 PM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2010 Packet Page 58 of 210 Packet Page 59 of 210 Packet Page 60 of 210 Packet Page 61 of 210 Packet Page 62 of 210 Packet Page 63 of 210 Packet Page 64 of 210 AM-3266 Item #: 1. C. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 08/10/2010 Time:30 Minutes Submitted By:Michael Clugston Department:Planning Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion on possible 'green' initiatives and zoning clarifications for downtown business zones. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action None Narrative Several inquiries have recently come in regarding the City's position on providing additional flexibility in site design standards within the downtown business (BD) zones in exchange for implementation of green development techniques. With the adoption of the Sustainability Element to the Comprehensive Plan this past December, these are timely questions. In addition, there are several other items specific to the BD zones that require clarification: 1) the depth of the designated streetfront; 2) implementation of the 4th Avenue Plan; and 3) a minor reorganization of a BD design standard - for more detail, see Exhibit 1. Attachments Exhibit 1 - BD green initiatives and zoning clarifications Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 09:29 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/05/2010 04:16 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 04:26 PM Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 08/04/2010 03:10 PM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2010 Packet Page 65 of 210 green BD and zoning clarifications.doc Page 1 of 2 Several inquiries have recently come in regarding the City's position on providing additional flexibility in site design standards within the downtown business (BD) zones in exchange for implementation of green development techniques. With the adoption of the Sustainability Element to the Comprehensive Plan this past December, these are timely questions. The Sustainability Framework suggests that policies and code developed going forward must be flexible, holistic and take a long-term view. In fact, Goals A.1 and A.2 speak directly to this relationship: A.1. Adopt a system of codes, standards and incentives to promote development that achieves growth management goals while maintaining Edmonds’ community character and charm in a sustainable way. Holistic solutions should be developed that employ such techniques as Low Impact Development (LID), transit-oriented development, “complete streets” that support multiple modes of travel, and other techniques to assure that future development and redevelopment enhances Edmonds’ character and charm for future generations to enjoy. A.2 Include urban form and design as critical components of sustainable land use planning. New tools, such as form-based zoning and context-sensitive design standards should be used to support a flexible land use system which seeks to provide accessible, compatible and synergistic land use patterns which encourage economic and social interaction while retaining privacy and a unique community character. (pg 17) If the Council wants to pursue this path now in BD, flexibility could be written into the ECDC and managed through the establishment of a development agreement. As an example, with a development agreement, an applicant could achieve an extra 5' in height if the building were designed to at least a LEED 'gold' standard and included a green roof. Other possible green features could include roof-mounted solar panels, additional open space or amenities at the street level, and the like. Some other site development standards that were mentioned for providing additional flexibility were depth of designated commercial street front, step back requirements, requirements for the arrangement of provided open space, and the inclusion of additional height exceptions. This type of process could also be extended to other zones as the code rewrite continues. Alternatively, as the code rewrite moves forward, Council could mandate that the ECDC require green features or LEED certification without providing incentive. While green techniques will eventually become the standard in all zoning and building codes, LEED, LID and similar green development techniques currently require additional capital investment which seems to be viewed by the development community as a deterrent to implementation - despite significant cost savings over the life of the building. By providing some up-front development flexibility at this point, developers would likely view this as an attractive incentive which would serve to encourage implementation of sustainable development practices. Packet Page 66 of 210 green BD and zoning clarifications.doc Page 2 of 2 Several other items specific to the Downtown Business zones need additional clarification: 1) The depth of required commercial space in the designated streetfront in the BD zones was set at 60 feet when the new zones were initially adopted in January 2007. The Council subsequently reduced this requirement to 30 feet within the Downtown Retail Core (BD1). The 60-foot commercial requirement still applies, however, in BD2 through BD5. The intent is to seek guidance from the Planning Board regarding whether to make additional changes to the commercial depth requirements in the other BD zones to bring them more in line with the BD1 requirement. 2) The 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Design Implementation and Funding Plan was adopted by Council in June 2009. The intent is to review the existing design standards for the BD5-zoned parcels along 4th Avenue and to update them as appropriate to ensure the 4th Avenue Plan is effectively implemented. 3) Staff has identified a BD1 design standard in ECDC 16.43.030.B.10.g and proposes to move that to Chapter 22.43 where the remainder of the BD1 design standards are located. This change will make the code easier to use and administer. ECDC 22.43.050 discusses ‘Transparency at street level’ so that would seem a likely place for this standard to go: g. Within the BD1 zone, ground floor windows parallel to street lot lines shall be transparent and unobstructed by curtains, blinds, or other window coverings intended to obscure the interior from public view from the sidewalk. Packet Page 67 of 210 AM-3273 Item #: 1. D. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 08/10/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted By:Robert English Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Proposed 8th Avenue South pathway south of Alder Street. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Staff will review options with the committee and request direction on how to proceed with Mr. Adams' request. Previous Council Action November 2005 - City Council considered the possibility of vacating 8th Ave S right-of-way between Alder Street and Walnut Street and decided against that action. January 10, 2006 - Community Services/Development Services Committee discussed the possibility of constructing a pathway in the 8th Avenue right-of-way to connect Alder and Walnut Streets and voted to recommend to the full Council that the pathway be constructed. February 7, 2006 - Staff recommended to City Council if a pathway were to be built, that it be built by the City. Resident discussions during this council meeting indicated the majority were in favor of the City improving the south half of the walkway, adding stairs to connect the pathway to Walnut Street. City Council authorized staff to construct a pathway/steps on the Walnut side to provide public access, but not to construct a pathway all the way through to Alder and the public be allowed to use whatever driveway they chose on the north side. Narrative Mr. Waide Adams, the property owner at 802 Alder Street on the east side of 8th Ave S, contacted the City with a proposal to construct a pathway on the north half of 8th Ave S at his own expense. Please refer to the conceptual layout prepared by Mr. Adams. The proposed pathway would be a continuation of the existing pathway constructed by the City in 2006 on the south half of 8th Ave S. right of way. The proposal includes removing and trimming vegetation as needed to accommodate the pathway. Some grading will be required and pressure treated timbers will be placed on either side of the new crushed rock pathway. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Pathway Drawing Exhibit 2 - Pictures Exhibit 3 - Street Map Packet Page 68 of 210 Exhibit 4 - Council Minutes Feb. 7, 2006 Exhibit 5 - Council Minutes Nov. 15, 2005 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 08/05/2010 12:27 PM Public Works Sandy Chase 08/06/2010 08:37 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/06/2010 08:37 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/06/2010 10:21 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/06/2010 10:28 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 08/05/2010 11:10 AM Final Approval Date: 08/06/2010 Packet Page 69 of 210 Packet Page 70 of 210 8th & Alder Pathway Photos 6-15-10 8th & Alder Pathway looking south 6-15-10 8th & Alder pathway looking north 6-15-10 Packet Page 71 of 210 8th & Alder pathway looking north 6-15-10 8th Avenue Right of Way pathway between Alder and Walnut Packet Page 72 of 210 Packet Page 73 of 210 Packet Page 74 of 210 Packet Page 75 of 210 Packet Page 76 of 210 Packet Page 77 of 210 Packet Page 78 of 210 Packet Page 79 of 210 Packet Page 80 of 210 Packet Page 81 of 210 Packet Page 82 of 210 Packet Page 83 of 210 Packet Page 84 of 210 Packet Page 85 of 210 Packet Page 86 of 210 Packet Page 87 of 210 Packet Page 88 of 210 AM-3194 Item #: 2. A. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 08/10/2010 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Council President Steve Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee:Finance Type:Action Information Subject Title Review Hearing Examiner contract. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Review Hearing Examiner contract. Attachments Attach 1: Hearing Exam Docs Attach 2: Hearing Examiner Contract Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 09:26 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/05/2010 04:15 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 04:26 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 07/02/2010 10:41 AM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2010 Packet Page 89 of 210 Packet Page 90 of 210 Packet Page 91 of 210 Packet Page 92 of 210 Packet Page 93 of 210 Packet Page 94 of 210 Packet Page 95 of 210 Packet Page 96 of 210 Packet Page 97 of 210 Packet Page 98 of 210 Packet Page 99 of 210 Packet Page 100 of 210 Packet Page 101 of 210 Packet Page 102 of 210 Packet Page 103 of 210 Packet Page 104 of 210 Packet Page 105 of 210 Packet Page 106 of 210 Packet Page 107 of 210 Packet Page 108 of 210 Packet Page 109 of 210 Packet Page 110 of 210 Packet Page 111 of 210 Packet Page 112 of 210 Packet Page 113 of 210 Packet Page 114 of 210 Packet Page 115 of 210 Packet Page 116 of 210 Packet Page 117 of 210 Packet Page 118 of 210 Packet Page 119 of 210 Packet Page 120 of 210 Packet Page 121 of 210 Packet Page 122 of 210 Packet Page 123 of 210 Packet Page 124 of 210 Packet Page 125 of 210 Packet Page 126 of 210 Packet Page 127 of 210 Packet Page 128 of 210 Packet Page 129 of 210 Packet Page 130 of 210 Packet Page 131 of 210 Packet Page 132 of 210 Packet Page 133 of 210 Packet Page 134 of 210 Packet Page 135 of 210 Packet Page 136 of 210 Packet Page 137 of 210 Packet Page 138 of 210 Packet Page 139 of 210 Packet Page 140 of 210 Packet Page 141 of 210 AM-3274 Item #: 2. B. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 08/10/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines Department:Finance Committee:Finance Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion and review of debt service in Funds 125 and 126. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff For information only. Previous Council Action Various Narrative Discussion and review of debt service in Funds 125 and 126. Attachments 2010 REET Debt Summary Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 04:05 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/05/2010 04:17 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 04:26 PM Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 08/05/2010 02:20 PM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2010 Packet Page 142 of 210 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 126 Purpose 2010 Appropriation Principal balance attributed to Fund 126 at 12/31/2009 Original principal balance attributed to Fund 126 2001 BONDS, B - PRINCIPAL Marina Beach purchase 100,000$ 1,595,000$ 2,260,000$ 2001 BONDS, B - INTEREST Marina Beach purchase 82,668 2007 LTGO BOND - PRINCIPAL Francis Anderson Ctr. Seismic Project 15,990 367,770 407,940 2007 LTGO BOND - INTEREST Francis Anderson Ctr. Seismic Project 13,882 1998 REF BOND PRINCIPAL City Hall Acquisition and Development 345,591 1,665,455 3,099,290 1998 REF BOND INTEREST City Hall Acquisition and Development 71,673 2002 LTGO Issue REET Share of Edmonds Ctr for the Arts 70,792 950,232 Grand Total 700,596$ 3,628,225$ 6,717,462$ REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX DEBT SCHEDULES 8/5/2010 No Bond Debt Scheduled Packet Page 143 of 210 AM-3277 Item #: 2. C. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 08/10/2010 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Committee:Finance Type:Information Information Subject Title Second Quarter Budget Update. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative A discussion will be held on the Second Quarter Budget Update. Copies of the report will be available at the Finance Committee Meeting. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 08/06/2010 12:51 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/06/2010 01:46 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 08/06/2010 11:18 AM Final Approval Date: 08/06/2010 Packet Page 144 of 210 AM-3276 Item #: 2. D. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 08/10/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines Department:Finance Committee:Finance Type:Action Information Subject Title Revision to City's Water Leakage Policy Recommendation from Mayor and Staff The attached document is submitted for Committee member edits. Please modify and approve for Council action. Previous Council Action Committee moved to full Council, issue was then sent back to committee. Narrative Current City Leakage policy was adopted in May, 1986. This revision continues the overall policy, however it clarifies and narrows the qualification and disposition of the adjustments. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2010 Revenue:-Expenditure:- Fiscal Impact: Mimimal Attachments Revised policy Current policy Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/06/2010 10:28 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/06/2010 12:51 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/06/2010 01:46 PM Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 08/06/2010 10:00 AM Final Approval Date: 08/06/2010 Packet Page 145 of 210 City of Edmonds  Finance and Information Systems CITY OF EDMONDS LEAKAGE ADJUSTMENT POLICY (Revised 05/2010) 1. To qualify for a leakage adjustment the: a) Customer must satisfactorily demonstrate a leakage was undetected and caused by unusual circumstances beyond the customer's control; and b) Must take action to repair a leakage within thirty 30 days of when the customer discovers or is notified of a leakage; and c) Complete and submit a City application form within 30 days of the repair accompanied by a copy of the finalized water service line permit to the City Finance Department, Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. If the repair is exempt from permit, per Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 19.20, then only proof of repair is required. 2. Only one leakage adjustment will be granted in any three year period; and will be limited to the equivalent of three billing cycles. Adjustments will not be granted for internal (within the residential or commercial structure) plumbing leakages. 3. Adjustments exceeding $500 require approval by the Finance Director. 4. A leakage adjustment credit shall be determined as follows: a. The average consumption for the same period during the previous three years, charged at the City’s retail rate, plus the excess water loss from the leakage charged at the City’s wholesale rate. An additional 15% administrative cost is applied to the excess loss only. b. If the adjustment is for a commercial account that is billed for sewer service based on water consumption, the City will also adjust the sewer portion based on the same calculations less administrative costs. Lorenzo Hines Jr., Director, Finance and Administrative Services CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON CITY HALL FIRST FLOOR MAYOR EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425)771-0240 FAX (425)771-0265 LORENZO HINES JR. DIRECTOR FINANCE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT Packet Page 146 of 210 Packet Page 147 of 210 AM-3268 Item #: 2. E. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 08/10/2010 Time:15 Minutes Submitted By:Phil Williams Department:Public Works Committee:Finance Type:Action Information Subject Title Discussion and action on a new 45-year wholesale water supply purchase contract with the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District (AWWD). The existing City contract with AWWD expires in September 2010. The Cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace have negotiated a new wholesale water purchase agreement with AWWD that will provide 100% of Edmonds water supply for the next 45 years. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Mayor Cooper and staff recommend approval of this agreement. We further request a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement in substantially similar form to that presented. The executed agreement will ensure the City of Edmonds has a reliable source of high-quality potable water to vend to our citizens and businesses for the next 45 years. Previous Council Action The Alderwood Water and Wastewater District (AWWD) water purchase agreement was presented to and reviewed by the Edmonds City Council Finance Committee on 2/9/10. Narrative The City of Edmonds established a water utility very early in its history and developed a number of local water supply sources to meet the then modest demand. The utility had great difficulty keeping pace with increasing demands as the city grew rapidly after WWII. The Utility began to supplement its own water supply by purchasing water from both AWWD and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU). Eventually the economies of scale that were working against the City's internal water sources led to significant cost escalation. This escalation continued to the point where purchasing all of Edmonds' water from the two larger utilities was the best option. As a result the City of Edmonds discontinued using their own sources. For quite some time the City bought approximately 2/3 of its water from AWWD and about 1/3 from SPU. Costs for water from SPU climbed substantially faster than for AWWD. The City of Edmonds trimmed and eventually discontinued purchases from SPU. For about the last ten years Edmonds has purchased 100% of its supply from AWWD who purchases 100% of their water, in turn, from the City of Everett. This proposed agreement runs for 45 years and establishes procedures for how the AWWD will interface with its wholesale customers, how the wholesale rates will be established, billed, and collected; how high the peak demand from Edmonds can climb to in the future, and other conditions of service. Attachments Attachment 1 - Water Supply Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Lorenzo Hines 08/06/2010 09:28 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/06/2010 09:59 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/06/2010 10:21 AM Packet Page 148 of 210 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/06/2010 10:28 AM Form Started By: Phil Williams Started On: 08/04/2010 04:51 PM Final Approval Date: 08/06/2010 Packet Page 149 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 1 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Between Alderwood Water & Wastewater District and City of Edmonds Table of Contents SECTION I. - WATER SUPPLY ........................................................................................... 2 SECTION II. - DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................. 3 SECTION III. - FUTURE FACILITY ACQUISITIONS .................................................. 5 SECTION IV. - CONTINUITY OF SERVICE .................................................................... 7 SECTION V. - OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY ................................................................. 8 SECTION VI. - WHOLESALE COMMITTEE .................................................................. 9 SECTION VII. - MASTER METER ................................................................................... 10 SECTION VIII. - AREA OF USE ........................................................................................ 11 SECTION IX. - WATER QUALITY ................................................................................... 11 SECTION X. - SUPPLY TO DISTRICT-OWNED SERVICES TRANSMITTED THROUGH CUSTOMER MAINS ............................................................ 11 SECTION XI. - WHOLESALE WATER RATE ............................................................... 12 SECTION XII. - BILLING & PAYMENT ......................................................................... 16 SECTION XIII. - TERM & EXPIRATION ....................................................................... 16 SECTION XIV. - NOTICE OF NEGOTIATION ............................................................. 17 SECTION XV. - FORCE MAJEURE AND CHANGES IN LAW .................................. 17 SECTION XVI. - LEGAL RELATIONS ............................................................................ 17 SECTION XVII. - DISPUTE RESOLUTION ................................................................... 18 SECTION XVIII. - GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE .................................................. 19 SECTION IXX. - NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES .............................................. 19 SECTION XX. - LIMITATION ON DAMAGES .............................................................. 19 SECTION XXI. - GENERAL PROVISIONS .................................................................... 19 EXHIBIT A – QUANTITY OF WATER TO BE PURCHASED ................................... 23 EXHIBIT B - WHOLESALE FACILITIES ..................................................................... 24 EXHIBIT C - REGIONAL FACILITIES ......................................................................... 25 EXHIBIT D – CUSTOMERS WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT TO OTHER SUPPLIERS................................................................................................ 26 EXHIBIT E – MASTER METER LOCATION ............................................................... 27 Packet Page 150 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 2 AGREEMENT BETWEEN 1 ALDERWOOD WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT 2 AND CITY OF EDMONDS 3 FOR WATER SUPPLY 4 5 This Wholesale Water Supply Agreement ("Agreement") between the ALDERWOOD 6 WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT, a special purpose municipal corporation (the 7 "District,") and CITY OF EDMONDS (the "Customer") (individually a "Party" and collectively 8 the "Parties") for the purposes set forth herein. 9 10 WHEREAS, the District and the Customer are each authorized under the law of the 11 State of Washington to supply potable water to their retail customers and to enter into 12 wholesale contracts for the purchase and sale of wholesale water supply; and 13 14 WHEREAS, the District and the Customer desire to enter into an agreement wherein 15 the District sells wholesale water to the Customer at a wholesale water rate that will adequately 16 compensate the District for those current and future costs attributable to supplying wholesale 17 water to the Customer; 18 19 NOW, THEREFORE, The District and the Customer agree as follows: 20 21 SECTION I. - WATER SUPPLY 22 23 The District agrees to sell to the Customer and the Customer agrees to purchase from 24 the District up to the daily quantity of water shown in Exhibit “A” according to the terms and 25 conditions of this Agreement. The water shall be delivered to a Master Meter at a point in or 26 immediately adjacent to a site as depicted on Exhibit B and E. The District shall be the 27 Customer’s primary source of water; provided that the Customer may use any existing 28 alternate source connections and re-use water as sources of water supply. 29 30 31 Packet Page 151 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 3 SECTION II. - DEFINITIONS 32 33 As used in this Agreement, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the 34 following words and phrases shall mean: 35 “Administrative Time” means the District’s administrative costs incurred to 36 maintain, operate and repair the Wholesale Facilities. 37 “Cubic Foot" means a unit of measurement of water equal to 7.48 gallons. The term “CCF" 38 shall mean 100 cubic feet of water. 39 "Distribution Main" means any water main owned and operated by either the District or by the 40 Customer as part of its Retail Water System. 41 “District Peak Day Water” means the 24-hour maximum usage day measured in million 42 gallons pumped from the Everett System through the three pump stations operated by the 43 District. 44 "Everett Supply Contract" means the current agreement between the City of Everett and the 45 District for water supply, dated January 28, 2005, and any future amendments thereof. 46 “Master Meter" means the measuring device installed to measure the volume of water 47 supplied to the Customer by the District. 48 "Peak Day Water" means the 24-hour maximum usage day measured in million gallons 49 during a calendar year. 50 “Regional Facilities” means District assets as identified on Exhibit C that are necessary to 51 provide service to all District retail and wholesale customers. 52 “Retail Water System" means that system owned and operated by the District or by the 53 Customer composed of Distribution Mains and appurtenances used for receiving a supply of 54 water and distributing it directly to the District’s or the Customer’s retail customers. 55 "Service Connections" means those separate connections between a Retail Water System 56 and a retail customer. 57 "Service Meters" means the meter or measuring device installed on a service line or Service 58 Connection for the purpose of measuring the volume of water supplied to a retail customer. 59 “Terminal Storage Reservoir" means a storage reservoir used primarily to provide 60 reserves against transmission failure from the supply, supply or pumping failure, pump control 61 storage to balance and economically operate the supply pumps and which permits a reduced 62 sizing in the supply transmission and pumping system to the terminal storage reservoirs. 63 Packet Page 152 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 4 "Transmission Main" means a pipe owned and operated by the District primarily used for 64 carrying water from a source (currently the Everett Water System) to a Retail Water System that 65 normally has limited or no Service Connections. 66 “Wholesale Customer” means a customer who purchases water from the District 67 according to the terms and conditions of this Agreement or an agreement with substantially 68 similar terms and conditions, delivered through the Wholesale Facilities. 69 “Wholesale Facilities” means current assets, identified on Exhibit B, and future assets 70 hereafter added to an amended Exhibit B, owned and operated by the District that are necessary 71 to supply water to the Wholesale Customers in this Agreement. These Wholesale Facilities may 72 also be part of the Regional Facilities. 73 "Wholesale Water Cost" means all of the costs incurred by the District to supply water to 74 Wholesale Customers, including 75 (1) The cost of purchased water, which is the annual amount (U.S dollars) paid by the 76 District for water supplied to the Wholesale Customers under either the Everett 77 Supply Contract or any other agreement for the purchase of water to supply the 78 Wholesale Customers. 79 (2) Maintenance and operation costs ("Wholesale M&O costs"), which are costs 80 incurred by the District to maintain, operate and repair the Wholesale Facilities, 81 including Administrative Time, cost of materials and supplies, and the full cost of 82 labor attributable to serving the Wholesale Customers. 83 (3) “Power Costs,” which are the electrical and other fuel charges associated with 84 operating the Wholesale Facilities. 85 (4) “Existing Wholesale Debt,” (Principal + Interest) which is the existing bonded 86 debt service and debt obligations of the District attributable to serving the 87 Wholesale Customers, including principal and interest payments. 88 (5) “Future Wholesale Debt Service,” (Principal + Interest), which is future debt 89 issued by the District to finance capital improvements and infrastructure, 90 attributable to serving the Wholesale Customers, including principal and interest 91 payments. 92 (6) “Cash (Rate) Funded Wholesale Facility Improvements,” (“CFI”) which is that 93 revenue component of the Wholesale Water Rate used, in whole or in part, to cash 94 Packet Page 153 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 5 fund Wholesale Facilities. 95 (7) “Other Program Funding,” which includes costs incurred by the District that 96 benefit Wholesale Customers but are not otherwise included in the Wholesale 97 Water Rate. 98 (8) “Quantity of Water Supplied,” which is the prior year’s total of water supplied to 99 the Wholesale Customers (CCF) as measured by all Master Meters, plus or minus 100 any adjustments for individual services of the Customer or District connected 101 upstream or downstream, respectively, of the Master Meters. 102 (9) “District Finance Option,” which is a revenue component of the Wholesale Water 103 Rate used in whole or in part to fund capital improvements where bonds or CFI 104 are impractical or are not available. 105 “Wholesale Water Rate” means the cost of water to the Wholesale Customer in dollars 106 per hundred cubic feet (CCF). 107 “Wholesale Water System” includes the Wholesale Facilities and the Retail Water 108 System of any Wholesale Customer and of the District. 109 110 SECTION III. - FUTURE FACILITY ACQUISITIONS 111 112 The Customer and the District agree that at such times in the future that the Customer 113 extends its corporate boundaries to include parts of the District’s service area, the Parties will 114 benefit from having a process in place to determine what will become the property of the 115 Customer and what will remain the property of the District. Recognizing that Chapter 35.13A 116 RCW is the governing basis for such a process, the fact that the District provides service to seven 117 cities and the county’s unincorporated area adds complexity to the process which requires more 118 process detail to insure that both the Customer and the District can fulfill their respective 119 obligations for service. Therefore, the following process shall define the requirements and 120 responsibilities of each party. 121 The Parties agree that the facilities and infrastructure that are necessary for supporting the 122 District’s regional customers (“Regional Facilities”) are identified herein. In areas proposed for 123 annexation, where the potential exists for the transfer of ownership of any portion of the 124 Regional Facilities, it is agreed that the Regional Facilities shall remain in the ownership and 125 Packet Page 154 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 6 control of the District. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to waive any right or obligation under 126 Washington law as the same exists or shall hereinafter be created. 127 If the Customer initiates the process to consider annexation of additional areas that are 128 located within the District, the Customer will notify the District in writing of its intent. After 129 receiving Customer’s notice of intent to annex, r epresentatives of the Customer and the District 130 shall meet at a mutually agreeable time and place to review the proposed annexation area with 131 regard to its potential impact on water and sewer service. Discussions between the Customer and 132 the District shall include a preliminary assessment of service continuing with the District and/or 133 the potential of facility transfer to the Customer. The preliminary assessment should include a 134 review of the extent of modifications that would be required to transfer the utilities to the 135 Customer, including the possibility for relocation of master meters and realignment of existing 136 distribution utilities. 137 Within 30 days following the initial meetings and completion of the preliminary 138 assessment of utility options, the Customer agrees to notify the District in writing of its intent 139 regarding which Party should be the service provider to the proposed annexation area. 140 If the Customer provides notice of its intent to further consider Customer ownership of 141 certain utilities owned by the District within the proposed annexation area, the Customer and the 142 District may agree to participate in a more detailed study in order to determine the extent of 143 facility modifications and costs impacts associated with the transfer of the utilities in the annexed 144 areas. The cost of any such study shall be split equally between the Parties. 145 After the Parties’ review and analysis of the additional data provided by the detailed 146 study, if the Customer notifies the District in writing of its decision to assume ownership of the 147 utilities, a plan will be developed jointly for defining the steps necessary to complete the transfer 148 of ownership. The plan will include design and specifications for any required infrastructure 149 improvements, transfer of accounts, and final agreements on costs involved including costs 150 related to outstanding bond indebtedness. The costs associated with the preparation of this plan 151 shall be split equally between the Parties. 152 Once the plan (including the allocation of construction costs between the Parties) has 153 been agreed to by the Customer and the District, the District will prepare the final contract plans 154 and specifications for the required improvements, and will administer the contract for the 155 construction. 156 Packet Page 155 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 7 Upon completion of the required improvements and payment to the District of agreed 157 costs associated with the assumption of the utilities, including all associated construction costs, 158 the District will transfer accounts, assign any existing easements, and provide the necessary bills 159 of sale for the transferred utilities. 160 The parties agree that the contract may be reopened if the assumption will affect rates. If 161 the process leads to facility assumption, the parties agree that the District would be provided 162 three (3) years to make the changes necessary to allow for transitional impact adjustments by the 163 District. 164 In the event the Parties are not able to agree on the plan, the amounts to be paid by the 165 Customer for the transfer of facilities, or any other disputes relating to the Customer’s 166 acquisition of the District’s facilities, the matter shall be referred to mediation for resolution in 167 accordance with Section XVII (Dispute Resolution). If the matter is not resolved through 168 mediation, the Parties shall proceed in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures set 169 forth in Section XVII. 170 171 SECTION IV. - CONTINUITY OF SERVICE 172 173 Except as otherwise provided, the District’s supply of water to the Customer shall be 174 continuous. In the event of a general emergency or water shortage affecting the District, the 175 District and the Customer shall implement necessary water conservation measures. Because 176 the District and the Customer have critical customers, the District shall consult with the 177 Customer regarding water allocations. General restrictions placed upon deliveries to the 178 Customer shall be made according to the District's most recent Emergency/Drought 179 Response Plan. In the event of localized emergency problems, temporary service 180 interruptions may result. 181 The District may have to implement emergency Wholesale Water System 182 conservation measures to meet an emergency condition. The Customer shall assist and 183 support such emergency conservation measures. 184 If the District determines that interruptions and reductions are necessary or reasonable in 185 case of system emergencies, the District shall provide oral notice to the Customer and may 186 temporarily interrupt or reduce deliveries of water to the Customer. Except in cases of 187 Packet Page 156 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 8 emergency, and to avoid unreasonable interference with the Customer’s operations, the District 188 shall give the Customer at least fourteen (14) calendar days notice of any proposed interruptions 189 or reduction in service, the reason therefore, and the probable duration thereof, including any 190 interruptions or reduction in services that will be caused by the installation of equipment, repairs, 191 replacements, investigations, inspections or other maintenance performed by the District on its 192 water system or those parts of the system supplying the Customer. 193 The City of Everett currently holds water rights regulated by the State Department 194 of Ecology and an approved Water System Plan regulated by the State Department of 195 Health that enables the City of Everett to perform the Everett Supply Contract. Said water 196 rights and plan currently authorize the District to supply City of Everett water to Customer 197 under this Agreement and consistent with the terms of the Everett Supply Contract. 198 Customer acknowledges and agrees that any interruption or restriction of said authorization 199 could result in the curtailment, interruption or reduction in the District's service to 200 Customer, the declaration of an emergency, or other measures reasonable under the 201 circumstances. 202 In the event of any of the foregoing or otherwise, the District shall have no 203 obligation whatsoever to obtain and furnish a substitute supply of water and Customer may 204 obtain and use any alternate lawful source of water supply including re-use water as 205 substitute water supply. The District shall cooperate with the Customer and use its best 206 efforts to assist Customer in obtaining an alternative source(s) of water supply. Nothing 207 herein shall be interpreted to waive any right or obligation under Washington law as the 208 same exists or shall hereinafter be created. 209 210 SECTION V. - OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 211 212 The Everett Supply Contract includes a rate component of peak to average day flow 213 that affects the District and the Customer. Therefore , as a material element of this 214 Agreement, the Customer shall track during the high water demand period June through 215 August the operational control components of its Retail Water System, including, at a 216 minimum, reservoir storage capacity and flow controls, and provide the data collected to 217 the District in accordance with procedures and on a schedule as established by the 218 Packet Page 157 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 9 Wholesale Committee. 219 220 SECTION VI. - WHOLESALE COMMITTEE 221 222 The District shall establish and staff, and the Customer shall participate in, a wholesale 223 committee (“Wholesale Committee”) composed of the District and each Wholesale Customer. 224 Each Wholesale Customer shall designate in writing a representative to serve on the Wholesale 225 Committee. A representative may be replaced by a written designation of the committee 226 member. The Wholesale Committee shall have the powers and authority as set forth below: 227 1. Advisory Powers and Authority. The Wholesale Committee shall review and advise 228 the District on the following topics or issues: 229 a. Proposed wholesale rate changes, including Administrative Time; 230 b. Proposed multi-year wholesale capital improvement plans; 231 c. Coordination with the District on day-to-day operations relating to high water 232 demand; 233 d. Proposed bond issues for wholesale system capital improvements; 234 e. Changes in District standards that would apply to wholesale improvements; 235 f. Proposed modifications to the Everett Supply Contract; 236 g. Proposed regulatory changes that could potentially impact wholesale customers; 237 h. Day-to-day operational issues and coordination efforts; and 238 i. District Finance Option 239 240 2. Approval Powers and Authority. The Wholesale Committee shall review and approve 241 of the following topics: 242 a. The District’s Emergency/Drought Response Plan; 243 b. Limits on cash funded wholesale system capital improvements; and 244 c. “Other Program Funding” as defined and used in this Agreement. 245 Approval will require a majority vote of the Wholesale Customers plus District. 246 The Wholesale Committee shall meet annually by the 15th of March to review the 247 proposed wholesale rates and, as necessary, to address the other topics as outlined above. A 248 meeting may be called by any member of the Wholesale Committee. The Wholesale 249 Packet Page 158 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 10 Committee shall evaluate each Wholesale Customer’s operational efficiency by the end of each 250 year and provide a report and recommendation to the District’s Board of Commissioners on the 251 summarized data of the Wholesale Customers’ tracking of high water demand to identify 252 potential efficiency measures to be implemented under the state-mandated Water Use 253 Efficiency Rule. Each Wholesale Customer shall receive a copy of the report. 254 255 SECTION VII. - MASTER METER 256 257 All water delivered by the District to Customer shall be measured by a Master 258 Meter. All Master Meters, including vaults and appurtenances, will be owned, maintained, 259 repaired, replaced and upgraded by the District and the cost thereof included in the 260 Wholesale Water Cost. The District shall own all facilities from the connection to the 261 District pipeline to the upstream flange of the valve downstream of the Master Meter. The 262 cost of a new Master Meter requested by the Customer, including appurtenances and 263 installation, shall be paid by the Customer. Relocation of a Master Meter necessitated by 264 the Customer shall be paid by the Customer. 265 The District shall establish standards for Master Meters, including appurtenances 266 and access to flow data. Access to the Master Meter and the flow records shall be made 267 available to the Customer upon request. The Master Meter shall be checked by the District 268 on a schedule and for accuracy per the manufacture r’s recommendation and the cost thereof 269 included in the Wholesale Water Cost. Either the District or the Customer may request 270 additional tests. The costs of additional tests shall borne equally, if both Parties agree to 271 the test; otherwise, by the Party requesting the test, unless the meter is not performing 272 within the manufacturer’s specification, whereupon the benefited Party shall pay for the 273 test. Any adjustment to charges for water supplied shall be determined by the average water 274 use of the three prior years for the same period, unless some other method is agreed upon. 275 Either a credit or an additional billing calculated at the applicable Wholesale Water Rate 276 shall accrue to the appropriate party. If review of the meter records does not establish when 277 the change in accuracy occurred, the period of adjustment shall be one-half of the period 278 since the last meter calibration, not to exceed 12 months. 279 280 Packet Page 159 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 11 SECTION VIII. - AREA OF USE 281 282 The Customer shall not furnish service under any terms to services or systems other than 283 those within its approved service area as defined within its Water Comprehensive Plan without 284 first receiving written approval of the District. The Customer currently serves other water 285 suppliers or the service area of such suppliers by agreement. Those agreements are identified on 286 Exhibit D and continued service to those suppliers is hereby approved by District. 287 288 SECTION IX. - WATER QUALITY 289 290 The water delivered by the District to the Master Meter shall comply with state and 291 federal standards for drinking water and be of the same standard and quality normally 292 delivered to the District’s other customers. The District shall not be liable for any 293 degradation of water quality and resulting damages that may occur beyond the Master 294 Meter, including liability for acts of sabotage. Customer shall operate its system in 295 conformance with law and in a manner which does not impair the water quality of the 296 “Wholesale Water System .” 297 298 SECTION X. - SUPPLY TO DISTRICT-OWNED SERVICES TRANSMITTED 299 THROUGH CUSTOMER MAINS 300 301 The District shall have the right to continue to serve its Retail Water System with 302 water transmitted through the Customer’s Master Meter and Retail Water System. Every 303 two months, the District shall read meters in that portion of the District’s Retail Water 304 System supplied through Customer’s Master Meter and Retail Water System . The volume 305 of water shown by meter reading shall be deducted from the total Master Meter reading for 306 the month in which these meters are read, plus 25% added for meter losses, flushing, leakage 307 and other authorized unmetered usage. 308 309 310 311 312 Packet Page 160 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 12 SECTION XI. - WHOLESALE WATER RATE 313 314 Wholesale Customers shall pay a Wholesale Water Rate that shall be adjusted annually 315 on April 1 and shall be effective on that date. The Wholesale Water Rate shall recover the 316 District’s Wholesale Water Cost computed by the following formula: 317 318 R = E + M + P+ (ED + FD) + CFI+ DFO + O 319 Q 320 Where: 321 R = Wholesale Water Rate ($/CCF) computed to the nearest ten-thousandth of a 322 dollar 323 E = The District’s cost of Purchased Water ($/CCF) 324 M = Wholesale M&O Costs for the prior calendar year, excluding Power Costs 325 P = Power Costs for the prior calendar year [Wholesale-Related Portion Only] 326 ED = Existing Wholesale Debt including Principal + Interest 327 FD = Future Wholesale Debt Service including Principal + Interest 328 CFI = Cash (Rate) Funded Wholesale Facility Improvements 329 DFO = District Finance Option 330 O = Other Program Funding as may be deemed appropriate by the Wholesale 331 Committee 332 Q = Quantity of Water Supplied (CCF) in the prior calendar year measured by 333 the Wholesale Customers’ Master Meters 334 335 In determining the Wholesale Water Rate, the District shall be governed by the following 336 principles: 337 338 1. Revenue recovery for debt service shall be based upon the debt service 339 (payment) schedule associated with each debt issue. Whenever the District issues re-340 funding debt, it shall analyze the refunding issue to determine an equitable allocation of 341 principal and interest to the Wholesale Water Rate. The Wholesale Committee shall be 342 convened to review the allocation for either a new debt issue or a refunding issue. 343 Packet Page 161 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 13 344 2. In the year in which the District proposes to issue a new long-term debt 345 instrument to finance, in whole or in part, the construction of or improvements to 346 Wholesale Facilities, the cost attributable to Wholesale Facilities, including projected 347 principal, interest, reserve payments, and debt service, incurred by the District for that 348 year shall be included in the Wholesale Water Rate. The cost of such debt shall be 349 allocated to the Wholesale Customers, over the life of the debt issue, according to the 350 specific use of proceeds from that debt issuance. At the end of the year, and after the 351 debt has been issued, the debt issue is considered “Existing Wholesale Debt” for purposes 352 of establishing wholesale water rates in subsequent years. 353 354 3. Whenever financially feasible, debt service coverage shall be met by the 355 District’s overall financial operations (retail and wholesale). If debt service coverage 356 cannot be met by the District’s overall financial operations, then the Wholesale Water 357 Rate shall be adjusted to include a component sufficient to meet the specific debt service 358 coverage covenants. 359 360 4. Every fifth (5) year commencing in the year 2015, the District shall re-361 determine Wholesale M&O Costs for the purpose of setting the Wholesale Water Rate 362 for that year. In each of the subsequent four years, the Wholesale M&O Cost (M) shall 363 be escalated by the consumer price index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) 364 (Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton metropolitan area) December to December or a comparable 365 index, if that index is unavailable; provided that in any year, the District may, at its 366 discretion, forego escalation of cost according to the index and determine the actual 367 Wholesale M&O Costs that year. 368 369 5. Power Costs attributable to the Wholesale Customers shall be determined 370 when the Wholesale Water Rate is re-calculated and shall be equal to the following: 371 P = (District’s prior calendar year cost of power at Wholesale Facilities identified on 372 Exhibit B, and as Exhibit B may be amended) times (the Wholesale Customers’ 373 combined prior calendar year volumetric use of water as recorded on Master Meters 374 Packet Page 162 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 14 identified on Exhibit B, and as Exhibit B may be amended) divided by (the District’s 375 prior calendar year volumetric use of water as recorded at the District’s Master Maters at 376 the Evergreen Way Pump Stations. 377 378 6. The CFI component of the Wholesale Water Rate shall be determined by 379 the District after a review of the District’s 5-year capital improvement plan by the 380 Wholesale Committee. The Wholesale Committee shall approve CFI funding for each 381 year of the five (5) year capital improvement plan, after considering the different 382 financial and rate impacts of funding wholesale projects with cash or by debt and such 383 other factors deemed relevant by the Committee. 384 385 7. Annually, before the Wholesale Water rate is developed, the Wholesale 386 Committee shall review and approve what, if any, Other Program Funding, including 387 costs incurred by the District that are not otherwise included in the Wholesale Water 388 Cost, should be allocated to Wholesale Customers and included in the Wholesale Water 389 Rate. Approval will require a majority vote of the Wholesale Customers plus District. 390 391 8. The District shall establish a separate wholesale capital improvement 392 sinking fund (reserve) to segregate and account for certain revenues received from the 393 Wholesale Customers as identified in this Agreement. The sinking fund shall contain the 394 balance in the bond reserve fund as identified in the current wholesale contract. The 395 District shall deposit into the wholesale capital improvement sinking fund all revenues 396 received from: 397 398 A. The Cash (Rate) Funded Improvements (CFI) component of the 399 Wholesale Water Rate; and 400 B. Wholesale Water Rates to meet the minimum debt service coverage 401 ratio requirements (rate covenant). 402 403 Interest earned on the balance of the Wholesale Capital Improvement Sinking 404 Fund shall be retained in the sinking fund and credited to the sinking fund on a monthly 405 Packet Page 163 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 15 basis in a manner consistent with the methodology the District uses to allocate interest to 406 its funds. 407 Except as otherwise provided, all funds deposited into the Wholesale Capital 408 Improvement Sinking Fund shall be applied to the cost of wholesale capital improvement 409 projects undertaken by the District. On the recommendation of the Wholesale Committee 410 the District may use these funds to pay the cost of any other wholesale-related activity 411 (e.g. early buy-down of debt, buy-down a rate adjustment, rate transition, etc.). 412 413 9. Whenever a component of the Wholesale Water Cost is determined by 414 meter readings and some condition (e.g. meter failure, emergency conditions [e.g. 415 earthquake]) would make the use of those readings unreasonable or inequitable to the 416 District or to the Wholesale Customers, the District shall use its best and reasonable 417 judgment to “normalize” the volumetric usage data for purposes of establishing the 418 affected component of the Wholesale Water Rate. 419 420 10. The District may utilize District funds to finance Wholesale Facility 421 improvements, the funding size of which is not practical for issuance of bonds, and the 422 Cash (Rate) Funded Wholesale Facility Improvements option has not been approved by 423 the Wholesale Committee. The capital funds necessary for the improvement would be 424 provided by the District subject to reimbursement through wholesale water rates for a 425 term not to exceed ten (10) years. The rate would be determined based upon the average 426 rate of investments for District funds for the prior year. The rate may be adjusted 427 annually utilizing the District’s annual investment rate for the prior year. The District 428 also reserves the right to terminate this funding option at any time during the term by 429 adding the remaining funds yet to be paid to a larger bond issue. If so elected, the 430 wholesale portion would be the pro rata share of the bond issue at the terms of the bond 431 issue. 432 433 434 435 Packet Page 164 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 16 SECTION XII. - BILLING & PAYMENT 436 437 The District shall bill the Customer for water supplied under this Agreement on regular 438 monthly intervals. 439 The Master Meters shall be read and recorded on or about the last normal work day of the 440 month in which the service was furnished. Billing to the Customer shall be made by the 10th day of 441 the month following, and payment to the District is due by the 30th day of the month in which the 442 statement is received. If any payment or portion thereof due the District shall remain unpaid for 443 25 days following its due date, the Customer shall be charged with and pay to the District interest 444 on the amount unpaid from its due date until paid at the rate of eight (8)% per annum. 445 If any or all of a bill is in dispute, the Customer shall pay the amount as billed and both 446 the District and the Customer shall agree to the time line to resolve the disputed amount. If any 447 material error, an amount greater than $1,000 per month is discovered in the rate calculation, 448 billing, payment, interest allocation, or any other calculation or assumption, the District shall 449 correct the error retroactively from the date of receipt of notice of the error backwards for a 450 period of up to three (3) years or as mutually agreed. The $1,000 amount shall be adjusted for 451 inflation every five (5) years with CPI-U as described in Section XI of this agreement. 452 453 SECTION XIII. - TERM & EXPIRATION 454 455 (1) The term of this Agreement shall be from its effective date until January 1, 2055. 456 The Parties may renew this Agreement by mutual written agreement upon such terms and 457 conditions as the Parties may later agree. 458 (2) If the Customer shall cease to take water from the District without the District's 459 consent, the Customer shall remain liable for its proportionate share of the then existing wholesale 460 bonded indebtedness issued before January 1, 2055 as may at that time be determined including 461 credits for certain payments and recognition given to the growth experienced in the Customer, District, 462 and all other Wholesale Customers. This liability shall continue only until such time as all or 463 part of the water supply no longer taken by the Customer from the District is sold by the District 464 to another party. In that event, liability shall be reallocated, in whole or in part, to the new 465 customer. 466 Packet Page 165 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 17 (3) If the District shall cease to supply water to the Customer without the Customer's 467 consent, the Customer shall cease to be liable for its proportionate share of the wholesale bonded 468 indebtedness as described in Subsection 2 above. 469 470 SECTION XIV. - NOTICE OF NEGOTIATION 471 472 The Customer shall receive timely written notice of negotiation with City of Everett for a 473 rate change or additional water and the Customer shall have the right to be present at such meetings. 474 475 SECTION XV. - FORCE MAJEURE AND CHANGES IN LAW 476 477 Neither Party hereto shall be considered to be in default in respect to any obligations 478 hereunder if prevented from fulfilling such obligations due to conditions beyond their reasonable 479 control or due to changes in state or federal law. If a Party is unable to perform in whole or in 480 part because of such condition or change in the law, the Party shall diligently and promptly take 481 reasonable steps to allow it to perform. The Parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the 482 inability or preclusion of the City of Everett to perform, in whole or material part, the Everett 483 Supply Agreement caused by an order or directive of governmental authority or a court with 484 jurisdiction shall constitute a force majeure or change in law event hereunder. 485 486 SECTION XVI. - LEGAL RELATIONS 487 488 Each Party shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other from any and all claims, 489 demands, suits, and judgments arising out of its conduct. If, and to the extent, the Parties are 490 both liable to a third party claimant, each Party shall be responsible to the extent of its fault, and 491 shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other for its fault. The foregoing indemnity is 492 specifically and expressly intended to constitute a waiver of each Party’s immunity under 493 Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act, RCW Title 51, but only with respect to the other Party 494 only, and only to the extent necessary to provide each Party with a full and complete indemnity 495 of claims made by the other Party’s employees. The Parties acknowledge that these provisions 496 were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. 497 Packet Page 166 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 18 SECTION XVII. - DISPUTE RESOLUTION 498 499 The Parties are committed to working cooperatively in resolving all matters related to this 500 Agreement and achieving its intent and purpose. If a dispute should arise, the Parties agree to 501 meet on an informal basis within fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of written notice of the 502 dispute submitted by a Party to attempt to resolve the dispute. 503 If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute on an informal basis within thirty (30) 504 days, the Parties agree they shall utilize mediation. Each Party shall be responsible for the costs 505 of their own legal representation and pro rata cost of mediator. 506 Any dispute arising under this Agreement that is not resolved pursuant to the mediation 507 process may, upon mutual agreement of the Parties, if such agreement occurs within twenty 508 (20) calendar days of the failure of the Parties to reach resolution through mediation, be resolved 509 by binding arbitration by a single arbitrator. Within seven (7) calendar days of the date the 510 Parties agree to arbitration, each Party shall provide the other Party with the names of three (3) 511 neutral arbitrators having experience in the subject matter of the dispute and in arbitrating 512 disputes. The Parties will thereafter attempt in good faith to select an arbitrator from this panel 513 of six (6) potential arbitrators. 514 If the Parties are unable to agree upon a single arbitrator within twenty (20) calendar days 515 from the date the Parties agree to binding arbitration, then each Party shall designate one (1) 516 arbitrator from its panel of three (3) arbitrators. The two (2) designated arbitrators shall then 517 select a third arbitrator from the remaining arbitrator panel members, and this third arbitrator 518 shall act and serve as the single arbitrator for the dispute. The Parties shall equally split the 519 arbitrator's fee and all arbitration expenses. The prevailing party at arbitration shall be entitled to 520 an award by the arbitrator of its attorneys' fees and costs at the arbitrator's discretion. 521 The Parties agree that this dispute resolution process shall precede any action in a judicial 522 or quasi-judicial tribunal. 523 The Parties also agree that at all times pending resolution of the dispute, the Parties shall 524 continue to perform their respective duties and obligations in accordance with the terms and 525 conditions of this Agreement. The intent of the Parties is to preserve the status quo under the 526 Agreement. By way of illustration and not limitation, the Parties wish to assure uninterrupted 527 water service and compliance with the payment provisions of Section XII. 528 Packet Page 167 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 19 SECTION XVIII. - GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE 529 530 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the 531 state of Washington. Any lawsuit or judicial action or proceeding arising out of or relating to 532 this Agreement that could not be resolved through Dispute Resolution, shall be heard in the 533 Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Snohomish County. 534 535 SECTION IXX. - NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES 536 537 Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, nothing in this Agreement is intended 538 to confer upon any person or entity, other than the Parties hereto, any rights, benefits, or 539 obligations. No such third-party shall have any right to enforce any of the provisions of this 540 Agreement unless expressly stated otherwise herein. 541 542 SECTION XX. - LIMITATION ON DAMAGES 543 544 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, neither the District nor the 545 Customer shall be liable to the other under or pursuant to this Agreement for indirect, 546 incidental, special, exemplary, punitive, or consequential damages, including but not limited 547 to damages for lost profits, revenues or benefits, loss of property use, the cost of capital, or 548 the cost of purchased or replacement water. 549 550 SECTION XXI. - GENERAL PROVISIONS 551 552 (1) Waiver: A waiver by either Party of any terms or conditions of this 553 Agreement shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of any other term or condition, 554 nor shall the waiver of any breach be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any 555 subsequent breach, whether of the same or any other term or condition of this Agreement. 556 (2) Assignment: Except where one of the Parties merges, consolidates or 557 combines with another entity neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or 558 obligations created hereunder may be assigned by either Party without the written consent of 559 Packet Page 168 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 20 the other Party. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the 560 successors and assigns of the respective Parties. 561 (3) Notices: Any notices required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be given 562 in writing and shall be delivered (a) in person, (b) by certified mail, postage prepaid, return 563 receipt requested, (c) by electronic transmission in the form of email or facsimile, or (d) by a 564 commercial overnight courier that guarantees next day delivery and provides a receipt, and such 565 notices shall be addressed as follows: 566 567 To the Customer: 568 Public Works Director 569 City of Edmonds 570 7110 210th Street SW 571 Edmonds, WA 98026 572 Fax: 425-774-6057 573 574 To the District: 575 General Manager 576 Alderwood Water & Wastewater District 577 3626 - 156th Street SW 578 Lynnwood, Washington 980 87 579 Fax: 425-742-4562 580 581 or to such other address designated in writing by the addressee. 582 (4) Entirety: All prior negotiations and agreements between the parties hereto 583 relating to the subject matter hereof are merged into and superseded by this Agreement, 584 which shall constitute the entire agreement between the Customer and the District concerning 585 the sale of water to the Customer. 586 (5) Authority: Each Party represents and warrants that it has the power and legal 587 authority to enter into this Agreement. The individual(s) executing this Agreement on behalf 588 of the respective Party represents and warrants that such individual has the power and 589 authority to do so. 590 Packet Page 169 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 21 (6) Effective Date: This Agreement shall become effective ("Effective Date") 591 upon the date of the expiration or termination of the existing contract for wholesale water 592 supply between the Parties dated the 20th day of September 2010. 593 (7) Attorneys' Fees and Costs: In the event that either Party commences any legal 594 action or proceeding relating to the provisions or enforcement of this Agreement, the 595 prevailing party shall be entitled to receive, and the non-prevailing party shall pay, its 596 reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including those incurred in any appeal. 597 (8) Exhibits Incorporated by Reference: Any exhibits attached to this Agreement 598 are fully incorporated herein by this reference. 599 (9) Titles to sections and subsections in this Agreement are for reference purposes 600 only and shall have no substantive effect. 601 (10) In the event of a material breach or default of this Agreement by either of the 602 Parties, the Parties acknowledge that it may be difficult to measure the resulting damages and 603 that monetary damages may not provide a complete or adequate remedy. Accordingly, the 604 non-defaulting Party, in addition to damages and any other relief sought or recovered, shall 605 be entitled to seek injunctive relief and the specific performance of the terms and conditions 606 of this Agreement. 607 (11) If any term, condition or provision of this Agreement is determined to be void, 608 unenforceable or limited in its application or effect in a legal proceeding, such determination 609 shall not affect any other provisions in this Agreement and all other provisions shall remain 610 in full force and effect. 611 (12) Any new water Wholesale Customer Agreement utilizing the same Wholesale 612 Water Facilities as included in the Agreement, shall have the same terms and conditions as 613 this Agreement, with the exclusion of Exhibits A, D and E. 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 Packet Page 170 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 22 CITY OF EDMONDS ALDERWOOD WATER & WASTEWATER 622 A Municipal Corporation DISTRICT 623 A Municipal Corporation 624 625 By: By: 626 Its: Its: 627 Date: Date: 628 629 630 ATTEST: 631 632 City Clerk 633 634 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 635 636 City Attorney 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 Packet Page 171 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 23 ALDERWOOD WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT AND CITY OF EDMONDS WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT EXHIBIT A – QUANTITY OF WATER TO BE PURCHASED All quantities in Million Gallons per Day (MGD) YEAR Average Daily Demand Peak Day Demand 2010 3.6 7.1 2020 3.6 7.2 2050 4.6 9.0 Packet Page 172 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 24 ALDERWOOD WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT AND CITY OF EDMONDS WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT EXHIBIT B - WHOLESALE FACILITIES The water lines including transmission facilities are shown on a separate map exhibit. The following is a list of the wholesale facilities referenced in the Agreement, in addition to the water lines shown on the separate map. Evergreen Way Pump Station Site (6003 Evergreen Way, Everett) Pump Station No. 1 Pump Station No. 2 Maintenance and Operation Site (15204 35th Avenue W, Lynnwood) Reservoir No. 1 Chlorination Facility Ancillary valves and piping associated with the above assets Administration Site (3626 156th Street SW, Lynnwood) Reservoir No. 2 Reservoir No. 3 Chlorination Facility Ancillary valves and piping associated with the above assets Edmonds Master Meter Site (168th Street SW and 62nd Avenue W, Edmonds) Master Meter Vault and ancillary assets Lynnwood Master Meter Site (Spruce Way and 164th Street SW, Lynnwood) Master Meter Vault and ancillary assets Mountlake Terrace Master Meter Site (212th Street SW and 44th Avenue W, Mountlake Terrace) Master Meter Vault and ancillary assets (Emergency supply at 38th Avenue W and 228th Street SW) Mukilteo Water & Wastewater District Meter Site (Harbour Point Boulevard and St. Andrews Drive; and Beverly Park Road and Center Road, Mukilteo) Master Meter Vault and ancillary assets Packet Page 173 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 25 ALDERWOOD WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT AND CITY OF EDMONDS WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT EXHIBIT C - REGIONAL FACILITIES The regional water lines and larger water transmission facilities are shown on a separate map exhibit. The following list contains additional regional facilities as referenced in the Agreement. Evergreen Way Pump Station Site (6003 Evergreen Way, Everett) Leased Site Pump Station No. 1 Pump Station No. 2 Maintenance and Operation Site (15204 35th Avenue W, Lynnwood) Site Reservoir No. 1 High Tank No. 1 High Tank No. 2 Booster Pump Station Chlorination Facility Ancillary valves and piping associated with the above assets Maintenance and Operation Administration Building Shop Facility Warehouse Facilities Material Storage Facilities Administration Site (3626 156th Street SW, Lynnwood) Site District Administration Building Reservoir No. 2 Reservoir No. 3 Chlorination Facility Ancillary valves and piping associated with the above assets Packet Page 174 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 26 ALDERWOOD WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT AND CITY OF EDMONDS WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT EXHIBIT D – CUSTOMERS WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT TO OTHER SUPPLIERS NONE IDENTIFIED Packet Page 175 of 210 WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Alderwood Water & Wastewater District / City of Edmonds pg. 27 ALDERWOOD WATER & WASTEWATER DISTRICT AND CITY OF EDMONDS WHOLESALE WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT EXHIBIT E – MASTER METER LOCATION 168th Street SW and 62nd Avenue W Packet Page 176 of 210 AM-3275 Item #: 2. F. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 08/10/2010 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Development Services Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Committee:Finance Type:Information Information Subject Title Fees for murals. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Committee to provide guidance on a fee policy for murals. Previous Council Action Council approved amendments to the sign code addressing murals on July 6, 2010. Narrative This subject was referred to the Finance Committee to consider, following up on the Council's adoption of updated regulations addressing murals (see Exhibit 1). Because they are defined as signs in the code, there are currently two types of fees that apply to murals. Building Fees. A sign permit costs $125, and is charged for each sign permit issued. The City has adopted IBC Appendix H Signs. This appendix provides the basic design criteria for signs that are impacted by wind loads, seismic loads and working stresses. It also regulates issues related to attachment, anchorage, foundations and combustibility concerns. These are the primary building code issues that are presented by a sign ‘structure’. The appendix chapter exemptions (not adopted by us) would exempt “Painted nonillluminated signs”. Our sign permit exemptions are listed in ECDC 19.00.025 E 1 (q). Among other items we exempt “repainting an existing previously permitted wood sign”. The apparent logic behind this is that the previously permitted sign has already been reviewed for structural adequacy and painting is not a building code issue, as it is exempted under IBC section 105 as adopted in ECDC 19.00.025 E1(h). Painting a wall mural is in many ways no different (for building code applications) then painting a sign. There are no items to review and no building code specifications that would be applicable. It is therefore reasonable that painted or non-structurally applied murals could be treated similarly to painted signs, and no fee charged. Design Review Fees. A design review fee of $115 is charged any time a sign permit is issued which requires design review. In contrast to sign permit fees, a single design review fee may be applied to a request for more than one sign -- e.g. the Mural Society can apply for and receive design approval for multiple murals at a time, so long as they are related in a single design review application. The fee is intended to cover the staff cost of reviewing the application materials and determining whether or not it meets applicable sign code and design guidelines. In the newly adopted ordinance, the design review is limited to such things as materials and durability, not mural content. Packet Page 177 of 210 From the fee(s) perspective it appears reasonable to differentiate murals from other types of signage so long as the mural is not a structural application. Design review fees are still pertinent, but the sign permit fee itself ($125 per sign) may be irrelevant. Attachments Exhibit 1: Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 03:55 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/05/2010 04:18 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 04:26 PM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 08/05/2010 02:48 PM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2010 Packet Page 178 of 210 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2010 Page 18 WATER AND STORM AND SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLANS FOR YEARS 2010, 2011, AND 2012 AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL. Council President Pro Tem Peterson acknowledged concerns with the proposed increases; however, he balanced it with the amount of work citizens get for the money, the importance of the work, and continuing to provide clean drinking water. He commented friends visiting from New Mexico were amazed when he told them they could drink the tap water in Edmonds. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim commented since Edmonds was primarily a residential community, residents have to pay for the services they receive. He viewed the modest cost of utilities as the price to live in this outstanding community. Councilmember Wilson acknowledged tax increases were not fun but Edmonds staff did more with fewer dollars than another city and had far fewer employees per capita for the services the City provides. Edmonds also has the lowest residential property tax rate of any similarly sized city in the area and the City’s utility rates are well below the average. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim asked whether the Council wanted to continue this public hearing or take action separately on the water and stormwater rate increases. Council President Pro Tem Peterson suggested the Council could approve the rate increase as he did not envision substantial changes would be made to the capital improvements in the Water Plan. It was also appropriate to approve the rate increases at this time in view of the upcoming transition in Public Works. Councilmember Wilson agreed it was unlikely there would be substantive changes made to the Water Plan. Mr. Snyder clarified the recommended action was to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance. The ordinance could be scheduled on a future Council agenda. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT VOTING NO AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION AND CRITERIA FOR WALL GRAPHICS/MURALS. Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin explained in the current code murals on exterior walls are a type of non-commercial wall graphic. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to clarify the definition, review process and review criteria. Staff reviewed other cities’ regulations with regard to murals and worked with the City Attorney to draft proposed amendments to the existing sign code. The proposed amendments were presented to the Community Services/Development Services Committee and the Committee forwarded the item to the Planning Board. The Planning Board held a public hearing, recommended minor revisions and forwarded the proposed amendments to Council. The document in the Council packet reflects the changes recommended by the Planning Board. The Council reviewed the proposed amendments on June 15. Ms. Chapin referred to a typographical error on page 6 of the document; the word “renewable” should be “reviewable.” Packet Page 179 of 210 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2010 Page 19 Ms. Chapin explained staff’s research found that cities regulate murals in three ways: 1. Establish a theme and specific criteria to which all murals must conform. 2. Establish a special city-run mural program that regulates murals. Operating such a program requires staff time and money. 3. Treat murals as a type of sign for which a permit and fee are required as part of the sign code as a non-commercial graphic. Edmonds had used the third approach in the past; a mural is considered a wall graphic in the sign code. Murals are a privately created graphic or artwork placed on a privately owned building or wall. Sign codes often include administrative standards and criteria for review which help clarify what the applicant needs to provide and to encourage an outcome that fits the community. Wall graphics/murals cannot be reviewed under the sign code based on content or aesthetic. A mural on a public building is considered public art which follows the public art review process. Staff proposes changes to the existing sign code to clarify how murals and wall graphics are handled within the City’s sign code. The goal in establishing criteria is to ensure murals, 1) meet standards for materials and maintenance, 2) generally fit the surroundings and 3) clarify for the applicant what information is needed for review. Ms. Chapin reviewed the proposed changes as follows: • Definitions – the word “murals” was included in the definition of wall graphic and that they primarily do not contain words. • Design Review Procedures –language in this section was changed to clarify wall graphic applications will be reviewed by the Planning Manager or designee. A subsection was added with review criteria. • Staff Review of Murals and Artwork – although a separate sign permit is required for each wall graphic, staff may make one design review decision on wall graphics that consists of a related group of murals. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate artwork with the design/architectural elements of a building and the historic and pedestrian orientation of the downtown area. • Submission requirements – specific submission requirements were added • Review Criteria – a section was added identifying review criteria for design review related to quality of materials, durability and permanence, compatibility of the artwork with architectural elements or other street elements, minimizing lettering, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why a theme concept was not selected rather than just encouraging murals to be compatible with architectural elements. Ms. Chapin answered that would be a decision of the Council. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the permitting process would be less expensive for a theme-based mural program. Planning Manager Rob Chave answered whether a mural was theme based was irrelevant to the cost. For example if a theme required the involvement of the Arts Commission, a different process would be required and potentially additional applicant requirements. Councilmember Buckshnis envisioned a theme such as “History of Edmonds” would require establishing parameters, thereby streamlining the mural review process and making the process less costly. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the difference would likely be upfront costs to design criteria that were sufficiently enforceable. He summarized there may be less cost on a per application basis but more costs up front to develop criteria. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Port Townsend, Port Angeles and Kalaloch all have themes. Mr. Snyder responded if the Council wanted to pursue a theme approach, that direction needed to be conveyed to staff. Packet Page 180 of 210 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2010 Page 20 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented a close family member was an artist and she envisioned a theme would reduce opportunity for artistic creativity. She preferred to allow artists to design/create murals that were specific to an area or building. Ms. Chapin explained the existing sign code regulates murals. Staff proposed these amendments to clarify the process for applicants and staff. The amendments also provide slightly more flexibility for the applicant. If the Council wants to pursue a different approach, direction needs to be provided to staff. Councilmember Wilson inquired whether the definition of a mural was a painting on a wall or something applied to a wall. Ms. Chapin responded under the current code, a mural was a graphic applied to a wall that is less than ½ inch thick. It could be painted on the wall or applied via other methods. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the definition of wall sign includes signs painted directly on a wall, however, the regulations regarding murals do not apply to wall signs. Ms. Chapin clarified a mural was currently defined in the sign code as a non-commercial wall graphic. Councilmember Wilson commented there were different definitions for a painting on a wall versus painting on a surface, a wall graphic versus a wall sign. Mr. Chave clarified either would be a wall graphic; a wall graphic does not specify whether it is painted directly on the wall or on a material that is attached to the wall. Mr. Snyder referred to the definition of signs that states graphic symbols or written copy for the purposes of conveying a particular message. A mural may include graphics but is a broader category. Councilmember Wilson referred to the definition of wall sign page 6 that states wall signs include signs that are painted directly upon a wall. He suggested this line be deleted. Mr. Snyder explained the difference was the amount of signage a business was allowed under the code. A mural would be in addition to any allowed wall signage. Mr. Chave explained the mural allowance was much broader than wall sign. A wall sign had strict limitations with regard to dimensions, height above the ground, etc. Councilmember Wilson expressed concern that it appeared there were two design review procedures, the Planning Manager and the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Mr. Chave answered most signage is reviewed under the administrative process in conjunction with a building permit. Signs are not typically reviewed by the ADB unless flexibility is sought in the signage regulations such as an unusual location or building configuration. The ADB also reviews sign packages for larger complexes such as a series of signs. Councilmember Wilson referred to page 8 and reference to review by the ADB due to the requirement to obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) for murals on designated historic structures or with a designated historic district. He asked whether all murals downtown would be required to be reviewed by the HPC because downtown was a historic district. Mr. Chave answered the HPC has broad authority over historic sites and it may not be appropriate to apply a mural to a historic structure. Councilmember Wilson found it odd that the regulations would require the artistic content to be consistent with the historic nature of the district and the HPC given authority to review art but not provide a role for the Art Commission. Mr. Chave responded it was the Council’s discretion whether to require an arts process or treat murals like signage. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the clause highlighted by Councilmember Wilson regarding obtaining a certificate of appropriateness, noting that would only be applicable to the 15 buildings that were officially recognized on the local or State historic registry. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out no historic districts had yet been established in Edmonds. Councilmember Wilson disagreed, pointing out the ordinance states a certificate of appropriateness shall be obtained from the HPC for murals on historic designated structures or within a designated historic Packet Page 181 of 210 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2010 Page 21 district and does not define a designated historic district. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the reference to a historic district was an established historic district. Mr. Snyder pointed out there was a process for designating buildings and districts although no districts had yet been designated. He suggested deleting the clause regarding historic districts or capitalizing Historic District. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO CONTINUE THIS MATTER TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. Councilmember Petso pointed out this was not a public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Jeff Stillwell, Edmonds, Edmonds Mural Society (EMS), explained the Society is a non-profit organization whose mission is to celebrate the beauty, history and people of Edmonds by raising murals throughout the City. The EMS has strong support in the community since its inception last September as evidenced by 200 dues-paying members. He identified several members of the EMS in the audience. He explained raising murals was one of the most technically complex art forms. If a mural is to be of masterful design and lasting duration, careful research and thorough and careful preparation must be undertaken. The EMS takes raising a mural very seriously. He recognized Ms. Chapin for overseeing the effort to craft regulations for a mural. He relayed the EMS’ support for the proposed amendments. He thanked Mr. Chave and the Planning Department for their thorough, willing and careful support during the permitting process. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim inquired about the proposed waiver of fees. Mr. Stillwell suggested at this time the Council only consider the municipal code change. Manya Schilperoost, Development Director, Edmonds Mural Society, read a letter from the artist who created the first mural last September, Pat Brier. Ms. Brier described her honor at being chosen the first mural artist for the EMS’ new mural program. She has been working as an artist since 1984, published in national anthologies, exhibiting in Edmonds since 2000 and an Edmonds resident since 1996. She described her efforts to develop a mural using the theme the EMS provided and the support provided by residents and visitors. She described residents’ excitement of the concept of an outdoor fine art gallery with themes selected by the EMS membership and interpreted by artists in individual visual concepts. She relayed reports by other mural cities that artistic installations by their mural societies have substantially improved their economies. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported there was little public participation at the Planning Board public hearing regarding the proposed amendment to the sign code. He recommended audience comments be scheduled earlier on the agenda. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PETERSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3800, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 20.60 RELATING TO SIGNS TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SIGN PERMITS FOR WALL GRAPHIC MURALS AND ARTWORK. Packet Page 182 of 210 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2010 Page 22 COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PETERSON, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY CAPITALIZING HISTORIC DISTRICT ON PAGE 8, PARAGRAPH 2E. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim suggested referencing the definition of Historic District. Mr. Snyder advised that could be done during the codification process. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-0-1). COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED. Councilmember Plunkett explained he supported the proposed amendments as it was the least intrusive of the three alternatives. He preferred to have the least impact on the content, art and free spirit of murals. Council President Pro Tem Peterson expressed his support for the proposed amendments. He thanked staff and the EMS volunteers, noting he was a dues-paying member of the EMS. He viewed the proposed amendments as a great step toward Edmonds being recognized as an arts community. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Council President Pro Tem Peterson’s comments. Councilmember Wilson commented although the proposed amendments were better than the existing code, it was not ideal for reasons he mentioned previously. He supported the ordinance but anticipated the City would be open to significant political challenges. He referred to the City of Snohomish where art such as murals were regulated by the sign code and the public outcry and political turmoil over a mural depicting naked pigs. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED. 10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, announced a Christmas in July event; Edmonds Lutheran Church will be collecting toys at Top Foods July 8 – 27. David Dobradt, Seattle, LaRouche Political Action Committee, urged the Council to pass a resolution to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act. He recalled encouraging the Council a few years ago to pass a resolution in support of the Homeowner Bank Protection Act resolution. At that time Mr. LaRouche warned if action was not taken to protect homeowners and banks, they would be destroyed by the financial collapse. That policy was not taken up by Congress and the result has been numerous bailouts and cities and states have been forced to make budget cuts or raise taxes. The Glass Steagall Act represents a form of protection from financial collapse, setting up a firewall between the bankrupt financial system, the population and the commercial banking system. He summarized economic recovery was possible if action was taken to assert the preamble of the constitution to protect the population from the bankrupt financial system. Anastasia Mares, Seattle, LaRouche Political Action Committee, commented many cities and states are in financial crisis and tent cities are springing up everywhere. If leadership is not asserted via the Glass-Steagall policy, the United States will cease to exist. She commented on the discouraging situation for young people who graduate from college and are unable to find a job. If the Council does not pass the Glass-Steagall resolution as a body, she encouraged individual Councilmembers to support it. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, described a car fire that occurred across the street from Old Mill Town on a Tuesday evening at approximately 10:00 p.m. Bystanders called 911 and the police responded and blocked off the street. Personnel at the downtown fire station were unavailable and fire station #16 on Packet Page 183 of 210 AM-3269 Item #: 2. G. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 08/10/2010 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Councilwoman Lora Petso Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee:Finance Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion of Mayor discretionary pay increases for vacant position. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Previous Council Action: 2/26/2008 adopted Ordinance 3680, paragraph 1.4, authorizing the Mayor to pay an additional 5% to non-represented employees who are covering for a vacant position. Attachment 1: Feb. 26, 2008 Council Minutes Narrative Councilmember Petso has requested that the committee consider rescinding paragraph 1.4 of Ordinance 3680 authorizing an additional 5% pay for employees covering for a vacant position. Rescinding the policy may encourage the City to fill vacant positions, resulting in a higher level of service to Citizens and a reduced workload for the employees. In the event the City determines that a position need not be filled because the duties can be covered by other employees, the position could be eliminated. Attachment 2: Ordinance 3680 Attachments Attach 1 - Feb 26 2008 CM Attach 2 - Ord. 3680 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 10:09 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/05/2010 04:23 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 04:26 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/05/2010 08:48 AM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2010 Packet Page 184 of 210 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2008 Page 5 CHAPTER 84.55 RCW? THIS PROPOSITION IS NOT AN EXCESS LEVY AND IS SUBJECT TO OTHERWISE APPLICABLE STATUTORY LIMITS. SHOULD THIS PROPOSITION BE APPROVED? YES OR NO *PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED BOTH PRO AND CON REGARDING THIS PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT Mayor Haakenson invited public comment. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide comment. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1167. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The resolution approved reads as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REQUESTING THE VOTERS SUPPORT A PROPOSITION TO RESTORE THE CITY’S EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES LEVY TO $.50 PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION. 6. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE SALARY RANGES FOR NON-REPRESENTED AND EXEMPT PERSONNEL FOR BUDGET YEAR 2008. Human Resources Manager Debi Humann reviewed the four areas covered by the Annual Compensation Ordinance: 1. Section 1.1 details the updated 2008 Hourly Employee Wage Schedule and accompanying pay grade and title sheets (Exhibit A). She advised the Hourly Employee Wage Schedule was updated annually based on the Washington State minimum wage law. In addition, the titles of hourly positions were reviewed annually and minor changes made. 2. Section 1.2 of the ordinance includes the updated 2008 Non-Represented Employee Pay Schedule (Exhibit B). She recalled non-represented compensation had been the subject of much debate over the past three years. Last year the Council approved a new Non-Represented Employee Policy (NRC). Per the NRC policy, the pay schedule was updated annually through a survey process. The proposed 2008 non-represented employee pay schedule reflects the results of the survey as well as a 3.5% COLA. 3. Section 1.3 of the ordinance authorizes the Mayor to approve merit increases for non-represented employees based on anniversary dates within the band established in compliance with the NRC compensation policy. She noted although this was not a new practice, the ordinance establishes the method by which merit increases are provided. 4. Section 1.4 gives authority to the Mayor to provide additional compensation to non-represented employees who were doing their job along with the duties of an additional vacant position for a period exceeding 30 days. Ms. Humann advised the ordinance was reviewed by the Finance Committee at their February 12 meeting and was recommended for review by the full Council. Council President Plunkett asked whether the provision that allowed the Mayor to provide additional compensation under certain circumstances was reviewed by the Finance Committee. Ms. Humann answered yes. Finance Committee member Councilmember Wambolt recalled Mayor Haakenson informed the Committee he would make the proposal to the Council. Ms. Humann agreed it was not included in the ordinance considered by the Finance Committee but it was discussed. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised he drafted the section last week. Res# 1167 – Support EMS Levy Lid Lift – May 20, 2008 Special Election Establish Salary Ranges for Non Represented and Exempt Personnel Packet Page 185 of 210 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2008 Page 6 Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the Finance Committee members felt that issue had been adequately discussed. Councilmember Wambolt did not recall there was any discussion; the concept was introduced but there was no discussion between Committee members. Mayor Haakenson recalled there was a reporter in the audience and it was decided not to go into detail so that it was not reported in the newspaper before the Council had an opportunity to consider it. Mr. Snyder explained both the union contracts and the City’s personnel manual had a similar process when an employee was covering two jobs or working out of class; however, there was nothing similar at the director level. Ms. Humann advised the current City policy and collective bargaining allowed for an additional increase for a staff member working in their position who took on a supervisory role or duties of higher pay grade. She noted at the non-represented level, it was becoming more common that staff were doing their full-time job as well as taking on additional positions that may not be at a higher salary level with no way to provide any compensation. She commented the proposed additional compensation was intended to reward employees performing two jobs in excess of 30 days. Mr. Snyder commented the Economic Development Director position had been vacant for a substantial period of time and Stephen Clifton had been covering that position as well as Community Development Director. As a non-represented employee, he did not receive overtime and worked a substantial number of hours. He noted a public employee could not be provided a bonus and could not be compensated retroactively. Ms. Humann pointed out repeated efforts to fill the Economic Development Director position had been unsuccessful. Councilmember Bernheim observed currently directors who worked additional hours were not compensated. Ms. Humann agreed. Mr. Snyder explained for employees covered by collective bargaining that issue was addressed by the contract. A non-represented employee not at a director level was covered by the City’s personnel policies; director’s compensation was established in bands in the annual salary ordinance. Absent Council authorization, there was no way to provide additional compensation. Councilmember Bernheim asked about comp time. Mr. Snyder answered comp time was applicable only to those covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act and receive additional compensation. At a director level the individual works as much or as little as necessary to perform his job; in this situation the person is covering two jobs, working in excess of 40 hours per week and there was no way to compensate him. Councilmember Bernheim clarified his questions were in no way related to the specific staff member, only the ordinance which could apply in other instances. Mayor Haakenson clarified this situation had only arisen twice in the past ten years, both in the last two months. Ms. Humann reiterated this would only apply to a person doing their own job plus another position for a period of over 30 days. Council President Plunkett observed the policy exists in concept but not for directors. Mr. Snyder agreed. Mayor Haakenson clarified it existed for union bargain units but not non-represented employees. Councilmember Wambolt referred to the comment that a director was not being compensated for working additional hours and not receiving comp time. Ms. Humann advised directors did not accumulate comp time. Mr. Snyder advised exempt employees’ salaries could not be docked; they performed their job or were subject to discharge. Councilmember Wambolt did not object to compensating a person temporarily assuming a higher level position. In this instance, if the person in question were provided an additional 5%, they would be the second highest paid employee in the City, above the Police Chief. He noted the Economic Development Director position and Community Services Director position had only one person reporting to it. Packet Page 186 of 210 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2008 Page 7 Observing that the additional 5% would result in a salary of over $130,000/year, he found that inappropriate and he would not support it. Ms. Humann pointed out an advantage was the City was not paying a salary for both positions. Councilmember Wambolt assured he had nothing against the individual, noting there was likely not a finer employee, but there were only 24 hours in a day to perform his job duties. Councilmember Bernheim commented if the City could not afford an Economic Development Director, that position should be eliminated and if the position was essential, the City should find the money to fund it. He was willing to approve the ordinance, referring Section 1.4 to the Finance Committee for further vetting such as regarding the issue of comp time. He suggested the Council could also approve Section 1.4 with a 3-month sunset provision and in the meantime refer the issue to the Finance Committee. Councilmember Wilson commented according to the pay grade and title, an Intern was paid more than a Crime Prevention Officer Assistant and the Chief Information Officer and Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor were included in the same band. He observed the City did not seem to have a good sense of what the market paid and based on feedback from staff, the City was not keeping pace with private industry and was doing more with less such as the Community Services Director doing his job as well as the Economic Development Director duties. He asked whether this was a symptom of a larger problem that needed to be addressed. Mayor Haakenson commented he was amazed at the amount of time spent discussing the non-represented employees’ pay when there were 43 non-represented employees compared to 282 total employees. He noted approximately 240 of City employees were covered by union contracts which the Council approves. Staff has developed different ways over the years of conducting salary surveys to ensure the City was paying comparable salaries which he believed the City was, and the Council’s policy had been to pay in the mid-range. With regard to Councilmember Bernheim’s comment regarding whether an Economic Development Director was needed, Mayor Haakenson explained the Council made a decision to fill the Economic Development Director position, it was a budgeted position, and there was no argument that the City could not afford the position; it was simply that a satisfactory candidate had not been identified and the approximately $100,000 salary had not been paid for the past two years. The proposal was to pay an already overworked employee approximately $5,000 to do a second job. He noted last week the Council allocated that much to fund the 2-1-1 call center. Mayor Haakenson emphasized those 43 people were dedicated, quality employees who were doing their job for far less than they could get if they worked elsewhere. The approximately $5,000 increase for the period of time that person did both jobs was well worth the savings of not filling the position and he did an amazing job. It was a temporary situation; if it were to become permanent, the job description would need to be rewritten. He summarized the position was funded in the budget and having the employee do both jobs saved the taxpayers approximately $90,000 a year. He agreed the City’s employees did more than employees in other cities, noting Lynnwood had 150 more employees and 10,000 fewer citizens. He emphasized the employees were the City’s most valuable commodity and they deserved to be paid fairly; without them, nothing would be accomplished. Councilmember Wilson assured there was no question of the value of Mr. Clifton to the City and $5,000 was well worth the cost, noting hiring someone would cost much more than the proposed 5%. He was supportive of the ordinance, but had underlying concerns. For example although he had participated in Executive Session regarding contract negotiations, he felt what was presented was fait accompli. He acknowledged the City’s staff was the best, did more with less and deserved to be paid adequately and if the administration felt they needed to be paid more, he would support that including working to pass the EMS levy. He noted even if the EMS levy passed, the City would not have sufficient revenue to fund Packet Page 187 of 210 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2008 Page 8 services beyond the next biennium which likely would require a general property tax increase, utility tax increases or service reductions. With regard to comp time, Mayor Haakenson explained if a Director worked 48-50 hours one week and asked to take Friday off, he approved it. He acknowledged that could be considered comp time but he considered it a balancing act. Councilmember Bernheim commented the proposal was not an increase for Mr. Clifton; if that was the intent, it should be worded in that manner. The proposal was a blanket authorization to the Mayor to provide additional compensation when multiple jobs were performed. He noted he voted against the funding for 2-1-1 and regretted he did not vote against the $250,000 for a consultant on the Transportation Comprehensive Plan. He wanted to ensure this blanket power was adequately vetted by Council Committee. He did not recall any Council discussion when Mr. Clifton assumed the duties of the Economic Development Director nor was it conditioned on a pay increase. Mayor Haakenson answered there was little point referring the matter to committee when all seven Councilmembers were present and staff was available to discuss the matter. He pointed out although Councilmember Bernheim was not comfortable with providing the Mayor that power in an unusual circumstance, that was the Mayor’s responsibility and the Council should be confident he would use it as intended. Councilmember Bernheim noted his question regarding comp time had been answered two different ways. Mayor Haakenson answered although it was not called comp time, it worked like comp time. Mr. Snyder advised compensatory time under the Fair Labor Standards Act had a very technical meaning; it was money in the bank that could be cashed out at any time and was subject to taxation. What Mayor Haakenson and Councilmember Wambolt were discussing was an exempt employee not entitled to overtime being given flexibility in their hours. He noted an employee could not be paid retroactively outside a union contract. One of the reasons this arose was the situation was unanticipated because it has been assumed the Economic Development Director position would have been filled by now. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3680. Councilmember Dawson commented there were two items in the ordinance; the first was approval of the pay grades for non-represented employees. The information provided indicated the rates were comparable to other organizations and she found it appropriate for the Council to approve those pay rates. With regard to the second issue, allowing the Mayor to provide a 5% interest to a director working out of class, she found it appropriate to institute such a policy rather than acting on a case-by-case basis. She noted represented positions working out of class were paid for the position they were performing. The current situation was unusual in that the employee was performing two jobs, one of which paid less than his current salary. She noted there were two ways to address the situation, 1) the work of the Economic Development Director was not done, noting the Council has agreed they wanted the work of the Economic Development Director done, or 2) eliminate the Economic Development Director position. She found it appropriate the additional 5% would not be paid until the person was performing the additional job for 30 days, noting employees at the executive level often helped out with other positions; however, it was appropriate to compensate an employee expected to perform two jobs for an extended period of time. She summarized the Economic Development Director was an important position for the City to fund and it was appropriate to compensate someone in the interim for doing two jobs. Councilmember Olson commented on the importance of someone doing the Economic Development Director job, acting as the liaison between businesses and the City and new businesses resulted in increased revenues. Packet Page 188 of 210 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2008 Page 9 For Councilmember Wambolt, Mayor Haakenson assured Mr. Clifton had not requested the additional compensation and in fact knew nothing about it as he was on vacation. Mayor Haakenson explained although Mr. Clifton may benefit from the policy, the reason it was proposed was to provide additional compensation when appropriate. Councilmember Wambolt commented there was nothing more emotional for employees than the fairness of their compensation. He noted the amount of Council discussion regarding this issue was not the amount of money but the principle. He pointed out a person earning $130,000 a year was not paid for the hours they worked; they were paid for their skills. He could support the proposal if it was to compensate a person performing a higher level position such as when the Assistant Police Chief performed the duties of the Police Chief. Councilmember Wilson commented their may be some broader policy issues related to personnel and fairness that the Finance Committee may want to discuss. He found the proposed policy sufficiently narrow, empowering the Mayor with another tool, noting he trusted Mayor Haakenson and a majority of the citizens trusted him. Councilmember Dawson commented she was not suggesting that an executive level employee be paid by the hour; she was recognizing that it would take an executive doing two jobs longer to do both jobs well and therefore additional compensation was appropriate. She noted few people could do two executive positions well or do them at the same time. For those who could, it was appropriate to provide them additional compensation. She noted the City had the tools to pay an employee working above their level but not for an employee performing two separate jobs at the same time for over 30 days. Council President Plunkett observed since neither of the two Finance Committee members indicated the process violated the responsibilities of the Committee, he would support the motion. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, WILSON AND DAWSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, ORVIS AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED. The ordinance approved reads as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3680 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE SALARY RANGES FOR NON-REPRESENTED AND EXEMPT PERSONNEL FOR BUDGET YEAR 2008, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. 7. VERIZON FRANCHISE - CONSORTIUM City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City’s franchise with Comcast for cable television expired in three years; therefore, under federal statute the City was entering the three year negotiation period, a process that could be formal or informal. Comcast is a Section 6 cable provider under the Telecommunications Act that also offers Section 2 phone services as part of their triple-play service. Verizon is in the process of installing fiber throughout the region and the nation to offer the same triple- play service and will be a Section 2 telephone company offering Section 6 cable communication service. Under new FCC regulations, cities are required to have in place a 90-day process for competitive franchises. When Verizon files an application the City will have 90 days to consider their application; therefore, any decisions regarding process were extremely time sensitive. He noted a competitive situation was one in which there was already an existing cable franchisee, in this case Comcast. Under level playing field requirements, when Verizon files an application, they are entitled to a franchise. Therefore, although the City was about to renegotiate their franchise with Comcast, Verizon would get the same franchise. He noted this was occurring in a very unstable setting; every year over the past three years the Telecommunications Act has been under scrutiny in Congress and cynics believe it would have Ord# 3680 Salary Ranges for Non- Represented & Exempt Personnel Verizon Franchise - Consortium Packet Page 189 of 210 Packet Page 190 of 210 AM-3270 Item #: 2. H. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 08/10/2010 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Councilwoman Lora Petso Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee:Finance Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion on unexpended wages and benefits. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action None Narrative Councilmember Petso has requested that the committee consider adopting a policy allocating a significant percentage of budgeted but unexpended wages and benefits to the City’s emergency financial reserve fund. The proposed policy would assist the City in rebuilding its financial position without requiring a new revenue source. When a position is vacant (recent examples include the Mayor, the Economic Development Director, or the Development Services Director) all or a portion of money budgeted for wages and benefits for the position would be placed in the City’s emergency financial reserve fund. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 09:36 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/05/2010 04:17 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 04:26 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/05/2010 09:09 AM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2010 Packet Page 191 of 210 AM-3247 Item #: 3. A. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 08/10/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Gerry Gannon Submitted By:Gerry Gannon Department:Police Department Committee:Public Safety Type:Action Information Subject Title ILA between the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds School District for football game security. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Recommend that the Public Safety Committee approve for the consent agenda. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The Edmonds Police Department has provided security at the Edmonds School District Stadium for football games for several years. This service has been provided without an ILA, but with a more informal annual contract. All past costs incurred by City have been reimbursed by the school district . The ILA will provide a long term agreement that is set to expire on August 31, 2013. The ILA covers the terms, services to be provided, and responsibilities of off duty police officers. The ILA has been approved as to form by the City Attorney. We request that the Public Safety Committee approve this matter for the consent agenda. ILA attached. Attachments ILA between the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds School District Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/02/2010 Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 08/02/2010 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 09:36 AM Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 07/28/2010 08:44 AM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2010 Packet Page 192 of 210 Packet Page 193 of 210 Packet Page 194 of 210 Packet Page 195 of 210 Packet Page 196 of 210 AM-3261 Item #: 3. B. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 08/10/2010 Time:30 Minutes Submitted For:PS Committee Chair DJ Wilson Submitted By:John Westfall Department:Fire Committee:Public Safety Type:Action Information Subject Title Residential fire sprinkler stakeholder discussion. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Mayor and staff recommend final evaluation of residential fire sprinkler system requirements for the City and move to public hearing. Previous Council Action Public Safety Committee work: April 13, 2010 Discussion of residential fire sprinkler requirements May 11, 2010 Residential fire sprinkler systems requirements June 8, 2010 Residential fire sprinkler systems options Narrative As Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, I would like to invite you to a conversation about requiring residential fire sprinklers for new construction in Edmonds. This item will be on the agenda during our next committee meeting. For the past few months, our committee has been considering a policy of requiring sprinklers in residential construction. We considered questions related to existing versus new housing stock, remodels versus new construction, and single family versus multi-family. We have taken input from Fire District 1 and from 3 representatives from our local development community. As a result, the committee is currently considering three options which may or may not be forwarded to the full Council. The options on the table are ordinances requiring sprinklers for new construction only. The three versions vary in the threshold at which that requirement would be enforced: all new homes, new homes over 3000 sq ft, and new homes over 5000 sq ft. The committee may also not make a recommendation. This invitation is being extended to a wide range of stakeholders, including leaders from the building trades, fire fighters, developers, fire marshals, realtors, water purveyors and other government leaders. The goal of this meeting is to have as broad a conversation as warranted about this topic to find areas of agreement and compromise at the committee level before this goes before the full Council. Not everyone will get everything they want, but my hope is that we can use this opportunity to listen and better understand the perspectives from all involved. If you have any questions of me, of course, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, DJ Wilson Packet Page 197 of 210 Edmonds City Council Attachments Draft RFSS 0k Draft RFSS 3k Draft RFSS 5k Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 12:22 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 08/05/2010 04:16 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/05/2010 04:26 PM Form Started By: John Westfall Started On: 08/04/2010 01:38 PM Final Approval Date: 08/05/2010 Packet Page 198 of 210 MUN562669.DOC;1\99925.003333\ - 1 - 0006. ORDINANCE NO. _DRAFT RFSS- 0k THRESHOLD_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, Chapter 19.27 RCW provides that certain international building codes, as amended by the State Building Code Council, shall be in effect in all Washington Cities; and WHEREAS, Washington State Building Code Council has amended the 2009 International Residential Code so that every community may independently consider and determine suitable application of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (RFSS) as a minimum requirement for purposes of life safety, property preservation, and environmental protection in all new one-family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings; and WHEREAS, by local stakeholder discussions with citizens, elected officials, City staff, fire officials, local builders and developers, water purveyors, area system installers, realtors and insurance companies, aided determination regarding the merits and limitations for the installation of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (RFSS) in new residential construction; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the public health, safety, and welfare will be better served by adopting a requirement for RFSS in construction of all new dwellings; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Packet Page 199 of 210 MUN562669.DOC;1\99925.003333\ - 2 - Section 1. Edmonds Community Development Code 19.05.000 is amended to read as follows: 19.05.000 International Residential Code adopted. The International Residential Code (IRC), 2009 Edition, published by the International Code Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-51 WAC, and as subsequently amended by this chapter, is hereby adopted along with Appendix Chapters A, B, C, K, and R and S . Section 2. Edmonds Community Development Code 19.05.00 is amended to include: 19.05.000 Appendix S Fire Sprinklers AS107.1 Fire Sprinklers. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in new one-family and two-family dwellings and townhouses in accordance with Appendix R. Section 3. Effective Date APPROVED: . This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. MAYOR _____________________ ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Packet Page 200 of 210 MUN562669.DOC;1\99925.003333\ - 3 - BY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 201 of 210 MUN562669.DOC;1\99925.003333\ - 4 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________,2010. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 202 of 210 MUN562669.DOC;1\99925.003333\ - 1 - 0006. ORDINANCE NO. _DRAFT RFSS- 3k THRESHOLD_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, Chapter 19.27 RCW provides that certain international building codes, as amended by the State Building Code Council, shall be in effect in all Washington Cities; and WHEREAS, Washington State Building Code Council has amended the 2009 International Residential Code so that every community may independently consider and determine suitable application of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (RFSS) as a minimum requirement for purposes of life safety, property preservation, and environmental protection in all new one-family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings; and WHEREAS, by local stakeholder discussions with citizens, elected officials, City staff, fire officials, local builders and developers, water purveyors, area system installers, realtors and insurance companies, aided determination regarding the merits and limitations for the installation of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (RFSS) in new residential construction; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the public health, safety, and welfare will be better served by adopting a requirement for RFSS in construction of all new dwellings larger than 3,000 square feet; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Packet Page 203 of 210 MUN562669.DOC;1\99925.003333\ - 2 - Section 1. Edmonds Community Development Code 19.05.000 is amended to read as follows: 19.05.000 International Residential Code adopted. The International Residential Code (IRC), 2009 Edition, published by the International Code Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-51 WAC, and as subsequently amended by this chapter, is hereby adopted along with Appendix Chapters A, B, C, K, and R and S . Section 2. Edmonds Community Development Code 19.05.00 is amended to include: 19.05.000 Appendix S Fire Sprinklers AS107.1 Fire Sprinklers. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in new one-family and two-family dwellings and townhouses exceeding 3,000 square feet of fire area, and in accordance with Appendix R. Section 3. Effective Date APPROVED: . This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. MAYOR _____________________ ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: Packet Page 204 of 210 MUN562669.DOC;1\99925.003333\ - 3 - OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 205 of 210 MUN562669.DOC;1\99925.003333\ - 4 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________,2010. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 206 of 210 MUN562669.DOC;1\99925.003333\ - 1 - 0006. ORDINANCE NO. _DRAFT RFSS- 5k THRESHOLD_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, Chapter 19.27 RCW provides that certain international building codes, as amended by the State Building Code Council, shall be in effect in all Washington Cities; and WHEREAS, Washington State Building Code Council has amended the 2009 International Residential Code so that every community may independently consider and determine suitable application of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (RFSS) as a minimum requirement for purposes of life safety, property preservation, and environmental protection in all new one-family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings; and WHEREAS, by local stakeholder discussions with citizens, elected officials, City staff, fire officials, local builders and developers, water purveyors, area system installers, realtors and insurance companies, aided determination regarding the merits and limitations for the installation of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (RFSS) in new residential construction; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the public health, safety, and welfare will be better served by adopting a requirement for RFSS in construction of all new dwellings larger than 5,000 square feet; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Packet Page 207 of 210 MUN562669.DOC;1\99925.003333\ - 2 - Section 1. Edmonds Community Development Code 19.05.000 is amended to read as follows: 19.05.000 International Residential Code adopted. The International Residential Code (IRC), 2009 Edition, published by the International Code Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-51 WAC, and as subsequently amended by this chapter, is hereby adopted along with Appendix Chapters A, B, C, K, and R and S . Section 2. Edmonds Community Development Code 19.05.00 is amended to include: 19.05.000 Appendix S Fire Sprinklers AS107.1 Fire Sprinklers. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in new one-family and two-family dwellings and townhouses exceeding 5,000 square feet of fire area, and in accordance with Appendix R. Section 3. Effective Date APPROVED: . This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. MAYOR _____________________ ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: Packet Page 208 of 210 MUN562669.DOC;1\99925.003333\ - 3 - OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 209 of 210 MUN562669.DOC;1\99925.003333\ - 4 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________,2010. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 210 of 210