2010.09.14 CC Committee Meetings Agenda Packet
AGENDA
City Council Committee Meetings
September 14, 2010
6:00 p.m.
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: Council Chambers
A. (15 Minutes)Increasing fines for illegal tree cutting.
B. (30 Minutes)Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016)
C. (30 Minutes)Briefing on the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2011-2016).
2.Finance Committee
Meeting Room: Jury Meeting Room
A. (15 Minutes)Edmonds Chamber of Commerce request for funding.
B. (15 Minutes)Non-Represented Compensation Policy (NRC).
C. (10 Minutes)Discussion and review of debt service in Funds 125 and 126.
D. (15 Minutes)Discussion of Mayor discretionary pay increases for vacant position.
E. (15 Minutes)Discussion on unexpended wages and benefits.
F. (10 Minutes)Interlocal Agreement with SERS for Low Cost Dark Fiber.
G. (10 Minutes)Public comments (3-minute limit per person)
3.Public Safety Committee
Meeting Room: Police Training Room
A. (30 Minutes)Residential Fire Sprinkler Code Determination.
Packet Page 1 of 171
AM-3361 Item #: 1. A.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 09/14/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Kernen Lien
Department:Planning
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Increasing fines for illegal tree cutting.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For discussion.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The illegal cutting of a large tree near 3rd and Walnut has generated comment that the maximum fine of $500 for illegal tree
cutting is too low. The committee will discuss possibilities and procedures for increasing the fine.
One way to establish fines is based on the value of the trees. Trees provide many values including; value of lumber a tree may
provide, the ecological value (wildlife habitat, stormwater management, carbon sequestration), and social value (aesthetics,
historic trees). The most common way a trees "value" is assessed in North America is through methods described in Guide for
Plant Appraisal authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. This guide is endorsed by the American
Association of Nurserymen, The American Society of Consulting Arborists, American Society of Landscape Architects, The
Associated Landscape Contractors, Association of Consulting Foresters of America, International Society of Arboriculture, the
Society of American Foresters and the National Arborists Association.
The Guide for Plant Appraisal lists and details three basic approaches for appraisals:
Cost Approach - This approach considers the cost to either repair damages to tree or to replace the trees
Income Approach - This approach involves specific situations for which a property or segment of it may provide income
benefits.
Market Approach - This approach determines the market value, selling price, of a property with and without the plants or
their damages.
Attachment 1 is a paper summarizing the different appraisal approaches described in the Guide for Plan Appraisal. Also
included as Attachment 2 is an article from the Journal of Arboriculture comparing various methods of tree appraisals.
Attachment 3 is a proposed revision to ECDC 18.45 Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Code, for discussion, that includes larger
fines for illegal cutting of larger trees.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Tree Appraisal Methods
Attachment 2 - Comparing Formula Methods of Tree Appraisal
Attachment 3 - Proposed revisions to ECDC 18.45 for discussion
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/09/2010 08:32 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/10/2010 12:08 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 09/10/2010 12:21 PM
Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 09/09/2010 07:00 AM
Packet Page 2 of 171
Final Approval Date: 09/10/2010
Packet Page 3 of 171
Tree Appraisals
The following is a summary of Tree Appraisal information put together by Neighborhood
Consulting Arborist to provide you with a briefing of the appraisal process. It is a
summary of the Guide for Plant Appraisals, Ninth Edition.
Trees have many values, both for their beauty and for the value added to the property.
The aesthetic values are very difficult to value and are very subjective. Research shows
that the value trees add to a particular property ranges from 7 to 25 percent of the total
land value. The methods used to value urban and residential trees are published in
GUIDE FOR PLANT APPRAISAL authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape
Appraisers (CLTA). This guide is also endorsed by the American Association of
Nurserymen, The American Society of Consulting Arborists, American Society of
Landscape Architects, The Associated Landscape Contractors, Association of Consulting
Foresters of America, International Society of Arboriculture, The Society of American
Foresters and the National Arborists Association.
Most appraisals are done after the plants are removed or damaged. Although, the best
time to do an appraisal is when the plants are in its pre-damage condition. Records,
pictures and witness can help determine the tree’s pre-damage condition. It is the duty of
the appraiser to determine the most appropriate method to appraise a landscape. The
appraiser needs to document everything from his first contact with the prospective client,
to establishing the background, to inspecting the site, to calculating the values.
Plants and landscapes are a part of real estate. An appraisal is an unbiased estimate of the
nature, quality, value or utility of an interest or an aspect of real estate. The purpose of
the appraisal is defined by the client’s needs or questions. The valuation process is used
to develop a well supported estimate of a defined value.
The Ninth Edition of Guide for Plant Appraisal lists and details three basic approaches
for plant appraisals:
Cost Approach – This approach considers the cost to either repair damages to
the plants or to replace the plants. There are various methods of the Cost Approach.
Replacement Cost - This method is used when the plants are of a size that
can be replaced. The value is based upon a) the cost of replacing the same
species of the same size and quality, b) the cost of replacing one large
plant with several smaller plants or c) the cost of replacing a large plant
with a smaller plant and a cash settlement.
Packet Page 4 of 171
Trunk Formula - This method is used when the plant is too large to be
replaced. This value uses the cost of replacing the largest locally available
plant and adjusting it for the size difference, the condition and location of
the appraised tree.
Appraised Value = Basic Value x Condition x Location
Basic Value = Replacement Cost + (Basic Price x [TA(A) -
TA(R)] x Species)
Condition = A rating of the tree's structure and health and
based on 100 percent
Location = the average for the tree's Site,
Contribution and Placement and based on 100
percent
Replacement Cost = the cost to purchase and install
the largest locally available and transportable tree in
the area.
Basic Price = the cost per square inch of trunk area
of a replacement tree measured at the height
prescribed by the American Nursery Standards.
TA(A) = Trunk Area at 4.5 feet above the ground of
the appraised tree
TA(R) = Trunk Area at 6 inches or 12 inches above
the ground of the replacement tree
Species = the rating for a particular species and
based on 100 percent
Compounded Replacement Cost - This method is used mostly for large
shrubs that are bigger than those available for planting. This value is
determined by taking the replacement cost and maintenance costs and
increasing them by an interest rate until the replacement shrub would grow
to be as large as the original plant.
Linear Trunk Measurement of Palms - This method is used to calculate
the value of palms based on the amount of vertical "clear" or "brown"
trunk measurements.
Cost of Repair - This method calculates the cost to perform any wound
treatments, cabling, bracing, pruning, fertilizing, watering, aeration,
alleviation of compacted soil, other soil practices, and insect and disease
treatments.
Cost of Cure - This method is similar to the Cost of Repair method, but it
calculates the expenses that are needed to bring a damaged tree as close to
its original condition as possible.
Packet Page 5 of 171
Income Approach – This approach “involves specific situations for which a
property or segment of it may provide income benefits” (Page 89). There are various
methods within this approach.
Crop Value -This method is used for those plants that either yield a single
harvest, such as Christmas trees and nursery plants, or annual crops, such
as fruit and nut trees and plants. It is based on the value of the crop and
uses an interest rate to estimate its present value.
Forest Appraisal (Timber Value) - This method is used for plants,
mostly trees, that are grown for a wide variety of forest products and is not
suitable for landscape plants. It is based on the value of the final product
and uses an interest rate to estimate its present value.
Rental Value – This method is used to determine the difference in
commercial and rental properties as the plants contribute to their incomes
and profits.
Market Approach – This approach “is based on market information derived
from an investigation of property sales.” (Page 93) This approach determines the market
value, selling price, of a property with and without the plants or their damages. This
method does not follow one formula. This is a developing process and with less structure
and standards. This is only one appraisal method and may be best used as a check against
reasonability against another method.
When performing an appraisal, there are four primary factors: species, size, condition and
location. Each chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture determines the
species ratings for its region. The size of the plant is easily measured using the
appropriate tools and standards. The condition of the plant is determine by the appraiser
during his inspection and is an assessment of the plant's structure and health. The
location factor involves the site, the plants contribution and placement.
Owners can often receive partial or full remuneration for the value of plants that become
casualties as a result of accidents or alternations to the landscape. The owner may recoup
the value through insurance, income tax deductions and civil damage
claims. Homeowners Broad Form (ED 7.77) states landscaping is covered by insurance
for damages by fire, lightning, explosion, riot, aircraft, vehicles, vandalism and
theft. The claim is limited to 5% of the dwelling and $500 per plant. Wind, tornado and
hurricanes are not covered unless the plants damage the dwelling and then only removal
cost is covered. The IRS does not accept the Trunk Formula Method or any formula
method.
Packet Page 6 of 171
IRS Section 1.165-7(a)(2)(ii) states that the cost of repairs is accepted as evidence of a
loss. A casualty is the damage, destruction or loss of property resulting from an
identifiable event that is sudden, unexpected or unusual. Civil and Criminal Damage
Claims are legal means by which a person can take action to recover losses resulting from
negligence or intentional or unintentional acts. Double or treble damages may be
appropriate, but the appraiser should not suggest this in the appraisal.
Professional appraisers are voluntarily subject to the codes of ethics and disciplinary
procedures by their professional societies. They should have sound knowledge of plants,
as well as, IRS regulations, insurance limitations and other government
regulations. Their knowledge should be gain from education and experience. They
should also be members in appropriate professional societies and abide by their Codes of
Ethics and Standards of Practice. The appraiser may take on the role of mediator,
arbitrator, consulting expert or expert witness. In all situations, he may be held
accountable for his opinion and are targets for lawsuits. The appraiser should maintain
Errors and Omissions or Professional Liability Insurance.
The form of the written report depends upon the scope and nature of the assignment, but
should also be clear and concise. All reports should have a summary, observations,
analysis, discussion, conclusions, certification, recommendations, and supporting
information. They can be in booklet, letter or Standardized Form formats.
All of the above information is presented as general information and is not intended to
train any person in the science and art of tree appraisals.
Packet Page 7 of 171
11Journal of Arboriculture 28(1): January 2002
The value of large landscape trees is not easily established.
Replacement cost is the most direct way to establish the
value of a tree. Though even large mature trees can some-
times be transplanted successfully, doing so can require
extraordinary effort and cost. At some point, a tree be-
comes too large to be replaced practically with an equiva-
lent one. If a tree cannot be replaced in kind, what are the
alternatives?
The most common and widely used method of estab-
lishing the value of large trees worldwide is through the
use of formulas. Two basic types of formulas are used. The
first establishes an initial value based primarily on size, and
then adjusts this value (usually down if less than perfect)
for factors such as condition (vigor, structure, health, etc.),
location (setting, real estate value, function, visibility, etc.),
species quality, and special situations (historic significance,
etc.). The other type of formula uses a point rating system
for these factors (points can be added or multiplied to-
gether) with a monetary factor introduced at the end.
With this approach, size is usually one of several equally
weighed factors and has less influence on appraised value.
Other factors, such as health condition, position in the land-
scape, and special factors, are also emphasized differently in
the various formulas.
Formulas are usually linked to regional market conditions
through the incorporation of the cost of nursery stock. This
assumes there is a direct relationship between the cost of
nursery stock and the value of larger trees. When a monetary
value not linked to nursery prices has been specified in the
formula, it has been determined by consensus. Only one
method still uses this approach (Helliwell 2000).
Little has been published on how appraised values pro-
duced by the different formula methods compare. The five
methods chosen for comparison in this study exhibit a wide
variety of approaches that seem to be adaptable for use out-
side the geographic region where they were developed.
Each of the formula methods chosen had a somewhat
different approach to tree appraisal. Simplified descrip-
tions of each method (and country of origin) are given
below to help the reader understand the basic concepts of
each method. Readers with an interest in the details of
each method are referred to the original publications.
Guide for Plant Appraisal, 8th edition (United
States). This method has been widely used since 1951,
and a 9th edition was published in 2000 (CTLA). The 8th
edition (CTLA 1992) was the most recent edition when
this study was conducted. Its method is based on a mea-
surement of the cross-sectional area of the tree trunk at
1.4 m (4.5 ft) multiplied by a monetary value per square
inch. This maximum value is then reduced by factors for
species quality, condition, and location in the landscape
(0.0 to 1.0 for each factor). The value per square inch is
based on the cost of the largest commonly available trees
(per square inch of trunk area) at regional nurseries. (For
simplicity’s sake, certain complexities of the 8th edition
are not discussed here but were included in the calcula-
tions.) The cost per square inch and species rating were
determined by a regional committee. This method will be
referred to as the CTLA method.
Abstract. Values produced by formula methods of tree ap-
praisal used in five different countries were compared
(CTLA)—United States, Standard Tree Evaluation Method
(STEM)—New Zealand, Helliwell—Great Britain, Norma
Granada—Spain, and Burnley—Australia). Nine individuals
appraised the same six trees using all five methods. The CTLA
and Helliwell methods consistently produced the lowest values,
and the Norma Granada method values were most often the
highest. There was a strong relationship between variation
among appraisers and the mathematical operations used in cal-
culating the formula values. The Helliwell method, which mul-
tiplies all of the rated factors together, consistently produced the
highest variation among appraisers. STEM, which adds all the
factors together, consistently produced the lowest variation
among appraisers. Minimizing the number of multiplication
operations used in the formulas is an effective way of reducing
appraiser variation, but in doing so, the influence of individual
factors may be diminished too much.
Key Words. Tree appraisal; tree value; formula method;
CTLA.
Packet Page 8 of 171
12 Watson: Comparing Formula Methods of Tree Appraisal
The simplified formula of the CTLA method is
Appraised value = (trunk area (in2) × basic
price/in2) × species × condition × location
Revised Burnley Method (Australia). Developed
at the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture
Limited, Burnley Campus, this method was first published
in 1988 (McGarry and Moore) and revised in 1991
(Moore). It is similar in concept to the CTLA method,
and it is also based on tree size and a unit monetary value.
Tree size is measured as volume of the tree approximated
by an inverted cone. The tree volume is multiplied by the
cost per cubic meter of retail nursery stock (presumably
of the same species). This maximum value is then reduced
by factors for life expectancy (0.5 to 1.0), form and vigor
(0.0 to 1.0), and location (0.4 to 1.0). Like the CTLA
method, all factors reduce the base value. Unlike the
CTLA method, not all factors can bring the value to zero.
This method will be referred to as the Burnley method.
The simplified formula is
Appraised value = tree volume × base value ×
life expectancy × form and vigor × location
Amenity Valuation of Trees and Woodlands
(Great Britain). Based on Helliwell (1967) and most
recently revised in 2000 (Helliwell), this method focuses
on visual amenity and rates seven factors at 1 to 4 points
each (occasionally less than 1). A low rating of 1 for any
factor would have no impact on the appraised value. The
factor points are multiplied together and then by an as-
signed monetary value per point (£14 in 2000 revision).
The U.S. equivalent in dollars was used for the calcula-
tions in this study. This method will be referred to as the
Helliwell method.
Appraised value = tree size × life expectancy∗ ×
importance in the landscape × presence of other trees
× relation to setting × form × special factors × £14
∗The published method includes a procedure for de-
termining tree age, but this method did not work in
northern Illinois when tested on trees of known age. In-
stead, appraisers were asked to estimate life expectancy by
whatever method they felt appropriate, which is also done
in the Burnley and Norma Granada methods.
Standard Tree Evaluation Method—STEM (New
Zealand). This method was new in 1996 (Flook). Like
the Helliwell method, it uses a point system to rate 20
tree attributes (3 to 27 points for each attribute) in three
general categories of condition, amenity, and notable
(special merit) qualities. The attributes rated are
Condition
Form
(Frequency of) occurrence
Vigor and vitality
Function (usefulness)
Age (years)
Amenity
Stature (greater of height or spread)
Visibility (km)
Proximity (presence of other trees)
Role
Climate
Notable (only for trees over 50 years old)
Stature
Feature (exceptionally large/special visual interest)
Form (outstanding example/specimen)
Historic
Age (100 years +)
Association (with event, person, tradition, etc)
Commemoration
Remnant (of a native ecosystem)
Relict (survived change from natural to artificial
environment)
Scientific
Source (quality of genetic derivation)
Rarity (of species)
Endangered
The point total is then multiplied by the wholesale cost
of a 5-year-old tree (no indication of species specificity). To
that is added the wholesale cost of planting the tree and the
cost of maintaining the tree until it reaches the same age as
the tree that was lost. Finally, the figure is multiplied by a
factor to convert from wholesale to retail (doubling sug-
gested). This method will be referred to as STEM.
Appraised value = [total points (540 possible) ×
wholesale cost + planting cost + maintenance
cost] × retail conversion factor (2 suggested)
Norma Granada (Spain). This method was first pub-
lished in 1990 and revised in 1999 (Asociacion Española de
Parques y Jardines Publicos). It uses a series of tables dealing
with tree species (growth rate and longevity) and size factors
to determine a “value factor” (valores del factor). This value
factor is multiplied by the wholesale cost of a nursery-grown
Packet Page 9 of 171
13Journal of Arboriculture 28(1): January 2002
tree to determine the initial value. Like the CTLA and re-
vised Burnley methods, factors related to tree condition and
position in the landscape are used to adjust this value. Unlike
these other two methods, condition rating can either in-
crease or decrease the value (a tree in average condition will
have no effect). Life expectancy and “extrinsic” attributes of
the tree can only increase the basic value. The maximum
theoretical value of the tree is eight times the initial value.
This method will be referred to as the Norma Granada
method.
Appraised value = (value factor × wholesale cost ×
condition) × [1 + life expectancy + (aesthetic value +
species rarity + site suitability + extraordinary)]
On September 23, 1999, nine individuals with profes-
sional interest in the value of urban trees independently
appraised six trees located on the grounds of The Morton
Arboretum in Lisle, Illinois, U.S., using the five methods.
Before beginning the appraisals, the five formula methods
chosen for the exercise were reviewed.
Trees of six different species were chosen for the methods
comparison study. The species included were pin oak (Quercus
palustris), American elm (Ulmus americana), linden (Tilia spp., an
unusual species that would not have been identifiable by the
appraisers), Kentucky coffeetree (Gymnocladus dioica), European
beech (Fagus sylvatica), and European ash (Fraxinus excelsior).
The trees represented a broad spectrum of those that could be
encountered in the landscape, and they included contrasts in
size, species quality, and landscape position (Table 1). The six
appraisers were not given this information until after the ap-
praisals were complete.
Appraisers were provided with a field data sheet for each
tree for recording the data required by each method. There
was a separate column for each method. Similar data re-
quired by each method were organized in rows so that they
could be recorded at the same time (e.g., life expectancy).
Information related to size or species quality that was
readily measurable, or available as part of the published
method, was already entered on the data sheet to facilitate
the evaluation process (Table 1). Wholesale nursery stock
prices required by some formulas were averaged from up
to four regional (northeast Illinois) nurseries for each spe-
cies and size required. Where no species-specific prices
were required, an average of the cost of all six species
included in the study was used (Table 2). Retail costs
were established as twice the wholesale cost. Annual
maintenance cost for STEM was calculated as 14% of the
retail cost of the tree and planting, based on the method
used by local landscape maintenance contractors (personal
communication with a local contractor). The species rat-
ing, cost per square inch of trunk area, and installed tree
cost used in the CTLA method were determined by a
regional committee for northeast Illinois.
For each species, appraised values resulting from the
different methods were compared using one-way
ANOVA (P = 0.05). Separation of means was tested using
the Student-Newman-Keuls test (P = 0.05). The coeffi-
cient of variation [(standard deviation/mean) × 100] was
used to compare the magnitude of variation in appraised
values among the methods.
In real situations, trees are usually appraised by two
appraisers, one from each of the opposing sides. To reflect
this type of realistic appraisal situation, the average differ-
Dbh
Species selection Species (cm/in.) Crown size Crown size Volume (m
3) Value factor
x
Species criteriaz (CTLA)y (CTLA) (Helliwell) (STEM) (Burnley) (Norma Granada)
Pin oak High species quality 0.7 84 (33) 3 3 877 738
(Quercus palustris)
American elm Low species quality 0.2 79 (31) 3 3 731 444
(Ulmus americana)
Linden Large trunk diameter 0.7 119 (47) 3 3 1,062 989
(Tilia spp.)
Kentucky coffeetree Small tree 0.8 15 (6) 1.5 1 35 23
(Gymnocladus dioica)
European beech Prominent landscape position; 0.7 94 (37) 4 3 966 985
(Fagus sylvatica) large crown
European ash Obscure landscape position; 0.6 94 (37) 4 3 1,253 871
(Fraxinus europea) large crown
zNot included on data sheet.
yDetermined by local committee.
xFrom table in method, based on species and size.
Table 1. Species and characteristics of trees appraised.
Packet Page 10 of 171
14 Watson: Comparing Formula Methods of Tree Appraisal
ence (percentage) in appraised value between pairs of ap-
praisers was calculated. This was done for each tree by
averaging the difference between all possible combina-
tions of two appraisers, dividing by the mean appraised
value, and then multiplying by 100.
The lowest appraised values were always from CTLA or
Helliwell (Table 3). The values produced by these two meth-
ods were not different from each other for three trees, and for
the other three trees, neither was always greater. The STEM
and Burnley methods were not significantly different from
each other on four of the six trees and were consistently much
higher than CTLA or Helliwell. Norma Granada produced
the highest values of all the formula methods for three trees
and values similar to STEM and Burnley for two trees.
The high appraised values produced by the Norma
Granada method may be related to using the method out-
side of Spain. Coefficients of unexplained, and perhaps lo-
cal, origin are used to generate the “value factors.” No
other method had such a component to the formula. When
used outside of Spain, an adjustment of this “value factor”
for other growing conditions and economic situations
(price of nursery trees) may be necessary to produce com-
pletely valid appraised values.
STEM seems to be oriented primarily towards large
and “notable” trees. Though this is not specifically men-
tioned, none of the numerous examples in the publication
are small trees. This method produced an unrealistically
high value for the small coffeetree, and this value was not
considered further in the comparisons. The other formula
methods seem more suited for use on small trees.
The range of appraised values for the same tree using
different methods varied widely: as low as a 12-fold differ-
ence between low and high for the beech (7.4-fold for the
coffeetree, not including STEM), and as high as 27.5-fold
for the linden. The large difference among values for the
linden seems to be mostly due to differences in the relative
weighting of the key factors of size and species quality in
the formula methods. In the Norma Granada method, the
high species rating and large trunk diameter contribute to
the very high value (69% higher than the next highest
value). In contrast, the Helliwell method does not consider
species, and size is measured by crown area (relatively small
for the linden relative to the trunk diameter), and this low-
est value was 76% lower than the next lowest appraised
value. For the beech, the relatively small difference between
low and high values among all methods was due mostly to
the relatively high lowest value. It was an impressive tree in
a public place, and it fared well in both the CTLA and
Helliwell methods. For all other trees, at least one of these
methods produced a much lower value, increasing the dif-
ference between low and high considerably.
Tree size. Trunk measurements are used to measure size
in the CTLA and Norma Granada methods and are pre-
sumably used as a proxy for crown size. Not unexpectedly,
the linden with the large trunk was the most valuable of
the six trees using the CTLA method (Tables 1 and 3).
This is the only method that uses cross-sectional trunk
area (an exponential calculation) as the measurement of
size. Area increases much faster than diameter or circum-
ference, and the value of trees increases rapidly with size.
Kentucky
Pin oak American elm coffeetree European ash
(Quercus (Ulmus Linden (Gymnocladus European beech (Fraxinus
palustris) americana)(Tilia spp.)dioica) (Fagus sylvatica) excelsior)
CTLA
Basic price/in2 36 36 36 36 36 36
CTLA
Installed tree cost 570 570 570 570 570 570
STEM
6-cm tree wholesale 167 167 167 167 167 167
STEM
Planting cost 283 283 283 283 283 283
Burnley
1-m3∗ tree retail 204 170 170 200 254 190
Norma Granada
6-cm tree wholesale 102 85 85 100 127 95
∗A 1 m3 tree = 1.5-in. caliper, 10 to 12 ft tall, 2.5 to 3.5 ft wide as per ANSI Z60.1 standard.
Table 2. Nursery tree purchase and planting costs used for formulas, in U.S. dollars.
Packet Page 11 of 171
15Journal of Arboriculture 28(1): January 2002
The Norma Granada method also uses trunk circumfer-
ence to measure size. The linden also had a high value using
this method, but the linden was not the most valuable tree
using Norma Granada (Table 3). For trunk diameters greater
than 76 cm (30 in.), increases in the value factor are negli-
gible with this method. Therefore, the appraised value of the
linden with a substantially larger trunk diameter would not
be expected to be greater than the four other trees also over
76 cm dbh based on size alone.
With the Burnley method, the size is measured as
canopy volume, another exponential calculation. The lin-
den had only the second largest crown volume (Table 1),
but the ash with the largest crown was valued lower than
the linden, and the beech with a slightly smaller crown
than the linden was valued higher than the linden. The
other factors apparently influenced value as much or
more than size in the Burnley method.
The Helliwell method uses cross-sectional area of the
crown to measure tree size. Using the size classes specified in
the method, all five of the large trees fell into either the large
or very large category. This resulted in only a one-point
difference between trees, and size is one of seven factors
multiplied together. Thus, size has relatively little influence
on value. STEM uses a linear measurement of crown size,
and again is one of many factors having relatively little influ-
ence on value.
Species. The influence of species quality on appraised
value also varies with method. The largest difference due to
species quality was found in the CTLA method. Pin oak
and American elm are generally considered high and low
species quality in the region (0.7 versus 0.2 rating, respec-
tively, in the Illinois rating list) and were similar in size. The
appraised values reflected this difference.
Neither STEM nor the Helliwell method considers
species directly, using only indirect species-related measures
such as longevity and rarity, and the difference between
appraised values of the oak and the elm were not great.
Species quality influences the Burnley method through in-
direct measures and also the variation in the price of nurs-
ery stock, but this does not account for the threefold
difference in value between the elm and oak. Other factors
apparently had a greater effect.
For the Norma Granada method, both the value factor
[e.g., 439 to 955 points for a 76-cm (30-in.) dbh tree] and
price of nursery stock are influenced by species. The 50%
difference in value exhibited between the elm and oak was
in line with differences in value factor (60%) and the nurs-
ery stock price (20%, Table 1).
Location. The beech and ash were examples of similar
size trees in prominent and obscure locations in the land-
scape. The Helliwell method produced the largest differ-
ence (more than fivefold) in appraised values. Three of the
seven factors rated in this method are related to location.
Five of the 20 factors rated in STEM (probably no more
than a total of 12 in practice because the participating ap-
praisers rarely rated more than one or two of the “notable”
category factors) are related to location, but the difference
between the two trees was small (1.4-fold). It was not clear
why the difference between the two trees was so small. It
may be because of the many equally weighted factors that
are simply added together and the resulting inability of any
one factor to have a large influence in value. The difference
between these two trees using the other three methods was
1.9- to 2.6-fold and very much in line with the location
components of the formulas.
Condition. No trees in poor health were available
for testing the formulas. Analysis of the formulas sug-
gests an effect similar to location for CTLA, Burnley,
and STEM. The Norma Granada method is unique in
that condition factors can either increase or the decrease
Kentucky
Pin oak American elm coffeetree European ash
Appraisal (Quercus (Ulmus Linden (Gymnocladus European beech (Fraxinus
method palustris) americana)(Tilia spp.)dioica) (Fagus sylvatica) excelsior)
CTLAz 10,700 ay 2,000 a 17,300 b 600 a 13,900 a 5,700 a
Helliwell 5,313 a 2,361 a 3,985 a 2,361 b 25,190 b 4,723 a
STEM 46,485 b 37,812 b 48,402 c 37,760 d
x 60,461 c 42,822 b
Burnley 78,898 b 26,096 b 64,994 c 4,460 c 122,950 d 46,661 b
Norma Granada 59,935 b 40,360 b 109,928 d 3,322 b 167,212 e 87,068 c
zCTLA method calls for rounding formula values to the nearest $100.
yValues followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P = 0.05.
xSTEM is not intended for use on small trees.
Table 3. Median appraised values of trees, in U.S. dollars, using the five different formula
methods.
Packet Page 12 of 171
16 Watson: Comparing Formula Methods of Tree Appraisal
basic value (0 to 200%). An average condition has little or
no effect. Condition may affect values produced by the
Helliwell method the least, because condition or health is
not rated directly.
Special Factors. The degree to which “notable” or “ex-
traordinary” factors influence the appraised value varies. Up to
10 different “notable” factors could be used in STEM, con-
tributing up to 50% of the total points in extreme cases. On a
practical basis, ratings in all categories would be unlikely on
any single tree. The examples of “notable” trees used in the
STEM publication (Flook 1996) generally scored points in 3
to 5 of the 10 categories, or less than 25% of the total points
for the tree. Appraisers participating in this study rarely rated
more than one or two of the “notable” category factors, in-
creasing the appraised value very little. The Norma Granada
and Helliwell methods treat special factors as a single specific
factor and could have about the same influence on appraised
value as condition or location. The CTLA method treats spe-
cial factors only as a consideration in determining the location
rating and would have minimal influence on appraised value.
Special factors are not mentioned in the Burnley method.
The differences among appraisers using the same formula
method are sometimes large (Kielbaso 1979; Rey-Lescure
1985; Abbot and Miller 1991; Helliwell 2000). The coeffi-
cient of variation (CoV) is a good indicator of the variation
within each method due to the individual appraisers. For
every tree, the highest CoV was associated with the
Helliwell method and the lowest with STEM (Table 4).
There seems to be strong relationship between the CoV
and the mathematical operations used in calculating the
values. Both Helliwell and STEM use a system that assigns
points to various attributes (size, health, aesthetics, etc.). The
Helliwell method multiplies all seven attributes together,
while STEM adds up to 20. The CoV is seven times higher
in the Helliwell method. Using the Helliwell method, if
two appraisers are as little as one point different on a single
factor, with everything else being identical, the appraised
values may differ by up to 100%. The CoV of the other
three methods are intermediate and similar. Each method
uses two or three multiplication operations in the formula.
Though multiplication increases variation, using it does
allow for the appraised value to be zero if a low rating of a
single factor should render the tree worthless. For example, if
the health of a tree is very poor, or it is extensively decayed
and represents a hazard, it may have no value. A zero condi-
tion/health rating would accomplish this when the condi-
tion/health factor is multiplied against the other factors, but
not if added to the others. Some provision for a zero ap-
praised value is probably needed in methods not multiplying
factors together.
Some variation is undoubtedly due to the largely subjec-
tive evaluation of tree attributes by the appraiser. The
amount of guidance provided for assigning numeric values
to factors related to health condition and to aesthetic and
functional attributes varies by method. Some provide de-
tailed rating scales or tables; others rely heavily on the exper-
tise and experience of the appraiser.
Inconsistency between appraisers has long been a con-
cern. Excessive variation between appraisers (using the same
method) can undermine the credibility of the appraisal
method. The CTLA method has been criticized for exces-
sive differences between appraisers (Kielbaso 1979; Rey-
Lescure 1985; Abbot and Miller 1991). These authors
considered differences as great as twofold to be acceptable.
The Helliwell method itself (Arboricultural Association
1994; Helliwell 2000) suggests that a twofold difference be-
tween two appraisers would be acceptable.
These comments on “acceptable difference” were made
in the usual context of two appraisals of the same tree. The
average difference between two appraisers may be a better
method of judging variation than the CoV. Variation seems
quite acceptable for all trees and methods when viewed this
way (Table 5). For example, if two individuals appraised the
pin oak using the CTLA method, the difference between
them would have averaged $45 for every $100, well
within the acceptable range of a twofold difference. Using
Kentucky
Pin oak American elm coffeetree European ash
Appraisal (Quercus (Ulmus Linden (Gymnocladus European beech (Fraxinus
method palustris) americana)(Tilia spp.)dioica) (Fagus sylvatica) excelsior)
CTLA 37 36 31 29 38 49
Helliwell 84 108 109 157 98 85
STEM 13 11 15 26 18 12
Burnley 49 42 37 22 48 58
Norma Granada 27 38 29 29 28 51
Table 4. Coefficient of variation.
Packet Page 13 of 171
17Journal of Arboriculture 28(1): January 2002
the Helliwell method, the difference would have averaged
$88 for every $100 of appraised value—greater, but still
within the limits of acceptability.
Though the average difference between two appraisers
seems acceptable for all methods, it is possible that the two
appraisers producing the highest and lowest values could be
called upon to appraise the same tree. Again with the pin
oak as an example, using the CTLA method, the high and
low appraisers were $109 apart for every $100 of appraised
value—double the average difference and just over the ac-
ceptable twofold difference. Using the Helliwell method, the
maximum difference would have averaged $275 for every
$100 of appraised value—far too high to be acceptable.
Both average and extreme differences between apprais-
ers may be somewhat greater in real-life situations for a
variety of reasons. Skills and experience of appraisers can
vary more widely than they did for this group of experts.
This group was also supplied with identical information
simultaneously. In real-life situations, appraisers are often
provided information separately and may not be working
from identical background information.
Though it is tempting to try to compare the methods to
each other, it was not the intention of this project to
judge or rank them. When comparing the appraised val-
ues among the five methods, it would appear that a tree is
worth approximately seven times more in New Zealand
and Australia than it is in the United States and Great
Britain, and perhaps even more in Spain. Can this be
true? All the methods seem to have been adopted widely
in their country of origin. Communication with the au-
thors and regular users of each of the formulas indicates
that each method is well respected and has been used
successfully in court. If the higher tree values are accepted
in some countries, the reason for it is not evident from this
study.
Variation among appraisers has been a long-standing
concern. If the difference between appraisers is consistently
too great, then the credibility of the method of appraisal
can diminish. The average difference between appraisers
was usually within the twofold difference considered ac-
ceptable by previous authors, but this acceptable difference
is probably higher than that in other fields of appraisal.
Subjectivity will always exist as appraisers are asked to make
judgments on factors that are not easily or directly measur-
able or comparable. The number of subjective factors varies
among methods, as does the guidance provided in rating
these factors. How these subjective ratings are used in the
formulas can either diminish or exaggerate the variation
among appraisers. Multiplication increases variation; addi-
tion minimizes it. Though more explicit rating scales may
help in some cases, the most effective way of reducing
appraiser subjectivity appears to be by minimizing the
number of multiplication operations used in the formulas.
Appraised values should reflect differences in size, con-
dition, longevity, amenity, and other factors, but what is the
appropriate magnitude of this difference? That will have to
be determined by the appraisal community, but for the first
time we now have information on the range that exists
between these different methods.
One thing all formula methods seem to have in com-
mon is that they are revised or replaced on a regular basis.
This may be a reflection of the difficulty of establishing a
value for something that is not normally bought and sold.
This comparison of methods may help to provide insight
as to the strengths and weaknesses of each method that
could be used in future revisions of each.
Kentucky
Pin oak American elm coffeetree European ash
(Quercus (Ulmus Linden (Gymnocladus European beech (Fraxinus
Appraisal palustris) americana)(Tilia spp.)dioica) (Fagus sylvatica) excelsior)
method Avg
z Rangey Avg Range Avg Range Avg Range Avg Range Avg Range
CTLA 45 109 42 105 38 95 35 93 46 107 57 125
Helliwell 88 275 107 332 112 349 129 491 112 294 96 252
STEM 15 39 12 33 18 49 28 86 21 61 14 39
Burnley 58 130 50 121 44 120 24 76 57 140 68 153
Norma Granada 33 79 45 103 34 92 33 101 33 71 56 166
zAverage difference in appraised values between all possible combinations of two appraisers/mean appraised value × 100.
yDifference between highest and lowest appraised values by nine individual appraisers for each method/mean appraised value × 100.
Table 5. Differences in appraised values between two appraisers.
Packet Page 14 of 171
18 Watson: Comparing Formula Methods of Tree Appraisal
Abbot, R.E., and K.C. Miller. 1991. Utility tree damage claims.
J. Arboric. 17:113–116.
Arboricultural Association. 1994. Amenity Valuation of Trees and
Woodlands (2nd ed.). Arboricultural Association, Romsey,
Hants, United Kingdom.
Asociacion Española de Parques y Jardines Publicos. 1999.
Metedo Para Valoración de Árboles y Arbustos Ornamentales.
Norma Granada. Asociacion Española de Parques y Jardines
Publicos, Madrid, Spain.
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers. 1992. Guide for Plant
Appraisal (8th ed.). International Society of Arboriculture,
Champaign, IL.
Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers. 2000. Guide for Plant
Appraisal (9th ed.). International Society of Arboriculture,
Champaign, IL.
Flook, R. 1996. A Standard Tree Evaluation Method (STEM).
Ron Flook, Tahunanui, Nelson, New Zealand.
Helliwell, D.R. 1967. The amenity value of trees and woodlands.
Arboric. J. 1:128–131.
Helliwell, D.R. 2000. Amenity Valuation of Trees and Woodlands
(rev. ed.). Arboricultural Association, Romsey, Hants, United
Kingdom.
Kielbaso, J.J. 1979. Evaluating trees in urban areas. J. Arboric.
5:70–72.
McGarry, P.J., and G.M. Moore. 1988. The Burnley method of
amenity tree evaluation. Aust. J. Arboric. 1(1):19–26.
Moore, G.M. 1991. Amenity tree evaluation: A revised method,
pp 166–171. In The Scientific Management of Plants in the
Urban Environment. Proceedings of the Burnley Centenary
Conference, Centre for Urban Horticulture, Melbourne,
Australia.
Rey-Lescure, E. 1985. The location factor in evaluating shade
trees and the replacement value in appraising hedges: Two
proposals. J. Arboric. 11:113–136.
Acknowledgments. This project was supported, in part, by a
grant from the USDA Forest Service North Central Experiment
Station. A special thanks to Colin Bashford, Patrick Buckley, John
Dwyer, Laurence Hall, James Ingram, James Kielbaso, R.J.
Laverne, David Nowak for participating as appraisers.
The Morton Arboretum
Lisle, IL, 60532, U.S.
Résumé. Les valeurs monétaires produites à partir des
méthodes d’évaluation de cinq pays différents ont été comparées
entre elles (CTLA aux États-Unis, STEM en Nouvelle-Zélande,
Helliwell en Grande-Bretagne, Norma Granada en Espagne,
Burnley en Australie). Neuf personnes ont évalués les six mêmes
arbres en utilisant chacune des cinq méthodes. Les méthodes
CTLA et Burnley produisaient sans exception les valeurs les plus
basses, et la méthode d’évaluation Norma Granada donnait
souvent celles qui étaient les plus élevées. Il y avait une relation
forte entre les variations de chacun des évaluateurs et les opérations
mathématiques utilisées dans les calculs des formules d’évaluation.
La méthode Helliwell qui multiplie ensemble tous les facteurs
d’évaluation produisait immanquablement les variations les plus
élevées entre les évaluateurs. La méthode STEM qui additionne
tous les facteurs ensembles produisait immanquablement les varia-
tions les plus faibles entre les évaluateurs. Minimiser le nombre des
opérations de multiplication employées dans les formules est une
façon effective de diminuer les variations entre les évaluateurs; mais
en faisant cela, l’influence de chacun des facteurs peut être
diminuée de façon trop prononcée.
Zusammenfassung. Von fünf unterschiedlichen Ländern
wurden die Werte von verschiedenen Baumuntersuch-
ungsmethoden verglichen (CTLA-USA, STEM-New Zealand,
Helliwell-Great Britain, Norma Granada- Spain, Burnley-Australia).
Neun Individuen untersuchen die gleichen sechs Bäume mit allen
fünf Methoden. CTLA und Burnley produzierten die niedrigsten
Werte und Norma Granada war eine der höchsten. Es gab eine
starke Relation zwischen den Unterschieden unter den Anwendern
und den mathematischen Operationen, die angewendet wurden,
um auf die Ergebnisse in den Vordrucken zu kommen. Die
Helliwell-Methode, welche alle Faktoren miteinander multipliziert,
verursachte die größten Unterschiede zwischen den Anwendern.
STEM addiert alle Faktoren zusammen und verursacht die
geringsten Unterschiede unter den Anwendern. Das Minimieren
der Multiplikationen, die in den einzelnen Methoden verwendet
wurden, reduzierte die Unterschiede unter den Anwendern, aber
der Einfluss von individuellen Bewertungskriterien wird ebenfalls
reduziert.
Resumen. Se estudiaron los métodos para calcular el valor de
los árboles en cinco países diferentes (CTLA-USA, STEM-New
Zealand, Helliwell-Great Britain, Norma Granada-Spain, Burnley-
Australia). Se evaluaron nueve ejemplares de seis árboles usando los
cinco métodos. Los métodos CTLA y Burnley produjeron
consistentemente los valores más bajos, y los valores del método
Norma Granada fueron con frecuencia los más altos. Existe una
relación estrecha en la variación entre los evaluadores y las
operaciones matemáticas usadas en los cálculos de las fórmulas. El
método Helliwell, el cual multiplica todos los factores, produjo la
variación más alta entre evaluadores. STEM, el cual suma todos los
factores, produjo la variación más baja. Una buena forma de reducir
esta variación entre evaluadores es minimizar el número de
operaciones de multiplicación usadas en las fórmulas. Sin embargo,
esto puede reducir demasiado la influencia de los factores
individuales.
Packet Page 15 of 171
Chapter 18.45
LAND CLEARING AND TREE CUTTING CODE
Sections:
18.45.000 Purposes.
18.45.010 Administering authority.
18.45.020 Permits.
18.45.030 Exemptions.
18.45.035 Procedural exemption.
18.45.040 Definitions.
18.45.045 Application requirements.
18.45.050 Performance standards for land development permits.
18.45.055 Notice.
18.45.060 Appeals.
18.45.065 Bonding.
18.45.070 Violations and penalties.
18.45.075 Public and private redress.
18.45.080 Additional remedies authorized.
18.45.000 Purposes.
This chapter provides regulations for the clearing of and the protection and
preservation of trees and associated significant vegetation for the following
purposes:
A. To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens
of Edmonds by preserving the physical and aesthetic character of the city
through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and
ground cover on improved or partially improved property;
B. To implement the policies of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971
as revised in 1984;
C. To implement and further the goals and policies of the city’s
comprehensive plan in regard to the environment, open space, wildlife
habitat, vegetation, resources, surface drainage, watershed, and economics;
D. To ensure prompt development, restoration and replanting and effective
erosion control of property during and after land clearing;
E. To promote land development practices that result in a minimal adverse
disturbance to existing vegetation and soils within the city;
Packet Page 16 of 171
F. To minimize surface water and ground water runoff and diversion;
G. To aid in the stabilization of soil, and to minimize erosion and
sedimentation;
H. To minimize the need for additional storm drainage facilities caused by
the destabilization of soils;
I. To retain clusters of trees for the abatement of noise and for wind
protection;
J. To acknowledge that trees and ground cover reduce air pollution by
producing pure oxygen from carbon dioxide;
K. To preserve and enhance wildlife and habitat including streams, riparian
corridors, wetlands and groves of trees;
L. To promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with
the city’s natural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that
certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.),
proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements,
interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable
enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground
cover;
M. To promote the reasonable improvement and development of land in the
city of Edmonds. [Ord. 3646 § 1, 2007].
18.45.010 Administering authority.
The city’s planning division manager or his/her duly authorized
representative is hereby authorized and directed to enforce all the provisions
of this chapter. [Ord. 3646 § 1, 2007].
18.45.020 Permits.
No person shall engage in or cause any land to be cleared without first
obtaining a land clearing permit from the planning division manager or
his/her designee. [Ord. 3646 § 1, 2007].
18.45.030 Exemptions.
The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter:
Packet Page 17 of 171
A. Clearing on an improved single-family lot or clearing on a partially
improved single-family lot, which is capable of being divided into one
additional lot, except for:
1. That portion of the lot that is located in a designated environmentally
sensitive area;
2. That portion of the lot that is located within 25 feet of any stream or
wetland;
3. That portion of the lot that has slopes exceeding 25 percent;
B. Unimproved lots which are not capable of being further subdivided,
except for:
1. That portion of the lot that is located in a designated environmentally
sensitive area;
2. That portion of the lot that is located within 25 feet of any stream or
wetland;
3. That portion of the lot that has slopes exceeding 25 percent;
C. Routine landscape maintenance and gardening;
D. Removal of trees and/or ground cover by the public works department,
parks department, fire department and/or public or private utility in
situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or
interruption of services provided by a utility;
E. Installation and maintenance of public utilities, after approval of the route
by the planning division manager or his or her designee, except in parks or
environmentally sensitive areas;
F. Emergency situations on private property involving danger to life or
property or substantial fire hazards. [Ord. 3646 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3507 § 1,
2004].
18.45.035 Procedural exemption.
Projects requiring the approval of the Edmonds architectural design board
(“ADB”) under the provisions of Chapter 20.10 ECDC shall be exempt from
the application and procedural requirements of this chapter; provided,
however, that:
Packet Page 18 of 171
A. Clearing on such projects shall take place only after ADB approval and
shall be in accordance with such approval. Violations shall be subject to the
remedies prescribed by this chapter. See ECDC 18.45.070.
B. ADB review of clearing proposals shall be consistent with and apply to
the standards established by this chapter. [Ord. 3646 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3507
§ 2, 2004].
18.45.040 Definitions.
A. “Caliper” shall mean the diameter of any tree trunk as measured at a
height of four feet above the ground on the upslope side of the tree.
B. “Creek” means those areas where surface waters flow sufficiently to
produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is indicated by
hydraulically sorted sediments or the removal of vegetative litter or loosely
rooted vegetation by the action of moving water. The channel or bed need
not contain water year-round. This definition is not meant to include storm
water runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are
used to store and/or convey pass-through stream flows naturally occurring
prior to construction.
C. “Clearing” means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. This
definition shall include grubbing vegetation.
D. “Clearing permit” means the written approval of the city of Edmonds
planning division manager or his or her designee to proceed with the act of
clearing property within the city limits of Edmonds.
E. “Improved lot” shall mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a
structure(s) is located, which cannot be more intensively developed or
improved pursuant to the city zoning code, and which cannot be further
subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations.
F. “Drip line” of a tree shall be described by a line projected to the ground
delineating the outermost extent of foliage in all directions.
G. “Grubbing” means the act of removing vegetation by the roots.
H. “Ground cover” shall mean a dense covering of small plants such as salal,
ivy, ferns, mosses, grasses, or other types of vegetation which normally
cover the ground.
Packet Page 19 of 171
I. “Land development permit” means a preliminary or final plat for a single-
family residential development; a building permit; site plan; preliminary or
final planned unit development plan.
J. “Lakes” are natural or artificial bodies of water of two or more acres
and/or where the deepest part of the basin at low water exceeds two meters
(6.6 feet). Artificial bodies of water with a recirculation system approved by
the public works department are not included in this definition.
K. “Mechanical equipment” shall include all motorized equipment used for
earth moving, trenching, excavation, gardening, landscaping, and general
property maintenance exceeding 12 horsepower in size.
L. “Native growth protection easement” is a restrictive area where all native,
predevelopment vegetation shall not be disturbed or removed except for
removal pursuant to an enhancement program approved pursuant to this
chapter or to remove dead or diseased vegetation. The purpose of an
easement is to protect steep slopes, slopes with erosion potential, landslide
and seismic hazards, creeks, wetlands and/or riparian corridors, wildlife, and
areas shown on the environmentally sensitive areas map. This easement shall
be defined during the development review process and shown on the
recorded plat or short plat or approved site plan.
M. “Partially improved lot” shall mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a
structure (refer to ECDC 21.90.150) is located and which is of sufficient
area so as to be capable of accommodating additional development or
improvement pursuant to the Edmonds zoning code; or which may be
subdivided in accordance with the city of Edmonds subdivision chapter.
N. “Person” shall mean any person, individual, public or private corporation,
firm, association, joint venture, partnership, owner, lessee, tenant, or any
other entity whatsoever or any combination of such, jointly or severally.
O. “Removal” is actual destruction or causing the effective destruction
through damaging, poisoning or other direct or indirect actions resulting in
the death of a tree or ground cover.
P. “Routine landscape maintenance” shall mean tree trimming and ground
cover management which is undertaken by a person in connection with the
normal maintenance and repair of property.
Packet Page 20 of 171
Q. “Tree” shall mean any living woody plant characterized by one main
stem or trunk and many branches and having a caliper of six inches or
greater, or a multi-stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown.
R. “Unimproved lot” shall mean a platted lot or parcel of land upon which
no structure (refer to ECDC 21.90.150) exists.
S. “Wetlands” are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. [Ord. 3646 § 1, 2007].
18.45.045 Application requirements.
A. An application for a land clearing permit shall be submitted on a form
provided by the city, together with a plot plan and other information as
described hereafter:
1. Name, address and telephone number of the applicant;
2. Legal status of applicant with respect to the land;
3. Written consent of owner(s) of the land, if the applicant is not the
sole owner;
4. Name of person preparing the map, drawing or diagram submitted
with the application, along with credentials if applicable;
5. Location of the property, including street number and addresses,
together with the names and addresses of all the adjacent property
owners within 80 feet of the subject property as listed in the records of
the Snohomish County assessor;
6. A plot plan, drawn to scale, of the property depicting the following
items (scale 1" = 30' or as approved by the planning division manager):
a. Topographic information,
b. Location of all existing and/or proposed structures, driveways,
and utilities,
c. Areas proposed for clearing and the proposed use for such area,
Packet Page 21 of 171
d. Designation of all diseased or damaged trees,
e. Any proposed grade changes that might adversely affect or
endanger trees on the property and specifications to maintain them,
f. Designation of trees to be removed and trees to be maintained,
g. Designation of all wetlands, streams and environmentally
sensitive areas;
7. A statement outlining the purpose of the tree removal (e.g., building
construction, street or roadway, driveway, recreation area, patio, or
parking lot), together with a proposed timetable for when the work will
occur;
8. The manner in which the cleared areas on the property will be
reclaimed with vegetation and the timetable for replanting;
9. Any other information deemed necessary by the city to allow
adequate review and implementation in conformance with the purposes
of this chapter.
B. Upon receipt of the application for a clearing permit, the staff shall
inspect the site and contiguous properties. If the staff determines that the
plan is in compliance with the provisions of this section and will result in the
removal of no more trees or vegetation than is necessary to achieve the
proposed development or improvement, the permit shall be approved as a
Type II decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC).
The city may require a modification of the clearing plan or the associated
land development permit to ensure the retention of the maximum number of
trees.
If the staff determines that the plan will result in the destruction of more
trees and vegetation than is reasonably necessary to achieve the proposed
development, the permit shall be denied.
C. Any permit granted under the provisions of this section shall expire one
year from the date of issuance. No work may commence on the permit until
the appeal time limit has expired. Upon receipt of a written request, a permit
may be extended for six months.
Packet Page 22 of 171
D. Approved plans shall not be amended without written authorization from
the city. The permit may be revoked or suspended by the city upon
discovery that incorrect information was supplied or upon any violation of
the provisions of this chapter.
E. Applications for land clearing shall be referred to other city departments
or agencies for review and approval as deemed necessary by the planning
division manager. Applications for clearing in parks shall always be referred
to the Edmonds planning board for review and approval. [Ord. 3736 § 26,
2009; Ord. 3646 § 1, 2007].
18.45.050 Performance standards for land development permits.
A. There shall be no clearing on a site for the sake of preparing that site for
sale or future development. Trees may only be removed pursuant to a
clearing permit which has been approved by the city.
B. Trees shall be retained to the maximum extent feasible.
1. Clearing should not occur outside of the areas designated on the
clearing plan.
2. No tree(s) or ground cover shall be removed from a native growth
protection easement or environmentally sensitive site unless that plot
plan and other submitted materials can demonstrate that the removal
will enhance the easement area. An exception for the installation of
roads and utilities may be approved if it can be demonstrated that
alternative access is not practical or would be more damaging and is
developed pursuant to an approved development plan.
Enhancement may include nonmechanical removal of noxious or
intrusive species or dead or diseased plants and replanting of
appropriate native species.
C. The city may restrict the timing of the land clearing and tree cutting
activities to specific dates, times, and/or seasons when such restrictions are
necessary for the public health, safety and welfare, or for the protection of
the environment.
D. Native growth protection easements may be established through the
subdivision process in the following areas:
Packet Page 23 of 171
1. A 25-foot buffer area from the annual high water mark of creeks,
streams, lakes and other shoreline areas or from top of the bank of
same, whichever provides good resource protection;
2. Areas in which the average slope is greater than 25 percent;
3. Wetlands;
4. Any other area which is determined through the environmental
review process to include significant vegetation, wildlife or other
similar resources which should be protected.
E. No ground cover or trees which are within 25 feet of the annual high
water mark of creeks, streams, lakes, and other shoreline areas or within 15
feet of the top of the bank of same should be removed, nor should any
mechanical equipment operate in such areas except for the development of
public parks and trail systems; provided, that conditions deemed by the city
to constitute a public nuisance shall be removed; and provided, that a
property owner shall not be prohibited from making landscaping
improvements where such improvements are consistent with the aims of this
chapter.
F. The city may require and/or allow the applicant to relocate or replace
trees, provide interim erosion control, hydroseed exposed slopes, or use
other similar methods which would comply with the intent of this chapter.
G. No land clearing and tree cutting shall be conducted in a wetland, except
for the installation of roads and utilities where no feasible alternative exists
and the work is done pursuant to an approved development plan.
H. When tree cutting or land clearing will occur pursuant to a building,
permit protection measures should apply for all trees which are to be
retained in areas immediately subject to construction. The requirements
listed may be modified individually or severally by the city if the developer
demonstrates them to be inapplicable to the specific on-site conditions or if
the intent of the regulations will be implemented by another means with the
same result.
Where the drip line of a tree overlaps a construction line, this shall be
indicated on the survey and the following tree protection measures shall be
employed:
Packet Page 24 of 171
1. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, or
compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of
any tree to be retained.
2. The applicant shall erect and maintain rope barriers on the drip line
or place bales of hay to protect roots. In addition, the applicant shall
provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near
trees.
3. If the grade level adjoining a retaining tree is to be raised or lowered,
the applicant shall construct a dry rock wall or rock well around the
tree. The diameter of this wall or well must be equal to the tree’s drip
line.
4. The applicant may not install ground level impervious surface
material within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be
retained.
5. The grade level around any tree to be retained may not be lowered
within the greater of the following areas: (a) the area defined by the
drip line of the tree, or (b) an area around the tree equal to one foot in
diameter for each one inch of tree caliper.
6. The applicant may prune branches and roots, fertilize and water as
horticulturally appropriate for any trees and ground cover which are to
be retained.
The planning division manager or his/her designee may approve the use of
alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques provide an equal or
greater degree of protection than the techniques listed above. [Ord. 3646 § 1,
2007].
18.45.055 Notice.
Notice to surrounding property owners shall be provided pursuant to ECDC
20.02.004, informing them of the application for a clearing permit. [Ord.
3736 § 27, 2009; Ord. 3646 § 1, 2007].
18.45.060 Appeals.
Any person aggrieved by the decision of the staff regarding a clearing permit
may appeal such decision to the hearing examiner within 10 working days of
the date of the decision. The appeal shall comply with the provisions of
Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 28, 2009; Ord. 3646 § 1, 2007].
Packet Page 25 of 171
18.45.065 Bonding.
The applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount covering the
installation of temporary erosion control measures and the clearing work to
be done on the property and the cost of any proposed revegetation. [Ord.
3646 § 1, 2007].
18.45.070 Violations and penalties.
A. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a
misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC.
Each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of
the provisions of this chapter is committed or permitted to continue shall
constitute a separate offense.
B. Any person found to be in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall
be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per day
and/or $500.00 $1,000 per tree of caliper 10” or less, $10,000 per tree of
caliper 10” to 18”, and $20,000 per tree of caliper larger than 18”. This civil
fine shall be in addition to any criminal, civil, or injunctive remedy available
to the city. The planning division manager shall utilize the procedures
outlined in Chapter 20.110 ECDC in order to notify an individual of
violation; provided, however, that the appeal process shall commence with a
notice of civil violation as provided in ECDC 20.110.040(B) and be subject
to an appeal as provided in ECDC 20.110.040(C).
C. The fines established in subsection (B) of this section shall be tripled to
$3,000 per day and/or $1,500 per tree for clearing which occurs within any
critical area or critical area buffer, in any earth subsidence or landslide
hazard area, any native growth protection easement or in any area which is
designated for transfer or dedication to public use upon final approval of a
subdivision, planned residential development or other development permit.
[Ord. 3788 § 8, 2010; Ord. 3646 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3507 § 3, 2004].
18.45.075 Public and private redress.
A. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter or of a permit
issued pursuant hereto shall be liable for all damages to public or private
property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the
affected area to its original condition prior to such violation and the payment
of any levied fine.
1. Restoration shall include the replacement of all ground cover with a
species similar to those which were removed or other approved species
Packet Page 26 of 171
such that the biological and habitat values will be substantially
replaced; and
2. For each tree removed, replacement planting of up to three trees of
the same species in the immediate vicinity of the tree(s) which was
removed so long as adequate growing space is provided for such
species. The replacement trees shall be of sufficient caliper to
adequately replace the lost tree(s). Replacement trees shall be a
minimum of three inches in caliper and shall be replaced at the
direction of the planning division manager.
B. In order that replanted species shall have an opportunity to adequately
root and establish themselves prior to disturbance by any future
development, no permit shall be issued nor final approval given to any
project until such time as all planting required to mitigate illegal activity has
been fully implemented in accordance with an approved landscaping plan,
and an adequate rooting period has expired. The plan shall meet the
performance standards established in ECDC 18.45.050. The phrase
“adequate rooting period” is defined for the purposes of this section as a
period of one calendar year from the date of planting; provided, however,
that a developer or other impacted party may apply to the architectural
design board for the establishment of a different rooting period. The
architectural design board shall establish such period which may be longer
or shorter than one calendar year based upon the species of the plants
involved, the particular point in the growing cycle at which the application is
reviewed, and the planting schedule. The architectural design board shall
establish a rooting period based upon the best scientific and biological
evidence available as necessary to reasonably ensure the establishment of
the plantings. In no event shall a rooting period be established as a penalty.
C. Restoration shall also include installation and maintenance of interim and
emergency erosion control measures until such time as the restored ground
cover and trees reach sufficient maturation to function in compliance via
performance standards identified in ECDC 18.45.050. [Ord. 3646 § 1, 2007;
Ord. 2804 § 1, 1990].
18.45.080 Additional remedies authorized.
Violation of ECDC 18.45.035(A) or of any condition of ADB approval
regarding tree clearing, the protection of native growth or landscaping
installation and maintenance shall, in addition to another remedy imposed by
this code, be a violation of the provisions of this chapter and subject to the
Packet Page 27 of 171
bonding, violation and penalty and public and private redress provisions of
ECDC 18.45.065, et seq. [Ord. 3646 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3507 § 4, 2004].
Packet Page 28 of 171
AM-3364 Item #: 1. B.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 09/14/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Review the Draft Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016) and provide comments and feedback.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital projects for at least the
next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a list of projects that need to be expanded or
will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth
Management Act. Thus, capital projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation
projects are identified within the six-year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects which
encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects.
CIP vs. CFP
The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to different needs. While the
CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying those projects to the various City funds and
revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service
standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive
Plan, and there are restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP.
The draft 2011-2016 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of General, Transportation
and Stormwater. This year's version of the CFP incorporates the most recent projects approved in the 2009 Transportation
Comprehensive Plan and the 2010 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan.
The preliminary 2011-2016 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects and
each project list is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. The CIP document is a budget planning tool and is being
included in the packet for informational purposes only.
The CFP will be presented to the full City Council on September 21, 2010 and a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for
October 5, 2010. The draft CFP was presented to the Planning Board on September 8, 2010 and a public hearing is scheduled
for the September 22nd Planning Board meeting.
Staff will provide an overview of the draft 2011-2016 CFP and would like comments and feedback from the CS/DS
Committee.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: CFP
Exhibit 2: CIP
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/09/2010 03:07 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/09/2010 05:22 PM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/10/2010 07:58 AM
Packet Page 29 of 171
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/10/2010 12:08 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 09/10/2010 12:21 PM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 09/09/2010 01:14 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/10/2010
Packet Page 30 of 171
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
1
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
2
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
3
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
4
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
5
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
6
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
8
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
9
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
1
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
2
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
3
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
4
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
5
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
6
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
7
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
8
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
9
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
0
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
1
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
2
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
3
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
4
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
5
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
6
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
7
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
8
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
5
9
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
0
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
1
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
2
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
3
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
4
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
5
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
6
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
7
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
8
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
6
9
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
0
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
1
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
2
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
3
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
4
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
5
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
6
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
7
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
8
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
7
9
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
0
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
1
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
2
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
3
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
4
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
5
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
6
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
7
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
8
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
8
9
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
0
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
1
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
2
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
3
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
4
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
5
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
6
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
7
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
8
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
9
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
0
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
1
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
2
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
3
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
4
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
5
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
6
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
7
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
8
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
0
9
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
0
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
1
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
2
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
3
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
4
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
5
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
6
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
7
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
8
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
9
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
0
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
1
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
2
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
3
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
4
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
5
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
6
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
7
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
8
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
9
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
0
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
1
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
2
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
3
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
4
o
f
1
7
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
5
o
f
1
7
1
AM-3362 Item #: 1. C.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 09/14/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Briefing on the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2011-2016).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Review the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program and provide comments and feedback.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a transportation planning document that identifies funded,
partially funded, and unfunded projects that are planned or needed over the next six calendar years. The TIP also identifies the
expenditures and secured or reasonably expected revenues for each of the projects included in the TIP.
RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city update and adopt their TIP prior to adoption of the budget. A copy of the
adopted TIP will be submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council and Washington State Department of Transportation.
Some of the projects in the TIP are shown as funded through secured or unsecured grants, as well as from the local funds.
However due to a shortfall in transportation funding, the TIP includes revenue from the Transportation Benefit District (TBD)
beginning in year 2014. The TIP is required to be financially constrained in the first three years but isn’t financially
constrained in the last three years. This future TBD revenue is based on a $40 increase to the current $20 vehicle license fee
authorized by the TBD in 2009, an increase that will be on the ballot this November. This revenue source is the only funding
source for many projects listed in this document, such as:
- 238th Street SW @ 100th Avenue Signal Upgrades
- Main Street @ 3rd Avenue Signal Upgrades,
- 76th Av. W @ 212th Street SW Intersection Upgrades,
- Main Street @ 9th Avenue Intersection Improvements (interim solution),
- Walnut Street @ 9th Avenue Intersection Improvements (interim solution),
- 76th Avenue W. @ 220th Street SW Intersection Improvements,
- Madrona Elementary School Walkway,
- Maplewood Drive Walkway, and
- Traffic Calming Program.
A number of unsecured State and Federal transportation grants have also been programmed. Most transportation grants are
competitive, and the success of how many grants are secured in the future will depend on other transportation needs and
funding requests in the region.
This overview serves as an introduction to the 2011-2016 TIP and a Public Hearing is scheduled at the next City Council
meeting (09/21/10).
Attachments
Six-Year TIP
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/09/2010 02:59 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/09/2010 05:22 PM
Packet Page 136 of 171
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/10/2010 07:58 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/10/2010 12:08 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 09/10/2010 12:21 PM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 09/09/2010 09:42 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/10/2010
Packet Page 137 of 171
Grant Opportunity Project (2011-2016)
Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Preservation/Maintenance Projects:
Annual Street Overlays Grind pavement, overlay Engineering $0 (Federal)
Possible TBD & $0 (State)
Construction $1,500,000 (TBD, unsecured)$500,000 $500,000 $500,000
City Wide Pavement maintenance to Engineering $0 (Federal)
Street improvements increase roadway life Local Funds Only & $0 (State)
Construction $22,500 (Local)$7,500 $7,500 $7,500
Citywide Upgrades to existing signals, for $0 (Federal)
Signal Improvements maintenance & technology, update existing traffic signal Local Funds Only Construction $0 (State)
cabinet elements for maintenance and technology $15,000 (Local)$5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Signal - Cabinet Improvements $0 (Federal)
Upgrade cabinets citywide - conflict monitors, constrollers Local Funds Only Construction $0 (State)
$20,000 (Local)$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
238th @ 100th Av. Signal Upgrades Rebuild signal system Engineering $0 (Federal)
and install video detection Possible TBD &$0 (State)
Construction $500,000 (TBD, unsecured)$500,000
Dayton St. Overlay Complete reconstruction of Dayton St. from Engineering $0 (Federal)
SR-104 to the railroad tracks due to poor quality of Local Funds Only & $90,000 (Local, Fund 412)$90,000
the pavement Construction $30,000 (Local)$30,000
Safety / Capacity Analysis:
212th/84th (5 Corners)Design intersection improvement Engineering $0 (Federal)
Intersection Improvements Possible Grant $247,000 (State, unsecured)$247,000
$39,000 (Local, Traffic Impact Fees)$39,000
ROW acquisition ROW $0 (Federal)
$216,000 (State, unsecured)$216,000
& $34,000 (Loca, Traffic Impact Feesl)$34,000
Construct intersection improvements Construction $0 (Federal)
Local Funds $1,730,000 (State, unsecured)$1,730,000
$270,000 (Local) $270,000
SR 524 (196th St. SW)/Design intersection improvement Possible Grant Design $0 (Federal)
88th Ave W. Intersection $50,000 (State, unsecured)$50,000
Improvements $50,000 (Local, traffic impact fees)$50,000
ROW acquisition &ROW $0 (Federal)
$81,500 (State, unsecured)$81,500
Local Funds $81,500 (Local)$81,500
Construct intersection improvements Construction $0 (Federal)
$308,000 (State, unsecured)$308,000
$308,000 (Local)$308,000
Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrade Engineering $0 (Federal)
Upgrade traffic signal Possible TBD &$0 (State)
Construction $153,000 (TBD, unsecured)$153,000
Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades Possible grant Engineering $0 (Federal)
Upgrade traffic signal &&$130,000 (State, unsecured)$20,000 $110,000
Local Funds Construction $128,000 (Local)$20,000 $108,000
Main St. @ 9th Av. S Restriping of 9th Av. S to (2) northbound Engineering $0 (Federal)
(Interim Solution)and southbound lanes (ex conditions: 1 lane for Possible TBD & $0 (State)
each approach) Construction $10,000 (TBD, unsecured)$10,000
76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Re-design intersection to make traffic signal work $0 (Federal)
Improvements more efficiently and improve the capacity / level Engineering $0 (State)
of service of the intersection.$250,000 (TBD, unsecured)$250,000
ROW acquisition $0 (Federal)
Possible TBD ROW $0 (State)
$600,000 (TBD, unsecured)$600,000
Construct intersection improvements Construction $0 (Federal)
$0 (State)
$2,040,000 (TBD, unsecured)$2,040,000
Packet Page 138 of 171
Grant Opportunity Project (2011-2016)
Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Walnut St. @ 9th Av. S Restriping of 9th Av. S to (2) northbound Engineering $0 (Federal)
(Interim Solution)and southbound lanes (ex conditions: 1 lane for Possible TBD &$0 (State)
each approach) Construction $10,000 (TBD, unsecured)$10,000
220th St. SW @ 76th Av. W Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and a Engineering $0 (Federal)
Intersection Improvements through lane. Change EB and WB phases to provide Possible TBD &$0 (State)
protected/permissive LT and Right turn overlap for WB.Construction $173,000 (TBD, unsecured)$173,000
Grant Engineering $307,000 (Federal, secured)$232,000 $75,000
228th St. SW. Corridor Safety Realign highly skewed intersection $0 (State)
to address safety and improve operations;&$89,000 (Local)$78,000 $11,000
includes new signal @ SR99/228th ROW $229,000 (Federal, secured)$229,000
Local Funds $36,000 (Local)$36,000
Improvements Construction $0 (Federal)
Possible TBD $0 (State)
$3,452,000 (TBD, unsecured)$3,452,000
Arterial Street Signal Coordination Coordinate the traffic signals within 1/2 mile of each other Engineering $0 (Federal)
Improvements along 76th Av. W, 212th St. SW, and 220th St. SW Local Funds Only & $0 (State)
Construction $50,000 (Local)$50,000
Non-motorized Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects:
Interurban Trail - 244th to 228th Pave, sign, and connect regional segment from Shoreline Grant $750,000 (Federal, secured)$750,000
to Mountlake Terrace & Construction $577,000 (State, secured)$577,000
Local Funds $0 (Local, Fund 125))
Main St. Pedestrian Lighting from 5th Av.Improve street lighting for pedestrian safety on Engineering $725,000 (Federal, unsecured)$70,000 $655,000
to 6th Av.Main St. between 5th Av. and 6th Av.Possible Grant & $0 (State)
Construction $0 (Local)
80th Av. W from 188th St. SW to Provide safe and desirable route to Possible Safe Engineering $0 (Federal)
Olympic View Dr. Walkway Routes to &$777,000 (State, unsecured)$30,000 $100,000 $647,000
Seaview Elementary and parks. School grant Construction $0 (Local)
Madrona Elementary School Walkway Improve pedestrian safety with installation of new Engineering $0 (Federal)
Possible TBD & $0 (State)
crosswalks to gain easy access to school. Construction $2,115,000 (TBD, unsecured)$440,000 $1,675,000
2nd Av. S from James St. to Main St.Engineering $0 (Federal)
Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link Possible TBD &$0 (State)
Construction $32,000 (TBD, unsecured)$32,000
Maple St from 7th to 8th Av. Walkway Engineering $0 (Federal)
Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link Possible TBD &$0 (State)
Construction $63,000 (TBD, unsecured)$63,000
Dayton St. from 7th Av. S to 8th Av. S Engineering $0 (Federal)
Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link Possible TBD & $0 (State)
Construction $79,000 (TBD, unsecured)$79,000
Shell Valley Emergency Access Provide emergency access to Shell Valley,Grant Engineering $0 (Federal)
coming from Main St.& &$250,000 (State, secured)$250,000
Local Funds Construction $243,500 (Local, Fund 412)$236,500 $7,000
226th St. SW Walkway Provide safe pedestrian missing link between SR-104 and Federal $139,000 (Federal, secured)$139,000
105th Pl. W, creating safer access to Construction $0 (State)
Sherwood Elementary and residential neighbhoods. Safety Grant $0 (Local)
ADA Curb Ramps Improv.Construct ADA compliant curb ramps where Possible TBD Engineering $0 (Federal)
Citywide (Transition Plan)&&$225,000 (Local) $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
facilities do not exist or don't meet current standards Local Funds Construction $225,000 (TBD, unsecured)$75,000 $75,000 $75,000
Bicycle Route Signing Install signate indicate (3) different bike City loops. Construction $0 (State)
Possible TBD $0 (Local)
$30,000 (TBD, unsecured)$10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Maplewood from Main St. to Provide safe sidewalk, connecting to ex. sidewalk on 200th Engineering $0 (Federal)
200th St. SW Walkway Possible TBD &$0 (State)
St. SW linking to Maplewood Elementary School.&$675,000 (TBD, unsecured)$125,000 $550,000
Meadowdale Beach Rd Walkway $0 (Federal)
Provide safe sidewalk along missing link between Possible TBD Engineering $0 (State)
76th Av. W and Olympic View Dr. $190,000 (TBD, unsecured)$190,000
Wanut St. from 3rd Av. to 4th Av. Engineering $0 (Federal)
Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link Possible TBD & $0 (State)
Construction $220,000 (TBD, unsecured)$220,000
Walnut St. from 6th Av. to 7th Av.Engineering $0 (Federal)
Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link Possible TBD &$0 (State)
Construction $110,000 (TBD, unsecured)$110,000
Packet Page 139 of 171
Grant Opportunity Project (2011-2016)
Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
4th Av. Corridor Enhancement Engineering $1,125,000 (Federal, unsecured)$25,000 $100,000 $1,000,000
Walkway Create more attractive and safer corridor along 4th Av.Possible Grant &$0 (State)
Construction $150,000 (Local, Fund 125)$50,000 $100,000
Pedestrian Countdown Signal -Install flashing countdown indicating the number of seconds Engineering $0 (Federal)
Citywide remaining in Flashing Don't Walk Operation Local Funds Only & $0 (State)
at all signalized intersections w/ pedestrian phases Construction $30,000 (Local)$10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Packet Page 140 of 171
Grant Opportunity Project (2011-2016)
Project Name Purpose Grant/Date Phase Total Cost Source 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Traffic Calming Projects:
Residential Neighborhood Traffic cirlces, speed humps,Design $0 (Federal)
Traffic Calming "Your Speed" signs, etc.Possible TBD &$0 (State)
Construction $125,000 (TBD, unsecured)$50,000 $50,000 $25,000
Traffic Planning Projects:
Transportation Plan Update Engineering $0 (Federal)
Update Transportation Plan in 2015, as required by GMA Local Funds Only &$0 (State)
Planning $200,000 (Local)$200,000
Total $22,305,000 $2,557,500 $848,000 $917,000 $6,110,500 $3,728,500 $8,143,500
Total Federal (Secured)$1,121,000 $75,000 $229,000 $0 $0 $0
Total Federal (Unsecured)$95,000 $655,000 $0 $100,000 $1,000,000 $0
Total State (Secured)$827,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total State (Unsecured)$30,000 $100,000 $647,000 $297,000 $317,500 $2,148,000
Total (TBD, unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $5,372,000 $1,973,000 $5,207,000
Total Local Fund $484,500 $18,000 $41,000 $341,500 $438,000 $788,500
Total Local (Fund 112)$108,000 $11,000 $41,000 $152,500 $404,000 $788,500
Total Local (Fund 125) $50,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0
Total Fund (Fund 412) $326,500 $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Local (Traffic Impact Fees)$0 $0 $0 $89,000 $34,000 $0
Packet Page 141 of 171
AM-3312 Item #: 2. A.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 09/14/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee:Finance Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Edmonds Chamber of Commerce request for funding.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In May 2010, the Council received a letter from the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Foundation requesting $5,000 to help
defray the costs of the 4th of July celebration put on by the Chamber.
On June 1, 2010, Mr. Ron Clyborne, 4th of July Committee Chairman and Vice President of the Chamber, spoke during the
Community Service Announcements informing the public of the upcoming July 4th event and again asked the City to help by
donating $5,000 for this event.
Council President Bernheim has placed this item on the Finance Committee for consideration.
Attach 1: Letter dated May 21, 2010 from Chamber.
Attach 2: June 1, 2010 Council Minutes.
Attachments
Attach 1 - May 2010 Chamber 4th of July Ltr
Attach 2 - June 1 2010 Approved City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/09/2010 08:32 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/10/2010 11:48 AM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 09/10/2010 12:21 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/19/2010 09:08 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/10/2010
Packet Page 142 of 171
Packet Page 143 of 171
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
June 1, 2010
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President Pro Tem
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #119126 TO #119246 DATED MAY 27, 2010 FOR
$511,626.90.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM VERIZON
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND ERIN GRAAFSTRA ($6,994.26).
3. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT - GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE / 4TH OF JULY EVENTS.
Ron Clyborne referred to a letter provided by the Chamber of Commerce regarding their request for
funding from the City for the 4th of July events. He explained the Chamber’s mission was to organize a
family oriented Independence Day in Edmonds to attract visitors and enhance the small town atmosphere.
Packet Page 144 of 171
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2010
Page 2
The Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce has been organizing events since 1907 and recently formed
the Edmonds Chamber Foundation, a 501(c)(3), to allow the public to make tax deductable donations.
One of the most worthy events the Chamber organizes each year is the 4th of July parade and fireworks,
daylong festivities that build memories for thousands. He cited last year’s Children’s Parade that had over
2,000 participants and 8,000 spectators who watched the 2-hour main parade. He anticipated increased
participation and spectators this year due to Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace’s cancelling their 4th of
July celebrations. Musical entertainment and a fireworks display complete the daylong event.
Mr. Clyborne explained the cost of the entire event is substantial and in the past have been covered by
sponsorships and donations by the business community and the public. Despite the challenge of raising
the necessary funds every year, the Chamber believes this event is critical to the community feeling and
civic pride woven into the fabric of Edmonds. He urged the public to consider a donation to the Edmonds
Chamber Foundation to help sponsor the 4th of July events.
Mr. Clyborne provided the schedule of 4th of July events:
Fun Run 11:00 a.m.
Children’s Parade 12:30 p.m.
Main Parade 1:00 p.m.
Evening Entertainment 7:30 p.m.
Fireworks 10:00 p.m.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked where the public could make donations. Mr. Clyborne provided
the Chamber’s phone number, 425-670-1496, and the Chamber’s website: EdmondsWA.com.
Mayor Haakenson commented few people realize how much effort and money the Chamber puts into the
4th of July events. He expressed his thanks to Mr. Clyborne and the Chamber for hosting the events every
year. He relayed his conversations with Executive Director Jan Vance who indicated the Chamber was on
the verge of not having this event in the future. He urged the public to contribute if they wanted
Edmonds’ 4th of July events to continue.
Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated the ability for the public to make tax deductible donations to the
Chamber Foundation would encourage donations.
4. MIKE DOUBLEDAY - WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION RECAP.
Legislative Lobbyist Mike Doubleday referred to the Final 2010 State Legislative Report in the Council
packet. He provided the following highlights of the 2010 State Legislative Session:
• $250,000 was provided in the supplemental transportation budget for the Shell Valley Emergency
Road Access project. He recognized Representatives Marko Liias and Judy Clibborn for their
assistance with that funding. He recommended the City spend those funds by the end of the
biennium, June 2011.
• A local government fiscal flexibility bill was passed that will allow Edmonds to:
o Levy a 0.1% public safety sales tax increase with voter approval; 1/3 of the funds must be
used for criminal justice purposes,
o Eliminates the non-supplant language for the existing 0.1% criminal justice sales tax, and
o Permits the City to continue to collect the tax on brokered natural gas
• The state revenue package through application of a sales tax on bottled water, candy and gum will
provide more funds to cities. Estimates are this source will generate $28 million to cities and
counties statewide. The tax on bottled water will sunset in three years; there is no sunset date on
the sales tax on candy and gum.
Packet Page 145 of 171
AM-3365 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 09/14/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Debi Humann
Department:Human Resources
Committee:Finance Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Non-Represented Compensation Policy (NRC).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/10/2010 09:34 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/10/2010 12:08 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 09/10/2010 12:21 PM
Form Started By: Debi Humann Started On: 09/10/2010 09:27 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/10/2010
Packet Page 146 of 171
AM-3363 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 09/14/2010
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Discussion and review of debt service in Funds 125 and 126.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For information only.
Previous Council Action
Various.
Narrative
Discussion and review of debt service in Funds 125 and 126.
Attachments
2010 REET Debt Summary
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/09/2010 12:04 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/10/2010 12:08 PM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 09/10/2010 12:21 PM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 09/09/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/10/2010
Packet Page 147 of 171
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND
126
Purpose
2010
Appropriation
Principal balance
attributed to Fund
126 at 12/31/2009
Original principal
balance attributed to
Fund 126
2001 BONDS, B - PRINCIPAL Marina Beach purchase 100,000$ 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 148 of 171
AM-3310 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 09/14/2010
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 Linda Hynd 09/09/2010 08:32 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/10/2010 11:47 AM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 09/10/2010 12:21 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/19/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/10/2010
Packet Page 149 of 171
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 150 of 171
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 151 of 171
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 152 of 171
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 153 of 171
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 154 of 171
Packet Page 155 of 171
AM-3311 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 09/14/2010
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 Linda Hynd 09/09/2010 08:32 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/10/2010 11:47 AM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 09/10/2010 12:21 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/19/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/10/2010
Packet Page 156 of 171
AM-3281 Item #: 2. F.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 09/14/2010
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Carl Nelson
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Interlocal Agreement with SERS for Low Cost Dark Fiber.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Mayor be authorized to sign "Interlocal Agreement Implementing Dark Fiber Optic Facilitation Agreement".
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
A major regional Public Safety project involving all Snohomish County Police and Fire Departments, as well as the County
Sheriff, is underway to replace and unify the 911 and Police/Fire/EMS record system. The vendor supplying the new system is
called "New World." As part of the "New World" effort, Snohomish Emergency Radio System (SERS) pursued a 30-year
Irrevocable Right of Use (IRU) agreement with Blackrock to connect the County data center, and the region's two 911 centers
with diverse redundant fiber routes. As part of the negotiations, SERS asked Blackrock to also connect any cities it passed
through to the county "Meet-Me" room as part of the deal.
The terms that were eventually reached by SERS and Blackrock require Blackrock to connect the two 911 centers, provide
interconnectivity within the county and provide six cities (Arlington, Edmonds, Lynnwood, Marysville, Mill Creek, and
Mukilteo) three years free use of fiber that Blackrock owns in those cities. The term of the agreement is 30 years. Per the
agreement, at the end of 3 years, those affected cities could combine their resources to pay an additional $300,000+ one-time
fee and they would also be given a 30-year IRU. If the Cities chose not pursue an IRU, each city would start paying the
$500/mo for the Blackrock connection at the end of 3 years.
As the intermediary step, Edmonds has the opportunity to enjoy the use of Blackrock fiber for 3 years. However, in order for
this to occur the City needs to enter into an interlocal with SERS to take advantage of this opportunity and to release SERS
from financial liability.
Currently the City is paying about $500/mo for a fiber connection to the County. This connection is used for our video
arraignment, other communications needs, and in the future the "New World" project. Signing of this agreement will save the
City $500/mo for 3 years or a total of $18,000. Furthermore, assuming we will use this fiber for 30 years, a greater savings can
occur if we participate in the acquisition of the 30yr IRU with the other cities. The savings over 30yrs would be greater than
$130,000, assuming $50,000 as our 1/6 share for 30 years versus a total of $180,000 for a month to month arrangement.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010-2012 Revenue:Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
Suggest shift savings of approximately $2,000 in 2010 and $12,000 for the following two years to pay for a portion of City of
Edmonds long term 30 year IRU.
Attachments
SERS Interlocal - Low Cost Fiber
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Packet Page 157 of 171
Finance Lorenzo Hines 09/09/2010 11:04 AM
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/09/2010 12:04 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/10/2010 11:45 AM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 09/10/2010 12:21 PM
Form Started By: Carl Nelson Started On: 08/09/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/10/2010
Packet Page 158 of 171
Packet Page 159 of 171
Packet Page 160 of 171
Packet Page 161 of 171
Packet Page 162 of 171
Packet Page 163 of 171
AM-3333 Item #: 3. A.
City Council Committee Meetings
Date: 09/14/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:John Westfall
Department:Fire
Committee:Public Safety Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Residential Fire Sprinkler Code Determination.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Mayor and staff recommend final determination for residential fire sprinkler systems requirements for the City and move to
public hearing. The Mayors recommendation is to adopt language requiring all new construction of dwellings to be
sprinklered, regardless if size.
Previous Council Action
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.
August 10, 2010 Residential fire sprinkler stakeholder discussion.
Narrative
The International Code Council (ICC) International Residential Code (IRC) 2009 advisory group has adopted and written fire
sprinkler requirements for all residential construction including townhouses and single-family dwellings. WA State has
repackaged all dwelling-related sprinkler language into two pertinent IRC appendix chapters left for local cities and counties to
adopt locally. The State Building Code Council that oversees and approves state housing development requires only
notification of the changes. No further review or approvals is required.
City of Edmonds has been five months in discussion amongst stakeholders including fire officials, local and area builders, real
estate agents, water purveyors, and sprinkler fitters to determine the most reasonable and cost-effective threshold for
residential fire protection. Discussion of the advantages, disadvantages, requirements, systems and connection options, costs,
and cost savings have been evaluated at this time.
An ordinance is drafted for installation of residential fire sprinkler systems (RFSS) in new construction of
one-family, two-family, and townhouses exceeding 5,000 square feet of fire area. The General Facility Charge for the water
connection in Edmonds will reflect only the domestic and non-fire protection demands when RFSS is required. Additionally,
more restrictive thresholds will not be presented prior to the next IRC cycle slated for adoption on July 1, 2013. City attorney
is conducting concurrent review and wording may be adjusted in final version.
Staff presents this final proposed ordinance in consideration of all local concerns evaluated and represents the most favored
agreement amongst all stakeholders.
Attachments
RFSS Ordinance
Sprinklers Final
Sprinklers Save Lives
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Linda Hynd 09/09/2010 08:32 AM
Final Approval Linda Hynd 09/10/2010 01:43 PM
Form Started By: John Westfall Started On: 08/30/2010 02:36 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/10/2010
Packet Page 164 of 171
Packet Page 165 of 171
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 166 of 171
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 19.05.020 is
amended to include:
19.05.020 Section amendments
C. Appendix S - Section 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. No modifications will be
made to this threshold limit prior to next code cycle update on July 1, 2013.
Section 3. New section Edmonds Community Development Code
19.25.036 is inserted:
19.25.036 Dwelling Fire Sprinkler Systems Connection Fees.
(a) Where dwelling fire sprinkler systems are required to be installed in one- or two-family
dwellings constructed under the International Residential Code (IRC), a single water connection
may provide fire protection and domestic services through combination water lines utilizing an
integrated fire and plumbing flow-through piping system described in IRC Appendix R (WAC
51-51-60105).
(b) Automatic sprinkler systems installed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall not
be subject to the cost differential from General Facility Charges for connection to the public
water system when an up-sized meter is required to meet the design flow rate for, and is solely
attributable to the installation of the automatic sprinkler system. All other costs, including the
expense of a larger meter, a general facility charge attributable to the meter sized for the
domestic service alone, and other permits and fees shall remain the responsibility of the owner.
(c) Automatic sprinkler systems designed for life safety and installed pursuant to subsection
(a) of this section are integrated and dependent upon the domestic water supply of the residential
Packet Page 167 of 171
dwelling unit. It is incumbent upon the property owner to maintain the service connection and
pay for an adequate supply of water to the residential dwelling unit.
Section 4. Effective Date
APPROVED:
. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically 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:
BY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 168 of 171
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 169 of 171
September 7, 2010
Council Members Wilson and Fraley-Monillas,
Thank you for all of your work regarding the issue of residential fire sprinklers. It is a topic
I am passionate about as a retired twenty five year firefighter myself.
Improved safety measures of this type are vital to the well being of our residents and
firefighters alike. I would like to request that as you move this issue forward you consider
recommending the model language from the International Code and not include a
minimum square foot trigger.
First, I feel quite strongly that first time home buyers, as well as middle and low income
buyers, deserve the same safety in a new home as those who can afford a larger, more
expensive home. According to our Building Department, only five building permits for
single family residence over 5,000 square feet have been issues since January 1, 2007. In
addition, only 32 building permits were issued for single family residences over 3,000
square feet have been issues since January 1, 2007.
If a minimum triggering threshold is issued, installing sprinklers would be a very rare
occurrence in Edmonds. They would be an almost moot action if issued with a 5000 square
foot trigger.
When installed during new construction the cost is affordable and has little impact on a
30 year mortgage. In addition, according to a study conducted in 2008 by the Fire
Protection Research Foundation, a home owner would save an average of 7% on their
homes insurance premium when equipped with sprinklers.
Second, regarding the issue of water hook ups: Because we are a city owned utility, we do
have latitude in setting the fees associated with sprinklers. I would suggest we include the
language regarding the hook up and meter charges in our enabling ordinance so it is clear
to builders what these fees to be established are.
Finally, while we are making code amendments, I would suggest that we require sprinklers
in multiple dwelling units between 2 and 5 units.
Please note: I have included a paper I wrote in 2009 on this subject. Thank you again for
your time and consideration.
Mike Cooper
Mayor, City of Edmonds
e-mail: Mike.cooper@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Phone: (425) 771-0246
Packet Page 170 of 171
Sprinklers save lives!
May, 2009 Mike Cooper
Sprinklers save lives! Home fire sprinklers have a 96% proven success rate of saving both lives and property.
Residential fire sprinklers protect your fire fighters and the communities they serve. As a retired career firefighter, I know
this all too well. Because the fire department typically arrive on scene after a home is well involved, they go into an already
dangerous atmosphere to look for your loved ones. I have personally gone into a home for search and rescue operations
because a child was still inside. Already engulfed, the rescue of this child inherently meant putting my crew at great risk.
This is our job as firefighters.
The science based time temperature curve, coupled with live studies conducted by the NFPA, show that within 1-2
minutes after a fire is detected, sprinklers will activate and extinguish the fire. Fire departments in average urban
and suburban areas arrive at the scene generally 4-6 minutes after 911 is called. In rural areas that could be up to
30 minutes. During that time, the fire has doubled in size every 2 minutes endangering occupant’s ability to safely exit
the building once alerted by a smoke detector. This tragic reality is of most significance in the exit accessibility of the elderly
and children.
In Washington State last year, there were 33 residential fire fatalities, Only one occurred in a building that was equipped
with fire sprinklers and that fire started in the chair where the victim was sitting. The fire sprinkler system activated and
contained the fire.
Bottom line: While a fire sprinkler will not prevent fire, they provide more time to perform search and rescue operations by
fire fighters and they get to a fire sooner, reducing civilian and fire fighter fatalities.
What is the cost? According to local sprinkler installer the typical “spec” single family residence in Snohomish County would
cost $5 – 6,000 or $1.72 to $2.51 per square foot. According to the non- profit, Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition,
construction costs increase 1-1 ½ %. In a 2008 study conducted by the Fire Protection Research Foundation an average
insurance savings to the home owner is around 7%. Here at home, that savings is around $100 per year. In addition,
several other studies show fire sprinklers to increase home values.
In closing, with increasing densities in the urban area and urban neighborhoods being built in rural areas, it is important to
make sure the neighbors fire does not become your fire.
Do fire sprinklers have short term cost increases? Yes.
Do they have long term cost savings to the developer and home owner? Yes.
Most importantly, will they allow fire fighters more time to perform search and rescue operations and potentially civilian and
fire fighter fatalities? Absolutely yes.
The facts are fire sprinklers save lives and property and the low price is worth it.
Packet Page 171 of 171