2018-08-07 City Council - Full Agenda-2167Agenda
Edmonds City Council
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
AUGUST 7, 2018, 7:00 PM
Edmonds City Council Agenda
August 7, 2018
Page 1
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2018
2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2018
3. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
4. Employee agreement
5. PRESENTATIONS
1. PSRC Award Presentation (10 min)
2. Verdant Health Commission Presentation (15 min)
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. ACTION ITEMS
1. Creative District Resolution (10 min)
2. 2018 Sewer Replacement Project Change Order (20 min)
3. Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes (10 min)
8. STUDY ITEMS
1. 2017 Transportation Benefit District Report (5 min)
2. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review (20 min)
3. Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan (60 min)
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(I).
12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
ADJOURN
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/7/2018
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2018
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
07-24-2018 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes
4.1
Packet Pg. 2
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 1
+
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
JULY 24, 2018
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Al Compaan, Police Chief
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (by phone) Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember (by phone) Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Tom Mesaros, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Mike Nelson, Council President
Dave Earling, Mayor
Elected Officials Absent
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/CONVENE IN JURY MEETING ROOM
At 6:00 p.m., the City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: PERSONNEL, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND
PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION, RCWs 42.30.110(1)(G),
42.30.140(1)(A), 42.30.110(1)(I).
The City Council then adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room in executive session to discuss
personnel, collective bargaining, and pending or potential litigation.
ADJOURN
At 7:00 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 3 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/7/2018
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of July 24, 2018
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
4.2
Packet Pg. 4
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
July 24, 2018
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Michael Nelson, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (by phone)
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember (by phone)
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Mgr.
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Brad Shipley, Associate Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess to facilitate telephone conferencing with Councilmembers Buckshnis
and Johnson.
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Tibbott. Councilmembers Buckshnis and Johnson participated by phone.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 17, 2018
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 17, 2018
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
4. SECOND QUARTER 2018 BUDGET AMENDMENT
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 2
5. PRESENTATION
1. EDMONDS BICYCLE ADVOCACY GROUP UPDATE 2018
Don Fiene, Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group (EBAG), reviewed:
Benefits of bicycling (Source: Cascade Bicycling Club)
o Cyclists have a 46% reduction in Heart Disease & 45% in Cancer risk vs Car/ Transit users
(British Medical Journal)
o Cycling 52 mins a week reduces the aging process (Mayo Clinic)
o Cycling investments provide a 550% return by way of improved Health & reduced Congestion
& Absenteeism (CTC Economic Cycle Report)
o Cycling increases mental capabilities by 15-20% (Univ. of Illinois)
o Unfortunately our kids are less apt to ride
In 1969, 48% of children 5-14 years old usually walked or cycled to school (National
Center for Safe Routes to School, 2011)
EBAG
o 24 years in Edmonds
o 501(c)6, non-profit, all volunteer organization
o Focused on;
Advocacy for bicycle friendly streets
Bringing Bicycling Education to our Children
Raising money and support
Promoting the benefits of bicycling & encouraging ridership
EBAG Goals
o Safe walking & biking routes to all schools
o Expand the Edmonds Elementary School participation from 14 to 22 schools
o Motivate and encourage the parents to become more proactive
o Develop more bicycle advocates in Edmonds & Edmonds School District
o Demonstrate to our community the Edmonds “Bike2Health” improvements upon completion
o Coordinate with our many partners regarding bicycling improvements
Our partners and supporters
o Edmonds Mayor, City Council, City Staff
o Edmonds School District
o Local & Area State Senators & Representatives
o B.I.K.E.S. Club of Snohomish County
o Hazel Miller Foundation
o Swedish/Edmonds
o Verdant Health Commission
o Kaiser Permanente
o Safe Routes to School
o Cascade Bicycle Club
Programs for Healthy Kids and Active Kids
o "Let's Go Program"
Partnership with Cascade Bicycle Club
Develops curriculum and trains PE teachers, focusing on bicycle skills and safety education
Maintains fleet of bikes and delivers them to each school for a 3-week teaching period
Evaluates training effectiveness & monitors for improvements
“Let’s Go” Impact
o 8 years in Edmonds School District
o 16 Elementary Schools/ 4 Middle Schools
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 3
o 5K Kids in Edmonds, 21K across Puget Sound
o Costs ~$3000 per school per year
o Partially supported by Verdant Grant $32K per year, the rest subsidized by Cascade
o Hazel Miller assists with new bikes and Trailers
Programs for Healthy & Active Kids
o “Safe Routes for Schools”
Nationwide program managed & funded by WSDOT
Large infrastructure grants for improving biking and walking ($500K+)
State wide grants for starting up school district programs with bikes and education (~$30K)
Program development focused on the 6 E's: evaluation, engineering, education,
encouragement, enforcement, and equity
Goals/Benefits of the program include:
- Encourage more students to walk & bike to school
- Reduce traffic congestion
- Improve student health & academic success
- Make communities more livable for everyone
Edmonds Bicycle Routes/Bike 2 Health
o EBAG has worked with Edmonds Staff over the past (20) years to develop the City Bicycle
Network reflected in the City’s Transportation Plan Update (completed every 6 years)
Resulting in many miles of bicycle lanes, routes, and trails, including the recent
Bike2Health project
Route Map of proposed and existing bike parking/locker, bike lanes, bike routes, trail/path, bike
sharrow, existing and proposed
Bike2Health
o Verdant funded (Public Hospital District Wellness Program) 3 year project supporting
Edmonds, Lynnwood, & Montlake Terrace aimed to:
Increase ridership and improve safety for bicyclists throughout the (3) cities.
Reduce barriers to bicycling by providing end-of-trip, facilities like bicycle parking and by
improving wayfinding signage, and
Raise awareness about the benefits of bicycling and provide bicycle safety education to the
community
o Completed several critical missing links of the bicycle network for the (3) participating Cities,
including:
Creating key north / south routes
Creating key east / west routes
Connecting major destinations (colleges, civic centers, employment centers, Interurban
Trail, and parks) transit hubs (Edmonds Ferry Terminal, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace
transit centers, and Swift bus rapid transit stations).
o Map of recently completed bike lanes on 76th from 220th to Olympic View Drive and on 212th
from 84th to 72nd
o Installed bicycle wayfinding signs along the major bicycle routes to guide users to key
destinations to connect the (3) Cities
o In total, the project added ~ 6 miles of new bicycle lane and ~ 10 miles of bicycle network
connected or improved by installing shared lane markings and bicycle route / wayfinding
signage
Council Support/Aid
o Promote/support safe walking & biking routes to all schools
o Support the expansion of Lets Go Edmonds Elementary School participation from 14 to 22
schools
o Motivate and encourage parents to become more proactive
o Develop more bicycle advocates in Edmonds & Edmonds School District
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 4
o Demonstrate to our community the Edmonds “Bike2Health” improvements
How to contact the EBAG:
o Don Fiene – donstr@yahoo.com, 425-299-3418
o Peter Hallson – “pjhallson@yahoo.com”, 425-673-4816
o Jan Niemi – “jan_niemi@juno.com”, 425-773-0214
o EBAG Website - http://wp.edmondsbicyclegroup.org/
o EBAG Facebook Page
o Meetings every 3rd Wednesday (September through May) 6:45pm @Frances Anderson Center
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Mr. Fiene, Peter Hallson and Jan Niemi for their efforts on bike
routes and working with students, commenting it has been a very successful partnership with EBAG on a
totally volunteer basis. She follows EBAG on Facebook.
Council President Nelson commented his oldest son just learned to ride a bike on Sunday which made him
think of Mr. Hallson’s work at elementary schools. He asked Mr. Fiene’s whether his role as a former City
employee and now as a bicycle advocate was advantageous. Mr. Fiene answered he helped create the City’s
Bikeway Plan over 20 years ago as well as updating it in subsequent years. In addition, he is familiar with
the Council’s process which is beneficial. As a bicyclist he loves to bike, travel, and take bike tours in other
counties and locally. He believes in biking for so many reasons including benefits to the environment,
health, congestion relief, etc. Council President Nelson asked if EBAG was actively seeking members. Mr.
Fiene answered yes, they reach out to the community and invite the public to get involved. They are also
interested in partnering with the walking community because non-motorized grants often have bicycle as
well as walking elements. EBAG is considering possibly changing the group to Edmonds Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advocacy Group.
Councilmember Mesaros said in preparing for a triathlon, he and his wife had the opportunity to utilize the
Interurban Trail by driving to 76th, parking, and riding on the trail. He thanked EBAG for their efforts that
make that route possible.
Councilmember Teitzel asked how Cascade Bicycle Club interrelates with to EBAG with regard to
promoting events in Edmonds. Mr. Fiene answered Cascade offers a lot of benefits; they sponsor bicycle
rides and events, have regular group rides, and support programs financially as well with their expertise via
their full-time staff. EBAG met with Cascade last week to discuss this meeting and how to advocate for
bicycling.
Peter Hallson, EBAG, an active member of Cascade Bicycle Group and a ride leader, explained Cascade
has stimulated bike routes throughout the community including some in Edmonds. Cascade has over 250
ride leaders; EBAG encourages them to use the Bike2Health routes and to increase education which is one
of Cascades’ missions. EBAG also gains strength from Cascade when submitting grants for Safe Routes to
School and for replacement bikes. The “Let’s Ride” program began with about 30 bikes and today has about
120 bikes and 4 trailers to manage the student load of approximately 6,000 students. That program has been
a collaboration between EBAG, Cascade and the funding organizations. He cited the importance of that
collaboration as well as the Council’s support of their efforts. Mr. Fiene said Cascade offers frequent group
rides throughout area; information about rides is available on Cascade’s website.
Mayor Earling recalled having visits from members of the EBAG the first year he was in office and was
impressed with the way the organization has grown and gathered strength. He encouraged EBAG to
continue its efforts.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 5
Dean Olson, Edmonds, requested the Council support the proposed firearm safety ordinance.
Carolynne Harris, Edmonds, commented she has taken in three boys recently; when she needed the police
three times, they have been wonderful and helpful. She thanked Shane Hope, Brad Shipley and the members
of the task force for developing the Housing Strategy. She supports homes for homeless and hope for the
hopeless. She liked the concept of the modules at Edmonds Lutheran. Her immediate concern was there is
nothing in Edmonds for the homeless and she supported the shed idea to provide immediate relief for the
homeless. She urged the public to look homeless people in the eye, speak to them, smile at them and give
them the humanity they need to be recognized.
Elizabethe Brown, Edmonds, a business agent with Teamster Local 763, that represents the 70 employees
in Public Works, Parks and Facilities who are struggling to negotiate a labor contact with the City. She
asked the City to change direction in their relationship with the employees. The labor contract expired
December 31st and they have been in negotiations since August 2017. In the past, they negotiated directly
with City officials; this time, despite having the inhouse expertise, the City has paid more than $38,000 to
an outside labor attorney to stall, stonewall and strong arm them. At $300/hour, the outside attorney does
not care how long it takes to bargain the contract, but the Council, the City’s leaders, should. This needless
expense of taxpayer money and the way negotiations have been conducted have poisoned the relationship
with employees. In the past Teamsters stepped up to lead in hard times, for example, accepting unpaid
furloughs. Now the economy booming and the City is having a difficult and challenging time filling open
positions, yet has decided to show workers that the City does not respect them or the work they do. Their
work makes an Edmonds kind of day possible. Teamsters build and maintain streets and sidewalks as well
as the City’s critical water, sewer, stormwater infrastructure, monitor and protect the quality of drinking
water, keep the City’s fleet on the road, clean and maintain the City’s buildings and public spaces, operate
the waste water treatment plant, manage the City cemetery, and tend and care for the City’s wonderful
parks, flowers and urban forest that make downtown Edmonds a tourist destination. A date for bargaining
is scheduled in August; she asked the Council to step up and take a stand to restore relations with employees
and bargain a contract that is fair for everyone.
Bill Lambert, Edmonds, Co-Chair of the Edmonds Chapter of the Washington Alliance for Gun
Responsibility, and one of hundreds of volunteers who secured over 350,000 signatures in support of I-
1639 despite legal action taken to reduce the time to gather signatures, said I-1639 restricts the sale of
assault rifles of ages 16 to 21, stiffens background checks and requires safe storage of guns. An effort to
pass these restrictions in the legislature during the past year was unsuccessful. I-1639 seeks to bypass
restrains imposed by various factions in the community. He hoped Councilmembers were part of the
350,000 who signed to get the initiative on the ballot and asked if they did not, why not? He hoped
Councilmembers would speak out publicly during the fall election season to urge other public officials,
friends, family and others to support I-1639. The Council has an opportunity tonight to enact a requirement
for safe gun storage in Edmonds as has been done by Seattle and King County. He referred to an editorial
in the Seattle Times by Joe McDermott that says gun violence can be reduced but cities and counties will
have to lead. He hoped the Edmonds City Council would have the courage to be one of those leaders. He
urged the Council to send a message to state lawmakers to use their power to save lives or at the very least,
allow local leaders to do so. If not now, when? If not you, who will lead?
Emma Johnson, Edmonds, a high school sophomore, said she started practicing lockdown drills when she
was five; in kindergarten, they were told to pretend a bear was trying to get into the classroom and they
needed to hide and be very quiet. Within a few years, students figured out what they were really practicing
for due to frequent news reports about school shootings including a number in Washington State. After the
2011 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, experts determined once a shooter was in the school, locking
down often made the students passive victims and the likelihood of survival would increase if they knew
how to lockdown, escape and fight back. Drills were changed from passive lockdown to non-passive, active
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 6
shooter drills; she has been trained to be a frontline of defense against an active shooter. High school and
being a teen is hard enough, now teens must deal with the knowledge that school shooting are increasing
and lawmakers are failing to protect them so they must protect ourselves. Although difficult to step out of
her comfort zone to come to the Council meeting and share her story, she felt it was too important not to.
Lives depend on change; tonight she is using her voice to advocate for change. Tonight, the Council has an
opportunity to use their vote to be part of that change, and protect her and her peers. Tonight the Council
can use their yes vote to say they hear her, represent her and vote to protect her even if they must step out
of their comfort zone.
Laura Johnson, Edmonds, a mom, gun safety advocate, and a voter who is paying attention, said in all
those roles as well as others, her focus is on children’s safety. She didn’t need to remind the Council that
having an unsecured firearm in home dramatically increases the death rate in teen and young adults who
attempt suicide or that having a irresponsibly weapon in a home has resulted in far too many naturally
curious children finding the gun and unintentionally shooting themselves or someone else. She didn’t need
to explain that youth have been negatively impacted by growing up with the increasing threat of gun
violence at school because her daughters have described that to the Council. These ordinances are essential;
at previous meetings Councilmembers have spoken passionately about the need to address gun violence
and at the last Council meeting, it was clear the Council recognized this ordinance will protect children and
potentially save the life of a distraught teen. Councilmembers are elected to legislate on citizens’ behalf. If
the Council leaves addressing gun violence to the people, or chooses not to vote, or delays out of fear, they
have chosen not to represent and protect citizens and through their complacency and non-action, by default
support the gun lobby. She urged the Council to pass the ordinance and not delay protecting our youth.
Mike Rosen, Edmonds, a member of the Housing Strategy Task Force, thanked the audience members
who attended to talk about many subjects, commenting America is at its best when we talk and work things
out. He loves the people of Edmonds, they make eye contact, smile and say greet each other. He loves the
charm, the unprecedented beauty and the access to it; he tells people he lives at the corner art and nature.
He also believes the perfect size for Edmonds was the day after he moved in. His wife moved to this area
when the Smith Tower was the tallest west of Mississippi. As Yogi Berra said, “the future ain’t what it used
to be.” People are discovering the Pacific NW in huge numbers because of its great beauty and climate and
a lot of great jobs. Last year 1,000 people moved into Seattle every month. Costs are also increasing but
wages are not which creates a gap. Currently one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans now own as much wealth
as the bottom 90 percent and that gap is growing. Health costs are increasing and bankruptcies as a result
of health cost tripled last year. He supports the Housing Strategy because it is good to have a strategy and
think about the future and opportunity and options to pursue. Every decision the Council makes has huge
impacts and has somebody saying what’s in it for me? The Strategy has six objectives; he rephrased the
objectives to what he wants, 1) safe homes and safe neighborhoods, 2) ability for the elderly to remain in
their homes, 3) diversity among young people and ability build their careers, families and lives in Edmonds,
4) protect the charm and aesthetics of natural spaces, 5) protect property rights and property values, and 6)
protect the environment. He agreed it will not be easy and will take a multipronged approach. He urged the
public to continue to talk and work together.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, opposed raising the height limits in the bowl for any reason, including
affordable housing. The Edmonds Housing Strategy contains two methods for breaking the long-time height
limit in the bowl; 1) form based development that includes incentive zoning; she suggested striking Next
Steps #4 in 9.2 on page 23, and 2) supporting transit oriented development which can include targeted
rezoning and code refinement for more intensive development and would apply on the BNSF tracks
between Main and Dayton. She recommended striking 1.1 on page 19. The study contains many general
statements that need to be edited to foreclose the possibility that loose language could open the door to
height increases in the bowl. She requested the Council consider adopting the following directive: “Nothing
in this study shall be interpreted as encouragement or permission to break the 30-foot height limit in the
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 7
bowl.” Most of the advocates of the housing study have a worthy social goal as their sole purpose, but a
smaller determined faction knows there is a lot of money to be made if a well-intentioned study can be
rigged and used as a cover to break the 30-foot height limit in the bowl. She urged the Council not to let
that happen.
Swan Seaberg, Edmonds, spoke against the proposal to tightening regulations on guns. At 14 years old he
was given a rifle and his father taught him about gun safety. When he was in the Marines with many other
18-year olds, who under this proposal would not qualify to buy a gun, there were no problems. Guns are
not the problem, it is the attitude of the news media who never call the shooters cowards. He grew up around
a lot of guns and never had any problems. Part of the problem is bullying and schools not educating kids in
gun safety.
Denise Hotchkiss, Edmonds, shared a personal experience to illustrate why gun safety is such a critical
issue. Five year ago, after her oldest daughter was verbally and emotionally attacked and betrayed in a
court-ordered meeting with someone she trusted, she went home, didn’t talk about her feelings and woke
up the next morning feeling hopeless. Knowing the court-ordered meetings would continue and there was
no one to protect her, she decided she need it to end. She found a bottle of pills on her bedside table that
she considered her sleeping pills and took a large handful of the pills. Fortunately what she considered her
sleeping pills were melatonin and a handful causes an upset stomach but no long term effects. At the time,
her daughter didn’t know that and looked for quickest way to make it end. Had a gun been available, Ms.
Hotchkiss believed that option would have been selected. Studies show that approximately 50% of youth
suicide are by gun and 90%of those are lethal; 90% of suicide by other means are not lethal. Her daughter
is alive today because she did not have access to a gun.
Heather Damron, Edmonds, said she left last week’s Council meeting elated, feeling confident the
Council would take positive steps toward curbing gun violence in the community. She referred to the NRA
and Second Amendment Foundation suing the City of Seattle over their gun safety ordinance and urged the
Council not to hesitate. The sooner the safe gun storage ordinance is passed, the sooner it can be enacted;
the time for waiting and seeing is over. She was tired of waiting and seeing and holding her breath, tired of
waiting for the robo call from the school district about an incident at an Edmonds school. During the past
14 months, she endured her brother, sister-in-law and two friends surviving the Route 91 shooting in Las
Vegas; watched the unbelievably tragic and life altering effects of a friend’s husband attempt suicide using
a gun; and a 12-year old extended family member who was the victim of an accidental shooting during
target practice. She was tired of fighting alone and not seeing the same passion in her elected officials. She
recalled at the February 20 City Council meeting Councilmember Teitzel said he never wants to hear the
words active shooter at Edmonds Elementary or Madrona Elementary and was hopeful that meaningful,
courageous action could be taken at the local, state and federal level to address the issue. She urged
Councilmembers to summon their courage and pass the safe gun storage ordinances as movement is not
being made at the federal or state level.
Rosie Bailer, Edmonds, referred to the list of 14 unintentional shootings by and of children in June in the
United States that she read last week, all of whom accessed unsecured guns in homes or cars. This month
there have been more including a 4-year old who fatally shot himself with a gun he found in his home and
a 2-year old who found a loaded gun and shot himself in head. The Council knows that common sense
legislation, such as car seats, seatbelts, bike helmets, smoking prohibitions, have made children’s lives
safer. The Council knows their actions tonight can and will save lives but are perhaps measuring the blow
back from voting on and passing the safe storage ordinance. Councilmembers may wish to delay, wait to
see how Seattle fares against the NRA, wait and see if I-1639 passes or assume it will pass and they will
not need to act. Councilmembers are elected to act, not wait; every day the Council waits, curious children
like her own 4-year old who celebrated her birthday the weekend the children she mentioned, die from
unsecured weapons and their own curiosity. Curious children wait for a world that the Council can make
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 8
safer tonight; voting no or tabling the vote for later tells her that the Council is afraid of the NRA or with
them. A member of Moms Demand Action and a registered voter, she is paying attention.
Cara Ball, Edmonds, said she speaks for those in her family who cannot because they are too hurt or
deceased. She joined the “club” on January 6, 1997 when her brother-in-law cowardly committed suicide,
when her cousin, an archeologist, was shot walking down the street in Winnemucca, Nevada and now has
physical issues as well as mental issues with trust; and on October 24, 2014 when a childhood friend’s child
was killed in the Marysville Pilchuck High School shooting. Her father, a nationally ranked rifleman, taught
her about gun safety and kept his guns locked up. If someone is having a bad day and cannot control their
emotions, they should not have the ability to harm a member of the community. She urged the Council to
support the gun storage ordinance, a simple, easy, accomplishable method that responsible gun owners
already utilize.
Terry Anderson, Edmonds, a mother, grandmother and a retired educator said people may not realize how
much children are being traumatized at school via lockdown drills, drills she has participated in as an
educator. Her granddaughter recently told her they no longer hide in a corner of a dark room with the doors
locked and the shades down, they wait under tables. Her granddaughter also described being very frightened
when they saw a shadow outside the windows and someone rattling the door when they were hiding under
the tables and being told it was only the principal checking to see if the doors were locked. She was thrilled
Edmonds was considering a requirement for safe gun storage. One of the lockdowns she participated in was
a child in junior high who brought a gun to school in his backpack to show his friends and brag about it. It
is a parents’ responsibility to prevent a child having access to a gun. She urged the Council to pass the
ordinance and was happy to be part of community that values children enough not to terrorize them in a
place they should be learning and very happy.
Mark Smith, Everett, Executive Director Housing Snohomish County and Everett, and member of the
Housing Strategy Task Force, commended Ms. Hope, her staff and BERK Consulting for their work on the
Housing Strategy. As a former City Councilmember and in his current job, he has read hundreds of these
reports and attended many community meetings and said Edmonds’ process was one of the better ones. The
report includes a lot of numbers and solid research about housing and affordability of housing in Edmonds
at all income levels, but housing is not about numbers, it is about homes, having a safe, stable affordable
place to live, raise a family and achieve dreams and aspirations. Housing is about breaking the cycle of
poverty and investing in children; there are homeless children in Edmonds attending Edmonds schools.
Housing is about helping veterans who struggle to reintegrate with society. Housing is about making sure
the elderly can continue to live in a place where they’ve spent their lives because housing in Edmonds is
not affordable to most income levels anymore. Housing is also about workforce housing; people who work
in Edmonds’ stores, clean our houses and teach our children cannot live in Edmonds. He understood the
concern and fear many people have and offered to take people on a tour of affordable housing and to meet
some of the residents to put the myths and fears to rest.
Sue Charles, Edmonds, referred to affordable housing and the increasing homeless problem she foresaw
in Edmonds. Everyone has heart for women and children and want to see people get on their feet and get a
hand up in life. She was once an Edmonds foodbank recipient herself. If guidelines are not developed to
help the thriving Edmonds community remain the incredible, unique small town it is, there will be no
turning back. She questioned whether citizens want to see the 3rd Avenue park, Meadowdale and other parks
become tent cities. The homelessness issue is pushing north; the City needs to realize this and plan. She
cited problems closer to Aurora such as needles and garbage that are starting to appear as well as an increase
in car and home break-ins. She appreciated churches’ involvement to help homeless families and children
and people’s willingness to donate, time, and money to charitable institutions. She recalled seeing a woman
near Goodwill begging; after calling 911, she was told the woman had been there for days and that was
okay. The only solution seems to be building more houses and taxing the community to help this ongoing
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 9
influx of people from all states because Edmonds is a sanctuary city. She questioned how citizens wanted
their streets to look in the future, how to preserve the Edmonds of the past, and whether citizens want to
walk down the streets without needles and human feces. Edmonds needs to act now to prevent what is
happening in Seattle, Portland and coastal California. Raising taxes and building more high-rise villages
with no thought to parking and community is not the answer for Edmonds.
Mike Hannig, Edmonds, said the gun storage ordinance was poorly worded. He was in favor of keeping
guns safe but according to the ordinance, locking the door was not enough, gun owners must have a safe.
He agreed children should not be able to access weapons. Next, he was strongly opposed to the Housing
Strategy, fearing the City would be raising taxes to pay for the land given away to developers or tax-free
development. Nothing is free, people living in Edmonds work hard; for example, he works 2600 hours/year
and his wife works close to the same. He feared property taxes would keep increasing to pay for subsidized
housing, commenting it was subsidized housing not low income. He was opposed to seeing needles in
Edmonds’ parks like can be seen in Seattle as well as tents and human feces. Seattle is a laughing stock;
San Francisco is #1, Seattle is #2 and he feared the Council wanted to make Edmonds #3.
Michelle Dotch, Edmonds, said the packet for the draft Housing Strategy was incomplete as it did not
include the minutes of the Planning Board’s July 11 meeting. She referred to the agenda memo which states,
“Other comments were not consolidated and ready to include in the Council’s July 24 packet, but they will
be provided separately in the near future.” The July 11 Planning Board meeting included comments from
14 citizens, 1 in favor, 1 in favor with reservations about relaxing code, 1 neutral and 11, including her,
opposed to the Housing Strategy moving forward. It is critical the Council have those meeting minutes
before making any determination on the strategy. The Planning Board’s deliberations and concerns about
the language in the Housing Strategy are also not included in the packet. She requested the Housing Strategy
presentation be delayed until a complete packet was provided. If the Council claims they want to include
citizens, they should be concerned that the wishes of the citizens regarding the strategy are not included in
the packet and have not been made available to the public.
Susan Nichols, Edmonds, urge the Council to support any initiatives for low income housing in Edmonds,
and not to delay and spend more public money on unneeded studies. There is a clear consensus among
housing advocates, professionals, scholars and the community that the lack of affordable housing is the key
issue causing more homelessness and putting many in the community at risk of homelessness. Anyone can
be at risk of homeless through a healthcare crisis, cancer, domestic violence, disability, or economic
calamity. She urged the Council to do the right thing and support strategies to create more affordable
housing for low income citizens.
Matt Richardson, Edmonds, said many years ago bloodletting was used, but instead of curing a patient,
it made them sicker. LBJ’s great society failed, Donald Trump’s family made a lot of money building
projects while others got poorer, cities like New York City cater to helping the poorest but only made them
poorest; more than half of New York City high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Similarly, there
are counterintuitive aspects of gun control initiatives. Washington D.C.’s prohibition on firearms and
prohibitions on open carry were overturned; the inertia is on the pro Second Amendment side. The
counterintuitive nature of current gun initiatives is gun violence is already precipitous; gun violence is
decreasing despite the increase in firearms. He questioned the correlation between firearms and homicide;
noting the U.S. is England ten years ago. He questioned whether the City would buy gun safes for its
residents and why having one’s house or car locked wasn’t enough. He summarized it was a constitutional
right to own a firearm; changing that will require amending the constitution.
Wendy Shaw, Edmonds, said at the core of political and social controversies of tonight’s topic on
affordable housing is fear; fear of change, of not being safe, of increased crime to person and property,
more property taxes and the future of the community. She asked the Council to remove fear from the minds
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 10
of Edmonds’ citizens so open-mindedness can prevail and the housing crisis can be addressed in a rational
manner. One initial action that would ease the fear of the community would be for the Council to make a
public, written statement on upholding and enforcing current laws and ordinance regarding unauthorized
encampments and to support the Police Department in enforcing such infractions. Edmonds citizens do not
want to stigmatize or prosecute homelessness but want those who violate City laws regarding unsanctioned
encampments to be prosecuted and camps dismantled. She was a resident of Ballard for near 20 years where
leadership allowed unchecked, unauthorized encampments to continue which resulted in a host of problems,
problems that led her to move to Edmonds two years ago. Problems included her son passing addicts while
walking home from middle school, an aggressive rape at 7:30 a.m. and finding syringes containing heroin
at a little league game at an elementary school. She did not want Edmonds to inherit the preventable
problems that Ballard has now, and she urged the Council to think deliberately and cautiously when making
decisions. A long-term approach to the local homeless situation will require a focused Edmonds task force
but the first step is to be clear that citizens’ safety is imperative. She recommended the Council affirm and
resolve that no unauthorized encampments would be tolerated in Edmonds.
Shawn Clark, Edmonds, referred to the affordable housing issue, commenting one of the common
narratives is the City is contemplating making concessions on building and zoning codes to allow for low
or no-income housing to accommodate the homeless that currently have few options in Edmonds. For good
reason, citizens equating the homeless with the likes of those they have seen collecting on 196th & Hwy 99,
camping in Yost Pool and leaving the remains of their recreational activities behind as well as the crimes
they commit including mailbox theft and car and home break-ins. There is a fear the City Council will allow
facilities that will attract, encourage and enable these people and their behavior, a legitimate concern in the
wake of the current opioid and meth epidemic. After reading the draft Housing Strategy, he commended
Ms. Hope and the Planning Board, he assured this complex issue was not being taken lightly; every fear,
uncertainty and doubt he and others had was addressed or parroted by one or more Planning Board
members. Seattle, Ballard and Portland are examples of what tolerance and accommodation of the homeless
and their activities does to a city. People want to know that the City and its services are being used
appropriately for the protection and sustenance of the current residents; if concessions are made, they should
be made for the existing residents. He acknowledged he did not have a solution but suggested lowering the
taxes and water and sewer bills.
Kathy Munson, Alliance for Gun Responsibility, relayed the Alliance’s strong support for the safe storage
ordinance. Gun violence is both a public health and public safety issue which merits a broad and deep set
of solutions at every level of government. Research shows that communities, cities and states with more
comprehensive gun laws have fewer deaths by gun. Municipalities on the I-5 corridor are taking a strong
stand for gun safety. The same day Seattle passed its safe storage ordinance, the Mukilteo City Council
passed a comprehensive gun safety resolution. Today, King County Councilmember Joe McDermott
introduced a package of gun safety bills and Kirkland is working on a gun safety and community safety
package. Yet Edmonds predates them all, solidifying this Council as leaders on gun safety. The youth
movement has spoken loudly and clearly on this issue as stated by Emma Johnson who is looking to adults
to protect her and her generation. The Council has the opportunity tonight not to fail Emma and her peers.
A bill addressing safe storage of firearms died in the legislature during the past session. The Alliance is
taking up the cause and working hard to pass I-1639, Safe Schools, Safe Communities. This common sense
safe municipal gun storage ordinance reinforces and supports statewide legislation and a culture that will
save lives in Edmonds and in communities across Washington.
Denis O’Malley, Edmonds, suggested it was a waste of time and money for the Council to address safe
gun storage as it is governed by state legislation. With regard to affordable housing, he often hears there is
no affordable housing for baristas and other people who work in Edmonds. He works in Broadmoor and
while he would love to be given free housing in Broadmoor; that isn’t offered so he settles for Edmonds
because it is what he can afford. To the statement that seniors are losing their housing, he suggested it was
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 11
due to property taxes and suggested the City freeze seniors’ property taxes. Subsidized housing will raise
property taxes which will result in more seniors unable to live in Edmonds. He attended the church meeting
regarding Blockable units and learned they will be on a first come first served basis, not for Edmonds
residents. More people will require more police officers. He was shocked to see the City does not have a
contract with the Teamsters, but were getting a new Edmonds sign and spending money on low income
housing. He suggested affordable housing was a waste of time and the money should be put toward the
police and fire departments and City employees. The Council represents the citizens of Edmonds and he
preferred the City settle the contract with the Teamsters instead of spending money on affordable housing.
Mike O’Malley, Edmonds, said to see the City’s employees who will be asked to pick up needles and
human waste and do other things to keep the City beautiful not have a contract makes him sick. He knows
a lot of the Teamsters, sees them cleaning the flowers beds, fixing sewers, etc. He said shame on the City
Council for studying affordable housing when the City does not have the money to settle the Teamsters’
contract. He expressed concern with the Teamsters who work in the City every day not having a contract
and found it ridiculous that the City was sourcing out negotiations to an attorney. He urged the Council to
think about the employees who make the City great; Edmonds is one of the cleanest cities due to the
employees. He urged the Council to settle the contract before wasting money on a Housing Strategy.
Bill Anderson, Woodway, said he has lived in the Edmonds area and been a member of Edmonds Lutheran
Church for 50 years. For the past 40 years, the church has been trying to develop the east lot into housing
and are finally working with partners like Compass Housing who have been around for 100 years. He
suggested visiting the low-income housing at 190th & Aurora in Shoreline; the units are fully occupied and
are not causing any inconveniences for Shoreline. He invited the public to the open house at Edmonds
Lutheran on Sunday, July 29 at 12:30 p.m. to see and tour the facility and enjoy free hotdogs and popcorn.
This facility has been licensed by the state to last 40-60 years. He summarized the Blockable units will be
a service to Edmonds.
Jennifer Delia, and her son Corbin, said her 6-year old son has been homeless twice. She is an Alaskan
Native woman, a domestic violence victim; Alaska natives are seven times more likely to be homeless. She
wasn’t homeless because she wasn’t working hard or due to an addiction, it was due to domestic violence
and having an autoimmune disease. She will never be able to work full-time. Her son has autism; when she
was working full-time and going to school, he had so many medical issues, she had to quit work. She was
unable to afford housing or to find anyone to help until she went through the YWCA Pathways for Women
program, bypassing the 7-12 year wait for housing. She and her son should be able to live in a home, have
stability, a place to cook and a place for her and her son to be productive members of society. She has been
homeless for more than 20 of her 33 years. When the public sees a homeless person asking for their help,
she urged them to understand the amount of trauma they have endured. Her family has 4-5 generations of
chronic poverty; she is the first in her family to earn an AA degree; she plans to finish with a PhD even
though she is sick, can’t work and receives subsidized housing and food stamps. When her son received a
$20 increase in his disability, the state took $100 of food stamps away from them, leaving them less than
$900/month and $190/month in food stamps. If not for subsidized housing, they would be sleeping in the
car.
Scott Shriver, Edmonds, said he works hard and could live anywhere but chose to live in Edmond. He
expressed concern the City keeps lowering the bar. Every mentor he has ever had has says work hard, catch
a couple luck breaks, things will work out. However, on the west coast, it seems people can just quit their
jobs and live in Edmonds. He did not support the Housing Strategy, commenting for those needing help,
the community will help families and kids. Adding affordable housing will increase problems. He cited the
shooting at Dairy Queen, fearing such activity would increase with more affordable housing. He suggested
Edmonds focus on the problems it has now, commenting he spent $160,000 in interest trying to get a
building permit in Edmonds.
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 12
Matthew Lyons, Edmonds, said the City Council swore an oath to the constitution; the Second
Amendment states the right to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired. He
acknowledged there are a lot of sad stories related to guns, but there is a counterbalance to stories. In the
20th century, 150 million people have been killed by political parties including 1.5 million children killed
in Germany. Regarding affordable housing, he has been involved with charities, traveled out of country,
and donated food to Edmonds Lutheran; residents in the area have concerns such as walking to Safeway
with no sidewalks and passing people camped in front of stores at Aurora Marketplace. He commented on
neighbors who have invited homeless friends/family to camp in front of their houses; on her way to the
school bus his daughter has to walk by men sleeping in cars and on the sidewalk. He requested a study on
the impact to the City of adding more affordable housing.
Michelle Goodman, Edmonds, was opposed to affordable housing although she was compassionate to
people’s needs. Her two children have a difficult time paying for housing, one recently returned home.
Housing reflects what the market can bear, and the City should not get involved in providing affordable
housing. She attended Planning Board meetings and disagreed with the assumptions in the study. To the
person who said teachers cannot live in Edmonds, she knew of at least ten teachers that live in Edmonds.
People who work in Edmonds can work and live in Edmonds; everyone has choices in life. She supported
individuals or organizations getting involved to help stop homelessness. She expressed concern with
building housing first and dealing with parking and traffic issues later.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
Mayor Earling suggested moving Item 8 before Item 7.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON, TO
MOVE ITEM 8, PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE HPC’S RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PLACING YOST HOUSE ON THE HISTORIC REGISTER, TO ITEM 7 AND
MOVE ITEM 7, POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE SAFE
STORAGE OF FIREARMS; AND AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE REPORTING OF LOST
OR STOLEN FIREARMS, TO ITEM 8. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE YOST HOUSE
LOCATED AT 658 MAPLE STREET FOR LISTING ON THE EDMONDS' REGISTER OF
HISTORIC PLACES
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien recognized the property owners in the audience, noting the
Edmonds’ Register of Historic Places is a voluntary program. He also recognized Historic Preservation
Commissioner Laura Johnson in the audience. He reviewed:
Yost House - 658 Maple Street
o Nominated for consideration for placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
o Property owners signed authorization form
Effects of listing on register
o Honorary registration denoting significant association with the history of Edmonds
o Prior to commencing any work on a register property (excluding repair and maintenance),
owner must request and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the HPC
o May be eligible for special tax valuation on their rehabilitation
Designation criteria
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 13
o Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural
heritage of Edmonds
House associated with the early pioneer history and general development of the City of
Edmonds.
House constructed by the Yost family when they were owners of a local lumber mill.
o Has integrity
Original portion of the house is largely intact vernacular style architecture.
Have been minor changes to original structure and an addition to the south side of the
original house but HPC determined these changes do not diminish the historical value of
the original house.
o At least 50 years old
Building constructed in 1907 and is 111 years old.
o Falls into at least one of the designation categories, ECDC 20.45.010.A-K.
A. Associated with events made that made significant contributions to broad patterns of
national, state or local history
House associated with the pioneer history and general development of the City of
Edmonds
B. Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of
design or construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction
House is significant for its intact vernacular architecture
E. Is associated with lives of persons significant in national, state or local history
Yost House associated with Yost family, an early pioneer family extensively involved
in the early development of Edmonds. The family were active in the lumbering,
sawmill, shingle, water supply, telephone, automotive and bus transportation
businesses and are the namesakes of Yost Park
Photographs of John and Georgia Yost and family
Significant features of house
1. Shape: Original building is a 2-story rectangular structure with a later addition to the south of
the residence
Recommendation
o HPC held public hearing on June 14, 2018
o HPC found the nomination meets the criteria and is eligible for designation on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Place
o HPC recommends the property be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
o Ordinance provided as Exhibit 1.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the tax implications with only half the house being historic.
Mr. Lien answered one of benefits of being listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places is the property
owners may be eligible for special tax valuation on their rehabilitation. If the property owners did a
renovation on the portion of the house that is designated on the register and it increases the value of the
house, they could receive a tax break on that increased value for ten years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
asked about renovation to the backside of the house. Mr. Lien answered that is not on the register, they
would not need to seek a certificate of appropriateness, etc.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Mayor
Earling closed the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4119, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT PLACING THE
YOST HOUSE ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 14
Mayor Earling announced Item 9.2, Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal, would be moved to the
August 7th Council meeting.
8. ACTION ITEM
1. POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE SAFE STORAGE OF
FIREARMS; AND AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE REPORTING OF LOST OR
STOLEN FIREARMS
Council President Nelson commented he was eager to move forward but recognized Councilmembers may
have questions and/or discussion.
Councilmember Mesaros voiced support for the ordinances, commenting this was a moment where the
community and City have a chance to act. He was in Arizona the weekend Parkland students started a
movement across the country asking elected officials to act and he and his wife participated in the march
in downtown Phoenix. One of the messages he heard was the reluctance of elected officials to act.
Municipalities do not have a great deal of authority in regard to firearms, that authority is held by the state
and federal government, but there are some windows and it was his personal belief these ordinances fell in
those windows. The Council has an opportunity to make a statement on this societal issue that Edmonds
and communities across the country are facing.
Councilmember Mesaros said in first 21 weeks of 2018, there were 23 school shootings. With regard to
how those students got access to firearms, he recognized some may be old enough to own them, but more
likely they found them unsecured. He cited another statistic, 17 children or teens are killed every day in this
country. If this was a health issue, the public would be appalled and take immediate action to stop it from
happening. He noted there are more restrictions on the use of one’s vehicle such as insurance, prohibition
on talking on a cell phone (without Bluetooth) or texting, requirement for seatbelts and child seats, obeying
speed limits, stop sign and signals, using turn signals, etc. This ordinance does not ask for much, it only
asks that gun owners secure their weapons and firearms so that unauthorized users cannot break in and use
them; that was not extraordinary, it was common sense. He was eager and anxious for other municipalities
throughout Washington to do the same which may send a message to the state legislature and they will be
willing to act.
Councilmember Teitzel applauded and thanked the members of the audience for their diligent support of
safe gun storage initiatives, both at the local level and at the state level via initiative efforts. He shared their
passion, explaining he lost a younger brother to a gun suicide many years ago as the direct result of an
unsafely stored firearm and he was hopeful the actions the Council takes can prevent such incidents in the
future. He had some concern with the complexity of this initiative versus I-1639 and was hopeful I-1639
would pass. If I-1639 passes, the City will need to work through how Edmonds’ ordinance squares with the
statewide initiative. He supported Edmonds taking the lead and hoped it would embolden other
communities to take similar action.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she believes in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms but
wanted people to be careful and safe with their guns. In 2012, her 26-year old nephew shot himself after
returning home from the Marines during the Afghanistan conflict era and having difficulty assimilating
back into society. Fifteen years before that, her great-nephew was playing with friend and the friend’s
father’s gun and shot and killed the other child. Gun violence affects everyone and in all in many ways. She
will support this ordinance for 19-year old Anna Bui, 19 year-old Jordan Ebner, 19-year old Jake Long who
were gunned down in Mukilteo and 18-year old Will Kramer who was wounded. She was also saying yes
to the ordinance for the victims of the Marysville shooting where in 3-minutes a young man used a gun he
took from his parents’ house took the lives of 14-year old Zoe Galasso, 14-year old Gia Soriano, 14-year
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 15
old Shaylee Chuckulnaskit, and 15-year old Andrew Fryberg, and wounded Nate Hatch. This ordinance is
the right thing to do; it does not prevent anyone from owning a gun, it just required guns to be locked up.
If the Marysville father had locked up his gun, Zoe, Gia, Shaylee and Andrew would be alive today.
Councilmember Buckshnis wholeheartedly agreed with Councilmembers Mesaros and Fraley-Monillas
comments. She is in Wisconsin, the hunting and fishing capital of the world where everyone owns guns.
She is unfamiliar with guns but has learned a lot over the past year working with Council President Nelson.
She supported the Council moving forward and being leaders. She was willing to be a leader and stand up
for this very simple and safe ordinance.
Councilmember Johnson commented the legislature has failed to act; therefore, the people of the state put
together an initiative. She thanked Mr. Lambert for work as Co-Chair of the Edmonds Alliance for Gun
Responsibility. She was one of the 350,000 signatures for that initiative. She thanked Council President
Nelson and the many citizens who lobbied the City Council, noting they were the foundation of
participatory democracy in the United States. She was concerned about gun safety, but in the interest of
caution, was not willing to support the ordinances for the following reasons: 1) she hoped I-1639 would
pass and that the state legislature would take appropriate action, 2) if these ordinances are passed, they will
not take effect for 30 days plus an additional 180 days for implementation, a total of 210 days or 7 months,
the end February 2019, and 3) the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit against the
City of Seattle. She preferred to wait before Edmonds takes action, pointing out Edmonds can wait until
the end of February and not lose any time implementing the ordinances. Waiting would allow time to see
the consequences of I-1639 and to lobby the state legislature. She assured she supports gun safety but
believed the Council should work within the system.
Council President Nelson said our children will judge us for what we did when communities were consumed
by gun violence. He thinks about what he will tell his son when he’s older, will he say he waited for a
citizens’ initiative because, as an elected official, there was nothing he could do, there was no law he could
write that would make a difference and it is what it is. He rejected that and didn’t believe that. Citizens
write initiatives, legislators write laws. People are either for or against safe storage in Edmonds; that is the
choice. What are Councilmembers doing as legislators to end gun violence; making speeches or sign letters
of support? Making speeches don’t save lives, laws save lives. Laws on food safety prevent food illness
and poisoning, laws on traffic safety prevent car crashes, laws requiring sprinklers and smoke detectors
have prevented countless deaths from fires, laws for drinking water protect children from drinking toxins
and heavy metals, laws requiring people wear life jackets prevent drownings and laws requiring people to
lock up their guns have and will prevent children and adults from harming loved ones. He was unwilling to
wait or pass the buck if one child’s death could be prevented. This law will save lives which is why he
introduced it and supports it and he urged Councilmembers to support it.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4120, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
SAFE STORAGE OF AND ACCESS TO FIREARMS.
Mayor Earling commented one of the downsides of being the mayor is only being able to vote at certain
times. He is not allowed for things like this unless there is a tie and if the motion is regarding an ordinance
or finances, he does not get to vote. As he said a couple weeks ago, this is a small thing and several small
things need to be done to move the ball and for legislators to take note of the actions taken.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 4020, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
REPORTING OF LOST OR STOLEN FIREARMS; INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PENALTY
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 16
FOR FAILURE TO REPORT A LOST OR STOLEN FIREARM; ADDING LEGAL
PRESUMPTIONS AND DEFENSES REGARDING COMPLIANCE OR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH SECTION 5.24.070 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE. MOTION CARRIED (5-1),
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO.
9. STUDY ITEMS
1. INTRODUCTION TO DRAFT HOUSING STRATEGY
Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Kevin Ramsey, PhD, BERK Consulting. She
recognized there were different opinions about what kind of housing should be in Edmonds and reasonable
people can differ with regard to the approach. To clarify misunderstandings, she explained the Housing
Strategy is the result of an action step in the Comprehensive Plan the Council adopted in 2015 to develop
a Housing Strategy to increase housing affordability for all income levels and to meet diverse housing
needs. The action step called for the strategy to be completed by 2019 but there was interest in having that
accomplished sooner. Tonight is an introduction of the draft Housing Strategy to begin a discussion with
the Council and no action is requested.
Ms. Hope explained between early 2015 and 2018, the Planning Board had housing on its agenda 35 times.
The Planning Board took this issue seriously, talked about solutions, problems, and many issues related to
housing and some of that work went into the proposed draft Housing Strategy. She appreciated the City
Council authorizing and funding development of the Housing Strategy and the Planning Board for taking
this issue very seriously. She reviewed:
Edmonds Housing Strategic Task Force – appointed by Mayor Earling in summer 2017
o Bill Anderson, Compass Housing Alliance
o Rev. M. Christopher Boyer, Good Shepherd Baptist Church
o Chris Collier, Alliance for Housing Affordability
o Mark Craig, Henbart, LLC
o Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Edmonds City Council
o Jamie Reece, Reece Homes Real Estate
o Mark Smith, Housing Consortium of Everett And Snohomish County
o Rob Van Tassell, Catholic Housing of Western Washington
o Anne Wermus, Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition
Project Timeline
o 2015
Comp Plan Adopted; Planning Board begins housing discussions
o July 2017
Mayor Earling appoints Housing Strategy Task Force
o September 2017 – May 2017
Evaluation of housing needs and potential actions
Six Housing Strategy Task Force meetings
o May 23, 2018
Public Open House
o June 13, 2018
Draft Housing Strategy presented at Planning Board public hearing
o July – September 2018 (estimated)
City Council to consider Housing Strategy for adoptions
Dr. Ramsey reviewed:
Priority Objectives
1. Encourage the development of market-rate multifamily housing.
2. Expand housing diversity in the “missing middle.”
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 17
3. Support the needs of an aging population.
4. Increase the supply of income-restricted affordable housing.
5. Participate in south Snohomish County strategies to reduce homelessness.
6. Provide protections for low-income tenants
Why are housing costs so high?
o When there aren’t enough homes for people, everybody competes for what’s available and
rents go up
o People are priced out of the city and drive farther and farther to get to work
o We need more homes of all shapes and sizes
o More homes to go around means more of us, from all backgrounds and incomes, can stay and
thrive in the city we love.
Housing needs in Edmonds
o Snohomish County HUD Area Median Family Income (AMI), 2017: $96,000
o Median family income in Edmonds slightly higher than county as a whole
o 31% of Edmonds households are renters
o Renter and nonfamily households much more likely to have lower income
o Graph of Median Household Income 2011-2015
o Graph of Edmonds Household Income as a Percentage of AMI, by Housing Tenure
o Nearly 6,000 households in Edmonds are cost-burdened
o Over 4,000 are low-income households
o There is a severe lack of income-restricted housing to meet the need
o Graph of extremely low income, very low income, low-income, moderate income and above
median income households
Mismatch between wages and housing costs
o Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds.
o 60% of these jobs pay less than $40,000 per year.
o This is approximately 40% of Area Median Income (AMI).
o Average rents are unaffordable to these workers.
o Graph of Affordability of Average Cost Rental Units in Edmonds, September 2017
o Profile: Home health aide
Income: $26,000 per year
Affordable rent: $840 per month
Average rent for a studio in Edmonds: $1,000 per month
Small apartments like studios are in very short supply in Edmonds
Edmonds’ workforce face long commutes
o At least 2,400 low-wage workers commute long distances to jobs in Edmonds
o ~1,100 commute more than 25 miles
o Graph of very low wage and low wage workers’ commutes
Housing stock is not aligned with housing needs
o Shortage of smaller housing types:
o Over 70% of households in Edmonds have only 1 or 2 members.
o Yet only 11% of housing units have 1 bedroom or less.
o Graph of size of households in Edmonds
o Graph of size of housing stock in Edmonds
Dr. Ramsey reviewed the draft Housing Strategy:
Priority Objectives
1. Encourage the development of market-rate multifamily housing.
2. Expand housing diversity in the “missing middle.”
3. Support the needs of an aging population.
4. Increase the supply of income-restricted affordable housing.
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 18
5. Participate in south Snohomish County strategies to reduce homelessness.
6. Provide protections for low-income tenants
Recommended actions to support workforce housing
o Encourage the development of multifamily housing
Focus in TOD corridors
Allow for more flexibility in limited locations for:
- Building heights or density
- Some parking requirements
- Unit sizes
- Simplify the permitting process
o Increase the supply of income- restricted housing
Inventory lands suitable for affordable housing development
Contribute to the Alliance for Housing Affordability to support regional efforts to develop
affordable housing in or near Edmonds.
o Profile: Single parent working as a receptionist
Income: $34,000 per year
Affordable rent: $960 per month
Average rent for a 1-bedroom apartment in Edmonds: $1,200 per month
Small apartments are in very short supply in Edmonds.
Recommended actions to support family housing
o Allow for greater diversity of housing types
Townhomes
Duplexes
Clustered cottage housing
Small-lot single-family homes
o Current Edmonds housing inventory (2017)
Multi-family (5+ units) 30%
Multi-family (3 or 4 units) 5%
Duplexes 2%
Single family 63%
o Profile: Veteran fire fighter and part-time barista supporting family of 4
Household income: $83,400
Affordable rent: $2,085 per month
Average rent for single family home: $2,400
Affordable family housing options are in short supply
Example: Portland’s Infill Design Project
o Goals
Allow for infill development in residential neighborhoods.
Increase diversity of housing options.
Ensure the design of new development is consistent with neighborhood character.
1. Scale of houses: Smaller houses that better fit existing neighborhoods
2. Housing options: More housing options for people’s changing needs
3. Narrow lots: Clear and fair rules for narrow lot development
o Actions
Convened residents and stakeholders to develop several housing prototypes that meet
regulations and design standards.
Allowed for speedier permitting of projects that used the prototypes
Recommended actions to support senior housing
o Partnerships to support aging in place, such as:
Home modifications
Shared housing
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 19
Transportation
Recreation & socialization
Other services
o Property tax or utility rate relief for low-income
o Reduction of code barriers to senior-serving retirement homes and assisted living
o Relax requirements for accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
o Aging in Edmonds
20% of residents are age 65+
Over 7,000 more residents will reach the age of 65+ over the next 10 years
Over 1,900 senior households are cost-burdened
Example: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
o Benefits of ADUs
Expand affordable housing options in existing single family areas with minimal impacts
on community character.
Provide a source of income to homeowners who are struggling to afford rising housing
costs.
Provide a separate living space for an aging family member in need of support or care.
o ADUs in Neighboring Communities
Mountlake Terrace is encouraging ADUs
- More flexible requirements
- Providing guidance materials for homeowners
Potential actions to address homelessness
o Explore partnerships with the County, south county cities, and nonprofit service providers
o Explore opportunities to support and reduce barriers to the development of permanent
supportive housing
o Consider reducing barriers to single room occupancy housing
o Consider reducing barriers to the development of temporary shelters such as tiny home villages.
o Explore partnerships to keep and expand winter shelter programs.
o Edmonds is currently conducting a separate assessment of the needs of homeless residents and
options to address those needs. This study will be used to refine and prioritize potential actions.
Ms. Hope reviewed:
Recommended and potential actions by priority objective
o Recommended Action - Objective 1: Encourage the development of multifamily housing
Support transit-oriented development along current and future transit corridors.
Allow greater flexibility in multifamily zones
Reduce residential parking requirements in targeted areas
Provide for a fast, predictable, and user-friendly permitting process
Provide density bonuses for projects that set aside income restricted units
Explore the application of “micro-housing” style developments.
o Recommended Action - Objective 2: Expand housing diversity in the “Missing Middle”
Allow more flexible requirements for accessory dwelling units and backyard cottages
Allow for more housing diversity in some single-family areas
- Townhomes
- Duplexes
- Clustered cottage housing
- Small-lot single-family homes
o Recommended Action - Objective 3: Support the needs of an aging population
Pursue partnerships to support aging in place
Explore property tax relief
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 20
o Recommended Action - Objective 4: Increase the supply of income-restricted affordable
housing
Conduct an inventory of public and non-profit land suitable for affordable housing
development
Allocate City resources to support new affordable housing development targeted at 0–30
percent AMI
Pursue Section 8 voucher allocations
Encourage the use of available grants and tax credits for affordable housing development
Expand the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program
Explore the development of an inclusionary zoning program
Keep reduced development fees for low-income housing
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Hope continued her review:
o Potential Action – Objective 5: Participate in south Snohomish County strategies to reduce
homelessness
Explore partnerships with the County, south county cities, and non-profit service providers
Explore opportunities to support and reduce barriers to the development of permanent
supportive housing
Consider reducing barriers to single room occupancy housing
Consider reducing barriers to the development of temporary shelters such as tiny home
villages
Explore partnerships to keep and expand winter shelter programs
o Recommended Action - Objective 6: Provide protections for low-income tenants
Create requirements to provide fair housing information
Create anti-discrimination requirements for
Next steps and proposed timeline
o City Council
Review draft Strategy July 24
Hold public hearing August 21
Discussion & direction on August 28
Optional: Finalize September 4
o Implementation of specific actions
Fall 2018 – 2019 (with some later)
Council President Nelson said he wants a Housing Strategy for Edmonds, not Anytown USA. In looking at
other housing strategies in the state, there are a lot of similarities. He wanted to see Edmonds in the Housing
Strategy, not just statistic and numbers. He emphasized the issue is not just housing, it is homes. He also
wanted a strategy that acknowledges and addresses the concerns and questions the public expressed tonight
and in past public forums. Those questions need to be answered; for example, will it raise or lower property
taxes? Will more homes increase crime or will there be no change? Will more homes increase traffic and
congestion? What communities in this region have successfully tackled this problem? How have more
ADUs impacted Mountlake Terrace? What is the fiscal impact of having more affordable housing in a
community? How many jobs are created? How much local and state tax revenue is generated? What are the
economic benefits for the entire community? Do people who spend less on rent have more money to spend
on necessities and support local businesses? Do more affordable homes save taxpayers and governments
that would otherwise spend money on emergency room visits, police calls, jail beds?
With regard to the missing middle, Council President Nelson said it is clear public engagement is missing
and he wanted to see more of that in the strategy. He noted Kirkland and Issaquah both had surveys that
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 21
resulted in specific objectives. For example, Kirkland has a neighborhood character goal, to maintain and
enhance the unique residential character of each city neighborhood. Issaquah provided a variety of
approaches to limit and mitigate teardown of residences in established neighborhoods. Edmonds’ strategy
could include objectives that were the result of public input. He liked the idea of ADUs, but did not like the
idea of tiny homes, finding them similar to jail cells. He needed to see how the housing strategy makes
sense in Edmonds and found that missing in the proposed draft.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the minutes of the last Planning Board meeting. Ms. Hope
explained the draft minutes were not available in time for tonight’s meeting because the minute taker was
on vacation. The minutes will be prepared well in advance of the next discussion; tonight is not the
conclusionary meeting. The Council was provided a packet of other comments that have been received.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about heights in the bowl. Ms. Hope answered there is no intent in
the strategy to raise heights in the bowl. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented some of the strategy
is directed at Hwy 99 and other areas. Ms. Hope agreed, the strategy is intended to be citywide, recognizing
there are certain areas including Hwy 99 where some of the actions are appropriate. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas agreed heights, view blockage, etc. are not issues on Hwy 99.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the work the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is doing on growth
planning through Vision 2040 and Vision 2050, commenting the draft strategy fits well within that
framework and takes into account the PSRC’s plans and objectives. He referred to a comment in the July
27, 2018 Planning Board minutes by Board Member Crank who said she previously lived in Mountain
View, California, that used a Below Market Rate (BMR) program as one of its housing strategies. The
program required developers of multi-use projects to set aside 10% of all new housing units for low and
moderate-income persons. She recalled that, at the public hearing, citizens were concerned that the Housing
Strategy would result in a flood of people into Edmonds, but this was not part of the conversation in
Mountain View because the program established priorities for who could live in the units. Based on a
priority system, first preference was given to Mountain View public safety employees, public school
teachers who work in Mountain View, households who live in Mountain View and households who have
worked in Mountain View for at least two years. The program was all about serving people who are already
contributing members of the community which she believes is also the spirit of the draft housing strategy.
Councilmember Teitzel presumed if Mountain View was able to pursue that strategy, it did not violate
federal law and asked if it would violate Washington State law. Ms. Hope answered it depends, if the City
funded the project, those type of requirements could be established. If the City does not fund the project,
all those restrictions likely could not be placed on a project. Councilmember Teitzel read from Planning
Board Member Crank’s comment, the program required developers of multi-use projects to set aside 10%
of all new housing units for low and moderate-income persons. Ms. Hope answered there are ways the City
could do that such as inclusionary zoning.
Councilmember Mesaros commented this is a good beginning; there will be a lot of questions to discover
and answer which is the reason for the process and gathering more public input. He asked if increased taxes
were anticipated as a result of this strategy. Ms. Hope said she did not expect an increase in taxes; if the
Council follows through with plan, the there is no expectation the City will spend large amounts of money
on housing. Much of the strategy is related to partnerships, working with others to see what can be done as
well as some code amendments to allow different things to occur. She did not see any change to taxes as a
result of the Housing Strategy unless the Council chooses something different.
Councilmember Mesaros commented the missing middle is a key factor in Edmonds such as the ability to
downsize. After raising a family in a 4-bedroom house near the Sherwood neighborhood, it was fun to
watch a young family move in when he and his wife moved to 2-bedroom condominium. They were
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 22
fortunate that opportunity was available when they wanted to make that move. The economics of families
moving in will provide additional revenue for City. He emphasized the Housing Strategy is a strategy, a lot
of planning will follow. He summarized people are moving here and the City needs to prepare.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there was not much in the strategy about senior housing and
veteran housing. She suggested coalition building to create that type of housing was important. Ms. Hope
responded diverse housing needs includes veterans, seniors, families, etc.
Councilmember Mesaros commented Compass Housing Alliance who is partnering with Edmonds
Lutheran Church on their project have been meeting housing needs in the community for 100 years.
Approximately 12-15 years ago, Compass built a facility specifically for veterans on 200th, south of Costco
in Shoreline. The firm he was associated with for 22 years helped raise $4 million in private philanthropy
for that facility and the project received a number of government grants. The building looks like a nice,
ordinary apartment building and it is not apparent it is subsidized housing for veterans. He anticipated with
partners like Compass, there will be other quality projects.
Councilmember Teitzel commented he was very partial to the needs of the senior population, noting he was
Medicare eligible. Edmonds has the highest average age in Snohomish County and a lot of seniors want to
age in place in Edmonds. For that reason, he likes the proposal related to ADUs and DADUs which will
enable people to stay in Edmonds.
Councilmember Johnson commented the State of Washington has a deferred tax program for low income
seniors; application forms are available from the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office. For anyone having
difficulty paying their utility bills, she suggested contacting the utility for a reduce rate; Edmonds, the PUD
and Snohomish County all have programs.
Mayor Earling asked Ms. Hope to pass on his thanks to the Edmonds Housing Strategic Task Force. He
was encouraged by the draft strategy, noting there was still time in the process to answer questions. He
emphasized this was a strategy, not immediate direction. He recognized the man who spoke tonight who
said he read the entire report and it answered most of his questions. He encouraged the public to take the
time to read the report.
2. SENIOR CENTER LEASE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
This item was rescheduled to the August 7 Council meeting.
3. CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE UPDATE
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed.
Background
o Completed CAO update in May 2016
o June 2016 Department of Ecology Issues updated Wetland Guidance in Publication No. 16-06-
001
o Updated Wetland Guidance Incorporated into Shoreline Management Program
o Shoreline Management Act vs. Growth Management Act
Within shoreline jurisdiction, the SMA rules
Outside of shoreline jurisdiction, the GMA and CAO rule
As a result, the City had two wetland regulations, one that applied in shoreline jurisdiction
and one that applied outside of shoreline jurisdiction
o SMP Periodic Review
SMP Excepted Sections
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 23
o ECDC 23.50.010.B, Wetland Ratings.
o ECDC 23.50.040.F.1, Standard Buffer Widths.
o ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands.
o ECDC 23.50.040.K, Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands
History Repeats Itself (almost)
o Public Hearing before Planning Board on July 11, 2018 and forwarded recommendation to City
Council to update to the 2016 guidance
o Ecology issues new wetland guidance on July 12, 2018
“If you are a local planner in the process of updating your CAO, we recommend that you
use these modified wetland buffer tables in your update.”
o Staff is seeking verification of the Council’s intent to have the most recent wetland guidance
incorporated within the City’s wetland regulations
Ecology 2018 Wetland Guidance
o “We made the changes based on public feedback and our own review of the reference wetland
data used to calibrate the Washington State Wetland Rating System. We knew we needed to
make modifications in the grouping of habitat scores.”
Wetland Buffer Requirement Tables
2016
Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
If Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer Width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category 3-4 5 6-7 8-9
Category 1: Based on total score 75 105 165 225
2018
Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
If Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer Width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category 3-5 6-7 8-9
Category 1: Based on total score 75 110 225
Does the Council wish to have staff update the wetland regulations consistent with the most recent
wetland guidance from the Department of Ecology?
It was the consensus of the Council that they wanted staff to update the wetland regulations consistent with
the most recent guidance from Department of Ecology.
10. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Due to the late hour, this item was omitted from the agenda.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling encouraged the public to attend the Police Department open house on Thursday from 6 to 8
p.m. at the police station. He reported hundreds of people enjoyed the Sand Sculpture Contest at the beach
today. For the first time, he judged the great artwork created by younger participants.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Mesaros reported he also had a delightful time at the Sand Sculpture Contest at Marina
Beach this afternoon. He completed a triathlon on Sunday and came in third out of four in his age group.
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 24
Council President Nelson said both of sons were at the Sand Sculpture Contest today. He thanked
Councilmembers and citizens who spoke tonight in support of safe gun storage, particularly Moms Demand
Action and the Alliance for Gun Responsibility.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was proud of Edmonds and the Council tonight.
Councilmember Teitzel thanked the citizens who attended tonight in support of the gun storage initiative
as well as those who spoke for and against the Housing Strategy as citizens expressing their well-thought
out opinions help the Council make better decisions.
Councilmember Johnson thanked the Council for allowing her to participate by phone. She announced a
woman doing a marathon walk will walk from Mukilteo to Edmonds on August 9 and from Edmonds to
Seattle on August 10 and suggested walkers consider joining her. Additional details will be available on
My Edmonds News.
13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
15. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m.
4.2.a
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 07-24-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/7/2018
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #232296 through #232392 dated July 26, 2018 for $670,518.71, claim checks
#232393 through #232507 dated August 2, 2018 for $1,448,311.71 (re-issued check #232422 $9.65) and
wire payment of $417.67.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #63379 through #63388 for $564,752.00, benefit checks
#63389 through #63394 and wire payments of $536,908.12 for the pay period July 16, 2018 through July
31, 2018.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
claim cks 07-26-18
claim cks 08-02-18
wire 08-01-18
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-02-18
payroll summary 07-31-18
payroll benefit 07-31-18
4.3
Packet Pg. 29
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232296 7/26/2018065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 12382WWTP: 7/1918 ANTS PEST CONTROL SERVICEAnts Pest Control Service423.000.76.535.80.41.00 325.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 33.48Total :358.48232297 7/26/2018064286 ADVANCE DOOR SYSTEMS INC 13818PLAZA RM - PARTSPlaza Rm - Parts001.000.66.518.30.31.00 93.7610.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.37Total :103.13232298 7/26/2018069156 ADVISARTS INC 7/11 BACH CREAT DIST7/11 BACH CREATIVE DIST APPLICATION REVI7/11 BACH CREATIVE DIST APPLICATION117.100.64.573.20.41.00 345.00Total :345.00232299 7/26/2018076696 ALLPLAY SYSTEMS LLC 2018-065 RET RELEASE 2018-065 RETAINAGE RELEASE2018-065 RETAINAGE RELEASE125.000.223.400 13,594.10Total :13,594.10232300 7/26/2018 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1990718200PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATSPUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.61PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.111Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 30Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds2 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232300 7/26/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICESPUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0810.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1710.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.62FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1990796586FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS001.000.66.518.30.24.00 32.5710.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.35WWTP: 7/18/18 UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MATS1990806904Mats/Towels423.000.76.535.80.41.00 106.38Uniforms423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.5010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.9610.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1990806905PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE001.000.64.576.80.24.00 56.86FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1990806906FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS001.000.66.518.30.24.00 27.312Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 31Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds3 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232300 7/26/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES10.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.81PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1990810792PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.61PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0810.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1710.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.62FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1990810793FLEET DIVISION MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 18.4010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.5910.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.893Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 32Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds4 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232300 7/26/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICESFLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.68Total :341.54232301 7/26/2018001777 AURORA PLUMBING & ELECTRIC INV263126FS 20 - SUPPLIESFS 20 - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 189.9510.1 % Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.18Total :209.13232302 7/26/2018 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 10041E5JB.SERVICES THRU 6/22/18E5JB.Services thru 6/22/18421.000.74.594.34.65.41 8,951.01E5JB.Services thru 6/22/18423.200.75.594.35.65.41 8,951.01E5JB.Services thru 6/22/18422.000.72.594.31.65.41 8,951.01E5GB.SERVICES THRU 6/22/1810042E5GB.Services thru 6/22/18423.200.75.594.35.65.41 2,139.50Total :28,992.53232303 7/26/2018066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC 578053E6GC.SPECS & PLANS REPRODUCTIONE6GC.Specs & Plans Reproduction423.200.75.594.35.65.41 128.74Total :128.74232304 7/26/2018074307 BLUE STAR GAS 7583FLEET AUTO PROPANE 603.2 GALFLEET AUTO PROPANE 603.2 Gal511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1,039.37FLEET AUTO PROPANE 563.1 GAL7610FLEET AUTO PROPANE 563.1 Gal511.000.77.548.68.34.12 970.84FLEET AUTO PROPANE 500.8 GAL76414Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 33Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds5 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232304 7/26/2018(Continued)074307 BLUE STAR GASFLEET AUTO PROPANE 500.8 Gal511.000.77.548.68.34.12 857.36FLEET AUTO PROPANE 563.3 GAL7666FLEET AUTO PROPANE 563.3 Gal511.000.77.548.68.34.12 964.98Total :3,832.55232305 7/26/2018 076716 BLUELINE, THE LA STUDIO AT BLU NR-025877LI Refund Cst #00218371LI Refund Cst #00218371001.000.257.310 50.00Total :50.00232306 7/26/2018003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 90172063E5AA.INSTALL AUTOMATED HORN SYSTEM AT MAE5AA.Install Automated Horn System at126.000.68.595.70.65.41 13,960.43E5AA.INSTALL AUTOMATED HORN SYSTEM AT DA90172064E5AA.Install Automated Horn System at126.000.68.595.70.65.41 18,358.24Total :32,318.67232307 7/26/2018003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 40229033PED WALK WAY LEASE #40229033 8/01/18 -Ped Walk Way Lease #40229033 8/01/18 -111.000.68.542.31.45.00 2,086.70Total :2,086.70232308 7/26/2018072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY SUMMER YOGA/PILATES 6633 6642 6648 INSTRUCTION6633 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 410.856642 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 375.656648 PILATES INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 254.10Total :1,040.60232309 7/26/2018 074714 BUELL RECREATION LLC WAEDM 052518 PM: PENDULUM REPAIR KIT5Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 34Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds6 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232309 7/26/2018(Continued)074714 BUELL RECREATION LLCPM: PENDULUM REPAIR KIT001.000.64.576.80.31.00 422.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 43.47Total :465.47232310 7/26/2018073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 18861312INV#18861312 - EDMONDS PDIR6255 COPIER RENT 07/01-07/31/2018001.000.41.521.10.45.00 151.87B/W METER USAGE 06/01-06/30/2018001.000.41.521.10.45.00 17.65IR3325 COPIER RENT 07/01-07/31/2018001.000.41.521.10.45.00 60.70B/W METER USAGE 06/01-06/30/2018001.000.41.521.10.45.00 5.67COLOR METER USAGE 06/01-06/30/2018001.000.41.521.10.45.00 69.34IR5240 COPIER RENT 07/01-07/31/2018001.000.41.521.10.45.00 160.00B/W METER USAGE 06/01-06/30/2018001.000.41.521.10.45.00 12.79COLOR METER USAGE 06/01-06/30/2018001.000.41.521.10.45.00 13.1010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.45.00 50.59CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE 7/1/18 - 7/31/118861315CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE 7/1/18 -001.000.25.514.30.45.00 340.3910.3% Sales Tax001.000.25.514.30.45.00 35.06PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CONTRACT 001-0518861316PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CONTRACT001.000.64.571.21.45.00 339.16CONTRACT/METER COPIER-BLDG188613206Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 35Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds7 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232310 7/26/2018(Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICESCONTRACT/METER COPIER-BLDG001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.20CONTRACT/METER COPIER-PLANNING18861321CONTRACT/METER COPIER-PLANNING001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.62P&R PRINTER IRC250IF CONTRACT 001-05721018861322P&R PRINTER IRC250IF CONTRACT001.000.64.571.21.45.00 63.80PARKS IRC250IF COPIER CONTRACT 001-0572118861323PARKS IRC250IF COPIER CONTRACT001.000.64.576.80.45.00 39.07FLEET COPIER18861324Fleet Copier511.000.77.548.68.45.00 37.0510.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.81RECEPTION DESK CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE1886132510.3% Sales Tax001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.38RECEPTION DESK CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE001.000.25.514.30.45.00 13.32CANON COPIER MONTHLY LEASE18861326Contract charge 7/1-7/31/18001.000.11.511.60.45.00 26.4410.3% Sales Tax001.000.11.511.60.45.00 2.73INV#18861327 - EDMONDS PD18861327IRC5550 COPIER RENT 07/01-07/31/2018001.000.41.521.10.45.00 185.74B/S METER USAGE 06/01-06/30/2018001.000.41.521.10.45.00 13.55COLOR METER USAGE 06/01-06/30/2018001.000.41.521.10.45.00 62.6510.3% Sales Tax7Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 36Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds8 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232310 7/26/2018(Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES001.000.41.521.10.45.00 26.97WATER SEWER COPIER18861328Water Sewer Copier421.000.74.534.80.45.00 54.74Water Sewer Copier423.000.75.535.80.45.00 54.7310.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.45.00 5.6410.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.45.00 5.64PW ADMIN COPIER18861329PW Office Copier for001.000.65.518.20.45.00 66.16PW Office Copier for111.000.68.542.90.45.00 37.49PW Office Copier for422.000.72.531.90.45.00 37.49PW Office Copier for421.000.74.534.80.45.00 26.46PW Office Copier for423.000.75.535.80.45.00 26.46PW Office Copier for511.000.77.548.68.45.00 26.4610.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.45.00 6.8110.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.45.00 3.8610.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.45.00 3.8610.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2.7310.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.45.00 2.7310.3% Sales Tax8Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 37Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds9 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232310 7/26/2018(Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.72INV#18861330 - EDMOND PD18861330CONTRACT CHARGE - FAX BOARD -001.000.41.521.10.45.00 36.0210.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.45.00 3.71ENG COPIER.JULY 201818865143Eng Copier.July 2018001.000.67.518.21.45.00 489.95CONTRACT/METER COPIER-DSD18865144Contract/Meter copier-DSD001.000.62.524.10.45.00 345.57Total :3,044.88232311 7/26/2018075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS80COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT AConsulting: Communications and001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,500.00Total :2,500.00232312 7/26/2018 075849 CARTER, JEANNE June 2018DIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR JUDiversity commission administrative001.000.61.557.20.41.00 500.00Total :500.00232313 7/26/2018003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 7898305185ACCT#7898305185 - EDMONDS PDFUEL/ADV MC TRAINING FALK/ROTH/STRUM001.000.41.521.40.43.00 63.65FUEL / NASRO - R.T. SMITH001.000.41.521.40.43.00 29.43Total :93.08232314 7/26/2018076176 CHRISTIAN, JOHN 6/11 FIELD ATTENDANT6/11 VOLLEYBALL FIELD ATTENDANT6/11 VOLLEYBALL FIELD ATTENDANT001.000.64.571.25.41.00 18.00Total :18.009Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 38Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds10 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232315 7/26/2018065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 451601-1806 E6GB.SERVICES THRU JUNE 2018E6GB.Services thru June 2018423.200.75.594.35.65.41 10,662.10Total :10,662.10232316 7/26/2018073737 CITY OF SEATTLE IT1000139FIBER ANNUAL MAINTENANCE2017-2018 Fiber Annual Maintenance512.000.31.518.87.48.00 2,229.37Total :2,229.37232317 7/26/2018076622 COMCAST SPOTLIGHT WN6323900 NPDES COMMERCIALSNPDES Commercials422.000.72.531.90.41.20 2,000.00Total :2,000.00232318 7/26/2018075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100179095WWTP: 7/2018 JANITORIAL SERVICE7/2018 JANITORIAL SERVICE423.000.76.535.80.41.00 514.00Total :514.00232319 7/26/2018076713 CURTIS, JAN 7/18 REFUND 7/18 REFUND7/18 REFUND001.000.239.200 500.00Total :500.00232320 7/26/2018 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 18-386507/17/2018 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES07/17/2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES001.000.25.514.30.41.00 394.40Total :394.40232321 7/26/2018076172 DK SYSTEMS 20065FAC - REPAIRS AND MAINTFAC - Repairs and Maint001.000.66.518.30.48.00 854.00Prevailing Wage001.000.66.518.30.48.00 40.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 87.9610Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 39Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds11 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :981.96232321 7/26/2018 076172 076172 DK SYSTEMS232322 7/26/2018 075515 ECOSS1E7FG.STORMWATER OUTREACHE7FG.Stormwater Outreach422.000.72.531.90.41.20 2,250.00Total :2,250.00232323 7/26/2018007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 1-86807PM:CROWS FT WRNPM:CROWS FT WRN001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.9910.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.57Total :27.56232324 7/26/2018076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 1074PM: KNIFEPM: KNIFE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.9710.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.23PM: RESPIRATOR1075PM: RESPIRATOR001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.9910.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.03PM: DROPCLOTH1076PM: DROPCLOTH001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.5910.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.68PM: TAPE RULES1077PM: TAPE RULES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.7710.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.52PM: BOLTS, SCREWS1098PM: BOLTS, SCREWS11Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 40Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds12 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232324 7/26/2018(Continued)076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.7010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.28PM: BRUSH, GLUE, LIGHTER1103PM: BRUSH, GLUE, LIGHTER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 30.7610.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.17Total :84.69232325 7/26/2018008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO R25824WATER QUALITY BROCHURES - 500Water Quality Brochures - 500421.000.74.534.80.31.00 884.0010.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 91.05TREE BOARD TREE TRIMMING BROCHURESR25833TREE BOARD TREE TRIMMING BROCHURES001.000.62.524.10.49.00 301.12Total :1,276.17232327 7/26/2018 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLERMARINA BEACH PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,163.67FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS6-00200FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,122.34BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER6-00410BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,335.24ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS6-00475ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,720.53WWTP: 5/17-7/16/18 METER 2088: 200 2ND A6-01127 5/17-7/16/18 200 2ND AVE S / METER423.000.76.535.80.47.64 269.3612Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 41Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds13 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232327 7/26/2018(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISIONWWTP: 5/17-7/16/18 METER 9439: 200 2ND A6-01130 5/17-7/16/18 200 2ND AVE S / METER423.000.76.535.80.47.64 24.94WWTP: 5/17-7/16/18 METER 5010484: 200 2N6-01140 5/17-7/16/18 200 2ND AVE S / METER423.000.76.535.80.47.64 2,939.47CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER6-01250CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 3,201.04CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275CITY PARK PARKING LOT001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,728.05CITY PARK SPRAY PARK6-01280CITY PARK SPRAY PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,129.33PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER6-02125PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 836.42BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER6-02727BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 277.24CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE PARK SPRINK6-02730CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 396.14PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N / ME6-02735PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,164.06FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N / ME6-02736FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.25FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 76-02737FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 911.43PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250 5TH6-02738PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 25013Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 42Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds14 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232327 7/26/2018(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,166.99VETERANS PLAZA6-02745VETERANS PLAZA001.000.64.576.80.47.00 117.29SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 7096-02825SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,736.82FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN ST6-02875FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN001.000.66.518.30.47.00 24.94DOWNTOWN RESTROOM6-02885DOWNTOWN RESTROOM001.000.64.576.80.47.00 539.18FAC SPRINKLER6-02900FAC SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,425.77FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME6-02925FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,299.22CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 535.07HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER6-03275HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 605.58MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER6-03575MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 314.85FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE6-04127FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,365.50FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW /6-04128FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.25SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-0440014Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 43Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds15 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232327 7/26/2018(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISIONSEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,322.80SEAVIEW PARK6-04425SEAVIEW PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 582.60SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER6-04450SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,264.99PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE6-05155PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /001.000.65.518.20.47.00 162.70PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /111.000.68.542.90.47.00 618.26PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 618.26PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 618.26PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /511.000.77.548.68.47.00 618.26PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /422.000.72.531.90.47.00 618.25PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW /6-05156PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW001.000.65.518.20.47.00 1.78PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW422.000.72.531.90.47.00 6.76PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW421.000.74.534.80.47.00 6.76PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW423.000.75.535.80.47.10 6.76PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW511.000.77.548.68.47.00 6.77PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW111.000.68.542.90.47.00 6.7615Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 44Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds16 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232327 7/26/2018(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGATION6-060405 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGATION001.000.64.576.80.47.00 379.71MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER6-07775MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,729.44YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500YOST PARK SPRINKLER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,238.51YOST POOL6-08525YOST POOL001.000.64.576.80.47.00 278.11Total :46,464.71232328 7/26/2018008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR107671ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02 PRINTER MAIMaintenance for printers 07/21/18 -512.000.31.518.88.48.00 307.2010.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.48.00 31.64Total :338.84232329 7/26/2018075505 ENGINEERED PROCESS CONTROLS 9644-1WWTP: FOXBORO MAG. FLOWTUBEFOXBORO MAG. FLOWTUBE423.000.76.535.80.48.00 2,883.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 25.6510.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 299.59Total :3,208.24232330 7/26/2018008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES 6486 DANCE 6486 DANCE INSTRUCTION6486 DANCE INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 120.00Total :120.0016Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 45Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds17 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232331 7/26/2018066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU49754 UNIT E152RE - PARTSUnit E152RE - Parts511.100.77.594.48.64.00 15.0710.3% Sales Tax511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1.55UNIT E152RE - PARTSWAMOU49783Unit E152RE - Parts511.100.77.594.48.64.00 43.7910.3% Sales Tax511.100.77.594.48.64.00 4.51Total :64.92232332 7/26/2018062193 FIELD INSTRUMENTS & CONTROLS 167904WWTP: POWER SUPPLY HOUSINGPOWER SUPPLY HOUSING423.000.76.535.80.48.00 996.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 21.2910.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 104.78WWTP: IFM EFFECTOR CABLE ASSEMBLY167941IFM EFFECTOR CABLE ASSEMBLY423.000.76.535.80.48.00 76.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 7.83WWTP: PRESSURE GAUGE167950 PRESSURE GAUGE423.000.76.535.80.48.00 84.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.1010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.59Total :1,308.59232333 7/26/2018 065269 FREIGHTLINER NORTHWEST PC301180130:01 UNIT 98 - PARTSUnit 98 - Parts511.000.77.548.68.31.10 108.3717Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 46Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds18 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232333 7/26/2018(Continued)065269 FREIGHTLINER NORTHWEST10.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.16UNIT 98 - PARTSPC302047856:01Unit 98 - Parts511.000.77.548.68.31.10 285.3110.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 29.39Total :434.23232334 7/26/2018011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINESEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT421.000.74.534.80.42.00 31.09TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES421.000.74.534.80.42.00 162.56TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES423.000.75.535.80.42.00 301.89TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.86TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.87TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 47.00TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 87.27CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250001.000.66.518.30.42.00 70.09MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-3335MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET001.000.64.571.29.42.00 71.98CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5TH AVE N425-775-2455CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM18Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 47Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds19 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232334 7/26/2018(Continued)011900 FRONTIER001.000.66.518.30.42.00 65.43FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND001.000.66.518.30.42.00 133.55Total :1,027.59232335 7/26/2018 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER146144FLEET TIRE INVENTORY - 12 TIRESFleet Tire Inventory - 12 Tires511.000.77.548.68.34.30 1,596.24State Tire Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.30 12.0010.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.30 166.01FLEET TIRE INVENTORY - 4 TIRES146454Fleet Tire Inventory - 4 Tires511.000.77.548.68.34.30 513.76State Tire Fees511.000.77.548.68.34.30 4.0010.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.30 53.43Total :2,345.44232336 7/26/2018012199 GRAINGER 9838729086FS20 - SUPPLIESFS20 - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,378.2410.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 141.97WATER - SUPPLIES9843063844Water - Supplies421.000.74.534.80.31.00 126.5410.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 13.04FS 17 - SUPPLIES9845019968FS 17 - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 38.7919Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 48Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds20 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232336 7/26/2018(Continued)012199 GRAINGER10.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.00Total :1,702.58232337 7/26/2018012560 HACH COMPANY 11039927WWTP: KTO SAT KCL SOLUTIONKTO SAT KCL SOLUTION423.000.76.535.80.31.00 13.0910.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.35Total :14.44232338 7/26/2018 074804 HARLES, JANINE 527266PHOTOGRAPHY - JULY 2018Photography for July 2018001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00Total :200.00232339 7/26/2018012900 HARRIS FORD INC 180763UNIT 10 - PARTSUnit 10 - Parts511.000.77.548.68.31.10 200.6010.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.86FLEET RETURNSCM179924Fleet Returns511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -47.5010.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -4.94Total :169.02232340 7/26/2018074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 2018-97TOURISM PROMOTION AND MARKETING, WEBSITETourism promotion and marketing for120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,666.00Tourism website maintenance July 2018120.000.31.575.42.41.00 200.00Total :1,866.0020Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 49Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds21 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232341 7/26/2018067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2070004PM: MIRROR MOUNTING CLIPS, TAPEPM: MIRROR MOUNTING CLIPS, TAPE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 53.9410.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.39PM: BUNGEE CORDS, SWITCH GUARD, STRIPING2074895PM: BUNGEE CORDS, SWITCH GUARD, STRIPING001.000.64.576.80.31.00 98.3810.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.83PM: WRENCH, HEX KEY SET5072219PM: WRENCH, HEX KEY SET001.000.64.576.80.31.00 25.9510.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.60PM: LIGHT, CHARGING CABLE, CHARGER,5081498PM: LIGHT, CHARGING CABLE, CHARGER,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 56.9410.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.69PM: DUST PAN, DRIVER, HOOKS5090055PM: DUST PAN, DRIVER, HOOKS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 52.3710.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.24PM: DUCT TAPE, DECK SCRUB, BLADE,6161407PM: DUCT TAPE, DECK SCRUB, BLADE,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 214.8510.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.49PM: 10 COMPARTMENT, TUBE CUTTER,7081188PM: 10 COMPARTMENT, TUBE CUTTER,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 98.9610.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.9021Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 50Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds22 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232341 7/26/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICESPM: WASP & HORNET, LUCAS OIL, HANDLE,8023953PM: WASP & HORNET, LUCAS OIL, HANDLE,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 82.6610.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.27Total :752.46232342 7/26/2018 061013 HONEY BUCKET 0550709262HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKETHICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 607.62YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET0550709263YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 309.21HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET0550709264HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 218.78PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET0550709265PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET0550709266SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET0550709267WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 223.85CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET0550709268CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85MARINA BEACH PARK HONEY BUCKET0550709269MARINA BEACH PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,394.23CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD 6TH & EDMONDS0550709270CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD 6TH & EDMONDS001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HONEY BUCKET055070927122Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 51Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds23 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232342 7/26/2018(Continued)061013 HONEY BUCKETCIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85Total :3,322.94232343 7/26/2018060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 28451E5KA.SERVICES THRU 7/7/18E5KA.Services thru 7/7/18421.000.74.594.34.65.41 3,254.20Total :3,254.20232344 7/26/2018014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 1905701046062INV#1905701046062 - EDMONDS PD1.5V ALK AA WORKAHOLIC 24 PCK001.000.41.521.22.31.00 38.009 VOLT WORKAHOLIC 12 CT BOX001.000.41.521.22.31.00 17.501.5V ALK AAA WORKAHOLIC 24 PCK001.000.41.521.22.31.00 28.503 V LITHIUM CR2032 CARDED001.000.41.521.22.31.00 5.073 V 1.55AH LIT 2/3A CR123A CARD001.000.41.521.22.31.00 5.9810.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.31.00 9.79FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES300-10043499Fleet Shop Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.20 55.0310.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.20 5.67FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES300-10043509Fleet Shop Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.20 113.0510.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.20 11.64Total :290.23232345 7/26/2018075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC 037STATE LOBBYIST FOR JULY 201823Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 52Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds24 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232345 7/26/2018(Continued)075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLICState lobbyist for July 2018001.000.61.511.70.41.00 3,358.00Total :3,358.00232346 7/26/2018076715 JJ CONSTRUCTION NR-025832LI Refund Cst #00336730LI Refund Cst #00336730001.000.257.310 50.00Total :50.00232347 7/26/2018074168 JOHNSON, MELISSA 7/17 CEMETERY PRINT 7/17 CEMETERY WBIT PRINTING7/17 CEMETERY WBIT PRINTING130.000.64.536.20.41.40 78.09Total :78.09232348 7/26/2018062477 KEEP POSTED 21916CONCERTSCONCERTS117.100.64.573.20.41.40 135.00WOTS21917WOTS117.100.64.573.20.41.40 135.00Total :270.00232349 7/26/2018067568 KPG INC 5-16218E6DA.SERVICES THRU 5/25/18E6DA.Services thru 5/25/18112.000.68.595.33.65.41 10,786.97E6DA.Services thru 5/25/18126.000.68.595.61.65.41 517.77E6DA.Services thru 5/25/18422.000.72.594.31.65.41 1,023.22E6JC.SERVICES THRU 6/25/186-16118E6JC.Services thru 6/25/18421.000.74.594.34.65.41 15,692.27E6DA.SERVICES THRU 6/25/186-16218E6DA.Services thru 6/25/18112.000.68.595.33.65.41 2,066.3024Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 53Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds25 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232349 7/26/2018(Continued)067568 KPG INCE6DA.Services thru 6/25/18126.000.68.595.61.65.41 99.18E6DA.Services thru 6/25/18422.000.72.594.31.65.41 196.00Total :30,381.71232350 7/26/2018066522 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC 50004947E8CB.PAVING SERVICESE8CB.Paving Services112.000.68.595.33.65.00 700.01E8CB.Paving Services125.000.68.595.33.65.00 1,283.28E8CB.Paving Services126.000.68.595.33.65.00 2,559.31Total :4,542.60232351 7/26/2018074388 LONE MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS 20247INV#20247 - EDMONDS PDMOTOROLA MTS2000 MODEL 2 800MHZ511.100.77.548.68.35.00 1,980.00MOTOROLA XTS3000 MODEL 2 800MHZ511.100.77.548.68.35.00 395.00Freight511.100.77.548.68.35.00 25.00Total :2,400.00232352 7/26/2018019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 45REIMBURSEMENTREIMBURSEMENT009.000.39.517.20.29.00 8,347.50Total :8,347.50232353 7/26/2018020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 67839720WWTP: HOSE COUPLINGSHOSE COUPLINGS423.000.76.535.80.48.00 24.96Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 7.40WWTP: PIPE FITTINGS6783972125Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 54Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds26 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232353 7/26/2018(Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO PIPE FITTINGS423.000.76.535.80.48.00 127.90Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.86WWTP: CONNECTORS FOR WATER FOR PIPES67943499CONNECTORS FOR WATER FOR PIPES423.000.76.535.80.48.00 199.46Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.86WWTP: PCVC UNTHREADED HOT WATER PIPES68196798PCVC UNTHREADED HOT WATER PIPES423.000.76.535.80.48.00 67.60Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 98.91Total :547.95232354 7/26/2018075913 MCMILLEN JACOBS ASSOCIATES 56090015E4MB.SERVICES THRU 6/29/18E4MB.Services thru 6/29/18332.000.64.594.76.65.41 352.50Total :352.50232355 7/26/2018 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC279602PW - LIFT RENTALPW - Lift Rental001.000.66.518.30.45.00 698.2010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.45.00 71.91FS 20 - LFIT RENTAL FEES280470FS 20 - Lfit Rental Fees001.000.66.518.30.45.00 206.5010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.45.00 21.27SVC FEESf5494Svc Fees001.000.66.518.30.45.00 11.55SVC FEESf549626Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 55Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds27 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232355 7/26/2018(Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INCSvc Fees001.000.66.518.30.45.00 3.42Total :1,012.85232356 7/26/2018018950 NAPA AUTO PARTS 3276-797237 UNIT 5 - PARTSUnit 5 - Parts511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.5610.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.37UNIT 35 - PARTS3276-797434Unit 35 - Parts511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.9910.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.62UNIT 22 - HYDRAULIC FILTER3276-799514Unit 22 - Hydraulic Filter511.000.77.548.68.31.10 45.1910.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.65Total :60.38232357 7/26/2018 075838 NELSON ELECTRIC INC 33594HICKMAN PARK BALLARD LIGHTSHICKMAN PARK BALLARD LIGHTS001.000.64.576.80.41.00 5,178.7410.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.41.00 533.41FS 16 - HVAC REPAIRS35199FS 16 - HVAC Repairs001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,755.2610.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 283.79IT ROOM POWER ADDTION35406IT Room Power Addtion512.000.31.518.87.41.00 1,828.3610.3% Sales Tax27Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 56Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds28 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232357 7/26/2018(Continued)075838 NELSON ELECTRIC INC512.000.31.518.87.41.00 188.32Total :10,767.88232358 7/26/2018076205 NET TRANSCRIPTS INC 0019184-ININV#0019184-IN - EDMONDS PDFOREIGN TRANSLATION 120HR ~001.000.41.521.21.41.00 449.60FL TRANSCRIPTION CASE #17-12898001.000.41.521.21.41.00 106.25TRANSCRIPTION CASE #17-12898001.000.41.521.21.41.00 39.00Total :594.85232359 7/26/2018024910 NORMED 24808-771347 INV#24808-771347 - EDMONDS PDVIONEX TOWELETTES 50/BOX001.000.41.521.10.31.00 127.80GLOVES, SUPRENO SMALL100001.000.41.521.10.31.00 25.38ADHV BANDAGE SHEER001.000.41.521.10.31.00 2.09ADHV BANDAGE FLEX001.000.41.521.10.31.00 2.1110.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 16.21Total :173.59232360 7/26/2018068709 OFFICETEAM 51385788TEMP WORK FOR WEEK ENDING 7/20/18BENNETT HOLTON - WEEK ENDING 7/20/18001.000.22.518.10.41.00 168.00Total :168.00232361 7/26/2018072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 3685-354040 UNIT 106 - PARTSUnit 106 - Parts511.000.77.548.68.31.10 29.2810.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.0228Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 57Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds29 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232361 7/26/2018(Continued)072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTSUNIT 14 - FILTERS3685-356053Unit 14 - Filters511.000.77.548.68.31.10 120.0910.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.37Total :164.76232362 7/26/2018 064951 OTIS ELEVATOR CO SS06279G818PW ELEVATOR MAINT SVC CONTRACT FROMPW Elevator Maint Svc Contract from001.000.66.518.30.48.00 3,593.6410.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 370.15Total :3,963.79232363 7/26/2018027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 18-T1046146PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130PM YARD WASTE DUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 513018-T1046196PM YARD WASTE DUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00Total :168.00232364 7/26/2018065051 PARAMETRIX INC 03099E5DB.SERVICES THRU 6/30/18E5DB.Services thru 6/30/18112.000.68.595.33.65.41 57,078.60Total :57,078.60232365 7/26/2018008350 PETTY CASH 7/23 PARKS PETTY CAS 7/23 PARKS PETTY CASHCOLLEY: SAFEWAY: DISCOVERY: BATTERIES001.000.64.571.23.31.00 6.39CHAPIN: BARTELLS: WOTS: SUPPLIES TEA117.100.64.573.20.31.00 9.95DOLLAR STORE: DISCOVERY: SUPPLIES001.000.64.571.23.31.00 1.10LEACH: ACE: DISCOVERY: ICE, ZIPLOCKS29Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 58Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds30 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232365 7/26/2018(Continued)008350 PETTY CASH001.000.64.571.23.31.00 7.55LEACH: FASHION UNLIMITED: DISCOVERY:001.000.64.571.23.24.00 26.48COLLEY: QFC: DISCOVERY: TOUCH TANK001.000.64.571.23.31.00 15.70Total :67.17232366 7/26/2018 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY R777903WWTP: PDT P10-8R-L RNG N-INSUL & XHHW-14PDT P10-8R-L RNG N-INSUL & XHHW-14 STR423.000.76.535.80.31.00 182.1610.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 18.76Total :200.92232367 7/26/2018072384 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES 6667 6668 LEGO INSTR6667 INTRO TO STEM LEGO INSTRUCTION6667 INTRO TO STEM LEGO INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,040.006668 STEM CHALLENGE WITH LEGO001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,200.00Total :3,240.00232368 7/26/2018064088 PROTECTION ONE 291104ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAINT./FS #16ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE001.000.66.518.30.42.00 103.45ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE001.000.64.576.80.42.00 103.45Total :206.90232369 7/26/2018071702 RAILROAD MGMT CO III LLC 371618LIC #305234 MEADOWDALE STORM DRAINLic #305234 Meadowdale Storm Drain422.000.72.531.90.51.00 214.01LIC #305683 EDMONDS STORM DRAIN CROSSING373467Lic #305683 Edmonds Storm Drain Crossing422.000.72.531.90.45.00 214.01LIC #305684 MEADOWDALE STORM DRAIN37346830Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 59Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds31 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232369 7/26/2018(Continued)071702 RAILROAD MGMT CO III LLCLIC #305684 MEADOWDALE STORM DRAIN422.000.72.531.90.45.00 214.01LIC #305754 MEADOWDALE STORM DRAIN373485LIC #305754 MEADOWDALE STORM DRAIN422.000.72.531.90.45.00 214.01Total :856.04232370 7/26/2018 075231 RAYOR, JANET 7/19 HMP CONCERT7/19 HMP CONCERT7/19 HMP CONCERT117.100.64.573.20.41.00 700.00Total :700.00232371 7/26/2018076493 REDSIDE CONSTRUCTION LLC E5KA.Pmt 3E5KA.PMT 3 THRU 6/30/18E5KA.Pmt 3 thru 6/30/18421.000.74.594.34.65.10 216,897.83Total :216,897.83232372 7/26/2018064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 5-019262UNIT 451 - BATTERYUnit 451 - Battery511.000.77.548.68.31.10 152.0310.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.66Total :167.69232373 7/26/2018072440 SCORDINO, JOE 16E7FG.STUDENTS SAVING SALMON E7FG.,Students Saving Salmon001.000.39.554.90.49.00 1,084.68Total :1,084.68232374 7/26/2018 071159 SEATTLE SHAKESPEARE COMPANY 7/22 CONCERT CITY PA 7/22 CONCERT CITY PARK7/22 CONCERT CITY PARK MERRY WIVES OF117.100.64.573.20.41.00 2,000.00Total :2,000.00232375 7/26/2018036041 SETINA MFG CO 165043UNIT 437 - PARTSUnit 437 - Parts31Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 60Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds32 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232375 7/26/2018(Continued)036041 SETINA MFG CO511.000.77.548.68.31.10 858.75Freight511.000.77.548.68.31.10 38.9410.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 92.47Total :990.16232376 7/26/2018 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 101412E4FC.SERVICES THRU 6/16/18E4FC.Services thru 6/16/18422.000.72.594.31.65.41 450.00Total :450.00232377 7/26/2018066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS I000468597E8CB/E8CD/E8CE.SERVICES THRU 4/30/18E8CB.Services thru 4/30/18112.000.68.542.30.41.00 2,659.26E8CB.Services thru 4/30/18125.000.68.542.30.41.00 4,859.38E8CB.Services thru 4/30/18126.000.68.542.30.41.00 9,699.62E8CD.Services thru 4/30/18421.000.74.542.30.41.00 1,872.86E8CE.Services thru 4/30/18423.200.75.542.30.41.00 1,047.19E8CB/E8CD/E8CE.SERVICES THRU 5/31/18I000469445E8CB.Services thru 5/31/18112.000.68.542.30.41.00 821.34E8CB.Services thru 5/31/18125.000.68.542.30.41.00 1,500.86E8CB.Services thru 5/31/18126.000.68.542.30.41.00 2,995.82E8CB.Services thru 5/31/18112.000.68.542.30.41.00 449.88E8CB.Services thru 5/31/18125.000.68.542.30.41.00 822.09E8CB.Services thru 5/31/1832Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 61Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds33 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232377 7/26/2018(Continued)066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS126.000.68.542.30.41.00 1,640.94E8CD.Services thru 5/31/18421.000.74.542.30.41.00 895.29E8CE.Services thru 5/31/18423.200.75.542.30.41.00 500.60Total :29,765.13232378 7/26/2018 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /111.000.68.542.64.47.00 18.32YOST POOL2002-6027-1YOST POOL001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,684.12FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE2003-9895-6FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 878.02LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 12004-6859-3LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 233.04LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W / METER2006-1131-7LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 120.04OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 12006-3860-9OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER421.000.74.534.80.47.00 196.53SEAVIEW PARK2007-1403-8SEAVIEW PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.02SEAVIEW PARK2011-9708-4SEAVIEW PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.46FISHING PIER RESTROOMS2012-3682-5FISHING PIER RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 222.13PINE ST PARK2013-2711-133Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 62Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds34 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232378 7/26/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1PINE ST PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.89PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR / MET2014-3124-4PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR /111.000.68.542.64.47.00 18.32SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 1002015-5174-4SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,829.37TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 10002015-7289-8TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 40.34TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 12017-5147-6TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 43.51TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 10002017-8264-6TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.74PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE2019-4248-9PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /001.000.65.518.20.47.00 84.57PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /111.000.68.542.90.47.00 321.36PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 321.36PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 321.36PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /511.000.77.548.68.47.00 321.36PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /422.000.72.531.90.47.00 321.38CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH2022-9166-2CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH001.000.66.518.30.47.00 5,390.39STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT METERE2023-8937-534Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 63Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds35 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232378 7/26/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT111.000.68.542.63.47.00 8.59CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 100012612024-3924-6CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,474.26TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FS #16)2028-0763-2TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FIRE001.000.66.518.30.47.00 18.18WWTP: 6/15-7/16/18 METER 1000135381: 2002030-9778-76/15-7/16/18 200 2ND AVE S / METER423.000.76.535.80.47.61 24,950.97FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY2036-5215-1FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY421.000.74.534.80.47.00 154.37PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MAIN ST /2202-1638-6PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MAIN ST /111.000.68.542.64.47.00 57.88Total :40,115.88232379 7/26/2018075009 SOUNDVIEW DESIGN STUDIO 00010808FALL CRAZE DESIGNFALL CRAZE DESIGN001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,250.00Total :1,250.00232380 7/26/2018 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 1380270PLAN REVIEW SUPPORT THRU 6/29/18Plan Review Support thru 6/29/18001.000.67.518.21.41.00 1,062.12Plan Review Support thru 6/29/18421.000.74.534.80.41.10 531.06Plan Review Support thru 6/29/18422.000.72.531.90.41.20 531.06Plan Review Support thru 6/29/18423.000.75.535.80.41.30 531.07Total :2,655.3135Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 64Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds36 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232381 7/26/2018074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 4927SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR JULY 2018Social media services for July 2018001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.00Total :300.00232382 7/26/2018076324 SUPERION LLC 211155TRAKITTRAKIT001.000.62.524.10.41.00 10,720.00TRAKIT211156TRAKIT001.000.62.524.10.41.00 15,680.00TRAKIT211159TRAKIT001.000.62.524.10.41.00 5,920.00Total :32,320.00232383 7/26/2018 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 22564SEWER LS 5 - TROUBLESHOOTSewer LS 5 - Troubleshoot423.000.75.535.80.48.00 393.00Total :393.00232384 7/26/2018072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 109455MAINTENANCE FOR HP PAGEWIDE LX4000Jul-18 Maintenance on HP Pagewide512.000.31.518.88.48.00 175.0010.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.48.00 18.03Total :193.03232385 7/26/2018070744 TIGER OAK MEDIA 2018-195435BUSINESS RECRUITMENT AD FOR AUGUST 2018Business recruitment ad for August 2018001.000.61.558.70.41.40 3,500.00Total :3,500.00232386 7/26/2018076717 WAGNER TECHNICAL WA LLC NR-025872LI Refund Cst #00337048LI Refund Cst #00337048001.000.257.310 50.0036Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 65Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds37 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :50.00232386 7/26/2018 076717 076717 WAGNER TECHNICAL WA LLC232387 7/26/2018 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 10743374PM: SHAMPOOPM: SHAMPOO001.000.64.576.80.31.00 141.6010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.58PM: SKIN CLEANSER10745743PM: SKIN CLEANSER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 87.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.96Total :252.14232388 7/26/2018074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH 1318704INV#1318704 CUST ID EDMOND PD - JUNE 201RANGE USAGE - A. JAMES 6/1/2018001.000.41.521.40.41.00 13.60RANGE USAGE - D. ANDERSON 6/6/2018001.000.41.521.40.41.00 13.6010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.40.41.00 2.80Total :30.00232389 7/26/2018072627 WEST SAFETY SERVICES INC 7007758MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINTMonthly 911 database maint512.000.31.518.88.48.00 100.00Total :100.00232390 7/26/2018076326 WILLIAM H REILLY & CO INC 1517WWTP: GEAR JT SHELLS/JT K, CLAMP RINGS,KGEAR JT SHELLS/JT Ks, CLAMP RINGS,423.000.76.535.80.48.00 5,593.2710.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 576.11Total :6,169.38232391 7/26/2018 063008 WSDOT RE 41 JZ0056 L003GATEWAY DOC REVIEW & INSPECTION37Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 66Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
07/26/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds38 7:21:59AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232391 7/26/2018(Continued)063008 WSDOTGATEWAY DOC REVIEW & INSPECTION125.000.64.594.76.65.41 54.23GATEWAY DOC REVIEW & INSPECTIONRE 41 JZ0056 L004GATEWAY DOC REVIEW & INSPECTION125.000.64.594.76.65.41 271.15Total :325.38232392 7/26/2018 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1207JUL-18 RETAINER & APPEALMonthly Retainer001.000.36.515.33.41.00 22,204.74Edm vs Foster 17-2-07589-1 6/23/18001.000.36.515.33.41.00 1,725.00Total :23,929.74Bank total : 670,518.7196 Vouchers for bank code :usbank670,518.71Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report9638Page:4.3.aPacket Pg. 67Attachment: claim cks 07-26-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232393 8/2/2018076040 911 SUPPLY INC 62553INV#62553 - EDMONDS PD - A. ARVANBLAUER 85678 PANT001.000.41.521.22.24.00 179.98BLAUER 8436 L/S SUPER SHIRT001.000.41.521.22.24.00 139.98NAME TAPE - 3.5"X3/4"001.000.41.521.22.24.00 32.00BLAUER 8446 S/S SUPER SHIRT001.000.41.521.22.24.00 129.9810.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 48.19INV#62554 - EDMONDS PD - S. TRYKAR625545.11 ZERO G PLATES001.000.41.521.21.24.00 99.9910.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.21.24.00 10.00INV#62555 - EDMONDS PD - R. SPEER62555BIANCHI 731 MOLLE CUFF CASE001.000.41.521.21.24.00 34.0010.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.21.24.00 3.40Total :677.52232394 8/2/2018070090 A ADVANCED PRODUCTS LLC 20041936INV#20041936 - EDMONDS PDDEFENSE 40 GRAM001.000.41.521.40.31.00 113.10Freight001.000.41.521.40.31.00 8.95Total :122.05232395 8/2/2018065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 12567MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276001.000.64.576.80.41.00 88.24PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONTROL CUST 1-112704PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONTROL CUST1Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 68Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds2 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232395 8/2/2018(Continued)065052 AARD PEST CONTROL001.000.64.576.80.41.00 137.88Total :226.12232396 8/2/2018061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 7183891P&R LEAGUE SHIRTSP&R LEAGUE SHIRTS001.000.64.571.25.31.00 1,960.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.571.25.31.00 203.84Total :2,163.84232397 8/2/2018 076696 ALLPLAY SYSTEMS LLC 2018-096FAC PLAYGROUND AGE SIGNSFAC PLAYGROUND AGE SIGNS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,492.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 153.68Total :1,645.68232398 8/2/2018063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-177647TRAFFIC - WHITE TRAFFIC PAINTTraffic - White Traffic Paint111.000.68.542.64.31.00 2,100.00Glass Bead111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1,782.72Freight111.000.68.542.64.31.00 378.9510.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 438.95Total :4,700.62232399 8/2/2018001528 AM TEST INC 105983WWTP: ALKALINITY,AMMONIA NITROGEN+SULFIDALKALINITY,AMMONIA NITROGEN+SULFIDE423.000.76.535.80.41.00 60.00Total :60.00232400 8/2/2018073573 ANIXTER 23K194746CITY HALL - LOCK SUPPLIESCity Hall - Lock Supplies2Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 69Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds3 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232400 8/2/2018(Continued)073573 ANIXTER001.000.66.518.30.31.00 239.6810.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.69CITY HALL - LOCK SUPPLIES23K195142City Hall - Lock Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 272.7110.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.09Total :565.17232401 8/2/2018074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 15663SENSOR/PROBESENSOR/PROBE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 595.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 61.29CHEMICALS15746CHEMICALS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 534.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 55.00Total :1,245.29232402 8/2/2018069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1990817159WWTP: 7/25/18 UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MATSMats/Towels423.000.76.535.80.41.00 106.38Uniforms423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.5010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.9610.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1990817161FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS001.000.66.518.30.24.00 27.3110.3% Sales Tax3Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 70Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds4 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232402 8/2/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.81PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1990821021PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.61PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0810.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1710.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.62PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.11FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1990821022FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.68FLEET DIVISION MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 17.3410.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.2410.3% Sales Tax4Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 71Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds5 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232402 8/2/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.13Total :212.15232403 8/2/2018071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 1281567-INFLEET REGULAR 6504 GALFleet Regular 6504 Gal511.000.77.548.68.34.11 14,550.10WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill511.000.77.548.68.34.11 3,413.82Fleet Diesel 3701 Gal511.000.77.548.68.34.10 7,976.03WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill511.000.77.548.68.34.10 1,939.58WA St Svc Fees511.000.77.548.68.34.10 50.00WA Mgmt Fee511.000.77.548.68.34.10 0.1310.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.10 5.16Total :27,934.82232404 8/2/2018064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC S098031ALERTON SYSTEM - PW - PM CONTRACTALERTON SYSTEM - PW - PM CONTRACT001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,866.5010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 295.25Total :3,161.75232405 8/2/2018001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 55741ROUGH BOX - JOHNSONROUGH BOX - JOHNSON130.000.64.536.20.34.00 493.00Total :493.00232406 8/2/2018069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC 071818COEJULY BACKGROUND CHECKSBACKGROUND CHECKS - JULY001.000.22.518.10.41.00 254.005Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 72Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds6 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :254.00232406 8/2/2018 069076069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC232407 8/2/2018 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON 6616 TAEKWON-DO 6616 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTION6616 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 678.00Total :678.00232408 8/2/2018076727 BARRETT ADAMS & LAURA ORVIDAS 3-14200#737606RT UTILITY REFUND#737606RT Utility refund due to411.000.233.000 92.69Total :92.69232409 8/2/2018002258 BENS EVER READY 16087UNIT 51, 14 - FIRE EXTUnit 51, 14 - Fire Ext511.000.77.548.68.31.10 520.0010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 53.56INV#16122 EDMONDS PD16122YEARLY SERVICE, 5 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00RECHARGED 3 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS001.000.41.521.22.48.00 45.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.48.00 11.85Total :700.41232410 8/2/2018076721 BLACKLINE INC 141409HYDRANT USE PERMIT DEPOSIT REFUNDHydrant Use Permit Deposit Refund421.000.245.110 950.00Total :950.00232411 8/2/2018074307 BLUE STAR GAS 7684FLEET AUTO PROPANE 568.5 GALFleet Auto Propane 568.5 Gal511.000.77.548.68.34.12 973.81Total :973.81232412 8/2/2018003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 90173067E5AA.INSTALL AUTOMATED HORN SYSTEM AT MA6Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 73Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds7 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232412 8/2/2018(Continued)003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANYE5AA.Install Automated Horn System at126.000.68.595.70.65.41 539.13E5AA.INSTALL AUTOMATED HORN SYSTEM AT DA90173068E5AA.Install Automated Horn System at126.000.68.595.70.65.41 750.30Total :1,289.43232413 8/2/2018 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY SUMMER YOGA6630 6636 6639 6645 YOGA INSTRUCTION6630 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 924.55 6636 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 757.356639 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 646.806645 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 357.09Total :2,685.79232414 8/2/2018067726 BRUCE C ALLEN & ASSOCIATES 18-0146ABELT PROPERTY APPRAISALBELT PROPERTY APPRAISAL001.000.39.594.76.61.00 4,500.00Total :4,500.00232415 8/2/2018076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 1632181STREET- CEMENTStreet- Cement111.000.68.542.61.31.00 326.00Env Surcharge111.000.68.542.61.31.00 15.007.7% sales tax111.000.68.542.61.31.00 26.26ROADWAY - ASPHALT5529964Roadway - Asphalt111.000.68.542.31.31.00 399.5710.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 39.967Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 74Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds8 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232415 8/2/2018(Continued)076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INCROADWAY - ASPHALT5530732Roadway - Asphalt111.000.68.542.31.31.00 381.0010.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 38.10Total :1,225.89232416 8/2/2018 076378 CAMFIL USA INC 30043310WWTP: FILTERSFILTERS423.000.76.535.80.31.00 347.0410.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 35.75Total :382.79232417 8/2/2018076718 CHASE, BARBARA Chase TB MemberREIMBURSEMENT FOR 2 TREES TO BE RAFFLEDReimbursement for 2 trees to be raffled001.000.62.524.10.49.00 148.48Total :148.48232418 8/2/2018076501 CHOROLOCO 7/31 HMP CONCERT 7/31 HMP CONCERT7/31 HMP CONCERT117.100.64.573.20.41.00 400.00Total :400.00232419 8/2/2018069457 CITY OF EDMONDS BLD20180915PERMITS CITY PARK STORAGE SHEDPERMITS CITY PARK STORAGE SHED125.000.64.594.76.65.00 1,283.00Total :1,283.00232420 8/2/2018 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 14463INV 14463 2ND QTR 2018 SOCIAL WORKER & R2ND QTR 2018 - SOCIAL WORKER001.000.39.565.40.41.00 12,500.00LICENSED CLINICAL SW CONSULTANTS001.000.39.565.40.41.00 79.202ND QTR 2018 - SOCIAL WORKER OT8Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 75Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds9 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232420 8/2/2018(Continued)019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD001.000.39.565.40.41.00 294.96Total :12,874.16232421 8/2/2018022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 4/1 CRAZE POSTAGE4/1 EDMONDS PORTION OF CRAZE POSTAGE4/1 EDMONDS PORTION OF CRAZE POSTAGE001.000.64.571.22.42.00 7,062.20Total :7,062.20232422 8/2/2018061529 COMPTON, DOUGLAS BB13448SICK LEAVE BUYBACK REFUNDREFUND FOR OT 1/7-1/11001.000.41.521.22.11.00 9.65Total :9.65232423 8/2/2018005965 CUES INC 511953SEWER - PARTS FOR CAMERASewer - Parts for Camera423.000.75.535.80.31.00 190.77Freight423.000.75.535.80.31.00 16.6210.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 21.36SEWER - CAMERA PARTS512527Sewer - Camera Parts423.000.75.535.80.31.00 56.64Freight423.000.75.535.80.31.00 11.3510.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 7.00Total :303.74232424 8/2/2018069529 D & G BACKHOE INC E6JC.Pmt 3E6JC.PMT 3 THRU 6/30/18E6JC.Pmt 3 thru 6/30/18421.000.74.594.34.65.10 92,088.14E6JC.Ret 3421.000.223.400 -4,174.44Total :87,913.709Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 76Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds10 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232425 8/2/2018074444 DATAQUEST LLC 5923POLICE CREDIT CHECKSPOLICE CREDIT CHECKS001.000.22.521.10.41.00 120.00Total :120.00232426 8/2/2018073251 DEARN-TARPLEY, SUSAN MAY JUNE MILEAGEMAY JUNE CLASSROOM VISIT MILEAGEMAY JUNE CLASSROOM VISIT MILEAGE001.000.64.571.23.43.00 137.67Total :137.67232427 8/2/2018064531 DINES, JEANNIE 18-386607/24/2018 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES07/24/2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES001.000.25.514.30.41.00 421.60Total :421.60232428 8/2/2018070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 18-2814.2E8FB.SERVICES THRU 7/15/18E8FB.Services thru 7/15/18422.000.72.594.31.65.41 2,454.73Total :2,454.73232429 8/2/2018007253 DUNN LUMBER 5688663PM: SUPPLIES ACCT E000027PM: FIR001.000.64.576.80.31.00 108.87WATER - SUPPLIES5708062Water - Supplies421.000.74.534.80.31.00 65.60Total :174.47232430 8/2/2018007253 DUNN LUMBER 5704282FAC - SUPPLIESFAC - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 104.82Total :104.82232431 8/2/2018 076723 EDMONDS 212 LLC 4-47468#4245-3066951 UTILITY REFUND#4245-3066951 Utility refund due to411.000.233.000 268.4210Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 77Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds11 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :268.42232431 8/2/2018 076723 076723 EDMONDS 212 LLC232432 8/2/2018 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 002877PM: STRAP WRENCH, DRILL BITPM: STRAP WRENCH, DRILL BIT001.000.64.576.80.31.00 27.4810.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.83Total :30.31232433 8/2/2018076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 1108PM: HAMMERPM: HAMMER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.9910.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.26PM: BUNGEE CORDS, COUPLINGS, KNIFE,1110PM: BUNGEE CORDS, COUPLINGS, KNIFE,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 54.3210.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.59Total :84.16232434 8/2/2018008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL SW / METELIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 51.69CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD / METER 73-03575CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 377.72HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN3-07490HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN001.000.64.576.80.47.00 100.98LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE W / METE3-07525LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE W /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 47.59LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST SW / METE3-07709LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 47.5911Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 78Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds12 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232434 8/2/2018(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISIONLIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD / METER 23-09350LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 96.88LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT RD / METER3-09800LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT RD /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 47.59LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / METER 63-29875LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 47.59SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 92ND AVE W3-38565SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 92ND AVE W001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.59Total :865.22232435 8/2/2018031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 00000180319RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENTRadix Monthly Maint Agreement - Sept421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.00Total :152.00232436 8/2/2018 076483 EUROFINS FRONTIER GLOBAL SCI 8070537WWTP: METHOD 30B TRAP ANALYSIS8 @ $120 each423.000.76.535.80.41.00 960.00Total :960.00232437 8/2/2018009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH817332LEGAL AD-PLN20180014LEGAL AD-PLN20180014001.000.62.558.60.41.40 99.76LEGAL AD-PLN20180025EDH817333LEGAL AD-PLN20180025001.000.62.558.60.41.40 70.52LEGAL AD-PLN201880037EDH817547Legal Ad-PLN20180037001.000.62.558.60.41.40 60.20LEGAL AD-PLN20180038EDH817551Legal Ad - PLN2018003812Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 79Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds13 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232437 8/2/2018(Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD001.000.62.558.60.41.40 56.76CITY ORDINANCE 4117EDH817796CITY ORDINANCE 4117001.000.25.514.30.41.40 24.08LEGAL AD-PLN20180039EDH818226Legal Ad-PLN20180039001.000.62.558.60.41.40 172.00Total :483.32232438 8/2/2018062193 FIELD INSTRUMENTS & CONTROLS 168037WWTP: CONTACT TRANSMITTER ISCONTACT TRANSMITTER ISOLATOR POWER423.000.76.535.80.48.00 496.80Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 12.0310.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 52.41Total :561.24232439 8/2/2018011900 FRONTIER 253-012-9189WWTP: 7/25-8/24/18 AUTO DIALER 1 VOICE G7/25-8/24/18 AUTO DIALER - 1 VOICE423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.54FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES001.000.66.518.30.42.00 133.55WWTP: 7/25-8/24/18 AUTO DIALER:1 BUS. LI425-771-5553 AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE W/TOLL423.000.76.535.80.42.00 118.62CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH AVE N425-776-6829CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM001.000.66.518.30.42.00 133.55LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE509-022-0049LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.40Total :453.6613Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 80Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds14 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232440 8/2/2018063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 146645UNIT 39 - 1 TIRE INVENTORYUnit 39 - 1 Tire Inventory511.000.77.548.68.34.30 129.09St Tire Fee511.000.77.548.68.34.30 1.0010.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.30 13.43Total :143.52232441 8/2/2018 012199 GRAINGER 9846033380STORM - SUPPLIESStorm - Supplies422.000.72.531.10.31.00 201.9010.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.10.31.00 20.80WATER - SUPPLIES9847639680Water - Supplies421.000.74.534.80.31.00 34.1910.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.52Total :260.41232442 8/2/2018074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS 833586OLD PW - SECURITYOLD PW - SECURITY001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00Total :55.00232443 8/2/2018060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007J3358WWTP: VALVE DIAPHSVALVE DIAPHS423.000.76.535.80.48.00 2,655.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 27.8210.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 276.34Total :2,959.16232444 8/2/2018076333 HASA INC 609066WWTP: 7/24/18 SOD. HYPOCHLORITE14Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 81Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds15 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232444 8/2/2018(Continued)076333 HASA INC7/24/18 SOD. HYPOCHLORITE423.000.76.535.80.31.53 3,587.5010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.53 369.51Total :3,957.01232445 8/2/2018010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I4894754WATER INVENTORY - W-PIPECO-01-011 #0334Water Inventory - W-PIPECO-01-011 #0334421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,570.8010.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.34.20 161.79WATER INVENTORY - #0432 ~I4894757Water Inventory - #0432 ~421.000.74.534.80.34.20 3,039.02#0568 W-CPLG-02-020421.000.74.534.80.34.20 271.74Parts421.000.74.534.80.31.00 183.3810.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.34.20 341.0110.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 18.89Total :5,586.63232446 8/2/2018073470 HEQUIBAL, JOY 7/24 REFUND 7/24 REFUND7/24 REFUND001.000.239.200 500.00Total :500.00232447 8/2/2018075966 HULBERT, CARRIE BID-0019BID/ED! PROGRAM MANAGER JULY 2018BID/Ed! Program Manager July 2018140.000.61.558.70.41.00 2,866.50Total :2,866.50232448 8/2/2018076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG BID-07312018BID/ED! PHOTOGRAPHY FOR JULY 201815Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 82Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds16 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232448 8/2/2018(Continued)076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEGBID/Ed! Photography services for July140.000.61.558.70.41.00 500.00Total :500.00232449 8/2/2018060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 28302E6DA.SERVICES THRU 5/26/18E6DA.Services thru 5/26/18112.000.68.595.33.65.41 1,253.64E6DA.Services thru 5/26/18126.000.68.595.61.65.41 60.17E6DA.Services thru 5/26/18422.000.72.594.31.65.41 118.92E6DA.SERVICES THRU 6/23/1828373E6DA.Services thru 6/23/18112.000.68.595.33.65.41 183.75E6DA.Services thru 6/23/18126.000.68.595.61.65.41 8.82E6DA.Services thru 6/23/18422.000.72.594.31.65.41 17.43Total :1,642.73232450 8/2/2018073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3125860HR OFFICE SUPPLIESTAPE001.000.22.518.10.31.00 6.9410.3% Sales Tax001.000.22.518.10.31.00 0.71COPY PAPER3130525Copy Paper001.000.62.524.10.31.00 142.25BALLPOINT PENS3131161Business Source Fine Point Ballpoint001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2.3810.3% Sales Tax001.000.31.514.23.31.00 0.25Total :152.5316Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 83Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds17 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232451 8/2/2018076521 KORSTAD, DAN DKorstad72618WWTP: MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 7/26/18 ROCK37.8 miles round trip mileage423.000.76.535.80.49.71 20.60Total :20.60232452 8/2/2018067568 KPG INC 6-2418E7DC.SERVICES THRU 6/25/18E7DC.Services thru 6/25/18112.000.68.595.33.65.41 45,150.01Total :45,150.01232453 8/2/2018017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 41503E6GC.SERVICES THRU 6/2/18E6GC.Services thru 6/2/18423.200.75.594.35.65.41 1,360.00E6GC.SERVICES THRU 6/30/1841729E6GC.Services thru 6/30/18423.200.75.594.35.65.41 3,790.00Total :5,150.00232454 8/2/2018075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER August Cigna AUGUST 2018 CIGNA PREMIUMSAugust Cigna Insurance Premiums811.000.231.550 12,140.95Total :12,140.95232455 8/2/2018073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC 20341 expenses06-2018 REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES06-18 reimbursement for expenses -001.000.36.515.31.41.00 329.9506-18 reimbursement for expenses - Ebb001.000.36.515.31.41.00 1,579.3006-18 reimbursement for expenses -001.000.36.515.31.41.00 879.85Total :2,789.10232456 8/2/2018071140 MAD SCIENCE OF SNO-KING MAD SCIENCE CAMPS6573 6574 6575 MAD SCIENCE CAMPS6573 MAD SCIENCE CAMPS001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,278.006574 MAD SCIENCE CAMPS17Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 84Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds18 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232456 8/2/2018(Continued)071140 MAD SCIENCE OF SNO-KING001.000.64.571.22.41.00 142.006575 MAD SCIENCE CAMPS001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,650.00Total :4,070.00232457 8/2/2018073968 MAGER, SARAH July 2018MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR AWC WORKSHOPMileage reimbursement for travel to AWC001.000.31.514.23.43.00 63.88Total :63.88232458 8/2/2018 076722 MARK & HEATHER MURRAY 3-22280#611185321-AS UTILITY REFUND#611185321-AS Utility refund - received411.000.233.000 202.39Total :202.39232459 8/2/2018076626 MCCANN TRUCKING AND EXCAVATING E6GC.Pmt 1E6GC.PMT 1 THRU 6/30/18E6GC.Pmt 1 thru 6/30/18423.000.75.594.35.65.30 394,392.31E6GC.Ret 1423.000.223.400 -17,878.16Total :376,514.15232460 8/2/2018020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 68268021WWTP: WATER/INERT GAS VALVESWATER/INERT GAS VALVES423.000.76.535.80.48.00 320.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 8.95WWTP: COUPLING NUTS68588783COUPLING NUTS423.000.76.535.80.31.00 47.46Freight423.000.76.535.80.31.00 7.40Total :383.81232461 8/2/2018 075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA 6665 FELDENKRAIS 6665 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION18Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 85Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds19 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232461 8/2/2018(Continued)075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA6665 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 72.50Total :72.50232462 8/2/2018069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 17152LARGE FORMAT SCANNINGLarge Format Scanning421.000.74.534.80.49.00 130.29Large Format Scanning423.000.75.535.80.49.00 130.30Large Format Scanning422.000.72.531.40.49.00 28.95DOCUMENT SCANS-BITONAL17169Document Scans-Bitonal001.000.62.524.10.41.00 725.26BOND INFO SCANNING. DOCS SCANNED INDEXIN17170Bond Info Scanning~421.000.74.534.80.49.00 65.98Bond Info Scanning~423.000.75.535.80.49.00 65.98Bond Info Scanning~422.000.72.531.40.49.00 14.66Total :1,161.42232463 8/2/2018020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 286444PM: BLADES, GATORLINEPM: BLADES, GATORLINE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 83.3210.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.58PM: FLAIIL MOWER286689PM: FLAIIL MOWER001.000.64.576.80.45.00 104.5010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.45.00 10.76Total :207.1619Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 86Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds20 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232464 8/2/2018024855 NORDQUIST, JIM JNordquist72018WWTP: JNORDQUIST 7/20/18 MILEAGE REIMBURJIM NORDQUIST 7/20/18 MILEAGE423.000.76.535.80.49.71 17.88Total :17.88232465 8/2/2018025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 837PB MINUTES 7/11/18, HP MINUTES 7/12/18PB MINUTES 7/11/18, HP MINUTES 7/12/18001.000.62.558.60.41.00 612.00PB MINUTES 7/25/18000 00 840PB MINUTES 7/25/18001.000.62.558.60.41.00 360.00Total :972.00232466 8/2/2018065720 OFFICE DEPOT 160707040001 PW OFFICE SUPPLIESPW Office Supplies001.000.65.518.20.31.00 4.9910.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.31.00 0.51PW OFFICE SUPPLIES160707238001PW Office Supplies001.000.65.518.20.31.00 3.5910.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.31.00 0.37Total :9.46232467 8/2/2018068709 OFFICETEAM 51431641TEMP WORK FOR WEEK ENDING 7/27/18BENNETT HOLTON WEEK ENDING 7/27001.000.22.518.10.41.00 441.00Total :441.00232468 8/2/2018063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 34640CHEMICALS YOSTCHEMICALS YOST001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,283.9510.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 132.25Total :1,416.2020Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 87Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds21 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232469 8/2/2018069338 PARTNER CONSTRUCTION PRODUCT 9161ROADWAY - ROADSAVER SEALANTRoadway - Roadsaver Sealant111.000.68.542.31.31.00 3,375.00Freight111.000.68.542.31.31.00 175.0010.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 365.65Total :3,915.65232470 8/2/2018 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 117269INV#117269 - EDMONDS PD2 HRS @ $164.00 CLEAN UP, TOW 2015001.000.41.521.22.41.00 328.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.41.00 34.11Total :362.11232471 8/2/2018075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO 382869JULY FRUIT PICKUPJuly Fruit Pickup001.000.22.518.10.31.10 107.00Total :107.00232472 8/2/2018072384 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES 6673 6674 LEGO CAMPS 6673 6674 LEGO CAMPS6673 LEGO CAMPS001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,974.006674 LEGO CAMPS001.000.64.571.22.41.00 764.00Total :2,738.00232473 8/2/2018046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / MEFRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 862.54YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER200002411383YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,276.98OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 0200007876143OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER21Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 88Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds22 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232473 8/2/2018(Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY421.000.74.534.80.47.00 34.93FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE200009595790FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 80.27FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE200011439656FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 48.89CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 00052200016558856CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 58.79FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 0200016815843FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 122.75FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W /200017676343FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W511.000.77.548.68.47.00 50.28MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N200019375639MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N001.000.66.518.30.47.00 35.77SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001200019895354SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 36.63PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE200020415911PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /001.000.65.518.20.47.00 4.30PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /111.000.68.542.90.47.00 16.35PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 16.35PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 16.35PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /511.000.77.548.68.47.00 16.35PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /422.000.72.531.90.47.00 16.3522Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 89Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds23 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232473 8/2/2018(Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGYWWTP: 6/20-7/20/18 METER 000390395: 2002000218295816/20-7/20/18 200 2ND AVE S / METER423.000.76.535.80.47.63 37.47CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / METER200024711901CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 40.85Total :2,772.20232474 8/2/2018070955 R&R STAR TOWING 133884INV#133884 - EDMONDS PDTOW 1988 BLUE CHEVY CORSICA BHM5025001.000.41.521.22.41.00 328.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.41.00 34.11Total :362.11232475 8/2/2018 074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB 3013WWTP: DMRQADMRQA423.000.76.535.80.41.00 200.00Total :200.00232476 8/2/2018076686 SALONEN, DANIEL 7/29 CITY PK CONCERT 7/29 CITY PARK CONCERT7/29 CITY PARK CONCERT117.100.64.573.20.41.00 700.00Total :700.00232477 8/2/2018076328 SCJ ALLIANCE 54200E6AA.SERVICES THRU 6/30/18E6AA.Services thru 6/30/18112.000.68.595.33.65.41 14,284.29Total :14,284.29232478 8/2/2018067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 18-3817SEWER - OVERHAUL KITSewer - Overhaul Kit423.000.75.535.80.31.00 166.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 17.1023Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 90Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds24 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :183.10232478 8/2/2018 067076067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO232479 8/2/2018 066918 SEDOR, NORMAN 46REIMBURSEMENTREIMBURSEMENT009.000.39.517.20.29.00 10,917.00Total :10,917.00232480 8/2/2018076457 SENSERA SYSTEMS INC 182350E5FD.CAMERA KIT & SERVICE PLANE5FD.Camera Kit & Service Plan422.000.72.594.31.65.41 4,284.00Total :4,284.00232481 8/2/2018060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARS/13241857 SHOP - TOOL REPAIRShop - Tool Repair511.000.77.548.68.48.00 95.0010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.48.00 9.79SHOP TOOLARV/36780346Shop Tool511.000.77.548.68.35.00 11.5310.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.35.00 1.19Total :117.51232482 8/2/2018075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 2293PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRACT - JUNE 2018July Public Defender Contract Costs001.000.39.512.52.41.00 24,039.45Total :24,039.45232483 8/2/2018 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2001-2487-3TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W / METER 1TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.84TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 12003-4823-3TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 38.01CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD / METER 1002003-8645-6CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD / METER24Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 91Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds25 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232483 8/2/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1001.000.66.518.30.47.00 42.04FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME2004-2241-8FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 923.62MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER2004-9314-6MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.60TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW / METER 12007-4860-6TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 18.89LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / ME2008-6520-2LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 56.61TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS WAY / METER2009-4334-8TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS WAY / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.68TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W / METER 12011-9222-6TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.51LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W / METE2012-6598-0LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 135.86LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W / M2013-7496-4LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 19.72CEMETERY BUILDING2015-5730-3CEMETERY BUILDING130.000.64.536.50.47.00 35.33TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY / METER 102015-6343-4TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WAY / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 25.37TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W / METER 12015-8215-2TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 29.29LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW / METE2015-9448-825Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 92Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds26 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232483 8/2/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 19.14OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT CEMETERY2016-1027-6OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT CEMETERY130.000.64.536.50.47.00 8.59TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER 12016-1195-1TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 30.73DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST / METER2016-5690-7DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 125.13PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 100TH AVE W /2017-0375-8PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 100TH AVE W111.000.68.542.64.47.00 30.07415 5TH AVE S2017-6210-1415 5TH AVE S001.000.64.576.80.47.00 24.89TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER 12019-0786-2TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER111.000.68.542.63.47.00 28.70WWTP: 6/22-7/24/18 FLOWMETER 1000520295:2019-2991-6 6/22-7/24/18 FLOW METER 23219 74TH423.000.76.535.80.47.62 18.89FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE2020-7719-4FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 534.75LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 10002020-8787-0LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 160.18CEMETERY WELL PUMP2021-6153-5CEMETERY WELL PUMP130.000.64.536.50.47.00 222.57TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8912-0TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 55.2826Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 93Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds27 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232483 8/2/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTING 120 5TH2024-2158-2LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTING 120 5TH001.000.66.518.30.47.00 43.68MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION & SUMP2026-2041-5MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION & SUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.74CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST / METER 102042-9221-3CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 50.09HAZEL MILLER PLAZA2044-6743-5HAZEL MILLER PLAZA001.000.64.576.80.47.00 39.26TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE W /2205-4758-2TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE W /111.000.68.542.63.47.00 43.04Total :2,877.10232484 8/2/2018072776 SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DIST 3391E7FG.STORMWATER OUTREACH - YE7FG.Stormwat Outreach - Youth Education422.000.72.531.90.41.20 550.00Total :550.00232485 8/2/2018076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 643AUG-18 COMMUNICATIONSAUG-18 COMMUNICATIONS001.000.39.528.00.51.00 83,299.49AUG-18 COMMUNICATIONS421.000.74.534.80.51.00 2,192.09AUG-18 COMMUNICATIONS423.000.75.535.80.51.00 2,192.09Total :87,683.67232486 8/2/2018037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE 18-0015Q2-18 EMS BILLING & POSTAGEQ2-18 Ambulance billings & postage001.000.39.522.70.41.00 16,852.00AUG-2018 FIRE SERVICES CONTRACTEDMS 2018-827Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 94Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds28 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232486 8/2/2018(Continued)037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUEAug-2018 Fire Services Contract Payment001.000.39.522.20.51.00 614,893.17Total :631,745.17232487 8/2/2018068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 49768FS 20 - BAY DOORS REPAIRSFS 20 - Bay Doors Repairs001.000.66.518.30.48.00 489.8510.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 50.45FS 16 - MAINT SVC49793FS 16 - Maint Svc001.000.66.518.30.48.00 102.0510.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.51Total :652.86232488 8/2/2018 076725 STEVEN & RENEE ABOLAFIA 8-28825#40212438-803-CJ2 UTILITY REFUND#40212438-803-CJ2 Utility refund due to411.000.233.000 132.23Total :132.23232489 8/2/2018076726 STEVEN & RENEE ABOLAFIA 8-28850#40212440-803-CJ2 UTILITY REFUND#40212440-803-CJ2 Utility refund due to411.000.233.000 68.72Total :68.72232490 8/2/2018076474 STROMME, JOANNE SUMMER YOGA INSTR6621 6624 6627 YOGA INSTRUCTION6621 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 433.406624 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 233.206627 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 416.90Total :1,083.5028Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 95Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds29 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232491 8/2/2018076054 STRUM, KRAIG STRUM 7/18STRUM PER DIEM 7/11-7/13 SHELTON TRAININPER DIEM 7/11-7/13/18 SHELTON, WA001.000.41.521.40.43.00 93.00Total :93.00232492 8/2/2018068360 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 93513TEAMSTERS NEGOTIATIONSTEAMSTERS NEGOTIATIONS001.000.64.571.21.41.00 57.23TEAMSTERS NEGOTIATIONS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 65.18TEAMSTERS NEGOTIATIONS423.000.75.535.80.41.00 65.18TEAMSTERS NEGOTIATIONS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 65.18TEAMSTERS NEGOTIATIONS111.000.68.542.31.41.00 65.19Total :317.96232493 8/2/2018 071827 SWANK MOTION PICTURES, INC DB 2535749SUMMER MOVIE: MOANASUMMER MOVIE: MOANA001.000.64.571.22.49.00 375.00Total :375.00232494 8/2/2018040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18205121STORM - WORK GLOVESStorm - Work Gloves422.000.72.531.90.24.00 174.9210.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.24.00 18.02UNIT 14 - PARTS18207022Unit 14 - Parts511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.0110.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.72Total :200.67232495 8/2/2018072790 TCC PRINTING & IMAGING LTAC-97824PRINTING BIRD FEST POSTERS29Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 96Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds30 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232495 8/2/2018(Continued)072790 TCC PRINTING & IMAGINGPrinting of Bird Fest posters120.000.31.575.42.41.00 362.9910.3% Sales Tax120.000.31.575.42.41.00 37.39Total :400.38232496 8/2/2018067938 TEARS OF JOY THEATRE 7/24 HMP CONCERT 7/24 HMP CONCERT7/24 HMP CONCERT117.100.64.573.20.41.00 500.00Total :500.00232497 8/2/2018 075982 TELESHEV, SERGEI 7/26 HMP CONCERT 7/26 HMP CONCERT7/26 HMP CONCERT117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,000.00Total :1,000.00232498 8/2/2018027269 THE PART WORKS INC INV29461PM: TOILET VALVEPM: TOILET VALVE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 795.2810.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 81.91Total :877.19232499 8/2/2018076724 TODD & CHRISTINA FLYNN 3-38500#18-183936 UTILITY REFUND#18-183936 Utility refund due to411.000.233.000 105.83Total :105.83232500 8/2/2018068322 TRANE US INC 39203784PS - REPAIRSPS - Repairs001.000.66.518.30.48.00 3,675.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 378.53Total :4,053.53232501 8/2/2018075850 TURLEY, DAVE July 2018MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR AW30Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 97Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds31 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232501 8/2/2018(Continued)075850 TURLEY, DAVEMileage reimbursement for travel to AWC001.000.31.514.23.43.00 44.48Total :44.48232502 8/2/2018070774 ULINE INC 99509452INV#99509452 CUST#15349758 - EDMONDS PDS-2177W - 9X14 1.5 MIL DOORKNOB001.000.41.521.22.31.00 36.00S-7726 ULINE FACIAL TISSUE 36/CT001.000.41.521.10.31.00 35.00Freight001.000.41.521.10.31.00 17.3810.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.31.00 3.7110.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.39INV#99509905 CUST#15349758 - EDMONDS PD99509905S-10378 - 10X13 KRAFT REDI-SEAL001.000.41.521.80.31.00 205.00Freight001.000.41.521.80.31.00 56.0610.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.80.31.00 26.89Total :385.43232503 8/2/2018067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9810844929C/A 671247844-00001Cell Service-Eng001.000.67.518.21.42.00 56.61Cell Service Fac-Maint001.000.66.518.30.42.00 74.78Cell Service-PD001.000.41.521.22.42.00 308.01Cell Service-PW Street/Storm111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.55Cell Service-PW Street/Storm422.000.72.531.90.42.00 18.5531Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 98Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds32 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232503 8/2/2018(Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESSCell Service-PW Water421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.55Cell Service-PW Sewer423.000.75.535.80.42.00 55.65Cell Service-WWTP423.000.76.535.80.42.00 18.55Total :569.25232504 8/2/2018 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 8082985076WWTP: CONTAINERS NW CS500CONTAINERS NW CS500423.000.76.535.80.31.00 150.7610.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 15.53Total :166.29232505 8/2/2018075283 WAVE8136 50 211 00055035FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICEHigh Speed Internet service 08/01/18 -512.000.31.518.87.42.00 816.00Total :816.00232506 8/2/2018075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 10749987PM: LINERSPM: LINERS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,208.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 124.42PM: ODOR NEUT SPRAY10752115PM: ODOR NEUT SPRAY001.000.64.576.80.31.00 104.2010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.73FAC MAINT - WASTEBASKETS10754428Fac Maint - Wastebaskets001.000.66.518.30.31.00 66.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.8032Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 99Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/02/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds33 7:28:07AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount232506 8/2/2018(Continued)075635 WCP SOLUTIONSFAC MAINT - TT, TOWELS, POLISH,10756651Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Polish,001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,360.5410.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 140.14FAC MAINT - GARBAGE BAGS10762806Fac Maint - Garbage Bags001.000.66.518.30.31.00 129.2010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.31FAC MAINT - LINERS, SUPPLIES10765116Fac Maint - Liners, Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 441.3210.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 45.46Total :3,650.12232507 8/2/2018 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 36378E8CB.MATERIALS FOR WB LEFT TURN @ SR104E8CB.Materials for WB Left Turn @ SR104112.000.68.542.30.41.00 212.22E8CB.Materials for WB Left Turn @ SR104125.000.68.542.30.41.00 389.06E8CB.Materials for WB Left Turn @ SR104126.000.68.542.30.41.00 775.91Total :1,377.19Bank total : 1,448,321.36115 Vouchers for bank code :usbank1,448,321.36Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report11533Page:4.3.bPacket Pg. 100Attachment: claim cks 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
08/01/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 9:46:51AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount8012018 8/1/2018076380 BETTER PROPERTIES METRO Aug 2018ACCT #00365662 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent - August001.000.39.542.64.45.00 417.67Total :417.67Bank total : 417.671 Vouchers for bank code :usbank417.67Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report11Page:4.3.cPacket Pg. 101Attachment: wire 08-01-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Revised 8/1/2018
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting Number
Engineering
Project Number
STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB
STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE
SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC
STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA
SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB
WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA
STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB
STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA
SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA
SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC
STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA
WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB
WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB
STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA
STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA
STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB
SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE
SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC
STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA
WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD
WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Revised 8/1/2018
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting Number
Engineering
Project Number
SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA
WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA
STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA
STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC
STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC
STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB
STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB
STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB
STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB
STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC
STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Revised 8/1/2018
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting Number
Engineering
Project Number
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG
STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA
PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA
STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA
PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Revised 8/1/2018
Funding
Engineering
Project Number
Project
Accounting Number Project Title
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Revised 8/1/2018
Funding
Engineering
Project Number
Project
Accounting Number Project Title
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System
STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming
STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program
WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays
SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays
STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program
WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays
STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan
STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens
STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs
SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Revised 8/1/2018
Funding
Engineering
Project Number
Project
Accounting Number Project Title
SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update
WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza
PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement
PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa
STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming
STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program
WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall
STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration
STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming
STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive
STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program
STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays
SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays
STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps
STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study
STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Revised 8/1/2018
Funding
Engineering
Project Number
Project
Accounting Number Project Title
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Revised 8/1/2018
Funding
Engineering
Project Number
Project
Accounting Number Project Title
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program
STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System
STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming
STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project
WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays
FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers
PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza
WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs
SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa
STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement
SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays
STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Revised 8/1/2018
Funding
Engineering
Project Number
Project
Accounting Number Project Title
WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays
STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens
SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program
WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming
STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall
STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming
STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive
STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program
STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps
WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays
SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays
STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration
STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update
STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan
STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Revised 8/1/2018
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB
PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA
PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA
PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC
STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE
STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB
STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA
STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB
STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG
STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD
STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Revised 8/1/2018
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC
STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA
STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA
STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB
STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA
STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA
STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA
STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB
STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA
STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC
STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB
STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB
STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB
STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC
STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA
STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Revised 8/1/2018
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB
SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC
SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA
SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC
SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE
SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC
SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA
WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB
WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB
WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB
WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD
WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC
WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA
4.3.d
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 08-02-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.)
Payroll Earnings Summary ReportCity of EdmondsPay Period: 875 (07/16/2018 to 07/31/2018)Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class DescriptionEducational Pay CorrectionREGULAR HOURS-ed20.00 -156.28NO PAY LEAVEABSENT1111.50 0.00NO PAY NON HIREDABSENT112156.00 0.00SICK LEAVESICK121572.75 18,206.40VACATIONVACATION1222,063.25 75,658.57HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY12330.75 984.14FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY12417.00 599.13COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125313.50 10,291.43Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS13018.00 675.00JURY DUTYJURY DUTY13213.00 522.31Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150216.00 8,743.56COMPTIME BUY BACKCOMP HOURS1520.50 12.79COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155125.77 5,875.92VACATION PAYOFFVACATION15846.00 1,176.45MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION16027.00 1,602.50COUNCIL BASE PAYREGULAR HOURS170700.00 7,875.00COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAYREGULAR HOURS1740.00 200.00COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICALREGULAR HOURS1750.00 3,465.85REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS19018,274.90 621,202.55FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS1914.00 4,535.60ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVEREGULAR HOURS195250.00 7,921.33LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS19680.00 3,013.33OVERTIME .5OVERTIME HOURS2054.00 63.36OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS2109.50 320.44WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS21548.00 2,628.91STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS21617.00 1,698.65OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220267.75 16,891.37OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS2258.50 576.58WORKING OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS4100.00 306.43SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL4110.00 1,177.62RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY6000.00 318.97ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS602131.50 0.00ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS604190.00 0.0008/02/2018Page 1 of 34.3.ePacket Pg. 114Attachment: payroll summary 07-31-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and
Payroll Earnings Summary ReportCity of EdmondsPay Period: 875 (07/16/2018 to 07/31/2018)Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class DescriptionACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS6061.00 0.00ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc0.00 104.44ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs0.00 151.43BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc0.00 86.48Collision ReconstructionistMISCELLANEOUScolre0.00 114.63TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl0.00 156.94CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt0.00 554.28DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet0.00 108.48Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet40.00 1,049.38EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed10.00 702.76EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed20.00 809.30EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed30.00 5,011.23FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAIDABSENTfmla9.00 0.00HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol8.00 279.93K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk90.00 206.94LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg10.00 737.68LONGEVITY 5.5%LONGEVITYlg100.00 144.57LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%LONGEVITYlg110.00 919.55Longevity 9%LONGEVITYlg120.00 5,269.06Longevity 7%LONGEVITYlg130.00 2,197.17Longevity 5%LONGEVITYlg140.00 1,280.98LONGEVITY 7.5%LONGEVITYlg150.00 372.38Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg40.00 364.75Longevity 3%LONGEVITYlg50.00 433.92Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg60.00 293.59Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg70.00 612.46Medical Leave SickSICKmels96.00 2,150.50MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc0.00 216.96Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds0.00 99.30PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy0.00 2,149.37PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof0.00 169.24SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUSsdp0.00 279.29ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt0.00 169.2408/02/2018Page 2 of 34.3.ePacket Pg. 115Attachment: payroll summary 07-31-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and
Payroll Earnings Summary ReportCity of EdmondsPay Period: 875 (07/16/2018 to 07/31/2018)Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class DescriptionSTREET CRIMESMISCELLANEOUSstr0.00 458.52TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf0.00 338.69Total Net Pay: $564,752.00$824,381.3523,700.1708/02/2018Page 3 of 34.3.ePacket Pg. 116Attachment: payroll summary 07-31-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and
Benefit Checks Summary ReportCity of EdmondsPay Period: 875 - 07/16/2018 to 07/31/2018Bank: usbank - US Bank Direct Deposit Check Amt Name Payee # Date Check #63389 08/03/2018 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE69.00 0.0063390 08/03/2018 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT149.50 0.0063391 08/03/2018 jhan JOHN HANCOCK599.88 0.0063392 08/03/2018 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS2,006.68 0.0063393 08/03/2018 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 3,833.20 0.0063394 08/03/2018 afscme WSCCCE, AFSCME AFL-CIO2,505.49 0.009,163.750.00Bank: wire - US BANK Direct Deposit Check Amt Name Payee # Date Check #2747 08/03/2018 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS290,750.84 0.002750 08/03/2018 aflac AFLAC5,666.42 0.002752 08/03/2018 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER25,931.87 0.002753 08/03/2018 us US BANK97,495.67 0.002754 08/03/2018 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1100,528.63 0.002756 08/03/2018 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 6,742.44 0.002758 08/03/2018 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT628.50 0.00527,744.370.00536,908.120.00Grand Totals:Page 1 of 18/2/20184.3.fPacket Pg. 117Attachment: payroll benefit 07-31-18 (Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/7/2018
Employee agreement
Staff Lead: Mary Ann Hardie
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: MaryAnn Hardie
Background/History
Sophia Choi's employment with the City ended in July 2018. Staff is proposing this separation agreement
to finalize the terms of her separation.
Staff Recommendation
By approving this agenda memo, the City Council would be approving the separation agreement
including compensation in the amount of approximately $10,140.06, and authorizing the Mayor to
execute the same.
Narrative
Sophia Choi's employment with the City ended in July 2018. Staff is proposing this separation agreement
to finalize the terms of her separation.
4.4
Packet Pg. 118
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/7/2018
PSRC Award Presentation
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) makes Vision 2040 awards to just a few outstanding projects
each year. Edmonds has never before received such an award.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2017. It provided an exciting
vision for increasing livability in the Highway 99 area, with more economic and housing opportunities
and a multi-modal approach to improved transportation.
Earlier this year, City staff submitted information about the plan and, ultimately, PSRC selected the
Highway 99 Subarea Plan for a VISION 2040 award, recognizing it as an excellent planning example for
our four-county region.
At the August 7 City Council meeting, an award presentation to the City will be made by PSRC's
Executive Director, Josh Brown.
5.1
Packet Pg. 119
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/7/2018
Verdant Health Commission Presentation
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
In the past, the Verdant Health Commission has provided presentations to the City Council to bring
awareness to their programs and various community health issues facing the region.
Staff Recommendation
No action required - for information only.
Narrative
Robin Fenn, Superintendent of the Verdant Health Commission, will provide a presentation regarding
community health issues and partnership opportunities.
5.2
Packet Pg. 120
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/7/2018
Creative District Resolution
Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty
Department: Economic Development
Preparer: Patrick Doherty
Background/History
In recognition of the significant measures, activities, programs and commitment the City of Edmonds
and the greater community have committed to the arts, culture and creative sector, it is appropriate for
the City of Edmonds to pursue State Creative District designation. What's more, Creative District
designation would both recognize the Edmonds community’s significant achievements in and
commitments to the arts, cultural and creative sector, as well as provide the platform and impetus for
enhancements, growth and further development of the creative sector and its accompanying benefits to
the local economy and quality of life.
Major arts and culture venues have been developed in greater Downtown Edmonds, including the
Edmonds Center for the Arts, Cascadia Art Museum, Edmonds Historical Museum, Frances Anderson
Center, and the Wade James Theater, with new developments pending, such as the Graphite Arts Center
and other new commercial projects on Main Street.
It is for this reason that the greater Downtown Edmonds area is proposed to comprise the Edmonds
Creative District. This area runs roughly south to north from the Edmonds Marsh to the Edmonds
Center for the Arts, and west to east from the Edmonds Waterfront and Port District to the Wade James
Theater is intended to comprise the Edmonds Creative District (see attached map).
Application for Creative District designation requires a local municipality to approve a Resolution
expressing it intent to apply for such designation, the reasons behind that intent, and a description of
the area proposed for designation.
The attached Resolution is proposed to accomplish this requirement.
Staff Recommendation
Approve attached Resolution declaring the City of Edmonds' intent to submit an application to the
7.1
Packet Pg. 121
Washington State Arts Commission for Creative District designation.
Narrative
In 2017 the State Legislature created the new program of Creative District designations, codified at RCW
43.46.100-115, intended to apply to a “geographical, mixed-use area of a community in which a high
concentration of cultural facilities, creative businesses, or arts-related businesses serve as a collective
anchor of public attraction."
Communities may apply to the Washington State Arts Commission (ARTSWA) for designation as Creative
Districts in recognition of their existing arts, cultural and creative-sector attributes, as well as their
intended enhancements over a five-year period.
Edmonds City government has embraced arts and culture in its programs, activities, and corresponding
budget priorities for decades, most recently enshrined in the Community Cultural Plan, first adopted in
1995 and updated in 2014, which is incorporated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and serves as a
blueprint to position cultural resources as key community and economic building-blocks.
In addition, as an outgrowth of the Community Cultural Plan and in support of the significant
relationship between the Edmonds Center for the Arts and the Downtown Edmonds commercial district,
the City adopted the Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor concept plan, which will lead to the development
of a greatly enhanced pedestrian and vehicle connection, as well as supportive land uses, between these
two main Downtown Edmonds anchors.
Earlier this year the City-sponsored study of the economic impact of the arts and culture sector in
Edmonds, key findings of which included:
· The arts and culture cluster has a significant positive impact on Edmonds, generating an
estimated $50 million a year and 440 full-time equivalent positions to the regional economy
· Residents and visitors attending arts and culture events in Edmonds spend more money
than just the cost of their admission. Leisure activities, such as dining and shopping, are a
consistent and connected part of their participation in arts and culture activities
· The City should pursue Creative District designation to promote and grow its arts and culture
sector
Attachments:
Edmonds_Creative_District_2018_FINAL DRAFT
Creative District Resolution
7.1
Packet Pg. 122
MAKAH RDNOOTKA RDDALEY ST
EDMONDS ST
4TH AVE S8TH AVE S9TH AVE N10TH AVE N5TH AVE N10THAVENMAIN ST
98TH AVE WALOHAPL
CHINOOKRD3RD AVE N9TH AVE S6TH AVE SW DAYTON ST
216TH PL SW10TH AVE SALOHA ST
B
E
A
C
HP
L
WALNUT ST6TH AVE NEDMONDS ST
BELL ST
2NDAVESVIEWPL8TH AVE NBELL ST
JA
M
ES ST
5TH AVE S10TH PL N215TH ST SW
BELL ST
ED MONDS ST
LAUREL WAY
JA
M
ES ST
SPRUCE PL
BELL ST
10TH PL SC AVE7TH AVE SCEDAR ST7TH AVE N8TH AVE S6TH AVE SA AVE SRAILRO AD A VEB AVE SDURBIN DR3RD AVE SED
M
O
NDS ST
DAYTON ST
4TH AVE SHOWELL WAY 8THAVENCAROL WAY
ERBEN DR
2ND AVE SEDMONDS STRAILROADAVEN CAROL WAY
ALDER ST
MAPLE STRAILROADST
SPRAGUE ST
DALEY ST
SUNSETAVESGLEN ST
SUNSETAVEN2NDAVEN6TH AVE SALDER ST
SPRUCE ST
SPRAGUE ST
214TH PL SW
POINT EDWARDS PL
216TH ST SW
SEAMONT LN
GLEN ST
HEMLOCK ST
LAUREL ST
SPRUCE ST
HOLLY DR
MAPLE WAY
GLEN ST
SPRAGUE ST
HOMELAND D R
U
NIO
NO
IL
C
O
MP
A
NY
R
DADM IRALW AYPINE ST 4TH AVE N4THAVENMAGNOLIA LNEDMONDS WAYEDMONDSWAYHEMLOCK WAY
0 820410 Feet
Creative District Boundary
Public Facilities
Edmonds City Limits
Arterial Streets
Secondary Streets
Driveway and Parking Lots
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 FeetProjection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: North American 1983Units: Foot US
June 2018¯Path: \\imapserver\GIS\Projects\Economic_Development\Creative_District\Edmonds_Creative_District_2018.mxd
City of Edmonds121 5th Ave NEdmonds, WA 98202
1 inch = 217 feet
City of EdmondsWashington
Edmonds Proposed Creative District
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Edmonds_Creative_District_2018_FINAL DRAFT (Creative District Resolution)
1
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE INTENTION OF
THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO SUBMIT AN
APPLICATION TO THE WASHINGTON STATE ARTS
COMMISSION FOR CREATIVE DISTRICT
DESIGNATION.
WHEREAS, arts, culture and other creative endeavors have been a mainstay of the
Edmonds community since incorporation in 1890; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City government has embraced arts and culture in its
programs, activities, and corresponding budget priorities for decades, most recently
enshrined in the Community Cultural Plan, first adopted in 1995 and updated in 2014,
which is incorporated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and serves as a blueprint to
position cultural resources as key community and economic building-blocks; and
WHEREAS, as an outgrowth of the Community Cultural Plan and in support of the
significant relationship between the Edmonds Center for the Arts and the Downtown
Edmonds commercial district, the City adopted the Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
concept plan, which will lead to the development of a greatly enhanced pedestrian and
vehicle connection, as well as supportive land uses, between these two main Downtown
Edmonds anchors; and
WHEREAS, in 2017 the City conducted a study of the economic impact of the arts
and culture sector in Edmonds, key findings of which included:
• The arts and culture cluster has a significant positive impact on Edmonds,
generating an estimated $50 million a year and 440 full-time equivalent
positions to the regional economy
• Residents and visitors attending arts and culture events in Edmonds
spend more money than just the cost of their admission. Leisure
activities, such as dining and shopping, are a consistent and connected
part of their participation in arts and culture activities; and
WHEREAS, while arts and culture organizations are the foundation of the creative
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Creative District Resolution (Creative District Resolution)
2
sector in Edmonds, a substantial component is also comprised of a wide range of business,
nonprofits, and educational and other entities engaged in creative-sector activities; and
WHEREAS, the State of Washington created the new program of Creative District
designations during the 2017 Legislation Session, codified at RCW 43.46.100-115, intended
to apply to a “geographical, mixed-use area of a community in which a high concentration
of cultural facilities, creative businesses, or arts-related businesses serve as a collective
anchor of public attraction”; and
WHEREAS, major arts and culture venues have been developed in greater
Downtown Edmonds, including the Edmonds Center for the Arts, Cascadia Art Museum,
Edmonds Historical Museum, Frances Anderson Center, and the Wade James Theater, with
new developments pending, such as the Graphite Arts Center and other new commercial
projects on Main Street; and
WHEREAS, the greater Downtown Edmonds area, running roughly south to north
from the Edmonds Marsh to the Edmonds Center for the Arts, and west to east from the
Edmonds Waterfront and Port District to the Wade James Theater is intended to comprise
the Edmonds Creative District (see Attachment A for map); and
WHEREAS, Creative District designation would both recognize the Edmonds
community’s significant achievements in and commitments to the arts, cultural and
creative sector, as well as provide the platform and impetus for enhancements, growth and
further development of the creative sector and its accompanying benefits to the local
economy and quality of life.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDSTHAT:
Section 1. The City of Edmonds intends to apply to the Washington State Arts Commission
for official Creative District designation of the area of Downtown Edmonds delineated on
the attached map (Attachment A).
Section 2. If Creative District designation is approved by the State, the City of Edmonds
intends to follow through with implementation of programs, activities and enhancements
within the District over a five-year period focused in three principal areas:
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Creative District Resolution (Creative District Resolution)
3
• Strengthen and expand creative identity of the Edmonds Creative District
• Leverage and connect creative experiences in the Edmonds Creative District
• Retain and attract creative businesses and nonprofits, and the resulting jobs, within
the Edmonds Creative District
Section 3. The City Council intends to continue to fund the staff positions and related
appropriations to ensure diligent execution of the programs, activities and enhancements
intended to further the Edmonds Creative District over the next five years.
Section 4. The City Council requests that the necessary materials be prepared to submit
the City’s official application for Creative District designation by the Washington State Arts
Commission.
RESOLVED this ____________ day of August, 2018,
APPROVED:
________________________________________________________
MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
________________________________________________
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Creative District Resolution (Creative District Resolution)
4
ATTACHMENT A
EDMONDS PROPOSED CREATIVE DISTRICT
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Creative District Resolution (Creative District Resolution)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/7/2018
2018 Sewer Replacement Project Change Order
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Rob English
Background/History
On April 24, 2018, the City Council authorized the award of a construction contract to McCann
Construction Enterprises and a $232,000 management reserve for changes and unforeseen conditions.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to execute a change order.
Narrative
As part of the original project, a groundwater dewatering system was installed to allow for the
construction of the sewer system. This was required due to the high groundwater levels at the Civic
Field site that are present even during the dry period of the year. The project had planned on installing
the system above ground, which would be consistent with previous projects requiring such systems.
At the start of construction, additional discussions between the Parks department, Public Works
department, and the contractor revealed that the dewatering system required a much higher level of
protection to address public events, driveway access, safety and potential vandalism concerns. This was
due to the increased population that would be attending events taking place on and near civic field
during the duration of the project.
The system though still needed to be readily accessible and reparable by the contractor. In addition, it
had to minimize the impacts to their construction and production schedule. A much larger and
expensive dewatering system would have been required if the project was not done during the summer
months due to increased groundwater flows, and that the system would be discharging during a wetter
time period where the pipes would likely have stormwater flows in them greatly increasing the chance
of downstream flooding of the existing storm system.
The extra work for the dewatering effort included:
· Temporary fencing to protect the system in the reach across Civic Field.
· The dewatering system was installed in a trench below grade within the roadway limits affected
by the project. This required extra excavation and hauling of material by the Contractor.
· The trench and dewatering system had to be covered by steel sheets for safety and to allow the
contractor access to operate the valves and pumps in the dewatering system.
· The dewatering trench will need to be restored with import backfill and a new pavement
section.
7.2
Packet Pg. 128
Additional work is on-going and a final cost hasn't been determined for the change order. The change
order will exceed $100,000, so Council approval is required. Staff will provide a preliminary estimate of
the change order at the meeting.
In addition, there currently are two other change orders that staff is working on that may bring the
overall cost to the current management reserve amount of $232,000.
The other two change orders are as follows:
· The contractor has encountered and removed a number of creosote coated wood piles during
installation of the sanitary sewer in Edmonds St. The creosote coating in the piles is a
contaminant and has created a situation where the contaminated materials and surrounding
soils require special removal and disposal methods.
· The other change order addresses the poor condition of the existing pavement on 7th Ave N.
There is approximately five feet of separation between the sewer main trench and the
dewatering trench. Within this strip of existing pavement, sections have either cracked or
broken away during the excavation of both trenches and the remaining pavement needs to be
removed and replaced.
With this in mind, if another/new change order is needed in the future, there is a possibility that the
project will exceed the current management reserve, thereby requiring additional funding. Staff will
provide an update on the project budget and a recommendation to increase the management reserve at
the Council meeting.
7.2
Packet Pg. 129
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/7/2018
Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes
Staff Lead: Diane Buckshnis/Maureen Judge
Department: City Council
Preparer: Maureen Judge
Background/History
In the first and second quarter of 2017, the Finance Committee began noting that the grant funding
reimbursements were lagging behind expenses. As financial continued to show a lag, discussion started
and it was determined that the Finance Department needed another FTE to assist Public Works in
fulfilling their accounting requirements (which would also include work on auditing capital assets as part
of the yearly requirement) in addition to accounting work in Finance.
The City Council passed Decision Packet #8 in 2017 for Finance labeled as a "Senior Accountant" with an
estimated $132,030 annual salary (with benefits the total annual cost to the City is near $200,000). The
reason for the “Senior” was thought to be for CAFR (Comprehensive Accounting Financial Reporting)
work and financial statement completion and the overseeing of the work that was required in public
works for grant reimbursement.
Administration interviewing for the one position occurred during the first half of 2018 with both the
Finance and Public Works Directors involved. During this process it was reported because of the delay,
that it was clear that both Department Directors had different opinions of skills, needs and expectations.
Somehow it was determined a second position was needed in Public Works.
Because of what might be time constraints (June 12, 2018 Committee night), both job descriptions for a
“Senior Accountant” were presented to the City Council’s Personnel Committee. The Personnel
Committee placed the approved budgeted Finance Senior Accountant’s Job Description on consent as
the position had been budgeted. The new position of Senior Accountant for Public Works would not be
placed on consent as it was a brand new position and Council should deliberate about it. On June 12,
2018, the Public Works Director visited the other two Council Committees to discuss the position. Even
though the “forecasted new position of accountant” started in the finance committee in June 2017, the
finance committee has not been made aware of the second position until that night. Both Finance
Council Members could not opine anything as it would have caused a rolling quorum.
At the June 19, 2018 Council Meeting, the Public Works Director provided information for the Senior
Accountant job description and Council had many questions (see minutes) and comments regarding
putting a highly trained and experienced Financial expert under the realm of Public Works. Most Council
Members would not vote to put a Senior Engineer in Finance and so it was the same logic of different
"silos" requiring different expertise and supervision. It was also stated that the extra added work in the
Finance Department for the Senior Accountant job had been pulled regarding ensuring grant
7.3
Packet Pg. 130
reimbursements were being done on a timely manner and slight oversight on the Public Works jobs (this
job description had been approved on consent). After much confusion and questions that remained
unanswered regarding placing a Senior Accountant in Public Works ($132K with benefits to be about
$200K), the position was approved and the Senior Accountant position in Finance was pulled from the
consent agenda and reconsidered by putting the job workload at a .5 FTE.
In the July 10, 2018 Finance Committee Meeting, CM Buckshnis expressed serious concern over the
method and process that had just transpired. She also indicated the City does not need to spend
upwards of $400K for two positions when it is clear this caliber of expertise was now not needed. She
indicated that as a majority voter, she was to going to revisit her vote so as to send this issue back to the
Administration to work out the job needs for both areas now that it was clear both Departments wanted
their own staff.
CM Buckshnis has discussed her reasons for this revisit and revote with the Administration. The
Administration has been working on reviewing both job descriptions and determining the workload and
expertise in both areas since the senior accountant in finance had changed and the expertise needed in
Public Works needs to be (re)defined.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Council Members have the ability to revisit any vote they take as long as they are of the majority vote. A
revisit is similar to a reconsideration; only reconsiderations can occur only on the day of the Council
Members vote.
On June 19, 2018, the Council voted on a “reconsideration” (pulling it from consent) of the Finance
Department’s Senior Accounting Position to vote on a .5 FTE based on deliberations that occurred over
the Public Works Senior Accounting position. On June 19, 2018, Council approved a full-time Senior
Accountant to be placed in Public Works and a .5 FTE for Finance. Council Member Buckshnis voted in
the majority on both votes.
Council Member Buckshnis would now like Council to review both votes and determine if they would
consider a revote to return both of these positions back to the Administration. Based on the
background and history of this process, she believes the Administration must re-review both job
descriptions and provide the correct job description for the needed work in both Finance and Public
Works now that there are two potential FTE requests.
These potential new positions should outline for Council the actual “experience” needed for each area in
terms of work load, analytical expertise, financial expertise, training, educational requirements, job
experience and all of the necessary skills to complete the inadequacies that were noted in the grant
funding area last year (see background for complete details).
CM Buckshnis would request a vote to revisit and return these two job descriptions back to the
Administration for the process of crafting job descriptions for each area based on need.
7.3
Packet Pg. 131
Attachments:
SUBSET OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES 6_19
61218_Committee Meeting Minutes
Finance_Sr Acct Job descr
SR Public Works Acct_Job descr
7.3
Packet Pg. 132
SUBSET OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
June 19, 2018
8.2. JOB DESCRIPTIONS - PUBLIC WORKS SENIOR ACCOUNTANT
Public Works Director Williams explained the job description was presented to the PSPP Committee on
June 12, 2018 who recommend it be referred to the full City Council for consideration. It was also briefly
introduced to PPW Committee and Finance Committees on the same night. He reviewed:
• The Public Works Senior Accountant, under the supervision of the Public Works Director,
performs professional accounting activities and functions for the Public Works Department.
Responsibilities include:
o Departmental project and grant accounting
o Management of utility rate studies, rate calculations, and comparative rate analyses
o Participating and acting as a financial advisor to the Director and Departmental
Managers in the development of the City’s Capital Improvement Program,
Transportation Improvement Program, and Comprehensive Plans for Water, Sewer and
Stormwater Divisions.
o Organizing and participating in the preparation of the Department’s annual budget and
financial reports
o Developing the Public Works Department long-range financial planning inputs to the
Finance Department
o Consistently applying Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), Government
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) principles, guidelines established by granting or
contracting agencies and City financial policies
o Understanding and applying the Washington State Budgeting, Accounting and Reporting
System (BARS)
o Ensuring accuracy and confidentiality of information
o Provides leadership, procedural support and guidance to staff working with capital
projects and grants
o Works closely with PWD Managers (6) to help develop annual budget submittals,
estimate revenues, track budget performance, identify deviations from expected
performance as early as possible and develop budget amendments when necessary.
o Provide data and evaluation for updating Public Works capital asset records, including
recording and documenting Public Works asset dispositions and trade-ins.
o Responsible for preparing grant agency invoicing and reimbursements to ensure grant
and contract work is reimbursed to the City in a timely manner.
Mr. Williams displayed a graph of City capital program 2008-2017 for Sewer, Storm, Water, Parks,
Facilities and General Fund, illustrating the increase in capital projects. He reviewed:
• PWD is managing over $45 million in approved expense budgets in 2018. The City’s General
Fund is approximately $43 million with 9 staff focused primarily on general government
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: SUBSET OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES 6_19 (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
revenues and expenses. PWD has no staff with either formal training or extensive experience in
financial theory, principles, processes or regulations. +/- 85% of PWD budgets are something
other than general governmental dollars (taxes).
Cost of the position:
• Total cost (assume step 4) $7,201/month or $86,421/year
• 40% average benefit costs
• Estimated hire date of September 1, equals $40,325 in 2018, $120,976/year after that plus 3
additional steps in any awarded future COLA.
• A precise breakdown of this expense will be brought back in a budget adjustment next week if
this position is approved
Bottom line:
The PWD needs at least one senior level financial professional to be part of our management team. As
the Director, I need to be able to task this position on a daily and weekly basis to meet the needs of this
department. We have always worked well with Finance and that will continue. This position will work
closely with Finance to ensure our Department complies with all applicable policies and standards and is
a great steward of public funds.
Councilmember Buckshnis said in June 2017, the Finance Committee (Councilmember Teitzel and she)
noticed grant billings were not being submitted because Public Works did not have time to do it As a
result, a position was created that was 60% Finance and 40% Public Works, a total of 1 FTE. This is now a
request for another FTE. Her research did not find any other city with a senior accountant in their Public
Works Department. Mr. Williams responded there are a variety of different job titles such as financial
manager of utilities, financial analysist, etc.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed those positions were paid less than a senior accountant. She
relayed her understanding that Mr. Williams and Finance Director Scott James were unable to reach an
agreement on a person to fill the position. Mr. Williams responded there wasn’t a disagreement over
the person; when the amount of assistance Public Works needs was combined with the Finance
Department’s expectations, it did not fit into one position and the skill sets were different. Public Works
is looking for someone who has worked on utilities and infrastructure rather than general governmental
accounting. Mr. James is strongly supportive of a senior accountant in Public Works.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed Mr. James would support it because it gives him another 40% of a
senior accountant. Mr. Williams said that assumed the 40/60 split covered all the needs; neither he nor
Mr. James believe that is the case. Councilmember Buckshnis did not think Public Works needed a senior
accountant position, noting the job description and qualifications was almost the same as the Finance
senior accountant. Mr. Williams agreed they were similar. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to see
what happened with the senior accountant position that the Council approved. Mr. Williams pointed out
the job description for the senior accountant in Finance that was approved on the Consent Agenda had
been modified to remove the Public Works functions. If the Public Works senior accountant job
description is not approved, that job description will need to be modified to include the Public Works
duties.
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: SUBSET OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES 6_19 (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated other departments would want their own senior accountant; she
found it unusual that there would be a senior accountant in Public Works. She could see a utility
manager or something like that, noting this was splitting hairs over a name. Mr. Williams said Public
Works needs a person with the technical skills, the accounting skills, the formal training and the
extensive experience that allows them to speak the same language as Finance but someone that has the
skill set and can become an expert on Public Works’ business. The Public Works Department is a $45
million business; it seems like a good idea to have someone to manage that money. Councilmember
Buckshnis expressed concern Council approved the original job description for a senior accountant that
included Public Works duties, but those duties were omitted from the job description that was approved
on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Tibbott refer to the bar graph that illustrated the growth in capital projects and asked if
Mr. Williams expected that level of growth to continue. Mr. Williams did not anticipate having the
capacity to deliver projects greater than the level shown on the graph. He noted the number of projects
has increased and the projects are larger and many have federal and state grants which makes the
accounting financial documentation more difficult. Councilmember Tibbott said when he saw this graph,
he was concerned there may not be enough financial accountability and analysis in Public Works. If the
intent is to maintain that level or increase it in the future, it will be helpful to have a financial person in
Public Works. He asked if having a financial person in Public Works would free up engineers and other
staff to do other things. Mr. Williams said Public Works spends money every year on consultants to do
revenue requirement analyses; this year will include a full rate study. The use of consultants would not
be entirely discontinued, but less would be spent on consulting if the department has a person who can
lead that effort.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding some engineers are currently doing financial work.
Mr. Williams engineers do financial work, the senior utilities engineer does most of the bond work,
administrative assistants are doing accounting on grants; although not a disaster, it is a not a good fit for
staff. He summarized the financial function has been divided between several staff members, none of
whom have a formal financial training or background. Councilmember Tibbott summarized they would
be freed up to do other tasks.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the job description for a senior accountant in Finance that
the Council approved tonight, a position that was created to work part-time for Public Works. If the
council approves a Public Works senior accountant, the senior accountant in Finance does not need to
be full-time. She was satisfied with one senior accountant position, noting the addition of two positions
at approximately $200,000/year total was a lot of money. She understood Public Works’ need for a
finance person but questioned the need for 40% more for a senior accountant in Finance.
Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated Council approved one FTE, 40% for Public Works and 60% Finance.
Suddenly staff has disregarded what Council approved and now there is a new FTE in Finance and a new
FTE in Public Works.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Council would have approved a position if they had known it
would not provide assistance to Public Works. Councilmember Buckshnis said the delay in grant billings
was the reason for the request to hire a senior accountant who would do 60% Finance and 40% Public
Works; now suddenly there is a request for 2 FTEs at approximately $120,000 each. Councilmember
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: SUBSET OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES 6_19 (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
Fraley-Monillas understood the need for a senior accountant in Public Works but was concerned with
adding another 40% FTE to Finance.
Councilmember Mesaros said having a finance person imbedded in a department, especially one as
large as Public Works, is common outside municipal government. Having worked in senior management
in healthcare for several years, the largest departments often have an imbedded accountant helping
them with their operations budget and need for staffing as well as capital budgets. When this was
discussed by the PSPP Committee, it seemed appropriate due to the size of the Public Works
Department and Mr. James made a good case to the committee for the senior accountant in Finance. He
took issue with Councilmember Buckshnis characterizing this as staff disregarding what Council
approved; staff followed the correct procedures to present this to Council via the committee and the
committee forwarded one job description to the Consent Agenda and the new position to full Council.
He expressed support for the Public Works senior accountant.
Council President Nelson asked if the Council had approved the position or the job description. Mr.
Williams explained the Finance senior accountant was approved and funded in the 2018 budget. The job
description on tonight’s agenda was changed to remove the Public Works elements. He and Mr. James
have been unsuccessful in combining all the job duties in one position. The job market is competitive
and there is also a capacity issue in having all those tasks done by one person, even a very qualified
candidate. He assured staff was not trying to pull a fast one; Council approved the position and staff
tried to make it work but have been unsuccessful and are now asking for additional help.
Council President Nelson said he was persuaded Public Works needs their own finance person, but he
was not persuaded it needed to be a full-time position. Assistant Finance Director Turley explained many
departments have one foot in one department and the other foot in another department. For example,
HR does a lot of payroll work; the City Clerk’s Office does billings for licensing. In King County, his former
employer, any division with a budget of more than $10 million/year has their own finance person. He
recalled when he first started in Edmonds being introduced to WWTP manager and was surprised to see
her working on depreciation which is senior accountant work. Last year the person that does grant
billings for Public Works was out on extended leave so the city engineer, a person earning $60-$70/hour,
was doing grant billing. He pointed out the bigger issue of who is running the wastewater treatment
while the manager is working on depreciation. He summarized there are a lot of capacity needs in
Finance and Public Works to justify a senior accountant in both departments. The City is in the midst of
an annual audit, the biggest areas of concern are project accounting and capital assets. Staff can muddle
along the way they have but it is underserving. He concluded a position is needed in both areas.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed the PSPP Committee was not told that 40% of the Finance
senior accountant was supposed to be Public Works. She agreed it was perhaps appropriate to have an
FTE in Public Works, but she was struggling with it being a senior accountant.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
RECONSIDER #9, THE JOB DESCRIPTION FOR SENIOR ACCOUNTANT, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Councilmember Teitzel said he heard from both Mr. James and Mr. Williams about the need for support;
the graph displayed tonight illustrates the workload is growing dramatically and there is similar growth
in Finance. He concluded a case had been made both departments that a full-time FTE was appropriate.
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: SUBSET OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES 6_19 (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating Councilmember Teitzel was not speaking
to the motion. Mr. Taraday said the Consent Agenda was already approved, the motion was to
reconsider it, not pull it from the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Teitzel said an FTE was approved for the Finance Department due to the significant
growth in the workload in that department. For that reason, he will vote against the motion.
Councilmember Mesaros said Councilmembers have a valid concern about the job description. He did
not support reconsidering it because if this position is approved, there will be 1.5 FTE dedicated to
Public Works. For that reason, he will vote against the motion.
Councilmember Johnson asked for clarification; the item on the Consent Agenda approved the job
description and funding for the position. Mr. Turley advised the position and funding was approved with
2018 budget. Councilmember Johnson observed the distribution of the position was changed from
60/40 to 100% Finance. Mr. Turley agreed changing the job description did not change the budget for it.
Councilmember Johnson explained the Council approved one FTE and are now being asked to approve
two FTEs because staff was unable to hire one FTE. The request is not for two half-time FTEs, but two
full-time FTEs. Mr. Williams explained there were two issues, the first was staff was looking for a person
with a certain skill set in municipal finance and a slightly different skill set for Public Works. It was
originally believed that could be accomplished with one FTE and specific tasks were identified in the job
description. He did not recall that it was a 60/40 split in the hours, only that there were Public Works-
related tasks in the job description that Council approved with the budget. Second, staff tried to find a
person with both skill sets, but in reviewing the departments’ needs, it was determined to be too much
for one person. He summarized those two issues, capacity and skills, resulted in a request for two
positions. Mr. Turley explained in interviewing candidates earlier this year, staff was unable to find a
person that fit both departments’ needs. Staff then began tweaking the job description and when they
realized how much assistance each department required, it was agreed it needed to be two positions.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified the motion is to reconsider the senior accountant (Finance).
When that position was approved, it was .5 Public Works and .5 Finance. Now the .5 that Council
authorized for the Finance position is no longer needed if a full-time finance person is hired for Public
Works.
Councilmember Mesaros said though he could see Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ intent, he did not
believe voting to reconsider would accomplish that intent because it would recreate the position as it
was previously described with half Finance duties and half Public Works duties.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND THE
MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis concurred with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. Although she supported the
Finance Department, she did not feel Finance had demonstrated the need for a full-time FTE and Mr.
Williams has demonstrated the need for a full-time FTE. She suggested reanalyzing the senior
accounting position in Finance.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL VOTING NO.
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: SUBSET OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES 6_19 (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested Mayor Earling reach a solution that was agreeable to all.
Mayor Earling said he has watched the evolution of the position, trying to satisfy two different needs
with a 50/50 or 60/40 split. He reminded the City is becoming more sophisticated in needs, there are
broader descriptions, and disciplines need to interact. He listened to staff’s request and pushed back
hard on the need for two positions but was convinced two positions were needed. Public Works has
been doing some sophisticated bookkeeping with unsophisticated personnel. Due to the tight labor
market, he was unconvinced there was any way to satisfy both departments’ needs with one person. He
was willing to discuss this at the staff level again, but assumed staff would return with a request for two
positions.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the Council’s approval of the senior accountant in Finance was
based on half of the position assisting Public Works. If Public Works has their own finance person, the
40% FTE in Finance was no longer needed.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
REDUCE THE SENIOR ACCOUNTANT IN FINANCE TO .5 FTE. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1),
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, AND MESAROS
VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON
ABSTAINING.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a question about a Councilmember abstaining under Roberts
Rules of Order. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said a Councilmember can abstain for any reason; Council can
probe the basis for the abstention. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled her request for Mr. Taraday
to research this because under Roberts Rules an abstention can be considered either a yea or nay vote
and is intended for conflict of interest. Mr. Taraday responded abstention is not only for conflict of
interest, it can also be rendered for a number of reasons including when a Councilmember is
unprepared for vote because a motion was not in the packet for example. He advised he has not done
the detailed research regarding abstention.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO
APPROVE THE JOB DESCRIPTION AS PRESENTED BY MR. WILLIAMS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Taraday clarified by adopting the motion to reduce the FTE in Finance, Council is directing staff to
return with budget amendment for the reduced FTE.
7.3.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: SUBSET OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES 6_19 (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
Minutes
PUBLIC SAFETY, PERSONNEL & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
June 12, 2018
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Councilmember Tom Mesaros (Chair) Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director
Mayor Dave Earling Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Other Guests Present Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Noal Leonetti, Student Representative Leif Bjorback, Building Official
The meeting was called to order at 7:22 p.m. in the Police Training Room.
3. Job Descriptions - Senior Accountant (Finance) & Senior Accountant (PW)
Ms. Hardie explained the Senior Accountant job description was approved by Council in March 2018.
After further consideration by staff, it was determined two positions would be more appropriate, one
specific to Public Works and one specific to Finance as the job duties and their focus is different.
Mr. Williams explained the original intent was to be efficient with one position, however, 1) there is
enough work for two positions, 2) the job duties are very different and 3) he has wanted/needed a
staff person in Public Works focused on finances as Public Works & Utilities is the largest department
with the most expenditures in the City and the department manages numerous grants. The PW Senior
Accountant would work closely with Finance. Discussion followed regarding the need for Council
approval of a new job title and job description for the Public Works Senior Accountant, Council’s
previous approval of the Senior Accountant (Finance), difficulty filling the Senior Accountant position,
how the PW Senior Accountant would be funded, budget amendment if the PW Senior Accountant is
approved by Council, pay grade and cost of the position, coordination between the positions, and
justification for the PW Senior Accountant position.
Mr. James relayed changes that would be made to the Finance Senior Accountant job description with
the addition of the PW Senior Accountant position such as removing supervisory duties which makes
it a union position and adding disaster response and risk management.
Mayor Earling expressed support for adding the Senior Accountant Public Works position, recognizing
the difficulty filling a combined position due to the differences in each department.
Action: Schedule change in job description for Senior Accountant-Finance on Consent Agenda and
schedule new Public Works Senior Accountant position for full Council
4. Job Descriptions (updates) - Water/Sewer & Street/Stormwater Manager
Mr. Williams explained the Water/Sewer and Street/Stormwater Manager job descriptions include a
requirement to possess and maintain a valid commercial driver's license (CDL) with a Class A
airbrake and tanker endorsement. Continuing to require the CDL (which also requires a periodically
medical examination by a DOT certified physician) is an added expense as well to maintain. These
two exempt, managerial positions do not operate equipment in their work duties that requires a CDL.
He recommended their job descriptions be updated to remove the CDL requirement. Discussion
followed regarding managers operating equipment in an emergency, other cities not requiring
manages to have a CDL, and other requirements in their job descriptions.
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 61218_Committee Meeting Minutes (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
06/12/18 PSPP Committee Minutes, Page 2
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
5. Job description - Building Inspector (Updated)
Mayor Earling expressed support for the proposed change, recognizing the difficulty in attracting high
quality candidates.
Mr. Bjorback explained the entry level Building Inspector position and the next level position,
Combination Building Inspector have nearly the same educational experience requirements and a 9-
10% difference in salary. He reviewed the proposed changes to the education and experience
requirements for the Building Inspector:
Eliminate requirement for two years of building code enforcement experience
Require ICC Certified Building Inspector within 90 days of hire date
Under essential functions and responsibilities, eliminate structural and non-structural plan
review for multifamily and commercial
Ms. Hardie commented these minimum qualifications were similar to other cities. Due to the
competitive market, the salary range is low compared to comparative cities, but that is a separate
issue. Discussion followed regarding educational requirements for the position and allowing a
candidate to obtain the ICC Certified Building Inspector within 90 days of hire date.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
1. Snohomish County Diversion Center Participation Agreement
ACOP Lawless explained Snohomish County Sheriff and Department of Public Health created a
Diversion Center adjacent to the Snohomish County Jail. They are offering agencies the ability to use
the Diversion Center for short-term, transitional housing for homeless individuals with chemical
dependency or mental health issues and will provide a higher level of assistance and supervision.
Participating agencies are required to have an imbedded social worker who also serves as the
individual’s case manager while in the Diversion Center. There is no cost to the City for housing
individuals in the Diversion Center as it is currently operated with grant funds. The agreement has
been approved as to form by the City Attorney.
Discussion followed regarding payment of incidental costs identified by the social worker such as
clothing funded via flex funds the Police Department obtained, the total number of beds (16), number
of beds cities can occupy (2 for Lynnwood and Edmonds combined as they share a social worker),
intent to include funding for a social worker flex fund in the 2019 budget, and other cities that have
embedded social workers.
Action: Schedule for full Council
2. Ordinance Amending ECC 5.05 Adopting New Provision (Leaving Animal Unattended in
Motor Vehicle)
ACOP Lawless relayed the Police Department has the ability to charge a person for cruelty to animals
but the ECC does not currently have a provision specifically prohibiting leaving or confining an animal
unattended in a motor vehicle. The proposed ordinance outlines parameters such as exposure to
excessive heat, cold, lack of ventilation or necessary water. The first and second occurrences would
be infractions and a third or subsequent occurrence would be a misdemeanor.
Action: Schedule for full Council
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
7.3.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 61218_Committee Meeting Minutes (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
Draft Senior Accountant Job Description June 2018
City of
EDMONDS
Washington
SENIOR ACCOUNTANT
Department: Finance Pay Grade: NE-15
Bargaining Unit: EEA/WSCCCE FLSA Status: Non-Exempt
Revised Date: June 2018 Reports To: Assistant Finance Director
POSITION PURPOSE: Under the direction of the Assistant Finance Director, performs professional accounting
activities and functions for the City. Responsibilities include overseeing project and grant accounting; participating
in utility rate studies, calculation, and analysis; participating and acting as a financial advisor in the development
of the City’s Capital Improvement Program; participating in the preparation of the City’s annual budget and
financial report; assisting with the City’s Risk Management analysis; assisting with the City’s Emergency
Management preparedness and response, assisting with the City’s long-range financial planning; applying
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
principles, and guidelines established by granting or contracting agencies; understanding and applying the
Washington State Budgeting, Accounting, and Reporting Systems (BARS); and ensuring accuracy and
confidentiality of information. Provides leadership, procedural support, and guidance to staff assigned to work on
capital projects and grants.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees
in this classification, but only as a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s)
assigned to this position are expected to perform the responsibilities of the Accountants and may or may not be
required to perform all duties listed, and may be required to perform additional, position-specific duties.
Maintains the City's Capital Asset records, prepares periodic reports, and assures that assets are
accurately recorded in the City's Capital Asset system on a quarterly manner.
Coordinate for the annual Capital Asset Inventory and prepares inventory reports and accurately records
asset dispositions and trade-ins.
Prepares quarterly financial/budget work in progress status reports.
Responsible for the City's grant billing, reconciling and assuring that grant agencies are billed in timely
manner.
Responsible for overseeing grant agency invoicing and reimbursements to ensure that grant and contract
work is reimbursed to the City in a timely manner.
Responsible for preparing and presenting analyses of capital project financing and other City-financed
debt for City management.
Responsible for preparing revenue forecasts and debt schedules for use in the development of the City’s
Capital Improvement Program.
Responsible for project accounting codes and structures to ensure the consistent application of
accounting policies across all City departments, and for coordinating related activities with appropriate
project personnel.
Responsible for the preparation of the annual Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Responsible for participating in the preparation of the City's CAFR, including annual financial statements,
notes, schedules, and other supplementary information in accordance with GAAP. The statements should
meet or exceed the standards of the Governmental Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for Excellence
in Financial Reporting.
7.3.c
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Finance_Sr Acct Job descr (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
Draft Senior Accountant Job Description June 2018
Responsible for providing confidential research reports and analysis for the City’s labor negotiating team.
Responsible for reviewing, preparing, entering and posting journal entries.
Responsible for providing general guidance to staff regarding questions about an entry, timing of the entry,
account coding and verification that the entry is complete.
Responsible for responding to budgeting questions and accounting inquiries from department directors,
personnel, Councilmembers, and citizens.
Responsible for overseeing the completion of the fixed asset reconciliation.
Responsible for preparing and maintaining a variety of reports, including preparing and presenting staff
reports and other necessary correspondence.
Responsible for preparing ad hoc reports as requested by departments and outside agencies, and working
on a variety of special projects as assigned by the Assistant Finance Director.
Responsible for participating in the preparation of the City’s annual budget by assisting departments with
their budgets; analyzing department submittals for reasonableness; and preparing assigned portions of
the budget document in coordination with other staff.
Responsible for participating in the preparation of the City’s Long-range Financial Plan.
Responsible for participating on the City’s Risk Management team, including analyzing claims in order for
the City to reduce claims or losses.
Attendance at occasional evening meetings may be required to represent the division or department at
City Council meetings.
Responsible for attending and participating in professional group meetings, and maintaining awareness
of new trends and developments in the fields related to area of assignment.
Responsible for incorporating new developments as assigned, and ensuring processes, policies and
practices are interpreted and applied consistently and effectively within assigned responsibilities.
Other duties as required.
Required Knowledge of:
Operational characteristics, services and activities of an accounting office, including business/industry
principles and practices related to work assigned.
Public sector accounting principles and practices, including generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP), GASB, BARS, state laws and regulations, city codes and departmental policies.
Preparation of financial statements and comprehensive accounting reports, including the CAFR and
budgeting procedures.
Grant recording and reporting for compliance with BARS.
Computer hardware and automated accounting/financial systems.
Techniques in data verification and data entry and proper coding of documents.
Analysis of complex financial statements, reports and systems.
Proper principles and practices of preparing, entering and posting journal entries.
Performing a variety of professional accounting duties, including financial analyses and forecasts.
Principles of customer service and public relations.
Research methods and report preparation and presentation.
Advanced mathematical computations adequate to correctly perform work.
Record-keeping and report writing techniques.
Effective oral and written communication principles and practices, to include public relations.
Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment, including computers and computer applications such
as: word processing, spreadsheets, and statistical databases.
English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Principles of business letter writing.
Principles and practices of governmental budget preparation and administration.
7.3.c
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Finance_Sr Acct Job descr (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
Draft Senior Accountant Job Description June 2018
Required Skill in:
Administering assigned financial and accounting programs.
Meeting deadlines, working with multiple projects and overseeing, verifying and validating the work of
others, including those in other departments.
Operating automated accounting systems and general office equipment.
Identifying and reporting discrepancies.
Analyzing and interpreting fiscal and accounting reports.
Preparing informative and statistical reports.
Computing rapid and accurate mathematical computations.
Gathering data and verifying information.
Responding to inquiries from customers, regulatory agencies, audit firms or members of the business
community.
Interpreting and applying federal, state and local policies, laws and regulations.
Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work, and
in compiling and preparing spreadsheets.
Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside
agencies, community groups and the general public.
Interpreting and administering policies and procedures sufficient to administer, discuss, resolve and
explain them.
Maintaining confidentiality and communicating with tact and diplomacy.
Communicating effectively verbally and in writing, including public relations.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education and Experience:
Bachelor’s Degree in Accounting, Finance, Business Administration or related field and three years of
progressively responsible professional accounting experience that includes experience with general ledgers and
journal entries, financial reports and recordkeeping, and budget preparation in a medium to large scale finance or
accounting department; preferably in government/public sector accounting, two years budgeting and accounting
experience related to municipal utilities.
Required Licenses or Certifications:
CPA license preferred.
Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check & credit check.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Environment:
Office environment.
Constant interruptions.
Physical Abilities
Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone.
Operating a computer keyboard or other office equipment.
Reading and understanding a variety of materials.
Sitting or otherwise remaining stationary for extended periods of time.
Bending at the waist, reaching above shoulders and horizontally or otherwise positioning oneself to
accomplish tasks.
May have to occasionally lift up to 25 pounds.
7.3.c
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Finance_Sr Acct Job descr (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
Draft Senior Accountant Job Description June 2018
Hazards:
Contact with angry and/or dissatisfied customers.
Incumbent Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ________________________
Department Head: _______________________________________ Date: ________________________
7.3.c
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Finance_Sr Acct Job descr (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
Draft Senior Accountant Job Description June 2018
City of
EDMONDS
Washington
SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS ACCOUNTANT
Department: Public Works Pay Grade: NE-15
Bargaining Unit: EEA/WSCCCE FLSA Status: Non-exempt
Revised Date: May 2018 Reports To: Public Works Director
POSITION PURPOSE: Under the supervision of the Public Works Director (Director), performs professional
accounting activities and functions for the Public Works Department. Responsibilities include departmental project
and grant accounting; management of utility rate studies, rate calculations, and comparative rate analyses;
participating and acting as a financial advisor to the Director and Departmental Managers in the development of
the City’s Capital Improvement Program, Transportation Improvement Program, and Comprehensive Plans for
Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Divisions; organizing and participating in the preparation of the Department’s
annual budget and financial reports; developing the Public Works Department long-range financial planning inputs
to the Finance Department; consistently applying Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP),
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) principles, guidelines established by granting or contracting
agencies, and City financial policies; understanding and applying the Washington State Budgeting, Accounting,
and Reporting System (BARS); and ensuring accuracy and confidentiality of information. Provides leadership,
procedural support, and guidance to staff assigned to work on capital projects and grants. Provides guidance and
direction to professional, technical, clerical, temporary and/or intern personnel as needed.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees
in this classification, but only as a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s)
assigned to this position are expected to perform the responsibilities of the Accountants and may or may not be
required to perform all duties listed, and may be required to perform additional, position-specific duties.
Provides data and evaluation for updating Public Works capital asset records, provide periodic reports to
the Public Works Director and Finance Department to ensure assets are accurately recorded in the City’s
capital asset system; accurately records and documents Public Works capital asset dispositions and
trade-ins.
Prepares and submits accurate and timely Public Works Department Capital Work In Progress status
reports as required by the Finance Department.
Responsible for preparing Public Works Department grant agency invoicing and reimbursements to
ensure that grant and contract work is reimbursed to the City in a timely manner. Provides similar services
for other departmental grants being managed by the Public Works Department.
Responsible for working as the key Public Works Department team member in developing the text and
data necessary to prepare any revenue bond statements for reports on existing debt as well as for new
borrowings.
Responsible for providing Public Works Department forecasts and summaries to the Finance Department
and the Public Works Director for use in the development of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Following guidance and policies established by the Finance Department, establishes and maintains
project accounting codes and structures to ensure a consistent application of these policies across all
Divisions in the Public Works Department.
Responsible for providing confidential research reports and analysis as requested for the Public Works
Department labor negotiating representatives.
7.3.d
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: SR Public Works Acct_Job descr (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
Draft Senior PW Accountant Job Description June 2018
Responsible for developing the information required by the Director to respond to budget questions and
accounting inquiries from other department directors, Councilmembers, and citizens.
Responsible for coordinating Public Works Department submittals to Finance for completion of the fixed
asset reconciliation.
Responsible for preparing and maintaining a variety of reports, including preparing and presenting staff
reports and other necessary correspondence as requested by the Director
Responsible for preparing ad hoc reports as requested by Public Works Department Divisions, and/or
outside agencies as requested by the Director, and working on a variety of special projects as assigned
by the Director.
Responsible for participating in the preparation of the City’s annual budget by assisting Public Works
Department Division Managers with their budgets; analyzing requested funding levels; preparing assigned
portions of the budget document in coordination with the Director and other staff.
Responsible for providing information as requested by the Director in the preparation of the City’s Long-
range Financial Plan.
May be required to serve as staff on a variety of internal committees.
Attendance at occasional evening meetings may be required to represent the division or department at
City Council meetings.
Responsible for attending and participating in professional group meetings, and maintaining awareness
of new trends and developments in the fields related to the areas assigned.
Responsible for incorporating new developments in management and accounting as assigned, and
ensuring processes, policies and practices are interpreted and applied consistently and effectively within
the Public Works department.
Performs other duties as required.
Required Knowledge of:
Operational characteristics, services and activities of governmental financial management and
accounting.
Public sector accounting principles and practices, including generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP), GASB, BARS, state laws and regulations, city codes and departmental policies.
Preparation of information for inclusion in overall City financial statements and comprehensive accounting
reports, including producing data to be used by the Finance Department in preparing the CAFR and
annual budgets.
Grant recording and reporting for compliance with BARS.
Computer hardware and automated accounting/financial systems.
Techniques in data verification and data entry and proper coding of documents.
Analysis of complex financial statements, reports and systems.
Performing a variety of professional accounting duties, including financial analyses and forecasts.
Principles of customer service and public relations.
Research methods and report preparation and presentation.
Advanced mathematical computations adequate to correctly perform work.
Record-keeping and report writing techniques.
Effective oral and written communication principles and practices, to include public relations.
Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment, including computers and computer applications such
as: word processing, spreadsheets, and statistical databases.
English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Principles of business letter writing.
Principles and practices of governmental budget preparation and administration.
7.3.d
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: SR Public Works Acct_Job descr (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
Draft Senior PW Accountant Job Description June 2018
Required Skill in:
Meeting deadlines, working with multiple projects and overseeing, verifying and validating the work of
others, occasionally including those in other departments.
Operating automated accounting systems and general office equipment.
Familiarity with and competency in Microsoft Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Outlook. Competency in Eden,
asset management, and GIS systems desired.
Identifying and reporting discrepancies.
Analyzing and interpreting fiscal and accounting reports.
Preparing informative and statistical reports.
Producing rapid and accurate mathematical computations.
Gathering data and verifying information.
Responding to inquiries from customers, regulatory agencies, audit firms or members of the business
community.
Interpreting and applying federal, state and local policies, laws and regulations.
Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work, and
in compiling and preparing spreadsheets.
Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside
agencies, community groups and the general public.
Interpreting and administering policies and procedures sufficient to administer, discuss, resolve and
explain them.
Maintaining confidentiality and communicating with tact and diplomacy.
Communicating effectively verbally and in writing, including public relations.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education and Experience:
Bachelor’s Degree in Accounting, Finance, Business Administration or related field and three years of
progressively responsible professional accounting and/or financial management experience that includes
experience developing financial reports and recordkeeping, and budget preparation in a medium to large scale
municipal or private sector organization, two years budgeting and accounting experience related to municipal
utilities; OR an equivalent combination of education, training and experience.
Required Licenses or Certifications:
CPA license preferred.
Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check & credit check.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Environment:
Office environment.
Constant interruptions.
Physical Abilities
Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone.
Operating a computer keyboard or other office equipment.
Reading and understanding a variety of materials.
Sitting or otherwise remaining stationary for extended periods of time.
Bending at the waist, reaching above shoulders and horizontally or otherwise positioning oneself to
accomplish tasks.
May have to occasionally lift up to 25 pounds.
7.3.d
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: SR Public Works Acct_Job descr (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
Draft Senior PW Accountant Job Description June 2018
Hazards:
Occasional contact with angry and/or dissatisfied customers.
Incumbent Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ________________________
Department Head: _______________________________________ Date: ________________________
7.3.d
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: SR Public Works Acct_Job descr (Revisit Senior Accountant Positions Votes)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/7/2018
2017 Transportation Benefit District Report
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Public Works & Utilities
Preparer: Royce Napolitino
Background/History
Pursuant to Ordinance 3707, and codified in Chapter 3.65 of the Edmonds Municipal Code, the City of
Edmonds City Council established a transportation benefit district to be known as the Edmonds
Transportation Benefit District in November 2009, with geographical boundaries comprised of the
corporate limits of the City of Edmonds at the time the ordinance was adopted or as they may have
existed after future annexations.
The 2015 State Legislature adopted Second Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 2ESBB 5987 authorizing the
assumption of control over a TBD by a city with the same boundaries as the TBD, which became
effective in July 2015. Pursuant of Ordinance 4053, as codified in Chapter 3.65 of the Edmonds
Municipal Code, the City of Edmonds City Council assumed the rights powers, functions, and obligations
of the Transportation Benefit District Board in December, 2016, one of which is to produce and deliver
an annual report regarding the operations of the District.
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge and approve for publication.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds is publishing the results of its Transportation Benefit District (TBD) operations from
January 1 to December 31, 2017. The TBD received $698,283 in revenue from local license fees on
vehicles registered within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Edmonds. These collected funds were
expended for street maintenance, preservation, and operation of the street transportation system
within the City's boundaries. TBD-funded activities included localized pavement repairs, pothole repairs,
signage management, maintenance of pavement markings (buttons, curb paint, etc.), crosswalk
maintenance, and traffic signal maintenance and repair. For these eligible costs, outlined in Ordinance
4053, the City expended a total of $811,908. The balance of $113,625 was paid from the 111 Fund,
whose total operation and maintenance expenditures were $1,742,144.
The publishing of this report fulfills the requirement within RCW 36.73.160(2), in which, the district shall
issue an annual report, indicating the status of transportation improvement costs, transportation
improvement expenditures, revenues, and construction schedules, to the public and to newspapers of
record in the district.
Attachments:
2017 Annual TBD Report
8.1
Packet Pg. 149
698,283$
698,283
-
Labor & Benefits 161,324
Supplies 23,491
Labor & Benefits 183,573
Supplies 159,723
170,172
698,283
-
-
-$
Professional Services
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Fund Balance
Transportation Benefit District
January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017
Revenues
$20 Vehicle Registration Fee
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Net Change in Fund Balances
Fund Balances - Beginning
Fund Balances - Ending
(1) An additional $113,625.15 in expenditures were eligible for reimbursement from this funding source,
however, due to funding constraints, these expenditures were absorbed by Fund 111 ‐Street Fund.
Road Maintenance (includes repairs, patching, crack sealing)
Traffic Control
Vehicle Charges
Excess Transferred to Street Fund
Total Expenditures
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: 2017 Annual TBD Report (Transportation Benefit District - 2017 Report)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/7/2018
Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review
Staff Lead: Brad Shipley
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
Planning Board has completed its review and recommendations on the non-budget related
Comprehensive Plan amendments for 2018. Any Comprehensive Plan amendments related to the
budget will be heard separately later this year.
Staff Recommendation
This presentation is informational only. No action proposed at this time. Council is scheduled to take
action on the Comprehensive Plan amendments for 2018 on August 21st. A draft ordinance will be ready
for review at that time.
Narrative
This year there are two proposed Comprehensive Plan map designation changes:
1) Property located at 9111 and 9107 - 236th St. SW. Change designation from Single Family Urban
1 to Edmonds Way Corridor (AMD20160008).
Planning Board held a public hearing on April 26, 2017 and forwarded the recommendation of
approval to Council. An introduction to the proposal was presented to Council on October 17,
2017. The proposal was moved to approval; however, due to the proposal not being included in
the ordinance that adopted the 2017 Comprehensive Plan amendments, the proposal is being
included with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan amendments.
2) All property located south of 240th St. SW, between 84th Ave. W and Edmonds Way. Change
designation from Edmonds Way Corridor to Corridor Development (Hwy 99) (AMD20180001).
Planning Board held a public hearing on February 28, 2018 and forwarded a recommendation of
approval to Council. An additional public hearing was held by City Council on May 15, 2018.
Council reached consensus that they were satisfied with the proposal.
As previously mentioned, this presentation is informational only. A draft ordinance will be prepared for
review in advance of the August 21st Council meeting.
Attachments:
Att. 1: Presentation
8.2
Packet Pg. 151
Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes
8.2
Packet Pg. 152
Review of 2018 Comprehensive
Plan Amendments
City Council
August 7, 2018Development Services
Planning Division
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
Background
Review of Proposals
Next Steps
OVERVIEW
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
Two Comprehensive Plan map designation changes are proposed at this time:
•Property located at 9111 and 9107 -236th St. SW. Change designation from Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor (AMD20160008).
•All property located south of 240th St. SW, between 84th Ave. W and Edmonds Way. Change designation from Edmonds Way Corridor to Corridor Development (Hwy 99) (AMD20180001).
Comprehensive Plan amendments related to the budget will occur at a later date.
BACKGROUND
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
Change Comp Plan
designation from
Single Family Urban 1
to Edmonds Way
Corridor
PROPOSAL
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
Planning Board
reviewed the proposal
and forwarded a
recommendation of
approval on April 26,
2017.
PROPOSAL
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
SUBJECT
SITE
236thSt. SWN
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
N
Currently Developed
with a SFR and
legal, non-
conforming multi-
family residence.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
9107 236th St. SW
Developed in
1960
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
9111 236th St. SW
Developed in 1958 and 1970
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
Change Comp Plan
designation from Edmonds
Way Corridor to Corridor
Development (Hwy 99)
PROPOSAL
SUBJECT SITE
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
PROPOSAL
SUBJECT SITE
Planning Board
reviewed the proposal
and forwarded a
recommendation of
approval on February
28, 2018.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
Existing Uses
Existing multi-family uses
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
Existing Uses
Commercial development has existed since pre-annexation
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
Existing Uses
Single Family home built in 1948
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
ISSUES
Lack of a strong connection to Edmonds Way
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
ISSUES
Stronger orientation towards Hwy 99
provides more opportunity
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
City Council is scheduled to take action
on August 21st.
Next Steps
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
Questions?
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Att. 1: Presentation (Comprehensive Plan
APPROVED MAY IO
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 26,2017
Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Compl ex,250 - 5'h Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair
Matthew Cheung
Phil Lovell
Todd Cloutier
Daniel Robles
Malia Clark, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Brad Shipley, Associate Planner
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair (excused)
Alicia Crank (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2OI7 BE APPROVED AS
CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. There
were no comments.
WAY COORIDOR (EWC)
Mr. Shipley presented the Staff Report on the proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan designation for two parcels located
on236'ñ Siréet SW (near the Edmonds Woodway Corridor) from Single Family Urban 1 (SFU1) to Edmonds Way Corridor
(EWC). He provided a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to illustrate the location of the subject properties, noting that the
properties to the west are designated as Single Family Urban 1 (SFUI) and the properties to the north, south and east are
I
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
designated as EWC. He also provided aZoning Map, noting that the subject property is currently zoned Single Family
Residential 8 (RS-S), consistent with the properties to the west. The properties to the north, south and east are currently
zoned Multi-Family Residential Edmonds Way (RM-EW). The 9701 property is currently developed with a single-family
residence; and the 9111 property is currently developed as a legal, non-conforming, multi-family residence. The properties to
the west are primarily developed with Single-Family Residential (SR) homes, with a more intense development pattern east
of the site ranging from Multi-Family Residential (RM) to commercial (C).
Mr. Shipley explained that he application is a Type V Legislative Action, which means that Planning Board must conduct a
public hearing and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision. He
emphasized that,afthis time, there is no proposed change to the zoning designation. However, if the proposed amendment is
approved, the owners would be able to seek a rezone of the properties to something compatible with the new designation. He
advised that there are three Comprehensive Plan designations consistent with RM zoning: Edmonds Way Corridor (EWC),
Multi-Family - High Density (RM-HD), and Multi-Family - Medium Density (RM-MD). The EWC designation would be
compatible with the following zones: Planned Business (BP), Neighborhood Business (NB), Community Business (CB) and
RM. The RM-MD designation would be compatible with the RM-2.4 and RM-3 zones and the RM-HD designation would
be compatible with the RM-1.5 and RM-2.4 zones.
Mr. Shipley advised that the applicant has requested that the land use designation be changed to EWC, which is consistent
with the designation of properties to the east, north and south. If the Comprehensive Plan designation is changed as
proposed, the applicant has indicated a desire to rezone the properties to RM. The two parcels comprise approximately .75
acres of land. If they were developed under RM-1.5 zoning, a maximum number of 21 units would be allowed. RM-2.4
zoning would allow a maximum of I 3 units, and RM-3 would allow a maximum of 10 units. Another alternative would be to
designate the property as RM-HD or RM-MD, which would allow for multi-family development, but not commercial
development.
Mr. Shipley explained that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment can only be adopted if the following findings are made:
. Is the proposed smendment consÍstent vtith the Comprehensìve Plsn ønd in the public interest? As the cost of housing
rises and housing options become more constrained, providing more opportunities for multi-family residential
development would be in the public interest. The Comprehensive Plan calls out the need for RM development to blend
into the surrounding neighborhood while preserving the natural features of the site. He noted that the subject properties
slope slightly to the east, but the RS properties to the west are only about five feet higher in elevation than the subject
parcels. Both the RM and RS zones have a height limit of 25 feet, but an additional 5 feet is allowed with a 4-12 pitched
roof. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies state that "multïfamily uses should be located near
arterial and collector sÍreets. " Although the subject properties do not abut Edmonds Way, they are in close proximity,
and there is easy access to the bus stations and transitservice available along the corridor. He acknowledgedthat236th
Street is already a high-traffic street during specific times of the day due to Madrona School. Therefore, any future
small-scale development should be designated to not interfere with congestion along the road.
. Is the proposed qmendment detrÍmental to the public interest, health, søfety or welfare of the city? This proposal is
simply an amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Subsequent review of a rezone
application would include an analysis of existing land uses and consider economic and physical compatibility.
o Does the proposed amendment maintuin the øppropriøte bølunce of land uses within the Cìty? The E'WC zone makes
up about 1.3% of the City's land, while SFUl zoning makes up approximately 43.5%. A shift of a cumulative .75 acres
from SFUl to EWC would not drastically disrupt the balance of land uses within the City.
a Is the subject parcel physÍcally suitable for the requested land use desÍgnation snd the ønticipated land use
designation, including, but not lÍmÍted to, access, provision of utilities, compøtibility wÍth ødioining land uses snd
absence of physicøt constrøints? The subject sites are physically suitable for the proposed designation change. They
are adjacent to the border of the more intense EWC designation, and the adjoining land uses are both RS (west) and RM
(north and east). It is important to note that in 2011 the City Council approved a change in the Comprehensive Plan
designation for property south of the subject parcels from SFU1 to RM-MD, and the properties were subsequently
Planning Board Minutes
April26,2017 Page2
APPROVED
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
rezoned to RS-8 and RM-2.4. Other properties situated between the EWC and SFUI, along 238'h Street near Edmonds
Way, were recently re-designated and rezoned, as well.
Board Member Lovell reviewed that the total area of the two properties is about .75 acres. An RS unit is currently located on
one of the lots, and the other is developed with legal, non-conforming RM units. Mr. Shipley added that the current
structures were developed in the 50s and 70s, and the parcels were annexed into the City in 1997. Board Member Lovell
further reviewed that, at this time, the applicant is only proposing to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation.
Subsequent action would need to be taken by the property owner to create an RM zoning designation for the site. He asked if
the property owner intends to combine the two lots. Mr. Shipley answered that there is no application to combine the two
lots at this time; the proposal before the Board at this time is for a land use designation change. Rezoning the properties
would require a separate action.
To clariff for Chair Rubenkonig, Mr. Shipley advised that the Comprehensive Plan can only be amended once each year
unless an emergency situation comes up. Comprehensive Plan amendments are generally combined into one package for the
City Council's review and approval at the end of the year. Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Shipley to review the process for
reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Shipley advised that, once an application is submitted, the Planning
Director reviews the application and staff prepares it to come before the Planning Board for review. The Planning Board
conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council.
Chair Rubenkonig asked if the City received any comments from citizens regarding the proposed application. Mr. Shipley
answered that thtcity received one email from Tammara Bandy, an adjaceniproperty ownei at 23507 - 92nd Avenue West,
who voiced concern that new high-rise development on the subject properties would look down into your backyard and/or
windows and block light access to her property. She also voiced concern about adding more traffic to an area that is already
congested due to Madrona School.
Chair Rubenkonig asked when the City would consider the balance of land uses. Mr. Shipley explained thar" .75 acre would
have a negligible impact considering the overall scheme of the City. If the proposal involved a larger area, then the balance
of land uses would be more of an issue. Because the subject parcels are small, the balance of land uses would remain nearly
the same.
Martin Reimers, Concept Architecture, Everetto expressed his belief that the Staff Report and Mr. Shipley's presentation
were quite thorough, and he was present to answer the Board's questions.
Board Member Lovell asked if the property owner intends to redevelop the subject parcels into RM units. Mr. Reimers said
that is the ultimate goal. The owners have expressed interest in an RM-1.5 zoning designation, but that is an entirely
different action. No work will be done on a preliminary site design until they find out what will be acceptable to the City in a
broader sense. Board Member Lovell asked if the property is owned by a developer, and Mr. Reimers answered that the
person who wants to improve the property is also the owner, but he is not a developer. Board Member Lovell asked if the
applicant has expressed any desire to develop the property with affordable housing. Mr. Reimers again said there is no plan
for what would be built on the property at this time, and all ideas would be considered.
Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that potential impacts to the property at 23507 - 92nd Avenue West would be addressed if and
when a rezone application is submitted, and the written comments submitted by the property owner would be included as part
of the record for the rezone application. Mr. Reimers reminded the Board that the Development Code already addresses what
must happen when an RM development is located adjacent to an RS development, and any new development on the subject
parcels would have to meet these requirements. At this time, they are only prepared to address the Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Chair Rubenkonig said she just wants to make sure that the concerns raised by adjacent properfy owners are
addressed as part ofthe rezone application, too.
Prior to the opening of the hearing, Chair Rubenkonig advised that her company, Rubenkonig Planning & Landscape
Architecture (RPLA), worked on a mutual client's project with Architect Martin Riemers. RPLA does not work for this
client, nor on this project with Mr. Riemers.
Planning Board Minutes
April26,2017 Page3
APPROVEI)
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
Jeff Bandy, 23507 - 92nd Avenue West, said he and his wife own the property adjacent to the subject parcels, and they are
concerned about how the proposed change might impact them. He pointed out that the subject parcels are located on a hill
where there are already a lot of traffic problems. Developing the properfy as RM-l.5 would result in a lot of additional
traffic. He also voiced concern about the idea ofdeveloping the subject parcels as affordable housing. He recalled that when
an apartment complex nearby was converted to affordable housing, the neighborhood environment changed drastically for the
worse. He and his wife do not support more of this type of development in the neighborhood.
Chair Rubenkonig commented that Mr. Bandy's concerns would be added to the record for the subject parcels, and will be
more pertinent if and when the applicant comes in with a rezone application. The rezone application will also come before
the Board for a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council, and the public will be invited to provide comment.
Tonight, the Board is just looking at the proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation.
For the Board's clarification, Mr. Shipley once again reviewed the difference between the EWC and RM-HD/RM-MD
designations. Although the applicant has requested that the properly be designated EWC, an RM-HD or RM-MD designation
would also be acceptable. However, based on the findings of fact, conclusions and attachments in the Staff Report, staff is
recommending that the Board forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve a change in designation from SFUI
to EWC.
Mr. Bandy pointed out that the subject parcels are bordered on three sides by RM development, yet the proposed land use
designation for the properties is EWC. Mr. Shipley explained that each Comprehensive Plan land use designation has certain
zones that are compatible. The difference between the EWC and RM-HD designations is that the EWC designation allows
for a mixture of both commercial and residential uses, and development in the RM-HD zone is limited to residential.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Board Member Cheung voiced concern that if the subject parcels were changed to an RM designation, it would result in an
island of RM surrounded by EWC. Mr. Shipley emphasized that another review and public process would be required before
the property could be rezoned. The EWC designation would allow for long-term alternatives as the Edmonds Way Corridor
changes, but it would not grant the property owner permission to automatically rezone the property to a commercial zone. He
does not believe that staff would support a commercial zone at this point in time because the parcels are surrounded by RM
and RS development.
Mr. Clugston explained that, typically, some sort of transition is created between commercial and RS uses. Regardless of the
Comprehensive Plan designation, the intent will be that the property be developed as RM to keep with the character of the
northwest corner of the intersection. He pointed out that further to the south is commercial development, which could creep
north over the next several decades. Designating the properties as EWC would allow flexibility for changes to occur in the
future. He agreed with Mr. Shipley that staffwould not likely support a commercial zone for the subject parcels at this time.
Board Member Lovell agreed that RM would be the appropriate zoning for the subject parcels. However, if the land use
designation is changed to EWC, nothing would prevent the property owner from submitting an application for commercial
zoning. Mr. Clugston agreed that all of the parcels with the EWC designation could potentially be rezoned to allow
commercial development, but one of the criteria for approving a rezone is that there must be change in the area that supports
the request, and they are not quite there yet.
Board Member Lovell said he supports the staff s recommendation, which would allow flexibility for the property owner to
combine the two lots. It would also allow maximum flexibility for future redevelopment. If someone in the future wants to
push for commercial zoning, the proposal could be studied to determine whether or not it is appropriate. If the applicant is
interested in rezoning the properties to an RM designation, the request would be consistent with what exists there now and
would likely be approved.
BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT,
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES AT
9107 AND 9111 -236rH STREET SOUTHWEST FROM SINGLE FAMILY URBAN I (SFUI) TO EDMONDS \üAY
APPROVED
April26,2017 Page4
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
CORRIDOR (EWC). BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
su
T
advised that a private applicant, Westgate Vy'oods LLC, has proposed a code amendment to add a unit lot
process to the City's existing subdivision ordinance. This is a Type V Legislative Decision where the Planning
public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposal. The,City Council will
decision. He reminded the Board that they initially reviewed the proposal at their March 22"d meeting.
Board
make the
a
Mr. Clugston
projects as an
or other bulk
that the unit lot subdivision process would create an ownership option for multi-family development
ve to condominiums. Just like condominiums, a unit lot subdivision would not change zoning, density
for a multi-family project. It would simply overlay property lines on a site. A unit lot
subdivision differs subdivision in that the development standards for a project are applied to the larger site
(parent lot)opposed to individual parcel being created (unit lots A unit lot subdivision could be appli ed over anAS
exlsting mu -familv or with a new multi ly pro could be appl ied ln the MuIti-familvIrifamiproposalThecess
Residential (RM) and General ercial (CG) zones and portions of the Vy'estgate Mixed Use zone. All of these zones
allow for multi-family the ground floor of a site, whereas several other zones, such as Community Business
(CB), Planned Business (BP) and Business (NB) require that the residential component be above a ground
would not be applicable to residential development located above groundfloor commercial use. The unit lot
floor commercial space.
Mr. Clugston referred to a letter from the ders Association of King and Snohomish County expressing support for
the proposed amendment, which would provide
He also referred to Attachment 1 of the Staff
method of lot creation for certain types of RM development.
which inserts the applicant's proposed language into the existing
subdivision ordinance, along with additions and clarifi made by the City Attorney and staff.
Mr. Clugston highlighted that three new definitions were ECDC 20.75.030
a
a
a
"Unit Lot Subdivision" means a subdivision or bdivision of land under ECDC 20.75.045, where
compliance with the development standards is evaluated to the parent lot, not the unit lot
"Parent Lot" means the lot with legal lot status, which estab the exterior boundary ofa unit lot subdivision.
"Unit Lot" means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which
unit lot subdivision.
independently transferred upon recording of a
Mr. Clugston reemphasized that the RM development would look exactly the of whether it is subdivided or
not. There would be no difference in how the standards are applied for the
lines would be created through the unit lot subdivision process.
of the structures. Only the property
Mr. Clugston explained that the language proposed in ECDC 20.75.045 was altered by the City Attorney to provide
more details and clarifl, the intent of the unit subdivision process. The changes were not to alter the applicant's
overall goal. As a result of concerns raised by the Board at their last meeting, Subsection added to require that
all unit owners in thehomeowner's associations (HOA) be funded to manage the areas on the parent lot that are
development.
Chair Rubenkonig emphasized fhat a unit lot subdivision would be subject to the subdivision which is no
different than any other type of development. Mr. Clugston said all RM development must meet the standards
of the zone, including parking, height, bulk and design. From the sidewalk, the development would not
after the separate lot lines are dropped over it. There would be no physical change.
any different
John Bissell, Harmsen & Àssociates, Inc., advised that he is present to represent the applicant, Vy'estgate W LLC. He
).
commended Mr. Clugston for his thorough Staff Report. He recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board Mem
some concern about why a private property owner was requesting a code amendment. He acknowledged that
amendments are generated by staff, but the code also allows any citizen to make an application for a code
raised
code
e
APPROVED
Board Minutes
April26,2017 Page5
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
Taraday clarified the motion was to approve the ordinance in the packet and Councilmember Buckshnis
that was her intent.
ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2-l), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS,
IS AND TEITZEL AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS VOTING YES;
NELSON AND TIBBOTT VOTING NOO AND COUNCILMEMBER
JOHNSON AINING.
Council President Mesaros a briefrecess
Mayor Earling announced due to the the Council would consider Agenda Items 8.2, 8.3 and 9.1
and the remaining agenda items would be to a future meeting.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ONLY AGENDA ITEMS 8.2,8.3 AND
9.1 AND CONTINUE THE REMAINING ITEMS TO A
(6-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO.
MOTION CARRIED
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY EMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO.
(6-1),
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES AT 91II AND 9107-236TH ST. SW
FROM SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1 (SFUI) TO EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR IEWC)
Associate Planner Brad Shipley reviewed:
r Process: Type V Legislative Action
o Applicationo Public hearing before Planning Board
o Public hearing before City Council
o City Counciltakes action on all Comprehensive Plan amendments collectively
o If Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved, applicant may submit for a rezone to a
compatible zoning classi fication. Aerial map of subject site - 236'h St SW & Edmonds Way, between Edmonds Way and Madrona
Schoolo History:o Currently developed with a SFR and legal, non-conforming multi-family residence
o 9107 236th St. SW Developed in 1960
o 9111 236fh St. SW Developed in 1958 and 1970
o Parcels were annexed into the City in 1997
¡ Proposalo Change Comp Plan designation from Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor
o If a change to the Comp Plan designation is approved, the applicant indicated that they would
seek a rezone to RM-1.5
,,
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Compatible Zoning Classifications
t çstgnatrolr r YPE
BP, BN, BC or other similar
commercial zone; RM
Edmonds Way Corridor Commercial
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 17,2017
Page 20
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
Planning Board reviewed the criteria on April 26,2011 and made the recommendation to approve
the proposed Comp Plan amendment.
Today, we are seeking approval to continue with the process with the understanding that fìnal
approval will occur at alafer date.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said Ms. Hope had answered all her questions.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how many parcels would be allowed if the property were rezoned to RM
1 .5. Mr. Shipley said RM 1 .5 allows I unit for every 1 ,500 square feet of lot area so approximately 21 units
would be allowed. Councilmember Tibbott commented 21 units appeared to be compatible with other
multifamily in the area. Mr. Shipley agreed there was multifamily development on three sides and one of
the sites is currently developed multifamily although it is a legal non-conforming building. Councilmember
Tibbott expressed support for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO
APPROVAL CHANGING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR
pRopERTTES AT 9111 AND 9107-236TH ST. SW FROM SINGLE FAMILY URBAN I (SFUI) TO
EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR(EWC). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. FISHING PIER REHABILITATION PROJECT
a
a
Rob English explained this is a request for additional funding for the fishing pier. It was
to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee who recommended it be presented to the full
Council ect began in spring 2076, the bulk of the improvements were built between spring and
December were made to the top of the pier deck (shelters, railing, benches, lighting and
other amenities well as structural repairs to the underside of the pier structure. In May 2016, staff
requested due to the condition of the edge on both sides of the pier. He displayed
photographs ofthe concrete and rebar, described the edge repair and displayed a photograph
edge joint repairs met contract requirements.ofthe alternate edge repalr
This funding request is related to joint repairs. He displayed a cross-section ofthe pier illustrating
angle and a pile cap on top with two T-cross sections on the pilethe two piers coming out of the water
cap that abut to ajoint in the center ofthe ofthatjoint was part ofthe contract and the contractor
attempted to make those repairs. He of the demolition of the existing concrete and
prepped for the new concrete patch. The then have placed a form board under the pier and
bottom and poured high strength concrete through holes into the void. He displayed a photograph of
the finished product showing the deficient center joint During bond strength testing, the first pier
bay passed but all subsequent pier bays failed the bond
the bond strength test. Mr. English reviewed:. Constructiontirneline
test; out of 12 total bays, only #3 passed
Contractor's submittal is currently being reviewed. One of the advantages is it would be a
quicker repair than removing the concrete patch. Likely the contractor will do one pier bay
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 17,2017
Page 2l
Feb 201 6 Contract awarded to Razz Constructio\
March2016 NTP providedtoRazz \
April2016 Edge repairs unforeseen condition \
May-Ausust 2016 Alternate edge repairs completed, center.i oint repQlcompleted
August & September Contractor notified of failed tests on center ioint \
Aue-Dec 2016 Contractor completes remaining improvements \
Jt.lly LV t I r\d¿¿ I trllluul I l¿çu uil5lLç t
Razz performs testing on center ioint repairs \July & Sept 2017
Razz submits epoxy iniection submittalOcf 2017
o
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
PUBLIC HEARING: The anplicant is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for propertv
located east of Edmonds lVav. west of Highwav 99" and south of 240th Street SW from o'Edmonds \üav Corridor" (EWCì
to ,.Highwav 99 Corridor." The application is a Tvpe V decision made bv the Citv Council following a public hearing
and recommendation from the Planning Board.
Mr. Shipley advised that the proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation of ten properties located between
Highwa-y 99 andEdmonds Way (SR-l04), north ofthe interchange and south of 240th Street SW. The properties are currently
designated as "Edmonds Way Corridor," and the applicant is proposing a change to "Highway 99 Corridor." He emphasized
that the proposal before the Board is a land use designation change and not arezone. Changing the land use designation would
not necessarily allow the property owners any other rights than what currently exist. While approval of the proposed change
would provide an opportunity to possibly rezone the properties at a later date, the rezone is not the subject of the current
application.
Mr. Shipley provided a photograph taken in 1964,prior to completion of the Highway 99/SR-104 interchange. He noted that
84th Avenue was used to connect to what is now SR-104. Up to that point, the subject properties were developed with five
single-family homes and mostly forested. However, there were a lot of commercial uses along Highway 99. Next, Mr. Shipley
displayed a photograph taken in 7978, after the interchange was completed and one year before the Edmonds Greenery
Condominiums were developed. He pointed out that 84th Avenue was turned into a cul-de-sac and it remains that way today.
Commercial uses continued to exist along Highway 99, as well. Last, Mr. Shipley provided a recent photograph and advised
that the subject properties were annexed into the City in 1983. Prior to annexation, the properties were zoned General
Commercial (CG), but the City rezoned them to Multi-Family Residential (RM-2.4) at the time of annexation. V/ith the
exception of the Jenna Lane Townhomes, all of the existing development was built under the CG zoning and are considered
non-conforming under the current RM-2.4 zoning. The existing commercial uses would require a Conditional Use Permit, and
only office type commercial uses would be allowed.
Mr. Shipley advised that the current development on the subject properties includes a single-family residence built in 1947,
two commercial office buildings built in 1952 and 1960, a 38-unit condominium (Edmonds Greenery) built in 1979, and a 5-
unit townhome project (Jenna Lane) built in 2015. Outside of Jenna Lane, no major redevelopment has occurred in the area
since the City annexed the properties in 1983. The applicant owns three of the four commercially-developed properties, and
each of the units in the multi-family developments are under individual ownership.
Mr. Shippen explained that the entire area is currently designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Edmonds Way Corridor, but
there is not really a strong connection to that corridor. Changes in grade make it challenging as does the nearby overpass. It
does not appear likely that access will be possible along the Edmonds'Way frontage. The intent of the proposal is to enable
the properties to have a plan designation that would be more appropriate for the properties and their location. Due to the
proximity of Highway 99, a more intensive designation appears to be appropriate, particularly in light of the previous zoning
and cunent development on the property.
Shawn Leiser, applicant, pointed out that there is a currently a fence that separates the subject properties from SR-104. Due
to the grade change along SR-104, there are also more opportunities to create connections or orientation towards Highway 99.
He explained that the cul-de-sac has become a dumping ground for garbage because there is only one single-family home
located on that road. In addition, the \ù/ashington State Department of Transportation still owns some of the property in the
area but does not want to police it.
Mr. Shipley referred to the criteria that must be considered when reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments. He explained
how the proposal meets each of the criteria as follows:
o Is the proposed amendment consistent wìth the ComprehensÍve Plsn and Ín the public interest? The subject
properties are adjacent to the Gateway District, which was identified in both the Comprehensive Plan and the Highway
since the properties were annexed into the City in 1983. Ifapproved, the new designation would allow for parcels to
be rezoned in a manner that makes redevelopment economically feasible. In addition, the CG zone has built-in
mitigation measures (increased setbacks, building step backs, etc.) for when redevelopment occurs adjacent to
APPROVED
February28,2018 Page2
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
a
residential zones. Streetscape improvements would also be required with future redevelopment in an area where no
sidewalks currently exist.
Is the proposed ømendment detrÍmentul to the pablìc Ínterest, heslth, safety or welfare of the City? At this time,
nothing is proposed other than a change in the land use designation. Ifthe request is approved, it is anticipated the
property owners would apply for a rezone from RM-2.4 to CG, which would be consistent with the zoning to the east.
Currently, the commercial-developed properties are in poor condition and redevelopment would enhance and improve
the area, particularly given the stronger development standards that have recently been adopted.
Does the proposed amendment møÍntøin the appropriate balance of land uses wifhin the CÍty? The Edmonds Way
Corridor makes up approximately 77 acres and the Highway 99 Corridor abou|265 acres. Staff does not believe that
shifting a cumulative 2.84 acres from Edmonds Way Corridor to Highway 99 Corridor would drastically disrupt the
balance of land uses within the City.
a
Is the subject parcel physicølly suÍtable for the requested lsnd use designølion snd the antìcÍpated land use
development, including, but not limited lo, access provÍsion of utÍlities, compatibílity wíth ødjoining und uses and
absence of physical constrøÍnls. The proposal does not require a zoning change at this time, but a traffic analysis will
be required with any future rezone. Currently, both access points from Highway 99 and SR- I 04 are unsignaled. There
are already utilities available in the area, but some upgrades may be needed depending on the scale of future
development.
Ms. Livingston asked if staff anticipates an increase in traffic if the property is redeveloped under the proposed land use
designation. Mr. Shipley emphasized that the current proposal is a Comprehensive Plan land use designation amendment and
would not rezone the property. Until a rezone occurs, it is highly unlikely that anything significant would be developed. A
traffic study would be required as part ofa rezone application.
Lilly Bojic, Lilly's Physical Therapy, Edmonds, said she owns one of the commercially-developed properties that is part of
the proposal. She currently experiences hardships because the property is not zoned properly. For example, it is difficult for
her to get financing to do repairs and remodeling work because the properly is considered non-conforming under the current
RM-2.4 zoning. Banks do not want to even talk with her because of this issue. The property has been commercially used for
almost a half century, and she does not see how the proposed change would result in a negative impact. She also voiced concern
that because the properfy is zoned RM-2.4, more stringent sign restrictions prevent her from getting the exposure she needs to
advertise her business.
Predrag Bojic, Lilly's Physical Therapy, Edmonds, said he shares ownership of the property that is currently being used as
a physical therapy office. He said he supports the proposed amendment and asked the Board to recommend approval to the
City Council. He expressed his belief that it makes more sense to rezone the commercially-developed properties between
Highway 99 and SR-104 to CG.
Young Zeon, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds since 1982 and he is against the proposed land use designation change.
He agreed that the area has been abandoned, and he and his wife clean 84th Street on a weekly basis. However, he does not
believe that changing the land use designation would make the situation any better. He pointed out that traffic at the intersection
of SR-104 and Highway 99 is already congested between 3:30 and 5:30 p.m. Unless some type of traffic easement is required,
it will continue to get worse. He said he is against any changes that could result in increased population in Edmonds.
Board Member Robles asked if there is potential that an outside developer could come in and change the zoning to develop
high-density units on the subject parcels or if the properties would remain an internal community. Mr. Shipley explained that
the current land use designation allows low-density type commercial development (Commercial Business, Neighborhood
Business, etc.), but these zones have their own issues with setbacks, height limits, etc. It is difficult to make redevelopment
properties have been zoned RM-2.4.
Board Member Robles observed that property owners will redevelop properties in their own best interests under the set of rules
established by zoning. The proposed change would allow current and future property owners to redevelop to maximize their
Minutes
Page 3
APPROVED
February 28, 201 8
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
property values. Mr. Shipley agreed that the proposed change would give more opportunity for different types of zoning.
Primarily along Highway 99, it is likely that property owners would be interested in rezoning to CG. However, given that a
large portion of the area has already been developed as RM-2.4 under fee simple and condominium ownership, there will not
likely be a large turnover of property for redevelopment. In addition, the CG zone requires mitigation via step backs, setbacks,
etc. when located adjacent to residential development. It is likely that the current multi-family development will remain in
place, but the proposed change would give the owners of commercially-developed property a greater opportunity to redevelop.
Board Member Robles commented that it appears the impacts would be localized. All property owners would continue to
benefit from having services such as police jurisdictions, and residential property owners who do not want large commercial
enterprises adjacent to them are assured that any zoning that is put in place would have protections. Mr. Shipley explained that
if the commercially-developed properties were eventually rezoned to CG, a number of additional uses would be allowed, but
the zoning restrictions would also require buffers, landscaping, setbacks, etc.
Board Member Robles said he is concerned that adopting the proposed change could result in additional external investment
opportunities, which could take more out of the community than it puts in. However, if redevelopment remains internal so that
each property owner optimizes the community, the benefit would stay. He said he is strongly in favor of that, but would like
some protection against adverse industries or abuse of location. For example, this is a good location for commuting to Seattle,
and he would not be in favor of allowing the property to be redeveloped into a large number of microhomes. He asked if the
current code provides sufficient protection against this. Mr. Shipley answered that any development proposal would have to
meet the City's design guidelines. The CG zone would allow more flexibility, but it would also require a significant amount
of pedestrian infÍastructure in an area where no sidewalks currently exist. He summarized that, for a long time, there has been
no economic incentive to redevelop the area and many ofthe buildings are reaching the end of their life. The proposed change
offers a great opportunity to build a gateway into Edmonds'
Shawn Leiser, applicant, said he was born and raised in Edmonds and recently relocated to Shoreline with his family. He
reminded the Board that the current proposal is for a Comprehensive Plan land use amendment and not arezone. Any concerns
related to zoning would be addressed if and when aÍezone application is submitted. He said that if he had been aware of the
Highway 99 Subarea Plan, he would have participated in the process and suggested that it include the subject parcels. He noted
that a fair amount of properfy along Highway 99 was converted to CG as part of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, and all the
properties surrounding the subject parcels are now zoned CG. The subject parcels are a stand lone RM-2.4 zone.
Mr. Leiser pointed out that the subject parcels are much more oriented towards Highway 99 than SR-104. The properties are
located towards Highway 99 and change occurred when the interchange was developed. He said he owns the one single-family
home on the cul-de-sac, which is actually oriented towards its backyard because the front door used to access onto SR- I 04. He
said he has owned the property where the home is located for 15 years. It been a rental unit for a fair amount of time and is
nearing the end of its lifecycle. He also owns the properfy where the existing chiropractic office is located. Both properties
are ripe for change.
Mr. Leiser pointed out that the proposed amendment would not be a drastic change. The likelihood of the Edmonds Greenery
Condominiums ever being redeveloped is very slim because each of the 37 units are individually owned. In order to redevelop,
someone would have to purchase all of the units. On the other hand, the proposed change would create an opportunify to
develop the properties closer to Highway 99 into something the City could be proud of. He said he takes pride in what he does.
He has met with all of the landowners near his properties, as well as the attorney that represents the condominium association.
A1l have indicated support for the proposed change.
Mr. Leiser said proposed change would also benefit the condominium owners by providing an opportunity to rezone their
properties. When the properties were annexed into the City and rezoned to RM-2.4, the 38-unit Edmonds Greenery
Condominiums became non-conforming. If a fire were to destroy 75o/o or more of one of the units, it could not be rebuilt under
the current zoning. The proposed change would allow for a plan designation that is more appropriate for the properties and
Board Member Crank said she lives in the neighborhood near 84th Avenue and 236th Street and travels the corridors a lot.
Everyday when coming home fiom work in Seattle, she has to make a decision about getting off at Highway 99 and dodging
traffic or taking the scenic route home. Traffic can be treacherous, especially in inclement weather, and there are no sidewalks
Planning Board Minutes
February 28,2018 Page4
APPROVED
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
to protect pedestrians. She asked staffto share how the proposed change could hypothetically make the situation better for the
chiropractic business. She said she empathizes with the cost and restrictions involved with making upgrades to the existing
buildings under the current zoning. Mr. Shipley advised that, currently, the property owner would have to obtain a Conditional
Use Permit in order to do any upgrades, and some of the development standards have changed, as well. While he cannot speak
to some of the issues the property owners have dealt with as far as financing, he knows that signage is also restrictive under the
current RM-2.4 zoning. Changing the land use would allow more flexibility on what could be done on the site. Mr. Leiser
added that the current zoning also has restrictions on lot coverage and greater parking requirements. Changing the zoning
would offer property owners relief from some of the parking requirements and allow them signage similar to what other
commercial uses along Highway 99 are allowed to have. The change would benefit businesses that provide services for the
community.
Board Member Cloutier asked if all of the different zones currently located on the subject property would translate directly to
a Highway 99 Corridor designation or would some zoning changes be required in order to implement the land use designation
change. Mr. Shipley answered that the existing zoningis compatible with the Highway 99 Corridor designation. The proposed
change would not change any zoning or force properfy owners to seek a Íezone at some point in the future. However, the
proposal would allow a wider variety of zoning to be considered. Any rezone proposal would be handled as a separate
application. Mr. Leiser added that, looking into the future, the proposed change would give landowners more opportunity to
develop something that falls within the City's code and creates a greater gateway into the City. The subject parcels are some
of the first seen as you enter into Edmonds on Highway 99.
Chair Monroe said it appears that the subject parcels are underzoned. He asked how many similar situations exist in the City.
Mr. Shipley answered that while it is not extremely common, it does occur sometimes, particularly in the southern part of
Edmonds. He recalled that few other locations along SR-104 were re-designated last year. He reminded the Board that the
properties were rezoned from CG to RM-2.4 when they were annexed into the City and now they are overbuilt based on the
current residential zoning. V/hat might have been allowed under Snohomish County's zoning was not allowed under the City's
code.
Mr. Chave referred to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to point out where the Highway 99 Corridor and the SR-I04
Corridor intersect. The subject property is located in the area where the two corridors connect. Part of staffls analysis was to
identify which corridor the property relates better to. Given the properfy's situation, the proposal seems to make more sense,
especially with the history that it was previously zoned and developed as CG. The property seems to relate more to Highway
99.
Mr. Chave cautioned that it is very speculative to talk about zoning at this point. It will be up to the property owners to decide
if and when to pursue a zoning change. The Comprehensive Plan change will open up more options for the property owners.
The record indicates there are some issues with the existing uses related to current zoning, and the zoning does not quite match
with the existing mixture of uses.
Chair Monroe summarized that it sounds like there is a list of characteristics appropriate for the subject properties, and approval
of the Comprehensive Plan change would not propagate to the rest of the Cify. Mr. Chave responded that this is a unique
situation, since these are the only properties that front on both corridors. The question the Board needs to consider is what
makes more sense, and staff believes the best option is for the properties to orient towards Highway 99.
Chair Monroe closed the public hearing.
Mr. Shipley invited the Board to formulate a recommendation to forward to the City Council, noting that athe City Council
would conduct another public hearing before making a final decision.
Board Member Crank explained the reasoning behind her earlier question about how the proposed change would impact the
understanding of how the change would impact existing development. It is also important to understand how existing
development and uses would be impacted if the proposal is denied.
Minutes
APPROVED
February28,2018 Page5
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE STAFF'S ANALYSIS OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND FORWARD A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE TEN SUBJECT PROPERTIES FROM EDMONDS
\ryAY CORRIDOR TO HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr advised that this is a follow up to a previous Planning Board discussion about potential amendments to the Critical
Areas (CAO). A concern was brought to the City Council's attention that the 1,500 square foot limitation could act
some restoration projects within critical areas or their buffers. As currently written, restoration work greaterasa
than 1,500 sq feet over a three-year period requires a critical area report. It was pointed out that development of these
reports adds costthatmaybeexcessiveforthesizeandintentofaproject. Thisisparticularlytruewithprojectsdone
by non-profìt or who have limited resources. The City has had good experiences working with citizen groups
to remove invasive
Planning Board to
and do appropriate planting and restoration efforts. The City Council forwarded the issue to the
several options were provided. Staff is in favor of amending the CAO as appropriate to
encourage restoration proj has prepared draft language for the Board's consideration. A public hearing has been
tentatively scheduled for March He referred to Page 73 of the Staff Report, which outlines the proposed amendment,
which would add the following to Section n.a0.220(C)(8)(a)
"For activitìes intended to rcstore habÍtøt in wetlanrls or Jìsh and wikllife habÍfat conservation areøs,
vegetøtion removed under this
square feet ønnuølly, if
may exceed the 1,500 square foot limÍtstìons up lo a maximum of 2,500
i. The actÍvity is proposed and by a non-proJit ot other organÍzation approved by the City tlut
hss demonsÍrated expertise ønd in the restorstÍon or invssive removal actÍvity.
ii. ProvÍdes a specffic proposal scope atl locølion of the project, provides for project
supervÍsÍon, ønd a monitorìng and
øppropriøte Cily departmenl. "
schedule acceptable to tlte City ancl approved by the
Mr. Chave noted that the new language would only apply to wetlands s and their buffers and not to steep slopes,
a consultant report attached to each projectwhere life safety issues must be considered. In these situations, it is critical
to ensure that the work is done appropriately and safely.
Mr. Chave explained that the intent is to have some limitations in place so you cannot clearing ofa large property,
but the proposed new language would raise the limits fairly significantly. It also
project is good or not. The notion is that staffwould review the qualifications and
criteria for determining whether a
organization or group who
is proposing the project, as well as the proposed plan and schedule to make sure what is
there will be appropriate supervision.
is appropriate and that
Mr. Chave said the current language was crafted using the City of Seattle's code as a reference.that time, the City of
Seattle has eliminated the square foot limitation entirely. Staff is not entirely sure that the square
but it was included for discussion purposes.
1S necessary,
Board Member Robles said that, as discussed previously, it would be helpful to have an inventory showing much land in
Edmonds has been designated as critical areas. This would give the Board a better idea of how broad the change
would apply throughout the City. The Board also indicated it would be appropriate to define the consultant
Board Member Robles commented that some invasive species can represent a danger, and it might be appropriate to
consultant to have "error and omission" insurance for these situations. However, he would not want this requirement to
to all restoration projects. He commented that it would make sense to remove all of an invasive species as part of the
and
APPROVED
February 28,2018 Page6
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
cIvIL SERVTCE COMMISSION - CODE UPDATE (10.25.090-FILLING OF VACANCIES
- PROBATTONARY PERIOD)
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT
8.AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT \ryITH SNOHOMISH
UNTY FOR APPROVAL OF CDBG FUNDS
ORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH
KPG CITY\ryIDE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
7
INTERLOCAL WEDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR SCHOOL
RESOURCE (Formerly ltem 6.4)
Councilmember Teitzel asked, in light in the country over the past 3-4 years, if the SRO will be
armed when on duty at the high school.answered yes. Councilmember Teitzel asked what
training the SRO will receive to properly to an active school shooting. Chief Compaan advised
Officer Tom Smith has been selected to be the Officer Smith was the SRO at Edmonds-Woodway
High School for several years prior to the July 201 0 termination of agreement. During the time
school safety, response to emergencies onhe was the SRO, he received a greal deal of training
the campus and active shooters. In November he basic training conducfed by the National
Association of School Resource Officers which has a curriculum. Several of the courses of
study are related to direct response, school safety, emergency plans, dealing with disciplinary
and Evacuate (ALICE), a coursematters, diversity, etc. He also attended Alert Lockdown Inform
of study related to violence on campuses and in workplaces. Next will attend aweek-long national
conference of the National Association of School Resource Officers that
related to threat assessment, response to threat, active shooter scenarios,
have to have to plan for that. Councilmember Teitzel was very satisfied with Compaan's response.
COUNCILMEMBER "IEI"TZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY CO MESAROS, TO
6.
9
I
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEM
SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER.
UNANIMOUSLY.
a broad-based curriculum
noted it was unfortunate
EDMONDS
CARRIED
Mayor Earling advised the Interlocal Agreement puts the SRO in place in mid-August.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION
Associate Planner Brad Shipley introduced the applicant, Shaun Leiser. He explained this is one of two
Comprehensive Plan map amendments proposed in 2018. Mr. Shipley reviewed:
. Proposal
o Change land use designation from "Edmonds Way Corridor" to "Highway 99 Corridor"
I
a
r Ten totali 2.84 acres. Developed with mixture of single family,USES. Property annexed in 1983. Zoned General Commercial prior to annexation. City rezoned
properties to Residential Multi-family at the time of annexation
o Any future rezone applications will be reviewed separately for compliance
History (aerial photographs)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 15,2018
Page 8
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
o 1964: Prior to the completion of the Edmonds Way and Hwy 99 Interchange
o 1978: 84th Ave W cul-de-sac created
o 2018: Commercial uses along Hwy 99 today
Existing Useso Majority of area currently developed with multi-family uses
o Commercial development has existed since pre-annexation
o Single family home built in 1948
Issueso Lack of strong connection to Edmonds Way
o Stronger orientation towards Hwy 99 provides more opportunity
o Illegal dumping and homeless camping
Review Criteriao Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?. If approved, property owners may seek rezone. Hwy 99 Corridor designation is compatible
with both commercial and transitional zones. This is a non-project-based proposal.
o Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City?. Not detrimental, allowing possibly for more density in proximity of Aurora Transit Center
and BRT stops, possibility housing with transit amenities
o Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses?. 2.84 acres is 1l20th of 1o/o of the overall City. This proposal does not change the balance of
USCS.
o Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation?. Proximity to transit, depending on type of development, access off 84tr' and 240'h a
consideration but not part of this review.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the map of existing uses and asked why the area where
numerous vehicles were parked was not included. Mr. Shipley said that area is already designated Hwy 99
Corridor.
Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Shipley to identify the properties the applicant is associated with. Mr.
Shipley identifìed the single-family property on the south and the two adjacent commercial office parcels.
Councilmember Johnson commented previous discussion regarding the SR104 coridor Hwy 99 corridors
have included the lack of a complete interchange, a project that could be very expensive. She would hate
to lose the opportunity to get from southbound Hwy 99 to westbound SRl04. Mr. Shipley responded aside
from this proposal, staff has talked to V/SDOT about their future plans for the interchange. A comment
letter from a resident of the area who is also a WSDOT employee described what could be done in the area.
He acknowledged when the interchange was designed, not much thought was given to what it would do to
the area. One of the ideas being floated would be to relocate the cul-de-sac south of where the cars are
parked and potentially do a street vacation, but it is unclear whether that would be feasible.
Councilmember Johnson said that is her particular area of interest. She was aware it was not part of this
process but wanted to make sure staff was looking at those opportunities. Mr. Shipley said this proposal
does not change that, this is just changing to Comprehensive Plan Map designation. Staff is exploring the
future of the interchange with WSDOT.
o
a
a
Councilmember Mesaros asked if the between 84th and 99 was of the
controlled by State. Mr. Shipley said it is IS a was not
when WSDOT acquired the property and it does not have any underlyingzoning.lf the City used it for
right-of-way purposes, WSDOT was willing to give the City the property via a process.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 15,2018
Page 9
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
Councilmember Tibbott commented the properties have equal access to Hwy 99 and SR104. Since there
has been such an extensive planning process for Hwy 99,he liked the idea of bringing these parcels into
that plan. He asked to what extent this property was tied with the Hwy 99 vision. Mr. Shipley acknowledged
theré are a lot of moving parts, but this area is designated as the Gateway District. After exploration with
WSDOT, if it is determined the cul-de-sac can be relocated the southern parl of cul-de-sac vacated, it could
lead to a prominent development at the entrance to Edmonds. That development would not fall under
Planned Action and would be subject to SEPA.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There was no one present to
provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public hearing.
Mayor Earling inquired about the process. Mr. Shipley said no action was necessary tonight; action would
be taken on all the Comprehensive Plan changes at once. The remaining 2018 Comprehensive Plan
amendments will be presented to Council in early to mid-July. The amendments include one that was
inadvertently left out last year on which a public hearing has already been held, and text changes associated
with incorporating the Hwy 99 subarea plan.
Councilmember Johnson commented the City can adopt changes to the Comprehensive Plan once a year
and she questioned the proposal to bring amendments to the Council in July instead of December. Mr.
Shipley answered typically all the amendments including financial plans, text changes, etc. are done at one
time. Because one amendment was left off last year, the intent was to move them forward so the applicant
did not have to wait an entire year. The City can adopt text changes and the financial portions such as CIP
and CFP can be adopted at a later date.
Councilmember Johnson asked about the Urban Forest Management Plan. Ms. Hope answered that will be
separate. Councilmember Johnson asked if there were any other Comprehensive Plan amendment
anticipated this year. Mr. Shipley answered only the ones he mentioned. Ms. Hope recalled a presentation
to Council aboui the change to the usual process, noting Councilmember Johnson may not have been at that
meeting. There are no proposals other than what Mr. Shipley mentioned which include minor text changes,
two map amendments and re-adoption of the Hwy 99 subarea language'
Mr. Shipley asked if the Council is satisfied with this proposal or needed to have further discussion' It was
the consensus of the Council they were satisfied with the proposal.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
ACTION ITEM
Associate Planner Mike Cl Brackett's Corner is a unit lot subdivision located at the
southwest corner of 212fh Street and West. The project is the second to use unit lot subdivision
process that Council adopted in June 2017 to for the creation fee-simple ownership opportunities
of multiple residential projects. The project dwelling units and a central access
tract. The Architectural Design Board reviewed and design of the Brackett's Corner project
All of the building foundations have been installed and much of the cl has been constructed
have alreadynumber).(bonds have been obtained thefor remalnlng c1vil improvements
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 15,2018
Page l0
been constructed and the rest should be finished ln the near future.
A
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Att. 2: Consolidated Minutes (Comprehensive Plan Amendments Review)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/7/2018
Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
An Urban Forest Management Plan ("UFMP") for the City of Edmonds has been under development
since early 2017.
· A professional services agreement for the UFMP project was approved by the City Council on
January 24, 2017. (See Attachment 2 for minutes.)
Early input opportunities included:
· Citizens at public open house
· Discussions with Tree Board
· Discussions with city staff from three departments
· UFMP webpage with contact information
Work followed to prepare a draft plan and seek public review.
· The initial draft UFMP was presented and discussed in Tree Board meetings on April 5 and May
3. (See Attachment 3 for minutes of these two meetings).
· The draft UFMP was discussed by the Planning Board on April 11, May 9, and May 23. (See
Attachment 4 for minutes of these three meetings.)
· On June 19, the City Council held a public hearing on the draft UFMP. (See Attachment 5 for
minutes.)
· Based on public input and City Council discussion, revisions were made to the draft UFMP. (See
Attachment 1 for the current draft.) Revisions are summarized in the "Narrative" section below.
Staff Recommendation
1. Review revisions to draft UFMP
2. Concur on any additional changes to be made to the draft UFMP before considering action on
August 21.
Narrative
A major focus of the plan is on the planting and care of trees on City property and rights-of-way. The
plan also addresses overall city tree canopy and ways to maintain and enhance it on both public and
private property. (See Attachment 1 or online on the front page of the City’s website:
8.3
Packet Pg. 186
<http://www.edmondswa.gov/>)
How has the UFMP changed since the City Council's July 17 public hearing?
In addition to new photos and text“clean-up”, revisions have been made to address City Council
comments and a balance of points among public commentors. Revisions to the attached UFMP are
summarized here:
· Removal of the map that showed much of the Edmonds Bowl area providing a key opportunity
for tree planting
· Additional reference to native trees (p. 7)
· Additional reference to scenic views (p. 3)
· Removal of the specific total dollar value projected to represent the overall benefits of
Edmonds’ tree canopy (p. 33)
· Removing the rough assignment of dollar levels [i.e., $, $$, or $$$] for specific actions because
actual costs could vary greatly, depending on details that would be decided later
· Mention of pollinators related to trees (p. 65, under A.ii)
· Addition of incentives for tree preservation (including case study examples on p. 51 and
potential programs on p. 63)
· Simplification of goals and actions--making the previous 21 objectives into 5 goals, with more
straightforward actions for each (see p. 6 and 61-66).
What are the plan’s new (simpler) goals?
The five goals that replace the previous 21 objectives are:
1. Maintain citywide canopy coverage
2. Manage public trees proactively
3. Incentivize protecting and planting trees on private property
4. Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care
5. Promote “Right tree, right place”.
Does the plan propose requiring permits for all tree-cutting?
No, the plan does not propose that all property owners must have a permit for cutting trees. It
recognizes that tree-cutting permits are required in environmentally critical areas and on City property
or right-of-way. (See pages 41-42.) It also advocates for expanding public information and for providing
incentives to protect and plant trees, especially the “right trees in the right place”. (See pages 63-65.)
Does the plan propose that City tree regulations be updated?
Yes, the plan proposes updating tree regulations in the development code to reduce the impact of
development on the urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and
penalties for code violations.
How will the plan be implemented?
A. Some parts of the plan would be implemented by continuing things that are already being done
(e.g., having a Tree Board).
B. Other parts would be implemented through a combination of administrative follow-up, public
process, and City Council action (e.g., updating tree regulations in the development code).
C. Parts that might require significant new resources (e.g., hiring additional staff) would be
implemented only after details are worked out about the specific approach/cost and assuming
adequate resources are available. (A new budget allocation is subject to City Council approval.)
8.3
Packet Pg. 187
Next Steps
Proposed next steps include:
· August 7 City Council meeting (see Attachment 6 for slide presentation) for Council members to:
o Review revisions
o Ask questions or make comments
o Concur on any additional changes or clarifications to the draft UFMP
· August 21 meeting for City Council to consider adoption of the final UFMP
· Implementation steps to begin after plan adoption.
Attachments:
Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27
Att. 2: Council Excerpt Jan 24, 2017
Att. 3: Tree Board Excerpts for 2018
Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018
Att. 5: Council Excerpts of June 19, 2018
Att. 6: City Council- UFMP Presentation
8.3
Packet Pg. 188
Urban Forest Management Plan
City of Edmonds
DRAFT July 27, 2018
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Prepared for:
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Prepared by:
Davey Resource Group, Inc.
6005 Capistrano Avenue, Suite A
Atascadero, California 93422
Phone: 805-461-7500
Toll Free: 800-966-2021
Fax: 805-461-8501
www.davey.com/drg
City of Edmonds
Urban Forest Management Plan
DRAFT July 27, 2018
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
CITY OF EDMONDS STAFF MEMBERS
Shane Hope, AICP, Director Development ServicesCarrie Hite, Director, Parks, Recreation,
and Cultural Services
CITY OF EDMONDS CITIZENS’ TREE BOARD
Doug Petersen, Position 3 - Chair
Frank Caruso, Position 1 - Vice Chair
Gail Lovell, Position 2William Phipps, Position 4
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Nathan Monroe, Position 4 - ChairMatt Cheung, Position 3 - Vice Chair
Philip (Phil) Lovell, Position 1
Daniel Robles, Position 2
CITY OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson, Position 2 – Council PresidentDiane Buckshnis, Position 4 – Council President Pro Tem
Kristiana Johnson, Position 1
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Position 3
Phil Williams, Director, Public Works and UtilitiesBrad Shipley, Associate Planner
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
Barbara Chase, Position 5
Steve Hatzenbeler, Position 6
Vivian Olson, Position 7Suzanne Jeugensen, Alt.
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Position 5Alicia Crank, Position 6
Todd Cloutier, Position 7
Mike Rosen, Alt.
Dave Teitzel, Position 5Thomas Mesaros, Position 6
Neil Tibbott, Position 7
Acknowledgments
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Executive Summary
Scope & Purpose
Plan Foundation1
Introduction
Community
Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest7
What Do We Have?
Edmonds’ Urban Forestry History
Regional Plans and Legislation
Urban Tree Canopy Analysis
Existing Urban Forest Practices
What Do We Want?
Stakeholder and Community Input53
How Do We Get There?
Goals and Actions of the Plan59
How Are We Doing?
Monitoring and Measuring Results67
Appendices
Appendix A: References
Appendix B: Table of Figures
Appendix C: Community Survey Responses
Appendix D: Open House Summary Report
69
E
Regulatory Framework
Regional Urban Forestry Resources
Urban Forestry Practices - Case Studies17
E
Table of Contents
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
What
Do We
Have?
What
Do We
Want?
How
Are We
Doing?
How Do
We Get
There?
1 Scope & Purpose
Scope & Purpose
The purpose of the Urban Forest Management
Plan (UFMP) is to provide a guide for managing,
enhancing, and growing trees in the City of
Edmonds over the next 20 years. The plan includes
long-range goals and action strategies to promote
sustainability, species diversity, and greater canopy
cover. Publicly-managed trees along streets, in
parks, and at City facilities are collectively referred
to as the community urban forest. Privately owned
trees are also considered part of the urban forest in
this plan because of their function and contribution
to the sustainability of the overall urban forest in
Edmonds; however, the City recognizes that it has a
limited role in the care of private trees.
Recognizing the significance of environmental and
socioeconomic benefits provided by trees and their
relationship with a high quality of life, the UFMP
aims to:
Illustrate the value and benefits of trees.
Promote shared vision and collaboration
between community residents.
Establish benchmarks and metrics
to monitor the long-term success of
management strategies.
Enhance the health and sustainability of the
community urban forest.
Increase the vital benefits that the trees
provide to Edmonds and the region.
Ensure that resources are in place to
support the care and management of the
community’s trees.
This UFMP includes goals and action strategies for
the long-term and short-term in support of this
purpose. It identifies appropriate resources to
adequately manage community trees. It is intended
to remain flexible and dynamic, allowing for the
exploration and implementation of the actions as
funding and resources permit.
The development of the UFMP included a
comprehensive review of existing policies and
regulations, current funding and maintenance levels,
analysis of the extent, condition, and composition
of the existing tree resources, stakeholder concerns,
and community input.
Plan Foundation
Spending any amount of time outdoors in Edmonds
will reveal the abundant and diverse natural
resources found within City parks and surrounding
residences and businesses. Besides the obvious
amenities available to a city on the coastline of the
Puget Sound, another abundant natural wonder
in Edmonds is its trees. Interspersed amongst the
buildings and roads, trees provide the City with the
shade, fresh air, and softened landscape that help
people achieve the unique experience referred
to as; “an Edmonds kind of day.” All of the trees
in Edmonds make up the City’s urban forest tree
resource. Without active management, this urban
forest is at risk.
Executive Summary
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Acres 6,095
Population 41,840
Land Cover
Tree Canopy 30%
Grass & Vegetation 27%
Impervious Surfaces 34%
Bare Soils 2%
Open Water 7%
Tree Canopy Cover
Maximum Potential Canopy 57%
High Priority Planting Acres 384
Investment
Tree Care Per Capita $7.74
Edmond's Urban Forest Benchmark Values
The City
2Executive Summary
In December 2016, the City adopted a Comprehensive
Plan that formally recognized that the community
places a high value on the conservation of the urban
forest. This Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP)
is intended to be an element that aligns in support
of the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, this UFMP
aligns with the intentions of, “providing a framework
for moving the Edmonds community toward a
sustainable future that integrates and responds
to environmental, economic, and social needs in a
way which meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs” (Comp Plan, 2016).
The following principles for urban forest management
set the framework for the UFMP:
Optimize the ecosystem services provided
by trees.
Control tree maintenance costs to the com-
munity.
Create pathways to stable and predictable
funding.
Mitigate risks and liabilities associated with
trees.
The structure and organization of the UFMP are
based on the understanding of what we have, what
we want, how we get there, and how we are doing.
This structure, referred to as adaptive management,
is commonly used for resource planning and
management (Miller, R.W., 1988) and provides a good
conceptual framework for managing community
forest resources.
The plan development process involved a
comprehensive review and assessment of the
existing community tree resource, including
composition, value, and environmental benefits.
The process explored community values, existing
regulations, and policies related to community
trees. In addition, there were multiple stakeholders,
internal and external, who played a role in the
planning, design, care, and advocacy around the
community forest. These stakeholders include the
general public, City departments, the Citizens’ Tree
Board, and Snohomish Public Utility District (PUD).
Each of these stakeholders contributed to the
development of this Plan.
What Do We Have?
Edmonds was founded along the coast of the Puget
Sound in 1890. Similar to the rest of the region,
Edmonds had forestlands that were logged and
waters that were fished. As Edmonds has grown
in population, the forest has been urbanized
and divided for parks, homes, and businesses.
Recognizing the role of trees in the community and
the necessity to manage them, the City drafted a
Streetscape Plan in 2002 that included tree planting
Table 1: Benchmark Values (2017)
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
3 Executive Summary
guidelines as part of the general aesthetic goals for
the community. Revised in 2006 and again in 2015,
elements of this Plan introduced tree care policy
that has since been the source for many of the City’s
tree management decisions.
In terms of regulations, the care for the urban forest
is generally understood to be required by the Growth
Management Act of 1990. Guidance is provided by
the City’s Comprehensive Plan (2016), the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Plan (2016), and the
Streetscape Plan (2015). These primary documents
define the reach of existing regulations and policies
within which care for the urban forest is mandated:
Comprehensive Plan (2016) - Environmental
Quality Goal A - “…Protect environmental
quality within the Edmonds community
through the enforcement of community-
based environmental regulations.”
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan
(2016) - Natural Resource and Habitat
Conservation Goal 4 – “Preserve and
provide access to natural resource lands
for habitat conservation, recreation, and
environmental education.”
• Objective 4.5 - Expand the urban forest
and increase tree canopy in Edmonds.
• Action Plan 4.G - Steward the urban
forest using appropriate maintenance
of street and park trees, clear removal
and replacement policies and providing
information about urban forestry to
property owners.
Streestcape Plan (Revised 2015) - Celebrate
Sustainable Practices. In redesigning
the corridor, it is critical that the new
interventions improve the street’s
performance. This includes enhancing
the street environment and gateways for
pedestrian benefits through an Urban
Forestry program in the Downtown/
Waterfront area.
The urban forest is a combination of both public
and private trees. Any trees that the City has direct
control of and responsibility for are defined as
the community tree resource. This includes public
trees in parks, along rights-of-way, and around
City facilities. Managing any resource begins with
defining what is being managed and establishing
benchmarks along with clearly defined goals and
expectations. While public trees along major
arterials and high-profile areas are well-known and
routinely cared for by City staff, other public street
trees are expected to be maintained by the adjacent
property owner. Aside from individual development
applications, the City does not have a method to take
an inventory or track the history, status, or location
of public trees. In addition, providing adequate care
for trees requires a level of knowledge and a skill set
that many property owners do not have.
The planning process for this UFMP included an
assessment of tree canopy. The results of the study
provide a clear picture of the extent and distribution
of tree canopy across Edmonds, benchmarking the
average tree canopy cover at 30.3%. Analysis of
historical change estimates that the City has lost 114
acres of its tree canopy since 2005. In 2005, there
was an average tree canopy cover of 32.3%.
The primary challenges and opportunities for urban
forest management are:
Private owners control the majority of tree
canopy (83.0%) with few regulations to limit
tree removal, except when the trees are
associated with development or are within
an environmentally critical area.
There is limited knowledge about the
condition of trees in the urban forest.
There is an estimated 1,651 acres of tree
planting space opportunity to expand the
urban forest canopy.
The views of scenic places are fundamental to
Edmonds’ identity as a community and require
balanced consideration with the care of the urban
forest. Scenic views are highly valued in long-
established development. At the same time,
appreciation of trees—especially “the right trees in
the right place”—is a value shared by most residents.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Tree Canopy
30%
Impervious34%Grass/Vegetation
27%
Bare Soils2%
Water7%
4Executive Summary
Map 1: Land Cover
Figure 1: Land Cover
Land Cover
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
5 Executive Summary
What Do We Want?
The plan development process included substantial
outreach to public stakeholders, residents, and
non-profit agencies. The process provided a broad
perspective of the challenges that face Edmonds’
urban forest. Through open house forums and
public meetings, the City has found an engaged
set of residents with varying opinions on matters
pertaining to the care of the urban forest.
City Staff were also consulted during plan
development, with City code and public safety
being the main considerations when making tree
care decisions. City Staff will often take a reactive
approach to tree management by performing work
on trees as problems are discovered, but they also
look for opportunities to plant trees in strategic
public places.
In general, stakeholders from both the community
and City Staff share the following desired outcomes
for the UFMP:
Preservation and Enhancement of Tree
Canopy
Sustainability, Health, and Safety of the
Community Tree Resource
Preservation and Enrichment of Wildlife and
Habitat
Increased Outreach and Education
Increased Collaboration with Volunteers and
Non-profit Groups
Strategies and Policies to Minimize Potential
Tree Conflicts
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
Goal 1 - Maintain citywide canopy coverage
Goal 2 - Manage public trees pro-actively
Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property
Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care
Goal 5 - Promote “Right tree, right place”
6Executive Summary
How Do We Get
There?
The long-range strategic goals provided in this Plan
are proposed to address the three components of a
sustainable urban forestry program through specific
actions:
Urban Forest Asset Actions - which are
intended to improve the urban forest
resource over the next 20 years by
developing detailed expectations for the
urban forest.
Municipal Resource Actions - which are
intended to drive improvements in City
policy and practices by developing efficiency
and alignment of efforts within City
departments.
Community Resource Actions - which are
intended to build stronger community
engagement and public participation in
urban forest stewardship.
How Are We Doing?
The UFMP presents opportunities to care for the
urban forest in Edmonds by providing an overarching
framework for urban forestry operations, policies,
and programs. It presents a high-level review of
urban forest management in the City, including
historical context and an exploration of the benefits
of Edmonds’ trees. Building upon that information,
the Plan connects the community’s vision for the
urban forest with appropriate goals and actions.
This Plan provides various goals to pursue along a
20-year timeline concluding in 2038. These short
and long-term goals will be achieved by adapting
the Plan according to a five-year cyclical review of
operational objectives. The success of the UFMP
will be measured through the realization of goals
and will be demonstrated through the health of
the urban forest and increased environmental
benefits. Ultimately, it will lead to an enhancement
of tree canopy throughout the City. Furthermore,
the greatest measurement of success for the UFMP
will be how successful it is in meeting community
expectations for the care and preservation of the
community tree resource.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
7 Introduction
Trees play an essential role in the community
of Edmonds, providing numerous tangible and
intangible benefits to residents, visitors, neighboring
communities, businesses, and wildlife. Research
demonstrates that healthy urban trees can improve
the local environment and lessen the impact resulting
from urbanization and industry (U.S. Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Division, 2017). Trees improve air
quality, reduce energy consumption, help manage
stormwater, reduce erosion, provide critical habitat
for wildlife, and promote a connection with nature.
In addition to these direct improvements, healthy
urban trees increase the overall attractiveness of a
community. In Portland, Oregon, street trees were
found to add an average of $8,870 to homes’ sales
price as well as reduce time on the market for home
sales by 1.7 days (Donovan et al., 2010). Studies
on the business benefits of trees have shown how
retail districts promote longer and more frequent
shopping and greater sales (Wolf, 2007). Urban
trees support a more livable community, fostering
psychological health and providing residents with a
greater sense of place (Kuo, 2003). Community trees,
both public and private, soften the urban hardscape
by providing a green sanctuary and making the City
of Edmonds a more enjoyable place to live, work,
and play. The City has emphasized the importance
of trees within the Comprehensive Plan (2016), so
much so that public trees are defined as a valued
community resource, a critical component of the
urban infrastructure, and a part of the City’s identity.
Community
Early settlements were built in the City to access
natural resources, where shingle mills became the
primary industry. Although construction of the
Great Northern Railway along the waterfront was
expected to be the main source of growth in the
City, most growth occurred due to its proximity to
Seattle. Passenger ferry service has also helped the
town grow and prosper.
Edmonds’ population, from 2017 State estimates, is
41,260 people and covers a land area of 8.9 square
miles. It is the third largest city in the county after
Everett and Marysville. By 2035, the population is
expected to be 45,550.
The urban forest in this community is defined by its
public and privately managed trees. Through parks
and public rights-of-way, the City maintains a diverse
population of trees intended for city streetscapes
(typically nursery grown hardwoods), as well as
native trees (naturally regenerating conifers and
deciduous trees). Privately managed trees may be
remnant forest trees connected with early logging
history, naturally growing native trees and even
invasive hardwoods.
Community Vision for the UFMP
Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan provides a vision of
the City as an attractive, sustainable community for
all ages. It specifically recognizes the value of trees
as contributing to that vision and directs that an
urban forest management plan be used as a guide
for decisions on managing the forest resource,
especially focusing on public land and rights-of-way.
For private lands, the UFMP would guide education
and incentives to encourage good tree management
practices.
Introduction
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
8Introduction
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
9 Introduction
Benefits and
Challenges of the
Urban Forest
Urban and natural forests work constantly to mitigate
the effects of urbanization and development, which
protects and enhances lives within the community.
This is increasingly evident as communities calculate
the benefits of their urban forest using a complete
inventory or sample data in conjunction with the
USDA Forest Service i-Tree software tools. This state-
of-the-art, peer-reviewed software suite considers regional
environmental data and costs to quantify the ecosystem
services unique to a given urban forest resource.
Individual tree owners can calculate the benefits
of trees to their property by using the National
Tree Benefit Calculator (www.treebenefits.com/
calculator) or with i-Tree Design. (www.itreetools.
org/design). The National Tree Benefit Calculator
was developed by Casey Trees and Davey Tree
Expert Company to aid in the understanding of the
environmental and economic value trees provide
on an annual basis. In general, there are five (5)
important ways in which trees provide benefits:
Water Quality, Carbon Sequestration, Energy
Savings, Air Quality, and Socioeconomic benefits.
Water Quality
Urban stormwater runoff is a major source of
contamination for the Puget Sound and riparian
areas throughout Edmonds, threatening both human
health and wildlife, including salmon populations.
Requirements for surface water management
are becoming more stringent and costly for both
developers and the City.
By incorporating the right mix of urban trees into
stormwater management planning, runoff volumes,
peak stream flows and flooding incidents may all
be reduced; a strategy that may lessen the need for
constructing stormwater management facilities and
the cost of treatment to remove sediment and other
pollutants.
Trees improve and protect water quality by:
Intercepting Rainfall – Trees intercept
rainfall in their canopy, which act as a mini-
reservoir. Some water evaporates from the
canopy and some slowly soaks into the
ground, reducing the total amount of runoff
(Xiao, et al., 2000). Canopy interception
also lessens soil compaction, which in turn
further reduces runoff.
Increasing soil capacity and infiltration –
Root growth and decomposition increase
the capacity and rate of soil infiltration
by rainfall and snowmelt resulting in
slower percolation rates and increasing
the filtration of contaminants (Xiao, et al.,
2007).
Reducing soil erosion – Tree roots reduce
the flow and volume of stormwater runoff,
avoiding erosion and preventing sediments
and other pollutants from entering streams,
rivers, Lake Washington, and the Puget
Sound (WA Department of Ecology, 2011).
Providing salmon habitat – Shade from
trees helps to cool warm urban runoff,
which poses a threat to anadromous fish,
like salmon. Shade from trees provides
lakeside and riparian habitat for salmon
and cools water temperatures, increasing
dissolved oxygen, which is essential to
salmon survival (Puget Sound Partnership,
2012).
In Edmonds, a mature (8” DBH) Bowhall Maple
growing along a residential street would intercept
an estimated 477 gallons of stormwater from city
storm sewers in 2017 avoiding $13.25 in stormwater
management cost (www.treebenefits.com, 2017).
Among the signature trees of the Edmonds
streetscape plan (2015), chanticleer pear intercepts
the most stormwater runoff (509 gallons valued
at $14.16) per tree. Japanese stewartia intercepts
the least stormwater runoff (153 gallons valued at
$4.26) per tree.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Common Name Scientific Name Average Benefits
at 8" DBH
Average Benefits
at 13" DBH
Stormwater Runoff
Intercepted (gallons)
Stormwater
Value
Bowhall Maple Acer rubrum
'Bowhall'$95.00 $142.00 477 $13.27
Columnar
Norway maple
Acer platanoides
'Columnare'$106.00 $144.00 507 $14.10
Chanticleer
pear
Pyrus calleryana
'Chanticleer'$48.00 $68.00 509 $14.16
Goldspire ginko Ginko biloba
'Blagon'$76.00 $119.00 299 $8.31
Leprachaun ash
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica
'Johnson'
$83.00 $124.00 346 $9.61
Japanese
stewartia
Stewartia
pseudocamellia $33.00 $63.00 153 $4.26
10Introduction
Table 2: Stormwater Benefits from Most Prominent Street Tree Species
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Common Name Scientific Name Average Benefits
at 8" DBH
Average Benefits
at 13" DBH
Reduced atmospheric
carbon (pounds)Carbon Value
Bowhall Maple Acer rubrum
'Bowhall'$95.00 $142.00 148 $0.46
Columnar
Norway maple
Acer platanoides
'Columnare'$106.00 $144.00 193 $0.61
Chanticleer
pear
Pyrus calleryana
'Chanticleer'$48.00 $68.00 148 $0.48
Goldspire ginko Ginko biloba
'Blagon'$76.00 $119.00 186 $0.59
Leprachaun ash
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica
'Johnson'
$83.00 $124.00 166 $0.52
Japanese
stewartia
Stewartia
pseudocamellia $33.00 $63.00 195 $0.62
11 Introduction
Carbon Sequestration
As environmental awareness continues to increase,
governments are paying particular attention to global
warming and the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. As energy from the sun (sunlight) strikes
the Earth’s surface it is reflected back into space as
infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb
some of this infrared radiation and trap this heat in
the atmosphere, increasing the temperature of the
Earth’s surface. Many chemical compounds in the
Earth’s atmosphere act as GHGs, including methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO2),
water vapor, and human-made gases/aerosols. As
GHGs increase, the amount of energy radiated back
into space is reduced, and more heat is trapped in the
atmosphere. An increase in the average temperature
of the earth may result in changes in weather, sea
levels, and land-use patterns, commonly referred
to as “climate change.” In the last 150 years, since
large-scale industrialization began, the levels of
some GHGs, including CO2, have increased by 25%
(U.S. Energy Information Administration).
Trees absorb atmospheric carbon, which reduces
greenhouse gases. The carbon-related function of
trees is measured in two ways: storage (total stored
in tree biomass) and sequestration (the absorption
rate per year) (Jo, et al., 1995). Urban trees reduce
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in two ways:
Directly – Through growth and the seques-
tration of CO2 as wood and foliar biomass.
Indirectly – By lowering the demand for
heating and air conditioning, thereby reduc-
ing the emissions associated with electric
power generation and natural gas consump-
tion.
In Edmonds, a mature (8” DBH) Bowhall maple
growing along a residential street would annually
reduce over 148 pounds of atmospheric carbon (www.
treebenefits.com, 2017). This can be represented as
about $0.46 in benefits both in carbon sequestered,
and avoided. Among the signature trees of the
Edmonds streetscape plan (2015), Japanes stewartia
reduces the most atmospheric pounds of carbon
(195 pounds valued at $0.62) per tree. Chanticleer
pear reduces the least atmospheric carbon (148
pounds valued at $0.48) per tree.
Table 3: Carbon Benefits from Most Prominent Street Tree Species
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Common Name Scientific Name Average Benefits
at 8" DBH
Average Benefits
at 13" DBH
Conserved
(Kilowatt hours)Energy Value
Bowhall Maple Acer rubrum
'Bowhall'$95.00 $142.00 26 $1.31
Columnar
Norway maple
Acer platanoides
'Columnare'$106.00 $144.00 22 $1.15
Chanticleer
pear
Pyrus calleryana
'Chanticleer'$48.00 $68.00 24 $1.22
Goldspire ginko Ginko biloba
'Blagon'$76.00 $119.00 18 $0.91
Leprachaun ash
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica
'Johnson'
$83.00 $124.00 19 $0.95
Japanese
stewartia
Stewartia
pseudocamellia $33.00 $63.00 12 $0.61
12Introduction
Energy Savings
Electric and gas utilities develop energy conservation
solutions to keep rates low for their customers,
reduce their need to build new lines, and, ultimately,
to be good environmental stewards. Energy services
delivered to Edmonds residents are provided by
Snohomish County Public Utility District (SNOPUD).
This organization recognizes how trees can reduce
energy consumption and encourages Edmonds
residents to consider trees as a cooperative strategy
for improving energy conservation (SNOPUD, 2017).
Urban trees and forests modify the environment
and conserve energy in four principal ways:
Shade dwellings and impervious
surfaces – Impervious surfaces in 2011
were assessed as 34% of the total land
base (Edmonds, 2017). Shade from trees
reduces the amount of radiant energy
absorbed and stored by these impervious
surfaces, thereby reducing the urban heat
island effect, a term that describes the
increase in urban temperatures in relation
to surrounding locations (Simpson &
McPherson, 2000). Shade from trees also
reduces the amount of energy used to cool
a structure (Simpson, 2002).
Transpiration – Transpiration releases water
vapor from tree canopies, which cools
the surrounding area. Through shade and
transpiration, trees and vegetation within
an urban setting modify the environment
and reduce heat island effects. Temperature
differences of more than 9°F (5°C) have
been observed between city centers
without canopy cover and more forested
suburban areas (Akbari, et al., 1997).
Wind reduction – Trees reduce wind speeds
by up to 50% and influence the movement
of air and pollutants along streets and
out of urban canyons. By reducing air
movement into buildings and against
conductive surfaces (e.g., glass, metal
siding), trees reduce conductive heat loss,
translating into potential annual heating
savings of 25% (Heisler, 1986).
Green Roofs – Native trees and vegetation
on rooftops can help reduce the urban
heat island effect, decrease the heat loss
through rooftops and provide a beautiful
addition, not only for enjoyment to humans,
but also contribute to the success of the
community’s ecosystem by increasing
habitat for all living creatures (U.S.
Department of Energy, 2004).
Table 4: Energy Benefits from Most Prominent Street Tree Species
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Common Name Scientific Name Average Benefits
at 8" DBH
Average Benefits
at 13" DBH
Bowhall Maple Acer rubrum
'Bowhall'$95.00 $142.00
Columnar
Norway maple
Acer platanoides
'Columnare'$106.00 $144.00
Chanticleer
pear
Pyrus calleryana
'Chanticleer'$48.00 $68.00
Goldspire ginko Ginko biloba
'Blagon'$76.00 $119.00
Leprachaun ash
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica
'Johnson'
$83.00 $124.00
Japanese
stewartia
Stewartia
pseudocamellia $33.00 $63.00 $0.55
Air Quality Value
$1.25
$1.02
$1.38
$0.84
$0.65
13 Introduction
Air Quality
Urban trees improve air quality in five fundamental
ways:
Reducing particulate matter (e.g., dust and
smoke)
Absorbing gaseous pollutants
Shade and transpiration
Reducing power plant emissions
Increasing oxygen levels
They protect and improve air quality by intercepting
particulate matter (PM10), including dust, ash, pollen,
and smoke. The particulates are filtered and held in
the tree canopy where they are eventually washed
Table 5: Air Quality Benefits from Most Prominent Street Tree Species
harmlessly to the ground. Trees and forests absorb
harmful gaseous pollutants like ozone (O3), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Shade and
transpiration reduces the formation of O3, which
is created during higher temperatures. Scientists
are now finding that some trees may absorb more
volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) than previously
thought (Karl, T. et al 2010; Science NOW, 2010).
VOC’s are a class of carbon-based particles emitted
from automobile exhaust, lawnmowers, and other
human activities.
By reducing energy needs, trees also reduce
emissions from the generation of power. And,
through photosynthesis, trees and forests increase
oxygen levels.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Common Name Scientific Name Average Benefits
at 8" DBH
Average Benefits
at 13" DBH
Leaf Surface Area
(square feet)
Increased
Property Value
Bowhall Maple Acer rubrum
'Bowhall'$95.00 $142.00 181 $77.00
Columnar
Norway maple
Acer platanoides
'Columnare'$106.00 $144.00 207 $88.10
Chanticleer
pear
Pyrus calleryana
'Chanticleer'$48.00 $68.00 70 $29.66
Goldspire ginko Ginko biloba
'Blagon'$76.00 $119.00 151 $64.51
Leprachaun ash
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica
'Johnson'
$83.00 $124.00 166 $70.67
Japanese
stewartia
Stewartia
pseudocamellia $33.00 $63.00 61 $25.93
14Introduction
Aesthetic, Habitat,
Socioeconomic, and Health
Benefits
While perhaps the most difficult to quantify,
the aesthetic and socioeconomic benefits from
trees may be among their greatest contributions,
including:
Beautification, comfort, and aesthetics
Shade and privacy
Wildlife habitat
Opportunities for recreation
Reduction in violent crime
Creation of a sense of place and history
Human health
Reduced illness and reliance on medication
and quicker recovery from injury or illness
Some of these benefits are captured as a percentage
of property values, through higher sales prices
where individual trees and forests are located.
While some of the benefits of forests are intangible
and/or difficult to quantify (e.g., the impacts on
physical and psychological health, crime, and
violence), empirical evidence of these benefits does
exist (Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich, 1986; Kuo & Sullivan
, 2011). Exposure to nature, including trees, has a
healthy impact on humans (especially children),
such as increased worker productivity, higher test
scores, reduced symptoms of ADD, and faster
recovery times following surgery (Faber et al., 2006).
In addition, trees and forests have positive economic
benefits for retailers. There is evidence that trees
promote better business by stimulating more
frequent and extended shopping and a willingness
to pay more for goods and parking (Wolf, 2007).
Trees further generate socioeconomic and health
benefits by generating better school performance,
less workplace illness, increased concentration, all
of which yield an increase to overall productivity. In
addition, the trees throughout the built environment
(and especially among vacant lot conversions and
streets) promote active living connectors and reduce
crime rates. Thus, trees provide for their community
by generating new economic income and removing
judicial system costs (Wolf, 1998).
In addition, trees and forestlands provide critical
habitat (foraging, nesting, spawning, etc.) for
mammals, birds, and fish and other aquatic species,
along with limitless opportunities for recreation,
offering a healthful respite from the pressures of
work and everyday stress.
Table 6: Aesthetic and Socioeconomic Benefits from Most Prominent Street Tree Species
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
15 Introduction
Challenges
Developing and caring for a healthy urban forest
requires the coordination of many different
stakeholders, with a clear vision, and dedicated
resources. As such, the urban forest intersects with
many other elements of the city. This can result in
conflict or challenges including:
Conflicts with Buildings and Infrastructure
- Roots and branches of trees can damage
nearby sidewalks, utility lines, and buildings.
Hazard Trees - Trees can create hazards to
the community. Storm events, accidents,
improper maintenance, and the natural
death of trees can all create structural
weaknesses for trees and the surrounding
area.
View Issues - Edmonds is known for the
majestic views of the Puget Sound. It is
possible for trees to block these views if
they grow too large or were planted in
improper locations.
Maintenance - Trees are living
infrastructure. As such, they require active
and regular maintenance. Structural
pruning, irrigation, and the management
of pests and diseases are some critical
maintenance practices that must occur to
ensure a healthy and vibrant urban forest.
Choice of Tree Species - Different tree
species have different needs, growth
patterns, and resistances to pests and
diseases. A diverse palette of species
improves the resilience of the urban forest.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
16Introduction
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
17 What Do We Have?
To effectively manage the urban forest, it’s essential
to have knowledge and understanding of what exists
today. This section lays the groundwork for the
UFMP with historical context, current policies and
practices and understanding about the existing state
of the urban forest.
History of Urban
Forestry in Edmonds
Trees have been an important part of the City’s
character and economy since its founding. However,
to understand and manage the urban forest has
depended upon which trees are being considered and
where the trees were located. This is evident from
the various locations where trees are referenced in
the City code as well as the variety of departments
whose staff oversee tree related matters. Edmonds
had been designated by the National Arbor Day
Foundation as a Tree City USA since 2011, but has
had city staff in different departments managing
tree issues within the City for decades.
Recognizing the role of trees in the community and
the necessity to manage them, the City drafted a
Streetscape plan in 2002 that included tree planting
guidelines as part of the general aesthetic goals of
the community. Revised again in 2006 and 2015,
elements of this plan introduced tree care policy
which has been the source for much of the City’s
tree management decisions ever since.
In 2010, the City formed the Edmonds Citizens’
Tree Board to assist in the development of tree
ordinances and to encourage the planting and
maintaining of trees. This is an early example of
the City taking steps towards management of tree
resources as an integrated ecosystem of both public
and private trees. In 2015, one of the efforts of this
board was a proposal to the City for updated tree-
related municipal ordinances. These proposed tree
codes, through a public comment period, were
rejected in part due to public concerns about private
property rights, but also because the City felt that it
had insufficient tree policy direction to warrant the
recommended codes.
From these related events, it’s clear that the
community has assumed an increasing level of care
for the urban forest that would benefit from long-
term strategic planning. Increasing regulations from
the State and Federal Government for environmental
stewardship requirements have also played a
significant role in defining the level of care for the
urban forest that exist in Edmonds today.
Of special note are three policy sources that directly
influence the management of urban forestry
and land use in Edmonds; The Washington State
Growth Management Act (1990), the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan (2016), and the Edmonds Parks
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan (2016) (The
PROS Plan is also an element of the Comprehensive
Plan.) Their backgrounds, roles, and influences on
the development and operation of Edmonds urban
forest are discussed below.
What Do We Have?
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
18What Do We Have?
Growth Management Act (1990)
In 1990, the State Legislature adopted the
Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter
36.70A RCW) on the basis that uncoordinated
and unplanned growth posed a threat to the
environment, sustainable economic development
and the overall quality of life in Washington. Unique
among states, the Act requires that municipalities
prepare their own comprehensive plans that provide
for growth and development in a manner that is
locally and regionally consistent, achievable, and
affordable. All cities and counties in Washington are
required to adopt critical areas regulations by the
Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA defines
critical areas as:
“Critical areas” include the following areas and
ecosystems:
a. Wetlands;
b. Areas with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water;
c. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
d. Frequently flooded areas; and
e. Geologically hazardous areas.
Cities are required to include the best available
science in developing policies and regulations to
protect the functions and values of critical areas.
Further to that end, jurisdictions must review,
evaluate, and, if necessary, revise their critical areas
ordinances per an update schedule.
Edmonds has an outstanding inventory of critical
areas and protection of these critical areas overlaps
with the protection of the urban forest. The trees
in the urban forest increase soil security to protect
wetlands, waterways and flooded areas, and the
branches and canopy provide ample real estate for
wildlife to call home. It is important that the City
plan for all the trees in the urban forest as a whole,
not just critical areas.
This notion is reinforced in Washington
Administrative Code (365-190-060(1)) which
specifies when classifying forest land resources that
“Cities are encouraged to coordinate their forest
resource lands designations with their county and
any adjacent jurisdictions. Counties and cities should
not review forest resource lands designations solely
on a parcel-by-parcel basis.”
Edmonds has established environmental quality goals
in support of the legislation and in order to protect
critical areas. Since the critical areas regulations
must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
the Comprehensive Plan sets forth the underlying
policies for the jurisdiction’s critical areas program.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
19 What Do We Have?
The Comprehensive Plan (2016)
As an overarching guiding document, the
Comprehensive Plan aggregates other city visions
and plans into one cohesive document. The
Comprehensive Plan is structured by element, then
goals, then policies.
The Comprehensive Plan contains 9 elements. These
elements include goals and policies that can be
directly supported through this UFMP. These are the
community sustainability elements of the plan and
include goals and policies associated with:
Sustainability
Climate Change Goals and Policies, including
support for the Kyoto Protocol and the US
Mayor’s Climate Change Agreement
Community Health
Environmental Quality
The urban forest is a key component of the community
sustainability element. Goal A in this element seeks
to protect environmental quality and sets the first
policy (A.1) as to: Ensure that the city’s natural
vegetation, especially native vegetation, associated
with its urban forests, wetlands, and other wildlife
habitat areas are protected and enhanced...” A.2
sets to protect and retain the urban forest, native
vegetation, and wildlife habitat areas. This includes
techniques such as tree retention, which should be
integrated into land use and development codes. As
the urban forest grows, so too does the habitat and
environmental quality.
The community culture and urban design element’s
implementation involves tree policy as well. In
this element, the streetscape section defines the
many ways that trees enhance the community:
“Trees are an asset to the community. They help
absorb stormwater, provide habitat for wildlife,
clean pollution from the air, and give both
summer shade and aesthetic pleasure.” In this
way, the Comprehensive Plan addresses the policy
commitment to Community Health, through the
preservation and expansion of the urban forest.
Street trees are further explored in the Streetscape
Plan developed in 2002 by the Parks, Recreation, and
Cultural Services Department and updated in 2006.
The Streetscape Plan includes a Street Tree Plan for
the downtown corridor. In 2011 the City adopted a
“Complete Streets” program which accommodates
the needs of all users along streets, including a safe
space for pedestrians which necessitates a tree
management component. This section concludes
with Actions A.1 and A.2, which state that Edmonds
should update the Street Tree Plan and develop an
Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017.
The community sustainability element also includes
two other sections that are interconnected with the
urban forest; Climate Change and Critical Areas.
Recognizing the importance of addressing the issues
surrounding the environment and climate change,
the City of Edmonds formally expressed support
for the Kyoto Protocols, adopted the U.S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement by Resolution No.
1129, and joined the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) by Resolution No.
1130. A crucial component of these climate change
policies is the reduction of greenhouse gases with
several benchmarks:
1. By 2020, reduce overall emissions of green-
house gases in the state to 1990 levels;
2. By 2035, reduce overall emissions of green-
house gases in the state to twenty-five
percent below 1990 levels;
3. By 2050, the state will do its part to reach
global climate stabilization levels by reduc-
ing overall emissions to fifty percent below
1990 levels, or seventy percent below the
state’s expected emissions that year.
The Edmonds urban forest is vital to the success of
meeting these benchmarks. Trees reduce carbon
through many ways including; reducing energy
demand for shaded buildings, acquiring carbon
dioxide for the photosynthesis, and sequestering
carbon. The potential for carbon sequestration
is determined by maximum tree sizes, lifespans,
growth rates, and tolerances to urban stress.
Therefore, growing long-lasting and healthy trees
directly contributes to the success of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan climate change goals.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
20What Do We Have?
The PROS Plan (2016)
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS)
Plan provides comprehensive guidance on the
management and development of Edmonds’ parks,
recreation and open spaces, and the services
provided by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Department. The PROS plan has been
regularly updated (1996, 2001, 2008, and 2014) to
remain relevant to Edmonds as the city evolves.
Edmonds updates the PROS Plan and Community
Cultural Plan on a six-year cycle, in alignment with the
requirements of the Washington State Recreation
and Conservation Office (RCO) to maintain eligibility
for federal and state grant programs. To this end,
the PROS plan contains detailed data on numerous
species and habitats in the city. The PROS Plan is
also an important tool in meeting Washington’s
Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements and
achieving the important citywide goals outlined in
the Strategic Action Plan (April 2015). The PROS Plan
defines seven goals, of which Goal 4.0 specifically
addresses urban forestry.
Goal 4.0 (Natural Resource and Habitat
Conservation) seeks to preserve and provide access
to natural resources for habitat conservation,
recreation, and environmental education. The
eight objectives discuss preserving and protecting
areas with critical habitats and natural resources.
Of special importance to the UFMP is Objective
4.5, which states “Expand the urban forest and
increase tree canopy in Edmonds”. Under each
goal, the PROS Plan recommends projects and
initiatives. A recommended project (4.G) under Goal
4 is: “Steward the urban forest using appropriate
maintenance of street and park trees, clear removal
and replacement policies and providing information
about urban forestry to property owners.” This
demonstrates the value of the urban forest to the
people of Edmonds as manifested through existing
official documents addressing the urban forest and
urban tree canopy.
Summary Considerations for
UFMP
These documents demonstrate the existing
regulations and policies within which care for the
urban forest is mandated. It is clear from the scope
defined within these documents that the values of
the Edmonds community, and Washington State at
large, require that urban forest management include
strategies to improve the care and conservation of
all trees. This includes consideration for improving
and preserving trees near waterways, critical areas,
habitats, and on private parcels. Equipped with
this policy background and mandate to manage
the urban forest, it’s essential to plan with as much
knowledge about the community tree resource as
possible.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
21 What Do We Have?
Community Tree
Resource
Trees belonging to the public, in parks, along rights-
of-way and around City facilities are the community
tree resource. These trees can be the most actively
managed population by the City and provide the
best indicators to showcase its vision of a well-
managed and sustainable urban forest condition.
A well-managed urban forest is healthier and more
resilient to pests, disease, and climate fluctuations.
As a result, a well-managed urban forest is also more
cost-efficient. As urban forests evolve over time,
managers revise their strategies for individual tree
species based on past performance and emerging
prospects. Because trees are relatively long-lived
organisms, urban forests, like those in Edmonds,
are often a combination of well-adapted, high-
performance species mixed with some species that
may be less desirable and require more attention.
There is a widely accepted guiding rule in tree
resource management that no single species should
represent greater than 10% of the total population,
and no single genus more than 20% (Clark et al,
1997). Achieving a diverse population of trees
can help to minimize detrimental consequences
in the event of storms, drought, disease, pests, or
other stressors that can severely affect an urban
forest and the flow of benefits and costs over time.
Catastrophic pathogens, such as Dutch elm disease
(Ophiostoma ulmi), emerald ash borer (Agrilus
planipennis) are both examples of unexpected,
devastating, and costly pests and pathogens that
highlight the importance of diversity and the
balanced distribution of species and genera.
Current operations in the City that care for the
community trees do not keep suitable records of
their tree resource to summarize within this UFMP.
Public trees along major arterials or high-profile
areas of the City are well-known and routinely cared
for by City Staff, but as an overall management tool,
the City does not maintain data about these trees
as a collective inventory of their green infrastructure
assets. Managing for appropriate tree species can
help control maintenance costs, reduce damage to
infrastructure, and manage the need for pest and
disease control measures.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
22What Do We Have?
Tree Canopy Cover
The amount and distribution of leaf surface area is
the driving force behind the urban forest’s ability
to produce benefits for the community (Clark et al,
1997). As canopy cover increases, so do the benefits.
Tree canopy is the layer of leaves, branches, and
stems of trees and other woody plants that cover
the ground when viewed from above.
Understanding the location and extent of tree
canopy is critical to developing and implementing
sound management strategies that will promote the
smart growth and sustainability of Edmonds’ urban
forest and the invaluable benefits it provides.
In addition to understanding the tree canopy as
a whole, the quality of the urban tree canopy is
often categorized by the amount of fragmentation.
Often, the health and diversity of the overall canopy
will vastly improve when there is less fragmented
canopy, and there are more linkages between
multiple patches of forest. These categories of
canopy include:
Core Canopy - Tree canopy that exists
within and relatively far from the forest/
non-forest boundary (i.e., forested areas
surrounded by more forested areas).
Perforated Canopy - Tree canopy that
defines the boundary between core forests
and relatively small clearings (perforations)
within the forest landscape.
Patch Canopy - Tree canopy of a small-
forested area that is surrounded by non-
forested land cover.
Edge Canopy - Tree canopy that defines
the boundary between core forests, and
large core forests and large non-forested
land cover features, approximately 328
feet. When large enough, edge canopy may
appear to be unassociated with core forests.
The City of Edmonds completed a canopy assessment
in June 2017 using a heads-up digitizing approach
and high resolution (4.8 inch), leaf-on aerial
imagery captured on August 7th, 2015. The overall
assessment does not distinguish between publicly-
owned and privately-owned trees because trees
provide benefits to the community beyond property
lines. The results of the study provide a clear picture
of the extent and distribution of tree canopy within
Edmonds.
The data developed during the assessment becomes
an important part of the City’s GIS database. It also
provides a foundation for developing community
goals and urban forest policies. With these data,
managers can determine:
The location and extent of canopy over time
(tracking changes)
The location of available planting space
(potential planting area)
The best strategies to increase canopy in
underserved areas
The data, combined with existing and
emerging urban forestry research and
applications, can provide additional
guidance in two ways:
Finding a balance between growth and
preservation
Identifying and assessing urban forestry
opportunities.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
23 What Do We Have?
Canopy Cover Summary
The City of Edmonds encompasses a total area of
9.5 square miles (6,095 acres) with 1,844 acres of
tree canopy (Figure 1). This total area includes 8.9
square miles of land and 0.6 square miles of water.
By analyzing high-resolution aerial imagery, Davey
Resource Group (DRG) determined the following
land cover characteristics within the City of Edmonds:
30.3% existing canopy, including trees and
woody shrubs (525 acres)
1.6% (99 acres) dry vegetation and bare
ground
6.6% (402 acres) open water, where tree
canopy is unfeasible
27.4% (1,670 acres) of grass and low-lying
vegetation
34.1% impervious surfaces, including roads,
parking lots, and structures (2,080 acres)
From 2005 to 2015 tree canopy decreased
from 32.3% to 30.3%
Total potential canopy is 57.4%, considering
suitable planting sites (1,651 acres) and the
existing canopy (1,844 acres), for a total of
3,495 acres
Private properties have most of the canopy
(83.0%), followed by public (12.9%), and
commercial (4.1%) properties.
Among parks in Edmonds, Southwest
County Park has the most canopy cover
(117 acres) followed by Yost Memorial Park
(44 acres) and Meadowdale Beach Park (26
acres)
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Tree Canopy
30%
Impervious34%Grass/Vegetation
27%
Bare Soils2%
Water7%
24What Do We Have?
Map 1: Land Cover
Figure 1: Land Cover
Land Cover
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
25 What Do We Have?
Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison
Wildlife corridors (bottom) link habitats and lead to
improving habitat quality while fragmentation (top)
leads to isolation and declining habitat quality.
Canopy Fragmentation
As a part of the UTC assessment, Edmonds’ existing
UTC was analyzed for fragmentation to discover the
distribution of canopy (Map 2). The overall health
of the urban ecosystem is highly dependent on the
ability of the trees, plants, wildlife, insects, and
humans to interact collectively as a whole.
Often, the health and diversity of the overall canopy
will vastly improve by creating linkages between
multiple patches of forest.
Canopy fragmentation data serves as a valuable
management tool due to the importance of Edmonds’
critical areas and environmental stewardship. The
analysis found that Edmonds’ urban forest includes
the following:
10.3% (190 acres) of Core Canopy
8.2% (151 acres) of Perforated Canopy
55.5% (1,023 acres) of Patch Canopy
26.0% (480 acres) of Edge Canopy
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Patch Forest56%
Edge Forest
26%
Perforated Forest8%
Core Forest
10%
26What Do We Have?
Map 2: Forest Fragmentation
Figure 2: Forest Fragmentation
Forest Fragmentation
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
27 What Do We Have?
Park Canopy Cover
The City of Edmonds includes 47 parks covering
344 acres (5.6% of all land area) (Map 3). Edmonds’
parks have an average tree canopy cover of 44.1%.
Within those parks, canopy varied depending on site
and size. Edmonds’ largest park, Southwest County
Park (119 acres), has 117 acres of tree canopy and
an average canopy cover of 98.7%. The second-
largest, Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) has 41 acres
of canopy cover, which represents 93.5% of the
land area. The high canopy cover of Yost Memorial
Park reflects that it is one of the few areas of native
vegetation that remain in Edmonds. The park
contains mixed stands of western red cedar (Thuja
plicata), red alder (Alnus rugosa), bigleaf maple
(Acer macrophyllum) and western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla), which offer a glimpse into the natural
history of the area. Centennial Plaza is the smallest
park (less than 0.1 acres) with 0.02 acres of canopy
(9.9 % canopy cover).
Of the four largest parks (Southwest County, Yost
Memorial, Meadowdale Beach, and Pine Ridge), all
have high tree canopy potential (greater than 96.7%).
However, of these parks, only Pine Ridge Park is not
currently near maximum potential canopy.
An acceptable strategy is to focus attention on the
parks where there is a much larger gap between
current canopy cover and potential canopy cover. For
example, Mathay Ballinger Park has 54.4% canopy
cover, but the potential is 93.8%. Haines Wharf
is another example where the potential canopy
(40.6%) is much higher than the existing canopy
(11.9%). The 5 biggest parks are listed at right.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Park Name Total
Acres
Canopy
Acres
%
Canopy
% Potential
Canopy
Southwest
County Park 118.55 117.05 98.73 99.47
Yost Memorial
Park 44.14 41.28 93.53 97.45
Meadowdale
Beach Park 25.54 25.16 98.50 99.77
Pine Ridge Park 23.78 21.36 89.83 96.66
Edmonds Marsh 23.37 5.66 24.21 24.91
28What Do We Have?
Map 3: Tree Canopy by Park
Table 7: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks
Tree Canopy By Park
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Sensitive Area Total
Acres
Patch
Forest
Acres
Edge
Forest
Acres
Perforated
Forest
Acres
Core Forest
Acres
Non
Forest
Acres
Biodiversity Areas And Corridor 251.82 1.35 53.94 27.09 147.67 21.78
Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron)2.55 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.40 1.48
Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 118.33 10.52 35.32 4.61 16.53 51.36
Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 14.46 9.28 0.18 2.70 51.21
Wetlands Area 80.65 5.48 13.56 0.51 1.76 59.36
29 What Do We Have?
Sensitive Aquatic Habitat (Trout/Salmon)
Sensitive Habitat (bald eagle)
Wetlands Area
Biodiversity areas and corridors, identified by
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
are areas of habitat that are relatively important
to various species of native fish and wildlife. In
Edmonds, most of the biodiversity areas and
corridors are in core (58.6%) or edge (21.4%) forest.
This is congruent with what theory would suggest,
because corridors are continuous areas of habitat.
Nesting habitat for the great blue heron is comprised
of several elements; the nesting colony, year-round
and seasonal buffers, foraging habitat, and a pre-
nesting congregation area. For a given nesting area,
habitats are delineated by a buffer created from the
outermost perimeter of great blue heron nests.
In addition, there is a larger seasonal buffer to
reduce human noise pollution during the breeding
months (February - September). Nesting habitat in
Edmonds is located primarily in non-forest areas
(58%). This value warrants further investigation to
determine optimal canopy levels.
Sensitive aquatic habitat is determined by in-stream
physical characteristics (e.g., temperature, water
quantity, structure, substrate conditions, etc.).
However, sensitive aquatic habitat is also strongly
influenced by watershed processes beyond the
waterline. This includes canopy cover, riparian
condition, large woody debris, impervious surfaces
Table 8: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation
Critical Areas
The Washington State Growth Management Act
(GMA) mandates that all cities and counties in
Washington are required to adopt critical areas
regulations. The GMA states that critical areas
include the following categories and ecosystems:
Wetlands
Areas with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
Frequently flooded areas; and
Geologically hazardous areas
Analysis of critical areas in conjunction with tree
canopy can reveal the important relationship that
trees provide in the conservation and protection of
these environments. Two critical area designations
are especially important to urban forest management
in Edmonds; fish and wildlife habitat areas and steep
slopes (Tables 8 & 9).
Fish and wildlife habitat areas include high priority
habitats and species that have been identified for
conservation and management.
DRG analyzed the relationship between forest
fragmentation and the following priority habitat and
species list categories:
Biodiversity and Corridor Areas (Breeding
and Refuge)
Nesting Habitat (great blue heron)
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Sensitive Area Total
Acres
% Patch
Forest
% Edge
Forest
%
Perforated
Forest
% Core
Forest
% Non
Forest
Biodiversity Areas And Corridor 251.82 0.54 21.42 10.76 58.64 8.65
Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron)2.55 1.36 24.96 0.00 15.73 58.01
Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 118.33 8.89 29.85 3.89 13.97 43.40
Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 18.58 11.92 0.23 3.47 65.80
Wetlands Area 80.65 6.79 16.81 0.63 2.18 73.60
30What Do We Have?
and stormwater discharge, sediment delivery, road
location and maintenance, watershed hydrology,
and nutrient dynamics (Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife, 2009). In Edmonds, 43.4% of
sensitive aquatic habitat is found in non-forest areas.
The second largest forest fragmentation category
for sensitive aquatic habitat is edge forest (29.9%).
Nesting habitat for bald eagles is typically defined
by areas of large, mature trees close to large bodies
of water and generally buffered from human activity
(Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). This nesting
behavior is reflected in the 11.9% of nesting area
located in edge type forests of Edmonds.
However, nest trees are often among the largest
trees in a forest patch (Department of Fish and
Wildlife, 2016). This tree preference is reflected in
18.6% of nesting habitat being found in patch forest.
Around wetlands, the Washington Department of
Ecology defines vegetated areas adjacent to aquatic
resources as buffers that can reduce impacts from
adjacent land uses (Washington Department of
Ecology, 2011). These buffers also provide some
of the terrestrial habitats necessary for wetland-
dependent species that require both aquatic and
terrestrial habitats. The quality of these buffers
could be described by their canopy fragmentation,
where 73.6% of wetlands were classified in non-
forest areas, and 16.8% were classified in edge
forest, with only 2.2% in the core forest.
The protection of steep slopes against landslides and
erosion is a key benefit of vegetation (Washington
Department of Ecology, 2011). Trees provide several
benefits to the structural integrity of slopes and the
prevention of soil erosion:
Foliage intercepts rainfall, causing
absorptive and evaporative losses that
reduce rainfall available for infiltration.
Roots extract moisture from the soil which
is lost to the atmosphere via transpiration,
leading to a lower pore-water pressure.
Roots reinforce the soil, increasing soil shear
strength.
It is important to understand the significance of
steep slopes because of their influences on local
wildlife and habitat quality. For example, increased
erosion can negatively impact spawning salmon by
increasing sediment and particulates in streams and
other water bodies. In this way, riparian vegetation
that prevents erosion protects critical habitat for
wildlife.
Most steep slopes (66.1%) are in areas with tree
canopy. This figure presents an excellent baseline, as
trees are a vital tool for securing soil and minimizing
erosion. Among all areas with slopes over 12 degrees,
66.1% of the area is canopy, 14.3% is impervious,
19.0% is pervious, and 0.6% is bare soil.
Table 9: Percent of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Dataset Source Weight
Proximity to
Hardscape
Urban Tree Canopy
Assessment 0.30
Slope National Elevation
Dataset 0.25
Road Density National Hydrologic
Dataset 0.15
Soil
Permeability
Natural Resource
Conservation Service 0.10
Soil Erosion
(K-factor)
Natural Resource
Conservation Service 0.10
Canopy
Fragmentation
Urban Tree Canopy
Assessment 0.10
31 What Do We Have?
Planting Opportunity Areas
With over 1,651 additional acres of planting
opportunity area, a system is needed to identify
the areas that will yield the highest returns. DRG
identified opportunity planting site levels based
on possible planting sites and then compared how
a tree planted in these sites would impact several
environmental benefits (Table 10). These benefits
are related to stormwater interception and erosion
control, urban heat islands, and forest fragmentation
. Increasing the number and size of trees in very
high opportunity planting level areas will yield the
highest return on investment.
However, the City understands the importance of
view corridors to the Puget Sound and, while an
area may otherwise be determined to be a high
opportunity planting level, public views are a value
too and choosing the right tree for the right place
must be considered.
Table 10: Factors Used to Prioritize
Tree Planting Sites
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opportunity Level Potential Acres
Very Low 105.53
Low 395.36
Moderate 288.54
High 464.98
Very High 396.60
32What Do We Have?
Table 11: Opportunity Planting Level AcresSites were given an overall opportunity planting level
based on a composite of these environmental factors
and the averages were binned into five (5) classes.
Higher numbers indicate a higher opportunity for
planting. These classes ranged from Very Low to
Very High (Table 11).
Trees planted in the next several years should be
planted in areas where they will provide the most
benefits and return on investment. In some cases,
trees should be planted to provide more backyard
wildlife habitat (reduce forest fragmentation), in
other cases, it may be to help shade roads. A very
low opportunity planting site is one where planting
a tree will do little to impact stormwater, heat
islands, and environmental conditions. A very high
opportunity planting site likely has high rankings in
at least two factors, and thus tree planting in these
areas is highly strategic, addressing multiple urban
issues at once.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
33 What Do We Have?
Overall Benefits
Edmond’s land cover data was used within i-Tree
Canopy to model the environmental benefits from
the entire urban forest (all public and private trees).
To date, trees in Edmonds are storing 187,590 tons of
carbon in their leaves and woody biomass. Annually,
tree canopy in Edmonds provides the following
environmental services:
Reduces 42.8 million gallons of stormwater
runoff.
Improves air quality by removing 42.2 tons
of pollutants (CO, NO2, O3, SO2, and PM10).
Sequesters 6,294 tons of carbon.
Summary Considerations for
UFMP
The UTC assessment establishes a GIS data layer that
can be used in conjunction with other map layers
to prioritize planting sites and increase canopy
cover strategically. Edmonds’ existing tree canopy
covers 30.3% of the City, and decision-makers can
set a target canopy cover goal to pursue. With this
UTC assessment, urban forest managers have the
following opportunities:
Use planting opportunity site analysis to
identify new tree planting locations to
reduce erosion and soil degradation.
Use GIS canopy and land cover mapping to
explore under-treed neighborhoods and
identify potential planting sites.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
34What Do We Have?
Incentivize tree planting on private property,
particularly in high/very high planting
opportunity areas.
Increase canopy with tree planting in areas
of patch and fragmented canopy to reduce
forest fragmentation and improve wildlife
habitat and corridors.
Conducting outreach to the community with
this report as an important tool for engaging
public interest and support.
Define canopy goals and identify actions
that will support these goal(s).
Develop clear policies and standards
to meet the 30% native vegetation
requirement codified by ECDC 23.90.040.C
(Retention of Vegetation on Subdividable,
Undeveloped Parcels) in undeveloped (or
redeveloped) subdividable lands zoned
as RS-12 or RS-20, that contain a stream
or stream buffer, or a wetland or wetland
buffer.
Currently, forestry operations in the City do not
document the community tree resource according
to industry best management practices. A public
tree inventory is important because it provides
information on species diversity, forest age, and
relative performance of different tree species. An
inventory that is maintained with continued updates
also facilitates planning and prioritization of tree
maintenance duties. Based on this assessment, urban
forest managers have the following opportunities:
Establish and continually update a public
tree inventory.
Integrate maintenance cycles with the
public tree inventory database.
Study genus/species compositions to
ensure best-management diversity
recommendations are being followed.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Tree Locations City Department Actions
Permits for Tree
Removal
Permits for Tree
Pruning
Permits for Tree
Planting
Hazardous Tree
Inspections
Tree Pruning
Tree Removal
Tree Planting
Hazardous Tree
Inspections
Tree Pruning
Tree Removal
Tree Planting
Trees on Private
Property
Development
Services
Trees in Parks
Parks,
Recreation and
Cultural
Services
Trees within
City Rights-of-
Way
Public Works
and Utilities
(with Parks’
assistance in
downtown)
35 What Do We Have?
Existing Urban
Forest Practices
There are three departments within the City of
Edmonds that have influence over the management
of the urban forest; Development Services (DS),
Public Works and Utilities (PW), and Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Services (PRC). Although
they share and communicate any issues related to
tree care and urban forest management, decision-
making authority is determined based on the
location of the trees. There is no specific staff person
or leadership team with overarching responsibilities
for guiding the management of the entire urban
forest in Edmonds.
Tree Maintenance
Tree maintenance is important at all stages of tree
life, but is especially critical for young trees as they
benefit from early structural pruning and training.
Minor corrections, such as removing double leaders
or crowded branches, can be conducted at ground
level with minimal cost when a tree is young.
However, if left unattended, defects can evolve into
very expensive structural issues and increase the
risk of failure as trees mature, at which point it may
be impossible to correct the issue without causing
greater harm.
Over-mature trees require more frequent inspection
and removal of dead or dying limbs to reduce the
risk of unexpected failure. By establishing a budget
for maintenance, urban forest managers can plan
the necessary tree care at the appropriate life stage
when it is most beneficial and cost-effective.
At the City, tree maintenance is addressed most
frequently with reactive tactics. As issues related
to trees are identified by City Staff, work is
prioritized based on existing and available budgets.
Planning associated with tree management on
public properties is minimal with priority attention
given to ensuring the successful establishment of
new tree plantings and responding to hazardous
tree conditions. Currently, the Parks Department
performs certain routine tree inspections and
provides limited proactive maintenance activities
(typically associated with the care of trees after
planting to encourage successful establishment).
Within City rights-of-way, tree issues are uncovered
as part of routine safety inspections of sidewalks
and streets, where trees are only identified when
infrastructure is damaged by roots, or when tree
hazards are observed by public works staff. Similarly,
in City parks, trees will be prioritized for maintenance
when safety concerns are observed through routine
park maintenance activities.
Table 12: Decision Matrix for Urban Forest
Management in Edmonds
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Urban Forestry Items Expenditure
Tree Planting and Initial Care $4,848
Tree Maintenance $79,779
Tree Removals $37,565
Management $62,771
Volunteer Activities $134,579
TOTAL $319,542
Budget Per Capita $7.74
UTC Estimate of Benefits $1,567,000
City Services Common Urban Forestry
Related Activities
Estimated
Hours per
Week*
Development plan review for
compliance with tree
protection codes
Public inquiries (online,
phone, and counter)
Investigating and resolving
tree complaints
Investigating and resolving
infrastructure damage
complaints
Tree planting and
establishment
Structural pruning on smaller
trees
Inspection and identification
of hazardous trees
Contract
Management Managing contract tree crews 1
Community Service Requests
Response Management
Urban Forest Management
Plan stewardship
Federal, state grant
procurement
Tree City USA applications
Volunteer events
Coordinated tree planting
Neighborhood association
support
Website content and public
education
Tree Board
Meetings
Addressing public issues
related to trees 1
Comprehensive
(Long-range)
Planning
<1
Community
Education Action
and Outreach
1
Permit Intake
and Review 2
Code
Enforcement &
Complaint
Investigation
2
Parks & Public
Tree
Maintenance
40-60
Emergency
Response 0
36What Do We Have?
Tree Maintenance Budgets
The majority of tree maintenance costs are
accounted for as general line items through the
parks department budget. As part of the annual
Tree City USA application, departments will
summarize their expenses. In 2017, the Edmonds’
urban forestry expenditures were $7.74 per capita,
which is more than the minimum $2 per capita for
Tree City USA designation and more than the $7.50
national average reported by the National Arbor Day
Foundation. Documented Edmonds’ expenditures
have been in the range of $3 per capita in prior years.
Using the recent Urban Tree Canopy assessment
as a benchmark estimate, Edmonds’ urban forest
produces about $1,567,000 in environmental
benefits and is maintained with a 2017 budget of
approximately $319,542.
Service Levels
To assess current urban forest workload and staffing
levels, an estimated 11 city staff members were
identified as persons who work with tree issues on
at least an intermittent basis every week. From those
who are involved with forestry issues or operations
on a more regular time basis, 3 individuals were
identified with a quantifiable amount of time each
week working with trees or tree-related issues.
Overall, there is evidence of good interdepartmental
cooperation. These general conclusions about the
shared responsibilities among staff resources at
the City are very important when the City evaluates
future staffing needs for urban forestry. Currently,
no one single position is designated as a Full-Time
Employee (FTE) dedicated to urban forestry.
Table 13: 2017 City Urban Forestry Expenditures
Table 14: Current Urban Forest Workload and
Staffing Levels
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
37 What Do We Have?
Staff Training
The science of arboriculture, and the management
of urban forests are domains that are increasingly
recognized as special areas of expertise. Credentials
are increasingly requested by many municipalities
as evidence of competency. Bachelor’s degrees in
Forestry, Urban Forestry, Environmental Sciences,
and Horticulture are often the base requirements
for leadership roles in urban forest management.
Professional credentials can also demonstrate
competency, with the most widely accepted
credentials in Washington State coming from the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).
The City provides on-going training to any staff
handling tree maintenance equipment, including
chainsaw, chipper, and lift-truck safety. Stakeholder
interviews revealed that landscape maintenance
workers in Edmonds receive no formal training on
structural pruning or tree care. The following is a
summary description of staff resources and training
within individual City departments:
In Development Services, staff are trained
to interpret ordinances related to trees, but
rely on reports by ISA certified arborists
when necessary to render decisions.
Staff within development services have
backgrounds in Urban Planning and one
(1) person with has an advanced degree in
Forestry. There are no ISA certified arborists
within development services staff.
The Department of Public Works and
Utilities has a director with advanced
degrees in Biology and Aquatic Biology. In
addition, the department has engineers
on staff who can successfully consider
relevant tree issues in terms of asset and
infrastructure management, but tree care
expertise is not required for any staff in
this department. Tree- related issues are
resolved based on previous experiences
and through hired consultations with ISA
certified arborists when necessary.
The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Department has two staff members who
provide expertise on urban forestry topics.
The first is an ISA certified arborist who
is referenced by all City departments and
citizen groups for opinions on the best
practices associated with tree care. There is
also a staff member who has an advanced
degree in Forest Ecology who works
with citizen groups on tree planting and
stewardship projects.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
38What Do We Have?
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
39 What Do We Have?
Major and Emerging Diseases
and Pests
Another important aspect to tree maintenance is
staying alert to managing emerging diseases and
pests that can be costly to control with individual
trees. For sustainability of the entire urban forest,
these are potentially catastrophic matters to consider.
Further information on the pests and diseases that
threaten the forest ecosystems in Washington can be
found on the USDA’s Forest Service website (https://
www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/forest-grasslandhealth/
insects-diseases/?cid=stelprdb5287906).
Among the many diseases and pests that affect
trees, City Staff and residents should remain alert to
the following:
Asian Long-Horned Beetle (ALB), is an
invasive insect that feeds on a wide variety
of trees in the United States, eventually
killing them. The beetle is native to China
and the Korean Peninsula. Signs of ALB start
to show about three to four (3 – 4) years
after infestation, with tree death occurring
in ten to fifteen (10 - 15) years depending
on the tree’s overall health and site
conditions. Infested trees do not recover,
nor do they regenerate. There are a broad
number of tree species this insect will feed
in and most common deciduous trees in
Edmonds are at risk.
Bronze Birch Borer (BBB) is an emerging
pest in western Washington that has
migrated from eastern Washington in recent
years. Periods of extended summer drought
have weakened birch trees and made them
Asian Long-Horned Beetle Emerald Ash Borer
Tree Acquisition and Quality
Control
The City’s approach to acquiring trees is not guided
by any formal standard practices that ensure the
quality of trees during acquisition. As trees are
planted, there is no planned follow-up or warranties
managed with new trees.
Tree City USA
The Arbor Day Foundation is a 501c3 nonprofit
conservation and education organization founded in
1972 in Nebraska, United States, by John Rosenow.
It is the largest nonprofit membership organization
dedicated to tree planting. The Foundation offers
Tree City USA certification. Cities can earn Tree City
USA certification by meeting four (4) core standards
of quality urban forestry management: maintaining
a tree board or department, having a community
tree ordinance, spending at least $2 per capita on
urban forestry, and celebrating Arbor Day.
Currently, the City of Edmonds dedicates $319,542.20
towards total community forestry expenditure, and
with a population of roughly 41,260, has a per capita
investment of $7.74. The Arbor Day Foundation has
recognized this per capita investment, as well as
recognizing the City of Edmonds’ community tree
ordinance and observance of Arbor Day.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
40What Do We Have?
more susceptible to this pest which can
severely damage or kill the trees. Chlorotic
leaves and sparse upper branches are the
first symptoms that homeowners usually
notice. Close examination will reveal lumpy
bark and half-moon-shaped beetle exit
holes (WSU,2008).
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) has killed
hundreds of millions of ash trees in North
America. The EAB is a destructive, non-
native, wood-boring pest that exclusively
kills both stressed and healthy ash trees
two to three (2 – 3) years after infestation
(NASPF, 2005). EAB is a jewel beetle native
to Northeastern Asia. EAB larvae feed on
the vascular tissue of trees and populations
grow exponentially. This pest has been
identified as moving slowly into the Western
U.S. and is considered a catastrophic pest
for Ash tree populations.
Dutch Elm Disease (DED) has devastated
American elm populations, one of the most
important street trees in the twentieth
century. Since first reported in the 1930s,
it has killed over 50 percent of the native
elm population in the United States (NASPF,
2005), although some elm species have
shown varying degrees of resistance.
Swiss Needle Cast (SNC) is the name of
the foliage disease of Douglas-fir caused
by the fungal pathogen Phaeocryptopus
gaeumannii. SNC is known as a “cast”
disease because it causes the premature
shedding of needles (or casting) from
the tree. resulting in sparse tree crowns
and reduced growth. Although it is called
“Swiss” needle cast, the fungus is native to
the Western United States throughout the
range of Douglas-fir. SNC disease symptoms
include chlorotic (yellow) needles and
decreased needle retention, resulting in
sparse crowns and reduced diameter and
height growth (OSU, 2017). Mortality from
this disease is considered rare, but tree
care and maintenance of this disease can
be expensive and necessary in an urban
setting.
Douglas-fir Tussock Moth (DFTM) is a
moth found in Western North America.
Its population periodically erupts in
cyclical outbreaks (Wickman et al., 1998).
Outbreaks of the Douglas-fir tussock moth
appear to develop almost explosively,
and then usually subside abruptly after a
year or two. The caterpillars feed on the
needles of Douglas fir, true fir, and spruce in
summer. Forestry management to prevent
tree damage from tussock moth outbreaks
include four activities: early detection,
evaluation, suppression, and prevention.
These four activities must be well integrated
to ensure adequate protection from the
pest.
Other Diseases and Pests. Information on
specific diseases and insects that damage
trees in our region have been identified
by the Washington State Department
of Natural Resources. Current online
information is at: www.dnr.wa.gov/
ForestHealth.
Bronze Birch Borer Douglas-fir Tussock Moth
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
41 What Do We Have?
Regulatory
Framework
The City of Edmonds provides regulations for several
components relevant to urban forestry in the
Edmonds City Code and Community Development
Code. These regulations are designed to:
Authorize the power of government to
manage the urban forest
Define street trees and, as appropriate,
municipal responsibilities for their care
Enumerate tree related fees and penalties
Create regulations associated with tree
clearing on private land
Require tree protection during construction
Classify critical areas or buffers
These different regulations cover tree related
topics on a range of land types, and all influence
the direction and management of urban forestry
programs. The following summaries outline the
chapters and sections of city code.
Authorization of Power
The legitimacy of Edmonds’ city government to
manage forestry domains and the definition of those
domains fall under the authorization of power:
Chapter 18.45 provides for the City’s
Planning Division Manager to direct and
enforce City codes related to land clearing
and tree cutting on public land and private
property. It exempts Public Works, Parks
and Fire Departments in specific situations
where safety is an issue.
Chapter 18.85.030 provides for the Director
of Public Works to enforce and inspect work
done to maintain City street trees in healthy
condition, or remove trees from the public
right-of-way as necessary.
Chapter 10.95.030 provides for a Tree
Board, made up of Edmonds City residents
in order to encourage civic engagement for
active stewardship of the urban forest. The
powers and duties of the Tree Board are to
advise and make recommendations to the
Mayor and City Council as appropriate on
tree related matters.
Street and Public Trees
The City of Edmonds is ultimately responsible for
the planting and maintenance of public trees.
These trees are on public property parcels or select
locations in the rights-of-way. Other planting strips
are the responsibility of adjacent land owners:
Chapter 9.20.060, for sidewalk construction
and maintenance, declares that the
responsibility is with the abutting property
owner for maintaining or repairing adjacent
planting strips. This includes all tree care.
Chapter 18.85 provides further clarity on
the regulation of street trees and trees
on public property. All street trees are
managed by the Public Works Department
and require permits for all persons who
wish to plant, remove, prune or otherwise
change a tree on a street, right-of-way,
parking strip, planting strip, or other public
place. This code chapter also includes
language defining abuse and damage to
street trees.
Tree Related Fees and Penalties
To facilitate compliance and remediation for
disregarding public tree codes, the City provides
penalties as a punitive deterrent:
Chapter 18.45.070 defines the punitive
discretion for trees that are damaged from
disregard of City code of up to $1,000 for
trees less than 3” and $3,000 for trees
larger than 3”. Fines can be tripled related
to trees in critical areas, buffers, or areas
dedicated to public use, including public
right-of-way.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
42What Do We Have?
Private Land Clearing
Land clearing on private property is often a critical
challenge to effectively reaching urban forestry
canopy goals. Individual private property rights and
objectives of private landowners can frequently
be at odds with the community aspirations for the
urban forest.
Chapter 18.45 contains regulations
associated with trees on private properties
for land clearing and tree cutting. This
code provides for a variety of purposes
that would preserve the physical and
aesthetic character of the City and prevent
indiscriminate removal or destruction of
trees. This chapter also implements policies
of the State Environmental Policy Act. It
provides special exemptions in 18.45.030
for improved single-family lots, partially
improved single-family lots or certain
unimproved lots, allowing private property
owners in these categories to maintain or
remove trees at their discretion without
permits. Additionally, these land clearing
codes provide exemptions for utility
vegetation maintenance or tree work by
City departments when situations involving
danger to life or property are found.
Tree Protection During
Construction
As new construction occurs throughout the Pacific
Northwest, many projects can damage or kill trees.
Regulations to protect trees during construction
are a mechanism to control canopy loss as sites are
developed.
Chapter 18.45 requires that trees that are
being retained during a land development
project are also protected. The codes
describe the protected area on a site
as being within the drip-line of the tree
and attempts to limit damage to trees by
controlling the impact to trees within this
area.
Critical Areas and Buffers
Washington State has special laws to protect critical
areas, which are defined for certain types of valuable
and environmentally significant areas.
Chapter 23.40 establishes extra protections
and management requirements for trees
located near wetlands, streams, or steep
slopes. Tree pruning or removal is restricted
or prohibited without a report from an
ISA certified arborist, ASCA registered
consultant, or a registered landscape
architect that documents the hazard
and provides a replanting schedule for
replacement trees.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
43 What Do We Have?
Regional Urban
Forestry Resources
Regional urban forestry resources are organizations
that provide services to aid in the protection,
maintenance, and development of the urban forest.
These range from active volunteer groups in the
City, to nonprofits, academic institutions, and state
and federal government agencies. Some of the
organizations and programs described below have
been used by the City. Others may be good choices
for the future.
Washington State Urban and
Community Forestry Program
Under the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), the Washington State Urban
and Community Forestry (UCF) Program provides
technical, educational, and financial assistance
to Washington’s cities and towns, counties,
tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and
educational institutions. The mission of the UCF is:
“To provide leadership to create self-sustaining
urban and community forestry programs that
preserve, plant and manage forests and trees for
public benefits and quality of life.”
A key service provided by the UCF is its collection of
financial assistance programs including; Community
Forestry Assistance Grants, Tree City USA Tree
Planting & Maintenance Grants, Arbor Day Tree
Reimbursements, Landscape Scale Restoration
Grants, Scholarships, and Internships. All forms of
financial assistance, their availability in a given year,
and their associated dollar amounts are dependent
on continued funding through annual grant
allocations from the USDA Forest Service. The UCF
communicates events, educational opportunities,
and other information through a Tree Link Newsletter.
The Washington Community Forestry Council
advises the DNR on policies and programs. The
program does this by teaching citizens and decision-
makers about the economic, environmental,
psychological, and aesthetic benefits of trees.
The program also helps local governments, citizen
groups, and volunteers plant and sustain healthy
trees throughout Washington. The council was
established under RCW 76.15.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
44What Do We Have?
FORTERRA Green City
Partnerships
The Green City program helps urban communities
in the Puget Sound region effectively steward
their natural open spaces through best practices.
FORTERRA partners with local municipalities to
develop achievable goals, shared visions, long-term
plans, and community-based stewardship programs
to care for the valuable forests and natural areas in
our urban environments. Specific services include:
City-wide forested park and natural area
assessment
Strategic and restoration planning
Volunteer program development and
guidance
Education and training for volunteers
Restoration tracking systems
Green City outreach and community
engagement
On- the- ground stewardship projects and
event support
The Green City Partnerships share three (3) core
goals:
Improve the quality of life, connections to
nature, and enhance forest benefits in cities
by restoring our forested parks and natural
areas
Galvanize an informed and active
community
Ensure long-term sustainable funding and
community support
These unique public/private partnerships bring
together public, private, and nonprofit stakeholders
to create a sustainable network of healthy forested
parks and natural areas throughout the region.
Municipal Research and Services
Center
The Municipal Research and Services Center
(MRSC) is a nonprofit organization that helps local
governments across Washington State better serve
their citizens by providing legal and policy guidance
on any topic. The MRSC collects state and local
information from parks and recreation departments,
land use planners, utilities, and citizen organizations
to promote and manage urban forestry resources.
Example resources include local urban forestry
programs in Washington State, legal references, and
related articles.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
45 What Do We Have?
Futurewise
Futurewise is a nonprofit that has worked to prevent
sprawl to protect the resources of communities
in Washington State. Futurewise was founded
to help support implementation of Washington
State’s Growth Management Act, and to focus on
preventing the conversion of wildlife habitat, open
space, farmland, and working forests to subdivisions
and development.
Futurewise provides data analysis and research,
community and environmental planning and
policy development, community engagement and
outreach, grassroots organizing and advocacy,
legislative initiatives, and litigation. These services
are all provided through strategic collaboration with
businesses, governments, community organizations,
and nonprofit partners.
The University of Washington
Restoration Ecology Network
TThe UW-Restoration Ecology Network (UW-REN)
is a tri-campus program, serving as a regional
center to integrate student, faculty and community
interests in ecological restoration and conservation.
Students in the program are required to complete
capstone projects, where students of different
academic backgrounds work together to complete
a local restoration project. Students learn how
to plan, design, install, and monitor a restoration
project while working in teams. The Capstone
spans three academic quarters beginning in the
fall. Communities collaborate with the program to
develop RFPs, which then provide volunteers for the
community and excellent learning experiences for
the students.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
46What Do We Have?
EarthCorps
EarthCorps is a human capital development
program where corps members learn leadership
skills by working collaboratively, leading community
volunteers, and executing technical restoration
projects along shorelines, trails, and in forests. Puget
Sound Stewards help EarthCorps run restoration
events, monitor plant growth, adapt management
plans, and educate the community. EarthCorps
collaborates with businesses, nonprofits, and
communities to offer volunteers who are passionate
about conservation and restoration.
The Puget Sound Stewards program in Edmonds was
created by EarthCorps in 2015 in partnership with
the City of Edmonds with support from the Hazel
Miller Foundation. The goal was to provide on-
going, locally-based, expert care for one of the City’s
key natural areas. Starting with Edmonds Marsh, a
wildlife sanctuary and rare example of a saltwater
marsh in the midst of a city, the program has grown
to include three more sites: Brackett’s Landing,
Willow Creek Demonstration Garden, and Hutt Park.
The volunteers who join the Puget Sound Steward
program are supported by EarthCorps staff and crews
as they learn about the ecology of Puget Sound and
how to perform actions that improve the ecological
health of project sites in Edmonds that contribute to
the health of Puget Sound and Edmonds residents.
Actions include removing invasive weeds such as
Himalayan Blackberry or English Ivy, mulching areas
in need of water retention and weed suppression,
and replanting with native plants to foster greater
biodiversity.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
47 What Do We Have?
Urban Forestry
Practices:
Case Studies
In order to remain progressive with its urban forestry
programs, the City of Edmonds recognizes that
there are urban forestry practices emerging from
other municipalities that could eventually add value
if developed within the City. Through stakeholder
interviews and discussions with City Staff, three
urban forestry practices were selected as important
for further consideration in implementation of this
UFMP: Tree Banks (or fee in-Lieu programs), Heritage
Tree Programs and Arborist Business Licensing. This
section explores some examples around how other
cities have adopted these programs.
Tree Banks – Fee-based
alternatives to tree replacement
Often in the course of urban forest management,
there can be logistical challenges associated with
replacing trees at the same site where trees are
removed. An increasingly common solution is
to provide developers and residents with the
opportunity to pay fees in-lieu of meeting their
landscaping requirements. Providing a fee or financial
guarantee option creates a system for funding
tree planting projects or even more sophisticated
landscape restoration projects that improve the
overall health and condition of the urban forest.
Precedence for this option can be found at the
National level, with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
In a Federal Rule published in April 2008, The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define an in-
lieu fee program as:
“A program involving the restoration,
establishment, enhancement, and/or
preservation of aquatic resources through
funds paid to a governmental or non-
profit natural resources management
entity to satisfy compensatory mitigation
requirements... Similar to a mitigation bank,
an in-lieu fee program sells compensatory
mitigation credits to permittees whose
obligation to provide compensatory
mitigation is then transferred to the in-lieu
program sponsor.”
Snohomish County
Here, the government provides options for
permit applicants to engage the county, their own
contractor, or do the mitigation work themselves to
ensure that mitigation is achieved, even when it is
not possible at the proposed project site:
“Applicants may choose to perform the
off-site mitigation work on private property
either themselves or through their own
contractor, subject to all other provisions of
Section 30.62 SCC, or applicants may enter
into a voluntary mitigation agreement with
the County pursuant to RCW 82.02.020
under which the County will perform the
mitigation work on public property within
the same sub-drainage basin or watershed
resource inventory area (WRIA).” (POL-6210
REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDING OFF-SITE
MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO CRITICAL
AREAS ARISING OUT OF SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION UNDER SCC 30.62.330)
The following cities are examples of fee in-lieu
programs related to urban forestry. There is some
variation in how these fees are calculated, as well as
where the funds collected get administered.
City of Redmond
The City of Redmond calculates fee in-lieu to include
the cost of the trees. More importantly, the fee also
includes all costs associated with establishment
care. From Article IV Environmental Regulations:
RMC 21.72.080 E.2. - Tree Replacement
Fee A fee in- lieu of tree replacement may
be allowed, subject to approval by the
Administrator after careful consideration
of all other options. A tree replacement fee
shall be required for each replacement tree
required but not planted on the application
site or an offsite location.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
48What Do We Have?
i. The amount of the fee shall be the tree base
fee times the number of trees necessary to
satisfy the tree replacement requirements
of this section. The tree base fee shall cover
the cost of a tree, installation (labor and
equipment), maintenance for two years,
and fund administration.
ii. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the
issuance of a tree removal Permit.
iii. Fees collected under this subsection shall be
expended only for the planting of new trees
in City-owned parks, open spaces or rights-
of-way.
http://online.encodeplus.com/regs/
redmond-wa/export2doc.aspx?pdf=1&tocid
=005.009&file=doc-005.009-pid-80.pdf
City of Renton
The City of Renton has much more limited code
language. Fee in-lieu options are still at the City’s
discretion, but only cover the cost of the tree and
installation. No funding for establishment care
is required in this code. However, the code does
directly designate the funds to be allocated to
the Urban Forestry Program fund, which provides
more discretion to the City with how the funds get
allocated:
RMC 4-4-130 H.1.E iii. Fee in Lieu: When
the Administrator determines that it is
infeasible to replace trees on the site,
payment into the City’s Urban Forestry
Program fund may be approved in an
amount of money approximating the
current market value of the replacement
trees and the labor to install them. The City
shall determine the value of replacement
trees. http://www.codepublishing.com/
WA/Renton/#!/Renton04/Renton0404/
Renton0404130.html
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
49 What Do We Have?
City of Port Angeles
The City of Port Angeles provides a fee in-lieu
option, but it only appears to relate to street tree
replacement requirements. Another distinction in
this code is the fee is determined by the Community
Forester (a city staff position):
PAMC 11.13.050 B.3. Street tree
requirements in previously developed area.
In addition to the above requirements,
the following also apply: Where new
street trees cannot be planted due to
portions of rights-of-way having been
previously paved or otherwise rendered
unsuitable to plant trees, a fee-in-lieu
of planting is required. Such fee shall be
determined by the Community Forester
per City Policy and deposited into the
Community Forestry Fund. https://library.
municode.com/wa/port_angeles/codes/
code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT11STSI_
CH11.13STTR_11.13.050STTRENRE
Heritage Tree Programs-–
Recognizing Historical
Significance of Trees
In many cities around the nation, trees are often
recognized for their historical significance to the
community. This recognition is commonly referred
to as part of a Heritage Tree Program. These
programs provide communities with a way of
officially recognizing trees, and with the recognition,
can offer a variety of benefits to the community,
including:
Increasing public awareness of trees and the
urban forest
Drawing attention to and protecting unique
and significant trees
Reinforcing how trees are a key component
of a city’s character and sense of place
Engaging citizens with the purpose and
activities of a city’s urban forestry program
Encouraging public participation in the
identification and perpetuation of heritage
trees throughout the City
City of Seattle
In the greater Puget Sound region, a number of cities
have heritage tree programs. One of the earliest
programs was for the City of Seattle in 1996 when
PlantAmnesty (a nonprofit) initiated a program
that eventually became co-sponsored by the City.
Seattle’s program provides the broadest set of
categories for designating a tree as a heritage tree.
Trees can be designated according to the following
categories:
Specimen: A tree of exceptional size, form,
or rarity.
Historic: A tree recognized by virtue of its
age, its association with or contribution
to a historic structure or district, or its
association with a noted person or historic
event.
Landmark: Trees that are landmarks of a
community.
Collection: Trees in a notable grove, avenue,
or other planting.
City of Vancouver
The City of Vancouver, Washington, has had
a heritage tree program in place since 1998.
Unlike Seattle, which already regulates the care
of exceptional trees (including heritage trees) on
private property, the City of Vancouver uses this
designation to protect trees on private properties
where tree removal permits would not ordinarily
be required. This is a voluntary program for private
property owners, thus protecting the rights of the
property owner (https://www.cityofvancouver.us/
publicworks/page/heritage-trees).
City of Lynnwood
Closer to Edmonds, in the neighboring City of
Lynnwood, the Heritage Tree program is defined
in municipal code. Although many aspects of this
program are similar to other cities, their specific code
language binds all successive owners of the tree to
the protection obligations within this designation.
This language has the added benefit of ensuring
long-term protection and care for the tree unless it
is determined to be a hazard (LMC 17.5.070).
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
50What Do We Have?
Arborist Business Licenses –
Ensuring Best Practices in Tree
Care
Businesses that operate in Edmonds only require
a general business license to work as an arborist.
This is not uncommon, but many cities are now
recognizing how the complexity of city codes
associated with tree care and the expectations
of the community necessitate special licensing
for businesses that perform tree work. Tree care
industry professionals and researchers in the
science of arboriculture routinely convene as the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), or the
Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA). These groups
collaborate to encourage best practices in tree care
and tree worker safety. To help ensure a community
has companies that are adequately trained and
qualified for tree work, the use of arborist licensing
that ties the business with these organizations
is increasingly popular. The following cities were
selected from throughout the U.S. as examples of
different approaches for arborist business licensing:
City of Herrington
Herrington, KY – Businesses that practice
arboriculture must submit an application
to the City for a Tree Contractor license.
The application identifies the business
as practicing arboriculture and requires
proof of sufficient insurance (http://
www.cityofherington.com/pview.
aspx?id=32514&catID=547).
City of Lincoln
Lincoln, NE – In Lincoln, applications
for tree services and arborists not only
require proof of insurance, but also proof
of ISA credentials or a tree worker test
administered by the parks and recreation
department. http://lincoln.ne.gov/city/
parks/communityforestry/arborist.htm
City of Denver
Denver, CO – Denver has two classes for
their “Tree Service License.” This is a distinct
feature of their licensing process. Licenses
can be issued to businesses working on
“Large Trees,” which require workers to
leave the ground, or an “Ornamental”
license, designed for companies doing
landscaping work on small trees that do
not require an aerial lift. https://www.
denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/
Portals/747/documents/forestry/tree-
license-info-packet.pdf
City of Spokane
Spokane, WA – Spokane has a commercial
tree license that businesses must secure
if they are doing work on public property
trees (e.g.,street trees and park trees).
https://my.spokanecity.org/urbanforestry/
permits/
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
51 What Do We Have?
Incentives – Encouraging Tree
Retention on Private Properties
From the urban tree canopy assessment, it was
determined that the majority of tree canopy in
the city is privately owned and managed. For cities
to manage their urban forests, collaboration and
voluntary commitments on the part of private
property owners can be a beneficial strategy that
encourages desirable tree care and retention
practices. (Note: In some “incentive programs,”
cities have first established by code minimum tree
density requirements for private properties and
then used incentives to allow property owners some
flexibility in retaining the minimum tree density). The
following are example methods that cities, counties,
and states have used to incentivize desirable tree
stewardship on private property:
City of San Antonio
San Antonio, TX – The City of San
Antonio defines tree canopy preservation
requirements for private properties in
its City code and establishes canopy
calculation methods that credit the owner
with retention of certain desirable tree
canopy conditions. Permits are required
for removing trees that are defined as
significant trees. The City establishes
multipliers that increase the credit for
existing canopy categorized as; providing
understory preservation value, energy
conservation, woodland canopy, significant
tree canopy, heritage tree canopy or Low
Impact Development. (San Antonio MC Sec
35-523(i)). https://library.municode.com/tx/
san_antonio/codes/unified_development_
code?nodeId=ARTVDEST_DIV3LATRPR
Brevard County
Brevard County, FL – In Brevard county,
incentives were created to encourage tree
preservation as they relate to landscaping
requirements during development. This
code language incentivizes by providing
credits for exceeding tree canopy density,
preserving native trees of significant size, or
vegetation of special concern. These credits
reduce the tree re-planting requirements
otherwise associated with development
projects. (Code Sec 62-4344). http://
brevardcounty.elaws.us/code/coor_ptii_
appid32777_ch62_artxiii_div2_sec62-4344
City of Rocklin
Rocklin, CA – In an effort to preserve its
native oak population, the City of Rocklin
established incentives in their code. Projects
that save 25% or more of the surveyed oak
trees receive expedited processing by the
Community Development department. In
addition, development projects can have
traffic mitigation and capital facility fees
deferred from 3 months up to 12 months
depending on the trees being saved.
http://www.rocklin.ca.us/sites/main/files/
file-attachments/oak_tree_preservation_
guidelines.pdf
State of Hawaii
State of Hawaii – In an effort to encourage
the care and maintenance of trees
determined as “exceptional”, residents can
deduct up to $3000 per tax year for their
costs associated with tree care. The code
language has an additional limitation that
this tax deduction can only be allowed once
every three years. (HRS 235-19). http://files.
hawaii.gov/tax/legal/hrs/hrs_235.pdf
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
52What Do We Have?
Summary Considerations for
UFMP
Historical practices and regulatory requirements
provide a clear vision and mandate that direct the
City to manage the entire urban forest. In particular,
the City has special authority over property it owns
or that is within the public right-of-way. Yet, no
comprehensive public tree inventory exists. The City
also does not have a dedicated forestry specialist to
direct the City’s urban forest management activities.
Instead, the City has multiple departments that
are guided by codes and policies for site-specific
decisions without overarching strategic level
guidance of the forest. An example encountered by
public works staff is when a tree removal is being
considered. One tree may need to be removed and
replaced for safety reasons, but additional trees may
get removed and replaced to maintain the aesthetic
of the streetscape. Without overarching urban forest
strategies, removals of trees for simple rights-of-
way improvements can be seen as reactive solutions
resolved through political discourse instead of
planned practical decisions for city managers.
This reactive approach to urban forest management
also extends to the tree care budget. The City does
not maintain sufficient tree related information
(such as tree quantity or condition data) to budget
for proactive tree care. Current urban forestry
benefits models show how trees in Edmonds
provide environmental and economic benefits that
are much greater than their reactive management
costs. There is tremendous opportunity to leverage
this disparity and direct forest management toward
proactive tactics such as tree planting, young tree
maintenance pruning, and tree inspections.
With the City having authority to care for
approximately 12% of the City’s entire tree canopy,
other methods to encourage or require tree planting/
protection will be needed for the community to
have influence over tree care in the remaining
88% of the forest. Some strategies that have been
engaged in at other municipalities include the fee
in-lieu programs to support variances in any tree
replacement obligations, Heritage Tree Programs
that protect special trees, and arborist business
licensing to encourage best practices in tree care,
and incentive programs.
Finally, the City of Edmonds has both public and
nonprofit agencies committed to helping Edmonds
maintain a healthy urban forest. With continued
or greater engagement, the City may realize more
grant-funded opportunities, volunteer resources,
and engaged citizens who will help the City achieve
its urban forest management goals.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
53 What Do We Want?
Stakeholder and
Community Input
Edmonds conducted substantial outreach to public
stakeholders, residents, and nonprofit agency
stakeholders. Connections and relationships that
develop among stakeholders are valuable outcomes
of the urban forest outreach process. This provided
a wide context for the challenges that face Edmonds’
urban forest. As community awareness and actions
associated with urban forestry move forward, it will
be the people of Edmonds that ultimately realize the
value of their contributions to their community in
the trees that grow around them.
Stakeholder Interviews
In the summer of 2017, a team from the Davey
Resource Group and Nature Insight Consulting
met with several municipal and regional urban
forest stakeholders. These stakeholder interviews
occurred over two days and included urban
planners, utility experts, public works staff, tree
board representatives, and City staff leadership.
Their valuable contributions guided the framework
of the UFMP.
Virtual Open House
Throughout the development process, the City
hosted a website that provided community access
to the planning process. In addition, the website
provided access to videos of public presentations,
surveys, and invitations for public comments. This
approach provided further opportunities for public
input outside of scheduled community meetings.
Community Meetings
The first public meeting was held with the City of
Edmonds Citizens’ Tree Board on May 4, 2017.
During this meeting, issues, concerns, and values
about the urban forest were explored with members
and visitors in attendance.
Later, on June 22, 2017, the City of Edmonds hosted
the first of two open houses (Appendix D) at City Hall
to share information about the UFMP development
process and gather input from community
residents. The open house included a presentation
and a brief discussion with the audience to answer
clarifying questions. Following the presentation,
attendees were invited to provide input (thoughts,
ideas, concerns, questions) on six opinion poster
boards. Each poster board contained a broad
topic followed by initial suggestions generated
through the prior stakeholder interview process.
Attendees were invited to express their opinions
using dots (where green = a positive “vote”/
agreement for the suggestion, yellow = concern/
hesitation of the suggestion, and red = a negative
“vote”/disagreement or dislike of the suggestion).
Attendees were invited to use as many dots of
each color as necessary to express their opinion of
each suggestion on each poster board. In addition,
each poster board provided an area for Additional
Suggestions, where attendees were invited to write
down their thoughts, ideas, concerns, and questions
on a sticky note. The sticky note was then adhered
to the poster board for other attendees to review
and “vote” on.
A third meeting which was with the Planning Board,
occurred on July 26, 2017 as another opportunity
to solicit public participation early in the UFMP
development process. The results of these public
meetings helped the City to understand the needs
and concerns of the community and guide the
development of the online survey.
What Do We Want?
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
54What Do We Want?
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Improved Air Quality Wildlife Habitat Protect Water
Quality/Reduced
Stormwater Runoff
Carbon Storage Energy Savings Other
Environmental Benefits
55 What Do We Want?
Online Community Survey
From the initial stakeholder outreach, a survey was
developed with the intention of understanding and
benchmarking Edmonds’ community values and
views on the urban forest. Survey data was collected
online. The survey platform only allowed one survey
response per household to control for multiple
entries from a single respondent. The survey closed
in September of 2017 with 175 responses having
been gathered through the summer (Appendix
C). Responses increased following the public open
house and a presentation to the planning board.
Although the intent was to gather feedback from a
broad representation of the community, 40.9% of the
respondents affiliated themselves with the Edmonds
Bowl area, with another 15.2% affiliating with the
Seaview neighborhood. Other neighborhoods had
less than fifteen (15) responses each, about 29.3%
of the combined total. 14.6% (24 responses) did not
affiliate within the survey-defined neighborhood
groups.
The results showed how seventy-five percent
(74.9%) of respondents “strongly agree” that public
trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds.
Sixty-seven percent (66.9%) of respondents “agree”
or “strongly agree” that Edmonds needs more public
trees. The most popular location for more trees is
in open space and natural areas (60.4%), followed
by parks (59.2%), streetscapes (59.2%), then trails
and bike paths (45.6%), downtown (42.6%), and golf
courses (11.2%).
When asked to rank the environmental benefits
most valued from the urban forest, respondents
expressed the greatest appreciation for air quality
benefits, with 36.6% indicating that it is the most
important benefit, followed by wildlife habitat, and
water quality. Energy savings were ranked as least
important at 4.6% (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Beauty/Aesthetics Shaded
Trails,sidewalks,
and bike trails
Attractive to
Residents
Shaded
streets/Buffer
from vehicles
Improve retail
areas and
neighborhoods
Increased Property
Values
Passive recreation Shaded Parking
Intangible Benefits
56What Do We Want?
On average, respondents ranked the beauty of trees
as the most important intangible benefit, followed
by shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails, then
Figure 5: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit
attractiveness to residents. The benefit of shaded
parking was ranked as the least important aesthetic
benefit (Figure 5).
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Take care of hazardous trees.Holistic Plant Health Care(Improve the urban forest,
but not necessarily every
tree)
Best possible care (all treesshould look good)Clearance only (keep thesidewalks and streets clear)None-Keep them natural
Maintenance Expectations
57 What Do We Want?
In general, respondents are satisfied with the
current level of maintenance, with 69.8% saying they
“Agree” or “Strongly Agree.” When asked to rank
various options for the level of maintenance that
public trees should receive, 52.1% of respondents
indicated their preferred expectation is for trees to
receive hazard maintenance (Figure 6).
Fifty-four percent (53.9%) of respondents would
like to see the City help preserve trees on private
property. Education and outreach were considered
the best ways to encourage tree planting and
preservation on private property, with 79.0% of
respondents identifying these as their preferred
methods.
Respondents were asked to select the types of
education and public outreach they would like to
see offered by the urban forestry program. The
most popular educational materials were website
resources (62.7%), followed by interpretive trails
and displays (59.8%), guided nature and tree walks
(55.0%), and informational brochures (43.2%).
Figure 6: Maintenance Expectations
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
58What Do We Want?
Summary Considerations for
UFMP
Already considered a valuable asset by Edmonds
residents, Edmonds has an opportunity to further
improve the urban forest through increased
public outreach and community engagement.
Public engagement on urban forestry issues has
demonstrated that the public is generally satisfied
with the City’s activities on public property, but
prefers to have the City only provide guidance and
education as opposed to regulation when it comes
to stewardship of trees on private property.
There is general agreement from survey respondents
that trees impact views for many residents, and the
issue galvanizes residents as a primary tree issue
in Edmonds. In fact, views of the water and other
scenic places are fundamental to Edmonds’ identity
as a community. Scenic views are also considered
a property right of long-established development.
At the same time, appreciation of trees—especially
“the right trees in the right place”—is a value shared
by almost everyone.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
59 How Do We Get There?
Over the next twenty (20) years, the City of
Edmonds will be able to enhance management of
the urban forest through implementation of actions
recommended in this Plan. The decision to develop
a Plan with a 2038-time horizon was primarily based
on the precedence established by the City with
other long-range planning documents. Additionally,
growing and improving Edmonds’ urban forest are
slow processes. Tree physiology for most trees in
Western Washington can take up to seven (7) years
to establish after planting, and another ten (10) years
before they reach functional maturity. Trees provide
the majority of their ecosystem services when they
reach functional maturity. For this additional reason,
it is essential that urban forest planning consider at
least twenty (20) years within the Plan framework as
a reasonable expectation for achieving the desired
state of the urban forest.
The five (5) long-range strategic goals provided
in this Plan will guide actions and activities that
address the three components of a sustainable
urban forestry program:
Urban Forest Asset Actions, which are
intended to improve the urban forest
resource over the next twenty (20) years
by developing detailed expectations for
the urban forest. To accomplish this,
most activities will increase the amount
of information the City maintains about
its urban forest resource. This includes
activities like routine tree canopy
assessments and a public tree inventory,
both of which are fundamental to
management and are substantial expenses
to an urban forestry program requiring
significant consideration.
Municipal Resource Actions, which
are intended to drive improvements in
City policy and practices by developing
efficiency and alignment of efforts within
City departments. The common activities
for accomplishing these goals center
around developing policies that promote
routine tree inspection and formalized tree
management strategies for City-owned
trees. The results will encourage the City
to improve its awareness and mitigation
of tree hazards and eliminate barriers to
effective urban forest management.
Community Resource Actions, which are
intended to build stronger community
engagement and public participation in
urban forest stewardship. The activities
coordinate with the public and encourage
the participation of citizens and businesses
to align with the City’s vision for the urban
forest.
The research into current and historical efforts in
urban forestry at the City has revealed numerous
opportunities for Edmonds to enhance the
understanding of the urban forest resource as well as
improve efficiency in tree maintenance operations.
The criteria and indicators proposed by Kenney, et al.
(2011) were used as a standard to assess the current
urban forestry practices in the City, and provide
the management reference necessary to frame the
following recommended goals for this plan.
Each action contains time designations which
estimate the anticipated timeframe for completion
of the action/activity once it is started.
How Do We Get There?
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
60How Do We Get There?
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
61 How Do We Get There?
Goal 1 - Maintain citywide canopy coverage
The city has limited information about the condition of the urban forest. Success
with this objective will be achieved with enhanced management of public trees
and a deeper understanding of the population of trees on private property. The
following actions will support this objective:
A. Update tree regulations as needed to reduce development impacts on
urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and
penalties for code violations
B. Adopt policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to
enhance canopy in parks according to the PROS plan.
C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas
D. Develop a voluntary heritage tree program
E. Enforce city regulations on tree cutting
i. Reach out periodically to tree maintenance and landscaping firms to
make sure they know Edmonds’ requirements for pruning or removing
trees
F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree
planting and other tree programs
i. Use any penalty fees from tree cutting violations to fund tree programs
G. Support sustainable ways to combat pests and disease that threaten trees
H. Consider need for dedicated City arborist
I. Report at least every 10 years on canopy coverage
J. Periodically review and, if needed, update Urban Forest Management Plan
(generally, every 5-10 years)
Goal 1 Time
On-going
1 Year
On-going
3-5 Years
On-going
3-5 Years
On-going
On-going
10 Years, On-going
5-10 Years, On-going
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
62How Do We Get There?
Goal 2 - Manage public trees pro-actively
The city has identified opportunities within this plan to improve its risk
management associated with trees and create better pathways for community
engagement. The following actions will support this objective:
A. Use best available science in caring for the urban forest on City properties
and ROW
B. Have adequate resources (staff, contractual help, training, or other) to
monitor the health of public trees and make decisions on their care
C. Develop and maintain an inventory of trees in key public places (for example,
along certain City streets or trails) to document tree condition and risk
D. Update the Street Tree Plan periodically
E. Support removal of invasive plants, such as ivy, where they threaten the
health of public trees
F. Coordinate among departments on tree issues
G. Develop and implement a tree planting plan on City property and ROW to
help ensure:
i. Age and species diversity;
ii. And suitability of species to location
H. Implement a program of regular maintenance and pruning for City trees,
consistent with best management practices
I. Lead or facilitate volunteer activities for tree planting/care on City property
and rights-of way
J. As part of City-sponsored capital projects, provide funding for appropriate
trees in rights-of-way and on City properties
K. Provide an annual report to the City Council on tree planting/management
for City properties and right-of-way (ROW)
Goal 2 Time
On-going
On-going
On-going
5-10 Years, On-going
On-going
On-going
3-5 Years, On-going
3-5 Years, On-going
1 Year, On-going
On-going
On-going
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
63 How Do We Get There?
Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property
To ensure success with enhancing the tree canopy, the city recognizes that
voluntary public participation must be encouraged. The following actions will
support this objective.
A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds
B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore
establishment of:
i. A property tax “rebate” applicable to the City portion of property taxes;
and/or
ii. A stormwater utility fee reduction; and/or
iii. Other techniques that provide a financial recognition of the benefits of
tree planting and protection.
C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property
owners that maintain a certain amount or type of healthy trees
Goal 3 Time
3-5 Years, On-going
3-5 Years, On-going
1 Year, On-going
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
64How Do We Get There?
Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree
planting and care
The city recognizes the importance of the privately managed tree population in
the city and recognizes the opportunity to support community stewardship. The
following actions will support this objective:
A. Provide signage or other information about significant public trees
B. Provide for Tree Board, especially to:
i. Develop community education materials;
ii. Participate in or initiate tree planting and tree care activities, including
outreach to citizen volunteers
iii. Report annually to the City Council on Tree Board activities
C. Develop and disseminate information for the public on the value of trees
and to provide guidance on tree selection and management
Goal 4 Time
1 Year
1 Year, On-going
1 Year, On-going
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
65 How Do We Get There?
Goal 5 - Promote “Right tree, right place”
Ultimately, the urban forest will be sustainable when a balanced combination
of long-lived native trees and nursery grown street trees are growing in suitable
spaces to maintain views, support wildlife (pollinators, birds, mammals, etc) and
provide optimum environmental services. The following actions will support this
objective:
A. Make readily available lists of compatible trees for planting in various kinds
of local settings
i. [For example, identify large native tree species that can spread out in
large spaces; low-growing trees in view corridors, trees with appropriate
root systems near sidewalks and underground pipes.]
ii. Provide lists of suitable trees to support pollinators and backyard wildlife
habitat.
B. Identify key areas to increase canopy and:
i. For any such private properties, encourage appropriate tree planting or
other techniques; and
ii. for any such public properties, consider and take action to appropriately
plant trees or otherwise increase canopy.
C. Identify and plan for the care of unsuitable trees and, as necessary, for
pruning or removal when they are potentially damaging to people, buildings
or infrastructure
D. Ensure that development regulations require native trees and vegetation
to be planted in critical areas, especially near streams and other wildlife
habitat areas
E. In updating the Street Tree Plan, identify specific species of trees that should
be planted to be compatible with the street environment
Goal 5 Time
1 Year
1-3 Years
On-going
On-going
1-2 Years
Urban Forest Management Plan Goals
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
66How Do We Get There?
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
67 How Are We Doing?
Monitoring and
Measuring Results
The UFMP includes goals and actions for measuring
the success of planning strategies. It is intended
that the Plan serves as a living document. As new
information becomes available, this section of the
UFMP will be reviewed and amended using routine
plan updates, annual reports, and community
satisfaction surveys.
5-10 Year Plan Update (Plan
2023)
The UFMP is an active tool that will guide
management and planning decisions over the next
twenty ( 20) years. The goals and actions will be
reviewed every five to ten (5 -10) years for progress
and integration into an internal work plan. The
UFMP presents a long-range vision and target dates
are intended to be flexible in response to emerging
opportunities, available resources, and changes
in community expectations. Therefore, each year,
specific areas of focus should be identified. This can
inform budget and time requirements for Urban
Forest Managers.
Annual State of the Urban Forest
Report
This report, delivered annually, should include
numbers of trees planted and removed by the City,
and any changes to the overall community urban
forest (e.g., structure, benefits, and value). It will
serve as a performance report to stakeholders and
an opportunity for engagement.
The report is also an opportunity to highlight the
successful attainment of UFMP actions as well as to
inform stakeholders about any issues or stumbling
blocks. This information can be integrated into
urban forest managers’ Annual Reports and used to
pursue additional project support and funding from
state agencies and Tree City USA applications.
Community Satisfaction
The results of the UFMP will be measurable in
improvements to efficiency and reductions in costs
for maintenance activities. Attainment of the goals
and actions will support better tree health, greater
longevity, and a reduction of tree failures. However,
perhaps the greatest measurement of success for
the UFMP will be its ability to meet community
expectations for the care and preservation of the
urban forest resource.
Community satisfaction can be measured through
surveys as well as by monitoring public support
for realizing the goals and actions of the Plan.
Community satisfaction can also be gauged by
the level of engagement and support for urban
forest programs. An annual survey of urban forest
stakeholders will help managers ensure activities
continue to be aligned with the community’s vision
for the urban forest.
How Are We Doing?
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
68How Are We Doing?
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
69 Appendices
Appendix A: References
Akbari, H., D. Kurn, et al. 1997. Peak power and cooling energy savings of shade trees. Energy and Buildings
25:139–148.
American Forests, 2007, http://www.americanforests.org
Casey Trees and Davey Tree Expert Company. The National Tree Benefit Calculator, 2017. http://www.
treebenefits.com/calculator/
CensusScope, 2012, “CensusScope: Your Portal to Census 2000 Data.” www.censusscope.org
City of Edmonds, 2015, Edmonds Streetscape Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services.
City of Edmonds, 2016, Citizens’ Tree Board.
City of Edmonds, 2016, Comprehensive Plan, City of Edmonds Department of Development Services,
Planning Division, Edmonds, Washington.
City of Edmonds, 2016, Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services.
City of Edmonds, 2017, Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Report, City of Edmonds Department of
Development Services, Edmonds, Washington.
City of Seattle, 2012, http://www.seattle.gov/parks/ProParks/
Clark, James, N. Matheny, G. Cross, V. Wake, 1997, A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability, Journal of
Arboriculture 23(1): January 1997.
Colorado State University Extension, 2003, Bronze Birch Borer, Image, https://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Agrilus_anxius_1326203.jpg
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-313).
Donovan, G and Butry D, 2010, Trees in the City: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon Landscape and
Urban Planning.
Energy Information Administration, 2003, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003. http://
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/
Evergreen Cities Task Force, 2009, A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Planning, Washington
State Department of Commerce. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_urban_guide_to_urban_
forestry_programming.pdf
Faber Taylor, A. & Kuo, F.E., 2006, “Is contact with nature important for healthy child development?” State
of the evidence. In Spencer, C. & Blades, M. (Eds.), Children and Their Environments: Learning, Using
and Designing Spaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990 — P.L. 101-624.
Heisler, G.M., 1986, “Energy savings with trees.” Journal of Arboriculture, 12, 113-25.
Appendices
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
70Appendices
Hartel, D, 2003, “GASB 34: Urban Natural Resources as Capital Assets”, 2003 National Urban Forest
Conference, Southern Center for Urban Forestry Research & Information.
i-Tree. , 2012, Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forest. www.itreetools.org
Jo, H.-K. and E.G. McPherson. 1995. Carbon storage and flux in urban residential greenspace. Journal of
Environmental Management. 45:109-133
Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Karl, Tom., P. Harley, L. Emmons, B. Thornton, A. Guenther, C. Basu, A Turnipseed, K. Jardine. 2010, Efficient
Atmospheric Cleansing of Oxidized Organic Trace Gases by Vegetation. Web 11/9/2010. <http://www.
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/330/6005/816>
Kenny, Andy, P. van Wassenaer, A.L.Satel, 2011, Criteria and Indicators for Strategic Urban Forest Planning
and Management, Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 37(3):108-117.
Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?
Environment & Behavior, 33(3), 343-367.
Kuo, F.E., 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology: Invited review article for a Special
Section. Journal of Arboriculture 29(3), 148-155.
Land and Water Conservation Fund, 2012, nps.gov. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/
Miller, R. W. 1988. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
The Nature Conservancy. 2012, www.nature.org
The National Arbor Day Foundation, 2012, Tree City USA Award, http://www.arborday.org/
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Forest Health Protection—Emerald Ash Border.
Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and
Private Forestry. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/eab/index.html
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Forest Health Protection—Dutch Elm Disease.
Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and
Private Forestry. http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/ded
Oregon State University (OSU), 2017. College of Forestry, Swiss Needle Cast. http://sncc.forestry.
oregonstate.edu/glossary/term/17
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, 2012, http://www.pscleanair.org/
Puget Sound Partnership, 2012, www.psparchives.com
Science Now. Tree Leaves Fight Pollution. October 2010. sciencemag.org. Web 11/05/2010. < http://news.
sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/tree-leaves-fight-pollution.html>
Simpson, James, 2002. “Improved estimates of tree-shade effects on residential use,” Energy and Buildings
34, 1067-1076.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
71 Appendices
Simpson, J.R. and E.G. McPherson. 2000. Energy and air quality improvements through urban tree planting.
In: Kollin, C., (ed.). Building cities of green: proceedings of the 1999 national urban forest conference;
Seattle. Washington, D.C.: American Forests: 110-112.
“Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1.” Trees Near Power Lines | Residential | Snohomish County
PUD, 15 Dec. 2017, www.snopud.com/home/treetrim.ashx?p=1219.
The Trust for Public Lands. 2012, www.tpl.org
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Division, 2017. Urban Ecosystems and Processes (UEP). https://
www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban_forestry/
U.S. Department of Energy, 2004. “Green Roofs,” Federal Technology Alert DOE/EE-0298, Federal Energy
Management Program.
Washington Department of Ecology, 2011 – Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control, http://www.ecy.
wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/93-30/index.html
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Land Use Planning For Salmon, Steelhead and Trout.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00033/psst_externalreviewdraft_june152009.pdf
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Periodic Status Review for the Bald Eagle. http://wdfw.
wa.gov/publications/01825/draft_wdfw01825.pdf
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2018. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/
Washington State, 1990. Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070 (1) Land Use
Element1).
Washington State University Extension, 2008, WSU Extension Publishing and Printing, http://cru.cahe.wsu.
edu/CEPublications/eb1380e/eb1380e.pdf
Wickman, Boyd, et al., 1988. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet Douglas-Fir Tussock Moth 86. https://www.
fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban_forestry/
Wolf, K.L. 1998, “Urban Nature Benefits: Psycho-Social Dimensions of People and Plants”, University of
Washington Center for Urban Horticulture, Human Dimensions of the Urban Forest, Fact Sheet #1.
Wolf, K.L. 2007. The Environmental Psychology of Trees. International Council of Shopping Centers
Research Review. 14, 3:39-43.
Xiao, Q.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Ustin, S.L. 2007. Hydrologic processes at the urban residential
scale. Hydrological Processes 21:2174-2188.
Xiao, Q., E.G. McPherson, S.L. Ustin and M.E. Grismer. 2000. A new approach to modeling tree rainfall
interception. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(D23) :29,173-29,188
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
72Appendices
Appendix B: Table of Figures
Maps
Map 1: Land Cover Classes
Map 2: Forest Fragmentation
Map 3: Tree Canopy by Park
Figures
Figure 1: Land Cover Classes
Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison
Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation
Figure 4: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit
Figure 5: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit
Figure 6: Maintenance Expectations
Tables
Table 1: Benchmark Values
Table 2: Stormwater Benefits from Most Prominent Species
Table 3: Carbon Benefits from Most Prominent Species
Table 4: Energy Benefits from Most Prominent Species
Table 5: Air Quality Benefits from Most Prominent Species
Table 6: Aesthetic and Socioeconomic Benefits from Most Prominent Species
Table 7: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks
Table 8: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation
Table 9: Percent Sensitive Area by Fragmentation
Table 10: Factors Used to Prioritize Tree Planting Sites
Table 11: Opportunity Planting Level Acres
Table 12: Decision matrix for urban forest management in Edmonds
Table 13: 2016 Urban Forestry Expenditures
Table 14: Current Urban Forest Workload and Staffing Levels
.
4, 22
24
26
.
4, 22
23
24
51
52
53
.
2
10
11
12
13
14
26
27
28
29
30
33
34
34
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Improved Air Quality 36.57% 64 24.00% 42 21.14% 37 14.29% 25 4.00%7 175 4.75
Energy Savings 4.57%8 5.14%9 13.71% 24 26.86% 47 49.71% 87 175 2.88
Protect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff 21.71% 38 36.57% 64 25.71% 45 10.29% 18 5.71% 10 175 4.58
Carbon Storage 8.57% 15 8.57% 15 17.14% 30 36.00% 63 29.71% 52 175 3.3
Wildlife Habitat 28.57% 50 25.71% 45 22.29% 39 12.57% 22 10.86% 19 175 4.49
Other 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0 0
175
0Skipped
Answered
Total14532
73 Appendices
Appendix C:
Community Survey Responses
Introduction:
The survey questions provided a public feedback
opportunity during the early stages of plan
development. They were designed to solicit
input from residents and businesses in the City of
Edmonds and help guide the plan development
by understanding about how respondents.
The questions were arranged into 4 groups:
How do you value trees?
Your opinion about public trees. (City
managed trees on streets and in parks)
Your opinion about private trees.
(privately managed trees)
Who are you? (Simple Demographics)
Question 2: Trees are known to provide benefits to the environment. Understanding which benefits
are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-5)
the following ENVIRONMENTAL benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1 = most valuable and 5 =
least valuable):
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Strongly Agree 74.86% 131
Agree 21.71% 38
Disagree 2.29%4
Strongly Disagree 0.57%1
Not sure 0.00%0
Not Sure 0.57%1
Other (please specify)0.00%0
Answered 175
Skipped 0
Responses
Improved Air Quality 36.57% 64 24.00% 42 21.14% 37 14.29% 25 4.00%7 175 4.75
Energy Savings 4.57%8 5.14%9 13.71% 24 26.86% 47 49.71% 87 175 2.88
Protect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff 21.71% 38 36.57% 64 25.71% 45 10.29% 18 5.71% 10 175 4.58
Carbon Storage 8.57% 15 8.57% 15 17.14% 30 36.00% 63 29.71% 52 175 3.3
Wildlife Habitat 28.57% 50 25.71% 45 22.29% 39 12.57% 22 10.86% 19 175 4.49
Other 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0 0
175
0Skipped
Answered
Total14532
74Appendices
Question 1: Trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds.
Question 2 (Extended)
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Total Score
Attractive to Residents 14.86% 26 21.71% 38 16.00% 28 13.14% 23 15.43% 27 9.71% 17 6.86% 12 2.29%4 175 5.39
Beauty/Aesthetics 34.29% 60 21.14% 37 14.86% 26 14.29% 25 7.43% 13 2.86%5 2.29%4 2.86%5 175 6.29
Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails 21.71% 38 17.14% 30 24.00% 42 11.43% 20 9.71% 17 9.71% 17 4.57%8 1.71%3 175 5.74
Shaded Parking 2.86%5 3.43%6 8.57% 15 9.71% 17 8.57% 15 17.71% 31 19.43% 34 29.71% 52 175 3.03
Improve retail areas and neighborhoods 5.14%9 10.29% 18 12.57% 22 13.71% 24 19.43% 34 18.29% 32 14.29% 25 6.29% 11 175 4.25
Increased Property Values 4.00%7 5.14%9 5.14%9 9.71% 17 10.29% 18 13.71% 24 22.86% 40 29.14% 51 175 3.05
Passive recreation 4.00%7 5.14%9 6.86% 12 12.00% 21 15.43% 27 14.86% 26 20.00% 35 21.71% 38 175 3.37
Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles 13.14% 23 16.00% 28 12.00% 21 16.00% 28 13.71% 24 13.14% 23 9.71% 17 6.29% 11 175 4.89
175
0
Answered
Skipped
6 7 812345
Additional Comments
Answered 60
Skipped 115
Answer Choices
I was not aware that the City has an urban forest program 36.69% 62
I have visited the City's webpage for information about public trees and/or the urban forest 23.67% 40
I have read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Edmonds' urban forest 52.07% 88
I have participated or volunteered with tree related events in the City 14.79% 25
Other (please specify)12.43% 21
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
75 Appendices
Question 3: Trees also provide less tangible benefits to society. Understanding which of these benefits
are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-8)
the following AESTHETIC and/or SOCIOECONOMIC benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1 = most
valuable and 8 = least valuable):
Question 4: Optional. Use this space to provide additional comments on the benefits of Edmonds’
public trees.
Question 5: What is your current awareness of the City’s urban forest program? Please check all that
apply.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Total Score
Attractive to Residents14.86% 26 21.71% 38 16.00% 28 13.14% 23 15.43% 27 9.71% 17 6.86% 12 2.29%4 175 5.39
Beauty/Aesthetics34.29% 60 21.14% 37 14.86% 26 14.29% 25 7.43% 13 2.86%5 2.29%4 2.86%5 175 6.29
Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails21.71% 38 17.14% 30 24.00% 42 11.43% 20 9.71% 17 9.71% 17 4.57%8 1.71%3 175 5.74
Shaded Parking2.86%53.43%68.57% 15 9.71% 17 8.57% 15 17.71% 31 19.43% 34 29.71% 52 175 3.03
Improve retail areas and neighborhoods5.14%910.29% 18 12.57% 22 13.71% 24 19.43% 34 18.29% 32 14.29% 25 6.29% 11 175 4.25
Increased Property Values4.00%75.14%95.14%99.71% 17 10.29% 18 13.71% 24 22.86% 40 29.14% 51 175 3.05
Passive recreation4.00%75.14%96.86% 12 12.00% 21 15.43% 27 14.86% 26 20.00% 35 21.71% 38 175 3.37
Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles13.14% 23 16.00% 28 12.00% 21 16.00% 28 13.71% 24 13.14% 23 9.71% 17 6.29% 11 175 4.89
175
0
Answered
Skipped
6 7 812345
Answer Choices
I was not aware that the City has an urban forest program 36.69% 62
I have visited the City's webpage for information about public trees and/or the urban forest 23.67% 40
I have read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Edmonds' urban forest 52.07% 88
I have participated or volunteered with tree related events in the City 14.79% 25
Other (please specify)12.43% 21
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
76Appendices
Question 5 (Extended)
Question 3 (Extended)
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Daily 13.02% 22
Weekly 11.83% 20
Monthly 10.65% 18
Several Times A Year 34.32% 58
Never 30.18% 51
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
Answer Choices
Daily 5.33%9
Weekly 4.14%7
Monthly 2.96%5
Several Times A Year 41.42% 70
Never 46.15% 78
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
Answer Choices
Daily 5.33%9
Weekly 2.96%5
Monthly 5.92% 10
Several Times A Year 43.20% 73
Never 42.60% 72
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
77 Appendices
Question 6: Trees can grow to obstruct streets and sidewalks. How often do you encounter this issue
with trees in the public rights-of-way.
Question 7: Trees can become damaged or develop structural weakness over time, these issues may
be risks for injury to persons or property. How often do you encounter this issue with public trees?
Question 8: Trees can appear sick and unhealthy from damage by insects, diseases, or simply poor tree
care regimes. How often do you observe this issue with public trees?
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Strongly agree 10.65% 18
Agree 59.17% 100
Disagree 11.83% 20
Strongly Disagree 8.88% 15
Not Sure 9.47% 16
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
78Appendices
Question 9: In general, I am satisfied with the current level of maintenance provided for Edmonds’
public trees.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Total Score
None-Keep them natural 3.55%6 8.88% 15 10.06% 17 25.44% 43 45.56% 77 6.51% 11 169 1.92
Best possible care (all trees should look good)15.38% 26 9.47% 16 21.89% 37 26.04% 44 23.08% 39 4.14%7 169 2.67
Clearance only (keep the sidewalks and streets clear)6.51% 11 24.26% 41 27.81% 47 26.04% 44 10.65% 18 4.73%8 169 2.89
Take care of hazardous trees.52.07% 88 26.04% 44 14.20% 24 5.33%9 1.78%3 0.59%1 169 4.22
Holistic Plant Health Care (Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree)21.89% 37 30.18% 51 23.08% 39 12.43% 21 8.28% 14 4.14%7 169 3.47
169
6Skipped
Not Sure12345
Answered
Answer Choices
Strongly Agree 37.87% 64
Agree 28.99% 49
Disagree 17.16% 29
Strongly disagree 5.33%9
not sure 10.65% 18
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
Answer Choices
Parks 59.17% 100
Open spaces and Natural Areas 60.36% 102
Streetscapes 59.17% 100
Golf Courses 11.24% 19
Downtown 42.60% 72
Trails and bike paths 45.56% 77
Edmonds has enough public trees 20.12% 34
Other (please specify)17.75% 30
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
79 Appendices
Question 11: Edmonds needs more public trees.
Question 10: What level of maintenance would you prefer for public trees? Please rank the following
options according to your preference (1 = most desirable; 5 = Least desirable)
Question 12: Where would you like to see more public trees planted? Please check as many as apply.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Total Score
None-Keep them natural 3.55%6 8.88% 15 10.06% 17 25.44% 43 45.56% 77 6.51% 11 169 1.92
Best possible care (all trees should look good)15.38% 26 9.47% 16 21.89% 37 26.04% 44 23.08% 39 4.14%7 169 2.67
Clearance only (keep the sidewalks and streets clear)6.51% 11 24.26% 41 27.81% 47 26.04% 44 10.65% 18 4.73%8 169 2.89
Take care of hazardous trees.52.07% 88 26.04% 44 14.20% 24 5.33%9 1.78%3 0.59%1 169 4.22
Holistic Plant Health Care (Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree)21.89% 37 30.18% 51 23.08% 39 12.43% 21 8.28% 14 4.14%7 169 3.47
169
6Skipped
Not Sure12345
Answered
80Appendices
Question 10 (Extended)
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Seminars and workshops 44.38% 75
Interpretive trails and displays 59.76% 101
Website resources 62.72% 106
Online videos (e.g. YouTube)24.26% 41
Guided nature/tree walks 55.03% 93
Informational brochures 43.20% 73
Other (please specify)11.83% 20
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
Additional Comments
Answered 40
Skipped 135
Answer Choices
Trees blocking my view 24.70% 41
Trees shading my yard 9.04% 15
Tree debris in my yard 12.65% 21
Healthy mature trees being removed during development 68.67% 114
Canopy loss 57.83% 96
Loss of wildlife habitat 72.29% 120
Other Concerns(please specify)18.67% 31
Answered 166
Skipped 9
Responses
81 Appendices
Question 13: What types of education and public outreach would you like to see offered by the urban
forestry program? Please check all that apply.
Question 14: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about the care of public
trees.
Question 15: What is/are your biggest concern for trees in Edmonds? (Check as many as apply)
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Trees near my property are a nuisance 11.98% 20
Trees near my property are a dangerous 17.37% 29
Trees near my property block views 29.34% 49
Trees near my property are beautiful 67.66% 113
Trees near my property are healthy 59.28% 99
I want more trees near my property 25.15% 42
I have no trees near my property 0.60%1
I don't agree with any of these statements.2.40%4
Answered 167
Skipped 8
Responses
Answer Choices
Yes. The City should require property owners to
preserve trees on private parcels where
reasonably possible.53.89% 90
No. This City of Edmonds should not concern
itself with trees on private property.17.96% 30
Not sure. This issue is more complicated.28.14% 47
Answered 167
Skipped 8
Responses
82Appendices
Question 16: What are your experiences with trees on nearby properties around you? Please select
any from this list any statements you agree with.
Question 17: When private properties are developed or improved, trees on the property can be
impacted. Should the City be involved with protecting trees on private property during construction?
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Education and outreach 79.04% 132
Information about how to hire a professional tree care company 29.34% 49
Require tree care companies to have a certified arborist on staff 28.74% 48
Free (or low-cost) Trees 55.09% 92
Ordinances, Rules or Regulations 35.33% 59
Other (please specify)22.75% 38
Answered 167
Skipped 8
Responses
Additional Comments
Answered 44
Skipped 131
Answer Choices
Male 28.66% 47
Female 59.76% 98
Gender Diverse 1.83%3
Prefer not to answer 9.76% 16
Answered 164
Skipped 11
Responses
83 Appendices
Question 18: In your opinion, what are the best ways to encourage tree planting and preservation on
private property? Please select as many as apply.
Question 19: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about trees on private
property.
Question 20: Which gender do you identify with?
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Under 18 0.00%0
18 to 25 1.22%2
26 to 35 4.27%7
36 to 45 11.59% 19
46 to 55 21.34% 35
56+61.59% 101
Answered 164
Skipped 11
Responses
Answer Choices
Downtown/The Bowl 40.85% 67
Westgate 7.32% 12
Five Corners 8.54% 14
Perrinville 4.88%8
Meadowdale 4.27%7
Seaview 15.24% 25
Lake Ballinger 1.22%2
HWY 99 3.05%5
Other (please specify)14.63% 24
Answered 164
Skipped 11
Responses
84Appendices
Question 21: What age group are you representing?
Question 22: Where do you live in Edmonds? Please choose a neighborhood from the list below.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
I am a resident of Edmonds 95.12% 156
I am a frequent visitor to Edmonds 10.98% 18
I own a business in Edmonds 6.71% 11
I appreciate public trees 72.56% 119
I have planted public trees as a volunteer 18.90% 31
I help care for a public tree adjacent to my property 10.98% 18
I have donated money to a non-profit foundation in support of public trees 15.85% 26
None of the above 0.61%1
Other (please specify)4.27%7
Answered 164
Skipped 11
Responses
85 Appendices
Question 23: What is your relationship with Edmonds’ urban forest. (Choose all that apply)
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Additional Comments
Answered 33
Skipped 142
86Appendices
Question 24: Please provide any additional comments
or feedback (Optional)
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
87 Appendices
Appendix D: Open House
Summary Report
On June 22nd, 2017, the City of Edmonds hosted the
first of two open houses in the Brackett Room at City
Hall to share information about the City of Edmonds
Urban Forestry Management Plan and gather input
from citizens.
The open house included a presentation by Ian
Scott of Davey Resource Group and a brief Q and
A from the audience to ask clarifying questions.
The presentation provided attendees an overview
of Edmonds’ urban forest, an introduction to what
will be included in the Urban Forest Management
Plan, and that the Davey Resource Group team has
completed to date. Following the presentation,
attendees were invited to provide input- thoughts,
ideas, concerns, questions- on six discussion/opinion
boards where a broad topic was introduced on each
board followed by initial suggestions generated
through the prior stakeholder interview process.
Attendees were invited to express their opinions
using dots (where green= a positive “vote”/
agreement for the suggestion, yellow= concern/
hesitation of the suggestion, and red= a negative
“vote”/disagreement or dislike of the suggestion).
Attendees were invited to use as many dots of
each color necessary to express their opinion of
each suggestion on each board. In addition, each
board provided an area for Additional Suggestions
where attendees were invited to write down their
thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions on a sticky note
and adhere it to the board for other attendees to
review and “vote” on, as well. Lastly, a confidential
and anonymous option was provided for attendees
to provide comments and feedback by writing their
thoughts, ideas, concerns and questions on index
cards that were placed inside a box and not shared
at the public meeting.
The Davey Resource Group team also provided a link
for attendees to give additional feedback through an
online survey. That survey can be accessed via the
home page on the City of Edmonds website, under
the “What’s New…” section:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/
EdmondsUFMP
Local media provided public announcements of the
open house leading up to the event:
http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/
reminder-open-house-managing-citys-tree-
cover-set-june-22/
https://edmondsbeacon.villagesoup.com/p/
open-house-planned-to-discuss-managing-
city-s-tree-cover/1660111?source=WeeklyH
eadlines
My Edmonds News covered the open house and
provided a news story and video of the presentation
to the public:
http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/
public-asked-share-ideas-managing-
edmonds-urban-forest/
http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/
now-video-open-house-plan-manage-
edmonds-urban-forests/
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #1: What tree benefits do you most appreciate?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Improved Air Quality 11 0 1
B. Energy Savings 4 0 0
C. Water Quality/ Reduced Stormwater Runoff 14 0 0
D. Carbon Storage 7 1 0
E. Wildlife Habitat 14 0 0
F. Beauty/Aesthetics 12 0 0
G. Shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails 4 0 3
H. Improved retail areas and neighborhoods 3 1 4
I. Increased property values 7 2 3
J. Shaded streets and parking lots 4 1 0
K. Additional Ideas
Wind protection (think roof shingles); noise reduction; shade-
calm/healing; sound of wind through branches; hi-class (untreed
neighborhoods proven to have higher crime- “the projects”
don’t get trees, Bellevue does); soil retention; cools streams;
coastal trees involved in weather cycle to prevent inland
desertification
0 0 0
City revenue increase with more views 0 0 0
Air quality requires big, tall trees 0 0 1
88Appendices
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #2: What types of outreach and education are
preferred/valued?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Electronic (websites, links, youtube, apps)2 0 0
i. Species selection 4 0 0
ii. Tree planting 1 0 0
iii. Tree pruning 4 1 0
iv. Interactive tree selector 1 1 0
v. Irrigation 1 0 0
vi. Volunteer opportunities 1 0 0
B. Hard copy (pamphlets, newsletter)3 0 0
i. Species selection 3 1 0
ii. Tree planting 1 0 0
iii. Tree pruning 3 1 0
iv. Irrigation 0 0 0
C. Hands-on (Workshops, seminars)2 0 0
i. Tree planting 2 0 0
ii. Tree pruning 5 0 0
iii. Irrigation 0 0 0
iv. Volunteer opportunities 1 0 0
D. Additional Ideas 7 1 0
Neighborhood meetings for education and outreach 0 0 0
Maybe a pamphlet with a map of specific trees of interest 0 0 0
Pamphlets telling what species of trees on city property-
amount of carbon storage, % stormwater absorption- info which
appeared tied to Main St trees for a very short time. Maybe
story in the Beacon [local newspaper with print and online
circulation]
0 0 0
New name needed 0 0 0
89 Appendices
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #3: What is/are your biggest concern(s) for trees
in Edmonds?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Trees blocking my view 11 1 9
B. Trees shading my yard 3 0 7
C. Tree debris in my yard 1 1 5
D. Healthy mature trees being removed 12 0 3
E. Canopy loss 11 0 3
F. Loss of wildlife habitat 15 0 3
G. Additional Concerns
Private development- current Edmonds land use code allows
developers to completely clear treed lots for development
(residential, commercial, etc). This is not okay. It disrupts urban
1 0 0
Someone who would be willing to negotiate or help mediate
between neighbors having difficulty with trees vs. view, perhaps
to come to the home if asked and accepted by both parties
1 0 0
Need to address invasives in our forests that prevent the
establishment of seedlings. Without that there will be no forests 0 0 0
Critical areas ordinances are not followed- All native vegetation
is removed for development 0 0 0
This becomes a question of aesthetics- learn to see trees, which
are beautiful and characteristic of the luxuriant NW where we
have chosen to reside- as the “view”. Trees are very connected
to the idea of “the commons” in which we have not much
2 0 0
I believe these green dots indicate agreement with the stated
additional concern.
***Note: for this opinion board:
Green dots = concerned
Red dots = not concerned
90Appendices
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #4: What level of maintenance would you prefer
for public trees?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. None (keep them natural)1 4 2
B. Best possible care (all trees should look good)7 1 3
C. Clearance only (keep sidewalks and streets clear)7 1 1
D. Take care of hazardous trees 10 2 0
E. Holistic plant health care (improve the urban forest, but
not necessarily every tree)8 3 0
F. Additional Ideas
In past, City has been resistant to allow removal of dangerous
and dying trees even when 3 arborists said remove. Need
process to effectively deal with dangerous trees.
0 0 0
Utilize/ plant and replace trees that “heave” the sidewalks. ie-
avoid trees that interfere with built environment. 2 0 0
Native trees preferred. Alder are not trash trees. 0 0 0
Edmonds is a City of Views- Very important that property
owner’s views are protected. As a first step/tonight’s meeting
working together to protect environment as well as property
owners will put this plan in a more optimistic mode.
0 1 0
There were not actually green dots placed on this Additional
Idea sticky note, but two other people wrote “Agree” directly on
the note itself.
91 Appendices
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #5: Where would you like to see more trees
planted?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Parks 10 0 0
B. Open Spaces 10 0 1
C. Commercial properties 9 2 0
D. Streets and medians 7 3 2
E. Parking lots 10 0 0
F. Private properties 8 1 1
G. Additional Ideas
Along railroad- need tall ones to defray pollutants. Along all
arterials for same reason. Along streams to keep them cool 1 0 0
Less trees in view areas 1 1 1
92Appendices
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #6: What are the best ways to encourage tree
planting and preservation on private property?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Free (or low-cost) trees 10 0 0
B. Information about how to hire a professional tree care
company 3 0 0
C. Education and Outreach 16 0 0
D. Tree planting events 5 0 0
E. Additional Ideas
Update land use code so developers cannot clear all of the trees
when building. Current code allows to clear the entire lot.3 0 1
Education- slow but steady so that folk begin to know that all
the oxygen we breathe is produced by (largely) trees- for “views”
we can cut out our lungs.
0 0 0
Provide ideas for good trees that are more like 15 ft tall in order
to keep both trees and preserve view.3 0 0
City needs a full-time arborist. Codes should:3 0 0
Neighbor education and outreach (about critical areas and
streamside property management more important than public
meetings for general public)
0 0 0
93 Appendices
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
94Appendices
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
95 Appendices
Additional anonymous comments:
Change name “Urban Forest”- bad
impression, oxymoron. Suggestion- Best
plant/tree for Best location
Wondering what is/can be done to
encourage people to maintain views for
neighbors around them?
Let’s separate view areas from non-view
areas. Right tree for right location.
I am concerned about safety regarding older
trees in both private and public spaces. We
have 70+ year old trees in our neighborhood
that lose branches with most wind storms.
Who watches out for the health of those
trees and probability of danger? Most
people would have no idea where to begin,
let alone be able to afford to do something
like hire an arborist. (signed J Thompson)
Questions from the public asked during the
presentation:
Question regarding how the 30% canopy
cover was determined- comment that that
number seemed really high. Wondering if
there is a uniform process used by all cities.
Made comment that grants were judged
by how much canopy a City had. Asked for
clarification on what the process that was
used to determine 30% canopy cover.
Question asking for clarification of the
intention of the UFMP- to handle City trees
(as stated in an early slide) or is it actually
expanded to handle private trees too.
Commenter asked for clarification on
defining “what is a tree”- a 30ft lilac…is that
a tree? A big rhododendron- is that a tree?
Commenter referring to tree planting
suggestions (provided an sign in table on
yellow paper)- had a question about why is
there not any evergreen on that suggestion
guide?
Commenter asked question regarding tree
topping being preferable to cutting a tree to
the ground. Expressed concern over making
a “blanket rule” that tree topping is bad or
not preferable.
Question regarding information on what
kinds of trees do what kinds of things- eg. a
fir versus an oak- and where is that kind of
data available at?
Question referring to the chart shown
in the presentation comparing Edmonds
with other cities- does that chart take
into consideration view property- does
it differentiate where there are view
properties and where there are not?
Commenter suggested that a significant
portion of the City [of Edmonds] has views.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
96Appendices
Attendance
City of Edmonds:
Dave Teitzel, Edmonds City Council
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural
Services Director
Phil Williams, Public Works and Utilities
Director
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program
Manager
Brad Shipley, Planner
Debora Ladd, Parks Maintenance Staff
Project Team Members:
Ian Scott, Davey Resources Group
Ian Lefcourte, Davey Resources Group
Keeley O’Connell, Nature InSight Consulting
Members of the public:
Approximately 50
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Att. 1: EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_07_27 [Revision 1] (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 15
Council is not allowed to set their own salaries; this is the State legislature’s way keep of keeping the
Council’s hands off it and allowed a Councilmember to have have mid-term increase in compensation.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the City Council is a public entity and having open,
transparent discussions and hardcore dynamics around compensation is really important. She appreciated
Mr. Taraday correcting the errors of the past.
It was the consensus of Council to schedule approval on the February 7, 2017 Consent Agenda.
5. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled development of an Urban Forest Management Plan
has been an interest to the community for the last several years. The 2017 budget included $130,000 for
this project. Following a competitive process late last year, Davey Resources Group was selected as the
consultant for this project. The proposal includes an extensive public process. The focus of the Urban
Forest Management Plan is on public property and rights-of-way with some recognition of other things
such as a tree canopy assessment and assessment of trees in wildlife habitat corridors. The intent is to
have a draft completed by the end of 2017. She requested authorization for Mayor Earling to executive a
professional services agreement.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she and another Tree Board Members participated in the selection review
process; Davey Resources Group is owner operated and has been in business a long time. They have not
done a lot of work in this area because few cities have spent the money for this type of a plan. She asked
whether there was any conflict of interest for Ms. O’Connell since the City utilizes her for our purposes.
Ms. Hope answered there was not.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH DAVEY RESOURCES GROUP.
Councilmember Nelson thanked Ms. Hope for moving this project forward. He asked if the tree canopy
would provide a percentage of coverage. Ms. Hope answered that estimate will be determined via
sampling, LiDAR and other technology.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
This item was postpone to a future meeting.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling thanked Mr. James and Mr. Taraday for their work on the FD1 Interlocal Agreement. He
recognized it was a long, tedious process and they did a marvelous job representing the City.
Mayor Earling encouraged Councilmembers to attend the Health District regional meeting tomorrow at
12:30 p.m. in the Brackett Room. The City is contributing $40,000/year to help the Health District. He
relayed the District’s plans to proceed with selling their building.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
8.3.b
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Att. 2: Council Excerpt Jan 24, 2017 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Notes of Edmonds Citizens’ Tree Board
City Council Chambers – Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA
April 5, 2018
6:00 pm
1) Call to Order Doug called the meeting at 6:00 am. Roll Call/Introductions
Attendees: Tree Board Members: Steve Hatzenbeler (absent), Doug Petersen (chair), Vivian Olson, Barbara Chase, Frank Caruso (vice chair), Bill Phipps, Gail Lovell, Suzanne Juergensen (Alternate) Diane Buckshnis as City Council Liaison Carrie Hite and Shane Hope Directors from City Ian Scott and Keeley O’Connell from Davey Resource Group – Consultants for Urban Forest Management Program (UFMP)
Audience Members that signed in: Ed Beaulier, Phil Lovell (Planning Board), Larry Vogel (MyEdmondsNews), Gary Nelson, Ross Dimmick, Minna Dimmick, Peter Kalapaca, Wendy Wisdom, Chris Walton, Kristi and Steve Bowman, Joe Scordino, Karen Fionito, Dawna Lahti, Joe Schmous, Todd Echlebarger, Carreen Rubenkonig (Planning Board), Eric Sull. 2) Approval of Agenda
Moved and approved with no changes. 3) Audience Comments (We respectfully request that guests limit comments to 3 minutes or less)
• Ed Beauliere – He had a California Redwood in a little jar and said that maybe Edmonds might want to consider a grove of Redwoods. He said that trees are being removed all over the city and that folks are being contacted to have their timber purchased from timber buyers.
• Chris Walton – He said he was totally in favor of supporting any aspect that related to trees. He said he had many questions when reading the report: 1) there was some analyses of a 6% reduction in
canopy and it was unclear as to how that happened? 2) There was public trees of 12% and private land of 88% on private land and could not understand how the report only addressed the 12% of trees
on public land? 3) There was a goal to increase canopy from 30% to 50% and yet it doesn’t correlate with the 6% reduction comment as well as only focusing on the 12% of Tree canopy. He wanted to know how to increase tree canopy on both public and private land.
• Gary Nelson - He enjoyed the graphics of the report but that there were many errors in the report: one timeline error concluded in 2048? P 7 says Edmonds is oldest City in Snohomish Cty and he
questioned that fact. One table lists the prominent specifies of trees in Edmonds and he didn’t think list was long enough. Talked of GMA guidelines and private property rights. James Clarke has named misspelled. Priority of planting and blockage of views is a big issue and report didn’t seem to touch upon this factor. P 37 gave a long list of pests but nothing prominent to Edmonds – anyone could have provided that list. Survey – it’s clear that 40% from Bowl (view) area answered the questions and these people want control of the trees and protection of views.
• Ross Dimmick – He is a scientist and writes EIS statements for a living and likes to focus on “purpose and need” and “what and why”. From a scientific perspective, this report is a disaster as example, it refers to USFS region of HI and CA and the intercepting rainfall was in accurate as was the increased soil capacity. The fundamental science was quite disappointing from this report.
• Wendy Wisdom – Report needs a lot of work in the area of habitat and wildlife and that snag trees are
very important to the that eco system.
• Dawna Lahti – She had not finished report but found that the report did not have a vision. The goals were not clear in terms of private or public property or the issues of snags or corridors.
8.3.c
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Att. 3: Tree Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
4) Approval of Meeting Notes Moved and Approved with no corrections. 5) Old Business/Discussion
• Appoint Student Rep. to Citizen Tree Board
Vivian Moved and Frank seconded the approval of Leslie Smith.
• Tree board pamphlet final bids for printing
Moved by Vivian and seconded by Barbara that Shane would have Denise print 500 copies of the tri-fold brochure.
• Update on upcoming events activity o Discussed the Earth Day Celebration at Yost Park. Diane will buy the snacks and Gail will buy the coffee. It is April 21st starting at 9am. Doug is filling in for Steve (absent) for meeting on April 6, 2018 with Jennifer Leach (City of Edmonds).
o Barbara is working with Debra Dill (City) on the Summer Market Tree Give Away. o Gail and Frank are working are working on Edmonds in Bloom Tree Identification.
• UFMP presentation by Ian Scott of Davey Resource Group (Power Point Presentation Part of notes) o Please refer to the entire Power Point Presentation for the full breakdown of overview, structure,
principals of adaptive management and goals. Each slide was highlighted with the main themes being that the City is reactive rather than proactive. The City doesn’t know the condition or
inventory of the urban forest. Comments were later made that some felt the City Staff did have a pretty good understanding of the street trees and tree inventory. Davey’s rebuttal was that it is not
documented. o Examples of the City Resources were provided as well as city resources utilized. Comments were
brought forth regarding questioning this table and Davey’s rebuttal was that the information was given by staff personnel and only identified Administration and now volunteer groups.
o Survey was reviewed of which the data showed: 40% from Edmonds Bowl; 15% from Seaview area (view area) and 29% from other neighborhoods and consensus was city is in reactive
management mode and regulations on private property should be limited. Comment was made that the survey was skewered because it is based on over 50% of the population is in view area. o Goals were then provided on How to get to the 50% canopy or to sustain a no new loss in canopy and that City needs to move toward proactive management. City should establish a departmental
working team that could document trees and work towards work plans that have adaptive management. Community goads were also given to assist in moving towards tree sustainability
and adaptive management. o Next Steps came forth with meetings and public hearing at Planning Board then revisions and then
update to Council. Council Member Buckshnis requested that the Council be part of the “draft revision stage” so that Council can provide the necessary input to the draft and that it would not fall
on the planning board. QUESTIONS and Comments:
• Tree Board Commissioner Phipps - How did the plan come up with planting 700 trees a year. Davey’s
Group said that was an example of a number to be used so to complete a no-net loss concept. Phipps than stated that it seemed that this goal needs to go beyond the inventory of public trees.
• Chair Petersen – Stated that the report needs a lot of work and that the “tree” solution for public property and private property seem different and that the models should reflect a solution for the entire canopy.
• Tree Board Commissioner Chase – Stated that there should be a list of preferred trees and deal with the goals of diversity. Some trees are more resilient and the report didn’t really address the diseases
and the trees affected.
• Tree Board Commissioner Phipps asked to look at the priority of planting slides and said that the majority of read was right in the area of views and that it would appear that the area was fragmented.
• Vice Chair Caruso (who has his doctorate in insect infestations) indicated that the report needs to provide specific pest to the Edmonds region and he named a few that should be highlighted. He also
8.3.c
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Att. 3: Tree Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
said that the conifers were not really discussed and he agreed with Ms. Chase that there needs to be more distinction and diversity in the report.
• Tree Board Commissioner Phipps brought up that there was not recommendations or discussion regarding a Tree Ordinance and that the report merely cited all the areas in the code that related to
trees. Davey’s Group stated that it was not the intent of the report to advise on any code and that Best Available Science would be of use for any code.
• Chair Peterson brought forth an email question regarding the cutting down of very old evergreens and replacing them with flowering trees and that cutting down a Douglas Fir and replacing it with a deciduous tree is not even addressed in the report. It was also commented that developers are just clear cutting a lot and building. Davey’s Group responded that clear cutting and retaining trees is a Development Code issue and not a function for this report. He did say it is important to keep in mind “how much canopy is at risk” and what are mortality rates and this all needs to be documented in a proactive manner.
• Tree Board Commissioner Olsen brought up the issue of the California Redwoods and that the City needs to be cognizant as to where to place these trees that grown majestically and can be hundreds of feet high. New Business
• Logo and Banner. Discussed and looked at material for banner and then discussed a runner and table cloth. Moved by Vivian and seconded by Frank to spend up to $400 for the banner (3x3 square) and table
runner.
• Suzanne provided a three-fold brochure of an example “small trees” and/or “trees in small places”. She was asked to send that to Diane and she will have the City try and convert it to a word doc or pdf for Tree Board Members to review. 6) Tree Board Member Ideas and Comments 7) Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 7:45 8) Future Meeting: May 3, 2018
April 19th in Brackett Room is next Public Open House regarding the Urban Forest Management Program
8.3.c
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Att. 3: Tree Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
EDMONDS CITIZENS’ TREE BOARD
MEETING NOTES
May 3, 2018
Tree Board members present and accounted for: Frank Caruso, Barbara Chase,
Suzanne Juergensen, Gail Lovell, Doug Petersen, Bill Phipps, Vivian Olson, Leslie
Smith(student representative)
Tree Board members absent: Steve Hatzenbeler.
Edmonds City Council liaison present: Diane Buckshnis
Edmonds Park Department guest: Rich Lindsay
Audience: Ross Dimmick
CALL TO ORDER: A quorum was reached and the meeting was called to order by
Tree Board chair; Doug Petersen.
ROLL CALL: All present introduced themselves.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was modified and approved.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS: Ross Dimmick made comments to the tree board
concerning the proposed Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). Ross
stated that there are problems with the UFMP regarding scientific references, and
specificly to the city of Edmonds. Ross has submitted his comments to the
Edmonds City Council. The Tree Board thanked Ross for his research and efforts.
APPROVAL OF MEETING NOTES: The meeting notes for the April 5, 2018 tree
board meeting were corrected and approved.
OLD BUSINESS:
8.3.c
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Att. 3: Tree Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
- Tree Board Pamphlet: The tree board discussed ways to get the new “Before
You Grab That Chainsaw” tree pruning pamphlet to the community. Diane will
see how we can mail the pamphlet to all city water customers through the water
bills. Diane will also distribute them to the city hall “green room” and the
Anderson recreation center.
- Upcoming events: Gail showed off the new Tree Board banners and all were
impressed. The board thanked Gail for her efforts in getting these banners made.
They will look great at our events for years to come.
Gail informed the tree board on the upcoming Edmonds Garden Tour, being
held on July 15, 2018, of which the tree board is co-sponsor. There will be seven
gardens with tree identification signs. Gail will place the tree id signs on July 14th.
The tree board discussed the upcoming tree identification signs event in
downtown Edmonds. It was decided that these “environmental benefits of trees”
signs would be put up along Main Street and 5th Avenue on July 1, 2018 and taken
down on July 21, 2018 . Bill will coordinate this project.
Rich, from the Parks Department, informed the tree board about the upcoming
Arbor Day event, of which the tree board is co-sponsor. There will be a tree
planting event at Meadowdale Park in October 2018. The exact date has not
been decided.
Doug informed the tree board about the “2ndst Annual Edmonds’ Tree Board
Tree Giveaway and Raffle” to be held at the farmers market with September 22,
2018 as the anticipated date. Barbara will coordinate this event and is seeking
volunteers to help. Like last year we will give away tree saplings and raffle away
two trees. The emphasis will be on “Plant the right tree in the right place”.
Barbara will acquire the saplings for this event.
- Replacing street trees in front of City Hall: Rich informed the tree board of
the parks department plan to plant some sidewalk trees in large planters in front
of City Hall. Seasonal annual flowers will be planted in the containers as well.
8.3.c
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Att. 3: Tree Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
The tree board thanked Rich for his continued efforts on behalf of beautifying
Edmonds.
- UFMP update: There was a general discussion about the proposed UFMP ,
written by the Davy Group, that will be considered by the City Council this
summer. Concerns were raised about the lack of specificity of the report to the
unique environmental and political realities of Edmonds. Diane explained to the
tree board the steps through the political process; hearings, reviews, public
meetings, and eventual vote before the City Council. Consensus was that
although there were good aspects to the draft UFMP; such as appointment of a
“city arborist” and the creation of an “Edmonds Tree Bank”; the report needs
work making the plan specific to the city of Edmonds environmentally and
politically.
NEW BUSINESS:
- Doug raised the question of what does the tree board mission statement
mean; “to educate the public” about the benefits of trees. How do we
better reach out to the community to fulfill our mission? Doug invites us to
work on new ways to educate and reach out to the public.
-
TREE BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
- Suzanne offered her services as a photographer for future tree board
events.
- Vivian informed the tree board of an upcoming vote before the City Council
on banning single use plastic cutlery/straws in Edmonds. We have since
learned that said vote passed. Yay Edmonds!
ADJOURNMENT;
8.3.c
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Att. 3: Tree Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
With no further business, and after a fun and productive meeting, the esteemed
Edmonds City Tree Board adjourned for the evening.
Next meeting: June 7, 2018
Minutes submitted by Bill Phipps
8.3.c
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Att. 3: Tree Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED JUNE 13TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 23, 2018
Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Megan Livingston, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT Chair Monroe referred the Board to the Development Services Director’s written report, but there were no comments from the Board. RECOMMENDATION FOR DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP)
Director Hope advised that the Board has received all of the materials for the draft UFMP, except a slightly revised draft is still in process. The purpose of tonight’s meeting is for the Board to discuss the key points of the plan and potentially forward a recommendation on to the City Council. She reminded the Board that the UFMP is intended to be a policy guide and not an environmental impact statement or scientific study. It is similar to plans in other jurisdictions, but with some information that is unique to Edmonds. The plan provides background information about the value of trees and outlines some of the challenges
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 2
of trees. It also describes the City’s current forest management program and explains how resources are currently being allocated to this effort. Director Hope advised that the draft plan identifies 21 objectives that include continuing to work with the Tree Board, encouraging partnerships with other organizations in the City, and identifying things the City can do to better manage its tree inventory on public lands. She pointed out that there are over 1 million trees in Edmonds, and doing a tree inventory for the entire City would be cost prohibitive. However, the City recognizes the need to have a better record of the trees that are located in parks, along trails, within rights-of-way and other public properties. The City has already started work to update its codes relative to trees. In addition to talking about how to manage trees in public spaces, the objectives speak to the need to encourage, education and incentivize the planting of trees on both private and public properties and to work together on future updates of the UFMP. Director Hope reviewed that there has been a series of meetings and open houses relative to the draft UFMP. The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on May 9th and received a number of comments from citizens, both written and oral. Some revisions were made to the plan based on Planning Board and public comments. For example, the map called “Priority Planning Areas” was not intended to imply that trees needed to be planted in all of the red areas, which tend to be view corridors, too. The plan was modified to clarify that these are opportunity areas, but view and other matters will need to be considered. An additional statement was also included about the need to plant the right trees in the right places. Director Hope said that following the Board’s recommendation, the draft plan will move on to the City Council for further consideration, a public hearing, and ultimate adoption. Board Member Rubenkonig said she compared the proposed 22 objectives in the plan to urban forest management plans from other jurisdictions. A lot of the objectives in the City’s proposed plan line up well with the other plans, but she identified some outstanding concerns that may already be included in the plan but perhaps need further clarification. She reviewed these items as follows:
• Support partnerships with utilities, districts, the Edmonds School District, parks with adjoining City property and other public and private institutions (such as interested churches) operating in Edmonds to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy. The plan addresses trees on public properties and rights-of-way, but there is more that needs to be included. For example, the plan should address city-owned buildings and campuses, as well as school and church campuses. Perhaps the City should look at partnering with these other entities for future actions that could benefit the tree canopy. Director Hope suggested that this concept is covered in Community Goal #C3, which calls for
“coordinating efforts of the City staff, Edmonds Citizens’ Tree Board and other interested groups to participate in and promote good urban forest management and urban forest management events.” In addition, Action Item A calls
for “collaborating and partnering with City departments (especially Parks, Public Works and Development Services), nonprofits and neighborhood groups for tree replacement and improvements to landscapes.” Also, Action Item D calls for “partnering with Snohomish County PUD, other City departments, non-profits and other groups to incorporate shared information and outreach goals when possible.” Although churches and the Edmonds School
District are not specifically called out, they would be included in this objective. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that other jurisdictions stress the importance of partnerships, and she felt that was missing from the draft plan.
• Determine the value, function and benefits of the urban forest. Director Hope expressed her belief that this was already part of the plan.
• Establish tree planting and maintenance guidelines. Board Member Rubenkonig said it seems a lot was addressed around this concept, but there is not a specific objective. Director Hope advised that this information is already contained in the City’s Street Tree Plan, which will be updated in the near future.
• Conduct public outreach regarding tree regulations. Director Hope advised that a number of objectives in the plan address public outreach, including public information and education about the City’s tree regulations. The objectives not only address the need to educate the public on the tree regulations, but also on what trees to plant where, how to avoid hitting utility lines, etc. She felt that this concept was adequately covered in the objectives.
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 3
• Further develop the urban forestry program. Director Hope pointed out that this concept was built into the document,
specifically calling for further development of the UFMP system for the City.
• Provide adequate public tree maintenance resources. Director Hope expressed her belief that this issue is adequately addressed in the plan. In addition, resources for tree maintenance will be addressed as part of the City’s annual budget process.
• Quantify the value, function and benefits of the urban forest. Director Hope advised that the plan includes an objective that addresses this issue.
• Dedicate resources for ongoing public outreach and education (Heritage Tree Program, etc.). Board Member
Rubenkonig said this objective would be different than the Tree Board’s efforts. The intent is to imply additional resources are needed for staff support. Director Hope said one outcome of the plan will be budgeting priorities and resources to implement the action items contained in the plan.
• Develop annual reports/annual work plans with tracking and performance measures. Director Hope advised that the plan already calls out the need for annual reports.
• Update and maintain public tree inventories. Director Hope advised that the plan also calls for doing an inventory of public trees.
Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that what other jurisdictions call out for partnerships is a bit different than what
the draft plan calls out. Director Hope suggested that it is the same idea of working with a variety of partners. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that partnerships present a great opportunity for the City to augment its tree canopy, and she welcomes
the idea of specifically identifying the other groups that could benefit from additional vegetation on their properties, such as the Edmonds School District and churches.
Board Member Rosen voiced appreciation for the staff and consultant’s hard work, as well as all of the touch points the public
and Board have had to review the document. He also appreciates the reality check of what it means to do an inventory. As called out in the plan, there are at least 10 benefits that trees provide; some are global and others are very geographically specific to a microlevel. These benefits include:
• Improved air quality
• Carbon sequestration
• Increased property values
• Increased revenue in shopping districts
• Reduced stormwater runoff
• Noise buffering
• Soil stabilization
• Habitat
• Promote walkability and increase healthiness
• Food source Board Member Rosen said some of these benefits are more important in very specific places. For example, preventing stormwater runoff and hill stabilization is not true everywhere, but very true in some places. It is for that reason that he would encourage the Board to consider the following points: 1. Prioritize data collection. You can only make good decisions if you have good information. When it comes to stabilization or runoff, the City needs to know where it is vulnerable and what kinds of things are necessary. This needs minimum standards and priority attention. He believes that an inventory is necessary. 2. Be bolder when it comes to trees on public versus private properties. Nearly every code the City has could be considered an invasion of private property rights. There are times when the City has a responsibility to require that
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 4
certain standards be met in order to ensure a hillside is stabilized. This is just one situation where the City should insert itself when it comes to safety in private areas. They should not fear crossing the line to work with the private sector to address these types of issues. 3. Find another way, beyond no net loss, as a goal setting. While it is a nice baseline to say that they should have no net loss, it is based on what they have now. Having no other reference point, he doesn’t know if the City should be scared or very proud of what they have. The City needs a canopy and vegetation that achieves all of the 10 benefits and is also appropriate for the City’s specific needs. 4. Make the objectives more geographic specific. The objectives could talk about runoff or stabilization or people wanting to spend more money because they are walking amongst the trees in a shopping area. They should set goals that are appropriate for the very specific geographic needs the City has. 5. Make the beginning the public education process a priority. It is important for everyone to have a common understanding of the benefits and importance of trees. Public education creates a favorable environment and a support for how the City and its citizens care for tree vegetation of all kinds. Director Hope pointed out that the City already has specific requirements for trees located on steep slopes. Trees cannot be removed from critical areas such as steep and/or hazardous slopes without a permit and under special circumstances. However, the City does not require that all private property owners must to have their backyards be forested. Board Member Crank asked if the routine update called out in the plan as every 5 to 10 years is an average based on what other jurisdictions have done. Director Hope said some jurisdictions try for five years, but the reality is it is hard to do. She recalled that a number of other plans in the City are 6-year plans, and the Comprehensive Plan is an 8-year plan. It’s a matter of time and resources as to how often the plan is updated, and that is why the plan identifies a range. Board Member Crank referred to the objective that calls for establishing a tree bank and asked if the City currently charges in-lieu-of fees for anything else around housing and development. Director Hope answered that there are no other in-lieu-of fee programs currently. This would be a new program and would require some coaching as the new program is drawn up. Board Member Crank commented that she previously lived in a community that had a lot of in-lieu-of fees related to affordable housing, trees, common space, etc. One of the pitfalls in the beginning was that there was a lot of collection, but not necessary doing something with the funds until many years later. She understands that the plan will be a living document, and it should be treated as such. However, her hope would be that by the time they get to the first round of update, the in-lieu-of fee program will be part of that. The City should do whatever it can to circumvent getting to year 6, 7 or 8 of collecting in-lieu-of fees without doing anything with the funds. She recognized that Edmonds is a tree city, and she doubts it would get that far, but she cautioned that it could get to a point where developers get so used to paying the fee so they can do what they want to do, but the fees start to pile up. Director Hope expressed her belief that would not happen in Edmonds. There are a lot of needs and a number of people who are interested in trees. In addition, the City will do annual reports. Chair Monroe asked if Board Member Crank is concerned that developers would bake the in-lieu-of fees into their price and not see it as a deterrent or is the fear that the City would not spend the funds in a timely manner. Board Member Crank said her concern is a bit of both. If developers have a vision, it is sometimes more beneficial to pay the in-lieu-of fee and move forward with their project. On the flip side, she is concerned about the City collecting the fees without having a proactive approach for replanting trees. It is important to have a check and balance system in place as part of the tree bank program. Board Member Cloutier observed that the objective section includes a lot realistic and easily-understood goals, and each one has a set of actions. He is not concerned that the objectives and actions are unsuitable, but he is very concerned with the amount of effort and resources it will take to implement them. They need to figure out the cost benefit associated with each action to help determine how much they can do. Director Hope said she had hoped to provide this additional information, but it is still a work in progress. She cautioned that the intent is not to say exactly how much each action will cost, because it will change from year to year. You have to know more about how each project will be scoped out before you can decide the cost. However, the intent is to provide a lower level of information (i.e. low, medium and high cost) in the next draft. She added that the Board’s ideas relative to priorities would also be taken into account when the plan is presented to the City Council.
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 5
Chair Monroe clarified that before the plan is presented to the City Council there will be a cost range on the sidebar. Director Hope answered affirmatively, but not in actual dollars. She cautioned that it takes a lot of work and more information to create cost estimates in actual dollars. Board Member Robles commented that “what you don’t measure, no one pays attention to.” If the City wants to regulate trees like an asset, then they need to be counted. There are ways to do this without counting every tree or involving the City at all. For example, people can account for their own trees as they grow and produce canopy. Their ability to leave a tree in place for many years creates the canopy the City finds desirable. When they decide to cut down a tree, perhaps there should be a credit against all of the canopy they produced. In the public comment letters, people are treating trees as assets that block views, increase or decrease property values, hold up slopes, etc. When trees are categorized as assets, they warrant some attention in terms of classification or quantification. However, it does not have to be a count of every tree. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that as she reviewed the very fine UFMP, (including public, Board and staff comments), some key points seemed to have priority to her. She recommended that the plan stand, but that the Board’s recommendation to the City Council specifically call out the following:
• We agree the UFMP is a foundational planning document necessary for establishing action to benefit our urban forest and tree canopy of Edmonds.
• We agree with the premise the tree canopy coverage needs to be increased rather than a no-net-loss approach to benefit the urban forest. Director Hope suggested the Board keep in mind that a 1% increase is about 1,300 more trees planted. If they are serious about trying to increase the canopy, they should think about where these additional trees would go.
• We agree the approach to determine a goal for the tree canopy coverage to be either: unique to Edmonds or a weighted number reflecting the legislated tree canopy goals of selected cities. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is not recommending a figure at this time, and she would prefer that the City Council provide focus for that particular goal. She does not think that staying put at 30.3% is good given that there has been a reduction in tree canopy since 2005. Director Hope emphasized that the reduction is a “perceived reduction” that is not based on a specific scientific study. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would look towards increasing tree canopy into the future rather than
maintaining status quo.
• We agree to the request to better define the tree canopy and its vegetative makeup. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that there was confusion at the public hearing that perhaps Douglas Fir were being proposed as potential street trees for downtown Edmonds. There was also concern expressed by the Board that not all trees need to be tall trees to benefit a tree canopy. What seems to be most important is the preservation of mature trees (at least 17 years old) because that is the point in which they become very effective. They need to look further at the definition of
what makes up the tree canopy. Director Hope asked if Board Member Rubenkonig is implying that private property owners should not be allowed to remove trees that are more than 17 years old. Board Member Rubenkonig responded that she isn’t addressing public versus private at this time. The tree canopy seems to refer to that which exists in the City of Edmonds and not just the tree canopy on public properties.
• We agree that the City must attend to reviewing and reorganizing those sections of the code to reduce negative impact to the tree canopy and further fragmentation of the urban forest. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that staff has already advised that the various City departments are starting to meet and coordinate efforts.
• We agree that the City must continue departmental efforts to streamline the administrative processes impacting the tree canopy and further fragmentation of the urban forest. Again, Board Member Rubenkonig commented
that this effort has already started. However, she felt the Board should make it clear that this is a priority.
• We agree that the City, through a revision of the City Code to streamline the departmental administrative processes, will be in a position to identify measures/actions/plans/programs to preserve, maintain and increase
the tree canopy through the efforts of our City government and the City’s property, including but not limited to,
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 6
parks, rights-of-way, capital projects and public buildings and their campuses. Board Member Rubenkonig felt this statement would help clarify all of the possibilities that exist for public properties.
• We agree that the City, through a revision of the City code to streamline the departmental administrative processes, will be in a position to identify those incentives to preserve, maintain and increase tree canopy through the efforts of our citizens and their private properties. Board Member Rubenkonig explained that, at this time, the Board does not know what these incentives will be. They have heard about some that work elsewhere, and they are on the right
track towards coming up with incentives.
• We agree that without the addition of an arborist or City staff tasked with enforcement responsibility to carry out future proposed actions, the City is in a weak position to provide support to preserve, maintain and increase the
tree canopy through the efforts of our citizens and their private properties.
• We agree that incentives can be created to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy in the private and
public sector.
• We agree that incentives to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy can be considered for reduction of stormwater management costs to citizens and their private properties.
Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that she agrees with the objectives laid out in the draft UFMP. However, when the plan is moved to the City Council with a recommendation, the Board should provide focus about what they have gained from
their discussions and what they think the priorities should be. Vice Chair Cheung commented that, at this point, it is hard to say how the City is doing as far as tree canopy. If they are actually doing an amazing job and have more tree canopy than most cities, he is not sure they should push an increase. He suggested it is important to maintain the existing tree canopy while they figure this out. He does not want happened in Seattle, where property owners clear cut large numbers of trees to increase views, to happen in Edmonds. If the goal is to increase the
tree canopy by 1% every year, the City will eventually become a forest. He reminded the Board that they are also working to address the issue of housing affordability. Chair Monroe said he is having a difficult time prioritizing the objectives without having cost estimates. Director Hope said she had anticipated that some information relative to cost would have been available for the Board, but the consultant is still working on this element of the plan. However, implementing some of the objectives would be fairly low cost. For example, having every department with a tree responsibility meet on a regular basis to review tree issues would not require new resources. On the other hand, updating the Street Tree Plan could be costly, depending on how extensive the updates are. Chair Monroe expressed his desire that the City should focus on education and giving citizens access to resources. He is not
sure that hiring an arborist is the right way to go given the cost implications. Director Hope advised that the cost would be roughly $100,000 per year. Chair Monroe said the question is how busy that person would be. Once hired, he/she would find things to do, and it could become a spiral effect. Chair Monroe commented that while educating the citizens is good, incentivizing may be a bit of an overreach for the City. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would love to receive a discount on her stormwater management bill for all of the trees she has on her property. She maintains a number of large trees, yet other property owners have been allowed to not have trees. That means she is paying a greater cost for stormwater management, and she would like something better than a handshake. She would like to be rewarded for the contribution she makes. There will always be a segment of people who are resistant to change regardless of the incentives and benefits that trees provide. Chair Monroe countered that he wants to live in a city where people want those changes but are not forced to make those changes. Board Member Rubenkonig responded that, although there is a segment of residents who are not interested in tree preservation, there is also a segment who are very interested and would like to do more. An incentive program could target the latter group. Chair Monroe pointed out that a lower stormwater bill for one person would mean a higher bill for someone else. Director Hope explained that there is a certain cost for managing stormwater throughout the City right now, regardless of how many trees there are. Those costs are not going to go down because some property owners maintain their trees. In order to offer incentives to some property owners, the costs would have to be shifted elsewhere.
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 7
Board Member Robles observed that the goal is to produce canopy for the benefit of the City of Edmonds. If that is something the City wants, they must become “farmers” of canopy. Some properties must provide canopy so that other properties do not have to. Those who maintain their tree canopy have to clean their roofs more, etc. Again, he commented that what does not get measured, does not get attention. The point of measuring the tree canopy is to actually see the value that trees provide. Board Member Crank said she does not necessarily disagree with the points raised by Board Members Rubenkonig and Lovell (see email). However, it is important to recognize that this is a new thing they are doing, and they should not be “trying to put so much “meat on the skeleton” this early in the process. There are some who are very passionate and highly invested in the tree canopy, but the UFMP will not really apply to others. She recommended that they think about the UFMP as the “first layer of paint” or what makes sense to move forward from draft to an actual plan. Chair Monroe referred to the points raised by Board Member Rosen earlier in the conversation and said the three that stuck out to him were the need to prioritize data, public education and establishing no-net-loss. In addition, the Board seemed interested in pursuing a fee-in-lieu-of program. Beyond that, the plan implies more detail than the Board currently has. He suggested that the Board offer these few points to the City Council as part of their recommendation. When the UFMP is reviewed again in five years the City should have the correct data to address the other issues that have been raised. Director Hope emphasized that, if adopted, the implementation of the UFMP would be subject to budget decisions. Most of the objectives will not be implemented in the immediate future. They will be implemented over a number of years as the resources become available. Board Member Lovell referred to the email he forwarded to the Board prior to the meeting, noting that he developed the five bulleted items because he felt the Board still does not know enough about where the City stands with respect to trees. Furthermore, he expressed his belief that the comments and feedback from the public so far is only the tip of the iceberg. His recommendations were designed to identify the elements that are addressed in the plan but emphasize the need for further consideration and study to be undertaken by the City Council regarding each one. In addition to his five bullet points, he suggested that the data contained in the plan related to software, data points, analogue modeling, and statistics should be included in an appendix format so that the average reader can better understand the document. Ultimately, the goals and strategies are the key to the plan, and implementation of the goals and strategies has yet to be developed by the City as led by the City Council. The list he prepared was intended to gather the substance of the comments they heard, but also some of the main objectives in producing the plan in the first place. Director Hope referred to the 1st bulleted item and suggested that collecting height/spread data could be costly and time consuming, and she knows of no other city that has collected this specific data. Board Member Lovell said perhaps the City Council will find that this information is unnecessary. However, he found a number of comments that were repeated by citizens. For example, citizens have raised concern about tall trees that grow to block views, street trees interfering with infrastructure, and shrubs and other vegetation overgrowing from private properties onto public sidewalks. Director Hope agreed that more could be added about ensuring that sidewalks are kept safe and educating the public about what and where to plant. However, the Board should keep in mind that the Street Tree Plan update is intended to be the next step following adoption of the UFMP. The UFMP is intended to be a general citywide plan for tree management, and the Street Tree Plan will identify the types of trees that should be planted on each street, as well as the planting methods that should be used. Rather than trying to figure all of these situations now, the UFMP is intended to set some general parameters and prioritizes the need for an updated Street Tree Plan. Board Member Lovell summarized that his recommendation is intended to point out that, in their review of the plan, the City Council needs to figure out what must be done to meet the objectives and goals in the plan. They should stay away from naming or listing a bunch of specific actions at this time. In general, he is in favor of collecting information that will guide the implementation of the plan’s objectives. Board Member Rosen emphasized that additional data is needed in order for the City to make better decisions, and that is why he suggested that data collection should be a very high priority. What to count is the first thing that needs to be decided, followed by how to accomplish the count. However, he agreed that the UFMP should not get into the specifics of what should be counted. Secondly, he suggested that the objective for data collection should not be for public education. There are many more things they want to educate the public about. Public education should be a separate point of emphasis. Vice Chair Cheung asked if consideration was given to the impact of tree canopy on solar access. Director Hope agreed this is an important point in the sense that trees can present obstacles for people who want to grow gardens or have solar arrays to
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 8
improve energy efficiency. They discussed these tradeoffs and that is why the UFMP does not say exactly what each property owner should do. The intent is to education and provide information so property owners can make the best decisions relative to trees. Board Member Robles commented that data collection does not have to be all that expensive if homeowners provide their own inventories to the City. The ratio of existing trees to the ratio of trees that would be cut down should determine the cost of the permit. Collecting the data is possible as long as the program provides value to the property owners. The costly part comes in processing and retaining the data that is collected. Board Member Rosen pointed out that the City of Philadelphia is crowdsourcing its inventory. Board Member Robles said crowdsourcing is a way to build the social fabric and get people involved in their community. Board Member Rosen said he understands the goal of maintaining the existing 30.3% tree canopy but is concerned that it is not specific to any needs. The City could meet the goal, but still not meet any of the objectives. He recommended that the goal be specific to the City’s needs as opposed to a simple number that has no reference point. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that there are a number of objectives that are not related to the canopy. None of the objectives should be thought of as goals by themselves. The plan is to do a package of actions that touch on all of the goals, but they cannot “eat the whole elephant at once.” Rather than picking a random number, they should identify what to tackle first that has the most “bang for the buck” or to test drive the City’s ability to actually do something. The implementation plan should touch on all of the objectives, and not just those related to tree canopy. While no-net-loss should be one of the objectives of the plan, it must be in context with everything else. The City does not currently have the ability to measure for no-net-loss, but the actions taken moving forward should be consistent with the overall goal of no-net-loss in mind. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the draft plan is fine, and the objectives are good. However, at the moment, she does not have a clear understanding of what the Board is tasked to do. She felt the Board would benefit from continuing the discussion to the next meeting so staff could provide some additional information and direction based on the Board’s discussion. She has not heard any objection to the objectives identified in the plan, but there is an interest in possibly re-prioritizing them. When the Board moves its recommendation to the City Council, she suggested that they provide some focus of attention pertaining to the 30.3% tree canopy retention, data collection, etc. In particular, she felt the responsibilities of a City “arborist” should be clarified as they pertain to both private and public properties. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is not concerned that increasing the tree canopy would prevent the development of affordable housing. That is not how development works. Currently, other jurisdictions require about 30% tree coverage for development and incentives are offered. For example, perhaps units can be smaller if a developer protects a grove of existing trees. Director Hope commented that these types of details would be addressed as part of the plan’s implementation, which will come at a later time. The UFMP is intended to set the stage for coming back and doing more work to get to the specifics. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that there are too many issues that she would like to have additional time to think about before formulating a recommendation for the City Council. Board Member Cloutier emphasized that the UFMP is intended to be a plan and not an execution document. It is similar to the Comprehensive Plan, which provides policy direction but not regulations. For example, no one builds a lot based on what is in the Comprehensive Plan, but the rules for building on the lot must be derived from the principles contained in the Comprehensive Plan. He cautioned against getting too caught up in defining all of the steps for implementation before the plan is even adopted. Approval of the plan means that the City is agreeing to a set of goals and objectives. At this time, the Board should focus on the goals and objectives that are important for the City, without getting into the specifics of prioritization and implementation. The plan is intended to present a vision for how the City wants to handle urban forest management going forward, and the next step will be to develop a set of implementation actions using the UFMP as the guiding principles. At this time, the Board is being asked to make a recommendation on the draft UFMP, which contains higher-level goals and principles for the City. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the draft plan identifies a 30.3% tree canopy without any clarification. It appears that this number is being used as a no-net-loss figure. Board Member Cloutier referred to Urban Forest Asset Goal #UA1, which calls for maintaining the citywide canopy coverage, but it does not identify a specific level the City should achieve. However, the “rationale” statement makes it clear that Edmonds has no set canopy goal. The first action item under Goal #UA1
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 9
is to develop and adopt an overall canopy goal for Edmonds. The plan outlines how the concern can be addressed, but it does not provide a specific implementation plan. He emphasized that implementing the plan is a separate process, and the plan provides the principles and higher-level goals that will guide future implementation. The Board could recommend approval of the plan, with an attached recommendation that implementation of some of the objectives move forward quickly. Chair Monroe suggested that, along with their recommendation, they need to provide the City Council with a summary of the consensus they have heard from the public. In addition, the Board would be remiss if they didn’t also add their own input. He agreed that they should not get into specific details of implementation, but they could highlight some particular points. Director Hope cautioned against the Board trying to summarize the public input. The City Council will receive all of the documents pertaining to the Board’s hearing and discussion. Chair Monroe agreed and suggested that the Board could select the public input germane to the topic so the City Council is aware of the concerns that were raised over and over again. Chair Monroe summarized that the Board has highlighted the following points for potential inclusion in its recommendation: 1. With regard to data collection, knowing the target will be very important. 2. The public education objectives are important. Currently, people do not understand enough about the benefit of trees. 3. Adding cost ranges for each of the objectives is important. 4. No-net-loss is something that needs to be discussed further and understood better. Board Member Cloutier felt that the four issues are already addressed in the plan as it stands. The plan sets forth objectives, but how the objectives are implemented and how much it will cost will be addressed when the action items are implemented. Chair Monroe said the intent of the four points he made above was to add emphasis to things already covered in the plan that the Board wants to emphasize based on public comment and Board discussion. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that the objectives in the plan address all of the issues and concerns raised by the public. As the action items are implemented at some point in the future, staff can provide a reference to the public comments that are applicable. He emphasized that the objectives in the plan do not fix any of the public concerns until the City moves forward with implementation of the action items. Board Member Crank pointed out that postponing their recommendation until June 13th would create a delay in when the plan is presented to the City Council. The Board did not express concern about delaying the process for a few weeks. Again, Board Member Cloutier pointed out that Goal #UA1 calls for determining a goal for tree canopy. Chair Monroe suggested that while determining what the goal should be, the City should operate on the premise that it is not going to be less than 30.3% or no-net-loss. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that the intent of no-net-loss is already captured by the action items in Goal #UA1. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if incentives for private property owners is addressed in the objectives contained in the plan. Board Member Cloutier clarified that this would involve a code amendment and should not be an objective. The intent of incentives is not to reward citizens; it is to protect the overall tree canopy. Incentives may be one action the City takes to support increased canopy coverage, but the goal of the plan should not be to provide incentives. He referred to Goal #UA2, which calls for identifying places where more trees are needed. Once this has been identified, the plan leaves it open for whatever needs to happen to accomplish the objective. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the Board needs to address the tension people have voiced about not wanting to be told what to do with their properties. But she would also like to work with those who want to make a difference. Again, Board Member Cloutier emphasized that the goal is to have more trees or to maintain the existing tree canopy, and the plan provides a list of different ways to accomplish the goal. It is not intended to be an action plan. Chair Monroe pointed out that each of the objectives include a list of actions. Board Member Cloutier agreed. However, he clarified that, similar to the Comprehensive Plan, none of the action items are being done by adopting the plan. It simply outlines potential actions for accomplishing each of the objectives. Director Hope emphasized that adoption of the plan does not mean the end of the effort. It is similar to the Comprehensive Plan. Rather than identifying a certain percentage of land for parks, commercial, residential, etc., the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the goals that are important to the City and then the development codes implement these goals and policies. One of
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 10
the challenges is that the City cannot always solve tension and words do not necessarily do that. She agreed there is an underlying tension, which can sometimes come from people who haven’t even read the plan. These people may not be soothed by words the Planning Board adds to the plan. All of the issues will be worked out on an ongoing basis using the principles outlined in the plan. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE ITS DISCUSSION OF THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TO THE JUNE 13TH MEETING. AT THAT POINT, THE BOARD WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY STAFF BASED ON THE BOARD’S DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH FAILED 2-4-1, WITH BOARD MEMBERS RUBENKONIG AND ROBLES VOTING IN FAVOR, BOARD MEMBERS MONROE, CHEUNG, CLOUTIER AND CRANK VOTING IN OPPOSITION, AND BOARD MEMBER LOVELL ABSTAINING. (Note: As an alternate member, Board Member Rosen did not vote.) BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN DATED MAY 20, 2018 BE FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED 5-2, WITH BOARD MEMBERS MONROE, LOVELL, CRANK, CLOUTIER, AND CHEUNG VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBERS ROBLES AND RUBENKONIG VOTING IN OPPOSITION. (Note: As an alternate member, Board Member Rosen did not vote.) INTRODUCTION TO DRAFT HOUSING STRATEGY Director Hope advised that tonight’s presentation is intended to be an introduction to the draft Housing Strategy. The Board has already provided input, some of which was incorporated into the document. She reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan includes an action step that calls for developing a Housing Strategy by 2019 that would help increase the supply of housing that is affordable to a range of incomes and to meet diverse housing needs. A Housing Strategy Task Force was formed and has been working on some recommendations to help further some of the ideas and to bring the expertise of housing professionals into the recommendations. She referred the Board to the draft Housing Strategy, noting that it has not been formatted or finalized at this point. She introduced Kevin Ramsey from Berk Consulting, who was available to present the draft plan to the Board. Kevin Ramsey, Berk Consulting, briefly explained why housing prices are on the rise in Edmonds and across the Puget Sound Region. Along with population and job growth comes more and more competition for a limited number of housing units. Despite the fact that the region has been building housing at a substantial rate in recent years, it has not been keeping up with job and population growth in the area. The result is increased housing costs for both rental and owner markets. That means people have to look further away from employment centers to find housing they can afford, and this creates more traffic and pollution and higher transportation costs. One solution is to increase housing production but focus on a greater variety of housing options so people can find the type of housing that best meets their needs without having to pay for housing that is too large. However, housing production is not completely sufficient to deal with affordability issues. Particularly for people on the lowest ends of the income spectrum, it is not possible to build enough housing so that people earning less than 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) will be able to find affordable housing in the market. That is why the strategy also considers other options for providing more subsidized and income-restricted housing. A goal of producing more housing is enabling more people to live in the community of all different incomes and backgrounds. Mr. Ramsey shared findings specific to housing needs in Edmonds, noting that there are nearly 6,000 households in Edmonds that are cost-burdened, which means a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing costs. Over 4,000 of these households are low-income, which is defined as 80% or less of AMI. AMI for families in Snohomish County is about $96,000 a year. He provided a chart to illustrate the demand/need for housing based on different income levels: extremely low income (<30% AMI), very low income (30-50% AMI), low income (50-80% AMI), moderate income (80-100% AMI) and above median income (>100% AMI). The chart also identifies the percentage of cost-burdened households in each category. He particularly noted the severe lack of subsidized housing to meet the need. Mr. Ramsey explained that one reason the need is so large is that wages in Edmonds are not matched well to local housing costs. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds, and about 60% of these jobs pay less than $40,000 per year (about 40% of
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 2
Board Member Crank reported that Snohomish County recently implemented a Paine Field Airport Commission. She asked if a City Department will be watching this commission as meetings start to occur that pertain to Edmonds. Ms. Hope answered that her department has not been requested to follow the commission, but she will check to see if another department has been given this responsibility. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT Vice Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Activities Report, which was included in the Board’s packet. He commented that the PowerPoint presentation provided in the Staff Report to illustrate 2017 development activity was interesting, and it was helpful to see photographs of what has been or is being built. Ms. Hope said she is pleased the Board found the information interesting and noted that there is a lot of development activity going on right now. She concluded that 2017 was a strong year for development in the City, with the most building permits ever issued in a single year. The Board requested that the PowerPoint presentation be made available to the public via the City’s website, and Vice Chair Cheung noted that it could already be accessed via the Planning Commission’s May 9th meeting agenda packet. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP) Mr. Shipley explained that the UFMP is intended to guide the management of trees in Edmonds, with a particular focus on trees on public lands (rights-of-way, parks, etc.). The plan includes a description of the value of trees, as well as information on tree management and the tree canopy in Edmonds. It provides a number of goals and objectives for urban forest management, including goals and objectives related to public education and outreach. He introduced the consultant, Ian Scott from the Davey Resource Group, who was present to provide an overview of the proposed plan. Ian Scott, Davey Resource Group, explained that the long-range strategic goals provided in the plan are intended to address the three components of a sustainable urban forestry program:
• Tree Resources are the trees on both public and private properties. The Urban Forest Asset Goals are intended to improve the urban forest resources over the next 20 years by developing detailed expectations for the urban forest.
• Municipal Resources include City staff from Development Services, Public Works, and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services. The Municipal Resource Goals are intended to drive improvements in City policy and practices by developing efficiency and alignment of efforts within City departments.
• Community Resources include the tree board, volunteers and non-profit organizations. Community Resource Goals are intended to build stronger community engagement and public participation in urban forest stewardship. The Community Resource Goals are a key component to the success of the plan. Mr. Scott advised that the planning process for the draft UFMP included an Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment, which provided a clear picture of the extent and distribution of tree canopy across Edmonds. The study identified an average tree canopy in Edmonds of 30.3%. If all areas with grass and other vegetation are included as possible locations for trees, the City has a theoretical maximum canopy of 57.4%. However, it is important to keep in mind that private owners control the majority of the tree canopy (83%), and there are currently few regulations to limit tree removal. Only about 13% of the existing tree canopy is on public lands, and the City has a very limited knowledge about the condition or number of these existing trees. Mr. Scott explained that the UTC project provides the City with new tools for planning into the future. The results were used to prioritize planting opportunities around the City and understand how to manage the forest fragmentation to benefit wildlife. Going forward, the City can better manage software tools such as UTRACE, which can help estimate how many trees need to be planted to affect tree canopy into the future and where these trees should be planted. The City can also start connecting its information about trees to the iTREE suite of urban forest software tools to uncover ways to optimize the environmental services provided by trees. He advised that the Priority Planting Analysis provided in the plan identifies an estimated 1,619 acres of priority tree planting space where trees could be planted to expand the urban forest canopy. However, a number of citizens have raised concern that planting trees in some of these locations could result in a loss of view. While view is an important
consideration, other factors (i.e. steep slopes and wetlands) were also considered when identifying the probable high priority areas.
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 3
Mr. Scott said concern has been raised about whether or not the iTREE software is applicable in Edmonds. However, at this point, it is the best available science available to look at the environmental service provided by trees. The software was developed by a consortium across the country and is used as a resource both nationally and internationally. As new and better science becomes available, the UFMP will allow the City to take advantage of this new information. Mr. Scott displayed a table which outlines the common urban forestry activities that a city might engage in. The table establishes a benchmark around how City staff currently spends its time related to each of the activities. Implementing the goals and objectives in the plan will likely require changes in these numbers, and the table will need to be updated as work is reprioritized into other areas and/or additional staff is added. He also shared a table outlining how the City currently spends money related to urban forestry. He summarized that in 2017, urban forestry expenditures were $7.74 per capita or a total of $319,542. A minimum of $2 per capita is required in order for the City to maintain its Tree City USA status, and the national average is about $7.50 per capita. The 2017 numbers were higher as a result of the UFMP project, and the City’s average in previous years was likely about $3.50. Mr. Scott said it is estimated that the urban tree canopy provides about $1.5 million in benefits to the City annually. That means for every $1 the City invests in urban forestry work, the community yields almost $5 in environmental benefits. The introductory section of the UFMP describes the benefits that trees provide. Cities with street tree inventories can be more specific about these benefits. In the absence of this information, the plan provides examples of the street tree species that are recommended in the City’s Street Tree Plan. Some residents have requested that Douglas Fir and other large native trees be added to the plan. However, the focus of the UFMP is to help improve the City’s management of trees and that is why it focuses on street trees. Mr. Scott advised that as far as community resources go, the City already has a Tree Board in place, and the City has obtained the status of Tree City USA. Another fundamental element of the plan is to encourage more partnerships and public engagement in the management of the urban forest. As the current tree canopy is significantly weighted towards private properties, partnerships and community outreach will be essential to move the plan forward in a unified direction. About 175 people responded to the community survey, and the majority of them were from the bowl area or other neighborhoods associated with a view. Most voiced concern about private property rights and how the plan might impact their ability to maintain their views. However, the goals contained in the plan are much broader than views and they allow freedom for private property owners to manage trees according to basic environmental rules, city requirements, and their own decisions. Mr. Scott said the public also voiced concern that the plan needs to have more science, and the goals called out in the plan are designed to provide this additional information. As they learn more about the City’s urban forest, the plan can be updated accordingly. He emphasized that the plan is not meant to be a research document, but a planning document for the City moving forward. Mr. Scott specifically referred to Urban Asset (UA) Goals UA5 and UA8, which call for managing species diversity and encouraging tree species diversity. Because these goals are closely related, they were combined into a single, more-meaningful goal. He explained that a number of the Municipal Goals contained in the plan are designed to encourage better cooperation amongst the various City departments so that consistent decisions are made. Community Goal (C5) calls for establishing a Heritage Tree Designation. However, it is important to understand that this program would be voluntary for interested property owners to get a tree recognized for its stature and significance to the community. One advantage of the program is that subsequent property owners would at least think about what made the tree so significant to the community before making a decision to take it down. Mr. Scott said another important aspect of the plan is that it establishes a foundation for adaptive management over the next 5 to 10 years. As the City implements, monitors and evaluates the goals over time, adjustments can be made to the strategies for implementation. The intent is that staff would provide routine reports moving forward, with additional community surveys to gauge the success of the plan’s implementation. It is anticipated that new science will become available, and the City can establish better objectives to accomplish each of the goals based on this new information. Mr. Scott reviewed that the draft plan was presented to the Tree Board on April 5th and the Planning Board on April 11th. An open house was conducted on April 19th. Following the public hearing, the Planning Board will be asked to forward a
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 4
recommendation to the City Council. Revisions will be made to the plan based on community and Planning Board feedback, and the goal is to present it to the City Council for a public hearing and discussion starting in June. Ms. Hope observed that creating the draft UFMP has been a long process, and there are still some clean up work and additional background information that needs to be done. Board Member Lovell commented that the proposed 21 goals represent a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of creating a tree inventory, getting organized, keeping track of tree conditions, etc. He asked if the City Departments responsible for this additional work have made plans for implementation or if they are waiting until after the plan has been adopted. Ms. Hope answered that representatives from the Parks, Public Works and Development Services Departments have all been involved in the process and provided detailed input relative to the proposed goals and objectives. Before the plan is presented to the City Council for approval, they are hoping to at least identify the estimated costs associated with implementing the goals and objectives. Some of the objectives can be implemented at little or no cost to the City, such as establishing interdepartmental relationships, but an actual inventory of trees on public lands will be a large project. If the plan is adopted, the City Council will look at the projects and identify priorities. The intent is to implement the plan in phases over time. Ms. Hite advised that, from a Parks Department perspective, the UFMP will be a foundational plan for the City going forward. She appreciates that the consultant has addressed the concerns raised by citizens to date as the plan is polished up. She observed that a number of residents have expressed their love for trees. The Parks Department loves trees, as well, and 348 new trees were planted in 2017. However, it is also important to keep in mind that only 13% of the tree canopy is located on public lands. The need for protecting and even increasing the tree canopy must be balanced with other environmental needs, as well as the budget, view protection and private property rights. There is a robust conversation happening in the community as the UFMP has been presented to the public, and she encouraged people to keep all perspectives in mind as they work to come up with a balanced approach that makes sense for the City. Ms. Hite commented that the goals identified in the draft plan are very ambitious. Short of regulating trees on private property, the plan gives some tools for the City to provide public education and try to influence behaviors. The City does not currently have this capacity. As the plan moves forward, perhaps the City could provide more funding for public outreach and education. The Tree Board does a great job with public education, including a new brochure, but the City could do a lot more. She summarized that the Parks Department supports the goals presented in the plan and believes they will go a long way to help maintain the urban forest. Regarding the proposed arborist position, she advised that the Parks Department recently supported a staff member to get certified to be an arborist, and she now works for the City in that capacity, performing tree evaluations on both private and public lands. While this is not an arborist-dedicated position, it is a value add for the City. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the UFMP is a structure in which Edmonds can look at its urban forest canopy. A focal point of the plan is evaluating and assessing the existing tree canopy. Once this information is available, the City Council can decide if further action is needed in addition to what is already being done concerning trees and vegetation in Edmonds. A lot of items could be added to the plan, but perhaps the City is already addressing them and they just need to be finetuned. For example, there are industry practices associated with street trees to discourage conflict with sidewalks. These are practical standards that the City applies now, but providing an approved street tree list would clarify the issue further. Perhaps it is a matter of framing the information so it gets out to the community. Ms. McConnell said that, in the past, inappropriate street trees were planted. These trees are causing problems with the sidewalks and other infrastructure and need to be dealt with. The Engineering Department was hoping the UFMP would provide additional direction. While preserving and/or enhancing the tree canopy is important, it is also important to recognize that some trees are creating unsafe pedestrian conditions. These trees need to be replaced as part of the overall infrastructure goals. When development occurs on private properties, the City requires frontage improvements, and it may be necessary to remove some trees that are causing damage to existing infrastructure. When planting new street trees, it is important to consider the species, as well as provide a planting strip that is wide enough to accommodate the tree’s future growth. The Public Works Department is working with the Parks Department to update the Street Tree Plan to address these types of issues. The UFMP will provide helpful guidelines for the overall City goals, and this will enable staff to work at a more detailed level to make sure the goals are implemented appropriately.
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 5
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that an approved Street Tree List could also be a valuable tool for private property owners to ensure that trees planted in neighborhoods meet the industry standard. She suggested that the benefits provided by the Street Tree Plan need to be better communicated to the public. Board Member Rubenkonig recognized that the City is already doing good things on behalf of trees and will continue to do so in the future. The UFMP will result in additional future actions. However, the focus of tonight’s discussion is regarding the goals and policies in the draft plan. A specific action plan will be addressed at some point in the future after the UFMP has been adopted by the City Council. Ms. Hope referred the Board Members to the written public comments that were attached to the Staff Report and/or forwarded to the Board Members via email. Vice Chair Cheung confirmed that the Board Members received the public comments and read each one prior to the meeting. Board Member Crank referred to Community Goal C5, which calls for establishing a Heritage Tree Designation. Having lived in a community that had a Heritage Tree Designation Program, she observed that a lot of work was required by staff to review petitions from private citizens who wanted to save significant trees that were deemed diseased and/or dangerous by an arborist. It would be good if the City’s certified and licensed arborist could handle all of the cases. However, based on the number of petitions the City might receive, it may be necessary to have a full-time arborist on staff. Ms. Hope responded that the City has discussed the concept, but they are not ready to propose a specific program at this time. She agreed that some cities have done a good job, but other programs have resulted in a lot of hassle with little value. Mr. Scott explained that the method for evaluating the risk of a tree to cause injury or harm to individual properties has improved. For example, the risk assessment method approved by the International Society of Arbiculturists provides an objective method for evaluating trees. Board Member Robles asked about the City’s method for allowing property owners to report on the condition of existing trees on their properties. He also asked how citizens interact with the City when they have questions about trees. Ms. Hope said that, typically, citizens either call or email City staff to report a concern or obtain additional information, and staff responds to each one. Ms. Hite added that her department gets quite a few calls and emails about trees in the parks, as well. She appreciates having the eyes of the citizens to help spot potentially hazardous situations and report them to the City. Board Member Robles commented that the City has a strong activist community regarding trees. He asked if the City has the capability to allow citizens to self-report tree assets and conditions on a centralized data base. Mr. Scott answered that work management software is available that allows citizens to self-report essential infrastructure, but trees are more difficult because they grow and appreciate over time. Because there is so much public interest in trees, software is available that allows people to look up trees to find out more information about them. This information could be made publicly assessible and potentially reduce the number of site visits needed by city officials responding to calls. Board Member Robles explained that there are ways, such as using a block change, which acts as a metronome that klicks off every data that goes onto the register. This concept could be used to the City’s advantage to offer a token (a type of cryptographic coin) when private property owners report on their trees. Property owners could also earn tokens for preserving trees, and these tokens could be used when applying for permits in the future. Using this type of concept, the City could track trees and incentivize people to preserve them whenever possible. Ann Cade, Edmonds, said she missed the previous meetings where the UFMP was discussed because THE EDMONDS BEACON is delivered to her home on Thursdays, after the meetings had already taken place. She asked why a tree inventory is needed and what benefit it would provide to the City. She said her concern is not just about views, but about light and warmth. She does not want to live in a shoreline that is cold and void of sunlight as a result of too many large trees. She referred to a statement that was made at an earlier meeting, suggesting that other vegetation can provide similar benefits to those provided by tall trees. People can vegetate their yards and create oxygen exchange. While she considers herself to be a “tree hugger,” she felt there should be a height limit for trees in the bowl. If the City wants to plant tall trees, she suggested that a strip of land adjacent to Edmonds Way would be a good location since they would not block views. Phyllis Becker, Edmonds, said she has lived most of her life in the Northwest. As any Northwesterner knows, the forest is the forest. The idea of an urban forest is an oxymoron. Forests have huge trees and existed in Edmonds 100 years ago. But now Edmonds is an urban center. She agreed with Ms. Cade that there should be a height limit for trees in the bowl area. She
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 6
felt that Douglas Fir and other large species are inappropriate in areas where view is a concern. These trees belong in the forest where they do better. There are millions of alternative species that could be planted that would not impact views. She said she currently has a small view that is precious to her and she would like it to be preserved. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, noted that this is the third time he has been before the Board to voice his concerns relative to trees. He agreed there is a lot to consider relative to views, but the Board should keep in mind that the majority of households in Edmonds do not have a view of the water. Most of the views people have are of trees, and trees are what brought him to Edmonds. He recalled that a few years ago, his neighbor cut down three huge Douglas Fir trees. While he previously could see only one neighbor from his deck, he can now see at least five homes. Removal of these trees directly impacted his property. Mr. Phipps commented that a lot of people love trees and the urban forest, and he suggested that Community Goal C1, which calls for establishing a tree bank, is the most important goal and key to answering the question of what tree canopy the City wants to have. Once this question is answered, the rest will follow. He said he hopes the City will choose to have a net gain in tree canopy and decide against allowing further loss. He noted that there are not many places to plant trees in the City, and he supports the recommendation of establishing a tree bank to avoid the controversy associated with views. As long as trees are planted somewhere in the Puget Sound basin, they would be environmentally beneficial to all. It does not necessarily have to take place in Edmonds. Almost 6% of the City’s urban forest has been lost since 2005. It would be great if the City could require that a tree be planted for every tree that is chopped down to accommodate development. A tree bank program would allow the replacement trees to be planted outside of Edmonds where they won’t impact views but would provide an environmental benefit. Mr. Phipps reminded the Board that 83% of the City’s current tree canopy is on private property. Many cities have tree ordinances, including Lynnwood and Shoreline, that apply to private properties, too. Whether the City adopts a UFMP or a tree ordinance, it would be very important not to impact views from private properties. Tall trees should not be planted in the bowl area. He did not believe that the strip of land west of 9th Avenue on the west facing slope would be a politically viable place to plant large trees given concerns about view. That is why the tree bank concept is so important. Mr. Phipps voiced concern that development has resulted in wholesale logging of land. Once these forested areas are gone, they cannot be reclaimed. He would like the City’s Parks Department to make a concerted effort to purchase more open space and forested land to preserve forever. The property east of Seaview Park (between Seaview Park and Perrinville) is a good example of forested land that should be purchased by the City and preserved. He also stressed the need for the City to acknowledge the problems that street trees have created. Injuries have occurred when people have tripped over sidewalks that were raised by tree roots. Some research needs to be done to determine not only the appropriate species, but also the best planting practices. For example, the City of Seattle uses a double grate approach. The first grate is placed at the root level, and the second a foot higher at the sidewalk level. This gives the roots of the trees space to grow without impacting the sidewalks. Eric Soll, Edmonds, referred the Board to a letter he submitted prior to the meeting. He advised that since he and his wife moved to Edmonds they have planted a number of trees on their property without the benefit of any government interaction or education. The tree population in the United States is increasing due to a number of factors outlined in his letter. Because of government legislation, more trees are being saved in other areas. A lot of development is taking place in Edmonds because the Growth Management Act has restricted development opportunities in rural areas. Because development is being pushed to the urban areas, trees in the rural areas are being saved. Mr. Soll emphasized that the Board and City Council do not operate in a vacuum. They just underwent the largest property tax increase in recent memory. In addition, the library measure failed in Snohomish County and only narrowly passed in Edmonds. Government agencies must realize that people are getting tapped out in terms of spending money, and they should concentrate on traditional city functions. He urged the City to recognize that the good times will not last forever, and they should work to establish a rainy-day fund for future needs. Lastly, he said he is fine with the idea of people establishing Heritage Trees on their properties, but he does not want the City to require him to do so on his property. Ross Dimmick, Edmonds, said he also submitted written comments prior to the meeting. He referred to Ms. Hite’s earlier comment about the need for a balance between the environmental benefits of trees and views. For his job he writes environmental impact statements, which takes a wholistic analysis of environmental benefits, including a section on aesthetics.
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 7
A very important part of the environmental impact statement is the scenic value, which quite definitely includes views. He said he was born and raised in Edmonds and moved back six years ago after spending time in a variety of other locations. Most recently, he lived in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where there are not a lot of trees. He moved back to Edmonds because of the benefit of trees to the aesthetics of the area, but also for the view. You can travel around the country and will not find a similar view in any of the lower 48 states. It is a unique resource that needs to be considered as part of any discussion about aesthetics. Mr. Dimmick voiced concern that the science contained in the draft plan is weak and does not reflect the unique character of Edmonds. He urged the Board to reject the plan and hold the consultant accountable to produce a real plan rather than a cut and paste plan from other jurisdictions. The Plan needs to have a scientific basis with transparent numbers that can be cross-checked. Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, said she has lived in Edmonds for 50 years. While she agreed that most people love the view of the water that is available in Edmonds, she was present to speak on behalf of the eagles and herons that roost and feed in the beautiful evergreen trees. This iconic image is as precious to her as the view of the water, which she also enjoys. She said she is in favor of the City finding any way to preserve the existing evergreen trees, and she is also in favor of no net loss and would like to see some gain. She said there are 7 huge trees on her property of the species that has been referred to as inappropriate in an urban setting. She hires an arborist to inspect the trees every few years to make sure they are safe and healthy. These trees continue to thrive and provide a great service to wildlife, and they are an important part of Edmonds. Val Stewart, Bellevue, said she was a citizen of Edmonds for 30 years before recently moving to Bellevue, which is known for being a “city in the park.” The City of Bellevue has proactively planted trees, similar to what is being suggested in the draft plan for Edmonds. Bellevue currently has a lot of trees that help improve the quality of life for its citizens, and the parks are amazing. Bellevue is four times the sizes of Edmonds in population and land mass, but they have a 67% tree canopy in their parks. By comparison, the City of Edmonds has only 13%. She said she was shocked to learn that 87% of the existing tree canopy is on private property. Ms. Stewart expressed her belief that the draft plan is well put together, but she is concerned that there is not enough focus on the northwest ecosystem, which is very specific. She advised that she started the Students Saving Salmon Group at Edmonds Woodway High School, and they do water quality testing and help educate home owners about native vegetation on the streams. It is important that the plan encourage native trees wherever possible in the urban forest. She noted that there are currently five dominant trees species in Yost Park, which is the only park that shows what a native ecosystem should look like. That is where she takes students to teach them about native ecosystems in the urban forests. Ms. Stewart suggested the plan should encourage home owners to plant native trees in their yards, and there are a number of species that are smaller in size to avoid issues with view. Planting native trees on private properties would help bridge the fragmented forests throughout the community for the benefit of wildlife. She said she lived in Edmonds long enough to see the tree canopy diminish over time. As trees have been cut down, the amount of wildlife has also diminished. If this continues, the children growing up in Edmonds will not have a connection to wildlife unless they go to a park. She agreed with the plan’s emphasis on education and outreach to help local citizens see and understand the reasons to plant native trees where they can. Ms. Stewart suggested that the plan should make note of the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program that received certification about 10 years ago after 100s of Edmonds residents certified their yards and made a commitment to provide food, shelter, water and a place for wildlife to raise their young. She suggested that this community effort needs to be revived, and this could help improve the canopy on private lands. Lastly, Ms. Stewart referred to a statement in the plan that “tree physiology
for most trees in Western Washington can take up to seven (7) years to establish after planting, and another ten (10) years before they reach functional maturity. Trees provide the majority of their ecosystem services when they reach functional
maturity.” It is important to understand that when a 100-year-old tree is taken down, it will take many human generations to replace its ecosystem function. Vice Chair Cheung closed the public portion of the hearing. Board Member Rosen thanked the residents for sharing their thoughts and concerns with the Board. Their comments are important and do matter, and the Board is listening. In listening to the public testimony and reading the written comments, it is clear that the public wants it all. They want to preserve views of water and trees, create biodiversity, protect and improve
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 8
water and air quality, protect property rights, and provide habitat for wildlife. They seem to like trees as long as they don’t get in the way of anything. He commented that not all factors are equal, and the Planting Priority Analysis Map was created with the right perspective in mind. It was a noble effort to identify areas where trees could be planted to increase the canopy. Everyone can likely agree that they don’t want houses to slide down the hillside, and this requires stabilization whether by trees or some other method. Board Member Rosen said he would advocate for increasing the tree canopy over a no-net-loss approach. He would encourage a more sophisticated goal setting specific to preservation. While this will be a heavy lift, the plan is a good place to start. The plan identifies a vision and strong goals and objectives to implement the vision, and course corrections can be made at every opportunity based on new information, changing conditions, etc. He felt the plan is a step in the right direction, but it needs stronger goals, and perhaps they could be stated differently. Additional scientific information is needed to clarify the problem and solutions. The plan speaks only about trees, yet there is a variety of vegetation that can help the City accomplish its goal. The need exists and it must be addressed or the consequences will be severe and significant. Board Member Lovell observed that implementing the goals and objectives called out in the plan will involve a significant amount of staff time. He agreed with Board Member Rosen that additional study is needed in some areas. There has been a lot of feedback with respect to narrowing the tree species down to be more applicable to the environment. Questions have also been raised about whether or not it is realistic to increase the tree canopy, and he is not sure there is a universal belief or understanding that the tree benefit calculations will actually work. He agreed with the finding that a tree inventory is needed to document the existing tree canopy. A number of people commented on the importance of view preservation, but it must be noted that there are more views than just of the water. He reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan requires the City to preserve public views, which means they need to be careful what they plan for the view corridors. Board Member Lovell referred to Municipal Goal M6, which calls for creating a dedicated Urban Forest/Arborist staff position. He also referred to Community Goal C5, which calls for establishing a Heritage Tree Designation. While they all understand it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the City to regulate what private property owners can and cannot do on their properties, there are things the City can do to educate about maintaining and planting trees. For example, would it would be possible for a full-time arborist to be on call to address situations where a private property owner wants to remove a tree that is blocking a view or is a nuisance? It seems like there should be a process and some type of inspection done by a professional to identify the appropriate way to handle the situation. Board Member Lovell observed that, typically, a development plan for multi-family residential development will take advantage of as much area as possible, and the tendency is to clear-cut the lot and then replant after development is finished. If the City is serious about preservation and the importance of maintaining the mature trees, there should be a process whereby each site is looked at with respect to the potential retention of trees. He also expressed his belief that the City should renew or bump up its efforts to address street trees that interfere with sidewalks and other infrastructure. Board Member Robles commented that risks and hazards are quite easy to manage if there are adequate standards in place. However, you must first identify the risk exposure, as well as the probability and consequences should it happen. This all starts with some form of inventory. It does not need to be a complete inventory; it could even be as sample inventory. They have a strong citizen base and people who are interested in trees but no way to receive their input. There are a lot of tools available to receive comments on a shared-data base and to incentivize certain behaviors. He cautioned that before the City considers additional regulations, it should try to incentivize desirable behaviors. Understanding technology is necessary to learn what is available, and he hopes the City can look forward rather than backward to take advantage of these new tools rather than creating additional regulations that end up infringing on private property rights. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the plan contains a set of facts and information, some of which came from other jurisdictions. The City Council will have to ultimately decide whether or not the facts are true and applicable to Edmonds. They must also decide if the current tree canopy is sufficient or not. Decisions need to be made about whether it is a serious enough issue to adopt the UFMP and preserve or increase the tree canopy. In the comments from the public, as well as the information presented in the plan and in the Staff Report, she particularly liked the following ideas:
• Licensing companies providing tree cutting services to limit the scare tactics of storm damage control.
• Providing incentives for private land practices to increase the tree canopy.
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 9
• Overseeing a regulatory overhaul of the tree-related ordinances. This could include a review of the development
regulations to increase the preservation of existing trees and reviewing the landscape provisions to promote improving and increasing the tree canopy. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that other cities, such as Redmond and Kirkland, have used more stringent tree policies to successfully create larger tree canopies than what currently exists in Edmonds. Again, she said it will be up to the City Council to determine whether or not the plan contains the facts and describes the seriousness of what is taking place in Edmonds. She
said she heard some very interesting points that are shaping her view a bit differently, and she appreciates the ability to see things from a variety of perspectives. Vice Chair Cheung commented that there are a lot of competing priorities to consider. Most people do not hate trees, and most
do not cut them down for fun. Trees are typically cut down to accommodate development or because they are creating a hazard or causing damage to property. In addition to increasing the tree canopy, these other factors must be considered to ensure
pedestrian safety and to protect properties and infrastructure. Most of the tree canopy is located on private property, and the City must balance the need to preserve trees with the need to protect private property rights. He said a number of large trees have been removed on private properties in his neighborhood over the last five years. One was growing into a home and damaging the structure, and another was covering the sidewalk and creating a dangerous situation. Again, heh said people
usually have a reason for cutting down a tree. Education and guidance on how developers and property owners can build around a tree rather than remove it would be helpful. Perhaps the City could provide examples of how projects were accomplished without removing significant trees.
Vice Chair Cheung cautioned that the City must be reasonable. It cannot put such strict regulations in place that developers cannot build in the City. He reminded the Board of ongoing discussions about the need for affordable housing and placing
additional restrictions on development could be counterintuitive to this effort. He said he also has some concerns about how scientific the report is. He summarized that a lot of people are passionate about trees, and others are more passionate about views or development. They need to be respective of all and recognize there is not a clear solution. Hopefully, they can come up with a plan and goals and objects that balance all of these interests.
Board Member Crank said the UFMP process has been an interesting experience for her, coming from living 16 years in a Tree
City with a similar plan in place and seeing the spectrum of how community members respond to it to actually being on the side of creating and putting a plan in place. As the plan develops, she hopes that it will be user-friendly. Those who have weighed in on the issue to date have been more highly invested than the average homeowner will be. The everyday person will not spend as much time and energy to review the plan and see how it would apply to them. As the plan goes from draft to
permanent, it is important that it be drafted to be as user-friendly as possible. The education process needs to be easy to understand and ideas need to be presented in a way that does not require a lot of time and energy to understand. It needs to be
user-friendly to the majority of the City’s population.
Board Member Lovell asked about the next step in the process. Ms. Hope said they initially anticipated presenting the plan to the City Council, along with the Board’s recommendation, on June 19th, but this might not be possible. The Board is scheduled to continue its discussion on May 23rd. In the meantime, staff will work with the consultant to update the plan and provide additional background information.
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 2
Mr. Phipps voiced support for the tree bank idea. He has a problem when developers chop down all of the trees on a lot to start with a clean slate. The City needs to have a program in place that requires that every tree that was cut down during development must be replaced with another like tree. These trees could be planted in areas that would not block views or encroach on development, but they would provide the same environmental benefits. He suggested that the City should save open spaces as much as possible and create more parks. The open spaces are disappearing fast in Edmonds, and he is a proponent of planting more trees in our public parks. He summarized that he is in favor of an aggressive tree planting program in the current parks and on the arterial streets. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Monroe referred the Board to the written Development Services Director’s Report. Board Member Lovell asked the name of the new Architectural Design Board Member. Ms. Hope agreed to provide that information after the meeting. Board Member Lovell said he missed the robust report on housing that Ms. Hope provided at the Board’s March 28th meeting. He asked if the PowerPoint presentation is available for the Board’s information. Ms. Hope agreed to pass this additional information on to the Board. She noted that staff is in the process of creating new a PowerPoint presentation that will be provided to the City Council next week. Board Member Lovell asked the next steps in the process of creating a Housing Strategy. Ms. Hope said her expectation is that a draft strategy will be available very soon, including input provided by the Board at their last meeting. A public open house will be held in May to present the draft housing strategy and accompanying data, strategies and ideas. The draft strategy will come before the Planning Board again for a work session and a public hearing, and then the Board will be asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council. Rather than adoption by ordinance, the Housing Strategy will be a plan that sets out high-level strategies and goals. Board Member Lovell noted that potential strategies have come up in discussions that infer that zoning and/or code revisions will be needed. Ms. Hope agreed that some of the recommendations discuss code changes that might be needed later, but exactly how the code should be changed will be a subsequent discussion as part of the implementation stage. Chair Monroe noted that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) will be reviewing the ground floor requirements of the Downtown Business (BD-1) zone. He asked staff to talk about the process for this review. Ms. Hope said the EDC has raised concern that development has not occurred in some parts of the downtown because the ground floor height requirement is such that only two stories of development is possible. The EDC has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to consider potential changes to this requirement. If the City Council decides an amendment might be appropriate, the matter will be remanded to the Planning Board for review, a public hearing and a recommendation to the City Council. She emphasized that the City Council has not made any decisions yet, and the Council Committee that first heard the proposal suggested that the Historic Preservation Commission needs to weigh in on whether or not the proposal should move forward. INTRODUCTION TO DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP) Ms. Hope introduced Ian Scott from Davey Resources Group and Keeley O’Connell from Nature Insight. Although Davey Resource Group has been the lead consultant, the two have worked together as a group. She recalled that, overtime, there has been a lot of discussion in the City about trees and potential ordinances and policies that address trees on both private and public property. The consultants are present to present the draft UFMP. She noted that Board Members were provided a link to the draft plan, itself. The process will provide opportunities for public input as the plan moves through the process, and they would welcome the Board’s input, as well. Ian Scott, Davey Resources Group, commented that the UFMP is still in draft form, and they are still having dialogue with the City about how to best present the priority of the goals and the associated cost levels. He explained that the plan was divided into three key elements, which he described below: 13%
• Tree Resources. Mr. Scott advised that an Urban Tree Canopy Assessment was performed to determine that there was an approximately 30% tree canopy covering the City. When looking at the potential, perhaps some of the existing areas of grass and vegetation could become trees to create a potential tree canopy of 57%. Board Member Lovell asked if there is information in the plan for how the City could get to the 57% canopy, and Mr. Scott said no. It is based on the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, looking at the existing tree canopy, as well as areas of grass and vegetation. Some small elements of the percentage have been excluded, so the number does not quite equal a
cumulative of the two; but it does put a bookend on the amount of canopy the City could potentially have. Board
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 3
Member Lovell said that, in theory, if the City were to convert all grass and vegetation to tree canopy, they could reach a total of 57%. Mr. Scott agreed, but commented that would be a tall ask and only identifies the maximum possible. The numbers were intended to provide a place to start the conservation. Mr. Scott advised that 87% of the existing tree canopy is on private property (83% residential and 4% commercial). When the City looks at what it can actively do to manage trees, it can most directly impact the 13% on public property. There are limited resources to influence the remaining tree canopy. However, the goals in the plan address opportunities to influence both private and public property. Mr. Scott said that, using the assessment, they were able to prioritize planting opportunities throughout the City. Because the assessment was a spatial exercise, the scale ranges from very low to very high. For example, the red areas were recommended as high value planting locations based on relationship with wildlife functionality, the urban heat dial-in effect, and proximity to impervious surfaces. These are areas the City can look at to reduce forest fragmentation and have a focus on where to plant trees. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that most of the red area is located on the downslope along 9th Avenue where a lot of trees have been removed. Mr. Scott advised that slope was not a factor in the priority planting map. Board Member Rubenkonig asked for more information about the terms “migration” as it relates to the wildlife habitat corridor. Mr. Scott said the wildlife habitat corridor is one of the important elements to an urban forest. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the City’s creeks flow west, and she questioned what creek wildlife would be following in this corridor, which runs north/south. Mr. Scott clarified that the red area identifies potential locations where trees could be planted to become canopy and does not necessarily relate to a stream corridor. In addition to significant public concern, the Tree Board identified this area as a place where view is an issue. It is not the intent to say that trees must be planted in this location. However, the City should consider these locations if they want to get the most value out of the environmental services that can be provided by trees. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that this is an area where a significant number of trees have been removed to preserve and/or create view (top of 9th Avenue and Emerald Hills) and now this report provides a fiscal cost to the City of the loss of said trees which reduce stormwater management costs. Mr. Scott advised that, in addition to the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, the consultant has prepared a cost estimator, which is software his company developed as a way to provide clients with an estimate of how many trees may need to be planted in order to modify the existing canopy. He will work with the City to provide more information about how to establish planting goals in the future. Mr. Scott pointed that a number of other cities have done advanced exercises in inventorying trees, and this will be addressed in the set of goals contained in the draft UFMP. However, the City has very limited documented knowledge about its urban forests. The Urban Tree Canopy Assessment provides a solid baseline.
• Municipal Resources. Mr. Scott advised that the consulting team talked to a variety of staff members throughout the course of the project. He referred to the table that was created to look at a variety of City services, ranging from permit intake, to parks and maintenance activities, and even Tree Board activities. They came up with an estimate of how much time a typical staff member might be engaged in these activities and services in any one week. The intent is to create a benchmark in the document for going forward with goals to provide an increased number of services
relating to urban forestry. Currently, the bulk of the energy seems to be within the parks and public tree maintenance (40-60 hours per week). Mr. Scott advised that in 2017, the City spent an estimated $7.74 per capita on urban forest management. This is well above the Tree City USA designation requirement of $2.00. It’s also above the national average of $7.50. However, through this process, they discovered that a large amount of this budget is founded on principles of reactive
management. The City’s current management strategy relies on citizens to contact the City, followed by a City inspection, and then the City spends money to deal with problems. With a proactive management approach, a citizen could contact the City and the City could refer to its existing data base to learn more about a tree and advise the citizen about the plan for addressing the problem. The proactive management approach lends itself to a budget that is also
proactive.
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 4
Chair Monroe asked what “volunteer activities” entails. Mr. Scott answered that this includes park programs and City contributions to tree planting projects. The bulk of the 348 trees planting were accomplished via community projects. Ms. Hope added that the City provided trees for planting projects, and it also provides some funding for the Tree Board and tree planting events. City staff also helps with the volunteer activities. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the number of trees removed represents those that were removed on a contractual basis. She noted that the removal cost per tree is roughly $1,500. Mr. Scott said most is contracted tree removal work, as the City does not maintain a bucket crew for tree removal. He noted that the budget and financial information was collected and presented to the National Arbor Day Foundation for the Tree City Grant application. Mr. Scott advised that the estimate of benefits comes from the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment. The City’s expenditure of approximately $300,000 per year provides about $1.5 million in estimated benefits from trees. That means that for every $1 the City spends, they receive about $5 in environmental service and benefit from trees. This attests to the value of service that trees provide to the community. He referred to the introductory elements of the plan, which describe the benefits of trees. The intent is to help the City recognize, in more formal language, that trees are important to the community. It gives foundational strength to the plan, itself. Chair Monroe said it seems difficult to get a dollar value for the benefit. Mr. Scott agreed but said it has gotten easier. He explained that his company uses a suite of software tools that are based on scientific models and developed by the Department of Agriculture. This information is now more accessible, and it is easier to do the math behind how a tree provides its benefits. He said if the City were to have a full inventory of the City-owned trees, the environmental services and benefits could be more specific. But the Tree Canopy Assessment at least gives them a place to start talking.
• Community Resources. Mr. Scott said the City has an active Tree Board, and they have achieved Tree City USA Status. He has also heard of projects being conducted in partnership with Earthcorp. The plan introduces other non-profit resources that the community can engage with. These include the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, Forterra, the Municipal Research Service Center, Futurewise, and the University of Washington. Connecting with these various resources and agencies that have the same agenda for having a sustainable urban forest
in Edmonds is something that a strong plan should have. Cities can leverage these relationships and they can be a source of funding, human resources, advocacy, etc. Mr. Scott advised that an open house was held and community surveys were launched in May and June of 2017 to collect
feedback from City residents. About 175 people responded to the survey, with 40% from the downtown bowl, 15% from Seaview, and 29% from other neighborhoods. This public engagement is critical to the success of the plan and will continue.
From the public feedback to date, they learned that people find the trees to be valuable primarily for the air quality and wildlife benefits. Although stormwater measures high, it is not necessarily recognized as an important value. However, people care
about the quality of the air and believe that trees beautify the City. One key thing the City could do to satisfy public interest is maintain its current level of service. Many people expressed satisfaction, in general, with the level of service the City provides.
However, a priority effort should be made to take care of hazardous trees and keep the parks and streets reasonably safe. Planting more trees in public spaces is a high priority item from a public perspective, and there was strong support for limited
regulation of trees on private properties. Many felt the City could improve its on-site resources and public outreach to help people learn to be good stewards of the trees they own and care for.
Using all of this information, Mr. Scott said the consulting team and staff came up with a set of goals for each of the three
elements. However, they are all interrelated. This allows the City to work towards multiple goals at the same time. He reviewed the goals as follows:
• Tree Resources. The main theme behind the Urban Forest goals is to get more information about the Urban Forest asset, itself. You can’t manage what you don’t know. Getting more awareness of where to plant trees and the correct species diversity are important. In the plan, it codifies that the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment should be done every 10 years. The plan emphasizes planting the right trees in the right places and planning and proactively managing tree removal. It is also important for the City to know where it is losing trees in the coming years through general mortality.
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 5
• Municipal Resources. Mr. Scott said these goals are designed around improving leadership and alignment of
objectives in the City. There are currently three different departments in the City that touch trees: Community Development, Parks and Public Works. One of the key parts of these goals is to encourage the City to establish an inter-departmental working team so that their municipal forestry efforts are all aligned towards the plan and its goals. Other actions and outcomes include establishing tree inspection cycles and providing some consistency in tree management decisions.
Chair Monroe referred to Goal M-8 and asked how the current regulatory framework would be changed and why. Ms. Hope said the City has long recognized a need to update the regulations. Tree regulations have been scattered throughout different parts of the code, and there are better ways to bring them all together. They have learned new information and new terminology that needs to be incorporated, as well. She emphasized that the proposed plan is
not intended to be an ordinance or code. Therefore, it will not say exactly what should happen. However, it is also clear that the current codes need to be updated as they pertain to trees. Goal M-8 basically says they need to update
and clean up the code and incorporate the proper terms, but it does not say they will make dramatic adjustments to the code requirements. Mr. Scott added that the intent is to update the code to incorporate best available science. It is important to update codes to stay current with knowledge, and this is also a key element of any long-range plan. Chair Monroe summarized that the first step would be to survey what they are doing now and understand where the holes
are. Board Member Lovell recalled that when the Board reviewed proposed code changes relative to trees a few years ago, the crowd became agitated. This plan was not acceptable to either the City or the residents. At that time, it was agreed
that an UFMP was needed before considering any changes to the codes and regulations. The code amendment process was terminated at that point, and the City engaged a consultant to prepare a draft UFMP. He summarized that the
UFMP is just a plan. If the City Council decides that code changes might be appropriate, that process will follow. However, the need should spring from the UFMP. Chair Monroe asked if the consultant has done an inventory of the City’s current tree regulations. Ms. Hope said they
know where the regulations are and something about them, but they haven’t reviewed them to identify exactly what needs to be done. That will be part of the next step. Mr. Scott noted that Goal M-5 is similar to M-8 and calls for
updating the Street Tree Plan. This makes it clear that the City should routinely update all of its policies, codes and plans.
• Community Resources. Mr. Scott advised that community goals are designed to strengthen partnerships between the City, non-profit organizations, neighborhood groups, etc. The goal is to provide a foundation for these groups and organizations to participate in urban forest management in the City. The City has received positive feedback on the establishment of a tree bank fund. One of the common challenges is that when cities obligate developers to replant trees on properties, they don’t have the room for them. Creating an avenue where the trees can be planted somewhere else or a mitigation fund where trees can be planted in other locations is a high value goal in the plan. Board Member Rubenkonig cautioned that Mr. Scott expressed the viewpoint that it is up to the developers to decide when and where trees will be planted. Whereas, in most jurisdictions, the area where trees need to be planted is set aside before the lots are ever created. She said she does not believe the plan is intended to imply that it will be up to developers to decide whether to plant trees or pay money into a fund. The City’s regulations address tree protection requirements in several places, but the staff and community have raised questions about whether the language is consistent, clear and adequate. While she would value a tree bank, she is more interested in addressing this concern. Mr. Scott said the community has also expressed interest in developing a Heritage Tree Designation as a way for the community to recognize important trees in the City. Again, he said the goals in this section are intended to strengthen partnerships within the City so that urban forestry is properly funded and the objectives can be obtained. Mr. Scott explained that once the UFMP has been adopted, it is expected to have a 5 to 10-year cycle before it needs to be revised again. It is always meant to be a long-term vision. The plan indicates an end date of 2048, but that is farther than initially intended. This will be corrected in the draft. It is supposed to be forward thinking for the next 20 years, with the expectation that the City will implement annual action strategies and monitor how things are going via urban forest reports.
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 6
Yearly updates could be coordinated and provided by the inter-departmental group, and the Tree Board could report its progress, as well. Community satisfaction surveys should also be conducted to evaluate how the plan is doing, identify what elements are popular, and then make adjustments. The action strategies identified currently in the plan are suggested actions to meet the plan goals, but new information may come to light through routine inspections of trees or an assessment of one of the parks. As this new information becomes available, the plan should be updated accordingly. Mr. Scott said the draft UFMP was presented to the Tree Board on April 5th, and an open house is scheduled for next week to introduce the plan in a public forum and answer citizen questions. The public hearing process will begin in May, followed by revisions to the plan prior to presenting it to the City Council in June. Board Member Lovell referred to a memorandum he sent out to the Board with his notes from the Tree Board meeting that he attended. He said one of the key points made at that meeting was that before any revisions are made to the plan, there needs to be a public discussion at the Council level. Ms. Hope clarified that it was suggested that no substantive changes be made to the plan prior to City Council review. At this time, they are not talking about substantive changes. The revisions going forward are intended to clean up the language, provide additional photographs, correct data, and make some technical adjustments. They are not proposing changes that would alter the recommended goals and actions. Board Member Lovell asked if the draft UFMP would be updated to incorporate feedback from the Planning Board and Tree Board. Ms. Hope answered no, unless a correction needs to be made. This presentation is intended to introduce the Board to the draft plan and give them a chance to ask clarifying questions as they begin to formulate their thoughts. The Board will conduct a public hearing to solicit comments from the public, and the public will also be invited to provide feedback at the open house. Following these public opportunities, the Board will make a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell emphasized that the City Council does not want any substantive changes made to the plan prior to their discussion. Ms. Hope agreed that one Council Member made that point. It has been her intent, as well, to not make any substantive changes to the goals and actions until the City Council has had an opportunity to view the plan. However, that does not mean the Planning Board cannot provide feedback along the way. Board Member Lovell said he does not have a clear understanding of the map that illustrates areas of priority planting. The map labels the priority levels as relating to potential acres of planting. The red area, indicated as very high priority, is 383.6 acres. Does that mean there are no trees there now so there is a great potential to plant more trees? Mr. Scott answered that all of the areas that are colored purple and red are areas where there are currently no trees. According to the data, these are eligible planting sites. Board Member Lovell also referred to the illustration depicting land cover and asked if the plan contains verbiage that explains why there are such heavily forested areas remaining in the City now, such as South County Park. Mr. Scott answered no. The illustration just indicates what is currently there based on the 2015 aerial imagery. Board Member Lovell said he visited the Edmonds Museum to do some research relative to trees in the City. There are several publications and an archive of historic photographs. For the first half century (1887 to 1950), a process of denuding the entire bowl took place as trees were harvested to create wood products. The map of existing forested areas makes it clear to him that, historically, loggers may have made these areas off limits or determined they were too difficult to access. From 1950 forward, the City expanded in population, industry, infrastructure, etc. and there were definite historic moves to acquire more upland area towards the east in order to preserve denuded slopes from erosion. He suggested it would be helpful for the public to have a better understanding of how the City got to its current situation relative to tree cover. He said he heard there was a period of time when the City was denuded of trees and someone decided to plant a bunch of Douglas Firs along the streets. Now they have monstrous trees which create a canopy, but also block views. Again, he suggested this is an element of the City’s history that the public should be aware of. Mr. Scott cautioned that the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment does not tell you about the quality and condition of the forest. The bigger next step is to get a better understanding of that. The UMFP does include a brief history of urban forestry and a history of the City, but it does not go into that level of detail. He explained that there are a lot of aging alders in some of the remaining forested areas, as well as over-mature trees that provide canopy currently but are falling apart. There are younger trees coming up to replace them through natural processes, but knowing what is at risk from development or mortality is a big next step.
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 7
Board Member Rubenkonig asked that the parks be identified on all of the maps included in the plan. The report speaks of the five parks, but the public needs to be able to see the parks on each of the maps. Mr. Scott said they prepared the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment prior to the UFMP, and the assessment map results provide more detail. He reminded the Board that the maps are available in GIS now for the City to overlay against any other kind of City demographic. This is a high value for the product. Chair Monroe referred to Table 2, which lists the common and scientific names, as well as the overall benefits of the trees. He said he looks forward to going to www.treebenefits.com to learn more about how they came up with the numbers. He noted that many of the trees on the list are not really common in Edmonds. Mr. Scott said the list came from the City’s Street Tree Plan, which lists the trees the City recommends for use in the rights-of-way. Others have also suggested that the list should include Douglas Fir, Big Leaf Maples, etc., but these would not necessarily be planted in City rights-of-way. The list was meant to provide examples to illustrate that there are benefits to trees. Once the City has an inventory, a future UFMP could list the specific benefits of the top species of trees in the City. One message the list conveys is that bigger trees provide more value and making room for big trees in the community is something people should aspire to do. Ms. Hope added that this could be a potential implementation step. The list is meant to provide a big picture. They need to provide more outreach to the community to remind people about the value of trees. Vice Chair Cheung noted that the tree valuations were calculated based on a tree size of 13-inch caliper. He asked about the typical size of a newly planted tree. Mr. Scott said most often, trees purchased from a nursery have a 2-inch caliper. Vice Chair Cheung asked how long it takes for a tree to reach a 13-inch caliper. Mr. Scott answered that it depends on the species, but it could be 10 to 15 years. Vice Chair Cheung said he assumes that a 2-inch caliper tree does not offer anywhere the benefit of a 13-inch caliper tree. It will take 10 to 15 years before the benefit of the larger tree will be replaced. He asked if it is possible to calculate the immediate effect. Mr. Scott advised that the National Tree Benefit Calculator calculates the value based on zip code, diameter and species of tree. Ms. Hope cautioned that including the tree value information in the plan is not intended to provide exact numbers. The intent is to illustrate that trees not only have aesthetic value, but they also have practical value. For example, if trees can perform some of the stormwater infrastructure or provide shade so that air conditions can be used less, they have some tangible economic value. Board Member Crank requested more information about the public open house, and Ms. Hope answered that it will be held in the Brackett Room on the 3rd floor of City Hall on April 19th from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. A press release was issued earlier in the day, and she will make sure the notice is forwarded to the Planning Board, as well. Board Member Crank asked if there would be public outreach opportunities in other neighborhoods outside of the bowl. Ms. Hope said nothing is planned at this time, but they will give it some thought. She noted that it requires staff time and consultant participation, and the City’s budget is limited. Board Member Crank observed that the UFMP would impact the entire City, yet some people in outlying neighborhoods may not be able to attend a downtown open house or participate in the on-line survey. Board Member Rosen asked for a reference point to indicate whether the City’s current 30.3% tree canopy is good or bad. Mr. Scott said the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment provides a reference to other cities nearby that have completed a similar exercise. American Forest used to advise that every city should pursue a 40% tree canopy as a goal. However, they have since stopped because there was no rationale to support the goal. You want to set a canopy goal that makes sense for your community. They are currently doing a similar project with the City of Sammamish, which has a 48% tree canopy. It is really up to the City to identify the tree canopy it eventually wants to have. Ms. Hope added that it depends on the City’s geography and patterns, as well. Some cities have large lots that are spread out and others are much more urbanized. Board Member Rosen observed that the answer to this question could have a real motivation on what people are willing to do. Understanding where we are is okay, but it doesn’t really help in terms of a reference point or an ideal. He encouraged them to be bold in coming up with a goal based on geographic needs and aspirations as opposed to continuing to maintain the status quo. Ms. Hope said it will be important to identify exactly what it means to have a goal and what they will do about it. For example, would a 45% tree canopy goal require that they eliminate all upland views and replace all of the grass playfields with trees? Would they have to require that everyone plant trees in their yards whether they are wanted or not? Before choosing a goal, they must carefully consider whether it is realistic. Board Member Rosen commented that is how cultural change happens. For example, they now recycle because they decided it is worth the benefit. Ms. Hope agreed but cautioned that the goal must be realistic. In addition to setting a goal, they must also identify a means for obtaining the goal. It requires a balancing act.
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 8
Board Member Rosen noted that the draft plan is very robust, and he understands its implementation will be a marathon rather than a sprint. Given all that is included in the plan, he asked the staff and consultant to identify the three highest priority goals. Mr. Scott answered that inventorying all of the publicly-owned trees should be a high priority for the City, both for the liability they carry and because it is the easiest place to gain knowledge about the condition of the City’s trees. The assumption in the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment is that if they protect the trees, the canopy will stay. However, trees also die from natural mortality. Change is going to happen, and it is good to know the condition of the existing trees, as well as what needs to be done to maintain them. He suggested the shortest step to the tree inventory would be to have City staff begin to formally document the condition of trees. Because 83% of the urban forest is on private property, Mr. Scott suggested that public outreach goals are critical to raise awareness of how to best manage trees. For example, citizens need to be made aware that activities such as tree topping is harmful to trees. While people are free to do what they want with their own trees, with better understanding, they may choose not to do things that harm them. Board Member Rosen commented that, regardless of the various reasons, trees will continue to die and/or be removed. Does the plan identify what the annual turnover rate should be in order to maintain the existing tree canopy? Mr. Scott said it will depend on the size of trees planted and getting a stronger sense of the mortality rate. With the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment and the City having knowledge of what properties have already been developed, it can identify where the highest risks of development are. The strength of the UFMP will come from increasing the City’s knowledge of the asset, itself. Board Member Rosen observed that, as reflected in the conversation, there is a lot of interest about price tags and the return on investment. Trees have a huge value, and it helps to demonstrate all the other rolls that trees play and that they do to offset real costs. However, having done a lot of work on conservation education and social change, it can also become more about “what’s in it for me.” Adding a price tag to trees can take them out of the category of being a community value. For example, some people can afford to water yards regardless of how short the water supply is. It’s a double-edged sword that has bitten us in the past because it is hard to go back. He cautioned that this approach has tremendous value, but it has hurt other conservation efforts in the past. Mr. Scott appreciated Board Member Rosen’s observations. Board Member Cloutier observed that it is not likely that anyone will want to plant a fir tree in the areas identified in red on the map because they are view corridors. It will always cost the property owner far more than the benefit derived from the tree. The question is how the City can meet them halfway. For example, could the UFMP include trees that are smaller than full size. While large trees create a good canopy, the underbrush, small bushes and fruit trees can still provide shade, a little bit of water retention, and some wildlife protection. Although these other options do not provide the full scope of having Alders all the way up, that is not going to happen in the view corridors. Instead of giving up, they need to come up with a mitigated plan for these areas. Mr. Scott recognized this concern, as well. He suggested that the City utilize the U-Trace software to model how much canopy could be created if they only planted small trees in the high-priority areas. He said the consulting team would work with City staff to create the bookends. However, this will be part of the action strategies rather than documented in the plan. If they want no net loss, they must learn more about mortality rates and how change is happening in the existing forested areas and then set the objectives. Board Member Cloutier suggested the plan will need to be explicit about how to handle areas where view is of primary concern. For example, he lives in a house with a view. While he loves trees, he doesn’t want a tree in his backyard that blocks his view. He will plant small things instead, which is better than nothing. It is important that the plan identify a way for property owners to do that. Board Member Lovell reminded the Board of the Comprehensive Plan policy to preserve public view corridors and suggested that the UFMP must be congruent with that policy. Ms. Hite agreed and said she intends to review the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies to make sure the UFMP is consistent. Mr. Scott added that the UFMP is meant to sit under the Comprehensive Plan and should be aligned with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is pleased with the direction the City is heading to create a UFMP. However, she is concerned that, in the three years since the public hearing on the Tree Board’s recommended tree plan, 10 trees in her small neighborhood of nine lots have been removed. This has compromised her grove of trees, and she no longer has a wind screen
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 9
from the east, south or west because evergreens have been taken down. Only one tree has been replanted. She is unhappy about this for many reasons. Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed that when the City decided to move forward with a UFMP, one of the first premises made was that most of the relief that could be found in increasing the tree canopy is on private land. Some of the goals that have been presented in the plan support that premise. She appreciates that the plan points out that there is an economic cost to the City of having no trees, and that the plan provides some economic numbers for what these costs might be. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the UFMP is a great report, and they have a lot to work with. She looks forward to future hearings; and hopefully, the public will weigh in, as well. The UFMP is necessary. Until they look at the public land, they really can’t look at best management practices for private land. Mr. Scott said the UFMP may not work in all neighborhoods, but perhaps the City could have a program that provides trees for private property owners to plant on their lands. Having a UFMP in place will also help the City become eligible for grant funding to support programs of this type. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that they are moving in the right direction. She wants the tree canopy to increase, and she would like to have a figure to target. However, she recognized that this will have to come later. At this time, they need to establish the facts to support efforts going forward, and the draft UFMP does just that. Vice Chair Cheung said most people appreciate trees, but there is concern when talking about regulating trees on private property. Given that 83% of the tree canopy is located on private property, he suspects many people will become concerned if the City attempts to regulate trees on private property. It is important to recognize that the areas of greatest influence are going to be on private property. However, rather than telling private property owners what they can and can’t do with the trees on their properties, the City should focus on education efforts that encourage people to maintain their existing trees and plant new trees. He said he does not believe that the cost benefit information contained in the plan will have a significant impact on a property owner’s behavior. The plan should provide specific information about the tangible benefits of trees on individual private properties. Mr. Scott said the plan explores the concept of requiring business licenses for arborists and working with people who do tree cutting in the City. A lot of other cities have codes that slow down the cutting because a homeowner is required to get a permit first. Having these additional requirements would affect change and encourage good stewardship of trees on private property. Ms. Hope said another idea she discussed with the consultant is making sure that arborists and tree removal companies clearly understand the City’s regulations. This could help prevent some of problems that come from random tree cutting. Vice Chair Cheung questioned how the desire to have more trees will influence the City’s ability to provide affordable housing options, which is another issue the Board is currently working on. While the UFMP might help save trees, it might also result in increased housing prices in certain areas where tree preservation is required. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe reviewed that a discussion on potential code amendments related to permit decision making is tentatively scheduled for April 25th. Mr. Lien indicated that he will not likely be ready to move this discussion forward at the next meeting, but it should come before the Board in the near future. Chair Monroe asked Mr. Lien to work with Mr. Chave to determine if there are other agenda items for the April 25th meeting or if it should be cancelled. Board Member Lovell noted that the extended agenda identifies a public hearing on the draft UFMP on May 9th, and the intent is to solicit input and feedback for the consultant. He voiced concern about moving forward with the public hearing given the comment from Council Member Buckschnis at the Tree Board meeting about the need for the City Council to review the draft plan before any changes are made. Mr. Lien emphasized that no substantive changes would be made to the plan based on public and Board feedback, but that does not mean the Planning Board cannot make recommendations relative to potential substantial changes the City Council should consider when the plan is presented to them. Board Member Lovell suggested that one of the major areas of concern in the plan will boil down to what kind of influence the plan and potential outgrowths from the plan will have on private property owners. These elements hung up the last proposal, and the same thing could occur again if they aren’t careful. He asked for suggestions about how the plan, as it currently exists, can help facilitate a smoother transition or provide provisions for private properties.
8.3.d
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Att. 4: Planning Board Excerpts for 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 19, 2018
Page 8
7. JOB DESCRIPTION - BUILDING INSPECTOR (UPDATED)
8. JOB DESCRIPTIONS (UPDATES) - WATER/SEWER & STREET/STORMWATER
MANAGER
9. JOB DESCRIPTION - SENIOR ACCOUNTANT (FINANCE)
10. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEE ADJUSTMENTS
11. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
STANTEC CONSULTING
12. UTILITY EASEMENT FOR A NEW GROUND WATER MONITORING WELL AT 16116
72ND AVE
13. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
MURRAYSMITH FOR THE FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR RECOATING PROJECT
14. FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE
2017 SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT
15. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH KBA FOR THE 76TH AVE AND 212TH ST
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
16. 238TH ST. SW NO PARKING ORDINANCE
7. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Ian Scott, Davey Resource Group. She explained
the Comprehensive Plan called for developing an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) and the Council
approved a budget for its creation. Staff sought a firm that had experience with UFMPs and selected Davey
Resource Group. No decision is requested tonight; this is an opportunity to hear about the plan and hear
public comment. The draft UFMP is being presented substantially in the form it was introduced other than
some minor amendments. The plan includes 21 objectives; the estimated cost in the plan have been replaced
with a restaurant-review type dollar sign estimate. She emphasized the draft UFMP is not yet a final product.
When/if it is approved, it is still a plan and will require implementation of the recommendations and
suggestions in plan.
Mr. Scott reviewed:
UFMP Development Process
o Stakeholder interviews
o City webpage updates
o Press releases and news articles
o Tree Board meeting for early input (5/4/17)
o Public open house (6/22/17)
o Planning Board for early input (7/26/17)
o Online community survey (June-Sept 2017)
o Tree Board meeting on draft plan (4/5/18)
o Planning Board meeting (4/11/18)
o Planning Board Public hearing (5/9/18)
Structure of the UFMP
o The Urban Forest
8.3.e
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Att. 5: Council Excerpts of June 19, 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 19, 2018
Page 9
Public property trees
Private property trees
o City Staff
Development Services
Public Works and Utilities
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
o The community
Tree Board
Volunteers
Non-profit groups
What Do We Have? The Urban Forest Asset
o What we have?
Urban Tree Canopy (30.3%)
Theoretical maximum canopy (57.4%)
o Where it is?
83% canopy on private property
4% commercial property
13% public property
o GIS Tools created a map of:
Planting priorities
Forest fragmentation
o Software tools
UTRACE – Urban Tree Resource Analysis and cost estimator
iTREE (www.ireetools.org)
o Municipal Resources – Activities and Estimated Time
City Services Common Urban Forestry Related
Activities
Estimated
Hours/Week
Permit Intake and Review Development plan review for compliance
with tree protection codes
Public inquires (online, phone and counter)
2
Code Enforcement & Complaint
Investigation
Investigating and resolving tree complaints
Investigating and resolving infrastructure
damage complaints
2
Parks & Public Tree
Maintenance
Tree planting and establishment
Structural pruning on smaller trees
Inspection and identification of hazardous
trees
40-60
Contract Mgmt. Managing contract tree crews 1
Emergency Response Community Service requests, Response
Management
Not measured
Comprehensive (long-range)
Planning
UFMP stewardship
Federal, state grant procurement
Tree City USA applications
<1
Community Education Action
and Outreach
Volunteer events, coordinated tree planting
Neighborhood association support
Website content and public education
1
Tree Board Meetings Addressing public issues related to trees 1
o Municipal Resources - Spending
In 2017, the urban forestry expenditures were $7.74 per capita
Minimum $2 per capita for Tree City USA designation
Urban Forestry Items Expenditures 2017
8.3.e
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Att. 5: Council Excerpts of June 19, 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 19, 2018
Page 10
Tree Planting and Initial Care $4,848
Tree Maintenance $79,779
Tree Removals $37,565
Management $62,771
Volunteer Activities $134,579
TOTAL $319,542*
Budget Per Capita $7.74
UTC Estimate of Benefits $1,567,000
Trees Planted 348
Trees Pruned 31
Tree Removed 24
*Higher than normal as includes the UFMP project
National Average - $7.50 (National Arbor Day Foundation)
o Community Resources
Already engaging
- The Tree Board
- Tree City USA Status
- EarthCorps
Other non-profit resources
- WA DNR
- Forterra
- MRSC
- Futurewise
- UW Restoration and Ecology Network
What do we want? Community outreach
o Stakeholder Interviews
o Open House
Opinion boards – discussion
o Community Survey
175 responses
- 40.9% (The Bowl)
- 15.2% (Seaview)
- 29.3% (other neighborhoods)
o Virtual Open House
o Summary of survey results
Trees are important because…
- Valuable for air quality and wildlife
- Beautify the City
The City should…
- Maintain its current level of service
- Take care of hazardous trees
- Plant more trees in public spaces
- Limit regulation of private trees
- Improve website resources
- Improve public outreach (displays and brochures)
How Do We Get There? Urban Forest Goals
Plan Goals Actions/Outcomes
o #UA1 – Maintain Citywide Canopy
Coverage
o Adopt Canopy Goal of 30.3% (no net loss in
canopy)
o #UA2 – Identify key areas to increase
canopy
o Assess UTC in 10 years
8.3.e
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Att. 5: Council Excerpts of June 19, 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 19, 2018
Page 11
o #UA3 – Manage tree population age
distribution for diversity
o Have a working inventory of public trees
o #UA4 – Plant suitable trees and schedule
phased replacement for unsuitable species
o Identify areas to plant trees and improve net
benefits (eg. Stormwater, air quality, wildlife)
o #UA5 – Manage for species diversity o Plant the right trees in the right places
o #UA6 – Conduct an inventory to
document tree condition and risk
o Plan and proactively manage tree removals
o #UA7 – Document the ecosystem services
provided by public trees
How Do We Get There? Urban Forest Goals – Municipal Goals
Plan Goals Actions/Outcomes
o #M1 – Maintain a routinely updated UFMP o Sets policy that includes routine
training of staff and routine updates to
ordinances and planning documents
o #M2 – Perform a periodic review of tree
ordinances
o Ensure funding for trees is part of
capital projects
o #M3 – Train staff to maintain expertise and
professional qualifications
o Have a tree planting and replacement
plan for City managed projects
o #M4 – Plant trees annually o Establish tree inspection cycles
o #M5 – Update Street Tree Plan o Provide consistency in tree
management decisions
o #M6 – Create a dedicated Urban Forester/Arborist
staff position
o Annual work plans and improved
budget forecasting
o #M7 –Establish a formal interdepartmental
working team
o #M8 – Update development regulations to ensure
appropriate language for protecting trees and/or the
tree canopy as part of the development process
How Do We Get There? Community Goals
Plan Goals Actions/Outcomes
o #C1 – Establish a Tree Bank (Fund) o Establish tree planting fund
mechanisms for both public
and private properties
o #C2 – Provide outreach to arborist businesses licensed in
Edmonds
o Develop relationships with
businesses in landscaping or
arboriculture
o #C-3 – Coordinate efforts of the City, Edmonds Citizens’
Tree Board, and other interested groups to participate and
promote good urban forest management and urban forest
management events
o Develop outreach materials
about trees and the urban forest
o #C4 – Maintain a Citizen’s Tree Board o Deliver an annual Tree Board
report
o #C5 – Establish a Heritage Tree Designation o Use Heritage Trees as a tool for
public education and
community building
o #C6 – Formalize relationships with organizations that
share common vision
o Pursue urban forestry awards
or grants
o o Build partnerships
How Are We Doing? Adaptive Management
o Adjust
Modify Actions Strategies
8.3.e
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Att. 5: Council Excerpts of June 19, 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 19, 2018
Page 12
o Evaluate
Community Satisfaction Surveys
o Plan
5-10 Year Plan Updates (2023?)
Revise Plan Goals
o Implement
Annual Action Strategies
o Monitor
Urban Forest Reports
Next Steps
April 5 Tree Board meeting
April 11 Planning Board meeting
April 19 Open house
May 9 Planning Board public hearing
May Minor revision to draft
June 19 City Council public hearing
June 26 City Council discussion*
July 3 City Council potential action*
*tentative dates
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the report hasn’t been changed much; two of the largest parks
included in the report are in Snohomish County, not Edmonds. She said the Tree Board has received many
comments. Ms. Hope advised all the parks are within the City but two are county-owned.
Councilmember Teitzel commented there was no discussion in the plan about bees; bee populations
nationally and locally are declining. He asked if there were any trees that would help with bee repopulation.
Mr. Scott answered he was not qualified to comment on that. In his experience there have not many cities
or urban forest related activities related to improving the bee population. The plan includes flexibility
should that emerge as something the City should be reacting to. Insects and diseases were introduced in the
plan to raise awareness of potentially catastrophic diseases and pests. A strong diversity in the tree
population will help manage potentially catastrophic pests.
Council President Nelson commented 21 goals was way too many. He understood it was a laundry-list of
items with different priorities and costs. He was skeptical because a lot of cities have been doing urban
forest management for some time and lot of the suggestions in the plan are similar to other cities’ plans
throughout the country. However, a study published by Nowak and Greenfield in 2012 found of 20 cities
they examined, 19 were losing tree canopy. The report they published in May 2018 found 39 million trees
are being lost per year. If 39 million trees per year are being lost using these same policies and 89% of the
City is private property, he did not see how this plan would contribute to the process. This report seems to
indicate the City is relying on 13% of the property to achieve these goals which he did not find achievable.
Ms. Hope said one of the assumptions in the plan was recognizing the City has a role in taking care of
public properties as effectively as possible. In addition, there is a need to do more on private lands.
However, there is a balance between private property rights, people need places to live, park, play, etc. that
aren’t woods. The goal was to find that balance and focus on, 1) things in the code that could be amended,
and 2) ways to educate people about what they can do and make more possible and provide the tools to
encourage people to do more with trees; the Tree Board is doing some of that.
Council President Nelson emphasized the need to think outside the box, ways to encourage private citizens
to consider how their private property can contribute in a meaningful way such as providing incentives.
Education alone will not achieve that. He recommended bold incentives, for example, Hawaii has had a
8.3.e
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Att. 5: Council Excerpts of June 19, 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 19, 2018
Page 13
tree program since 1975 that provides a $3,000 tax credit for every tree of a certain size that a resident
maintains. He suggested thinking along the lines of, “if you’re willing to save trees, we want to save you
money.” Incentives may encourage property owners to preserve trees; health reasons, climate reasons, and
other benefits of trees are not convincing property owners to retain trees.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the GIS map with planting priorities, observing the red areas on the
map are areas where more planting is needed. Mr. Scott answered the red areas are where the value of a
tree would be maximized theoretically due to the slope, minimizing urban heat island effect and forest
fragmentation. Further information is available in the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Report.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the 33.3% coverage and the theoretical maximum of 57.4% and asked
if there was any city in the United States with the maximum. Mr. Scott answered no, the maximum provides
context and bookends for the potential. He is working with a number of cities, for example, the urban tree
canopy assessment in Sammamish found they have 48% tree canopy. Individual cities establish goals that
are meaningful to them; there is no perfect number.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the earlier presentation regarding affordable housing and asked about
the impact on the tree canopy of fulfilling GMA objectives related to adding more affordable housing and
market rate housing. Mr. Scott responded the canopy layer developed with this plan is a tool the City can
use to consider the impact of future rezones or other urban planning. Another option is creating a Tree
Bank/Fund that allows trees to be planted offsite.
Councilmember Mesaros agreed with Council President Nelson’s comments about looking at different
ways to accomplish the goals and how to incentivize the 83% of the canopy that is privately owned. Mr.
Scott referred to the iTREE software that describes the value and benefits of trees.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the City could not plant trees in the county-owned parks in Edmonds via a
tree bank/fund. She found this report very weak, noting she is not even an expert. She suggested being very
specific about pests in the Edmonds area and the Pacific Northwest/Seattle, and including more discussion
regarding tree diversity. The Council never gave direction that the UFMP should focus only on public
property, she preferred to look at all property, consider incentives, and there are too many objectives. She
commented WRIA 8 recently funded a tree bank for Redmond. She found the GIS map of planting priorities
humorous because residents will not plant trees below 9th Avenue. She supported thinking outside the box;
many people don’t like trees in their view. She summarized the report needed to be more Edmonds specific.
Councilmember Johnson said she has a number of concerns; her biggest concern is the unintended
consequence that resulted from the last tree survey discussion at the Planning Board. She noted there have
been at least a dozen Douglas Fir trees cut down within 1000 feet of her home. This area was originally
forested with cedars, Douglas Fir and Hemlock and was extensively logged. She did not see the UFMP
addressing those species; it was more about broadleaf deciduous trees that would be planted along a street.
She was concerned with the native trees that are being lost as they provide the most benefits of carbon
sequestration and they grow magnificently in this climate. She recognized those species grew best in
groups/clusters/forests but wanted to encourage stream and wildlife corridors that use native vegetation.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Mike Echelbarger, Edmonds, said this plan represents major change in Edmonds; there is nothing in the
plan that recognizes the importance of views. It is a cookie cutter plan that he believed came from the forest
service and the consultant is from San Luis Obispo, California where it is hot spring, summer and fall,
similar to Omaha; Waco, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; and Washington D.C.; not like Edmonds. Edmonds
does not a tree canopy covering its streets. He was not opposed to trees, acknowledging they look pretty
8.3.e
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Att. 5: Council Excerpts of June 19, 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 19, 2018
Page 14
but this area has a different climate than most of country. Days like today where it is 80 degrees are not
normal; people are not usually looking for shade, they are looking for sun. He recalled suggesting early in
the process that the City look at Clyde Hill’s tree plan titled, “Trees, Views and Sunlight,” which he found
to be a balanced plan, unlike the proposed plan. He circulated page 8 of the UFMP, an aerial photograph of
the area north of 196th/Puget, west of 9th, the area of Northstream Lane and Ocean Avenue, noting there are
not many trees, but every house has a view. If a bunch of trees are planted, they would not have a view or
sunlight. The Planning Board Chair and Vice Chair voted against forwarding the proposed UFMP to the
Council. At their last meeting, the Planning Board also talked about housing. Saving trees at all costs means
less density as required by the GMA. The proposed housing plan talks about affordable housing like tiny
houses. He summarized here are no costs in the plan; the plan needs to revised so that it is a balanced plan
that considers trees, views and sunlight.
Killy Keefe, Edmonds, said she purchased her house 3 years ago because it has beautiful trees; they started
with 14 and now have 19. She supported having more regulations on the removal of trees on private
property. As indicated, 83% of trees are on private property; if the property owners cut half those trees, the
results would be noticeable and horrible. There is nothing to stop property owners from doing that; there
are not enough protections to ensure trees are retained. She acknowledged the argument about private
property rights, but trees and their benefits are a hugely important community asset. When trees are
removed, more than a view is gained, it is a loss to the entire community. Laws, regulations and ordinance
are created to protect the community. Losing trees is a danger and a detriment to the community. Residents
may want a view, but everyone needs shade, clean air and wildlife habitat.
Danielle Hurst, Edmonds, commented see has a great deal of development since returning to Edmonds,
for example the property near Hickman Park and cemetery, previously covered with trees, was developed
with homes. When they learned of the plans for the development, they provided public comment expressing
concern about removal of trees and were assured by City staff that the developers would only remove the
trees that were necessary. The developer subsequently clear-cut the entire lot. The existing regulations do
not provide protection for trees; she supported having incentives to encourage developers to retain trees or
replant with native trees. She supported having some kind of UFMP that included incentives and protection
for trees on private property, noting there was no way reach to reach the canopy goals if not private property
was not included.
Ross Dimmick, Edmonds, said he has 30 years of experience in environment consultant, primarily in the
development of environmental impact studies. He submitted written comments to the Council on May 2
based on the March version of the plan which has not changed. Although a page of text regarding the
challenges of the urban forest was added, it did not change any of the analyses or conclusions in the
document. The longer he spent reviewing the plan, the more frustrated he became both as a scientist and a
taxpayer; the plan is dumbfounding in its lack of objectivity, its reliance on weak science and its lack of
transparency that defeats the most basic fact checking of the validity of its analyses. He reiterated his initial
impression that the plan was a cut and paste of prior generations of plans prepared for cities around the
country, lacking in relevance to the unique Pacific NW climate, tall confers, spectacular mountain and
Sound viewshed. He has spent approximately 100 hours reviewing the plan, reading the scientific
documentation that formed the foundation for this relatively new field and trying to find the basis for the
numbers. For example, on Page 30 of the May version regarding the $1.2 million of benefits from
stormwater runoff intercepted by trees, 76% of Edmonds’ total monetary benefit shown in the plan. This is
calculated from stormwater modeled as intercepted by Edmonds’ tree canopy that is not draining to Puget
Sound, valued at about 2.8 cents/gallon.
Mr. Dimmick said according to the Davey’s model, that is three times higher than any other region in the
Western U.S. and seven times higher than San Francisco. He asked Davey representatives about the source
of this number and they do not know. The last response he received was an email saying basically trust us
8.3.e
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Att. 5: Council Excerpts of June 19, 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 19, 2018
Page 15
because a lot of people use our model. He believed the number came from an unreferenced 2002 report
covering western Washington and Oregon by the Center for Urban Forest Research, 2.779 cents per gallon.
That report references a 2001 stormwater management cost analysis prepared by the Washington
Department of Ecology, however, that number does not appear in the DOE report. The report only addresses
requirements for new construction which shows 80% of the ongoing stormwater management cost is for
cleaning storm drains and catch basins and street sweeping, costs directly related to leaves, needles and
other detritus from trees. That is not a benefit from trees; it is a cost of the City having trees. If this report
is where the number came from, it is an egregious error in logic to include it as a benefit. This supposed
stormwater benefit is also the driving factor behind the priority finding area map on page 32 developed
based on return on investment which shows trees should be planted through view areas of the Edmonds
Bowl. He urged the City Council to reject this plan and hold the contractor accountable for producing a
scientifically valid and transparent analysis.
Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, said she loves the views as well as the trees and lives on property with both.
Speaking for the trees, she added the importance of wildlife to the earlier comment about trees, views and
sunlight. If the loss of trees due to development continues, she anticipated a tragic reduction in wildlife.
With regard to the type of trees that can be planted in the Edmonds Bowl that will attract wildlife, she
suggested small trees such as lilac. She described a singing sparrow that sits in her lilac tree. She agreed
with Councilmember Johnson’s concern about Douglas Fir trees being cut, noting their average lifespan is
1000 years. People often cut trees out of ignorance without knowing what a special resource and asset they
are. She agreed with the idea of incentivizing the retention of trees and agreed the focus on only public
property is not enough. She noted 70% of Edmonds has no tree canopy; 13% of the canopy on public
property is only 4% of the overall land in Edmonds. She referred to a house under construction on 9th
Avenue where there is not a square inch of property that could be used to grown anything. She urged the
City to find ways to get property owners and developers to keep trees.
Carmen Rumbank, Edmonds, said she lives near Perrinville and the county park and often talks to birds
outside her kitchen window. The house next door was sold to a flipper who cut down four large trees and
three smaller pine trees. Five species of bird left due to the noise and only one has returned. She has to
accept that the person flipping the house next door has more rights than her enjoyment of the birds and that
his motive for cutting the trees to provide more sunlight and generate more money was of greater value
than the birds because that is the law.
Eric Soll, Edmonds, Edmonds was incorporated in 1890. Tree inventory on private property was managed
without any government oversight for the first 120 years of Edmonds existence as witnessed by the lush
canopy in many residential neighborhoods. The UFMP calculated the tree canopy has been reduced from
32.3% to 30.3% from 2005 to 2015. Not a surprise to anyone because legislative mandates require Edmonds
to develop more residential assets and the City is nearly fully developed. Not only are property taxes and
rents too high, property owners experienced the largest property tax increase in recent memory, and
traditional government functions are not being done in a timely and efficient manner. Edmonds is currently
spending more than the average American city per capita on tree maintenance. Edmonds should focus on
the following basic activities pertaining to tree maintenance: removal of dead and dangerous trees on public
property and prioritization of limited future tree planting that have positive impacts, planting a limited,
predetermined number of trees per year to prevent erosion on a priority basis with strict budgetary
guidelines.
Mr. Soll suggested Heritage Tree Programs on private property should be strictly voluntary with the cost
borne by the property owner, developing tree regulations that are easily understood by tree professionals
and residents, rely the non-profit sector to provide educational information about the importance of trees to
private property owners, the City devote educational resources to proper ecological maintenance of property
to encourage the resurrection of the bee population, a voluntary financing mechanism with accolades for
8.3.e
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Att. 5: Council Excerpts of June 19, 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 19, 2018
Page 16
those who wish to contribute to increasing the City’s tree canopy in public locations. The percentage of
trees on public property is only 13% of the entire City. He referenced the Old Testament where Joseph
counseled the pharaoh to set aside wheat during the good times because bad times were on the horizon.
Similarly, the Mayor’s 2018 budget message stated although all is well now, we must remember we are in
the ninth year of sustained economic recovery since the 2008 recession and although revenues continue to
be strong, expenses continue to grow.
Margie Fields, Edmonds, spoke on behalf of trees, noting most would agree trees are very important
regardless of the climate; humans need them to breathe and the planet needs them to survive. She was
concerned trees on private property were not regulated and how the 30% canopy could be retained when
the City did not have any control over most of the trees. She supported the idea of incentives and agreed
with requiring the retention of native trees. She hoped the City would develop a good solution.
Mike Shaw, Edmonds, said where the consultant lives has nothing to do with his ability to create a good
report. The Council has an interesting job of finding a balance between developers and the UFMP. He liked
Council President Nelson’s idea about incentives. Edmonds is a different than when he was growing up,
especially the tremendous loss of canopy. He would hate to see Edmonds go the way of Kirkland; he did
not like their waterfront and did not want Edmonds to look that way. He agreed the UFMP could use some
further work, but it is a marvelous tool to integrate with the Climate Action plan. He urged the Council to
move forward with the UFMP with some tweaks and find a good balance for Edmonds residents.
Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked what staff expected from the Council. Ms. Hope said tonight was an
opportunity hear the presentation and hear from public, but no action was required. They will take the
comments into consideration and return the UFMP to Council in the future. Councilmember Buckshnis
agreed with the public comments, the plan needs to be rewritten and focus on Edmonds and the views. For
example, planting trees below 9th Avenue and on the waterfront is not logical. With the City paying
$130,000 for this report, it needs to be a good report.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the existing 30% canopy coverage, noting the goal of the plan is no net
loss. He asked whether the Council should accept 30% or should it be increased to 35 or 40% and if so, is
that realistic and attainable. Ms. Hope said every % added represents the addition of hundreds of trees. Even
if a canopy goal is established, how to get there is another issue. The plan identified the current canopy
cover and how to maintain or perhaps increase without establishing a goal that is not doable. She noted
approximately 25% of the City is streets and sidewalks, plus commercial, parking lots, etc. means there is
not a lot of easily available land for trees. An incentive offers opportunities, but it may be difficult to identify
a tree canopy goal without more experience. Mr. Scott said in discussions with the community, no net loss
is a reasonable goal to pursue. If there is a desire to add 2% canopy, what value the City is trying to achieve
should be considered. There was no indication in the public outreach that the community wants more trees;
they want trees in the right place and fewer trees cut down. The goals in the UFMP are designed to build
consensus around how the City’s urban forest is managed.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the community survey, pointing out 30% were from the Bowl, 25%
from Seaview and the rest are outside the view area. She summarized the survey results do not really say
what the citizens of Edmonds want. Mr. Scott said the survey was released to the public; the vast majority
of respondents were from the Bowl and Seaview areas. From the beginning, residents who were engaged
in the process were from those areas. Councilmember Buckshnis said there is more to Edmonds than the
Bowl and the view areas and the report does not address those areas. She acknowledged the people who
will participate in the process are those who are concerned about their property rights and views. The Tree
Board is working on a brochure regarding small trees.
8.3.e
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Att. 5: Council Excerpts of June 19, 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 19, 2018
Page 17
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
8. ACTION ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE APPROVING THE VACATION OF UNOPENED RIGHT-OF-WAY
ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES OF 10410 AND 10430 231ST ST. SW
(PLN20170052)
Mr. Williams explained this is the final step in a long process for an Edmonds homeowner who submitted
an application and petition to vacate an unopened right-of-way behind several homes on 231st Street SW.
Staff reviewed the application and determined there was no current or future need for the property and
recommended it move forward to a public hearing which was held March 20. The Council passed a
resolution with notice of intent to vacate, establishing two conditions that have both been met, 1) the City
received payment of $28,800, half the appraised value of the property, and 2) the applicant, met with the
school district to work out an easement which has now been recorded. Staff recommends approval of the
ordinance to finalize the vacation.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4114, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, VACATING THAT PORTION OF UNOPENED RIGHT-OF-WAY
ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES OF 10410 AD 10430 231ST STREET
SOUTHWEST AS SET FORTH IN THE RESOLUTION OF INTENT NO. 1405. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. JOB DESCRIPTIONS - PUBLIC WORKS SENIOR ACCOUNTANT
Public Works Director Williams explained the job description was presented to the PSPP Committee on
June 12, 2018 who recommend it be referred to the full City Council for consideration. It was also briefly
introduced to PPW Committee and Finance Committees on the same night. He reviewed:
The Public Works Senior Accountant, under the supervision of the Public Works Director, performs
professional accounting activities and functions for the Public Works Department. Responsibilities
include:
o Departmental project and grant accounting
o Management of utility rate studies, rate calculations, and comparative rate analyses
o Participating and acting as a financial advisor to the Director and Departmental Managers in
the development of the City’s Capital Improvement Program, Transportation Improvement
Program, and Comprehensive Plans for Water, Sewer and Stormwater Divisions.
o Organizing and participating in the preparation of the Department’s annual budget and financial
reports
o Developing the Public Works Department long-range financial planning inputs to the Finance
Department
o Consistently applying Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), Government
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) principles, guidelines established by granting or
contracting agencies and City financial policies
o Understanding and applying the Washington State Budgeting, Accounting and Reporting
System (BARS)
o Ensuring accuracy and confidentiality of information
o Provides leadership, procedural support and guidance to staff working with capital projects and
grants
8.3.e
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Att. 5: Council Excerpts of June 19, 2018 (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan)
City of Edmonds
City Council
Urban Forest Management Plan
Presented by Davey Resource Group
and Nature InSight Consulting
August 7, 2018
8.3.f
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Att. 6: City Council- UFMP Presentation (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban
Overview
•The UFMP fundamentals
•Changes since public hearing
(6/19)
•Goals in the Plan
•Next Steps
Adaptive Management
8.3.f
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Att. 6: City Council- UFMP Presentation (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban
UFMP Fundamentals
The Urban Forest
•Public Property Trees
•Private Property Trees
City Staff
•Development Services
•Public Works
and Utilities
•Parks Recreation and
Cultural Services
The Community
•Tree Board
•Volunteers
•Non-Profits Groups
Tree
Resources
Community
Resources
Municipal
Resources
Edmonds
UFMP
8.3.f
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Att. 6: City Council- UFMP Presentation (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban
Changes to the UFMP
•Acknowledging the balance between Views and Trees. • Right tree – Right Place
•Clarifying discussion
Street Trees and Native Trees.
Public Trees and Private Trees,
•Private Property Trees
-Case Study on Incentives for Tree Retention
•Goals – Consolidated into 5
8.3.f
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Att. 6: City Council- UFMP Presentation (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban
UFMP GOALS
1.Maintain citywide canopy coverage
2.Manage public trees pro-actively
3.Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property
4.Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on
tree planting and care.
5.Promote “Right tree, right place”
8.3.f
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Att. 6: City Council- UFMP Presentation (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban
Proposed Next Steps…
1.August 7—City Council feedback on UFMP, esp. revisions
2.August 21—City Council action on final revised UFMP
3.After adoption—Beginning of implementation *
*Note: Anything that would need a code or budget change would first be
considered at a detail level and required to have additional public process.
8.3.f
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Att. 6: City Council- UFMP Presentation (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban
Questions, comments?
email to:
Email: denise.nelson@edmondswa.gov
8.3.f
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Att. 6: City Council- UFMP Presentation (Discussion of Revised Draft Urban