City Council - Regular Meeting

It's 7 p.m. on Monday, May 11th, 2026, and I call this special city council meeting to order. Uh, Council Member Roberts, will you lead us in the flag salute? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Um I've been told that um Trina Turnis is on her way. She's stuck in traffic and she expects to be here in about 15 minutes. So, and the rest of council is is here and uh uh position seven is is currently vacant. So, uh moving on to citizen participation. Did we have the signup sheet?

Thank you. All right. Uh, the first person on our sign signup sheet today for citizen comment is Joanne McN. Uh, please um come to the microphone, state your name and city for the record put such pressure on Mr. Whan for what he had said in the meeting about people needing to be able to read and speak English to drive big wheels. Some states call that a law, but he was made to feel so bad he ended up retiring and I just thought it was pretty sad. So that's how I feel.

Thank you, ma'am. Uh the next person on our signup sheet today is Ephraim uh Almarez. Thank you. Just want to clear a few things up. Um in terms of Easy Fiber, still haven't got anything fixed despite having the public director and representatives out of my house multiple times. And also the framing of where we're at right now. We're talking about restoration. And as soon as restoration looks good, then the project is complete and everything's good. What we're really talking about is the construction as it's happening. It's below code and it wouldn't pass anything if we had any inspectors, which I say that we should get our own inspectors and check this as it's happening. Then mitigate those issues. Uh more importantly, I want to talk about today's ordinance about your dog catching responsibilities. I understand that we're trying to accumulate wealth and in order in order to accumulate wealth, you have to give up a resource, right? Just basic economics. I'm sure our CFO understands. But the resource that we're giving up is response time or the possibility of response time. We're giving up our policing response time for $90,000. And in the same day, we're going to talk about our budget with a traffic camera budget of 2.5 million. And you use the old information we got from the first uh go around about the traffic camera. And we're projecting, we're hoping for a 200 300% increase in violations. And that seems to be perverse. It seems if we start off high and by bad behavior being corrected and changing the culture, we should have a sliding scale when it

comes to violations, but yet we're budgeting higher. So, our incentive is for more violations. And that's probably will be turning down the sensitivity or increasing the hours of operation or however you come that to pass. I don't understand why my children don't get the same response time as your children did. Whereas we didn't outsource policing services and response time to automated cameras that can't stop a situation. It can't respond to a situation. Can't clear the crowd or calm the tension. All it could do is just take a picture of what happened and hopefully, you know, build somebody later. And then now that we're going to be chasing dogs and delivering them, there's no way in any universe that one person could be in two places at the same time. You're saying that the risk is minimal that when an officer delivers the dog um and they if something were to happen over here that the risk is real minimal and it's okay, but it's not okay if it's your emergency or your children's emergency or your parents or anything like that. We're trying to save $90,000 in the same breath of budgeting for 2.5 million in when it comes to the traffic camera. I think it's wrong. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Um,

thank you. Um, that was uh all the people that signed up on the sheet. Is there anyone else uh in the audience that would like to address the council this evening? All right. Um, I noticed that I I missed um noting the staff present and uh just for the record, uh, planning manager Stalenecker is here, uh, public works director Madden, uh, finance director Roec, and police chief Hernandez is is here as well. Um, since this is a special meeting, uh, there are no additions allowed. However, there are deletions allowed. or deletion from the from from the the current uh meeting agenda. Seeing none, we will move on to proclamations. Um we have a proclamation for National Police Week. Um whereas Mayor White and the city council for Milton, Washington salute the men and women who do difficult and dangerous work of safeguarding our communities, police officers around the nation understand the uh tremendous responsibility bestowed upon them in protecting the freedom and liberty of all citizens. And whereas the men and women of the Milton Police Department are dedicated to protecting all city residents and visitors with uh with respect and dignity against deception, violence, and disorder. And whereas the residents and visitors of the city of Milton recognize the dangers of the law enforcement profession and understand the difficulties in performing the duties and responsibilities of law enforcement officers. And whereas more than 800,000 law enforcement officers serve communities across the United States. And whereas uh while officers

are even uh are ever vigilant, 111 police officers died in the line of duty in 2025, accounting uh amounting to over 24,000 deaths in the line of duty since the first recorded death in 1786. Um, now therefore, be it resolved that I, Bruce White, mayor of the city of Milton, do recognize the week of May 10th through 16th, 2026 as National Police Week, and show support to the law enforcement officers who devote themselves to delivering exceptional service to this community and in communities across this great this great nation. All right. Yes. All right, we're moving on to the regular agenda, which is going to Oh, wait. Hold on.

Oh, okay.

Sorry. I was looking for the consent. There isn't one today. So on page five of your packet is the first agenda item which is the um first quarter 2026 financial report and uh finance director Robeck will be presenting this for us. Thank you mayor and council. We'll be presenting the first quarter report fund by fund as usual but please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information as we go along. The baseline for activity in the operating funds is 25% of budgeted amounts and we'll be addressing any signific significant variances from these targets um as the funds are presented. So starting with the general fund on page seven revenues are trending below budgeted amounts at 19%. This is primarily due to lower tax revenues. Revenues in nearly all tax categories are at or above budgeted amounts with the exception of property taxes. Property tax revenues generally increase in April and May as we get closer to those due dates. So, this category typically aligns more closely with budgeted amounts by the end of the second quarter. Licenses and permits and charges for services are trending below budgeted amounts as well. This is primarily due to lower thanex expected building permit fees and plan review fees. Expenditures are slightly above budgeted amounts at 26%. With several categories currently trending above the benchmark of 25%. Judicial expenditures are higher than budget as a result of the annual payment to the city of Puall for municipal court services at the beginning of the year. Administration and finance is above budget due to annual costs including software license renewals, audit services, and election costs. Legal services is higher than budget as

a result of higher than expected city attorney fees related to a contract dispute. Admin and other admin and personnel is above budget due to the annual workers comp retrogram membership fee. Other central services is higher than budget as a result of annual expenditures including insurance and city memberships. Recreational facilities is above budget due to costs related to removal of the community building. You'll see that facilities is a negative amount and that's as a result of the indirect cost allocation. This category will likely change to a positive amount as the year progresses. Non non-expenditures is a negative amount as well as a result of timing issues. This category contains several clearing accounts with expenditures distributed throughout the year.

Does anyone have any questions on anything in the general fund before I move on? Can you repeat the reason why you're downus 20%. I didn't hear the reason for that. Yeah. Oh, in facilities um that's mostly due because of the indirect cost allocation. Okay. um it charges a negative amount each month um and then the positive side of that is charged to primarily the utility of funds and so at this point those automatic negative amounts are um higher than the actual expenditure. So as we move through the year that won't that that should reverse correct itself basically. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. Moving on to the asset replacement fund on page eight. Uh revenues are trending slightly above budgeted amounts at 26% with higher than anticipated miscellaneous revenues or interest. Other revenues in the fund include budgeted transfers in from the general fund. There are no expenditures in the fund to date. In the street fund on page nine, revenues are trending as budgeted at 25%. Expenditures are slightly above budgeted amounts at 28% with higher than anticipated insurance, public utilities, and repairs and maintenance. In the rainy day fund on page 10, revenues are trending slightly above budgeted amounts at 26%. with higher than anticipated miscellaneous revenues or interest. Other revenues in the fund include budgeted transfers in from the general fund. In the drug seizure fund on page 11, there are no revenues or expenditures to date. In the criminal justice fund on page 12, revenues are trending as budgeted at 25%. Expenditures are slightly below budgeted amounts at 24% with nearly all categories under budget. In the community events fund on page 13, Milton Day sponsorship and vendor fee revenues are just starting to be received and revenues and expenditures in this fund will increase as the year progresses. In the traffic safety camera fund on page 14, revenues are trending slightly below budgeted amounts at 22%. Expenditures are slightly above budgeted amounts at 33% primarily due to the annual payment to the city of Pua for

for municipal court services at the beginning of the year. and just wanted to point out that these revenues are um can only be used for specific items um traffic safety related items. Council member Cedar. Yeah. Um thanks finance director Robick. Um so just wanted to follow up on that the irritate ear marking that these are only going to specific uses. Um just as a point of refresher there's a separate fund that those are fed into. that we can pull from for those specific projects. Right? I just want to make sure I understand the process. We've talked about it before.

This is um th the traffic safety camera fund is a special revenue fund, meaning that the monies are legally restricted for particular uses. So, in 2026, we do have a transfer scheduled to the capital improvement fund for um traffic safety features and sidewalk improvements um which fall under the um prescribed uses usage of those monies,

right? Which is essentially I think complete streets umbrella or maybe it may be a little broader than just complete streets but um tracking that statutory regulate requirement. The way we would track that then is to look at interf fund transfers out of this fund into capital improvement and see that match those amounts up. Right.

Correct. Correct. And we we also maintain a separate spreadsheet for all for the other restricted revenues as well as these. So the real estate excise taxes, the traffic impact fees and park impact fees and these revenues are all legally restricted. Um and they're kind of all the same thing. We're transferring money as needed for eligible projects in the capital improvement fund. So there is a separate spreadsheet to kind of track those as well. Copy. And then quarter one of 2026. This is the first full quarter when we've had operational cameras. Correct. Yes, that's correct. Great. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay. on in the real estate excise tax funds on pages 15 and 16 revenues are trending slightly below budget amounts at 24% but higher than the previous year at the same time expenditures are budgeted transfers out to the capital improvement fund for eligible capital projects. Uh, moving on to the traffic impact fee fund on page 17, revenues are trending above budgeted amounts at 38%. Expenditures like in the real estate excise tax funds, expenditures are budgeted transfers out to the capital improvement fund for eligible capital projects. In the parks impact fee fund on page 18, revenues have already surpassed budgeted amounts at 190%. No expenditures are budgeted in this fund for the current year. In the capital improvement fund on page 19, revenues are below budgeted amounts at 11%. This is primarily due to intergo intergovernmental revenues or grant funds expected but not yet received as most of our um grants are reimbursement um reimbursement type grants meaning we have to incur the expenditure before we can seek reimbursement. So we do expect those to come in um just haven't been received yet. The largest largest expenditures in this fund to date are for the citywide parks improvements project. Um, in the electric utility fund on page 20, revenues are trending above budgeted amounts at 32%. Total expenditures are below budgeted amounts at 21%. You will notice that administr administration expenditures are higher

than budget and that's primarily due to the annual insurance payment and you interfund transfers are higher than budget and that's due to that's a result of higher revenues. In the capital improvement fund on page 21, revenues are trending above amount above budgeted amounts at 31%. Expenditures to date include expenditures for tree trimming and the meter replacement project. Next, uh in the water utility fund on page 22, revenues are trending as budgeted at 25%. Total expenditures are below budgeted amounts at 23%. Um like in the previous fund, you'll notice that administration expenses expenditures are higher than budget and that's primarily due to the annual insurance payment as well. In the water capital improvement fund on page 23, revenues are below budgeted amounts at 20%. Primarily due to lower than expected capital contributions or system development charges. Larger expenditures to date include expenditures for the fire hydrant and gate valve upgrades and miscellaneous well rehabilitation projects. In the water asset replacement fund on page 24, revenues are trending as budgeted at 25%. There are no expenditures in the fund to date. In the storm water utility fund on page 25, revenues are trending above budgeted amounts at 28%. Total expenditures are below budgeted amounts at 21%. You will notice that interfund transfers are higher than budget and that's a result of higher revenues because those interfund transfers out to the capital

and asset replacement funds are based on um storm water fees. Yeah. Yes. Council member um the across those the three utility funds there the operations are lower across the board which I don't I just don't recall seeing that especially not to that dramatic of a number shift. Um yeah you mean just just the operations line or total

expens 10% here um which seems very low for something that we should be able to predict pretty well. Can you just explain that? Well, it's and I kind of on across all of them I compared to this year's numbers at the same time to last year's numbers at the same time and for the most part they're pretty close. Um but we t for those um well actually for the electric utility fund but like for the water utility fund people are using less water now than they do in the summer and we're doing um I think we're doing less less work in kind of the um in the winter ne on those. I don't know if do you have any any other thoughts or

Yes, great question. Uh a lot of the storm work occurs in you know the middle of the year and so all of the ponds that are being mowed um ditching catchbas and cleaning all that's occurring kind of between now and August and so that's you'll see it catch back up but that's that's the why is that similar for the electric fund as windtorms pick up in the fall perhaps we we see higher utility there or operations there. Yeah, electric fund is a little bit different. I believe that's because there's a vacancy on on the op side. That makes sense. Yes. Okay. And we do have a seasonal um kind of intern or or labor position that is dedicated to them now. So, you'll see that go up.

Gotcha. Thanks. Appreciate that.

Thank you, Destiny. Um in the storm water capital improvement fund on page 26 revenues are tren trending below budgeted amounts at 13%. Primarily due to intergo intergovernmental revenues or grant funds expected but not yet received. There are no expenditures in the fund to date. In the storm water asset replacement fund on page 27, revenues are trending above budgeted amounts at 29%. There are no expenditures in the fund to date. In the electric asset replacement fund on page 28, revenues are trending above budgeted amounts at 31% but there are no expenditures in the fund to date. In the vehicle repair and maintenance fund on page 29, revenues are quite a bit below budgeted amounts. Revenues in this fund are based on internal work orders and will increase as the year progresses. Expenditures are below budgeted amounts as well at 19%. In the information technology fund on page 30, revenues are as budgeted at 25%. Revenues in this fund are based on cost allocation cost allocations posted to the fund in equal amounts each month. Expenditures are below budgeted amounts at 21%. Those were the only prepared comments that I have, but if anyone has any questions or needs additional information about um about any of the activity,

any questions or discussion on this item? Okay. Thank you, Director Rob. Uh, the next item on the agenda is 6B, the Department of Commerce grant acceptance and uh and our um planning manager, Stalenecker, is going to be uh is going to be presenting this item.

Uh, thank you, Mayor and Council. So, um, yes, this is, um, this is a is on for action tonight. We are requesting that the council authorized the mayor to sign the inter agency agreement with the Washington State Department of Commerce/growth Management Services to accept this grant funding. It's for 2025 through 2027. That's their budget period. and it's climate climate planning grant in the amount of $334,431.89. Um I will note that the odd number is due to the fact that we were the last um city jurisdiction to receive money out of this pot of money. And so she said, "Please, this is the amount that's left. We want every penny gone." And so that's why we get this weird little 89 cents at the bottom. Um, planning for climate change is a requirement as part of the growth management act. It wasn't um required as part of our last update, but it will be required um it is required to be completed um in the next several years. And so they have provided funding for that as best they can. And so um this climate plan grant program is to support the jurisdictions with those work is funded by the Washington's climate committee commitment act. The CCA supports Washington's climate action efforts by putting cap and in cap and invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs, and improving public health. The scope of the work um in this inter agency grant is on pages 13 through 18 um in and then the budget breakdown is on page 19. So the scope of the work is to provide draft versions of a resiliency sub element, a greenhouse gas emission reduction sub element and an urban forest management plan. Commerce's grants are great because they work on deliverables not like uh

receipts. So as we if you you know under the um scope of work it says we will provide these deliverables and each time we provide a deliverable they there's an allocation of money that comes back to us. So we're not having to do receipts. Um and so again, we will be providing draft documents. Um and then as we provide those draft draft documents, they will provide the funding back to us. The the majority of the work will be provided by our on call planning consultant framework as well as our on call transportation consultants transporro. The work must be completed by June 30th, 2027. And um as part of this, these are draft documents that will um the first two will end up as part of our comprehensive plan. Um and again, they're draft documents. So at that point, they will um go to the planning commission for kind of final review and and the planning commission will be involved throughout those processes at times. Um they're also if you'll look through there's requirements for um reaching out to the public getting some engagement um even I um for all for that it's based very much on um department of commerce has provided sort of this is the steps this is the requirements so it's pretty here if you do things you will make the requirements in the end um and then once it will once the final kind of recommendation gets to. So once you know to get the the final gra draft sorry to get the final grant money we will submit those draft copies and once we you know I said each chunk they give you a little bit until you're done but then those drafts still go through our process which is to go through the planning commission which will be a recommendation to city council and then city council would um hopefully approve as we you know all the different versions that they have the ability to and then those would become part of our

growth management act. Um and then like I and then like I said the breakdown of what we're doing in the various steps and then um on 19 sort of breaks down as we give each of those deliverers that's how much the um department of commerce gives back to us. So um that being said I will give it back to the mayor um hopefully for a motion and then if there's any questions or comments.

All right I would uh entertain a motion. Council member Cedar. I move to authorize the mayor to sign the inter agency agreement with the Washington State Department of Commerce growth management services to accept the 2025 2027 climate planning grant funding of $334,43189 to amend the budget as appropriate. Second. It's it been uh moved and seconded. Um Council Member Cedar, would you like to speak to your

Ju just briefly? I I appreciate um getting this grant. I received a couple congratulatory messages when Milton's name popped up on the list and that was pretty exciting. Um, so I actually hadn't been aware that we were getting it. I knew this was going to be a requirement coming down the road and that's the only thing I want to clarify so that we are clear here. This is now required or will be required as an amendment to our um comprehensive plan to add these elements which were not required when we originally drafted it, passed it last year. Correct.

Correct. So it was it it came late in um kind of like the final requirements came late. So the the cities and counties that were in that first chunk which was 2024 were not acquired at that time other than to do some basic referencing but yes it is and and I apologize I realize I didn't put the specific date but um in the next couple years we will be required to have it. So this will take care of that requirement. So either we'd be paying for it from our budget or we'd take a grant to pay for it. Right. Correct. Seems like a no-brainer. Thanks, Council Member Hall. Would you like to speak to your second?

Council member Cedar, exact said exactly what I was going to say. Um, we do not want to be trying to pull this into our budget to take care of it. Now that it's going to be a mandate, it's over. Any further discussion?

Yes, Council Member Mounts. Thank you, mayor, and thank you for your hard work in getting this um grant opportunity for us. It looks like there's three components to this grant. This um resiliency sub element, I'm not really sure what that is. The greenhouse gas emissions um and the urban forest management plan. Yeah, based on my experience with grants and contracts, only the actual work performed within the period of performance of the grant is eligible for reimbursement. And it looks like we've done a considerable amount of work on the urban forest management plan. So, I'm just wanting to make sure that that work either will be redone after the grant is awarded and executed, including especially I'm concerned about the public outreach um on the forest management plan or is there something um the other two components will be used more specifically with this grant money and the urban forest development plan will be coming out of the budget since it's pretty far along in the planning stage. So this is um so if so um yes this is kind of ties into this part obviously ties into the um urban tree preservation code at the at the end of that draft or proposal um recommendation there's some language talking about wanting to do a urban forest management plan and we have one that's been adopted that I dug up probably 15 20 years ago that was so what the money would be going for is It's not for the stuff we've already done. Yes, it would be

moving forward. Um it would be um a lot of it would go towards things like getting a better understanding of our existing conditions. What is our coverage? Um so it's sort of taking some of the codes and getting a kind of fine-tuning some of the um what are you know looking at what we do say in our comp plan for goals and policies seeing if we want to expand those looking at what is our current tree coverage right now can and um what areas might be lacking are there hot spots where are areas that are deficit of trees that maybe there's some focus Um is there some you know again there's it's sort of um we've talked about that the current preservation in some ways is a stop gate stop gap stopgate to um kind of create a holding pattern um to make sure that we aren't just cutting continuing to cut these large trees without um better replacements and stuff. And then this would be an overall um beyond that just looking at for the city as a whole um where are we you know are we losing trees are we not losing trees how do we do that um again it's the um the specific things would be to help do further goals and policies tree canopy coverage and an inventory data of the trees that we have within the city. Yes, a component of it is community interest and input. Um, and then looking at a bigger analysis of needs and opportunities. Is it something where the city wants to create um plans to help give away trees or sell trees? And then an overall management plan as well is are we maintaining those trees? Um are we offering solutions for that? So that funding a lot of you know will go towards taking sort of what we've got and do a fuller um plan that I thought

would take us five years to get in to get to that point but with the funding we can get to that sooner. So,

are we planning on hiring a consultant as in uh as allowable under section two? And are we going to do um public outreach strategy and documentation of the public outreach? And if we do those things, is it not premature then to have a discussion on this is the first time I've ever heard what we're discussing in item 6E as a stop gap measure. Did I hear that right? that I it was and that's probably more but the idea being that I guess that's part of why we've tried to um and I don't know if I'm getting too much into that particular agenda item versus this particular agenda item. Um the idea I mean it's this portion um like I said we included it in that because we know that we need more than just what we have. The feeling is that we have that and yes um the intent is to use our current on call um consultants both framework which is planning and transpo for some of they we will need a transportation for some of that. Um and yes the the the deliverables and the tasks all um have built in a climate policy advisory group um public engagement, tribal engagement, all of those different things so that we can do a fuller plan. Um and again and and stop gap maybe not the quite right term but the idea being that that's part of why we were we we feel like we don't want to wait till we've done all this work because we feel like there are the planning commission um and to some extent direction from some council members is that at the time was that um what we have is not adequate. So and we can further discuss that under that agenda item. So before we vote to receive the grant, which is a windfall for the city, we have your assurance

that none of the things that we're seeking reimbursement for is work that was done prior to the execution of the grant because we don't want to be party to non-compliance in in an indiv. No, the deliverables are all listed here and we have not done any of the deliverables that the um state will be that we have told the state we will be doing.

Thank you. Any further discussion? All right. It's been moved by uh Council Member Cedar and seconded by Council Oh, I'm sorry. It's an action item. Is there anyone from the uh from the audience that would like to speak on this item before a vote? All right. Seeing none, um it's been moved by council member Cedar and seconded by council member Hall uh to authorize the mayor to sign the inter agency agreement with the Washington State Department of Commerce uh growth management service to accept the 2025 to 2027 climate planning grant funding in the amount of $334,431.89 to amend the budget as appropriate. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion passes. All right. Next item on the agenda is item 6B on page 53. Uh it's the proposed um chapter 6.04 MMC update for the animal cord uh code ordinance and uh chief will present this item for us.

Good evening council and guests. Uh this item is back before you. Uh, agenda item 6C. We talked about this at our last council meeting. Um, in 2009, the city of Milton entered into an interlocal agreement with the cities of Palop, Alona, Pacific, Bonnie Lake, Edgewood, and Sumar, establishing Metro Animal Services as a regional provider of animal control services. Since that time, the cost structure associated with Metro Animal Services has increased significantly. These increases are no longer proportionate to the city of Milton's service demand or fiscal capacity. As a result, continued participation in the interlocal agreement is no longer financially suitable. Currently, the city relies uh on the adoption by reference of the summer Milton Municipal Code for animal control regulations. The structure limits Milton's ability to independently establish enforcement standards, fee schedules, and policy priorities tailored to our local needs. Upon review, uh, a locally administered animal control framework makes sense and service delivery, enforcement practices, and costs with community expectations while maintaining appropriate public safety and animals uh, welfare standards. The staff recommendation is to repeal and replace the Sar code and adopt the city of Milton uh, our own code. The city of Milton should adopt its own animal regulations to promote the health and safety and general welfare of animals and the city of Milton residents. Also, this business model shifts the cost and the burden away from the non-pet owners to the owners who are responsible for the ongoing shelter operation costs. And the other thing I just wanted to provide a little clarification about, I think that there might be a little bit of confusion about animal services in that they are present in the city. they are not present in the city. Uh they do not conduct regular patrols. In fact, I looked at the um stats that they provided and in 2005 25 they provided

five special emphasis which means they were actually in the city five times actually patrolling the streets. And then when I look at the animal calls for service provided by 911, there were 93 times that uh the police department was dispatched to animal service calls compared with their 120. And I can tell you that they are usually um complaint driven, not on site or on what we call on view, meaning they're not out actively patrolling as uh is reported in their report with their five times that they were in the city. So a lot of times we will go and handle those calls and then we will take that information and then pass that along to animal services so that they can respond when they have adequate staffing to actually come into the city. But for exigent calls such as animal complaints, uh animal abuse, animal bites, an injured animal or a deceased animal or animal at large, the police department for large part 93 different times we were the ones that were uh requested by dispatch and then we would pass that along and uh have animal services respond out. So, I just wanted to provide that clarification that as far as handling animal complaints, the police department, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, we are out there uh because again, an animal at large is an immediate hazard to pedestrians, people on bicycles, uh the motoring traffic. So, um, an example, there was a dog that got onto the on-ramp of I5 and the state patrol and all local jurisdictions responded to to try to get the animal into custody, which they were successful. The animal was not hit. Uh, but that's an example of an immediate hazard. Whenever an animal is at large or running uh into the roadway, they're danger. So, we're going to respond. The other thing I wanted to make note is is that the animal control does not have the ability to run emergency response.

Uh so if they do get called, there's going to be a normal response and not an emergency response where if we have an animal in the roadway or a deceased animal laying in the road or an animal bite in progress, we're going to be the ones that respond. And then secondly, uh animal services also doesn't have the ability to perform a dispatch of an animal where we do. So if there is a need where someone is actually being attacked, we can actually dispatch that animal if it becomes necessary, if they are a danger to the public. Um, so yeah. All right. Would anyone like to uh make a motion on this item? Yes, Council Member Cedar. Uh, I move to approve ordinance 2141-26 as presented.

Second. Uh, Council Member Cedar, would you like to speak to your

I I appreciate all of the work. uh that you did in researching this, all the answers you had last week, the additional information this week. I just want to be real clear that the last thing you said is not why I'm supporting this. I don't hope no animals are dispatched, to borrow your term. Um but I understand that, you know, from representing folks who have been bitten by dogs, it is an absolute emergency and it requires an immediate police response. So, um yeah, this is great. Thank you. And actually just to remark back, the most common shooting for a police officer is an animal u unfortunately whether it's to humanely dispatch an animal uh or whether it's been a dog attack in progress. And since I've been here, we have had some dog attacks in progress where it was necessary for us to actually take immediate action and uh terminate that animal.

Council member MS, would you like to speak to your second? I appreciate also the amount of information that you've provided and the key takeaway I have is that we're paying somebody else to do something that you're doing anyway. So, thank you for presenting it that way. Any further discussion on this item?

Well, we're not there yet. Okay. Um, now that Yeah. I know. I want to give you guys the chance first. What the hell? Okay. All right. This is an action item.

Is there anyone from the audience would like to speak on this item be uh before we vote? Yes. We're creating I understand heavier. We made I hope something else again. This is for the safety of This is why

could they at that and not being able. Thank you, sir. Chief, would you like to respond to that?

Uh, I was just going to say, you know, I I've heard, uh, this comment and we actually used to have police department volunteers in the past. And so, um, since they've left and we haven't, um, opened our volunteer program up again, you know, this has caused me to take pause and think about maybe reinstituting the volunteer program again. And I know when I had the animal shelter in Jefferson County, I had a 100 volunteers. And so, uh, it might be compiling a list of individuals that are willing to perform these transports for us or to assist in an injured dog. But regardless if a dog's at large or a dog has been hit, we still are going to be required to respond because of the immediate safety that hazard that is created by either a deceased animal or an animal at large. So, that's not going to change. But as far as the transports, that's something I can certainly work on and try to facilitate because I know if I had the volunteer cadre that I had before, there would be no question because they were always a phone call away and they would respond and we had a volunteer vehicle set up for them so they could facilitate whatever our needs were. Everything from traffic to providing uh mental health support uh on death scenes. Uh so I will look at the volunteer program again. I also will talk to the humane society because I know that they have a very large uh core of volunteers and see if there's something I could work out with the the humane society down the street here which is the facility that we'd be utilizing if they would be willing to come and provide those transports. And then also reaching out to the Edgewood uh veterary which is just up the street here about their willingness to be able to take injured animals for us which you know they're two minutes up the road. But um I appreciate the uh public feedback and I certainly will take that into consideration. Uh anyone else from the audience like to speak on this item before the vote?

All right. It's been moved by council member Cedar and seconded by council member mounts to uh approve ordinance 2141-26 as presented. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. The next item on the agenda is item uh 6D, the fee schedule resolution 26-1995 and uh Director Robeck will be presenting this item.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh the city has chosen to withdraw from an interlocal agreement with Metro Animal Services and will now assume responsibility for animal control services. Pet licensing fees included in the fee schedule currently refer to Metro Animal Services and the proposed changes will establish pet licensing fees payable to the city. All other fees in the fee schedule are unchanged. Okay. I'd entertain a motion. Council member Roberts. I move to adopt resolution 26195 to update fee schedule as presented.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Council member Roberts, would you like to speak to your motion? Um, thank you for doing this. There's really no update to the fee schedule. So, thank you. Council member Cedar, would you like to speak to your state? Just wanted to clarify was this directly ported over from the previous fees or how did we come to these numbers? Um yeah they g they were given to me by chief.

Uh thank you. Um yes we just we didn't uh do any kind of increase because in the past that had been done on our behalf because we had the summoner code and the fees were mentioned in the code. So I extracted that language out of the code so that we would have the ability to every year council would have the ability if necessary to increase those fees. But as of now the fees are the status quo of what was before through Sumner. We've just transferred them over to our fee schedule. And to facilitate that it requires a legislative action to approve that fee schedule. And then every year we'll be bringing the fee schedule back for you and you'll be able to have authority to increase, decrease, or whatever is necessary.

Yep. Awesome. Thank you. Any further discussion? All right. This is an action item. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, it's been moved by Council Member Roberts and seconded by Council Member Cedar to adopt resolution 26-1995, the updated fee schedule as presented. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right. The last item on our agenda this evening is on page 107. Uh it's the urban forest preservation ordinance. and uh and planning manager Stalene Necker will be presenting this item.

All right. Um good evening and thank you again. So this is um this was presented at the last regular meeting. Um what you have before you is the um what I have is the comments and concerns and questions that were raised at the last meeting plus a a couple other things um that had come in. So I wanted to go through that. And just a reminder that yes, the planning commission um has recommended a draft proposal for amendments to the code which would create an urban forest preservation section. Um it's based on the comp plan vision and goals. Um it is definitely influenced by the um numerous um calls, questions, comments, news articles and such. that have that always come to the to the city after a major project between the church um warehouses, the new apartments on Milton, um some of the newer um housing developments, ADUs that have um you know, obviously they're taking out lots of trees and a lot of big trees. And then it's also um been a you know, it is a priority issue for some of our planning commission me members. And then um so as we are we're looking at this um again trying to cram all of this into meetings is always trying to hi find the highlights for that and and and different things. But the idea being that um the feeling has been that our current code to protect trees is inadequate and and so um we went through several versions and then they settled on the planning commission settled on using bureans as our base. Um with that is the

idea that beyond just simply sort of having this um tree permitting protecting we also need to understand better our tree canopy. And so that's where the secondary step, that longer step is getting that longer document. Um similar that we do for you know water, storms, streets, parks is to say what is what do we have? What do we want? Um and how do we get there? And that will be um a much fuller um process. um but it it holds a slightly and I would anticipate that that may turn around and um cause maybe some amendments to this section but that doesn't mean that the planning commission or staff don't believe does not believe that this is not a valuable thing to do at this time. So, real quick, I will run through um this was the document I provided. Just a reminder that um again, this was proposed. This is the draft document that was proposed, went through planning commission, several meetings, they had a public hearing, had some comments on it. Um and so um you start with that and that's their job is to do the research and do all that in-depth stuff on zoning and land use and subdivision codes. Um from that it does come to the council and if there's items within that the council member um a council member maybe wishes to ach to amend they are welcome to you know that the kind of the process um is if you're doing it at this stage it can be discussion item for your council and then if there is enough members that say yeah we'd like to change that and there it can be done through consensus um or if it gets all the way to and you've made a motion at that point and you want to change it after that, then yes, you need like motions to change and it gets a little more complicated. So, just again, I know there's a lot of new members and so trying to help um guide that process as well. So, just some

quick there was a public comment at the last meeting concern about native versus in invasive trees. So, I just wanted to point out that um point subsection um 170871 defines prohibited plant and tree list as the weed list prepared by King County. Um we specifically chose that one because it is an expanded list. It's it has more than just what's provided by the state or Pierce County. It actually also includes trees um and it kind of has different tiers. And so the and again it's always the advantage if we can reference um a larger jurisdiction for these types of items because they have staff to keep that list updated where we don't. Um there was you know a discussion and questions about requiring the minimum tree credit. Why is it a larger number for residential? Um residential properties have a maximum per service limit of 50 to 85% depending on the zone. They have setbacks that sort of encourage and allow more vegetation on residential lots. Commercial mixeduse properties um have a maximum have a greater maximum purview service including up to 90%. They may have zero to 15. They do have landscaping requirements, but there's sort of this assumption that they're going to take up less green space. And again, as we've talked about, um if a majority of council feels that that minimum tree credit needs to go up or down, the council that's within their purview to have discussion on that and to make any um amendments to the proposal as um the majority feels is necessary. Um there was discussion of expensive tree replacement on residential property. Obviously, that can be a moving target, but from what my research was is removal of a large tree. So, 60 plus feet can average between 900 and 5,000. Again, that depends on size, location, and the more difficult it is to remove, obviously, that price is going to go up. Um, there will need to

be permit fees. Um, so it would then be added to the permit fee schedule. Um, again, the council will set that fees at that point. staff's um initial thought and recommendation um but again that will come back later would be 150 for a minor permit that's sort of the equivalent to one hour of review time because the permit tech will have to do a certain amount I would do a certain amount then there's usually a follow-up inspection so all of that um would be kind of covered in that um and then for the longer one it's going to be with a bigger project so they're already playing other development permits fees but um specific specifically this portion um I would think at least you know probably double for that and then there was concern over penalty fee amounts again the fees may marerian's fees and were based on the project projected value of what will be lost um by the removal of those trees and I know one of our council members had reached out and talked to Burian's um arborist quite a bit and had brought that information back I had reached out but he is on extended leave Um, so I always think maybe they had a baby, but I don't know. They just said he's unavailable until I believe um, July or August. So I was not able to kind of follow up with that, but that was um, that was sort of the information that was brought back to us. Um, again, the planning the city council has the flexibility if they want to pull those fines out of the code and put them in the fee schedule. As we've seen, fee schedule is a little bit more flexible. it doesn't have to go through planning commission and then council um it can simply we multiple times a year can adjust the fee schedule if it's needed and then obviously again with consensus council can change those penalty fines if they feel that they are too high or not high enough there was some additional definition recommendations and so again if if I get consensus from

council I would add the tree protection zone definition the um critical root zone definition and a qualified tree risk assessment ment report definition. There was a request to clarify um we kind of have this funky little part in here that is um it talks about so if you're a lot undergoing development where you can when you can take down an exceptional tree. So the first is obviously if it's hazard um if it is unhealthy and then the third says retention of the tree will limit the constructible building coverage to less than 85% of the maximum total struct coverage area allowed under chapter 1715b which is a little bit of a mouthful and a little bit of what does that mean? So just to sort of hopefully make it more sense is um you're looking at those two key words constructable building coverage maximum total structure coverage. Constructional building coverage as we have defined it or proposing to define it is basically you look at you can't build on the setbacks you can't build if there's a critical areas. Um if you have a tree again you're going to have that critical root zone or that protection zone. You can't build on that. If you look at so if you take all of those things out how much land do you have left and if so like on an and then on the other side is we have what's called a maximum total structure coverage that is set in our code and so um underneath the little blue part it kind of tries to walk through an example. So, um the bulk table says you can have 40% um structure coverage of in a neighborhood residential lot. So, you can cover up to 40%. So, for an 8,000t lot, you can cover it 3,200 foot with structure. So, a house, a garage, um a pergola. So, let's say a developer asked to

remove an exceptional tree based on that language. They would have to provide the following a site plan identifying all those things setback critical area where the tree is where that tree projection zone is because that's an area that they are not allowed to develop. If that remaining area is less than 2,720 ft, which is that 85% of the 3,200, then they could remove the tree. So to help with that section to make it um hopefully a little more easier for um someone to understand it and for a f and for staff myself or when I leave a future staff to understand how to deal with that um that the language in red on page three um staff kind of it would recommend adding that to qual basically. So you would say um where did it go? That retention of the tree will be limited will limit the constructible building coverage to less than 85% of the maximum total structure coverage errors allowed under the chapter. To qualify, an applicant must submit a site plan that identifies the non-billable areas, the location of the exceptional tree, and the tree protection area, and demonstrate that the total constructable area is less than 85% of the maximum total structural coverage allowed for the parcel. So, um it's a little technical, but when you're dealing with construction building, a lot of times we are technical. I think this would help um any future person who wasn't here when we made these decisions understand that process. Um and then there was um a question about again talking about that urban forest management plan that not only seeing where we are um kind of can we do some measurables for tracking the overall tree canopy see if these measures um are helping are we gaining anything or we not gaining anything and

so um I have some just some red language um to kind of fine-tune it a little bit and add a um a number six which is periodic updates to track progress. Um and then I did want to add um one kind of clarification that came up I realized um that I didn't include in my first explanation or my first walk through. So um when we're dealing with section subsection C deviation from standards that term there the planning commission's recommendation use the burian's term which is cold depart code departure basically says the idea being that you know let's say the setback in the rear yard is 25 ft there's a um or no I think it's the front yard so um set back in the front yard is 20 ft maybe there's a big old tree if we allowed them to make the front step set back 18 ft. They could save that tree. And so, um, Berian called it a code departure. Again, there's criteria. It says they have to meet A, B, C, D, and E. Um, we use the term deviation from sand standards in our landscaping, uptown, various places. I kind of listed a few. So, it's this it's the same idea is that you're allowing a small change based on criteria. And so I did change that work that just the title or that term from code departure dev deviation from standards just based on the fact that it it seemed better than creating a another type of exception. So if we're okay with that, we can leave that term. If the city would like me to if the council would like me to change it back to um code departure, I can. But that was different. That was the one thing that did change that the planning that the planning commission was not in their version. So based on that, that sort of covered what I believe I heard at the last meeting and I will be quiet and open it up for discussion or questions.

Thank you. And this will the intention is hopefully to come back next week um for a vote. Yes. Uh Council Member Poor.

Thank you, Mayor. Just want to start by saying thank you. I think the this is awesome. Um I think you put a lot of effort into it. Um, for myself, I would probably propose an amendment to this saying I love this for all new builds or development, but for people who are already living here, uh, I think maybe we should do more research on what would make sense for us, if anything, for those existing homeowners. Um, one of my concerns is just making it making things a little bit less safe and not not directly, just kind of indirectly. So, for instance, I have a willow tree on my property and I love it. I don't want to get rid of it, but it's dying. Um, I had a giant branch that we had a great tree swing for our kids on. And while we were on vacation, we had a very small amount of weather and wind and that branch broke. If they had been on that swing, they could have been killed. And my my concern is is any um in impediment for me to make a decision to remove that tree based on my own kind of good uh reasonable judgment I feel like could maybe delay somebody from making a decision that could save a life or you know injury or something like that. Um, I think it also could just kind of be a a large burden on certain populations just because of cost and um, you know, you have to pay for a permit, you have to pay uh for the arborist to come, then you got to also pay for the tree removal um, and then planting new trees. And I and I'm not trying to discount any of the hard work

you've done. I really love this, but I love it for new builds and I'm open to it for homeowners in the future. I just think that if it if we were to put it in place, we should make it make the most sense for Milton. So maybe, you know, what we're talking about with the um public feedback with that grant, maybe we could incorporate that into the in that and maybe make it like kind of a separate thing that maybe we adopt that later. Um, and then I also am kind of uh in support of the fees versus people breaking the law where we can um for so incorporating into the fee structure if that makes sense.

Any additional discussion or questions? Council member Hall,

I appreciate all the work you've put into it. Um, I've had several residents talk to me about this and it's kind of layered because right now there are no permits. There's nothing that's needed and then all of a sudden we're adding a lot to the residents. If it's a development, they're used to that. They they know they're going to have to work around trees. They know, you know, they understand that as residents, I think it should be a layered project where definitely if I made a mistake and made a $15,000 mess up because an old older gentleman didn't realize it, I I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that to anyone. Um, if you're sneaking around, well, you kind of get it. But um I think this is going to put a lot of burden on the residents and right now we have a lot of residents running around looking to get their trees cut down because they heard about this and they are um and maybe they wouldn't have this didn't happen. Um, also is when they get the permit, are you going to ask if they're using a contractor that's licensed? Because I see that too where fly by nights come through a neighborhood and will take down a bunch of trees. Nobody knows that they have a license. That makes me nervous because trees can kill. Um, so that that bothers me. Um, the rest of it is great. It's just the resident part I have reservations

on. I think it's going to put an undue burden on. Any additional discussion? Yes, Council Member M. Thank you, Mayor. Oh, I'm sorry. You said Roberts or I said Mounts. Oh, I'm sorry. You can go next.

Sorry. Thank you again for all the hard work and for the responsiveness to the concerns. I believe this proposal is premature and that the city plans to utilize the grant from the commerce department and the grant allows us to hire a consultant, conduct and document meaningful public outreach such as attribution as to who's making what comments and establish a baseline for where the canopy is now and for how much improvement is needed and when it's needed by. So right now the city has a goal to increase the canopy. Okay. Well, how big is the canopy? And do we measure that per capita, per acre, per building site, per square foot? How much do we need to increase it by 0.5% per year, you know, 10% over five years? We just don't have enough information to write meaningful code for the staff to enforce, right? And so I think this grant will be very timely and I think the information that the grant could provide um will be very beneficial and very valuable to us. I I don't see any reason to do a stop gap measure to do something now and then come back next year when we have all the information that we need and we have a draft proposal to do it again. I know it's very hard to amend something once it's been codified and the city code updates are currently in the in the statement of work for the inter agency agreement. The city code updates are slotted for May of 2027. So that's one year from now. So as such I would like to just table this discussion or set it aside until the grant IAA has been executed and implemented and the deliverables have been provided so that we have

complete information to discuss. Short of that I agree with the um other council members who have discussed the burden to the homeowners and the residents in single family and duplex residents that are not seeking development. I don't think that should be included in this at this time. If the additional information um discovers that, yeah, we have a lot of rogue homeowners out there just doing whatever we don't want them to do, then you know, when we have data to confirm that and back that up, we can discuss it at that time. But right now, I think the burden on the everyday average homeowner is excessive and unnecessary. I also have an exceptional tree on my property and I'm trying to save it. But if I can't save it, I really don't have room on my lot to add a lot of trees. I'm constrained by the road and the water and it putting the only place to put trees is along the property line and then that's an encroachment on my neighbors on the fence and the roots and the branches that hang over the fence which I um don't think that's fair to them to put that burden on them. So, so my option number one would be to just set this discussion aside until we have more information. And that would also um in my mind because I am I used we always called the period of performance in a grant and inter agency agreement the lowhanging fruit. Any work that was performed prior to or after outside the period of performance was not eligible for reimbursement whether there were receipts or not. So I I think that we just need to do the work after the grant is executed and then bring it repackage it and bring it

back to the council at that time. If there's not a consensus to do that, then I would ask for um a call for consensus to remove the homeowners and single family residents and duplex from this proposal. I don't believe that it's necessary to um put the burden on the homeowners and I would concur with council member poor that the fines should be moved to the permit fee schedule and not be part of this so that the staff has flexibility in reviewing individual situations and um providing input and making changes with with or without the help of council if it's part of the fee schedule. I think it's just better suited for a small city like Milton. We're not a big commercial metropolis. Um, we're we're neighbors and we're neighborhoods and and I would like us to lean toward being neighborly. Thank you,

Council Member Roberts. Thank you, Mayor. Just had a quick question regarding the process of tree removal. So, for example, say Mr. Smith wanted a tree removed and the tree removal company comes, do they come to the city first and ask what the policies are or do they immediately go to the resident and just start doing work? I'm just curious how that functions.

Um I it depends on who the contractor is. Um we um more and more we get calls requesting double-checking do they need permits or not. Um if um well either way depending on which portion if all of this or parts of this are done um our goal is to notify um the tree um companies that we know to make them aware that codes are changing in Milton so that they will be aware of that before they do that because we do realize that we want to make sure um like anything you want to make sure contractors are aware um so when they're hired that they are none done. Um, do it correctly. Um, you know, and again, sometimes it's just I mean, I've had contractors who, well, what do you mean you need a fence permit? And I think every city requires a fence permit. So, there are things that certain contractors choose to try to ignore and get away with, but you know, like I said, we get a lot of calls and our goal would be to notify everybody as best we can and to get that word out.

Yes, Council Member Turnis.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, so my concern is regarding the cost. Um, so if somebody has a tree that is compromised and they need to take it down, it can be quite expensive. Correct. And then they're asked to be able to replace these trees with more trees, which is more expense as well. And as property owners, um, I don't feel I feel like it has to be more of an individualized because, um, as previously stated, some people don't want more trees on their properties, but then I also look at the need for generational trees where, you know, we want our grandkids to have trees here in the city as well. So, I don't know if it can be more of an individualized uh process that this is what the city would like to have happen. We understand that there's economic concerns, that there's aesthetic concerns. I mean, I just feel like there's a lot that factors in there rather than just saying this is it and there's no gray area for movement.

Um, just a couple of quick comments um from so unless there's any other comments before I start responding to some of this. I have comments too, but go ahead.

Go ahead. Um so obviously the biggest concern um which I does not surprise me is in essence um it's section E or subsection E which is the tree removal not associated with development um because that is something that we have not done across the board and has been proposed to be across the board. So again there are multiple things the council can choose to do. You could adopt everything except for that section. And there's one other section dealing with um exceptional trees. Um you could um direct staff to make a few changes. things like um maybe you um you don't have to replace if it hits certain categories or you have to replace one tree or something that is maybe on the a smaller scale. So those are sort of the things there. Um, it it is it's a there is the cleanest, easiest, and safest is to have some sort of this is sort of the standard that we're doing because if there's too much wiggle room, then you get into, well, we let them do it, but we're not letting them do it, and then we get ourselves into trouble. So, it's trying to find that balance there. Um, so like I said, I it um that's my initial I guess giving you some options there. So,

council member Cedar.

Yeah, I I um am a little taken aback that there is so much reluctance to adopt this. Our comp plan is unequivocal. There was literally zero negative feedback when we discussed the goal of increasing Milton's tree canopy. It's been on the agenda for, you know, almost the entire time I've been here. I recall it being talked about. Uh, and I think that it's really shortsighted to suggest that, oh, I'm a current homeowner. I don't want to take down a tree or I know someone who doesn't want to take down a tree. I I think that's doing Milton a real disservice as a city. Our job is to look at Milton's future. And what we know is that Milton's open spaces and spaces for children to play, all these things that we like about Smilton's small town that everybody claims they want Milton to feel like a small town. Well, those are drying up. And so this is a this is a firm step to protect the future. As well as as you know, I think most people weren't here when we heard from Dr. last year explaining how reduction of tree canopies has this just catastrophic effect on creating higher temperatures in in paved environments. And we are experiencing that. I we guarantee we'll experience it this summer as well. Like we need trees. We need it not just for oh it looks nice on my property. Oh, I'd like my kid to have a swing. Oh, I'd like to sit in the shade. But we need it because we are getting hotter and hotter. And the only way we're going to control our temperature, our energy consumption, our water consumption is by having greenery. And like, yeah, it it sucks to have to get a permit. I don't want to get a permit. I cut down trees all the time and I try to plant a tree when I do it. And like I'm doing the math on my property. It's going to create a burden to to do it. But that's what that's what we have to do because we are losing trees. When I drive through somewhere like Edgewood, I don't know what Edgewood's tree management is, but I assume it's bad because there are so many huge lots now where someone comes

in and builds a monster house, clearcuts it, and then that's all you see. And like that's not what I want Milton to be. And I don't I don't think most people want that for Milton. We want a place where you can feel like you're in a safe spot, walk on a sidewalk, or if you don't have a sidewalk, you're walking amongst a forested world. I I mean that's I I I guess I have always assumed that's what people wanted. Like the the vision for Milton Way when it was redone was to have those street trees for the specific goal of keeping the canopy high, keeping shade for people to walk in and enjoy. Like we don't just want roads connecting houses. We want a place and places have trees. Like it's it's kind of that simple. Um so I I hope that we can get find a way to get this across the line. I think it's a mistake to try to single out people based on inconvenience. Um, you know, as far as like the clarifications here, I think don't really go to what some of the the the comments kind of saying nay across the board. I think that the things that are proposed language are common sense. You know, adding additional definitions, adding clarification of how to qualify. Um, and then the the adjustment to section P, which is fine, too. But the yeah that that's my big piece. The other piece I would just note for the grant I mean the grant is targeting section P which is development of the urban forest management plan vice having some code language that protects tree lots in the short term and I think we need both. I think we need to have a long range plan both under the law and based on this this grant. But then we also need something right now. Um I yeah I support it. I hope we can that other folks can find a way to to get this over the line.

Yes. Uh, Council Member Mounts, you first. We tied again.

Um, just to just to follow up, our kids don't play on other people's private property and land owned by the city of Milton is exempted from this policy. So I don't see the equity there. Now, I do know that Milton owned lands are subject to other um criterion and that specifically they um evaluate the tree canopy coverage within the urban growth areas is part of the um the comp plan, right, for parks and recreation. So, parks and recreation is exempt from this, but they're not exempt from examining the current canopy, right? And and that's all we're asking for for at this time. Let's examine the current canopy. And part of that would include too what's in the work for the for the development that's already happening. So I know there was a lot of reaction to the mega church and I know the city changed the code, no more megaurches, right? Well, were they against churches or were they against trees? I don't know. and we don't know what their um development permit requires them to replace as far as the tree goes. And we won't know that until the construction is done. So, they may be replacing a lot of trees when the church is finished. And they did set aside a section of that land with the stream going through it and there's a nice path there where people can go and that was at their discretion. Right. I just don't think we have enough information at this time. I love trees. I'm not opposed to trees. I know that we need canopies, but I think that um homeowners should be given the same consideration that the city of Milton

Parks and Recreation enjoys, and that is further study. Thank you, Council Member Roberts.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh so, I just I know we touched on this a few weeks ago regarding letting the public know about what's going on. I'm just concerned about the education aspect of it because, you know, even if we put up marquees and we put online and this and that, there's still people out there that aren't going to be aware of, you know, the new ordinance and our our practices and whatnot. So, I would urge if there's a way to get that word out there a little better somehow because, you know, there's there's going to be people still cutting their trees because they're going to claim ignorance. Oh, I didn't know about it. So, um, if we could find a way where our residents are are more fully aware of what's going on, I I think that would be a great benefit. Um, and to a lesser extent enforcement, but I'm more concerned about the uh the education aspect of it.

Any additional discussion? All right. U, this will is going to come back next week.

Yeah, it's going to come back next week. Um just yes on the education side we have that was brought up at the planning commission so we've got some work there. Um again just um in the end it become you know again just I'm kind of I feel like this balance of trying to get what I what I understand and also what the process is for everybody to understand stuff. So, um, it is at the fact that the council has to decide what and if they're changing it, what and if they're approving it. Um, so that, you know, happy to hear the comments and I'm happy to answer questions, but in the end, it's the the six or seven that that make it. Um and just a clarification um like with the church um we have again as staff we get I mean I think they finally slowed down but we had calls and calls and calls when they took trees down and it wasn't they were they had to keep that area again because the code says you have to keep this area. So it wasn't that they chose to keep that area they are required to keep that area because of the rules and codes that are there. So again, it comes back to what is that vision we want? What is those expectations we want? And yes, they will be replanting trees, but those retries will be small. And again, that was one of the things that again staff heard and I mean it made it to the news and there was a lot of conversation I believe out there is when that apartment complex bound the size of the trees that we're losing those. So again, is this a perfect code? No code is perfect. Do codes get revised? Yes. Um could there be changes? and that's within your purview to try to figure out where that is. Um, but yes, it's coming back next week and we'll see where we go.

Do we want to find out where consensus is right now to to see if

it would be nice if there's I guess there's two things. Yeah, if there's consensus to if it gets past the changes that were presented and it would be nice to know if there's I mean if there's clear consensus that you want a section removed then do that now. If there's clear consensus to toss it all then um there's that. But um or if there's or if we're still undecided, we want to think on it for another week for certain aspects. So yes, it would be nice to at least have consensus on the suggestions that were made um so that I can add those for the thing next week. Okay. Do you want to go through them one by one or

It kind of depends if people feel like yeah, they want to I mean again with council um I think the only the the So I guess is there consensus am I hearing consensus that we would be adding the three definitions? We and again that could so the there was three definitions that had been said that they would like to be added tree that was mentioned tree protection zone critical root zone and qualified tree risk assessment report. So does is there

may yeah so maybe let's separate the two issues on whether we're going to do it at all or exempt some major piece and just talk about these definitions and adding them. So I see the definitions. There's three definitions on page or under number six in the handout you gave us for tree protection zone, critical root zone, qualified tree risk assessment report. Is there anyone that's opposed to adding those definitions into this? Again, setting aside whether we pass it at all. Okay. So I think that that sounds like consensus to me if you're willing to accept that plan measure. The other one is the red um language. it's on the final page uh to qualify is how it starts which I think is just an explanatory phrase for that 85% calculation under C2. Um

yeah, so I guess that Yeah. Is there any opposition to adding this language in and then whether you know and then at that point it doesn't change any of the code. It just adds the explanation of how someone would go about the process. Correct. Correct. Yeah. Is anyone opposed to adding that if we were to pass this? No. Okay. Great. And then the last one is just changing that language under the subsection P which seems to make sense too. Anyone opposed to that? Okay. I think those are the three proposed lang languages you had in here that we needed consensus on. I think that answers that question. That just makes it cleaner for next week and then yeah, the bigger discussions can be either today or next week. Yeah. Council member Bar.

Yeah. Um, one thing I I just had a thought about, you know, maybe we could do something for uh the homeowner side for a certain amount of years, like if they've been a resident for a certain amount of years, then they could have their, you know, discretion if they something needs to come down to avoid like flips where somebody buys the place, right? And then now they're a homeowner and then they uh and then they cut down the tree and then they sell it or something like that. Um, I'm still in favor of it for new builds for sure. I just don't think it's ready for

um again there's some options. Um, Berians had actually we did change one thing at the planning commission with Berians when it came to existing um properties is um again it depends how many trees if you only have one tree it it doesn't work. But if you have multiple trees they actually didn't require a permit for um there was like a table that kind of said you could take this tree or this many trees down without a permit. Um, but again, it it still had though, but if you had as long as you had enough tree credits and stuff. So, there's that two-part thing. If the permit is the issue, there's some flexibility there. If if it's the credit issue, there's some flexibility there. If it is simply you don't want any regulations, then that's a different conversation, too. So,

just to be clear for the consensus discussion, I don't want the regulations. Um, I would be definitely open to doing it if we had like some kind of residency um if it wasn't maybe quite as quite as extreme. I don't know if that we could do it would be it would be difficult and and I don't know how it would work legally wise to simply go by ownership change. Um but again there if if it's like yeah I like the idea it just seems too extreme then maybe there's a recommendation that's less. I don't know. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Hall.

I do think no matter what, it needs to be permitted to make sure the contractor is licensed. I think that is absolutely imperative not only to the homeowner, to the homeowners around the tree being taken down. Um, yeah. I'm really on the fence if I could pass this based on current owners. Um, I love trees. I know we had to take a bunch down. We have not replaced them. we need to do it. Um, they were diseased. Um, it took a logging truck to come in and get them down and extremely expensive. I mean, and now it's probably 10 times the price that ours come down. So, it is very very it's thousands and thousands of dollars now to take a tree down. It's huge. Um, just based on a neighbor across the street down the road. So, yeah. If I may.

Yes, sir. Go ahead. I'm just thinking here thinking about what council member mount said um about getting the plan done. So, we know that a year from now we'll have the deliverable which will recommend MMC changes for this, you know, unless something goes, what what's what are the odds of that? Um so, let me let me ask it this way. Is it seems like subsection or uh paragraph E is the primary problem, right? Um so thinking about how we implemented like the traffic lights, could we put a you know pass it with a this section shall not take section E shall not take effect until you know X

um with the idea that we would be able to modify it or I mean could we excise it completely? Could Could section E be excised or something along those lines like a I mean I think you suggested like a I don't quite like the you you can freely cut one or two that seems odd but like could that be excised in your opinion without affecting the rest of the code.

Yeah. Yeah. Planning commission felt not requiring permits just led to us not knowing what was going on and then it just and like you said then you're not tracking things and you're not making sure contract. So that part, yeah, we we felt like if we're going to, we should require at least and again a basic permit. Um, yes, you can one just say we're not adopting that section as is period. We're just removing it for now. We're adopting everything else. You can two, you could put a we this does not go into effect for a year or two year. Now challenge is people would then just start cutting trees.

Yeah. um you know we would be like oh then we can educate people but it's a chance people would just start cutting and and you would end up counterproductive for what you want. So I would say if if if there's not sort of a we just want to kind of loosen it a little bit then it may be worth just saying let's hold that section out and do the rest. Um with the understanding though that you're going to there are people who are buying lots. They could buy a lot. They could take down all of those trees and then add in some ADUs or tear down that house and build a new house. So you're not collecting all and now the development will kick in. Yes, you got to plant trees but you've lost those large trees. So that's the the the crux there is you will lose and again how many I don't know but you will lose some of those large trees. But if it's again if if the choice is between none or some sort of compromise on that I think the rest of it is also valuable and I would hate to lose all of that as well. So um and again it might be and um it's all it came you know again it came through planning commission but they dealt with it diff and maybe their direction was different or their their understanding was different or their philosophies are different. So there is that. So if you see a planning commissioner maybe ask them their thoughts why they did what they did.

Council member I don't think I'm out of line saying that. Thank you mayor. Um, how how many people does this affect annually? I'm just curious how many people actually have trees removed from their residents specifically just with residents, not businesses. And that's the challenge is right now we don't track them in any measure. I can say I get I want to say at least maybe five or six maybe 10 calls a year asking if we do permits but we don't do anything that tracks how many trees come down on any property unless it's like in a shoreline or critical areas.

That'd be a great data point to know, right? Like how many people is this going to affect? because right now the reluctance seems to be with residents specifically and if it's not many people not that it that changes things for that individual then maybe it's not as big of an issue that we're actually making it into. Uh just a consideration. Council member MS,

I I'd like to see if there's consensus to just remove section E at this time and maybe revisit it next year after we have what the grant has paid for. I know that it's easier to add code than it is to take it away. So if we just stick to the status quo right now, especially if it's only maybe five to 10 calls per year, even if you doubled that for the people that didn't call, we're not talking significant loss of large trees if we postpone it for a year until we have the data points. So if maybe we need to see if there's consensus to just excise that or take it out for the time being and when we have more data maybe revisit it to with some exceptions or some delays or some additional criteria but I would be very reluctant to put any additional criteria in at this time. And then I'd also like to know if there's consensus to moving um the fines to the fee schedule because I think that that would benefit us greatly.

Yeah, that's okay. So that one just on the consent. No no just to state my position on that consensus. Uh I I don't support removing E, but I I would move the fines. Okay. How about with regards to section E? Can I just go around? Council member Hall, take it out for now. Council member Poor, I would either take it out for now or like where council member Cedar was going with potentially leaving it in and then maybe make it subject to the results of the public feedback or something like that. Um, that's good, too. Okay, Council Member Cedar, I think, uh, you already answered.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think the only other thing that I I could compromise on is putting it in as like like with the fence code where folks are required to do like a back of the napkin permitting process. It's it's almost elucory, but it creates it starts to create that reality like you have to get a permit. Doesn't cost you anything. Doesn't take you more than 10 minutes, but you got to do it. Yeah. And not not to interrupt your consensus, but it's just the idea is it the permit to take down or is it the requirement to plant trees that is the biggest heck? Um

because that because there's one thing, you know, a permit to take down is one thing. Um preventing exceptional trees is one thing. So sort of three things and then the replacement of trees. So there's sort of three things there. So anyway, sorry. Le let's let's finish the consensus first and we can we can have further discussion. Uh council member Mounts that we remove section E in its entirety at this time. Council member Turnis, I recommend removing it as well.

Council member Roberts, I'm not leaning towards removing it. I would potentially like to have some more information available. for example, have it remain for a duration and then we get some data regarding that. So I again I'm I'm kind of on the fence my myself. So um I'm I'm leaning more towards not removing E at the moment. Okay, looks like

consensus to remove it. So I will bring the the version next week will not have that section in it. As well as there's a related section under the um exceptional se uh exceptional trees that would also need to be probably removed as well if that's the way we're going. So I I'll double check how that's written. Okay. All right. Any further discussion on this item? Yes, Council Member Hall. Is there a way that we could review this so we don't forget? You know what I mean? I mean, once we put this to bed in a year, we're going to go, "Oh, we should review this." Or that's what the grant will pay for.

Yeah, exactly. But I just want to keep it in our minds because I do want something there. Um Well, I'm sure it's something that uh planning manager Stallnarker could put on her to-do list. both my to-do list, but it it can um it can be part. So, it's currently on the planning commission um work plan. We can make sure that when we renew that next year, there's sort of a followup on that. Thank you. And we can also add it to our planning document. Yeah. Thank you. Yes, council member four,

do we have to wait a year for those results of the grant or can we expedite that public reach reach out so that we could try and get this back on if if it is the public's will.

So I I think the idea is that um so the grants covering three different things. There's a small most of it's going towards the other stuff the requirements there is a small part that will be and um if we're waiting I think at this point you you kind of want to have that full report. I I would recommend that but because the idea is that we want to find out what is our tree canopy and and while we're doing that we will start doing public engagements um you know like I said we started last year with some of it at um at Milton days we can continue to doing that and so we'll be working with the um framework the consultants to sort of come up with how we're going to do some of that so I mean yes at some point I mean council has the authority to direct planning commission slash to do polic policy um looking at codes and stuff. So um but I think yeah so it's like you know depending on what information we get back and at what stage we do that but part of that is part of the grant money and the deliverables is to sort of work through a certain step start with what do we have what do we want what are those goals and then um and and it and then and part of that is public engagement while you're doing that. So then when you get to the end, you do have a fuller and it is a big change. And so if if the depending on what that that comes out, it might be, you know, that'll give you that background to say to residents, no, we need this or it may give you the the thoughts that, well, we only need part of this, you know. So,

thank you. Just quickly, do you think that council member Cedar's suggestion about maybe doing something like the fence thing would be possible um incorporating it? people have to get a permit. But

well, again, that is if at this point the consensus is to take it out completely. Um and again, there's that's where I guess I was trying to say even though it was kind of in the middle, so it was a little awkward, but um there is in essence there's the permitting to take down a tree portion and then there's the replanting portion. So, if council felt like, well, we still we we don't want the the replanting is the bigger because there's a huge expense there. There could be like, yeah, we still want permits to take down a tree cuz we want to make sure these things are there. Um, but you are going to go through a process to for us to look at that. Um and so again if I think at this point that might to if you wanted something in between I think the work

Thank you. Sorry. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. I just No, you get my feel by my appreciate it. Hoving hovering. So yeah. Okay. Any Yes. Council member uh mouse. Do we have consensus to move the fines to the fee skip? Yes, we did. Yeah. Did we? Yes. Thank you. Anything further? All right. So, uh, this the amended version will come back next week. Yep. Okay. All right. Let's move on to uh section seven, council reports. And we'll start with uh um council member Hall this this week.

This study session was great. Everybody listened to everybody. We had lots of feedback. We had a lot of give and take. Enjoyed it. Um, I do have concerns on the June 1st. Um, yeah. Well, yeah, that's going to be in my report. It's what? It's going to be addressed in my report. Oh, it is. Okay, then. Fantastic job. Thank you. Uh, council member poor. Thank you, Mayor. Just wanted to say uh happy Mother's Day to all the moms of Milton. Thank you for all you do and uh yeah, thank you. You're a little late.

Council member Cedar, uh, happy police week, Chief. I saw I think it was I think you were one of the the officers out on bikes maybe this week. Great to see out in the community like that. I think that's such a great way to to promote biking and also to do some boots on ground enforcement. So, thanks for all you do. Council member Mount,

I have a um comment about transparency, public outreach, public knowledge. This was supposed to be a study session and I went to the Milton Facebook page. I'm not on Facebook. I'm not much on social media. and it said that this meeting had been changed from a study session to a special session. And that really impacts how long it takes me to prep for a meeting, right? And so I also noticed on the Facebook page that there was no agenda and that the public comments were not they were blacked out. You can't read what other people are commenting. you couldn't read what the agenda was. And here we're doing something, we're discussing something of huge importance and impact to Milton residents and homeowners. And the one place that people might go, they don't know what's going on, right? So when I brought it up to a couple people and they read it at face value and said, "Oh, that's great. I support that." And I said, "Did you read it all the way through?" Right? And so it's been brought up before, especially since so many of us are new to city council and we're going to have another new member hopefully soon. I encourage anyone interested um to be watching the city of Milton website for applications. But when we present something big or a decision or something that we're voting on the Milton Municipal Codes, maybe we can have a fact sheet with the pros and cons, right? This is why we want to do this. This is the benefits for it. These are the um potential consequences if this passes and if it goes forward.

So, I guess just to to wrap it all up, it takes a long time to read the fine print and really figure out, okay, how does this apply to me? How does this impact me? Or how does this impact my neighbors or what is the real issue here that we're just being told the meeting has changed and there's no agenda. Then you look at the agenda and you think, okay, what is this really? If we had a pros and cons to every to everything that we have to vote on just a summary sheet, right? This is the issue. This is the wages now. This is what we want to do and this is the potential impact benefit and potential risk. I I would just like to put that out there again. I know it's been brought up before, but this was one that would have really helped me personally prepare for this vote in this meeting. Thank you, Council Member Turnis.

I just wanted to just take a moment to honor Coun former council member Bob Whan for his service for the Milton community over the last decades. Council member Roberts.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, so we had gotten a mail, I think last week, regarding the updates to the Pierce County um, charter. So, I do urge everybody to take a look at the proposed uh amendments for the Pierce County Charter. A lot of those things are going to affect us as a city. They'll affect people as individuals. Um, and I believe the reviews occur every Monday right now. Is it I believe it's every Monday. I could be wrong on that. No, it's No, it's been occurring actually on during council. So, um it's kind of hard to attend those meetings, but um please by all means, I would encourage people again to take a look at that. There are quite a few amendments to that that are being proposed.

All right. Thank you. Uh moving on to director's reports. Uh planning managers Tallnaker. Nothing else. Public works director Madden. No, no comments. Okay. Finest director Rob. No comments. Chief,

uh we continue to do our ebike emphasis and uh we've been contacting and having parents come and retrieve the bikes of their uh minors and we've had great success with that. We've been doing some um undercover type emphasis so that the indiv for whatever reason the kids seem to be fleeing us and we can't chase them. So we've been trying to identify where they're at and so forth. um and then contact their parents. And so that's an ongoing effort. And uh yes, we are out riding at least two to three times a week. And uh we've even been dragging the mayor with us so he could see a different perspective of the city. And uh I've pleasantly uh reporting that he is in great shape for uh so we'll continue doing that. And if you say so see something say say something of course as always and uh tomorrow at 11:00 we are having our public safety meeting and uh that's it and thank you again uh I appreciate all the accolades but again it's always the people that are underneath me that are doing the great work and I stand on the shoulders of giant men and women and uh I will make sure that it's conveyed to them that they have council support and I know that our retention is a direct result of this council, this community and the mayor's support. So, uh it does not fall on deaf ears and is greatly appreciated because as you know at times this can seem like a thankless position. So, appreciate the positive feedback. Thank you, Chief. Um, a couple of people have have brought it up already, but um, Council Member Whan came to visit me last week and um, and

he submitted his resignation uh, for his council seat uh, uh, effective immediately. And um, I just wanted to say that that you know, Bob has has served our city with dedication for over 23 years. I believe it was uh May of 2003 when he was appointed. So he's he's been around a long time and um you know we really appreciate his contributions and his institutional knowledge uh that he brought to our work. Um and we'll miss his perspective and commitment to our community. Uh please join me in wishing Bob all the best in his future endeavors. And uh I I asked Bob whether he would like to be uh recognized publicly and I' I've yet to hear back from him. So uh he he may he may come back for for everyone to uh be able to embarrass him. Hopefully hopefully he will. Um that being said, that leaves uh coun uh uh council position 7 open. And uh so uh anyone that's interested in uh being appointed to that position, please go to our website and download the application for public service. Um and you can submit that application by Friday the 22nd, I believe. What? By what time? Two. Two o'clock. Okay. Um, we were going to, uh, make that appointment at our first meeting in June. Uh, but I was, um, I was reminded that we're having, uh, carpet and flooring replaced uh, in the finance department. And so, the finance department's going to be in here. So, we're going to we're going to cancel that meeting on the 1. And so, that

appointment will uh, be made at our meeting on the 15th of June. So hopefully everyone can uh can be present at that meeting. So um and I got uh thank you uh uh director Madden. I got I got a application for the parks committee. So u that leaves one opening. So please anyone out there go to our website and fill out the application. and uh uh and I'd love to talk to you. All right. And uh with that, is there anything else this evening? Seeing nothing. Um and all agenda items have been concluded. provide during this