City Council - Regular Meeting

I raised up a little bit.

It's 7 p.m. on Monday, July 6th, 2026, and I call this regular City Council meeting to order. Councilmember Mounts, would you lead us in the flag salute, please?

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, for the record, everyone from council is here except for Councilmember Roberts, who asked to be excused from tonight's meeting. Could I get a motion to excuse him, please? Yes, Councilmember McNally-Martinez.

I move to excuse Jason Roberts. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion passes. All right. Also, for the record, Police Chief Hernandez is here, our Finance Director. Michelle Robeck, our public works director, Dustin Madden, and our planning manager, Stalnaker, is here as well. All right, next on the agenda is citizen participation. The purpose of the public comment period at this meeting is for those wishing to address the Council on any matter. It is not intended for debate and discussion with the public. Please state your name and city for the record. Lastly, we kindly remind you to limit your comments to three minutes. And we have seven people signed up today. The first is Joseph Is it Barron or Barth?

Would you like us to just give you a mic or are you okay? Either one.

Thank you.

Joseph Barone, 702 Milton, Vine Court, Milton Wayne. I'm speaking to address the upcoming tree bill, I guess we call it, and speak in total opposition. I find it is invasive of property rights of the homeowners, and I will be about Having looked it over, it sounds more like a wet dream of some petty bureaucrat. So I am totally opposed to it. We don't need the city to tell us what trees we can or cannot cut down or what trees we have to plant. So I feel so, Carter put it, forceful about it, that I would literally recommend that we do a recall of any council member who would vote for this travesty. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. The next person on the list is James Carter. One second, Mr. Carter. Are we good? OK, Mr. Carter.

at the residential hall. even four more. And then there's a million dollars.

Thank you, sir The next person on the list is Joanne McNally

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Okay, Darren, is it Masak? Sorry, I'm having a hard time reading your writing, I'm sorry. Oh, Majak, okay, thank you.

... ... ... ...

Thank you, sir. Okay, Autumn. My hack. My jack, my jack, okay, okay.

things are got a bunch of stuff um We're cutting down, sorry.

Thank you, ma'am. The next person on the list is Jackie Strater.

I have never. An action. Discussion. Maybe the city along with to find out

Thank you, Mr.

Trader.

The last person that's on our list, our sign-up sheet this evening is Jacqueline Whalen.

But, we're moving through impacts.

Approach.

Thank you. That's the end of our list. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak? Yes, please come forward.

I do want to speak in favour of the tree ordinance, and I do want to also thank our Council members for working really hard and questioning things within the ordinance that they feel like may not favour homeowners, and taking this responsibility seriously. But I do think protecting our tree canopy is incredibly important for the youth of our community, for the animals of our community. people that don't usually have a say. So it is incredibly important to protect our tree canopy. And I think that some of the proposed changes to the ordinance have also been incredibly valuable, making it to where you can remove an exceptional tree within one year, 12 months time, and only charging that $75 fee for that. I think that that is a cost that homeowners should burden. You are a homeowner, and it's something that is manageable if you plan for it within that one-year time. Thank you.

All right, anyone else in the audience like to address the Council this evening? All right, seeing none, we will move on to additions and deletions. Are there any requested additions or deletions to the agenda this evening? Yes, Council Member Mounts.

I would like to delete item number 7B, the tree ordinance discussion.

Anyone else like to delete the tree ordinance discussion?

I second.

OK, it's been moved by Councilmember Mounts and seconded by Councilmember Ternes to remove item 7B from the agenda this evening. Councilmember Mounts, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, while I really appreciate all of the work that has gone into this and the discussions back and forth and hearing all of the public comments, there are two paragraphs on page 37. It's section 17.44.115, urban forest preservation B, the applicability. Number four states that the director may adopt preservation and protection guidelines to further the purposes of this section. And then in five, it says the director may require And may require independent review of any land use application that invoices tree removal. And at Milton's discretion by an independent qualified tree professional, the applicant shall pay for and Milton shall select the third party tree professional. So, I'm suggesting that we remove it from discussion because these two paragraphs make the discussion null and void. It's a moot point if we discuss this and bring forward our concerns and then the director adopts whatever preservation and protection guidelines they deem appropriate in spite of what we may have discussed or agreed to tonight. So I'm still open to discussing it without these paragraphs where we know that our discussion will be heard and the authority of the Council in even bringing it forward will be preserved and not given over to the sole discretion of one position title.

Councillor Kiley. Councillor Turner, would you like to speak to your second?

I agree with Councilmember Mounce. I just feel like we're going through all this discussion and at the bottom line it ends up being the director's decision. Why put all the time and effort into the discussion when it's just one person's vote of yes or no?

Is there any further discussion on this? Yes, Councilmember McNally-Martinez.

Yes, I have to agree. I talked today with Angela Lee regarding this, that clause in itself leaves an open door. I feel like any consensus, any discussion we have as long as that clause is in there or any other tree preservation, protection, replacement and planning standards and procedures the director deems necessary, it's open for the director to make any changes they want later, the way I read that. So that being said, I don't know if we should be discussing the current proposal until they bring back something that is actually fair to the citizens.

Council Member Seder.

Yeah, I'm incredibly troubled by this discussion and motion because the motion here is to remove from discussion. So I can't even talk in response to your points. You've denied me the ability to. You're using a procedural tool. That's a tool used by ineffective governments. And frankly, it appears that there was a discussion outside of council's presence to Ms. Strader's point. This is really troubling to hear this happen. I will absolutely not support removing a discussion item that's clearly in our constituents' interest to talk about. They want to hear us address the merits. And what you've done is said, no, we're not even going to address the merits because we don't like it. I cannot support that.

Council Member Hall.

I agree, too. This is a discussion. This means we're going to discuss it all. That doesn't mean we're not going to pull that out. That means we're going to discuss that. It's not fair to the people, the pros and cons, if we don't have the discussion. That is why we're here. We're not here to pick and choose what we want to talk about. We talk about all of it. And I'm, that's it.

Any further discussion? I'm not opposed. Yes, Council Member McNally.

I just want to clarify real quick. I agree discussion needs to happen. I just, and I don't know. And I think when I talked to Angela.

As a point of order, I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm sorry. Mr. Mayor, as a point of order, we're only discussing whether to poll it or not. So to the extent that any member wants to talk about the substance, that is inappropriate for this motion. Okay. So I want you to please ensure that the quorum respects that motion.

I apologize.

I apologize. Any further discussion on the motion on the table?

Mayor, if it's not appropriate, it's not appropriate.

Yes, please.

If the discussion is that you don't like something, that's why you have the discussion, so then you can have consensus.

Sorry, Mr. Mayor, a point of order. This is a council decision. This does not involve any member of staff.

I'm sorry to interrupt. No, that's why I asked. I didn't know if it was appropriate. Thank you.

The discussion is solely about removing it from the agenda.

And I apologize for that. This is just sort of coming out of left field for me. Any further discussion on the motion on the table? OK. It's been moved by Councilmember Mouse and seconded by Councilmember Ternes to remove item 7B from the agenda from this evening. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Mr. Mayor, I'd ask for a roll call vote. All right. I was going to ask for the clerk to call the roll, but you don't have a microphone. Councilmember McNally-Martinez.

I say nay. I didn't understand the procedural process, and I apologize.

OK. Councilmember Hall.

Nay.

Councilmember Poore.

Nay.

Councilmember Cedar.

Nay.

Councilmember Mounts.

Yes.

Councilmember Ternes.

Aye.

OK. Motion fails. So we will have discussion on item 7b later in the agenda. The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Councilmember requests. In which event, the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered immediately following the Consent Agenda. All items listed are considered routine by the Milton City Council and will be enacted in one motion. Can I get a motion to enact the Consent Agenda? Councilmember McNally-Martinez.

I'll move to an act to consent agenda. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes. All right, the next item on the agenda is presentation for employee of the month. Unfortunately, our Employee of the Month decided not to come this evening, but we will honor him even in his absence. I'm delighted to announce that Pat Wetterland has been selected as the City of Milton's Employee of the Month for August, 2026. This recognition is reserved for the colleague who consistently demonstrates our core values, excellence, integrity, teamwork, and dedicated public service. And this month, the choice was clear. Pat's teammates in Public Works spoke with genuine appreciation about the qualities that set him apart. His readiness to help with whatever is needed, his deep knowledge of the city's infrastructure, and the quiet reliability that makes assigning daily tasks far easier for those around him. One colleague put it simply, the city is lucky to have him. They also highlighted how he stepped up during an especially demanding stretch of 811 locate requests completing a tremendous volume in a timely manner, willingly taking on the difficult jobs and graciously handling emergency locates without letting other responsibilities slip. Even when the workload felt overwhelming, his attitude stayed steady and positive. Pat's reliability, positive energy and genuine care for getting the job done right have made a noticeable difference in his department and for everyone who lives and works in Milton. He raises the bar for all of us. On behalf of the city council, city leadership, and the residents, congratulations to Pat on this thoroughly deserved honor. As part of the recognition, he will receive a framed employee of the month certificate, featured on the city's website, newsletter and social media channels, a reserved parking space for a month, and lunch with the mayor at the restaurant of his choice. We are proud of the work he does every day and grateful for his continued dedication to the city of Milton. Please join me in congratulating Pat Wetterland on the outstanding achievement. Let's celebrate his contributions and continue to follow the strong example he sets. And Director Madden, would you like to say anything nice about that?

I agree with everything that was said about Pat, he is a quiet leader and everything that he delivers out in the field or he requests done out in the field, he's done it 10 times himself. So he is an active leader who leads by example. All right, thank you.

Thank you. Oh, and next item under presentations is a police officer recognition. Is that? That was last one. Okay, that was last time. You're recognized. Congratulations. All right. Now moving on to the regular agenda. The first item on the agenda is Item 7A on page 19 of your packet. Planning Manager Stallnecker will be presenting this item.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. So this is on for action tonight. It is a move to adopt Ordinance 21-43-26. This would add subsections 0.170, outdoor storage, 0.10, sorry, 180, outdoor sales, and 0.190, drive-through facilities to 17.44. It would also amend 17.44-200, which is the animal shelter, kennels, and pet shops. just as a refresher and hopefully additional information that was requested. With the updated 2025 zone code use table, several items had footnotes that say, see chapter 1744, general use regulations, but those regulations had not been in place and were deferred, and those all tied to the accessory uses of drive-through outdoor sales and outdoor storage. I have included the definitions Again, these apply to commercial businesses. Drive-thru means land and associated structures designed to allow patrons to receive goods or services remaining in a motorized vehicle. Outdoor sales means the sale of products outside of a building or structure, including garden supplies, lumber yards, construction supplies, and similar items. It does not include temporary sidewalk sales. And outdoor storage means a commercial use in which an outdoor area is used for the long term, more than 72 hours, retention of materials, containers, equipment, Outdoor storage does not include sales, repair, incineration, recycling, or discarding of materials or equipment. Drive-thrus and outdoor sales are what's called accessory uses, meaning there has to be a primary and then they're an add-on, both in the town center mixed use, the urban mixed use, the business, the neighborhood commercial, and M1, which is light manufacturing zones. Outdoor storage is only allowed in the M1 and the community facilities zones. A comment was made by a Council member. It was just one, but it was talking about clarifying the temporary sales definition. If Council wished to amend that section, if there was a consensus for that, I did provide alternative wording, which could be for this subsection, incident means sales that are limited to 72 hours or less than 100 square feet with seasonal items like produce, flowers, and decor. And then the other section was that with the adoption of Title VI animals, so currently we reference the Sumner code in our table of uses. We now have adopted that code into our own. So instead of referencing Sumner, it should reference our own code, which is chapter 6.04 animal control. And so I will return it to the mayor.

All right. I would accept a motion at this time. Anyone? Councillor McNally-Martinez.

I'll make a motion to approve the Milton Municipal Code 1744 as amended.

I'm sorry?

I was reading it off of the agenda, I apologize. I approve, I move to approve the motion for the Milton Municipal Code 1744. We're on Item 7A on page 18. Sorry. Okay, thank you, I apologize. I move to adopt ordinance 2143, adding subsection 7170, outdoor storage, .180, outdoor sales, and .190, drive-through facilities, to 17.44, and amending 17.44, 200, animal shelter, kennels, and pet shops.

Wait, you were second?

Second. Okay. Now I know why nobody else wanted to.

All right, it's been moved and seconded. Council Member McNally-Martinez, would you like to speak to your motion?

I appreciate the information provided by Anjali and the definition clarifications, and I support it.

Council Member Hall, would you like to speak to your second?

I always appreciate when we're cleaning up and updating our codes, so thank you.

Any additional discussion from Council? Yes, Council Member Mounts.

I also appreciate the addition of the definitions and clarifications.

Any additional discussion? Seeing none, this is an action item. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to address the Council on this issue before the vote? Seeing none, it's been moved by Councilmember McNally-Martinez and seconded by Councilmember Hall to adopt Ordinance 2143-26, adding subsections .170, outdoor storage, Amendment 17.180, Outdoor Sales, and .190, Drive-Thru Facilities, to 17.44, and amending 17.44.200, Animal Shelters, Kennels, and Pet Shops. All in favour?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right, and the next item on the agenda is on page 25 of your packet. And this one, Anjali. Our planning manager, Anjali Stalnecker, will be presenting this.

So based on the joint study session, staff was asked to consider alternatives that might soften the standards for developed residential properties. Planning Commission had asked for more direction before it was getting kicked back to them. And so staff appreciates that feedback was received and has listed a few possible changes. Many of these suggestions are from the city of Kirkland. And again, what I'm roughly looking for is some sort of consensus of if they feel like these suggestions or a version of them have merits, that they would like the Planning Commission to work on a revised proposal, then that would give them more of a direction. If there is certain items within the code that a consensus of the council feels like doesn't fit or doesn't work or has unintended consequences, again, they have the ability to bring that up, kind of see, poll if there is consensus for that, and then that is what I work on. Most of the conversation was on decreasing the requirements for single-family duplex properties, especially as it relates to hazardous trees. So I got some feedback from several different council members, which I appreciate. And so I just sort of did kind of a rough response to some of the questions that were raised and then did some summaries of what possible changes could be that I think are closer to what maybe would relate to a majority of the council members. And again, a lot of it had to do with cost and risk to homeowners. I wasn't gonna necessarily read through all of those responses as much as get to what those changes are proposed. If we feel like we need to back up at some point, we can do that. But the proposal, so here's some of the proposed changes Possible suggestions possible options that could be so that the biggest one I think was there was a lot of concern with the idea of damaged or dying trees that if people Had to pay for a permit or had to replace trees that that might prevent people from doing so. And that could be a danger and a harm. And so one of the proposals is that any damaged or dying trees can be removed. No replacement trees would be required. No permit required. We just would request that people notify the city because one of the things that was brought up is how do we know how many trees we're losing? So if we had what's called a tree notification, that would help us keep track of that, no cost for that. I'm going to run through this, and then it was Council Member McNally-Martinez had demonstrated, I believe it's Puyallup, that has kind of a flowchart that helps kind of visualize what this would be, so I did put that together. It is on your desk. There's a few here, and it's going to be on my sheet, and I hope that kind of, again, starts to get a feel of, would this be closer to what people, a majority, are comfortable with? And then just in general, I know the language can be a little much, and I do agree that the way, again, most of this is out of Burien's code. It can be a little cumbersome. So if there's any, if there's an over, again, a consensus of, you know what, Maybe if it was rewritten in a more simpler language, that would be helpful when we get to that point. Happy to do that as well. The idea is, again, naming of things can help. So if exceptional and significant are hard to figure out, maybe, again, what are we doing? Kirkland uses landmark and regulated. So those are just things kind of top level. But again, the damage or dying I think was the biggest thing. And then requirement, so just again, if you require trees per lot, Under the current proposal, it's sort of a credit system. It's one credit per 1,000 square feet or half credit for 1,000 square feet for commercial industrial. I think it's less than that for industrial. So an option would be to make the tree credits for any of the commercial mixed use properties. and make residentials flat rate. There was also a suggestion by a council member that maybe the commercial and the residential are the same if we stick. And again, this is if we stick with it for development. So if you did one per 1,000, that's requiring more trees. If you did a half a tree per 1,000 square feet, that would be less trees. And then again, this idea of maybe we go to a flat rate for lots with existing houses and single family and duplexes. Kirkland uses two trees up to 10,000, three trees for 10 to 20, and four trees for greater. Again, these are suggestions to think about. It could be, yes, we love that, or we like a version of that, or we don't like any of it. There was also a recommendation to eliminate. So again, Burien's has what they call an accessional tree table, which depending on the type of tree, because certain trees have more value, it had different heights. The feeling is that that can be very confusing. And so maybe we eliminate a varying tree table and simply come out with one size. So maybe again, could be 30 inches, It could be 26. There's not necessarily a magic number. It's just trying to, you know, if we're trying to get those major keep and protect the largest trees, we would suggest that there are some trees that should never be considered exceptional no matter their size, things like ash and cottonwood. And so there would be something that says these are trees that maybe are regulated, but they're never going to be an exceptional tree. Again, looking at Kirkland's as another version, another option to consider. For healthy tree removals, if it's an exceptional tree, again, that idea that it's greater than 26 inches or it's greater than 30 inches, you would be allowed to take one down for a 12-month period. You don't have to have a reason for it. You would do, again, under theirs, you would do a tree removal permit, which we're estimating would be like $75, and... you would need to replace it with three trees. If you were just doing what's called significant or Kirkland calls regulated, so that's maybe six inches to 26, again, where those numbers lie. If you already have a tree lot and you're just taking down one tree and you already have, you know, again, if you're 8,000 square foot lot, you have three trees, you're taking one down, you meet that two tree minimum, you just have to notify us that you're doing it. If you have zero trees, except for the one you're taking down, you would have to do a permit and then replace whatever it was needed. So you take down the one tree, you replace two, or you replace four, depending on the size. And most standard replacement is two inch leafy, six feet evergreen. And then another thing they had that, again, depending on how you go, there's different ways, because the goal is to try to prevent the loopholes, I mean, one is to try to preserve the urban forest as best we can. But it also is trying to address the fact that we have seen an uptake of properties that are single family that a developer is buying, clearing out the trees because they fall under that category, and then use it to build ADUs that they're going to sell or different things. And so we were trying to find a way of not only preserving the large trees but slowing down things that might be from developers who are not buying it because it's a long-term home for them. So they have what's called a development moratorium. So if you do remove a tree from a developed lot, you cannot request a permit to build something for a period of 12 months. So that is an option that's out there as well. Let's say you say, you know, I'm taking down an exceptional tree because I'm allowed to. Then you have to wait at least 12 months or whatever time period we come up with before you can then come in and say, oh, well, you know, now I want to build a whole bunch of stuff. So there's some options there. We're going to look at it two different ways. One is in the comparison and then sort of the flow chart to just give a feel Um, so again, dead damaged under the current draft, you do have to have a permit. You have to kind of show that it is dead and damaged. Replacement trees are required. Um, if it's dead or damaged under like Kirkland's, you would just need to notify us. You took it down. No other requirements. Um, trees required under the one credit per thousand square feet, a lot that's up to 10,000. You're looking at 10 to five to 10 trees that you would have to replace or have your minimum. Um, Flat rate is, again, if you went off of Kirkland's model, you're only talking two trees, five to 20, three trees, 20 plus trees, four trees. So it's significantly less, which is an option. Whether you do credits, you could make the credit smaller, you could go with flat rate, either direction. Removal of healthy exceptional trees, those are the largest trees. Under the current proposal, that would not be allowed. Under something like Kirklands, you could do one every 12-month period. A permit would be required, and you would have to make sure that you met your medium tree requirements. So you may or may not have to replant trees. And then remove of healthy, I'll double check that part. Remove of healthy significant trees if you have the minimum. Again, these are just trees that are smaller than exceptional, larger than six inches. You have a minimum requirement. Under our current proposal, you could do two per 12-month period. And then there's also, depending on the size of your lot, a limit. every five years. Under the Kirkland model, you would just have to notify the city. If you don't have the minimum required trees, it would not be allowed. Under the Kirkland model, you would do permit would be required and you would demonstrate which trees you would replant. And again, those would be based on replacement ratios. So if you took out a six to 15 inch tree, you would have to replace it with one. 16 to 26, two over 26 inches, you do have to replace three. Under the credit model, you could potentially have to do up to nine credits. So part of it is this is, it's like your brain's pinging. So hopefully, and I probably should have been a little bit bigger. So I apologize, I didn't get to test run it. But the idea is that this is kind of how we do it. So we did a nice little flow chart. So first thing we would ask is, is this tree located on your private property? If not, contact us. So if it's a neighbor's property, it's in the right of way, whatever, just talk to the city. If it is on your property, then is it located near wetland, wetland buffer, steep slope, buffer, greenbelt, shoreline? Obviously, those have different rules. So for the sake of this, I've just said you're going to talk to the city. No, it's not in a wetland buffer. So then the next question is, there's three categories of why are you removing it. If it's for development, you're expanding, you're building a new house, you're building something else, you're going to talk to us, we're going to go through that whole process for that. What I think more people are concerned with is the hazardous or the other. So let's say it's a hazardous tree. So then the first question is, Again, this is all the Kirkland model. Is it obviously dead, dying, or hazard? One of the questions and concerns was that why should I have to pay for an arborist if it's very obvious? And so the question, so we could put, very easily put in there, if it is obviously dead, dying, or hazardous, you know, half of it's fallen over, you can very easily see that it is dead, then you just, you can remove without permits. We would request a tree removal notification to help us keep tracking. If let's say it's, for whatever reason, it's not obviously dead, dying, or hazardous, but you're pretty sure it is, then yes, we would want to see some sort of certification that says yes. And then again, if it's yes, then you can remove without permits. We're just going to want to be notified. So back out here, so we've done development, we've done hazardous. Let's say it's an other. You just don't want the tree there. So then the next question is what size is that tree? If it is under six inches, you simply can remove the tree without permits. and we would, a tree removal notification, similar idea. If the tree is between six and 26 inches or whatever we set those numbers at, the next question will be, will that lot have a minimum number of trees remaining? Our little squiggly kind of reminds us that we're looking at maybe two, three and four. So if it's yes, again, you're removing it, you're just letting us know. If it's no, we would ask for a permit. Again, we haven't set that fee. My assumption is it'd be approximately $75. and you would say, yes, I need to replace it with this many trees. This is where I think I'm replacing them. We would issue that permit. If it is over 26 or wherever we set that mark so that it falls under that sort of landmark exceptional tree, then it would be, you would have to have a permit. You're limited to like one tree over 12 months, or let's say you're like, I have two that I would like to take out, then we could probably say, okay, then you just can't take anything out for 20. And there is three replacement trees for tree removal in that case. So again, one, we were asked to bring back some more options. This is what we're doing. If there is certain wording, whether it's in here or in the original code that you're like, hey, this, you know, I would be more supportive if this language was gone. Is there consensus? Or yes, I like this. Can the Planning Commission work on more stuff that would be closer to this? Whatever that is, that's what this opportunity is. Ideally, there would be some sort of, hopefully, if there's no consensus on changing anything, it makes it really hard for us. But if there is some sort of consensus, like we think this is moving in the right direction, I'd be happy to take that back to Planning Commission.

All right. I'll open this for discussion. Is there anyone that would like to? Yes, Council Member McNally.

I'm just going to back up to earlier this evening. I had a discussion. I called Angeline. We had a long discussion today. Just Angeline and I had a discussion today. And I think a lot of us are digging through that ordinance that was first provided to us, really looking in depth with it. So I think she had said, you know, I should ask for a consensus that the paragraph be removed on that Section B4 Section 3B4, where it states that any tree preservation, protection, replacement, and planning standards are, the director can change as necessary if this is passed, if we were to go with that criterion. And the reason I just say that is because, and she agreed, the intent of the administration is not so that future planning directors can change what's decided by Council and the Planning That's not the intent of what they want. And it does, the way that's worded, does kind of leave an open door for the future planning directors to implement whatever they deem fit by that language. And I could be wrong, but that's how it read to me, and that was our discussion today. So that was one consensus I kind of wanted to ask Council. Can we have a consensus that at least that part of things, that we would not leave it up to a procedural standards or to change standards of this once it's adapted.

Any further discussion? Council Member Seder.

Yeah, thanks for raising that. I think it's a good question. Can you talk about why Section 4 and 5, what the targets are and if those are needed to be that broad and open-ended?

So again, this is one of those places where we did not, we did take this from another city who does have and it may be that their vision was a stronger take on this. I understand the need, you know, our code always talks about being able to establish the procedures. So that's things like making sure what's the application, how do we review at, but I concur that when we were discussing it today, that they, my guess is it's like it says planting standards. It may have been more like, this is how you do it, but I think there is some, it, It's so broad that it could, in essence, make it more strict than what I think was the intent. And as we've tried to say, yes, that council sets that. So I have no strong concerns if, so that would be B4B was removed. And I guess under five, That's kind of standard. Again, this is pretty standard for any projects. And I don't know that if they're doing a development and they're doing a parking study, they're gonna have to hire those people to meet those requirements. It's pretty standard for us. In most cities, I would say to you hire qualified tree professionals or qualified third parties when necessary. If the wording needs to be tweaked, you know, I can look at that. If the feeling is that there's an unintended consequences with that wording, happy to do that. Like I said, we're also looking at putting in here that, you know, if it's really obvious that there's, you know, the tree is split in half, The tree is uprooted. There's no reason to hire a professional. It's very obvious for any of us. We've also talked about that, you know, maybe it's something we can work that one of the certifications for somebody within the city could be some of the basic arborist stuff for both city trees and to provide. So there's some options there as well.

Very good. So that kind of addresses the point five. I think to Councilmember McNally-Martinez's point on number four, I do see how that could be overly broad. When I originally read this, because this has been in there for months, and it's the first I've heard of a discussion about it. So when I originally read it months ago, I assumed what this is saying is if someone has to replace trees, that the director has the ability to say, hey, don't replace them yet. Wait until after you've built your three ADUs and then plant them. I assume it's that, which I think is very reasonable. However, I think that the issue that she raises is a good one, which is that this actually is much broader than that. So if there's potentially a way to constrain it so that it's targeting something like the director may control the implementation of the plan dictated by code or mandated by code just for phasing purposes.

Because this is up front under applicability exception. So the feeling is like it has a heavier weight where later in the section when we do talk about actual development, again, it talks about planting plans and all of that. So I can review that to make sure that there's no extra language needed in that section, but I would suspect that it covers this kind of idea.

Yeah, I would certainly support a modification of that to the extent that Council Member was asking for a concurrence. That's all for me.

Any further discussion? Yes, Council Member Poer.

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to say thank you, first off, to Director Stahlnecker. She's helped me understand a lot of things and worked with me on a lot of my concerns. So just thank you very much for that. I feel a lot of these proposals are very helpful. When we look at this tree code, to me, Where we're most vulnerable in Milton, to me, is on new development or lots being subdivided and developed on or ADUs, different things like that where people come in and clear cut. And so if we're trying to address the issue of developers clear cutting lots, This proposed changes for the moratorium directly goes against that, because if we have a fee system, no matter what the fee is, it could be $100,000 per tree cut down. If they're selling million-dollar homes, it won't matter, they'll recuperate it very quickly. But having to put a moratorium on their build is much better potential for making them serious about protecting the trees and reconsidering how they protect the lots in our city. So to me, the changes here are very helpful in trying to bridge that gap. If this ordinance, was put forth today only directing it towards development, then I would be in support of it right away. The changes that are proposed really helped me build a bridge between private homeowners having some responsibility for protecting Milton's trees as well. The Kirkland model to me is where a lot of these come from. I feel that this really is a lot better for understanding, okay, my lot size is this big, how many trees can I cut with only notifying, right? So the intent of the permit to me on the Burien or the past plan was to help the city kind of track the trees and also to provide a way to stop developers from clear cutting. Notification to me is a lot different than asking for permission. As a property owner, I don't feel like I should have to ask for permission to maintain my property how I see fit. I want my trees. I put a lot of money and effort into maintaining my trees, trying to rake up all the leaves, the debris that they cause. I love the trees. but I also want to be able to maintain my property how I see fit, mold it how I need to. To me, these changes kind of help Mary protecting the trees, targeting the developers who come in and clear cut while also trying to address private property owners need to kind of help preserve our canopy as well. I do feel like we have more ground that could be covered and more things that we could maybe improve on. But I do, I recognize the issue is very important because we have a small city, very small city. So anytime somebody comes in and clearcuts a lot, no matter the size, it's a huge difference. The lot where they did the apartments may not feel big in a federal way or whatever, but in Milton, that feels huge. And so if we have to have the private property owners have some responsibility in this code, then to me, these are better. The best thing that I would like is to put something forward right away that addresses the real people who are cutting the trees, which is the developers. Anyway, thank you very much for this. I feel like the flowchart is really wonderful for helping us understand what kind of trees are protected in the changes, what kind of trees... are more regulated and then also showing that people can have that freedom to maintain dead and dying trees without repercussions. Anyway, thank you.

Any further? Yes, Council Member Ternes.

Thank you. I don't know if it's just possible to actually make an amendment just saying there's no clear-cutting, because I think all of us are in agreement. That's the one thing that we can agree on is that we do not want these developers coming in and clear-cutting a whole city block full of trees. And I don't know where that middle ground is between saying that and then taking property owners' personal rights seriously. I know personally as a property owner, if I decide to put an ADU in the back of my yard, I need to take out three trees in order to do that. I understand the canopy and I don't know if it's possible to, based on this, like if I can replace those trees and place them somewhere else in Milton but not on my property. I think we all love trees and we all understand the benefits of trees, but I think when you're saying to the property owner that you have to do this and To me, it just seems like you take their personal rights away from them on what they want to do with their personal property.

So just to clarify, if the purpose of taking down trees was to construct something, it's under a different section, and we would look at, you know, can you build it without taking down? If you can't, then yes you can take those trees down depending on how many other trees you may not have to replant any you may have to plant a couple you could choose where those are you could choose to pay an in lieu of that kind of thing so if the the again if there's we're needing to make space for something then yes there's a definite process on how to do that um and so yeah so um Could there be, again, could there be something that's maybe more percentage of trees? I don't know. Again, looking at this, it's sort of like, well, you can, you know, again, trying to move towards if you... as long as you leave one or two trees or you plant one or two, I guess it would be two or three trees. In essence, you can take down, unless it's really large, some of these. So again, yes, trying to, but just to clarify that if it is for a development thing, whether it's you're adding onto your house or you're building something new, there is a clear path of how you would remove those trees.

And what if it's just you want to create RV parking, you want a playground structure for your children, you want to plant a garden?

So then it would depend on, again, what size are those trees and do you have other trees on there? So again, if you are, depending on the size, if they're under six, and again, those numbers could flex up or down depending on what the final decision is by council if you go this way. But you may take those out and you've got other trees We may say, you know, you've got two other trees on your lot. We may say, you don't have to do anything but remove them and let us know. If that's your last tree on the property, then under this model, you would just replace one or two trees somewhere on your lot. If you really didn't want to, there's an option that you could say, well, I'll just pay for them, pay into the fund that then we can use to plant trees elsewhere.

Thank you.

Council Member Mounts.

Thank you. I want to start off by thanking the good citizens of Milton for coming forward and speaking up. The concerns that you brought up are concerns that I share, especially the balance between private property rights and canopy preservation. There's been no data that demonstrates that Milton needs to have this strong of a tree ordinance, especially in relation to private residence and duplex, I think is the term that's used. It puts the burden of balancing the tree canopy on developers and private property owners. It does not include any responsibility for the city. I went through the city ordinances on parks and recreations and the process that the city uses when they're doing public works projects, couldn't find anything evidenced that, I know it's there, right? And I know that the city also cares about trees, but if we're taking away private property rights, let's all be in this together and not put the sole burden on the private homeowners. And in line with that, when I looked up the right-of-way requirements because I walk my neighbourhood and a large percentage, nearly half of the trees that were planted were dead or dying. And so my concern was, who's responsible for these trees, right? They're between the sidewalk and the bike lane. There's nobody living on the developed property, so there's nobody there to water them. I went to Chapter 12.20, use and maintenance of the right-of-way, the adjacent owner's responsibility. It says, Number A, it shall be the duty of the owner or occupant of a budding property to keep the area between the property line and the edge of the pavement, whether improved or unimproved, in good repair. That's all I could find. I've asked before for a definition of what is the right-of-way and whose responsibilities are in the right-of-way. I was instructed that we didn't really have one for Milton, but I found one on Burien's website. And in further research, just so that you know that it's not an emotional, I mean it is obviously emotional, it's personal for property owners, but I called Burien today because I wasn't able to get data at our last meeting as to how many trees were saved by having such a strict ordinance. So I spoke to the urban forest planner in Burien today. He was very, very helpful, happy to speak with us. They've had this ordinance for nearly four years. They have no data on how many trees were saved. They said generally it's good. There was a big learning curve. There was a lot of work involved to the point where they had to hire a full-time person to manage this ordinance which i don't know that i mean we're not as big as burien but i don't think that that issue has been addressed at all um he said they get about 80 permit requests per year and i said of those 80 How many do you approve? Meaning that if we got a permit request that was denied, there would be some data there. We denied it because it's a healthy tree and we don't want you to take it down. Well, out of the 80, he said, we approve about 80. The general removal and the general replanting, they don't have anything to really compare to what it was before, but mostly it's for development and in the right of way. They focus on exceptional trees that are 30 inches. It generally works well for the arborist, but you don't always need an arborist. Let's see. One thing that Burien did that I am afraid that Milton would like to do, and I don't think we should, they did community outreach and mailers after the fact. And I strongly support notifying the citizens of Milton before the council would approve anything. And that's why I really appreciate you being here tonight. Also from Burien, he did acknowledge that the residential... permit process is very personal but they basically allow for the removal and whatever whatever people need to do they allow for it and and that goes back to we really don't need this especially for residential and this is uh... full of challenges i mean I have copious notes even after the director so graciously replied to our concerns. I still have many, many challenges and many concerns. One of them was brought up tonight. It doesn't really address hazardous trees. Okay, we have dead and dying trees. That's kind of a no-brainer. What's the definition of a hazardous tree? And if we go through this flow chart, I see that it's in there and I'm grateful for that. That's just one of the challenges and that this is the only solution that's being presented by the Planning Commission. I'm disturbed by that. I think I brought that up first. And then the moratorium, while I agree with the principle that a moratorium on cutting trees might work, might stop a clear cut, but how would it be enforced, right? And if the person even doesn't sell their property, you can only cut down one tree a year or two trees a year. It's gonna take you five years to be able to build your grandchild a swing set. It's just not enforceable and it's not compatible with how individual property owners want to use their own property and then say somebody does sell their home and a developer picks it up. How can you enforce the developer not cutting down trees and just paying whatever... fees or fines afterwards. So there's no data, no evidence to show that it works. There's no data or evidence to show that we need this. Milton has a great, healthy canopy. The residents of Milton, by and large, appreciate and love their trees. I know I love my trees. and always plant more and I even have trees in buckets waiting to be planted when I have room. My lot is also constricted. It's very small. I can't replace under someone else's dictation where to put them because the lot is restricted. So we just don't need this. I guess that's the bottom line. We're having serious discussions about something that isn't necessary in my opinion. Thank you for listening.

Any further discussion? Yes, Council Member McNally-Martinez.

I just want to say we had a long conversation today and I appreciate that very much. I support, I think every council member here would support stronger tree retention requirements or development or redevelopment codes. I think all of us would agree to that. I have a bit of an advantage that I work for another city. I work for City of Puyallup as an employee and I spent some time today with our planning manager and asked him regarding the city of Puyallup. I mean, is this in the future that we're going after homeowners? And he specifically stated to We would like to increase our development and redevelopment codes, but we are not going after homeowners. So when we hear that we're saying other cities are doing this, there are some cities doing this, yes. I agree that Burien, Kirkland, Tukwila, quite a few up north, a few down south, but not cities around us. And so I feel like, I hope the Planning Commission can come back and look at development and redevelopment more than homeowners. I also wanted to state that We have to remember that trees are living organisms and they're not permanent structures. So we require permits for home additions, for new constructions, for some fencing, that visibility and safety issues. But there's a difference in trees because a house doesn't spontaneously grow another 20 feet. A fence doesn't develop roots. A driveway doesn't suddenly double in size. Trees grow and change. A tree that was appropriate when a home was built 20 or 30 years ago may eventually create problems that nobody could have anticipated. Root damage, driveways, foundations, branches damaging roof, excessive sap dropping on roofs and vehicles, sun blockage. I mean, you could go on with the list. One other is instructing changes needed to make a home ADA compliant, if they have a heritage tree or a big tree in their front yard. So there's just so many things that restricting homeowners. So I would like to see the Planning Commission focus now on development and redevelopment. And let's look and, you know, even if you put together the moratorium or you did the notification so that we can start a tree count and see what's happening. On another side note, I don't know if you guys, there's a gentleman on Facebook who puts old pictures of different areas. And last week he had some old pictures of Milton from 1960s. And these pictures showed the corner there on Milton Way, and it showed Dave's Restaurant and Triangle Park. And you look at the pictures, and there's actually more trees today than there was in the 1960s. So again, I have to agree with Councilmember Mount is we don't have a problem that needs this excessive of a reaction. And I think this is reactive versus what's happened. in the past year. I asked this afternoon when I was talking to Anjali is when you guys were at Milton Days last year and you were asking citizens if they were okay with the preservation program, was this after the lot was cleared on Milton and Porter? And she confirmed it was after. And I understand that's a reactive because I too. I said, but I think if you ask those same residents, are you willing to take away my property rights and what I can do with my property, you're going to probably get a different answer from the majority of those residents if they own property. So that's where my consensus is on this.

Any further discussion? Yes, Council Member Seder.

yeah i just want to go on the record and say that i support a vigorous tree ordinance i believe the milton is at risk of losing its tree canopy and being complacent about this is the same thing that led to all the problems we have with developments that people complain about people use language like council allowed this to happen well i i just want to make sure i'm clear on the record i believe that my charge is to represent the greater community and not individuals and I support the tree ordinance, I hope there's a way to find it. It doesn't sound like there's gonna be any consensus to get it passed. So it dies here or it dies soon. But when we come back in three, four, 10 years and people say, well, why are all the neighbors trees cut down? I wanna make sure I'm clear that I did not want this to die.

Council Member Hall.

So I do wanna say, and I have said this before, the reason why there are more trees now than for is because they gave each child a tree to plant. And we planted many, many trees. Problem is they all became diseased at the same time. I do believe in an ordinance. I at least at the very lowest level would like to see development and redevelopment code in place, ASAP, and then go back and have conversations on what we can do. I don't think we can get it passed if we converge them all together. I really don't. But I want it to. But I think we need to at least protect what's happening with our development. We don't have a lot of land, but we do have a lot of older houses where people could come in or corporations even could come in and buy them up and strip them. And I think that's what we need to be looking at as well.

Any additional discussion?

All right. I think this is enough to take back to the Planning Commission. Appreciate everyone's comments, concerns, suggestions, and we will see if we're able to bring something back. Thank you, and sorry for taking up tonight.

Thank you for putting this together, Planning Manager Stalnicker. All right, the next item on the agenda is Item 7C, the Purchasing Policy Resolution. And our Finest Director, Robach, will be presenting this item.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. The purchasing policy section of the employee handbook provides guidelines for expenditures of the city. The attached updates to the purchasing policy incorporate additional guidelines for federal awards and add a new federal award standards section. These updates are intended to help the city manage federal awards in compliance with uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for federal awards or 2 CFR 200. This item was presented for discussion at the regular city council meeting on July 20th and some minor text modifications have been incorporated as a result of discussion at that meeting. Those include adding the words direct and indirect so it reads for all federal awards direct and indirect to make sure that we're capturing awards that may pass through another, come from the federal government and pass through another entity. The other adjustment was instead of citing a series of two CFR 200, we've just put the entire code in there. Those are the only changes since the last presentation. That's all I have.

All right. Would anyone like to make a motion so that we can open discussion? Yes, Councilmember Browns.

I move to approve Resolution 26-2004, Adopting the Updated Employee Handbook. Mayor Paterson.

Anyone second? Second. Okay, it's been moved by Councilmember Mounts and seconded by Councilmember Poor. Councilmember Mounts, would you like to speak to your motion?

I think this is a great addition to the employee handbook, and thank you for your due diligence.

Councillor Stroud. Councillor Poer, would you like to speak to your second? Just appreciated the updated language. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, this is an action item. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to address the Council on this issue All right, seeing none, it's been moved by Councilmember Mounce and seconded by Councilmember Poore to approve Resolution 26-2004, Adopting the Updated Employee Handbook. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes. All right, the next item on the agenda is item 7D on page 79 of your packet, the Public Safety Sales Tax Resolution. And This is going to be presented by our Finance Director, Robeck, and our Police Chief, Hernandez.

Thank you again. This item was presented for discussion at the July 20th meeting. And in summary, at current budgeted levels of revenues and expenditures, fund balance in the general fund will fall below the targeted amount of at least 8% of budgeted operating expenditures by the end of 2028. In order to sustain the police department and public safety at levels which meet community expectations, The city will need additional funds to supplement existing general fund revenues which are applied for these purposes. One new source of revenue specifically targeted for police department operations is the public sales tax authorized by RCW 82.14.450. Based on 2026 sales taxes received to date, it is estimated that a public safety tax would generate about $200,000 annually. This tax requires voter approval and may only be submitted at primary or general elections. If approved, the attached resolution authorizes submission of a proposition to increase the sales and use tax in Milton by 0.1% or 0.001 to maintain funding for police services and public safety in the next general election on November 3rd, 2026.

Chief, would you like to say anything at this point?

What she said.

All right. Okay, would anyone like to make a motion in order to open the floor on this? Yes, Council Member Turnus.

to open the floor on it, or just?

A motion, please.

Oh, I move to adopt Resolution 26-2005, authorizing the submission of a proposition to increase the sales and use tax in Milton by 0.1% to maintain funding for police services and public safety. Second.

Okay, Councilmember Ternes, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, I think this is a very small price to pay for just maintaining our police services and all the safety services that are required within our city. Thank you for putting this together. It was very helpful sitting in and having you explain this all out. It is minimal. It's a very minimal cost, but public safety, the end of the spectrum, what can happen during safety to have that prevention, that's priceless. So thank you.

Council Member Orr, would you like to speak to your second?

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you guys for bringing this forward. Although I am frustrated that you made me want a tax, Chief, I can personally attest to the part of your presentation that talked about how your officers take the time to get to know the citizens. Both of my sons, who are young, have gotten to meet many of your officers. They've gotten to participate in the baseball card program. They've received teddy bears. I know several of the officers. If there's ever an emergency at my house, I know a friend's coming. And I hope that everybody in Milton can feel that way, too, because it is a lot of effort when you're already having to be hypervigilant of all kinds of risks and being kind of beset upon all sides, but everybody having an opinion on how you do your job, that you guys take the time to have those conversations, you don't rush through them, and that makes a huge difference when there actually is an emergency. Thank you for your service, and I support this tax.

Any further discussion? Yes, Council Member Cedar. Thanks.

Chief, it looks like there was a Pierce County Justice and Unified Safety Tax Fund that went into effect on July 1st, passing the same point. 1% sales and use tax. I assume this must be, this one specifically would be targeted just towards Milton. Is that the distinction? Is there any interaction between those two or is there ?

Yes, we have to do this, Chair, but the one that Pierce County just passed is under a different RCW, so it's not this particular public safety tax and RCW, but it is a law enforcement tax of 0.1%, so they are very similar, just different RCW rulings.

will we benefit from Pierce County's tax?

I hoped the same thing, but when I read how that tax works, I don't believe that the city will benefit from that tax from Pierce County. If Pierce County had enacted this particular tax, yes, we would have at least to the tune of 15%.

Yeah, awesome.

Then by all means, let's push. Thanks. Any further? Yes, Council Member Mounts.

I support this and appreciate the work that you've done. I just want to suggest, for whatever it's worth, in the language for the proposition, when we say use the tax rate by one-tenth of one percent and in parentheses 0.1 percentage mark, If we wrote that out to .001 when it goes before the voters, I think that demonstrates more clearly that this is nominal, it's minimal. So instead of .1%, do .001 with no percentage mark. And then it's really obvious to the voters that hey, this is really small. Without asking us to do math.

Any further discussion? All right. This is a action item. Is there any comments from the audience? Yes, please come forward.

Jackie Strader. And as a citizen of Milton, I also support the tax after looking into it. I wondered if it was connected to the Pierce County one. And when I read the House bill, I went, oh, my God, this is really onerous, what is required. And then it was explained to me that, no, there's two different ways, and then I did the math, because the math was confusing, and if I spent $50 a week in Milton over a year, and all of it was taxable, I would be putting, giving $2.50 to the police. So I think it's something that everybody can do and get behind. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments from the audience before we vote? Yes, please come forward.

Just for clarity's sake, Jacqueline Whalen, Milton Washington. Just for clarity's sake, if council wants to change the wording, and I know there's legal requirements about how propositions are presented, my question is, does council have to make a formal vote to change 0.1% into 0.001.

And thank you.

Yes.

There is language in the resolution that allows the city attorney or the section four, the mayor and city attorney are authorized to make such minor amendments to the wording of such proposition as may be recommended by Pierce County and city county auditors. I believe that that would allow us to modify the proposition to, or it could allow us to modify the proposition to read as .001 instead of .1%.

Okay, or we could just discuss it here and make a motion to change it. Yes. So let's find out if there is support for that. Does anyone? have any strong feelings about, yes.

Do we need a motion for that?

We would need a motion. That's why I'm asking if there's.

I will make a motion, thank you. I'll make a motion to change the wording to .001. Second. Okay.

Okay. Councilmember McNally, Martinez, would you like to speak to that motion?

I believe Councilmember Mount has a good, you know, people don't always understand numbers or percentages, and so I believe that would actually be visually more pleasing and acceptable.

Councilmember Hall.

I agree, somebody's gonna look at this and I think they'll better understand what .001 is. Okay.

I believe we need to vote on that motion to change the language and then vote to pass the resolution. Is that correct? Yes, okay. It's been moved, sorry. Sorry, I'm looking for the resolution.

It's in front of that.

Oh, here it is, okay. So you're talking about the one-tenth of one percent?

So the item in parentheses is what you want to change?

So it's been moved by Councilmember McNally-Martinez and seconded by Councilmember Hall to change the wording of the resolution for changing the parenthesized amount from 0.1% to 0.001. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes. Okay. Now, it's been moved by Councilmember Ternes and seconded by Councilmember Poore to adopt Resolution 26-2005, authorizing the submission of a proposition to increase the sales and use tax in Milton by 0.1% to maintain funding for police services and public safety. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. All right. And now, since this resolution has passed and tomorrow is the deadline to submit this to both King and Pierce County, we need to have a pro and con committee to assemble to create the pro and con voter's guide statements. And I have reached out to people in the community on both sides and have found two that were willing to serve on the pro committee. I have not found any to serve on the con committee as of yet. And so what happens is that the put public notice on their website for anyone interested in creating a con statement or creating a committee to create a con statement to contact the county by the 7th of this month. So, per the resolution, the Council needs to approve the citizens that wish to be on the Pro Committee, and both Dave and Jackie Strader have stepped forward wishing to write the pro statement for the ballot voter's guide. So can I get a motion to seat them on the Pro Committee? Yes, Councilmember Poehler.

Thank you, Mayor. I move to approve Jackie and Dave Strader as the point people for the pro side committee of this resolution.

OK, thank you. Any second?

Second.

OK. Councillor Boehme, would you like to speak to your motion? Mr. Sure. Thank you, Mayor.

I know Ms. Strater contributes really good stuff to us a lot of the time, really good on accountability, and I feel like she'll, her and her husband will be able to bring very good points. Mayor Paterson. Council Member Hall.

I always appreciate volunteering, and I know they support the police, so thank you. Mayor Paterson.

All right, any further discussion? It's been moved by Councilmember Hoare and seconded by Councilmember Hall to seat Dave and Jackie Strader for the Pro Committee for this resolution. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Okay, the last item on our agenda for this evening is Item 7E, the Construction Contract 23rd Sidewalk. Public Works Director Madden will be presenting this item.

Thank you, Mayor, Council, audience. I am very excited to bring this forward today. This is the last step in awarding this project. This is, for a reminder, this is a section of 23rd that extends north between Diamond and Alder. It is a major cut-through street for our city, and it has substandard dimensions at the moment. Essentially, it operates as an impromptu one-lane traffic. So, people are always jockeying for position, creating very dangerous situations. Council has overwhelmingly supported this project, which we are very grateful for. On June 15th, you approved the purchase of the right-of-way. I'm happy to say that all of the dots, all of the I's have been dotted on that and that we are moving forward. And so, now that we have all of the right-of-way acquisitions, That's $130,000 investment that the city has made to acquire those parcels. We now have a competitive bid in front of us. And so the item before you tonight is to potentially award that bid. The advertisements went out on July 7th. We had a bid opening on July 22nd. And we received six different bids. And those range from $609,000 up to our high bid, which was 1,071,000. So wide range, but a lot of the bids came in in the 700 to high sevens. And so we feel like we have a good contractor to work with on this project. So at this time, I should also state that this is a budgeted project, funds for this are found in Fund 310 and in Water Capital Fund 404. And as a reminder, as part of this sidewalk and road project, we're also replacing all of the storm and the water lines in the area, creating an environment that hopefully we do not have to go back and rigorously maintain for the next 20, 30 years, which is a fantastic investment for our city. At this time, I'd like to open it up for discussion if we can have a motion.

All right, yes, Council Member Cedar.

Thank you, Mayor. I move to authorize the Mayor to execute Public Works Contract Number 198 with Rowden Bush Earthworks for the 23rd Ave Sidewalk Project in an amount not to exceed $605,832.26. Second.

Councilmember Cedar, would you like to speak to your motion?

Thank you, Mayor. Director Madden, thanks so much for bringing this forward and all your diligence to get this to this point. One thing that I see here, you know, I fully agree with you. Right now, we have a constricted 23rd that narrows down into about one and a half lanes. In some countries, they would call that a traffic calming measure, which is alternating one-way traffic. What we will have when this project is complete is a perfectly paved, beautiful two-lane road and some sidewalk. That is uncontrolled traffic. So there will not be under this design any sort of traffic calming measure in place. Is that accurate?

There will be an additional traffic calming effort. Speed humps will go into this area. But that's not part of this contract, that's a separate? It's not part of the contract.

Okay, but that is planned?

Yes.

Awesome, that's what I wanted to double check. And then to extend further south from there, will that include the other side of the Emerald stop sign between Emerald and Mill the Way?

For speed humps? That has not been discussed, but that's something I'd be happy to discuss with my team. Okay, so we got it for this? Yeah, we're looking at 23rd between Taylor and Milton Way, but that is a great addition also.

Taylor to Milton Way, and then this Diamond to Alder stretch. Okay, awesome, thanks. Thank you, great work.

Council Member Poirot, would you like to speak to your second?

I just wanted to say thank you for bringing this forward, thank you for your work on it. This is part of the plan to make Milton more walkable. Also appreciate what Council Member Cedar said about the speed humps and support the speed humps exploration in both those locations discussed.

Any further discussion? Yes, Council Member Ternes.

Thank you for doing this. I actually looked up the reviews on the contractor and I was happy to see he's 4.7 to 5 stars, so that's always good. But I am so thankful that this actually is getting put into place. That road has always been such a hazard and I just felt like it is an accident waiting to happen. Every time I drive that road and there's a car coming this way and I'm going this way and there's people here, so I am so thankful that this is getting done. Thank you so much.

Council Member Rounds.

I just want to give kudos to you and your staff. This all happened in six weeks. As soon as we approved the purchase of the property, you were ready to go with the bids and the proposals. You got six responses, which is excellent. You worked diligently to go through all of the bids and to find the contractor that was the best fit. And I think doing all of that in six weeks is exemplary. And I thank you. That's a good, great example for the city. And then I have one side comment to kind of tie today together, right? So the city purchased the property. The city is putting in the sidewalks and improving the road. Is the city going to plant trees and maintain them?

Wonderful question. We will plant trees in the areas that a tree needs to be removed. There's one, and it's a small ornamental tree. This design that we're putting forth today does not have a planter island that there would be street trees. And so it is street, curb, gutter, sidewalk. That doesn't stop residents from planting trees on their side of the sidewalk. Yes, no planned city trees.

Okay, so maybe we can incentivize some tree planting on the residential side. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional discussion? All right, seeing none, this is a action item. Anyone in the audience like to address the council? Please come forward.

I would love to thank you for all the hard work you've done. It's been tough for me personally, but I agree, we needed that sidewalk badly. I see people dodging cars with their dogs.

Any additional comments from the audience? Seeing none, it's been moved by Councilmember Cedar and seconded by Councilmember Poore to authorize the Mayor to execute Public Works Contract number 198 to exceed $605,832.26. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Executive Session. Per RCW 42.30.1404b, planning or adopting the strategy or position to be taken by the City Council during the course of any collective bargaining, professional negotiations, or grievance or mediation proceedings, or reviewing the proposals made in negotiations or proceedings while in progress. The time now is 8.44. And we will convene to executive session for, let's say, 20 minutes.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to extend tonight's meeting until 9.20 p.m. Second.

Did you say 9.20?

How about 9.30? Let's make it 9.30. Okay.

Second.

It's moved by Councilmember Cedar and seconded by Councilmember Rouse to extend tonight's meeting time until 9.30. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, we're here till 9.30. All right. But for now, we're in executive session. All right, we're back from executive session at 9.09 p.m. And we're gonna move on to council reports. Council Member Ternes.

Thank you, Your Honor. On July 24th, I attended the Substance Use Recovery, their sixth annual meeting in Seattle. It was put on by Councilmember Reagan Dunn. I found it a very thorough look at everything that is going in within King County on how they're trying to navigate all the addiction and homeless and mental health issues that are going on. It was just interesting to see how many different branches are actually being utilized. We can look at the big problem of homelessness and addiction, but they actually are working really hard to try and develop programs to address that. It was very encouraging, thank you.

I just want to thank everyone for engaging in the discussions that City Council is facing. We do represent the public and it's really great to know what the public has to think on these things. I encourage you to go to the city of Milton Waugh website and look at the council agendas. And we have an EMF water cooler on Facebook for topics of discussion. Thank you for getting involved and letting us know your thoughts.

Council Member Seder. Thanks. Yeah, just two quick things. First, I had received an email from Dr. Ellie Klaus-McGann, who we had heard from I think a couple years ago now, but she had pushed out a request for anyone interested in applying for grants for resilience centers, which are trusted, accessible places that can support residents before, during, and after emergencies. It seems like an opportune moment to potentially retrofit some portion of City Hall using grant funding, I will forward it to the staff to see if it's something that we'd be interested in. And the second thing is just a little bit more personal. I appreciate everyone's patience. I was on duty at the last council meeting, so I apologize for not being here, but go Navy.

Council Member Port.

Thank you, Mayor. Just wanted to say thank you again to all the directors. You guys have really hard jobs, and thank you for helping us to serve our community better.

Council Member Hall.

Thank you again for everybody that came and spoke. It's very important that we hear everybody's opinion. We value it very much. I'm not going to take too much slender out of Chiefs, but National Night Out is tomorrow night. It is a wonderful event. Touch a truck, too. That's a nice merge together. You were speaking about the teddy bears that your kids got. We worked at National Night Out and Milton Days that year in 2019 where we actually jailed many people. They were bailed out with donations that funded those bears. So I don't know where we are on the bears, but that might be something that we may want to look at again. Unfortunately, I don't have the jail anymore. My husband made me sell it. laughter Thank you.

Council Member McNally-Martinez.

Again, I want to thank Anjali for all my questions this afternoon. I'm new learning at this. I also want to put a thing, Milton Days is coming up in a couple weeks. I signed up for my volunteer hours. I hope I see other council members there as well. So thank you.

All right, moving on to Director's Reports. Planning Manager Stalnicker.

Nothing tonight.

Okay, Public Works Director Madden.

Nothing additional, thank you.

Finest Director Robach.

No additional comments.

Oh, come on, please. And please, Chief Fernandez.

I'll start with we did have, we did not, Edgewood had an incident on a sign and so probably seen a lot of stuff on EMF water cooler. I spoke with the chief of Edgewood and they are doing an investigation and my advice would be to anybody that if you were responsible for that you should turn yourself in because we're getting a lot of tips and it is an open investigation and so we are going to be or Edgewood is going to continue investigating it so the best thing that that person could do is just come forward and I'll leave it at that. And then regarding touch a truck, we are going to have two food trucks there. There'll be the different city vehicles and we're gonna have our canine there. We're gonna have a SWAT vehicle. We're gonna have inflatables and we're gonna have a lot of fun. So if you're available, come on down and see us and we'd be happy to spend a little time with you.

Chief. What is the, does it start at 4? 4.30. 4.30, okay. Yeah, that was the only thing on my list, which was that National Night Out and Touch a Truck is tomorrow. This year it will be at Milton Community Park or Triangle Park. And also on the Third Friday and the third Saturday is Milton Days coming up. And please come out. It's going to be a fun time. And our events committee has worked very hard to put on a great event for us this year. So anything else this evening? All right, seeing that all agenda items have been concluded, I adjourn this meeting at 9.15 p.m.