City Council - Regular Meeting

It's 6 p.m. on Monday, September 14th, 2026, and I call this study session to order. I want to thank everyone for joining us this evening. Would you please join me in the flag salute? And Councilmember Hall, will you lead, please?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

For the record, I note that Councilmember Roberts and Ternus are absent this evening. And for staff, we have our Public Works Director, Dustin Madden. Do we recognize our Finance Manager in the audience? Michelle Robeck. Our new Community Development Director, Anjali Stallnecker. And Police Chief Hernandez. Okay, the first item on our agenda this evening is a presentation for September 2026's Employee of the Month. And Stacey, would you like to come forward to the podium? Welcome, welcome.

Thank you.

I'm thrilled to announce that Stacey Kaiser of the Finance Department is the City of Milton's Employee of the Month for September 2026. This honor goes to the colleague who consistently lives our values of excellence, integrity, teamwork, and dedicated public service. Stacey doesn't just meet that standard, she embodies it in a way people notice and remember. Her coworkers describe someone who is always ready to help in the office and just as patient and kind with residents at the counter. One colleague put it perfectly, she is always friendly and a joy to be around. People even stop in just to visit with her. That same warmth carries across departments. She works well with everyone, which is rarer than it should be and more valuable than most people realize. Reliability, steady positive energy, and genuine care for doing the work right have made a real difference in finance and for the people who live and work in Milton. She quietly raises the standard for the rest of us and we are better for it. On behalf of the city council, city leadership, and the residents, congratulations Stacey, this honor is richly deserved. As part of the recognition, Stacey will receive a framed Employee of the Month certificate, which I have right here, a feature on the city's website, newsletter, and social media, a reserved parking space for the month, and thank you for actually being the first of our Employees of the Month to use it. lunch with the mayor. And since you've shown up this evening, you'll have a choice of three hours of comp time or three hours of overtime. We are proud of Stacy's work and grateful she keeps showing up with the same care daily. Please join me in congratulating her and in taking a cue from the example she sets every day. Okay, the next presentation this evening is from Pierce Transit. And I'm sorry I didn't catch your name. So please introduce yourself.

Yeah, definitely. My name's Kurt Colvis, Government Relations for Pierce Transit. Excited to be here this evening. Okay, just clicking through slides if I do the next slide. Okay, cool. Well, yeah, I'm happy to be here to talk about the measure that's on the ballot this November, the associated service impacts. Next slide. So a little background of how we got here. In July, our board voted unanimously to go to a place of measure on the ballot for a 3 tenths of 1% sales tax increase to fund transit to more people, more places, more often. Next slide. So some of what has driven this decision, we have about half, or not about, we have half the sales tax rate of our peer agencies in Snohomish County, Thurston County. You can see the comparison graph here. 80% of our funding comes from sales tax. That's really our sole funding source as set by the legislature. We have no other car tax or property tax or anything like that that can affect our local buses. Our rate has not changed since 2002, nearly a quarter of a century. You know, despite that and having, you know, half the resources of our peers, we're proud of the work we've been able to do. You know, it certainly has taken a deliberate effort and disciplined approach to managing costs, streamlining operations, and improving efficiency. But that has paid off. You know, when you look at operating costs per passenger mile, we are the most efficient local transit agency in the Puget Sound region. But really we're hitting the functional limit of what we can accomplish doing more with less and meeting What the community is telling us they want out of their buses so with the other kind of we're trying to be ahead of You know very real circumstances in that space that without additional funding We're gonna have to start looking at service reductions in the coming years and certainly by 2031 We'll be taking service hours off the street next slide So I'm sure you all are aware Pierce County is growing and growing quickly. Our local economy really depends on connecting people to where they need to be. Eighty-nine percent of riders in our county take trips that benefit the local economy, and studies nationally show that every $1 invested in transit yields a $5 economic return to the communities where it operates. We're looking at adding a quarter of a million new residents to Pierce County by 2044 and 117,000 new jobs. And as our region evolves, our transportation system really needs to be able to keep up. We certainly talk to people that never see themselves riding transit, right? But we like to remind them that even if they don't ride transit, the people they rely on, ride transit. We saw that especially during the pandemic, right? Essential workers, grocery clerks, nurses, but also, you know, maybe it's the person that cuts your hair. Maybe it's, you know, X, Y, Z, right? There are people that rely on that, and it's important that they have fast, frequent, reliable service to get where they need to go. Next slide. So we have a plan to address this need. This plan simultaneously focuses on improving the state for the 21,000 daily trips we currently offer, but also really keeps in mind that we want to create a system that more riders can see themselves using, people that want to choose transit. This is a plan for a 47% increase in service that'll span across all 13 towns, cities, and unincorporated areas we serve. A question we get a lot is, does this mean you guys are re-expanding the boundaries? You may remember there was a public transportation improvement conference in 2012 where a variety of municipalities, Bonnie Lake, Sumner, Key Peninsula, Fredrickson, were taken out of the service area. This does not affect that. This is really just about service within our current PTBA, as the acronym goes. And it's not that we don't want to serve those communities. That's just not a decision we get to make. That's a decision voters and elected officials from those communities get to make. Next slide. So again, after this slide, I'll be going through all the improvements that we are proposing as part of this expansion or enhancement of our service. This would be funded with an additional three pennies per $10 spent on qualifying purchases just within our service area. Another question we get a lot is this county-wide. No, it's just businesses and folks that live within our service area, about 70% of the county population. What we're really proud of with this, you know, if you've done the math, that's a 50% increase in our tax rate, right? But we were able to turn that into a 47% increase in service that we're getting out to the community. No administrative bloat, really focused on the buses we need, the operators we need, and getting them to work out there. Next slide. So if approved by voters, we'd add four new routes with this package. I get really excited about Route 40, which is a route that'll serve the new Maritime 253 Skills Center as well as the Port of Tacoma and provide service up through Portland Avenue, which is a growing area of housing. There's also a new central Tacoma route that runs along Tyler, kind of a corridor that's unserved in that north-south direction. We also propose adding back a northeast Tacoma route. So for those that maybe were familiar with our system before, we had Route 63. We'd be bringing back at least a version of Route 63. We're looking at that as an opportunity because we need to reimplement it, replant it, get proper bus stops, all those things that it didn't really have before, but we can look at connecting it to light rail in Fife, as well as thinking through the connection with King County Metro to get people to Federal Way light rail. Additionally, a new weekend route out in the Shaw Road area in Puyallup, and then a diversion, a little change of our Route 11, which currently runs to the ferry terminal at Point Defiance, to provide year-round access to Point Ruston and the waterfront down there. Next slide. If approved by voters, we would also add new seasonal waterfront trolleys and special event service. So our special event service up to this point has been kind of ad hoc, you could say. This package really prioritizes a dedicated pool of flexible funds where we'd work directly with communities to get folks where they need to go. Those major events, think Washington State Fair. You may see that we are piloting the return of that service right now, if you haven't seen that. You can certainly check that out if your family's thinking about going out that way, but also Fife Harvest Festival or Concert Series or Milton Days, right? Like all these different opportunities, thinking through how we partner with communities, whether that's through more buses on the road on the existing routes or dedicated shuttles that serve those. We also recommit to the trolley service out in Gig Harbor, really essential for the community out there, worked closely with the business community to develop that and are looking to get them proper trolley vehicles again, which is something they've cared about, but also looking at designing a similar service for the Tacoma waterfront. But kind of using that to launch a whole program is my vision for the future, that we can continue to work with communities for how we deploy those strategically throughout the year, especially when they're out of that seasonal service. Next slide. So if approved by voters, we would have three high-capacity transit routes. That would be in addition to currently we have one, our multi-care stream community line, which is that route one that you see on there that runs along SR7, PAC-AV. So that would mean these routes two and route three would also become those which would run every 15 minutes on weekdays and every 20 minutes on Sundays all the way until midnight. So significant improvement in the way we think about folks in that part of the county getting around, as well as the folks that connect down there. When you think about how many of our routes converge on Tacoma Dome, downtown Tacoma, Lakewood, and then that opening up connections to the rest of the county is a pretty substantial improvement. You know, we know when we look at these that 140,000 people live within a 10-minute walk of these routes, and there's approximately 110,000 jobs located within a half mile of these routes. And so this just really changes the way people are able to interact with transit when they know the next bus is right around the corner. Next slide. So unsurprisingly, buses running more often is our number one ranked request from riders. Under this plan, 86% of our current routes would run more often. And most importantly, the high-level takeaway I like to talk about is with this plan, we no longer have any routes that would run hourly on weekdays. Everything would be typically 30 minutes or faster. Some creep up to 45 minutes in late evening hours and things like that. But those hourly services, if you all, as this community has had to deal with with some of the routes that run through here, have used those, it's really just a lifeline service. That's not something people can plan their lives around. It means being 15 minutes late for work or 45 minutes early, right? These things that, you know, we need them out there to have coverage for folks that really need it. But if we want to get more people on transit, less congestion on our roads, we need to prioritize those. You know, when you look at this, seven of our 30 or so routes would run every 15 to 20 minutes in addition to those high capacity lines. And those seven routes currently carry one out of every two trips that we offer. So of the 8 million rides we had last year, half of those with this plant would be on a route that operates every 15 to 20 minutes on weekdays. There's also, I saved you a slide with a lot more buses on weekend frequency, but I just want to say, you know, frequency is improving on the weekend. You know, right now, those are primarily our service routes. With this plan, 23 of our routes would operate every 30 minutes or faster on the weekend. Next slide. Not just more often, but later is something that we hear a lot about, you know, folks that have a late shift or they have a challenge getting back from a community meeting or a variety of things, right? If they are on a bus route currently that ends at five or six, you know, with this plan, our system really would run until 10 p.m. or later on weekdays and Saturdays until 8 p.m. on Sundays. And then those, you know, a handful of our routes, those high capacity routes and a couple more that would run until midnight on weekdays. You know, that's about 20 or about 80% of our service would run later hours, ensuring that it's a more realistic option for folks, you know, that need to get home from work on time, right, or need a ride home from an evening class or work. Next slide. So while this package is really focused on, you know, the economy and vitality of Pierce County, and the shift to really trying to move people within Pierce County to Opportunity, we wanna make sure to not lose sight of the importance of these regional connections and the Opportunity light rail and the continued use of express bus service and other things like that are for our community. So with this plan, we are able to align a variety of those connections to be prepared for when light rail comes to Fife and to when it comes to the Tacoma Dome Station. Next slide. We also, for those that are not familiar, we offer paratransit as our shuttle service, and that's for people with physical or cognitive disabilities that prevent them from being able to use fixed-route bus service and live within three-quarters of a mile of a route. And the main takeaway here is if the buses run later, people can get shuttle rides later. If they run more places, those people are eligible for taking shuttle. So this is really important coverage, especially when you think about northeast Tacoma there. in some of those communities that when that fixed route went away, shuttle eligibility became a problem for folks that were getting stuck place bound, additionally out in that Puyallup stretch right there. Next slide. And lastly, on the kind of policy side for this or the improvement side, we've had a lot of success with our Youth Ride Free program. We provided over a million rides to youth in our community last year. With this package, we are able to expand that fare free program on buses and paratransit shuttle to seniors over the age of 65. This has been a longstanding request and I think a big impact item when we think about the investments that are happening here. We will continue to offer a variety of the discount fare and other options that we currently have. Next slide. Okay, well, that's a lot of information. I wanted to take a little bit of a sec to think about a snapshot of your community, show what's happening here with the bus routes. You know, we primarily look at Route 500, Route 501, and Route 402 that operate through here. You know, 402 and 501 currently run hourly, like I was talking about on weekdays and Saturdays and Sundays. And with this package, both those routes would come twice as often. So 30 minute frequency on weekdays and Saturdays. And then one of them would have a Sunday improvement. This plan also includes the later service that I talked about, that 10 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and 8 p.m. on Sundays. And this means people that maybe take the bus up to light rail, catch a Seahawks game, they're able to get home when they get to the other side, right? Not worried about leaving the game early or leaving a variety of what they might be doing that's important to them in the evening. I also, on that light rail front, think a lot about this package really improves people's access to those sound transit services that they're already paying for. When we look at the state of getting to the airport right now, for example, the average Uber from Milton to SeaTac is now $77. And that same ride is $3 to $6 on transit. And if you're a senior, the part on our service rather than Sound Transit would be free. So pretty substantial difference. And then in this community, that bus that really serves those regional connections would be coming every 30 minutes, providing people that connection. Lastly, talking a little bit about that special event service, I'm just really excited that that is gonna give us the resources to come up with common sense solutions for real world problems for communities. I hear far too often from folks out in communities They're like, thousands of people are converging on this one spot right now. Why can I not take the bus there? Or I can, but it doesn't start for another hour. And I think this commitment from our agency to work through this just represents a lot of potential. Like I said, Tacoma Rainiers Games, Washington State Fair, Milton Days. Next slide. Lastly, I'll just wrap up. This Proposition 1 for us, yes, it's about building a transit system that works for our region. But it's really a system that it's about building a system that's there for us when we need it and a system that connects us to what matters to us You know we have found or I've found what it's I've traveled about the world that great vibrant communities Typically all have one thing in common and that's a good transit system safe clean frequent or reliable transit system connecting employers or players to a workforce students to school shoppers to businesses youth and seniors and people disabilities to mobility and and connects families to memories to those community events. So with that, I will conclude with the next slide. We'll have the map there if we want to take a look at it and happy to take any questions.

Any questions? Yeah, Council Member Cedar.

Thanks. Yeah, I just want to say thanks. You know, I appreciate the input over the years. We've talked a lot about the 501 service and how it hasn't really met the needs of Milton, and this does a great job to improve that. So I appreciate that. I can say personally, it's been a challenge to take advantage of the light rail at Federal Way. Frankly, the buses just don't come often enough to do it. So this is a nice improvement on that. Um, also we have so many seniors here in Milton. I just really appreciate Sound Transit's commitment to that, that paratransit service. And I know a lot of them rely on it. So, um, appreciate all you do to serve the, you know, the region, frankly, um, and the citizens of Milton. Thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate it. It's, you know, it's our largest growing kind of demographic and need for the agency is that paratransit service. And it's the one that I think people are they overlook when they're thinking about the broader picture of what transit looks like in our community.

Anyone else?

Thank you, sir. Yeah. Thank you so much for having me tonight.

All right. All right. Our next presentation is the State of the Streets presentation. Dustin, it looks like Axel's going to be presenting this evening. Okay.

Welcome, welcome to Milton State of the Street. I'm Axel Barajas, the city's Asset Management Coordinator. I'm here today to share Milton's current road network conditions, how Milton has historically maintained these roads, and to encourage alternative preservation methods. So to start off, in 2025, CityLogix scanned our entire road network that the City of Middleton maintains. They drove around with this similar car with mounted LIDAR sensors and 360 cameras and detected every crack, pothole, road roughness, and bumpiness. CityLogix took the took these scans and delivered an interactive map with all of our road conditions with built-in features to leverage the data it captured. Historically, Milton... Oh, that's right.

Sorry about that.

Historically, the City of Milton has repaired and maintained pavement with a reactive as needed basis. or from resident demand. These mainly stem from not having access to data we have now. Thanks to the data CityLogix collected, we hope to change that approach. Now that we have a better understanding of our road conditions, our goal is to transition from a reactive method into a more sustainable data-driven pavement management. The imagery to the right just kind of demonstrates a quick snapshot of our current road conditions. We'll get into this in later slides.

Council, please stop us if you have any questions whatsoever.

I think a good way to start off with this is just understanding what type of roads City of Milton has and this slide kind of demonstrates that. The City of Milton is responsible for maintaining three different functional classifications that include minor arterials, collector arterials, and local arterials. So they'll be all the orange, yellowish, purple, and the white roads in this map. The red ones are, of course, 99 and Meridian. and these are maintained by WSDOT, so no worries there. A little bit about these roads. Minor arterials are roads with greater speeds and higher volumes for commuters. They are roads like Milton Way, Porter Way, Taylor, and a section of military. Collector roads are key link roads that route traffic from residential areas principal and arterial roads, and these include roads like 70th, 5th Ave, 15th Ave, 23rd, Emerald. And then we have local roads, which are roads with much lower volumes of commuters, and they are mainly used to access neighbourhoods. Oh, and local roads do comprise most of our road network. Here's a snapshot of the miles of road that we maintain. It's just roughly over 29 miles. And our current pavement condition index, which is a score of 0 to 100, that determines a snapshot of our current city street conditions is 66. We'll get later on into where 66 lies on, but it's It falls into the average condition category. Here is a snapshot of the condition of minor arterial roads. We have an overall average of 86 PCI, which is pretty good. And this consists of 18% of our roads, just above five miles total. And our current backlog to get to 100% PCI is about 1.3 million. Continuing on, our collector arterials. And this is a 64 PCI score with 31% of our total road network just above nine total miles. and there's about a seven million backlog to get to 100 PCI, which is not necessary, but it's a goal that some people make out. A lot of other municipalities select maybe around 85 to 80 for a good PCI score. And last but not least are local and residential streets. This consists of 60 PCI, and this makes up 50% of our total network. As you can see, it has the biggest backlog to get to 100% PCI. This slide just further is a breakdown of our current road network condition and provides some good visual and percentages to understand things a bit better or easier. I believe this is you.

So, Council, any questions so far? The main takeaway that I would like you to have on that last section is the three classifications of streets that we have here in the city of Milton, what the percentages of those different classifications, and then what the backlog is. And why that's important is because different classifications have different opportunities for partnering with grants. Local streets, not much. And so our largest backlog right there, I really want council and the community to have that takeaway of, that is where our PCI risk and where our worst streets reside. So there's a handful of ways that we can go after that, but right now I just want to make sure you have a kind of global understanding of Milton Street Network. So why are you hearing about this now and not in 2005 when we did the street scan? One, I needed Axle in place to help me kind of evaluate all of this information. And we've spent the last year working with Street Scan, who is now CityLogic, to really understand what our options are, where the benefit will be the greatest in applying those street funds that we've had. So...

Next one.

So in recent memory, our primary way that we've handled street maintenance is through taking care of the worst first. So it's the poor section. It's the 59 to 40 PCI range. That's where the city is really focused That's also, next to reconstruction, the most expensive thing that we can be putting our funds to. I'm not saying it's not needed. but those poor streets also rise to the top of the conversation because people are hitting potholes. We've got drainage issues. And so we want to continue to conduct that mill and overlay on some of our worst sections, but I really want to show Council all the other options that we have available at our fingertips. And one of the things that we would like to pursue next year is a chip seal. And what that would do, so... Well, I'll go through. So the PCI will be on the left-hand side. 90 to 100, that's deferred maintenance unless we've got a problematic area which likely requires a reconstruction if it's a new road. The next condition down would be good. So 80 to 89, that's where a crack seal would be beneficial to the city. Public Works right now is looking at investing in crack sealing equipment so we can conduct that work in-house. Then 79 to 60 PCI is average. That's where we really want to start prioritizing these data-driven solutions to kind of tackle PCI deterioration. And then 59 to 40 PCI, we'll continue to do mill and overlay. And then we don't have many 39 to zero in the city, but those will be reconstructed as needed.

Next one.

So cost of these maintenance types. This was another thing that took Axel and I a while to really grapple with. I will state, when I first got the street scan back, our backlog was at 29 million. So going through that backlog and all of the preservation methods, Axel and I were able to just put it in realistic costing for the Pacific Northwest, tailor that backlog down to 21 million. So these are the different methods of maintenance. So crack seal, $4 a square yard. And then we chip seal, $9 a square yard. Mill and overlay comes in at 68, and that is based on the last two years of projects that we've had pretty good bids on. And then full reconstruction, that can be anywhere from 180 a square yard into 300s, depending on what kind of storm issues you have, ADA compliance, sidewalks. So this is the deterioration curve. Typical road has a 35-year lifespan. The number on the left, the vertical, that's your PCI, 0 to 100. And then we've got 0 to 35 years on the bottom. So you can see how that drop really is not as steep in that first 20 years. But once you cross over, the 40, it really starts to deteriorate quickly. So every different method that we potentially would apply has a measurable PCI increase. So all those boxes down at the bottom would tell us, so using cracked seal for an example, if we were to apply a cracked seal to a road that is 81 to 100 PCI, the bottom number, we get a six point increase. And so any questions on how PCI is impacted by those different preservation methods, whether it's crack seal, chip seal, mill and overlay, you can see using crack seal again as an example, it's not recommended on a road with a zero to 40 PCI, you'll get very small returns on the investment. That's why we really want to target crack seal and chip seal to those roads that CityLogix was able to help us identify as prime candidates.

Yes. Just understanding this deterioration curve, which I imagine is something of an industry standard idea. Is that right? Correct. This is a drive for Milton.

With all facilities, yes.

Is it considered linear or is it considered parabolic? Because it looks fairly linear to me, by which I mean... There's no direct benefit in targeting a lower PCI road versus a higher PCI road for maintenance. Or is that not correct?

So I think Axel's going to get into that. We're going to run a couple of scenarios, which is one of the things this program helps us do, to understand what the return on investment would be for different preservation methods. So the city logic really breaks that down for us. But I agree. Typically, the deterioration curve that I see is more of a bell shape. It has a significant drop-off. And if I heard you correctly, what you're saying is this one is fairly linear. It looks fairly linear to me. So one year would equal a certain percentage.

Yeah, which is surprising. Okay, I guess I'll see that. It's got a slight curve, but yes. Next. Next.

So annual maintenance, we've got our, the city has been applying $200,000 towards preservation, essentially, or mill and overlay. That's been the pattern for a long time. We would like to, based on the information we have, take advantage of the identification of those chip seal roads. And so those projects that are in the 60 to 80 PCI, let's target those, and Axel's gonna show you a couple scenarios where you can see what the return on investment is. And so it's slight in the beginning, but if you take that same methodology and apply it year after year, you start to see a significant increase in the PCI over time.

So, using CityLogix and leveraging its software, I was able to conduct these two budget scenarios. The first one is just strictly mill and overlay, which is what we've traditionally done. It would repair for a budget of $200,000, it would repair about It would cost about $196,000, and the PCI would increase by 0.23, so it would go from 66 to 66.23. And it would be three total repairs, so I believe that's like 28th Oak and part of 10th Ave right there. The 200-budget scenario for just seal maintenance, which includes chip and crack seal, we would do significantly greater length to 12,766. The cost would be $199,840, and it would increase the overall PCI by 0.74, so it would go from 66 to 66.74 doing these crack seal and chip seal maintenances. So we can target more roads and increase our PCI better if we were to use these seal maintenances.

And with the PCI, you're talking about the average for the entire city, correct? Not just the road that's being improved? Correct, the entire city.

And our next steps are...

Okay, so moving forward, we want to continue to leverage city logics. You know, we're just starting to get into those different scenario builders. Axel's developed a good relationship with our support staff there. He was on the phone with them this morning, you know, working through those scenarios because it's a ton of information. There's a lot of different kind of caveats and different levers that could be applied, you know, to look at the information differently. What I really wanted Council to take away is that we now have kind of a holistic view of what our issues are and where we should be applying funds in the city. We want to take away that we may want to embrace alternative preservation methods like chip seal, that we want to continue with the street scan program every two to three years do another scan. As soon as Easy Fiber and some of these other fiber companies are out of the city, we will do our next scan. And that will give us an amazing snapshot of our street condition and the health of our streets. And I'm not talking sidewalks or bike lanes. It's just the drive lane preservation or the drive lane pavement. But it'll give us a great view of what was the state of our streets before and after. We want to continue to measure return on investment moving forward. How we're gonna do that is Axel's also helping us update our asset management software and we're tying work orders into that. So every time the city or the crew goes out and if they do a cold patch somewhere, that information would roll back through work orders to Axel who, while it might be very, very minimal, will have an updated of what that streets current condition is it'll help us target the problem areas and Apply our budget wisely any questions Thanks, I have a couple questions kind about some of the underlying assumptions so if I

This all assumes the 200,000 plus periodic 800,000 injections via grants. If we were to move into this system that's focusing on the chip sealing though, it's a lot more roads. Would we still be in a world where we're repairing as many minor arterials such that it would be still eligible for grants or minor arterials and feeders, I guess?

Yes, we would still be eligible for those. Chip seal program, all of the programs, we would target some of those local roads whenever we can. The other thing that we're doing to maximize the benefit of this is any place we build a sidewalk, it's getting a half street overlay minimum. And so that's a way that we can, through capital improvements, upgrade and improve our street condition overall. Am I answering the question, though?

You are, actually. Very good. Thank you. I guess what I'm challenging is just the assumption. I want to make sure that assumption is correct, that we're keeping the same level of funding and we can still rely on that looking forward six years. We should assume that that's going to continue as it has.

We should continue to assume it'll continue as it has. That $200,000 is the city's contribution. That $800,000 that you identified, that's us saying every other year, we're going to receive a large, you know, probably TIB grant or an opportunity like we have down on SR 99 to, you know, reconstruct half of 99 in the city limits through sound transits improvement work. So we want to, yes, continue to do that. Um, be robust with the chip seal in working on the budget right now. I am proposing that we increase it by 100,000 to focus 100,000 solely on chip seal this next year, measure it, see if it was beneficial, and then we can evaluate it moving forward.

I'll come back to that point in just a second. Earlier on, you said that we've traditionally responded to kind of citizen input, like, well, this road needs repair, and maybe, like, the louder, the verbal, that's what we would then repair. See, for instance, that end of 11th Street, right? Very low-use road, but very in need of repair, eventually got repaired.

Yes.

This method doesn't seem to account for that, but it must still factor into the decisions of where we're gonna repair, correct?

It does. There'll be multiple levers. You know, there'll be citizen input, there'll be that lever that we can, you know, sift the information through and see what the priority is to the community. And then, for the first time, you know, I have a PCI for every segment of road, which, you know, as a public works director, it's exciting. And so we, before, we would have to go out, we'd evaluate it. And that evaluation would happen not through a street scan using LIDAR, that would happen through an engineer. would go out, conduct a survey, essentially of the street, and apply a PCI to it. And that is costly, it's somewhat burdensome, and it's subjective. And so you could have two different engineers with wildly, not wildly, but significant differences in what the PCI is. So there will be two kind of ways that we can evaluate it, public feedback and now the data that we have. Yeah, okay.

Thanks for that. And then as far as ROI, so coming back to that idea, what is the ROI you're measuring against? Is it just PCI, or is there some other metric that we have that we view as a tangible gain?

For me at the moment, it's solely PCI. And customer feedback will play in where we're building sidewalks. or doing other construction projects, but for this, you know, road condition of the drive lane, PCI is the primary way that you judge that, that I have found. Axel, have you come across any others? I'm happy to, yeah.

No, I mean, I'll wax poetic in a moment. I'd be curious, Axel, any other measure you can think of?

No, I mean, just kind of saving money over time as well. If we invest into these seal maintenances, we'd be able to preserve those roads for a longer period of time and not be doing mill and overlay and reconstruction of these roads that would end up costing us more. We could help that deterioration curve kind of ride along a little bit longer instead of kind of steepen down to reconstruction as quickly.

That would be another metric, a reduction in mill and overlay. Have we done all of the middle of those kind of midway roads? Are we now, have we eliminated those where now we can focus on reconstruction and some of these other preservation methods? That's another metric that could help us measure ROI.

And I just kind of spitballed a little bit, so I apologize for just freewheeling. But it's really interesting to me that this is juxtaposed next to the Pierce Transit presentation where they're fighting tooth and nail for something that is a very small tax increase that has such monumental impacts. If you look at the statistics for miles traveled via bike, foot, transit, the return on investment is astronomical when compared to single occupancy vehicles. And so here we're talking about dedicating more money to single occupancy vehicle repairs that I think, like, I'M SURE I WANT OUR ROADS TO BE BEAUTIFUL. I LOVE 100% PCI ACROSS MILTON BUT I JUST WANT TO FLAG THAT LIKE IT CONCERNS ME IF WE INVEST MORE MONEY IN THAT THAT REALLY ONLY IMPACTS A FEW PEOPLE ON A STREET VERSUS THINKING ABOUT BROADER SOLUTIONS TO FOR INSTANCE CHILDREN WALKING TO SCHOOL WHEN WE'RE DECIDING WHERE TO FOCUS OUR REPAIRS AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS. SO THAT'S A TENSION FOR ME THAT I'M JUST FLAGGING FOR YOU. I SUSPECT IT WILL COME UP IN BUDGET DISCUSSIONS WHICH I LOOK FORWARD TO. THANK YOU. THANKS.

So how do we repair these streets that need stormwater and complete redo? Where is that money going to come from? And has that been put in the budget? Because I know I can think of a couple streets because I walk that are just horrific that need to be taken care of.

There's a variety of reasons why some of those roads you know haven't been taken care of one of the Main reasons that I've found is that they are in need of a million dollar water line upgrade Exactly, so what we are doing in that situation. We are applying For its it's partly a grant partly a loan for I-5 for the water main crossing I-5, and this year, through that program, they're allowing other water main projects. So we're applying for four water mains throughout the city, and that would allow us to fix those now, and we could then move on and pave those roads.

I appreciate all you do. Thank you.

Usually it takes a couple different funding sources and you've really gotta see which domino is gonna fall first and different roads have different challenges. Taylor, we actually ended up pulling back our TIB grant this year that we were submitting because it just became astronomical with all of the storm water because we wanted bike lane on both directions of Taylor and a dedicated sidewalk on the north side. And that would have gone all the way from 23rd to Meridian So the takeaway there is stormwater is gonna be a challenge. So we've got multiple different consultants that specialize in stormwater. We're already talking with them about potential ways to kind of mitigate the cost of that. Because undergrounding stormwater is, it's a project killer when it comes to adding bike lanes in the city.

Thank you.

Any additional questions? Yes, Council Member Mounts.

So speaking of Taylor, are you comparing, and I know you are, but comparing, like, do we need bike lanes on both sides? If the stormwater is only on one side, can we put the bike lane on the other side? Or are there alternatives? I mean, I'm disappointed that we pulled back on Taylor because it's so needed to be able to walk it, right?

Right, absolutely, it is needed. And it's a temporary pullback, I would say. We are just kind of going back to the drawing board a little bit. The way it was penciling out, the city would have had to dedicate almost a million dollars to a traditional stormwater conveyance system. There may be other ways to handle it. You know, so it's more of a pause button on that, because I agree 100%. Taylor is our next road, our backbone for our bike lanes and our sidewalks through the city.

Do we typically have bike lanes going both directions on both sides?

We don't have many bike lanes through the city, but I think that that is an opportunity to not only serve the city of Milton, but also Edgewood with bike transit. Angelee and I are working with Sound Transit to have a dedicated bike lane. It's on their project list. It has to go through their evaluation. but it would be from on Porter Way all the way up to Milton Way. So if that were to come to fruition, that'd be a natural connection to Steep Hill, but it'd be a natural connection for Taylor. And so there'd be bike lanes going all the way from Meridian to Sound Transit's new station in Fife, which would be a huge benefit for our city. And the problem is if you don't do bike lanes on both sides, it wouldn't be curb and gutter on both sides. That was a cost we cut. But having a bike lane on the south side just allowed that kind of free flow of alternative traffic without people having to ride in the lane going up the hill.

Any additional questions? Thank you. Oh, yes. Thank you, Mayor.

Just kind of going with the same Taylor conversation. Just had a thought that if we couldn't, because I would support definitely doing the bike lane on both sides, but if we, for some reason, couldn't do that, at least if we had the sidewalk on the north side. You guys probably already thought of this. Sidewalk on one side, bike lane on the other. At least we'd have a place for the bikes to go on both sides. But I definitely think it'd be best to have on both sides and support that in whatever way I could. So looking at the condition of a lot of these roads that are listed, the neighborhood ones are a lot in the 30s, which says that they're in the critical conditions. The ones that it looks like are suggested to mill and overlay, for example, Milton Way and Fife Way, one of them's 69 and one of them's 55. Obviously, those get used way more. What's kind of... What's the best way to, I guess the PCI is the best way to balance kind of what return on investment you would get from the smaller used roads, but there's got to be, it's got to be really hard. What kind of wisdom are you guys kind of drawn on for how to balance the heavy use roads versus the ones that are in much worse condition but really need it?

Yeah. It is a balancing act. And I would say that evaluating which road to fund, how many counts of vehicles, how many vehicles are going on that road per day, plays a huge influence. It also, you know, there's a lot of grant opportunities for those larger roads with the higher volumes. There's not really any grant opportunities for the local streets. So that, how many trips they service doesn't play in as much. It's more, it's the high volume roads. That's a key indicator of how we evaluate that. The local streets, We're just starting to wrestle with that. So I don't have a perfect plan yet where it's 10 point plan over the next five years and we'll get there. But wherever we put in sidewalks, where we're doing half the street, we're trying to match. If we have a contractor working in the area, we'll try to do the half that wouldn't have been done otherwise. I think you guys saw that philosophy kind of by the church. Why leave a couple of small sections that have a bad PCI next to brand-new construction. Just doesn't make sense. So we're trying to capture all those opportunities around the city. So yes, when it comes to local and residential streets, it will be somewhat of a worst-first. you know, once those three longest sections of red, that's 12th, 11th, and 13th, and those are the ones that we're waiting on waterline funds. So that's the big holdup on those ones.

Thank you, that helps a lot. Sounds like we're kind of on our own with the local ones versus the ones that are used a little bit more. Just a curiosity, is there any extra benefits to doing the mill and overlay? Like is it, expand the road a little bit to make it a little bit easier for people to walk on than just doing a chip and seal, which I assume is just spot treating?

To date, both of our the mill and overlay has stayed within the existing road structure. So we haven't extended it out that I recall. And so I think neither one would really have benefit of additional roadway surface. It's just a different preservation for the existing roadway.

Awesome. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thanks.

It'd be a lot smoother. Any additional questions?

All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Director Madden. Thank you, Axel. Thank you. Now moving on to the regular agenda, we have one item on page 21 of your packet, and it's the Tree Ordinance 2140-26, Discussion. And we're gonna get a presentation from our Community Development Director, Anjali Stalnicker.

So, thank you, Mayor and Council. Axel's just handing you a smidge replacement for page 33. It was something that the Planning Commission, we had discussed and had wording for, and I was trying to figure out the best place for it, and it didn't look like it got in the copy that was sent out, so I just wanted to make sure that that is there as well for today's discussion. So, The current tree regulations that are currently on the books right now, just sort of some background to kind of get us all up in speed again, really provides minimal protection for mature trees, especially now that various housing needs and requirements coming from the state. and a housing shortage have increased Milton's loss of tree canopy. So that was sort of the impetus behind the Planning Commission drafting a new tree ordinance, and the original recommendation was a 7-0 to the Council. And again, the Planning Commission's goal was to provide those standards for maintaining and expanding the city's urban forest, to increase the canopy coverage in an equitable manner across Milton. This is, you know, addressed in the comp plan and then they've listed all the great benefits of mature trees on page thirty which is in the purpose section after presenting that proposal to council there was did not appear to be a consensus and while some were supportive of the proposal others had some concerns especially to the new rules for single-family properties historically properties with a single-family house have been exempt from true regulations And while that was sufficient in the past, new rules on housing, as kind of I already mentioned, specifically ADUs have sort of changed the needs and the risk involved. So after several council discussions, we had a joint meeting, the draft was sent back to the Planning Commission. And based on the direction and feedback, the Planning Commission has recommended a revised version. They have tried to address some of those concerns. We're also keeping that heart of the ordinance. I do want to note the revision was supported by a vote of five to one. One member was absent and one member did not agree with the changes sort of pulling back some of those requirements. So this ordinance has been on quite a ride. So tonight as we review the current revised version, I think it's at least four or five, I wanna recognize the many people, council, planning commission, community members who have worked hard on this. And while again, some have advocated for less restrictions, others have actually advocated for more restrictions. And so we're hoping that this version, sort of the best we can, We did hear those concerns, who felt it was too restrictive, especially because prior there weren't any. So there has definitely been some we have removed and we'll go through those sort of step by step. But we've removed some of those for permitting and replacement trees. And we're hoping that we have made allowances for what the majority of residents, if they went to remove a tree, it would cover what they're looking at, but also it would prevent or at least deter anyone from coming in and just wanting to clear cut the mature cheese. And in most cases, that is for future development. So I'm gonna just sort of go through the staff report and the lovely little orange sheet I have that hopefully hits on some of those. So one of the things that got brought up is the fact that it exempts city-owned property. And again, staffs, a lot of that has to do with the fact that we do have other things that cover that and we are working on some other standards as well. And when you're dealing with things like street trees, they are covered in different sections and different stuff. But we do acknowledge that it would not hurt to apply those standards if it was a new building similar to any other building. And so we did on page, let's see where we go, on page 30, and I've tried to highlight things in blue that sort of will stand out. They're there just kind of to help as we go through this. So we did add under exceptions that This does not, the exception does not apply to any new development activity over 500 square feet. So like I said, if for some reason we did tear down City Hall and built a new one, it would need to be looking at those tree requirements, same as everything else. In the tree credit zone, there was conversation of, again, who goes in what section. The higher the number, the more tree retention there is, so that's on page 31. So, again, after discussion, it felt like both the neighborhood commercial and the community facilities could easily be bumped up to that one minimum tree credit because, again, they're at a kind of a lower density. They have larger setbacks. Part of the reason that things like MX and the industrial, we're allowing them in the, if you look in the part of the code that talks about their coverage, they're allowed a greater amount of coverage. because they're serving a different function in certain ways. So there's not as much room to put trees where in single family, in low density multifamily, we can't. So we move those up. I did, you will kind of see just above that, again, I've sort of rearranged it. Hopefully some of the feedback I got back from people who hadn't worked on it was that it just was hard to find things and figure out what applied to what. So I've tried to reorganize it more by what type of Property it is and I think that hopefully will be a little bit more of an easier to sort of a general population to review it and again when you start talking about exceptional trees or Significant trees, you know, it's not very user friendly to know which is more restrictive than the other so we came up or I looked at what some of the other cities had and one of them had what's called a tier one and a tier two. So basically a tier one means exceptional trees and heritage trees. So at the moment we don't have any heritage trees, but if the city decided at some point to designate and wanted to go through that process, those would include. And then, so, we also went through when we talked about definitions, There was a table, and part of the reason with a table that sort of defines exceptional trees, it was multiple trees at different sizes. Part of that is that different trees are mature at different sizes. And it's on both sides. So if you are retaining a tree, you would have gotten higher credits for it. But if you're removing that tree, you would have had to replace more credits when we're using the credit system. And so sort of to try to simplify that down, we did make the tree exception definition to be any native conifer 24 inches or greater and any other tree 28 inches. So we basically have just two sizes because basically our native conifers, which are... are very common through here. Those are our big tall trees. But then we also said that things like red alder, black cottonwood, bitter cherry, Lombardo poplar, that those are not going to ever be considered significant because those are trees that are problem quick growing and can cause problems. And we did define native conifers as Douglas fir, Grand fir, noble fir, Sitka spruce, Western hemlock, Western red cedar, and Western white pine. So as we go through that, so again, just when we get to page 33, and like I said, I gave everyone sort of a slightly revised copy. This is where I think the heart of where a lot of the discussion is and a lot of the concern is and a lot of what we tried to work on. So I really hope that the work has been recognized to try to, like I said, what we were trying to look at is what is the average resident likely going to take a tree down for and can we provide a way to do that as cheaply and as efficiently as possible at the same time discouraging clear cutting discouraging just taking down all of the trees, hoping to maybe develop in a little bit or something. So this is what has been proposed. So E is just if it's undeveloped, basically you need a minor permit. If the tree is dead, dying, hazardous, and it's obvious, you turn in an application, you can show us the pictures or if not, obvious, you can show us a report, you can remove those, and we're not going to make you replant any trees. Because we recognize and we heard this idea that we shouldn't make people not take down something that's dangerous. If they don't have money we don't want money to be a factor for that, and there is a cost for permits, there is a cost for replanting so that so if it's undeveloped. And in it's either obviously or you can show us we're going to let you take those trees down so under F. This is on develop lot, so the first section F1 is this applies to lots with existing one and two family dwelling units. And so what the planning commission came up with is one healthy regulated tree may be removed per year. And you can additionally bank a second tree. So the idea being that in essence, you can take two trees down in a two year period. So if it's, and you just can't cut a third until that third year. So if you've got two trees that are healthy and you want to remove them and you're not building anything and it can save you a little bit to do them at the same time, that's fine. And then a dead, dying, hazardous, or nuisance trees. We've added nuisance, and the definition of that means that, in essence, it's affecting a structure. So it's damaging someone's foundation or the sidewalk or the roof, and it's not simply like, well, if they trimmed it a little bit, it would fix it. It's that it is seriously just was planted in the wrong place. Those may be removed in addition to that one healthy tree. And then the one that needed to be added that, again, we had discussed, but at the time I was trying to figure out where to put it in. A healthy regulated tree may be removed for the purpose of providing an ADA compliant ramp in addition to subsection A if no other reasonable option is available. So in some circumstances, maybe there's another perfectly valid door that they could do and not have to remove a tree. But if it's like the only that you have to remove this tree you need the ramp they're getting older then we don't again we don't want to prevent somebody from having something that they need to access their house and and as they age be there. We've also switched from a No for instead of requiring a permit, which is basically you asking us permission to a notification, the idea that we want to know why you're removing the tree which tree you removed. One of the things that came up from the council is, well, you don't know how many trees are even being taken down. And how do we know if we're having canopy loss? So this will help us do that. It does say required. There's no necessarily penalty for not letting us know. But it does give us that idea that it is important. And so they felt like they wanted it to be a requirement that you let us know you've taken the tree down and we'll have a form and you just help us fill it out. And that way we can start documenting those. We did add specifically that we strongly encourage to plant replacement trees to reflect the minimum tree credit goals and assist in the rebuilding of the lost urban forest. And then also, if a healthy regulated tree is removed, but within two years, somebody... is coming in for development, we would then treat it as if they had not been removed and they would be subject. So the idea being trying to prevent that, we're trying to get around the rules. So when we get down, if you're building something, you're adding on to something, you may have to replant a tree under that section. You can't take it down one year hoping that you're just gonna six months later come in for a permit. Again, there's no penalty tied to it other than just saying, hey, there was a tree there, It should have come in with your development permit, so we're just going to treat it if it's there. And then if you're not a single family or a two-dwelling duplex, similar things that we would require. So if you're a business or maybe an apartment complex, we are going to require a minor permit. Again, you can remove it. We are going to ask that you plant something similar, but you don't have to necessarily do the tree credits. You're not going to be allowed to remove a healthy Tier 1 tree, but you can remove any healthy Tier 2 trees if you meet the minimum tree credits required. So that is very similar to what was previous. And then just to finish out the single family, which kind of goes on to the next page, If you are going to do a development, let's say you are gonna build an ADU or you're gonna expand your house by over 500 square feet, you do have to do a minor tree permit with your application and you would have to, you are subject to things like the tree credits and different things. But if you're doing less than three, regulated trees that are going to be removed we're not going to make you do a profession we won't we won't require the plans to be by a professional you still have to submit the plans to us but we're again some of the concerns that were brought to us was about cost trying to keep that cost down and so that is something that would bring that cost down So I'm going to pause at that point. There are some other things like we did take out dealing with bonding and forcing and penalties, but I kind of want to stop here because I think this is the heart of where the discussions have been and see if there's any questions or comments at this part.

Just a quick question.

I would like to recognize all of the hard work that has gone into this by the Planning Committee, Commission. But it seems to me that we can't see the forest through the trees. The hard work has gone into the detail of the trees and the detail, the minutiae, which is important, minutiae. the overreach onto property rights. We're penalizing homeowners who already have a lot on their plate. They already pay a lot of taxes. We're trying to provide more regulations without demonstrating a need for these regulations. And so the conversation really needs to be about property rights and not about all of these details that we go through very quickly that are hard to understand. The overall picture is the homeowners have the right to decide what is best for their property. And this ordinance also, in addition, as you mentioned in your opening statement, it could put us at odds with the state because the state is putting housing before trees. And we're putting trees before everything. We're putting trees before housing, before property rights, before people's decision making for their own homes and their own investments. I just can't get past that. We don't need that. We don't need anything this restrictive, this detailed, this... It's just such a heavy burden that we're trying to put on the homeowners.

Well, I appreciate that that is your stance. I would say, first of all, property rights is a very, it's not a very definable direction because people have different interpretations of that. I would also say that while you strongly feel that way, and I totally understand that, we have had direction from other council members, other planning commissioners who feel very differently. So again, this is why we're trying to find something that addresses the heart of what I think everyone has concerns over. So that's where this is setting at.

So for that, just to follow up, it really needs to go to the people, right? Because we do want to represent the voice of the people, and we have talked about outreach in the past, and I would like to see outreach, education, and more incentives to improve the canopy before we start going the restrictive route and not doing outreach after the fact, after something is voted on or approved, but outreach before the fact. Even a survey monkey was brought up or other incentives, handing out trees at the school classrooms. There's a lot of other things we can do before we get to this point because even the fee schedule is just, you know, $15,000 for noncompliance. It's just, it's so overwhelming. It's not necessary. There's no demonstrated need for this. And so, yes, that is my position. Thank you. And I do also recognize all of the hard work. But if anybody's watching these recordings, I really encourage you, go online, read the fine print, look it up, and come speak. Because... It's not changing, even though we're speaking, it's not making large strides to change. Thank you.

Mayor Paterson. Any additional questions? Yes, Council Member McNally-Martinez.

I just got a couple questions. First of all, why is it different for the non-resident I mean, I'm just curious of why that was different, because I understand that the regular developed, it can take out one healthy tree, but the other ones, they can't do a tier one. I mean, why? I'm just curious on that.

So I guess what I was hearing was we're happy to let development have stronger restrictions as long as the single family and duplexes don't. And they currently have restrictions on what they have to replace. So that's what we stayed with is sort of keeping them. It lightened them a little bit. It no longer requires them to do So like under the current proposal, the original proposal, get all these straight, if you had taken out a dead dying, you would still have then had to bring everything up. This just says planting a tree of similar status or similar type. So it's a little bit less, but it stayed pretty similar to what was before because the direction I got was we were only concerned really with the single family and the duplexes.

Okay, and a couple other questions. First of all, I also want to thank you and the Planning Commission, because I know you guys have put hours and hours into this. I'm a visual person, and so when I'm reading like tier one, tier two, I like to bring my ruler out. I'm like a six-inch tree, diameter tree. So from this, a homeowner could take one of these trees down a year that's this big. Yep. And, you know, to me, that's like, it was a little still invasive.

You could also take down a 30-year-old Tier 1 tree.

I think that a tree canopy is diverse, and forests die and change, and I, you know, really want to see the drive on educating, the drive on incentives, the drive on the school programs with the trees. I feel, you know, I know you discredit rights, but I think

I don't think that's an accurate statement. It's not that I discredit rights. I think that is a phrase that different people have different definitions for, because there are people, again, I feel like there's sort of been this dismissal for the Planning Commission as being residents of this community who support this strongly, and half the Council supports this strongly. So I think there are people who feel their property rights means that I should be able, my trees and the trees next to them. I mean, again, it's a term that is hard to define. And so I think using that, I don't know that I can address that per se because each person sort of has its own feeling of what that means. Right. So that was my only statement there.

Okay. And so I also, I think we had a discussion. I appreciate you very much because you've answered a billion questions. And I'm new at Council. I'm new to this public stuff, so I've asked a lot of questions. And one of the things I did ask was I understand that we've been told that the tree regulation is Tree regulation is something that the community wanted. I think you guys did a survey at Milton Days a couple of years ago. But in that, I asked, is there any way we could survey the residents? Because I'm here as a representative of the residents of Milton. If we could survey them and ask What are they willing to give up for that regulation? And I think it was explained to me that, you know, the average citizen doesn't understand the canopy, the tree canopy issue. But to me, that's education. And then we still ask. I understand there's seven members of the commission, but there's, what, over 9,000 citizens in the city of Milton. And this affects education. every property owner in the city of Milton in some way or the other. So it's hard for me as an elected or appointed official, in my case, to vote on something that's taking something away from resident owners without knowing how they all really feel. And that's where I kind of support doing some kind of a survey to give us some direction as council because all I can do is ask the people around me and listen to the Planning Commission and yourself, which I appreciate and I respect and I've learned a lot, and I appreciate the changes that are done, but I would really like to hear from the community before I have to put a vote to take something away from homeowners. That's just where I sit.

That's the challenge with

Yeah, Council Member Seder.

I just want to be clear. We are elected to make decisions. Every time we make a decision, we're doing something that impacts every single Milton resident. And when we only have a few hundred residents that even vote in our elections, I think it's ridiculous to think we're going to go out and ask everyone what they think. And the reality is, which you'll find quickly, you're lucky if you get 51% on your side. Most often it's that close. And so if you talk to 10 people, hopefully six agree and four disagree, and that's a good outcome. You're never going to get validation from the voters to say, I 100% support or 100% disagree. So I think it's really disingenuous to say we're not listening to the community here. I think the Planning Commission has done exceptional work over a long period of time to get this to where it is. It reflects a compromise that I'm not happy about, but I'd happily support. just to get something over the line so that it's not work in vain and so that we're actually working toward a future with improved code and improved planning. I mean, if we want to talk about property rights with this grand notion, I would like us to also next meeting then vote on repealing our zoning codes, our fence ordinance, fireworks prohibitions. I mean, maybe some of our public safety laws that don't allow you to camp everywhere in the city. And property rights are just intangible ideas. So like state your opinion. I think we clearly know where people stand, but please don't come back and say that somehow we're disrespecting property rights by supporting the tree ordinance. That is not what we're doing. We're supporting the future. We're recognizing that climate change is happening. The Milton is suffering when it loses trees. Thank you.

Council Member Hall.

So a little bit of history. The reason why I believe this has come up is because the residents were very, very upset about trees being wiped out of development. It happened on Taylor. It happened up at Bridgepoint. It happened at the city, the church, not the city, sorry. And they demanded we do something. Now, What I'm understanding is, and this is what I've been spending a lot of time explaining to residents, is you can't have development rules if you don't have rules with the residents. Because what's happening is, and it happened, where they wipe out the trees as residents, sell it to the developer, and they've got a blank lot. So we have to have something there that's going to assist with that. And I think this is a compromise. Also, this is not something we can't come back and say, hey, this isn't working. We can update it. It's not a drop dead type of thing. I think this is an excellent compromise. I think, too, residents only think in the direction of their property, how it's going to affect them. And some want more, and some want none. We can't do both, but we've got to try to be, look for the residents, but also look for the generations coming forward. This is what this is about. This isn't about my residents right this minute, because if I plant a tree, you're not going to see a difference for a long time. I watched trees grow that I planted when I was a child, and they become diseased, and I was very upset that we had to get rid of them. It was very, very sad. At this point, I still haven't replanted because I can't... It's hard. It is hard. It's emotional. And people work hard for the property, but again, we have to look forward to what we're doing. We're not doing it for now. We're doing it for generations going forward.

Mayor Paterson Any further questions? And I do want to remind Council that this meeting is to ask questions about the current ordinance, not to debate it. So just keep that in mind.

I think we have to because otherwise it doesn't come out. How do we, how do, it's not a debate, it's where did it come from, where did it go, you know? we have to have the conversation somewhere. And the residents have to see us have the conversation. At least that's how I feel.

Yeah, indeed. But we should also be addressing the changes that have been made as well so that the residents can understand that this has been a process that we've been going through. So any additional questions? Yes, Council Member Poer.

Thank you, Mayor.

I know you guys have put a lot of work in this and I appreciate it. I have some questions I was hoping to ask. If we could start with, it's section E on this page you handed out.

Mm-hmm.

At the end it talks about, number three it says, removal of healthy regulated trees is not allowed. I just wanted to say I appreciate that you guys kind of put a process into how people would go about that if they did have to do something there.

Yeah, and that's only for undeveloped lots.

Thank you. And then I also want to recognize how how much effort you guys have put into trying to bridge these gaps that were initially there from the kind of the Burien Plan. Could you help clarify under F, tree movable, on developed lots? It's G. I think I just was having a hard time understanding what this was meaning. Healthy regulated trees removed within two years of development activity will be treated as if they had not been removed and subject to requirements of subsection G, I assume.

Yeah, so the idea being, let's say somebody buys a lot with the intent of subdividing and building ADUs or something, which we have had. We have had someone buy a lot they subdivide it, they end up building a second house and 3 ADUs for the housing. So the idea being that you can't, cut two healthy trees and then come in and give me permits the day after or a month after or a year after because if you had, you know, so if that's the case, then we would look at where those trees located and then we basically, gee, would just be then we'd kick in and say, okay, If you had done the process correctly with development, we would have had, you still probably could have taken that tree down, but you would have had to replant these other trees. So we would look at it from that aspect. Again, it's just a deterrent for people trying to find loopholes.

Okay, cool.

That's all that is, is just try to, one of the things we had looked at was when we had had the previous study session was sort of like, well, for every healthy tree you take down, you can't, you can't build or get permits for a year. So if you took three tiers down, you couldn't build for three years. The feeling was, with talking to the attorneys, that that was, it might be hard to say you can't build. Where this says, yes, you can build, but you're just gonna have to make sure you do it under these. Now, if you wait your two years, then it doesn't apply.

Okay, so this is helping. protect if somebody cuts and then wants to try and do it after.

Yeah, again, it's just trying to get around someone using the rules in an unintended way.

Okay. And then under number two, it says on all other developed lots, I assume that's everything greater than the two-family category? Yes.

So that was, like I said, the impression that the statements I heard was that we were concerned with the one- and two-family dwelling units. We weren't concerned with the others. And so this, for the most part, with a little bit of softening, mimics what was done before.

Okay. And then for when we're required to replant trees, people who are going to be required to replant trees is basically only on developed, like lots associated with development or being developed. It's not on...

Correct. So if you exit, if you're just taking down within those. And again, what we're looking at is the likelihood of by the time you take out all your tree. You know, most people are taking out a tree because it is dead, dying, hazardous or a nuisance. Those aren't going to count against you. Very few people just take out a healthy tree. But this allows you that. So we were trying to find that line of what might be the average person who would sort of take down a tree or two. and save them. But if you are developing, let's say that you're putting up a new house or a new duplex or you're putting in ADUs or you're increasing your house or building a garage that's over 500 square feet, then yes, we would be looking at your lot and say, okay, how many trees do you have on it? This is how many credits you need. This is how many credits you have and you have to make up the difference. But again if it's if your lot doesn't have any trees or maybe only have two trees that you're taking down We're not going to require you to have a professional to prepare those plans because there's a lot less Concern there that again that helps the intent was to help the cost because again I heard the the concern over the cost on homeowners this removes that cost and so they when they turn in their housing permits which again if you're turning in for any of these you are turning in permits and you already sort of do a landscaping permit though there's not specific requirements we still ask you to turn it in you would identify well these are where i'm going to put those trees to make those credits And then again, if it's something bigger than that, then you do a major tree removal permit. And again, we're looking at, my recommendation is $75, I believe, for a... For the minor one. For a minor permit. And... Back up here. And $150... for a major tree if it's less than five and 300 if it's five and less. That, I was sort of looking at what are the hourly wages, how long do I think it would take us to review that. Again, and we can get to the fee section and stuff at any time, but that was sort of where we were at with that thinking.

Okay, and then under tree removal, I think it's No. 5, Tier 1 trees can't be removed. But that's, again, only associated with undeveloped lots or development activity?

This would be so in this section you're dealing with development. OK. So if you're going to build something, the initial thing is try not to have to tear down a Tier 1 tree.

OK.

If let's, and in most cases if you're doing an ADU or something, you could probably shift it and not do that. If you need to, then there's then there's exceptions to that. So if it has to be because of where it's located, then there's a process of, okay, these are the things that you can do. We also give exceptions to like, hey, if you're building a brand new house and the big tree's in the back and maybe if you just move it forward, you could avoid it. Again, there's a little bit there. Or if you're a commercial, we're willing to let you reduce parking or maybe go up an extra height or something to protect those trees. So there's some positive things there to help that.

Okay. And then I saw that there was a bond associated with that. Uh, if they do cut, can you kind of help just shed a little light on, I think that's new, right?

Yeah. So if you need an exception, this would only be in this case, it would be for the exception. If you do an exception, um, to protect a tree, The idea is we don't want you then to turn around and cut it right away. Originally, it had for the life, like you had to do a deed for the life. Again, attorneys were a little nervous with that. So we're basically all through here. We've gone through the five-year survival period and requiring either a bond or a performance agreement or something that says for the trees that you have planted, you need to make sure that they last at least five years. The idea that that takes them that long to You have to water them, make sure that they are really established before, again, just to make sure that they're established and they're not just dying for a lack of being taken care of. Okay.

Which would be another loophole, I assume, kind of to... Yeah, or just people not caring.

And again, most of the time, we're talking developers, not homeowners.

Okay. Councilmember Hall.

So how would that bond work then? Because I know there was some of the developers on Porter Way, they only took care of trees from what I understood for six months and then it went to the resident to take care of them.

Those are the street trees. So street trees are sort of under its own Yeah, that was a special.

Yeah, I don't want to get off track.

Yeah, those were street trees that were being built not in front of their property. You know, so if the trees that are in front of the warehouses, they are responsible for. Okay. They, as the development agreement, they also did all the others for the city. And in that case, yes, they had to show that they didn't die right away. But then, yes, they become.

Thank you.

Yes, Council Member Ford.

Another concern that's kind of been brought up is the cost to monitor. Do we currently have enough staff and time to monitor all these things and hold people accountable and do all the measurements and all that stuff?

I mean yes it's like anything else what we do I mean already we are doing any development we're already requiring this work so in essence it just changes maybe what the requirements are but we're still officially processing those as it comes to I mean we're just at this point we're just requiring them to notice us when they take down a tree if they're not if there's not a development tied to it so in that case it's a form that they would fill out and we would in most case, I'm sure have an Excel spreadsheet where we keep track of that data so that we can start providing that to both the council and to our, as we try to develop more of a long range plan, we'd have that information. So yeah, and again, when it comes to the permitting, all of these are coming in with other permits, so it's just part of a project we're already reviewing.

Okay. And I think it's nice to be able to have some tracking on things. I do wonder if we couldn't accomplish that by just making it something we ask people to do instead of requiring it, but... Yeah, and that's, I mean,

it's a word that could go either way. If a consensus felt like required was too strong, you could say a tree removal notification should be turned in or something. But again, the feeling was if we want this information, if we want the long-term information of what trees are doing, you put required in there. Now, again, there's no penalty tied to it, but it lets people realize that, hey, this is what we want. And this is a reason for it. So I think we're okay. You know, like I said, that was the feeling of that.

I also wanted to bring up something that I think Francis has brought to the table that's been really, I think would be really helpful too, is just if we could do what her generation did and offer free trees to kids to go plant at their homes. Maybe even if it was just built in from people who violated or something like that, use that money towards helping fund the planting of trees, because especially from people I've talked to regarding the Burien Plan or any sort of kind of more stringent ideas, it made people panic and feel like they don't wanna plant any trees. And in fact, they wanted to cut trees. So I appreciate that this helps to kind of bridge that gap, but I do feel like if we can find some way, I don't know if it's within this or a different way to help encourage the planting. I think that's really what we wanna get at anyway is not just keeping what we have, but also encouraging new growth because trees have life cycles too. And if we only keep what we have eventually, that'll be dead too. So.

On page 37. Ooh. If you look at J number five, in certain instances, we do allow people, they may be allowed to do what's called a fee in lieu of. We do this for sidewalks quite frequently. That basically, if for whatever reason, and again, there's certain criteria you can't just say I want to do in lieu of and not plant any trees, but if you do meet their criteria and you do pay in lieu of, it does specifically say that shall be used to expand Milton's urban forest, including but not limited to forestry education, restoration activities, purchase of land, planting of individual trees, funding a tree giveaway program, purchase and installation of infrastructure to preserve existing trees, and protecting new trees. So the idea is that that's what those would be used for. And I know that the Parks Department has been actively working on a program to give away, do some tree giveaways, so those are things that are in the works. And this would definitely, could go into that fund. If the, I don't know if it specifically says that, I'm trying to look real quick. But again, it might be worth jumping over to talking about the penalty part. So one of the things on page 41, there was, again, concern with the amount and options and stuff for penalties. So one, we did pull out the penalties so that it is in the fee schedule. There was some debate on that. We don't do a lot of penalties and fines in the fee schedule, but I also talked to the finance director and didn't see any reason why we couldn't. So again, that is a separate, it could be a separate, at this point it would be in that separate document that, Again, I just kept the numbers, but those could be reviewed. But we did add some, it will come back to your question, but it did add some options. Basically the main thing that we have added is this idea of a voluntary compliance agreement. So in the case of somebody who didn't realize and just was taking down trees for some reason, for a reason and then it gives us the opportunity to kind of go into an agreement where maybe we create some other option, some restoration or education. Maybe they don't have the money to plant but we have money that we could provide them to replant that or there's a project that needs to replant. and they'd be happy to let their, so it sort of gives us a little bit of flexibility, more flexibility than that was in here. But if we ended up collecting fees and penalties, it could be, those could then turn around and be used for those education purposes as well. We could code it that way.

Thank you. There's a lot of new stuff to digest, so thank you for being patient. It's very apparent that you guys put a lot of effort into it in trying to build these bridges. I think it would help me if we could build a smaller bridge to say, let's not require the notification initially. Is there any consensus on Council to make that change? I think it's under the single and double family properties to just change that to we request notification so that we can try to get the data, what we're aiming at. And I feel like most people would be willing to do that as long as we put the education out there. Hey, we actually, we would like you to do this because our urban forest matters to us and we wanna know what's happening to our urban forest to make sure that we're keeping this healthy for people for generations to come. And we would like to, if we are gonna do it, make it the least invasive possible with the max result return on investment. Is there any consensus on that with Council?

Yeah, I would agree with that. I also, just a quick question, if you don't mind. Go ahead. You have the one healthy regulated tree. Was there a reason they went with one or two? Because I know we had talked about like two or three or something a year for residential. And I only say that because of the six-inch, when I was looking at six inches. Like, that's a tiny tree. My question on if that would make people feel a little better about what their landscaping is in their yard or what they're doing.

yeah so the original I think the first draft had like two for for an eighth again looking at a smaller lot looking at the 8,000 square foot lot the idea I think was two over two years and actually I think it was actually two over it was two per year no more than like two for five years so in essence this would be the equivalent of five over five years so in essence it is greater, it's just not stacking. So if there was a, we had talked about maybe instead of banking two, banking one, maybe you bank two. So you could do three trees, but you can't plant, you can't take another one down for four years if the filling was that, again, trying to look at how many. So again, in essence, this is letting people take down a lot more trees between the dead dying and the healthy because it's one per year no matter the size. But yes, it's sort of limiting two for every two years. So again, the banking could go up if someone felt that that, you know, if that made a difference between passing or not passing. But yeah, so that was sort of, again, the idea is we're looking at those smaller lots, and like I said, the previous one was two every five, and this in essence would be five over five, so we've increased it.

Yes. I would support that too, the two trees per year with one bank ability instead of just the one.

My question on that is, who's gonna keep track? Even as a homeowner, I'm not sure what year I took trees down. Are we going to have to have a spreadsheet for, oh, I'm sorry, you took down two trees two years ago, so now you can't take down two more? How do we monitor that?

That's one of the benefits of the notification, is they're going to let us know what trees they took down, why they took them down, were they dying were they damaged what size were they one it provides information but two it makes it so that we know and again i would say from my observation and maybe i'm wrong and you guys know what your neighbors are but people in general don't take down a lot of trees right but they do on occasion need to and so we're trying to find that so yes it would if they weren't sure they could ask us

And would permits be restricted if they notified, say someone notified the city that I need to take down these two trees and then this? You can't take down another tree for another year. Okay, well then their family situation changes. They have to take down another tree, or they have to sell the property, or they have to develop an ADU so they have some income. Would their permits be hindered?

It's not going to be hindered, but we would look at them. We would say, okay, now we're looking at the section that talks about if you're developing. And in most cases, you probably just have to plant some trees.

And then if they didn't do it, then the fee schedule kicks in, the $700,000 to $15,000 fines?

I guess in the worst case scenario, yes, that would be.

Yes, that would be. And then what if, I had this question too, because I think I understand that this was brought about because somebody clear cut their lot and then sold to a developer. So under this plan, if that were to have happened, do we have any recourse against the developer not to develop? Do we have, like, a lien on the property or a restriction on the property? Or how would we... The trees are gone. How do we hold the developer responsible or the new owner responsible?

In this case, every case so far has been the developer who has taken down the trees, and their argument is... Not the private residents? Because they are the owner of the property, they fall under that category.

I'm sorry, developers, they bought it for the purpose of developing, so they would fall under the development category.

Correct, but if we didn't, so under our current code, it says if you have a single family house on a property, You can take down any trees you want. Nothing applies. So they bought it. It's a single family house. They subdivided it. They took down all the trees. They built another single family house and they built ADUs. All of that falls under the single family. They're allowed to do that. They got to cut all their trees down. Nothing else applies. So under this code, they would, one, most likely they're talking to us ahead of time and we would say, hey, don't cut any trees now until you talk to us. And that usually happens because they're wanting to ahead of time figure out should they buy this property or not. Two, then once because they're going to add things on, then we would say, OK, this is what kicks in. You can't cut unless you replant. And these are the things that would go and we go through that with them. Or if they were trying to be sneaky and they took down two trees, and because they didn't come talk to us, then we'd say, okay, well, you took the two trees down. We're not fining you, but you are going to have to do replacements and stuff like as if you would have come in and talked to us like you were supposed to.

So I have two questions to that. First, to circle back to my first question, if the property changes hands, do the restrictions follow the property? Are they attached to the title or the deed?

It would be, I guess, under this, yes, it would follow, it would, we would look and say two trees were removed, and so either you can't take any more down for another year, or if now you're wanting to develop, but either, you know, we would look at where those trees were and what would apply.

I don't know how that could be enforced, but okay. And then circling to my second question based on your response, I'm just curious. was it one, was it three, and what percentage of the population of Milton caused all of this to come up? Is it a few people that tried to circumvent or didn't even have to circumvent rules? I'm wondering how big of a problem is this percentage-wise to the Milton population?

I guess I would say that we have had at least two or three lots that have done it already. I will say I spent a week at the planning directors conference and trees and how cities are trying to protect them, the fact that ADUs have made things differently was a huge topic that was discussed. And I would suspect that, and several people when I mentioned, yeah, we're trying to do ours, we're very interested in what we were doing, how we were doing it, who are we looking at, because it is something that is, again, the environment has changed, the building environment has changed, the rules have changed. And so what has worked for decades is not going to work. I honestly, in my professional opinion, believe that If we don't do something, and again, I tried to give everyone the maps and I didn't even reference them, but everything that's in, so you have two maps, one of them.

Can I just, and I'm sorry to interrupt. No, but your question to me is. Was what percentage of the population?

I don't have a percentage. I think just a couple of people. We were in the news two, three times. I have been interviewed by, I think, every news station related to trees coming down. We talked to, somewhere I have the count, I think we talked to 70 or 80 people at the Milton Days previously. The Planning Commission had one person testify who said, I want this, and if you're gonna apply trees to vacant lots, you need to apply trees to lots with houses. So there are a variety of opinions, and I cannot give you a percentage, but each person represents so many people.

I was just asking about how many single-family homes clear-cut their lots out of, we have, what, 10,000 population?

No, and I guess that's why I said there have been three so far, and I believe there will be more.

Thank you.

And if you look on the map I provided, everything that is in yellow, the bright yellow and... a slightly darker yellow, is what is single family. And so those are all the properties that potentially could be protected, unprotected, depending on what we're doing.

And I know this has been brought up before. When you were at the conference, did anybody say that a plan like this actually worked? Because when I called the guy at Burien, they hadn't saved any trees with that great big elaborate thing.

I don't see how that can... Again, this isn't a place... I mean, I talked to him and he was very good at telling me all the reasons and all the things I my again, my professional opinion is if you're telling people they can't cut certain trees, we are in default saving urban forests. So I don't have an answer for your question that I think would satisfy you.

Right, it's just he's been doing it for four years and had never denied a permit.

And that was my experience with my conversation with him. So again, I don't know how to address that.

Thank you.

All right, we have about five minutes left in our meeting. Is there any further questions? Yes, Council Member Poore.

Can we do, I don't know if it's a roll call type of, I know we're not officially voting, but clarify whether we have consensus on non-required notification and then separately two trees per year with one bank instead of the one tree per year with one bank.

Yeah, we can get a consensus on that, but Director Stalnicker, I would, before we do that, you should tell us what the consequences to that would be, because I see... That would certainly affect the page 33 under F, the letter G, if we didn't require it, would essentially.

Yeah, so part of the reason they stayed to the two every two years was because F was sort of tracking the two years for development. So your first statement is you would like D to be a tree removal notification is requested or is something to that effect instead of required. So I guess, again, we will actively try to get those from everyone either way. Required might spur a few people who might dismiss us to be a little more active, but either way. Again, there's no penalty per se that's tied to not doing it. It's just a more, it's a stronger word. As to the others, again, if you, so I wanna be clear. So you're saying that we can, that you're wanting to make it two healthy trees per year so you're able to bank, able to cut four trees at one time?

No, no, so instead of one tree per year with one bank, two trees per year with one bank. So that would be three at most if you've got the bank. Does that make sense?

Am I? Are you saying that you could do one tree per year with up to two being banked, meaning you could cut three trees, and then you couldn't cut another one for three years?

That could work too, but I was meaning instead of one per year, just saying two, and then if you need.

So that multiplies, then you could over a five-year period, you're doing 10 trees instead of five.

Oh, because the bank goes before and after that year?

Yeah, because if you're saying you can, yeah.

Okay, so the way to keep it to the three would be cut one per year to bank.

then you could do three every three years. And so you could do three at one time. The idea is just, again, save a little tiny bit of money.

But it gives more flexibility, a little more, okay. So that, I think that would be what I would be asking for if we have consensus on. And then potentially maybe a way to kind of bridge that loophole for G would be if somebody is in the process of selling or sells, then they would have to notify when they sell, right? That would kind of allow for regular people cutting to not have to notify, but people who are selling would need to.

I'm just trying to think how that would, how that could be enforced or addressed, so.

All right, so I'm hearing two suggestions. All right. One being a modification to FD, and where is the section that you're wanting to modify in terms of a requirement as opposed to where it requests?

Was this regarding the how many trees can be cut? Or was this the? The notification. So notification requested as opposed to required. However, if you sell your home, you're required to notify what trees were cut within the last two years?

I think I just.

I don't see how we could.

I don't see how we could do that. So I think at this point it would just be is there consensus at this point? to change it from required to requested.

It's a dial that we could always change later.

We have a few minutes left. Can we just go around the dais?

Yeah, because we could always change that later to require notification if people are refusing to do it. Because the point is, I think that most people would do it just out of goodwill because they have the freedom to do it.

We have one minute. Sorry. Council Member McNally-Martinez, yes or no?

I'm okay with it being just state with required, so.

Okay, Council Member Hall.

What'd you say?

Required is fine, and are we just doing the one? Yes. Yeah, this is one. Required.

I say required.

Okay, Council Member Poer.

Not required.

Okay, Council Member Cedar.

I have no comment.

Okay, Council Member Miles.

Requested.

Okay, well, it's a tie.

So it's state. It can't be both, I mean.

It's a consensus.

Yeah, I know, it's just a consensus.

I mean, I know we're over time now, but you're letting people that are saying they're not going to vote on the ordinance drive the ship here. So we already don't require something at the front end, and now we're not going to require something at the back end. Why even pass something? So of course it should be required. We're not doing anything anyway.

All right, there we go. The other option, yeah, we'll just make it next week. This will be on the agenda for next week as an action item, so we'll be... we'll be able to have a robust debate on it, and you will be able to make motions to make changes. Just like any other measure.