HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-2005 - Agenda PacketMEDINA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
June 27, 2005 7:00 p.m.
501 Evergreen Point Road Medina, WA
A. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL (Adam, Blazey, Nunn, Odermat, Phelps, Rudolph, Vail-Spinosa)
C. ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Mayor
2. Council
3. Staff
D. DISCUSSION
1. Professional Services Contract Policy
2. WRIA 8 Conservation Plan
3. 84t" Avenue NE Tree Replacement
4. Medina Park Playground Equipment
5. Planning Commission Appointments
6. Council Agenda Calendar
E. ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Medina City Council encourages public participation and values input from citizens. In an
effort to conduct meetings in a fair, but efficient manner, the City Council will follow previously
adopted procedures, which are available in the City Clerk's Office.
All comments shall be addressed to the Council as a whole in a courteous and respectful manner.
Derogatory comments directed toward individual members of the City Council or City staff will not
be permitted.
Citizens wishing to address the Council should complete a speaker card and submit it to the
recording secretary prior to the start of the meeting. Speaker cards are on the podium prior to the
start of the City Council meetings.
Meeting Agenda is subject to change prior to approval of the agenda during the meeting.
Persons interested in a specific agenda item may wish to call the City Clerk at
(425) 454-9222 before 4:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting to confirm agenda items.
y of
CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.233.6400
www.medina-wa.9ov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 22, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: Professional Services Contract Policy
RECOMMENDATION: Review attached draft policy and provide direction to City Manager
POLICY IMPLICATION:
regarding the following issues:
• What executive limitations related to contracts for professional
services are desired by the City Council?
• Does the draft policy provide too much, too little or adequate
executive limitations?
• Does the City Council wish to consider taking action on the
professional services contract policy as written? With
modifications?
Professional services are typically provided as either project specific
consulting or for ongoing support services (as an extension of city staff). It
is important to recognize the different needs and issues related to contracts
for project specific consulting compared to those related to ongoing support
services contracts. The consultants providing ongoing support services are
involved in code enforcement and must be very familiar with the Medina
Municipal Code as well as administrative procedures. As a result, it is
desirable to establish long-term relationships and continuity of primary
consultants with ongoing support service contracts.
The City Council has previously adopted Ordinance No. 775, which
established procedures for the approval of certain contracts and grants the
city manager authority with respect to contracts. Ordinance No. 775
delegates authority to the city manager to approve contracts without
individual approval of each contract according to maximum contract
amounts, which are consistent with amounts established by RCW for
public project bidding requirements. Ordinance Nos. 553 and 622 establish
the small works roster and procedures for advertisement, selection and
award of small works contracts ($100,000 or less for public work or
improvements). The process is consistent with RCW.
1
Adoption of a policy for professional service contracts establishes
executive limitations, which should address the actions or practices that are
not acceptable to the City Council. Given the ethical and moral
expectations established by the Revised Code of Washington and the
International City Management Association, it is not necessary for the City
Council to include redundant language in the professional service contract
policy. In general, RCW and ICMA Code of Ethics prohibit favoritism,
personal aggrandizement or profit.
BACKGROUND: The draft policy was developed from an administrative guideline following a
request for a future City Council discussion of a professional service
contract policy from Council Member Adam. The draft policy (administrative
guideline) reflects the procedures currently used by city staff for selection of
consultants and contract negotiation, except for the maximum term of
consultant contracts, which is established in Section 33.5.6 — Negotiation
Guidelines. Currently, contracts terms are negotiated and are not restricted
by ordinance or City policy. The language restricting professional service
contract terms to a maximum of twenty-four months with a maximum
twelve -months extension was added to the draft policy following input from
Council Member Adam.
Consideration should be given to allow enough flexibility for city staff to
attract qualified consultants and negotiate contracts with the most qualified
consultants at rates of compensation that are fair and reasonable to the
city. Policies that do not allow flexibility may result in difficultly attracting
qualified consultants and/or increased rates of compensation. Therefore,
the City Council is advised to identify the practices or actions that would not
be acceptable and avoid developing administrative procedures disguised
as policy.
• Page 2
CM OF M EDIJVA
ADMIN7S7T-,,A9TVE GUIDE -LINES
GUIDELINE #33
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS
EFFECTIVE DATE: PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
REVISED: APPROVED BY:
SUPERSEDED:
Douglas J. Schulze
City Manager
SECTION 33.1 — Purpose
INDEX:
33.2 — Reference
33.3 — Application
33.4 — Policy
33.5 — Guidelines
33.1 PURPOSE
To establish uniform guidelines for selection and contract negotiation regarding
professional consultant services.
33.2 REFERENCE
RCW 39.04.190
MMC Chapter 2.66
33.3 APPLICATION
The Administrative Guideline applies to all individuals employed by the City of
Medina,
33.4 POLICY
It is the policy of the City of Medina to ensure that contracts for professional
consultant services are established in a manner that results in evaluation and
selection of a professional consultant most qualified to perform the desired
services and that compensation for the services to be provided is fair and
reasonable to the city.
CIS OF 91�lEDIN.�I
ADNINISTRA?1"VE GUIDECINES
33.5 GUIDELINES
33.5.1 Definitions
a)
"Letter of interest" means a professional consultant's statement of
interest to compete for the advertised project, plus a statement of
qualifications and performance data, the content of which shall be
determined at the discretion of the responsible official.
b)
"Professional consultant" means any individual, organization, firm,
group, association, corporation, partnership, joint venture or
combination thereof that provides professional services including, but
not limited to architects, engineers, appraisers, surveyors and
accountants.
c)
"Responsible city official" means the city manager or his or her
designee.
33.5.2 Maior Professional Contract Selection Procedure
a)
Authorization Required. Authorization from the City Council is required
whenever consultation services for a project are estimated to exceed
$15,000. A consultation project shall not be segmented or divided into
phases thereby making the estimated cost of several or all such
phases less than $15,000 for the purpose of avoiding City Council
authorization.
b)
Notice Publication. After council authorization, the responsible official
shall publish notice as often as he/she deems necessary in
newspapers or trade journals most likely to solicit an adequate
number of letters of interest. The first notice should be published at
least 21 days prior to the deadline for submittal of letters of interest.
c)
Notice Content. The notice shall include the following:
1. The general scope and nature of the particular project for
which the services are to be rendered;
2. The name, address and telephone number of the responsible
official to whom inquiries may be directed and letters of
interest may be sent; and
3. The date after which no further letters of interest will be
accepted or considered.
d)
Project Information. Upon request from professional consultants, the
responsible official shall provide full details and specifications of the
project for which the services are required, plus a full description of
the selection procedure to be followed.
CM of NEDIJVA
ADMINISTRATI VE GUIDELINES
e) Consultant Screening. The responsible official shall screen the letters
of interest received, as well as those professional consultants who
have submitted annual statements of qualifications and performance
data. The top three consultants shall be identified based upon
previously developed criteria.
f) Requests for Proposals. The responsible official shall request
proposals from the top three consultants and notify the unselected
consultants of their status.
g) Consultant Interviews. The responsible official shall interview the
selected consultants to discuss, among other things, the scope of
services required, the work product anticipated, methods of
performance, and any available alternative approaches that would
equally meet the city's requirements.
h) Recommendation to the City Council. After each consultant has been
interviewed, the city manager or designee shall evaluate each of the
finalists on the basis of the previously established criteria and select
one consultant for recommendation to the City Council for approval.
i) City Council Action. The City Council shall accept or reject the City
Manager's recommendation. Upon acceptance, the City Council shall
authorize the city manager to negotiate a contract with the selected
consultant pursuant to the guidelines established in Section 33.5.6,
below. The City Council must approve any final contract negotiated
with the consultant. If the council rejects the city manager's
recommendation, or the city is unable to negotiate an acceptable
contract with the consultant, negotiations with that consultant shall be
terminated and the council may direct the city manager to recommend
another consultant from the consultants previously screened or re -
advertise the project for new letters of interest according to the
procedures set forth for the original consultant selection.
33.5.3 Minor Professional Contract Selection Procedure
a) Procedure. The following selection procedures shall be used for
projects where the consultant's estimated services will be $15,000 or
less.
b) Professional Consultant Selection. The responsible official shall
review current letters of interest on file with the city as well as other
consultants who may be qualified. The responsible official shall select
a consultant after discussions with one or more professional
consultants regarding the scope and purpose of the proposed project.
The selection of the professional consultant shall be based upon the
criteria established for the consultant project.
c) Contract Negotiation. The responsible official shall negotiate a
contract for the professional consultant's compensation regarding the
CIS OF MEDIWA
ADMINYS11TR TT VE GUIDE -LINES
proposed project, consistent with the negotiation guidelines provided
in Section 33.5.6, and submit such contract to the city manager for
approval.
d)
City Manager Approval. The City Manager shall approve, modify or
reject the proposed professional consultant contract, and/or authorize
the responsible official to select another professional consultant using
the procedures set forth in this section.
33.5.4 List of Consultants/Publication of Requirements
a)
List Maintained. The responsible official shall maintain a list of
professional consultants who have filed annual statements of
qualifications and performance data. Use of the Small Works Roster
Purchasing Consortium (administered by the City of Lynnwood) is an
acceptable alternative as long as the City of Medina remains a
member of the Consortium. The responsible official shall encourage
professional consultants who have contracted with the city or have
expressed an interest in contracting with the city to submit annual
statements of qualifications and performance data.
b)
Publication of Notice. The responsible official shall publish a notice of
the city's general projected requirements for minor professional
consultant services, as described in 33.5.3 above, in newspapers or
trade journals selected at the discretion of the responsible official as
appropriate for the type of services advertised, and at intervals
consistent with the regularity of the city's need for such services.
c)
Contents of Notice. The notice shall include the following:
1. The general requirements of the city for professional
consultant services of a particular type or category;
2. The name, address and telephone number of the responsible
city official who can be contacted for details of the selection
procedure and with whom letters of interest may be filed.
33.5.5 Professional Consultant Selection Criteria
a)
The responsible city official shall establish written criteria to be used in
the evaluation and selection of professional consultants. Such criteria
shall generally include the consideration of the consultant's
experience, capability, reputation, familiarity with the type of project,
quality of work, budget control ability, existing workload, professional
credentials, and upon the intuitive opinion of the interviewer(s).
b)
In addition to the other criteria provided by this section, the
responsible city official shall afford minority -owned and women -owned
consultant firms the maximum practicable opportunity to compete for
and obtain such contracts with the city.
CM OF .9WEDIJVA
ADMINIS�tR,A?rVE qUIDELINES
33.5.6 Negotiation Guideline. The responsible official shall negotiate the contract
with professional consultants who have been selected pursuant to this
guideline with the goal of establishing compensation for such services
that is fair and reasonable to the city. The responsible official shall,
among other things, consider the estimated value of services to be
rendered against the scope, complexity and professional nature of the
services required by the proposed project. Professional consultation
services contracts shall not exceed a term of more than twenty-four
consecutive months, with an option for extension of not more than twelve
additional months, at the sole discretion of the city.
33.5.7 Emergency Services. In the event that the city council or the responsible
official makes a determination that an emergency exists requiring the
immediate execution of professional consultant services, and that any
delay necessitated by the procedures of this chapter may be detrimental
to the best interests of the city, the procedures of this guideline need not
be complied with to the extent that such procedures would necessitate
such a delay.
ITEM D - 2
CITY OF MEDINA
Development Services
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
www.medina-wa.gov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 21, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Director of Development Services
RE: WRIA 8 Steering Committee's Proposed Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan
This staff report is a duplicate of the staff report from the April 25 Study Session packet. Since
that time, the WRIA 8 Forum has developed a resolution template (attached) which cities can
adopt as a means of showing their support for the conservation plan. As an altemative, I have
verified with the WRIA 8 staff lead that a letter from the city's planning director citing City
Council supportive action will also be satisfactory to the WRIA 8 Forum.
POLICY IMPLICATION: The general policy direction of the proposed plan is consistent with the
Medina Shoreline Management Master Program. The proposed plan discusses some habitat
enhancements not presently required by the Master Program but these enhancements would be
voluntary according to the proposed plan.
BACKGROUND: In 1999, the Chinook (King) Salmon was listed under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). This prompted the formation of the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8
Forum body with the mission of developing a Chinook Salmon conservation plan for the Lake
Washington / Cedar / Sammamish watershed area and funded through an interlocal agreement
between the 27 jurisdictions within the watershed. Several iterations of commenting on the final plan
have been occurring in the last year. A public comment period occurred in December 2004. The
proposed plan is presently undergoing a 90 day review which is hoped to culminate in ratification of the
plan by the Forum members on May 26, 2005.
The proposed plan comprises three volumes. I have attached the executive summary. The remaining
chapters can be accessed online -- http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wdas/8. For the last several years the
Steering Committee has been overseeing development of the plan and various scientific analyses. The
science has identified three different populations of Chinook salmon in the resource area: the Cedar
River, North Lake Washington and the Issaquah populations. While the critical spawning activity occurs
in streams in these areas, Medina's shoreline plays a potential role in the migratory and rearing aspects
of the salmon lifecycle.
While the proposed plan stresses that the science is evolving and that strategies will have to adapt to
the results of monitoring, it does identify three categories of conservation actions: 1) land use, planning,
ITEM D-2
and infrastructure, 2) site -specific habitat protection, and 3) public outreach and education. With
Medina's shoreline being almost entirely single family residential and playing migratory role, site -specific
projects are unlikely to be proposed for Medina. At this time the direction of the plan is to make all of the
land use / infrastructure actions voluntary. Public outreach actions, of course, do not involve any loss of
development rights. As a result, the proposed plan does not represent a significant encumbrance for
Medina or its citizens.
From a liability standpoint, it appears that support for the WRIA 8 proposed plan is the best action for the
City. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency has not produced any other type of model
ordinance to give local governmental jurisdictions a clear route to ESA compliance. Chapter 8 of the
proposed plan — Expectations and Commitments for Plan Implementation -- discusses the hypothetical
process of a local government jurisdiction committing to certain conservation actions in exchange for
indemnity from the federal government. While this is an attractive idea, the chapter makes it clear that
no such agreements have been made by the federal agencies.
At least three Medina residents have written to the City Council providing comments on the proposed
plan.
ITEM D - 2a
Common Resolution Proposed by WRIA 8 Forum for Local Governments to Ratify
WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Plan
A RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE RATIFYING THE
WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA (WRIA) 8
CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN
WHEREAS, in March 1999, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionary
significant unit as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); and
WHEREAS, in. November 1999, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) listed the Puget Sound bull trout distinct population segment as a threatened
species under the ESA; and
WHEREAS, under the ESA, it is illegal to take a listed species, and the ESA.
defines the term "take" to include actions that could harm listed species or their habitat;
and
WHEREAS, actions that are directly or indirectly authorized by local
governments could potentially expose local governments to civil or criminal penalties
under the ESA; and
WHEREAS, under the ESA, Section 4(f), NOAA Fisheries (for Chinook salmon)
and USFWS (for bull trout) are required to develop and implement recovery plans to
address the recovery of the species; and
WHEREAS, an essential ingredient for the development and implementation of
an effective recovery program is coordination and cooperation among federal, state, and
local agencies, tribes, businesses, researchers, non -governmental organizations,
landowners, citizens, and other stakeholders as required; and
WHEREAS, Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, a regional non-profit organization,
has assumed a lead role in the Puget Sound response to developing a recovery plan for
submittal to NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS; and
WHEREAS, Shared Strategy intends that its recovery plan will include
commitments from participating jurisdictions and stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, local jurisdictions have authority over some habitat -based aspects of
Chinook survival through land use and other policies and programs; and the state and
tribes, who are the legal co -managers of the fishery resource, are responsible for
addressing harvest and hatchery management in WRIA 8; and
Final Common Resolution May 26, 2005 1
ITEM D — 2a
WHEREAS, in WRIA 8, habitat actions to significantly increase Chinook
productivity trends are necessary, in conjunction with other recovery efforts, to avoid
extinction in the near term and restore WRIA 8 Chinook to viability in the long term; and
WHEREAS, the (City/County) values ecosystem health; water quality
improvement; flood hazard reduction; open space protection; and maintaining a legacy
for future generations, including commercial, tribal, and sport fishing, quality of life, and
cultural heritage; and
WHEREAS, the (City/County) supports cooperation at the WRIA level to set
common priorities for actions among partners, efficient use of resources and investments,
and distribution of responsibility for actions and expenditures;
WHEREAS, 27 local governments in WRIA 8 jointly funded development of The
WRIA 8 Steering Committee Proposed Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed
Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan (the Plan), published February 25, 2005 following
public input and review; and
WHEREAS, while the Plan recognizes that salmon recovery is a long-term effort,
it focuses on the next 10 years and includes a scientific framework, a start -list of priority
actions and comprehensive action lists, an adaptive management approach, and a funding
strategy; and
WHEREAS, the (City/County) has consistently implemented habitat restoration
and protection projects, and addressed salmon habitat through its land use and public
outreach policies and programs over the past five years; and
WHEREAS, it is important to provide jurisdictions, the private sector and the
public with certainty and predictability regarding the course of salmon recovery actions
that the region will be taking in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed,
including the Puget Sound nearshore; and
WHEREAS, if insufficient action is taken at the local and regional level, it is
possible that the federal government could list Puget Sound Chinook salmon as an
endangered species, thereby decreasing local flexibility.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE (CITY OR COUNTY):
Section A: The (City/County) hereby ratifies The WRIA 8 Steering Committee Proposed
Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan,
dated February 25, 2005 (the Plan). Ratification is intended to convey the
(City/County)'s approval and support for the following:
1. The following goals for the Plan:
a) The Plan mission statement to conserve and recover Chinook salmon and
other anadromous fish, focusing on preserving, protecting and restoring
Final Common Resolution May 26, 2005 2
ITEM D - 2a
habitat with the intent to recover listed species, including sustainable,
genetically diverse, harvestable populations of naturally spawning Chinook
salmon.
b) The multiple benefits to people and fish of Plan implementation including
water quality improvement; flood hazard reduction; open space protection;
and maintaining a legacy for future generations, including commercial, tribal
and sport fishing, quality of life, and cultural heritage.
2. Continuing to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and stakeholders in the
Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) to implement the Plan.
3. Using the scientific foundation and the conservation strategy as the basis for local
actions recommended in the plan and as one source of best available science for
future projects, ordinances, and other appropriate local government activities.
4. Adopting an adaptive management approach to Plan implementation and funding to
address uncertainties and ensure cost-effectiveness by tracking actions, assessing
action effectiveness, learning from results of actions, reviewing assumptions and
strategies, making corrections where needed, and communicating progress.
Developing and implementing a cost-effective regional monitoring program as part of
the adaptive management approach.
5. Using the comprehensive list of actions, and other actions consistent with the Plan, as
a source of potential site specific projects and land use and public outreach
recommendations. Jurisdictions, agencies, and stakeholders can implement these
actions at any time.
6. Using the start -list to guide priorities for regional funding in the first ten years of Plan
implementation, and implementing start -list actions through local capital
improvement projects, ordinances, and other activities. The start -list will be revised
over time, as new opportunities arise and as more is learned through adaptive
management.
7. Using an adaptive approach to funding the Plan through both local sources and by
working together (within WRIA 8 and Puget Sound) to seek federal, state, grant, and
other funding opportunities. The long-term ultimate goal is to fund the Plan through
a variety of sources at the current 2004 level plus 50 percent, recognizing that this
resolution cannot obligate future councils to financial commitment and that the
funding assumptions, strategies, and options will be revisited periodically.
8. Forwarding the Plan to appropriate federal and state agencies through Shared Strategy
for Puget Sound, to be included in the Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery plan.
Section B: The (City/County) recognizes that negotiation of commitments and
assurances/conditions with appropriate federal and state agencies will be an iterative
process. Full implementation of this Plan is dependent on the following:
Final Common. Resolution May 26, 2005 3
ITEM D — 2a
1. NOAA Fisheries will adopt the Plan, as an operative element of its ESA Section 4(f)
recovery plan for Puget Sound Chinook salmon.
2. NOAA Fisheries and USFWS will:
a) take no direct enforcement actions against the (City/County) under the ESA
for implementation of actions recommended in or consistent with the Plan,
b) endorse the Plan and its actions, and defend the (City/County) against legal
challenges by third parties, and
c) reduce the regulatory burden for (City/County) activities recommended in or
consistent with the Plan that require an ESA Section 7 consultation.
3. Federal and state governments will:
a) provide funding and other monetary incentives to support Plan actions and
monitoring activities,
b) streamline permitting for projects implemented primarily to restore salmonid
habitat or where the actions are mitigation that further Plan implementation,
c) offer programmatic permitting for local jurisdiction actions that are consistent
with the Plan,
d) accept the science that is the foundation of the Plan and support the
monitoring and evaluation framework,
e) incorporate actions and guidance from the Plan in future federal and state
transportation and infrastructure planning and improvement projects, and
f) direct mitigation resources toward Plan priorities.
Section C: This resolution does not obligate the (City/County) Council to future
appropriations beyond current authority.
The Plan can be referenced as an addendum, appendix, or other alternative according to
local procedures/protocols.
[Optional] Exhibit A: Lists specific actions (including site specific projects, land use
programs or regulations, and public outreach activities) to which a jurisdiction is
committing in the near term. Can also include past actions to show track record.
Final Common Resolution
May 26, 2005
4
I*
•
•
ITEM D- 3
CITY OF M EDI NA
Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
(425) 454-9222 www.ci.medina.wa.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 22, 2005
TO: City Council, City Manager
FROM: Joe Willis Sr., Director of Public Works
RE: Poplar Tree Removal along 84t" Ave NE
The condition of the present colonnade of poplar trees along the west margin of
84t" Ave NE has been reported by at least four certified arborists to be "in a state of
decline". All of the arborists agreed that the trees are in a dieback condition due to
stress and or disease.
During the fall of 2003, a committee comprised of representatives of the City
Council, Park Board, and the Overlake Golf and Country Club studied the issue
and reviewed landscaping design options for the replacement of the present row of
large poplar trees. The committee conclusions were as follows:
➢ All felt that the trees needed to come down and be replaced in one project
➢ The Country Club wanted a fence along their entire frontage.
➢ The Country Club wanted a visual screen between the road and the golf
course.
➢ Most members liked the idea of an irregular alignment for a fence, periodic
decorative split rail fence, and an elevated mound with the fence located on
the top of the mound.
➢ Most members liked the informal Northwest Style landscape option that will
maintain the present colonnade appearance.
Cost estimates for the replacement streetscape options were developed for various
landscape scenarios. The estimated project costs for the various alternative
scenarios, including tree and stump removal, mound installation, landscaping, and
fencing, varied from $ 689,440 to $ 913,822.
In February of 2004, the former Public Works Director presented a written overview
of the alternative scenarios to the City Council. On April 12, 2004, Council
authorized the expenditure of not more than $ 30,000 to trim the poplar trees, a
measure intended to remove the dead wood and thereby minimize the likelihood of
damage from falling limbs. The trimming work was accomplished, but did not
include any tree removal or address their long term replacement.
Page 1 of 2
0
On April 21, 2004, I met with Bob Hollister (Overlake Golf & County Club Manager)
to discuss the poplar tree issue. According to Mr. Hollister the Country Club Board
discussed the matter earlier this year and commissioned Galen Wright of
Washington Forestry Consultants to assess the condition of the poplar trees
around the perimeter of the country club. Mr. Wright's report (EXHIBIT A, dated
March 28, 2005) states that the poplar trees along the south 3%'s of the row along
84t" Ave NE are in poor condition due to the presence of canker disease that is
causing die back of the long, upright stems and branches and that this disease will
eventually kill the entire tree. He further stated that the north '% of the row is just
starting to exhibit dieback from the disease. His recommendation is to remove all
of the poplar trees in one operation.
Mr. Hollister said the Country Club Board is willing to share 50% of the cost of the
poplar tree removal, and proposed that the stumps be treated and left in place to
minimize disturbance and cost. The Club will then plant screening trees in the gaps
left by the tree removal. The Club is interested in getting this work done this fall but
not in participating in an elaborate landscaping project. He further proposed that
the trees be felled on the Club property and that the Club repair any resulting turf
damage.
I told Mr. Hollister that the City Council will consider this matter in the near future,
and that I would meet with him again following their consideration. Subsequent to
that meeting, I contacted Puget Sound Energy (PSE) to see if they were interested
in partnering with the City and the Country Club and sharing in any of the cost for
the tree removal. Tina Melton (PSE Arborist) concurs that the poplar trees are in
sad shape but are not presently endangering their facilities.
Three tree removal firms were contacted and individually taken to the site to
observe the present site conditions. Each firm was then asked to submit a per tree
removal price under the assumption that the City would specify a finite number of
trees to remove. The quotes varied from $ 700 per tree to $ $ 900 per tree.
Obviously these numbers may change when the method and limits of the removal
are specified (I would expect the cost to substantially decrease if the trees are to
be felled onto the Country Club property). Estimated costs to the City to remove all
of the estimated 150 trees using the above lowest quote of $ 700 would therefore
equal $ 105,000 divided by 2, or $ 52,500.
Recognizing that the consensus of the Council is required to respond to the
Country Clubs proposal, I recommend that the Council discuss the issue, define
their preferred streetscape style for the corridor, and provide direction to staff.
Original streetscape style exhibit boards from the 2003 design option study will be
available for reference should any Council member desire to review them.
Page 2 of 2
Mar 28 05 06:59F Wash.Forestrt Consult.Ine 3GO-943-4128 p.2
CONSULTANTS, INC
WASHINGTONFORESTRY
FORESTRY ANDVEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS W F C I
360/943-1723 1919 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite C
FAX 360/943-4128 FAX
WA 98541
March 28, 2005
Robert S, Hollister, CCM
Overlake Golf and Courit-y Club
P.O. Box 97
Medusa, WA 98039
Dear Mr. Hollister:
It was a pleasure to meet with you to review the Lombardy poplar ( OPulus n1gra `Italica')
trees and their, potential to provide long-term value to the Overtake Golf and Country Club.
Based on this review I would offer the following observations and recommendations.
Tree. Assessment
90 Ave. Northeast Observations
-1. There are'approximately 150 Lombardy poplars bordering 84Ave. I�t"E.
2. They range from 8 to over 30 inches measured 4.5 feet above the ground line.
3. Tree condition is poor due to the presence of a canker disease (Hypoxylon canker)
that is causing dieback of the long, upright stems and .branches. This canker will
eventually kill the entire tree. The southerly 3 4's of the row is in very poor condition.
The northerly %4 of the row is just starting to exhibit dieback from the disease. This
disease is very common in Populus and other -species.
4. These long dying stems and branches are, in my opinion a hazard to the 84" Ave. NE
corridor as well as to users of the golf course.
84th Ave. Northeast Recommendations
1. it is recommended that the, entire row be removed and replaced in one operation.
There are several reasons for this recommendation.
a. The trees will continue to decline. There is no feasibile, cultural treatment
that will slow the loss. Pruning of the dieback will reduce the hazard on a
temporary basis, but will be costly, will not eliminate. all risk, and will fail to
improve the situation in the in the long-term.
b. Removal in one operation will require only one public relations effort instead
of several if the removal/replacement is phased.
URBANIRURAL FORESTRY • TREE APPRAISAL « HAZARD TREE ANALYSIS
RIGHT-OF-WAYS • VEGETATION MANAGEMENT - ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES - CONTRACT FORESTERS
l ..ti ,. r lniornotrnnm/ QnriAty of Arboriculture and SOCIetY of American Foresters
Overlake Golf and Country Club Lombardy Poplar Assessment
c. The new plantings will develop uniformly instead of creating a hodge-podge
appearance of different ages of planting.
d. The costs of the removal and restoration will be lower due to there being only
one entry, one restoration project, and one set of administrative costs and
challenges.
2. The remaining Hawthorne and holly trees can be retained. These trees will continue
to provide screening and separation between the street and golf course. Golf balls
will continue to be stopped by the vegetation and fence.
3. There are already several clusters of trees planted west of the maintenance road (just
west of the row of poplars). Several additional cluster plantings can be installed to
accent these gaps in the screening. The new trees will add some variety to the
existing species mix and will improve aesthetics over time. I don't recommend
creation of a solid conifer screen. I do not believe that shrubs and other expensive
j additions to these plantings are necessary since they will cause problems by slowing
play, losing balls, etc. The following are my recommendations for species to add to
the landscape:
a. Wet area — Western red cedar
b. Drier areas — Western red cedar, Douglas -fir, Austrian pine, and western white
pine (blight resistant cultivars).
NE 16'b Street Observations
1. There is a row of Lombardy poplar along the north edge of NE 16th Street These
trees are in decline; though not in as poor condition as the 84u` Ave. NE trees.
2. They are mature and require repeated pruning by Puget Sound Energy (PSE) to
prevent conflicts with the 3-phase power line along the north edge of the street.
3. The trees shade the tee boxes and fairway and cause significant, chronic debris clean-
up.
4. These trees will only decline in vigor in the short-term and problems will increase.
NE 16th Street Recommendations
1. If the plan is to remove and restore the 84t" Ave. trees, then, it is recommended that
these trees be similarly removed and replaced.
2. Due to their close proximity to the overhead powerlines, PSE will have to remove the
tops of these trees to provide at least 10 feet. of clearance.
3. AT)!strip
?To1f� ground will need
need to be provided just north of the trees to lay down the tops
. 4►ltii te•••.�. iilese LCLLl Ve rrjn� ����4� f o Dunn«nf �r 1�-.r. eA t' -
i.iVtl YYl. e LAVq.YGL4V1 and 1VQd►iL& 0�LLL on ail end d-=v
for disposal. This will create one strip of turf restoration. The stumps can be ground
out, or killed with an approved herbicide. and left.
4. Trees planted back in this area should have a mature height of 20 feet or less. They
should probably be of a species and spacing that minimizes shading of the turf.
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. - - 2
Overlake Golf and Country Club Lombardy Poplar Assessment
NE 24th Street Observations
1. Several Lombardy poplars occur along the golf course edge_
2. The trees are in decline with significant dieback from the canker disease.
3. These trees are not impacting the course as much as the previously described areas -
However, they are still a hazard to the NE 24' Street corridor.
NE 2e Street Recommendations
I. The recommendations are for removal as described previously.
2. Tree replacement costs will not be significant since there is only space for a few trees.
It is recommended that Douglas -fir and western red cedar be replanted in this area.
It is my -understanding that the Lombardy poplars near the maintenance shed will be removed
as part of the renovation. I support this for the same reasoning described above — these are
short-term trees that are mature, overmature, and/or in severe decline.
Costs of the Recommended Tree Removal Operations
The following is a summary of my projected costs of the operations:
I .84th Ave. Northeast
f
l . The most cost-effective way to remove this row of trees is to cut them with a feller-
buncher. i nis machine will cut the trees at fence height and lay them in piles on the
golf course side of the fence.
2. The 5 foot tall stumps will then need to be handout to a 6 inch tall stump.
3. The stumps should be treated immediately with Pathfinder II, a selective herbicide
that will prevent resprouting of the stump. There will likely be some breakthrough
f
that will require retreatment the following two years. This eliminatescostly stump
removal, fence damage, and disturbance to the desirable trees and shrubs east of the
fence.
4. The stems, branches, and stumps will then be loaded onto end dumps for disposal at a
suitable site. Hand labor will be required to clean up the smaller branches that fall off
of the trees.
5. The access road will support most of the activity, though there would be some turf
disturbance on either side of the road_ Irrigation heads would need to be marked with
wire stake flags for visibility — some may still gtt damaged...
6. Once the tree removal, clean-up, and treatment of the stumps is complete, restoration
of the turf and tree planting can be done (seasonal considerations observed).
I. The projected cost of these operations are:
a. Tree Cutting — feller buncher $21A500
b. Handcutting Labor 720
c. Excavator to load stumps and Debris 3,200
d. 40 Yard End Dumps 11,800
e. Disposal Costs 131>600
Wa*mgton .Forestry Consultants, Inc. 3
Overlake Golf and Country Club Lombardy Poplar Assessment
f. Hand Labor for Clean-up and Treating 1,200
g. Herbicide 200
h. Entrepreneurial Profit (100%) 3,300
i. Projected Cost of Operations $361,520
NE 161' Street
1. Contact PSE and arrange for Asplundh Tree Expert Company to drop the trees and
provide 10 feet of powerline clearance.
2. Utilize excavator to move the stems and branches to a landing just east of the row of
trees.
3. Excavator will load out trees and debris onto end dumps.
4. Remaining stubbed off stems will need to be hand fell and stumps treated to prevent
resprouting. If stumps are to be ground expect costs to be approximately $2,500.
5 . The strip of turf within 45 feet of the trees will need to be renovated.
6. The projected cost of these operations are:
a. Hand cutter $ 3+60
b. Excavator 23-100
c. End Dumps 1,600
d. Disposal Fees 2,500
e. Clean-up and Treating Labor 560
f. Herbicide 40
g. Entrepreneurial Profit (100%) 800
h. Projected Costs of Operations $ 7,96Q
NE 24a' Street
1. Hand fall trees into golf course — turf is rough in this area.
2. Load tree stems and debris onto end dumps for disposal
3. Use hand labor to clean up debris and treat stumps.
4. The projected cost of these operations are:
a. Hand cutter $ 360
b. Excavator 1,040
c. End Dumps 1,1QQ
d. Disposal Fees 1,800
e. Clean-up and Treat Labor 420
f. Herbicide 20
Entrepreneurial Profit (10°/'a\ 500
g. Projected Costs of Operations $5,240
Total Costs of Projected Operations
The projected total cost of the above described plan is $49,720 plus applicable sales tax,
flagging, and administrative costs. It may be possible to use some, golf course tabor for the
final branch clean-up and raring_
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 4 .
Overtake Golf and Country Club Lombardy Poplar Assessment
Summary
The benefits of removal and replacement in one operation are as follows:
1. The risk and liability of these hazardous trees is eliminated.
2. Public relations concerns are handled once.
3. The golf course disturbance (play and renovation) is done once.
4. The new plantings are designed and implemented to create a balanced landscape.
5. The costs of a larger operation are less than several smaller operations.
6. In 5 years the Overlake Golf and Country Club will have an attractive buffer along
the 84th Ave. NE corridor instead of a mosaic of dead, dying, and hazardous trees.
I have not provided estimates of tree replanting costs_ This is highly dependent on _the
design,number, and size of trees installed.
Please give me a call if you have further questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc.
Galen M. Wright, MSF, ACF, ASCA
Certified Arborist No. PN 0129
Certified Forester No. 44
Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 5
of M�i
CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
www.medina-wa.gov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 22, 2005
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: Medina Park Playground Equipment
425.233.6400
RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to City Staff regarding Medina Days Committee proposal
for playground equipment and Park Board recommendation.
BACKGROUND: The Medina Days Committee has approached the Board Park and City
Staff with a proposal to incorporate a community project fundraising effort
into the Medina Days celebration. The Committee would like to collect
donations during Medina Days to fund a portion of the cost for acquisition
and installation of additional playground equipment for Medina Park. An
announcement of the project is planned for the Medina Days insert in the
July City Newsletter, which will be the final quarterly newsletter prior to
Medina Days. Due to the timing constraints the City Council is asked to
provide input, during the June Study Session, regarding the proposal.
The 2005 Budget includes funding of $50,000 for several park
improvement projects, which were to be prioritized by the Park Board.
During the prioritization process, the Park Board ranked parking lot paving,
5 comers landscape improvements, and signage ahead of playground
equipment. The Park Board decided to spend more time considering the
playground equipment needs during 2005 since minimal funding would be
available after the higher ranked projects were completed.
During the June Park Board meeting, the Park Board passed a motion
recommending City Council approval of Medina Park playground
equipment improvement project in cooperation with Medina Days
Committee and in celebration with the 50t" anniversary of incorporation of
Medina for installation by Fall 2005.
If the City Council accepts the Park Board recommendation and directs
staff to proceed with the project, it will take two to three months to review
options, make final selections and submit orders. Therefore, survey results
should be available before equipment orders will be placed. Park Board
members expressed a desire to have the equipment installed by Fall 2005,
since the Medina Elementary playground will not be available during the
next year due to construction of the new elementary school.
1
ITEM D-5
of m 6�
- CITY OF MEDINA
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
425.233.6400 www.medina-wa.gov
111_;A1J1f]:r=1►11111 VJ
DATE: 6/22/2005
TO: Medina City Council
FROM: Mayor Mary Odermat
RE: Appointments to the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Positions No.1, occupied by Robert Brog, and No. 5, occupied by Debra Eby Ricci
expire 30 June 2005. Position No. 7, occupied by Mark Lostrom became vacant this month when Mr.
Lostrom announced he is moving from the City. This term expires 30 June 2006.
Four candidates for the Commission submitted City Advisory Committee applications. I have reviewed the
applications, considered qualifications, reflected on answers provided to the ten questions on the
application, and given thought to my observations of dynamics of the existing panel.
At this time, using my best judgment, I recommend Gerry Zyfers to fill Position No. 1 for a four year term,
Debra Eby Ricci to continue in Position No. 5 for a four year term, and Judie O'Brien to complete the un-
expired term in Position No. 7 which ends 30 June 2006.
L
•
2005
City Council Calendar
Description
May 9, 2005
Regular
Meeting
May 23, 2005
Study Session
June 13, 2005
Regular
Meeting
June 27, 2005
Study Session
2004-05 Labor
Agreement
Continued
Ratified
Administrative
Variances
Continued to 6/13
Closed Hearing
Moved to 8/8 mt
Advisory Body Appts.
Discussion
CIP/TIP — 2006 - 2011
Adopted
Citizen Survey
Continued
Continued
Final Draft
Approved
1st Quarter Financial
Report
Completed
Newsletter Policy
Continued
Adopted
Police Canine Unit
Ord. Not Adopted
Professional Service
Contract Policy
Discussion
Regional
Communications
Project
Completed
Site Plan Review
PC to draft Ord
Event Policy
Continued
Moved to 8/22
-Special
Tree Replacement —
84Ih Avenue NE
Discussion
WRIA 8 Conservation
Plan
Discussion
06/22/2005 Page 1 of 3
P:\2005 Agenda Packets\06272005\ltem D-6, City Council Agenda Calendar.doc
Mi
2005
City Council Calendar
Description
July 11, 2005
Regular Meeting
July 25, 2005
Study Session
August 8, 2005
Regular Meeting
August 22,
2005 Study
Session
2006 Budget
Discussion
2006 Labor Agreements
Discussion
Admin Variance Ord.
Discussion/Action
Advisory Body Appts
Discussion/Action
Cable TV Franchise
Discussion/Action
Citizen Survey
Discussion
Final Presentation
Construction Mitigation
Plans
Discussion
Financial Report — Mid
Year
Discussion
Medina Elementary
Plan Modification
Public Hearing
Medina Park Off -leash
Rules Revisit
Discussion
Professional Service
Contract Policy
Discussion/Action
Site Plan Review
Special Event Policy
Discussion
WRIA 8 Conservation
Plan
Consent
06/22/2005 Page 2 of 3
P:\2005 Agenda Packets\06272005\Item D-6, City Council Agenda Calendar.doc
2005
City Council Calendar
September 12, September 26, October 10, October 24,
2005 Regular 2005 Study 2005 Regular 2005 Study
Meeting Session Meeting Session
2006 Budget
2006 Labor Agreements
Financial Report — 3rd Discussion
Quarter
Property Tax Lew I I I I X
06/22/2005 Page 3 of 3
PA2005 Agenda Packets\06272005\ltem D-6, City Council Agenda Calendar.doc
Doug Schulze
From: Lombardi, Christina C. [lombardi.c@ghc.org]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:59 AM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: Medina Park Playground
Doug, I would be very much in favor of adding additional playground equipment that can be used by children of
all ages. My kids who are 3 and 6 would rather go somewhere else to play than the Medina Park because they
say "this is it"... It really is right now only geared toward very young children 1-3.
Also, just a note that my kids refer to it as "poop park" because when we have gone to use the play ground
without fail, one will step in dog poop. This is just from walking from the parking lot closest to the playground to
the playground. I frequently have seen poop in the playground circle area and it is a huge turn-off for going
there and being able to enjoy the playground. Not sure if it is possible or cost effective to put up a small
enclosure around the playground equipment to prevent the dogs from entering that area.
Thank you,
Christina Lombardi
Fit for Work by Group Health
Occupational Health Services
Operations Manager
Ph 206-901-7488
Fax 206-901-7485
Lombardi. cO-ahc.ora
This message and any attached files might contain confidential information protected by federal and state law. The information is intended only for the
use of the individual(s) or entities originally named as addressees. The improper disclosure of such information may be subject to civil or criminal
penalties. If this message reached you in error, please contact the sender and destroy this message. Disclosing, copying, forwarding, or distributing
the information by unauthorized individuals or entities is strictly prohibited by law.
6/27/2005
Doug Schulze
From: Rae-Maree O'Neill [Oneillkk@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 6:14 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: New playground for Medina Park
To Whom it may concern:
was recently sent an email notifing me that the Medina Park Board unanimously passed a motion
recommending that the City Council accept a propsal to improve the play equipment in Medina Park.
am sending this on behalf of my entire family. I feel that a community such as ours (Medina) is in need of a
playground that will accommodate children of all ages. Families with older children have to either travel to a
nearby park/playground or use the Medina Elementary School equipment. This equipment will be,
presume, unavailable to the community over the next 12 plus months due to re -construction of the School
Therefore, it is more important now than in the past.
Thank you for considering the proposal and your time in reading my email.
Regards
Rae O'Neill (and family)
6/27/2005
Doug Schulze
From: jamafox@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:45 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Dear Doug,
Just wanted you to know that the families of Medina are anxiously awaiting the new play equipment
for Medina park. We want you to know that with the Elementary School playground going away we
will definitely need the new equipment at the park. Look forward to hearing more news on it.
Thanks - Jama
Doua Schulze
From: Lisa Mead [lismead@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:56 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: Updated Playground at Medina Park
Doug - With the absence of Medina Elementary for a full year+, my 4 kids and I need
somewhere we can walk to that will provide a safe, fun environment for playing and getting
exercise. We play at Medina Elementary playground at least a few times a week all summer
long and during the school year in the afternoons, too. Medina Park serves as the off -
leash dog park for people all around the Eastside, yet the current playground doesn't even
offer enough for kids who live in Medina and pay property taxes to this city to play on.
Please help convince the city council that this will benefit so many families in our
community that don't currently even use Medina Park because of the current condition of the
playground.
Thank you,
Lisa Mead
Doua Schulze
From: Jeannie Mucklestone [mucklestone@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 12:40 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: Playground equipment
Hi, we have three children ages 3,6,9 and live in Medina. We support having new playground
equipment that all of our children can play on. Thanks Mike Kenny Jeannie P. Mucklestone
PO Box 422 Medina, WA 98039
Doug Schulze
From: Kea Rensch [kbrensch@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 10:13 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: playground equipment
We would love to see an improved play area at our local park. We live in Medina with two young children and a
third on the way and i must say, Medina Park would be our first choice for playing but the equipment doesn't do
much for the kids. We usually choose going over to Medina Elementary instead - which we can only do after 4p
and never over the next year during construction - HELP!
Please let me know what i can do - if anything...
Sincerely,
Kea Rensch
Doua Schulze
From: sherianil@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 9:33 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: Medina Park
Dear Doug,
as you know, Sheri and I are quite attuned to the local 'kid population' being the parents
of three and also volunteers for a number of community activities.
We both wholleheartedly support the addition of new playground facilities to the Medina
Park and wanted our opinion to be noted.
regards,
Ani 1& Sheryl Pereira
Doug Schulze
From: Tobey Bryant [tobeybryant@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 3:34 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: Medina park playground equipment
Doug, I currently live in Medina and would love to see additional playground equipment in the Medina Park.
The current equipment is unsafe for many reasons -it is suppose to be for young children but has older children
swings and has a large drop (much to big for little people) from the tube slide, it also has far to little wood chips
for safety. My husband and I would love to see more equipment for all ages. There are so many children in
our community that this would serve. Currently we are traveling our of our city to go play on park equipment.
Plus, with the renovation of Medina Elementary for a year we will loose that facility as our primary playground.
In conclusion my husband and I are in support of new playground equipment at Medina Park. Thanks and
please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Tobey and Peter Bryant
453-7925
6/24/2005
Doug Schulze
From: Kristen Edelhertz [edelhertz@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 11:01 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: Medina Park Playground Equipment
Dear Doug,
I understand that the city council will soon vote on the Park Board proposal to improve the play
equipment at Medina Park. I have 3 young children and I urge the city council to approve the
Park Board's proposal. The current structure serves such a small group of kids. Additional
structures that are interesting for older children would greatly enhance the park. I do believe
the park is an important part of our community and that it benefits all of us to have a great
place where Medina parents and kids can meet, play and get to know one another.
Kristen Edelhertz
(H) 425.455.0240
(C) 425.241.9093
6/24/2005
Doua Schulze
From: Shawn Whitney [swhitney@seanet.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 5:09 AM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: Play Equip @ Medina Park
Mr. Schulze,
I would like my opinion included in the decision on whether or not to improve the play
equipment at the park.
I agree, 100%, with the idea of improving the playground equipment. As wonderful as Medina
is, I sometimes feel that although it is very "kid tolerent" it is not exactly "kid
friendly". It would be wonderful to have the park usable by more than just adults walking
their dogs. I have a 9 and 11 year olds, and sometimes they go there to ride their bikes,
they usually say ....aaah, there's nothing to do at the park.
Mostly they go to the school and play on that playground. The school has a great future,
but it won't be available for the next 18 months.
It would be fantastic to have a replacement for that. Advise the council .... GO FOR IT.
Thanks,
Medina Resident,
Shawn Whitney
8404 Midland Road
Medina, WA 98039
1
Doua Schulze
From: LAURA BOLIN [laurabolin@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 7:56 AM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: HOORAY for an Expanded Playground
Dear Doug,
Please let me take this opportunity to express my strong support for an expanded playground
at Medina Park.
Children between the ages of 5-12 need a common play area outside of the elementary school.
It provides them with a healthy outdoor activity, a destination for bike riding or walking,
and an enhanced sense of community.
It also provides a much -needed neighborhood meeting place for adults with school -aged
children.
It's no wonder we're known as the "dog park" since the park is relatively underdeveloped
compared to neighboring parks. This is a wonderful opportunity to balance the park for
everyone's enjoyment!
Thanks for your consideration.
Laura & Brian Bolin
2433 78th Ave NE
425-454-8036
laurabolin@msn.com
Doug Schulze
From: Jodi Major [major_jm@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:06 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: Addition of Play Equipment at Medina Park
Hi Doug,
I just want to relay my comments on the additional equipment at Medina Park. I'm VERY EXCITED to hear
about this! I have a 4 Y/2 year old and a 7 year old who would very much like to play on this equipment. I think
there will be many more people actually coming down, using, and enjoying the park facilities throughout the
year. Great Move!
Thanks!
Jodi Major
905 88th Avenue NE
Medina, WA
425-453-6864
6/23/2005
Doug Schulze
From: Jill Birkeland Dillbirkeland@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 2:33 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: medina park
Hi Doug,
I've been informed that you are considering a proposal to implement a new playground at Medina
Park. I wanted to pass on my family's feedback very much in support of this proposal. We love
visiting Medina Park but with three little ones, they often want to go farther away to other
playgrounds with more to offer. It would be great to gather at our own park and let the children play
and the parents visit with their neighbors in this wonderful community.
Thanks for listening,
Jill & Chris Birkeland
6/23/2005
Doua Schulze
From: Dina Johnson [msdinaj@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:33 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: New Playground Equipment
Hi Doug -
I understand that a new playground for Medina is up for review.
We would welcome new playground equipment at Medina Park! As it currently exists, the
swings cause issues because they are limiting in the number of kids who can participate and
the slide structure is appealing to toddlers primarily. I would love to see something
similiar to the Pirate Ship at Clyde Beach Park. It encourages imaginative play, is
interesting to children from toddlers to 10 year olds and can be used by many children at
once.
If you are setting up a task force, I would love to participate.
Dina Johnson
453-4747
1
Doua Schulze
From: Jennifer Holmes Dholmes@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:36 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: Playground at Medina Park
Let's make that playground accommodate all young children. Not just
5 and under. It seems unfair to tell my four children to keep off, you're too old to play
on the playground. They're all under 12!
Thanks for your consideration. I think the park will get a lot more use from families if
this change is made!
Jennifer Holmes
3306 78th Place NE
Medina, WA 98039
425-442-6333
1
Doug Schulze
From: Carolyn Clark [carolyncl@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:25 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: Medina Park Proposed Playstructure
Dear City Council,
This is to demonstrate support for the proposed new play structure for Medina Park that would sere e kids from
ages 1-12. I think this is a wonderful idea and fully support this addition to the park. As a Medina family who
enjoys the green areas and parks in our neighborhood, I look forward to having a play structure where my older
children can play with their younger siblings or cousins and we can organize family gatherings around a
common play area. I welcome the addition.
Thank you for considering this enhancement to the park, I hope it is approved.
Regards,
Carolyn & Stephen Clark
2548 Medina Circle
Medina, WA 98039
6/23/2005
Doug Schulze
From: Mary Douglas [5douglas a@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:59 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: Medina Park Playground
I would like to give my vote in favor of adding additional playground equipment to the
Medina Park. I appreciate the gift of the playground given to Medina back in the late
'90's but the equipment can only be used by a few children. As parents, we would love to
go to the park and know that our kids had a variety of options whether choosing to play
around the ponds, run through the trails or play in a safe, secure playground area that
meets all our kid's needs. It is also the dilemna of at -home -moms and babysitters to find
playgrounds that are fun, challenging and provide variety - Medina Park currently doesn't
do this and the school, at least during the school year, isn't an option during the day.
the Laurelhurst Playfield at the top of Laurelhurst across the street from the elementary
is a perfect example of a playground that meets a variety of children's needs and provides
a hub for the parents of the community to meet, share and build friendships.
Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter.
Mary & Doyle Douglas
904 88th Avenue NE
Medina, WA 98039
425-454-3817
1
Doug Schulze
From: Janieblee@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:47 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: Park Improvements
Dear Mr. Schulze,
My understanding is that the Park Board has made a recommendation to improve playground equipment that will
accommodate children ages 1-12 and that the motion will be voted on by the City Council. I would like to state
that both myself (Janie Lee) and my husband (Raymond Lee) are IN FAVOR of the new playground equipment
and we kindly ask that you pass on our sentiments to the City Council
Regards,
Ray & Janie Lee
1259 Evergreen Point Road
Medina, WA 98039
425-451-9449
6/23/2005
Doua Schulze
From: Sarah Hoisington [sarahhoisington@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:36 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: Medina Playground Equip Proposed
Hi Doug,
This is great news about the proposed new playground to be added to Medina. We love the
idea of better play equipment for our kids.
I'm sure you are aware that Medina Park is a dog park, however. We have never been to this
park when our kids have not been scared or intimidated by dogs not on a leash. For people
who don't own dogs and have young kids, a playstructure and a dog park don't mix.
As an alternative, how about a play structure at Medina Beach? This is where the kids
actually go to play (we have never been to the Medina Park structure when other kids have
been there).
Thanks, Sarah Hoisington & John Rossman
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new—mail
1
Doug Schulze
From: Ramos Family [rj ennifer@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:59 PM
To: Doug Schulze
Subject: Playground at Medina Park
To Whom It My Concern,
I would like to voice my strong support for playground improvements at Medina Park. The current playground
doesn't sufficiently meet the needs of the children in our community. I feel it is time for the playground to receive
the attention and time that other community projects have. Our parks should reflect the greatness of our city.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Ramos
bo - ► F ` ``'�ed �Ql��d ��sH�karo ` tr-�nd ".1 relativ � wj 1 LSO
ends o f Y Gets to
par take .,s „ N a the early e ems,
'ee: the pla or Dogs•d-1 1Yit
Aub, rixtui,c o �'ssve oee Ayo. advthe
O�ate F'do c 011tol ° 7, approa99�s' the cby OJ=1
] b spaces free d Undo s °m It ons• cers and • h' ad all Bash
e in local has trbtedry tens % Conce 'here more y took
ags hav, Park AI b�c)me cam' es the r Off wed d, � the
butt N'a dQ m' r e 'On n �eag °�er� f�_Utnber
Lucius H. Biglow, Jr.
2425 Evergreen Point Road
Medina, WA 98039-1531
May 21, 2005
Mrs. Connie Gerlitz
2415 - 781h Avenue NE
Medina WA 98039
Re: Parks Volunteer Program
Dear Connie,
Thank you for inviting us to provide input to the Park Board at its last
meeting. I was sorry that only four of us showed up, Wilma Edmonds, Tom
Bacher, Nancy (my wife) and I; and I hope that we were able to be helpful.
Wilma had some helpful history, especially related to the planting around
the east entrance, and Tom shared information related to use of Medina Park
by disabled people. My bit is outlined in the Check List enclosed, which I
passed out at the meeting.
It sounds as if the Volunteer Program that you have in mind would be like
docent programs elsewhere, perhaps in other parks. The Woodland Park Zoo
comes to mind. Their arrangements might be good models and can probably
be researched. I would be glad to help.
At the meeting, Rachel distributed copies of your Long Range Vision and
Strategic Planning Document. Three were set aside for you, Susannah and
Roger. We missed you.
Between now and June 17 I will be out-of-town: but my cell phone should
be working. The number is 425-864-1170.
Thanks again for the Heron Show.
Sincerely yours,
Cc: The Board, Wilma Edmonds, Tom Bacher
I
I r
Y
c
' j� .r:r.�:��..� �. � :'., t 'asi..x 4Y�+Y.���.,..v ''rr ._: �`y; "r z r.. �,aw ,� s<Fz• yF,ry
,m„
d t � i Tk �.ri.. r✓ 4
` �._� li „�F F• �A•kF +9� a4- 'sC +' f a.: iX
�t - z �e � '� ram- �. —•a 3y � �: ,�', ,��ua �+� a�a'x' # j _
9iA' '"� �� w.t, ^�, ��'w ¢'`iS• L �C'tF i IGv� `�?�' 1;.F i � '� td d
;,`y® qq
, tar
•" �a ki and 1F�� � " �: �'4�'Rti ! x „e ae t � rt �' � v <4 ,.,,Z
Tc
44
FT
�>
1
-
i
"
n
r d t, S7 4 �..J,. �.� a•�S,�IaT,.�S,y.;; �.
Or
TY-
•del
I 51
14
t
Ak,,Low-
Y
. J K
F
4'
da 7 3une 22, 2005 `
SHE CI
C,HRISTIP N' SEN CE
ON
j�11.TOR �ednes y
withol-Ith
the off leas
• � Hit by ook
dog PaT initially t
relative ease• e city al
th _ th
tion � 1 199�s, more �
d in. the earl[ ch, addU* ber of
tren roa
e apP Turn
Citi-
PETER a hard hn d increases ilie
By SE IB Officers n erAformed
ca
an CERT WASHINGTON
is ,,.p;ogs control °� Concerned dog own t
takecitations mash Areas (COL
T R the tabl�usl " or S. for council member.
zees ci possible off-
tes from of a about 7� P
hed on the attention Council mandated a
" ed identify
Unleas Gets to PlayiQ�dv d ubtedlY OLP,help d the City en of themill
Fin�lY
Is of tWhe Specirum canines en leash sites; h program at seven
both e, e issue'. h become Permian picot off leas e d�erence,
1 th
en spa debates. ade as in e
ublic op k Platin g ole in city 1996•e test program t the city w charge
in local per ed a big r Th
have always 'i?laye osit on at the end showingTes dents tha It also to `t Se about
DOV tradition P moresreasonably. unities
but, chaffs and acting other comet
p ad has been upended bynong dog` owners and, by ' ple, ake for a. good location
Of ate us asrn the criteria that m artrnent sp s the
mod' a rising en a five p DeP tter deem
uch more lath- 70o dog Parks o Seattle Parks Dewes dog park pro'
form now more corners city'
There are from substantial „madly success-
el have even
arks entirely gram
the US, ran gy to small P fuI " Dogs three
een spaces
large � unleashed canines and the helped reclaim legal
devoted, to un1 Parks from police
mm�ber is growing a 19�9 eXperl
users: volume
$eg�niYk in Berkeley, Lraucous ocal reported a high alcohol,
rnentaldogp rovokedsometimeS run r of unlawful activity
the issue hasp 5 that drug and sexual city
in the
public hearings fit. � � Seattle parks,
• ent converted
well past t • park departra leash
Wlvle the issue has them to .pilot off -
divided some cites s, th and crime
if s ' unified other ara tivity soon evapo-
sometimeS rated. ,
bolstering There s no
even off -
the gener al Par as doubt that
constituency dogs leash areas dogs
t for,.
a whole, good owner
aside. key to suc- and their own can
The /' The dogs
it seems is + the
Cc, 's cavort;
d
in a comma, he bans can stand
approach.,
'several '�' or sit, talk o
efforts tit dog watch or even pro-.
prone ties comfort, neces-
uni ' vide e a
Park Comm useful nary. Ifs not demand
provide of what laygXoun
ePled what ,oHNH� children s p
much fun, even for non -dog
works d at the fence
. doesrit• ifs just about as mho often star
Of the le owni passersby nearby
none is as a city wig mulfp watch. doubt that
clashes, cisco's, chil- and no Noise Is
Fran. do s as ere's also iastic.
brutal. as San - ash culture a began But often less eIT Poorly
d about as many auto affic,, moreover, P
park agencies an off le bets are can
San Francisco beaches neighbors � a trined dog parks
dren. lathe 1974s, an a factor,, as badly main and
of the remote rvice. _ of these
on Someb the National Park Se a unsighllY' H°`Never, many dog parks
Operate' Yillegal but tolerated o� b ces associated Wi 1 - by
°p The activity w that the popuiati other �°yan o careful P
alists realizedbirds, the snowy hed uses,
Park natrn beach ing can be avoided at have esta a for em"
P eatened swallow, were droPP avoiding locations residenc
of° d the bank those abut taken to
the dogs • as well as should be
plover an robably due to law, addition, care mover into non
rapidly - P _ an enforcing the leash ple. In so to avoid sp
When police bf$ alter, more centrally choose areas
to set the city eat of the
owners shifted d asks r� by dog areas. other new segue con-.
borhoo P an outce who More so thaneane, dog owners area „
located nei rovokng economy,
park departmentdren and oth time park 'user um 'The US dog
ings every with clout. ( multibillion -dollar
mothers of set dtopp stituencY service - is a m demand
didrt want to pick up sales and
picnic blanket• battle- . Thus, the steep growth '
.they spread out a p ark became a the Thus,
two possible outcomes it
almost every P on by do arks k movement or it.
Soon
Both sides dug d in, �liticians. The for
empower e greater par
d a,ndstan mediators d by plan -
media
wit in divide and deb
an � sensitively an
Park Service even making Process," but By communicates k advocates of all stripe:
..tie 'otiat seems Years away. cooperatively, Par system
to'iead a g elution still e transi- nib le to stxeren urban park any
an anicabie s the crvi should be able and space utiliza
In contrast, Seattle madethrp1 better' design •lion of Dore paklan
ideally, too the aCgl�
dog';� well as for people.
for .
■ Peter Harnik is director of the Iyust Y
Public Land's Center for City Park Exec
fence. Cerise Bridges is a former research+
for the center.'
u
+s
44
t � .. „-..+•r.'+b. t �?: t >"r'R '� �,.., ��,W �� ��� � �y�a �>>i�.� Y`` fa lig�. �''�' �i's
"VV
♦ .t r � '4 r .1�.Y np` S .�� •f —�y^� 'p{�e1' * >r..w w "+ a iw
� 1 't 'S 7 R '��+� � f'�1� � -�1 '�, � t 3 �}� 1�. yN 1`i� i ri"�,•�a p •.� „�-A � � '. �
,-•"- ♦�. t R '!j. �yy,�," Mfrs_ �' .% + ,e T : ft� t i �..• y t t a "i'.a�.�:al
t"� � ��" �!�' ::`"P � • }"�:T4„� t�y;'•Yhr'� ti. •e t. u'+ ~�iT 4..yti�l �x �7 µ�d+A � 1 �i
a . '�: Y��yM a .r� '�• � �*^. .°,..'A" i iTf�•«ii•"• �a .h'.-.`I ��'�}�� f,r-.� wr.."=y r -F�
� it '� �'t,` :;: lJ�""�♦ `' 1 �Arx:; -'�ry *y � � � ��=`'��,`A" �"f
4: r t, ..r .r. flu t—i7�tIY
Y7r
Nvw
?�{ � `.-�l ti�l: fi � �.�. ,if :H� f y iiti { '•'� 4..�"' & ��� ��
Via..-qr"�� S,:•'=.-�:'#t aY �=srx'.•Jil � �• R:�r u y w� -}�:' •F ',�, � i i�
....-- ��'� ..:. ...^�'.;��s,•siaj. t,��fs l ,`y"•t � �,,,'ErY,r j`�, f'i% iA j�r� .-. .«. i � -
i f..s' :..• ij
'� �9 �� q � Y P�� 1 ,.. ��'-i��'1� _s � • 1N"7�'9e Y.» � �X.,�•� � ice... ;
�.� �,'"° » .+rc •d�.*` Z f.�"i`7'u''•'-0;a�r �'44r n: e``•.�' r' ''.3a ag "�' n«tt'n�-• a.y'� a^,:=' q �
1
�,.,�.._.� ---'4`;,��� � »ps •'`. fit � 7�'* ti' Ir., ;9r3J.-: :r.� j xr
� Y���� ;Ar.Y, � ii ��` 'f .l, . ' �7 i. t P Oi / '1 I •.•t
^'• .. �". t`•� ... -... 'v d 1, .... �• �t •, •.
�3%aAf. ��� (. la e.v . " �. -;:w- _.-I \ .: :4 % iRb' alY•• �, i�w: i "
, .� YIR • aa1 ♦..� feY
.......... .
�!. 1 14Z7�L���% L'►:7.7 SSA
Auffus H 6MLE13
'r'rrirr'�rir�rrr�r�rr1rrrrrt�r,rirr'rr�rrt`ittt� Y.: � °
� ZB3AA�
200-b**tlzth0 101 �
i g mm