HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-2014 - Agenda Packet1
2
3
4
5
6
AGENDA ITEM 7.2a
CITY OF MEDINA
501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD | PO BOX 144 | MEDINA WA 98039-0144
TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 | www.medina-wa.gov
September 8, 2014
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Michael Sauerwein, City Manager
Subject: September 2014 City Manager’s Report
City Council Meeting Schedule – On Monday, September 22, 2014 the City Council is
scheduled to hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission on the Tree Code. The City
Council has traditionally used their September study session as the time to review and discuss
the proposed budget for the following year.
Currently the Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the 2015 Budget on October 13,
2014 and adopt the 2015 Budget on November 11, 2014. In order to keep the process on track,
city staff suggests adding a City Council study session on Monday, September 29, 2014.
City Council Retreat Part II – During our Retreat last March, the City Council discussed
holding a ½ day follow-up session with John Howell this fall. City staff recommends
scheduling a 3-4 hour Saturday morning meeting for late October or early November.
SIGN UP FOR MEDINA E-NOTICES.
RECEIVE THE CITY UPDATES YOU WANT DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL INBOX!
Visit www.medina-wa.gov and click on E-Notice Program.
7
8
Felony Crimes August YTD YTD Year End
2014 2014 2013 2013
Assault, Aggravated 0 0 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0
Sexual Assault/Rape 0 0 0 0
Burglary (inc Attempt)0 3 5 6
Drug Violations 0 0 0 0
Fraud (ID Theft)5 27 8 18
Vehicle Prowl 0 1 1 1
Theft (over $750)0 1 4 8
Malicious Mischief 0 1 0 0
Arson 0 0 0 0
Auto Theft (inc Recovery)0 0 1 2
Poss Stolen Property 0 4 1 2
Other 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 5 37 20 37
Misdeameanor August YTD YTD Year End
Crimes 2014 2014 2013 2013
Assault, Simple 1 1 3 3
Malicious Mischief 0 0 10 17
Vehicle Prowl 1 4 19 35
Theft (Under $750)1 10 5 10
Domestic Violence 0 0 0 1
Minor in Possession 0 0 0 0
Drug Violations 0 0 3 3
Poss Stolen Property 0 0 1 1
***Other 0 4 2 5
Total 3 19 43 75
***Order Violation; Telephone Harassment; ; Trespass
Page 1
2014
MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Monthly Activity Report
City of Medina
Dan Yourkoski, Acting Chief of Police
AGENDA ITEM 7.2b
9
Felony Crimes
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
Assault, Aggravated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sexual Assault/Rape 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Burglary (inc Attempt)2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Drug Violations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fraud (ID Theft)2 2 9 3 3 1 2 5 27
Vehicle Prowl 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Theft (over $750)0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Malicious Mischief 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Auto/Boat Theft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Poss Stolen Property 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 4
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 5 3 11 5 3 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 37
Misdeameanor
Crimes Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
Assault, Simple 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Malicious Mischief 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vehicle Prowl 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Theft (Under $750)0 1 0 1 3 1 3 1 10
Domestic Violence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minor in Possession 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Drug Violations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Poss Stolen Property 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4
Total 1 3 0 1 3 2 6 3 0 0 0 0 19
Page 2
Dan Yourkoski, Acting Chief of Police
2014
MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
YEARLY ACTIVITY REPORT
City of Medina
AGENDA ITEM 7.2b
10
Traffic August YTD YTD Year End
ACCIDENTS 2014 2014 2013 2013
Injury 0 0 1 1
Non-Injury 2 15 5 8
TOTAL 2 15 6 9
Traffic August YTD YTD Year End
CITATIONS 2014 2014 2013 2013
Driving Under Influence 2 3 8 11
*Other 3 23 16 27
Total 5 26 24 38
Traffic August YTD YTD Year End
INFRACTIONS 2014 2014 2013 2013
Speeding 12 88 113 139
Parking 10 51 38 55
**Other 17 114 120 149
Total 39 253 271 343
August YTD YTD Year End
WARNINGS 2014 2014 2013 2013
Total 86 1026 853 1374
August YTD YTD Year End
CALLS FOR SERVICE 2014 2014 2013 2013
House Watch 28 237 329 447
False Alarms 32 224 233 334
Assists 42 304 312 457
Suspicious Circumstances 20 97 97 130
Property-Found/Lost 7 18 18 21
Animal Complaints 6 26 19 30
Missing Person 0 1 2 5
Warrant Arrests 3 15 6 11
***Other 0 9 3 3
Total 138 931 1019 1438
*DWLS; Fail to Transfer Title; No License
**Expired Tabs; No insurance; Fail to stop; Defective Equipment
***Civil Dispute; Disturbance; Death Investigations; Suicide Attempt; Trespass
Page 3
2014
MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Monthly Activity Report
City of Medina
Dan Yourkoski, Acting Chief of Police
AGENDA ITEM 7.2b
11
Traffic
Accidents Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Injury 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Injury 1 1 4 0 2 1 4 2 15
TOTAL 1 1 4 0 2 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 15
Traffic
Citations Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Driving Under Influence 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3
Other 4 0 3 2 5 1 5 3 23
Total 4 0 3 2 6 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 26
Traffic
Infractions Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Speeding 2 6 5 20 12 19 12 12 88
Parking 4 6 0 6 7 10 8 10 51
Other 3 4 8 7 9 13 53 17 114
Total 9 16 13 33 28 42 73 39 0 0 0 0 253
Warnings Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Total 114 110 115 122 163 165 151 86 1026
Calls for Service Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
House Watch 33 47 27 23 22 21 36 28 237
False Alarms 17 22 24 32 39 30 28 32 224
Assists 28 18 33 33 47 55 48 42 304
Suspicious Circumstances 13 3 9 6 13 17 16 20 97
Property-Found/Lost 3 0 0 3 3 1 1 7 18
Animal Complaints 1 3 2 1 6 1 6 6 26
Missing Person 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Warrant Arrests 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 3 15
***Other 1 1 2 0 3 0 2 0 9
Total 98 97 99 101 134 126 138 138 0 0 0 0 931
Page 4
2014
MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
YEARLY ACTIVITY REPORT
City of Medina
Dan Yourkoski, Acting Chief of Police
AGENDA ITEM 7.2b
12
Felony Crimes August YTD YTD Year End
2014 2014 2013 2013
Burglary 0 0 2 2
Forgery (Identity Theft)2 4 2 4
Vehicle Prowl 0 0 0 0
Theft (over $750)0 0 1 2
Possession Stolen Prop 0 0 0 0
Malicious Mischief 0 0 0 0
Auto/Boat Theft 0 1 0 0
TOTAL 2 5 5 8
Misdeameanor August YTD YTD Year End
Crimes 2014 2014 2013 2013
Assault, Simple 0 0 0 0
Malicious Mischief 1 1 0 0
Vehicle Prowl 0 0 1 3
Theft (Under $750)0 0 0 0
Possession Stolen Prop 0 0 0 0
Domestic Violence 0 0 0 0
Minor in Possession 0 0 0 0
Drug Violations 0 0 0 0
***Other 0 0 0 0
Total 1 1 1 3
***Order Violation; Telephone Harassment; ; Trespass
Page 5
2014
MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Monthly Activity Report
Town of Hunts Point
Dan Yourkoski, Acting Chief of Police
AGENDA ITEM 7.2b
13
Felony Crimes
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
Burglary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Forgery (Identity)0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 4
Vehicle Prowl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Theft (over $750)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Poss Stolen Prop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Malicious Mischief 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Auto/Boat Theft 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
TOTAL 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 5
Misdeameanor
Crimes Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
Assault, Simple 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Malicious Mischief 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Vehicle Prowl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Theft (Under $750)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Poss Stolen Prop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Domestic Violence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minor in Possession 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Drug Violations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
***Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Page 6
2014
MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Yearly Activity Report
Town of Hunts Point
Dan Yourkoski, Acting Chief of Police
AGENDA ITEM 7.2b
14
Traffic August YTD YTD Year End
CITATIONS 2014 2014 2013 2013
Driving Under Influence 0 0 0 1
Accidents 0 0 0 0
*Other 0 3 2 4
Total 0 3 2 5
Traffic August YTD YTD Year End
INFRACTIONS 2014 2014 2013 2013
Speeding 2 42 29 52
Parking 0 2 8 10
**Other 0 17 22 37
Total 2 61 59 99
August YTD YTD Year End
WARNINGS 2014 2014 2013 2013
Total 4 144 110 171
August YTD YTD Year End
CALLS FOR SERVICE 2014 2014 2013 2013
House Watch 5 22 41 50
False Alarms 5 44 50 85
Assists 7 31 31 44
Suspicious Circumstances 3 10 14 21
Property-Lost/Found 0 0 0 0
Animal Complaints 1 3 4 5
Missing Person 0 0 0 1
Warrant Arrests 0 0 0 0
***Other 1 1 0 0
Total 22 111 140 206
*DWLS; Fail to Transfer Title;No License
**Expired Tabs; No insurance;Fail to stop;Defective Equipment
***Civil Dispute; Disturbance; Death Investigations; Trespass
Page 7
Dan Yourkoski, Acting Chief of Police
2014
MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Monthly Activity Report
Hunts Point
AGENDA ITEM 7.2b
15
Traffic
Citations Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Driving Under Influence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Accidents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3
Total 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Traffic
Infractions Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Speeding 1 3 7 6 19 3 1 2 42
Parking 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Other 1 2 3 0 1 4 6 0 17
Total 2 7 10 6 20 7 7 2 0 0 0 0 61
Warnings Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Total 27 15 20 19 28 22 9 4 144
Calls for Service Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
House Watch 4 4 1 0 1 4 3 5 22
False Alarms 2 5 7 8 8 8 1 5 44
Assists 6 1 3 1 3 4 6 7 31
Suspicious Circumstances 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 3 10
Property-Lost/Found 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Animal Complaints 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3
Missing Person 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Warrant Arrests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
***Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 14 10 14 10 13 17 11 22 0 0 0 0 111
Page 8
2014
Dan Yourkoski, Acting Chief of Police
MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
YEARLY ACTIVITY REPORT
HUNTS POINT
AGENDA ITEM 7.2b
16
MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT Dan Yourkoski, Acting Chief of Police
MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST, 2014
FELONY CRIMES
Fraud (ID Theft) 2014-0003279 08/10/14
Medina officer received a report of forgery via telephone. The victim sold an item on
EBay and shipped the item out of state, but did not receive payment through PayPal. Soon the victim learned the PayPal account was not valid. All correspondence between
the victim and suspect suspended.
Fraud (ID Theft) 2014-0003333 08/13/14 Victim came to the station to report a fraudulent tax return filed in the victim’s name.
The victim received a check and received a statement showing an additional deposit into
another unknown account. The victim was notified by the IRS they are investigating the
matter and required a police report for filing.
Fraud (ID Theft) 2014-0003411 08/20/14
Medina officer was contacted by the victim’s interpreter that the victim noticed
unauthorized charges on a credit card account. The victim closed the account immediately.
Fraud (ID Theft) 2014-0003438 08/22/14
Victim reported person(s) unknown had compromised several credit card accounts using the victim’s personal information. The charges were made in the US and other countries.
The accounts were closed immediately.
Fraud (ID Theft) 2014-0003505 08/28/14
Victim reported the bank reported a check had been written on their checking account and four checks were missing from two checkbooks. The account was closed and the
four missing checks were cancelled. Investigation is pending.
MISDEMEANOR CRIMES
Theft 2014-0003245 08/07/14 Sometime between 07/01/2014 and 07/31/2014, two campaign signs were removed and
presumably stolen from where they were placed in Medina and Hunts Point.
Assault (DV) 2014-0003359 08/15/14 Medina officer responded to a disturbance call and discovered the subject was breaking
things. Through further investigation it was learned the subject pushed a member of the
household causing minor injuries. The subject was arrested for Assault-4th degree (DV)
and booked into jail.
AGENDA ITEM 7.2b
17
Vehicle Prowl (Attempt) 2014-0003531 08/30/14 Victim reported a surveillance camera captured images of a subject walked up their driveway and attempted to open the driver side doors on two vehicles parked there. No
entry was made because both vehicles were locked.
AGENDA ITEM 7.2b
18
TOWN OF HUNTS POINT Daniel Yourkoski, Acting Chief of Police
MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST, 2014
FELONY CRIMES
Fraud 2014-0003388 08/18/14 Victim reported person(s) unknown opened a credit card account using the victim’s
personal identification. Victim closed the account immediately.
Fraud 2014-0003462 08/25/14 Victim reported three (3) credit card accounts were opened using the victim’s name in
three separate banks. No monetary loss and the victim closed all accounts immediately.
MISDEMEANOR CRIMES
Malicious Mischief 2014-0003484 08/27/14 Medina officer responded to a call of a domestic disturbance where property was
damaged. The subject left the residence and was soon detained a short distance later.
The subject was arrested for Malicious Mischief.
AGENDA ITEM 7.2b
19
AGENDA ITEM 7.2b
20
Development Services Report Not Included.
Report to be distributed on September 8.
AGENDA ITEM 7.2c
21
22
AGENDA ITEM 7.2d
23
AGENDA ITEM 7.2d
24
City of Medina
Revenue & Expense Summary
August 2014
REVENUE:
August
ACTUAL
August YTD
ACTUAL
2014 August
YTD BUDGET
2014 ANNUAL
BUDGET
% of
Budget
Total
BUDGET
REMAINING
General Fund
Property Tax $4,206 $1,368,180 $1,273,715 $2,547,429 53.71%$1,179,249
Sales Tax $113,251 $814,396 $613,333 $920,000 88.52%$105,604
Criminal Justice $6,419 $46,176 $42,667 $64,000 72.15%$17,824
B & O Tax: Utility & Franchise Fee $27,448 $369,543 $341,433 $455,244 81.17%$85,701
Leasehold Excise Tax $1,162 $2,000 $1,420 $3,640 0.00%$1,640
Licenses & Permits $58,729 $309,862 $346,604 $519,906 59.60%$210,044
Intergovernmental $376 $153,093 $160,836 $326,323 46.91%$173,230
Planning & Development, Passport $44,301 $216,393 $232,000 $348,000 62.18%$131,607
Fines, Penalties, Traffic Infr.$4,124 $22,944 $40,000 $60,000 38.24%$37,056
Misc. Invest. Facility Leases $561 $26,719 $41,719 $74,733 35.75%$48,014
Other Revenue $0 $5,923 $1,667 $2,500 0.00%($3,423)
General Fund Total $260,577 $3,335,229 $3,095,393 $5,321,775 62.67% $1,986,546
Street Fund $5,174 $40,109 $41,417 $113,000 35.49%$72,891
Street Fund Transfers In $22,500 $180,000 $180,000 $270,000 66.67%$90,000
Tree Fund $0 $2,200 $0 $0 0.00%($2,200)
Capital Fund $65,617 $640,969 $543,449 $815,173 78.63%$174,204
Total (All Funds)$331,368 $4,018,508 $3,680,258 $6,249,948 64.30% $2,231,440
Total (All Funds) Transfers In $22,500 $180,000 $180,000 $270,000 66.67%$90,000
EXPENDITURES:
August
ACTUAL
August YTD
ACTUAL
2014 August
YTD BUDGET
2014 ANNUAL
BUDGET
% of
Budget
Total
BUDGET
REMAINING
General Fund
Legislative $9,379 $26,743 $33,467 $33,700 79.36%$6,957
Municipal Court $2,985 $37,220 $52,000 $78,000 47.72%$40,780
Executive $20,015 $212,632 $213,254 $277,314 76.68%$64,682
Finance $26,326 $368,320 $365,498 $492,060 74.85%$123,740
Legal $24,510 $95,278 $126,667 $190,000 50.15%$94,722
Central Services $20,620 $202,217 $192,217 $288,326 70.13%$86,109
Intergovernmental $100 $12,604 $22,636 $26,273 47.97%$13,669
Police Operations $122,059 $1,052,732 $1,278,897 $1,978,186 53.22%$925,454
Fire & Medical Aid $0 $325,652 $325,652 $651,304 50.00%$325,652
Emergency Prep.$3,887 $26,994 $28,633 $42,950 62.85%$15,956
Development & Planning $83,508 $460,641 $525,984 $788,976 58.38%$328,335
Recreational Services $8,778 $23,537 $28,858 $33,950 69.33%$10,413
Parks $32,523 $261,499 $284,798 $427,197 61.21%$165,698
General Fund Total $354,691 $3,106,068 $3,478,561 $5,308,237 58.51% $2,202,169
Street Fund $27,876 $222,353 $226,409 $339,613 65.47%$117,260
Tree Fund $0 $433 $0 $0 0.00%($433)
Capital Fund $81,007 $477,866 $638,115 $957,173 49.92%$479,307
Capital Fund Transfers Out $22,500 $180,000 $180,000 $270,000 66.67%$90,000
Total (All Funds)$463,573 $3,806,720 $4,343,085 $6,605,025 57.63%$2,798,305
Total (All Funds) Transfers Out $22,500 $180,000 $180,000 $270,000 66.67%$90,000
TOTAL CASH & INVESTMENTS TOTAL CASH & INVESTMENTS
Beginning Year: 1/1/2014 Period Ending: 8/31/2014
WA ST INV POOL 4,766,829$ WA ST INV POOL 4,793,213$
CHECKING 828,813 CHECKING 1,051,262
5,595,642$ 5,844,475$
AGENDA ITEM 7.2d
25
26
AGENDA ITEM 7.2d
27
AGENDA ITEM 7.2d
28
AGENDA ITEM 7.2d
29
AGENDA ITEM 7.2d
30
AGENDA ITEM 7.2e CITY OF MEDINA
501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD | PO BOX 144 | MEDINA WA 98039-0144
TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 | www.medina-wa.gov
September 8, 2014
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Via: Michael Sauerwein, City Manager
From: Aimee Kellerman, City Clerk
Subject: Central Services Department Monthly Report
SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER PUBLIC MEETINGS AND EVENTS
Event Date Time Location
Park Board Meeting September 15 5:00 pm Medina City Hall
Open House / Workshop – Tree Code September 18 5:30 pm Three Points
Elementary
Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting September 22 6:00 pm Three Points
Elementary
Planning Commission Meeting September 23 6:00 pm Medina City Hall
Shredder Day and Drug Take Back September 27 9:00 am Medina Park
City Council Meeting October 13 6:30 pm Medina City Hall
City Council Special Meeting October 27 6:30 pm Medina City Hall
Meetings are publicly noticed on the City’s three official notice boards, City website, and via Govdelivery.
Occasionally notices require publication in the City’s official newspaper, The Seattle Times. Public
meetings scheduled after publication of this report can be found on the City’s website.
COMMUNICATION TO OUR COMMUNITY
E-Notice Program: During the month of August, the City issued 17 bulletins amounting to a total of
13,367 bulletins delivered to subscribers; approximately 24.7% were opened. See Attachment 1.
As of August 31, the City had 2,861 subscribers (change in total subscribers +25), with a combined total of
21,085 subscriptions (change in total subscriptions +307).
Website Hits: The attached report identifies popular hits on the City’s website pages during the month of
August. See Attachment 2.
RECORDS REQUESTS
As of August 31, 156 public records requests have been received by central services. See
Attachment 3.
PASSPORTS
During the month of August, 11 passport applications were processed at City Hall, totaling 117 for
the year. The City accepts applications by appointment only between 9 am and 3:30 pm daily.
GET CONNECTED! STAY INFORMED! SIGN UP FOR MEDINA E-NOTICES.
RECEIVE THE CITY UPDATES YOU WANT, DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL INBOX! Visit www.medina-wa.gov and click on E-Notice Program. 31
Bulletins
Developed
Total
Recipients
Total
Delivered
Unique
Email Opens
Unique
Email Open
Wireless
Recipients
August, 2014 17 13,546 13,367 2,430 24.70%2,921
July, 2014 27 15,934 15,616 2,900 24.80%3,223
June, 2014 34 21,914 21,494 3,222 21.00%5,351
May, 2014 22 16,518 16,165 2,769 23.00%3,553
April, 2014 30 16,404 16,108 2,690 22.70%3,503
March, 2014 35 19,949 19,246 3,554 24.70%3,977
February, 2014 25 16,963 16,629 3,010 24.00%3,491
January, 2014 22 12,228 11,963 2,221 24.30%2,320
December, 2013 11 7,057 6,942 1,278 23.60%1,243
November, 2013 26 11,322 11,149 2,040 23.30%1,821
October, 2013 29 15,779 15,504 2,776 22.60%2,558
September, 2013 22 11,671 11,143 1,916 22.10%2,051
August, 2013 17 8,563 8,212 1,620 23.30%934
July, 2013 32 13,584 13,110 2,435 22.20%1,554
June, 2013 37 11,705 11,452 1,925 20.40%1,380
May, 2013 34 15,114 14,806 2,729 22.00%1,604
April, 2013 30 12,668 12,456 2,325 22.10%1,271
March, 2013 35 18,594 18,194 3,483 22.50%1,835
February, 2013 23 7,010 6,887 1,111 19.10%653
January, 2013 31 12,230 11,989 2,516 24.20%956
December, 2012 21 7,912 7,787 1,507 22.10%520
Date Sent Top 10 Most Read Bulletins During April
Emails
Opened
Email Open
Rate
08/04/2014 12:12 PM PDT 325 24%
08/04/2014 01:00 PM PDT 574 25%
08/04/2014 03:04 PM PDT 945 28%
08/06/2014 03:49 PM PDT 409 25%
08/07/2014 11:01 AM PDT 304 21%
08/07/2014 04:57 PM PDT 169 29%
08/14/2014 03:39 PM PDT 124 21%
08/14/2014 04:48 PM PDT 266 20%
08/22/2014 09:29 AM PDT 352 23%
08/22/2014 12:01 PM PDT 328 23%
August 11, 2014 City Council Agenda Packet
2014 Street Overlay Work in Medina
SR 520 Closure Update
SR-520 Closure this Weekend
SR-520 Closure Update - 8/22/14
Comparisons:
520 Notice Update: Extended Work Hours in Medina
Welcome to Medina Days!!!
Welcome to Medina Days!!! **UPDATED**
Full SR 520 Closure this weekend - plan ahead!
SR 520 construction notification: Weekend closure of
SR 520 between Montlake Blvd. in Seattle and I-405 in
Bellevue, Aug. 8 -11
ATTACHMENT 1
08/01/2014 - 08/31/2014
32
Top 20 Page Views by Section Top 20 Unique IPs by Section
Section
Page
Views
Percent of
Total Section
Unique
IPs
Percent of
Total IPs
Default Home Page 3,672 33.65 Default Home Page 1,619 29.34
Public Works 645 5.91 Police 283 5.13
Parks 479 4.39 Parks 277 5.02
Police 454 4.16 Development Services 188 3.41
Development Services 369 3.38 History 158 2.86
Search Results 308 2.82 Employment 148 2.68
Employment 222 2.03 Search Results 136 2.46
History 208 1.91 FAQs 134 2.43
Services Directory 200 1.83 City Council 129 2.34
FAQs 194 1.78
Capital and Transportation
Improvement Plans 127 2.3
City Council 191 1.75 Employment 121 2.19
City Departments 181 1.66 City Departments 120 2.17
Documents 166 1.52 Services Directory 119 2.16
Capital and Transportation
Improvement Plans 152 1.39 Documents 93 1.69
Parks and Recreation Board 149 1.37 Public Works 88 1.59
Helpful Links 136 1.25 Parks and Recreation Board 85 1.54
City Manager's Office 117 1.07 Helpful Links 78 1.41
Traffic Safety 113 1.04 City Manager's Office 67 1.21
Civil Service Commission 98 0.9 Traffic Safety 55 1
Alarm System Registration 90 0.82 Contact Us 54 0.98
Total Page Views During
Period 8,144
Total Unique Views During
Period 4,079
ATTACHMENT 2website stats
08/01/2014 - 08/31/2014
33
34
RECORD
NUMBER
DATE
RECEIVED
REQUESTOR REQUEST DESCRIPTION
LIST OF RECORDS
COPIED
DATE E-MAILED,
MAILED, FAXED
OR PICKED-UP BY
REQUESTOR
2014-1 1/2/2014
Mioa Zhang
Grade determination and
construction plans for: 2457 78th
Ave NE; 2058 78th Ave NE; 7620
NE 32nd St
1/9/14 plans sent to
Wide Format
1/14/14 requestor
picked up his copy.
PRR Completed.
2014-2 1/8/2014
Paul Silva Recently issued Building Permits
N/A 1/8/2014
CITY OF MEDINA
PENDING PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST LOG
ATTACHMENT 3
35
2014-3 1/6/2014
Allan Bakalian (1) All files, correspondence,
emails, reports, permits,
variances, approvals,
authorizations, orders, or any
related occupation, use or zoning
determinations since the City's
incorporation for property
addressed 816 Evergreen Point
Road
(2) All reports, proposals,
correspondence (including emails)
by or for the City which discuss,
recommend, propose or evaluate
the past, current and future zoning
and zoning map revisions for the
816 Evergreen Point Road (Post
Offic) property since 2012
plans/permits sent to
wideformat for coping
1/22/14-requestor
picked up copies and
paid. Complete.
2014-4 1/9/2014
Carrion, Hugo (Rhodes
Architecture + Light
Our client recently purchased this
property. The house was built on
1962. I would like to access the
permit documents: permit
drawings and permit files, and all
permit records pertinent to the
existing residence.
Property Addressed: 625 84th Ave
NE
10 pages copied
1/10/14-emailed
requestor/1/16/14
complete
2014-5 1/10/2014
Chris Koh South retaining wall of Orlovski
project: 2633 78th Ave NE,
abutting property line
N/A
1/10/14 - requestor
was a walkin-plans
viewed-request
complete.
2014-6 1/21/2014
Jim Sander Storm Drain plan and tie in @
Evergreen Pt Rd: Property
Address: 2611 Evergreen Pt Rd 1 page
1/21 storage
search.1/24 complete
2014-7 1/22/2014
Kitty Ballard Recently issued Building Permits
43 pages
Will return 1/23 to
pay/pick up. Complete
2014-8 1/22/2014
Richard Euerle Recently issued Building Permits
N/A Completed
ATTACHMENT 3
36
2014-9 1/24/2014
Sathya Venkatapathy Info or plans on drain lines and
sewer for property at 619 84th
Ave NE
1/21/14 request for
storage search. 1/28
emailed requestor.
1/29/14 - Complete
2014-10 2/4/2014
Paul Silva Recently issued Building Permits
N/A Completed
2014-11 2/4/2014
Hwa Park Any property records for 8901
Groat Pt Dr
N/A
2/5/14 Requested
storage search.2/5 sent
requestor email.2/10
called requestor-they
forgot-said they would
be in 2/10 or 2/11.
2/24/14 - completed
2014-12 2/7/2014
Bruce Blyton Building, Clearing, Grading, Land
us Permits for property address
2403 EPR
N/A
2/7/14 requested
storage search.2/11
requestor came in-
there maybe more
records-pending. 2/13
requestor came in &
reviewed records-
completed.
2014-13 2/18/2014
Brian Hughes Narrative for 8650 NE 7th St &
7635 NE 12th St N/A Emailed-complete
2014-14 2/18/2014
Sam Biddle Any property records for 450 &
456 Overlake Dr E, Medina storage search-2/19/14
called requestor-he
said he would be in
soon to review. 2/26/14
completed.
2014-15 2/19/2014 Steve Kern Documents for 2403 EPR N/A Reviewed-complete
2014-16 2/19/2014
Paul Silva Recently issued Building Permits
N/A Reviewed-complete
2014-17 2/18/2014 Rob Nichelson4 Records for 2841 EPR Maps-24x36 Completed
ATTACHMENT 3
37
2014-18 2/25/2014
Weining Wen Architecture, structure and civil
drawings for 822 Evergreen Point
Rd
2/26/14 - nothing on
site-PW making off site
check. 3/3 requestor
reviewed documents
and requested copies-
sent to wide
formate.3/4-emailed
requestor copies ready
for pick up.3/4
complete.
2014-19 2/27/2014
Kristine Cole Certified payroll reports from Rod
McConkey Construction LLC and
Christensen Inc General
Contractor for Maintenance
Building Addition project- Contract
#E512.Completed
2014-20 3/4/2014
Alan Hammons Copy of Notice & SEPA Checklist
Checklist/Notice Completed
2014-21 3/4/2014
Trish May Building Permit & Plans for 3640
EPR
3/4/14 - Reviewed
building permits but
plans not here-made
request for off site
storage search. 3/7 -
Plans located
w/builder. Called
requestor.312 -
complete.
2014-22 3/5/2014
Paul Silva Recently issued Building Permits
Completed
2014-23 3/11/2013
Emma Williams All building records for 8106
Overlake Dr W
Plans
3/12/14 - asked public
works to check off sight
storgae.3/13/14-Files
found at storage.
Called requestor and
left vm to let her know.
Complete
2014-24 3/10/2014 Joe & Alice Meisenheimer Completed
ATTACHMENT 3
38
2014-25 3/7/2014
Bruce Blyton3 Building permit records,
geotechnical reports, critical area
reports for 2611 Evergreen Point
Rd Completed
2014-26 3/13/2014
Mark Batson Permits & Palns for 3225
Evergreen Pt Rd
records found at off site
storage-called
requestor.3/19/14
reviewed & complete.
2014-27 3/14/2014 Samuel Meyler Permits for 2633 78th Ave NE
3/17/14 - records found
at City Hall-emailed
requestor.3/19/14 -
called, lvm. 3/27 -
called, requestor said
no longer needed to
review.
2014-28 3/13/2014 Jeffrey Chen
review and copy any documents
in Dan Yourkoski's personnel file
from 1/2009 to 4/2010 which has
Jeff Chen as the aurthor of any
documetns within his personnel
file. Specifically looking for letter
of reprimand on/about jan/feb
2010. Also require the meta data
on that memo/letter of reprimand.No Records Found
Emailed Requestor
March 31. Complete
2014-29 3/13/2014
Kathy Swan - Pacific NW
Regional Council of Carpenters
Maintenance Building Addition: E
512: Rod McConkey Construction -
Payroll records for dates from
12/2/13 thru 3/7/14. Include with
the records any applicable 4 10
agreements
13 Records of Certified
Payroll records provided
by Rod McConkey
Construction.4/17/2014 via email
ATTACHMENT 3
39
2014-30 3/19/2014 Jeffrey Chen
All Police Department staff
meeting Minutes that Linda Crum
prepared, wrote, recorded,
scribed on legal yellow paper and
or then transcribed Memos for
Chief Chen from 2004 - 2010.
reviewed - file copied
by requestor - 3/31/14
sent requestor all
available Minutes and
Agendas in orginal
form which includes the
Metadata per email
request on 3/26/14
complete
2014-31 3/20/2014 Paul Silva Recently issued Building Permits reviewed-complete.
2014-32 3/17/2014 Douglas Obie File for 605 Evergreen Pt Rd
3/19/14 - offsite
storage request-file
received-complete
2014-33 3/24/2014 Joseph Wu
Plans & Structural Calculations for
826 84th Ave NE 3/24/14 - complete
2014-34 3/26/2014 Hong Xu
Blue prints, survey, design, soil
grade for 3317 Evergreen Pt RD 3/28/14 - complete
2014-35 3/31/2014 Ken Khorarni
Storm Design for SFR 511 82nd
Ave NE 3/31/14 - complete
2014-36 4/1/2014 Barbara Hulit
Property survey and building
records for 8826 2nd Pl Plans
4/1/14-PW to check off
site storage. 4/4-I
called michell to let her
know they are still
searching for records
off site. 4/7/14 I called
michelle to let her know
that records were
found and she can
come in to
review.4/14/14-
reviewed-copies
made.complete.
ATTACHMENT 3
40
2014-37 3-Apr Marin-Exteriorscapes
2009 Permit - 2033 Evergreen Pt
Rd, Medina
Finding Fact
Conclusions, Hydraulic
Permits,Army corps of
engineers
correspondences,
endgared species act
checklist, plans.
4/3/14-asked PW to
check off site storage.
Records were found.
4/4/14-emailed
requestor letting them
know records were
available to
view.4/18/14-records
reviewed, copies
made. Emailed
requstor that copies
ready. 4/23/14-called
requestor-lft vm that
copies are ready for
p/u.4/24/14-paid-
complete.
2014-38 4/9/2014 Brendan Cronin
Records for 2615 Evergreen Pt
Rd, Medina
PW searched of site
storage-records were
found. Called
requestor. He said he
would be in 4/10/14 to
review. Complete.
2014-39 4/15/2014 Chris Koh
Survey, inspection notes Aug
2013 to end of year for property
address 2633 78th Ave NE
plans, revisions,
correspondences.
4/15/14-one file found
at City Hall-also asked
PW to check
storage.4/17/14-
reviewed.copies
requested-4/18/14-
requestor wanted to
see if PW finds
anything in
storage.4/18 files found
in storage-called
requestor-he will be in
Friday 4/25 to
review.Complete
2014-40 4/3/2014 Paul Silva Recently issued Building Permits Completed
2014-41 4/16/2014 Paul Silva Recently issued Building Permits Completed
ATTACHMENT 3
41
2014-42 4/16/2014 Manging Li
Construction Records for 3317
Evergreen Pt Rd
4/16/14 No records at
City Hal-asked PW to
check off site
storage.4/17/14files
found at storage. called
requestor. She said
she would be in 4/18 or
4/21 to review. 4/23/14-
called requestor-says
she no longer needs to
review the file.
complete
2014-43 4/17/2014 Kent Ackerman
GEO & any & all reports on file for
2841 Evergreen Pt
4/17/14-no reords at
City Hall. Asked PW to
check off site storage.
4/18-records found-
requestor will be in
4/23 to review.f 4/23
requestor came in-
wanted the whole file
copied-several hundred
pages-sent to
wideformate for
coping.4/24/14 paid
and complete.
2014-44 4/16/2014
Tim Graham - Hanson Baker
Ludlow
All building permit records issued
to Collin & Letricia Carpenter-
1432 Evegreen Pt Rd
all building permits &
correspondences
Records found at City
Hall - Also asked PW
to check off
site.Requestor came in
4/21 and reviewed files.
Copies made. 4/21/14
lft vm for requestor
advising copies ready
and total due is $15.60.
5/5/14 paid &
complete.
ATTACHMENT 3
42
2014-45 4/21/2014 Jeffrey Chen
All documents associated with
Medina Internal Affairs
Investigation 10-01 against Dan
Yourkoski None
4/21/2014 - no records
exist - complete
2014-46 4/21/2014 Tobey Bryant
Permit on gate being built at 8400
Ridge Rd None
4/21/14-no records
found-complete
2014-47 4/18/2014 Robin Parsons
Site plan/Elevations for 904 88th
Ave NE
4/21/14-no file at City
Hall-aksed PW to
check off site storage.
4/24/14-file found.
Called requestor. She
will come in 4/24/14 to
review.5/5/14 called
requestor again. She
says she will be in
today, 5/5 to
review.5/5/14 -
Complete.
2014-48 4/23/2014 Mark Hume
Building Permits & Survey
documentations for 8400 Ridge
Rd permit 4/24/14 - complete
2014-49 4/23/2014 Mark Nelson
Site plan including lot coverage &
impervious surface calculations
for 515 Upland
4/23/14-no records at
City Hall. Requested
PW to search off site
storage. 4/24/14-files
found in storage.
Requestor reviewed.
Complete.
2014-50 4/28/2014 Li-Whei Palevich
Permits/Variance from 1976 thru
1979 for 405 84th Ave NE,
Medina Plans
4/28/14 Asked PW to
check off site storgae.
5/2 records found off
site storage-sent
requestor email. 5/5/14
called requestor-left vm
that records were here.
5/7/14 - requestor
reviewed -complete.
ATTACHMENT 3
43
2014-51 4/29/2014 Jim Bergstrom
Copy of Site Plan for 830 84th
Ave NE
4/29/14 Applicant
borrowed copy of site
plan he submitted for
PL-14-013 and
returned. Complete.
2014-52 4/28/2014 Nori - norir @ caprenos.com permit at 8751 Overlake Dr W
4/28/14 Requestor left
vm-dg responed via
email. complete.
2014-53 4/29/2014
Amanda Butler-Coldwell Banker
Bain
Floor Plans for 8847 NE 2nd Pl,
Medina 4 pages of plans
4/29/14 Requestor
wanted 4 pages of the
plans copied-sent to
wideformat.5/2
complete.
2014-54 4/29/2014 Cindy Spengler
Tree Removal Plan for 7808 NE
12th St plans Completed
2014-55 4/30/2014 Paul Silva Recently issued Building Permits Completed
2014-56 5/2/2014 Richard Euerle Recently issued Building Permits Completed
2014-57 5/5/2014 Pat Boyd - via email
Documents associated with the
Independent Tower application for
Fairweather 5/6/14-Complete
2014-58 5/6/2014 Susan Burnett , Cline Law Firm
2014 Commissioned (Police) &
Non Commissioned (Support),
email rate sheets and plan
summaries on all medical, dental
& vision for these EE groups. Also
provide life ins payout and mo
premium for each.
5/8/14 - KM Emailed
records to requestor.
Complete.
2014-59 5/1/2014 Rob Nicholson
Geo Tech Survey for 2841
Evergreen Pt Rd Geo Tech Reports 5/6/14 - Complete
2014-60 5/6/2014 Cindy Spengler
Consultant
Correspondences to
property owner, mmc on
tree code Completed
2014-61 5/6/2014 Ken Fisher
Fairweather Communication
Tower file review Completed
ATTACHMENT 3
44
2014-62 5/2/2014 Donghoon Lee Construction Plans for 8035 NE 25th St
5/2/14 No records at
City Hall. Asked PW
check storage.5/7/14
no records found at
storage. Called
requestor and left
message that no
records were found.
Complete.
2014-63 5/7/2014 Sven Larsen Permit Plans - 2841 EPR
5/12/14 - Requestor
reviewed-complete.
2014-64 5/13/2014 Paul Silva Recently issued Building Permits 5/13/14 - complete.
2014-65 5/13/2014 Cameron Braithwaite All building records for 3257 Evergreen RD
5/15/14 - called
requestor-he said he
would be in today to
review. Viewed and
complete.
2014-66 5/14/2014 Roslyn Comley
Any and all records including but
not limited to any permits,
droawins, requests for permits,
etc for property address 3241
78th Pl NE
5/16/14 plans/permits
sent to wideformat for
coping
5/15/14 - requestor will
be in today (5/15/14) to
view.5/20/14 paid and
complete.
2014-67 5/15/2014 Jim Dwyer
Site Plan, Civil & architectural
sheets for property address 3317
EPR
5/21/14 various
pages/permits sent to
wideformate for coping.
5/15/14-no records at
City Hall-asked PW to
check storage. 5/21/14 -
requstor wanted copies
made. 5/27/14 -
paid/pickeup-complete.
2014-68 5/14/2015 Cory Benson Issued ROW Permit for 8411 NE 10th Stpermit Completed
2014-69 5/20/2014 Cynthia Adkins Fairweather Communication Tower file review
5/20/14 Reviewed and
complete.
2014-70 5/21/2014 James Kwon Permits/Plans 1634 77th 5/21/14 complete.
2014-71 5/22/2014 Greg Rauch
Pier Permit for 1031 Evergreen Pt
Rd, Medina
5/22/14-request to PW
to check off site
storage. 5/27/14-file
found of site storage.
Emailed requestor.
5/29/14-complete.
ATTACHMENT 3
45
2014-72 5/27/2014 Chunfang Xu
name of designer of the house at
8477 Rdige Road
Records reviewed-
complete.
2014-73 5/20/2014 Thomas Cusick
All building records for 3448 78th
Pl & 3318 Evergreen Pt Rd
No records at city hall.
Records found at off
site storage for 3448
but no records for
3318. 5/24/14 Called
requestor to let him
know.5/28/14 complete
ATTACHMENT 3
46
2014-74 5/21/2014 Jeffrey Chen
While employed with the city of
Medina in and around January
and February 2010 I had access
to a desktop city computer. I am
requesting a comprehensive
forensic electronic search of that
computer hard drive to locate
the following document: A memo
created by Jeff Chen to File
regarding Dan Yourkoski after
January 22, 2010. This memo
closed an internal affairs issue
against Dan Yourkoski for an
insubordinate act. Please provide
me with the metadata of this
electronic document. If the
computer hard drive is no longer
in the city's possession but the
city has knowledge of where the
hard drive is now located, I ask
the city to make efforts to
retrieve a copy for this public
records request. I am also aware
the city possessed a computer
server at that time. Please
search that server too.
No Records Found
Emailed Requestor on
June 30 - Complete
2014-75 5/28/2014 Eric Hokanson
All records of fuel purchases
made by the City in any
department under City Manager
Mike Sauerwein.
List of all fuel purchases
from January 2014 to
current
Emailed - Ready for
pick-up on 6/6/2014 -
Complete
ATTACHMENT 3
47
2014-76 5/28/2014 Eric Hokanson
All records of fuel purchases by
the Medina Police since Daniel
Yourkoski begin as Interim Police
Chief until now.List of all fuel purchases
from September 2013 to
current
Emailed - Ready for
pick-up on 6/6/2014 -
Complete
2014-77 5/28/2014 Eric Hokanson
All communication between Mike
Sauerwein and the company or
companies hired to recruit a
police chief.Emails
Emailed - Requestor
picked up documents
on 7/2/14. Complete.
2014-78 5/28/2014 Eric Hokanson
Dan Yourkoski's W2 statements
for years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Denied Per RCW
42.56.230 (4)(b); RWC
42.56.070; and 26
U.S.C Sec 6103(a)
Emailed Requestor
on 6/6/14 - Complete
2014-79 5/28/2014 Eric Hokanson
John Kane's W2 statements for
years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Denied Per RCW
42.56.230 (4)(b); RWC
42.56.070; and 26
U.S.C Sec 6103(a)
Emailed Requestor
on 6/6/14 - Complete
2014-80 5/28/2014 Eric Hokanson
Brady Halverson's W2 statements
for years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Denied Per RCW
42.56.230 (4)(b); RWC
42.56.070; and 26
U.S.C Sec 6103(a)
Emailed Requestor
on 6/6/14 - Complete
2014-81 5/28/2014 Eric Hokanson
Austin Gidlof's W2 statements for
years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Denied Per RCW
42.56.230 (4)(b); RWC
42.56.070; and 26
U.S.C Sec 6103(a)
Emailed Requestor
on 6/6/14 - Complete
2014-82 5/28/2014 Eric Hokanson
Mike Sauerwein's employment
contract.Employment Contract Emailed. Complete
2014-83 5/28/2014 Eric Hokanson
Mike Girias W2 statements for
years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Denied Per RCW
42.56.230 (4)(b); RWC
42.56.070; and 26
U.S.C Sec 6103(a)
Emailed Requestor
on 6/6/14 - Complete
2014-84 5/28/2014 Eric Hokanson
Emmett Knott's W2 statements
for years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Denied Per RCW
42.56.230 (4)(b); RWC
42.56.070; and 26
U.S.C Sec 6103(a)
Emailed Requestor
on 6/6/14 - Complete
ATTACHMENT 3
48
2014-85 5/28/2014 Eric Hokanson
James Martin's W2 statements
for years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Denied Per RCW
42.56.230 (4)(b); RWC
42.56.070; and 26
U.S.C Sec 6103(a)
Emailed Requestor
on 6/6/14 - Complete
2014-86 5/28/2014 Eric Hokanson
All records of or pertaining
Medina Police Officers having
received training at Thunder
Ranch. Examples including but
not limited to certificates
contained in personnel files,
travel expenses, receipts,
requests for permission to
attend. Include current and past
employees.
Certificates for Emmet
Knott and Jeff Chen,
travel expenses and
receipts
6/19/2014-KM emailed
requestor advising
records found and at
City Hall to review.
Requestor picked up
file on 7/2 - Complete
2014-87 5/28/2014 Paul Silva
Recently issued Building Permits
5/28/14-complete
2014-88 5/28/2014 Ross Worthington
Any and all records on 520
Evegreen Pt Rd and the lot to the
North
5/28/14 - asked PW to
check offsite
storage.5/30/14-file
found at off site
storage. Called
requestor. He said he
would be in 5/30 or 6/2
to review.
2014-89 5/28/2014 Chaohua Chang Permit plans - 8477 Ridge Rd
5/28/14-file at city hall.
Called requestor and
left message.5/29/14 -
complete.
2014-90 5/29/2014 Mike Jacobsen
Storm Drainage, AS-Builts,
Building applications, easments
for 836 83rd Ave NE
5/29/14-asked PW to
check off site storage.
5/30/14-file found at off
site storage. Called
requestor and left
message.6/2/14
complete.
ATTACHMENT 3
49
2014-91 6/2/2014 Bob Canaan
Land use ordinances, site
development, other materials
related to 3223 evergreen point
rd medina wa 98039
2014-92 6/5/2014 Bob Canaan Property File for 3225 EPR
6/11/14 - Reviewed.
Copies made.
Complete.
2014-93 6/3/2014 Trish May
Topo survey & correspondence
for 3640 EP 6/4/14 complete
2014-94 6/9/2014 Cynthia Adkins Cell tower file (independent tower)6/9/14 complete
2014-95 6/10/2014 Paul Silva Recently issued Building Permits 6/10/14 complete
ATTACHMENT 3
50
2014-96 6/10/2014
Melissa Grondahl - Dept of L &
I
1. A list of all subcontractors know
to have worked on this project for
your agency: 2. Photocopy of all of
the intent to Pay Prevailing Wage
and Affidavit of Wages Paid forms
filed to-date: 3. Photocopy of the
prime contractor’s Performance
Bond: 4. Amount of retainage
being held on the project: 5. Lien
filed against the bond or retainage
including the amount(s) and who it
was filed by: 6. If filed,
photocopies of certified payroll
records submitted by the violator,
if received: 7. Photocopies of any
information your agency may have
kept regarding the job duties
performed, number/names of
workers and days and/or hours of
work by this firm on the above-
stated project (i.e., project
manager/inspector daily/weekly
logs, manpower reports, etc.) 8.
The date the project was
completed (if the job is
substantially completed) 9. The
acceptance date of the project of
the anticipated acceptance date if
that has not yet officially taken
place. (“Acceptance” has been
defined as the date the
contracting agency has deemed
6/12/14 - KM Emailed
requested documents
to requester -Complete
2014-97 6/11/2014 George Bianchi
Contracts or agreements that your
city or court has with any and all
jail facilities for the total
confinement, partial confinement
or work release of individuals.
6/12/14 - KM Emailed
requested documents
to requester -Complete
ATTACHMENT 3
51
2014-98 6/12/2014 Joseph Wu
Information of original grade
determination for the address of
2444 80th Ave NE
6/12/14 This file is with
consulant Ngo.
Emailed and asked that
she scan the document
and send to me.
6/13/14-scanned
document received.
Emailed to requestor.
Complete.
2014-99 6/3/2014 Patti Blevins
2006 Building application, CMP &
SEPA for 3304 78th Pl NE CMP, Apps, drawings
Files at off site storage.
6/13/14 files reviewed,
copies made.
Complete.
2014-100 6/18/2014 Craig Stillwell/Kerry Fitterer
Recording of hearing, Hearing
Examiners Decision, Minutes from
CMP 12-015/3640 Evergreen Pt
Rd
6/18/14 - All requested
documents were
emailed to requestor
CD was made of the
audio-complete
2014-101 6/18/2014
Richard Stephens of Groen,
Stephens & Klinge
Records pertaining to the
Fairweather Nature Preserve
(“Fairweather Park”) located at
Evergreen Point Road & NE 32nd
St in Medina, WA:
1)All records regarding the
permitting of any tower or
telecommunication structures in
Fairweather Park;
2)All records regarding the leasing
of any space in Fairweather Park
by Independent Towers LLC; and
3)All records regarding the
development, consideration and
adoption of Ordinance 900 in
2013.
7/1/14- re: 1) & 2)
Requestor reviewed
files. Copies made of
various temporay
permits and lease.
Requstor may need
other copies and will let
me know. 3) Emailed
requestor paper file
availabe to review &
city clerk will follow up
regarding electronic
files, etc.
ATTACHMENT 3
52
2014-102 6/16/2014 Jeffrey Chen
review a document otherwise
known as the Medina Police
internal affairs control log which
describes all internal affairs
complaints lodged and/or
investigated against all Medina
police department employee
from 2006-2013. I also request a
copy of any document detailing
the destruction or disposition of
all internal affair files during that
time frame.
6/19/2014 - KM
Emailed requestor that
files are ready to
review. 6/20/14
Complete.
2014-103 6/23/2014 David Yee -File PL-13-032 Variance 6/23/14 - Complete
2014-104 6/23/2014 Paul Silva Recently issued Building Permits 6/23/14 - Complete
2014-105 6/19/2014
Richard Stephens of Groen,
Stephens & Klinge
• All staff reports regarding
requested variances within the
City of Medina from June 2004
through June 2014: and
• All decisions granting, denying or
otherwise addressing a variance
from June 2004 through June
2014.
7/1/14 - Requestor
reviewed files. Copies
made of various staff
reports & hearing
examiner decisions.
There is still a pending
staff report that is not
completed. Dir of Dev
Srvs will complete
within a week and
provide to requestor
2014-106 6/26/2014 Joseph Wu
Documents associated with
determination of original grade for
the project site at 8650 NE 7th St Grade/Drainage packet
6/26/14 - called
requestor that file is
here and ready to view.
He says he will be in
6/27/14. 6/27/14 -
Complete.
ATTACHMENT 3
53
2014-107 6/30/2014 Anne Fisher
Anthing that shows floor plans or
elevations of structure property
Addressed: 8962 NE 14th St
6/30/14 - KM called
requestor and let her
know there are no
records here at City
Hall and will have off
site storage
checked.This address
is actually Clyde Hill-
Not Medina.
2014-108 7/1/2014 Waterfront Construction
Permitting records for property,
specifically for a dock address:
3621 EPR
7/1/14 - No files found
at City Hall. Asked PW
to check off site
storage.7/7/14-files
found at storage-
emailed
requestor.7/8/14
complete.
2014-109 7/7/2014
Doug Henderson: Teamsters
Local 763
If they exist: Public Works &
Parks current salary schedule(s),
health & welfare premiums-paid
by both the employer & employee,
vacation accural rate; sick leave
accural; holiday; funeral leave;
longevity pay; premium stipends;
job descriptions and labor
agreement.
7/7/14-sent pdf of the
current salary schedule
and pdf of Public
Works union
contract.Complete.
2014-110 7/7/2014 Kerry Fitterer
May 2014 Permit submittal, all
drawings & supporting documents
for property address at 2409
Evergreen Pt Rd Plans
7/7/14-Documents are
with consultant Jenny
Ngo. I sent her an
email.7/7/14-Jenny will
bring files to me 7/9/14.
7/9/14 files now at City
Hall-emailed
requestor.7/15/14-
emailed wideformat for
pickup & copy of plans.
7/21/14-complete
ATTACHMENT 3
54
2014-111 7/2/2014 Cynthia Adkins
Fairweather Communication
Tower file review various documents 7/2/14-complete
2014-112 7/7/2014 Ellen Merrifield
Demo date for address of 8809
NE 2nd Pl
Permit is not complete
yet so City can not
comfirm a date.
Complete.
2014-113 7/8/2014
Tere Foster,Megan Blommer:
Windermere
7/8/14 - No file at City
Hall-Asked PW to
check storage. 7/9/14
emailed requestor files
found at storage.
7/10/14-requestor
came in-documents snt
to wideformat for
copying. 7/14/14-
complete.
2014-114 7/8/2014 Marcus King
Boxes of records related to
Overlake GCC special use permit
process in 1992. Specifically
traffic study.
7/8/14-Asked PW to
check storage. 7/9/14-
emailed requestor. He
said he would be in
7/10 to
reivew.Complete.
ATTACHMENT 3
55
2014-115 7/8/2014 Cynthia Adkins
A COPY of all records provided to
or by the Medina Hearing
Examiner in connection with PL-
13-031 (SUP), PL-13-032
(Variance), and PL-13-033
(SEPA), with a priority on the
Hearing Examiner Packet when it
becomes available.
2. To REVIEW the following public
records:
All records related to PL-13-031
(SUP), PL-13-032 (Variance), and
PL-13-033 (SEPA).
All records related to wireless
communications facilities in the
City of Medina (whether or not in
any WSDOT right-of-way), with a
priority on SUP, Variance and
SEPA applications, hearing
examiner packets, and approvals
or denials, for T-Mobile, Verizon,
AT&T and Nextel.
7/18/14-1) will be avail
on line Friday-I will
email her the link.
2)Emailed requestor-
physical files here to
review-3)emailed
requestor will respond
by sept 12
2014-116 7/8/2014 Cynthia Adkins
REVIEW the following public
records:
All records related to PL-12-026
(TUP – Independent
Towers/Fairweather) - Priority
7/18/14-Emailed
requestor-physical files
here to review-City
clerk will respond by
sept 12 regarding all
email
correspondences.
2014-117 7/8/2014 Mike Jacobsen
As built drawings for 836 82nd
Ave NE
Copies of As Built
provided by Jwillis. PW
checking storage for
file-7/9/14 KM called
requestor and updated
him. Complete.
ATTACHMENT 3
56
2014-118 7/9/2014 Nick Bossoff
Design plans & drainage report for
detention system on 836 82nd
Ave NE & 847 83rd Ave NE
Chris Ruiz PDF'd this
report to me. I
fowarded to requstor.
Complete.
2014-119 7/8/2014 Cynthia Adkins
Hearing Examiner packet for
Independent Towers
Hearing Examiner
Packet
7/9/14 - requestor
picked up-complete.
2014-120 7/10/2014
Elizabeth Shirer - King Co, Dept
of Assessments
Review Plans for: B-13-090; B-13-
011; B-12-087; B-12-058; B-13-
082; B-14-002;B-13-053; B-13-
020; B-13-042; B-12-090; B-13-
068.
7/10/14 - all plans
pulled-emailed
requestor. She will be
in 7/14/15 to
view.Complete.
2014-121 7/14/2014 Eric Hokanson
Records of certificate of title,
insurance, registration and
original purchase invoice for the
City of Medina Public works
"Tiger Truck"
Title, insurance,
registration, original
purchase invoice
Emailed requestor on
7/18. Complete.
2014-122 7/14/2014 Eric Hokanson
Any recording of the meeting
taking place between me and
Mark Sauerwein and Kirk Pryde
today, whether the recording
was made by either person.No Records Exist
Emailed requestor on
7/18. Complete.
2014-123 7/14/2014 Eric Hokanson
All records of policy for Medina
Police working off duty security
since January 1, 2006 such that if
the policy has changed during the
period of this request, each
policy is provided.
Three Updated Police
Policies
Emailed requestor on
7/18. Complete.
ATTACHMENT 3
57
2014-124 7/14/2014 Eric Hokanson
Overtime and time sheet records
for Dan Yourkoski for years 2011,
2012, 2013 and 2014.
Overtime and time sheet records
for John Kane for years 2011,
2012, 2013 and 2014.
Overtime and time sheet records
for Brady Halverson for years
2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.
Overtime and time sheet records
for Austin Gidlof for years 2011,
2012, 2013 and 2014.
Overtime and time sheet records
for Mike Girias for years 2011,
2012, 2013 and 2014.
Overtime and time sheet records
for Emmett Knott for years 2011,
2012, 2013 and 2014.
Overtime and time sheet records
for James Martin for years 2011,
2012, 2013 and 2014.
Time Sheet Records
Emailed requestor on
7/18 with an estimated
response date of 8/1.
Emailed requestor on
7/17 to clarify overtime -
requestor omitted the
words "Overtime" and
"and" from his request.
Emailed requestor 8/1
records are ready for
pick up. Complete
ATTACHMENT 3
58
2014-125 7/14/2014 Eric Hokanson
All records pertaining to any and
all records of off duty police work
and or security work for Honorary
Medina Police Officer Bruce
McCaw since January 1, 2000.
This request includes records that
would be for Honarary Police
Officer Bruce McCaw, Bruce
McCaw, and any company that
could be considered related to
Bruce McCaw directly or
indirectly. (Of note so that the
Medina Police patronize the Old
Bellevue Chevron and since about
September 2006 have excluded
any patronage of the Chevron in
their own City of Medina with the
exception of Police Chief Mark
Thomas) (this request may show
evidence of a crime, currently
under direction of Medina City
Manager Michael Sauerwein)No Records Exist
Emailed requestor on
7/18. Complete.
2014--126 7/14/2014 Eric Hokanson
Any records discussing or relating
to disclosure of the Medina Police
boycott against the Medina gas
station Police Chief Candidates
including but not limited to the
new Medina Police Chief Steve
Burns.No Records Exist
Emailed requestor on
7/18. Complete.
2014-127 7/14/2014 Eric Hokanson
Any records relating to and or
demonstrating corrective action
regarding the Medina Police
boycott against the Medina gas
station by Medina City Manager
Michael Sauerwein No Records Exist
Emailed requestor on
7/18. Complete.
ATTACHMENT 3
59
2014-128 7/15/2014
Elizabeth Shirer - King Co, Dept
of Assessments
Permit # B-14-020 1564
77th Pl NE
B-13-013
1634 77th Ave NE
B-12-041
1818 77th Ave NE
B-13-046
2603 78th Ave NE
B-12-085
2633 78th Ave NE
I do not have a permit number in
our system yet, the address is
7635 NE 12th
7/15/14-emailed
requestor that all is
ready to review.
Requestor will come to
City Hall 7/16/14 to
view. Complete.
2014-129 7/15/2014 Paul Silva Recently issued Building Permits Reviewed & Complete.
2014-130 7/15/2014 George Bianchi
Official Map reflecting the
boundaries for the City of Medina
Emailed Joe & Robert
re:do we have a map I
can send. 7/16/14 Joe
emailed a map to
requestor-complete.
2014-131 7/16/2014 Howard Willson
Any records pertaining to this
home/address: 1000 82nd Ave
NE
7/16/14 - One record
found at City Hall.
Asked Public Works to
check off site
storage.7/17/14-called
requestor, LM files
found & at City Hall.
Complete.
2014-132 7/18/2014 Rush Riese
File & Documents related to right
of way tree removal application
#tree 14-011 Complete
2014-133 7/15/2014 Johnson Chen Site Plans for 3248 78th Pl NE Site Plans
File at storage-7/17/14-
requestor reviewed.
Sent plans to
wideformat for
copying.7/21/14
paid/complete.
ATTACHMENT 3
60
2014-134 7/21/2014 Cynthia Adkins
P:\Central Services\Public
Records\2014\Public records
request 2 corrected version -
Adkins.docx
2014-135 7/22/2014 Pamela Greytak
I would like a pdf emailed to me of
my application packet from July,
2006, including all letters of
recommendation. Thank you so
much!!
7/23/14 - AK emailed
requestor documents.
Complete.
2014-136 7/22/2014 Waterfront Construction
Any Permitting info on a dock at
3621 Evergreen Pt Rd
Requestor reviewed
permits-Complete
2014-137 6/12/2014 Doug Dicharry
All emails and letters from Medina
residents to any member of the
City Council, any member of the
Planning Commission, City
Manager, or Director of
Development beginning January
1, 2014 through today regarding
proposed changes to the city's
Tree Code.
Property Addressed:
2014-138 7/30/2014 Heija Nunn
PRR Logs for 2010, 2011, 2012,
2013 & 2014. Would especailly
like to see logs reflecting any
reasons for denial.
7/31/14 - KM emailed
requestor excel prr
logs. Complete.
ATTACHMENT 3
61
2014-139 7/31/2014
Jill Schmieder,Department of
Assessments
B-13-010: Addition & remodel of
existing sfr, (Reviewed Aug 20
2013 JDAR) M-13-076:
Mechanical for addition/ alteration,
B-13-064: New sfr on vacant lot,
B-13-019: New sfr on vacant lot,
B-12-080 , D-12-011 covered
beach, dock, and mechanical for
NEW RES? (replaced the one
that was barged to Canada?)
Parcel 242504-9125 3655
Evergreen Pt Rd….new
residence?
MDF619618: City of Medina letter:
Demo of improvement and
construction of new single family
dwelling
B-14-028: Addition of 543 sf
addition over garage, B051310-
2768: Construction of a new
approximately 15,000 sq ft single
family residence.
B-13-004: New sfr,
B-14-018 Ceremonial teahouse
B-13-01 New Res
B-14-012 2nd floor add
B-12-049 New Res
B-12-081 Beach house
B-12-076 New Res
Reviewed & Complete.
ATTACHMENT 3
62
2014-140 7/29/2014
Danick Baron SmartProcure,
LLC
1. Purchase order number or
equivalent
2. Purchase order date
3. Line item details
4. Line item quantity
5. Line item price
6. Vendor ID number, name,
address, contact person and
email address
2014-141 7/28/2014 Paul Silva Recently issued Building Permits Complete
2014-142 7/29/2014 David Leisy Drainage: 2444 80th Ave NE
7/30/14 - reviewed
plans with chris ruiz.
Complete
2014-143 7/22/2014 Megan Bloomer - Foster Realty
House plans for 1000 82nd Ave
NE Plans Complete
2014-144 7/18/2014 Ela Scheglow/Alex Blizuyuk Plans & Bld File - 3224 EPR Plans Complete
2014-145 8/8/2014 Rush Riese Tree Removal Permit #14-011 Complete
2014-146 8/11/2014 Nan Lau Fence at 8400 Ridge Rd Complete
2014-147 8/11/2014 Paul Silva Recently issued Building Permits Complete
2014-148 8/11/2014 Mayra Herrera
Medina Oversized Vehicle Permit
Application; Medina Overweight
Vehicle Application; Fees
pertinent to cost of the permits
8/11/14 - Emailed MPD-
they do not issue such
permits. 8/11/14 -
Emailed RG- 8/12/14 -
sent requestor links via
email. Complete.
2014-149 8/12/2014 Susan Grove
Name of builder and/or architect
for 8117 Overlake Dr W
8/12/14 - emailed
requestor information.
Complete.
2014-150 8/15/2014 Poineer Engineering, Inc.
Documents & design plans for
stormwater drainage on 2444 80th
Ave NE Complete
2014-151 8/19/2015 Jim Dwyer
Building plans, survey,
topography, site plan: 3315 EPR Complete
ATTACHMENT 3
63
2014-152 8/19/2014 Casey Cabalquinto
All electronic correspondence
between employees of the Medina
Police Department and Security
Industry Specialists, a private
security contractor doing business
in WA; All electronic
correspondence between
employees of the Medina Police
Department and specific
representatives of Security
Industry Specialists: John Spesak,
Thomas Seltz & Wayne North;
and Any statements of economic
interest or the like that employees
of the Medina Police Dept must
file to report any gratuities from
Security Industry Specialists and
that companys representatives.
2014-153 8/20/2014 Alan Chin
Retaining wall construction: 3222
78th Pl NE Complete
2014-154 8/21/2014 Dan Nunes
Aerial storm map for: 8035 NE
25th St Complete
2014-155 8/25/2014
Paul Silva - 13520 100th Ave
NE #160 Kirkland, WA 98034 Recently issued Building Permits Complete
2014-156 8/28/2014
Gary Abrahams - GMA
Networks PO Box 2006,
Bellevue, WA 206-349-4279
ALL files regarding Independent
Towers everything Complete
ATTACHMENT 3
64
AGENDA ITEM 7.2f
CITY OF MEDINA
501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD | PO BOX 144 | MEDINA WA 98039-0144
TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 | www.medina-wa.gov
September 8, 2014
To: Mayor and City Council
Via: Michael Sauerwein, City Manager
From: Joe Willis Sr., Director of Public Works
Subject: August 2014 Public Works Report
1. The Public Works Crew assisted with the annual Medina Days Celebration: placed banners on
poles ahead of the celebration, prepared the parks, assisted with events, cleaned up following
the celebration events. This years event was well attended and enjoyed by all.
Public Works will be undertaking weeding and trimming of the new 84th Ave NE median south
of NE 20th Street in conjunction with Clyde Hill crews this fall. The median will be divided into
two eqaul sections so crews can focus on their particular areas as schedules allow. Landscape
service companies will be asked to provide proposals for annual maintenace of the median for
future years. Their proposals will be evaluated by Medina and Clyde Hill and if agreeable to
both Councils, the cost will be split evenly.
2. The City’s Street overlay Contractor (Watson Asphalt)completed this years street and pathway
asphalt pavement overlays on NE 28th Street, 79th Ave NE, NE 26th Street, and 77th Ave NE
south of NE 22nd Street. In addition, the 80th Ave NE pathway between NE 12th and NE
14thStreet was repaved, and Upland Road north of Ridge Road was overlayed.
Asphalt Overlay of 79th Ave NE
65
AGENDA ITEM 7.2f
80th AVE NE Pathway Paving
3. Combined Construction started the Evergreen Point Road Sidewalk Improvement Project with
the removal of sidewalk and driveway sections along the street where the new meandering
sidewalk sections are being constructed around the existing power poles. The work
progressed from just north of the post office to NE 16th Street. Eight different pole locations
were included in the project, in addition, a section of buckled sidewalk in the 1800 block of
Evergreen Point Road from Evergreen Point Road to 77th Ave NE was replaced.
Before Replacement
66
AGENDA ITEM 7.2f
After Initial Sidewalk Pour
Typical Meander of Sidewalk Around the Pole
4. Transpo Group (traffic engineers) was given authorization to conduct a Traffic Study of 84th Ave
NE south of the new SR 520 Roundabout to evaluate the after condition of the roundabout
including on-ramp metering, current traffic conditions and potential backup impacts, proposed
potential loss of a southbound lane and right turn lane at NE 24th Street, and bus stop impacts.
Transpo Group will utilitize the traffic model perpared by WSDOT prior to the roundabout
construction to assess the after construction impacts, review channelization options, and
provide recommendations to improve traffic flow and safety. The study will be paid for by
WSDOT. The report will be presented to the Council in October. 67
68
AGENDA ITEM 8.1
69
AGENDA ITEM 8.1
70
AGENDA ITEM 8.1
71
AGENDA ITEM 8.1
72
AGENDA ITEM 8.1
73
74
MEDINA, WASHINGTON
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Medina City Hall, Council Chambers
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina
MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2014
6:30 PM
MAYOR CITY MANAGER
MICHAEL LUIS MICHAEL SAUERWEIN
DEPUTY MAYOR CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID LEE KARI SAND
COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK
PATRICK BOYD AIMEE KELLERMAN
JAY DECKER
JOHN MAFFEI
ALEX MORCOS
CURT PRYDE
MINUTES
EXECUTIVE SESSION - CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Mayor Luis called the Executive Session to order in the Medina Council Chambers at
5:30 p.m.
Council Members Present: Boyd, Decker, Lee, Maffei, Morcos, Pryde, and Mayor
Luis
Council Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Sauerwein, Sand, Grumbach, Willis, Adams, and
Kellerman
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Council met in Executive Session for an estimated time of one hour to discuss the
following:
RCW 42.30.110 (i) To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters
relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing
the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or
a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public
knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial
consequence to the agency; and
RCW 42.30.140 (4) To review the progress of collective bargaining negotiations.
AGENDA ITEM 8.2
75
ACTION: Executive Session was continued to the end of the regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Luis adjourned the Executive Session to the Regular meeting in the Medina
Council Chambers at 6:24 p.m.
1. REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Mayor Luis called the regular meeting to order in the Medina Council Chambers at
6:30 p.m.
Council Members Present: Boyd, Decker, Lee, Maffei, Morcos, Pryde, and Mayor
Luis
Council Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Sauerwein, Sand, Grumbach, Adams, Willis, Yourkoski,
and Kellerman
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Luis led the Pledge.
3. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Council Member Maffei requested to pull Agenda Item 8.2 (June 23, 2014 Special Meeting
Minutes) for clarification.
Council Member Morcos made a motion to approve the nomination made by Mayor Luis at the
July 14, 2014 City Council meeting to reappoint Jennifer Garone to the Planning Commission.
This was added as a discussion item following the vote to approve the amended agenda.
ACTION: Motion by Maffei second by Morcos and carried by a 7:0 vote; Council approved
the meeting agenda as amended.
ADDED AGENDA ITEM
ACTION: Motion by Morcos second by Decker to approve the nomination made by Mayor
Luis at the July 14, 2014 City Council meeting to reappoint Jennifer Garone to the
Planning Commission.
AGENDA ITEM 8.2
76
Council Member Maffei raised an objection to the motion and after giving a brief testament
asked the city attorney for clarification.
City Attorney Kari Sand stated that the motion was out of order. She cited Robert’s Rules of
Order under which the City Council’s procedures for the conduct of orderly meetings are
governed. Sand confirmed the Mayor’s nomination of Jennifer Garone at the July 14, 2014 City
Council meeting to be reappointed to the Planning Commission. She also confirmed a defect in
the nomination procedures that followed. She clarified that after the Mayor made his
nomination; the City Council should have voted on it. However, the Mayor was the presiding
officer at the meeting with the power of appointment and chose not to stop the proceedings
and the motion and vote to appoint Mark Nelson to the Planning Commission. Sand noted that
a motion for reconsideration on a vote can only be brought by someone on the prevailing side
that voted yes to appoint Mark Nelson.
Sand also stated that the Council could choose to make a motion to ratify Mark Nelson’s
confirmation, if they wanted it to be the final voice of the Council on this topic, but the outcome
could be different.
Council Member Morcos provided testament on why he believed the motion was illegal per
RCW 35.63.020 and why it was inconsistent with City Council guidelines. He stated he talked
to MRSC and they stated that this was done incorrectly and the motion made by the Mayor
needs to be voted on.
Sand agreed that procedurally the process was done incorrectly; but she reiterated her earlier
comment, including Council Member Morcos’s motion being out of order. However, she noted
that it was the Mayor and the City Council’s decision on how to proceed.
Council Member Maffei stated his opinion that the Council already voted 4/3 and does not
need to ratify Mark Nelson’s appointment and that the will of the Council has spoken.
Council Member Pryde stated his opinion that the city council needs to move on.
Mayor Luis acknowledged the irregularity of the vote, but confirmed that the will of the Council
has spoken and ended the discussion.
4. PRESENTATIONS
4.1 None.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Luis opened the public comment period at 6:47 p.m. The following individuals
addressed the Council:
Miles Adam regarding the proposed tree code and upcoming Hearing
Examiner meeting on a redwood tree. Adam asked that Council look carefully
at the tree code and protect the large trees such as the large redwood that is
coming up in the Hearing Examiner’s meeting in Medina.
Steve Preston regarding the cell tower site at Fairweather Park, his letter to
Council that identified three issues for Council to consider and asked Council
AGENDA ITEM 8.2
77
to put a temporary moratorium in place for any new wireless facilities permits.
Cynthia Adkins thanked Laurel and Steve Preston for their research regarding
the previous Council’s actions on wireless facility at Fairweather Park and
commented that the former City Council did not have the knowledge that the
current City Council now has due to the Preston’s research. She seconded Mr.
Preston’s suggestion for a temporary moratorium and review the original draft
of the code and find out what they meant when they said Fairweather Nature
Preserve adjacent to the 520.
Skip Voorhees (letter read into the record by Cynthia Adkins) requesting that
Council enact a temporary moratorium at Fairweather Park and Nature
Preserve for permits for cellular facilities and take action to clarify issues that
have been brought to Council’s attention.
Sheree Wen regarding small gathering at her house to get feedback from
citizens on the tree code and walked Council through the survey questions and
answers given.
(At this point 6:57 p.m. Mayor Luis left the meeting)
Steve Burnstead regarding the tree code ordinance and its limit on property
owner rights.
6. COUNCIL / BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS REPORTS
6.1 Mayor and Council Member Reports.
Council Member Boyd reported that he along with City Manager Michael Sauerwein
and airport noise consultant Alyson Jackson attended a meeting with FAA personnel
at the Port of Seattle.
Council Member Morcos reported that he and Council Member Pryde attended Sheree
Wen’s gathering on the tree code and citizens shared their opinions of the tree code
with them. They will try and summarize these opinions at a future tree committee
meeting. He also commented to the public that if there are others out there who would
like to host these types of meetings and would like some Council Members to attend,
that the Council Members would be open to attending.
Council Member Maffei asked for feedback from the Medina Days Medina Tree Code
booth. Director of Development Services, Robert Grumbach commented that he was
out of town and had not gotten an update from the consultants. An update will come to
Council at the September 8, 2014 City Council meeting.
6.2 Commissions, Boards, and Advisory Committee Reports.
None.
AGENDA ITEM 8.2
78
7. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
7.1 Department Directors: Police, Development Services, Finance, and Public Works.
Acting Police Chief Dan Yourkoski reported to Council on the July police report and
theft of campaigns signs. He noted that an E-alert will go out to the community to not
take the signs. He also commented that the police department recovered a stolen car
at the end of July that had two runaway teenagers, who were returned back to their
parents in Idaho.
Development Services Director Robert Grumbach reported that the record for
Independent Towers Holding’s public hearing closed today and a decision is expected
in the next couple of weeks. Grumbach also noted that the City is looking for a new
building inspector consultant since Clyde Hill is no longer providing building inspection
services.
Finance Director Nancy Adams reminded Council that the auditor is here at City Hall
and is conducting the 2013 audit. They have scheduled an entrance conference for
August 18, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
Public Works Director Joe Willis reported that the Park Board held their annual park
beautification day on Saturday, July 19 and the Public Works crew has been busy
preparing for the upcoming Medina Days events.
Council Member Maffei commented on the Lake Lane dock and asked staff to create
“No Speeding” or “No Wake Zone” signs and post them on the dock.
7.2 City Manager
City Manager Michael Sauerwein thanked Sheree Wen for hosting a tree meeting at
her home and for the opportunity to meet with citizens one-on-one. He also noted that
the overtime for President Obama’s visit cost the City $1,295.72 in police overtime and
will be billed to the person that hosted the event. He also thanked all the volunteers for
Medina Days and recognized their efforts for putting the event together.
Council Member Boyd commented on the paperless agenda packet the City Clerk put
together for the iPad and requested a cost estimate for implementation to go
paperless. This item will come to Council at the October 13 City Council meeting.
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
These items will be acted upon as a whole unless called upon by a Council Member.
ACTION: Council Member Maffei made corrections to the June 23, 2014 Special Meeting
Minutes to include the word “Action” in front of Council Member Maffei requested a
policy regarding private special events permits and charging overtime for Medina
Police Officers for private special events. He clarified that this was a
recommendation where he felt that the citizens shouldn’t carry the cost of
someone who owns a private fundraiser at a private function.
AGENDA ITEM 8.2
79
ACTION: Motion Boyd second by Pryde and carried by a 6:0 (Mayor Luis absent) vote;
Council approved the Consent Calendar as modified by Council Member Maffei.
8.1 Subject: June 16, 2014 Approved Park Board Meeting Minutes
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Staff Contact: Kristin McKenna, Deputy City Clerk
8.2 Subject: Meeting Minutes of:
a) June 9, 2014 Special and Regular Meeting;
b) June 23, 2014 Special Meeting;
c) July 14, 2014 Regular Meeting; and
d) July 28, 2014 Special Meeting.
Recommendation: Adopt.
Staff Contact: Aimee Kellerman, City Clerk
8.3 Subject: July 2014, Check Register
Recommendation: Approve.
Staff Contact: Nancy Adams, Finance Director
9. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
9.1 Subject: Early Public Input for Preparation of Draft Preliminary 2015 Annual Budget
Recommendation: None. This is an opportunity for public input.
Result of Recommended Action: Council and staff will review and consider input.
Staff Contact: Nancy Adams, Finance Director
Finance Director Nancy Adams reported on the draft preliminary 2015 annual budget which
included the General Fund budget and Capital Fund budget. She noted that the Capital
Reserve Fund balance of approximately $1.9 million dollars has remained untouched through
all of 2014. Adams also reported that the 2015 Direct Labor is expected in to increase by 2.2%
and that the labor negotiations are underway.
Deputy Mayor Lee opened the public hearing period at 7:39 p.m. The following individuals
addressed the Council:
Miles Adam regarding Park Board projects, budget for the Park Board and support from
Council for funding for 2015 budget.
Steve Burstead regarding the center island along 84th Street, lack of maintenance and
adding budget to maintain it. He also requested that Council budget for the treatment of
milfoil along the waterfront.
Wilma Edmonds regarding budget for trapping nuisance rabbits.
Deputy Mayor Lee closed the public hearing period at 7:52 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 8.2
80
10. OTHER BUSINESS ITEMS
10.1 Subject: Points Cities Interlocal Agreement Regarding Channelization Plan for 84th
Avenue NE and NE 28th Street/Points Drive NE
Recommendation: Approve.
Result of Recommended Action: Approval will authorize City staff to complete the
84th Avenue Project which includes the “Channelization Plan” that addresses concerns
about ingress and egress from local streets near Medina Circle and Hawthorne Court
and re-striping of 84th Avenue NE, NE 28th Street, and Points Drive NE. Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has tentatively agreed to reimburse the
City of Medina, Clyde Hill, and the Town of Hunts Point if we do the channelization and
re-striping work ourselves.
Staff Contact: Michael Sauerwein, City Manager
City Manager Michael Sauerwein reported back to Council regarding the channelization plan
for 84th Avenue NE and NE 28th Street/Points Drive NE.
Council Member Pryde commented on previous discussions and waiting until school starts to
conduct a new traffic study.
Council Member Boyd commented that the metering light has been turned at the 520 lid and
the timing between red and green are not consistent.
Council Member Maffei had concerns about the project and how it would affect Medina
residents that could potentially get backed up coming eastbound on 84th.
ACTION: Motion Boyd second by Maffei and carried by a 6:0 (Luis absent) vote; Council
directed staff to contact WSDOT about redoing a transportation traffic study about
the effective metering of the on-ramp onto SR-520 and authorized the City
Manager to contract for services for a traffic study if needed in an amount not to
exceed $15,000.
10.2 Subject: Phase 2 Medina Tree Code Update
Recommendation: Discussion item only; no action needed.
Result of Recommended Action: Direction on next steps in the update process
Staff Contact: Robert Grumbach, Development Services Director
Development Services Director Robert Grumbach gave a brief update of the Phase 2 Medina
Tree Code public process. He noted that we have completed the initial public notice; the
questionnaire has been completed and the receipt of responses is ongoing. The first public
workshop was held in July and the Medina Days outreach booth was on Saturday, August 9,
2014.
By consensus Council directed staff to work on a second public workshop for the tree code
around the week of September 15.
Council and staff discussed releasing the results of the questionnaire before the City Council
could review them. Grumbach noted a summary of the results will be presented at the
September 8 City Council meeting. Council felt the data should be released early to the tree
committee and the public.
AGENDA ITEM 8.2
81
Grumbach also presented on maps prepared by the Watershed Company containing a tree
canopy coverage assessment of the entire community. He noted that a full analysis and report
is being prepared and should be complete by the end of the month and will also be presented
at the September 8 City Council meeting
10.3 Subject: City Council Calendar
Recommendation: Discussion item only; no action needed.
Result of Recommended Action: Council and staff review upcoming meetings and
make necessary adjustments as needed.
Staff Contact: Michael Sauerwein, City Manager
ACTION: Council added Council sets policy direction for the tree code at the September 8
City Council meeting and Council Member Boyd requested solid waste to be
added to a future agenda.
11. PUBLIC COMMENT
Deputy Mayor David Lee opened the public comment period at 8:28 p.m. The following
individual addressed the Council:
Laurel Preston regarding the Independent Towers cell site application and
encouraged the City Council to enact a moratorium on any new cell tower
application.
Kay Koelemay commented the confusing signage on the roundabouts;
specifically the 84th Street sign.
Wilma Edmonds encouraged Council to send out another notice regarding the
next public tree code meeting and to hold it in a larger facility.
Deputy Mayor Lee closed the public comment period at 8:33 p.m.
Deputy Mayor Lee adjourned the regular meeting back to Executive Session at 8:33 p.m. for
an estimated time of 15 minutes to discuss the following:
RCW 42.30.140 (4) To review the progress of collective bargaining negotiations.
ACTION: No action was taken in Executive Session.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Boyd second by Maffei; Council adjourned the regular meeting at 9:55 p.m.
__________________________
David Lee, Deputy Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
Aimee Kellerman, City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM 8.2
82
AP
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
Au
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
4
In
v
o
i
c
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Ve
n
d
o
r
N
a
m
e
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ch
e
c
k
D
a
t
e
Tr
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
De
t
a
i
l
A
m
o
u
n
t
Ch
e
c
k
Nu
m
b
e
r
Tr
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
N
o
t
e
s
S2
5
7
5
0
2
8
0
Am
e
c
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
3
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
8
8
8
.
8
9
55
5
5
4
Po
s
t
O
f
f
i
c
e
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
S2
5
7
5
0
2
4
2
Am
e
c
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
5
8
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
7
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
1
2
5
.
0
0
55
5
5
4
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
R
e
v
i
e
w
S2
5
7
5
0
2
4
1
Am
e
c
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
5
8
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
7
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
3
2
5
.
0
0
55
5
5
4
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
R
e
v
i
e
w
S2
5
7
5
0
3
0
3
Am
e
c
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
5
8
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
7
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$3
7
4
.
7
5
55
5
5
4
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
R
e
v
i
e
w
S2
5
7
5
0
2
3
8
Am
e
c
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
5
8
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
7
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
5
5
.
5
0
55
5
5
4
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
R
e
v
i
e
w
S2
5
7
5
0
3
0
4
Am
e
c
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
5
8
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
7
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$3
8
7
.
5
0
55
5
5
4
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
R
e
v
i
e
w
$5
,
3
5
6
.
6
4
55
5
5
4
T
o
t
a
l
50
5
1
Aq
u
a
T
e
c
h
n
e
x
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$8
8
2
.
0
0
55
5
5
5
Mi
l
f
o
i
l
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
-
B
e
a
c
h
P
a
r
k
$8
8
2
.
0
0
55
5
5
5
T
o
t
a
l
71
1
6
AV
r
e
n
t
.
c
o
m
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
5
8
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
0
8
9
.
5
3
55
5
5
6
Pu
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
A
u
d
i
o
E
q
u
i
p
.
$1
,
0
8
9
.
5
3
55
5
5
6
T
o
t
a
l
00
1
7
4
1
1
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
4
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
IT
T
e
c
h
,
S
W
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
-
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
4
6
.
3
8
55
5
5
7
Ba
c
k
u
p
P
o
l
i
c
y
00
1
7
4
2
2
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
4
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
IT
T
e
c
h
,
S
W
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
-
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
0
8
.
0
5
55
5
5
7
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
M
a
i
n
t
C
H
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
4
00
1
7
4
1
3
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
4
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
IT
T
e
c
h
,
S
W
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
-
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$4
1
.
0
7
55
5
5
7
R
R
e
e
v
e
s
-
P
W
R
e
s
e
t
00
1
7
4
1
0
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
4
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
IT
T
e
c
h
,
S
W
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
-
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
4
6
.
3
7
55
5
5
7
Se
r
v
e
r
B
a
c
k
u
p
I
s
s
u
e
s
-
c
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
00
1
7
4
1
4
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
4
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
IT
T
e
c
h
,
S
W
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
-
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$4
9
2
.
7
5
55
5
5
7
PC
S
e
t
u
p
-
G
o
o
d
m
a
n
00
1
7
4
1
2
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
4
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
IT
T
e
c
h
,
S
W
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
-
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
4
6
.
3
8
55
5
5
7
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
D
i
s
k
S
p
a
c
e
C
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
1
00
1
7
4
2
1
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
4
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
IT
T
e
c
h
,
S
W
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
-
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
3
8
.
0
8
55
5
5
7
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
,
V
I
P
-
A
u
g
.
2
0
1
4
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
00
1
7
4
0
9
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
4
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
IT
T
e
c
h
,
S
W
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
-
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$3
2
8
.
5
0
55
5
5
7
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
d
o
w
n
6
/
2
7
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
00
1
7
4
1
2
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
1
-
0
5
IT
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
4
6
.
3
7
55
5
5
7
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
D
i
s
k
S
p
a
c
e
P
o
l
i
c
e
00
1
7
4
0
6
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
1
-
0
5
IT
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$5
7
4
.
8
8
55
5
5
7
In
s
t
a
l
l
P
o
l
i
c
e
C
h
i
e
f
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
00
1
7
4
1
1
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
1
-
0
5
IT
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
4
6
.
3
7
55
5
5
7
Ba
c
k
u
p
P
o
l
i
c
y
00
1
7
4
2
2
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
1
-
0
5
IT
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$3
1
2
.
0
8
55
5
5
7
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
M
a
i
n
t
P
o
l
i
c
e
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
4
00
1
7
4
2
1
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
1
-
0
5
IT
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$5
7
3
.
6
7
55
5
5
7
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
,
V
I
P
-
A
u
g
.
2
0
1
4
P
o
l
i
c
e
00
1
7
4
1
0
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
1
-
0
5
IT
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
4
6
.
3
8
55
5
5
7
Se
r
v
e
r
B
a
c
k
u
p
I
s
s
u
e
s
-
P
o
l
i
c
e
00
1
7
4
0
9
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
1
-
0
5
IT
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$3
2
8
.
5
0
55
5
5
7
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
D
o
w
n
6
/
2
7
P
o
l
i
c
e
00
1
7
4
1
5
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
1
-
0
5
IT
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
6
4
.
2
5
55
5
5
7
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
s
e
t
u
p
/
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
K
a
n
e
$4
,
6
4
0
.
0
8
55
5
5
7
T
o
t
a
l
12
3
1
8
Br
a
t
W
e
a
r
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
2
2
-
0
0
Un
i
f
o
r
m
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$3
2
.
3
0
55
5
5
9
Un
i
f
o
r
m
B
a
d
g
e
-
L
t
.
$3
2
.
3
0
55
5
5
9
T
o
t
a
l
24
5
9
9
4
0
Ce
l
l
h
i
r
e
U
S
A
,
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
5
-
6
0
-
3
1
-
0
0
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$4
3
.
4
7
55
5
6
0
Sa
t
P
h
o
n
e
-
E
P
$4
3
.
4
7
55
5
6
0
T
o
t
a
l
42
5
4
5
1
7
8
3
8
0
4
9
B
8
/
7
/
1
4
-
9
/
7
/
1
4
Ce
n
t
u
r
y
l
i
n
k
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
4
2
-
0
0
Po
s
t
a
g
e
/
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
1
0
.
3
6
55
5
6
1
Fa
x
L
i
n
e
+
t
o
l
l
s
,
C
C
l
i
n
e
-
C
H
42
5
6
3
7
3
9
8
9
7
5
9
B
7
/
1
7
/
1
4
-
8
/
1
7
/
1
4
Ce
n
t
u
r
y
l
i
n
k
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
2
-
0
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
p
h
o
n
e
,
P
a
g
e
r
s
)
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
5
9
.
5
2
55
5
6
1
Fa
x
L
i
n
e
+
t
o
l
l
s
,
a
l
a
r
m
l
i
n
e
s
-
P
D
$2
6
9
.
8
8
55
5
6
1
T
o
t
a
l
41
9
9
1
1
3
8
Ch
e
v
r
o
n
(
P
o
l
i
c
e
)
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
3
2
-
0
0
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
-
G
a
s
,
C
a
r
W
a
s
h
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
5
4
3
.
4
5
55
5
6
2
Fu
e
l
,
M
a
i
n
t
-
P
D
41
9
9
1
1
3
8
Ch
e
v
r
o
n
(
P
o
l
i
c
e
)
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
8
-
1
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
&
M
a
i
n
t
-
A
u
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
1
.
9
9
55
5
6
2
Fu
e
l
,
M
a
i
n
t
-
P
D
$1
,
5
5
5
.
4
4
55
5
6
2
T
o
t
a
l
13
0
8
4
CN
R
,
I
n
c
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
4
-
1
0
-
4
8
-
0
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
&
M
a
i
n
t
-
A
n
n
u
a
l
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
9
8
.
4
8
55
5
6
3
Mi
t
e
l
S
W
M
a
i
n
t
.
-
A
u
g
.
2
0
1
4
13
0
6
3
CN
R
,
I
n
c
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
4
-
1
0
-
4
8
-
0
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
&
M
a
i
n
t
-
A
n
n
u
a
l
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
M
a
i
n
t
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
9
8
.
4
8
55
5
6
3
Mi
t
e
l
S
W
M
a
i
n
t
.
-
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
4
$3
9
6
.
9
6
55
5
6
3
T
o
t
a
l
47
3
6
3
Co
d
e
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
C
o
.
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
5
0
.
7
8
55
5
6
4
On
l
i
n
e
M
M
C
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
O
r
d
.
9
1
0
47
1
7
6
Co
d
e
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
C
o
.
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
7
1
4
.
6
1
55
5
6
4
On
l
i
n
e
M
M
C
U
p
d
a
t
e
-
O
r
d
.
9
0
9
$1
,
8
6
5
.
3
9
55
5
6
4
T
o
t
a
l
84
9
8
3
3
0
1
3
1
7
4
1
7
2
3
8
/
7
/
1
4
-
9
/
6
/
1
4
Co
m
c
a
s
t
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
8
-
2
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
&
M
a
i
n
t
-
H
W
/
S
W
M
a
i
n
t
C
a
d
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
0
0
.
8
0
55
5
6
5
Ca
m
e
r
a
-
7
0
0
L
k
W
A
B
l
v
d
.
84
9
8
3
3
0
1
3
0
1
9
7
9
3
5
8
/
7
/
1
4
-
9
/
7
/
1
4
Co
m
c
a
s
t
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
8
-
2
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
&
M
a
i
n
t
-
H
W
/
S
W
M
a
i
n
t
C
a
d
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
9
0
.
8
0
55
5
6
5
Ca
m
e
r
a
-
1
0
0
0
L
k
W
A
B
l
v
d
.
$3
9
1
.
6
0
55
5
6
5
T
o
t
a
l
11
0
3
7
1
5
0
0
7
2
6
1
4
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
A
n
d
S
i
e
r
r
a
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
-
A
d
m
i
n
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
3
1
-
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
A
n
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$4
5
.
5
9
55
5
6
6
Dr
i
n
k
i
n
g
W
a
t
e
r
-
C
H
$4
5
.
5
9
55
5
6
6
T
o
t
a
l
52
9
6
9
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
A
n
d
S
i
e
r
r
a
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
-
P
o
l
i
c
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
3
1
-
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$7
0
.
6
7
55
5
6
7
Dr
i
n
k
i
n
g
W
a
t
e
r
-
P
D
$7
0
.
6
7
55
5
6
7
T
o
t
a
l
1
AGENDA ITEM 8.3
83
AP
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
Au
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
4
In
v
o
i
c
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Ve
n
d
o
r
N
a
m
e
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ch
e
c
k
D
a
t
e
Tr
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
De
t
a
i
l
A
m
o
u
n
t
Ch
e
c
k
Nu
m
b
e
r
Tr
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
N
o
t
e
s
52
9
1
9
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
A
n
d
S
i
e
r
r
a
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
-
P
W
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
3
1
-
0
0
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$5
3
.
4
7
55
5
6
8
Dr
i
n
k
i
n
g
W
a
t
e
r
-
P
W
S
h
o
p
$5
3
.
4
7
55
5
6
8
T
o
t
a
l
12
7
3
0
7
0
7
1
4
db
S
e
c
u
r
e
S
h
r
e
d
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$3
9
.
0
4
55
5
6
9
Se
c
u
r
e
S
h
r
e
d
d
i
n
g
S
v
c
.
$3
9
.
0
4
55
5
6
9
T
o
t
a
l
55
3
7
3
DK
S
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
10
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
4
2
-
3
0
-
4
1
-
0
1
Pr
o
f
S
v
c
s
-
G
C
A
6
4
9
6
S
R
5
2
0
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$9
1
0
.
0
0
55
5
7
0
SR
-
5
2
0
-
G
C
A
6
4
9
6
$9
1
0
.
0
0
55
5
7
0
T
o
t
a
l
78
7
5
Ea
s
t
s
i
d
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
a
f
e
t
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
'
n
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
5
1
-
2
0
Di
s
p
a
t
c
h
-
E
P
S
C
A
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$6
9
3
.
2
1
55
5
7
1
Ra
d
i
o
D
i
s
p
a
t
c
h
F
e
e
-
A
u
g
.
2
0
1
4
$6
9
3
.
2
1
55
5
7
1
T
o
t
a
l
41
9
2
9
4
EN
A
C
o
u
r
i
e
r
s
I
n
c
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
2
-
0
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
p
h
o
n
e
,
P
a
g
e
r
s
)
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
2
4
.
6
4
55
5
7
2
Co
u
r
t
C
o
u
r
i
e
r
$1
2
4
.
6
4
55
5
7
2
T
o
t
a
l
FI
D
A
L
G
O
R
e
t
a
i
n
a
g
e
8
/
7
/
2
0
1
4
Fi
d
a
l
g
o
P
a
v
i
n
g
&
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
L
L
C
30
7
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
9
5
-
3
0
-
6
3
-
0
1
Ro
a
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$5
,
3
2
6
.
6
7
55
5
7
3
Fi
n
a
l
R
e
t
a
i
n
a
g
e
P
y
m
t
.
-
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
N
E
/
E
P
R
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
$5
,
3
2
6
.
6
7
55
5
7
3
T
o
t
a
l
10
7
0
7
2
6
Fo
s
t
e
r
P
e
p
p
e
r
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
5
-
3
0
-
4
1
-
6
0
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
C
o
u
n
s
e
l
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$5
3
.
5
0
55
5
7
4
Sk
i
n
n
e
r
v
M
e
d
i
n
a
$5
3
.
5
0
55
5
7
4
T
o
t
a
l
10
2
0
2
4
4
2
4
2
Ge
m
p
l
e
r
'
s
I
n
c
.
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
4
2
-
0
0
Te
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
/
p
o
s
t
a
g
e
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$4
4
.
0
0
55
5
7
5
12
m
o
n
t
h
S
h
i
p
p
i
n
g
S
a
v
e
r
10
2
0
2
4
4
8
0
6
Ge
m
p
l
e
r
'
s
I
n
c
.
10
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
4
2
-
3
0
-
2
2
-
0
0
Un
i
f
o
r
m
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$5
2
1
.
4
0
55
5
7
5
Un
i
f
o
r
m
s
10
2
0
2
4
4
7
9
0
Ge
m
p
l
e
r
'
s
I
n
c
.
10
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
4
2
-
3
0
-
3
1
-
0
0
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$5
5
1
.
4
0
55
5
7
5
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
&
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
$1
,
1
1
6
.
8
0
55
5
7
5
T
o
t
a
l
94
9
6
0
0
4
9
7
0
Gr
a
i
n
g
e
r
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
3
1
-
0
1
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$3
2
9
.
1
5
55
5
7
6
Wa
t
e
r
H
e
a
t
e
r
-
M
e
d
i
n
a
P
a
r
k
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
$3
2
9
.
1
5
55
5
7
6
T
o
t
a
l
91
3
2
8
2
8
Ho
m
e
D
e
p
o
t
C
r
e
d
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
3
0
-
4
8
-
0
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
/
m
a
i
n
t
-
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
B
l
d
g
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$7
9
.
5
6
55
5
7
7
Pa
i
n
t
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
-
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
80
8
4
7
6
4
Ho
m
e
D
e
p
o
t
C
r
e
d
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
3
0
-
4
8
-
0
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
/
m
a
i
n
t
-
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
B
l
d
g
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$7
6
.
8
8
55
5
7
7
Pa
i
n
t
&
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
-
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
12
2
2
2
5
Ho
m
e
D
e
p
o
t
C
r
e
d
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
3
1
-
0
1
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$7
6
.
7
0
55
5
7
7
Dr
i
l
l
B
i
t
s
,
S
c
r
e
w
s
-
M
e
d
i
n
a
P
a
r
k
S
i
g
n
80
8
4
7
6
6
Ho
m
e
D
e
p
o
t
C
r
e
d
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
3
1
-
0
1
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$4
3
.
1
2
55
5
7
7
Sh
o
p
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
20
2
6
2
9
4
Ho
m
e
D
e
p
o
t
C
r
e
d
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
10
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
4
2
-
3
0
-
3
1
-
0
0
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$6
0
.
5
8
55
5
7
7
Ti
e
D
o
w
n
R
o
p
e
,
C
l
i
p
s
f
o
r
T
r
u
c
k
s
$3
3
6
.
8
4
55
5
7
7
T
o
t
a
l
35
5
9
2
Is
s
a
q
u
a
h
H
o
n
d
a
K
u
b
o
t
a
10
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
4
2
-
3
0
-
4
8
-
0
0
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
1
6
3
.
5
1
55
5
7
8
Bo
o
m
M
o
w
e
r
P
a
r
t
s
$1
,
1
6
3
.
5
1
55
5
7
8
T
o
t
a
l
JA
C
K
S
O
N
-
7
/
3
1
/
1
4
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
,
A
l
l
y
s
o
n
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
1
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$7
2
8
.
0
0
55
5
7
9
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
N
o
i
s
e
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
$7
2
8
.
0
0
55
5
7
9
T
o
t
a
l
11
0
0
2
4
8
0
KC
O
f
f
i
c
e
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
4
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
IT
T
e
c
h
,
S
W
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
-
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
4
1
.
0
0
55
5
8
0
I-
N
e
t
-
J
u
l
y
-
C
H
,
P
D
11
0
0
2
4
8
0
KC
O
f
f
i
c
e
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
2
-
0
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
p
h
o
n
e
,
P
a
g
e
r
s
)
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
4
1
.
0
0
55
5
8
0
I-
N
e
t
-
J
u
l
y
-
C
H
,
P
D
$4
8
2
.
0
0
55
5
8
0
T
o
t
a
l
KP
D
2
0
1
4
-
0
2
5
Ki
r
k
l
a
n
d
P
D
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
5
1
-
5
0
Ja
i
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
-
P
r
i
s
o
n
e
r
B
o
a
r
d
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
55
5
8
1
Ja
i
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
-
Q
2
2
0
1
4
$2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
55
5
8
1
T
o
t
a
l
22
9
9
9
8
6
0
6
Ko
n
i
c
a
M
i
n
o
l
t
a
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
5
-
0
0
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
-
L
e
a
s
e
&
R
e
n
t
a
l
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
8
7
.
1
4
55
5
8
2
Co
p
i
e
r
L
e
a
s
e
-
P
D
$1
8
7
.
1
4
55
5
8
2
T
o
t
a
l
me
d
i
n
a
-
0
0
1
/
3
6
La
w
,
L
y
m
a
n
,
D
a
n
i
e
l
,
K
a
m
e
r
r
e
r
&
B
o
g
d
a
n
o
v
i
c
h
,
P
.
S
.
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
5
-
3
0
-
4
1
-
6
0
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
C
o
u
n
s
e
l
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$4
1
.
0
0
55
5
8
3
Ch
e
n
v
.
C
O
M
$4
1
.
0
0
55
5
8
3
T
o
t
a
l
72
6
1
4
0
2
LE
E
D
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
2
2
-
0
0
Un
i
f
o
r
m
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
3
3
.
0
7
55
5
8
4
Un
i
f
o
r
m
-
C
h
i
e
f
$2
3
3
.
0
7
55
5
8
4
T
o
t
a
l
LY
N
X
-
8
/
5
/
1
4
Ly
n
x
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
3
8
9
-
0
0
-
0
0
-
0
0
Ot
h
e
r
N
o
n
-
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
(
A
d
v
D
e
p
/
P
a
s
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
)
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
,
4
2
4
.
0
0
55
5
8
5
Ad
v
.
D
e
p
.
R
e
f
u
n
d
-
8
3
2
0
N
E
1
2
t
h
S
t
$2
,
4
2
4
.
0
0
55
5
8
5
T
o
t
a
l
MI
C
H
A
E
L
S
7
/
1
/
1
4
-
7
/
3
1
/
1
4
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
'
s
D
r
y
C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
2
2
-
0
0
Un
i
f
o
r
m
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$6
0
.
7
8
55
5
8
6
Dr
y
C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
-
P
D
$6
0
.
7
8
55
5
8
6
T
o
t
a
l
50
0
8
0
7
2
8
1
Mo
d
u
l
a
r
S
p
a
c
e
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
10
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
4
2
-
3
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
2
2
.
9
0
55
5
8
7
Eq
u
i
p
.
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
-
P
W
S
h
o
p
$1
2
2
.
9
0
55
5
8
7
T
o
t
a
l
42
2
5
9
O'
B
r
i
e
n
,
B
a
r
t
o
n
,
J
o
e
&
H
o
p
k
i
n
s
,
P
L
L
P
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
2
-
5
0
-
4
1
-
2
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
D
e
f
e
n
d
e
r
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
9
0
.
0
0
55
5
8
8
Pu
b
l
i
c
D
e
f
e
n
d
e
r
-
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
4
$2
9
0
.
0
0
55
5
8
8
T
o
t
a
l
30
3
1
1
7
2
Of
f
i
c
e
o
f
M
i
n
o
r
i
t
y
&
W
o
m
e
n
'
s
B
u
s
.
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
9
-
9
0
-
4
9
-
0
8
OM
W
B
E
-
O
f
f
i
c
e
O
f
M
i
n
o
r
i
t
y
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
0
0
.
0
0
55
5
8
9
OM
W
B
E
F
e
e
7
/
2
0
1
3
-
6
/
2
0
1
5
$1
0
0
.
0
0
55
5
8
9
T
o
t
a
l
2
AGENDA ITEM 8.3
84
AP
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
Au
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
4
In
v
o
i
c
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Ve
n
d
o
r
N
a
m
e
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ch
e
c
k
D
a
t
e
Tr
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
De
t
a
i
l
A
m
o
u
n
t
Ch
e
c
k
Nu
m
b
e
r
Tr
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
N
o
t
e
s
71
4
0
0
2
2
7
Ot
a
k
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
5
8
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
0
2
7
.
2
9
55
5
9
0
Pr
o
f
.
S
v
c
s
.
71
4
0
0
2
2
3
Ot
a
k
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
5
8
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$4
,
8
8
9
.
2
5
55
5
9
0
Pr
o
f
.
S
v
c
s
.
OT
A
K
-
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ot
a
k
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
5
8
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
1
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$8
,
2
4
2
.
7
9
55
5
9
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
v
c
s
.
-
6
/
7
/
1
4
-
7
/
1
1
/
1
4
OT
A
K
-
C
M
P
Ot
a
k
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
5
8
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
7
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$3
,
7
1
3
.
1
5
55
5
9
0
CM
P
S
v
c
s
.
-
6
/
7
/
1
4
-
7
/
1
1
/
1
4
$1
7
,
8
7
2
.
4
8
55
5
9
0
T
o
t
a
l
56
7
6
7
2
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
T
o
p
s
o
i
l
s
,
I
n
c
.
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
4
1
-
0
4
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
-
M
i
s
c
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
0
8
.
5
0
55
5
9
1
Du
m
p
C
l
e
a
n
G
r
e
e
n
$1
0
8
.
5
0
55
5
9
1
T
o
t
a
l
Pi
t
n
e
y
B
o
w
e
s
7
/
2
1
/
1
4
Pi
t
n
e
y
B
o
w
e
s
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
P
o
w
e
r
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
4
2
-
0
0
Po
s
t
a
g
e
/
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
55
5
9
2
Po
s
t
a
g
e
M
e
t
e
r
R
e
f
i
l
l
$1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
55
5
9
2
T
o
t
a
l
20
0
0
1
8
4
1
8
6
2
0
6
/
2
0
/
1
4
-
7
/
2
1
/
1
4
Pu
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
4
7
-
0
0
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
-
E
l
e
c
,
W
a
t
e
r
,
W
a
s
t
e
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
2
4
9
.
3
2
55
5
9
3
Po
w
e
r
-
C
H
20
0
0
0
4
8
4
4
6
9
8
6
/
2
1
/
1
4
-
7
/
2
2
/
1
4
Pu
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
8
-
2
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
&
M
a
i
n
t
-
H
W
/
S
W
M
a
i
n
t
C
a
d
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$3
3
.
8
3
55
5
9
3
Ca
m
e
r
a
-
N
E
1
0
t
h
S
t
20
0
0
2
4
9
5
6
0
7
6
6
/
2
0
/
1
4
-
7
/
2
1
/
1
4
Pu
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
8
-
2
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
&
M
a
i
n
t
-
H
W
/
S
W
M
a
i
n
t
C
a
d
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$4
1
.
8
3
55
5
9
3
Ca
m
e
r
a
-
8
2
n
d
A
v
e
N
E
20
0
0
0
4
8
4
4
9
0
4
6
/
2
1
/
1
4
-
7
/
2
2
/
1
4
Pu
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
8
-
2
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
&
M
a
i
n
t
-
H
W
/
S
W
M
a
i
n
t
C
a
d
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$3
3
.
1
6
55
5
9
3
Ca
m
e
r
a
-
7
4
0
O
D
E
20
0
0
1
2
3
1
6
4
2
4
6
/
2
0
/
1
4
-
7
/
2
1
/
1
4
Pu
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
4
7
-
0
0
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$9
3
.
0
6
55
5
9
3
Po
w
e
r
-
P
W
S
h
o
p
20
0
0
0
4
8
4
4
4
6
6
6
/
2
1
/
1
4
-
7
/
2
2
/
1
4
Pu
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
10
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
4
2
-
6
3
-
4
1
-
0
0
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$3
1
.
6
9
55
5
9
3
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
s
22
0
0
0
3
9
4
9
8
3
5
7
/
2
/
1
4
-
7
/
3
1
/
1
4
Pu
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
10
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
4
2
-
6
3
-
4
1
-
0
0
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
3
.
5
8
55
5
9
3
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
s
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
7
7
/
2
/
1
4
-
7
/
3
1
/
1
4
Pu
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
10
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
4
2
-
6
3
-
4
1
-
0
0
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
,
0
0
6
.
7
0
55
5
9
3
St
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
s
$3
,
5
0
3
.
1
7
55
5
9
3
T
o
t
a
l
SE
A
T
I
M
E
S
-
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
4
Se
a
t
t
l
e
T
i
m
e
s
,
T
h
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
4
4
-
0
0
Ad
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
8
4
.
4
2
55
5
9
4
Ad
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
$2
8
4
.
4
2
55
5
9
4
T
o
t
a
l
16
3
3
So
u
n
d
L
a
w
C
e
n
t
e
r
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
5
8
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
2
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$3
,
3
6
2
.
0
0
55
5
9
5
HE
X
S
v
c
s
.
$3
,
3
6
2
.
0
0
55
5
9
5
T
o
t
a
l
ST
A
N
T
E
C
6
/
2
7
/
1
4
St
a
n
t
e
c
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
I
n
c
.
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
5
8
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
7
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
1
,
1
3
1
.
9
9
55
5
9
6
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
S
v
c
s
.
$1
1
,
1
3
1
.
9
9
55
5
9
6
T
o
t
a
l
32
3
8
2
4
7
3
4
6
St
a
p
l
e
s
A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
3
1
-
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
A
n
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
8
1
.
7
8
55
5
9
7
In
k
s
,
p
a
p
e
r
,
g
l
u
e
,
b
i
n
d
e
r
c
l
i
p
s
,
l
a
b
e
l
s
32
3
8
2
4
7
3
4
4
St
a
p
l
e
s
A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
3
1
-
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
A
n
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
4
2
.
3
4
55
5
9
7
Wa
l
l
B
d
-
C
M
O
f
c
.
32
3
8
2
4
7
3
4
5
St
a
p
l
e
s
A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
3
1
-
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$3
9
0
.
8
9
55
5
9
7
HP
T
o
n
e
r
-
P
D
$8
1
5
.
0
1
55
5
9
7
T
o
t
a
l
81
2
2
3
St
r
o
z
F
r
i
e
d
b
e
r
g
,
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
5
-
3
0
-
4
1
-
6
0
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
C
o
u
n
s
e
l
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
4
,
7
3
0
.
1
7
55
5
9
8
Pu
b
l
i
c
R
e
c
o
r
d
s
S
e
a
r
c
h
$1
4
,
7
3
0
.
1
7
55
5
9
8
T
o
t
a
l
SU
T
I
C
H
8
/
4
/
1
4
-
8
/
1
1
/
1
4
Su
t
i
c
h
,
G
r
i
f
f
i
n
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
4
-
2
0
-
4
9
-
0
0
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
4
.
2
0
55
5
9
9
Pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
A
u
t
o
-
W
a
t
e
r
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
SU
T
I
C
H
7
/
2
8
/
1
4
Su
t
i
c
h
,
G
r
i
f
f
i
n
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
4
-
2
0
-
4
9
-
0
0
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
2
.
1
0
55
5
9
9
Pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
A
u
t
o
-
W
a
t
e
r
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
$3
6
.
3
0
55
5
9
9
T
o
t
a
l
23
4
5
7
/
1
/
1
4
Th
e
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
G
r
o
u
p
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
3
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
55
6
0
0
Co
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
S
v
c
s
.
$2
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
55
6
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
T-
M
O
B
I
L
E
7
/
3
1
/
1
4
T-
M
o
b
i
l
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
2
-
0
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
p
h
o
n
e
,
P
a
g
e
r
s
)
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$7
.
9
6
55
6
0
1
Ce
l
l
P
h
o
n
e
s
-
P
W
,
P
D
T-
M
O
B
I
L
E
7
/
3
1
/
1
4
T-
M
o
b
i
l
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
4
2
-
0
0
Te
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
/
p
o
s
t
a
g
e
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$7
.
9
5
55
6
0
1
Ce
l
l
P
h
o
n
e
s
-
P
W
,
P
D
$1
5
.
9
1
55
6
0
1
T
o
t
a
l
20
1
5
-
W
A
R
0
4
5
5
2
7
WA
S
T
D
e
p
t
o
f
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
10
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
4
2
-
3
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
0
4
0
.
0
0
55
6
0
2
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
7
/
2
8
/
1
4
20
1
4
-
R
S
-
W
A
R
0
4
5
5
2
7
WA
S
T
D
e
p
t
o
f
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
10
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
4
2
-
3
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
,
0
5
2
.
0
0
55
6
0
2
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
4
/
2
3
/
1
4
$3
,
0
9
2
.
0
0
55
6
0
2
T
o
t
a
l
E9
8
4
3
6
9
S
A
N
T
I
WA
S
T
D
e
p
t
o
f
L
i
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
63
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
8
9
-
1
2
-
5
2
-
8
8
De
p
t
O
f
L
i
c
-
G
u
n
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
$
1
8
/
2
1
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
8
.
0
0
55
6
0
3
Re
n
e
w
a
l
C
P
L
E
9
8
4
3
6
9
-
S
a
n
t
i
$1
8
.
0
0
55
6
0
3
T
o
t
a
l
FB
9
1
0
1
7
0
0
1
1
5
1
WA
S
T
D
e
p
t
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
3
2
-
0
0
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
F
u
e
l
&
L
u
b
e
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$7
9
7
.
2
9
55
6
0
4
Fl
e
e
t
F
u
e
l
-
P
W
$7
9
7
.
2
9
55
6
0
4
T
o
t
a
l
I1
5
0
0
0
0
1
4
WA
S
T
P
a
t
r
o
l
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
0
.
0
0
55
6
0
5
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
L
e
t
t
e
r
$1
0
.
0
0
55
6
0
5
T
o
t
a
l
20
1
4
-
0
8
4
6
Wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
,
T
h
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
5
8
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
2
,
6
9
3
.
3
7
55
6
0
6
Pr
o
f
.
S
v
c
s
.
$1
2
,
6
9
3
.
3
7
55
6
0
6
T
o
t
a
l
75
5
4
4
8
We
s
t
e
r
n
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r
s
I
n
c
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
4
8
-
0
0
Re
p
a
i
r
&
M
a
i
n
t
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
8
4
.
3
5
55
6
0
7
Re
p
a
i
r
o
l
d
T
o
r
o
M
o
w
e
r
C
l
u
t
c
h
$1
8
4
.
3
5
55
6
0
7
T
o
t
a
l
WE
S
T
O
W
E
R
8
/
5
/
1
4
We
s
t
o
w
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
3
8
9
-
0
0
-
0
0
-
0
0
Ot
h
e
r
N
o
n
-
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
(
A
d
v
D
e
p
/
P
a
s
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
)
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
3
3
.
0
0
55
6
0
8
Ad
v
.
D
e
p
.
R
e
f
u
n
d
-
8
3
2
0
N
E
1
2
t
h
S
t
$2
3
3
.
0
0
55
6
0
8
T
o
t
a
l
3
AGENDA ITEM 8.3
85
AP
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
Au
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
4
In
v
o
i
c
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Ve
n
d
o
r
N
a
m
e
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ch
e
c
k
D
a
t
e
Tr
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
De
t
a
i
l
A
m
o
u
n
t
Ch
e
c
k
Nu
m
b
e
r
Tr
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
N
o
t
e
s
75
3
1
6
Wi
d
e
F
o
r
m
a
t
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
,
T
h
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
4
9
-
4
0
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
p
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$4
3
.
4
4
55
6
0
9
PR
R
C
o
p
i
e
s
75
0
0
3
Wi
d
e
F
o
r
m
a
t
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
,
T
h
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
4
9
-
4
0
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
p
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
2
.
2
6
55
6
0
9
PR
R
C
o
p
i
e
s
75
0
9
8
Wi
d
e
F
o
r
m
a
t
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
,
T
h
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
4
9
-
4
0
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
p
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$1
4
.
2
4
55
6
0
9
PR
R
C
o
p
i
e
s
74
9
9
7
Wi
d
e
F
o
r
m
a
t
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
,
T
h
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
4
9
-
4
0
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
p
i
e
s
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$9
1
.
1
6
55
6
0
9
PR
R
C
o
p
i
e
s
$1
6
1
.
1
0
55
6
0
9
T
o
t
a
l
WI
L
L
I
S
A
u
g
2
0
1
4
Wi
l
l
i
s
,
J
o
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
4
3
-
0
0
Tr
a
v
e
l
&
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
8/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4
$2
8
5
.
0
0
55
6
1
0
Au
t
o
A
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
-
A
u
g
.
2
0
1
4
$2
8
5
.
0
0
55
6
1
0
T
o
t
a
l
11
2
8
5
R
e
i
s
s
u
e
Br
a
t
W
e
a
r
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
2
2
-
0
0
Un
i
f
o
r
m
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$5
1
6
.
2
9
55
6
1
1
Re
i
s
s
u
e
#
5
5
2
5
3
K
n
o
t
t
U
n
i
f
o
r
m
$5
1
6
.
2
9
55
6
1
1
T
o
t
a
l
Vo
i
d
C
h
e
c
k
#
5
5
2
5
3
5
/
8
/
1
4
Br
a
t
W
e
a
r
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
2
2
-
0
0
Un
i
f
o
r
m
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
($
5
1
6
.
2
9
)
55
2
5
3
A
D
J
Vo
i
d
C
k
#
5
5
2
5
3
(
M
a
y
)
r
e
i
s
s
u
e
w
i
t
h
#
5
5
6
1
1
($
5
1
6
.
2
9
)
55
2
5
3
A
D
J
T
o
t
a
l
10
1
1
6
6
0
-
2
0
1
4
0
7
3
1
Ac
c
u
r
i
n
t
-
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
1
0
1
1
6
6
0
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$5
4
.
7
5
55
6
1
2
In
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
v
e
T
o
o
l
-
P
D
$5
4
.
7
5
55
6
1
2
T
o
t
a
l
51
4
6
Aq
u
a
T
e
c
h
n
e
x
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$4
9
6
.
0
0
55
6
1
3
Mi
l
f
o
i
l
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
-
2
0
1
4
$4
9
6
.
0
0
55
6
1
3
T
o
t
a
l
28
7
2
5
8
6
2
6
5
4
5
7
/
5
/
1
4
-
8
/
4
/
1
4
AT
&
T
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
2
-
0
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
p
h
o
n
e
,
P
a
g
e
r
s
)
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$2
0
7
.
9
0
55
6
1
4
PD
C
a
r
s
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
t
o
N
O
R
C
O
M
$2
0
7
.
9
0
55
6
1
4
T
o
t
a
l
HA
N
S
O
N
-
C
O
B
R
A
-
S
e
p
t
2
0
1
4
Aw
c
E
m
p
l
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
T
r
u
s
t
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
3
-
1
0
-
4
9
-
0
2
Ju
d
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
/
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$7
5
0
.
6
5
55
6
1
5
Ha
n
s
o
n
-
C
O
B
R
A
-
S
e
p
t
.
2
0
1
4
$7
5
0
.
6
5
55
6
1
5
T
o
t
a
l
00
1
7
4
3
0
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
1
-
0
5
IT
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$4
1
0
.
6
3
55
6
1
6
Sy
n
c
T
i
m
e
-
P
D
P
C
s
00
1
7
4
2
7
-
I
N
B
&
M
D
a
t
a
n
o
d
e
L
L
C
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
1
-
0
5
IT
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$2
4
6
.
3
8
55
6
1
6
PD
-
P
C
C
o
n
f
i
g
C
h
g
s
$6
5
7
.
0
1
55
6
1
6
T
o
t
a
l
90
1
0
8
8
9
7
5
/
2
2
/
1
4
-
7
/
2
9
/
1
4
Be
l
l
e
v
u
e
C
i
t
y
T
r
e
a
s
u
r
e
r
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
4
7
-
0
0
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
6
1
.
9
5
55
6
1
7
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
-
L
k
W
a
B
l
v
d
I
s
l
a
n
d
s
$1
6
1
.
9
5
55
6
1
7
T
o
t
a
l
59
2
2
5
8
Be
l
l
e
v
u
e
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
30
7
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
9
4
-
1
8
-
6
2
-
0
1
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
S
h
o
p
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$9
3
8
.
0
0
55
6
1
8
In
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
-
P
W
S
h
o
p
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$9
3
8
.
0
0
55
6
1
8
T
o
t
a
l
80
6
5
0
Bl
u
m
e
n
t
h
a
l
U
n
i
f
o
r
m
s
&
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
2
2
-
0
0
Un
i
f
o
r
m
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
0
0
0
.
2
2
55
6
1
9
Un
i
f
o
r
m
s
-
C
h
i
e
f
B
u
r
n
s
$1
,
0
0
0
.
2
2
55
6
1
9
T
o
t
a
l
12
4
9
2
Br
a
t
W
e
a
r
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
2
2
-
0
0
Un
i
f
o
r
m
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
6
1
3
.
4
8
55
6
2
0
Un
i
f
o
r
m
-
C
h
i
e
f
B
u
r
n
s
$1
,
6
1
3
.
4
8
55
6
2
0
T
o
t
a
l
42
5
4
5
4
2
0
9
5
3
8
4
B
8
/
8
/
1
4
-
9
/
8
/
1
4
Ce
n
t
u
r
y
l
i
n
k
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
5
-
6
0
-
4
2
-
0
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
/
D
a
t
a
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$8
1
.
7
9
55
6
2
1
Em
e
r
g
.
I
n
f
o
L
i
n
e
-
E
P
42
5
4
5
4
8
1
8
3
0
7
0
B
8
/
8
/
1
4
-
9
/
8
/
1
4
Ce
n
t
u
r
y
l
i
n
k
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
4
2
-
0
0
Te
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
/
p
o
s
t
a
g
e
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$4
5
.
8
7
55
6
2
1
Al
a
r
m
L
i
n
e
-
P
W
S
h
o
p
$1
2
7
.
6
6
55
6
2
1
T
o
t
a
l
PO
T
U
S
V
i
s
i
t
-
7
/
2
2
/
1
4
Cl
y
d
e
H
i
l
l
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
5
1
-
9
0
Ot
h
e
r
C
i
t
i
e
s
-
A
d
d
'
l
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
1
7
2
.
0
1
55
6
2
2
Po
l
i
c
e
A
s
s
i
s
t
-
P
O
T
U
S
V
i
s
i
t
IN
S
P
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
-
8
/
1
2
/
1
4
Cl
y
d
e
H
i
l
l
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
5
8
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
6
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$8
6
8
.
3
5
55
6
2
2
In
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
v
c
s
-
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
4
$2
,
0
4
0
.
3
6
55
6
2
2
T
o
t
a
l
84
9
8
3
3
0
1
3
0
1
9
3
2
6
4
8
/
1
6
/
1
4
-
9
/
1
5
/
1
4
Co
m
c
a
s
t
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
8
-
2
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
&
M
a
i
n
t
-
H
W
/
S
W
M
a
i
n
t
C
a
d
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
9
0
.
8
0
55
6
2
3
Ca
m
e
r
a
-
N
E
1
2
t
h
S
t
84
9
8
3
3
0
1
3
0
1
9
3
2
2
3
8
/
1
6
/
1
4
-
9
/
1
5
/
1
4
Co
m
c
a
s
t
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
8
-
2
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
&
M
a
i
n
t
-
H
W
/
S
W
M
a
i
n
t
C
a
d
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
9
0
.
8
0
55
6
2
3
Ca
m
e
r
a
-
N
E
2
4
t
h
S
t
$3
8
1
.
6
0
55
6
2
3
T
o
t
a
l
Cr
u
m
-
R
e
i
m
b
.
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
Cr
u
m
,
L
i
n
d
a
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
3
1
-
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$6
0
.
2
0
55
6
2
4
Ha
m
p
e
r
,
S
h
o
w
e
r
R
o
d
-
P
D
Cr
u
m
-
R
e
i
m
b
.
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Cr
u
m
,
L
i
n
d
a
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
3
-
0
0
Tr
a
v
e
l
&
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$3
4
.
0
0
55
6
2
4
Co
u
r
t
W
i
t
n
e
s
s
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
$9
4
.
2
0
55
6
2
4
T
o
t
a
l
47
4
0
Fi
l
e
o
n
q
,
I
n
c
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
8
-
2
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
&
M
a
i
n
t
-
H
W
/
S
W
M
a
i
n
t
C
a
d
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
55
6
2
5
Ev
i
d
e
n
c
e
S
W
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
$5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
55
6
2
5
T
o
t
a
l
FI
N
N
I
G
A
N
-
R
e
i
m
b
.
8
/
1
4
/
1
4
Fi
n
n
i
g
a
n
,
J
a
n
e
t
K
r
i
s
t
e
n
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
5
-
6
0
-
3
1
-
0
0
Su
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$2
1
1
.
7
5
55
6
2
6
Me
d
i
n
a
D
a
y
s
2
0
1
4
-
E
P
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
FI
N
N
I
G
A
N
-
E
P
C
-
A
u
g
.
2
0
1
4
Fi
n
n
i
g
a
n
,
J
a
n
e
t
K
r
i
s
t
e
n
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
5
-
6
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
S
e
r
v
-
E
P
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$3
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
55
6
2
6
Em
e
r
g
P
r
e
p
C
p
p
r
d
.
-
A
u
g
.
2
0
1
4
FI
N
N
I
G
A
N
-
E
P
C
-
A
u
g
.
2
0
1
4
Fi
n
n
i
g
a
n
,
J
a
n
e
t
K
r
i
s
t
e
n
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
5
-
6
0
-
4
3
-
0
0
Tr
a
v
e
l
&
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
5
0
.
0
0
55
6
2
6
Em
e
r
g
P
r
e
p
C
p
p
r
d
.
-
A
u
g
.
2
0
1
4
$3
,
7
6
1
.
7
5
55
6
2
6
T
o
t
a
l
10
8
0
2
6
0
Fo
s
t
e
r
P
e
p
p
e
r
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
4
1
-
0
0
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$5
3
.
5
0
55
6
2
7
Sk
i
n
n
e
r
A
p
p
e
a
l
$5
3
.
5
0
55
6
2
7
T
o
t
a
l
4
AGENDA ITEM 8.3
86
AP
C
h
e
c
k
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
Au
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
4
In
v
o
i
c
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Ve
n
d
o
r
N
a
m
e
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
N
u
m
b
e
r
Ac
c
o
u
n
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ch
e
c
k
D
a
t
e
Tr
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
De
t
a
i
l
A
m
o
u
n
t
Ch
e
c
k
Nu
m
b
e
r
Tr
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
N
o
t
e
s
70
8
0
8
0
9
Ho
m
e
D
e
p
o
t
C
r
e
d
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
3
0
-
4
8
-
0
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
/
m
a
i
n
t
-
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
B
l
d
g
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
7
8
.
4
3
55
6
2
8
Li
g
h
t
B
u
l
b
s
-
C
H
82
6
0
2
0
4
Ho
m
e
D
e
p
o
t
C
r
e
d
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
10
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
4
2
-
3
0
-
4
1
-
1
0
Ro
a
d
&
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$7
1
.
7
4
55
6
2
8
Si
g
n
P
o
s
t
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
40
2
1
6
4
8
Ho
m
e
D
e
p
o
t
C
r
e
d
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
10
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
4
2
-
3
0
-
4
1
-
1
0
Ro
a
d
&
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$7
0
.
8
7
55
6
2
8
Si
g
n
P
o
s
t
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
$3
2
1
.
0
4
55
6
2
8
T
o
t
a
l
1-
9
8
9
0
1
1
Ho
n
e
y
B
u
c
k
e
t
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
1
-
6
0
-
4
9
-
1
0
Me
d
i
n
a
D
a
y
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$2
3
5
.
0
0
55
6
2
9
Me
d
i
n
a
D
a
y
s
2
0
1
4
$2
3
5
.
0
0
55
6
2
9
T
o
t
a
l
KA
N
E
-
R
e
i
m
b
.
8
/
1
4
/
1
4
Ka
n
e
,
J
o
h
n
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
3
1
-
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$9
0
.
1
2
55
6
3
0
CS
P
A
M
t
g
.
R
e
f
r
e
s
h
m
e
n
t
s
$9
0
.
1
2
55
6
3
0
T
o
t
a
l
18
1
9
6
3
Ke
n
y
o
n
D
i
s
e
n
d
,
P
l
l
c
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
5
-
3
0
-
4
1
-
1
0
Ci
t
y
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$9
,
5
5
1
.
2
4
55
6
3
1
Ci
t
y
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
-
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
4
$9
,
5
5
1
.
2
4
55
6
3
1
T
o
t
a
l
JU
L
Y
1
4
M
E
D
Ki
r
k
l
a
n
d
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
u
r
t
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
2
-
5
0
-
5
1
-
1
0
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
u
r
t
-
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
/
N
o
n
T
r
f
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$2
,
6
9
5
.
0
0
55
6
3
2
Co
u
r
t
F
i
l
i
n
g
F
e
e
s
$2
,
6
9
5
.
0
0
55
6
3
2
T
o
t
a
l
KN
O
T
T
-
C
J
T
C
S
H
O
T
G
U
N
-
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
4
Kn
o
t
t
,
E
m
m
e
t
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
3
-
0
0
Tr
a
v
e
l
&
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
8
0
.
6
6
55
6
3
3
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
&
T
r
a
v
e
l
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
KN
O
T
T
-
W
S
L
E
F
I
A
-
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
4
Kn
o
t
t
,
E
m
m
e
t
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
3
-
0
0
Tr
a
v
e
l
&
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$4
0
3
.
8
7
55
6
3
3
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
&
T
r
a
v
e
l
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
$5
8
4
.
5
3
55
6
3
3
T
o
t
a
l
71
3
9
5
0
Og
d
e
n
M
u
r
p
h
y
W
a
l
l
a
c
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
5
-
3
0
-
4
1
-
6
0
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
C
o
u
n
s
e
l
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
3
3
.
8
0
55
6
3
4
Sk
i
n
n
e
r
v
.
M
e
d
i
n
a
$1
3
3
.
8
0
55
6
3
4
T
o
t
a
l
56
9
6
3
7
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
T
o
p
s
o
i
l
s
,
I
n
c
.
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
6
-
8
0
-
4
1
-
0
4
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
-
M
i
s
c
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
0
8
.
5
0
55
6
3
5
Du
m
p
C
l
e
a
n
G
r
e
e
n
$1
0
8
.
5
0
55
6
3
5
T
o
t
a
l
20
0
0
0
4
8
5
0
1
3
3
7
/
1
7
/
1
4
-
8
/
1
5
/
1
4
Pu
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
e
r
g
y
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
8
-
2
0
Re
p
a
i
r
s
&
M
a
i
n
t
-
H
W
/
S
W
M
a
i
n
t
C
a
d
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$2
5
.
3
6
55
6
3
6
Ca
m
e
r
a
-
N
E
2
4
t
h
S
t
$2
5
.
3
6
55
6
3
6
T
o
t
a
l
87
9
SC
O
R
E
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
5
1
-
5
0
Ja
i
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
-
P
r
i
s
o
n
e
r
B
o
a
r
d
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$4
,
1
8
5
.
0
0
55
6
3
7
Ja
i
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
-
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
4
$4
,
1
8
5
.
0
0
55
6
3
7
T
o
t
a
l
SE
A
T
I
M
E
S
-
8
/
1
3
/
1
4
Se
a
t
t
l
e
T
i
m
e
s
,
T
h
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
4
4
-
0
0
Ad
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
7
2
.
8
9
55
6
3
8
Le
g
a
l
A
d
s
$1
7
2
.
8
9
55
6
3
8
T
o
t
a
l
32
3
9
5
5
2
3
5
9
St
a
p
l
e
s
A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
8
-
1
0
-
3
1
-
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
A
n
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$2
5
2
.
7
4
55
6
3
9
Pa
p
e
r
,
p
e
n
s
,
m
a
r
k
e
r
s
,
l
a
b
e
l
s
32
3
9
5
5
2
3
6
3
St
a
p
l
e
s
A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
3
1
-
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
7
0
.
4
3
55
6
3
9
Pa
p
e
r
,
p
e
n
s
,
c
l
i
p
s
,
s
h
a
r
p
e
n
e
r
$4
2
3
.
1
7
55
6
3
9
T
o
t
a
l
SU
T
I
C
H
-
R
e
i
m
b
.
8
/
2
0
/
1
4
Su
t
i
c
h
,
G
r
i
f
f
i
n
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
7
4
-
2
0
-
4
9
-
0
0
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
2
.
1
0
55
6
4
0
Pe
r
s
.
A
u
t
o
-
W
a
t
e
r
T
e
s
t
s
$1
2
.
1
0
55
6
4
0
T
o
t
a
l
40
7
0
1
5
8
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
t
r
10
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
4
2
-
3
0
-
4
7
-
0
0
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$5
5
.
3
1
55
6
4
1
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
L
o
c
a
t
e
s
$5
5
.
3
1
55
6
4
1
T
o
t
a
l
L1
0
4
2
8
4
WA
S
T
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
'
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
4
-
1
0
-
5
1
-
0
0
In
t
e
r
g
v
t
m
l
P
r
o
f
S
e
r
v
-
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
2
4
8
.
2
0
55
6
4
2
20
1
3
A
u
d
i
t
F
e
e
s
-
J
u
l
y
2
0
1
4
$1
,
2
4
8
.
2
0
55
6
4
2
T
o
t
a
l
20
1
1
3
8
9
8
WA
S
T
C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
J
u
s
t
i
c
e
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
2
1
-
2
0
-
4
3
-
0
0
Tr
a
v
e
l
&
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$4
0
0
.
0
0
55
6
4
3
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
-
O
f
c
.
K
n
o
t
t
$4
0
0
.
0
0
55
6
4
3
T
o
t
a
l
41
7
8
9
Wa
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
I
n
c
.
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
1
-
6
0
-
4
9
-
1
0
Me
d
i
n
a
D
a
y
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$1
,
9
1
6
.
2
5
55
6
4
4
Ba
r
g
e
-
M
e
d
i
n
a
D
a
y
s
2
0
1
4
$1
,
9
1
6
.
2
5
55
6
4
4
T
o
t
a
l
WA
T
S
O
N
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
#
1
-
8
/
1
1
/
1
4
Wa
t
s
o
n
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
P
a
v
i
n
g
C
O
30
7
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
9
5
-
3
0
-
6
3
-
0
1
Ro
a
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$7
4
,
7
4
2
.
0
0
55
6
4
5
Pr
o
g
r
e
s
s
P
y
m
t
#
1
$7
4
,
7
4
2
.
0
0
55
6
4
5
T
o
t
a
l
14
-
4
4
0
8
We
s
t
e
r
n
D
i
s
p
l
a
y
F
i
r
e
w
o
r
k
s
00
1
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
5
1
1
-
6
0
-
4
9
-
1
0
Me
d
i
n
a
D
a
y
s
8/
2
2
/
2
0
1
4
$6
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
55
6
4
6
Fi
r
e
w
o
r
k
s
-
M
e
d
i
n
a
D
a
y
s
2
0
1
4
$6
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
55
6
4
6
T
o
t
a
l
$2
2
6
,
6
2
7
.
8
7
Gr
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
5
AGENDA ITEM 8.3
87
88
AGENDA ITEM 8.4
City of Medina, Washington
PROCLAMATION
2014 National Recovery Month
“Join the Voices for Recovery: Speak Up, Reach Out”
WHEREAS, behavioral health is an essential part of health and one’s overall wellness; and
WHEREAS, prevention of mental and/or substance use disorders works, treatment is effective,
and people recover in our area and around the nation; and
WHEREAS, preventing and overcoming mental and/or substance use disorders is essential to achieving healthy lifestyles, both physically and emotionally; and
WHEREAS, we must encourage relatives and friends of people with mental and/or substance use disorders to implement preventive measures, recognize the signs of a problem, and guide
those in need to appropriate treatment and recovery support services; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, 2.5 million people aged 12 or older received specialty treatment for a
substance use disorder and 34.1 million adults aged 18 or older received mental health services,
according to the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Given the serious nature of this public health problem, we must continue to reach the millions more who need help; and
WHEREAS, to help more people achieve and sustain long-term recovery, the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA), the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP
invite all residents of the City of Medina to participate in National Recovery Month (Recovery
Month); and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Michael Luis, Mayor, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the laws of the City of Medina, do hereby proclaim the month of September 2014, as National
Recovery Month in Medina, WA and call upon the people of this state to observe this month
with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies to support this year’s Recovery Month.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 8th day of September, in the year two
thousand fourteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the
two-hundred and thirty-ninth.
_________________________________________________ Michael Luis, Mayor, Medina
89
90
Mental Health, Chemical Abuse
and Dependency Services Division
Department of Community and Human Services
CNK-HS-0400 The Chinook Building 401 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
206-263-9000
206-296-0583 Fax
206-205-1634 Fax – Clinical Services
205-205-0569 TTY/TDD
April 30, 2014
The Honorable Michael Luis
Mayor of Medina
RE: Request for a Proclamation for Recovery Month September 2014
Dear Mayor Luis:
We were pleased that the City of Medina declared the month of September 2013 as National
Recovery Month and would again like to thank you for your support. As a follow-up to our
January “Save the Date” e-mail and letter, we are writing today to request your assistance in securing a proclamation for September 2014. The theme for this year’s Recovery Month is “Join
the Voices for Recovery: Speak Up, Reach Out," which celebrates 25 years of National
Recovery Month and encourages people to openly discuss – or speak up about – mental and
substance use disorders and the reality of recovery. It aims to foster public understanding and
acceptance of the benefits of prevention, treatment and recovery from behavioral health conditions. The observance also promotes ways first responders, faith leaders, youth and young
adults, and policymakers can recognize these issues and reach out to help others, as well as
themselves.
The purpose of Recovery Month is to promote recovery, celebrate those in treatment, and
continue to educate our communities about how to overcome the barriers of stigma and
discrimination. When a local government endorses Recovery Month, more people in their
community are educated about the conditions of substance use disorders and mental health issues as well as the benefits that treatment and recovery support services have on our local communities and society. Recovery Month spreads the message that behavioral health is
essential to health and overall wellness, and that prevention works, treatment is effective, and
people with substance use and mental health issues can and do recover. People in recovery lead
healthier lifestyles, both physically and emotionally, and contribute in positive ways to their communities.
Throughout the years, hundreds of proclamations have been signed to support Recovery Month,
including 114 issued in communities across the country in 2013. The President of the United States has signed a proclamation declaring September as Recovery Month for the past 13 years,
further recognizing substance use disorders and mental health issues as conditions that need to be
AGENDA ITEM 8.4
91
April 2013
Page 2 of 2
addressed, just like any other illness. Last year, the Governor of the State of Washington, the
King County Executive, and Mayors of 33 cities and towns in King County each signed
proclamations declaring September Recovery Month. Our goal is that every city and town in
King County will celebrate the lives reclaimed and proclaim September 2014 Recovery Month.
Now in its 25th year, Recovery Month also honors the treatment and recovery service providers
who assist the individuals and families with recovery. King County Mental Health, Chemical
Abuse and Dependency Services Division (MHCADSD) contracts with service providers who deliver substance abuse and mental health services throughout King County, and we recognize their valuable contributions.
Each September, thousands of treatment and recovery programs and services around the country celebrate the recovery successes and share them with their neighbors, friends, and colleagues in
an effort to educate the public about recovery, how it works, for whom, and why. There are
millions of Americans whose lives have been transformed through recovery. These successes
often go unnoticed by the broader population, therefore Recovery Month provides a vehicle to
acknowledge and celebrate these accomplishments.
As part of our efforts to celebrate Recovery Month in September, King County MHCADSD is
sponsoring the fourth Annual Recovery and Resiliency Conference. We would like you to join us in recognizing Recovery Month by issuing a proclamation.
We have attached for you to review two sample proclamations (traditional and modern versions)
and have also included a link to the National Recovery Month website for further information. We are available to present additional information or testimony if that would be helpful. Please
inform us if you intend to issue a proclamation, or if you have any questions about Recovery
Month, by contacting Cheryl Goluch by e-mail at cheryl.goluch@kingcounty.gov or phone at
206-263-9111.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jim Vollendroff, MPA, NCACII, CDP
Division Director 206-263-8903
Jean Robertson, LICSW
Assistant Division Director/ RSN Administrator 206-263-8904
AGENDA ITEM 8.4
92
93
1
CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON, PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT, LOCATION, OPERATION, LICENSING, MAINTENANCE OR CONTINUATION
OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA PRODUCERS, PROCESSORS AND RETAILERS AS REGULATED OR PROPOSED TO BE REGULATED PURSUANT TO
WASHINGTON STATE SENATE ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE BILL 5073 AND WASHINGTON STATE INITIATIVE 502; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, municipalities have authority to enact ordinances in furtherance of public safety, morals, health, and welfare pursuant to Article XI, Section 11 of the Washington State
Constitution; and
WHEREAS, in 2011, the Washington legislature adopted Senate Engrossed Substitute
Bill (ESSB) 5073, which amended the Washington State Medical Use of Cannabis Act (MUCA); and
WHEREAS, in 2011, the Washington governor vetoed a number of sections of ESSB 5073; and
WHEREAS, RCW 69.51A.140(1), allows municipalities to regulate the production, processing and dispensing of marijuana through zoning, business licensing and taxing, and health and safety requirements; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, the Washington voters passed Initiative 502, which directed the
Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB) to regulate recreational marijuana by licensing
and taxing recreational marijuana producers, processors and retailers, and is codified in Chapter 69.50 RCW; and
WHEREAS, under Washington Administrative Code 314-55-020(11), the issuance or approval of a license under Chapter 69.50 RCW shall not be construed as a license for, or an
approval of, any violations of local rules or ordinances including, but not limited to: building and fire codes, zoning ordinances, and business licensing requirements; and
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2014, the Washington State Attorney General opined that Initiative 502 does not preempt local authority to ban or otherwise regulate marijuana-related land uses within their jurisdictions through land use or business requirements; and
WHEREAS, a recent Washington State Court of Appeals decision found medical marijuana collective gardens are illegal and upheld local governments’ zoning authority to ban
or otherwise regulate medical marijuana-related land uses, and such holding could reasonably apply to zoning or other police power regulation of recreational marijuana-related land uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that ESSB 5073 and Initiative 502 do not preempt the City of Medina from exercising and administering its constitutional and statutory land use
94
2
regulatory authority to either allow and regulate land uses within the city limits, or to prohibit and ban such uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the prohibition of medical marijuana collective gardens and recreational marijuana production, processing and retailing
facilities would protect public safety, morals, health and welfare; WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b), a notice of intent to adopt was
transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on August 18, 2014, requesting Expedited Review, which was ___________; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the code amendments at their August 12, 2014, meeting and after considering the proposal, voted to recommend adopting the code
amendments; and
WHEREAS, after providing notice, the City Council held a public hearing on October 13,
2014, to receive public testimony concerning the proposed code amendment and voted to
_______; and
WHEREAS, a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold Determination of Non-significance (DNS) for the proposed code amendment was issued on _____, pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2); and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopts the foregoing recitals as findings of fact in support of this ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Amend Section 20.12.020. Section 20.12.020, “A” definitions, of the Medina
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
…
H. “Agriculture” means the use of land for agricultural purposes including any one or more of
farming, apiculture, horticulture, and floriculture, and viticulture, but excluding the raising of animals and the farming of marijuana regardless of whether farmed for medicinal or
recreational purposes.
…
Section 2. Amend Section 20.12.140. Section 20.12.140, “M” definitions, of the
Medina Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. "Manufactured home" means a single-family dwelling required to be built in accordance with
regulations adopted under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.).
B. “Marijuana related business” includes the following: 1. “Collective gardens” means the same as described in RCW 69.51A.085 and amendments thereto;
2. "Marijuana processor" means a person or entity who processes marijuana into useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products, packages and labels useable marijuana and
95
3
marijuana-infused products for sale in retail outlets, and sells useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products at wholesale to marijuana retailers.
3. "Marijuana producer" means a person or entity who produces and sells marijuana at
wholesale to marijuana processors and other marijuana producers. 4. "Marijuana retailer" means a person or entity who sells useable marijuana and
marijuana-infused products in a retail outlet; and The terms in RCW 69.50.101, and amendments thereto, shall be used to interpret further the meaning of marijuana related businesses.
C. “Mechanical equipment” means any machine or system containing moving parts such as motors, valves, relay switches, compressors, fans or similar components, including, but not limited to those used to circulate and/or condition air, water, refrigerant, effluent or products
of combustion. ((C.)) D. “MMC” means Medina Municipal Code as adopted pursuant to Chapter 1.01 of the
Medina Municipal Code.
((D.)) E. “Monopole” means a single upright pole, engineered to be self-supporting that does not require lateral cross supports and is sunk into the ground and/ or attached to a
foundation. Section 3. Amend Section 20.21.030. Section 20.21.030, Use Table, of the Medina
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Table 20.21.030 establishes those uses which are permitted, those uses subject to specific
development standards, and those uses requiring special approval and that are prohibited within each zoning district.
Table 20.21.030: Land Use Table
Uses
R-
16
Z
o
n
e
R-
20
Z
o
n
e
R-
30
Z
o
n
e
SR
-30
Z
o
n
e
NA
Z
o
n
e
Pu
b
l
i
c
Z
o
n
e
Residential Uses Accessory Dwelling Units P P P P P P Accessory Recreational Facilities A A A A A A Accessory Recreational Facilities – Minor L L L L L L
Accessory Uses – On-site P P P P P P Accessory Uses – Off-site L L L L L L Adult Family Home L L L L L L Detached, Single-family Dwelling P P P P P P Family Day Care Home L L L L L L Manufactured Home L L L L L L
Non-residential Uses
Automobile Service Station L Automobile Mechanical Repair L Commercial Horticulture/ Truck Gardening/ Agriculture, excluding the raising of animals and marijuana related businesses L
Clubhouse Public/ Private SU SU Golf Course SU
96
4
Historical Use H H Home Business L L L L P P
Public & Institutional Uses
City Government Facilities CU Post Office SU Public Safety CU Public Park P P P P P P Electrical Power & Utility Substation SU SU SU SU SU SU Accessory recreational facilities – public P P P P P P
Religious Facility SU SU SU SU SU SU
School public/ private (preschool to grade 12) SU Temporary City Government Facilities L L L L P P Wireless Communication Facilities SU SU SU SU SU
Shoreline Uses
See Chapter 20.62 MMC for a list of uses within the shoreline jurisdiction
*See MMC 20.21.020 for explanation of “P”, “L”, “A”, “SU”, “CU”, and “H”.
Section 4. Amend 20.31.010. Section 20.31.010, Home business, of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
… C. A home business is not allowed:
1. If any structure, in addition to normal residential structures common to the neighborhood, is used for said home business; or 2. If more than one person is employed who is not a family member residing in the
residence; or 3. If any signs or commercial names are used or exhibited; or 4. Unless all employees, clients and family members are required to, and do at all times,
use off-street parking exclusively, and unless not more than two vehicles owned and operated by employees and clients are allowed to be parked on the premises at any
time; and
5. If any equipment, materials or commodities which are stored for use in any home business are visible from any public or private vantage point outside of the premises on
which said items are stored((.)); or
6. If the use involves a marijuana related business.
Section 5. Amend 20.31.050. Section 20.31.050, Commercial horticulture, truck
gardening, and agriculture uses, of the Medina Municipal code is hereby amended to read as follows:
This section establishes the development criteria that apply to commercial horticulture, truck gardening and agriculture uses, including accessory uses.
A. Structures may include, but are not limited to such uses as hot houses, greenhouses,
storage sheds, heating plants, and similar accessory uses associated with horticulture, truck gardening, and agriculture uses.
B. Agriculture uses shall exclude the raising of animals and the farming of marijuana.
C. Commercial horticulture, truck gardening, and agriculture uses shall exclude marijuana related businesses.
97
5
D. Any retail sales activity arising out of the commercial horticulture, truck gardening and agriculture uses shall be limited to the sale of products, in season, grown upon the property.
Section 6. No Nonconforming Uses. No use that constitutes or purports to be a medical marijuana collective garden, marijuana producer, marijuana processor, or marijuana
retailer that was engaged in that activity prior to the enactment of this ordinance shall be
deemed to have been a legally established use under the provisions of the Medina Municipal Code and that use shall not be entitled to claim legal nonconforming status.
Section 7. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid for any reason, or should any portion of this ordinance be pre-empted by state or federal law or regulation, such decision or pre-emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 8. Effective Date. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in the official
newspaper of the City, and the ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after the
date of publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF ON THE
_____DAY OF ____________, 2014.
CITY OF MEDINA
_________________________
Michael Luis, Mayor
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED
_____________________________
Aimee Kellerman, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________
Kari L. Sand, City Attorney Kenyon Disend, PLLC
98
99
1 of 7
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MEDINA
AND BHC CONSULTANTS
THIS AGREEMENT is made this 8th day of September, 2014, between the City of
Medina, (hereinafter the "City") and BHC Consultants, (hereinafter “Consultant").
WHEREAS, Consultant is in the business of providing certain professional services
specified herein, and
WHEREAS, the City desires to contract with Consultant for the provision of such
services and Consultant agrees to contract with the City for same; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, it is
agreed between the parties as follows:
TERMS
I. Description of Work. Consultant shall perform work as described in Exhibit A, “Scope of Work," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, according to the
existing standard of care for such services. Consultant shall not perform any additional services
without the express permission of the City.
II. Payment. A. The City shall pay Consultant for time and materials as set forth in Exhibit A for the
services described in this Agreement.
B. Consultant shall submit payment invoice to the City after such services have been
performed, and the City shall make payment within thirty (30) days after the submittal of the approved invoice. Such invoice shall detail the work, and a description of the tasks performed.
C. If the City objects to all or any portion of any invoice, it shall so notify Consultant of the
same within five (5) days from the date of receipt and shall pay that portion of the invoice
not in dispute. The parties shall immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion.
III. Relationship of Parties. The parties intend that an independent contractor – client
relationship will be created by this Agreement. The Consultant is customarily engaged in an
independently established trade which encompasses the specific service provided to the City
hereunder; no agent, employee, representative or subcontractor of Consultant shall be or shall be deemed to be the employee, agent, representative or subcontractor of the City. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including, but not limited to, compensation,
insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from the City to the Consultant or his
100
2 of 7
employees, agents, representatives or subcontractors. Consultant will be solely and entirely
responsible for his acts and for the acts of Consultant’s agents, employees, representatives and
subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement. The City may, during the term of this
Agreement, engage other independent contractors to perform the same or similar work that Consultant performs hereunder.
IV. Duration of Work. This Agreement shall be effective for a period commencing from the
date of signature to December 31, 2017, except as provided for in paragraph V below. This
Agreement may be extended in three (3) month increments by mutual written agreement of both
parties until a new agreement is executed between the parties.
V. Termination.
A. Termination Upon the City’s Option. The City shall have the option to terminate this
Agreement at any time with or without cause. Termination shall be effective after thirty (30)
days upon delivery of written notice to the Consultant, except as provided for in
subparagraph V.C below.
B. Termination Upon the Consultant’s Option. The Consultant shall have the option to terminate
this Agreement after thirty (30) days upon delivery of written notice to the City.
C. Termination for Cause. If Consultant refuses or fails to complete the tasks described in
Exhibit A, or to complete such work in a manner satisfactory to the City, then the City may,
by written notice to Consultant, give notice of its intention to terminate this Agreement. After such notice, Consultant shall have ten (10) days to cure, to the satisfaction of the City
or its representative. If Consultant fails to cure to the satisfaction of the City, the City shall
send Consultant a written termination letter which shall be effective upon deposit in the
United States mail to Consultant’s address as stated below.
D. Rights upon Termination. In the event of termination, the City shall only be responsible to pay for all services satisfactorily performed by Consultant to the effective date of
termination, as described in the final invoice to the City. The City Manager shall make the
final determination about what services have been satisfactorily performed which decision
shall be final, binding and conclusive.
VI. Discrimination. In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any subcontract hereunder, Consultant, its subcontractors or any person acting on
behalf of Consultant shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, national origin or the
presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap discriminate against any person who is
qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates.
VII. Indemnification. Consultant hereby releases, covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and
representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, losses or suits including attorneys’
fees, awards or liabilities to any person, including claims by Consultant’s own employees to
which Consultant might otherwise be immune under Title 51 RCW, arising out of or in
connection with the Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City.
101
3 of 7
In the event of liability for any reason described above which is caused by or results from the
concurrent negligence of the Consultant (and his employees, agents and representatives) and the
City (and its officers, officials, employees, agents or representatives), each party’s liability shall
only be to the extent of its negligence. Such indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the
culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation.
The City’s inspection or acceptance of any of Consultant’s work when completed shall not be
grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. It is further specifically and
expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes Consultant’s waiver of immunity under Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of indemnification. This waiver has been
mutually negotiated by the parties.
VIII. Insurance. Minimum Scope of Insurance
Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1. Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned, hired and leased
vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA
00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary,
the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage.
2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form
CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent
contractors and personal injury and advertising injury. The City shall be named as
an additional insured under the Contractor’s Commercial General Liability
insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City.
3. Workers’ Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of
the State of Washington.
4. Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant’s profession.
Minimum Amounts of Insurance
Consultant shall maintain the following insurance limits:
1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily
injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident.
2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than
$1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate.
3. Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000
per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit.
102
4 of 7
Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for
Automobile Liability, Professional Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance:
1. The Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City.
Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City
shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
2. The Consultant’s insurance shall not be cancelled by either party except after thirty
(30) days prior written notice has been given to the City IX. Modification. No waiver, alteration or modification of any of the provisions of this
Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and Consultant.
X. Assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement by Consultant without the written
consent of the City shall be void.
XI. Written Notice. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the
parties at the addresses listed below, unless notified to the contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective as of the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and
shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement
or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing.
Notices should be sent to:
BHC Consultants, LLC.
Attn: William Hill
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101
The City of Medina
P.O. Box 144
Medina, WA 98039
Attn: Robert Grumbach
XII. Non-Waiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any
of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred in
one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of said covenants,
agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect.
XIII. Resolution of Disputes, Governing Law. Should any dispute, misunderstanding or
conflict arise as to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, the matter shall be
referred to the City Manager, whose decision shall be final. Any appeal from the decision of the
City Manager shall be to King County superior court. In the event of any litigation arising out of
103
5 of 7
this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be reimbursed for its reasonable attorney fees from the
other party. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Washington.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year above written.
BHC Consultants, LLC. CITY OF MEDINA
Craig Chambers, President Michael Sauerwein, City Manager
By ______________________________ By ______
Approved As To Form:
___________________________ Attorney for City of Medina
104
6 of 7
EXHIBIT A
SERVICES AGREEMENT
This confirms the agreement between the City of Medina and BHC Consultants, LLC for on call
building inspection services.
A. The building inspection services provided by BHC, will consist of the following and
which will be authorized by the CITY via telephone, on-line inspection request
notification or by email.
1. At the request of the CITY, the inspector shall be asked to perform one or more of the
following inspection tasks:
i) non-structural fire and life safety inspections
ii) structural inspections
iii) energy code inspections iv) barrier free inspections
v) mechanical & plumbing inspections.
2. Other on-call building services mutually agreed to between the City and the Consultant.
3. Inspector shall provide building inspections in accordance with the currently adopted
International Codes, Washington State Building Code (WAC 51-50 and 51-51), and
Energy Code (WAC 51-11), and the applicable City Building Codes, except that
inspector will confer with the Building Official or his/her agent on any portion of the
review that specifically requires an approval of the Building Official under the applicable Code(s), or that involves an unusual interpretation.
4. Inspections shall be done in accordance with applicable codes, ordinances and regulations
in effect and shall be performed in a courteous and professional manner. Up-to-date
records of inspection status shall be maintained on the job card in the field, on the office copy of the permit and in the City’s permit tracking system.
5. CITY shall guarantee a minimum of one hour of inspection-related work each day when
inspection services are requested and provided.
B. At such time and in such form as the City may require, the Consultant shall furnish
periodic reports concerning the status of the project, statements, certificates, approvals,
and copies of proposed and executed plans and claims, and other information relative to
the project as may be requested by the City.
1. The Consultant shall report to and work under the general supervision of the Director of
Development Services and the City Building Official or as otherwise directed by the City.
105
7 of 7
2. The Consultant shall neither subcontract any of the work, nor assign any rights acquired
hereunder, without obtaining prior written approval from the City.
C. The City shall have access to all books, documents, papers and records of Consultant that are pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts and
transcripts.
D. Payment:
1. The City agrees to pay the Consultant on a time and materials basis for services
performed in accordance with the following staff positions and hourly billing rates:
Classification Hourly Rate
Building Inspector (including mechanical, plumbing) $70
Plan Reviewer - nonstructural $130
Structural P.E. $150
Civil/site plan review (P.E.) $130
Principal Consultant (Building Official) $130
Administration Assistance $85
2. The hourly rate may be adjusted yearly, beginning January 1, 2014. Any such adjustment
is subject to the prior approval and acceptance of the City.
3. The City agrees to pay Consultant mileage for travel to and from locations necessary to provide the professional services set forth in this agreement. Mileage will be charged per current IRS rates.
4. All other direct costs and sub-consultants may be charged at cost plus ten (10) percent.
Other direct costs may include, but are not limited to:
• Out-sourced reproductions (printing, copying, mounting, etc.)
• Other out-sourced services pertinent to providing professional services
106
107
From:Aimee Kellerman
To:Michael Luis; David Lee; Patrick Boyd; John Maffei; Alex Morcos; Jay Decker; Curt Pryde (cpryde@medina-wa.gov)
Cc:Michael Sauerwein
Subject:Civil Service Commission Confirmation
Date:Friday, August 22, 2014 12:33:00 PM
Attachments:CSC Applicant - Becker, Dan.pdfCSC Applicant - Bell, John.pdf
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
During the September 8, 2014 City Council meeting the agenda will include appointment
confirmations to the Civil Service Commission. According to resolution, recommendations must be
presented to the full council at least ten days prior to the meeting.
The personnel committee met with two of the three Civil Service Commission applicants during the
week of July 28. Mr. Amandeep Kapoor was interviewed the month before for the Planning
Commission and the committee determined that he did not need to interview again to be
considered for the Civil Service Commission. Mayor Luis recommends the appointment of Dan
Becker and John Bell to the Civil Service Commission.
Amandeep Kapoor’s application will remain on file to be considered when filling a future vacancy.
Applications are attached to this message. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Aimee Kellerman, City Clerk/HR Manager
City of Medina
PO Box 144 | 501 Evergreen Point Road
Medina, WA 98039-0144
(425) 233-6411
akellerman@medina-wa.gov
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
ATTACHMENT 1
1
CITY OF MEDINA 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina WA 98039 425.233.6400 (phone) 425.451.8197 (fax) www.medina-wa.gov
MEMORANDUM
To: Medina City Council
From: Robert J. Grumbach, AICP
Date: September 8, 2014
Subject: Policy Direction on Tree Code
BACKGROUND:
To support the second phase of the Medina Tree Code update, the city conducted an
inventory and analysis of the tree coverage and a community outreach program to seek
public input. The results from the inventory show that Medina’s tree coverage is around 32.2 percent (excluding the SR 520), and that the canopy has decreased from the 36
percent shown in 2001. That is a 10.6 percent decline. The inventory also shows the
composition of the coverage consists of about 52.5 percent coniferous evergreens and
47.5 percent deciduous or broadleaf evergreens.
The results from the public outreach program indicated an overwhelming support for
property rights and property owners wanting to have choices about how to manage
trees on their property. In reviewing the comments, the primary concern seems to be
that the code is too limiting on giving property owners choices. The public comments
shared at council meetings previously focused on the replacement planting requirements and the requirements for the contributions to the Medina Tree Fund in lieu
of replacement plantings. It is worth noting that this concern about limiting choices was
similar to what we heard during the shoreline master program update.
BROADER POLICY QUESTIONS:
General:
At the beginning of the community outreach process, we asked a simple question:
Is the Medina Tree Code still on track on how we manage trees?
Although there are a wide range of opinions about the tree code, the majority of people
indicated that they did not feel the tree code was on track.
117
ATTACHMENT 1
2
To decide what track we should be on, it is important to have clear policy direction on what it is we want the tree code to accomplish. One of the challenges with the current
code as written is that it lists 14 purpose statements that are expressions of policy.
However, the policy statements cover a wide range of objectives and have no overall
unifying theme. This makes it difficult to know whether regulations that currently favors preserving large evergreens and a few deciduous trees implements what was intended with these policies, or to allow us to focus on what should be changed so the tree code
is on track with how the community wants to manage trees.
Policy Discussion: The following are policy questions for the city council to discuss and provide guidance.
The intent of these questions is to provide direction supporting possible code
amendments to the tree code.
1. Policy Question: Should trees continue to be an integral part of the city’s informal
character?
DISCUSSION: The Medina Comprehensive Plan establishes a goal (CD-G2) “To retain
Medina’s distinctive and informal neighborhood development pattern.” The comprehensive plan discusses this by stating that “Trees and vegetation help reduce the impact of development by providing significant aesthetic and environmental
benefits.” Included in the discussion is that citizens should be sensitive to the impact
that altering or placing trees may have on neighboring properties as they can disrupt
existing and potential vies and access to sun. The City’s arterial street rights-of-way should be heavily landscaped with predominantly native trees and shrubs arranged in an informal manner.
SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTION: Should the City continue to have a tree code?
DISCUSSION: Relating to the question about whether trees should continue to be an integral part of the city’s informal character is whether the city should continue to
have a tree code at all. If the answer is no, action should be to repeal the Medina
Tree Code. If the answer is yes to continue having a tree code, then additional
policy questions should be answered about the tree code and potential changes. 2. Policy Question: Should the tree code continue to apply to both the right-of-way and
private property?
DISCUSSION: The Medina Comprehensive Plan Landscape Plan focuses on historic trees and plantings in restricted right-of-way areas due to wires and views. These are located along major roadways of the city. The look and feel of the streetscape
along major roadways typically defines the character of the community. However,
the rights-of-way cover only about 10 percent of the land area of the city (excluding
SR 520), which means such purpose statements as “preserving and maintaining the
118
ATTACHMENT 1
3
existing tree canopy” and other purpose statements dealing with storm water, nature, and development practices listed in MMC 20.52.010 would no longer apply.
Tree code ordinances typically are categorized as either a Tree Protection
Ordinance or a Street Tree Ordinance. Tree protection ordinances primarily provide protection for native trees or trees with historical significance. They usually require that a permit be obtained before protected trees can be removed, encroached upon,
or in some cases pruned. A street tree ordinance primarily covers planting and
removal of trees within public rights-of-way. They include tree-planting
requirements. Medina’s current tree code includes elements of both. 3. Policy Question: What is the overall goal we want to accomplish with the tree code?
DISCUSSION: One of the challenges with the current tree code is that while it lists 14
purpose statements, it does not appear to have an overall unifying goal. Prior to 2003, the purpose expressed in the tree regulations was to retain significant trees in connection with property development. The present code evolved from this origin
and the question about what we want to accomplish is the key policy question if we
want to have a tree code. Additionally, having an overall goal is helpful because it
helps the public understand the reason for the regulations and allows better monitoring to determine if the regulations are working as intended.
SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS: The following questions add-on and are intended to
clarify the scope of the overall goal.
• Should the tree code regulations continue to focus on just the large trees and
the mitigation requirements; or
• Should the tree code be broadened to focus on the community’s urban forest
and sylvan character as a whole; or
• Should the tree code focus on something else?
One of the paradoxes of the current tree code is that while it aims to preserve
larger trees, its reliance on financial disincentives means it is more of a replanting
ordinance than a protection ordinance. Additionally, it is a legitimate concern that
as trees grow larger, they can become increasingly a nuisance to nearby structures.
Relating to the question about the scope of the tree code:
• Should we continue to focus primarily on evergreens, or should we include
more deciduous tree species.
The City’s tree coverage is about 52 percent coniferous evergreens and 48
percent deciduous types of tree species. Only about 35 percent of the native to
119
ATTACHMENT 1
4
the Puget Sound region deciduous tree species are included in the tree code. There are at least eleven other deciduous tree species not included in the
Medina tree code.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES POLICY QUESTIONS: Depending on the policy direction from above, the following are strategies and follow-up
policy questions relating to possible implementing regulations.
1. Establish performance standards. This should connect to the policy question of what is the overall goal we want to accomplish with the tree code. For example:
• If we want to focus on large trees, we might establish performance standards
such as requiring a minimum percentage of large trees to be preserved.
• If we want to focus on the broader urban forest, we might establish a minimum
tree landscape requirement such as minimum tree canopy coverage or minimum
tree density requirements.
DISCUSSION: Performance standards that correlate directly with the overall goal will
ensure that the purpose of the tree code is being accomplished. The current tree
code uses a mitigation approach to tree removal. This means we look at each tree
individually regardless of what else is on the property. A performance standard approach sets minimum requirements for the property as a whole and looks at the
tree removal in terms of meeting the performance standard. If the property is
delinquent in meeting the performance standard, more plantings are required. If the
property exceeds meeting the performance standard, plantings are not required.
SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS:
• Establish a timeframe. Because trees grow, performance standards should have
a timeframe under which they are evaluated. For example, if we want to require replacement of a removed tree, how should we judge the replacement – based on what the tree is today, what it might grow too in 5 years, 10 years, etc.
• Establish the parameters of the performance standard. What trees should be
included. Noting permit requirements, should the performance standards include 4-inch diameter, 6-inch diameter, 10-inch diameter trees, etc.? Additionally, what
species should be included? This should correlate to implementing the overall
goal.
2. Establish when the performance standards apply.
DISCUSSION: It is common in many jurisdictions to establish minimum landscaping
requirements with new development.
120
ATTACHMENT 1
5
SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS:
• Establish thresholds. Should the performance standards apply to all
situations or should it apply to new development and re-development only?
• Establish a timeframe for the thresholds if a development standard is used.
Because trees might be removed prior to and even post development, a
timeframe to count trees towards the development performance standards is necessary to avoid a loophole. Currently the tree code has a two and three
year timeframe before and after development occurs to count tree removals
as under development.
3. Establish performance standards when threshold requirements do not apply.
DISCUSSION: This should correlate to implementing the overall goal of the tree code.
While the majority of tree removals happen with development, trees are removed
when no development is occurring as well.
SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS:
• Do we want to have performance standards for tree removals when a
property is not under development? DISCUSSION: Performance standards for tree removal when a property is not
under development might focus on what is lost rather than meeting certain tree
landscape requirements. In the alternative, if the overall goal of the tree code
supports not requiring replacement, that is an option as well. An example of this approach would be that if we used tree density as a
performance standard, we might require a tree removal on a property not under
development to replace the lost tree density on a one to one ratio, or some other
ratio, depending on the overall goal of the tree code. If we wanted to create flexibility, we might offer a choice between meeting
prescriptive standards described above, or a descriptive standard that would
connect to the minimum tree-landscaping requirement for properties under
development. The idea is that a property exceeding the performance standards for tree landscaping could remove some trees without having to meet the lost tree density requirements.
4. Do we want to establish landmark trees?
DISCUSSION: Although there are no longer regulations relating to this, the Medina Comprehensive Plan Landscape Plan shows the location of historical trees within
the street right-of-way. Although the category considerations are slightly different,
121
ATTACHMENT 1
6
these trees have an extra degree of protection because they are considered to have special value to the community. They are only removed under specific conditions.
SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS:
• What criteria shall be used to designate landmark trees?
• Would the designation of landmark trees be mandatory or voluntary? DISCUSSION: Removal of landmark trees might only be allowed with a hazard or
nuisance tree designation. Relating to this is whether replacement might be
required and what these requirements might be.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Depending on the overall policies goals established above, if the scope of the tree
code was expanded such as counting more sizes and species of trees towards
meeting established tree-landscaping requirements, this means the requirements for permits also expands. If the “scope of the tree code on what counts” and the “what
requires a permit” do not align, it would force the city into using more costly
investigative enforcement actions to determine compliance. It could also run counter
to meeting the goals of what the tree code is intended to accomplish.
However, if prescriptive standards were adopted and we continue to allow for
administrative tree removal permits, the issuance of these permits can remain
relatively easy and quick. Currently, review times on administrative tree removal
permit applications that are complete takes only a few days to a week to finish.
2. The caliper size and height of replacement trees should be re-evaluated. The
science suggests that planting 1.5-inch to 2-inch caliper trees are preferred to
planting 3-inch and 4-inch caliper trees. A bigger tree size replacement is not
necessarily better long term because smaller trees usually adapt better to their new
environment. Additionally, the 3-inch and 4-inch caliper trees are much more difficult to find and have fewer species selections.
3. The hazard rating method should be updated to TRAQ. If the tree code shifts to a
minimum tree-landscaping standard, then the role of a hazard rating is greatly
diminished. This is because you still have to meet the minimum requirements regardless of the soundness of the tree. Where the hazard rating is important is
when a tree is not allowed to be removed, except under certain conditions. The tree
code today makes those conditions expensive replacement requirements. A
minimum tree-landscaping standard allows the flexibility for any trees to be removed
as long as the minimum standard in the end is met.
4. The Medina Comprehensive Plan has a policy against clear-cutting of property prior
to development (CD-P6). If a minimum tree-landscaping standard was adopted, it
122
ATTACHMENT 1
7
may be preferable to establish standards requiring a certain percentage of existing trees to be retained through the end of development.
123
124
Tre
CIT
Prepa
Prepa
e e Can
TY OF
ared for:
Attn: Rob
P.O. Box 1
Medina, W
ared by:
opy A
MEDIN
bert Grumba
144
WA 98039
Printed on 3
ssessm
NA
ach
30% recycled
m ent
M
d paper.
Medina Elementary 2014
ATTACHMENT 2
125
City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment
Tree Canopy Assessment
Tree Canopy Assessment for the City of Medina
August 2014.
The Watershed Company Reference Number: 140513
Project Staff:
Grace Bergman, GIS Analyst/Landscape Designer
Mike Foster, ISA Certified Arborist®/ Ecologist
Cite this document as Medina Tree Canopy Assessment
ATTACHMENT 2
126
The Watershed Company August 2014
i
Table of Contents
Page #
1 Introduction ..........................................................................................1
2 Methodology ........................................................................................2
3 Findings ................................................................................................6
4 Discussion ............................................................................................8
5 2002 Medina Tree Inventory Report ................................................ 11
6 Reference .......................................................................................... 12
ATTACHMENT 2
127
City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment
Tree Canopy Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 1. Study area is landward of the city boundary as shown in green.
Figure 2. Example of 30x30 meter grid overlay used in coverage classification.
List of Tables
Table 1 – Categories of trees with examples that make up the urban tree canopy in the
City of Medina.
Table 2 – 2012 Tree Canopy Inside City Boundaries
Table 3 – 2012 Tree Canopy Inside City Boundaries Excluding SR 520 right-of-way
Table 4 – 2012 by Land Use Categories
Table 5 – 2001 NLCD Tree Canopy Inside City Boundaries
Table 6 – 2001 NLCD Tree Canopy inside City Boundaries Excluding SR 520 right-of-way
Table 7 - Examples of typical tree heights within the City of Medina.
Appendices
ATTACHMENT 2
128
1
The C
prese
repla
imple
signif
main
and
polar
singly
they
and
views
own
In 20
Work
Ordin
policy
signif
contin
of tre
ortho
in tur
perta
Intro
City of Med
ervation of s
acement miti
ement po
ficantly to
ntaining a na
informal ap
rizing subjec
y, in cluste
provide a w
tangible be
s and access
tangible ben
012, the City
k on the tre
nance No. 9
y changes.
ficant chang
nued effort
ees in the com
oimagery is
rn helps staf
aining to tree
ducti
dina’s tree c
significant tr
igation as th
licy. T
the comm
atural, low‐d
ppearance.
ct. Whether
ers or in w
wide variety
enefits, but
s to sunlight,
nefits.
y Council d
ee code upd
909, which
The upda
ges reflectiv
to update th
mmunity.
easily replic
ff and the co
es in the com
on
code calls f
rees by usin
he primary t
Trees cont
munity’s go
density resid
Trees can
they are gro
woodland se
y of psychol
they can
, which have
directed an e
dates started
included h
ate then con
ve of still to
he tree code
cable and all
ommunity ev
mmunity.
or the
ng tree
tool to
tribute
oal of
dential
be a
owing
ttings,
logical
block
e their
effort to rev
d in early 20
housekeeping
ntinued wit
o be determ
started in Ju
The
the
repe
cove
estim
comp
ortho
effec
the
cond
mean
polic
sens
lows us to tr
valuate mea
view and up
014 and pro
g and mod
th considera
mined shifti
une and inclu
Watershed
City, dev
eatable meth
er using GIS
mate the city
position
oimagery.
ctive, timesa
entire com
ducting the
ningful info
cy direction
sing techn
rack canopy
sures to ach
Th
pdate the M
oceeded wit
derate revisi
ation given
ing commun
uded gather
Company, i
veloped a
hod for mea
S remote sen
y’s total can
using
This metho
aving mean
mmunity. T
e inventory
ormation su
n discussions
ology and
y changes th
hieve meetin
e Watershed CAug
Medina Tree
th the adop
ions not inv
to possibly
nity values
ring invento
n partnershi
an efficient
asuring the c
nsing techno
nopy covera
high‐res
od provides
ns of invent
The objecti
y is to p
upporting g
s. The GIS
d high‐res
hrough time,
g establishe
Company ust 2014
1
e Code.
ption of
volving
y more
. This
ry data
ip with
t and
canopy
logy to
age and
olution
a cost
torying
ive for
provide
general
remote
olution
, which
d goals
ATTACHMENT 2
129
City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment
2
2 Methodology
The purpose of this study is to assess the tree canopy coverage in Medina to: (1) set an overall
baseline measurement of the tree canopy in the City; (2) distinguish between two canopy
types (i.e., broadleaf versus coniferous as shown in Table 1); and (3) allow for tracking of
canopy coverage changes over time.
Table 1: Categories of trees with examples that make up the urban tree canopy in
the City of Medina.
Evergreen Deciduous
Broadleaf Pacific madrone, southern
magnolia, English holly
Big leaf maple, red alder,
ginkgo biloba
Conifer
Douglas‐fir, western red‐
cedar, western hemlock,
Ponderosa pine
Western larch, dawn
redwood
Several methodologies were considered for analyzing the area and makeup of the canopy in
the City. The objective of the inventory was to develop an accurate and repeatable method of
measuring urban tree canopy that is suitable for the scale and land‐cover characteristics of the
study area. Color‐infrared and multi‐spectral imagery analysis has been used to rapidly
calculate canopy cover in larger and highly urbanized cities like New York and Seattle (Grove,
OʹNeil‐Dunne, Pelletier, Nowak, & Walton, 2006). However, these methods do not easily
distinguish between tree types in suburban landscapes with mixed species and age, and
overlapping tree stands, and are somewhat costly. Aerial orthoimagery analysis paired with
ground‐truthing has been used in Portland and, in a more recent study, Seattle (Ciecko,
Tenneson, Dilley, & Wolf, 2012). The method of collecting preliminary canopy cover data
through “heads‐up digitization”1 allows analysts to quantify and qualify complete citywide
canopy efficiently according to the parameters of the study. Further, the abundance of recent
and historical geo‐referenced aerial imagery enables coverage comparisons using the same
assessment framework and classification. Digitized data was then selectively ground‐truthed
by an ISA Certified Arborist.
2.1 STUDY AREA
All land areas inside the jurisdictional boundaries of the City were considered for this study
(see Figure 1). Due to the size of the city and quality of the orthoimagery, 100 percent of the
land area was reviewed and analyzed using a heads‐up digitalization method.
_________________
1Manual digitization by tracing a mouse over features displayed on a computer monitor, used as a
method of vectorizing raster data.
ATTACHMENT 2
130
2.2
2.2.1
To c
appli
the o
resolu
distin
To en
asses
scale
this s
vario
_____
2Asse
incorp
Figure
STUDY
CURRENT
apture tree
ication to vie
orthoimagery
ution and c
nguish comp
nsure a cons
ssment units
for present
scale is suffi
ous age, heig
__________
essment grids
porated area a
e 1: Study ar
DESIGN
BASELINE C
canopy da
ew and estim
y at 0.25‐fo
clarity of the
position of d
istent evalua
s. Each 30‐m
t canopy cov
cient to be v
ght, and spec
_____
s covering are
and do not ha
rea is landwa
ONDITION:
ata from th
mate visible
oot resolutio
e imagery w
deciduous co
ation, we div
meter square
verage by ty
visually insp
cies.
ea along the ci
ave standard
ard of the cit
he orthoima
canopy on c
on from dat
were sufficie
ommunities b
vided the st
e grid2 was
ype (i.e., eve
pected for bo
ity boundary
sizing.
ty boundary
agery, GIS a
computer sc
ta gathered
ent to depic
before their
tudy area int
visually ana
ergreen vs.
oth stands o
were trimme
Th
y as shown in
analysts use
creens. King
d in the spr
ct canopy si
leafing‐out.
to uniform 3
alyzed at a
deciduous).
of trees and
ed to include
e Watershed CAug
n green.
ed ESRI® A
g County pro
ring of 2012
ize of trees
30x30 meter
minimum 1
. Orthoima
individual t
only the
Company ust 2014
3
ArcGIS
oduced
2. The
and to
square
1 to 500
gery at
trees at
ATTACHMENT 2
131
City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment
4
Where tree canopy overlapped between evergreen and deciduous species types, the
GIS analysts estimated a separation line so that no double counting of the tree canopy
occurred.
Areas of hard surfaces, open water, structures, bare ground, lawn, small shrubs, and
small manicured landscape trees were excluded from the counting of tree canopy. The
small manicured landscape trees are primarily topiary trees – rows of evergreen trees
trimmed in the shape of a hedge such as Leyland cypress or Portuguese/ English
laurel.
The GIS analysts tagged grids containing area obstructed by sun shadow or orthoimagery
post‐processing distortion for follow‐up. A total of 4,263 square grids were analyzed of which
147 square grids were identified requiring follow‐up field verification by an ISA Certified
Arborist. Of the 147 square grids, 99 of them were accessible from public streets and parking
areas. These grid sites were visited by the arborist and a GIS analyst who clarified
discrepancies in the orthoimagery. The remaining 48 grids were not accessible by the arborist
or GIS analyst due to trees being located on private properties or due to fences or other
barriers. These square grids were re‐analyzed by a different GIS analyst using the same
orthoimagery and the results from the second analysis were compared with the original
analysis to produce a conclusion.
Once canopy coverage and composition data were revised based on field input and secondary
analysis, individual square grid values are multiplied by respective square grid area and
summed to provide the City total canopy area by type.
2.2.2 LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT BASELINE ANALYSIS:
As with any remote sensing and rapid assessment method, a margin of error exists due to
data limitations and interpretation. Some detail is lost through rounding data to the size class
(as shown in Figure 2). It should be noted that since a sampling method was not employed,
no regression modeling was run to determine a numeric margin of error. One sampling year
was assessed for this study. Shadows cast from tall objects including tall conifers due to the
angle of the sun at the time the image was taken obscures some of the data. Although the
field inspection has verified most of the areas in question, grids that are inaccessible, such as
those located away from public areas or on private property, were not rectified in the field.
Additionally, the analysis was performed two years after the flight date of the orthoimagery
by King County, thus discrepancies between current conditions and those depicted in the
orthoimagery, such as vegetation pruning or removal, should allow for some error.
ATTACHMENT 2
132
The Watershed Company August 2014
5
Figure 2: Example of 30x30 meter square grid overlay used in coverage classification.
2.2.3 2001MEASUREMENT OF TREE CANOPY:
The 2001 tree canopy analysis was conducted using the “National Land Cover Database Zone
01 Tree Canopy Layer” (NLCD) created by a consortium of federal agencies including the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). NLCD analysis captured thermal signatures of tree
canopies by zones (Zone 01 is western Washington State) using Landsat 7 imagery at 30‐meter
unit. A percentage of the preliminary data was validated using 1‐meter orthoimagery. Based
on the margin of error produced by the 1‐meter validation, a regression model was run to
validate the assessment. Classification accuracy is estimated at 84.3 – 86.4 percent (NLCD
publication).
The geographical boundaries of the City of Medina require evaluation of ten 30‐meter units.
Each unit has its own values so the summarization of that data in this study is representative
of Medina.
2.2.4 LIMITATIONS OF NLCD:
Limitations of the 2001 tree canopy analysis can be found at the Multi‐Resolution Land
Characteristic Consortium website at http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k.asp.
ATTACHMENT 2
133
City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment
6
3 Findings
3.1 CURRENT ASSESSMENT
In sum, the City contains 287.72 acres +/‐ of tree canopy in April 2012. That is 31.9 percent of
the total land area mapped by GIS. Of the total tree canopy, 52.5 percent was determined to
be coniferous evergreen tree coverage consisting mostly of native Douglas‐fir, western red‐
cedar and to a lesser extent some western hemlock and non‐native to Puget Sound redwood,
Deodar cedar, Atlas cedar, and Leyland cypress.
The remaining 47.5 percent of the tree canopy is either deciduous or broadleaf evergreen in
composition. Deciduous tree taxa in the city are much more diverse than the evergreen
conifers. Some of the recurring deciduous tree species include the southern magnolia, bigleaf
maple, red maple, Norway maple, European birch, red alder, landscape cherry trees,
sweetgum and so on. The tables below summarize the results.
Table 2: 2012 Tree Canopy Inside City Boundaries
SUMMARY ACRES PERCENT
Land Area 902.13 100.0%
Evergreen Canopy 150.99 16.7%
Deciduous Canopy 136.73 15.2%
Total 287.72 31.9%
Table 3: 2012 Tree Canopy Inside City Boundaries Excluding SR 520 right‐of‐way
SUMMARY ACRES PERCENT
Land Area 887.59 100.0%
Evergreen Canopy 149.98 16.9%
Deciduous Canopy 135.97 15.3%
Total 285.95 32.2%
General land use shows a larger disparity across categories than is observed with canopy
type. Some of this is expected, as some uses are not conducive to more trees. Those areas
classified as City parkland have the highest tree canopy coverage at 42.6 percent – noting the
forested areas at Fairweather and the wetland‐wooded areas on the south side of Medina
Park. The thinnest tree canopy coverage occurs along the SR‐520 corridor at 12.2 percent.
Tree canopy coverage for schools, the golf course, and retail are well below the citywide
average at 14.9 percent, 15.2 percent, and 24.8 percent, respectively. Total area, tree canopy
acres, and the percentage of tree canopy for each general land use category are shown in the
tables below.
ATTACHMENT 2
134
The Watershed Company August 2014
7
Table 4: 2012 by Land Use Categories
SUMMARY LAND
ACRES
TOTAL
CANOPY
ACRES
PERCENT
Total City 902.13 287.72 31.9%
SR‐520 Canopy 14.55 1.78 12.2%
Golf Course Canopy 130.44 19.84 15.2%
City Parks Canopy 29.35 12.50 42.6%
Schools Canopy 21.83 3.25 14.9%
Retail (Green Store/ Gas Station) 6.19 1.54 24.8%
All Other Areas (Residential, PSE Roads) 699.77 248.82 35.6%
3.2 2001 ASSESSMENT
As noted in chapter 1, one of the goals of this inventory is to track changes in canopy coverage
over time. In response to tree clearing caused by new development, significant amendments
to the Medina Tree Code were adopted in 2000, 2003 and 2006. To assess how the tree canopy
today compares to the conditions at the time of these amendments, 2001 data was reviewed.
The tables below summarize the results.
Table 5: 2001 NLCD Tree Canopy Inside City Boundaries
SUMMARY ACRES PERCENT
Land Area 902.13 100.0%
Total Tree Canopy 323.69 35.9%
Table 6: 2001 NLCD Tree Canopy inside City Boundaries Excluding SR 520 right‐of‐way
SUMMARY ACRES PERCENT
Land Area 890.68 100.0%
Total Tree Canopy 321.04 36.0%
3.3 CANOPY CHARACTERISTICS AND CONDITIONS
Tree canopies come in all forms. Some tree canopies are tall and complex with sub‐canopy
and understory strata. Much of the City tree canopy, however, is composed of individual
landscape trees or large retained individual trees from past stands.
The City’s tree canopy is as diverse in its structure as it is in its biological variety. Tall stands
of trees with developed sub‐canopies and understory layers characterize some of the parks
and parcels within the City (see Table 2). Other parts of the urban tree canopy are formed by
singular trees contained in parking lots or within planting strips along avenues. Much of the
tree canopy, especially in the single‐family residential areas, is a mix of tall, medium and
shorter landscape species. Many of the tall conifer trees are likely remnant stands or
individual trees that have been preserved.
ATTACHMENT 2
135
City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment
8
Table 7: Examples of typical tree heights within the City of Medina
Strata Tree Height Species
Tall stratum 100 to 200 feet Douglas‐fir, black cottonwood, giant
sequoia
Medium stratum 50 to 100 feet Deodar cedar, big leaf maple, red
maple
Low stratum 15 to 50 feet Domesticated fruit trees, cascara,
southern magnolia
4 Discussion
4.1 MEDINA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Chapter 3: Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan discusses trees in‐
depth as a design characteristic of the community. The chapter states:
“The quality of Medinaʹs neighborhood development is distinct and enhanced by a
combination of natural and built features, including:
proximity of the lake shore,
views,
narrow streets with extensive mature landscaping, and
large tracts of public and private open space that can be seen from residential lots
and City streets.
Trees and vegetation help reduce the impact of development, by providing significant
aesthetic and environmental benefits. Trees and other forms of landscaping improve air
quality, water quality, and soil stability. They provide limited wildlife habitat and reduce
stress associated with urban life by providing visual and noise barriers between the Cityʹs
streets and private property and between neighboring properties. They also have great
aesthetic value and significant landscaping, including mature trees, is always associated
with well‐designed communities.
It is important that citizens be sensitive to the impact that altering or placing trees may
have on neighboring properties. Trees can disrupt existing and potential views and access
to sun. Residents are urged to consult with the City and with their neighbors on both
removal and replacement of trees and tree groupings. This will help to protect views and to
prevent potential problems (e.g., removal of an important tree or planting a living fence).
Clear cutting should not be permitted on a property prior to development.”
Furthermore, the comprehensive plan contains design characteristics of a landscape plan that
states the following:
ATTACHMENT 2
136
The Watershed Company August 2014
9
“The Medina Landscape Plan lists landscaping alternatives to perpetuate the informal,
natural appearance of Medinaʹs street rights‐of‐way, public areas, and the adjacent por‐
tions of private property. The Landscape Plan provides the overall framework for the
improvement goals and should be reviewed periodically and updated where appropriate.
This plan should be used to create landscaping arrangements, which meet the following
goals:
provide a diversity of plant species;
screen development from City streets and from neighboring properties;
respect the scale and nature of plantings in the immediate vicinity;
recognize restrictions imposed by overhead wires, sidewalks, and street
intersections;
recognize “historical” view corridors; and
maintain the Cityʹs informal, natural appearance.
4.2 TREE CANOPY COMPARISONS
According to studies conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest
Department (USDA), an estimated 35.1 percent of land areas classified as urban in the United
States contain tree coverage (USDA Report NRS‐62, June 2010). The coverage includes all
publicly and privately owned trees within an urban area – including individual trees along
streets and backyards, as well as standards of remnant forest (Norwak 2001, USDA Report).
The City of Medina, in 2001 had 35.9 percent tree coverage (including SR 520), which was
slightly above the national estimate. However, in 2012, Medina’s tree coverage was 31.9
percent, which is below the estimated national average.
The following summarizes the tree canopy coverage3 gathered on other Washington State
communities and shows where Medina’s tree canopy in 2012 compares.
Hunts Point 57% (2010)
Winslow, Bainbridge Island 42.0% (2006)
Mercer Island 41.0% (2006)
Covington 37.0% (2012)
Bellevue 36.0% (2006)
Kirkland 36.0% (2006)
Medina 31.9% (2012)
Shoreline 31.0% (2006)
Renton 28.6% (2006)
Seattle 27% (2006)
Sources: http://friends.urbanforest.org/Washington‐state‐tree ordinances/
http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/environment/trees.aspx
________________________
3The method used to determine tree canopy coverage could vary by jurisdiction.
ATTACHMENT 2
137
City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment
10
4.2.1 TREE CANOPY GOALS
While there appears to be no national recommended goals for urban tree canopies, the Society
of American Foresters has recommended for cities east of the Mississippi River tree canopy
goals of 40 percent overall and 50 percent for suburban residential. Several cities in
Washington State have adopted tree canopy goals summarized as follows:
Hunts Point: 60%
Winslow 35.0%
Bellevue 40.0% citywide, 50% suburban residential
Kirkland 40.0%
Seattle 30.0%
4.3 MEDINA’S TREE CANOPY
In reviewing the findings, between 2001 and 2012, the City lost about 36 acres of tree canopy
coverage or 3.99 percent. If we exclude the SR 520 right‐of‐way, the loss is about 35 acres or
3.8 percent. The loss of coverage occurred despite the significant disincentives for removing
larger trees in the tree code. There are likely multiple factors affecting tree canopy coverage in
the city.
At the top of this list is re‐development. From the beginning of 2004 through the end of 2012,
about 104 building permits for new single‐family homes were issued. Since the City is built‐
out with few empty buildable lots, the trend towards re‐development is to demolish the
existing home and replacing it with a larger home. This trend towards larger homes has been
supported by changes in the zoning code such as the 2008 amendment that went from using
net land area to gross land area to calculate the limits on structural coverage. If an average
Medina lot size of 20,989 square feet is applied, an estimated 50.11 acres of residential
properties were involved in redevelopment during this period. It should be noted that re‐
development is where the majority of tree removal permits are also required.
Other possible contributing factors could be gaps in the tree code regulations themselves. For
example:
Trees located within a building footprint that are less than 36 inches in diameter breast
height are exempt from replacement requirements. This means re‐development is
increasingly replacing green space with hardscape with no accounting for this loss.
After replacement trees are planted, the replacement trees are required to be preserved
only for two years afterward. This means years three and onward, until the tree
reaches 20 inches diameter breast height, there are no requirements to preserve the
tree.
ATTACHMENT 2
138
The Watershed Company August 2014
11
The 20‐inch diameter breast height threshold means many tree removals are not
required to be mitigated through replanting. A Douglas‐fir tree with a 20‐inch
diameter breast height is about 60 to 80 years old. (Note: forest trees tend to grow
thinner than urban trees, but urban conditions such as inadequate soils, damage and
topping can slow the growth rate down of a tree.)
The Medina significant tree species list contains only six deciduous trees as significant
tree species deserving mitigation for removal for those trees reaching the size to be
designated a significant tree. There are at least eleven other deciduous tree species
native to the Puget Sound region that are not required to be preserved because they
are not on the list. Yet, the city’s tree canopy coverage is about 47 percent deciduous.
Many of the deciduous tree species on the significant tree species list, such as the
Pacific Dogwood, the Vine Maple or the Western Hazelnut do not reach a significant
size in an urban residential context and therefore do not meet the requirements for
when removal would trigger requirements for mitigation.
Further contributing to the deciduous tree species limitations is the fact that the
availability of 3‐inch caliper deciduous trees is primarily limited to the Vine Maples
and Pacific Dogwood along with similar variations. Replacement trees such as the
hazelnut, native cherry or Oregon ash are not regularly available in 3‐inch caliper and
therefore are rarely replanted for mitigation purposes.
5 2002 Tree Inventory Report
In 2002, the city conducted a tree inventory of significant trees 24 inches in diameter and
greater on both public and private property. The study area covered properties north of SR
520 and totaled 111 properties (about 10 percent of the city lots). The inventory was
conducted using a different method than contained in this report. After providing notice,
data collectors went to the field and conducted physical inventories of individual properties.
The data collectors identified the targeted trees and GPS was used to record their location.
Although the inventory did include trees slightly smaller than the 24‐inch diameter trees
being targeted, the inventory was reflect of the efforts back then to focus on larger trees.
The results of the inventory found 690 trees over 19 inches in diameter. Of the 690 trees
inventoried, 27 percent were 19 – 23 diameter inches; 35 percent were 24 – 29 diameter inches;
17 percent were 30 – 35 diameter inches; 13 percent were 36 – 41 diameter inches; and 8
percent were 42 diameter inches and larger. The makeup of the trees found 83 percent were
coniferous – of these 62 percent of the coniferous trees were cedars, 30 percent were firs, and
the remaining consisted of larch, pine, redwood and sequoia trees. The inventory also noted
that 71 percent of the identified trees were in good health, 22 percent in fair health, and 5
percent were in poor health. (Otak report 2002)
While there were further plans to inventory the rest of the community, this did not occur.
ATTACHMENT 2
139
City of Medina Tree Canopy Assessment
12
Because the 2002 Tree Inventory Report used a significantly different method of inventory, it
would be difficult to draw a direct correlation between the 2002 report and this report so this
discussion of the 2002 Tree Inventory Report is provided for historical purposes only.
ATTACHMENT 2
140
The Watershed Company August 2014
13
6 Works Cited
Ciecko, L., Tenneson, K., Dilley, J., & Wolf, D. K. (2012). Seattle’s Forest Ecosystem Values;
Analysis of the Structure, Function, and Economic Benefits. Seattle: City of Seattle.
City of Medina. (2014, July 28). Chapter 20.52 Tree and Vegetation Management Code.
Medina, WA.
Dwyer, J. F., & Nowak, D. J. (1999). A national Assessment of the Urban Forest: An Overview.
Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters, 157‐162.
Grove, J. M., OʹNeil‐Dunne, J., Pelletier, K., Nowak, D., & Walton, J. (2006). A Report on New
York Cityʹs Present and Possible Urban Tree Canopy. South Burlington: USDA Forest
Service, Northeastern Research Station.
H. W. Lochner, Inc. (2013). Interchange Justification Report: I‐5/MARTIN WAY INTERCHANGE
and I‐5/MARVIN ROAD INTERCHANGE. Lacey: H. W. Lochner, Inc.
The Watershed Company. (2014). Tree Canopy Assessment for the City of Medina. Kirkland: The
Watershed Company.
Otak. (May 2002). City of Medina Tree Inventory Report: Phase 1. Prepared by Otak.
ATTACHMENT 2
141
The Watershed Company August 2014
Maps
ATTACHMENT 2
142
Original scale = 1:17,500 @ 8.5" x11" layout. Please scaleaccordingly.
Data Sources:City of Medina, The WatershedCompany. Foreground aerial: KingCounty, 2012. Background aerial:USDA 2013.
All features depicted on this mapare approximate. They have notbeen formally delineated orsurveyed and are intended forplanning purposes only. Additionalsite-specific evaluation may beneeded to confirm/ verifyinformation shown on this map.
CITY OF MEDINA
TREE CANOPY
ASSESSMENTYarrowPointHuntsPoint
Clyde Hill
LakeWashington
FairweatherBay CozyCove
MeydenbauerBay
Bellevue
92NDAVE
NE
L
A
K
E
WASHINGTONBLVDNE
NE 24TH ST
NE
1
S
T
S
T
NE 8TH ST
SR-520
NE 14THST
MAP 1
Overview Map
OHWM
City Boundary
Parcels (white)
Ü
0 0.2 0.40.1
Miles
ATTACHMENT 2
143
Original scale = 1:17,500 @ 8.5" x11" layout. Please scaleaccordingly.
Data Sources:City of Medina, The WatershedCompany. Foreground aerial: KingCounty, 2012. Background aerial:USDA 2013.
All features depicted on this mapare approximate. They have notbeen formally delineated orsurveyed and are intended forplanning purposes only. Additionalsite-specific evaluation may beneeded to confirm/ verifyinformation shown on this map.
CITY OF MEDINA
TREE CANOPY
ASSESSMENTYarrowPointHuntsPoint
Clyde Hill
LakeWashington
FairweatherBay CozyCove
MeydenbauerBay
Bellevue
92NDAVE
NE
L
A
K
E
WASHINGTONBLVDNE
NE 24TH ST
NE
1
S
T
S
T
NE 8TH ST
SR-520
NE 14THST
MAP 2
EstimatedEvergreen CanopyCoverage
Less than 5%
10% - 25%
30% - 50%
55% - 75%
Greater than 80%
Parcels (white)
Ü
0 0.2 0.40.1
Miles
ATTACHMENT 2
144
Original scale = 1:17,500 @ 8.5" x11" layout. Please scaleaccordingly.
Data Sources:City of Medina, The WatershedCompany. Foreground aerial: KingCounty, 2012. Background aerial:USDA 2013.
All features depicted on this mapare approximate. They have notbeen formally delineated orsurveyed and are intended forplanning purposes only. Additionalsite-specific evaluation may beneeded to confirm/ verifyinformation shown on this map.
CITY OF MEDINA
TREE CANOPY
ASSESSMENTYarrowPointHuntsPoint
Clyde Hill
LakeWashington
FairweatherBay CozyCove
MeydenbauerBay
Bellevue
92NDAVE
NE
L
A
K
E
WASHINGTONBLVDNE
NE 24TH ST
NE
1
S
T
S
T
NE 8TH ST
SR-520
NE 14THST
MAP 3
EstimatedDeciduous CanopyCoverage
Less than 5%
10% - 25%
30% - 50%
55% - 75%
Greater than 80%
Parcels (white)
Ü
0 0.2 0.40.1
Miles
ATTACHMENT 2
145
Original scale = 1:17,500 @ 8.5" x11" layout. Please scaleaccordingly.
Data Sources:City of Medina, The WatershedCompany. Foreground aerial: KingCounty, 2012. Background aerial:USDA 2013.
All features depicted on this mapare approximate. They have notbeen formally delineated orsurveyed and are intended forplanning purposes only. Additionalsite-specific evaluation may beneeded to confirm/ verifyinformation shown on this map.
CITY OF MEDINA
TREE CANOPY
ASSESSMENTYarrowPointHuntsPoint
Clyde Hill
LakeWashington
FairweatherBay CozyCove
MeydenbauerBay
Bellevue
92NDAVE
NE
L
A
K
E
WASHINGTONBLVDNE
NE 24TH ST
NE
1
S
T
S
T
NE 8TH ST
SR-520
NE 14THST
MAP 4
EstimatedCombined CanopyCoverage forEvergreen andDeciduous
Less than 5%
10% - 25%
30% - 50%
55% - 75%
Greater than 80%
Parcels (white)
Ü
0 0.2 0.40.1
Miles
ATTACHMENT 2
146
CITY OF MEDINA 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina WA 98039 425.233.6400 (phone) 425.451.8197 (fax) www.medina-wa.gov
MEMORANDUM
To: Medina City Council
From: Robert J. Grumbach, AICP
Date: September 8, 2014
Subject: Results from Tree Questionnaire
The following is the results from the tree questionnaire. We received 210 completed
questionnaires as of September 2, 2014 (about 7 percent return). The written
comments received were consolidated into one document and are attached.
1. What importance do these trees play in your overall view of Medina? Percent Selected a) These trees are very important. These trees should be protected, as we will never get them back; unless there is an immediate safety threat some trees should never be allowed to be taken down even if someone wants to pay a large amount for their removal.
7.6%
b) These trees are very important to our quality of life. More importance should be placed on keeping our tree canopy. Those who want to take these trees down should have to plant or pay a lot to replace them. 6.2%
c) These trees are important. We should do whatever we can to educate people about their importance, but not require so much for taking them down. If you have a good reason for taking a tree down, then paying for replacements seems fair. 7.6%
d) These trees add to our quality of life. However, we do not have to protect every one of them. Some of these trees could be removed without having to compensate for them. 26.7%
e) These trees are important. However, the value of being able to do what I want with trees on my own property is more important. We should not have to pay fees and we should not have to plant replacement trees unless we want too. 51.9%
2. Do you have any of the trees mentioned above on your property? Percent Selected
Yes 68.1%
No 23.7%
Not Sure 8.2%
3. Have you ever read or had direct experience with the Medina tree
code? Percent
Selected
Yes 83.3%
No 16.7%
ATTACHMENT 3
147
4. Do you agree with the current tree code policy? Percent
Selected
Yes 3.4%
Mostly yes, but there should be some trees that are never taken down, unless for safety concerns 7.7%
Mostly yes, but the replacement or payment requirements are too strong 14.5%
No 14.5%
Mostly no, but I agree with the idea of maintaining as many trees as we can without stepping on individual property rights 23.7%
Mostly no, but I think trees add a lot to our quality of life, I just don’t think this needs to be regulated 36.2%
5. What would you say if you were writing the policy on how we should
manage trees in Medina? Please briefly explain what you think we should do and why.
Percent Selected
Provided written comments 62.4%
6. What best describes how you feel about the current tree canopy (the coverage of land by trees and tree foliage) in Medina? Percent Selected
Not as good as it could be 7.4%
Just right 14.2%
We could live with fewer trees and not lose our quality of living here 43.6%
We could live with a lot fewer trees and still have a great quality of life here 30.9%
Other (please explain): 3.9%
7. Who should be responsible for preserving Medina’s tree canopy? More
than one answer allowed*.
Percent
Selected
Everyone should be asked to contribute to Medina’s tree canopy, but the cost to preserve it should come from those who take down trees 21.5%
Heavily wooded properties should be allowed to remove some trees without penalties 29.3%
Everyone should contribute to Medina’s tree canopy, but properties with few trees should be required to increase the number of trees on their property if they make significant changes to their site 7.8%
Property owners should be required to preserve trees that carry great significance, even if it requires them to carry the burden of preserving the tree 10.2%
Property owners should decide for themselves whether they want to contribute to Medina’s tree coverage 68.3%
*Note: the percentages are calculated based on the number of people who responded and not the
total number of boxes checked
8. Are there any other suggestions or information you would like to offer? Percent Selected
Provided written response 63.3%
ATTACHMENT 3
148
9. Which of the following best describes you? Percent
Selected
Medina resident and property owner 97.9%
Medina resident 2.6%
Medina property owner 3.6%
None of the above 0.5%
10. If this is not your first time completing this questionnaire, can you tell us what answers have changed and why Percent Selected
Not the first time completing the questionnaire 1.9%
ATTACHMENT 3
149
1
City of Medina
2014 Tree Policy Outreach
Comment Summary thru 8.15.14
1. Q5: For trees 5-10" DBH located on single-family residential properties: it should be relatively easy
to take down two of these trees per calendar year, and normally there would be no mitigation required (City should retain right to require mitigation if significant impact). For dead trees and trees
that are cracked, split, leaning or physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that the tree is likely to fall and injure persons or property and where pruning will not alleviate the hazard, there
should be a relatively easy process and less mitigation than required for trees removed for construction or landscaping. For trees 5" DBH or greater that are on property other than single-
family residential (ie, parks, public ROW, other city land, other non-residential land), or for trees on single-family residential larger than 10" DBH (or if they want to remove more than two per year),
removal should only be allowed for approved landscaping or development plans, and only if the applicant can show there will be no significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of
surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, and will have no significant negative impact on the character, aesthetics or property values of the nearby neighbors or
neighborhood, and the removal cannot be solely or primarily to provide or enhance views; also, the applicant should show that there are no other reasonable alternatives, and the City can require
alternate site plans, construction plans and landscaping plans that incorporate the existing trees-- and, in all cases, there should be mitigation. Finally, there should be a process for establishing Heritage Trees that would be subject to additional protections; a Heritage Tree on private property could be designated by or with the consent of the property owner, and a Heritage Tree on city
property could be nominated by any citizen and submitted to tree advisory board or parks board for recommendation to City staff or Council.
Q6: It worries me that even with a fairly protective tree code we had a net loss of canopy. One of
the benefits of living in Medina is the abundance of trees in the city- we live in an urban forest. Street trees beautify the City and soften the built landscape. Trees in parks and natural areas provide shade and wildlife habitat. Trees in our neighborhoods impart a sense of place and connection to the natural world. The urban forest as a whole adds to the livability and desirability of
the community. Trees are essential to the urban ecosystem, cleaning our air, helping rainfall infiltrate, cooling buildings and streets, and absorbing city noise. (Text borrowed from Lake
Oswego, but readily applicable to Medina.) Q8: You might take a look at Lake Oswego’s Code for alternate ideas. Also, the Morton Arboretum
near Chicago published this comprehensive article, which might have some good resources:
http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/61012/Urban-forestry-strategy_11-08-
2010.pdf/79f31e83-dd2d-4bd7-ad4b-a3969bbf5f20
2. Q5: Allow property right of freedom to keep safe of their property and allow the remove trees
without heavy mitigation and charges. Not to have new tree code to be in conflict of zoning ordinance of Chapter in views and sunlight. Allow hazardous score of above 7 to be removed.
Q6: I agree that public property can be high density and being taking care by the city. Residents
paid >million dollars should have a right to manage their trees and take out trees for safety and nuisance reasons without mitigation.
Q8: Let people take down trees for safety without requiring mitigation. To prevent falling, fire and
lightening are very important.
3. Q5: Everyone's idea of landscaping is different. Some may favor a harsh tree code but actually do not object to shrubs and small trees. I don't think there is a consensus that Medina should be a
forest with a few log cabins hidden within the forest. Particularly with removal of small numbers of trees, homeowners should be able to decide which trees are a problem and be able to remove a
ATTACHMENT 3
150
2
small number without a permit. Letting the city know what trees they removed within 90 days of removing the tree is ok, as long the process is not expensive. The limit could be 3-4 trees where no
permits would be needed.
Q8: The alternative to allowing a small number of trees to be removed without a permit could be a very long and detailed tree code that details several possible reasons (such as foundation damage,
obstructing a solar panel, damaging a driveway, etc.). However, there is a risk that the city council will not be able to predict every valid circumstance to removal of a tree.
4. Q5: I think property owners should have the final say in how they develop their property.
Sometimes large trees made sense and sometimes they don't. I think the fees charges are ridiculous and only the wealthy can even afford to pay them. I think if you specify exactly what trees
are important and why, then we'd be open to hear that, but the code as it is too complicated and far to expensive for homeowners.
Q8: I wanted one tree taken down because it obstructed my view of the lake. It cost far too much
money and time to do this. The requirements are crazy and the mitigation is even crazier. I had to plant 9 trees to take down the one. I think in the future I’d make sure I didn’t have big trees because
you make it so hard to change.
5. Q5: Allow homeowners to make their own decisions about trees on their property.
6. Q5: Why stop at trees? Why not tell property owners what plants and flowers they can and cannot have and where those shall be or cannot placed?
Q6: We have a whole bunch of overgrown trees that are breaking sidewalks, driveways, and probably also foundations. If a neighbor refuses to chop down a tree because of the tree code, is he
responsible when my driveway cracks or the city? What about when my foundation cracks?
Q8: The founding principles of this country are built on the rights of individuals to do what they
want when it doesn’t affect their neighbors. DO not make this into a socialist city.
7. Q5: Agree that the rules must be written to deter removal of large older trees.
8. Q5: The property owner and their wishes/intentions are the primary guidance. Maybe require
notification posting process to neighbors on adjoining lands for comment and collaboration only.
Exceptions may apply: right of way for city needs, view restrictions and covenants apply, any
safety issues. Fines/penalties would only apply to violation of exceptions.
9. Q5: A policy should just be an encouragement about the value we place on trees. This is not a
neighborhood with strict CC&Rs. We should not be dictating what people can and can’t do on
their private property so long as it doesn’t create a nuisance for neighbors.
Q6: Some trees here are TOO mature and pose a risk. We have roots that are uprooting sidewalks
and driveways, and possibly causing damage to foundations that people don’t even know about. If
it is demonstrated that someone didn’t take down a tree because of the policy and that causes
structural damage to a house, the city may be responsible for the damage.
Q8: The city should be in the business of ensuring safety and providing services. Not dictating how
we should live our lives – that should be up to our own individual conscience.
ATTACHMENT 3
151
3
10. Q5: The city could lower the mitigation payment somewhat for removal of large evergreen trees,
but the fee should not be lowered so much that these trees are not sufficiently protected. For
properties under development or more likely redevelopment, the threat of loss of these large
trees is greater. Here the mitigation requirement should not be lowered at all and there should be
an absolute limit to the number of large trees that can be removed on any project, regardless of
payment.
Q8: The large evergreen trees are very important to the appearance of Medina just as they are to
Hunts Point. They must be preserved. If cut down, they cannot be replaced in our lifetimes. A
property owner or developer should have to think long and hard before removing them and the
best way to cause that to happen is with a stiff monetary cost.
11. No comments.
12. Q5: A property owner should be allowed to remove a tree if he/she explains the reason: blocking
view, too much shade, hard to manage; needles and cones causing property problems, roots
disrupting driveway. There should be a fee if there is no reason whatsoever.
Q8: I don’t see how a monetary fee helps the tree canopy. Planting other trees could help but
paying a large sum doesn’t make any sense. There are some trees that really poorly affect living on
that specific property.
13. Q5: Permits and mediation are too costly. Some consideration should be given to the unintended
consequences when we require too many trees to be planted to replace just one tree.
Q8: We should not allow Leland Cyprus to be planted. They are used to develop a fence that is
higher than any allowed; they develop too much shade on their neighbors yards.
14. Q5: Regulations around determining if a tree is a public safety hazard is a little onerous on
property owners; paying arborist to inspect a tree yearly until the tree meets town’s criteria for a
damaged tree can be costly; if arborist determines that the tree has a limited number of years left
or will never recover to a healthy specimen, property owner should be allowed to remove tree.
Q8: Not sure what you mean by heavily wooded properties, are there that many in Medina?
15. Q8: There should be 2 different tree codes. One for residents who have been here for 15 to 20
years. The other for new residents and the ones who are just here for less than 10 years.
16. Q8: People aren’t spending $1m+ for property with the idea of devaluing it; respect their rights.
17. No comments.
18. No comments.
19. Q5: At first, I thought the tree code was good, but recently I read it in detail and talked with
people. The code is long and complicated. It adds costs where, in some cases, people should be
able to simply cut down a tree. There is no evidence that people hate trees and will flatten
everything n sight if there’s not a complex tree code.
ATTACHMENT 3
152
4
Q8: Make a less complex tree code. Amend the tree code so that a tree code only applies if you
are cutting down 5 trees or more. That will regulate developers, which is what most people are
concerned with.
20. Q5: Owners should be able to do what they want with the trees on their property and in their
right of way. Neighbors should be encouraged to work together to protect views. City of Medina
should eliminate their overbearing viewpoints regarding trees.
Q6: The current tree policy is overbearing and burdensome to owners and government. We pay
high prices for our properties, have endured height restrictions in order to preserve views, but
then the tree policy doesn’t coordinate with the preservation of views. IT actually works to
eliminate views. It needs to be changed.
Q8: Get out of the tree preservation business.
21. Q8: I purchased my home 9 years ago and I would like to remove some trees that have overgrown
and outlived their usefulness. I would like to make the landscaping mine and not have to live with
the plants that the previous owners planted. The trees are shading the lawn, flowerbeds and are
scraggly and unsightly. If I could remove some, I believe that my landscaping would improve the
look of my property and increase the value of the home.
22. Q5 & Q8: Memo made to Tree Committee on 6/30/14:
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS: Permit requirements to be maintained for all protected trees. Protected
trees defined as all evergreen trees greater than 20” DBH (excludes Leyland Cypress) and for all
evergreen trees greater than 10” DBH for properties under development as well as select
deciduous trees. Would not require a permit for removal of evergreen trees under 20” DBH on
properties not under development.
TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS/MITIGATION‐PROPERTIES NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION:
The goal is to provide a level of protection for Medina’s large conifers and select deciduous trees
that provides a meaningful disincentive to removal, but is not prohibitive and allows flexibility for
the homeowners.
‐ Two (2) replacement trees for each protected tree removed.
‐ The caliper of the replacement tree be 3”.
‐ The replacement trees become protected trees per the Beaux Arts Village code.
‐ Required contribution to the Medina Tree Fund for each protected tree removed:
Contribution calculated on 100% of the diameter inches of the removed tree. Eliminate the
sliding scale currently calculated on 125% and 200% of the diameter inches as tree size
increases. This will simplify the replacement requirement and be more easily understood.
$200 per diameter inch of removed protected tree up to 36” DBH.
‐ Limitation on removal of protected trees: No more than two (2) protected trees may be
removed in a five year period. This restriction balances the lowering of the replacement
requirements above and should prevent excessive protected tree removal. It also allows the
established homeowner flexibility in managing trees on his/her property.
TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS/MITIGATION‐PROPERTIES UNDER CONSTRUCTION:
ATTACHMENT 3
153
5
‐ The risk of numerous significant tree removals is high.
‐ The mitigation requirements including the required contribution to Medina Tree Fund might
not seem significant in relation to the costs of land development.
‐ Consider increasing the fee for significant tree removal greater than 20” DBH during
development or redevelopment to $400 per diameter inch plus the two tree replacement
requirement. Consider limiting the removal of significant trees greater than 20” that are
outside the building footprint, in light of previous finding that only 12% of significant tree
removals during construction were trees within the building footprint.
LANDMARK TREES:
‐ Suggest defining as a protected evergreen tree greater than 36” DBH.
‐ Increase replacement requirement significantly in an effort to protect these trees.
‐ Consider $400 per diameter inch of removed tree plus the replacement requirement of two
trees as above.
HAZARDOUG TREES:
‐ Would not change the established nationally recognized definition.
‐ The replacement adjustments above should permit a homeowner with a tree that does not
reach the 11 or 12 hazard level to remove the tree if the homeowner is truly concerned.
‐ Tree evaluation to be carried out by the Certified City Arborist for consistency and fairness to
all.
23. Q5: While I agree that trees enhance quality of life, so does sunlight, open spaces, views. In
addition, smaller, more manageable trees can provide better improvements in the quality of an
outdoor space than large trees where the canopy is well above eye level.
Q6: Large trees are not the only contributors to quality of life. Each individual has different
opinions on what brings improved outdoor quality. Smaller trees, sunlight, views, open space can
be equally important. Each individual should have the ability to decide what he/she wants on his
property.
Q8: If regulations are considered for trees then equal weight should be given for regulations
promoting open space (i.e., tree free space), sunlight.
24. Q5: I think individuals should be able to decide what they want to plant or cut down on their own
property. People should be able to have sunshine rather than having large trees block their
sunshine if they prefer it to the shade from these large trees. I also think people should be able to
make their own choices regarding their own trees because many of these large trees may pose a
safety hazard during bad storms. If people do not want large trees right next to their home, then
they should be able to make their own decision about that to do with their own property.
Q8: I think that there should also be a law to protect people’s view and people’s sunlight on their
own property. For example, Clyde Hill has laws to protect their view. A person cannot plant a large
tree and have it grow to obstruct another neighbor’s view. It is the same thing with obstructing a
neighbor’s sunlight. Please make sure when you write or update the tree laws that you take this
into consideration.
25. Duplicate of #24 above.
ATTACHMENT 3
154
6
26. Q5: I have been told that the tree code is a result of the owner of a blue house on Evergreen Point
Road cutting down a lot of trees 20 years ago. I believe that such action would be extremely rare.
The tree code creates unnecessary barriers and grief. (The intro says that Medina’s tree code has
met its objectives. I doubt that frustration and high cost is the city’s objectives. If it is, something is
very wrong with the city.).
Q8: The tree code should be abolished for a test period of 3‐5 years. If people really want some
kind tree code, then abolish the tree code if you cut down fewer than 3‐4 trees. After a 3‐5 year
period, there can be a re‐evaluation to see if Medina looks like downtown Seattle. I doubt it will
look any different from today, except some trees will be taller.
27. No comments.
28. Q5: Loosen up the code substantially. I have witnessed a previous councilwoman expressing the
opinion that anyone caught cutting down a tree should be put in jail. That seemed to be the type
of mindset that put these current measures in place. The Medina tree code could be the basis for
a great Saturday Night Live skit.
Q8: Re‐write the code to eliminate most of the current restrictions.
29. Q5: While trees are important, the citizens of Medina are fully capable of making decisions with
respect to trees on their property. The city should not regulate or restrict its citizens with respect
to the management of trees on the property of its citizens.
30. Q5: Property owners should be able to decide on their own how and when to manage trees on
their own property. While trees are important, the citizens of Medina are fully capable of making
decisions with respect to trees on their property.
Q6: Reading over Phase One Tree Code Update is taking a right step to compromise on both sides
of this issue. Current tree code is too restrictive on property owners.
Q8: City of Medina should have property casualty liability if it chooses to regulate trees on
personal property.
31. Q5: They want to build an 80 ft. cell phone tower. The reason is because trees have grown too
talk hurting reception. This is evidence that trees (at least the result of the Medina tree code) has
resulted in a worse quality of life. If this continues, we will need a dozen cell phone towers to
combat the trees. The tree code should be eliminated for 5 years and see if the town becomes one
concrete mass. I believe it will not. If it does, the tree code can be written again.
Q6: See above. The defacto restrictions on tree removal have resulted in cell phone companies
wanting to build tall towers. I used to be for the tree code until I learned that the restrictive tree
code has caused a worse quality of life by causing the cell phone companies to want to build more
towers because of trees. Recently, I’ve also heard of the problems it gives homeowners. The city
government is supposed to help people or be neutral, not be against people.
ATTACHMENT 3
155
7
Q8: Other cities that don’t have such a silly code are not barren of trees. People who live here are
not going to cut down trees. If you want to, you can give an annual award at Medina Days for
someone who planted a lot of trees on their property.
32. Q5: Let’s promote the idea of having as many trees as we can without stepping on individual
property rights.
33. No comments.
34. No comments.
35. Q5: Much more individual freedom not only for removal of hazardous trees, but also trees that
are highly undesirable like the ones destroying driveway and foundation, and also blocking
sunlight and views. I can handle a possible replacement policy, but not replacing with huge
expensive tree.
Q6: I love trees. They don’t have to be massive blocking out the sun. I should have some rights
over what I want on my property and not have someone else who may or may not have trees on
their property telling me I have to have trees on my property. No matter what, we will always
have plenty of trees here.
Q8: Very, very minimal regulation is ok, but the current system is highly regulated, very punitive,
restrictive, pick your adjective, I strong oppose it. We can’t afford to remove trees with the high
penalties while someone with more $ can remove all they want it seems. Damaging my
property/driveway? It should be simple to remove it. I live in fear of some others crashing into the
house.
36. Q5: Have a study done of the existing tree canopy by a professional tree expert, and review the
existing code to see if it supports the sustainability of our natural sylvan character and
environment. Then develop policies that are supported by science and/or best management
practices to maintain the health of our trees and the character of our city.
Q6: I like the existing tree canopy, but feel that it could be distributed more evenly around the
city and not put the onus on those property owners that have heavily wooded sites. I feel we
could have a better balance of wooded and open areas that achieve the goals of the city, balance
rules and property rights, and not have onerous penalties for taking down trees in already heavily
wooded sites.
Q8: Our tree code should be tweaked to recognize and balance property rights, view and sunlight
issues and maintaining Medina’s unique sylvan character and all citizens should be responsible to
sustaining our tree canopy either monetarily, by planting more trees, or?
37. No comments.
38. Q5: Safety should come first. If a tree needs to be removed before it falls and harms someone or
causes property damage, then there should be no penalty for removing it.
ATTACHMENT 3
156
8
39. Q5: We don’t want clear cutting, but selected tree removal should be up to the property owner. If
you want trees, grow them on your own property or move to Bridle Trails and live in its dark cave.
The Seattle area is dark enough as it is in Nov‐March.
40. Q5: Need to better differentiate for sub‐standard lots.
41. No comments.
42. Q6: Tree canopy should not be at the expense of property owners.
43. Q5: Remove the tree assessment process entirely; replace it with tree codes of max removal of 2
trees per year, with no fees. Or adopt Bellevue, Clyde Hill tree codes.
Q6: The trees are over population, which does not provide the healthy growing environmental
they need, nor does it provide the quality of life the citizens want.
44. Q5: Healthy old growth trees should be protected. Past planted Developer/poorly grouped tree &
now overgrowth landscaping/non‐native trees should be allowed to be removed with no city
charges or replacement required. Safety is an issue and overgrowth is a big problem in Medina
with too many rotting overgrown moss causing instances that need to be addressed.
45. Q5 & Q8: We like the policy as now written. Approval by Medina’s arborist should continue to be
required, but perhaps loosen the “safety/risk” benchmark for approval to 9 or 10 points instead of
11‐12 points. People who remove trees for safety reasons are different than removing them to
build bigger houses, put in more asphalt, etc.
46. Q5: Remove the fees completely. Dramatically reduce the replacement requirement.
47. Q5: I love trees, but safety and protection of property should trump “tree rights”. Citizens should
be encouraged to have trees on their property. However, unless specific trees are truly
irreplaceable, government has no place in trampling over property rights.
48. Q5: Some large native trees have taken decades or more to reach their mature size and
appearance; they are essentially irreplaceable and removal of such trees should be very limited
(public safety, threat to integrity of existing home, etc.) However, the current code seems to
include smaller trees that may even be considered weeds in other context; it should be less
onerous to remove those trees than it is to remove a majestic big old tree.
Q6: We moved here in part for the semi‐rural feeling that the many large trees provide.
Q8: People can and should learn the limits of developing a particular piece of property before
they acquire it. Tree codes are only part of that process, and they are an important part in the
preservation of the unique character and high property values of this city. Property buyers in
Medina are reasonably sophisticated and relatively wealthy. Such buyers are not overly burdened
by requirements that the value of trees that pre‐date their arrival in the neighborhood be
considered in their renovation plans.
ATTACHMENT 3
157
9
49. Q5: What is the price for preventing injury or property damage for your family? I should be
allowed to remove potentially dangerous trees.
50. Q5: Significant trees shall not be removed until they are causing damage to the houses. Significant
trees take years to row and cannot be simply replaced by young trees. We shall try our best to
preserve them.
Q8: Trees made Medina. No trees, no Medina.
51. Q5: I own and manage Crystal Mountain ski area and therefore manage 5,135 acres of forest land.
Trees need to be able to be managed by homeowners as needed. Hazard trees need removal
quickly and without fees. IMPROVE city’s initial landscape plan oversight. Many owners have NO
IDEA what and where they are planting trees (redwoods 20 feet apart) or the eventual coverage.
My neighbor planted way too many trees—an unhealthy jungle and now at 86 is unable to
manage them age or cost wise. How does a 1:1 replacement solve this? Go case by case so forest
coverage, safety and aesthetic are account for. As always under heavily restrictive policy using
fees as the tool, it favors wealthy who can afford to pay to do what they want. Do we really see,
non‐statistically, a difference in tree cover in Medina vs. Bellevue? Unfortunately, I don’t.
Q6: Some lots are overgrown, some not; lots of inappropriate trees for a given lot. I don’t see a
material difference in feel for the tree clover in Medina vs. other surrounding towns. I think that’s
a final judgment of the current policy. As a lakeside community views of the lake are of value and
part of the quality=to trees.
Q8: As mentioned, I manage a large area of heavy forest. Medina’s trees need case by case
management. I appreciate the aggressive commitment to trees here; however, we have
residential lots that NEED a lot of trees removed without any replacement at all. Aesthetically, it’s
a lakeside community, lake views are my personal priority over trees. A closed jungle with no open
view is not what I want. What I personally notice on my many walks thru the community is the
oppressively large hedges which property have more view blocking influence on the community
feel than anything and are apparently not covered by any codes at all.
52. Q5: Homeowners need to maintain some, but not all, of the significant trees on their property.
Homeowners should be able to trade significant trees for other natural mitigation, such as
removing bulkheads. Monetary penalties only favor the wealthy citizens.
53. Q5: Start over. Trees grow. These trees are not that old. I planted some myself that I cannot cut
down now.
54. Q5: I would be opposed to “clear cutting” a property. However, the current code is onerous and it
prevents a citizen with modest means from caring for their property and the safety of their family
and neighbors.
55. Q5: Trees are an inherent part of one’s individual property rights and should be maintained at the
owner’s discretion with the best interest of aesthetics and value to nature.
Q6: There is WAY TOO MUCH emphasis on Medina being an “Arbor City” and the quantity of trees
without value to the quality of the trees that surround us. Many of our city’s trees, especially on
ATTACHMENT 3
158
10
Overlake Drive are overgrown and unsightly. Healthy and happy trees = healthy and happy
residents.
56. No comments.
57. Q5: Limit city code activity to publicly‐owned land lonely. Private property rights are important.
58. No comments.
59. Q5: I respect Medina residents. The ones I have known are smart, caring and love the quality of
life that includes the trees. Study the codes of the neighboring towns. There are just as caring folks
living there as there are in Medina – and see how they manage with their less restrictive rules.
Please also note that the replacement costs appear outrageous and please realize that not all folks
in Medina are rich.
60. Q8: I am proud to be living in Medina area for the trees here. Without those trees, Medina is no
longer Medina. I feel my heart crying when I see neighboring cities cutting down their significant
trees, and I don’t want to see that happen here.
61. Q6: Removing all the dying poplars (?) along 84th really changed the feel of that boulevard. That is
the type of canopy we want to strive for.
Q8: The second box in number 7 is ambiguous since “Some” trees is open to opinion regarding
how many is too many.
62. No comments.
63. Q5: A property owner should be able to plant or take down any trees they choose without
penalty or oversight by the city.
Q8: Let the property owners decide how many trees they would like on their property as long as
the property is taken care of.
64. No comments.
65. No comments.
66. Q5: Allow removal of large trees that cause a nuisance (huge amounts of leaves on roofs for
example). Don’t favor certain species or certain types of trees (for example, large evergreens).
Encourage lots of greenery and green spaces, but not necessarily large trees.
Q6: I like trees but don’t think large evergreens are very suitable for residential areas, and
especially not right next to houses. Not particularly attractive and cause dangers and nuisance.
Q8: Simplify the code. Use positive incentives instead of negative ones.
ATTACHMENT 3
159
11
67. Q5: I would encourage residents to have trees and maintain them consistent with the overall goal
of maintaining the value of their property. Homeowners will not do unnecessary harm to their
trees because trees properly placed and maintained enhance the value of the property.
Q6: I like trees. People are planting them all the time. Some parts of Medina are a bit overloaded
with big trees. For example, my neighbor planted a lot of trees 25 years ago. Now they are very
large and are far more than the privacy screen it intended. Many should be taken down and
others trimmed. He should have the option to do what is best without a lot of extra cost and red
tape.
68. Q5: Trees which are dead, dying or a potential danger to humans or property can be removed.
Q6: The current canopy restriction is too oppressive and unrealistic; i.e., cotton woods or other
“voluntary” trees.
69. No comments.
70. No comments.
71. Q6: It’s not so much if we have the “right level” of canopy; I do believe it to be subjective
depending on the needs and requests – example of which is noted in Question 8.
Q8: We live on 84th Avenue today, but before we lived on Overlake Drive East and had (still there)
a Redwood on our property whose roots were breaking up part of our house foundation – as
much as LOVE trees, situations like these should allow residents to take action without penalty.
72. Q5: A property owner should be able to manage their own property without huge fines being
imposed. If trees are causing a problem…too crowded, affecting the roadway, etc., it should be OK
to deal with them without having to pay or replant.
73. Q5: We should make property purchasers aware of the tree code up front. People are buying
property with a view to cutting large trees and should know they cannot do this.
Q6: I love the feeling of the trees in the city. I live on Evergreen Point Road and love the trees
along the road.
74. Q5: There is no public interest in private property trees, except in the event of safety or impact on
neighboring properties. Some people move to Medina because of the views of water. The city
should not reduce the value of those properties by making it more difficult for property owners to
remove trees.
Q6: This is a city. IT’s not a park.
Q8:This is not a socialist or community country. Medina is a residential area and not a park. The
tree code is appearing to become too onerous on property owners and will cost Medina more
money to try to enforce. If the city wants to promote canopy, it should do so in its parks and right‐
of‐ways – not by tying a noose around property owners.
ATTACHMENT 3
160
12
75. Q5: Trees within the public right‐of‐way are public property and the city may regulate the
maintenance and removal of these trees as it sees fit; provided, however, the city shall be strictly
liable for any damages resulting from their failure to maintain trees in the right‐of‐way. Trees on
private property belong to the property owner and the property owner should be free to maintain
or remove these trees as they see fit. When property is redeveloped, the city may reasonably
regulate landscaping requirements relative to development impacts, including the trees.
Q8: Incentives (e.g., tax incentives, development credits, expedited permitting) are often better
means to promote a designed outcome than regulations. Also, in this area, native trees grow
quickly and you might find that regulation that promotes the planting of more (but smaller
inexpensive trees) will keep our city green for future generations. Finally, any restrictions on tree
removal applied to private property owners should also be applied to the City, with few if any
exceptions.
76. Q5: Trees on my property should be within my own control. Also, there should be valid reasons
for removing trees, either for safety or risk of damage to general/excessive unnecessary home
maintenance (ex., gutter clogging, fallen branches risking other property damage).
77. No comments.
78. Q8: If preserving trees is a community goal, the community should pay for it also.
79. Q5: Property owners should have the power to do what they want on their own property without
any interference or penalties levied against them.
Q6: Quality of life is in the eye of the beholder, having trees or not will not determine ones quality
of life.
Q8: Property owners should also have the choice of whether they want to add or remove trees
on their own property. Furthermore, the size of trees on personal property and whether to
remove it should be the decision of only the property owner. They should also have the choice of
whether or not they want to contribute to public gardens.
80. Q5: Let me do what I want with my trees.
Q8: What is going to be done about the cottonwood infestation?
81. Q5 & Q8: Our lot is heavily wooded. We have a sick tree whose trunk is so soft that the tree
trimming people will not climb it. However, it is not sick enough to warrant taking down without
penalty, even though it is right next to our driveway. If we were to take it down, right now we’d
have to plant thirty 3 inch diameter trees. We have so many trees on our lot already; we don’t
have room to plant 30 more! I would like the code to reflect some kind of credit for lots with many
old‐growth trees like we have.
82. Q5: Stop at pre‐1990 code. Leave private property alone. It is very expensive to buy a home/lot in
this town. Owners should be trusted to invest with their own tastes and wisely. I was on the
council prior to 1990 and we were NOT willing to go onto private property. I am at a loss to see
ATTACHMENT 3
161
13
the timeline making no (explicit) mention of the fact that unless a deciduous tree is a northwest
native you do NOT need a permit to remove it.
Q6: I have lived in this area since 1949. The great views so many loved are mostly gone. Trees
grow fast in this area. Good sense says owners deserve to be trusted for their plant decisions.The
home on Evergreen Point that started the whole restrictive tree issues in 1990 cannot be seen
today. They planted trees!
Q5: Who is to decide what tree carries “great significance”? Nearly every tree in Medina and
beyond was cut by 1910. While a big tree may be admired by a passerby or neighbor, they aren’t
paying for the shaded and viewless lot the owner is forced to content with. Right‐of‐way is the city
property; but this too should be allowed to be landscaped in a way complimentary to the adjacent
property owner’s wishes. Property owners pay a lot to live here, trust them
83. Q6: The Medina Code recognizes the value and propriety of maintaining a property’s historical
view. Trees naturally grow, and take way those views over time. It should be permitted and
encouraged that such trees be removed, or “windowed” as necessary to preserve the views. The
growth of such trees is evident in the historical aerial photos located in the City Hall library.
84. Q5: Its beautiful tree canopy is one of Medina’s unique and desirable characteristics. Its tree code
should include meaningful disincentives to removal of significant trees. “Disincentive” is a relative
term in a community with many wealth citizens; for some no amount would be too high. The
growing number of “spec” homes with loss of canopy is also concerning. If there is demonstrated
demand for change in mitigation, perhaps we should consider a sliding scale based on property tax
or percentage of the property’s current tree canopy. Otherwise, the current mitigation guidelines
may be working for the majority and should remain as they are.
Q6: When visitors come to Medina, they always comment on how beautiful it is and how private
it feels. In many ways, it is as if you have left the urban region. It is our tree canopy that makes
that impression.
Q8: Any changes to the tree code should be thoroughly studied and weighed regarding
unforeseen consequences. Replacement of significant trees requires a generation of growth. Trees
help us save energy, improve the quality of the air we breathe, stabilize our soils, provide
protection from winds and increase the value of our properties.
85. Q5: The code should mostly remain unchanged. However, mitigation should be substantial, but
proportional (e.g., fines as a percentage of annual property tax, existing tree density on the lot, lot
size). The diameter specifications should remain unchanged, and there should continue to be a
deterrent to removal of larger and old‐growth trees. Replacement requirements should take into
consideration potential for long‐term overgrowth.
Q6: No changes to the tree code should be made that would ultimately result in reduction in the
total canopy.
Q8: We might consider a “bank” for tree credits, similar to the carbon‐trading tax. Heavily
wooded lots could use their credits down to a certain level before fines are imposed; sparsely‐
ATTACHMENT 3
162
14
covered lots would have to mitigate or “pay into the bank” for large tree removal. Total canopy
could thereby be preserved.
86. Q5: There needs to be a consistent, explicit tree code for land being affected by new
development or new additions or remodeling which impact trees on the property. However, there
needs to be a simple, less onerous, more flexible code for current residents and established
homes. The current one is too complicated, too costly and too unmanageable for both residents
and city employees. It is costly enough to remove a tree without having large permit fees and such
high mitigation costs as under current code.
Q6: Many homes in Medina have older, established trees that may need removing or trimming.
Driving around town, there seems to be a lot of trees. Perhaps attention should be paid to
removal of nuisances, i.e., cottonwoods that are a mess and not stable.
87. Q5: It’s up to the property owner to do what he or she thinks is the right thing to do, no
regulations.
88. No comments.
89. Q5: Trees and greenery are important, but so is individual lifestyle, choice and views. I do not
believe there are trees in Medina that are first growth. All have been replanted. Some are native
varieties, most are not. But, all can be replaced as well. The important should not be on just native
evergreens and height. Consideration should be made for trees or foliage that add greenery, but
may not add height or can be easily maintained at a reasonable height. We live in Medina Heights,
which has a considerably shorter building height restriction supposedly to protect views from our
homes. But still we are held to the same tree regulations which promote large evergreen trees
that remove our view every year. Many neighbors in and below Medina Heights are more than will
to cooperate with each other to help maintain views by trimming or removing overgrown trees.
But Medina’s process is so difficult, expensive and laborious that the trees blocking views get
larger every year. Consideration should be made for tree removal and extensive trimming for
views in and below Medina Heights. Trimming is a brief band‐aid which lasts about 1 year with the
large evergreens though. Clyde Hill has addressed removal and extensive trimming of trees that
block views. The approach they have taken is certainly more reasonable from both the city and
homeowner’s perspective.
90. Q5: As a responsible citizen of Medina and a taxpayer, I feel I have the right to cut trees and
replace them as I choose to enhance the beauty of my property.
91. Q5: The policy is too strict and favors the city of Medina while placing unfair restrictions on
homeowners’ rights. It places an undue economic hardship on the homeowner – mitigation
standards are excessive. The policy should be more in line with the policies of other local towns.
Q6: I do not think homeowners are going to rush out and deforest their property with a change in
policy. Current policy makes it nearly impossible to modify one’s property without having to
replant a forest or pay excessive fees to the city of Medina.
ATTACHMENT 3
163
15
Q8: Please listen to your citizens and consider the fair policies of cities in our area. I love trees but
consider the current policy completely one‐sided, unfair and primarily benefiting the City of
Medina.
92. No comments.
93. Q5: First, I would try to get agreement on what the vision is for the community. Sylvan or
suburban? I believe that the vision as expressed in the Comp Plan and the current tree code is
“sylvan” but as our community is changing perhaps the vision is changing. Second, assuming the
community still supports a sylvan environment, I would try to write a code that would give people
valuable incentives to preserve and/or plant trees. Currently, there is a sense that the tree code is
punitive. Judging from the sound of chainsaws on the weekends, people are choosing not to
comply. Could it be that the more onerous provisions of the current tree code are actually creating
a disincentive to compliance? Third, if I were unable to devise a workable scheme of incentives, I
would nevertheless redraft the current tree code to make it less burdensome on homeowners.
Reducing the required payments into the tree fund and/or the number of replacement
trees/inches for mitigation might be a place to start. Finally, as much as I support property rights
and would like to believe that tree preservation may be left up to individual pretty owners and
they will “do the right thing” – sadly, what I have seen happen in Medina over almost 30 years
suggests otherwise.
Q6: Looking at the aerial photographs of Medina over the years there is no denying that we are
losing tree canopy from decade to decade (post‐forming era).
Q8: I have sense that there is a “rush to judgment” regarding the current tree regarding the
current tree code and a lot of pressure on the City to make changes to it right away. I think the
tree code could definitely be improved but it may need more in‐depth analysis and study, as well
as expert advice as to what the likely consequences are of the proposed changes. It seems
unrealistic to think a revised tree code can be hammered out in a few meetings or over the course
of a summer. My suggestion would be to remain calm under the pressure and proceed in a
deliberate and methodical fashion to craft a well‐balanced and environmentally responsible tree
code, no matter how long it takes.
94. Q5: Trees are nice but the current code is so punitive that it makes it impossible to follow.
95. Q5: Give the people back their property rights, your land, your trees.
96. Q5: Simply follow Clyde Hill and no code necessary.
97. Q5: Fees should not be attracted to the process. If a homeowner wants to have a tree taken
down, it is his/her decision.
98. Q5: I think that trees that are diseased or dangerous should be removed without consequence or
penalty to property owner. For other trees that need to be removed for increased view or sunlight
or development, I feel that the fees charged should be in line with our neighbors – Hunts Point,
Clyde Hill, etc.
ATTACHMENT 3
164
16
Q8: I think that a survey should not be slanted. A. 7 above does not adequately provide all
options.
99. Q5: Large trees whose roots help hold high banks are more important to protect than trees on
level ground. However, owners of high‐bank property should be able to en enjoy their views.
Where a large tree obstructs a view but also stabilizes a bank, it is fair that bank owners pay for
alternate methods of bank stabilization.
100. Q5: Process shouldn’t be as time consuming or expensive. People should be encouraged to keep
trees if they are healthy and not a safety risk but there needs to be reasonable exceptions to
policy.
101. Q5: We should consult the tree codes in Hunts Point, Clyde Hill, Yarrow Point and similar
residential areas in Seattle like Washington Park and Madison Park and a draft a tree code similar
to the ones in those communities. The rights of homeowners to provide a safe and pleasant home
environment with plenty of light in our dark climate should be paramount.
Q6: Trees grown quickly here and many evergreens in our community are 80‐100 years old, and
are now too large for the spaces they were planted in originally. Sensible management and
replacement of overly large trees is a good idea. Trees can be an asset to a community but not
when they become too dense and large, which make it seem as if we are living in a forest setting.
Q8: People who live in Medina are thoughtful, educated and environmentally conscious. They can
be trusted to preserve the natural beauty of Medina without heavy regulation from the City and
exorbitant fees.
102. No comments.
103. Q5: If there are very strong safety or well‐being of the tree and/or neighboring tree reasons,
taking down a tree should not be impaired with undue costs and other restrictions.
104. Q5: Mitigation costs are too high and there should be no mitigation cost for diseased trees
(definition of diseased trees needs lightening up down to 8 or 9). Replacement requirements are
ridiculous – some trees should be replaced but not at the current requirements – having to plant
so many trees to replace one is impractical on most properties.
105. No comments.
106. Q5: 1) There should not be any mitigation fees for removing trees. 2) For really good trees ((such
as very rare species trees), we require owner to plant at least 2 replacements in their own
properties or public properties or other home properties (upon the other homeowner
agreement).
Q6: The mitigation fee part has gone too far for people to afford it. I believe 99% people love
trees and do not intend to remove them if there is no issue. We can require people to plant more
tress, but planting 50+ trees while removing one tree sounds not right to me.
ATTACHMENT 3
165
17
Q8: We can have a tree planting day for the city, to have people volunteer for planting trees on
the park, side of road, etc.
107. Q5: What, and start a riot?
108. Q5: Require 2 replacement trees (of smaller size) for every tree larger than 10 inches take down.
Require saving existing large trees during new construction unless under the footprint of the new
house.
Q6: New construction has taken out more trees than necessary and done too few replacements.
109. Q5: Trees on private property are private property not public property. We should have the right
to remove, plant, or rearrange our landscape without governmental oversight and large fines. I
believe that the current policy places the city in a situation where they could be liable to large
fines that all of us would have to pay. Your current policy would encourage me to cut young trees
so they do not create a potential future liability and for me not to plant trees. If you have a policy
you would like the citizens to participate in, you should use incentives (as most governmental
policies do) and not taxes and penalties.Your current policy basically states that you cannot trust
the citizens to make the correct choices on what trees they want to keep or remove. But you trust
them to elect you! I believe that you will have a very nice tree canopy without stepping on
individual rights and letting your citizens make the decision themselves. If you don’t trust your
citizens to make the “correct” decision, then require a minimum number of trees (i.e., board feet)
per acre. Then let the citizens decide where they want the trees and which ones represent a
liability to their family or their neighbors.
Q6: I don’t believe this is a fair question. The current law does not address the desired canopy; it
just addresses the fine for removing trees. You also don’t have any idea of what the canopy would
be if the citizens had a free choice as opposed to fines plus required behavior. The choice is not
really more or less trees, but rather do we have a free choice of what kind of trees we can have on
our property. And although you would like to link trees with quality of life, that is a very small
variable in the quality of life; otherwise we all would be living in rural King County on 10 acres
surrounded by trees.
110. Q5: Residents should be able to manage their own trees.
111. No comments.
112. Q5: Basic idea should be to require review/permit for any trees of certain types and over certain
sizes. Permits should only be issued if there are safety issues or the action involves thinning as
opposed to clearing out.
113. Q5: Diseased trees should be treated at owner’s expense, removed if necessary to prevent
spread. Replacement should involve a reasonable cost.
114. Q5: Medina need not over regulate this ruling on trees and trust more to homeowners.
115. No comments.
ATTACHMENT 3
166
18
116. Q5: I consider myself a “tree huger”. I love trees more than the average person. Even so, the
Medina tree code is too extreme in a couple of areas. Hazardous tree rating should be lowered
from 11 to 9; human safety trumps a tree canopy! Replacement policy should be 1:1, not 1:21.
Don’t mind getting a permit to cut a tree down to ensure safe removal and compliance with 1:1
replacement, but don’t feel city should profit from multi‐thousand dollar fees.
Q6: I love trees, but I love sun too. The fir trees in my yard and my neighbors’ yards block light
and sun and rop needles everywhere. I’d love fewer fir trees and more blossoming (dogwoods,
redbuds, cherry, crabapples) and leafy trees (Japanese maples, green maples).
Q8: City government should not function as a homeowner’s association. It should be focused first
and foremost on public safety. The current version of the tree code is slanted against public safety
in favor of the preservation and proliferation of trees. It is also slanted in favor of those with
enough financial means and property to comply to pay the fines and plant 1:21 replacements.
Let’s take a more realistic and pragmatic approach to the goal of planting trees. Focus on
incentives instead of penalties. Don’t tread on the rights of property owners.
117. Q8: I would like further clarification on the rights of property owners to protect/enhance their
views if other neighbors’ trees block them.
118. No comments.
119. Q5: Tree codes/policies are complex because trees grow. By legislating for an arbitrary tree size to
regulate, the long term result could be elimination of various sizes, i.e., “cut it now before it grows
too big and you can’t”. Yes, trees are beneficial, but they also can block sunlight and views –which
are also beneficial. This makes a “one size fits all” policy nearly impossible to write. The current
replacement policy in particular is ludicrous. In an established garden, it is impossible to plant the
required number of trees AND expect them to live. They need appropriate spacing/sunlight/soil
conditions, etc. for mature and healthy canopy.
Q6: I strongly believe if the tree code was eliminated tomorrow in its entirety, Medina would not
be clear cut. A majority of residents appreciate the trees and are knowledgeable about their value.
I don’t believe anybody wants Medina to look like Clyde Hill…scalped.
Q8: “Right plant, Right place” is a gardening truism that applies to trees as well as shrubs,
perennials, and annuals. Western red cedars and big leaf maples are hell to garden under; they
suck the life out of the dirt below them. Douglas Firs are forest trees, ultimately growing too tall
for urban areas, they lose lower limbs as they grow and are not particularly attractive or
rare/endangered. There is nothing “sacred” about them. The “pruning” of trees under Medina’s
power lines is deplorable. Trees should NEVER be topped or pruned so they appear that
something took a bite out of them. Far better to remove an unsuitable tree altogether, than trying
to contain its natural growth.
120. Q5: Way too much red tape to cut down a tree. IF the regulations are such that you must apply if
you cut down more than 5 trees or you don’t plant a replacement tree, then it’s ok. Otherwise, it’s
tyranny to have such a complicated and expensive process to comply with the code.
ATTACHMENT 3
167
19
Q6: Don’t kid yourself. One tree makes no difference to the quality of life to the city. The big
factors of quality of life are health, income, time, etc. The City of Medina actually worsens the
quality of life because it adds so much pain and suffering if one has to cut down even one tree.
Q8: North Korea and Syria are not democratic countries even though they have elections. In
Medina, tree removal is banned (oh, you can cut it down but it is such a huge process and you
have to plant an impossible number of trees that it’s crazy, just like Kim Jong Un).
121. Q5: Having read it, I am not sure that I completely understand the tree code. My understanding
regarding view maintenance is that you have to wait until the view is 60% blocked before you are
eligible for relief. It makes much more sense to me to allow a view to be maintained with regular
trimming/pruning from an expense point, the property value and for the health of the trees. Yet
that doesn’t seem to be the code.
122. Q5: If trees obstruct an established view or pose a danger to the community then they should be
considered for review. Homes are valued on their view and safety. This would only increase
property values in the community if we had a comprehensive and conscientious plan enforceable.
Q8: There should be a Medina Beautification society. Residents could donate to it to plant trees in
the community to augment the trees that were removed. If a resident takes down trees it could
be a donation/fee to the city to replace trees at an agreed upon location in areas that are within
200 feet of the removal.
123. Q5: Make preserving our trees a priority of the city. However, there should be a little more
flexibility regarding removing trees than we now have. Also, while replacement trees should be
required, there should be a little less number required.
Q8: Please keep a balance between all in for trees and let’s cut down any we want to in any
changes in any changes to the tree code. Please do not over react to a small vocal minority in
determining future policy. The tree policy should reflect what is good for the most citizens
possible for the good of Medina.
124. Q5: The cost of compliance of the tree code is extremely high. My impression is that most people
who have direct experience with the tree code are not satisfied with it. The replacement tree
requirements to remove a problem tree can be so high that it is a defacto ban. This is not
desirable. Although it would be controversial, if there is public support for increasing the tree
canopy then the city should require, with the threat of prison, that lawns are prohibited in the City
of Medina to the extent that they exceed a rectangular area of 1,000 sq. feet or more. You could
have a small lawn but if it is too large, you must plant trees in the middle of the lawn.
Q6: Some people have large lawns that can accommodate new trees. Some people have little
land to plant extra trees. IT shocks the large lawns that can accommodate new trees. Some people
have little land to plant extra trees. It shocks the conscience that the city would harm those who
have problem trees and not much space to plant replacement trees.
Q8: If a resident removes a small number of problem trees, they should be able to do so without
extra expense, other than the company which cuts down the tree. This means not requiring a
permit, hiring a surveyor, and paying the city arborist, etc. They should merely have to notify the
ATTACHMENT 3
168
20
city and provide a receipt that they planted a replacement tree. That would solve the vast majority
of people who are opposed to the current tree code.
125. Q5: 1) CLEARLY separate out what is allowed, what needs a permit or what is disallowed in the
tree code. Both for tree trimming and tree removal. 2) Put preservation of significant view s and
historical view corridors on the same priority level as preserving tree canopy. 3) Educate residents
on how tree trimming can be used to maintain healthy trees, protect residents and their homes
from damage and injury, and maintain the significant views of the lakes, mountains and cityscapes
that we all enjoy. 4) Make trees on the city’s right of way subject to the same rules as trees only
on a resident’s property. 5) Restrict tree species on slopes to ones that grow no higher than the
tallest manmade structure on the same lot. Innis Arden has this restriction and it works fine for
them. 6) For evergreens that have been previously topped (unfortunately) allow residents to
preserve a single primary leader and remove any secondary leaders. This would be good
stewardship and is an example of a good tree trimming strategy (see point 3 above).
Q6: We need trees and like them. But there needs to be a common sense approach to managing
them. Medina has a sensible regulation on structural coverage of a lot (25%). There needs to be a
similar regulation for tree and shrub canopy coverage of a lot. There are tools available on the
web that allows such estimation.
Q8: The tree code review committee should be representative of as many diverse opinions on the
tree code as possible. The city staff and arborist should be more proactive and helpful to residents
so that residents can achieve their goals while adhering to the city’s tree code. Making the tree
code clear would go a long way to making this happen.
126. Q5: 1) You should be able to hire an independent certified arborist instead of the monopoly the
city has on only one “choice”. It is costly just to get an opinion. A certified arborist is a certified
arborist. Why does the city get to dictate that their person is the only one qualified to decide if a
tree is viable. 2) The present ridiculous policy of replacing like for like should stop. We built ten
years ago and had to plant a large number of Douglas F to replace one large one that couldn’t be
preserved. I have chopped them all down; there was no more room for them than there was for
the big one. Of course we couldn’t find room for ten Dougs. We took down some ancient applies
and had to replace them with apples instead of the cherries I wanted. Wrong genus. Really? Those
applies have been chopped down too. What a waste. Everyone goes back and just chops down the
mitigated trees. There are always way too many required so you buy cheap and small and dispose
of them once you move in and the dust settles.
Q8: The cost of taking down a tree that is large really is prohibitive enough. To add to that cost an
arborist and the “mitigation” is too much. I also think clear cutting a developer’s lot is different
than an established property owner trying to alter property that they own for safety, aesthetics
whatever. The City doesn’t have a right to dictate what I do with my tree. Maybe limit it to 2‐3
trees a site or something…? But everyone should be given a gimme or two. Have you priced taking
down a big tree lately? Believe me, nobody does it lightly.
127. Q5: First of all, the current code is outrageous and restrictive and punitive and practically ignores
individual property rights for the supposed benefit of someone else who may or may not have a
forest on their property. I live in a practical forest. I don’t frankly see the need for much restriction
at all as I don’t expect that the city would be treeless without one. However, I would argue for as
ATTACHMENT 3
169
21
little mediation as possible, certainly no payments to a tree fund, and a 1 for 1 or 1 for 2
replacements might be acceptable.
Q6: I LOVE trees. I have bought dozens at nurseries in my lifetime. I don’t necessarily require
forests of massive trees that block out the sun in a residential area which also produce safety
hazards to their families. It’s not necessarily the NUMBER of trees but the SIZE of trees that we
may be talking about and our inability to manage the desire to remove some. While I appreciate
others’ design to live near a forest on someone else’s property, I cringe at thinking I should tell an
owner they can’t remove a tree that I happen to like. Medina’s public parks can reflect what a
consensus feels about trees. Interestingly, they don’t have as many trees as my property does.
Q8: The other answers here seem from an alternate universe. WHAT COST to preserve a canopy
are we talking about? Planting new ones in Medina Park? If someone bought a property without
trees, someone would require them to plant more trees on their property that they don’t want?
Someone would force me to carry the burden of carrying a tree that I don’t want but they do?
Why don’t they transplant it onto THEIR property? The funny thing here is I realize I am coming
from the perspective of one who lives in a forest. There are other parts of Medina which are not
so burdened with a heavy canopy, certainly waterfronts. I suppose if I were unaffected in that
way, I could easily opine that others should be forced to keep their forest while I was content in a
less burdened property. This unevenness is a real problem with this policy. I want to thank the city
council for addressing this issue which has bothered me for so long.
128. Q5: Owners should be able to remove any large tree that can reach their dwelling if it falls. This is
a matter of public safety. Should be no review, application, fees, or requirement to plant new
trees in these instances of public safety.
Q6: Tree canopy is one of the qualities that makes Medina so appealing. It also provides shade
which keeps ambient temperatures down in summer when asphalt is cooking. It fosters wildlife
which also is appealing.
129. Q5: I have a significant tree that was planted befor the city was incorporated (around 1953). It
has ruined our driveway. We cannot afford $32,000 inpermit fees. The other option is not possible
as the property would not allow planting 12 trees in its place (and pay $7,000 fee). It is absolutely
ridiculous for a homeowner to have to go through this. The tree is not even supposed to grow on
the west side of the mountains. In the meantime, it has ruined (and is still ruining) an expensive
aggregate driveway. There needs to be special “grandfathered” considerations for pre‐
incorporation plantings. I understand there must be some regulations but not everyone in Medina
is rich.
Q8: The city has far too much power over property owner’s rights when it comes to trees. I can
see that with new construction or re‐landscaping there should be some regulations (no clear‐
cutting, etc.) Permits can be required but not at the exorbitant fees that we have now! That’s
about as far as it should go.
130. No comments.
131. Q5: More homeowner autonomy, for the obvious reasons.
ATTACHMENT 3
170
22
132. Q5: Each case may be quite different, but there should be an opportunity to present an argument
if there are special circumstances.
133. Q5: Requirements are too strong for which trees to take down and replacement costs are too
high.
134. Q5: Preserve only the most valuable. Prioritize local species. Eliminate the great financial burden
of mitigation – the current plan is not affordable for most homeowners. Preserve views and
sunlight.
Q8: Less leading questions.
135. Q5: Trees are a community resource. Large trees should be protected from their owners just
taking them down to improve views.
Q6: History has shown us that without strong regulations, large trees will be lost. There are
numerous lots around town that are almost bare compared to what they were.
136. Q5: Allow property owners to remove a certain number of trees of a certain number of years
while ensuring clear cutting is not happening. Owners who feel a tree is too close to their homes
or kids’ play area or who want to improve their surrounding by moving trees around should be
able to do that without excessive expenses.
Q6: Medina has a very mature tree canopy. A large number of trees are over 100 years old and
were clearly planted by residents long before Medina was even incorporated and before there
was a tree code. The city should trust its residents to maintain trees and should reduce the
excessive regulations.
137. No comments.
138. Q5: Resident owners should be able to remove trees for safety reasons with no compensation
payments to the City. New developers should be monitored in removal of trees, no compensation
if trees present safety hazard.
Q8: Eliminate any compensation requirements for resident owners.
139. No comments.
140. Q5: It’s not an issue the city should involve themselves with.
Q8: 1) If homes are demolished, the required non‐disturbance area around remaining trees can
have a significant negative effect on the useable area of the yard because the forced difference
between useable grade and non‐disturbed grade. A fully useable yard is more important than
saving trees. 2) Clyde Hill’s view ordinance should be adopted. 3) Remove all deciduous trees from
the list. 4) Reduce replacement to ½ that removed ‐ to 20 “removed/10” replace.
141. Q5: As properties get redeveloped, some older properties will need some trees removed.
ATTACHMENT 3
171
23
142. No comments.
143. Q5 & Q8: Clearly, as written, the existing Medina Tree Code is intended to be so restrictive as to
pretty much preclude the removal of trees. As such, the Medina Tree Code is forcing those trees
on all who own property or are contemplating purchasing property in Medina. By eliminating the
tree removal restrictions, the City of Medina will satisfy both sides. Those who wish to keep their
trees will keep them. Those who do not want their trees will remove them. Thus, the City of
Medina will not be forcing one position on the other. The question is, will the City of Medina
impose a fee for the removal of the tree as we imagine the City of Medina additionally looks at
this issue as a revenue generating mechanism? Should a fee be imposed? No. However, should the
City of Medina impose a fee, said fee should be a very nominal amount. Medina is populated by
people in all stages of life – those just starting out to widows and widowers. As such, Medina’s per
household income runs the gamut. Should only the ultra wealthy be in a financial position to
remove trees? Should resale value be compromised due to buyers’ unwillingness to take on or live
under the overly burdensome Medina City Tree Code? We don’t believe so and we hope the City
of Medina doesn’t either. Please remember and give careful consideration to the fact that any fee
required by the City of Medina for the removal of trees is an additional expense for a property
owner and then the question arises, is this fee punitive and/or is it meant to be prohibitive?
Without question, for a multitude of reasons, trees in the correct location can and do enrich our
lives and environment. However, with the issue before us, that which starts out small over time
becomes a giant. Around these giants, a community has grown exponentially. While beautiful,
their size can and does create significant issues of safety and hardship. Isn’t it time to let Medina
property owners decide what is best for their peace of mind, their property, their investment; and
to have “quiet enjoyment” of one’s property?
144. No comments.
145. No comments.
146. No comments.
147. No comments.
148. No comments.
149. No comments.
150. No comments.
151. No comments.
152. No comments.
153. No comments.
154. Q5: Trees don’t need to be regulated; hence no policy needs to be written.
ATTACHMENT 3
172
24
155. No comments.
156. No comments.
157. No comments.
158. No comments.
159. No comments.
160. Q5: There should be no policy on managing trees in Medina.
161. No comments.
162. No comments.
163. No comments.
164. Q5: Property owners should have the right to decide what they want to do with trees on their
property.
165. No comments.
166. No comments.
167. No comments.
168. No comments. (Q1‐4 only, no 2nd page.)
169. No comments.
170. Q5: answered, but not able to read, print is too light.
171. No comments.
172. Q5: Preserve trees/canopy to extent practical. Educate homeowners. Respect private property
rights.
173. Q5: View is most important.
Q8: Fewer trees or reduce of taxes.
174. Q5: So long as a R16 has three 20” diameter trees, the rest can be dealt with as the owner
chooses.
ATTACHMENT 3
173
25
175. Q5: Medina’s policy should be that the property owner decides what to do about the trees on its
property.
176. Q5: It should be up to the property owner to decide what to do about trees on his/her property.
177. No comments.
178. No comments.
179. No comments.
180. Q5: Doesn’t need to be regulated; thus no policy needs to be written.
181. Q5: This is a classic beautiful green zone not unlike the Highlands. We should preserve it from
destruction by selfish homeowners.
Q8: Preserve life giving green aspect of old growth trees.
182. No comments. (Q1‐4 only questions answered.)
183. No comments.
184. No comments.
185. Q5 & Q8: Safety. Make the home safer.
186. Q5: Abolish the penalties and regulations and offer education and guidance instead. No more
coercion!
Q8: Our neighbor communities do not have such an outrageous tree policy. Medina shouldn’t
either! As long as we retain a large minimum lot size we will lose few if any total trees if the
current policy is ended.
187. Q4: Appropriate size is a problem for individual property owners. Poor pruning, selection and
landscaping choices all need to be considered.
Q8: Views are important and should be protected too. Perhaps more small trees could be planted
along streets and some large tree varieties removed.
188. Q5: The existing policy is more than fair and allows plenty of loop‐holes for developer to do what
they please.
Q8: A committee that involves not only residents and citizens of Medina, but also gardeners
involved in these properties. Not a resident, but a gardener on several large Medina estates over
25 years.
189. Q5: Allow limbing up and thinning – not topping. Open up for views & sunlight.
ATTACHMENT 3
174
26
Q8: When there is a height restriction on building new homes as in Medina Heights, then tree
removal to open views should be allowed – especially in the right‐of way.
190. Q5: Why not allow a homeowner to remove one tree a season with no replacements costs or
mitigation?
191. Q5: The goal is to maintain what we now have and have love about Medina. Any changes should
be overheard and placed before the public for consideration at public meetings before it is
enacted.
A8: If the city refuses to allow the removal of a tree considered to be hazardous, it should be
responsible for damage caused by the tree falling – i.e., when in doubt allow removal of trees that
put people and property at substantial risk.
192. Q5: Management yes; but we should protect private property rights and views.
Q8: Keep tree management more in line with neighboring communities such as Yarrow Point,
Hunts Point, and Clyde Hill.
193. Q5: A property owner should be allowed to remove a tree on his property. Especially if there is
good reason, i.e., unhealthy tree, tree with high potential for damage to person or property.
Q8: Every property is different. Consideration should be given to specific tree coverage existing
on a given property when the property owner wants to remove a tree. Medina’s current tree
policy is way too restrictive and to the point of being punitive for a property owner. There is not
sufficient consideration of property owner rights and safety of person and property. There is too
much focus on a given tree without consideration for other factors affecting the property owner’s
specific situation.
194. Q5: The most beautiful tree on Groat Point has been replaced by a spec house. No amount of
money will change that. Developers are willing to pay so fines do not work. Residents generally
love their own trees; it’s the neighbors who want more view! In the 42 years we have lived here
and maintained over 100 trees, some have died, become diseased, blown down or overshadowed
areas. We now feel unable to manage them properly. How much money has the city collected in
fines and where does the money go? Yes, do not resume we need your help landscaping our
private property.
Q8: Yes, do not presume we need your help landscaping our private property.
195. No comments.
196. No comments.
197. No comments.
198. Q5 & Q8: Tree Code Observations: Medina’s tree canopy is a beautiful asset, HOWEVER, it has
completely overgrown and the regulations have to be updated accordingly. We have lived in our
ATTACHMENT 3
175
27
family home for 20 years. Our property is surrounded by trees and we love it. When we first
moved in some of our trees were 15 feet tall, now they are 25 feet tall. Some trees were 40 feet
tall, and they now tower at 70 feet. We are fine with this, even though the shade on our property
has increased substantially. Some of these trees should be taken out for the health of all of them
and the underbrush, but because of the Medina Tree Code, we won’t do it because of the
consequences. I don’t have the solution, I just need you to understand that a decade or two of
growth impacts one’s personal property in many ways and the homeowner should be allowed to
mitigate without such harsh monetary consequences.
199. Q5: Mitigation: a) Include only trees greater than 20 to 24 inches in diameter and of a species that
we want to preserve. Smaller trees are not significant enough to mitigate. b) Do not include trees
in the building footprint or in any area where a structure can be built per the building code. I
suggest that only trees located in the building setbacks should be regulated. By including
mitigation for trees in the buildable area, we then force excess trees into the setbacks causing
plantings that are too dense. C) Trees should be replaced at a 1 for 1 ratio or at most a 2 for 1
ratio. Trees grow extremely fast in our climate and we can easily overplant. D) The cost for a
mitigation tree should be proportionate to its wholesale cost. That would remove the “penalty”
cost currently changed homeowners and still plants trees.
Canopy: a) I hear a lot about preserving the tree canopy but I have never seen a quantified
definition or description of this “canopy”. How do we preserve this canopy if we do not have a
way to measure it? Look at some of the early photos of Medina in the City Hall and you see
locations with very few trees.
Views and Access to sunlight:a) Medina heights citizens self‐imposed a 20’ height limit on their
homes to preserve views. The City agreed and created the Medina Heights Overlay zone within
the R‐16 zone. It makes no sense to control the height of structures without controlling the height
of the vegetation. Perhaps an overlay zone for vegetation similar to the structural limits would
preserve the character of this neighborhood. The character of Medina comes from the mix of
housing. I do not want to live in a cookie cutter town where every house and yard looks the same.
We should celebrate our diversity as we protect our trees and understand that many citizens
believe views and sunlight are as important as trees. B) Sunlight is important in our climate not
only for allowing plants to grow but to keep us sane in the dark winter months. Tall trees and
hedges can block sunlight between homes and cause grass and plants to die. Trees can shad e a
neighbor’s home and limit their sunlight on porches, decks, and even inside the home. c) Views
are not limited to private property but are important within the city public areas. Areas such as
Medina Park, City Hall, Medina School, and Overlake Golf Course should be open and inviting to
citizens. Access to sunlight and views from these locations is important. Viewpoint Park at the
intersection of Overlake and Upland Road is losing some of its view due to trees on the left and
right of its view corridor.
Size of Trees: a) Our current code goes too far protecting a tree just because it is large. Many large
trees block sunlight and views and often the only part of a tall tree we see is just the truck. I have
heard some arborists think that Douglas Firs are not a good tree to plant in a crowded urban
environment because they grow too large for city living. b) It would be nice to identify some of the
very extraordinary trees and encourage preservation of them.
200. Q5: You should also manage trees that have grown and removed views.
Q8: The Sun and View ordinance needs teeth too.
ATTACHMENT 3
176
28
201. No comments. (Q1‐4 only, no 2nd page.)
202. No comments. (Q1‐4 only, no 2nd page.)
203. Q5: Tree mitigation 1 to 1 or 2 to 1 ratio discretionary tree management of 1 to 2 trees per year
with no mitigation. View and sun protection enforced.
Q8: Bring Medina Tree ordinance in line with other similar size city ordinances. Allow property
owners the ability to manage the trees and landscaping with reasonable mitigation requirements.
The existing tree mitigation cost is an extraction of residents’ money not in proportion to the
impact of a single tree removal!
204. No comments.
ATTACHMENT 3
177
ATTACHMENT 3
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A B C D
Revision: 9/4/2014
Topic Current Medina Tree Code Tree Committee Suggestions for Tree Code Update Example of Fee per tree using
the new suggested code
Permit
requirements
Permit NOT required for removing a tree that is:
- ON private property or ROW
- AND tree NOT on the significant species list 20.52.080
Permit
requirements
Permit required for removing a tree that is:
- ON private property or ROW
- AND ON the significant species list 20.52.080
- AND NOT rated hazard by city arborist
- AND EITHER DBH >= 20" AND property not under development
- OR DBH >= 10" AND property under development
Permit required New landscaping on properties under development within 15' along minor arterial
and collector street ROW (plus NE 8th st, NE 82nd and 84th Ave, EPR)
Permit required Clearing and grubbing that affects >=2,500 sq. ft.
Permit required Trees >=6" DBH within 200' of Lake WA
Permit required Permit required for removing a significant tree >=50" DBH not within new building
footprint on property under development
Permit not
required Trees designated hazard by city arborist are exempt from permit
Caliper of
replacement
trees
Replace trees <36" DBH with 3" caliper trees Consider (2") caliper for replacement of all trees (based on best science)
Caliper of
replacement
trees
Replace trees >=36" DBH with 4" caliper trees
View and
Sunlight Medina Tree Code supersedes View and Sunlight chapter 18.16
The property owner shall guarantee that required replacement trees are healthy
and viable for three years after final inspection. (20.52.090 D3)
Replacement trees are to be protected and replaced if needed for a period of 10
years
Suggested Updates to Medina Tree Code
Chapter 20.52 "Tree and Vegetation Management Code"
Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT 4
179
1
2
3
4
A B C D
Revision: 9/4/2014
Topic Current Medina Tree Code Tree Committee Suggestions for Tree Code Update Example of Fee per tree using
the new suggested code
Suggested Updates to Medina Tree Code
Chapter 20.52 "Tree and Vegetation Management Code"
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Tree
Replacement
Requirements
involving no
development
Tree replacement ratio on private property or state hwy right-of-way,
involving no development
>=20" and <36" DBH 125% x $250
(ex: replace one 30" DBH with 13x3" OR 2x3" trees + 31.5x250=$7,875)
Significant trees >=20" and <_42__" DBH:
for _2_ trees in _5_ years replace with _2_ trees AND $_25_ per extra inch (*)
replace each additional tree with _2_ trees AND $_200_ per extra inch
two 30" => $600 / tree
add'l 30" => $4800 / tree
>=36" DBH 200% x $400
(ex: replace one 42" DBH with 21x4" OR 2x4" trees + 76x400=$30,400)
Significant trees >=_42__" DBH:
for _2_ trees in _5_ years replace with _2_ trees AND $_100 per extra inch
replace each additional tree with _2_ trees AND $_300_ per extra inch
two 42" => $3600 / tree
add'l 42" => $10800 / tree
Redwood trees >=_50__" DBH:
for _2_ trees in _5_ years replace with _2_ trees AND $_200_ per extra inch
replace each additional tree with _2__ trees AND $_400_ per extra inch
two 50" => $8800 / tree
add'l 50" => $17600 / tree
Tree
Replacement
Requirements
property under
development
Tree replacement ratio on private property or state hwy right-of-way
that is under development
Tree replacement ratio on private property or state hwy right-of-way
that is under development
outside building footprint >=10" and <20" DBH 100% x $200
(ex: 15" --> 2x3" + 9x200=$1,800)
Significant trees >=10" and <20" DBH:
replace each tree with __ trees AND $____ per extra inch
outside building footprint >=20" and <36" DBH 125% x $250
(ex: 30" --> 2x3" + 31.5x250=$7,875)
Significant trees >=20" and <_____" DBH:
replace each tree with ____ trees AND $_____ per extra inch
any tree >=36" DBH 200% x $400
(ex: 42" --> 2x4" + 76x400=$30,400)
Any tree >=_____" DBH:
replace each tree with _____ trees AND $_____ per extra inch
Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENT 4
180
1
2
3
4
A B C D
Revision: 9/4/2014
Topic Current Medina Tree Code Tree Committee Suggestions for Tree Code Update Example of Fee per tree using
the new suggested code
Suggested Updates to Medina Tree Code
Chapter 20.52 "Tree and Vegetation Management Code"
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
Tree
Replacement on
open or closed
City ROW
Tree replacement ratio on open or closed City right-of-way
(this applies to trees on ROW that abutting property owner wishes to remove at
owner's expense and with approval of city; fee is waived for trees on ROW removed
by city)
Tree replacement ratio on open or closed City right-of-way
Non-Significant trees >=10" and <20" DBH 30%
(ex: 15" --> 2x3")
Non-significant trees >=10" and <20" DBH:
replace each tree with ____ trees OR $_____ per tree
Non-Significant trees >=20" and <36" DBH 45% x $250
(ex: 30" --> 2x3" + 7.5x250=$1,875)
Non-Significant >=20" and <_____ " DBH:
for ____ trees in ____ years replace with ____ trees AND $___ per extra inch
replace each additional tree with ____ trees AND $___ per extra inch
Non-Significant trees >=36" DBH 60% x $400
(ex: 42" --> 2x4" + 17.2*400=$6,880)
Non-Significant >=___ " DBH:
for ___ trees in ___ years replace with ___ trees AND $____ per extra inch
replace each additional tree with ___ trees AND $____ per extra inch
Significant trees >=10" and <20" DBH 100% x $200
(ex: 15" --> 2x3" + 9x200=$1,800
Significant trees >=10" and <20" DBH:
for __ trees in ___ years replace with ____ trees AND $____ per extra inch
replace each additional tree with ____ trees AND $____ per extra inch
Significant trees >=20" and <36" DBH 125% x $250
(ex: 30" --> 2x3" + 31.5x250=$7,875)
Significant trees >=20" and <____ DBH:
for ____ trees in ____ years replace with ____ trees AND $____ per extra inch
replace each additional tree with ____ trees AND $____ per extra inch
Significant trees >=36" DBH 200% x $400
(ex: 42" --> 2x4" + 76x400=$30,400)
Significant trees >=_____" DBH:
for ____ trees in ____ years replace with ___ trees AND $___ per extra inch
replace each additional tree with ___ trees AND $_____ per extra inch
Redwood trees >=_____" DBH:
for ___ trees in ___ years replace with ___ trees AND $___ per extra inch
replace each additional tree with ____ trees AND $____ per extra inch
Notes:(*) "extra inch" represents the "DBH inches of the removed tree" minus the "caliper
of the replacement tree(s)"; In the case where no trees are replaced, "extra inch"
will be equal to the DBH inches of the removed tree.
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT 4
181
182
JANUARY 13, City Council Regular Meeting, 6:30 pm
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Executive Session RCW 42.30.110 (1)(i)Sand Done
Presentation Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor Done
Consent Agenda Approval of 12/9 Minutes Approved
Consent Agenda Approval of December, 2013 Check Register Approved
Consent Agenda
Approval of Evergreen Point Road Sidewalk
Improvement and 80th Avenue Overlay Willis Approved
Public Hearing None
Other Business Presentation on SR-520 Projects
Grumbach/
Tharp, Fred - WSDOT Done
Other Business Appointment of Committees Mayor To be continued
Other Business
City Council Calendar & Discussion of 2014
Study Session Schedule Sauerwein Done
Study Session Discussion Shoreline Master Program Update Grumbach Done
JANUARY 27 City Council Study Session, TBD
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Discussion CANCELLED
FEBRUARY 10, City Council Regular Meeting, 6:30 pm
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Executive Session RCW 42.30.110 (1)(c) Lease Sand Done.
Presentation King County Council Member Jane Hague Done.
Presentation
Mike Painter, WA Association of Sheriffs and
Police Chiefs Sauerwein Reschuled to March
Consent Agenda Approval of 1/13 S&R Minutes Approved.
Consent Agenda
Approval of December, 2013 and January,
2014 Check Register Approved.
Consent Agenda
Approval of 2014 Planning Commission and
Work Program Grumbach Approved.
Consent Agenda
Approval of 2014 Park Board and Work
Program Willis Approved.
Consent Agenda Appointment of David Lee to ETP Sauerwein Approved.
Other Business Boardinghouse Discussion Grumbach Done.
Other Business Ecology SMP Conditions Grumbach Done.
Other Business City Council Calendar Done.
FEBRUARY 24, City Council Study Session, 6:30 pm
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Executive Session RCW 42.30.110 (1)(c) Lease Sand Done.
Discussion
Mike Painter, WA Association of Sheriffs and
Police Chiefs Sauerwein Done.
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
2014 AGENDA/ACTION CALENDAR
Meetings scheduled for 6:30 pm, at City hall (unless noticed otherwise).
AGENDA ITEM 10.2
183
Discussion Quarterly Newsletter Discussion Sauerwein Done.
Training Public Records Disclosure Training Ramsey Ramerman Done.
MARCH 10, City Council Regular Meeting, 6:30 pm
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Executive Session RCW 42.30.110(1)(g) Employment Sand Done.
Presentation Small Cell Bill in Legislature Bacha Done.
Presentation ARCH Presentation Sauerwein Done.
Presentation WSDOT 520 Sauerwein Done.
Consent Agenda Receipt of January 21 PB Minutes Done.
Consent Agenda Receipt of January 28 PC Minutes Done.
Consent Agenda Receipt of CSC 2013 Annual Report Done.
Consent Agenda Approval of 2/10/14 S&R Minutes Approved.
Consent Agenda Approval of February, 2014 Check Register Approved.
Consent Agenda Resolution Approving ARCH Sauerwein Approved.
Consent Agenda
Receive PC Comprehensive Zoning Map
Update Recommendation Grumbach
Consent Agenda SCORE Contract Yourkoski Approved.
Other Business Boardinghouse Discussion Grumbach Done.
Other Business City Council Calendar Done.
March 22, City Council Retreat, TBD
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Discussion Council Goals and Priorities John Howell Done.
March 24, City Council Study Session, 5:30 PM
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Other Business
Tour of Proposed Evergreen Point Road
Sidewalk Project Sauerwein Done.
Discussion
Emergency Preparedness Presentation (30
min)Kris Finnigan Done.
APRIL 14, City Council Regular Meeting, 6:30 pm
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Executive Session RCW 42.30.140(4) Labor Relations Sauerwein Done.
Consent Agenda March, 2014 Check Register Adams Done.
Consent Agenda SMP Ordinance Grumbach Approved.
Consent Agenda Confirm Penny Martin to Park Board Kellerman Approved.
Consent Agenda Confirm Jeanne Carlson to PC Kellerman Approved.
Consent Agenda
Resolution Adopting the City Council 2014
Retreat Major Action Item Sauerwein Not Adopted.
Consent Agenda
Change Order #1 Maintenance Building
Addition Sauerwein Approved.
Public Hearing Comprehensive Zoning Map Grumbach Continued to May 12
Other Business Call for Bids 2014 Street Projects Willis Done.
Other Business Tree Code Grumbach Done.
Other Business City Council Calendar Sauerwein Done.
APRIL 28, City Council Study Session, CANCELLED
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Discussion Comp Plan - TENTATIVE Grumbach
AGENDA ITEM 10.2
184
MAY 12, City Council Regular Meeting, 6:30 pm
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Executive Session RCW 42.30.140 (4) Labor Relations Sand Done.
Executive Session RCW 42.30.110 (b) Property Acquisition Sand Done.
Presentation Tree Code - Tina Cohen City Arborist Grumbach Done.
Consent Agenda 03/17/14 PB Meeting Minutes Done.
Consent Agenda 03/25/14 PC Meeting Minutes Done.
Consent Agenda 04/14/14 CC Meeting Minutes Approved.
Consent Agenda April Check Register Adams Approved.
Consent Agenda Appoint Collette McMullen to PB Kellerman Approved.
Consent Agenda Employee Wellness Program Resolution Sauerwein Approved.
Public Hearing Medina Tree Code Grumbach
Public Hearing R-30 Maximum Impervious Surface Grumbach Approved.
Other Business Draft six-year CIP Willis Done.
Other Business City Council Calendar Done.
May 27, City Council Study Session, TBD (CANCELLED )
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Discussion
JUNE 9, City Council Regular Meeting, 6:30 pm
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Consent Agenda 04/21/14 PB Minutes
Consent Agenda 04/14/2014 S & R Meeting Minutes
Consent Agenda May Check Register Adams
Consent Agenda LGIP Resolution Adams
Consent Agenda Award of 2014 Street Projects Willis
Public Hearing 2015-2020 Six-Year CIP/TIP Willis
Other Business Tree Code Grumbach
Other Business Marijuana Ordinance Discussion Grumbach
Other Business Comp Plan Discussion and Schedule PH Grumbach
Other Business City Council Calendar
JUNE 23, City Council Study Session, TBD
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Discussion Tour of Fairweather Park Cell Tower Site Sauerwein/Grumbach
Discussion WSDOT Presentation Overlook Park
Discussion Fairweather Park Cell Tower Lease Sauerwein/Grumbach
Discussion Tree Code Committee Update Morcos/Pryde/Lee
JULY 14, City Council Regular Meeting, 6:30 pm
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Consent Agenda 05/19/2014 Approved PB Minutes
Consent Agenda 05/27/2014 Approved PC Minutes
Consent Agenda June Check Register Adams
Consent Agenda Adopt 2015-2020 Six-Year CIP/TIP Willis
Consent Agenda
Points Cities Interlocal Agreement -
Channelization and re-striping Sauerwein
Consent Agenda ARCH Trust Fund Application Sauerwein
Consent Agenda The Connections Group Contract Sauerwein
Consent Agenda PC Appointment Confirmation - Reeves Kellerman
Consent Agenda PC Appointment Confirmation - Garone Kellerman
Public Hearing None
AGENDA ITEM 10.2
185
Other Business Marijuana Ordinance - Continued from 6/9 Grumbach
Other Business Special Events Permits Ordinance Sauerwein
Other Business City Council Calendar
JULY 28, City Council Study Session, TBD
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Discussion City Government Finance 101 Adams
Discussion Evergreen Point Road/Walkable Medina Luis
AUGUST 11, City Council Regular Meeting, 6:30 pm
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Executive Session
RCW 42.30.110 (i) Potential Litigation
RCW 42.30.140 (4) Labor Relations Sand
Consent Agenda 06/16/2014 Approved PB Minutes
Consent Agenda
06/09/2014 S & R Meeting Minutes;
06/23/2014 Special Meeting Minutes;
07/14/2014 Regular Meeting Minutes;
07/28/2014 Special Meeting Minutes
Consent Agenda July 2014, Check Register
Public Hearing Early Public Input 2015 Budget Adams
Other Business Points Cities Interlocal Agreement Sauerwein
Other Business Phase 2 Tree Code Discussion Grumbach
Other Business City Council Calendar
August 25, City Council Study Session CANCELLED
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Discussion
SEPTEMBER 8, City Council Regular Meeting 6:30 pm
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Executive Session
RCW 42.30.110 (i) Potential Litigation
RCW 42.30.140 (4) Labor Relations Sand
Presentation
Swearing in of New Police Chief Stephen
Burns
Consent Agenda National Recovery Month Proclamation
Consent Agenda 08/11/2014 S & R Meeting Minutes
Consent Agenda 07/21/2014 PB Approved Minutes
Consent Agenda 06/24/2014 PC Approved Minutes
Consent Agenda August 2014, Check Register
Consent Agenda Marijuana Ordinance Grumbach
Consent Agenda BHC Consultants Contract Grumbach
Consent Agenda Civil Service Commission Appointments Kellerman
Public Hearing Draft 2015 Preliminary Budget Adams
Other Business Phase 2 Tree Code Grumbach
Other Business City Council Calendar
SEPTEMBER 18, Town Hall 5:30 pm
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Discussion Tree Code Grumbach
SEPTEMBER 22, Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session TBD
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Discussion Phase 2 Tree Code Grumbach
AGENDA ITEM 10.2
186
Discussion
OCTOBER 13, City Council Regular Meeting, 6:30 pm
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda 09/08/2014 S&R Meeting Minutes
Consent Agenda 07/21/2014 PB Approved Minutes
Public Hearing Draft 2015 Preliminary Budget Adams
Public Hearing Boardinghouse Ordinance Grumbach
Public Hearing Marijuana Ordinance Grumbach
Other Business iCompass Electronic Agena Rollout Kellerman
Other Business
Other Business City Council Calendar
October 27, City Council Study Session TBD
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Discussion Airport Noise Consultant Update Alyson Jackson
Discussion Marine Patrol Annual Report
Discussion Overlake Dr. East Bridge Railing Replacement Willis
Discussion Employee Compensation Sauerwein
NOVEMBER 11 (Tuesday), City Council Regular Meeting, 6:30 pm
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
Public Hearing 2015 Property Tax Levy Adams
Other Business
Adoption of 2015 Annual Budget, Ordinance
and Salary Schedule Adams
Other Business
Other Business City Council Calendar
November 24, City Council Study Session TBD
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Discussion City Manager Annual Evaluation
DECEMBER 8 City Council Regular Meeting, 6:30 pm
Item Type Topic Presenter Council Action
Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
Other Business
Other Business
Other Business
AGENDA ITEM 10.2
187
188