Everett Parks Board

February 2021 Removal Category Location Type of Tree Removed Issue Deciduous Evergreen # of Trees Reported # of Trees Evaluated # of Trees Removed Greater than 6" DBH Crack at co-dominate Risk mitigation Colby strip London Plane union. 1 1 1 1 1 Risk mitigation Colby strip London Plane Cavity/decay in trunk. 1 1 1 1 1 Diseased and Risk mitigation Colby strip London Plane declining. 2 2 2 2 2 Landscape Crowding and maintenance Forest park White Pine undesirable form. 1 1 1 0 Leaned over detention Public Works 69th St SE Birch pond. 1 1 1 1 1 Leaned over detention Public Works 69th St SE Cottonwood pond. 2 2 2 2 2 Leaned over detention Public Works 69th St SE Alder pond. 1 1 1 1 1 100th St SE and 21st Leaned over detention Public Works Ave SE Alder pond. 3 3 3 3 3 # Month 11 1 11 12 12 11 # YTD 15 2 16 15 17 16 Planting (All Plantings including Street Trees) Category Location Type of Tree Planted Deciduous Evergreen # Requested # Planted Planted Howarth park Douglas Fir 1 1 1 Planted Drew Nielsen park Japanese Maple 1 1 1 From Drew Nielsen to Transplanted Forest park Weeping Sequoia 1 1 1 # Month 1 2 3 3 # YTD 2 4 3 6 Maintence Category Location # This Month # YTD Structural Pruning Colby Strip 3 27 Right of Way Trimming for Line of 0 View Corridor Trimming 0 Service Requests 0 Limb Debris Removal Forest park, Walter, Silv 4 11 Stump Removal 0 Door Hangers 0 Other Notes: This report only covers public right of way and city property. The City does not track tree work on private property Parks and Public Works will use the same document, but track separately At the end of 2021, we can combine Parks and Public Works data and present Park Board with collective totals Goal of this report is to track significant tree removal and new plantings with the goal of growing the total tree count over time Removals and plantings get reported in the calendar month they are either removed or planted Tress will not be tracked by neighborhood or district at this time, but a location is provided if we need to move to this format in the future Removed the rolling 12 month totals, as we felt enough data was captured in the monthly and YTD numbers Everett Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Plan Update Parks Board Impact Presentation | March 2, 2021 Objectives & Options  Provide Department resources to develop park capacity and fit with vision for park system  Respond to growth  Determine a path for establishing impact fees  Interim / Set Rate Twice  Set One Time/ Aligned with New PROS Plan Update 2 Presentation Overview  Impact Fee Overview  Implementation Process  Options and Recommendations 3 Impact Fee Overview Park Impact Fee Types GMA Park Impact Fee SEPA Mitigation Fee (PIF) (SEPA) What is it? Fees authorized by the Growth Fee collected to offset adverse Management Act (GMA) to offset environmental impacts (broadly impacts of development. defined) of development. Expenditure timeframe 10 years to expend None Notes The most common impact fee type Applicable to non-exempt across Washington. Applicable to all development. Mitigation measures are building permits. typically done on a development project basis; however, the City can create a programmatic mitigation approach. 5 GMA Park Impact Fee (PIF) Purpose The basic premise of impact fees is that “growth should pay for growth”  Impact fees generally can fund increased capacity in the form of capital projects.  Cannot be used for maintenance and on-going operations costs. 6 PIF Features  Cannot be the only source of funding for any given project.  System improvements must be reasonably related to growth.  The City can create service areas and differentiate rates by service area (e.g., Vancouver/Clark County). 7 Implementation Process PIF Implementation Requirements  Collect needed data  Calculate fees  Draft impact fee ordinance and supporting impact fee study  Submit draft materials to the Washington State Department of Commerce for a 60-day review  Public hearing requirements  Planning Commission recommendation required  Pass and enact  City Council 9 PIF Calculation Process Growth Level of Identify Future Estimate Projections Service Application Need: Proportionate Share Impact •Response to Growth from LOS •Response to Fee Rate •Identified Capital Needs in CFP/CIP Growth •New and Existing Schedule Funding 10 Level of Service Level of service (LOS) standards set the rate for how the City has committed to responding to growth  LOS standards set what projects are impact fee eligible  Impact fees cannot address existing deficiencies; if LOS is not being met for current users, impact fees cannot be used to fill the gap 11 Current LOS: Value per Capita  In the 2016 PROS Plan, the City adopted a value per capita LOS standard based on the value of park lands and facilities.  After accounting for the land and facility requirements, the adopted LOS standard is $2,051.49.  This is the amount per person the City identified should be invested in the 32 land and facility types  At the growth identified in the 2015 Comp Plan of 143,000 by 2035, an increase of 30,300 individuals  The LOS standard suggests the City needs to invest $62.2M in the parks system over the next 15 years 12 Future Need: Capital Projects By law, PIF can fund system improvements listed in the Capital Facilities Element; the 2015 Comp Plan adopts the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).  The 2020 CIP 3 includes 26 recommended projects with $14.7M in total costs; the total will be as a subset of the overall $14.7M determined by project eligibility.  The 2020 CIP 1 includes 80 projects, but most of these are replacements or renovations and not eligible. 13 Options and Recommendations Options  Options to address funding for capital improvements due to growth:  Permanent  Interim 15 Options Option 1a Option 1b Option 2 Timeframe PIF now, PIF later SEPA now, PIF later PIF later Mid-2021 through Calculate PIF rates and Calculate SEPA No action the PROS update pass based on current mitigation fees (optional: (optional: pass impact (early 2022) LOS and published pass impact fee fee ordinance a shell to capital lists (optional: ordinance a shell to go go into effect with new update capital lists) into effect with PROS PROS update) update) PROS update Recalculate PIF rates and Calculate PIF rates and Calculate PIF rates and update code to reflect pass based on updated pass based on updated the PROS update LOS PROS LOS standard(s) PROS LOS standard(s) standard(s) and capital and capital projects and capital projects projects 16 Pros/Cons of Options Option 1a Option 1b Option 2 Timeframe PIF now, PIF later SEPA now, PIF later PIF later Pros Captures expected near- Captures expected near- Simplifies approach, term development, term development, clearer message to reflects the outcomes of reflects the outcomes of development the PROS process the PROS process community, reflects the outcomes of the new PROS process Cons 2021 rates based on Complicated; will require Will not capture outdated capital lists; will going through two development between require going through processes; uncertainty for mid-2021 and the process twice; developers completion of the new uncertainty for PROS Plan developers 17 Timeline Comparison Interim/Align with Old PROS Plan Permanent/Align with New PROS Set Rate Twice Plan Prepare Q1-Q2 Study I Commerce Review I Council Q3 Adoption I Collect Fees Community – Old Plan Prepare (subject to Study Vision Q4 change) Prepare Study II Commerce Commerce Q1 Collect Review II Review Updated Collect Fees with Council Council Q2 Adoption II Adoption Fees New Plan 18 Recommendation Based on what we understand, BERK recommends the following:  Wait on park impact fees for results of public engagement, assessment, and visioning of PROS update process 19 Alternatives Doing PIF with the PROS is the best way to integrate vision, demand and need, and engagement into the fee. Other alternatives that may address some needs in the interim include:  Explore SEPA mitigation fees as a near-term solution for on- going development  Consider passage of a shell PIF ordinance mirroring existing school impact fee that will go into affect with the PROS update (code is in place but fee is a placeholder)