Park Board · Monday, November 24, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 27, 2025

packet pp.3–9

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-24-2025 Park Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Park Board Meeting 7:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave October, 2025 MINUTES N.W., Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Heritage Tree Program

Director · 30 min · Dan Hintz, Urban Forest Supervisor Jeff Watling, Parks and Community Services · packet pp.11–19

Topics: Trees

▶ Watch from 12:11 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

• In many cities around the nation, trees are recognized for their significance to the community

5. REPORTS

Director's Report

Chairperson's Report

1834 segments .txt ↗

0:36 ↗ Hi folks online. Can you hear me? Sort

0:40 ↗ of. Yes, I'm seeing. Okay. Um, we're

0:42 ↗ having some technical difficulties in

0:44 ↗ the room here at the manor. So, I'm

0:46 ↗ working through some of those. And no

0:48 ↗ one can see you but me. Um, so I'm going

0:52 ↗ to work on rectifying the

0:57 ↗ Oh. Oh. Oh. Okay. All right. second

0:59 ↗ screen. There we go.

1:01 ↗ >> Promising.

1:02 ↗ >> I wonder if they can see.

1:05 ↗ >> Can any of you see the room or you only

1:08 ↗ see me? And also you see nothing because

1:10 ↗ my

1:13 ↗ >> Oh,

1:15 ↗ >> so now you can see me.

1:19 ↗ >> You

1:21 ↗ >> and probably your microphone is the only

1:23 ↗ microphone.

1:25 ↗ Can you guys

1:26 ↗ >> Can you say something again? Keep

1:27 ↗ talking.

1:30 ↗ Hi.

1:32 ↗ Is

1:32 ↗ >> that pretty?

1:32 ↗ >> I'm sorry. Not Diana, Dan. Hence.

1:36 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. Can you hear me? I can hear

1:39 ↗ Jeff pretty well, but

1:41 ↗ >> yeah, you're coming out of my computer.

1:46 ↗ >> And not the room.

1:51 ↗ >> Okay, hold on.

1:53 ↗ So, they

1:55 ↗ kind of locked some of the stuff down.

1:58 ↗ So that we didn't have to do this, but

2:02 ↗ then the stuff in the room's supposed to

2:04 ↗ work. So

2:08 ↗ >> now connecting to

2:10 ↗ >> Yeah, it should

2:25 ↗ our typical teams console is

2:28 ↗ It's dead. It's plugged in.

2:30 ↗ >> Power.

2:30 ↗ >> Yeah.

2:31 ↗ >> So, you slip it under me.

2:33 ↗ >> Sure.

2:34 ↗ >> You did.

2:35 ↗ >> Then we go like this.

2:36 ↗ >> Okay. And then maybe plugging this in

2:41 ↗ here and see if that works. Maybe.

2:48 ↗ >> Test test. Dan, can you say something?

2:52 ↗ >> Yep. Hello. Hello.

2:54 ↗ still coming out of still.

2:56 ↗ >> Um, I'm gonna try one thing and try and

3:00 ↗ >> try and change the speaker.

3:02 ↗ >> Speaker,

3:09 ↗ >> can you talk again?

3:11 ↗ >> Yep. Hello. Hello. Hello. Sound check.

3:14 ↗ That seems like a good reaction.

3:16 ↗ >> Progress.

3:17 ↗ >> Positive.

3:17 ↗ >> But progress.

3:19 ↗ >> Um,

3:21 ↗ okay. I cannot get the video to connect

3:25 ↗ though. So, you're not going to be able

3:28 ↗ to see the room. Um, but you get to see

3:32 ↗ me

3:36 ↗ >> and um

3:37 ↗ >> we can raise hands while we speak. Dan,

3:41 ↗ you can I guess PowerPoint will be

3:43 ↗ interesting. And that um

3:46 ↗ Santi, you can navigate the PowerPoint

3:49 ↗ on your screen. I guess Dan, you'll see

3:51 ↗ that, right? You'll see it.

3:54 ↗ >> I should

3:56 ↗ have on my own, too.

3:59 ↗ >> I think we'll make this work. Do we want

4:01 ↗ to press record? And

4:03 ↗ >> it's already recording because it's a

4:05 ↗ Microsoft Teams thing. So, I'll fix

4:07 ↗ that. I have to stop later. Sorry, guys.

4:11 ↗ >> Welcome back.

4:14 ↗ >> Something so good to have you back.

4:17 ↗ >> Nothing changed. Oh gosh, please don't.

4:20 ↗ Um, sorry that this is so strange and

4:24 ↗ wild. Um, but with that,

4:29 ↗ Ryan David,

4:31 ↗ >> welcome

4:33 ↗ on November 24th, 2025.

4:38 ↗ >> Chair, I call this meeting LTS club park

4:41 ↗ board to order.

4:43 ↗ >> We'll start with a roll call.

4:48 ↗ Ryan Olson uh present. Oh yeah, please

4:51 ↗ say here. Present or make yourself

4:53 ↗ known. David Lou here.

4:56 ↗ >> Katie Bell

4:57 ↗ >> here.

4:59 ↗ >> Chris Kovac

5:00 ↗ >> as an excused absence.

5:02 ↗ >> Tim Mley.

5:07 ↗ >> Anna Novakovic

5:09 ↗ >> here.

5:11 ↗ >> Diana Ren.

5:15 ↗ >> Sorry. Present sorry Jane Tushi

5:18 ↗ >> here.

5:21 ↗ >> Marlene Waxy

5:22 ↗ >> here.

5:23 ↗ >> Paulair

5:24 ↗ >> here.

5:26 ↗ Martha Gner

5:28 ↗ >> also has an excused absence.

5:30 ↗ >> Jeff Newell

5:32 ↗ >> present.

5:34 ↗ >> Thank you.

5:36 ↗ Sounds like we have a quorum.

5:38 ↗ >> Yes.

5:39 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you.

5:42 ↗ Um, has everybody had a chance to review

5:44 ↗ the minutes from the last meeting?

5:47 ↗ If so, are there any corrections or

5:49 ↗ edits?

5:55 ↗ Um, if there are no corrections, then

5:57 ↗ the minutes are approved.

6:04 ↗ Work, so I'm having to do this a little

6:05 ↗ bit.

6:08 ↗ Um,

6:10 ↗ public comment that's correct.

6:13 ↗ >> Yep.

6:14 ↗ >> We have one in the building. I think

6:15 ↗ none online.

6:21 ↗ >> This is serving as a microphone as well.

6:26 ↗ >> Question mark.

6:28 ↗ >> I'm just trying to get honey and you

6:29 ↗ might want to Yeah, certainly come close

6:30 ↗ enough that we can get your voice.

6:32 ↗ >> Yeah.

6:34 ↗ >> Come on over.

6:35 ↗ >> Sorry, I've been polishing jewelry. I

6:38 ↗ All

6:40 ↗ right. I'm Connie Marsh. I live on

6:42 ↗ Squawk. Squawk has trees, you know, and

6:47 ↗ I seem to be talking about trees a lot

6:49 ↗ when I come here. So, that may be what

6:51 ↗ you all think I'm about all the time.

6:54 ↗ It's just not true. It But you probably

6:59 ↗ don't have the same memory that I have

7:01 ↗ of Isiqua. And so I was just going

7:04 ↗ through our Isqua Environmental Council

7:07 ↗ newsletter from 2003

7:11 ↗ and uh it shows the newly cleared Isiqua

7:16 ↗ Highlands.

7:18 ↗ And right after the newly cleared Isiqua

7:23 ↗ Highlands, then they were going to build

7:25 ↗ on Park Point. Um, and they were going

7:28 ↗ to build a southeast bypass that was

7:31 ↗ going to going to run an eight lane road

7:34 ↗ behind Isiqua High School and allow

7:37 ↗ access to development up on up on uh

7:40 ↗ Tiger Mount. And so this this

7:45 ↗ was

7:47 ↗ isqua eroding away and the idea that it

7:52 ↗ could be deforested because you'll see

7:55 ↗ when it gets around to you how naked it

7:57 ↗ was. That's that's the view out of our

7:59 ↗ window. It used to be a forest and then

8:02 ↗ it turned into that. So when when

8:05 ↗ someone like me says trees, it's because

8:09 ↗ we've worked for 25 years to protect as

8:13 ↗ much of our forested nature of this town

8:15 ↗ as we can because it is part of our

8:18 ↗ culture. It's the outdoor recreation.

8:21 ↗ It's our part of our reason for being

8:23 ↗ and it's our financial attraction.

8:25 ↗ People say, "Oh, it's beautiful. Oh,

8:27 ↗ it's so green." And it makes it

8:30 ↗ expensive. It makes it hard to develop.

8:33 ↗ But it is a core value of our town. So

8:37 ↗ when I talk about the tree code, it's

8:39 ↗ because I have reread the tree code like

8:41 ↗ 10,000 times and I see the failures of

8:44 ↗ it. And when I read the heritage tree

8:49 ↗ thing that I was the last person who

8:51 ↗ tried to submit something for, which

8:54 ↗ actually never made it to the park board

8:56 ↗ except for me coming here at Jeff, never

9:00 ↗ officially made it to the park board

9:02 ↗ because they said it actually did not

9:05 ↗ adhere to the standards at that time.

9:08 ↗ And that is why they've tried to change

9:12 ↗ the the application form to make it so

9:17 ↗ that it would be more functional. So I

9:19 ↗ read the because Jeff did bring it to

9:21 ↗ Parkboard. It was just it didn't make

9:23 ↗ it.

9:24 ↗ It didn't go any further. And so for me

9:28 ↗ um that was a waste of my time except

9:32 ↗ for the fact that we might get something

9:33 ↗ better. So I read this I say is it

9:35 ↗ better? And I have to say no.

9:38 ↗ It's not better because as a person who

9:42 ↗ reads code in the language, I cannot

9:46 ↗ protect

9:49 ↗ a heritage tree

9:51 ↗ on a public piece of property in any

9:56 ↗ particular form that I can understand

9:59 ↗ because I I wanted to get the trees that

10:01 ↗ are around Tibbitz Valley Park

10:02 ↗ protected. And so the first step is you

10:06 ↗ need the uh approval of the land owner

10:10 ↗ which is public. So

10:14 ↗ I don't know what that means. Don't know

10:16 ↗ the criteria. Don't know how it works.

10:18 ↗ Don't know who decides. Don't know if

10:20 ↗ you all get to see it. Right? And then

10:23 ↗ and then it goes through a process to

10:25 ↗ see if it's good enough. Right? If it's

10:27 ↗ not good enough, then the park director

10:29 ↗ can just say it wasn't good enough. And

10:30 ↗ there's no thing that I'm paraphrasing,

10:34 ↗ you know,

10:35 ↗ >> it's all good. Keep going.

10:36 ↗ >> Um, but there's nothing saying it has to

10:38 ↗ come to the park board so that there can

10:40 ↗ be an explanation of why it wasn't good

10:43 ↗ enough. So maybe there could be

10:45 ↗ discussion about it. And so it's only if

10:48 ↗ it's approved by the land owner,

10:51 ↗ potentially the city, and then approved

10:53 ↗ by the parks director, that you all

10:56 ↗ might get to see it. And I disagree with

10:59 ↗ that. I think it needs more eyeballs

11:01 ↗ than that. Now, if we don't want

11:03 ↗ heritage trees,

11:05 ↗ then we just say we don't care, right?

11:08 ↗ There's also that snappy bit of code

11:09 ↗ that we just had the uh a code change on

11:12 ↗ our tree code that basically added the

11:15 ↗ ability to take

11:19 ↗ pretty much all the trees out of some

11:22 ↗ areas of the central Isiqua plan and

11:25 ↗ that includes all heritage trees. So

11:29 ↗ currently and so I think some language

11:31 ↗ needs to be added if you think that

11:33 ↗ maybe in the central Isqua area there

11:36 ↗ might be some heritage trees that you

11:38 ↗ want protected because right now there's

11:40 ↗ no way to protect them. Okay. So my tree

11:43 ↗ passion continues. Maybe one day I'll

11:46 ↗ talk about something like the aqua.

11:48 ↗ Wouldn't that be exciting? Thank you.

11:51 ↗ Yeah.

11:55 ↗ Yeah. Has anybody caught up online at

11:57 ↗ all?

11:58 ↗ >> No, doesn't look like it. These are just

12:00 ↗ our members.

12:02 ↗ >> Thank you for comment as well as the

12:05 ↗ artifact

12:08 ↗ that um with that we can move on to

12:11 ↗ regular business. We have on the agenda

12:14 ↗ item.

12:16 ↗ >> We do. I'm happy to to give an

12:18 ↗ introduction. Dan Hint is with us

12:21 ↗ online. Hi Dan, our urban forest

12:22 ↗ supervisor. Uh Dan will be um going

12:26 ↗ through the the presentation tonight. Um

12:29 ↗ I guess just as as way of introduction,

12:31 ↗ um I know we've had a number of

12:33 ↗ discussions about the Heritage Tree

12:35 ↗ program. Uh we are excited to bring this

12:37 ↗ to you because we very much are looking

12:40 ↗ forward to a staff of getting this

12:41 ↗ Heritage Tree program um out and

12:45 ↗ available. Um and quite frankly, what

12:47 ↗ you'll hear tonight is we really want to

12:49 ↗ position it more publicly. Um, you know,

12:51 ↗ this has been a program, as Dan will

12:54 ↗ highlight, that uh started in 2005.

12:57 ↗ Um, pretty much every tree that was has

13:00 ↗ been nominated and selected uh was done

13:03 ↗ by city staff. Uh, we want to change

13:05 ↗ that. Uh, we want this to be much more

13:07 ↗ outward- facing uh program. And so, the

13:09 ↗ intent tonight is to talk through

13:11 ↗ content. Um, hopefully get your approval

13:14 ↗ of content. Uh, we then will turn around

13:17 ↗ and put promotional materials together.

13:20 ↗ um greatly update the promotional

13:22 ↗ materials and um get this out and

13:25 ↗ promoted um charted in 2026 so we can

13:28 ↗ have a series of trees to talk about or

13:31 ↗ nominations to talk about um in 2026 as

13:34 ↗ as Dan is um going to share. Um another

13:38 ↗ thing I really want to emphasize is um

13:40 ↗ this is a program. This by itself is not

13:44 ↗ policy. This by itself was not code. Um

13:48 ↗ um but as a program it is really

13:49 ↗ intended to celebrate the trees that we

13:51 ↗ hold dear. Um and thankfully you know

13:55 ↗ from 2005 to now we have um a more

13:59 ↗ holistic urban forest program. Um and

14:01 ↗ and certainly a a strategy to take care

14:04 ↗ of every tree whether it's designated

14:06 ↗ heritage or not. Um a far more robust

14:10 ↗ tree coat exists now too. Thanks Maronei

14:13 ↗ and and community. Um, is it perfect?

14:17 ↗ Probably not. But, um, it's certainly

14:19 ↗ pro progress. So, this program is not

14:22 ↗ intended to,

14:24 ↗ um, do the work by itself. It's it's

14:27 ↗ meant to play a role in a much more um,

14:31 ↗ collective cohesive approach to taking

14:34 ↗ care of um, the trees in and around

14:38 ↗ Isiqua. So, with that intro, Dan, um,

14:41 ↗ thanks again for for joining us tonight.

14:46 ↗ Great. Thanks, J.

14:51 ↗ Forest supervisor. Um, a handful of

14:53 ↗ slides. We talked about this just a

14:55 ↗ couple months ago. So, I want to kind of

14:56 ↗ get into discussion, but these will be a

14:58 ↗ little bit more specific on, as Jeff

15:00 ↗ mentioned, kind of content and process

15:02 ↗ for the heritage tree program with the

15:04 ↗ goal of getting this relaunched and

15:06 ↗ reactivated in 2026.

15:08 ↗ So, Sy, we can jump to the next one,

15:10 ↗ please.

15:14 ↗ So, you all saw the slide back in

15:16 ↗ September, but just to kind of set the

15:18 ↗ baseline again here, um these programs

15:22 ↗ exist across the nation. There's quite a

15:24 ↗ few of them in in Washington. Most our

15:26 ↗ neighboring cities have some form of

15:28 ↗ heritage tree program. um really you

15:32 ↗ know kind of uh looking at significant

15:34 ↗ trees to the community you know and that

15:36 ↗ is where we'll get into that kind of

15:38 ↗ content here on the next slide but you

15:40 ↗ know really meant to recognize celebrate

15:42 ↗ certainly elements of protection and you

15:44 ↗ know education around you know those

15:46 ↗ unique trees that embody is aqua or you

15:49 ↗ know they they might be heritage trees

15:50 ↗ elsewhere too and then some of them tell

15:52 ↗ a very specific community story too so

15:54 ↗ there's there's a little bit of both

15:55 ↗ there um and as Jeff mentioned you know

15:57 ↗ this was developed initially in 2005

15:59 ↗ five um but have not had a heritage tree

16:02 ↗ nominated or added to the catalog since

16:04 ↗ 2012. We have about 25 uh trees give or

16:08 ↗ take currently in our heritage tree uh

16:10 ↗ program.

16:13 ↗ Next slide please.

16:16 ↗ Okay. So this is where we'll get into um

16:20 ↗ characteristics the three categories

16:21 ↗ that we have defined a few changes from

16:24 ↗ what was uh produced about 20 years ago.

16:28 ↗ Um I can give a few kind of reasons for

16:30 ↗ those justifications but certainly could

16:31 ↗ be part of our discussion at the end of

16:33 ↗ this presentation. Um so specimen is

16:36 ↗ really looking at a tree of exceptional

16:38 ↗ size. I did want to emphasize for its

16:40 ↗ species. Um we have a lot of obviously

16:43 ↗ large growing long live trees like our

16:46 ↗ Douglas furs or a lot of our native

16:48 ↗ evergreen or conifer trees. Um and those

16:50 ↗ are great. I'm not to say that those

16:52 ↗ shouldn't be considered and they have

16:53 ↗ been quite heavily already in this

16:55 ↗ program. But there's a lot of tree

16:57 ↗ species that can be far on in maturity,

17:00 ↗ contribute a lot to our tree canopy, uh

17:02 ↗ but not necessarily be giant trees, but

17:04 ↗ for for it species, um might really

17:06 ↗ stand out. Um that relates to age, of

17:09 ↗ course, too. Older trees generally are

17:11 ↗ going to be bigger. Um could be

17:13 ↗ different growing conditions, so that's

17:14 ↗ not always 100% the case, but age and

17:16 ↗ size are definitely pretty closely

17:18 ↗ correlated. Um form, and then rarity. So

17:22 ↗ talking about tree species that uh may

17:25 ↗ not be real common in Isiqua, you know,

17:27 ↗ for instance, we have a big leaf

17:28 ↗ magnolia tree at Gilman Village as a

17:31 ↗ designated heritage tree and that is the

17:33 ↗ only one I know of within the city of

17:34 ↗ Isiqua and even in its native range is a

17:36 ↗ pretty rare tree in the southeast of the

17:39 ↗ United States. So guess kind of an

17:40 ↗ example of of a species rarity there. Uh

17:44 ↗ historic um a tree recognized by its

17:47 ↗ association with a historic location,

17:49 ↗ structure, person, or event. I'm going

17:51 ↗ to kind of hop ahead uh to changes down

17:53 ↗ there and come back to ecological value.

17:55 ↗ But we specimen we've kind of uh you

17:58 ↗ know looking at other programs in the

18:00 ↗ region here and just thinking it's a

18:02 ↗ little bit more accurate than purely

18:04 ↗ size or age is the category we had

18:05 ↗ before. So that is a change uh while it

18:08 ↗ still encompasses size or age it's a

18:11 ↗ little bit more broad to emphasize uh

18:13 ↗ form rarity as well. uh historic too. We

18:17 ↗ removed you know specific call out to

18:19 ↗ early settlers which was in our kind of

18:21 ↗ first uh version of heritage trees

18:23 ↗ created 20 years ago. Um to really just

18:26 ↗ just make make it clear this is not

18:27 ↗ purely a you know kind of European 1890s

18:31 ↗ on early Isiqua. There potentially could

18:34 ↗ be other historic trees that are

18:36 ↗ associated with cultures or events prior

18:39 ↗ to then. Um we've discussed some we're

18:41 ↗ not going to get into depth tonight that

18:42 ↗ culturally modified trees for uh tribes

18:45 ↗ here are not going to be included in

18:47 ↗ this program and that is off of

18:49 ↗ consultation with both the Muckleshoot

18:51 ↗ Indian tribe and Snowquami tribe and

18:52 ↗ concerns of publicizing what are very

18:55 ↗ sacred trees to their people. Um we

18:58 ↗ would like to provide highlevel

19:00 ↗ education on culturally modified trees

19:02 ↗ probably as a complement to this program

19:04 ↗ but won't be identifying or or

19:06 ↗ nominating specific uh culturally

19:08 ↗ modified trees but we we did want to

19:11 ↗ kind of update the historic category

19:12 ↗ there um to make that a little bit more

19:14 ↗ inclusive. Uh ecological value is the

19:17 ↗ last one tree that provides special

19:19 ↗ ecological benefit not commonly seen in

19:21 ↗ Isiqua. Um

19:23 ↗ there could be more added to that. We're

19:25 ↗ trying to keep these pretty short and

19:26 ↗ concise, but other cities that have

19:28 ↗ similar and and you know, this is stuff

19:30 ↗ we could we could, you know, write in

19:31 ↗ into the, you know, considerations when

19:33 ↗ we're designating trees or considering

19:35 ↗ what trees to designate, but often

19:37 ↗ you're talking about habitat for

19:38 ↗ wildlife. You're talking about air and

19:40 ↗ water quality benefits or, uh, storm

19:43 ↗ water benefits, uh, carbon

19:44 ↗ sequestration, which might relate to

19:46 ↗ bigger, more long live trees, but is

19:48 ↗ certainly an ecological benefit provided

19:50 ↗ by trees. So those are often the um uh

19:54 ↗ categories that you're looking at when

19:55 ↗ you're talking about ecological value.

19:57 ↗ And I want to highlight before we move

19:59 ↗ on here that you know heritage trees

20:01 ↗ should and likely will encompass

20:03 ↗ multiple categories and there certainly

20:05 ↗ overlap. So that isn't to say that it

20:08 ↗ heritage tree couldn't just specifically

20:09 ↗ be a historic tree, but likely that

20:11 ↗ might be a older tree, a large tree, um

20:15 ↗ similar with overlap with ecological

20:17 ↗ benefits too. So, we're kind of looking

20:19 ↗ at these as really kind of interwoven uh

20:22 ↗ characteristic uh categories for our

20:24 ↗ heritage trees. Um so, the ecological

20:26 ↗ value didn't uh change much, but you

20:29 ↗ know, wanted to provide a little more

20:30 ↗ context of what that generally is

20:32 ↗ intended to mean around, you know,

20:34 ↗ wildlife, uh storm water, air quality,

20:36 ↗ carbon sequestration. Those are the

20:38 ↗ those are the type of things that are

20:39 ↗ highlighted in in similar programs that

20:41 ↗ use that that category.

20:45 ↗ And hop on to the next one, please. Um,

20:49 ↗ so really want to kind of just emphasize

20:51 ↗ and to really clear what is in our code

20:53 ↗ and and and what uh you know potentially

20:56 ↗ doesn't exist in terms of uh protections

20:58 ↗ around heritage trees. So this is copied

21:01 ↗ and pasted from our uh most recent

21:03 ↗ updates to the tree code um 188120

21:07 ↗ heritage trees. Uh so we're meeting

21:09 ↗ tonight on the first part of this you

21:11 ↗ know establishing a process to designate

21:12 ↗ a tree as a heritage tree. We might have

21:15 ↗ to make some small tweaks to this, but

21:17 ↗ for the most part, it still captures

21:18 ↗ age, size, ecological value, or historic

21:21 ↗ historic association uh within the city.

21:24 ↗ Um, publicly available tracking data,

21:27 ↗ including removal of all heritage trees

21:29 ↗ within the city. We have, to my

21:31 ↗ knowledge, never removed a heritage tree

21:33 ↗ that has been nominated. We have had a

21:35 ↗ few that have have died. And actually,

21:36 ↗ we have a couple that are still habitat

21:38 ↗ snag, so not living trees, but they're,

21:40 ↗ you know, they're they're still there in

21:42 ↗ some form, like one of our heritage

21:44 ↗ cherry trees at Pickering Barn. Um,

21:46 ↗ removal of heritage trees is prohibited.

21:48 ↗ So, this is really kind of getting into

21:50 ↗ the the protection part of it.

21:51 ↗ Regardless of size, except as provided

21:53 ↗ in IMC 1881250.

21:57 ↗ So, that is essentially what our um

22:00 ↗ approval criteria is for tree removals.

22:03 ↗ So that's removal of a tree meeting the

22:06 ↗ definitions of a nuisance tree. Removal

22:08 ↗ of a tree with the purpose of replacing

22:10 ↗ dead, dying or diseased trees. Um

22:12 ↗ thinning heavily wooded areas which I

22:15 ↗ don't think would likely apply here. Um

22:17 ↗ but that is also one of the removal

22:19 ↗ criteria that technically would be

22:21 ↗ eligible and removing trees providing

22:23 ↗ solar access to buildings incorporating

22:25 ↗ active solar energy system. Um, so

22:28 ↗ really the the caveat here and Connie is

22:31 ↗ certainly getting into some of the

22:32 ↗ nuances of this is that for the most

22:34 ↗ part heritage trees can't be removed as

22:36 ↗ part of development projects. Um, there

22:39 ↗ are caveats there. One of them is that

22:41 ↗ our whole tree code chapter has uh

22:44 ↗ language on variances. So you know

22:46 ↗ exceptional conditions exist to prevent

22:48 ↗ full compliance with this chapter. A

22:50 ↗ variance may be granted. So that that

22:52 ↗ could apply to heritage trees, that

22:53 ↗ could apply to other uh canopy targets

22:56 ↗ and things like that. And that sounds,

22:58 ↗ you know, kind of what's going on with

23:00 ↗ some of the uh centraliz uh uh

23:03 ↗ development code, too. So um but like

23:06 ↗ for the most part, like I said, the

23:07 ↗ biggest protection is that uh from from

23:09 ↗ development projects um with with the

23:12 ↗ 18812 uh 120 heritage trees there. Um,

23:16 ↗ we've also kind of confirmed talking

23:18 ↗ through our community planning, talking

23:19 ↗ to other cities, you know, this is not

23:21 ↗ deed it down. So, if you do sell your

23:23 ↗ property, that is part of something, you

23:24 ↗ know, this this applies mostly for

23:26 ↗ heritage trees on private property that

23:28 ↗ the new property owner would still have

23:30 ↗ to sign on to. So, that'd be something

23:31 ↗ that we would need to do our best to

23:33 ↗ track uh connect with, you know, any

23:35 ↗ potential new land owners and really

23:37 ↗ kind of talk through the the program and

23:38 ↗ the process there.

23:41 ↗ Um, and move along, please.

23:47 ↗ question.

23:49 ↗ >> Thank you, John. Um, okay. So, now kind

23:52 ↗ of getting a little bit more, we've

23:53 ↗ talked a little bit about the, you know,

23:54 ↗ kind of content and categories, talked

23:57 ↗ about the code, and now we're kind of

23:58 ↗ talking about process. Um

24:02 ↗ so you know the the way it's worked in

24:04 ↗ the past and I think we continue to plan

24:06 ↗ to do it this way is you know

24:07 ↗ nominations can be submitted at any time

24:10 ↗ but we would like to set you know a time

24:12 ↗ frame and a kind of uh schedule annually

24:14 ↗ that we will uh review um uh all the all

24:18 ↗ the nominations coming in for heritage

24:21 ↗ trees. I guess kind of a step before

24:23 ↗ that though is we really want to use our

24:24 ↗ annual Arbor Day which is usually our

24:26 ↗ first Saturday in April as a really big

24:29 ↗ kickoff for program promotion. So once

24:32 ↗ again people can submit annually but we

24:34 ↗ would like to use that event as an

24:35 ↗ opportunity to really kind of push this

24:37 ↗ program out to the public. You know

24:39 ↗ really try to connect people with some

24:41 ↗ of their favorite trees while you know

24:43 ↗ emphasizing these categories that we

24:45 ↗ have for heritage trees uh

24:46 ↗ characteristics and you know see what

24:48 ↗ sort of nominations we can get. uh as

24:51 ↗ Jeff mentioned, you know, as much from

24:52 ↗ the public source versus, you know, the

24:54 ↗ the past city forester or from someone

24:56 ↗ like me who certainly has candidates in

24:58 ↗ mind, but I think that's more powerful

24:59 ↗ if that's coming from members in our

25:01 ↗ community. And keep in mind that would

25:03 ↗ be both be for trees on public property

25:04 ↗ and and certainly trees on private

25:06 ↗ property as well as a goal to build that

25:08 ↗ up. I would say right now it's about 25%

25:10 ↗ of our trees are on private property.

25:12 ↗ Several of them in Gillan Village, a few

25:14 ↗ that are truly on private residential

25:16 ↗ property, but the bulk of them are on uh

25:19 ↗ public property at this point. Um talked

25:22 ↗ about must having signature for property

25:24 ↗ owner, but this is kind of getting back

25:26 ↗ to where we want to set some regularity

25:28 ↗ that we'll have city staff uh review

25:30 ↗ annually in July. Um, I do think there

25:33 ↗ are conversations on how we could work,

25:35 ↗ you know, whether that is a parkboard

25:37 ↗ meeting or an ad hoc team where we're

25:39 ↗ really kind of working together with

25:41 ↗ myself to kind of review and and see

25:43 ↗ what uh trees we think best meet the

25:45 ↗ criteria and intention of this program.

25:47 ↗ So I think that's certainly worthy

25:49 ↗ discussion too uh here in just a little

25:51 ↗ bit how we want to kind of take you know

25:53 ↗ whatever nominations come in in that

25:54 ↗ year leading up to July for that review

25:57 ↗ and then you know kind of the process of

25:59 ↗ how that might be whittleled down to

26:00 ↗ what actually comes to the park board in

26:02 ↗ September for uh reviewing and approving

26:05 ↗ um possible designations of heritage

26:07 ↗ trees.

26:08 ↗ Dan, can I can I add something as well?

26:11 ↗ Just as you and I have talked through

26:13 ↗ this process and we want to make clear

26:16 ↗ >> um and I think the question has been

26:17 ↗ raised but uh the intent of this program

26:20 ↗ is that um as any any nomination all

26:26 ↗ nominations will come to the park board.

26:28 ↗ You will be shared with you. There's not

26:30 ↗ an intent of um only bringing before you

26:34 ↗ nominations that are recommended by

26:36 ↗ staff. um you would you would see any

26:40 ↗ and all nominations and this work that

26:42 ↗ would be done um in the summer uh that

26:46 ↗ um Dan would lead we would uh certainly

26:50 ↗ work with any other whether it's a

26:51 ↗ private property we need to do the work

26:53 ↗ with those private property owners if

26:55 ↗ it's on public property certainly do the

26:57 ↗ the necessary vetting we need to do um

27:00 ↗ so you would see those nominees nominees

27:04 ↗ that are being recommended will be

27:06 ↗ commun communicated it to you, but you

27:08 ↗ will see both those that are not

27:10 ↗ recommended and those that are

27:11 ↗ recommended for heritage trees. So, uh

27:14 ↗ there's no intent to somehow shield from

27:18 ↗ you nor the public um any trees um that

27:21 ↗ were that were nominated.

27:25 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Jeff.

27:28 ↗ Jump to the next slide, please.

27:34 ↗ Um this is a a little redundant to the

27:37 ↗ last slide, but if people like

27:38 ↗ flowcharts better than bulleted list, uh

27:41 ↗ maybe this is a little more uh uh

27:44 ↗ fitting for for you, but um you know,

27:46 ↗ really kind of looking at this kind of

27:48 ↗ from, as I mentioned, you know, our

27:49 ↗ annual spring arbor day really focus on

27:51 ↗ program outreach form submitted. um they

27:54 ↗ could come in before that, but you know,

27:56 ↗ that's really going to be the

27:57 ↗ three-month window or so in the spring

27:59 ↗ and early summer that we're going to

28:00 ↗ really focus on driving uh nominations

28:02 ↗ from the public. Um you know, part of

28:04 ↗ the viability review, we'll talk a

28:06 ↗ little bit more on the next slide on,

28:07 ↗ you know, some kind of little bit more

28:09 ↗ nuanced considerations and purely the

28:11 ↗ characteristic categories we talked

28:13 ↗ about in one of the first slides. Um but

28:15 ↗ some of that will be, you know,

28:17 ↗ location. And we want to make sure these

28:18 ↗ trees are in relatively good health so

28:20 ↗ we're not nominating trees that are then

28:21 ↗ you know going to be pose hazards or be

28:23 ↗ kind of falling apart within you know 5

28:25 ↗ 10 years or so. So that'll be something

28:27 ↗ that'll be on me is doing some you know

28:29 ↗ kind of uh you know both health and

28:31 ↗ structural condition assessments um as

28:33 ↗ part of that tree health assessment. Um

28:35 ↗ for public trees we are you know talking

28:37 ↗ about having directors keep in mind that

28:40 ↗ might be Jeff a lot of the times for

28:41 ↗ parks but you know certain trees are

28:43 ↗ within rideaways too. So there could be

28:45 ↗ conversations with um Emily Moon, our

28:48 ↗ public works director on this too. But

28:50 ↗ um private nominations of course is a

28:52 ↗ slightly different process. They're the

28:53 ↗ little blue bubble um you know working

28:56 ↗ to make sure they understand what that

28:57 ↗ kind of looks like on private property

28:59 ↗ and getting the information we need from

29:01 ↗ them uh before potentially moving

29:02 ↗ forward to that uh you know kind of

29:04 ↗ final review of a of a you know somewhat

29:07 ↗ whittleled down um collection of

29:09 ↗ heritage trees that we think are most

29:11 ↗ fitting for designation in that given

29:13 ↗ year. uh at the September park board

29:15 ↗ meeting. So those approved trees at that

29:17 ↗ point, this becomes more of the

29:18 ↗ formality, but they'll go to likely an

29:20 ↗ October or November city council meeting

29:22 ↗ where there'll be a mayoral declaration

29:25 ↗ uh designating formally designating

29:26 ↗ those heritage trees to the program. Um

29:29 ↗ once that's awarded, you know, we have

29:31 ↗ to add to the project map, photos,

29:33 ↗ descriptions to the website and public

29:34 ↗ facing. And this is a good point just to

29:36 ↗ kind of call out that, you know, in my

29:38 ↗ head, this is really phase one. H how do

29:39 ↗ we how do we get this up and running? uh

29:42 ↗ really try to, you know, get new trees

29:43 ↗ into this program. But such a big part

29:45 ↗ of it is after that, how do we make this

29:47 ↗ more engaging with the community? How do

29:50 ↗ we make it more educational? How do we

29:51 ↗ make it so people actually know when

29:53 ↗ they stumble across a heritage tree,

29:54 ↗ it's a heritage tree, you know? So,

29:56 ↗ we've talked in the past about small

29:57 ↗ little uh identifying plaques and things

30:00 ↗ like that, too. So, there's there's a

30:01 ↗ lot of work to do there um to continue

30:03 ↗ to build the visibility of this program

30:06 ↗ uh on that kind of public facing side of

30:08 ↗ things. stuff that in my couple years

30:09 ↗ with the city so far, we've kind of

30:11 ↗ dabbled with leading some um partner

30:13 ↗ hikes with Isiqua history museums on uh

30:16 ↗ heritage trees and cultural history of

30:18 ↗ Isiqua. Um and then there's been some

30:20 ↗ kind of one-offs reaching out to me

30:22 ↗ around interest to get more information,

30:24 ↗ updates to our website. We definitely

30:26 ↗ need a little bit better of an

30:27 ↗ interactive map versus, you know, just

30:28 ↗ kind of list of addresses, but uh things

30:30 ↗ that we'll continue to build out um as

30:33 ↗ we get this program up and running

30:34 ↗ again. So that's kind of the proposed

30:36 ↗ updates to process and timeline and

30:38 ↗ really trying to kind of solidify, you

30:40 ↗ know, some of the feedback we heard is

30:42 ↗ that a lot of this stuff just came to

30:43 ↗ the park board in September and then

30:45 ↗ kind of move forward. There wasn't, you

30:47 ↗ know, that opportunity to have a little

30:48 ↗ bit earlier touch point um or much

30:51 ↗ opportunity if there are public

30:52 ↗ nominations coming in to, you know,

30:54 ↗ really truly kind of review, vet, and

30:56 ↗ gather information, you know, about

30:58 ↗ those individual heritage tree

31:00 ↗ nominations. So um I think we just have

31:03 ↗ one more slide here if I remember right.

31:10 ↗ >> So just a few considerations that that I

31:13 ↗ think are important but this is

31:14 ↗ certainly worthwhile discussion. Um, and

31:17 ↗ I I I some of this based on feedback

31:19 ↗ I've heard from the park board recently

31:21 ↗ in the last couple months and as we sort

31:23 ↗ of brought this uh um up when I started

31:26 ↗ about two years ago um before um you

31:29 ↗ know kind of moving priority to the

31:30 ↗ forest management plan tableabling this

31:31 ↗ for a little bit and coming back. But

31:33 ↗ these are um definitely considerations

31:36 ↗ that I think are important when we're

31:37 ↗ trying to move nominations forward to

31:40 ↗ designation. And some of that is species

31:42 ↗ diversity. uh you know do we already

31:44 ↗ have a lot of these tree species

31:45 ↗ designated already? That doesn't mean we

31:47 ↗ can't add more, but I think you know one

31:50 ↗ goal of this program to me is to educate

31:52 ↗ around a wide variety of species. Native

31:54 ↗ species is a big part of it, but there's

31:56 ↗ certainly introduced species that are

31:58 ↗ really important for a lot of the, you

32:01 ↗ know, characteristics we're talking

32:02 ↗ about for heritage trees in our

32:03 ↗ community and I think are worthwhile

32:05 ↗ consideration as well. So, I I I put

32:07 ↗ that in there because, you know, we do

32:08 ↗ have a lot of Douglas fur. We have a lot

32:10 ↗ of uh redwoods, you know, trees that are

32:13 ↗ naturally very big. Um, but maybe don't

32:16 ↗ celebrate some of the tree diversity

32:17 ↗ that we have in Isiqua as well as we

32:19 ↗ could be doing with this program. So,

32:21 ↗ that's something to consider. Like I

32:22 ↗ said, it's not a we aren't going to

32:24 ↗ nominate more Douglas fur trees or or

32:25 ↗ designate more Douglas fur trees, but

32:27 ↗ something that I think we should just be

32:28 ↗ kind of sifting through when we're

32:30 ↗ comparing nominations against each

32:31 ↗ other. uh tree condition I already kind

32:33 ↗ of touched on, but you know, we want

32:34 ↗ trees to be in a good condition. That's

32:36 ↗ kind of looking at the health of the

32:37 ↗ tree and then also the structure of the

32:39 ↗ tree, which could relate to, you know,

32:40 ↗ potential hazardous issues. Um, tree

32:43 ↗ size. This is, you know, not something

32:45 ↗ that I I I think we'll ever have a, you

32:47 ↗ know, just like clear guidance on is

32:50 ↗ this tree big enough for a heritage

32:51 ↗ tree, but there's a great resource out

32:53 ↗ there called Washington State Champions

32:55 ↗ where most of our tree species, both

32:58 ↗ native and a lot of the common

32:59 ↗ introduced tree species we use in the

33:01 ↗ landscape um have have uh you know,

33:05 ↗ measurements for some of the largest

33:06 ↗ specimens in the state. So, you know,

33:08 ↗ similar growing conditions that we have,

33:10 ↗ it's in Washington alone. Um, and we

33:12 ↗ could use that as a as a point of

33:14 ↗ reference or point of comparison when

33:16 ↗ we're kind of talking about size uh of

33:18 ↗ trees here. And like I said, not

33:20 ↗ necessarily just the biggest biggest,

33:21 ↗ but of that species. It might be um

33:24 ↗ uniquely old or large, you know, for for

33:27 ↗ a given species. I'm thinking of

33:29 ↗ something like the Pacific Madrron that

33:30 ↗ doesn't grow very large, but you know,

33:32 ↗ can still be a a specimen tree. Um, so

33:35 ↗ that is a great reference I think that

33:37 ↗ we could be used as we're kind of

33:38 ↗ working through the nominations and and

33:40 ↗ trying to whittle that down to potential

33:42 ↗ designations. Uh, noxious weeds, you

33:45 ↗ know, there's several trees on the King

33:48 ↗ County noxious weed list. Um, so I think

33:50 ↗ it would probably make sense not to

33:52 ↗ include uh trees that are listed as

33:54 ↗ noxious weeds uh as part of our heritage

33:57 ↗ tree program, but that that's something

33:58 ↗ we could certainly discuss. Um and then

34:01 ↗ lastly, you know, number of

34:02 ↗ designations. Knowing that this program

34:04 ↗ has been dormant for uh a decade plus,

34:07 ↗ uh historically we limited that at

34:08 ↗ three, I do think it is important to

34:11 ↗ have some kind of higher bar in criteria

34:14 ↗ for uh you know, achieving heritage tree

34:16 ↗ status. The goal is not to just have,

34:18 ↗ you know, hundreds or thousands just

34:20 ↗ kind of thrown right back into the

34:21 ↗ program. But we also realize that, you

34:23 ↗ know, as we try to get more nominations,

34:24 ↗ try to get more people involved, three

34:26 ↗ certainly seems like a limiting uh

34:29 ↗ number to really kind of jumpst start

34:30 ↗ this program, too. So, we're looking at

34:32 ↗ uh waving that here as we as we restart

34:35 ↗ the program.

34:37 ↗ Um,

34:38 ↗ >> well said, Dan. Do do you have an

34:40 ↗ example of what a a noxious tree would

34:43 ↗ be?

34:44 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean, the first one that comes

34:46 ↗ to my mind would be uh English holly.

34:48 ↗ Um, horse chestnut is listed as a a weed

34:52 ↗ of concern on the noxious weed list.

34:54 ↗ English Hawthorne, I've actually had a

34:56 ↗ family reach out to me that has a really

34:59 ↗ large old English hawthornne on their

35:01 ↗ property and they've actually been

35:03 ↗ interested in not necessarily heritage

35:05 ↗ trees, but other ways to protect it. Um,

35:07 ↗ which you know, potentially. So, I think

35:09 ↗ these are the things that are

35:11 ↗ considerations that are that are out

35:12 ↗ there that I that I have been contacted

35:14 ↗ about. You know, you could you could

35:16 ↗ spin it the other way where it could be

35:17 ↗ used as this is still a you know, old

35:20 ↗ tree meets the specimen standards, but

35:22 ↗ we really educate around why we don't

35:24 ↗ propagate this or we don't plant this um

35:27 ↗ because of its invasive uh properties,

35:29 ↗ but those are a few that come to my

35:30 ↗ mind. Hawthorne, chestnut, holly.

35:33 ↗ >> Um there's probably a few more I'm not

35:35 ↗ thinking of. It's not a huge list for

35:36 ↗ what it's worth. You know, most of the

35:37 ↗ noxious weed list are are truly, you

35:39 ↗ know, herbaceous weeds or or or shrubs,

35:42 ↗ you know, things like blackberry ivy.

35:44 ↗ Um, but there are certainly a handful of

35:45 ↗ of species on the King County noctress

35:47 ↗ weed list.

35:48 ↗ >> Thanks for that.

35:51 ↗ >> Yeah,

35:55 ↗ >> I think the next slide, if I remember it

35:56 ↗ correct, is questions and discussion.

35:58 ↗ So, I will pause there and happy to kind

36:01 ↗ of chat through as a reminder. You know,

36:03 ↗ we're kind of talking about the that the

36:05 ↗ content, you know, essentially those

36:06 ↗ three categories. We talk about heritage

36:08 ↗ tree characteristics and some of the

36:09 ↗ small tweaks there and talking about the

36:12 ↗ code or protection element and then

36:13 ↗ really talking about uh process for for

36:16 ↗ um jump starting this program again in

36:18 ↗ 2026.

36:23 ↗ And while you're all thinking uh

36:25 ↗ questions or having discussion, uh Dan,

36:28 ↗ maybe you and I could could tag team

36:30 ↗ this u because I know it's it's a

36:32 ↗ discussion we've had as a group um a

36:36 ↗ couple of times as we've talked about do

36:37 ↗ we want to consider groves or stands of

36:40 ↗ trees? Um, and Dan, I just thought maybe

36:43 ↗ we could talk about this a little bit

36:45 ↗ and that um, as we've done some sort of

36:49 ↗ comparing with our peers, looking at how

36:51 ↗ other cities handle roads and stands,

36:54 ↗ um, we feel like there's more work to

36:56 ↗ do. Uh, we we don't feel like we're

36:58 ↗ ready to to

37:00 ↗ um, sort of put some boundaries or

37:02 ↗ understanding around how do we recognize

37:05 ↗ the stand of trees? Does that mean every

37:07 ↗ tree has the same um the same

37:10 ↗ protection? Um are we recognizing the

37:13 ↗ stand or are we recognizing each

37:15 ↗ individual tree? Um and so um it's not

37:19 ↗ that we don't want to uh we would like

37:21 ↗ to do a little bit more work and um in a

37:25 ↗ year or two be able to come back um when

37:27 ↗ we feel that much more informed and know

37:30 ↗ how to you know do we create a

37:32 ↗ subcategory or is it the same category

37:34 ↗ and just you know how do how do we treat

37:36 ↗ that and so um and I guess an example to

37:40 ↗ that is as a program we don't want to

37:43 ↗ leave this untouched for the next 20

37:45 ↗ years um like any program that we do um

37:49 ↗ in many divisions of this department,

37:51 ↗ let's let's review the program every two

37:54 ↗ or three years um and see how we might

37:56 ↗ want to adapt um add to it, adjust to

38:00 ↗ it. So, I just wanted to give that as an

38:02 ↗ example. Dad, anything to add to that?

38:06 ↗ You know, your last point kind of nailed

38:08 ↗ what I, you know, wanted to emphasize

38:09 ↗ too is that, you know, this is something

38:12 ↗ that to to me guess kind of use the

38:14 ↗ phrase a lot, you know, maybe a little

38:15 ↗ bit of pace over perfection. really

38:17 ↗ trying to get this going again, trying

38:20 ↗ to get trees uh you know, new trees into

38:22 ↗ the program, trying to engage the

38:23 ↗ public, use it as an educational tool,

38:25 ↗ but know that there's certainly things

38:26 ↗ that we might need to change or tweak um

38:29 ↗ moving forward and making sure that as

38:31 ↗ as Jeff you mentioned, we're setting

38:32 ↗ aside that time, you know, in the next,

38:34 ↗ you know, one or two years after

38:36 ↗ hopefully rolling this out in 2026 to to

38:38 ↗ kind of revisit and readjust as needed,

38:41 ↗ including the groves of trees, which

38:43 ↗ which I would say it's, you know,

38:44 ↗ there's not that we have to follow other

38:46 ↗ programs. It's it's probably, you know,

38:48 ↗ 50/50 out there in terms of cities that

38:50 ↗ have some elements of collections of

38:51 ↗ trees or groves or stands of trees. Um,

38:54 ↗ and then ones that really look at the

38:56 ↗ kind of individual uh heritage tree

38:58 ↗ status. So,

39:00 ↗ >> thanks. Looks like we have some raised

39:02 ↗ hands, Ryan.

39:04 ↗ >> Yeah, Jane, I think you're the first one

39:07 ↗ I can see.

39:09 ↗ >> Yeah. Hi, everybody. Um, this is

39:10 ↗ awesome. I'm really excited about this.

39:12 ↗ There's a uh there's a tree that I walk

39:15 ↗ by every morning with my dog Walter that

39:17 ↗ I say hello to that I'd love to

39:19 ↗ nominate. I'm just thinking through how

39:22 ↗ I might approach this if I wanted to

39:24 ↗ nominate this tree. It's on somebody

39:26 ↗ else's property and I'm looking at the

39:28 ↗ um Isqua Heritage Tree brochure that's

39:31 ↗ on the website currently. I it sound it

39:34 ↗ looks like it needs to be updated which

39:36 ↗ I think is part of this conversation. I

39:38 ↗ just had I I just had a couple of

39:40 ↗ thoughts on that. one is it in order to

39:43 ↗ make it easier for somebody like me to

39:46 ↗ nominate a tree that's not on my

39:48 ↗ property. Um

39:51 ↗ uh I there's a field in here that says

39:54 ↗ description of the characteristics of

39:56 ↗ the tree. I'm kind of curious if we can

39:58 ↗ just like amend that a little bit to

40:00 ↗ give like a little checklist of the

40:02 ↗ criteria that we listed before in terms

40:06 ↗ of like you know s all the stuff that

40:08 ↗ was on that slide of like what we're

40:10 ↗ looking for. So that's like idea number

40:12 ↗ one. Um idea number two is that same um

40:18 ↗ uh that same brochure. Uh right now it

40:22 ↗ says I understand the heritage

40:23 ↗ designation does not limit my my ability

40:26 ↗ to prune, remove or otherwise maintain

40:29 ↗ my tree. So if I'm understanding

40:32 ↗ uh slide two or three of this deck, that

40:35 ↗ might need to be updated.

40:37 ↗ And then um idea number three was just

40:40 ↗ um again like if I wanted to nominate

40:43 ↗ that tree that I say hello to every

40:45 ↗ morning and I hope you all don't think

40:46 ↗ I'm crazy for doing that. Um is um if I

40:51 ↗ if I wanted to just use this pro

40:53 ↗ brochure to go up to knock on the

40:56 ↗ property owner's door and say hi I love

40:58 ↗ your tree. I'd love to nominate it. Like

41:00 ↗ a few quick bullets that say here's

41:03 ↗ property owner here's what you're

41:05 ↗ signing up for. if you say yes to this.

41:08 ↗ So like it'll be on a map, it'll you

41:10 ↗ know, whatever whatever it might be. So

41:13 ↗ you know, just something that says that

41:15 ↗ makes it easy for eliminates friction

41:19 ↗ from that conversation. I may be

41:22 ↗ reticent for whatever reason to go up to

41:24 ↗ my neighbor and say, "Hi, I dig your

41:26 ↗ tree. I'd like to nominate it." Or

41:28 ↗ whatever. So anyway, those were just

41:30 ↗ those are just some suggestions, but um

41:32 ↗ otherwise, I think it's an awesome

41:34 ↗ program. I'm excited. Thank you.

41:37 ↗ >> Great suggestions.

41:39 ↗ >> Thank you, Diana.

41:46 ↗ >> Hey, sorry, I was muted. Um, so my

41:51 ↗ comment I guess is about the engagement

41:54 ↗ with the public or um your

41:58 ↗ uh suggestion that we might put up some

42:00 ↗ kind of plaque or um signage to inform

42:03 ↗ the public and educate them about the

42:05 ↗ specific characteristics of this tree

42:06 ↗ and why it's included in the program.

42:09 ↗ Granted that not all of these trees may

42:11 ↗ be accessible to the public because they

42:13 ↗ could be on private land, but for the

42:15 ↗ ones that are, um, I live by the

42:17 ↗ reindeer trail. I see a lot of people

42:19 ↗ coming to visit the troll and they are

42:23 ↗ often on kind of a a you know process of

42:29 ↗ seeing all the trolls in the area. It

42:31 ↗ would be cool if we could have some kind

42:33 ↗ of um stamp to be collected at each

42:35 ↗ location or a QR code to scan, something

42:38 ↗ that encourages people to engage with,

42:40 ↗ interact with these trees and actually

42:42 ↗ go visit them um learn more about the

42:45 ↗ program.

42:47 ↗ >> Love it.

42:49 ↗ Dan, I know you've done some

42:50 ↗ brainstorming around that.

42:54 ↗ >> Take that

42:56 ↗ simple hopefully fairly. Yeah, Diana,

42:57 ↗ totally great point. There certain we

42:59 ↗ have three buro trees that are in

43:00 ↗ someone's backyard in the Sycamore

43:02 ↗ neighborhood that I don't think they

43:04 ↗ want people just you know kind of

43:05 ↗ walking in willing to so yes there

43:06 ↗ certainly are ones but then there's

43:07 ↗ private trees that are more publicly

43:09 ↗ accessible as I mentioned we have three

43:11 ↗ heritage trees within Gilman village so

43:13 ↗ that's certainly something we probably

43:14 ↗ could work on you know with them um but

43:17 ↗ yeah I I to me once again this this is

43:20 ↗ such a such an important part of the

43:21 ↗ program as I sort of kind of mentioned

43:23 ↗ phase two is how do we build that

43:25 ↗ awareness of our existing heritage trees

43:27 ↗ ones that we're hopefully nominating

43:28 ↗ next year and and and adding to the the

43:31 ↗ catalog um would be small little even

43:33 ↗ like 4x4 plaques that have a QR code

43:36 ↗ that do that takes you back to our

43:37 ↗ website where we have more information.

43:39 ↗ It certainly could be something as it is

43:41 ↗ a little bit of a you know kind of

43:43 ↗ collector's thing where you can go out

43:44 ↗ and try to visit all of them. Um, a

43:46 ↗ little aside, you know, one of the best

43:48 ↗ emails I got in the last year was from a

43:50 ↗ mom and her seven-year-old daughter who

43:51 ↗ is super into trees and asked for, you

43:53 ↗ know, more information and maps and

43:55 ↗ details on heritage trees because she

43:56 ↗ wanted to go visit all of them. So, I

43:58 ↗ mean, that's the type of stuff that I

44:00 ↗ really want to continue to like be able

44:02 ↗ to build out and offer to the community

44:03 ↗ to do independently and then certainly

44:05 ↗ as part of like organized events as

44:06 ↗ well. So, yeah, a little 4x4 that has,

44:09 ↗ you know, maybe the, you know, is aqua

44:11 ↗ heritage tree. it has the species name

44:13 ↗ and it has a QR code that can both, you

44:16 ↗ know, be a sort of, hey, I' I've visited

44:18 ↗ this and also here's more information on

44:21 ↗ on why that tree uh got designated. So,

44:24 ↗ to to me, that's definitely a big a big

44:26 ↗ project. Um, well, not necessarily big

44:28 ↗ project, a big important part of, you

44:30 ↗ know, really getting recognition and and

44:32 ↗ educating the community around these and

44:33 ↗ having, like I said, hopefully little

44:35 ↗ just I don't think they need to be big

44:36 ↗ signs, but just small signs that kind of

44:38 ↗ call out awareness of the program, the

44:40 ↗ tree species you're looking at, and

44:42 ↗ then, you know, opportunity to QR code

44:44 ↗ to more information.

44:47 ↗ >> Yeah, right on.

44:50 ↗ >> Uh, question. Is there any financial

44:54 ↗ impact to nominating let's say 100 trees

44:56 ↗ in 2026? Is there beyond the plaque is

44:59 ↗ there any other things that either the

45:01 ↗ city has to take on as a burden or parks

45:04 ↗ department

45:06 ↗ >> and Jeffy please jump in if you have

45:09 ↗ different thoughts or or anything to

45:11 ↗ add. Um I think that's definitely part

45:13 ↗ of you know kind of the the the lessons

45:15 ↗ learned if if we get to the point where

45:17 ↗ it is just an excessive burden on staff.

45:20 ↗ you know, my intention is to be the one

45:22 ↗ who's, you know, receiving and doing the

45:23 ↗ initial review and kind of contact with

45:25 ↗ whether those are trees on private

45:27 ↗ property or publicly managed trees. But

45:29 ↗ yeah, if that gets to be 100 trees that

45:31 ↗ I have to go look at, as much as that

45:33 ↗ like sounds really, really fun, I do

45:35 ↗ have other, you know, responsibilities

45:37 ↗ where that would be pretty timeconuming.

45:39 ↗ Um, you know, the idea is giving

45:41 ↗ ourselves a couple months, you know, we

45:42 ↗ could spread some of that out, but um,

45:44 ↗ yeah, I think I think there are some are

45:46 ↗ some considerations on just the uh,

45:49 ↗ sheer scale. I mean to me though that

45:51 ↗ would be really awesome if we can get

45:52 ↗ the community that engaged but then you

45:54 ↗ know we might have to think of some

45:55 ↗ guard rails to to keep that in a you

45:58 ↗ know reasonable level for you know being

46:01 ↗ the only forester at the city to do some

46:03 ↗ of those initial reviews and and really

46:04 ↗ kind of putting together information to

46:06 ↗ have folks like you on the park board

46:07 ↗ help you know kind of make those

46:09 ↗ decisions how to get it down to a

46:10 ↗ certain amount of trees that we actually

46:12 ↗ want to designate. So, yeah. So, I mean,

46:15 ↗ I've been I've been trying my best not

46:17 ↗ to use them interchangeably and

46:18 ↗ sometimes I mess up the words. You know,

46:19 ↗ nominations very different than

46:20 ↗ designations. You know, more nominations

46:22 ↗ is is is great, but yeah, thinking about

46:25 ↗ the the the time and and resources to go

46:28 ↗ in to, you know, essentially review and

46:29 ↗ all those. Um, we, like I said, we still

46:32 ↗ want to have a fairly high bar. We're

46:33 ↗ not going to set an exact number on it,

46:34 ↗ but we still want to have a fairly high

46:36 ↗ bar for how many actually end up

46:38 ↗ designated annually. And just because

46:40 ↗ it's nominated and doesn't get

46:41 ↗ designated, to me that's a really cool

46:43 ↗ database we could kind of keep

46:44 ↗ information on and and we could

46:46 ↗ potentially consider those trees again

46:47 ↗ in future years, too. So, um, yeah,

46:50 ↗ Jefferson, I don't know if you have

46:51 ↗ other thoughts on that, but

46:55 ↗ well said. Great question, David. Yeah,

46:57 ↗ I don't I don't see in the foreseeable

47:00 ↗ future a huge cost to to this program.

47:05 ↗ Um and and um

47:08 ↗ I think Dan said it really really well,

47:10 ↗ right? You know, there there's the

47:12 ↗ process for the nominated trees and a

47:15 ↗ and a and a a resource cost, right, to

47:18 ↗ to sort of processing that bringing that

47:20 ↗ information to you all for for um you

47:23 ↗ know, final consideration. Um and then

47:26 ↗ yeah, a a tree designation and and I

47:28 ↗ don't know that we're trying to set a

47:30 ↗ cap. I I suppose eventually there would

47:33 ↗ be some inherent increased cost but it

47:36 ↗ would be relatively nominal. Um I think

47:39 ↗ the the importance of that designation

47:41 ↗ is the significance that it holds right

47:45 ↗ and and um again understanding the

47:49 ↗ relationship this program does have with

47:50 ↗ the tree code. There is a protection

47:53 ↗ that that goes with that and an

47:55 ↗ additional protection. Every tree in

47:57 ↗ this community is protected to some

47:59 ↗ degree, but it it brings an additional

48:02 ↗ protection that um again doesn't have a

48:05 ↗ a cost, but it has a um

48:10 ↗ Yeah. It has a

48:12 ↗ impact.

48:13 ↗ >> Yeah. I was thinking more of after it's

48:16 ↗ already been designated.

48:17 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay.

48:18 ↗ >> Five or 10 years down the line, let's

48:19 ↗ say it is on private property and it's

48:22 ↗ dying. It's a tree that's dying.

48:23 ↗ Something happened to it. like whatever

48:25 ↗ it is, property owner can't maintain it.

48:27 ↗ They're like, I need to cut this thing

48:28 ↗ down. Like, does the city step in in any

48:31 ↗ case or it's still

48:32 ↗ >> No, that would still be the

48:33 ↗ responsibility of the of the land owner,

48:36 ↗ whether it's private or public or if

48:38 ↗ it's on other if it's on school district

48:40 ↗ property, right? We're not the only

48:41 ↗ public land owner, right? Uh it would be

48:44 ↗ the responsibility of that owner um to

48:48 ↗ to maintain, manage, or again if it

48:50 ↗ became diseased or needed to be removed.

48:53 ↗ So, it's truly a program for celebrating

48:55 ↗ the

48:55 ↗ >> Exactly. Well said. Educating and

48:58 ↗ celebrating our trees. Yep.

49:03 ↗ >> Again, I hope it all sounds great, but

49:04 ↗ I'm curious if we explored are there

49:06 ↗ unintended consequences or cons to this

49:09 ↗ program? Like I hear all the good stuff

49:11 ↗ sounds really great, but I'm like what

49:13 ↗ are like or have you guys talked about

49:15 ↗ like what are I 5 10 years down the

49:17 ↗ road, we have all these trees

49:18 ↗ designated. Are we then spending a bunch

49:21 ↗ of time trying to figure out when we're

49:23 ↗ growing a squa what we're going to do

49:25 ↗ about these trees? Like what is the like

49:27 ↗ long-term bureaucracy that we're

49:29 ↗ creating?

49:31 ↗ >> It's a great question. I'll I'll take a

49:33 ↗ first stab at this one. Dan, please jump

49:35 ↗ in. Um

49:38 ↗ I don't think it's a con. I don't think

49:40 ↗ it's a con. I I think it's it's the it's

49:43 ↗ the inevitable tradeoff to this program

49:45 ↗ is how I would put it. And so when we

49:48 ↗ think of recommending a designation to

49:51 ↗ you all, there's a lot of vetting that

49:52 ↗ needs to do because with that comes that

49:56 ↗ responsibility and and um uh when we

50:00 ↗ think about um the city and and our land

50:04 ↗ constraints, I'm going to I'm going to

50:06 ↗ say this um as um your steward and

50:10 ↗ manager of your public lands, right? Um

50:14 ↗ um as we look at um and I think it's

50:18 ↗ important in in 2005 I don't know that

50:20 ↗ the city had a strategic park system

50:23 ↗ plan. We have one now. I think it's

50:25 ↗ going to be a really important reliance

50:27 ↗ and relying on that park system plan to

50:29 ↗ say hey not only what does that

50:31 ↗ neighborhood park now but what does that

50:32 ↗ neighborhood park need to possibly do in

50:35 ↗ 15 or 20 years? Um, and as we think of

50:39 ↗ that nominated tree that's in that

50:41 ↗ neighborhood park, is that complimentary

50:43 ↗ to what that park plan system plan or

50:47 ↗ what the community saying they want that

50:48 ↗ neighborhood park maybe be in 15 years?

50:52 ↗ Um, let's try as best we can to be

50:55 ↗ complimentary. Right? So, I don't see it

50:57 ↗ as a con. I guess I just see it as the

50:59 ↗ responsibility

51:01 ↗ that's going to come with that

51:02 ↗ designation

51:04 ↗ um on on a on a public park. I I say

51:07 ↗ neighborhood park, but a community park

51:09 ↗ or you know somewhere that we know or

51:12 ↗ we've identified might need to to handle

51:16 ↗ some growth um in the coming years. We

51:19 ↗ need to try and be smart and and and

51:22 ↗ balance those realities. Is that in the

51:26 ↗ um criteria that we talked about

51:28 ↗ earlier?

51:32 ↗ >> That meaning

51:33 ↗ >> um like understanding the longterm

51:37 ↗ future use of the land

51:40 ↗ sort of land use. Dan, do you want to

51:43 ↗ talk about sort of the land use aspect?

51:49 ↗ >> I I think Jeff kind of summarized it

51:52 ↗ pretty well. I mean c c c c c c c c c c

51:54 ↗ c c c c c c c c c c c certain areas I'll

51:55 ↗ have an understanding on but I might

51:56 ↗ need to work with Jeff or Robin our

51:58 ↗ planner or if it's trees that are on

52:00 ↗ public works but I think it's for

52:02 ↗ especially private trees or trees on

52:04 ↗ other public lands that's not city just

52:06 ↗ making sure folks are aware of the

52:09 ↗ protections that are added and then you

52:10 ↗ know what is eligible removals um so

52:14 ↗ like I said it doesn't mean if the tree

52:15 ↗ is you know declining rapidly that you

52:18 ↗ can't get rid of it if it's posing a

52:19 ↗ hazard um so I think just being really

52:23 ↗ really clear with folks applying that

52:25 ↗ you know this this this is what is you

52:27 ↗ know kind of protected with heritage

52:28 ↗ trees and then this is where it still

52:30 ↗ kind of falls under uh you know

52:32 ↗ allowable removals. So I think I think

52:34 ↗ Jane asked the question around you know

52:35 ↗ some of the language there. You can

52:37 ↗ still prune, you can still do a lot of

52:38 ↗ tree health care for your heritage

52:40 ↗ trees, but just to just outright be able

52:42 ↗ to remove is I think something that has

52:44 ↗ uh changed since the 2005 program

52:47 ↗ developed. Um, so yeah, I I think it's

52:50 ↗ just being real clear with folks and and

52:52 ↗ that's where it can be a little tough on

52:53 ↗ private property. There might be areas

52:55 ↗ that are just no plans whatsoever to to

52:58 ↗ do anything to. So having heritage trees

53:00 ↗ there would be great and having that

53:02 ↗ recognition might be something that

53:03 ↗ people would be really proud of. You

53:04 ↗ know, like having a certificate, having

53:07 ↗ that mayoral designation, you know, that

53:08 ↗ could be something that would be really

53:10 ↗ cool to people. Well, then there'd be

53:11 ↗ other people who might still love an

53:13 ↗ individual tree, but they might hesitate

53:15 ↗ to do the nomination just because just

53:18 ↗ just to be safe, you know, hey, we we

53:20 ↗ might do something, you know, kind of

53:21 ↗ land use wise. But but I don't know. I

53:23 ↗ think that comes down to to kind of each

53:25 ↗ individual scenario. And I think it's

53:27 ↗ just really making clear that whoever

53:29 ↗ kind of the decision makers there are

53:31 ↗ are informed of of you know what what

53:34 ↗ does uh kind of add protections and you

53:36 ↗ know what is allowable for um heritage

53:40 ↗ tree car and removal. I feel like I

53:42 ↗ didn't do the best job explaining that

53:44 ↗ but um yeah so it's it's really needing

53:46 ↗ to work with with the the folks who are

53:49 ↗ actually signing off on the on the

53:51 ↗ nominations.

53:53 ↗ >> Yeah. Another thing I just wanted to

53:54 ↗ sort of point out to that point,

53:56 ↗ Marlene, is sort of in this flowchart,

53:58 ↗ if you will, sort of this this part

54:01 ↗ here, the nomination reviewed by city

54:03 ↗ for viability. Some of that is is Dan's

54:06 ↗ work going out and like checking tree

54:07 ↗ health and and all of those things and

54:09 ↗ does it meet those other criteria that

54:10 ↗ he had, but this also allows the

54:13 ↗ opportunity for, you know, does this

54:16 ↗ tree fit within a plan that we may have

54:19 ↗ within our park system plan. So, that

54:21 ↗ review is also happening from staff. So

54:23 ↗ from, you know, uh I'm going to say

54:25 ↗ Robin, but from the park planning

54:27 ↗ perspective, um from our our long-term

54:30 ↗ sort of planning documents, so the park

54:33 ↗ system plan, you know, if it's something

54:35 ↗ that's a rightaway tree, is there

54:37 ↗ something in in like a public works

54:39 ↗ document for sort of long-term plans for

54:42 ↗ for say um road expansions or something

54:46 ↗ like that? Definitely is part of this

54:48 ↗ sort of viability review. um it's not um

54:53 ↗ called out in those specifications, but

54:55 ↗ I think that's kind of where we're

54:57 ↗ thinking that that work is happening. Um

54:59 ↗ because again, those specifications are

55:01 ↗ they're they're they're generic. They're

55:03 ↗ general. They're not like everything

55:05 ↗ encompassing. Um and and we don't want

55:07 ↗ to do that because we don't know what

55:08 ↗ these heritage trees are that people are

55:10 ↗ going to nominate just yet. Um so please

55:13 ↗ don't say I'm trying to like trees like

55:16 ↗ >> of course

55:20 ↗ like

55:21 ↗ Yep.

55:22 ↗ >> I think

55:23 ↗ >> great question. Yeah,

55:24 ↗ >> Dan, maybe you could just outline a

55:26 ↗ little bit more on what you believe or

55:28 ↗ your the thought on what the

55:31 ↗ actual submitt process will be because I

55:33 ↗ know Jane talked about the brochure from

55:35 ↗ 2005 is what kind of revisions and

55:37 ↗ updates we made there.

55:40 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. So, obviously having like an

55:41 ↗ online form which would make it really

55:44 ↗ easy for us to organize nominations to,

55:46 ↗ you know, whether that's through

55:47 ↗ Microsoft forms or some other platform

55:49 ↗ the city has. I would still like to make

55:51 ↗ it available for people that would like

55:53 ↗ to submit a written nomination, but but

55:55 ↗ absolutely um updating stuff to make

55:58 ↗ that a online submitt just that's you

56:00 ↗ know right on the heritage tree website

56:01 ↗ that we have already. Um, I think Jane

56:04 ↗ brought up a great point too that, you

56:05 ↗ know, instead of just really general,

56:07 ↗ yes, in the in the actual fields where

56:09 ↗ you're submitting stuff, you know,

56:10 ↗ really kind of reminding people, hey,

56:11 ↗ these are the things that we're hoping

56:12 ↗ that you touch on, uh, in terms of, you

56:15 ↗ know, that those categories for the

56:17 ↗ characteristics that we're looking for.

56:18 ↗ But, um, yeah, so that's something that

56:20 ↗ I think, you know, assuming this moves

56:22 ↗ forward, Hani and I would be working on

56:24 ↗ pretty quickly in early 2026 to get

56:27 ↗ something set up, like I said, that we

56:28 ↗ can really start pushing out for our

56:30 ↗ Arbor Day celebration in April.

56:34 ↗ Thank you. Is there any hands up for

56:37 ↗ people that can't see? Can you tell?

56:39 ↗ >> I don't think so, but let me see if I

56:41 ↗ can sh this.

56:46 ↗ >> I have a general comment. Just like

56:48 ↗ saying that I really like that we're

56:49 ↗ doing this we're doing this now because

56:52 ↗ I know about like a lot of like the

56:53 ↗ growth plans of the city and to like the

56:56 ↗ points I like saying I know that this

56:59 ↗ heritage tree won't be like this tree is

57:00 ↗ not protected forever because it's

57:01 ↗ always a baron this is this but adding

57:03 ↗ certain barriers to the growth of things

57:05 ↗ that we determine are special special

57:07 ↗ things community gets involved and they

57:09 ↗ like all these trees I know once growth

57:12 ↗ starts happening it can move fast as as

57:14 ↗ it's by you know conure when things got

57:17 ↗ crazy there. So, I like that we're doing

57:19 ↗ this now kind of as anticipation of that

57:21 ↗ to kind of protect certain things or at

57:23 ↗ least add a little bit of a barrier on

57:25 ↗ things that may special that may be

57:26 ↗ important to the city and trees on the

57:29 ↗ park.

57:31 ↗ >> Good point.

57:36 ↗ >> We have any

57:38 ↗ other questions, thoughts,

57:40 ↗ comments,

57:43 ↗ concerns?

57:46 ↗ This is an action item of ours.

57:50 ↗ So we

57:52 ↗ we have kind of Oh, there we go. Next

57:55 ↗ steps. Thank you. Opportunity.

57:58 ↗ >> Uh let me read the slide first.

58:01 ↗ >> It's just basically if you all feel

58:03 ↗ ready. Um if you want further

58:05 ↗ discussion, by all means, we can have

58:07 ↗ further discussion.

58:08 ↗ um if you would like, you know, some

58:11 ↗ more specific changes in writing um that

58:15 ↗ you want to see before you feel ready to

58:17 ↗ to take action as a board. um or if

58:20 ↗ you're ready to make a motion um to

58:23 ↗ allow staff to sort of continue and and

58:25 ↗ get this program open and and see what

58:28 ↗ heritage nominations we have and with

58:31 ↗ with the caveat that you know both Dan

58:33 ↗ and Jeff have mentioned that you know

58:36 ↗ once this is open that doesn't once

58:38 ↗ you've said yes that doesn't mean that

58:39 ↗ this is the only way that this program

58:41 ↗ is going to go if it goes and like David

58:44 ↗ said we get a hundred nominations and

58:46 ↗ they're all amazing and they all seem

58:47 ↗ like they could fit the criteria, then

58:49 ↗ maybe we need to come back and and do

58:51 ↗ another review and and make sure that

58:53 ↗ that happens within the next, you know,

58:56 ↗ one to two to three years rather than

58:58 ↗ like this the 20 years.

59:02 ↗ >> Exactly. And and so I think that's just

59:04 ↗ just to add another point to what S is

59:07 ↗ saying. I think the the the

59:09 ↗ recommendation, the the request tonight

59:11 ↗ is is um if you feel comfortable with

59:14 ↗ the content we're talking about, we

59:15 ↗ would love to bundle us up, get it

59:18 ↗ promoted, and push it out knowing

59:21 ↗ um it's a program. So, it it it's not

59:24 ↗ this isn't your only this is a different

59:27 ↗ than advis or seeking action on building

59:30 ↗ a park, right? We're we're going to

59:32 ↗ touch this again a whole lot sooner than

59:35 ↗ 20 years from now. uh we're going to

59:37 ↗ probably touch this again in two years

59:38 ↗ and and see how things are going. So um

59:42 ↗ >> and also know that these trees are then

59:45 ↗ this program is is stewarded by you all

59:48 ↗ as a board. So these these nominations

59:51 ↗ are going to come to you at every

59:53 ↗ September meeting. If you'd like to have

59:55 ↗ an ad hoc committee, you can make that

59:57 ↗ designation in January and that can

59:59 ↗ happen and those can have meetings

1:00:00 ↗ leading up to that September meeting. If

1:00:03 ↗ September doesn't work for everybody,

1:00:04 ↗ you know, we can make those changes, but

1:00:06 ↗ that you all as a board feel comfortable

1:00:08 ↗ that that program is going to be in your

1:00:10 ↗ stewardship going forward as well.

1:00:14 ↗ >> Awesome.

1:00:16 ↗ >> You feel like we're in a collective

1:00:17 ↗ where we can recommend moving forward.

1:00:22 ↗ >> Well, then we'll make a motion to

1:00:24 ↗ recommend moving forward the updates to

1:00:26 ↗ the heritage program for relaunch in

1:00:28 ↗ 2026.

1:00:30 ↗ Is there a

1:00:30 ↗ >> second? There a second.

1:00:33 ↗ Thank Katie. Um and then just a note

1:00:35 ↗ because we have two regular members

1:00:37 ↗ missing. Um both our alternates are

1:00:39 ↗ acting as regular members and voting.

1:00:41 ↗ Thank you.

1:00:49 ↗ >> Do we is there some type of input we

1:00:51 ↗ needed from those on that?

1:00:54 ↗ >> Um so

1:00:57 ↗ >> there's a second. So, if I if we can get

1:00:59 ↗ a hand raise for those that are in favor

1:01:01 ↗ of moving this forward from both online

1:01:04 ↗ and in room. And if you can keep your

1:01:06 ↗ >> I suggest stop sharing so people can

1:01:08 ↗ see.

1:01:09 ↗ >> That's a great idea. Chef

1:01:10 ↗ >> can turn their camera on.

1:01:12 ↗ >> Done this in a long time.

1:01:13 ↗ >> Oh, good.

1:01:15 ↗ >> Um and yeah, you can just use the little

1:01:18 ↗ teams um option to raise your hand um

1:01:21 ↗ online for those that are voting. if you

1:01:24 ↗ vote yes and then in room um if you can

1:01:27 ↗ keep them up because my brain is slow.

1:01:30 ↗ Two,

1:01:32 ↗ six, seven. Um and then any that are

1:01:35 ↗ opposed

1:01:41 ↗ and anybody that abstains.

1:01:48 ↗ Okay. Um

1:01:51 ↗ with seven votes, the the motion moves

1:01:54 ↗ forward. So thank you all.

1:01:58 ↗ >> Thanks for the discussion over multiple

1:02:00 ↗ years. Dan, thank you for taking a new a

1:02:03 ↗ new look and and your commitment and our

1:02:05 ↗ commitment to to make this much more

1:02:07 ↗ public facing. Um really really look

1:02:11 ↗ forward to seeing what you know how the

1:02:13 ↗ community responds to this um as we roll

1:02:16 ↗ it out in these new ways. Um I I'm going

1:02:19 ↗ to certainly make a commitment that as

1:02:21 ↗ you see in those materials, we'll make

1:02:23 ↗ it very clear as we spell out the

1:02:25 ↗ process that um park board will be

1:02:28 ↗ seeing all nominations, not just um um

1:02:32 ↗ some select few that staff think um make

1:02:35 ↗ it through that all nominations will be

1:02:38 ↗ brought forward, those that are

1:02:39 ↗ recommended for designation and those

1:02:41 ↗ that aren't recommended for designation.

1:02:43 ↗ Um you will see all of those.

1:02:46 ↗ Thanks again everybody.

1:02:50 ↗ >> I think that's our one item of regular

1:02:52 ↗ business.

1:02:54 ↗ >> It is.

1:02:54 ↗ >> Yeah. We'll move on our reports. Yeah.

1:02:58 ↗ >> All right. Well, hey, um happy

1:03:01 ↗ Thanksgiving week. Um hope you all have

1:03:03 ↗ a a wonderful holiday this week. Um

1:03:08 ↗ uh certainly a lot to be uh a lot to be

1:03:10 ↗ thankful for for for certain. It's been

1:03:12 ↗ another another busy, productive year.

1:03:14 ↗ Um couple updates. Um uh 2026 uh budget.

1:03:19 ↗ As you may know, this the city um adopts

1:03:22 ↗ city council adopts a banual budget. Uh

1:03:25 ↗ so they now adopt a two-year budget at a

1:03:28 ↗ time. So they adopted the 25 2025 2026

1:03:33 ↗ budget um last year in 2024. Um, as we

1:03:37 ↗ head into this second year of that

1:03:39 ↗ banial budget, of that two-year budget,

1:03:42 ↗ uh, there is, um, a more abbreviated,

1:03:45 ↗ um, sort of series of work that happens

1:03:47 ↗ with council to look at any budget

1:03:48 ↗ adjustments that we want to make. Um,

1:03:51 ↗ things happen in any given year. Um, two

1:03:53 ↗ examples I have that, um, as we

1:03:56 ↗ discussed with council over the last

1:03:58 ↗ month or two, uh, they recently adopted

1:04:01 ↗ some budget adjustments heading into

1:04:03 ↗ 2026. um a couple that are are positive

1:04:06 ↗ for resources within parks and community

1:04:08 ↗ services. uh one namely in park

1:04:10 ↗ operations. Um so you all may be

1:04:13 ↗ familiar in August King County park levy

1:04:15 ↗ went out um countywide uh within that

1:04:18 ↗ park levy um there's a rather small and

1:04:22 ↗ I'm going to emphasize small I think you

1:04:24 ↗ guys have heard me really really small

1:04:26 ↗ portion of that levy that is allocated

1:04:28 ↗ to cities um um I'll save my editorial

1:04:33 ↗ yeah

1:04:35 ↗ I'll leave it at that but that

1:04:36 ↗ allocation will bring to for this 2026

1:04:40 ↗ this next sixyear cycle that allocation

1:04:43 ↗ is a little bit bigger for the city of

1:04:45 ↗ Isiqua. Um was about $200,000 a year in

1:04:49 ↗ the prior levy um um it will be just

1:04:53 ↗ over $400,000 $410,000 a year uh to the

1:04:57 ↗ city of Bisqua. So with that new

1:04:59 ↗ allocation of money and given that

1:05:01 ↗ starts in 2026, this is a great example

1:05:03 ↗ of why uh we went to council to adjust

1:05:05 ↗ the 2026 budget. Uh we are going to um

1:05:09 ↗ hire an additional maintenance worker

1:05:11 ↗ too, a a full-time maintenance worker um

1:05:14 ↗ and also um have increase some of our

1:05:17 ↗ operational costs pertaining to some of

1:05:19 ↗ the new parks uh that were just um uh

1:05:22 ↗ recently opened. So, um um great news

1:05:25 ↗ there and that um uh that those levy

1:05:29 ↗ proceeds um a portion of which so now

1:05:32 ↗ what the allocation was the split for

1:05:34 ↗ the $200,000 just so you know $100,000

1:05:38 ↗ of that went into our operational budget

1:05:40 ↗ our general fund to pay for maintenance

1:05:42 ↗ $100,000 of it went into our capital

1:05:44 ↗ program to help um uh with our capital

1:05:48 ↗ projects. uh that allocation with this

1:05:50 ↗ 410,000 will be a 100,000 will continue

1:05:53 ↗ to go to parks capital 310 will go

1:05:56 ↗ towards operating costs thus um helping

1:05:59 ↗ with this additional staff person that's

1:06:02 ↗ uh that's needed um also in the 2026

1:06:06 ↗ budget as um operations and programs at

1:06:08 ↗ Pickering Barn have continued to

1:06:10 ↗ flourish uh you might remember about

1:06:12 ↗ five years ago we really set an

1:06:14 ↗ intentional goal uh to to really

1:06:16 ↗ recognize the barn as an iconic public

1:06:19 ↗ space and and break out of the shell or

1:06:22 ↗ the thought that that was really just an

1:06:24 ↗ event facility. We really see that as a

1:06:26 ↗ community hall. Um their programming has

1:06:29 ↗ been going um gang busters. It's going

1:06:32 ↗ really really well. And so with a mix of

1:06:34 ↗ additional revenues um and taking some

1:06:37 ↗ of what was budgeted as part-time money,

1:06:40 ↗ uh we proposed adding some additional

1:06:43 ↗ revenue into the budget, reallocating

1:06:45 ↗ some part-time money. We're adding a

1:06:48 ↗ coordinator position um at the barn to

1:06:50 ↗ just help um create a sustainable staff

1:06:54 ↗ uh to help keep a lot of that good

1:06:56 ↗ community use and community work um

1:06:58 ↗ happening um and programming happening

1:07:00 ↗ in the bar. So appreciate both of those

1:07:03 ↗ um um um support from mayor and council

1:07:06 ↗ on that. Um speaking of mayor uh with

1:07:11 ↗ the election that happened earlier this

1:07:13 ↗ month, uh we're in the midst of a

1:07:14 ↗ mayoral transition. uh within the city.

1:07:17 ↗ Um Mayor Paulie um is retiring. She

1:07:20 ↗ didn't seek re-election. So after eight

1:07:22 ↗ years of service, uh there's certainly a

1:07:24 ↗ number of celebrations that are going to

1:07:26 ↗ be happening. Namely, there will be a

1:07:28 ↗ community event on Monday, uh December

1:07:31 ↗ 8th at the senior center. Um I should

1:07:34 ↗ have had the time. I believe it's 5:00

1:07:36 ↗ pm to 7 pm. I can confirm that, but um

1:07:40 ↗ I'm sure you'll see some invitations out

1:07:42 ↗ there, but um more than welcome to

1:07:44 ↗ attend that uh community event um if

1:07:47 ↗ you're interested in attending. But um

1:07:50 ↗ um seeing Mayor Paulie off and and just

1:07:53 ↗ the the service that she's provided to

1:07:55 ↗ this to you all and to the residents of

1:07:57 ↗ of Isiqua. At the same time, uh, Mayor

1:08:00 ↗ Elect Mullet is um um into his

1:08:04 ↗ transition

1:08:06 ↗ um as um department heads, as city

1:08:09 ↗ staff, uh we'll probably be seeing um

1:08:11 ↗ there towards the end of December after

1:08:13 ↗ as Mayor Paul is transitioning out some

1:08:16 ↗ additional work and understanding work

1:08:18 ↗ plan goals and priorities um of the

1:08:21 ↗ mayor. So, uh certainly look forward to

1:08:24 ↗ um just working through that transition.

1:08:27 ↗ Um, in my in my career, um, I' I've been

1:08:30 ↗ around long enough, certainly had a

1:08:32 ↗ number of mayoral transitions, um, and

1:08:35 ↗ and certainly look forward to this one.

1:08:37 ↗ I know as Mayor Mullet settles in next

1:08:40 ↗ year, he'll be interested in coming out

1:08:43 ↗ and meeting with boards and commissions,

1:08:45 ↗ so we can probably look forward to a

1:08:47 ↗ visit or two from uh, the new mayor in

1:08:50 ↗ the coming year. Uh speaking of 2026,

1:08:53 ↗ one one last quick update uh with Asanti

1:08:56 ↗ back. I'm so glad Asanti is back. Um

1:09:00 ↗ parks municipal code. If you remember

1:09:01 ↗ that conversation we had uh first

1:09:03 ↗ quarter as as um Assanti was preparing

1:09:06 ↗ for leave. Uh we are going to pick that

1:09:09 ↗ ball up. Assanti's already been working

1:09:11 ↗ with the city clerk's office and the

1:09:12 ↗ city's attorney's office to begin doing

1:09:15 ↗ uh some preliminary work um in both if

1:09:19 ↗ you remember that process. We want to

1:09:21 ↗ consolidate park code is sort of all

1:09:23 ↗ over the city code right now. Let's

1:09:25 ↗ consolidate that into one chapter and

1:09:27 ↗ then let's um add some additional park

1:09:30 ↗ code that really has never existed um or

1:09:33 ↗ been in place um um to make sure we have

1:09:37 ↗ code uh that pertains to park uses um

1:09:40 ↗ park rules, park functions. Um and so

1:09:44 ↗ look in the work plan as we begin to

1:09:47 ↗ shape that for 2026. multiple touches

1:09:49 ↗ with you all as the board that then as a

1:09:52 ↗ code um update will then go through a a

1:09:56 ↗ pretty rigorous process with a couple

1:09:57 ↗ other boards of commissions as well as

1:09:59 ↗ ultimately um city council adoption. So

1:10:03 ↗ um we look forward to that um getting

1:10:06 ↗ underway.

1:10:11 ↗ >> One last reminder, we do not have and

1:10:13 ↗ will not have a December meeting

1:10:15 ↗ historically. Um, it's usually some

1:10:17 ↗ holidays that happen that third, fourth

1:10:19 ↗ week in December. Um, but as I've

1:10:22 ↗ offered in in prior years, I would love

1:10:24 ↗ to take the month as opportunity if

1:10:26 ↗ you'd like to meet one-on-one. Uh, have

1:10:28 ↗ a chance to just talk through park board

1:10:30 ↗ or interests or priorities you all see.

1:10:34 ↗ Um, would um would definitely welcome

1:10:37 ↗ that. Um, I'll reach out to all of you

1:10:39 ↗ and see if that's something any of you

1:10:40 ↗ want to um take up this month.

1:10:47 ↗ We talked about potentially an ad

1:10:49 ↗ relates

1:10:51 ↗ that something that we want to talk

1:10:52 ↗ about the new year or how we

1:10:56 ↗ >> Yeah. So typically the board has sort of

1:10:59 ↗ designated ad hoc committees at the

1:11:01 ↗ January meeting if there are items in

1:11:03 ↗ that J in that work plan for the year

1:11:05 ↗ that makes sense to be ad hoc committee

1:11:07 ↗ and that way um you can sort of decide

1:11:10 ↗ what needs an ad hoc and then um solicit

1:11:14 ↗ membership at that same meeting as well

1:11:17 ↗ >> is on remains on the list for that

1:11:20 ↗ planning

1:11:21 ↗ >> to go by with

1:11:23 ↗ >> that planning planning process. Yes,

1:11:25 ↗ it's a great example for an ad hoc

1:11:28 ↗ opportunity as is heritage tree program

1:11:31 ↗ as Dan said. So, yeah, January to that

1:11:34 ↗ discussion.

1:11:36 ↗ Thanks, Ryan.

1:11:37 ↗ >> Thank you. Um, the youth representative

1:11:40 ↗ tonight's

1:11:42 ↗ person report. I don't have um much to

1:11:44 ↗ share out nothing from my end. Is there

1:11:48 ↗ anything anyone else wants to bring up

1:11:50 ↗ or discuss or

1:11:53 ↗ comment on or

1:11:56 ↗ >> fun to see the trees getting ready like

1:11:59 ↗ the new park by uh we call

1:12:03 ↗ >> Oh yeah.

1:12:04 ↗ >> Yes. tree lighting. Yes. So So for the

1:12:07 ↗ holidays uh that that park will be lit

1:12:09 ↗ up um a number of ways um for the

1:12:14 ↗ holidays. Yeah. Yeah. Y

1:12:19 ↗ >> um our next is January 20.

1:12:26 ↗ >> Yes. And let me make sure that that

1:12:29 ↗ date.

1:12:31 ↗ Yes, that's a Monday. Yes. January 26th

1:12:33 ↗ is the next meeting

1:12:37 ↗ >> in the new year.

1:12:39 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:12:39 ↗ >> Excellent. Um well, all right. Great

1:12:43 ↗ meeting everyone. I'd say with with that

1:12:46 ↗ we will uh adjourn this meeting at 8:13.

1:12:50 ↗ >> Thanks all. Great holiday season.

1:12:54 ↗ >> Thank you everyone. Sorry for

1:12:57 ↗ >> technical difficulties in the room but

1:12:59 ↗ we'll have it fixed for the next time.

1:13:02 ↗ Take care.

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.