Public Works Committee - Regular Meeting

All right, good morning. Welcome to the Snohomish County Council Public Infrastructure and Conservation Committee for Tuesday, September 1st at 10 a.m. We are meeting in the Jackson boardroom this morning and remotely. Before we do roll call, I would like to read our public comment script. We'll take public comment beginning with in person and then remotely. And Zoom, click on the hand icon to raise your hand. If calling by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press star 6 to unmute. Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak, and please start your comment with your name and city of residence. With that, we'll do a roll call.

Committee Chair Lowe?

Present.

Vice Chair Dunn? Here. Committee Member Neering?

Here.

Committee Member Mead?

Here.

Committee Member Peterson?

Here.

Chair, there are five members present.

Great. Next on the agenda is public comment. Anybody wishing to give public comment this morning? Okay. Go ahead and approach the podium, and you have up to three minutes.

My name is Patrick Gann. I'm a Snohomish County resident, Clearview Unincorporated area. I was here earlier this morning and I'm back because this issue isn't going away and neither am I until this wrong is righted. I want to focus on two things, proper notice and actual community representation. I understand the county doesn't personally notify every property owner about every code change, but this wasn't an ordinary code change. This change effectively eliminated existing use at a location that had operated as cannabis retail for approximately a decade. When I signed my five year lease, the building had a valid certificate of occupancy for cannabis retail. I had every reason to believe I could legally operate there. I then invested hundreds of thousands of dollars repairing and rebuilding that location, replacing damaging walls, windows, and fixtures, upgrading security, and addressing the fire and life safety issues. Only after making those commitments did I discover the county had quietly changed the code separation requirement from 2,500 feet, which is currently the rest of the county, to 10,000 feet in this rural commercial area. So I continue to ask, where was the meaningful notice to property owners whose established use was being eliminated? And where was the community demand for this change? Because I've looked for it. Council Member Lowe provided me with more than 500 emails regarding community opposition. I went through all of them. Hundreds of them came from a very small number of individuals. Some contacted the county dozens of times, and one individual more than 100 times, 100 plus emails from one individual. 10 people sending hundreds of emails does not then turn those 10 people into hundreds of constituents. Meanwhile, I've gone directly into the businesses that make up the Clearview Rural Commercial Corridor. More than 75 Clearview area businesses have signed in support. I've also attended the Clearview community group meetings. At first, there seemed to be significant opposition. Then people heard the facts. The conversation changed. Support grew. What appeared to be widespread opposition was largely the same small group speaking repeatedly. And while this continues, my state cannabis license is now operating under an extension granted by the Liquor and Cannabis Board. Because of the circumstances surrounding the situation, that extension does not last forever. I cannot recess from my lease. I cannot recess from my holding costs. My license expiration window does not recess. And the employees, local businesses, vendors, producers, and processors affected by this delay don't get time back. So please look at the actual record, look at how this restriction was created, who requested it, and who actually supported it, and who actually it affects. Then please, right this wrong. I will continue respectfully putting these facts into the public record until you do so. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Anybody else wishing to make public comment? All right, do we have anybody online wishing to make public comment?

No hands are raised.

All right. We'll go ahead and close public comment and move to our action items. On the first three action items, we do have amendments that have come out in the last few days. So all three of these I'll recommend for action when we get to that point. And that also give council members opportunity to meet with staff over the next week to consider the amendments. So first on our action item today is motion 26-343.

Good morning, Committee Chair Lowe and Council Members. For the record, Dubbell Council staff, proposed motion 26-343 is for Amendment 5 to the existing contract with open text for electronic content management. The original contract was a piggyback using the Washington Department of Enterprise Services for the initial amount of $314,149. The contract was extended in 2021 for an additional three years. for $34,885, then three additional amendments that included service and price increases reaching just over total aggregate contract amount of $1.1 million. The proposed motion has an enacting clause that would grant the executive authority outside of Snohomish County Code 3.04.140, paragraph 4. which allows that the executive to execute the subsequent amendments where the aggregate increase of the original contract is more than $100,000 or 20%, which is lower. In this instance, the executive is seeking relief from the purchasing code as the aggregate amount has been exhausted and any new change, no matter how minor, would need to come back before counsel for approval. Rather than approve the motion as written, the intent is to have a discussion on options regarding the enacting clause. Council has the following options. You can leave it as is. Request changes to reflect Amendment Sheet 1, which reverts to adoption of code. This means that any new change, work order, amendment, or future need would need to come back before Council. Or request changes to reflect Amendment Sheet 2, which is a compromise to allow amendment threshold to be $100,000 after Amendment 5 is signed, or 20%, which is actually $70,000. It's a lesser amount. It also appears that the executive has inadvertently signed Amendment 5 ahead of council approval, and this will also need to be corrected. The requested action is for council to discuss the proposed corrections and to move the motion to GLS on September 9th for consideration.

So bottom line on this one is this was proposed back in 2015. The original contract, we've had four amendments since then. All four have followed the normal process. Amendment 5 has a different clause that's different than the previous amendments that basically gives the executive the opportunity to continue these without these ever coming back to council. Obviously, we are going to have a change in executive at the end of next year. I think it's important that the council keeps their eyes on these amendments as they go forward so that there's not just a blank check handed to the exec's office on this. I have no problem with the exec, but I think it's council's responsibility that we keep our eyes on that. So that's why these two amendments are there. We'll consider those next week, but obviously you'll have time over the next week to meet with staff and Make up your mind on that. Any comments or questions from council members? Council Member Dunn?

So Amendment 2 would replace Amendment 1. So we need to decide between the two. That's correct. And Amendment 2, it sounds like you said you described it was a compromise between? Correct. It is a compromise.

It's basically a reset stating that the total amount is the Amendment 5 amount and that they then have $100,000 threshold so anything over $100,000 would have to come back before council or if you so choose you could say that the threshold is then 20% Which is the lesser amount which is $70,000?

Thank you Any other comments or questions from council members? All right. We'll go ahead and move this to action for next week on September 9th Any other comments or questions? All right. Let's go ahead.

Did you want to move forward with both amendments or just one at this time?

What do you recommend?

All right.

We'll move forward with both for now, but it's probably going to be number two. Okay.

And you can make your decision at that time. Okay. Thank you very much.

All right. Next, we'll move to motion 26-345.

Thank you. Proposed motion 26-345 is for an interlocal agreement between Snohomish County 911 and Snohomish County to provide technology and network services. This includes sharing space within the county's data center for the purpose of cross-connections to state, county, and other participating agencies. Snohomish County 911 and Snohomish County have maintained a mutual beneficial relationship since 2016. The new ILA is for a five-year term and allows Snohomish County 911 access and requests for IT services via the county work order system. The contract has a fixed yearly amount and includes pricing for any additional work orders with a not to exceed amount of $75,000. This is an income stream for the county. The existing ILA expires on September 13th, and the enacting clause of the proposed motion did not include the not to exceed amount. The requested action is to correct the motion and move to GLS on September 9th for consideration. This concludes my staff report, and I'm available for any questions.

Again, we'll make this for action next week. Any comments or questions on this one? All right, we'll go ahead and move this to action next week and move to motion 26-321.

Thank you. Proposed motion 26-321 is for Amendment 3 to the existing contract with Blue Bean Review Extreme Software. Blue Bean is a markup software that allows various department staff to make notes, stamps, and illustrations on PDF documents that have been submitted to the county for review and approval. This includes building permit plans, engineered plans, applications for construction, just to name a few of its countywide uses. The original master contract was awarded via RFP process, and that number is 23-071JM-C. In 2024, Bluebeam upgraded all software and grandfathered the rate with an annual not-to-exceed increase of 10% per year. The cumulative of this now exceeds the 20% aggregate initial award but is still below the standard rate for new licenses. As a result, Amendment 3 has been proposed to extend the award with top-con solutions for an additional three years with a not-to-exceed amount of $360,000. There is a proposed amendment to this enacting clause, as the language is unclear if it is just Amendment 3 that is not to exceed $360,000 or if this is in reference to the total contract amount not to exceed $360,000 over the additional three-year term. The requested action is to correct the motion and move to GLS on September 9th for consideration.

All right, any comments or questions on this one? All right, we'll go ahead and move this to action for next week also. And that brings us to our last item, motion 26-341.

Proposed motion 26-341 is for the surplus of county fair-owned property and the ability to trade the surplus property for promotional advertising. Prior to 1998, Snohomish County Fair Park acquired several bleacher seats from the demolished King County Stadium, also known as the Kingdome. The Fair Park wishes to convey 16 surplus seats via bill of sale to the Baseball Club of Seattle LLP, doing business as the Seattle Mariners, in exchange for commemorative signage at T-Mobile Park during the 2026 baseball season, club mascot, street team, and promotional booth for one day at the 2026 Evergreen State Fair. The assessed value is $3,200. The requested action is move the motion to GLS on September 9th for consideration. This concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions.

Any comments or questions from council members? All right, we'll go ahead and move this to consent on September 9th, unless there's objection. Hearing none, we'll move that to consent on September 9th. And I do want to clarify that item before is also for September 9th. I didn't say that before, so... With that, that will conclude our meeting this morning and we'll be in recess until our 11 a.m. committee meeting. Thank you.