Public Works Committee - Regular Meeting

All right. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Stomach County Council Public Infrastructure and Conservation Committee for Tuesday, 04/21/2026 at 10AM. We are meeting in the Jackson Boardroom and remotely this morning. Before we do our roll call, I do want to read our public comment script. We will take public comments beginning with in person and then remotely. In Zoom, click on the hand icon to raise your hand. If calling by phone, press 9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press 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, let's go ahead and do roll call.

Committee Chair Lo. Present. Vice Chair Dunn. Here. Committee Member Nearing. Here. Committee Member Mead. Here. Committee Member Peterson. Here. Chair, there are five members present.

Great. Thank you. Next on the agenda is public comment. Anybody in person wishing to do public comment today? Don't all race up at once. All right. Do we have anybody online with their hand raised for public comment?

No hands are raised.

Okay. We will go ahead and close public comment and move on to our agenda this morning. First on our agenda today is a discussion item, and that's the Transportation Benefit District. And we carried this over from last month's meeting so that council members would have time to get questions answered with staff and others. But I'll turn it over to you, Kelly.

Good morning, counsel. I'm Kelly Stein, the public works director here at Snohomish County. I will just do a brief, quick presentation and then get to your, questions that you have. Great. And the clerk and I have a new strategy about how to use this that gave me a clicker. You. All right. So this first slide just illustrates some of the things that we are challenged with in our operations and maintenance side. This picture on the left is part of the stormwater damage that we received in December. It's about $4,000,000 not this almost not this site only, but several sites across the county.

The middle picture talks about the sidewalk, discontinuity that we have in various places up, around the county with about 500 miles of sidewalk, primarily in the urban area. And then we have, 13 bridges that are under restriction right now, both either with lane restriction and or weight restriction. This is impactful to those who are responding to emergencies throughout our county. The firefighters, when they have large equipment, cannot go across these bridges, which is delaying their response time. Just a reminder that we have 1,600 miles of roads.

Half are urban and half are rural. We have two ten bridges that we, operate, maintain, and inspect. They are an every other year inspection cycle. We also do those inspections for, various cities around the county. We also have 200 plus signals. Those are intersections as well as the signals that we, have within the safety zones of schools, and that we also, provide support to 12 cities, around our county, with their intersections as well. Kelly?

Yes. On that two ten bridges, how many of those bridges do we replace on average? Is it about three or four or five per year?

I would say around two per year. That would be maybe a high year. It takes years for us to get the kind of funding that we need. Depends how much federal funding is available. Oftentimes, it's the federal funding that comes to support these bridges, and that's sort of in question right now depending on the federal funding budgets.

Thank you. We have a road levy that is the main source of our foundation of our budget. It's about 4% of the property tax that comes in. It's about $75,000,000 to the for the road levy fund. And Pierce County gets about $87,000,000 and King County gets about $102,000,000 We are collecting some additional information about those two counties to do some comparative assessment in response to some questions that Council have had.

We take those dollars, and we leverage them. Our staff are amazing at seeking funds, whether it's federal, state, or local funds. We have been very excellent at doing that. And so for every road levy dollar of one, we get $3 of other funds. Each of our projects are oftentimes multiple fund sources. So it could be county road levy as well as Peachdale Regional Council. It might also be some state dollars that are federal pass throughs.

And can I add to that too? Absolutely. That last picture was the transportation improvement board. I was there for that ribbon cutting. One thing that I don't think the public understands is when we do a project like that, TIB requires usually, like, 20 match for the amount of work that is being done. So we only spent 20% of Snohomish County money to potentially get 80% of other staff. And so if we don't have that matching money, we lose out on these projects. I think that's important for the public to understand.

You are absolutely correct. And it is a rare occasion that we don't have to have a dollar to be putting in for the matching. So it's oftentimes a 10%, sometimes it's 20%. So that leveraging of one to three or three to one, depending on how you look at it, is pretty substantial. What we were able to achieve throughout the county is quite amazing. It's really 3x what we would normally do if we just relied on road levy.

Go ahead, Doug.

And and quite often, that's a minimum match. The more match you can put in on a on a grant, the more competitive you'll be. And, you know, we're very competitive because we can quite often put in more than the minimum match amount. So

So what's happening right now? Why are we asking asking for for the the Transportation transportation benefit Benefit District district funding funding, of of $66,000,000 million dollars? Dollars What we've seen is the because of the limitation of the 1% on the road levy, that is not keeping up with inflation. Inflation. We are not alone. Most jurisdictions who have capital investments, regardless of what kind of capital they are trying to deliver, are having these same struggles. They are seeing inflation at 39% or more. Some jurisdictions are seeing higher depending on what they're trying to build. So that absolutely outpaces what we're able to collect in property taxes. We're also seeing the decline in gas tax.

That is a whole myriad of reasons, but there are folks who have EVs that are not using the gas tax. We are seeing less miles put on a road by varying drivers. There's a lot more other transportation options. There are urban areas where people are just choosing not to have a car at all. Maybe they're walking, using a bus, or biking to their locations.

So that is not contributing to the gas tax. We're also seeing increased number of assets within our service area, particularly on the urban side as developments go in, those public roads come into our assets as well as the stormwater facilities for which we maintain. At risk right now are 14 projects that have grant funding. When we have been reducing our capital investments over the last several years, we are at about 100,000,000 in reductions. We have maintained those that are grant funding.

It makes sense for us to leverage the little bit of road dollars that we have to make sure that we're able to keep those grant dollars. So right now, these 14 projects are at risk for $66,500,000 Many of those projects are in the urban core. And if those projects are removed, we are concerned that we will put roads in arrears, and that is a terminology used within transportation where if they're we're unable to illustrate that we can meet those concurrency requirements, and it means that we could no longer have development in those particular areas. Much of these roads that are at risk of being in arrears are in the Southwest Urban growth area, where much of the development of this county is slated under the comprehensive plan. As I mentioned that we have reduced our capital ACP TIP by $100,000,000 We have also looked at operations.

We have reduced by $10,000,000 doing all sorts of varying things. One of the most significant piece other than the capital investment has been increasing our vacancy rate. We're at 18% right now at 74 vacancies, and that those have been intentional. We've also made the choice this year to not hire seasonals for our road maintenance shop, and that's 60 FTEs. And at risk are 34 additional FTEs if we are unable to get the $6,000,000 as part of the TBD.

Can I ask a question on that?

Absolutely.

So really important in my district is the litter wranglers who come out and pick up the trash because there's a lot of trash that ends up in East County. People from even urban areas go out there to dump washers, dryers, refrigerators, and things like that. If we fund a TBD, will we still have the litter wranglers, or is that separate from all this?

There's two parts to litter wranglers. So litter wranglers are run out of our solid waste team. And and you may also know and love our Adopt A Road program. So the Adopt A Road program is something that is run by volunteers throughout our county. It's a fantastic program. So once the little piles of trash have been put together and put on the side of the road, someone has to go pick those up. And that is our road team. Road team goes and picks up those things are and then delivers them to the solid waste system for disposal. So, you know, we will have to look hard at those things. We would hope to be able to continue forward.

Many of you have been getting emails from the public. It's spring cleaning time. People are very aware. And some of those have been on state highways. So just to reemphasize that we only pick up on county roads, and the Adopt A Road program is only on county roads. There's also a Clean Streets program that we function and operate. That is some of the homeless encampments that we see in South County. That is also a nonmandatory program. We have to look at every unmandatory program program and determine whether or not we're able to keep it forward. Also, just make a mention that we've cut overtime.

We've reduced everything that isn't nailed down, I will say, including underutilized vehicles, computers, software, and the like. Transportation benefit district, as proposed, is a license fee. It's $20 per vehicle. And that, if implemented, is the maximum that could happen under state law in the first vote, you could consider at a later point in time a second vote for additional 20 and a third vote for additional 10. There has to be a two year gap between each of those votes.

We are only proposing a single vote at this time for $20 That would yield about $6,000,000 It takes once a vote is taken, if that's an affirmative vote, then we would send that information to the state, Department of Licensing, and it takes them about six months months to

implement that before collection starts. There is also consideration for other revenue collection

Licensing, increases, And some of those would be a potential levy lid lift to the voters, and then a traffic mitigation fee that could be considered at another time.

Quick question on that. Yes. Can you remind me when you'd be looking at the levy lead lift?

It's possible for 2027 or 2028, and it takes about nine to twelve months for a structure to be put into place. Unlike fire districts, school districts, and hospital districts, they have those kinds of organizations in place to support a levy. That's not something that the county runs itself. It's action that the council would put on the the ballot, but then an outside group has to push that forward.

Okay. Understood. So '27 or '28, we don't have a permit here? Correct. Okay.

And just a reminder, transportation benefit districts are not something that's unusual in this county. Of the 20 cities, 16 of those have transportation benefit districts in place. It can be there in the form of a license fee, or it can be a sales tax. In this case, it's about half and half between the cities, and one city has both.

And quick question on that one too. Yes. If that's okay. Yeah. So we see the different cities that have them. My understanding is there's only one other county that has them. Are there other counties facing similar issues that are also considering forming a TBD and kinda going through the same process we are? Where are they at?

Yes. The answer is yes. Jefferson County is the only other county at this point in time that has implemented a transportation benefit district. There are other counties looking at varying implementation. We know that King County is working on theirs right now and can provide more information about that. Doug and I are going to communicate with the Washington State Counties Association to better understand what other counties are considering. In my discussions with Pierce County, they are inching towards that as well and probably not in the next year or so.

Okay. Thank you.

If there is no TBD at risk are those 14 projects that were listed on a previous slide, possible reduction in force of 34 staff, reduced maintenance and operations across all parts of the county in the unincorporated portion, of course increased road degradation. As you know, you hear me talk about the pavement condition index. We're at about 78 right now. We lose about 1% a year, given the amount of reductions we've already had to take. We don't want to go below 70.

If it goes below 70 on any particular road section, then that will cost far more than paving or simple maintenance. We would have to essentially rebuild the road. We are looking at if we have to reduce those projects, that will reduce our ACP tip to essentially not much of anything. And then it would set us back ten to twenty years, possibly. And there's why I will stop. I'm gonna put the clicker aside and see if there are additional questions that you might have.

Councilmember Peterson?

Thank you, Chair Lo. On traffic mitigation fees, those are paid I presume those are paid for by through development.

Is

development, commercial development. Where do we stand kind of

in comparison to similar counties on our rate? It's a great question. You have been through your own journey with updating the comprehensive plan. So have other counties and so have cities. And this is the moment where each of those jurisdictions are looking at what those impact fees should be traffic impact fees should be. So everybody is in the midst of that assessment, as are we. We have gone through we've taken the comp plan that's been approved. Are We evaluating all the capital projects that were proposed in making sure that all the development could be handled within and what is needed to be able to handle that. And then we've taken that, we've put it into our model. So we're refining that right now.

We 've reached out to the different jurisdictions to see where they are. You may recall from previous conversations around the impact fees that there are TSA areas, so the county is split up by these different areas. And there are cities within gathering that city information and doing that comparison right now. We will add to our query of King And Pierce County and others if you find the ones that you would like for us to do that comparison and see what the other counties are doing. We We looked at Skagit County because they're close to the north part of our county to do that comparison.

So we will have that information ready and available. We are looking at going through a stakeholder process. The proposal for the mitigation fees will have to go through Planning Commission and then come counsel for consideration. And that's somewhere in the next twelve months or so.

So I have a follow-up on that. So I hear from my constituents all the time, Why don't you just make all the developers pay for the roads? And I think there's a lot of misinformation on what those development fees can pay for and not pay for. So can we just get a brief introduction on why we can't just make developers pay for all of our potholes and pay for all of our roads?

It's a great question. I will start it, but I am joined today by Deputy Director and County Engineer Doug McCormack, and sure he will want to espouse on this a little bit longer, I will just say that our transportation system has operations and maintenance, as well as projects that are regional in nature. So there's the local roads, there the regional roads, there's maintenance operations. So it's a collection of these things. And the developers, there's a nexus to what they're contributing as an increment to that system, and that is what we're trying to capture, is the increment for which oh, good.

He's nodding his head. Yes, I'm getting it right. This is so good. The increment of contribution to that road system. And oftentimes, you all are very gracious and send us the emails that you get from your constituents, like, why did I not get that sidewalk? Or why did I not? They are contributing. The developers are contributing to a project that we've identified in that area, hence the modeling that I was referring to. They are contributing towards a project. So they have to do the frontage for their projects, and then they are contributing to the corridor possibly or another project within that system that we've already identified in our ACP TIP or that's identified in the comprehensive plan.

Often Oftentimes, those are some of the very same things. And it's just that increment. It's not the whole system. Doug, anything you want to add?

No. You did a very good job there, Kelly. And and it it's even more complicated, than that because where their project is may not be impacting a an arterial arterial that's in the cost basis or in the comp plan, but it's part of the network. And so they're doing, improvements or furnish improvements along that arterial, and they're paying mitigation fees. If it's on in the system, they may be getting some credits because you can't double dip on them Yep.

So to speak. I mean and it's been held up in court, so we can only charge them for their impacts, and you can't charge them for more than what their impacts are. It's So very complicated, and we have to be very, very careful about that.

So you're following state law?

Correct. Thank you.

I think Nate has a follow-up. Yeah.

I think that was a really good point. There's we get a lot of questions on that. Something else I get a lot of questions about kinda in the same line is, in particular, around, like, state highways. Mhmm. So I'm thinking 531, 532. Yes. I'll have people asking, all the development happening there, why is the county not and so there's a lot of confusion because it's in the county. Right? But it's a state highway. Can you speak to that and how impact fees do or do not play a role there?

Well, we do have an interlocal agreement with the state. They do have to identify what their improvements are and and what they will collect on. We do coordinate with them developments that come into the county that have impacts on those PDS. We'll send those down to the state, And then there's coordination that happens. But they have to deem what those improvements are and what whether it will be impact fees that they collect or whether they will have to actually do improvements.

I would just if you don't mind if I add just a little something. Oftentimes, development goes in and people are like, Where's my improvement right now? The increment of contribution is added to other increments of contribution. And once we have enough and the project is ready to go, that's when we implement it. So oftentimes, they don't see a direct nexus to what is happening when that improvement.

So right now, we have about a balance of $14,000,000 That's for all the TSAs. So there is a certain amount for that particular TSA, and we save it and up, and then we can put it towards a project. So it sometimes is less visible and obvious, but we can tell you that we keep track of it very closely and make sure that it goes to where it needs to go.

Add on to that, we don't collect fees specific to a project. We collect them specific to a TSA or transportation service area.

Yep. Councilmember Meade? Thank you. Can you

go back one slide? I think it's just one slide. Yes. Okay. Two questions on this slide. So $66,500,000 in grants to be returned if we don't pass a TBD this year. So does that mean we have already applied for and been approved or granted these awards?

That's correct.

These are not applications we have out there, so they're like potentially at risk. These are actually on the chopping block. We don't pass the TBD. We're giving back $6,500,000 period.

They are at risk. Yes, all the money is in the door, so to speak. We have been awarded those dollars towards those specific projects, and those dollars are at risk, as are those projects.

So in six months, say we don't pass this TBD, in six, eight months or in December, We're giving back $66,500,000

If the council does not approve the TBD by June 1, then it will take us a few months to evaluate all of the grant conditions.

Okay.

And we will determine because some of those grant conditions, we have spent some of those dollars. We do not want to pay back what we've already spent because we don't have the money to do that. So what we will have to do is evaluate every single one. And what might happen is that some project will get to a milestone that allows us to not pay the money back, and then we would return the portion of dollars that is unspent, unobligated. And other ones will say, We are at 20%, we get to 25%, and the rest goes back.

We shut that project down. So it will take us that period of time, six, seven months, that period of time, for us to evaluate that and then the corresponding layoffs that go with the reduction of those capital projects.

Okay. So the number is kind of just this higher level, these are the ones that are there, but we're not going to lose all of that money. Some of these projects will hit the

I would hope that we would not lose all of those dollars. We would make some very important decisions about to not have to pay back dollars that we don't have.

Okay. That was my first question on that. Second one is the reduction in the FTEs. So what I found it kind of hard to believe, but if you're going to say it, I totally believe you. The levy lid or the sorry, not the levy lid. The the TBD gets us $6,000,000 in revenue.

Correct.

And $6,000,000 is the magic number that avoids all of this. You know why that seems I'm I'm skeptical of that number. Just

I hear I hear what you're saying because our current deficit for this year is $9,000,000. So if I could bring you a proposal that was $9,000,000 that's what I would bring you. But we don't have that as an option. The option we have is what $6,000,000 is. So then I had to calculate based on what that $6,000,000 looks like. So how do we have a shortfall of $6,000,000 that is 34 staff and reducing those projects? That's what it is.

So $5,000,000 instead of 6 if the TBD only brought us $5,000,000 we would see we'd still see this we'd see a reduction in staff, but you'd say it would be more than this.

It would have to be more than this because five because the delta between five nine is more significant, and we'd have to make more cuts.

Okay. And then the last question is on the levy lift. So $6,000,000 is not fixing our problem. $6,000,000, you described as like a band aid to a much bigger problem. And we need the levy lid lift to really solve the problem in the roads fund.

Right? To address additional operations and maintenance and buy back those capital projects.

Yes. So we're we we know we've kind of identified that we need we're gonna need this. Yes. And it's gonna you said nine to twelve months that it's gonna take to kind of ramp up the effort before we can run a real successful awareness campaign with the public. Have we started that? Do we so we know that that is needed? Has that process been started? Or what are we waiting for if we know it's needed? If we know we have to do that regardless?

So it's a great it's a great question. And, it's, again, not something that county government can run. County government, find council members can put it on the ballot, but we can't run it. Are there parties that are interested and and see the bigger solution? Yes, there are. Are they starting to talk amongst themselves? Yes, they are. But it's still early, and again, I can't run such a thing.

So what would the process look like? Well, how do we start that? The council right now would need to propose something and take a vote to put this on the ballot, and then it starts?

I think that the big interest right now has been on the Transportation Benefit District to address the shortfall that we see in this year. And I think people are holding their breath to understand what is the outcome of that, and then they will assemble themselves together and think about how to proceed in that direction.

But would you Can agree I Just really quick. If would you agree that whether or not we pass the TBD, we have we have to do the levy lift?

I think it is in the county's best interest to pursue how to add back capital investment Right. To support the growth of this county and the vision that's outlined in the comprehensive plan. And the only way to do that, from my humble seat here, is through a levy lift.

Does the team agree? Like, I assume you're talking to the executive's office. They agree with you on that. I agree with you.

Can I interrupt just for a second? We have to be very careful here because, like, when I we do school led Libby lifts. They come and they talk about it, but they can't talk about for or against. And I think we're getting really close to a line without any attorneys here. And so I wanna be very careful that we don't step over that line with with the questioning because it's almost like we're getting close to that line. I just wanna make you aware of the line since we don't have an attorney here.

I'm not aware of the line. I hear what you're saying. We can have this conversation another time if we have to. But my my my concern is just that we're we're really making a lot over $6,000,000 when it looks like the hole's much bigger and we're gonna have to do a much bigger effort moving forward. I'll just put that out there and then I guess we can consult an attorney and figure out what we're allowed to talk about.

Certainly, there's a near term need, and that is right right now. There's a bigger and longer term need, certainly, to help support and backfill the operations and maintenance to its higher level that we've this this these communities have become accustomed to, other than just a constant frenzy of snow fights and flood fights and pothole and paving. Certainly, there's something more significant. And then there is capital, that to help support the greater vision of this county. So there's lots of ways to approach that. It's not a single vote, and, that's something that definitely should be pursued at some point in time.

I just want to wrap up by saying I deeply appreciate your perspective on this specifically, And that's what's got me to this point of realizing this problem is much bigger than we, I think, counsel should have known about more recently or more we should have had more notice about this. And you've been someone who I've consistently gone gone to say, k. What is this? What do we need? What is the bigger picture? And so thank you for that. Thank you for being a resource. This is a longer I think a much longer effort that we're gonna have to be undergoing, and this isn't gonna solve the problem

by itself.

Thank you for that those words of affirmation. I appreciate the open dialogue that I've had with each of you. You've all been asked really tough questions, and we are here for it. So thank you.

Councilmember Dunn.

Thank you. I appreciate that the TBD is a different funding source. So, you know, we rely heavily on sales tax and property tax. And over half of our population is in unincorporated. And then most people living in cities, the majority vast majority, because it's only for small cities that don't have a TBD, are paying into a car tab or a transportation benefit district system.

So I appreciate that it's almost offering fairness across that everyone living in the county pays for pays for roads in some way, road maintenance. I appreciate the com kinda comparison with Pierce County as well. So I'm I haven't seen the comparison between the number of miles, but also the number of miles in urban areas. So do you have that off the top of your head, like, a comparison of Pierce County and Snohomish? The amount we receive in the levies are is actually is obviously less. But then do we have more, roads in urban areas that required urban standard compared to Pierce County?

We have queried both Pierce and King, and we are they're preparing that information for us. And as soon as we have it and can assemble it and do that comparison, we will share it with the Council.

Thank you.

All right. Any other comments or questions? Councilmember Peterson.

Yeah. Thanks, Chairman. So one of the issues that we have been dealing with more and more, it seems, at the county level and certainly at the state level are lawsuits. So nothing on of the things that will go away are the things that we'll have to pay for minus this kind of upkeep in roads. I'm concerned, of course, about lawsuits because we have failing roads and somebody crashes their car.

Has there been and I know we've talked about this just kind of in general terms. I mean, is there any work done that kind of by legal folks that kind of can monetize that exposure at all? Like, I know it's really hard with, you know, every time we talk to our attorneys about a pending lawsuit. But I just wanna also just wanna make sure that we're considering that, that that's been a huge hit to huge hit to the state budget. It's a growing hit to county budgets and local budgets, and that that seems we should have that as part of the calculation.

It is an excellent question, and I think consistently about risk to not not just our budget, more importantly, the safety of the traveling public. And I know that Doug has a particular phrase he likes to use, but it is incredibly important. We need to make sure that when the public is traveling, that they have sight distance. What does that mean for hedge trimming and vegetation trimming? It's a very early spring, and we're going to be doing a lot of mowing for the next six to eight months, depending on how wet it is this summer.

We think about the stop signs. You know that we have staff on call twenty four hours a day that go right out. As soon as the sheriff's office notifies us that the top stop sign is down or yield sign is down, we are out there. We put that right up. I think about, the floods in December when we ran out of road closure signs, when we had to borrow some to make sure that the public was going to be safe now.

Some people decide to drive around those signs and made some bad choices. But overall, I think it's important to make sure that we are addressing the snow conditions and making sure that it's safe for the public to travel, that the striping is done, that we do fix the potholes. So it is why we have protected our road maintenance crews and the funds that we've had for them. Up until this year, we were able to hire seasonals, although that's been reduced over time. We are doing everything that we can at this point with the budgets that we have to make sure that the traveling public is safe on our roadways, that we are maintaining our sidewalks with the discontinuity.

You remember that first picture that we had on the first slide? How do we maintain those? The backlog is significant, and we want to continue to address those risk areas for the county as well as the traveling public.

Councilmember Dunn.

Yeah. Just one last comment. During COVID, we suspended hiring temporary workers for road maintenance. How long did that take to kind of make up for losing that for a year or two years? Yeah.

Doug says five years. Okay. Maybe not that long. We've had seasonal hires. I think we suspended for a year or so. We were able to get additional trucks. We managed and maneuvered through that as best we could because, again, we're thinking about that risk for the public. We want to make sure that we're addressing as much as we can. This year is one of those anomaly years, but it is important that we stay focused on investing in the road maintenance crews so that we were able to keep that high standard of maintenance that we possibly can.

Any further comments or questions? All right. Thank you so much for your presentation.

Thank you. We appreciate it.

All right. Next on the agenda is our action items versus Ordinance 26 dash 009.

Good morning, council chair Lowen, council members for the record Deb Evis and Bell council staff. The following three ordinances are related to the transportation benefit district or TBD. And with the chair's approval, I can give one staff report that would include the background and context for all three and then address the particulars of each individually after.

Yes. Go

ahead. Great. Thank you. Snohomish County originally established a TBD in 2011 with the adoption of ordinance 10 dash one zero three as a separate governing body to provide funding for transportation projects in unincorporates Snohomish County. The county council was established as the ex officio governing body.

However, a funding mechanism for transportation improvements was not included in the original ordinance. In 2015, the Washington State Legislature enacted RCW 36.7 seven four, excuse me, point zero one zero, which permits counties by ordinance to assume the rights, powers, and functions, and obligations of the TBD, thereby consolidating its operations under the county's direct governance. Under RCW eighty two point eight zero point one four zero, if an interlocal agreement cannot be reached, a district that includes the unincorporated territory of a county may impose by a majority vote of the governing body of district an annual vehicle fee of up to $20 for the first twenty four months. If council so chooses, the increment is then allowed to go up to $40 for the next twenty four month increment with a total of $50 thereafter. Proposed ordinance 26 dash double o nine has four parts.

First, it would add a new code section to Snohomish County code, proposed section two point eight five point zero three five vehicle license fee. This would fix and impose an annual vehicle fee of $20 as allowed by RCW. This fee would not be effective until six months after the proposed ordinance is passed. If passed in May, it cannot be charged until November or December at the earliest. Next would amend Snomish County code two point eight five point zero one zero transportation benefit district established.

The proposed amendment would allow for the geographic boundaries of the benefit district to change with the unincorporated limits of the county, thereby accounting for future annexations. Next, we would amend Snohomish County code two point eight five point zero two zero governing board, which would delete the existing sentence acting as the ex officio in independent capacity, and this would affirm the governing body is the Snohomish County Council for the TBD. And lastly, we would amend Snohomish County code two point eight five point zero four zero use of funds. Proposed amendment would allow for the funds generated by the transportation benefit district to be used for any purpose allowed by within law, meaning that the RCW thirty six point seven three point zero one five. This would eliminate the previous exhibit and incorporates the county transportation planning documents that are approved by council within their annual construction plan or ACP and the transportation improvement plan, the TIP, and the comprehensive plan in the biennium budget.

So ordinance 26 dash zero one zero would allow for the transfer of all vested rights, powers, communities, functions, obligations to this Snohomish County Council from the previous ex officio body. And ordinance 26 dash zero one one is for formal public hearing notice as required by RCW. Council has received public comments, and those have been forwarded to all council members. The requested action is to move all three ordinance, 26 dash double o nine, twenty six dash zero one zero, and 26 dash zero one one to the general legislative session tomorrow, April 22 to set time and date for public hearing with a requested date of 05/13/2026. This concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions along with public work staff.

Any comments or questions from council members?

I have one

question. Council member Dunn.

Is there any requirement for the as the legislative body, we would become the legislative body for the TBD. Correct? Correct. Is there any requirements for meeting?

Not that I'm aware.

Or anything like that. Okay. Thanks.

Any other comments or questions? Alright. The proposed action is to move ordinance 26 dash double zero nine zero one zero and zero one one to GLS tomorrow, April 22 to set time and date for a public hearing. And we'll go ahead and do that unless there's an objection. Okay. We'll go ahead and move those three items and move to Motion 20 six-one 153.

Good morning, counsel. Debbie Mack, counsel staff. Proposed motion twenty six-one hundred fifty three would approve and authorize the county executive to execute the agreement and any amendments with Five Star Mechanical. Five Star Mechanical was selected through RFP twenty five-four fourteen r b to provide refrigeration systems preventative maintenance, repair, and support service for refrigeration equipment at the Records Medical Examiner and Oaks Jail buildings. The agreement takes effect upon execution through three years from the effective date for cost not to exceed $100,000 The requested action today is for council to move to GLS on April 29 for consideration.

Alright. Any comments or questions from council members? Right. We'll go ahead and move this to GLS on April 29, on consent unless there's objection. Hearing none, we'll move that to consent and go to motion 26 dash one six seven.

Proposed motion 26 dash one six seven would approve and authorize the county executive to sign Amendment 13 to the Master Services Agreement with Applied Data Systems Incorporated. The proposed amendment would add the asset management module in the ArcBus software that will allow the county to track equipment and other county assets throughout the full life cycle of the asset. The amendment is effective upon execution through 07/10/2028. This amendment adds 31,508 for a total contract amount of $982,533.38 Today's request is for counsel to move to GLS on April 29 for consideration.

All right. Any comments or questions from council members? All right. We'll go ahead and move this to GLS, on consent for April 29 unless there's objection. Hearing none, we'll move that to consent and go to motion 20 six-one 158.

Proposed motion 20 six-one 158 would approve and authorize the county executive to execute an interlocal agreement for ortho ortho imagery and GIS support services and associated work orders and amendments between Snohomish County and the City of Seattle by and through its city light department. The county will also provide up to 10 EagleView Connect Explorer accounts to the city light department. The agreement is effective upon execution through 12/31/2027. All work orders under this ILA shall not exceed $26,250. Today's request is for counsel to move to GLS on April 29 for consideration.

All right. Any comments or questions from counsel members? All right. We'll go ahead and move this to consent on April 29 unless there's objection. Hearing none, we'll move that to consent and go to motion 20 six-one 166.

Post motion 26 dash one six six would approve and authorize the county executive to execute amendment 10 to the website development and hosting agreement with ICON Enterprises Incorporated doing business as Civic Plus. The proposed amendment would allow the Department of Information Technology to implement DocAccess, a document accessibility platform for use on its website. This platform scans, converts, and monitors PDF documents on websites to support ADA and Section five zero eight compliance efforts for users with disabilities. The agreement is for the term of 05/01/2026 through 07/31/2028. This amendment adds $134,673 for a total contract amount of $1,393,272.25.

Today's request is for council to move to GLS on April 29 for consideration.

All right. Any comments or questions from council members? All right. Hearing none, we'll go ahead and move this to consent on April 29 unless there's objection. Hearing none, we'll move that to consent. That brings us to the end of our meeting this morning. We will be in recess until our public infrastructure and conservation committee at 11AM. Thank you.