General Legislative Session - Regular Meeting

Morning, everyone. Snohomish County Council is called to order for our general legislative session. Today is Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026 at 9 a.m. We're meeting in the Jackson boardroom and also remotely. I'll read the script for public comment and then our clerks will take role. We'll take public comment beginning in person and then remotely on Zoom. Click on the hand icon to raise your hand. If you're calling in by phone, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute. Each speaker will have three minutes to speak and please start your comment with your name and city of residence. Next is roll call. Next is roll call.

Chair Dunn. Here. Vice Chair Lowell.

Present.

Council Member Neering.

Here.

Council Member Mead.

Here.

Council Member Peterson.

Here.

Chair, we have five members present.

Thank you. Next is our Pledge of Allegiance. So if you're able, please stand and join me in the pledge. Thank you. Next is public comment. Did anyone wish to provide public comment? Right on time. Yeah. Welcome.

Sorry, the elevator was a little bit longer this morning. Good morning, council members. My name is Patrick Gann. I'm the owner of Hangar 420 and a longtime Clearview resident. I was here yesterday and gave three comments addressing transparency, fiscal responsibility, and what this continued delay is doing to my business. Today I want to bring those issues together around one question. How is this restriction created so quickly, yet correcting it is taking more than a year? I have heard there were numerous community meetings about these issues, so I went back through the Clearview Community Association's own records. On January 17, 2023, meeting number 50, Mike McQuarrie, I'm not sure if I said that right, and Deputy Director of PDS and Michael Dobish, Premier and Division Manager, were sitting face-to-face with the Clearview Community Group. They discussed permitting, land use, and the comprehensive plan and development. The meeting even ended by asking what kinds of business would you like to see come to Clearview? Yet according to those minutes, not one word about cannabis retail. Not one word about changing the 2,500 feet to 10,000 feet. Not one warning that the restriction dramatically affecting Clearview's commercial corridor was coming. 16 days later February 2nd ordinance 23-0 0 9 was formally introduced five days later February 7th It went through committee February 8th The public hearing was scheduled March 8th just 50 days after that Clearview meeting the council held the hearing and approved it When nothing was discussed with the Clearview group at all during those meetings So when I hear there were numerous means an extensive public involvement. I have to ask. Where is it? I Where are the Clearview meeting minutes showing people demanding 10,000 feet? Where is the documented community discussion? Because two years later, the Clearview Community Association's own presentation stated it helped pass the marijuana zoning spacing rules and specifically identified Hangar 420 as violating the rule. So apparently somebody was involved. But the community record I've reviewed does not show the public groundswell we've been told existed. Now compare those timelines. 15 days to create it. I've spent more than a year trying to correct it. Meanwhile, I have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested, I'm carrying the property, jobs aren't being created, tax revenue isn't being generated, and I'm running out of time to save my business. That's where transparency and fiscal responsibility become the same issue. Council members, if Snohomish County could move this quickly to create a restriction with consequences this serious, why must I lose my business waiting for Snohomish County to correct it? I'm not asking to circumvent the process. I'm asking you to finish it. You inherited this problem, but you do not have to perpetuate it. Please move this correction forward before the delay itself becomes the reason my business fails. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment. Is there other public comment today? Are there any hands raised? There are no hands raised. Okay, so we will close public comment, and next on the agenda is the consent agenda.

I move approval of the consent agenda.

It's been properly moved and seconded to approve the consent agenda. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor please say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Next is administrative matters.

I move approval of motion 26-348. Second.

It's been properly moved and seconded to approve administrative matters motion 26-348. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor please say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. Next, we have action on items from committee. Under Committee of the Whole, we have Item A, Motion 26-344.

Council considers Motion 26-344, approving and authorizing the County Executive to execute the FY 2025 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Continuum of Care Program Grant Agreement for YHDP Projects.

Good morning. For the record, Cynthia Foley, Council staff, Snohomish County through the Human Services Department is seeking to enter into a grant agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for two youth homelessness demonstration program projects for fiscal year 2025. The grant funds will be subcontracted with Cocoon House to operate a transitional housing project for homeless young adults ages 18 to 24 and a youth engagement team project to provide outreach to homeless and at-risk youth and young adults ages 12 to 21. The grant not to exceed amount is $1,419,261. Urgent approval is requested to meet statutory deadline for execution. The request is to consider motion 26-344.

Thank you. Questions from council? Okay. Is there a motion?

I move approval of motion 26-344. Second.

Improperly moved and seconded to approve motion 26 dash 3 for for any discussion hearing none all in favor. Please say aye aye aye Chair votes aye any opposed Hearing none that passes unanimously next we'll hear the next two items B and C together Council considers ordinance 26-0 for three setting jail service rates and approving and authorizing the Snohomish County Executive

to sign form interlocal agreements for jail services between Snohomish County and jurisdictions located within Snohomish County. Also, Ordinance 26-044, setting jail service rates and approving and authorizing the Snohomish County Executive to sign form interlocal agreements for jail services between Snohomish County and Indian tribes. The proposed action is to set time and date for a public hearing.

Good morning, council. For the record, Nicole Gourley, council staff. RCW 70.48.090 provides counties and cities with the ability to contract with one another for jail services through interlocal agreements. In 2020, two jail service template ILAs were approved by council through motion 20-090 for cities and 20-091 for tribes. These ILAs established new rates and the motions gave the executive the authority to sign individual contracts with jurisdictions that were substantially similar to the templates approved without further council approval. The Sheriff's Office has proposed new jail rates through updated template ILAs for the upcoming biennium. Two of the three ordinances pertaining to the jail rates are before you for consideration. Ordinance 26-043 would approve a template ILA to be used with cities and towns. Ordinance 26-044 would approve a template ILA to be used with tribes. And the one that is pending is a standalone ILA with Tulalip. In talking with the Sheriff's Office, the rates will be the same as the rates in the ordinances before you today. It's just that it's currently with our attorneys. Under the proposed template ILAs, the new fees will be for booking in 2027, $353.61 and in 2028, $369.09. Maintenance in 2027 is $266.71. In 2028, it's $271.97 and that's maintenance or housing fee. Overtime hourly rate is, in 2027, $32.78. In 2028, $33.80. Video court hourly fee in 2027 is $328.24. And in 2028, it is $338.41. Other notable changes to the contract are the last template had an annual cost inflator of 3%. That is changing and being replaced with annual fee updates calculated by the sheriff's office. The new section requires cities to be notified of the new rates by June 30th. This will begin in 2029 with the first notice to cities due June 30th, 2028. And it adds a new fee for overtime supplemental that will only apply as long as the 2.25% is in effect. The contract duration would be from January 1st, 2027 through December 31st, 2028 and allows for three additional two-year extensions. If approved, these ordinances would authorize the executive to execute agreements in substantially similar format to the templates without further council action. Today's request is for council to set time and date for a public hearing.

Thank you. Questions from council members? Council Member Neering?

Yeah, thank you, Sheridan. Just a few questions. So first on the, so it sounds like we're going to have three different ones. We have the one for cities and towns, for tribes, and then a separate ILA for Tulalip?

Correct.

My understanding is this is going to get considered along with the budget in November. If that's the case, is there a way to marry up the Tulalip one with 26044?

I think that would depend on when we receive the Tulalip one, whether or not it can be married up with the budget process.

Okay.

So I think that it just depends on when we receive the ECAF. We don't have that yet.

Okay. But substantively, there's no difference between any of the three?

From my, I have not seen it. I am aware that the sheriff has said the rates are the same. So I would imagine the only difference is some language tweaks. And those language tweaks, I believe a couple months ago, you guys approved the last contract with Tulalip. And so I believe those language changes are similar to what you guys previously approved for that contract.

Okay. Yeah, given that we have a couple of months, I think it would be helpful to marry those up, even if they're not substantially different. It just looks like it's different if we're considering them in a one-off ordinance. So I think that would be helpful if possible. And then one other question, if it's all right. You mentioned the annual fee updates. So is that something that's built in, that there is a, you know, annual increase or something would that come back to council um Doug are you I don't believe that would come back to council based on how it's written but I know we have some people from the sheriff's office and maybe they could come speak okay or we could or I can find out yeah we can talk about it offline too I'm just interested what goes into the calculation for the annual update and then whether that should come back to council or not depending on how that's determined okay I will find out okay thank you

As I do see Council member low and just when we receive the. The ordinance. We can move it to committee of the whole and then have a motion to set time and date that follows the budget process. Council member low.

Yeah, I do have concerns with this going through the budget process. Just because cities are trying to plan their budgets right now, I mean, this is significant cost to our cities, which is ultimately on the taxpayers in each one of those cities. I think cities need more certainty before our budget process in November. So I think... Although we can approve the final part of this during the budget process, I think we should tip our hand before then so that cities can budget accordingly. I mean, I've seen cities like Mill Creek already talking about contracting with other places for jail services. I think we're going to lose a significant part of income by cities going other places because this is this this is. unexpected to the cities. I mean, this is a massive increase to them. Obviously, this was not proposed by council, but I think council should phase this in, and I think we should work with our city partners in finding a way to phase this in. Maybe it's a third each year to bring us up to the actual cost but to just go from three percent every year and then add in a more than hundred percent increase uh i think is is very dangerous uh for our cities and so i'd like to see this go back to the committee of the whole so we can have periodic updates on this and and work with our city partners on this uh to try to find um some balance to this. I do believe in cost recovery, but this is pretty unexpected and all of a sudden for our city. So that's how I feel about this.

So I know the cities were notified in May. We received, um, copies of emails that the sheriff sent to, um, city departments and, uh, police chiefs. I know there were outreach meetings, um, throughout the summer with our, with our cities. Um, from our sheriff's department. We also have a code that requires the rates be that jail service contracts according to 5.04.080 jail service contracts. The sheriff shall coordinate with the county's office of budget and finance to identify all anticipated costs both indirect and direct. provide jail services um so i'm worried that we would get kind of outside of the code if we're um if the council is now directing this so i if there's going to be um a process um or a different a phase in of rates i agree the cities need predictability and certainty um that could come as a maybe a letter that's signed by council and exec that predicts the rates, but I think maybe having a work group that's made up of sheriff and corrections, executive, finance, council, that would maybe bring forward a recommended phase-in, if that's the will of the council. Thoughts on that? Council Member Lillard, you still had your hand up? Is that a new question?

No, I'll lower it. Thank you.

So the thought was that it would move with the budget process so that because the rates are part of the budget. Council Member Lowe, you're saying that you'd prefer it was outside of the budget process. We have some time. We can move this to next week to set time and date. We could create a work group. We can either. I mean, continuing it to next week was the recommendation right now to set time and date into the future for with the budget. But thoughts on how we move forward, either continuing to next week. Yeah. Council member.

Yeah. I mean, we received a letter from, I think, 14 of the cities. I think some other cities wanted to sign on to it. Let's continue it to next week, and let's invite the city mayors or police chiefs to our council meeting, and let's have a discussion on this next week with our cities.

Okay. Other thoughts or questions from council? Council Member Neri?

It sounds like moving it to next week either way is the—

path forward okay and we can just see up cities some are available to send representatives or they're welcome to send comment to share share their thoughts okay so is there so we need a motion to continue these two items to the administrative session on September 8th

I move to continue ordinance 26-043 to September 8th administrative session.

Second. We'll do them separately. Okay. A motion has been properly made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes 5-0.

I move to continue ordinance 26-044 to September 8th administrative session.

A motion has been properly made and seconded to continue ordinance 26 044 any discussion on favor please say aye. Chair votes aye any opposed hearing on the passes 5 to 0. We had no other business on the agenda and we do not have any public hearings so Council's now adjourned for the day.