General Legislative Session - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. We'll call to order the Snohomish County Council for our general legislative session. Today is Wednesday, May 27th, 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 roll. We'll take public comment beginning in person and then remotely and 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.

Chair Dunn. Here. Vice Chair Lowe.

Present.

Council Member Neering.

Here.

Council Member Mead.

Here.

Council Member Peterson. Chair, we have four members present.

Thank you. Next is a Pledge of Allegiance. We've asked Council Member Lowe to please lead us in the Pledge. Thank you. Next, we have special reports and we have our federal legislative update. So, Annika, did you want to introduce? And then if you're here from the federal side, if you can raise your hand on Zoom by clicking star nine. I'll wait and see if they're here.

Not yet. Okay. Let me text them and make sure that they got the link and they're all good.

Maybe we can come back to that one.

Yeah, we can come back. Okay. So without objection from council, we will return to our special reports and we'll move on to public comment. Did anyone wish to provide public comment today? Welcome.

Good morning, council members. My name is Patrick Gann. I'm the owner of Hanger 420 and the applicant for the citizen initiated docket amendment before you today. First, I want to thank Planning Commission staff, PDS staff, and the Executive's Office for taking a thoughtful and common-sense approach to this issue over the last several months. I also want to clarify something important regarding the two different tracks currently moving forward. My Citizen Docket Application and the Executive-sponsored Code Amendment that was heard by the Planning Commission yesterday. My Docket Application was submitted months ago, long before I was ever received any indication that the Executive's Office might step in to help address this issue. At that time, the citizen process was really my only available path to move forward, so I had to continue pursuing it in order to preserve my ability to seek relief. That said, my hope today is that the executive sponsored amendment, which just moved through planning commission yesterday and should be reaching council very soon, becomes the fastest, most practical resolution to this issue. Yesterday's planning commission discussion also reinforced something else that has become increasingly clear throughout this process. There does not appear to have been any meaningful public planning analysis or broad planning commission consensus behind the original decision to impose a 10,000-foot separation requirement in Clearview. Listening to the discussion yesterday, it did not appear any commissioners viewed this as the type of policy the county would normally use to control markets or artificially restrict competition between businesses. In paraphrasing some of the discussion from yesterday, the county generally does not regulate coffee shops, restaurants, or any other retail businesses by creating massive separation requirements designed to influence competition or control market outcomes. Markets naturally adjust over time based on demand, service, pricing, and economic conditions. That is especially true in the cannabis industry. The cannabis market has already been contracting for years 27% down from last year, due to economic pressures, taxation, advertising restrictions, regulatory burdens, and broader economic forces. Businesses are already succeeding or failing based on normal economic realities. That is why the 10,000 foot separation requirement in Clearview never made practical planning sense. It was four times larger than the rest of the county, and there still does not appear to be any identifiable planning analysis, public recommendation, or documented consensus explaining how that specific number was ever reached in the first place. Through public records, I have been unable to find evidence showing that the number have originated from a transparent public planning process, planning commission recommendation, or any form of documented land use analysis supporting why Clearview alone should have a separation requirement four times larger than the rest of the Snohomish County. I respectfully ask the council to move as swiftly as possible once the executive amendment reaches your desk. Every additional delay increases the financial damages and hardship caused by the situation, and I am now approaching a critical operational deadline with my state license after many months of forced inactivity. I appreciate the time, professionalism, and careful review the staff, planning commission members, and council have dedicated to this issue. I'm simply asking for the opportunity to operate under the same fair and responsible standards applied throughout the rest of Snohomish County. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Other public comment? And then any hands raised online? We do.

We have Ms. Wetzel. She should be able to unmute her microphone.

Ms. Wetzel, you should be able to unmute

Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Good morning. I am voicing my opposition, excuse me, to two items today, motion 26204 and motion 26155. 26204 relates to the agricultural rezoning for churches. And that relates to Tom Merrick and Motion 26-155 is specifically for Patrick Gahn. I am concerned that these items prioritize the interests of specific individuals to the detriment of our local communities. Advancing these proposals suggest that council regulations can be bypassed or rewritten in exchange for campaign donations, golf tournaments, vacations, contributions to council members' pet projects, etc., Sending motion 26204 to the Planning Committee is a misuse of taxpayer time and resources, as the agricultural item is likely to be rejected, similar to the Maltby UGA expansion. Regarding motion 26155, I would like to point out that while Mr. Gaunt alleges he has a petition signed by 600 people, A review of his petition shows that there is no way to verify that any or all of the signatures are valid and signed by residents of the Clearview community. It is my understanding that he has had a sign-in sheet at his two active stores for the past year and gave people discounts on purchases if they would sign his petition over and over again. This is unconscionable. Also, apparently, he is now threatening to file a complaint against the volunteer Clearview Community Association in an attempt to strong-arm the community into giving him what he wants. Not very neighborly behavior. While I understand these items will likely move forward, I want to ensure my opposition is officially recorded. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Next speakers. We have William Leiter followed by Willie Russell.

Can you hear me now?

Yep, we can hear you.

Okay. William Leiter, Unincorporated, Snohomish County. I'm following up with my comments from May 19 to the Planning and Community Development Committee meeting and my two emails to the council regarding motion 26-204, Where at the meeting, Mr. Nehring stated, Councilman Lowe and I received a request to make this change. By publicly citing a specific record in connection with an agency action, the public has the right to know the name of the person and see the request that was made. Mr. Nehring has chosen to not respond to my emails and to conceal the name of the person who made the request to change the zoning code to allow religious facilities to be constructed on agricultural land zoned A-10 of long-term significance. Per Mr. Nehring's statement, there is only one individual pursuing this code revision seeking to sidestep the permit variance procedure by changing the zoning code. There is certainly no hue and cry by other religious organizations to make this change. Apparently, this unknown individual is seeking to avoid a code requirement by pursuing a code change rather than a variance. Was this person a large political donor to Mr. Naring and Lowe, who are now seeking a quid pro quo? We don't know. State law and county code and the GMA are clear. Agricultural lands are valuable and must be protected from development. Development on agricultural land will create noise, light, glare, stormwater runoff, pollution, impervious parking lots and roofs. There is no municipal sanitary sewage outside of the urban growth area. This will further exacerbate pollution. If there is no municipal water service, then drinking water wells will impact and deplete groundwater essential to maintaining stream flow. Religious facilities should be restricted to inside the UGA where the municipal services such as water, sewer, mass transit, and emergency services are available. Religious facilities will forever take out agricultural lands from production. I urge the council to table motion 26204 and not waste the public's and the Planning Commission's time on a fool's errand to justify an illegal action without first disclosing the reason for this major change to the zoning code. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Next speaker. Next speaker is Willie Russell.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Thank you very much for taking my time. I'm concerned about an incident that we had here recently regarding homeless people and when they die, what happens. We have a United States Army veteran, Rory Bryant, who overdosed in the Everett Motel. his family and I was present when he was found. Come to find out, the family's kind of upset about what's going on only because one of the family members is a police officer and he could care less about his brother. The other family members are indigent and can't afford to bury him. So the county has a contract that allows a mortuary up in Stanwood to cremate the remains of these people for $300. Well, the family wanted to get their ashes. They were told it would cost them $900, $905 to $995 to get the ashes. I find that simply ridiculous. We are charging family members who are indigent for the ashes of veterans who who have served this country. I am sickened by what I see in Snohomish County. You people know me. I didn't come down there this time, okay, because I didn't want to be threatened like I have been before. that you can't speak at public meetings, Mr. Russell. I am an elected official, and you people are going to learn this, that we are not going to tolerate you treating people like this. What do you do with the ashes? They save them for two years, and then they just dispose of them. What? Why not let the family have them so that maybe the gentleman could be buried in a military cemetery, his ashes? But I'm not sure any of you people on this county council has served in the military.

I haven't checked. I don't know.

But what is going on to the military homeless people and their families in this community when somebody dies is absolutely ridiculous. I would ask that you actually, on Rory Bryant, that you order the funeral home to give the ashes to the family. $905 to $995 for ashes, yet we only pay $300. Thank you very much for your time. I sure hope something gets done quickly on this. The family is really, really, really upset about it. And so is a lot of other veterans. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment. Other hands raised? Yes, we have Pete.

There, I just managed to hit the unmute button. Thank you. I'm here to express my opposition for changing the zoning in the Clearview CRC such that the additional cannabis dispensary would be allowed within the CRC. This is not so much an opposition to the cannabis business in general as that it appears to be the act of one business that may not have been aware of the rules when they began to invest in this area, but have continued to push to change rules that the community was satisfied with there's a long history in the clearview community of being concerned about the number of cannabis dispensaries in the area uh and so and there's also no lack of competition as there are several cannabis dispensaries within a short drive so i'm really not understanding why there is the continued pressure to make this change also i'm just in the last few minutes heard that there was some kind of discussion of another measure from the Planning Commission just recently. I don't know what that is, but if it involves a change to the zoning and clear view, I guess I would be opposed to that too. That's all I have to say. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment. Could I have your name for the record, please?

Peter Grosvenor.

Thank you so much.

Next speaker.

And that was the last hand raised. Okay.

Okay. So we'll now close public comment. We'll go ahead and do the resolution unless the federal. Okay. So we'll move ahead to the resolution and then we'll come back to special reports. So next is resolution 26-030.

Council considers resolution 26-030 recognizing June 5, 2026 as spring into recovery day in Snohomish County.

Thank you. So I sponsored this resolution. I think we did it last year as well. But there's a spring into recovery day on June 5, at the Aqua Sox ball field. And it's just a great event, a lot of resources, I think over 100 different tabling 200. Okay, so a lot of resources, a lot of activity, a lot of fun events for the whole family. Any comments from Council? Okay. Should we move the resolution and then hear from speakers? Okay. So we'll go ahead and move the item, and then we'll hear from other speakers for the resolution.

I move approval of Resolution 26-030. Second.

Thank you. So a motion has been made and seconded, and now we'll take any comments. Did anyone want to speak today on this item? So welcome. You can join the podium. Thank you.

Good morning, County Council, and thank you for the passage of that resolution. On behalf of Snohomish County Recovery Coalition, we thank you for the recognition and proclamation of Spring Into Recovery. This event reflects what is possible when organizations collaborate in a meaningful way, led by people with lived experience. Spring Into Recovery provides a direct path to essential services, resources, and connection for anyone who needs support in real time. What began as a shared vision to address long-recognized gaps has grown into tangible solutions. At this event, individuals are met with compassion, dignity, and quality care. With over 118 registered organizations onsite offering peer support, case management, ID cards, food, hot meals, Transportation to detox and inpatient directly from said event, mental health support, sponsorship for recovery housing, medical and dental care, MOUD, laundry services, and so much more provided directly on-site day of. We are creating a space where people can access multiple resources in one place in whatever combination they need to move forward. Just as important, we are fostering a connection to the community. SCRC is entirely volunteer-driven. Many of us have full-time jobs, and then some. Some hold multiple roles, and many are continuing our education while balancing family responsibilities and our own recovery journeys. We show up because we care deeply about this community and its ability to heal. Our hope in this proclamation is that it inspires continued momentum across Nahomish County throughout the year. We understand the needs, the barriers, and the complexity because we have lived them. We are here not only to share our experience, but to partner in practical ways to find sustainable solutions. If we can come together to make this happen one day a year with limited resources, we believe that through ongoing collaboration, we can expand the impact year round while being mindful and fiscally responsible. We stand ready to partner with you and be part of the solution. I would now like to invite some of my colleagues to share their perspective and appreciation and offer additional insights on behalf of Spring Into Recovery. Thank you. For the record, my name is April Provost.

Thank you. You can come to the podium, or if you're more comfortable sitting, either is fine.

Hit it? There we go. Thank you. First time. so hello everybody my name is Mike Walsh Miller and I'm the director of the peer support services at Conquer Conquer clinics and a proud member of the Snohomish County recovery coalition sitting before you is a very small representation of the many frontliners representing dozens of agencies throughout our county providing support and opportunity to those in need in our community On behalf of them all, I thank you for recognizing June 5th as Spring into Recovery Day. That's amazing. There are many unrecognized efforts and collaborative supports often provided just to help one individual get the help they need to embrace freedom from the chains of this disease of addiction. Despite the unfortunate funding cuts, which has impacted and ended some of the agency's presence in our communities, We have a record 118 entities stepping up, supporting this year's Spring Into Recovery III event to provide support to those in need attending. That represents the heart behind us folks, most of us with lived experience, providing the boots on the ground presence, not just at this event, but more so every day out in the community. I want to ask you on behalf of us all to please continue to prioritize your continued and elevated efforts behind the scenes to provide us with the support and verse dynamics needed so we can continue our daily presence and effort in the community. So please continue to pour into the hope dealers so we can pour into the community. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Other speakers? Anybody else? No, I thought. Okay. Okay. So a motion has been properly made and seconded. Was there any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? So that passes four to zero. So we're just going to take a quick two-minute recess for photos, and then we'll come back to our agenda. Thank you. Okay, Council has returned from recess, and we will move back to our agenda for our special reports. So we're joined by Annika, our Government Affairs Manager.

Yes, good morning, Council. I am joined by a special guest online with us today. Ryan Levitt is on with us. Ryan and Katie Clements, who couldn't join us today, are our federal lobbyists. They are based out of D.C., and doing super hard work for us since they were onboarded in February. Ryan and Katie were supposed to come to the county this week. They weren't able to make the journey out in person, but we are rescheduling that trip for August. When they're here in August, we'd love an opportunity to set up one-on-one meetings with council for those of you who haven't met them in person. I know some of you have met them, but it would be great to make that happen in August as well. So Brian is going to give us a quick update this morning and just introduce himself. Mostly wanted to give council an opportunity to meet our lobbyists who are doing such hard work for us. So Brian, go ahead.

Thanks Annika and thank you council members for the opportunity to introduce our firm to you and to give you a quick update on what's happening with the county's federal priorities in Washington, DC. I'll start by doing a quick introduction on myself and our firm. As Annika mentioned, we were selected in February to be the federal consultants for the county in Washington, DC. Our firm was first established back in 2001. And we, our expertise is a, we're a bipartisan firm. We, our expertise is on the federal appropriations process and federal funding and Many of our clients are subdivisions of state and local governments, so municipalities and counties and public universities, transportation districts, water districts, all throughout the western United States. My colleague, Katie Clements, who is unfortunately not able to join us today. Joined our firm back in November as a principal, and she recently was policy advisor to Senator Patty Murray on the Appropriations Committee and handled the earmarking process for Senator Patty Murray. So she's an important addition to our team. We are just honored and thrilled to be working with the county here in Washington, D.C., Katie and my background is similar. Both of us worked for about a decade in both the House and the Senate. And we now do this work, consulting work, advising our clients on federal government affairs issues, both on the congressional side and on the executive branch regulatory side of things. Okay. With that, I'm gonna give you a quick update on some of the county's top priorities on the federal level, and then happy to answer any questions that you have, if you have any. So really, our update falls along three or four major issues. The first one is the appropriations process for fiscal year 27. We joined up with the county in February, and that's sort of the heart of when the appropriations process kicks off. And so the county had a number of federal appropriations requests that we helped implement. facilitate and get submitted into our congressional delegation. Fortunately, so the county had five funding requests that were submitted and we know of actually six funding requests and four of them have been submitted by our delegation to receive funding. Over the last couple of weeks, the House Appropriations Committee has started to release their funding bills and we're getting a sense of how much funding was included for the county's projects. We know that Congressman Rick Larson submitted the sustainable aviation fuel request for the county And the committee funded it at $250,000 for fiscal year 27. Congresswoman DelBene submitted two projects for the county. The first one was the River Regional Trail, and the committee funded it at $1 million for fiscal year 27 appropriations. as well as the Alderwood Mall Parkway project at $500,000. So that's a major success for the county's funding request for fiscal year 27 on the House side. We know that Senator Patty Murray submitted a request through the Labor HHS Appropriations Bill for STI Clinic for the county. We don't have a sense yet what funding level that was approved at by the Senate Appropriations Committee, but that's still in process and we will... Likely we'll get some insight on that late in June or July. The Senate always tends to move a little bit slower than the House does in the appropriations process. But this is a great, great result for the county. And we're super encouraged by the support that the congressional delegation has given to the county's funding requests for this upcoming appropriations cycle. Congress is also busy working on their second reconciliation bill. As a reminder, the federal reconciliation process is a process that allows legislation to move without a 60-vote requirement in the Senate. So this is a partisan effort. And the first reconciliation bill was termed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. I'm sure you all remember that legislation. Congress is working on a second reconciliation bill. And the main crux of that legislation is to fund aspects of the Department of Homeland Security that were not funded in the most recent DHS appropriations bill, largely funding for the CBP and ICE immigration enforcement. And there's a lot of other issues that may take a ride on that reconciliation bill. And in fact, Congress was trying to move that legislation before the Memorial Day recess that's happening this week in Washington, but it was derailed largely by some opposition to funding for The ballroom at the White House and a couple of other issues with the DOJ fund for weaponization of government victims and other things like that. So there's always a lot of fireworks when it comes to reconciliation bills. A couple of other items of interest to the county. The House passed the farm bill. That's an annual authorization for USDA programs. That was passed a couple of weeks ago but faces pretty stiff opposition in the Senate. They're pretty far apart on what their intent is for the farm bill. We're closely watching that effort. And the other one is the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee approved a surface transportation bill reauthorization bill just before breaking for Memorial Day. And the surface transportation reauthorization, the current one, which is the IIJA or the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, that is set to expire at the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30th. So the surface transportation reauthorization, which the House Bill's referred to as Build America 250 Act. The intention is they're trying to get a bill in place prior to the expiration of the current surface transportation bill, which is a five-year authorization of all U.S. DOT federal transportation programs, both FTA, federal highways. and Railroad Administration. So there's a lot in that bill. We suspect that Congress is going to have to do some sort of an extension on surface transportation programs past September 30th, because time is sort of running out for the Senate and House to come to a to an agreement on that. But those are a couple of the major issues moving in the House and Senate this summer. And again, tremendous success to the county on appropriations this cycle. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have either about, you know, our firm and the work that we're doing for you or general questions about what's happening in Washington.

Thank you, Ryan. We did have a couple questions come from our below.

Brian, thank you for pitching for Katie today. We met last week with the executive's office and went through all this. I didn't give a report yesterday because I knew they were giving a report today. And I did go back and meet with Katie personally in D.C. back in February. So appreciate all your work. The only thing I wasn't clear on is Patty Murray's request. I knew about the other three requests. Is Patty Murray's request finalized or are we still waiting on that?

Great question. So we know that Senator Murray has submitted the request to the Appropriations Committee requesting funding, but the Senate Appropriations Committee has not yet released their labor HHS bill yet. So we know that she's made the request. She's obviously the chair of the committee. So theoretically, the committee will give a lot of deference to her requests, but we don't have a sense yet of what funding level we will receive if any for that request so sort of a two-step process the members submit their request to the committee and then the second step is that the committee releases their bills and indicates at what funding level each project gets funded at so that's still in process council member low and i think we're in really great shape with that request we just don't have a sense just yet what the funding level will be great thank you other questions

Okay, we don't see any other questions. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Okay, we'll move on in the agenda. And next is the consent agenda.

I move approval of the consent agenda items one through four. Second.

Been properly moved and seconded to approve the consent agenda. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes four to zero. Next is administrative matters motion 26-215.

I move approval of administrative matters, motion 26-215. Second.

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

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the pass is 4-0. Next, we have action on items from committee under planning and community development. Item A, motion 26-204.

Council considers motion 26-204, referring a proposed discussion item relating to growth management to the Snohomish County Planning Commission.

Good morning, Council Chair Nunn and Council Members for the Record, Deb Bell, Council Staff. Proposed motion 26-204 was first introduced at the May 19th Planning Committee and is to refer a discussion item to the Planning Commission. Council Member Lowe and Council Member Neering have proposed a request for a discussion regarding religious facilities as a permitted or conditional use in Zoning District A-10. Requested actions for council to consider the motion, and this concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions.

Questions from council members? Council Member Lowe?

Yeah, I just have a comment. I did work on bringing this forward. There was some insinuations earlier, and I just want to clear the record at this particular point. I was approached, I think, three or four years ago, I think was from Pastor Russell Johnson in Snohomish about purchasing some property on farmland and nothing really came of that. And then I, again, approached last fall, I believe it was from Pastor Johnson again about this particular topic. During the interim, I did go to a church for a, some sort of meeting up in Skagit County that was on farmland. Some of the issues that Pastor Johnson brought up to me made sense because of my experience in attending up in Skagit County, maybe twice, two or three times a facility up there. I could have easily put forward a motion on this today. I did not. I think it's worthy of having discussion. I have not made up any plans or ideas of what to do, but I think it's important that the public has the opportunity to discuss this. I think the planning commission is the right place for this. Uh, it was insinuated that I've received campaign contributions. I've run seven major campaigns over the last, since 2016 here in this County. I don't believe I've ever received a donation from, uh, pastor Johnson. I don't believe, uh, I've received any donations from any of his members that I'm aware of. Uh, so that has nothing to do with any campaign donations. It has nothing to do with my golf tournament that was insinuated earlier, but I just wanted to clear the record for that. And if we don't send it to Planning Commission, I'm happy to try to work with staff and put forward a motion to have a discussion in our own planning meeting, but I don't think, I'm not ready to put something forward for that. But I think Pastor Johnson's reasons to me made sense to have the discussion, I think The Planning Commission is the right place to have that discussion. I don't have any further plans other than to see what the Planning Commission comes up with. That's why I put this forward. I just wanted to clear the air after several emails and then the public testimony today. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Neering.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Dunn. Just to add on to that, I agree with everything Council Member Lowe said. I think it's prudent for us to use the Planning Commission for situations like this where maybe council members don't have a firm opinion one way or the other, but an idea is brought to us and we want to see what the Planning Commission thinks if it's a land use related issue. In fact, I'm looking at doing something similar. I've had a lot of outreach on data centers and so have a motion to refer that issue to the Planning Commission. So again, I don't think the Planning Commission should just be used as, well, we have an idea that we want to run through and it's just a a technicality that we have to send it to planning commission but we've got a lot of expertise in that group and so i think if we have ideas we're not quite sure where we stand on it but we want to get input from uh from that group from the planning commission then it's a it's a prudent use of time to uh to send those to the commission for a recommendation and then receive that recommendation back and decide how we want to move forward so appreciate the way that council member low explained it and i'm in agreement on that other discussion

yeah i'm concerned about the planning commission's workload um but we've never sent a discussion item before so i don't think it'll become uh a practice i guess um or like two i don't think it'll become overly burdensome um i would appreciate input from the ag community so um this is referring a discussion item to the planning commission but in those discussions if the ag community could be invited or

engaged in some way I think that would be helpful yeah or even bring it to the AG advisory board at some point okay all right okay so I move motion 26-204 to be sent to the Planning Commission second

A motion has been made and seconded to approve motion 26-204. Any additional discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes 4-0. Next is motion 26-155.

Council considers motion 26-155, approving the final list of amendments to the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan and GMA Development Regulations for Docket 22. The proposed action today is to set time and date for a public hearing.

Thank you again for the record, Deb Bell, council staff. Proposed motion 26-155 was first introduced at the May 19th planning committee, and this is the first step in the citizen-initiated docket process, which is to have a public hearing to decide what should be placed on the docket for full review. Council received an email that addressed questions previously asked on the record, and PDS staff can provide an update briefing if necessary. The requested action today is to move the motion to set time and date for public hearing. person Homage County code and the requested time and date is July 8th the hour of 10 30 a.m this concludes my staff report and avail for any questions along with pds staff questions from Council I just have a comment on this one um

On this particular one, I've been very involved with the Clearview community, multiple meetings on this particular subject over the last 10 years. I do have concerns about this docket proposal. I will be voting to move this forward today, but I do have a lot of concerns with it, and so I just wanted to state that on the record.

the planning commission last night and the the executive's proposal um so i'm not sure how the timing will line up i'm comfortable setting time and date today for july 8th but i think it could be the case that we get to july 8th and the executive proposal is is not ready to be considered alongside and and that's uh that's what we're going to have to do so i'm not sure how the timing will line up i'm comfortable setting time and date today And the event that that occurs, I think we should continue this so that it's, it's on track with the executive proposal. And we're not taking separate votes, but have them lined up on the same track. So I'm, I'm good moving forward today, but with the caveat that we may need to continue this once we get to the eighth, if that other proposal isn't ready.

Council Member Meade, did you have a comment?

No, thanks. But same. I want to see them both on the same track. I feel like this is probably enough time given how quickly it's moving and planning, but we'll see.

Yeah, we have a docket request, and we have to pass. We have to consider a docket each year.

That's correct, and you have only one item this year, but it has to be considered at a public hearing at least in 2026.

So an item has been submitted, and we will have to have a public hearing on this item regardless. Okay, other comments? Is there a motion to set time and date?

I move to set time and date for motion 26-155 for the hour of 1030 a.m. on Wednesday, July 8th, 2026. Second.

Motion has been properly made and seconded to set time and date for a public hearing on motion 26-155. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes 4-0. Next is Committee of the Whole, and we'll hear motions A and B under Committee of the Whole.

Council considers motion 26-192, appointing Mr. Jonathan Honan to the Snohomish County Historic Preservation Commission, and motion 26-193, appointing Ms. Trina Burton also to the Snohomish County Historic Preservation Commission.

Thank you, Chair Dunn. Good morning, Council Members. For the record, Jim Martin, Council Staff. The proposed motions confirm the appointment of Jonathan Honan and Trina Burton to the Snohomish County Historic Preservation Commission. Jonathan Honan is being appointed to the District 5 position for a first term of three years, and Trina Burton will be representing District 2 also for a first term of three years. The rest of the action is to move both motions to Council for consideration.

Questions from Council? Is there a motion?

I move approval of Motion 26-192. Second.

It's been properly moved and seconded to approve Motion 26-192. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes 4-0. Next motion.

I move approval of motion 26-193. Second.

It's been properly moved and seconded to approve motion 26-193. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes 4-0. Next, we'll hear motion 26-201.

Council considers motion 26-201, approving a budget transfer in grant fund 130 for funds received from the Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts.

Opposed motion 26-201 authorizes a budget transfer and fund 130 transferring $3,300 from non-departmental to the district court. District court operates mental health therapeutic courts and applies for and receives grant funds annually from the administrative office of the courts for the operation of this program. This transfer represents additional funds provided by the AOC. Requested action is to move to council for consideration.

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

I move approval of motion 26-201. Second.

I'm properly moved and seconded to approve motion 26-201. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the pass is 4-0. Next is motion 26-206.

I'm to consider this motion 26-206, approving contract with Amy Parker to provide indigent services for the period from May 1, 2026 through December 31, 2026.

Proposed motion 26-206 approves an agreement to provide indigent defense services with Parker Law. This contract has similar terms to prior indigent defense contracts and is through December 31, 2026, with a not-to-exceed amount of $250,000. Progressive action is to move to council for consideration.

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

I move approval of motion 26-206. Second.

I've been properly moved and seconded to approve motion 26-206. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the pass is 4-0. Next is motion 26-198.

Council considers motion 26-198, authorizing the executive to sign Amendment No. 2 for access to baby and child dentistry with the Washington State Health Care Authority.

For the record Cynthia Foley Council staff motion 26 dash one nine eight authorizes the executive to sign amendment number two to a contract for access to baby and child dentistry with Washington state healthcare authority. This grant was included in the 2026 health department grant work plan and the amount of $212,576 this amendment increases the grant by $150,576 and requires Council approval. Additionally, the amendment replaces and updates the statement of work and extends the contract through June 30th, 2028. The request is to consider motion 26-198.

Thank you. Any questions from council? Is there a motion?

I move approval of motion 26-198. Second.

Been properly moved and seconded to approve motion 26-198. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes 4-0. Next is Ordinance 26-021.

Council considers Ordinance 26-021 relating to regulation of stormwater, amending Title 30 of Snohomish County Code in response to the County's 2024 Phase 1 Municipal Stormwater Permit.

Thank you again for the record, Dumbbell Council staff. The County Drainage Regulation regulations in Snohomish County Code 30.63a contain the requirements for all unincorporated Snohomish County to prevent and control pollution in state waters. The scope of this non-project action is largely dictated by the regulatory update of ecology, and they are requiring the county to make, as described in Appendix 10 of the 2024 Phase 1 Municipal Stormwater Permit and in the 2024 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Proposed Ordinance 26-021 would amend portions of Chapter 30 to meet the minimum performance measures in special condition S5C5 of the 2024 NEPITS permit. The proposed ordinance contains only the amendments to Snohomish County Code, the Snohomish County Drainage Manual, and the Snohomish County Design and Development Standards, or EDDS, are currently being updated simultaneously, and this ordinance by a rule amendment crosses under Snohomish County Code 30.82. Project permits are required and applicants are required to comply with the drainage regulations for land disturbing activity regulations in Snohomish County and the County Drainage Manual and the Eds. The specific sections along with the proposed changes can be found in my staff report and in the proposed ordinance. These include a vast array of proposed changes for redevelopment thresholds, runoff treatment performance, source control, buyer retention just to name a few requested actions for council set time and date for public hearing with the date of june 17 2026 at the hour of 10 30 a.m as requested the proposed changes are time sensitive as council needs to act on the proposed ordinance prior to july 1st of 2026 this concludes my staff report unveil for any questions and we do have pds staff here to for presentation hi good morning um thank you for the presentation i'll try not to

My name is Hillary McGowan. I'm a senior planner with Planning and Development Services. So in 2024, Ecology released their phase one municipal stormwater permit, which updates our stormwater regulations. And this updates bring SEC in compliance with the 2024 phase one municipal stormwater permits. The county drainage regulations in chapter 3063 ASEC contain the drainage requirements for unincorporated Snohomish County to prevent and control pollution of waters of the state. And that's pursuant to the NPDES permits. Snohomish County, along with other jurisdictions, are responsible for updating our regulations to match the language and intent of the phase one NPDES permit and the 2024 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. This is a multi-departmental effort coordinated by surface water management staff in which BDS has had this code component as seen in the ordinance and presented today. The stormwater regulations in this ordinance are also paired with the drainage manual and eds that are being managed by staff in other departments, as you heard earlier. This project has been reviewed and coordinated with Ecology, and they have provided us with the preliminary approval of our proposed code in February of 2026. And Snohomish County stormwater regulations are required to be adopted and made effective by July 1st, 2026. However, due to Ecology's feedback and approval being delayed, Ecology permitted this ordinance to be affected by July 15, 2026. We have recommendations, though, to continue with the original July 1, 2026 deadline, as there's code language as well as deadlines listed in the other locations that match that July 1 date. Planning Commission unanimously recommended this proposal in March, and the ordinance amends chapters 3063A, 3063B, 3091, and 307310SEC. In addition, these amendments propose limited updates to 3063A to address review processes and appeal procedures for land development projects with drainage components to clarify the county's procedures, consistency with previously adopted changes in 3062A, and updates references to Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any questions from council members? Okay. Is there a motion to set time and date?

I move to set time and date for Ordinance 26-021 at the hour of 1030 a.m. on Wednesday, June 17, 2026. Second.

It's been properly moved and seconded to set time and date for a public hearing on Ordinance 26-021. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes 4-0. Thank you, Hillary. Next is Motion 26-218.

Council considers motion 26-218, affirming the hearing examiner's decision and the closed record appeal of PBSS Investments LLC, file numbers 25-105874REZO and 25-105880VAR.

Thank you again for the record, Deb Bell, Council staff. A closed record appeal was conducted by Council on May 22nd of 2026 regarding the appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on a rezone application from PBSS Investments LLC. After considering the appeal based upon the record and argument from the appellant and applicant and parties of record, Council affirms the hearing examiner's March 27, 2026 decision with additional findings and conclusions. Council directed staff to prepare a motion, and motion 26-218 has been prepared. The requested action is for Council to consider the motion.

Thank you. Questions from Council? Is there a motion?

I move approval of motion 26-218. Second.

It's been properly moved and seconded to approve motion 26-218. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes 4-0. We have no public hearing today, so council is adjourned for the day.