Public Works Committee - Regular Meeting

Alright. Good morning. Welcome everyone to the, Snohomish County Council Public Infrastructure and Conservation Committee for Tuesday, 05/06/2025 at 10AM. We're meeting in the Jackson Boardroom and remotely this morning. Before we do roll call, I do want to read our public comment script. We'll take public comment 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 three minutes to speak, and please start your comment with your name and city of residence. All right. With that, we'll 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? Alright. Come on up to the podium there. Welcome. Just start with your name and city of residence.

Cost, there it is, to rising demands for service. Without adequate funding, we risk not only falling behind but facing real cuts in service that people depend on daily. What is most concerning is the potential for reductions in staff. Our sanitation workers do demanding, essential work, often unnoticed but absolutely vital. Behind every trash bin collected, there is a team of hardworking people that make it happen.

We have laborers, truck drivers, side attendants, maintenance workers and environmental technicians. Cutting positions or putting a freeze on hiring would stretch these teams even thinner and compromise their safety, efficiency and morale. Raising service fees isn't an easy decision, but it's a responsible one. Investing in our workforce means fewer service disruptions, a stronger local economy, and it's not just about trash. It's about treating essential workers with respect and resource resources that they deserve.

Approving this fee increase is an investment to maintaining reliable services, preventing staff shortages and ensuring our waste system continues to serve all the residents effectively and responsibly. I respectfully urge you to support the proposal for the good of our community and the people who keep it clean. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Anyone else wishing to do public testimony? All right. We'll switch to online. Is there anybody online with their hand raised?

No hands are raised.

Okay. We'll go ahead and close public comment and move on to our items today. First on the list is a discussion item. And I want to welcome Kelly and David.

Well, good morning, Chair and members of the County Council. My name is Kelly Snyder, Public Works Director at Snohomish County. It's been my pleasure to serve in such capacity the last five years. Hard to believe it's gone by so fast. I spend a lot of time working with our solid waste team.

And I have come to really appreciate, in my long career of doing lots and lots of different kinds of things in public works, solid waste for me has been new. And the nuances of running this system are complicated, has lots and lots of moving parts, both mechanically as well as policy wise. And so I'm gonna talk through some things today and sort of describe how we got here and what's happening now, and share with you sort of the impacts of decisions that might be before you today or soon. So, the first slide. He's trying to figure that out.

Did it go? Oh, good. How did we get here? So sixteen years ago was the last time that, essentially, the curbside, waste and recycling rates were adjusting. How do we go sixteen years without raising rates?

Sixteen years ago, we were in a recession, and twenty five percent of the workforce for solid waste was laid off. During that first five years following that downturn in the economy and the layoffs, for that particular workforce, we wanted to make sure that we were having the right amount of staff for the volume of trash that we were processing and the recycling. The next five years, we stabilized, which was great. That was a very important time. The last five to six years, how did what do we do in the last five to six years?

Well, we've had a pandemic. We've had massive disruption with Burlington Northern Santa exporting our waste. We've been able to sell a property that helped backfill the shortages, so we didn't propose rate increases to you all at that time. We've also seen escalation construction costs in the neighborhood of 30%. So, when we have to do a new tip floor, when we have to buy a new compactor, when we have to buy very large equipment, when our equipment's been costing $250,000 it's now costing half $1,000,000, so it's very expensive.

And we've also had labor increases. And that is an important aspect because we can't run these facilities without it. And what we're seeing is a 5% increase year over year every single year for the last sixteen years and no rate increase to go with it. And I think that our staff is incredibly efficient. I like to call them MacGyver like, including Dave, who's the head of Solid Waste.

They are making sure that we keep moving things around. For the last two years, we've come to counsel and shared with you the cliff is coming. The cliff is coming, and we're concerned that we are running out of options. And last fall, when we proposed our budget to you, we pushed out a big chunk of the capital investments, including the North County Recycle and Transfer Station. We're sort of out of options that we are coming here to present for you.

We have a couple little things that we have to keep in the capital budget. We have to keep tip floors because we can't let those deteriorate or it costs us even more. And we also have to replace, the weight the weighing stations, those, pieces of equipment to make sure that we're collecting the right amount of money that's coming to the county for all the tonnage that's coming through. So when the comp plan was amended this year thank you for adopting the comp plan it included elements for solid waste as well. And that solid waste showed what those capital investments are, but that also depends on the revenue coming in to support those.

We try to be very conservative. We've run a rate model. We haven't had a rate model in a number of years, so we know precisely what that looks like now. And there was a decision made to sort of delay those increases. You received a member from the Swallowed Waste Advisory Committee, and there, all the cities in the county plus Republic and Waste Management. And they said, We understand if you can adopt rate adjustments in the fall, but we do it at your earliest convenience and hopefully in the first quarter of this year. So they are supportive. The cities are supportive. The Waste Management is supportive. Republic is supportive.

It is an important aspect of how we run our system. Without that rate increase, we're concerned that we will have to potentially adjust the amount of facilities that are open, so potentially shutting down the drop boxes and reducing service levels, and likely have to have a reduction in force again like we did in twenty sixteen years ago. Let's go to the next slide. What does the timing look like? Unlike other rates that you might consider as part of this process, we have to go to the UTC.

UTC regulates what the haulers can do in unincorporated areas. So Waste Management Republic and others who'd send a bill to the property owner who is putting the cans at the curb, they have to go through that process for the UTC, and that's about a ninety day process. When we talked to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee that includes all these cities, they said, We want that ninety days, and then they will also cities will adjust their rates in the fall. So proposing the adjustments now versus in November, then that allows for that period of time. If it's delayed let's say you want to choose to do this as part of the budget process we've done a calculation that it's about $2,500,000 a month in January that we will not achieve as part of our rates analysis, and we will have to take some adjustments to our service hours and staffing.

Let's go to the next. So you can see, a couple years ago, we had, export issues. That's that picture on the floor. If we have to reduce service hours and close drop boxes, we anticipate that we would maybe not quite this big this is 45 feet high but maybe something smaller to be able to process on a daily basis. We need to have an amount of funds in reserves.

By the end of this year, we'll have $30,000,000 and that seems like a lot of money, but we're required to have a $25,000,000 reserve. That $5,000,000 that we would keep in the bank is to have those two capital projects that I referred to as the tip floor as well as the scales that need to be replaced. We do have a lot of regulatory compliance measures, and those are increasing. I will say, it feels like on a daily basis, it's concerning. We talk about PFAS.

Dave and I were just talking about PFAS the other day. Everything that's coming off as liquid from the stations has to be treated, and the sewer treatment plants from the various cities are going to increase the regulations to comply with Department Ecology. So we know our expenses are actually going up, and those are not actually even in our current model. Let's go to the next slide. So Dave, do you want to talk about this one a little bit?

Yes. Thank you. Dave Schoenhardt, Solid Waste Director for the record. We have gone out to our Solid Waste Advisory Committee several times to have this conversation. They understood that the division needs to be solvent, having enough revenue to support all of the expenses and the programs that we do.

And so in that conversation, we actually discussed the nature of how should we make this adjustment. And in large part they said let's do it in one bite if we can. It's almost worse to come back with maybe incremental like 15% increases for several years. They said let's if we could do it in one and then after that, if you can do maybe like an inflationary adjustment that they they preferred to do that. So we took that and and that was in large part how we modeled the rate increase that you have before you.

We also also did some public outreach where we did a survey and we asked people, a, how are we doing and b, what would you think about higher rates? And it was phrased in several different ways. But in a lot of people understood, yes, we we understand that you provide a good service. We like your facilities. And if it costs more to do that, of course, you know, we would support that. We did have people on the other side that said, are already charging too much, so you need to lower your rates. So it it is a mixed bag, but it was actually a fairly favorable survey of of people understanding that our costs are going up and that we need to make adjustments moving forward.

So what does that look like?

So what does that look like? Right now, if you drive up to a transfer station with a truckload of materials, it costs you $20 This would now cause it to be $30 That's what the rate would adjust to. Not everyone goes to a transfer station directly, a self haul, or a dropbox. What would happen at, let's say, curbside if you were public or, waste management, you see the rates adjustment. It's about $3 to $4 per month depending on the hauler and what they do with their city and negotiations.

And then we would be able to maintain the service levels that we're proposing as we have them now and then restore the capital projects that were delayed during the last budget presentation in November. Next slide. So you'll see a series of actions. Some of those come in the form of ordinance, and some of those come in the form of motions, depending on what part of the code that we're changing, and those are here for your reference. This is not part of the material that you got, so we just created this in talking with Deb.

We'll get these to you. Let's go to the next one. We did have a question about what would it look like if in, say, 2009 there was an automatic 3% increase starting in that time versus what has happened historically? If you consider adopting the rates as we propose right now, it would still be less than if it were 3% each year. A couple of things that have happened in the last five years.

I've talked about the equipment. We also have coming up a negotiation. We have three years to negotiate a new export contract. We know that when we look at anybody else who any other county that's negotiated those export contracts, they're far more, expensive. And we've included a bit of funds in this, rate increase to help, us prepare for that, and that's something that you'll have to wrestle with when we get that contract negotiated and presented to counsel.

Kelly, excuse me. Apologies for orange and orange. That's pretty difficult to read. But the bottom line with the step is what we currently went through. We held the rate at 105 and that's showing that rate increase in 2026, whereas the top line is the one that is a hypothetical if we had had a 3% increase since 2009. Thank you.

And with that, I'll pause and see if there are any questions that you might have.

Councilmember Meade?

Thanks for the presentation. And I just want to say upfront that I'm supportive of this. But my question is, like, why does our graph look like that? I I get that, you you know, we had the recession, and then you fast forwarded twenty years and you said COVID or fifteen years, sorry, and you said COVID. Did other counties do similar things? Have they been paused for how many years? Was it sixteen years, seventeen years?

I don't know what other counties have done, and Dave may have an answer to that. I would say the first five years after the layoff, we needed to stabilize. We need to make sure that we had the revenue tonnage coming in. Those second five years, that was the stabilization period. I think people were really nervous to hire back staff in case there was another recession.

The last five years, we were able to offset increases by selling a property, by having efficiencies in the system, by having negotiated good contracts. But the last two years have really been where it's caused the most pain. The last two years have been where we've seen the 30% increases on construction and the equipment purchases and then the new labor contract. Those are what have driven it up so quickly. So I would say, awesome for this county that we've been able to be so efficient and not have to do rate increases, that's amazing. But we are sort of at the end of being able to do that. We've run out of MacGyver tools to make any adjustments.

Right. But other counties I specify know you what other counties are doing, but it seems like we should be having increases every year period. An automatic inflator makes a lot of sense to me. Costs are going up. So okay, yeah, great. We didn't take and we had a flat fee for fifteen years, But I look at it like the county council not taking our property tax 1% each year. It's like, well, we should because our costs are going up. We should naturally be going up consistently at a small level. Otherwise, you risk fifteen years of no increases and then a big fat increase that's a sticker shock. And so I'm supportive of this. We need to do it. We need to catch up. But it just doesn't seem it didn't make sense to me. It still doesn't. But I mean I can dig in with figuring out what King is doing or maybe

you've got

Well, Dave, so previous to the 2009 increase, the previous increase I believe was in '89. So we have solid waste has a bad rep at doing these fifteen, sixteen rate increases.

We don't advise that.

No. And that's one of appreciate you offering

is our bad. And that's one of the things that we did was to take some of the key elements of our rates, which are the solid waste piece, which is driven largely by our waste export contract and move that into an ordinance so that you have control of that as opposed previously it was done by motion. So we've in essence taken half of the rates out of the motion and made it we've moved it into ordinance. So it will, if you approve this, have an automatic inflator and we shouldn't see this anomaly happen again.

There's the budget go ahead, Kelly.

There's also trigger points. Right? So when we negotiate our contract, we had fixed some fixed rates with some inflators in there. We could able we were able to overcompensate for that to keep the rates low. And was that the wisest decision? Maybe not. I mean, Dave and I are new here. So, you know, we see yeah. He's been here a little longer than me. But, like, we see that there should be difference and there should be structural change. And that's why SWAC, when we go to talk to them, the cities and the the haulers, like, hurry up. Right. I mean, they are scolding us as well.

But look, hear you. Labor costs though, from what I understand about this budget specifically, these dollars also pay for the labor. It's self sustaining. Correct. So labor costs go

up every year.

That's right.

It's not like we can't predict at least that increase. So a flat rate doesn't make sense even in the context of everything else because labor costs are going be going up except during a recession when you lay off.

Selling a property. That's a one

time incurrence of

But it was a big property.

No, get that. But it's not something you can plan a budget on and then I'm not trying to grill you on this because you're proposing fixing it and I'm supportive of it. It's just I don't like the idea of having to take a big increase all at once. It's like with our bank capacity and property taxes, well now we've eight and a half percent bank because nobody took the vote of 1% for the last eight years. That makes a lot of sense. Now we have to do this big fat vote. And so I just get frustrated anytime I see this, now we gotta do a catch up. Well, did we really get credit for the last years of being a flat fee if we've to do a big catch up? Maybe not. Maybe people now are paying for people saving money over the last fifteen years, the benefit of not having to do any increase. But anyways,

Fair I'm enough. Councilmember Neri?

Yeah, Thank you. Just a few questions on this, and thanks for the presentation. So this is an enterprise fund. Correct? So, essentially, people go in, they're paying for a service. They know exactly what they're getting for it. Yep. So in that sense, it makes it makes sense to me, and I'm supportive of the idea of making sure there's full cost recovery, which we clearly don't have right now. And for me, I think that makes this much different from kind of our general fund with property taxes because that's the exact opposite. It's not enterprise. It's it's very much different. So so I I'm supportive of this idea. I think it makes sense. My question is, how do we determine exactly what full cost recovery is? That's one thing to bring it up.

You you know, right now, we can tell how much we're subsidizing out of and I don't know what we're using to subsidize. You mentioned the property sale, and there's probably other things. So we can determine that from the past over many years, you know, how much is being subsidized outside of the enterprise fund. But moving forward, how do you determine that? So we build in an inflator of 3%, I think, is what's proposed. Right? Correct. But if, let's say, costs are over 3%, then you're coming back to us probably. Or if there's a year where the costs are under 3%, let's say we go into a recession and they're 1%, What are you doing then? So how do you predict, I guess, that you're going to ensure full cost recovery into the future and not go above or below?

Yes. It's a bit of an art and not a science. And the model is pretty sophisticated. We've worked with a consultant who's a professional in this particular industry. They've created this model for us. We get to actually own and operate the model ourselves so we can do the fine tuning here and there. So Dave, do you want to talk a little bit about how the assumptions are built in?

Yes. And I hear there's kind of two parts. One part is overall, how do we predict and project tonnage. And we've been pretty conservative. We don't want to overestimate the tonnage so that we then don't have revenue to spend. And we found that we've been behind every year that we're actually having excess tonnage, which of course is excess revenue, but it's excess cost on the waste export side and on the operating cost as well. And one of the things that this model did, we asked the consultant and it's more of an industry standard just to look at the cost recovery per business unit. For instance, you have recycling, which has largely been subsidized by tip fee. We don't charge a fee for people to use it. Some things like glass, we have to pay to dispose of.

So there's a built in. We know that we're subsidizing that probably mostly out of the tip fee. But even within the solid waste tip fee, we we recognize that the certificated hauler that brings in an eight ton load is very efficient and we want to give them their cost, their unit cost is lower than maybe a self hauler who comes in with a three sixty pound load. So there's actually a rate differential built into the ordinance that you see so that we're actually trying to recover the cost for each of those. So we're trying to get a little more defined in how much each unit is costing.

But yes, you're right. If we are over under, probably would come and say, hey, can we have an ordinance to adjust the solid waste rates, say we're over and we're building fund balance, we can back off those automatic escalators.

Okay. And I have two others, but I'll I don't know if there's other stuff questions.

Councilmember Dunne? Yep.

Thank you. I think by not by not having the adjustment over time, like, the biggest loss is the being able to make some investments in in some capital, we overcame that with some temporary savings and and others. But so just acknowledge that. It looks like from this chart that or this map that surrounding counties are higher than Snohomish. I don't know if we see out of county processing or people people coming from other counties to use Snohomish, but it would probably be in our favor if they didn't do that, I would assume, just because our costs

are high for transporting garbage out or waste out. So we are the lowest in Western Washington, if you look real closely at the map. We know that Thurston County renegotiated their contract. Skagit County renegotiated their contract. They both export. They're also Thurston County is a little closer to their landfill. King County has their own landfill, but that's gonna be closing here in a number of years. They're trying to figure out what they're gonna do. They are talking about export. I'm like, oh, where are those railroads gonna go?

I don't I don't know how that's all gonna fit on the rail lines. So there are multiple factors in figuring out how do you do a comparison. So there's sort of some good news about this, but there's also some hard comparisons without knowing sort of how the system functions and operates. To the question, I'm going to defer to Dave.

Yes. Do see customers come across the county line. We don't have flow control enforcement at the customer level. We've actually done some survey to see it's not as big a problem as we had anticipated. But for instance, King County being, you know, over a $100 more per ton, people tend if you're you're near the county line, they can go to the Southwest transfer station at at a discount.

And so this will eliminate that in large part. And the other thing that I will note is that, you know, Island and Skagit both renegotiated contracts recently, and we're we're looking at those costs going, wow. They're they're substantially more. They're about 50% higher than our rate right now. And it's likely we may get a little economy of scale.

We're a larger county. You know, we've we'd probably be a a better customer for for the receiving end, but you don't know until you actually negotiate that contract. And one feature that we do know that will probably go away is we've kept in our waste export contract the CPI escalator is 70%. So every year they can only recover 70% of the Puget Sound CPI. So Republic who holds the contract is basically going backwards every year on the cost for Snohomish County.

And that industry standard has pretty much been a 100% of the CPI moving forward. Hence, that escalator will be very important moving forward. We're not gonna enjoy the savings that we were able to negotiate previously in most likelihood.

One more question. Okay. I was also worried just about illegal dumping. And I know for especially the Tulalip area, we get a lot of tires on the side of the road, and there was a grant one year to do, like, tire reclamation. So any efforts for, like, helping with, like, large dump days or any grants that we can get for, especially, tire amnesty would be fantastic.

Yeah. Our staff is really great about going to get grants. People ask us all the time how you do that. So ecology, hopefully, will have another grant if that's possible. We'll go after it for tires. You know that we host the Litter Wranglers, and we also do Adopt A Road. Those are, both subsidized by these rates, which, you know, isn't such a terrible thing. You know, we someone's got to make everything clean and lovely. And after speeding is probably our number one issue and sidewalk safety. Number two is, trash on the sides of the road. So having that litter wrangler crew, available is really important.

Council member Neri?

Yeah. Thank you, chair. So just two other questions. You mentioned the support from the cities in SWAC, which is great. Do we have that in, like, a letter or a document? Okay. Would you mind sharing that? Absolutely. Thank you. Appreciate that. And then last question. So this get a hearing in, I think, May or early June?

May 28.

Okay. May 28. And then it goes to the executive to sign and then so it'll go into effect this summer, essentially. Are there any thoughts? I know the haulers have been involved in these conversations throughout, so we're probably good there. And it sounds like you've done a great job with public outreach, but inevitably there's going be people who are surprised by this and haven't heard. Is there any thought to posting signage for a month at the stations that we're going have a 20 to 30 increase before it actually goes into effect or something like that, so they're not Absolutely. Caught

100%. And just to clarify, if you were to choose to adopt at the May or early June, whatever that choice is, it has then go through UTC. That's so technically, the effect day would not be till January 1. Then it goes to the UTC for its seventy five day to ninety day approval cycle. That gets to us about September. September is when the cities then go through and adjust their rates, because they have to do that with the haulers in their communities. And then that goes through their budget cycle, and then that goes into effect with cities as well as on January 1. So we're trying to sequence it all Got it. So it all works together, but not till January 1. And absolutely, we would do lots of signage and social media and a press release and whatever else

we curbside too. Yes. But that's nice. And then you have that built in time where you can Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you.

Any other oh, council member, Peterson.

Thank you, chair Low. Are are there any concerns with the UTC? No. They're usually just kind of

we don't

all the process done. Okay.

We do not see any concerns with the UTC.

Right. And then and this you can come back later. Of course, you talked about how successful you are getting grants. I don't know how many of those are federal grants and no federal grants.

None for solid waste.

Alright. Then I don't need anything.

We'll talk to you about roads later.

Okay.

I've had about a month to digest this because you guys already gave me this presentation. Normally, we do the discussion at the end, but we put it at the beginning because the first two items are going to be dealing with this. I think we got all of our questions answered. So thank you, and we'll go ahead and move into our our action items.

Thank you so much for consideration.

All right, Deb. Let us have it.

Thank you. Good morning, Committee chair Low and council members for the record, Deb Eveson Bell, council staff. And with the chair's permission, I would like to give one staff report for the following proposed ordinance 25 dash zero two seven and proposed motion 25 dash two zero seven. In compliance with county code seven point four one point zero two zero, paragraph one, the solid waste service fee schedule will be based on full cost recovery standards. The proposed ordinance 25 dash zero two seven would amend Snohomish County code to include a separate waste export service fee schedule for specific services.

The proposed fee schedule would start on 01/01/2026 and include updates to the tipping fees that align with the departments for cost recovery. This also includes then a 3% annual increase to propose to start on 01/01/2027. So you'll see that first hike come first and then the multiplier the following year. Proposed ordinance would also update Snohomish County Code 7.41.42 secondured loads for additional charges. These fees are not included in 3% annual increase, and they pertain to the unsecured load enforcement fees.

In August 2024, council approved motion 24 dash zero excuse me, 24 dash three two five, which updated the vector waste fee, the residual reclamation waste fees. And these updated fees have been included now in the proposed ordinance fee schedule and are included in the 3% annual increase starting on 01/01/2027. Also included in the 2024 motion was an increase to the illegal dumping fee. The proposed motion would keep the fee at $50 per ton, negating that portion of the previous motion, which, had previously stated the fee would increase to $52, starting 01/01/2026. Staff have found that the current fee is adequate for the program, and they do not propose to have it included in the 3% annual increase.

The proposed motion would also update the green waste and clean wood waste fee, also known as yard waste, to align with department costs for recovery if and when this program is restarted. Currently, the green waste program is suspended for various reasons, and there is currently no date to restart this program. Proposed ordinance 20 five-twenty seven and proposed motion 20 five-two zero seven, while separate vehicles of legislation are intertwined in aligning and updating the fee schedule and structure for the solid waste division's ability to recover costs. The requested actions for council to move both the ordinance and the motion to GLS on May 7 to set time and date for public hearing and have counsel consider both the ordinance and then the motion at the suggested May 28 public hearing at 10:30AM. This concludes my staff report.

I'm available for any questions along with public work staff.

I think you explained it very well, Deb. Any questions? All right. So we'll move Item one and two to tomorrow, May 7. Then tomorrow we'll set time and date on Item one, which will be the twenty eighth is what we're projecting. And then item two tomorrow will also get moved to the twenty eighth for consideration. So we'll go ahead and do that without objection unless there's objection. Hearing none, we'll move those two items and move to item number three, motion 20 five-one 198.

Thank you. Proposed motion 20 five-one 198 would approve and authorize the county executive or their designee to sign the agreement substantially in the form as attached to the motion between Snohomish County and the Community Transit, considering the coordination of Community Transit's operation and maintenance of the Cathcart Park And Ride under RCW thirty nine point three four point zero eight zero and Snohomish County code thirteen point zero one point zero two zero, paragraph five. The road funds were used to purchase approximately 16.5 acres in 2015 for road purposes and the future construction of a park and ride facility. In 2018, the council county council agreed to the surplus and the sale of 31 acres of the South property with the condition of sale at the purchaser construct a 150 stall park and ride facility. Pacific Ridge was the buyer of the property and is projected in August 2025 opening of the new park and ride.

And Snohomish County Community Transit wish to enter into an agreement that stipulates the responsible party for the operation and continued maintenance of the new facility. The requested action is for counsel to move the motion to GLS on May 14 for consideration. And this concludes my staff report. Unveil for any questions.

All right. Any comments or questions from council members? All right. We'll go ahead and move this to consent on May 14 unless there's objection. Hearing none, we'll move that to consent and go to motion 20 five-two 20.

Thank you. Proposed motion twenty five dash two two zero would approve and authorize the county executive to sign change order number 11 to the agreement number CA04Dash24 with Marsh Bank Construction Inc. For the amount of 405,000 sorry. $405,408.30 for an amended total amount not to exceed 11,000,007 sorry. Excuse me.

$11,376,410.51 under Snohomish County code three point zero four point one four zero, paragraph 11. The County Council approved bid award PWDash24Dash003SB for the third 36 35th Avenue West starting at 1 64th Street Southwest to S R 99 project to Marsh Bank construction. To date, 10 change orders have been approved by the executive as the project has unexpectedly encountered a failing storm sewer pipe and utility structures within the roadway subgrade. The extra time, labor, and materials to replace this failing infrastructure was not included in the original scope of work, but is necessary to avoid future road and infrastructure failure and increased maintenance maintenance costs. The requested actions for council to move the motion to GLS on May 7 for consideration as the request is to expedite doing construction timing.

This concludes my staff report and I'm available for any questions.

Are there any comments or questions on this one? Right. We'll go ahead and move this to consent on May 7 unless there's objection. Hearing none, we'll move this to consent on May 7 and go to motion 25 dash two two one.

Thank you. Proposed motion 25 dash two two one would approve and authorize the county executive or the designee to sign the interlocal agreement between Snohomish County and the city of Stanwood for traffic control device and streetlight maintenance under Snohomish County code three point zero four point one four zero, paragraph one, and thirteen point zero one point zero two zero, paragraph five. The county and the city of Stanwood have previously entered into ILAs the most recent expiring in August 2023. The new ILA has been negotiated with the city of Stanwood and utilizes the county's work order request process and is in agreement with the negotiated pricing for services of traffic control device and straight light maintenance. The initial duration is for six years with an option to extend for up to two additional six year terms.

The requested action is for counsel to move the motion to GLS on May 14 for consideration. This concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions.

Alright. Any comments or questions from council members? Alright. We'll go ahead and move this to consent on May 14 unless there's objection. Hearing none, we'll move that to consent and go to motion 20 five-one 193.

Thank you. Proposed motion 20 five-one 193 would approve and authorize the county executive to execute amendment two to the agreement for professional services with the Cayenne to upgrade under Snohomish County code three point zero four point one four zero, paragraph 11. Proposed amendment would memorialize the previously agreed to change order language. These are change orders one, three, four, seven, eight, 10, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen to the professional service agreement master contract. This does not increase the contract maximum. Requested actions for counsel to move the motion to GLS on May 14 for consideration. And this includes my staff report. I'm available for any questions.

Any comments or questions from council members? Hearing none, we'll move this to consent on May 14 unless there's objection. Hearing none, we'll move that to consent and go to motion 20 five-two 14.

Thank you. Proposed motion 20 five-two 14 would approve and authorize the county executive to execute amendment three to the master services and purchasing agreement with Axon Enterprises Inc. Under Snohomish County code three point zero four point one four zero, paragraph 11. The sheriff's office has been using three eighty six Axon Investigate on premise video evidence processing platform that integrates the evidence.com software, including the PA and the OPD portals and features for the last twelve months free of charge, and they wish to continue using the software. The amendment would add the support licenses and training for 40 county sheriff staff along with ongoing maintenance for a total cost of $350,410.8 plus tax.

The requested action is for counsel to move the motion to GLS on May 14 for consideration. This concludes my staff report and avail for any questions.

Any comments or questions from council members? Hearing none, we'll move that to consent and move to motion 20 five-one 197.

Thank you. The proposed motion 20 five-one 197 would authorize the surplus of property and allow the property officer of the Department of Facilities and Fleet to sign on behalf of Snohomish County any and all documents to complete the disposition of property to the Washington State Department of Transportation under Snohomish County code four point four six point one eight one. The proposed strip of land is located at the intersection of SR 9 And 148th Street Southeast and is a portion of the county owned Cathcart South property. WSDOT would like to develop an acceleration lane along the west margin of SR 9 heading south, and the acquisition is necessary. The proposed value of $52,100 and payment will be made to the county within forty five days of acceptance.

The requested action is for counsel to move the motion to GLS on May 14 for consideration. This concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions.

Or any comments or questions from council members? Hearing none, we'll move this to consent on May 14 unless there's objection. Hearing none, we'll move that to consent and go to motion 25 dash two zero eight.

Thank you. Proposed motion 25 dash two zero eight would approve and authorize the county executive to sign the professional services agreement with Elevator Support Company for elevator inspections, maintenance, and repair services under Snohomish County code three point zero four point one four zero, paragraph 11. County published RFP 24Dash042RB in October 2024, and elevator support was selected as the awarded bidder. A temporary contract was negotiated earlier this year to allow for the repairs and maintenance until the PSA was completed. Reposed full full service contract includes routine maintenance of 39 elevators located within 11 county buildings. The requested actions for council to move the motion to GLS on May 7 for consideration as the request is to expedite. And this concludes my staff report and veil for any questions.

One comment. Hallelujah. We need our we need our elevators. Any comments or questions? Second. We have a second on that one. So we'll go ahead and move this to consent and expedite it to May 7 unless there's objection, there is no objection. So we'll move that and go to motion 25 dash two two two.

Thank you. Proposed motion 25 dash two two two would approve and authorize the surplus donation and transfer of the Freightliner m t 55 step fan to the North County Fire EMS and authorizes the property officer of the Department of Facilities and Fleet property management division to sign any and all documents necessary to effectuate the transfer under Snohomish County code four point four six point two one zero and 4.470.171. The Department of Emergency Management purchased the vehicle in 2006 with the intent that it be used in the response of natural disasters and to lend to local fire departments and other emergency response agencies for command centers and operations. The North County Fire EMS has been the most frequent user of the vehicle, and DEM would like to donate the vehicle to the North County Fire EMS passing along the vehicle maintenance and operation expense. The requested action is for counsel to move the motion to GLS on May 14 for consideration.

And this concludes my staff report. I'm available for any questions.

Right. Any comments or questions? Alright. We'll go ahead and move this to consent on May 14 unless there's objection. Hearing none, we'll move that to consent on May 14. And with that, that will conclude our meeting for today. There are no more meetings for today, so we will be adjourned until tomorrow. Thank you.