[4:37] All right. Good afternoon

[4:40] everyone. I want to call to

[4:40] order today

[4:42] s meeting of the

[4:43] King County Transportation

[4:45] District Executive Committee.

[4:46] It

[4:48] s MAY 27th, 2026. My name is

[4:49] Claudia Balducci. I

[4:50] m the chair

[4:52] of the Board of supervisors. I

[4:54] am joined by executive

[4:57] committee members. Uh, vice

[4:59] Chair Fain and board members

[5:00] Dan Boesky and Perry. Thank you

[5:02] all for giving it the office

[5:04] here with this relatively new,

[5:06] uh, structure. Uh, this is our

[5:09] second meeting of the executive

[5:10] committee. And as you can see,

[5:11] we are, uh, we

[5:12] re taking leaps

[5:13] and bounds in terms of

[5:15] formality and, uh, and our

[5:17] operations here, uh, at our

[5:20] last full board meeting, which

[5:23] was on MAY 15th, uh, we had a

[5:25] very robust and wide ranging

[5:26] debate. And it was the second

[5:28] meeting in a row where we did

[5:29] that. And I think we

[5:29] ve been

[5:30] making a lot of progress at

[5:32] each of these meetings. And we

[5:34] have gotten very close to the

[5:35] place where I feel confident

[5:36] that we will be able to take up

[5:39] votes, vote on a proposal for,

[5:41] uh, potential road funding,

[5:43] vote on a potential for, uh,

[5:44] how we direct that road

[5:46] funding. And then, uh, we need

[5:48] to very quickly should those

[5:50] either of those successful go

[5:52] to turn to how we operate this

[5:53] thing called the King County

[5:55] Transportation District because

[5:56] it has been an unfunded

[5:57] organization for the entirety

[5:59] of its existence. I want to

[6:00] acknowledge an error I made in

[6:01] a comment previously where I

[6:02] said it has been in existence

[6:04] for 14 years. It has been in

[6:06] existence since 2014, so only

[6:08] 12 years. But there we go. Just

[6:09] to be accurate, just to be

[6:12] accurate. Um, but at the last

[6:14] board meeting on MAY 15th, it

[6:16] did. We did arrive at a place

[6:17] where at least I, as the chair,

[6:17] I

[6:18] ll just speak for myself,

[6:19] felt that we could use a little

[6:21] bit more thought around some of

[6:23] the specific details of the

[6:24] proposals and the amendments

[6:26] before us, so that we were

[6:27] prepared to move into action.

[6:28] And everybody on the board

[6:29] understands what they

[6:29] re being

[6:31] asked to vote on. You vote how

[6:33] you vote yes. No. Offer

[6:33] amendments don

[6:33] t offer

[6:35] amendments. But people should

[6:36] understand what they

[6:36] re being

[6:38] asked to vote on. So, uh, a

[6:40] couple people suggested, and I

[6:40] thought it was a really good

[6:43] idea that we hold an executive

[6:46] committee meeting before the

[6:47] next full board meeting so that

[6:49] we can talk through where we

[6:49] re

[6:51] at in this process, and this

[6:53] body can give any guidance to

[6:54] help us be successful at our

[6:55] next full board meeting, which

[6:57] is, after all, our job. So

[6:57] that

[6:57] s where we

[6:58] re at for

[7:00] today. Um, what we

[7:01] ve got on

[7:04] the agenda is an update. Let me

[7:05] make sure I have my agenda in

[7:08] front of me. Here it is. Uh, we

[7:08] have on the agenda. It

[7:09] s a

[7:10] brief agenda, but we are going

[7:13] to have a briefing on, uh,

[7:15] policy issues and process for

[7:18] the revenue. Uh, and revenue

[7:19] direction resolutions that are

[7:22] currently before the code. And

[7:24] then talking about a work plan

[7:26] and next steps for the case,

[7:28] because we will have to very

[7:29] quickly become much more

[7:31] operational and figure out the

[7:32] future of some policy decisions

[7:34] we have to make about how this

[7:36] operates, how the ctd operates

[7:36] or doesn

[7:40] t. Um, now let me ask

[7:42] for the clerk to please call

[7:44] the roll. Thank you. Thank you.

[7:46] Supervisor Fein. Here.

[7:48] Supervisor Dmowski here.

[7:51] Supervisor Perry here. Chair

[7:53] Balducci here. You have a full

[7:54] quorum.

[7:55] All right. Thank you. I

[7:56] d like

[7:57] to ask for a motion to approve

[8:00] the minutes of our APRIL 22nd

[8:01] executive committee meeting,

[8:03] please. So moved. Thank you. It

[8:04] is before us there in your

[8:05] pockets. Any comments,

[8:08] questions or changes on the

[8:10] minutes hearing? None. All

[8:11] those in favor of approving the

[8:13] minutes, please signify by

[8:16] saying I. I any opposed? Please

[8:18] say nay. The minutes are

[8:19] approved. Now we

[8:19] ll turn to

[8:23] public comment. Um, people who

[8:24] wish to provide public comment

[8:25] can testify in person or in

[8:27] zoom. It is an important part

[8:28] of our process to hear from the

[8:28] public. We

[8:29] re glad that those

[8:30] of you who are here or have

[8:31] called in to give us public,

[8:33] public comments are doing so

[8:35] today. Uh, if you wish to

[8:37] submit written comment to this

[8:39] committee, you MAY, and we ask

[8:40] that you do so by sending an

[8:42] email to the email address

[8:43] clerk. That

[8:46] s kkclerk. There

[8:47] s

[8:47] too many k

[8:48] s. Uh, at King

[8:51] County gov. And please write

[8:53] the topic and the letters in

[8:55] the subject line that will help

[8:56] ensure that your comment gets

[8:59] to its intended destination.

[9:01] All right. Uh, some specifics

[9:02] about how we will do public

[9:03] comment to maintain decorum and

[9:04] to focus on the agenda at

[9:05] today

[9:06] s committee. The

[9:07] following rules are in place

[9:09] for all public comment.

[9:10] Speakers should please remain

[9:11] seated until called upon to

[9:12] speak. Then we ask that you

[9:14] approach the podium, state your

[9:15] name, speak to the agenda item

[9:17] at hand. All public comments

[9:19] should be related to items on

[9:19] today

[9:20] s meeting agenda. I

[9:22] talked about that earlier and

[9:23] not be used for purposes of

[9:25] assisting a campaign for

[9:26] election of any person to any

[9:28] office, nor for promotion of or

[9:29] opposition to any ballot

[9:31] proposition. We ask that public

[9:33] comment not include obscene

[9:34] speech. Uh, if the speaker

[9:36] fails to abide by any of these

[9:37] restrictions, I MAY roll them

[9:38] out of order and MAY, in

[9:40] extreme cases, have the speaker

[9:42] removed from the meeting. Each

[9:43] speaker will have two minutes

[9:45] to speak, and there will be a

[9:46] timer. When the timer

[9:48] completes. Please do finish

[9:49] your thought. Uh, if you go

[9:51] much past two minutes, you will

[9:53] certainly be interrupted and

[9:55] MAY ultimately be muted. All

[9:55] right, let

[9:56] s start by calling

[9:57] on people who have signed up to

[9:59] speak in person.

[10:00] Thank you. Chair. The first

[10:01] name on the list is Alex

[10:16] Zimmerman.

[10:18] And I want to speak about

[10:20] agenda number two. Is your

[10:21] plan. I

[10:23] m PRESIDENT Of Stand-Up

[10:26] America. I candidate 15 times

[10:27] for re-election. King County

[10:29] Council persecuted me seven

[10:32] times. Yes, and seven times

[10:35] dismissed. And I have 7000 days

[10:37] of trespass. So right now I

[10:38] want to speak about something

[10:42] with a critical ten year ago.

[10:43] You have a very interesting

[10:46] plan. Yeah. What is include

[10:48] Sound Transit, the Sound

[10:51] Transit ten year ago. Ten year

[10:52] ago, and for many years before

[10:55] you trespass me many times I

[10:56] talking about Ponzi scheme for

[10:59] $200 billion. That is exactly

[11:02] sound transit. Half. So last

[11:05] week Seattle Times. What is

[11:06] very unusual for me because for

[11:08] 40 years I never see Seattle

[11:10] time talking about Democrat

[11:13] Mafia, a bandit whose blood and

[11:14] money from us in the first

[11:17] page. First page talking about

[11:20] $36 billion. What is some

[11:22] transit steal from people? This

[11:24] is exactly what is happening.

[11:25] What does this mean? Is mean

[11:29] all America? No. Are about this

[11:30] because Seattle Times did this

[11:32] couple times before. But first

[11:34] page is sold to All America

[11:36] right now. Who you are is is

[11:38] exactly what has happened with

[11:40] you. This is a nightmare. What,

[11:41] as I see here for 30 years,

[11:43] what is? I come and speak. What

[11:45] is you doing? This idiotic

[11:47] situation. I cannot understand

[11:50] how this possible. Make mistake

[11:53] for Tory. $6 billion is not a

[11:55] mistake you do in government.

[11:55] I

[11:56] ve been assuming you were

[11:57] going to get around to the.

[11:57] Yes.

[12:00] Exactly.

[12:01] Not to the sound of sound.

[12:02] Transit is not on the agenda

[12:02] today.

[12:05] Okay. Your American Revolution,

[12:07] stand up slave and happy cow.

[12:09] Stop stealing us money. Is very

[12:11] simple. Why? You cannot do in

[12:12] this.

[12:14] That was on topic. Thank you.

[12:15] Um, I just want to state for

[12:17] the record that the King County

[12:18] Council has never prosecuted

[12:19] MR. Zimmerman. And if we ban

[12:21] somebody for 7000 days, that

[12:22] would be 19 years. And we

[12:23] definitely haven

[12:23] t done that

[12:26] either. So, uh, just for the

[12:27] record, let the record reflect

[12:27] who

[12:28] s next.

[12:30] The next name on the list is

[12:36] Avery.

[12:37] Hello. Hello, I

[12:38] m Avery.

[12:39] Firstly, I want to thank you

[12:41] all for all the hard work that

[12:42] you and the staff has done on

[12:43] this, making sure that we spend

[12:46] only spend this regressive tax

[12:47] on only the most critical

[12:47] needs. I

[12:48] m concerned about the

[12:50] targeted restrictions against

[12:51] Seattle and against transit

[12:53] spending. Cities like Seattle

[12:55] have fought long battles to

[12:56] transform into some semblance

[12:58] of a transit city. This took

[13:01] work and leadership by both the

[13:02] government officials,

[13:03] volunteers, advocates, and so

[13:05] many more to spend the money it

[13:08] takes to make the change. Link

[13:09] light rail is popular. Help

[13:12] people get to it. Also, we all

[13:14] know cars cannot be this large

[13:15] of a component of our

[13:17] transportation network, so we

[13:18] need to make sure transit is

[13:20] expanding as fast as possible

[13:23] in both frequency and coverage.

[13:24] I look forward to doing that

[13:26] next, but in the meantime, help

[13:28] Seattle pay for large portions

[13:28] of the region

[13:29] s transit and

[13:31] allow cities the option to

[13:33] spend on transit. Or, if we

[13:33] can

[13:34] t agree on what that looks

[13:35] like, maybe we cut the pass

[13:36] through. I don

[13:37] t know. I hope

[13:39] the language of this resolution

[13:40] and the interlocal agreements

[13:43] we talk about next will be,

[13:44] will be, will allocate this

[13:46] money based on an equitable and

[13:48] not burdensome system with a

[13:50] mindset focusing on getting

[13:52] people into sustainable and

[13:53] affordable transportation

[13:55] systems. I hope you can start

[13:58] with baluchis. Amendment to be

[14:00] as the baseline, and I hope you

[14:02] can figure out how to lift or

[14:04] change the 15% cap. And I don

[14:04] t

[14:06] think the 10,000 minimum seems

[14:07] like a sensible thing that

[14:10] benefits the right people. I

[14:11] also ask that you include

[14:11] council member Mosquito

[14:12] s

[14:14] request to the Executive and

[14:15] Metro to start working soon. On

[14:15] what Metro

[14:17] s transit package

[14:18] will be able to deliver, so

[14:19] that we can have less of these

[14:21] confusing debates when we do

[14:23] that topic. Next, thank you for

[14:24] your work.

[14:25] Thank you.

[14:26] The next name on the list is

[14:32] Noah Williams.

[14:33] Hi Council members, thank you.

[14:34] For the record, my name is Noah

[14:34] Williams and I

[14:35] m a member of

[14:36] the Transit Writers Union here

[14:39] in Seattle. Um, so I appreciate

[14:41] your work on this. Uh, and I

[14:42] just, I hope that the board

[14:43] s

[14:45] final plan meets the intent to

[14:48] be as equitable as as, uh, as

[14:50] advertised. Um, I have some

[14:51] concerns about the scope of

[14:53] capacity expansion versus

[14:54] maintenance. Per the needs

[14:57] report. Um, the road expansions

[14:58] tend to be a bit of a feedback

[15:00] loop. More space and capacity

[15:02] induces more demand, more

[15:03] people drive, we have more

[15:04] roads to maintain, and that

[15:06] gradually gets more expensive

[15:08] over time. Um, so it just seems

[15:10] misguided to prohibit some of

[15:11] these funds from being used for

[15:13] metro service, which I would

[15:14] also add does reduce where on

[15:15] roads by reducing vehicle

[15:17] traffic, where, um, bus service

[15:20] is available. Um, from an

[15:22] equity perspective, capping the

[15:25] the pass through to 15% for per

[15:27] municipality, um doesn

[15:28] t make

[15:30] sense to me either. Um, it

[15:31] tends to become regressive

[15:32] towards the residents of

[15:34] Seattle as as the biggest city

[15:37] here. Um, and a lot of the

[15:38] funds that Seattle pays in

[15:40] often benefit communities in

[15:41] the surrounding areas, such as

[15:43] White Center, um, through um,

[15:44] bus service to those

[15:46] communities and, um,

[15:47] accessibility and maintenance

[15:49] improvements. Um, please keep

[15:51] these concerns, uh, with you as

[15:53] you develop this plan. Thank

[15:54] you for your time. I appreciate.

[15:57] The next name on the list is

[16:03] Harper. Nelly.

[16:05] All righty.

[16:06] Uh, hello.

[16:07] My name is Harper. Nelly. I

[16:07] m

[16:08] with the Seattle Transit Riders

[16:08] Union, and I

[16:09] m a student, a

[16:11] renter, a car free transit

[16:13] writer, and a tax payer. I

[16:15] appreciate the work of the city

[16:17] council or county council. Uh,

[16:19] and staff have done to solve

[16:20] the road budget problem.

[16:22] However, I am deeply concerned

[16:23] about many of the proposed

[16:25] allocations and what they say

[16:25] about this county

[16:26] s equity,

[16:27] climate and affordability

[16:29] goals. We need this levy

[16:31] because the King County cannot

[16:34] support its roads. So why does

[16:35] the transportation need support?

[16:37] Direct 17% of this tax to

[16:38] expanding road capacity and

[16:39] thus increasing that

[16:41] maintenance bill, while barring

[16:43] cities from actually trying to

[16:44] solve the problem by improving

[16:47] transit, especially when

[16:48] transit riders are the lowest

[16:50] income neighbors who are

[16:51] already treated as second class

[16:53] citizens. Doubling down on cars

[16:55] and leaving transit behind is a

[16:57] baffling decision, especially

[16:58] while we face spiking gas

[17:00] prices, rising cost of living,

[17:03] and a deepening climate crisis.

[17:04] There has been much said about

[17:06] how Bryn Mawr Skyway and White

[17:08] Center are in need of funding

[17:09] for sidewalks and

[17:11] accessibility, but this tax

[17:13] only sends 4% of that funding

[17:15] to them, while sending extra

[17:16] funding to three of the

[17:17] wealthiest cities in the state.

[17:19] Seattle has one of the highest

[17:21] poverty rates in the county and

[17:23] sees most of or sees the most

[17:24] people driving into the city

[17:26] from out of its city limits,

[17:27] causing road wear and

[17:29] congestion. And yet this tax

[17:32] targets Seattle and severely

[17:34] limits its ability to handle

[17:36] that disproportionate demand.

[17:38] This tax is again necessary

[17:39] because King County cannot

[17:41] afford to maintain its existing

[17:43] roads, but bars cities from

[17:45] using the funding on reducing

[17:46] car usage while funding the

[17:48] expansion of road capacity. It

[17:49] directs money towards

[17:51] municipalities which need it

[17:53] the least, and away from those

[17:54] that need it the most. Thank

[17:56] you.

[17:57] The next name on the list is

[18:06] Nick saddle.

[18:08] Hello. Council members or

[18:09] supervisors? My name is Nick

[18:11] and my transit rider. I am with

[18:12] the Trans Writers Union. Fix

[18:13] delayed in central Seattle

[18:14] streets for all. First, I

[18:15] wanted to commend everyone for

[18:16] all the work that they put on

[18:17] this. You know, there

[18:17] s

[18:18] certainly access problems in

[18:20] rural areas and maintaining the

[18:22] road condition and maintaining

[18:23] access and white Center Skyway

[18:25] and improving our accessibility

[18:26] needs are certainly problems

[18:28] that we need to be fixing. But

[18:29] there are a number of concerns

[18:31] I have with the proposal. The

[18:32] first one is that we

[18:32] re using a

[18:34] regressive tax for regressive

[18:36] priorities, and the county

[18:37] transportation needs assessment,

[18:39] prepared by the Roads Division.

[18:40] Most of the money, according to

[18:41] that assessment, will be

[18:43] shifted away from poorer areas

[18:44] and into richer areas.

[18:46] Specifically, only 4% of needs

[18:47] are in white, center or Skyway.

[18:48] Only 4% of needs are on

[18:51] accessibility, almost 20% is

[18:53] devoted to a category called

[18:54] capacity expansion, which is

[18:57] just widening roads, and even

[18:58] more money is dedicated to

[19:00] traffic improvements and things

[19:01] that I would not call repaving

[19:03] and maintaining the existing

[19:05] network. Concretely, I urge you

[19:06] to pass supervisor supervisor

[19:07] Mosquito

[19:08] s amendment to clarify

[19:11] that this board is interested

[19:12] in a metro funding amendment

[19:13] and that we

[19:14] re interested in

[19:15] identifying the needs that

[19:17] Metro has. Secondly, please

[19:19] remove the 15% cap on Seattle,

[19:21] the next largest city in King

[19:23] County. Bellevue will not hit

[19:25] that cap for over 100 years,

[19:25] and it

[19:27] s certainly a target on

[19:27] the county

[19:29] s largest city. And

[19:30] more importantly, don

[19:30] t block

[19:31] this path through money from

[19:33] being used on transit. As

[19:34] previous commenters have said,

[19:35] transit is one of the most

[19:36] sustainable ways for people to

[19:37] get around. And if cities want

[19:38] to help out Metro, I don

[19:39] t see

[19:40] why we should stop them. Thank

[19:42] you.

[19:43] Chair Bill. Dutchie. That was

[19:45] the last in-person sign up, but

[19:45] I currently don

[19:46] t have any

[19:48] hands raised on the zoom. Oh,

[19:51] we have one. Two.

[19:53] Yeah. So just let me briefly

[19:55] just give a notice to anybody

[19:56] online because I don

[19:57] t think I

[19:58] said this at the beginning. If

[20:00] you are online and want to give

[20:02] public comment, please use the

[20:03] raise hand function on your

[20:06] zoom app. And I forget how to

[20:07] do it. If you

[20:07] re on a phone. Do

[20:10] we have any phones? Excellent.

[20:12] All right. So if you want to be

[20:14] called upon, please raise your

[20:15] zoom. Use the raise hand

[20:16] function in zoom and we

[20:16] ll call

[20:17] on you for online public

[20:18] comment. Same rules and

[20:20] procedures apply. Please go

[20:21] ahead.

[20:22] The first name on the list is

[20:28] Greenway Trust.

[20:31] Good afternoon. I am Amy

[20:33] Brockhaus, deputy director of

[20:34] the Mountain Citizen Greenway

[20:35] Trust, the nonprofit

[20:36] organization that helps steward

[20:37] the Mountains to sound.

[20:38] Greenway National Heritage

[20:40] Area, stretching from Puget

[20:41] Sound in Seattle to central

[20:43] Washington, including much of

[20:45] rural King County. Thank you.

[20:47] Chair Baldacci, vice chair,

[20:49] frame supervisor Perry, and

[20:50] Supervisor Dmowski for your

[20:52] longstanding commitment to

[20:53] securing sustainable funding

[20:55] for King County Roads, roads,

[20:56] and unincorporated King County

[20:58] are essential to residents.

[21:00] Recreation access, public

[21:02] safety, tourism and local

[21:04] economies. Nearly half of daily

[21:06] trips on unincorporated roads

[21:07] are taken by city residents,

[21:09] and the current funding model

[21:11] is clearly not sustainable. So

[21:13] we truly, truly appreciate your

[21:14] leadership and working toward a

[21:15] better solution. I

[21:16] m also here

[21:17] today to thank you for

[21:18] continuing to work

[21:19] collaboratively with cities and

[21:21] regional partners. The best

[21:22] long term solutions are often

[21:24] compromise solutions, and a

[21:25] workable compromise is far

[21:28] better than no solution at all.

[21:29] So, on behalf of the Greenway

[21:31] Trust, we all recognize this is

[21:32] a long term challenge and we

[21:33] deeply appreciate your

[21:35] continued commitment to

[21:36] preserving and funding the

[21:38] transportation infrastructure

[21:39] that communities across King

[21:41] County depend on every day.

[21:45] Thank you all very, very much.

[21:46] The next name on the list is

[21:51] Jonathan Gonzales. Uh.

[21:52] Two more.

[21:53] Hello, my name is Jonathan

[21:54] Gonzalez. I

[21:55] m an organizer with

[21:56] Ballard Rail and a volunteer

[21:57] with Ballard. Beyond Green

[21:58] Streets. Over the past few

[21:59] months, I

[21:59] ve become more

[22:00] involved with local transit

[22:02] advocacy, in particular with

[22:03] Sound Transit. And what I

[22:03] ve

[22:05] come to learn is that there

[22:05] s

[22:06] plenty of opportunity for

[22:08] advocacy in our county as well.

[22:10] i appreciate the dire need to

[22:11] prepare our county roads. I

[22:12] have friends that are trying to

[22:14] raise a family in Skyway, and

[22:14] I

[22:16] ve seen the Broken Sidewalk

[22:18] network in person. I see this

[22:19] as a great opportunity to raise

[22:21] funds so we can repair roads

[22:22] and hopefully in the future,

[22:23] expand transit onto them. To

[22:25] that end, we need to make sure

[22:26] that we are appropriately

[22:28] prioritizing areas with the

[22:29] highest needs. And

[22:30] unfortunately, the current

[22:30] resolution doesn

[22:31] t specify

[22:33] that. Um, of the amendments

[22:35] proposed, I urge to start with

[22:36] Councilmember Belushi

[22:37] s

[22:39] amendments. Um, that way, um,

[22:41] other like if we

[22:41] re going to be

[22:43] giving pasture to cities, we

[22:44] should um, it should be done in

[22:44] a way that doesn

[22:45] t sing out any

[22:46] specific city. Um, for

[22:49] instance, in Seattle, um, 4

[22:50] million, uh, over the course of

[22:52] a few years would be enough to

[22:54] help pay for the Graham Street

[22:55] infill station. Uh, and that

[22:55] s

[22:56] something that the city and the

[22:58] county, um, from my

[22:59] understanding, are committing

[23:02] to completing. Uh, um, for that

[23:03] reason, the pass for money

[23:03] shouldn

[23:04] t be limited

[23:05] specifically to roadwork. I

[23:07] appreciate all the care and

[23:07] thought this committee is

[23:09] putting into this resolution,

[23:09] and hope you

[23:10] ll consider our

[23:11] perspectives at Seattle Lights

[23:12] in your decisions. I

[23:13] m happy to

[23:14] pay additional taxes to help

[23:15] the county. I just want to make

[23:15] sure it

[23:16] s serving the areas of

[23:20] highest need. Thank you.

[23:21] The next name on the list is

[23:36] Joe Kunstler.

[23:36] Joe, if you

[23:36] re speaking, we

[23:37] can

[23:43] t hear you. Why don

[23:43] t we

[23:45] move on and come back to MR.

[23:49] Counselor? Go ahead.

[23:50] The next name on the list is

[23:58] Robert Feldstein.

[23:58] Robert, if you

[23:59] re able, please

[24:00] unmute yourself.

[24:02] Can you hear me?

[24:03] Okay, Joe, we can hear you.

[24:05] Please hold a second. Uh,

[24:05] Robert, we

[24:06] re going to come

[24:08] back to you. Uh, the prior

[24:10] speaker is now unmuted. Uh,

[24:11] MISTER Kunstler, please.

[24:12] Thank you. Executive team.

[24:14] Can you. MR. Felson, can we ask

[24:15] you to wait for just one

[24:16] second? Sorry for the for the

[24:17] technical difficulties. I

[24:17] m

[24:19] going to ask MR. Kunstler.

[24:21] Please go ahead.

[24:23] Thank you. Joe. Counselor.

[24:25] Here. Um, a lot to say in a few

[24:27] minutes. But first, I really

[24:28] think we don

[24:28] t need to be

[24:30] building any new highways or

[24:32] roads. We need to take care of

[24:33] the bridges we have. We also

[24:34] need to have a naming program

[24:36] for those bridges. Uh, for

[24:37] instance, we need to pay

[24:38] tribute to some of our great

[24:41] public servants. Um, we need to

[24:42] build a model, you know, like.

[24:44] And we also need very much and

[24:47] very badly to have some of this

[24:49] district assist in building

[24:51] light rail to Ballard and

[24:53] building the infill stations.

[24:54] Uh, it is important that the

[24:56] Graham Street station be built

[24:59] and that the Rainier Valley be

[25:01] a safe place for everyone and

[25:03] reliable for transit, in that

[25:06] order. Um, I am well aware that

[25:07] I have white male privilege,

[25:08] and I want to address that as a

[25:10] gentleman who wants a better,

[25:12] more perfect union. As our

[25:14] nation nears our 250th

[25:17] birthday. Um, I also want to

[25:19] add as well that we should have

[25:20] light rail to Ballard, and the

[25:22] Heidi Wheels station. Uh, which

[25:23] would be a monument to one of

[25:25] the greatest citizens of King

[25:29] County. Uh, and we should, um.

[25:30] Well, that

[25:30] s a that

[25:30] s a

[25:32] comment, but, uh, you know, and

[25:34] finally, I want to thank you

[25:36] for all you do at, uh, just

[25:38] hope that we can get a deal

[25:39] passed that will protect

[25:40] transit funding and protect

[25:42] bridge funding. And, um, I will

[25:44] let the next speaker go ahead.

[25:48] Thank you.

[25:49] The next name is Robert

[25:52] Feldstein.

[25:53] Uh, good afternoon, Robert

[25:54] Felton. Sound cities

[25:56] association. Thank you,

[25:58] executive team, for your hard

[25:59] and careful work on getting

[26:01] this right. I know we

[26:01] re

[26:03] starting to tire. Uh, I want to

[26:04] make a couple of points. First,

[26:06] every city, no matter how

[26:08] small, has basic needs that do

[26:11] not scale proportionally down.

[26:11] There

[26:12] s no that. You cannot

[26:14] break it down to 1/100 or one

[26:15] tenth of the basic requirements

[26:16] of reporting to state and

[26:18] county and others, and the

[26:19] basic needs of their things.

[26:21] Even the smallest cities need a

[26:22] fundamental lump to be able to

[26:24] do something. Second, many of

[26:25] the challenges brought up for

[26:27] our unincorporated areas unsafe

[26:29] streets, no sidewalks are

[26:30] actually true for many of our

[26:32] residents of our cities all

[26:34] across the county. Third, I

[26:34] ve

[26:35] heard some say, well, the

[26:37] cities should tax themselves.

[26:37] What

[26:38] s not caught in these

[26:39] measures or measures of

[26:42] population or tax base is

[26:42] measures of the city

[26:43] s ability

[26:45] to tax themselves. Some cities,

[26:47] one city MAY be is very able to

[26:49] tax itself prodigiously, while

[26:50] others struggle to raise even

[26:52] basic public safety measures.

[26:53] And every time the county

[26:54] raises a tax. And this will be

[26:56] the third sales tax in five

[26:58] years, it makes it harder for

[26:59] cities to raise the taxes

[27:00] themselves to fix their

[27:02] problems. The pass through to

[27:03] our cities, and particularly

[27:05] the smaller cities, recognizes

[27:07] this actual truth of equity.

[27:09] With all this in mind, we

[27:10] support the Fain amendment and

[27:12] urge the executive team to hone

[27:13] this towards perfection so the

[27:15] district can pass this at the

[27:16] next vote, and we can move on

[27:18] together on other issues.

[27:21] Thanks for all you do.

[27:22] Chair Bill Dutchie, there are

[27:23] currently no hands raised on

[27:28] the zoom.

[27:31] Thank you. Uh, just checking

[27:32] one last time. If there

[27:32] s

[27:33] anybody else who wanted to give

[27:34] public comment but has not been

[27:36] able to not. I can

[27:36] t see the

[27:38] zoom. I think everybody in

[27:39] chambers has either spoken or

[27:40] works for us. So we

[27:41] re going to

[27:42] move on and close public

[27:47] comment. Um, first item on the

[27:48] agenda is to talk about what,

[27:50] uh, many of the commenters

[27:52] alluded to, and that is what

[27:54] happens next. And how do we,

[27:56] uh, how do we go from where we

[27:58] are to where we need to be? I

[28:00] want to thank the folks who

[28:02] have shared how important it is

[28:05] for us to put out a clear

[28:07] packet of materials, including

[28:09] the resolution, which has been

[28:10] well established and is on the

[28:12] table, and then amendments

[28:13] proposed to that resolution far

[28:14] enough in advance of the

[28:15] meeting that people can see

[28:17] them, can react to them, can

[28:20] give comment and we can take

[28:22] action on that comment. And so

[28:23] that

[28:24] s part of the goal of

[28:25] having this meeting here today

[28:25] is to make sure that we

[28:26] re

[28:27] charting a clear path forward

[28:29] with steps and dates that will

[28:35] enable a, uh, a regular order

[28:38] meeting with plenty of advance

[28:39] time for people to be ready and

[28:42] for us to be, um, uh, well

[28:43] organized and not have it feel

[28:45] like a rush. And I know that

[28:46] it

[28:47] s you can probably laugh and

[28:49] say, what kind of a rush is

[28:50] this? Uh, this is our third

[28:51] meeting or fourth meeting on

[28:54] this topic, but, um, I do feel

[28:56] that a little bit more

[28:57] diligence would make it feel

[28:58] more. You know, we

[28:59] re going to

[29:00] decide on these policy issues

[29:01] that people are giving to us

[29:01] today. We

[29:02] re going to make

[29:03] decisions about them. But

[29:04] people should, as I said

[29:04] earlier, know what they

[29:04] re

[29:09] deciding. So, um, item five on

[29:11] the agenda today is labeled as

[29:11] a briefing, but it

[29:12] s meant to

[29:14] talk about, uh, the two

[29:15] resolutions that are coming

[29:17] before us and just chart a

[29:19] path. And I want to ask your

[29:21] forbearance, colleagues, I

[29:21] m

[29:24] going to talk a little bit. Um,

[29:25] the first resolution is

[29:28] proposed resolution td 2020

[29:30] 601. That is the resolution

[29:33] that would impose a 10th of a

[29:37] cent sales tax for roads. Um,

[29:39] so we have had that in front of

[29:41] us at our last couple meetings.

[29:45] And at our last meeting, we had

[29:47] a series of amendments

[29:48] proposed. They have been

[29:49] referenced today, but just as a

[29:52] reminder, uh, amendment to a

[29:54] was sponsored by a board

[29:57] member, Fein. Uh, some of the

[29:58] key provisions of that were

[30:00] that it provided a pass through

[30:03] of 12.5% by population for

[30:06] local jurisdictions, created a.

[30:07] Oh, boy, I

[30:08] ve already forgotten

[30:09] the acronym. You know, you

[30:09] re a

[30:10] real organization when you have

[30:10] acronyms. You can

[30:11] t remember.

[30:13] The tip is stands for.

[30:15] City Transportation Improvement

[30:15] Program.

[30:17] City Transportation Improvement

[30:19] Program. Thank you. Nick, with

[30:21] $10,000 minimum pass through

[30:23] and a 15% maximum, that is just

[30:25] a headline. That is not

[30:26] everything that was into a. It

[30:27] was a very detailed and

[30:29] thoughtful amendment. We had

[30:32] amendment 1 to 2, a uh, offered

[30:33] by board member Barone, which

[30:35] would have removed the 15%

[30:37] maximum, uh, from amendment to

[30:40] a. I myself offered a different

[30:42] methodology for doing the

[30:43] implementing the tax. That was

[30:45] an amendment to b, which had a

[30:47] 12.5% pass through by

[30:49] population without minimums or

[30:53] maximums, and notably, uh,

[30:57] asked for an offset to funding

[30:58] already being received by a

[31:00] city in my district, the city

[31:02] of Bellevue, for a transit tax

[31:04] increment financing proposal.

[31:06] Separate from this, but which,

[31:08] uh, as a policy matter, I feel

[31:10] would be duplicated by both

[31:12] allowing the tif and a full

[31:14] sales tax pass through. Uh,

[31:16] Councilmember Mosqueda offered

[31:17] amendment three. Board member

[31:19] Mosqueda offered amendment

[31:21] three, which added a statement

[31:24] in the warehouse Clauses that

[31:26] made it clearer what we have

[31:28] already stated, which is that

[31:29] we recognize the funding needs

[31:32] for transit and metro and

[31:33] restated the intent of this

[31:37] body to pursue transit funding

[31:39] via a ballot measure in the

[31:41] future, and then there were

[31:43] technical changes in amendment

[31:46] four. So after that meeting, uh,

[31:48] I, I

[31:49] m a board member. Fain and

[31:51] I had a conversation about her

[31:52] amendment because it seemed to

[31:54] me that most of the stuff we

[31:56] needed to do to advance this

[31:59] was already into a, um, and so

[32:02] I have asked board Member Fein

[32:04] to convert amendment to a into

[32:06] a striking amendment. I will

[32:08] just, uh, with regard to our

[32:12] lawyers, um, I will, uh, state

[32:13] my I think it should have been

[32:14] a strong amendment in the first

[32:14] place. I

[32:16] m sure you did, too.

[32:18] But just procedurally, it just

[32:19] makes more sense. I would

[32:20] prefer to have a strike

[32:20] imminent. So we

[32:21] re going to ask

[32:24] that to become s one. And it

[32:27] will, uh, it will address a

[32:30] number of these policy issues.

[32:34] Uh, the 0.1 ten sales tax, the

[32:35] pass through at 12.5% by

[32:38] population. Uh, it will

[32:40] continue to include, I presume,

[32:42] a minimum and a maximum pass

[32:43] through, which is the cap that

[32:43] some of the folks have talked

[32:45] to us about today. The city

[32:46] Transportation Improvement

[32:51] Program. Uh, the I have

[32:53] requested that the striker

[32:55] include the offset for the

[32:59] Bellevue tif, um, which just of

[33:00] interest, if anybody cares.

[33:00] There

[33:01] s a lot of information on

[33:03] that in our pockets. Uh, the

[33:06] bottom line is a lot of work

[33:08] went into assessing how we

[33:11] could do this offset correctly

[33:13] and what the financial impact

[33:14] was. And at the end of the day,

[33:16] it amounts to about five point

[33:19] something million dollars of

[33:20] offset. So it

[33:21] s not a huge

[33:23] amount in the first ten years,

[33:24] which is what this tax would be

[33:25] for. But I thought it was the

[33:27] better policy that Bellevue not

[33:30] received. Both, uh, not that

[33:31] the offset happened so that

[33:33] this sales tax money, instead

[33:35] of going to supplement Bellevue

[33:39] project further, would be used

[33:40] for roads in King County Roads

[33:41] Division. So that

[33:42] s about about

[33:45] 5.5 billion million million.

[33:45] Sorry, I

[33:46] ve been at Sound

[33:48] Transit too long. 5.5 million

[33:53] in uh, in the roads fund. Um,

[33:55] there are there is language

[33:57] about allowed uses for cities

[34:02] and, uh, and I think in. No

[34:02] that

[34:02] s where I

[34:03] m going to stop.

[34:04] So I

[34:06] m going to stop there.

[34:08] That is I assume that there

[34:10] will still be line amendments.

[34:12] The goal would be and I

[34:12] m going

[34:15] to jump to the end, that we

[34:18] publish the striking amendment.

[34:20] Any striking amendments to

[34:22] resolution one and two by close

[34:23] of business this Friday, day

[34:26] after tomorrow, MAY 29th, with

[34:29] line amendments offered by

[34:33] Tuesday, JUNE 2nd. Publishing

[34:36] an amendment packet fully uh,

[34:38] established by Friday, JUNE

[34:41] 5th, to be taken up by the

[34:43] board on Friday, JUNE 12th,

[34:45] which would give members of the

[34:47] public and of this board a week

[34:49] to to see what we are taking

[34:51] up. And I just feel like that

[34:52] is that is going to be a much

[34:53] more orderly process if we do

[34:55] it that way. So that is a lot

[34:55] of talking. I

[34:56] m going to pause

[34:58] there. And just first of all,

[34:58] I

[34:59] d like to offer, uh, Vice

[35:00] Chair Fain an opportunity to

[35:01] speak for herself. I spoke a

[35:04] lot for her. And so. No. Okay.

[35:06] She has nothing to add. Any

[35:08] questions for me? For staff?

[35:09] Does this make sense,

[35:10] colleagues, the point of an

[35:11] executive committee is to help

[35:12] chart the path. Does it make

[35:15] sense? Board member Perry, you

[35:16] look like you might have a

[35:17] question.

[35:17] I think I might have a

[35:20] question. Thank you. Uh, chair.

[35:23] Chair Balducci at my board

[35:23] member. I

[35:24] m a supervisor. My

[35:29] supervisor. Okay. Um, so I need

[35:31] to understand in the striker.

[35:32] Are we intending? And this is

[35:34] to you. And also, uh, maybe

[35:36] Council Member Fein, are we

[35:40] intending to remove the 15% cap

[35:43] from the striker?

[35:43] I will say we had this

[35:45] discussion, and my

[35:46] understanding is that the

[35:47] striker will continue to

[35:50] include the 15% cap, and

[35:51] therefore, I expect there will

[35:53] be a line amendment similar to

[35:54] a board member Baron

[35:54] s

[35:56] amendment that will seek to

[35:58] strip the 15% cap out, and we

[36:00] will make that policy decision

[36:01] by vote. That is my

[36:03] speculation. I am speculating,

[36:04] okay, okay. But it will remain

[36:05] in the striker, is my

[36:06] understanding. Yes.

[36:06] And I don

[36:08] t want to be looking

[36:08] at me. I don

[36:09] t want to open a

[36:11] can of worms, but I do want to

[36:14] ask a question. The 10,000

[36:16] minimum. Where does that come

[36:17] from?

[36:21] I will, uh, cede the floor, if

[36:22] you will. If you

[36:22] ll take a

[36:27] question. Board member Fein.

[36:30] The goal was to ensure that we

[36:37] could make, uh, lift all of the

[36:40] boats in the water. And so, uh,

[36:44] the 10,000 was an an amount

[36:48] that, um, everyone could live

[36:52] with that I spoke with, um,

[36:56] local services, and, um, you

[36:58] and others in unincorporated

[37:02] areas, and it was a careful

[37:07] balance to not give super small

[37:08] towns that maybe don

[37:08] t have the

[37:10] same level of need as the

[37:13] larger ones. An excess amount

[37:15] of funding where it didn

[37:16] t make

[37:17] sense, but it really allowed

[37:20] them to do some pretty basic

[37:22] projects that they otherwise

[37:26] would might struggle to do. So,

[37:28] um, okay.

[37:29] Thank you. That makes sense. A

[37:30] follow up question is that all

[37:33] right? Um, so I know asphalt

[37:35] costs the same in Skykomish as

[37:38] it does in Seattle or wherever.

[37:41] Bellevue. Um, and that

[37:41] s that

[37:41] s

[37:42] a challenge because I know that

[37:44] we have 1500 miles of

[37:46] unincorporated roads saying,

[37:46] What

[37:48] s Canada to Mexico? We

[37:51] know that. And we know that the

[37:52] $100 million that local

[37:54] Services has in their budget is

[37:56] one third of what they need.

[37:56] And so they

[37:57] re just meeting

[38:00] basic needs of safety, potholes

[38:02] going to be out of money in

[38:04] 2028 completely. And so none of

[38:06] the cities are out of money.

[38:07] Right. And so they

[38:07] re going to

[38:09] be out of money. And this is a

[38:11] way to keep, uh, the basically

[38:13] keep the lights on or the

[38:15] potholes filled is what we

[38:15] re

[38:15] trying to do. We

[38:16] re not trying

[38:17] to do more than that. And then

[38:18] the cities wanted to have a

[38:19] certain percent. So we

[38:19] re

[38:21] trying to do something to

[38:23] support that as well. With this

[38:28] 12.5, 12.5%. Yeah. With a 15%

[38:31] cap. Um, my understanding is

[38:35] that we can the cities can bank

[38:37] if they have a project in mind,

[38:39] they can bank that 10,000 a

[38:41] year toward that project. Is

[38:44] that correct?

[38:45] So let me just, uh, let me just

[38:48] declare my intent to, uh, just

[38:51] not impose too strict an

[38:52] interpretation of Robert

[38:52] s

[38:53] Rules here. As long as it is

[38:54] comfortable for members, we can

[38:56] have a discussion. Yes. Okay.

[38:56] Go ahead.

[38:57] All right. Thank you. Chair.

[38:59] Thank you. For making sure

[38:59] we

[39:00] re keeping it clean.

[39:01] Here.

[39:05] So the goal is not to allow

[39:08] cities to build up reserves. If

[39:12] there is a project that is, um,

[39:12] and we

[39:13] ve we

[39:14] ve created the

[39:17] term timely and we will and

[39:17] we

[39:18] ll get to this soon. Need to

[39:19] put together some

[39:21] administrative procedures as a,

[39:23] as a body, as a governing body

[39:25] later to decide what that

[39:28] means. The way that I

[39:31] structured it was to allow

[39:33] cities, if they have a timely

[39:35] project to contribute to. This

[39:37] is not intended to be their

[39:39] sole source of transportation

[39:41] funding. This is to assist

[39:43] where they MAY not be able to

[39:47] close that gap. Um, without. So

[39:47] we

[39:50] re not allowing banking of

[39:52] dollars to to put towards

[39:53] future projects, though many

[39:55] cities do that. This is

[39:58] intended to if you have a use

[39:59] this year, it could be a

[40:02] multi-year project. But there

[40:03] s

[40:05] something pending or ready to

[40:07] go, or close to ready to go,

[40:08] and this will help it get over

[40:09] the finish line. They can do

[40:11] that if they don

[40:13] t have a

[40:14] project that they can use it

[40:16] on, they can either say, no, we

[40:17] we don

[40:18] t have a project, in

[40:19] which case those dollars would

[40:22] go straight to roads or as a

[40:24] governing body. Later we,

[40:24] whoever

[40:25] s governing it, whether

[40:25] it

[40:27] s or the county, we would

[40:29] say, um, you haven

[40:30] t yet used

[40:33] those funds on a project. If

[40:33] you don

[40:34] t have something

[40:35] pending or it

[40:36] s not ready to

[40:36] go, we

[40:37] re going to take those

[40:39] funds back and either give it

[40:40] to a city who does have a

[40:42] pending project that we could

[40:44] help with, or to roads. And at

[40:46] every turn, I tried to return

[40:47] money to roads. And I think at

[40:49] the end of the day, roads will

[40:52] receive more than 87.5%.

[40:53] Okay. Thank you very much. And

[40:54] thank you, chair.

[40:56] And I would like to at this

[40:57] point, just point to the packet

[40:59] that has been provided. There

[41:01] is a flow chart within that

[41:04] packet that shows, uh, the ways

[41:08] pass through works for various

[41:10] different proposals. And it

[41:10] doesn

[41:11] t it doesn

[41:11] t show what

[41:13] happens. Exactly. But if you

[41:14] see, uh, looking under

[41:15] amendment two way, which is the

[41:18] leftmost column down towards

[41:20] the bottom, uh, you see the

[41:23] red, uh, decision point that

[41:24] says timely spending. And if

[41:26] the answer is no, then the blue

[41:27] box reclaimed money goes to

[41:29] roads or cities with project

[41:32] capacity. And that is a

[41:34] decision point for this board.

[41:36] Uh, or for us to delegate. But

[41:38] we would have to adopt some

[41:39] kind of rule or administrative

[41:40] procedure to make that

[41:41] decision. When the time comes.

[41:41] It

[41:42] s not automatically made in

[41:46] this resolution. Yeah.

[41:46] Okay. One more question.

[41:47] Please go.

[41:49] Ahead.

[41:50] Okay. Go ahead. Uh, board

[41:52] member Perry, continue.

[41:54] Thank you. Chair Balducci. And

[41:55] for the purpose of Robert

[41:55] s

[41:56] Rules, we don

[41:56] t have

[41:58] discussions back and forth on

[41:58] the dais. It

[41:59] s usually directed

[42:01] to you. Is that. Help me with

[42:01] that?

[42:01] Yeah. Robert

[42:02] s rules says that

[42:03] questions should be directed to

[42:05] the chair or the staff. Uh,

[42:08] but, uh, you know, an executive

[42:09] committee like this, if we held

[42:11] it in a different room with a

[42:12] conference table and said this

[42:13] dais, it would probably feel

[42:14] better to just have discussion

[42:16] and debate here with my gavel

[42:18] and all the cameras and the

[42:19] lights, I feel like I need to

[42:20] tell Robert

[42:21] s Rules. But I have

[42:22] now decided to allow as long as

[42:23] everyone

[42:23] s comfortable having

[42:24] discussion, we can have

[42:25] discussion. Okay.

[42:26] Very good. Thank you. Thank you

[42:29] very much. Um, so establish the

[42:31] the that the limit the caps in

[42:34] there. Um, and that this five

[42:36] year is based on this and, and

[42:38] a, a determining body about

[42:41] what that would look like. Um,

[42:44] as to where it would be, how it

[42:47] would be used. It is

[42:49] transportation infrastructure

[42:52] specific. Correct reason for

[42:52] that is we

[42:53] re looking at a

[42:55] different voter approved levy

[42:57] in the future, potentially to

[42:59] address the the gaping hole

[43:01] that might come for transit.

[43:03] And this is specifically about

[43:04] roads, because they do not have

[43:06] any other option and they

[43:06] re

[43:09] out of money. And in those

[43:10] smaller towns, they can

[43:11] t pay

[43:14] for asphalt with this 10,000,

[43:14] they

[43:15] d have to add to whatever

[43:17] their goal was or something

[43:19] else. So this could be used by

[43:21] larger and smaller towns for

[43:24] pedestrian lanes, for bike

[43:28] lanes, for bus structures,

[43:30] stops, benches. What is the

[43:32] thinking here?

[43:36] The idea of, uh, directing this

[43:40] funding to infrastructure? Um,

[43:41] roads, sidewalks, Ada

[43:43] improvements, crosswalks, all

[43:46] of the things that support, um,

[43:50] our roads and our, um, ability

[43:52] to transport on metro, um,

[43:55] throughout the county. Was that

[43:59] we as a body early on? Um,

[44:01] whether informally or formally,

[44:05] we did both decided to focus on

[44:07] providing money to our roads

[44:11] and infrastructure because and

[44:14] I have adopted, I think, in

[44:14] full and we

[44:15] ll finalize that

[44:19] here by Friday. Um, board

[44:22] member mosquitoes language. I

[44:24] had it in mind, but she has

[44:27] really, um, signified our

[44:31] intent to pursue legislation to

[44:35] get more for, uh, transit

[44:37] services. So metro services, we

[44:40] have not brought Metro into

[44:42] this discussion since a number

[44:44] of months ago. I think it would

[44:47] be unwise to throw them in now

[44:49] without getting their input. We

[44:49] can

[44:51] t commit service hours

[44:53] without engaging with Metro,

[44:54] and we want to do it in a

[44:56] really meaningful way. And we

[44:59] certainly here, um, everything

[45:01] from our transit riders, we are

[45:04] we want to meet that need in a

[45:06] truly meaningful way and not

[45:08] pull out money from roads and

[45:10] infrastructure and do a little

[45:11] bit here and there. We want it

[45:14] to be a really strong measure.

[45:16] With input from Metro. Make

[45:16] sure we

[45:17] re getting to the

[45:19] service gaps, make sure we

[45:19] re

[45:21] really doing it in a meaningful

[45:24] way. Um, and so that is the

[45:26] intent to just focus on roads

[45:28] in our infrastructure now and

[45:30] then. Do I really carefully

[45:34] well planned Metro Transit

[45:37] investment. Um, here very soon.

[45:39] Thank you. Thank you.

[45:41] Thank you chair.

[45:42] Thank you. I just want to add

[45:43] one thought to this

[45:44] conversation. And that is just

[45:46] for the purpose of the public.

[45:47] Um, we

[45:48] re charting a path here

[45:49] forward, but we

[45:50] re not making a

[45:51] recommendation as a committee.

[45:51] And we

[45:52] re definitely not taking

[45:53] action here today as a

[45:55] committee. So what

[45:55] s being

[45:56] described in this back and

[45:59] forth is the intent and the

[46:01] language that is that will be

[46:01] that you

[46:02] ll see in the in the

[46:04] new striking amendment, there

[46:06] will absolutely be other

[46:09] amendments proposed. I know

[46:11] that Council Member Barone and

[46:12] I will speak for myself. Uh,

[46:14] will probably advocate for

[46:17] removal of the cap to 15% cap.

[46:20] And I personally am likely to

[46:21] propose that we allow the

[46:23] broadest possible range of

[46:24] uses, although I

[46:25] m convinced

[46:26] that infrastructure is the

[46:28] right focus for this funding as

[46:31] opposed to service. I. I

[46:31] personally don

[46:32] t see the need

[46:34] to restrict the uses to roads

[46:35] only if you

[46:36] re if your transit

[46:38] projects if the eight the fix

[46:40] to the eight in Seattle needs

[46:41] some capital infrastructure, I

[46:42] don

[46:42] t see why they shouldn

[46:42] t be

[46:44] able to spend that. That said,

[46:46] i just want to say, and this is

[46:47] entirely at the public eye, I

[46:48] know my colleagues understand

[46:51] this. Um, especially for the

[46:53] larger cities, this money will

[46:56] come in as a supplement to

[46:57] already existing transportation

[46:59] budgets, and there is no

[47:01] prohibition on sub

[47:02] supplementation means you can

[47:03] take this and supplant it for

[47:05] that. So if Seattle had money

[47:07] for a road project somewhere

[47:09] and they got some of this money

[47:10] and they want to put it into

[47:11] something that is

[47:12] infrastructure for transit,

[47:14] they could just swap those two

[47:15] things out. They will have the

[47:17] ability to do that anyway. That

[47:19] is, go ahead.

[47:21] I know that board member

[47:21] Belsky.

[47:23] I would like to patiently.

[47:24] But I just wanted to add to

[47:27] what you said are correct. If

[47:29] you intended it, these funds

[47:31] can be used for transit

[47:34] infrastructure. They cannot be

[47:36] used for service.

[47:37] As as proposed. That

[47:37] s right.

[47:38] So I just wanted to make sure.

[47:40] Thank you. Yeah. No, no I had I

[47:40] had missed.

[47:41] Super clear on that.

[47:42] Thank you I appreciate that.

[47:44] Board member okay. Board member

[47:44] Dmowski, you

[47:45] re up.

[47:47] Thanks so much for all the work

[47:48] on this. Just as a preview. And

[47:49] it sounds like maybe

[47:51] Councilmember Belushi will.

[47:51] Sorry, I

[47:53] m what? Supervisor

[47:54] Boardman Council, you

[47:54] re always

[47:55] a council member. It

[47:55] s always

[47:58] safe, right? I would just say

[48:00] if if Councilmember Balducci

[48:03] has prepared the amendment to

[48:05] eliminate the restrictions into

[48:07] a for uses, I would be

[48:08] supportive of that. And I would

[48:10] ask that it be prepared for one

[48:11] of us to bring forward. I

[48:12] m

[48:13] happy to co-sponsor or support

[48:15] your leadership on it.

[48:15] We

[48:15] ll include you in.

[48:17] The work. Okay. I don

[48:17] t need to

[48:17] be. I don

[48:18] t even need. It

[48:18] s

[48:19] quite simple. I think what I,

[48:21] what I would just my interest

[48:22] would be is just if it

[48:22] s

[48:24] allowable under the rcw

[48:26] authorizing these funds, allow

[48:28] it one for the flexibility. But

[48:32] two, I see 39 applications

[48:34] coming in that would require

[48:37] review by human beings of

[48:39] projects year after year after

[48:41] year to see perhaps if they

[48:42] qualify. And I don

[48:43] t see that

[48:46] as a big value add. Um, I

[48:47] think, you know, we

[48:48] ve got

[48:50] competent leadership in our 39

[48:52] cities for the most part, just

[48:52] if we

[48:53] re doing this passed

[48:55] through, send them the money,

[48:56] let them put it into their

[48:58] bucket and spend it like it

[48:58] just it

[48:59] s an efficiency thing.

[48:59] It

[49:01] s not even very much money,

[49:01] you know, it

[49:01] s like, what

[49:02] s

[49:03] 12.5 million bucks a year or

[49:04] something like that countywide.

[49:05] So I would that

[49:05] s just where

[49:05] I

[49:06] m, I

[49:07] m at. I appreciate

[49:08] Councilmember Fein

[49:09] s philosophy

[49:11] there and approach, but I would

[49:13] just I would just lean toward

[49:15] devolving that responsibility

[49:17] to the to the local recipients.

[49:18] Most of them wouldn

[49:19] t use it

[49:20] for service, except probably

[49:21] the city of Seattle, which

[49:22] would have a big enough check

[49:23] where they might want to.

[49:24] Right? The other ones are

[49:26] pretty small. I would let, I

[49:27] would, I would just be

[49:29] supportive of letting them use

[49:33] that as much as they want. Um,

[49:33] let

[49:35] s see. Other item. Let

[49:35] s

[49:35] see.

[49:38] Other are the resolution number

[49:38] two.

[49:39] Oh no, I mean it

[49:41] s in your the

[49:42] cap. I probably would take the

[49:45] cap off. I could see some cap,

[49:47] you know, but I think the 15%

[49:49] might be a little too, too much

[49:50] penalty to the city of Seattle.

[49:51] I don

[49:51] t know where you draw it,

[49:53] but I would probably lean in

[49:56] favor of no cap. But if there

[49:58] was some cap that would give

[50:00] them a little more return than

[50:01] the than the haircut they

[50:01] re

[50:02] getting, I would be supportive

[50:03] of that.

[50:05] And this is where I

[50:05] m just

[50:07] going to interject a moment to,

[50:09] again, draw attention to some

[50:10] of the excellent work that has

[50:11] been done by our staff and

[50:12] provided to us. There is a

[50:15] large spreadsheet that shows

[50:18] the amount of funding that

[50:20] would pass through to various

[50:21] all the various cities under

[50:23] the different proposals before

[50:26] us, and the difference to the

[50:28] city of Seattle with the cap,

[50:30] uh, the amount they would

[50:35] receive would be $1.9 million

[50:38] rounded, in. Is that in a year,

[50:40] or is that in ten years? No,

[50:40] that

[50:41] s that

[50:42] s in a year. One

[50:45] year. And then, uh, without a

[50:50] cap, um, it is uh, over 4.5,

[50:52] $4.6 million. So it

[50:53] s

[50:54] significant. And we will have a

[50:55] policy discussion about that.

[50:56] And not we

[50:56] re not asked for a

[50:58] recommendation today. I think

[50:58] we

[50:59] re just speaking to be

[51:00] transparent to the public about

[51:01] where our inclinations are

[51:02] headed.

[51:03] Yeah. Okay. Now I

[51:04] m remembering

[51:05] apologize. It

[51:05] s we

[51:07] re doing a

[51:08] lot with the budget here. But

[51:10] on the I, I would I would be

[51:12] more favor I would be more in

[51:13] favor of supporting a model

[51:14] that we

[51:14] re familiar with here

[51:16] in our parks. Levy pass through

[51:19] to where a jurisdiction could

[51:21] decline to take their $10,000

[51:23] one year and accumulate it. I

[51:23] m

[51:26] not sure. Um, why we wouldn

[51:26] t

[51:28] let them accumulate it or just

[51:29] pass it through. You know, I

[51:29] think if we don

[51:30] t put a bunch

[51:31] of restrictions on it, it

[51:31] ll

[51:32] just be a check issued. And

[51:33] maybe that isn

[51:34] t even an issue.

[51:36] I think it MAY become an issue

[51:37] if we put up, make them prove

[51:37] that it

[51:39] s a viable or viable

[51:40] ready to go and qualifying

[51:41] project. They MAY not want to

[51:42] deal with that and not take it,

[51:43] but if we don

[51:43] t have those

[51:44] restrictions, the money seems

[51:45] like it could just flow based

[51:47] on population.

[51:48] Uh, my understanding is that

[51:50] the amendment provides for

[51:51] that, no board member fails.

[51:53] Speak to it.

[51:56] So a couple things. One is that

[51:59] I really wanted to minimize the

[52:01] level of administrative burden

[52:02] on the city. So what we

[52:03] ve done

[52:06] is say that we will have a

[52:09] standardized Ila, that cities

[52:13] will agree to, and it is not

[52:14] going to be amended. It

[52:15] s not

[52:17] going to be negotiated every

[52:18] year with 39 cities. We will

[52:20] have a standardized Ila. They

[52:22] can take it or leave it. If

[52:23] they decline it. The money goes

[52:26] to roads. The reason I did not

[52:28] allow for an accumulation of

[52:30] the pass through funding is

[52:33] because of what, uh, board

[52:35] Member Perry will remind us of

[52:37] is that roads needs funding.

[52:40] And so the default at every

[52:41] turn was to make sure that we

[52:43] are getting money to roads. And

[52:44] so if a city isn

[52:45] t ready to use

[52:47] money, if a city can

[52:49] t, um,

[52:49] doesn

[52:52] t need it, then the money

[52:53] can go to roads and we can

[52:55] really get them more than the

[52:58] 87.5%. So what this does is it

[53:00] helps close the gap on

[53:01] transportation projects for

[53:02] cities who can

[53:03] t pass taxes,

[53:06] because we at the county tend

[53:08] to do that for them. Um, and it

[53:10] allows them to finish some

[53:14] projects. Uh, but also our goal

[53:16] here as the transportation

[53:17] District is to make sure that

[53:18] we are funding our

[53:20] unincorporated roads. And so I

[53:20] didn

[53:21] t want to allow cities to

[53:24] bank dollars when we have

[53:26] immediate needs right now in

[53:28] unincorporated areas.

[53:30] Again, I think it largely

[53:31] resolves itself if we eliminate

[53:35] the con construction, construct

[53:38] constriction, conscription

[53:39] about what you can use it for,

[53:40] if it

[53:40] s if it

[53:41] s any purpose out

[53:42] of the statute, we just send

[53:43] them. They don

[53:44] t have to submit

[53:46] an application on a detailing

[53:49] the project. Okay. Is that the

[53:50] kind of amendment you

[53:50] re

[53:52] thinking of? Councilmember,

[53:53] Balducci?

[53:55] Uh, yes. I like the way you

[53:57] framed it, actually, uh, if you

[54:00] allow a description under cw,

[54:02] it would be an allowable use of

[54:03] these funds, in my view. And I

[54:05] know that this is this is not

[54:06] something that we are unanimous

[54:06] on. And I don

[54:06] t know if it

[54:07] s

[54:07] going to pass, but I think it

[54:09] is a policy debate that we will

[54:10] have at the full board. Yeah.

[54:11] Board member Perry, please go

[54:12] ahead.

[54:15] Thank you. Chair Banducci, I

[54:16] appreciate the the dialogue and

[54:17] the comments. It

[54:18] s nice to have

[54:20] this on the with with my

[54:22] colleagues. Um, I wouldn

[54:22] t

[54:24] support, uh, you know,

[54:27] something that did not reflect

[54:29] that the money, the taxes that

[54:33] we are using for a road use tax

[54:34] could be used for anything.

[54:35] That

[54:35] s not something that I

[54:37] could get behind. And I think

[54:38] the city

[54:40] s, uh, certainly, you

[54:41] know, we we have a lot of work

[54:45] to do as legislators to be the,

[54:47] the check and balance of the

[54:49] executive programs. And we are

[54:51] doing our level best to do

[54:52] that. We are bringing these

[54:53] dollars in, and we

[54:53] re

[54:55] accountable for the dollars.

[54:57] And it seems that, uh, using

[55:00] this for anything at all goes

[55:02] against the basic idea that

[55:03] that the intention is to

[55:05] support our very dire

[55:08] circumstances. And Seattle has,

[55:08] I don

[55:09] t know, 3/10 of a percent

[55:12] coming in tax and is very

[55:14] generous with itself and is

[55:16] going to pass. They will have

[55:19] 140 million a year. Uh, coming

[55:21] in very short order for this

[55:23] very thing. And so there they

[55:25] have the ability to fund it is

[55:26] regressive. These are all

[55:28] regressive. It is unfortunate

[55:30] that those are the only two

[55:33] tools of, um, allowed to us by

[55:34] the state at this point. But

[55:34] that

[55:35] s what we have. And so

[55:35] they

[55:38] ll have 140 million the

[55:39] other cities who need it

[55:42] desperately around them. And

[55:44] unincorporated the other cities

[55:46] will not be able to fund that

[55:49] in any way at that level. And

[55:54] so to to have that cap in

[55:56] service of the intention of the

[55:57] roads that the cities that

[55:59] choose not to put forward a

[56:02] project, um, which I just can

[56:02] t

[56:04] see that the cities wouldn

[56:04] t

[56:05] avail themselves of the

[56:07] funding, but if they chose not

[56:09] to, that that funding would go

[56:11] back to the roads is in keeping

[56:13] with the point and the mission

[56:16] and the intention of this, uh,

[56:18] roads tax to begin with. I mind

[56:21] you, I am very happy with

[56:23] unincorporated roads receiving

[56:25] all of the funding because it

[56:27] is the only entity that will be

[56:29] out of funding completely by

[56:31] 2028. None of the other cities

[56:34] are in this situation. However,

[56:36] I see that Sound City

[56:36] s

[56:40] approach of the 12.5 works and

[56:43] allows for some funding. Again,

[56:45] they will not be out of

[56:47] funding, which is why so many

[56:48] are, I think, being very

[56:51] supportive of it. So, um, if we

[56:53] want to keep with the intention

[56:55] of the ordinance that we

[56:55] re

[56:57] trying to put forward, then the

[56:59] funds not used need to go back

[57:01] to the roads department to use

[57:06] as they will. Thank you.

[57:07] Thank you. Board member.

[57:09] Please continue very briefly.

[57:12] Um, just to reiterate my I

[57:13] think the main point I would

[57:16] have on that is 39 annual

[57:17] applications. Saying what

[57:17] you

[57:18] re going to do with it

[57:21] requires spending on overhead.

[57:22] And I think the value I don

[57:22] t

[57:23] have a problem with that, a lot

[57:24] of cases, but the dollars

[57:25] aren

[57:27] t worth it here. So I

[57:30] would just if we just pass it

[57:31] through, let them do it. The

[57:32] second thing I would say we

[57:32] haven

[57:35] t talked about is I think

[57:36] Seattle is paying 40 some

[57:38] percent of this in terms on the

[57:40] generation side, and there is a

[57:42] political issue to be aware of.

[57:43] We try as a region to kind of

[57:45] work together and be aware of

[57:47] those things, and you don

[57:47] t

[57:48] want to leave a particular

[57:49] jurisdiction with some hurt

[57:52] feelings that could make policy

[57:53] work in other areas

[57:54] challenging, you know, people

[57:56] just watch that. So I there

[57:57] s a

[57:59] large transfer of resources

[58:00] from the incorporated

[58:02] communities to the

[58:03] unincorporated roads. Under

[58:06] this proposal. This is some

[58:07] kind of solving. I won

[58:07] t call

[58:08] it a wound. That

[58:08] s the wrong

[58:10] analogy, but a little bit of a

[58:11] little bit of softening of the

[58:14] blow. Um, and so I think that

[58:15] would be also why I would

[58:16] probably drop the cap on

[58:18] Seattle just gives a little

[58:19] back to them.

[58:20] Yeah.

[58:20] We

[58:21] re getting a bit.

[58:22] Yeah. Somebody

[58:23] s microphone is

[58:26] acting up. Um, uh, I think that

[58:28] the, the benefit of having had

[58:30] multiple bites at this Apple on

[58:31] the policy issues is I think

[58:32] the policy issues are pretty

[58:34] well developed and people have

[58:35] their different opinions about

[58:37] them. Uh, before I move on to

[58:38] the next agenda item, though, I

[58:39] want to make sure that, uh,

[58:40] board member Fayne has said

[58:41] everything that she wanted to

[58:41] say.

[58:45] I would say that, um, I don

[58:45] t

[58:48] want us to get too caught up in

[58:50] the applications by the cities.

[58:54] It really is intended to be,

[58:56] uh, Ila, here

[58:56] s what you can

[58:58] use the dollars on. Go forth

[59:00] and do it. And unless as we get

[59:02] to the governance level, we

[59:04] decide to micromanage their

[59:05] projects and really check on

[59:07] them. We will be doing that.

[59:08] But it won

[59:10] t be a yes. You can

[59:11] use it for this. No, you can

[59:11] t

[59:12] use it for that. It

[59:13] s really

[59:14] broad, except you can

[59:15] t use it

[59:18] on transit service hours. But

[59:20] really the the intent again is

[59:22] to trust our partners, work

[59:23] with them. They all have

[59:25] transportation plans that have

[59:28] been approved and are, um, you

[59:30] know, uh, allowed under the

[59:32] statute. So I try to minimize

[59:35] any of that level of management

[59:38] and, but just, just just to

[59:41] keep it as simple as possible.

[59:44] Um, and then, yeah, we can

[59:46] debate equity all day. I would

[59:49] just share that part of the

[59:52] driver for me is that this is a

[59:54] really regressive tax. Um, a

[59:57] lot of folks in my district and

[59:58] surrounding areas have moved

[1:00:00] out of Seattle because it is so

[1:00:03] expensive, and yet many have to

[1:00:05] continue to come to Seattle for

[1:00:09] work for hospital, um, health

[1:00:11] care services, for all of the

[1:00:12] needs and resources that

[1:00:15] continue to remain in Seattle.

[1:00:16] And yet they have to get there.

[1:00:20] And so I think that I hear you

[1:00:21] and I did not want to exclude

[1:00:23] Seattle in any way, but I

[1:00:26] certainly wanted to provide as

[1:00:28] much balance with all of these

[1:00:30] considerations as possible. Um,

[1:00:32] and achieve the level of

[1:00:34] comfort I could get with our,

[1:00:36] um, colleagues who represent

[1:00:37] unincorporated areas, with

[1:00:38] local services, with the

[1:00:39] executive

[1:00:42] s office. So it was a

[1:00:45] carefully thought through, um,

[1:00:49] number. And I think we

[1:00:49] ve now

[1:00:53] discussed this fully,

[1:00:54] thoroughly.

[1:00:54] Let

[1:00:56] s not bring horses into it.

[1:00:58] But, uh, no, no, no, no.

[1:00:59] I just meant I just was hoping

[1:01:01] to get the amendments prepared

[1:01:02] and give a preview. Not

[1:01:03] surprise anybody. I

[1:01:03] m sorry. I

[1:01:04] got a little one.

[1:01:05] That is the. That is the

[1:01:06] absolute goal of this meeting.

[1:01:08] And I. And I feel that we are

[1:01:10] meeting our goal because we

[1:01:10] ve

[1:01:11] we

[1:01:12] ve grounded ourselves in

[1:01:15] what the striker is going to

[1:01:17] include. And that enables us to

[1:01:18] then go forward with line

[1:01:19] amendments. And nobody should

[1:01:20] be surprised when we get to the

[1:01:22] next meeting, because my goal

[1:01:23] is that we vote at that

[1:01:25] meeting. Yeah. Thank you. Thank

[1:01:26] you all seriously for this

[1:01:28] discussion. I mean, that, um,

[1:01:28] I

[1:01:29] m ready to move on to the

[1:01:32] next agenda item. And this one

[1:01:36] is, uh, about the, uh, kind of

[1:01:38] the alternatives for kicked in

[1:01:41] next steps. Um, it has been

[1:01:42] brought up a number of

[1:01:43] different times and a number of

[1:01:47] places that, um, the moment we

[1:01:49] vote to adopt a tax, we are

[1:01:51] then going to be, uh,

[1:01:52] anticipating funds, but we will

[1:01:54] be a funded organization in the

[1:01:56] not distant future. And there

[1:01:57] is work that we have to do to

[1:01:58] get ready to receive those

[1:02:00] funds, uh, regardless of

[1:02:02] whether we choose to remain as

[1:02:04] an independent agency for the

[1:02:06] long term, for some shorter

[1:02:08] period of time, or merge

[1:02:09] immediately, there

[1:02:09] s work to be

[1:02:13] done. And so I have asked and

[1:02:15] staff have prepared, uh, it

[1:02:15] says it

[1:02:16] s a memo and it

[1:02:16] s on

[1:02:17] page ten of the packet.

[1:02:18] Unfortunately, I

[1:02:18] m working off

[1:02:21] of, uh, random papers is when

[1:02:22] you say memo, do you mean this

[1:02:24] chart? Okay, so this is

[1:02:26] beautiful chart. Uh, that we

[1:02:26] have it

[1:02:28] s two pages long and

[1:02:28] it

[1:02:29] s called potential next

[1:02:31] steps for independent td to

[1:02:33] implement roads funding

[1:02:36] measure. So.

[1:02:37] Um.

[1:02:37] We

[1:02:40] ve had our team work very

[1:02:42] diligently to try to identify

[1:02:44] the immediate steps that are

[1:02:48] required. Um, this does not yet

[1:02:50] chart out the immediate steps

[1:02:51] that would be required if we

[1:02:54] were choosing to merge. So that

[1:02:55] is sort of like decision one.

[1:02:57] Do we stay independent for a

[1:02:58] period of time? For a long

[1:03:02] time? For a short time? Um, and

[1:03:03] then what do we do if then and

[1:03:05] I just want to preface all of

[1:03:07] this by saying, uh, we have had

[1:03:10] some amazing county council

[1:03:12] staff who legislative branch

[1:03:13] staff who have been carrying

[1:03:15] this separate branch of

[1:03:17] government on their backs. Uh,

[1:03:17] we I

[1:03:19] ve sent a formal letter

[1:03:21] signed by myself, and I don

[1:03:21] t

[1:03:22] recall if I asked the vice

[1:03:23] chair to sign, but I signed it

[1:03:25] to the chair of the King County

[1:03:26] Council and to the county

[1:03:29] executive, asking them to track

[1:03:31] the expenditures. You know, the

[1:03:32] the debt, if you will, that we

[1:03:34] are accumulating by using time

[1:03:36] and resources of King County,

[1:03:37] because we are not King County

[1:03:38] when we sit here as the King

[1:03:40] County Transportation District,

[1:03:42] so that we can, uh, rightly pay

[1:03:44] for these services. But we

[1:03:44] re

[1:03:47] going to need at least a

[1:03:50] consultant almost immediately

[1:03:51] to help us figure out our next

[1:03:53] steps and implement them

[1:03:55] correctly. Um, I

[1:03:56] m a little off

[1:03:57] script here, but I

[1:03:57] m just going

[1:03:58] to say, and if anybody wants to

[1:04:00] interject, please wave or say

[1:04:02] something. But I think that we

[1:04:05] should probably plan as an

[1:04:09] executive committee to, uh, to

[1:04:12] ask the board to empower us to

[1:04:15] do a scope of work and some

[1:04:17] kind of procurement to get that

[1:04:18] consultant on board. And then

[1:04:20] we will have somebody whose job

[1:04:24] it is immediately. And, you

[1:04:25] know, for whatever amount of

[1:04:27] time and money it takes to help

[1:04:28] us chart this path forward,

[1:04:29] because it

[1:04:30] s detailed what we

[1:04:31] have to do, we have to do

[1:04:32] accounting. We have to have

[1:04:34] legal advice. We have to, uh,

[1:04:36] we if we we could choose to be

[1:04:38] an existing agency that mainly

[1:04:39] just passes through money and

[1:04:41] does very little else. That

[1:04:43] still requires resources. And

[1:04:44] we We need to be accountable.

[1:04:46] We need to pass audits. We need

[1:04:48] to be effective. We could

[1:04:50] choose to be slightly more

[1:04:52] operational, like the flood

[1:04:53] control district is more

[1:04:54] operational, but doesn

[1:04:55] t do its

[1:04:55] own projects, doesn

[1:04:56] t have its

[1:04:58] own crews. Like we contract for

[1:05:01] all of the real project work

[1:05:04] and operational work with King

[1:05:06] County Water and Land Division.

[1:05:08] Or we could choose not my

[1:05:09] preference, but we could choose

[1:05:12] to become a fully, fully blown

[1:05:13] transportation type

[1:05:14] organization that does

[1:05:16] projects. I mean, that makes

[1:05:17] very little sense in light of

[1:05:19] the fact that we already have a

[1:05:20] roads division. But these are

[1:05:23] this is the option that or we

[1:05:25] could just simply merge this

[1:05:27] organization into King County,

[1:05:28] and then it just becomes

[1:05:30] another funding source that is

[1:05:31] that is proposed by the

[1:05:32] executive, adopted by the

[1:05:33] council, budgeted by the

[1:05:36] council. But it is going to

[1:05:38] take work no matter which

[1:05:39] course we choose. It

[1:05:39] s going to

[1:05:40] take work and it

[1:05:40] s going to

[1:05:42] take resources. And so I don

[1:05:42] t

[1:05:45] know, is there something that

[1:05:47] we should be trying like? I

[1:05:48] think we should ask the. I

[1:05:50] think at the JUNE 12th meeting,

[1:05:51] we should ask the board to

[1:05:52] authorize this executive

[1:05:53] committee to move forward with

[1:05:55] the with the procurement

[1:05:58] process for a consultant. And

[1:05:59] that would be my plan. But let

[1:06:01] us open it up for discussion.

[1:06:01] Let me first ask staff, do you

[1:06:02] have anything more you want to

[1:06:03] say? Go ahead.

[1:06:04] So I

[1:06:05] ll just jump in with a

[1:06:06] couple points. Um. Thank you.

[1:06:07] Chair Balducci, I

[1:06:08] m Mary Berg,

[1:06:08] and I

[1:06:09] m from the council staff.

[1:06:13] So as you noted, if you approve

[1:06:15] a funding measure, your first

[1:06:18] choice is do you wish to choose

[1:06:19] to be assumed into King County,

[1:06:21] for which there is a process

[1:06:22] that would be first initiated

[1:06:23] by the Council through

[1:06:26] ordinance, or alternatively, if

[1:06:27] this body wishes to remain

[1:06:29] independent, there are a series

[1:06:30] of both substantive and

[1:06:32] administrative tasks to be

[1:06:33] undertaken. The second

[1:06:35] resolution, that is, before you

[1:06:38] td 2020 602, covers the

[1:06:40] substantive end, meaning that

[1:06:41] it would ask the executive to

[1:06:43] develop an implementation plan

[1:06:46] in Ila for how the substantive

[1:06:48] work would be carried out with

[1:06:49] the revenues. The work focused

[1:06:51] on roads, as well as any pass

[1:06:54] through to cities. There would

[1:06:54] also be a number of

[1:06:57] administrative tasks to set up

[1:06:59] this entity. To be able to

[1:07:02] essentially take in and then,

[1:07:04] you know, effectively disburse

[1:07:06] about $100 million a year. Many

[1:07:08] of those tasks are outlined in

[1:07:10] the timeline that is before you

[1:07:12] on page ten of your packets.

[1:07:14] Um, staff have also started

[1:07:17] collecting the contracts that

[1:07:19] were used and executed by both

[1:07:21] the ferry district, the former

[1:07:22] ferry district, and the flood

[1:07:24] control district when both in

[1:07:27] their early days sought

[1:07:29] consultant support to help them

[1:07:31] start up. And so we do have

[1:07:32] language available from those

[1:07:34] past documents that could guide

[1:07:36] an rfp. And I will finally

[1:07:38] close by noting that initial

[1:07:40] conversations with legal

[1:07:41] counsel indicate that while

[1:07:43] this executive committee could

[1:07:46] operate as a committee in, say,

[1:07:48] developing an rfp and, you

[1:07:49] know, moving forward with a

[1:07:51] number of administrative tasks,

[1:07:55] any, for instance, um, formal

[1:07:57] resolution to authorize

[1:07:59] proceeding with a contract

[1:08:00] would have to be done by the

[1:08:02] full board. So there would have

[1:08:04] to be some balance between what

[1:08:05] this committee could do and

[1:08:06] what the full board would have

[1:08:08] to do.

[1:08:08] I understand.

[1:08:11] That. Understood. Thank you.

[1:08:11] And that

[1:08:13] s super helpful. And I

[1:08:15] not surprising at all that you

[1:08:15] couldn

[1:08:17] t authorize a subset of

[1:08:19] the district to go in contract

[1:08:22] with somebody. But if we could,

[1:08:23] if we could put a put out the

[1:08:25] procurement as opposed to

[1:08:26] waiting for a month to get

[1:08:27] approval to put out the

[1:08:29] procurement, or having to have

[1:08:30] a special meeting to do that,

[1:08:32] that would be super helpful. It

[1:08:33] would be helpful if we could,

[1:08:35] uh, take the next little bit

[1:08:37] working towards a

[1:08:39] recommendation that then the

[1:08:40] full board would vote on. Does

[1:08:41] that seem like a process that

[1:08:47] we could follow? Being nodding,

[1:08:47] nobody

[1:08:48] s jumping up to say I

[1:08:48] can

[1:08:49] t. So I

[1:08:49] m going to assume

[1:08:51] that we can. Board member

[1:08:53] Dunbar, uh, do you have a

[1:08:58] question or comment?

[1:09:00] Um, if we weren

[1:09:01] t, if we adopt,

[1:09:01] if it

[1:09:03] s adopted, the resolution

[1:09:04] imposing the tax, we wouldn

[1:09:04] t

[1:09:05] start collecting it until

[1:09:07] JANUARY 1st. We wouldn

[1:09:07] t

[1:09:08] receive the first payment until

[1:09:09] later that first quarter of

[1:09:12] next year. So we might have we

[1:09:13] might be able to take this

[1:09:14] issue up when we meet to adopt

[1:09:16] the tax in terms of issuing a

[1:09:17] potential rfp, if we could get

[1:09:18] general authority from the

[1:09:21] board rather than kind of jump

[1:09:23] out ahead of them, if that

[1:09:23] s

[1:09:25] what I was hearing. But I might

[1:09:25] have misheard you.

[1:09:28] But let me ask the question

[1:09:28] back, because I think we

[1:09:29] re

[1:09:30] saying the same thing, but i

[1:09:30] m

[1:09:31] not sure. So let me just say

[1:09:33] that my suggestion would be

[1:09:36] that at the meeting on JUNE

[1:09:39] 12th, if the measure to adopt

[1:09:42] the tax passes, that we then

[1:09:43] proceed to have an agenda item

[1:09:44] where we ask the board for

[1:09:47] authorization for this

[1:09:49] executive committee to create a

[1:09:50] scope of work in a procurement

[1:09:51] process that we could put out

[1:09:53] into the world, but not close

[1:09:55] without the vote of the full

[1:09:55] board.

[1:09:56] That makes sense to me.

[1:09:57] Yeah. Okay.

[1:09:58] Thanks. Without, without. I

[1:09:59] ll

[1:10:00] just say, maybe for the record,

[1:10:01] I would tend to lean. Having

[1:10:02] not fully thought about it and

[1:10:04] heard my heard the dialogue,

[1:10:05] but I would tend to lean toward

[1:10:07] perhaps doing the ferry

[1:10:08] district type merger into the

[1:10:10] county for this particular

[1:10:11] entity. But I

[1:10:12] m open to having

[1:10:13] my mind changed. I

[1:10:13] m really

[1:10:14] kind of I know we

[1:10:14] re going to

[1:10:15] look at the cost, but you

[1:10:16] mentioned, you know, the

[1:10:18] accountants and the lawyers and

[1:10:20] the staff and and just, you

[1:10:21] know, we just didn

[1:10:21] t think

[1:10:23] about it.

[1:10:24] There was a little bit of

[1:10:26] analysis attempted. It

[1:10:27] s really

[1:10:28] hard to do because it

[1:10:29] s hard to

[1:10:31] know. Looking at the executive

[1:10:34] branch, what exact costs, say,

[1:10:35] if you were to compare the

[1:10:37] flood control district to, uh,

[1:10:40] a government function that is

[1:10:41] fully merged into the executive

[1:10:43] branch. Some of the people who

[1:10:44] are working on the flood

[1:10:47] control work in, uh, in the

[1:10:48] water land division would do

[1:10:50] that work regardless of whether

[1:10:51] there was a flood control

[1:10:52] district or not. So that

[1:10:52] s not

[1:10:54] duplicative costs. Some of it

[1:10:55] is duplicative. In the example

[1:10:56] I like to use as lawyers,

[1:10:57] because I

[1:10:58] m a former lawyer, I

[1:10:58] don

[1:10:59] t just like to pick on

[1:10:59] lawyers. It

[1:11:00] s just something I

[1:11:02] know a little bit about. Uh, so

[1:11:03] sometimes with the flood

[1:11:04] control district, you

[1:11:04] ll have a

[1:11:06] lawyer for the flood control

[1:11:07] district and a lawyer for water

[1:11:09] and land. And those two things

[1:11:10] are different. They

[1:11:10] re working

[1:11:11] on different projects. They

[1:11:12] re

[1:11:12] giving advice about different

[1:11:14] things. It would happen on both

[1:11:16] sides of the fence, regardless

[1:11:16] of the structure of the

[1:11:18] government. Sometimes they

[1:11:19] re

[1:11:20] working on the same thing, and

[1:11:21] one of them

[1:11:22] s advising the

[1:11:23] flood control district and the

[1:11:23] other one

[1:11:24] s advising the, uh,

[1:11:26] the executive branch, water and

[1:11:27] land. And that

[1:11:27] s duplicative.

[1:11:29] And you could do away with that

[1:11:30] by merging. So the analysis is

[1:11:32] tough because you asked for it

[1:11:33] did not go unnoticed that you

[1:11:36] asked for a fiscal note. And so

[1:11:37] there was some attempt to try

[1:11:39] to do that, but it proved to be

[1:11:42] a little bit difficult. So, um,

[1:11:42] yeah.

[1:11:44] Please go ahead. Share. The

[1:11:47] flood district is probably a

[1:11:49] more expensive example than

[1:11:50] what we would have here,

[1:11:51] because frankly, it

[1:11:51] s got the

[1:11:53] advisory groups and the exact

[1:11:54] committee, and they actually do

[1:11:57] a fair bit of project selection

[1:11:58] and advancement, even though

[1:11:59] it

[1:11:59] s contracted out. There

[1:12:00] s

[1:12:01] actually a fair bit of staff

[1:12:02] work that goes into working

[1:12:03] with the, you know, a lot of

[1:12:05] work there. This feels leaner,

[1:12:05] even if it

[1:12:06] s kept as a separate

[1:12:07] government. But there probably

[1:12:09] are some costs. So I.

[1:12:10] Agreed I think that

[1:12:10] s correct.

[1:12:12] And I also think that staff

[1:12:13] reached for the comparison that

[1:12:15] was closest to hand to to

[1:12:16] compare to the Marine Division

[1:12:17] would have required an

[1:12:18] archaeological dig that goes

[1:12:20] back about ten years or so

[1:12:21] anyway. So board member Perry,

[1:12:22] please go ahead.

[1:12:24] Thank you. Chair I I

[1:12:25] m

[1:12:26] undecided right now about

[1:12:27] whether the county should

[1:12:29] assume a tbd and county or

[1:12:30] remain independent. I don

[1:12:31] t

[1:12:32] have enough information, and I

[1:12:33] appreciate the work that the

[1:12:34] staff has done to bring the

[1:12:35] information forward. But I

[1:12:36] still don

[1:12:37] t have really a sense

[1:12:39] of it. Um, what that comparable

[1:12:41] is. And so 2% from flood, as

[1:12:43] council member mentioned, is

[1:12:44] crazy money. It

[1:12:44] s a lot of

[1:12:44] money. We don

[1:12:45] t need that money

[1:12:47] for this. It would be very

[1:12:48] helpful if the staff would put

[1:12:50] together a side by side

[1:12:51] comparison of what is

[1:12:55] anticipated as costs compared

[1:12:55] to what

[1:12:56] s going on with the

[1:12:58] structure of the flood. If

[1:12:59] something like that would be

[1:13:01] available, like as a

[1:13:02] hypothetical, that would be

[1:13:03] really helpful. Is that.

[1:13:04] Well, the difficult part with

[1:13:06] that is that flood has an

[1:13:07] approved Ila, of which then the

[1:13:09] cost is are built off. The

[1:13:11] kicked does not have that Ila.

[1:13:11] That

[1:13:13] s what resolution 2020 602

[1:13:15] is requesting. And so it

[1:13:15] s

[1:13:17] difficult to understand or

[1:13:18] estimate what administrative

[1:13:20] costs would be without knowing

[1:13:21] what the actual administrative

[1:13:22] functions of the case are going

[1:13:24] to be going forward.

[1:13:27] One thing I would add, I

[1:13:27] probably wasn

[1:13:28] t clear about

[1:13:31] this is my suggestion would be

[1:13:35] that we passed if we pass a tax

[1:13:37] at the next meeting, part of

[1:13:39] the reason to proceed to hire a

[1:13:40] consultant who would be an

[1:13:42] organizational consultant, not

[1:13:42] a lawyer, somebody who

[1:13:44] understood how to set up and

[1:13:47] run a governmental organization

[1:13:50] would be to ask that person to

[1:13:51] work with us and walk us

[1:13:52] through this decision process.

[1:13:53] What are the policy

[1:13:54] implications? What are the cost

[1:13:56] implications to tee that up in

[1:13:57] a way that we could take it on?

[1:13:58] Thankfully.

[1:14:00] I think the issue for me is

[1:14:02] that we are trying to raise

[1:14:04] money for the roads. We are

[1:14:05] trying to raise money for the

[1:14:06] roads, so I don

[1:14:08] t want to add

[1:14:10] to the burden, the cost for

[1:14:13] administration or whatever,

[1:14:15] whatever, um, might take us

[1:14:16] beyond in a more in a less

[1:14:18] efficient way that would take

[1:14:20] funding away from the roads

[1:14:22] that needs the funding. And so

[1:14:25] I, I would like to see that

[1:14:26] breakout and working with

[1:14:27] somebody who can help us do

[1:14:29] that in a smart way. Um, but

[1:14:30] ultimately, I would support

[1:14:32] whatever is the would take the

[1:14:34] least amount of money away from

[1:14:35] roads so they can give us the

[1:14:38] basic safety, safety focus that

[1:14:42] we need. Thanks.

[1:14:43] Um, one thing I forgot to say

[1:14:44] that Nick just reminded me of

[1:14:46] is just to remind us all that

[1:14:47] there is a second resolution

[1:14:50] that will be before the, uh,

[1:14:52] the full board on the 12th. It

[1:14:56] is proposed resolution td 2026.

[1:14:59] Uh, zero two. That would ask

[1:15:00] the executive to develop an

[1:15:01] implementation plan and an

[1:15:03] interlocal agreement to present

[1:15:06] to the board and the county

[1:15:07] council, because they

[1:15:07] d have to

[1:15:09] both would have to approve to

[1:15:11] guide how the work would be

[1:15:13] carried out. Uh, there was a

[1:15:14] striking amendment already

[1:15:15] developed to add some

[1:15:17] clarification. I just want to

[1:15:19] say that we probably need to

[1:15:20] replace that striking

[1:15:21] amendment, which was called

[1:15:25] s-1, with a new one, s2, uh,

[1:15:26] for a couple of reasons. One,

[1:15:27] there were line amendments

[1:15:28] proposed by council members.

[1:15:30] Mosqueda, board members

[1:15:32] Mosqueda and Perry, both of

[1:15:35] which, uh, I think are good

[1:15:37] additions, and I would like to

[1:15:38] include them in the striker.

[1:15:40] And secondly, we might want to

[1:15:42] rewrite this a little bit to

[1:15:44] make sure that we are pointing

[1:15:45] towards the direction we

[1:15:45] ve

[1:15:46] been discussing about the

[1:15:48] future work. I mean, we don

[1:15:48] t

[1:15:50] want to hold off on asking for

[1:15:51] the implementation plan for the

[1:15:53] money, but we also don

[1:15:53] t want

[1:15:55] to tie our hands about what our

[1:15:56] decision is about function. And

[1:15:57] there might need to be a little

[1:15:58] bit of tweaking of the language

[1:16:00] to leave the options open. So

[1:16:05] with that, I plan to continue

[1:16:06] working with staff and legal

[1:16:09] counsel between now and the end

[1:16:13] of the of next meeting on the

[1:16:15] steps the board have to take to

[1:16:16] authorize the Executive

[1:16:17] committee to take the next

[1:16:18] step. And I

[1:16:19] m going to say next

[1:16:20] steps. We

[1:16:21] re really stepping

[1:16:24] this out. Um, but it would be

[1:16:26] an interesting problem to have

[1:16:28] standing up an organization to

[1:16:31] a fund, a set of needs that we

[1:16:33] have not funded adequately for

[1:16:36] a very long time. All right.

[1:16:36] That brings me to the end of

[1:16:37] this agenda item. Unless

[1:16:38] there

[1:16:39] s any more questions or

[1:16:40] discussions, sounds like we

[1:16:41] have a plan. I want to say,

[1:16:43] just again, for the record,

[1:16:44] thank you. Well, thank you,

[1:16:47] first of all, to, um, Board

[1:16:48] Member Fein, who has taken on

[1:16:51] quite a laboring or, uh, and I

[1:16:52] mean, at the risk of sounding a

[1:16:54] little defensive, I

[1:16:54] m going to

[1:16:55] say I

[1:16:56] m very proud of board

[1:16:57] Member Fein, and I

[1:16:57] m going to

[1:16:58] pat myself on the back just a

[1:17:00] little bit. I have zero

[1:17:02] unincorporated roads in my

[1:17:03] district, and she has very

[1:17:04] little, and we

[1:17:04] re doing a lot

[1:17:05] of work. Y

[1:17:06] all.

[1:17:08] And let the and let the people

[1:17:10] say thank you.

[1:17:12] There I was begging for that

[1:17:13] compliment. Thank you so much.

[1:17:14] All right. Um.

[1:17:15] Just say something to that

[1:17:16] effect.

[1:17:16] Please.

[1:17:17] Go ahead. I just I want to

[1:17:19] recognize as somebody who has

[1:17:21] 1000mi of King County

[1:17:21] s

[1:17:25] 2300mi in my district. So

[1:17:26] almost half of King County in

[1:17:28] my district and 500 of the

[1:17:30] miles of unincorporated road

[1:17:30] that we

[1:17:31] re talking about here.

[1:17:33] Um, and so many in South King

[1:17:34] County were affected by the

[1:17:37] flood. We have an inordinate

[1:17:39] amount of impact from fires,

[1:17:41] floods, bomb cyclones and all

[1:17:45] kinds of things. And so I see

[1:17:47] it a lot. I see it just a lot

[1:17:48] of it. And our people are

[1:17:51] struggling in these cases. And,

[1:17:54] and it it is very gratifying to

[1:17:56] be up here among just a couple

[1:17:57] of us between Councilmember

[1:17:57] Dunn

[1:17:58] s district and mine. We

[1:17:58] re

[1:18:01] at 150,000 people living in

[1:18:03] unincorporated King County. And

[1:18:03] that

[1:18:05] s rural, unincorporated.

[1:18:06] And then we have urban,

[1:18:08] unincorporated, a sky Skyway,

[1:18:10] and North Highline, which is, I

[1:18:12] think 11,000 for Skyway. And

[1:18:12] it

[1:18:13] s a total of maybe 15,

[1:18:16] 20,000 folks in there. They

[1:18:17] have different needs, but we

[1:18:19] really, really need this

[1:18:20] support. And to have the

[1:18:22] support of both. Councilmember

[1:18:25] Fein, Councilmember Dombrowski,

[1:18:27] who who I we schemed together

[1:18:31] on this so long ago. And, uh,

[1:18:33] Chair Balducci, it really I

[1:18:34] really, really appreciate the

[1:18:35] fact that all three of you are

[1:18:38] located in very urban spaces.

[1:18:38] Thank you.

[1:18:39] Yeah. No, that

[1:18:39] s fair. And I

[1:18:40] want to I want to add that as

[1:18:41] well that there

[1:18:42] s been, uh, all

[1:18:45] all of us here have lifted this

[1:18:46] work up through effort in the

[1:18:48] last two years. And I feel good

[1:18:50] that we are getting close to a

[1:18:51] decision. I think that

[1:18:51] s the

[1:18:52] important part, is that we get

[1:18:55] to the decision. All right. Um,

[1:18:56] so thank you for a very

[1:18:58] productive discussion today.

[1:19:00] Uh, as we discussed, uh, we

[1:19:00] re

[1:19:02] going to guide the development

[1:19:04] of the striking amendment. And,

[1:19:07] uh, the updated striker to, uh,

[1:19:09] s1 and s2. Uh, I

[1:19:10] m going to

[1:19:12] take the laboring aura on s2.

[1:19:12] We

[1:19:13] re going to continue to use

[1:19:14] council board Member Fein

[1:19:15] s

[1:19:16] amendment as the basis for s1.

[1:19:18] And just reiterate, uh, we

[1:19:19] re

[1:19:20] going to publish today this

[1:19:22] following schedule striking

[1:19:24] amendments, both of them, uh,

[1:19:26] to be issued this Friday, MAY

[1:19:29] 29th. Line amendments asked for

[1:19:30] by, uh, close of business

[1:19:33] Tuesday, JUNE 2nd. Full packet

[1:19:34] of amendments published by

[1:19:36] close of business on Friday,

[1:19:38] JUNE 5th for a meeting of the

[1:19:40] full board to be held on

[1:19:43] Friday, JUNE 12th. Uh, we don

[1:19:44] t

[1:19:44] have an exact time yet. We

[1:19:45] re

[1:19:46] working with offices to try to

[1:19:48] get a time board member.

[1:19:49] Domestic. I

[1:19:50] m sorry to go back,

[1:19:53] but I have a question on that

[1:19:55] damn Bellevue tif thing and how

[1:19:57] it interacts about it. This.

[1:19:59] Could someone explain to me?

[1:20:00] And sorry for swearing, but

[1:20:00] it

[1:20:02] s I kind of run around it.

[1:20:04] Are we are we penalizing

[1:20:07] Bellevue in this pass through

[1:20:09] the way the legislation is

[1:20:10] expected to come forward

[1:20:12] because we worked with them on

[1:20:14] a wholly different thing to

[1:20:17] fund the grand connection.

[1:20:19] Uh, as a representative of

[1:20:21] Bellevue. Let me let me.

[1:20:22] Is maybe.

[1:20:24] A and. The word sponsor of, of

[1:20:26] this language. Um, I do not

[1:20:29] believe that we are because

[1:20:29] there

[1:20:29] s and there

[1:20:29] s a

[1:20:30] spreadsheet, and I would be

[1:20:33] happy to walk through it or to

[1:20:36] more, uh, more happy to offer

[1:20:37] Mary Bourguignon to walk you

[1:20:38] through it. You

[1:20:39] ll see if you

[1:20:41] look at it, Bellevue is

[1:20:42] eligible for by the terms of

[1:20:44] the tif legislation adopted by

[1:20:45] the King County Council,

[1:20:45] they

[1:20:46] re eligible to up to $30

[1:20:49] million capped. Yes. They will

[1:20:51] receive $30 million. Okay. No

[1:20:52] matter how we do this. Okay.

[1:20:54] The question is, when it does

[1:20:56] happen more quickly under one

[1:20:57] scenario, a little more slowly.

[1:21:00] With this scenario and the

[1:21:01] bigger question in my mind is

[1:21:05] about where does their funding

[1:21:08] come from? So under the tif

[1:21:11] legislation, there is an offset

[1:21:14] that if and we adopted this as

[1:21:17] proposed by the executive, if

[1:21:18] Bellevue were to receive a

[1:21:20] sales tax pass through by that

[1:21:23] ordinance, it offsets the tif.

[1:21:24] So they get.

[1:21:25] Up to the part of the deal they

[1:21:25] negotiate.

[1:21:25] It

[1:21:27] s just part of the deal.

[1:21:29] This now creates a this is the

[1:21:31] complicated part, a kind of,

[1:21:34] uh, infinity loop of offsets.

[1:21:38] Oh, uh, where some of the sales

[1:21:39] tax.

[1:21:39] Doesn

[1:21:40] t really matter.

[1:21:41] Some of it doesn

[1:21:42] t pass through

[1:21:43] to Bellevue and remains in the

[1:21:44] roads Fund. And the benefit of

[1:21:46] that is more money to roads

[1:21:49] division. They will still

[1:21:51] receive enough pass through,

[1:21:52] nevertheless, that it will

[1:21:54] trigger the offset of property

[1:21:56] tax. Nevertheless, they

[1:21:56] ll get

[1:21:58] to get their $30 million at the

[1:21:59] end of the day. And I have

[1:22:00] talked to them extensively

[1:22:01] about this. And while they

[1:22:01] re

[1:22:02] not going to come down and say,

[1:22:04] yes, please do this complicated

[1:22:04] thing, they

[1:22:05] re not objecting to

[1:22:06] it, okay?

[1:22:06] It won

[1:22:07] t affect their ability

[1:22:08] to issue the debt and all of

[1:22:08] that because.

[1:22:10] Of also they have the choice,

[1:22:11] the same choice that every

[1:22:13] district, every city will have

[1:22:14] under the proposed c tip

[1:22:16] program to choose not to take

[1:22:18] the. If so, if they did feel

[1:22:19] that accepting the sales tax

[1:22:21] was hurting them, they could

[1:22:21] say, we don

[1:22:22] t want the sales

[1:22:23] tax. We want to stick with the

[1:22:24] tif deal.

[1:22:25] Okay.

[1:22:26] We wrapped up. It

[1:22:27] s it

[1:22:28] s

[1:22:30] really like stroke inducing how

[1:22:31] complicated this is. And

[1:22:32] probably by the way, I made a

[1:22:33] joke in the lawyers directions

[1:22:34] before I need to say thank you.

[1:22:36] They both worked very, very

[1:22:37] hard to get that language

[1:22:38] right. Sorry.

[1:22:40] Go ahead sir. No thanks. I

[1:22:41] probably I don

[1:22:42] t know why we

[1:22:43] conflated these two things, but

[1:22:45] that happened. I would just

[1:22:47] like to my personal view to get

[1:22:47] there. I don

[1:22:48] t know the names,

[1:22:49] but I would like to just keep

[1:22:50] Bellevue whole in the simplest

[1:22:52] way. We did a $30 million deal

[1:22:53] with them. That

[1:22:53] s what I think

[1:22:55] we got to honor. But I guess

[1:22:55] there

[1:22:56] s a wrinkle wrinkle in

[1:22:58] it. So if we need some language

[1:22:59] here, Councilmember relativity,

[1:23:00] that would make sure we

[1:23:01] re not

[1:23:03] penalizing them. I would be

[1:23:05] inclined to support that.

[1:23:07] Okay. I, I think the way we

[1:23:08] ve

[1:23:09] done this achieves that. It

[1:23:10] doesn

[1:23:13] t penalize them while

[1:23:17] retaining the maximum amount of

[1:23:18] sales tax within the roads

[1:23:19] fund, as opposed to passing it

[1:23:20] to Bellevue and having it

[1:23:21] offset the general fund in the

[1:23:23] county. I mean, that was the

[1:23:24] choice, really. It was like,

[1:23:24] who

[1:23:25] s going to benefit from

[1:23:26] this? Somebody was going to

[1:23:27] either the general fund in the

[1:23:29] county or the sales tax that we

[1:23:31] passed through that we collect

[1:23:33] for roads. And it felt like a

[1:23:35] balance because there will be

[1:23:36] an offset that benefits the

[1:23:37] general fund. There will be an

[1:23:40] offset that benefits the sales

[1:23:42] tax for roads. And Bellevue

[1:23:43] will get their full 30 million

[1:23:44] benefit out of the tif. It

[1:23:44] s

[1:23:48] just kind of complicated. Yeah.

[1:23:52] Okay. Uh. Thank you. That was

[1:23:53] the mental workout I needed

[1:23:56] today. Um, all right.

[1:23:57] Doing all the staff reporting

[1:23:57] here.

[1:23:58] Uh, yeah, I just I

[1:23:59] m sorry. You

[1:24:00] all I am, I just, uh, it

[1:24:01] s a

[1:24:01] it

[1:24:02] s a I hope this doesn

[1:24:02] t

[1:24:04] become a habit with me. And I

[1:24:05] apologize for doing so much

[1:24:06] talking. The staff has been

[1:24:07] doing, as you can see from the

[1:24:07] materials, they

[1:24:08] ve done a ton

[1:24:09] of work to help inform

[1:24:11] everything. I just wanted to

[1:24:13] kind of hurt us. Towards the

[1:24:15] 12th. All right. I think we

[1:24:15] ve

[1:24:16] made it. I think we

[1:24:16] ve done it.

[1:24:18] Any other questions or issues

[1:24:22] to come before the body seeing

[1:24:23] none. We have a plan and we

[1:24:24] will be working towards the

[1:24:25] 12th. And I look forward to

[1:24:27] seeing you all. Then this

[1:24:28] meeting is adjourned.

King County Transportation District Executive Committee on 2026-05-27 1:30 PM - SPECIAL MEETING

Agenda

Transcript