All right. Good afternoon
everyone. I want to call to
order today
s meeting of the
King County Transportation
District Executive Committee.
It
s MAY 27th, 2026. My name is
Claudia Balducci. I
m the chair
of the Board of supervisors. I
am joined by executive
committee members. Uh, vice
Chair Fain and board members
Dan Boesky and Perry. Thank you
all for giving it the office
here with this relatively new,
uh, structure. Uh, this is our
second meeting of the executive
committee. And as you can see,
we are, uh, we
re taking leaps
and bounds in terms of
formality and, uh, and our
operations here, uh, at our
last full board meeting, which
was on MAY 15th, uh, we had a
very robust and wide ranging
debate. And it was the second
meeting in a row where we did
that. And I think we
ve been
making a lot of progress at
each of these meetings. And we
have gotten very close to the
place where I feel confident
that we will be able to take up
votes, vote on a proposal for,
uh, potential road funding,
vote on a potential for, uh,
how we direct that road
funding. And then, uh, we need
to very quickly should those
either of those successful go
to turn to how we operate this
thing called the King County
Transportation District because
it has been an unfunded
organization for the entirety
of its existence. I want to
acknowledge an error I made in
a comment previously where I
said it has been in existence
for 14 years. It has been in
existence since 2014, so only
12 years. But there we go. Just
to be accurate, just to be
accurate. Um, but at the last
board meeting on MAY 15th, it
did. We did arrive at a place
where at least I, as the chair,
I
ll just speak for myself,
felt that we could use a little
bit more thought around some of
the specific details of the
proposals and the amendments
before us, so that we were
prepared to move into action.
And everybody on the board
understands what they
re being
asked to vote on. You vote how
you vote yes. No. Offer
amendments don
t offer
amendments. But people should
understand what they
re being
asked to vote on. So, uh, a
couple people suggested, and I
thought it was a really good
idea that we hold an executive
committee meeting before the
next full board meeting so that
we can talk through where we
re
at in this process, and this
body can give any guidance to
help us be successful at our
next full board meeting, which
is, after all, our job. So
that
s where we
re at for
today. Um, what we
ve got on
the agenda is an update. Let me
make sure I have my agenda in
front of me. Here it is. Uh, we
have on the agenda. It
s a
brief agenda, but we are going
to have a briefing on, uh,
policy issues and process for
the revenue. Uh, and revenue
direction resolutions that are
currently before the code. And
then talking about a work plan
and next steps for the case,
because we will have to very
quickly become much more
operational and figure out the
future of some policy decisions
we have to make about how this
operates, how the ctd operates
or doesn
t. Um, now let me ask
for the clerk to please call
the roll. Thank you. Thank you.
Supervisor Fein. Here.
Supervisor Dmowski here.
Supervisor Perry here. Chair
Balducci here. You have a full
quorum.
All right. Thank you. I
d like
to ask for a motion to approve
the minutes of our APRIL 22nd
executive committee meeting,
please. So moved. Thank you. It
is before us there in your
pockets. Any comments,
questions or changes on the
minutes hearing? None. All
those in favor of approving the
minutes, please signify by
saying I. I any opposed? Please
say nay. The minutes are
approved. Now we
ll turn to
public comment. Um, people who
wish to provide public comment
can testify in person or in
zoom. It is an important part
of our process to hear from the
public. We
re glad that those
of you who are here or have
called in to give us public,
public comments are doing so
today. Uh, if you wish to
submit written comment to this
committee, you MAY, and we ask
that you do so by sending an
email to the email address
clerk. That
s kkclerk. There
s
too many k
s. Uh, at King
County gov. And please write
the topic and the letters in
the subject line that will help
ensure that your comment gets
to its intended destination.
All right. Uh, some specifics
about how we will do public
comment to maintain decorum and
to focus on the agenda at
today
s committee. The
following rules are in place
for all public comment.
Speakers should please remain
seated until called upon to
speak. Then we ask that you
approach the podium, state your
name, speak to the agenda item
at hand. All public comments
should be related to items on
today
s meeting agenda. I
talked about that earlier and
not be used for purposes of
assisting a campaign for
election of any person to any
office, nor for promotion of or
opposition to any ballot
proposition. We ask that public
comment not include obscene
speech. Uh, if the speaker
fails to abide by any of these
restrictions, I MAY roll them
out of order and MAY, in
extreme cases, have the speaker
removed from the meeting. Each
speaker will have two minutes
to speak, and there will be a
timer. When the timer
completes. Please do finish
your thought. Uh, if you go
much past two minutes, you will
certainly be interrupted and
MAY ultimately be muted. All
right, let
s start by calling
on people who have signed up to
speak in person.
Thank you. Chair. The first
name on the list is Alex
Zimmerman.
And I want to speak about
agenda number two. Is your
plan. I
m PRESIDENT Of Stand-Up
America. I candidate 15 times
for re-election. King County
Council persecuted me seven
times. Yes, and seven times
dismissed. And I have 7000 days
of trespass. So right now I
want to speak about something
with a critical ten year ago.
You have a very interesting
plan. Yeah. What is include
Sound Transit, the Sound
Transit ten year ago. Ten year
ago, and for many years before
you trespass me many times I
talking about Ponzi scheme for
$200 billion. That is exactly
sound transit. Half. So last
week Seattle Times. What is
very unusual for me because for
40 years I never see Seattle
time talking about Democrat
Mafia, a bandit whose blood and
money from us in the first
page. First page talking about
$36 billion. What is some
transit steal from people? This
is exactly what is happening.
What does this mean? Is mean
all America? No. Are about this
because Seattle Times did this
couple times before. But first
page is sold to All America
right now. Who you are is is
exactly what has happened with
you. This is a nightmare. What,
as I see here for 30 years,
what is? I come and speak. What
is you doing? This idiotic
situation. I cannot understand
how this possible. Make mistake
for Tory. $6 billion is not a
mistake you do in government.
I
ve been assuming you were
going to get around to the.
Yes.
Exactly.
Not to the sound of sound.
Transit is not on the agenda
today.
Okay. Your American Revolution,
stand up slave and happy cow.
Stop stealing us money. Is very
simple. Why? You cannot do in
this.
That was on topic. Thank you.
Um, I just want to state for
the record that the King County
Council has never prosecuted
MR. Zimmerman. And if we ban
somebody for 7000 days, that
would be 19 years. And we
definitely haven
t done that
either. So, uh, just for the
record, let the record reflect
who
s next.
The next name on the list is
Avery.
Hello. Hello, I
m Avery.
Firstly, I want to thank you
all for all the hard work that
you and the staff has done on
this, making sure that we spend
only spend this regressive tax
on only the most critical
needs. I
m concerned about the
targeted restrictions against
Seattle and against transit
spending. Cities like Seattle
have fought long battles to
transform into some semblance
of a transit city. This took
work and leadership by both the
government officials,
volunteers, advocates, and so
many more to spend the money it
takes to make the change. Link
light rail is popular. Help
people get to it. Also, we all
know cars cannot be this large
of a component of our
transportation network, so we
need to make sure transit is
expanding as fast as possible
in both frequency and coverage.
I look forward to doing that
next, but in the meantime, help
Seattle pay for large portions
of the region
s transit and
allow cities the option to
spend on transit. Or, if we
can
t agree on what that looks
like, maybe we cut the pass
through. I don
t know. I hope
the language of this resolution
and the interlocal agreements
we talk about next will be,
will be, will allocate this
money based on an equitable and
not burdensome system with a
mindset focusing on getting
people into sustainable and
affordable transportation
systems. I hope you can start
with baluchis. Amendment to be
as the baseline, and I hope you
can figure out how to lift or
change the 15% cap. And I don
t
think the 10,000 minimum seems
like a sensible thing that
benefits the right people. I
also ask that you include
council member Mosquito
s
request to the Executive and
Metro to start working soon. On
what Metro
s transit package
will be able to deliver, so
that we can have less of these
confusing debates when we do
that topic. Next, thank you for
your work.
Thank you.
The next name on the list is
Noah Williams.
Hi Council members, thank you.
For the record, my name is Noah
Williams and I
m a member of
the Transit Writers Union here
in Seattle. Um, so I appreciate
your work on this. Uh, and I
just, I hope that the board
s
final plan meets the intent to
be as equitable as as, uh, as
advertised. Um, I have some
concerns about the scope of
capacity expansion versus
maintenance. Per the needs
report. Um, the road expansions
tend to be a bit of a feedback
loop. More space and capacity
induces more demand, more
people drive, we have more
roads to maintain, and that
gradually gets more expensive
over time. Um, so it just seems
misguided to prohibit some of
these funds from being used for
metro service, which I would
also add does reduce where on
roads by reducing vehicle
traffic, where, um, bus service
is available. Um, from an
equity perspective, capping the
the pass through to 15% for per
municipality, um doesn
t make
sense to me either. Um, it
tends to become regressive
towards the residents of
Seattle as as the biggest city
here. Um, and a lot of the
funds that Seattle pays in
often benefit communities in
the surrounding areas, such as
White Center, um, through um,
bus service to those
communities and, um,
accessibility and maintenance
improvements. Um, please keep
these concerns, uh, with you as
you develop this plan. Thank
you for your time. I appreciate.
The next name on the list is
Harper. Nelly.
All righty.
Uh, hello.
My name is Harper. Nelly. I
m
with the Seattle Transit Riders
Union, and I
m a student, a
renter, a car free transit
writer, and a tax payer. I
appreciate the work of the city
council or county council. Uh,
and staff have done to solve
the road budget problem.
However, I am deeply concerned
about many of the proposed
allocations and what they say
about this county
s equity,
climate and affordability
goals. We need this levy
because the King County cannot
support its roads. So why does
the transportation need support?
Direct 17% of this tax to
expanding road capacity and
thus increasing that
maintenance bill, while barring
cities from actually trying to
solve the problem by improving
transit, especially when
transit riders are the lowest
income neighbors who are
already treated as second class
citizens. Doubling down on cars
and leaving transit behind is a
baffling decision, especially
while we face spiking gas
prices, rising cost of living,
and a deepening climate crisis.
There has been much said about
how Bryn Mawr Skyway and White
Center are in need of funding
for sidewalks and
accessibility, but this tax
only sends 4% of that funding
to them, while sending extra
funding to three of the
wealthiest cities in the state.
Seattle has one of the highest
poverty rates in the county and
sees most of or sees the most
people driving into the city
from out of its city limits,
causing road wear and
congestion. And yet this tax
targets Seattle and severely
limits its ability to handle
that disproportionate demand.
This tax is again necessary
because King County cannot
afford to maintain its existing
roads, but bars cities from
using the funding on reducing
car usage while funding the
expansion of road capacity. It
directs money towards
municipalities which need it
the least, and away from those
that need it the most. Thank
you.
The next name on the list is
Nick saddle.
Hello. Council members or
supervisors? My name is Nick
and my transit rider. I am with
the Trans Writers Union. Fix
delayed in central Seattle
streets for all. First, I
wanted to commend everyone for
all the work that they put on
this. You know, there
s
certainly access problems in
rural areas and maintaining the
road condition and maintaining
access and white Center Skyway
and improving our accessibility
needs are certainly problems
that we need to be fixing. But
there are a number of concerns
I have with the proposal. The
first one is that we
re using a
regressive tax for regressive
priorities, and the county
transportation needs assessment,
prepared by the Roads Division.
Most of the money, according to
that assessment, will be
shifted away from poorer areas
and into richer areas.
Specifically, only 4% of needs
are in white, center or Skyway.
Only 4% of needs are on
accessibility, almost 20% is
devoted to a category called
capacity expansion, which is
just widening roads, and even
more money is dedicated to
traffic improvements and things
that I would not call repaving
and maintaining the existing
network. Concretely, I urge you
to pass supervisor supervisor
Mosquito
s amendment to clarify
that this board is interested
in a metro funding amendment
and that we
re interested in
identifying the needs that
Metro has. Secondly, please
remove the 15% cap on Seattle,
the next largest city in King
County. Bellevue will not hit
that cap for over 100 years,
and it
s certainly a target on
the county
s largest city. And
more importantly, don
t block
this path through money from
being used on transit. As
previous commenters have said,
transit is one of the most
sustainable ways for people to
get around. And if cities want
to help out Metro, I don
t see
why we should stop them. Thank
you.
Chair Bill. Dutchie. That was
the last in-person sign up, but
I currently don
t have any
hands raised on the zoom. Oh,
we have one. Two.
Yeah. So just let me briefly
just give a notice to anybody
online because I don
t think I
said this at the beginning. If
you are online and want to give
public comment, please use the
raise hand function on your
zoom app. And I forget how to
do it. If you
re on a phone. Do
we have any phones? Excellent.
All right. So if you want to be
called upon, please raise your
zoom. Use the raise hand
function in zoom and we
ll call
on you for online public
comment. Same rules and
procedures apply. Please go
ahead.
The first name on the list is
Greenway Trust.
Good afternoon. I am Amy
Brockhaus, deputy director of
the Mountain Citizen Greenway
Trust, the nonprofit
organization that helps steward
the Mountains to sound.
Greenway National Heritage
Area, stretching from Puget
Sound in Seattle to central
Washington, including much of
rural King County. Thank you.
Chair Baldacci, vice chair,
frame supervisor Perry, and
Supervisor Dmowski for your
longstanding commitment to
securing sustainable funding
for King County Roads, roads,
and unincorporated King County
are essential to residents.
Recreation access, public
safety, tourism and local
economies. Nearly half of daily
trips on unincorporated roads
are taken by city residents,
and the current funding model
is clearly not sustainable. So
we truly, truly appreciate your
leadership and working toward a
better solution. I
m also here
today to thank you for
continuing to work
collaboratively with cities and
regional partners. The best
long term solutions are often
compromise solutions, and a
workable compromise is far
better than no solution at all.
So, on behalf of the Greenway
Trust, we all recognize this is
a long term challenge and we
deeply appreciate your
continued commitment to
preserving and funding the
transportation infrastructure
that communities across King
County depend on every day.
Thank you all very, very much.
The next name on the list is
Jonathan Gonzales. Uh.
Two more.
Hello, my name is Jonathan
Gonzalez. I
m an organizer with
Ballard Rail and a volunteer
with Ballard. Beyond Green
Streets. Over the past few
months, I
ve become more
involved with local transit
advocacy, in particular with
Sound Transit. And what I
ve
come to learn is that there
s
plenty of opportunity for
advocacy in our county as well.
i appreciate the dire need to
prepare our county roads. I
have friends that are trying to
raise a family in Skyway, and
I
ve seen the Broken Sidewalk
network in person. I see this
as a great opportunity to raise
funds so we can repair roads
and hopefully in the future,
expand transit onto them. To
that end, we need to make sure
that we are appropriately
prioritizing areas with the
highest needs. And
unfortunately, the current
resolution doesn
t specify
that. Um, of the amendments
proposed, I urge to start with
Councilmember Belushi
s
amendments. Um, that way, um,
other like if we
re going to be
giving pasture to cities, we
should um, it should be done in
a way that doesn
t sing out any
specific city. Um, for
instance, in Seattle, um, 4
million, uh, over the course of
a few years would be enough to
help pay for the Graham Street
infill station. Uh, and that
s
something that the city and the
county, um, from my
understanding, are committing
to completing. Uh, um, for that
reason, the pass for money
shouldn
t be limited
specifically to roadwork. I
appreciate all the care and
thought this committee is
putting into this resolution,
and hope you
ll consider our
perspectives at Seattle Lights
in your decisions. I
m happy to
pay additional taxes to help
the county. I just want to make
sure it
s serving the areas of
highest need. Thank you.
The next name on the list is
Joe Kunstler.
Joe, if you
re speaking, we
can
t hear you. Why don
t we
move on and come back to MR.
Counselor? Go ahead.
The next name on the list is
Robert Feldstein.
Robert, if you
re able, please
unmute yourself.
Can you hear me?
Okay, Joe, we can hear you.
Please hold a second. Uh,
Robert, we
re going to come
back to you. Uh, the prior
speaker is now unmuted. Uh,
MISTER Kunstler, please.
Thank you. Executive team.
Can you. MR. Felson, can we ask
you to wait for just one
second? Sorry for the for the
technical difficulties. I
m
going to ask MR. Kunstler.
Please go ahead.
Thank you. Joe. Counselor.
Here. Um, a lot to say in a few
minutes. But first, I really
think we don
t need to be
building any new highways or
roads. We need to take care of
the bridges we have. We also
need to have a naming program
for those bridges. Uh, for
instance, we need to pay
tribute to some of our great
public servants. Um, we need to
build a model, you know, like.
And we also need very much and
very badly to have some of this
district assist in building
light rail to Ballard and
building the infill stations.
Uh, it is important that the
Graham Street station be built
and that the Rainier Valley be
a safe place for everyone and
reliable for transit, in that
order. Um, I am well aware that
I have white male privilege,
and I want to address that as a
gentleman who wants a better,
more perfect union. As our
nation nears our 250th
birthday. Um, I also want to
add as well that we should have
light rail to Ballard, and the
Heidi Wheels station. Uh, which
would be a monument to one of
the greatest citizens of King
County. Uh, and we should, um.
Well, that
s a that
s a
comment, but, uh, you know, and
finally, I want to thank you
for all you do at, uh, just
hope that we can get a deal
passed that will protect
transit funding and protect
bridge funding. And, um, I will
let the next speaker go ahead.
Thank you.
The next name is Robert
Feldstein.
Uh, good afternoon, Robert
Felton. Sound cities
association. Thank you,
executive team, for your hard
and careful work on getting
this right. I know we
re
starting to tire. Uh, I want to
make a couple of points. First,
every city, no matter how
small, has basic needs that do
not scale proportionally down.
There
s no that. You cannot
break it down to 1/100 or one
tenth of the basic requirements
of reporting to state and
county and others, and the
basic needs of their things.
Even the smallest cities need a
fundamental lump to be able to
do something. Second, many of
the challenges brought up for
our unincorporated areas unsafe
streets, no sidewalks are
actually true for many of our
residents of our cities all
across the county. Third, I
ve
heard some say, well, the
cities should tax themselves.
What
s not caught in these
measures or measures of
population or tax base is
measures of the city
s ability
to tax themselves. Some cities,
one city MAY be is very able to
tax itself prodigiously, while
others struggle to raise even
basic public safety measures.
And every time the county
raises a tax. And this will be
the third sales tax in five
years, it makes it harder for
cities to raise the taxes
themselves to fix their
problems. The pass through to
our cities, and particularly
the smaller cities, recognizes
this actual truth of equity.
With all this in mind, we
support the Fain amendment and
urge the executive team to hone
this towards perfection so the
district can pass this at the
next vote, and we can move on
together on other issues.
Thanks for all you do.
Chair Bill Dutchie, there are
currently no hands raised on
the zoom.
Thank you. Uh, just checking
one last time. If there
s
anybody else who wanted to give
public comment but has not been
able to not. I can
t see the
zoom. I think everybody in
chambers has either spoken or
works for us. So we
re going to
move on and close public
comment. Um, first item on the
agenda is to talk about what,
uh, many of the commenters
alluded to, and that is what
happens next. And how do we,
uh, how do we go from where we
are to where we need to be? I
want to thank the folks who
have shared how important it is
for us to put out a clear
packet of materials, including
the resolution, which has been
well established and is on the
table, and then amendments
proposed to that resolution far
enough in advance of the
meeting that people can see
them, can react to them, can
give comment and we can take
action on that comment. And so
that
s part of the goal of
having this meeting here today
is to make sure that we
re
charting a clear path forward
with steps and dates that will
enable a, uh, a regular order
meeting with plenty of advance
time for people to be ready and
for us to be, um, uh, well
organized and not have it feel
like a rush. And I know that
it
s you can probably laugh and
say, what kind of a rush is
this? Uh, this is our third
meeting or fourth meeting on
this topic, but, um, I do feel
that a little bit more
diligence would make it feel
more. You know, we
re going to
decide on these policy issues
that people are giving to us
today. We
re going to make
decisions about them. But
people should, as I said
earlier, know what they
re
deciding. So, um, item five on
the agenda today is labeled as
a briefing, but it
s meant to
talk about, uh, the two
resolutions that are coming
before us and just chart a
path. And I want to ask your
forbearance, colleagues, I
m
going to talk a little bit. Um,
the first resolution is
proposed resolution td 2020
601. That is the resolution
that would impose a 10th of a
cent sales tax for roads. Um,
so we have had that in front of
us at our last couple meetings.
And at our last meeting, we had
a series of amendments
proposed. They have been
referenced today, but just as a
reminder, uh, amendment to a
was sponsored by a board
member, Fein. Uh, some of the
key provisions of that were
that it provided a pass through
of 12.5% by population for
local jurisdictions, created a.
Oh, boy, I
ve already forgotten
the acronym. You know, you
re a
real organization when you have
acronyms. You can
t remember.
The tip is stands for.
City Transportation Improvement
Program.
City Transportation Improvement
Program. Thank you. Nick, with
$10,000 minimum pass through
and a 15% maximum, that is just
a headline. That is not
everything that was into a. It
was a very detailed and
thoughtful amendment. We had
amendment 1 to 2, a uh, offered
by board member Barone, which
would have removed the 15%
maximum, uh, from amendment to
a. I myself offered a different
methodology for doing the
implementing the tax. That was
an amendment to b, which had a
12.5% pass through by
population without minimums or
maximums, and notably, uh,
asked for an offset to funding
already being received by a
city in my district, the city
of Bellevue, for a transit tax
increment financing proposal.
Separate from this, but which,
uh, as a policy matter, I feel
would be duplicated by both
allowing the tif and a full
sales tax pass through. Uh,
Councilmember Mosqueda offered
amendment three. Board member
Mosqueda offered amendment
three, which added a statement
in the warehouse Clauses that
made it clearer what we have
already stated, which is that
we recognize the funding needs
for transit and metro and
restated the intent of this
body to pursue transit funding
via a ballot measure in the
future, and then there were
technical changes in amendment
four. So after that meeting, uh,
I, I
m a board member. Fain and
I had a conversation about her
amendment because it seemed to
me that most of the stuff we
needed to do to advance this
was already into a, um, and so
I have asked board Member Fein
to convert amendment to a into
a striking amendment. I will
just, uh, with regard to our
lawyers, um, I will, uh, state
my I think it should have been
a strong amendment in the first
place. I
m sure you did, too.
But just procedurally, it just
makes more sense. I would
prefer to have a strike
imminent. So we
re going to ask
that to become s one. And it
will, uh, it will address a
number of these policy issues.
Uh, the 0.1 ten sales tax, the
pass through at 12.5% by
population. Uh, it will
continue to include, I presume,
a minimum and a maximum pass
through, which is the cap that
some of the folks have talked
to us about today. The city
Transportation Improvement
Program. Uh, the I have
requested that the striker
include the offset for the
Bellevue tif, um, which just of
interest, if anybody cares.
There
s a lot of information on
that in our pockets. Uh, the
bottom line is a lot of work
went into assessing how we
could do this offset correctly
and what the financial impact
was. And at the end of the day,
it amounts to about five point
something million dollars of
offset. So it
s not a huge
amount in the first ten years,
which is what this tax would be
for. But I thought it was the
better policy that Bellevue not
received. Both, uh, not that
the offset happened so that
this sales tax money, instead
of going to supplement Bellevue
project further, would be used
for roads in King County Roads
Division. So that
s about about
5.5 billion million million.
Sorry, I
ve been at Sound
Transit too long. 5.5 million
in uh, in the roads fund. Um,
there are there is language
about allowed uses for cities
and, uh, and I think in. No
that
s where I
m going to stop.
So I
m going to stop there.
That is I assume that there
will still be line amendments.
The goal would be and I
m going
to jump to the end, that we
publish the striking amendment.
Any striking amendments to
resolution one and two by close
of business this Friday, day
after tomorrow, MAY 29th, with
line amendments offered by
Tuesday, JUNE 2nd. Publishing
an amendment packet fully uh,
established by Friday, JUNE
5th, to be taken up by the
board on Friday, JUNE 12th,
which would give members of the
public and of this board a week
to to see what we are taking
up. And I just feel like that
is that is going to be a much
more orderly process if we do
it that way. So that is a lot
of talking. I
m going to pause
there. And just first of all,
I
d like to offer, uh, Vice
Chair Fain an opportunity to
speak for herself. I spoke a
lot for her. And so. No. Okay.
She has nothing to add. Any
questions for me? For staff?
Does this make sense,
colleagues, the point of an
executive committee is to help
chart the path. Does it make
sense? Board member Perry, you
look like you might have a
question.
I think I might have a
question. Thank you. Uh, chair.
Chair Balducci at my board
member. I
m a supervisor. My
supervisor. Okay. Um, so I need
to understand in the striker.
Are we intending? And this is
to you. And also, uh, maybe
Council Member Fein, are we
intending to remove the 15% cap
from the striker?
I will say we had this
discussion, and my
understanding is that the
striker will continue to
include the 15% cap, and
therefore, I expect there will
be a line amendment similar to
a board member Baron
s
amendment that will seek to
strip the 15% cap out, and we
will make that policy decision
by vote. That is my
speculation. I am speculating,
okay, okay. But it will remain
in the striker, is my
understanding. Yes.
And I don
t want to be looking
at me. I don
t want to open a
can of worms, but I do want to
ask a question. The 10,000
minimum. Where does that come
from?
I will, uh, cede the floor, if
you will. If you
ll take a
question. Board member Fein.
The goal was to ensure that we
could make, uh, lift all of the
boats in the water. And so, uh,
the 10,000 was an an amount
that, um, everyone could live
with that I spoke with, um,
local services, and, um, you
and others in unincorporated
areas, and it was a careful
balance to not give super small
towns that maybe don
t have the
same level of need as the
larger ones. An excess amount
of funding where it didn
t make
sense, but it really allowed
them to do some pretty basic
projects that they otherwise
would might struggle to do. So,
um, okay.
Thank you. That makes sense. A
follow up question is that all
right? Um, so I know asphalt
costs the same in Skykomish as
it does in Seattle or wherever.
Bellevue. Um, and that
s that
s
a challenge because I know that
we have 1500 miles of
unincorporated roads saying,
What
s Canada to Mexico? We
know that. And we know that the
$100 million that local
Services has in their budget is
one third of what they need.
And so they
re just meeting
basic needs of safety, potholes
going to be out of money in
2028 completely. And so none of
the cities are out of money.
Right. And so they
re going to
be out of money. And this is a
way to keep, uh, the basically
keep the lights on or the
potholes filled is what we
re
trying to do. We
re not trying
to do more than that. And then
the cities wanted to have a
certain percent. So we
re
trying to do something to
support that as well. With this
12.5, 12.5%. Yeah. With a 15%
cap. Um, my understanding is
that we can the cities can bank
if they have a project in mind,
they can bank that 10,000 a
year toward that project. Is
that correct?
So let me just, uh, let me just
declare my intent to, uh, just
not impose too strict an
interpretation of Robert
s
Rules here. As long as it is
comfortable for members, we can
have a discussion. Yes. Okay.
Go ahead.
All right. Thank you. Chair.
Thank you. For making sure
we
re keeping it clean.
Here.
So the goal is not to allow
cities to build up reserves. If
there is a project that is, um,
and we
ve we
ve created the
term timely and we will and
we
ll get to this soon. Need to
put together some
administrative procedures as a,
as a body, as a governing body
later to decide what that
means. The way that I
structured it was to allow
cities, if they have a timely
project to contribute to. This
is not intended to be their
sole source of transportation
funding. This is to assist
where they MAY not be able to
close that gap. Um, without. So
we
re not allowing banking of
dollars to to put towards
future projects, though many
cities do that. This is
intended to if you have a use
this year, it could be a
multi-year project. But there
s
something pending or ready to
go, or close to ready to go,
and this will help it get over
the finish line. They can do
that if they don
t have a
project that they can use it
on, they can either say, no, we
we don
t have a project, in
which case those dollars would
go straight to roads or as a
governing body. Later we,
whoever
s governing it, whether
it
s or the county, we would
say, um, you haven
t yet used
those funds on a project. If
you don
t have something
pending or it
s not ready to
go, we
re going to take those
funds back and either give it
to a city who does have a
pending project that we could
help with, or to roads. And at
every turn, I tried to return
money to roads. And I think at
the end of the day, roads will
receive more than 87.5%.
Okay. Thank you very much. And
thank you, chair.
And I would like to at this
point, just point to the packet
that has been provided. There
is a flow chart within that
packet that shows, uh, the ways
pass through works for various
different proposals. And it
doesn
t it doesn
t show what
happens. Exactly. But if you
see, uh, looking under
amendment two way, which is the
leftmost column down towards
the bottom, uh, you see the
red, uh, decision point that
says timely spending. And if
the answer is no, then the blue
box reclaimed money goes to
roads or cities with project
capacity. And that is a
decision point for this board.
Uh, or for us to delegate. But
we would have to adopt some
kind of rule or administrative
procedure to make that
decision. When the time comes.
It
s not automatically made in
this resolution. Yeah.
Okay. One more question.
Please go.
Ahead.
Okay. Go ahead. Uh, board
member Perry, continue.
Thank you. Chair Balducci. And
for the purpose of Robert
s
Rules, we don
t have
discussions back and forth on
the dais. It
s usually directed
to you. Is that. Help me with
that?
Yeah. Robert
s rules says that
questions should be directed to
the chair or the staff. Uh,
but, uh, you know, an executive
committee like this, if we held
it in a different room with a
conference table and said this
dais, it would probably feel
better to just have discussion
and debate here with my gavel
and all the cameras and the
lights, I feel like I need to
tell Robert
s Rules. But I have
now decided to allow as long as
everyone
s comfortable having
discussion, we can have
discussion. Okay.
Very good. Thank you. Thank you
very much. Um, so establish the
the that the limit the caps in
there. Um, and that this five
year is based on this and, and
a, a determining body about
what that would look like. Um,
as to where it would be, how it
would be used. It is
transportation infrastructure
specific. Correct reason for
that is we
re looking at a
different voter approved levy
in the future, potentially to
address the the gaping hole
that might come for transit.
And this is specifically about
roads, because they do not have
any other option and they
re
out of money. And in those
smaller towns, they can
t pay
for asphalt with this 10,000,
they
d have to add to whatever
their goal was or something
else. So this could be used by
larger and smaller towns for
pedestrian lanes, for bike
lanes, for bus structures,
stops, benches. What is the
thinking here?
The idea of, uh, directing this
funding to infrastructure? Um,
roads, sidewalks, Ada
improvements, crosswalks, all
of the things that support, um,
our roads and our, um, ability
to transport on metro, um,
throughout the county. Was that
we as a body early on? Um,
whether informally or formally,
we did both decided to focus on
providing money to our roads
and infrastructure because and
I have adopted, I think, in
full and we
ll finalize that
here by Friday. Um, board
member mosquitoes language. I
had it in mind, but she has
really, um, signified our
intent to pursue legislation to
get more for, uh, transit
services. So metro services, we
have not brought Metro into
this discussion since a number
of months ago. I think it would
be unwise to throw them in now
without getting their input. We
can
t commit service hours
without engaging with Metro,
and we want to do it in a
really meaningful way. And we
certainly here, um, everything
from our transit riders, we are
we want to meet that need in a
truly meaningful way and not
pull out money from roads and
infrastructure and do a little
bit here and there. We want it
to be a really strong measure.
With input from Metro. Make
sure we
re getting to the
service gaps, make sure we
re
really doing it in a meaningful
way. Um, and so that is the
intent to just focus on roads
in our infrastructure now and
then. Do I really carefully
well planned Metro Transit
investment. Um, here very soon.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you chair.
Thank you. I just want to add
one thought to this
conversation. And that is just
for the purpose of the public.
Um, we
re charting a path here
forward, but we
re not making a
recommendation as a committee.
And we
re definitely not taking
action here today as a
committee. So what
s being
described in this back and
forth is the intent and the
language that is that will be
that you
ll see in the in the
new striking amendment, there
will absolutely be other
amendments proposed. I know
that Council Member Barone and
I will speak for myself. Uh,
will probably advocate for
removal of the cap to 15% cap.
And I personally am likely to
propose that we allow the
broadest possible range of
uses, although I
m convinced
that infrastructure is the
right focus for this funding as
opposed to service. I. I
personally don
t see the need
to restrict the uses to roads
only if you
re if your transit
projects if the eight the fix
to the eight in Seattle needs
some capital infrastructure, I
don
t see why they shouldn
t be
able to spend that. That said,
i just want to say, and this is
entirely at the public eye, I
know my colleagues understand
this. Um, especially for the
larger cities, this money will
come in as a supplement to
already existing transportation
budgets, and there is no
prohibition on sub
supplementation means you can
take this and supplant it for
that. So if Seattle had money
for a road project somewhere
and they got some of this money
and they want to put it into
something that is
infrastructure for transit,
they could just swap those two
things out. They will have the
ability to do that anyway. That
is, go ahead.
I know that board member
Belsky.
I would like to patiently.
But I just wanted to add to
what you said are correct. If
you intended it, these funds
can be used for transit
infrastructure. They cannot be
used for service.
As as proposed. That
s right.
So I just wanted to make sure.
Thank you. Yeah. No, no I had I
had missed.
Super clear on that.
Thank you I appreciate that.
Board member okay. Board member
Dmowski, you
re up.
Thanks so much for all the work
on this. Just as a preview. And
it sounds like maybe
Councilmember Belushi will.
Sorry, I
m what? Supervisor
Boardman Council, you
re always
a council member. It
s always
safe, right? I would just say
if if Councilmember Balducci
has prepared the amendment to
eliminate the restrictions into
a for uses, I would be
supportive of that. And I would
ask that it be prepared for one
of us to bring forward. I
m
happy to co-sponsor or support
your leadership on it.
We
ll include you in.
The work. Okay. I don
t need to
be. I don
t even need. It
s
quite simple. I think what I,
what I would just my interest
would be is just if it
s
allowable under the rcw
authorizing these funds, allow
it one for the flexibility. But
two, I see 39 applications
coming in that would require
review by human beings of
projects year after year after
year to see perhaps if they
qualify. And I don
t see that
as a big value add. Um, I
think, you know, we
ve got
competent leadership in our 39
cities for the most part, just
if we
re doing this passed
through, send them the money,
let them put it into their
bucket and spend it like it
just it
s an efficiency thing.
It
s not even very much money,
you know, it
s like, what
s
12.5 million bucks a year or
something like that countywide.
So I would that
s just where
I
m, I
m at. I appreciate
Councilmember Fein
s philosophy
there and approach, but I would
just I would just lean toward
devolving that responsibility
to the to the local recipients.
Most of them wouldn
t use it
for service, except probably
the city of Seattle, which
would have a big enough check
where they might want to.
Right? The other ones are
pretty small. I would let, I
would, I would just be
supportive of letting them use
that as much as they want. Um,
let
s see. Other item. Let
s
see.
Other are the resolution number
two.
Oh no, I mean it
s in your the
cap. I probably would take the
cap off. I could see some cap,
you know, but I think the 15%
might be a little too, too much
penalty to the city of Seattle.
I don
t know where you draw it,
but I would probably lean in
favor of no cap. But if there
was some cap that would give
them a little more return than
the than the haircut they
re
getting, I would be supportive
of that.
And this is where I
m just
going to interject a moment to,
again, draw attention to some
of the excellent work that has
been done by our staff and
provided to us. There is a
large spreadsheet that shows
the amount of funding that
would pass through to various
all the various cities under
the different proposals before
us, and the difference to the
city of Seattle with the cap,
uh, the amount they would
receive would be $1.9 million
rounded, in. Is that in a year,
or is that in ten years? No,
that
s that
s in a year. One
year. And then, uh, without a
cap, um, it is uh, over 4.5,
$4.6 million. So it
s
significant. And we will have a
policy discussion about that.
And not we
re not asked for a
recommendation today. I think
we
re just speaking to be
transparent to the public about
where our inclinations are
headed.
Yeah. Okay. Now I
m remembering
apologize. It
s we
re doing a
lot with the budget here. But
on the I, I would I would be
more favor I would be more in
favor of supporting a model
that we
re familiar with here
in our parks. Levy pass through
to where a jurisdiction could
decline to take their $10,000
one year and accumulate it. I
m
not sure. Um, why we wouldn
t
let them accumulate it or just
pass it through. You know, I
think if we don
t put a bunch
of restrictions on it, it
ll
just be a check issued. And
maybe that isn
t even an issue.
I think it MAY become an issue
if we put up, make them prove
that it
s a viable or viable
ready to go and qualifying
project. They MAY not want to
deal with that and not take it,
but if we don
t have those
restrictions, the money seems
like it could just flow based
on population.
Uh, my understanding is that
the amendment provides for
that, no board member fails.
Speak to it.
So a couple things. One is that
I really wanted to minimize the
level of administrative burden
on the city. So what we
ve done
is say that we will have a
standardized Ila, that cities
will agree to, and it is not
going to be amended. It
s not
going to be negotiated every
year with 39 cities. We will
have a standardized Ila. They
can take it or leave it. If
they decline it. The money goes
to roads. The reason I did not
allow for an accumulation of
the pass through funding is
because of what, uh, board
Member Perry will remind us of
is that roads needs funding.
And so the default at every
turn was to make sure that we
are getting money to roads. And
so if a city isn
t ready to use
money, if a city can
t, um,
doesn
t need it, then the money
can go to roads and we can
really get them more than the
87.5%. So what this does is it
helps close the gap on
transportation projects for
cities who can
t pass taxes,
because we at the county tend
to do that for them. Um, and it
allows them to finish some
projects. Uh, but also our goal
here as the transportation
District is to make sure that
we are funding our
unincorporated roads. And so I
didn
t want to allow cities to
bank dollars when we have
immediate needs right now in
unincorporated areas.
Again, I think it largely
resolves itself if we eliminate
the con construction, construct
constriction, conscription
about what you can use it for,
if it
s if it
s any purpose out
of the statute, we just send
them. They don
t have to submit
an application on a detailing
the project. Okay. Is that the
kind of amendment you
re
thinking of? Councilmember,
Balducci?
Uh, yes. I like the way you
framed it, actually, uh, if you
allow a description under cw,
it would be an allowable use of
these funds, in my view. And I
know that this is this is not
something that we are unanimous
on. And I don
t know if it
s
going to pass, but I think it
is a policy debate that we will
have at the full board. Yeah.
Board member Perry, please go
ahead.
Thank you. Chair Banducci, I
appreciate the the dialogue and
the comments. It
s nice to have
this on the with with my
colleagues. Um, I wouldn
t
support, uh, you know,
something that did not reflect
that the money, the taxes that
we are using for a road use tax
could be used for anything.
That
s not something that I
could get behind. And I think
the city
s, uh, certainly, you
know, we we have a lot of work
to do as legislators to be the,
the check and balance of the
executive programs. And we are
doing our level best to do
that. We are bringing these
dollars in, and we
re
accountable for the dollars.
And it seems that, uh, using
this for anything at all goes
against the basic idea that
that the intention is to
support our very dire
circumstances. And Seattle has,
I don
t know, 3/10 of a percent
coming in tax and is very
generous with itself and is
going to pass. They will have
140 million a year. Uh, coming
in very short order for this
very thing. And so there they
have the ability to fund it is
regressive. These are all
regressive. It is unfortunate
that those are the only two
tools of, um, allowed to us by
the state at this point. But
that
s what we have. And so
they
ll have 140 million the
other cities who need it
desperately around them. And
unincorporated the other cities
will not be able to fund that
in any way at that level. And
so to to have that cap in
service of the intention of the
roads that the cities that
choose not to put forward a
project, um, which I just can
t
see that the cities wouldn
t
avail themselves of the
funding, but if they chose not
to, that that funding would go
back to the roads is in keeping
with the point and the mission
and the intention of this, uh,
roads tax to begin with. I mind
you, I am very happy with
unincorporated roads receiving
all of the funding because it
is the only entity that will be
out of funding completely by
2028. None of the other cities
are in this situation. However,
I see that Sound City
s
approach of the 12.5 works and
allows for some funding. Again,
they will not be out of
funding, which is why so many
are, I think, being very
supportive of it. So, um, if we
want to keep with the intention
of the ordinance that we
re
trying to put forward, then the
funds not used need to go back
to the roads department to use
as they will. Thank you.
Thank you. Board member.
Please continue very briefly.
Um, just to reiterate my I
think the main point I would
have on that is 39 annual
applications. Saying what
you
re going to do with it
requires spending on overhead.
And I think the value I don
t
have a problem with that, a lot
of cases, but the dollars
aren
t worth it here. So I
would just if we just pass it
through, let them do it. The
second thing I would say we
haven
t talked about is I think
Seattle is paying 40 some
percent of this in terms on the
generation side, and there is a
political issue to be aware of.
We try as a region to kind of
work together and be aware of
those things, and you don
t
want to leave a particular
jurisdiction with some hurt
feelings that could make policy
work in other areas
challenging, you know, people
just watch that. So I there
s a
large transfer of resources
from the incorporated
communities to the
unincorporated roads. Under
this proposal. This is some
kind of solving. I won
t call
it a wound. That
s the wrong
analogy, but a little bit of a
little bit of softening of the
blow. Um, and so I think that
would be also why I would
probably drop the cap on
Seattle just gives a little
back to them.
Yeah.
We
re getting a bit.
Yeah. Somebody
s microphone is
acting up. Um, uh, I think that
the, the benefit of having had
multiple bites at this Apple on
the policy issues is I think
the policy issues are pretty
well developed and people have
their different opinions about
them. Uh, before I move on to
the next agenda item, though, I
want to make sure that, uh,
board member Fayne has said
everything that she wanted to
say.
I would say that, um, I don
t
want us to get too caught up in
the applications by the cities.
It really is intended to be,
uh, Ila, here
s what you can
use the dollars on. Go forth
and do it. And unless as we get
to the governance level, we
decide to micromanage their
projects and really check on
them. We will be doing that.
But it won
t be a yes. You can
use it for this. No, you can
t
use it for that. It
s really
broad, except you can
t use it
on transit service hours. But
really the the intent again is
to trust our partners, work
with them. They all have
transportation plans that have
been approved and are, um, you
know, uh, allowed under the
statute. So I try to minimize
any of that level of management
and, but just, just just to
keep it as simple as possible.
Um, and then, yeah, we can
debate equity all day. I would
just share that part of the
driver for me is that this is a
really regressive tax. Um, a
lot of folks in my district and
surrounding areas have moved
out of Seattle because it is so
expensive, and yet many have to
continue to come to Seattle for
work for hospital, um, health
care services, for all of the
needs and resources that
continue to remain in Seattle.
And yet they have to get there.
And so I think that I hear you
and I did not want to exclude
Seattle in any way, but I
certainly wanted to provide as
much balance with all of these
considerations as possible. Um,
and achieve the level of
comfort I could get with our,
um, colleagues who represent
unincorporated areas, with
local services, with the
executive
s office. So it was a
carefully thought through, um,
number. And I think we
ve now
discussed this fully,
thoroughly.
Let
s not bring horses into it.
But, uh, no, no, no, no.
I just meant I just was hoping
to get the amendments prepared
and give a preview. Not
surprise anybody. I
m sorry. I
got a little one.
That is the. That is the
absolute goal of this meeting.
And I. And I feel that we are
meeting our goal because we
ve
we
ve grounded ourselves in
what the striker is going to
include. And that enables us to
then go forward with line
amendments. And nobody should
be surprised when we get to the
next meeting, because my goal
is that we vote at that
meeting. Yeah. Thank you. Thank
you all seriously for this
discussion. I mean, that, um,
I
m ready to move on to the
next agenda item. And this one
is, uh, about the, uh, kind of
the alternatives for kicked in
next steps. Um, it has been
brought up a number of
different times and a number of
places that, um, the moment we
vote to adopt a tax, we are
then going to be, uh,
anticipating funds, but we will
be a funded organization in the
not distant future. And there
is work that we have to do to
get ready to receive those
funds, uh, regardless of
whether we choose to remain as
an independent agency for the
long term, for some shorter
period of time, or merge
immediately, there
s work to be
done. And so I have asked and
staff have prepared, uh, it
says it
s a memo and it
s on
page ten of the packet.
Unfortunately, I
m working off
of, uh, random papers is when
you say memo, do you mean this
chart? Okay, so this is
beautiful chart. Uh, that we
have it
s two pages long and
it
s called potential next
steps for independent td to
implement roads funding
measure. So.
Um.
We
ve had our team work very
diligently to try to identify
the immediate steps that are
required. Um, this does not yet
chart out the immediate steps
that would be required if we
were choosing to merge. So that
is sort of like decision one.
Do we stay independent for a
period of time? For a long
time? For a short time? Um, and
then what do we do if then and
I just want to preface all of
this by saying, uh, we have had
some amazing county council
staff who legislative branch
staff who have been carrying
this separate branch of
government on their backs. Uh,
we I
ve sent a formal letter
signed by myself, and I don
t
recall if I asked the vice
chair to sign, but I signed it
to the chair of the King County
Council and to the county
executive, asking them to track
the expenditures. You know, the
the debt, if you will, that we
are accumulating by using time
and resources of King County,
because we are not King County
when we sit here as the King
County Transportation District,
so that we can, uh, rightly pay
for these services. But we
re
going to need at least a
consultant almost immediately
to help us figure out our next
steps and implement them
correctly. Um, I
m a little off
script here, but I
m just going
to say, and if anybody wants to
interject, please wave or say
something. But I think that we
should probably plan as an
executive committee to, uh, to
ask the board to empower us to
do a scope of work and some
kind of procurement to get that
consultant on board. And then
we will have somebody whose job
it is immediately. And, you
know, for whatever amount of
time and money it takes to help
us chart this path forward,
because it
s detailed what we
have to do, we have to do
accounting. We have to have
legal advice. We have to, uh,
we if we we could choose to be
an existing agency that mainly
just passes through money and
does very little else. That
still requires resources. And
we We need to be accountable.
We need to pass audits. We need
to be effective. We could
choose to be slightly more
operational, like the flood
control district is more
operational, but doesn
t do its
own projects, doesn
t have its
own crews. Like we contract for
all of the real project work
and operational work with King
County Water and Land Division.
Or we could choose not my
preference, but we could choose
to become a fully, fully blown
transportation type
organization that does
projects. I mean, that makes
very little sense in light of
the fact that we already have a
roads division. But these are
this is the option that or we
could just simply merge this
organization into King County,
and then it just becomes
another funding source that is
that is proposed by the
executive, adopted by the
council, budgeted by the
council. But it is going to
take work no matter which
course we choose. It
s going to
take work and it
s going to
take resources. And so I don
t
know, is there something that
we should be trying like? I
think we should ask the. I
think at the JUNE 12th meeting,
we should ask the board to
authorize this executive
committee to move forward with
the with the procurement
process for a consultant. And
that would be my plan. But let
us open it up for discussion.
Let me first ask staff, do you
have anything more you want to
say? Go ahead.
So I
ll just jump in with a
couple points. Um. Thank you.
Chair Balducci, I
m Mary Berg,
and I
m from the council staff.
So as you noted, if you approve
a funding measure, your first
choice is do you wish to choose
to be assumed into King County,
for which there is a process
that would be first initiated
by the Council through
ordinance, or alternatively, if
this body wishes to remain
independent, there are a series
of both substantive and
administrative tasks to be
undertaken. The second
resolution, that is, before you
td 2020 602, covers the
substantive end, meaning that
it would ask the executive to
develop an implementation plan
in Ila for how the substantive
work would be carried out with
the revenues. The work focused
on roads, as well as any pass
through to cities. There would
also be a number of
administrative tasks to set up
this entity. To be able to
essentially take in and then,
you know, effectively disburse
about $100 million a year. Many
of those tasks are outlined in
the timeline that is before you
on page ten of your packets.
Um, staff have also started
collecting the contracts that
were used and executed by both
the ferry district, the former
ferry district, and the flood
control district when both in
their early days sought
consultant support to help them
start up. And so we do have
language available from those
past documents that could guide
an rfp. And I will finally
close by noting that initial
conversations with legal
counsel indicate that while
this executive committee could
operate as a committee in, say,
developing an rfp and, you
know, moving forward with a
number of administrative tasks,
any, for instance, um, formal
resolution to authorize
proceeding with a contract
would have to be done by the
full board. So there would have
to be some balance between what
this committee could do and
what the full board would have
to do.
I understand.
That. Understood. Thank you.
And that
s super helpful. And I
not surprising at all that you
couldn
t authorize a subset of
the district to go in contract
with somebody. But if we could,
if we could put a put out the
procurement as opposed to
waiting for a month to get
approval to put out the
procurement, or having to have
a special meeting to do that,
that would be super helpful. It
would be helpful if we could,
uh, take the next little bit
working towards a
recommendation that then the
full board would vote on. Does
that seem like a process that
we could follow? Being nodding,
nobody
s jumping up to say I
can
t. So I
m going to assume
that we can. Board member
Dunbar, uh, do you have a
question or comment?
Um, if we weren
t, if we adopt,
if it
s adopted, the resolution
imposing the tax, we wouldn
t
start collecting it until
JANUARY 1st. We wouldn
t
receive the first payment until
later that first quarter of
next year. So we might have we
might be able to take this
issue up when we meet to adopt
the tax in terms of issuing a
potential rfp, if we could get
general authority from the
board rather than kind of jump
out ahead of them, if that
s
what I was hearing. But I might
have misheard you.
But let me ask the question
back, because I think we
re
saying the same thing, but i
m
not sure. So let me just say
that my suggestion would be
that at the meeting on JUNE
12th, if the measure to adopt
the tax passes, that we then
proceed to have an agenda item
where we ask the board for
authorization for this
executive committee to create a
scope of work in a procurement
process that we could put out
into the world, but not close
without the vote of the full
board.
That makes sense to me.
Yeah. Okay.
Thanks. Without, without. I
ll
just say, maybe for the record,
I would tend to lean. Having
not fully thought about it and
heard my heard the dialogue,
but I would tend to lean toward
perhaps doing the ferry
district type merger into the
county for this particular
entity. But I
m open to having
my mind changed. I
m really
kind of I know we
re going to
look at the cost, but you
mentioned, you know, the
accountants and the lawyers and
the staff and and just, you
know, we just didn
t think
about it.
There was a little bit of
analysis attempted. It
s really
hard to do because it
s hard to
know. Looking at the executive
branch, what exact costs, say,
if you were to compare the
flood control district to, uh,
a government function that is
fully merged into the executive
branch. Some of the people who
are working on the flood
control work in, uh, in the
water land division would do
that work regardless of whether
there was a flood control
district or not. So that
s not
duplicative costs. Some of it
is duplicative. In the example
I like to use as lawyers,
because I
m a former lawyer, I
don
t just like to pick on
lawyers. It
s just something I
know a little bit about. Uh, so
sometimes with the flood
control district, you
ll have a
lawyer for the flood control
district and a lawyer for water
and land. And those two things
are different. They
re working
on different projects. They
re
giving advice about different
things. It would happen on both
sides of the fence, regardless
of the structure of the
government. Sometimes they
re
working on the same thing, and
one of them
s advising the
flood control district and the
other one
s advising the, uh,
the executive branch, water and
land. And that
s duplicative.
And you could do away with that
by merging. So the analysis is
tough because you asked for it
did not go unnoticed that you
asked for a fiscal note. And so
there was some attempt to try
to do that, but it proved to be
a little bit difficult. So, um,
yeah.
Please go ahead. Share. The
flood district is probably a
more expensive example than
what we would have here,
because frankly, it
s got the
advisory groups and the exact
committee, and they actually do
a fair bit of project selection
and advancement, even though
it
s contracted out. There
s
actually a fair bit of staff
work that goes into working
with the, you know, a lot of
work there. This feels leaner,
even if it
s kept as a separate
government. But there probably
are some costs. So I.
Agreed I think that
s correct.
And I also think that staff
reached for the comparison that
was closest to hand to to
compare to the Marine Division
would have required an
archaeological dig that goes
back about ten years or so
anyway. So board member Perry,
please go ahead.
Thank you. Chair I I
m
undecided right now about
whether the county should
assume a tbd and county or
remain independent. I don
t
have enough information, and I
appreciate the work that the
staff has done to bring the
information forward. But I
still don
t have really a sense
of it. Um, what that comparable
is. And so 2% from flood, as
council member mentioned, is
crazy money. It
s a lot of
money. We don
t need that money
for this. It would be very
helpful if the staff would put
together a side by side
comparison of what is
anticipated as costs compared
to what
s going on with the
structure of the flood. If
something like that would be
available, like as a
hypothetical, that would be
really helpful. Is that.
Well, the difficult part with
that is that flood has an
approved Ila, of which then the
cost is are built off. The
kicked does not have that Ila.
That
s what resolution 2020 602
is requesting. And so it
s
difficult to understand or
estimate what administrative
costs would be without knowing
what the actual administrative
functions of the case are going
to be going forward.
One thing I would add, I
probably wasn
t clear about
this is my suggestion would be
that we passed if we pass a tax
at the next meeting, part of
the reason to proceed to hire a
consultant who would be an
organizational consultant, not
a lawyer, somebody who
understood how to set up and
run a governmental organization
would be to ask that person to
work with us and walk us
through this decision process.
What are the policy
implications? What are the cost
implications to tee that up in
a way that we could take it on?
Thankfully.
I think the issue for me is
that we are trying to raise
money for the roads. We are
trying to raise money for the
roads, so I don
t want to add
to the burden, the cost for
administration or whatever,
whatever, um, might take us
beyond in a more in a less
efficient way that would take
funding away from the roads
that needs the funding. And so
I, I would like to see that
breakout and working with
somebody who can help us do
that in a smart way. Um, but
ultimately, I would support
whatever is the would take the
least amount of money away from
roads so they can give us the
basic safety, safety focus that
we need. Thanks.
Um, one thing I forgot to say
that Nick just reminded me of
is just to remind us all that
there is a second resolution
that will be before the, uh,
the full board on the 12th. It
is proposed resolution td 2026.
Uh, zero two. That would ask
the executive to develop an
implementation plan and an
interlocal agreement to present
to the board and the county
council, because they
d have to
both would have to approve to
guide how the work would be
carried out. Uh, there was a
striking amendment already
developed to add some
clarification. I just want to
say that we probably need to
replace that striking
amendment, which was called
s-1, with a new one, s2, uh,
for a couple of reasons. One,
there were line amendments
proposed by council members.
Mosqueda, board members
Mosqueda and Perry, both of
which, uh, I think are good
additions, and I would like to
include them in the striker.
And secondly, we might want to
rewrite this a little bit to
make sure that we are pointing
towards the direction we
ve
been discussing about the
future work. I mean, we don
t
want to hold off on asking for
the implementation plan for the
money, but we also don
t want
to tie our hands about what our
decision is about function. And
there might need to be a little
bit of tweaking of the language
to leave the options open. So
with that, I plan to continue
working with staff and legal
counsel between now and the end
of the of next meeting on the
steps the board have to take to
authorize the Executive
committee to take the next
step. And I
m going to say next
steps. We
re really stepping
this out. Um, but it would be
an interesting problem to have
standing up an organization to
a fund, a set of needs that we
have not funded adequately for
a very long time. All right.
That brings me to the end of
this agenda item. Unless
there
s any more questions or
discussions, sounds like we
have a plan. I want to say,
just again, for the record,
thank you. Well, thank you,
first of all, to, um, Board
Member Fein, who has taken on
quite a laboring or, uh, and I
mean, at the risk of sounding a
little defensive, I
m going to
say I
m very proud of board
Member Fein, and I
m going to
pat myself on the back just a
little bit. I have zero
unincorporated roads in my
district, and she has very
little, and we
re doing a lot
of work. Y
all.
And let the and let the people
say thank you.
There I was begging for that
compliment. Thank you so much.
All right. Um.
Just say something to that
effect.
Please.
Go ahead. I just I want to
recognize as somebody who has
1000mi of King County
s
2300mi in my district. So
almost half of King County in
my district and 500 of the
miles of unincorporated road
that we
re talking about here.
Um, and so many in South King
County were affected by the
flood. We have an inordinate
amount of impact from fires,
floods, bomb cyclones and all
kinds of things. And so I see
it a lot. I see it just a lot
of it. And our people are
struggling in these cases. And,
and it it is very gratifying to
be up here among just a couple
of us between Councilmember
Dunn
s district and mine. We
re
at 150,000 people living in
unincorporated King County. And
that
s rural, unincorporated.
And then we have urban,
unincorporated, a sky Skyway,
and North Highline, which is, I
think 11,000 for Skyway. And
it
s a total of maybe 15,
20,000 folks in there. They
have different needs, but we
really, really need this
support. And to have the
support of both. Councilmember
Fein, Councilmember Dombrowski,
who who I we schemed together
on this so long ago. And, uh,
Chair Balducci, it really I
really, really appreciate the
fact that all three of you are
located in very urban spaces.
Thank you.
Yeah. No, that
s fair. And I
want to I want to add that as
well that there
s been, uh, all
all of us here have lifted this
work up through effort in the
last two years. And I feel good
that we are getting close to a
decision. I think that
s the
important part, is that we get
to the decision. All right. Um,
so thank you for a very
productive discussion today.
Uh, as we discussed, uh, we
re
going to guide the development
of the striking amendment. And,
uh, the updated striker to, uh,
s1 and s2. Uh, I
m going to
take the laboring aura on s2.
We
re going to continue to use
council board Member Fein
s
amendment as the basis for s1.
And just reiterate, uh, we
re
going to publish today this
following schedule striking
amendments, both of them, uh,
to be issued this Friday, MAY
29th. Line amendments asked for
by, uh, close of business
Tuesday, JUNE 2nd. Full packet
of amendments published by
close of business on Friday,
JUNE 5th for a meeting of the
full board to be held on
Friday, JUNE 12th. Uh, we don
t
have an exact time yet. We
re
working with offices to try to
get a time board member.
Domestic. I
m sorry to go back,
but I have a question on that
damn Bellevue tif thing and how
it interacts about it. This.
Could someone explain to me?
And sorry for swearing, but
it
s I kind of run around it.
Are we are we penalizing
Bellevue in this pass through
the way the legislation is
expected to come forward
because we worked with them on
a wholly different thing to
fund the grand connection.
Uh, as a representative of
Bellevue. Let me let me.
Is maybe.
A and. The word sponsor of, of
this language. Um, I do not
believe that we are because
there
s and there
s a
spreadsheet, and I would be
happy to walk through it or to
more, uh, more happy to offer
Mary Bourguignon to walk you
through it. You
ll see if you
look at it, Bellevue is
eligible for by the terms of
the tif legislation adopted by
the King County Council,
they
re eligible to up to $30
million capped. Yes. They will
receive $30 million. Okay. No
matter how we do this. Okay.
The question is, when it does
happen more quickly under one
scenario, a little more slowly.
With this scenario and the
bigger question in my mind is
about where does their funding
come from? So under the tif
legislation, there is an offset
that if and we adopted this as
proposed by the executive, if
Bellevue were to receive a
sales tax pass through by that
ordinance, it offsets the tif.
So they get.
Up to the part of the deal they
negotiate.
It
s just part of the deal.
This now creates a this is the
complicated part, a kind of,
uh, infinity loop of offsets.
Oh, uh, where some of the sales
tax.
Doesn
t really matter.
Some of it doesn
t pass through
to Bellevue and remains in the
roads Fund. And the benefit of
that is more money to roads
division. They will still
receive enough pass through,
nevertheless, that it will
trigger the offset of property
tax. Nevertheless, they
ll get
to get their $30 million at the
end of the day. And I have
talked to them extensively
about this. And while they
re
not going to come down and say,
yes, please do this complicated
thing, they
re not objecting to
it, okay?
It won
t affect their ability
to issue the debt and all of
that because.
Of also they have the choice,
the same choice that every
district, every city will have
under the proposed c tip
program to choose not to take
the. If so, if they did feel
that accepting the sales tax
was hurting them, they could
say, we don
t want the sales
tax. We want to stick with the
tif deal.
Okay.
We wrapped up. It
s it
s
really like stroke inducing how
complicated this is. And
probably by the way, I made a
joke in the lawyers directions
before I need to say thank you.
They both worked very, very
hard to get that language
right. Sorry.
Go ahead sir. No thanks. I
probably I don
t know why we
conflated these two things, but
that happened. I would just
like to my personal view to get
there. I don
t know the names,
but I would like to just keep
Bellevue whole in the simplest
way. We did a $30 million deal
with them. That
s what I think
we got to honor. But I guess
there
s a wrinkle wrinkle in
it. So if we need some language
here, Councilmember relativity,
that would make sure we
re not
penalizing them. I would be
inclined to support that.
Okay. I, I think the way we
ve
done this achieves that. It
doesn
t penalize them while
retaining the maximum amount of
sales tax within the roads
fund, as opposed to passing it
to Bellevue and having it
offset the general fund in the
county. I mean, that was the
choice, really. It was like,
who
s going to benefit from
this? Somebody was going to
either the general fund in the
county or the sales tax that we
passed through that we collect
for roads. And it felt like a
balance because there will be
an offset that benefits the
general fund. There will be an
offset that benefits the sales
tax for roads. And Bellevue
will get their full 30 million
benefit out of the tif. It
s
just kind of complicated. Yeah.
Okay. Uh. Thank you. That was
the mental workout I needed
today. Um, all right.
Doing all the staff reporting
here.
Uh, yeah, I just I
m sorry. You
all I am, I just, uh, it
s a
it
s a I hope this doesn
t
become a habit with me. And I
apologize for doing so much
talking. The staff has been
doing, as you can see from the
materials, they
ve done a ton
of work to help inform
everything. I just wanted to
kind of hurt us. Towards the
12th. All right. I think we
ve
made it. I think we
ve done it.
Any other questions or issues
to come before the body seeing
none. We have a plan and we
will be working towards the
12th. And I look forward to
seeing you all. Then this
meeting is adjourned.