[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
[1:22:27] 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.