Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Intergovernmental Agreement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council delays approval of county interlocal agreement after staff flags potential duplicate administrative charge

5798413 · August 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council moved an intergovernmental maintenance agreement with Snohomish County from consent to discussion after staff raised questions about a 20% administrative charge that may duplicate other listed costs and could raise the city’s bill by roughly $9,000.

Lake Stevens city staff asked the City Council on Aug. 26, 2025, to hold an interlocal agreement with Snohomish County for maintenance of traffic control devices and streetlights for further review after staff identified potentially duplicative cost language. Shannon Front, environmental programs manager in Public Works, said the agreement covers routine annual maintenance and on-call work that the county would perform for the city, including labor, equipment, materials and administrative processing charges. Front told the council she did not yet have sufficient information to explain why the contract included both line-item costs and an additional administrative charge. "...there is some language about the cost for the services that they will be charging us for labor and equipment materials and processing clerical... and then also an administrative charge," Front said. A council member raised the practical effect shown in the vendor’s cost sheets: adding the administrative charge increased the city’s projected cost by about $9,000 compared with the listed sub-totals. Council members asked staff to seek clarification from Snohomish County about whether the administrative charge duplicates other listed charges and, if so, to return with corrected contract language and an explanation of the county’s billing practices. Public Works said it will follow up with the county to confirm whether the 20% administrative fee is customary, whether it is already reflected elsewhere in the county’s unit pricing, and whether the provision should be removed or revised. The council did not vote on the interlocal agreement; staff will bring a revised proposal back for further review and final action. Council members did not indicate opposition to partnering with the county on maintenance in principle; their concern was limited to the contract language and the unexplained administrative charge. The matter had been removed from the consent agenda earlier in the meeting specifically for this discussion.