Five county charter changes head to November ballot

Published 1:30 am Wednesday, June 24, 2026

EVERETT— Snohomish County voters will see five proposed amendments to the county charter on the November election ballot.

During five months of work, the 15 members of the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission considered 25 proposals and deemed five worthy to go before the voters. This process happens once every 10 years.

The commission submitted the list of five finalized propositions to the Snohomish County Council on May 29, and the council unanimously approved to send the list to the county auditor on June 3.

Volunteers can now submit applications to each proposition’s pro or con committee by noon July 8 at bit.ly/4vwfYEI, a press release said. Each committee can have up to three members appointed by the Snohomish County Council.

Proposition No. 1 – Adoption of a Foundational Government Services Policy

If approved, Proposition No. 1 would require the county legislature and executive branch to prioritize and protect funding for foundational government services.

The proposal was sponsored by Commissioner Shawn O’Donnell of District 2 and brought to the commission by County Treasurer Brian Sullivan.

“During the good times, you have to prepare for the bad times. But you also have to fund basic county services,” Sullivan said in an interview. “Oftentimes in high-pressure budget scenarios, it’s difficult not to buckle to public pressure to do really good things, but then you wake up two or three years later and suddenly you’ve created a bow wave.”

In the proposition, foundational government services “include but are not limited to,” public safety, the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, law enforcement, the courts, the clerk and corrections. Also, Public Works and infrastructure such as roads, bridges, drainage and capital maintenance.

The departments of Health, Human Services and Emergency Management are also listed as foundational. Other foundational offices listed are of the county Assessor, Auditor, Executive and Treasurer.

Proposition No. 2 – Prioritize Funding of Budget Stabilization Funds

If approved, Proposition No. 2 would require the county maintain two stabilization funds:

• A Primary Stabilization Fund for fiscal stabilization, revenue volatility and general budget continuity.
• A Secondary Catastrophic Stabilization Fund for declared emergencies, catastrophic natural disasters or severe fiscal disruption threatening essential county services, which is maintained separately through the County Treasurer.

The second fund would be funding through investment earnings from the Primary Stabilization Fund and would require a supermajority vote from the County Council to access. With five County Council members, four would need to vote for the fund’s use.

The proposal was sponsored by Commissioner Demi Chatters of District 2 and also brought to the commission by Sullivan.

“My concern was, is sometimes an emergency can be subjective,” Sullivan said. With the Catastrophic Stabilization Fund, “myself and future treasurers could be the champion for that fund, you know, and push the executive and County Council on what’s a real emergency and maybe what’s not.”

Chatters remembers when the 2014 Oso landslide occurred, she said in an interview. After talking with Sullivan, she later came to understand not just the human impact but also the budgetary impact.

“I really started hearing the details around what could have happened had all of these budgetary pieces not fallen into place,” she said. “Our county budget should not be operating on a wing and a prayer. We should be operating with a plan, and I felt that this helped solidify that plan.”

Proposition No. 3 – Converting All Elected County Offices to Nonpartisan Offices

At this time, only three elected offices require a party designation when appearing on a ballot: the County Council, County Executive and Prosecuting Attorney. If Proposition No. 3 passes, all county elected offices would be nonpartisan.

The proposal was sponsored by Commissioner Mark James of District 1.

“That’s been a desire of mine for years, and not just in context of the Snohomish County, but I really, really think that it makes sense at a local level and regional level to keep partisan politics out of it,” Jame said in an interview. “It disenfranchises voters from giving them a chance to look past the letter to find out who this person is.”

Particularly right now, the political divide is extreme, James said. Taking away the ‘R’ or the ‘D’ next to a person’s name allows voters to look deeper into the candidate and understand who they are, he said.

Proposition No. 4 – Increasing Public Access to County Financial Transparency

If Proposition No. 4 is approved, it would require the county to make all legally available financial information publicly accessible.

The county would create a searchable, downloadable financial transparency tool using information already collected through the county’s standard practices. Including budget, procurement, contracting, grant administration, financial management and auditing processes information.

The proposal was sponsored by Commissioner Janelle Cass of District 3.

“We’re the ones who are funding the government, so I think we should know where our money’s going in a very easy and transparent fashion,” Cass said in an interview. “There’s lots of other cities, like New York City — other counties across the country — that basically they have an open portal, and they just call it, like, the open checkbook, so anybody can go in and see.”

The proposition was created with the Snohomish County Chief Budget Officer, she said.

Proposition No. 5 – Requiring a 4/5 Supermajority Council Vote to Increase Taxes

If Proposition No. 5 was approved, it would require a supermajority County Council vote to assess, levy or increase any tax the council has the authority to do so without a public vote. This would apply to all councilmanic tax increases occurring after Jan. 1, 2027.

This proposal was also sponsored by Cass.

“Obviously, times are getting tougher for everybody, and I’m sensitive to the fact that a lot of municipalities are feeling strained,” Cass said. “I wanted to put forward, let the people decide if they want to see their council members have more robust debate and to have to build consensus before dipping back into the pockets of the taxpayer.”

Taylor Scott Richmond: 425-339-3046; taylor.richmond@heraldnet.com; X: @BTayOkay