Quick answer: The Snohomish County 2026 Charter Review Commission has narrowed two dozen submissions to five proposed amendments — non-partisan offices (Proposal 5), foundational-services budget priority (Proposal 13), a budget stabilization fund (Proposal 14), a four-vote supermajority to raise taxes (Proposal 21), and a financial transparency portal (Proposal 22). Three public hearings (May 13 in Arlington, May 20 in Monroe, May 27 in Mountlake Terrace, all 5:30 p.m.) precede the commission’s May 29 final vote. What survives goes to the County Council, then to the November 2026 ballot.
The charter review only happens once every ten years, and the window for shaping it closes faster than most Snohomish County residents realize. By May 29, 2026, the 15-member elected commission will have voted on which amendments leave the workshop and head to the County Council. Anything that survives that vote gets a second round of public hearings at the council level before landing on the November 2026 ballot. Anything that doesn’t survive May 29 disappears — and waits another ten years for the next review cycle.
For Everett residents — the largest single block of voters in Snohomish County — the five amendments now on the table cover three distinct decisions about how the county is governed: how candidates appear on the ballot, how the budget gets built, and how taxes get raised. None of them are technical housekeeping. All five would change the daily mechanics of county government in ways residents would feel within one budget cycle.
The May 2026 Hearing Schedule
The commission has scheduled three public hearings, all at 5:30 p.m., specifically chosen to give residents at the north, east, and south ends of the county a reachable venue:
- Wednesday, May 13 — Arlington City Hall, 238 N. Olympia Ave., Arlington (north county)
- Wednesday, May 20 — Monroe City Hall, 806 W. Main St., Monroe (east county)
- Wednesday, May 27 — Mountlake Terrace City Hall, 23204 58th Ave. W., Mountlake Terrace (south county)
For Everett residents, Mountlake Terrace on May 27 is the geographically closest option. Public testimony at any of the three hearings counts equally — you don’t have to attend the one nearest your address, and a single resident can testify at all three. Written comments are also accepted on the commission’s webpage and read into the record.
The commission’s May 29 final adoption vote is the hard deadline. Anything not approved by that vote does not move forward to the council.
Proposal 5 — Non-Partisan Offices
Proposal 5 would strip the party-preference label from the ballot for three offices: County Executive, County Prosecutor, and County Councilmember. Today, every candidate for those offices appears with a party preference next to their name (the format Washington state uses since the 2008 top-two primary system). Under Proposal 5, those three offices would join the county’s existing nonpartisan offices on the ballot.
Supporters argue local executive and council races are about local issues — public safety, parks, transit, taxes — and that party labels distract voters from the candidate’s actual record. Opponents argue party preference is one of the few quick signals voters get about a candidate’s broader values, and stripping it makes lower-information races harder to navigate.
The Sheriff, Treasurer, Assessor, Auditor, and Clerk are already nonpartisan in Snohomish County under the current charter. Proposal 5 would extend that model to the three remaining partisan executive and legislative offices.
Proposal 13 — Foundational Government Services Funded First
Proposal 13 would amend the charter to require the County Council, when building the annual budget, to fund “foundational government services” before allocating any discretionary spending. The proposal does not itself define what “foundational” means — implementation language would set that — but the structural change locks core services into a priority position.
The practical effect would be felt in lean budget years. When revenue falls short of projection, discretionary programs (community grants, optional pilot programs, certain quality-of-life investments) would absorb the cuts first. Public safety, jails, courts, elections, and statutorily required services would be insulated from across-the-board reductions.
For residents, this is essentially a ratchet against the kind of budget brinksmanship that has played out in other Washington counties during downturns. The trade-off: discretionary programs lose a layer of negotiating leverage, because the council is constitutionally bound to fund the foundational tier first.
Proposal 14 — Budget Stabilization Fund
Proposal 14 would create a county budget stabilization fund — what most governments call a “rainy-day fund” — for emergencies, with a key procedural detail: drawing money out of the fund would require four affirmative votes from the five-member County Council.
The four-vote threshold matters. It means a single councilmember can’t block emergency use (because four out of five is still possible without one holdout), but a bare majority of three can’t drain it for routine spending. The fund is structurally protected against erosion in normal years and structurally available in a real emergency.
Snohomish County does not currently have a charter-protected stabilization fund. Reserves exist as a budget line item, which means each council session can revisit them. Under Proposal 14, the fund’s existence and the supermajority withdrawal rule would be embedded in the charter itself.
Proposal 21 — Supermajority to Raise Taxes
Proposal 21 is the proposal most likely to generate the loudest public response in either direction. It would raise the threshold for the County Council to approve any tax increase to four affirmative votes. Today, three votes — a simple majority of the five-member council — can pass a tax increase. Under Proposal 21, four would be required.
The political reality: a four-vote supermajority is materially harder to assemble than a three-vote majority. In a council that is closely divided, Proposal 21 would effectively require any tax increase to draw cross-faction support before it could pass.
Supporters frame this as a brake on tax growth and a forcing function for broader political consensus. Opponents — including some who otherwise favor fiscal restraint — point out that the rule cuts both ways: in a downturn, when emergency revenue is most needed to maintain services, a single dissenting councilmember could block a tax patch even if four out of five would otherwise approve it.
Proposal 22 — Financial Transparency Portal
Proposal 22 would require the county to create and maintain a public financial transparency portal — a structured online interface where residents can look up county spending, contracts, employee compensation, and budget detail without filing public records requests. The portal model exists in several Washington jurisdictions and at the state level (the State Auditor’s “Open Data” portal); Proposal 22 would charter-mandate it for Snohomish County.
The implementation cost is real but modest, and several vendors offer turnkey portals built to government-data standards. The longer-term effect, if Proposal 22 passes, is that journalists, candidates, advocacy groups, and individual residents would have continuous access to county financial data without going through a public records officer for every question.
What Comes After May 29
Anything the commission approves on May 29 is transmitted to the Snohomish County Council, which holds its own round of public hearings before placing the amendments on the November 2026 general election ballot. The council does not have authority to rewrite the commission’s amendments — that’s a key feature of the home-rule charter review process — but the council does choose how the amendments are described on the ballot summary.
That ballot summary language matters. Voters typically see the summary, not the full amendment text, when they fill out their ballot. The council’s hearings on summary language are the second meaningful opportunity for resident input.
Then, in November 2026, all five amendments — or however many survive May 29 — go on the same ballot as the contested County Council races, the August 4 primary survivors, and the city of Everett’s own separate charter review questions (covered in our 2026 Dual Charter Review explainer). It is the most consequential local ballot Snohomish County voters will see this decade.
How to Participate Before May 29
The commission accepts written comment through its webpage, accepts in-person testimony at the three May hearings, and posts meeting recordings publicly. Residents who can’t attend a hearing can still submit written comment that becomes part of the record.
For those tracking how this connects to other 2026 Snohomish County decisions, see our 2026 Primary Voter Guide and our earlier charter review preview.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission?
It’s a 15-member elected body that reviews the county’s home-rule charter every ten years. Members were elected by voters in November 2025 and began their work in January 2026. Their job is to recommend amendments to the charter — the county’s foundational governance document — that would then go to the County Council and ultimately to the voters.
When are the May 2026 public hearings?
Wednesday, May 13 at Arlington City Hall (238 N. Olympia Ave.), Wednesday, May 20 at Monroe City Hall (806 W. Main St.), and Wednesday, May 27 at Mountlake Terrace City Hall (23204 58th Ave. W.). All three start at 5:30 p.m.
What happens on May 29?
That’s the commission’s final adoption vote. Any amendment approved by the commission on May 29 gets transmitted to the Snohomish County Council for further hearings and eventual placement on the November 2026 ballot. Any amendment not approved by May 29 dies and waits for the next review cycle in 2036.
What are the five proposals on the table?
Proposal 5 (non-partisan offices for Executive, Prosecutor, and Councilmember), Proposal 13 (foundational government services funded first in the budget), Proposal 14 (budget stabilization fund with four-vote withdrawal rule), Proposal 21 (four-vote supermajority required to raise taxes), and Proposal 22 (mandatory public financial transparency portal).
Can I testify at all three hearings?
Yes. A single resident may testify at any or all of the three hearings, and the commission counts each testimony equally. You can also submit written comment through the commission’s webpage and have it entered into the record.
What’s the difference between Proposal 14 and Proposal 21’s four-vote rules?
Proposal 14’s four-vote rule applies to withdrawing money from the budget stabilization fund (preventing routine drawdown). Proposal 21’s four-vote rule applies to raising taxes in any form (raising the threshold from a simple majority of three). They are structurally similar but apply to opposite kinds of decisions.
How does this connect to Everett’s separate charter review?
The City of Everett is conducting its own charter review on a parallel track in 2026, focused on the city charter rather than the county charter. Both could appear on the November 2026 ballot. See our 2026 Dual Charter Review explainer for the full comparison.
Leave a Reply