Tag: Local Government

  • For Everett Business Owners and Developers: What the 2026 Snohomish County Charter Review Means for Your Operating Environment

    For Everett Business Owners and Developers: What the 2026 Snohomish County Charter Review Means for Your Operating Environment

    Quick answer for Everett business owners and developers: Two of the five Snohomish County Charter Review proposals on the May 29 commission vote directly affect your operating environment. Proposal 21 would require a four-vote County Council supermajority for any tax increase — meaningfully harder than today’s three-vote majority. Proposal 22 would create a public transparency portal showing every county contract, vendor payment, and budget line. Public hearings are May 13 (Arlington), May 20 (Monroe), and May 27 (Mountlake Terrace), all 5:30 p.m. Anything not adopted by May 29 doesn’t go to the November ballot.

    If you operate a business inside Everett or anywhere in unincorporated Snohomish County, the May 2026 charter review is the most consequential local-government decision your operation faces this year. The County Council that sets the county’s tax structure, runs procurement for hundreds of millions in contracts annually, and operates the courts you’d use for any commercial dispute is about to have its operating rules rewritten — if voters approve.

    This is a focused read on what the charter review means for the operating side: tax exposure, contract opportunity, transparency on county procurement, and the procedural levers that change how fast (or slow) the county can respond to economic conditions.

    Proposal 21 — The Supermajority Tax Brake

    Proposal 21 raises the council’s tax-increase threshold from a simple majority of three votes to a supermajority of four out of five. For any business owner who has watched property tax assessments and county-imposed fees creep up year over year, this is the structural answer.

    The mechanics: today, three of five councilmembers can pass a county tax increase. Under Proposal 21, four would be required. The political effect is that any tax increase would have to draw cross-faction support before passing — a much higher bar in a closely divided council.

    For an Everett business, the practical effect is felt in the cumulative pressure on operating cost. Property tax on commercial property, the various utility-related taxes the county can impose, and any new fee structures all run through the same council vote. A four-vote requirement means each of those increases gets harder, not impossible.

    The trade-off worth weighing: a supermajority brake works the same way in both directions. In a downturn, when the council might want to raise revenue to maintain services your customers depend on (transit, courts, public safety presence near commercial corridors), a single dissenting councilmember could block the increase even if four out of five would otherwise approve it. Some business owners support Proposal 21 unconditionally; others want the brake but worry about the structural rigidity.

    Proposal 14 — The Rainy-Day Fund

    Proposal 14 creates a charter-protected county budget stabilization fund — a “rainy-day fund” — and requires four out of five councilmembers to vote to withdraw from it. This is structurally relevant to businesses because it locks in a financial cushion the county can use during downturns to maintain services without immediately reaching for a tax increase.

    For an Everett business that has been through a recession, this is essentially a constitutional commitment to maintain reserves so service cuts and emergency tax patches don’t both arrive in the same year. The four-vote withdrawal rule prevents routine drawdown for non-emergency spending — three councilmembers can’t vote to use the fund to plug a discretionary gap.

    Proposal 13 — Foundational Services Funded First

    Proposal 13 requires the council to fund “foundational government services” before any discretionary spending in the annual budget. The proposal does not itself define which services count as foundational — that gets worked out in implementation language — but the structural change locks core services into a priority position.

    For a business operator: when the budget gets tight, the discretionary stuff cuts first. Public safety, jails, courts, elections, and statutorily required services would be insulated. Discretionary economic-development grants, certain workforce programs, and optional pilot funding (some of which directly benefit local employers) would be in the first cuts.

    That cuts both ways for the business community. Businesses that benefit from optional county economic-development programs may be wary of Proposal 13. Businesses that mainly want a county that reliably funds courts and public safety in every budget cycle would support it.

    Proposal 22 — The Transparency Portal That Changes Procurement Visibility

    Proposal 22 requires the county to create and maintain a public financial transparency portal — a website where any resident or business can look up county spending, contracts, vendor payments, and employee compensation without filing a public records request.

    For a business that does (or wants to do) business with Snohomish County, this is the proposal with the most operational benefit. Today, identifying a competitor’s county contract value, the county’s typical pricing on a category, or the procurement officer assigned to a specific category often requires a public records request and a wait. Under Proposal 22, that information would be queryable in close to real time.

    For businesses that don’t sell to the county directly, the portal still matters: it makes the county’s spending priorities legible. If you want to know how much the county spends on commercial road maintenance versus other budget categories, the portal would put it on a page rather than buried in a budget document.

    The cost to implement is modest by government-IT standards — turnkey vendors offer the model — and several Washington jurisdictions and the State Auditor’s “Open Data” portal have proven the implementation pattern.

    Proposal 5 — Why Business Owners Should Care About the Ballot Format

    Proposal 5 removes party preference from the ballot for County Executive, County Prosecutor, and County Councilmember races. This is a values question rather than a direct cost question, but it’s worth thinking through from the business angle: which kind of candidate fares better in a partisan vs. nonpartisan format in Snohomish County varies by district and by year.

    Business advocacy groups and chambers of commerce have historically been more comfortable in nonpartisan local races, where endorsements based on local-issue track record carry weight without competing against party-line voting. That’s not a universal pattern, but it’s the structural argument worth thinking through if Proposal 5 lands on your ballot.

    How to Engage Before May 29

    The hearing schedule is set: May 13 in Arlington (238 N. Olympia Ave.), May 20 in Monroe (806 W. Main St.), and May 27 in Mountlake Terrace (23204 58th Ave. W.), all at 5:30 p.m. Public testimony is open at all three. Written comment is accepted on the commission’s webpage.

    For Everett-based businesses, May 27 in Mountlake Terrace is the closest venue. For businesses with operations in north county, May 13 in Arlington. The commission counts testimony at any hearing equally — there’s no advantage to attending the one nearest your address.

    Business associations and economic-development organizations typically coordinate testimony before charter review hearings. If you’re a member of the Everett Chamber, the Economic Alliance Snohomish County, or a sector-specific trade association, ask whether they’re submitting testimony you can co-sign or align with.

    What Goes on Your November Ballot

    Whatever the commission approves on May 29 goes to the County Council for additional summary-language hearings before placement on the November 2026 general election ballot — alongside contested council races, August 4 primary survivors, the City of Everett’s separate charter review questions, and state and federal races.

    Tracking how all this connects to other 2026 county and city decisions: see our 2026 Primary Voter Guide and our 2026 Dual Charter Review explainer for the parallel city process.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Would Proposal 21 lower commercial property tax?

    No. Proposal 21 changes the procedural threshold for future tax increases (four votes instead of three). It does not roll back existing levies. The county also has a statutory annual increase cap (1% plus new construction) that operates independently of charter rules.

    Could a charter change reduce county vendor opportunities?

    Not directly. Proposal 22 (transparency portal) increases visibility on procurement, which most vendors view as an opportunity, not a constraint. Proposal 13 (foundational services first) could reduce discretionary spending in lean years, which would affect vendors selling into discretionary programs more than vendors selling into core services.

    What’s the typical timeline from May 29 vote to portal implementation?

    If Proposal 22 passes the commission on May 29, then the council, then voters in November 2026, the county would begin implementation in 2027. Turnkey government-data portals typically deploy in 6-12 months from procurement start, so a 2028 launch is realistic.

    Does the supermajority threshold apply to fees as well as taxes?

    The proposal text language is the controlling answer here, and the commission’s final adopted language on May 29 will determine the exact scope. The general principle being debated is that any new revenue mechanism the council itself initiates would face the four-vote threshold, but the boundary between “tax” and “fee” is where the implementation language matters most.

    How does this connect to the Everett city charter review?

    City of Everett is conducting its own charter review on a parallel 2026 track. Both could appear on the November ballot. For businesses operating inside Everett city limits, both charters affect your operating environment — county for property tax, courts, county-level contracts; city for permitting, business licensing, city-level fees.

    Where can I read the full proposal text?

    The Snohomish County Charter Review Commission posts proposal text and meeting materials on the county’s official website. Meeting recordings are posted publicly. The commission’s webpage is the authoritative source for any procedural updates between now and May 29.

  • What Snohomish County’s Charter Review Means for Everett Residents: A 2026 Voter’s Guide to the Five Proposals on Your November Ballot

    What Snohomish County’s Charter Review Means for Everett Residents: A 2026 Voter’s Guide to the Five Proposals on Your November Ballot

    Quick answer for Everett residents: The Snohomish County Charter Review Commission’s May 2026 hearings (May 13 Arlington, May 20 Monroe, May 27 Mountlake Terrace, all 5:30 p.m.) decide which of five amendments make it to your November ballot. Two of them — Proposal 21 (four-vote supermajority to raise taxes) and Proposal 13 (foundational services funded first) — would directly change how the county funds the services your property tax bill pays for. Proposal 5 would remove party labels from your ballot for the County Executive and your County Councilmember races. May 29 is the deadline; after that the commission cannot add or remove amendments.

    If you’ve ever opened your Snohomish County property tax bill and wondered who decides where that money goes, the next three Wednesdays in May are the answer. The 2026 Charter Review Commission — a 15-member elected body that only meets once every ten years — is one vote away from sending the County Council a package of constitutional changes that would reshape how those decisions get made.

    This is a guide for Everett residents who don’t follow county government every week but want to understand how May 29 affects their November ballot, their property tax bill, and the services the county delivers within Everett’s city limits.

    What the County Actually Does for Everett Residents

    Before the proposals, the table-setting: Snohomish County is responsible for the courts you’d interact with for almost any criminal or civil matter, the jail, the elections office that runs Everett ballots, the assessor that values your home for property tax purposes, the prosecutor’s office, county-level public health, the road system outside city limits that you drive every day, and a long list of human services programs (housing assistance, behavioral health, veterans services) that serve Everett residents from county facilities.

    The City of Everett runs its own police, fire, water, parks, planning, and city streets. But the county is the bigger taxing authority in your bill, and the county’s budget decisions ripple into everything from how fast a 911 medical call gets routed to whether the courthouse downtown can keep evening hours open.

    Proposal 21 — The Tax Vote Most Likely to Affect Your Bill

    Proposal 21 raises the County Council’s tax-increase threshold from three votes (simple majority) to four votes (supermajority). The five-member council currently passes any tax measure with three. Under Proposal 21, four would be required.

    What this means for an Everett resident in plain English: if you generally want it harder for the county to raise your property tax or impose a new fee, this is your “yes” vote. If you want the council to keep its current ability to fund services with a working majority — including in a downturn when emergency revenue might be needed — this is your “no” vote.

    The honest middle: a four-vote supermajority requires broader political coalition than three. In normal years, that’s a brake. In a downturn, that’s also a brake — and the brake works the same way in both directions, which is why some fiscally cautious residents are surprisingly split on the proposal.

    Proposal 13 — Funding Order

    Proposal 13 doesn’t raise or lower taxes. It says: when the council builds the annual budget, fund “foundational government services” first. Discretionary spending comes after that.

    For an Everett resident, the practical effect is felt when the budget gets tight. The discretionary stuff — community grants, optional pilot programs, certain quality-of-life investments — would be cut first when revenue falls short. Public safety, jails, courts, elections, and statutory obligations would be insulated. If you have a strong opinion about which of those should hurt first when there’s not enough money, Proposal 13 is your lever.

    Proposal 14 — The Rainy-Day Fund

    Proposal 14 creates a charter-protected county budget stabilization fund (a “rainy-day” fund) and requires four out of five councilmembers to vote to withdraw from it. That’s the same supermajority threshold as Proposal 21, but applied to spending the fund rather than raising taxes.

    The structural logic: in a normal year, three councilmembers can’t drain the fund to plug a gap that’s actually a discretionary choice. In a real emergency, four can still vote to use it, even if one councilmember disagrees. For Everett residents who remember the 2008-2010 county budget rounds, this is essentially a constitutional commitment to maintain reserves for the next downturn.

    Proposal 5 — Your Ballot

    If Proposal 5 passes, the County Executive race, the County Prosecutor race, and your County Councilmember race would no longer show party preference next to the candidate’s name on your ballot. Today they do.

    Most Everett residents are in County Council District 2 (the south-central county district that includes most of Everett south of Pacific Avenue). District 1 covers north Everett and points north. Either way, your councilmember race is on the affected list.

    This is a values question, not a policy outcome question. If you think party label is useful information when filling out a ballot for a council race, vote no. If you think party label distracts from the candidate’s actual local record, vote yes.

    Proposal 22 — Where to Look Up County Spending

    Proposal 22 would charter-mandate a public financial transparency portal — a website where you can look up county spending, contracts, and employee compensation without filing a public records request. Useful for residents who follow how their tax money gets spent. The cost to implement is real but modest; several vendors offer turnkey government-data portals.

    For an Everett resident who has ever wanted to verify a specific county expenditure or trace where a budget line went, Proposal 22 is the structural answer.

    How to Show Up

    The hearing closest to Everett is Wednesday, May 27 at Mountlake Terrace City Hall, 23204 58th Ave. W., 5:30 p.m. Public testimony is open. You don’t need to register; you sign in when you arrive, and the chair calls names in order.

    If you can’t attend, the commission accepts written comment through its webpage on the Snohomish County official site. Written comment is read into the record and weighed alongside in-person testimony. The commission’s final adoption vote is May 29 — anything submitted after that doesn’t go to the council.

    What Goes on Your November Ballot

    Whatever the commission approves on May 29 goes to the County Council for additional hearings (those happen in summer 2026). The council finalizes ballot summary language but cannot rewrite the amendments themselves. Then in November 2026, you’ll see those amendments alongside the contested County Council races, the August 4 primary survivors, the city of Everett’s separate charter review questions, and any state and federal races.

    For the full picture of what’s coming in November, see our 2026 Primary Voter Guide and our 2026 Dual Charter Review explainer.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Which County Council district is Everett in?

    Everett is split between Council District 1 (north Everett and points north) and Council District 2 (south-central, including most of Everett south of Pacific Avenue). Whichever district you’re in, your councilmember’s race would lose its party label on the ballot if Proposal 5 passes.

    Will Proposal 21 lower my property tax?

    No. Proposal 21 doesn’t lower or raise existing taxes. It changes the procedural threshold the County Council needs (four out of five votes instead of three) to pass future tax increases. Existing property tax levies aren’t affected.

    Could the council raise my property tax before May 29?

    The council has its own statutorily allowed annual property tax increase (1% per year, plus new construction). Charter amendments wouldn’t restrict that statutory authority — they only affect tax increases the council itself initiates above the statutory baseline.

    How is this different from the City of Everett charter review?

    The county charter review covers Snohomish County government. The city charter review covers City of Everett government. They’re on parallel tracks in 2026, run by different bodies, and could both appear on the November ballot as separate questions.

    What if I support some proposals but not others?

    Each amendment will appear separately on the November ballot. You can vote yes on Proposal 22 (transparency portal) and no on Proposal 21 (tax supermajority) without contradiction. The proposals are not bundled.

    Where do I look up the full text of the proposals?

    The Snohomish County Charter Review Commission posts proposal text and meeting materials on the county’s official website. Meeting recordings are also posted publicly so you can hear what’s been said before submitting written comment.

  • Snohomish County Charter Review 2026: The Complete Guide to All Five Proposals, the May Hearings, and the November Ballot Path

    Snohomish County Charter Review 2026: The Complete Guide to All Five Proposals, the May Hearings, and the November Ballot Path

    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.

  • Snohomish County Charter Review: Five Proposals, Three Hearings in May, and a May 29 Deadline

    Snohomish County Charter Review: Five Proposals, Three Hearings in May, and a May 29 Deadline

    Five proposals could change how Snohomish County governs itself — and Everett-area residents have three Wednesday evenings in May to weigh in before any of them head to the November ballot.

    The county’s 2026 Charter Review Commission, the 15-member elected body that meets every ten years to evaluate the county’s home-rule charter, has narrowed its working list down to five amendments that could appear on the November 2026 general election ballot. Three public hearings — May 13 in Arlington, May 20 in Monroe, and May 27 in Mountlake Terrace — give residents a chance to comment in person before the commission’s May 29 final vote.

    That timeline matters because what comes out of those May meetings is what the County Council will then take up for its own public hearings, and what voters will eventually see on their ballots in November.

    When are the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission’s public hearings? The commission has scheduled three public hearings, all at 5:30 p.m.: 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.). The commission must adopt its final package of charter amendments by May 29. Approved amendments are transmitted to the County Council for additional hearings before being placed on the November 2026 ballot.

    The Five Proposals on the Table

    The commission has been working through more than two dozen proposals submitted by commissioners and members of the public since January. Five made it to the public-hearing phase. Here is what each one would do, in plain language.

    Proposal 5 — Non-Partisan Offices

    Proposal 5 would make the offices of County Executive, County Prosecutor and County Councilmember nonpartisan. Today, candidates for those offices appear on ballots with a party preference next to their name. If voters approved Proposal 5, that party label would go away for those three offices.

    Supporters argue nonpartisan offices encourage candidates to focus on local issues over party loyalty. Opponents argue party labels give voters useful information about a candidate’s broader values. The commission has heard versions of this argument throughout the spring.

    Proposal 13 — Foundational Government Services

    Proposal 13 would require the County Council, when it builds the annual budget, to fund "foundational government services" first, before any discretionary spending. The proposal does not redefine what counts as foundational — that detail would be worked out in implementation — but the structural change would lock in certain services as priority spending categories.

    For residents, the practical effect would be felt in years where the county budget is tight: discretionary programs would be the first cuts, and core services would be protected from across-the-board reductions.

    Proposal 14 — Budget Stabilization Fund

    Proposal 14 would create a county budget stabilization fund — sometimes called a rainy-day fund — for emergencies. Drawing money out of the fund would require four affirmative votes from the five-member County Council. That four-vote threshold matters because it means a single councilmember could not block emergency use, but neither could a bare majority drain it for routine spending.

    Proposal 21 — Supermajority to Raise Taxes

    Proposal 21 would raise the threshold to four affirmative votes of the County Council to raise taxes. The Snohomish County Council has five members, so today three votes can pass a tax increase. Under Proposal 21, four would be required — making any tax increase a supermajority decision.

    This is the proposal most likely to generate the loudest public response in either direction. Residents who want it harder for the council to raise taxes will support it. Residents who worry about the council’s ability to fund services during downturns may oppose it.

    Proposal 22 — Financial Transparency Portal

    Proposal 22 would create and expand a county financial transparency portal — a public-facing website where residents can look up how the county is spending its money. The exact features and timing of the portal would be set in implementing legislation, but the charter amendment would put the obligation in the county’s foundational document rather than leaving it to whichever council majority happens to be in office.

    The Three Hearings: Where, When, How to Show Up

    All three hearings start at 5:30 p.m. and run as combined public hearings on the proposed charter amendments. Each location was chosen to give different parts of the county a hearing closer to home, so the commission rotates rather than holding all three meetings in one place.

    Wednesday, May 13 — Arlington City Hall, 238 N. Olympia Ave., Arlington. This is the first hearing in the May series.

    Wednesday, May 20 — Monroe City Hall, 806 W. Main St., Monroe. Designated as a special meeting/public hearing on the official commission calendar.

    Wednesday, May 27 — Mountlake Terrace City Hall, 23204 58th Ave. W., Mountlake Terrace. The final hearing of the public-comment phase.

    For Everett residents who can’t make any of the three in-person locations, the commission’s regular meetings — including those public hearings — are also held remotely via Zoom. The webinar link is https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88308932549, meeting ID 883-0893 2549. Audio-only call-in numbers are 1-253-215-8782 or 1-206-337-9723.

    What Happens After May 29

    Under the commission’s working timeline, the final vote on the package of recommended amendments takes place on or before May 29. After that, the commission’s recommendations are transmitted to the Snohomish County Council, which holds its own additional public hearings before deciding which amendments to place on the November 2026 general election ballot.

    The County Council does not have the authority to rewrite the commission’s proposals — its role is to send them to the voters or decline to. Anything the council places on the ballot then goes to county voters in November, and a simple majority approves or rejects each amendment individually.

    Why Charter Review Matters

    Snohomish County is one of seven charter counties in Washington State, meaning it operates under its own home-rule charter rather than the default state county-government structure. The charter was adopted in 1980 and has been amended in 1986, 1996, 2006, and 2016 — roughly every decade.

    The 2026 Charter Review Commission was elected by voters in the November 2025 general election. The commission has 15 members, three from each of the county’s five council districts, all serving unpaid one-year terms that began January 1, 2026. The commission is chaired by Brett Gailey of District 5, with Mark James of District 1 serving as vice-chair. Peter Condyles serves as commission coordinator.

    The commission’s work is the only formal mechanism in the charter for proposing structural changes to county government. Anything residents want to change about how the county council, executive, prosecutor or other county offices operate at a structural level has to either come through this commission or wait for the next one a decade from now.

    What To Do Next

    If one or more of the five proposals matters to you, you have four ways to make your voice heard before May 29:

    1. Attend a hearing in person. All three are open to the public, no registration required. Public comment is accepted during the meeting.
    2. Attend remotely via Zoom or phone. Use the webinar link or the call-in numbers above. Public comment is also accepted from remote participants.
    3. Email written comments to commission coordinator Peter Condyles at peter.condyles@snoco.org. Written comments are distributed to commissioners.
    4. Contact a commissioner directly. Each of the 15 commissioners is listed by district on the official Charter Review Commission page at snohomishcountywa.gov/3520/Charter-Review-Commission, with email addresses for each.

    The commission’s full proposal documents — the actual draft charter language for each of the five proposals — are linked from the same official page. Reading the actual draft text matters; press summaries, including this one, are necessarily compressed.

    For Everett-specific civic context, see our prior coverage of the parallel Snohomish County Charter Review process from April, the city’s separate Everett Charter Review Committee, and the Snohomish County 2026 Primary Voter Guide for the August 4 races also on this year’s ballot path.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Are the Snohomish County and Everett charter reviews the same thing?

    No. The City of Everett has its own Charter Review Committee — a 15-member appointed body — that reviews the city charter. The Snohomish County Charter Review Commission is a separate 15-member elected body that reviews the county charter. Different governments, different charters, different processes, both on the November 2026 ballot.

    Do all five proposals automatically end up on the November ballot?

    No. The commission must first adopt its final package by May 29. Then the County Council holds its own hearings before deciding which proposals to place on the ballot. Each approved proposal is voted on individually by Snohomish County voters in November.

    Can residents submit new proposals at the May hearings?

    The deadline for new proposed amendments from the public was noon on April 8, 2026. The May hearings are for public comment on the five proposals already advanced.

    How is Proposal 14 different from Proposal 21?

    Proposal 14 creates an emergency reserve fund and requires four council votes to spend from it. Proposal 21 requires four council votes to raise taxes. Both use the same four-vote threshold, but they govern different actions.

    When does the County Council take up the commission’s final package?

    The official timeline says recommendations are transmitted to the council after May 29, with council public hearings to follow. Specific council hearing dates have not yet been set as of publication and will be posted to snohomishcountywa.gov when scheduled.

    Where can I read the actual draft text of each proposal?

    All five proposal documents are linked directly from the Charter Review Commission’s official page at snohomishcountywa.gov/3520/Charter-Review-Commission.

    Who is on the commission?

    Fifteen commissioners — three from each of the five council districts — were elected in November 2025. Chair Brett Gailey (District 5) and Vice-Chair Mark James (District 1) lead the commission. The full roster is on the official commission page.

  • PUD 3 Cloquallum Fiber Deadline May 31 and Belfair Sewer Study Moves Forward — Mason County Infrastructure Update

    PUD 3 Cloquallum Fiber Deadline May 31 and Belfair Sewer Study Moves Forward — Mason County Infrastructure Update

    Two significant infrastructure developments are unfolding across Mason County this week — one offering a limited-time opportunity for hundreds of rural residents to lock in free fiber internet connections before the end of May, and another marking a new chapter in the long-running debate over how to handle Belfair’s wastewater future.

    Act Now: PUD 3’s Free Fiber Application Window Closes May 31

    More than 680 homes and businesses along the Cloquallum Road corridor in north Mason County are now eligible to apply for high-speed gigabit fiber internet — and the free application window closes in just three and a half weeks.

    Mason County Public Utility District No. 3 announced in February 2026 the completion of Phase 2 of its Cloquallum Communities Fiberhood project, triggering a new round of application letters to property owners in the Wivell Road, Loertscher Road, and Cloquallum Fiberhoods areas. But the window is closing fast: PUD 3 has waived the standard $250 construction application fee only through May 31, 2026. After that date, anyone who applies will owe the full $250 upfront.

    The stakes are real. When the Cloquallum Communities project reaches full completion — targeted for October 2026 — residents in these rural stretches will go from dial-up-like speeds of roughly 1.5 Mbps to symmetrical gigabit internet at 1,000/1,000 Mbps, among the fastest residential broadband available anywhere in Washington state. Monthly service is expected to run approximately $85 per month through PUD 3’s open-access fiber network.

    That “open access” model is worth understanding. PUD 3 builds and owns the physical fiber infrastructure, but multiple retail internet service providers can deliver service over that single cable. Residents choose their own provider — and can switch providers without needing a new connection installed. The model has already delivered results: more than 3,000 homes and businesses across Mason County are now connected to PUD 3 fiber through prior Fiberhood builds.

    The Cloquallum project is funded in part through an American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant awarded to PUD 3 by the Washington State Broadband Office in late 2023. Phase 1 of the project wrapped in July 2025, bringing the mainline fiber network to the Lake Arrowhead, Star Lake, Bulb Farm, and Lost Lake areas near Cloquallum Road. Phase 2 focuses on the Wivell Road and Loertscher Road communities and the broader Cloquallum Road Fiberhood area, running from west of Bear Trap Boulevard east toward Rock Creek Road.

    Residents who have already received an announcement letter should apply as soon as possible at pud3.org. Those who live in the project area and have not received a letter should contact PUD 3 directly to verify their eligibility before the May 31 deadline passes. After five years of engineering, grant-writing, and construction, gigabit internet is finally arriving in one of Mason County’s most historically underserved broadband corridors — but only to those who get their applications in on time.

    Belfair Sewer: Bremerton Now on the Hook for Feasibility Study

    About 20 miles to the south, a very different infrastructure question is moving forward — carefully.

    Mason County commissioners in February 2026 signed off on revisions to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the City of Bremerton regarding potential sewer service to the Puget Sound Industrial Center, a business corridor in north Belfair. The key change in the updated agreement: Bremerton is now required to pay for Mason County’s share of the feasibility study before the work can begin.

    Under the revised MOU, both parties have committed to a comprehensive feasibility study including preliminary engineering and a financial evaluation of the capital, operational, and long-term costs involved. If Bremerton pays, the study must be completed within 180 days. Mason County commissioners will then have 90 days to determine whether moving forward is in the best interest of county ratepayers.

    The Belfair sewer system has been under pressure for years. The Belfair Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WWRF) storage pond has a documented structural concern — a suspected sinkhole first flagged by the Washington State Department of Ecology in 2016 — that the county has not fully remediated. Questions about whether extending service to serve Bremerton’s industrial interests would be fair to existing Belfair ratepayers generated significant debate when commissioners first considered the original MOU.

    Adding further complexity, the Belfair WWRF sits within the usual and accustomed fishing area of the Squaxin Island Tribe, and any expansion carries potential implications for salmon habitat in Coulter Creek. Under the revised agreement, Mason County is required to consult with tribal representatives before making any final decisions on expansion.

    For residents who use or are considering connecting to the Belfair sewer system, the next several months will be worth watching closely. If Bremerton initiates payment, a 180-day study clock begins ticking — and commissioner briefings, public meetings, and Belfair Sewer Advisory Committee sessions will be where the real debate plays out. If Bremerton does not pay, the study stalls — and the question of Belfair’s long-term wastewater capacity remains unresolved.

    What to Watch

    On the fiber front, May 31 is a hard deadline. Whether you live off Wivell Road, Loertscher Road, or anywhere along the Cloquallum Road corridor in north Mason County, submitting a construction application before that date saves you $250. Visit pud3.org or contact Mason County PUD No. 3 at their Shelton office for details on the application process.

    On the sewer front, the clock starts when Bremerton writes the check. Mason County residents can track developments through masoncountywa.gov and the Belfair Sewer Advisory Committee page at masoncountywa.gov/ac/belfair-sewer/.


    Related Expansion Coverage

    This beat post was expanded into a full knowledge cluster by the Mason County Minute Variant Expander on May 8, 2026:

  • New to Mason County? OneStop Northwest’s Shelton Showroom and the SR-3 Port Deal Explain How the Local Economy Works

    New to Mason County? OneStop Northwest’s Shelton Showroom and the SR-3 Port Deal Explain How the Local Economy Works

    If you moved to Mason County recently — whether you settled in Shelton, Belfair, Allyn, or anywhere in between — two stories from this week give you useful context about how this county’s economy is structured and what’s being built right now.

    OneStop Northwest: A Mason County Business Resource Worth Knowing About

    One of the common frustrations for business owners and households new to Mason County is discovering that the county’s commercial services are more dispersed than in larger metro areas. OneStop Northwest LLC is attempting to change that for a specific and practical set of needs.

    The company — a minority-owned business based in Union, Washington, with more than 20 years of operating history — is opening a showroom at 124 N. 2nd St., Suite A in downtown Shelton on May 22, 2026. Its grand opening runs from 4:30 to 7:00 p.m. and is free to attend (RSVP at onestopnw.com).

    What OneStop Northwest does: promotional products and branded apparel, commercial printing, custom company stores, website development, SEO and social media marketing, digital marketing, IT support, payroll automation, and government contracting for internet and phone services. If you’re starting or running a business in Mason County and currently sourcing those services from outside the county, this showroom is worth a visit.

    The company is a member of the Shelton-Mason County Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber is at masonchamber.com and is one of the most useful resources for newcomers trying to understand Mason County’s business network — member listings, events, and connections to local government contacts all live there.

    How Mason County’s Port Districts Work — and Why the SR-3 Discussion Matters

    New residents are sometimes surprised to learn how many special-purpose public agencies operate in Mason County alongside city and county government. Port districts are among them. Mason County has several: the Port of Shelton (the largest), the Port of Allyn, the Port of Grapeview, the Port of Hoodsport, and others.

    Port districts are quasi-governmental agencies with an elected board of commissioners. Their core purposes under Washington state law include economic development, industrial development, and waterfront and marina infrastructure. They can levy property taxes within their district boundaries, accept grants, and own property. They hold regular public meetings that are open to the community.

    Right now, two of north Mason County’s smaller ports — the Port of Allyn and the Port of Grapeview — are exploring something worth understanding if you live in the Allyn-Grapeview area: a joint purchase of a $2 million commercial and light industrial property on SR-3 near East Harding Hill Road.

    Port of Allyn Executive Director Travis Merrill raised the opportunity at the Port of Grapeview’s April 2026 regular meeting. The property has existing tenants, some vacancy, and potential for future expansion. The financial case: each port could earn $15,000 to $18,000 per year after expenses from leasing and rental income.

    The larger picture Merrill described is one that shapes north Mason County’s development landscape for years: small port districts in Washington face financial pressure from inflation and rising operating costs. Acquiring income-generating commercial property is one lever they have to build financial stability. And under Washington law, a port district that owns industrial property has tools to actively attract business tenants to that corridor — which over time means jobs and services in the Allyn-Grapeview area.

    Neither board has voted to purchase. The next steps are a site visit and research into how two independent port districts can jointly own a single asset. Watch for updates at public meetings for both the Port of Allyn (portofallyn.com) and the Port of Grapeview.

    What to Do with This Information as a New Resident

    The May 22 OneStop Northwest grand opening is a free community event in downtown Shelton — a good way to meet local business operators and see what the county seat’s commercial district looks like. It’s also a chance to evaluate whether OneStop’s services fit any needs you have, whether for a business or for community projects.

    For the SR-3 port story: if you live in the Allyn or Grapeview areas, attending a Port of Allyn or Port of Grapeview meeting is a good introduction to how local public agencies operate. These meetings are publicly noticed, short, and genuinely accessible — a different register from county commissioner meetings, and a useful window into north Mason’s economic direction.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What are port districts in Mason County and how do they affect residents?

    Port districts are elected special-purpose public agencies with authority over economic and industrial development, waterfront infrastructure, and marina operations. They can levy property taxes within their boundaries, own property, and accept grants. Residents in a port district’s service area pay a small portion of their property taxes to the port. Mason County has several ports including the Port of Shelton, Port of Allyn, Port of Grapeview, and Port of Hoodsport.

    Where is the OneStop Northwest showroom in Shelton?

    The showroom is at 124 N. 2nd St., Suite A in downtown Shelton. The grand opening is May 22, 2026, from 4:30 to 7:00 p.m. RSVP at onestopnw.com. The event is free.

    What is the Shelton-Mason County Chamber of Commerce and how can new residents use it?

    The Chamber is the primary business membership organization in Mason County. It maintains a member directory of local businesses, hosts networking events, and connects businesses with county economic resources. New residents and business owners can find it at masonchamber.com.

    What is the SR-3 commercial property the ports are considering buying?

    It is a $2 million commercial and light industrial property on State Route 3 near East Harding Hill Road in north Mason County, in the Allyn area. The Port of Allyn and Port of Grapeview are researching a joint purchase to generate rental income and support future industrial development in the corridor.

    How can I attend Port of Allyn or Port of Grapeview public meetings?

    Both port districts hold regular public meetings that are open to the community. The Port of Allyn’s website is portofallyn.com. Meeting agendas and schedules are posted publicly. No registration is required to attend.



    Related Coverage

  • Mason County Civic Watch: The Port of Allyn–Grapeview $2M Shared Asset Decision and What to Track This Summer

    Mason County Civic Watch: The Port of Allyn–Grapeview $2M Shared Asset Decision and What to Track This Summer

    Two public meetings held in April 2026 set up decisions that Mason County civic watchers should track through the summer. At the Port of Grapeview’s April regular meeting, commissioners formally agreed to research a $2 million joint commercial property purchase with the Port of Allyn — a governance experiment that would require two independent Washington port districts to share ownership of a single asset. And in Shelton, OneStop Northwest LLC has finalized its new downtown location, the product of a business expansion that moves a Union-based company into the county seat’s commercial core.

    The Port Districts’ $2M Shared Asset Question

    What Port of Allyn Executive Director Travis Merrill brought to Port of Grapeview Commissioner Mike Blaisdell is not a routine port purchase. The SR-3 property near East Harding Hill Road — a $2 million commercial and light industrial site with existing tenants and room for expansion — would, if acquired, be owned jointly by two separate special-purpose districts. That is not unprecedented in Washington state port history, but it requires research, and the Grapeview board directed Managing Official Amanda Montgomery to find out how other port districts have structured such arrangements.

    The financial case Merrill has made to the Grapeview board is straightforward: after expenses, each district could earn $15,000 to $18,000 per year from the property. For the Port of Grapeview — small enough that insurance costs alone represent a budget challenge — that recurring revenue would materially improve financial stability.

    “There is no way that either of our ports, or even any of the ports in Mason County except the Port of Shelton, is going to be able to weather the storm that seems to be coming without some sort of financial assets,” Merrill said at the April meeting.

    Commissioner Doug Jones agreed the property was worth evaluating. “It’s something we should at least talk about,” he said, acknowledging the $2 million price tag is “a significant amount of money.”

    What civic watchers should track:

    • Site visit: Both port districts agreed to visit the SR-3 property before any purchase commitment. Watch for this to be announced at upcoming Port of Allyn and Port of Grapeview regular meetings.
    • Shared ownership legal structure: Amanda Montgomery has been tasked with researching how Washington port districts can co-hold an asset. The legal framework she surfaces will likely determine whether this deal proceeds and in what form.
    • Board votes: Any purchase at $2 million requires formal board action at both districts. Neither board has voted — this is still in preliminary evaluation.

    The Port of Allyn entered this conversation from a position of relative stability. Its 2026 state accountability audit found no findings — a clean bill of health on public fund management — and the port recouped the full $99,731 it spent removing the sunken vessel Sea Bear from Hood Canal waters, with Washington State’s DNR Derelict Vessels Program providing 100% reimbursement.

    OneStop Northwest: A Business Milestone in the County Seat

    For civic watchers tracking downtown Shelton’s commercial activity, the May 22 ribbon-cutting for OneStop Northwest at 124 N. 2nd St., Suite A is a data point. The Shelton-Mason County Chamber of Commerce is participating. The grand opening is at 4:30 p.m.

    OneStop Northwest’s expansion from Union into a downtown Shelton showroom reflects the same bet Merrill is making with the SR-3 property: that Mason County’s local economy has enough density to support professional services and commercial real estate that local operators control.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What governance structure would a Port of Allyn–Port of Grapeview joint property ownership require?

    Two independent Washington port districts would need to establish a legal framework for co-holding an asset — including how operating decisions are made, how expenses are split, how revenues are distributed, and what happens if one district wants to exit the arrangement. Port of Grapeview Managing Official Amanda Montgomery has been tasked with researching models used by other Washington port districts.

    Has the Port of Grapeview board voted to purchase the SR-3 property?

    No. As of the April 2026 regular meeting, commissioners agreed only to schedule a site visit and research the shared ownership legal framework. No purchase motion has been made at either district.

    What is the Port of Allyn’s current financial condition?

    The Port of Allyn received a clean 2026 Washington State accountability audit with no findings, and recouped $99,731 in full from the DNR Derelict Vessels Program for the Sea Bear removal. Executive Director Travis Merrill has, however, been candid that small port districts face growing financial pressure and need diversified revenue sources.

    What is the assessed value of the SR-3 property?

    Approximately $2 million. The property has a history of commercial and light industrial use, has existing tenants, and includes space that is currently vacant with potential for future expansion.

    When will the port districts make a final decision on the SR-3 property?

    No timeline has been set. The next steps are a site visit by commissioners from both districts and research into shared ownership models. Follow public meeting agendas for the Port of Allyn and Port of Grapeview for updates.



    Related Coverage

  • Snohomish County Council Member Introduces Four Bills on Homelessness Policy, Drug Paraphernalia, and Child Fentanyl

    Snohomish County Council Member Introduces Four Bills on Homelessness Policy, Drug Paraphernalia, and Child Fentanyl

    A Snohomish County Council member introduced four new ordinances this week that would significantly shift how the county approaches homelessness, behavioral health treatment, and drug policy — including a proposal to prohibit county funding from being used to purchase drug paraphernalia and another that would criminalize exposing children to fentanyl.

    Council Member Nate Nehring, who represents District 1 on the Snohomish County Council, introduced the package and outlined each proposal in a May 6, 2026 column published in The Daily Herald.

    For Everett residents, the legislation touches on issues that directly affect city neighborhoods — from the cost and structure of county-funded shelter and housing programs to the legal framework around drug exposure in homes with children. The four bills are proposals; they have not yet been voted on. Each must go through committee review and at least one public hearing before the full council takes action.

    The Four Proposals, One by One

    Proposal 1: Removing the County’s Housing First Preference

    The first ordinance would prevent the county from requiring county-funded housing programs to adhere to strict “Housing First” policies. Instead, Nehring wrote, the proposal would “level the playing field for entities which prioritize accountability.”

    Housing First is a model used by many government housing programs that prioritizes placing people in stable housing before addressing other challenges such as addiction or mental health treatment. Under Nehring’s proposal, county-funded programs would not be required to follow the Housing First framework, opening the door for the county to fund programs that incorporate treatment requirements as part of their model.

    Proposal 2: Directing More AHBH Dollars Toward Behavioral Health Facilities

    The second ordinance would redirect a larger share of the county’s Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health (AHBH) Fund toward behavioral health facilities specifically.

    Nehring wrote that $3 million annually — about 12.2% of AHBH funds — currently goes toward behavioral health facilities. The proposal would increase that share to 20%, expanding the funding available for treatment, recovery, and stabilization services.

    The AHBH fund is a sales-tax-funded source — authorized under state law — that the County Council allocates to housing and behavioral health projects across Snohomish County. In April 2026, the county council awarded $23 million from the fund to six housing projects, including three in Everett: a 172-bed shelter expansion, a 28-unit affordable apartment building, and a 58-unit transit-oriented mixed-use building. Read: How $23 Million in Housing Money Moved Without a Tax Vote

    Proposal 3: Prohibiting County Funds for Drug Paraphernalia

    The third ordinance would prohibit Snohomish County from using local taxpayer dollars to purchase and distribute drug paraphernalia. Nehring described the proposal as intended to “ensure that county government does not facilitate activities that enable ongoing drug abuse,” with county policy instead focused on “treatment, recovery, and accountability.”

    The specific definitions and any exemptions — including for medications such as naloxone, the overdose-reversal drug — would be determined in the ordinance’s legislative text as it moves through the review process.

    Proposal 4: Child Fentanyl Exposure Ordinance

    The fourth ordinance would criminalize the exposure of minors to fentanyl at the county level, modeled on a similar law recently enacted by the City of Everett.

    Washington State law already criminalizes exposing children to methamphetamine, but does not specifically address fentanyl. Nehring wrote that “local governments around the state are now taking action to address child fentanyl exposure.” The Snohomish County proposal would extend similar protections to cover fentanyl exposure at the county level.

    What Comes Next for the Legislation

    Nehring introduced the four proposals this week at the Snohomish County Council. None has yet been voted on. Snohomish County ordinances go through a committee review and public hearing process before the full council votes on them. The timeline for hearings on each bill will be set by the council’s legislative calendar.

    The Snohomish County Council has five members elected by district. For any proposal to become law, a majority — three votes — would be required.

    The Policy Context

    Snohomish County — with Everett as its county seat — has invested substantially in housing and behavioral health programs in recent years, using dedicated sales tax revenues to fund shelter, affordable housing, and treatment projects.

    Nehring’s four-bill package reflects a debate playing out in counties and cities across Washington State about how government housing programs should be structured, whether treatment requirements should be part of publicly funded housing programs, and how counties should allocate limited behavioral health dollars.

    Nehring represents District 1 on the Snohomish County Council and lives in Arlington. In his column, he described witnessing the day-to-day work of social workers embedded with law enforcement and said current policy approaches “do not appear to be solving the problem.”

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is Housing First?

    Housing First is a policy framework that prioritizes placing people experiencing homelessness in stable housing as quickly as possible, without requiring sobriety or participation in treatment as a precondition. It is used in many county and state housing programs across Washington.

    Have these bills passed?

    No. As of May 6, the four ordinances have been introduced. They must go through committee review and at least one public hearing before a full council vote.

    Does this affect the City of Everett’s budget or the EMS levy?

    No. These are county-level ordinances. They would affect how Snohomish County allocates county funds, not the City of Everett’s budget or any pending city ballot measures.

    How is the AHBH fund paid for?

    The Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health Fund is funded by a sales tax authorized by state law (RCW 82.14.530 and RCW 82.14.540). The county council allocates the proceeds through its regular legislative process; no separate voter approval is required for each award.

    Can Everett residents comment on county legislation?

    Yes. Snohomish County residents can testify at County Council meetings, submit written comments through the county website, or contact their district representative directly. The County Council meets at 3000 Rockefeller Ave in Everett.

    What To Do Next

    Track the bills: Visit snohomishcountywa.gov and navigate to the County Council’s meeting calendar to follow committee schedules for these four ordinances.

    Submit written comment: Contact the Snohomish County Council office with your perspective on any of the four proposals before they reach a public hearing.

    Attend a council meeting: The Snohomish County Council meets at 3000 Rockefeller Ave, Everett. Meeting dates and agendas are posted at snohomishcountywa.gov.

    Find your council district: Visit snohomishcountywa.gov to identify which of the five council members represents your area.

  • Everett Council Will Take Up an Ordinance Wednesday Changing How the City Pays Its Appointed Officials — Here’s What Chapter 2.74 Actually Covers

    Everett Council Will Take Up an Ordinance Wednesday Changing How the City Pays Its Appointed Officials — Here’s What Chapter 2.74 Actually Covers

    Everett Council Will Take Up an Ordinance Wednesday Changing How the City Pays Its Appointed Officials — Here’s What Chapter 2.74 Actually Covers

    Featured snippet:

    Q: What is Council Bill 2604-24, and when does the Everett City Council vote on it?
    A: CB 2604-24 amends Chapter 2.74 of the Everett Municipal Code, which governs compensation and fringe benefits for the city’s appointive officers, classified nonrepresented employees, and councilmembers themselves. First reading is at the May 6, 2026 council meeting. Third and final reading is scheduled for May 20, 2026.

    Wednesday night at City Hall, the Everett City Council will take up the first reading of an ordinance most residents will never read but every resident pays for.

    Council Bill 2604-24 is on the May 6 agenda as a Proposed Action Item — a 1st reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 2.74 of the Everett Municipal Code, which is the section of city code that governs how Everett pays its appointed department heads, its classified nonrepresented employees, and its own city councilmembers. The third and final reading is scheduled for May 20, 2026, at the next regular council meeting after Wednesday’s vote.

    The ordinance itself is short on the agenda — one line on a single page of consent and action items. But the chapter it amends is the section of code that decides how much the city pays the people running its departments and what benefits they get for that work. For a city facing a projected $14 million 2027 general fund gap (covered earlier in this desk’s run log on April 21), how the appointed leadership is compensated is not a side question.

    This article breaks down what Chapter 2.74 actually does, what’s likely to be inside CB 2604-24, the calendar between Wednesday and May 20, and how residents who want to weigh in can do so before the third reading.

    What Changes for Residents

    Three things to know up front:

    The vote is not final on Wednesday. Wednesday is the 1st reading. The final vote is May 20. That gives residents two weeks to read the ordinance bill, watch the May 6 deliberation, and submit public comment before the council acts.

    This is not a salary-setting vote for elected councilmembers in isolation. Chapter 2.74 covers three categories: appointive officers (the people the mayor appoints to run departments), classified nonrepresented employees (city staff who are not covered by a union contract), and the city council itself. Any change to one article of the chapter typically gets discussed alongside the others.

    You can read the actual bill before the meeting. The full PDF of CB 2604-24 is posted to the city’s Agenda Center under the May 6, 2026 agenda packet. The link to the document — including any staff memo explaining what the changes do — is published on everettwa.gov/AgendaCenter at least 72 hours before the meeting under state public-meeting rules.

    What Chapter 2.74 Actually Covers

    The Everett Municipal Code organizes Chapter 2.74 into three articles, each covering a different category of city personnel:

    Article I — Appointive Officers. These are the department heads and senior staff appointed by the mayor — the people who actually run departments like Public Works, Parks, the Police Department’s civilian leadership, the Fire Department’s civilian leadership, and similar roles. Under existing code, the mayor sets the workweek for appointive officers as needed for “efficient functioning of city government.” Appointive officers who are exempt from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act do not get premium pay for overtime, callbacks, or holidays, and no appointive officer gets longevity premium pay.

    The chapter also defines insurance benefits for these officers: basic and major medical, vision, and dental coverage for the officer and eligible dependents, with the full-time officer required to contribute ten percent of the cost of medical coverage.

    Article II — Classified Nonrepresented Employees. These are city employees who are not in a union bargaining unit. Their compensation and benefits are set through this chapter rather than through collective bargaining.

    Article III — City Council. This article covers how Everett pays its own councilmembers and council president, including any expense reimbursements and benefits.

    Chapter 2.74 is distinct from Chapter 2.72, which handles general employee compensation, and Chapter 2.70, which sets the broader Performance Management and Compensation Plan. The salary ordinance for represented employees lives elsewhere in the code.

    What’s Likely Inside CB 2604-24

    The agenda title for CB 2604-24 reads: “Adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.74 of the Everett Municipal Code, which pertains to appointive employee compensation and fringe benefits.”

    The agenda doesn’t say specifically which sections of the chapter are being amended. That’s standard format for first-reading agenda titles — the substance is in the bill PDF in the agenda packet, not in the headline. Residents who want to know exactly what changes the ordinance proposes need to download the bill itself from the May 6 agenda packet at everettwa.gov/AgendaCenter.

    What is typical for ordinances of this type — based on how Chapter 2.74 has been amended in prior years — is one or more of the following: an adjustment to the cost-of-living formula, a change to the fringe-benefit contribution percentages, an update to the language defining which positions are “appointive” versus “classified,” a clarification of FLSA-exempt status for specific roles, or a reorganization of how the three articles interact.

    Residents reading the bill should look for: which sections are added, which are deleted, which are modified, and whether the changes are prospective (forward-looking only) or retroactive to a prior pay period.

    The Calendar Between Wednesday and May 20

    Everett ordinances generally get three readings before adoption:

    • 1st Reading: Wednesday, May 6, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. — Council Chambers, 3002 Wetmore Avenue. The bill is introduced, staff may offer a brief explanation, and councilmembers can ask questions. There is typically no full debate at first reading; the bill is “read” and held over.
    • 2nd Reading: would normally be May 13, 2026 — at the regular Wednesday meeting that week. The bill receives further consideration. Amendments are most commonly offered at second reading.
    • 3rd & Final Reading: Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. — the agenda title for CB 2604-24 specifically lists “(3rd & Final Reading 5/20/26)” — meaning the final vote, in current city practice, is consolidated into a single agenda item on the third meeting in the cycle.

    If amendments are added between first and final reading, those amendments themselves can extend the process. Residents who want to follow the bill should set a reminder for May 20.

    How to Weigh In Before May 20

    Everett’s council meetings include a Public Comment period at the start of every regular meeting. Residents who want to comment on CB 2604-24 have several paths:

    In person at the meeting. Public Comment runs near the start of every regular Wednesday meeting. Residents arrive at Council Chambers, 3002 Wetmore Avenue, before 6:30 p.m. and sign up at the door. The standard time limit is three minutes per speaker.

    By Zoom. Register at everettwa.gov/speakerform no later than 30 minutes before the meeting starts. The city’s notice requires that you identify the topic you wish to address.

    By email. Send written comments to Council@everettwa.gov. The city notes that emailed comments submitted at least 24 hours before the meeting are distributed to all councilmembers and appropriate staff. Comments sent later may not reach councilmembers before the vote.

    By mail. 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 9A, Everett, WA 98201. Allow time for delivery if you go this route.

    Comments on non-agenda items may be asked to be submitted in writing if the comment does not address an issue of “broad public interest,” per the city’s published guidance. CB 2604-24 is on the agenda for Wednesday and again on May 20, so it qualifies as an agenda item for both meetings.

    Watching the Meeting

    Wednesday’s meeting will be broadcast live and recorded. Two ways to follow along:

    Live and archived video: YouTube.com/EverettCity. The full archive of past meetings is searchable from there.

    Agenda and bill PDFs: everettwa.gov/citycouncil and the AgendaCenter for the May 6, 2026 packet.

    If you cannot watch Wednesday but want to be informed before May 20, the meeting recording typically posts within 24 hours and the official minutes — including the roll-call vote on first reading and any amendments offered — are added to the May 6 agenda page on the city website within a week.

    Why This Matters Inside Everett’s Bigger Budget Picture

    Earlier in this desk’s run log (April 21, 2026) we covered Everett’s projected $14 million 2027 general fund gap and the four levers the city is weighing to close it: the regional fire RFA, Sno-Isle library regionalization, another levy lid lift, and possible annexation. Three of those four require voter approval.

    How the city pays its appointive officers and classified nonrepresented employees is not the largest line in the general fund, but it is one of the lines the city has direct discretion over without going to voters. Any ordinance amending Chapter 2.74 in 2026 is happening inside that budget context whether the bill mentions the gap or not. Residents reading CB 2604-24 should look for whether the ordinance is structured to add cost, hold cost flat, or save cost — and whether the staff memo that accompanies the bill addresses the 2027 budget connection.

    That answer is in the agenda packet, not in the headline.

    What to Do Next

    Before Wednesday:

    • Download CB 2604-24 from the May 6, 2026 agenda packet at everettwa.gov/AgendaCenter.
    • Read the staff memo (if attached) for the city’s explanation of what changes and why.
    • If you want to speak at Wednesday’s meeting in person, plan to arrive at 3002 Wetmore Avenue before 6:30 p.m. Wednesday. To speak via Zoom, register at everettwa.gov/speakerform by 6 p.m.

    Between May 6 and May 20:

    • Watch the May 6 first-reading deliberation on YouTube.com/EverettCity to see which councilmembers engage and what they ask.
    • Submit written comment to Council@everettwa.gov at least 24 hours before May 20 to ensure councilmembers receive it before the final vote.
    • Track whether any amendments are filed between readings — those typically appear on the agenda for the second reading the week before final.

    On May 20:

    • The 3rd and final reading is scheduled for the Wednesday, May 20 meeting at 6:30 p.m.
    • Public comment is again accepted before the vote.
    • The roll call shows where each councilmember landed.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What does Chapter 2.74 of the Everett Municipal Code govern?

    Chapter 2.74 covers compensation and fringe benefits for the City of Everett’s appointive officers (department heads appointed by the mayor), classified nonrepresented employees (city staff not covered by union contracts), and the city council itself.

    When is the first reading of CB 2604-24?

    Wednesday, May 6, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers, 3002 Wetmore Avenue.

    When is the final vote?

    Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. The agenda item for May 6 specifically lists “(3rd & Final Reading 5/20/26).”

    Where can I read the actual ordinance bill?

    The PDF of CB 2604-24 is in the May 6, 2026 agenda packet at everettwa.gov/AgendaCenter, along with any staff memo explaining the changes.

    How do I submit public comment?

    By email to Council@everettwa.gov (at least 24 hours before the meeting to ensure councilmembers receive it), in person at Council Chambers, by Zoom (register at everettwa.gov/speakerform no later than 30 minutes before the meeting), or by mail to 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 9A, Everett, WA 98201.

    Does this ordinance set salaries for elected city councilmembers?

    Chapter 2.74 includes Article III on City Council compensation, but the agenda title for CB 2604-24 specifically references “appointive employee compensation and fringe benefits” — the appointed-officer side of the chapter. Residents who want to know which articles the bill modifies need to read the bill PDF.

    Is this connected to Everett’s 2027 budget gap?

    Everett is projecting a roughly $14 million 2027 general fund gap. How the city pays its appointive officers and classified nonrepresented employees is one of the discretionary lines in the general fund. The ordinance does not have to mention the gap to be relevant to it; residents should look at the staff memo for whether the city addresses the connection.

    Where do I watch the meeting?

    Live and archived at YouTube.com/EverettCity. The May 6 meeting starts at 6:30 p.m.

  • Snohomish County Candidate Filing Opens Monday — If You’re Thinking About Running for Office, You Have Five Days

    Snohomish County Candidate Filing Opens Monday — If You’re Thinking About Running for Office, You Have Five Days

    Snohomish County Candidate Filing Opens Monday — If You’re Thinking About Running for Office, You Have Five Days

    Featured snippet:

    Q: When does Snohomish County 2026 candidate filing open and close?
    A: Filing opens at 8 a.m. Monday, May 4, 2026, and closes at 5 p.m. Friday, May 8, 2026. Candidates can file online through the Washington Secretary of State at sos.wa.gov/elections, or in person at Snohomish County Elections, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Admin West Building, 1st Floor, Everett.

    If you have ever told a friend “somebody should run against this person,” Monday is the morning when “somebody” turns into “you, by Friday at five o’clock.”

    Snohomish County’s 2026 candidate filing window opens at 8 a.m. on Monday, May 4, and closes at 5 p.m. on Friday, May 8. That’s the entire window. Five business days. After Friday at 5 p.m., the November 2026 ballot is locked, and any office without a candidate filed against the incumbent simply re-elects the incumbent by default.

    For Everett residents, that means this week is when the actual list of choices for November gets written — not by a campaign, not by a party, but by whoever walks in or logs on between Monday morning and Friday evening.

    What Changes for Residents This Week

    The most important thing for residents to know: the November 2026 ballot is decided this week, not in November. Any race with only one filed candidate is over before the primary even runs. Any race with two or more candidates from the same party in a top-two primary state like Washington heads to the August 4 primary, where the top two finishers — regardless of party — advance to November.

    That’s it. That’s the structure. Filing week is the gate. Everything downstream — the August primary, the October mailing of voters’ pamphlets, the November general — is downstream of who walked in this week.

    The Everett City Council itself is not on the 2026 ballot. The next Everett Council seats up are the at-large positions 6 and 7, scheduled for the end of 2027. So if you were thinking about a run at City Hall, this is not your year. But several other offices that touch life in Everett are open this cycle, including Snohomish County Council seats, county-wide constitutional offices, and judicial positions covering the courts that handle most everyday legal matters in the city.

    The full official list of offices on the 2026 ballot is maintained by Snohomish County Elections at the 2026 Candidate Guide linked from snohomishcountywa.gov/5729/Run-for-Office. Some offices file with Snohomish County Elections, others file with the Washington Secretary of State directly — the Candidate Guide tells you which is which for every position.

    How Filing Works

    Snohomish County Elections has set up four ways to file:

    Online (recommended). File through the Washington Secretary of State’s Candidate Filing portal at sos.wa.gov/elections. This is the path the county pushes hardest because it timestamps automatically, accepts payment, and produces a confirmation email. Most candidates file this way.

    In person. Walk in to Snohomish County Elections at 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Admin West Building, 1st Floor, Everett, WA 98201. The office is open 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday during the filing window. Bring identification. Bring payment for the filing fee.

    By email. Send a Declaration of Candidacy to elections@snoco.gov.

    By fax. Send to (425) 355-3444.

    The phone number for questions is (425) 388-3444. If you have any doubt about which office you’re filing for, which jurisdiction the office sits in, or whether your address falls inside the right district, call before you file. A misfiled candidacy is harder to fix than a delayed one.

    The Filing Fee

    Most positions with a salary require a filing fee equal to 1% of the annual salary for the office. So a position that pays $100,000 a year requires a $1,000 filing fee, due at the time of filing or no later than 5 p.m. Friday, May 8.

    Two important practical notes on the fee:

    First, the 1% rule is real money for some offices. If you are running for a position that pays well, plan for the fee in advance — it must be paid during the filing window itself.

    Second, candidates who cannot afford the filing fee can submit a petition with signatures of registered voters in the jurisdiction in lieu of the fee. The signature requirements vary by office. Snohomish County Elections has the petition forms and the signature-count requirements for each position, available through the Run for Office page on the county website or by calling the elections office directly.

    What Sits Above and Around This Week

    Filing week sits inside a longer civic calendar that residents will see roll out across 2026:

    August 4 is the primary election. For races with three or more candidates, the top two advance regardless of party. For races with one or two candidates total, there is effectively no primary — both candidates simply move on to November.

    November 3 is the general election. Mail-in ballots get mailed roughly two weeks before election day. Washington is a vote-by-mail state with same-day registration through election day at the elections office.

    Ballot certification typically runs two to three weeks after election day. As the desk’s protocol reminds us: until the Snohomish County Auditor’s office certifies a result, every count is preliminary. November 3 results are not the final results. They are the early count.

    The sequence matters because what happens this week — who files for what office — determines what voters in Everett will see when their ballots arrive in October. If nobody files for an open seat, the seat stays open by default rules and gets appointed. If only the incumbent files, the incumbent is re-elected without a contest. If two or more file, voters get a choice.

    What to Do Next

    If you are thinking about running:

    1. Pull up the 2026 Candidate Guide from snohomishcountywa.gov/5729/Run-for-Office before Monday morning. Identify the office, the salary, and the filing-fee amount.
    2. Decide whether to file online (sos.wa.gov/elections) or in person at 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Everett.
    3. Have payment ready — credit card if filing online, check or card if filing in person.
    4. File during business hours. If you wait until late Friday afternoon, you are competing with everyone else who waited.

    If you are thinking about supporting someone else who should run:

    1. Send them this article today. They have until Friday.
    2. Help them identify the office, find the filing fee, and walk through the Candidate Guide.
    3. If you live in the same district, ask them whether they would sign their name if you filed.

    If you are not running but want to follow what fills out this week:

    • Snohomish County Elections will post the candidate list shortly after filing closes Friday at 5 p.m. The list lives at the Candidates and Measures on the Ballot page (snohomishcountywa.gov/5722/See-Whats-on-the-Ballot).
    • Washington’s statewide candidate list is at voter.votewa.gov.
    • The Daily Herald, My Everett News, and the Snohomish County Tribune all cover filing-week results once the list is final.

    What This Costs the Public

    Filing week itself costs the public almost nothing — Snohomish County Elections runs as a baseline function of the Auditor’s office regardless of how many candidates file. The downstream cost is the August primary, which the county runs whether two candidates file or two hundred. The election infrastructure is paid for; the unknown variable is whether residents get a real choice on the ballot.

    That is the actual stake of filing week. Not money. Not partisan advantage. Just whether November 2026 is a real election or a paperwork formality for offices Everett residents pay for and live under.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    When does candidate filing open and close in Snohomish County?

    Filing opens at 8 a.m. Monday, May 4, 2026, and closes at 5 p.m. Friday, May 8, 2026. There are no extensions for any reason.

    Where can I file as a candidate?

    Online at sos.wa.gov/elections (recommended), in person at Snohomish County Elections, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Admin West Building, 1st Floor, Everett, WA 98201, by email to elections@snoco.gov, or by fax to (425) 355-3444.

    Is the Everett City Council on the 2026 ballot?

    No. The next Everett City Council seats up for election are at-large positions 6 and 7, which are on the November 2027 ballot. The 2026 ballot includes other positions that affect Everett, including Snohomish County Council seats, county-wide offices, and judicial positions.

    How much does it cost to file?

    For most paid offices, the filing fee is 1% of the office’s annual salary. The fee must be paid at filing or no later than 5 p.m. Friday, May 8. Candidates who cannot afford the fee can file a petition with signatures of registered voters in the jurisdiction in lieu of payment.

    What happens if nobody files against an incumbent?

    The incumbent is re-elected by default. There is no general-election ballot contest for an unopposed seat under the same party.

    When is the 2026 primary?

    August 4, 2026. The general election is November 3, 2026. Washington is a top-two primary state — the top two finishers in any primary advance to November regardless of party.

    Where can I find the official list of every office on the 2026 ballot?

    The 2026 Candidate Guide on the Snohomish County Elections “Run for Office” page (snohomishcountywa.gov/5729/Run-for-Office) lists every office, the filing fee, and whether the office files with the county or with the state. The statewide list lives at voter.votewa.gov.

    Who do I call if I have questions about filing?

    Snohomish County Elections at (425) 388-3444. Call before you file rather than after.