Charter Review Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. We're gonna call the meeting of the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission to order. It's 05/20/2026, 05:30, and we are meeting in Monroe at Monroe City Hall. And, clerk, if I could get the roll call, please.

Toyer? Here. Vanny? Here. Gregerson? Here. Chatters? Here. O'Donnell? Here. Cass? Here. Decker? Happy to be here. Preston?

Here.

Dodd? Mankey? K Mink?

Here.

McGee? Here. Eslik?

Here.

James? Here. 12 members present.

Thank you. And, we need, an approval of the a motion to approve the agenda. Move to approve. Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

We will move right into public comment, and I want to read a few instructions for public comment. If I could get a show of hands real quick, I'm not sure how many are here for observing or here to actually provide public comment. If you wanna speak, can I just see who's Okay? Okay, that's great. Yeah.

Thank you. So a public comment portion tonight. Comments by the public may address any topic considered within the power and purview of this commission Because the commission will be taking public comment on specific proposals this evening, please refrain from speaking to those proposals until the allotted time so that your comment can become part of that public record. And for the record, those proposals to be addressed at the public hearing are proposal 22 related to financial transparency, proposal 13 related to foundational government services, and proposal 14 related to creation of a budget stabilization fund. So those three will be reserved for public hearing, and right now we'll open public comment for anything other than those three.

And we'll start we can start online, just how we've been doing it so far. We'll start online if you have a

If you would like to give public comment not related to the three items on the public hearing tonight, please raise your virtual hand. We have one person. Okay. Ashwin. Three minutes. Ashwin, you should be able to unmute, and you have three minutes.

Yes. Thank you. Yeah. I was I was here for, two, items, but I I just heard the comments saying, hold your comment on one and and have a public, conversation on another one. I don't remember which one is which.

But I can tell you that overall, I support, full transparency on any financial decisions, the county makes and any any follow on that happens. Like, I'm still not very clear as to, the money that was spent on the hotels, to create homeless shelters as to where are that. Is it over budget, you know, from our earlier expectation? Is it in use? I have no idea.

So I would love that. And and, of course, I would like majority super majority vote on any increases. I'm sorry if I broached on any one of the subjects I was not supposed to, but I don't remember what is 21, what's to 22. So, pardon me. Thank you.

Thank you. If there's anybody else online that would like

to give public comment, please raise your virtual hand. Chair, there's nobody else.

Okay. Then we'll go to in person next. If you would come up to the mic up here. Is it on, Peter? Do we know? Can you test it, please?

Hello? There we go.

Thank you. And go ahead and just

state your name

state your name and and then what go ahead.

Sure. Thank you. Hello. I'm Lisa Utter, president of the League of Women Voters of Snohomish County. At the annual business meeting of the League of Women Voters of Snohomish County on this past Saturday, May 16, the league membership approved the following statement to be shared with you, members members of the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission and the Snohomish County Council.

The League of Women Voters of Snohomish County believes the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission has not adequately fulfilled one of its stated tasks, quote, to provide a forum for public input, end quote. The charter requires three public hearings to inform decision making. All proposals presented to the Charter Review Commission were given an initial vote prior to any public hearings. League of Women Voters of Snohomish County has a long history of advocating for local governments to provide adequate notice of proposed actions, hold open hearings, and make public records readily accessible. We ask the Charter Review Commission to acknowledge their flawed process when they send their proposals to the Snohomish County Council, and we ask that the Snohomish County Council to hold a public hearing for the public to comment on all the proposals, including those not forwarded by the commission before approving proposals to be placed on the ballot.

I'd like to and that's the end of our statement that was approved by the membership. I'd like to share additional background. The League of Women Voters okay. I'm gonna make this. I feel like I have to stand on tippy toe.

Okay. The League of Women Voters of Snohomish County actively supported Snohomish County becoming a charter county and the development of this county's charter. We have also have been watching to ensure that the commission honors the spirit and charge of the Home Rule Charter to enable public fight feedback on how this document that governs our governs our county government is working and what changes need to be made. This includes advocating for robust public outreach, including clear information about the process of how to submit proposals and have proposals duly considered by the commission, and consideration of public input, including public hearings. Our league has an adopted policy on citizen partition citizen participation, which in brief says, support of citizen participation in local government by advocating that county and local government branches provide adequate notice of proposed actions, hold open meetings, and make public records readily accessible.

We believe the current Charter Review Commission has failed to fulfill its task. While the commission deliberated extensively, the public's ability to influence that deliberation was extremely limited. No public hearings were planned at the outset. The commission's own attorney Benjamin Goodwin confirmed on record at the February 25 meeting that three public hearings in different three different areas of the county were required. None were held before the submission deadline closed or before the commission's initial vote on all 25 proposals.

No independent submission path. All public proposals had to go through commissioners only. Everything routed through the coordinator's official county email address as the sole intake point. No right of response. Public comment was solely limited to three minutes per speaker during a public comment period front loaded before deliberation began. There was no mechanism to respond to commissioners' questions, correct the record, or engage with what commissioners were actually debating.

That's timely. So

Okay. There's a very short thing, but I will be sending this to you as well as the county council. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Seeing none, we will she speak oh, somebody's coming. Okay. Great. Thank you. Please state your name and and then go ahead. You have three minutes.

My name is Janice Green. I live in Everett, Washington. So tonight's agenda designates public hearing. The ground rules at the May 13 meeting, which use the same designation, were stated on the record. Each speaker gets three minutes, and comments should be germane to the specific proposal.

This is identical to general public comment format that use is used every meeting prior. There is no q and a, no ability to respond to the commissioner's deliberations, no mechanism to address what commissioners say before they rule or before they vote. Three minutes before a vote is a comment period period. The commissioner's own attorney confirmed on February 25 that three geographical distribute distributed, excuse me, public hearings were required before proposals were finalized. All 25 proposals were voted on before any session was designated a public hearing.

That sequencing is in the official records, and the county council will receive it. Also, the commission's website shows full text for five proposals still under consideration. The full text of 20 proposal the 20 proposals 20 plus proposals that were rejected or 20 were rejected or withdrawn is not publicly accessible. At the April 22 meeting, a commissioner formally asked the coordinator to publish a comprehensive list of all proposals with language and voting records in the public website. That request is on the recording, on the transcript.

It was not included in April twenty second may minutes. It has not been fulfilled as of tonight. We do have the ones that are open around there, but the ones that have been closed, we think there should be full transparency, and the public should be able to see what was rejected just as well as what was passed. Thank you.

Thank you, Jen. Is there anybody else in oh, go ahead.

Yeah. Catherine Levandowski. I live in Arlington, Washington. I'm a semi retired registered nurse here. And, I kind of have to agree with everything everybody said.

I've been really surprised at this whole process, kinda trying to watch it and see how it goes. And, in regards to the work that you guys have all been doing, it seems to me like early on a lot of the work was just you initially acted like you were in support of proposals that were submitted through through the public to through all of you guys, and then yet later it was rejected. And I don't understand these hearings. I'm used to hearings where at least there's a there's a description. Someone comes in and you would speak to your proposal and why you think this is a good thing necessary and what the purpose of it is, and then we would be able to give you our position on on whether you think it's good and bad.

That's my vision of what a hearing would look like. I really have seen these only as being a duplicate of the work that you all did during the wintertime, rather than being something where you can showcase your work and what you have to deliver to us to the people. Thank you.

Thank you, Katherine. Anyone else in the audience? Okay, seeing none.

My name is Nadine Chanti and I live in Clearview. I wanted to speak to you tonight about the proposal that is requiring a super majority vote in the county council. I'm very disturbed by this because essentially what happens here is that

Sorry.

Point of order. That's actually an agenda item five point 6.3, I believe. Comments should be held for the public hearing for that particular item.

I don't think there is any requirement that the comments be reserved for that. The public can choose what they speak on, but that is the subject of the public hearing. But I don't think you can bar the public from speaking on their thoughts during the public comment period. Alright. Thank you.

I'm just saying that there are several proposals that are requiring a super majority vote in the county council. While I am generally supportive of emergency funding and planning, the fact that that also includes a supermajority vote could put us in a position where you're in a situation of emergency and you've got one person who's hamstringing the county council. I feel the same way about the supermajority vote that's been requested, for the county council when it comes to emerge, not emergencies, but when it when it comes to raising taxes, the idea that we want to take a majority of three and turn it into a majority of four is another way of hamstringing the county council. And I really don't agree with that situation. That's really all I wanted to say tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nadine.

Have one more person online that has raised their hand. Would you like Okay.

First, are there any is there anybody else in the audience here? Okay. Then we'll go to the online.

Joseph, you should be able to unmute and speak now. Joseph, if you unmute, you can give your public testimony. I'll give it one more time. Joseph, if you'd like to unmute. Okay. Never mind.

Okay. Alright. Well, then we'll move on, to the approval of the minutes, the May thirteenth twenty twenty six minutes. Are there any comments, changes, or if there aren't any, we'll take a motion to approve? So moved. Second. We have a move and a second. And all those in favor? Aye. Aye. And minutes are approved. And we will now go into the public hearing section. Let me read the instructions before we start the public hearing. So we will be addressing three proposals with three separate public hearings. We'll open and close them individually.

Those proposals are proposal 22 related to financial transparency, 13 related to foundational government services, and 14 related to a budget stabilization fund. We will now recess into the public hearing. Here are the guidelines for the public hearing. Everybody who wishes to speak will be given an opportunity to speak. And the limit will be three minutes.

Again, same as on the public comment, just state your name and then address just the proposal that's being talked about at the time. And comments by the public must be germane to that proposal. So the public hearing on proposal number 22 related to financial transparency is now open, and I will read the ballot title in the language that is proposed to be seen on the ballot, and that'll be instructional to people who have not heard that before or might be new to this process. So the Snohomish County Charter, well first of all, the title is Public Access to County Financial Transparency. The Snohomish County Charter Review Commission has proposed an amendment to the county charter to increase the availability of public access to county financial information.

This amendment would add a new section to article six of the Snohomish County charter. This proposal requires Snohomish County to make available where reasonably practicable, through existing systems or future modernization efforts, all financial information legally available within the county. And so we will take comment on that now, and we'll start online as have been the routine.

If you'd like to give public comment on proposal number 22, please raise your virtual hand. We have one person. Ashwin, you should be able to unmute and give your testimony. Yes.

Thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes. We can hear you.

Yeah. And, no, I I I don't need to add anything to what I already said. I just want to make sure that my, the fact that I spoke count, that I am in support of proposal 22. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Joseph, you should be able to unmute. Joseph, if you'd like to give testimony, please unmute yourself. I guess not. One more call for anybody who'd like to give testimony on proposal 22 online.

That's it.

Good, okay. Then anybody in person here with us that need yep, go ahead.

Again, do I have repeat my name again? Katherine Levandowski. And don't ask me how to spell it because my husband's kindergarten teacher didn't know, and he did. Anyway, okay. So I think this was presented by what are you guys called? Chairperson or whatever. Miss Cass? Commissioner Cass? Oh. So could we get an explanation of maybe the purpose of this? And, also, have you looked at potential costs? I think there was a little bit of discussion. I kinda think people deserve that. Why do we need this? We all want transparency. Are we lacking it now currently? I guess that's my question to you all. Thank you.

Thank you. And, commissioner Cass, if you could remember that when we go to our discussion, we'll answer those questions.

Will do.

Anybody else, in the public audience? Okay. The public hearing on proposal 22 is now closed, and I need to ask our attorney, should I move through all three proposals and then go to discussion? I

would recommend doing that, yes. To do that? Yeah, so go through each public hearing, solicit comment from the public, and then after each of those is closed, we'll close this hearing, open the next one, close that one, and And then the commission

can discuss. It. Thank you. Okay, so the public hearing on proposal number 13 is now open.

I I didn't hear. Did did you close the hearing for

We did. I closed the hearing on proposal number 22. There it is. So the proposal I'm sorry. The public hearing on proposal 13 is now open, and I'll read the proposed ballot title into the record.

Along with the title of this proposal is, proposition 13, Snohomish County adoption of a foundational government services policy. And the text for the proposed ballot title is the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission has proposed an amendment to the county charter relating to the adoption of a policy affirming the first obligation of the county government is to provide for and sustain core public services essential to health, safety, infrastructure, and the economic stability. This proposition would create a new section in article six of the county charter and require the county government to prioritize and protect funding for the offices of county assessor, auditor, clerk, executive, prosecuting attorney, sheriff, treasurer, and the district and superior court judges. So we will take comment online. Anybody?

If you'd like to give public comment on proposal 13, please raise your virtual hand. I see treasurer Sullivan. Go ahead.

Well, thank you. And, again, great thanks from from I'm in Washington DC right now on what they call infrastructure week. We're actually working with the National Association of Counties lobbying for federal money for our local bridges. I I I just wanna speak briefly on foundational government priorities. And I've been working on this particular issue for a year, and it really stems from forty years of experience on going through three catastrophic, you know, global financial events.

And the last time in 2008, we laid off 350 county employees. And one of my number one goals, you know, is to prioritize foundational government services in the budget so that we don't run into that issue or problem in the future. That does not preclude, you know, future state mandates or programs that are necessary to potentially expand services in government. But but, hopefully, this will keep the county council and the county executive focused, the laser focused on the issues that are necessary to provide on the ground services, everything from human services and housing to to deputies on the ground. So having said that, I'm certainly open for questions also should they arise.

Thank you. Next, I have Gene. Gene, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak. Jean, if you'd like to give testimony, please unmute yourself. One final call, Jean. Okay. She took her hand down. Okay. If anybody else would like to give comment on proposal 13 virtually, please raise your hand. There are no more. There's no more on there.

Okay, thank you. Then we'll move to the in person audience. Anybody that wants to comment on proposal 13, please come up to the mic.

Nadine Shantier, resident of Clearview. I, like Catherine, have a question that I'm hoping I can get an answer to. This proposal states that foundational issues are going to be answered first before there would be any funding that is given to discretionary issues. I'm very concerned about that because I don't know what you consider foundational and I don't know what you consider discretional. I don't know whether that means that it's going to be building and transportation and health services and then things like climate issues or DEI are now discretionary and they're only gonna be funded once everything else is met.

I would not be happy with that. So I'm I'm hoping that you can tell me what's the difference between foundational and what's discretionary. Thank you.

Thank you. And, treasurer Sullivan, I'll have you comment on that when we get to the comment period of the commission, if that's okay. Anyone else? Oh, here we go.

Yeah. I I just wanted to say, that I I I understand why you would wanna have that, and I think that it is appropriate. And I'm wondering what kind of, guardrails there are in there, though, that would limit the amount of but my understanding is you're gonna have reserves to help to kinda cover that stuff. And so what would be the limit, you know, after sitting through public, you know, public hearings on some pro proposals? We have the same issues with health insurance companies have billions of dollars more in reserves than they're legally required to and then have to sit through a hearing where maybe we're gonna penalize them if they have more than 10000% of what they are legally required to hold.

So I would hope there would be some guardrails because sometimes families need to have those, reserves in their budget too. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the public audience here? Okay. Okay. Anyone else? Alright. Well, seeing none, the public hearing for proposal number 13 is now closed. And we will move on to open up hearing on proposal number 14. Anyone wishing to speak?

Did you wanna read it?

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Let me do that first. Proposition 14, Snohomish County government to prioritize funding of a budget stabilization fund. The proposed ballot title is the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission has proposed an amendment to the county charter relating to the prioritization of the county budget stabilization funds.

This proposition this proposition would require the county legislature and executive branch to prioritize the funding of the county budget stabilization funds and would create a new section in article six of the county charter. The purpose of these funds is to help mitigate the impacts of catastrophic economic downturns and revenue shortfalls and provide resources for emergencies and catastrophic events. And we'll open to the online audience.

Yep. See Treasurer Sullivan has his hand up, so go ahead.

Great. Thank you, Peter.

One second, Brian. One second. Can you turn up the speakers a little bit? K. Go ahead, Brian.

Thank you, Peter. So we've we've, partially rewritten proposal 14, to create a secondary secondary fund. This was based on, the give and take with the county executive's office. This actually leaves a primary, catastrophic, stabilization fund for the general fund. As you well know, when the county executive staff gave testimony at the last meeting, saying that, it's been calculated into the liquidity of the, general fund fund reserve.

So that I did a quick calculation this last week. And, of course, the 16 and a half million dollars that's been accumulated in the primary fund represents over 20% of the of the of the fund balance that we need to pay our bills at the beginning of every year and and keep our departments running. So it did seem unattainable at that point in time to move that fund to the treasurer's office with the idea and certainly, the idea that I had was protecting the long the long term viability of the fund. So when we rewrote it, and we wanna thank commissioner Toyer for his suggestion, We rewrote it with the idea that there would be a secondary fund in the county treasurer's office for more of the physical catastrophic events, you know, like Oso, for instance, or or or the two thousand eight global recession. And so it's proposed that the secondary fund be first funded by a 10% contribution from the primary fund, leaving over $14,000,000 of liquidity for the county general fund.

And then, the secondary fund then would, would be funded further by, revenue from from the investments of the primary fund. Also, you know, just to answer a brief a couple a couple questions real briefly, it's still up to the county council to write these ordinances after if these things prevail on the ballot and to put bookends on them. So and I'd also like to point out that the primary fund was developed by an ordinance in 2009, and we amended that around 2014, 2015. And we've always had a four vote majority, but that doesn't change. All it does is it puts it into the charter, but it's always been a four vote majority.

Thank you, treasurer Sullivan.

You bet.

Are there any other virtual, people that would like to give comment virtually on proposal 14? I see none.

Okay. Now we'll take the, comment from the audience. And go ahead.

So it sounds like there have been some major changes to the proposal as it was written. Is that visible to

Names need to be stated.

Oh, sorry. Janice Green, City of Everett. So I'm asking, sounds like there have been significant changes to the proposal that was submitted. Yes.

Treasurer Sullivan did submit changes.

And I just wanna know if that's available It is.

Also? It's in the agenda. Yes.

Okay. The the changes that are in the agenda?

The the new proposal is. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Chan. Anybody else in the, audience? Okay. And there's no stragglers online? Okay. Good. Then we will close the public hearing on proposal 14, and we'll move to discussion with the commission. And I think we should probably do that in order as well just so we can keep things.

Oh, Dale has his hand up.

Yes. So can I ask the chair if he could get a little closer to the mic, please? Thank you.

Thanks, Dale.

Okay. Thank you, Dale. I'll try to speak up because the mics don't move here. Okay. So let's go ahead and open up discussion then, on proposal 22, the financial transparency. I think we should start with commissioner Cass. And if you could address the questions that came up during public hearing, that'd be great. And we'll open it up to the rest of us. Go ahead.

Yes. I really appreciate the, question, from the the public commenter. My background's doing national environmental policy, assessments, and we should always define our purpose and need for, governmental action. So for me, I've it's not just me, but others that I've talked to, tried to look for different reports on how we how we as a county were spending money on various programs. And, whether it was, you know, grants are in one place and, contracts and that kind of thing are in another.

And just by trying to look I mean, while I think there's an attempt being made, so I do appreciate what what the county's been doing, but it's not easily downloadable or sortable. You know? So there's some elements that are missing, and we did, in fact, get financial information, very robust, actually, a table of what it would take because the county is undergoing some modernization with their financial tools. So we're trying to write the language in such a way that it, I think, as commissioner Decker said, a little bit of squishiness to allow for some adaptability as time goes on. But we thought that it was important that the what I've heard from people and my intent was that the charter outlines the fact or gives the people a chance to vote, that the charter would outline having that kind of financial transparency from from its government.

So, yeah, there's definitely some elements missing. There's things that can be done very cost effectively in the short term, and then for the long term, create it more robustly for the for the public to look and see where their money is being spent.

Thank you. Other comment? Mhmm. Commissioner Chatters.

Thank you, chair James. I I just wanna draw attention to the executive office's response to proposition or to the proposal number 22. They said, the county is in the middle of a major multiyear modernization project implementing a new ERP system. This system will centralize financial and operational data, improve efficiency, and enhance reporting capabilities. However, it does not include a ready made public transparency portal that matches proposal 20 two's requirements.

It also says that, proposal 22 as currently drafted would require significant investment, custom development, and several years to implement in the county's current fiscal environment. These additional costs would require cuts to other core county services or additional revenue. And then I wanna draw your attention to the language in proposal 22 on where it says section 6.13 o, county financial transparency, section a, public transparency portal. The language says, Snohomish County shall establish and maintain a publicly accessible searchable online database that provides information on all contracts funded in whole or part by county funds. That's the language that you want put into the charter.

But then I would ask you, what is an AI augmented semantic search? What is a vector database for unstructured data? What's a retrieval augmented generation? Do any of us know what those are? That's because that's emerging technology.

So if we codify in the language of this charter the technology of today, what does that mean if that technology evolves beyond that? It also says in the language of this proposition, this is the requirement that we do this to the maximum extent practicable. The database shall rely on and publish information already collected by the county in the normal course of procurement, contracting, budgeting, auditing, and financial management. We are already doing that. The upgrade of the back end systems is to improve those processes.

So basically, this codifies specific technology into our charter that may or may not be relevant in the future, may or may not exist in the future, and it also says do your best is essentially what it says, which we are already doing, and in fact not only are they doing their best, are in the middle of an upgrade to do better. So I think that this is premature because we have not even seen the outcome of the major, I believe it was a $15,000,000 contract to upgrade our current systems that is in the middle of being in the works. Not only have we not seen the outcomes of this, I understand the intentions here, but this does not achieve ultimately our goal of increasing truly in a material way increasing transparency to the public. It may feel symbolically good, but not only does it not achieve our goal, it actually could potentially be problematic in the future because of what it is putting into our charter as a requirement for technology. So I think I think this proposal should actually be withdrawn.

I think it is ultimately irresponsible to continue to advance it.

Any, any other comment from the commissioners?

Janelle's hand is up. Janelle's hand is up.

And Janelle before we go to Janelle on second round, any first round comments? No? Okay. Janelle, go ahead. I've got one.

So I'd like to point Go ahead. Point out that this proposal actually just outlines some basic metadata regarding the contracts or where the county is spending their money. It's not outlining the technology that's used. And you're absolutely right. AI is coming down the pike.

There's ways to do analysis that can even read the documents that are attached. And guess what? There are residents of Stonebridge County would be able to do that if they can download that information. But the way it is now, it would require line by line by line instead of being able to do, like, a data dump and then do the analysis. So, I agree.

There's there's changes coming, but if it's not provided, then how can the citizens, look into how we're spending the money? This is very basic stuff. I've done data like this and made things available for the federal government, on much more complex ways, and that was just, in house use of the tools that we already had. So it's also very disturbing that, yeah, it seems like we're doing the county plans on, massive changes to their system, but they said in their own words that it was not part of their contract to make this information public facing. So that's what, you know, the charter and the vote of the people will be able to say that that expectation is there.

Thank you, commissioner Caston. We have another, comment by commissioner Vannie.

Yeah. No. I'd just like to to point out the the comment in the proposed ballot title under the section a there, the very top part of it. It says this proposal requires Snohomish County to make available where reasonable and practical practicable through existing systems or future modernization efforts all financial information legally available within the county. I think that pretty much puts it right there that to do what we can as we can afford to do the systems and with this system upgrade they're gonna be applying, that then they can find out what what this actually will do and it should help more transparency where the public can get into these files to look at some the information, but it then gives them a stepping stone to what what do we need to improve on and how do we get to that point without all the major financial costs that would be tied to this if they

were to try to go ahead and

do it right now and then still be stepping on themselves.

Got it. And commissioner Preston?

Yeah. We don't know how it would be difficult to measure, but it could reduce the request for public records, which would save time and money on on staff, and that type of thing. And I don't recall the exact dollar amount, but last last week, we talked about a whole list of pricing and costs that it would to do what we were requesting, and we had knocked down the bigger expenses. We've gotten down to a much lower price point. I don't recall what that amount was, but you guys might have that in front of you. So we did reduce it from the original.

Okay. Commissioner McGee.

Thank you. So I'm curious what item c is here, limited supplemental reporting when necessary as it reads, if the county determines that additional information is required to provide meaningful input meaningful public transparency, and then it goes on to state reporting requirements must be simple, must be scaled to contract size, small contracts and small businesses may be subject or reduced. If this goes forward, I think that this is unnecessary. We're saying if the county decides that they should provide more information, then they should do that. And I think that that is implied.

If the county sees a need to do a thing, they can do a thing, and I think this is unnecessary.

Any other comments from commissioners?

We have

commissioner Eslik. Yeah.

Thank you. Well, I have to agree with, commissioner Preston about public records request, and folks that have been in local government and state government know the expense that we are going through, almost bankrupt Gold Bar a few years ago, and I see that this could help in that arena. If we look more transparent and actually have records available, people might might trust the government a little more. I, think that the more we can do for transparency, the better off we're gonna be as a community. Thank you.

Any other commissioner comments? Okay. All right. So seeing none, I'm gonna read a real reminder to the commissioners, after considering any final public comments that were made and proposing any language changes, deemed necessary by the commission, the commission will then vote to transmit this proposal to the final packet. And to move on to that final packet, it must cross the eight vote threshold as is needed to be placed on the ballot. If it does not get eight votes, it is dead. The commission will now entertain a motion to forward this proposal. Okay. I bet.

I I'd like to make a motion to strike item c from this proposal.

Do we have a motion before we got a second? Second. Okay. And then we have a second motion to strike d. Is that right, what you said? C. Charlie? C?

C as in Charlie.

Thank you. Is there a second to that motion?

Yes. Commissioner Meeks motion? Yes. I second.

Oh, thought you were seconding the first motion. Okay. Point of order, do we need to address the primary or the secondary motion first? Yes. Secondary. So Commissioner McGee's motion.

Who

was the second on your Commissioner McGee's?

Commissioner Chasse.

It's you. Okay. And was there a second on commissioner Vannis? There wasn't.

I'm sorry?

Well, who was the second on commissioner Vannis?

I didn't hear one. Didn't hear Okay.

I actually think they asked for an amendment came in before a second on the original motion. So we probably should have a second on the original motion.

That's what I was thinking too.

And then we should have any request for amendments after the motion after that second. So I will second

the original motion. Okay. Alright. So can we proceed with a roll call on the additional secondary motion? On the amendment. Any discussion before we go to the roll call?

Yep. Yes.

Commissioner Cass.

Okay. So this is regarding the amendment. Am I hearing correctly? I'm looking at how we have proposal 22 currently written, and there's not a letter c.

I can understand the confusion. Perhaps you didn't get the packet that we were handed here that has the verbiage. The front page, it's stapled. It says, dear members of the commission for your meeting, etcetera. May maybe you did not see that.

Okay. So part of part of the problem is there have been complete rewrites of language that we are just now seeing today, like, just now. And so we have not even been briefed on what language has changed. So we will be being asked to vote tonight, folks, on things we just saw today.

I

believe this was sent out by the clerk. When was that? Several days ago? What's that? When was this sent out to the commissioners? This packet? Which one? The one page with the corrections. That's the final language.

This the one that you prepared?

Yes. The document that begins the agenda for your meeting on May 20.

Yes. This was sent out yesterday or yeah.

So the attorney just finished, polishing this yesterday, sent it to us yesterday by the clerk. Correct? Okay. Yes. Yeah. If there's any questions about that or you wanna take a moment to read through the updated language, it's it's not new, it's just updated. It should be a one page that that was in the packet tonight if you didn't have it in the email that you got.

That's a good question.

Yes. Commissioner Cass.

This is

Is that Cass that's asking? Gregerson. Gregerson. Oh, I don't see her. Sorry. Go ahead, Gregerson.

I'm I'm just with you for a few more minutes, and then I'll rejoin you later tonight. This is the email I got at 12:18PM today. Is that right?

There were two. So there was one that was sent out with '20 two, fourteen,

and And thirteen?

And thirteen. Yes. And then there was a second one that was sent out before this meeting.

Okay. And we're and I so the one I should be reviewing, though, for this motion is the

It'd be the first one.

From which day was that?

It's proposal '22.

Okay. So the twelve the the email from a few hours ago.

One went out right before the meeting. We should be a one pager. Alright. We're talking about the final ballot language.

K. Well, I'm I think is commissioner Gregersen still talking?

Kind of.

Yeah. I am because I just, like, literally can't find that. And so I I have an email from 12:18PM with the document that's proposals 22 dash 13 dash 14 draft language, which begins the agenda for your meeting of May 20, which I just heard,

I think, commissioner Decker referenced.

Is that what we are discussing?

Yes.

And you talked about another one, but that's not relevant to this agenda item right now?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. And commissioner Decker, excuse me.

Is this

You're on.

Now I'm on. Commissioner McGee is the one that actually raised the ask to strike C. I'd like to have Commissioner McGee speak to why she'd like to see struck see struck.

Absolutely. And I and I did, This is what I was saying just a few minutes ago. It is extraneous. This is gonna be if this is what's going on the ballot, and that is what I I understand is or, you know, in the voter pamphlet statement, it's confusing. And what it says is if the county determines additional information is required for public transparency, then they should do that.

When we've already said in for public transparency, make this information more easily accessible for people to find. So we've already said in the interest of transparency, do this stuff and make it available. And then in c, it says, if the county thinks that more information is is required for transparency, then you should do it. We've already said do it. And I think that this is just extra confusion for voters. So that is it. I'm not super married to it. I I don't see the reason to stick this on the ballot.

And commissioner Cass?

Yeah. I actually I agree with commissioner McGee on this. He does seem extraneous, so I would support this amendment.

Okay. Does our attorney have anything to add to that? Okay. Any other comments by the commission before we take a vote on the motion that's on the floor to strike section c. Sorry, chair?

Commissioner McGee, would you would you suggest we strike c and rename section d to section c? Sure.

You for the

Actually make it B, because B is already stricken.

Yeah, yeah. Okay. All right. So we have a motion, and we have a second. And is there any further discussion? Am missing anybody online? No? Good. We'll take a roll call.

Toyer?

Yes.

Vanny? Yes. Gregerson? She's gone. Chatters?

Yes to the amendment.

O'Donnell? Yes. Cass?

Yes.

Becker? Yes to the amendment. Preston?

Yes.

Menke, how do you vote on the amendment? Yes. Yes. K Mink?

Yes.

McGee?

Yes.

Eslick? Yes. James?

Yes.

Unanimous.

Thank you, Clerk. And that motion passes, and we need to address the main motion on the floor to pass this through to the final packet. Is there a, well actually we already did motion and second, so any discussion on that? Okay, no further discussion. We'll take a roll call.

Okay, this is for the final as amended '22. Toyer?

Yes.

Vanny? Yes. Greg Gerson is still gone. Chatters? No. O'Donnell? Yes. Cass?

Yes.

Decker? Yes. Preston? Yes. Mankey? Yes. K Mink? Yes. McGee?

No. I still don't know what it's gonna cost.

Eslik?

Yes.

James? Yes.

12345678910 yes votes.

Alright. Thank you. That, motion passes to the final packet. We'll see that next week, and then we will move on to commissioner discussion of proposal 13 regarding the foundational government services. I will

say the treasurer is still online if we have any additional questions for him.

Is he? Great. Okay. Alright. So I'll open the, floor to commissioners. Yes. Commissioner Decker.

Thank you, chair. Am I able to ask questions of county treasurer at this time?

Yep.

Yes. Very good. County treasurer. Looking at what you have listed as under scope for what these funds could be used for, there's a broader term foundational services is included. And as I read through your list, it is a rather comprehensive list of what it could be used for. And one of those is well, let me stop there and say, can you give me an example of what these funds could not be used for that are part of typical county budgets? What couldn't this what what could this not be spent for?

Well, an oversimplification of this would be the gotta haves as compared to the nice to haves. So, oftentimes, you know, there'll be political bases, from, both sides of the aisle, that will will approach, county council members or the county executive and ask for additional new programming or funding. I'd like to preface that with also that we've been notified in our department, the treasury as well as all the other departments, that if there's no action taken to raise new revenue by the county council for the 2728 cycle, that we're facing 11.7% in cuts. And and because of my experience for the last forty five years going through this over and over again, when the ARPA money first became available, it was a once in a lifetime where the federal government, you know, backed up the trucks and shoveled money into governments all over the country. I it was probably inappropriate at that time to create new permanent programming because it was onetime money.

Yep. Here we are facing potential catastrophic cuts if the county council does not act. And and so what we did in this proposal is we we prioritized, you know, our foundational constitutional and RCW man and RCW mandated, and to a certain extent, mandated by county ordinance. And the idea is to put bookends on the budget so that, you know, we when we do have extra money, maybe we consider putting more deputies on the ground. Maybe we consider more prosecutors.

As you well know, the kind of prosecutors made it well known that there are many, because of budget priorities and deficits, that, there are simply, criminals that are not being, albeit, severe or major misdemeanors, are not being prosecuted. So so what we wanna do is, in this proposal, is say to the county council and the county executive, you have to prioritize and you have to look at these essential government services that are based in the state constitution, grounded in RCW, and, and you have to give those consideration first and foremost. I I hope that answers your question.

Thank you for that. Certainly working on the City Of Lynnwood budgets for five years, the push and shove on needs versus wants was very evident, as various parties brought forward brought forward, proposals for how they would like to see the taxpayers' dollars spent, particularly in public safety. I know the police department cut or did not hire five, six police officers that they needed, and that resulted in less patrols, less officers on the street. It also resulted in many of the services a police department might normally be considered to cover. It also resulted in there, as I recall, having to eliminate the city of Lynnwood having a social worker available to travel with the police officers when there was the type of incident that a social worker might be able to address.

But I'm still, My concern continues to be under the definition of foundational services, I still feel like that is pretty much the kitchen sink of city budgets. It's pretty much everything. And I would hazard to say that given how lean budgets are right now, we're pretty darn close to funding only foundational services for the most part out our budgets. You do have included as part of foundational services the definition of human services. So human services is included in foundational services, but human services is an extremely nebulous term, and individuals on all sides can correctly and fairly make a case for almost any type of funding that it really could be called human services because in the end government serves us as humans.

So I'm really concerned that that term, human services being included as a foundational service, could be abused by just about everybody in order to justify their particular agenda budget item, and say hey look, the county charter says you have to fund this because this is a human service, and human service is part of foundational services. So I just think there is opportunity there because it's such a broad term that it could really be abused by individuals. So I have concerns in that space, but thank you very much for answering my questions. And if you have a follow-up to what I just commented, I'd be happy to hear that.

Sure. Just just a real quick follow-up on the human services question. Of course, there's state and federal statutes that require counties across the country to provide we we process our human services department in Salmish County is 85% funded by the federal government through HUD. These are services that, of course, provide housing and veteran services. So so I think you you have to get down to what the RCEW says and what what federal statute dictates with the grants that we get from from them.

And so a lot of our human services, are federally funded and provided, have their own set of rules. And and I I don't I don't respectfully don't see it from the broad perspective, but or what actual human services are defined at in the RCW and government statute. So but, again, 85% of all counties human serve this is across the country, 3,065 counties where we we take grants from federal money to provide these services. And, of course, some of the core services are for veterans. And and and, you know, I'd certainly welcome any any language you might wanna you might wanna add that would better define that particular section.

I'm just gonna ask real quick, treasurer Sullivan, on the the only place I see human services is under the proposed definitions. Is that is that correct, commissioner Decker?

It actually is in another proposal where foundational services and human services is listed as part of those as one of those foundational services defined terms.

So I wonder I wonder could we add as defined by, you know, Washington State or federal guidelines? Could you add that to help?

If we capitalize human services in this particular proposal and then language stated as as defined by RCW, then I think that would put guardrails up. That would give me a higher level of comfort here. But just human services lowercase is a descriptive term rather than a defined term, and it gives me pause.

I'm I'm happy happy to do that.

So I would then move that we amend proposition we're on 13. Correct? In all places where the term human services is used in lower case, that term be changed to human services with capital letters and add as defined by revised code of Washington.

I would second that.

Okay. That's been motioned and seconded. Any discussion on that? If not, let's take I roll

I have a question about that because I thought that that would be picked up in the piece where it says prioritizes the funding of state mandated services. So my understanding is that that phrase around state mandated, and and I would also ask if we if that should not also encompass locally mandated. Our own ordinances should be considered for funding. So maybe that's a question to the treasurer. But I don't think that we need to split hairs on capitalizing or not because that is the operative definition is state funded.

So a human service that is not I'm sorry, state mandated. So a human service or any of these functions that is not mandated then would be outside the definition of this very proposal is my that is my understanding, that that is the operative term that defines every mandate that would be in here.

And just Mickey?

Similarly, the the very last bullet point that we have here says core administrative and financial functions necessary to deliver these services, what whatever they are, as required by the state constitution and RCW. So I I think it's covered as well.

Oh, yes. Yes.

Excuse me. Could we have a response from the attorney? Yeah.

That, commissioner Decker, is that, would that book satisfy that guardrail?

No. Unless we capitalize foundational services and add language that says as

As defined by.

Defined by, then I will vote against the entire proposal. Yeah. I don't think

that would hurt. Might might be fine. Attorney?

So what is the question that you were asking me to answer? Strictly

Actually, I think the question was from commissioner think you had the question correct about whether it was already covered in here. Correct.

Yes. So the language says under 6.4 6.14 a one prioritizes the funding of state mandated services including blah blah blah. And by the way, if we're talking amendments, I would ask that that language be made consistent with the definitions to say including but not limited to rather than only including just so there is uniformity. But it says prioritize the funding of state mandated services. So is that not the operative term that defines the conditions under which any of these services would be funded?

Not necessarily. And I say that because the capitalizing of human services makes specific to what that definition is if especially if human services as defined by RCW. Right? It's specific to what those human services are or what that would entail. Without that, public health and human services, one says prioritize the funding of state mandated services including the offices of, the reason that does not say including but not limited to is because it is enumerating these very specific offices.

Further where it says including but not limited to all of these different things that are named specifically public health and human services would be not necessarily all encompassing. This, and that's the reason why if you have human services here not capitalized, it can be whatever whomever is interpreting this to be a human service.

So I have a follow-up question to that then. So if something is state mandated, but it is not under one of these listed offices, how does that scenario how does that occur under this this charter amendment? What what is what are the implications of that?

So with this specifically, prioritizes the funding of state mandated services, comma, including the offices of. So those enumerated offices plus whatever other state mandated services are. So it's two separate things. It's the state mandated services and then including the offices of, so it's enumerating what some of those specific state mandated services are, but not all of the state mandated services because that's covered by the prioritizes the funding services. So this is basically in essence rolling what these offices, offices of assessor, auditor, clerk, yada into the state mandated services.

So state mandated service is the operative term for all of the prioritization that's occurring here?

Yes, and if that were the case, the state mandated human services would be the specific human services as defined by RCW. That's why it would be

So would it be appropriate to either include that on this list or state including but not limited to to ensure that the language encompasses that?

In in number one?

Yes.

No. Because if if we did that, then we'd basically, what you're saying then is include all of the services?

Well, The capital the capital h, the ones you're referring to that where state mandated is the operative term that applies to it.

If there is specifically a office of human services, right, that is a specific office capitalized human services, then yes, I would agree that would go in the including the offices of. If it's just a service that is mandated by the state, then I would say no, it doesn't need to specifically So

there is an Office of Human Services. Right. So if we're amending things, perhaps we could fully correct it with that amendment as total package. So we can capitalize to satisfy Commissioner Decker, and we can also add the capitalized Office of Human Services to the list.

Commissioner Cass's hand

is up. Yeah. Commissioner Cass is first, then we'll come to Commissioner Decker. Commissioner Cass? Can't hear you. You're muted. Oh, she noticed.

I just have a point of order. We're talking about making amendments. The conversation's great, but was the main motion made and seconded on the proposal?

It was not. It was not. I was wondering the same thing.

Yeah. So we need to make the motion.

So we need a main motion and a second before we can take

Yes.

Amendments to the motion. Okay. So moved. Alright. It's been moved. Second. And seconded. Thank you. And then can we keep the existing

Restate my amendment. Thank you.

Okay.

I'm seconding.

Okay. That's moved and seconded. Okay. Commissioner Dekker.

We couldn't hear that last part online.

Yep. Could you repeat that, commissioner Decker?

Yes. After since we were out of order after the since we were out of order after the motion for this proposal was made and seconded, I then reintroduced my amendment to this motion, and the reintroduction of that amendment was seconded just so that we had the order of events correct.

Sounds good. Okay. Commissioner Cass, are you finished, with your comment then? Okay. Was there anybody else online? I'm hearing voices there. No? We're good? I'm just hearing voices.

Hearing voices. Yeah.

Anybody else

present? So my question is for our legal representation here. Isn't it fair to say that the governing language actually is mandated state, etcetera, and the listing of the offices is merely informative to the individuals who might be reading this to help delineate what offices what are some of the offices and some of the things that are state mandated. In fact, the proposal, because it says all state mandated, we could remove the listing of those offices and it would be without effect because those were already state mandated. Is that that correct? In other words, it's informational when we list out what the intent of what our idea of some of those are, but it's not required.

Yes if we add the language including but not limited to the offices of all of those because then that makes it so that this list is not strictly enumerated and encompasses all of that.

Right. So if there were other things that we wanted to list, we certainly could, but by not listing them we're not excluding them in any way if they still fall under those state mandated offices or roles.

Yes,

if you have specific offices that you want to include or not include either way, they're inclusive in the state mandated services.

Thank you. I'll add to that, that when we had had our meeting a few weeks ago with Treasurer Sullivan and the other independent and the elected officials, so the prosecutor, the sheriff, the clerk was there, the assessor. I think treasurer Sullivan was the we kinda hinged on this language quite a bit and to make sure that what we were saying is was what we wanted to say, and I think they're calling out for those offices that are specifically called out in the state constitution was an important thing that that those officers wanted us wanted listed in this. And I I may be mangling how we did it, but if Brian has anything to add, that language was very intentional.

Yeah. I I would just add that oops. I'm sorry. Go.

Go ahead.

Okay. I I I would just add Peter's correct. We did have a conclave, so to speak, of of all the electeds. And I think what was really important from being elected is that we're we are all mentioned in the state constitution. And so I think that that is a key obviously, a key set of words.

And and there there were we did wrangle over quite a bit of the language. So so the book the bookends we were looking for, quite frankly, so we can keep our employees employed and that we can function to prosecute, put put deputies on the ground, you know, run our courts with the appropriate resources. And, you know, we we do have to deal with human services and also health services. So much county did absorb the health department, which was an independent municipal agency. It's now part of the county.

But, again, both departments are are almost completely funded by federal grants and and in some circumstances, state grants. But you know? And priorities can change depending on mandates, you know, like another pandemic, for instance, or or major fires, those kinds of things. So we don't wanna totally tie tie up the book the bookends. That's why we that's why we, you know, with the attorney, change the verbiage from fully fund to prioritize. I I hope that helps answer the question.

Thank you. That does.

Thank you, treasurer Sullivan. Commissioner Eslik, you had a question.

Oh, I I just wanted to make a comment that it would be concerning to me if we didn't, keep these services listed because we we wanna make sure the public understands. So the more information we can give to the voters, the better. That's all.

Chair James? Yes. Chair or

commissioner Chatters. Take chair too. Just wrong room. It's so I wanna return to my original comment around this, which was an ask to change the language on that 6.14 a one to state including but not limited to to resolve this issue of enumerating a specific list but allowing for what the state mandates actually require. And I believe attorney Goodwin said something along those lines would cover our bases. Is that accurate?

I I don't know what you mean by cover our bases. I mean, the the

I can define that if you need further definition on the question. I mean, so we are not inadvertently excluding something that falls under the purview of an office that is not specifically enumerated but has a state mandate attached to it, so should be prioritized under the funding structure that this is creating?

I would say it's not necessary to do that just because if there is a service then well actually let me rephrase that. If we put prioritises the funding of state mandated services, including but not limited to the Office of Sicilor Auditor Clerk and the rest of those, what we're doing is including all of these and possibly something else, right, that is an office. The prioritized funding of state mandated services will still be the same. I mean that'll be the same either way because the comma separates what those offices are from the prioritizing funding of state mandated services.

Okay. So just a follow-up. So you're saying we should rely on a comma rather than clearly stating including but not limited to. That is your advice?

Not necessarily. That's up to the purview of the board or the commission because either way, the state mandated services will be covered. Again, these including the offices as the treasurer just stated are, as he put I think the bookends, These are the mandated services by the state that are listed in the state constitution. That that's why they put those there. So that that's up to purview of the commission as to whether you want to add something else or you want to add, including but not limited to those specific offices.

Okay.

So then in answer to my question, you're saying it would be a clarifying phrase. However, it is implied by the comma.

I I don't know that it's clarifying. It's adding more offices possible to that list.

But you just said that the comma already Right. The comma already allows for that?

The the comma allows for all of the state mandated. So we have all the state mandated services. That. And then to add to that, the choice of words here is including the offices of all of the the offices mentioned in the state constitution. The addition of others, if it were changed, could be there or it could not be there. The state mandated services that are prioritized by the funding is covered specifically in that section. You could strike all of these things after that.

I get that, but I feel like maybe not hearing, and I wanna get clarification on this because it does matter in the language. Are you saying that the comma allows for not just what is enumerated specifically, but potentially other things that meet the state mandated prioritization is that which this is the framework of? Are you saying that is the equivalent of saying explicitly including but not limited to, or are you saying that those two things are functionally different in terms of interpretation of the language?

Which two things are functionally different?

The phrase of clarification including but not limited to which for for a person trying to interpret this Right. That would be a clarifying phrase for them. Is that equivalent to the purpose, or not the purpose, but the work being done by the comma according to the way you are interpreting the language?

No. The including but not limited to I would suggest is not clarifying as much as it's just adding more to that list. Okay.

Does no harm. It does no harm.

It it doesn't harm anything to do that. When you do that, though, it does remove the enumeration to to, specifically point out these offices.

And I thought you said the comma already allowed for that.

The the comma is there separating those those two things. You have the comma. You have prioritizes the funding the state mandated services.

Comma. That's

it. Now we have comma including the office.

Including. And so what is the functional difference between comma including and comma including but not limited to? Including

enumerates. If you don't have the but not limited to enumerates these specific offices, it's just calling out these specific offices. It doesn't give them more of a function, more importance. It's just calling out those specific offices. If it's common, including but not limited to, calls out these offices with the addition of more.

Potentially, should should state mandates change?

Yes. And and in the the function of it in general opens it up to not be just this enumerated list. It could be this including this list and then other things that want to be included into that list. That whatever body wants to include into

Is that not interrupt just for one second.

Precision of language does matter with these.

Does our attorney recommend changing and adding that at this particular juncture here? And this will have no effect on Commissioner Decker's proposal about the human services. I think that these are separate issues, although this could be dovetailed in. If it does no harm and it possibly might do good to have it in there, I'm okay with that personally. But if adds complexity and maybe adds questions and we don't really need it, then that's what we need to know from you, your best advice, sir.

It it does not add complexity to it. It doesn't necessarily clear anything up because it just adds the opportunity for for more things to be added, but it doesn't make it nonfunctional. Correct. It doesn't take the importance of these offices. It doesn't make them any more important or any less important by adding that language. That it's really semantics at this point because Gotcha. Prioritizes the funding of state mandated services. If if you have just that and you crossed everything else out, it's still prioritizing funding of state mandated services.

All right.

All right. So this is like the whipped cream and cherry on top of the pie. But if you put something else in there, that could make it chocolate chips, whipped cream, and cherry, and something else because it puts a lot in there, right?

But are

they mandated? Which is neither bad nor good, it just It's different. That's the function.

Okay. I'm gonna go with commissioner Preston and then commissioner Eslet.

Yeah. Commissioner Schatters, I I I like what you're trying to do with getting defined down to the nitty gritty. I'm just wondering if it is a way and and I appreciate, commissioner James' comments also. I wonder if there's a way that we could maybe ping it over to treasurer Sullivan, and maybe he has a comment on some clarification there or something else so we can move it along. And I don't know if we vote on it tonight, if we're going forward, if some of that could get cleared up later. I'm not sure about that.

Commissioner Esterly?

So my suggestion, commissioner Chatter, is just make an amendment, and let's vote on that. K?

I believe that Commissioner Decker has an amendment Yeah. On the floor

We have a main motion and a second, and we have an amendment and a second, and we would vote on that before we take another amendment. Yeah. Yeah. Any yeah. No. We're good. We can take a roll call on that.

Okay. This is on the amendment proposed by commissioner Decker. K.

Which is to capitalize human services and add as as defined by Washington State.

Yes. Or RCW. Okay. Toyer.

Yes.

Benny. Yes. Chatters.

Yes.

O'Donnell. Yes. Cass. Yes. Yes. Preston? Yes. Mankey? Yes. K Mink?

Yes.

Yes. McGee?

Yes.

Eslik? Yes.

James? Yes. Unanimous. Alright. Motion passes. And we need to revisit the main motion now. And

I'd like to motion to amend Okay. To change 6.14 a one to read prioritizes the funding of state mandated services, comma, including but not limited to the offices of etcetera, etcetera.

I'll second that.

There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? And we'll do a roll call.

Twyer? Yes. Banny? Yes.

Yes.

Chatters? Yes. O'Donnell? Yes. Cass? Yes. Yes. Preston?

Yes.

Mankey? Yes. K Mink? Yes.

I saw him say yes.

I saw him say yes. Yeah. McGee?

Yes.

Eslik?

Yes.

James? Yes.

Unanimous. Okay. That motion passes. That brings us back to the main motion, which is to pass this on to the final packet. And I think it's been made and seconded and ready for roll

call. Toyer?

Toyer?

Yes. Sorry. Yes.

Annie? Yes. Chatters? Yes. O'Donnell? Yes. Cass? Yes. Decker? Yes. Preston?

Yes.

Mankey? Yes. K Mink?

Yes.

McGee?

Yes.

Esselich? Yes. James? Yes. Unanimous.

Thank you. That motion passes, and we are on to the third of the, discussions on the public hearing items. Proposal number 14 related to the creation of a budget stabilization. We'll open that for discussion with the commissioners.

Chair James, could we ask for a briefing from treasurer Sullivan on some of the updated language that we just received? Because we did have some questions last time we met just clarifying how this would impact the financial position of the county in general, and I think treasurer Sullivan has done some work on that, and there's been some modifications.

Yeah. You for the reminder, commissioner Chatterson. I forgot to read this, oh, no. I read this earlier, didn't I? Into the that's right. The, ballot language. But yeah. Treasurer Sullivan, do you have any comments to make?

Sure. And and thank you again for allowing me to speak on proposal 14. You know, we heard from Carrie, the budget director, several either last week or several weeks ago on how they calculated the stabilization fund, which has 16 and a half million dollars in it. I wanna add unofficially. I've heard and I I my hope is by tomorrow, officially, we'll hear from the executive's office, but they have gone neutral as opposing to oppose, both thirteen and fourteen.

I I think specifically on fourteen, one of the reasons why the executive will probably go neutral is is I heard them loud and clear. I don't agree on how they calculated liquidity for the general fund, but it is done. And and the money is presently represents a little more than 20% of the 14% that's necessary for the county to operate throughout the year before we collect taxes. So I don't disagree that it potentially is a catastrophic fund can, by moving, create a catastrophic event. So we altered the language per the discussion of the commission to create a secondary catastrophic fund because this is the primary catastrophic fund now is defined as part of the formula of liquidity.

And and I don't wanna get into the weeds too much, but but we do wanna be able to act quickly for future catastrophic events with dollars in the bank. And and so this would this new proposal would take 10% of of the primary fund, move it to a new off budget fund, as they say. And then per the suggestion of commissioner Toyer, the proposal further proposes that the revenue income from the investments of the primary fund would Grubstake can help fund the secondary fund. So so I don't wanna get too much into the weeds. I'd like to keep it maybe as simple as possible, but but that is the crux of the proposal.

And, we do maintain, the four vote, majority, in the proposal, but that is that's been in there for fifteen years already in the original ordinance and, and was voted on the county council and agreed to by the county council and the county executive back in 2015. So so that that is where we're at at this point. But having said that, if everybody needs new more time to digest this new language, I certainly do not oppose, you know, waiting another week if that's that's possible.

We're moving forward with it today to the final packet. So any other questions now? Yeah. Commissioner Decker? Thank

you, chair. Treasurer Sullivan, thank you again for all the time you've spent with us. We've to know you quite well, and thank you for bringing clarity and working so hard on these. I have a suggestion that after we have a motion in the second, I would make a by way of amendment, but I wanna explain it first. If I as a taxpayer simply saw language on a balance that, hey. We're gonna create another another fund

for

the I'm gonna thank treasurer Sullivan.

I'm sorry? I'm sorry. Okay. I was just a speak over. Just wanna make sure I wasn't interrupting someone. And I simply read this. I would say, so they're gonna fund this by raising taxes again, so I'm gonna vote against this because I don't want another tax for another fund that sits on the county budgets. So, my question to you is would you be averse to adding a bullet point, where it says a secondary catastrophic stabilization fund shall? You have one, two, three one, two, three bullet points. A fourth bullet point that actually specified that this fund would not be funded through an increase in taxes or fees bespoke for this fund.

I have no problem with that whatsoever because we do we do specify that it'd be funded. I I think one of the bullet points is with one time monies, for instance. And so if the county sold a piece of property, they most likely would have to allocate a portion of the of the one time monies to this fund. So it would be more internal. And I I actually think it's a good idea to say, look.

We're not gonna raise your taxes to fund these things, you know, but we're gonna think of innovative ways to fund them like our you know, using investments and income from our investments, you know, to to continue to help fund it. And this is this is an overtime proposal. So it took since 2009 to get to where we are now. And my fear why I'm proposing the secondary fund as well is because the county council may may have to access this primary fund. And and a large portion of it because of this potential 11.7% in cuts.

So so that's why I think I I you know, the secondary fund is so important in to figure out ways to fund it. But, absolutely, I don't I I I absolutely don't think we should raise taxes to fund catastrophic funds.

And I do recognize that your language already states where the funding for it would come from, but I think it would be helpful to the voters to say that is where it will come from and it will not come from bespoke taxes or fees, etcetera, etcetera. So we're in agreement on that, but I appreciate appreciate your input.

Commissioner Chatters, did you have a comment?

I did. Treasurer Sullivan, I just I just wanted to make sure that I I can articulate clearly in layman's terms the changes since our last discussion. So the last discussion was specifically around removing this from the pool of money that is considered for liquidity levels that impact our bond rating. And so the new structure would leave those funds in place, but create a secondary fund specifically as a catastrophic event backstop to ensure long by term an initial deposit into that fund, mandatory contributions under certain circumstances, like you just mentioned the sale of county owned property in addition to, revenue income from interest, on those investments. Is that is that an accurate assessment of the change since we last saw this?

That is that is absolutely accurate. And and, you know, we do wanna preserve our bond rating. I mean, this is having a triple a rating is a is a is a big thing. Right? And it saves our taxpayers millions of dollars in long term borrowing costs. And and I I I haven't talked to bond counsel yet, but I would venture to guess this would be looked on in a very positive fashion.

Thank you.

And commissioner Vannie, and then we'll go down.

Just just one further question adding on to Patrick's question about the taxes and stuff. I see under three, the funding sources, the very last bullet. Says other funding sources established by ordinance. Does that open the door for future ordinances that could add future taxes?

I think in a broader interpretation, that is possible. Certainly, you can redefine that bullet if you so choose.

K. Thank you. And commissioner McGee?

Thank you, chair. And thank you, treasurer Sullivan, for being here. Really appreciate your your repeatedly showing up and helping walk us through this and helping us understand this better. One of the things that I recall we talked about last time was indicating a cap for this fund so that there wouldn't there wouldn't be this automatic accrual. Do you were we able to get anywhere with that at all? I I know it's beyond what we can answer.

Yeah. I I I I'm sorry, and I apologize. I haven't, gone back to look at the original ordinance. Original ordinance did qualify, I believe, a 5% cap. Certainly, it's not a bad idea to to allow each fund to achieve 5%. Of course,

in a in a,

you know, a $2,000,000,000 a year general fund budget, that that's gonna take quite some time to get to a 5% cap. But I think I think, certainly, you can put that language in there if you so choose. And or the county council could add that language in their ordinance after after this passes or if it goes to the ballot and passes. So

Okay. And and just a really quick follow-up. Would it make sense to run that percentage by people who are more familiar with the the budgeting process for the county? I do not know the right answer to that. So I'm so I'm asking you if it would make sense to table this for another week so we could come back to it and see what that number would be maybe at the next meeting.

I I as I said earlier, I I have no problem if you wanna work the language for an additional week. But but you could you could add a line saying, you know, consistent with financial or GASB requirements by government that the county council shall when they develop their ordinance will do what's required by state and federal law on cap. Because there are recommendations for those things in by the state auditor and and, in in state law. I believe there's even a a cap on the, state rainy day fund. Doesn't exceed a percentage of the general fund.

Now that having said that, that which is why we prefer percentage because as the general fund grows, the cap grows. Right? So

Okay. Thank you.

Rob has his hand up. Oh, Rob did. Yeah. Commissioner Toyer?

Thank you. Yeah. I just wanna thank, treasurer Sullivan for all of his hard work, that he's put in throughout the weeks, and, I think this is a really good proposal. I don't know if we should cap it. I mean, we it's hard to, if OSO was, you know, 20 plus million, I'd hate to limit our, investments in this fund for the future. So just my thoughts.

Thank you, commissioner Toyer. Any other comment? And I don't recall. We didn't actually put the motion forward, did we? Okay. How

I'd like to move that we advance proposal 14.

Second that. The

motion was to advance proposal 14.

Thank you. Second. There's a second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Decker.

Move to amend under the paragraph two, the second paragraph under two, it says the secondary catastrophic stabilization fund shall list three bullet points. We add the language not to be funded through increases of taxes or fees bespoke for this fund or language similar to that that our city that our attorney feels is captures the intent of that.

Second.

Got a motion and a second. Any discussion on that amendment? And attorney Goodwin, can you provide language right now for that bullet point? Or

if you feel as fine as is, we, it doesn't have to be a wordsmith.

I could.

It's not copying my mug.

I would suggest that the funding sources in number three, similar to what county treasurer said, the county shall adopt ordinances providing for contributions to secondary catastrophic tribulation fund, which shall include, again, including that way enumerates what those are, which would be investment earnings from the primary supervision fund, one time extraordinary revenues, emergency reimbursements, dedicated revenue sources, and other funding sources established by ordinance. So I think to the question that Commissioner Bainie had, that last bullet point, other funding sources established by ordinance may include tax. So the I think the answer to your question is yes with that caveat that other funding sources established by ordinance may include tax, which then would not coincide with If this amendment is approved, wouldn't coincide with that. If not, it could add that by ordinance.

I have. Mister Decker. What would the order

of precedence there mean since taxes are Texas and fees

are specifically

excluded? Mic isn't on.

Sorry. My question is what would the order of precedence then be for consideration if we include the language that says you can't raise taxes, you can't establish a new tax or a fund in order to fund this, and later it says other funding sources established by ordinance since we have specifically called out taxes are off the table, taxes and fees for this are off the table, that would leave other funding sources established by ordinance, but the additive to that would be, but it can't be taxes because we already specified you can't raise taxes and fees for this.

Yes that would be the understanding of that. The first is secondary catastrophic stimulation fund shall not be funded by taxes, I mean, in short. Right? Then the funding sources further, other funding sources settled by ordinance, would include not taxes being used for that. Very

good. Thank you.

Okay. That's what I was thinking. Yeah. That that sounds good. Okay. So we have a motion and a second on, commissioner Decker's, amendment, and let's take a roll call. Okay. Toyer?

Yes.

Patters? No. O'Donnell? Yes. Cass? Yes. Decker? Yes to the amendment. Preston?

Yes.

Benke, how do you vote on the amendment? Yes. Yes. Okay. K Mink? Yes. McGee? Yes. Eslik? Yes. James? Yes. 123456789.

11 yeses. Alright, the motion passes. And the amendment passes, and it would consider the main motion on

the floor

then. Any further discussion on that before we go to roll call?

I'd like to make a motion to table this until next week so we can update the potential cap information. And then also, I just got this information today and would really like a little bit more time.

Believe

That is my motion.

When we vote on this next week as the packet, should this pass, that we will have a chance to consider the changes that are going into it today. We'll have a chance to look at those and then either comment or vote comment and vote on the changes that we see, the final changes next week. Is that correct? Yes, that would

be up to the preview of this commission to do just that.

That's the staying on the timeline. We would still be able to

I'll just further clarify that because the language still needs to go through the prosecutor's office. After we have these final things, I will send whatever ones are moving forward will be sent to the prosecutor's office

Correct.

For them to get back to me.

Right.

And then Right.

So that's the that's that is the the pathway for this. So it has a there's an opportunity for this to be changed by them, and then it would be kicked back to us. And that may be in two weeks or something down the line whenever they get to see it. At which time we'll we'll either Zoom or create another meeting. So was that a motion?

Yes, that was a motion to discuss this.

Boyer? No. Vannie?

Yes.

Chatters?

Yes.

O'Donnell? Yes. Cass?

Did I just get some clarity that this is voting on the amendment?

Yes. This is voting voting on the final the final final vote for our team.

Sorry. I I was I was cutting out. I'm a yes for the final.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you for the clarification. Cass?

Yes. Decker? Yes. Preston?

Yes.

K Mink?

Yes.

McGee? Yes. Eslick? Yes. James? Yes. Unanimous.

All right, that motion passes. On to the final packet. And that concludes that portion. That concludes that portion of our agenda. So moving on to topics of discussion, draft proposals. We have proposals that are ready for final vote. Proposal 21 is kinda playing catch up with these other ones that we just did, and we will have a vote once we're finished with this discussion to move it to the final packet as well. Based on our discussion, we can make changes to that right now. So I'll open that up for discussion.

Chair, I do have some specific comments to make that were germane from last week. Specifically, there was a question from one of the commissioners from the May 13 meeting that asked about the case law, the League of Education Voters versus Washington State. It was a case that went to the Supreme Court in 2013. So in short, the case was before the Supreme Court on a constitutional challenge to the provisions of voter enacted RCW forty three one thirty five zero three four, which came via an initiative, initiative one zero five three. The ruling in that case by the Supreme Court as it applies to the state legislature, was that article two section 22 of the state constitution prohibits either the people or the legislature from passing legislation requiring more than a simple majority for the passage of tax legislation, or any other ordinary legislation.

But further in that ruling, the court then said, should the people in the legislature still wish to require a supermajority for tax legislation, they must do throw do so through constitutional amendment, not through the legislation. So in essence, the court was saying that's not a determination for the legislature or the people separately, but for a constitutional amendment. That was 2013. Since that case in 2013, in that same year, Pierce County, the City Of Spokane, and the City Of Yakima, which are both charter cities, they have each amended their respective charters to reflect a supermajority approval for raising taxes. And when charters amended and voted similar to that for approval, as the Supreme Court notes, that is the county's constitution.

So for those those the two cities in the county, to date no challenges to those amendments to their charters have been successful to overturn a super majority vote. So that was specific to the legislature in the state constitution, But the challenges, any challenges to date for county charters or city charters for that same thing have not been successful.

Just really quick clarification, just a question. When you say supermajority, what is the percentage in which you are referring? Because we already have a supermajority of 60% is what they usually

So so what a supermajority is in essence is if, there's a a council of five, a three six is already supermajority, the consideration for supermajority is a four out of five. In a council of seven, it's four seven is majority, supermajority jumps up to five seven, And a nine member council, five of nine is majority. Super majority jumps six to nine. Six out of nine.

So it'd be one one more than 50%

Yes.

Is basic. Okay.

Thank you. Essence, yeah. But because councils and boards like that don't have even number, you're never gonna get a 50%, so it's jumping up above that.

Can I ask another question? So you mentioned that there have not been successful challenges. Have there been challenges?

I've not seen any challenges to that.

Okay. So there's we don't

know In if the it is last thirteen years, there have not been. So nothing if there were, there was nothing successful Okay. That overturned those.

Okay. But you didn't find any cases where a challenge took place and there was a ruling issued on

No.

So it hasn't been tested essentially in the courts.

Yes. That is that is correct. Okay. That you could say that from both Pierce, Yakima City, and Spokane City has not been tested.

Okay. Thank you.

And I I will also show that, Clark County is considering the same, proposal or very similar proposal in their charter,

this year. So Commissioner Decker.

Thank you. Just for clarification, when we are discussing a supermajority here, what to reiterate kind of what you said, what we actually mean is a majority plus one.

Essentially, yes. Yes. Yeah.

And also in terms of no contest, it would seem to me that since there has now been thirteen years of case of this activity having taken place and you finding no challenges to it, it seems as though that the body of population at large has not found that this is worthy of a in my opinion, is not worthy of a challenge or would be an unsuccessful challenge based on the supreme court ruling. So I think we would be fairly safe here that this is unlikely to come to a challenge.

And I I think the the language that points to that is the supreme court, their specific language in the ruling. Should the people and the legislature still wish to require a super majority vote for tax legislation, they must do so through constitutional amendment, not through legislation.

And constitutional amendment is the legal equivalent of a county charter?

Correct.

Thank you.

Correct. Commissioner Cass, would you, like to make a comment or a plea for your you're you're the one that brought this amendment to us?

Yes. I really appreciate, all of the work council's been doing on the the phrasing. I I would I know we haven't necessarily made a had a motion or a second yet, but there is an amendment I'd like to propose.

I move that we do move this I move that we move this proposal forward to the next stage in the process.

Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Great. And motion and amendment from commissioner Cass is?

Yes. I'd like to amend this to act to include fees and rates. And the reason why is because there are fees, like like, for new construction traffic impact fees or, you know, homeowners or renters end up having to foot the bill. Like, there's surface water or storm water type fees. And what I'd hate to see is that, well, there'd be maybe a little more check and balance on increasing property tax or sales tax, I've seen in the city of Edmonds where then they did rate hikes on utilities by 10%, and that has a significant impact on our most vulnerable people.

I think initially when when we struck the word fees, commissioner Decker was thinking about, like, I don't know, park rentals or something that's on the the smaller rate. But in new construction, a traffic impact fee on a new home could be tens of thousands of dollars, and that can look like easy pickings to help balance a budget. So I think that they those kinds of fees should have the same four out of five scrutiny.

Can I ask a legal question about that? So the the charters that you reviewed, did they include fees as commissioner Cass is recommending or were they strictly

Actually, point of order, if I'm sorry. Should I just make that a brief amendment request as a motion and see if we get a second?

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

Okay. There's a motion to second. Again, on the, amendment, commissioner Cass, would you briefly state what it is?

Yes. So, in number one where it says, a councilmanic tax does not include fees, rates, and charges, I'd like to actually, I guess, say, a council medic tax, we could say does not include special amendments. So strike not include fees, rates, and charges. And then and then I guess my question

Okay. Commissioner Decker. Thank you, chair. And thank you, commissioner Cash. We've been back and forth on this. Just gonna be kind of above talking above the table here. I actually am not in favor of adding back end fees here. I think that fees can be addressed alternatively through either county, council action or something similar. I think there are enough voters in the county that will agree that a super majority for raising taxes, And I think that's not a hard sell. I actually think people are gonna be like, yeah, absolutely this is easy.

But if we say taxes and fees, I think fees is such a nebulous term and there's gonna be enough of, well what about this, and what about this, and what about this, that I think it'll create a degree of uncertainty where we would lose a healthy percentage of people who might otherwise support this proposal, and the proposal would then we would then have neither the super majority for taxes nor a supermajority for fees. So my my thought is let's not take too big of a bite here. Let's get a supermajority for taxes. Leave fees as they are. It can either be addressed in ten years or it could be addressed in some other manner than putting the two together.

To me, it's too big of a bite. We'd lose too much of our support if we went that far along here. That's my opinion.

Thank you, Commissioner Decker. And I would just like to add, I don't know for sure how the county does their fee schedule, but I know that City of Marysville just created and updated our fee schedule because we had prior let it kinda lapse and things had individual fees. We're never on a single schedule. So when fees and rates are on a schedule, it usually has its own sort of momentum, and it is automatically raised for cost of living every year, and that's not even a council. It's a one time council event to set that in motion.

And then it's the fee schedule takes care of it, and it rises and lowers with economic conditions. So we don't want to stop that or get in the way of that, depending on how they actually administer the fees and these different assessments. Yeah, it might be impossible. Actually, I'm not sure. Adding that or taking that out so that we would include it Might not be wise if that's the case. Do you know, Attorney

Goodwin? I know Commissioner Chatters had a question just before the motion was done, and so if I can, I wanna answer that because I think it also will answer yours that all of the county charters that I reviewed or the city charters I reviewed did have language where the tax does not include fees, rates, charges, or special assessments? The reasons for those generally were because the fees, typically fees have a built in safety where they are specifically to recoup costs for whatever the entity is, right? So in our case the county, the fees are there to recoup costs. Now there is a possibility in some instances where the county may kind of adjust those fees somewhere, but that is not proper and there could be challenges to that because the concern or the reason for the fees is just to recoup.

So if we have building permits, right, the fees for those permits are specifically for the work that people do, whether it's typing in the information, the system that we use for the building permits, all of that, right? So there are cost mechanisms that are in place that are supposed to help determine what those fees are. That's generally why from my readings on these, why cities don't include the fees because there's already that built in safety net. And then on top of if you include fees and it's every single fee, the same thing could happen where the budget schedule comes along and trying to get all of that information for the council. If something just happens to be missing, that kind of blows that whole thing out of the water, which then again could run into some legal challenges or appeals to what those are.

In short, to Commissioner Chatter's question, yes they all that I reviewed had that specific language in there as it is now. Okay. Commissioner Cass?

So it's my understanding with the research. I'm I'm actually willing to withdraw the amendment. Think commissioner Decker made some really good points about maybe not biting off more than we can chew on this first go round. But just, I guess, for the public's, knowledge that, there aren't necessarily guardrails on how much percentage rate increase can happen on the county fees. So if if your storm water is a $150, let's say, annually, they could raise it to $250 without with there's no guardrails.

So they could raise that percentage is my understanding. So, if it's if it's okay, I could, withdraw the amendment.

Is is that, okay? Do we need to withdraw the