Charter Review Commission - Regular Meeting

HAB-Masyn Moyer- All right.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- In the meeting. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Or. HAB-Masyn Moyer- The meeting. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Here. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Any.

Gregerson.

Here.

Chatters.

Here.

O'Donnell. Here. Cass.

Here.

Decker. Happy to be here. Preston. Here. Dodd.

Here.

Maheed. Here. Aming. Here. McGee.

Here.

Haslip. Here. James. Here. 13 members present.

Second.

Hello.

Hi. And then we will go right. We're going to break a state again. And just as it ends up, there's a good factor tonight. I just need to know, I didn't find our show hands from the browser. Who plans on speeding? Okay. So we need to get it ready. And that's it. We're just, you know, four or five. Thank you. Okay, so that's why they don't look at me addressing the topic. This is our third view of it because the Commission will be taking both of my proposals to see these three things from speaking to those proposals, considering that there are a lot of time. That we are going to be a part of the right to go. So I'm going to go to that comment. The agreement said that I might. So if they didn't like it over there and it's safe to name for the record and Three minutes. Yes.

Do you want to do online or in both? What would you like to do first? If you'd like to give public comment, not on the public hearing items tonight, please raise your hand. I have one.

Okay. And you should be able to unmute and speak. Hello.

Can you hear me? Wonderful, thank you so much. Just a heads up, I do have a note on one of the proposals, but it's more of a general statement, so I'm touching on a few topics. So that's why I'm talking at this juncture rather than breaking in during those moments. So thank you for understanding. My name is Angela DeFilippo. I'm a volunteer Snohomish County Human Rights Commissioner, a leadership trainer, and a coach living in Everett, and a board member of Unidos, a local nonprofit committed to improving community safety. I want to share some comments on a few of the proposals as well as the general charter review process based on what I've observed and heard from other community leaders. First, I am strongly against proposal number three regarding nonpartisan offices. Transparency is the foundation of community safety and voters deserve to know whether a candidate aligns with their values. Any process, code or procedure that diminishes transparency only increases opportunities for deception, misleading rhetoric and exploitive tactics to be used against the community. Voters deserve more information about their candidates, not less. And this attempt to hide information from them is an attack on community safety. Second, I appreciate the addition on proposal number 21, ensuring this would not apply to rates, charges, and fees. Data consistently shows that requiring a supermajority for certain funding leads to worse health and safety outcomes for the community, especially because of the impacts on vulnerable members like veterans and the elderly. And it appears that there have been efforts taken to find the needed balance. Finally, I feel moved to express concerns about this entire charter review process. The lack of transparency, failing to take public feedback collaboratively, limiting communications with the public and excessive panic about a variety of things, but for example, terms like human services. These are not actions that create a sense of community trust or confidence. Now, I assume this is nowhere near the intention, and I do hope you take the suggestion provided by the League of Women Voters at the last meeting to acknowledge how the chosen process impacted community trust when you make your recommendations and use that feedback to improve the process moving forward. Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate you listening to my concerns and comments.

personally, I'm not going to be able to say the name of the record and it is.

My name is Kathy Gill and I'm in the living room. I have two comments. One is on proposal 21 for the super majority vote against this because of the deadlock. It is inevitable.

But anytime you have a super majority requirement.

Your voting period is happening before you actually have a public hearing on this matter. And that is my second comment. Public hearings, all three of them, should have preceded any vote on any one of these measures. All the county residents should be able to have an effective voice on all possible proposals. Thank you.

Hi, I'm here in Linwood. I've been following the charter review commission process since the beginning, but it hasn't really got my full attention because I've got other things on my plate. And I have been waiting and waiting to see when we would have public input with all of the votes that are happening. And it seems as though every single public hearing is happening after you guys have already decided on what you're doing. And to me, that just sounds like performative democracy at best. If you're not even willing to follow the process, that's been laid out. Last year, they had five public hearings all before the voting process. And now you're sitting here voting on things before we even have the public hearings for five different propositions. And I want to understand why. Why are you trying to keep the public out of the conversation? I'd like to know, so please address it sometime. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Roger Nitz. I'm a citizen and voter in the city of Edmonds. And I came here tonight to basically protest the absence of this board dealing with the elephant in the room. And that is reform of the county council. County council is paid to be a full-time job. something in the vicinity of the $150,000 a year, yet we have two out of our five council members who disappear for months at a time to go to Olympia to spend their time in Olympia dealing with state issues and ignoring their responsibilities to the voters of this county. You should have considered a proposed charter amendment defining have the position of county council as a full-time job, incompatible with any other paid elective office. And the fact that you have not done anything like that, have ignored the whole issue, I think is regrettable. Thank you. Thank you, Max Hedberg.

Good evening. My name is Steve Mawson, president of Montlake Terrace. I will also just let you know I am currently the Republican Party chair of Salvation County, which kind of makes my comment here about what I'm going to relate to seem a little maybe different of you than some would probably have said. But I think that what we have here in our local elected races when you have a split between some of the elected officials being declared partisan and others not able to be declared as partisan is kind of contradictory to what we're trying to accomplish with our elected official when I started to bring unity into the whole of the county. When we don't have, when we have preconceived ideas about what somebody's position is, I think there's a tendency to district better the ideas that would be put forward. And so I just think having a total nonpartisan relationship or a nonpartisan position taken in during elections, like most of the city councils that we have, or in fact, we all have the city councils and quite a bit of the electoral body that's in the counties, gives that at least basic impression that we're not on one side or the other, but that we're looking to the actual benefit of the county and the people who live in the county. So I would encourage the board to put forward that non-partisan issue in order to be run for the office. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Nadine Shanti. I am a resident of Clearview, Washington, which is unincorporated in Orange County. Tonight, I'm understanding that you just asked for general comments, not specific to a proposal. But what I want to bring up tonight is actually one of these specific proposals by accident. I want to talk to you about, actually I'm requesting clarification because last week when we were in Monroe, a commissioner made a statement that I think I misunderstood and I want to make sure whether I have the right information or not. The statement as I heard it was that a super majority vote was something that was already a requirement of the Snohomish County Council that made me contact the County Council to find out, you know, really? I didn't know that. And when I contacted them, I was told that under most circumstances, Snohomish County requires a simple majority of three. There were only four, maybe five circumstances under which something was adopted that required a summa cum laude. They also told me that the proposals that you guys were using the supermajority vote for, which is, I think, 14 and 21, were going to require new, what they consider new requirements for a supermajority vote. I want to make sure that we're all on that same page, that we understand that it is a simple majority that is required to the county council, except on a very specific circumstances, and I would like someone to respond to that tonight if you could. Also, I'm against supermajority, and I know some of you are for, and I know some of you are against, but as a community member, I would like to hear somebody on this commission give me the reason why they think supermajority is the better way to go right now for the items that you're proposing. And I want somebody on this council to tell me why it's not the way to go. Because we are all trying to make up our minds of what we want to do. We need to hear from you about what you're thinking about these things and that will help us. Thank you. Hello. My name is Jean Rudd.

I've lived in Salton since the 1990s.

Some of the people here have been used to work. And if any of you who are on the committee to review applications of a vacancy on this mission, some of you might know me better than they do. Because I had an opportunity to see my resume and my application. Can you speak closer to the mic? OK. Thank you. Is that better? Yes. OK. Do you want me to start over? OK. So my understanding is that this comment time may be used to bring your attention to issues relevant to the work of the commission and to keep commissioners aware of the opinions of the public regarding that work. Yeah. Well, as I wrote in my cover letter, I was surprised to hear that on May 20th, the evening of your public meeting in Monroe, you had received not one single application to fill the vacancies. It was announced on May 14th. So by Friday afternoon, Mr. Kondylis and my emailed application have been deemed. I want to thank you for letting me off the hook. I had Memorial Day weekend to research what your deliberations have been and to find out more about how you function as a working group. So again, I thank you for letting me off the hook. I believe that everyone, every one of you around this table, everyone is operating from strong core beliefs in public service. I believe that you all give of your time and your talents to do what you truly believe is best for your community and that you take pride in your work and that you want to do what is honorable and right. I have not watched all of the recorded meetings, but I have seen enough of them to know that other members of the public, more eloquent than I, have recited the disappointments that you have given us, your public. Requests for transparency and openness have been dismissed under various self contradictory excuses. And some of you have been very careful to preserve a veneer of non-partisanship throughout their political careers. At the same time that you say the information about your affiliations is out there for the public to discover, you're disdain for the ignorance of the masses. Presume correctly that most of the working class public will not have the skill, the time, the patience, or the interest to search your affiliations. Some of you have even professed to be unaware of which of your fellow commissioners would have what political leanings. But unlike many of my friends and neighbors, I do have the skill, the time, the patience, and the interest to do the research that I can report to you. that it took several hours to unearth enough information about each of you to determine what a simple notification of a party affiliation or the lack thereof in the voters' pamphlet would have told me I had claims. Voters want that information. Just because they don't have the skill, the time, the patience, or the interest to locate it for themselves, they need that information. And if you are too ashamed of your party affiliation to put it out there, maybe you should consider changing your party. I would thank you for allowing me to speak, and I would thank you for holding this meeting, but you're only barely doing what the minimum of the law requires you to do. So I thank you for that. And I thank you for going against the procedure that you all adopted in your meeting of May 13th, when you deliberated about two ways of filling the vacancy caused by the departure of Chairman Fred Gailey and his intention to move to Idaho, which he must have known when he ran for this office. I am relieved that you decided to appoint the politician who ran for the position and lost to his views and affiliations aligned closely with the majority of you. Thank you again for letting me off the hook and in closing, you know what you've done. Do better. Thank you.

We have two more hands on line if you'd like to play with them.

We can do the room. Let's go ahead and finish up the room.

Hi, everyone. My name is Julie Johnson. And what I'm here to do is to thank folks on the commission. I think there are 15 of you. And thank each one of you for working on the commission this year. I know a lot of time and thought has gone into this. And that these propositions are never out. So thank you again. So in my opinion, all five of the propositions deserve to be on the ballot. The taxpayers should be the ones to decide how they want to serve. We all want essential services funded, especially when times are scary and less secure. And this is how I look at it. I've read all of them, not deeply, deeply, but a few times to try and get an understanding of them. So to me, there seems to be three money propositions, one, two, and four. Prop one is for the foundation for basic government to be defined, and it is defined. And then prop two is to prioritize the funding for the budget, and that would mean ability to pay to control some overspending. And then prop four is financial transparency, which is accountability and how exactly our dollars are spent. And then lastly, the last two, the other two are the non-partisan office proposition. I would like to see all the electives be non-partisan. Why not? Because if it's not in the voters' pamphlet as a D or R or I, then it would cause voters to research the candidates for the most qualified person to serve them without any party agenda. And that would put taxpayers on our back. And then Proposition 5, a supermajority, will require the council to compromise something we don't see much of these days, and that is very necessary and important to make the policy. So all of these are, all five of these, I think, but I'm not a professional at all, but I think they're good policies. So why not put them on the ballot and let the taxpayers decide? Thank you.

Thank you. Next in the room.

Good evening. My name is Eric Nelson. I'm an Edmonds resident. I thank you all for running and being voted on this council and donating your time. I was not of the opinion that this was going to be a public commission run commission that the public was going to, as others commented, have I would like to support Propositions 2 and 5 as the previous speaker just very well spoke through creating a situation through the nonpartisan where people get better educated the voters' pamphlet could be more robust in its descriptions. It's always very limited. You don't know much when you read it anyway. Then also on the opposition five of the supermajority, the council currently three votes are done on these budgets and on tax raises. tired of the county continuing to raise the tax, and frankly, the city of Edmonds being the highest tax tag for Glenwood in the state. And I would also agree with the previous speaker. The idea that our council people also go to work in Olympia is really ridiculous. They should have much focus on their job. That would have been a very good meeting point for you all to put forward. So thank you for your time and being with me.

Good evening commissioners. Um, so nice to see you all tonight. My name is Jeremy Hester. I'm the chief budget officer for Snohomish County executive office. Um, I am going to speak tonight on first. I have a message that I wanted to find regarding proposition two.

I'm happy to reserve comments as long as I'm able to provide the comment before we vote it.

I know there was some confusion during the last time. So I just want clarification.

So I'm happy to reserve comments as long as I'm able to provide the comment before

on Proposition 2. That's the Prioritized Funding and the Ledger Stabilization Funds. Proposition 4. That's the Increased Public Access Funds.

And Proposition 5, which I believe was... Proposition 6. Okay.

Those are the three of the five that are on the committee. Okay. Should we have their own division about that?

But they're being voted on before the legislature. Yeah.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- The reason I think shows that my yes yeah. HAB-Masyn Moyer- yeah. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Okay, can I clarify, if I remember the one before we move for a mile boat to take it to a. HAB-Masyn Moyer- I am saving the 2122 we might find it now. HAB-Masyn Moyer- During this open period. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And then we don't the other item that Karen and it's only in front of us in public hearing, so those times should be reserved that force.

HAB-Terry Palmos- Over five of them here. HAB-Terry Palmos- Right. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yeah, and you're going to have any numbers. HAB-Masyn Moyer- That using that.

Is someone allowed to speak before we vote them to the public hearing stage? Like during this open public conference? I have a friend.

Yeah, Attorney, you can speak for that, please.

During the quote-unquote comment, they're always free to comment on those. The reason that we ask that the comments for the propositions that are on the public hearing HAB-Jacques Juilland- wait until the public hearings, because the public hearing is specifically for that record. HAB-Jacques Juilland- The comments for public comments don't go on that record, particularly if you're so well do that you want to do, but if you want that to be on the record. then we got to wait before the public during the meeting was called.

It's not an appealable land use record public hearing, like it's a little bit. So it would be fine for someone to see better.

Okay, I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't just hit

Sure. It's not a public hearing that's like an appealable land use record. So you have like a closed record. So all the comments that are relevant have to happen only in that public hearing because someday someone could say, let's open this record up and go to a judge and appeal it in court. Our public hearings aren't like that. They're just an opportunity for the public to address us. We could choose to really restrict the public's ability and say, we can't talk right now. Carrie, you've got to raise your hand in 15 minutes. Or we could allow someone... As, of course, of our business and kind of like oftenness to the books that took the time of us to come tonight to just see right now if they want. It's up to the.

People be kind of. Okay.

I think it's kind of confusing to me too, and I apologize, I had a meeting last week, but it could be not just. move our final votes until after the public hearing. Don't we want to hear from people before we go? I don't understand the order here.

Yeah, we'll have a chance to debate before the final vote.

Chair Jones, I just want to clarify. My understanding of public comment is if it is whatever the public wants to comment, whatever is on their mind during the set time that they are allotted, we do not have the right to thought police them and require them to not speak on what they are speaking on as long as it is relevant to the proceeding in a generalized sense. But your point is well made that if they want it on the public hearing record for that item, they should reserve it. But I think it would be helpful for folks to understand they are free to speak their mind during public comment. But if they want it on record for that public hearing item, those are the comments they should reserve for that period. So I think that's what the confusion is.

I think that is safe. Any other questions before we move on? And then, Karen, is that okay? Do you want to speak on that? Or do you have another record?

I would prefer to speak to Proposals 21 and 22 at this time, since that will be part of the... Well, could or could not. So I would like to speak to those. I will fold my comment on Proposition 2 until we get to that portion of... Maybe not. If that was the right decision first on proposition number four, which was previously proposal 22. Um, I just wanted to say thank you to commissioner cast for putting forward version two. Um, very much appreciate that. All my counts are on that. And then for proposal 21. I do have a memorandum that was delivered to the commission. Those delivered to the commission, I also brought a few copies in case anyone left them. There were questions that were asked with regards to the county's fiscal flexibility and the impacts to other jurisdictions that have implemented a similar proposal. So below is our response. To determine the county's bond rating, investors and rating agencies look at the whole picture of the state of Michigan County, reducing the county's fiscal flexibilities by an element of the whole picture. If constrained fiscal flexibility exists, agencies will look to the county's reserves, liquidity, and structural balance. In practice, jurisdictions with supermajority roles often need larger rainy day cushions to reassure investors that they can bridge down terms without immediate tax action. Simply put, Samoa County does not have these elements in place and revenue would have to be raised in order to avoid service cuts to these requirements. The jurisdictions that were referenced in the meeting made their co-changes in 2012 and 2013 on the cusp of significant growth in the economy after the Great Recession. This is counter to the time we currently live in where post-pandemic impacts have left significant inflationary pressures. While bond ratings were stable in these communities, what was also stable and growing was their fund balance policies and reserves. This is not the case for Snohomish County. The most relevant comparison, Pierce County, is a higher property tax base because they increased their general levy more consistently than Snohomish County. For comparison, in 2014, the first whole year after enactment, Pierce County had a general levy of $111.7 million compared to Snohomish County's $82 million. Take it on a per capita basis. You'll be lucky that you live in Snohomish County. Pierce County residents pay 24% more in their general property tax levy than Snohomish County residents. That trend persists today, which allows Pierce County to build and maintain strong reserve policies and strong fund balances, including $180 million general fund balance at the end of 2025. The supermajority requirement will decrease the fiscal flexibility and ensure increased constraints. Simply put, you'll have more friction for every single vote for revenues and to balance your budget every single November. Because revenue and budget have to be balanced. During this strange fiscal environment, the structural imbalances that we are in right now, this can lead to significant consequences. A few examples. 2026, the Yakima City Council formally reduced its required general fund minimum reserve policy from 16.7% to 12% of expenditures. And this was because they have severe budget shortfalls, and it allows the city to use reserve funds to balance its financial operating budgets. There has been no change to their bond rating yet, but it is unlikely to be viewed in a positive manner. There are three state-level examples of supermajority requirements causing significant service impacts, including Nevada in 2003, California in 2009, and most recently, Oklahoma in 2016 through 2018. In the last case, the lack of achievement of supermajority vote led to four days, school weeks, and emergency cuts. I will leave it there. So appreciate it. I do have copies from the commission if you need them. Happy to pass those around. Thank you all.

Thank you, Karen. Is there anybody? Yes, there is. Okay, come on up, and I'm just sharing the name of the resident, and check your names.

Hey, Mr. Jaskin, I'm Jennifer.

I just, the reason I came up is because I noticed that you let some people speak to the proposals, and others you decided not to, so there's been some inconsistency in the way that you abide rules that you make them. So I wanted to bring that up for sure. And the other is, I have a hard time understanding how a group of people or how the elected officials would put us in a position where our bond rating would be lowered to as much money, especially with what's going on potentially across the country, across the state. And I will leave it at that. At the end of the day, one thing, one good at this. And one point, it came up to us that we wanted to make sure that elected officials, our county council and elected officials only held one office. That was on one of the proposals that was put through and this group voted it down. So that was on there so that we, most of us agreed that non-office was sufficient and that we needed our council people to be focused on accounting. But then again, it was going down. All our transparency, again, all our transparency, civil rights, environmental proposals were voted down by this group.

Thank you. Thank you. One more. Hi, I'm Eric Lynch.

I'm going to have a Lou Breyer since the 80s. I don't know when the discussion of the proposal is taking place, so because you're unclear, I'm going to go in. If you're clear, I didn't know what to do. There are five opposition titles. that sound universally good. Instead, they're a package that changes the balance of power as the local county government. And here is what they actually do. Prop 3 makes it harder for ordinary candidates to run, easier for wealthy candidates to win, unless the council majority replaces a thinking opposition member with their own like-minded friends. It's not good. Prop 5 has one council member, a veto power, two actions that will come down to one. Over any new bond and broad-based tax, another jurisdiction, this council majority, has lowered bond ratings like the previous speaker mentioned. I'm sorry, that was you. And you're absolutely right. You don't want that in Snohomish County. This raises borrowing costs. It means roads, courts, public safety, this less. The proposition is titled fiscal restraint, but produces fiscal damage instead. Props one, two, and four are ingenious in a tedious way. But our road piece really thought about how I caused the most damage to the county while having personal reward for a gain. And they provide a foundational service of policy and actually Stabilization fund is forbidden, forbidden from raising some of the revenue, which is crazy. So it draws down the operating budget instead. They still have non-profit transparency, which is . It will be zoning where actual development decisions get made on touch. There is a with their community. If approved, these proposals will make Sonoma County a county that cannot raise broad-based revenue, cannot fund anything outside of a narrow list, not replace a vacating council member from the opposing party, and cannot easily see where that development number is going with the money. As I understand it, One Path funded 11 members of its council, even their companies. Congratulations to the 11 of you. You've got five propositions and not one title accurately describes its real intent. This is intentional sabotage of the county for private gain. These propositions would make the county less flexible, less transparent, where it matters most, less able to raise revenue, and more vulnerable to insider control. Please do not send them to confession. Please do not sneeze to the bell. And the Loomis book earlier talked about this will restrain the benefits of this proposition. And that was the opposite of what it actually does. This is a horrible set of propositions. They serve one purpose, and that is non-provision. Thank you.

Let's go a little bit in person. And there was some confusion on my part too earlier. If anybody in the room that didn't speak was not able to speak on something that was on their mind, we will allow that at this time. But just you need to be aware that you're not speaking to the record on the hearing. That's kind of the point of having the folks above your hearing. So if it's something to the record, I mean, would the attorney care to define that?

The record for the public hearing is just that. It's a specific record to that specific hearing. As Councilman Kirchner very recently pointed out, unlike land use public hearings, these types of hearings, which are considered legislative public hearings, are not as prescriptive. So there aren't the same requirements. And the record, as she mentioned, is not a closed record in these types of hearings. So the record that we use, it's not necessarily one that someone would go back on to make similar to a land use decision, but it is a requirement that this body had in their rules. It was not in the charter, but in the rules of the procedure that this body had was to hold three public hearings. So that's one of the processes. And so those hearings are used specifically for that record, whereas public comment is Sure, you could comment on those things. It's not going to go to that record, but it's also the public's opportunity to make general public comments about things that relate to what we're discussing today.

So you're saying that the public comment is one sort of comment, and then the public hearing, you're telling us they're going to give us a lot of questions.

It would be nice to know that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. The most important thing about having the separation of comments is so that we actually anticipate a fair body of the voters across Snohomish County when it gets close to election time are going to go back and look at the records of the discussion and the comments for these matters. When you look at the agenda item, you're going to decide, I doubt many of them are going to listen through three hours or four hours of the meetings. They're going to look through the agenda and identify which portions had public comment or which portion had public commenting on these specific issues. So they'll kind of fast forward through public comment by and large and get to the sections of the agenda where the public hearing for specific items is at, so they can be informed. If you speak during the public hearing, there's a good chance that your comments related to the specific proposal will not be viewed or not be listened to by individuals who come back and listen to these recordings separately. So the intent is to have comment specific to proposals that people are going to want to research during the public hearing, portioned and marked on the agenda and in the reporting, accordingly, So people can get to those without kind of having to muddle through everything else that happens with the commission and the discussions.

Point of information. Can we verify that that is how this is the system segregated in that way in the way that was described by Commissioner Decker?

If you go and watch the meeting, the The recordings? Yeah. So if I go in and I say, I want to look at number 7A, I can click on 7A and it'll take me to that part of the meeting.

Okay. So you're just saying that if there are time markers, which indicate when each proposal is specifically discussed?

Each agenda item, yeah.

Okay. Legislate this, right?

All right. So we're going to just make

tell me that it's not going to be on the moment hearing. And I think there's somebody in front of you there if you want to wait in line. Yeah. And anyway, let's go ahead and continue with the public comment at this time. What's your name?

My name is John Martin, and I'm from Mountlake Terrace, and I'm here because Lisa of the Women's League of Voters called me up and said, you know what? I'm for democracy. And that's what all of you should be celebrating. the opportunity to participate in your government. And I think that is something you should protect with your body and your soul and your beliefs. I think what's really the cause of most of these problems is in the last 30 years, some of society has grown wealthier and wealthier and wealthier. And the other half of society has increasingly stayed about the same. So what we have now in this democracy is billionaires influencing all of you. All of you. And the people in the middle, they can't buy a house. I think what you need to address is the income disparity in this country where you will lose your democracy. Because what you have now is billionaires, multi-billionaires, They're into your ears and into the government ears and requesting loyalty oaths to be a government employee. Loyalty oaths. You know, when I was a kid, we didn't like those Russians because they were fired loyalty oaths. You've got to stand up and fight for democracy before you fight about what's on the public record and what's not on the public record. And that's all I have to say. I'll follow your rules.

Next slide, please.

Cathy Gilligan, the lawyer implied that the public hearing here is like a legislative hearing. Legislative hearings happen before the committees vote on the measures, not afterwards.

Thank you.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Carol McMahon. I'm formerly of District 3 now. I'm District 2. I'm very excited about that. I have just two questions or points to make. I'm wondering, after all of the meetings that I've attended, I've decided that being here is more important than being on Zoom because it's been determined by people that if you're not here, you don't care. even people who were on Zoom care, even people who watched them after the meetings care. And in fact, trying to watch the last meeting was pretty difficult because none of the mics worked well enough for the people at the table. So none of the record was made possible or available to the public. And it was difficult. If you were not in the meeting, you were not able to tell what was discussed. That's one thing. The other one is, I've heard many times people say that your job is basically over in June and you're looking at an appointment for District 5, congratulations, whatever. But as though there is nothing more to do and the work is just beginning. Because if you pass any of these five proposals that you're talking about, it's going to require a lot of explanation to the people who are going to vote. As a few people have mentioned, the voter's pamphlet isn't that effective or as detailed, perhaps, as it can be. Or maybe people won't need to worry about whether their party believes in one thing or another doesn't really matter if it's nonpartisan. But how are they going to know? The record isn't effective. You say you have transparency. The reportings are not good. So are you guys going to be holding hearings about these proposals that you're putting forward? Are you going to be representing, as a body, because the majority are going to approve whatever it is that goes forward, explanations for what's being put forward? How are you going to explain to everyone here and everyone in a single body representing maybe 10,000 people if we end up getting people to vote? How are you going to explain to them what you've done, what you want to do, and how it's going to impact them for the next 10 years or longer? So I would really like to hear that story told in a realistic and committed way by the body so that we know what we can expect from you. Thank you.

I couldn't see hands that were online. Are those new hands?

We'll get them out. First, we have Daniel. Daniel, you should be able to unmute and speak. Daniel, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.

My name is Daniel from Marysville. Being that this is the last meeting, I just wanted to thank the Charter Review Commission members and the staff. Some of these proposals are complex, and I'm grateful that you are all navigating it. And that's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Tamara Nelson. Tamara, you should be able to unmute and speak. Tamara, if you'd like to speak, please unmute yourself. And then we have Susan Payne. Susan, if you'd like to speak, please unmute yourself.

OK. Can everybody hear me? Thank you for having me, and I'm very glad for the Zoom option. I want to say I appreciate all the work that has been done on this. Commission, although I am quite bothered by some of the concerns about having public comments and then also the hearings after decisions are made. If you haven't had a chance to amend the agenda, it seems very upside down to not hold all of the public hearings prior to having the proposals ready for final vote. I think that that's a mistake. I serve on Edmond City Council, and it really is... an ordering problem. So if that could be corrected, it would make the public hearing by far more valuable for the final vote for the last few options. So those are my comments for the public section, and I'm hoping that that change can be made in advance so that people can make meaningful public comments, well, the public hearing comments at that time. I know others have spoken about the about their views on some of the proposals, which is great during the public comment period, because I think that, as others have mentioned, that this is, you know, when you're getting public feedback, you're getting public feedback, and that should always be considered. But it needs to be considered prior to your vote. Thank you. And I am interested in how this process proceeds. Thank you for your time again.

No, I tried. Okay. Tamara Nelson, if you would like to give a public comment, please unmute yourself. Yes, Tom.

No, okay. Okay. Thank you all for that. And I think everybody will be here when they can speak in the public comment section and what to do. Um, We're not going to be going to the city are there any changes that we need to go in this. So you know the new motion to move them so that you are very high. And next up is the new district by commissioner required to the last 5. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Are very important is that maybe so, so we we did so we had a few days. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And wanted someone to go ahead and turn over the mic to the chair of that community is the assistant vice chair is so you know. HAB-Masyn Moyer- You see.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- yeah and say i'm. Thank you for creating some really wonderful submissions. Very qualified people. We have six applicants and very grateful to each of those people who stepped up. Even though some might be very poor, they weren't chosen. But after consideration, the committee took note that a few of them have been on the ballot last November and one of them, one of the applicants had gotten four sitting in the race and received a considerable number of votes from the people. And so it seems like a logical choice to recommend to the rest of the commission for Mr. Steve Ewing to fill the vacancy that was left. He's, you know, we trust in the people's vote. I don't know if, HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes. HAB-Masyn Moyer- So back in

moved and seconded um maybe it is just a little bit bigger just just a brief comment um the last time we had a subcommittee meet and make a recommendation thank you for this uh

For this body, I felt misled. And so in this instance, I would be abstaining from the vote because I don't want to be similarly misled as to the conditions around this particular appointment. And no shade. But last time again, we were not getting full disclosure as a commission. I don't, I'm not familiar with the record of this person. So I would be abstaining from this vote.

Yeah, you know, for me, it was just this candidate that just by a little short of 14,000 votes, which put him right behind the winning candidates by 400 or 500 votes. And then we had another candidate that was on that consideration and was a candidate in the election last November that also applied again this time. And they were in the 2300 vote range. So that was a pretty clear decision. And for me, it was not making the decision myself and let the people decide. I think they did in November.

Any other comments? Okay. Well, did we? Yes. Go here.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Chatters?

Abstain.

O'Donnell? Yes. Cass? Yes. Decker? Yes. Preston? Yes. Dodd?

Abstain.

Mandy? Yes. Kamen? Yes. McGee?

No.

Ethler? Yes. James? Yes. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

11. Okay, that motion passes. And the next step is to have our attorney do the swearing in. And then we need to find a chair to have the student sit down.

We'll take the chair.

Yeah, he's got one. He's got a chair right now. Yeah. There's one under there. Oh, perfect. Thank you. Thank you.

So if you look at the first part of the state, the role means, I'll read it right again. Hi, say your name. Nice to meet you. Do you solemnly swear? Do you solemnly swear? For a firm. For a firm. That I will support the Constitution. That I will support the Constitution. And laws of the United States. And the Constitution and laws. state of Washington, state of Washington, the provisions of the charter and ordinances of Snohomish County, and that I will faithfully and partially and honestly perform and discharge the duties of the office of Snohomish County Charter Review Commissioner, of the office of Snohomish County Charter Review District 5. District 5. For a six-month term. For a six-month term. According to law, to the best of my ability. According to law, to the best of my ability. Sound good.

We will move on to the next agenda. Proposals for the discussion. Number A is the proposal 21, which was re-numbered, related to requiring forfeits to be resorted to by a committee that were cast. We brought that forward, and we have her to bring an executive presentation. Then we'll take a motion and then we'll have a discussion about this. Uh, Bridget, does this one change?

Well, the microphone doesn't work, but, uh, oh, there we go. Uh, it's a delay. I would love to move item seven to after item eight so that we can hear from the public in the public hearings on these items before we do our converse. So that's, I'm making that. I said again.

There's a motion and a second.

There's a motion and a second. I'm not opposed. The net effect is the same. We're going to have a public hearing on those. I suppose if the assumption is that for some reason, A was not. So let me be clear. If A and B pass, they then become items under eight. So the assumption of having commentary before that perhaps would be to persuade this commission to not pass those. So I understand I have no objection. It's just a little bit wonky, but we can live with it.

Any other discussion?

Yeah, I think the purpose of having 7A and B was for the commission to have some discussion about the clarity that was brought forward by the letter from the executive's office so that we could have robust discussion and then make consideration to add it to the transmittal package, which is one of the public hearings about And then maybe the confusion is after we have the public hearings, are we voting on the transmittal letter in the package? So there's still one more decision point to be made after the public hearing.

Yes.

Okay. So I think maybe that part wasn't very clear to the public. There is still voting in consideration after the public hearing. So in which case, I think it would make sense to proceed with our discussion so that we can... vote as to whether or not it will go to the public hearing.

Correct. That's my understanding as well that these are discussed before the discussion on, I'm happy to publish them on the 40th of the Trans-Vote to Transmit to the County Council. But if I don't get all of these It seems to make sense logically to talk about those.

I tried to ask earlier, nobody shared this information. So now that I know there's logic there, but I think me included, maybe because again, I had to miss the last meeting. I was like, yeah, I don't understand it as people were talking. So this is a very helpful discussion. Thank you. I think that

Commissioner Dodd is responding to what we are hearing from the public in this moment is that they feel that they have been shut out of the process of sharing their thoughts about these matters before the vote. But I think what the public is not aware of is that votes on proposals one, two, and three, those votes already took place. So while they are technically listed on the public hearing section, understand that this commission has already voted and passed those. The only two remaining that may or may not be added to that list for transmittal are the ones appearing on agenda item seven, A and B. All of the others, this commission has already noted on it. So while you are welcome to share your perspectives through comments, know that this commission has already taken full action on all of those items. So the final two remaining items, those are available for clarification before this commission votes. So I think that's the big issue. The public is not aware that the voting has taken place on the majority of that public hearing list already.

Thank you, Regent Tethers. And Regent Grayson.

I would agree. I don't want to reiterate anything that anyone just said. But there is a final vote on the print mail, which would be the whole thing. The public hearings are to gather input on proposals. However, we can't help them after we forward off the proposal already. Anyways, I do think that making comments on A and B before we vote on them is kind of what I'm used to in normal government. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And, and then just generally the idea that I totally disagree respectfully when the mission or Decker that the public hearings are a tool for a voter to review in the fall. HAB-Masyn Moyer- I saw them as a as a tool for gathering public input for the condition on proposals like it says. HAB-Masyn Moyer- So that we could think about that and we have that influence our vote like like you know i'm used to it as many of us might be so. Anyways, love to hear from folks that have plans.

Where's your desk?

I think we have the discussions now, proposal 21 and 22. There will be some clarification that would be important for the public and the comment company, because there could be a lot of people coming up, making a lot of comments, and if we've had some clarification, that would be helpful.

The vote is on the agenda.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. James. Yes. 13. Okay, so we have moved against item seven.

We're going to talk about two. It is now. Yes. That works.

Yes. You know, so now we're on to public hearing on proposition number one.

Well, we're not going to take them individually. This is not an individual, but we're going to be two ways. And then again, so Propositions. We're going to do this at this point. Thank you very much. Sorry. Thank you. So the proposition 123 and or We have five if needed, but we need to have that conversation first. So I went over this beforehand so it would be more clear. I'm looking at the attorney to make sure that we're proceeding correctly. I think if we should, my idea, my information was that this was going to go through the public hearing as a unit, all five together. Or for the decision, which seems really backwards to me, but we'll do what we can do. And then we have public hearing. So if you want to talk about any of those propositions.

That is the purview of the commission. To what are they? Each one of those is some sort of public hearing. HAB-Masyn Moyer- or because it has been discussed at least one before it's been assessed the little public hearing for the column for a little bit before. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And then either either of those that you wish to do public comment on those specific propositions and that will be part of.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Okay, here. Since it seems as though many of the individuals who wish to speak are speaking on multiple items, it would make sense for an individual to speak to all of these items rather than having them come up and then come back for each of them. So I agree with you. We are holding a public hearing. If individuals are able to comment, provide public testimony on any of the items 1 through 5, 5 is a little wonky, but we won't worry about it.

That's what we're doing, so it's usually great.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- I decided, we have this different and we get on the 13th or we open up. HAB-Masyn Moyer- On it, so it was easily retrievable and we want to research that specific I am if you want to do it that way. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And then close the public here. But hey, there's a change the rules. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Okay, thank you. Well, um, HAB-Masyn Moyer- I think we made the wrong vote is a few minutes ago. Number seven, A and B, we brought forward because we made changes and we needed to discuss them in order to put them on the back on number eight. So we put them all together, then we missed that, that time of talking about those changes. We haven't done that yet. And so in my opinion, we need to retract that last goal that we made so that we can keep seven in place And then it refers to eight. It goes in with all five, whether there's changes or not. Would you agree with that?

That would require someone that was on the affirmative because that is the way the vote went. Someone voted the affirmative to make a motion of reconsideration. When that motion is made, if that motion passes, then that can be brought back for reconsideration.

I'd like to have a little conversation about it before we do that. Does that make sense?

I shall move.

Can I say one other thing? I'd like to address the public at the moment. It has been very difficult. And this looks bad. And I'm sorry for that. But this is new to us. Even though we've had a few meetings, it's still new to us. So it takes It's still grace. We want to do the right thing. I'm just meeting your grace and let's finish the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioners.

Could we take public hearings on one through three or even on one and then two and three, but the chair. Prompt to proposition four. take another setting would be like a staff report, but really it's kind of our commissioner's work to develop that, set the table a little, explain the proposal, and then open the public hearing, the public comment, and close it, and then vote on it. I don't know, some of you might have seen that on another agenda in a city or a county when we tackled other issues. That could be a way to resolve. It doesn't get to the idea of reconsidering a motion. It just might be a way to HAB-Masyn Moyer- Way to get to that.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- That actually makes sense. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Those are not. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And four and five are the two that we still need to assess. HAB-Masyn Moyer- So. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Is that a motion. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Mr bears. HAB-Masyn Moyer- That we're seeing how we're going to. Oh, yeah, I don't know that. Yeah, certainly. Does that make sense? So anybody else?

So just just to clarify, just so folks understand, seven, seven A and B correspond with agenda items eight, D and E. And so for the Commissioner Patterson suggested to bring some order to this. We will take them each in order and then speaking will be an accomplishing agenda item 7, 8, and 9, along with agenda items 8, 9, and 10. Makes sense. That's very good.

Well, we're good. Okay. We're going to proceed with the public hearing. on Proposal Propositions Unit 1, 2, and 3. And I will read into the record about the hearing. We'll be addressing these proposals as a final packet in the agency. And we will now recess into public hearing. And the guidelines are, if anybody wishes to speak, can speak. If the opportunity is to speak, if required, I would ask anybody online most to speak, but I'm going to do it virtually. And we're going to have a period of answer for speakers. I'm guessing it's going to be about the same number of speakers, hopefully. And anyway, the premise from the public is that the future may ensue the proposals of the act, which in this case is all agreed with them. You are welcome to come up to the mic. I will start with online that we have traditionally done. And you want to take your virtual hand and as we can have you speak to the proposition one, two, or three, your choice. We're all three at the same time. You have three minutes total. So go ahead and we'll start.

If you'd like to give virtual comment on propositions one, two, or three, please raise your virtual hand. I see Susan Payne. Susan, you can unmute and begin speaking.

Good afternoon, and can everyone hear me?

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you for... having this public hearing i want to just say that i'm having some difficulty hearing our commissioner james because he is um his microphone may not be close enough to him so throughout this meeting thus far has it it's been very um muffled so thank you thank you for this the adoption of the foundation of the government services policy it's um a policy that is um it's one that I think this just takes a lot of, I guess, authority for the executive to make sure that we have enough staffing balance throughout all of the, all of the, the County government. I used to work for the courts and I am sympathetic. And although that's important, I want to make sure that when there are issues, these propositions coming forward that we also need to make sure that we have some balance within what's going on. I know that a couple of years ago that with the prosecuting attorney, that there were some surprise cuts due to this, but prioritizing the work of all the departments, you're not prioritizing the work of all of the departments because it's all of the departments. This work does seem to be a little bit redundant to the sort of normal budgeting practices. So I'd advise you to reconsider that one. Thank you. Those are my comments for position one, proposition one.

Thank you. If there's anybody else who'd like to see virtually please raise your hand. I love the moon. One of my overall original ones.

That's it. Okay, we will go to, we will go to the meeting room. All right, excuse me.

Hi, it's Isabel Ma from Linwood. Again, I don't really know why speaking matters if you already voted to include these propositions, and then you're not likely to change that, which I think is a huge misjustice. And it just, it's very upsetting, actually. But I will state anyway, for the record, so people on the internet can find it, that I am strongly opposed to adding to the ballot Proposition 3, converting all elected county offices to nonpartisan offices, because when I was under the impression they already were nonpartisan offices, a lot of these. So... what you're trying to do is just hide information from the voters. And that makes me wonder why are you trying to hide that? What are you ashamed of? And what's the problem that's going on behind it? I think what you're doing is going to make it harder for people to actually vote. And that seems to be a trend that's happening all over the country, all over the cities and all over the county. And I don't know if some of you genuinely think that you're trying to make it easier for people to make up their mind and be non-divisive and non-partisan, but that's just not the reality of the world we're living in right now. And it just feels really slimy. And all of you have a responsibility. You were all voted in, and it just seems like you don't really care what the people have to say about any of these things. And it's really scary to watch and to participate in and to have to try to do something about it. I just urge all of you to go on and think about what you thought was going to happen when you took this job. What were you trying to accomplish? And was it actually for the people to make their lives better and easier? Or was it for your own personal gain? Or was it because of someone else's narrative? I don't know. I just am astounded, I guess, at how this has all been unfolding. And I know it's a hard job. I do get it. And this is the first time, but like, what an injustice, I think.

That's all. I shall be brief. I oppose propositions one, two, and three for all of the reasons that were presented during the comment.

Good evening, commissioners. It is so nice to see you. My name is Karen Chase. I am a proud resident of Esperance, which is right down the hill from here. And I really want to thank the city of Montluc Terrace for opening their chambers for the charter review. I want to make sure that we're showing proper gratitude to South County because we really appreciate having this commission come down here so that more members of the public can testify. Now, I did testify on Proposition 3. I did not testify. I did public comment. at the last meeting he voted. And my understanding is the quality of the video, the audio was so bad, excuse me, was such that people could not hear my testimony. So if I would like to actually re-read my comments, and I wrote notes this time just so I could read them to you. And again, it was very nice to see everyone down here in South County. So, chair and members of the Charter Review Commission, I urge you strongly to impose the proposed amendment to remove the partisan base of nations from Snohomish County offices. Political parties serve a central role in our elections. Removing party labels from the ballot does not remove partisan politics from the process. It simply removes useful information from the voters at the moment they are making decisions. Party affiliation provides voters with important and widely understood framework for evaluating candidates, values, priorities, and governing philosophy, helping voters make informed choices without requiring extensive innovative research into every candidate, which I think you've heard about from Suneet already. Eliminating this information risks transparency, reducing transparency, rather than increasing it. Snohomish County voters want transparency And this change moves us in the opposite direction. County government decisions are not politically neutral. Decisions about public safety, taxation, land use, labor standards, housing, environmental protections, public health, criminal justice, and budget priorities all reflect underlying values and philosophies. Voters deserve clarity about these prospective candidates. bring the clarity about the perspectives candidates bring to those decisions. And, you know, supporters of nonpartisan elections often argue they reduce polarization, but there is no rigorous evidence to support these claims. And in practice, candidates still receive partisan endorsements and support from political organizations and ideological backing. Campaigns do not suddenly become nonpolitical because the ballot limits the party label. Instead, The system becomes rigged in favor of candidates with greater name recognition, wealth, institutional connection, or access to insider political networks, while making it harder for voters to distinguish between candidates. Oh my goodness, that went so quickly. Well, I think transparency is essential to democracy, and I urge the commission to reject this proposal. I know the rules seem to be changing, so you voted on it once, but as we all know, changes can be made on the fly, and amendments become from the floor. So I thank you all for your time. You're going to get a welcome to South County.

Well, good evening. I'm Brian Sullivan. I'm someone's kind of treasurer. That's a problem. Give me a minute. I just wanted to make a couple of clarifications based on some previous testimony. Proposition 1 and 2. Proposition 1 was actually born from a series of meetings and an idea. The series of meetings was with the courts, prosecutor, the sheriff, the assessor, and at times the auditor, although he likes to stay separated from anything related to the election. So I've got to give him a bye. And so, as a consequence, I brought up the first proposal and on advice from county council staff, I uploaded it to SharePoint, which was then distributed equally to all the commission members. So it's important to know that this was done above board. and invite the vote, so to speak. So, and of course, my motivation was based on 2008, actually, you know, back in the 80s, when we had to do massive layoffs due to catastrophic economic events. So it's hard for an elected official to get in the elevator, you have to lay out 350 people a day to have an elevator full of king slips. And so it hurts families. and it hurts to break county employees. And so the idea is to put bookends on the budget and to keep the focus on foundational services and funding related to foundational services. On Proposition 2, real briefly, that order was originally written by me in 2009 when I was on the County Council. We amended that in 2015 after Oso, and we put triggers in there. And one of the reasons why we really don't need tax increases for emergency funding is because it has $16 million in it now. And there's a trigger in the ordinance that basically says at the end of the good years, the percentage goes into this fund. And then dealing with the super majority, that has always been in the ordinance. So that's nothing new. But I will point out that it also happened, the county executive, Dean Edom, and the governor also had a declaration of emergency, which lives in all of our ordinances and rules from expenditures. We spent $20 million in six weeks without one. So I don't think that the idea of the super majority is to keep a subjective council or any political in play out of the picture so that Because, you know, I had a council member once, I won't say who, brought an emergency order and says, you know, police once a week, you know, and I joke that we have to do an emergency order and someone says emergency order. And finally the prosecutor stepped in and says, you know, we can't do this any longer because it's too subjective, right? So that's why the fourth vote. But during a major natural catastrophe, a catastrophic budget event, I don't think the county would be And about her anyway, but for the majority, because they do this is. This quarter.

In. The evening and I'm here to speak on behalf of the director of eating out the ship so much money she provided a prepared statement on proposition number two. And the nuance here is that you are now trying a supermajority in charter as opposed to code. And so we have, there are some concerns that the authorities branded the DBN the recter. This year, the Sonoma County Department of Emergency Management has kicked off a focused effort to develop a county earthquake response plan with other county departments, local governments, special purpose districts, and community groups. ongoing need for access to resources and funding on our first day but even more it is emphasized the need for flexible access to the funds we already have as well as any additional funds i'm not proposing that we need to be able to dip into the funds on a regular basis but on the county's worst day we know that government staff and elected officials would be directly impacted by disaster they might not have access to communications might not be able to make it into work might be dealing with first-world tragedies that limit their capacity for official duties. To be more blunt, modeling shows that a major earthquake will devastate the transportation infrastructure across western Washington. Sonocity County could be divided into over 50 population islands, areas that are isolated due to fatal bridges or roads made impassable due to soil liquefaction. County Council are specifically elected because they represent all areas of the county. An important factor for democracy, but a challenge for continuity. Geographic dispersal practically guarantees that some council members will not be able to make an inactive earthquake. Cell networks will be overloaded. First responder radio networks will be focused on immediate life safety concerns. We cannot assume that a virtual discussion and vote to access the fund will be possible in the first days of the response. County Code currently grants the DEM Director Emergency Spending Authority for immediate life-saving actions, authority I have never had to use, but that will be critical during a catastrophic disaster. I am concerned that enshrining access limits into the county charter will supersede existing emergency authorities within code. tied the county's hands during immediate response. I ask that you maintain the existing emergency spending clauses in county code. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Greg Lynch.

Long time no see. So six hours ago, I didn't know about these propositions. And then someone shared them with me. I got closer to the mic, and I read through them, and I kind of did a double-take, and I was like, what's going on here? These are kind of the devious way they're written. They are trying to do things that their titles don't actually say. Taken one by one, each can be made to sound reasonable, but taken together, they are not healthy, and they are a package that changes the balance of power. It's a homeless county government. That's not okay. The purpose of the charter is not to limit us. Our purpose to change the government is to improve us and give us more opportunity in the county. Proposition 1 creates a foundational service policy that sounds reasonable, but it quietly pushes everything outside the preferred category to secondary status, so housing, human services, parks, libraries, environmental protection, and other county communities become easier to treat as optional. I don't want optional services in my government. Crop 2 creates stabilization funds, but the cash-out fund cannot have its own dedicated tax or fee. That means the money has to come from somewhere else in the operating budget. So what key service do we cut to support the emergency? Crop 3 removes party labels from every county office. That sounds neutral. And a long time ago, I would have thought that was a neutral as well. But today we are in a very divisive political environment. Democrat means one thing, Republicans means another, and there are teams. It's not about the individual and there actually be some bad kind anymore. It's about what team do you back for? And I hate that. That should not be how it is. We don't need to, we need to know what somebody's on, on our balance, so that we have information and can then put it into more much process. It also changed the vacancy rules. So a council majority could fill a vacancy directly, instead of preserving the political choice voters made in their election. So if somebody voted for a Democrat, and the Democrat was in this seat, and they pass away, they move, but something happens, a majority can nominate their own friend for that seat and not fill it with a like-minded person from the other party who was in that seat. And the process matters. Public reporting and PDC records indicate that a developer or one political network provided a dollar-a-year cross-site spending behind 11 of U-13 conditions. It seems like it's legal, but the reality is not the same thing as public trust. I suspect that there were party affiliations listed next to your names, a lot of you would be in your seats right now. These propositions would make the county less flexible, less transparent, and less stable.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Beryl Chase. I am a proud resident of Nassau, just down the hill. It is a progressive fashion of democracy. We believe in democracy. We believe in the rule of law. And I'm embarrassed here. That being said, let me finish what my colleague, who's also an SPS, was interrupted on. So you will be able to hear her words. Talking about accountability. Party labels also strengthen accountability. When candidates run openly as Democrats or Republicans, voters have a clearer understanding of what they are supporting and of what they are accountable for, both elected officials accountable for governing in alignment with those values and commitments. Democrats to be Democrats and Republicans to be Republicans. That's how we evaluate. Candidates are also free under the current system to run as independents or unaffiliated. And they can already choose to state no party reference at all. Removing partisan designation could also hinder voter participation and engagement by making balance more confusing And less informative. I'll see you then. Particularly in down ballot races like judges. Judges. And that's where voters have less access to media coverage and campaign information. Transparency is essential to democracy. It is essential to democracy. Think about that. If you vote, you need to know what you're voting on. voters should have more information, not less. For these reasons, I urge this commission to reject the proposed proposal to remove partisan labels first at home each county offices and preserve voters' ability to make informed decisions at the meadow. Thank you for your consideration and thank you also for your service. I know you're trying. No, you're right. But we can do better. Thank you.

Hi, Nadine Shanti, Clearview, unincorporated Snohomish County. And I'm doing this just for the record. I want all of you who are here tonight to be aware of the fact that almost everything that you've heard in objection to the first three proposals has been said before. That's the honest truth. And they went through. And I'm afraid that's what we're going to be looking at with the last two. It is very disappointing for me. But I am going to try to give you the space because I know you guys are working and I would like to support you as far as that is concerned. But it looks to me that for Snohomish County, almost all of these things are going to go through because this commission wants them to go through regardless of what we want. So what we're going to have to do for the record is make sure that we inform all the people that we talk to about the meetings we've been to, and I've been five. And I've been waiting for things to change, and they don't seem to be ready to change. So we're going to have to vote against these things. We're going to have to be public citizens who are formed, who are aware, and who are going to need to do our job. These guys are doing their job. But our job is to not let this happen.

Okay. Okay, so we're going to work through this position for which is the original version was published in 2021. It's super majority. I mean that the right works. And you can go to 22. It is not a little more so, though the assets, it's not a financial transparency. Um, if you really want to go over here, you should go out of the room. You don't mean that question to me or probably put in that order.

I'd say keep it in order. I say just keep it in order that we're going to be down here. And just to be clear, we're going to have public comment And then we're going to have public hearing, correct?

I think we're going to do just a little high level discussion, like just introduction or some clarification, like these two are able for clarification.

I'm just going to get an opportunity to speak with, then we're going to have a discussion, and both comments are already happening. Okay? So I will turn it over to Mr. Cass.

So when we said we're going in order, we're talking about going in the order of eight, and then I said the public hearing. Order of number eight, yeah.

So B, Proposition 4, everybody spoke, that says to join financial transparency and If you could speak to that. This is already, just as a reminder to the commissioners, this has been voted through to the council at the last meeting, but there are now, there's questions about language, and so the language was looked at, changed. We have now two different versions, the version that we voted through, and now version two, which we'll be voting on tonight, if we would like to have that version. Go ahead, continue to the cast.

Yeah. So, there are, We're having some confusion about which version was supposed to be put into the language or the transcendental. And I think last, so on the meeting, 13th meeting, we presented a much simplified, as Commissioner Decker said, it had some squishy language. It was language that was agreed upon. And I was able to work with the executive's office on something that would be more affordable and not extraordinarily expensive to implement and be much more reasonable and adaptable as new technology comes on board. So that is really version two. So it was like last week without a lot more debate, consternation, and concern. And I think that was because The language had been inadvertently used, right, and being the original one that was prior to getting the cost impacts from the executive's office. So I would encourage you to look at version number two, and I would go with that one forward, because that is what they actually voted on on May 13th, maybe.

So I think you, Chair, you earlier said we would need a motion and then a discussion. So I will move that item 8D be moved forward. I will second. So now we can have a discussion on it. We've got a presentation. Now we can have a discussion by the Commission regarding that item.

And those are the unique aspects.

This, I'm one of the most concerned for that discussion is for that mission to discuss that. I can just say the proposal that was brought forth to be voted on last week used the original language because at our meeting in Arlington, apparently there was The new language was hand out on hard copy. I did not have that hard copy. So the language that I used was one of the original postal. And then once that came through, that's when. Commissioner has said this is. I have this amendment. Where is that? So she sent me the amendment that was discussed during that meeting. So out of that came these two versions. Version one is the original with the amendments that were made at the last meeting. Version two is the actual amendment that she prepared for that meeting that was in Arlington that was discussed and brought forth kind of tasked to use, which language is going to move forward. The proposal itself, the idea of that proposal, of that language has not changed, is what the amendment and the charter would read, the way that it would read, isn't what is being proposed now, which is version one and version two. So that's where that stems from. if this body votes that version two moves forward, that's the one that will move forward. If it's not version one, I'll vote on that version two.

Correct. Any discussion or do you guys understand that we're going to move on to the second version?

I think so.

So when we

started looking at this one indefinitely years ago. We had a facility that had an estimate prepared. There were a variety of different numbers on it, different ranges, cost ranges. And it was also revealed to us that the county is undergoing a $15 million gap in technological reworking. That is in progress. That has already been signed. The work has already happened. And so I don't think I ever got a clear answer to the question of how will this impact that? How will there be an increase in costs? Are we going to pause that contract, re-scope it, renegotiate it? What is the actual impact cost-wise of this particular amendment? So that was one of my questions. And then my other question was around, I think it was Commissioner Decker that used the term the swishiness of the language. The language says to the maximum extent practicable. And now I have actually been a public employee in former life. and public services operating on issues during budget and technology is usually one of the least funded base that public departments get access to. They are already operating to the maximum extent at their goal based on what is aligned to them such advice for their technology needs. So I'm still unclear as to how squishy language that basically says do your best it's creating transparency for the public. So if I could get answers to those two questions, I'd be very happy.

So in working with Tara, if you recall the budgetary impacts, there was a whole spreadsheet and options. There was one where with what they have now, moderate amount of time and money to invest, to make some modifications to the system that they have now. What amount of money is what I was trying to determine? That one was like less than $40,000. And that would bridge the gap between now and then the other database that would come into play or won't be completely done for another five years. So this would allow for some bridging, some disk website modifications if there's information on grants. then that information that's on a separate website could also then be included on the same site. And you'll notice that specifically the language was changed. Instead of being one database, it's a tool. So it really could be a web page that has two different sources of data.

That's a different version.

And that's what we're trying to say is we have a version.

Can I have this version? Because the version I have. It's in your backup. It's in your backup. And so this is the version two.

So this is the version that was actually discussed and agreed upon when we visited in Arlington. And it was including language. We had a long discussion about how this would place the big financial, you know, I think there was one that was maxed out on the spreadsheets. And so that's what we're trying to achieve. But then also what it's really been achieved is by being in the Charter and allowing people to vote, it says, yeah, we want public access to what our county is spending money on. And that's not that clear currently. And it wasn't necessarily included when they are spending multimillion dollars on a new database. it wasn't included in the statement of work that there should be a public-facing development to it. So by the people voting on it, it allows people to say, I'm going to be able to search and find out where our money's going. It's really that simple. And it gives flexibility to grow with the technology as it comes up. So I thought we worked pretty well on coming up with this. hopefully we can hear from the people and then make a vote to clarify the really intent version. Okay.

So just a quick clarification. It looks like in our packet tonight we have version one on one page, we have version two on another page. So we'll say a prop over the top. Make sure we're all on the same page when we're talking about this. The version two is much shortened If you compare it to the line, but all of those points, it's a very long way. It's a simple language. It's it's easy. And it allows us to change. Three directions.

So I have, um, it sounds like you're not kind of presenting it more. So maybe I was in the form of sort of a question, but to clarify, chair J's already spoke to this, but the, Version one that then in fact, and the first page that it has, it's pretty prescriptive about like, it has to include these, almost like these, pop these roles or these columns in a database. You gotta have the payments and total contact amount and it has to be available with downloadable into the particular method. And then the new one, like significantly. Changes that I see in the movement, I think that what you were speaking to, you mentioned in the past, are it says things like the greatest extent practical, not like the massive extent. Information poverty collected, I think that was the same. And that counties should use more reasonably practical existing systems for future efforts. And prioritizing systems, allow it to be phased. That's all language that was not in version one. Those are men. You spoke about the purpose of that. I just want to make sure that I saw a language that there was, whether reflecting what you were. Okay, that's all. Thanks.

Commissioner Gregerson covered most of what I had in mind. I just think this here is a great rewrite. I think that we saw an answer in the county and budget considerations. The greatest extent practical, reasonably able to do this. And those are just good words. It's pretty swishy. I think by design, I think it's sent out to the world.

So why not?

Someone can check the math for me, but I get it very quickly looking at the county budget, and this amounts to one one hundred. of a percent of the county budget is what we're talking about for the past year. And for 1,100 of the county budget, we're going to increase transparency of taxpayers into how those tax dollars are being spent. I think that's a very, very small investment to increase confidence in our government. Again, 1,100 of a percent, that's 0.011 from the county budget.

Thank you. Um, so I seem to recall in the last, I mean, we thought that there's all the different members, which, which we don't have in front of us today. And I think there, there was, uh, there was a $4,500 and there was a $45,000 amount. I, I thought we liked the 4,500 and I could be wrong. I don't, I don't know. And I'm asking the question because that's why the difference. And given the information is already available, but harder to find. Personally, I would support the $4,500 amount between now and when the county then implements something more to bridge that gap between now and then. The other thing I wanted to ask about, and I would have brought this up at the last meeting, but this part disappeared and now it came back. Because I saw this previously. Under Section 6.130, Accountability and Transparency. So the very beginning of this and the third. I looked in the charter and nothing like, I couldn't find anything like this. But this starts off, to promote transparency, accountability, and public confidence in the expenditure of county funds. That it goes on to actually describe what you and I am not sure what the purpose of why are we saying we're doing this because, and none of us, they were going to talk for other items. I would not. I agree with that. So I would, I would make a motion that it would be loose. Just those words because I think it's been a necessary and a little bit. And we don't describe why I'm doing anything off in the chat. Okay.

There's a motion and a second and we'll take some discussion on that. But if I didn't do it. Yes. Which. What you what was what you said.

Oh, the motion is just to remove the words to promote transparency, accountability and a little confidence in the expenditure of us and then the rest of it. So it means that it was really on this.

Great to see you perform.

I would say we've heard the word transparency here many, many times tonight. I know that people are not very bored when we see what's going on. So I like the word transparency because it's very clear to people. The reason for this. Maybe the charge should have some other clear defining

HAB-Masyn Moyer. No.

HAB-Masyn Moyer.

No. HAB-Masyn Moyer. Yes. HAB-Masyn Moyer. No. HAB-Masyn Moyer- There no Preston no done yes man he know. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And no, but he yes. HAB-Masyn Moyer- No, James. HAB-Masyn Moyer- You know.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Okay, that motion. HAB-Masyn Moyer- videos. And is there any other discussion that we will read? Yes.

Commissioner Kast, I have a question, and I think you said transparency, and Commissioner Kast, that I was thinking about this. For me, when I think about transparency, the spending is one thing, but it's the spending to entities that fund campaigns that really brands my ears for the way to say that in public. And I'm wondering if you had thought about looping in some sort of linking or I know the PDC is very easy to export data from to link people who are on the boards of directors for corporations and accounting that does create a contrast with who contributes to political campaigns. Is there any room to kind of, since this is squishier and I wouldn't want to figure out a, super clear legal prescription on how to do that. Could we add in a couple of words that say that that should be a goal potentially?

So are you saying for how many contracts that go to people and then, I mean, then when it's due?

So some guys, so Chuck, I don't think we have a Charles on the commission. Some guy has a corporation that does some kind of public good, right? But he bids on contracts. he puts money into a PAC or into individual campaigns and gets his people elected to the county into different offices and then he gets contracts. That is the kind of question I like to know about when I think about transparency. So I'm wondering if we could add something to talk about, not just where the contracts are going, but how that links overall with our systems of government.

Yeah, actually, I mean, you're spot on for talking about this something, but The way you would do it, and you can look into the people's hands, is by making this downloadable, and actually having the corporation's name in that column. That could very easily then, somebody can take a download from the BBC, and with a lot of the current technology, you can run across.

What would the BBC do if it has an API that you could hook to? So it's possible to make a talk to it.

Well, right, so we don't need to do it. The beauty of this is that it makes it, By making this downloadable at the economy level, it'll make it far easier for somebody then to cross track that with the EDC information that is downloadable. So this is going to accomplish exactly what we were wanting to see. Mr. DeVere?

Thank you. Anytime you're talking about campaign contributions, information related to that, you start getting into First Amendment and constitutional issues. Consideration of that is worthy, but we would have to take it to a constitutional attorney to determine that we weren't running afoul of any First Amendment relations, simply by identifying an individual's work with the county and then associating that with either a party or contributions to a party. So it gets pretty deep very quickly in that space. And frankly, it's outside of the realm of this mission to be able to consider that certainly within the time we got along.

There's no restriction on speech. The First Amendment protects you from the government getting after you. Speech doesn't protect knowing that you made speech.

I don't understand your point. The constitutional law around First Amendment and publication of donations is very complex and requires a constitutional attorney, which we would have to have review it. And they may very well agree with you and say there is no First Amendment issue here, but we couldn't take that forward to the voters until we had a constitutional lawyer look at that. because it's related to the publication of information related to donations for public or political causes.

I think that level of transparency that Commissioner Dodd mentioned would be really interesting information for the public. So I'm intrigued by the idea. There already exists on state government website. So I think we're on pretty solid ground as far as the availability. And to the public, it's just making it, you know, even more transparent, which I think is a value that we all share. So, yeah, so I'm interested in that.

Pretty good answer for your petition on this new language, is it? PB, Peter Vitale PB, Peter Vitale Q&A to do. PB, Peter Vitale Q&A to do. PB, Peter Vitale Q&A to do. PB, Peter Vitale Because you can't get to the 45,000 or is it fewer than 400?

So the language, you know, then that was, that was an estimate of costs and that was prior to the software language, but we were writing it to try and. Sorry, can you pause me?

Yeah. I have trouble hearing some things, but let's see what's going on.

No, this isn't necessarily calling out how much the county should spend or not spend. This is somewhat open-ended on what should be spent, or maybe the county council can have some input. But it's more calling out for what, like you would say, the columns or the metadata associated with what's being spent. And I think we're going to see with technology that the press could do that. But it does not call out $4,500 or $45,000. But it was trying to at least write in language that it wasn't going to be $5 million. Right.

And that's exactly right.

I appreciate it, Annie. No, the one concern I have with this idea is it's going to add more scope and actually add more work to the county to go out and spend more money to not attach to something affiliated to the state. So we're trying to keep the cost down for the county, and that's my biggest fear. We're going to add more cost by doing this. It's already available, and that sounds like grabbing the information from the county that's there. They can then go search the BBC. That's my biggest concern.

No, and that's fair, and it's the end of May, so... Honestly, I think once the two systems are both five, it could be pretty easy to go to. So maybe I'll just get work.

Well, I think it was we go down the line. Amazing.

I wanted to mention that the community brought forward and then that proposed in this process, which so exactly to Commissioner Dodd's point. around how the expenditures through these public contracts relate to the campaign donations being made by the recipients of those expenditures to the folks that have been elected in these counties and cities and so on and so forth. So that was brought forward by the community as a transparency measure, and this commission rejected it. They killed it immediately. I love the idea of connecting our public expenditures with who is donating to folks' campaigns, but this commission did not sign up for it. So I would absolutely love to see that change. I don't know if we will. Again, I think that the language around the new version, which says we're reasonably practicable, the county's already doing that. All that takes to satisfy that is for the county to say, well, we are doing this reasonably practical. So there are no teeth to this. The public actually brought forward proposed amendments that would have teeth, would provide transparency. This mission tells us this is, in my opinion, perhaps limiting, but this is transparency theater. I don't know yet.

Okay. We have motion on the floor. Are we doing the public hearing?

Are we doing the public hearing on it now? Thank you.

Can we take five to 10 just to regroup as I take a break? Quick break. I was thinking the same thing. We can take that break.

Yeah.

And everybody has signed the thank you cards. If you haven't signed them yet, I've got them right here. That's the entire staff. Campaign donations to budget linemen. Yeah.

Yeah, that's why I'm going to ask if I have a test.

No, I have a review.

I need a message. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Yes. So. So are there.

yeah. Back into. Yes, that's like. So it's really.

We're off parliamentary procedure, so I feel like we can do whatever the president decides. That was really good. As long as everybody agrees. Public hearing.

Public hearing for

Number four.

We want to start virtually as we have. If there's anybody in the virtual audience that would like to give testimony to Proposition 4, please raise your virtual hand. We have one.

Tomar Nelson, you should be able to unmute and speak. Tomar Nelson, go ahead and unmute.

One more call. Next we have Susan Payne.

Susan, you should be able to unmute and speak.

Thank you, Council Member Condiles. And I am appreciative of this opportunity to speak. The discussion that happened prior to this public hearing, I really do appreciate. It's so completely important to make sure that we have the information that is provided to the public and have it be publicly available. And I believe that for the book that as was discussed is what is happening now. We wanna make sure that we also have access. If it's easily connected, we need to know where this information is coming from so that we can make sure that there is a lot of public access to what information is being put out there to the public, but also the sources. There's an abundance of artificial intelligence that is out there, and this is a newish, not new, but newish technology. And it is very easily manipulated. It's not information that I trust personally. And I want to make sure that what is presented to the public is vetted by people who have qualifications and certifications and an abundance of experience with this actual data before it is pushed out to the public. Because otherwise it's garbage in, garbage out. That is my comment for this one. And please do stop me when I... But I am going to go back because I still could not hear your chair because his microphone was not close enough that the topics for one through three were what we were talking about. I do have a terrific problem with the fact that there's a already previously decided, but you can change that tonight, position on nonpartisan offices. The nonpartisan offices, I think, is an obfuscation I think that it's been a well-known and a common practice across the state and across the nation and across our county. And this is something that is absolutely important for people to know where you stand. Who do you align with? And it should be easily available to everyone. As an elected official myself, I can go ahead and define myself as ABC 123, and I get to make that determination. That's a free speech, right? And I really do appreciate Commissioner Decker talking about the ability to have free speech on this matter. This is a part of that so that we can make sure that we have people who want to be able to have, you know, have a notification of alignment also there. So with that, I will conclude my comments. Thank you again for your service.

Thank you very much for your service. I really appreciate it. And I would like to support more transparency. I've heard people that seem to be on both sides of concerns expressing distrust in government officials. And so any place we can have more transparency is good. Thank you.

Is there anybody else online that you'd like to use on?

Okay, I'm going to go over to you in person. Do you have any comments on proposal 4?

I'm going to respond to Tamara first, and then Bob to mention to you. If you really can, can you give your comments about proposal 4? I'll head and look at this. The charter is essentially our county constitution. What the majority is trying to do with these propositions is use the charter to constitutionalize ordinary policy. These are not things that go in constitutions. It's just not done that way. Why are we doing it here? It makes it harder for the future council and voters to adjust as conditions change, and they will change. You're walking this in for 10 years with content that would never go in the U.S. Constitution. Why is it going in ours? The charter should define the structure of county government, not lock in one faction's budget philosophy. Some propositions constitutionalize ordinary budget policy. One that imposes an administrative transparency program while leaving the most important decision, government decisions outside its reach. A couple shift power away from the voters to the future councils. Taken together, these are not neutral charter improvements. They are an attempt to use the charter as a policy weapon. Think of them all at once. They may sound reasonable. Taken together, they are not housekeeping. They are a package that changes the balance of power, instantly which government. Prop 4 is labeled transparency, as Tamara was talking to. And transparency is good. But Tamara, this is only partial transparency and selective transparency. This version focuses on contracts and payments, while leaving land use and development decisions largely invisible. So the things that matter, the places that graft can occur are going to be invisible to you, Tamron. But the contracts are going to be invisible to us first. The process matters too. These funding are currently less flexible, less transparent where it matters most, and less able to raise revenue and work. And I'm proud we're able to is that a visual is that a visual pieces key who transparency is partial who actually gets the visual and the money, please do not put us on.

The duty when else in person. Okay, and that goes above and beyond. The goal is going to.

And you move this to the packet.

Version 2. Version 2. Version 2. Version 2. Thank you for that clarification. That's what we're going to go around now. That's what we're going to go around now. Go ahead and do a little call. Go ahead.

Yes. Ben? Yes. Gregerson?

No.

Chatters?

No.

O'Donnell? Yes. Cass?

Yes.

Decker? Yes. Preston? Yes. Dodd?

No.

Mankey? Yes. Caden? Yes. McGee?

No.

Adler? Yes. Baines? Yes. Ewing? Yes.

All right, Jeff. that motion passes. We will go back to table five.

Chair, would you like a motion so we can have discussion?

Yeah, before we move to a motion, I'd like to have a presentation version of the motion, but I can't hear the discussion. And this is also a creature can use a little earlier and we will have an emotion.

So just this time was you know, or he's a very good nation as to whether or not you're going to do or not for I'm so I'm not so serious taxes would negatively impact our on green rain. And I will have this person remain nameless, but a very wise man told me that our bond ratings are more dependent on good or bad choices made by our policymakers. And even the memo provided by the Revenue Office didn't definitively say that there was a cause of a four-fifths majority for affecting bond ratings. And the one site in Pierce County, which does have this inner charter for requiring supermajority to increase sales tax, they passed that in 2013. And in 2023, their release upgraded Pierce County from Bay one to AAA. And they weren't able to do this and get the good financial footing by having still this policy of a supermajority. So they were able to work together, take consensus to whether it's implementing the, you know, one percent sale, the, their level sales tax type thing. So they were able to get on a good financial footing and they were able, their monitoring was not negatively impacted by requiring supermajority. Uh, some of the other examples that we're using, you know, uh, again, you're kind of looking at some states that they have made some really bad financial decisions. Um, you know, the reason why, and I know this question was asked, why would we want a supermajority? And actually, I think you can look at the voting record. Typically, they're the county, uh, does tend to vote at least 4 to 5 when it comes to raising taxes. But this would restore accountability by making sure that politicians can't raise taxes unless there's an overwhelming agreement. And the truth of the matter is that when taxes are raised, it has a very negative impact on the most vulnerable businesses and individuals. And I think that's, well, has been shown, has an overall impact on economy, which then impacts revenues. People have to pay more in taxes. They're spending less at the restaurants. They're spending less when they're shopping. So that's going to have a dimension in sales tax. So I think having a forfeits requirement, or at least putting it to the voters to consider if they want a forfeits to do for a majority to raise taxes and have this kind of having impact Um, that's that's the voters. And it forces issues to be more robustly discussed and consensus to be, um, considered.

Thank you for your chance. No, you're very emotional.

I would move that we take this item five forward to I think we're voting and bring it forward to the transmittal letter at this point is that right?

So I'm not quite sure where we are on parliamentary procedure.

He's right. He's right. He's right.

Move to move this item forward to the transmittal letter packet. That's my motion.

Second.

Can I speak to that as the maker of the motion? Can I speak to it as the maker of the motion? Or do you want to have a public hearing and then speak to it? I'm not sure. Public hearing then. Public hearing then.

Yeah. Public hearing first.

Ready? Thank you.

Ready? Ready. If you would like to give public comment on position number five virtually, please raise your hand. Susan Payne should be able to unmute.

Thank you. That came up rather faster than I'm ready. I bet. I'm just trying to wrap up some dinner. I really totally appreciate the information that's been provided. This proposal, I think, is one that is not well thought through at all. What this will do is it will make sure that there is no... No funding and other revenue possibilities, not through simply taxation, but the common voter will be absolutely thinking about some of the things that happen with what goes on with what happens with their local pocketbook. Four to five majority requirements. is unnecessary and also an irresponsible move as a really large, Snohomish County is one of the largest counties in the state, a really large governmental office that serves a lot of communities. We serve farmers, we serve urban communities, we serve suburban communities, we serve unincorporated communities, And the work that you do has been, as a county, has been very awesome. What we absolutely need is the ability to talk about the needs of the community through prosecution services, through public defense, through human services, through all the other, the otter services, the assessor services, all the things by hamstringing this to a four out of five vote majority need for raising taxes when we all know what's been going on in our community. The government is not immune to that and it makes it practically impossible for governments to survive in this opportunity. So it's a 1% increase for the possibility for taxes is ridiculous. When we know that over the past five years, there's been a combination of like 20 to 25% increase in inflation. That said, I also want to make sure that we also talk about a little bit about the ability for our county to respond to emergencies. Our director of DM is absolutely correct. There will be an emergency need. We had one just this last winter. This is not going to be unusual. This is a need that the county needs to be continuing to fund. And it's not something that we should be taking lightly. We will have an earthquake. We will have big rains, climate changes upon us. And some of the things that are happening right now are not going to be easily anticipated This is something that we will continue to need to fund, and having emergencies in our budgets does not do a good service to all of our constituents within the county. Thank you for listening. And I do want to add, before my time runs out, but let me know when it runs out, that the nonpartisan offices is not a small d democratic thing and it really honestly does as commissioner decker said it is a first amendment right and i think it is upper challenge and i don't think that first amendment challenges are a good thing to go ahead and endorse during you know something where camera nelson

Thank you. I just would like to support the super majority for the four-fifths council votes to raise taxes. Our taxes are extremely high in Edmonds, and I know that this is about our local governments, but if we look at the bigger picture, people are fleeing Washington State because taxes are out of control. And it hurts all levels of our community. And I think a four-fifths majority will cause council members to come to the table and use the ability to tax much more judiciously and budget things that aren't in our constitution that we don't need to be providing. I think we get over our skis because we're a generous people and we can't just tax and tax and tax and tax in order to provide and provide and provide beyond the constraints that the government has through the constitution. So, thank you for your time again.

Is there any more, anybody else online that would like to skip a comment or a discussion?

Okay, no more. In person, we just want to apologize to

Mr. McGuire, please do not send Prop 5 to the ballot. It is titled Fiscal Restraint, but its real effect is fiscal paralysis. Snohomish County has five council members. Four by requirement means just two council members could block any new tax, even when cost rise emergencies happen, infrastructure fails, or public safety means change. That does not protect taxpayers' ability to respond responsibly. When governments cannot raise broad-based revenue, they often end up cutting services, raising fees, delaying maintenance, or shifting costs in less transparent ways. Future councils should have explained tax decisions to voters and be held accountable by the voters, not by this council, not by this committee. They should not be handled by a charter rule that gives a minority veto over basic fiscal governance. not yours. This does not belong to the Charter. Please reject Proposition 5.

I keep waiting to hear a bell or something. I don't see where it is. My name is Karen Chase and welcome to South County. I live right down the road in Esperance. I served on this commission the last time around. I will say that that when I was on this commission, we availed ourselves to expert advice when we were contemplating these very difficult decisions that were usually brought by the public. Right here, we have a lot of information from the chief budget officer, from the executive office. And it seems like, I don't know if any of you have actually read this, because it tells me exactly, do not bring this proposal forward. You know, it's constraining fiscal liquidity, decreases fiscal flexibility, ensuring increased constraints. I mean, and there are concrete examples of why you should not be doing this. And if you need a copy of this, we've got some over here because it seems to me that this commission did not take a real close look at this before they decided to do this deliberation. And I'm sorry, but one of my favorite terms now is called transparency theater. I really think that when you take a look at how you're going to be bringing these, it sounds like there's going to be five into your packet, you should consider voting on each one individually for the record. Because that will need to add transparency. Trying to do an up-to-down vote on a packet doesn't give a full transparent position and signal to the voters that elected you to be in office and what your positions are. So I would not only urge you to not bring this one forward, but also separate your packet into single votes on each one. And so that the people, the voters of Stonemaier County can have adequate transparency to understand who is forming these positions and who's not. Thank you very much for your time. And I really I look forward to having more input from SASA in the future.

Good evening, Commissioners. Caroline Hester, Chief Budget Officer, Forrest and Hushikani Executive's Office. I have provided you with some information with regards to Proposition five and I just wanted to add to my comments earlier so to reiterate the comments earlier, this will decrease our fiscal flexibility. So, which county does not have the reserves and the financial policies in place that other counties that have passed this. So it is highly likely that we will see financial, fiscal impacts because of this change. We will see more friction on decisions we make with regards to the budget and balancing the budget. That will impact our elite again to be able to bond and to do a variety of things. Last thing I want to mention that I'm not sure if you all have thought about. I want to make sure that you have. is that the way the property tax code works here in the state of Washington is it is revenue-based. It's based on how much we get. Every year, we are limited to a 1% increase in our revenue to the county. That is not the rate that you pay. It is our revenue. That is a tax increase that is built into the budget. Every year, we balance the budget to combat the costs, increased costs that you're seeing every single year. You all have gone out and seen health insurance costs super, general insurance costs super, paying your people costs super, asphalt costs super. We've been through the show. We will not be able to do that. So what that means is that every single year, your property tax will be behind us. It will be against us. And it will be very clear what this trade-off is. It's a big issue.

President of Clearview. And I want to thank Commissioner Davis for taking the time to share with us what you think the positives are with the super majority vote. I had support and I got it and I really appreciate it. I disagree. And we know we all have right to disagree. Um, I didn't have the last 2 people who spoke in tonight. Actually showed us the other side of the coin. There's all these 2 sides of the coin. Um, if any other commission, I would like to speak against this. I'm appreciating hearing it. As I said earlier tonight. Your citizens of strong county have to make decisions. what it is you're investing, what it is you're putting forward. And if you want to take the time to explain how you see this particular issue, because I do not believe the supermajority is necessarily being voted for by a county council. There are, the majority is, there's three of them, that's a majority that can make whatever decisions that they want to make, and it is in line with what it is that's going to be put forth. Getting us into a supermajority position just doesn't make sense. If you get in an emergency, you won't be able to make decisions that need to be made. But if there's anyone here tonight that would like to speak against a commission, I would like to speak against this. I would appreciate hearing if it will help be made available. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I shouldn't come up here because I know you've been at this a long time. I'm Marilyn Chase, and I'm from Esperance, down the hill, that bastion of progressive problems. You know, one of the things that we talk about in good governance is the outpost that we expect. So some of the things, and I'll be brief about this, are housing stability. You know, we want affordability. We want reduced displacement. We all agree on that. We want behavioral health, you know, prevention and early intervention. We want equity and equal protection. We want public safety. We want reducing harm and community trust. Economic opportunity. We all want economic opportunity and we want accountability and transparency and responsiveness. I think these are the measures that I urge you to think about. That when we talk about how do we spend our money, you know, are we getting the outcomes that we expect? The Department of Revenue just released on May 6th this year, a new study on tax exemptions. And I heard nothing at all about tax exemptions tonight. So I thought I'd just give you a real quick little The number here operating this state will get to a little bit about that. But $88 billion budget for operating in capital. Keep that in mind. But that's appropriations and capital budget. There's another budget. We call it upstream budget. It's a budget that most people don't even know exists. And it covers exemptions, preferences, credits, all those goodies that some members of our communities get. So we spend $88 billion through democratic means. We spend, and get this, $194 billion in tax exemptions. You want to know where your money goes? That's tax revenue that is not collected. It's just given away. You probably all enjoy some of those tax essentials because some of them are in the Constitution. And we did away with some of these outcome, you know, not a budget from the upstream budget. We probably can get another $29 million for the operating budget to meet the outcomes that we expect. And you've heard tonight about all outcomes, and I am really concerned about the first wave. It's real. Emergencies are real. Think about that. One slide up there. Oh, I haven't told you. I was up. Okay, so thanks again for your service. If anybody wanted to see that study, take a look at the Department of Revenue and do a Google search on tax exemptions.

My name is Jasprein. I'm from Denver, Washington. I just want to make a comment on this. I think that it's, thank you. I did actually read your report. And I consider you an expert in this field. And I don't know that I consider the rebuttal expert information.

I've been at that level of detail. I haven't seen it. So I don't know. One of the things that really bothers me is the tax sleeping boogeyman. You know, so all the time, everybody, nobody wants to pay their taxes. Taxes are real hot. And one of the things that we know that when it gets to a flush and we need some services, if there's an emergency and we need some services, we're going to be, we're going to want to pay those taxes. I don't mind paying my taxes, honestly, because I get roads, I get hospitals, I get services. I get things that I travel a lot. I get a lot of things that I don't get, that I don't see in kind of a third world country. So when we start throwing taxes out as a boogeyman, so people can be afraid, because a lot of people are afraid to pay their taxes, even though they don't know what they get for that tax dollar. And it may not affect you now, but if there is a workplace or a volcano erupts or even the windstorms that come through, then we need that money then. And I think that it is very responsible to have a county council where one person on that council can actually keep us from serving the community. Also, right now it's three out of five, which is 60%, which is a super majority in most folks is 60%. So now you want 80%. And so who are you representing? I want to know who you're representing here. You're representing the people that are in need, people that may be in need, what's coming toward our community, and we need the flexibility to address things as they come. So that's what I think about that particular supermajority. And I would love to see the expert testimony or report something that does support this community.

Thank you. Thank you. And it looks like we're done with the comment here in the room. And that will close our public hearing on that. Number five.

Chair James, just to ask a question. I don't think that.

Thank you.

It'll be a copy of that letter that you brought and it might be beneficial if we could pass that around.

I think it went around early. I have a copy of that.

I didn't stop you. I didn't stop you.

Are we discussing the motions on the table? Which is...

Before this.

Yes, we'll be discussing that.

Thank you. Well, just in the spirit of discussion, appreciated the presentation from folks that are supporting this. I'm not. I think we heard that this is more restrictive, which is a risk to our bond rating. As the budget officer noted, We don't have the same tax rate or rating day cushion or other pools at Pierce County. And the example that was in the manual that made most of the way around the table was in our email this morning. So we don't have those same tools as Pierce County. And so we've heard that there's a risk for the bond rating. And then just outside of that, there is a risk to lose flexibility to use all the tools that are available to the county government to fund those foundational services. In my perspective, I actually think in contrast to what Commissioner Cass said, I think it takes away accountability because only that last least likely to support council member is the one that really counts. Where their support is at, how to get that final vote. I also see tools like this reflected at the federal level. And I think a lot of Americans get really frustrated with Congress and inaction and how slow things work at the federal level. And I feel like this proposal would just break our county council in the same way. So that's why I'm going to be supporting that.

Thank you, Chair James.

I wanted to ask a couple of questions, one starting with Terri Bean-Hessler. If I could, Terri, if you wouldn't mind stepping to the mic. My question is, because this came on last time and I remember the public spoke to it, there was a question around, well, a commissioner stated, oh, we already have supermajority tax measures, so this is no big deal, it's just one of what we already have. And that's not absolutely true. And so I would like to hear an explanation for the public on the issue of the difference between the supermajority provisions around the catastrophic or reserve funding. I absolutely cannot touch. This is what we need to stay solid fund versus general operating fund. And clarify what the voting requirements are around those two types of provisions, just so there's clarity on that. But there is not, in fact, a supermajority provision of this nature currently in existence in the county.

So there are some supermajority requirements, and they are under these exceptional circumstances, right? You are dipping in the reserves that are meant for catastrophic circumstances. Typical 1% increase. It's not what most folks would consider cash drop with certain census. That is the difference in those levels. So, sorry, I'm looking at a list of the different supermajority sections, which was something that was queried to county council staff earlier this week. So again, available reserves, the revenue stabilization fund, we talked about that. Charter amendments, those were part of supermajority. We're in consideration of the third ordinance super majority passage of emergency ordinances. So again, we're in that emergency piece and being wild singer, um, removal of the public advocate requires a supervisory. So, um, those are the only situations in which are still push county code and currently requires a super majority, um, from my point of view with regards to budgeting. if we want to receive the same level of services and employ the same people year over year, it's just that simple.

Thank you. I have another question. So you noted that in Pierce County, they have a strong balance of $188 million, 39% in their general fund balance at the end of 2025. Do you happen to know how that compares to ours at the end of 2025?

I don't have the 2025 numbers off the top of my head. We have been doing our liquidity calculations right now. Between 40 and 45 million dollars. That's not much. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Okay, thank you. My other question was around the data that you used to form your opinion. And I see that there are some places here in Washington that have undertaken this measure. And one in particular, looks like the mic's running out, one in particular just modified their reserve level, they had introduced it. And so I just wanted to be clear, we had not seen the impact of that on their bond rating because that just occurred, right? But then the other data they used around Nevada, there were some other examples, Oklahoma, California, those were examples that we selected because they did have negative impacts to their bond rating that is directly tied to these types of supermajority provisions and the constraints that they place on those government entities?

So I think the best way to respond to that is those states had supermajority provisions that caused such friction in their legislatures that they were unable to move forward. And in the situation in Oklahoma, which is the most recent, so I think it's actually the most comparable What effectively happened is they spent 2016, 2017, and 2018 trying to get out from under the supermajority mode to actually move forward. So they went to four days full weeks, they made emergency cuts, and of course, they had a dramatic response. So yes, those things we do.

Okay, thank you. Do you have any idea how much a nuclear's bond rating would have cost us?

If they don't issue any new bonds, we're fine.

Well, for example, like when we had a compromised bond rating and had to take out debt, how would that have impacted us?

It would have cost more. I don't know how much. I wouldn't hazard any of this on us right now.

Thank you so much.

And the other clarifications I had were around the legal question, which the legal analysis was included in the packet today, but we did discuss it a little bit last week. And it was around the analysis with regard to League of Education voters in Washington. And so I wish I had a pad in front of me. You probably remember your own garbage bag than I do. But what I read is that you said that this is unlikely to face a board challenge because it has not been challenged in other areas. And so I just wanted to clarify for the public that your opinion is just simply based on the fact that it hasn't been challenged, not the fact that it has been established as settled law, that based on legal precedent, is unlikely to be challenged. So I guess the basis of your suggestion is that it is unlikely to be challenged. If you could clarify that, that would be helpful.

Yes. I don't know if I've heard that in any language. It's not unlikely to be challenged. It does not increase the heightened liability on account for the first challenge. So the fact that it may be challenged, and I can't predict what some may challenge or not challenge. all of the proposals. So there's no way for me to predict that challenge. But the, there's a, something that I'll get to a little later as well, with this idea and this case that we're talking about, the leading education voters. But basically the analysis was that the Supreme Court of Washington has said that the challenge or the tax measure cannot just be, the supermajority cannot just be enacted by the legislature, it cannot be enacted by the people, it would need a change in the Constitution. The charter and other legal instances is considered the Constitution of the county. So this particular proposal would need to be changed through the Constitution rather than legislature or the vehicle. So that's the basis of that court case match challenge. And the County and two cities, both are charter cities, that had enacted this. That happened in 2012, 2013. And since there have not been challenges to that, so there's no evidence out of the way that it's going to be challenged. And I can't make a prediction that it would or wouldn't be challenged. So we may want to do that. But the way that the courts have held is then that would effectively be that constitutional change to the way it was referred to in the education code, which is why I can't say for 2030. Okay.

I think it mostly does. I just want to make sure I'm understanding because I'm not an attorney. So I want the attorney to understand what you're saying. So the case itself, was it, was there, Was the two-thirds majority, was that an attempt to embed that in the Washington state constitution?

Did you say embed?

Was the basis of that challenge an attempt to embed that in the Washington state constitution? So it had nothing to do with the Washington state constitution. We just simply found that if there were a two-thirds majority, it would mean to be a constitutional change rather than a statutory change. Right. Okay.

And a state constitution. And it was a state case, so they had to do the state.

Okay. So does our state constitution have a provision for a supermajority tax approval? Is that in our state constitution?

I have not analyzed the constitution, so I'm not sure if that has. Okay. Good. I'm just asking because... I was trying to imagine... not to be, I don't see that in every tax increase, right? That a tax could only be a four out of five or a super majority. So that's as far as I can answer with the knowledge that I have.

That's my understanding as well. It doesn't, but I wanted to check with your understanding because you probably have read it. So my question is, my follow-up question is, We've established that we cannot operate in conflict with state law. Is our constitution requiring this super-duper majority to pass taxes? Is that in conflict with the state constitution? And is that perhaps rounds for a challenge to this?

So the, the opportunity for counties and their charters and to create the.

mechanisms by which the county is run by and the rules and laws that the county has is given to the county. It is not, because this is not specifically in the constitution of the city, then the county in acting that is not running contrary to that specific thing. If the Constitution specifically stated you cannot have supermajority do that, then I would say yes, doing this would run contrary to that because that is not listed specifically in the Constitution. Then for the county to do this, as they have the ability to do from rule charter, then it's not ruling the file of the state constitution.

Thank you so much. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Originally, the record will show that I did not support this measure. But now, we still have the ability to raise taxes. And it's been a lot of discussion that we will not be able to raise taxes. Well, you're going to have to get four out of five. What I like about this and why I flip on this is because it's too easy to raise taxes. The $88 billion the state of Washington operates on wasn't that long. That's what astonishes me, not the tax exemption. It's the $88 billion today because it wasn't that long ago. It was $40 billion in a short period of time. hats off to Snohomish County. I think they're far more responsible than that. And I think we had a lot of angst for our buck out of here, comparatively. But, and I was here and I wanted to comment on the 1% increase that we're looking to. And I understand we are looking to that. And yet, we're probably three times that, the increase, you know, 3% is still not excessive. And I imagine it's because development is now taxed higher. Farmers come in, houses come in. Everybody that owns a home or has a business, you see the property tax just soar. I pay $38,000 a year on that building that I have, just the one in South Everett. And it wasn't that long ago. It was about $18,000. And so it's just, shh. And I understand that prices have gone up. Everything costs more. Healthcare costs more. This is an opportunity for us to make it a little harder to raise taxes here. It will still raise taxes if we need to, but it's going to make it a little bit harder, therefore I'm going to support it.

Thank you. I just want to level set a little bit. The 1% tax cap first class item I had an initiative, put it to say law under Governor Christian Gregoire. which is the most bipartisan spread of names I've said in a long time, has been in place since 2001. So your county and city property taxes have not gone up more than 1% per year. It doesn't go up when your value goes up. What you pay goes up no more than 1% per year unless the voters in your jurisdiction have voted it up. That doubling you talk about, that is not at a level that the county can control. So this measure won't do anything to control the accounting part of your taxes going up. What it will do is hamstring our accounting. They are already limited to 1%. I don't know that in my lifetime inflation is 1%, but certainly not in my adult building lifetime in the last, let's say, 20 years. And it just gives me so much pause. It is not possible to say if our bond rating will go up or down. We also won't be able, it'll just be the next time we get evaluated. And that's when we will meet This is just a lot of frustration. Understandably, I do pay taxes on my home, on all of that stuff. I don't think anyone's going to want to change the standards. And it sucks. Like, I love the results. I love that I sent my kid to school. He gets a great education. He got special education for a while, which for me as a single parent, my insurance wouldn't have cut it. That was amazing. But... It does feel hard to be challenged in your household budget and then go get taxes. But this measure doesn't really help with that. It makes it harder for our county to deliver services in a time when it's about to get harder to deliver services because our economy is too bad. If we really want to challenge how we feel overtaxed, look at what your household tax budget actually goes through. Look on the assessor's website. at where your taxes are going. It's not by majority to the county. I really also appreciated the call out in the memo from the executive's budget office that when we have to then put all of these tax increases on Nevada instead of having them happen at the county council, it will cost all of us, it says between 135,000 and 1.35 million per measure. That's not saving money. And that was going to come from some, we're going to have to do more just to kind of say that we tried to make a super majority, but it won't actually have the effects that I think the supporters are hoping for. So I just really hope that we can take a minute to understand what this will do and kind of match that it won't really decrease our tax burden. It will just make it a lot harder to run an account. We have a county that runs well. It's great to hear that we don't pay as much in other counties. I didn't know about Pierce, but you guys know I live in Bothell. I'm in the Bothell City Council. Whenever we talk about taxes, most of my colleagues pay King County property taxes, and they are significantly higher. We do a lot with a little, and if we give the county very little room to manage that little, we're all going to feel it.

Yes. Oh, dear. City Council, not supported. When you are citizens recently, and as far as the voter spoke, she was loud and clear. And what they said, when I heard what was said,

In light of current federal, state, and local taxes, we vote no. We took the message they sent back. The council got our heads together. We reduced SAP. We made cuts to services. It was not done. This is not what we wanted to do. But the voters spoke loud and clear. For the last few years, I think for our county council, we were very diligent, very thoughtful, to work with each other to make sure that every penny spent was spent well. So I .

I just wanted to remark, Commissioner Dodd, that this doesn't affect which measures are allowing the less so to the public or not. So the ones that so qualify to go for public measures That's so consistent. That's already policy. If it exceeds that certain percentage, there's a trigger that causes those kinds of measures to go to the ballot. So this additional $135,000 vote, it doesn't apply to this proposal.

Doesn't it take a three-fifths vote to send it to the ballot? And this would be a four-fifths vote to just pass it? So measures that can't pass for the past three years could be sent to a ballot. That's the difference. You're not affecting what goes to the ballot, but you are affecting what can pass councilman versus through a ballot.

I believe that would give the council members the option to either work with their team and with consensus or the option to go to the people.

Good question. There we go. All right. And the, uh, rose developed title. Um, it's not about, um, this proposition on your fire. Well, just to be with the council. Well, to assess, let me or increase any councilman tax. And also to be different in some of you mean. That there could be a alpha man at the state of the department center that does not meet. The vote is moved. Can we, if it isn't, it seems like you're really into that. If it isn't, that's not a bad idea. It allows the 1% councilman each year that they can do what they can by state law. Don't be afraid of that. These are the tribes that keep on doing what they're constantly doing. Is that? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.

So, if I'm understanding your question correctly, the way that this ballot title is explaining the proposition and the amendment is that the proposition would require a forfeited seat with majority council vote to assess levy or increase any councilmanic tax. So whatever taxes Councilman had, it's going to be assessed, levied, or increased. This would give, require a full fiscal report to vote on that specific Councilman had passed.

I don't know whether it's not an increase from the allowance. Councilman had 100%. So I can read that into there.

What do you mean? One thing on that topic. In Arlington, we went, I think it was a year ago, we did the 1%, but we had bank capacity for councilman. So we were able to increase a 4.5% tax increase without going to the foreigners. So if you've got bank capacity, you can still do it that way.

But would this be made for about increasing the taxes? And the last sentence of the purpose language says, can't do all this stuff. If those taxes that does not so effectively, like if it increases the tax rate. So 1% increases the tax rate and using the bank capacity, which the county council last time, some of, because of yours would have increased the property tax. Your city has that right. But they would lose that. Right. Yeah.

In a prior meeting, Senator Sullivan made the comment about, there's things that we've been praying for over the last discussion. And we've had a lot of discussion today about tax increases, but we haven't, we could have, but most of us haven't thought about this. to cut costs. It's two sides of the coin. There's cost cutting measures. There's waste that happens in the county. And we couldn't find any errors there. I think having a robust discussion, they can come up with some money and find money where there are ways to and a lot of talk about needs of the businesses. What about the businesses? If there are businesses in the county making a profit to pay the tax, and every paycheck you get is because of a profit of some type of business, and there's no taxes if there's no business and no profits. So let's get that straight. That's just pure econ 101. So the taxes are derived from profit. So we need to consider businesses. We have a business owner here tonight that is one of the largest contributors to Edmonds City Tax. And he's had people go to different dealerships in Skagit County and buy a car to save over $1,000 in tax. We'll actually drive there to save $1,000. So the Edmonds uses us for everything there. And some of us told me, and we've heard this a lot of times, we've done that by a thousand cuts, but just a little just a little bit. And so you cannot attach yourself to prosperity, which our state is trying to do prosperity. You need to say. Uh, we're going to the county, uh, laundry. That is a grab every. We don't know that for sure that wouldn't matter on me. There's other there's other homes that really. Was the fact of the fact, or I think that maybe. We would have had brought forth to us some expertise for movies or a bond council that would say, yes, this would affect their bomb. We haven't had that brought forth. The 60% versus the 80% majority, the super majority, I don't know, versus this, that's one more vote. The U.S. Senate, you've got 100 people, that's 10 votes, going from 50% to 60%. So there's a lot more discussion that has to happen here, which is we want to, again, have a more robust discussion. that would need to occur in Memphis, they haven't. And I think that creates more immunity amongst the council and better decisions involved.

Okay.

Thank you. So robust discussion, I agree. We heard a lot of robust discussion tonight. We've had some close seating during a public hearing. And I did take a couple of notes in some posts for speaking. I heard about this particular issue. I heard fiscal restraint results in fiscal damage. I am concerned about that. This is shown in other jurisdictions that result in lower bond ratings and higher taxes. I am also upon just perusing this memo from a chief budget officer, my master, that indicates that we would need, in order to avoid having financial fallout from this, we would need, according to this, larger rating pushes to reassure investors that they bridge down terms without any immediate tax action. And I don't think that we want to create these reneging Christians by raising more taxes in order to fund them. We clearly don't have the appetite for that. I also did hear that taxes created a negative impact on our most vulnerable. That's what I heard next. I consider most vulnerable are folks who are experiencing homelessness. And to my knowledge, they're not paying county taxes because they do not have homes. So I don't think that that's quite true, but I do agree with a lot of those who are struggling. That's absolutely fair. To me, this measure is detrimental to our community members by making it harder to keep county services funded. And this is the most irresponsible proposal before us. And I will go to you.

Thank you, thank you. We've talked a lot, both sides have been calling here. And then I'm going to be a 30 years now and I've seen horrendous tasks. This is a way to stop local taxes and I am supporting it all the way. And I would like to call for the question.

Okay, question questions on the inclusion of proposition by my advantage lawyer.

Yes. Oh, excuse me, Jared. My, my hand raised before the question was called.

Yeah. So waiting in line before the question was called. Sorry.

That's your call. Yeah, that's about it.

It goes to two by two.

Ben, go ahead.

Great. Thank you, Chair. This one is a tough one for me. I've gone back and forth on this one. I think every time we've looked at it, I have heard from the community. I've heard from other committee members. I have done my own research on this topic, and it's a tough one. If I could force all the council members to Agree on tax increases, I would. I think that's the best way to do it when everybody's in agreement on something. But looking at Pierce County, they made their change from a position of strength. They had larger revenues, larger reserves. One bond rating company upgraded them, which has been discussed tonight. Two others, Fitch and the other S&P, did not do that. So they made the change at a very different time than we are facing as a county. We are not in that strong of a position. I don't know how we're going to get to a strong position over time. And I know that what we vote on today going to the ballot, there's no way to undo that for 10 years. There's no mechanism in our process to undo that if it has negative consequences. And so what I would hate to see is um is for when we go out for bonds in the future if we have to we get rated much lower and it costs us all much more because of the decision we're making here today and that that causes me pause and that causes me today to decide to be voting no on this when I really want to. As a taxpayer of this county and as somebody who hears from residents when I was doorbelling for my city council position, all I heard was like, don't raise my taxes, don't raise my taxes, don't raise my taxes. And I sympathize with that. I'm with them 100%. But if we do this today and we limit and we have a lower rating in the future because we're operating from a position of weakness already financially, that could hurt us even more. I don't want to see that. And what I saw this last budget cycle was several council members and the executive wanting to raise by a lot. And there were a couple of council members that did not want to raise by anything or very little. And there was one council member from my district who worked with both sides to try to find a compromise and try to bring it to a place where It was not as bad as it could have been, but not as great as it could have been. So I applaud that. And I would like to see more of that. And I am going to bank on and trust those that we elect to office to do that every time and to really think about it. And so tonight I will be voting no on this, even though I would like to vote yes. I cannot vote yes tonight.

So are we going with people who had their hands up?

Amanda also had her hand up. The problem that folks are having is their budgets are suing to death.

The revenue that individuals bring into their household is not covering the expenses of survival. Those conditions also apply to the county, to the services that we provide. The revenues that are coming in are not keeping up with the cost of survival of the programming that this county provides to the citizens who need these services. So by design, a proposal like this, which gives minority rule This is no longer a democratic process. It is a minority rule process that will be required. This will design our system in a way that will put us further and further and further underwater each successive year. And this is why individuals are drowning right now. This is why people are outraged. There are gas prices. There are grocery prices. There are child care bills. There are positive health care. People are drowning. And so this sets our county up. to drown in the exact same way. And there are some folks who would like to see our government drown. They do not want to see government programs because those government programs serve those who are traditionally underserved, more vulnerable, that who may be served by private industry services. The government provides economies of scale around the services they provide that cannot be those That can't be replicated typically by a private industry providing these types of services. So this makes our office undemocratic. I want to mention with regard to the whole leaving the state. I don't know about where you all came from, but I was born and raised in the Mississippi Northwest. I'm from here. And every single year, there has been a, oh, everybody's leaving. If anyone remembers, there used to be a billboard in Seattle that said, when the last person helped, he shut off the lights. So we hear that every single time. It's a fear-mongering tactic. Every year of my life that I spend here, population has increased. It has not increased. People are not running from this thing. That is just not actually true. And it has never been true any time that has been used to fear-monger policy. This creates red line by design. it creates a billionaires that are going to put this government, they're going to put it in the bathtub and drown the government. And maybe that sounds great to some folks, but it tends to be the most vulnerable who gets squeezed out when you have minority rule systems and systems that only serve the bare most basic needs of those who are privileged enough to have the Euro council members or the Euro policy makers It is the everyday person who ends up being squeezed out of these equations. So I want to protect those who do not have access to the letters of power in their village. That is why I engage in public service, because I believe those people deserve protection too, and they deserve us too. And I only go to know because I want to honor the voices of so many community members I've heard from who they're not in this room at this moment, but there's so many community members that I've heard from about the invaluable nature of some of these public systems and these public services that are critical, that are filling the gaps for families who are in desperate need. So thank you.

Thank you. Just quickly, I really appreciated the point that Ms. Trask made about being in the legislature for a long time and seeing a lot of taxes. This measure does nothing for the taxes that come out of the state legislature. It is what the county council can do, which is already quite limited under state law. And we will not have new businesses or businesses continuing here if we cannot provide services to the employees who live here. If we have only sheriff's deputies and no therapeutic courts for social workers who respond to people in crisis to help them out of homelessness and out of crisis, businesses will leave. We have to be able to offer county services to key businesses.

Thanks.

Okay, thank you. Good afternoon. Yes.

We are voting on including proposition by in the by match. Yes. Yes. Gregerson.

No.

Chatters.

No.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Preston. Yes. No.

No.

Manky? No. Cain? Yes. McGee?

No.

Edward?

Yes.

James? Here. Ewing? Yes.

Tannis? Yes. Thank you. I'm going to have to go through the motion passes. Interviews, we have, right? So, let's try this. Let's bring this to... But you know. And we have a cover letter that goes with that if you all have a chance to be to the other and then there's a few is a signature part of the only sign that. Is the number is that the government says that are going to play at the same time, which means our mission here. I sort of follow the vision of the room. City Council Chambers and City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers.

Were you going to make a question?

No, I have a question.

Oh, you go ahead first. No, will you?

Okay. I have other things, but you go. Thank you. For clarification, for the record here, this states that the past five months, the commission studied 25 proposals submitted by individual commissioners and members of the public. That's my recollection that there were proposals brought by members of the public. Some of those were picked up by members of the commission and were then taken forward. But it is a matter of public record and a fact that there were included in our deliberations proposals brought by the public. I'd like clarification from the chair if that's correct. And I would ask if there's any member of this commission that disagrees with that as it's written in the letter. Seeing no disagreement, I think then we're in agreement that

You can assume that you should just stick to your own.

Well, we're, we're going to be voting on whether or not this letter we bring in this letter. And I'd like the other members of the commission that feel this letter is not factually accurate. It's okay.

Maybe we can also then we should discuss that. Right. I wanted to propose an amendment to the letter. Maybe that speaks to what we were concerned about. So first, and I just thought of this tonight when we were receiving public comment on the items, and then of course at your other public hearings that I viewed later and was presented for some of that. So in the second paragraph that starts 6th January, the sentence, almost at the end, the second to the end, in addition to the public hearings, see comments, it says, and considered all public feedback. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And I would like to, I guess, make a motion to amend the letter to say and recommend all voters review all the feedback before casting a vote. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Right. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And recommend all voters review all the feedback for you to receive throughout the review process before asking her notes.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Oh. I'm not sure if this is a letter to Chair Dunham with the county council. That's, they'll agree to put it in there to address the voters in the county. They will have a pro and con statement. They'll be able to see the whole thing. If I don't have a second, I can talk about it. I'll second. Okay, so motion is accepted.

We don't have to support it. It's just an idea that I think speaks to what I heard around the table a little bit that we collected feedback and folks could access on the website later when they were going to be voting. I heard ideas about proposals that we didn't, but we didn't do anything about it. I mean, like I wrote some notes and was like, oh, that'd be a good change to one, two, three, but like the ship sailed before the public hearing happened. So that's the purpose of the amendment is to help make the point that that record is out there for folks to review. Yeah.

I'll write it even nicer for you. Thank you.

Do we need to vote on that? There is a motion.

Yeah.

If you say it one more time.

I would love to. Which paragraph? Second paragraph. It begins with since January down

on the first line, not the second, third, fourth, but on the sixth line, reporting them to ballot and recommend all voters review all public feedback received throughout the review process before casting their votes.

Mr. Graf?

I mean, I didn't want to believe that, you know, But we can probably review all, you know, all content. I just don't know that that belongs in this honor. I would propose definitely something on our website that highlights maybe a synopsis of what's occurred over the last five months and directing them to where they can review the public comments and the public hearing type thing just to make it more feasible. I just feel like I don't, I don't see how much the public's really going to see this letter, but if they Google and they went to charter review, that would be an easier place to find all that information and maybe links or short information on how to better review public hearing.

Okay, any other comments before we go on these considerations?

We are voting on the amendment to the transmittal order. Boyer? No. Fannie? No. Gregerson?

Yes.

Chatters? Yes. O'Donnell? No. Cass?

No.

Decker? No. Preston? No. Dodd?

Yes.

Mankey? No. Kamink? Yes. McGee?

Yes.

Haslund? Yes. James?

Yes.

Ewing.

Ewing. Ewing. Ewing. Ewing. Ewing. Ewing. Ewing. Ewing. I'm going to do this to you. I'd like to make another amendment to the letter to shrink the last sentence of that paragraph, the one that asserts that the amendments will enable county government to function in a more effective and responsible manner.

Just because I don't agree with it. And it's a little editorializing. So my motion is to strike that last sentence. Second. And I kind of already spoke to it. You're taking it.

Yeah. Patrick has his hand up. Patrick.

No, we don't. I don't care much whether you're actually going to vote for the amendment to remove it because I don't think the counties, it's not. It's informational. It's it is editorializing a little bit. The county can decide what they're going to do. So in this case, I think it's doesn't need to be in there. I'm fine stripping it out. Shorten things up. Thanks a little more succinct. Let's go.

Yes.

Vanny? Yes. Gregerson? Yes. Chatters? Yes. O'Donnell? Yes. Cass?

Yes.

Decker?

No, I mean, yes.

Preston? Yes. Dodd?

Yes.

Mankey? Yes. Kamink? Yes. McGee?

Yes.

Esplick?

Yes.

James? Yes. Ewing? Upstate.

I think she was the chair for the night.

Passes unanimously kind of.

In the same spirit, I'm going to, I didn't know that was going to pass. I would have done it at the same time. So the next paragraph that says we extend our appreciation. I love that. That's great. I would like to strike. We thank County Director Brian Sullivan also. That's awesome. I just want to end that with instrumental in developing two of the five proposed amendments. Again, editorializing a little bit from my perspective, and so I am moving to stress that that will improve the effectiveness of county budgeting. Same spirit, so.

Second.

We're going to read that again, and then part of it says that maybe this will end smoothly. I'm going to get back to that.

That would be good. Yeah. Yeah. What was that? What were you? Yeah, sorry. Um, what am I striking?

You're striking kind of right this and I'm going to go back to the repair graph, but starting at the end of the unknown line that will improve the effectiveness of county budgeting. I'm going to start those.

I feel like I'm back in college having a professor mark on my work.

Yes, but only if this is the last amendment. Yes. Chatters. Yes.

O'Donnell.

Yes. Cass. Yes.

Decker?

Yes, but no on the next one.

Preston? Yes, this is the last one. Dodd? Yes. Mankey?

Yes.

Amy? Yes. McGee? Yes. Eslick? Yes. James? Yes. Ewing? Yes. Okay.

Okay, well, this is the last one. I get you probably won't all like this one, but in the spirit of one last little try, The first paragraph is why I saved for the end. The last sentence says that you're transmitting and filing the five propositions that have been proposed by the commission, the presentation of the voters. And my amendment is to say that they have been proposed by a majority of the commission.

We have this one. Sorry. I'll second. Seconded.

sorry violates uh actually robert's rules once a body votes then the body as a body takes that forward and it's actually a violation of robert's rules and parliamentary procedure for the body to say well most of us wanted this and some of us didn't so that's true accounting that's true at city level county level uh basically anytime you have a body such as this so i appreciate the intent But I think people will be able to pick that pretty readily from either comments in the public, made in public, or just from reviewing the records. So I'm going to oppose that one. Okay.

Ready? Yes. Hoyer? No. Fannie? No. Gregerson?

Yes.

Chatters?

Yes. O'Donnell?

No. Cass?

No.

Decker? No. Preston? No. Dodd? No. Yes, Maggie. No, no. Yes. No, no. No. That fails and I think that it may I ask a question that is just a poll of the room. would everybody so i've got uh commissioner gregerson will give me her amendments i will work them into the letter yes perfect tomorrow would everybody be okay signing the sheet tonight so i don't have to drive all around the county to get my signatures tomorrow or what are we talking about we couldn't pay i don't i couldn't figure out how to do the counter they have not given me to go out and sign it kind of better so that's okay i've got two more moments

Voting him off the island.

And I guess if there's commissioners that aren't comfortable with that, I already have to make drives to see Mr. And then you get to drive to their house. Yes. I wanted to just speak to the letter before we pull the

vote on the transition, or someone signed the letter of transition. I'm going to read into the record a letter from a group of four commissioners, myself, Jimmy Chagras with District 2, Commissioner Richardson with District 2, Commissioner Dodd with District 4, and Commissioner McKee with District 5. Our letter is as follows. We respectfully decline the signing of the Transcendental Letter submitting the 2026 Samoans County Charter to be included in the proposed amendments to the County Council. Our dissent is grounded in serious concerns regarding the integrity, inclusiveness, and the liberty and quality of this process. While the Transcendental Letter characterizes the Commission's work as thoughtful and expansive to develop engagement, our experience as members of this five-year university market is a different reality. Throughout the review period, members of the public repeatedly sought meaningful opportunities to contribute to the development of charter amendments. However, those efforts were too often met with procedural barriers, limited consideration, or outright dismissal. Community-driven proposals, all of which reflected substantial public interest and addressed pressing issues of governance, accountability, and representation, were not afforded genuine deliberations. Instead, they were effectively terminated at early stages without substantive discussion or analysis. Although public meetings and hearings were held, their existence alone designed a way to meaningful public participation. Particularly, the vast majority of substantive votes on the proposed amendments occurred prior to the Commission's public hearings. As a result, by the time the public was formally invited to comment, the proposals had already been largely decided. This sequence may deprive the public of any meaningful opportunity to influence outcomes and reduce the use of procedural formality rather than a substantive component of the decision-making process. A process that invites comment only after key decisions have been made, fails to incorporate, seriously evaluate, or transparently respond to public input, and is disenfranchised in the very questions it purports to serve. In our view, this commission did not meet its obligation to ensure that public voices were fully and clearly considered. We are also concerned that multiple amendments advanced by this commission will have the effect of reducing transparency, limiting public oversight, or otherwise undermining the interests of the voting public. These proposals, in our judgment, were not sufficiently vetted for their long-term implications on Democratic accountability within a small county government. The Charter Review Commission holds a unique responsibility to act as a steward of the public trust and to safeguard the foundational principles of open, accountable governance. We do not believe that standard was met in this instance. For these reasons, we cannot endorse the transmittal of these amendments as presented.

Thank you. We will take a vote on the final transmittal to the County Council and

We need to move.

Second.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

OK. The packet is approved to be sent to .

would, may I just speak to next steps, real quick?

If that's okay.

I had a conversation, I've had conversations with county staff over the last few days to kind of figure out what the process looks like every year. We will hopefully transmit the letter tomorrow. If I have a signature as opposed to signing, the deadline is Friday. So we'll get it in a day early just in case there's snap news or things we need to do. Next week, the county, and I don't know the date yet, The county will officially accept it and then assign it to committee. And I talked to Debbie today. It was maybe two or three weeks before it goes to committee and the county council got public hearings on that. Their deadline is the first week of August. It has to go through. to be put on the ballot. The important part of this is that there will be an opportunity for members of this commission or members of the public to sign up as the pro and con committee for these ballot measures. Each one of the five will be able, yes, I see Heidi's hand up. Each of these five will have a pro and con committee that will be tasked with writing the statements. So just keep your eye out for that. I see Heidi's hand is up, so I will let her speak. Go ahead, Heidi.

Thank you. I just wanted to provide one small nuance to what you just mentioned, is that while the council's final vote on this motion to move these amendments to the auditor may happen at a public hearing, the council will not hold a specific public hearing on the Charter Review Commission's amendments, given the fact that the charter is very clear that the council shall forward these to the auditor. And so I don't want it to give the impression that we're providing a public hearing for the purpose of influencing the council's decision.

Thank you for that. Thank you for that. So that's the next steps. I will keep the commission. I'm here through My contract is through July, so I will keep the commission prized of the process through the next two months. If you have any questions, please reach out to me, reach out to Debbie, reach out to Heidi, and I encourage the commissioners to be a part of the process as it goes from the county council and beyond. The last thing I'd like to thank just a few people. Debbie Echo, Elena Lau, and the clerk's office have been absolutely lovely to work with over the last six months. They do the work that you guys don't see to make this commission meeting happen. And I can't tell you how many emergency phone calls I had with all of them the day of a meeting when there was a document that was switched and Debbie telling me every time, you can't change an agenda within 24 hours. I'm like, well, the commissioners want to. So I thank them. I thank Treasurer Sullivan. He's still here, my new best friend. It's been great working with you on these amendments. It's been really cool to get to glean some of his 40 years of knowledge off on not only me, but the commissioners. And I think we did a really good job on what his ideas were. And then finally, Kara, she's been a well-known knowledge for us just when there's giant question marks on things as it relates to budgets and money. So I really appreciate all of her efforts. And finally, I thank you all for giving me the opportunity to have this position over the last six months. It's been a learning experience. And the way I look at it is we're a part of history. This is the only time this has happened in county history. So we're going to go down in history. So anyway, thank you all.

Can I say one thing about staff?

Yeah.

I was just going to echo what Peter said. So if you all think back to January, I missed the first meeting because my entire family got flu, including me. You didn't, Peter. But I was the chair until that meeting. And I worked with Debbie and Elena to get the meeting set up. And they were very patient. So when I looked at all of you who were elected... A lot of you have many things that you do besides the Charter of Beauty Commission. So they were patient with me and let me set up a doodle poll to find out that we would meet on Wednesdays for everybody but Jennifer. But it was the only day closed. So I just really appreciate that the staff was super flexible and I hope you feel like they were enabling you to show up biweekly than ever.

Okay. Thank you, Peter, for all the work you've done too. Thank you, Bob.

City Council Chambers and City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers.

And I do have a kind of final going away piece, even though we're not really going away, because I'm reminded that these terms do extend through the end of the year, including mine. There was a commission that had a question about one of the decisions that came from legal counsel. That question was taken to an outside body. That outside body contacted the county prosecutor's office. The concern there is when the county prosecutor's office, which I am the county prosecutor, deputy prosecuting attorney, gave me a special appointment as a deputy prosecuting attorney. So I'm an employee, basically representing the county. The prosecutor's office does the same thing on civil side. When a question is taken outside, instead of going to legal counsel, it's taken to other counsel, that deteriorates and diminishes the opportunity that you all have for attorney-client protection. and it opens up the county to liability. So if during the process from here on out, there is a legal question, whether it's a decision I made or another decision, come to the county with that decision so that we can keep intact the protections of attorney-client privilege. Luckily, in this case, it was because it's a public proposal, whatever it was that was shared was still within the public proposal. But if it's a legal question that concerns the county, that has just diminished or destroyed the protection for term client privilege. So just keep that in mind through the rest of this process if you have those questions. the client of us as legal department is you and the county, right? So we're here for you and to protect the county. So come to us at the county for any of those questions or concerns that you have, that whether it's agreement or questions, disagreement, whatever it is. So just to protect you and the county.

Thank you. Thank you. And last words from me is thank you so much for your patience and grace with the last few meetings. And I just want to say thank you for your professionalism throughout and dedication to the process. It's really, I think, shown within a few times when it's that little stressed, but, uh, we always can come back around and meet with friends and shake hands and enjoy cookies and things together. And that's what it should be. So we've, I really appreciate that. See all that. I see you. Thank you to the public who has been so grateful to be here. And, um, PB, Lupita D Montoya, If you'd like to sign the letter it's over here.