EVERETT — Like the census, every ten years the City of Everett examines its laws and operating rules to update or eliminate laws that are antiquated or modernize them based on advancing technological and societal changes.
The process is called Charter Review and in 2026 one of the changes being proposed is having the Charter Review meet every five years instead of every ten years because, as Everett Charter Review Commissioners concluded in their final report, “The Committee felt that the ten-year cycle was something that made more sense in the past. The Committee felt a five-year review would better fit the pace of change in government and society.”
Everett’s Charter Review Commission chair, Rod Sniffen, tells EverettPost.com, “One of the things that we recognized as a committee going through the charter and trying to update different languages and processes, is that when it was decided (for) the 10-year cycle charter update, I don’t think society was operating at the pace that it operates today with information and media and the immediacy–the way things happen. So, we felt that number one, shorten the time frame for review would not be a bad thing because the rate of change or the pace of change is much faster now.”
Convening every five years instead of every ten, Sniffen, proceeds, “We’re just trying to keep pace. So I think on a five-year review cycle, it does give us an opportunity to kind of be more proactive.”
That final report is now in the hands of the Everett City Council. It includes nine possible changes to the city charter that could end up on the November 3 general election ballot for residents to adopt or reject. The other possibility is the city council could consolidate or add to those nine proposed charter changes during meetings in July.
Nine extra decisions on a general election ballot for voters can potentially be over-whelming, intimidating or confusing, Everett City Councilman Scott Bader tells EverettPost.com. “But I also worry that there’s like nine or ten (charter review) items and I don’t want to overwhelm them (voters) on the ballot. So I think we’re (the city council) looking to combine, you know, or can we combine a couple of the items that logically fit together?”
Sniffen reiterates that ballot reality for voters. “To be honest with you, at the committee level, all of us being registered voters in the city feel that the general public–when they see just a flood of different ideas (on the ballot)–they tend to vote against them,” Sniffen confides. “And so to consolidate them and be concise with what we’re doing, then sometimes that’s a little bit better outcome (for voter clarity).”
Charter Review 101
Think of charter review as a city’s (or county’s) local constitution. Washington State counties and cities with Home Rule Charters periodically review their governing documents to address government efficiency and update outdated provisions. Charters are reviewed using appointed, temporary commissions every 5 to 10 years, with all proposed amendments ultimately requiring voter approval.
Home Rule Authority: The Washington State Constitution (Article XI, Section 4) grants cities and counties the authority to adopt Home Rule Charters, giving them greater autonomy over local affairs and government structure.
Review Cycle: Most charter jurisdictions (such as King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Clark counties) mandate formal charter reviews every 10 years.
Commission Formation: Temporary citizen Charter Review Commissions are either elected by the public or appointed by local legislative authorities (such as the County Executive/Mayor and County/City Council).
Public Scrutiny: By law, any proposed charter amendments must be widely publicized. For example, charter code cities must publish proposed alterations in the local newspaper of largest general circulation once a week for four weeks prior to an election.
Everett’s 2026 Charter Commission
The commission met regularly for nearly 5-months earlier this year, Sniffen says. “We met twice a month. It was all volunteer work by the 15 members and the two city staff that were assigned, and it was very engaging. It was a lot of a lot of time put forward, and I have to say, we could have probably done it every day for four and a half months.”
Sniffen recounts how the ideas and suggestions for charter review originated during those meetings, “(the ideas) We ended up discussing or generated number one (were) by committee members, number two by residents, neighbors, and public hearings that the committee had, and ideas that were submitted to us by fellow residents, city council members and others who emailed us or sent us information.”
He says, “All of those ideas were brought to the table. They were evaluated by the committee and the ones that got the most interest by committee members were the ones that led to discussions and then the discussions would lead to proposal language that would be processed either by city staff or by the members themselves.” The Commission requires 10 ‘yes’ votes for a proposal to be advanced to the final report for the city council’s consideration.
There was one issue the Commission debated that did not make the cut, Sniffen shares. It involved term limits on city council members. “So, if you get a chance to read the final report, there are some proposals that did not get the 10-member support and ended up not becoming a proposal.”
According to Bader, the City Council could revive the term limits proposal and include it on the ballot for voters. Here’s how the Commission explained the term limits proposal that failed to make the final cut:
“Council option to bring back a proposal discarded by the Charter Review Commission: Other Issues Discussed but not Included in Final Recommendations.
2.9 Term Limits
On March 31 (minutes), the committee reviewed a term-limit proposal and a proposal to define the office of City Council as a full-time position. A proposal to enact three four-year term limits for both the Mayor and City Council was advanced for drafting of legal language. At the April 9, 2026 meeting, the proposal failed to receive 10 votes to advance to the final package of changes.”
Bader responds, “the probably most interesting question is around the idea of term limits for City office holders that came up and was discussed really well.”
“After the draft was prepared, it narrowly did not pass to be moved on to city council,” Bader advises. “So we (council) can still, we could still put things in front of the voters if we want it, so I think that might be the most interesting item that comes up for discussion here over the next two weeks” he says referencing upcoming City Council meetings where the Charter Review final report will be debated by the public and councilmembers. Those meetings are scheduled for the City Council on July 1st and July 15th.
Which brings us back to the earlier premise about packing nine or ten city Charter Review proposals on a general election ballot when voters will be deciding big ticket elections like U.S. Congress and State Legislature, too, in November. Sniffen offers this advice to voters, “There will be a lot of discussion and dialogue, I’m sure at the city council level before they decide on which ones they want to push forward, and which ones that they choose not to put forward”, in November.
The Commission chair expands his thought, saying “I think information education is the best thing that our voters can do. Learn about the changes that we’re suggesting. Which ones the council chooses to put on the ballot and try to understand the ‘why?’ We had a very specific purpose to put a ‘why’ behind the charter changes. Why is it good for us? And I think if they understand that, they’re going to look at it the same as the committee did. I think its a good step forward for the city, so if I were to speak to the voters, I’d say look at each of the proposals that do get put forward. Understand why they’re being put forward, why the changes are happening and identify what the outcome is going to be and what’s beneficial for us and make their decisions based on that as opposed to just, ‘There’s a bunch of ideas out here. They want to change for change sake’, which was not our intent at all.”
Snohomish County voters will be asked to decide five charter review proposals on the November 3 general election ballot, including shifting elected offices to non-partisan instead of political party preference or affiliation and a 4/5ths super-majority to increase taxes by the County Council.