Everett council delays vote on 21‑story 'Sophia' TIF after hours of public comment and developer concessions

Everett City Council members on Wednesday postponed a planned vote on a proposed 14‑year tax‑increment financing agreement for the 21‑story Sophia at 380 Second Street after a developer presentation, extended public comment and hours of council questions.

The project team led by Scott Brown, founder and CEO of Fulcrum Global Investors, told the council the development as designed — a 620‑unit, mixed‑use tower — is not financeable without a TIF. Brown said the developer increased onsite affordable units and the linkage payment after the council’s prior meeting: “we're willing to increase the on sites from 42 from 31 to 42,” and raise the affordable housing linkage payment “from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000.” He also said the project will be 100 percent union during construction and that “there's no a a a TIF foregoes the potential for future tax revenue. It doesn't give us a dime.”

City staff and the developer described several public benefits tied to the proposal. The presentation said the developer will deed‑restrict onsite affordable units in perpetuity; commit $3,400,000 for environmental remediation of the site; invest over $3,000,000 to reconstruct the Garden Street extension and other neighborhood infrastructure; grant a 15‑foot easement along Second Street to allow future Silver Line right‑of‑way widening; install an 11‑dock Blue Bike station (estimated one‑time cost about $50,000 plus roughly $10,000 annual maintenance); and support a Transportation Demand Management program that includes a $20,000–$21,000 annual payment to the Lower Mystic Transportation Management Association and an internal EV car‑share program. The developer also said the project would be built to LEED Silver standards.

The meeting opened with public comment. Dozens of residents and union members spoke; many supported the project for job creation and union hiring, while others expressed concerns about density, school capacity, parking and long TIF duration. Peggy Sereno, an Everett resident who said she had been a union member, urged caution: “Follow the money,” she told the council, arguing developers and elected officials had made and broken promises on housing and community benefits in the past.

Council members pressed the developer on several points: how veteran units would be prioritized, whether operational jobs would go to Everett residents, parking and traffic mitigations, the legal effect of the TIF on property assessments, and what would happen if the developer sold the project during the TIF term. Councilor DePiero asked whether the developer would “give an effort preference on the operational jobs”; Brown replied the team was “committing to, locate qualified Everett residents for all the jobs.” Councilor Rogers asked the developer to avoid marketing the building as “luxury”; the developer acknowledged the request.

Planning and city consultants also appeared. Christian Reenstrena and Judy Pelletier of CRE Asset Advisors — retained by the city to review the TIF math — said multi‑decade TIFs in the region commonly run 20 years or more and that sliding scales of abatement are typical. Matt Lattanzi, the city’s director of Planning and Development, explained the appraisal and assessment process and said residential uses are taxed under a residential assessment classification; the city’s CFO later confirmed a parcel with a fixed‑payment TIF is processed so the assessed value reflects the TIF terms.

After discussion, the council took several formal steps. Members voted to ask for a revised TIF draft that incorporates the concessions discussed (the increased on‑site affordable units and the higher linkage payment) and to request specific, written commitments: (1) that the $2,000,000 affordable housing linkage payment be directed into the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund rather than the general linkage account; (2) revised language on the HUD VASH (veterans’ supportive housing) units so the council's updated commitments are reflected; and (3) a written statement from the assessor clarifying how a fixed‑payment TIF affects assessed value and whether other taxpayers will bear any tax shift. The council then voted to postpone formal action on the TIF until its next regular meeting to allow staff and the petitioner to deliver the updated legal draft and the requested written clarifications.

Councilors and the mayor signaled openness to alternatives if a 14‑year abatement cannot be structured, but several members said the immediate, upfront public benefits — remediation, infrastructure, deeper onsite affordability and union construction — were central to the developer’s case. Mayor DeMaria, who joined the meeting, said the city expects the revised draft quickly and emphasized the proposed project would bring higher long‑term tax revenues than the current industrial use. The developer and city also agreed to continue discussions about whether other financial structures (for example, a different deferral schedule) could produce the same public benefits.

Next steps listed by the council: staff to deliver the updated TIF legal draft to the council as soon as it is available (the developer indicated it would be ready the next day), the assessor to send a written explanation of how the TIF is input into the tax roll, and the petitioner to provide the clarified HUD VASH wording and any final commitments. The council will revisit the TIF at its next regular meeting.