Everett committee probes enforcement, incentives for vacant storefronts and big-box closures

The Parks and Built Environment Committee met Oct. 8 in Everett Chambers to discuss policy responses to vacant storefronts, blighted properties near downtown and recent large-store closures, including a Kroger announcement that prompted further focus on big-box sites.

Committee members said they want to avoid unintended consequences from closures and discussed both enforcement of existing local rules and new policy options. “Vacant storefronts, facade maintenance, downtown revitalization, and vacant big box stores,” the Committee Chair said, reading the agenda item that launched the discussion.

Why it matters: committee members said empty ground-floor retail and large vacant parcels can attract unwanted behavior, create public-health and safety hazards, and undermine planned downtown initiatives such as the Creative District and visitor events. Several members urged city staff to identify actionable next steps rather than continuing repeated discussion.

Key facts and policy options discussed

- Existing code: Council members raised Everett Municipal Code Chapter 16.16, a vacant commercial-space registration ordinance adopted in 2009 that includes delinquent-registration fees and monitoring provisions but — they said — is not being actively enforced. “No. We’re not enforcing the penalty provisions,” Attorney Hall said, adding that staffing shortfalls contributed to the lapse. Attorney Hall also told the committee, “I think at the time, we were maybe overly ambitious and underestimated how much staff time it would take to actually enforce that.”

- Enforcement staffing: Committee members said the original code relied on a dedicated full-time equivalent (FTE) to run the registry and pursue penalties; that position was not backfilled, and current code-enforcement staff prioritize imminent life-safety issues over vacancy monitoring. A committee member summarized: “When the code was adopted, there was an FTE that was assigned to that task…and once that person left that role, it wasn’t backfilled.”

- Fee models and monitoring: Members referenced other cities’ vacant-building-monitoring programs and fee schedules as options to consider. One committee member cited Seattle’s monitoring program and numbers used there as an illustration of monthly inspection fees as a lever for owners of vacant properties.

- Targeting and legal limits: Legal staff noted the city likely cannot regulate by corporate identity alone (for example, “we can’t differentiate based on size of the underlying corporation”) but can draw policy distinctions based on the physical size or footprint of a site, a rationale that could survive legal review. The legal advisor recommended staff research whether differentiating by space size (rather than by owner) is defensible and practical.

- Large-site versus small-business approach: Committee members said they do not support a vacancy tax for small downtown businesses, but several expressed interest in exploring targeted options for larger footprints — “Fred Meyer footprint-type size” — including vacancy taxes, property-tax abatements for adaptive reuse, bans on restrictive covenants, or stepped monitoring/fee programs to encourage reuse. One member offered to sponsor a ban on restrictive covenants.

- Data gaps and next steps: Members and staff agreed better data on which storefronts are vacant — and how vacancy is measured — is needed. The Downtown Everett Association previously reported an 8% vacancy rate but committee members said they lacked the underlying inventory and block-level detail. The Committee Chair offered to ask the Downtown Everett Association for more detailed vacancy data and the committee requested staff follow up with Economic Development staff (identified in the meeting as Dan Earnesty or Dan Earnsey) to clarify the size thresholds and other policy parameters to analyze.

Context and constraints

- Implementation requires staff capacity and owner cooperation. Staff warned that many enforcement and incentive options require either new staff capacity, coordination with property owners, or state-level guidance. Committee members repeatedly noted the “kingpin” for redeveloping big-box sites is often the private property owner.

- Physical and code barriers. Committee members noted older downtown buildings may be costly to retrofit for certain uses (for example, food-service plumbing and fire/seismic upgrades) and that adaptive-reuse incentives would need to account for those limitations.

What the committee asked staff to do

The committee asked staff to: (1) request a more detailed vacant-storefront inventory or updated vacancy data from the Downtown Everett Association; (2) consult with Economic Development staff about size thresholds (e.g., what constitutes a “big-box” footprint for city policy); (3) have legal review of options that distinguish by parcel size or footprint (rather than by corporate identity); and (4) return with concrete, prioritized policy options that include staffing and enforcement resource implications.

Ending: Committee members said they prefer “carrots over sticks” where feasible but asked staff to prepare legal and operational analysis for targeted measures addressing large vacant retail sites and downtown ground-floor vacancies.