Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and riders urge caution as city resumes talks on Everett Transit annexation by Community Transit
Summary
Multiple Everett residents and transit users told the council they oppose proposed annexation of Everett Transit by Community Transit, citing worries about higher fares, reduced neighborhood service and loss of a local vote after Senate Bill 5801, part 10; council said talks are at an early stage.
Several Everett residents used the public-comment period on May 6, 2026, to urge the City Council to resist or scrutinize proposals to annex Everett Transit (ET) into Community Transit (CT).
Daniel Simon, an Everett resident who spoke at the podium, told the council that a provision of state law — referred to during his remarks as "Senate Bill 5801, part 10" — removed a prior requirement that Everett voters approve a transit sales-tax increase. "Because of Senate Bill 5801, part 10, that right was taken away," he said, arguing that the city and CT should not proceed without strong public scrutiny. Simon also asserted ET contributes about $4.1 million to the city's general fund and claimed ET's cost per service hour is roughly $190 compared with CT's $280; he described ET as solvent through 2038.
Other speakers warned of reduced neighborhood-level service and higher fares under CT. Keith Jacobson said CT historically focuses on major corridors rather than neighborhood routes and predicted that disabled riders and those not living near major corridors would lose service. Crystal, a part-time rider, said fares could rise from $2.00 to $2.50 and that even a small increase would strain low-income riders; she also asked whether free event shuttles would be preserved.
Council members acknowledged the concerns. The council indicated the proposal is still in early stages and that staff and the council will continue discussions; no final action on annexation occurred at the meeting.
The city did not provide an immediate fiscal analysis or schedule for any potential annexation during the meeting. Residents and advocates asked for a transparent analysis of service-level changes, fare impacts and commitments on paratransit and caregiver policies before any binding decisions.
