Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Vacant Storefronts topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Students and residents urge higher vacancy fees for big‑box properties under EMC 16.16

Everett City Council · May 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Students and local residents asked the Everett City Council to revise Everett Municipal Code 16.16 so vacancy penalties reflect property size, arguing large vacant big‑box stores depress neighborhoods and that the current maximum fine (cited as $1,000/year) is insufficient deterrent.

Two student organizers and several Everett residents urged the City Council on May 13 to revise Everett Municipal Code 16.16 so vacancy fees scale to property size and better discourage long‑term commercial vacancies.

Online speaker Claire Turner said the existing municipal code was created to address vacant storefronts but is not being enforced and does not take property size into consideration. “We found that there is an existing municipal code 16 16 that was created to address vacant storefronts, but has not been enforced and doesn't take property size into consideration,” Claire said.

Kat Chin, a lifelong Everett resident and Everett Public Schools employee, described a student‑led proposal called the Everett Retail Vacancy Tax and urged the council to adopt fee bands that would make holding large vacant properties costly. “As the code currently stands, the largest fine that Kroger will ever pay is 1000 dollars per year,” Chin said, urging council to consider raising fees and the staffing needed to enforce the code.

Council Member Paula Ryan thanked the speakers and said she had asked the parks and built environment committee to rejuvenate discussions about vacant storefronts; Ryan characterized the issue as three policy areas — nuisance vacant residential properties, small historic downtown buildings, and vacant large‑format retail — and asked staff to explore options.

Council did not adopt code changes on May 13; the public comment prompted committee follow‑up and additional staff work to examine enforcement and policy options.