Residents press council on stadium hosting deal and future of Old Everett High School; senator defends process

Dozens of residents used the council's public-comment period on March 25 to urge the Everett City Council to slow or oppose agreements they say would favor outside developers and leave residents to cover operational costs.

Speakers raised two linked concerns: the future of the old Everett High School (at 548 Broadway) and a proposed professional sports stadium near the Encore casino and a Kraft-related memorandum of agreement. Peggy Sereno told the council the city should not borrow $1,140,000 to replace the old high school's roof and boiler without fuller cost details and suggested officials were quietly preparing to demolish school buildings that could relieve overcrowding at other schools. Several commenters alleged the hosting and MOA deals would benefit wealthy developers and not the city, pointing to low one-time payments and ongoing operational costs that would fall to local taxpayers.

John Pablo (Ward 5) and other speakers urged restoration of 3-1-1 transparency and demanded the city prioritize tax revenue and resident impacts over developers' returns on investment. Paul Osteridi accused the administration of paying private PR consultants nearly $200,000 and urged the council to hire an independent investigator to examine leaks and allegations about personnel actions tied to stadium opposition.

Senator Domenico used two minutes during public comment to respond to several allegations. She said there is no MOU with "the crafts," that the DPA (Designated Port Area) must be lifted to initiate waterfront permitting steps that include MEPA and Chapter 91 review, and that the Conservation Law Foundation participated in negotiation discussions. Domenico said lifting the DPA would trigger an extensive public process and that a host agreement would be negotiated after environmental and public-review steps.

Councilors later postponed related agenda items — including a borrowing request for repairs at the old high school — to the April 22 meeting to allow for additional materials and for councilors to tour upper floors of the school. Councilors who opposed postponement argued they had time and tours; those supporting postponement cited missing cost/financial details and tax-impact questions.

No binding vote on the stadium or on demolition/renovation of the schools was taken at the meeting; councilors referred several items to committees and requested more detailed cost and timeline information from the administration.