The Downtown Everett Stadium Process Is Not Transparent — And That Should Concern Everyone

As a Snohomish county resident deeply engaged in civic issues, I’ve been following the proposed downtown stadium project closely. Despite repeated claims by elected officials that the process has been “transparent,” my experience—and the public record—says otherwise.

Let’s start with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Everett Outdoor Multipurpose Facility Downtown Project. It lacked a basic yet critical element: cost estimates. This is especially troubling when you consider that the DEIS did include renovation estimates for Funko Field, which ranged from $30 to $40 million.

Why were similar estimates for the new downtown stadium—eventually revealed to be $137,888,124—absent from the DEIS?

I submitted these three questions to city council:

1. Why were there no cost estimates in the DEIS for the downtown stadium project?

2. Did cost estimates for the project exist during the DEIS period?

3. Were cost estimates intentionally withheld from the DEIS?

To date, I’m still waiting for answers.

Yet, at the June 11, 2025, council meeting, Council President Schwab declared, “I haven’t seen a process so transparent.” With respect, I disagree.

The stadium was a key topic at the June 11th meeting, which you can view on YouTube

Transparency Issues Extend to the Mayor’s Office

The mayor’s office has also declined to provide basic documentation. On June 9, 2025, Mayor Cassie Franklin was asked whether the City has anything in writing from the Everett AquaSox indicating they will leave town without a new or renovated stadium. None was produced.

On June 25, 2025, the mayor was asked to release a complete and accurate economic model supporting the stadium plan. That also was not provided.

In follow-up correspondence, the mayor was reminded:

“You have not provided the assumptions of the economic analysis, nor have you provided a complete and accurate economic model. Could you please ask Scott Pattison or someone on your 'team' to provide the economic assumptions?”

Again, no response. I filed public records requests on July 29, 2025, for:

1. Written documentation from the AquaSox about the potential for relocation.

2. Complete and accurate economic assumptions and economic modeling.

Transparency shouldn't require records requests from engaged citizens.

The City's Economic Study Is Outdated and Unreliable

Even if the City had provided its commissioned economic modeling, the underlying study itself is problematic. The analysis was conducted in 2022 by Community Attributes Inc., using a 2012 Input-Output model from the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). This model has limiting assumings, including:

• No supply constraints: It assumes infinite availability of labor, materials, and inputs.

  
  

• Fixed input structure: It assumes businesses will always use the same mix of inputs, regardless of changes in the economy.

  
  

• No incorporation of new tariffs: Since April 2025, tariffs introduced by federal policy have changed the economic landscape significantly.

• The OFM does not currently have a regional model that includes trade elasticity adjustments or other tools necessary to simulate today’s economy accurately. This means that the jobs, income, and revenue projections presented by the City may be significantly overstated—and potentially flat-out wrong.

What’s Missing: A “Net” Economic Impact

A core concern in evaluating any public project is the net impact—the difference between new benefits and the economic cost of the funds used to create those benefits.

If Everett uses local tax dollars or bonds to fund this stadium, those dollars will be diverted from other uses—decreasing consumption elsewhere. But the City’s fiscal presentations don’t appear to factor in these negative effects.

I raised this point in a letter to the Mayor, Economic Development Director Dan Eernissee, and the Council on April 5, 2025. One example: the use of federally tax-exempt bonds, which can reduce workers’ purchasing power over time.

Even Independent Sources Are Skeptical

The Everett Herald noted that independent researchers have found many stadium construction projects fail to produce a positive financial impact on cities. That’s consistent with national research showing inflated revenue claims and disappointing long-term returns.

Yet, the Everett City Council, the Stadium Fiscal Advisory Committee, and Mayor Franklin’s administration continue to support this project based on outdated models and hidden assumptions.

The Bottom Line

Regardless of who is elected this November, the stadium study commissioned by the City of Everett must be redone using accurate, modern, and transparent data. The 2022 Community Attributes Inc. analysis is neither valid nor reliable in 2025.

We deserve better.

We deserve full transparency, honest numbers, and a city government that answers direct questions with direct facts.

Everett’s future is too important for smoke and mirrors.