Michael Marchese

During the Everett City Council Budget Hearing on Small Departments on May 20, 2026, Council member Michael Marchese focused on continuity, institutional knowledge, and the possible staffing implications if Mr. Flood were to leave his position. He opened his comments by saying, “Two things to think of,” and then raised a question about succession and coverage, asking who would fill the void if Mr. Flood left.

Marchese acknowledged Mr. Flood’s performance, saying, “I understand, Mr. Flood does a great job,” but he quickly tied that praise to a broader concern about the department’s capacity to maintain continuity. In doing so, he framed the issue not only as a personnel matter but as one involving stability and experience within city operations.

He then floated a staffing idea, suggesting that Mr. Sayer could work part-time in the role. Marchese’s comments indicated that he was weighing options for how the city could retain someone with familiarity with municipal processes. He emphasized that if the city chose to hire someone part-time, it would be preferable to have “somebody who has knowledge of city government as that person here.” He concluded the thought by saying, “So that’s how my thought process would be.”

Throughout the exchange, Marchese’s position was consistent: he expressed concern about what would happen if the current employee left, and he argued for keeping someone with relevant city-government knowledge in the position to preserve continuity. His remarks were conversational but pointed, and they reflected a preference for experience and stability over a purely open replacement process.

No votes by Marchese were recorded in the extracted meeting activity for this hearing.

At the Everett City Council Budget Hearing on Schools on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, City Council Member Michael Marchese focused his questions on preschool programming, budgeting, and staffing impacts.

He opened with a brief greeting, asking, “How are you tonight?” During the discussion of the district’s preschool offerings, Marchese asked about the cost structure and whether the two full-time preschool programs had separate funding: “What’s the budget for that, those two? Do you have a separate budget for the two preschool things full-time?” He also sought clarification on where the programs were located, asking, “Is there one at each school?” Marchese then raised a potential consolidation question, asking, “Would you ever consider putting them all in one school?” These questions indicate he was probing both the financial setup and the physical placement of the preschool services.

Marchese also turned to staffing concerns. He noted, “Now the next question I think have to do with the staff reductions that you mentioned,” signaling follow-up interest in how budget changes might affect program operations and continuity. The record shows he raised questions about staff reductions and whether the programs could continue as currently structured.

In addition to his budget-related inquiries, Marchese participated in the meeting’s procedural business by seconding a motion to invite the speaker forward. He stated simply, “Second.”

No formal votes by Marchese were recorded in the extracted activity for this hearing. His participation was centered on questioning the budget, location, and staffing implications of the preschool programs, and on supporting a procedural motion during the discussion.

On Monday, April 27, 2026, City Councilor Michael Marchese focused his remarks on how a wage-related ordinance would affect smaller employers, especially family-run shops. He said, “I mean, I can understand the whole wage thing, but coming from a city where 90% of the business is small family businesses, how will these affect a small family business? So I wanna know.” He repeated that concern later in the meeting, underscoring that his perspective came from “a city where 90% of the business is small family businesses.”

Marchese distinguished large corporations from independent operators in his comments. He said, “I mean, I understand you got Fridays, Longhorns, 7-Elevens. These are corporations. I understand how it is, you know, the wages can be justified.” He then added, “I’m getting a little confused because, see, I always came from a small business.” His remarks indicated support for the general concept of wage requirements while expressing uncertainty about how the proposal would work in practice for small family businesses.

On the floor, Marchese voted yes on the roll call for the favorable-action item, which was described as “favorable action on the petition pending conditions.” That vote placed him in support of advancing the matter with conditions attached.

In addition to that substantive vote, Marchese also seconded the motion to adjourn. No other motions or recorded votes from him were listed in the extracted activity.

Overall, Marchese’s participation centered on protecting small businesses from unintended burdens while acknowledging that larger chain or corporate employers might be able to absorb wage-related requirements more easily. His comments framed the issue as one of scale and business type, and he repeatedly asked how the measure would affect small, family-owned businesses.

Michael Marchese, a City Councilor, was present for roll call at the Everett City Council meeting on Monday, April 13, 2026. The extracted record for this meeting does not show any remarks, questions, motions, or vote participation attributed to him beyond his attendance.

No statements were captured from Councilor Marchese during the meeting, and no quotations were recorded. The available activity log also does not identify any ordinances, resolutions, amendments, or procedural motions on which he spoke or took a recorded position. Likewise, there were no documented votes associated with him in the provided meeting data.

Based on the official activity summary, Marchese’s participation in this meeting was limited to being present for the roll call. There is no evidence in the extracted record of him raising questions, offering comments on agenda items, or engaging in notable exchanges with other council members or staff. The meeting data similarly does not indicate that he made any formal proposals, seconded motions, or requested any follow-up actions.

In short, the official record excerpt shows Councilor Michael Marchese as present but otherwise not individually active in the portions of the meeting captured here. If additional segments of the meeting record are available, they may contain further remarks or voting activity not reflected in this extracted summary.

At the Everett Special City Council meeting on Thursday, April 9, 2026, Councilor Michael Marchese took part in the appointment discussion with an emphasis on the strength of both finalists and on his own basis for deciding between them.

When the council moved to open nominations, Marchese voted yes. During the discussion, he said, “Just to repeat what people say that they’re two excellent candidates.” He added that, in his view, “there’s no doubt in my mind that whoever gets appointed tonight can step right in and feel very comfortable at home and will never miss a beat.” Marchese described the decision as “such a balancing act,” and said his choice would be shaped by “who I’m more comfortable with, who I’m more familiar with, and who I think can do the job and continue this job starting tomorrow and go forward.”

He also made clear that his support for one candidate would not be a criticism of the other. Marchese said, “So whatever vote comes out today, there’s no ill reflection on the person that I didn’t vote for because this is two good candidates.” Later in the meeting, he formally stated, “I’d like to nominate Mike Mangan for the position.” He followed that by saying, “It’s no reflection anybody, but, there’s a comfort zone.” In support of Mangan, Marchese added, “The work always gets done, I call up here for, and I know he will continue to bring that forward to his new position up here.”

The record reflects Marchese’s only recorded vote in the meeting as a yes on the motion to open nominations. His remarks consistently framed the appointment as a choice among two capable candidates, with his stated criteria centered on familiarity, comfort, and confidence in immediate performance.

At the Everett Legislative Affairs meeting on Monday, April 27, 2026, City Councilor Michael Marchese guided several appointment-related items and managed the committee’s votes and introductions. He noted that Mr. Sheehan was present and told the committee, “I believe Mr. Sheehan’s in the room if you like to have him come up and say anything, ask him any questions.” He also recognized Miss Costa’s presence and extended the same invitation, saying, “Miss Costa was here before you if anybody needs to ask you any questions. If not,” before moving to invite her to speak.

Marchese formally handled the committee’s motions throughout the meeting. On multiple occasions, he announced that a motion had been made and seconded and then called for a vote, including, “Motion has been seconded. Favorable action. All in favor?” and “Motion made and seconded, to adjourn. All in favor?” He also stated, “Motion made seconded for favorable action,” as he brought forward matters for committee action.

On the appointment of Laura Evans to the Everett Disability Commission, Marchese called the vote for favorable action but abstained. The extracted record shows he abstained on that motion. He also abstained on the motion to adjourn. His handling of the Evans appointment was procedural rather than substantive, and the record does not show him offering an opinion on the nominee’s qualifications.

Marchese also addressed timing and next steps for appointments. Speaking to Miss Lennon, he said, “Miss Lennon, as you know, later tonight will be the confirmation of it. Congratulations.” He later announced that “the motion to excuse Miss Costa had been seconded,” indicating the committee had taken up her requested absence or release from the session.

The meeting record shows Marchese’s role as chair-like moderator: opening the floor to appointees, moving items along, calling votes, and acknowledging outcomes. His exchanges were limited to process and scheduling, with no substantive policy discussion recorded in the extracted data.

At the Everett Legislative Affairs Meeting on Monday, April 13, 2026, City Councilor Michael Marchese participated actively in the handling of appointment items and meeting procedure. Early in the discussion, he asked, “Is he here?” indicating he was checking whether the nominee was present before the body proceeded.

Marchese then moved the committee through a series of formal actions. On the Samuel Fern appointment, he stated, “Motion made and seconded to postpone this appointment.” The motion to postpone the Samuel Fern appointment was brought to a vote, and Marchese voted yes.

He also handled the Antonio Cornelio appointment through multiple motions. He announced, “Motion made to refer the full body with no recommendation,” and later repeated that same motion language as the matter moved through the committee process. Marchese voted yes on the motion to refer the Antonio Cornelio appointment to the full body with no recommendation. He also later stated, “Motion made in seconded favorable action,” reflecting a motion for favorable action on the appointment, and he voted yes on that motion as well.

Throughout the meeting, Marchese acted as chair in managing the procedural sequence. The extracted activity notes that he announced motions after they were made and seconded and then called for votes on postponement, referral, favorable action, and adjournment. He also made the closing motion, stating, “Motion made and seconded to adjourn.” The motion to adjourn passed, and Marchese voted yes. He then closed the meeting by saying, “We are adjourned.”

In summary, Marchese’s role in the meeting centered on procedural management: confirming whether the nominee was present, advancing motions, calling votes, and concluding the session. His recorded positions were consistently affirmative on the postponement of the Samuel Fern appointment, referral and favorable action on the Antonio Cornelio appointment, and adjournment.