Mukilteo council authorizes consultant contract for proposed dive park over port concerns, 4–3

The Mukilteo City Council voted 4–3 on Jan. 9 to authorize the mayor to sign a consultant contract with Confluence Environmental Consulting, clearing the way for surveys and technical work toward establishing a proposed Mukilteo Dive Park.

Council President Moon moved to approve the agreement, capped at $74,500, and the council approved it after roughly 90 minutes of staff briefing, council questions and public comment. Director Galouska told the council staff had issued an RFQ, interviewed two firms and selected Confluence; the recommended contract is a time‑and‑materials engagement estimated at $64,500 with a $10,000 management reserve.

The contract would fund technical studies needed to apply for a lease from the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), including underwater site survey work and boundary mapping. “The major task in establishing a dive park would be getting a lease agreement through the Department of Natural Resources,” staff said, noting the work is specialized and cannot easily be done in‑house.

Council debate focused on three issues: proximity to existing port infrastructure, liability/insurance exposure and the timing of the expenditure within the city’s tight budget. Councilmember Emery pressed staff on a Port of Everett comment letter that cited recommended setbacks between divers and vessels; staff said the port’s letter raises distance examples (including about 200 feet) and that the issue is not resolved. Director Galouska said the city will work with the port and the consultant to seek solutions if the council approves the contract.

On insurance, a city risk representative noted Washington’s recreational‑immunity provision provides some protection for landowners that open property for free public recreation, though there are exceptions. “That should protect the city from some liability in terms of this type of park,” the speaker stated, while acknowledging immunity is not absolute.

Residents who use the site said the park would improve diver safety by allowing buoys to mark diving areas and would bring local spending. “When a diver completes a dive, they want two things: restroom and food,” said George Barron, who described volunteer operation and estimated that diving adds to local restaurant and parking revenue. Other residents urged caution, questioned whether the project would deliver the revenue claimed and warned that contracting now could influence future redevelopment options for adjacent properties.

Councilmembers who voted in favor — Moon, Emery, Vago and Sturba — said the study is a modest investment to gather facts, improve safety and evaluate economic benefits. Those voting no — Dixon, Duran and Champion — said the city should wait for more financial clarity and port discussions and that the project could preempt larger waterfront planning.

Staff said the contract would be paid from the Community Development Department’s professional‑services line in the general fund; they noted the department typically budgets about $100,000 annually for such work and that a budget amendment may be required only if workload/complexity exceeds current allocations.

Next steps: if the mayor signs the contract, Confluence will perform the site survey and studies needed for a DNR lease application and the city will continue discussions with the Port of Everett and DNR. The council’s authorization does not itself designate any underwater boundary or change port property rights; staff said any formal lease or buoy installation would require further approvals and potential additional funding.

Action recorded: motion to authorize the mayor to sign a consultant contract with Confluence Environmental Consulting not to exceed $74,500 (motion moved by Council President Moon; second not specified); passed 4–3 (Dixon, Duran, Champion — no).