Mukilteo council rejects surplus sale of Lot 5, directs staff to study leasing options

Mukilteo's City Council on March 2, 2026 declined to declare central waterfront Lot 5 surplus for sale and instead voted to direct staff to study the feasibility of leasing the property, following more than an hour of public comment and council debate.

The motion to adopt a surplus resolution to put Lot 5 on the market failed in a council vote after residents pressed the council to retain the parcel as public open space and to ensure robust public outreach. Council then approved a separate motion, directing staff to investigate market interest and the viability of leasing the parcel; that leasing motion passed 5-2, with Council Members Champion and Dixon recorded as voting no.

The council's decision keeps multiple options open. Director Galuska told the council staff recommended researching both sale and lease options so the city can return with market data and analysis. "If these items are approved, staff will start doing work," Galuska said, but she emphasized that any eventual sale or lease would return to the council for approval. Several council members and staff stressed that surplusing or seeking market input would not compel the city to sell.

Why it mattered: Lot 5 is shown in the waterfront master plan as a central waterfront park and sits between Silver Cloud Inn and the new ferry area. Public speakers and several council members flagged deed and conveyance restrictions from earlier transfers, possible environmental remediation needs because of the site's industrial past, and the importance of preserving public access along the shoreline. Resident Brian Kirk urged the council to reject any surplus decision without a broad outreach plan: "I don't think public input should be optional at this point." Conversely, supporters of redevelopment argued the parcel is underused and could generate year‑round activity and revenue.

What the votes covered: Council Member Vago moved the surplus resolution and was joined by one other council member in favor; the motion did not secure a majority. Later, Vago moved to direct staff to investigate leasing options; that motion passed 5-2. Council debate focused on tradeoffs between retaining public land for park use, possible long-term revenue from leasing, the city's capacity to lead marketing and leasing negotiations, and coordination with the Port of Everett, which is pursuing its own waterfront activities.

Details and constraints cited at the meeting: Council members and public commenters repeatedly referenced the 2017 conveyance terms and deed language that constrain acceptable uses (often described at the meeting as requiring public-purpose uses), as well as the waterfront master plan designation. Director Galuska said Lots 2 and 3 to the west are already zoned waterfront mixed-use and that staff would likely use consultants for leasing work, while the rezoning of Lot 5 (a comprehensive-plan docket item) remains part of the summer schedule. Council members also discussed a previously estimated greening cost for Lot 5 of about $120,000 (to add topsoil, water hookups, sprinklers and seeding), and raised the possibility that environmental due diligence would be necessary before any sale or serious offers.

What happens next: Staff will begin work to evaluate leasing interest and to identify necessary steps (consultants, broker relationships, or rezoning timelines) and report findings back to the council. Any lease proposals or sale offers would return for council approval. The council also adopted waterfront development as one of the city's two 2026 priorities, alongside an evaluation of the fire department.

Voices: "I don't think we need to sell the property," Council President Moon said during debate, adding that the council was generally committed to keeping the waterfront public. Council Member Emery warned that proceeds from any sale should be treated as one‑time capital funds, not used for recurring operations. Resident speakers asked for open houses and clearer public notice before the council pursues irreversible actions.

Authors' note: The council repeatedly stated that a surplus declaration would only open the option to market the land and would not commit the city to sell. The lease‑investigation vote instructs staff to return with analysis and estimated costs for next steps.