Kudos to the shrewd local businessman who paid $500,000 to purchase from the city a pristine real estate parcel—Hawthorne Hall—zoned single family and appraised at $830,000. He acted to pursue his vision for the city’s property. Shame to my four fellow councilmembers and the mayor for this tone deaf and fiscally derelict decision to execute this transaction against the financial interest of the city and the clear will of the voters, who we supposedly represent. You clearly did not act in their best interest. Much was wrong about the way the city executed this process.
Questionable Use of Executive Session
My contention is the legal privilege of RCW 42.30.110 executive session was abused to hide this issue from the public. In so doing, the public was kept in the dark as to the details about the transaction under consideration. RCW is permitted only under strict instances. The only potentially relevant instance is cited below:
- (c) To consider the minimum price at which real estate will be offered for sale or lease when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of decreased price. However, final action selling or leasing public property shall be taken in a meeting open to the public;
- RCW 42.30.1210 (1)(c)
Executive session is only permitted for real estate sales when public discussion may decrease the city’s position or value in the negotiation. Arguably, the city’s position was harmed, not helped, by the secrecy. So why the need for executive session?
Voter Disenfranchisement
This stealth vote to accept this offer discussed only in executive session effectively disenfranchised 3 of the 7 councilmembers not present, while the prior year saw Council President bring the sale decision back for reconsideration when literally only 1 of the 7 councilmembers was not present, Emery. Why would the council feel good about a controversial vote to brazenly sell below market price and for an intended use contrary to the current zoning and the expressed public will? Citizens lost their representation that day when the agenda setting committee stealthily added this item to the agenda and 4 opportunistic councilmembers came out of the illegitimate executive session and immediately took action while 3 of us were not there to even register a protest vote. No vote counting is permitted in executive session, so how could the gang of four assume they would have a unanimous majority vote of all 4 coming out of executive session unless they inappropiately counted votes during the executive session? Yet, the gang of four foisted this bad policy onto the city with a 4-0 vote when a 6-0 vote the prior year to simply decide to sell warranted a reconsideration?
Gifting of Public Funds
Finally, there is the issue of gifting of public funds. The 2024 statutory deficit was $1.1 million. Then they adopted a biennial budget with a $1.2 million statutory deficit for 2025 and $3.4 million for 2026. Given that deficit environment, it boggles the mind that the city would feel conscientious about gifting $330,000 of public funds by accepting $500,000 for a property appraised at $830,000. One would think we would attempt to maximize our proceeds in that instance.
Further, it is arguable City did the exact opposite of the appraisal recommendation of “highest and best use”. Here is the language from the city’s appraisal dated November 2023, an appraisal I had never seen presented beforehand to me or to this council. Obviously, this appraisal was ignored as City took the exact opposite course of recommended action.
“the value of the property as currently improved, less the cost to cure the deferred maintenance, is $255,000. Alternatively, the value of the underlying land is estimated at $830,000. Even after taking demolition costs into account (which can typically be in the $8.00 to $20.00 per square foot range, with the upper end of the range being for properties that require asbestos removal), the value of the property as a developable site far exceeds the value today if acquired for continued use as currently improved. Therefore, the highest and best use for the subject property is to demolish the existing structure and redevelop the site with two single-family lots/residences that can take advantage of the subject’s locational attributes and view amenity.”
- ANALYSIS OF DATA AND OPINIONS OF APPRAISERS MUKILTEO HAWTHORNE HALL, 1134 2ND STREET, MUKILTEO, WA 98275,
- Page 29, SH&H File 15973-23
- Chad C. Johnson, MAI Kellen E. Hurych, Associate
Enough is enough
Hawthorne Hall. Harbour Heights. Harbour Grove. What do they all have in common? Tone deaf, willful decisions to go against the expressed will of the residents, who, by the way, happen to be our voters. Our bosses. No wonder our voters from Old Town to Smugglers Gulch to Harbour Pointe, come out in droves to complain, oftentimes to no avail, to our council. Voters, please remember that we are supposed to serve you and that many of our seats are up for election this year, including the Mayor’s. Use your power to remind long term elected people who our bosses really are. You.
Mike Dixon, Mukilteo Councilman
Mike Dixon was elected to a four-year term in 2023. Born and raised in the U.S. Virgin Islands, he has made Mukilteo his home since 2007. Mike is currently a cleantech executive with GM Energy, owns and operates an insurance agency in Old Town, and is a solar farm investor in the Caribbean. Mike is also a three-time elected water sewer commissioner, former president of the Board of the Alderwood Water & Wastewater District, and current commissioner of the Mukilteo Water & Wastewater District. He holds a bachelor’s degree in management science and an MBA, both from MIT.
According to his bio, his council goals are building a cleantech cluster in Mukilteo, developing the waterfront as a commercial and recreational economic hub in the region, marketing Mukilteo as a welcoming and inclusive city, building policy to support the middle class and ensure our city’s sustainability, working collaboratively to ensure strong and robust long term financial planning and annual budgets, and partnering regionally to help Mukilteo remain an inclusive, sustainable, vibrant and growing city.
COMMENTARY DISCLAIMER: The views and comments expressed are those of the writer and not necessarily those of the Lynnwood Times nor any of its affiliate.
Author: Lynnwood Times Contributor
One Response
Pay for an ad if you’re going to campaign for mayor already.