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
10 Responses
Pay for an ad if you’re going to campaign for mayor already.
John, you are simply not informed. If you spent the time that we do living through these issues, you would be familiar with the process. If you would like to be educated on these issues, I am happy to help. Or you can ask any of the many people who live on 2nd Street and have written similar commentaries both in the press and to the council. On this issue, you are simply uninformed.
The building was sold as is and saved Mukilteo thousands of dollars. I don’t think you understand that the demolition costs and deferred maintenance would have equaled over $300,000.00 spend. At the end of the day, the city would have netted the same amount of profit if they did not split the lots.
So your article is very misleading or you do not have an basic understanding of the appraisal document.
Actually, the pull quote is from the appraisal, so it is you who is misinformed and opining without fact. Ask the city for the appraisal. Reading it will inform you as to why you are wrong. My sources are quoted. Perhaps you can cite a source for your incorrect claim.
Plus Caroline, what do you say to the residents and the zoning? Just ignore that all? Seems tone deaf and wrong headed to me. You realize the site is zoned single family today? To do what the city has done will require a spot zone to commercial at the end of a dead end street in a dense neighborhood with residents up in arms over the prospect of a glass blowing commercial shop operating 24/7 in a 80 year old wooden building.
You are misleading the residents of Mukilteo.
The city came out better by selling it off as is at 500k.
You clearly have animosity towards the new owner and have taken a personal stance against this situation publicly.
To preserve the building and have it as a pillar in the community is inviting for Mukilteo and everyone that will come and visit.
I agree with the city’s decision to let the building go and rid themselves of the financial burden.
Steve, I presented sources of actual data, namely the appraisal listing the professional recxommendation that “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.” That is the professional opinion of the property appraiser. Do you have a professional appraisal citing a different recommendation, or as you suggest, “to preserve the building and have it as a pillar in the community?”
That same appraisal said “the value of the property as a developable site far exceeds the value today if acquired for continued use as currently improved.” This means selling it as is was sub-optimal. Come on, Steve. Do you really think that buildable residential land with a view on 2nd Street is only worth $500,000?
Regarding my supposed animus towards the buidling owner, not only did I congratulate Mr. Dahl for being a shrewd and impressive businessman, I have met with him for lunch and have his phone number in my contacts. It is possible to disagree with a friend.
My so-called “personal stance” is me doing my job as an elected representative. My stance reflects the residents of Old Town who have made their desires consistently known to me, their public representative. They have attended and/or written our Council repeatedly pleading for an explanation.
We all wanted the building sold. The issue was whether the sale in the manner it was done made economic sense for the city and does it now present an untenable challenge to the residents who do not wish to spot zone versus the intent of an owner clearly interested in doing so. Had the city heeded the recommendation of the appraisal, Old Town residents would not be facing this issue.
Steve, you said it perfectly “you are misleading the residents of Mukilteo” – We weren’t born yesterday and can clearly see the agenda of Mike Dixon. Disparaging the other council member’s is despicable – Shame on you Mike Dixon. The people of Mukilteo are not fooled!!!! I think it will be great to preserve this historic building and if it ends up being a creative/arts outlet – even better (maybe something like the Schack center in Everett).
Lynnwood Times – I would like to see an article to get the opinions/facts from the other council member’s who voted.
Thanks for your comment.
Council had to take many things into consideration.
Do you think a Mukilteo version of the Schack Center might be better situated on the Waterfront versus at the end of a mature, dead end, quiet residential street currently zoned single family? I would think the former, not the latter, which is exactly the issue. We are not against art. We are against bad policy.
What about the opinions of the residential neighbors who live on 2nd Street? Their voices matter, I would argue, moreso than any of our own. To my knowledge, they are uniformly AGAINST this action. They wanted the property sold and developed as residences. The property was only permitted to operate as a Boys & Girls Club because it was grandfathered in although the undeerlying zoning remained single family residential. This sale was the opportunity to implement the actual underlying land use decision, not change it in a spot zone to suit a different purpose.
Fortunately, the rezone request to change the zoning from single family to commercial failed, so the property remains zoned single family residential. No commercial activity can take place there and any infractions are being carefully monitored by the neighbors, me and the city staff.
Would you be interested in also reading the actual appraisal? I believe it is a public document. Would it change your mind if you read that the appraisal recommended something quite different from declaring the property surplus and using the direct for sale method to the two parties that expressed interest. While that may be legal, it doesn’t seem prudent to me.
Lastly, there is the price. Handwaving estimates about ending up with the same value is not the standard for decisionmaking that I employ when trying to make decisions as your representative. The careful analysis of the professional appraisers swayed me. I quoted that document verbatim when I cited that they recommended that we raze the building and sell the lots for residential development.
One of my duties is to be a steward of our collective resources. Giving away our city property for less than we otherwise could have sold it for and doing so against the better interest of the impacted neighbors does not strike me as good policy. Perhaps we disagree on that point.
I would ask that the city provide you with the full and unredacted appraisal report to the public. I would ask you to read and consider it. I look forward to learning your thoughts after you’ve had a chance to consider the facts and not just the varied opinions and conjecture.
And if you like, I have a copy of the appraisal and will be happy to email it to anyone requesting it. Of note, go to pages 42-44. There you will read of a very comparable property that sold for $2.45 million in as is condition. Let that sink in.