In the “Proposition No. 1” article in October’s “Currents,” the City of Shoreline makes claims that are disproved by public documents and eyewitness accounts.
Claim: Purchase price of $26.6 Million - There is no agreement between the City of Shoreline and the City of Seattle on a purchase price. At a July 30th Seattle City Council meeting it was disclosed that Seattle Public Utilities has not agreed to the $26.6 million figure.
Claim: $14.2 million in pre-acquisition improvements - Reality is costs could exceed $17 Million according to the City of Shoreline’s own documentation from the May 23rd steering committee report.
Claim: the City Council found the cost to acquire, operate, and maintain the system would result in rates equal to or lower than SPU’s projected charges - The reality is the City Council has no idea if this goal is achievable.
The City of Shoreline has underestimated costs and overestimated revenue projections. (Budget depends upon increased water consumption. State water consumption rates have fallen per capita since 1985). See US Geological Survey.
Claim: Shoreline ratepayers would have local control over rates, services, upgrades and investments – Reality - the City of Shoreline would emphasize upgrading water infrastructure for developers at ratepayer expense. This was confirmed by Shoreline City Council member Jesse Salomon at a public meeting.
Claim: Purchase of SPU by the City of Shoreline would provide local control – Reality -we have local control through Ronald Wastewater District and Shoreline Water District at affordable rates. We could have local control of the west-side water system if Shoreline Water District were to make the purchase. Under a Public Utility, we would have local control, no added utility taxes and better service at equal to or less cost.
Wendy DiPeso
Shoreline
Ms DiPeso,
ReplyDeleteThanks you so much for providing this timely and thoughtful look at the City's proposal. It is a complicated issue and I greatly appreciate that you have taken the time to research it and share your findings. Your work makes it clear that we should all vote NO on Proposition #1 and hold out for a wiser (and far less expensive) solution.
I agree also. We currently have reasonable water rates, and I can see NO reason to 'fix what is not broken'.
ReplyDeleteToo many unanswered questions usually mean more cost for the short and long term.
Thank you for all your research. I REALLY appreciate the chance to make an informed decision and vote NO on Prop 1. Why would you buy something when you don't know the price...oh yeah, you aren't using your own money.
ReplyDelete