OP-ED: Council Member Doris McConnell - say Yes to local control and investment
Monday, November 5, 2012
Doris McConnell was elected to the Shoreline City Council in 2007 and reelected in 2011.
Please Vote YES for Shoreline Prop 1
And Say Yes to Local Control And Local Investment!
By Council Member Doris McConnell
These are some of your Shoreline friends who have endorsed Shoreline Proposition 1:
ProShoreline, Shoreline Mayor Keith McGlashan and Shoreline Deputy Mayor Chris Eggen. Shoreline City Councilmembers Doris McConnell, Shari Winstead, and Will Hall. 32nd Legislative District Representative Ruth Kagi. Former Shoreline Mayors Ron Hansen and Bob Ransom. Former Shoreline Deputy Mayor Terry Scott. Former Shoreline City Councilmembers Rich Gustafson and Kevin Grossman. SPU Advisory Steering Committee members Gretchen Atkinson, David Harris, Joseph Irons, Lee Michaelis, William Montero, Edith Nelson and Sis Polin. Melissa Anderson, Jamie Andrews, Wes Brandon, Herb Bryce, Sue Coulter-Armstrong, Craig Degginger, Todd Fiala, Maurice Hamington, Jan Hansen, Paul Herrick, Carolyn Hope, Tiffany Kopec, Sheila Long, Jack Malek, Paul Reed, Mary Reeve, Sophie Scheier, Mike Shelton, Judy Simon, KristaTenney, David and RoseannTousley, and LaNita Wacker.
I have studied materials regarding the possible SPU acquisition for the city of Shoreline from the city’s website, Local Control for Shoreline website and the No Blank Check website. The Shoreline City Council feels a responsibility to move the city forward for the good of its citizens. This case is no different. ALL seven of the city council voted to put this acquisition on the November ballot. Five of us have donated to the campaign that supports this acquisition and all council members have helped behind the scenes in one manner or another.
I believe as a city, we will look back and view SPU acquisition as one of the top accomplishments of this city. This acquisition ballot measure has been a long time coming and I believe it may be Shoreline’s only shot to break away from SPU. As we have the youngest “pipes” in their entire system, Shoreline will continue to be on the bottom of the maintenance plan as the rest of the SPU system averages well over 60 years old (reference: SPU 2013 Water System Plan and Shoreline Water System Engineering Review on city’s website and in Prop 1 information brochure, sent to all Shoreline residents in mid-October).
It doesn’t matter that SPU has reinvested some money back into Shoreline. It is not enough and it is not our fair share. After acquisition, all Shoreline revenue will be reinvested back into Shoreline. Experienced utility workers will be hired, not retrained staffers with little background in utility work. That’s just common sense.
Why VOTE YES for Shoreline Proposition 1?
Shoreline ratepayers west of I-5 will have 100% reinvestment back into Shoreline infrastructure.
Voters specifically mandate the acquisition price (refer to ballot measure in Voters Pamphlet).
Your water bill will NOT increase because of acquisition (refer to specifics in the ballot measure).
Shoreline will implement a “main replacement” program, thereby improving the system. SPU does NOT have a replacement program for Shoreline either now or in the foreseeable future (city of Shoreline website, SPU acquisition link).
Shoreline will join Edmonds, Bothell, and Everett who operate their own water utility; all at average annual bills lower than Shoreline Water District (independent water utility east of I-5).
The City of Shoreline has a long history of fiscal responsibility and conservative spending practices. They have earned the trust of the citizens (source: 2012 citizens survey, city website).
The City of Shoreline has THREE directors with previous experience in water utility management who will assist in overseeing transition from SPU. Experience matters and they have it!
Posts
9 comments:
This is very well presented with facts and documentation. It was sad that the townhall at Ronald Wastewater was scheduled, perhaps intentionally, when the resources of the City Council were involed in a meeting working on. the business of the city budget.
Trust us....we know what is best for you, your family and your money....trust us.
Alternatively, think for yourself and make a good decision.
Previously Councilmember McConnell has stated many times at public meetings, including a city council meeting, that she has not studied the 12 pounds of materials.
Interesting.
The main reason to VOTE NO on PROP 1, no matter how good may be the intentions of the present City Council, is that we Shoreline voters should err on the side of caution on this expensive undertaking that is based on such meager information and concerns the basic element of life - our water.
There are better alternatives that do not include the right to tax us for water, but this would mean putting local control into local agencies that do not have taxing power, instead of the City Council which does.
Per your comment Wolf I can only conclude that you believe it is better to continue having Seattle (which levies a 15% tax and no local control by Shoreline ratepayers) operate the water district than to pass control to the Shoreline City Council (which already has the right and does impose a 6% tax) but where there is some local control. Absolutely brilliant! But then if that is how you think and feel you surely should vote no.
Since my unfortunate statement, I have read more than the 12 pounds of material that was given to the steering committee. In fact I have read all the materials on both the pro and con websites,and a few other sources. I have not stated "MANY times at public meetings...that she has not studied the 12 pounds of materials"! Where do you think that telling lies about me will not be challenged? Just because I am a public figure, doesn't mean I am your doormat. It appears that remaining anonymous has it's advantages.
As an elected official, I am expected to be more unbiased in my analysis of everything that comes to the city council and as this is a huge decision, I can say that I have done more unbiased analysis than anonymous has. She should use her name....for credibility's sake. I take offense to comments by anyone who remains "anonymous" and certainly give them no credibility.
I have spoken with elected officials and SPU staff personally on this acquisition. Has "anonymous"? I feel confident that future discussions and votes of the Seattle City Council on this matter will remain regionally collaborative.
By the way, I submitted my editorial as a private citizen. I did not sign as a council member. I do not represent the views of the city or the rest of the council. SAN made an editorial decision to print it using my title. I was surprised of which I am not really surprised. They want to get readership up, and controversy sells. Not a problem unless someone attacks the credibility of the city or the Pro Campaign. SAN printed the body of my message word for word, but also left out the last 2 signature lines:
Doris McConnell
Thank You Shoreline!
And we all know that Doris is always credible..... right?
And we all know that you can count on Doris McConnell to give you the thoughtful, well-researched and truthful answers....right?
Just trust Doris McConnell and you know that the City of Shoreline will always look after your pocketbook.....right?
And Doris has always done her homework....... right?
If you believe all that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Good luck Shoreline ratepayers!
Doris your argument that you wrote as a private citizen might work if you did not miss a city council meeting, excused for being away for city-related business. That business was to attend the Ronald Wastewater Public Hearing on the SPU acquistion and make a presentation in support of the city takeover.
BTW, nice job trashing your friends at SAN.
Since you have now read all twelve pounds of material, Doris, please explain how table 2 EES financial analysis appendix for the annual water bill comparison shows that SPU residents in Shoreline or Seattle states that it is lower than Shoreline Water District yet everywhere else on the City of Shoreline SPU Acquistion states that SPU customers pay MORE than Shoreline Water District customers. I found this cast credibility on the report, errors such as the one I just flagged. I also checked with Shoreline Water District, and Table 2 is in error.
It makes me wonder what other mistakes were made in that report. How carefully did you read all 12 pounds of those reports? How come you didn't notice this mistake? Ever hear of garbage in-garbage out data? Let me explain that to you, if you use unreliable or erroneous error in your analysis (garbage in), you will get an unreliable report (garbage out).
Another problem I have seen in the City of Shoreline FAQs: They allege that SPU only spent $3 million on Aurora, however, the correct amount is $7 million - and 15-20% of it was bonded (borrowed). If Seattle is making all of this money, how come they had to borrow the money for the Aurora Project? Could it be that it wasn't in their 5-year water plan? And since it wasn't in their 5-year water plan but SPU spent it anyway, doesn't that mean Shoreline had local control in convincing SPU to spend $7 million on capital improvements? Tell me Doris, please, you didn't miss this mistake as well too.
I would like to apologize to SAN for the comment I made above. As a public figure, I learned that when I sign my name, the title is implied and my real displeasure was that others jumped to the conclusion that I was speaking in my official capacity and I was not. I have always found SAN to be fair in everything I have submitted. I guess my skin was not as thick as I thought. Sorry.
Post a Comment