Shoreline incorporation and the Wastewater Utility - Part 1 Setting the Stage for Incorporation

Investigation of Shoreline incorporation and of discussions during incorporation regarding the wastewater utility

Part 1: Setting the Stage for Incorporation

By Chris Eggen, Deputy Mayor, City of Shoreline

Recently, some citizens who were concerned about the possibility that the City of Shoreline might assume Ronald Wastewater commented that they were promised during the campaign for incorporation that the sewer district would remain independent. This prompted me to investigate the events that surrounded the incorporation of Shoreline. I looked at documents at the Shoreline museum and in the City of Shoreline archives. While doing this, I became very interested in the events that led up to incorporation. I am writing this four-part article both to share my findings regarding promises on assumption and to share the story I learned about incorporation. First, I would like to give my thanks to the Shoreline Historical Museum Director Vickie Stiles for diligence in storing our historical documents making them accessible to researchers, and to Shoreline City manager Debbie Tarry for helping find and share relevant archival information.

The first two parts will address incorporation since I think that will be very interesting to most Shoreline citizens. The third part will share my findings regarding any promises regarding the independence of the local sewer districts. The bottom-line is that I found no evidence that any promise was made during the campaign for incorporation that wastewater districts would never become part of the City of Shoreline.

Finally I will close with the fourth part of the article speculating about what might have happened if Shoreline had not incorporated.

I will start by talking briefly about Shoreline before 1990. This will be based mainly on my personal memory and on discussions with other residents of Shoreline and only a little on research on this project. I invite other Shoreline citizens to contribute any information that I may have missed.

I grew up in Greenwood in Seattle, and only bought a home and moved to Shoreline after returning from the Air Force in 1973. Like many others I and my wife moved to Shoreline at least partly because the School District had a great reputation. Another reason was that I was attending graduate school and Interstate 5 provided easy access to the University of Washington. In my first three years in Shoreline I worked part time, attended graduate school, and shared time raising my son. I simply considered the area as a safe, wholesome, pleasant place to live. Like many other residents I did not think of it as being a distinct community.

However, there were a number of local organizations that did contribute to a distinct community identity. There was an active Chamber of Commerce, and a Metropolitan Parks district. There was also a Junior Chamber of Commerce, which I joined in the early 80’s. However the most important local organization that engendered a distinct community identity was the Shoreline School District. People who were active in the school district or PTA did have a feeling of local identity, particularly as distinct from Seattle, where the ratings of the schools were much worse than the Shoreline School District and where children were being bussed to school miles from home. Many of these people remembered that in the 50’s, Seattle had annexed north to 145th St and all the area south of 145th that had been in the Shoreline School District had been transferred to the Seattle School District. People who were active in the Shoreline School District were determined to avoid becoming part of Seattle. But this possibility was not of a great deal of concern because there had been no large annexations since the 50’s. All in all, the Shoreline area appeared to be content being in unincorporated King County. 

Two political events changed this. 

1. 09/06/1990 – Washington State passed the Growth Management Act (GMA). 

The GMA, in RCW 35.70A.110 (4), states: ”In general, cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, it is not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban development.” (The Act specifies that "Urban governmental services" or "urban services" include those public services and public facilities at an intensity historically and typically provided in cities, specifically including storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems, street cleaning services, fire and police protection services, public transit services, and other public utilities associated with urban areas and normally not associated with rural areas.) [RCW 35.70A.30(18)] The significance to incorporation was that because of the GMA, some city would be needed provide services in the Shoreline area. King County could no longer do it.

2. 09/06/1990 to 11/02/1992 – The King County and Metro Governments were reconstituted and in the process King County clarified the status of unincorporated urban areas. 

On 09/06/1990, US Western District Court Judge William Dwyer ruled that the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle as then constituted was illegal because it did not provide for equal voting for all residents. [http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?displaypage=output.cfm&file_id=5338] In response, the King County Council initiated a process to merge METRO and King County and pass many functions of the old METRO Council to three regional committees with significant suburban city membership. After a failed public vote and some changes in the proposed merged government, this reconstituted King County was approved by voters on November 2, 1992. 

In this process, King County clarified policy regarding unincorporated areas. One issue that was addressed in depth was the services provided to unincorporated urban areas. Metro designated King County North of Seattle as an urban growth area and thereby stated its intent to not provide urban services to Shoreline. [King County Regional Governance Summit Report to the Public, June 26, 1991]

With these two events it was clear that change was coming to this area. Our long period as a bedroom community of Seattle administered by the relatively benevolent government of King County without a lot of interference in local affairs was over. However, the nature of the new governmental structure was not clear. Three surrounding cities expressed interest in annexing parts of the unincorporated King County between Seattle and the county line. These were Seattle, Edmonds, and Mountlake Terrace. Another possibility was incorporation of all or part of the area into one or more new cities. There were also other options that were mentioned to provide some of the urban services with a rural township or some other informal governmental structure, although it was not clear that this sort of government would actually be legal.