Shoreline Incorporation: Part 2: Local actions leading to incorporation

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Investigation of Shoreline Incorporation and of discussions during incorporation regarding the Wastewater Utility

By Chris Eggen, Deputy Mayor, City of Shoreline

PART 2.  LOCAL ACTIONS LEADING TO INCORPORATION

Part 1 of this article discussed Shoreline before 1990 as a bedroom community of Seattle governed by King County without a lot of interference in local affairs, and discussed two political events that prevented King County from continuing in that role and therefore mandated that the government in the area now known as Shoreline would have to change. However, it was not clear what the change would be. The area could be annexed to another city or cities, it could incorporate, or it could conceivably be governed by some less formal entity than a city.

Following are the events that eventually led to incorporation of the city of Shoreline.

1. July 1991 – The Vision Shoreline Governance committee of the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce was formed to address the preferred governmental structure in Shoreline. The co-chairs were Scott Jepsen (later Mayor of Shoreline) and Mike Brownstein. Other members of this subcommittee that may be remembered by long-time Shoreline citizens were Connie King (later Mayor of Shoreline), Leonard Zornes, and Brian Wahl.  

This committee sponsored four public meetings and presented five options for governance in Shoreline, a do-nothing option, annexation to Seattle, formation of a township, a King County Community Council, and incorporation to form a new city. They reported a large majority of attendees favored incorporation. [“Vision Shoreline Governance Committee Final Report, Is it time for Incorporation”, Jan 9, 1992]

2. February, 1992 – “Vision Shoreline” was formed

Since they did not think it appropriate that Chamber of Commerce be involved in advocacy or campaigning, an independent, non-profit organization, “Vision Shoreline”, was formed to advocate and gather signatures for incorporation, and to campaign for a yes vote in the election that decided the issue. (Note the confusion in names between name of the Chamber committee and the name of the non-profit.) The co-chairs were Leon Zornes and Claudia Ellsworth. Connie King was on the executive committee. Brian Wahl was the campaign chair. Some individual supporters were Patty Butler, Herb and Gloria Bryce, Carolyn Edmonds, Bob Ransom, and Rick and Sheri Ashelman. Organizational supporters were the Chamber of Commerce, the 32nd District Democrats, the 32nd District Republicans, the Shoreline Rotary Board, the Richmond Beach Community Club Board, and the Firefighters Union.

Vision Shoreline started by holding a series of meetings and public events and by a fundraising campaign. They printed campaign material explaining incorporation and in 1993 started collecting signatures. They took full advantage of every opportunity to publicize their cause and developed a strong message on incorporation.  [Leon Zornes’ Vision Shoreline notes, Shoreline Museum]

3. 03/05/1993 - Vision Shoreline turned in 5155 signature in favor of a vote on incorporation. [Connie King’s Vision Shoreline folder, Shoreline Museum]  

4. 1993 – King County appointed a Shoreline Governance Committee 

This Committee included King County Councilmember Maggie Fimia, Claudia Ellsworth and Connie King. It examined four options for future governance in Shoreline and made a number of recommendations on future governance. It did not come out in favor of incorporation, since that was a decision of the people. However, it did recommend some changes in state law which at that time favored annexation to other cities over incorporation. The committee also made a number of recommendations about alternatives to incorporation. And it recommended local control for wastewater systems. (At the time there were two wastewater districts, one operated by Seattle Public Utilities.) Finally, the committee examined finances for the proposed city (but in less detail than the Boundary Review Board analysis) and concluded it was financially viable. [Shoreline Governance Strategy Committee Final Report, 6/30/1993]

5. 01/28/1994 – Washington State Boundary Review Board (BRB) for King County released the Shoreline Incorporation Study

This document contained a Core Financial Analysis that addressed two key questions.

  1. “Will the proposed city be fiscally sound? What revenues are certain? Which are Likely?  What costs are necessary to continue present service? What possible economies of scale are currently enjoyed by King County that would not be enjoyed by a new city either over time or during its initial years”
  2. “Would the proposed city be serviceable? Which services would the city provide for itself directly, which would it provide through contracting, and which would it have provided by others?  Would the pattern of service delivery change over time ….  And if so, how must the City’s budget accommodate such a change?”
The financial analysis was done using several presumptions. One such was stated as “Under the assumptions of this study, Shoreline would not provide water or sewer, therefore could not tax for service.  Comparable cities revenues from taxes on these utilities are not included …” 

The conclusion of the financial analysis was that the proposed city would be fiscally sound and would be serviceable. Since utility taxes were not included in the presumptions of the study, the BRB conclusion indicated that they were not necessary for financial viability. [Proceedings of the Boundary Review Board for King County, Re City of Shoreline Proposed Incorporation, File No. 1802, Resolution and Hearing Decision, Apr 19, 1994]

6. 04/28/1994 – King County Council passed Ordinance 11382 authorizing incorporation of Shoreline pending a public vote. 

This ordinance defined the boundaries for the new city. Initially, these did not include all of what is now Shoreline. Areas on the border of Shoreline and Lake Forest Park were excluded. (The final boundary between the two cities was not settled until 1997.)

7. 09/20/1994 - 8000 voters in Shoreline voted 76% yes for incorporation. [Seattle Post Intelligencer, 9/22/1994, “Shoreline - Another City where King County has been”, Gordy Holt and Dan Glosser]

The language of the ballot was “Shall the area of unincorporated King County commonly known as Shoreline and legally described in King County Ordinance 11382 be incorporated as a non-charter code city under the Council-Manager form of government?”  [Official Voters Pamphlet – Special Election, Sep 20, 1994, Proposed Shoreline Incorporation”]

Arguments for included:

  • Local Control of Surface Water Utility Revenues
  • Prevent annexation to Seattle and inclusion of the Shoreline School District and Shoreline Fire Department into the Seattle School Districts and Seattle Fire Department
  • County Designation as primary growth area could lead to increased density without any local control
Arguments against included:

  • Will lead to higher taxes
  • King County has been responsible Administrator
  • Shoreline Schools would not automatically be incorporated into Seattle School District
After the vote, the co-chair of Vision Shoreline was quoted on Sept 22, 1994 in the Seattle PI as follows:
“Leon Zornes, co-chairman of Vision Shoreline said winning 76 percent of the vote the first time out means “this was a community effort.”  He said the fear of losing the area’s school district and fire department were driving forces.
Zornes said residents also were frustrated at having to go into Seattle or Bellevue to deal with County government. 
He didn’t think Shoreliners were unhappy with King county, but he said they felt the county was “out of touch with Shoreline priorities.” And they wanted local control.”
(Sometime during the signature gathering and campaigning, Vision Shoreline had “Shoreline Incorporation” T-Shirts made. If any citizen has one of these T-Shirts, or even a photo of one, I would love to see it. Contact me.)

8. 04/25/1995 A new City Council was elected

The first City Council Members were Scott Jepson, Connie King, Robert L. (Bob) Ransom, Ron Hansen, Larry Bingham, Cheryl Lee, and Linda Montgomery. [Seattle Times, 4/18/95, “Council Election”]  The Council elected Connie King Mayor and Bob Ransom Deputy Mayor.

9. June, 1995 An interim government was formed

The Interim government constructed the legal and policy framework for the new city. Transition Teams were appointed for Public Safety, Parks, Library, Human Services, Arts, Heritage, Animal Control, Zoning, and Land Use, and Public Services to make recommendations for the workings of the departments of the new city. The Public Services transition team had a subcommittee focused on Utilities.  

The Shoreline Fire Department provided temporary office space for the new city.

10. August 31, 1995
The New City of Shoreline was formed and first city council was sworn in. This was followed by a large party at Shoreline Center. [Seattle Times, 8/31/1995]

Previously:
Part 1: Setting the stage for incorporation

Corrected 04-05-2014 9:17pm

4 comments:

Anonymous,  April 5, 2014 at 1:04 PM  

Quite astounding that the SAN has allowed a four part media blitz from Big Brother that is shaping up to be a 5000 word treatise. Will Editor Diane Hettrick allow equal time for rebuttal?

Stop this propaganda insult to the community right now! Write to the City Council (or email council@shorelinewa.gov), Demand the Ronald assumption be put to a vote of the people.

Tom Jamieson,  April 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM  

Deputy Mayor Eggen talks about revenue, but ignores costs. The BRB Shoreline Incorporation Study explains,

"This study distinguishes between an 'initial state' and a 'steady state.' During the initial state, the City would provide certain services but would contract with King County or others for the remaining services. In the steady state, the City would have assumed all of the services that it intends to provide, although it would still contract with King County or others for certain services. Predicting when the steady state occurs is impossible. One City may not assume all of the services it intends to provide until a decade after incorporation, while another may assume them within the first year. In general, Public Works-Roads and Police are the main services that are provided via contract with King County in the initial state but are later provided directly by the City in the steady state." [emphasis added]

A table on Page 33 of the study shows what the Boundary Review Board was told it could safely assume about the City's steady state vision for service providers, for the purpose of the Board's financial analysis. In that vision, the Fire, Water, Sewer, and Library services were to remain the responsibility of other governments (i.e., Shoreline Fire Department, Shoreline Water District, SPU, King County Library System).

If at the time of the incorporation study, the proponents intended the City to eventually assume or otherwise acquire any or all of these services, they grossly understated the cost projections for the City and misled the voters.

Anonymous,  April 5, 2014 at 2:40 PM  

Christian, you seem a little bewitched, bothered, and bewildered. The first council included Linda Montgomery, not Elizabeth Montgomery.

Anonymous,  April 5, 2014 at 4:22 PM  

Yeah, why is SAN allowing this 5000 wd campaign announcement by Chris (know it all)Eggen? He unfortunately made a big error. Linda Montgomery was on the Council for Two terms, not Elizabeth Montgomery! This is typical of Mr Eggen. He frequently gets his facts wrong.

Post a Comment

We encourage the thoughtful sharing of information and ideas. We expect comments to be civil and respectful, with no personal attacks or offensive language. We reserve the right to delete any comment.

ShorelineAreaNews.com
Facebook: Shoreline Area News
Twitter: @ShorelineArea
Daily Email edition (don't forget to respond to the Follow.it email)

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP