Investigation of Shoreline incorporation and of discussions during incorporation regarding the wastewater utility
By Chris Eggen, Deputy Mayor, City of Shoreline
PART 3. PROMISES DURING INCORPORATION REGARDING THE WASTEWATER UTILITIES
The reason I started this investigation of incorporation was because some citizens 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. In the process I uncovered a very interesting story that I detailed in the first two parts of this article. In the course of the discussion of incorporation in parts 1 and 2 of this article, I mentioned some documents that were generated during the campaign for incorporation which stated positions on assumption of wastewater facilities by the proposed city. In this part of the article I will provide more detail on statements made during incorporation that relate to the proposed city taking over wastewater. The bottom-line conclusion of this part of the article is that I found no evidence that any promise was made during the campaign for incorporation that the wastewater districts would remain independent.
The first statement regarding assumption is from 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 words quoted above from the GMA not only implied that some city would have to provide services in the Shoreline area, but also are interpreted by many to say that cities should provide utility services. Additionally, other parts of the GMA place mandates on cities that are difficult to accomplish without control of utilities within their boundaries. Specifically regional planning to accommodate projected growth requires the city to provide opportunity for expansion of housing and jobs. This is easier with control of utilities. For example, when the city of Shoreline was upgrading Aurora Avenue NE, it wanted to upgrade the sewer, water, and electrical lines under Aurora at the same time. Otherwise, building any future multifamily housing or new business would require digging up the street again to hook up to the utility connection points, which could be many blocks away. Digging up the streets would inconvenience motorists and might be prohibitively expensive for a commercial developer. However, the city had great difficulty getting the water, wastewater, and electric utilities to go along with upgrading when the street was open. It is not because the utilities are bad, but because they do not have any responsibility for transportation, housing, or business in Shoreline, and therefore they operate according to policies developed for other needs. If Shoreline controlled the utilities, it would be easier to fulfil the requirements of the GMA.
The second statement is Vision Shoreline’s position on the future of utilities during their campaign for incorporation. This was “Citizens and elected officials of city would decide which services would be provided and how services would be delivered. Our city could choose to deliver services through a city department, or contract with another government or with a private business.” [Vision Shoreline Flyer, “The next step – Incorporation”] This statement does not in any way promise independence of utilities after incorporation.
Third, there was a statement in the report of the Boundary Review Board report on the analysis of revenues and services for the proposed city that the board “presumed” that the wastewater districts then operating in the Shoreline area would continue to provide this service. Based on my experience in local government procedures, I believe that this presumption was made for two reasons. First, acquisition of the wastewater districts by the city was irrelevant to the question of city finance since state law requires that city utilities be operated entirely independently from other city services, provides a separate revenue source for the utility (i.e., utility fees), and prohibits money from being transferred from the utility to the city’s general fund. Second, making this presumption greatly simplified the analysis. In short, the statement in the report of the Boundary Review Board does not constitute either a commitment or a recommendation to the city to that the wastewater districts remain independent. There is one way a city can benefit financially from operating a utility, that is in applying a utility tax. However, the conclusion of the Boundary Review Board that the city was viable under the presumption that the city not assume the wastewater facility indicated that the city was not expected to be dependent on utility taxes to operate.
Fourth, there was a recommendation from the interim public works committee in 1995, AFTER the vote for incorporation, that the city not assume the sewer district at that time and that a thorough analysis of benefits and drawbacks be done if the city later decided to assume. Again this does not constitute a commitment to the voters that the city never assume the wastewater districts.
In conclusion I found no evidence that any promise was made during the campaign for incorporation that wastewater districts would remain independent. Additionally the text of the GMA provides some justification for the city taking over utilities.
Previously:
"There is one way a city can benefit financially from operating a utility, that is in applying a utility tax"
ReplyDeleteThere you have it, ladies and gentlemen.