By Evan Smith
State Sen. Maralyn Chase says that Shoreline City staff members distorted her views in a press release posted here April 18.
Chase said April 21 that city officials have continually misrepresented her views on her bill to prevent cities from absorbing utility districts without a public vote and on the history of the issue in the legislature.
She said that she wants to have a clear presentation of issues and to let people vote.
“If justice and fairness are on the city's side of the issue, the city, then, ought to be able to present an accurate statement about the necessity of their strategy,” she said. “The city would have a hard time convincing anyone they can run utilities more efficiently than Ronald or North City are operated.”
She said that the issue of cities assuming utilities is an old issue going back to 1971 in the modern era and to the constitution when Washington became a state.
“The state auditor conducts performance audits on this issue,” she noted. She said that the latest, titled ‘Local government allocating overhead costs" said this:
- "Our past audits have found cases in which cities charged their utility funds for general government services or for more than their share of the overhead, in essence shifting costs that should have been paid by their general funds onto utility ratepayers.’
Chase said that as municipalities increasingly face shrinking revenue, they commonly use utility or other dedicated funds to help pay for overhead services.
She said that the bill was not necessarily aimed at the City of Shoreline.
“Believe it our not, Shoreline is not the center of the state and other interests have a right to consideration,” she said. "But when their own consultants issue reports (Shoreline Water System Preliminary Business Plan, May 25, 2012) that cities 'apply additional surcharges to Shoreline ratepayers to fund capital improvements within the City,' the citizens start paying attention and call their legislators."
Chase added. “Just wait until the citizens start complaining about the 2 percent increase in the City Light franchise tax.”
Chase said that hook-up charges could be a big source of money.
“Point Wells represents about $15 million in hook-up charges should the development proceed,” she said. “Olympic View Utility District (centered around Edmonds) positioned itself to provide those hook-ups to the development. I believe it is about $5,000 per unit for 3,000 units.
“I represent Olympic View and Woodway, Richmond Beach and (part of) Snohomish County along with Shoreline,” she noted. “The City is mad that I didn't solely represent its position on this issue. Olympic View is also a wholesale customer of Seattle Public Utilities. Its inclusion in the process of that venture was one line in the City of Shoreline's preliminary business plan.”
Chase said that in the City of Sultan the ratepayers got so angry at the city they took the city to court over the allocation of other costs to the ratepayers in the utility district. “Last I heard, that case is still active. Ratepayers are angry all across the state about having the costs of the mayors and city councils allocated to the utility ratepayers when it should be a cost of the general fund. In the City of Granger the utility-tax rate has increased to 36 percent.
“Utilities are lifeline services,” she said. “We all have to have them, rich and poor alike. But they are regressive taxes and our state has the most regressive tax system in the entire United States. It is time for all elected officials to demand transparency in our tax system and work for fairness and equity. It has to start somewhere.
“I was asked in the Local Government Committee if I thought every increase in taxes ought to be submitted to the voters,” she said. “I replied that I did not. But if a proposed tax increase has become an issue of contention, put it to the voters and settle it and move forward. Not too much to ask for when people think they have a democratic right to vote."

And the City of Shoreline staff continues to work against its own residents on Point Wells, utility takeovers, etc. Are any members of the public aware of the fact that the City Council just reduced public comment at their meetings (AGAIN) on Monday night? It's not like it's standing room only at the council meetings, in fact, they are poorly attended. Or that the council has been using dinner meetings as workshop meetings for the past two years in violation of its own rules that they only got around to amending last night? Have they been holding their workshop sessions at dinner meetings because their is no public comment and no audio and/or video taping of the meetings (meaning their is no accountability for the councilmembers, the mayor, and deputy mayor)? Probably, and the council has been aided and abetted by the city staff.
ReplyDeleteI keep hearing all of these compplaints about the City Council, yet opponents let let two council members run unopposed in the 2013 election and one run with a token opponen.
ReplyDeleteWhere were candidates who favored a different tactic on Point Wels?
What hapeed to the days of spirited council campaigns?
You mean, where is the guy who during the last election campaign said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."? Or the incumbent who stated flatly that an assumption would require a public vote? Or the woman who said that the Ronald Assumption decision was a product of a previous Council, but obviously the issue needed to be reopened? What happened to these candidate? They were all elected.
ReplyDeleteWhy did the city councilmembers run unopposed Evan? Maybe it passed you by, but Shoreline has a reputation, entirely deserved, for having the dirtiest local elections in terms of mud slinging started by Progress Shoreline about ten years ago. Why would any reputable citizen subject themselves to the character assassination that has become part and parcel of every local office (which means school district, city council and even special purpose district) election held in Shoreline? I have been at a public hearing where a city councilmember characterized citizens who did not agree with city policy as "haters" and "bitter" because they were not on board with her opinions, and has been part of the decision process to curtail public comment. If you haven't noticed Evan, Shoreline citizens have become indifferent and have given up on the so-called public process.
ReplyDeleteYou can trust Sen Chase on this one, you DO want to vote against the city taking over your special purpose districts, the cost is way too high and all you get is really high bills for nothing gained. The city is already taxing your water bills, they just want to gouge you a little more if they have you as direct service customers because then they don't have to ask the water board for permission to increase that tax.
ReplyDelete