The only way to Point Wells is through Ronald Wastewater, the sanitary sewer utility which serves Point Wells. The City wants to assume (take over) Ronald. They want to annex Point Wells. They want to strike a deal with the developer and with Snohomish County. The only way those parties would agree to anything is if the City of Shoreline offers them a better deal than they have now.
Next Monday, the Shoreline City Council will review its financial analysis, which it believes justifies its taking over the sanitary sewer utility, which has been run by another local government, the Ronald Wastewater District, for the past 61 years.
Your right to decide your fate vis-à-vis Point Wells is but one reason of many to demand a vote of the people on the question of assumption of the Ronald Wastewater District. Read my argument below. If you are persuaded that you should be allowed to vote on the matter, sign the petition, as I did: http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AiCHy
Institutional choices for service provision are complex. For each service, there are many decisions to be made in choosing the best service delivery option for a particular community. Should the service be provided by the private, non-profit, or public sector? If by public sector, should it be provided at the federal, state, or local level? If at the local level, should the choice be made by local government officials, private developers, or metropolitan residents? Once the decision has been made to provide the service through local government, and the decision maker has been decided, then and only then can a proper choice be made between special purpose government and general purpose government.
There are some 90,000 governments currently in existence in the United States. These include school districts, fire departments, utility districts, port authorities, library districts, cemeteries, and scores of others. To coalesce these into 50 states, 23,000 cities and towns, and 3,144 counties (a 70% reduction in governmental units) would be cost-prohibitive, and would be wrong. Special purpose governments provide substantial administrative and fiscal independence from general purpose local governments, thus limiting investment risk, and a dependency on fickle priorities based on competing interests for unrestricted funds. Districts have their proper place in this vast array. They are the right choice in many cases.
Find out what's happening in Shoreline-Lake Forest Parkwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Counties, cities and special purpose districts are all biased in favor of their own self-preservation. They cannot be expected to make the institutional choices outlined above. Only the state legislature and the citizens of the state have the ability and inclination to choose from the various institutional possibilities. And only the people of a particular community have the perspective and the right to make the local choice. The people reserve the right to dismantle the instruments we have created, including our institutions. The people should not surrender to their county or city government the power to assume the assets of their special purpose districts and the operation of those assets. Nor should they give the special purpose districts they have created the authority to abdicate on their responsibility by handing over their jurisdiction to the cities. The exception would be subordinate governments created ex officio, but such is not the case here. Past legislatures apparently have given local governments the power to horse trade our infrastructure, and this has caused much unrest and litigation within our communities.
A lot of the defense of utility assumption has centered around the Growth Management Act (GMA). However, a brief comparison of pertinent records at the city, county, and state level, readily reveals a stepwise, systematic distortion of the GMA when it comes to the provision of urban services. The GMA is comparing municipal and county government provision of governmental urban services. King County morphs this into a city vs. special district debate, and then the City of Shoreline morphs that into an assumption manifesto.
Find out what's happening in Shoreline-Lake Forest Parkwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Growth Management Act
Growth Management Act - Comprehensive Plans - Urban Growth Areas (RCW.36.70A.110)
(4) 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.
2012 King County County-Wide Planning Policies
Collaboration Among Jurisdictions
More than 100 special purpose districts, including water, sewer, flood control, stormwater, fire, school and other districts, provide essential services to the residents of King County. While cities are the primary providers of services in the Urban Growth Area, in many parts of the county special purpose districts also provide essential services. Coordination and collaboration among all of these districts, the cities, King County, the tribes, and neighboring counties is key to providing efficient, high‐quality and reliable services to support the Regional Growth Strategy.
...
PF‐3 Cities are the appropriate providers of services to the Urban Growth Area, either directly or by contract. Extend urban services through the use of special districts only where there are agreements with the city in whose Potential Annexation Area the extension is proposed. Within the Urban Growth Area, as time and conditions warrant, cities will assume local urban services provided by special service districts.
Shoreline City Council Business Meeting Staff Report - July 29, 2013
King County County-wide Planning Policies has a framework policy implementing the expected transformation of urban service delivery to cities:
Cities are the appropriate provider of local urban services to Urban Areas either directly or by contract… Within the Urban Area, as time and condition warrant, cities should assume local urban services provided by special purpose districts.
Clearly, something has been lost in translation.
The GMA addresses the question of which urban services should be provided in rural areas, and which in urban areas. It is concerned with planning for optimal land use by selected counties and cities, not with optimal government. This has been distorted like a game of telephone into a question of the demerits of special purpose districts. But such a question ought not be decided by rule. It must be decided in examination of the particulars, which is where assumption legislation always seems to originate. The Legislature and the local governments should should stay out of the business of legislating to particulars, lest they be corrupted. Leave such matters to the local control of the voters.
