Showing posts with label op-ed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label op-ed. Show all posts

Op-Ed: Common Core / Smarter Balanced - Opt to be Constructive

Friday, March 20, 2015


Marianne Stephens is a Shoreline parent, longtime school volunteer, tutor, and former college writing instructor.

By Marianne Deal Stephens

I set out to be Switzerland on the Common Core/ Smarter Balanced matter. From the time I attended the OSPI's presentation at the Shoreline Center in 2010, I have tried to see the positives and withhold judgment. My perspective was pretty close to what the recent Seattle Times Editorial encourages.

Then, I saw the test materials. I am no longer neutral, but neither am I outraged.

As I see it, there is a spectrum of possible reactions, with passive acceptance on one end and outright rejection at the other.

My student will take the tests, and I will continue to educate myself. My perspective will continue to develop, but right now I think that, while the Common Core itself is a decent idea, the Smarter Balanced tests have major pedagogical problems.

I predict that the controversy stirring in other parts of the country -- and boiling up in Seattle -- will surface here in Shoreline in the next few weeks as our kids take the tests. However, the last thing I want to do is incite outrage. 

First, even though people might know them by now, some definitions.

The Common Core State Standards were brought about by a group of states wanting to provide commonality among the 50 states' educational standards. 

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) refers to the testing system that Washington State adopted. About half of the states that have adopted Common Core use Smarter Balanced (see SBAC Member States), and about half use the PARCC assessment, Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers

And, some clarifications about my perspective. 

The Shoreline School District and our teachers are not to blame. 

Local educators are administering a set of standards and an assessment system that have been passed to them. Their task -- local delivery of education -- is infinitely more complex than delivering a physical product.

Teachers I know care so much about their students' success that they have done extensive research of the Common Core Standards, taken the SBAC practice tests, altered their approach, and lost plenty of sleep worrying on their students' behalf.

Teachers are in a difficult place: with student outcomes dependent on the tests, teachers will to what they can to help students succeed even though many would privately express professional dissatisfaction with the tests. 

Opting out may not be the best reaction.

While I share parents' concerns about testing and see problems with the Smarter Balanced tests, I am not convinced that opting out is the best way to protest. Much of the current angst over testing centers on the opting out issue rather than the merits or demerits of the tests.

Let's test the test. If all of our kids take the tests and the tests are a complete flop, then we have useful data and can possibly throw the darn things out. If large numbers of families opt out, test results will be piecemeal, and any problems may be attributed to insufficient data. 

Any criticism we parents have of the Smarter Balanced tests -- and I anticipate that we will have plenty -- will be more credible if we have experience with the tests.

The next few weeks will be a big experiment in our school district. Let's support our students and our teachers since they are playing difficult central roles in this experiment. We can probably all agree on the importance of critical thinking skills in this day and age; perhaps we can demonstrate those skills ourselves in constructive discussions about the Common Core and Smarter Balanced Tests. 

In my next column, I will look at the Smarter Balanced Fourth Grade English Language Assessment. It's a doozy. 

For more information:



Read more...

Op Ed: The recent Lake Forest Park budget process, the value of the Mayor’s veto, and remaining issues

Thursday, December 18, 2014

By Myra Gamburg, Chair of Lake Forest Park Gov Watch, an informal citizens' political group in Lake Forest Park

In the Lake Forest Park Council’s press release to the Shoreline Area News on November 29, (view here) the Council describes its unanimous budget votes at the Friday, November 28th Special Council Meeting as “the continued cohesion of the council members working as an effective government body, and keeping their commitments for balanced, sustainable, transparent and clear information in the development and adoption of the 2015 budget.” Unfortunately, on both November 24th and 28th, Council cohesion fell short of delivering on some of these commitments. 

On November 24, Council Members unanimously approved Ordinances 1089 and 1086 without even acknowledging the Mayor’s concerns in her Alternative Levy and Alternative Budget Ordinances. Consequently, Mayor Goss vetoed both ordinances. Her grounds were transparency, credibility, and fiscal responsibility, forcing a special meeting November 28th.

Regarding the property tax levy, it was discovered in mid-November that during the past three cycles, due to a reporting mistake, the City had charged residents more than the 1% allowed by state law. The Mayor’s Alternate Levy Ordinance sought correction. After some discussion, although recognizing the mistake, on Nov 28th, the Council overrode the Mayor’s veto. 

We believe failing to correct the City’s errors would be tantamount to back-door taxation. This is not a matter of a small amount overcharged individual households, but of ethics and public trust in our Council.

Regarding the biennium budget, the Mayor’s concerns are related to deficit spending. Rather than using soft revenue beginning January 1, 2015 from new traffic cameras (still in the permitting process), she believes the Council should have waited to amend the budget next year when hard revenues from the cameras become available. Her budget did not include revenues from the new cameras due to uncertainty as to when they would be installed and how much revenue they would generate. The principal goal is to maintain current services in the amount needed to insure sustainability going forward. There is concern the City will not have the 12% reserve available to put into the General Fund to cover services as of 2017. 

Council added more than $150,000 to the budget for new projects. It took the Mayor’s veto to elicit acknowledgement that projected funds might not be available for these projects, thereby necessitating last minute cuts or face deficit spending. During the November 28 Special Meeting, individual Council Members promised not to go forward with these projects if the revenue failed. Several Members asked the residents to “trust us,” then voted unanimously to override the Mayor’s veto.

We appreciate the progress our City Council has made to build on collegial working relationships to further the City’s well-being. However, if there is to be trust, we expect respect for the Mayor’s and residents’ concerns, that promises individual members made on November 28th will be kept, and that new projects will not be initiated before revenue is available. We also expect the City to correct mistakes inadvertently made by accounting errors related to property taxation for the past three cycles. 


Read more...

Op-Ed: A Statement of Expectations Regarding Deliberations and Decisions on Point Wells

Wednesday, September 10, 2014


Within the next few months, there will no shortage of hot topics cooking in the cauldron of Point Wells. Issues in the mix include the Transportation Corridor Study (TCS), Second Access Road Requirements, Tolling, and Environmental Impact Statement.

In anticipation of these deliberations, Richmond Beach Advocates (RBA) and Save Richmond Beach (SRB) developed the following Statement of Expectations regarding deliberations and decisions on Pont Wells.

We expect the City of Shoreline to:

· Make policy and administrative decisions consistent with their declared priority to reduce the scale and traffic impact of Point Wells.

· Subject every important topic to a rigorous examination that considers all alternatives to the proposed course of action, including review by third-party experts and by the Shoreline community.

· Accord all third-party reviewers enough time to provide quality input that will inform the City’s deliberations.

· Work with third-party experts and the Shoreline community to make revisions through an iterative process until the City concludes that all concerns have been adequately addressed.

· Make available on a timely basis all public records on the topic being considered by the City of Shoreline.

What you can expect from Richmond Beach Advocates and Save Richmond Beach

· Be steadfast in our pursuit to maintain the quality of life and character of the greater Richmond Beach community.

· Remain steadfast in our pursuit to reduce the scale and associated traffic impact of the Point Wells development.

· Hold the City staff and City Council accountable to the expectations stated above.

· Provide leadership in submitting each topic we identify to a thorough, rigorous examination. Such examination may include review by third-party experts and input from the Shoreline community.

· Periodically inform the community on important timelines and decisions.

Applying these expectations to the topics we mentioned above, SRB and RBCA look forward to working with the City of Shoreline to find solutions that advance our mutual goal to reduce the scale and traffic impacts at Point Wells.


Read more...

Op-Ed: Ridgecrest Neighborhood weighs in on light rail station at 145th

Friday, June 13, 2014

Planning is beginning for the light rail station at 145th and residents are urged to come to planning meetings and express their opinions

My name is Stefanie Gendreau. I am writing this letter on behalf of the Ridgecrest Neighborhood Association (RNA) Board of Directors, to express our opinions regarding the light rail station at 145th Street, the proposed parking structure, and what we envision for our neighborhood in the future.

The development of this project will result in an unfortunate loss of homes for some of our residents and a unexpected change in lifestyle for others, so we are sensitive to the challenge this change brings to a number of our neighbors. Although some of us still feel a station at 155th would have served the residents of southern Shoreline more effectively, without a doubt, we are excited about light rail coming to Shoreline and the potential benefits to the Ridgecrest neighborhood.

Ridgecrest is the largest single-family neighborhood in Shoreline and we are proud of it. We are an eclectic mix of long-time homeowners who raised families and retired here and new, first-time homeowners with young families, that moved here for the schools and neighborhood atmosphere. We watch movies at the Crest and drink coffee at Cafe Aroma. We are walkers, runners, bicyclists, and park-goers, and we criss-cross our neighborhood streets with regularity. Change is coming, but our neighbors are adamant that the safety, sense of community, and single-family identity not be trampled by poorly planned transit and overwhelming development.

The City of Shoreline has a huge opportunity to implement forward-thinking transit ideas and plan for elegant density. For many reasons, we strongly encourage the City Council and staff to reconsider their support of a 500+ space parking structure. The result of an endless stream of individual commuters flowing from cities outside of Shoreline into our small neighborhood will overwhelm the capacity of our residential streets, strain the resources of our City, and greatly affect the quality of life of our neighbors. Instead, we would propose a much smaller garage in conjunction with a residential parking permit system and offer these ideas to effectively move commuters to and from the light rail station:

  • Increase the capacity of existing park and ride lots in Shoreline and Seattle.
  • Expand the number of park and ride lots, utilizing many large, empty church parking lots, including in the Parkwood Neighborhood and in North Seattle on 5th and 15th NE.
  • Implement a robust shuttle system from park and ride lots and area business hubs.
  • Encourage bicycle commuting by enhancing existing trails and establishing new routes utilizing neighborhood parks and side-streets.
  • Secure the safety of pedestrian and bicycle commuters by insisting on a pedestrian/bike bridge over I-5, connecting communities west of I-5 to the station and over 145th, connecting to the new trails that circumvent Jackson Park.
  • Insist on a large amount of bicycle storage space available at the station.
  • Implement "pay to park" for vehicles, again to encourage alternate methods of reaching the station.

We understand that ridership requirements exist for each station to make the stop financially viable but turning the largest Shoreline neighborhood into a car-centric transit hub for the region doesn't benefit the citizens of Ridgecrest, Parkwood, or Shoreline. We implore the Council to make bold moves now to protect what our citizens love about Shoreline neighborhoods.

Now that Otak has been secured as the consultant for the 145th station area, we will work to communicate our vision of compact, mixed-use development of the main thoroughfares, connecting to the 165th/5th NE business hub, with a focus on independent and local businesses.

Regardless of varying opinions about garage size or density planning, we are unanimous in what is important to the residents of the Ridgecrest Neighborhood;

  • A station design that does not overpower the single-family neighborhood.
  • Inclusion of a green space around the station to offset the loss of a portion of Ridgecrest Park.
  • A multi-use community space as mitigation for parking structure.
  • A parking structure that has adequate and safe facilities for bicycles (access, storage, etc.).
  • An effective solution for traffic control, including enhanced signal controls.
  • The development of a robust sidewalk and biking network on both main and residential streets.
  • An increase in street lighting and effective crosswalk signals.
  • Effective noise mitigation, including the detailed study of sound that travels up the ridge, (hence our RIDGEcrest name) into the heart of our neighborhood.
  • The addition of mature trees and plantings to replace trees that will need to be removed and to help alleviate sound impacts.
  • More frequent service by KC Metro during peak travel times, with a focus on an increase of east/west routes.

As the project moves forward, the Ridgecrest Neighborhood Association will continue to be part of the visioning process and will work within our neighborhood to be a conduit for information between our residents and both Sound Transit and the City of Shoreline.

We are both excited and optimistic that we can work together to create a successful segment of the Link light rail system through Shoreline that best serves Shoreline residents (more specifically Ridgecrest Neighborhood residents) and enhances regional mobility for all.



Read more...

Op-Ed: Sound Pollution, or not... the choice is ours to make

Monday, April 21, 2014

Garbage removed from water by Edmonds Marine
Photo copyright Marc Weinberg

Text and photos, Marc Weinberg

Over the past week I've seen two startling examples of pollution. Both were so dramatic and startling that I could not let them be in the background of my mind.

I was told that a high school sponsored a dive at the Edmonds Marine to collect things off the bottom of one small area near the walkway to the fishing pier and the first set of boat slips near by.  The haul that surfaced can speak for itself.  The cell phones that were collected are obviously the result of an accidental mishap, but the rest was intentionally thrown into the water. What were they thinking .... obviously they were not, or worse yet didn't care.

A rainbow river down the drain
Photo copyright Marc Weinberg


Saturday I went to Ballinger Village for an item and was further reminded about how important it is to protect our environment and Puget Sound. If more people cared it would help. If more people took action, scenes like this would not exist. In the meantime Shoreline and other cities are left with the task of monitoring and cleaning surface water runoff, if indeed they can and do. I know it probably isn't in the budget, but it surely should be. Cleaning up our neighborhood is every person's job. Let's get to work!


Read more...

Op-Ed:State Superintendent Randy Dorn frustrated with the 2014 Legislature

Saturday, March 15, 2014

On Thursday, March 13, the 2014 Legislature adjourned. Below is a statement from State Superintendent Randy Dorn on its progress this session.

Randy Dorn, State
Superintendent of
Public Education
In July, when the Legislature needed two special sessions to pass an operating budget, I expressed uncertainty. About $1 billion was added to basic education was a start but was $400 million short of what the state needs to stay on track to satisfy McCleary v. Washington.

The adjournment of the 2014 Legislature has turned my uncertainty to frustration.

Legislators had three education responsibilities this session. They needed to add the $400 million to basic education. They needed to come up with a plan to meet McCleary by 2018, as the Supreme Court directed in a Jan. 9 order. And they needed to pass a bill to secure our state’s No Child Left Behind waiver.

They did none of those things. In my estimation, they failed in their duty: to the state Constitution, to voters and most important to our public school students.

There are two biennia left until the state must fully fund basic education. According to the Quality Education Council — a group the Legislature created to make funding recommendations – the Legislature is still about $7 billion short of meeting McCleary. There are only two biennial budgets remaining until 2018. Where will that $7 billion come from?


Read more...

Op-Ed: The Y - A Cause Worth Investing In

Monday, January 27, 2014


By Pearl Noreen
Board Member
Annual Campaign Chair
Dale Turner Family YMCA


Recently, the Y commissioned a consumer survey – the Y Community Snapshot – to measure how Americans view quality of life in their communities nationwide. The survey was based on several factors, such as community member involvement and the quality of a community’s services, ranging from education to public safety.

Interestingly, the survey revealed a 30 percent gap between what people say is most important in creating a strong community and how satisfied they are with their own communities in those areas. For example, Americans report that a safe environment for children and assistance for struggling community members (job training, food pantry, etc.) were important for building a strong community; however, they rate their own community low in these same areas.

When asked for the solution to closing this gap, survey respondents held themselves accountable. Survey respondents feel it is important – now more than ever – to contribute their time and money to community causes (an 8 percent and 10.5 percent increase from 2012.) They expect more from their community – and each other.

I agree, and that’s why I believe the Y is a cause worth investing in. The Dale Turner Family YMCA is launching its Annual Campaign to help ensure that all of our neighbors have the opportunity to learn, grow and thrive. This is an ideal time for our community to learn more about the work of the Y and its ability to help us reach our goals.

Throughout Shoreline, countless people know the Y, but there’s so much more to the Y than one might think. From athletics to academic achievement, summer camp to senior activities and volunteerism to violence prevention, the Y doesn’t just strengthen bodies, it strengthens community. Every day, the Y works to support the people and neighborhoods that need it most by addressing critical community issues, such as summer learning loss, diabetes prevention and food insecurity.

For example, the Y is committed to helping youth prepare for college, career and life. Over the summer months when children don’t have the opportunity to engage in enriching activities, many fall behind in areas like reading and math. In Seattle, one in four teens will not graduate on time. If learning loss is avoided at the elementary grade level – through both the Y’s school year and summer academic programs – Shoreline students can achieve long-term academic success.

The Y is also a leading voice on health and well-being issues and a leader in fighting chronic disease. With 7.2 percent of King County’s population diagnosed with diabetes and an estimated 21.6 living with pre-diabetes, the Y is working to empower those at risk through its Diabetes Prevention Program. This program can help people with pre-diabetes cut their risk in half through moderate weight loss and healthy eating.

The Y also acts as a network between neighborhoods, so that those in need can be connected to those with resources. For example, the prevalence of hunger has climbed in our state and rates of food insecurity are higher in households with children. The Y works with organizations such as United Way and Boys and Girls Clubs of King County to ensure that kids and families in our community have access to nutritious meals. When children eat well, both their health and academic achievement improve.

Through this work and so much more, the Dale Turner Family Y staff, volunteers and financial supporters demonstrate daily that the Y is more than a place, it’s a cause. The Y is grateful to all of its generous donors, but it needs help from more community members and partners to continue and expand its vital work. Please join me in giving of your time, talent and resources to support the Y during its Annual Campaign and year-round.

About the Y Community Snapshot

The Y Community Snapshot was conducted online by Toluna between February 20 and 25, 2013 and is an opinion survey of 1,500 online interviews with U.S. adults aged 18+ conforming to U.S. Census parameters for age, gender, and region of residence. The survey has a total of 30 questions and a +/- 2.5 - 2.75% margin of error at 95% confidence for demographic, behavioral, attitudinal and other subgroups within the survey. 

For more information, or to see additional survey results, please visit ymca.net.


Read more...

Op-Ed: Ronald Wastewater and the City’s Assumption

Friday, October 25, 2013

This is a personal statement from Robert L. (Bob) Ransom, MS, MPA, Retired Human Resource Director/Consultant (SPHR), former City Councilman and Mayor (2006-2008), and current Commissioner Ronald Wastewater District

By Robert L. Ransom

In 1999 to 2002 the City of Shoreline had the opportunity to take over Seattle Public Utility- Sewer as its utility. The City was created in 1995 and it still had a small staff and was building its organization. I was there as a city Councilman and participated in the negotiations and Inter-Local Agreement and contract.

The very small district that is now Ronald Wastewater was mostly Richmond Beach at that time. They argued to let them expand and do the connections and infrastructure and allow the City to assume them as a Utility in 15 years, when the City government was more developed. RCW 35.13A  allows for a City to assume a Utility District that is 60 % within its territory or 60% of its assessed valuation is within the City. It also allows for a City Council and a District Commission  to mutually agree to an assumption without a public vote. Both rules apply to Ronald which is almost entirely within the City’s territory and both groups had legal counsel to advise them. The City Council and Ronald’s General Manager Phil Montgomery, Commission President Arthur  Wadekamper, and Commission Secretary Arnie Lind signed it. Thus agreeing to the assumption in October 2002.

RCW 35.13A was passed in 1971 as the state law, and there have been many attempts to change the law since then, but none have passed the legislature. The efforts were principally to change the law to require a public vote, but that change has never been passed. Please note that nothing in the Inter-local Agreement Contract refers to or requires a public vote, but does have written binding requirements on the Ronald District about its assumption. Also, note the purchase of SPU – Water was approved by 70.5% vote of the public in 2012.

Now Arthur Wadekamper, a retired GS 14 IRS auditor and University graduate; and Arnie Lind, a claimed small manufacturing retired executive and university graduate, say they did not know what they were signing when they signed it. They want to nullify the contract agreement but keep all of the expanded sewer connections. They have by majority vote decided to sue the City of Shoreline to try to get out of the contract.

Ronald’s Financial Reserves – allegation’s are made that the City wants the District's $6 million in reserve for their use. Nothing in the RCW allows any City to move the Utility Reserves from the utility account to the general fund. The City is subject to annual audits by the State Auditor who will ensure the money will only go for Utility expenses. Yes, in some cases Cities have borrowed some of the money but it has to be strictly accounted for to the State auditor, and the time table to pay it back. The money will only go for Utility expenses.

Rationale for Assumption and Utility Taxes -  First the Growth Management Act and King County Policies actively encourage Cities to be full service Cities and include Water and Sewer services along with the normal Police, Fire, Parks, and Building Permits, along with storm water and garbage utilities. Of the 281 Washington Cities 141 (50+%) have water and/or sewer utilities and 90%  have both. The frequent claim is Cities want it for additional revenue is false. It is to provide a service to the community by having one policy and one stop shopping for business development. Little districts frequently inhibit & stop development with different policies and procedures on development. The Cities have the right for a Franchise fee for working in their right of way and usually charge a 6% fee, and over 50% of the Cities with Utilities only charge 6% or less when it is changed to a Utility Tax –the same amount as the Franchise fee.

Yes, a few small cities such as Granger, Wapato, and Zillah charge over 30% and when one asks why it is usually an agreement with the rate payers so they can pay for full time Police Officers. The City of Shoreline has been very fiscally responsible to the public. They have never charged more than the normal 6% for a franchise fee or a Utility tax when eligible. YOUR RATES WILL NOT GO UP IF THE City of SHORELINE ASSUMES THE DISTRICT, ONLY King County Sewage Treatment charges may go up. With Business Development your property taxes will be lowered. Remember, you rate payers are the people who elect the City Council Members.


Read more...

Op-Ed: Setting the record straight about the 46th LD Democratic organization

Tuesday, October 22, 2013


(The authors are responding to comments posted by an anonymous person on a previous story.)

We are writing to correct some information posted to your site on October 15th. The 46th District Democrats is current with 2013 reports to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC). We are now updating reports from May 2012 – December 2012. As we disclosed to the PDC earlier this year, the 46th LD is behind on these reports due to the serious, life-threatening illness of our former treasurer. Once the 46th LD board knew of this reporting lapse, we immediately informed the PDC and presented a plan for getting caught up on our PDC reporting.

Because we took responsibility and presented a plan, the 46thLD is not facing any fines. The anonymous comment on your website is not accurate and we are writing today to correct this misinformation.

We appreciate the public service the Shoreline Area News provides to our community by covering local races and issues and look forward to continuing our own service to the area. Our goal in the 46th Legislative District is to elect and support Democrats who wish to serve at every level of public office. During the last year our district has grown to include Lake Forest Park and Kenmore, as well new school districts and other governing bodies. It has been a year of learning for us and we look forward to an improved process in future election cycles. Elections in small cities function differently than in a large city like Seattle, so we are adjusting our timetables and plans to better serve our entire district.

As we all live in an area where the large majority is allied with the Democratic Party, many local races are contests between our members and friends. This is not always easy and in our organization, we strive to promote respect and good citizenship even when we disagree.

“Good people can disagree without being disagreeable,” Barry Goldwater, yes, a Republican, once said.

We encourage your readers to approach all candidates with respect and an appreciation for their willingness to serve – especially in local offices in which they serve without compensation.

Sabrina Hill, 46th LD Chair
Betty Means, 46th LD Treasurer


Read more...

Op-ed: Shoreline Coalition for Open Government launches

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

By Jerry Patterson, Founder, Shoreline Coalition for Open Government


The recently launched Shoreline Coalition for Open Government (ShoreCOG) acts as an independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to promoting and defending the Public’s right to know in matters of public interest and in the conduct of the public’s business. We modeled ShoreCOG after the highly respected Washington Coalition for Open Government.

To learn more about our mission and to register as a Founders level supporter of the Shoreline Coalition for Open Government, go to the Shoreline COG and click on “Join Now.”

ShoreCOG will focus energy on four very specific goals:
  1. Speak and act on behalf of the public's rights in matters where Shoreline open government concerns are raised. 
  2. Conduct Open Government public workshops and forums in the Shoreline Community to educate the public, public officials, and the media. The workshops focus on government accessibility as provided in the various statutes that assure such access and accountability from our public agencies. 
  3. Build a local, grassroots network of Shoreline citizens committed to ShoreCOG’s goals.
  4. Establish professional, productive relationships and open communication with local elected officials.

These goals clearly reflect that ShoreCOG is not exclusively a ‘gotcha’ government watchdog group. While our recent filing of an amicus brief in the Supreme Court Review of the Point Wells issues shows that we are not afraid to take a stand when open government issues surface, it would be fantastic if we can eventually fully achieve all of our goals, fold our tent, and then enjoy all the sunshine intended by our sunshine laws.

In the meantime we stand ready to make presentations to community and neighborhood groups about the People’s right to know.


Read more...

Op-Ed: Time to bridge rift between city and neighborhood

Monday, September 9, 2013

by Susan Will, Richmond Beach Community News editor

Communications between the City of Shoreline and the Richmond Beach neighborhood are broken. There is a vacuum – a black hole – where too much information disappears and critical, long-term knowledge seems to have been lost.

Who does this serve when it comes to Point Wells?

Let me be blunt. There are uncomfortable facts both sides need to swallow whole and without bitterness if we want a shot at something even a bit more palatable.

The good news? Neither side is satisfied with the status quo. So let’s say what needs to be said and lay it to rest so we can move forward with more purpose.

Being clear on basic premises would focus Richmond Beach residents on better impacting how the project unfolds. May not be fluffy tap-dancing kittens, but neither is it really news.

Development at Point Wells has been inevitable for some decades now. Inevitable because this is a rare piece of Puget Sound waterfront and there are property owner rights protected by law. No jurisdiction – no county, city or town – can unduly delay or limit development permitted by law.

This is not the City of Shoreline’s project. It has no official role and essentially has the same input devices afforded individuals under the environmental review process.

The only access is through Shoreline. The City of Shoreline has primary responsibility (now and in perpetuity) for maintaining public amenities in our neighborhood. As Shoreline taxpayers, it will cost us even more if Point Wells is not annexed by the City of Shoreline.

Public rights-of-way, regardless of how they appear, are owned by all of us as members of the public. Property owner encroachment into adjacent right of way by way of landscaping or building is at that property owner’s (and subsequent property owners’) risk.

The good and bad news for the City of Shoreline is that this is its problem to solve. If the city can’t get those circled wagons out of the way fast enough to consider the following, it has already failed. Again.

Start focusing on public education. It is insufficient to simply announce facts. You must explain in plain language what the community needs to know for it to effectively participate in the decision-making processes available to it.

Your neighborhoods deserve respect; they’ve supported the city since incorporation. To have any one of them so distrustful and up in arms is shameful. To have one of the oldest, most organized and formerly supportive in this condition should be alarming.

Addressing why residents don’t think the city is on their side should be the first step, quickly followed by preparing residents for the scoping process and traffic corridor study.

Yet there is hope to be found here that we can move forward together.

The city and community do have common goals.

The city and community both want improved communications.

The time to identify impacts and potential mitigation for those impacts is ahead, not behind, us.

The developer does have cause to negotiate with the city and neighborhood if for no other reason than to provide predictability on costs.

The Richmond Beach community has a long history of effectively participating in these types of situations. The neighborhood is thirsty for information that will help it successfully navigate the Point Wells issue.

The City of Shoreline has a good reputation for working with individual property owners during the design of road improvements to successfully minimize impacts property by property, street by street. The Aurora Corridor Project is an excellent example. Fortunately, some of the key staff that made that project successful are also working on Point Wells.

Now is the time for everyone to do their part in moving back to working together.

Once we get past this communications rift we can better meet the challenges and make the most impact on the significant change on the horizon presented by development at Point Wells.


Read more...

Op-Ed: Pending Assumption of Ronald Wastewater District by City of Shoreline

Thursday, July 25, 2013


By Steve Paulis, Retired Maintenance Operations Manager, Ronald Wastewater District

As a result of an Interlocal Agreement adopted jointly by the City of Shoreline and Ronald Wastewater District in October 2002, the City of Shoreline will be assuming all assets and functions of the District in 2017, which is one step closer to all utilities being operated by one entity. The District now questions the validity of this document. Because of this and the recent legal action initiated by the District towards the City of Shoreline, citizens should be asking themselves if Ronald Wastewater is really serving the best interests of its constituents.

1.  With a current agreement, which has been in place for 11 years, outlining the assumption of the District by the City, why is the Ronald Wastewater Board of Commissioners questioning its validity, as the assumption date approaches? This litigation comes at a very high cost to the ratepayers, which are City of Shoreline Taxpayers also. This agreement was executed by two of the current sitting Commissioners. Commissioners Wadekamper and Lind were on the Board and participated in the preparation of the agreement.

The Board of Commissioners says the agreement is invalid because it illegally bounds future Boards from modifying it. Can you imagine the chaos which would be going on if this were actually the case? If this were the case, as the Board of Commissioners think, all interlocal agreements adopted through the years would be totally meaningless. This mentality of reasoning is incorrect.

2.  Why is the Board of Commissioners of Ronald undertaking a feasibility study to create a mega utility District, at a cost of nearly $80,000, when this study and guidelines have been outlined in the Growth Management Act. How is this being funded? Is it coming from the operating budget, or is it being taken from the Repair and Replacement Infrastructure fund, which is a “Restricted” fund by Board Resolution ? What other public entities are contributing to the study, or is Shoreline Water District the only one participating?

3.  Why has Ronald Wastewater budgeted over $100,000 in its 2013 operating budget for the purpose of public relations? Why does a wastewater district need a public relations firm and why is it suddenly sending out “glossy” flyers. Realistically, what percentage of the ratepayers is actually going to read these? The District has always had the capability of delivering messages on its statements. Is this strictly being used as a step to avoid assumption ?

4.  Since 1951, for 60 years, Ronald Wastewater, operated with a three member Board of Commissioners. During 2012, the sitting Board made the decision to increase the size of the Board to five members. With the added number of Board members, operating costs have increased significantly. Unnecessarily, this increased the Board budget by $60,000 annually. There is NO benefit to this other than to serve special interests of the Board and staff.

5.  During a recent election, the voters of Shoreline chose to oust sitting Commissioner Arne Lind from office and elected Bob Ransom. Why did the Board of Commissioners choose to ignore the fact that Lind was voted out of office, only to re-appoint him to the Board? Was it done to serve the special interests of the Board? Arne Lind has publicly said he opposes assumption of the District by the City. This was nothing but a “slap in the face” to the voters.

6.  The District and the current Board continues to “tout” about the reserve fund, better known as the Infrastructure Repair and Replacement Fund. This fund was established by previous Boards of Commissioners and retired District General Manager, Sydell Polin. The purpose of the fund was to fund depreciation by 100%, infrastructure replacement as it aged, and major emergencies. When the fund was adopted, the Board of Commissioners established restrictions on its use. Is it currently being utilized properly or is it being used to fund projects like feasibility studies for “Mega Utility Districts” and unnecessary “legal” expenses?

7.  Are the ratepayers and citizens aware that the Board of Commissioners donated $2000 to a legal battle in Eastern Washington to another agency?

I have highlighted a few items that Shoreline residents should really question. Are these studies and expenses such as public relations, increased board and added legal expenses really needed or are they simply another attempt to fight off and resist the assumption process as outlined in the existing agreement?


Read more...

Op-ed: Ronald Wastewater District prefers communication over litigation

Thursday, June 20, 2013


By Michael U. Derrick, General Manager, Ronald Wastewater District

On May 22 the Shoreline City Council held a special meeting to authorize a lawsuit against Ronald Wastewater District for a perceived breach of its Interlocal Agreement with the City. Heeding public comment that was unanimously opposed to the City filing suit, Mayor McGlashan announced that the Council would not sue and the Council directed city staff to open a dialogue with the District.

On June 12, 2013, Ronald Wastewater District presented a letter to the City of Shoreline requesting a date for such a dialogue “in a spirit of mutual respect.” The District believes both agencies are “motivated by what is in the best interest of the people who pay for and depend upon sewer and other government services.”

According to Board President Wadekamper, “There are some significant legal flaws with the Interlocal Agreement. We want to talk with the City about them and negotiate a mutually agreeable solution in good faith.”


Ronald Wastewater District is a locally controlled municipal government that has provided sewer service to its ratepayers since 1951.


Read more...

OP-ED: Council Member Doris McConnell - say Yes to local control and investment

Monday, November 5, 2012

Doris McConnell was elected to the Shoreline City Council in 2007 and reelected in 2011.


Please Vote YES for Shoreline Prop 1
And Say Yes to Local Control And Local Investment!

By Council Member Doris McConnell

These are some of your Shoreline friends who have endorsed Shoreline Proposition 1:  

ProShoreline, Shoreline Mayor Keith McGlashan and Shoreline Deputy Mayor Chris Eggen. Shoreline City Councilmembers Doris McConnell, Shari Winstead, and Will Hall. 32nd Legislative District Representative Ruth Kagi. Former Shoreline Mayors Ron Hansen and Bob Ransom. Former Shoreline Deputy Mayor Terry Scott. Former Shoreline City Councilmembers Rich Gustafson and Kevin Grossman. SPU Advisory Steering Committee members Gretchen Atkinson, David Harris, Joseph Irons, Lee Michaelis, William Montero, Edith Nelson and Sis Polin. Melissa Anderson, Jamie Andrews, Wes Brandon, Herb Bryce, Sue Coulter-Armstrong, Craig Degginger, Todd Fiala, Maurice Hamington, Jan Hansen, Paul Herrick, Carolyn Hope, Tiffany Kopec, Sheila Long, Jack Malek, Paul Reed, Mary Reeve, Sophie Scheier, Mike Shelton, Judy Simon, KristaTenney, David and RoseannTousley, and LaNita Wacker.

I have studied materials regarding the possible SPU acquisition for the city of Shoreline from the city’s website, Local Control for Shoreline website and the No Blank Check website. The Shoreline City Council feels a responsibility to move the city forward for the good of its citizens. This case is no different. ALL seven of the city council voted to put this acquisition on the November ballot.  Five of us have donated to the campaign that supports this acquisition and all council members have helped behind the scenes in one manner or another. 

I believe as a city, we will look back and view SPU acquisition as one of the top accomplishments of this city. This acquisition ballot measure has been a long time coming and I believe it may be Shoreline’s only shot to break away from SPU. As we have the youngest “pipes” in their entire system, Shoreline will continue to be on the bottom of the maintenance plan as the rest of the SPU system averages well over 60 years old (reference: SPU 2013 Water System Plan and Shoreline Water System Engineering Review on city’s website and in Prop 1 information brochure, sent to all Shoreline residents in mid-October).

It doesn’t matter that SPU has reinvested some money back into Shoreline.  It is not enough and it is not our fair share. After acquisition, all Shoreline revenue will be reinvested back into Shoreline.  Experienced utility workers will be hired, not retrained staffers with little background in utility work. That’s just common sense. 

Why VOTE YES for Shoreline Proposition 1?

Shoreline ratepayers west of I-5 will have 100% reinvestment back into Shoreline infrastructure.
    
Voters specifically mandate the acquisition price (refer to ballot measure in Voters Pamphlet).
    
Your water bill will NOT increase because of acquisition (refer to specifics in the ballot measure).
    
Shoreline will implement a “main replacement” program, thereby improving the system. SPU does NOT have a replacement program for Shoreline either now or in the foreseeable future (city of Shoreline website, SPU acquisition link).
    
Shoreline will join Edmonds, Bothell, and Everett who operate their own water utility; all at average annual bills lower than Shoreline Water District (independent water utility east of I-5).
    
The City of Shoreline has a long history of fiscal responsibility and conservative spending practices.  They have earned the trust of the citizens (source: 2012 citizens survey, city website). 
    
The City of Shoreline has THREE directors with previous experience in water utility management who will assist in overseeing transition from SPU. Experience matters and they have it!


Read more...

OP-ED: Former mayor Ron Hansen weighs in on Shoreline Prop 1

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Ron Hansen is a former Shoreline City Council Member and Mayor.

By Ron Hansen


I received an extremely false and misleading political advertisement. I will address it and urge you to please vote yes on Shoreline Prop 1.


Why do I want you to vote for Prop 1?
  1. I want your and my water utility rates capped. 
  2. I want Shoreline water utility ratepayers to stop subsidizing the City of Seattle for 2-3 million dollars per year.
  3. I want local government answerable to Shoreline ratepayers. Seattle's responsibility is to their residents and ratepayers.
For the betterment of all Shoreline residents, vote for Proposition 1.

Why is "No on Prop 1" so misleading? The mailer says "Don't Sign a Blank Check." Seattle already has the blank check and cashes it for 2-3 million dollars per year. Over $35 million dollars from Shoreline ratepayers has been transferred to Seattle (with a 14% surcharge to non-Seattle residents). This will continue as long as Seattle is in charge.

The mailer makes statements. Some are true but are presented in such a manner as to be misleading. Yes, Shoreline has special purpose districts, but they have no authority over Seattle Public Utilities' operation of our water district. SPU operates the water system for the entire western portion of Shoreline, approximately 2/3 of Shoreline's area and population.

The mailer states, "You pay no utility taxes." This is false. Seattle gets a 15% utility tax now and Shoreline gets 6%. I want those taxes kept in Shoreline.

It states "your bills finance good maintenance". That is false for westside residents of Shoreline. SPU's policy is to "fix the immediate problems". Band-Aids are used instead of real fixes. There are areas of inadequate flow which could compromise the fire department's ability to fight a major fire.  

It states "if Shoreline buys the water system you will pay more." That is unlikely but we will pay more, if Shoreline does not buy the SPU system now.

It states "your water bill will be 11% higher than it should be." It is already 29% higher than it should be. "Saving" 18% would be a bargain! 

It states the Shoreline has "no agreement to purchase from Seattle, no price, no operating plan, and no certainty of separation costs." There is an informal agreement as to cost, i.e. $26.6 million. There cannot be a formal agreement unless Prop 1 is passed. There is a certainty of separation costs with a high and low range. If the highest range were exceeded, this purchase still makes sense. Remember, Seattle has the "Blank Check". I cannot stress enough how important it is to westside Shoreline ratepayers to get Prop 1 passed. It will save us all on our utility bills. And while the SWD ratepayers won't be affected in their utility rates, all of Shoreline's taxpayers will benefit from utility taxes going to Shoreline, not Seattle. 

This purchase will be paid from utility bonds repaid by westside ratepayers only. Eastside residents will not pay for this program. 


Read more...

OP-ED: Shoreline Mayor McGlashan responds to Ronald Wastewater District mailer

Wednesday, October 31, 2012


By Keith McGlashan

You all have recently received a newsletter from Ronald Wastewater District in your mail. What’s unusual about this is that their newsletters are usually sent out with their statements. The District has chosen to spend our ratepayers dollars on a mail piece that I take exception to in several different areas within the newsletter.

Timing... This “special” newsletter is sent out just before Ronald Wastewater ratepayers are going to be making a decision on Prop 1, which is whether we should, or should not, pursue the purchase of the Seattle Public Utilities within Shoreline. This newsletter follows a public forum hosted by Ronald Sewer District on special purpose districts by about a week.  The timing of both can be perceived as suspicious.

Page one... There is an article on page one about utility taxes. There is probably nothing untrue in the article but there is a lot left out. Yes, municipalities can charge a utility tax. Seattle charges the West Shoreline residents a 15% utility tax, and then charges those same rate payers a 14% surcharge for being outside the Seattle City limits.

They also don’t tell you that where Shoreline can already charge a utility tax (storm water, solid waste, etc.) we charge 6%. Then they neglect to tell you that in place of a utility tax you pay a 6% franchise fee for the franchise agreements we have with special purpose district, payable to The City of Shoreline.  

So if we are successful in purchasing the SPU system there could be a utility tax, but there would not be a franchise fee. In my opinion that’s kind of a wash.  

Also in that article they state “RWD is governed by five commissioners elected by you.” The reality is that up to the last election there were three commissioners elected by the rate payers. In that election Arnie Lind lost his reelection bid. Since that election the three commissioners, with little public involvement or knowledge, increased their board from 3 to 5 commissioners and reinstated Arnie Lind as one of the two new commissioners. This also added about $60,000 of ratepayers monies to the running of the water district.

My final issue with this article is the CAUTION sign at the beginning of it.  Maybe it was meant to be subliminal...

Shoreline Water Article...  On the back page they include an article about the position Shoreline Water District took on Prop 1. Why? SWD and RWD are partners with the City of Shoreline through franchise agreements. They do not hold franchise agreements with each other and therefore are not partners with each other, but both are special purpose districts. One has to wonder why two partners with the city are working so hard to keep the city from moving forward in the positive direction it has for the last several years.

Please don’t be fooled by this untrue ganging up against Prop 1.
VOTE YES ON PROP 1.


Read more...

Commentary: Write-in vote for Congress would be a waste

Sunday, August 5, 2012

By Evan Smith

The Seattle Times editorial board has endorsed Democrat Steve Hobbs for a full term in Congress from the new 1st District. That makes sense. Moderate Democrat Hobbs may be a good fit for the swing district that combines the conservative rural areas of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish and north King counties, with the liberal high-tech areas of Kirkland and Redmond.

The Times also recommended Hobbs as a write-in candidate for the short term in the old 1st District, the district that includes Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, other parts of north King and south Snohomish counties, and Bainbridge Island in Kitsap County.

That makes no sense.

When a write-in candidate qualified for the November ballot in a legislative district two years ago, there was only one candidate on the ballot; so the write-in candidate needed only to get 1 percent of the vote to qualify.

Here, there are 11 names on the ballot; meaning that a write-in candidate would have to finish ahead of 10 candidates in the primary to qualify for the general election.

Write-in candidates who have successfully qualified for past general elections all have registered as write-in candidates, a step that means that votes for the candidate count even with minor misspellings or if the candidates’ party preference is incorrect or missing. Hobbs has not registered or even indicated an interest in the position.

Voters can choose among the 11 candidates on the ballot. A write-in vote for Hobbs or anyone else would be a waste.


Read more...

OpEd: Doorbells will be ringing

Friday, August 3, 2012

By Diane Hettrick

Expect your doorbell to ring this Saturday.

Both Republicans and Democrats will be out in force, stumping for their slate of candidates.

Many of the volunteers are Precinct Committee Officers, who live in the neighborhood they are canvassing. They are all volunteers, who are passionate about getting out the message about their candidates and party platforms.

With a gubernatorial race which promises to be very close, interest in this election season is high.

Be kind - whether you agree with them or not, whether you wanted to answer the door or not - these folk are all local residents, who care about their community. 


Read more...

Op-Ed: How Do We Reduce Violent Crime? Renew Focus on Domestic Violence

Sunday, July 8, 2012

John Urquhart, retired spokesman for the King County sheriff''s office, is a candidate for sheriff in the November general election against appointed interim Sheriff Steve Strachen.


The two are running for the last year of the four-year term that former Sheriff Sue Rahr won in 2009. With only two candidates, the office will not appear on the August primary ballot. - Editor


Domestic violence offenders have the highest likelihood of being involved in homicide
By John Urquhart

SEATTLE, WA – King County Sheriff candidate John Urquhart today announced his plan to reinstitute the Domestic Violence Unit in the King County Sheriff’s Office in order to help address the region’s unprecedented rise in violent crime. The unit, comprised of detectives with specialized experience in domestic violence cases, was disbanded in recent years due to slashed budgets in criminal justice.

“As King County Sheriff, one of my priorities will be to focus on offenders suspected of domestic violence,” said Urquhart. “Domestic violence defendants are the most violent offenders in the criminal justice system. They have the highest rate of recidivism for future violent crime than any other offender, and they are the most likely to be involved in homicide.”  
"Ian Stawicki, the man who shot six people in Seattle on May 30th, leaving five dead, legally owned multiple firearms. He was charged in 2008 with four counts of misdemeanor domestic violence assault for attacking his girlfriend, and he was charged again with misdemeanor domestic violence assault in 2010 after attacking his brother. In both cases the victims recanted and prosecutors dropped the charges. If Stawicki had been convicted of any one of the domestic violence charges, he would have been legally prohibited from owning firearms.
“Stawicki was legally allowed to possess firearms because prosecutors could not build a case against him without his victim’s cooperation,” said Urquhart. “King County needs a specialized unit in the Sheriff’s Office that can properly investigate and build strong cases against domestic violence defendants where the case does not hinge solely on the testimony of the victim. This unit will save lives.”

A properly staffed and trained unit will ensure that cases are complete and ready for  prosecution, including medical records, photos, statements, and criminal history, making it easier for prosecutors to file cases, especially with reluctant victims.

Domestic violence victims recant for a variety of reasons including criminal witness tampering, witness intimidation, or even the fact that the victim may be financially dependent or share children with the defendant. The Domestic Violence Unit in the Sheriff’s Office would work with victims to help guide them through the criminal justice process. It would also provide victims with information about relocating to a safe place or how to seek no-contact orders against their abusers.

“Norm Maleng called domestic violence a ‘crime against the human spirit’,” said Urquhart.
“The impact on victims and their children is tremendous, and we need to make sure we have the resources available for successful prosecutions. I intend to make that happen.”

John Urquhart has been a commissioned police officer for over 36 years, the last 24 full-time with the King County Sheriff’s Office. He has served as a patrol officer, field training officer,master police officer, plain clothes vice & narcotics detective, sergeant, and the Sheriff’s spokesman. John also currently serves as the President of the S.H.E.R.I.F.F. Fund, a non-profit dedicated to providing cash grants to members of the criminal justice community with a short- term need due to unforeseen life circumstances. John resides on the Eastside with Shelley, his wife of nearly 37 years.


Read more...

Op-Ed: Concerned for Our Youth

Thursday, June 7, 2012

By Beratta Gomillion, Executive Director of the Center for Human Services, headquartered in Shoreline.


Something is different in Shoreline that is cause for great alarm.  

From where I sit, as Executive Director of Shoreline’s primary mental health and substance abuse treatment agency, Center for Human Services, there has been a significant spike in the amount of youth violence against self or others.  

Are we living in an environment where violence is becoming a norm?  Surely it got our attention in May when the 17-year- old former Shorewood High School student committed suicide by jumping from the 145th Street overpass in Shoreline onto 1-5. Within days of this incident, another 17-year-old girl was fatally shot and an 18-year-old boy (both students in Shoreline) was critically wounded when someone opened fire on their car near an apartment complex in Shoreline.  Less well known is the fact that at least 4 Shoreline youth (some as young as middle school age) have attempted suicide in the last two months as well.  Plus, we are aware of numerous accounts of serious bullying by and toward Shoreline youth.

While I don’t have an answer as to what will stop all this violence, I do have some suggestions to share with the adults and parents of youth:

  • Listen and talk to youth.  Youth need to know that there are caring and safe adults in their community.  They need to know that their parents and other community members will protect them. Reassure them that you will listen and not judge.  Parents can tell their children they love them and that together you can get through any problem or situation.
  • Keep youth active.  All youth, whether their families can afford it or not, should have access to extracurricular activities and afterschool activities.  Encourage youth to join a sports team, play in a band, go to the Y regularly (and the Y does offer scholarships), do community service, have a summer project, etc.  Keep them busy in healthy and supportive ways.
  • Rid your home of all firearms, pills, knives and rope (or secure them so only adults have access). The risk of teen suicide increases when there is easy access to these weapons.
  • Limit or eliminate the youth’s violence exposure.  This includes restricting which video games, movies, television shows, etc., to which your child has access.  Research has directly linked youth aggression to exposure to violence.  When someone has seen violence used repeatedly and callously, he/she is more at risk of responding impulsively with violence in a real-world situation; they are conditioned to the violence.  In becoming desensitized to violence, these youth are more likely to lack empathy towards victims, and a lack of empathy is a key characteristic of many violent offenders and those who suffer from other patterns of delinquency.  Remember that it is the duty of parents to decide what types of content are appropriate and inappropriate for their children.
  • Think about your teen's behavior patterns. Compare his/her irritability, eating habits, sleep habits, appearance, workload and personality over the course of the year. A drastic change in any one of these behaviors is cause for concern.
  • Seek professional help if needed.  Don’t let pride get in the way of getting counseling for your child.  For further information, call the Center for Human Services (CHS) in Shoreline at 206-362-7282.



Read more...
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