State Rep. Kagi says 2014 legislative session was productive and positive

Saturday, April 5, 2014

By Evan Smith

Democratic State Rep. Ruth Kagi says that the 2014 legislative session was productive and positive.

“After many efforts over the past five years, the legislature passed the Dream Act assuring that young people who come here with their parents when they are young and work hard to get an education will be able to access financial aid to go to college,” Kagi said recently.

“We were able to invest new funding into our Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programs, which will provide parents working hard to get out of poverty a better chance to get the skills they need, and to succeed,” Kagi added. “We also passed a couple of bills significantly expanding funding for children and adults with developmental disabilities.

Kagi said that more than 15,000 families are on a waiting list for services.

“They have been determined eligible for services but, due to lack of funding, have been unable to get help,” she said. “The bills we passed will enable us to access new federal funding to provide services to thousands of these families.”

She noted that the Legislature also passed an extension of the document-recording fee, a fee that pays for housing support to prevent homelessness, and provide housing to homeless individuals and families.

“Failing to pass this extension would have had major negative consequences for our current efforts to prevent homelessness,” Kagi said.

Kagi said that her major accomplishment for the session was passage of the Youth Opportunity Act -- a bill that allows juvenile records to be sealed when a youth turns 18.

“The bill does not apply to serious violent offenses, sex offenses and felony drug offenses, but will provide over 6,000 youth each year the opportunity to put their youthful mistakes behind them and move forward to get an education, a job and housing,” she said. “Currently Washington is one of eight states with open records. The arrests and convictions of teens have followed them into their adulthood, often stopping them from becoming productive adults.

“It has taken many years to get this bill passed and correct a real injustice in our current system.”

Kagi also noted that the final bill of the session was Democratic Rep. Mary Helen Roberts' bill to provide extended foster care to youth who work part time and are unable to fully support themselves.

“Rep. Roberts, who is retiring at the end of this year, is responsible for much of the progress we have made over the past several years to help foster youth aging out of care at 18 the opportunity to have support during their transition to adulthood,” Kagi said. “These bills are reducing the high rate of homelessness among foster youth aging out of care.”

Kagi said that the main disappointment of the 2014 legislative session was the failure to close tax loopholes in order to increase support for early learning and K-12 education. Another was the inability to reach agreement on a transportation package.

“I expect we will be revisiting both issues in the next legislative session,” Kagi said.

Kagi represents the 32nd Legislative District, including Shoreline, part of northwest Seattle, Woodway, south Edmonds and nearby unincorporated areas of southwest Snohomish County, all of Lynnwood and part of Mountlake Terrace.

She is chairwoman of the House committee on early learning and human services, and a member of the Environment Committee, the Appropriations Committee and the appropriations subcommittee on health and human services.

Evan Smith can be reached at schsmith@frontier.com.

Read more...

Lake Forest Park seeks volunteers to serve on City Commissions

The City seeks citizen volunteers to serve on the Planning Commission, Transportation Commission, Economic Development Commission, and Library Advisory Committee.

Commissions play an important role in city government. Commissioners represent the views, needs and values of the community in making recommendations on programs and policies to the Mayor and City Council. If you are interested in serving on a City Commission, contact Mayor Mary Jane Goss by phone 206-368-5440 or by email.

Learn more about the city’s commissions under the heading “City Hall” on the Lake Forest Park website.


Read more...

Shoreline incorporation Part 3: Promises regarding the wastewater utilities

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:


Read more...

Voters’ Guide: April 22, 2014 Special Election

Voters’ Guide: April 22, 2014 Special Election

King County Transportation District
Ballot Title
King County Transportation District
Proposition No. 1
Sales and Use Tax and Vehicle Fee for Transportation Improvements

Simple Majority (RCW 36.73.065)

The Board of the King County Transportation District passed Resolution No. TD2014-03 concerning funding for Metro transit, roads and other transportation improvements. If approved, this proposition would fund, among other things, bus service, road safety and maintenance and other transportation improvements in King County cities and the unincorporated area. It would authorize the district to impose, for a period of ten years, a sales-and-use tax of 0.1% under RCW 82.14.0455 and an annual vehicle fee of sixty dollars ($60) per registered vehicle under RCW 82.80.140 with a twenty dollar ($20) rebate for low-income individuals.

Should this sales and use tax and vehicle fee be approved?
Yes __
No __

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

If approved, Proposition 1 would provide dedicated transportation funding available to preserve current Metro transit service levels and provide transportation improvements, including road preservation, safety and maintenance projects, by authorizing the King County Transportation District (KCTD) to levy a 0.1% sales and use tax and a $60 vehicle fee, each for up to ten years. Proposition 1 would also establish a low-income vehicle fee rebate of $20 and provide funding for a low-income Metro transit fare.

Sixty percent of revenues, net of administrative costs, would first be available to preserve Metro transit service, including a low-income fare program and the operation, maintenance and capital needs of the Metro transit system. After allocating funds to Metro transit service, any remaining revenue from the sixty percent would be distributed equally for Metro transit and unincorporated area roads purposes. The allocation of these funds will be made by the KCTD Board and guided by criteria contained in Resolution TD2014-03.

Forty percent of revenues, net of administrative costs, would be allocated by population to cities for transportation improvements and to the county for unincorporated area road purposes.

All transportation improvements must be projects contained in adopted transportation plans, as updated by the jurisdictions. Selection of specific improvements would be made by the individual cities and the County consistent with the requirements of Resolution TD2014-03. KCTD would annually review the funded projects and programs and issue an annual report to the public on costs, expenditures, revenues, and schedules.

Statement For

Yes on Proposition 1: Save buses, fix roads throughout King County

Our growing region can’t afford more traffic gridlock and deteriorating roadways. With 400,000 daily rides, Metro keeps us moving. Proposition 1 protects bus service and fixes our roads and bridges - an affordable, needed investment in our economy, environment, and quality of life.

Proposition 1 replaces expiring Metro funding - preventing planned cuts that will affect 80% of bus riders, put 30,000 cars back on congested streets, and leave some seniors, students, people with disabilities, and working families stranded.

Prop 1 dedicates 40% of revenue to roadway safety, preservation, and maintenance - critical funding for every city and rural area.

Prop 1 addresses affordability, creating $1.25 low income bus fare and partial rebate for low income car owners.

Unanimous, bi-partisan support of County Council, Executive Dow Constantine & endorsed: League of Women Voters; Senior Services; OneAmerica; El Centro de la Raza; Seattle Human Services Coalition; Downtown Seattle Association; Labor Council; Virginia Mason; SEIU; King County Democrats; Machinists 751; Sierra Club; Federation of Blind; Mayors of Seattle, Redmond, Kent, Shoreline, Burien, Mercer Island, Tukwila, Des Moines, Auburn, Kenmore, SeaTac, Issaquah, Snoqualmie, Duvall, Renton, Maple Valley, Sammamish, Federal Way, and more!

Statement Against

Your “No” vote will send the essential message that King County taxpayers no longer accept Metro Transit’s refusal to deal with its primary financial problem: excessive operating costs.

Public transit is an important part of our transportation system, but Metro’s current shortfall of $75 million, annually, results from its expenses long increasing at over twice the rate of inflation despite its own stated commitment to reduce those costs to or below inflation.

This is why Sound Transit stopped purchasing services from Metro for several bus routes within King County and, instead, substituted Pierce Transit in order to save nearly 30%. Pierce Transit has worked to reduce costs while Metro’s continue rising.

Proposed new taxes would burden low-income and transit-dependent individuals, through highly regressive impacts, while unjustly skyrocketing taxes on motorists from $40 for every vehicle over two years to $600 each over 10 years: an unacceptable 1,500% increase.

For taxpayers living in east-and-south county – who already pay 65% of transit taxes but receive just 37% of transit services – piling on these added taxes would make this unfairness even worse.

Sustainable transit requires real financial controls, not Metro’s repeatedly broken promises.

Please vote “No” to save transit from Metro’s ongoing mismanagement.

Rebuttal of Statement Against

Unfortunately, opponent’s statement is inaccurate and misleading.

The Facts:

Through efficiencies and fare increases, Metro has saved $130 million annually while still meeting record pre-recession ridership levels.

Because Prop 1 replaces expiring funding, we'll pay only $40 more each year for our cars ($20 for low income car owners); with 40% of funding dedicated to local road improvements.

Cutting Metro stalls our economy, increases congestion, and disproportionately hurts seniors, students, and the working poor.

Submitted by: Denis Hayes, Estela Ortega, and John Marchione -- www.MoveKingCountyNow.org

Rebuttal Of Statement For

Stop Prop 1's tripling of the car tabs tax annually. Reject Metro's regressive tax increases on the poor for the third time in 10 years. Don't bail out the politicians unwilling to reduce excessive transit operating costs in Metro's budget. Don't be fooled by more of Metro’s false promises. End bus subsidies for wealthy riders at the expense of the transit dependent. Vote No on unnecessary and excessive tax hikes. Visit www.familiesfortransit.com for more information.

Submitted by: Will Knedlik, Dick Paylor, and Jerry Galland -- TruthInTaxation@aol.com


Read more...

Home Girls: Looking at home sales last March and this March

By Nan Skinner, Keller Williams Realty

The Spring real estate market will soon be in full swing. It’s just starting now and it’s looking good. This article compares the monthly statistics for real estate sales for March 2013 and March 2014. I’m always slightly surprised when I run these stats. They are usually not what I expect, so I have learned not to have any expectations. I hope you find this as interesting as I do.

The total number of March 2013 Real Estate Sales (homes sold) in Shoreline and Lake Forest Park was 69. The average sale price was $362,316 and the average list price was $360,583. That means homes, on average, sold for more than the asking price. The average number of days on the market in March of 2013 was 44. For some perspective, the lowest sale price was $125,000 and the highest sale price was $1,165,000. Eight homes sold for $500,000 or more. The shortest number of days on the market was one day and the longest number of days was 709.The average size of these sold homes was 2001 square feet.

The total number of homes sold in March 2014 in Shoreline and Lake Forest Park was 70. (Just one more than last year!) The average sale price was $465,199 (a little over ¾ of a percent higher than last March). The average list price was $468,883 so on average, homes sold for slightly less than asking price. The average number of days on the market last month was 62. Again, for perspective, the lowest prices sale was $140,000 and the highest was $2,035,000. Eighteen homes sold for $500,000 and up. The shortest number of days on the market was one day and the longest number of days on the market was 294. The average size of these homes was 2158 square feet.

What stands out to me in comparing these two months is that the average sale price is higher while this March only one more home was sold. There is a result of the significant difference in the number of $500,000+ homes sold this March over last March. This goes along with the national statistics that report more million-dollar priced homes are selling this year as opposed to previous years.

If you have any questions about this article, if you want some specific statistics, or you want a market analysis for your home, you can contact me at 206-734-9289. I’m also starting chat sessions at The Bounty every Saturday from 10 am to 12:30 pm to talk about neighborhoods, life, and real estate. I look forward to hearing from you. You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and LinkedIn. If you want to look at houses on-line (who doesn’t), here is my website


Read more...

DNA and Genealogy at the Richmond Beach Library Thursday

Risk.net
DNA and Genealogy, Thursday, April 10, 7pm, Richmond Beach Library, presented by Claudia Breland.

Genealogists have been researching using paper records for centuries, and new technology has only made it better.

With DNA testing becoming available and affordable, opportunities await for those who are seeking answers to questions about their heritage.

Learn (in plain English) the basics of DNA, how it can help you discover your roots, the best companies to test with, and how to join with others to find a common heritage.

Richmond Beach Library
19601 21st Avenue NW, Shoreline 98177
206-546-3522


Read more...

32nd Dems hear 2014 Legislative Review on Wednesday



It's the 2014 Legislative Review Program for the next meeting of the 32nd Democrats, Wednesday April 9, 7pm at the Richmond Masonic Hall, 753 N 185th St, Shoreline (map)

They will hear from the three 32nd District representatives: Senator Maralyn Chase, Representative Cindy Ryu and Representative Ruth Kagi. Bring your questions!

Don't forget the upcoming Special Election April 22  - the 32nd Legislative District Democratic Organization voted to support Proposition 1. For more information on the proposition visit "Move King County Now".


Read more...

Tech Talk: The 27.69 percent-ers: Surviving with Windows XP?

Last week, I shared a graphic on the current market share for desktop operating system. Unfortunately, while data I fed was accurate, the percentages listed on the chart were not accurate. My apologies.

This discrepancy did not affect the versions of Mac OS X more than a percentage point (the subject of my posting), but it did skew the percentages of Windows versions. Windows XP was listed at 24% and should have been 29 and a half percent. Windows 7 should have been over 47% but ended up at 39%. For the chart below, I updated last week’s worldwide usage chart to show March’s figures and the date of each OS release.

Errors or not, these figures do show there are still a lot of Windows XP users out there and Microsoft is ending support for the operating system in just a few days.  It’s almost as if most of the townspeople of Windows XP has been evacuated to safer ground and nearly 3 out of ten folks have decided to stay in town.

Sticking It Out with Windows XP

(Illustration by Tony Auth)

There are a lot of reasons why people stay in their homes in the face of potential danger. A 2009 study in Psychological Science of those who stayed in the Hurricane Katrina’s danger zone showed many of them felt they didn’t have a choice, either because of money, community roots, and other local considerations. While a Windows upgrade is not in the same league as Hurricane Katrina, many of the same motives keep people from upgrading:

Cost – While computer built in the last five years do well upgrading to Windows 7 or 8/8.1, computer sold in the first eight years are probably lacking in processor capability (single core), memory (one GB or  less) or are simply too worn out to do an upgrade. That means buying a new computer. Though you can get a new and more advanced desktop system for same price the old one cost, it’s still an expense above and beyond others.

Dedicated Equipment – Some XP owners hang on to the OS because it is necessary to run older equipment that isn’t supported under a new OS. I have seen this in film recorders, plotters, or old printers. The reason is that the manufacturers of these devices either no longer exist to provide device drivers or they have chosen not do so. While Windows provides numerous ways through its Compatibility Mode or virtual machines to simulate a Windows XP environment for old software, a lack of available drivers can prevent an upgrade.

Fear and Uncertainty – The consequence of having an operating system around for 13 years is that people become unaccustomed to change in the face of all the other changes around them. For many consumers, Windows XP was the first operating system on their first computer. In that scenario, leap-frogging from XP over four versions to a different looking Windows 8.1 is terrifying. For businesses who spent thousands of dollars on the creation of internal business application around Internet Explorer 6 (Windows XP’s default web browser), the uncertainty and cost around retooling keeps the OS in business.

On April 8th, those folks staying in town with Windows XP will be tested along with users of Microsoft Office 2003 when Microsoft officially stops supporting these products. What can they do?



I talked a bit about this in February and have a few more insights today that might help the 27.69 percent-ers buy some additional time or at least put some plywood up for additional protection.

Things that will still work
  1. Windows XP will still be installable and automatically activated on a system
  2. Windows Update will still work and allow you to download currently available updates for Windows XP
  3. People who have Microsoft Security Essentials installed will still get anti-malware signature updates through July of next year.
  4. The Malicious Software Removal Tool will still download via Windows Update through July of next year.
Things that will no longer be available
  1. New Windows XP Security or software updates after April 8th
  2. Downloads of the Microsoft Security Essentials program itself
Things that might help


While upgrading to a new version of Windows and purchasing a new system are still the best options, there are still individual things that can be done to reduce risk.  While has been speculation about zero day exploits happening after April 8th.
  • Don’t access the Internet. Either unplug your network cable or turn off your computer’s wireless connection. If you must be online, don’t stay online more than necessary. Internet Explorer versions 6. 7. and 8 for Windows XP will not be updated. You should download Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox or Opera as they will at least be providing browser support on Windows XP for the next year.
  • Avoid using the system for email. Email is a common entry point for phishing attacks. While some people argue that web-based email is safer, systems still get infected my clicking on content in webmail.
  • Remove Java, if installed. Java has traditionally been an entry point for malware on Windows.
  • Keep programs like Adobe Flash and Microsoft Office up-to-date so they don’t become an entry point as well.
  • Avoid using removeable drives. USB-base harddrives or flash drives are another common entry point for malware.
If this appears to be onerous or too-restrictive, you probably should look again at upgrading or a new computer purchase. It takes more work to stay safe in a tough neighborhood and the town of Windows XP is now in a real-tough neighborhood.

Do you have a follow up on this topic or technical question on that needs to be answered or explored?
 Please share it with me at brian@bostonlegacyworks.com. Your question may show up here on Tech Talk.

Brian Boston supported Microsoft products during his 18+ years with the company and now teaches, consults, and troubleshoots a wide range of software and hardware devices for Boston Legacyworks.

Updated 04-06-2014 1:06pm


Read more...

Lake Forest Park City Council meetings Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday

The Lake Forest Park City Council Committee of the Whole meets on Monday, April 7, 2014 at 6:30pm in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 17425 Ballinger Way NE.

On the agenda is a contract amendment with Davido Consulting for the Design of the Lyon Creek Flood Reduction Project, and review and revision of the Governance Manual.

Tuesday, April 8, the City Council will hold a Joint Meeting with Northshore Fire District at Northshore Fire Department 7pm, 7220 NE 181st Street, Kenmore. On the table is discussion of a potential regional fire authority.

Thursday, April 10, is the Council Regular Business Meeting 7pm at City Hall.


Read more...

Dolphin Player of the Week

Mike McCormack
Photo by Wilson Tsoi

The Shoreline Dolphin player of the week for March 24-30 is right handed pitcher Mike McCormack (Bellevue). He currently has a 0.00 earned run average after 11.1 innings in four games.

Against Edmonds Community College, a team with great at bats and a team average of .320, McCormack only allowed three hits in five innings. McCormack's strong play ended a scoring streak by the Tritons and allowed the Dolphins to swing a 10-0 scoring run to a 11-7 ball game.

McCormack looks to continue to bring strength to the mound this weekend as the Dolphins take on the Bellevue Bulldogs. Shoreline traveled to Bellevue on Saturday and returns home Sunday to the Meridian Park field. The double headers will begin at 1:00pm.

For full statistics on Mike McCormack and the rest of the Dolphins go to NWAACC statistics.


Read more...

Neighborhood history: Northridge Swim Club - over 50 years of operation


The Northridge Swim Club is a private, outdoor neighborhood pool, with membership open to all. The pool opens around the middle of June and closes when school starts. Contact by email for more information.

By Liz Mills, for the 2009 50th Anniversary


In July of 2009, the Northridge Swim Club celebrated 50 years of operation with a community party. 

Northridge, the community, began in the 1950’s as a planned neighborhood with covenants. No tall fences, no boats parked in yards and no long term building projects. There was a community association which held dances, had Halloween and Christmas parties and a neighborhood Easter egg hunt complete with a golden egg. 

When I-5 was built, it took out a block of 201st Street and houses between 202nd and 201st Streets. 

Two houses were moved to 6th Place NE. I-5 also cut off the 200th Street short cut to 15th NE. That had been the easiest way to the meat market and other shopping in North City. 

Technically, 201st is the dividing line between Northridge and Lago Vista. For many years, you could see the dividing line down the middle of the street as Northridge had been paved before the gravel side of Lago Vista and the street bases were different. 

By 1958, a foundation for a house had been dug at the site of the Northridge pool but no house had been built. Some of the original homeowners, led by Bud Dick and Fran Lingenfelter, had safety concerns about the hole and wanted a place for their children to play. So an idea was born and plans were laid for a pool. The three lots were purchased for a total of $2000, interest free for 10 months, from Arthur Drake. The Northridge Swimming Club was formed. It was a stock held corporation and the original 15 investors each bought shares at $225 per share to total the estimated $10,000 needed for the pool. The final cost of the pool was about $13,500. By opening day there were 25 members from 8th Avenue, 5 from 6th Avenue, and 9 from 7th Avenue, making the total membership 39. 

In February of 1959 work on the pool began. Contractors were hired to pour the pool and do the plumbing work. Construction volunteers from the neighborhood donated their labor for the rest of the work. As it turned out, three old Lake City High School friends were all Northridge neighbors and led the volunteer crews. Marlyn Kottsick was an electrician and had a dozer and backhoe. George Wisman and Al Sleister poured the deck, built the pump house and fence. The main crew consisted of Bud Dick, Fran Lingenfelter, George Rowland, Jack Carr, Loren Gritten, Gil Riddell, Roger Watts and Warren Noyes. By Memorial Day the pool was open. 

The first Board president was Bud Dick. From the beginning the mission has included providing swimming lessons and being a fun family place to relax and enjoy a summer at the pool. In the early years, there was a swim team that competed in the community pool league. We, also, had synchronized swim lessons for the girls. For most of the years, the noon hour was an adult swim time. Many of the women of the neighborhood made friends as they swam. Willadean Watts Higbee was a faithful supporter and member of the group as well as Louann Wisman and Doris Fullerton and MaryLynn Rowland. 

Of the original stockholders, three still live in the neighborhood (in 2009): Lee Haisler, Louann Wisman (George Wisman died in 2009), Doris Fullerton and MaryLynn Rowland. 

By the 1980’s the pool was in a sink or swim position financially with limited income and rising costs to maintain the pool equipment. The stockholders made a decision to swim and sold one of the lots the corporation owned. Mark and Julie Bugai now own the house built on the lot. This allowed the pool as a community asset to survive. But somehow in the economic struggle to survive the corporation renewal was overlooked and lapsed. 

By the time the lapse was discovered a new non-profit corporation needed to be formed. Northridge Swim Club was born, as we now know it. From that time to now, the Boards have worked to honor the heritage and maintain the pool for future use. Our current Board president is Wes Brandon. In the last 20 years, the pool has been relined, new pumps bought, the deck expanded, the fence and the pump house rebuilt. Increased membership and dues have helped finance these improvements but volunteer work is still key. The current wall and fence work was led by DeWayne Higbee and Brian Elliott. Their main crew of volunteers consisted of Wes Brandon, Patrick Ducey, Fred Oltman, Darrell Higbee and Ken Foote. 


Read more...

Shoreline Incorporation: Part 2: Local actions leading to incorporation

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

Read more...

Shoreline City Manager's Report

Council Meetings

·         March 31:

·         Dinner Meeting: Council heard from local developers about the development climate here in Shoreline.  Here are some key outcomes from that meeting:

o   Tell the Shoreline story
  • To investors and developers (ease of permitting, Aurora frontage improvements, SEPA threshold, no impact fees, etc.)
  • To young families (schools, affordability, progressiveness, neighborhoods, etc.)
o   Enhance Shoreline
  • Make Aurora Square a destination (dining, entertainment, walkability, etc.)
  • Create jobs
  • Build on our progressiveness (green building, artists and trendsetters, etc.)
  • Intrigue developers/investors (utility consolidation, incentives, codes, national press, etc.)
·         Business Meeting:

o   Resolution No. 356 Supporting King County Transportation District Proposition No. 1 – Sales and Use Tax and Vehicle Fee for Transportation Improvements: Council adopted a resolution supporting Proposition 1 that will be on the April 22 ballot.

o   Discussion of Extra-Help Policies: Council discussed how the City uses extra-help employees and staff’s recommendation to use regular employees to do to provide ongoing services. This will be further examined during the 2015 budget process.

·         April 7:

o   Dinner Meeting: Chris Mefford of Community Attributes will provide a broad-based perspective of the economic and demographic forces affecting the entire Puget Sound region. It is hoped that an understanding of the macro setting of our region will enable us to think more clearly on how Shoreline can take advantage of its unique location and strengths.

o   Business Meeting:

§  2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Public Hearing and Discussion - The six-year TIP includes transportation projects, such as road and bridge work as well as new or enhanced bicycle or pedestrian facilities. In addition to local projects, the TIP should also identify projects and programs of regional significance for inclusion in the regional TIP. The City’s TIP is used to secure federal funding for transportation projects as part of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).

§  Transit Service Integration Workplan (TSIP) - Through development of the TSIP, the City will identify policies addressing future transit needs throughout Shoreline once light rail service begins (2023) and as the city’s population and employment bases grow.

Council Annual Strategic Planning Meeting – April 11/12

The City Council will be holding their Annual Strategic Planning meeting at Shoreline City Hall, April 11-12.  As part of the annual planning meeting, Council will be taking a tour of Shoreline. The goal of the tour is for Council to see a variety of housing options, see some of the key economic development projects (CRA, Shoreline Community College) and some key sites of the future 185th light rail station.

Point Wells Update
  • Thursday, April 3, staff hosted an Open House at the Richmond Beach Library from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. to try to get additional feedback on design options for Richmond Beach Drive (Segment A). This was an additional outreach effort to get feedback from residents located in this area.
  • Monday, April 14. We have added a Point Wells Transportation Corridor Study update to the Council Business Meeting agenda. This will be an opportunity for staff to brief Council on the design options under consideration prior to the final TCS workshop scheduled for April 16.
Growing Transit Communities

The Council last discussed and provided PSRC with feedback on the draft Growing Transit Communities Strategy and the Regional Compact in May 2013. The Growing Transit Communities Partnership adopted the Growing Transit Communities Strategy and invited agencies such as Shoreline to be implementation partners by signing the Regional Compact in October 2013. By signing the Regional Compact, Shoreline would commit to working toward the implementation of the goals and strategies as approved by the Growing Transit Communities Partnership. This could be accomplished by updating local long range plans and strategies; utilizing the GTC strategies as we plan for the 185th and 145th light rail station subarea plans; and linking as appropriate GTC goals and strategies into City Council goals, action steps and city work plans. In addition to expressing local support of the regional effort and utilizing the tools and concepts developed by the GTC Partnership, by signing the Compact there may, now or in the future, be funding for implementation of GTC strategies linked to signing the Regional Compact.

Aurora and North City Light Pole Replacements

The City received a settlement for replacement of light poles in North City as a result of failing paint on the poles. We are expecting that the replacements may start in late April and be complete in May/June. Last week we received the final settlement check for replacement of defective pole in mile 1 of Aurora. This allowed us to dismiss our lawsuit. It also allowed a notice to proceed with the work under a contract we had negotiated. The agreement provides for replacement of the poles at no cost to the City along with $60,000 for a risk fund for future failures.

Home Improvement Event Update (March 26)

Last Wednesday night we had 25 appointments and about three drop-ins for our Home Improvement Workshop. Resident brought their home improvement ideas and plans to City staff to review and answer questions. Six consultant tables were also available for anyone to stop by and ask questions. Consultants included: an improvement loan credit union, Home Depot, a residential designer, a gardener from Kruckenberg Gardens, our Soak-it-Up mini-grant program, and energy audit service. We have the April 30 workshop halfway filled already.


Read more...

Shorewood goes into Saturday softball game with Shorecrest after 13-0 home loss to Edmonds-Woodway

By Evan Smith

The Shorewood softball team goes into its Saturday game with Shorecrest after a 13-0 home loss to Edmonds-Woodway.

NOTE: A pre-game story said that the game would be at Edmonds-Woodway.


Read more...

Great Discussions 2014 coming to Shoreline Community College

The United States may be in something of a “withdrawal” mode from world affairs, but it cannot detach itself from the world and according to a recent Pew Research Center poll most Americans do not want to, at least economically. America still affects the world and the world still affects America. For a discussion of these findings and their implications see the recent column by David Brooks. You can find the complete survey report at the PRC website.

To join discussions of eight critical global issues and America’s involvement, including China’s foreign policy, unrest in Turkey, U.S.-Israeli relations, energy independence, the impact of climate change on food supplies, the role of Islam in North African countries, defense technology, and U.S. trade policy, consider joining Great Discussions 2014 at Shoreline Community College that will meet Thursday evenings, 6:30-8:00pm, starting April 10.

Participants receive a paper on each topic in advance, as well as watch a short video and hear brief remarks at each meeting. Participation will be limited in order to encourage discussion. This is not a lecture series; we want to share views!

The cost is $35 to sign up for the series of eight discussions, or $8 to sign up for a single discussion. There are a few places remaining at the table, so, if you are interested, sign up quickly. You can send a check or sign up online at the SCC Foundation, where you can find complete details about topics, dates/time and venue.

For more information, contact Larry Fuell, Director of the Global Affairs Center at SCC.


Read more...

Sixth Grader at Highland Terrace Elementary Selected as 2014 AAA School Safety Patrol Hall of Fame Inductee

Caroline Gugger,
2014 AAA School Safety Patrol
Hall of Fame
Caroline Gugger, a sixth grader at Highland Terrace Elementary in Shoreline, was selected as one of 10 outstanding patrollers in Washington state to be inducted in the 2014 AAA School Safety Patrol Hall of Fame.

In recognition of her dedication to safety, community stewardship and leadership, Gugger will be recognized at an evening awards ceremony held before a Seattle Mariners game at Safeco Field on Friday, May 9.

As a long standing tradition, AAA Washington and a panel of judges from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Washington Traffic Safety Commission select top patrollers from schools across Washington each year and honor their accomplishments through induction in the AAA School Safety Patrol Hall of Fame.

Patrollers are evaluated and judged on their commitment to traffic safety, citizenship, leadership skills, and contributions to school safety patrol programs. Nominations require input from both the patroller and their advisor, including responses to a series of essay questions. This year, the panel reviewed and evaluated more than 50 nominations to determine the top 10 inductees. 

Debbie Green, school safety patrol advisor at Ben Rush Elementary in Redmond, will also be recognized as the third annual AAA School Safety Patrol Advisor of the Year. 

2014 AAA School Safety Patrol Hall of Fame Inductees

Malachi Caldera - Monte Cristo Elementary - Granite Falls
Lucas Christie - Thorp Elementary - Thorp
Davis Franklin - Cascade Ridge Elementary - Sammamish
Sancha Gonzalez - Horace Mann Elementary - Redmond
Dalton Johnson - Riverview Elementary - Vancouver
Caroline Gugger - Highland Terrace Elementary - Shoreline
Ian Middelburg - Lakeland Hills Elementary - Auburn
Allarae Prigan - Audubon Elementary - Spokane
Ryan Pugh - Poulsbo Elementary - Poulsbo
Noah Weiszbrod - Ritzville Grade School - Ritzville

AAA School Safety Patrol Advisor of the Year:

Debbie Green – Ben Rush Elementary School - Redmond

AAA created the School Safety Patrol more than 90 years ago and partners with local agencies to bring the program to elementary schools across Washington. The safety patrol has been credited with being a major contributor to the substantial reduction in fatalities of school age children (ages 5-14).

AAA Washington has been serving members and the traveling public since 1904. The organization provides a variety of exclusive benefits, including roadside assistance, discounts, maps and personalized trip planning, to its 1,080,000 members. In addition, its full-service travel and insurance agencies provide products and services for members and the public. Additional information is available through the company’s offices in Washington and northern Idaho, at AAA, or by calling 1-800-562-2582.



Read more...

Work zone safety refresher: see orange, slow down or pay the price


The ultimate price is someone’s life, maybe even your own.

That’s what roadway and utility workers are reminding drivers as more and more orange cones and work zones appear on roadways across the state and nation.

At 10am Tuesday, April 8, the Washington State Department of Transportation will host the 2014 kick off for National Work Zone Safety Awareness Week. This event brings national attention to safety in work zones for both motorists and workers.

The 2014 Work Zone Awareness Week theme, “Work Zone Speeding: A Costly Mistake,” was chosen to highlight the costs for a driver who doesn’t slow down. They could face double fines and jail time. And, the ultimate price is someone’s life, a roadway worker, a family member or the driver’s own.

Those who do slow down in work zones can help set an example for young drivers. WSDOT statistics show that nearly 40 percent of work zone collisions in Washington involve a driver age 30 or younger.

Visit the WSDOT Go Orange for Work Zone Safety website for more information.


Read more...

Shoreline City Council supports King County Transportation District Proposition 1

On March 31, 2014, the Shoreline City Council passed Resolution 356 supporting King County Transportation District Proposition 1 and encouraging voters to approve it.

The City Council recognizes that the County has placed the proposition on the ballot because the State Legislature has repeatedly failed to address the state’s transportation needs. While, if approved, it will help address some of our regional needs, it does not absolve the Legislature from its responsibility to pass a state-wide transportation package.

Transportation funding is not just about roads and transit, it is about the economic health of the region and the state. Having a well functioning transportation system means people can get to work, goods and services can move efficiently, and it improves the environment through less congestion.

Passage of Proposition 1 will relieve pressure on King County Metro and will prevent severe cuts to service. For many people, Metro is the only option for getting to work, to school, to medical appointments, or to see family and friends. Given the importance of not only the current transit service levels, but the anticipated transportation needs of the Shoreline community in the future and our region as a whole, the City Shoreline Council felt it important to overtly support Proposition 1.


Read more...

Shoreline incorporation and the Wastewater Utility - Part 1 Setting the Stage for Incorporation

Friday, April 4, 2014

Investigation of Shoreline incorporation and of discussions during incorporation regarding the wastewater utility

Part 1: Setting the Stage for Incorporation
By Chris Eggen, Deputy Mayor, City of Shoreline

Recently, some citizens who were 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. This prompted me to investigate the events that surrounded the incorporation of Shoreline. I looked at documents at the Shoreline museum and in the City of Shoreline archives. While doing this, I became very interested in the events that led up to incorporation. I am writing this four-part article both to share my findings regarding promises on assumption and to share the story I learned about incorporation. First, I would like to give my thanks to the Shoreline Historical Museum Director Vickie Stiles for diligence in storing our historical documents making them accessible to researchers, and to Shoreline City manager Debbie Tarry for helping find and share relevant archival information.

The first two parts will address incorporation since I think that will be very interesting to most Shoreline citizens. The third part will share my findings regarding any promises regarding the independence of the local sewer districts. The bottom-line is that I found no evidence that any promise was made during the campaign for incorporation that wastewater districts would never become part of the City of Shoreline.

Finally I will close with the fourth part of the article speculating about what might have happened if Shoreline had not incorporated.

I will start by talking briefly about Shoreline before 1990. This will be based mainly on my personal memory and on discussions with other residents of Shoreline and only a little on research on this project. I invite other Shoreline citizens to contribute any information that I may have missed.

I grew up in Greenwood in Seattle, and only bought a home and moved to Shoreline after returning from the Air Force in 1973. Like many others I and my wife moved to Shoreline at least partly because the School District had a great reputation. Another reason was that I was attending graduate school and Interstate 5 provided easy access to the University of Washington. In my first three years in Shoreline I worked part time, attended graduate school, and shared time raising my son. I simply considered the area as a safe, wholesome, pleasant place to live. Like many other residents I did not think of it as being a distinct community.

However, there were a number of local organizations that did contribute to a distinct community identity. There was an active Chamber of Commerce, and a Metropolitan Parks district. There was also a Junior Chamber of Commerce, which I joined in the early 80’s. However the most important local organization that engendered a distinct community identity was the Shoreline School District. People who were active in the school district or PTA did have a feeling of local identity, particularly as distinct from Seattle, where the ratings of the schools were much worse than the Shoreline School District and where children were being bussed to school miles from home. Many of these people remembered that in the 50’s, Seattle had annexed north to 145th St and all the area south of 145th that had been in the Shoreline School District had been transferred to the Seattle School District. People who were active in the Shoreline School District were determined to avoid becoming part of Seattle. But this possibility was not of a great deal of concern because there had been no large annexations since the 50’s. All in all, the Shoreline area appeared to be content being in unincorporated King County. 

Two political events changed this. 

1. 09/06/1990 – Washington State passed 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 significance to incorporation was that because of the GMA, some city would be needed provide services in the Shoreline area. King County could no longer do it.

2. 09/06/1990 to 11/02/1992 – The King County and Metro Governments were reconstituted and in the process King County clarified the status of unincorporated urban areas. 

On 09/06/1990, US Western District Court Judge William Dwyer ruled that the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle as then constituted was illegal because it did not provide for equal voting for all residents. [http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?displaypage=output.cfm&file_id=5338] In response, the King County Council initiated a process to merge METRO and King County and pass many functions of the old METRO Council to three regional committees with significant suburban city membership. After a failed public vote and some changes in the proposed merged government, this reconstituted King County was approved by voters on November 2, 1992. 

In this process, King County clarified policy regarding unincorporated areas. One issue that was addressed in depth was the services provided to unincorporated urban areas. Metro designated King County North of Seattle as an urban growth area and thereby stated its intent to not provide urban services to Shoreline. [King County Regional Governance Summit Report to the Public, June 26, 1991]

With these two events it was clear that change was coming to this area. Our long period as a bedroom community of Seattle administered by the relatively benevolent government of King County without a lot of interference in local affairs was over. However, the nature of the new governmental structure was not clear. Three surrounding cities expressed interest in annexing parts of the unincorporated King County between Seattle and the county line. These were Seattle, Edmonds, and Mountlake Terrace. Another possibility was incorporation of all or part of the area into one or more new cities. There were also other options that were mentioned to provide some of the urban services with a rural township or some other informal governmental structure, although it was not clear that this sort of government would actually be legal.


Read more...

WeatherWatcher: February and March in Review

  • February Review
  • March Review
February Review: The upper level ridge started breaking down for good in February, ending with a cold snap and little snow at the beginning of the month. By about the 11th the barometric pressure averaged down closer to normal from its 30.00inHg down to around 29.00 - 29.40inHg. With it came the return of the daily rainfall amounts that we normally see in November, December and January. In actuality, we had much more rain than normal making up for the lack of weather we had the previous three months.

Data points and graphs from February at the Shoreline weather station:

Total rainfall: 4.07 inches
Total accumulated snowfall: 2.5" (Single event, Saturday night/Sunday Morning Feb. 8th/9th)
Low temperature: 14.9°F (Thursday February 6th)
High temperature: 54.0°F (Wednesday February 26th)

February 2014
by Carl Dinse

February 2014
By Carl Dinse

Daily Rainfall for February 2014
by Carl Dinse

Daily Average Dew Point February 2014
By Carl Dinse
March Review: March continued our new rain-soaked trend with a record setting rainfall of 9.44 inches at Sea-Tac Airport, breaking the old record of 8.40 inches in 1950. To compare, Sea-Tac's wettest month ever recorded was November 2006, with 15.63 inches. Wettest February ever recorded was 9.11 inches, 1961. Now keep in mind these records are in Sea-Tac, which wasn't effected as much by the Olympic Mountain rain shadow as we are. Our total rainfall for March, still impressive at 7.86 inches. Interestingly enough, and perhaps a possible contributor to a trigger to the OSO landslide, the morning of March 22nd was the only day in March that dipped below freezing at 30.4°F. Typically it could have been even colder out in the mountain river valleys of the region. Outside of March 22nd, we've had a fairly mild March temperature wise, without any cold snaps or snow events. We had one day almost reach 70°F, Monday March 24th, at 68.4°F.

Graphs for March 2014, from the Shoreline weather station.

March 2014
By Carl Dinse
March 2014
By Carl Dinse
Daily Rainfall for March 2014
by Carl Dinse
Daily Dew Point Average March 2014
by Carl Dinse
    
All graphs and data unless otherwise noted are sourced from my own personal weather station located in Northeast Shoreline, Washington. For current weather conditions and historic data, check out my weather stations page.


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