Disqus - Latest Comments for island_time

Re: Solutions for crumbling road still rocky - Bainbridge Island Review

island_time — Sat, 21 May 2011 13:30:48 -0000

My understanding is the Rockaway Beach sewer was extended to the area that is currently at risk for a slide. Please keep in mind the affected area of the slide is now extending beyond the initial area. It has been documented that road cracks are now forming in the areas to the south where homes exist. In any case, none of that changes the fact the failure of the water main could cause major problems. And as far as I can tell there has been no effort to look at rerouting the water or any of the other utilities... nor any estimate of the costs, which could be significant.

Rockaway Beach is currently on the BI school district bus route to pick up the Rockaway Beach children who attend BI Schools. In addition, it is part of the Kitsap transit bus routes.

There no areas or room for vehicles to turn around at the north end of Rockaway Beach should the road close. I believe the last 3 or 4 homes don't even have driveways. All of this would create issues for Emergency vehicles, heating oil and propane deliveries, mail, parcel delivery, etc.

There have also been landslides on the west side of Rockaway Beach road about 1/3 of a mile from the current slide zone. In the last slide there, Rockaway Beach Road was completely covered and blocked. Without a north exit, those residents would have been trapped.

Also, the southern route off Rockaway beach, Halls Hill has its own issues:
In the winter, if it snows or gets icy, you can't get up or down west halls hill, it's just too steep and dangerous.

East Halls Hill road has had erosion problems and is in horrible shape not to mention a few years ago it had weight restrictions due to those issues. Rerouting traffic to that road will probably exacerbate those problems.

I don't believe just letting nature take its course is the best solution...

Re: Solutions for crumbling road still rocky - Bainbridge Island Review

island_time — Fri, 20 May 2011 17:40:00 -0000

I have read the COBI documents about the options and heard the neighboring resident's bulkhead solution. My understanding is there are more hurdles for COBI to do a bulkhead than there are for a resident. That being said, isn't there some sort of compromise that can be reached? Since the land/waterfront where the slide is actually occurring is privately owned, could the COBI ask him/her to apply for and build a bulkhead as the property owner and have the COBI give him a special grant to cover the costs?

Given it is privately owned land on which the slide is occurring that threatens a public road, it may be worth looking at. Especially since for a homeowner a bulkhead is a reasonable solution to protect his/her property, but a $2 million solution is not. My understanding is it's not that uncommon for cities to give grants for the enhancement of private property if there are mutual benefits. Why not here?

Also, if a bulkhead is in place and COBI still wants the area to be a feeder slope, they could dump a few loads of sand down the bank every year. It could be a win-win situation.

Just a thought…

As a side note there is another issue that should be evaluated. Most of the utilities (including water and sewer) that service Rockaway Beach residents are underneath the road. While losing water or sewer service in the event of a slide is an issue, it's not as serious as the fact the water and sewer lines are under pressure. A broken sewer line could cause the discharge of raw sewage into Puget Sound. But, more importantly, a broken water main could cause thousands of gallons of water to shoot from the water line into the already unstable hillside. This could turn a small landslide into a catastrophic landslide that takes out the whole road and the surrounding hillsides and homes. I know that may seem hard to believe, but several landslides in the Seattle/King County area have come from broken water mains.

Re: $2 million solution for Rockaway - Bainbridge Island Review

island_time — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:15:09 -0000

Unfortunately, cutting off north Rockaway beach ingress/egress has a number of significant issues. Halls Hill road has its own problems including erosion issues (see http://www.pnwlocalnews.com... for more information); plus the road is unusable when it snows.

That is just the start. Most of Rockaway Beach is very narrow, with no place to turn around. This would make it extremely difficult to access and use for the Fire Department, School Buses, Kitsap Transit, etc. Not to mention little things like propane and heating oil trucks, delivery trucks (UPS/Fed Ex) and of course the Chilly Hilly… Also, buried under the road are the water, power and sewer lines.

I don’t understand why a rock bulkhead is such an issue. My understanding is “armored bulkheads” are supposed to be an option if there is a threat, and clearly this is! Also, the beach where the erosion is occurring is not city property, but in fact private property. It also seems like it could be accomplished relatively easily in a shorter time frame. 2 years to complete the recommended solution hardly seems quick especially given the rapid deterioration of the slope and the road.

Personally, I find the whole thing sad. This has been an issue for nearly 15 years and nothing has been done. The issue and the cost are spirally out of control. The whole island has road problems and COBI has been asleep at the switch…

Re: Water utility transfer best for ratepayers | Letters | Jan. 28 - Bainbridge Island Review

island_time — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:15:50 -0000

People have complained for years. I know I have and I know others have. About both water and sewer. There are many channels with whom people can direct there complaints, including directly with the city, their elected representatives (some who are no longer in office), the council at larger and others. Just because you are not aware of it does not mean it did not happen.

The capital funding should remain with the system for maintenance repairs, etc. It should not be diverted, because if a capital reserve does not exist, rate payers will again have to fund it as the system needs work.

A public utility is not supposed to be a general fund for running a city or as a banker to lend a city money. As COBI rate payers we share a financial burden for city expenses that the rest of the island does not. As I understand it, ground water (used for public, private water systems and private wells) is a public resource owned by everyone. If the city can not treat utility rate payer's fairly, then may the city should seize all water systems via eminent domain and charge ALL rate payers the same amount.

Re: Water utility transfer best for ratepayers | Letters | Jan. 28 - Bainbridge Island Review

island_time — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:33:30 -0000

COBI abuses it utility customers.

A COBI study reveals is shows how badly COBI treats its utility customers. How much do COBI water customer pay. According to the "Cost Analysis Comparing COBI and Proposed KPUD Water System" done by the City of Bainbridge Island Utility Advisory Committee the "rates for COBI service are 205% - 226% higher than the KPUD". When comparing "COBI rates with other similar regional water utilities". "The average of all the area utilities in the comparison was $51.86 for a two-month period. The COBI rate is $111.64 (excluding State and COBI utility taxes) for a comparable period and amount of water"

Further "The City currently levies a 6% Utility Tax on all its Utility Customers as allowed by state statute but does not collect the same tax from other Island Water utilities nor properties served by private or shared wells. This results in a disproportionate portion of the cost of the City's General Services being born by the disadvantages few customers of the Winslow Utility systems"

The conclusion of the City of Bainbridge Island Utility Advisory Committee is as follows: "Based on a comparison, the rates offered by KPUD are substantially lower than those offered by COBI. The rates charged by a number of similar area utilities are also substantially lower than those of the COBI"

COBI "allocates a total of 9.74 FTE to the operation of the water system" for approximately 2500 customers. "A total of 73 employees of the COBI are charging time to the water system. These charges range from 100% to as little as 1% of the employees time."

You should check out the City of Bainbridge Island Utility Advisory Committee's report at http://www.ci.bainbridge-is...

COBI should divest itself of the Water Utilites. If that means that they are now over budget again, then it's time to trim more employees. COBI utility customers should not bare the brunt of financing the city.

Re: Weight restrictions imposed on eroding Rockaway Beach Drive - Bainbridge Island Review

island_time — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:48:04 -0000

Probably not. They knew about the problem in 1997 and basically did nothing. They had a report early November that warned that this would probably happen this year: "loss of the northbound roadway surface and restriction of the road to one-lane could occur during this 2010-2011 winter with storm-driven erosion events" Again, they did nothing. Right now the "bearing support for the roadway is currently less than the safe design minimums" and that was BEFORE the current slide event...

A plan, I don't think so...

Re: Ratepayers group agree with Court of Appeals | Letters | Dec. 10 - Bainbridge Island Review

island_time — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 21:19:34 -0000

The in June 2010 the COBI Utility Advisory Committee released a study and basically it shows the COBI utility customers are being abused. How much do COBI water customers pay. According to the "Cost Analysis Comparing COBI and Proposed KPUD Water System" done by the City of Bainbridge Island Utility Advisory Committee the "rates for COBI service are 205% - 226% higher than the KPUD". When comparing "COBI rates with other similar regional water utilities". "The average of all the area utilities in the comparison was $51.86 for a two-month period. The COBI rate is $111.64 (excluding State and COBI utility taxes) for a comparable period and amount of water"

The conclusion of the City of Bainbridge Island Utility Advisory Committee is as follows:
"Based on a comparison, the rates offered by KPUD are substantially lower than those offered by COBI. The rates charged by a number of similar area utilities are also substantially lower than those of the COBI"

COBI "allocates a total of 9.74 FTE to the operation of the water system" for approximately 2300 customers. "A total of 73 employees of the COBI are charging time to the water system. These charges range from 100% to as little as 1% of the employees time."

Further "The City currently levies a 6% Utility Tax on all its Utility Customers as allowed by state statute but does not collect the same tax from other Island Water utilities nor properties
served by private or shared wells. This results in a disproportionate portion of the cost of the City's General Services being born by the disadvantages few customers of the Winslow Utility systems"

You should check out the City of Bainbridge Island Utility Advisory Committee's report at http://www.ci.bainbridge-is...

Now COBI wants to spend $85k on consultants and give them a deadline of December 2012 to study this even further.

Bottom line: The COBI should not run the water system. City finances should be independent of the utilities and their customers. The City should not be borrowing funds from the utilities. The limited number of COBI utilities customers should not be expected to finance the city's budget and lending requirements.

COBI should divest itself of the Water Utilites. If that means that they are now over budget again, then it's time to trim more employees.

If COBI would fix the problem, I imagine the RPA and its lawsuit would probably go away. The only reason the RPA and its lawsuit exist is because of how COBI manages the utilities and how COBI charges it's utility customers.

As a COBI rate payer what are my options?

I'm not associated with RPA in any way, but I am a COBI utility customer.

Re: UAC to review utility contract - Bainbridge Island Review

island_time — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:02:55 -0000

I don't trust the city any more... The COBI UAC came out with its report in June, 2010. My understanding is KPUD has done its part. But nothing has happened... With this consulting contract running through 2012 nothing but more delays can be expected. The longer they delay, the more money they collect. The only upside on this is to COBI.

Re: UAC to review utility contract - Bainbridge Island Review

island_time — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:04:59 -0000

More money for consultants… This is one of the reasons that the Bainbridge Island water rate payers pay so much and why the city is in such financial trouble. How much do they pay. According to the "Cost Analysis Comparing COBI and Proposed KPUD Water System" done by the City of Bainbridge Island Utility Advisory Committee the "rates for COBI service are 205% - 226% higher than the KPUD". When comparing "COBI rates with other similar regional water utilities". "The average of all the area utilities in the comparison was $51.86 for a two-month period. The COBI rate is $111.64 (excluding State and COBI utility taxes) for a comparable period and amount of water"

The conclusion of the City of Bainbridge Island Utility Advisory Committee is as follows:
"Based on a comparison, the rates offered by KPUD are substantially lower than those offered by COBI. The rates charged by a number of similar area utilities are also substantially lower than those of the COBI"

COBI "allocates a total of 9.74 FTE to the operation of the water system" for approximately 2500 customers. "A total of 73 employees of the COBI are charging time to the water
system. These charges range from 100% to as little as 1% of the employees time."

Further "The City currently levies a 6% Utility Tax on all its Utility Customers as allowed by state statute but does not collect the same tax from other Island Water utilities nor properties
served by private or shared wells. This results in a disproportionate portion of the cost of the City's General Services being born by the disadvantages few customers of the Winslow Utility systems"

You should check out the City of Bainbridge Island Utility Advisory Committee's report at http://www.ci.bainbridge-is...

The utility consultants jobs seems to be designed help the city justify keeping the water systems so they can fund the city's general operations via the water customers.

COBI should divest itself of the Water Utilites. If that means that they are now over budget again, then it's time to trim more employees.

Re: BIFD levy placed on Nov. 3 ballot - Bainbridge Island Review

island_time — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:32:56 -0000

Blakelymom,
This is an apple to apple comparison. It uses the BIFD own performance ratios with the Assessor’s tax revenue numbers.

The costs are the levy cost of operations. Not capital bonds. Capital bonds are not the cost of doing business they are the cost of building new fire-stations or buying new equipment. You are welcome to include the costs, but they are not necessarily apples to apples. And even if you include those cost, BIFD still has the highest cost to the relative performance. In addition, according to the BIFD Strategic Plan they plan to ask for Bond on the ballet in 2011 to replace fire station 22. Again, not the day to day cost of doing business, but another tax.

I’m not trying to create an argument, I’m just trying to point out that we are currently paying a high cost for BIFD, especially relative to neighboring fire districts, the same one BIFD uses for comparisons.

The accounting logic of a per unit cost is used on everything – sewer, water, electricity, ferry, parking, etc. Imagine if every business or government entity decided to charge you more for services based on the assessed value of your possessions. Your house is assessed at twice the value of your neighbor’s house, so you should pay twice as much for your electricity, water, phone, sewer, etc. Your parking rate is double because you drive a Toyota Prius that costs $25,000 and I drive a Kia that costs $12,000.

Metric of service provided per resident/service area/incident is how BIFD measures itself and other fire departments. The only problem is they compare their cost to the tax rate of the assessed value of your home, NOT the actual cost to provide that service.

I like the BIFD and their services are critical. But, like everything else the cost has to be reasonable and in line with other people who provide the same services.

Re: BIFD levy placed on Nov. 3 ballot - Bainbridge Island Review

island_time — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:56:45 -0000

Since the chart did not show up correctly, here is the information:

According to the BIFD Strategic Plan and the Kitsap County Accessor's Statement of Assessments

North Kitsap: 23,000 residents and pays $69.85 per resident for an EMS levy, with a combined fire district rate of $235.33 for 1.35 salaried response personnel per 1,000 residents

Poulsbo: 32,600 residents and pays $57.17 per resident for an EMS levy, with a combined fire district rate of $209.71 for 1.1 salaried response personnel per 1,000 residents

Central Kitsap: 72,000 residents and pays $39.09 per resident for an EMS levy, with a combined fire district rate of $185.17 for 1 salaried response personnel per 1,000 residents

South Kitsap: 83,500 residents and pays $28.99 per resident for an EMS levy, with a combined fire district rate of $122.73 for 0.86 salaried response personnel per 1,000 residents

Bainbridge Island: 23,000 residents and pays a combined fire district rate of $215.96 including EMS for 0.78 salaried response personnel per 1,000 residents

Re: BIFD levy placed on Nov. 3 ballot - Bainbridge Island Review

island_time — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:42:12 -0000

I too encourage you to check out the information on BIFD.ORG website as well as the Kitsap County Assessors “Kitsap County Statement of Assessments” http://www.kitsapgov.com/as... . It is very interesting, but you might be surprised at what you find.

According to the BIFD the levy ‘will provide revenues of $2.7 million in 2010’. Not, the $2.5 million they are stating in the news article. An additional 8% above what they state.

The top-step salary of a firefighter/EMT is $72,429 per year. Assume an additional 40% for benefits, vacation, etc. Each additional resource would cost approximately $100,000 per year. So, based on their figure of 10 new resources, it should cost $1 million per year. That leaves approximately $1.5 million that is not directly accounted for. But, they state that will go fund the CURRENT response members that we are already pay taxes for. As well as additional medical equipment and supplies.

According to BIFD ‘The Department has Firefighter/EMTs and Firefighter/Paramedics. All of our members are dual-trained, which provides the Department with the ability to respond, regardless of the emergency. For example, a firefighter who responds to a motor vehicle collision to extricate a patient from the vehicle is also trained and able to provide necessary medical interventions’.

BIFD states in their study that Poulsbo is a “similar jurisdictions in terms of population served and call volume”. But Poulsbo has 40% more Firefighters/EMTs per capita than Bainbridge and at a lower cost. According to BIFD’s own Strategic Plan, Poulsbo’s 36 SALARIED Firefighters/ EMT currently serve 32,600 people covering 54 square miles at a cost of $210 per resident per year (at a rate of 1.1 response personnel per 1000 population). BIFD currently has 18 SALARIED Firefighters/EMT currently serving 23,000 people covering 28 square miles at a cost of $217 per resident per year (at a rate of .78 response personnel per 1000 population) . With the EMT levy, the cost of BIFD service will rise to $326 per resident per year. So currently, BI residents are currently paying 3% more than Poulsbo residents for 41 percent less service. Now, with the EMT levy we should pay 74% more per resident to receive service similar to Poulsbo…

Poulsbo’s currently EMT levy is about $1.86 million for 32,600 people (about $57 per resident, which is included in total $210 per resident cost). The BIFD proposed levy is $109 per resident in ADDITION to the current $217 per resident. The BIFD Strategic Plan shows that EMT cost per resident in other jurisdictions are as follows:

EMT Total Personnel
Residents Cost/Resident FF/EMT 1,000 residents
North Kitsap 23,000 $69.85 $235.33 1.35
Poulsbo 32,600 $57.17 $209.71 1.1
Central Kitsap 72,000 $39.09 $185.17 1
South Kitsap 83,500 $28.99 $122.73 0.86
Bainbridge Island 23,000 $215.96 0.78
(Bainbridge Islands EMT rate currently paid for in the total rate)

So BI residents currently pay the 2nd highest Fire District rate (INCLUDING EMS) per resident for the lowest number of salaried response personnel. In addition the proposed additional EMS levy would make our EMS rate 55% higher that the highest rate ($109) in other jurisdictions on top of the already high rate we pay.

The BIFD tries to show its cost and service based on the assessed value of your home and property which has absolutely nothing to do the level or quality of service they should provide for residents. Maybe they should show their costs based on the number of residents and the square miles served. If they did, their metrics are eye opening.

Re: BIFD levy placed on Nov. 3 ballot - Bainbridge Island Review

island_time — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:57:59 -0000

While I appreciate the BIFD desire to improve services... the cost in my opinion is very high... 10 full time employees @ 2.5 million. That works out to $250,000 per employee... So, there must be a lot more going to "cost of operations", than is going to new personnel.

The current share that the BIFD gets from taxes according the the kitsap county auditor office is about 72 cents per $1000 of access property value, and they want to increase it by 40 cents per $1000 or 56%. That is a massive increase recession or not. Based on the average assessed value of property on BI of $582,000, the average island property owner would pay an additional $282 in taxes to the BIFD in addition to the current $424 they are currently paying. Island homeowners would pay even more since there average assessed value is higher that $582,000.

Sorry, you don't have my vote...