Disqus - Latest Comments for robertdashiell

Re: Bonkowski, Blair, Blossom, Ward elected to City Council - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:39:34 -0000

As an update to "what did the candidates spend" as of 11/15:

Increase Anne Blair from $5,357 to $9,805.

Steve Bonkowski does not not have the general election required C4's on file with the PDC.
They either have not been filed or the PDC failed to post them. There are two required filings prior to the general election: One was due in the period 17-21 days before the general election. A second was due 7 days before the election. The final is a post-election report.

Re: ‘We need help’ say merchants - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:51:58 -0000

Interesting Winslow Way businesses have reported a higher aggregate sales for the first nine months of this year then last year. And there are fewer businesses. It all might add up, but how that happened isn't obvious.

THe increased sales revenue seems to indicate the buy local program and visit Shop Winslow has been very successful during the construction period.

Consumers need to continue to support these business ... taxpayers should not be paying for newspaper ads for private businesses as requested at the City Council meeting. That is on the borderline of using public money for private gifting which is against state law.

This isn't a lot of money to get excited about, but at least keep the expenditure legal.

And finally, the Mayor 's $600 can be spent anywhere ... that can be handled as a donation.

Re: Bonkowski, Blair, Blossom, Ward elected to City Council - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:27:58 -0000

Must make one more comment ... it's not all about listening to people. Money plays a role, although spending more does not guarantee a seat.

From public records (most from the Public Disclosure Commission):

Campaign contributions (cash and in-kind):

David Ward: $10,395
Joe Levan: $ 7,392

Ann Blair: $ 5,357
Melanie Keenan: $ 4,975 (reported, not from PDC)

Steve Bonkowski $ 3,115 (Updated C4 not on PDC website)
Barry Peters $ 8,466

Sarah Blossom $ 614
Robert Dashiell $ 551

These may not be final expenditure figures, but they are likely not to change substantially.

Four of the eight candidates (Ward, Levan, Bonkowski and Peters) had both primary and general election expenditures.

Re: Bonkowski, Blair, Blossom, Ward elected to City Council - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:13:39 -0000

Somewhat reluctant to post, but since I have had some e-mail traffic asking about the Ratepayers
effecting the election, I'll post my personal view since I have observed what has happened since well before the lawsuit was initiated in 2009.

The City has used all three utilities to make up funding deficiencies in the general fund. They have done this ever since 2001 when the Eyman initiative to limit government to 1% (plus new construction) a year tax increase was passed by Washington State voters. The way they do it is by accounting cost allocations. That is a legal method to use and is actually encouraged by the Washington State Auditor, but the City has pushed that process to the limit in order to pay for the grossly overstaffed 153 employees it had three years ago. What the City did, and is still doing, is technically legal but morally bankrupt.

To those not having accounting DNA or not having the time to dig into City accounting, an example: The Water utility was paying 10.3 full time employees (FTE's) 2 years ago. It can be properly run with 3.9 FTE.

The Sewer Utility and the Stormwater Utility have exactly the same problem ... Stormwater the worst of the three City utilities with about double the number of FTE's being charged as should be.

An FTE costs ratepayer's about $100,000 each just for rough perspective.

For nine years, the City administration kept adding FTE's to the utilities. They added additionall insurance costs. They added higher rent costs for the utilities to exist in City Hall (the bond to pay for the building has years to run). And they hired consultants to write utility rate structure reports to "justify" the increasing utility rates.

The Ratepayers Alliance filed suit to stop this.

Valid reasons for filing a lawsuit, but very, very costly. The City Council for those nine years wouldn't do anything about the obvious growing problem. They didn't, and still don't, comprehend what has been and is still going on. They aren't accountants, and they simply haven't been interested in the utilities.

The City paid the Ratepayer's Alliance about $31,000 for their legal fees to settle a small part of the lawsuit so the WWTP bond could be issued to complete the $15.5+ million dollar upgrade WWTP.

The City's own Ratepayer's lawsuit legal costs are in excess of of $400,000 as of this date, paid from utility funds. The Ratepayer's Alliance is seeking those costs to be shifted to the general fund. That's a big hit, but even far more foreboding is their roads surfaces portion of their lawsuit. There is more than $3 million at stake here ... money the Ratepayers want to come from the general fund. That could virtually wipe out the City's financial reserves. And the $3 million is only the start ... the lawsuit is likely going to take one or two more years if it is not settled, and the $3 million is growing at about $50,000 a month until this is resolved. Add to the the City and Ratepayer's legal bills for the next two years.

There is a lot of money at stake. The Ratepayer's Alliance are not in this lawsuit to lose money, and they are not talking settlement.

The Ratepayer's Alliance aggressively supported their block of four candidates. Councilman Bill Knoblock's endorsement statement of Bonkowski, Ward, Keenan and Blossom pretty much says it all. . Three of the Ratepayer's Alliance supported candidates won seats, and they needed four to control the Council.

With two of the new candidates having no City experience what-so-ever, it's going to be an interesting new Council to observe. But the key to watch is the Ratepayer's lawsuit and how the new Council handles the City's most significant long term political and financial issue that got little mention in the campaign.

The swing vote on Ratepayer's Alliance issues on the Council is now Debbie Lester, and she is a difficult one to predict where she might go.

Council and elections are about far more than a major lawsuit, and what happens when seven different personalities with power assemble to oversee the government is not always predictable. But the Ratepayer's legal issue resolutions are going to effect all citizens. It's going to get interesting.

Re: A vision for island transportation - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:23:54 -0000

One major consideration for public transportation on Bainbridge is population density. The island has about 842 people per square mile. Transportation planners use 4,500 population per square mile as a basic population density to support a viable public transportation system which, not surprisingly, is usually between 80% to 90% public funded.

Since Bainbridge Island has a population density less than 20% of the critical mass used as a reasonable benchmark for a full function public transportation system, that simply translates into a major tax increase for island residents.

Almost anything can be done if there is money to do it.

The question is if there is a consensus to increase taxes high enough to pay for a public transportation system.

Re: http://www.bainbridgereview.com/news/132855743.html

robertdashiell — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:29:02 -0000

Two points of comment.

First, two of the three long serving Commissioners resigned not because of whether there were two legally debatable open meetings, rather they resigned because they were because they were very publicly accused of malfeasance and dereliction of duty by the contractor hired by the City to do the administrative work for the three Commissioners. Those are most serious charges to lay on long standing members of the Civil Service Commission. Even if the two meetings were noticed as open public meetings, they would have been executive sessions (they reportedly were declared as such) since personnel matters were being discussed. The public, the press, and even the contractor (who is NOT a Commissioner) would not have been allowed in the meetings since the contractor was an individual in the personnel matters under discussion. These were not "secret" meetings as some members of the community have alleged. Executive session meetings are allowed by state law and happen all the time. The City Council goes into executive session almost every regular City Council meeting. Personnel matters, litigation, and performance discussions are some of the things allowed to be discussed in executive sessions. No final decisions can be made in such sessions, and no final decisions were reached in those two Civil Service meetings. The fact the two meetings weren't noticed by newspaper ads or on the City's website may be (or may not be) a technical violation of the Open Meetings Act ... that would take a court decision to determine which lawyer or member of the Attorney General's Office has the correct interpretation of a law that isn’t all that definitive.

Second, in 2008, the Civil Service Commission requested the "Chief Examiner" position be filled with a City employee. That's clearly allowed by state law, and is the standard arrangement for many, if not most, Washington State cities. The Chief Examiner position can even be filled by a person working within the Police Department. Tim Ford's concern about a City employee filling the Chief Examiner position is a specific special situation ... the director of Human Relations could be a potential influence because that person has some say in administering City hiring ... and that includes Police Officers. That could possibly be a challengeable fit, but that is NOT the case on Bainbridge Island. Kate Brown, the current Chief Examiner, is not in a position to influence hiring practices of the City.

Given enough press, perhaps the public will understand the rather limited but important role of the Civil Service Commission, why cities are required to have one such a Commission, the fact that the Chief Examiner is not a member of the deciding body of the Commission, and that State law allows the Commissioners considerable latitude in deciding who they want as their Chief Examiner, including a City employee.

Fair decision to move this to a study session and get this all aired out so the public can understand what is happening is not some control conspiracy plot by either the City Administration or a majority of City Council members.

Robert Dashiell
Council Candidate, South Ward

Re: Review owner purchases Port Angeles newspaper - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 10:47:38 -0000

Black Press also announces purchase of Sequim Gazette and Forks Forum same day.

Twenty Port Angeles employees laid off with the acquisition of the Peninsula Daily News by Black Press.

Re: Court sides with Judge Carruthers in lawsuit against city - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:23:30 -0000

What seems to be lost in the threads is the important fact that Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts has a statistical model that, as stated in the story, evaluated the judges workload at .48 FTE. The Council voted to reduce her salary to .50 FTE during a time when about 40 City employees were terminated due to the city's financial situation.

She signed an employment contract that stated her pay was contingent on sufficient appropriations being made by the City Council. In essence, she signed a contract with a clause that has, by this decision, been determined to be unconstitutional. As a judge, she might have picked that up before she signed the contract. She didn't. And the City Attorney at the time didn't recognize that such clause would be considered unconstitutional.

Intellectually an interesting case. It will set a precedent for all Washington State employment contracts involving municipal officers.

Probably not worth appealing.

Lesson learned is to get the statistical workload level and salary in sync on the original employment contract.

Re: Chinook salmon sighted in Bainbridge Island’s Ravine Creek - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 11:48:12 -0000

COBI contract.

Taylor Associates Inc, Vendor 6096, Invoice 2651-009, $17,015.88.

One month payment on a three year, $215,000 professional services contract.

Billed to the Stormwater (SSWM) utility.

Flow data is not reported to Department of Ecology. It goes into the City's water studies library which is now up to 122 significant water studies performed on Bainbridge Island.

Concept is to measure water flow for a significant number of years to see if land uses change the amount of water flowing in a stream.

This is not required by the City's NPDES-II pollution discharge permit. Public works justifies the expenditures as simply the community wants it done.

I've been a critic of the program because it's very expensive, it doesn't do anything to improve fish passage or clean up Puget Sound, it's not required by any state of federal regulation, and the information gathered has not and most likely will never be used for any land use or zoning decisions.

And of course, the City has a staff cost to keep the program alive on top of the consultant costs.

I'm pro-environment, but this is NOT effective use of ratepayer's money.

Robert Dashiell
Candidate, South Ward 6

Re: Chinook salmon sighted in Bainbridge Island’s Ravine Creek - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 01:01:04 -0000

Remember Stone, it's budget time.

They are installing electronic monitoring on the Ravine creek and paying a consultant $136 an hour to monitor the water flow.

About a $17,000 bill last month.

They have to have some visual proof it's rate payer's money well spent.

Robert Dashiell
Council Candidate, South Ward

Re: It’s time for city to put its ratepayers first | Guest Column | Sept. 16 - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:56:23 -0000

Dick Allen makes some very valid points in his guest piece. The City has used all three utilities is an increasing source of general revenue every since Mr. Eyman (1999) limited annual government total property tax revenue increases to 1% plus new construction a year. Almost all cities have done that, but Bainbridge Island has pushed that "new money from utilities" funding concept to the upper limit.

What Mr. Allen doesn't say (or want to say) is how much this lawsuit is costing ratepayers. It's about $450,000 to date and growing monthly. The Ratepayer's Alliance will almost certainly not settle the lawsuit unless they get all their legal fees reimbursed, and those are in addition to the $450,000. Add a $85,000 consultant contract to that figure. And most likely more significant consultant and legal costs yet to come.

The ratepayer's lawsuit includes a whole shopping list of legal challenges. One is having the City pay, from the general fund to the Stormwater Fund, some $3 million for impervious surfaces of City roads. That amount is increasing about $70,000 a month, and if the initial judge's ruling holds, that would essentially wipe all ALL city general fund reserves ... back to having no money where the City was about 18 month ago. The City nor the media have yet to say anything about this potential upheaval of City financials.

About 70% of Washington State Cities do not transfer general funds to stormwater for road surface areas. so this is going to be a long and expensive court battle unless the Ratepayer's Alliance reaches some kind of agreement. My discussions with Mr. Allen indicates they are not going to back down ... they have to win their legal arguments to get their legal fees paid by Bainbridge citizens and/or ratepayers.

The City Council is the policy making body of the City, and they could have fixed all of this years ago. They have demonstrated no expertise or particular interest, and certainly no leadership, in any of the City utilities, and that's one basic reason why the Ratepayers Alliance initiated their lawsuit ... because they could not get anywhere because there was no civic leadership to correct what was happening in the three utilities.

The City and public now find themselves in the very, very expensive, dark hole of a complex multiple subject lawsuit that might go on for one or two more years.

Water rates could have been reduced at any time by the City Council ... they have full fiscal and policy control over both the budget and City rates for all utilities.

Didn't happen. And because of that lack of oversight, every citizen on this island is going to pay.

It might be time to consider someone for the City Council who has a in-depth understanding of the City utilities and and a plan for solving the reasonableness/fairness issues.

Robert Dashiell
Candidate, South Ward 6

Re: Council decides to save historical tree - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:50:25 -0000

Tree trunk looks solid. What is concerning is the four visual ragged limbs where it's obvious they have been blown off. And since the tree leans into the street and the prevailing storm winds usually come from the South, the tree limbs appear to be quite vulnerable to wind as it blows over over the adjacent multi-story housing structure.

Not sure how the tree is going fare if any more limbs are removed, but as stated in the story, limb pruning is going to be required.

Re: Reserve officer resigns - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:26:27 -0000

Point I wanted to make is that an "independent Civil Service Examiner" isn't going to move anything along to solve any of the above simply because the Civil Service Commission has no say or jurisdiction for Reserve Officers.

The question we might ask is should the Police Department have Reserve Officers in the first place?
Oversight policy has to cover all the Police Department. The Civil Service Commission or the Civil Service Examiner, be a City employee or an independent contractor, isn't directly relevant in a comprehensive oversight discussion and decision.

I believe it's abundantly clear some corrective and/or oversight policy has been added to the City Council's to do list.

Re: Reserve officer resigns - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:38:32 -0000

Not anxious to get in the middle of this, but Bainbridge Island Reserve Police Officers are not Civil Service employees.

Ardnt was a Reserve Officer.

The question is does the Civil Service Commission or Civil Service Examiner have any jurisdiction over a non-civil service employee?

I"m under the impression that Ardnt (and Officer Portney, also a Reserve Officer according to the media,) are outside the legal jurisdiction Civil Service Commission.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: Final water report in, future of utility undetermined - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:21:07 -0000

What isn't clear in this article is that the City clearly stated to the Utility Advisory Committee they cannot reach the "optimum" efficiency of 3.9 FTE to operate the Water Utility ... and even the consultant report says the City could perhaps operate the utility at even more optimized 3.3 FTE level by doing some infrequent work with contracts. City proposes no less than 4.5 FTE as the best they can manage the utility.

There is also no logical, sensible, or reasonable explanation why the Stormwater Utility would increase by $90,000 if the Water Utility is spun off. The City has a Stormwater staff about 2.5 times the size of comparable small cities and has no substantial capital projects on the horizon to justify the current SSWM $2.3 million annual expenditures.

There is no discussion of the $52,000 in annual City Hall "rent" being charged water utility ratepayers.

There is no discussion why the City's insurance charges to the water utility are 426% higher than the estimated insurance costs by KPUD.

The bottom line is the City is still pricing itself out of the Water Utility business. Water rates can be set almost anywhere for the time being because the fund is cash heavy, and that in itself isn't all bad news since the fund is utility is taking in about $90,000/yr in interest investment payments.

Even with the 34% water rate reductions, the Water Utility still has a positive cash flow ... meaning the fund will still still increasing reserves.

The Utility Advisory Committee should sort all this out in the next three months, plus or minus, and provide their recommendation to the City Council.

Robert Dashiell
Candidate, South Seat 6

Re: Madrone Lane: More a piazza, than a street - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 22:29:58 -0000

This is a great open spot in the City. I would strongly support having it remain a pedestrian plaza from at least May until early November or thereabouts.

When the cold sets in and and the invariable rains begin, it could again serve as a street because I doubt many individuals will sit outside during the wintery months.

That said, it's rather narrow and not a particularly safe street with the pedestrian traffic on Winslow Way, so I think the businesses that are effected might weigh in on the desirability of opening or closing it in the winter months.

The community owns thanks to the Bryant's for this pleasant spot to partake of drinks, eats, and chats!
It's one of the new highlights of the "new" downtown.

Robert Dashiell
Candidate, South Ward #6

Re: City issues bond despite global market turmoil - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:44:42 -0000

In the big picture, the bond is favorable news for the City.

From a policy standpoint, the bond is for 20 years, and the WWTP will almost certainly not go without another major rehab/upgrade for 20 years. The City has a financial policy not to pay for capital improvements for a time period longer than the expected life of the capital improvement. Some of what was done on the WWTP will last more than 20 years, and so there was some rational for a 20 bond. But just as the 1994 upgrade hasn't yet been fully paid for, the WWTP will probably require another upgrade about 2025, and the last of this bond will almost certainly not be cashed out until 2030.

Bottom line is that sewer ratepayers in 2025-3030 will still be paying for 2005-2010 WWTP improvements and funding the next WWTP upgrade.

There was a viable market for 15 year bonds ... the financial analysis showed that. And a 15 year bond would have had an even lower interest rate.

Neither the City Council nor the Utility Advisory Committee were interested in exploring the idea of a 15 year bond, and at least one person running for City Council thinks that should have been a discussion topic.

That said, the bonds have been sold, and on balance the City came out pretty well with a 20 year bond.

Robert Dashiell
Candidate, South Ward 6

Re: The undefined future of Bainbridge business - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:09:27 -0000

You make good points, but EVERY city has land use codes and Comprehensive plans.

In a democracy, individuals have a choice of participating or not participating. Most people don't participate, and that's understandable. They lead very busy lives and they don't have the time to follow the often grinding process at City Hall. I did exactly that for 30 years when the kids were growing up and I wasn't particularly interested in how small cities were run.

I am not an advocate of increasing governmental regulation. But cities have Planning Commissions for a reason. They also have to comply with State laws. Comprehensive Plans are not optional.

If you feel that the Land Use code is too intrusive, express your specific concerns to the City Council.
I would be interested in your specific perspectives if you wish to include me or any other City Council candidate in your e-mails. If you do the podium at City Hall, I'll hear what you have to say because I listen to all public comments ... and have for a number of years.

You wouldn't be the first person to say City government is getting too myopic ... but remember that there are usually reasons that something is written into the codes. Neither you nor I face the daily problems and decisions required by the City Planning Department staff.

So, express your concerns. That's exactly what the City Council is looking for, and it is largely the public process that has taken almost two years to get to this point.

Re: The undefined future of Bainbridge business - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:49:34 -0000

The Land Use code update isn't breaking news ... the process is in its second year. Hundreds of public comments have been made and considered by the Planning Commission. It is true that the original stated purpose of of the update was to remove ambiguities and in fact there have been a number of policy changes incorporated, but that change in scope has now been public knowledge far roughly a year. To now have the public walking into Council chambers saying they didn't know that the Land Use Code update is going to have policy changes is their freedom of speech right, but it also indicates they haven't been keeping up with the City's website or following the code update process.

The current Comprehensive plan provides for retail businesses in three neighborhood service centers (Lynwood, Rolling Bay, Island Center) and the town center. One of the big questions is whether to now change that policy to encourage retail in the Light Manufacturing (LM) zones. The debate on both sides has been informative and civil, but it does represent a significant change in the comprehensive direction of island planning.

The Land Use code update, having gone through a gauntlet of Planning Commission meetings and discussions, is now in the City Council's hands for comment and consideration. Not everybody is going to be pleased with the final decisions, but updating the Code is an expensive and time consuming process, and after two years, the City Council will have to make the decisions that will probably remain in effect for perhaps the next 6-10 years.

The pro-business, pro-growth advocates have just as much opportunity to make their points as the community that values Bainbridge to remain more of a quiet island community with fewer warehouses and industrialized parks.

Everyone can still participate ... public comment is still open.

Re: The city versus common sense | Letters | August 12 - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 11:53:20 -0000

"The City has a huge culvert carrying road run off, dirt, silt, and chemicals directly into the lagoon smothering marine life."

That's a pretty serious statement.

Stormwater is not treated water ... the City has perhaps hundreds of outfalls where rain that opts to fall on the land mass of Bainbridge is carried by ditches and pipes to receiving waters.

The City has a NPDES-II permit to discharge the rainwater, but there are federal clean water standards that have to be met. Your statement clearly indicates this particular outfall does not meet the permit water quality standards.

The City (or it's consultant ) can sample the outfall water and see how serious this problem is.

I will request the City to do that, but it will have to be done when there is rain and the outfall has a water flow.

I will also request the City make public the results of the water quality samples.

If what you state is true, then the City needs to work on a solution.

Robert Dashiell
Candidate, South Ward 6

Re: UAC to push for water rate respite - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:07:09 -0000

Somewhat obscured in this story is Katie Isaksan's analysis that the Water Utility could be operated for about $880,000 if the City was efficient and charging ratepayers a fair and reasonable overhead. That expenditure level would still allow the City to charge the utility a 6% tax plus City Hall rent of some $52,000 as contributions to the general fund.

It took a consultant to simply verify what a few sharp pencil City observers and number crunchers have been saying for at least the last four years. The Council simply wouldn't listen to the public, but maybe this consultant's report will finally will get their attention.

Even worse than the Water utility is Stormwater and to a lesser extent is the Sewer utility. Hiring Katie Isakson to do the same type analysis on both those utilities would be brilliant because again, public analysis of a reasonably efficient utility has simply been ignored year after year.

Of all the good things that have happened to this City recently, the three utilities are all in need of major financial and/or management overhaul. This will be a respectable beginning.

Robert Dashiell
Candidate, South Ward 6

Re: There’s absolute proof shoreline needs help | Letters | August 5 - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:45:37 -0000

Democracy certainly isn't perfect. But it's the system that has been established in America, and it's highly unlikely to change before the SMP Is required to be updated.

What system do you believe is better than democracy?

Might you provide your factual context for your quote? From Monticello, the Thomas Jefferson historical website:

"We currently have no evidence to confirm that Thomas Jefferson ever said or wrote, "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%" or any of its listed variations. We do not know the source of this statement's attribution to Thomas Jefferson."

Re: There’s absolute proof shoreline needs help | Letters | August 5 - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 11:56:09 -0000

The concept of land use zoning is well established in American law. That concept is government limiting land owners what to do with their land. It's society agreeing to a set of rules the majority desire to live by.

Shoreline property owners just happen to have the public as their next door neighbor. The question is whether shoreline owners, buy modifying their piece of shoreline, are negatively affecting their neighbor ... the general public that owns the adjoining property.

The State has set the standard that what has been done to date is not going to be undone, but going forward, there will be no net loss of the baseline of non-modified shoreline.

Bainbridge Island is going to comply with State law. Shoreline property owners have had unfettered opportunity to help shape the new rules, and that fully includes property rights and stewardship.

Standing on a box and claiming land use rules are unconstitutional is legal as freedom of speech, but it does nothing to help craft a Shoreline Management Plan which is what State law requires the City to do.

Re: County judge rules with Ratepayers Alliance on SSWM fees - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:24:36 -0000

Another way you might look at this is the general fund will have about $860,000 less a year for roads. That money will now go to SSWM so the a consultant/contractor can get paid $136 an hour to keep up the unneeded City weather station and do flow monitoring on a stream that essentially hasn't changed in the last 5,000 years. Flow monitoring has shown conclusively that when it rains hard, more water flows down the stream .. in other words, volume increases, as does flow rate. The City is only in their third year of monitoring this, but that's at least the the early indication of the trend.
The good news is that the City has now bought more transducer equipment to start monitoring the level of water flowing down the ravine under Winslow Way. The City says Bainbridge citizens supposedly want that data because of interest in all things water, although the Department of Ecology says they have no use for such information, and there is no requirement under any law or program to collect flow data. And then of course, the City is paying about 11.9FTE with stormwater funds. In comparison, Mercer Island (MUCH larger stormwater infrastructure ... it's more developed) has about 4 FTE. It's not easy to find any other small Western Washington City that has a larger stormwater staff than Bainbridge Island. But, then again, with no major Bainbridge rivers coming off mountain range glaciers and flooding valleys, wiping out bridges, and flooding dozens or hundreds of homes, it's always an idea to have a staff in place just in case. OK ... it's stormwater over roads with this decision. Life goes on.

Re: County judge rules with Ratepayers Alliance on SSWM fees - Bainbridge Island Review

robertdashiell — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:07:20 -0000

Have not yet read the legal running on the $2 million (+/-) for SSWM, but that is hardly a win for Island taxpayers. What it means is the City's general Fund would have to transfer that amount into the Stormwater fund, essentially setting the City back about one year in getting back into healthy financial condition. And this comes just before the the bond issue to fund the Waste Water Treatment plant, and this will likely require a material disclosure that is likely to make the bond interest rates higher for the next 20 years.

One action the City Council might consider is transfer the $2 million from the Washington State Ferries to pay the Stormwater fund to eliminate what is likely now a material liability against the general fund.

And if the judge's decision extends to all government jurisdictions to have to pay for full impervious surface, that could cost both the school and park districts large annual sums.

If roads have to be collected at 100% of impervious surface, that is going to REALLY upset a lot of Washington State Cities since less than 30% charge their own roads. That would undoubtedly be challenged in a higher court.

Hopefully the ruling was more narrow in scope and was based on a technical issue on whether to Council can backdate a financial ordinance.

So to call this a win for ratepayers might be true, but it's certainly NOT a win for island taxpayers. Fixing the financial problems with the utilities nothing to do with whether the City transfers money from the general fund to the stormwater fund for roads.

And then there is the almost $400,000 in legal fees expended to date ...

Robert Dashiell
City Council Candidate
South Seat 6