Bainbridge city officials did not cross the line while sharing information with the public about the city’s upcoming $15 million bond measure, a state agency has found.

Bainbridge hopes to build a combination municipal court/police station on land north of city hall, and voters will decide Nov. 3 if the property purchase and construction of the new building should be funded through a 20-year bond sale that will raise property taxes on the island.

City officials have been talking about a new police station for years and decided in July to ask voters for funding for it in November’s General Election. But in September, Bainbridge activist Chris Van Dyk filed a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission, the state agency that serves as a watchdog on campaigns and campaign financing, that alleged city officials had used public resources to promote the proposal.

The Public Disclosure Commission notified Van Dyk, and the city, last week that the agency had found the city had not violated any state campaign finance laws.

City officials were not surprised by the state’s decision last week to not launch a more intensive review of the complaint.

“Throughout this election season, city elected officials, appointed officials and staff have been very cautious to make sure that while fulfilling our obligation to provide important factual information to residents we did not cross the line into advocating for Proposition 1,” said City Manager Doug Schulze.

“In fact, training was provided to city staff regarding what can and cannot be done under Public Disclosure Commission rules. The ruling by the PDC was as we expected it would be, and affirms the commitment of city officials to perform our duties with integrity,” he said.

The PDC said the city’s statements on Prop. 1 did not run afoul of the law, and noted that supporters of the measure, a group called Islanders for a Secure Bainbridge, had registered as a political action committee and had reported financial contributions made to the “yes” campaign.

The agency also said the city was not obligated to share the impacts of the property purchase for the new station on other government entities; Van Dyk had complained that the city did not advise voters of the loss of property taxes to other taxing districts if the land needed for the police station was taken off the tax rolls. He said statements on the city’s website “minimize the true impact” of the loss of property taxes and sales tax revenues from the properties that would be purchased.

PDC staff did not examine the complaint made by Van Dyk that city council members had violated the state’s Open Public Meeting Act by authoring a letter to the editor in favor of Prop. 1. The council did not discuss the letter or vote on it in any public meeting prior to its submittal to local media.

PDC staff said the agency did not have jurisdiction over open meetings laws.

Because of the initial findings, the agency declined to conduct a more formal investigation into the complaint, Tony Perkins, the commission’s director of compliance, said in the Oct. 14 letter to the city and Van Dyk.

Dyk said late last week he wasn’t convinced the city’s promotion of the bond measure was appropriate, however.

“I think the PDC ruling went at the letter of the law, not the spirit.  There is a difference between stating fact, and bubbling with spirit” Van Dyk said.

“And the city webpage literally bubbles champagne spirit over this bond issue, there is no getting around it,” he said.