The City Council, with four new members, may revisit the 2011 council’s resolution last December regarding transfer of the city’s Water Utility to the Kitsap Public Utility District (KPUD) instead of waiting for the end of the 18-month trial period.

Because island water resources require careful stewardship to preserve them for the entire community, not just those currently served by the city’s Winslow water system, the Bainbridge Resource Group is initiating a community discussion in advance of any council deliberations on divestiture.

If we relinquish control of both water resources (aquifers) and the distribution system what might that look like?

Instead of a local utility managed by and accountable to islanders, all control would pass to the three-member commission of the KPUD and sideline our City Council and Utility Advisory Committee (UAC).

The KPUD commission does not meet on the island, no commissioner resides here and with only three members none may properly discuss any aspect of operation, policy, etc., with another member outside their bi-monthly public meetings.

Expedient for the PUD perhaps, but our experience with three- member commissions, whose members lived here, was not salutary.

Is this control question different from when we voted for all-island government?

Motivation for the transfer seems to stem from city water users’ understandably frustrating experience prior to changing to a council-manager form of government.

Subsequent to the change, however, our city manager and staff have restored overall city financial stability and at the recommendation of the community-based UAC, rates generally now match those proposed by the KPUD.

The trial period at those rates includes monitoring by the UAC. Granted access to utility operational and fiscal data, it is charged with bringing recommendations to the council if the city is not fulfilling its obligations to water users. What is to be gained by an imminent transfer? What might be lost?

Divestiture, as opposed to sale, of the water utility (estimated value of $2.3 million), is supported by a minority of the UAC members and numerous current users, and intended to occur without compensation to the city.

The cost of KPUD’s earlier purchase of the North Bainbridge Water System (~$1,000/hookup) is charged to ratepayers over time, but city water utility users oppose a similar KPUD charge to users for the takeover.

What are the real benefits of KPUD ownership if Bainbridge relinquishes both compensation and control of this vital resource? If divestiture is essential, are there scenarios in which the city is compensated for the transfer?

Because Bainbridge and mainland Kitsap County both draw from the Fletcher Bay Aquifer, one of the major sources of city water, what recourse would islanders have if the resource is “owned” by the KPUD?

Would island aquifer resources be negatively affected by inadequate recharge or growth in either area? Would this effect be limited or potentially involve other aquifers, private wells or other water systems?

Water Utilities routinely transfer water from productive sites to areas of greater demand. If water had to be allocated, how would those determinations be made?

According to the consultant’s evaluation of divestiture, taxes and fees collected on utility services likely would decline.

Sewer rates would increase because the water and sewer utilities share staff and the sewer utility would retain some of the shared staff in order to operate properly. Would KPUD operation offset sewer users’ higher monthly charges?

If, after 18 months with UAC monitoring, utility operations are neither satisfactory nor efficient, divestiture or other options should be examined.

With the potential to impact both current and future generations of islanders should divestiture, essentially irreversible, not involve community-wide discussions preceding a council decision?

Bob Fortner is a member of the Bainbridge Resource Group.