Was not on last night’s agenda, as council rep Jackie Farra had requested. Last night, she said she wanted to eliminate the $250 filing fee to appeal the Hearing Examiner’s Street LID recommendations. She was told she would first have to make a motion to have it added to the agenda. She made the motion, Gordon Broadbent seconded. Mayor Garland French called for a vote on the motion. For: Farra, Broadbent. Opposed: Dave Creighton, Bob Crumpacker, John Lynn, Dick Skewis. (Not present: Peggy Berry.) The motion was killed, the $250 fee stands.

Tonight, City Council did which of the following:

a) Fully supported Jackie Farra, in completely eliminating the $250 LID appeal fee

b) Agreed that was too much, and lowered the fee to $25

c) Discussed the issue in great detail but, ultimately, decided against it

d) Voted against even discussing the idea

Al Lizakowski has posted a version of the Hearing Examiner’s decisions at his www.lowerostaxes.com site. It takes a while for the page to laYou can save it to your computer, then open it up and, if you have Adobe, use the “find” feature to look up your name, and the result of your protest.

Background information: Lizakowski previously purchased a North Coast News ad, soliciting funds to explore a possible law suit. He repeats the request on his web site. I asked him what his personal stake is, and he answered: “I own the lot my house is on and 9 other lots.  My total special benefit for all my properties is about $40,000.”

Note from Lizakowski: “I am not protesting the assessment of my other 9 lots. I am protesting my $4,000 home assessment.”

Click here. Takes a while to load. It appears that the Hearing Examiner, Wayne Tanaka, makes brief rulings on less than 50 individual protests. For the other 875 or so, he creates (pages 11-17) 20 “category of protests,” such as “Contractor did not do a good job,” “Improved streets were not necessary,” “Disagrees with the fair market value of the property” and “Macaulay benefit analysis is flawed.” All but one (“Property floods, is in wetland, or has other features that hinder the development”) conclude with some version of “this category of protest denied.”

Most individual protests are not addressed. They are listed, apparently in order the protest was filed (was a sort by alphabetical order too much trouble?), starting on page 33, through page 88. (Hint: Use the dropdown box under View/Rotate View or the keys Shift-control-+ to rotate this section clockwise, so you can read it.) Each gets at least one number, some multiples, apparently corresponding to the category of “protest denied.”

It looks like about 25 protests were effective, in getting their assessments reduced. For the other 900 . . . protest denied! Step in line to pay the $250 fee to appeal to City Council.

From the Sept. 15 North Coast News: Some people spend their retirement playing golf, others doing puzzles. After retiring early from his professional career, Don Williams got out his magnifying glass, the better to inspect the nooks and crannies of local government.

From the Sept. 22 North Coast News: Donald Williams has been closely following every step of the complex Street LID project of Ocean Shores. The North Coast News asked Williams to write a chronology on the project, to help people understand how it all happened. After last weeks’ chronology of some key pre-LID public meetings, he looks at the formation of the LID, in Part II:

From the Sept. 29 North Coast News: Don Williams has been closely following the complex Street LID project of Ocean Shores. The North Coast News asked Williams to write a chronology on the project, to help people understand how it all happened. And now, Part III:

Don Williams has been closely following the complex Street LID project of Ocean Shores. The North Coast News asked Williams to write a chronology on the project, to help people understand how it all happened. And now, Part IV:

Street LID Hearing Examiner Wayne Tanaka’s report was received by the City yesterday. Those whose appeals were denied have 10 “calendar” days — not 10 “business” days, as the City Attorney Art Blauvelt stated at the Sept. 27 City Council meeting — to file an appeal. At this point, it will cost $250 to file an appeal. At the Sept. 27 council meeting, council member Jackie Farra requested that reducing the fee be on an agenda. Mayor Garland French agreed to do so. “We have plenty of time,” he said.

Blauvelt email, this morning (in response to my request for the decision to be emailed to me, to post here): “My expectation is that the decision of Mr. Tanaka will go on the city’s website today.”

Email from Blauvelt, yesterday: “In your newspaper of September 29 you stated that the timeline to appeal a decision of the Hearing Examiner is 10 “business” days.  The correct timeline is that a lot owner who filed a protest has 10 calendar days to file an appeal to the city council.”

As previously reported, “Deferrals” for Street LID payments available to low-income property owners over 60 and/or with disabilities. The info for the Deferral program, available to low-income property owners over 60 and/or with disabilities, is through the County Assessor’s office, (360) 249-4121 (the phone number was cut off in this week’s newspaper.)