Tag Archives: annexation

McCormick Woods Voters: Size Matters

When McCormick Woods development was annexed into Port Orchard in July it added 1,280 parcels of property to city boundaries and increased the population from just more than 8,000 to more than 10,000. According to James Weaver, director of development, it was the largest annexation population-wise in the city’s history.

For city leaders, the increase in size means Port Orchard is in a better position to compete for state grants and other government funding.

The annexation also added more than 1,500 registered voters to the city’s rolls. The annexation was finalized too late for McCormick Woods to be included in the August primary, but now that the number of voters has been tallied for the general election, it’s apparent McWoods voters could carry significant influence in the Nov. 3 city council races (two of four contested).

According to Dolores Gilmore, Kitsap County elections manager, there were 3,602 Port Orchard voters before the primary. After the annexation, the number of registered voters has jumped to 5,150.

Gilmore has not researched the stats, but she’s confident McWoods was one of the largest annexations in the county’s recent history.

For candidates, it’s 1,500 more voters to hit with door-belling and campaign signs.

“They (McWoods residents) have a known track record, as I understand it,” said Carolyn Powers, defending her seat on the council against challenger Cindy Lucarelli. “They have a high number of registered voters and a high turn-out. It’s a whole new picture you might say for the City of Port Orchard.”

At the same time, said Powers, “we can’t forget about the rest of the people who have been the core of the city.”

Although the city now has more than 5,000 voters, candidates won’t automatically have to file campaign finance reports with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, at least until the next election. Candidates in cities with fewer than 5,000 voters only need to file if they are raising more than $5,000 in funding. Those in cities with more than 5,000 voters must file regardless of how much they raise. The PDC looks at the number of registered voters in the previous general election, so the old rules still apply to the Nov. 3 election.

Powers, Fred Chang and Amy Igloi Matsuno have filed this election with the PDC, raising to date $5,505.92, $7,886.90 and $19,290.27 respectively.

Look for coverage of contested city council races Saturday in the Kitsap Sun.

Find information on all candidates in the Kitsap Sun’s election guide.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

McWoods Sewers: Residents with “STEP” Systems Likely to See Surcharge in 2010

The city inherited responsibility for the systems under a development agreement.
By Chris Henry
chenry@kitsapsun.com
PORT ORCHARD
The Port Orchard City Council is contemplating what to do about 605 homes in McCormick Woods whose septic systems the city services.
The cost of the the service, formerly covered by a 50 percent surcharge on McCormick residents’ sewer bills, fell onto the city’s plate when McCormick Woods was annexed in July and the surcharge went away.
McCormick Woods was not alone in paying the sewer surcharge, and the extra 50 percent was not directly tied to the septic servicing. All South Kitsap residents who live outside Port Orchard but receive sewer and water service from the city pay a 50 percent surcharge on those utilities.
The city council in 2010 will likely add a new surcharge applying only to those 605 homes to cover the cost of inspecting and pumping the septic systems.
The homes in question have a type of sewer system — called STEP for “septic tank effluent pumping system”— that includes an onsite septic with a connection to the city’s sewer line. Solids are processed in the septic tank; liquid waste is pumped to the sewer line and delivered to the treatment plant operated jointly by Port Orchard and Westsound Utility District.
Before the sewer, effluent from the STEP systems was pumped to a community drain field.
An additional 30 homes yet to be built are also vested to have STEP systems.
The remainder of homes in the McCormick Woods annexation area have grinder pumps that deliver liquid and solid waste to the sewer line.
Like any septic system, the STEP systems need periodic maintenance and repair. The city inspects each system every three years. While most people with septics are responsible for servicing their own systems, the city inherited responsibility for the McCormick systems under a development agreement that existed when the sewer line went in.
Before the annexation, revenue from the sewer surcharge paid by all McCormick residents more than covered the cost of servicing the STEP systems. The current annual cost is about $72,000 per year.
Public works director Mark Dorsey gave a summary of the STEP system and its financial implications for the city at a work study meeting Tuesday. According to John Clauson of the city’s public utilities committee, the council plans to address the STEP service cost in its 2010 budget.
Before the end of the year, city utility customers — including those in McCormick Woods —will see an increase in their bimonthly water and sewer rates to make up for the loss of McCormick Woods’ utility surcharge revenue. The increase — $3.50 for water and $7.50 for sewer — will replace an estimated $280,000 to $300,000 per year in revenue lost through the annexation.
While the McCormick Woods surcharge was in effect, the revenue generated more than made up for the septic service cost, in effect subsidizing service for other city sewer customers to the tune of about $128,000 per year, Dorsey said. That helped keep rates down. Now everyone, including those in McCormick Woods, have to share in making up that lost revenue, but only those who have the STEP systems will pay the additional charge for that service beginning in 2010.
Also in 2010, the city must address revenue needed for improvements to the sewer system. Considering the poor economy, the council deferred a rate increase in 2009 that would have funded those capital improvements.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Kitsap Commissioners to Consider Sewers & “the Laughter of Children”

Two public hearings of note on Monday’s agenda for the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners.

1. The board will hear an appeal by the Farmhouse Montessori School in South Kitsap of the county hearing examiner’s denial for a special permit that would allow the school/day care to operate in a rural neighborhood.

2. The Board of Commissioners also will take up the issue of whether to form a Local Improvement District to extend a sewer line along Colchester Drive in Manchester.

Farmhouse Montessori

Kitsap County planners recommended approval of the school’s permit request, but when the project reached the Hearing Examiner Ted Hunter, several nearby residents said they weren’t too keen on the proposal, especially considering the extra traffic, noise and potential damage to the environment.
Hunter denied the permit, saying the use would be detrimental to the surrounding property owners.

“Educating children is an admirable profession and laudable goal,” Hunter wrote in his findings. “Montessori schools offer a unique perspective on the educational process and can provide a valuable service to the community. (But) noise generated by laughter and screaming of young children during outdoor playtime and by up to 84 vehicle trips to and from the property would be materially detrimental to single-family residential properties in the immediate vicinity.”

Manchester Sewer LID 9

The Board of commissioners deferred a decision on the matter, after testy testimony from area residents, who questioned the accuracy of the costs and the process by which LID boundaries were drawn.

Ron Rada, chairman of the Manchester Community Council’s sewer committee, is spearheading the LID process. After the previous meeting in June, he submitted to the board a detailed response to questions raised during the hearing.

Among other questions, Rada addresses a concern about LID boundaries raised by Kitsap County Assessor Jim Avery, a Manchester resident. Avery asked why some properties between the previously formed LID 8 and the proposed LID 9 were not required to be part of either district. Avery said it was unfair to other residents that these folks weren’t obliged to pay their share of the cost.

Rada, in his letter, explained that some property owners joined LID 8 as latecomers, a move approved by the board. The latecomers and those who didn’t want to hook up to the sewer form a patchwork of properties between LID 8 and 9, some with sewer service, some without.

The committee couldn’t legally require the unsewered properties to be part of LID 9, Rada explained, because the sewer line had already been extended to accommodate the latecomers in LID 8. The law permits LID boundaries to include only properties without current access to sewer. When and if the septic on the properties in LID no-man’s-land fail, they will be required to either fix them or hook up to the sewer, Rada said.

Rada also sent me an article by John Carpita, a public works consultant, explaining how local utility districts are formed . The title of the article, “Are We Having Fun Yet?” hints at the complexity of the process, but Carpita spells it out in his introduction, saying, “LIDs are more fun than root canals without novocaine, a three-month visit from your in-laws, balancing city budgets… (with) a reputation as difficult to administer, time consuming and a public relations disaster waiting to happen (my emphasis added).”

The article addresses the issue of proportionality of assessments. “Statutes specify that the assessment per parcel must not exceed the special benefit, which is defined as the fair market value of the property before and after the local improvement project,” Carpita writes.

Resident Tom Warren questioned whether residents were proportionately represented. The petition approval was determined by area of property, giving those with larger properties more weight in the vote, yet the amount assessed per property is the same, he observed. Carpita’s article confirms that the LID petition “needs to be signed by owners of 51 percent of area within the LID.” (The LID 9 petition just barely met this threshold.) Clearly, Rada & company followed the statutes. However, the question the commissioners need to answer (and one that perhaps Avery himself could address) is whether having access to the sewer line conveys equal value to each property regardless of its size.

I’m going on vacation next week, so will pass this off into other capable hands. But I’ll be watching to see how the commissioners rule and invite your comments of enlightenment before or after the meeting. Cheers.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

McCormick Woods Annexation Gets Green Light From Property Owners

Correction 3/5: I originally listed Doug Skrobut’s first name incorrectly.

Annexation “Pretty much a done deal,” committee chairman says.

By Chris Henry
chenry@kitsapsun.com
SOUTH KITSAP
Property owners in McCormick Woods have given the green light to an annexation of the residential development into the City of Port Orchard, the McCormick Woods Annexation Committee announced today.
The committee has collected signatures on the annexation petition representing slightly more than 75 percent of the assessed value of property within annexation boundaries. That’s the threshold of approval required by law. The committee will now forward the petition to the Port Orchard City Council for approval.
It will be an easy sell.
City officials have been working with McCormick Woods residents for more than a year on the annexation. It would add roughly 2,000 new citizens to the city, whose most recent population count stands at just over 8,000.
Committee members have been working since October to collect the required number of signatures on the petition. The recent addition of Feigley Road Partners LLC and Chaffey Corporation added roughly $12 million to the assessed value of properties approving the annexation. The total taxable value of properties to be annexed is $374,970,745.
One large property owner than has not yet signed the petition is Gem I, the corporation that oversees McCormick Land Company holdings. With property valued at $17.9 million, Gem I was seen as a potential kingpin in the annexation. But the company was leery of signing on the dotted line until an interlocal agreement between Kitsap County and the City of Port Orchard had been completed, said spokesman Brad Doug Skrobut. The company’s vested interest in how the transfer of responsibility would be made results from development agreements Gem I made with the county long before the issue of annexation came up.
The annexation committee has purposely avoided relying on corporate-owned properties to achieve the 75 percent goal, said chairman Dick Davis. Instead, they focused on gathering signatures from individual homeowners, because they wanted to show that there is widespread support for the annexation.
‘While we did get a developer and a builder to push us over the edge, it was mostly individual homeowners,” Davis said, “We’re still hopeful Gem I will jump into the pool with us.”
The committee has gathered 550 signatures out of approximately 800 individual households or property owners. The Kitsap County Assessor’s office has been validating signatures as they come in, and committee members will continue to gather signatures as “insurance,” Davis said.
Although the numbers could change slightly if the assessor finds questions on some properties, “it’s pretty much a done deal,” Davis said.
Once the petition has been approved by the city, it will go before the Kitsap County Boundary Review Board then back to the city council for final approval.

Addendum 12:43 p.m. Wednesday:
Dick Davis just sent me this information.
Total assessed value is $379 million; 75 percent of this is $284 million and they have surpassed that by a bit.
Total taxable assessed value is $375 million. According to Kitsap County assessor Jim Avery the committee only needed to get 75 approval for taxable properties, but Davis said the committee chose 75 percent of the total value as their goal to leave nothing to uncertainty.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

McWoods Annexation: For the Record

For the Record
As the McCormick Woods annexation committee continues to gather signatures on the petition to make McWoods part of the City of Port Orchard, I feel the need to address the suggestion made more than once by the person who uses the screen name “Gumshoe” that I have a conflict of interest in reporting on this subject because I am a resident of McCormick Woods.

I’ve previously addressed (comments 13 and 22) whether I can fairly and accurately report on the community where I live, shop, play in the parks, pay bills and where my children attend school.

Gumshoe says that my right to “vote” in the annexation process contributes to the conflict.

Signing the petition is a “yes” vote. Not signing is a “no” vote. So there is no way for me to abstain on this issue.

Because of my position as South Kitsap reporter and my role in covering the annexation, my husband, Michael, and I will refrain from taking any action on the petition. The threshold for acceptance is 75 percent, and the committee already has roughly 50 percent approval. It appears that the committee will meet its goal before the six month time limit expires.

In the extremely unlikely even that our property, valued at $379,120, becomes the pivotal property out of the roughly $256 million required to certify the annexation, we will re-evaluate the situation and act as our conscience dictates.
Chris Henry, SK reporter

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

McCormick Annexation Money Matters

For anyone who may have missed last night’s meeting between McCormick Woods residents and city of Port Orchard officials, I will tack on at the end of this post a “Property Tax and Franchise Comparison” prepared by the city treasurer that answers the question:

What’ll it cost me?: Basically it’s a wash. City calculations based on 2008 numbers, show that the owner of a $350,000 home who as a county resident currently pays a total of $3,805.46 in taxes and fees would pay a total of $3,798.55 as a resident of Port Orchard. This does not include a storm water utility fee to be introduced in 2009 (approximately $90 annually).

McWoods residents in Port Orchard would pay a city property tax, which goes into the general fund and the city road fund, in addition to their county property tax, but they would no longer have to pay into the county road fund. And McCormick Woods residents would no longer pay the 50 percent sewer surcharge they now do as part of unincorporated Kitsap County, saving each household an average of $300 per year. (“Who would pay for that loss of revenue?” city resident Genevieve Hall asked me this morning. My notes from the meeting show the difference would be distributed among all city residents as a 10 percent increase in sewer fees.)

Will my property taxes go up?: In a word, no, at least not as a result of the annexation, according to Kitsap County Assessor Jim Avery. “We look as the whole urban growth area as one for our valuation purposes,” Avery said. Besides that, Avery pointed out, assessed values are trending downward at this time.

Will the city pay for streetlights?: (McWoods residents currently pay for their own streetlights in their dues.) The city would pay for any streetlights on public roads within McCormick Woods and The Ridge. Residents who live on private roads will continue to pay for streetlights.

Will properties in McWoods be rezoned, and therefore subject to a possible tax increase, as a result of updates in the city’s comprehensive plan?: Because McWoods is a planned development, no rezoning of properties within the annexation boundaries is expected or planned, Mayor Lary Coppola said.

How is the city doing financially?: Port Orchard has a long history of fiscal conservatism. Only within the last few years have they started including return envelopes with their utility bills, and city hall visitors must pay a penny a sheet for toilet paper if they have to use the restroom. (I made up the toilet paper thing, but it would be very much in the old PO spirit.) While the city expects 8 percent less in sales tax revenue in 2009 as a result of the economic downturn, it is also expecting to annex a considerable amount of commercial property, including Fred Meyer, which could offset the loss. The city’s budget is tight, and they will balance it by making adjustments, but they are in better shape than most of their neighbors (except Poulsbo), reported John Clauson, who chairs the finance committee.

So what’s in it for Port Orchard?: City officials have said the annexation, while it would provide increased property tax revenue and a small amount of sales tax revenue, would financially be “a wash” for the city. Six additional staff members would be needed to provide services to the area. As a larger jurisdiction, however, the city would be better eligible for state and federal grants and other funding, Coppola said.

Aside from any financial incentives, city officials say, they want McCormick Woods as part of the city because they see them as an asset. Coppola, last night, noted that with its many retirees, McWoods represents a new pool of potential representatives on the city’s volunteer boards or as elected officials. Somebody out there could even replace him, Coppola joked. He added that unincorporated McWoods is a small fish in a big pond (he didn’t exactly put it that way). As part of the city, however, they would be a big fish in a smaller pond and have better representation in their local government.

If this annexation fails, would Port Orchard try again by initiating an annexation itself? This could happen in theory. One method of annexation allows a city to initiate an annexation; then residents in the area to be annexed must vote on it. Would Port Orchard actually do this? probably not, said John Clauson. “Why would we fund an election if you’ve just told us no?” he said. If you choose not to, we’ll shake your hands and we’ll still be your neighbors.”

Here’s the line item financial comparison.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

McCormick Woods Rumor Patrol

The Port Orchard City Council, Mayor Lary Coppola and city officials will host a Q&A session on the proposed McCormick Woods annexation at 7 p.m. Wednesday (tomorrow) at the Clubhouse at McCormick Woods.

One of the first questions they’ll address is whether Bremerton can annex McWoods via a vote of Bremerton’s citizens that would leave McCormick Woods residents entirely out of the loop. The short answer is, they can’t.

That according to city attorney Greg Jacoby, with whom I spoke tonight at the City Council meeting.

I’ve been trying to figure this out since I, as a McCormick Woods resident, received a mailing from the City of Port Orchard marked “annexation ballot enclosed,” which was sent out around the end of September.

City officials have made no secret of the fact that they would welcome a McCormick Woods annexation. The process was set in motion by a Q&A session hosted about a year ago by then-Mayor Kim Abel. The city has legitimate incentives to seek a McCormick Woods annexation, among them property tax revenue from McCormick Woods homeowners and increased access to state and federal grants as a larger jurisdiction, although there has also been talk of the contribution McWoods residents would potentially make on the city council.

On more than one occasion, PO officials have pledged their support of any organized effort on the part of McCormick Woods residents to annex. The city, as a gesture of support, picked up the tab for the mailing, which included:

* An invitation to the Q&A session.

* A list of “Advantages of Annexation,” drawn up by members of the McCormick Woods annexation committee (made up of McWoods residents who have organized the annexation petition drive and who have concluded, through their research, that annexation to Port Orchard holds significant advantages to residents).

* An individual copy of the annexation petition, ready for signatures.

* A letter from Mayor Coppola warning of the consequences, should McWoods residents decline to annex into PO. The alternative … dare we speak it? Bremerton.

Coppola noted that Bremerton in a recent update of its comprehensive plan included McCormick Woods in its expanded urban growth area. Bremerton City Council President Will Maupin has said that if McCormick Woods residents came to Bremerton with a petition to annex, that city would be open to accommodating them, but, Maupin added, historically, McWoods has been thought of as logically belonging within PO city limits and Bremerton did not have any plans to derail a McWoods annexation into PO.

Yet in the mailing to McWoods residents, Coppola writes, “considering Bremerton’s aggressive expansionism as illustrated by the Port of Bremerton and SKIA, you can only wonder what it must have in mind for the long term future of McCormick Woods.”

Oh, yeah, that SKIA thing. It’s no secret that Port Orchard has been stung by Bremerton’s reticence to guarantee that PO will provide sewer service to South Kitsap Industrial Area, according to a 2003 memorandum between PO and the Port of Bremerton. POB is the primary landowner within the 3,400-acre SKIA, slated for industrial development. Bremerton earlier this year accepted a petition by landowners in SKIA North, representing 150 acres of the SKIA puzzle, to annex. PO recently pressed the county’s Boundary Review Board, charged with vetting the proposed annexation of SKIA into Bremerton, to hold a public hearing on SKIA North. Bremerton has also approved a petition to annex SKIA South (the rest of the acreage, including land held by the POB) and it is likely PO will call for a formal challenge of that proposal as well.

So where were we? Oh, yes, Coppola’s letter to McWoods residents. Coppola said that since a portion of McCormick Woods (McCormick North, a.k.a The Ridge) is contiguous with land on Anderson Hill Road that is part of the City of Bremerton, Bremerton could annex that area “by a simple majority vote of its existing citizens.” I did a reality check with Coppola via e-mail last week, asking what citizens he was talking about, and he replied back “Bremerton’s.”

I also checked with James Weaver, Port Orchard’s Development Director, who was under the same impression. Both Coppola and Weaver referenced a no contest clause residents of The Ridge signed prohibiting them from opposing any proposed annexation.

Weaver said, “The Ridge is abutting the City of Bremerton existing City Limits (formerly known as Northwest Corporate Campus) and, from my understanding, may be annexed upon request by the City of Bremerton without vote or McCormick initiated petition.”

Weaver, in his e-mail to me referenced the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington publication on annexation as a source of information on the methods by which an annexation may be achieved. Among them is an election process initiated by a city council that wishes to annex a given area, but, as I read in the fine print, the people who ultimately get to vote are not the residents of the municipality seeking to annex the area, but the residents of the area to be annexed.

Weaver also deferred to the city attorney on the issue, saying he is not the authority on annexation law. Jacoby said McCormick Woods residents would definitely be the ones to vote on an annexation with Bremerton. But what if … I asked … Bremerton only wanted to annex the Ridge, which can’t object because of the no contest clause. Jacoby said he’d get back to me on that scenario, which, I admit, is highly speculative. I mean, why annex The Ridge and not the rest of McCormick Woods? But surely it’s a question residents of The Ridge will want answered.

To add to the confusion, the McCormick Woods annexation committee also bought into the Bremerton-take-over idea. In its “advantages” list, the committee said that inaction on a McWoods-PO marriage would mean “we could do nothing and still be annexed into the City of Bremerton with or without our consent.”

According to Jacoby, that’s not true.

It does not appear the mayor or the annexation committee were being duplicitous, just misinformed. Jacoby said he first learned of Coppola’s assertions about a possible McTake-over by Bremerton this morning.

During a discussion with the City Council on Wednesday’s upcoming Q&A on McWoods, Coppola sought a different tone regarding other jursidictions and their relationship to McWoods. The reference was actually to Kitsap County’s budget burden, especially if Silverdale incorporates. But, to me, Coppola seemed to be backpedaling when he said of city officials conduct at the annexation meeting, “I don’t think we want to denigrate anybody. I don’t think that makes us look good. … We’re going to take the high road.”

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

No Organized Opposition to McWoods Annexation But …

The McCormick Woods annexation committee is ready to move forward with a petition that could make McCormick Woods Urban Village a part of the City of Port Orchard. A story on the latest developments will run tomorrow.

While no organized opposition to the proposed annexation has emerged, at least one resident, Pat Lowery, has approached Bremerton city officials to gauge their interest in annexing McCormick Woods.

“From the very beginning, we got only one side of the story,” said Lowery. “’We’ve got to join Port Orchard and stay away from big, bad Bremerton.’ … My whole attitude on this was let’s look at both sides of the issue.”

Lowery does not favor a Bremerton annexation over Port Orchard, but he thinks residents should hear what Bremerton might have to offer. He e-mailed Mayor Cary Bozeman, who forwarded the inquiry to city council members.

“My guess is it’s probably premature for them or me to comment on this issue,” Bozeman said. “We’ve been pretty much preoccupied with the SKIA issue.”

Bremerton has accepted a proposal to annex from property owners in the 3,400-acre South Kitsap Industrial Area. Port Orchard has been pressing for the right to provide sewer service to the area, slated for industrial development.

Bremerton City Council President Will Maupin said the council has in the past discussed the possibility of a McCormick Woods annexation. But the consensus was that its location — in South Kitsap — made it more logically affiliated with Port Orchard.

McCormick Woods Urban Village is eligible for annexation into Bremerton because The Ridge at McCormick Woods, a development on the north side of Old Clifton Road, is contiguous with a large parcel of land within the city of Bremerton, now under development.

Hypothetically speaking, Maupin said, Bremerton would be open to considering a McCormick Woods annexation, provided a financial analysis showed revenues and expenditures “pencil out” for the city.

“If they were interested in being annexed into Bremerton and approached us with a petition, we would certainly analyze the situation,” Maupin said. “If it were going to be a big burden on the rest of the people of Bremerton, we probably wouldn’t do that.”

Because McCormick Woods is a relatively affluent urban growth area, the balance of property tax revenue to expenditures for police services would probably be advantageous to the city, Maupin said.

He added, however, that Bremerton would not try to derail a McCormick Woods-Port Orchard match-up. Referencing Port Orchard’s increasingly aggressive stance on the SKIA sewer issue, he said, “We would not and have not said a word about the current annexation into Port Orchard, and we won’t. Port Orchard has been causing problems with our annexation of SKIA, which isn’t anywhere near Port Orchard.”

Annexation committee member Dick Davis said he doesn’t believe there is significant support among McCormick Woods residents for a Bremerton annexation. But Lowery, and whoever else may be a of similar mind, has committee members feeling uneasy.

“I don’t know how large it is. Maybe it’’s a group of one,” said Davis. “I think it is, but I don’t think you want to ignore this thing. It creates seeds of doubt.”

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post