Several South Kitsap races heated up during the last day for
filing. (I include the Port of Bremerton race, not only because the
Port Orchard Marina is within the port’s jurisdiction, but because
all three candidates are from SK.)
The race for Port Orchard Mayor will now go to the primary, since
three people have filed for the seat. Kathleen Dolan-Bowes, a
retired counselor and free lance writer, submitted her application
just under the wire Friday afternoon. Bowes said she has been
considering seeking the position since she heard Kim Abel would not
seek reelection. She will face Kitsap Business Journal Publisher
Lary Coppola and Tom Saunders, a real estate appraiser and
long-time Kiwanian.
The race for Port of Bremerton Commissioner, district 2, is also a
three-way contest, with the eleventh hour addition of retired
auctioneer Larry Stokes. Stokes, who served on the port commission
from 1979 to 1989, is critical of the tax levy for the Bremerton
marina, which went into effect this year. Stokes and retired
carpenter Martin DiIenno, husband of city council member Rita
DiIenno, will face incumbent Mary Ann Huntington, who was elected
to the port in 1989.
Although the South Kitsap Parks & Recreation Board of Commissioners
has voted to dissolve and turn South Kitsap Community Park over to
the county, three people, at least one of them an outspoken critic
of the current board, have filed for positions on the board.
Kathryn Simpson, a South Kitsap School Board member who pressured
the parks board to dissolved prior to its decision, filed for
position 2, currently held by president Larry Walker. Also filing
late Friday were Kathleen Brashar and Kris Danielson. If the
current parks board were, for any reason, to reverse its decision
to give the park to the county, the election would cost the board
an estimated $25,000 to $30,000, even though there are no
challengers for any position.
There was also a flurry of last-minute interest in the race for
Port of Manchester commissioner, position 3. Throughout the week,
Mark Rebelowski was the lone candidate, but late Friday afternoon,
the auditor’s office added to the list Steve Pedersen, Phil
Paquette, Dave Kimble and Bill Stewart. Paquette and Kimble are
outspoken activists on growth in the Manchester area.
Speaking of South Kitsap Reporter Chris Henry talks about life in the county seat of Port Orchard and surrounding areas.
Lets hope the current South Kitsap Parks and Recreation Board members complete the process of dissolution in a timely manner so that “elections” in November aren’t necessary to ensure that the dissolution process is completed.
Since the quit-claim deeds for the property turn-over have yet to be signed and the necessary papers have not been filed for official dissolution, we felt it was in the best interest of the community to ensure that there were candidates filed who are prepared to complete responsible dissolution, if necessary. If there were no candidates filed, the law states that the current office holders remain in place until the next election.
As for the election costs, to say it would cost the taxpayers an additional $25-$35 thousand dollars is a bit of misnomer. There are a variety of elections going on this election cycle. It doesn’t cost significantly more to print three additional names. However, if the Parks Board election is still necessary in November (which I hope will NOT be the case), then the SKPRD will share it’s portion of the election costs. So, instead of spreading the costs for the South Kitsap elections amongst the other 18 seats up for election, it would be split amongst 22 (including the 4 open SKPRD seats). In other words, the election cost will be recouped from taxpayers whether or not the SKPRD elections occur.
The current SKPRD Board has the power to complete dissolution long before incurring a share of costs for the November election. In fact, they have had this opportunity and power for more than a year (Kitsap County’s offer was initially made in April of 2006). I sincerely hope the current SKPRD will be timely and responsible.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
Kathryn – The estimate of $25,000 to $30,000 for the election came from an elections official whose name is on my notes at work. I’ll get it Monday so I’ll be clear about citing my source. Chris
Hi Chris,
I’m not doubting that SKPRD’s portion of the bill will be between $25,000-$30,000. However, they would only be apportioned if there was an election and the cost of running the election doesn’t change significantly if SKPRD positions are on or off the ballot, since so many South Kitsap elected positions will be on the ballot this fall.
I asked about how election bills are set at the auditor’s office awhile back. The general explanation I got was that it is apportioned based on the number of seats running in the election. So, for example, lets say the total cost to run the elections was $162,000. If there are 18 seats, then each entity having seats to be elected would be apportioned 1/18th of the cost to run the election ($9000 each) If you had two seats, it would be 2/18ths (1/9th for anyone who may think I couldn’t pass the WASL -smile). However, if there are 22 seats up for election, each entity would be apportioned $7363 per seat. This is just an example. I’m not sure whether they do it across the whole county or by area (i.e. South Kitsap/Central Kitsap/North Kitsap) and there is a little more complexity to the formula than straight apportionment (if I recall correctly).
There are no primary races for Parks Board positions anymore, so there won’t be two elections either. I confirmed this with the auditor’s office yesterday.
As I’ve said all along, I hope this all becomes a mute point and the current SKPRD does the right thing long before incurring an apportionment of the election costs become necessary.
Incurring additional election debt is squarely in the hands of Mr. Walker, Mrs. Rees, Mr. Flerx, Mr. Cullver, and Ms. Colborn. They have the power and control and easily could legally wrap dissolution by August 1st… if they want to. I hope they are adequately motivated.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
Good explanation of election cost Kathy. We owe a thankyou to our recently departed Senator Bob Oke for presenting a Bill that passed, eliminating the requirement for Primary’s for park districts. I too hope the current SKPRD Board is “adequately motivated ” and will finish the business at hand with their signatures. No more hostage situations SKPRD-let’s move on.
Kathryn – The elections official I spoke to about the cost to SKPRD is Delores Gilmore. I called her today, and she confirmed the cost to SK Parks would be an estimated $25,000 to $30,000. Maybe I’m missing your point. I e-mailed her a copy of your blog comments and requested her input. Will post again when I hear from her. Chris
Chris,
My point is that if the SKPRD wraps up dissolution soon, there won’t be election costs to recoup because the election will be unnecessary (in other words, we don’t elect people to positions that have been officially dissolved).
Further, if the SKPRD positions don’t appear on the ballot then there is no election cost incurred for the SKPRD. Though we don’t know exactly when that cut-off date will be, it does appear that if the SKPRD can be officially dissolved before the August Primary, then the election costs can be avoided because the general election ballot cannot go to the printer until the primary election is decided.
I welcome Ms. Gilmore’s correction on this point, if I am wrong.
The current SKPRD has the power to avoid 2007 election costs. They have had this power for more than a year. Again, I hope they complete the dissolution process in a timely manner in order to avoid incurring 2007 election costs.
From what I understand, the SKPRD will sign the required paperwork at their meeting tomorrow (Thursday) night to turn the property over to Kitsap County and to formally inform Superior Court that they are dissolving. Once these items are filed with the court then I understand it is simply a waiting period of 30 days to resolve outstanding debts and provide legal notice and then a judge can sign off on the dissolution and it is finished.
I’m out of town this week, so won’t be able to attend the SKPRD meeting. I hope someone else attends and will post about the results after the meeting.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
Kathy – Here’s a follow up e-mail from Dolores Gilmore at the county auditor’s office clarifying how districts are assessed for their portion of the elections cost.
Now that the parks board has filed the quit claim deed and the petition to dissolve, it does look like all this will be a moot point, unless someone comes forward with a complicated claim against the board. In that case the petition to dissolve could conceivably be delayed until after the county’s Aug. 14 deadline. In that case the cost of the election would fall on the parks board, but the county would have to pay up front for the election, and, if the parks board lacks the funds, the county would make up the balance.
Here’s Delores:
Dear Chris,
If a District the size of the South Kitsap Park & Recreation District held an election for 4 offices on the 2007 November General Election ballot, the estimated cost billed to that district would be $25-$35 thousand dollars.
The requirement that local districts in an election pay a share of election costs is in state law. The amount paid by each district is determined by the number of registered voters in the district and the number of contests the district places on the ballot. So in a general election, districts with few voters and contests would pay less of the total election cost than a large district with many voters and contests on the ballot.
I hope this helps to explain $25-$35 thousand dollar estimated election cost for a District the size of South Kitsap Park and Recreation with 4 contests in the 2007 November election.
Sincerely,
Delores Gilmore
Kitsap County Auditor’s office.
“Incurring additional election debt is squarely in the hands of Mr. Walker, Mrs. Rees, Mr. Flerx, Mr. Cullver, and Ms. Colborn. They have the power and control and easily could legally wrap dissolution by August 1st… if they want to. I hope they are adequately motivated.”
Since none of the existing SKPRD board members wanted to put the SKPRD nor the county on the hook for more election debt, it looks like the folks incurring additonal costs, if a delay occurs, would be these three women.
You have to wonder what really motivates these people.
It is easy to be a “concerned citizen” when one’s post is anonymous.
The current SKPRD had the power to prevent the 2007 election debt for more than a year. They had the power to get a better deal, for the community, from Kitsap County, for more than a year.
It was very unfortunate and unnecessary that the SKPRD waited until after the filing periods closed to sign the quit claim deeds. They could have easily done so long before the first week of June 2007. After all, Kitsap County’s initial and better offer was made in April 2006.
What really motivates me? Vision! From the beginning, this was an issue of best stewardship options for the Jackson and Lund park. Sometimes it takes hard work and a tough skin to turn vision into reality. We had said all along that if the park was still in the hands of the SKPRD at the filing period, we would run candidates in the 2007 elections. We kept our word.
Vision for a better future for the park motivated that decision last year and remained an imperative so long as the SKPRD retained stewardship for the property through the filing period.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, one of my two highest priorities and motivations needs my attention for the rest of the week. He’s about 5′ 2″ tall, hit his first grand-slam a week ago, is unfortunately missing his sixth grade graduation today, and someday, in my grandest vision, I pray to watch his children play soccer on fields of green at Jackson and Lund in about 20 years. But first, there are the challenges of today.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
I believe that a vision for the South Kitsap Community Park must include more than just soccer fields and must take into consideration the overall arching needs of the community. The vision that we have focused on takes into consideration the surveys done by the County, as well as the developmental assets survey conducted by SKHS. As a result this is the vision put forth:
Vision for Comprehensive Plan for a Family Recreational Complex
South Kitsap Community Park
County personnel hosted a series of public meetings in early 2006 to assess the needs of South Kitsap. The South Kitsap School District also conducted a survey to determine which “developmental assets” children in the SK area had or were missing. These results are available and combined with discussions with community members, they show that South Kitsap is missing and in need of:
Boys and Girls HOPE Center (Home of Opportunities, Possibilities and Empowerment)- that would be multi-use, multi-generational and serve all ages. Currently we lack safe places for children to go after school and our students have a need for tutoring/homework help. The Center would be for all ages and serve other social service agencies. It would include a computer lab where CTE students from SKHS could tutor youth and adults. It would also have meeting rooms of all sizes for multi-use. The goal of the district Boys and Girls Club organization is to build a HOPE Center in every community including South Kitsap. This center would include a Senior Center.
Indoor and Outdoor Theaters – The Performing Arts Guild of South Kitsap is in need of a home and many other dance, music and theater organizations need venues in which to practice and perform. PAGSK is interested in offering afterschool theater programs.
Family Fun Center -Currently we lack places for children to play and families to recreate. The Great Escape Family Fun Center is interested in building or renting a building to move their laser tag/fun center to the park. The business operates in the red, has already worked with parks departments in the county and offers pool and foos ball tables, ping pong, laser tag, indoor batting cages, inflatables, a snack bar and a wide open area for indoor parties. This building could also include a gymnasium with basketball and indoor tennis courts, etc.
Environmental Learning Center – South Kitsap has no environmental learning centers in contrast to CK and NK. Karcher Creek Sewer/Annapolis Water District has a vision for creating an environmental learning center. This could be tied to outdoor education programs that utilize the existing trails, as well as an arboretum feature.
Storage Facilities -Various sports leagues are in need of safe, secure storage areas to hold uniforms and other equipment. The facility could also have a kitchen and could serve as a snack bar run by the local sports leagues to help with fundraising.
Nature Trails – The nation and state have been recognizing the need for children to connect with nature. Emphasis has been placed on “leaving no child inside.” We need to clean up and fix our trails so that they can be used safely and serving as outdoor learning laboratories that work in conjunction with the environmental learning center.
Victory Garden – Helpline of South Kitsap reports increases in hunger rates in SK. There is always a demand for fresh fruits and vegetables. The Victory Garden would include P-Patches for apartment dwellers and others unable to have a garden at their home, as well as a children’s garden and a community garden that would serve Helpline. It, too, would be an outdoor learning laboratory connecting the community with nature and teaching them how to grow their own food.
Peace Garden – This memorial garden would be the place where community members can honor those loved ones lost through the dedication of pieces of art and sculpture, or with benches, trees and shrubs. Imagine a place where people like Al Kono, Ashley Moore and Bob Oke and others can be permanently remembered. This garden should have a water feature and can be combined with the water gardens envisioned for the environmental learning center.
Wide walking trails -Individuals with diabetes who must walk 30 minutes for their health and mothers with children in strollers as well as hundreds of other folks all need wide, safe walking trails. Our nature trails are wonderful, but we need wide walking trails like those at Green Lake to accommodate the community’s needs for outdoor exercise. These trails should be 6 feet in width and have a lane for those going slowly and one for bikers, rollerskaters and runners. It should loop around the gardens and connect the buildings.
Skateboard Park – Our children skateboard illegally at businesses and civic buildings all across Port Orchard. We have no safe place for them to skateboard. This park can be designed by the youth in conjuction with professionals and would serve as a learning experience.
Dog Park – It doesn’t have to be big, but we have need, besides Howe Farm, for a dog park, especially to accommodate the apartment dwellers across the street and the local senior homes. An agility component is especially needed.
Football, Soccer and Softball Fields – Currently the SK Pee Wee football organization shares the baseball field at Givens for practice and games. This is unacceptable. We need quality football, soccer and softball fields at the park. We are part way there, but need to add lights so that the fields can be used for evening games.
Tenants – Currently we have several tenants, non-paying and paying in the park. They include: Kitsap Life Steamers, Casey’s Batting Range, Paradise Paintball, South Kitsap Girls Softball Organization and Kitsap Horseshoe. We need to make sure that these tenants are good citizens in the park.
Bike Trails, BMX raceway -Mountain bike enthusiasts and BMXers currently use the park and have created a series of trails and jumps. There is a certain renegade air to these activities. We need to provide a safe outlet for this sport.
Safe Crosswalks – We lost a young girl who was trying to cross Jackson late at night. We need safe crosswalks so that local residents can better utilize the park. We also need to reconfigure the parking lot so that cars can come in on Jackson and leave by Lund. This would make traffic flow better and would allow school buses to drop off kids to the HOPE Center.
Mary,
I have a vision of going to a Mariner’s game soon and eating garlic fries. That doesn’t mean that I want all the other food vendors removed from Safeco field.
In other words, just mentioning one future use of the park is not inferring that I would advocate for that to be the exclusive use of the park. I thought that was obvious… but I guess not.
You have created a healthy list of potential activities and assets for the park and many I would certainly agree with. I doubt we’ll get all the soccer field space I’d like to see and I doubt the community center will look exactly as you have planned. There will have to be some prioritization and “give-and-go”. I look forward to working with Kitsap County and my fellow citizens to grow the park.
Have a good day.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
I have not planned a community center. We are working to promote the concept of a family recreational complex that meets a plethora of community needs.
What is the difference between a “community center” and a “family recreational complex that meets a plethora of community needs”?
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
I am not going to argue semantics with you. The distinction wasn’t between a community center and a family recreational complex. It was between planning and promoting.
The truth is, I haven’t planned anything. We are promoting the concept of a family recreational center. In essence we are trying to keep alive a vision of a recreational complex that will meet a plethora of needs.
Open public process is important and good, but the gentleman who put off going to the doctor only to find out that he has advanced diabetes and needs to exercise and lose weight or face a future of amputations isn’t going to come to a public meeting and ask for nice, smooth walking trails and a place to exercise.
The 11 year old who was told by his mother to stay inside until she gets home because she wants to know that she is safe while she works such crazy hours and who spends his time watching TV and playing video games while eating whatever snacks he can microwave, isn’t going to come to a public meeting. Nor is his mother, whose schedule keeps her from attending much of anything. they won’t come to a public meeting and ask for a Boys and Girls Club and the afterschool programs that would make such a difference to his future and her life.
Nor will the young mom who feels lonely and isolated and more than a little depressed, home alone with a four month old who doesn’t seem to ever sleep. She won’t come to a public meeting and ask for a place where she could meet up with other mothers out enjoying a park with their babies, a place where they can push their strollers while they share their struggles.
Neither will the father who was told by the WIC counselor to feed his family more fruits and vegetables, but who uses the food bank monthly and can’t begin to afford the high cost of eating well. He won’t come and ask for a community garden, nor his family’s own P-Patch.
And, the hundreds of people who lose loved ones every year in South Kitsap, will they come and ask for a memorial garden? No, but they will appreciate its serenity while they grieve.
They and hundreds of people like them won’t make it to a public meeting to ask for what they need. So, we have to ask for them. In fact, we have not only to ask, we must work for them.
the needs of these people matter to Margie, Melissa and I and the people we represent.
We hope that in 20 years they can say that the recreational complex saved their lives.
Someday we hope you and Judi will stop fighting this war you continue to wage and care about them, too.
Mary said…
“Someday we hope you and Judi will stop this war you continue to wage and care about them too.”
WOW!! What an insinuation! Please justify that. I disagree with you on a stewardship issue for the park. I think Kitsap County will better help grow the park and meet the needs of our community. You disagree. That is a difference of opinion. It doesn’t justify such an insult. Please explain how I’m waging a war against people in need? I’m very interested.
I questioned you on a point of fact and your interpretation of my comments. The fact is that you have been planning a community center (or, semantically, a “recreation complex…”). In fact, you engaged an architect, Mr. Richard Swartz, to render initial plans for it and work with you to find grants to build it. That is called planning. You asked the SKPRD for a year to get those plans and a funding mechanism in order. I don’t have a problem with you using your own resources and finances to do this. I believe it is getting the cart before the horse, but as long as you are using your own resources, you can march your own cart in front of your own horse all you want. I’ve only advocated that stewardship for the park change hands for the better.
You can play word games all you want, Mary. But you don’t seem to understand that you cross the line, ethically and morally, when you lob unjustifiable insults to my character.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
…”…Open public process is important and good, but the gentleman who put off going to the doctor only to find out that he has advanced diabetes and needs to exercise and lose weight or face a future of amputations isn’t going to come to a public meeting and ask for nice, smooth walking trails and a place to exercise.
The 11 year old who was told by his mother to stay inside until she gets home because she wants to know that she is safe while she works such crazy hours and who spends his time watching TV and playing video games while eating whatever snacks he can microwave, isn’t going to come to a public meeting. Nor is his mother, whose schedule keeps her from attending much of anything. they won’t come to a public meeting and ask for a Boys and Girls Club and the afterschool programs that would make such a difference to his future and her life….”…
*******************
I’ve never heard anyone presume to know what individuals will do or want in their community… and KNOW these folks would NEVER attend a public meeting to voice their opinions.
Are you joking?
These folks have normal intelligence, don’t they? They’re capable of speaking for themselves … they nor any community member needs or desires someone to ‘guess’ what they want and insist they get it. Most of us speak for ourselves … unless we’re incapable of doing so.
The public forum has been used successfully for many years for folks to give input.
Our representatives also see to the needs of their constituents … they don’t ‘guess’ or presume to know what those ‘needs’ are… they expect to be told or informed in another form.
A ‘memory garden’ can be and often is, a simple shrub or tree growing in a pot near the grievers home. Why would they want a ‘public’ area?
Other than public figures such as Bob Oake who was instrumental in getting this park no one else belongs there.
Ms. Colborn … allow these folks you don’t believe capable of speaking for themselves… allow them to express their wants and needs along with the rest of South Kitsap… THEN make plans for the park.
Of course these people will make it to a public meeting…or write a letter or call their repre3sentative … if they chose to do so.
Unless you are their legal guardian, let them speak for themselves.
Sharon O’Hara
Sharon – In regard to Mary Colborn’s Post of June 21? You deserve a standing ovation for your comments. “Applause, Applause.” (Smile)
Recently on blogs concerning the SK Community Park Kathy Simpson and fellow cohort Judi Edwards have taken people to task for not signing their name(s.
I have looked around and can find no blog rule that frowns on posting anonymously, so I wondered who died and left you two the blog Nazis?
An opinion is an opinion no matter how it is signed, be it Joe Mama/Papa, Liberal/Conservative Curmudgeon, or Concerned Citizen. You can declaim another’s writing all you wish, but that doesn’t make it any less valued or relevant.
There are valid reasons people post with different pen names, the explanation of which is (shockingly!) none of my or your business.
I anxiously await Kathy’s lecture on why I am completely wrong, as she cannot let any opposing view stand unchallenged.
Anonymice Unite!
WE WILL NOT GO AWAY!
Judi-Truly pathetic.
Anonymice,
Personally, I don’t think an anonymous post carries the same degree of credibility as a post with a real name attached to it. An anonymous post risks nothing. A signed post puts an individual’s reputation and credibility on the line.
When I post something, I can’t later pretend I didn’t say it. I’m willing to be accountable for what I’ve said. You, being anonymous, on the other hand, don’t have to be accountable. When you call me names and throw insults, you don’t have your anonymous blogging reputation follow you to your other activities of the day. You are free to be Jeckel and Hyde.
I’ve said what I have to say. You’ve anonymously said what you have to say. Let the readers decide where there is credibility and where it is lacking.
Lecture enough for you? Oh, and by the way, I’ve never said anonymous posts violate any rules.
Have a cheesy day.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
Oh Kathryn–
Were insults thrown at you? Only if you believe you may be culpable of accusations would you feel the need to respond–right?
“Jeckel and Hyde”(sic) describes you and Judi to a T.
So, if a REAL person is accused of something then they better not respond because if they do respond then they must be guilty? Gimme a break. Have you read your US Constitution lately??? It is the 4th of July. Perhaps it is a good day to give it a good read.
If your REAL name was bantied about with false and/or misleading information, you might feel inclined to respond too. Oh, wait… you don’t use your real name, so you have no worries.
I really don’t care what you think of my position on issues. I don’t put a finger into the wind to gauge whether people will like my position. I look at the facts and work to find win-win solutions that will be most beneficial to our community.
What I care about is that facts are presented accurately so that reasonable people can decipher fact from fiction and legitimate issues from insulting propoganda. I firmly believe that reasonable people, who have the facts, can do a good job of gauging credibility.
You risk nothing. I risk my real name and reputation. Let the credibility checks begin.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson