KAPO Letter to Kitsap County Commissioners on Reasonable Measures

On Friday August 5, Alan Beam and I had the first opportunity to review the “Reasonable measures” that are the subject of today’s scheduled public hearing. We understand that these measures are ones that have gone through some negotiation process involving County staff, the appellants of the Buildable Lands Analysis Report and the “Developer Council” as part of the Home Builders Association. Other than perhaps a courtesy review by the Realtors and the one Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners (KAPO) received this past Friday, there is no evidence of public input prior to this public hearing. The “open house” held this afternoon cannot count for the kind of “broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comment ………. ” required by RCW 36.70A.140. Therefore, Kitsap County has failed to comply with the Growth Management Act’s requirements for public participation.

We believe also the County has failed to take advantage of the experience and expertise resident in the citizens of the County to craft workable “reasonable measures.” Neither the Buildable Lands Analysis Report appellants or the Growth Management Hearings Board members represent or can represent the residents of Kitsap County. Without citizen input, there is no way for the Board of Commissioners to adequately represent the citizens who elected them and without a “broad dissemination of information” about what the Board is set to adopt, there is no effective way for the Board to get feedback from the citizens.

Clearly KAPO does not represent all of the citizens of Kitsap County, but we do represent quite a number of property owners in our membership. As an organization that has been actively involved in the development of comprehensive plans and ordinances for the past sixteen years we wish to object first to the process by which the “reasonable measures” have been crafted and to object specifically to the following measures in the list of fourteen (14):

Residents speak out against port district annexation

POULSBO — The Port of Poulsbo has entertained the idea of expanding its boundaries for nearly one year. Little, if any, opposition to the notion presented itself during that time. In fact, only a handful of supportive voices were raised at port meetings and a town hall on the topic.

But at a Jan. 24 forum hosted by the North Kitsap Herald at the Poulsbo City Hall, the opposition finally showed up.

“All of us waterfront homeowners, we got the DNR, we got the Army Corps of Engineers if you got a dock, we got the county, we got septic people, and now you (want to) put another layer — you guys — over that,” said Joe Prevost, whose family has lived on Pearson Point in Liberty Bay for 25 years. “We’re worried. We got enough already.”

He added, “This is a 71 percent increase (in the port’s taxing area). I’m very opposed to this.”

Prevost lives in one of a few neighborhoods along Liberty Bay that will vote Feb. 11 on whether they wish to join the Poulsbo Port District. The others are Lemolo, Scandia, Virginia Point, and parts of Poulsbo.

Opinion: Proposal to Expand Poulsbo Port District – Vote No

We attended the recent meeting in which Poulsbo port commissioners presented their case for why voters should allow them to dramatically expand the current district’s boundaries, raising taxes on hundreds of property owners.  In our opinion, the current port commissioners did not present a clear case for why those who live outside the current port district would benefit from annexation.  They did not document, in any detailed way, exactly why they need additional tax revenue or exactly what they would do with the revenue.  They mentioned a number of projects such as expanding the docks or even helping to develop a hotel in Poulsbo but had no detailed specific plans.  I believe their argument was, basically, that if they had more money they would be able to do something good with it and we should take their word on that.  They might as well have said, “We have to pass the annexation before we know the benefits of the annexation.”

When we asked why people like us, who live in the county, would want to be annexed, the commissioners relied on vague arguments, saying for example, that it was a matter of fairness or community spirit.  When we asked why it was fair  for people who live, in many cases, miles from the port, to pay for expenses designed to benefit primarily people who work or live near the port, one of the commissioners said we would benefit by not having to pay as much tax to the city of Poulsbo.  We said we didn’t live in Poulsbo and didn’t pay Poulsbo tax so his argument made no sense.  He did not have any response.

We think it’s important to point out that the postcard the commissioners sent out, saying that the average tax increase for annexed property would be about $75/year, is misleading.  The additional tax rate property owners will pay is 30 cents for each $1000 of assessed valuation.  So the additional tax the commissioners cited would be on a home valued at $250,000.  We’re not sure where those houses are but it’s clear they are not on Liberty Bay.  In fact, we’re sure the average value of homes that are at all near the shoreline is probably twice the value presented by the commissioners.  For those properties the additional tax will be $150/year, or more.  The commissioners know this is not a trivial increase which is why they presented the lower figure.

We are not against paying for governmental activities that have some clear benefit but we believe it is the duty of elected officials to document what benefits their work provides and what benefits will come from any additional taxation.  In our opinion, the Poulsbo port commissioners have not done that.

Carl and Janet Shipley
Scandia

Opinion: Regarding Poulsbo Port District Annexation

Letters Editor:

Do those whose ballots questioned whether the Poulsbo Port District should annex additional areas understand the issues?  Even if their property is far from Liberty Bay, a Yes vote means they want to be included.

Imagine you signed a blank sheet of paper, and then later discovered you lost your assets in a prenuptial agreement.  Similarly, the vast, unread, Port District Powers appears in RCW 53.08.

Only a few of those powers pertaining to property are:

A port district may construct, condemn, purchase, acquire, add to, maintain, conduct, and operate  sea walls, piers, docks, boat landings, and administration buildings.

We do know they intend to build a hotel in downtown Poulsbo, a cruise ship dock, more boat slips, increase  a seaplane dock, and dredge Liberty Bay.

Further, a port district may acquire, construct, install, improve and operate sewer and water utilities to serve its own property and other property owners under terms, conditions, and rates fixed by the Port Commission. There can be Local Improvement Districts within the Port District to be taxed by all property owners within the Port District, whether it ever benefits them or not.

RCW 53.08, the prenuptial agreement marries the property owner, not just to the Port Commissioners, but to all Port property owners’ decisions.  Divorce isn’t an option.  One must remain aware of upcoming finances and decisions to protect one’s property.  Since Port decisions wed the property to the Port, it will impact future sales or inheritance terms.

Please read the immense powers of Port Districts prior to voting.  It isn’t just the amount of taxes they cite now; this presents a big land grab and loss of property rights.  Port District powers retain the ability to levy other taxes, even condemn property. Some of Port plans create pollution, whereas homeowners protect the environment.

Dora “Cris” Shardelman

Opinion: Vote “No” on Port of Poulsbo Expansion

This is not about citizens’ participation; it’s taking more property rights and money from you. If passed:

• The Port could impose more tax levies on your property.
• The Port may generate Local Development Improvement District assessments on your property.
• It would add another governmental entity to pay for.
• It would add many new Port powers as described in RCW Title 53
• Read for yourselves on the web site below:

RCW  Title 53 Web site:   http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=53

I went to the Port meeting and found out it’s worse than I thought.

Not only do they believe they are here to help us spend our tax money and make us feel guilty for not being a part of their problems which they caused, but they did not even read or understood the laws they are elected to uphold. WOW!! They spoke as if Poulsbo owns Liberty Bay and we have to be part of them.

The meeting was supposed to be run by 3 elected Port Commissioners but instead it was run by a local editor, who asked for written questions on 3 X 5 cards leaving little opportunity for attendees to comment. But the audience insisted on making comments and were heard.

To make this worse, the Port of Poulsbo wants to:

Build more boat slips, build a hotel, make a cruise ship dock, dredge Liberty Bay, increase seaplane traffic by building a seaplane dock farther out in the bay.  All would create more noise, pollution and congestion.

In short, they need to realize we don’t want to be part of another government entity that acts counter to our wishes, yet takes more of our money.

Voting for expansion of this Port is a gross mistake, and would be irresponsible to our Liberty Bay community.

Vote “NO” to preserve your Property rights and protect Liberty Bay from the Port of Poulsbo

Please forward this to all the voters located on Viking Way NW, Scandia, Virginia Point, Pearson Point and Lemolo areas.

Jim Almond,

Silverdale incorporation fails

SILVERDALE — Initial returns from the special election showed the incorporation effort failing 69.85 percent to 30.15 percent. It’s the fourth time Silverdale incorporation proponents have been dealt disappointment, this time by voters who made it overwhelmingly clear they don’t want the county’s commercial hub to become the state’s newest city.

Incorporation supporters said Tuesday night that they weren’t sure if they’ll be part of a future effort to incorporate. Biegenwald guessed it would be a “long, long time” before another effort materializes, noting 14 years passed between the past two efforts. State law requires proponents wait three years from the date of the election before the measure can be considered again if it receives 40 percent or less of the total vote.

Read the Kitsap Sun article

Planners seek ideas for future of Gorst

Gorst Watershed Planing  – Protecting the area’s creek systems and sensitive shorelines will be a priority.

GORST — The unique character of Gorst, near the head of Sinclair Inlet, deserves an equally unique approach to planning, according to city and county planners who are working together to outline prospects for the region. Thanks to a $660,000 grant from the Environmental Protection Agency, the city of Bremerton has taken the lead in studying the entire 6,000-acre watershed for Gorst Creek and its tributaries, including Jarstad, Heins and Parish creeks.

Residents of the area and people who understand the history of the area can bring their perspectives to a meeting Tuesday. During the meeting, planners will unveil the alternatives and ask people to add their ideas. The meeting will be held 5-7 p.m. at Kitsap Square Dance Association’s Dance Hall, 6800 W. Belfair Valley Road.

Feb 12: Gorst Watershed Preliminary Land Use Alternatives Workshop

Preliminary Land Use Alternatives Workshop for the Gorst Creek Watershed Plan & Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Join us for an open house and workshop to talk about the Gorst Urban Growth Area Preliminary Land Use Alternatives under development by the City of Bremerton, together with Kitsap County, Suquamish Tribe and other agencies. At the meeting, you can review available information, participate in a mapping exercise, ask questions and provide comments on the future of Gorst.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:00 PM – 7:00 PM

Kitsap Square Dance Association, Dance Hall 6800 W Belfair Valley Road

The project is being funded by a $660,000 grant from the EPA Watershed Management Assistance Program Grant program. Contributions from partners are matching the grant and total $220,000. The grant program assists local and tribal governments with integration of watershed protection and land use decisions as they implement the Puget Sound Partnership’s Action Agenda. Grant funds must be used to support protection and restoration of high value, aquatic resources, and enhance local programs in areas threatened by growth. Measurable outcomes expected by EPA include land protection, water quality protection and restoration, and riparian/aquatic habitat protection and restoration.

Visit the project web site at: www.gorstwatershed.com

Plans submitted for Port Gamble’s revival.

PORT GAMBLE — Olympic Property Group has taken the first official step toward reviving the historic town of Port Gamble.Plans have been submitted to the county for a 325-acre development, including up to 140 new houses; a waterfront “lodge” and restaurant; stores and offices; and tourism facilities. South of town, plans call for a dairy farm, plant nursery and winery, along with a recreation area. A dock for tourism boats is planned. “This is a tremendous moment for the future of the town,” said Jon Rose, president of OPG, who expects a long review process before final approval.

The vision is to bring back the New England-style homes that have slowly disappeared since Port Gamble’s heyday in the 1920s, Rose said. Walking trails along the shoreline, through the forest and along pastoral farmland would contribute to the lifestyle of residents and become a unique tourist attraction.

View the Plan | Kitsap Sun article

After rezone, North Kitsap woman wants a property tax rebate

KINGSTON — In 2006, the Kitsap County commissioners rezoned Jo Nelson’s 75 acres on West Kingston Road, incorporating her property into an expanded urban growth area for Kingston. The rezone doubled Nelson’s property values — and her property taxes — on the undeveloped land. Nelson, who lives in Hansville, paid the higher taxes, which totaled roughly $10,000 a year, even though she had no immediate plans to develop the land.

The big surprise came this year, when the county commissioners removed Nelson’s land from the Kingston Urban Growth Area and returned it to rural density. In all, some 7,200 acres were pulled back out of urban growth areas throughout the county, as the commissioners attempted to comply with a ruling from the state’s Growth Management Hearings Board.

Seeing how she and the zoning are back to where they were before 2006, Nelson believes it is only fair that she get reimbursed for what she paid in higher taxes. What is especially irritating, she said, is that she won’t see her taxes go back down until 2014, because the values are established on Jan. 1 of the year before. Next year’s taxes will be based on the value established on Jan. 1, 2012, a time when her property was still within the urban growth area.

Read the Kitsap Sun article