Disqus - Latest Comments for Bob_Meadows

Re: Tea party activists audited by city. Would that happen to Occupy protesters? - CSMonitor.com

Bob_Meadows — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 01:26:52 -0000

The article says: "While Occupy protesters say they're being punished by cities for engaging in legal civil disobedience...."

If it's "legal," how can it be"civil disobedience?" Isn't the essence of "civil disobedience" the disobeying of a law in order to protest the very existence of that law? Even if the term is broader, how can anything which is "legal" be contained within the meaning of "disobedience?" What would the protestor be disobeying, if his actions are entirely legal?

Re: Don't deflect blame for missing ballot deadline - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 21:02:07 -0000

If the steps necessary to place this issue on the ballot were not reasonably foreseeable, then it could be a matter that is clear only in hindsight.

But they are reasonably foreseeable.

Once the council adopted its first action stating that the city would become a “code city,” the process could be predicted much like a train rolling down the tracks. (We’re not dealing with a derailment.)

If no sufficient petition was submitted to the city clerk within 90 days after first publication of the council’s action, the council would have had to adopt an ordinance changing the city to a code city.

If a petition was submitted within 90 days, the city’s status could not be changed by a council ordinance until either the petition was found to be insufficient or the city’s voters approved the change.

The 90-day period extended beyond the time when the train would pass the junction with the track that would take it to the November ballot, so a sufficient and timely petition could cause the train to take a different track toward the February election if not submitted early enough.

The people starting the petition drive needed to know by what date a sufficient petition had to be submitted to the city clerk in order to get the issue on the November ballot, if they wanted to get on that particular ballot to reduce the city’s election cost.

Submitting the petition on the day (or the day before) the city would have to submit a council resolution to the County Auditor calling for an election on the issue in November was timely in the sense that it was within the 90-day period, but it wasn’t early enough to allow the city to do what it had to do to send the matter to the auditor’s office for an election.

I presume that the people who started the petition didn’t ask, “by what day do you, the city, need to get this petition in order to get it on the November ballot?”

It seems obvious that no one acting on behalf of the city or otherwise volunteered that date to the people starting the petition.

I imagine that the hostile/defensive tone of the “conversation” at this point is because both sides feel embarrassed about not asking/volunteering the crucial question/information to get this on the November ballot rather than February’s ballot.

Rather than kick themselves, though, they lash out at the other side.

The city attorney’s letter recited all that the city did to hold hearings and get the issue before the public, but did not, of course, indicate that the crucial information needed to get on the November ballot had been volunteered to anyone at any point before it was too late to be of use.

The people starting the petition don’t say they ever asked the crucial question, but instead portray the city’s people as having come up with “new” requirements when it was too late.

If either side had been proactive enough to ask or volunteer the needed information, the petitioners would have known they had only about 60 days from the date of first publication to gather enough valid signatures and put the petition into the hands of the city clerk in time to get the issue on the November ballot.

So now the train is on track toward the February election rather than the November election.

I doubt that either side can stop the train now. The state law doesn’t seem to give the council the option of saying “never mind” and canceling the whole thing. The people starting the petition are only a few among the hundreds who signed, so they have no apparent authority to cancel the actions of the hundreds by saying “never mind” and withdrawing the petition.

Re: Don't deflect blame for missing ballot deadline - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:03:49 -0000

The missing ingredient: "proactive...assuming an active, rather than passive, role...taking the initiative...."

With two deadlines in play--one of 90 days to gather signatures for a referendum, and the other to get on a particular ballot (November)--both sides in this spat seem to be embarrassed, as they should be.

The 90-day period for gathering signatures extended beyond the deadline for getting on the November ballot. It's too bad someone didn't make this point clear much earlier.

Re: Tax hikes need justification, not emotion - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:10:31 -0000

I've seen nothing that would cause me to have the opinion that you've stated here. For example, the status of the Veterans Relief Fund is shown in a document posted at one of the Kitsap Sun blogs (Kitsap Caucus), and it shows that in 2010 $332,702 was distributed to indigent veterans:
http://pugetsoundblogs.com/...

What leads you to conclude that it's almost impossible to get an application for assistance approved?

Re: Property tax anger isn’t going away - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:03:28 -0000

Explaining the shift of the tax burden with Mr. Anderson’s balloon analogy may help more people understand what happens. No more county property tax revenue was collected, just as there was no more air put into the balloon in Anderson’s analogy, when some property values went up and others went down.

But then Anderson makes this statement, which implies that the county or other taxing districts gained revenue because of the revaluations done by the Assessor in 2010:
“As business continues to dwindle and budgets remain tight, the taxing authorities are looking to balance their budgets on the back of companies struggling just to stay afloat.”

The taxing districts don’t control the Assessor’s revaluations, and they collected no more property tax revenue because of the revaluations—with two exceptions in South Kitsap. The two exceptions are the SKFR EMS levy and the Bremerton Port District “IDD” levy to pay for the Bremerton marina expansion. These two would have collected a little less revenue, if their total assessed valuation had gone down even more for this year’s taxes, since they were already at their maximum allowable tax rate.

How can the “taxing authorities” be “looking to balance their budgets on the back of companies” when the revaluations made no difference in the amount of revenue collected by the county or other taxing districts except for the two levies mentioned above? The answer is obvious to people who understand the balloon analogy—neither the Assessor nor the taxing districts are “looking” to do anything of the sort.

I’m a little puzzled by another part of Anderson’s article, where he says, “the assessor seems to have the law on his side.” Why not say that the Assessor is following the law?

When doing revaluations, the Assessor is required to obey this statute, which says in part:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/...
“The true and fair value of real property for taxation purposes (including property upon which there is a coal or other mine, or stone or other quarry) shall be based upon the following criteria: “(1) Any sales of the property being appraised or similar properties with respect to sales made within the past five years.”

The Assessor is required to consider sales made within the past five years. People may disagree with the adjustments he made because of the passage of time since the prior sales, but he is obeying the law in considering the prior sales.

This statute also applies to a point made by Anderson, and it says in part:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/...
“All real property in this state subject to taxation shall be listed and assessed every year, with reference to its value on the first day of January of the year in which it is assessed.”

The Assessor had no lawful choice other than to assess the value as of January 1, 2010, for taxes to be collected in 2011.

One last point—Anderson portrays the appeal process as one that offers no hope of fairness, but the list of Board of Equalization cases for assessed values in 2010 shows, as of June 30, 2011:
152 cases required no hearing, because the Assessor and taxpayer reached agreement on the property’s value; 52 cases heard by the Board resulted in an adjustment of the assessed value by the Board; and in 145 cases heard by the Board, the value determined by the Assessor was sustained.

It seems obvious that the Board is not “deaf” to valid reasons for adjusting values set by the Assessor, and that the Assessor is not reluctant to change those values by agreement with the taxpayer when good reasons are produced for the change.

Re: Matthes says small change to state law could settle property valuation dispute - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:12:35 -0000

Now that I’ve obtained and read a copy of Ordinance 010-09 which was adopted Dec. 22, 2009, I see that the municipal code’s terms which indicate the Business Professional zoning was in effect in Dec. 2009 were misleading—at least, they misled me.

While the municipal code cites this ordinance as the one in which the city council adopted the Business Professional zoning (and the zoning map from that time shows the new BP zone), the ordinance itself actually says in section 5:
“All amendments to Title 16 relating to the adoption of the new Business Professional zone shall not take effect until the City adopts a land use table which details the uses permitted within the Business Professional zone. The adoption of this land use table is anticipated for early 2010. Until such time as the land use table is adopted and effective for the Business Professional zone the pre-amendment zoning shall control.”

I had earlier noticed during my online searches Ordinance 028-10 which was adopted Dec. 14, 2010; but neither it nor the agenda briefing document hinted that the Business Professional zone was not yet effective. Instead, the permitted use tables were merely said to be undergoing a revision.

It seems clear to me that the actual wording of Ordinance 010-09 from Dec. 22, 2009, shows that the Business Professional zoning was not in effect until later—namely when Ordinance 028-10 was adopted almost a year later.

Although you never answered the earlier questions I asked in an effort to learn what real property you were talking about when you said the actual zoning had not changed, I presume you were referring to tax parcels which were previously zoned for residential use and were rezoned by Ordinance 028-10 as Business Professional.

RCW 84.40.030(1) says, among other things:
“The appraisal shall be **consistent with the comprehensive land use plan,** development regulations under chapter 36.70A RCW, zoning, and any other governmental policies or practices in effect at the time of appraisal that affect the use of property, as well as physical and environmental influences.” [Emphasis **added**.]

This might lead one to believe that the 2008 comprehensive plan’s designations of land use categories for each parcel on the map could be a factor in assessing a parcel’s value.

However, the very next sentence in RCW 84.40.030(1) says:
“An assessment may not be determined by a method that assumes a land usage or highest and best use not permitted, for that property being appraised, under **existing zoning or land use planning ordinances** or statutes or other government restrictions.” [Emphasis **added.**]

Unless the use is permitted under the existing zoning, it apparently should not be a factor in assessing the property’s value—no matter what the comprehensive plan shows as potential future zoning.

RCW 84.40.020 says: “All real property in this state subject to taxation shall be listed and assessed every year, with reference to its value on the first day of January of the year in which it is assessed.”

For taxes payable in 2011, the assessment year was 2010—specifically, the true and fair value on January 1, 2010, should be the assessed value of each parcel, as I understand it.

It seems to me that there could be no change of “county policy” (as you have said happened) that would allow consideration of a use which wasn’t permitted under existing zoning on January 1, 2010, since any such “policy” would be in conflict with the express terms of the applicable statute. An ordinance adopted in December 2010 which finally made the Business Professional zoning effective wouldn’t seem to have any appropriate effect on a property’s value in the previous January.

I would be interested, then, in knowing what reasons were given—for any case appealed to the board of equalization or otherwise—for leaving in place an assessed value based on Business Professional zoning on any parcel of land which had not been rezoned from residential to Business Professional until the end of 2010.

Re: Matthes says small change to state law could settle property valuation dispute - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:31:10 -0000

Agreeing to disagree about opinions is one thing, but this is another.

Here’s the simple point you need to rebut, if you want to continue claiming what you have claimed before: Ordinance 010-09 rezoned the affected properties a little more than a year after the 2008 comprehensive plan was adopted, so that the revaluations done in 2010 were based on the properties' actual zoning, not on their comp plan designations.

If you think that ordinance didn’t rezone the affected properties, what do you think it did?

Re: Matthes says small change to state law could settle property valuation dispute - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:48:31 -0000

“In addition,” he [Mayor Coppola] said, “why are tax assessments based upon Comprehensive Plan designations — as opposed to actual zoning and use? This strikes me as patently unfair.”

The city's comprehensive plan was adopted in Dec. 2008, and the zoning ordinance implementing the land-use designations in the plan was apparently adopted Dec. 22, 2009--Ordinance 010-09.

So, when Mayor Coppola says the "actual zoning" isn't being used, but instead the comprehensive plan's land use designation is being used, as one factor in determining property values, what does he think Ordinance 010-09 did to the properties' actual zoning?

I haven't found the ordinance online, so haven't read it, but this part of the city's municipal code indicates the ordinance adopted the zoning and applied it to the properties shown on the city's zoning map:
16.12.010 Zones established.
The following zones are hereby established: Gb, R4.5, R8, R12, R20, Co, BP, Eo, Mxd, Cf; and overlay zones of TRMT, VPOD, DOD central, DOD east and DOD west gateways. The location and boundaries of the various zones are such as are shown in Appendix A of the 2008 comprehensive plan maps and are codified in this title and made a part of this title. Changes in the boundaries of the zones, including application or amendment or interim zoning, shall be made by ordinance adopting or amending the zoning map. (Ord. 010-09 § 4 (Exh. A); Ord. 046-07 § 2 (Exh. A)).

Except for 4 undeveloped parcels east of McCormick Woods, which are designated commercial in the comp plan map and are shown as zoned for residential development in the zoning map, the two maps seem to be the same--with the exception that at the time of the comp plan's adoption the "business professional" zoning designation was postponed and "commercial" was shown as the designation for the comp plan's map. With Ordinance 010-09, the "business professional" zoning designation was apparently put into effect, since it is in the municipal code and on the zoning map.

Coppola is apparently wrong in his belief that the comp plan's designation, rather than the actual zoning, was used in assessing the value of the affected properties.

As for Coppola's belief that actual use should be considered rather than the zoned use, he will need to seek more than the "small change" sought by Matthes. He will need to amend the state constitution, Article VII, much like it was amended in 1968 to add Section 11 which allows "current use" to be used in determining the value of lands used for agriculture, timber and open space. Then he will need to change the statutes and regulations once the constitution has been amended to allow what he believes ought to be the law.

Re: Port Orchard mulls suing county over property valuation - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:40:31 -0000

Last word or not, it's plain that you aren't paying attention to detail.

In your example you have a taxpayer paying $50 more and then conclude that the county is collecting $50 more in total. You say I've "already admitted" the effect on the individual to whom the tax burden shifts, but you omit what I've said repeatedly--the burden shifted to that taxpayer from others, and the others are then paying a total of $50 less to the county. The county has no net gain in revenue.

You complain that you were quoted out of context, so I think you would try hard to avoid doing the same to others. Yet you seem to have no reluctance to take part of what I say and ignore the rest in your effort to avoid admitting your error.

Some day, maybe you will take the time to learn how the property tax process works. In the meantime, be more careful about saying as you did in your comment on the opinion piece written by Mr. Matthes:
http://www.pnwlocalnews.com...
" In my view, this policy change is nothing more than a reprehensible slight-of-hand [sic] scheme to increase property tax revenue for the County."

I hadn't realized until the Editor's note posted as a comment this morning that the quoted statement by you that I read in the article (and that was the reason for my initial and all following comments) was taken from your own written comment, not from some interview or email between you and the Editor.

You say your statements were taken out of context, but the context of your claim that a "reprehensible...scheme to increase property tax revenue for the county" is there for all to see.

Even if you are correct that a policy change occurred after the city's comp plan was adopted, you are incorrect about the effect on the property tax revenue collected by the county. The county gains nothing in the total amount collected even if you are correct about a policy change.

Since the county gains nothing, there is no basis for your accusation that the Assessor has put into effect a reprehensible scheme to increase county revenues.

If the 4 pieces of property I found are the ones you are talking about, you apparently aren't even correct in claiming that no zoning change occurred. In the county's 2006 comp plan, they are shown as urban low-density, which is 4 to 9 dwelling units per acre. In the city's 2010 zoning map, they are shown as zoned for 12 units per acre.

If you want to portray this as a situation involving taxpayers whose assessed values on their homes and therefore the taxes on their homes have gone up, you ought to specify at least one example. For the 4 tracts I found, the land is not being used as anyone's home--it is undeveloped.

Re: Port Orchard mulls suing county over property valuation - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:41:15 -0000

As I noted before, I found only a few undeveloped tracts of land that were designated commercial in the city's comp plan and zoned residential according to the city's zoning map. There are 4 of them, all owned by the same people, totaling about 104 acres. Zoned for residential development at 12 dwelling units per acre, these tracts are designated for commercial development in the comp plan. They have no structures of any kind on them now.

Are those the properties you are talking about?

Since the Sept 2008 blog post I cited above indicated that the Assessor was not keeping any secret about the potential impact of the comp plan on assessed values, I would like to know what makes you believe there was any change after the city adopted its comp plan.

This part of your most recent reply indicates to me that you still don't understand the arithmetic and the property tax process:
"If the county taxes every property in the county at the rate of its Comp Plan designation, and NOT at its current zoning and use, then as you've already agreed, each individual taxpayer will pay more. If each taxpayer pays more, the county collects substantially more."

The county can levy the lesser of two amounts each year:
(1) The amount that can be collected at the maximum tax rate allowed by statute ($1.80 per $1000 for the current expense levy); or
(2) The amount that results from increasing the highest prior levy by 1% and by the amount generated by new construction.

The increase in assessed values for property that has not been improved by "new construction" does not now or in at least the past decade or more affect the levy limit. The county's current expense levy has been set at an amount that requires much less than the maximum tax rate to collect, because it has been set at the smaller amount--the one that is calculated by the 1% plus new construction method, which is unaffected by changes in property values other than those caused by new construction.

Therefore, you are entirely wrong--a fact that you need to consider the next time you are tempted to tell anyone, off the record or not, that there is a reprehensible scheme afoot that is being carried out to increase the county's property tax revenue.

When the levy amount is determined by the "1% plus new construction" calculation, most everyone does pay more--about 1% more--except for those whose property was improved by "new construction." The owners of new construction of course pay substantially more, because their property value increased substantially more due to its development--and this new construction does increase the county's total property tax revenue by more than the 1% otherwise permitted for annual increases in the levy amount.

Whether it's a comp plan designation as you claim or a zoning change that affects property value by causing its assessed value to increase, the result is the same regarding the county's total revenue. The county gets not one penny more in total property tax revenue because of the zoning or comp plan designation.

You say, "if each taxpayer pays more, the county collects substantially more," and you are entirely wrong--the county collects more, but it's 1% plus whatever amount is generated by new construction (not zoning or comp plan changes, which generate no more property tax revenue for the county until the land is improved by "new construction"). If all property values are assessed using the same factors, there may be a shift of the tax burden from one group of taxpayers to another, but there is no increase in the county's total property tax revenue. You are starting with a false premise--that each and every property owner would pay substantially more.

If your tax bill goes up because of something other than new construction that affected your property's value but not mine, and mine goes down by the same amount as the burden shifts to you, the county gets not one penny more from the two of us.

Re: Port Orchard mulls suing county over property valuation - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 02:07:26 -0000

I guess we have to "agree to disagree" if you don't agree that the change in assessed values did not increase the county's revenues by even one penny. It's a fact, and it directly contradicts what you reportedly believed was a scheme to increase the county's revenue.

As for whether it is ethical or fair to assess someone's property value and take into consideration its zoning designation, I think it is completely fair and ethical. My property is zoned residential, which affects its market value should I decide to sell. Someone else's residence that is zoned commercial is also affected in its market value by the zoning, if that person decides to sell. We should both be paying based on our property values including the effect of zoning on the values.

If I'm taxed based on residential zoning that makes my property worth less in a sale than the other guy's residence that is on land zoned commercial, and the other guy is taxed as though his property is the same as mine, the other guy is paying less than he should be--and I and everyone else would be paying more to make up for what he isn't paying.

You think it is ethical to shift the tax burden from the other guy to the rest of us by ignoring his property's commercial zoning? I wonder why.

I've just finished comparing the city's comp plan and zoning maps, and I cannot figure out what property you could be talking about when you say that no zoning was changed even though some kind of comp plan designation apparently was. Except for some undeveloped tracts of land in the southwest extremity of the city, the two maps are virtually the same.

Re: Port Orchard mulls suing county over property valuation - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 00:34:45 -0000

No problem. Until you posted this clarification, I hadn't noticed that you started with an "em dash" to set off "as usual" and didn't put another one after "as usual." My brain put it there anyway (and didn't tell me), so I hadn't even noticed the other way to read it.

Re: Port Orchard mulls suing county over property valuation - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 00:31:00 -0000

Of course it's a "simple yes or no answer" if the question is whether a greater than average increase in assessed value causes a person's property tax to rise. I've already said so above. The answer is "yes," because part of the tax burden shifts to that person from other taxpayers.

But, when did you decide this was your point? You aren't talking at all about the statements that caught my attention--the "reprehensible scheme" to increase the county's revenue. Have you decided that you were wrong, as I believe I proved in my first comment? That's a simple yes or no question too. I answered yours, so will you answer mine?

Also, what comp plan are you talking about? Is it the Port Orchard comp plan? The one that prompted this blog post by Chris Henry back in September 2008?
http://pugetsoundblogs.com/...

Did the City of Port Orchard really go through that whole process and not inform the affected property owners of the obvious potential effect on their assessed values?

And, did the City actually adopt a comp plan and not follow through with zoning ordinances to implement the plan? You seem to be saying so, when you claim that the property you're complaining about did not have a change in zoning. Frankly, I have to admit that you have me entirely puzzled about what you think are the facts and what conclusion you draw from what you think are the facts.

When do you claim that some policy of the county Assessor (whom you apparently refer to as "the county") that applies to these properties was changed?

Re: Port Orchard mulls suing county over property valuation - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 23:38:49 -0000

Lary, I didn't miss any point at all. You reportedly claimed that a "reprehensible scheme" is involved and that its purpose is to increase the county's revenue.

I believe I proved that you would be entirely wrong, if you believed such a thing, since the increase in assessed values in Port Orchard did not increase the county's levy revenue by even one penny.

Now, you say that "the entire point" is that a property owner whose assessed value increases because of a change in zoning may then have to pay higher taxes even though the actual use has not yet changed to take advantage of the new zoning.

If that is your "entire point," what was the purpose of alleging the existence of a "reprehensible scheme" to increase county property tax revenue and of claiming that the Assessor and your opponent in the coming election are afraid that a collapse of the scheme would affect the county's "already dismal" fiscal situation in a way they would not like?

Of course, whenever the assessed value of a person's real property increases by more than the average, part of the tax burden shifts to that person from other taxpayers.

This shift of the tax burden does not increase the taxing district's total revenue. It affects individuals by reducing the taxes of some and making a corresponding increase in the taxes of others.

If you can find anything in state law which would allow the Assessor to ignore the effect of zoning changes on the actual value of a piece of real estate--and instead assess its value based on actual use--please let us all know what you found. I believe you will find that there are certain provisions that allow the assessed value to be based on actual use, but you will also find that they don't apply to the cases you complain about.

Re: Port Orchard mulls suing county over property valuation - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:12:54 -0000

These statements attributed to Mayor Coppola caught my attention, since it is easy to figure out whether he is correct:
“In my view,” Coppola said, “this policy change is nothing more than a reprehensible sleight-of-hand scheme to increase property tax revenue for the county.”Coppola concluded, “What I suspect is both Tim and Avery’s biggest fear is that a lawsuit such as I mentioned, if successful, could possibly overturn all those outlandish assessments and open the door to anyone and everyone who ever filed a Board of Equalization appeal.“Ask what that would do to the county’s already dismal revenue situation,” Coppola said, “and you can see why they’re both scared.”

I decided to “ask what that would do to the county’s...revenue” by using simple arithmetic.

The county collects two property tax levies on taxable property within the Port Orchard city limits—the current expense levy and the conservation futures levy.

Since Coppola clearly believes that assessed values for property within the city should be something less than the currently assessed values, I decided to take them all the way down to zero to see what effect it would have on county revenues.

It would have no effect even at this absurd extreme.

For taxes due this year, the county’s current expense levy amount is $29,147,060, which is collected by a tax rate of $1.025061 per $1000.

Subtracting Port Orchard’s total assessed valuation ($1,239,258,364) from the total assessed valuation of the county ($28,434,461,783), and then dividing this year’s current expense levy amount by the result produces a tax rate of $1.071772 per $1000.

In other words, even if the County Assessor were so far off the mark that Port Orchard’s assessed value is really zero, the effect on the tax rate is to raise it by less than a nickel to collect the same county current expense levy amount.

Since the maximum allowable tax rate for the county’s current expense levy is $1.80 per $1000, it is obvious that even removing Port Orchard entirely from the equation would have no effect on the county’s current expense levy. The county would have collected neither more nor less than it now collects.

The same thing happens with the conservation futures levy. The maximum allowable rate is 6.25 cents per $1000. The actual rate this year is $0.042777 per $1000. With Port Orchard entirely out of the equation, the rate would still have been less than the maximum—it would have been $0.044726 per $1000. So the county could have collected exactly the same amount as it is actually collecting—no more and no less.

The county would be collecting the same levy amount this year even if the Assessor had reduced the assessed values of property in Port Orchard to zero.

It is obvious to me that Coppola is wrong when he claims that the currently assessed values increase the county’s revenue—and that the currently assessed values are the product of a “reprehensible...scheme to increase property tax revenue for the county.”

If the county's total assessed value were reduced by more than 40 percent, the county's levy amount would be limited by the maximum tax rate. Only at that point would the assessed values affect the county's property tax revenue.

Does Coppola really believe total assessed valuation is more than 40 percent higher countywide than actual market values? I doubt it. I think he just didn't do the arithmetic to find out if his imagined scheme could be true.

Re: Bremerton firefighters oppose regional fire authority, SK leaders ask for community input - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 23:46:31 -0000

"Lets merge if...." That's a big "if."

Consider the reasons they give for not liking the plan, and maybe you will see one or more reasons to care what they think.

The fact that plenty of people would like to have their jobs has nothing to do with the question whether the city fire department and the fire district should form a regional fire protection service authority.

Re: Fire merger plan may have an alternative - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:18:35 -0000

You're right in saying that the effect on our individual costs cannot be known until we know how the benefit charge would be calculated. Some of us might pay more and some of us might pay less, since the factors that can be chosen to calculate the benefit charge aren't necessarily related to the assessed value of our property. Right now, we pay property taxes in direct relation to the assessed value of our property. With benefit charges in addition to taxes, our individual "bottom line" can't be known until we know what factors are used for the benefit charge and how they pertain to each of us.

The total collected from us all with the combination of property taxes and benefit charges would be greater than the regional authority could collect with property taxes alone, since this would be the purpose of benefit charges--giving the regional authority the power to collect all needed revenue without depending on a payment from the City of Bremerton.

If the resulting total results in Bremerton taxpayers paying for their own services rather than SK residents paying part of Bremerton's costs, then benefit charges could be a way to eliminate the funding gap. But--just like with the effect on individuals--we cannot know unless the committee specifies how the benefit charges would be calculated whether Bremerton residents would pay their own costs rather than shifting them to SK.

Benefit charges could fill the gap, but maybe not in a way that SK residents would like.

The way benefit charges add to the regional authority's power to collect revenue can be seen using approximations of the tax revenue and the limit on benefit charges (60% of the operating budget).

Using the revenue projections the committee came up with for 2012, total tax revenues would be about $16.7 million (both EMS and regular operating levies--with the operating levy at a tax rate of about $1.32 per $1000).

With benefit charges the maximum rate for the regular operating levy is capped at $1 per $1000, so the projected levy at $1.32 would have to be reduced by about $2.9 million. Instead of collecting about $12.1 million with that levy, the regional authority could collect about $9.2 million.

The total operating budget would be about $21.75 million, and 60% of that figure is about $13 million, which is more than the sum of the $2.9 million reduction in the levy amount plus the $2.4 million funding gap caused by Bremerton's relatively low tax base.

In other words, if at least 60% of voters approve, the benefit charge total can be big enough to eliminate the funding gap.

But, getting voter approval probably requires calculating benefit charges in a way that doesn't shift costs from Bremerton to SK taxpayers--and so we need to know whether benefit charges can be done in a way that we would likely approve.

Re: Annexation can’t always be done alone - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:14:31 -0000

I look forward to hearing what part of the GMA can be read as requiring cities to annex their UGA by a certain deadline. Thanks for looking into that.

As for the rest, I hope the BRB decision does help move the city and county toward consistent policies for these annexations.

You seem to concede that the boundary that would be created by the proposed annexation is irregular, if not "abnormally" so or "impractical," and that it would create some difficulty in providing governmental services. You propose working around any such difficulty through interlocal agreements between the city and county.

The county's submission to the BRB pointed to two governmental services that would be affected: law enforcement and stormwater management.

I suppose both (and any others that pop up in the future) could be worked around, but I think the initial issue is whether the city should first try to avoid creating problems that have to be worked around.

One way to avoid creating problems that need a work-around ad hoc solution is for the city to adjust annexation proposals to meet the criteria the BRB would have to follow, rather than waiting to see if the BRB's jurisdiction is invoked and then to see what the BRB decides.

While it may seem inconsistent or contradictory (I wouldn't use "hypocrisy" to characterize it, since that word implies bad faith), the county can urge annexations and still insist that the process follow the rules of the game.

If the way a city is going about the process of annexations isn't apparently in accordance with the rules of the game, it is neither inconsistent nor contradictory to object to the way it's being done.

Let me use an analogy to illustrate what I'm saying. If my mother told me to eat my dinner when I was a boy, and then instructed me to sit up straight, keep my elbows off the table, chew with my mouth closed, and for goodness sake don't talk with food in my mouth, I wouldn't accuse her of hypocrisy when she sets the rules I must follow as I proceed toward the ultimate goal of eating my dinner. (At least, I wouldn't do it a second time--and that's where the analogy breaks down. Getting the city and county to follow consistent policies may take more than one time through the process, but I hope not.)

Re: County aims to herd residents into cities - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 01:50:46 -0000

Please, you needn't read this, assuming you haven't turned off the automatic email notification of a reply to your comment.

Thank you for the leads that help me try to figure out why you think there is no option to remain in a UGA and not be annexed into a city. Proving a negative is nearly impossible, so I asked you to prove the positive assertion you made about the GMA: "The GMA says that all UGAs shall either become part of an existing city or become a new city within the 20-years that growth plans cover."

You didn't cite any section of the statutory law as I had asked, but you gave enough for me to figure out where you are "coming from."

The WAC sections you cite don't help a lot, since the Department hasn't been given (and hasn't exercised) the authority to make substantive rules that would add the rule you believe from your perspective to be a part of the law.

But one of them does summarize in one sentence part of one of the early growth management hearings board decisions that pieced together several parts of the GMA as it existed back in 1993 to come up with what is apparently the strongest correct statement of the GMA's effect on the choice to annex or not.

In WAC 365-196-305(1) is this statement, which summarizes part of the holding of the Central Puget Sound Growth Planning Hearings Board in City of Snoqualmie Vs. King County, case number 92-3-0004, Final Decision and Order, issued March 1, 1993, at pages 7-8:
"Another purpose of county-wide planning policies is to facilitate the transformation of local governance in the urban growth area, typically through annexation to or incorporation of a city, so that urban governmental services are primarily provided by cities and rural and regional services are provided by counties."

To "facilitate" is not to "require" annexation or incorporation.

One statute the board relied on was amended by Chapter 400, Laws of 1995 to change what had been a statement of what is "appropriate" to what is "in general" the "most appropriate."

RCW 36.70A.110(3) at the time of the board's ruling said in the last sentence of subsection (3):
"Further, it is appropriate that urban government services be provided by cities, and urban government services should not be provided in rural areas."

It has said since 1995 in what is now subsection (4): "In general, cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, it is not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban development."

If you get a "second wind," or if anyone else with some knowledge of the GMA wants to chime in, I would be interested in any other lead toward a possible proof of the positive assertion that the GMA requires a "transformation of governance" by annexation or incorporation. What you've provided so far doesn't amount to proving that positive assertion.

Re: County aims to herd residents into cities - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:33:55 -0000

I would like to know if you can cite a section of the Growth Management Act which says what you say it says in this sentence: "The GMA says that all UGAs shall either become part of an existing city or become a new city within the 20-years that growth plans cover."

I don't believe there is any section of the GMA which says that.

I believe you are omitting one option when you say this about the idea of annexing into Port Orchard: "There are no other options under the GMA."

Remaining in a UGA but outside the city limits is an option.

When you say this, I have to disagree--which is why I wrote what I did for this week's opinion piece: "The reason that you might face higher taxes, which I acknowledge, is that little of the unincorporated UGA currently receives urban LOS for most services. Not for parks, libraries, streets, fire, police, schools, EMS, and maybe some others."

The City of Port Orchard doesn't provide fire protection or EMS within its own boundaries, so that cannot possibly be affecting the city's level of taxation.

The city's streets are generally no better than and in some cases worse than the county roads in the areas adjacent to the city, so that can't be it.

The city recently passed off the responsibility for the library's operations to KRL. The building still belongs to the city, but nothing about the city's previous service contract with KRL for operations or the city's new role as a city annexed into the Kitsap County Rural Library District makes any difference in the level of service by the library. (Note the irony in having every city within this county annexed into the "rural" library district.)

The public's desire for any particular "level of service" could perhaps best be determined by asking them to vote on any proposal to be annexed into a city. If the deal sounds good to them (higher taxes for better service, not higher taxes for the same service), maybe they would vote to approve annexation.

Re: County aims to herd residents into cities - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:56:45 -0000

What am I missing about "the technical point and legal mandate about the duty of cities" which would have anything to do with the question I'm writing about?

I'm writing about the situation involving suburban areas in UGAs that have not yet been annexed into a city--specifically, Port Orchard.

The county would like to find a way to encourage annexation by Port Orchard of areas that already contain a fairly high population density. The idea is to pass the responsibility for providing services from the county to the city. (Since the county loses little revenue when annexation of residential areas occurs, but sheds quite a bit of reponsibility and the related costs, the county naturally wants to pass off the service responsibility to the city.)

If the residents in areas like mine would receive nothing new or better that they want from the city after annexation--but would receive something they don't want, namely higher taxes--how can the county overcome the natural resistance to annexation?

The city's planning responsibilities under the GMA don't seem to have any bearing on this issue, at least, not that I can see. What do you see as the connection?

And, if it is really more efficient and thus less costly to serve areas with higher density development, why do cities impose higher taxes compared to counties?

If the efficiency argument is valid, annexations into cities would be usually be easily and frequently done--for the better service at the same or lower cost in taxes. But voters often resist annexation, because despite the efficiency claiim, they don't end up with the same or better service at the same or lower tax burden.

And why would counties want to have their part of the UGA annexed by cities? If there are efficiencies that make it less costly to provide services compared to the exurban "sprawl" areas of lower density, why would the counties want to encourage annexation of the areas that cost them the least while hanging onto the areas that cost them the most?

Re: County aims to herd residents into cities - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:37:40 -0000

You apparently are reading something into what I wrote that I don't see in it.

Urban growth areas are the opposite of the "sprawl" which you say is unaffordable in the long term.

The Growth Management Act attempts to put as many people into UGAs as is practicable, so that the "sprawl" you write about is reduced or eliminated.

Once people are in the UGA, governmental services supposedly can be provided at a lower cost than in the "sprawl" areas sometimes called "exurban."

You seem to agree with this idea that it is more efficient to serve the more densely populated suburban areas--but you may be applying a different meaning to "suburban" than I am.

I live in what I call a suburban area. It's mostly residential, and is already developed at a density that looks to me to be higher than 4 residences per acre. It is "suburban" in the sense that it is not in an incorporated city.

Much of the UGA adjacent to Port Orchard is like this--already developed at a fairly high density.

The question is not whether to designate UGAs and encourage development at urban or near-urban densities in them.

The question is whether to annex those areas into a city.

You say cities cannot be absolved of responsibility to provide urban services. What do you think was the effect of annexing the city of Port Orchard into the special purpose district known as the South Kitsap Fire and Rescue district? What was an urban service (fire protection) provided by the city is now a service provided by the fire protection district. The city is no longer in the "business" of providing the fire protection and EMS services within the city. Is that not the same as shedding the responsibility?

Re: Port Orchard council approves property tax hike - Port Orchard Independent

Bob_Meadows — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:16:53 -0000

Thanks for the compliment, Mikers.

My57vet is making the mistake a lot of people do--by thinking that the tax rate for property taxes acts like the tax rate for sales taxes. For property taxes the rate will be what it takes to collect the amount levied on the entire group of taxpayers (but not above the maximum allowable tax rate).

The city council sets the levy amount to be collected from everyone in the city, then the tax rate is calculated by dividing the levy amount by the total value of all taxable property in the city.

For property taxes, the tax rate changes almost every year, unless it's already at the max rate and cannot go higher even though a higher rate would be needed to collect a bigger levy amount from everyone.

When everyone's property values decline, it doesn't result in a lower total being collected, unless the rate is already at the max. If the rate still has room to go up, then it does--and so does the amount collected. If the rate has no room left to go up, then the amount collected from everyone will not rise when the values fall.

Looking at the total tax bill, people have to pay attention to changes in the levy amounts from one year to the next--both those imposed by the taxing district's legislative body and by the voters in the taxing district.

For 2010, people in South Kitsap generally paid higher total property taxes for two reasons: voters approved higher levy amounts for the fire district's EMS levy and for the local school district levy. You cannot expect your total tax bill to go down when the total being levied on everyone goes up significantly.

The city council in this instance is setting the levy amount, not the tax rate. The tax rate will be what it takes to collect the amount the city council chose.

When that tax rate is applied to each property, some people will see their city tax bill go down even though the city council increased the amount collected from everyone. They are the ones whose property value fell more than the average (or, in normal times, they are the ones whose values rose less than the average).

And, some people will see a city tax increase. They are the ones whose values fell at the average, and the ones whose values fell less than the average--or even rose, like the commercial property owners.

To understand how it works, you have to understand that it's the amount set by the voters or the legislative body that is to be collected from everyone which determines whether there is a tax increase. Then, you have to understand how the differing changes in assessed values can shift some of the tax increase to people whose values rose more than the average (or fell less than the average as we have been experiencing). The group as a whole has to pay more when the council or the voters approve a higher levy amount, but not everyone in the group has to pay more.

Re: Levy failure puts brakes on new Kingston library - North Kitsap Herald

Bob_Meadows — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:11:24 -0000

Some words have been omitted here: "That means money will need to come from elsewhere if the Regional Library presses on with plans for the new branch.
measure to raise construction money. This method was used once by the Regional Libary, when North Kitsap voters approved a bond measure to help build the Poulsbo library."

"...measure to raise construction money" apparently is missing words which would describe creation of a library capital facility area and approval of a bond measure by the voters within the area.

Re: Kitsap library levy trailing in polls - Central Kitsap Reporter

Bob_Meadows — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:06:42 -0000

This is a strange way to say it, since the library district gets a regular levy without voter action every year: "The district hasn't had a levy approved by voters since 1979."

This was a request for a levy "lid lift," not a levy.

The levy lid lift approved in 1979 took the library district's tax rate to the maximum allowed, and the rate stayed at or near that maximum tax rate through 2001. During those years, no lid lift could be approved when the tax rate was already at the max. In any of those years when the rate was not quite at the maximum, the annual levy increases that needed no voter approval were 6% plus the amounts generated by new construction.

Only since 2001, when annual increases could be 1% plus new construction, has there been any reasonable basis for requesting a lid lift. Annual average increases of a little more than 3% since 2001 are not like the annual average increases of more than 6% from 1980 through 2001.

The library district has never missed having an annual levy, so saying that one has not been approved since 1979 is just plain wrong.