Perhaps the decision of the boundary review board on the proposed “McCormick East” annexation can help Kitsap County and the city of Port Orchard move toward a more coordinated approach to annexations.

The county would be better off if undeveloped land like the 110 acres in question were annexed by the city before it is developed for residential purposes.

Providing an urban level of governmental services to such a large, new subdivision is something county officials claim not to be able to do, so placing this responsibility on the city before development is an advantage from its point of view.

The area is already designated in the county’s comprehensive plan for residential development as part of the urban growth area adjacent to Port Orchard, so there appears to be no reason to resist annexation that appears to be consistent with the plan.

But, as is sometimes the case, there may be drawbacks that outweigh the advantages.

Alongside part of the McCormick East 110 acres is a narrow strip of land that would be surrounded on three sides by the city if the annexation were approved by the boundary review board.

This strip of land is already developed for residential use at a relatively low density.

Annexing the 110 acres and leaving out the seven residential parcels of land alongside it would create an irregular boundary between the city and county that would follow no natural or man-made physical feature.

The boundary review board’s decisions are supposed to use physical boundaries where practical and avoid creating “abnormally irregular boundaries.”

If there are other considerations that outweigh failure to accomplish these objectives, the board might still approve the annexation.

So it’s not as though this is a “slam dunk” decision.

One might wonder how this situation arose, since the city officials should be aware of the criteria the board must use in making its decision, and the city had an opportunity to adjust the annexation proposal to be consistent with the criteria.

This annexation proposal, like many in the past, came from the landowner who wants the 110 acres annexed into the city.

Such a petition doesn’t have to be accepted by the city without change.

The council may adjust the proposed boundaries to avoid running afoul of the boundary review board’s criteria.

But the council decided not to adjust the boundaries to include the seven smaller parcels of residential land, since not enough of those landowners might agree to annexation and sign the petition.

This is perhaps a point on which the city and county officials could work out consistent policies which would result in annexations that make sense whenever one or more landowners come forward seeking annexation.

When residents or landowners in unincorporated parts of the urban growth areas take the first step toward annexation, the city council should not be shy about putting a burden on them to bring along others who ought to be annexed at the same time.

They would have to persuade their neighbors, if their land is already developed, so why not expect the same from the owners of undeveloped land?

The difficulty in providing governmental services where there are irregular boundaries that follow no physical feature may not be great in most cases, but why create any difficulty at all if it can be avoided?

Of course, it would be handy if the city could offer advantages to residents in nearby unincorporated urban growth areas.

Then persuading  neighboring landowners to agree to annexation would be much easier.

Even in the absence of good selling points, the city council should at least try in each case to adjust annexation proposals rather than wait to see if the boundary review board disapproves inappropriate proposals.

Passively accepting whatever annexation petitions are offered by people who want their land annexed by the city is not always the path of least resistance — or even the best path to follow.

Bob Meadows is a Port Orchard resident.