Big Lake, Houston meet, redraw boundaries

MAT-SU — Two cities — one small in population but big geographically and another that doesn’t actually exist yet — have laid claim to the same land.

The city of Houston has for at least a year worked for the past year to extend its borders to encompass a parcel of land owned by the Alaska Native corp., Knikatnu Inc.

“They petitioned the city to annex them in for several different reasons, one being the substantial amount of property tax savings that they would have when they do develop the property,” Houston Mayor Virgie Thompson said. “It would be about 1.87 mills less in property tax for them by being in the city instead of the borough.”

A mill is a local government term. One mill is equal to a $1 tax on $1,000 worth of accessed property value.

Thompson said the annexation went through the city’s planning commission and its council before she was given authority to represent the city while working with the boundary commission.

Meanwhile, in Big Lake, residents hoping for a greater say in development of an area that sits in amidst major infrastructure projects — such as the Point MacKenzie Rail Extension and the Parks Highway access route for traffic coming from a potential Knik Arm bridge — started talking about incorporation.

Jim Faiks is one of the main organizers in that effort. He said that the petition to incorporate the city used an existing boundary — that of the Big Lake Road Service Area — as its city limits. The Knikatnu land happened to be in those boundaries.

“Our plan is to meet with the city of Houston probably in another week or so and discuss,” Faiks said.

He said that his sense is that the organizers wouldn’t actually oppose redrawing those lines to exclude the Knikatnu land. In fact, there’s another parcel they’d like to get rid of, too.

“There’s another piece of property right next to that that is in the Big Lake Road Service Area but it’s in no way connected to any of our roads,” he said. “Our road service area guy has to do drive all the way into Houston to do this one little piece of road.”

Because the two sets of plans conflict, the boundary commission has told Thompson it intends to hold joint meetings between the city of Houston and the organizers of the city of Big Lake.

“There’s several different ways that this can go. They can not accept the city of Houston’s annexation petition, they could not accept Big Lake’s incorporated petition or they could also redraw the boundaries that are overlapping at this time and accept both,” Thompson said.

She said that when an owner petitions to join a city like Knikatnu did, the city can add the land to its borders without putting it to a vote. She said she hopes Knikatnu won’t be kept waiting too long.

“They have a partnership and a plan to create jobs in the Valley which is what we need,” she said. “They have long-term plans for this massive 1,555 acres. They’re mulling different options like maybe a power plant, maybe a sewage treatment plant, things that we need in the Valley.”

As for Big Lake, eventually, the Big Lake Incorporation plan will have to be put to a vote. Between now and then, though, there is a whole lot of public process.

“What happens now is the clock is ticking and they are now making public notice to everybody for written comments seeking written comments until the end of September,” Failks said.

Then a public hearing.

“After that public hearing they have another time of written input and then they make a final report and then they have a hearing with the boundary commission and then the boundary commission says ‘yeah, this makes sense, this can go to a vote’ or ‘no this doesn’t make sense.’”

Contact Andrew Wellner at 352-2270 or andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com.