Big Lake incorporation public comment period closes

BIG LAKE — A public comment period on a filing for what could become the Valley’s fourth city — as well as the expansion of an existing city — closed at 4:30 p.m. Friday.

Among written comments posted online Saturday by the Local Boundary Commission — the government body tasked with evaluating the feasibility of proposed incorporations — a narrow majority supported Big Lake’s incorporation into a second-class city.

Officials with the state cautioned Friday that not all opinions received by the state had been posted yet, but would likely be available Monday or Tuesday. In all, about a dozen residents commented, state officials said.

The Big Lake incorporation is being paired with a simultaneous annexation of Knikatnu Tribal Corporation-owned land into the adjacent City of Houston because the two communities share a common school district, and nearby Houston High School has the floor space required for large public hearings on the matter, state officials said.

Officials think simultaneous consideration will prevent a situation where the incorporation could affect the annexation or vice versa, said Brice Eningowuk, a local government specialist and member of the Commission staff tasked with shepherding the process through to completion.

“You can’t make a decision on one and then go back and make a decision on the other that affects the one you just made,” he said.

The joint annexation and incorporation also means staff will have to issue only two reports, one preliminary and one final for both annexation and incorporation, as opposed to four reports: one preliminary report each for annexation and incorporation and one final report each for annexation and incorporation, Eningowuk said. The next step in the process will be the issuance of a preliminary report on the land shifts set for Dec. 17, after which the public will again have the opportunity to comment, according to Eningowuk. Boundary commission staff are set to offer a final report in February 2015, ahead of a local boundary commission meeting slated for March, Eningowuk said.

The incorporation measure would eventually go before Big Lake voters for approval or rejection, Engingowuk said. However, since the property being annexed is owned by a single person, who have said they want to join the city of Houston, larger electoral approval won’t be required, Eningowuk said.

Public comments about incorporation chiefly focused on development, particularly the progressing Point MacKenzie Rail Spur, plans for Port MacKenzie, and the accompanying road traffic that will come with it. Forming a city would allow residents in Big Lake to dictate the terms of engagement as development moves forward, many pro-incorporation commenters said.

A letter signed by Bill and Sharon Allen, who live along Horseshoe Lake, inside the proposed areas of incorporation, urges incorporation move forward soon.

“The time for incorporating the unincorporated areas around Big Lake is now,” according to a letter signed by the couple. The area “is in the process of experiencing growth from several fronts, both residential and commercial, creating the need for residents of the community to examine the impact such growth will have on their daily lives.”

Opponents of incorporation, like Larry Caroll, owner of Kodiak Adventure Lodge, say that incorporation would forever alter the community, and not for the better.

“Big Lake as a community is fine the way it is,” he wrote. “We are just fine with being part of the borough and nothing more. I will not stay here if Big Lake becomes a city of any kind.”

Opponents also say the move toward incorporation is being pushed by only a few people, a claim other supporters, like Big Lake community Council President Bill Kramer, dispute.

“I don’t believe so, because in order to get on the ballot we had to collect signatures of 15 percent of people who voted in the last election,” he said.

About 200 people eventually signed the petition to examine incorporation. While not all of them may support incorporation in the end, they were at least open to the possibility, Kramer said.

“With over 200 people signing it, that’s not a small group,” he said.

The community council — a type of local advisory body without statutory authority — approved a resolution supporting incorporation, according to Kramer. He counts himself among the move’s supporters, in part because Mat-Su Borough Assembly District 5 stretches from Cottonwood Creek all the way down to Point Mac-Kenzie.

“To say one person on a seven-person assembly is going to adequately understand all the issues, I think it’s a tall order for any one person to do it,” he said. “Really, what we’re going to do (with a prospective city council) is get local people that are focused on local issues. I think it’s important because if you look at all the long-range transportation plans, they put out models that show that 10, 30, 40, 50 years from now, there are going to be 17,000 vehicles traveling through the center of Big Lake. That’s the same number of vehicles that travel through Wasilla.”

Big Lake has already selected an eastern and southern focus that would shunt traffic away from the informal center of Big Lake, known as option 3a.

Incorporation would also not vest the council with platting or planning powers, which would remain with the borough. Law enforcement services would also remain with Alaska State Troopers. Other than regular meetings, the city council’s biggest task would be to manage three mills worth of taxes which would stand in for the Road Service Area taxes, according to Kramer.

The present road service area currently sets at about 2.57 mills, according to figures provided by Houston Deputy Mayor Lance Wilson in his public comments.

A mill represents a dollar paid for $1,000 of assessed value. A property worth $100,000 would thus pay $43 in additional taxes annually under the proposed incorporation structure. The proposed mill rate would bring taxes in line with Houston’s mill rate.

The annexation also drew some submitted comments, most, like Wilson’s, pointing out the annexation would allow Houston to more efficiently provide services to territory which would come under Houston jurisdiction.

All public comments are available at http://1.usa.gov/1n49uZA or by going to the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development Web site and following the links under “Local Boundary Commission.”

Contact Brian O’Connor at 352-2269 or brian.oconnor@frontiersman.com