Furor rises against annexation

WASILLA — The city may re-evaluate what surrounding areas it’s looking to annex after facing persistent opposition again at Monday night’s city council meeting.

The council, which asked the administration to research the costs, benefits and public sentiment of including new land on all sides of the city, did not have annexation on its agenda. However, concerned residents of the proposed areas lined up to speak their three minutes each.

The comments, almost entirely negative, had some central themes, namely that the city has not put out enough information or answered all the questions.

Yolanda Bryant, who lives in the northern area the city is looking to annex, said cost has still not been addressed. The city will have to hire more police officers, and road maintenance is a serious concern without the extra property tax the Mat-Su Borough charges for road service areas. Because most of the area the city is looking at is residential and offers much added sales tax revenue, Bryant said she still doesn’t understand how this cost will be covered.

Kathy Fort said she and her husband own several properties in the Valley, but they purposely buy outside Wasilla. With some of her properties in the potential areas, Fort started a petition presented to the council with more than 400 signatures against annexation.

“When I went door-to-door, 98 percent of the people didn’t know anything about it. … They don’t want to have to buy the paper to know what is going on in their homes,” Fort said.

Roger Bliss said he lives on a road that runs both inside and outside the city. Bliss said he did not have to pay anything other than his normal road service area tax when the street was paved in front of his house. Yet, his neighbors who live inside city limits were assessed a fee as part of a Local Improvement District.

Bliss also admonished the council members who did not attend the three public meetings on annexation last week, all except Dianne Woodruff, who went to all three, and Taffina Katkus, who went to the last meeting.

“You are voting on something that is going to change our lives, and you will rely on your administration’s report?” Bliss asked.

The council did not have the opportunity to respond, yet the message was not lost. After the meeting, Woodruff said it’s clear the city is going to have to change its approach.

“The reality is that our communication skills need to be better,” she said. “There’s a large group of folks who don’t want to be in the city for various reasons. Some of those reasons are based on misconceptions, and some are legitimate concerns.”

One of those misconceptions, Woodruff said, is that the city will force sewer and water on residents, forcing them to pay for the line installation even if they don’t hook into the system. This is absolutely not true, Woodruff said. People who are happy with their functioning wells and septic systems can keep them, she said.

As far as why the city is looking to annex, Woodruff said there are a few benefits she can see. First, it would close “doughnut holes,” areas surrounded by the city on three or more sides. This makes road maintenance and emergency response more difficult. Second, Woodruff said, annexation would give Wasilla a bigger talent pool for the mayoral and city council positions. Lastly, it would give the city more control over transportation issues that affect city residents.

What do those who get annexed benefit? Woodruff said the decrease in property taxes would more than offset the increase of paying sales tax on utilities. Neighborhoods would benefit from police patrols, and Wasilla city residents get to vote on how their sales tax is spent, she said.

But, Woodruff said, she does understand there is a large group of people who do not want to be annexed. She encouraged people to continue to come to the council meetings to voice their opinions, but she cautioned that just because the dissent is loud doesn’t mean there are not people in support of annexation. They may have already had their questions answered or may feel intimidated by hostility at the public forums.

Woodruff said if there is an area that is hotly contested, annexation should be put to a vote. If there is not a majority in favor, the city shouldn’t move forward, she said.

“If there is going to be any annexation in any area, we need to get back down to small groups,” Woodruff said. “Essentially, we need to weed out those areas that are adamantly opposed.”

Contact Todd L. Disher at todd.disher@frontiersman.com or 352-2252.