Houston annexation approved, Big Lake OK on hold

BIG LAKE — Big Lake voters will have to wait a bit longer to know whether they will get to vote on the question of forming the Valley’s fourth city, or remain an unincorporated community.

The state’s Local Boundary Commission met Wednesday afternoon and approved the proposed annexation of property into the city of Houston 5-0. Since no one lives in the territory, and Big Lake does not object, the annexation will go into effect when the commission issues a written decision.

At that meeting, city of Big Lake petition supporters also asked the commission for a continuance to resolve lingering questions about the mill rates for the proposed city. Property owners in the unincorporated community currently pay a collective mill rate of 3.09.

That mill rate is composed of two parts, a 2.57 area-wide rate established by the Mat-Su Borough, and a .52 non-area-wide mill rate charged only to property owners in the Big Lake area, who benefit from a library, animal control services, and a transfer station, according to petition documents.

A mill represents a dollar of property tax charged for every $1,000 of assessed property value. For example, a Big Lake property appraised at $200,000 would pay $618 for property taxes under the current rate. Of that amount, $514 goes toward area-wide services, and $104 goes toward non-area-wide services.

Organizers want the mill rate to remain identical, but incorporation would transfer only the non-area-wide services portion to the city of Big Lake, said Brent Williams, a member of the commission staff.

Supporters are trying to work out an agreement with the borough, he said.

“The city would collect a 3.09 mill rate and then turn the proceeds over to the borough,” Williams said.

Because changing the mill rate requires changing the petition, a new opportunity for public comment is required, Williams added. Staff said a new hearing could take place in six weeks or more.

“We don’t have a date,” he said.

Petition representative Jim Faiks said taxpayers would pay the exact same rate in either circumstance.

Most speakers at the commission hearing in the upper room of the Big Lake Lions Recreation Center said they favored voters getting a shot at approving a new city, and ultimately the city itself.

The area that would become the city of Big Lake is in the middle of three converging forces — a railroad spur construction, improvements to Point MacKenzie, and Knik Arm bridge, according to Big Lake resident Leo von Scheben, a former commissioner of the state Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.

“That’s gonna become a Juneau of that area,” he said. “You got the Alaska Railroad, you got the port. It’s time for Big Lake to put it’s big-boy pants on and step up and become a city.”

Other issues discussed at the forum included whether state lands would change hands, and an observation that at 72 square miles, the incorporated city of Big Lake, population less than 3,000, would be bigger than the city of St. Louis, population more than 300,000.

Faiks called the development positive.

“The problem with the mill rate has been corrected at no extra cost to the proposed city or to the borough,” he said. “The commission, although not voting on the issue yesterday, seemed to be to be impressed that Big Lake has met the stringent state statutes that will allow for the issue to be decided by the residents.”