Palmer growth back on track

October 27, 2006

By LEILA KHEIRY

Frontiersman

PALMER - After a sudden death in September, when the Palmer City Council voted against moving forward with annexation this year, plans to expand the city's borders were tentatively resurrected Tuesday with two council votes to set preliminary new boundaries and hire a consultant to help the city prepare an annexation

petition.

Mayor John Combs brought the issue back to the table, and in a lengthy statement during council debate, he argued that economic development is important to the city, and that everyone on the council agrees annexation is needed.

The issue that held the council back in September was fiscal uncertainty. Several council members expressed concern over what they characterized as unpredictably rising costs related to the state-mandated public employee retirement system. Those unknown costs led the council in September to reject the same two motions it approved on Tuesday.

Combs - who voted both times in favor of moving forward - said the city is out of room and can't attract new construction, especially for larger businesses that would bring jobs to the city.

He said the council should accept the Phase 1 boundaries as recommended in an annexation study, and then work with the consultant to move the boundary lines in order to maximize the benefit while minimizing the cost to the city.

The boundaries could incorporate mostly open land, said Combs, which would mean fewer new residents and less need to expand services. He also argued that the city needs to protect the area leading into Palmer's core, so that rampant development doesn't ruin the historic, small-town nature of the city.

Combs said the cost of PERS is a major consideration, but the Legislature is aware of the problem, knows it is a state error that led to the problem, and will come up with a plan to address it.

&#8220The sky is not falling,” he said. &#8220I wouldn't put this forward if I didn't think it was fiscally responsible to residents.”

Council member Brad Hanson, who voted against moving forward with the plan, said he supports annexation and thinks it's tremendously important to the city. However, he said, the council has to make sure the city can afford it by making some changes to its budget.

&#8220We need to review our current cost structure and determine how best to address the needs of residents,” he said, and make sure that residents who would be annexed would be served well by the city.

Council member Jim Wood also voted against the annexation plan both in September and on Tuesday.

He said he is concerned that - even without considering PERS - the city would face a deficit if it annexed. He cited the annexation study, which stated that new expenses would exceed new revenue.

&#8220How are we going to pay for it?” Woods said, adding that PERS also is a great concern. &#8220I'm not prepared to go forward with this at this time, with all the unanswered questions.”

City Manager Tom Healy said moving forward with the petition would answer a lot of the questions that the council brought forward. He added that the council would have a second opportunity to vote on annexation before the petition was sent to the state Local Boundary Commission for review.

&#8220This is not a vote to annex,” he said.

Council members Kathrine Vanover, Ken Erbey and Richard Best joined Combs to vote in favor of continuing the annexation process.

The motion was approved in a 4-2 vote. Council member Tony Pippel recused himself from the vote and from debate. He said he is subdividing property with plans to sell the land located in an area that would be annexed. He said annexation could affect him financially.

The second motion related to annexation - hiring a consultant to help prepare the petition - passed 5-2 with Pippel joining the majority and Hanson and Wood voting against the motion.

A few residents of areas that could become part of the city spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting, all opposed to annexation.

Noel Woods said he doesn't want to belong to the city because he doesn't approve of economic decisions the council has made. He said Wasilla attracts large stores and, through its city sales tax, is able to reduce other taxes paid by residents. He questioned why anyone would want to live in Palmer with no development and high taxes.

Russell Grander said people like him who live outside of city boundaries chose those areas for a reason.

&#8220Please don't waste your money and pursue annexation,” he said. &#8220We will fight you.”

Greg Dellinger, who said he has attended other council meetings related to annexation, said the council has yet to address any of the concerns brought forward by residents of areas that would be annexed. He said the council's only debate has been over whether the city can afford to expand, not whether it should expand.

Dellinger said becoming part of the city would not benefit him or his neighbors at all, and asked that the city leave him out.

With Tuesday's vote, the city will work with consultant Lamar Cotten to prepare a petition in time for submission to the state before March 1. A special meeting to discuss the annexation petition with Cotten is set for 6 p.m. Nov. 7 at city hall.

The council will have to vote later on whether to submit the petition.

For more details about annexation, including maps of the proposed boundaries, visit the city's Web site at www.cityofpalmer.org.

Contact Leila Kheiry at 352-2270 or at leila.kheiry@frontiersman.com