Palmer growth moves ahead

Jan. 19, 2007

By LEILA KHEIRY

Frontiersman

PALMER - Three attempts to exclude some areas from the city of Palmer's proposed new boundaries failed Wednesday, primarily due to the opposition of Mayor John Combs.

The Palmer City Council met Wednesday in special session to review a draft annexation petition that would expand city limits by nearly 6 square miles. The proposed new boundaries would include land west to Equestrian Acres subdivision off the Palmer-Wasilla Highway, south to Crimson View subdivision off the Glenn Highway, east to Outer Springer Loop Road, and north to Marsh Road and the Bailey Hill enclave that was left out of the city's last expansion.

Council member Tony Pippel proposed moving the annexation boundary lines to leave out some developed subdivisions that are on the edge of the draft lines, including Equestrian Acres and Crimson View. He said a major reason in favor of annexation is it would allow Palmer to control what development goes into the open land surrounding the subdivisions. But, he said, the subdivisions already are developed, they have covenants to protect property within their boundaries, and there is little the city can offer those residents.

Eventually, as Palmer continues its expansion process, those subdivisions will have to be absorbed, Pippel said, but at this point, he prefers to leave them out.

He also suggested excluding about 80 acres in the south corner of the proposed annexation boundary. He said the property owners there can be trusted to not allow improper development on their land.

Lamar Cotten, the city's annexation consultant, didn't agree with Pippel, and said residents in the subdivisions already benefit from their proximity to the city, and will benefit more once they are part of Palmer.

Cotten said the subdivisions face a high rate of development on land surrounding them, and they should have a say in what happens to that land. If subdivision residents are not part of the city, he said, their voices won't carry as much weight in city decisions.

Cotten also pointed out that the annexation process is lengthy, and likely won't be complete until 2011. The council should consider the long-term goals of the city, he said, in addition to the short-term effects the decision will have on the community.

&#8220If you wait too long, the things you cherish about Palmer will be altered,” he said.

Combs, who has been a consistent proponent of annexation, agreed with Cotten. He said if the proposed boundary map is left as is, residents will have a say in what happens to the land around them.

&#8220We can't just jump over subdivisions,” he said. &#8220We'll have to include them someday.”

Council member Richard Best said the subdivision residents already receive services from the city, because Palmer police often respond to calls from areas near, but outside, city limits. There also are insurance benefits to those close to the city, he said, and the residents in nearby subdivisions regularly use the roads that city employees clear.

Best added that, while there has been regular public comment against annexation, only a minority of property owners show up at meetings to complain. He said there might be a silent majority that likes the idea of becoming part of the city.

City Manager Tom Healy contradicted that. He said he met with residents of Equestrian Acres, and, while polite, they were decidedly &#8220cool” to the idea of annexation.

Several property owners in areas that would be annexed spoke during Wednesday's meeting. Wally Hodgkiss, who lives on Outer Springer, said he is concerned about city ordinances that would affect his property. For example, he said, he has livestock and a fence to keep the animals on his property. City code requires a setback for livestock, he said, and he doesn't want to have to move his fence.

Healy later said that requirement wouldn't apply to a structure already in place at the time of annexation. If the fence later was replaced, Healy said, then a setback would be required.

Dave Jenkins, who lives in the south Palmer area, said he doesn't want to have to change what he does on his property, such as burning trash in his burn barrel.

&#8220All I know is that the annexation as a whole is being forced down our throats,” he said. &#8220If this is so good for everyone, why don't you put it up for a vote of the people.”

Healy later explained that, while the city traditionally has not allowed burn barrels, it has been because city lots tend to be small, which increases the danger. He said burn barrel permits can be issued by the city fire chief on a case-by-case basis.

Arlene Fox, who lives on Bailey Hill, said she doesn't want to be in city limits, but she understands that the city has to grow. She said Palmer should have started annexing more land 30 or 40 years ago. She said she also owns a 20-acre farm on Scott Road, and was concerned about paying more taxes for the land.

Healy later said that, under state law, any land that is exempt from property tax now because of its agricultural use would remain exempt even if it becomes part of the city.

Tony Cox, who represents residents of Crimson View subdivision, said the council needs to make its case for annexation and explain how the process is a win-win situation for everyone.

&#8220So far, we don't have that impression,” he said.

At the end of the meeting, Pippel made three separate motions to exclude some areas from the annexation boundary. The first would have left out Equestrian Acres and its neighboring Monte Vista subdivision. That motion failed in a 3-1 vote, with Combs voting against. The second motion would have left out an area including Green Valley and Crimson View subdivisions. That also failed 3-1, along the same lines.

The third motion to exclude 80 acres in the southeast corner of the annexation boundary failed 2-2, with Combs and Best voting no.

Ken Erbey was the fourth council member present, and he joined Pippel to vote in favor of all three motions. Council members Kathrine Vanover, Jim Wood and Brad Hanson were not present for the meeting.

To approve a motion, at least four of the council's seven members must vote in favor.

Annexation meetings, timeline announced

PALMER - The Palmer City Council will have three more meetings related to annexation before sending the proposed annexation petition to the state Local Boundary Commission.

The first is a public informational meeting set to start at 7 p.m. Feb. 6 at the Palmer Depot. Doors will open at 6 p.m.

The meeting will include a review of the annexation petition, which should be available to the public by Feb. 2.

The second meeting is a regular city council meeting in which the annexation petition ordinance will be introduced.

That is set for 7 p.m. Feb. 13 at Palmer City Hall, 231 W. Evergreen Ave.

The third meeting is a special meeting for the council to vote on whether to submit the annexation petition to the state, Healy said. That is set for 7 p.m. March 6 at the Palmer Depot.

If the petition is submitted, the state process would take between nine and 10 months, Healy said.

If the Local Boundary Commission approves the petition, it would go to the Legislature.

If the Legislature doesn't reject the plan, Healy said, the city could start the annexation transition process by March 2008, with the actual expansion occurring in January 2009.

The transition plan would continue through 2011.

The draft annexation petition, along with maps and other information, is available through the city of Palmer.

Interested people can call 745-3271 or visit the city's Web page at www.cityofpalmer.org.

Contact Leila Kheiry at

352-2270 or at leila.kheiry@

frontiersman.com