Palmer growth on track

Feb. 16, 2007

By SHARON G. McBRIDE

Frontiersman

PALMER - The city's growing pains was the main topic of discussion at the Palmer City Council meeting Tuesday night.

A baker's dozen of concerned citizens showed up and spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting, and despite the large turnout, no one had anything good to say about the city's proposed draft annexation plan.

&#8220I'm having a hard time coming up with any needs that my neighbors and I could benefit from being annexed by the city,” said Monty Hotchkiss, who owns land near Outer Springer Loop Road. &#8220The borough is effective in providing what services we need.”

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

Despite hearing nothing but opposition, the council unanimously voted to approve the agenda for the third and last special meeting in the annexation process and the accompanying public hearing. The final meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. March 6 at the Palmer Depot.

Council Member Tony Pippel was excused from the vote, citing a &#8220conflict of interest” due to the fact that he owns a substantial piece of land that also is under consideration for annexation. Everyone, except Kathrine Vanover who was absent on vacation, voted in favor of going forward with annexation.

At this final meeting, where public testimony will be heard, the council is set to vote on whether to not to submit the annexation petition to the state. If the petition is submitted, the state process would take approximately 10 months. If the Local Boundary Commission approves the petition, it then would go to the Legislature. If the Legislature doesn't reject the plan, the city could start the annexation process as early as March 2008. The transition plan is slated to continue through 2011.

&#8220There's still time. We still have the right to change the lines (of the annexation),” said Tom Soyka, a farmer whose property is being considered for annexation.

He went on to say that the city would gain no monetary benefit from annexing open farmland, and that he's not quite ready to give up the right to decide how his property should be developed in the future, if and when he chooses to do so.

Dave Jenkins, another land owner who would be affected by the proposed annexation, echoed the same sentiments against the plan.

&#8220Everyone here is speaking against the annexation,” Jenkins said. &#8220Are you going to listen?”

He requested that the city delay the annexation process, because &#8220people here are definitely not in favor of it.”

Tony Cox, who stated that he represented 47 people who were &#8220definitely not interested in annexation,” also testified at the meeting. Cox is the president of the Crimson View homeowners association. Cox told the city council that, &#8220We are passing around a petition against the annexation.”

He said, once completed, the petition is slated to go straight to the Legislature. To date, he said, the petition has 84 signatures, and he expects to get more at the March 6 public hearing on the issue.