Palmer growth plans continue

September 22, 2006

By LEILA KHEIRY

Frontiersman

Citing concern over the cost of providing services, the Palmer City Council on Tuesday opted to move forward with plans for a smaller-scale annexation, but the proposed new borders will remain flexible as city officials hammer out the details.

The reduced area city staff will study in terms of costs is based on the annexation plan's &#8220Phase 1,” which would approximately double the size of the city. However, because of concern voiced by residents of subdivisions within that area - and council concerns over the cost of providing services to those residents - the council moved the proposed boundary line to exclude subdivisions such as Equestrian Acres, off the Palmer-Wasilla Highway, and Crimson View, across from the fairgrounds on the Glenn Highway.

The council also moved the boundary line slightly to the north of the proposed phase 1 area, to include undeveloped land up to Palmer-Fishhook Road.

Palmer Mayor John Combs said Tuesday that one of the goals of annexation is to protect undeveloped land surrounding Palmer from commercial uses that would negatively affect the city and neighbors.

&#8220Land-use planning is a very important issue for us,” he said.

Council Member Tony Pippel was the most vocal in voicing concern over the potential cost of annexation, especially in light of increasing personnel costs for the city's existing staff. He said it is unclear how much Palmer eventually will owe for the state's public employees retirement plan - known as PERS/TRS - and until he knows the city can afford what it has now, he can't support adding to those costs.

The state recently announced that municipalities' mandatory contributions to PERS/TRS, would continue to increase. City Manager Tom Healy said next year's increase could go up about 40 percent.

&#8220It's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars,” he said.

Pippel said he had been gung-ho for annexation, but after the PERS/TRS &#8220wake-up call,” he was leaning toward a smaller, &#8220defensive” annexation that would protect the city's interests without adding costs.

Council Member Brad Hanson said the long-term health of the city requires annexation. The area is exploding with development, he said, and in 10 years, the city likely won't have the same opportunity to manage that growth.

What area should be annexed is the question, he said, and the city council needs details on the costs of annexation options. He also asked city staff to provide information about the current city costs and projected costs with the upcoming PERS/TRS increase.

Some of the costs associated with annexation are directly related to the projected increased population, said City Attorney Jack Snodgrass.

More residents means the need for more police officers, for example.

Combs said it might be possible to annex areas but not provide services. In that case, he said, the city would reduce the mill rate for those property owners.

It also might be possible to exclude certain areas from the proposed annexation boundaries. Combs said the subdivisions already have worked out their own planning and zoning, they have covenants regulating land use and they have utilities. There's not much the city can offer them, he said.

The undeveloped areas surrounding those subdivisions, however, are governed by Mat-Su Borough planning and zoning regulations and could be sold for any use at this point, he said, including an asphalt plant. For that reason, Combs said it is in the city's interest to annex and regulate that undeveloped land.

While the city council would be satisfied with excluding the subdivisions from the area to be annexed, the state Local Boundary Commission might take issue with a boundary line that is too wavy, Combs said.

In addition to the modified Phase 1 boundary, city staff will look into the costs associated with adding area further south along the Glenn Highway, which would incorporate gravel businesses, thus increasing the city's sales tax revenue. That plan, however, likely would require the city to annex Crimson View.

Tony Cox, president of that subdivision's owners association, spoke against the proposed annexation.

He said Crimson View residents are concerned about increased taxes and fees and don't need the services that Palmer could provide. He also encouraged the city to keep the annexation process open.

&#8220I think people would like to be in the know, and some feel they haven't been,” he said.

Dave Jenkins of Mountain View Estates, located off Outer Springer Loop, said annexation is totally unnecessary for his area and would not benefit him or his neighbors.

&#8220It's a money grab on your part and I intend to resist it,” Jenkins said.

Palmer's annexation plan is in the early stages.

According to the city's Web site, the city plans to send an annexation petition to the state Local Boundary Commission in February. The state then would review the plan, write a report and schedule a public hearing on the proposed

annexation.

The LBC then would submit a recommendation within the first 10 days of the 2008 legislative session for legislators' approval.

After that, the state would have to obtain clearance from the U.S. Justice Department, according to Palmer's Web site.

Under that schedule, annexation would become final in spring or summer of 2008.

For more information about the annexation plan, interested people can visit the city of Palmer Web site at www.cityofpalmer.org, and click on the link entitled &#8220annexation information.”

Contact Leila Kheiry at

352-2270 or at leila.kheiry@

frontiersman.com