Palmer hosts annexation presentation

PALMER — The Palmer City Council heard a presentation from Agnew Beck Consulting during their special meeting on Tuesday to discuss the possibility of annexing neighborhoods currently outside of Palmer city limits.

As the first meeting held on the subject, members of the public who were unaware of the process came to voice their opinions. In total, two out of the 19 cumulative members of the public who commented did not speak in opposition to the annexation process. Of the 19 public commenters in total, six of those in opposition spoke in person and 11 more wrote letters to the council in opposition.

“We appropriated money towards an annexation community and economic analysis last December and this is just what this is. This is an analysis of an annexation, not the creation of a petition for the submission to the local boundary commission but just the analysis, both the community and economic,” said Community Development Director Brad Hanson.

Agnew Beck Principal co-owner Shanna Zuspan presented along with project manager and overall project lead Heather Stewart, Tanya Iden and Jonathan King. Zuspan said that the study for annexation looks at the areas that need to be studied, the economics of the annexation of process and the analysis of the community. The lengthy packet presented by Agnew Beck was rushed through as members of the public took up much of the time for the presentation.

“I personally worked on the 2010 annexation strategy and I know that some of the same issues that came up during that time are still coming up today, so I think it’s important that we take a moment to look back and make sure that w e’re learning from what has gone before,” said Stewart. “We want to make sure if the city again goes through this process, we want to make sure that you have the best information available to come up with something that’s most likely to succeed.”

The last process for annexation began in 2006 and the petition failed in 2007 without ever going before the Local Boundary Commission after failing a vote of the council.

“We have been, I would say deliberately moving at a pace that allows us to sort of think about what makes the most sense for community outreach and get the study going,” said Zuspan.

Community members that rose to speak about annexation were worried about extra taxes and regulations.

“I think it’s unfair to go outside the community because when you start annexing you start charging. I will do everything in my power that I know how to do to stop this annexation,” said Scott Brown. “Going outside to a real community and annexing property, normally where I’m from, everybody has to agree to it that lives in the area but not here which I think is unjust.”

Other members of the public spoke specifically about the process in 2006 and the existing animosity toward annexation that still lingers.

“We’ve been down this road before several years ago probably 2004 or 5, overwhelmingly people were very upset with the whole idea, did not want it,” said Frank Kish. “We don’t want this stuff zoned out. If we wanted to live in a very residential area we’d have moved to Wasilla, we’d have moved to Eagle River. We like where we are, we like the autonomy that we have.”

As the first meeting with Agnew Beck Consulting, Halcyon Consulting and Alaska Map Company, Council members and community members alike heard the plan to discuss annexation with the community for the first time since the budget passed with approval for the annexation study last December.

“I would like to see us bring this panel back if we can and actually get a real presentation because I think we short changed ourselves as well as them, so I think that that would be a good thing,” said Councilwoman Jill Valerius. “I think had we started the meeting saying that this was our first time we were all being presented this, I think that would’ve alleviated what seemed to be a bit of animosity and anger in the council chamber tonight.”

Of the members of the community that spoke out, many were dismayed that they had only learned about the meeting recently. Jason Ortiz said that nearly 300 people live in his community, but noted that nearly all of the written comments from residents used an identical form letter and he could not speak for his entire neighborhood.

“I do want to know more information. I don’t see a whole lot of benefit for us at this time but I am open to looking to see what benefit I guess is of joining into the city, so I hope that the city is very clear and as far as working together with all the residents in all these areas and everything so I understand the process,” said Ortiz.

The brief presentation by Zuspan, Stewart, Iden and King outlined the process for annexation by a vote of 10 percent of the people within the area, 10 percent of the current city of Palmer residents or a petition to the Local Boundary Commission.

“If we’re going to, for the sake that annexation should follow local priorities to review, the city of Palmer comprehensive plans, the Mat-Su Borough core area comprehensive plan, similar plans they both recognize that the city of Palmer is likely to annex land outside of its current boundaries at some point,” said Stewart. “In a nutshell we want to make sure that if there is an annexation proposal that it is in the best interest of everyone involved to the extent possible.”

The Palmer City Council will continue involving the community in the annexation process up until any Local Boundary Commission petitions are submitted, which would also include a 28-day public comment period itself.

“One of the reasons we decided this was great is because we did look in the past and people were adamantly opposed to whatever information I could find, I think it was pretty strong consensus that nobody wanted to be annexed,” said John Campbell. “To me in these hard economic times it makes no sense to go through this process and spend lots of money if the people you’re trying to annex don’t want it.”