Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/09/2002 09:05 AM Senate CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 9, 2002
9:05 a.m.
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Carl Morgan, Co-Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Gretchen Guess
Representative Beth Kerttula
HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Torgerson, Chair
Senator Randy Phillips (via teleconference)
Senator Alan Austerman
SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator Pete Kelly
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON HOMER ANNEXATION
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
PETE ROBERTS, President
Citizens Concerned About Annexation
PO Box 1134
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Requested that the legislature veto the
Homer annexation.
ABIGAIL FULLER, Vice President
Citizens Concerned About Annexation
PO Box 2845
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Requested that the committees introduce a
resolution to disapprove Homer's annexation.
ROY HOYT, JR.
PO Box 2121
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committees to vote against the
proposed annexation.
ALAN PARKS
PO Box 3339
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
KARI ARNO
PO Box 1772
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
MARY GRISWOLD
PO Box 1417
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Requested that the committees veto the
annexation petition.
PATRICIA CUE, Member
Homer City Council
3982 Mullikin Street
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the approval of the
annexation.
GARY PETERSON
PO Box 822
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Noted his vehement opposition to the
proposed annexation.
TIMOTHY FULLER
PO Box 2845
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
JIM CLAUSS
PO Box 2845
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
BEVERLY CLAUSS
PO Box 2845
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
JIM HORNADAY
3691 Ben Walters Lane
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committees to follow the advice
of the Legislative Research and Legal Services Division.
MICHAEL KENNEDY
844 Ocean Drive Loop
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the legislature to veto the proposed
annexation.
DENNIS LEACH
PO Box 1414
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
ALEX FLYUM, JR.
267 W. City View Avenue
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
MARGARET SEELYE
PO Box 962
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
MIKE ARNO
PO Box 1772
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
ROBERT KEYS
5601 Main Street, Number 8
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed the need for the City of Homer to
[work on the needs of those inside the city].
DAVID RASKIN
PO Box 2415
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
MARGA RASKIN
PO Box 2415
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
BILLY PEPPER
PO Box 882
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed the need to meet all the
standards for annexation.
BOB SHAVELSON
PO Box 1498
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
SCOTT CARDOZA
PO Box 2817
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
DAN BOONE
PO Box 1783
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
KENTON BLOOM
1044 East Road, Suite A
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
DORIS CABANA
PO Box 607
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
BILL SMITH
PO Box 150
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the proposed annexation.
JONATHAN FAULKNER
4621 West Hill Road
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
LEROY KRUMM
40625 Hancock Drive
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
MARILYN HENDREN
69180 Karen Circle
Anchor Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
JOANNE GREGORY
66600 Diamond Ridge Road
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with the annexation.
LAURA BARTON
66600 Diamond Ridge Road
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed the need to vote on the proposed
annexation.
CHRIS NEWBY
PO Box 1124
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
DOUG VAN PATTEN
PO Box 1348
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
LOREN KAUFFMAN
3684 Main Street
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
RAY KRANICH
PO Box 715
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committees to support the LBC's
decision.
GARY MAYFORTH
PO Box 3514
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the fire and emergency service
situation in relation to the proposed annexation.
STEVE ZIMMERMAN
PO Box 1291
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
LARENE ROGERS
PO Box 849
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
POPPY BENSON
157 Island View Court
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
DEAN BAUGH
60828 Horizon Court
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
BOB BARNETT
PO Box 132
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
PATRICIA BRENNAN
64966 Skyline Drive
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
MILLI MARTIN
61490 E. Skyline Drive
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Questioned whether the approval of the
proposed annexation would establish a precedent.
PAM BRANT
65299 Elliott Avenue
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
BOB BRANT
65299 Elliott Avenue
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that in the long term, [everyone]
would be best served with the approval of annexation.
PETREA ARNO
PO Box 975
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
RAY ARNO
PO Box 975
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
CAREY MEYER
PO Box 905
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
PAT MOSS
PO Box 1115
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
TERRY JONES
PO Box 15165
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
CHARLES DAVIS
PO Box 906
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
EILEEN BECKER
Citizens Concerned About Annexation
PO Box 109
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed flaws in the annexation process.
JIM REINHART
PO Box 834
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
LINDA REINHART
PO Box 834
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
RICK LADD, Member
Homer City Council
PO Box 3364
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the proposed annexation.
CURT MARQUARDT, Member
Homer City Council
1849 Hiland Drive
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the transition plan.
MIKE YOURKOWSKII, Member
Homer City Council
3059 Kachemak Drive
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the proposed annexation and
the transition plan.
JOHN FENSKE, Member
Homer City Council
PO Box 2112
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
VI JERREL, Ph.D.
Alaskans Opposed to Annexation
PO Box 938
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation, and discussed the legal case against the City of
Homer.
KEN CASTNER
PO Box 558
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
ANITA CRITCHETT
PO Box 1798
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
MADRENE HOYT
PO Box 1
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
GEO BEACH
PO Box 2512
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the proposed
annexation.
SUSAN PHILLIPS CUSHING
1423 Bay Avenue
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
JOHN FOWLER
10305 Maintree Drive
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
annexation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-3, SIDE A [House CRA tape]
CHAIR JOHN TORGERSON called the joint meeting of the House and
Senate Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committees to
order at 9:05 a.m. Representatives Morgan, Meyer, Scalzi,
Murkowski, Guess and Senators Torgerson, Phillips (via
teleconference), and Austerman were present at the call to
order. Representatives Halcro and Kerttula arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Representative Lancaster was also in
attendance.
CHAIR TORGERSON announced that due to a large snow fall in Homer
the record would be held open [for public testimony] until
Monday [February 11, 2002] at noon. He reviewed the various
methods in which the public could provide testimony to the
committees.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON HOMER ANNEXATION
4.29
[The numbers reflect the elapsed time.]
PETE ROBERTS, President, Citizens Concerned About Annexation
(CCAA), requested that the legislature veto the Homer
annexation. In a general sense, the veto is recommended due to
the [right of] self-determination and issues related to taxation
without representation, he said. Mr. Roberts expressed the need
for the committees to consider that the [annexation] process
over the last 30 years has broken down in terms of fairness, due
process, and citizen participation. He identified the city, the
Local Boundary Commission (LBC), and the legislature as all
sharing responsibility for this problem. He noted the people's
sovereignty with regard to choosing their own local government
and the amount [of government] they will have. Mr. Roberts
related his belief that most people would agree that the best
government is [the smallest government that can do the job]. He
informed the committees that the area to be annexed has
government, and the people in the area are satisfied with it.
7.39
ABIGAIL FULLER, Vice President, Citizens Concerned About
Annexation, read the following statement:
We are here to ask you to bring forward a resolution
to disapprove Homer's annexation. Our reasons are not
based on where the city's boundaries should ultimately
be, but on the serious problems with the way this
particular annexation has been handled. Not only have
we had no vote, but the city has been so adversarial
that they have torn the Homer community apart. It is
going to takes years to heal the wounds, only a veto
will help us start the healing.
There are many things wrong with this annexation, from
the poor decision made by the LBC, the way the city
handled it, to the just plain lack of support from the
community. This is being driven by a scant handful at
the top, no one else wants it.
The Boundary Commission's Decision was wrong for a
number of reasons. Perhaps the most serious is their
refusal to recognize House Bill 13's requirement for a
vote before service area boundaries can be changed.
This bill, now codified as AS 29.35.450(c), was passed
by this legislature last year, to enhance local
control. The LBC wants to take that control away, and
keep it for themselves. They are claiming authority
over service area boundaries, and state that HB 13
does not apply to a legislative review annexation.
However, their claim relies on an assumption that
service areas are local governments, which they are
not. If this annexation is allowed to stand, they will
have taken a large step toward establishing their
control over changes to service areas, something they
were never intended to have. The LBC does not like
service areas, do you want to hand them the power and
authority to control service area boundaries?
This denial of a vote comes from an agency that
justifies annexation as "extending greater local self
government" to the areas being annexed. Shouldn't
local control mean our having control over whether or
not we get annexed? Yet the LBC actually ignored their
own regulations that provide guidelines for when the
legislative review method can be used, if they had
followed them they would have required a vote for this
annexation. That's all we asked for, was a vote.
9.42
The city's original petition was to annex over 25
square miles of country, containing over 2,200 people.
When the DCED recommended a much smaller area, about
15 percent, the city acquiesced, asking for only a few
additional little pieces. At this point the LBC should
have required the filing of an amended petition, but
they did not. At the Hearing we were told that the
whole 25 plus square miles was on the table, but it
was apparent when they went to make their decision
that they had already decided to approve the much
smaller area. Without an amended petition we never had
an opportunity to properly address the smaller area,
and the LBC did not have suitable data to base their
decision on. The budget projections for this reduced
area were pure guess-work.
The LBC, in order to find that this annexation met all
14 required standards, interpreted them so broadly as
to make them meaningless. Anything would qualify as
long as it was somewhere outside the city, populated,
and contiguous. On one standard they continued to use
an erroneous assumption for sales tax revenue after
the error was pointed out to them, and combined it
with unproven cost estimates to find the standard was
met.
We had shown clearly why those cost estimates were
questionable, at best, but they accepted them anyway.
They also played a little sleight of hand, finding
that because we use general government services,
therefore we need city government services. We already
have the services we need through the Borough, fire
and EMS, road maintenance, education, and health care,
and the State Troopers provide police services. They
also found the City was better than the Borough simply
because it was closer! Closeness has nothing to do
with their ability to provide services more
efficiently and effectively. When judging these 14
standards they accepted all of the city's claims and
rejected everything we said, without proof.
One area where they should have required proof was the
city's estimates for the costs of annexation. The
estimates in the petition are based on memos written
by the various department heads to the city manager.
When we asked to see these memos, so we could check
the figures in the petition, we were told they were
secret. Why would the department head figures that the
estimates in the petition are based on be secret?
We've gone to court to get these memos, a decision is
pending at the Alaska Supreme Court, yet the LBC saw
fit not to wait for that decision.
And just to add insult to injury, one of the
commissioners had done work for the city shortly
before the petition was filed. It was not the first
time his firm had done work for them, and likely not
the last, yet the commission found he did not have a
conflict of interest? It sure looks like he did.
The city has not handled this annexation in a friendly
manner. There are several other methods of annexation
that could have been used here, but Homer used what
should have been a last resort, the one method that
does not allow a vote of the people affected. There
was no public discussion about whether to try
annexation, or how to go about it. Most of us only
found out about it just prior to the release of a
petition that was ready to file. There was so little
notice CCAA went to court to try and slow things down.
This is not only a forced annexation, but also a
stealth annexation. At least the stealth part won't
happen again, as the LBC has changed the rules to
require an initial hearing with 30 days notice. It's
still a forced annexation, and there's no need of it.
Why deprive us of a vote when there is no crisis
looming?
Once the petition was filed the city was no better
about public participation. They brag about some
annexation forums they held, but at those forums they
flatly refused to allow any discussion about the
merits of annexation. When city residents tried an
initiative to hold an advisory vote the city promptly
squashed it. The city also refused to recognize or
formally participate in a task force set up by some
city residents to try and find alternative solutions
to the issues the city was using to justify
annexation.
There is no reason why the city needs to annex right
now. There is no crisis looming, either health and
safety or financial. The city residents are not
subsidizing services to outsiders, quite to the
contrary, we outsiders are subsidizing services for
city residents. The city made one claim that was even
close to valid, and that was that we were not paying
for fire and emergency services. We were, in reality,
paying quite a bit in sales taxes already that were
intended to cover these and other services. But since
the city wanted more money, we obliged, and formed a
borough fire and emergency service area, which pays
the city for these services. Apparently this wasn't
enough, as they are now trying to claim the service
area was formed illegally, even though they are
getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from it.
The LBC claims that annexation is the concern of the
state, but it is also the concern of the local
community. The community is what has been left out of
this particular annexation. The LBC presumes that the
local government acts in the best interest of the
local community, but in this case they have not. They
are acting in their own self-interest and their
actions have torn the community apart. The city went
so far as to threaten to shut off the bulk water sales
that hundreds of families depend on. Is that any way
to treat future citizens?
Not only was the public shut out of the planning
process, there has in fact been very little planning
at all! The city drew up what is really a work in
progress, but instead of presenting it to the public
and accepting their input, they shipped it off to the
LBC. Almost two years have passed since then and
still no planning has been done, not even an agreement
with the Borough on the transfer of responsibilities!
They intend to spend the next year drafting the
promised 20 year master water and sewer plan,
shouldn't that have been done before they looked at
annexation?
15.09
This annexation is not supported by the community.
This whole thing was the brainchild of a few Homer
city officials. They did not ask the public what they
thought, they did not even run it by their own
planning commission. There is no public support from
within Homer, there is no hue and cry from outside the
city for extension of city services. If there are a
few folks near the edges who do want to join, that's
fine, but it's not an excuse to cram this down the
throats of everyone else within reach. Kachemak City
opposes this annexation, the Kenai Peninsula Borough
Advisory Planning Commission opposes it, and those
members of the Borough Assembly who are not closely
tied to the city oppose it.
What we are lacking here is local control. This
business of being completely shut out of the loop on a
decision with significant impact on our lives is not
acceptable in a free and democratic country. This is
not a decision that should be made solely by the city
government and approved by a state commission,
shutting out the people.
This annexation is wrong, and we do not believe it was
legal. We filed an appeal of the LBC decision on
Thursday. We are not looking forward to a long court
battle and would much prefer a veto. Please sponsor a
resolution to disapprove Homer's annexation.
[Punctuation was provided.]
MR. ROBERTS related his belief that the LBC was biased.
Furthermore, there is a definite appearance of a conflict of
interest because [all the LBC members] are all "municipal
people," who support strengthening and enlarging municipalities.
Therefore, there are no provisions [in the process] for the
protection for rural citizens. After pointing out that the
Homer city manager makes good money, Mr. Roberts charged that
this also has to do with money and power.
17.43
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if there are any scenarios in which [Mr.
Roberts and Ms. Fuller] would support some sort of annexation.
MS. FULLER replied yes. She specified that she would have no
problem with annexation if there was a group that wanted to be
annexed. Furthermore, there would be no objection if there was
a public process and an attempt to develop a plan with which
people were satisfied.
MR. ROBERTS remarked that having a remote government or
commission "jam this down people's throats" isn't consistent
with representative democracy and the first part of Alaska's
constitution. "The power eminates from the people, not the
other way around," he said.
CO-CHAIR MEYER related his understanding that the "preferred
route" [for annexation] is through a vote of the people.
MS. FULLER agreed.
19.20
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO recalled mention of the lack of local
support for this annexation. He asked if there is support from
within the existing city limits.
MS. FULLER replied no.
MR. ROBERTS informed the committees that there was a group in
the city that attempted to place a referendum vote on the ballot
in order to determine whether there was support for the
annexation within the city. That attempt at a referendum was
squashed by a legal opinion charging that [the referendum] was
done improperly. The group didn't have the funds to go to
court. Mr. Roberts noted that there was also a telephone poll
in which every sixth [registered] voter was called. That poll
found that 65 percent were in opposition to the annexation. He
recalled that between 10-19 percent [of those polled] thought
the annexation would be a good idea. Those in opposition to the
annexation where concerned with regard to an autocratic
government. Furthermore, there was concern that their services
would be watered down if the city greatly expanded.
20.53
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI commented that all parties on both sides
of this debate have been very cordial with his staff.
Furthermore, Ms. Fuller's testimony states CCAA's willingness to
participate in discussions once the current annexation attempt
is concluded. Representative Scalzi pointed out that [if the
legislature vetoes] this annexation, the city may put forth
another petition under the legislative review process. There is
no guarantee that there would be a vote. Therefore, he asked
whether [CCAA] is willing to go through this process again when
the results may remain the same.
MS. FULLER expressed the hope that any [new] process would begin
with a public process. Although a vote would be preferable,
having enough public input wouldn't "be as bad" with regard to a
legislative review process. She pointed out that it would be
two years before a new petition could be filled. Although Ms.
Fuller acknowledged that in two years there could be the same
result, she said that allowing this annexation to proceed would
reward the city and the LBC with regard to how they handled it.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI inquired as to the amount of money that
CCAA has collected and spent on this matter.
MS. FULLER answered that CCAA [has spent] over $50 million.
MR. ROBERTS informed the committees that the LBC doesn't have to
allow a city to choose legislative review. The LBC could simply
[require] that a petition be filed and public forums be held.
The LBC could then hold a hearing in the local area and choose
the method of annexation. In such a situation, the city would
have to put its best foot forward in order to convince the
people and thus the situation wouldn't be adversarial.
24.43
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI related her understanding that the LBC
acted within the letter of the law, but it had the discretion to
broaden the public process. She said she understood CCAA to
indicate that if the [public process had been broadened], then
there wouldn't have been quite the objection to the annexation.
MR. ROBERTS replied yes. Mr. Roberts said, "We wanted access to
the city documents and projections for providing costs to the
community. That's one of the important standards, especially
for the taxpayer." Although the city wouldn't provide that
information, the LBC could've stopped the process until the
information was released. The LBC wouldn't do that. Mr.
Roberts noted that there are a number of other stipulations that
the LBC could've [required]. This matter is in the supreme
court, and on just this one issue [CCAA] has spent over $40,000.
MS. FULLER interjected that it would've helped if [the LBC] had
required filing an amended petition after the city agreed to the
smaller area because that would've been tantamount to a fresh
start.
26.24
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to what [CCAA] is worried
will change [with an annexation].
MS. FULLER said, "It's not so much the taxes, but is zoning
[and] various other ordinances being under the city government.
And there's a lot of concern that the city will not be able to
provide any additional services than what we're already getting.
And, so, what is it that's being promised in this thing?"
MR. ROBERTS reiterated that the city hasn't done any of the
planning that was necessary. Mr. Roberts pointed out that his
property is no longer part of the current annexation, as is the
case with many of the people [testifying today]. "This is an
issue of morals and principles, and our system that has brought
us here rather than the taxes," he said.
CHAIR TORGERSON announced that testimony would be limited to
three minutes. He also announced that he didn't intend to allow
committee members to question the witnesses.
29.36
ROY HOYT, JR., testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he resides within the city limits of Homer. Mr.
Hoyt urged the committees to vote against the Homer annexation
petition, which was developed in an underhanded and vicious
manner. There should've been a vote of the people inside [the
city limits] and those impacted by the annexation. Mr. Hoyt
charged that the administration and city council members are
unapproachable; they have fractured the community to the point
that it may never heal. Although some members of the council
administration may say that the last council election was a
mandate for annexation, that subject was avoided during that
election. "The two councilmen were reelected by well organized
environmental and nonprofit groups," he charged. With regard to
the services the city provides to those outside and inside the
city limits, he stressed that [those services are very costly].
"Should annexation take place, I am sure that those of us that
live in the city will lose some of the few services we now have,
which are far from adequate," he said. In conclusion, Mr. Hoyt,
again, urged the committees to vote against this annexation
petition. However, should the annexation be approved, Mr. Hoyt
suggested that the mayor's position and all the city council
positions should be truncated and a new election held.
32.18
ALAN PARKS testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he is a Homer city resident who served on the
Homer City Council from 1996-1999 and served on many boards,
committees, and task forces that are associated with city
issues. Mr. Parks specified that his comments reflect his own
views. He stated that he is in favor of the annexation. He
recalled his time on the city council and the struggle with city
budget items associated with services the city provides to the
outlying areas. Mr. Parks pointed out that increasing the tax
base at a time of decreasing state revenue sharing would enable
the city to better sustain and further develop Homer's
infrastructure. It's estimated that 25 percent of the city
water customers live outside the city limits. He highlighted
that [city] water has been available for years to the areawide
community. Since 1992, the City of Homer has budgeted in excess
of $1.5 million to areawide nonprofit organizations that support
education, recreation, and cultural activities in the southern
peninsula. He pointed out that 50 percent of those benefiting
from these activities and programs live outside the city limits.
Mr. Parks turned to the city council members, who he said have
been vocal [on this annexation]. Four city council members and
the mayor ran with this issue and were reelected. Mr. Parks
reiterated his support of the annexation.
35.24
KARI ARNO testified via teleconference in opposition to the
proposed annexation. She informed the committees that she lives
outside the city limits because she choose to do so. She
related her belief that the process was poorly planned. She
echoed earlier testimony regarding the lack of accessibility of
the records. Furthermore, Ms. Arno questioned why the city
doesn't take care of the city residents by providing them water,
sewer, and upgraded roads. She related that the area in which
she lives is undeveloped and there's no reason for it to be
annexed.
36.16
MARY GRISWOLD testified via teleconference. She informed the
committees that she lives outside the City of Homer. Ms.
Griswold requested that the committees veto the annexation
petition. Ms. Griswold pointed out that Homer filed an interest
in expansion rather than a bona fide annexation petition.
Furthermore, city representatives freely identified [the
petition] as a work in progress. Although the city's
[annexation] petition may have been minimally legal, it was
grossly irresponsible and profoundly disrespectful of the public
process. Even after widespread public protest and the
Department of Community & Economic Development's (DCED) request
to reduce the size of the annexation, the city didn't amend its
petition. "The LBC should have sent Homer's petition back for
reassignment instead of accepting the DCED's efforts to create a
real petition using the city's materials," she said.
Furthermore, the Alaska Administrative Code allows the LBC to
turn a legislative review petition into a local action petition
if that serves the community's and state's best interest. This
option was never publicly reviewed.
MS. GRISWOLD explained that the city proposed to annex 25 square
miles of primarily undeveloped land, but chose to exclude the
1.8 square miles of the neighboring community of Kachemak. She
remarked that some of the residents of Kachemak receive more
municipal services than do some residents of Homer. However,
DCED didn't believe it could consider including the Kachemak
area because it wasn't part of the original request. Ms.
Griswold informed the committees that the city doesn't have an
adequate transition plan for the assumption of services, as
required by the Alaska Administrative Code. There are
significant questions relating to property tax accrual and
allocations that should've been resolved before the petition was
filed. Although DCED's 2000 report to the legislature
recognized ambiguity in this matter, it failed to require
consideration or resolution. "Homer is not facing a crisis; it
is in the far better interests of all of us to allow
constructive dialogue among city and area residents and
officials to guide the structure of our government," she
explained. She acknowledged that since beginning [the
annexation] process, the city has taken steps to more
responsibly allocate its resources. For example, there have
been policy changes in animal control and bulk water delivery.
Furthermore, the city is developing a master plan for water and
sewer expansion, and has hired a new planning director. Ms.
Griswold concluded by urging the committees to veto this
annexation petition.
38.51
PATRICIA CUE, Member, Homer City Council, testified via
teleconference in support of the approval of the annexation.
She noted that she is a resident of the City of Homer. Ms. Cue
provided the following testimony:
I am here today as an elected official on the Homer
City Council and to represent the citizens of Homer.
The citizens of Homer have carried the financial
responsibility for building and maintaining the
infrastructure of a community utilized by several
hundreds, if not thousands, of people living outside
the city boundary. I am here today with the
expectation that the citizens of Homer will be given
the representation due them by their elected
representatives. CCAA has made several claims against
the annexation petition and the process leading up to
the petition. I would like to respond to some of
these claims:
Number One: There were 54 public meetings and/or
workshops dealing with annexation. At no time did
members of the council or the city tell CCAA that they
would be adjourned for stating their opinions. [The]
CCAA is correct in that the forums held by the city
were poorly attended by their membership, but through
their own choice. [The] CCAA told their members to
boycott the meetings.
Number Two: Homer residents and nonresidents use a
host of services offered by the city and paid for by
taxes and user fees. While we all pay sales tax when
shopping in Homer, only city residents pay a property
tax - an expense not shared by service users living
outside of Homer. The 5.5 mill property tax rate
raises about 26 percent of the revenue used by the
city's general fund. [The] CCAA financial claims that
nonresidents contribute at least 50 percent of the
sales tax cannot be verified.
Number Three: Not voting on the annexation petition
is the complaint that gets a lot of attention.
However, the process used by the City of Homer is
constitutional. Framers of the constitution wanted to
keep politics out of the decisions and make it
objective, thereby creating a local boundary
commission. There were attempts by the city to get
users to vote for the creation of fire and EMS, and
recreational service areas. Historically, these
attempts failed resulting in city residents paying the
cost for providing the services.
Number Four: The statements made by CCAA regarding
the LBC's findings are filled with comments that have
no basis in fact. I commend the members of the LBC
for the time and energy they put into analyzing the
City of Homer petition.
Number Five: [The] CCAA claims that they are willing
to pursue this annexation in court if this is approved
by the legislature. Threats of litigation only
increase the animosity between residents and
nonresidents. In the meantime, residents of the City
of Homer will continue paying for services that are
being used by noncitizens.
Number Six: The entire process has not been flawed.
The City of Homer and the LBC have, to the best of
their abilities, presented this petition to the
legislature with the intent of reducing the disparity
between residents and nonresidents.
I urge you to support the Local Boundary Commission's
decision. Thank you very much.
41.43
GARY PETERSON testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he lives outside the city limits of Homer. Mr.
Peterson noted his vehement opposition to the annexation. He
related his belief that the citizens should have the right to
vote [on this matter]. Furthermore, only those in the proposed
area to be annexed should be allowed to vote rather than having
a vote of the entire community. He charged that "our
government" is very manipulative at the federal, state, and
local level. He reiterated his opposition to the annexation,
and noted his support of a resolution that would veto any recent
approval of annexation by the LBC.
43.15
TIMOTHY FULLER testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he lives outside the city. Mr. Fuller provided
the following testimony:
Noah Webster wrote: "Good intentions will always be
pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is
hardly too strong to say that the constitution was
made to guard the people against the dangers of good
intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to
govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Perhaps Homer's city council had good intentions when
they attempted to slither this annexation through with
no public advisement. It is unfortunate that they
didn't initially form a task force to evaluate the
viability of an annexation. A task force might've
developed a sound blue print for an annexation which
could then have been approved or not at the polls by
city residents and the folks in the area proposed for
annexation. A reasonable plan buttressed by a well-
documented cost-benefit analysis would likely have
passed muster with the people, and the bitter
animosity engendered by this forced annexation
would've been averted.
... the double speak the LBC employs to justify this
annexation's purported compliance with the 14
standards for annexation is a heinous manifestation of
government gone awry. Some of their specious
reasoning borders on the idiotic. This annexation
palpably does not meet all the standards. At the very
least, the LBC should've required that the city
"rebriefed" for the smaller area. The LBC is a twig
on the executive branch that needs to be pruned by the
legislature. This annexation merits a veto, the
sooner the better. A veto will send a message to city
governments throughout the state that in our
constitutional republic, the rights of the people are
paramount.
45.03
JIM CLAUSS testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he lives outside of the city limits of Homer.
Mr. Clauss stated his objection to the manner in which [the
annexation] was done. He also stated his opposition to
annexation.
BEVERLY CLAUSS testified via teleconference. She noted that she
lives outside the city limits of Homer. Ms. Clauss said that
she is opposed to this takeover, which is referred to as an
annexation. She questioned why the city would be afraid of a
vote if it's so confident that everyone wants annexation.
46.03
JIM HORNADAY testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he lives within the City of Homer. Mr. Hornaday
urged the committees to follow the advice of the Legislative
Research and Legal Services Division. Although the city
could've handled the annexation better from the public hearing
standpoint, there were many public hearings. He related his
belief that the city should've released the [secret] memos.
TAPE 02-3, SIDE B
MR. HORNADAY continued with remarks regarding the [service
areas]. He commented that regardless of boundary lines [fire
service personnel/neighbors] won't let the houses of friends
burn down. Mr. Hornaday recalled 30 years ago when he served on
the Kenai City Council and the Borough Assembly. He explained
that he was "butchered up" in an annexation merger process when
Kenai and North Kenai were working to form a separate borough,
which was ultimately rejected. The present annexation issues
have brought out similar emotions and issues.
MR. HORNADAY reiterated the need to give careful consideration
to the opinions of the Legislative Research and Legal Services
Division. Mr. Hornaday said that he hasn't come across any
legal reasons to stop the annexation, and it looks as if the
process was followed. Therefore, he expressed the need for
caution when changing the process. With regard to the
discussions of a constitutional amendment on these annexation
issues, Mr. Hornaday, again, expressed the need for caution
before amending the constitution.
44.30
MICHAEL KENNEDY testified via teleconference. He noted that he
is a resident of the City of Homer. Mr. Kennedy informed the
committees that a member of the group Objective Annexation
Review conducted a telephone poll of 100 randomly selected
households in April 2000. The results of the poll indicated a
2:1 vote against annexation, with three-quarters of all
respondents believing that annexation is an issue that should be
decided by a vote. He pointed out that the results of this poll
and comments by Pam Brody (ph) are included in the letter dated
April 11, 2000, which was delivered to the Homer city mayor and
city council. Mr. Kennedy related his belief that this
sentiment still remains.
MR. KENNEDY noted that [Objective Annexation Review] completed
an initiative petition in June 2000. This petition requiring a
vote of the residents of the city and the areas to be annexed
would've been on the fall 2000 ballot. Although the petition
was done properly and was submitted to the City of Homer clerk,
the petition was denied by the city manager. [The denial] was
accompanied by a 14-page opinion by the city attorney.
Therefore, no recourse, save court, was left. The group could
ill-afford the legal fees, he said, and thus the group's rights
were effectively stopped. In conclusion, Mr. Kennedy urged the
legislature to veto the Homer annexation because annexation
should be determined by a vote of the impacted people.
41.23
DENNIS LEACH testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he resides within the city limits of Homer and
owns three parcels within the proposed area to be annexed. From
both those perspectives, Mr. Leach strongly supported
annexation. He recalled that this annexation started almost ten
years ago when the City of Homer's request for a fire and
emergency service area was turned down by those in the areas
outside the city. Mr. Leach said that he supports the
annexation primarily because he wants the services that the city
is able to offer.
MR. LEACH said that there has been much emotion surrounding this
issue, while there have been [only] a few facts presented. The
facts challenging how the city acted have been proven invalid;
the city has followed the law - to the best of his knowledge -
as has the LBC. If the legislature can find instances in which
the city or the LBC hasn't followed the legal procedures, then
their effort should be questioned. Mr. Leach requested that the
legislature put emotion aside.
38.45
ALEX FLYUM, JR., testified via teleconference. He noted that he
owns land within and outside of the City of Homer. Mr. Flyum
announced his support of the proposed annexation of the 4.5
square miles. He said that he would send the committees page 7
of the February 6, 2002, Homer Tribune as part of his testimony.
He said he would also send the scenario put forth by the "Homer
Annex City Council" by the City of Homer as part of his
testimony as well. Mr. Flyum stated accolades for the services
provided by the City of Homer.
37.06
MARGARET SEELYE testified via teleconference. Ms. Seelye
mentioned that she lives outside the city and outside the
proposed area to be annexed. Ms. Seelye said that her main
concern is in regard to how this annexation petition was
introduced. [The annexation petition] first came up as a
resolution on the consent agenda. The resolution requested that
the city manager create a work plan and a time line for annexing
outlying areas. The little discussion that occurred included
the thought of annexation or service areas in order to assist
with [the city's] budget issues. There were attempts to obtain
information regarding what the city was doing and offer help.
"At no time was anybody informed that a real petition was being
created," she said. Therefore, the proposal to annex 25 square
miles was a surprise. Ms. Seelye recalled one of the first
meetings on this annexation during which the council member
chairing the meeting announced that the council wasn't present
to take input on the annexation but rather to discuss post-
annexation issues. Therefore, she felt it's understandable why
some chose not to attend meetings after that. With regard to a
vote on fire and emergency services, Ms. Seelye said she wasn't
aware of any such vote prior [to the annexation proposal]. She
then turned to the services the area to be annexed will receive
and pointed out that the only concrete statement in the petition
is that the city will spend half as much per road mile in the
annexed area than it currently spends per road mile in the city
limits. However, the area to be annexed receives far more snow
than the area within the city limits, not to mention that the
area to be annexed is farther from the city's shops. Ms. Seelye
concluded by noting her opposition [to the proposed annexation].
33.54
MIKE ARNO testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he lives just outside the city limits. Mr. Arno
provided the following testimony:
I would like to say to my elected officials, that have
been elected by the people to serve for the people,
that the people have spoken in large numbers. We are
against the annexation proposed by the City of Homer,
especially how it was done. As a local businessman, I
dump thousands of dollars into the local economy each
year, without the higher taxation. I feel that I more
than pay for my part of the services that I get from
the City of Homer. As an excavating contractor, I
also know that the numbers are inaccurate. The City
of Homer cannot afford to provide road, water, and
sewer services which are the basics to the area they
now occupy, which has a much heavier population
density than what they propose to annex. How can they
expect to provide services to a much larger area with
a smaller population density? Many questions are left
unanswered: Is the city going to opt to upgrade the
borough-maintained roads, which do not meet their
minimum standard, and at what cost? Or, are they just
going to lose their maintenance because they do not
meet the minimum standard?
32.27
ROBERT KEYS testified via teleconference. Mr. Keys informed the
committees that he lives within the city limits. Mr. Keys
related his belief that the city has done a poor job with regard
to improving the infrastructure of the City of Homer. He noted
that 20 percent of the people in the city don't have water,
sewer, or snowplowing services. Mr. Keys said that he hasn't
run across anyone who would be impacted by this proposed
annexation who is in support of it. There seem to be [many]
disadvantages with the proposed annexation. He said that the
City of Homer acts as if it has nothing but hostility to those
in opposition to the proposed annexation. Mr. Keys recalled
[council members] nodding [off to sleep] during some of the
meetings regarding the proposed Homer annexation. Furthermore,
he only recalled one person testifying in favor of annexation.
Mr. Keys expressed the need for Homer to cleanup its own act
before telling those outside the city "how to cover theirs."
29.29
DAVID RASKIN testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he is a resident of Kachemak City, which
directly borders the proposed area to be annexed. Mr. Raskin
provided the following testimony:
I strongly support annexation, and would have been
pleased if Kachemak City were included. Like most who
live near Homer, including the vocal opponents of
annexation, my family relies on and greatly benefits
from the facilities and services provided by the City
of Homer, including water, sewer, and fire protection.
We keep our boat in the Homer harbor and we regularly
use the public library and city hall. The City of
Homer has provided financial support to a myriad of
community nonprofit organizations and free classroom
facilities to the Kachemak Bay college campus. Of
major concern is the lack of land use planning outside
of Homer. Although our residential subdivisions
prohibit commercial activity, Kachemak City and the
proposed annexation area are plagued by massively,
unsightly, and unsafe junkyards; noisy industrial
operations; and uncontrolled development. The
increasingly disruptive noise, unhealthy dust, and
just plain ugliness degrade our quality of life and
lower our property values. The City of Homer would
address these problems with careful planning and
suitable location, a major reason why my adjacent
neighbors successfully requested that their more than
140 acres be added to the annexation. The inclusion
of all of Kachemak City would serve similar good
purposes.
The annexation opponents are a vocal small minority,
most of whom do not even live in the currently
proposed area. My friends and neighbors support
annexation. And many business owners are reluctant to
openly express their support. Opponents complain
about the process, yet we have been continuously
bombarded for two years by their presentations and the
many forums and meetings held for them to express
their views and concerns. The lives of everyone in
this area, including those who argue against
annexation, would be radically changed if the City of
Homer was unable to provide their current level of
services and amenities. Our quality of life would be
severely degraded, possibly in danger. I fail to
understand those who willingly take advantage of these
services, but are unwilling to pay their fair share of
the relatively low cost. That is neither neighborly
nor in the spirit of this community and Alaskans in
general.
In the final analysis, it is the merit of the proposal
not its history or controversy that is at issue. This
proposed annexation is good for the City of Homer and
its residents. It is good public policy and would
benefit all who have chosen to live here because of
the proximity of the City of Homer and the values that
it provides to everyone. I strongly urge you to
support the annexation. Thank you.
26.46
MARGA RASKIN testified via teleconference. She informed the
committees that she is a resident of Kachemak City. Ms. Raskin
provided the following testimony:
I strongly support annexation, and would've been
pleased if Kachemak City were included. During this
time of shrinking state revenue sharing, there is a
compelling need to adequately increase the City of
Homer's tax base. Since incorporation as a
municipality in 1964, Homer has generously financed
numerous community services that benefit city
residents and those living outside its 21 square mile
boundary. In the area proposed for annexation,
population density exceeds that of Homer. The
additional revenues guarantee continuation of water
availability, police and fire protection, and the
ongoing maintenance and upgrading of (indisc.) harbor.
The funds will also support the necessary expansion of
the library, a new town square with public art and
gardens, and the reduction of juvenile crime by
constructing an ice hockey rink and a skateboard park.
The city will be able to continue its financial
assistance to the Boys and Girls Club, the Homer
Council on the Arts, the Grant Museum, the Center for
Alaskan Coastal Studies, (indisc.), the food pantry,
and the animal (indisc.). Those residing outside the
city boundaries should accept their civic
responsibility to pay for the services they now
receive from the city. The time has come for all to
equitably share the modest cost for these numerous
valuable services. The proposed annexation is needed
to ensure a future that includes a vibrant and viable
municipal center. I strongly urge you to support the
annexation. Thank you.
24.44
BILLY PEPPER testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he lives in the proposed area to be annexed, in
the Raven Ridge subdivision. Mr. Pepper provided the following
testimony:
Raven Ridge did submit a responsive brief to the
city's annexation proposal. And when the homeowners
of Raven Ridge met, we each took a look at the
standards of annexation and tried to find where we
could argue the issue. We found just a few that
seemed not be met: Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 12.
And that's the standards we targeted in our responsive
brief. In three minutes, I'll try to cover just two.
"Standard 1: The territory must exhibit a reasonable
need for city government." Need is such an arbitrary
word and vague, especially when considered in the eyes
of the one who is overseeing the process. And so far,
that's been the LBC. What the LBC sees as a need for
us to have city government, which I will state there's
no record of our demands to be needing or asking for
city government, they still found we need it. We
still disagree with their judgment and are asking the
legislature for help in this matter. We feel this
standard is not met. And, as standards go, the city
needs to meet all of the standards which are stated in
DCED's preliminary report on page 147, and I quote, "A
territory that meets all of the annexation standards
may be annexed to a city by the legislative review
process if the commission determines that annexation
will serve the best balanced interest of the state."
If it is in the best balanced interest of the state,
Standard 13, then why isn't Kachemak City considered
in the process. Because as Mr. Waring stated on
Thursday, the reason for annexation by legislative
review was so that we don't have second class cities
popping up all around Anchorage as would have been the
case with Sandlake, the Hillside, and Spenard. But
yet, Kachemak City, a second class city, would be an
enclave of Homer; contracting services from the city
with trunk lines for sewer and water already in place,
but yet not being considered in the process. Someone
is not looking out for the best balanced interest of
the state.
And finally, on the same preliminary report by DCED.
On page 355, under Recommendation 1, first page, first
sentence, and I quote: "DCED has concluded that the
proposal by the City of Homer's annexation of 25.64
square miles meets most of the annexation standards
established in state law." Clearly, here is the
difference. The law states that all the standards
must be met, and yet the state official's report says
"most have been met." Clearly, the glove doesn't fit.
To quote Mr. Waring again on Thursday's comments:
"Lessons Learned: There is no gain for a petition
that is not well-grounded." And I agree. I want to
thank you for the opportunity to comment. Good day.
21.58
BOB SHAVELSON testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he is a resident of Homer who has been silent on
this issue because he is already paying for the services in
Homer. He related his belief that the people who are directly
impacted come out the loudest, which he believes has been the
case over the past few years. Mr. Shavelson said he believes
that annexation is in the best interest of the residents of the
lower peninsula and the residents of the state in general.
Although Mr. Shavelson acknowledged that the process could've
had better outreach at the beginning, he said there has been
considerable debate on this issue. Furthermore, those in
government must realize that municipalities must have the
revenues necessary to provide the services for residents and
nonresidents alike. "In truth, there's really not going to have
a scenario where someone's going to vote to raise their own
taxes, not in this day and age," he said. He expressed the need
to look at the best interest of the local government and the
state government. Therefore, Mr. Shavelson urged the committees
to support the annexation, and to not tamper with the
constitution.
20.01
SCOTT CARDOZA testified via teleconference. He announced that
he lives outside the city limits. Mr. Cardoza stated that he
isn't opposed to growth so long as it includes common sense,
integrity, and reason. Mr. Cardoza said that he is against the
proposed annexation because he doesn't believe that it includes
common sense, integrity, and reason. He related his belief that
the city doesn't have his best interest in mind. If the
annexation occurs, he predicted he would be treated "under the
table" just as the annexation process has.
19.20
DAN BOONE testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that [he lives outside the city limits]. Mr. Boone
provided the following testimony:
I'm opposed to the annexation. There are houses
within the City of Homer that do not have sewer and
water, and there are streets that are poorly
maintained. It seems to me that before Homer takes on
any additional responsibility, such as sewer, water,
and streets, within the city should be well maintained
and available to all residents. If services offered
by the city were upgrades from what I presently have,
I'd be happy to be in the city. But I do not believe
this is true. I believe taxes will increase and we
will actually see a decrease in services. Therefore,
as stated before, I'm opposed to the annexation.
Thank you.
KENTON BLOOM testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he is a licensed surveyor and planner who has
done planning documents for both the Kenai Peninsula Borough and
the City of Homer. Mr. Bloom identified the best part of the
debate over the annexation as the dedicated interest in
resolving what's the best for this community. As a surveyor,
Mr. Bloom expressed his personal frustration with the lack of
planning. He pointed out that the borough doesn't have a
building permit system so that folks know something is going to
happen. He related that the city is more apt to do planning
than the borough. With regard to the recreational issue, Mr.
Bloom pointed out that the City of Homer has, for over ten
years, financially supported the Kachemak Nordic Ski Club in
terms of funding for grooming. Again, the city has stepped up
when the borough has basically been an obstruction. Mr. Bloom
expressed the hope that this annexation would help [unify] the
community. In response to Chair Torgerson, Mr. Bloom specified
that he supported the proposed annexation.
15.02
DORIS CABANA testified via teleconference. She informed the
committees that even with the amended boundaries two parcels of
her land along with 900 other people's [land] will be taken.
She pointed out that many people are still wondering whether
they are included in the proposed annexation. "One thing about
it, if I'm taken in, I will have a vote and a voice in the
future," she said. Ms. Cabana related her belief that many
people wouldn't be opposed to the annexation had the process
been different. She indicated that many build outside the city
limits in order to have the freedom for which they came to
Alaska. Ms. Cabana turned to the tax issue and said, "I'm not
against the taxes so much as the people that's running the
city." The taxes are especially burdensome for the elderly. "I
think if they would work with us, we wouldn't all be opposed to
this," she stated. Furthermore, she didn't trust [those in city
government] to look out for "our" welfare. Therefore, Ms.
Cabana said she opposed the annexation.
11.35
BILL SMITH testified via teleconference. Mr. Smith informed the
committees that he is a Kenai Borough Peninsula resident and a
City of Homer resident. Furthermore, Mr. Smith is an ex officio
member of the Kachemak Bay Advisory Planning Commission and a
member of the Homer City Advisory Planning Commission. Mr.
Smith provided the following testimony:
The borough, of which I'm a member, is my government.
But, it is, emphatically, not local government. It's
real clear to me that I can get a lot of stuff done in
local government that's difficult or impossible at the
borough level. So, that's why I like to work at the
local level.
Since the beginning of the annexation process, I have
been critical of the boundaries that were originally
proposed. I put a lot of effort into analyzing and
proposing alternative scenarios. These were presented
to the Homer City Council and the Local Boundary
Commission. There are those that have been concerned
about the process. I have also been concerned about
the process. I do not see a balanced approach by
[Representative] Drew [Scalzi] and [Senator] John
[Torgerson]. They have unfairly used emotionally
prejudiced terms to describe the city's actions while
ignoring the actions of others. The city does not act
in a vacuum. When the city was preparing this
annexation petition, they consulted closely with the
DCED to ensure that all requirements were met.
Hindsight, being a wonderful thing, we can see that
the city should've been advised to do some public
outreach prior to filling the petition. However, that
advice was not given and the driving force became the
timelines of the LBC. When I listen to the problems
people had with the petition, I thought it was a point
well taken that we needed more community discussion.
To that end, I proposed the city council hold
discussions with the community on annexation issues
and on the boundaries. The council did convene a
series of forums and the CCAA promptly called a
boycott. In an attempt to hear some of the concerns
of the CCAA, I attended some of their meetings. The
stated intent of the CCAA leadership was to oppose any
annexation whatsoever in order to keep the group
together. They vowed to fight annexation of every
neighborhood, subdivision, and lot regardless of
merit. The CCAA has evolved the mantra: "We will
talk with the city, but only when our conditions are
met."
About 18 months ago I wrote a letter to the editor
stating the city should go forward with the petition.
The CCAA began an effort to create a fire service area
to blunt annexation. This has been discussed by the
LBC. Creating a service area to avoid annexation is
illegal. To provide confirmation of intent, I direct
you to the web page maintained by Abigail Fuller. And
I would like to quote from her web page: "The CCAA
has put wheels in motion to form a borough fire/EMS
service area in an effort to remove one of Homer's
best arguments for annexation. Success will also make
it more difficult for Homer to annex any areas in the
future." Thank you very much.
8.06
JONATHAN FAULKNER testified via teleconference. Mr. Faulkner
informed the committees that he is a resident of Homer and owns
and operates the Lands End Resort. Mr. Faulkner noted that he
is one of the aforementioned homeowners without services. He
related his belief that Lands End Resort is the largest private
sector taxable entity within the city. The resort collects
about $2,000 a year in borough sales tax, pays water and sewer
rates that are approximately three times that of the rest of the
city. Even with these contributions to the city, Lands End
Resort recently had to pay the city to pave [the city's] land at
the entrance to the resort's parking lot. Mr. Faulkner said
that he is the first to admit that the city isn't fully
cooperative on many issues.
MR. FAULKNER noted his support of the proposed annexation.
Homer is growing rapidly and the community needs to remain as
one, he said. Mr. Faulkner opined that the city council and
government have always been swayed by those outside the city
limits. Therefore, many issues that impact Mr. Faulkner's
business are greatly impacted by those outside the city limits,
which Mr. Faulkner said was fine. Mr. Faulkner stressed that
the amenities, such as libraries, hockey rinks, soccer fields,
museums, and roads, are disproportionately paid for by taxable
entities within the city. "To grow as one community, not as
those in or out, ... we need to support annexation," he said.
4.58
LEROY KRUMM testified via teleconference. He noted that he
isn't subject to the current proposed annexation. However, Mr.
Krumm said that he remains opposed to the annexation primarily
because of the process. Mr. Krumm recalled that not too long
ago Homer had a beach problem that led to a gathering of various
user groups who met and arrived at a consensus [in a]
cooperative [fashion]. This annexation, on the other hand, has
been confrontational. Mr. Krumm characterized the relationship
between those residing in the city limits and those outside as
symbiotic. Without the financial support, volunteer support, et
cetera, of those outside the city limits, the city wouldn't be
nearly as well off today. Furthermore, those outside of the
city limits wouldn't have their lifestyle without the close
proximity of the city. Mr. Krumm specified that his point is
that the public was shunned in this process. The process began
with a secret memo from the city manager, which has lead to
court proceedings to obtain information that should be available
to the public. With regard to the hearings touted as being
about annexation, those hearings were really about how to
implement annexation once approved. Mr. Krumm turned to a
recent memo to the borough [from the assembly]. In the memo the
assembly specified, "the assembly having a position on this
annexation was going to war with the city." Mr. Krumm didn't
see it that way. [The memo] also specified that the council's
vote to oppose annexation was 5:4. In conclusion, Mr. Krumm
stated his opposition to the annexation, and belief that the
lack of a legislative veto would reward bad behavior.
1.18
MARILYN HENDREN testified via teleconference. Ms. Hendren said
that she was pulled into the annexation by the secret memo. She
echoed earlier testimony regarding the frustration with the
process. Ms. Hendren noted her opposition to the proposed
annexation.
TAPE 02-4, SIDE A
JOANNE GREGORY testified via teleconference. Ms. Gregory
informed the committees that although her property isn't
included in the current proposed annexation, her property was
included in the original proposal. Ms. Gregory provided a quote
that referred to Nazi Germany. She quoted the following: "When
they came for the Jews, I didn't protest because I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for the Catholics, I didn't protest because I
wasn't a Catholic. When they came for me there was no one left
to protest." Ms. Gregory said she didn't want to be left
without anyone to protest when her property is annexed. With
regard to the services provided by the city, she said that the
borough maintains the roads in [her neighborhood] while the city
seems to have trouble maintaining roads that receive less snow
than in [her neighborhood]. Ms. Gregory objected to the
economic grounds that are used to support the annexation. To
that claim, she questioned where the 3.5 percent sales tax she
pays on groceries and other purchases goes. Ms. Gregory said
that she would be willing to pay user fees for the library,
museum, and any other city maintained facility. A user fee
would afford people the ability to choose not to use a facility
rather than have one's house taken because of the inability to
pay the land taxes. Ms. Gregory noted her contributions to city
library. With regard to the references to city water, Ms.
Gregory related her understanding that the city was given
control of the water to manage it for area residents, not just
for those in the city limits. She then turned to the fire
service area, and charged that "the city played dirty pool."
3.37
LAURA BARTON testified via teleconference. She, too, specified
that her property isn't included in the current proposed
annexation, but was included in the original proposal. With
regard to allegations that a fire service area was turned down
in the past, Ms. Barton mentioned that in a city report the city
noted that a fire service area would decrease the chances of a
future annexation. She said that there was never a vote on this
fire service area. Ms. Barton echoed earlier testimony with
regard to "most of the requirements" being met for annexation,
although the law requires that all standards must be met. In
closing, Ms. Barton expressed her dislike of a government that
[places matters] before the people at the last minute.
6.02
CHRIS NEWBY testified via teleconference. He noted that he is a
resident of Homer who strongly supports the proposed annexation.
He identified the issue as one of fairness. Everyone pays sales
tax and property tax in the area. For years, the city has
provided areawide services, and therefore the city provides the
basic infrastructure. This is important to the growth of the
community. Mr. Newby expressed the need to come together in
order to provide the most cost effective way to provide services
to more of the community. Perhaps, more importantly, the
proposed annexation provides a mechanism to broaden the
representation of the community because more people would be
able to vote. Over the years, those outside the city limits
haven't had a voice and thus this [annexation] would provide a
way in which to get more people involved and develop a more
positive community.
8.10
DOUG VAN PATTEN testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he lives in the proposed annexation area. He
also informed the committee that for the past 11 years he has
been a member of the Homer Volunteer Fire Department. Mr. Van
Patten announced his opposition to the proposed annexation for
the following reasons:
Number One: There was no meaningful opportunity for
public participation in the process. That constitutes
poor government.
Number Two: The city did not demonstrate, through the
standards established in state law for annexation,
that they would be the best governing body. Raven
Ridge Homeowners Association filed a responsive brief.
The city's reply brief only answered three of the six
standards we addressed. The city reply trivialized
our concerns and was contradictory to their own
petition. I'd like to refer to Exhibit 1 in the
petitioner's brief. Section 1, I quote, "The borough
provides road maintenance on borough roads. This
maintenance is minimal and inadequate." I'd like to
quote Raven Ridge responsive brief. Paragraph 3:
"The petitioner states that the borough provides road
maintenance on borough roads. This maintenance is
minimal and inadequate." While this is a petitioner's
perspective, Raven Ridge has found that borough road
maintenance in our subdivision to be adequate or
better. Roads adjacent to our subdivision, which are
within the city, become impassable during breakup, and
after heavy snowfalls receive delayed clearing. I
want to refer to the city reply brief to Raven Ridge.
Roman numeral 3, N III ... "The city's public works
department has never referred to borough road
maintenance as minimal and inadequate." But, of
course, somebody from the city made that assertion in
the petitioner's brief. If this is indicative of the
city's inability to verify their claims, then other
assertions have to be suspect also.
Health and waste water was another one of our
concerns. From the petitioner's brief, Section 12,
paragraph 6, I quote, "The failure of septic systems
is so great that swimming in Beluga Lake is a health
hazard because of the high fecal count in the water.
A fresh water lake located within the city limits
should be a jewel for recreation and fishing not an
open sore." From our response brief, Section 12, I
quote, "Most of Beluga Lake's water shed is within the
city. If failed septic systems or outhouses are
responsible for an open sewer, then it is because the
city has been unable to provide sewer service to its
current residents." The petitioner is correct about
soil limitations for septic systems on the lower
bench, but problem soils are not addressed in this
annexation.
In summary, I think it's very presumptuous that a few
people in the city hall could fashion a better city
than could be developed from the input of all its
residents. The fate of the community should not be
dictated by city hall without full citizen
participation. I'd like you to please veto this
annexation. Thank you.
11.15
LOREN KAUFFMAN testified via teleconference. Mr. Kauffman
informed the committees that he lives within the area to be
annexed. Mr. Kauffman announced his opposition to the proposed
annexation because those impacted don't have a voice in the
process, that is those [in the area to be annexed] don't have a
vote. This is contrary to principles on which America was
founded. Mr. Kauffman acknowledged the services [those outside
the city limits] receive from Homer and thus he announced his
willingness to pay an assessment for fire services and other
services which [those outside the city limits] receive from the
city.
12.03
RAY KRANICH testified via teleconference. Mr. Kranich specified
that although he is a member of the Homer City Council, he is
speaking on his own behalf today. Mr. Kranich urged the
committees to review the LBC's statement of decision and the
seven-page transcript of their deliberations, which he felt
would reveal that the LBC has been thorough. Mr. Kranich also
urged the committees to send a statewide message for stable
local government in an environment conducive to orderly growth.
Everyone is watching closely to see what message the legislature
sends with regard to the Homer annexation. Mr. Kranich urged
the committees to support the LBC's decision. In regard to the
charges that this annexation is a heck of way to treat one's
neighbors, Mr. Kranich said, "Well, it is a heck of a way for
our neighbors to treat us in the fact that they want to continue
to utilize city facilities and infrastructure without paying the
same share [as] those residing inside the city." He concluded
by urging the committees to approve the proposed annexation.
14.00
GARY MAYFORTH testified via teleconference. Mr. Mayforth said
that he resides in the proposed annexation area. Mr. Mayforth
turned to the fire and ambulance service, and pointed out that
the area served will continue to be larger than any annexed
area. Under the system of the service area contracting with the
City of Homer to provide service, an adversarial contractual
relationship has been established. Such a situation will
continue to divide the community. Mr. Mayforth pointed out that
the volunteers for the fire and [emergency] services are pulled
from inside and outside of Homer, which must continue in order
to maintain volunteer service. "Emergency services deals with
life safety and property conservation. It should not be used as
a negotiating chip," he stressed. He noted that Councilman
Yourkowskii has been quoted by the local [Homer] newspaper as
threatening to cut services if funding isn't supplied. Mr.
Mayforth said that currently the appropriate governmental body
can provide service under a "one voice order" with the service
area. In summary, Mr. Mayforth offered the following quotation:
"You need to do the right thing the right way."
17.20
STEVE ZIMMERMAN testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he intentionally lives just outside the City of
Homer because he dislikes how the city does business. Mr.
Zimmerman noted that as he drove out of his freshly plowed
borough-maintained road, he passed unplowed city-maintained
roads. He predicted that his [road] would be [unplowed] if the
annexation is approved. Mr. Zimmerman related his belief that
[those outside the city limits] pay their way mostly through the
sales tax, as well as through fuel taxes and various other
taxes. Furthermore, the harbor puts money into the city's
coffers. Mr. Zimmeran also pointed out that people pay to have
water hauled outside the city. "They don't give anything away
in this city," he said. As far as Mr. Zimmerman could tell, the
service areas are working. The service areas are working far
better than the city services will ever work, he charged.
Moreover, the city asked for more money than it proved that it
spent, before the service area was even used. Therefore, the
city is just looking for more money, he charged. Mr. Zimmerman
opined that he has had better response from the borough than the
city. In conclusion, he specified his opposition to the
proposed annexation.
19.13
LARENE ROGERS testified via teleconference. She noted that she
has lived in Homer all her life. Ms. Rogers provided the
following testimony:
Please oppose the annexation proposed by the City of
Homer. My husband, Lawrence, and myself are very much
opposed to the City of Homer's annexation of the 4.58
square miles. We have lived on our original homestead
for 50 years, and have enjoyed a rural lifestyle
without the City of Homer's restrictions. We don't
intend to develop or subdivide this property. The
proposed annexation boundaries include large
unpopulated areas such as our homestead on Bay Crest
hill. We are happy with the Kenai Peninsula Borough's
form of government and do not want to live in the City
of Homer with its restrictions. We can only see more
taxation with no benefits such as city water and sewer
.... I know of several City of Homer residents who
would like to have this water and sewer, but cannot
get these services. The City of Homer should first
provide these services to their current residents
before trying to annex more miles. Also, we do not
like the way the annexation process was proposed.
Please veto the City of Homer's annexation proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
20.56
POPPY BENSON testified via teleconference. She informed the
committees that she resides within the City of Homer. She
stressed that she didn't want to derail this annexation process.
When considering derailing the annexation process, [the
legislature] will need to consider whether the decision is bad
and whether everyone should have to go through this process
again. She pointed out that even [if the annexation is stopped]
the problem isn't solved because there is a city with boundaries
that were established 40 years ago. Although Ms. Benson
acknowledged that this annexation process didn't start out well,
she questioned whether that is reason to [go through the process
again]. Ms. Benson noted her interest in annexation from the
time she first came to town and the shock she had that [those
outside the city limits] have no vote in regard to the future of
the City of Homer. Ms. Benson said:
We've got a situation here in Homer, with these
boundaries that haven't been addressed in 40 years,
where less than half of the people, only about a third
of our community members, ... are vested in Homer -
meaning they've got their own money on the table and
they have the power to determine the future of Homer,
the power to elect leadership, to supply leadership,
and to vote on all matters concerning the future
direction of Homer. We can't run one little town here
at the end of the road with only a third of the people
having any responsibility and any power. It's
ludicrous.
MS. BENSON announced that she would've supported the original
annexation proposal. She stressed her belief that at least half
of Homerites should be vested in Homer. She characterized the
current annexation proposal as very modest. The neighborhoods
in the current annexation proposal are heavily subdivided and
developed, similar to the neighborhoods within the city limits.
"Let's be one town," she said. She questioned whether there
would be a better or different decision if the annexation is
[vetoed]. Having listened to two years of testimony and letters
to the editor, Ms. Benson has surmised that if people can have
their town without any responsibility, that's what they'll
choose.
24.21
DEAN BAUGH testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he lives on a borough-maintained road, which he
and his neighbors plowed this morning. Mr. Baugh specified that
he lives within the area to be annexed. He also specified that
he supports annexation because he feels the city will do a good
job providing services. Furthermore, annexation will allow him
to have a vote in the community where he lives, his children
attend school, and where he purchases services. Mr. Baugh
informed the committees that he has a low Insurance Services
Office (ISO) rating for fire insurance because of the
availability of fire protection provided by the City of Homer.
Although the Kachemak Emergency Service Fire Area has been
created and may eventually be up to par with the service
provided by the City of Homer, it took many years for the City
of Homer to acquire this low ISO rating. With regard to the
allegations of a bad process, Mr. Baugh pointed out that the
City of Homer followed the process set out in state law.
Therefore, if people don't like the process, they have to
request that the legislature change it. The city and the LBC
can't be held to a process that isn't written. Mr. Baugh also
pointed out that many of the vocal opposition don't live in the
proposed annexation area or the City of Homer. It didn't make
sense that those outside of the area to be annexed should have
any say with regard to the fate of those in the area to be
annexed, he said. More weight should be given to the words of
those within the area to be annexed.
27.11
BOB BARNETT testified via teleconference. He noted that he is a
resident of Homer who has served one term on the Spenard Public
Utility [Committee] and one term on the Homer City Council. Mr.
Barnett provided the following testimony:
I think the City of Homer was chartered in 1964, with
a population of 800. Over the years, the population
of Homer and the adjoining area has increased
approximately 1,000 percent. It is overwhelming the
city's ability and desire to continue service to those
beyond the city limits who, except for the right to
vote, have been treated the same as city residents.
The net result has been urban sprawl and higher city
taxes. It's time to concentrate on the creation of a
city with orderly development and guidance. It's time
to organize the different factions in the area in an
effort to solve area problems. It's time to stop the
backbiting, friction, and turmoil. In my opinion,
annexation is the only sensible solution and it has
been too slow in coming. In closing, let me say that
I was around when the state laws and regulations were
made. And as I recall, [state laws and regulations]
did not entitle people to vote for or against any
annexation if they were receiving services from the
city that was trying to annex the area. It is also my
opinion that until we get everybody in the area
qualified to vote in city elections, we will continue
to have the problems that we're having today. Thank
you.
29.38
PATRICIA BRENNAN testified via teleconference. She noted that
she lives within the proposed area to be annexed. Ms. Brennan
announced her opposition to the proposed annexation, and
requested that the legislature introduce a resolution opposing
it. People weren't allowed a vote on this matter, although two
service areas will be impacted. Such a situation is in direct
conflict with HB 13, which was passed by this legislature last
year. She requested that the City of Homer be sent a message to
return to the discussion table with those living in the area in
order to work this out. Ms. Brennan pointed out that the City
of Homer isn't user-friendly and hasn't been cooperative with
regard to information as to any costs that have been involved in
this matter and any services that [those in the area to be
annexed] will receive upon annexation. She opined that the city
is not going to give those who live in the annexation area any
city services at all as far as water and sewer. With regard to
road service, she said that the city won't be able to provide
[better service] than the service already in the annexation
area. The city is merely going to take the tax dollars of those
in the annexation area and use them for their projects, she
charged. Therefore, Ms. Brennan requested that the [legislature
require] the city to develop a plan for what will occur in the
area to be annexed and then a vote can be taken.
31.19
MILLI MARTIN testified via teleconference. She informed the
committees that she lives within the 25 square mile petition
area. She mentioned that she is a member of the Kenai Peninsula
Borough Assembly which considered a resolution that would've
opposed the proposed annexation. That resolution was defeated
by a 5:4 vote. One of the assembly member's comments cited
Article I of the Alaska State Constitution, and noted that the
Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly does have the power to say that
it disagrees with the process. Ms. Martin related her belief
that the [legislature] also has that power. She echoed earlier
testimony with regard to the badly flawed process and the large
amount of community opposition. Ms. Martin said, "You have the
obligation to determine what is ultimately in the best interest
of the state. If this annexation is approved, will it set a
precedent for land grabs that do tear communities apart."
34.01
PAM BRANT testified via teleconference. She informed the
committees that she lives outside the city limits. Ms. Brant
provided the following testimony:
The original 25 square mile annexation area would've
required me to pay increased property taxes with a
certainty of no benefits, either now or in the
foreseeable future. I concur with opponents of the
annexation issue regarding the process involved, and
the existing lack of due public participation. I also
have concerns regarding the city's ability to
adequately address the current needs within the
existing city limits, i.e. infrastructure
improvements, and planning, and zoning enforcement.
These concerns do not, however, outweigh my sincere
belief that the ability to vote and to be one
community working together is a far greater benefit.
It is always up to the citizenry to hold the elected
officials' feet to the fire in order for the community
concerns to be heard and action to be taken. One
community allows for a greater unified voice. I,
therefore, strongly support annexation. And thank you
for the opportunity to comment.
35.18
BOB BRANT testified via teleconference. He said that he also
[lives outside the city limits]. Mr. Brant said that he
supports widespread annexation in the Homer area, and has been
promoting such in this current situation. Mr. Brant specified
that he wanted to have a voice and standing in Homer because the
choices of the city government are critical to everyone in the
area. He said that he would like those testifying today to [be
able] to contribute to the development of Homer through the
city. In 50-150 years, Mr. Brant predicted that this area will
be one large municipality. Today, there is the opportunity to
begin to grow into the larger body and head in a new, less
divisive direction. Although Mr. Brant related his belief that
the city could've promoted the annexation better and the process
could've been more democratic, he viewed those as separate
issues to this proposed annexation. He identified the issue
today as whether "we're going to be better served in the long
term by all being citizens of the city." Mr. Brant urged the
committees to make a decision based on what is best for Homer in
the long term rather than the short term.
38.43
PETREA ARNO testified via teleconference. She informed the
committee she currently lives outside the city limits. She
mentioned that she has greatly contributed to this area during
her time inside and outside of the city limits. Ms. Arno
announced her strong opposition to the proposed annexation
because of the negative foundation of this annexation. She
questioned how one could build on a negative foundation and
develop something good. Therefore, she suggested correcting the
foundation before working on this problem [annexation].
39.53
RAY ARNO testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he currently lives outside the city limits.
He also informed the committees that he is the president of the
Alaska Bible Institute, which is in the area to be annexed. The
institute has spent tens of thousands of dollars to develop its
own water and sewer systems. Although this institute isn't a
taxed group, it will be governed by the city. Mr. Arno related
his belief that less government is better government. With
regard to the notion that expansion is necessary to obtain more
involvement, Mr. Arno questioned where one would stop. He said
he felt that Homer is already large enough, and beyond the
ability to meet the [current] water and sewer [needs]. Mr. Arno
encouraged the committees to do what they could to keep the city
as it is, and therefore [he requested their opposition] to the
proposed annexation.
41.22
CAREY MEYER testified via teleconference. He noted that he
lives within the proposed annexation area. Mr. Meyer announced
that he is in support of the proposed annexation. He stressed
that he wants a vote and wants to be part of the community.
Furthermore, he wanted sewer service extended to his property,
and he was willing to pay for that.
42.12
PAT MOSS, testifying via teleconference, noted that she lives
within the area to be annexed. Ms. Moss related her belief that
there isn't an easy way to add new taxes. Furthermore, she was
offended by people complaining about taxes when they live in a
state with no state income tax and a dividend. Ms. Moss
specified that Homer is her community. Because the city was
incorporated, there is access to state and federal money, which
has resulted in the port and harbor, the hospital, and the
police department. "If my community needs my financial support,
I'm happy to help," she stated. Ms. Moss concluded, "Let's get
on with this. Let's go for annexation."
43.33
TERRY JONES testified via teleconference. Ms. Jones informed
the committee that she is a business owner in the proposed
annexation area. Ms. Jones said, "This has been the worst thing
that has ever happened to Homer in my entire life. Please help
us stop this annexation. " She explained that her family-run
automotive repair facility is located 3.5 miles from Homer,
which isn't an ideal location because people have to go out of
their way to access the business. It is a struggle to keep the
business going now. The added cost of taxes, regulation, and
cost of service extension will put the store out of business,
and possibly into bankruptcy. She informed the committees that
she has been in close contact with other businesses in the area
that feel the same way; "Homer is trying to annex an unhealthy
business district."
MS. JONES turned to a list of issues that she received [from the
city]. With regard to the library, Ms. Jones acknowledged that
she uses it. However, she pointed out that she has donated
books and tapes to the library over the years. Regarding the
police, Ms. Jones said that each time she needed the police, the
troopers have responded with good service. On the issue of the
Homer Volunteer Fire Department, Ms. Jones informed the
committees that her son was a volunteer for several years,
although he lived outside the city limits. In regard to public
works, she highlighted that she pays for her water and sewer.
To the reference to the city clerk's office, Ms. Jones stated
that she has probably only been in that office four times. As
to the animal shelter, she noted that she and her family have
adopted many pets over the years. On the issue of planning, Ms.
Jones charged that the city has been fairly effective in
stopping development of business inside the city limits. With
regard to city support of areawide organizations, Ms. Jones
questioned why the city is funding nonprofit organizations. She
related her belief that such organizations shouldn't be funded
by the city tax dollars rather the city should fund roads,
sewer, water, police, and the harbor. On the issue of the
Homer Chamber [of Commerce], Ms. Jones informed the committees
that she would have to pay about $160 a year to leave a brochure
promoting her business in their building.
MS. JONES turned to the comments that those living outside the
city limits are foreigners and don't pay their way. To that she
disagreed. For instance, she purchases auto parts from two
stores located in the city limits. In conclusion, Ms. Jones
reiterated her plea to stop the annexation.
TAPE 02-4, SIDE B
CHARLES DAVIS, testifying via teleconference, informed the
committees that he lives within the city limits. He mentioned
that he had to walk through unplowed city streets to get to the
[Legislative Information Office]. Mr. Davis recalled that Allen
Tesche, Member, LBC, testified that there was no knowledge or
history that the city had not provided city services nor was
there an unfair division of city services. Mr. Davis said that
was a lie. After living [within the city limits] for 24 years,
Mr. Davis informed the committee that he receives no city
services. He then turned to a statement by Mr. Cushing that the
city is a generous provider of city services to the greater
area. However, Mr. Davis pointed out that providing those
services to the greater Homer area was done without proper
jurisdiction. In regard to the issue of people being reelected
on this issue, Mr. Davis highlighted that 75-80 percent of the
people didn't vote for any of the existing council members or
the mayor. "The public doesn't need the opportunity to speak,
they require the opportunity to be heard," he specified. He
indicated that this may have to proceed to court in order to
"get this worked out." Mr. Davis expressed the need for due
process, even in the face of procedural complications. Mr.
Davis said:
Do the proper thing. Stop this unethical and
unconstitutional annexation. Send it back to the city
to do the minimum requirements of the local
government; i.e. hold the necessary public hearings
before taking such drastic action without a city
policy of annexation, and without the rules for
annexing property to the city enacted and in place. A
vote of the affected citizens would certainly be a big
help. What a novel idea, letting the people vote.
This is the proper way to conduct the people's
business.
MR. DAVIS said that the LBC has created its own record by
ignoring all the evidence opposing the record it created.
Albeit a false record, it's the record that has been presented
to the legislature. Therefore, the legislature should reject
forced annexation. Mr. Davis surmised that there would be "big
bucks" if this annexation is approved because the matter will
probably continue to court. In conclusion, Mr. Davis likened
the City of Homer to Enron.
42.04
EILEEN BECKER began by informing the committees that she lives
outside the city. She mentioned that she has been in Juneau
most of the week on her own dime. Ms. Becker specified that she
isn't opposed to growth as her business depends upon it.
However, the growth should be done in the correct manner. Ms.
Becker stressed that she is in opposition to forced annexation,
which is the case over the past two years. This annexation
process has had many problems, such as lack of communication,
public input, planning, and accessible information. Ms. Becker
informed the committees that when the annexation process began
she offered her media services to the LBC because she has four
radio stations and twelve translators. She told them to keep
her in tune with what is happening [through] public service
announcements and such. In the two years of this process, the
LBC never contacted her. Anything that she did over her
stations was done on her own.
MS. BECKER said, "We are either a citizens' run government,
which I thought we were and I think we are, or we're desperately
headed to a police state, and that's my concern." If the
annexation is approved, she questioned what would happen next.
39.05
MR. ROBERTS turned to the decisional meeting held by the LBC.
He noted that the meeting was held after 13 total hours of
meeting. The decisional portion of the meeting lasted an hour
and 45 minutes, which allows for about seven to eight minutes
for each of the 14 standards. Although the tapes and
transcripts would indicate that each standard was deliberated,
Mr. Roberts disagreed. Having attended the meeting, he said
that the decisions were read as though it was deliberation. If
the hearing had any value, he questioned why would there be
prepared statements.
MR. ROBERTS addressed the fire service area that was created,
which has a 1.75 mills tax. That fire service area was
established by a vote of 80:20 percent. "People do vote to tax
themselves when it's needed," he said. However, the LBC hearing
had 65 people testify, of which 5 supported the proposed
annexation and 58 opposed it. Therefore, he questioned where
all these current supporters were when the official hearing was
held in Homer. Mr. Roberts pointed out that many of the
supporters of the annexation specify that the ends justify the
means, which is true in an autocratic system. However, in a
democracy appearances are everything. Mr. Roberts informed
the committees that many of those testifying in support of the
proposed annexation are either past city council members or
[employees] of the city council.
35.29
MS. FULLER informed the committees that she resides within the
original proposed annexation area and owns property within the
current proposed annexation area. Ms. Fuller said that she
opposes the proposed annexation because what the city has done
is wrong. Although the city's actions may have been within the
letter of the law, it doesn't make it right. If this annexation
[is approved], she predicted that the next annexation will
proceed in the same hostile and aggressive manner. Ms. Fuller
informed the committees that when this annexation began one of
the first things she did was request copies of all of the
annexation-related documents. In response to that request, Ms.
Fuller said she received copies of the two resolutions the
council had approved; there were no supporting documents. The
next request Ms. Fuller submitted was a 67-item list all related
to material in the city's petition; in order to obtain a
response, Ms. Fuller said she had to appeal to the council. The
eventual response included many denials, including all requests
for information from which the cost estimates in the petition
were derived. The CCAA appealed those denials to the city
council, who backed the city manager. Therefore, CCAA appealed
to the Alaska Supreme Court where a decision is pending. "The
result is that not only ... have we not had access to the
information provided to the city manager by the department
heads, but neither has the DCED, the LBC, or yourselves," she
pointed out. Since that time, things have deteriorated. Ms.
Fuller concluded:
They planned the annexation in secret, refused to have
any public dialogue and withheld supporting documents.
The city should not be rewarded for behaving this
badly toward its future citizens. Please support a
veto. Think about what message you will send to other
cities if you let this poorly handled annexation go
through.
33.10
JIM REINHART stated that he lives outside the city limits,
although not in the current proposed area to be annexed. Mr.
Reinhart returned to the original memo, which is referred to as
the secret memo. This memo was written by City Manager Drathman
in response to a request by the city council to investigate the
possibility of annexing areas adjacent to the city. Mr.
Reinhart characterized the memo as a full-blown proposal to
annex 25.6 square miles, which is an area larger than the size
of the existing city. "The memo requested input from the mayor,
council, and department heads with the caveat that both the memo
and the responses to it must be kept secret from the public," he
explained. Still secret are some of the documents submitted by
department heads, and those documents are part of the previously
mentioned lawsuit. "The secret memo and the petition to annex
which followed are replete with linguistic gerrymandering," Mr.
Reinhart charged. For example, the cost of annexation was
likened to the cost of an occasional hamburger. However,
annexation will transfer tens of millions of dollars from
private to public ownership, and will cost the equivalent of a
college education for one child in each family in each
generation. To the mayor's claim that city residents [using]
water were subsidizing those outside the city who used water,
Mr. Reinhart pointed out that the water and sewer is an
enterprise fund into which everyone pays the same gallon rate
and surcharges. Mr. Reinhart informed the committees that he
requested, in writing and at a council meeting, to justify the
aforementioned accusation but there was no response. Similarly,
those outside the city limits were accused of not paying for
driving on city streets, library and museum services, police
protection, and for not paying property taxes. However, there
is no [supporting documentation]. The only area where there was
an inequity was with regard to the fire and EMS services, which
led to a vote that resulted in overwhelming approval of taxation
for those services. Mr. Reinhart specified that the next step
in this annexation process is the legislature. He recommended
the veto of Homer's annexation petition and the writing of new
laws to avoid this kind of annexation.
29.38
LINDA REINHART stated that she, too, lives outside the city
limits. She also stated her opposition to the annexation. Ms.
Reinhart turned to the lack of planning related to this
annexation, and pointed to the significant change in the amount
of area to be annexed. She then turned to the 14 standards that
the annexation must meet. Although the deficiencies have been
shown in at least six of the standards, she highlighted the most
egregious lack to be in Standard 8. The LBC agreed that the
City of Homer had provided a practical plan for the extension of
services into the territory because it felt Homer had "thought
about it." Ms. Reinhart predicted that the approval of this
annexation will result in dire consequences for Homer and the
state. "Not only will Homer turn right around and do this
again, but other cities, fearing a budget crunch, will see what
worked and do the same thing," she predicted. She asked whether
anyone wanted such division in their district.
MS. REINHART said:
Here, at the very last moment, Homer is finally trying
to promote its ideas. They've stopped invoking the
will of the silent majority, and have started calling
their friends to testify in their behalf. The
councilmen have made a grand stand offer to stand down
if you give them their annexation. But, I want to ask
you: What kind of leader is it that builds a fire in
the ship and then jumps overboard? We've proven that
we're willing to work for the good of the area, even
spend tens of thousands of our own dollars for the
common good. We've been proactive and formed a fire
service area. We have been reactive and fought this
hostile annexation. If you deny this petition, we are
willing to work together with the city as soon as they
are ready. We do not have to be a house divided
against itself. Please deny the petition. We do need
to be one community so we be can begin healing the
process and working together again for the best
interest of all.
26.41
RICK LADD provided the following remarks:
Even though the city has met all necessary conditions
for annexation as certified by the Local Boundary
Commission, Homer's annexation bid has stirred more
debate and provoked more ill-feeling among Homer
residents than any other issue I've experienced while
living on the Kenai. The very process in which Homer
was required to follow in compiling and submitting our
annexation proposal is now in question. When
considering this proposal, I urge the legislature to
repair the road not the vehicle traveling the road.
Our journey was certainly not a Cadillac ride.
Perhaps it might be better compared or described as a
Yugo adventure. If asked, I will certainly encourage
future municipalities, who may be thinking annexation,
to better prepare for the ambiguities of the process
and to extend the public communication that's beyond
the letter of the law. The means to the end must be
tempered with frequent and open work sessions to
bridge contentious issues, even though some opinions
may not be changed or people may not want to
participate. Along with other city council members, I
am anxious to fully explore all aspects of transition
with community members through open dialogue at our
regularly scheduled council meetings, could be at our
work sessions prior to, or at any other forum that is
mutually agreed upon. The question has been raised
regarding the right to vote and truncation of terms.
I believe those issues have been addressed. Six of
seven city officials have said that they will either
stand down or opt for election this October. I will
honor this commitment, and yes, all residents within
the proposed annexation [area] will have the right to
run for an elected office. I have been asked by some
if Homer's necessary expenses surpassed revenues, then
why not cut services to [the] outlying area. In
short, stop services, initiate a two-tiered fee
structure. This attitude is not my focus nor is it
sound for our community.
24.05
CURT MARQUARDT, Member, Homer City Council, addressed the
transition plan should the petition move forward. A transition
plan is required by the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) in
matters of annexation. He explained:
This transition plan shall set out a practical
proposal to implement the proposed change to the
assumption, transfer, or surrender of relevant powers,
duties, assets, and liabilities of effected citizens,
organized boroughs, and the service areas of the
unorganized borough. This transition plan shall be
prepared in consultation with officials of the
effected entities, allowing the Local Boundary
Commission to amend it following a public hearing on
the petition and this transition plan, when included
in a petition that takes effect has the force and
effect of law.
MR. MARQUARDT said:
The City of Homer has clearly demonstrated in our
petition that we have given consideration to the
services presently available or to be extended to the
territory proposed for annexation. Moreover, we have
expressed a good faith intention to extend all
services provided by the city with the exception of
water and sewer utilities within the shortest possible
and practical time following annexation. Given the
substantial capital investment involved in water and
sewer utility extensions, we plan to undertake these
extensions over a long-term period as demand and
funding allow. Based on the information that we have
provided in our petition and the reply brief, which
was analyzed by [DCED] ... the Local Boundary
Commission concluded that we have satisfied the intent
of Alaska Administrative Code 110.900. The Local
Boundary Commission has further expressed its
confidence in our abilities to ... deliver services by
stating, and I quote, "The City of Homer is clearly
one of the more ... substantial and sophisticated
governments in Alaska. It's resources and staff
capabilities are superior to the majority of its 145
counterparts in the state."
MR. MARQUARDT continued:
While our nine-page transition plan lacks the details
regarding the manner in which services are proposed to
be extended, the law does not require us to provide a
detailed comprehensive plan for the extension of these
services. Again, each petitioner need only provide
evidence that it has given forethought to what it must
do to deliver municipal services to the area proposed
for annexation.
To conclude, our mayor has asked me, on his behalf, to
state that it is his hope to have the city council,
with the help of staff, begin the process of working
out these details by holding work sessions prior to
our regularly scheduled meetings. With the
concurrence of the council, I believe we accomplish
the task of implementing this transition plan.
19.24
MIKE YOURKOWSKII, Member, Homer City Council, began by saying
that every annexation is controversial and contentious. He
pointed out that the framer's of the constitution knew that
finding common ground amidst the disharmony would be difficult,
and therefore the objective third party with expertise and
professionalism, the boundary commission, is the result. For
that, he noted his thanks to the framers. Although Mr.
Yourkowskii said the he would like to offer some suggested
improvements, he opined that the basic legislative review
process isn't flawed. He related that the city council
envisions inclusive methods dealing with the inevitable growth
of municipalities. There is no desire to establish a
restrictive system of fees in what is obviously one community.
Mr. Yourkowskii said, "It is unclear to me how anyone can say
that the LBC did not listen to the public when they reduced the
annexed territory by 80 percent." Furthermore, the preliminary
report cited public input many times. Mr. Yourkowski also said,
"It's also unclear to me how it can be said that we, on the
council, didn't listen when we held many meetings with
opportunities for input, and are willing to stand for
reelection." He echoed earlier testimony regard the need for
citizens to pay for the services they receive. He informed the
committee that road improvements and sewer and water extensions
are done via the local improvement district (LID) process, which
the city facilities and will do so in the area to be annexed.
MR. YOURKOWSKII turned to the transition plan and quoted page 29
of the annexation petition as follows:
The City of Homer presently uses the following
advisory committees: Parks and Recreation, Library
Advisory Board, Planning Commissions, Economic
Development Commission, Port and Harbor Commission.
Membership on these commissions is by mayoral
appointment with confirmation by the city council.
Mayor and council will make future appointments in the
manner that ensures representation for citizens in the
annexed area. Participation on all council and
commissions will be encouraged for all residents of
the city. The city manager and all the department
heads will be available for weekly meetings concerning
annexation transition problems, until the problems are
solved and annexation is complete.
MR. YOURKOWSKII, as a council member, made the commitment that
the [council] will at least hold monthly meetings to solve these
transitional problems. In conclusion, Mr. Yourkowskii reminded
the committees of the legislative attorney's opinion on this
matter.
16.10
JOHN FENSKE, Member, Homer City Council, informed the committees
that he lives within the City of Homer. Mr. Fenske acknowledged
that there are things [within the annexation process] that could
be done differently, perhaps should've been done differently,
and may be done differently in the future. However, Mr. Fenske
stressed that the council and the city pursued the annexation
with the best information that was available and state experts
were contacted. He thanked the [committees] for being part of
the process. Mr. Fenske noted his support of the proposed
annexation because it is necessary in order to meet the needs of
the community.
13.25
VI JERREL, Ph.D., Alaskans Opposed to Annexation, informed the
committee that she lives outside the City of Homer, within the
original annexation proposal. Dr. Jerrel, Ph.D., said that she
would submit some of the findings of Robert C. Erwin, Erwin and
Erwin, regarding the proposed annexation. Mr. Erwin, a former
Alaska Supreme Court Justice, is representing Alaskans Opposed
to Annexation, Dr. Jerrel, Ph.D., and Ms. Cabana. Dr. Jerrel,
Ph.D., requested that the committees introduce a resolution
requesting the veto of the Homer annexation petition. She
quoted the following portions from Mr. Erwin's June 5, 2000,
opposition letter: "In this case, the property owners in the
area to be annexed have never been given the notice of the
claims of the City of Homer or a reasonable opportunity to be
with regard to the City of Homer's Petition for Annexation." In
this letter Mr. Erwin cites the United States Supreme court case
Fuentes v. Shevin regarding the constitutional right to be
heard, and the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath
regarding the requirement of notice and opportunity to be heard;
all of which, he charges, have been denied in this proposed
annexation. Dr. Jerrel, Ph.D., turned to Mr. Erwin's December
21, 2001, legal opinion to the LBC, which told the LBC that it
has to follow the law. The law, AS 29.35.450(c), requires a
vote of the people to be annexed before there is an attempt to
alter a service area.
9.37
KEN CASTNER told the committees that he lives within the City of
Homer and is in support of the annexation. Mr. Castner informed
the committees that the entire assessed value of everything in
the City of Homer amounts to about $404 million of which $144
million is for such things as schools and hospitals. There is
$20 million of exempt senior housing, and about $20 million of
churches and nonprofits. Therefore, $182 million, 45 percent,
of Homer's tax value is off the tax rolls and thus the tax base
needs to be expanded. He said that the exemptions only increase
each year.
MR. CASTNER said that within nation building, three things have
proven most troublesome, which are the following: annexation,
partition, and apportionment. These are troublesome because
they aren't win-win situations, and there isn't an easy way to
reach middle ground. Mr. Castner informed the committees that
over 20 years ago he sued the City of Homer over a voter's right
matter with regard to the City of Homer's three-year residency
requirement. However, the Alaska Supreme Court explained the
difference between the rights and interests of the state as a
whole and an individual's limited right as a voter. Mr. Castner
related his belief that this is the issue with the proposed
annexation.
6.11
ANITA CRITCHETT, testifying via teleconference, announced her
opposition to the proposed annexation. She expressed her desire
to have voted on the proposal because it impacts her parents'
over 75 acre homestead. She discussed the tree planting taking
place on the property in order to restore it to pre-Spruce Bark
Beetle infestation. Ms. Critchett discussed the ability of
future generations to enjoy this land with ATVs, which may be
prevented if the land is annexed. Furthermore, Ms. Critchett
said that if the city services are brought by this large parcel
of land, [she] would be forced to sell some land in order to pay
for the large services estimate. In conclusion, Ms. Critchett
urged the committees to vote against the proposed annexation.
4.12
MADRENE HOYT testified via teleconference. She informed the
committees that she lives within the original area to be
annexed. Ms. Hoyt requested that the committees veto this
poorly executed annexation. She specified that the petition was
unacceptable to begin with, and the LBC, which seemed to have
already made the decision, seemed to merely be going through the
motions. "I was sorry and appalled to see the commission
virtually yawn in our faces," she said. She urged the
committees to listen to the people.
3.05
GEO BEACH testified via teleconference. Mr. Beach provided the
following testimony:
Lately there's been a lot of high and mighty talk from
a small group of special interest politicians from
Homer about Alaska's constitution. Nearly 50 years
ago when the Alaska Constitutional Convention convened
- and oh yes, the people were able to vote for their
delegates to that convention - it was a different
century and a different world. Alaska was a still a
territory and Homer was not yet a city. It was before
the residents of the area had voted for themselves to
make it a city. The 1950s were a different time and a
different world, and the warm glow some people want
you to feel when they invoke the constitution was more
like hell fire for many people. When Alaska's
constitution was written in the 1950s there were words
that some people thought were fine to say .... Look,
a constitution is a piece of paper that describes how
things are put together, how their constituted to
begin with; it's not magic and nothing about it makes
right injustices which are clearly wrong, morally,
ethically, spiritually wrong. And how a thing is put
together to begin with doesn't [make it] immutable; a
child should grow up to be an adult.
You can add to that word, another one: nuts. That's
what Homer's small group of special interest
politicians would have you think about folks who live
outside the city. Well, they're not nuts, they're
neighbors. And they're good neighbors. Homer's city
manager calls them foreigners. They're not
foreigners, they're Alaskans and Americans. Think
about how they should be treated. It's a new day and
a new world in the Twenty-First Century in Alaska. We
think differently about Japanese Americans and African
Americans and Native Americans; they're allowed to
vote. For that, I'm thankful to legislators, real
statesman, who changed the old ways because they were
wrong. The various constitutions, executive branches,
and judicial branches cowardly ... [tape changes in
midspeech]
TAPE 02-5, SIDE A
MR. BEACH concluded:
Vote down this annexation.
SUSAN PHILLIPS CUSHING testified via teleconference in support
of the proposed annexation. Ms. Cushing informed the committee
that she moved within the city limits of Homer in order to live
within the economic infrastructure that it offered. In regard
to complaints about how the process was handled, Ms. Cushing
said that [the complaints] wouldn't be any different if the
process was done in a "warm, fuzzy" way. She said that many
people do support annexation, but don't want to come forward due
to the intimidation tactics by those vocal opponents to the
process. She asked, "Do you call death threats and comparison
to Hitler marching the Jews into gas chambers a civil response
to government?" She related her belief that the city council
has shown incredible courage and patience with this process.
She further related her belief that many of those opposed to
annexation would be opposed to any process or anything that
represents the system. Ms Cushing said:
Homer is suffering from growing pains, this is one of
the pains, because change causes pain. The father's
of our constitution wrote a sound document that has
held up through hundreds of annexations in other
Alaskan communities. You, as a legislature, cannot
diminish Homer's municipal funds and then nullify this
attempt to provide by its own constitutional measures.
I earnestly advise you to stay with the constitution,
and let's move forward.
3.15
JOHN FOWLER testified via teleconference. He informed the
committees that he owns areas within the original annexation
proposal. He explained that he met with the city manager and
mayor in order to clarify his issues with annexation. After the
annexation proposal was changed to its current configuration,
Mr. Fowler said that he requested that his property be included
in the final area to be annexed. Mr. Fowler noted his support
of annexation. Although annexation is a complex issue, it's
necessary. Mr. Fowler said that the mayor and the members of
the council are good people who are doing a tough job. He
turned to the matter of Homer's lack of a true recreation area
because most of the recreation is done on private property. He
explained that through his property and other property work is
being done on an open space and trail network that wraps around
Homer. He related his belief that there is incredible
opportunity to move forward with a vision for Homer. In order
for a city to grow toward the vision of interconnectedness, open
spaces, and trails, those lands have to be within the city.
Otherwise, the borough would control development. In
conclusion, Mr. Fowler expressed his hope that the committees
would support the proposed annexation.
SENATOR TORGERSON reiterated that the record would be open until
12:00 p.m. on Monday. He echoed earlier testimony regarding how
well everyone, on both sides of the issue, has handled
themselves.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committees, the joint
meeting of the House and Senate Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committees was adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|