Homer officially expanded its borders by 4.58 square miles in 2002 when the state's Local Boundary Commission accepted Homer's amended proposal to annex surrounding land. Homer had originally applied, in 2000, to incorporate more than 25 square miles of surrounding property. The final proposal, with a taxable property value of close to $60 million, was criticized by some inside and outside of the affected areas.
Last year, a group called Citizens Concerned About Annexation appealed the annexation to Alaska Superior Court.
Among the appeal's arguments is that the commission had not adequately considered the impact annexation would have on the Kachemak Emergency Service Area, which was created to improve emergency and fire service for areas outside of Homer.
The service area was formed between 2001 and 2002 while the boundary commission considered the city's annexation proposal. The service area originally included more than 200 square miles of property and covered almost all of the 4.58 square miles annexed two years ago. However, residents argue, that the annexed land is much more heavily populated than other parts and includes approximately 25 percent of the service area's tax base.
In December 2003, Judge Mark Rindner, presiding over the case in Superior Court, agreed and remanded the petition back to the commission, essentially ordering it to reconsider the issue.
"Mentioning KESA in passing, or in connection with the additional burdens the city planned to take on is not the same as a discussion about the impact annexation would have in view of whether the annexation was in the best interests of the state," Rindner wrote in his decision.
Since the remand, the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development has accepted comments from the public and the city of Homer before issuing a final report on the issue.
Tempers between residents affected by annexation and the city flared during the proceedings, but the issue has settled somewhat, said Kachemak Emergency Services Administrative Assistant Mary Griswold.
"The relationship between the service area and the city is good, much better than it was during the annexation proceedings," she said.
Homer City Council member Doug Stark, who also helped create the group that filed the appeal, said that next week's public hearing is a necessary procedure for the public process, and that the state's staff reports lead him to believe that nothing will change.
"Based on the staff's study, the state will probably uphold annexation," Stark said Wednesday.
The report notes that the boundary commission, before forwarding the city's annexation proposal to the Legislature, received expert advice on the annexation process.
The court seemed to have ignored that in its decision. It had, instead, created a new standard for annexation proceedings in the future, the report stated.
"By compelling the LBC (Local Boundary Commission) to address the imposed new standard, the Superior Court has substituted its judgment for that of the Commission," the report reads.
Furthermore, the Alaska Constitution sets a clear preference for city annexation over the creation of new borough service areas, but the court ignored that in its decision.
None of the present Local Boundary Commission members were involved with the original annexation proceedings, and former commissioners have commented publicly since the court's decision.
In June, former commission chair Kevin Waring wrote a letter to the present commission. In it, Waring said that he and other commissioners had considered annexation in the best interests of both the city and its surrounding areas.
"As best as I can tell," Waring wrote, "the ruling that the commission must explicitly consider annexation impacts on a remnant service area as part of its determination of the 'best interests of the state' has no constitutional, statutory, or regulatory foundation."
Attorney Allan Tesche, former commission member and current vice chair of the Anchorage Assembly, wrote in August that the court, in remanding the annexation back to the commission, had acted inappropriately.
He noted that the state had ultimately decided that annexation was in the best interests of the state regardless of the impacts on the newly formed service area.
"I fully support DCED's analysis, conclusions, and recommendations" in the report, Tesche wrote.
Area residents, however, argued that annexation has crippled a need for expanded emergency service.
Abigail Fuller wrote to the commission in June, stating that there need to be ambulances stationed on East End Road, where her 17-year-old son was involved in a head-on collision three years ago.
"I hate to see KESA's ability to provide these needed improvement to services curtailed by losing a significant chunk of their tax base to Homer," Fuller wrote. "Homer cannot station an ambulance out where it needs to be, because it is outside their jurisdiction."
But in two letters to the boundary commission, Homer City Manager Walt Wrede agreed with those who felt that the court's decision was improper.
KESA remains a viable service even after the city annexed part of the area's population, Wrede wrote Sept. 1.
The commission can render a decision on the issue within 90 days of next week's public hearing.
After that decision is released, the commission will file a written statement explaining the reasons leading to its decision.
Chris Eshleman can be reached at Chris.eshleman@ homernews.com.
We encourage you to add your comments. To prevent spam, comments with links are manually approved during the normal business day. Please be respectful of others with your comments, bear in mind anyone in the community may be reading your comments.
