May 15, 2008

Residents kept council from backing down

What many expected to be a quick acceptance of nearly 14 square miles in annexed territory turned into a heated and passionate debate May 14, as the City Council initially deadlocked on their decision to approve.

The city approved four development agreements, plus the service and infrastructure plans for the annexation area in addition to the annexation itself by a 5-1 vote, but not before initially balking.

With potential swing vote Vice Mayor Brent Murphree absent, the council deadlocked at 3-3 after nearly two hours in executive session discussing the development agreements and the long-term budgetary implications of the annexation.

Councilmember Kelly Haddad lead the charge against the annexation, pulling fellow Councilmembers Joseph Estes and Edward Farrell with him for the first vote. Haddad, who has preached economic development as hisnumber one priority for the city during his reelection campaign, said it was his right after seeing current economic conditions to change his mind on the annexation.

"We will be taxing our public safety departments," he said. "We need to worry about what we have right now. If you don't think this annexation is going to cost the city dearly over the next few years, you'd be mistaken."

The projected annual cost, estimated and modified after a financial feasibility study was conducted for the original 44 square mile area in 2007, is projected at $1 million.

Mayor Kelly Anderson said that cost could be somewhat modified by potential future inter-governmental agreements with neighboring Goodyear. "There's the potential to do an IGA with Goodyear for service to those residents," said Anderson, speaking of Goodyear's need for services in their recently annexed property in and around Mobile. "The sky is the limit. Now that we are neighbors, we can work on some details."

It was police and fire protection and road maintenance that were the two major costs associated with the annexation - and exactly what the residents who signed the petition in favor of joining the city wanted. "We've got lots of people speeding up and down these dirt roads, flipping their cars," resident Mike Burkall said. "(By voting no) what you're saying is that the security of people out there is less important than in town."

It was the impassioned pleas of Burkall, developer and resident Marianne Mahone and newly commissioned Planning and Zoning Commissioner Henry Wade, as well as other residents, who helped turn the tide of the
meeting.

"You guys wanted this here and we got behind you," said resident Jerry Keene. "I expect to you to respect the 50-plus-one percent and stand up and do what's right." Burkall and Mahone, too, reminded the council that the annexation-area residents already support Maricopa by shopping locally and using its' parks and other amenities.

Wade, who forcefully challenged the council to "grow some stones," said it was the residents of the area, not the developers, that deserved the council's support. "If you think the developers are concerned about you, then you've got another thing coming," Wade told the council. "But you are going to need the support of these people behind you. These people care."

Mahone said she had gone door-to-door in the annexation area talking to residents - many of whom she hadn't spoken to in years - to do the work of the city for them. "There was a lot of fear and mistrust of this council...because of bad decisions made for the growth of this city in the past," she said. "But each person who signed did so realizing people make mistakes."

Councilmember Dallas Paulsen, who was intimately involved along with his wife Kathy in the incorporation process, said the city had to be willing at some point to take some sort of a mitigated risk. "When incorporation came around - talk about a gamble. There wasn't a penny in the bank," he said. "You can't sit back and not take some chances to be able to move forward.

"There's a lot of things in these development agreements I don't care for, but there's a lot of good in there too. The corridor is an absolute must and if we pass by it this time, I don't think we'll get it the next time."

Farrell agreed with Paulsen and Councilmember WillDunn - the heaviest and most vocal annexation supporter on the council - that the corridor was needed for future economic development growth, but worried that it was a fiscally unwise move for the city.

"I'm just not comfortable annexing to the west side...when we have economic development corridors within our own city that we've done nothing with," said Farrell, who eventually moved to approve the annexation despite his misgivings. "I am a man of the people, and not a single person who has come to the microphone tonight has been against this."

In the end, Estes came too, leaving Haddad standing alone to vote no to both the annexation and each of the accompanying development agreements. A fifth development agreement with Mahone Enterprises, LLC, is still under negotiations and will be up for approval at a later date.

Dunn, up for reelection with Haddad, verbally sparred with him all night, calling him out for what he saw as flip-flopping on a key issue.

"You can't preach economic development, you can't preach airport and then not support this," Dunn said, countering Haddad's argument for reassessment based on economic conditions. "Being fiscally sustainable means making wise decisions, especially in tough times. "The cost of not doing this is much greater than grating some roads and putting in some infrastructure."

©Casa Grande Valley Newspapers Inc. 2008