3.0 Affected Environment - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Affected Environment The Mat-Su Medical care in the Mat-Su is provided primarily by Valley Hospital, which has a hospital in Palmer, a medical center in Wasilla, and a newly opened regional hospital between Palmer and Wasilla near the Parks Highway. Most of the medical care services in the Mat-Su are located in the Core Area, about 40 miles’ driving distance from Port MacKenzie. Anchorage Hospitals that serve the Anchorage area include Providence Alaska Medical Center, Alaska Native Medical Center, and Alaska Regional Hospital for medical care, and Alaska Psychiatric Institute and North Star Behavioral Health System for psychiatric care. Numerous medical clinics, doctor offices, and related services are located throughout the municipality. The hospitals are located east of the Seward Highway. Closest to Government Hill is the Alaska Regional Hospital, located near the intersection of Airport Heights Drive and DeBarr Road. The driving distance from Government Hill to the hospital is approximately 4–5 miles. 3.2.3.2 Fiscal conditions This section considers the fiscal conditions of the Study Area’s local government entities that could be affected by implementation of the proposed project. Entities anticipated to be affected are the Matanuska-Susitna Borough; the Cities of Palmer, Wasilla, and Houston; the Municipality of Anchorage; and the State of Alaska. The Mat-Su is one of seven, second-class boroughs in the state and was incorporated in 1964. 19 Within the Mat-Su are three incorporated cities, several unincorporated communities, and 25 borough-recognized community councils. Community councils basically operate without any funding and depend on volunteer efforts and donations. Anchorage, with 45 community councils, is the most populous borough in Alaska and a home-rule borough. 20 To a large extent, the Mat-Su is a bedroom community for employees who work in Anchorage (a substantial portion of the working population in Mat-Su commutes to Anchorage). Some of the reasons for this commute are that property in Mat-Su has historically been priced lower than comparable properties in Anchorage, especially in the Anchorage Bowl, and employment opportunities and salaries in Anchorage are much greater. 3.2.3.2.1 Mat-Su Borough revenue sources and major expenditure categories The Mat-Su’s fiscal year (FY) 2005 approved budget is based on total revenues of over $200 million. Funding for education makes up more than 50 percent of the budget. Areawide general taxation is the largest noneducation revenue source. 19 A second-class borough is similar to a first-class borough in its authority and powers, except that it requires voter approval for the authority to exercise many non-areawide powers. 20 A home-rule municipality adopts a charter subject to voter approval and has all powers not prohibited by law or charter. Page 3-66 12/18/07
Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Affected Environment The Mat-Su’s average property tax rate, based on 27 service areas, is 11.483 mills. The Borough does not have a sales tax, but it collects a 5 percent tax on accommodations. The Mat-Su collected $55.5 million in local property taxes in 2004. Additional revenues were collected from oil and gas properties, which make up a small portion of the Borough’s property base. Land values in the Mat-Su have steadily increased over the last decade, causing property tax payments to increase. The mill rate has been decreasing, but not enough to offset increasing real estate values. To provide property owners in the Mat-Su some tax relief, the Mat-Su Borough Assembly approved a tax cap ordinance in August 2005 that mirrors the Anchorage tax cap described below. The tax cap does not apply to taxes on new construction or property improvements made during the current fiscal year; taxes required to fund additional services mandated by voter-approved ballot issues; special taxes authorized by voter-approved ballot issues; taxes required to fund the costs of judgments entered against the Borough or to pay principal or interest on bonds, including revenue bonds; and additional taxes collected in service areas under mill rates specifically approved by service-area residents. The Borough’s tax cap will go into effect with the 2007 Borough budget, which will be adopted in May 2006. After a 2-year period, the tax cap can be revoked by the Assembly or repealed by voter initiative. Fiscal year 2005 operating expenditures for the Borough are allocated to Borough operations ($45.4 million), enterprise funds ($4.5 million), education operations ($148.9 million), and general operations ($7.4 million). The Borough’s capital improvement budget in FY 2005 consists of about $6.98 million. Selected budget items include: area-wide road program ($1.2 million), fire service areas capital projects ($1.1 million), road service area capital projects ($1.8 million), and solid waste capital projects ($450,000). Port MacKenzie’s FY 2006 budget includes projected revenues of $2.494 million and expenditures of $2.493 million (MSB 2005e). As of this writing, the budget for the port is break-even, but it is anticipated that with port growth, funding will become available for further port development. 3.2.3.2.2 Palmer revenue sources and major expenditure categories The City of Palmer’s FY 2005 budget is based on total revenues of about $6.4 million. Sales taxes are responsible for a little more than half ($3.8 million) of the budgeted revenues. Palmer levies a 2.557 mill tax on properties located inside its boundary. It also charges a 3 percent sales tax. Total property tax revenues for Palmer were $622,879 in 2004. During the 1998–2004 period, collections grew from $378,000 to nearly $623,000. Palmer’s expenditures for FY 2005 are $6 million. The Police ($2.5 million) and Public Works Departments ($1.3 million) are the two largest expenditure items, accounting for a 12/18/07 Page 3-67
Page 1:
Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Af
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38: Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Af
Page 39: Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Af
Page 139:
Page 143:
Page 147:
Page 151:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157:
Page 161:
Page 165:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183:
Page 187:
Page 191:
Page 195:
Page 199:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211:
Page 215:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225:
Page 229:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307:
show all

3.0 Affected Environment - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?