Palmer ballot question tweaked to set proposed residency radius for city manager

What you need to know:

• The Palmer City Council revised a ballot measure asking voters to eliminate residency requirements for the city manager. The updated version asks voters whether to allow the manager to live within five miles of city limits instead of strictly within the city’s five-square-mile boundary.
• The council initially passed a no-restrictions version in a split vote last week, but unanimously approved the five-mile compromise during a special meeting Tuesday. The measure will be on the Oct. 7 ballot alongside council and mayoral elections.
• The current city manager, Kolby Zerkel, lives in Anchorage and has struggled to find housing in Palmer. Her contract allows her until October to relocate within city limits.

PALMER — A ballot question in Palmer about where the city manager must live was revised by the City Council this week amid concerns that the previously approved proposal carried to broad a change from current law and would likely be rejected by voters this fall.

The original version, approved last week, asked voters whether to eliminate all residency requirements for the Palmer city manager.

The revised version, approved during a special meeting Tuesday, asks voters whether to allow the manager to live within five miles of the city’s borders.

Palmer’s city charter requires the manager to live within the city’s five-square-mile boundaries — a restriction officials said complicates hiring and is outdated due to modern technology.

The question will go before voters as part of the general election scheduled for Oct. 7.

City Manager Kolby Zerkel, who started the job in May, currently commutes from Anchorage because she has not been able to find housing in Palmer, she said. She plans to move her family to the Palmer area regardless of the outcome of the ballot question, she said. Her contract with the city gives her until the end of October to move within city limits.

The council unanimously approved the revised version during a special meeting Tuesday. The earlier version passed in a 4-2 vote, with Council members Josh Tudor and John Alcantra voting no and Council member Carolina Graber absent.

Mayor Steve Carrington, who supported the no-restrictions version last week, said he did so because he wasn’t thinking clearly at the end of a long meeting.

“I’d like to remind the council — and those listening, too — our meeting last week lasted three and a half hours, and at least for me, that felt like a long meeting,” he said Tuesday. “After a night’s sleep, it’s like, ‘Oh, we did, did we?’ And so I think this is one of these chances where, yeah, maybe that wasn't the best decision.”

Council member Victoria Hudson made the formal motion for the no-restrictions version last week but said Tuesday she did so only to avoid a deadlocked vote.

Hudson called the new proposed five-mile rule a compromise but said she fully supports a version allowing the manager to live anywhere within the 99645 ZIP code, a step she said would align with any future efforts to annex more area. That ZIP code spans about 582 square miles, stretching north into Hatcher Pass, south to the end of Knik River Road, east to just before Sutton, and west to the edge of Wasilla city limits.

“I’m happy to see this come back forward,” she said Tuesday. “I think 99645 would be a better option, but I understand where we’re at.”

Council member Jim Cooper, who voted in favor of the no-restrictions proposal last week, said he changed his mind after driving through the five-mile area to better understand its size.

“I didn’t realize how large five miles was until I actually got in the car and started driving,” he said. “It is a huge area.”

Voters will also select two candidates for three-year council terms, one candidate for a one-year council seat, and one candidate for a three-year mayoral term as part of the October election. A candidate filing period opened Monday and closes Friday.

-- Contact Amy Bushatz at contact@matsusentinel.com

This story was updated July 30 to clarify that Council Member Victoria Hudson made the formal procedural motion supporting the version of the ballot measure without restrictions.