Annexation proposal undergoes revisions regarding fire aid
Published Friday, September 5, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS — After going through several revisions, the city’s proposal to annex the Fred Meyer West commercial center has undergone another significant change in the last week.
The University Fire Service Area Commission is opposed to plans to annex the commercial center using an automatic aid agreement, which would have required the UFSA to respond to the city’s annexed property.
Instead, the city has decided to take a traditional approach to annexation by using its own firefighters to respond to the area.
“We were unable to reach an automatic aid agreement with the UFSA, but the mutual aid agreement will remain in effect,” said Pat Cole, chief of staff for the mayor.
In the latest draft of the proposal, the city will move forward with the annexation petition and provide emergency services itself.
The City Council must still vote to present the proposal to the Local Boundary Commission for a final decision. The council is expected to vote on the proposal at the next council meeting Sept. 15.
Fairbanks Fire Chief Warren Cummings remains confident the added property will not be an extra burden on his fire department.
If the annexation is approved by the council and Local Boundary Commission, the Fairbanks Fire Department will assume rights and duties over the Fred Meyer commercial center and enclave lots, which are protected by the University Fire Service Area.
According to the recent draft of the proposal, Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor Jim Whitaker confirmed his position that the borough administration would not oppose the annexation, with or without the Fred Meyer commercial center remaining inside the UFSA after annexation.
But the proposal has drawn some questions from Fairbanks North Star Borough officials. Borough Assembly member Guy Sattley, who worries the annexation would siphon tax money from borough coffers, said Thursday he will ask his colleagues next week to pass a resolution formally opposing the proposal. The automatic aid agreement would have cost the city $57,544 for borough fire services.
Without the agreement in place, the city’s revenue will increase.
Sattley estimates the proposed annexation would bring the city more than $300,000 in extra revenue a year, mostly from alcohol taxes — money the borough would lose.
“This is a pure money grab by the city of Fairbanks,” Sattley said.
The city is searching for alternative revenue with energy costs taking a toll on the tourism industry and the tax cap limiting a major source of property tax revenue.
But Fairbanks Mayor Terry Strle said she has no intention to annex any property strictly for additional revenue during her tenure.
“We’re hopeful the Local Boundary Commission will see this as an appropriate way to grow the city,” Strle said. “But the city isn’t going to bite off more than it can chew.”
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Come on. Strle should be challenged when she says this is not a money grab. This is a horrible deal that makes local government more expensive, and degrades the quality of service for this area.
The Borough assembly, and in particular, Guy Sattley are on the right track to oppose this nonsense. They should be commended for standing up for borough property taxpayers.
CEO - I agree
It's all about the money - people annexed should have a choice
This makes great sense to me.....You have the city fire station that is way down Airport Road, maybe 5 to 6 minutes response time? UFSA has a fire station that is about a minute away. Might not sound like much time difference, but when it you or a loved one having a medical emergency, seconds can save lives.
I can understand (which doesn't mean I necessarily agree) annexing the properties that, by virtue of their location, already fall within city limits but Fred Meyer's doesn't fit this model. Simply moving westward to gobble up businesses can only be seen as a way to increase the revenue base. Why else do it?
If it walks like a duck...
The Boundary Commission's own rules state thoes about to be annexed must vote and approve to be annexed.How would that work in this matter? The City & Brough can't simply decide between them selves. Sounds like Hitler's annexation of Poland?
why do you think that fred meyer located out of the city in first place. most people who live outside of the city choose to, if they wanted to live within a city they would of bought in the city. looks like a money grab to me, the city revamped the downtown area so much the only time family and i go there are to go to big rays, better selections and prices at larger stores and who needs the traffic hassle downtown with all the potholes in the street. the city cant do an adaquate job of keeping their streets paved and fixing pot holes but now they want more roads to maintain, any road repair i have seen done this summer has been done on state highways. i would like to see the borough fight the annixation because basically it is just a money grab by the city.
Its the normal process of city growth, so what if it also is a way for the city to avoid a shutdown of services? I mean the city needs money in a bad way, what would you have them do? Start a city fuel tax? Tax GVEA so rates go up even higher? Maybe start charging 50 cents a gallon for city water...
The city should have criteria that need to be met before they can just annex in property. I would love to see an explanation by the city of how this area would benefit from being a part of the city. I understand some of the "enclave lots" are surrounded by the city on 2 or 3 sides, and so they end up using city services. I think if they want to annex freds just to annex those lots they need to work something out with those property owners instead of their current plan.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.