newsminer.com

Editor’s note: This story is part of a series covering local elections. Look for more election coverage in the following days.

FAIRBANKS — The city of Fairbanks’ proposal to annex the Fred Meyer West commercial lot and other enclave lots is facing opposition from Fairbanks North Star Borough residents, members of the Borough Assembly and the University Fire Service Area, not to mention several candidates in this year’s municipal election.

In a close vote, City Council voted to go forth with the annexation procedure.

This was after changes were made to the initial proposal that eliminated the mutual aid agreement with the University Fire Service Area.

In the original agreement, the city was going to pay the borough fire service to continue to provide protection to the annexed properties.

But the University Fire Service Area protested the annexation and the mutual aid agreement for several reasons, one of the biggest reasons involved the $300,000 loss the borough would suffer as a result of the annexation.

Others have complained the annexation process has ignored the wishes of property owners of the enclave lots who do not want to be a part of the city.

The decision to annex the Fred Meyer commercial center and enclave lots off Airport Way now rests in the hands of the Local Boundary Commission.

The commission will host a hearing on the proposal to sort through technicalities, followed by a public hearing in Fairbanks in February or March. It would then formulate a decision as early as April or May.

News-Miner staff asked local candidates to weigh in on the issue.

Question

Do you support the city of Fairbanks’ effort to annex Fred Meyer and other commercial and residential land on its western boundary? Why?

Candidates’ responses

Assembly Seat A (1-year term)

• William Minerva: Well, residential properties should be left up to the residents. Taxing businesses like Fred Meyer would only increase the price of those goods and services. Those businesses might not have built there in the first place if they were in a tax district. So, annexing them after the fact is not right.

• Bill Stringer, incumbent: I don’t think the addition of this area to the city provides additional services there, but actually decreases timely availability of fire and ambulance services to this area. There are, however, areas south of the city where it would make sense for the city to expand as the city is already providing fire services there on a contractual basis.

• Doug Wilson: No. I would be in favor if it improved services and if people in the area being annexed wanted to be annexed, but that’s not the case here. It’s not improving services, and the people didn’t want it. That’s a violation of their rights, and I can’t be in favor of that.

Assembly Seat D (3-year term)

• Tammie Wilson: No, there is no gain to the Fred Meyer (commercial lot) nor to local municipal budgets. The borough would lose more than $300,000 — an amount all property owners would have to pay. Annexation would also take away more than $50,000 from the local fire service area and pose a greater fire hazard with emergency medical services further away.

Assembly Seat E (3-year term)

• Tim Beck, incumbent: Yes. We must support communities willing to grow and accept the responsibilities associated with that growth. I feel the city administration fell short in not broadening the annexation effort to allow a vote from those residents affected.

• Wayne Swanson: No. As a Borough Assembly member, the responsibility is to the borough as a whole. This annexation financially impacts the borough taxpayers with an annual loss of about $400,000, without reducing services that must be provided by the borough. The businesses of the area oppose the annexation. Don’t the people have a voice? Emergency response to the area will be degraded, putting residents at risk.

Assembly Seat H (3-year term)

• Mark Ames: The leadership of the city of Fairbanks has been disappointing, almost blind without vision, which nearly led to its dissolution as a city just a few years ago. I support city annexation south to the entire width of the banks of the Tanana River, west to the (University of Alaska Fairbanks) campus, north for College (Road) and Johansen (Expressway) inclusion as well as east to all adjacent land to the military Fort Wainwright base. Let’s promote growth and development.

• Joseph Blanchard: I do not support the city’s annexation for two main reasons. The first involves only including the retail areas and not the surrounding neighborhoods that could have allowed an area-wide vote on the matter. The second reason being that this annexation does not make sense from an emergency response perspective. University Fire (Department) is literally right down the road, and it seems very hard to justify that the city fire department would provide better service.

• Joshua Lott: No, I do not support this annexation. Annexation should only be done if it is a benefit to all parties involved. First and foremost, it should be of benefit to the property owners (whether residential or commercial), then it should benefit both the city and borough. This annexation will actually decrease the response time of emergency services to this area.

City Council Seat C (2-year remaining term)

• Bernard Gatewood, incumbent: Yes, I support the annexation. I believe that the area is contiguous with the city of Fairbanks and is a part of the city’s fabric already. The city of Fairbanks is the economic center of the Interior, and this annexation represents another step in the growth of the city as we prepare for the influx of people moving to more urban areas because of the dramatic rise in fuel costs.

• David B. Lerman: I support the Fred Meyer annexation proposal because the property is contiguous to city boundaries and utilizes Fairbanks police already. Fairbanks police and fire (departments) say they can accommodate and serve the new area well, according to Pat Cole, Fairbanks chief of staff. The increased revenue from property tax and alcohol tax is important.

• Ron Warner II: I oppose annexation. There are good reasons the borough and fire department voted against the plan: Services would be less efficient, and it is a clear path to a future sales tax, which residents have already voted down. The city should be managed in a way that makes residents want to be annexed in. I do not support expanding the city’s boundaries without property owners’ consent.

City Council Seat E (3-year term)

• Emily Bratcher: I support the current annexation efforts because the city must take a stand in sustaining itself financially, in regard to the commercial property. I also support the residential annexation for the sake of clear boundary delineation of the city and borough. Nevertheless, I hope for future development infill to generate new income as opposed to additional premature annexation.

• Lloyd Hilling, incumbent: I do not support annexing Fred Meyer West. If the proposal had included annexing the adjoining neighborhood (to the south along the west side of University Way), I would have found it a fair and reasonable approach, assuming that we then canvassed neighborhood residents for their views, and then abided by their vote of yea or nay.

City Council Seat F (3-year term)

• Tonya Brown, incumbent: Yes, annexation is an appropriate, responsible process that expands city boundaries to generate commerce, include residential and commercial property areas, provide high-quality services to residents, establish more uniform boundaries and spread the cost of funding among people who benefit from services that provide a better quality life. Fairbanks’ current size is because of a history of annexations, evident if you observe historical city maps.

• Jerry Cleworth: From a public safety standpoint, this is a dangerous proposal. Fred Meyer and adjacent businesses are served by the University Fire Service Area. They have a fire/ambulance station two blocks away from these properties, which can provide much faster service than the city which is 2 miles away. This, along with numerous other problems, has resulted in opposition from service area commissioners and the Borough Assembly.