Lacey hopes fire annexation vote clears air

city council: Three ousted officials wanted city to begin its own fire department; challengers opposed it

CHRISTIAN HILL; The Olympian | • Published November 16, 2009

Comments (0)

LACEY – The city’s proposed annexation into the Lacey fire district raises many unanswered questions for voters at this early stage in a complicated process.

The City Council agreed Thursday night to delay forming a new fire department and to ask voters if they want to annex the city into Lacey Fire District No. 3. The likely election date would be April 27.

City leaders say an annexation vote would clarify whether public opposition to starting a fire department was a key factor in the ouster of three longtime council members in the Nov. 3 general election. All three supported starting a department; their challengers opposed such a move.

The city needs support from Lacey fire commissioners and Thurston County commissioners to put annexation before city and district voters in a special election. Fire district representatives expressed initial support during a meeting Tuesday. After engaging in a very public spat for more than a year, the two sides now must work through significant issues before going to voters.

A fair amount of work needs to be done before voters can “sink their teeth” into a ballot measure, Fire Chief Jim Broman said.

“What they’re going to get right now is a lot of ‘I’m not sure’ because of the need for additional discussion and planning,” he said.

The next meeting between city and district representatives is scheduled for Friday.

One question is whether it can be made clear in the ballot measure that if city voters reject annexation, city officials intend to form a separate fire department. State law says the measure “shall be in substantially” the following form: “Shall the city of Lacey be annexed to and be a part of Lacey Fire District No. 3?”

Governance of an expanded district was a major issue raised during Thursday’s council work session. City officials support increasing the number of fire commissioners from three to five.

“It bothers me that our voters will vote to annex in and not have more commissioners. … The more people you have, the more democratic it is,” Councilwoman Mary Dean said.

State law says fire commissioners can approve a resolution asking county commissioners to put the question about whether to add fire commissioners before voters within the fire district. It’s unclear whether the question can be tied to the annexation vote so city voters also have a say. If not, it likely would be a future ballot measure presented to voters of the expanded district if the annexation were to be approved.

Council members raised a concern about a scenario in which voters approve annexation but fire commissioners elect not to ask voters to increase the commission’s membership. City Manager Greg Cuoio said a commitment by the district to increase its number of fire commissioners could be spelled out in an annexation agreement.

The agreement also would cover an extension of the existing service contract, scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. The city would need an extension to have sufficient time to form its fire department if voters were to turn down annexation. Mayor Graeme Sackrison said the extension would be for at least six months.

OTHER ISSUES

There are other issues outside the scope of the discussions between the city and the district.

Tom Dozal, a member of the citizens advisory committee that had recommended that the city form its own fire district, reminded council members Thursday of the committee’s conclusions and said there are “convincing reasons for change.” He said those remarks were his alone, and weren’t on behalf of the committee.

Dozal said during an interview Friday that the city should stick with its original plan because annexation will not improve response times or bring sound financial management compared with the creation of a fire department.

He said it’s a “possibility that a group of citizens would be formed to start a political action committee to support the city not being annexed.” He said he’d be willing to participate in that effort.

TAX QUESTIONS

He said taxes were another reason for the stance he expressed at the council meeting. He wondered whether the district would ask voters to raise their taxes to pay for operations if voters approved annexation.

“The voters deserve to know this information now,” he said.

Broman said Friday that any discussions about a tax measure would occur in 2011 at the earliest.

“It’s a possibility, but nothing has been decided at this point,” he said.

Based on preliminary numbers, city residents would see a slight increase in taxes with annexation under existing tax rates.

City taxpayers would pay a separate tax levy for the district under annexation but would see a reduction in their city tax levy that pays for basic services because it no longer would be used to pay for a service contract.

Using 2010 tax figures, which are subject to change, the owner of a $250,000 home in the city limits would pay $27.50 more a year if Lacey annexed into the district, based on figures provided by city officials at Thursday’s meeting. With annexation, city residents would elect fire commissioners and have a direct voice in how the district is operated and managed.

Another issue is the role of the firefighters union, whose support helped three political newcomers defeat established incumbents.

Kelly Perry, the president of Lacey Professional Firefighters Local 2903, said the union supports city efforts to ask voters whether to annex and that the union would like to work collectively with the city and the district to get information to voters.

He did offer a caveat, saying it’s imperative that the city provide specific details about a fire department if it tells voters that a “no” vote on annexation would signal public support for a department.

“Without them knowing the cost and what the service delivery is (from a department), voting ‘no’ is voting for an unknown,” he said.

Christian Hill: 360-754-5427

chill@theolympian.com