The annexation of property located at 1884 Collins Boulevard, that was approved at the June 16 Covington City Council, has initiated a lawsuit from St. Tammany Parish Fire District 12.

Attorney Henry Olinde Jr. of Carleton Dunlap Olinde Moore & Bohman, LLC in Baton Rouge, filed the petition against the city June 25 on behalf of the fire district.

The lawsuit states that “to date, no fire protection agreement has been entered into between the Fire District and the City of Covington as mandated by La. R. S. 40:1501.6(C).” The statute states that “Any property situated within the growth boundary areas 1, 2, or 3 as described ... which may be annexed into the city, fire protection services for such property shall be the sole responsibility of the city. However, prior to such annexation, an agreement for fire protection services shall be entered into by the city and each affected fire protection district.”

Olinde objected to the annexation on behalf of FD 12 at the June 2 Covington city council meeting when the annexation plan was first heard.

“Under state law, the fire district and the city must enter into an agreement for fire protection services before annexation,” he said.

At the same meeting, Covington City Attorney Deborah Foshee replied that since every attempt to negotiate with FD 12 failed, the fire district couldn’t unilaterally decide a property cannot be annexed. The property in question is part of the parish’s growth management area and as such can be annexed into the city of Covington without prior approval of the fire department.

According to the lawsuit, “An agreement between the Fire District and the City of Covington is required prior to annexation to ensure that the residents, property owners and businesses of the annexed area will receive the best most efficient fire protection and emergency response services following annexation.”

The suit also states, “The absence of an agreement that clearly delineates responsibility for fire protection and emergency services, including mutual and automatic responses increases the danger to public safety.”

The petition objects to annexation pursuant to LA. R.S. 33:171 et seq., stating the “pursuant to 33:174(B) (1), the subject annexation is unreasonable because it violates (the above statute) and the agreement.” The suit goes on to allege the city did not comply with its own rules in adopting the annexation ordinance and “based on the foregoing, the annexation should be judged invalid pursuant to La.R.S. 33:174 (D).”

The suit states, “the Court should declare that the subject annexation is invalid and illegal.”

As stated in the suit, “The subject annexation, and others like it, decrease the Fire District’s tax revenues, and negatively affect fire protection and other emergency services that the Fire District provides to the residents of its jurisdiction, including the Board members.”

The fire district had been notified of the annexation hearing to be held April 20, 2009 by the Planning and Zoning Commission in Covington.

At this meeting, the fire district “objected to the proposed annexation on the grounds that the annexation is violative of (the above named statutes).” The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the annexation request.

At the June 2 regular meeting of the Covington city council, the annexation was tabled due to a discrepancy among parish documents as to the legal description of the property. No action was taken and the matter was delayed until the June 16 meeting of the council.

Although Olinde was not present at the June meeting, Foshee read Olinde’s previously filed objection into the record. The council, despite FD 12’s objection, passed the annexation unanimously.

Ongoing deliberations and a multitude of suits regarding double taxation have passed between the two entities in recent years. Covington Mayor Candace Watkins said this is the first suit she is aware of that contests an annexation.