Fairbanks, North Pole, borough seats to be decided today
Published Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS — Today’s local election may have become somewhat of an afterthought, given the overwhelming attention paid to the vice presidential run of Gov. Sarah Palin.
The election, however, is significant in that it will determine the membership of almost one-half of the three groups responsible for setting policy in the Fairbanks area’s three municipal governments.
A number of candidates have signed up for a collective nine seats in Fairbanks and North Pole. More recently, attention has steered toward a pair of ballot measures that take different approaches toward the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s yearly revenue.
The Fairbanks borough and city include a list of polling stations on their respective Web sites. Voters can call (888) 383-8683 and punch in their voter registration or Social Security number to find their polling district.
Polling stations across the area will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. today.
Borough
Four open seats on the Borough Assembly have drawn nine candidates. Incumbent Bill Stringer faces challenges for assembly Seat A from William Minerva and sitting North Pole City Councilman Douglas Wilson.
Tammie Wilson is running unopposed for Seat D, and incumbent Tim Beck faces off against Wayne Swanson for Seat E.
Mark Ames, Joseph Blanchard and Joshua Lott are running for Seat H, which is being vacated by Torie Foote, who is retiring.
Voters across the community will weigh two initiatives, Proposition A and Proposition B. Both measures focus on — but clash over — the formula used to calculate the borough government’s yearly allowance from taxes, a formula referred to as the tax cap. Proposition A would leave the formula unchanged, while Proposition B calls for erasing an element in the formula that lets the tax cap grow in response to growth in the community.
City of Fairbanks
Eight candidates are running for three seats on the Fairbanks City Council. Incumbent Bernard Gatewood faces challenges from David Lerman and Ron Warner for Seat D. Incumbent Lloyd Hilling is running against Emily Bratcher for Seat E, and incumbent Tonya Brown and former councilman Jerry Cleworth are both seeking to win Seat F.
Fairbanks city voters also will see a cost-cutting measure that, if approved, would make it more likely that certified initiatives will appear on the ballot at an upcoming regular election, rather than at a special elections scheduled solely for the purpose of voting on the initiative.
North Pole
In North Pole, the two candidates, among four, who collect the most number of votes for City Council will earn three-year terms. The candidates are Kevin McCarthy, Preston Smith, Victoria Thompson and Aino Welch.
Voters in North Pole will vote on a measure aimed at exempting the city from statewide public-official ethics laws in favor of a locally drafted code of ethics.
Election day
For help beyond the toll-free, polling-place locator number listed above, a list of polling places can be found online (www.co.fairbanks.ak.us/ClerksOffice/Elections/RegularElections/2008/FNSB%20Polling%20PlacesbydistrictOct08.pdf). City clerk Janey Hovenden asked voters to bring either their voter registration card or an identification card with a photo, such as a driver’s license.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Vote "Yes" on borough proposition "B", and "No" on "A" if you desire to keep more of your hard- earned money as we roll into this recession. You are going to need that money.
Thanks to the ITA for bringing this issue forward, and to all the candidates for running. It is a lot of work to run for public office, and win or lose, I appreciate your efforts.
I wanted to encourage every one to vote Joshua Lott today for Borough Assembly!
YES ON "A"
NO ON "B"
Visit the interior taxpayers website if you are still undecided and vote with your pocket book. The current tax cap has not crippled the borough and neither will the improved cap. Yes on B, No on A.
www.interiortaxpayers.org
If you have children, and value their education I suggest that you vote yes on "A" and no on "B"
As a parent and a homeowner in the city this is by far the better way to keep the revenue for some very important needs within the city.
If we vote yes on "B" where will we get the funds in the future for education??
Yes on A! No on B!
Prop B will greatly limit the Borough's ability to provide increased services as our population grows. More people means more houses that need fire protection, roads that need maintenance, and use of our public services.
Yes on A! No on B!
Do you want to continue to pay for the lifestyle of borough retirees in Arizona for the next hundred years, while your 401K has just left you among the poor in your retirement. Show the borough the people know how better to manage their money than give it to a bunch of overpaid, six figure, 8 weeks of vacation borough employees; who will take your retirement money inn increased property taxes , so they can live on a golf course in Arizona. And if you can not pay their inflated tax bill, heck they'll laugh when they take your home.
No on A yes on B
I have children and I'm voting NO on A and YES on B!
Well, I have a bunch of kids for whom I have had to homeschool, pay private tuition, and had in various government schools; this has been for many years now.
I don't have much money. In fact, I am seriously hurting. But the schools are so bad that I have to use our PFD's for tuition to get my kids a decent education.
It would have made my life so incredibly much easier if I could have just put my my kids on a bus and forget about it like most of you.
But, in good conscience, I can't. So I have had to restructure my entire life around getting my kids to and from school. (It's been some years since I homeschooled, even though I did that for years also).
It has been an enormously expensive--in terms of money put out and money not earned because most employers (except the nice gov "flex-schedule" ones) don't allow one to work around transporting kids-- transportation, (driving my rigs to death, gas, etc.), time, loss of opportunity for my own life, including a lack of retirement (see employment above), and the big circle leads back to lack of money for me and my kids because of the crappy government school system.
The list goes on. But, it is what I have had to do.
I have always observed that those who so adamantly proclaim how good the government schools are, are the ones who are clueless and refuse to take the time to research homeschool curriculums or pretty much anything else re gov schools.
Why don't some of you money = good education folks go check out what kids are really capable of by checking out a variety of homeschool curriculums, and by comparing the results of private school and homeschool kids to government schooled kids?
And comparing the costs of those results?
Go check out the stats that show that those who go into teaching tend to be the bottom 30% or so of college applicants?
In fact, go check out the so-called education classes teaching the teachers to be teachers? I have attended some, and it is a sorry joke.
The B revenue cap will have 0, no, nada effect on education.
Vote B.
There is a marginal cost to government associated with each new borough resident, and with commercial growth. It is illogical to delink the tax cap from growth. Also, the incessant complaints about property tax are silly. Considerig the tax structure in this state, and the fact that everyone gets a PFD check on a yearly basis, the overall tax burden for most people in this area is basically nil. Some government is needed as a foundation for a civil society. Vote no on B.
people just remember, the ones who are "for the children" in reality are borough employees who maintain their life style at your expense. The State pays for the majority of education, not the borough. The borough would love to have the new tax money to pay the good old boys in a special fund, rather than have it used to help reduce your property taxes. Remember folks we need to be able to make sure Jim Whitaker gets his big retirement next year.
Vote No on "A" and Yes on "B"
In North Pole - vote for Kevin McCarthy and Aino Welch City Councel.
can someone help me out without being biased?? I've read the initiatives and I am not sure I fully understand them... you all keep talking about education... what does either one have to do with children and education.
I thought this had to do with taxes... I am going to vote today and I just need a little clarification.
thanks
Mackie, oh wise one, tell us what to do???
As a board member of local PTA I will be voting yes on "A", and NO on "B", not to ensure the retirement will be funded for retires, but to ensure monies are allocated to schools
Wouldn't it make more sense and cost less to the taxpayers to have the local election at the same time as the general election, just a month away. Why can't the local officials see that!
My city and county do the same thing and it just doesn't make sense to me.....
Just a thought.
We already have one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation here in Fairbanks. Sure, no-one likes to pay taxes, but they're a necessary evil. There's just no other way to fund essential government services. Prop B would create long-term problems for the Borough trying to continue things like good schools, adequate fire protection, and proper and safe road maintenance.
Portraying the Borough as a money-grabbing ponzi scheme designed to fund the six-figure incomes and retirements and 8+ weeks of vacation of the Borough employees is disingenuious.
Again, Yes on A! No on B!
sprtsgrl11- the question you pose is a good one. The opponents of the improved revenue cap initiative, prop "B", have made various, untruthful claims.
Here are the facts: Borough spending will increase without regard to which initiative passes. Borough spending has been growing faster than the rate of inflation for many years, and proposition "B" will try and check those massive increases in borough spending. Homeowners here have the most expensive property taxes in Alaska, along with significantly higher costs for energy- like heating oil and electricity.
Many believe that the rise in borough spending is unsustainable, and it is hurting, or may even crash the borough economy. Homeowners can only afford so much before they go bankrupt, or move to avoid bankruptcy.
Note that the number of children going to borough schools has been declining for the last ten years...
If the budget for the borough this year is 127 million dollars, then the budget for next year, if proposition "B" passes, will be 132 million dollars. That is a five million dollar increase, as that is what the formula allows- This years revenue, plus inflation.
If the existing formula stays in place, then the spending next year could increase by MORE than five million dollars.
Here is how the borough has cheated with the existing tax cap: The borough assessor increases the value of your home, and the borough then places that new valuation under the category of "new construction" so they can grow borough spending above inflation. Many feel that is an abuse, or even a legal violation of the existing tax cap, as an increase to assessed valuation is not new construction.
Many believe that the benefits for borough employees are extravagant, two months of paid time off, a generous retirement, nearly free medical care (they pay a stipend, but it is a token amount).
Those who are trying to control the massive increases in borough spending have organized under the group, the Interior Taxpayers Association. The ITA volunteers have worked hundreds of hours to brings you the right to vote on this initiative, proposition "B".
They encourage a Vote "NO" on "A", and a vote "YES" on B.
Always Vote for the good of the order,Just keep that in mind and it will all work out in the long run...much like the stock market.Or not.
Borough employees DO NOT get two months of leave per year, and their retirement is the same PERS-TRS system as nearly every other public employee in the State.
Henry, call the human resources people at the borough, they will get you straightened out. A borough employee with seven years service certainly does get that much time off.
They try and confuse you by giving you a formula that requires actual math skills to determine how many months off that they receive.
Bottom line? Private sector folks are getting about two weeks of paid time off. Why should homeowners subsidize an amount of time off that is more than what socialist France provides- five weeks of PTO?
Vote "B". "B" is Better.
CEO ...thanks for your posts! I found it helpful; your explanation to sprtsgrl11 was excellent.
Respectfully to all ...at the completion of this vote pay attention to the numbers of actual voters in comparison to the total number of registered voters in the community. Some of you will be shocked at the low participation and what those numbers really say about voter participation.
I mention this because property and business owners have become the TAX IMPOSITION VICTIMS due to the pathetic low voter participation in communities across our country. And again I repeat ...WE THE PEOPLE always get the government we deserve.
Be well informed and participate in your right to vote!! In this way maybe, just maybe, you can reign in taxation and the excesses of government.
CEO: Borough employees with less than five years of service get two days off per month. With more than five years of service, they get roughly 2.5 days per month. That compares well with what State and City employees throughout the State earn. However, you do bring up a good point about homeowners subsidizing (in a sense) that time off while many don't get that time themselves.
Regardless of the benefits earned by Borough workers, though, I refuse to vote for something that will cripple the Borough's ability to respond to growth.
'B' may be 'Better,' but 'A' is 'Awesomer.'
CEO: Borough employees with less than five years of service get two days off per month. With more than five years of service, they get roughly 2.5 days per month. That compares well with what State and City employees throughout the State earn. However, you do bring up a good point about homeowners subsidizing (in a sense) that time off while many don't get that time themselves.
Regardless of the benefits earned by Borough workers, though, I refuse to vote for something that will cripple the Borough's ability to respond to growth.
'B' may be 'Better,' but 'A' is 'Awesomer.'
Vote for Tonya Brown!
Henry, thanks for doing some research. Now you have a better understanding of what part of this issue is about. You acknowledge that the junior FNSB employees are getting as much as six weeks of vacation- but that does not include paid sick leave.
I would hope that you would also acknowledge that senior FNSB employees are getting over eight weeks vacation.
This goes to the heart of the issue. Why should property taxpayers be subsidizing a compensation package that is so generous- and as you acknowledge- more generous than what most in the private sector earn?
The answer is to enforce some limits, through Proposition "B", on the ability of the assembly to take so much from homeowners.
Maybe then we will have some reforms. But that is why unions are fighting this effort- they promote self interest over public interest, and they do not want spending reforms.
You have not provided a solution, but ITA has.
Proposition "B" does not limit growth. It will be in effect for two years, and then the assembly or the public can change it. As I pointed out earlier, the borough will have a five million dollar budget increase for the next fiscal year. 132 million for FY08/09, and likely about 137 million for FY 09/10.
sprtsgrl11- I realize you have probably already voted, but for those who have not: We are being told Prop B will mess with education funding. It will not! The borough is limited by the state to how much money it can give the School District. But they are not limited in bond issues for schools - the voters are in charge of that. The tax cap (A or B) will not change that. Even if it somehow did, the voters can vote more money for education any time they want to, through bond issues (one of the 4 exceptions left in the cap). Someone above pointed out that the cap can grow by inflation, but that is only one way. Prop B is only removing ONE exception to the cap - there are still 4 more PLUS the inflation clause! All of the exceptions allow growth in the cap.
As for roads and things like that - when there are new properties on the tax rolls, the borough does not provide anything! Depending on if it is inside the city or not, the city or state maintains roads. The city or a fire service area (which can raise taxes with a simple vote) provides fire services, and the city or state does police (no borough police). At the very most, enough new subdivisions might call for a dumpster - but much of the borough does not get even that.
I read that Donna Gilbert said that ITA would not even consider taking the construction exception out of the city tax cap, because the city DOES supply services to new homes - but the borough does not!
And the rumour that the new homes will not have property tax is bogus - they pay now and they will conltinue to pay. The difference is where the taxes will go. Now they go to the "undesignated fund balance" which is the Assembly's "slush fund." If B passes with more votes than A, the money will go into the general fund, which will force them to lower property taxes on everyone, so that they do not take in more revenue than the cap allows.
Conclusion: Vote No for A, and Vote YES on B because "B is Better!"
Vote No on A and B. Instead elect honest servants of the people. Anything the ITA is for vote against. Are you people so naïve as to think that property taxes with go down with out a restructuring of the tax base? It will still all be on the property owners. Why hasn’t the ITA put forth a sales tax initiative to ease the property tax burden? Ill tell you why because their name should be the Interior Tax Evaders Association. This is a group of people still living in the 70”s world where the state paid for everything and you didn’t need to invest in your own community. Send both ITA initiatives packing.
People love to take shots at employees of the city and borough, making broad statements about inappropriate pay and benefits. Though I am not employeed by the city or borough, I have pretty good knowledge that most of the professionals employed by the FNSB or COF don't make anywhere close to what they could in industry. The benefit package balances that out. I'm not saying there is no dead weight or overpaid louts in gov't - 50% of employees in ANY given office environment are below average performers. If you want to guarantee incompetent government, then make the employees take low pay AND crummy benefits.
At 7 years, a borough employee gets 3 days per month of annual personal leave. That equates to 36 days of annual leave. Since most employees work 5 day weeks, that allows for 7.2 weeks of personal leave.
However, they also receive 13 paid holidays per year. Add that up and they receive 49 paid days off per year. That's 9.8 weeks worth of total time off, at full pay.
Don't believe that? See for yourself:
Personal Leave:
http://co.fairbanks.ak.us/HumanResources...
Holidays:
http://co.fairbanks.ak.us/HumanResources...
Joe Blanchard for Borough Assembly
SeanWhite, you get my vote!!!
CEO, on your 2 months of vacation for an employee that has been in service for 7 years you failed to mention that yes they may in fact get that much however they have to save it! So after 7 years of service it is conceivable to accrue that much.
Tell the whole story next time.
Yes, on "A", No, on "B"; Undecided on "C" and "Let's just be friends" on D.
I would vote, but I have no idea what would be best for my family and I.
"It would have made my life so incredibly much easier if I could have just put my my kids on a bus and forget about it like most of you."
Martyr Moms are full of it. How the hell do you know what other parents think? Yeah, yeah, we know, you've sacrificed everything for your children. Bleck.
I know the great majority of people put their kids on a bus and send them to whatever in-district school that bus'll take 'em to.
Are you denying that?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.