Competing tax initiatives head to voters
Published Saturday, May 31, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!A group of Fairbanks residents are circulating petitions aimed at renewing the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s “tax cap” — a legal limit on the government’s tax powers — through 2010.
It’s the same measure driven through the public initiative process every two years, although with different faces behind the wheel.
Another group has already placed a competing measure on the upcoming Oct. 7 ballot, one aimed at changing the tax cap for the first time in history.
Supporters of the more recent initiative say local tax laws offer an effective check on government spending and don’t need to be changed. Co-sponsor Jay Quakenbush said changing the cap would leave local government unprepared to gradually expand public services as work crews build new homes, buildings or infrastructure — such as a natural gas pipeline — over time.
That, Quakenbush said, would handcuff government’s long-term ability to manage garbage transfer sites, maintain bus routes and provide other services.
“We always talk about being prepared for the next ‘big boom,’” Quakenbush, a labor leader and former Borough Assembly member, said Wednesday. “We’re going to have to be able to supply (people) with services they expect. Otherwise, businesses won’t come to the borough and stay.”
If the measure draws the needed 1,868 valid signatures this summer, it will appear on ballots this fall, right next to a question from a group led by resident Donna Gilbert.
Gilbert — traditionally the hand behind public tax initiatives, including the measure now being pushed by Quakenbush’s group — is looking to freeze one of three moving parts in the tax cap, a change organizers expect will slowly force government leaders to cut taxes.
Since its inception two decades ago, the cap has grown as more people and businesses come to Fairbanks. So if a company built a $20-million building, for example, the tax cap expanded to let government collect more in taxes — about $225,000, if the $20 million example is applied to the borough’s base tax rate for the coming fall — from the community as a whole the following year.
That “growth factor” would dissolve under Gilbert’s plan.
Gilbert, also a former Borough Assembly member, said Wednesday local government spending has grown too fast — outpacing population growth — while the cost of living in Fairbanks has risen to levels unsustainable for many residents. She rejected claims from opponents that the proposed change would degrade public services in the long run, noting the borough is required by law to dedicate a minimum level of money to education each year.
“We can see what’s happening. We need to help the people of this community to stay whole,” she said.
Borough Mayor Jim Whitaker has said he would follow Quakenbush’s plan if voters somehow pass both measures at the ballot box Oct. 7.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
This story is confusing.
The Interior Taxpayers Association (ITA) has sponsored the FNSB revenue cap for nearly two decades. Last year borough voters provided ITA enough signatures to get an improved revenue cap on this year's ballot.
The imposter (tax cap) group led by union interests is pushing a watered down revenue cap initiative this year.
Voters should refuse to sign this initiative.
Why?
In 1990 FNSB spending was about 70 million.
This year the spending was about 130 million.
The massive increase came about as FNSB spending grew significantly faster than inflation for most years.
Perks for borough employees have made it difficult for borough residents to afford property taxes and have contributed to the vast increase in borough spending.
What perks? Try almost two months of paid time off for employees with over 7 years service. Or $1,000,000.00 in health care coverage for a small stipend.
That is why union interests are pushing this watered down revenue cap.
And they also do not want to have to explain why property taxes have quintupled over the last 20 years... making homeownership in this borough a burden rather than a pleasure.
DO NOT SIGN THE IMPOSTER TAX CAP. THE ITA sponsored revenue cap is already on the ballot for this year.
Perks for Borough employees isn't the cause for increased Borough spending. New ball parks, playground equipment, programs for at risk children, programs for our seniors, mass transit, schools, etc. are the reason. ITA puppets, and their puppeteers (I won't use their names, but we all know who they are) have done more to wreck this town than anything else. The ITA needs to pull its' collective head out of the sand and realize for this town to grow, its' services need to grow. Services cost.
50/50...your first line says it all. These types of issues must be clearly, articulately and repeatedly given to the voters well in advance of the election. We have seen dozens of failed ballot initiatives bite the dust because of ill-informed voters (just ask the City of Fairbanks). It takes all sorts of advertising; TV, radio, print, internet, face-to-face contacts. The year will already be inundated with ridiculous amounts of political advertising...this is no time to leave something this confusing hanging out there for voters to make mistakes on.
Moondoggie, so even with all the millions spent this town is still a "WRECK" ? perhaps you should take a drive around town and get your head out of the sand, this borough has FLUSHED so much money down the toilet, even with ITA's tax cap, just imagine what it would have done without it. Remember when there was NO borough, we got along just fine , now look at what it costs,, what a shame.... VOTE informed...
Why can't we do to the borough what Fairbanks did the city last year?
Is there any way we can tell them we have had enough and maybe drop them off of our payment list.
If it could be done to the city, it needs to be done to the borough!!
We need to pass the ITA's improved tax cap this fall. The tax cap automatically expires every two years. If it really does cripple the boroughs ability to increase waste and reckless spending then we can start over in 2010.
What the Fairbanks voters did in the city, was pass 2 measures. Which effectively locked the city down untill the "city" started their "scare tactics" to get a handle on it. According to this article, which offered "0" information, Mayor Whitaker has already decided what he will do. I guess I will have to research-research-research....
It is intentionally confusing.
The ITA is going to need donations for more advertising, in addition to the one big one it publishes just prior to the elections, to try to set the story straight.
And you can safely bet any amount of money the scare tactics will come.
That is always the MO; including from this newspaper.
We know what side the FDNM will be on--and it isn't ITA's.
Very well said, 5050.
Moondoggie says, "Perks for Borough employees isn't the cause for increased Borough spending. New ball parks, playground equipment, programs for at risk children, programs for our seniors, mass transit, schools, etc. are the reason."
WHAT programs for seniors???
And there has been almost no increase in mass transit, and in fact major cutbacks are being planned.
What the article and the ITA fail to disclose is that this tax cap initiative (ITA's version) will also cap tax revenue for service areas. Road and Fire services will be required to continue to face inflation cost without an increase in revenue.
If the ITA is counting on the state shared revenue covering the reduced tax receipts so that mandated services like education, roads, fire, EMS, etc, can continue, they are dreaming. The state is looking to shift more of the burden on the local governments, not giving us addtional millions in hand outs.
I think the tax cap is fine as it is. When someone builds in my neighborhood, that gives us more funding to take care of the roads (maybe grading them more than once a year) and improve safety for the fire department. Capping their revenue will only continue the downward spiral of this necessary public and social infrastructure.
5050---Just a note about the Bouroughs Budget. Inflation between 1990 and 2008 will account for most of the 90% cost increase, and then education, mil rates imposed on services by themselves, and bond debt that the voters approved for school construction. As a comparison, the states budget has increased 300% in the last 10 years, 6 of which were under fiscal conservative leadership.
Re duramax's comments: I found it disappointing that anyone would put out such complete misinformation. To answer all the eroneous "facts" in his comments would take more space than I am sure is allowed. However, anyone wanting to know the facts (rather than just the retoric) is free to contact me at 452-4783 any evening, or come to ITA's general meeting that will be held this Tuesday, June 10 at 7 p.m. in the Borough Assembly Chambers. I will be happy to answer all questions and present the real facts. It is time we counteract the distortions of people who in many cases stand to gain from higher taxes, rather than making it fair and equitable for all who live here and have to pay those taxes.
Sincerely,
Donna Gilbert
President, ITA
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.