Points Against
Consolidation:
North Pole
- Why should the city of North Pole vote NO?
Dan Bockhorst, of the Local Boundary Commission, had this to say in
January:
Mr. Dan Bockhorst, Local government Specialist
Department of Community and Economic Development
Local Boundary Commission
January 31, 2001
Page 11
The Residents of the City Must Vote Separately on Their Future
AS 29.06.140 requires an “election in the area to be included in
the new municipality to determine whether the voters desire merger or
consolidation . . . A voter who is a resident of the area to be included
in the proposed municipality may vote. Since the corporate limits of the
City is an area proposed to be included in the new Municipality of
Fairbanks, the voters of the City should be given the opportunity to
control their own destiny….if the LBC approves the consolidation
petition – in spite of the serious flaws that have been noted – the
voters of the City of Fairbanks must vote first and separately on the
consolidation petition before it can even proceed to an area-wide vote.
(If it fails in the City of Fairbanks, the petition process could
proceed no further.)
[End of Quote]
However, when all was said and done, he declared that the foregoing
“didn’t apply”!
Instead he has ruled that the city of Fairbanks
can be forced into the new municipality by a simple majority vote
borough wide. – even if the city precincts all vote NO. In the same
way, once the municipality is formed, a simple majority vote could be
used to force the city of North Pole into the consolidated municipality,
even if the city of North Pole votes NO! Vote NO now to assure the
independent future of North Pole!
As a North Pole resident of the FNSB, consider also the
following points under Area-Wide and Borough.
Area-Wide: What are the Ramifications?
- Will consolidation result in cheaper and more
efficient government?
The borough issued a report in which they estimate that the
Municipality of Fairbanks will have to raise property tax by 2 mills
(approximately $200 in taxes on a $100,000 home.). This is due in part
to the 13 additional employees that will be required! Yes, some
would be cut, but many more must be added to combine the two
governments. Other costs come in part from increasing city insurance
coverages to the higher borough levels, and expanding the borough’s
equipment replacement program to the City Service Area.
Both the borough and the city report there is presently almost no
duplication between the two entities, which is why there are costs,
rather than savings, in combining them.
- What will be the transition costs?
The borough predicts that the transition costs will exceed $5
million, which translates to almost 2 mills in property tax for at least
the first year. Since (if it happens) it would have been approved by the
voters, it will be exempt from the present tax cap. You are giving
them a blank check for the transition, however, as the consolidation
petition does not set any limit on transition costs. We are also not
convinced that the additional 2 mills will ever be reversed – how
often have we ever seen government remove a temporary tax?
- What about the Borough Tax Cap?
When a new mayor and assembly is voted in and the new government is
established, the present tax cap could be completely lost. If it only
remains "until superseded by action of the Municipality," a
new initiative will have to be started. The new assembly will have plenty
of time to first raise the level of taxes, and a new tax cap will have
to start from there – there will be no “roll back” of property
taxes or other taxes, such as sales taxes, that the new government may
have instituted.
City: Consolidation without Representation –
we do not have the right to vote on our future!
- Was this even a legal petition?
When the petitioner, Don Lowell, was obtaining over 4,000 signatures
for the consolidation petition, he promised signers that the action
would save them two million dollars. We now know, and it has been
confirmed by the petitioner, as well as by both the borough and city
governments, that there will be no savings – that, instead,
consolidation will increase the cost of government. Would they
have signed it in the first place if they had known it would cost so
much?
- Will the City Service Area have a charter to
protect it?
NO! Gone will be all its protections, including the city tax cap and
the provisions which require the government to allow you to vote on any
new taxes..
- Do we keep our Permanent Fund?
At this time, there is no guarantee as to what will happen. It is to
be decided by the newly elected municipal government.
We have been told that the city will keep its Permanent Fund, but
these are the same people who told us we would have a separate vote in
the city – and that we would save millions by consolidating!
Out of an approximately $21 million budget, only about one third is
paid for by property taxes; $7,049,683 for 2001. As a service area, we
will have to tax ourselves to pay for what we are mandated to provide.
According to the borough’s transition plan, this is
what the City Service Area would be responsible for:
Category
|
Sub-Category
|
Budgeted in 2001
|
*Police
|
|
$5,401,981.00
|
*Fire
|
|
$3,767,327.00
|
*Parking Authority
|
|
$27,500.00
|
*Building Inspections
|
|
$460,575.00
|
*City Service Area Admin.
|
|
|
|
Accounting
|
$
?
|
|
Audit
|
$
?
|
|
Clerk Functions
|
$
?
|
|
Computer
|
$
?
|
|
Curbside Trash billing/cust svc
|
$
?
|
|
Elections
|
$ 12,000.00
|
|
Engineering Network
|
$
?
|
|
5 Member Board of Supervisors
|
$
?
|
|
Legal
|
$
?
|
|
Personnel/Labor relations
|
$
?
|
|
Purchases & bids
|
$
?
|
|
Treasury & Budget
|
$
?
|
*Engineering
|
|
$661,713.00
|
|
Vehicle Maintenance
|
$
?
|
|
Vehicle & Eqpt replacement
|
$
?
|
*Street Lights
|
|
$ 64,000.00
|
*Traffic Signals
|
|
$410,000.00
|
*CSA Public Works
|
|
$3,339,530.00
|
*CSA Property management
|
|
167,450.00
|
FNA Inebriate Program
|
Fees
Contingencies
|
$
?
$ 25,000.00
|
Capital
|
|
$246,190.00
|
Criminal & Civil
|
|
$
?
|
Utilities
|
Fuel, electric, steam heat
Phones
|
$ 6,000.00
$ 79,000.00
|
Insurance
|
|
$647,000.00
|
|
Grand Total of those known
|
$15,635,266.00
|
(CSA=City Service Area)
As you can see from the best information we have, provided by the
existing borough, this is what the new City Service Area will be
mandated to pay, plus all the unknowns, administrative costs and
otherwise, that the new Municipality of Fairbanks will be charging the City
Service Area to take over the present city functions.
Conclusion: If the new municipality appropriates the
city’s permanent fund, it is possible that we would need to more than
DOUBLE property taxes just to pay for the mandated services!
It gets worse! In addition to what the City Service Area
will have
to collect, the borough is already discussing a 2 mil raise in “Municipality
of Fairbanks” property taxes (each mill adds $100 in taxes on a
$100,000 home.)
- What about the city's Bed Tax?
The petition clearly states that all bed
tax becomes area-wide revenue, meaning it goes to the general fund of
the Municipality to spend as it wishes. The Local Boundary Commission
first denied this in their final report, then in an addendum to the
final report, had this to say: "the bed tax levy of the
Municipality of Fairbanks would be exclusively an 8% areawide
levy..." Areawide means it would be handled as a tax on the whole
borough, without a separate levy by the City Service Area for their
use.
Finally, don’t forget that one thing that has yet to be figured
into the equation is the mil rate that will increase our property taxes
to pay for the Police Station bonds that have been approved by the
voters.
Borough
-
Paid fire, and ambulance?
Since the existing city contracts clearly
prohibit volunteers, there can be no doubt that the volunteer fire and
ambulance services such as presently exist in the outlying areas will no
longer be. We will have to pay for such services at the same level of
wages and benefits as city fire and ambulance services.
- How about police services?
Although the new municipality might not lose
state troopers for at least 6 months to a year, we believe that it would
eventually happen. This is the way the state chooses to cut its budget
– by passing on more of the costs to the local governments.
In a July 23, 1998 Mike Irwin, Commissioner with
the Department of Community and Regional Affairs asked Public Safety
Commissioner Ronald Otte about the effect proposed consolidations would
have on Department of Public Safety operations and staffing in the areas
consolidated. Commissioner Otte replied that he did not see any changes
for the near future. However, we found his final paragraph most telling:
“An
issue worthy of consideration is whether the Legislature would cut
Department of Public Safety personnel from the consolidated boroughs
in an effort to encourage the boroughs to take on areawide police
powers. The Legislature used this tactic for several years in the
Hillside area of Anchorage creating significant problems for both the
Department and the community.”
One can only speculate from this that in the
near future the outlying areas could well be paying for police
protection at the same rate as the city now pays.
- Will Building Permits and
Inspections Extend Beyond the Present City Limits?
Alaska State Law 29.06.150(b) states that,
“When two or more municipalities consolidate, the newly incorporated
municipality succeeds to the rights, powers, duties, assets, and
liabilities of the consolidated municipalities.”
We can only assume that this means, in part,
that any new construction within the proposed municipality would have to
conform to the building codes of the city of Fairbanks. We are also
assuming that current structures would be “grandfathered in” and
exempt, but there are no guarantees IF, or FOR HOW LONG, that
might be so.
Again, under the same Alaska State Law
29.06.150(b) …”the newly incorporated municipality succeeds to the
rights, powers, duties, assets, and liabilities of the consolidated
municipalities” and that would mean existing contracts from the city
would be extended to the new municipality. Not only does Alaska state
law say it, but the petition you are being asked to vote on clearly
states “The new Municipality will inherit the existing union
contracts.”
- Must the borough carry the cost
of city government?
Since we would legally now be one entity, there is no question that
some of the costs of the city would be passed on to borough residents
– how much is anyone’s guess.
PLEASE
VOTE NO ON CONSOLIDATION!