Municipal Election File, 2008

October 7, 2008
Municipal Election

First, for those of you who are City voters: City Proposition 1 gives the City Council the sole power to decide what citizen-sponsored initiatives go to a special election. ITA questions the need for any special elections other than for referendums, but asserts that if special elections are allowed, they should be available for everyone. The Council should not be allowed to pick and choose who gets them. We are therefore, urging a NO vote on Proposition 1.

Affecting all of you will be the Borough propositions. Proposition A is the same Revenue Cap (tax cap) that ITA has put on the ballot every two years since 1987. The cap has never gone away – we just needed to have it re-voted to keep its protection in place since state law only protects it from change for two years at a time.

This year, however, ITA put on the ballot a new improved Revenue Cap, which is Borough Proposition B. We just got out of court defending your right to a vote on it. The version we sponsored removes one of the five exceptions in the cap. Contrary to what you may have heard, it does NOT “destroy” the present cap, nor does it threaten education, or service areas. We know this because of the four exceptions still in the cap, as well as the cost of living clause, which ensures that the cap rises somewhat every year. The cap does not apply to: [Note: These are copied directly from the "tax cap."]

1. Any appropriation made to pay or secure payment of principal and/or interest on bonds;
2. Taxes required to fund services authorized by voter approved ballot issues;
3. Funding of new judgments entered against the Fairbanks North Star Borough;
4. Special appropriations necessary on an emergency basis to fund unavoidable expenses insuring the public peace, health or safety.

Allowing bonds and other voter approved ballot issues puts the power back into the hands of the voters, not government officials or elected bodies.

Right now, income from new construction or property improvements goes above the cap the first year, re-setting the cap higher, so that the borough can collect more revenue the following year. Removing the clause (that exempted new construction or property improvements) allows the income from their property taxes to flow under the cap, and since that means new revenue has come in, your property taxes must be lowered, to keep from taking in more revenue than the cap allows!

To get the new improved revenue cap, it must pass with more votes than the old one. So you would need to vote No on Proposition A, and vote Yes on Proposition B.

Finally, for those of you interested, here are the candidates we endorsed, whom we feel will be fiscally responsible with your tax money.
City Council:

• Ron Warner II for Seat C,
• Lloyd Hilling for Seat E,
• Jerry Cleworth for Seat F.

Borough Assembly:

• Doug Wilson for Seat A,
• Tammie Wilson for Seat D,
• Wayne Swanson for Seat E,
• Joshua Lott for Seat H.

City Council, Seat C    

• Bernard Gatewood (incumbent) (won)

• David Lerman

• Ron Warner II

City Council, Seat E   

• Emily Bratcher (won)

• LLoyd Hilling

City Council, Seat F   

• Tonya Brown (incumbent)

• Jerry Cleworth (won)

•  Kurt Gutzman (withdrew)

Borough Assembly, Seat A    

• William Minerva

• Bill Stringer (incumbent) (won)

• Doug Wilson

Borough Assembly, Seat D

• Tammie Wilson (won)

Borough Assembly, Seat E

• Tim Beck (incumbent) (won)

• Wayne Swanson

Borough Assembly, Seat H

• Mark Ames

• Joseph Blanchard II (won)

• Joshua Lott

City Proposition #1: VOTE NO   Initiative change

This proposition gives the City Council the sole power to decide what citizen-sponsored initiatives go to a special election. ITA questions the need for ANY special elections other than for referendums, but asserts that if special elections ARE allowed, they should be available for everyone. The Council should not be allowed to pick and choose who gets them. We are, therefore, urging you to vote NO on City Proposition 1.

FNSB Proposition #A:

Ordinance Establishing Maximum Allowable Tax Revenues. [Note: This is the same as the present “tax cap” which ITA originally helped impose, but this year, we are urging you to vote for our new one instead. See next:

FNSB Proposition #B: VOTE YES    

This is a new improved Revenue Cap which, if passed, would remove one of the five exceptions in the cap. Contrary to what you may have heard, it does NOT “destroy” the present cap, nor does it threaten education, or service areas. Removing the clause (that exempted new construction or property improvements in their first year) allows the income from their property taxes to flow under the cap, and since that means new revenue has come in, your property taxes must be lowered, to keep from taking in more revenue than the cap allows! There will still be four exceptions in the cap, as well as the cost of living clause, which ensures that the cap rises somewhat every year. Still allowed are other voter approved ballot issues - putting the power back into the hands of the voters, not government officials or elected bodies.

To get the new improved revenue cap, it must pass with more votes than the old one.

"B is Better!"  Vote YES on Borough Proposition B

For more information on the issues, see our double page ad in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner Sunday, October 5. Also, visit our blog.

Paid for by The Interior Taxpayers' Association, Donna Gilbert, President, Box 71892, Fairbanks, AK 99707 (907) 452-4783.

[Tax Cap Explanation]

Back to Home|Guest Page|Lighten Up|Contact ITA