Editor’s note: As April approaches and the Anchorage municipal election nears I thought I’d share a piece I co-authored with my Assembly colleague, Ernie Hall, for the League of Women Voters’ informational pamphlet regarding a proposed ballot initiative. My understanding is proponents were afforded the same opportunity.
Editor’s note: I produced this piece so that it could be utilized by local media, thus it’s perhaps a little more didactic than usual. Hopefully that doesn’t detract from its informational value.
During my tenure on the Anchorage Assembly there’s been a recurring discussion about how we employ state revenues. To put it as simply as I can, the question is whether they are considered part of our tax revenues and therefore “under” Anchorage’s tax cap, or are they used after we set the mill levy and therefore “outside” the tax cap. And I’m sorry if that isn’t very simple.
Having recently enjoyed a chuckle in reviewing Paul Jenkins’ most recent nonsensical rant I thought it might be useful to provide a little perspective on the object of his ire: Anchorage’s tax cap.
It’s been a few years since I last visited Juneau, Alaska’s capital city, and a variety of factors, not least of which that I’ve co-chaired the Assembly’s legislative committee for six years, inspired a return last week.
After months of painfully long discussions about the allocation of state capital funds the Assembly failed to decide on December 3 how to handle the artificial “tennis versus hockey” argument. It’s not clear how this ersatz “choice” found its way into the dialogue, since facilities for both activities could be well-funded, but it set the stage for injecting excess emotion into an already complicated decision. (It’s worth noting we’ve already allocated $20.6 million in state grant monies to upgrade area hockey facilities.)
It’s been an interesting couple of months watching the controversy over funding for tennis facilities come to a head. The aspect most curious to me stems from the root causes, and what appears to be an unfortunate decision to ask government to be the arbiter of a conflict between two private entities. Please allow me to explain.
In preparation for the impending budget season the Assembly is planning a two or three hour retreat sometime in the next couple weeks to get ourselves in gear. Date, time and place are still undecided. The relatively brief length is indicative of the fact that most of us have a pretty clear understanding of the budgetary process. We do have two new members, however, and a few others who don’t spend as much time on matters fiscal, so it’s likely a good idea.
I received word this week that backers of a referendum to repeal Anchorage’s new labor law, the infamous AO 2013-37, have gathered a sufficient number of signatures to place the issue on the ballot. Ignoring whether one thinks well or poorly of this particular piece of legislation, that fact triggers an intriguing series of decisions.
I was copied on an e-mail reacting to a media story about potentially cutting police officers whom the city just trained and hired, and chastising the mayor for the situation. As readers can ascertain for themselves, the administration once again blames both the previous administration and existing labor contracts. Unfortunately for them, matters are rarely so simple.
Full disclosure warning; the topic of this post has previously been described as falling into the MEGO category. If you want to keep reading I obviously can’t stop you, but don’t later complain you weren’t warned…
Copyright - Patrick Flynn, All Rights Reserved