Yes on Proposition 1
Dear Editor: Both the City of Sitka and the State of Alaska are facing serious budget shortfalls. The state and the city are having to spend reserves at an unsustainable rate. While our Legislature appears unable to take action, we have the opportunity to do the right and responsible thing. Voting yes on Proposition 1 will allow our city to take a major step towards balancing Sitka’s budget.
Raising Sitka’s property tax cap by 2 mills is the fairest way to pay for the services that are vital to keeping our city running while maintaining the quality of life that is so important to us all. Sitka’s government has been doing its part by taking belt-tightening measures and Sitkans can demand that it continue to do so. Passing Proposition 1 will allow the city to make thoughtful cuts that will impact the fewest number of people in a negative way. A no vote will force the city to make cuts that will place the quality of education, maintenance of our city infrastructure, and services to our most vulnerable citizens at stake.
Sitka needs a viable economic solution now. I plan to take action by voting yes on Proposition 1. I encourage all Sitkans to do the same.
Kristen Homer, Sitka
No to Proposition 1
Dear Editor: I’m concerned with arguments from the “Yes on 1” folks and refer to a few here.
1) Sitka does not have low property tax. We have a low millage rate multiplied by the highest property assessments in Southeast Alaska. The city is planning to raise these assessments after the election no matter what happens with Prop 1. Inflation proofing the millage rate, suggested recently by an Assembly member (Sentinel 9/30/16), isn’t an issue. As property values inflate so do revenues from property tax.
2) Sitka is not in financial trouble because of Alaska’s budget crisis. Sitka is in trouble because for decades the Assembly has spent like drunken fishermen and never met a matching grant they didn’t love. Sitka is in trouble because we’re paying 4 percent (interest only) annually for 20 years on an outstanding $100,000,000 debt. That’s $80,000,000 in interest before we start paying the principal. This debt is for a hydro project we didn’t need and couldn’t afford. Sitka is in trouble because we still owe for Green Lake. Sitka is in trouble because we built an extraordinarily expensive performing arts center we didn’t need, couldn’t afford and for which we still have debt. Sitka is in trouble because we have refinanced most, if not all, of our debt instead of paying it off. This scenario is repeated with a new fire hall instead of a new fire hall roof. A new city maintenance center after Sitkans voted the project down. There are other examples. Sitka is in trouble because we spend more than we can afford and expect to be bailed out by state and federal government.
3) City government is not expensive because of Sitka’s harbors. Sitka’s harbors and Harbor Department, unlike the other enterprise funds, are entirely paid for by users. Nor is Sitka broke because of The Ride. This year the city gave no money to The Ride and never gave much in the past although publicly funded transport makes sense.
4) With a $3,000,000 projected annual shortfall in the electric department the city will raise electric rates even if Prop 1 passes.
5) Sitka with only 1 percent of the State’s population owes 15 percent of all Alaska Bond Bank debt and this is not all of Sitka’s debt. Now, without being given the financial facts or a plan, Sitkans are asked to vote to make property owners pay more. Without transparency or financial discipline from the city why should they?
Matt Donohoe, Sitka
Shee Atika Land Sale
Dear Editor: When I was a young boy, Mr. Kitka, who knew my parents, Agnes and Joseph Johnson, and I were walking down a Sitka street. He let me know how important it was to keep our land as he said to make sure we keep it. It ties us to who we are.
As I got older I understood what he said to me, and now I believe he would be extremely disappointed with Ken Cameron, Ptarmica McConnell and the Board for what they have now done with the sale of Cube Cove.
I know at least a dozen village corporations throughout Alaska that are not in business today: however, they kept their land. I repeat, they kept their land.
Mr. Kitka loaned his own money to help Shee Atika acquire land. See below:
This is from the book “Earning a Place in History – Shee Atika, The sitka Claims Corporation’’ second printing 2011: “During the 1970s, while corporate officers struggled with land-selection issues, shareholder frustrations were mounting. Expectations failed to mesh with the reality of Shee Atika’s status as an ANCSA corporation without funds.
‘‘All ANCSA corporations, other than the four urban corporations, received regular payments from the Alaska Native Fund. But until Shee Atika received conveyance of the lands it selected, and until the lands were developed and producing timber, there was simply no way for the corporation to generate revenues. The only source of funds during these early years was borrowed money.
One of the most selfless acts of any director is attributed to one of Shee Atika’s founders, Herman Kitka.
“Well when we couldn’t raise any funds to keep the corporation going, I loaned them $50,000 and then when that ran out I loaned them another $40,000... They paid me all back. I was the only one with money at that time: I was a general contractor my whole life.” – Herman Kitka, founding director, 1974 to 1986.
Norman Johnson, Washington
No to Tax Increase
Dear Editor: I’ve heard several Assembly members tell us that tax increases are needed to sustain the levels of service we currently see. I am a lifelong Sitkan and I’d submit that there are many of us who would be perfectly OK with less city services. Many Sitkans like myself don’t live here for the frills that a bloated city government can provide. We live in one of the most beautiful and rugged places on earth where many people could only dream to spend their lives. Many of us live here for the hunting, fishing, recreation, and outdoor lifestyle that being situated here allows us to lead. City government provides none of this.
In times of crisis we need to look at cutting frills and go back to basic city services: running water and sewer, an electrical grid, road systems, public safety, and a harbor to tie up our fleet. I’m tired of seeing perfectly good sidewalks ripped up and replaced, $10,000 harbor signs, and studies to tell us that yes, we all live in a landslide zone to varying degrees. I’d like to see the Assembly to look back 20 years and assess the number of city employees we had then versus now. Our population has certainly not increased but the city government ranks have swelled immensely. Vote no on Proposition 1 and tell your elected officials to quit spending your tax dollars on influencing ballot propositions that maintain the status quo.
Mike Johnson, Sitka
Vote Yes on Prop 1
Dear Editor: Whether we pass the millage rate increase or not, we will pay for the current budget shortfall. It is big, it is real, whether we choose to face it or not it is not going away. If we don’t raise the property tax cap, we will pay with taxation and rate increases that do not require a public vote, taxes and fees that disproportionately fall on the lowest-income Sitkans. Cutting the budget enough to break even will mean we pay with long-term damage to our streets, utilities, harbors, police and fire departments, services, and schools.
Right now, warm winters and low oil prices mean we aren’t selling enough power to pay for the dam at current rates. If we raise utility rates enough for this smaller base to pay, it will mean even fewer users, and, will be even more of a hardship on lower-income residents. We need more users, so that more of us are paying into the dam, instead of buying fuel oil. This is our dam, our community. The dam is a long-term investment, an important asset as we look at attracting commercial investment.
If we are serious about attracting investment and growing existing business, we make it harder when we damage our biggest asset, quality of life, and have potholed streets and more school dropouts.
If we are serious about making Sitka affordable, a property tax will have much less impact than the other taxes and fees the Assembly will have to consider.
A two-mill increase means you will pay $700 more a year on a property valued at $350,000, or $2,000 on a property assessed at $1 million. Even if a business owner passed along the entire cost of the millage increase, it does not seem like it would be noticeable to customers. Owners of expensive properties, including non-resident property owners, pay more, and those with less valuable properties pay less. If we instead raise the sales tax, raise electric rates, and implement a gas tax and other fees, we place the burden on lower-income residents, who pay more, relative to their income, than higher-income people.
The Assembly and the City and Borough government are not them; they are us. I hope my fellow citizens will have listened to the excellent discussion and information on the decisions we are making. We are going to pay, one way or another. The fairest, and most responsible approach is to vote yes on Ballot Measure One.
Rebecca Poulson, Eric Dow, Sitka
Proposition Question
Dear Editor: The local election day is on Tuesday, Oct. 4. Many interesting, valid issues have been raised with respect to Sitka’s budget crunch.
I paid our utilities bill by phone a few days ago ... and; asked about Sitka’s current estimated population: 8,928 – call it 8,900.
One issue I have not heard anyone mention is the subject of this letter.
I grew up in North Carolina. I am curious how many full-time 40-hour-per-week policemen we have currently. A small town of 8,900 in ‘‘tar heel’’ country would probably have one-fourth the number of cops as we do.
Don’t get me wrong: Sitka is a very safe community! But when budget issues arise it is important to discuss every issue. I would hate to see K-12 education seriously cut. Let us look at every aspect of Sitka’s budget.
P.S. I vote no on Proposition 1.
Wayne T. Bowers, Sitka
Aquarium Schedule
Dear Editor: The Sitka Sound Science Center has ended its last week of the 2016 tourist season. We have moved to our winter schedule and are open on Thursdays and Friday from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. As the new aquarium manager, I am eager to meet our SSSC members and other visitors to our facility. I can be reached at 747-8878, extension 8, or aquarium@sitkascience.org.
Emily Frank
Aquarium Manager
Sitka Sound Science Center
Responsible Spending
Dear Editor: I am writing regarding Proposition 1. I have read many letters in favor of the increase and many against. I believe that when business owners have to start paying additional taxes they will seek to recoup those losses by increasing the cost of goods and services. Sitkans will be paying twice, not only paying more in property taxes or rent, but also an increase in other commodities bought locally. For my family, this will mean an increased reliance on Amazon and other online services. It won’t be a matter of spite or vindictiveness, but a matter of survival.
I’ve lived here for 18 years. I know Sitka is beautiful, and many of the people are wonderful. Sadly, my family continues to live here because our house is here and we made a promise to the bank. Our house is anything but spacious and comfortable. We get up go to work and we go to bed. We work three jobs between us just to meet our financial responsibilities. Unfortunately, the beauty of Sitka really doesn’t matter much anymore. I’ve watched the cost of living here go up, but not our income. It’s a common story.
I know the city’s finances are dire and we have to make some tough choices. I also know that we tend to spend a lot of money on wants and not needs. Some of it has been grant money some not. I’m not sure if everyone realizes that most grants aren’t free. Often there are requirements for in-kind spending, maintenance costs and new personnel that are not included as part of a grant. We’ve spent money on sea walks, new libraries, and a Centennial Hall remodel. There are other stories of financial waste such as Assembly members pushing to spend thousands on trees that weren’t meant for our climate. Those trees later died and then had to be replaced. Now we are looking at spending money on a new playground rather than making the repairs on what we already have. And we continue to spend $250,000 per year on a Performing Arts Center that many of us can’t afford to set foot in other than the twice a year school concerts. These are all wants, not needs.
We can save money by cutting staff through attrition, we can get city middle management positions out from behind their desks and back in the field and we can come to terms with the fact that we are broke and quit bleeding money on things that aren’t needs. We can’t maintain our current standard of living, it’s not possible. We need to forgo the frills for a while. With state money drying up, middle class disappearing and no new industry being created in the foreseeable future, it’s time to adjust to a new reality. I won’t vote for a proposition that takes money from the citizens of Sitka and have it used on items that are non-essentials. Live within your means, Sitka.
Tamara Mutchler-Walsh, Sitka
No on Proposition 1
Dear Editor: The $2 million that will be raised by another tax increase won’t be going to help lower your electric bill folks. All of the money from the proposed property tax increase is needed to pay for the increased retirement fund costs to the city for employees the state has stopped paying, increases in the insurance costs of city employees, and the raises in salaries and benefits city staff and employees got this year.
Over 600 people are currently employed by our local governments (city hall, schools, Sitka Community Hospital, public works, electrical dept, dam power stations, sewer plant, water dept, library, UV water plant, harbors, police station, city jail, fire station, ambulance services, visitors center, Centennial building, airport terminal, SEDA, etc). Add to that the cost of hundreds of retired people collecting retirement checks and insurance benefits from the city and it should be clear that those working in the private sector are not able to pay these huge costs.
Our problem isn’t that the price of a barrel of oil has dropped, because we don’t have any oil to sell. Our problem is our local government has grown to be bigger than we can support through local taxes alone. Joining me in voting no on another tax increase will send the needed message we want our Assembly to be more responsible.
Considering the failed $158 million dam project we are saddled with having to pay for the Assembly rather then asking us to raise taxes again needs to drop the recycle program, cut school funding because enrollment has dropped, sell or give away the hospital, reduce costs, reduce spending, and reduce hiring.
Rather than reducing spending when the city found out the state wouldn’t be giving them as much money as they had been getting in the past the Assembly gave the schools millions of extra dollars, took over the recycling program that costs us an extra million dollars a year to operate, approved raises, and hired more people.
Clyde Bright, Sitka
Voting No on Proposition
Dear Editor: I am voting no to the proposed property tax increase. Why? Several reasons, but the primary one is that property tax is not the way to go to subsidize the electric rates. An enterprise fund is to stand on its own. Sitkans are not looking at the long-range picture when they complain about electric rates we pay. Folks should realize that we were close to having to run diesel generators to supplement our electric service. Fuel costs are down now, but that will eventually turn around. Last week I attended a statewide harbor master conference where electric rates came up – and as it turned out Sitka’s rate was at the bottom of the pile with exceptions being a couple of other Southeast communities with hydro power. The majority of the folks present were paying anywhere from 18 to 48 cents per kilowatt hour. In those places you would add about $2 to everything you purchase and in some cases much more. I would note that my power usage isn’t as high as the rest of my utility services such as water, sewer and solid waste, which has been growing steadily over the past few years. As a retiree with a fixed income, increases do hurt, but I recognize I have to tighten my belt and the city administration needs to do the same.
Kim Elliot, Sitka
