Published: Wednesday
September 17, 2003
Last updated: Friday - 09/26/03 - 1:40 pm

  

Susan Pickrell Email: pick5@kpunet.net "Commitment to our Community, Experienced Leadership, With a Vision for Economic Stability" Vote Oct. 7

Questions For Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assembly Candidates

Reader's question #1. What planning methods would you use for future projects?

Response to question #1 - Published 09/17/03

Any effective plan will require a plan that has these components: comprehensive in nature, short term and long term goals and objectives, solicitation of input from all stakeholders (including outlying areas, other communities, and the state government), timelines, and accountability.

 

Reader's question #2. Several if not all of the candidates have stated that the Assembly should "fully fund" the school district. What obligation does the Assembly have, if any, to insure that the funding is wisely used by the school district ?

Response to question #2 - Published 09/17/03

The public elects the two bodies of government, Borough Assembly and School Board and they have separate and distinct duties. It is unwise (if not unlawful) when either body infringes on the areas of responsibility of the other. State law charges the School Board with the responsibility of how money is to be spent, and the Borough Assembly is charged with how much to fund the school district. If there are funds available, the Borough Assembly should fund to the maximum amount available. If there is a funding gap, it would be best if all governmental bodies, including the state, can work together to find a compromise, so that we can provide the best education possible. In the short term planning for 2004, there should be a "Community Priority List" prepared when it comes to the budgeting process.

 

Reader's question #3. Recently the current Assembly increased our property taxes and refused to make significant cuts in Borough grants to non profit special interest groups. In at least one case, the Borough obligates local taxpayers to pay for services from the UAS Ketchikan Campus that, according to Statute, should be paid by State funds.

Should local residents be forced to pay for University services that are an obligation of the State?

How can we bring some sort of control and spending limit on this Borough grants program?

Should we continue this Borough grants program when we are forced to cut required services such as the Borough bus?

Response to question #3 (Should local residents be forced to pay for University services that are an obligation of the State?) - Published 09/17/03

I don't believe we have ever been "forced to pay for funding of our University". The University has provided some fine training and education for many businesses and individuals (including Highschool students) in this community that have helped to enhance private enterprise. This is one of those questions that falls under the area of short term planning and a "Community Priority List".

Response to question #3 (How can we bring some sort of control and spending limit on this Borough grants program?) - Published 09/17/03

See the same answer above

Response to question #3 (Should we continue this Borough grants program when we are forced to cut required services such as the Borough bus?) - Published 09/17/03

I believe the services of the Borough bus were reduced but not eliminated, based on the number of users and other considerations. Whenever there are tough choices to be made, not everyone will be happy, and again, I refer to a "Community Priority List" that will help us plan for potential budget cuts.

 

Reader's question #4. In light of the current and continuing tight budget situation within the borough, what is your position with regard to the possibility of raising taxes to increase revenues? And if you favor increased taxation, how would you accomplish it? i.e. property tax increase, head tax, increased user fees, etc. (09/22/03 - 11:30 pm)

Response to question #4 (Published 09/23/03)

There are many issues that need to be considered when it comes to balancing the Borough budget. Do we want to eliminate services or charge more money for services? What are our fixed costs? Will laying people off really save money and create efficiency? Will levying a sales tax help? Are people willing to pay for the budget deficit by an increase in property tax? We need input from the community to help establish our "Community Priority List" that will help both the Borough Assembly and staff plan for balancing the budget.

It is not sound policy to depend on increasing taxes to meet budget gaps because an increase only serves to discourage local property and business owners from purchasing homes and expanding businesses, as well as business from outside our community who might want to invest in Ketchikan in the future. Fiscal responsibility should be the first consideration before contemplating any increase of taxes.

Questions For All Candidates

Reader's Question #1. Do you think it responsible of the Borough to increase our taxes to provide more convenient working (new government building) conditions, when the old mill offices are available to them while kids in this town fight for space to recreate. (09/22/03)

Response to question #1 (Published 09/23/03)

I'm not so sure it is a matter of a more "convenient" working conditions. It is my understanding there is an issue of safety and health issues for borough employees in the building that they currently use. I agree that other possiblities should be explored before we look at building new borough offices, however, even a move to another building will cost money (probably in the area of $40,000 to $50,000). I would ask staff to advise how urgent a move is, and explore all the possibilities so we have a number of options. Sometimes tough choices have to be made and it is all a matter of setting priorities.

 

Reader's Question #2. Many candidates have suggested they would make staff cuts as either the sole means of achieving fiscal responsibility or staff cuts combined with revenue increases. Which Borough staff and/or departments do these candidates feel are superfluous and expendable? Or if not that, least important to retain. (09/22/03 2:40 pm)

Response to question #2 (Published 09/23/03)

There are many issues that need to be considered when it comes to balancing the Borough budget. Do we want to eliminate services or charge more money for services? What are our fixed costs? Will laying people off really save money and create efficiency? Will levying a sales tax help? Are people willing to pay for the budget deficit by an increase in property tax? We need input from the community to help establish our "Community Priority List" that will help both the Borough Assembly and staff plan for balancing the budget.

It is not sound policy to depend on increasing taxes to meet budget gaps because an increase only serves to discourage local property and business owners from purchasing homes and expanding businesses, as well as business from outside our community who might want to invest in Ketchikan in the future. Fiscal responsibility should be the first consideration before contemplating any increase of taxes.

 

Reader's Question #3. If the city of Ketchikan has all this extra money in the bank, should city taxes be reduced to give taxpayers a break? Why is the city looking for so many ways to spend our money on lavish and expensive projects such as new library and museum construction? (09/25/03 - 1:00 pm)

Response to question #2 (Published 09/26/03 - 1:40 pm)

I am running for the Borough Assembly. If as you say "the City of Ketchikan has all this extra money in the bank", perhaps the City Council might find it in their hearts to give a "gift" to the Borough... as an example of their support for our community as a whole.

While I wish it were possible for the Gateway Borough to spend the City of Ketchikan's money, I leave it up to my esteemed colleagues who are currently on the City Council and those candidate running for City Council to answer this question.

 

 

Sitnews
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska