DOCSLIB.ORG

Local Contributions to Public Education in Alaska

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Local Contributions to Public Education in Alaska LOCALCONTRIBUTIONS TO PUBLICEDUCATION INALASKA: AREPORTTOTHE KETCHIKANGATEWAYBOROUGHASSEMBLY VOLUMEI: STATEMENTOFTHEPROBLEM ByRobertEldridgeHicksi February2012 TABLEOFCONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER1. KetchikanGatewayBoroughResolutionNo.2296.........................................................8 CHAPTER2. GeographicCharacteristicsAmongMunicipalSchoolDistrictsandREAAs....................11 a. TheStereotypes...............................................................................................................................11 b. GeographicCharacteristics...............................................................................................................13 CHAPTER3. RacialCharacteristicsAmongMunicipalSchoolDistrictsandREAAs............................15 CHAPTER4. EconomicCharacteristicsAmongMunicipalSchoolDistrictsandREAAs.......................18 a. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................18 b. TheDenaliCommissionReport.........................................................................................................19 c. EconomicStatusbySchoolDistrict...................................................................................................20 d. RankingSchoolDistrictsbyEconomicStatus.....................................................................................22 e. RankingCashEarningsAmongCommunitiesHostingSchoolSites.....................................................26 f. DisparateTreatmentAmongSchoolDistrictsofSimilarSize,BasicNeedandCostFactors.................27 CHAPTER5. ACaseInPoint:TheIllfatedEfforttoIncorporateaDeltanaBorough.........................32 a. MethodsforIncorporatingBoroughs................................................................................................32 b. TheDeltanaBoroughPetitioningandReviewProcess.......................................................................35 c. ProvenProsperityintheDeltaGreelyREAA.....................................................................................38 CHAPTER6. TheExtentoftheProblem...........................................................................................44 CHAPTER7. ThatArbitraryRemnantCalled“theUnorganizedBorough”........................................51 CHAPTER8. ConcludingSummary...................................................................................................55 ENDNOTES.........................................................................................................................................57 (i) FOREWORD ThisstudywascommissionedbytheKetchikanGatewayBoroughAssembly.BoroughManager, DanBockhorst,andBoroughAttorney,ScottBrandtErichsen,haveprovidedinvaluableassistancetome during the past eight months, supplying me with their insights, their earlier work products, and an overwhelmingamountofsourcematerialformyresearchandanalyses.Ithankthemmostheartedly andsincerely. I avoid plagiarism of my source materials only by acknowledging here and My work began with now that I have paraphrased studies and rereading the Alaska reportsliberally,andthatundoubtedlyIhave failed in some instances to give full and Supreme Court case of propercreditinmycitations.Idoapologize, Matanuska-Susitna School but in the comfort of my optimistic District et al. v. State of expectation that I may be giving new life to Alaska. It is not a decision dustystudiesthatwere“shelved”aftermuch founded in proven facts or hard work and detailed analyses by earlier disappointedandfrustratedauthors. statistics. Two justices decided only one of four My work began with rereading the local-contribution issues, Alaska Supreme Court case of Matanuska SusitnaSchoolDistrictetal.v.StateofAlaska. reasoning from one “expert” Itisnotadecisionfoundedinprovenfactsor opinion replete with statistics. Two justices decided only one of erroneous stereotypes . fourlocalcontributionissues,reasoningfrom one“expert”opinionrepletewitherroneous stereotypes regarding the geographic, demographicandeconomiccharacteristicsof regionaleducationalattendanceareas(“REAAs”)andmunicipalschooldistricts.Thesametwojustices refusedtodecidethreeothermajorissues,arguingcorrectlythattherewasnoevidencebeforethemto support the assertions of the borough and taxpayers. Two other justices sidestepped all of the substantiveissuesinthecasebyinvokinginconclusoryfashiontherationaleof“nonjusticiableissues.” Thefifthjusticedidnotparticipateinthedecision. Hence,IbeginVolumeIofmyReportwiththeforeknowledgethat(1)theAlaskaSupremeCourt hasneverdecidedwhethertherequirementofalocalcontributionfrommunicipalschooldistrictsand not from REAAs denies any students of educational opportunities in violation of constitutional equal protection;(2)theAlaskaSupremeCourthasneverseenharddemographic,geographicoreconomic data showing that these two classifications – all municipal school districts vs. all REAAs – bear no reasonablerelationshiptothelegitimategoverningpurposeoffundingpubliceducationstatewide;(3) theAlaskaSupremeCourthasneverconsideredtheconstitutionalityofasweepingclassificationwhich (ii) for purposes of exemption from a local contribution encompasses virtually1 the entire “unorganized borough;” and (4) the Alaska Supreme Court has never considered whether a statute founded in stereotyping raises the primacy of the impaired constitutional interests above that “lowest level of scrutiny”appliedtothesingleissuedecidedintheMatSucase. InthisVolumeIofmyReport,Ianalyzetheavailabledataandchallenge aclassificationthat groups all REAAs together for the same exemption, and all municipal school districts together for a mandatory local contribution. I then describe earlier studies amply proving that many REAAs are prosperousandviableasboroughgovernmentsbutlackincentivestoincorporate.InVolumeII,Ireview thelawandIusethedatafromVolumeItobuildarguments,proandcon,forthelikelihoodofsuccess ofanyfutureattempttolitigatevariationsontheissuesraisedintheMatSucase,aswellasmanynew legalissuesneverlitigatedinthatcase.InVolumeIII,Idiscusstherelativemeritsofpursuingvarious alternativecoursesofactionthatmightbringalegislativechangeinthepresentsystem. 1 Homerule and firstclass cities outside boroughs are municipal school districts in the unorganized borough. Hence, technically,theREAAsdonotincludetheentireunorganizedborough.Nonetheless,whentreatedasoneentityforpurposesof anexemptionfromalocalcontribution,theREAAsrunthefullbreadthanddistanceoftheunorganizedborough,andinclude theimmenselydiversesocioeconomicandgeographicalcharacteristicsofthatamorphousunorganizedborough. (iii) INTRODUCTION In all of Alaska’s 18 organized boroughs,2 public school administration is an “areawide” municipalfunctionperformedbytheboroughgovernment.iiInallofthe16homeruleandfirstclass Alaska cities located outside organized boroughs,3 publicschooladministrationisafunctionofthose iii At least seven regions of citygovernments. this huge remnant qualify Together these 34 political subdivisions fully in resources, comprise what is known as “the municipal school revenue-potential and districts”inAlaska.Someareaffluentmetropolitan communities enjoying diverse, robust economies economic prosperity to and strong local tax bases. Others are rural and become organized remote, economically distressed boroughs and boroughs. citieswithfewjobopportunities,weakornocash economies,andadearthoftaxableproperties. A huge, diverse and irregular remnant of the State of Alaska – the entire area outside of organizedboroughs–isknowninahaphazardandindiscriminatelysingularfashionas“theunorganized borough.”4Itencompasses373,268squaremiles,56%ofAlaska.Itrangesfromthesouthernmosttipof theState(DallIslandandnearbyPrinceofWalesIsland)topointsabovetheArcticCircle,andfromthe easternborderwithCanada(Tok)tothewesternmostAleutianIslandsthatbendtheInternationalDate Line.ItisfourtimeslargerthanAlaska’slargestorganizedborough,anditis23timeslargerthanthe averageorganizedborough.ItislargerthanthecountriesofFranceandGermanycombined. At least seven regions of this huge remnant qualify fully in resources, revenuepotential and economicprosperitytobecomeorganizedboroughs.Otherregionsofthisrandomresiduumcalled“the 2 Aleutians EastBorough, Bristol Bay Borough, City and Borough of Juneau, City and Borough of Sitka, City and Borough of Wrangell, City and Borough of Yakutat, Denali Borough, Fairbanks North Star Borough, Haines Borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Kodiak Island Borough, Lake and Peninsula Borough, MatanuskaSusitna Borough, MunicipalityofAnchorage,MunicipalityofSkagway,NorthSlopeBorough,NorthwestArcticBorough. 3 Cordova, Craig, Dillingham, Galena, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Kake, Klawock, Nenana, Nome, Pelican, Petersburg, Saint Mary’s, Tanana,Unalaska,Valdez. 4AS29.03.010ensuresthatthe“singleunorganizedborough”willalwaysbeanarbitraryremnant,becauseitcanneverbe more or less than the “[a]reas of the state that are not within the boundaries of an organized borough….” Since its 1961 enactment,AS29.03.010existsindirectcontradictionoftheconstitutionalmandateinArt.X,§6forlegislativeadministration of a plural number of unorganized “boroughs,” according to Art. X, §3 commonalities of geographic, socioeconomic and transportationinterests.REAAswereindeedcreatedassubdivisionsoftheunorganizedboroughbythelegislature,butfor purposesoftherequiredlocalcontributiontopubliceducationthesesubdivisionsexistonlyproforma.Thatlocalcontribution
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Local Government Primer
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRIMER Alaska Municipal League Alaskan Local Government Primer Alaska Municipal League The Alaska Municipal League (AML) is a voluntary, Table of Contents nonprofit, nonpartisan, statewide organization of 163 cities, boroughs, and unified municipalities, Purpose of Primer............ Page 3 representing over 97 percent of Alaska's residents. Originally organized in 1950, the League of Alaska Cities............................Pages 4-5 Cities became the Alaska Municipal League in 1962 when boroughs joined the League. Boroughs......................Pages 6-9 The mission of the Alaska Municipal League is to: Senior Tax Exemption......Page 10 1. Represent the unified voice of Alaska's local Revenue Sharing.............Page 11 governments to successfully influence state and federal decision making. 2. Build consensus and partnerships to address Alaska's Challenges, and Important Local Government Facts: 3. Provide training and joint services to strengthen ♦ Mill rates are calculated by directing the Alaska's local governments. governing body to determine the budget requirements and identifying all revenue sources. Alaska Conference of Mayors After the budget amount is reduced by subtracting revenue sources, the residual is the amount ACoM is the parent organization of the Alaska Mu- required to be raised by the property tax.That nicipal League. The ACoM and AML work together amount is divided by the total assessed value and to form a municipal consensus on statewide and the result is identified as a “mill rate”. A “mill” is federal issues facing Alaskan local governments. 1/1000 of a dollar, so the mill rate simply states the amount of tax to be charged per $1,000 of The purpose of the Alaska Conference of Mayors assessed value.
    [Show full text]
  • The North Slope Borough, Oil, and the Future of Local Government in Alaska
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 1973 The North Slope Borough, Oil, and the Future of Local Government in Alaska David H. Getches University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Legal History Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Taxation-State and Local Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Citation Information David H. Getches, The North Slope Borough, Oil, and the Future of Local Government in Alaska, 3 UCLA- ALASKA L. REV. 55 (1973), available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1127. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Originally published as David H. Getches, North Slope Borough, Oil, and the Future of Local Government in Alaska, 3 UCLA-ALASKA L. REV. 55 (1973). Reprinted with permission of William S. Hein & Co., Inc., and the David H. Getches family. +(,1 2 1/,1( Citation: 3 UCLA Alaska L.
    [Show full text]
  • SENATE CRA COMMITTEE -1- May 7, 2003 ALASKA STATE
    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE May 7, 2003 1:38 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Thomas Wagoner, Chair Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chair Senator Gary Stevens Senator Georgianna Lincoln Senator Kim Elton MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 12 Requesting the Local Boundary Commission to consider borough incorporation for certain unorganized areas. HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS ACTION No previous action to record. WITNESS REGISTER Senator Gary Wilken Alaska State Capitol, Room 518 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor SCR 12 Darroll Hargraves Chair, Local Boundary Commission Department of Community & Economic Development 550 West Seventh Avenue, Suite Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3510 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Kathie Wasserman Pelican, AK 99832 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Bob Ward SENATE CRA COMMITTEE -1- May 7, 2003 Skagway, AK 99840 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Keith Bettridge Hoonah City Administration Hoonah, AK 99829 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Carl Crosman HC 60 Box 306T Copper Center, AK 99573 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Roger Lewis Tenakee Springs, AK 99841 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Terry Kennedy Tenakee Springs, AK 99841 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Galen Atwater HC 72 Box 7190 Delta Junction, AK 99737 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Daniel Boone Box 53 Chitina, AK 99566 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 12 Allen Minish Box 118 Chitina,
    [Show full text]
  • Realities of Relocation for Alaska Native Villages
    CLIMATE CHANGE: REALITIES OF RELOCATION FOR ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES Introduction As temperatures across the Arctic rise at twice the global average, the impacts of climate change in Alaska are already being felt (IPCC 2007). Warming temperatures exacerbate problems of permafrost erosion, flooding, and melting ice barriers, making an already unpredictable environment even more volatile (GAO 2004). Alaska Natives are among the most impacted in this region, and, according to the Government Accountability Office (2004), flooding and erosion affects 86% of Alaska Native villages to some extent. As a consequence of the changing living conditions, Alaska Native communities are being forced to relocate their homes in what is called the first wave of U.S. climate refugees (Sakakibara 2010), reflecting the war‐like effects of climate change. However, relocating is a culturally damaging, expensive, and politically complex process that only a few villages have begun. While a small number of Alaska Native communities are considering relocation, the situation continues to worsen: in a 2004 report, the GAO reported that flooding and erosion imminently threatened four villages. By 2009, that number had risen to thirty‐one villages. Understanding Relocation Extreme weather in Alaska is not a new phenomenon, and Alaska Natives are accustomed to adapting to its effects. Traditionally, many communities would adapt to the seasonal variability by migrating between hunting grounds throughout the year. However, beginning around the turn of the 20th century, Alaska Natives were forced to settle by the U.S. government, creating a dependence on the immediate area and subsequent vulnerability to events like erosion and flooding (MOVE 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-09-551 Alaska Native Villages
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters GAO June 2009 ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion GAO-09-551 June 2009 Accountability Integrity Reliability ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES Highlights Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating Highlights of GAO-09-551, a report to Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found In December 2003, GAO reported While the flooding and erosion threats to Alaska Native villages have not been that most of Alaska’s more than completely assessed, since 2003, federal, state, and village officials have 200 Native villages were affected to identified 31 villages that face imminent threats. The U.S. Army Corps of some degree by flooding and Engineers’ (Corps) March 2009 Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment erosion (GAO-04-142). Since 2003, identified many villages threatened by erosion, but did not assess flooding state officials have identified the growing impacts of climate change, impacts. At least 12 of the 31 threatened villages have decided to relocate—in increasing the urgency of federal part or entirely—or to explore relocation options. and state efforts to identify imminently threatened villages and Federal programs to assist threatened villages prepare for and recover from assess their relocation options. disasters and to protect and relocate them are limited and unavailable to some GAO was asked to report on (1) the villages. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has several disaster flooding and erosion threats that preparedness and recovery programs, but villages often fail to qualify for Alaska Native villages currently them, generally because they may lack approved disaster mitigation plans or face, (2) the federal programs that have not been declared federal disaster areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Issues in the Unorganized Areas of Northern Ontario
    ISSUES IN THE UNORGANIZED AREAS OF NORTHERN ONTARIO Dean J. Nickerson 6368187 Public Administration 931 25 August 1992 1 On a national level, there is a widespread tendency to view Ontario as a homogenous whole of big Toronto-like cities, industries and big business centres. In other words, the province tends to exhibit a powerful image as the nation's heartland and decision-making centre, an image that has often raised the ire of other regions. However, picturing Ontario as one giant suburb of Toronto or as the 401 corridor is a gross simplification of the overall character of the entire province. The industries, people and power so often seen as the defining character of Ontario is actually present mainly in the south. The remainder, northern Ontario, is a region vastly different in many respects. In addition to the dichotomies in economic base, population, settlement patterns and physical geography, some important differences also exist in the characteristics of local government. One of the most important of these is the presence of vast areas that effectively have no local government at all. Such a situation does not exist in the south, where residents are governed through the good offices of townships and counties (and their successors) established in the last century. These areas without local government, generally known as unorganized or unincorporated areas (both terms are used here) provide an interesting and often unexplored topic of study, one that this work will attempt to examine. More specifically, the unorganized areas will be looked at from the perspective of a source of difficulty for the province of Ontario.
    [Show full text]
  • ALASKA and Nonprofit Affairs of Alaska Natives
    ALASKA and nonprofit affairs of Alaska Natives. They Alaska ranks 48th among the states in number were established under a federal law, the of local governments, with 177 active as of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. There are October 2007. 12 regional corporations that cover the entire state, except for Annette Islands Reserve, BOROUGH GOVERNMENTS (14) which is an American Indian reservation. A thirteenth regional corporation was established The borough governments in Alaska resemble for Alaska Natives who are not permanent county governments in other states. However, residents of the state and who have not the borough governments do not encompass enrolled in one of the other 12 regional the entire area of the state. The following areas corporations. These corporate entities are not of the state are located outside the areas counted as governments for census purposes. served by borough governments: Alaska Native Villages are tribes, bands, clans, Areas served by consolidated city-borough groups, villages, communities, or associations governments in Alaska that are recognized under the Alaska Areas within the "unorganized borough" Native Claims Settlement Act. Alaska Native Villages do not cross Alaska Native Regional There are three consolidated city-borough Corporation boundaries. These entities are not governments in Alaska: Anchorage, Juneau, counted as governments for census purposes. and Sitka. These three governments are counted for census reporting as municipal SUBBOROUGH GENERAL PURPOSE governments rather than as borough GOVERNMENTS (148) governments. Alaska statutes treat all areas of the state outside the boundaries of organized Municipal Governments (148) borough or consolidated city-borough governments as a single "unorganized The term "municipality," as defined for census borough." statistics on governments, applies only to the cities in Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a County Codes
    SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2021 Appendix A County Codes Appendix A: County Codes SEER Program Coding and Staging Manual 2021 Appendix A lists the valid county codes for coding county of residence at diagnosis for SEER states and regions. Reference: United States Census Bureau. Technical Documentation https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/technical-documentation/county-changes.html https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/2019/demo/popest/2019-fips.html In alphabetical order by name of SEER state or region large geographically to provide a suitable basis for data Alaska (AK) Native Americans – analysis, the State of Alaska and the Bureau of the Census SEER Area have divided it into “census areas” for statistical purposes. The census areas are identified in the list by “(CA)” The following is a complete list of all current following the name. Data systems that use the unorganized borough may code it as 999. Changes since the 1980s: Alaska county equivalents where (B) identifies a Aleutian Islands (CA) (010) was replaced by Aleutians East borough or municipality and (CA) identifies a (1978 October 23) and Aleutians West (CA) (1990 January census area) 1); Kobuk (CA) (140) was replaced by Northwest Arctic (1986 June 2); Lake and Peninsula was established from part of Dillingham (CA) (1989 April 24). Wrangell City and Code County Borough (02-275) was created from part of the former 013* Aleutians East (B) Wrangell-Petersburg CA (02-280) and part of Prince of 016 Aleutians West (CA) Wales-Outer Ketchikan CA (02-201) (Meyers Chuck area) 020* Anchorage (B) (2008 June 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Ontario Early Years Child and Family Centre Plan
    Manitoulin-Sudbury District Services Board Ontario Early Years Child and Family Centres (OEYCFC) OEYCFC Plan and Local Needs Assessment Summary 2017 Geographic Distinction Reference The catchment area of the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Services Board (Manitoulin- Sudbury DSB) includes 38 communities, towns and villages and covers a distance that spans over 42,542 square kilometres. The communities, towns and villages are represented by 18 municipal jurisdictions and 2 unorganized areas, Sudbury Unorganized North Part and Manitoulin Unorganized West Part. The catchment area of the Manitoulin- Sudbury DSB is a provincially designated area for the purposes of the delivery of social services. The municipalities represented by the Manitoulin-Sudbury DSB are: Baldwin, Espanola, Nairn and Hyman, Sables-Spanish River, Assiginack, Billings, Burpee and Mills, Central Manitoulin, Cockburn Island, Gordon/Barrie Island, Gore Bay, Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands, Tehkummah, French River, Killarney, Markstay- Warren, St. Charles and Chapleau. The municipalities in the Manitoulin-Sudbury DSB catchment area are commonly grouped into four main areas or regions, known as LaCloche, Manitoulin Island, Sudbury East and Sudbury North. The Manitoulin-Sudbury DSB catchment area does not include First Nations territories. Data for this report has been derived, for the most part, from Statistics Canada. We have used the most recent data (2016) whenever possible and have used 2011 data where the 2016 data is not yet available. From a Statistics Canada perspective, data for the catchment area of the Manitoulin-Sudbury DSB falls within two Census Divisions, Manitoulin District and Sudbury District. Manitoulin District and Sudbury District Census Divisions: The Manitoulin District – otherwise known as Manitoulin Island – includes 10 census subdivisions containing 14 communities, town and villages, and one unorganized territory.
    [Show full text]
  • November 11, 2020 Assembly Meeting Minutes
    1 Denali Borough Assembly 2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting 3 Virtual Meeting 4 November 11, 2020 5 6 WORK SESSION 7 ORDINANCE 20-15: LOCAL OPTION ZONING 8 Presiding Officer Jared ZIMMERMAN called the work session to order at 6:05 PM. 9 10 The following concerns regarding Ordinance 20-15 were discussed during the work session: 11 • Providing flexibility for local option zoning districts to select more than one zoning 12 category. 13 • Ensure that due process for landowners is protected during any local option zoning 14 district formation process. 15 • Clarify protection for existing land uses after local option zoning district formation. 16 17 Presiding Officer Jared ZIMMERMAN adjourned the work session at 7:11 PM. 18 19 PUBLIC HEARING 20 Presiding Officer Jared ZIMMERMAN called the public hearing to order at 7:11 PM. 21 22 ORDINANCE 20-03: BASELINE ADDRESSING SYSTEM 23 McKinley Village area resident Steve Jones encouraged the assembly to make a decision 24 on a system of addressing expressing that any system of addressing is better than having 25 no addressing in our borough. 26 27 Panguingue Creek area resident Susan Braun expressed support for the Baseline 28 Addressing system stating that the baseline system will be easier for future generations to 29 maintain. 30 31 ORDINANCE 20-15: LOCAL OPTION ZONING 32 There were no comments. 33 34 ORDINANCE 20-18: BISON GULCH/ANTLER CREEK EASEMENT REQUEST 35 There were no comments. 36 37 ORDINANCE 20-19: CENTER FOR TECH AND CIVIC LIFE COVID RESPONSE FOR 38 ELECTIONS GRANT Denali Borough Assembly Page 1 of 6 Minutes of the Regular Meeting November 11, 2020 Page 1 of 14 1 There were no comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Municipal League Alaskan Local Government Primer 2019 Toolkit Page 80 of 134 Alaska Municipal League
    2019 Toolkit Page 36 of 134 How to Run for Local Office The Job - _... .. ... _, ,- -'?;o_,.-'<.........-~......_~~-, - ,,. ,, • •' ~ ~ • '' , ' ,; ' , .••.. •' ,.. ,•, - 2019 Toolkit Page 37 of 134 A Citizen’s Guide to City and Borough of Juneau Government What is CBJ? Article 10 of the Alaska State Constitutions, Section 1 states in part: “The purpose of this article is to provide for maximum local self-government with a minimum of local government units, and to prevent duplication of tax-levying jurisdictions” In 1970, the voters of the City of Juneau, the City of Douglas, and the Greater Juneau Borough voted to dissolve their respective governments and created the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ), a “Home Rule Municipality.” At that time, the voters adopted a Charter, which is similar to a local constitution. The Charter outlines the powers, organization, and procedures of the municipality, and is implemented through locally adopted ordinances, which become the Municipal Code. The state constitution provides that home rule municipalities may exercise all legislative powers not prohibited by law or by charter. The limits to the power CBJ is able to exercise are found in Alaska Statute 29.10.200. Any changes to the Charter must be approved by the voters in a municipal election. What is the role of the Assembly? The Assembly is the governing body of the municipality. The Assembly has the legislative and policy-making powers of the municipality and ensures that all duties and obligations of the Charter are met. The Assembly sets the policy direction for the Manager and staff to enact, as CBJ has a "City Manager" form of government.
    [Show full text]
  • Download 2021 Resolutions
    2021 Resolutions Passed by AML Membership on November 20, 2020 Alaska Municipal League Resolution #2019-01 A resolution in support of the development of a Community Dividend. WHEREAS, community revenue sharing began in 1969 to help ease fiscal problems facing local governments, stabilize or reduce local property taxes, encourage local provision of public services, and stabilize local budgets and planning; and WHEREAS, revenue sharing has undergone significant and dramatic changes since 1969, leading to a situation in 2004 where all revenue sharing programs were proposed for elimination after years of reductions, which corresponded to increased property taxes , elimination of municipal services, and reduced capacity; and WHEREAS, the State of Alaska exempts itself from local taxes even though it uses local services and approximately $1.4 billion (2017) in property taxes are paid by local taxpayers to subsidize State operations; and WHEREAS, the Alaska Municipal League has been firm in its advocacy for the absolute necessity of a form of and enough revenue sharing that strengthens the capacity of municipal governments, alleviates the need for higher local taxes, and bolsters the delivery of public services; and WHEREAS, the recent fiscal crisis experienced by the State of Alaska made apparent the reality of cost-shifting to municipalities and the potential for State reductions to municipal budgets, particularly in the form of reduced or eliminated revenue sharing; and, WHEREAS, uncertainty at the State level – due either to limits to annual
    [Show full text]