Heidi Gantwerk September 15, 2010 Anchorage Community Conversations: Bringing the Public to the...
-
Upload
arron-stevens -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Heidi Gantwerk September 15, 2010 Anchorage Community Conversations: Bringing the Public to the...
Heidi GantwerkSeptember 15, 2010
Anchorage Community Conversations:Bringing the Public to the Table
2
Overview
Introduction
Key findings
Implications for leaders Bringing the
public to the table
Key recommendations
3
Introduction
Conveners: University of Alaska Anchorage
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce
Commonwealth North
Eagle River Chamber of Commerce
Funded by: Rasmuson Foundation
Northrim Bank
First National Bank of Alaska
Municipality of Anchorage
4
Introduction
Four Community Conversations with about 350 Anchorage residents One group invited, others open to the public
Every zip code but 1 represented
Somewhat older, wealthier than general population, with fewer minorities
Great diversity of opinions and perspectives coming in
5
Service levels and choices
Discussion 1: The future we want for Anchorage Choice #1: Reduce services and keep taxes low
Choice #2: Tax to the cap to maintain services
Choice #3: Increase taxes to improve Anchorage services
Discussion 2: Choices to balance the budget Potential service cuts
Potential sources of revenue
6
KEY FINDINGS
ANCHORAGE COMMUNITY CONVERSATION
7
KEY FINDINGS:
Core Values
Love of Anchorage and Alaska
Ethic of mutual responsibility
General sense that officials mean well
Deep frustration with government inefficiency
Limited awareness of steps taken to address inefficiencies and reduce costs
These core values shaped participants’ response to the choices and tradeoffs
8
KEY FINDINGS:
Participants reframed the three choices
Our top priorities: Avoid cuts
Make efficiency gains
Only then (and only if necessary) increase taxes
If tax increases are necessary, we do NOT support increasing property taxes (but we are open to considering some other taxes)
9
KEY FINDINGS:
Services/Spending
We don’t want large service cuts – instead address inefficiencies
If cuts must be made, focus on the places where we see greatest inefficiency and largest budgets: Administrative/support services Maintenance/operations Police
We want to maintain (and if possible expand) essential services: Fire protection Police Public transportation Health and Human Services
10
KEY FINDINGS:
Revenues
We are generally willing to raise taxes if it is necessary to maintain essential services – IF efficiency comes first 66% generally willing (57% when asked about specific
amounts)
This increase should NOT come in the form of higher property taxes! 62% oppose increase in property taxes
73% want more diversified tax base (even if total receipts stay same); only 24% want to stay with current property tax-based system
11
KEY FINDINGS:
Revenues
Responses to specific revenue options:
Alcohol excise tax: strong support, little opposition
Sales tax (year-round or seasonal): some support but also strong opposition
Increased user fees & fines: mixed support and opposition
Increased property taxes: strong opposition
We prefer to tax what people do… (e.g. buy alcohol, rent facilities, run red lights)
…Rather than what they have (e.g. property tax)
12
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECISION-MAKERS
13
Recommendations
Priorities for engaging the public and addressing the budget:
Identify and address inefficiencies, and create systems to prevent them from recurring
» Some significant, some powerfully symbolic
» Information alone cannot address – need active two-way communication and a sense of public ownership
Develop a broader, longer term vision
Acknowledge and address the school district budget
Go beyond the “usual suspects”
14
Recommendations
Create and tell the story: A new era of efficiency and accountability
What gains have already been made
Incentives to improve departmental efficiency
Ongoing reporting about improvements, how public input is making a difference
Only in combination with these steps can a discussion of raising revenues begin
15
Bringing the Public to the Table
Opportunity exists to engage public in designing and implementing solutions
Conversations are a starting point: a window of opportunity
Feedback was positive: people found sessions helpful, said they impacted their thinking
Chance to start ongoing conversation about efficiency and good government
Residents eager to engage and ready to face tough choices