SitNews - Stories in the News - Ketchikan, Alaska


Better management leads to lower taxes
By Rodney Dial


April 28, 2010
Wednesday PM

Mr. Harrington, I am going to assume that your letter and assumption that taxes in Ketchikan would somehow be lower if we consolidated a simple attempt to goat me into writing a three page letter on why you are wrong. I will make that assumption because the only alternative is simply that you as a government official are attempting to mislead the public.

This debate was solved quite succinctly and finally mere days after the FIFTH no consolidation vote by the State of Alaska Department of Revenue, when they advised the borough if consolidation had passed we (borough) would have lost approximately 2.2 million yearly in CST funds.

When you consider that the best case estimates of savings due to consolidation were 500k (your numbers), consolidation would have put us in the red by at least 1.7 million per year. This amount of course, also left out all the increases DUE TO consolidation, and the risks of service shifting by the state which have cost other communities that consolidated millions yearly.

As I am sure you remember I warned the commission and you, that this was a real threat prior to the vote. Your response was much like House Speaker Pelosi's during the recently passed health care legislation.e.g. "We (Gov. Officials) know better than you, and you will appreciate it when it is passed".

Well siras was PROVEN by the State, you were wrong and that is an undisputable fact. Although the CST funds have limitations on use, you (local Gov) have been quite creative in using the money to offset GF spending for items such as airport ferry operations. The bottom line is that Ketchikan would be a far more expensive place if consolidation PASSED.

During the consolidation fight I always felt that those of us against this had the high ground because you (supporters) were unwilling to admit the true reason government has tried so many times to push this issue.

You know it, as do the majority who voted against this. This was always been about transforming two tax districts, e.g. borough and city, into one. Those living outside the city would experience a massive tax increase, while those in the city would (hopefully) experience a slight decline. Digging through hundreds of pages of documents on this issue you see the belief of people like you that those living outside the city don't pay their fair share of the cost of community services.

Unfortunately what you failed to understand was that those living outside the city made a choice to live without, and subsequently not pay for the level of services provided in the city, e.g. 24 hr Fire, L.E. Road service, water, sewer, etc. You (borough) already tax non city residents for other community services such as the library.

Consolidation would have led to massive increases in local government and services. Troopers would have eventually been replaced with new City Police Officers, volunteer fire services would have been replaced by full time employees, road services would have been transferred from the State to the new municipality, City building codes would have been extended into the former borough, resulting additional city workers for building inspectors, etc. How do I know this? Because it happened in Juneau, Sitka and many other communities.

The consolidation commission's attempts to limit this liability by requiring service district approval in no way bound the state or new municipality to any course of action. Further, case law clearly indicated that a municipality may, without a vote, EXTEND a service district (vs. creating a new one) at their discretion (e.g. City of Anchorage vs. Hillside homeowners association).

I would also remind you that in the consolidation document the City of Ketchikan refused to agree to limit future tax increases to only those approved by a vote of the public. A newly consolidated government could have raised SALES taxes at any time without a vote. Currently IN THE BOROUGH a vote IS REQUIRED before a SALES TAX increase. If consolidation was going to save us so much money then why wouldn't the city agree to thishmm?

Consolidation would make former borough citizens, now paying significantly higher taxes, demand the same level of services enjoyed by city residents, resulting in expanded governmental programs such as island wide bus service, etc. Perhaps you should ask the folks on Shoreline if they got their money's worth when they were incorporated into the city and their property taxes were doubled.

In the end everyone's taxes would have gone up, just as they have in EVERY other community that has consolidated. This is the prime reason that citizens of the Mat-Su and Fairbanks North Star Boroughs have rejected similar measures.

Your math sir was much like (unfortunately) our federal governments pay double to save half, or less.

BTW both Sitka and Juneau experienced massive increases in spending when the boroughs and city's unified. You must have accidentally left that part out of your letter. If you like I can forward a copy of the Juneau Government Report documenting this factI believe I still have a copy from the consolidation fight.

The reason that Sitka and Juneau have lower tax rates is due to better management, not consolidation. Need I remind you of.

Veneer Mill
Berth III design and construction mistakes (on going)
Berth IV 100 Million dollar contract,
1.2 million dollar library plans (now obsolete)
9.5 million dollar Whitecliff liability
Etc (I could go on for pages)


Perhaps in my next letter I will add a few pictures of the annual party you (government) throw for the people of Juneau. You know the one where Ketchikan tax payers rent the entire Prospector Restaurant in downtown Juneau and provide free catered food and alcohol for anyone in Juneau who shows up? (true). I saw quite a few people getting drunk on my tax dime this year, would have been nice if they at least said thank you.

If it were not for the prohibition placed on me by my current job prohibiting me from holding elected office I would challenge you in the next election, and provide representation for the people who pay taxes, as you seem to have little desire to do so.

When you wonder why people have so little faith in their government may I suggest that you read your letter and think about what you wrote.


Rodney Dial
Ketchikan, AK

ps: I intend to live in Ketchikan for the rest of my life and will fight any future consolidation attempt with every fiber of my being, so bring in on!

Received April 28, 2010 - Published April 28, 2010


Related Viewpoint:

letterHigh taxes in Ketchikan By John Harrington

Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:

letter Webmail Your Opinion Letter to the Editor



Note: Comments published on Viewpoints are the opinions of the writer
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.


E-mail your letters & opinions to
Your full name, city and state are required for letter publication.

SitNews ©2010
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska