1. Heidi Gantwerk September 15, 2010 Anchorage Community Conversations: Bringing the Public to the Table

2. 2 Overview Introduction Key findings Implications for leaders  Bringing the public to the table  Key recommendations

3. 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. 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. 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. 6 KEY FINDINGS ANCHORAGE COMMUNITY CONVERSATION

7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 12 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECISION-MAKERS

13. 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. 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. 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