 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
HALO v. ANCHORAGE11/22/1996
SA residents are "paying higher property taxes than they should" because Hillside does not pay for safe city functions. Slip Op. at 737. This is a statement in the introduction of a memo from the Mayor on
one of the failed proposals. The memorandum highlights again the concern of the Mayor — Hillside residents are getting subsidized police service when they come into the city. This memorandum does not support a finding of significant change in the delivery of service to residents of APSA.
The fourth item relied on by the court is the attachment to the memorandum from the Mayor. Slip Op. at 737. This "Summary of Economic Effects" again reiterates the benefits accruing to Hillside residents. It uses the mill rate on APSA residents to determine the tax rate for the area annexed. It does not support the court's inference.
Finally, the court cites a memorandum on another failed proposal which again discusses the fairness of taxing Hillside area residents. Slip Op. at 737. The court offers no indication of how this memorandum supports a finding of significant change.
From these five documents the court infers that the Assembly concluded "that APSA would be subject to `significant change' in the cost of delivering service to it." Slip Op. at 737. This is despite the fact that not one of these documents indicates that there will be any change in the cost of delivering service to APSA. And not one of these documents addressed AO 96-30(S).
IV. NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
Even if we once again assume the court is correct, and the Assembly determined by inference that there would be a significant change, that finding would be arbitrary. The proposed area affected is two discrete areas, one of which (APSA) now pays for services, the other of which (the area annexed) does not. The MOA asserts that the significant change in APSA is an approximate $40 reduction in annual property taxes per $180,000 of assessed property valuation. This is a tax reduction that may never be implemented. The $2.2 million cost of police protection allocated in the budget to the area annexed for "safe city" functions amounts to less than 6% of the police budget from real property taxes ($36,707,440), and less than 4.7% of the entire police budget ($42,713,100). The mill rate in APSA would be reduced from 3.62 to 3.40, while the mill rate in the area annexed would increase from 0.00 to 1.70. The only significant change that is apparent is that which befalls citizens of the area annexed.
Apparently the court agrees that a speculative $40 reduction in property taxes in APSA is not a significant change. Instead, the court looks to the shifting of the tax burden from APSA to the area annexed, finding that the $2.2 million shift is enough to be significant, despite the fact that no taxes may be reduced in APSA in fact. Slip Op. at 738. However, AO 96-30(S) is intended to leave the police budget unchanged, and the quality and quantity of service unchanged. All that will change is that the cost of police service will be more "equitably" shared by increasing the tax base.
One Assembly member, in an affidavit, explained the discussions held prior to the passage of AO 96-30(S): ". . . the discussion among Assembly members and with the Mayor concentrated on how to find more money to pay ongoing costs of police overhead, whether Hillside residents should pay for police protection, and various political means of expanding police service to the Hillside without a separate Hillside vote of its residents."
The court stresses the benefit Hillside residents obtain from the Anchorage Police Department, including emergency services and investigation of major crimes
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|