 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
HALO v. ANCHORAGE11/22/1996
larified the problem that the Assembly was to address. That memorandum noted that " he exclusion of the Hillside [from APSA] has continued to cause division between the Hillside and the rest of the Municipality since the burden of funding public safety falls inequitably on the . . . people who do not live on the Hillside." The memorandum explained that " olice protection services are comprised of two major elements: police neighborhood patrol and `safe city' functions. . . . Although the Hillside area does not receive police neighborhood patrol from the Anchorage Police Department, Hillside residents nonetheless receive the benefits of police protection services when traveling, shopping, working and availing themselves of the cultural and recreational facilities in [APSA]." The memorandum concluded that " redistribution of the cost of police protection services is not only fair and equitable but provides a just and sound method of payment for public safety."
The Assembly also received a memorandum prepared by the Budget Director on January 23, 1996 that discussed the December proposal. That memorandum highlighted the Hillside police problem and outlined the effects of taxing Hillside residents for police services. It noted that Hillside residents benefitted from safe city functions funded by residents of APSA. It stated that " ince Hillside residents are not paying for the police protection benefits that they receive, the taxpayers living within [APSA] are paying higher property taxes than they should." In conclusion, the memorandum recommended that the Assembly adopt an ordinance that would "provide a mechanism for Hillside residents to pay their share of the Safe City function costs."
The January 23 memorandum was accompanied by a "Summary of Economic Effects" of the December proposal. The summary reiterated the perceived inequitable benefit received by residents of the Hillside as roughly equal to six percent of APSA's budget from property taxes. The summary also estimated that if Hillside residents were taxed according to the benefit they receive from the APD's safe city functions, the tax rate for residents of APSA would fall. Finally, the summary noted that the total cost for police service would not vary; the only change would be that $2.2 million of the cost of safe city functions would be shifted to Hillside residents.
A second Assembly proposal, which was discussed on January 2, 1996, reiterated the Assembly's conclusion that it needed to resolve the Hillside police issue "to more fairly distribute the burden of payment for safe city functions of police protection services."
We infer from these documents that when the Assembly adopted AO 96-30(S), it had concluded that APSA would be subject to "significant change" in the cost of delivering service to it. Like all of the other proposals considered by the Assembly, AO 96-30(S) shifted to Hillside residents a proportionate share of the cost of APD's safe city functions. As a result, the Assembly's prior determinations relating to APD's safe city functions were relevant to AO 96-30(S). In prior documents,
the Assembly had already determined that the failure to tax Hillside residents proportionately for the APD's safe city functions negatively impacted residents of APSA. It had also already determined that charging the Hillside for its share of the safe city functions would reduce the cost of providing police service to APSA residents. Indeed, it was aware that, although the total cost for providing service to APSA and the Hillside would not change, the cost of serving APSA would drop by approximately $2.2 million.
We note that AMC 27.10.010(A) states that an area is "affected" if the Asse
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.
|
|