Most people view the Anchorage tax cap in the same way they view their own liver -- they don't know every little detail of how it performs its duty, but they are damn glad it is in place and functioning. It is, therefore, with some trepidation that I wish to respond to my colleague Patrick Flynn's commentary, printed Friday in Alaska Dispatch News, denouncing my tax cap protection proposal as "flawed." To fully appreciate the dispute between Mr. Flynn and myself there are really only two components that need be understood, one substantive, the other procedural.
With respect to the substantive issue, put very simply, there are two competing philosophies on the Assembly concerning the tax cap. For the sake of clarity let's just refer to them as the Flynn plan and the Evans plan. The difference between the plans is how they deal with reductions in state revenue sharing. The Flynn plan allows the municipality to increase local property taxes to compensate for reduced state funding. In other words, municipal government could be made whole for any lost state revenue by ... well ... you. The Evans plan prevents the municipality from backfilling lost state revenue with local property taxes.
Despite Mr. Flynn's assertions, neither plan is "flawed." The Flynn plan does indeed protect future funding of municipal services against a downturn in state funding. It spares local officials from the dread prospect of having to find efficiencies or lower expenses. The Evans plan, in contrast, actually embraces the constraining nature of the tax cap as a creative force that pushes local officials to think innovatively regarding the provision of government services. It is purposefully designed to prevent local officials from simply choosing the path of least resistance and raising property taxes in order to continue doing the same things in the same manner.
Equal in importance to the substantive issue is the question of how this matter should be handled procedurally. Is this an issue that should be decided by the Assembly, or should it be enshrined in the charter and thus protected from the ebbs and flows of Assembly politics? It should be known that in 2011 the Assembly voted unanimously to place the Evans plan in municipal code (yes, even Mr. Flynn voted in favor of the supposedly "flawed" plan). Placing it in code instead of the charter, however, allowed the possibility of a future Assembly, with a different political worldview, to subsequently change the calculation. That is precisely what occurred a little more than a month ago when the current Assembly changed the tax cap formula from the Evans plan to the Flynn plan. (This singular change allows the municipality to collect $1.6 million more in property taxes this coming year than would otherwise be lawful.)
On Jan. 12, 2016, the Assembly will hold a public hearing on my proposal to place this tax cap issue on the ballot in April and to enshrine the calculation method securely in the charter where it belongs, free from the thrust and counter of day-to-day politics. It will require the vote of eight Assembly members to place this issue on the ballot. Accordingly, some members who personally favor the Flynn plan will, therefore, have to be willing to put aside their personal preference and allow the ultimate decision to be made by the people of Anchorage. In order to protect the purpose and intent of the tax cap, hopefully they will do so.
Bill Evans has represented South Anchorage on the Assembly since 2014. He has been practicing labor and employment law for more than 20 years.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com.