Top Jobs View all 3 Top Jobs   Go to Employment   Daily News job openings

People who are complaining about the proposed fire hydrant tax apparently don't know much about the city's tax cap.

The proposal, which the Assembly is supposed to take up tonight, is to increase property taxes enough to repay the water utility for maintaining fire hydrants. That, in turn, would free up money for the Fire Department to spend on other things, mostly paying firefighters who would otherwise be laid off.

This has been criticized for the usual reasons. People don't want to pay more for firefighters. They want their elected representatives to whack the city's Department of Fraud and Waste, or cut out unnecessary programs, "unnecessary" meaning programs they don't use themselves.

But one complaint is that the proposal is an end run around the city's tax cap.

That's just wrong.

The tax cap has been with us for 20 years, long enough to warp city policies and to have myths grow up around it like weeds. Here's the real history.

The cap was dreamed up by the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce and, believe it or not, the Anchorage Women's Club. The cap's leading advocates were two people who no longer live here, Millett Keller and Linda Rexwinkle. It won by fewer than 5,000 votes in an election in which fewer than 30,000 people voted.

The tax cap limits increases in annual city tax collection to inflation plus population growth, with some exceptions. The cap does not apply to money from taxes on new construction or improvements. It does not apply to taxes levied to pay judgments against the city or to pay off bonds. And it does not apply to taxes needed for services or facilities approved by the voters.

So the proposal to vote on a tax increase to pay for fire hydrant maintenance is not an end run. It's just a way to take advantage of the rules.

Not the only way that's been found, either. The fact is, the tax cap is a barrier to good government in several ways, and could easily end up costing property tax payers more in the long run. Consider.

One way to limit the bite on property tax payers is another source of tax revenue. But no elected official has any incentive to suggest, say, a sales tax, because if it passed that money would fall under the cap, too. The result would simply shift some of the burden from property owners to consumers, without providing an extra dime.

The exemption for bond issues means that public officials favor new buildings over maintaining current buildings. That's clearly what happened in the school district, where maintenance money was used for operating costs. Schools fell apart, new ones were put before the voters, and the money to maintain them was included in the bond. That process provided more money to pay for operations all along the line.

The exemption for revenue from new construction means that any elected official has a bias in favor of new buildings. New buildings raise the cap. Maybe that's why big box stores and plywood hotels have sprouted like mushrooms all over town.

The same exemption leads city lawmakers to favor a new convention center. Here's how that works.

Increasing the 8 percent hotel-motel bed tax to 12 percent would bring in $5 million or more. In theory, lawmakers could ask voters to approve the increase and use the money to pay for government. In fact, they won't do that because they think the tourism industry will oppose the increase and it will lose at the polls.

But if the increased tax is pledged to pay for a new convention center, the tourism industry would support it because there'd be more business. Without opposition, the theory goes, the voters would approve the increase because they wouldn't be paying.

That's not all. A new convention center could cause new construction, and that raises the cap. So lawmakers are trading $5 million or more they think they couldn't get anyway for an unknown amount of new revenue they can spend.

Is this playing politics with the cap? You bet it is. But again, so what? If past mayors hadn't played politics by not taxing to the cap, there'd be plenty of money for this year's budget.

The tax cap isn't one of the 10 commandments. It's a special interest law passed by a handful of people. It ought to be repealed. Until it is, it's going to have consequences. Like the fire hydrant tax.