Real estate transfer fee finalized

MAT-SU — Purchasing a piece of property, selling a home or dividing a piece of property among offspring will now cost an additional $170, after the Mat-Su Borough Assembly, on Tuesday, passed a flat fee for all real-estate transfers within the borough.The fee was one discussed by borough assembly members during budget deliberations this spring and was later proposed as a way to recoup funds for an increased amount of time spent by Mat-Su Borough staff on recording real-estate transfers within the borough. The idea was met with opposition from the real-estate community when it was introduced in May, but an effort to work with local Realtors and make the fee Ñ initially a different amount depending on the type and acreage of the property in question Ñ more amenable seems to have paid off. ÒThe testimony we heard from the public [during budget discussions] was, donÕt raise property taxes, provide more funding for schools and that growth should pay its own way,Ó Assembly Member Jim Colver said Tuesday. ÒSo we tried to do that … and this proposal is much easier, simpler to understand.ÓWhen the matter was discussed at the Aug. 3 borough assembly meeting, some real-estate professionals told the assembly although they preferred not to see a fee put into place, they preferred a flat fee to the previously proposed graduated fee. But some were still investigating the possibility of challenging the fee.ÒThe Realtors I speak for have retained counsel and are looking into it,Ó said Darcie Salmon, a local real-estate agent and former borough mayor, on Aug. 8. ÒThe fuse was lit when you passed it, and itÕs still lit.ÓAssembly Member Betty Vehrs said she had a few calls on the issue from concerned constituents. One woman in the process of selling her home, she said, was thrilled when Vehrs told her the fee would likely be $170.Assembly Member Jody Simpson said although the flat fee was simpler, she still was unable to support instituting a fee that was, in her view, a number plucked from the air and justified by posturing. ÒWeÕre taking the amount of money we need, divided by the number of transactions,Ó Simpson said. ÒTo me, it makes no more sense now than it did before.ÓAssembly Member Bill Allen, who led the way in bringing the fee back to the table for revision, said he wasnÕt satisfied with the reception of the fee, but felt it was needed.ÒWe cannot continue to give away services,Ó Allen said. ÒI firmly believe the cost-causer should be the cost-payer.ÓThe motion passed, with assembly members Talis Colberg, Bruce Bush and Simpson opposed.Contact Rindi White at rindi.white@frontiersman.com.