Sales tax proposal poorly written

I wanted to clear up a couple of areas that somewhere along this debate has been misstated by the borough and cities paying for schools.

Each city pays more money per capita then the rest of the residents in the borough for schools. Yes, we subsidize the school district so your property taxes could be lower. Before you start getting upset over my statement let me explain:

First: All residents of Houston, Wasilla and Palmer pay the same mill rate of 9.98 for the schools as you. I do not know were this statement went south and the rest of the borough thinks our residents do not pay property tax for schools. We do pay property taxes for the schools.

Second: All three cities have a total of over $1.2 billion in commercial property which also pay 9.98 mills for schools, yet they have no children living on the commercial property. The borough only has approximately $235 million in commercial property.

I am sure you can do the math. The mill rate for $1.2 billion in commercial property taxes paid to the borough for schools compared to $235 million. The three cities combined does not have the population as the rest of the borough, but combined per population we pay more for schools.

Ask yourself this: Why does the smallest land mass area (Houston, Wasilla and Palmer) have four times more commercial property than the whole rest of the borough? Could it be we are friendlier to business development and encourage jobs?

Now if the borough had the same proportion of commercial property and population as the cities, your taxes would be cut in half and with no sales tax.

Please do not fall into the borough trap of how many government jobs have been created. Government properties are exempt from the mill rate.

Now ask yourself, what does the sales tax inside the three cities support that isn’t supported in the borough. The big one is police. And in Palmer and Wasilla, the sales tax subsidizes their water and sewer services. There are no plans that I know of for the borough to start a police department even with the proposed sales tax.

I am not opposed to sales tax. But I am against this due to one fact: Yes fact. It is poorly written and has been rushed. There are enough loop holes in it to drive a Mack truck through. One of the biggest loopholes is how the borough can use excess funds to start a Capital Project Account and spend it the next year. How they accomplished this was by using the word “MAY” go for property relief over the amount collected, instead of the word “SHALL” in the ordinance. There is no cap on service area mill rates or on assessments, or any requirements to cut the budget.

My family and I plan on voting against this tax. Anyone I talk to, I report my reasons as to why they should vote no. Cindy and John had good intentions but the borough staff wrote the ordinance, not a group of citizens in workshops including input from the three cities to make this a solidly effective reduction on our property taxes.

That is what you and the rest of us want: Lower taxes, public safety, good roads, accountability of our tax dollars, jobs now and for future generations, wouldn’t you agree?

Roger Purcell is mayor of Houston.