Surplus brings opportunity to think of future

Taxpayers have been hit hard in recent years. A series of lean state budget cycles resulted in dwindling state aid to communities, leaving local governments little alternative to the quick fix of the property tax hike.

Taxpayers around the state have responded with increased vigilance - and action. Here in the Valley, for example, a taxpayer group unhappy with the upward spiraling of property tax rates successfully fought for a boroughwide tax cap.

The area's ongoing rapid growth is likely to keep taxation issues contentious. How the city and borough governments and the residents they serve deal with growth could well define the area's socio-economic future.

Everybody, it seems, wants good roads, responsive law enforcement and quality education with smaller class sizes. And nobody wants their &#8220pet” services axed either. With the continued influx of new residents, the demand for such services and pressure against cutting is not going to make matters easier for those entrusted with allocating public resources.

Earlier this week, a group of Anchorage legislators, with a keen eye on the state's projected $1 billion budget surplus, proposed returning $69 million to cities, towns and villages around the state. Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, a staunch advocate of revenue sharing, has already pledged that if the Legislature approves the proposal, he will funnel all Anchorage money into property-tax relief.

The $69 million is equal to the amount of additional revenue the state sees from a $1 increase in the price of oil, according to the state Department of Revenue. Given the precipitous rise in the per-barrel price lately, this is hardly an unreasonable portion to share with local governments, especially if the result is tax relief for overburdened homeowners.

At the same time, it is hard not to wonder why there is no longer any meaningful talk of a viable plan for the long-term fiscal health of the state and its residents. The current Legislature, composed largely of members who speak unabashedly of fiscal conservatism and remember well the &#8220fiscal crisis” of five years ago, reacted to the sudden revenue flood by spending like the proverbial drunken sailor.

Mat-Su Sen. Lyda Green is already on the record as not being in favor of the revenue-sharing plan. Although her contention that revenue sharing is not sustainable lacks complete accuracy, she is right to assume that with federal spending on the wane, state money managers would be wise to think about how they are going to foot the bill in future years for services currently funded by federal dollars.

That is only a small piece of a large puzzle that still needs to be solved. Sen. Green, in her position as chair of the Finance Committee and one of the chamber's more senior members, is just the person to reignite the discussion about a long-term fiscal plan.

What better time than now?