Opinion ID: 2631179
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Dillingham Sales Tax Ordinance Was Valid.

Text: Dillingham first approved a sales tax in 1966. Although the original sales tax ordinance, Ordinance 13, is no longer a part of Dillingham's city records, Amendment A to Ordinance 13, which amended the original sales tax ordinance in 1967, has survived. In 1977 Dillingham undertook an effort to codify its city ordinances. In doing so it passed Ordinance 77-10. Ordinance 77-10 repealed the sales tax ordinance and simultaneously enacted Title 8, which was to be titled Taxation and Special Assessments. But Ordinance 77-10 did not clearly indicate the ordinances that were to be reenacted as Title 8. Instead, Ordinance 77-10 stated that these would be more particularly set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. Although Exhibit A has not survived in Dillingham's records, a sales tax similar to the original sales tax ordinance appeared in Title 4, rather than Title 8, of the codification of the Dillingham municipal code. [5] McCormick maintains that because Exhibit A cannot be found, it should be assumed that Ordinance 77-10 repealed the sales tax and did not reenact it. McCormick argues that he has generated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dillingham properly reenacted its sales tax in 1977. But he has the burden of overcoming the presumption that proceedings of the governing body of a municipality have been conducted in accordance with the law. [6] McCormick argues that because Dillingham has been either unwilling or unable to produce Exhibit A of Ordinance 77-10 and because the sales tax appears in Title 4 of the Dillingham Municipal Code, rather than Title 8 as directed by Ordinance 77-10, he has overcome the presumption that Dillingham acted in compliance with the law. To overcome the Liberati presumption of government regularity, [7] however, McCormick must do more than point to a lost exhibit or the mislabeling of the municipal code. Ordinance 77-10 was not a drastic change in policy for the city of Dillingham. Instead, it was an effort to codify the municipal ordinances, which had included a sales tax for ten years. The published municipal code and Ordinance 13, the earliest surviving Dillingham sales tax ordinance, contain the same organization and substantially identical language. Moreover, the codified municipal ordinance refers to section 2 of Ordinance 77-10, which is the portion referring to the missing Exhibit A, as the source for the sales tax ordinance. Although McCormick can point to anomalies in the codification of the sales tax in 1977, he has not established that the city failed to comply with the law. Instead, he has asked the court to infer that the city council conspired to illegally revive substantially the same sales tax ordinance that it repealed in Ordinance 77-10 when it codified Dillingham's ordinances. But the 1980 version of the Dillingham Municipal Code states that Ordinance 77-10 is the legal authority for the codification of the sales tax. We therefore agree with the superior court that McCormick has failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that Dillingham lawfully passed its sales tax.
In 1989 the city council again addressed the Dillingham sales tax. [8] The city sought to increase the tax rate from three percent to five percent by passing Ordinance 89-03. Because the ordinance was an increase in the rate of levy of a sales tax, Dillingham held the statutorily required public vote to ratify the tax. [9] The voters approved the increase. McCormick objects to Ordinance 89-03 because he claims that the city misled voters by referring to the existing sales tax, which he claims the council repealed in 1977. McCormick posits that because Dillingham failed to fully inform[ ] the voters, the election results were invalid. But because we conclude that Dillingham had a valid sales tax prior to the 1989 vote, McCormick's argument rests on a flawed premise. Moreover, the results of the ratifying vote demonstrate that the voters were aware of and approved the Dillingham sales tax. [10]
In 1992 Dillingham became aware that its failure to publish notice in a newspaper of general circulation called into question all of its city ordinances. [11] In response, the council adopted Ordinance 92-18 requiring publication of all public notices in a newspaper of general circulation in Dillingham. The city manager recommended that the mayor and city council reenact all of the revenue ordinances after providing public notices. The city also considered Ordinance 92-14, which raised the cap on the value of transactions subject to the sales tax from $1,000 to $2,000. The city prepared notice of the public hearing, published it in the Bristol Bay Times, and ultimately passed the ordinance. But McCormick challenges the validity of the ordinance on the grounds that the city failed to notify the public that it had no valid sales tax. We reject McCormick's challenge to Ordinance 92-14, which raised the cap on the value of transactions subject to the sales tax from $1,000 to $2,000. Because we conclude that Dillingham had a valid sales tax, McCormick's argument that Dillingham did not notify the public that it had previously repealed its sales tax has no merit.