Opinion ID: 2350715
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The sales tax increase (Ordinance 9) summary judgment proceedings

Text: In May 2007 the parties agreed that no material facts were in dispute regarding the sales tax issue, and the superior court confirmed that the issues involved were questions of law. On December 4, 2007, ACT filed a motion for summary judgment on the sales tax issue. The Borough responded by filing its own cross-motion for summary judgment. The superior court determined, in its December 31, 2007 decision, that Ordinance 9 was valid and the sales tax rate increase to three percent would be effective on January 1, 2008. The decision cited our direction that AS 29.45.650(a), which authorizes boroughs to levy and collect a sales tax, must be interpreted in favor of the broad power of municipal governments. [8] Noting that Borough voters had twice approved a sales tax rate of up to three percent at a general election, first in 1964 and again in 2006, the superior court concluded that the voters' action in 1964 approving a sales tax rate up to three percent has continuing legal force and effect sufficient to authorize the increase to three percent in [Ordinance 9] notwithstanding AS 29.45.670. In addition, the superior court concluded that even without the 1964 approval the sales tax rate increase to three percent was valid because the October 2006 majority vote defeating the referendum on Ordinance 9 satisfie[d] the voter approval requirement in AS 29.45.670. The superior court granted summary judgment to the Borough.