Budget, Dredging and Development

For the next few months the Assembly will be pretty obsessed with the budget. Across the country states and municipalities confront declining revenues. Some people want no service reductions and no layoffs and are open to tax increases. Others oppose any tax increases and look at this as an opportunity to “reduce the size of government.” I want to avoid layoffs or service cuts, but I also do not want to increase taxes. That limits the number of choices. Our shortfall is about 4 million a year. If the city employees union (MEBA) agrees to forego their negotiated wage increases in exchange for no layoffs, that will cut the deficit to about 2 ½ million. We will try and find 1-2 million more in cuts and then probably take the rest (1-2 million) from our Budget Reserve. We are fortunate to have that reserve and want to make sure it is available to tap into in subsequent years if revenues continue to be low. The Assembly will hold a Finance Committee meeting January 13 to discuss proposed reductions. Tell the Assembly your proposals of how to resolve the deficit. Email us at Borough_Assembly@ci.juneau.ak.us

Docks and Harbors proposes to dredge Douglas Harbor. Glacial rebound affects the Borough even at Douglas, and if dredging is not done soon, the Harbor will become unusable as it gets shallower. It has been dredged several times in the past – the last time about ten years ago. Levels of mercury in the harbor have risen somewhat. In our July COW meeting Harbors Director John Stone answered my question about that change- “Mr. Stone said the samples in 2002 showed an average of 2.0 micrograms per kilogram of mercury in the soil. The average for the Douglas Harbor just done was 2.3.” http://www.juneau.org/clerk/documents/2009-07-20_COW_Minutes.pdf

The issue is what to do with the dredged materials. Harbors proposes to dump them in the middle of the Channel. This proposal has been submitted to the permitting agencies and currently the Army Corps of Engineers (who regulate placement of dredged materials) has the issue out for public comment until January 8. You can find gobs of info on this at http://www.juneau.org/harbors/DHRP.php. The Corps request for public comments is the last link on that page. We rely on the permitting agencies to let us know when we are within safety limits.

Another issue on the horizon concerns development on Douglas. As I noted last entry, we recently met with Goldbelt to talk about a potential road extension to West Douglas to open up new land. In a related issue, on December 8 the Planning Commission approved rezoning several tracts of land along North Douglas highway from D3 to D10 and D18 –[as planned resulting from the sewer extensions now being completed]. This brings up the whole idea of development in general – and particularly on North and West Douglas. Some Juneauites oppose any new development. They argue it will change the character of Juneau in undesirable ways, and that it is not needed due to flat population growth. Others argue that we must promote development to survive and new land will stimulate the economy, and ultimately lower the cost of housing. We know that housing density must increase if we want to create affordable housing opportunities.

I have continually called for diversification of Juneau’s economy. Dependence on any one industry leaves us vulnerable. Juneau has been dependent on government, and to a lesser degree tourism, for a large percentage of our jobs. I want to promote non-government/tourism jobs. That does not mean I oppose the jobs we have, but rather I want to spread our risk. That is why I continue to support efforts to grow commercial fishing and primary production business (non-retail). I do not oppose retail, but retail is dependent on money that is already in the community. We need to find ways to bring money in from outside the Borough. Government and Tourism do that. Commercial fishing does it. Businesses like Glacier Seafoods, Taku Fisheries, Alaska Brewing and Heritage Coffee do it. We are better off than other Southeast communities, and that is why our population has not declined. But we are still at risk. That may not be a big deal for some who have secure employment or retirement, but it is critical for the rest of Juneau and particularly young people, new to the job market.

Juneau is a beautiful, desirable place to live because of our environment and our quality of life. It is important to preserve and enhance that quality. We must protect what we love; the land, the water, and the arts and social life that nourishes our minds and our souls. But that protection must be balanced with economic development that provides employment to our citizens and the means to support our community life.

This is a difficult and emotional issue. Many people want to preserve the Juneau they have now – or return to a Juneau they remember. But change is inevitable, and we need to shape it to our preferences. That is our challenge. We must work together to promote environmentally responsible development. I am neither an “all development is good” or an “all development is bad” person [which angers people on both sides]. I think our best route is through careful, planned development on North and West Douglas where land is available. I have supported the West Douglas Conceptual Plan which lays out such a process http://www.juneau.lib.ak.us/plancomm/WestDouglasConceptualPlan.php

I have told my environmentalist friends and my pro-business friends that this is an opportunity to demonstrate that they are not just knee jerk, ideologues opposed to the other. It is an opportunity for Juneau to pull together rather than continually polarize. Responsible development is something that can unite us as we cope with life's inevitable changes. I appreciate those of you who share your opinions by email, phone or commenting on this blog. Please keep it up, because it helps me see all sides of issues.

I wish a happy and peaceful holiday season to everyone.

This past week the Assembly had three meetings. The first was our “Retreat” on 11/30. We accomplished a couple things (about 1/3 of our agenda). The first was addressing whether we wanted to revise our Rules of Procedure which are like by-laws. http://www.juneau.org/clerk/Resolutions/Res2427(b)-Reestablishing_Assembly_Rules_of_Procedure,Repealing_RES2379(b).pdf
One of the issues we spent time on was public participation at committee meetings –particularly the Committee of the Whole. Many people have told me they want to have more input early in policy development and not just at the final Assembly hearing. Our Rule 5 (page 5) states “Reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard shall be allowed at committee meetings other than those designated as work sessions.” COW sessions are always announced as “Work Sessions” so there is normally no public testimony. I tried to change that and was defeated 8-1. In fact there was resistance by some to having public testimony at any committee meeting. It was argued that such testimony slowed down the process and “inhibited” frank discussions. That is total nonsense. Public testimony can be limited and if the public is present, I cannot understand how testimony “inhibits” discussions. But, obviously, my colleagues do not agree.

We also established our yearly goals—a sort of strategic planning process. That’s the alleged intent, but the reality is different. These goals were set some years ago. We add new ones whenever anybody really wants to. But their impact during the year is minimal. They are not really used to plan our work. They are just sort of “out there” for anyone to say “Look at the Assembly goals.” The revised version is not yet posted- but last years is at http://www.juneau.org/assembly/documents/2008-2009-Assembly_Goals-Post_Assembly_Review.pdf. I suppose if I want to criticize, I need to be willing to walk the talk. So in next Monday’s Lands committee- which I chair – I will open a discussion of those goals which are assigned to Lands and how we should address them in our coming year.

The second meeting was one a joint meeting with the Goldbelt Board on opening discussions for an extension to the North Douglas highway out into West Douglas. This is an interesting issue. In our Comprehensive Plan we discuss West Douglas as a potential “New Growth Area.” We also have a West Douglas Conceptual Plan that envisions how such development would responsibly proceed. http://www.juneau.lib.ak.us/plancomm/WestDouglasConceptualPlan.php In fact, it would be the first part of CBJ that would be “planned” as opposed to developed ad hoc. We had an MOA with Goldbelt about 10 years ago on a road extension, but nothing ever happened. The stimulus this time is that there is 3 million that has been sitting in the state budget for several years that can be applied to this project. The issue of contention is road alignment. Where would such a road go? Goldbelt owns the waterfront and city lands are mostly upland. The Resolution on our agenda has some attached maps of the area. http://www.juneau.org/assembly/agendas/2009/2009-12-01/2009-12-01-Special_Assembly_Index.php And as some of you know – Totem Creek Properties has been trying to promote a golf course out there—and has been unsuccessful in attracting developers. Stay tuned on this one. It could be contentious.

Third meeting was Finance. It was widely publicized how the city budget is projected to be 8-9 million in the red over the next two years. The city is asking the employees union to eliminate the annual COLA. If they do not, the city anticipates needing to make layoffs. Savings from this would be around 3 million, so even if this is accepted, there is still another 5+ million that will have to be found – probably through some combination of budget cuts and use of the city’s budget reserve. There will be a push by some to use that budget reserve and not cut anything. That would exhaust the reserve in two years and is unlikely to be accepted by the Assembly. The Mayor is cautioning that we may see hard times ahead even if the economy picks up because of our dependence on state dollars, and because those dollars may dry up with the decline of state oil dollars. As we try to balance the budget, potential budgetary victims will be new program proposals like area wide recycling or expanded mass transit.

And this past week Community Development held public hearings around town on a proposed downtown parking management plan. Very few people showed up, but when policies are put in force somewhere down the road people will complain about not having input. This is always a problem. Early on we advertise long term planning on some subject, but since it is not imminent, it doesn’t have the impact on people – and the media doesn’t talk much about it, so few people hear of it or are motivated to participate. But when the plan is fully developed and then implemented – many people will say they were not consulted. Others have said they don’t attend because they don’t believe they have any impact on the process. This is a dilemma all the time for most every issue out there. All I can say is that I will try to keep people a little more informed about what is going on (that is if they read this). Anyhow – check out the CDD site at http://www.juneau.org/cddftp/ParkingManagement111809.php and email Ben Lyman if you have comments.