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.
3 comments:
Hello Jonathan, and greetings from Indiana!
I’d go with the tax increases. Here in Indiana, our Governor is calling for $300m in cuts in education, citing tax increases as the only other option, and these are off the table. His argument is that tax increases will discourage business investment.
Indiana, though, is a relatively low taxed state (we rank about 35th, without checking the data) in a country which is the least-taxed rich country in the world. So this seems a hard case to make on any sort of evidentiary basis. Where else will business investment go?
Also, one of a handful of factors that business always cites when deciding where to invest is human capital. Human capital is built through education. Even Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776 and generally considered the original argument for capitalism and limited government, accepted four duties of government: justice, defense, major infrastructure, and education. Yet our Governor (and many, many American communities) is going to cut spending on education to, as GW Bush often put it, keep our money in our pockets. We citizens, after all, know what to do with our money better than guv’mint does.
So consumers buying junk from China (and so employing Chinese workers) is better for us than paying taxes and having government buy education for our kids (and so employing American teachers)? Which actually benefits our communities more?
Granted, it doesn’t look like you’re referring to education in your comments, Jonathan, but I just thought I’d get this off my chest. Our Governor is GW Bush’s first Budget Director, Mitch Daniels, the man who put in motion the budgets that turned a $250b surplus in to $250b+ deficits, adding trillions to the national debt. His anti-tax fundamentalism was behind this then and, tragically, he doesn’t seem to have learned his lesson.
We have, indeed, gotten so ideologically warped that we may literally be starving ourselves to death, like Mitch Daniels foregoing future social investment in order to satisfy immediate discretionary consumption.
GG Candler
South Bend, Indiana
Hi Jonathan...
Like George above, I would prefer "increasing revenue" to cutting services. Particularly with local government, I would appose "reducing the size of government" as this translates to fewer cops, teachers, snow plow drivers, etc. etc.
I am curious what the medium-to-long-term revenue projections look like. It was not that long ago that we had revenue surpluses. Now we have shortfalls. Is this just part of the normal ebb and flow? If so, do we really need public policy changes? In other words -- isn't this what "rainy day reserves" are for?
Here is how it works. The Budget department predicts what revenue may be expected from property and sales taxes, and then the Manager proposes a budget that "balances." Both surpluses and deficits result from incorrect predictions of revenue more than anything else. Extra expenditures might result from emergencies and we have an emergency reserve for that. Surpluses result from more tax receipts than expected or predicted expenses that are less than expected-- This would translate into "carry forward" which is then factored into next year's budget predictions.
Post a Comment