Last Wednesday the Assembly Finance Committee addressed a number of issues- two of which are worth noting. First, we approved by an 8-1 vote for Docks and Harbors to replace the downtown cruise ship docks with the option known as 16B. This option creates floating docks about 100 feet offshore to replace the docks on the wharf. They do several things. First they remove the security issues from the Sea Walk. By putting the docks 100 feet offshore, the current docks will no longer be roped off by Homeland Security and will be available for anyone to walk. Secondly, they allow a larger ship to dock at the steamship wharf rather than docking in the channel. Thirdly, and probably most importantly, it essentially pre-empts any effort to build a new dock at Gold Creek. The remodel will be paid for totally by cruise ship passenger fees and will not pose any tax burden to Juneau citizens. I think this is the best choice for us to follow.
Secondly, the Finance Committee approved (with me opposing) a proposal to remove the sales tax cap for jewelry. Juneau has a sales tax cap of $7,500. That means big ticket items are not charged sales tax for the price above $7,500. My colleagues felt this would only tax tourists who buy expensive jewelry from out of town owned stores. While I understand the logic, I have a problem treating any group, person or product differently from others. I believe so strongly in equal treatment that I could not support this. The exemption will be introduced as an ordinance at our next meeting and have a hearing at the meeting after that. If you have a position on this, please contact us all
There are three propositions on the October 5th ballot. I addressed Prop 1 last week- the Auke Bay Elementary School bond. This post I want to address the least controversial proposition, Prop 3 – asking citizens whether they want to call for a Commission to revise the Borough Charter. Next week I will address the most controversial one—Prop 2 on the North Douglas Crossing.
According to our current City Charter, every ten years we must ask citizens whether they want to form a Charter Commission to revise our form of government. We can always amend the Charter one issue at a time – but a Charter Commission would be better able to address a number of issues at once – if that was what we wanted to do. We might want to do this if we feel the Borough government just is not working and we want big changes. We might want to change from a council manager to a strong mayor government or abolish all the Enterprise Boards or elect Assembly members differently or have MORE Assembly members. We could do this one issue at a time, but it would be easier to make many changes at once with a Charter Commission. I don’t think drastic structural changes would make our government better, but I also am not opposed to taking a look at this. It really depends on what you think. If we approved this, we would have another election to select Charter Commissioners. They would propose changes to the Charter and those changes would be put to citizens for approval. So I leave this one up to you. There is an article interviewing me in the Empire Voters Information Guide which is just “ok.” I will also address this at an October 1 “Evening at Egan” on the UAS campus.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Arctic Winter Games and Prop 1
This afternoon was painful. I voted against Juneau applying for the Arctic Winter Games because of the cost and the uncertainty of where the money will come from. It was a very difficult decision. I don’t even know if it was the right one. Those are the kind of votes that you can lose sleep over.
Well, the election season is heating up. The Juneau Borough election is in 2 ½ weeks (Tuesday October 5th). I will not be commenting on the Assembly and School Board races, but I will give you my take on the three Propositions. Here is a sample of the ballot you will see.
You can actually vote on all of this beginning next Monday (September 20th)
Today I want to explain my position on Proposition 1 “Shall the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska, issue and sell its general obligation bonds, maturing within 10 years
of their date of issue, in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $18,700,000?”
So the question is whether we should borrow 18.7 million to renovate Auke Bay Elementary – and are you, the taxpayer willing to pay for this through your property taxes.
The complicated part of this is that the state of Alaska is pretty much saying they will pay for 70% of that. I say “pretty much” because they have to appropriate the money each year. They have always done it for those they initially approve – so we tend to count on it – but they don’t have to. If we assume the state pays 70% Juneau taxpayers will be responsible for 30% of the costs which is estimated to be $651,000 a year, for ten years. That’s about $50 more of property tax annually for a $300,000 home.
Even more complicated is the fact that we continually borrow money to renovate schools and do other capital projects. Bond issues are like mortgages and every time we need to do a long term infrastructure project we take out a new mortgage. Over time some projects are fully paid for and we take on new ones. On page 3 of this pdf you can see the debt service mill rate over the past 15 years has ranged from a high of 1.43 in 1996 to a low of .91 in 2007 depending on how many projects we were paying for.
It is the Assembly’s job to try and keep that debt service mill levy relatively stable. We don’t want to take on more debt than we pay off. The School District also wants to renovate Marie Drake, but the Assembly was clear that was too much this year. But it will come back in the next year or two.
Now as for this project – Auke Bay Elementary is truly in desperate need of renovation. There are many problems with the building. Given the state commitment to pay 70%, I support a YES vote on Proposition 1. But I also make a commitment to carefully evaluate the projects we take on to ensure our debt service mill levy does not just increase over time.
Make sure to VOTE!!!
Well, the election season is heating up. The Juneau Borough election is in 2 ½ weeks (Tuesday October 5th). I will not be commenting on the Assembly and School Board races, but I will give you my take on the three Propositions. Here is a sample of the ballot you will see.
You can actually vote on all of this beginning next Monday (September 20th)
Today I want to explain my position on Proposition 1 “Shall the City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska, issue and sell its general obligation bonds, maturing within 10 years
of their date of issue, in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $18,700,000?”
So the question is whether we should borrow 18.7 million to renovate Auke Bay Elementary – and are you, the taxpayer willing to pay for this through your property taxes.
The complicated part of this is that the state of Alaska is pretty much saying they will pay for 70% of that. I say “pretty much” because they have to appropriate the money each year. They have always done it for those they initially approve – so we tend to count on it – but they don’t have to. If we assume the state pays 70% Juneau taxpayers will be responsible for 30% of the costs which is estimated to be $651,000 a year, for ten years. That’s about $50 more of property tax annually for a $300,000 home.
Even more complicated is the fact that we continually borrow money to renovate schools and do other capital projects. Bond issues are like mortgages and every time we need to do a long term infrastructure project we take out a new mortgage. Over time some projects are fully paid for and we take on new ones. On page 3 of this pdf you can see the debt service mill rate over the past 15 years has ranged from a high of 1.43 in 1996 to a low of .91 in 2007 depending on how many projects we were paying for.
It is the Assembly’s job to try and keep that debt service mill levy relatively stable. We don’t want to take on more debt than we pay off. The School District also wants to renovate Marie Drake, but the Assembly was clear that was too much this year. But it will come back in the next year or two.
Now as for this project – Auke Bay Elementary is truly in desperate need of renovation. There are many problems with the building. Given the state commitment to pay 70%, I support a YES vote on Proposition 1. But I also make a commitment to carefully evaluate the projects we take on to ensure our debt service mill levy does not just increase over time.
Make sure to VOTE!!!
Monday, September 6, 2010
Labor Relations
Happy Labor Day. I hope you are enjoying the day. The Labor sponsored picnic at Sandy Beach was great. Nice that the weather cooperated.
One of the many issues the Assembly deals with is labor unions. I make no apology for being a “Friend of Labor.” Despite occasional problems, I believe unions protect workers and balance the power of management. Currently, some CBJ codes and policies are less than union friendly. The city Personnel Board, which determines union issues for the CBJ has no union representation. City rules and policies allow groups of workers to withdraw from the union but still receive the benefits from union negotiated contracts. This is not the way it works at state and national levels. CBJ rules define things differently. I am currently advocating for rules and policy changes that provide some balance.
Another issue I am pushing is the strengthening of performance measures for the city. CBJ Departments have goals and measures, but in the past they have been mostly a formality. We have not used them as a strategic planning tool to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of city government. I will continue to push for this – but at the moment, whenever I talk about performance measures and performance management, many of my colleagues eyes seem to glaze over as they seem to say “there goes Jonathan again.’
I have also been monitoring managerial reform efforts at Bartlett Hospital. A significant number of employees have expressed strong dissatisfaction with Hospital Management. The clash seems to be around a tension between bottom line productivity measures and patient care and employee engagement. The Hospital Board has taken measures to monitor this situation and make constructive recommendations, but the proof will be the creation of a more positive organizational culture. I will continue to watch and question.
I believe in performance measures. I believe they are good planning tools for any organization. But the indicators must be more than just dollars. They must include indicators of employee, customer and/or citizen satisfaction.
Moving on from labor/personnel issues, on Friday 9/17 the Assembly will have a special meeting to decide whether to apply for the Arctic Winter Games for Juneau for 2014. The Arctic Winter games are a great effort to bring youth from different countries together. They would be a nice boost for Juneau for a short period of time in 2014. They would also cost upwards of 10 million dollars. We hope that the state and Feds would contribute significant dollars, but there is no guarantee. The biggest hurdle is that we need a second sheet of ice—and one that can accommodate at least 1500 spectators. Many people would like that second ice rink, but building it is only one part. It must be staffed and maintained. The current ice rink costs ½ million a year for personnel costs — in addition to utilities and building maintenance costs. I do not at this time see how the positives for a few weeks in 2014 compensate for the risk and expense.
JEDC recently came out with their annual economic indicators I encourage you to look at them. Juneau is “getting by” but there are definite concerns about our economic health. We need to be cautious about our spending at this time and we need to find ways to promote our economic health. I always struggle with the balance between visionary action and constructive caution about how we spend your money. It is a delicate balance.
The next big Assembly decision on the horizon concerns plans to refurbish/replace the downtown cruise ship docks – paid for by cruise ship passenger fees. Like everything else, there are pros and cons. I will get into this in a future post.
One of the many issues the Assembly deals with is labor unions. I make no apology for being a “Friend of Labor.” Despite occasional problems, I believe unions protect workers and balance the power of management. Currently, some CBJ codes and policies are less than union friendly. The city Personnel Board, which determines union issues for the CBJ has no union representation. City rules and policies allow groups of workers to withdraw from the union but still receive the benefits from union negotiated contracts. This is not the way it works at state and national levels. CBJ rules define things differently. I am currently advocating for rules and policy changes that provide some balance.
Another issue I am pushing is the strengthening of performance measures for the city. CBJ Departments have goals and measures, but in the past they have been mostly a formality. We have not used them as a strategic planning tool to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of city government. I will continue to push for this – but at the moment, whenever I talk about performance measures and performance management, many of my colleagues eyes seem to glaze over as they seem to say “there goes Jonathan again.’
I have also been monitoring managerial reform efforts at Bartlett Hospital. A significant number of employees have expressed strong dissatisfaction with Hospital Management. The clash seems to be around a tension between bottom line productivity measures and patient care and employee engagement. The Hospital Board has taken measures to monitor this situation and make constructive recommendations, but the proof will be the creation of a more positive organizational culture. I will continue to watch and question.
I believe in performance measures. I believe they are good planning tools for any organization. But the indicators must be more than just dollars. They must include indicators of employee, customer and/or citizen satisfaction.
Moving on from labor/personnel issues, on Friday 9/17 the Assembly will have a special meeting to decide whether to apply for the Arctic Winter Games for Juneau for 2014. The Arctic Winter games are a great effort to bring youth from different countries together. They would be a nice boost for Juneau for a short period of time in 2014. They would also cost upwards of 10 million dollars. We hope that the state and Feds would contribute significant dollars, but there is no guarantee. The biggest hurdle is that we need a second sheet of ice—and one that can accommodate at least 1500 spectators. Many people would like that second ice rink, but building it is only one part. It must be staffed and maintained. The current ice rink costs ½ million a year for personnel costs — in addition to utilities and building maintenance costs. I do not at this time see how the positives for a few weeks in 2014 compensate for the risk and expense.
JEDC recently came out with their annual economic indicators I encourage you to look at them. Juneau is “getting by” but there are definite concerns about our economic health. We need to be cautious about our spending at this time and we need to find ways to promote our economic health. I always struggle with the balance between visionary action and constructive caution about how we spend your money. It is a delicate balance.
The next big Assembly decision on the horizon concerns plans to refurbish/replace the downtown cruise ship docks – paid for by cruise ship passenger fees. Like everything else, there are pros and cons. I will get into this in a future post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
