We are about to begin the annual budget cycle. In another week the Assembly meets as the Finance Committee to examine capital improvement projects (CIPs) for the coming year. We will meet with the School Board on March 23. Then beginning in April we begin weekly Finance meetings on Wednesday nights to hear budget presentations from across the CBJ.
Here is how it works. The City Manager presents the Assembly with a balanced budget. He gets revenue projections from the finance department and then he has to do whatever cutting and trimming is necessary to make the books balance. The Enterprise Boards (Airport, Docks and Harbors, Hospital) also pay for themselves and will present balanced budgets. The School District is funded by a state formula and will present their balanced budget.
But what is going to happen is that each of these entities will probably ask for “more.” The Airport wants to do more improvements on the terminal. The Hospital wants to build a new adolescent behavioral treatment center. Docks and Harbors needs to find money to dredge Douglas Harbor and dispose of mercury contaminants, and they also are interested in buying Fisherman’s Bend. The School District will ask for “more” funding above the cap – for "outside the classroom" activities. They may or may not propose a new school bond issue. The Arts and Humanities Council wants improvements on the Armory building (JAHC). On top of that there will be a string of other groups and organizations asking for funding for this or that good cause.
The problem, of course, is that any extra dollar allocations take away from other programs or borrow (for capital projects). I am concerned that our debt burden has increased enormously over the past decade, primarily because of the string of school projects and the pool. I am very nervous about asking Juneau to fund more debt. The point is, there are no “extra” dollars.
This also is against the backdrop of extreme uncertainty for future revenue from the state or the feds – from whom we receive multiple millions. We are OK for next year – but further out it is really questionable. Ultimately we will have to confront what we want to do if we have to pay for it all locally.
I know, I know – that’s what our job is —to make allocation decisions. But to make somebody happy, somebody else’s ox is going to be gored.
Lots more to come – stay tuned.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Land
I am chair of the Assembly Lands Committee. This year we will update the Borough Land Management Plan, and part of that is our "Land Disposal Plan" - meaning what city land might be sold. For years one of the main cries in Juneau has been “not enough land.” There is truth to that lament. We are surrounded by the Tongass and much of the non federal land in the Borough is wetlands or mountainsides. The shortage of land is said to contribute to our lack of affordable housing. There are some who say the city should sell off its landholdings to the private sector to address the affordable housing issue.
Like everything else, this is not a simple issue. Here are a couple points to consider. There is a considerable amount of private land that is already in the hands of private sector owners who choose not to build because they apparently do not see the profit in it at this point. I have often felt that Hugh Grant is a good weather vane for the market. He owns a lot of land – and he is an active developer. His development off Loop Rd/Keegan Dr – just before the turn to Back Loop has many empty lots, and his land a bit further out Loop Road is undeveloped, as is the land above Fred Myers. Another Developer – Duran – has not built houses on his Vista Del Sol development on Glacier Highway next to Glacier Gardens. There is nothing wrong with that – it is just an indicator that there is not great demand. There is the chunk of land between Kodzoff and Cinema Drive that has remained undeveloped. A planned development of the gravel pit land out at Montana Creek stopped several years back. Totem Enterprises has not been able to find investors willing to invest in North Douglas to create a golf course development. And when the Borough recently tried to sell some its land at Lena Loop – a large number of lots did not sell.
My point is that there is a significant amount land already in private hands and it does not seem that availability of land itself is the solution to the issue of affordable housing. We probably need to contract with one of the low income developers or to work with a land trust that focuses on affordable housing or some other alternative that guarantees that the land is used for lower cost housing.
The Borough does own land in several places that might be able to be developed in this fashion. There is some “Under Thunder” land out Loop Road in the Valley. There is some land above DZ and there is some land on what is called Pederson Hill on the North side of Veterans Highway past Brotherhood Bridge. These areas are next to sewer and water, and close to other city services and transportation routes. Our goal is to find ways to ensure that housing built on those parcels will actually be “affordable” to moderate income families.
These are some of the issues that will frame our discussion as we look at updating our Land Management Plan.
Like everything else, this is not a simple issue. Here are a couple points to consider. There is a considerable amount of private land that is already in the hands of private sector owners who choose not to build because they apparently do not see the profit in it at this point. I have often felt that Hugh Grant is a good weather vane for the market. He owns a lot of land – and he is an active developer. His development off Loop Rd/Keegan Dr – just before the turn to Back Loop has many empty lots, and his land a bit further out Loop Road is undeveloped, as is the land above Fred Myers. Another Developer – Duran – has not built houses on his Vista Del Sol development on Glacier Highway next to Glacier Gardens. There is nothing wrong with that – it is just an indicator that there is not great demand. There is the chunk of land between Kodzoff and Cinema Drive that has remained undeveloped. A planned development of the gravel pit land out at Montana Creek stopped several years back. Totem Enterprises has not been able to find investors willing to invest in North Douglas to create a golf course development. And when the Borough recently tried to sell some its land at Lena Loop – a large number of lots did not sell.
My point is that there is a significant amount land already in private hands and it does not seem that availability of land itself is the solution to the issue of affordable housing. We probably need to contract with one of the low income developers or to work with a land trust that focuses on affordable housing or some other alternative that guarantees that the land is used for lower cost housing.
The Borough does own land in several places that might be able to be developed in this fashion. There is some “Under Thunder” land out Loop Road in the Valley. There is some land above DZ and there is some land on what is called Pederson Hill on the North side of Veterans Highway past Brotherhood Bridge. These areas are next to sewer and water, and close to other city services and transportation routes. Our goal is to find ways to ensure that housing built on those parcels will actually be “affordable” to moderate income families.
These are some of the issues that will frame our discussion as we look at updating our Land Management Plan.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Monday May 24th the Juneau Homeless Coalition sponsored the second annual Project Homeless Count at Centennial Hall. Representatives from dozens of organizations provided food, health, legal, shelter and other assistance, while also constructing a count of the number of homeless people in Juneau. It is estimated that Juneau has over 500 homeless individuals. I visited the event and was very impressed by all the services provided. For more information see http://jedc.org/housing-connect.shtml
On Tuesday January 25th, 7pm in City Hall, the Planning Commission meets and will continue their discussion on the proposed Noise Ordinance.
On Wednesday January 26th at 6:30 at the JAHC (Old Armory) the State of Alaska sponsored Juneau Douglas Fish and Game Advisory Committee will hold a meeting that includes a discussion about a critical habitat proposal for the Taku River.
For more information contact Mike Peterson at 723-8369
In my last post I talked about how we are re-considering opening the AJ mine in downtown Juneau. The Mayor is about to appoint a study group to advise the Assembly. I understand the members will be Former Deputy City Manager Donna Pierce, chair. Kurt Fredriksson, vice chair, Laurie Ferguson Craig, Frank Bergstom, Gregg Erickson, Sam Smith and Planning Commission Chair Maria Gladziszewski.
Each year the Assembly proposes projects on which to spend the cruise ship passenger fees collected by the city. There are US Constitutional restrictions on how that money can be spent. Each year the City Manager proposes how we will spend the 4+ million dollars collected. The proposed spending is currently out for public comment. If you would like to comment on this year’s proposals please email City Manager Rod Swope at Rod_Swope@ci.juneau.ak.us
Finally, another sticky wicket has come up—this one regarding the Diamond Park Aquatic Center which should be opening in the next few months. CBJ Parks and Recreation proposes to include a small number of exercise machines, similar to what is available at Augustus Brown Pool. However, the private fitness clubs have objected, saying it is inappropriate competition with the private sector. Part of me can understand their objection. It is supposed to be a pool, not a fitness club. But I also see that the equipment is only equivalent to what is already provided at the downtown pool.
And of course the Legislature is starting to do its annual thing….
On Tuesday January 25th, 7pm in City Hall, the Planning Commission meets and will continue their discussion on the proposed Noise Ordinance.
On Wednesday January 26th at 6:30 at the JAHC (Old Armory) the State of Alaska sponsored Juneau Douglas Fish and Game Advisory Committee will hold a meeting that includes a discussion about a critical habitat proposal for the Taku River.
For more information contact Mike Peterson at 723-8369
In my last post I talked about how we are re-considering opening the AJ mine in downtown Juneau. The Mayor is about to appoint a study group to advise the Assembly. I understand the members will be Former Deputy City Manager Donna Pierce, chair. Kurt Fredriksson, vice chair, Laurie Ferguson Craig, Frank Bergstom, Gregg Erickson, Sam Smith and Planning Commission Chair Maria Gladziszewski.
Each year the Assembly proposes projects on which to spend the cruise ship passenger fees collected by the city. There are US Constitutional restrictions on how that money can be spent. Each year the City Manager proposes how we will spend the 4+ million dollars collected. The proposed spending is currently out for public comment. If you would like to comment on this year’s proposals please email City Manager Rod Swope at Rod_Swope@ci.juneau.ak.us
Finally, another sticky wicket has come up—this one regarding the Diamond Park Aquatic Center which should be opening in the next few months. CBJ Parks and Recreation proposes to include a small number of exercise machines, similar to what is available at Augustus Brown Pool. However, the private fitness clubs have objected, saying it is inappropriate competition with the private sector. Part of me can understand their objection. It is supposed to be a pool, not a fitness club. But I also see that the equipment is only equivalent to what is already provided at the downtown pool.
And of course the Legislature is starting to do its annual thing….
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
A Mine in Juneau?
I hope 2011 is beginning well for you, and that you are keeping warm and not getting blown away!
The Assembly’s January 10 meeting had nothing very exciting to report. The January 11 Planning Commission began their hearing on the revised noise or disturbing the peace ordinance. It was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. After their deliberations are complete, it will come to the Assembly.
On January 3 the Assembly met as a Committee of the Whole to again address Assembly goals for the year. The COW minutes recount the discussion. The revised goals will come to us again for final approval. Most of them are fairly non-controversial: work on solid waste management, address childcare and homelessness, promote energy efficiency, promote fisheries development.
The one that has attracted the most attention is currently worded as “Review the potential development of the AJ Mine.” This was proposed by David Stone and supported by Mayor Botelho. The Mayor proposed creating a citizen task force to “review whether the idea should be pursued and said he was ready to appoint a committee to do the review. Much has changed regarding technology and performance of existing mines. The location of the mine was the major issue in previous discussions as it is in the heart of the downtown area. He is willing to explore this because he recognizes technologies have changed and the impacts outside the mine may have changed since the last review.” We have received a number of comments from citizens who recall the great divisiveness this issue raised in the community the last time it was addressed.
Here is what I see as the main motivator for this. The three senior members of the Assembly, Mayor Botelho, Deputy Mayor Sanford and Finance Committee Chair Stone have all expressed their deep concern about the economic future of Juneau. They see continued flat or declining population for Juneau and a continued decline throughout Southeast Alaska. They note the uncertain fiscal future of a state with declining oil production and our dependence on state revenue sharing. They note the never ending efforts by some to move the capital (Rep. Neuman of Wasilla has pre-filed a bill to build a new Legislative Hall – the implication being it would be constructed up North). Mr. Sanford made an impassioned plea at our last meeting that we had to move forward with promotion of mining and other economic development.
I share the concern that we need to promote Juneau’s economic development. I share the concern about our potential decline, and I disagree with those who see no problem in our decline. However, there is also a potential for Juneau to be so fearful of the future that we neglect the environmental and social safeguards that make Juneau a desirable place to live. Any moves in the direction of mine development in downtown Juneau must be done with extreme caution and care and with total transparency to the citizens of Juneau.
There are many who have already made up their minds about this issue. Some see a mine as the ultimate salvation of Juneau because it is partially owned by the Borough which would reap significant financial gains from gold production. Others condemn this idea as the ultimate evil that will lead to the destruction of our community. It is my goal to see this examination move forward as a mechanism to get information and understanding of the potential impacts- both good and bad and to make sure any decision is made not from fear, but from considered balancing of costs and benefits. We must not be afraid to address controversial issues, but we must pursue them with caution, openness and civility. We’re all together in this.
The Assembly’s January 10 meeting had nothing very exciting to report. The January 11 Planning Commission began their hearing on the revised noise or disturbing the peace ordinance. It was continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. After their deliberations are complete, it will come to the Assembly.
On January 3 the Assembly met as a Committee of the Whole to again address Assembly goals for the year. The COW minutes recount the discussion. The revised goals will come to us again for final approval. Most of them are fairly non-controversial: work on solid waste management, address childcare and homelessness, promote energy efficiency, promote fisheries development.
The one that has attracted the most attention is currently worded as “Review the potential development of the AJ Mine.” This was proposed by David Stone and supported by Mayor Botelho. The Mayor proposed creating a citizen task force to “review whether the idea should be pursued and said he was ready to appoint a committee to do the review. Much has changed regarding technology and performance of existing mines. The location of the mine was the major issue in previous discussions as it is in the heart of the downtown area. He is willing to explore this because he recognizes technologies have changed and the impacts outside the mine may have changed since the last review.” We have received a number of comments from citizens who recall the great divisiveness this issue raised in the community the last time it was addressed.
Here is what I see as the main motivator for this. The three senior members of the Assembly, Mayor Botelho, Deputy Mayor Sanford and Finance Committee Chair Stone have all expressed their deep concern about the economic future of Juneau. They see continued flat or declining population for Juneau and a continued decline throughout Southeast Alaska. They note the uncertain fiscal future of a state with declining oil production and our dependence on state revenue sharing. They note the never ending efforts by some to move the capital (Rep. Neuman of Wasilla has pre-filed a bill to build a new Legislative Hall – the implication being it would be constructed up North). Mr. Sanford made an impassioned plea at our last meeting that we had to move forward with promotion of mining and other economic development.
I share the concern that we need to promote Juneau’s economic development. I share the concern about our potential decline, and I disagree with those who see no problem in our decline. However, there is also a potential for Juneau to be so fearful of the future that we neglect the environmental and social safeguards that make Juneau a desirable place to live. Any moves in the direction of mine development in downtown Juneau must be done with extreme caution and care and with total transparency to the citizens of Juneau.
There are many who have already made up their minds about this issue. Some see a mine as the ultimate salvation of Juneau because it is partially owned by the Borough which would reap significant financial gains from gold production. Others condemn this idea as the ultimate evil that will lead to the destruction of our community. It is my goal to see this examination move forward as a mechanism to get information and understanding of the potential impacts- both good and bad and to make sure any decision is made not from fear, but from considered balancing of costs and benefits. We must not be afraid to address controversial issues, but we must pursue them with caution, openness and civility. We’re all together in this.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
