In a Committee of the Whole meeting on Sept. 8, CBJ Assembly members voted to advance an ordinance directing staff to “negotiate and execute the purchase of two floors of the Michael J. Burns Building” for a new city hall at a purchase price not to exceed fair market value ($9,300,000).
The ordinance is scheduled for public testimony and possible action at the Assembly’s next regular meeting on Sept. 22.
Although the electorate has voted down two previous attempts to build a city hall, this plan neatly circumvents voter approval since the Assembly has squirreled away $14.6 million in the budget in prior years.
The final cost of this new plan, however, will exceed the stated purchase price by a large margin.
This new proposal involves forming a condominium association with CBJ owning two-thirds of the three-story building and the current owner of the building, the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC), owning the other one-third. Oddly, despite this, APFC is requiring that they retain equal managerial control.
The parties have agreed that CBJ would deposit $2.7 million into a sinking fund for future repairs, which, practically speaking, increases the sales price to $12 million. The City Manager revealed that new furniture and renovations could cost an additional $7.6 million, a $2.5 million increase over previous estimates.
This places the base cost at almost $20 million, higher than previous estimates to utilize either Marie Drake or Floyd Dryden school buildings that the school district abandoned after a facilities consolidation last year.
The agreement envisions that CBJ would pay an estimated $650,000 in condominium dues annually which doesn’t include janitorial, utilities, or other interior expenses.
Most believe that city employees should have adequate office space and work in safe and comfortable working quarters. But the entire planning process from the beginning has leaned into city leaders’ preferences so heavily that it precluded ever seriously considering utilization of existing public buildings that would have provided greater access to the public at less cost.
Assembly members preferred that city offices remain downtown and that as many offices be consolidated into city hall as possible, thereby greatly limiting options.
It seems sensible that city administration, legal staff, accounting and HR functions, and the Assembly Chambers are located in a central location. But why do Parks and Recreation, City Engineering, or Community Development, for instance, need to be put there? Arguably, separate and distinct functions that may require extensive contact with the public could be located elsewhere in more accessible locations than this proposed site.
Does the city actually need space for 160 employees as they insist is required?
Indeed, in the quest to satisfy their personal preferences for location and consolidation, city leaders have landed on a solution that satisfies no one.
The APFC location, while downtown, is far enough out of the city core that any positive economic impacts it was supposed to preserve will be minimal since city employees will find it inconvenient to walk (or drive and find a parking space) downtown in order to frequent local eateries and shops.
Furthermore, the proposed parking is seriously deficient. Assuming some minimal amount of parking spaces must be available to the public, barely half of city employees will likely be accommodated in the available AFPC parking lot.
Other parking identified is located one-third of a mile away in the Whittier Street parking lot. Who wants to trek through the rain and snow for that distance back and forth to get to work or attend a public meeting?
The city has spent years considering possible solutions for better city office space. But real analysis is lacking.
Even the most basic questions at last Monday’s meeting couldn’t be answered. When asked for specifics on renovation costs, the city manager said the details hadn’t been worked out yet and a more comprehensive space analysis is required.
If that is the case, can we really rely on the price tag presented so far? Or is it more likely to cost more than projected?
This entire process fails to inspire confidence in the Assembly’s ability to control spending.
It is yet another reason a citizen initiative is on the ballot to cap property taxes at 9 mills.
• After retiring as the senior vice president in charge of business banking for KeyBank in Alaska, Win Gruening became a regular Opinion Page columnist for the Juneau Empire. He was born and raised in Juneau and graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1970. He is involved in various local and statewide organizations. Columns, My Turns and Letters to the Editor represent the view of the author, not the view of the Juneau Empire. Have something to say? Here’s how to submit a My Turn or letter.
