The implications of last week’s Juneau municipal election are unmistakable. Voters have sent an unambiguous message that it’s time to change course, and the city must live within its means.
The electorate apparently desires a more affordable Juneau, and they want and expect our city leaders to significantly cut back current municipal expenditures.
As of Tuesday, October 14, with over 10,000 votes counted and only a handful of ballots still outstanding, Nano Brooks leads incumbent Wade Bryson by 383 votes in the sole contested seat for the Assembly.
Meanwhile, a voter initiative (Proposition 1) to cap the real estate tax millage rate is passing by a 143-vote margin. A second voter initiative to exempt sales tax on food and utilities (Proposition 2) is easily passing 70%-30%, while a city-sponsored seasonal sales tax (Proposition 3) is losing convincingly by a current margin of 43%-57%.
Bryson campaigned for significant expenditures for a new city hall even though voters had rejected two previous city hall proposals. He championed the most recent proposal, spending up to $20 million, or perhaps more, to purchase two floors in the Alaska Permanent Fund building.
Bryson also supported other spending such as millions for an expensive new cultural arts center and up to nine million dollars on housing on Telephone Hill with no viable plan in place. These Assembly actions, among others, are what led directly to the two citizen affordability initiatives that were placed on the ballot.
Every sitting Assembly member argued against the proposed tax cap and only endorsed the food and utilities exemption if it was paired with the seasonal sales tax measure that actually raised taxes for most Juneau residents.
Brooks took the opposite view. He campaigned for the tax cap and sales tax exemption, but against the seasonal sales tax proposal.
Even if you agreed with the Assembly, Brooks’ apparent win along with the passage of the two affordability initiatives and the defeat of the seasonal sales tax measure should lead you to an inescapable conclusion.
No longer is it business as usual. No longer can the Assembly approve millions of dollars for projects and programs that would never pass muster with voters. Our city leaders must be able to justify significant expenditures as truly necessary and consistent with the core mission of government: Public Safety, Education, and Health and General Welfare.
Local government has a responsibility to encourage and foster a growing private sector economy but not replace it. It must seek out and sense the mood of all constituents. It must resist sponsoring pet projects that add to the operating budget, forcing taxes ever higher, while adding little to the quality of life and reducing affordability.
Our city leaders have a choice.
They can petulantly slash street maintenance, or popular recreation and education programs, for example, hoping to punish voters and prove that its not possible to realistically cut the budget.
Or, just as the taxpayers they represent must do, our Assembly can balance the budget by limiting unnecessary discretionary expenditures so that Juneau lives within its means.
Despite Assembly protests to the contrary, there are changes that can be made that do not impact core services. Consider these questions:
• In light of declining population, why have annual General Government Expenditures ballooned from $110.6 million in 2014 to $179 million in 2024 (+62%)?
• Why have discretionary grants under the Mayor’s budget doubled from $5.1 million to $11.8 million annually in the last ten years?
• When will there be an effort to seriously evaluate any of the numerous sales tax exemptions in municipal code?
• Why do city employees require pricey new offices if existing buildings can be re-purposed?
• Why aren’t cultural art center proposals being considered that are affordable to operate and maintain into the future? And why is it the city’s responsibility to own and operate it?
• Why would we add another unnecessary voting system (RCV) to the currently expensive wasteful Vote-By-Mail system that delays results and doesn’t improve voter turnout?
Shouldn’t these questions be answered first before we’re told we can’t afford to plow the streets, keep libraries open, or pay for two swimming pools?
