Local Government

The Juneau Assembly tonight (Monday) will take public comment on elements of the city and school district budgets for next fiscal year, though none of the measures are likely to be voted upon.

Ordinances for public hearing include the city’s biennial budget for Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014; the proposed property tax mill levy for next year; and the local contribution to the Juneau School District in FY 13. A resolution approving the city’s capital improvements project list is also on the agenda. But City Manager Kim Kiefer is recommending all budget-related ordinances and resolutions be referred to the Assembly Finance Committee for more review.

The city’s contribution to schools will be about $23-million next year. That’s about $2-million less than previously expected, due to a last minute increase to school funding approved by the Alaska Legislature.

The draft CBJ budget is just under $320-million in each of the next two years, with spending matched to revenues. The city’s budget includes the school district, Bartlett Regional Hospital and other city-operated ventures and services, like the Juneau Airport, docks and harbors and the police and fire departments. The current mill levy proposal for next year would set the overall borough-wide rate at 10.89 mills. That’s down slightly from a previous proposal.

Any city resident can comment during public hearings on the budget ordinances. More hearings are likely to be scheduled later in the city’s budget process, which is expected to last into next month.

Also on the agenda for tonight’s assembly meeting is a resolution to rename the Douglas Boat Harbor as the “Mike Pusich Douglas Harbor” after the long-time island resident.

The meeting starts at 7:00 in CBJ Assembly Chambers at City Hall. It can be heard live on KTOO.

Juneau Mayor Bruce Botelho proposed a public censure of Assembly Member Ruth Danner last night (Wednesday) for testimony she gave to the city’s Planning Commission earlier this month, accusing the CBJ Law Department of having “misled” commissioners in the past.

Danner ultimately apologized in order to avoid censure, but only after Botelho and other assembly members expressed shock and dismay at her actions.

Last weekend, Danner tried to get a written legal opinion from City Attorney John Hartle, explaining the Law Department’s advice to the Planning Commission regarding a Conditional Use Permit for a rock crusher at a gravel pit on Montana Creek Road. The Planning Commission approved the permit at its April 10th meeting, where Danner made her comment alleging the Law Department had previously misled commissioners. The pit is located near Danner’s house, and in her testimony she said she was speaking on behalf of herself and not as an Assembly member.

In an email to Hartle, City Manager Kim Kiefer and Botelho last weekend, Danner wrote that she wanted the opinion so she could, quote, “shop it around to make certain it holds firm and… explore alternatives if it does not.” Botelho replied that Danner’s request needed to be vetted through the full Assembly. He also expressed concern about meddling in Planning Commission affairs.

On Monday, Botelho requested a transcript of the April 10th commission meeting, which led him to call last night’s special assembly meeting. The Assembly decided not to take up Danner’s request for a legal opinion, since the Planning Commission’s approval of the conditional use permit has not been appealed.

But the mayor said he was still troubled by Danner’s comment accusing the Law Department of being misleading.

“Because I don’t think that in any way is reflective of people I believe are of highest integrity of character in the Department of Law,” said Botelho.

Danner initially declined to apologize, saying she was just trying to understand the legal rationale for approving the conditional use permit.

“I cannot apologize for what I have done, because I am trying to represent the people and the people’s interests, and I will not apologize for that,” Danner said.

Assemblyman Johan Dybdahl said he vehemently disagreed with Danner’s characterization of the Law Department, and Assemblyman David Stone said he had never seen another member ask for a legal opinion on an issue that had yet to be appealed to the Assembly.

Botelho said if Danner failed to apologize he would make a motion to censure her.

“I believe it is appropriate for Ms. Danner to raise questions, to challenge as she sees her job,” said Botelho. “But Ms. Danner, I’m most deeply troubled that you’re not prepared to apologize for the remark about the department misleading the commission. And absent that, I’m going to request the body censure you. And I do this very reluctantly, and again, I’ve never confronted this issue in my years in city government. But I have to say, I’m so disturbed about this, I don’t see any other course.”

After asking for a definition of “censure,” Danner again said she wouldn’t apologize for doing her job as an assembly member. She also said she didn’t remember making the remark to the Planning Commission, but then took a minute or two to review the transcript. Finally, she apologized to both the city manager and the city attorney.

“The people of Juneau do have a great deal of faith in the work that you do, and with good cause. By and large, we have a great deal to be proud of here,” Danner said. “And to Mr. Hartle, to the degree that I have said anything that indicates any kind of bad behavior or intentional misleading, I truly do apologize. That was not at all what I was trying to convey. And I think I probably should stop there.”

Botelho said that settled the matter for him.

Danner quickly left the Assembly Chambers after the meeting was over.

Native leaders from around Southeast are in Juneau this week for the 77th annual tribal assembly of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska.

Former president John Borbridge, Jr. administered the oath to new delegates.

Governor Sean Parnell and Juneau Mayor Bruce Botelho made brief comments during opening events Wednesday afternoon. Botelho thanked delegates for their support and leadership in getting the proposed coastal management initiative on the ballot this year.

The Central Council is the sovereign tribal government representating about 28-thousand Tlingits and Haidas around the world

The tribal assembly meeting runs through Saturday at the ANB hall.

You can see live video of the meeting on the Central Council’s website.

The Juneau Assembly has given the city’s Public Works and Law departments the go ahead to continue negotiating with landfill operator Waste Management for a new municipal recycling facility at the dump.

The so-called MRF (murf) would consolidate three separate city-funded recycling programs under one roof – household products, as well as hazardous materials and junk vehicle disposal.

The city and Waste Management have been trying to work out the details of a contract since the end of January. As Casey Kelly reports, the two sides say they’re inching closer to a deal and hope to have it completed in the coming months.

iFriendly audio

Waste Management has agreed to build the municipal recycling facility, and the city has agreed to pay the company about a million dollars per year over the next decade to operate it. But after two days of face-to-face negotiations last week neither side was ready to sign a contract.

Kirk Duncan is the city’s Public Works Director.

“Clearly they want assurances that we’re going to continue the program for ten years. We want some assurances that – while they have performed very well in the six years of the current recycling program – if we’re going to make a ten year commitment, we want to make sure that we have assurances that they’re going to run the program well,” Duncan says. “So, you can imagine that with those kind of issues, we’re working through them.”

Duncan declined to talk specifics, but says the two sides made progress during last week’s talks.

“They presented us with a 33-page contract. We added things to their contract. And after the two days negotiations Waste Management took the information that we requested and they’re going to incorporate it into the contract,” says Duncan. “And we should see something back within two weeks or so from their attorneys, and then we’ll go to the second round.”

The city has hired Constance Hornig, a Los Angeles-based attorney with experience drafting and negotiating municipal solid waste contracts. Duncan says she refers to herself as “The Garbage Attorney.” After the negotiations with Waste Management, Hornig and Duncan briefed the Juneau Assembly during a closed-door executive session last week.

“Waste Management is the largest waste company in the world. So, we felt that it would be in our best interest to make sure that we had someone who was just totally familiar with all of Waste Management’s negotiating tactics,” Duncan says.

After hearing Duncan and Hornig’s presentation, the Assembly gave its approval to continuing with the negotiations.

Dean Kattler is Waste Management’s Regional Vice President for the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. He also declined to discuss the particulars, but agrees with Duncan that last week’s talks yielded some progress.

“Meeting face-to-face across a table always helps keep things moving and now there’s just some points that we need to refine and continue to discuss,” says Kattler. “So, I’d like to say that we’re continuing to push the ball down the field.”

Still, Kattler says the sooner a deal gets done, the better.

“We’re under a pretty tight timeline if we’re going to try and get this facility up and running, and do the construction that’s necessary during this year’s construction window,” Kattler says.

Juneau’s recycling program has been breaking even in recent years, despite ups and downs in the recyclables market and the challenge of shipping materials to the Lower 48. When the Assembly last year decided to put the city’s entire recycling program out to bid under one contract, Duncan said the idea was to lower costs and expand services. He’s still optimistic that can be accomplished through the deal with Waste Management.

“We’d like to get this contract wrapped up, but we’re not going to hurry into a bad contract,” Duncan says.

Arrow Refuse – the company that provides curbside garbage pickup in Juneau – is planning to offer curbside recycling service to its customers. Arrow officials have said the new municipal recycling facility will be a key to that effort. The company plans to announce details soon.

The public can now comment on the City and Borough of Juneau’s petition to annex roughly 2,000 square miles of largely undeveloped land south of the current municipal boundary.

The CBJ’s petition was filed last November in response to the City of Petersburg, which has proposed forming a borough that includes the same area. The state’s Local Boundary Commission accepted Juneau’s filing on April 9th, opening the public comment period. It lasts through June 28th.

Brent Williams is a local government specialist for the State of Alaska and staff to the Local Boundary Commission. He says the public comment period is the beginning of a several-month process before the commission issues a final decision early next year.

“Once the comments are submitted, the staff will review all of them, and it will look at the standards and make a recommendation to the commission whether the petition meets the standards or not. Then we issue a report, and people get to comment on that report. We again look at those comments and consider them; write a final report, and then the commission will have a hearing,” Williams says.

Juneau’s petition seeks to annex the mostly unpopulated area from the city’s southern boundary to Cape Fanshaw and east to the Canadian border. It includes the Tracy Arm/Ford’s Terror Wilderness and Endicott Arm as well as Holkam, Windham and Hobart bays.

Both Juneau and Petersburg claim economic and cultural ties to the region. Juneau-based Native Corporation Goldbelt, Incorporated owns about 30,000 acres at Hobart Bay. The company opposes having the land incorporated into either community.

Petersburg’s petition is about eight months ahead of Juneau’s in the Local Boundary Commission process. Commission staff in February recommended approving Petersburg’s proposal, including the disputed area. Commissioners will hold a hearing on Petersburg’s petition in May.

The commission earlier denied Juneau’s request to consolidate the competing claims.

Comments on Juneau’s annexation petition should be filed with the Local Boundary Commission and the CBJ clerk’s office. The deadline, again, is June 28th.

Link:
CBJ annexation petition public comment instructions

LBC Schedule for Juneau Annexation Petition:
(Source: LBC)

Monday, April 9, 2012
Acceptance of Juneau petition by LBC staff

Thursday, April 12, 2012
Petition’s public comment period starts – first date of publication of notice
(within at least 45 days by regulation)

Thursday, June 28, 2012
Petition public comment period deadline (lasts 77 days) At least 14 days for petitioner’s reply brief.

Friday, July 27, 2012
Deadline for receipt of petitioner’s reply brief (29 days)

Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Finish and mail prelim report (75 days to write report)
At least 28 days of public comment on preliminary report.

Friday, November 9, 2012
Preliminary report public comment period deadline (lasts 30 days)

Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Start writing final report (31 days to write final report)
Must be mailed at least 21 days before the hearing by regulation.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Public hearing notice posted/published (55 days) Must precede the hearing by at least 30 days.

Friday, December 14, 2012
Mail final report (25 days before hearing) Must precede the hearing by at least 21 days.

Tuesday and Wednesday, January 8 – 9, 2013
LBC public hearing in Juneau, Alaska

Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Decisional meeting in Juneau.
(Decisional meeting must be within 90 days of the hearing, but can immediately follow it). Written decision must be issued within 30 days after decisional meeting.

Thursday, January 10, 2013
Start writing final decision (20 days to draft decision)

Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Decision written and sent to commissioners. (20 days from decisional meeting)

Tuesday, February 5, 2013
LBC meeting to approve/disapprove written decision. (27 days from the decisional meeting)

Wednesday, February 6, 2013
If approved, decision mailed to parties (28 days after decision). 18 day period for public to request reconsideration of decision starts. LBC has 30 days, on its own motion, to reconsider. If reconsideration granted, then petitioner or respondent has 10 days to file a brief.

Juneau school board and district administrators presented next year’s proposed budget to the CBJ Assembly Finance Committee last night (Wednesday).

Board President Sally Saddler called it a “precariously balanced” spending plan that cuts $5.8-million dollars from this year’s budget. That includes 65 positions, ranging from school nurses to library assistants to middle and high school support staff.

Enrollment in Juneau schools has been on a steady decline for the past decade – dipping under 5,000 students for the past two years, where it is expected to stay. But Saddler says operating expenses continue to rise, while state and federal funding have gone down.

“We believe what you have before you is our best effort to craft a budget that will enable us to continue to focus on student performance and student achievement,” Saddler said. “But know that we will be doing things differently. It’s not business as usual. We’ve tightened our belt. We’ve made a lot of efficiencies, changes to improve our performance. But there’s no fat to cut. We are definitely cutting the bone at this time.”

Much depends on whether state lawmakers decide to increase the base student allocation. That’s the per pupil amount the state doles out to every district in Alaska. Last year lawmakers did a one-time increase to the BSA. Saddler says she’s not optimistic about another one, let alone a multi-year increase as proposed in the state Senate.

“If I had been before you two months ago, I might have been more optimistic that we could expect a BSA increase,” said Saddler. “At this point, I think I will be relieved if we get one-time funding to replace the one-time funding that we’re losing this year.”

If a BSA increase does happen, Assistant Superintendent Laury Scandling says funding will be restored for some positions and programs.

“So the first add back are 3.5 cultural paraeducators, paid for, again, general fund dollars. Our second add back right there, is elementary specialists, the third add back would be not to raise the PTR by a half, etc,” said Scandling.

The PTR Scandling mentioned, stands for Pupil-Teacher ratio, which will increase at most schools in the district without an increase in revenue.

The district’s presentation lasted about 15 minutes.

The Assembly will decide at its April 23rd regular meeting how much the city will contribute to the district’s budget. In order to meet federal guidelines designed to avoid disparity between districts, the state caps the amount local communities can contribute to schools. In Juneau, the Assembly has traditionally funded the maximum amount allowed under that cap.

Capital projects list OK’d for Assembly agenda

The Assembly Finance Committee also heard from Engineering Director Rorie Watt last night (Wednesday) with a review of capital projects in next year’s proposed budget, as well as an update of the city’s six-year Capital Improvement Program.

Mayor Bruce Botelho commented on the long-term plan, noting it includes a lot of projects in Fiscal Year 2014. Botelho suggested distributing the projects more evenly from year-to-year.

“I simply flag that, and it may be something the manager might want to review,” Botelho said.

Projects included in next year’s capital project spending plan range from borough-wide water and sewer improvements, to airport terminal renovations, to maintenance of city buildings, parks and other facilities.

About $16-million dollars in city sales tax revenue has been earmarked to pay for nearly 30 projects. Five of those are funded by the voter-approved temporary one-percent sales tax, which is due to expire at the end of next fiscal year.

Six projects are funded by the city’s water and wastewater utility funds.

Twelve projects totaling nearly $21.4-million dollars are on the assembly’s wish list, meaning they are dependent on state and federal assistance or grants.

Likewise, the city-owned Bartlett Regional Hospital and Juneau Airport are seeking grants to pay for projects totaling about $20-million and $54-million dollars respectively.

The capital improvement projects lists will appear on the agenda at the next regular Assembly meeting.

Questions about Marine Passenger Fees

Juneau’s capital improvement list for next year includes about $7.8-million dollars in projects funded by local and state marine passenger and port development fees.

The U.S. Constitution’s tonnage clause and other federal laws limit how revenue from the fees can be spent. It must be relevant to the passengers who pay the fee, or enhance the safety and efficiency of cruise ship commerce. So every year the city manager comes up with a list of projects and a justification for each item.

This year’s list includes about half a million dollars for the private Franklin and AJ Juneau docks. Assembly members Jesse Kiehl and Mary Becker questioned why the city would fund a retaining wall and information kiosk at Franklin Dock.

Mayor Bruce Botelho responded that the Assembly has often viewed Juneau’s waterfront as “an organic whole.”

“And to the extent that we have a concern about free flow of passengers, their safety on the waterfront, and frankly also the appearance of the waterfront, there is justification to provide support for projects that meet threshold tests, whether they come from a private proposal or one from the city,” Botelho said.

But Kiehl said he wanted a better explanation of where the city manager’s office draws the line when spending public money on private projects.

“There are businesses, retail businesses, and certainly other businesses around town that serve cruise ship passengers, and we don’t invest fee dollars in their basic, rudimentary infrastructure,” Kiehl said. “So, I would appreciate knowing more about what sort of analysis we do on when we’re going to help somebody build the basics of the business and when we’re going to serve the general interest of the port.”

Botelho noted that this question comes up every year when the Assembly approves spending marine passenger fees. He suggested the topic be added to a future Committee of the Whole meeting.

The Finance Committee will continue hearing presentations on the city’s proposed biennial budget through the rest of this month and into May.