@Garand, I think to be truthful, at this point we have an income problem because we no longer have an option. There are some things that could be done to create some real savings but they are politically untenable in Juneau and for the people we currently have seated on the assembly will remain untenable no matter the financial situation.The bills are now due and I think it’s pretty doubtful that any force of nature is going to move our assembly to suddenly become ‘fiscally responsible’.

It appears we agree that Juneau city government doesn’t have an income problem, it has a spending problem. One letter to the Assembly I saw said that city government has one employee for every 17 residents, and I believe that to be true! Juneau will soon be far more worried about its debt as reducing the reimbursement of municipal school debt service is almost certain to come if oil prices remain low. If $60 oil is the new norm then Juneau will before long be mothballing one high school and possibly one middle school.

I think that taxing lobbying would precipitate moving the capital out of Juneau. Lobbyists have power. Juneau’s lobbyist is Exxon’s lobbyist, etc. etc. Moving the capital would on balance be bad, but it would not be all bad.

I think it’s auto dealers, outboard dealers and the like that will suffer most from raising the per item ceiling. Barge fees have already gone down in response to lower oil prices, and Seattle dealers are just more competitive.

Some seniors tell me that they have figured out how to use some Amazon-like firm to ship groceries to Juneau if their tax exemption goes away. I think that in the mid to longer term there will just be fewer seniors choosing to live in Juneau if the senior tax exemption is removed, and like the capital move that would not be all bad. Many seniors believe they have paid the sales tax for 40 years or longer and they deserve to finally be exempt upon reaching 65 years of age. Many seniors say that city government is far, far friendlier to and concerned about downtown homeless, indigent drunks than it is about seniors but it’s all the same to me.

To start with, I am personally against any tax at first blush but I am also a realist.. things cost money to build or buy and generally cost more money to operate and maintain. In Juneau our problem is that we have had a very bad habit of building and buy a lot of stuff that we ‘wanted’ but did not ‘need’ and were quite disingenuous in how the true cost to the tax payers was explained. We were able to do this through a clever device called a Bond. Bonds allow the municipality to pay later for things that it builds or buys today. The problem with these bonds is that they do not pay for future costs of ownership… operations, maintenance and staffing. Because of this, bonds are something that can be a little to convenient if not used very carefully. Juneau as not been as careful as we should have been and our debt service for 2015 year exceeds $25,000,000. Having a debt load this high is bad enough but what was never explained clearly enough to the voters who approved these general obligation bonds is that the true cost of each of these projects also represented a vast increase in the operations and maintenance budget and also in many cases caused a significant increase in personnel costs for the city as well.

A lot of our fiscal problems are the result of poor fiscal responsibility in years past now coming home to roost. Giving Seniors a break on this amounts to allowing the folks who spent the money too avoid the bill when it comes due. These folks were all voters who allowed a New Skating Rink, New Pool, New Schools, New Parking structures and a giant new police department building. All bought on tax dollars to be paid in the future. All were items that were ‘wanted’ but not ‘needed’.

The sales tax cap on individual items is a boon to shops who sell very high end items in that it allows a marketing strategy where the Jewelry salesman can offer the customer a perceived ‘discount’ of five percent on any single item purchase of $7500.00 or more. There is no benefit to the city in this exemption since nearly all sales of this type are conducted by non local owned business that operate in downtown Juneau on a seasonal basis and who primarily employ non local labor on a seasonal part time basis.

The Sales Tax exemption for lobbyists is ridiculous on it’s face and was only created through the efforts of lobbyists and has since been defended by them whenever threatened. It’s my thought that three might be some real money involved here and there is no reason that the city should not have it’s cut.

If Governor Walker only cuts 5% in the face of a 35% or greater reduction in revenues then the state liquidity other than the Permanent Fund cannot last this 4 year term without a doubling of oil prices within 12 to 18 months. There are lots of variables of course, including the court ruling on the Ketchikan and Fairbanks case over state funding of urban vs. rural schools. But 5% is only withing the rounding error of the needed reductions in general fund spending. And leaving it entirely up to the legislature is a big mistake.

The Juneau city manager carefully avoided mentioning that the city seemingly intends to do away with sales tax exemptions for seniors, raise the per item sales tax cap, and tax lobbying to balance its budget. No one is going to talk much about it until it’s a done deal.

If OPEC is dead then lower oil prices far into the future are more likely. Alaskans should plan accordingly.

Everything Obama does is bad for America, and everything he touches turns to mud. So if the Taxachusetts senator thwarts his lame duck agenda and pushes aside Hillary Clinton in the bargain it cannot be bad news for Alaska. Alaskans are so thankful for the November 4 turnover of the US Senate.

DAMN YOU AUTOCORRECT!

Lynn, well said re the banks and the QE1,2,and 3. Only one comment: I believe all Alaskans have been rubbing noses with the Feds for many years. Guess it’s time for payback.