What are taxpayers actually getting?

Angela Rodell. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Independent)

By Angela Rodell

Last week, I emailed the Assembly a straightforward question: if the city sells City Hall to Sealaska Heritage Institute (SHI) at a discount, how much future tax revenue will taxpayers forgo, and what will they get in return?

No Assembly member answered.

That may seem minor, but it reflects a larger problem. The public is repeatedly asked to weigh in on major decisions before receiving the information needed to evaluate them, then expected to trust a process where basic questions about costs and consequences go unanswered.

The question isn't controversial. It should have been among the first the Assembly considered before voting to dispose of a publicly owned asset. Instead, taxpayers are being handed conceptual benefits, architectural renderings and an Aug. 17 deadline, while the financial questions remain open.

The issue isn't whether SHI is a valuable institution. It is. The issue is whether the Assembly is applying the same diligence to this sale that it would apply to any disposal of public property.

SHI has proposed a three-story, 30,000-square-foot cultural center with a glass-blowing studio, retail gallery, cultural programming, and possibly space for the Juneau-Douglas City Museum, estimated at $40 million. Yet SHI has acknowledged it doesn't have funding to build it and may not for years. It is nonetheless asking the city to sell the property for $1.5 million — $1 million below the $2.5 million minimum originally proposed for an open auction.

The financial implications go beyond the purchase price. As a nonprofit, SHI would likely generate little or no property tax under a tax-exempt community-use arrangement, and commercial activity there would generate less sales tax than a comparable private development on the same parcel. That's not a criticism of SHI, it's simply the fiscal reality of transferring public property to a tax-exempt entity.

At the city's current mill rate of 9.92, a comparable taxable facility on the site could generate roughly $400,000 a year in property taxes, nearly $8 million over 20 years, and close to $20 million over 50. Whether those estimates run high or low, they matter far more than the negotiated purchase price and should be central to the Assembly's analysis.

These are my estimates, not official city figures, and that's the problem. The city has professional assessors and finance staff, yet taxpayers are left estimating the value of a public asset from their kitchen tables while officials prepare to vote on its sale. Staff should evaluate the fiscal impact and present findings publicly before any decision.

Worth noting is Huna Totem Corporation's Áak'w Landing, an Alaska Native-led project with real cultural and economic benefits, is a for-profit undertaking that will pay property and sales tax as required, a direct fiscal contribution alongside its broader community value. Last month, that project was sent back for additional review after design changes were proposed. Whatever one thinks of that call, the message was clear, more information was needed first.

When some projects face repeated scrutiny while others advance with unanswered financial questions, residents naturally wonder whether decisions are driven by objective standards or preferred outcomes. That uncertainty erodes public trust.

Supporters of the sale point to relocating the Juneau-Douglas City Museum into the new facility. But City Manager Katie Koester noted in a May memo that ticket revenue likely wouldn't cover the city's lease and personnel costs at market rates and could add as much as $250,000 a year to the museum's budget. This is notable given that the Assembly just cut museum staffing and hours in this year's budget. A city struggling to fund existing services should be cautious about selling public assets below market value.

To be fair, SHI raises legitimate points. City Hall isn't turnkey; no appraisal has established what a building burdened by asbestos, lead paint, and deferred maintenance would bring on the open market. An auction could yield less than the city hopes. But uncertainty is an argument for better analysis, not less.

SHI's contributions to Juneau are real. The organization reports generating more than $30 million annually in economic activity, supporting over 100 local jobs, and providing more than $13 million in direct gifts to the Juneau School District and UAS since 2015. Those contributions deserve recognition. They do not, however, answer the question before the Assembly.

Before Aug. 17, taxpayers deserve a transparent public record showing what's being given up, what's being gained, and how those conclusions were reached. Trust isn't created by asking residents to accept conclusions. It's created by showing the work. The public deserves the numbers and the analysis, not just the renderings.

• Angela Rodell is a former CEO of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. and commissioner of the Alaska Department of Revenue who is currently a business consultant and member of Juneau International Airport’s board of directors. Her column appears the second Tuesday of every month.