Community Compass: 4,400 respondents prioritize streets, schools and safety; many support exploring new revenue

Ashley Heimner, communications and engagement director, presented the manager's office summary of the community-engagement effort supporting the FY27 budget process.

"We had a pretty impressive 4,400 respondents," Heimner said, describing a weighted survey and a set of three workshops designed to surface values and trade-offs from residents across neighborhoods and generations.

What the public said: the top-ranked goals in the survey were making Juneau a place where working-age residents and young families can live and stay long-term; delivering well-maintained core services and infrastructure; strong fiscal management; and ensuring affordable and attainable housing options. When asked which services respondents would cut or were open to cutting, participants most often pointed to new-construction CIP projects, certain assembly grants and non-core expansions — but respondents also repeatedly emphasized preserving social services and core public safety functions.

Revenue appetite and demographics

A notable result: the community survey and supplemental comments showed meaningful interest among many respondents in evaluating alternative revenue options. When asked to "select all that apply" for revenue ideas, only 22% of respondents selected "no new or increased taxes, fees or user charges," indicating that a plurality of participants were open to at least some revenue adjustments — though the survey included examples to clarify what each option meant.

Heimner and staff emphasized demographic differences: younger respondents tended to prioritize recreation and housing availability more heavily, while older respondents placed higher importance on traditional core services; such variance is relevant when the Assembly weighs cuts that have uneven impacts across generations and income brackets.

Workshops and form input

Facilitated workshops asked participants to reallocate a hypothetical budget with coin tokens to simulate trade-offs. Across sessions, attendees repeatedly prioritized reducing new projects and shifting funds toward maintenance. An open, anonymous input form received 125 submissions (a subset of which concentrated comments about Telephone Hill and related Assembly actions). Staff posted the full comments and a 360-page survey-response appendix on the community-compass web page for public review.

How the Assembly used this

Members discussed the public input as they considered guiding principles for reductions (protecting core services, phasing reductions, minimizing resident-impact where possible, pursuing alternative funding sources and prioritizing disaster response/mitigation). Staff said public input would be part of the materials assembled for members to use in designing their reduction packages.

Next steps

Staff will publish the compiled member reduction proposals and updated department impact estimates; the Assembly scheduled a public listening session and additional review meetings to ensure public input remains part of the deliberations.