THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA
February 9, 1998
MEETING NO. 98-05: The Regular meeting of the City and Borough of Juneau Assembly, held in the Assembly Chambers of the Municipal Building, was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Mayor Dennis Egan.
Assemblymembers present: Garrett, Kibby, MacKinnon, Perkins, Powell, Mayor Egan, Muñoz, Koelsch
Assemblymembers absent: Hagevig
A quorum was present.
Staff Present: Evelyn Stott, Deputy Municipal Clerk; Dave Palmer, City Manager; John Corso, City Attorney; Cheryl Easterwood, Director Community Development; Ben Pollard, CDD Chief Resident Engineer; Mary Rubadeau, School Superintendent
1. 01/5/98 - Regular Meeting No. 98-01
Dennis Harris, 352 Distin Avenue, acting Chief Curmudgeon of the I. J. Montgomery Appreciation Society. He pointed out a number of errors in the minutes of January 5: on page 6, "council" should be "counsel"; "accept" in the next paragraph down should be "except"; on page 7, the third paragraph from the bottom does not make sense and he asked for clarification.
MOTION - by Kibby, to approve the minutes of Regular Meeting No. 98-01, held January 5, 1998, as amended, and asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LID NO. 81; FIXING THE TIME AND METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS; SETTING THE DAY OF LEVY; AND FIXING THE TIME OF DELINQUENCY AND THE PENALTIES AND INTEREST THEREFORE.
Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this resolution be adopted. The only objection received was from Ms. Nowlin, owner of Block A, Lot 23 of White Subdivision. Ms. Nowlin objects to being charged an LID fee for this lot as it is currently the side yard for her home and she feels it will never be used for a residence.
Public Testimony: None
Mr. Perkins referred to the red folder letter from Jeffrey DeSmet to Ms. Nowlin regarding lot 23. Mr. DeSmitt wrote that if he were to consider purchasing that lot for development, it would be necessary to devalue the lot price due to the physical constraints of Wickersham Avenue and the added costs that would be incurred due to the elevation differences and the steep slopes involved. Mr. Perkins would like additional time to speak with Ms. Nowlin’s son to see if Ms. Nowlin has considered making this one large lot.
Mr. MacKinnon asked Mr. Palmer his recommendation for dealing with this situation. Mr. Palmer suggested that if the Ms. Nowlins wanted to consolidate the lots into one, it could be argued the access for the consolidated lot already exits and the lot could be taken out of the district. There is no easy way to condition that if the lot were developed, they would have to pay the assessment. The assessment could be reduced for her or it could leave them out of the LID. Another option would be to leave the lot in and require her to participate. Mr. Palmer added that if Ms. Nowlin decides to consolidate the lots, he would like her not to have to pay a couple thousand dollars for surveying costs. It is a paper plat eliminating a lot line and it could be accommodated without another survey.
Mr. Corso stated the time to include or exclude property in a LID is at the time of the passage of the ordinance creating that district. If protected property owners do not file a protest in writing before or after that meeting, they are in that district. It is possible to move the lines of the district around to accommodate subdivision as long as that occurs prior to confirmation of the roll. If the Assembly proposes to adjust the boundary lines of the LID in a response to a subdivision, it should continue this hearing until that subdivision has been accomplished. If the Assembly proposes to proceed with confirmation of the roll this evening, the only way to provide relief is to provide for a low assessment.
Mr. Perkins believes it would be the wish of Ms. Nowlin to consolidate this lot into one if she has the opportunity to do it.
Mr. Corso quoted CBJ 15.10.080(d) and stated that this hearing would have to be continued long enough to adopt an ordinance making a minor adjustment to the LID boundary. The assessment could be reduced right now to a nominal amount.
Mr. Palmer recommended that the hearing be continued until the next regular meeting so staff may get an indication of the direction Ms. Nowlin would like to go.
MOTION – by Perkins, to continue Resolution 1912 until the next regularly scheduled assembly meeting and asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Mr. Palmer asked for a correction on page 6 of the Agenda, item 8, Ordinance No. 97-17 (AL). The Manager’s report refers to a debt service of $60,000. The correct number is $160,000. There being no objection to that change, it was so ordered.
Joyce Lavine, P.O. Box 1705, Juneau, AK 99802. Testified that the tourist season is starting early this year with boats starting to arrive in April. She thinks the overcrowding on Capital Transit started in March and April last year, before the tour ships started arriving. She spoke with Mr. Kern of Capital Transit to see if he was planning to put an ad in the Juneau Guide and he indicated yes. She thought it was previously decided to not spend the money for advertising in the Juneau Guide when it does not need to be advertised to tourists and she requested the city not put the ad in. She then asked if the city has a plan set up with Capital Transit to take care of the overcrowding problem before it happens again this year. Last year extra buses were put on and that helped the problem. She thanked the Assembly for responding last year and encouraged planning prior to the potential overcrowding this year.
Mayor Egan stated the Tourism Advisory Committee is working on the issue. Mr. Palmer stated he would ask Mr. Kern to present a status report. Mayor Egan stated that Ms. Lavine brought up a good point in regards to the advertisement and felt it was unanimous with the Assembly members that it was not needed. Waiting for a status report would be beyond the deadline for getting an ad in. Mr. Palmer was not aware of any advertising plan. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Palmer to have Capital Transit hold off on any advertising in the Juneau Guide. Mr. Powell agreed.
Mr. Dennis Harris asked to remove item A-8, Ordinance 97-17 (AL) for discussion. Mr. Garrett requested removing item B-1, Resolution 1918, for amendment.
MOTION - by Garrett, to adopt the Consent Agenda as amended by deleting items A-8 and B-1, and asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
A. Ordinances for Introduction
1. Ordinance No. 98-06
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WATERS AND HARBORS CODE TO PROVIDE THAT THE PORT DIRECTOR MAY ACT AS THE PURCHASING OFFICER FOR PURPOSES OF ADMINISTERING PURCHASES UNDER TITLE 53.50, THE PURCHASING CODE.
Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be introduced and set for public hearing at the next regular meeting.
2. Ordinance No. 97-17 (AF)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $258,333 FOR REHABILITATION OF THE RUNWAY AT THE JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. SUCH FUNDS, $250,000, PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND $8,333 PROVIDED BY THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES.
Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be introduced and set for public hearing at the next regular meeting.
3. Ordinance No. 97-17 (AG)
AN ORDINANCE DEAPPROPRIATING THE SUM OF $392,800 TO REPAY A LOAN FROM THE SALES TAX BUDGET RESERVE TO CAPITAL PROJECT A345-28, THE RUNWAY REHABILITATION AT THE JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY REPAYMENT OF THE SALES TAX BUDGET RESERVE BY CAPITAL PROJECT A345-28.
Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be introduced and set for public hearing at the next regular meeting.
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $100,000 FOR AN OPTION TO PURCHASE LAND LOCATED AT LENA POINT. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE SALES TAX BUDGET RESERVE.
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $150,000 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MOORING FLOATS IN THE DOUGLAS HARBOR. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY HARBORS RETAINED EARNINGS.
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $10,000 FOR THE FINALIZATION OF THE DOCKS AND HARBORS MASTER PLAN. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY DOCKS RETAINED EARNINGS.
Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be introduced and set for public haring at the next regular meeting.
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $155,792 FOR REPLACEMENT OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS IN THE HIGHLANDS AREA. SUCH FUNDS, $83,540, PROVIDED BY THE WATER FUND UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE, AND $72,252, PROVIDED BY THE SEWER FUND UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE.
2. Resolution No. 1919
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PLANS BY GOLDBELT, INC. TO EXTEND VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY TO CASCADE POINT.
Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this resolution be adopted.
A-8 Ordinance No. 97-17 (AL)
AN ORDINANCE APPRORIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $1,700,000 FOR REPLACEMENT OF WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS DURING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF GLACIER HIGHWAY/WILLOUGHBY AVENUE. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY A REVENUE BOND.
Dennis Harris, 352 Distin Avenue, stated he pulled this item to amend the title so that it can include acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) on Capital Avenue and allow adequate notice to the public. He feels it is very important that the Assemblymembers strongly consider the concerns expressed by this neighborhood both to the Assembly and the Planning Commission in the Willoughby Avenue rezoning matter. Capital Avenue is too narrow and the tank farm property is still undeveloped and now is the time to acquire additional ROW for Capital Avenue from the Powerhouse to Willoughby.
Mr. Corso agreed that if substantial changes are to be made to the ordinance it has to be advertised and changing the title is a good way to do that.
Mr. Palmer stated the acquisition of ROW is not within the scope of this ordinance. It would be more than just a change in the title, it would change the amount of money and the scope of work. This is a state highway project and any ROW required would normally be done by the State in the course of their design of the project. The money being appropriated here is for the city water and sewer utilities that are located within the ROW.
MOTION – by Garrett, to introduce Ordinance 97-17 (AL) as presented and schedule it for public hearing and to recommend that the Lands Committee look at the acquisition of Right-of-way. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Mr. Garrett added that he agrees Mr. Harris made a good point and this is the time to do it but this ordinance is not the vehicle to do it in.
Mr. Kibby did not remember Capital Avenue on any near future CIP projects but will look into it.
B-1 Resolution No. 1918
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE STATE OF ALAKSA TO PROVIDE DIRECT GRANTS FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN ORDER OF PRIORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999.
Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this resolution be adopted.
Public Participation: None
MOTION – by Garrett, to amend the Resolution by deleting Priority No. 3 and re-number Priority No. 4 to No. 3, and adjusting the total to $4,839,354.00. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Mr. Garrett stated the shooting range is an excellent project with a very good funding source identified. The city will participate probably through the provision of land at almost no cost so the facility can be constructed. It is not necessary for the city to request money from the State of Alaska for it. The city only needs to support the Fish and Game appropriation to provide that money.
Mr. Powell stated there may be a time when the Assembly should write a letter of support for the project and he agrees with Mr. Garrett's change.
Mr. MacKinnon asked Mr. Garrett if the discussion on Priority No. 1 was a $1.7 million request with a $1.7 match. He recalled Mr. Mueller stating the city had approval and a DEC loan for $1.7.
Mr. Buck stated that Mr. MacKinnon was correct and the error was an oversight.
AMENDMENT – by Mr. MacKinnon, to amend Priority No. 1 to $1.7 million and strongly suggested the narrative emphasize a $1.7 million match, adjusting the total to $3,139,354.00.
There being no objection to the adoption of Resolution 1918 as amended, it was so ordered.
1. Ordinance No. 98-04
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY AND BOROUGH TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF TOWNSITE OF JUNEAU, BLOCK 22, LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, AND 8.
Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted.
Kim Metcalf-Helmar, 730 Gold Street, president of the Downtown Neighborhood Association. She stated the Association is very appreciative of the attention shown by the CBJ and the Park and Rec. regarding the playground. Last year they worked with the intern architect and were very gratified that someone listened to what they wanted and developed a plan that used their ideas. They are concerned with the rezone to mixed use allowing the height restriction to more easily add on to the existing building. She understands that staff’s recommendation was to use the conditional use process, which is easier for someone to come and add height. They would like, knowing the influence of the legislature of the CBJ, any height requirement to go through the variance process which is more difficult as far as adding height to a building. They are very concerned in downtown Juneau as there have been efforts in the past to allow very high buildings to be built. They feel past efforts on the part of downtown residence have kept those heights down. She encouraged the Assembly to consider their thoughts and concerns.
Dennis Harris, 352 Distin Avenue. Echoed what Ms. Metcalf-Helmar said about use of the variance process. He is concerned that a rezone is permanent. He would prefer that if the transfer agreement is terminated, by the city or Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), this property revert to its existing zoning, D-18. That would keep it in character with the neighborhood rather than MU which is what the adjacent area is zoned. He stated there has been a constant creeping of MU zoning up into residential neighborhoods. Several years ago the Assembly made a commitment to stop this MU creep in the downtown hillside. He is also concerned about the lack of teeth in the enforcement of height restrictions.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Harris what the Planning Commission’s response was to his testimony about the rezone. Mr. Harris stated he was not able to attend that meeting. If he had testified at that meeting, he would have pointed out that the other remaining lots on the block are, and probably will remain, as residential property.
MOTION - by Muñoz, to move Ordinance 98-04 for the purpose of discussion.
Ms. Muñoz asked if in other zoning districts, where there are height restrictions, is the variance process or the conditional use process used to change height.
Ms. Easterwood testified that generally the variance process would be used to address a change in the height, however the Land Use Code made provision for certain exceptions such as adding on to buildings that are adjacent to public property or parks. In those cases, the code specifies that the conditional use process is used.
Ms. Muñoz commented that the surrounding properties are already dwarfed by the size of the building. If the size of the building is allowed to increase it will change the character of that existing community. Her hope is that that is not allowed to happen and that the height limit is set at what it is right now.
Mr. Garrett asked if based on the square footage of the building and the change to a MU zone, is there adequate parking.
Ms. Easterwood stated the adequacy of the parking would depend upon the use and how much of the building is utilized for a particular use. She feels it was determined, for the proposed use of the building, about 50 spaces would be required.
Mr. Garrett asked if they would be required to get a conditional use permit to change that requirement. Ms. Easterwood stated no, LAA has parking lots that are designated for their use throughout the vicinity. The location of the lots change depending on whether the Legislature is in session or not. They show in their analysis that they will be able to provide adequate parking for their employees.
Mr. Garrett asked if as a state agency, they were subject to city zoning laws. Ms. Easterwood stated yes. Mr. Garrett clarified that the State of Alaska, unlike the Federal Government, has to follow the laws of the city. He asked why the limitations can not be imposed on the Federal Government and asked what the difference was. Mr. Corso stated that is because the State allows itself to be subject to zoning codes. The Federal Government is not so disposed.
Mr. Garrett asked if, in the event an elevator is put in the building, will they be allowed to put a superstructure, necessary for an elevator, on top of the building without going through any process.
Ms. Easterwood stated that would depend on the size of the superstructure. Generally staff does not include the enclosures that are required for ventilation systems and what not on top of the roof unless they become so large as to be judged part of the building.
Mr. MacKinnon stated that only a three-stop elevator would be required and it is far more cost effective to put a hydraulic elevator in than a cable operated elevator which would require a structure on top.
MOTION – by Muñoz, to amend the ordinance. Line 15, "The area of changed zoning is shown on the attached exhibit "A" and shall be subject to a special height restrictions" deleting the words "shown thereon" and adding to the end of the sentence on line 17 "equal to the structural height of the existing building."
Mr. Perkins asked Ms. Easterwood if the building is structurally sound enough to add another story or floor. Ms. Easterwood stated that at the time the Planning Commission heard the rezone proposal, there was no proposal in front of that body that included any thoughts of raising the height of the building. As far as the strength of the building or the ability to add more stories, she was unable to answer that question.
Mr. Powell offered a friendly amendment to leave "shown thereon" in to show connection with a map. Ms. Muñoz agreed that would be fine but pointed out that in the box on the map it says any change will be subject to a conditional use process. She feels the Assembly needs to put more teeth into it and say that the building will be kept at the existing height and not allow for future changes.
Mr. Garrett referred to a discussion in the Public Works committee in which review of decay of the buildings in Juneau prompted city staff to quit building flat roof buildings. Mr. Garrett stated the roof of the Capital School building will have to be repaired and they may want to put a slope on it. He is not totally comfortable with completely locking them into only the height of the building as it exists without some way for them to come back and make an appeal.
Yeas: Muñoz, Powell
Nays: Koelsch, MacKinnon, Perkins, Garrett, Kibby, Mayor Egan
Motion fails 2:6
MOTION – by Muñoz, to change the conditional use process to the variance process to make it consistent with what a similar review would be in other zoning districts.
Mr. Palmer suggested an amendment to the wording on the map from conditional use to variance.
Mr. MacKinnon asked Ms. Easterwood if in her explanation she said that because this is located next to a public park, a conditional use was the avenue or method to use for a height change.
Ms. Easterwood stated that there are many examples in the land use code where special reviews have been deemed to be required and the code will say this review will be conducted through the conditional use process. She gave an example that she thought was parallel to this was the opportunity afforded to people who own properties adjacent to public parks or bordering parks. There is an opportunity to build higher there assuming that there would not be any development next door. Still, that review is conducted through the conditional use process.
Mr. Kibby stated objection to the amendment.
Yeas: Koelsch, MacKinnon, Muñoz, Perkins, Powell, Mayor Egan
Nays: Garrett, Kibby
Motion passes 6:2
Mayor Egan asked if there were any objections to the main motion as amended. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
2. Ordinance No. 97-17 (AE)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $15,200 FOR PRODUCTION OF A VIDEO ON JUNEAU AREA HISTORY BY THE JUNEAU DOUGLAS CITY MUSEUM.
Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted.
Public Participation: None
MOTION – by Garrett, to adopt Ordinance No. 97-17 (AE) and asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
B R E A K
8:00 p.m. to 8:08 p.m.
Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that the Assembly approve the transfer agreement.
Mayor Egan stated that, with approval of the body, the Assembly will take public testimony but limit the time for testimony to three minutes.
Vivian Montoya, 434 7th Street, testified she was a teacher at Capital School and during that time she had the opportunity to observe many groups using the gym. She encouraged the Assembly to increase the amount of use and hours the gym will be available to the community. She was present when the Assembly voted to transfer the building and she does not feel the present agreement is in the spirit of the promise made that night. She is able to testify to the fact that noise was not an issue in the classrooms during the use of the gym.
She also read a statement from Barbara Shineburg. "The Legislative Council is concerned about the noise and disturbance of the legislature during the session. However, rather than giving the community the benefit of the doubt that the use of the gym can accommodate these concerns and be compatible with legislative use, the lease assumes the problems and puts unnecessary restrictions on the gyms use. Why not revise it to retain legislative use part of the week while the session is in but use language that is more community friendly. To maintain real public use, the public should have the opportunity to use the gym on the weekends, even during the session. The city apparently will be scheduling its use and when it is not reserved on the weekend, the legislature could use it. There is also a real need to provide two days a week for the Charter School children to have access during the school year for PE classes. Half the children would likely be home schooled without this Charter School and for average daily attendance figures alone, in addition to providing outlets for large muscle skills, there should be an incentive to work out a way for their use of the facility. Why not revise clause 6 to simply state that "6a.) During a regular or special session, the legislature will have use of the gym on Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The public will have use of the gym on Tuesday and Thursday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The city will be responsible for scheduling use of the gym and will provide notice to the building manager. After 5:00 p.m. during weeks days and all day and evenings during the weekends the gym may be used by either the legislature or the public depending on who puts in a reservation and reserves its use. 6b.) Non-disturbance of legislative activities. During a regular or special session, it is a top priority to provide an environment in the Capital School gym that is conducive to legislative work. If any scheduled activity in the gym is found by the city and building manager to cause unreasonable noise and disturbance, the party responsible for the activity will be contacted and actions pursued to eliminate these disturbances. If after three attempts the activity is still causing disturbance, it would not be allowed during the regular or special session. 6c.) When a regular or special session is not in, the public will have use of the gym all week and weekends. The city will be responsible for scheduling use of the gym and will provide notice to the building manager."
Ms. Montoya added that she does support the fact that cost for this facility will be very minimal for programs that serve young children.
Ms. Muñoz asked Ms. Montoya to address the eight months during the off session when the use is restricted. Ms. Montoya agreed that when the session is not in, the public should have use of the gym most of the time unless the legislature reserves it for something they would want.
Ms. Muñoz asked Ms. Montoya where her classroom was located. Ms. Montoya stated her classroom was on the center of the first floor. She spoke with Mr. Hiltner who had the class across from the gym and he did not have concerns about noise. We were trying to teach and do important work too.
Greg Chaney, thanked the Assembly for allowing testimony on this issue. He is an employee of the CDD as a Planner and he is testifying on his own behalf and nothing he says has any bearing on his profession position within the department. He testified that he was involved in helping to secure the permits and actually doing a lot of the groundwork for he Community Charter School. As part of that process, they had to obtain a conditional use permit for that site and as a part of that CU, they stated that they would be using Capital School gym for their programs. The CU was passed by a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission and there was nothing brought up about that portion of the program as being in conflict with anything the city had planned. In consistency with this documents that was approved by the Planning Commission, they should be allowed access to the gym as was the understanding when the CU was approved. Beyond that, he stated that they do use the Capital School playground on a daily basis and have not found the trip to the site overly burdensome. They would like to use the gym more than they have been able to but the cost of the gym has been prohibitive in most cases. He would like to see a program installed that would make this gym more in line with what has been commonly approved for the gym in Douglas.
Mark Regan, 907 3rd Street, #9, Douglas. Testified that when he went to Capital School, they had PE in the gym. This was in the late ‘60s and they made all the noise they could get away with. It was during the hours that other classes were meeting. He feels LAA employees can put up with the lesser amount of noise that will be created by organized activities in the gym. He stated he works in an office that leads onto a hallway. It is a legal services office and they have crying children, crying parents, people occasionally shouting at each other etc and they have discovered a really good revolutionary kind of sound control devise. The devise is called a door and when the door is closed you can get your work done.
Mary Hakala, 1606 Lori Lane, Mountainside. She apologized that the letter she presented was not transmitted earlier, however, either her or the public was given much notice that this issue was coming before the Assembly. She read a portion of that letter. It is a travesty that a community gym in Juneau is to become a private athletic club for legislators and their staffs. Meanwhile kids and their families, non-profits, dance groups, community organizations, struggle to find adequate space for recreation activities and community gatherings. Gym space in Juneau is extremely precious. Every gym and recreation facility in Juneau is used at or nears its capacity during the winter months. She checked with Parks and Rec. and noted that at Mt. Jumbo on weekends, it is often booked solidly from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. The kind of use includes basketball, volleyball, pre-school play time, open gyms, rentals and capital kennels. The lease as proposed would effectively eliminate public use of the school gym during the coldest time of the year. It totally eliminates use of the gym during the day for any children’s activities seven days per week. Kids make noise and a gym is a place where children should be able to make some noise and run and play. The lease totally eliminates Friday and Saturday day and evening events. The legislature would have exclusive use. During the legislative session, the publics use is limited and during the last month of the session this would be even more restrictive. She thinks this is short-changing the kids of Juneau. She has spoken with some of the Assemblymembers and they have told her they feel boxed into a corner and cannot deny this lease. If asked if the legislature and the LAA want the building so badly, why is it an all or none proposition and what compelling public purpose is there that the legislature should have exclusive use seven days a week. She does not think it would really change the drive for the capital move. There is no reason there cannot be mutually exclusive use. She asked each member if they give the gym away, how will they replace the loss to the kids and when will the next recreation center be built in or close to downtown Juneau.
Bill Childers, 213 7th Street. He believes the fumbling and jumbling with hours and days is somewhat inane. He feels the Planning Commission dealt with the gym usage by the community. He would like to reiterate the Planning Commission’s proviso in recommending the approval of the proposed usage of this facility. "LAA may need to soundproof the gymnasium." This was a considered decision after hours of testimony from the citizens of this community. In ignoring this decision, this proposed contract dismisses the importance of process and belittles citizen input into the decisions that affect our local community, our hometown. Although it was in the original contract, the need to set a time limit on securing funding and actually utilizing the facility is also a concern. He hoped the Assemblymembers would address this issue again tonight. In accommodating the legislature, he understands the need to assume a pro-active stance under the pressures of the capital move issue.
Frankie Pillaphant, 512 6th Street, property owner. As a resident she realizes the benefit of having the legislature and the state offices in Juneau. She wants to live in a community that has benefits for the permanent residents too. That includes the children. Recreation space is such a benefit especially in Juneau. The proposed lease, already signed with Legislative Council, is extremely restrictive to community use of the gym. She left the Assembly working meeting on April 23rd disappointed that the school would not be usable by the community at large but she was assured from testimony made by the Assembly, Mayor and even LAA personnel, that it would be available for use as it had been. Much like Jumbo gym is now with open gym times. She knows from conversations with others that were at that meeting that they left with the same use expectations. The process has been hard to follow as the cart has been before the horse many times with the good faith of the community dumped along the road. She encouraged the Assembly to show their good faith to the community, give the community the benefit of the doubt on the daytime gym use. The building was built as a school with a gym. It is reasonable to conjecture that the original builders took into consideration that the gym would be used at the same time as people using classrooms. If noise proves to be a problem, renegotiate clause 6 to addendum A. She asked the members to check into the cost of renting the gym as now the rate seems particularly high.
Kim Metcalf-Helmar, 730 Gold Street, President Downtown Neighborhood Association. Hoping she will not be here next year chastising the Assembly for having a building sitting empty with nothing in it. The condition that the Legislature renovate the Capital School building needs to have a date when work has to be complete. She is unclear as to what happens to the building if the renovations are never done. They were told a year ago that the funding for the remodel would be approved by the end of the legislative session and $50,000 was appropriated for a study of what to do with the building. The Charter School wanted to use the building but were told they could not possibly afford to use it because they could not get the funding. By now, maybe they could have gotten the funding. The lease offers very little use of the gym by the community. There has been testimony that noise is not a problem there and the remodeling could include noise control. One promise was that the gym would be retained for use by the public. The schedule takes the public almost completely out of the gym, especially during the long winter hours when a gym would be very useful for the children of this community.
Dennis Harris, 352 Distin Avenue. Reminded the Assembly that just because this document has Ramona Barnes signature on it, does not mean the city has signed off on it yet and it can certainly be changed. It is one of the most poorly written documents he has seen in terms of enforceability of anything that benefits the citizens of the community. He shares Mr. Childers anger and frustration and in particular, he shares frustration over 1d) where the city has to demand reconveyance of title if the Legislature does nothing. There is no condition that if they do not do something by time certain the city would get the building back. That was discussed thoroughly at the Assembly meeting where the contract was talked about and that was one of the things agreed to. That was not done. This document is not keeping faith with the community. It is a sham and needs to be renegotiated. He suggested that this time Mr. Corso be given instructions to negotiate as he is a tough negotiator.
Administrative Report: Mr. Palmer stated there has been a lot of discussion regarding the schedule and he understands the publics’ frustration. The provision on exclusive use was inserted after the agreement was sent to LAA, after it went through Leg. Council, and was not negotiated or agreed to. The other schedule that refers to hours of use that would be incompatible due to noise was developed between his discussions with LAA. Their point was that they were changing the use from a school to an office space, investing over $2 million in the facility and they wanted assurance that after doing that, balls would not be bouncing off the walls of a hearing room while they were trying to conduct business. LAA hired Mitch Ritter & Voelker to do a feasibility study to tell them if it was reasonable to get into the project. MRV said "structure borne noise energized by foot falls and bouncing balls in the gym is clearly audible in adjacent spaces both vertical and horizontally. The existing construction is inadequate to allow gym activities to occur concurrently with legislative function." The report goes on to say that they can sound proof the facility possibly cutting the noise transmission level down by at least half. Because we do not know what kind of noise might occur, we agreed that during office hours we would let LAA make the call on whether the activity that was going on was too noisy and would interrupt their work. They promised to be good neighbors and use good faith. They said once they got in with furniture, carpet, doors and sound proofing, if the activity that was going on did not interrupt what they were doing it would be fine. He felt they had reached a compromise with the hours but the other provision got changed to reflect the provision that gave the Legislature the exclusive use Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. There was an unsuccessful effort to change the use from exclusive to priority. The provision of this agreement is that LAA or the Legislature, will pay virtually all the overhead in the building, including the overhead in the gym. Mr. Palmer agrees that user fees are too high. He hopes they will be able to reduce those fees to a fairly minimal amount as the only overhead the city will have is custodial, scheduling, opening and closing the doors and checking on the gym. The utility costs and snow removal costs are gone so the use fee for the gym may be the lowest of any gym in town. The other positive side is in the remodel, LAA will make the gym ADA accessible by installing an elevator. One of the recommendations of the Planning Commission was that an acoustical study be done and LAA has that.
Ms. Muñoz asked Mr. Palmer what could be uses that are not consistent with office activity. Mr. Palmer said they did not define them but they were something that transmits through the building.
Ms. Muñoz asked what activities would be consistent. Mr. Palmer stated maybe a dance class. Ms. Muñoz clarified the city does the scheduling and LAA determines if it is too noisy. Mr. Palmer said yes, they have the final say during those hours. It will have to be a trial and error basis. If activities are too noisy we will discuss with them ways to tone it down.
Ms. Muñoz referred to conversations with Mr. Palmer in which he suggested some activities he envisioned were watching movies and quiet meetings, which are clearly not recreational. Mr. Palmer stated the only restriction would be related to how much noise it might make and if it interrupts the office work that is going on next door. The architects will design soundproofing and try to move the sensitive offices away from the gym.
Mr. Powell commented that what bothers him most is that the Assembly was very clear with their direction to the City Manager by wanting the gym out of the deal. The lease the Assembly got back says that the city gets some use of the gym. There was not an opportunity for this to come back to this body before the lease was signed and now the Assembly’s back is against the wall. The community is upset with the trust that came out of the Assembly and the Planning Commission meetings.
Mr. Palmer stated he agreed. The agreement staff worked out included all the provisions. The provision on the exclusive use was never discussed at staff level and the draft that went to LAA did not include that. This was retyped and signed.
Mr. Powell stated Assembly direction, given to the Manager, is heard by the public. The public trusted the direction given in this matter. Mr. Powell suggested in the future, any changes to that direction come before the Assembly first.
MOTION – by Garrett, to move the agreement for transfer of Capital School with three amendments. 1) Top of page 2, item 2 has a typographical error: there should be a period after "herein described" instead of a comma; same line, after "Council" should also have a period and not a comma; 2) a new item "e" under 1 on the first page: the facility that they design will include a major hearing room and teleconference site.
Mr. Koelsch asked if these were being added to the agreement that was already signed or if there would be an addendum to this agreement. Mayor Egan stated amendments would have to go back to the chair of Legislative Council. Mr. Koelsch clarified it would have to go back whether it was an amendment or an addendum. He asked if it would be better to do an addendum and use it as a negotiating point with as many changes as this body wants instead of trying to get back into the body of the agreement.
Mr. Corso stated either way, it would make no difference. Mr. Koelsch stated he would feel more comfortable trying to get all the points and changes made in an addendum. Staff could then be asked to come back after negotiating. Mr. Powell agreed that an addendum would give Ms. Barnes something to look at as a whole.
Mr. Corso inquired if the intent was for the city to sign the document as it now exists making it enforceable and then negotiate an amendment if possible. Or is the intent to negotiate a single agreement including this document and an addendum.
Mr. Koelsch stated his intent would be to negotiate the addendum first. If not successful, then come back to the Assembly for approval or disapproval of the contract itself.
Mr. Garrett felt the third amendment he was going to offer could not be dealt with in an addendum as it is a language change.
Mr. Palmer stated his preference would be to have it included in the body so there is not a lot of attachments.
Mr. Clark Gruening, lobbyist for the CBJ, was called to the stand. He stated originally, this idea was brought to the Mayor and then to the Assembly by the then chair of Legislative Council who thought this would be a good thing to do to accommodate a legislative need. Upgrading the existing facility by the city did not seem possible. Some of the debate being heard now on the legislative move has to do with the inadequacy of the present building, not that the legislature itself is going to move. He would not say if the agreement is not accepted tonight the way it is, there will be a legislative move during this session. Somehow, in the long term, we need a global fix. This is something that a majority of members think is important. He felt it would be unlikely for the city to get any changes approved by the current chair of this session. Over the long term, he feels this will work. In the short term, this legislature is facing a lot of tough issues and there are people locked into positions. On this one, he would say the chair of Leg. Council is locked into this position.
Mr. Garrett stated that his motion included the condition this body passed to require a teleconference facility and hearing site. He cannot imagine that the Leg. Council is opposed to this. The Assembly went through agonizing public hearings about this and made commitments to the community. This commitment was absolutely firm as a public use hearing facility and a teleconference site would be part of the deal making the capital more accessible to the rest of Alaska. This body was emphatic about that and it is not mentioned in this agreement anywhere.
Ms. Pam Varney, head of LAA, was invited to the panel. Mr. Palmer agreed that should have been included and he does not know why it was not. Mr. Varney stated it was in the original agreement. There are 21 legislative information offices. The public teleconference site that will be in Capital School will be larger than the current one in the Goldstein building. She believes it was a misconception on the Leg. Council chair’s part by having that in. Maybe she thought that it was not going to be for legislative use so it was taken out of that agreement. LAA definitely will have a public teleconference site in Capital School. She would hope that no changes are made to this agreement tonight because it would put LAA further and further behind. They are waiting to put their RFP out on the street for architectural design. They need to get going on construction and she cannot ask for any money until the transfer takes place. She thinks they can work cooperatively with the city and the community and if one period is changed at this point, there will not be an agreement for a very long time. The Leg. Council has already appropriated $250,000.00. $50,000.00 was by Budget and Audit to do the study. The legislature wanted to make sure of what shape the building was in before they appropriate the $1.6 million asked for last year. This process has taken a very long time. She looked at the number of hours of traditional use of Capital gym for the last two years. The public did not have use from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., every day. People would go in usually around 5:30 p.m. The proposal now has approximately 370 more hours to the community than what Capital school had even though it is more restrictive during the session.
Mr. Garrett stated that if indeed this body cannot even change a period in this agreement, this is a complete waste of time. There were four conditions and not one of the four conditions has been met fully or adequately. He feels there is no good faith here.
Mr. MacKinnon asked Ms. Varney if on the addendum "A", condition 6, where it states "Except as authorized by the building manager, activities likely to create noise . . . " is that something that would propose or plan to see how it works out.
Ms. Varney indicated yes, that was the original intent as it would open up the gym to the community during time when it had not been available as Capital School. It is their plan, in the architectural design, to ask for two elevators so there will not be people going through office space to get to the gym. They hope for proper soundproofing to give some flexibility and consideration in order to accomplish their work.
Ms. Muñoz asked what the funding request process was with the legislature last year and why was it not approved at that point. Ms. Varney stated there was a request made but the legislature leadership felt they wanted time to determine the condition of the building before appropriating the money.
Ms. Muñoz asked if she anticipated the funding being made this session. Ms. Varney stated Legislative Council, in their action to approve this transfer, already talked about appropriating money.
Ms. Muñoz clarified that the funding will come from Leg. Council. Ms. Varney stated it will be the entire legislature but Leg. Council is comprised of 14 legislators - 7 Senators and 7 Representatives. Out of that 14, 12 are in the majority and two are in the minority. Ms. Muñoz asked what she felt was a reasonable time line to expect a legislative appropriation to be made and then to expect the work to be done. Ms. Varney stated she does not appropriate the money, it is the legislature. It would happen this year depending on what bill they decide to put it in. Whether it would be funding hitting this fiscal year or in FY99 which starts July 1st. Ms. Muñoz asked that if it does not happen this session, how much time would this Council give to LAA to get the funding worked out. Ms. Varney felt that was up to the legislature but in the meeting they had in October, they appropriated so much to do the architectural and then talked about the funding for the renovations. She would assume it would happen this session.
Ms. Muñoz stated, in response to looking at the previous schedule, the reason there was no use of the gym during the day was because it was being used all the time by the school. To not look at that as part of the big picture is not really giving an accurate reflection of the true use. Ms. Varney felt it gave an accurate reflection because people could not go in there at 10 or 11 in the morning and have a meeting because it was being used for the school children.
Ms. Muñoz asked that during the eight month off session, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., what activities she might imagine to be consistent with legislative office work. Ms. Varney stated she had not really thought about it and asked Ms. Muñoz what she imagined. Ms. Muñoz stated the decision of what type of activities may be consistent will be known on a case by case basis. Ms. Varney stated the city will be in charge of scheduling the activities and she does not know who will be asking to use the gym.
Ms. Muñoz had several changes to prose but did not know how Mr. Garrett would handle the rest of his amendment.
Mayor Egan expressed frustration with this issue and felt there would be a better chance next legislative session to amend the agreement.
Mr. Gruening stated he hoped the previous experience with scheduling school activity compatible with school classes, and based on plans which further enhance the soundproofing of the facility, it may be a non-problem as there is an opportunity to fix some of the problems being heard.
Mr. Garrett withdrew his amendment on the teleconference room. He asked if it would be appropriate, in item 1 d, to add a clause after legislative purposes, "or if the regular legislative session is moved to any other city in Alaska." He withdrew that suggestion.
Mr. Powell thought there should be some assurance that these issues are revisited. He did not like this lease agreement and felt the provisions of the lease should be reviewed by both parties at least once a year. Mr. Powell offered a No. 3 to the conditions: That the provisions of the lease be reviewed by both parties one year from the date of execution.
Mr. Gruening stated any agreement signed is always subject to change. Mr. Powell thought it would be better to have it firmly stated.
Mayor Egan thought Mr. Powell had a good suggestion and asked Ms. Varney how it might be viewed. Ms. Varney stated this agreement has been signed by the Leg. Council Chair. A future Leg. Council Chair, if they so desired, could look at changing the agreement and the addendum.
Mr. Powell stated so LAA can go forward, he would like at least a resolution or some kind of statement from this body that says it will be revisited. Ms. Varney stated there had been a lot of problems with an Anchorage lease and when Ms. Barnes saw this agreement she had problems with it. She wanted to protect the legislature so she put in some provisions. Ms. Varney feels this can been good for the community, for LAA and for the city.
Mr. Powell stated without opportunity for amendment of this agreement, he would like a resolution passed, something in writing by this body, that next year the issue will be revisited.
Mr. Perkins stated this should be voted either up or down. Any addendums should be attached and presented to Rep. Barnes and Leg. Council to be viewed as recommendations from the Assembly. They would be non-binding and only be what we would like them to consider. A review can be done a year from now. When this was done in April, there was no way to get funding for this project so close to the end of the session. Now his hope is there will be time to get funding. When he first read the agreement, he was very concerned by No. 6 and how it was to be determined. The Charter School folks have been successful in getting a school going. With no disrespect to the Charter School, he asked to what extent does the city have a responsibility to provide a gym to them on a daily basis. Although it may be inconvenient, they may be able to negotiate with the school district to use the existing gyms. He sees the need during the legislative session for the legislature to have flexibility when they need it. By the same token, the three or four items that this Assembly passed out are not attached to the contract. He would like to do something with this agreement right now and he suggested that any changes for consideration should be a separate addendum.
Ms. Muñoz stated to Mr. Perkins that this Assembly made no promises to the Charter School but did make a promise to the community. Transcripts show that the gym will stay open to the community. It is recorded that Mayor Egan stated it had been made very clear by members of the Assembly that the gym be continued for community purpose. In terms of the changes that need to be done, they need to be consistent with the motion that was made to the Manager. If that motion is not consistent with the agreement, the agreement is null and void as far as she is concerned. The motion reflects Assembly direction to the Manager and that direction is not reflected in the document. If they are not included in the document, she is not going to support the document. She would like to amend this agreement or create an addendum to it.
Mr. MacKinnon is apprehensive about amending the agreement. He would like to see some things different but agrees with Mr. Powell that once the building is functioning as an office building with public use of the gym at times it should be revisited. He does have trust in Ms. Varney that the use of the gym will be a little bit more as long as there is compatible use. If they are willing to expand the use, there is an opportunity down the road to add and addendum to it. He would like to deal with the agreement right now, without amendment.
Mr. Koelsch thought it important, to maintain community trust, to do an addendum, see if it will fly or not and then come back and pass or reject this agreement. He asked if a two-week delay would still allow enough time to get an appropriation through this session. Ms. Varney commented that it takes many months to get design plans. Any delay puts them further and further behind on construction and moving into the building.
Mr. Powell agreed with Mr. Koelsch in that the addendum concept was a good approach. He would like Ms. Muñoz to present her amendments into a addendum.
Ms. Muñoz passed out a copy of the motion that was made in.
Mayor Egan asked Mr. Gruening what would happen when the addendum was presented. Mr. Gruening stated that the more time you have with the process, the better it works. He did not think that two weeks would give any different result than the current agreement.
Mr. Perkins suggested a special lunchtime Assembly meeting possibly next Monday.
Ms. Muñoz stated the motion that was made by Mr. Garrett, after a vote of 5 to 4 to instruct the Manager to work out a transfer agreement included No. 4, which stated "if LAA moves out of the building it reverts to the CBJ as improved, at no cost." 1.d. states that the building will be reconveyed only upon demand of the city. That would require another political discussion with a majority of the members taking action. She feels it should be consistent with the motion and title should be automatically reconveyed once the legislative function ceases in that building.
Mayor Egan instructed Ms. Muñoz to present her addendum, with Mr. Gruening to Ms. Barnes and report back to the Assembly at a special meeting on Tuesday. Ms. Muñoz stated she will be out of town the 13th through the 20th. The special meeting was scheduled for the 23rd.
Mr. Perkins asked that it be scheduled for Thursday the 12th so the matter could be resolved.
Mayor Egan asked the pleasure of the body. All agreed to come up with the addendum at this meeting and have a special meeting on the 12th, after it has been presented to Ms. Barnes.
MOTION – by Muñoz, that the first addendum be that the building revert automatically back to the city as per no. 4 in the original motion.
Mr. MacKinnon objected as he felt it was covered in 1.d. of the agreement. The language is a bit different but Mr. Corso previously said that "upon demand" is just legal ease.
Mr. Corso stated, as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to have an automatic reconveyance of the building. If there is any disagreement by the parties, the city would be required to file a law suit. There is some disagreement as to what it means to use the building for other than legislative purposes.
Ms. Muñoz asked who has the authority to make the demand. Mr. Corso said that it currently does not say and it should. Ms. Muñoz stated it would be on demand of the City Manager.
Mr. Palmer suggested that if the intent is to make sure that LAA does what they say they are going to do, then make a specific act that needs to be accomplished date certain. Ms. Muñoz stated he is talking about a different issue. She does agree with him but once the legislative function ceases in the building, does it automatically revert back to the city.
Mr. Palmer said there needs to be something to trigger a reconveyance. Ms. Muñoz does not think that is necessary and stated if LAA discontinues using the building, then it should reconvey. Mr. Palmer asked how to define discontinue use. If they have boxes of records in the building they could argue that they are still using it. Ms. Muñoz stated the motion states "if the LAA moves out of the building."
Mr. Corso said unless there is some serious disagreement, the conveyance could be reasonably automatic. The Assembly may want to consider the ability to take affirmative action by the Assembly to refuse the building if there is a problem with the building. If it is decrepit or dangerous and the legislature just wants to get rid of it and the city does not want it back, that is a situation where it could reconvey title back to the city at no cost provided that the city could refuse.
Ms. Muñoz felt that was reasonable. She felt the addendum should also reflect by what date the offer becomes null and void if the funding does not happen. Mr. Palmer suggested July 1, 1999 as two legislative sessions will have gone by and the construction season will be ramping up. They have money now to hire the architect to do the design and that may be an eight-month project. Ms. Muñoz agreed that would be fine.
Mayor Egan asked if there was any objection. Mr. Garrett said that he can not look at anyone from the Charter School straight in the face and tell them honestly that they will not be allowed to use an empty building for two full years. Mr. Palmer said they could use it until construction starts.
There was no objection to July 1, 1999 as a date certain that the agreement will be null and void if the financing does not come through.
Ms. Muñoz stated, on the use agreement, she would like to see unrestricted use during the non-legislative session, Monday through Friday, or a commitment that a variety of uses will be given an opportunity to occur in the building before it is determined that certain activities are not allowed.
Mr. Palmer suggested the wording that the Planning Commission recommended which was "The city will be responsible for scheduling activities in the gym and in doing so the city recognizes the adjacency of legislative offices. The city may reject a request if the use would clearly produce noise incompatible with the legislative office." That puts the city in the role of rejecting noisy programs instead of LAA.
There was no objection to adding the language as stated by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Egan asked if there were any further amendments to the addendum. He instructed Mr. Corso to provide Assemblymembers with a copy of the addendum first thing in the morning. It was decided that Ms. Muñoz, Mr. Gruening, Mr. Koelsch and Mayor Egan would present the addendum to Ms. Barnes. Mr. Gruening will schedule a time with the chair for a brief meeting. There will be a special Assembly meeting on Thursday at noon to discuss the outcome. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
B R E A K
9:45 p.m. – 9:50 p.m.
Mr. Kibby was excused from the meeting.
A. Manager’s Report - Action Items
1. Memorandum of Understanding between the Juneau School District and the City and Borough of Juneau: High School/Dimond Park.
Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that the MOU be approved.
Mary Rubadeau, School Superintendent, stated the MOU in the packet outlines the scope of work with regards to planning of the new High School at Dimond Park and related recreation facilities. There are four aspects as outlined in the RFP: to do the ed. specs for high school program; look at modifications of the existing high school; give some evaluation of possible funding options; and to look at the overall comprehensive high school program that we will offer 9th – 12th. She feels they have a consultant that is very capable and has had experience with communities going from one high school to two. The planning process will kick off the first week in March. The consultant has asked us to put together an overall program and design committee with a broad range of high school staff members from different aspects of the high school program, as well as students, parents and community members. The community members need to represent the aspects that will be influential in the design, looking at integration of the facilities. She has a proposal of the members that are needed. The community members need to be approved by the Mayor and the High School staff needs to be appointed through the principal and herself. She hopes to get letters of invitation out asking participation within the next few days. The committee is over 50 people already but it is important that it is comprehensive. There is also a smaller leadership team identified to work with her on the overall scoping of this project. She is proposing two Assemblymembers, two school board members, the high school principal, the CBJ architect, Catherine Fritz and the facilities manager, Joe Mueller as well as a representative from the Managers office.
Mr. Perkins asked if representatives of Vocational Education were included. Ms. Rubadeau indicated yes and that the parents identified have already been part of the high school planning process.
Mr. Koelsch commented that there is a very active Retired Teachers Association and he encouraged Ms. Rubadeau to ask some of them to join the committee and to use their expertise that has been developed over the years. He asked if the leadership team would be meeting with the consultant or if Ms. Rubadeau would be the conduit between the leadership team and the consultant.
Ms. Rubadeau thought the leadership team would need to meet between the consultant’s visits of 7-10 days a month. It is his intention, the first week in March, to spend the first full day meeting with the leadership team designing the mission and setting out the scope of the work. The second day would be meeting with the overall program and design committee. The consultant will be working directly with both committees.
Ms. Muñoz thanked Ms. Rubadeau for all of her hard work and focus on this major project.
Mr. Powell has volunteered to serve on this committee. Mayor Egan stated Ms. Hagevig had also expressed an interest in serving on the committee.
Mr. Garrett commented that at the point and time where there is a design for the building, make sure there are Assemblymembers appointed to the committee that can stick with the project all the way through the process to completion.
Ms. Rubadeau pointed out that they had not finished the whole negotiation in terms of the cost of this contract. They are very confident they can complete two large community forum meetings to get input, leaving open ended an opportunity for a third meeting if necessary. They may, at that point, need to come back to the Assembly to increase the overall funds for the contract.
MOTION - by Garrett, that the MOU be approved as presented. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
B. Manager’s Report - Information Items
1. City Manager’s Quarterly Report to the Assembly: Oct. – Dec., 1997.
Mr. Palmer stated there will be procedures set up in the office to keep a better record of what is done through out the day, week and month so the quarterly reports are a little more descriptive. He added that Ms. Therese Ambrosi-Smith, the Parks and Rec. Director, is now off the job. She had done a fine job for the city in the effort she has put in in meetings and bringing a variety of different interest together. She worked really hard to put together the Comprehensive Parks and Rec. plan that was adopted, the Skateboard Park, Trail Mix operation and a lot of other innovative ideas. He is very proud of the work she has done and appreciated her time with the city.
Mr. Palmer returned from Washington DC where he met with representatives of NOAA and National Marine Fisheries regarding the Lena Point facility. Their final version on the EIS is on the street and we should be receiving it soon. They cannot get money appropriated this session if they cannot look at the rest of the numbers and agree that they can spend the money this session. They have the money they need to do the design. Next, the city needs an option, then to appropriate the money to buy the property. The city then needs an agreement with NOAA that CBJ will actually buy the property if they get the money to build the facility, then they will design the building and in fiscal year 2000, we look to them to have construction money. If they have that, then the city would exercise its option. The city needs an option that runs for two years as a one-year option does not cover enough federal fiscal years.
Mr. Powell said as soon as Mr. Palmer needs something from the Assembly, he should ask. This is a very important project. Mr. Palmer said at the next meeting there will be a public hearing on the appropriation to get the money lined up to buy the option if we can put it together. The option will be back before the Assembly before anything is done with it.
Mr. Garrett asked if some of the community conditions that had been agreed upon for the construction of the facility would be contained within the text of the agreement with NOAA. Mr. Palmer stated, at this point, CBJ has not told NOAA the road was a condition of anything. The offer was $1million if they elected to build the road but they have not told that we will not buy Lena Point if they don’t build the road.
Mr. Garrett thought the people of Lena Cove would agree the direction was real clear. Mr. Palmer said the comments the Assembly sent to the EIS said if NOAA builds the road, CBJ will contribute $1 million toward the construction and contribute the right-of-way.
Mayor Egan said he met with a number of parties involved and made the city’s intention very clear. NOAA did say no way to one item on the EIS which was the sewer tank. The neighborhood understands that. Mr. Palmer stated he has stressed the importance of the road and basically has told them that if they don’t build the road, they probably wont build the project. They tell us that the delay in the project costs them $75,000.00 a week in inflated costs on the project.
C. Attorney’s Report
Mr. Corso stated their quarterly report is in the packet. He pointed out page 7 that has a new chart which shows the increase in serious misdemeanors prosecuted by the law department and a interesting increase in the portion of those cases that are domestic violence.
Mr. Garrett pointed out on page 6, where it lists the prosecutions done in the last quarter, there were 52 arraignments on domestic violence, 53 adjudicated domestic violence assaults and 255 pending domestic violence assault cases. During the budget process, Mr. Garrett will be discussing the possibility of adding another prosecutor.
A. Committee Reports
Mr. MacKinnon reported a meeting earlier this evening in which they heard discussion on the pending Snettisham purchase; a presentation by the fireworks committee; the harbor department and a couple harbor board members on some harbor projects they have including the cruise ship terminal in-fills. They have been referred to the Finance Committee. There are no meeting scheduled.
2. Finance Committee
Mr. Perkins reported a few items to revise on the pending items. This evening in the COW, Finance was to take over the harbor deck-over proposals. That will be added to the list. The leave policy cash out for the Manager and the Attorney needs to be added. The sales tax subcommittee, in 7/31/96, had a request from the Airport Manager regarding a sales tax fuel flowage conversion. The committee recommended forwarding the issue to the Finance committee but the issue was not forwarded pending results and recommendations from a financial consultant. The consultants scope of services included a review of all leases devising a full cost of allocation system and checking for revenue diversions. He would like to assign this to Finance to review and decide on how it will be handled. October 8, 1997, the CBJ Housing Committee came with discussion about a resolution talking about homeless shelters and water and sewer and maybe potentially giving them some relief in the form of grants. The housing committee voted 5 affirmative and 1 abstention that the draft resolution be finalized and signed by the chair and then submitted to the Assembly. This will be brought in front of the Finance Committee for discussion.
3. Committee on Committees
Mr. Powell presented the following appointments for confirmation:
MOTION - by Powell, to confirm James Rehfeldt to the Energy Advisory Committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
MOTION – by Powell, to confirm Vince O’Shea to the Fisheries Development Committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
MOTION – by Powell, to confirm Keith Axt to the International Relations Advisory committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
4. Human Resources Committee
Mr. Muñoz reported the work on the for-hire vehicle code is going well.
5. Lands & Resources Committee – no report
6. Public Works & Facilities Committee
Mr. Garrett said there will be a meeting Wednesday at noon in the Chambers. There is no action items scheduled, just status reports on the area wide transportation plan, the phone system RFP and the process for getting the new phone system for the city, and an update on the equestrian trail.
7. Strategic Policy Committee – no report.
Mayor Egan reported the Alaska Committee will meet Wednesday at 7 at the JEDC Offices.
Mr. Perkins referred to the testimony by Ms. Lavine about the Capital Transit advertising. He asked the Manager to notify Capital Transit that there is no need to advertise in the tourism guide.
Mr. Powell also referred to that testimony and asked if there was a plan for continuing buses using the same approach that was used last year. He asked Mr. Palmer to contact Ms. Lavine and assure her that there is a plan and that we will continue as last year.
Kirby Day, 9326 Northland, testified in response to Ms. Lavine’s concern about the number of tourist and crewmembers riding buses and stated that last year Princess Tours implemented a bus service for crewmembers of all the ships in port during a 70-day period. They transported about 3,800 crew and feel they were successful in reducing some of the congestion on the buses. It is important to keep in mind that our own locals and visitors in town use the bus. Princess Tours will be doing the bus service again this year and have already identified days that they will be running two buses. They are also considering running people other than crewmembers as a number of passengers wanted to ride along last year.
Mayor Egan thanked Mr. Day for stepping up to the plate and providing that service. He also thanks him for providing transportation while the mayors were in town.
Evelyn Stott, Deputy Clerk