March 16, 1998

MEETING NO. 98-09: 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 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Dennis Egan.

  1. FLAG SALUTE was led by Mayor Egan.
  2. INVOCATION was not offered.
  4. Assembly members present: Garrett, Kibby, MacKinnon, Perkins, Powell, Egan, Hagevig, Muñoz, and Koelsch

    Assembly members absent: None

    A quorum was present.

    Staff present: Marian Miller, Municipal Clerk; Donna Pierce, Deputy City Manager; John Corso, City Attorney; Ernie Mueller, Public Works Director; Bill Joiner, Utility Engineer; Joe Graham, Port Director; Dave Miller, Airport Manager; Craig Duncan, Finance Director; Joe Buck, Engineering Director; Cheryl Easterwood, CDD Director; Heather Marlow, CDD Planner I


    1. 01/12/98 - Regular Meeting No. 98-02
    2. 02/09/98 – Regular Meeting No. 98-05
    3. 02/12/98 – Special Meeting No. 98-06
    4. 03/09/98 – Special Meeting No. 98-08

MOTION by Kibby, to approve the minutes of Regular Meeting No. 98-02, held January 12, 1998, and asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

MOTION by Kibby, to approve the minutes of Regular Meeting No. 98-05, held February 9, 1998, and asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

MOTION by Kibby, to approve the minutes of Special Meeting No. 98-06, held February 12, 1998, and asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

MOTION by Kibby, to approve the minutes of Special Meeting No. 98-08, held March 9, 1998, and asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.


Resolution No. 1920 and 1921 were discussed both together.

    1. Resolution No. 1920

      Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager had no recommendation as this resolution represents a significant public policy determination. Ms. Pierce added that a side agreement between the city and AEL&P was included in the red folder. This agreement did not involve AIDEA or the APUC and is not about the Power Sales Agreement itself. It tries to address some future possible situations, which may or may not occur, and helps to insure long term benefits for Juneau ratepayers even if other conditions change. This will be further discussed under Manager Report, Action Items.

    3. Resolution No. 1921


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager did not have a recommendation as this resolution represents a significant public policy determination.

Public Testimony:

Kurt Zinich, testified that his original objection to these agreements were based on two items. First, he does not think that Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), has followed the public process that this major action requires. The process started in 1987. Since then, the CBJ Assembly, the Energy Committee, AEL&P and a number of others have been involved in the process which was open and available anyone’s review. During the last year, while the Power Sale Agreement was being prepared, he does not think anyone has figured out who was being consulted at CBJ or in the city of Juneau. AIDEA has done a great disservice with this agreement and has failed to comply with the statutes. He referred to the first page of the Managers Report, where it states that the statutes require that before entering into agreements, the Authority must secure a resolution. As he understands it, the agreement is already before the APUC and was submitted to them on 12/23/97. His second major objection is the fact that in 1987, the Ad Hoc committee decided, after serious discussion, that it was in the best interest of CBJ for the State Energy Authority to purchase the project because at that time, they had the mission of building and operating hydropower projects. They already had four and were building a fifth, Bradley Lake. They had the expertise and staffing necessary. The federal government gave CBJ the option to bid. The AIDEA is precluding the city from even bidding on this project. The irony is that the city got a better deal from the federal government than it is getting from our own state agency. He understands, after review of the agreement between AEL&P and CBJ, that the city has the right of first refusal to buy the project. He stated that if it would be under the same terms and conditions that AEL&P is getting from the state, he would remove his objection. However, the city will be paying the price that the third party is willing to pay. The city could pay twice as much or more than it could have under the present set up that the federal government is giving the state. The state is getting a good deal and AEL&P is getting a great deal. He is worried about the CBJ ratepayers. Finally, he feels Juneau has a lot of experience with monopolies - some regulated and some not. The Cable Company, the Phone Company and the Garbage Disposal Company are regulated by the APUC. That has not prevented them from increasing their rates. The reason for that is that an applicant only has to justify its costs to an APUC and APUC will most likely approve it. He urged the Assembly to seriously think about the consequences of another monopoly which is going to own all of the supply, all the power production and all the distribution system in the Juneau area.

Bill Corbus, president of AEL&P, was called forward to answer questions. He asked Bob LeResche to come forward with him for discussion of financial matters.

Mr. Garrett asked if AEL&P were to get out of the power business and try to sell the dam, what are the economics in the regulated environment that AEL&P operates in.

Mr. Corbus stated there is a statute on the books that says Electric Plants are included in the rate base which is the basis on which a utility is allowed to earn a return. That which is included in the rate base is the lowest of the original costs of constructing the facility or the book value. AIDEA is going to be buying Snettisham at such a substantially lower price than the original costs. The original cost may have been $150 M, at today’s interest rate they will probably be buying it for $75M. From thereon, Snettisham will be included, for rate base purposes, at $75M. He does not feel the economic incentive is there for a company to come in and pay twice the depreciated value.

Mr. Garrett clarified that if AIDEA buys it for $75M, ten years from now, for rate base calculation purposes, without regard for who owns it, it is going to be valued at the $75M depreciated over ten years. Mr. Corbus added that in the event they should replace cables or add any new plant additions, that would also be included. Mr. Garrett then verified that if AIDEA sold the improved plant for $200M, they could only use the lower price of $75M for their rate base. Mr. Corbus indicated yes, that is part of the state statute.

Ms. Hagevig asked the concept of the likelihood of public utility regulation continuing in Alaska when there is and environment in the lower 48 which is moving toward deregulation of public utilities.

Mr. Corbus stated that deregulation is a topic in this state as it is in the lower 48. He submitted that the opportunities for deregulation and competition is much greater in the interior area where there are a number of utilities that are interconnected. Juneau is not interconnected with anyone and the outlook for interconnection, in his opinion, is not very good. If a deregulation bill were to come before the legislature, there would be opportunities to provide provisions for electrically isolated communities, such as Juneau, to make sure that they would continue under regulation. The city has its own lobbyists and there are many other communities represented by the Alaska Municipal League that have a common interest with Juneau on this matter. Ms. Hagevig felt it would behoove the CBJ, the Assembly and the City Lobbyist, to keep a very close eye on what happens in the legislature.

Mr. Koelsch asked for clarification on the City’s first right of refusal. Mr. Corbus stated the right of first refusal means the City would have the right to purchase it, if AEL&P elected to sell it, at the same price that AEL&P would elect to sell to a third party. Mr. Koelsch stated that assuming the third party would not be spending more than they had to and that they would go to the value as depreciated. Mr. Corbus could not guarantee that.

Ms. Hagevig asked Ms. Pierce to describe the due diligence the city went through in the last month in speaking and consulting with the attorney that acted on the City’s behalf. Ms. Pierce stated that they contacted an attorney who specializes in utility agreements, and had him look at the Power Sales Agreement and advise the city as to the effects that this would likely have on the ratepayers. His report back advised that he thought this was a good deal for the Juneau ratepayers in this regulated environment where rates are established on a cost base method with a reasonable rate of return for the company. The benefit of selling Snettisham as described in the Power Sales Agreement, which is a good deal, is that the good deal will be passed on to the ratepayers. For as long as the bonds are out there, it basically cannot change. Mr. Saxston thinks the City has a reasonable package, which he reduced to a few issues. Those issues are covered in the side agreement.

Mr. Kibby stated this is a big step for AEL&P and he asked Mr. Corbus to describe their ability to operate and maintain the whole project. Mr. Corbus stated that AEL&P has been helping to operate Snettisham since it first went on line in 1973. It was AEL&P operators who were dispatched to Snettisham. Over the last five years, they have gradually assumed more and more responsibility, first for the operation and maintenance of the transmission line and then for maintenance and operation of the power plant itself. The beginning of this year, they handled everything including the engineering and purchasing. He feels they do have the expertise and that at this stage of the game they have more expertise than the federal government does locally. They and AIDEA are involved in moving forward on the replacement of the cable and they should be able to do it in a more expeditious and less expensive manner than the federal government.

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Garrett, to adopt Resolution 1920 and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

MOTION – by Garrett, to adopt Resolution 1921 and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

  2. Ms. Pierce stated there was one item to go under the Manager’s Report – Action Item: the tentative agreement between CBJ and AEL&P on the subject of Snettisham. There was no objection to this agenda change.

  4. Joyce Levine, P.O. Box 1705, Juneau, testified that in the March 13th Juneau Empire there was an article about the parking problems downtown. The CBJ is commissioning a study as to whether a new parking garage could relieve the parking situation downtown. The article mentioned that it would take about two and a half years for a new garage to be built. One possibility the article neglected to mention was expanding bus service. The city has been talking about implementing half hour bus service since at least 1990 when it was in a proposed transit development plan. According to that plan, it was the goal to have half hour bus service by 1995. That goal has never been achieved. Park and Ride was a program that ran successfully for a few years. The buses were packed and it was upsetting to many of the riders when the service was cut. At the time, the city received compliments from the federal and state governments on the program, people were getting to work on time, and there was less parking problems downtown. Capital Transits ridership was over a million. Now it is approximately 800,000. There was also the service of a Downtown Shuttle that served approximately 2,000 people a day and was immediately successful with a result that working people used the bus as a means of getting around downtown, not having to use their cars, thus freeing up parking. Part of the process to obtain a federal grant for new buses and other costs for capital transit is to have a new five-year plan. Transportation specialists and Capital Transit keeps talking about half-hour service which still has not been put into effect. She feels it is important that before the Assembly approve any spending for a new parking garage, the Assembly actively, with proper marketing techniques, implement half hour service, put back into operation the Park and Ride Program and the Downtown Shuttle. She added that three weeks ago staff asked Mr. Kerns to put in money for extending the service but apparently the Assembly refused it. She stated that last Saturday on the 1:05 p.m. bus going out of town, people were being turned away. This is not even the tourist season and these are residents. Capital Transit has been receiving letters about the overcrowding problems. There are extra buses on hand that could be implemented. Mass transit should be looked at as an alternative to building a parking garage.

    Mr. Powell stated energy and transportation are two of the biggest issues that an city can face. He agrees with Ms. Levine that the parking garage looks like a bandage for a problem and that Juneau should have people downtown and not parking garages. It is an expensive problem and he encouraged Ms. Levine to stay on top of it.

    Mr. Perkins told Ms. Levine that the budget item she referred to has not been seen at the Assembly level. The Departments went through their budgets with the Manager’s Office to talk about budget increments but the Assembly has not said yes or no to Capital Transits budget process.

    Mr. Kibby asked Ms. Levine what she thought was causing the impact this spring. She stated there was also an overcrowding problem last year that started in March. She thinks people start coming up to Alaska in the spring. This is when the snowbirds start returning.


Mr. Koelsch asked for the removal of Ordinance No. 98-05.

MOTION - by Garrett, to adopt the Consent Agenda with the removal of Ordinance 98-05, and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

A. Ordinances for Introduction

2. Ordinance No. 98-11


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended that this ordinance be introduced and set for public hearing at the next regular meeting.

3. Ordinance No. 98-12


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended that this ordinance be introduced and set for public hearing at the next regular meeting.

4. Ordinance No. 97-17 (AP)


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended that this ordinance be introduced and set for public hearing at the next regular meeting

5. Ordinance No. 97-17 (AQ)


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended that this ordinance be introduced and set for public hearing at the next regular meeting.

6. Ordinance No. 97-17 (AR)


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended that this ordinance be introduced and set for public hearing at the next regular meeting.

B. Bid Award


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended award of this project to Channel Construction, Inc. in the amount bid, for a total award of $61,500.00.

C. Transfer Requests:


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended this transfer be approved.


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended this transfer be approved.

    1. Liquor License Two-Year Renewals:

    1. Douglas Café
    2. Fred Meyers
    3. Westmark Juneau

Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended that the Assembly adopt the Human Resources Committee Recommendation.

A-1 Ordinance No. 98-05


Mr. MacKinnon stated a conflict of interest and vacated his seat on the panel.

Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended that this ordinance be introduced and set for public hearing at the next regular meeting.

Mr. Koelsch stated he would like this introduced at the next meeting as he has people he would like to talk to before then. Mayor Egan stated that if this were introduced at this meeting, he would not be at the meeting on the sixth. Mr. Kibby would also be out.

There was no objection to postponing this ordinance for introduction until April 6, 1998.


1. Ordinance No. 98-07


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted.

Public Participation:

Dennis Harris, 352 Distin Avenue, testified that this is a good idea but it does not go far enough. He thought the ordinance should also prohibit camping on Mt. Maria, the hump at the bottom of Mt. Roberts next to Basin Road and also prohibit camping along Basin Road below the steel bridge as well as in Last Chance Basin and along the flume. This winter there have been homeless people living in the woods along the flume. He feels a few of them are people who moved there from the woods south of town, along Thane Road, to get away from the conflicts that were occurring there. He realizes that this town has not found a solution for homeless people but he does not think this is the right place for them to live. The area is heavily used and is adjacent to Cope Park. He suggesting checking with the Police Department to see what kind of problems they have had in the area. He is glad that Granite Creek Basin will continue to be available for camping but has a problem with allowing camping up near the old Perseverance Mine site because there are toxic areas up there.

Ms. Hagevig asked if these other areas would not be covered in the ordinance that was passed a few years ago precluding camping for more than ten days. Mr. Harris said the problem is that ten days or not, there is very little enforcement. It is much easier to enforce the law when it is simply prohibited than to have police officers try to determine whether someone has been there for ten days or not. It is his opinion that blanket prohibitions are much easier to deal with.

Ms. Hagevig asked if he was suggesting that the Assembly revisit the ten-day ordinance as his comments do not necessarily have an application under this ordinance. Mr. Harris would like camping prohibited in the areas he suggested and the ten-day ordinance revisited in regards to the area south of town, along Thane Road.

Mr. Perkins asked if the Cope Park area that Mr. Harris refers to is posted for no camping. Mr. Corso could not report if there was a sign that says no camping but if so, it is enforced under the Parks and Recreation code. Mr. Harris said it was on the other side of the creek. Mr. Perkins will look into how much of the park it encompasses.

Mr. Powell asked Mr. Harris if he wanted to increase the size of the area covered by this ordinance. Mr. Harris thought the Assembly should take a look at it, even if it is not done this evening.

Ms. Muñoz asked if the land along the flume was privately owned or if the CBJ owned the land. Ms. Pierce stated that AEL&P owned part of it. Ms. Muñoz asked if the other areas that Mr. Harris referred to are city parcels. Ms. Pierce believed so. Ms. Muñoz asked for a report back from staff on this issue and suggested that possibly the Lands Committee could look at in further detail. Ms. Pierce added that there is an agenda item going to the Land Committee regarding camp grounds on AEL&P’s property across from the treatment plant in an attempt to address the homeless camping problem. It is a complex issue, involving a number of different kinds of homeless people, and the city needs to take a comprehensive look at the issue. Camping ordinance for day limits will be a little easier to enforce now that the community service officers are fully staffed. With regard to the campground across from Thane, when the enforcement agents talk to people about moving, there really is no place to send them.

Ms. Hagevig stated that when the Lands Committee looks at this issue, the critical thing to keep in mind is the proximity to the Glory Hole since much of the same clientele is involved.

Mr. Kibby asked if there was presently camping allowed in the Salmon Creek Watershed. Ms. Pierce did not believe there was an outright prohibition and that all CBJ lands are subject to the four-day limit. Mr. Kibby understood the crux of all this is to not pollute the watershed. He sees areas that make sense but questions some other areas. People will be allowed to gold pan in the creek; they will be standing in and walking in it but yet someone with a sluice box or shaker table will not have that same ability. That is recreation for many people that live in close proximity to downtown. Unless the goal is to keep people off of CBJ property for the production of gold. Ms. Pierce thought the genesis of it was protecting the wellhead.

Ernie Mueller, Public Works Director, and Bill Joiner, Utility Engineer, came forward to answer questions. Mr. Joiner stated that he would look up whether or not camping was currently allowed in the Salmon Creek Watershed. Mr. Mueller felt there was not a lot of use for that particular area, not as much as there might be in the Last Chance Basin. Mr. Joiner felt because it is a 1,000 foot, 3 mile hike, it was more likely that recreational people would be camping there for a few days as opposed to people living there for months on end like in the Gold Creek Basin.

Mr. Kibby stated that this year he has noticed people camping there and he was thinking it was not allowed but was not sure why. He does not want to make criminals out of people that are not really affecting the watershed as long as they are using it in a respectful manner. In terms of recreational sluice boxes, he was hoping to keep this ban to hazardous material and things of that nature.

Mr. Mueller thought the principal concern was that at some point there is a certain amount of sediment that is introduced into the stream and may end up in the water supply. The less activity introducing sediment into the stream the better. It has been his observation that there has been little other than gold panning going on for the last five to ten years. He has seen people put in somewhat more permanent structures in Cope Park but has not seen anyone in Last Chance Basin for a while. Mr. Joiner stated that this summer there was an application for a section dredge in Last Chance but Fish and Game turned them down.

Mr. Kibby asked if the prohibition of gas powered engines would include people who fly in to trout or ice fish. Mr. Joiner clarified with Mr. Corso that a vessel, in this case, is a boat and not an airplane. Mr. Kibby asked if there was a boat up there for the public. Mr. Joiner indicated that AEL&P has one that they keep down at the powerhouse and they fly it up occasionally to do maintenance work on the dam.

Mr. Garrett stated that a good September storm probably puts more stuff into Gold Creek than anyone with a shaker table. He asked why this ordinance did not ban dogs.

Mr. Joiner stated that dogs are prohibited above the dam at Salmon Creek. With regards to Gold Creek, on the road or below the road, dogs need to be on a leash and people need to clean up after them. Mr. Garrett thought if enforcement of that was difficult, how would the city be able to force people to not camp.

Mr. Mueller said they keep an eye on Last Chance Basin, as far as camping is concerned, and call the police. Mr. Joiner added there was probably a half dozen people camping up there two summers ago that have been rousted out.

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Hagevig, to adopt Ordinance 98-07, and she asked unanimous consent.

AMENDMENT – by Garrett, on page 1, line 21, after the word "camp", put a period and delete to the end of the sentence.

Mr. Perkins asked if the section should still include the definition of camp and Ms. Pierce said yes.

Ms. Muñoz clarified that would prevent camping in the entire area, including the Granite Creek Basin. She objected to the amendment.

Mr. Powell also objected and asked Mr. Garrett why he offered that amendment. Mr. Garrett stated that Mr. Harris made a very compelling argument. In terms of an enforcement issue, multi-day things are tedious if not impossible to enforce. This is not going to stop anyone from camping but it will give the people left to enforce it a very clear ability to move people out quickly.

Mr. Powell disagreed as he has camped up there himself. A majority of the people obey the law and only camp a day or two. This would unduly restrict their ability for recreational.

Mr. MacKinnon also objected. He felt the amendment would be making criminals out of a whole bunch of kids that live in town and go up there and camp. The problem that Mr. Harris described is not with kids up there camping for a night or two.

Assembly Action:

Mr. Garrett withdrew his motion. He added it is more than just people who are homeless and seeking permanent shelter. The fundamental issue is that this is the watershed for a significant amount of the drinking water for this community. The public health and sanitation needs to be considered.

There being no objection to the main motion, it was so ordered.

2. Ordinance No. 98-08


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted.

Public Testimony: None

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Hagevig, to adopt Ordinance 98-08, and she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.


8:05 p.m. to 8:20 p.m.

3. Ordinance No. 98-09


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted.

Public Testimony:

Tony McCormick, 903 B Street, testified his main concern is Capital Ave. He has been informed that parking and traffic is already locked into the number of bedrooms in a unit. At the Planning Commission, Mr. Corbus representing Alaska Land and Pier Company, stated that his company is interested in building housing within walking distance of the Capital. Mr. McCormick felt that everything downtown is walking distance to the Capital and people will still have cars. He has three people across the street who are renting and work for the legislature. They are great neighbors and they walk to work everyday and that means their three huge vehicles are parked on the street 24 hours a day. Maybe the big dilemma is not poor parking but poor planning. He urged the Assembly to go slow on this until the city and DOT traffic studies come in. He asked what is the big rush. The same body of people were here a year ago and voted down this issue. The residents felt safe until the issue comes up in the Comp. Plan review in another two years. The next thing he knows he is getting an invitation from the Planning Commission. Between 90-100 people signed petitions or testified and the feeling was that no one was listened to. The Planning Commission minutes show that two people testified at the last meeting, Mr. Corbus and Mr. Harris. People were so disillusioned that they were not listened to before that they didn’t come. The last Planning Commission was unanimous, three of the Commissioners were new since the last time this issue came up and human nature would say that they are not going to go against the old timers.

Mr. Garrett asked if his concerns for Capital Ave. would be alleviated if the city fixed Capital Ave. to be a normal width right of way street. Mr. McCormick stated it would be a step in the right direction. The entrances coming and going are a real problem. People park right on the intersection. Nothing is painted, the setbacks for the crosswalks are not painted and the handicap areas are not painted blue.

Mr. Kibby asked for an explanation to the body about the process and the difference between what was done with the Comp. Plan vs. now, going into the zoning.

Cheryl Easterwood, Director of Community Development came forward to answer questions. She stated that anytime there is a zone change it is a two step process. In this case, it started with a change to the Comp. Plan. The meeting that Mr. McCormick was referring to, where a petition was submitted and a large number of individuals attended, was a meeting that was addressing the Comp. Plan. After several hearings with both the Planning Commission and the Assembly, the Comp Plan was changed. The Comp. Plan is the guiding document so once that plan was changed, steps were taken to amend the zoning ordinance to comply with the Comp. Plan.

Mr. McCormick stated that everything that the CDD has submitted is answered with "we’ll take care of that later" or "we assume there wont be much traffic north on Capital Ave.". He thinks the problems should be stated first, not taken care of later. He referred to the height, which was going to be 35 feet but now "there will be brownie points later on." He asked if that meant Rick’s Café or the Bowling Alley could add another story even though they already have no parking?

Mr. MacKinnon asked Mr. McCormick about the cars parked next to the intersection and asked if Mr. McCormick would like to see more enforcement. Ms. McCormick stated the meter maids go up and down all the time. Mr. MacKinnon stated that the enforcement would also get some residents. Mr. McCormick still thought painting the curbs would get better results.

Dennis Harris, 352 Distin Avenue, testified there is a procedural problem with the ordinance before the Assembly. When the Comp. Plan update was passed, he had pointed out to Mr. Corso and he had a discussion with Mr. Bavard about being excused due to a conflict of interest. It is true that he does not work for Alaska Land and Pier Company who is the major beneficiary of this ordinance change, but he works for another company that belongs in common ownership and has a common employer. Mr. Harris feels there was a severe conflict of interest as Mr. Bavard not only moved this ordinance, he moved amendments to this ordinance which in Mr. Harris’s opinion weakened the ordinance considerable as he took the actual mixed-use bonus requirement out of the ordinance. Mr. Harris feels this ordinance should be sent back to the Planning Commission for new actions. He referred to a map of road corridor designations within the area that showed Capital Ave. as a local street, not an urban collector. Anyone who lives in this area knows that Capital Ave. is a urban collector for everyone living in the Highlands and for anyone living along Calhoun or 9th Street. It gets a lot of pedestrian and automobile traffic. It is substandard in width and before the ordinance is passed the city needs to acquire the right of way in the area, and, at the very minimum, provide side walks. The sight distance at the corner of Willoughby Ave. is also a real problem; the turning radius for cars turning off of Willoughby headed toward downtown is just impossible. People have express a very strong preference for no more than 40 units per acre for this MU2 use and for height not going over 35 feet. He is in favor of requiring in this MU zoning, ground level retail, not as a bonus option but as a simple requirement. A MU district should require mixed use buildings in the district. There is a shortage of street front retail. He is personally against mandatory parking requirements but feels if it was required for Fireweed Place, in the interest of fairness, it should be the same requirement for what ever gets built in this district.

Jean Ann Alter, 319 Distin Avenue, testified she, like most of the community that is going to be effected by this zone change, shares Mr. McCormick’s cynicism. The packet contains what happened at the Planning Commission meeting but has no information for the Assembly about the kinds of testimony that happened at first discussions of the change to the Comp. Plan. There was overwhelming testimony about the height and density which was totally ignored. People in the area felt it was not worth our time or bother to go the Planning Commission on this issue as it was a done deal. She asked the Assembly to send ordinance 98-08 back to the draft table with direction to staff to reflect majority of public opinion. The majority of public opinion is that you have a 35 foot height restriction, which usually means 45-50 by the time they put all those little boxes on top, and that they eliminate the proposed bonus points. She noted that even though this was not suggested by the Planning Commission, they are now looking at zero vegetation required for this MU2 while at the same time there will be bonus points on height if they plant something. It is a slimly veiled way to get around the height restriction. She shared concern that parking is a problem for residents down town and hoped the Assembly does nothing that would eliminate the need for parking if people are going to have residential units. She has concerns for adequate fire protection if the trucks cannot get through the parked cars. First discussions for MU2 were for 40 units. Until there are solutions for parking, and some solution for the traffic problems on Capital Ave. and around the Post Office, it would be irresponsible to have the density for the MU2 to be 60 units. She suggested that rather than change the Comp. Plan or the zoning for someone wanting to build a building, require them to ask for a zoning variance.

Mark Kirchhoff, 506 W. 9th Street, has written two letters about these ordinances. Capital Ave. seems to be the step child of this planning process. The neighbors have continually asked CDD and the Planning Commission how Capital Ave. is going to be affected by a 300% increase in density in this area. There will possibly be 100-200 units around a substandard street. There have been no answers yet, except that the infrastructure is adequate. That, after no analysis or traffic study. He does not blame CDD as they do not have the funds. He asked the Assembly to allocate the funds to study Capital Ave. to see what the density of development can co-exist and how it can best co-exist. If there are problems with Capital Ave., then allocate the funds to correct what is wrong. He feels that to anyone interest in Juneau and the health of downtown, this new MU is going to be the focal point of growth for Juneau over the next 50 years. He thinks it can be something really good and that it is up to the Assembly to put forth the effort and the money to make sure the streets in this new area are adequate.

Mr. Garrett thanked him for his two letters that covered a wide range of issues related to this topic. He asked if he really thought it was necessary to do a study to decide Capital Ave. has to be upgraded. Mr. Kirchhoff thought not, that everyone knows it’s a problem. Obviously Juneau has a lot of concerns, and not as much money as they would like, but to have a new mixed use area with an expanded downtown made the best it can would require a study.

Mr. Garrett thought the road needed a plan without regard for what happens in the zoning. He agreed with Mr. Harris in that it may not be designated as an urban collector but that is how people use it so it should be up to standards for that.

Kathleen Schmitz, 519 W. 9th Street, testified that she concurs with previous speakers. She has made two lists, our loss and our gain, comparing the concerns that they came with to the meetings a year ago. She noticed that everything she was listing was under "our loss" and she could not see what they had gained. She thought what was gained was in the height area but then she noticed, with the bonus points, they actually lost the height issue also. They also lost the 40 units per acre to 60 units. The vegetation requirements are now at zero when it had been at 5 percent. Now to add vegetation will become a bonus point. Mr. Mueller informed her that turning studies would be started in about two weeks to see how many cars turn from Willoughby to Capital. By late spring they will do traffic studies. It seems to her that passing this ordinance tonight, may be the cart before the horse since the studies have not been completed yet. She referenced Fireweed Place and stated that loading and unloading of vehicles is constantly taking place for apartment buildings. There are moving vans, furniture delivery, carpet shampoos and so forth. There has to be a place were large trucks can pull off the road in order to service these buildings. She has read about the possibility of closing Capital Ave. and is concerned with disability access. That does not just include people in wheel chairs but older people who can not negotiate stairs, 9th Street or the Calhoun way of going towards town. Today there was a fire on 9th and B Street – an unoccupied car. There has to be enough room for the fire trucks.

Ben Thomas, 512 W. 11th Street, also an employee of the DEC. He walks Capital Ave. four times a day and looks down Willoughby Street all day long. He and his family use Capital Ave. a lot. He voiced his objection to the rezoning. He is not objecting to any rezone and feels the growth and development of this neighborhood and community is inevitable and probably good. This particular rezoning is not in the interest of the residents and is not in the interest of the this community because the density impact is going to translate into higher traffic problems and greater risks to people who live and work in the area. He agrees with all points made earlier. The last minute change of some pretty important details, like increasing density from 200 to 300 percent is a concern to him. He believes that anyone familiar with Capital Ave. and the Willoughby area, particularly as a pedestrian, will notice the impact. Some mixed zoning, mixed use is acceptable and he asked that the Assembly consider not rushing off to go with this maximum density. Because Juneau has a maximum density of 60 units per acre does not mean that every single inch of downtown Juneau has to be that way. In this stage of development, it is prudent to take cautious steps. He has found no evidence that there has been any effort to determine what the impact of such an increased fluctuation of residents and businesses in the area will be. He would support a mixed use effort but would like one that is a little more thought out. He agrees the city does not really need to spend any more money to say that Capital Ave. is a mess but it would be foolish to say that this rezoning would not heavily influence Capital Ave.

Mr. Garrett stated several people have raised the issue of height and pointed out to Mr. Thomas that he works in a building that is taller than 35 feet by five feet. It seems there is some inherent value if you can hold a carrot out to a developer like "if you’ll build covered, underground parking in your building, we will let you put another floor on top of it". He asked Mr. Thomas what he thought about that sort of incentive as opposed to forcing them into it. Mr. Thomas did not have any strong feelings either way about the reclassification of the height of the buildings. He would not like to live next to a 45 foot high building and he thinks that incentives can be good compromising strategies.

Rosanne Funk, 612 10th Street, echoed concerns and comments of those before her. In past history of Juneau, her understanding is that some people many years ago didn’t think this town would be here for very long. She wants to see what is best for this town and thinks this is a golden opportunity to learn from the past and make the best possible choices for today and for the children that will be raised here. This area is used often by her and her children. She has a deep concern about the potential erosion of her neighborhood and the lack of parking that may happen with this proposal. She lives two streets away from the Federal Building and the streets have cars parked from corner to corner. This will have a major impact on her neighborhood and she wants to make sure that we are making the right choices and don’t do like our forbears did but use real thought and guidance in what we are doing. She encouraged the Assembly to take the time to consider what has been presented to them.

Bill Corbus, representing Alaska Land and Pier Company, one of the property owners in the area under consideration. He is in support of the ordinance. He has followed it through the various public processes and thinks that it will allow the property that they own, which is the former tank farm, to possibly be put into high density housing within walking density of the Capital Building.

Mr. Powell stated that it seems the 45 feet and 60 units are magic. He asked Mr. Corbus if that was critical. Mr. Corbus stated that 45 feet would allow a four-story building. The 60 units per acre are crucial if you are going to be able to make housing in that area economic to develop.

Mr. Powell felt there was a lot of support to increase density at a reasonable amount. The thing that bothers him is that the last time the Assembly talked about this, they came up with an agreement that is now being modified. There is a need for housing downtown and he likes the idea of mixed use but he asked if 45 feet is absolutely necessary. Mr. Corbus stated in all probability, yes. They have done some economic analysis, and someone is going to have to come in and buy the property. Based on the value of the property, there will have to be high density in order to make it worth their while to buy the property. If you cannot get a lot of use for the value of the property, the numbers are not going to work out.

Mr. Powell stated there is a lot of concern about traffic on Capital Ave. and he asked if there is a problem with waiting for the study to occur and figure out how to fix up Capital Ave. so it makes more sense for the residents. Mr. Corbus stated there is not a problem from his perspective. He added that in terms of the point system, one of the provisions of the systems is that if the land owner were to make more room for Capital Ave., points would be given for that. It would allow other things to occur there.

Ms. Hagevig asked if the 45 feet would include a parking level that would provide the required parking for each of the 60 units. Mr. Corbus stated it would not include a parking level but it would be able to comply with the ordinance as proposed. It would not be three floors on top of a parking garage, it would be four floors of building but the parking would be on site, around it.

Ms. Muñoz asked what the assessment of the lot was that he is planning to develop. He thought that the Power Plant side of upper Willoughby was about $680,000.00.

Mr. Powell asked the height of tanks before they were taken down. Ms. Easterwood responded that they were 45 feet. Mr. Powell noted that if a building goes up now, it would not be any higher than what was there.

Mr. Garrett clarified that the current zoning was general commercial light commercial. and the current Comp. Plan over lay was MU so the zoning and the Comp Plan overlay do not currently match Ms. Easterwood referred to maps and showed the boundaries for the zoning and the Comp. Plan. Mr. Garrett asked if in the Comp Plan, where it says mixed use, what the height limitation is. Ms. Easterwood responded that in the downtown MU area, there is not a height limitation and so that was the understanding that when an additional MU area was established there would be some height limitation. Mr. Garrett asked what was the density of MU. Ms. Easterwood stated that downtown MU density is 60 units per acre. Mr. Garrett stated that this zoning change is going to be more restrictive than what the current MU overlay would allow because it is putting a height limit where there currently is no height limit. Ms. Easterwood clarified he was comparing the existing MU zoning district with the proposed MU zoning district and stated that she thinks in some cases, it is more restrictive and in other cases it is less so. The proposed new zoning district allows a broader array of residential units. It does not allow some of the land uses that are allowed in the downtown such as mobile home parks, and other uses that did not seem to be appropriate to an area where you are trying to encourage compact development.

Mr. Kibby asked what the height restriction was on the tank farm property as it sits today. Mr. Easterwood stated 45 feet.

Ms. Muñoz asked Ms. Easterwood to explain the height bonus procedure and how the point system would work. Ms. Easterwood stated the bonus procedure has been in the Land Use Code since 1987. The criteria and all of the procedure for employing the bonus points are contained in the Land Use Codes regulations so they are not as well know as other features of the Land Use Code. They have been used once and that was with the Fireweed Place. They used the density provisions to increase the density of that particular project. The regulations currently allow for increasing the density of a unit by ten percent if a certain number of points are accrued and points are obtain in eight different areas such as alternative transportation, traffic mitigation, scenic vistas, architectural features etc. The process is well laid out in the regulations. The developer would propose certain features that are beyond the minimum requirements of the code. Staff would then analyse this and the Director is to make a determination as to how many points would be available or should be assigned to the project. The project then goes to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviews the points and then either approves the awarding of bonus points or does not.

Mr. Koelsch asked what the thought process was behind having zero percentage of vegetation required. Ms. Easterwood answered that they were attempting to encourage compact development. There are in other sections of the Code landscaping requirements that exceed the vegetative requirement. Staff’s thought was that they would be encouraging an urban setting where we would like to see landscaping as opposed to vegetative cover. Vegetative cover can be grass or the existing vegetation that is on site as opposed to landscaping where there is trees and bushes planted in a planned fashion. Mr. Koelsch clarified that trees would not be considered vegetative cover. Ms. Easterwood stated they would not be part of vegetative cover. Landscaping requirements would not be relaxed with the zone change.

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by MacKinnon, to move ordinance 98-09 for purposes of discussion.

Ms. Hagevig asked for follow-up on the vegetative cover and the decision to reduce that to zero. She is concern about requiring vegetation when there is no mechanism requiring people maintain that vegetation. She considers that very problematic and is a little uncomfortable with the reduction to zero. She is probably not being consistent but she is uncomfortable especially when looking at new construction. She is also concerned with the issue of parking. She asked Ms. Easterwood if she felt comfortable that the language in this ordinance would meet concerns to take care of cars of residents who walk to work and leave their car during the time that businesses would be open. Ms. Hagevig is very concerned about passing something that would exacerbate the problem with parking downtown.

Ms. Easterwood responded that the ordinance does not propose to change the parking requirements that exist today. Parking is required by use and not by zoning district. An apartment building with a certain number of units would be required to provide a certain number of parking spaces, the same number of parking spaced whether it is located in this area or in the valley. At one point, staff had been thinking about suggesting that the parking be reduced in this zoning district in certain small ways, ways designed to encourage additional residential development. However, at the first public meeting, at least 95 percent of the people came to speak against that idea and to encourage requirement of adequate parking. Staff decided not to address parking specifically in this zone change. There is a parking study underway now, plus a long term over all transportation plan. If there are some changes in our parking regulations, they will accrue from those studies.

Ms. Hagevig clarified the actual provisions for bonus points is included in Title 49 but the administration of that would be in regulation. She asked if there was anything that would tell us that we would not encounter the same kinds of problems that are being encountered with the Design Review Regulations. It is not very user friendly from the perspective of the public or the perspective of the developer and it adds to confusion.

Ms. Easterwood stated it is her preference that these regulations be incorporated into the Land Use Code as it is advantageous to have all the regulation in one place and in one document. She answered that there is a policy statement under Electric Power: development which reduces the consumption of energy or reduces peak demand is encouraged; there is a description of how many points you can earn; standards and criteria for earning the points; the submittals that are required to be reviewed by the Engineering Dept. and the Building Div. to see whether or not there would be a savings of energy; and then there is the process of the Planning Commission review. She said there are others that talk about providing bonus points for enhancing habitat. There is room for negotiation and that is part of the project, to try to develop and work toward development that exceeds the minimum requirements.

Ms. Hagevig asked why she feels it is more beneficial to do this process than to go through the regular variance process. She asked if the same thing could be accomplished.

Ms. Easterwood stated the advantage to the bonus point procedure is that you are working toward a positive end and the developer is obliged to propose mechanism to show a development that provides positive benefits. With a variance, the developer would be less likely to provide the extra amenities that are called for with the bonus points and also the developer would be required to show hardship and sometimes the variance criteria are very difficult to meet. She added that as well as the height bonus, procedures have also been contemplated in the code. Looking at the Table of Permissible Uses, there is a no. 4 and looking at the key states Height Bonus reserved. This is something that an earlier Commission and Assembly had decided to do but it had not gone the next step.

Mr. Garrett was curious about why, in the Table of Permissible Uses, it is that it would be difficult, in an MU zone, to build a single family dwelling. He asked why it would go through a CU and yet in this MU2 zone, it’s whatever the Department thinks is okay. Ms. Easterwood stated it was to acknowledge some of the existing development in the area. She added that they suspect that multi-family development is what they will see, but they wanted to leave it as an option available to a developer if they chose to build single family homes instead of multi-family homes. Mr. Garrett asked why then it would not be similarly easy to do that in the MU zone.

Ms. Heather Marlow, CDD Planner, answered that staff was not able to come up with a good reason why CU’s are required for single family and duplex in the existing MU zone. They did not see the benefit of a public review. Staff is looking to address the needs of the Indian Village which is a D-18 that does not require any kind of Land Use permit. Staff does not want to restrict that or make it any more prohibitive to them to put single family or duplex residential there.

Mr. Garrett suggested that perhaps in the future that could be fixed. He also noted that the Assembly specifically said that on page 10, it says "Major Utility Facilities in a MU2 are Conditional Use process". He asked if the existing Utility Facility in this proposed zoning district would be considered a major or minor Utility Facility.

Ms. Marlow stated there are definitions provided in the Land Use Code and staff would consider this to be a major Utility. Minor are more like meter boxes or pump stations, does not have traffic flow or employees assigned to the facility.

Mr. Garrett asked at what point, if AEL&P wanted to do something to that building, would they be required to come back for a CU permit. Ms. Marlow said if they were to increase the footprint of the building or the nature of operation, they would be required to do a CU. Staff would want to insure that the change is compatible with the neighborhood. They are grandfathered in for what they have now, but any changes would have to be run through the public process to make sure those changes are compatible for issues such as parking, noise, and hours of operation.

Ms. Easterwood quoted that a minor utility is one that is located in the right of way; major is anything that is outside of the right of way. It seemed conceivable there would be a need for some major utility improvement in that area at some point and staff would want to review those through the CU process.

Ms. Muñoz questioned earlier debate. Ms. Easterwood stated that debate was in connection with the Comp. Plan. The Comp Plan was updated and amended as shown on the maps. The Assembly has processed at least three or four zone changes in the recent past as a result of the changes to the Comp. Plan. Staff must keep the zoning compatible with the Comp Plan and is following through with the change of designation in the Plan.

Ms. Muñoz asked about what the testimony "it was voted down a year ago" referred to. Ms. Easterwood referred to the map and stated when the issue of expanding the MU area in the downtown area was before the Assembly, the tank farm and Indian Village were exempted from the MU area which the Assembly initially approved. Some time past and the Assembly initiated a request that the Planning Commission take another look at the area designated as MU1. The Planning Commission was asked for a recommendation on that Comp Plan change. The Assembly then approved changing that area to MU.

Ms. Muñoz stated in previous discussions, the Assembly asked that the road be put on the list of potential funding projects. She asked what has happened with that. Mr. Garrett did not know if it was on the five year CIP list or not.

Ms. Hagevig asked if either at the staff level or in discussions with the Planning Commission, was there any consideration given to the issue of loading and unloading areas. When the Assembly was looking at this in the context of approving the Comp Plan, there was discussion about coordinating all this with the revisions that were going to be done on Willoughby and Glacier Ave. by DOT. She asked if any of that overlay had happened and if, for instance, there would be a turn out lane for those waiting to turn in or out of Capital Ave. In addition, in areas of anticipated traffic stoppage because of service needs, had there been any discussion and in what context would that occur.

Ms. Easterwood did not remember any discussion of loading zones with respect to the zone change or the new zoning district. The parking requirements do include requirements for loading. Loading and unloading of the Fireweed Place was discussed with the approval of that building and the Commission asked that the developer continue to work with the city to come up with a solution, particularly with respect to loading and unloading the care-a-vans. With respect to Capital Ave., at the first public meeting that staff held with respect to the zone change and the rezoning, there were three representatives from DOT to answer any questions of the public. DOT indicated a willingness to consider changes to that intersection and to look at improvements with staff once they knew the cities plans for Capital Ave. The Planning Commission did recently approve the Glacier and Willoughby Ave. project. One of the conditions was that DOT continue to work with staff. Staff has asked the Public Works Dept. to start taking traffic counts and is discussing internally how to get pedestrian counts. There will then be public meetings to discuss how that road should be developed.

Assembly Action:

AMENDMENT – by MacKinnon, on page 3, do a percentage of lot and vegetation. The change would be from zero to five percent on page 3.

Mr. MacKinnon stated he always thought vegetative cover was landscaping. He asked if landscaping was vegetative cover but vegetative cover was not landscaping. He proposed for the MU2 District that the zero be amended to five percent. He did not think five percent of the lot coverage to be under-vegetative was unreasonable. That was in the MU district downtown.

Mr. Kibby asked Ms. Easterwood the definition of landscape. He asked if the word landscaping in Title 49 showed a percentage of the lot that was required. He thought perhaps it should actually be landscape/vegetative cover because some of the businesses within the community have done some wonderful innovative things that may be more suitable than vegetation, just as long as there is one or the other. Mr. Kibby thought the opportunity existed right now to clear the issue up. He agreed that the people working toward this should have the ability for either or but if the property is lined out such that vegetative cover is in the best interest there might be some other aesthetically pleasing structure or landscape that they could provide.

Mr. MacKinnon had a problem with that being included on the Table of page 3, because then every one of the these districts would be landscape/vegetative cover.

Mr. Powell thought Mr. Kibby had a good point. A tree might be better surrounded by rocks than grass. There would be need for more discussion so he suggested continuing with Mr. MacKinnon’s suggestion on line 14, doing one item on the list.

Mr. MacKinnon asked Mr. Kibby if his intent was that it can be either or, any combination of landscaping or vegetative cover. Mr. Kibby indicated yes. Mr. MacKinnon asked Mr. Corso if a percent of lot in vegetation/landscape would satisfy the intent. Mr. Corso stated the difficulty is that the preceding paragraph supposes that the entire table is regulated as vegetative cover only. That would need to be amended in order to have the section make sense as a whole. He suggested it read "a minimum percent by error of each development site shall be maintained with live vegetative cover, landscaping, or both."

Ms. Pierce stated, as she understands it, landscaping counts as vegetative cover, but vegetative cover does not count as landscaping. If the standards are applied separately, by changing the definition of vegetative cover, you are changing a lot more than what you are trying to accomplish right now. It seems that Mr. MacKinnon’s original amendment accomplishes what you are trying to do which is have both vegetative cover and landscaping be options as part of the MU zone.

Assembly Action:

Mayor Egan asked if there was any objection to the amendment to change line 14 from zero to five. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

Mr. Koelsch stated he uses Capital Avenue a lot. He does not see why there is discussion of passing an ordinance when no one knows what is going to happened to Capital Ave. He asked why suggestions as to what was going to happen on Capital Ave. or what could happen to Capital Ave. were not brought before the ordinance.

Ms. Easterwood stated, when looking at the entire area to be rezoned, Egan Drive, Willoughby, Whittier and Capital Ave. and Village Street, on the whole, staff found that the streets were capable of supporting additional development with the exception of Capital Ave.

Mr. Koelsch stated convenience puts people through Capital Ave. He would rather see some suggestions for Capital Avenue before voting on the ordinance. Mr. Powell agreed.

Mr. MacKinnon preferred to look at it as forcing the issue. He suggested that the owner of the property can put in a four story office building, 45 feet in height, general commercial zone, which is a lot higher density than 60 residential units per acre. The impact on Capital Ave. and Willoughby Ave. with a four story office building, which he is allowed to do with current zoning, is far greater than it would be in a MU. It is a city problem to take care of the street whether the zone change goes through or not. He loves MU development and likes how it works downtown. He does not see a better way to get people downtown. In theory, there would be people living there that would be walking most of the places they were going. He sees this as improving the situation that is there and not exacerbating a bad situation right now. It forces the issue of the city dealing with Capital Ave., which will be a difficult one to do

Mr. Koelsch did not think anyone on the Assembly did not want more housing downtown. He clarified that if the ordinance is passed tonight, there be no reason a person could not put a four story business there. The answer was no, but right now a person could not put housing there. Mr. MacKinnon said if the people who owned the property wanted to put in a four story office building, the Assembly would not have this issue before it. It is their intention to put mixed use in.

Ms. Hagevig can see potential for resolving the Capital Ave. problem, or at least addressing it, if the bonus process can be used to negotiate additional right of way to make the improvements that are needed to Capital Ave. She still is concerned about the fact that the bonus process is administratively housed in regulation rather than ordinance.

ROLL CALL on Ordinance 98-09 as amended

yeas: Garrett, Hagevig, Kibby, MacKinnon, Perkins, Mayor Egan

nays: Koelsch, Muñoz, Powell,

Motion carries 6:3

Mayor Egan announced that it was his intention to adjourn this meeting at 11:00 p.m.


9:55 p.m. to 10:05 p.m.

4. Ordinance No. 98-10


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted.

Public Testimony:

Dennis Harris, 352 Distin Avenue, commented about the boundaries. Below the Fosby Apartments is a wedge shaped lot that is included in the zoning change which he believes belongs to the city. There is also a dedicated city street there which may have preexisted the Fosby Apartments. He thought that would be a more rational place to put the boundary line. He does not think anyone would be building on the other lot unless something happens to the Fosby. He is also concerned with having Power House property in this zoning. He asked if the Power House were to be closed or moved and the land was part of this zoning, it would essentially allow exit onto B Street and West 8th. He does not think that is a good thing at this time. He hoped the Assembly would consider the whole boundary of where the slope breaks in that area. Other than that, the boundaries pretty much make sense.

Mayor Egan clarified that the stairs that come down are not on a city right of way. Mr. Harris believed it was on an easement and that AEL&P owned the property. It is not a dedicated street.

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Kibby, to adopt Ordinance 98-10, and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

5. Ordinance No. 97-17 (AM)


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted.

Public Testimony: None

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Muñoz to adopt Ordinance 97-17(AM), and she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

6. Ordinance No. 97-17 (AN)


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted.

Public Testimony: None

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Muñoz to adopt Ordinance 97-17(AN), and she asked unanimous consent.

Mr. Koelsch asked Mr. Corso if he should vote on this issue. Mr. Corso advised him that he should abstain as he has a financial interest. Mr. Koelsch stepped down.

There being no objection, it was so ordered.

Mr. Koelsch resumed his seat on the panel.

7. Ordinance 97-17 (AO)


Administrative Report: Attached. The Deputy Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted.

Public Testimony: None

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by MacKinnon, to adopt Ordinance 97-17(AO), and he asked unanimous consent.

Mr. MacKinnon stated it is too bad that this money is being directed toward speed and passenger restraint violations and not toward more parking enforcement in the flats as well as some officers walking the hillsides ticketing some of the extended campers.

There being no objection, it was so ordered.

  2. NEW BUSINESS - None

    1. Manager’s Report - Action Items

    1. Tentative Agreement between CBJ and AEL&P on the subject of Snettisham.

Administrative Report: Included as a red folder item. Ms. Pierce referred to the Agreement between the CBJ and AEL&P in an attempt to address a few items if certain things changed. Mr. Saxsmon had been on the line for any questions but due to the length in previous discussions, he was no longer available. Since this was a policy matter for the Assembly, the Deputy Manager did not have any recommendations.

Assembly Action

MOTION – by Garrett, to approve the agreement between CBJ and AEL&P and he asked the acting City Manager to sign it promptly. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

B. Manager’s Report - Information Items

    1. Status Report: Areawide Transportation Plan and Downtown Parking Assessment Program.

Administrative Report: Attached.

Ms. Hagevig asked if staff had an estimate of what this would cost. Ms. Pierce stated there is a grant from the AK DOT for $67,318.00. Mr. Garrett added there was two studies lumped together as one big item with parking as a component. Both of the monies are in the areawide transportation plan. The intent with DOT is to go back to them next year as they have indicated they will have a similar amount of money in next year’s program.

Ms. Hagevig requested the parking part of this study be completed soon. Ms. Pierce indicated that was the first priority.

Mr. Powell asked if "areawide" would include West Douglas or future development and suggested the study look very prospectively at the future. He asked the scope of the study. Ms. Pierce indicated it was all modes of surface transportation. The parking part is confined to the downtown but the areawide transportation is the entire borough. Mr. Powell clarified it would include different alternatives like mass transit and light rail.

C. Attorney’s Report - None


    1. Revised Pending Items - None
    2. Unappropriated General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance - None
    3. Assembly contingency Fund Balance - None


A. Committee Reports

    1. Committee of the Whole

Mr. MacKinnon reported a COW scheduled for next Monday with two, possibly three items on the agenda: 1) the Mendenhall Valley Watershed and 2) a Valley Ice Rink. There will be a presentation on both items. There will be another meeting on the 13th dealing with a signage issue in the ball fields.

Mr. Kibby commented that at the Lands Committee they had discussed the Pt. Stephens waterline extenuation. The committee took no position and forwarded it to the COW. Mr. MacKinnon stated it is number nine on the list and will be discussed on the 13th of April. Mr. Garrett added that he would like that issue to continue moving along.

2. Finance Committee

Mr. Perkins reported there would be a Finance meeting on Wednesday, March 18 at 5 p.m. There are several items on the agenda. He asked everyone to review the packets they received this evening.

3. Committee on Committees

Mr. Powell had the following appointments to be confirmed:

MOTION – by Powell, to confirm the appointments of Carmen K. Katasse and Linda Stevenson-Millard to the Americans’ with Disabilities Act Committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

Mr. Powell added that there continues to be a lot of vacancies in a lot of different committees. He encouraged all Assemblymembers to try to get more people to serve on the many boards and commissions.

4. Human Resources Committee

Ms. Muñoz stated there will be a short meeting immediately preceding the COW on Monday at 4:45 p.m. to take up two liquor licenses.

5. Lands & Resources Committee

Mr. Kibby apologized to staff for not making a motion for the Manager to move into negotiations on the Russian Orthodox Church lease. He stated he will be out of town from March 24th through April 8th. Lands has been cancelled for the 9th and will be taken up on the 23rd.

6. Public Works & Facilities Committee

Mr. Garrett reported there will be a meeting on Wednesday, at noon, to take the first cut at proposed street projects for sales tax funding and to discuss painting the curbs on Capital Ave. Mr. Garrett added that they will be discussing, with staff, the Montana Creek Road and the long range plans for that road.

    1. Strategic Policy Committee

Ms. Hagevig had no report but pointed out that the draft plan for voluntary compliance development of TAC had been placed in all members’ boxes.

B. Board Liaison Reports

Mayor Egan reported that the Alaska Committee meets Wednesday at the JEDC Conference room at 7:00 a.m.

  2. Mr. Perkins thanked staff as he noticed the sign at Lupine and Riverside is once again up.

    Ms. Hagevig reported that the Juneau presence at the National Association of Counties meeting was very well received. They will be continuing to work with the folks from AML and CBJ to prepare for the Western Interstate Legion meeting that is scheduled here in May. She asked about the Delegation meeting that was advertised in the paper for this Wednesday. She had it marked down as next Wednesday. Mayor Egan stated that it was a miss-print and that the meeting is actually for next Wednesday.

    Mr. Powell stated he would be out of town all day Wednesday.

    Assembly Action:

    MOTION - by MacKinnon, to expend Better Capital funds to continue to engage the services of Tony Smith, in negotiations with NOAA, in an amount not to exceed $15,000.00. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    Mayor Egan clarified that all members received a copy of the letter from the President of the Chamber of Commerce regarding the SE Alaska Transportation Plan. He stated he would like to briefly discuss it at the COW next Monday.

    Mayor Egan reported also receiving a letter from Don Havager of Cruise Line Agencies regarding skateboards. Mayor Egan felt it was important enough to be addressed by a committee. Mr. MacKinnon suggested it go straight to the COW after Mr. Corso drafts and ordinance. The letter made very valid points in addition to the $20,000 contribution to the Skate Park.

    Mayor Egan reminded all Assemblymembers of the funeral services for former Deputy Mayor, Mr. Harry Assi, this Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. at Faith Lutheran Church. Flowers have been sent but all Assemblymembers are encouraged to attend.

  4. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to come before the Assembly, and no objection, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.




Signed: ________________________________

Mayor Egan



Countersigned: ________________________________

Marian Miller, Clerk