THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA

December 21, 1998

MEETING NO. 98-38: 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. ROLL CALL
  3. Assembly Present: Garrett, Kibby, MacKinnon, Perkins, Egan, Hagevig, Muñoz, and Koelsch

    Assembly Absent: Powell

    A quorum was present.

    Staff Present: Marian Miller, Municipal Clerk; Dave Palmer, City Manager; John Corso, City Attorney; Cheryl Easterwood, Director CDD; Joe Buck, Director Engineering; Ernie Mueller, Director Public Works; Joe Graham, Port Director; Dave Miller, Airport Manager; Mike Rody, Housing Coordinator; Craig Duncan, Finance Director; Pam Watts, DHSS; Barbara Carver, Law Department, John Sarbie, School District; Gary Mendenvill, Eaglecrest Business Manager; Christi Herren, Parks and Rec.

  4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

    1. 10/5/98 - Regular Meeting No. 98-33
    2. 10/21/98 – Special Meeting No. 98-34

MOTION - by Kibby, to approve the minutes of Regular Meeting No. 98-33, held October 5, 1998 and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

MOTION - by Kibby, to approve the minutes of Special Meeting No. 98-34, held October 21, 1998 and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS

    1. City and Borough Attorney Annual Evaluation
    2. MOTION – by Garrett, to suspend the rules and move this item to the end of the meeting as the last matter of business. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    3. CBJ Planning Commission Members – Recognition for Participation in the Kensington Mine Permit Hearings.

Mayor Egan read the proclamation into the record and presented it to Chairman Dybdahl, Ken Williamson, Kristen Bomengen, Steve Sorensen and Sandy Williams. Mr. Bavard, Ms. Ricker and Ms. Skannes were not present.

  1. MANAGER’S REQUEST FOR AGENDA CHANGES - None
  2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
  3. Danny Pruhs, 1126 Kimberline Court, asked for discussion and resolution encouraging local telephone competition. He thought as the capital city, everyone should have more than one carrier to choose from.

  4. CONSENT AGENDA

MOTION - by Hagevig, to adopt the Consent Agenda, and she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

A. Ordinances for Introduction

1. Ordinance No. 98-26

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SEWER CODE TO INCREASE THE SEWER SERVICE RATES.

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

2. Ordinance No. 98-40

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES TO ALLOW SCRAP MATERIAL SALVAGE YARDS, JUNKYARDS, AUTOMOBILE GRAVEYARDS AND OTHER SUCH USES IN THE WI, WATERFRONT INDUSTRIAL ZONE.

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

    1. Ordinance No. 98-17 (X)
    2. AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $91,303 TO EXPAND OUTPATIENT SERVICES FOR CHEMICALLY DEPENDENT WOMEN AND THEIR DEPENDENT CHILDREN. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES.

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

    3. Ordinance No. 98-17 (Y)

AN ORDINANCE DE-APPROPRIATING THE SUM OF $37,902 TO EXPAND OUTPATIENT SERVICES FOR CHEMICALLY DEPENDENT WOMEN AND THEIR DEPENDENT CHILDREN. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES.

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

B. Resolutions

1. Resolution No. 1971

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO DONATE LOT 26 IN THE S’IT’TUWAN SUBDIVISION TO THE TRANSITIONS HOUSE, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF SUCH LAND DISPOSAL.

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

2. Resolution No. 1972

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO MAKE CERTAIN CITY AND BOROUGH SUBDIVISION LOTS IN THE S’IT’TUWAN SUBDIVISION AVAILABLE TO THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL HOME BUILDING PROGRAM AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF SUCH LAND DISPOSAL.

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

    1. Resolution No. 1973
    2. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO DONATE LOT 42 IN THE S’IT’TUWAN SUBDIVISION TO THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF SUCH LAND DISPOSAL.

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

    3. Resolution No. 1974
    4. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE HONORARIUM TO BE GRANTED TO MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

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

    5. Resolution No. 1975

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FORGIVENESS OF UNCOLLECTED SALES TAXES FOR CERTAIN SHOPPING MALL MEMBERSHIP DUES.

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

C. Transfer Request:

1. Transfer No. T-655: Transfers $15,138 from Taxiway Lighting Replacement (CIP A345-30) and $229,862 from Airport Revolving Capital Reserve Account (CIP A345033) for a total of $245,000 to Terminal Gate 6 (CIP A345-15 - $10,000); Runway Lights Rehabilitation /Replacement (CIP A345-16 - $5,000); Runway Rehabilitation – Centerline Lights Controls (CIP A345-28 - $150,000); and, Runway Safety Area Environmental Assessment (CIP A345-39 - $80,000)

Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this transfer request be approved, contingent upon the adoption of Ordinance No. 98-17 (U).

  1. ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING

1. Ordinance No. 98-38

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FOR-HIRE VEHICLE CODE TO AVOID DUPLICATION OF STATE REGULATION, TO AUTHORIZE CREATION OF COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLE CONTROL AREAS AND LOADING ZONES, AND TO ESTABLISH PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE CODE.

Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted. Mr. Palmer said that he met with Mr. Williams of the Juneau Independent Driver’s Association (JIDA) and the ordinance falls short of a lot of the goals that the Human Resources Committee had, and some of the protections that the taxi industry would like to see. He did not feel that adoption of this ordinance precluded additional work on another ordinance, but he felt it was necessary to get something on the books as the certificates would begin expiring.

Public Testimony: (limited to five minutes)

Kirby Day, 1302 Tarn Court, highlighted some of his written testimony. The HRC met six to eight different times and many of the tour operators were available at those meetings and asked when they would have input into the process. Many State regulated companies were also asking when there would be the chance to talk about exemptions, the current exemptions, and how the industry would fit into the ordinance. They were told they would have the opportunity. The document left the HRC and went either to the Manager’s Office or the Law Department to be redrafted and the next time he saw it was in a December 7 packet for reapplication. He said that 98-38 also did not completely avoid duplicating regulations. He noted that the new term "controlled service vehicle" was not in the definition section and should be. Princess is currently regulated by the Federal Highways Administration through the State DOT. He asked the Assembly to consider a policy change granting a full exemption for his company or any other State regulated company from this ordinance. Princess meets or exceeds CBJ requirements for all vehicles within their fleet, regardless of the size. The packet included examples of inspections they do for every vehicle, as well as the daily inspections done for any vehicle before it moves. As CBJ has now stated, the CDL would meet the requirements and that seemed another good reason to exempt the company, as they have been for the last 15 years. Princess would still pay the fees as they always have but the CBJ would not have any inspections to do on Princess’s behalf or any additional paperwork. Within the ordinance, on page 19, he noted that it discussed maximum hours per day that a driver could drive. That is duplication as they are already regulated and bound by State statute and he included that statute in the packet. Additionally, on page 24, line 18, it talked about regulation of fares and rates and he said that would not apply to buses. However he asked if that would mean as a charter company, if someone wanted to charter a van, would those rates be regulated by the city; he was not sure of the intent. On page 3, he noted two areas and two suggestions on wording that might be adopted in ordinance to exempt them or State-regulated companies. He had been informed that if they were doing work for the School District, the city, the State, or for the Legislature, they would be exempt from the code. He said that 80-90% of what they do in the wintertime is transport 30,000 students throughout the borough. He did not think it made sense that they would be exempt when they were doing those things in January, but would not be exempt with the same drivers and vehicles in the summer. The code was being rewritten because of the issues between taxis, non-taxis, small shuttles and that type of thing and the buses seem to be getting caught in this net. He did not think it was prudent to try to capture everything at once, especially for those companies that were currently regulated. He said there were two types of bus scenarios within the town: those regulated by the state and those that were not. This application puts those together and that is not exactly true.

Ms. Hagevig clarified he could be a State-regulated company when operating vehicles of 14 passengers or less. Mr. Day said that according to the code, no. Their company receives a State DOT number and that applies to every vehicle they drive, whether it is a van, a luggage truck, a shop truck or a motor coach. Company policy dictates that they carry State regulations through for every vehicle within their fleet. Ms. Hagevig clarified that was not required and she said that Mr. Palmer indicated it would be inappropriate to give a company exemption because of the fact they operate smaller vehicles. Mr. Day was not sure it was inappropriate, but he did want to ask the Assembly to weigh that and make a policy call. Currently, they do not operate the small vehicles, except as courtesy vehicles. One question he had raised with staff was if they were to activate a wheel chair van, as they are bound to do by ADA standards, would that mean every driver of that van would have to get a professional drivers permit vs. a CDL. He thought that was onerous.

Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Day which of his two options he favored more. Mr. Day said what he attempted was two choices or suggestions, where it would fit best would be up to the City Attorney. Mr. Perkins clarified this would not prevent the Assembly COW from continuing to work on this, and he asked Mr. Day if he felt these changes were necessary for this resolution. Mr. Day said the fact that they had been exempt as a company for 15 years would follow that precedence if the code were amended. As it is, this is a one-year fix. They are already bound by state statute as far as how long a driver can drive over a period of time. This ordinance would exempt them from that and would take that out of the mix. It would also take the issue of overlapping regulation out of the mix.

Mr. Perkins said regarding overlapping regulation, did Mr. Day see himself having to go through twice as much work to get this done or was he afraid of double jeopardy with the new law if someone actually did enforce it. Mr. Day said he hated to set a precedence that seemed contrary to what had been done for the past 12-15 years for his company. In talking with staff about commercial vehicle loading zones downtown, having to list every single spot where they might stop in that area, being a charter company, that is not typically easy to do. He said if they took a group of school kids to the Glory Hole in the winter, they would try to stop somewhere where it was feasible for them to safely get into the Glory Hole without obstructing traffic.

Mr. Garrett asked Mr. Day his definition of a bus. Mr. Day said it was defined as 15 passengers, including the driver. Mr. Garrett thought that sounded like a van. Mr. Day said it depended on the intent, 15 or more could be a van but he thought even the State recognized that as a bus. He said currently, they do not operate any vans in that regard. All of their tours are operated with either their mini-buses, which seat 20 or motor coaches, which seat up to 53.

Ken Dean, 1130 Slim Williams Way, testified on his own, but he said he was also a member of the city’s ADA Committee and the Parks and Rec. Committee. The issue of taxicabs became glaringly apparent to him today. He said in the packet were letters from himself and one from Cheryl Hall outlining her experiences. Today a man was released from the hospital in Seattle, he was taken to the plane and landed at Juneau’s airport. He went to call a cab and there were no cabs for wheelchairs. SAIL furnished him with a wheelchair. Eventually, two Care-A-Vans showed up to take him home. He said this started at 11:00 this morning and finally, before 5:00, they got him away from the airport and towards home. All this could have been solved with an accessible cab, but there are none in this town. It appears the ADA is not mandatory for private cab companies, even though it is written that it is. He felt Juneau was under the impression that people in wheelchairs ware not important when it came to cabs. He thought this was the most accessible city on the West Coast, but every place else has accessible cab. He referred to an article in the MS magazine, about accessible cabs in Chicago, where they did not have any until September 1st of this year. A women with MS contacted the Mayor and told him that she could not move around town like everyone else. Her testimony said that she did not want to pay less than anyone else to use a taxi, and she did not want to pay more. She only wants to be able to access a cab like any other citizen in the city.

Mr. Garrett suggested a requirement to provide explanation of how they intend to provide access to persons with disabilities. Mr. Dean said that would be find and that just a percentage would do. If there was a van in the fleet, make the van accessible. Mayor Egan asked Mr. Dean his opinion if companies went in together and purchased a van, alleviating any undue burden on a small business. Mr. Dean agreed, but said in Anchorage companies went together and bought an accessible van and agreed to do the maintenance. When it was worn out, they did not want to do any more maintenance and it is currently setting up on blocks. He would not have a problem with them sharing a van and using a common dispatcher or having a cell phone with a different number that the driver could carry.

Gloria Ravina Tekant, 212 North Franklin Street, employed with Taku Taxi. She empathized with Mr. Dean and others that need the service. She said many had thought of getting a van as he suggested, but it was a great expense and she did not think there was enough business in Juneau to warrant the expense at this time. If there was some way to get assistance, they would all be happy to get in together to help the public. She would like to see the for-hire code separate for taxicabs as they are a totally different transportation. She was concerned with the status of a taxicab in this ordinance as the ordinance reads nice but is very vague and does not state what can and cannot be done.

Mr. Perkins commented that she provided written testimony about a clarification of one item and he thanked her for picking that up.

Frank Rich, 9143 Parkwood, provided a page to the City Clerk to be handed out. His concern was with section 20.40.52, dealing with taxicabs. The definition of a taxicab needs to include besides employee, 24 hours a day. The purpose should say "sole purpose of receiving calls and dispatching taxicabs from a fixed commercial office establishment." That way dispatch services would not end up in private residences or via cell phones. In the summer time there seems to be a tremendous amount of taxis that show up which disappear in the wintertime. He wanted to add a new section which would require a minimum of 10 cars on the Certificate of Public Convenience at all times with a minimum of six cars on the road daily, for at least 300 days a year. That may eliminate businesses that are masquerading as taxis but only working on the tourist end. He also thought the section should be put back in that says a maximum of seven seats for a passenger vehicle for a taxicab. He thought advertisement should be eliminated with except for the company logo and identification. He did not think the section of exempting a company instead of exempting a bus should be done right now. If courtesy services are exempt, he did not know why the courtesy van would not be exempt. He thought the Certificate of Public Convenience should also include an airport or ferry shuttle service and they should be required to meet all of the major arrivals of the airplanes and the ferries that come into the community. He said he has been to several meetings with people from SAILs about the handicap accessibility issue. Unfortunately, there is not enough use in the community and if a taxicab will operate as a handicap vehicle, there would need to be more than one because vehicles breakdown. The vehicle would also need to be able to do more than just handle the handicapped. Most accessible vans have the lift in the side door which means if anyone who is not wheelchair bound wants to get into the back of the van, they have to take and lower the lift manually. Other models are quite expensive.

Ms. Hagevig could not agree more whole heartedly about the necessity to have some kind of regular service to the airport and ferry terminal, but she asked if he had any kind of recommendation how to accomplish this with a private company, as a requirement. He said that MGT did it all summer long but they stop in the winter because there is not enough business to even pay a driver’s wages. From May to September, when there are more people coming in, they meet the arrival of ever ferry and plane and they take people out to ever ferry and plane. Ms. Hagevig clarified he was suggesting this be a seasonal activity and not year round. Mr. Rich said at the airport it could be done year round. It could also be done year round at the Ferry Terminal but the business that relies on the ferry terminal in the winter is the cab drivers and that would cut out a little bit more of their income. He suggested letting the person choose their period of time, but they must meet all of the flights or all the ferries that come in on that day. Ms. Hagevig asked how he would suggest that a private company be required to do this. He said he does it in the summer now, and he did it for two years in the winter and it ended up costing him quite a bit of money. An airport service may be in the city's interest to subsidize with a minor amount of money. If the city wants it to run 365 day a year, it would have to be subsidized, or the person would not be able to make the money.

Ray Lemon, testified as the original owner of Capital Cab. He has been involved in the cab and transportation industry in Juneau since before the first cruise ship arrived. He said he has seen the cab industry go from a nice bunch of guys who work together between all the companies, to a bunch of cutthroat back stabbing hownyawks. Part of that was their fault and part of that was the city's fault, as it had to do with the regulations and the lack of enforcement of the regulations. These new regulations, which have been promised them for three years, are still just as vague and unenforceable as they were ten years ago. Right now there are large companies that deal specifically with tourism and they have their own docks in town. This company now charges taxicabs $6,000 per year to park on their dock, which he added, was at the end of the street that he pays taxes on. Cab drivers have been getting taxed and pushed around, their parking places have been moved and they keep getting new regulations. Of all the complaints the TAC received regarding for-hire vehicles last year, only two of them involved taxicabs, but cabs are the ones that these vague regulations are aimed at. Gypsy taxicabs are operating in Juneau in the form of employee shuttles and crew shuttles and such, and they are literally ripping us blind without showing the city how much money is being made or lost, or whether the tax revenue is coming or going. Without enforcement, the city has no idea where these people are picking up. Other gypsy cab companies want to start door to door service and charge three times what it is worth to go. The cab companies are not allowed to double, or advertise, but other companies can. He said those companies could pick up three people and charge them $7 each, pick up three others along the way and end up making $42 for a trip that would have only been worth $17 to a cab driver taking the same six people. He said he had over $30,000 of his own money invested in his cab; he is an independent operator. To make his taxi handicap accessible would cost him another $35,000. That would not count any insurance, the fuels, the $100 to park at the airport, the $42 to park at the loading zone, his own personal property taxes and his own paperwork that he keeps his records on. He was upset and felt he was being pushed out of the business. This regulation is again regulating him instead of regulating what the city keeps allowing to come in to step on him and then waltz away during the winter months when it gets tough while he was still required to get out and slip and slide on the streets. He asked why this was being allowed to happen.

Mayor Egan asked him if he realized that the Assembly could not regulate what a private lot charges him or his business. Mr. Lemon knew that. Mayor Egan asked if that was why they were parking up the hill, away from the private lot. Mr. Lemon said they had to park up there and wait to come down because they were only allowed two cars on that lot and they were hidden behind the dumpster. The people that want to do business with cabs on that private lot are not dealing with the concessions anyhow, or they would not be looking for a cab. He only wanted to point out what had been happening to his industry and said now even the Federal Government was going to require him to take $3 for every one that he takes to the Glacier. He said there use to be a core of about 60 men and women in town who liked what they did and worked hard to make sure the people in Juneau got where they needed to go in a fast, safe and efficient manner. Mayor Egan was concerned that any time someone comes in and wants to get a permit for a for-hire business, we give it to them, and he asked what if those 70+ permits were cut in half and made into limited entry. Mr. Lemon said limited entry would not work and he suggested doing it like other places in that to get a certificate, there be a minimum requirement for the number of vehicles. Once there was a requirement here that you had to maintain an open dispatch office 24 hours a day, 7 days a week so people could come in and get a cab and have a place to stay in out of the cold and rain. If you made that regulation again, where people had to have 4-10 vehicles in their fleet before they could be called a legitimate taxicab company and they had to have a office to dispatch out of, that would make it more in the peoples convenience. The way it is now, he could pay the fee, use his cell phone, drive his cab, and he would be a cab company. He did not think you could really be a cab company with only one or two cabs because the regulations state that we have to respond to a call within a reasonable amount of time.

Ms. Hagevig asked whether or not he favored limited entry. Mr. Lemon said no, he thought the market place should determine how many vehicles or cab companies could survive on the street. He had seen it tried in other places and when tested in court it lost.

Andrew Beattie, 326 4th Street, testified that he agreed with having a place of business as described and that there should be a minimum amount of cars. He did not agree with limiting because the market here goes up and down and there is a different seasonal demand on their service. He stressed that this town does demand a good service and right now it was being heavily challenged and he suggested doing what ever could be done to simplify ordinances. As far as shuttles and taxis, that would be a challenge because there are not enough people here year round to support both. In the summer there is more than enough people to support more than we have, but then they all go away. Since the drivers are all self employed, they are paying up to 40% of their gross income back into their selves. Technically, every driver has to make $90-100 to break even. As far as the disabled, he said he does his best. He did not have a lift, but he was usually able to spend the extra time to help them. To get a fully accessible van would work if the city and maybe the companies got together with federal assistance. He understood that for some seriously harsh paperwork, it was possible to get two vans from the federal government. They would let you run them and give you a quarter million dollars to do it. If you fail in two years, so what, as long as you tried. In the summertime, any tour driver can tell you how many tours they have done with a wheelchair because that person could not get on the bus or they were told when they got here there would be vehicles for them. They get here and there is not one tour company here to take care of them. In the last couple years he has seen a few vehicles showing up that do have this capability and Princess Line was one of them. On demand, every day of the year, was something that would have to be looked into after the playing field is made even. He said if there was a definition and a requirement to meet a certain standard, then a lot of headaches would be relieved.

Mr. Perkins referred to Mr. Rich’s proposed language suggestions and he asked if he agreed with a minimum of 10 cars on the certificate at all times, and a minimum of six cars on the road daily for at least 300 days a year. Mr. Beattie agreed with the number and did not feel that would be too many. He said there would be days when that would kill and there should be a realistic minimum set, but if three companies make it through, that would be a minimum of 30 cabs. If the night had to be 60% of that, then it would make 18. Some nights that would be more than enough and other nights it would increase the wait time, but it was a start in the right direction.

Ms. Hagevig asked if he agreed with a maximum of seven passenger seats per taxi. Mr. Beattie said yes, there must be a definition of a taxi. Since 500,000 people show up during the summer, we are being described as a big city. We cannot exactly have that sort of industry happening here in the wintertime. The cabs are needed just as much in the summer, which is why you see then on the road and don’t want to limit the entry. On the other side of the coin, you don’t want it to all disappear. Some who live here do want some to disappear because we know the reality of winter but the real side of this is service and the definition of taxi should have some thing to describe it between a shuttle. Taxis can do a shared load only if the client who has put us into service first agrees to it. To allow someone to come in an try to define themselves as something other than a taxi, yet they do what a taxi does, not only crowds the system but will eventually cause the taxi to fade away. This town has the demographics and the topography and the weather that asks for our service.

Mr. Garrett asked Mr. Beattie if he had had a chance to read through the ordinance. Mr. Beattie said no, so far he had only taken one day of this month. Mr. Garrett asked how many meeting he had been to and Mr. Beattie said too many. Previous to this, he lost a lot of money trying to do business with the State of Hawaii. They had a very similar type of situation, low demographics but no business with the locals. Juneau has a chance to do it right. We are into the tourist scene and some people wonder if it is going to last. He wondered how many years it would continue and what infrastructure would be built from it and what other infrastructure would be let go. Taxis are needed year round so that industry needs to be protected with regulations that define it, if there is a demand, it will grow, if there is a lack of the demand, it will shrink. He felt there needed to be a unique situation where there was independently owned businesses, but drivers could put themselves into an agency relationship, similar to real estate agents who are independent, yet they have a place to focus out of. This would create more credibility into the service. Taxis are an extension of the city bus system and we back one another up. He said in Germany, if the demographic is less than 50, the bus system is too costly so they subsidize the cabs. Taxis are also an extension of a personal cars. When you come to this town and want to do something that you would normally be able to do at home, you use a taxi.

Mayor Egan asked who would be put out of business with a minimum of 10 cars on the certificate at all times. Mr. Beattie said survival was cruel, he was only one car but if he could tell dispatch that a person needed service, then people would be taken care of and they would remember that. If everyone has the same expense and the same reality, then there would be focus. A lot of people get a lot of false information when they show up here and the taxi drivers turn those vacations around. Mayor Egan said he had letters from legislators and city officials from the Yukon about cab service. He asked if they were doing a better job of policing themselves. Mr. Beattie said he was no longer a part of the JIDA as he disagreed with some of the focus and has pulled himself out, mostly for personal reasons. As an industry, we cannot do it without some fair playing field and some description of what we are. He encouraged the Assembly to think about application when trying to define what these services do. If they would overlap, should the ordinance even be written. If he had to compete with some of the same industries that are not regulated and do not have to do some of the things that he has to do, then it is not fair.

Shane Williams, P.O. Box 212845, Auke Bay, chair of the JIDA, testified that in a meeting today, it was explained to him that the actual ordinance was still in the COW. The interim model being presented by the staff did not address, in any way shape or form, any style of enforcement that would be addressed during the summer. The creative style of service that the Assembly, the HRC and the other groups asked for five years ago when the ordinance was re-written, those problems that we faced then, were going to build into a model system, but did not. This ordinance left little or no administrative enforcement other than numerous hours by the administration to actually enforce any type of an ordinance at all. He understood it but disagreed with it. The ordinance needed to be all encompassing, whether it separates the groups or it individualizes them in different ordinances for different types of services. They need to be defined and they need to be clarified. He illustrated the process and difference of a shuttle or cab and how the present ordinance would not be effective and was unacceptable. They would like to see the ordinance set aside and the present ordinance kept in effect. He suggested issuing a 90-day moratorium with no more permits or certificates going out. During that period of time, a working group could be established. The JIDA turned in a document that encompasses five different documents: the 1998 guidelines that were presented to the Vans, Limos and Buses; excerpts from the staff written draft of an ordinance; the present ordinance; two others.

Mr. Kibby asked if he agreed with what had been said today by the other groups. Mr. Williams said there was a real division within the cab industry as far as medallions go. The certificates are issued to the dispatch companies and we go and apply to them to work for them. It is a unique system. We are independents by State Law and by the fact that we own our own vehicles and we pick and choose the days we want to work. Mr. Kibby said over the last five years he has received letters from everyone, but tonight was the first time he saw any sort of consensus among the group. He was impressed by that and said it seemed like things were getting closer. Personally, he was not sure how the drivers would put it all together and come in with a united front as to what was best for the community. He did not want to have to decide what was best for the industry and referee the industry for the next 90 days while the drivers try to figure out what they want. Mr. Williams said he thought they presented a document that pretty much encompasses, even though it was very rough, the approach that they would like to see taken. Mr. Kibby asked if everyone in the room could agree to it. Mr. Williams said he had not presented it to the Tourist or Charters and Mr. Kibby noted the number of people in the audience who were not in agreement.

Mr. Perkins clarified that Mr. Williams did not agree with the medallion system and he asked if he agreed that a business ought to be from a fixed commercial establishment. Mr. Williams said at this point in time, representing drivers and the fact that their bylaws say they do not represent dispatch companies, his answer would have to be personal and that would have to be yes. Mr. Perkins asked if he agreed with a minimum of 10 cars on the certificate at all times and a minimum of six cars on the road daily for a minimum of 300 days a years. Mr. Williams said he had yet to see a company in Juneau that has done that. The dispatch companies have stated quite clearly that they do not want to have anything to do with the drivers other than having the drivers pay them money. Now we are saying that we want to have a management statement system in the ordinance, of those dispatch companies to maintain a certain basis of contractual agreements with drivers on the road. He saw the clarity of that but he did not understand.

Mr. Garrett clarified that the Assembly would have the authority of extending permits for a limited period of time. Mr. Corso said the ordinance before them had a transitional provision that does that, however the expiration date of 12/31/98 was established by code. To extend, the ordinance would have to be adopted. Mr. Garrett clarified the ordinance could be amended to delete everything but the transition date. He said he thought the Assembly should consider appointing a special committee to work on finishing this up and doing it completely as very valid issues had not been addressed.

B R E A K

8:30 p.m. – 8:48 p.m.

Mayor Egan noted that two people signed up for public testimony but public testimony had been closed.

Assembly Action

MOTION – by Garrett, to table ordinance 98-38. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

Mr. Garrett asked to convene a group of Assemblymembers for an extended work session to work through the ordinance that was currently before the COW, make important policy decisions that need to be made, and get the ordinance back before the Assembly at the first meeting in February. He suggested himself, Mr. MacKinnon, Ms. Hagevig and Ms. Muñoz for the committee and anyone else that wanted to come. Mr. Kibby suggested that it be a COW so that everyone was present. Mr. Koelsch said he felt awkward about the opportunity for the industry to have input on it, publicly. He would like to see the list of suggestions responded to so that at the COW, the Assembly would have ideas why those suggestions would or would not work, as opposed to creating something and bringing it back for public testimony.

Mayor Egan appointed Mr. Garrett, Ms. Hagevig, Ms. Muñoz and Mr. MacKinnon to the committee and the rest of the member would be welcome to attend ex officio to listen to the testimony that would come before the special committee. The committee would report to the full Assembly and he urged all Assemblymembers to attend and listen.

It was agreed that Tuesday the 5th at 5 p.m. the committee would have its first meeting.

    1. Ordinance No. 98-39
    2. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE TABLE OF PERMISSIBLE USES TO ALLOW DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE, SEAFOOD PROCESSING IN WATERFRONT ZONES, AND MARINE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES IN RURAL RESERVE AND WATERFRONT ZONES.

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

      Public Testimony: None at this time.

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION - by Kibby, to adopt ordinance 98-39 and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    3. Ordinance No. 98-41
    4. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN SHOPPING MALL MEMBERSHIP DUES AND CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS BY TRUSTS ENGAGED IN RELATED PARTY COMMERCIAL RENTALS.

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

      Public Testimony: None at this time.

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION - by Kibby, to adopt ordinance 98-41, and he asked unanimous consent.

      Mr. Garrett referred to line 17, where it described shopping centers as one owner shopping center. If the Alaska Permanent Fund owned 50% interest in a shopping center and someone else owned 50%, would that mean then that those merchant association members would not qualify for this ordinance. Mr. Corso said the language reflected the Sales Tax Administrators recommendation. If the owner consisted of a corporation or partnership or joint venture of some sort, it would still be one owner. Mr. Garrett wanted to be sure that it was the intent of the Assembly that this be interpreted broadly and inclusively for people who were partnerships or other ways of running retail property like limited liability corporation, S corporations, regular corporations and all of the above. Mr. Corso suggested that since there was not a satisfactory explanation of exactly what one owner means, that the Assembly simply take it out.

      MOTION - by Garrett, to delete the words "one owner" from line 17.

      Mr. Kibby asked Mr. Corso if this language reflected what the IRS currently has for a 501(c). Mr. Corso said that was his understanding from the Sales Tax Administrator, he had not researched it himself. Mr. Corso went on to say that section 1 and section 2 where separate. The shopping center language had nothing to do with the 501(c) exemption. The language in number 2 on line 16 was not copied from the 501(c) certificate from the IRS.

      Ms. Hagevig said the reason this was being dealt with was because these people were specifically excluded from the IRS language. Mr. Kibby understood that but said it was his understanding that the Assembly was just adopting that same language. Mr. MacKinnon clarified that the two owners would have some sort of partnership agreement so the legal entity that owned it would be one owner. He said he did not see a reason for it being in there, but if the Sales Tax Administrator felt that it needed to be there, he could not imagine a shopping center that had multiple owners other than the Downtown Business Association and they were already covered. Mr. Kibby said there was one owner but there were multiple lessees, and that was what was trying to be fixed.

      Mr. Garrett withdrew his amendment. He wanted it clear that he did not want to get a letter from anyone saying they had been denied by the sales tax office because they decided their ownership arrangement did not meet what was in ordinance. Mr. Corso recommended that the Sales Tax Administrator provide an explanation of it at the next meeting. If it turns out that the Assembly disagrees with the rational, the Assembly could amend the ordinance. That could be done quickly before any problems arise.

      There was no objection to that direction. There being no objection to the ordinance, with no amendments, it was so ordered.

    5. Ordinance No. 98-17 (U)
    6. AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $1,120,909 FOR THE FOLLOWING CAPITAL PROJECTS: AIRPORT REVOLVING CAPITAL RESERVE ACCOUNT, AIRPORT TERMINAL WALL AND CEILING REHABILITATION, EAST END GENERAL AVIATION AREA DEVELOPMENT, SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT BUILDING DESIGN, INSTALLATION OF SECURITY FENCING, ENVIRONMENTAL FOR FLOAT POND AND RTR AREA AND EAST GENERAL AVIATION AND AIR CARRIER RAMP IMPROVEMENTS DESIGN. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES.

      Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be amended to reduce the Airport Revolving Capital Reserve Account to $543,023 for a total appropriation of $1,089,272.

      Public Testimony: None at this time.

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION - by Garrett, to adopt ordinance 98-17 (U) with the recommended in the Manager’s Report of the different figure for the appropriation to the Capital Reserve Account of $543,023.

      Mr. Garrett said when the FY budget was adopted, we did not know these charges would be in effect and the amount of money that would be raised from them. A portion of this is outlined in the memo as being reimbursed by the sales tax dollars already expended, with those dollars being reinvested into the airport. He asked if they had evaluated the possibility of not re-investing that funding into the airport but putting it back into the General Fund. Mr. Palmer said that was not discussed in detail. It was pointed out that this was a reimbursement, but they had not followed up with the FAA to see if the city could actually pocket the money. The Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) laws allow the airport to designate specific projects and it also allows the airport to look back in time and count some of the expenditures made in the past and apply that money to other projects that the airport may want. They have not gone back to find out if the airport would allow us to look at the source of that money and then redirect the PFC off the airport. He said it was not as much a reimbursement of the sales tax as it was an allowance by the FAA to count that expenditure as an allowed expense for which they allow PFC money to be collected. Mr. Garrett urged the Assembly to adopt the ordinance, but urge the Manager to follow up on this issue and to evaluate it. $250,000 would go a long way towards keeping our service level in other areas where it should be.

      Mr. Kibby said one of the things with the PFC that would also be looked at was a reduction of the FAA direct funding from the trust. It is a give and take situation and the city feels it would be a substantial, more reliable funding source.

      Mr. Garrett was not suggesting diverting PFCs off the airport. He suggested that, if the revenue from that PFC could be used or counted in lieu of money we have already expended or appropriated from the general sales tax coffers in this fiscal year only, we evaluate the possibility of doing that. Those general sales tax dollars could be used to avoid property tax increases next year. There is only one chance to do this financial shuffle, the first year you get PFCs.

      Mr. Kibby was skeptical and did not want to caught in the situation where the FAA looks at the money that had been collected elsewhere, short changing the airport that amount of funding.

      Mayor Egan asked if the FAA could do that. Mr. Palmer said there were several pots of money, AIP money that comes in as a formula and is based on the implanements, and discretionary money, which can be sent where ever they wanted. The PFC money was locked into the projects that have been approved so the PFC money could only be spent on those projects that were on the list that was part of the application.

      Mr. Garrett pointed out that the recommendation to lower the appropriation would change the title amount by $31,637.

      Mr. Palmer said the money that was being reimbursed from the sales tax fund was primarily the money that was going into the airport revolving capital reserve fund and that was not a capital project and was not a project that was on the PFC list. That was the fund they were trying to set up so they have up front money for design. The transfer on the Consent Agenda dealt with most of that money. He said he was looking for clarification if the Assembly wanted him to follow up on that. Mr. Perkins said that Mr. Garrett was correct in being concerned with the bottom line. He thought there was concern by the Airport Manager stated also about this money going back into and providing the service and upgrading the facility at the airport. He agreed it may be a juggling act that the Assembly may want to look at as it gets closer. He and Ms. Hagevig would be meeting prior to the 15th of January with the Manager and Finance Director to go over budgets and start formulating some direction so that they can come to the Finance Committee without too many cuts or increases. He agreed that the Manager should follow up on this and maybe put it into the equation, at least for discussion purposes.

      Mr. Kibby was confused that the ordinance could be adopted with the recommendation to look into it and pull it back later. He said part of this money would be used for design of future projects, enhancements that were needed. Discretionary funding from the FAA occurs when all their other projects have been completed and they have monies left over that they can move into another area. The only way to be in line for those projects is if you have projects designed and ready to go. He said he did not want to derail this money because the CBJ more often than not has been left out of the loop for discretionary funding of construction projects because they did not have anything designed and ready.

      Mr. MacKinnon said the ordinance could be approved as it was, with a request for information of whether or not we could use that money for some other problems that we may have. He sees nothing conflicting in going ahead with the ordinance and if it was decided later to redirect that money, it would be a reappropriation.

      Mr. Garrett agreed with Mr. MacKinnon and said they were not under any obligation to provide any of the enterprise funds with reserve accounts. It was done as a policy decision by this body. He thought there was a good argument to be made when talking about sales tax dollars and they should not sit in any of the enterprise areas because those dollars are the only pot of money that the city has to pay for schools, buses, food, etc. Sales tax revenues are down and he thought it would be imprudent of this body to say they could do whatever they want with a quarter million dollars in sales tax revenue. He said it may be that, due to the nature of the rules governing PFCs, we cannot even think like this.

      There being no objection to asking for an opinion, it was so ordered.

      Mayor Egan thought that this was still getting the cart before the horse because this ordinance was a draft that the Airport Board had not really acted on or adopted. Mr. Palmer said the night that the Finance Committee considered this was the same night that the Airport Board met on it. There was a recommendation from the Airport Board on this ordinance and the minutes were listed as a draft because they had not officially approved the minutes. The Board voted to recommend the ordinance.

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

    7. Ordinance No. 98-17 (V)
    8. AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $2,453,000 FOR THE FOLLOWING CAPITAL PROJECTS: ADAIR KENNEDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS, ARCHERY RANGE ACCESSIBLE SHOOTING PLATFORM, DIMOND PARK IMPROVEMENTS, HANK HARMON RIFLE RANGE IMPROVEMENTS, MELVIN PARK FIELD DUGOUTS, PIPELINE SKATE PARK RESTROOMS, SAVIKKO PARK PLAY FIELD IMPROVEMENT, TREADWELL DITCH TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS, EAGLECREST SNOW PLAY/SNOW TUBING AREA, EAGLECREST SNOWBOARD TERRAIN PARK, EAGLECREST COMPOSTING TOILETS, EAGLECREST PARKING LOT CHIP SEAL COMPLETION, DOUGLAS HARBOR UPLANDS AND MOORAGE EXPANSION, HARBORS AREA WIDE RESTROOMS CONSTRUCTION, MAYFLOWER ISLAND CAUSEWAY UPGRADE, AND STATTER HARBOR PARKING/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE TEMPORARY 1% SALES TAX LEVY TO BE USED FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PARKS AND HARBORS, AND TO EAGLECREST.

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

      Public Testimony: None at this time.

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION – by Hagevig, to adopt ordinance 98-17 (V) and she asked for unanimous consent.

      Mr. Koelsch asked if there was anything included that was not specifically mentioned when the bond issue was voted on. Mr. Palmer was not aware of any.

      Ms. Muñoz pointed out that a number of projects that were on the bond were not included here but that it was a several year program and she anticipated that those projects would be seen next year.

      Mr. Perkins thought when this came to the first meeting, they did have a copy of the voter approved bond and they went over it and he believed all the projects were listed as in the title.

      There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    9. Ordinance No. 98-17 (W)

AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $60,000 TO FULLY FUND CONSTRUCTION OF A MOORING DOLPHIN AT THE FERRY DOCK WHARF. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY PORT FUND UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE.

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

Public Testimony: None at this time.

Assembly Action:

MOTION - by Garrett to adopt ordinance 98-17 (W) and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

Mr. Garrett urged everyone involved to come to some compromise with the Fisherman’s Memorial people and that design issue.

Assembly Action

Ms. Hagevig gave notice of reconsideration on Resolution 1973 with the intent of having it discussed at the first meeting of January.

Ms. Hagevig said the Habitat for Humanity people were in the audience and did not understand the process with the Consent Agenda. This moved through the Consent Agenda process more quickly than they had anticipated, and they would have preferred a chance to discuss certain parts of the resolution with the Assembly before it was passed.

  1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
  2. NEW BUSINESS

    1. HARRIS APPEAL OF WETLAND REVIEW BOARD DECISION DENYING A PROPOSAL TO PLACE FILL MATERIAL INTO WETLANDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF GRAVEL PADS FOR THREE BUSINESSES

Administrative Report: Attached. Because this was an appeal, the Manager had no recommendation on whether or how the Assembly should hear the appeal. After the Assembly has made its decisions on these issues, the Clerk would contact the parties and the presiding or hearing officer to notify them of the Assembly’s decision and to arrange for a pre-hearing conference or other proceedings.

MOTION – by MacKinnon, that the Assembly accept the appeal. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

MOTION – by MacKinnon, that the Assembly hear the appeal itself. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

MOTION – by MacKinnon, that the Mayor designate a member of the Assembly as Presiding Officer to hear the appeal. There being no objection, Mayor Egan appointed Mr. Powell as the presiding officer.

  1. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS

A. Manager’s Report - Action Items - None

B. Manager’s Report - Information Items

1. Capital Transit – 30 Minute Service.

Administrative Report: Attached. Mr. Palmer recommended a referral to the Finance Committee.

There being no objection, this item was referred to the Finance Committee.

C. Attorney’s Report

    1. Baumer Judgement
    2. Mr. Corso reported on the award of attorney fees and costs for the Baumer judgement. The city was represented by Mr. Bob Blasco and he secured a judgement from the Superior Court in an amount of about $6,000 for costs and fees in this case.

    3. Decision of the Bidding Review Board on the Police Station protest.
    4. This was a red-folder item and the matter was on its way to the Assembly. He recommended that rather than proceed this evening, that the Assembly allow the 20 days granted by Charter for anyone who wishes to appeal the decision of a board or commission. Mr. Corso said this was a complicated matter because there was an additional appellant who had come in after the Board decision and wanted to appeal some new issues not considered by the Board. He had a few suggestions for handling that in his memorandum.

      There was no objection to Mr. Corso’s recommendation

    5. Update on the Multiple Charities Pull Tab Case

An appeal was filed and the Assembly assigned it to a hearing officer, given the complicated financial nature of the appeal. Since the Assembly had made that decision, the city has been presented with a Motion to Waive Jurisdiction by Mr. Rice on behalf of the appellants. Mr. Rice claims that this matter should proceed directly to court and should not be entertained by the Assembly. For that reason, Mr. Corso had held off on recommending a hearing officer to the Assembly. The staff would respond to this motion. He conferred with Mr. Rice, who agreed that would be all right by him. With the Assembly’s approval, he would present at the next meeting a motion to waive the Assembly’s jurisdiction so it does not have to hear the appeal and it goes straight to court. The staff may present some good reasons not to do that. Both positions would be in writing and at the Assembly’s direction, it could include oral arguments.

Ms. Hagevig said the hearing on the Landvik appeal would be at 5 p.m. on the 11th of January. It would be a special meeting before the Assembly meeting.

  1. MAYOR AND COMMITTEE REPORTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS

    1. Revised Pending Items
    2. Unappropriated General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance
    3. Assembly Contingency fund Balance
    4. Committee Reports

1. Standing Committees:

a) Committee of the Whole – Mr. MacKinnon said there was no meeting scheduled in December, but there would be one in January.

b) Finance Committee – Mr. Perkins said he and Ms. Hagevig would be meeting with staff to start the budget process. He thanked everyone for their hard work last week and said that over half their items were removed from their list. There was no meeting scheduled at this time.

c) Human Resources Committee – Ms. Muñoz said a meeting scheduled for January 4th at noon. She requested that the members appointed to the working group on Commercial Passenger Vehicle Ordinance hold on to the paperwork included in tonight’s packet and she asked for a copy of the ordinance that was before the COW.

d) Lands & Resources Committee – Mr. Kibby said the meeting scheduled for Wednesday had been cancelled. Two meetings ago they dealt with ATVs request for the Eaglecrest Rock Quarry. They would be using that area in the interim while they continue to work with the state and federal government. He requested that be removed from their list. The Land Disposal Program had been sent to the Planning Commission and he hoped to have something back from them by the first part of February and that the Land Disposal Plan could be to the Assembly by mid-February.

    1. Public Works & Facilities Committee – Mr. Garrett said there would be a big meeting tomorrow at noon. They will be hearing a number of transportation issues including, the roads in the Crow Hill area and some sort of plan for their reconstruction road; an official presentation of the parking study which includes making decisions on recommendations by Mr. Rody; a presentation by DOT PF and their solution to the intersection at Stephen Richards and the Loop Road.

2. Board Liaison Reports:

Mr. Koelsch said the School Board had picked March 9th as a date to meet with and work with the Assembly to make a decision on a spring election. They were on their second reading on televising their meetings and several of the same topics were discussed as with the Assembly.

Mayor Egan said the Alaska Committee official airfare letter would go out on December 28th to just over 200,000 recipients at a lower cost than projected.

Mayor Egan asked to move Continuation of Public Participation on Non-Agenda Items up to this point in the Agenda.

  1. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
  2. Kirby Day, 1302 Tarn Court, said in terms of permitting at the private dock, after the first year of operation of that facility they found that there were vehicles stopping in the middle of Thane Road picking people up, as well as cruising the parking lot behind buses making it unsafe for people in the area. They worked closely with JEDA to come up with an agreement which came to about .70 cents per cab/per day for the summertime. That money went directly back to enforcement and hiring Nightwatch Security to patrol traffic and the enforcement of the permit. It seemed to work well and was not quite as onerous as it sounded earlier in the evening.

  3. ASSEMBLY COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
  4. Mr. Koelsch said there would be discussion about lobbyists and lobbying at the next Assembly meeting.

    Mr. Perkins encouraged anyone with extra food to drop it off at the Food Bank.

    Ms. Muñoz said she had the list of 21 projects that were sent off to Senator Steven’s office with descriptions of projects that were the most critical in the Juneau Area. She said the forth project was the Downtown Juneau Parking Enhancement Project. Under the funding scenario, it was requesting money for three parking garages. She wanted an explanation of that. Mr. Buck responded that those were rough project scopes that were pulled together prior to the Parking Study's completion. The actual study did not lead up to three separate facilities, but at the time, they did not know what they would need so he looked at a 20-year big picture. Ms. Muñoz was concerned because there was a planning issue underway and this appeared to be getting way ahead of that effort. Mr. Palmer said that list was put together as a shopping list and was only an effort to let them know potential projects.

    Mr. Kibby asked if there was anything new on the NOAA facility. Mayor Egan said there was a meeting scheduled next week. Mr. Kibby referred to the West Douglas masterplan and said the Lands Committee would be making that their next issue. He was contacted by Goldbelt and would be following through with questions and concerns of fellow Assemblymembers.

    Mr. Garrett asked the draft resolution he put forward on Competition and Local Phone Service for Alaska’s Capital City be put on the agenda for consideration at the January 4th meeting. He said it was not written by any phone company. He said he walked around property in North Douglas that had been damaged by the "big flood", then he watched the video of the damage occurring and had the opportunity to walk the property up hill, that the developer claimed had no impact on the drainage flow. When he sees drainage ditches that are dug, channeling water into a certain direction that then leads to a big river and goes down the mountain and just happens to go where people live, he has a hard time accepting that that development did not cause, or have significant impact on the drainage. This subdivision development has a permit that has been approved and has a drainage plan and the drainage that occurred did not have anything to do with the drainage plan that was approved. He noted several instances over the past years where there was nothing at the back end of this process to make sure permit holders do what they said there were going to do. Now we are in the position of having to deal with people who had an entire house shift because of water cascading down from above. Two very serious issues include how to deal with drainage as construction continues, and zoning enforcement. There was no value to laws if there was no way to enforce them. Finally, he reported he had been doing a lot of research on e-commerce and transactions occurring on the Internet and taxability thereof. It appears there was a lot more flexibility in this regard than one might be led to believe. He thought it was something the Assembly should look very seriously at. Sales tax is collected at the point of where the taxable event occurs and a certain amount of sales tax revenue is being lost. Everything he reads about the growth of commerce on the internet leads him to believe it will take up a bigger and bigger piece of the amount of commerce that is available. Some companies are making over a million dollars a day in Internet sales.

    Mayor Egan said there was a presentation from the National League of Cities lobbyists and they were coming out with position papers on that issue. That should be out the first part of the year and he would make sure everyone received a copy.

    Mayor Egan reminded everyone of the Community Reception on the 20th at 5:30 at Centennial Hall. Ms. Miller would be contacting Assemblymembers looking for volunteers.

    Mayor Egan said the first meeting of the Y2K Task Force would be January 4th at noon in the Chambers. The committee would be electing a chair and setting the agenda and direction.

    B R E A K

    9:55 p.m. – 10:05 p.m.

    MOTION – by MacKinnon, to recess into Executive Session to conduct the City Attorney’s annual evaluation, which is a matter that could tend to defame the character or reputation of a person. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    E X E C U T I V E S E S S I O N

    10:06 p.m. – 10:25 p.m.

    Mr. MacKinnon reported that the Executive Session included the evaluation of Mr. Corso and he received flowing comments from all the Assemblymembers. A committee would be convened to discuss his compensation.

  5. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to come before the Assembly, and no objection, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

 

Signed: ________________________________

Mayor Egan

 

 

Countersigned: ________________________________

Marian Miller, Clerk