Capital City Home Pagearrow City Government and Services arrowMinutes of Assembly MeetingsarrowJanuary 11, 1999


JANUARY 11, 1999

MEETING NO. 99-03: 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 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Dennis Egan.

  1. FLAG SALUTE was led by Mayor Egan.
  3. Assembly Present: Garrett, Kibby, MacKinnon, Perkins, Powell, Egan, Hagevig, Muņoz, and Koelsch

    Assembly Absent: None

    A quorum was present.

    Staff Present: Marian Miller, Municipal Clerk; Dave Palmer, City Manager; John Corso, City Attorney; Ernie Mueller, Public Works Director; Joe Buck, Engineering Director; Joan Romesburg, Senior Accountant; Craig Duncan, Finance Director; Dave Miller, Airport Manager; Catherine Fritz, Chief Architect; Kim Kiefer, Parks and Rec. Director

    1. 11/02/98 - Regular Meeting No. 98-35
    2. 11/16/98 – Regular Meeting No. 98-36

MOTION - by Kibby, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting No. 98-35, held November 2, 1998, and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

MOTION - by Kibby, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting No. 98-36, held November 16, 1998, and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.


    1. Legislative Strategy

MOTION – by MacKinnon, to suspend the rules and postpone the special order of business until an executive session at the end of the meeting. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

  2. R E C E S S

    7:07 p.m. – 7:15 p.m.

  4. Michael Kirk, 1718 Evergreen Avenue, testified about the school district’s high school building problem. The present JDHS building, designed for a maximum of under 900 students is now at 1,500. There is much debate about what the new building should be, but what goes on inside is more important. To meet its economic needs when the oil money has dried up, Juneau must be able to attract value-added industries and that would require a highly skilled workforce. The School District must design a high school learning program specifically focussed on teaching saleable skills required for value added industries. The present building was designed for a generic learning program which cannot furnish the needed value added workforce. The new high school building or campus, must be designed to train the needed workforce. Most members of the present School Board seem to believe that a traditional high school learning program is adequate to prepare JDHS’s graduates for Juneau’s economic needs. While debating new facilities, they have not addressed those needs. The main focus of the high school learning process continues to be to gain college admission for 40% of our high school graduates in order to pursue higher education. 20% of our students actually earn a four-year college degree. We shortchange 80% by failing to provide for them adequate vocational training. Separation of powers of CBJ and the School Board, by mutual agreement, neither political entity shall meddle in the others well-defined prerogatives. The School Board is in charge of the learning program and is the manager of the school district’s buildings and other facilities. However, the School Board does not have the unique power to determine Juneau’s educational needs. The CBJ Assembly has the right to be the advocate of students, of families to insure equal educational opportunity for all, to be advocates to the business community and fill its need for a skilled workforce, and finally, to be the advocate of the tax payer to obtain fair education value for fair money paid. This advocacy is accomplished through the checks and balance of the "power of the purse". He quoted Senator Bird who said legislative bodies have the right, the power and the obligation to use the purse as a checks and balance power. CBJ’s complimentary contributions to the State of Alaska construction appropriations would be the Assembly’s power of the purse. If the Assembly is to accept its necessary role of encouraging value added industries to come to Juneau, it must ensure an appropriate educational system, one that provides a highly skilled workforce.

    Mr. Kibby said he did not disagree, but thought the figures that were used were very conservative. He asked, given the economic climate of Juneau, what did Mr. Kirk see for value added industries that the community could train for. Mr. Kirk urged that this Assembly, for example, study what Scandinavia and some of Northern Europe and Italy have done for many decades in terms of bringing in "cottage industries" where people assemble products. We also should be training people for hotel work, and he said that Cornell University has a hotel school, which runs its own Hilton Hotel. We should look at where other communities and other countries have succeeded.

    Ms. Hagevig clarified that Mr. Kirk thought that any new development that is done at Dimond Park, with respect to donating additional high school space, ought to include some sophisticated vocational education space. Mr. Kirk said it ought to be designed for that. Everyone, whether they go to college or not, ought to have some manual skills.

    Ms. Muņoz said the bond issue that was before the voters did not include vocational education at the Dimond site. She thought Mr. Kirk raised a lot of good points and that this Assembly should encourage the School Board to incorporate vocational education into the program at Dimond Park. Mr. Kirk added that it ought to become, in contrast to downtown, the main concentration. The state pays about 80 to 50 percent of the allocations and the local community pays the rest. The Assembly has the right make sure the consumers get their moneys worth.

    Mr. Perkins encouraged Mr. Kirk to attend the first public hearing of the new school facility.

    Bill Leighty, 227 Gastineau, applauded the appointment of the Y2K Task Force. He said this was a perfect opportunity to rediscover the sustainability criterion in the Comp. Plan and that the Sustainable Community Round Tale would meet on Friday morning to talk about Y2K in the context of sustainability. Rather than being in the position of questioning how this has happened, we ought to buy insurance now. The future services that he worries about are the global climate change and the impending change in the supply and demand relationship for our most common energy source, liquid petroleum fuels. The first inexpensive insurance the Assembly could buy would be to pay careful attention to the Areawide Transportation Plan and be sure that it gives a very thorough and favorable alternative to the alternative to American style auto-mobility as we know it, and as we naturally expect it will continue. Some on the task force assume that private auto transportation will be the dominant mode of transportation in this community for the foreseeable future. The future availability and cost of fuels needs to be considered in the Areawide Transportation Plan. He has been told that there is interest among that task force in excluding energy because it would be a nuisance to include it. Next, he said Juneau would be one of the last places on earth to know what the Y2K will do to our computers. The New Year will begin in New Zealand and Fiji. He suggested that the city rent Centennial Hall for a community gathering place where everyone could see Y2K unwrap and unravel together. That way, if there is something that is disturbing to people, we could start making plans for what to do about it. Finally, since there seems to be a bit of a surplus in the Police Station budget, He thought it was a perfect chance to reinvestigate the ground source heat pump as the heat source for that building. That would be another way of buying insurance against climate change and the uncertainty of heating energy.

    Ms. Hagevig informed him that there was a very large gathering planned for Centennial Hall all during the Millennium week.


A member of the audience asked that item B-1, Contract No. E99-025: Juneau Police Station, be removed from the Consent Agenda.

MOTION – by Garrett, to adopt the Consent Agenda, as amended with the removal of item B-1, and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

A. Liquor Licenses:

1. Two Year Renewals:

    1. Package Stores:
    2. Kmart #3584

      DeHart’s Liquor Store – Auke Bay

    3. Restaurant/Eating Place:

Adlersheim Lodge dba Alaska Magic

    1. Transfer:
    1. Package Stores:

Oaken Keg spirit Shop #40; Oaken Keg Spirit Shops, Inc.; Lawrence H. Howard, CEO; Robert J. Klein, President; Donald J. Anderson, Secretary; J. Michael Moxnes, Secretary; 3033 Vintage Blvd., Juneau, AK; Mail: 6411 A Street, Anchorage, AK 99518

Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that the Assembly adopt the Human Resource Committee’s recommendation and waive its right to protest the licenses as reported.

B. Bid Award

B1. Contract No. E99-025: Juneau Police Station

Administrative Report: Attached. Based on the Bidding Review Board’s decision, the Manager recommended award of this project to NUNA Contractors, Inc., in the amount bid for the Base Bid and Additive Alternates 1 through 4, for a total award of $6,351,118.

Public Testimony:

Daniel Bruce, 4505 Robby Road, testified on behalf of Triplette Construction. He said that Triplette Construction had elected not to file a protest, but for the reasons set forth in his letter to the Mayor and Assembly, they believe it was in the best interest of the community to award the bid to Triplette Construction. All the sub-contractors and employees of Triplette Construction are local residents so local hire would be guarantee through an award to Triplette. Also, due to the techniques that Triplette uses in its construction, and specifically in this building, they believe that Triplette was the only company that could complete the project on the original time schedule, despite the three-month delay that has arisen out of the bid protest.

Mr. Koelsch asked why there was not a protest.

Mr. Bruce said that one reason was that Triplette Construction believed that time was of the essence and if it was going to be built in the original time schedule, there would have to be a decision today and any appeal would delay that process for another month or longer.

Ms. Hagevig asked if the Assembly had any latitude at all in this situation. Mr. Corso said that what was before the Assembly was recommendations from the Purchasing Officer and the City Manager. It was the Assembly’s duty to award the contract. The Manager has provided the basis for concluding that Nuna was the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, as required in the Purchasing Code. If the Assembly decided not to look to Nuna, it would have to make a finding based on good evidence that some one else was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Mr. MacKinnon clarified that the Charter also applied a similar such wording, regardless of the Purchasing code.

Tregor Machitanz, attorney for Nuna Contractors, testified that the Bid Review Board found that Nuna was the lowest responsible bidder in a detailed 17 page opinion which was unanimous and issued after several hours of hearing evidence and reviewing the brief. He said the opinion was well reasoned and supported by substantial evidence and he pointed out that none of the protesting parties chose to formally appeal, although both expressed concerns. Jack’s Plumbing did file an Intent to Protest but procedurally it was untimely and should have been protested at the outset. None of the issues raised justify bid rejection. With regard to Triplette’s concern about local expertise, he said they do not have a dispute that Triplette is a good contractor but Nuna is equally good. They recently won a COE National Contractor of the Year Award and have several projects in the $5-12M range throughout Alaska. Nuna does intend to use local hire except for their superintendent and project manager, with respectively 20 and 30 years experience. Nuna is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder and the Assembly could not award to Triplette given the fact that they were not the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

Mr. Garrett asked Mr. Palmer if he was satisfied that the greatest rate of local hire would be dealt with appropriately. Mr. Palmer said it was in the contract.

Douglas Cortney, 2551 Vista Drive, on behalf of McGraw Construction, testified that their biggest concern was that a precedence had been set in the past by the CBJ regarding responsive and non-responsive bids due to the lack of signature. No matter who is given this project, in order to maintain that precedence. It would be against everything that has been established by the CBJ to award this job to Triplette simply due to the lack of signature. He said his employer had given him the responsibility of researching cases in the past where projects had been denied due to the lack of signature. He said the public record showed that in several cases, several projects had been denied certain contractors due to the lack of signature. He said it was McGraw’s concern that the competitive bid process would be annihilated by issuing or giving a contract to someone who is clearly non-responsive in their bid.

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Perkins, of contract bid award #99-025 for the purpose of discussion.

Mr. Perkins said in the packet, he noticed a letter dated December 18 from Jack’s Plumbing and Heating to Marian Miller, City Clerk, signed by Mr. John Schoenmann. He read a portion of that letter where it discussed a conversation with Ms. Halvorson. Mr. Perkins was concern that there was an intent to protest, but Jack’s Plumbing did not proceed because of what they had been told by staff. Mr. Corso agreed with Mr. Schoenmann that there were a lot of uncertainties, but he said that he thought the notice of intent to protest was filed with the expectation that the bid would go back down to the Purchasing Officer and then be awarded to Nuna, in conformance with the Bidding Review Board, which was what Jack’s Plumbing was trying to accomplish. He said he spoke with counsel for Jack’s Plumbing and they agreed that these uncertainty should be resolved by an amendment to the purchasing code.

There being no objection to approving the award, it was so ordered.

MOTION - by Perkins that the total amount of the award, with alternates, would be $6,351,118. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    1. Ordinance No. 99-01


Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be deferred for public hearing until the February 1, 1999 regular meeting.

Public Participation: None at this time.

Assembly Action:

MOTION - by MacKinnon, to defer action on ordinance 99-01 until February 1, 1999. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    1. Ordinance No. 98-26

      Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted, as shown in amended Ordinance No. 98-26 am.

      Public Testimony: None

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION – by MacKinnon, for the purpose of amendment and questions of Mr. Mueller.

      Mr. MacKinnon said it was his understanding that the money that was received to build the sewage treatment plant was part of some EPA money that required all users to be treated equally for rates. Mr. Mueller said EPA approves the rate schedule and has guideline which they use. Mr. MacKinnon asked what the service unit of $34.50 was based on. Mr. Mueller said the water rate was based on an average residential customer use of about 7,000 gallons per month. Not all of that water ends up in the sewer but most of it does. The $19 per month equates to about 7,000 gallons of water. The sewer rates are not that close and they have discussed whether the city should be brought into harmony with the commercial rates and residential rates. In order to do that, it would cause a residential increase in the residential rates to somewhere in the $45 per month category. Instead, they thought over a long period of time, they could move the sewer rates in the direction of better equity. Currently there is a cross-subsidy between the commercial customers and the residential customers and this proposal would reduce that slightly. Mr. MacKinnon said that actually, it did not because of the strike out on line 21. Mr. Mueller noted that was an error. Mr. MacKinnon said for commercial users, the sewer bill was based on what the water meter reads; residential customers are based on a service unit of $34.50. The way this ordinance reads, the commercial user would pay that $34.50, plus $5.25 per thousand gallons of water. The first 7,000 of gallons put in the pipe would then be paid for twice by commercial users. Mr. Palmer said it was an inadvertent strike out. Mr. MacKinnon said it would be fairer if instead of being for the first 4,000 gallons, it be for the first 7,000 gallons. Mr. Mueller said they would loose about $15,000 per month. Mr. Mueller said they have slowly tried to move toward parity between commercial and residential users but they have not gotten that far because it is a substantial amount of money. Mr. Kibby thought this would make the distance even greater. Mr. Mueller said in the long run this gets it closer because they plan to raise the residential rates 10% and the commercial rate, per gallon charge, 5% over a two-year period. Mr. MacKinnon said the service unit that they were paying, in addition to the meter fee, was also a lot of money.

      Assembly Action

      Amendment - by MacKinnon, to strike out on line 21 "of meter water used in excess of the first 4,000". To strike out the strike out and reinstate the clause.

      Mr. Kibby asked if this would still reach staff’s goal in two years. Mr. Palmer said to remove the strike out, it would be okay. If the amount the commercial users pay is reduced, that has a $15,000 negative impact which is offset by a $7,000 positive impact. Mr. MacKinnon said that if the strike out was inadvertent and not used in the calculations, then by reinstating the clause, there was still a $7,000 per month net gain per dollar of increase. Mr. Kibby clarified this would not change the 4,000 gallons to 7,000 gallons.

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

      Mr. Garrett asked Mr. Mueller if it was law that new construction in Juneau have a meter. Mr. Mueller said only for residential buildings of more than two dwelling units. Mr. Garrett clarified that everyone was required to provide a place within their plumbing where a meter could be installed if it were to be required. He thought this should be adopted as amended, but that there was a logical solution of requiring water meters and charging per consumption. That would be much fairer. Mr. Mueller said they had done a study that indicated there was a broad range of water use for single family users and the 7,000-gallon figure was the average of their study. They would be interested in further discussions about the possibility of metering all customers as that would be better for the utility. The revenues would be equitable and there would be protection to the system because people would use less water.

      Mr. Powell asked about the administrative cost of implementation to the city and to residential units. Mr. Mueller said that typically, when a metering plan is implemented, it is done by district over a four or five year period. Mr. Powell asked how much it would cost per household. Mr. Mueller said each house would be metered and would probably cost about $200 per house. Typically, the utility pays that $200 and amortizes the cost with the rates.

      Mr. MacKinnon asked that, as amended, comparing approximately 7,000 residential user with approximately 1,000 commercial user, and each one uses 7,000 per gallons per month, the residential user would pay $34.50 and the commercial user would pay $34.50 plus $5.25 for the 3,000 gallons over. He asked if there were step increases to achieve parity. Mr. Mueller said there was not a plan for that, but they could develop one. The best way to do it would be to meter everyone. Some people are paying $32.50 for 1,000 gallons of water use and others are using 30,000 gallons. If the Public Utilities Commission regulated them, they would probably require meters.

      Mr. MacKinnon asked why the charge per gallon was raised $.25 when there was an effort for parity. Mr. Mueller said that $.25 gives another 5% on the revenue. Mr. MacKinnon said he was tempted to change the 4,000 to 7,000 gallons, but he was more inclined to ask staff to bring this back in a year to possibly make that change.

      Mr. Powell said there was an e-mail received on this subject with a question about public notice and how the money would be used. Mayor Egan gave him a copy of the response.

      There being no objection to the ordinance as amended, it was so ordered.

    3. Ordinance No. 98-40

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

      Public Testimony:

      Murray Walsh, 2974 Foster Avenue, testified on behalf of Channel Construction. They presently operate the metals recycling facility in Juneau. Channel has sold the landfill and the pertinent facilities to another company. That company does not want to be in the metals salvaging business and Channel does not have a permanent home for this function. The way to recycle metals in Juneau is to store it until there is an equivalence of a barge load, and then ship it out when the price is similar to the cost of getting it to Puget Sound. They have explored a number of options and the best one would be to find a waterfront industrially zoned place where barges could be drawn up and loaded and where the material could be stored in the meantime. Storing involves managing the materials, controlling the drainage, and removing fluids and tires from automobiles. In looking at the zoning ordinance, they approached CDD saying they wanted to establish a metals recycling facility. He referred to the ordinance and the existing language. The CDD thought the current definition met the definition of a salvage yard so they proposed the code be amended to provide specifically for salvage yards being located in the waterfront industrial zone. Until this matter arrived at the Planning Commission, they were comfortable with this approach because the 3’s in the land use code were 2’s and they were allowable uses. Now it is proposed that they be conditional uses. There had been recent discussions about the distinction between allowable and conditional use and he said anyone who proposes to establish a metals salvaging yard is going to encounter some difficulty in doing it. He wished the 3’s were changed back to 2’s before this ordinance is adopted and said if that does not happen, there will be no place where this type of use is allowed in Juneau outright. They do not mind the extra review, but they would like a little bit of predictability in knowing that if the money is expended to design a facility, and they approach the city for a permit, there would be a better chance of getting it.

      Mr. Garrett said given the 12 different ways in which an allowable use can be conditioned, and the concern that people have particularly about the automobiles and some of the toxic chemicals that are in those junk cars, could Mr. Welsh see, within the 12 areas of an allowable use permit, the way that the Planning Commission could condition the operations of a stockpiling place on the waterfront. Mr. Walsh said he could and that there was one of the 12 that specifically related to drainage. There was an entirely different section of the code that relates to screening of industrial uses and there are State requirements for the handling of the fluids of the cars. He was confident the Planning Commission could adequately regulate this as an allowable use.

      Mr. Kibby asked Mr. Walsh why he or anyone else did not speak before the Planning Commission. Mr. Walsh said he was out of town. The staff recommendation went to the Commission with 2’s in the column and they felt comfortable that the commission was going to do the right thing.

      Ms. Muņoz asked if the existing operation out at Channel Marina was governed under the code. Mr. Walsh said that for a long time, metals were stored at the landfill site and then moved to the barge landing in anticipation of loading a barge. He was not sure of the permit history of that site. He said they were not comfortable with the current situation.

      Mr. Powell referred to Mr. Kendziorek question to staff about the Coastal Management Program and he clarified that there would be two standards of review. Mr. Walsh said that no place, as it’s written, would these uses be allowed as allowable uses so some predictability seemed appropriate. Mr. Powell thought that it was a great service that scrap metal was being shipped out of here, but to allow that kind of an activity under an allowable use permit after hearing and knowing there could be hazardous waste, seems to be a little inconsistent. Mr. Walsh said this was work that very few people would do. Channel does it and they are good at it. They do things in this town that no one else will do. This has to be done; otherwise we will be overrun with waste metal. He viewed providing some means for this to happen as a crucial public responsibility and that predictability was more necessary for this kind of a function than for some of the others. Mr. Powell thought there was predictability in that there was a lot of support from the community for that activity to occur. His concern was that when getting into permitting, there are standard conditions put on permits. A condition permit is something that is needed to look at a use and put conditions on what is happening.

      Ms. Hagevig thought Mr. Walsh made a compelling argument for allowable use and she pointed out that there are 12 areas under the allowable use permit under which pretty stringent requirements could be placed on a business of this type. She make note of Mr. Kendziorek’s concerns in the Planning Commission minutes where he talks about the remote prospect that the Coastal Management Program would be eliminated by the Legislature. She knew Ms. Easterwood’s comments were accurate but unanimously, municipalities around the state have gone in and explained to the legislature that it is in the best interest of local government and local communities to keep those safe guards in place. With that kind of thinking occurring statewide, in addition to the necessity for some sort of predictability, on the part of the only company in the community that is willing to take this up, we have to make up our minds. It has to happen some place and these people needs some assurance that they will be able to do it within reasonable confines and reasonable perimeters. She spoke in favor of amending the proposal to allowable use.

      Mr. Perkins commented regarding the concern that there was no place for this type of facility in Juneau. Waterfront is the most hotly contested issue of any kind of development, especially when you put a junkyard on a waterfront. The Planning Commission was not given the 12 items that the Coastal Management Plan goes through which are in the Assembly packet so he guessed they were unaware of the conditions set forth by this type of operation. He clarified there were two entities making sure that the waterfront and water quality issues were being taken care of and that the proposal was a restriction that was not necessary. Mr. Walsh said there was plenty of governmental over sight for an activity of this sort. Without amending the code, they would have to argue that salvage yard was in fact a recycling facility under 11.130. He would be happy to make that argument because that was how they started. The other people involved in this want to have more certainty that the code will accommodate salvage yards. They are comfortable with the code change, but had they gone in under 11.130, those are shown as allowable uses under waterfront industrial and not conditional uses. They want the same treatment that they would have got had there been a different interpretation. Mr. Perkins said he was a little dissatisfied that there was no one to educate the Planning Commission and they slipped on this one. Maybe that was why it was before the Assembly.

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION – by Kibby, of Ordinance 98-40 for the purpose of amendment. The amendment would be as outlined by Mr. Walsh changing conditional to allowable.

      Mr. Kibby said typically he would defer this back to the Planning Commission in light of the recent testimony. He noticed in the minutes that the maker of the motion spoke to an amendment and talked about water related uses. In the definitions under Title 40, it talks about water related meaning "an activity or use that is not directly dependent upon access to a water body but which provides goods or services that are directly associated". Water dependent means "a use or activity which can be carried out only on, in or adjacent to water area because the use requires access to the water body". He agreed that this was recycling and that a junkyard was a use that did not necessarily need access to water. He said the intent under Title 49.25.250 for waterfront industrial was for industrial and port purposes which needed or substantially benefited from a shoreline location. In addition, many of those uses that are allowed in water commercial district are allowed in an industrial district. There is very little industrial waterfront within the community that is not taken and the Comp. Plan has not identified anymore. There is also a problem in commercial or industrial areas with non-conforming uses. They are allowed because there is a need for industrial property but then, after the non-conforming uses are built, then all of a sudden the things that were conforming issues in the industrial zone areas are no longer conforming or within harmony with that area. Consequently, they are not even allowed. This an area where the Assembly can stop that right now.

      Ms. Muņoz noted objection to the amendment. She said the public should know that the waterfront industrial areas are at Sheep Creek, much of the waterfront south of downtown Juneau, the waterfront south of downtown Douglas, Salmon Creek along Gastineau Channel and then an area near Auke Bay. She believes the community should have the ability to impact the process through the conditional use process at the Planning Commission level. She did not think this should be allowed as an allowable use and said she would support keeping it as a conditional use.

      Mr. Garrett added that they know what activity is currently occurring and are comfortable with that activity. Putting this in an allowable use category would mean the presumption of a guarantee of a permit in any of those zones previously given. Yet, what is laid out in the code as allowed, exceeds that which is currently done on that spot. The potential impacts would be significantly broadened if it was changed to 2’s. He agreed with Ms. Muņoz that this should stay a condition use permit.

      Mr. Powell agreed, but said he was more concerned that even though there is support for a project within the community and it is for the common good of the community, there still needs to be a standard of review. Under Allowable and Conditional, there is a certain standard but he thought that in this case, because of the nature of the work and the nature of the business, it needed to be conditional. Technology changes and it needs to be reviewed because of the nature of the material.

      Mr. MacKinnon spoke in favor of the amendment. He said when they started charging $.04 per pound to dispose of metal here, there became a real problem with abandoned cars and washing machines and the like that we did not have when it was free. He felt there was enough teeth in the Allowable Use which covers drainage, the screening, the sound, it would allow conditions on habitat and would allow a certain amount of predictability. Another option would be an appropriating ordinance for a lot of money to do clean up of a lot of rural areas where there are abandoned cars.


      Ayes: Hagevig, Kibby, MacKinnon, and Mayor Egan

      Nays: Garrett, Koelsch, Muņoz, Perkins, and Powell

      Motion fails 4:5

      Mr. Kibby asked Ms. Easterwood to explain why this was not recycling. Ms. Easterwood said staff looked at the code and recycling is listed, also an automobile salvage yard is listed. Where a use could possibly fall under two categories, the most specific applies. Staff felt the automobile salvage yard was more specific and more closely described the activity and therefore was the controlling element of the Table of Permissible Uses. Mr. Kibby asked what was the definition of salvage. Ms. Easterwood did not have that definition. She said another factor in the decision was a review of the actions that were taken when the Assembly approved the recycling addition to the code. Those that authored those sections of the code believed that it was not the intent to allow the automobile salvage operations under recycling. It was intended more towards the recycling operations that we know of now.

      Mr. Garrett asked Ms. Easterwood if there was a rational for not including RR category as an option since so much land in Juneau is RR and essentially uncategorized. Ms. Easterwood said that was something that was not considered. They were only looking at the industrial and the waterfront industrial locations. She thought a proposal to extend that to the RR area, which can cover so much of the borough, would merit further study.

      Mr. Perkins left the meeting at 8:42.

      Mayor Egan said that ordinance 98-40 was before the Assembly as presented by the Manager, with no amendments. Objection was noted.

      ROLL CALL:

      Ayes: Garrett, Hagevig, MacKinnon, and Mayor Egan

      Nays: Kibby, Koelsch, Muņoz, and Powell

      Motion fails: 4:4

      Mr. MacKinnon gave notice of reconsideration.

    5. Resolution No. 1973

      Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted. Mr. Palmer noted that Habitat for Humanities (HFH) had asked that at a minimum, the interest provision be removed from the 2nd position mortgage. Mr. Palmer said that was fine with him. His concern was that donation of a lot outright, which had a value of $45,000, without any conditions, would result over time in the transfer of the ownership of the lot to a private party who could then sell the property for market value and keep the money. HFH’s program was that they acquire a lot, they build a house, they obtain donations and use a lot of donated labor. They locate recipients who fall within the low-income category, which is half or lower than the median income, and those folks are allowed to buy the lot and the house at a discounted rate. After that participant pays the note off, they own it free and clear. He wanted to include some kind of provision that either the subsequent owner of the lot fall within the same income standards so the goals of the program were perpetuated, or that the city retain the right to be paid off so public money was not transferred into private hands.

      Public Testimony:

      Jon Griffin, of HFH, expressed appreciation for the first lot. He said according to the National Organization, conditional uses are not uncommon. They are used in all the cases that he spoke with National about and what that meant was that when this property is sold, it has to be sold to a person who qualifies in that category. In regard to the 3%, their National Charter does not permit them to charge interest on houses.

      Ms. Hagevig asked if HFH continued a relationship with the subsequent owners of the property. Mr. Griffin could only speak to what had happened in other situations in the 600,000 houses that have been build in the US so far, and yes that relationship does occur. Ms. Hagevig clarified it was a different kind of relationship than the relationship with the original owner. Mr. Griffin said it was a similar relationship where HFH has been able to find people to go into the HFH houses that are for sale. They are not talking about a paid off house, he did not think there was many of those around. In the ones that are five to ten year homes, HFH steps in and helps the seller of the house find a purchaser for the house that would satisfies the qualifications that originally put that person in that house. Ms. Hagevig clarified that HFH was the banker. Mr. Griffin said yes, they hold the mortgage and would have, at very least, a financial relationship. Ms. Hagevig asked what they do with their clients when and if they reach the point in their economic life where they no longer meet the income standards that are set for participation. Mr. Griffin said there would be no change, it was based on their economic status at the time they enter the agreement to participate. He said it was to HFH’s advantage for them to pay off the mortgages early because then that house could be put into another home for someone else. Ms. Hagevig clarified that the organization builds into its formula an appropriate equity building prospect so they can take some equity and move on to a different kind of housing, should they choose to. Mr. Griffin said their interest in equity was based on a declining balance. The mortgages were suppose to be set up as 30-year mortgages, but that depends on how much the person can pay for the house. The houses are priced by using two factors: the cost of the building and the cost of the land. The formula they use is to theoretically payoff the mortgage in 30 years. They like to get them into the situation where they can pay it off in 20 years and sometimes possibly 15 years.

      Ms. Hagevig asked Mr. Palmer about the other houses in this subdivision, where there was an agreement with the Tlingit and Haida Housing Authority on a 30 year mortgage arrangement and she asked if the city charged interest on those lots. Mr. Palmer said the deal they worked out was to donate the unimproved property, transfer the ownership, in exchange for a number of improved lots.

      Ms. Muņoz commented that in the past, the city had worked with the High School’s building class and she suggested this might be a unique opportunity where they could get involved.

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION – by Muņoz, to adopt resolution 1973 and she asked for unanimous consent.

      Mr. MacKinnon asked for further discussion about Mr. Palmer’s recommendation. Mr. Palmer said that he was not hung up on the 3% and as an alternative to a second position mortgage, he was asking for general policy direction from the Assembly if it should be an outright donation or should there be a provision that the property either revert back to the city, or, if it is sold to a party that does not meet the income requirement, then they be required to reimburse the city for the value of the property.

      Mr. MacKinnon asked if this was done on the first lot and Mr. Palmer said no, it was an outright donation.

      Ms. Hagevig spoke in support of the motion. She thought that HFH was an organization that brought a special opportunity to this community. It was part of a National program; it provided some light at the end of the tunnel for people who in any other circumstance would not be able to realize within a reasonable time frame the dream of home ownership. The National reputation of this organization and the fact that there is a real dedicated core group of people in the community that are willing to involve themselves in this effort, is a wonderful thing. The opportunity that the Assembly has is the right thing to do.

      Mr. Koelsch did not understand the problem and said that section three said that Mr. Palmer could come to some sort of agreement between the CBJ and HFH. Mr. Palmer was protecting what he considers the rights of the people of the CBJ. As long as HFH would agree with those stipulations, he did not have a problem having the stipulations included.

      Mayor Egan agreed that it was the people’s money. He did not think the program was designed for the original owner to walk away with the current market value of the property. That money should not go to the individual and he would like to see it go to the city.

      Mr. Powell agreed with that. Mr. Palmer was directed to work along those lines with HFH. Mr. Corso said that section 2 of the resolution does say to convey lot 42 at no cost. Whatever the Manager does would have to be in conformity with that so there should be some amended language.

      AMENDMENT - by Mr. MacKinnon, that the language in section 2 read "The Manager may convey Lot 42 at no cost to Habitat for Humanities for any purchaser meeting its income guidelines". There being no objection to that amendment, it was so ordered.

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

      R E C E S S

      9:00 p.m. – 9:15 p.m.

    7. Transfer No. T-656: Transfers $6,638 from School-Art in Public Places (CIP F431) and $84,596 from School-Health Safety and Structure (CIP F422) for a total transfer of $91, to School Facilities Planning/Dimond Park and Downtown Complex (CIP S454-66).
    8. Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that the transfer be approved. Mr. Palmer noted the correct transfer amount was $91,234. He noted that there was no one available from the school district as they were also in a meeting at this time.

      Mr. Garrett noted that it was good to keep this moving along and he said it was going to be critical to whether anything happens in May or October that we know the condition of these building so we can accurately present to the voters what the real cost of making this improvement to the facilities are.

      Public Testimony: None

      Assembly Action:

      Ms. Hagevig said at the PW&F Committee meeting last week, they did hear a presentation from Ms. Fritz and from Mr. Buck and it was recommended that it be moved to the COW. Mr. MacKinnon would put it on the agenda for the 13th. Ms. Hagevig said there was a number of questions that needed to be answered.

      There was no objection to this item being moved to the COW meeting on the 13th at 5:00.

    9. Last Chance Co-op, Multiple Charities Association Co-op and Alaska Native Brotherhood Camp 2, Inc.’s Motion for Waiver of Jurisdiction.

Administrative Report: Attached. Mr. Corso noted that the appellants counsel had informed him that they do wish to have the opportunity to get the last word in the form of a reply. The decision to be made by the Assembly would be to either receive that in the form of oral arguments this evening, or to continue on with argument in written form, as has been the case to date.

Mr. Powell reminded the Assembly that this came to a subcommittee and then went to the full Finance Committee and a determination was made at that time.

Mayor Egan clarified that the Assembly had recommended a hearing officer and had since received a written response in opposition to waive jurisdiction.

Mr. MacKinnon said there was a written Motion to Waive Jurisdiction and a written Opposition to Motion to Waive Jurisdiction. Because it was often times helpful to read these again and again, he would prefer to have a written reply to the motion.

Mr. Corso said the Assembly could take this up at the first meeting in February, or it could decide this evening, not only that the reply should be written but that this too should be referred to a hearing officer. He said his thought in bringing this to the Assembly was that if it was going to consider waiving jurisdiction and passing the matter on to Superior Court, there would not be much reason to appoint a hearing officer.

Mr. Powell was not sure if the facts or issues had changed and thought maybe that would be a good reason to have a reply. He thought that eventually, after the administrative review was exhausted, it would probably go to court anyway so he suggested just accepting it and sending it on to court.

Mr. Garrett thought the Assembly should expeditiously proceed with hiring a hearing officer and that this first decision should be assigned to the hearing officer. He said the hearing officer could deal with all the motions on the appeal. He felt it was better for all involved to deal with these things at the lowest administrative level possible rather than heading on to court where there were cases pending that would be there long into the future.

Mr. Corso said the hearing officer could undertake an analysis of whether or not jurisdiction should be waived and refer it back to the Assembly, but this was a dispositive motion and was one that ultimately should be decided by the Assembly, even if it decides not to waive jurisdiction and sends it back to the hearing officer for a hearing on the merits.

Ms. Hagevig spoke in support of Mr. Garret’s proposal and said all the Assembly members would benefit from the kind of legal activity that a hearing officer would provide.

Public Testimony: None

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Garrett, to appoint a hearing officer.

Mr. Powell asked for clarification of the motion. Mr. MacKinnon said that the Assembly had already made that decision. Mr. Corso said that a hearing officer had not been hired because he took it upon himself to bring this Motion to the Assembly in the event that the Assembly was giving serious consideration to waiving jurisdiction and sending it on to Superior Court. If the Assembly thought there was a good chance in that happening, there would not be much point in appointing a hearing officer. It appears that the Assembly would like the assistance of a hearing officer in deciding this very motion. He will proceed with retaining a hearing officer and have the final reply on this motion provided along with the other two documents to that hearing officer who will read them, analyze them and give a recommended decision on the motion to the Assembly.

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

  1. NEW BUSINESS - None

A. Manager’s Report - Action Items

1. Centennial Hall Use Policy – Inaugural Ball

Administrative Report: Attached. Since this was a policy decision by the Assembly, the Manager had no recommendation.

Mayor Egan pointed out that at the 1991Inaugural Ball, that committee paid a total of $269 for Centennial Hall. The rates were different then and for some reason they applied for non-profit status and got it. For the 1995 Ball, they paid $1,860.

Ms. Hagevig asked if there would be other Inaugural Balls held around the state and what kind of contributions were being made at the local level. Mayor Egan said the Egan Center was being donated in Anchorage and in Fairbanks, the Carlson Center was being donated. He felt that was just the Hall that was being donated and not anything else.

Assembly Action:

MOTION - by Garrett, that the Assembly donate the rental on the Hall in the estimated amount of $2,000 to the Friends of the Alaska Children’s Trust out of the Better Capital City account.

Mr. MacKinnon thought it would be more appropriate to take it out of the Assembly Hosting account. Mr. Garrett accepted that as a friendly amendment.

There being no objection, it was so ordered. Mr. Palmer would check into getting the cost down.

B. Manager’s Report - Information Items

    1. Progress Report – Mendenhall Wastewater Treatment Plant

Administrative Report: Attached.

Mr. Palmer announced that snow removal would begin at 10:00 p.m. in the downtown area.

C. Attorney’s Report - None

    1. Revised Pending Items
    2. Unappropriated General fund Unreserved Fund Balance
    3. Assembly Contingency Fund Balance
    4. Committee Reports
    1. Standing Committees:
    1. Committee of the Whole - Mr. MacKinnon said there would be a meeting on Wednesday at 5:00 in the Chambers, to discuss the Docks and Harbors masterplan, a status report on the Dimond Park masterplan and the DZ masterplan, and the transfer request of T-656.
    2. Finance Committee – No report
    3. Human Resources Committee – Ms. Muņoz said there was a regular scheduled meeting the first Monday in February. She had a number of committee appointment confirmations:
    4. MOTION – by Muņoz, to confirm Robert A. Breffeilh, MD, Donna Herbert and Stacey Toner to the Bartlett Regional Hospital Board of Directors. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

      MOTION – by Muņoz, to confirm Katherine Gouyton, Alex Lukshin and Joan Herbage O’Keefe to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

      MOTION – by Muņoz, to confirm John Logan to the Sales Tax Board of appeals. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

      MOTION – by Muņoz, to confirm Douglas Smith, MD to the Social Services Advisory Board. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

      MOTION – by Muņoz, to confirm David Hanna, Carl Schrader and Steven Zimmerman to the Wetlands Review Board. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    5. Lands and Resources Committee – Mr. Kibby said there would be a meeting Wednesday the 13th at noon in room 211 to discuss the St. Ann’s Care lease, the CBJ UAS Subdivision feasibility study, and the West Douglas Masterplan implementation. He asked that all the committee members determine what ideas have not been accomplished this year and come forward with those ideas.
    6. Public Works and Facilities Committee – Ms. Hagevig reported that they heard an initial presentation from Katherine Fritz and Murray Walsh on the DZ masterplan and referred that to the COW. They began discussion on contractor report modifications on construction bids and heard a status report on the LID proposals for John, David and Simpson Streets, there was discussion about the Glacier Garden’s easement option and postponed to the next meeting was FY99 and 2000 Street Improvement sales tax projects.

2. Board Liaison Reports - None

  2. Ms. Muņoz requested a staff report to the Assembly on the issue of use of the existing parking garage to meet parking requirement on new construction in the downtown area.

    Mr. Kibby explained why he voted no at the last part of the junkyard decision. He said as the community grows, we need to design into that predictability. He believed that predictability was through areas such as Allowable Use process. In order for investors, developers or entrepreneur of any sort to look at our community, they need to know with some certainty or expectation whether or not they will be able to develop that property.

    Ms. Hagevig said she had heard a fair amount of anxiety in the community about snow removal.

    Mr. Garrett announced that tomorrow night at 5 p.m. there would be the second meeting of the Commercial Vehicles Passenger Task Force in room 211.

    Mr. Powell received an e-mail with guidelines put out on Steep Slope Development. He gave that and the Performance Based Zoning address to Mr. Palmer so that information could be relayed to Ms. Easterwood.

    Assembly Action

    MOTION – by MacKinnon to postpone the continuation of deliberations of the earlier heard appeal to tomorrow at noon. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    Mayor Egan said the City of Whitehorse City Council had met and suggested the dates of March 18-20 or 25-27 for the Sister City Exchange. He said the 25-27 would involve a city holiday and he asked if there was any objection to the 18-20th. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    Mayor Egan said the Community Reception would be on the 20th at 5:30 immediately followed by the Governor’s State of the State Budget Address.

  4. MOTION – by Garrett, to recess into Executive Session to discuss legislative strategy, immediate knowledge of which could have a detrimental impact on the city’s finances.

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

    9:47 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.

    Mr. Garrett announced that in the executive session they discussed Legislative Strategy for the CBJ and directed the Manager and Lobbyist to proceed as was discussed.

  5. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to come before the Assembly, and no objection, the meeting adjourned at 10:01 p.m.


Signed: ________________________________

Mayor Egan


Countersigned: ________________________________

Marian Miller, Clerk