JULY 12, 1999

MEETING NO. 99-21: 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.
  3. Assembly Present: Kibby, MacKinnon, Perkins, Powell, Egan, Hagevig, Muñoz and Koelsch

    Assembly Absent: Garrett

    A quorum was present.

    Staff Present: Marian Miller, Municipal Clerk; Dave Palmer, City Manager; John Corso, City Attorney; Joe Buck, Engineering Director; Ernie Mueller, Public Works Director; Christine Blackgoat, HS&S Director; Cynthia Johnson, Lands & Resources Officer; Janet Grange, Engineering Admin. Officer; Carol McCabe, Library Director; Gary Bader; and Rob Wilson


    1. 05/17/99 - Regular Meeting No. 99-16
    2. 05/26/99 – Special Meeting No. 99-17
    3. 06/14/99 – Special Meeting No. 99-19

MOTION - by Kibby, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting No. 99-16, held May 17, 1999, and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

MOTION - by Kibby, to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting No. 99-17, held May 26, 1999, and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

MOTION - by Kibby, to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting No. 99-19, held June 14, 1999, and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.


    1. Discussion of Matters the Immediate Knowledge of Which would Clearly Have an Adverse Effect on the Finances of the City and Borough of Juneau. Mr. Palmer noted that it was in regard to the pending claims against the Riverbend School roof.

MOTION – by MacKinnon, to suspend the rules and move this item to the end of the agenda. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

  3. Anthony Reiger, 5931 Montgomery Street, referred to his testimony of Monday, June 21, 1999, when he came before the Assembly to make a matter of public record what he and others believed to be a major public safety issue. Not a wildlife issue, or even a save the wetlands issue, but a public safety issue which creates a great risk to the flying public, especially those in jet aircrafts. At that same meeting, even though the Airport Manager acknowledged there had been 19 reported bird strikes at the airport in the last nine years, and that the reported bird strikes were a minimum number compared to the actual number, the Assembly’s ultimate reaction was to order still yet another study with a due date of 18 months, three major bird migrations later. He understood that some Assembly members wanted expanded facilities at the airport and that some members did not feel the airport was worthy of being an international airport because of its appearance, but he asked why there were not sufficient members concerned about a jet crashing under the current competition of air space by birds and aircraft. Every person present should understand that any one of the 19 reported strikes could have, under slightly different circumstances, brought a jet down and that does not consider unreported strikes or near misses. Members of the public have been bringing bird strike dangers to the airport administration for 35 years and members of the Airport Board have been aware of it for years. This body has spent time and money on a variety of issues involving capital move connections and he felt the bird strike potential had just as much a capital move connection. This Assembly has a lot more reason to address the safety zones, over and above the runway, than the one that has been approved to be built at the end of the runway. By approving that safety zone, the Assembly has compromised even further aircraft safety because that is the most heavily used bird flight corridor on the refuge. The Assembly needs to take responsibility for reducing or minimizing bird use over and along side existing jet traffic areas before creating more attractive areas for bird use. There are no guarantees that a tragedy would be avoided because of where the airport was located, but at least the Assembly would be doing something, instead of doing nothing for still yet another 18 months. He read from a pamphlet entitled "Strike One, You’re Out" put out by the US Dept. of Agriculture. "FAA Regulations prescribe rules governing the certification and operation of commercial airports. These regulations require certificated airports to conduct a wildlife hazard assessment when an aircraft experiences a multiple bird strike or engine ingestion or a damaging collision with wildlife, or when wildlife capable of causing such events are observed to have access to any airport flight pattern or movement area. Researchers believe that about 80% of wildlife strikes to aircraft go unreported. Just one wildlife strike can put a whole airport and its air carriers temporarily out of service. Reporting wildlife strikes to the FAA and working with wildlife services to manage local wildlife populations are the two most important steps the aviation industry can take to address the problem of wildlife hazards at airports." He summarized and said the Assembly has data that suggests that 1) actual bird strikes at the airport are currently running an average of 10 a year, 100 in the past nine years; 2) numbers of waterfowl have substantially increased in the past three years and continue to increase across North America; 3) the Mendenhall River Delta has been, and will continue to be, a significant bird migration corridor; 4) uplands in close proximity to wetlands are prime nesting and rearing areas for dozens of species of birds; 5) human endeavors have substantially attracted more birds every year to the refuge and its airspace; 6) plane traffic increases yearly with plans for a second runway and an extension of safety lighting beyond new runway extension to Sunny Point; and 7) emergency services would likely be overwhelmed in the event of a jet going down at the airport. In spite of all of this, this body continues to press ahead with plans to extend the runway, further expanding into the refuge and calls for a study due in 18 months.

    Mr. MacKinnon asked what could be done to reduce the number of birds. Mr. Reiger suggested they concentrate on trying to reduce the bird use around the existing way. There were a variety of ways to do that as he mentioned the last time he testified. The 600-foot buffer zone needed to be dealt with in some appropriate manner that discourages high bird use of those areas. Even though some volunteers in the community tried to do something last fall in that regard, it was ineffective. He said there needed to be steps taken on airport property to accelerate the reduction of bird habitat and bird attractiveness to the immediate proximity of the runway. There needed to be as much concern and creative thinking about dealing with the problems out there as there was about extending safety zones on the existing runway. His priority was the public safety of people flying on jet planes. He spent most of his adult life dedicated to trying to preserve and enhance wetlands but there were wetlands on airport property at this time that needed to be shut down to access to birds.

    Mr. MacKinnon asked if he had spoken with the Airport Board. Mr. Reiger said he had talked to Airport Board members for almost two years. He has spoken with the Airport Manager and had been speaking with Airport Managers for 35 years about this problem. Whenever he has tried to encourage those people that have more access to more information than he himself has about the seriousness of the problem, they always tell him to not go public, to not go to the Assembly, and that it should be handled in-house. He did not feel that was happening and that it had been an excuse not to allow the public to be aware of what was going on and for the Assembly to do their job as elected officials looking out for the public interest. If someone could tell him that they were willing to accelerate some sort of program about mitigating the use of the area and the immediate proximity to the existing runway to bird use, he would stop coming before the Assembly.

    Mr. Powell clarified that he was a member for the Advisory Board for the Wetland Refuge. Mr. Reiger said that he was not present in that capacity but he was a member. Mr. Powell referred to the board’s comments on the Management Plan and he asked if in that letter there were recommendations on what could be done right now. Mr. Reiger said no because there were strong differences of opinion on the committee. Some folks feel strongly that wetlands should under no circumstances be compromised. He personally believed there were certain circumstances where wetlands needed to be compromised and public safety was one of them. Mr. Powell asked if he was aware they were filling in wetlands just for that purpose. Mr. Reiger understood there was interest in doing that but that there was confusion about how that was to proceed; he supported that effort. Mr. Powell added that at Anchorage International Airport they did not create more habitat around the airport, they chose to go off site to another area in the city and do restoration and create habitat there. He hoped those things could happen here. The wildlife management study was currently happening and that needed to be done first. He felt that everyone on the Assembly would agree that the safety concerns were paramount.

    Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Reiger for a copy of his prepared testimony and he asked Mr. Palmer to have the Manager provide him with what the management of the Airport does in regard to keeping birds out of the area, especially in migration times of the year.

    Ms. Hagevig asked the Manager to find out from the Airport Manager and Airport Board what specific activities the Airport Board has taken to address habitat issues.

    Janet Coffin, she said she had not been before the Assembly in almost 25 years but she read about the RFP in the newspaper regarding putting a new roof on Riverbend School. The school is barely two years old so she had a number of questions. First, how long is the roof warranty good for and who in the CBJ approved the blueprints so the contractor could build the school according to the blueprints. Now they want to put a ventilation system in at the same time as they replace the roof and she asked why that was not looked at before the school was built. She asked who was the City Inspector that inspected the roof and she felt that person should be reprimanded because the roof should have met code. Six months after it was built, screws on the roof were having to be replaced. How did the City Inspector give the Certificate of Occupancy if it still had problems? Why should the taxpayers pay for putting a new roof on the school? She protested and offered to be on whatever committee investigates the problem that exists.

    Mayor Egan assured her that the Assembly would be asking those questions during the Executive Session. Mr. Palmer requested that the Assembly be briefed first and then respond to these questions and others. Giving the name of a person who was responsible did not provide enough information. Mayor Egan agreed that Ms. Coffin raised very valid questions and he suggested that after the executive session, a COW or Public Works committee meeting be scheduled so these issues could be brought forward.

  5. Ms. Muñoz asked that C1 be removed from the consent agenda.

    MOTION – by Hagevig, to adopt the Consent Agenda with the exception of item C1, and she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    A. Ordinances for Introduction

    1. Ordinance No. 99-24


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

    2. Ordinance No. 99-17 (A)


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

    B. Transfer Request

    1. Transfer No. T-668:

    Transfers $65,000 from N. Behrends Avenue/Willow Reconstruction (CIP R412-54) to Lemon Creek Road cul-de-sac (CIP R412-60).

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

    C. Transfer of License

    TO: Café Myriad; 230 Seward Street; Corporation: Bernard Francis Wostmann – President, Robin Lynn Combest – Secretary/Treasurer; Mail: 226 Seward Street, Suite #280, Juneau, AK 99801, FROM: Steven Pfister d/b/a Valentine’s Coffee House; Mail: 111 Seward Street, Juneau, AK 99801.

    Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended the Assembly adopt the Human Resources Committee recommendation from its July 12 meeting regarding its right to protest the license transfer as reported.

    Public Participation: None at this time.

    Assembly Action:

    MOTION - by Muñoz, that the Assembly waive its right to protest this transfer. There being no objection, it was so ordered.


1. Ordinance No. 99-21


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

Public Participation: None at this time.

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Powell, to adopt Ordinance No. 99-21.

A member of the audience noted that he had signed up late to testify on this ordinance.

Joe Geldhof, 2579 Douglas Highway, testified that he had been a proponent of recycling and was largely instrumental in setting up the glass recycling program out at the DOT. He thought there were a lot of reasons to proceed with recycling, but he was not convinced that this particular program was truly market-driven or would result in a substantial amount of recycling. He testified previously before the advisory group but he thought they were pursuing an approach that was a typical governmental thing that would result in buildings and staff and it was a feel good for all the politicians who appropriate money. He asked that a sunset provision be placed on this ordinance as this was a tax and once it was on, it would stay on unless it was reviewed. The best way to review something would be through a sunset provision. If the program does not work, he did not want it to turn into another government project and have everyone whining about the recycling fee. He personally felt there were other approaches and that the private sector and volunteers were the ones really doing the recycling in this community, not the government.

Mr. Powell asked if he understood this was not totally a public sector thing. Mr. Geldhof said like the household hazardous waste, this was really a program to get public works their building. Facilities do not necessarily lead to recycling and there are other approaches that might work.

Ms. Hagevig referred to the material in the packet, Attachment A, page 5, under "Term" it read three years as the term of the contract with two one-year renewal options and renewal options shall be by mutual consent. She felt there was enough safeguards built in if this did not turn out to be an appropriate direction. She pointed out that they were responding to advice from their advisory committee which had been working on the issue as long as she could remember. Polling in the community showed a lot of support, at least philosophically, so she felt it was important to support the work of the volunteer committee and test this in the community and see if it will work. Regarding the household hazardous waste, her observation of that program was that it was tremendously successful. Mr. Geldhof said that everyone liked the hazardous waste program, but he did not feel there was appreciably more household hazardous waste than when it was done at the AML transfer site. There is a need to get the product out, but it is not necessarily government dependent or dependent on a building or structure. The tax itself should come off after three years so the money is not piling up. He added that he was not against doing this. Ms. Hagevig said this would not be managed by government, it would be going out for bid making it as democratic and economically sound as it could be.

Mr. MacKinnon agreed that he would not like to see a big public monument built with this money. He would like to see the funds used to subsidize a recycling program because he felt a small subsidy would be needed to go to the extent that they were proposing. If they enter into a three year contract, it would not be a good policy to sunset the ordinance during the term of the contract but he agreed there should be some review to see if too much or not enough money was being collected. Mr. Geldhof suggested the contract could note that it is subject to renewal of the ordinance.

Mr. Perkins agreed with putting another section in the ordinance about the Assembly reviewing the ordinance three years from its existence date to see whether or not it was a good program and was working in the best interest of the intent. It may be just enough to make sure that whoever gets the bid would try a little harder to make sure it works. If it were written into the ordinance, there would be a date certain to review it.

Ms. Muñoz also would support a sunset or review period. The language of the contract could be modified to eliminate the two one-year renewal options.

Ms. Hagevig said she could support language that talked about a review with a date time certain, but she felt a sunset provision would make it a less attractive activity for private industry. The volunteer committee had been very forthright that this would not be a paying proposition. It was something that would take a while to establish in the community and having something built in that automatically makes it go away without giving it a fair chance to take hold and to work and to get people into the habit of participating in the activity would be shortsighted. Mayor Egan asked is she felt it should be done in the contract instead or the ordinance. Ms. Hagevig said whatever triggers some kind of date certain review by the Assembly.

Mr. Powell restated his motion to include on line 23, that a review occur three years from the effective date.

Mr. Corso suggested that section 3 should be "Effective date; review" and then on line 23 a new sentence that "The Manager shall present a new version of this ordinance for purposes of review three years from date of adoption." Mr. Powell accepted that as a friendly amendment.

Mr. Kibby said when he hears the word review, he is hesitant. Biannual updates do not happen and he asked what mechanism would be in place to insure this would be reviewed. Mr. Corso said there was no legal mechanism for insuring that the Assembly take something up for review. Mr. Kibby objected to the motion and would like to see it restated.

Mr. Palmer said the way the ordinance was written, it increased the existing fee. If the sunset only applies to the new fee which relates to recycling, it should be separated from the one that is already on the books.

Mr. Powell agreed with Ms. Hagevig that there had been very, very strong support for a recycling program in this community. In his mind it was not if we do it but how we do it. A review gave him assurance that it would continue in some way. Philosophically, he would like to see it reviewed in three years, not sunsetted, so his motion stood.


Ayes: Powell, Hagevig, Koelsch, MacKinnon, Muñoz, Perkins and Egan

Nays: Kibby

motion carries 7:1

2. Ordinance No. 99-17 (AP)


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

Public Participation: None at this time.

Assembly Action:

MOTION - by Hagevig, to adopt Ordinance 99-17 (AP), and she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

  2. NEW BUSINESS - None
  4. A. Manager’s Report - Action Items - None

    B. Manager’s Report - Information Items

    1. Thane Road Campground

    Administrative Report: Attached. There were delays in receiving some equipment so the campground would not open until Friday with 25 camping spaces available

    2. Petition Initiatives - Status

    Administrative Report: Attached. Ms. Miller reported that there were presently two petitions. The petitioner’s committee for the cruise ship passenger fee timely submitted their petition by 4:30 on July 3rd and by 4:30 of the 13th, she would have the results. There was another petition on the streets requesting an advisory ballot on the ferry system. The petitioner’s committee had until the 27th of July to provide the petition booklets for review and then a decision would have to be made by August 6th.

    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 was no COW scheduled.
    2. Finance Committee – Mr. Perkins noted that they added two items to the Finance Committee list: Bartlett Regional Hospital Project 2005 and the Treadwell Ice Arena. He would need to discuss with Mr. MacKinnon whether to schedule a COW or Finance meeting to discuss the desires of the Hospital Board to look at potential funding sources. Also, there was some discussion and interest by the PW&F to help them with some design money so that would need to be discussed as well. With regards to the Treadwell Ice Arena, that came out of the PW&F and was just something to keep on the radar screen in the event money falls out of the sky. Mr. Kibby asked when the committee would review finance in general. He said past policy included a task force to review tax implications. Mr. Perkins said Mr. MacKinnon had passed out a report that was done by the previous mayor and several people in the community about some ideas that they had in regard to the downturn in the economy in 1985. The Mayor was currently considering reinstating that task force. Mayor Egan said he would bring that up on the 19th with suggested names. Mr. Kibby asked Mr. Perkins to add that to the Finance Committee schedule so that before a task force was appointed, there could be discussion among the Assembly about the situation. Mr. Perkins thought that reviewing the task force report, it was a broad-based committee with different sectors of the economy putting in their expert advice and looking at different parts of the economy. Mayor Egan said he would like to appoint the task force on the 19th and then have a brief work session, either in finance or a COW, to talk about the charge to the task force. He said he would be happy to suggest names from all members of the Assembly for membership in that committee.
    3. Human Resources Committee – Ms. Muñoz reported that they met earlier and heard an annual report from the Human Rights Commission. The Commission wanted clarity of their role from the full Assembly so she has asked Mr. MacKinnon to schedule this issue before the COW. Another item was implementation of fares for persons using Capital Transit VIP bus passes. Currently VIP passes are provided to the elderly and to the disabled in the community at no cost and it is a lifetime pass. The committee suggested that an $18 a month fee be instituted and that the lifetime pass portion of the program be phased out. This fare would be consistent with what is charged for student rates and is recommended by the bus drivers and the administration. Mr. Perkins asked if there was a fiscal analysis done about what the revenue would be. Ms. Muñoz said they did have all that information and it would be presented to the Assembly with the resolution.
    4. Ms. Muñoz had several appointments for various committees:

      Donna McKinley to the Americans With Disabilities Committee;

      Gary Hogins to the Eaglecrest Ski Area Board;

      Ian Fisk and Marie Helm to the International Relations Advisory Board; and

      Virginia Blaisdell and John A. White to the Youth Activities Board.

      Ms Muñoz said in an effort to clean up policies within the committee, they would like in the future to bring the recommendations to the Assembly and have them confirmed at the same time. That would help with the efficiency within the Clerk’s Office. There was no objection to that suggestion.

    5. Lands and Resources Committee – Mr. Kibby said the Lands Committee would meet on Wednesday the 14th at noon in Room 211. Action items included the Savikko Park’s tree thinning and the Juneau Youth Services land trade. Information items would include Lands and Resource projects, the Felix flooding on North Douglas, and the Malaspina Apartment acquisition.
    6. Public Works and Facilities Committee – Ms. Hagevig reported that at the last meeting, the major pieces that were discussed were referred to Mr. Perkins’ committee.

    1. Board Liaison Reports

Mayor Egan stated that the Alaska Committee would have a retreat at AEL&P’s conference room on Wednesday at 5:00 p.m.


8:00 p.m. – 8:15 p.m.

  2. Mr. Koelsch commented on the Fourth of July activities and said the fireworks crew and the Fourth of July committee did an extraordinary job. He announced that Thursday, July 15th at 5:00 p.m. in the Chambers there would be a Transportation Open House and he hoped everyone participated. There would be another series of open houses after that in different neighborhoods and he felt it was an extremely important function that was being performed right now as the CBJ and that was to identify the transportation needs and plan for the next century.

    Mr. Perkins referred to the letter to Chief Gummow from the Citizen’s Committee for a Cruise Ship Passenger Fee. He acknowledged the fine work of the officers involved in a disagreement at the Post Office of whether or not the group should be allowed to collect signatures there. Mr. Perkins read that portion of the letter naming the police officers involved and that they were a credit the JPD and exhibited the high standards established by Chief Gummow. Next, he said he saw where the MEA has the taxi drivers’ affiliation and there was a letter about the For-Hire Vehicle Code Ordinance. He asked Mr. Palmer if they could get together to discuss it. He then commented on the Capital Profile by the JEDC, and he said the issue was very timely with what was happening in the community about the economy and business. He encouraged all to read it and said he really appreciated the good job done by the JEDC on the publication.

    Mr. Kibby asked for a response to the letter from MEA by a date certain. Mr. Palmer said the subcommittee did meet and made some recommendations with regard to some amendments. The subcommittee agreed with some of the requests that JADA had submitted and did not agree with some of the others. The amendments were being drafted as proposed by the subcommittee and would be back before the Assembly.

    Mr. Kibby referred to discussion on the improvements to the dock on the wharf and said there were several suggestions with regard to the process. He did not recall if there was any direction for the Board to come back. He had asked about looking at phasing and also at reducing the cost of the project to something under $3M to take care of the improvements that were needed for an operational facility and to make sure the city continued to have an asset and not a liability. Mr. Palmer thought there was a lot of discussion, but no real direction was given. Mr. Kibby said he presumed that when people on the Assembly provide their input, that was direction unless it was objected to by any one member of the Assembly. It was his opinion that the Board was going to go back an take another look and then come forward again. He asked if there was opportunity in the near future to get together with them. At some point he would like to go before the PW&F and suggest another look be taken at the CIPs looking at an area downtown, within the capital infrastructure of Juneau, and looking for different funding sources, possibly requesting a change to the ordinance for the tonnage fee so that money could be included for other projects. Some of the money being looked at for the dock area could be used to raise the priority for the capital campus downtown. He asked his colleagues to consider the process of implementation. There had been suggestions of covered sidewalks, bridges from the Court House to the Capital Bldg., and other improvements to the capital city making transition through the core easier.

    Ms. Hagevig said that if the Assembly wanted the Harbor Board and the Planning Commission to take a different course of action than what was moving along right now, that determination should be made very clear tonight. At the last Harbor Board meeting, they held another public hearing on the project and the outcome of that was that the next stop was the Planning Commission and she believed it had been scheduled. Mayor Egan clarified that would mean another work session with the Harbor Board, before the Planning Commission. Mr. Kibby did not think there was need to interrupt the process they were in, but he thought at some point in time, the area would look as they have envisioned. For him, right now was not the time. He did not want to encumber $7.9M on up for this project downtown where there were other pressing needs within the community and especially in the immediate area downtown. He did not want to tie that money up for 8-10 years. The Board should go through the process so there is a plan and everyone would know what it looked like and would understand that at some point in time it may look like that, but right now he wanted to only consider the area that needed immediate attention, the dredging and the dock surface.

    Mr. Perkins asked what happened to the 20/20 Vision Plan for downtown.

    Mr. Powell thought that there was confusion after the meeting with the Board. His feeling was to do the repairs to the dock, or the things that were physically necessary as a first phase, and then consider those other things. He was not sure that came out loud and clears to the Board and he thought it would be good to get together again. Mayor Egan thought the only real direction that the Assembly gave to the Harbor Board that evening was to not do the covered bus thing. He said his concern was that it would waste the Planning Commission’s time if the Assembly saw the plan again after the Commission. He suggested the Assembly and Harbor Board iron out the differences before it goes to the Planning Commission.

    Ms. Hagevig said as the liaison to the Harbor Board, she could not agree more. Anything that goes to the Planning Commission would have a finite date on it and if the Assembly was not ready to permit them to move forward, even though they get a permit, they have wasted everybody’s time. Mayor Egan knew that the Board was currently working on a "My Turn" article and a flyer that would be put out to the public telling them exactly what was happening and to relieve some of the misconceptions. Mayor Egan requested a brief noon meeting with the Board with limited discussion. Mr. MacKinnon said he would schedule a noon COW at the soonest available date with the Harbor Board. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    Mr. Kibby continued and asked if there was any objection to his going to the PW&F or scheduling on a COW, with regards to Capital Improvements in the downtown infrastructure. He felt there was a real need and desire. Mayor Egan thought that PW&F would be the appropriate committee, there being no objection, it was so ordered.

    Ms. Hagevig said the High School Leadership Team would be meeting on Friday at noon in the School District office to discuss issues related to the new High School, particularly to discuss the condition of the existing school buildings. Next, she said she had received input from the people who live on the streets surrounding Riverside Drive, at the end, the "Dale" streets. The problem that they tried to solve with the implementation of the speed humps on Riverside Drive has simply moved, and now the traffic is moving through the various Dale streets to avoid the speed humps. She felt that at some point, a policy decision would have to made with regard to Riverside Drive and that the Assembly needed to give the PW&F some direction. She suggested it be discussed at a COW.

    Mr. Perkins asked if that was part of the Comprehensive Plan, the issue of the roads and infrastructure. Ms. Hagevig thought it was part of the Transportation Plan. The neighborhood was feeling a sense of immediacy that they would like to see something resolved, at least at a policy level. Mr. Perkins said that he lives on Riverside and knew very well of all the impacts; there would be a lot of debate on the issue. Mr. Koelsch assumed it would be an issue that comes up at the Open House of the Transportation Committee and as they go through the process it would be explored and examined and hopefully a recommendation would come out in the report. Mayor Egan asked if it should be explored before or after the election. Ms. Hagevig thought it was more appropriate to let the Transportation Committee take its normal course and then see what could be done after hearing its recommendation. There was no objection.

    Mr. Powell thanked all those people who helped in the Joe Juneau reception. Ms. Hagevig said that Connie Monroe organized the local effort. Mr. MacKinnon also thanked Ms. Monroe for her great effort and said the Juneau family who came had a great time; they went everywhere and did everything.

    Mayor Egan said there was a reception planned on the Japanese Research vessel scheduled for next Monday from 7-9 p.m. He instructed the Manager to let the liaison know that the Assembly would not be able to attend as there was a regular Assembly meeting that night. Mr. MacKinnon recalled that the last time the Japanese vessel was in town was six or seven years ago and it was a reception worth attending. He asked if the meeting could be started early or late so they could attend. Mr. Palmer suggested having Mr. Corso do a resolution moving the meeting from the 19th to the 26th. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

  4. MOTION – by MacKinnon, that the Assembly recess into Executive Session to discuss matters of which the immediate knowledge of which could clearly have an adverse affect on the finances of the CBJ and the purpose is to get a briefing on the Riverbend School roof and what the problems are and may be and where the City sits in the situation. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

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

    8:45 p.m. – 9:35 p.m.

    Mr. MacKinnon reported on the Executive Session and said the Assembly received all the current information about the roof and the problems associated with it. One direction came out with a number of different points and that was that there presently was a request for letters of interest for re-roofing the building. That letter of interest would be rescinded and the Assembly directed that the CBJ and the citizens of the CBJ have already paid for that roof and will not pay again. The City has successfully collected claims against engineers and architects and attorneys and contractors in the past few years and they hope to continue to be successful in collecting on claims against the various professionals that are doing work for the City but don’t come through with the level that they should. The City would pursue the claims against the designers, the inspectors and the contractor on this roof problem and would include in those claims any additional costs to the district as far as damage as a result of the problem with the roof, any additional expense required to ensure safety and integrity of the roof over the course of the winter and staff would proceed with due diligence. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    Resolution 2000


    Ms. Miller read the resolution into the record.

    MOTION – by Hagevig, to adopt Resolution 2000, and she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

  5. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to come before the Assembly, and no objection, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.



Signed: ______________________________

Marian Miller, Clerk

Signed: ________________________________

Mayor Egan