THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA

August 16, 1999

MEETING NO. 99-24: 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: Kibby, MacKinnon, Perkins, Egan, Hagevig, and Koelsch

    Assembly Absent: Muñoz, Garrett, and Powell

    A quorum was present.

    Staff Present: Marian Miller, Municipal Clerk; Dave Palmer, City Manager; John Hartle, Assistant City Attorney; Joe Graham, Port Director; Gary Gillette, CDD Planner; Christine Blackgoat, HSS Director; Ernie Mueller, Public Works Director; Kim Kiefer, Parks and Rec. Director; Gary Bader, School District Superintendent; Joe Mueller; Craig Duncan, Finance Director

  4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
  5. 1. 06/21/99 - Regular Meeting No. 99-20

    MOTION - by Kibby, to approve the minutes of Regular Meeting No. 99-20, held June 21, 1999, and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS - None

  6. MANAGER’S REQUEST FOR AGENDA CHANGES - None
  7. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
  8. Jessica Loehr

    Jessica Loehr, 625 5th Street, Douglas. She testified as one of eight Jesuit Volunteers living in Juneau for one year. They travel from Douglas into the city and the valley, working for various volunteer and non-profit organizations. They are only allotted $80 per month through JVC. In the past, the volunteers have received bus passes and she asked for the same consideration.

    Ira Winegard, introduced the Assembly to "Inside Passage Designs" which wholesales hats throughout Alaska. He presented each Assemblymember with a hat.

  9. CONSENT AGENDA

Mr. Kibby asked for the removal of item D-1, Contract No. MR00-090. Mayor Egan clarified with the Manager the need to remove Resolution B-1 so they could deal with the Ordinance first.

MOTION - by Garrett, to adopt the Consent Agenda deleting items B-1, postponing it until after the ordinance later in the meeting, and item D-1, and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

A. Ordinances for Introduction

1. Ordinance No. 99-30

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE HEALTH AND SANITATION CODE TO REGULATE THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF APPLIANCES CAPABLE OF ENTRAPPING CHILDREN.

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

    1. Ordinance 99-17 (H)
    2. AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $248,000 FOR REPLACEMENT OF SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT AT THE JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. SUCH FUNDS, $240,000 PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, AND $8,000 BY THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES.

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

    3. Ordinance No. 99-17 (I)

AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $148,412 FOR NORTH TERMINAL ACCESS REHABILITATION AT THE JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. SUCH FUNDS, $143,625, PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, AND $4,787 BY THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES.

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

    1. Resolutions

Resolution 2002 was postponed until after Ordinance 99-17 (C) under Section VII.

C. Transfer Requests

    1. Transfer No. T-669:
    2. TRANSFERS $125,000 IN FY00 TEMPORARY 1% SALES TAX FROM DOUGLAS HARBOR MOORAGE AND UPLAND PARKING EXPANSION INTO ADAIR/KENNEDY PARK IMPROVEMENTS ($60,000) AND THE SAVIKKO PARK FIELD RESURFACING ($65,000).

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

    3. Transfer No. T-670:
    4. TRANSFERS $77,000 FROM AIRPORT REVOLVING CAPITAL RESERVE ACCOUNT; $55,000 INTO RUNWAY SAFETY AREA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND $25,000 INTO WETLANDS FILL FOR JORDAN CREEK DREDGE POND.

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

    5. Transfer No. T-671:

TRANSFERS $80,000 OF 1998-1999 AREAWIDE STREET SALES TAX FROM CIP R412-65 SEWARD STREET ASPHALT REPAIRS TO CIP R412-77 LAST CHANCE BASIN EROSION CONTROL.

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

    1. Bid Awards

D1. Contract No. MR00-090:

SOLE SOURCE – J/D INCINERATOR BUILDING ROOF REPAIRS.

Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended award of this project to Kenco Construction with a sole source bid for a total award of $135,000

Public Testimony: None

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Kibby, for the purpose of discussion.

Mr. Kibby clarified that only one person submitted a bid and that was the reason it was a sole source. Mr. Palmer said that they issued a bid waiver to Kenco for this award. Mr. Kibby asked why it was being sole sourced and Mr. Mueller said that the Engineering Department arranged the details of the contract. It was his understanding that one reason was that it was an emergency as the roof was failing and might not be able to handle either a person walking on the roof or possibly even a snow load, so the roof needed to be repaired immediately. In addition, the contractor was either the original contractor or the successor of interest in that particular contract. There was a question about whether the city could recover costs, so he thought it was the Engineering Department’s recommendation to proceed with this particular contractor.

Mr. Garrett said the Public Works Committee heard a presentation on this in July and Mr. Mueller was correct in his outline. Any facility that is designed to last for a certain number of years and then fails well before its design life, in this case it was seven years from when the roof was installed, needs to be examined to determine whether or not it was properly designed and installed because there may be a warranty claim for failure to perform. In this instance, one of the rationales for moving ahead with the sole source was because this company, being the successor in interest to the people who initially dealt with the installation of the first roof that failed, removes one of the arguments that would be made when going back to get a claim. He said they did not want to create a situation where, in the process of fixing it, they negate the city’s claim because they could not prove there was a structural failure or design flaw. The only way to do that is to take out a large section of the roof and send it to a laboratory for testing. The small fragments that they had were not adequate to determine whether or not it had been properly done in the first place. The only way to get a large section of the roof was to actually fix it and so in the process of doing that, they would enhance their ability to possibly seek a claim on the original installation.

Mr. Perkins attended the PW&F meeting and added that there was another contractor from Anchorage who was looking at this, but the discussion also talked about the width or length of the panel going down which this particular contractor could provide for rather than having shorter panels.

Mr. Kibby asked Mr. Palmer to explain why the memo from Rosemary Matt indicated the total project fund would be $200,000 but the award was only for $135,000. Mr. Palmer clarified there was not a copy of the memo from Rod Wilson included in the packet. Mr. Mueller said the $135,000 was for the construction-only cost of the project. The other cost would be covered by the remainder of the funds which were a little over 40%. Typically, when doing a project of this type, the other costs were already in the 40% above construction cost. In this particular project, there were costs that they typically don’t have. He gave the example that the contract that the city has with the contractor says the city would dispose of the panels which were removed from the roof. That is not included in the construction cost and they would have to cover that; he was not certain what that cost would be. There were some additional costs other than just the construction costs. Mr. Kibby could appreciate that, but he noted that the amount in the memo still did not add up. Mr. Palmer said some of the costs that you would normally see for a full project were not included. Mr. Kibby asked that this be moved on, but that Mr. Palmer get back to everyone with how he arrived with the total projected funds of $200,000 when the construction encumbrance was $140,000.

Mr. MacKinnon said that over a year ago they replaced the chimney on that building, at least part of the flue assembly, which was right where the deteriorating roof was. The problem was there then and was brought to the city’s attention. Now, suddenly it is important to replace it right away and as a result we have to go to a sole source contract when there are at least a half of dozen contractors in town capable of doing this kind of work. He was bothered that they had to wait until the last minute and then give it to an out of state contractor. He did not believe that Kenco put the original roof on and the relationship that Kenco Construction had with Centria, the new name of the company that manufactured the roof panels (which used to be HH Robertson). Kenco Construction does a lot of work with HH Robertson or Centria products. He said he had a problem supporting this and thought it should have been dealt with in a timely manner.

Ms. Hagevig said that at the time it was presented to PW&F, it made all the sense in the world. They were faced with a sense of urgency that they were running out of the construction season and that something indeed had to be done. She asked Mr. MacKinnon what his solution would be to get something done before the onset of winter and did he think by going out to bid, it could be accomplished.

Mr. MacKinnon was not convinced that by awarding this now, it could be accomplished by the on set of winter either. This contractor would have the same problem any other contractor would in getting the materials. Stainless panels take a long time to get as it is not a typical roofing material. No doubt we would save money to do it this way, but he reminded everyone that the $135,000 for a 4000 square foot roof, or 40 squares of roof, is $3,375 a square. That is a very expensive roof. He realized there were other things included, but he was bothered that sometimes staff brings things that have to be done right away, removing all choice from the Assembly. There may be a temporary fix that could be done until next spring.

Mr. Garrett pointed out that this was a sandwich construction, metal roof in which a lot of the structural integrity of the roof is involved in the design of the roof panels themselves. If one half of the roof panels fail, then the roof does not have the same structural integrity that it formally had. There are many areas around the smoke stack that are failing where whatever has come out of the smoke stack has landed on the roof and has eaten through the metal. Part of the repair was to replace the current metal with a stronger metal. He agreed that $3,000 plus per square would be an expensive roof but most people do not put 20-gage stainless steel on the roof either. It is not just any building, it is the roof of the incinerator plant where almost every bit of solid waste sludge ends up being processed. The issue before the PW&F committee was that someone involved with the design of the incinerator plant had to be aware of what chemical processes would be occurring within the incinerator and what the result of waste effluent out of the top of the stack would be and ought to have figured out that it might damage the roof it they didn’t use the right material. At a certain point, the Assembly has to rely on the counsel of the experts on staff who give the best advice they can give. We then make the decision based on the best information available. Now the Assembly could make the decision to do a patch and wait until next year to fix it but he was not sure they could wait another year. He shared Mr. MacKinnon’s and Ms. Hagevig’s frustration about being presented with things as dire emergencies that must be decided in this instance with no options.

ROLL CALL

Ayes: Garrett

Nays: Kibby, Koelsch, MacKinnon, Perkins, Hagevig, Egan

Motion fails 1:6

VII. ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING

1. Ordinance No. 99-28

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY AND BOROUGH TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $63,300,000 TO FINANCE RENOVATIONS TO JUNEAU-DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HIGH SCHOOL, AND PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY AND BOROUGH AT THE ELECTION TO BE HELD THEREIN ON OCTOBER 5, 1999, OF THE PROPOSITION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY AND BOROUGH SHOULD INCUR SUCH INDEBTEDNESS AND ISSUE SUCH BONDS FOR SUCH PURPOSES.

Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted. Mr. Palmer referred to the amended ordinance included at the request of Mr. Garrett and noted that the Assembly would need to act on one or the other. The amended ordinance reduced the amount for the total project from $63,300,000 to $62,900,000.

Public Participation:

Fredrick Hoskinson, 129 East 7th Street, testified that to him this effort was almost unbelievable and he thought the public would see it in the same light. Last year the School Board proposed a very similar idea: one large suburban high school, basically ending JDHS as a high school, and the public voted it down 2:1. He helped organize the opposition, which was very loosely organized with only about three weeks to campaign. He was sure this time it would be fairly easy to defeat but it would not be any fun to defeat it. The last time it was open, it was fair and it was above board. This one is deceptive and dishonest and he believed that everyone who had a hand in this was either not very smart or not very honest. There are currently 1,400 students in the high school and if you build a 1,200-student school in the Valley, that would leave 200 students downtown which is not exactly a fair or workable balance. In the first fifteen years after unification, this community virtually doubled from 14,000 to about 28,000. In the last 15 years, growth has been negligible. When the School District predicts the need for 2,500 high school seats, it is hot air. The fact is there will be 1,400-1,600 high school students as the little bubble from the late baby boomers, like himself, who waited until they were in their 40s to have kids. That little bubble has to go through and then the population probably would drop back to about what it is now. If this goes through as proposed, there will be 1,200 students in the valley and 200 students in town, or a lot of empty seats in the Valley. They will point this out to the public and will also point out that somebody, somewhere was trying to deceive them. He said a fair proposal would be to build a 750- student school in the Valley, which would leave 750 students in town. That would still leave the high school downtown under populated but it could then accommodate the slight bulge he saw coming, and then shrink. There was no justification for a 1,200-student high school, and he added it would be more honest and forthright to just put the old proposal back on the ballot and do away with JDHS because that was what this was proposing, without admitting it.

Mr. Garrett said in last fall’s election, one of the great criticisms was that there was no plan for JDHS and what was going to happen to it; now there is a plan. Another criticism was that there had been inadequate public involvement. He asked Mr. Hoskinson to describe how much of the public involvement he and his group of people opposed to this had during the last year. Mr. Hoskinson said that he could not speak for the whole group and it would not be fair for him to do so. His group tried very hard to initiate the process at the end of the last election. They called a couple of public meetings and tried really hard, but it was the district that was dragging tail in that area. He said he was not convinced that there had been adequate public input and he admitted rapidly loosing faith in the process. He felt they would be hard pressed to find anyone on either side of last years issue, who thought that a 1,200-student high school in the valley and a 200-student high school downtown would be a good idea. Mr. Garrett asked how many meetings he participated in and Mr. Hoskinson said he was at two.

Mr. MacKinnon said from his perspective, the Assembly has been asked by the School Board to place this on the ballot. Since the School Board does not have the authority to place items on the ballot, and the Assembly does, it is the Assembly’s obligation to place it on the ballot. Whether Assemblymembers agree or disagree, we have to honor our obligation to the School Board by placing this on the ballot. He felt Mr. Hoskinson was pinning this on the Assembly. Mr. Hoskinson said if he were on the Assembly, he would send it back to the School Board and tell them that, as an Assemblymember, he wanted the School Board to come up with a plan that means what it says. If the School Board really wants a 1,200-student high school in the valley and 200-student high school downtown, then they should say that; they are trying to mislead the public into believing that there is a plan for balanced schools, which there is not.

Dennis Harris, 352 Distin Avenue, testified that last year some came forward when this was going to be put on the ballot saying it was too big, too expensive and it would not fly, and it did not. He reiterated that it was too big, too expensive and it would not fly. He campaigned against it last year because he thought they could do a better job. He attended three meetings that the School District held and deliberately attended two that were not in his neighborhood because he wanted to see what people in the other parts of the borough thought. At the first meeting he went to, the format was a breakout group session where there was a session recorder and some one who summarized things. They deliberately and unabashedly attempted to direct their summaries in such a way that they did not always agree with what people at the tables said and people stood up and let the board members know that. He knows some people who did not go to any further meetings because of what happened at the first one. Most of the other meetings were a more open format and people did go. He said he also watched School Board meetings when they were available on cable, which he wished they were again because he felt it was a valuable public service, and there were a large number of people who followed it and did participate at the appropriate times. At the time the School Board was ready to adopt this, he sent an e-mail to the board saying he thought the project was too big, the school should be for about 800 students, they were building to accommodate a gym that was much larger than needed and the school project itself was too costly. He did not have too much of a problem spending some money, maybe not $19M, at the high school as part of this project but the project was still too big. He had urged frequently that the bond issue be capped at no more than $50M as anything over $50M would not pass.

Assembly Action:

MOTION - by Garrett, to adopt Ordinance No. 99-28 (AM).

Mr. MacKinnon asked when they could discuss the draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on the auditorium. Mayor Egan felt that should be discussed before passing ordinance 99-28 or 99-28 (AM). Mr. Palmer noted that the amount on the ordinances was predicated on the assumption that the reimbursement from the State would include that extra $2.6M.

Mr. MacKinnon referred to the MOA and said on item 2, under Facility, he would like to see it include ADA. He realized that ADA was included in item 5 but said that it was weak and very insignificant when considering the accessibility of the entire auditorium. There was no objection to adding that to item 2.

Mr. Koelsch said that on the MOA, under operations, item 1 or 2 needed to be deleted as they were the same sentence. There was no objection to striking number 2.

Mr. Perkins asked Mr. MacKinnon if he wanted to then delete item 5 from the first section. Mr. MacKinnon said it does become redundant and could be deleted. There was no objection to deleting number 5. There were no further changes to the draft MOA.

Mr. Koelsch said he was troubled with total reliance on property tax for this and the idea that we would spend $3M for a design without an assurance that there would be money received from the state to build it. He agreed with Mr. MacKinnon that this was a School Board project that was brought to the Assembly and regardless of how the Assembly felt, it had to be put on the ballot.

Mr. Garrett said there was not $3M for design in this project. There was $3M for design and site preparation; $1M of that $3M was specifically targeted for the demolition of the Marine Highways building should there be the opportunity to do that in the short term. Having the building demolished would be very beneficial to any scenario.

Mr. Kibby disagreed with Mr. Koelsch and Mr. MacKinnon. He said Assemblymembers have the fiduciary responsibility of approving or disapproving of the School Board’s budget. If they did not agree with the ballot measure, they should be sitting within their fiduciary responsibility and change it. He was very troubled by the Assembly wanting something on the ballot but openly speaking against it.

Ms. Hagevig observed that after the last election, the Assembly told the School Board to take a close look at and analyze exactly what the components of the large negative vote were. She thought, in defense of the School Board, that they truly did make a good faith effort to do that. She had spent the better part of this year trying to put together a reasonable proposal to put before the voters and she was troubled at the lack of engagement by the public in that process. There were a number of questions that were not answered to her full satisfaction but she was going to presume that, in the voter information that was put together and distributed, they would be honestly answered for the public. One thing they were very much criticized for in the last election was that the information put out was incomplete and was confusing. She wanted to be sure the information this time was very complete and that all the questions that people were likely to ask be answered in a very forthright manner and that the maximum amount of information be provided. She also pointed out that the School Board was an elected body charged with planning for the future of children in the community. This was not a school that they expected to fill up, either one of them, on the day they were opened but they were suppose to have a 50 - 60 year life in the community. Depending on whose numbers you can believe, she felt it was reasonable to project that the CBJ would eventually have the number of students necessary to fill both schools.

Assembly Action

Mr. MacKinnon called of the question. There was no objection so there was no call for the question and 99-28 (AM) was adopted.

Mr. Garrett asked that some notations be made in the Manager’s Report with the corrected figures from 99-28 with regard to the individual assessments on property values.

2. Ordinance No. 99-17 (C)

AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $510,515 FOR THE FOLLOWING CAPITAL PROJECTS: AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE, UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS, ESSENTIAL BUILDING REPAIRS AND DEFERRED BUILDING MAINTENANCE. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION.

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

Public Participation: None at this time.

Assembly Action:

MOTION - by Kibby, to adopt Ordinance No. 99-17 (C) and he asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

Resolution No. 2002

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 MUNICIPAL CAPITAL MATCHING GRANTS.

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

Public Testimony - None

Assembly Action

MOTION – by Garrett, that Resolution 2002 be adopted. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

3. Ordinance No. 99-17 (D)

AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $472,500 FOR ACQUISITION OF TIDELANDS WHICH ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERMEDIATE VESSEL FLOAT, THE COLUMBIA LOT AND EXTENSION OF THE FERRY DOCK WHARF. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE PORT FUND UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE.

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

Public Participation: None at this time.

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Kibby, to adopt Ordinance 99-17 (D), and he asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

4. Ordinance No. 99-17 (E)

AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $200,000 FOR THE JUNEAU DOUGLAS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INCINERATOR BUILDING ROOF REPAIRS. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE SEWER FUND RETAINED EARNINGS.

Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted. He said although the bid was not awarded, the project was still out there and they would still need the money. His understanding was that the Assembly wanted staff to bid the work competitively, which would mean getting a set of plans and specs and bid it. He asked the Assembly to appropriate the money so that staff could start the design and get it out to bid. Staff would come back to the Assembly with a bid award. He did not think that $200,000 would be a bad estimate and it was a good place to start.

Public Participation: None at this time.

Assembly Action:

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

Mr. MacKinnon agreed with Mr. Palmer that it would make sense to begin a CIP on this.

5. Ordinance No. 99-17 (F)

AN ORDINANCE DE-APPROPRIATING THE SUM OF $8,000 FROM THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL/DIMOND PARK PLANNING PROJECT. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL/DIMOND PARK CIP S454-66.

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 No. 99-17 (F), and she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    1. Ordinance No. 99-17 (G)

AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $8,000 FOR PUBLICATION OF VOTER INFORMATION PAMPHLETS. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL/DIMOND PARK CIP S454-66.

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 (G), and she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None

IX.  NEW BUSINESS - None

X. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS

    A. Manager’s Report - Action Items - None

    B. Manager’s Report - Information Items

    1. Parks and Recreation Regulations Amendment – Commercial Use of Trails.

    Administrative Report: Attached. The regulations were provided to the Assembly as an information item; if the Assembly did not object, the department would issue the regulations, which would become effective in 30 days.

    Mr. Perkins asked what the fee was that was received from commercial users, per individuals taken on the guided commercial trails. Ms. Kiefer said the fees vary depending upon what parkland they use. Mr. Perkins asked for a copy of those fees so he could have it for a part of the discussion during the next budget cycle. Ms. Kiefer said that the money that comes in for the commercial use of park property goes to Trail Mix and last year that amount was about $22,000. The fee varied from $.85 to $2.15 depending on the length of time people were on park property and what kind of uses they had. Mr. Perkins thought it was a great idea to turn the money back to Trail Mix but noted that it does help with the lack of financial resources.

    2. Candidate Nominating Petition Filing Period: August 16 - 26, 1999.

    Ms. Miller pointed out that the candidate filing period started today and went through August 26th at 4:30. Candidates have to reside in either district one or two, but the candidates are elected at large.

    C. Attorney’s Report

    1. Quarterly Report: April – June, 1999.

    Mr. Hartle made himself available for any questions regarding Mr. Corso’s report which was included in the packet.

    B R E A K

    8:00 – 8:08 p.m.

XI.  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:

    1. Committee of the Whole – Mr. MacKinnon said there would not be a COW next Monday and there would be at least one meeting scheduled in September.
    2. Finance Committee – Mr. Perkins asked that items 2, 3, 4, and 5 be taken off of the Revised Pending Items list.
    3. Human Resources Committee – Ms. Hagevig noted that the HRC had not had a meeting.
    4. Lands and Resources Committee – Mr. Kibby had nothing to report.
    5. Public Works and Facilities Committee – Mr. Garrett said they did not have a meeting scheduled until September.

    1. Board Liaison Reports

Mayor Egan said that the Alaska Committee would be meeting at 7 a.m. on Wednesday at the JEDC Conference Room. Mr. Hartle noted that that meeting had been postponed for one week.

XII.  ASSEMBLY COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

    MOTION - by Koelsch to issue eight bus passes to the Jesuit volunteers. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    Mr. Koelsch appreciated getting the status report on the Assembly goals and he wanted to spend some time discussing it at an Assembly meeting, especially the school roofs.

    Mr. Perkins was happy to see the fluorescent pedestrian warning signs along Riverside Drive; they certainly stand out and people would be made aware of pedestrian crossings.

    Mr. Kibby asked for an update on the West Douglas project with Goldbelt. Mr. Palmer said he would report back on that. Mr. Kibby asked if there had been any discussions with regards to logs. Mr. Palmer thought the work involved an environmental assessment before any work would be done. Mr. Kibby requested an update on the land disposals. He then said that he had been reading information in the Empire and that some literature had been delivered in regards to a proposal from Tlingit and Haida Regional Housing Authority. He said that eight months ago, the Assembly had given the nod that non-profit land disposals would pay property tax. The counsel had asked him if that was still our policy so he asked again if there was any reason to change that policy at this point. Mayor Egan assumed that the Housing Committee would have to go to the Lands Committee. Mr. Palmer had not seen the proposal from Tlingit and Haida but he said if it involved lands, it probably would. He agreed with Mr. Kibby that the policy on lands had been established but whether their housing proposal hinges on that, he was not sure. Mr. Kibby did not think it was important to take the issue to the Lands Committee if the policy was in place. He asked if the Assembly would want to consider the policy on a case by case basis or let the policy stand. Mr. MacKinnon thought that when the need for low-income housing overrides the need for tax revenue on property when it comes to land disposal, it would depend on the particular circumstances. If there was still a need, as documented by a backlog of people in the various low-income housing projects, he would be inclined to support those and assist them with providing the land if needed. Ms. Hagevig asked Mr. MacKinnon if this would then come under the community purpose definition. Mr. MacKinnon referred to the other property and said the title would be held by the Tlingit and Haida Housing Authority, which is tax exempt, until such time as the people living in those houses have acquired the title. Then the property would be on the tax rolls. Mr. Kibby clarified that the Assembly wanted this project reviewed based on need for low-income housing. Mr. Garrett did not object and wished to be invited to participate. He said there had been any number of reports outlining need in a given area presented to the Assembly who proceeded to act on them and ended up with housing projects that CBJ funded which are not full, and other projects where CBJ ended up in litigation with the developers because they could not deliver on their promises. He urged the Assembly to tread very cautiously. Mayor Egan directed the Lands Committee to revisit it and invite the Housing Committee to attend that meeting.

    Ms. Hagevig expressed great pride in the Little League Junior Baseball team that is tremendously heightening this community’s reputation. This community supports a lot of programs for the young people and this was a true manifestation of that support. Mayor Egan invited the coaches and players of the team to come down and receive proclamations at the meeting of September 13. He agreed it was phenomenal listening to each of the games on the radio.

    Mr. Garrett noted that next Monday night at 5:00 p.m. there would be an appeal hearing put forth by folks appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to allow DOT to put a light at Stephen Richards and extend Haloff Way.

    Mr. MacKinnon referred to the Little League games and noted that every time Gastineau Channel Little League was mentioned, they mentioned the CBJ Youth Activity Fund. He felt it was a very great use of the money that goes into various youth activities. He went on to say there was a Special Meeting scheduled for August 17th at noon, and he asked if it would be possible to take care of that matter at this meeting. He suggested recessing into Executive Session as some Assemblymembers would not be able to attend at noon tomorrow. Mr. Kibby objected because the meeting had been advertised. Ms. Hagevig asked if there was a legal reason the Assembly could not proceed with an Executive Session at this meeting. Ms. Miller said the Executive Session had to be advertised as a Special Meeting and that did not mean that the meeting could not be cancelled. Mayor Egan said he would feel more comfortable having the meeting tomorrow at noon and it surely would not have to last until 1. Mr. Garrett said he was not sure why it was an Executive Session. Mayor Egan said the Assembly wanted the Executive Session to discuss further matters of litigation and also address some questions that the Assembly would have for Royal Caribbean regarding litigation on the meeting of the 26th. He said he scheduled it for Tuesday at noon so that it would not drag on forever. Mr. Garrett said he was having a difficult time finding any standing for the city to pursue any claims and in the absence of any standing to pursue claims, he was not sure why a discussion about that would be private. Mayor Egan said that because there were monetary repercussions and there were some legal things involved, Mr. Corso suggested that the discussion be done in Executive Session.

    Mayor Egan apologized for not scheduling the continuation and review of the City Manager’s evaluation for this meeting and he asked that it be put on the agenda for the 13th. Mayor Egan referred to his prior discussion about the Fiscal Task Force report that was issued in 1990 and his desire to form a new task force to review that report. Without objection from the Assembly, he said he would like the committee to include former Mayor Jamie Parsons as chair, and members of the task force would be Bob Leresch, Bob Rehfield, Win Gruening, Erril Champion, Lorraine Derr, and Michael Bell. There was no objection. He requested the task force meet with the Assembly sitting as the Finance Committee to discuss the direction. He said he had told each of the proposed members that the main thing was to look at the 1990 report, see how we have done and also offer other suggestions for the direction the Assembly ought to go, at least for the first part of the new millennium. Mr. Perkins scheduled that meeting for September 8th at 5:00 p.m. Mayor Egan thought the meeting would be brief because all the proposed members were deeply involved in finances of the state and city. He would give them all a copy of the 1990 Task Force report so they would be prepared for the meeting. There was no objection to the meeting scheduled on the 8th with the new fiscal task force.

XIII. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None

XIV. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to come before the Assembly, and no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

 

Countersigned: ________________________________

Marian Miller, Clerk

Signed: ________________________________

Mayor Egan