Capital City Home Pagearrow City Government and Services arrowMinutes of Assembly MeetingsarrowMarch 22, 1999


March 22, 1999

MEETING NO. 99-08: The special meeting of the City and Borough of Juneau Assembly, held in the Assembly Chambers of the Municipal Building, was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mayor Dennis Egan.

  2. Assembly Present: Garrett, MacKinnon, Perkins, Powell, Egan, Hagevig, Muņoz, and Koelsch

    Assembly Absent: Kibby

    A quorum was present.

    Staff Present: Marian Miller, Municipal Clerk; Donna Pierce, Deputy City Manager; John Corso, City Attorney; Barbara Craver, Assistant City Attorney; Joe Buck, Engineering Director; Kim Kiefer, Parks and Recreation Director; Bob Millard, Project Manager; Mary Larsen, Project Manager; Roger Healy, Chief Projects Engineer; Richard Gummow, Police Chief.

  4. Mayor Egan announced that testimony would be limited to three minutes.

    1. Resolution No. 1982


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

    Public Testimony: None

    Assembly Action:

    MOTION – by Garrett, that the bond election be scheduled for the regular election on October 5th, 1999. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    1. Ordinance No. 99-04am


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

Public Testimony:

Ken Dean, 1130 Slim Williams Way, testified regarding accessible cabs and he said that things had progressed and that a cab company was currently speaking with SAIL on possibly finding a way to make it work. There was also a possibility of using a care-a-van that was due to be surplused off. He felt these things were in the works because of his constant reminder that there were no accessible taxis in town.

Brad Gioletti, representing Taku Taxi and all of the dispatch companies in town. He presented a hand out to the Assemblymembers with all his proposed changes and he read those changes into the record.

Ken Christenson, 6590 #266 Glacier Highway, referred to section 5 of the ordinance, the section that exempts B Independent Taxi Cab, and he stated that Alaska Taxi currently operates and only has three vehicles on their certificate. He did not think it was fair to exempt one company and he thought all companies should be exempt from these rules until December 31, 2010 for the simple fact that, for him, to keep three people on the road would be almost impossible. For him to tell a private contractor that he had to work 12 hours a day on his shift would not be possible. Dispatch companies are contracted solely with the drivers and the drivers are not employees. They do not call in sick or follow set schedules so it would be impossible for him to come up with three drivers 24 hours a day. He felt it was impossible for any cab company, no matter what size, to follow those rules just for the fact that under the contracts they cannot order people to do something they don’t want to do. If the money is not out there to be made, people will not be showing up for work. If he began ordering his drivers around, under labor laws they would become employees and he would become liable for unemployment insurance, etc. He added that on the standardized rates, he felt the Assembly was moving in the right direction and that it would benefit the drivers along with the community. Anyone should know what the rates are going to be when they hop in a Juneau Cab.

Mr. MacKinnon clarified that his concern on the single vehicle was that it specifically said a single vehicle. He asked that if that section were amended to say "less than six vehicles" would that cover the intent. Mr. Christenson suggested just ending it after "natural person who in 1998 held a certificate of convenience and necessity." That would encompass all and he thought it was a great way to regulate gypsy cabs from coming into service and that it was a good law and something to work towards.

Frank Rich, 9143 Parkwood, testified that with all the changes that had been made to the ordinances, setting the rates for taxi cabs was something that could probably be skipped over and, if need be, revisited at a future time. Currently there are at least three different rates and it might be better to leave it that way than to try and pick a rate for everyone. Most of the drivers who work for the companies are independent contractors and currently most of the companies are collecting sales tax. The sales tax is a percentage fee and based upon state law, it would be hard to collect a percentage fee from the drivers unless through the ordinance you make them liable for those sales tax fees. The same goes for the number of hours that a person may drive. The state law states that dispatch services cannot tell a driver how many hours they can drive, so in reality there could be a taxicab driver running the roads for 14-18 hours per day. If by ordinance, it states that no one holding a chauffeur’s permit can drive more than 12 hours a day, that should solve that problem.

Kirby Day, representing Princess Tours, 76 Egan Drive. On page 6, line 6 of the ordinance, Princess Tours asks that their wheelchair vehicle be exempt from the regulation and the ordinance. The only operate that vehicle to transport wheelchair passengers on tour, or if they are chartered by a convention in town to move delegates through the community. They are not trying to compete with the taxicab, simply trying to take care of those that need the service. They are not allowed to charge any more for that service. It is operated by the same drivers who have CDLs.

Mr. Perkins asked his proposed language. Mr. Day did not have any proposed language. He asked that their wheelchair vehicle be exempt from additional fees to endorsements for tours and endorsements for charters and endorsements for shuttles and as well as the regulations that tie their hands in terms of the way they operate with signage on the vehicle and things like that.

John Krielkamp, general Manager of Alaska Sightseeing/Cruise West, 513 West 4th Avenue, Anchorage and in Juneau. He referred to their letter from Regional Manager, Larry Jo Hansen. Alaska Sightseeing/Cruise West has five small ships. Passengers overnight in Juneau and all of their guests stay in hotels and eat at the restaurants. Their guests have purchased a higher level of service with their company. When they buy a package, they buy "seamless service" which includes transportation or transfers while in port, at any of the locations. They have been exempt under the laws as written for buses and the vans that are larger than 15 passengers. They do the majority of their seamless service with the vans in the evening to restaurants and different locations. They advertise in their brochure that clients can count on this service to get around town and they will not have to utilize local transportation services. The clients are not entitled to any refund should they not take advantage of that service. They are not for hire; they are strictly providing a service to their clients.

Mr. Perkins asked if this was an issue in Anchorage or Fairbanks. Mr. Krielkamp said it was an issue that had been addressed in Ketchikan and would be addressed tomorrow night at the Anchorage Assembly. He requested that non-for hire companies that include this as part of their service, be exempted. He said he would provide the language that the Anchorage Assembly was considering.

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Hagevig, to move 99-04(am) for the purposes of discussion and further amendment.

Ms. Hagevig commended the staff for including those items that were worked over recently; she felt those things had been included as the Assembly had requested them.

MOTION – by Hagevig, page 3, line 15-17, "holder’s vehicle not clean" that the ordinance be amended to delete that line and also the fine schedule associated with that line.

Ms. Hagevig commented that the concept was very subjective and weather dependent. The references in the ordinance, with respect to maintenance, imply cleanliness and she felt there were certain times when the issue of cleanliness was out of the control of the person operating the vehicle.

Mr. Powell asked staff if there was other places in the country that had similar fines addressing cleanliness. Mr. Corso could not speak to the fines, but said the regulation was fairly standard and not uncommon. Ms. Craver said the definition of cleanliness would be identified in the regulation. The specificity that would make it enforceable would have to be in the ordinance.

Mr. Koelsch agreed with Ms. Hagevig. Mayor Egan did not know what "not clean" meant, and he questioned if it included the interior. Ms. Hagevig said that was why she was suggesting it be deleted.

Mr. Powell thought there should be something in ordinance stating that the driver’s interior be clean. He felt it was a standard that should be followed, especially if it was a standard in the industry and other places. A lower standard here would not be good for the industry.

Mr. MacKinnon referred to Mr. Giolette’s suggestions and said he felt some of them needed to be included in the fine schedule because they differentiate between holder’s and vehicle owners. Mr. Giolette proposed a 20.40.500, Driver’s Standard, and Mr. MacKinnon felt there was good language in it, but he was not sure where it should be inserted. Mr. Corso said the actual offense was on page 13, line 2. On the preceding page there was the requirements that the vehicle stay clean and so on. He said the Assembly did not define exactly what that meant in the ordinance because much of the ordinance was general and broad. The criminal sanctions are enforceable, but the language is broad; regulations would be the details. He said it would be a policy decision of the Assembly whether or not they wish to inspect cabs.

Mr. Garrett said that there cannot be a lot of detail in the ordinance, the ordinance is to create the framework for the regulations specifically, so that if a regulation does not work it can be changed relatively simply.

Mr. Powell asked Mr. Corso if the suggested language, 20.40.500 would be better in regulation and not in ordinance. Mr. Corso said the section had a lot of new policy which had not been considered. It may be premature to put them in the ordinance now. He thought that subsection (a) basically restated what was in the ordinance now. How it distinguishes between the exterior and the interior was something the ordinance did not do, it just says the vehicle has to be clean and it leaves it up to the regulations to propose the standards. Mr. Powell wanted to be sure that something about cleanliness was included and he felt comfortable with the general reference on page 13, but he wanted to keep the fee schedule in to match the other fee schedules for the other parts of the ordinance.

Mayor Egan said with regard to prohibiting monitoring of another company’s radio frequency, any individual could monitor anybody’s radio frequency if it is on the public band wave.

Ms. Hagevig said a tremendous number of vehicles in the community were suffering the ravage of breakup and there simply would to be times when a cleanliness standard would be very difficult to enforce.

Mr. Perkins clarified that would still be written out in the regulation. Mr. Corso suggested changing line 21, on page 13, "are clean" to say "are clean inside and out as weather and other circumstances reasonably permit".

Ms. Hagevig withdrew her original amendment.

Amendment - by Hagevig, that on page 13, line 21, after the word clean, add "inside and out as weather and other circumstances may reasonably permit" be added. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

Mr. Perkins clarified the original motion, with regards to doing away with the fees had been withdrawn.

Amendment – by Ms. Hagevig, on line 15, page 3, the word "Holder’s" be deleted and replaced with "Drivers".

Mr. Corso pointed out that the listing was just a result of an offense that was established some place else. Changing the language here would not address the offense itself, just the fine. This was a fairly significant policy call dealing with who would be responsible for the vehicle, the certificate holder or the drivers.

Ms. Pierce pointed out that there were other kinds of companies operating with drivers, some of which were employees.

Ms. Hagevig withdrew her amendment.

Ms. Hagevig referred to page 6, beginning on line 24 and ending on line 5 of page 7, where it referred to "Services provided directly to the CBJ" and she asked if that definition included the school district. Mr. Corso believed it would, since the School District was part of the city.

Ms. Hagevig asked if at any time during the construction of this ordinance, was there intention to require out of town bus companies, such as Anderson Tours, any kind of local certificate while they were doing business in Juneau. Ms. Craver did not think Anderson Tours picked up any passengers and that people did not pay any money. Passengers come to town on the bus, they drive around on the bus and then they get back on the ferry, so they are never providing passenger vehicle compensation. Ms. Hagevig asked if that service could be considered similar to the services of CruiseWest. Ms. Craver said CruiseWest’s situation had not been considered in the same category as a passenger vehicle that just transits through Juneau; the vehicle itself originates outside of Juneau and leaves Juneau.

Amendment - by Hagevig, on page 7, line 17, to delete all language in the section following the word "compensation", inserting a period instead of colon.

Ms. Hagevig said she did not think this had been comprehensive. She said there were other kinds of activities that will emerge that would fit under this, and she cited the example of employees using company vehicles or hotels that advertise, as a part of their regular service, that they transport, in their courtesy vehicles, their customers from their hotels to downtown business locations on a regular basis as part of their service. She felt the whole issue of courtesy vehicle’s was a difficult issue to adequately define.

Ms. Pierce asked Ms. Hagevig that, if the original three lines that were crossed out in the current draft were kept in, would that preclude some or any of the courtesy activities that had been mentioned. Ms. Hagevig said reinserting that language would be her second choice; deleting the rest of the sub-section ordinance language, a, b and c.

Mr. Powell agreed with putting the language back in. He agreed that it was broad enough to give some direction.

Ms. Hagevig clarified that her amendment would be to:

include the language that has been lined out and delete the rest of the subsection language; leaving deleted the word "gratuity" on line 19.

Mr. Garrett thought this also would be a policy call because the issue was a very valid issue as raised by taxi driver. There are people operating in unregulated vehicles, who are unregulated drivers, who are behaving like taxis. He felt the point was to restrict the service of courtesy vehicles. Mr. Garrett objected to the amendment.


ayes: Hagevig and Koelsch,

nays: MacKinnon, Muņoz, Perkins, Powell, Garrett, and Mayor Egan

motion failed: 2:6

Ms. Hagevig referred to page 11, line 13. She asked the cost with respect to setting up a penalty point system and keeping track of it. She was also concerned with enforcement. Ms. Pierce said staff had not fully calculated the cost. A lot of the start up costs of the ordinance and regulations would be to identify these types of issues. She assumed the tracking would be done in a database program and it would initially require staff investment to set it up. Ms. Hagevig thought it was important to remember there were a number of items in the ordinance that would be very expensive with respect not only to enforcement, but also would add an additional burden on the bureaucracy.

Amendment - by Hagevig, on page 12, to delete the sentence starting with "Hearsay" on line 4, continuing on lines 5 and 6.

She said she was philosophically concerned about this part of the subsection being dependent upon competitors reporting on each other. Mr. Corso thought the language was defensible but whether or not the Assembly wanted decision-makers to take hearsay evidence was up to the Assembly. Ms. Hagevig said previous experience showed a tremendous amount of agitation among the various groups and she did not think this would be a good policy call.

Mr. Powell was uncomfortable taking the whole sentence out. Mr. Corso said hearsay was traditionally defined as an out of court statement. Some informal proceedings commonly allow hearsay evidence. Ms. Pierce said that given the highly competitive environment, staff would be more comfortable not admitting hearsay.

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

Amendment – by Hagevig, on page 14, line 14, deleting subsection (b).

Ms. Hagevig referred to page 14, line 14, subsection (b) and said the problem would be in the application of the regulations. She thought this would be the authorization in the ordinance that deters people from adding drivers or vehicles after a certain date. Mr. Corso said the procedures for amending a certificate is set out elsewhere in the ordinance. This one is a way of tying vehicles to certificate holders so that the holder can be held responsible for insurance.

Ms. Hagevig withdrew her amendment.

Amendment - by Hagevig, on page 15, line 9, to delete the word "standard fare" and "established by" and return to the original concept that had been lined out: "a rate not more than that filed with". Then that all the new language from subsection 3, A B C and D and to line one on page 16, be deleted.

Ms. Hagevig did not think that the Assembly, or the staff, had the expertise to set fares. Mr. MacKinnon said that what this was trying to do was to get the companies to compete on the basis of service, not on the basis of rates. He felt passengers who get in a cab at the airport should know what it will cost to get to town. He liked the idea of standard fares and did not think it would be difficult to establish what those fares were. He would like to see the cab industry be a good industry where the cab drivers are making a good living and the certificate holders are making good money and providing a good service.

Mr. Koelsch asked who would set the fares. Ms. Pierce said the administrator. She commented that if they were required to take into account all the things lined out in the ordinance and justify the fare to someone, she was not sure how to do that. She referred to Mr. Corso’s cover memo and read "the imposition of a standard fare will complicate the practice of taxis providing tours, and may preclude it, inasmuch as the whole point of a tour by taxi is that the rate is less than the metered rate" and she said they had not really discussed that issue.

Mr. Garrett thought the point about the tour fares was incorrect because a person operating as a tour has to have a tour endorsement or a separate endorsement with a separate rate. Ms. Pierce said that, under this ordinance, taxis did not have to buy a separate endorsement; they have a taxi endorsement and they are allowed to conduct tours on a flat rate, as long as it is the less than metered rate.

Mr. MacKinnon objected to the amendment.


ayes: Hagevig, Koelsch, Garrett and Mayor Egan

nays: MacKinnon, Muņoz, Perkins and Powell

motion fails 4:4

Amendment – by Hagevig, on page 16, line 8, and line 10 and 11 of the schedules, to take out the italicized language "time and" on line 8 and "and schedules" on lines 10 and 11, and remove the requirement under shuttle endorsement for schedules to be on file with CBJ.

Ms. Hagevig said in conversations with staff, this would be cumbersome to administer. She also felt it would be very difficult to enforce and enforcement would be expensive.

Mr. Koelsch asked if this would allow a shuttle to take a person to a Bed and Breakfast. Ms. Hagevig said this would not speak to that, that would be something that they would have to identify, by regulation, maps and the places they would stop. This amendment takes out the requirement for the time specific stops at specific places.

Ms. Pierce said she did make that argument to the task force.

Mr. Garrett noted he also had a proposed amendment specifically relating to the need for an airport shuttle, which would solve the issue of the B&B pick up.

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

Ms. Hagevig referred to line 12 of page 16, having to do with market segments. The ordinance was written with broad language and the regulation was limited to airline passenger and tour ship crewmembers. It was brought to her attention, in testimony and in written correspondence, that there were already other shuttles operating in Juneau beyond the scope of the intended language with respect to airline passenger and tour ship crewmembers. Specifically, Goldbelt offers a shuttle from downtown to Allen Marine dock for persons going to Gustavus, that is something that is already out there and is already advertised. It is a different market segment and has nothing to do with the airport or with crewmembers. She believed that Goldbelt goes to Gustavus everyday so it would be regularly scheduled. She presumed there were other examples in the community.

Amendment - by Hagevig to line 24 on page 16, deleting the word "and one standard fare".

Ms. Hagevig said it depended on where the individual passenger purchased their ticket. There are any number of different resources that an individual passenger could use to purchase this and so one standard fare does not really apply. Mr. MacKinnon thought this referred to a local tour. Ms. Hagevig said some local tours are advertised and sold by travel agencies in other states. Mr. MacKinnon had no objection.

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

Ms. Hagevig noted on page 17, line 11, she had no language of offer but referred to the letter received from Juneau Limousine where they pointed out that the description of a limousine was fairly restrictive. She thought that could be addressed at a later time.

Ms. Hagevig referred to line 15, on page 17, under Charter Endorsement, the language in the ordinance was fairly broad, but the application of this in the regulation would be problematic. She said in the regulations on page 22, line 22, it requires a chartered driver to carry a contract which she felt included confidential and proprietary information that an employee of a company would not, under ordinary circumstances, have on their person. She also felt this would be another section that would be difficult to enforce. Ms. Pierce said the purpose was to provide some means of enforcement in determining that it was in fact a charter. She did not have a response to the confidentiality. Ms. Hagevig did not have any amendment language to offer, she only wished to point out that it may be problematic. Ms. Craver suggested that the regulation language could deal with the fact that what is actually carried by the driver would be limited to what is essential for enforcement purposes. It would not have to be the entire original contract between the two parties, but it would have to be some evidence to an enforcement agent, that the reason that vehicle is stopping in a place that they otherwise should not be stopping at is that they are chartered to do so under an agreement with a certain person. Ms. Hagevig asked if this section would apply to taxis that charter by the hour. Ms. Craver said no, a taxi vehicle is regulated differently; a taxi can stop anywhere. If a taxi were providing charter services, then it would be providing services according to an hourly rate, which a taxi can do according to its rate schedule.

Ms. Hagevig, referred to page 18, line 6. Intercepting a Service Call. She felt this would be very difficult to enforce accept using hearsay evidence or establishing a procedure for a sting operation. She felt it also restricted the rights of individual passengers to make a different choice or to select a different preference.

Amendment – by Hagevig that the section, "Intercepting Service Call" be eliminated.

Mr. MacKinnon would not consider it to be interception when a person calls a cab, it does not show up so that person takes another cab. Mayor Egan said a member of the general public could call three cab companies and the first one that gets there, they can take.

Chief Gummow said that this would be difficult to enforce but that the department did understand the intent behind this. Typically, this may entail a complaint from a cab operator that another cab came and picked up a fare. The JPD would contact the fare, if possible, to find out who they called. That would be problematic and difficult to enforce. Mr. MacKinnon said there were a number of items in the ordinance that would be difficult to enforce, but, just because they are difficult to enforce, does mean they should be taken out.

Mr. MacKinnon objected to the amendment.


ayes: Hagevig and Koelsch

nays: MacKinnon, Muņoz, Perkins, Powell, Garrett, and Mayor Egan

motion fails: 2:6


6:25 p.m. – 6:35 p.m.

Mayor Egan noted that a number of Assemblymembers would have to leave the meeting by 8:00, which might postpone the COW that was scheduled to immediately follow this special meeting.

Amendment - by MacKinnon to delete, on page 18, line 14, "and provided services to the public with a single vehicle".

Mr. MacKinnon noted that it was not the size of the fleet but the quality of the service that counted. Mr. Corso pointed out that this exception applied to a natural person and would not apply to a corporation. Ms. Hagevig asked if Mr. Christenson’s problem would not be fixed by this language. Mr. Corso did not know who held that certificate, a natural person or a corporation. Ms. Hagevig said if a person had incorporated, this amendment would not help. Mr. MacKinnon said that Mr. Christenson did not have a problem with the natural person clause, just the number of vehicles. Ms. Hagevig clarified that if Mr. Christenson were incorporated, this would not fix his problem. Mr. Corso said the way to resolve this issue would be to remove the word "natural".

Amendment - by MacKinnon to remove the word "natural" from line 13 on page 18. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

Mr. MacKinnon said it had been the Assembly’s intent to promote the use of accessible vehicles, not require them.

Amendment - by MacKinnon, on page 10, line 22, at the end of the sentence, to add "accessible vehicles subject to the commercial motor vehicle statute and regulations of the State of Alaska, when used for transportation of physically challenged, shall be exempt from special endorsements and fees."

Mr. MacKinnon said his intent was when a company had an accessible vehicle, and when that vehicle was used for the transportation of physically challenged, not when they have an accessible vehicle that is used to transport anyone. Just because it is an accessible vehicle, they should not be charged extra for that vehicle. Ms. Miller said it was not a per vehicle charge, just a yearly charge. Mr. Corso said that it would be hard to provide an exemption for brief periods while a vehicle was being used for a particular purpose; it is just attached to the certificate. There is a small charge to the vehicle holder for each vehicle registered on that certificate. Discussion ensued but the audio recording was not audible.

Mr. MacKinnon withdrew his amendment.

Mr. Garrett presented Assemblymembers with proposed amendments to 99-04 am dated Monday, March 22, 1999.

MOTION – by Garrett, to add a new section to the courtesy vehicle definition, page 8, line 2 "(d) to passengers of a company who have purchased in advance of their trip to Alaska, a comprehensive tour which includes ground transportation so long as that transportation is provided in a company owned vehicle and the company operates vehicles regulated by the State of Alaska or the Interstate Commerce Commission."

Mr. Corso noted that to the best of his knowledge, the ICC no longer exists. Mr. Garrett said the language came from one of the regulated ICC carriers. Ms. Craver said the commercial motor vehicles are regulated by the State of Alaska, who have incorporated the federal regulation under the Alaska Statute. The DOT, Motor Operations are in charge of the federal funds that are dispersed to the state. The state must comply and incorporate federal regulations in order to receive federal highway funds. The State of Alaska regulates and cooperates with the federal system but the federal government does not itself regulate, it has been deregulated to the states.

Mr. Powell suggested that it should state "or federal highway administration" just in case some day there is a different relationship between the federal agency and the State of Alaska. Ms. Craver said that may cause a bit of an anomaly because they have used the same phrase else where in the ordinance for the exact same type of vehicle without using that phrase. A bus subject to commercial motor vehicle statutes and regulations in the state of Alaska is the same type of vehicle. Mr. Powell suggested "or the federal government".

Amendment - by Garrett, to remove "or the Interstate Commerce Commission" from his amendment. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

Mr. Garrett offered the following new service, specifically defined as an airport ferry shuttle endorsement in response to the issues brought forward in public testimony by Island Waterways. This would specifically authorize a class of service for people who provide transportation between commercial lodging facilities, private homes, public harbors, docks and the Juneau International Airport or any Alaska Marine Highway System terminal.

Amendment – by Garrett to insert new section (c), page 16, line 21:

(c) Airport/Ferry Shuttle Endorsement

    1. Purpose. The airport/ ferry shuttle service endorsement shall authorize services which are limited to providing transportation between a commercial lodging facility, private home, public harbor or dock and the Juneau International Airport or any Alaska Marine Highway ferry terminal.
    2. Conditions. The service shall be subject to conditions specifying levels of service adequate to serve arriving and departing flights and ferries.
    3. Infractions. It shall be an infraction for a driver operating pursuant to a shuttle endorsement to:
    1. Stop a vehicle to pick-up a passenger who has not made previous arrangements for the pick-up, except at the Juneau International Airport or any Alaska Marine Highway ferry terminal.
    2. Stop a vehicle to pick-up or discharge a passenger within a commercial passenger vehicle control zone at a place other than a commercial passenger vehicle stop.

Renumber old sections (c), (d) and (e) accordingly to new sections (d), (e) and (f).

Ms. Muņoz spoke in support of the amendment with the exception of private home. Mr. Perkins agreed and asked that that be removed from the amendment.

Ms. Hagevig said this was a kind of service that does occur in other communities, standard shuttle service. She did not have any objections as long as other sections of the amendment were adhered to.

Mr. Garrett said that because this was a fairly substantial policy change, the amendment to the amendment should be voted up or down.

Friendly amendment – by Muņoz that the words "private home" be removed from the amendment.

Mr. Garrett objected to the amendment of the amendment.


ayes: Koelsch, MacKinnon, Muņoz, Perkins and Mayor Egan

nays: Hagevig, Powell, and Garrett

motion carries: 5:3

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

Mr. Garrett agreed with Mr. Gioletti that the taximeter itself did not belong to the holder of the certificate but to the owner of the vehicle. The holder of the certificate does not own the vehicle. He said this would create a piece that was unenforceable. Mr. Corso stated that even if the certificate holder does not own the taximeter, he is in a position to tell the driver that the taximeter is inaccurate and the driver is responsible to fix it.

Mr. Garrett did not offer his amendment number three as listed on his proposed amendments.

Amendment – by MacKinnon, on page 7, insert at the end of line 2 "vehicles used by profit or non-profit transportation provider solely for elderly or disabled persons and their attendants."

Mr. Corso thought if the vehicle was used for that purpose, it would not be a commercial passenger vehicle. Mayor Egan said that Mr. Day’s vehicles have lifts in them, but they are used for other purposes. Mr. Day responded but the audio was not audible.

There being no objection, it was so ordered.

Mr. Corso recommended against adopting the ordinance as there were a lot of changes, including a whole new endorsement: the airport ferry shuttle. The ordinance would require a couple of sweeps.

Mr. Koelsch was bothered that the Police Chief was designated as a person who issues the regulations, enforces them and then judges them. Mr. Koelsch felt that was a lot of power to put in one person when there are thousands of dollars at stake and a lot of livelihoods.

Amendment – by Koelsch, page 9, line 13, change "The chief of police shall adopt regulations in compliance" to "The Manager shall designate a non-police department, CBJ employee to adopt regulations".

Mr. Corso suggested just having the Manager or his designee. Mr. Koelsch felt that would be fine, as long as it was not one person. Mr. Koelsch accepted that change to his amendment.

Mayor Egan said it would be left to the attorney to make appropriate changes before the ordinance comes back for final adoption.

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

Mr. MacKinnon felt certain that because a number of Assemblymembers had to leave the meeting by 8:00, there would not be a quorum for the COW. There would be a COW next Monday with one item and he was inclined to reschedule the COW and the items on it for next Monday, immediately following a quick special meeting in which these regulations would be adopted. The first item on the COW agenda would be Point Stephens and then the DBE. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

MOTION – by Garrett, that a special meeting be scheduled for 5:00 p.m. next Monday evening for the purposes of taking final action on ordinance 99-04 am.

Discussions ensued about Assemblymember’s and staff member’s schedules. There being no objection to the motion, it was so ordered.

Ms. Hagevig asked Mr. Corso to clarify how this regulation would be handled. Mr. Corso said it would probably be necessary to extend the time for the regulation. The public comment period was scheduled to end on April 2nd. Given the changes from this meeting, he felt it was only fair that the industry get a chance to see what the regulations are going to look like. That would push this further into April.

    1. Parks and Recreation Food Vending Regulations
    2. Administrative Report: Attached. The regulations were provided to the Assemlby as an information item; if the Assembly did not object, the department would issue the regulations, which would become effective in 30 days.

      Public Testimony: None

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION – by Perkins, for the purpose of discussion.

      Mr. Perkins asked staff if there was consideration given for for-profit operations being more than non-profits. Ms. Kiefer said looking at the permit fee itself for carnival use, it is $50 and $25 for non-profit’s. The daily fee is the same.

      Mr. Garrett was concerned about the requirement that people have DEC food permits. He wondered who would be prevented from having a booth on the 4th of July because of that. Ms. Kiefer said they spoke with DEC and explained the policy so that anyone could go down and sell food. There is a policy in place for that kind of food, it would not require a full kitchen. Staff did not think this would not allow people those particular functions, they only wanted to make sure there was some level of safety and sanity. Mr. Garrett was concerned that it was written broadly and that "to be issued all the required permits from the AK Dept. of Environmental Conservation" did not seem to offer any latitude for interpretation. He would hate to create a circumstance whereby some little league team finds out in late June that they cannot have their one fund raiser of the year on the 4th of July because DEC has changed their regulations for food handling.

      Mr. Powell said he had experience getting these permits. This did not deal with any new permits but appeared to be a clean up of the regulation. The permit can be obtained hours before the event if you can demonstrate a few basic things. He felt it was reasonable.

      Mayor Egan agreed with Mr. Perkins. DEC is considering changing a number of regulations so right now this sounds okay, but who knows about next week. He felt the ordinance was not too broad, in fact it was pretty specific.

      Mr. Powell said the municipality has no authority to say yes or no about permits because the state has the authority; it would be redundant as the city has no authority. Mayor Egan was afraid it would be another unfunded mandate that would be heaped on the local municipality and the CBJ would have to gear up for it. He thought the permits were good, but he was concerned that the citizens would end up paying for it. Mr. Powell said that having this in would not do any more or less than what was going to happen anyway. He would not have a problem either way; in or out.

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

    3. Bridges Appeal of Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Development of a Two-Story Retail Commercial Building on South Franklin Street (USE 98-00015).

Assembly Action

MOTION – by Garrett, to recess into Executive Session to discuss the resolution and final opinion on the Bridge’s appeal.


7:20 p.m. – 7:45 p.m.

Mayor Egan turned the gavel over to Mr. MacKinnon.

Mr. Koelsch, the presiding officer on the appeal asked for a motion.

MOTION – by Garrett to grant the appeal.

Objection was noted.


ayes: Muņoz and Powell

nays: Hagevig, MacKinnon, Perkins, Garrett, and Koelsch

motion fails: 2:5

Mr. Corso was directed to prepare the findings. Mr. Koelsch asked that the finding express the Assembly’s concern with condition 7.

  1. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to come before the Assembly, and no objection, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.



Signed: ________________________________

Mayor Egan


Countersigned: ________________________________

Marian J. Miller, Clerk