THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA

JANUARY 3, 2000

MEETING NO. 2000-01: The Regular meeting of the City and Borough of Juneau Assembly, held in the Assembly Chambers of the Municipal Building, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Dennis Egan.

  1. FLAG SALUTE was led by Mayor Egan.
  2. ROLL CALL
  3. Assembly Present: Garrett, Etheridge, MacKinnon, Perkins, Powell, Egan, Pillifant, Muñoz, Koelsch

    Assembly Absent: None

    A quorum was present.

    Staff Present: Dave Palmer, City Manager; John Leque, Assistant City Attorney; Joe Graham, Port Director; Craig Duncan, Finance Director; Cheryl Easterwood, CDD Director; Gary Gillette, CDD Planner

  4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
  5. 1. 12/20/99 - Regular Meeting No. 99-37

    MOTION - by Koelsch, to approve the minutes of Regular Meeting No. 99-37, held December 20, 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
  7. Mr. Palmer noted that on the Consent Agenda, under Bid Awards, Item D-2, the recommendation was listed as being from the Purchasing Division but it was also from the Manager.

  8. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
  9. Joe Sonneman, 324 Willoughby, presented two ideas for consideration. One, that the port be closed to large vessels one day a week, and second, that the Assembly act on this as soon as possible to minimize the impacts to the industry, or at least announce it as soon as possible. He said he was a tour bus driver years ago and in 1995 he ran a small one mini van tourist operation. Back then, the industry itself chose to operate only six days a week and he thought it would be a good thing to do again. If Industry did it itself, it would improve passenger safety by giving everyone and the equipment a day off. It would reduce air pollution, it would give residents one day a week with less traffic congestion and less noise and as Mr. Garrett previously said, it was within the Assembly’s power to do this. He suggested a size limit so that fishing was not closed. He added that he was an attorney, but he was not representing anyone with any interest at stake.

    Joe Geldhof, addressed the scope of spending of the cruise ship passenger money. He said a number of comments had been made publicly, some of which have been in print, about the legal constraints that the CBJ is bound by when spending the money. From the comments he has heard and from what he has seen in the press, there is a prevailing notion that somehow the Assembly is severely constrained. He asked the Assembly to keep an open mind and said they have a great deal of discretion. He encouraged the staff to be creative while still meeting the letter and the spirit of the law which requires it to mitigate passenger impact.

    Kirby Day, 1302 Turn Court, addressed the comments made by Mr. Sonneman. In 1995, the industry did not simply choose to operate six days a week. The way they were operating and the way they operate today was based on berthing availability, not only throughout Southeast but also in Vancouver. It was also based dramatically on the size of the vessels. Anything they do to effect the ability to berth ships in Juneau will affect the neighbors in Ketchikan and Sitka and Skagway. Additionally, the industry has worked for 10-12 years with scheduling to avoid heavy days in Juneau and they have worked very hard to minimize the amount of days when there are four or five ships in port. Princess just moved one of its ships off of a day here in Juneau to avoid a five-ship day. This is nothing new to the industry and they are currently working on the 2001 and 2002 schedules and looking at the conflicts in each of the ports of call; there is a science to it.

  10. CONSENT AGENDA

Ms. Muñoz asked that item C-1 be removed and Mr. Garrett asked that item D-1 be removed.

MOTION - by Garrett to adopt the Consent Agenda deleting items C-1 and D-1, and incorporating the changes to item D-2 as identified by the Manager, and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

A. Ordinances for Introduction

1. Ordinance No. 2000-01

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE TO IMPOSE A MARINE PASSENGER FEE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION THEREOF.

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

B. Resolutions

1. Resolution No. 2013

A RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING THE REGULAR ASSEMBLY MEETING OF JANUARY 10 TO JANUARY 24, 2000.

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

    1. Liquor License Renewals:
    2. Bid Award:
  1. Bid #00-222-One (1) 8,800 LB GVWR, 4X4 Regular Cab Full Size Pickup Truck and One (1) 12,000 GVWR, 4X4 Conventional Cab, Dual Rear Wheels Truck for the City and Borough of Juneau Wastewater Division.

Administrative Report: Staff recommended award to Lewis Chevrolet BOP, Inc., on the basis of having the lowest responsive bid price. Total award would be for $66,366.00. This is a term contract and immediate purchase with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods.

C-1. Renewal:

Beverage Dispensary Tourism:

Breakwater Inn Restaurant & Lounge

Frontier Suites Hotel

Goldbelt Juneau Hotel

Restaurant/Eating Place

The Broiler

Pizza Verona

C-2. Transfers:

Restaurant/Eating Place

Bullwinkle’s Pizza (Stock Transfer)

Bullwinkle’s Pizza II (Stock Transfer)

Administrative Report: Mr. Palmer deferred to the Chair of the Human Resource Committee. Ms. Muñoz said the committee met and recommended the renewal and transfer of these liquor licenses.

Public Participation: None

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Muñoz to approve the renewal and transfers of these liquor licenses. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

D-1. Contract No. E00-215 Steamship Wharf Operations and Maintenance Improvements.

Administrative Report: Attached. Staff recommended award of this project to North Pacific Steel Erectors, Inc. in the amount bid for the Base Bid and all three Additive Alternates, for a total award of $692,100.00.

Public Participation: None

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Garrett for the approval of Contract E00-215.

Mr. Graham come forward and Mr. Garrett noted there had been discussion at the Harbor Board meeting with regard to the contractor and his work on the Douglas contract. He asked if everything with regard to that had been resolved, or would be resolved, to the Harbor Director’s satisfaction. Mr. Graham said it had not been resolved. The Harbor Board felt that the contractor was not culpable, although he was responsible for the issues. Mr. Graham said they were confident that those issues would be resolved in due time; the contractor had fulfilled every request that the Harbor Board had made of him so far. Mr. Garrett clarified that while this involved a significant amount of work, it did not involve any decking over.

Mr. Powell asked Mr. Graham to describe area two and area three. Mr. Graham said that area two was the area along side the existing north deck. It was a space that would be filled in approximately 15’ by 200’ to allow for increased adaptability in the deployment of the gang way, as well as pedestrian transit around those gang ways, during periods of low tide when the gangway is extended into the wharf bay itself. The other area was closer to the stairwell that they use from the wharf deck down to the concrete plaza where the Memorial is. That stairwell would be widened as well as additional deck area placed adjacent to that stairwell.

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

  1. ORDINANCES FOR PUBLIC HEARING

1. Ordinance No. 99-26

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE TO DISALLOW CALCULATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT USING AN ARTIFICIAL REFERENCE DATUM.

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

Public Participation: None

Assembly Action:

MOTION - by Garrett, of Ordinance 99-26.

Mr. Garrett asked at what point in the planning process does someone have to prove the height of the building. Mr. Gillette from the CDD came forward and said that when they look at a proposal for a conditional or allowable use, it is usually looked at at that point, before taking it to the Planning Commission. A project that does not require an allowable or conditional use is reviewed at the time of the zoning review for the building code. Mr. Garrett asked if it was conceivable that someone could meet the purpose of the law by having plans that show appropriate fill around the building to give the height and then just not putting the fill in. Mr. Gillette said that if the person did not follow through with the plans, they either had to come back to the Planning Department or the Planning Commission, or fulfill the description that they provided at the time of the permit.

Mr. MacKinnon referred to page one, line 16 and said that at times, when building on a hillside, it is desirable to step it up and step it back from the street; Historic District standards used to favor step construction. He said he would hate to see someone doing something that is more desirable, like stepping back from the street, be penalized because their height restriction is measured from street front to way up and back. Mr. Gillette responded and said in reference to the Historic District, there was a specific height area defined. This language is more in reference to someone building on a slope outside the Historic District. He referred to line 25 and said the language had been used for many years, it had just been moved to a different section, line 16. The only new language is the last paragraph, item two on line six of page two.

Assembly Action

MOTION - by MacKinnon to adopt Ordinance 99-26 and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    1. Ordinance No. 99-37
    2. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING A MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ASSAULT, AND PROVIDING FOR THE REVOCATION OF A DRIVER’S LICENSE UPON CONVICTION FOR RECKLESS DRIVING.

      Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that action on this ordinance be postponed indefinitely.

      Public Participation: None

      Mr. Garrett asked that if this was the same as the State law, why could the city not do it. He asked for clarification as to why, if a person was arrested by someone in JPD for domestic violence a second time, why that person should not go to jail for 30 days automatically, if convicted. Was it a circumstance of whether the State Troopers made the arrest versus the JPD. Mr. Palmer said it depended on what statute or city code the officer writes on the citation. If they write the citation under State law, then the State law applies, they are prosecuted by the State and the State pays the bill for the incarceration. If they are cited under a city offense, then the city pays for the prosecution and the subsequent incarceration. He added that in this case the city law and State ordinance are not the same and so the effort was to bring them together. As staff priced it out, it would appear to add about $30,000 to the CBJ’s bill for jail time. Mr. Garrett was concerned that it was the Manager’s opinion that a second offense of domestic violence was not worth $30,000. Mr. Palmer responded that it was not worth citing it under city code when there is the option to cite under State law, in which case that mandatory sentence would be in effect.

      Mr. Perkins asked how many offenses were in the equation. Mr. Corso said there were about 1,000 domestic violence offenses a year. The numbers were based on cases, convictions and sentences from the prior calendar year. Mr. Perkins suggested having this part of the deliberations in the Finance Committee during the budget process.

      Mayor Egan thought it would be appropriate to refer this ordinance back to Finance and to get a report on what other communities were doing, particularly Fairbanks.

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION - by Perkins, that this be referred to the Finance Committee and that Mr. Palmer and Mr. Corso provide the Assembly with detailed information so that this can get into the Police Station budget. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    3. Ordinance No. 99-38
    4. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CONTACT AND ESTABLISHING A PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF.

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

      Public Participation: None

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION - by Muñoz, to adopt Ordinance 99-38, and she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    5. Ordinance 99-39
    6. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE OFFENSE OF FAILURE TO MAINTAIN CUSTODY.

      Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted. Mr. Corso pointed out that this ordinance, like the other one, had no fiscal note. Although they establish new misdemeanors, they are primarily enforcement devices for other misdemeanors and he did not expect them to generate any serious number of cases.

      Public Participation: None

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION - by Muñoz, to adopt Ordinance 99-39, and she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    7. Ordinance No. 99-40
    8. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REGULATIONS CODE TO CHANGE THE TIME FOR PUBLIC NOTICE AND EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATIONS.

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

      Public Participation: None

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION - by Powell to adopt Ordinance 99-40 for the purpose of discussion.

      Mr. Powell was concerned about reducing the amount of public involvement in the process. Cutting the requirement from 30 to 10 days may make the process a little less burdensome, and knowing that there is a couple opportunities with the Assembly may help ease peoples concerns. Mr. Palmer said that usually changes in regulations occur because some one shows up at a meeting and asks for it. This was an administrative regulation that he wanted to promulgate. Currently, staff publishes an ad, once the regulation is written it is published and folks have 10 days to submit comments. Then, the comments are compiled and the regulation is scheduled for an Assembly meeting. The regulation is published with the agenda for the meeting and the Assembly hears it two weeks after it is first published. People have 10 days after the ads are run to get notices back to City Hall which allows time to collate those notices and put them together and on the agenda for the next Assembly meeting. Mr. Powell clarified that the notice period ends after 10 days and that no further comment is accepted until the meeting. Mr. Palmer said from the time it is published until the time it gets to the Assembly, it would be longer than 10 day.

      Mr. Corso added that when these regulations show up they are usually in a Manager’s Action or Info item. Although the public could comment at that point, it does not happen very often. He could not recall a complaint in the past, from stragglers, about the 30-day period and he noted that most of the comments are received right away.

      Mr. MacKinnon noted that there is only seven days for the public to comment on ordinance and it would be 10 days for regulations. He asked why once the regulations become effective, or are filed by the Clerk, they have 20 days before they become effective. Mr. Corso said that some regulations involve sanctions and people could lose a license or permit. Even if a person is not interested enough to comment, they still might be affected by it so it is worthwhile to have a little more time for the word to get out. Mr. MacKinnon clarified that the time before the regulation become effective has been shortened from 30 to 20. Mr. Corso said the same period for an ordinance is 30 days, resolutions are effective immediately. The whole effort was to shorten the time and if it is too short for the Assembly’s comfort, it can be lengthened. The only legal requirement was due process. Mr. Corso added that Mr. MacKinnon was correct that it is normally seven days notice for an ordinance; that is the legal minimum. As a practical matter, it is usually two weeks. Mr. MacKinnon said he would like to flip-flop the dates and give more time for the public notice and let them go into effect a little quicker. He would propose and amendment to change the notice the 10 days of notice to 20 and the 20 days to become effective down to 10.

      Ms. Pillifant asked if notices were sent out to the permit holders who would be affected with a change in a regulation and were people in remote sites, who did not obtain their mail on a regular basis, given enough time to respond if they wanted to. Mr. Corso said the regulations provided that not only is notice published in the newspaper, it is also sent out individually to people who requested their names be included in the mailing list that is usually in the affected group. Ms. Pillifant thought that Mr. MacKinnon’s amendment would deal with her concern for people in remote areas.

      AMENDMENT - by MacKinnon, to change 10 days to 21 days on page 1, line 12.

      Mr. Koelsch spoke in support of the amendment.

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

      AMENDMENT – by MacKinnon, to amend page 2, line 8 to change 20th day to 7th day. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

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

    9. Ordinance No. 99-41
    10. AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA, PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY AND BOROUGH IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $750,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING CERTAIN SCHOOL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO AN ELECTION AUTHORIZING THE SAME; PROVIDING THE DATE, FORM, TERMS AND MATURITIES OF THE BONDS TO BE ISSUED AND FOR UNLIMITED TAX LEVIES TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL THEREOF AND INTEREST THEREON; APPOINTING A REGISTRAR AND PAYING AGENT FOR SUCH BONDS; AUTHORIZING A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AND APPROVING THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS.

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

      Public Participation: None

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION - by Koelsch, to adopt Ordinance 99-41, and he asked unanimous consent.

      There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    11. Ordinance No. 99-42
    12. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 96-09 TO REPEAL THE AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE PROVIDED TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.

      Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted. Mr. Corso noted that at his evaluation, the discussion had been that the automobile allowance, amounting to roughly $4,800, would be repealed and at the same time, his salary would be increased by slightly less than that amount. The purpose was to allow him to enjoy retirement benefits with that money. The reason for the slight reduction was that converting it to straight salary would require an employer’s contribution to the retirement fund. In order to make the deal a wash for the taxpayers, the total amount had been reduced by that employer’s contribution so the city pays exactly the same, but the employees, himself and the Manager, enjoy an increase in their retirement benefits.

      Public Participation: None

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION – by Powell, to adopt Ordinance 99-42, and he asked unanimous consent.

      Mr. MacKinnon asked Mr. Duncan about the Medicare contribution. Mr. Duncan said that the employee already pays all the federal taxes in regard to the vehicle allowance. The only thing that is not applied to the vehicle allowance is the retirement benefit and so that was the reason it was the only item. Mr. MacKinnon clarified this was being converted over to salary. Mr. Duncan said it was earned income; when it is paid as an allowance, it is considered as income to the employee so they pay all the taxes.

      Mr. MacKinnon spoke against the ordinance because although it would be no more money out of the treasury, it would be perceived as a raise, not just for the City Attorney, but also for the City Manager. That may cause problems down the road when budget negotiations begin with the various bargaining units.

      Mr. Perkins spoke in support of the ordinance and said it would not cost the taxpayers any more money. It would benefit the attorney and the manager if they get to the ripe old age of retiring which he felt was okay after the years of service they have put in for this community.

      Mr. Powell spoke in support of the ordinance and added that many times government employees are compared to the private sector for the services that they provide. In this case, they are senior in their career and in looking at the private sector this is commensurate, if not less than what they would make in the private sector.

      Mr. Koelsch also spoke in support and said he felt it was important to point out that this was not a raise. It is using some ingenuity to not have a raise by moving things around.

      Mr. Egan said the automobile allowances for the manager and attorney was negotiated by the Assembly as part of their contract, although there is not a contract with the attorney or manager.

      ROLL CALL:

      Ayes: Etheridge, Garrett, Koelsch, Muñoz, Perkins, Pillifant, Powell and Egan

      Nays: MacKinnon

      Motion carries 8:1

    13. Ordinance No. 99-17 (L)

AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $25,000 FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO QUANTIFY THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF CRUISE SHIP PASSENGERS ON THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU’S OPERATIONS. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE CRUISE SHIP PASSENGER FEES.

Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted. Mr. Palmer noted that the Planning and Policy Committee met this afternoon and recommended adoption of this ordinance.

Public Participation:

Bud Simpson, an attorney representing the Northwest Cruise Ship Association. He noted that his client was observing this process with some interest and he added that any comments that he makes do not imply that the Association necessarily supports the passenger fee or its legality. They hope that making a few comments will improve the process overall. The proposed ordinance is designed to obtain services to quantify the financial impacts of cruise ship passenger on the community. It seemed to him that the impacts that should be looked at needed to be the type of costs that an accountant can readily trace, not social impacts and that sort of thing; they need to be direct costs. They also need to include the concept of net impacts on the positive and negative benefits.

Ms. Muñoz asked for clarification on his final statement. Mr. Simpson said that when looking at the Steamship Wharf, there are certainly costs, but there is also major revenues generated from that type of facility so it would not make any sense not to include those.

Mr. Powell asked if his client supported the full life cycle kind of costs, like wear and tear on roads, maintenance of vehicles and other things. Mr. Simpson was not prepared to speak about what specific things might hypothetically fit within the initiative boundaries. His point was only that the accountants should be told to look at the benefits and costs. Mr. Powell agreed that the positive and negative would be good information and he hoped that it would capture the full accounting of the costs for the impacts.

Ms. Pillifant said that from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, a lot of people learned a lot about value of resources and the impacts. She agreed with Mr. Powell and said she would like to see the accounting firm that is hired have experience in resource accounting as well; it is a broader framework. Mr. Palmer said the scope of the work staff was imaging with Elgee Rehfeld was much more limited than establishing the social impacts or wear and tear on roads or the benefits to the economy. They were only being asked to look at how much money each of the city departments spend on tourist related issues so they are able to give the Finance Committee a picture of what those costs are. Mr. Palmer wanted to use the City’s accountants, Elgee Rehfeld, because they are familiar with the accounting system and the departments. He agreed that some of the other studies would be useful, but it would be a different study and it would be a more encompassing study of what the social costs and indirect costs would be.

Mr. Perkins said for $25,000 he did not think they could get the kind of study that Ms. Pillifant referred to, so there may be a need for a future study. He said he wanted to know, before the next cruise ship docks, where, what portion, and how much of the current budget is spent for tourism related issues that can be charged off to this fee. Once that is figured out, the remaining balance can be made available for use for improving infrastructure or new things. He suggested that the McDowell study that was done a few years ago could be attached for discussion purposes.

Mr. Koelsch said he thought the purpose of this was to be able to defend using part of this passenger fee for funding city government and that it was to consider both positives and negatives so that they could say they did a thorough job and therefore they could say there are more negatives or more costs than there is income coming in. He said tonight all he was hearing was cost and spending and both of those were negative. He was concerned that enterprises were not being considered and if Harbors, the Airport and the Hospital, some of the major users of cruise ship funds, are not considered, then the focus would be very narrow and would not be a true picture. He would rather spend more and have a true picture for consideration.

Mayor Egan pointed out that the city currently pays $100,000 per year to the auditors who are the current accountants. He thought this was $25,000 additional to what they were doing already.

Mr. Koelsch asked again if the report would consider Harbors, the Airport and the Hospital. Mayor Egan assumed they would and said they should also be looking at JCVB and all those functions. Mr. Palmer said that Mr. Duncan had a meeting scheduled with the auditors later this week to try to flush out how they see the scope of their work. Mayor Egan did not want to appropriate any money before they knew what they were doing.

Mr. Powell felt they needed the scope of work before he would be comfortable supporting the ordinance. He agreed with Mr. Koelsch and said it should be the enterprise boards and whatever is out there under the purview of city government. He also thought it would be good to look at the positives and negatives.

Ms. Pillifant agreed that the scope of services would help and she would be interested in looking at the positive and the negative costs.

Jim Wilson, spoke in support of Mr. Simpson’s testimony. He though there should be a scope of work on the project. Tourism generates large sums of taxes, either directly or indirectly. He gave the example that in his small business, 25% of their total revenue comes from tourism, therefore probably 25% of the taxes they pay in this community were generated through tourism dollars. Also, 25% of their employee’s earnings come from tourist dollars. He asked why couldn’t some of those tourism dollars that are being brought in be used for services that are impacted by tourism. As an elected body, the Assembly could not make an informed decision without looking at both sides of the issues.

Assembly Action:

MOTION - by MacKinnon, to postpone ordinance 99-17 (L) until such time as the Manager presents a scope of work that this would be used to fund.

Mr. Palmer said there was a new source of money, roughly $3,000,000 per year, and this report was intended to find out how much of that should be used in each department to fund tourism related expenses. The report was not to look at the overall economic ins and outs, pluses and minuses of tourism. He was concerned that if this were postponed, they would not have the data for use when the Assembly starts putting the budget together, assuming some of this revenue is going to be used to off-set government costs. If the Assembly did not intend to use any of this money to offset general funds costs, then it would not be necessary to spend a dime to find out what the impact is. He did feel it would be appropriate to include in the scope the work, the enterprise funds.

Ms. Muñoz suggested looking at people who come in during the summer as part of the general population during a certain segment of the year. The visiting population is here for a certain percentage of the year and it seemed to her that 10,000 extra people a day should be prorated to the costs of general services excluding possibly school district costs. All departments in some way or another are affected by the tourism.

Mr. MacKinnon understood what the Manager was doing but he still wanted to see a scope of work.

Mr. Powell suggested this could be done over e-mail so that by the next meeting there could be a general idea of what was being considered. Mr. Corso said the exchange of documents back and forth by e-mail, instead of physical mail, raises no legal issue, however, messages back and forth that tend to build a consensus is regarded by the Courts as a meeting and is unlawful under the Alaska Meetings Act. Mayor Egan said at least they could see the document and not comment on it other than directly to the Manager. Mr. Corso stated a consensus should only be reached in a public meeting.

Mr. Perkins felt that Mr. Palmer had already verbally outlined the scope of work. He referred to Ms. Muñoz’s comment as a way to shorten the process up and suggested that Mr. Palmer write down his thoughts so the Assembly could decide amongst themselves whether or not they intend to use the new revenue source to offset the costs; Mr. Perkins felt they should.

Ms. Pillifant said she did not feel confident yet that they would really be accounting for the things that would be impacted. She did not want to stall this out and she wanted to move forward, but she wanted some confidence that even if they passed something like this, that the opportunity and the open mindedness to further consider other accountings was there.

Mr. Garrett said that what they were trying to cobble together through this process needed to pass legal tests. With that in mind, they need the most thorough data possible. He agreed with Mr. Koelsch that if it did not include the whole scope of the operation of the city, then it would not either meet the legal test nor provide the Assembly with the greatest number of opportunities on how to spend the money legally.

Mr. MacKinnon suggested adding this to the agenda for the COW scheduled for Wednesday night. Mr. Palmer would have two days to come up with a scope of work that he could provide to everyone by e-mail for review prior to the meeting. Mr. Palmer and Mr. Corso indicated that they would not need to notice this change in the agenda.

There being no objection, this was moved to the agenda of the COW on Wednesday the January 5th.

R E C E S S

Ms. Pillifant left the meeting.

9. Ordinance 99-17 (M)

AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TO THE MANAGER THE SUM OF $2,000,000 TO CONSTRUCT A ONE MILLION GALLON RESERVOIR AND PUMP STATION IN THE LENA POINT AREA. SUCH FUNDS PROVIDED BY A LOAN FROM THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.

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

Public Participation: None

Assembly Action:

MOTION - by MacKinnon, to adopt ordinance 99-17 (M), and he asked unanimous consent.

Ms. Muñoz referred to the report where it indicated there would be an increase in the cost. She asked if that was an areawide increase or would it just affect the users. Mr. Palmer said the water rates were proposed for areawide to pay for this and other improvements as well. He said the city had gone several years without raising water rates while it continued to borrow money and add to the system. Ms. Muñoz referred to the additional $200,000 and asked if after the two years and after the debt service was paid off, would one quarter of that go for this facility? Mr. Palmer said they were looking at a debt service of about $150,000. Ms. Muñoz said that in the report it stated that after the debt was paid off, the operational costs would be $200,000 per year and she asked if that was just for that facility.

Mr. Garrett clarified that this would be phase II of the water system expansion. There are three phases and phase II is the reservoir and some water service to create enough pressure to provide water in the future out to Kohen Drive, which is Phase III of the project. Andreanof Drive would get water in Phase II, but Kohen would have to wait a few years.

There being no objection to the ordinance, it was so moved.

    1. Ordinance No. 99-17 (N)

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO TRANSFER THE SUM OF $23,618 FROM THE RIVERBANK REPAIR CAPITAL PROJECT TO THE GENERAL FUND.

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

Public Participation: None

Assembly Action:

MOTION - by Powell, to adopt Ordinance No. 99-17 (N) for the purpose of discussion.

Mr. Powell asked what would not get done if the money were taken out of the allocation. Mr. Palmer said the project was complete.

There being no objection, it was so ordered.

  1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
  2. NEW BUSINESS - None
  3. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
  4. A. Manager’s Report - Action Items

    1. Approval of Maintenance Agreement with Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF).

    Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended adoption of this agreement.

    Public Testimony: None

    Ms. Muñoz felt that Parks and Rec. were always being hit and it seemed more appropriate to her that the Docks and Harbors should be responsible for maintenance. Mr. Palmer said this had been a Parks project since the beginning and it has been developed as a park, even though it was on the water; Parks anticipated taking over the maintenance. Ms. Muñoz did not want to slow down the proposal but she wanted the Harbor Board to be considered as an alternative to Parks and Rec.

    Ms. Perkins agreed that was a good point and that Docks and Harbors was an enterprise fund versus Parks and Rec. He asked Mr. Palmer if this was something that could be done in the future. Mr. Palmer said all he needed was authorization to be able to tell DOT that the city would take it over. They could decide amongst themselves which department would get it. The park is not intended to operate as an enterprise.

    Mr. Koelsch agreed that the best intentions would be to put it where the money is but he suggested that Harbors and Parks and Rec. discuss the ramifications.

    Mr. Garrett asked for an estimate of what it would cost for maintenance. Mr. Palmer did not have that information and would provide it later. Ms. Kiefer had indicated that Parks and Rec. had projected this and it was in their budget. Mr. Garrett asked about the tide land and if the city would be transferring the title to the State or would they have to acquire tidelands and use up some of the State selection allotment. Mr. Palmer would look into that.

    Assembly Action:

    MOTION – by Garrett to postpone action on this item until the meeting of the 24th.

    Mr. Powell referred to the third Whereas in the agreement and said it should include the word State before transportation. Mr. Corso would make that change.

    Mayor Egan was concerned that this had nothing to do with a Docks and Harbor facility. He felt it was wrong for the Assembly to approve something that was proposed by an advisory committee, the PRAC, to Parks and Rec. and supported by that department.

    There being no objection to postponing this until the 24th, it was so ordered.

    B. Manager’s Report - Information Items

    Letter delivered to SECON to exercise the option to purchase the property at Lena Point.

    Administrative Report: Mr. Palmer said the letter had been delivered and SECON now has sixty days to come into the city with the title report showing they have clear title. It will take another 30 days to close after that. Mr. Palmer said they had been working with NOAA with regards to the transfer of the Auke Cape property and they had worked out an agreement with them. The only provision that was hanging was that he had asked for a reversion clause to say that if the facility is not built, the city gets the property back. NOAA is not able to get an agreement like that through the Dept. of Justice lawyers. They talked about the city buying the property and issuing a license so that the city would maintain title of the property and then give NOAA a license to operate while they did the design. NOAA also has an agreement with SECON so that SECON’s excavation will benefit the construction plans. The agreement involves SECON continuing to excavate in a manner that is consistent with the development. If the city owns the property, then the city gets in between NOAA and SECON. Mr. Palmer’s preference would be to buy the property and transfer it to NOAA in good faith that the facility will be built. NOAA currently has a $3M design contract and there are clear signals from Ted Stevens that he supports the project and the budget for NOAA assures that the money is in the pipeline.

    C. Attorney’s Report

    Mr. Corso said that the Assembly, by adopting Ordinance 99-42, has eliminated the $4,800 car allowance for the Manager and the Attorney. To close the deal discussed on December 6th, he had asked that the body adopt a motion to increase their salaries by $4,527.45.

    Assembly Action

    MOTION – by Perkins that the annual salary of the Manager and Attorney be increased by $4,527.45 effective January 2, 2000, and he asked for unanimous consent.

    Mr. Perkins noted that that amount is the amount of the car allowance minus the resulting increase to the employers and there will be no increase to the taxpayers. Mr. MacKinnon objected.

    ROLL CALL

    Ayes: Etheridge, Garrett, Koelsch, Muñoz, Perkins, Powell, and Mayor Egan

    Nays: MacKinnon

    Motion carries 7:1

  5. 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. Final Draft of Assembly Goals
    1. Standing Committees:

    1. Committee of the Whole – Mr. MacKinnon stated there would be a meeting on Wednesday night, at 5:00 in the chambers, with three items on the agenda: passenger fees, port dues and Ordinance 99-17 (L).
    2. Finance Committee – Mr. Perkins had nothing to report.
    3. Human Resources Committee – Ms. Muñoz had the following appointments for confirmation:
    4. MOTION – by Muñoz, to confirm the appointments of Wally DeBoff (1 year term), Steven J. Foley (1 year term), Wayne Jensen (2 year term), Michael C. Story (3 year term), Tom Wagner (2 year term), Ken Williamson (3 year term) and Jeff Wilson (3 year term) to the Building Code Board of Appeals. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

      MOTION – by Muñoz, to confirm the appointment of Frederick Norbury to the Douglas Service Area Advisory Board. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

      MOTION – by Muñoz, to confirm the appointments of Joan Herbage O’Keefe and Jeff Wilson to the Parks and Recreation Committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

      MOTION – by Muñoz, to confirm the appointment of Raphael M. Betir to the Citizen’s Advisory Committee on Waste Management. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    5. Lands and Resources Committee – Mr. Powell had nothing to report.
    6. Public Works and Facilities Committee – Mr. Koelsch said they would meet on Wednesday in the chambers at noon.
    7. Planning and Policy Committee – Mr. Garrett reported that they met today at noon and had a report regarding mitigating impacts of Helicopter flight seeing noise. They will be meeting again next Monday to discuss a variety of issues involving the TAC.

    1. Board Liaison Reports

Ms. Muñoz announced that there would be a Trails Working Group meeting tomorrow at noon in the large conference room of the downtown library. They would be working on the details of a public meeting and also a survey that would go out to all households asking for input on commercial and non-commercial land use designations for trails.

Mayor Egan said the Alaska Committee would meet on Wednesday at 7:00 a.m. in the JEDC Conference room to finalize COMTECH.

  1. ASSEMBLY COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
  2. Mr. Etheridge said he had received several more questions on the Bonnie Brea sewer system and he asked the time line for updates and for getting it tied into the main sewer system. Mr. Palmer said the conceptual design was done and it had been distributed to the agencies. He would get a schedule for Mr. Etheridge.

    Mr. Koelsch thanked the fireworks group for the January 1st display. He asked for an update on the Riverbend Roof. Mr. Palmer said the results of the smoke test were inconclusive; the design architects were not sure why there is not sufficient ventilation in the roof. A roof expert will be coming up to look at the roof. They did smoke tests in the Riverbend Roof and then went over to DZ, which is a similar design, to do the test and the ventilation at DZ was great. They were not able to find anyplace where the airways are obstructed, and it seems it was constructed according to plan. Mr. Koelsch asked if there was a deadline for the solution. Mr. Palmer thought it would go into next summer just because no one knows what to do to fix it. At this point, they are not at odds with the architect and the architect has proposed some fixes. Mr. Koelsch went on to ask if they were close to signing anything on the Marine Highway building. Mr. Palmer said they were getting close and they had a conceptual agreement. Mr. Koelsch thought it would be good to get this nailed down before the legislators begin to arrive. Next, Mr. Koelsch asked what the outcome was of the Centennial Hall and UAS. Mr. Palmer said they would be coming to the Assembly to ask the Assembly to clarify their intent. Mr. Koelsch said that one thing he got out of the letter that came back, was that in watching the celebration around the world, CBJ did not put tons of money into this celebration. He thought a deal had been made and said he would like to see the minutes to see what that deal was. Mr. Palmer said the issue was who pays for Centennial Hall for the three days that it was used for the Millennium Ball. He said he staff listened to the tape and read the notes that Ms. Miller took. There was a mention that Centennial Hall was needed and Ms. Hagevig made a motion to participate at the participant level, which would be $50,000. The city paid $25,000 for the fireworks and $12,000 for a variety of other events that occurred at DZ and Zach Gordon and other places. What was presented to the city a year ago was that there would be a community celebration at Centennial Hall and the Assembly agreed. When it turned out to be a fundraiser for UAS, he questioned whether or not that was the community celebration that the Assembly had in mind when they authorized the use three years ago. The folks who organized it said they started out as a three day event but it was actually only used for the one day. They used the other two days for decorations so the Manager said it would be the Assembly’s call. Mr. Perkins asked what was his recollection of any deal that was made. Mr. Palmer said that it had been presented as a community wide celebration. It was not mentioned to the Assembly that it was an effort to raise money for UAS so that was why Mr. Palmer brought it back to the Assembly. The Assembly did authorize to spend up to $50,000 and only spent $37,000 so in the scheme of things it is not a big deal. Mr. Perkins shared the concern that it went from a community event to a fundraiser. Mr. Garrett said if it was presented as a fundraiser by Marshall Lind, he would almost guarantee that the Assembly would have allowed the use. He felt the city should go ahead and donate the hall. Mr. MacKinnon said there was a policy on what criteria that each hall user had to meet to qualify for a budget pigeonhole; this did not meet the requirement.

    Assembly Action

    MOTION – by Koelsch, to stay with the original agreement to donate the Hall for three days as part of the city’s $50,000 millennium celebration. Objection was noted.

    ROLL CALL:

    Ayes: Garrett and Koelsch

    Nays: Etheridge, MacKinnon, Muñoz, Perkins, Powell, and Mayor Egan

    Motion fails 2:6

    MOTION – by MacKinnon, to allow one days rental of Centennial Hall to UAS for the Millennium celebration.

    Mr. Powell thought the deal was made with the Juneau Empire and he asked who would actually pay if the city did not, UAS or the Juneau Empire. Mr. Palmer said that his understanding of the motion was to charge someone for one day and the two other days would have to be paid with city funds. He assumed the UAS would take it out of the $25,000 proceeds they received. The original request was presented mostly by the Juneau Empire, a year ago, as part of the celebration committee. They asked the city to be participants with them. He thought UAS had scheduled the hall even before the committee came forward to ask for its use.

    There being no objection, the motion carried.

    Ms. Muñoz said she was currently working with two families on the back look who were having a problem with barking dogs in their neighborhood. The current process was such that the person making the complaint must record an offense for 30 days and then the officer comes out and issues a $25 ticket. Once the ticket is paid, the whole process is reinitiated. She proposed that the fee be increased to an appropriate amount so there is incentive for the dog owner to deal with the situation. Mr. Corso would prepare a recommendation to the Assembly.

    Mr. Garrett referred to previous testimony by Mr. Bob Garrison about derelict vehicles. He said there was another resident of the Casey Shattuck subdivision that made the exact same complaint. There was so little parking there that cars cannot be allowed to just park on the streets there. Mayor Egan noted that he spoke with Mr. Garrison today and the car that he had complained about was still parked on his street. Mr. Palmer had spoken with the Police Chief two days after that meeting and was assured that the guy was gone; apparently he is back.

    Mr. Powell said the Lands Committee would be meeting the following Wednesday, the 12th. He asked everyone to bring the issues that they would like considered in 2000.

    Mr. MacKinnon noted he would be out of town starting this weekend, not to exceed two weeks.

    Mayor Egan added his thanks to the Millennium Committee and the fireworks guru’s who pulled off a tremendous show. He also thanked the Y2K task force and said the reason there were no problems was because of all the hard work that had been done during the year by that committee and because of their efforts on New Years Eve. Mayor Egan reminded everyone about the Legislative Reception starting at 5:30 on Tuesday the 11th.

  3. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None
  4. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to come before the Assembly, and no objection, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

 

Signed: ________________________________

Laurie Logsden, Secretary

Signed: ________________________________

Mayor Egan