TO: Mayor and Assembly DATE: October 16, 1995

FROM: David R. Palmer
City and Borough Manager

SUBJECT: Manager's Report - Regular Mtg. No. 95-39

Go to the end of this document


1. The Swearing In of New Members: Dennis Egan, Mayor; John MacKinnon, Assembly District 2; and Jim Powell, Assembly Areawide

2. City Manager's Six Month Evaluation

(note: the Assembly may enter into Executive Session for this item at 9:00pm)


A. Ordinances for Introduction:

1. Ordinance No. 95-37

This ordinance adopts the 1995 Update of the Comprehensive Plan of the City and Borough of Juneau, and amends the Land Use Code to reference the 1995 Update.

In May, the Planning Commission completed a review and update of the CBJ's Comprehensive Plan. The draft hereby introduced to the Assembly is the culmination of months of review through a process which included numerous Commission workshops, 10 neighborhood meetings and public hearings in 3 locations in the borough.

The text of the 1995 update includes 4 new sections, several new policies, and many new "implementing actions." The Plan also includes maps which show general land use classifications throughout the CBJ. The draft 1995 update proposes 16 changes to the existing land use classifications.

The new sections of the Plan include the sections on sustainability, energy, habitat protection and CIP. Appendices A and C are new, and the list of anadromous fish streams in Appendix B has been significantly expanded.

Map changes sponsored by the Planning Commission include removing transitional designations in the West Valley where public services are available, adjusting the Urban Service Boundary on the Mendenhall Peninsula, adding two new mixed use areas to the current downtown mixed use area (in the Mendenhall Mall vicinity and downtown Douglas), changing a portion of the bus barn site to "Institutional and Public Use." Other proposed changes were largely initiated by developers. All proposed changes were subject to public notice and a public hearing.

I recommend that this ordinance be introduced and referred to the Committee of the Whole.

2. Ordinance No. 95-38

This ordinance makes several changes designed to simplify procedures for appeals. It eliminates several redundant provisions in the list of subjects to be discussed at the pre-hearing conference, removes some confusing language regarding introduction of evidence not presented to the agency appealed from, deletes the requirement that the attorney advisor accompany the body for deliberations, and establishes a presumption that deliberations will be conducted in executive session. Currently, the Assembly votes on whether or not to retire for deliberations, but this vote is not required by the Open Meetings Act, which gives special status to quasi-judicial proceedings.

This ordinance will have no economic impact.

I recommend that this ordinance be introduced and set for public hearing at the next regular meeting.

3. Ordinance No. 95-11 (T)

At its regular meeting of September 28, 1995, the Docks and Harbors Board voted unanimously to locate the Dockside Restrooms (which were displaced by the Mt. Roberts Tram) to Harris Harbor. That site was selected because Douglas and Statter already have fixed restrooms within walking distance and relocation to Aurora would be too expensive at this time.

The estimated project cost to install restrooms at Harris Harbor is $100,000, which includes the following components: Bank stabilization - $25,000; sewer line/lift pump - $25,000; foundation/paving - $25,000; building transportation/rehabilitation - $5,000; recycling station - $10,000; contingency - $10,000. Funding for this project would be $50,000 each from the Docks and Harbors Retained Earnings.

This action will have economic impacts as described in the Economic Impact Note attached to the ordinance in your packet.

After this ordinance is adopted, the balance of the Docks Unreserved Retained Earnings will be $598,100, and the balance of the Harbors Unreserved Retained Earnings will be $131,000.

I recommend that this ordinance be introduced and set for public hearing at the next regular meeting.

4. Ordinance No. 95-11 (U)

The CBJ has received grants from the FAA and Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) for Blast Pads and Hardstand Rehabilitation and Chip Seal of the Main Ramp and a portion of the Taxiway. (Blast Pads are located beyond the end of the runway to prevent scouring by jet engine blast; Hardstands are concrete reinforced areas where jet aircraft park.)

The total project cost is $1,316,000. FAA is funding the project at $1,233,750 (or 93.75% of total project cost); DOTPF is funding the project at $41,125 (3.125% of total project cost); and the CBJ is providing a match of $41,125 (3.125% of project cost). The source of the CBJ match is FY95 Sales Tax ($17,500), appropriated for this project through the FY95 CIP Budget process, and an Alaska Department of Administration (DOA) Grant No. 8/94-014 ($23,625). A transfer request will be prepared for the meeting of November 6, 1995, that will transfer these DOA funds into the project.

This action will have economic impacts as described in the Economic Impact Note attached to the ordinance in your packet.

I recommend that this ordinance be introduced and set for public hearing at the next regular meeting.

B. Resolutions:

1. Resolution No. 1785

This resolution accepts a $122,880 grant from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for extension of the existing wastewater collection system along Mendenhall Loop Road from Lee Street to JoAnne Way, including Auke Street, Windfall Avenue, and Lakeshore Drive.

Total funding for this project is now:

Previous State Grants: $ 600,000

This Grant: $ 122,880

Additional Grants & CBJ Funds

to be Appropriated: $ 710,370

Total Project Costs: $1,433,250

This resolution will have economic impacts as described in the Economic Impact Note attached to the resolution in your packet.

I recommend that this resolution be adopted.

2. Resolution No. 1786

This resolution provides for the acceptance of a donation of land from Roger and Mary Hurlock to be used for the high school home building project. The Hurlocks are offering to donate Lot 3, Block A, Hurlock Subdivision, located in the Mendenhall Valley.

This conveyance will be subject to three conditions. First, the deed will prohibit the city from using the property for any purpose other than the high school house construction project. Second, the property will be reconveyed to the Hurlocks in the event the high school abandons the project. Third, the property will be subject to recorded subdivision covenants.

This is the third consecutive year the Hurlocks have donated property to support this high school program. Upon acceptance of the donation, high school students enrolled in the program will construct a house on the lot. After it is completed, the house will be sold. Proceeds from the sale are intended to be directed back into the high school house building program.

This resolution will have economic impacts as described in the Economic Impact Note attached to the resolution in your packet.

I recommend that this resolution be adopted.

3. Resolution No. 1787

This resolution provides for the conveyance of up to fifteen acres of land in the vicinity of Dzantik'i Heeni School to the Alaska Housing Development Corporation, Inc. for the purpose of constructing up to thirty-two units of low and moderate-income, multi-family housing. The Housing Corporation is the non-profit sponsor of the nearby Gruening Park complex and the recently completed Ravenwood complex.

The proposed site is the same site the Assembly previously approved for conveyance to Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority for development of low-income single-family houses and duplexes. Tlingit-Haida abandoned this site after topographic information revealed that development costs would be too high. Unlike the Tlingit-Haida plan to subdivide and develop individual lots, the Housing Corporation is proposing to construct multi-family units. As a result, development costs are anticipated to be significantly less than those faced by Tlingit-Haida. The Housing Corporation's proposed eight-plexes can be more readily incorporated into the existing topography to keep site development costs to a minimum.

The Assembly Lands Committee recommended approval of the disposal at its meeting on August 30, 1995. The School Board Facilities Committee discussed this issue at its meeting September 21, 1995, and indicated it does not object to the proposal as long as the Housing Corporation continues to work with the school district to ensure access and buffer issues are adequately addressed.

The Housing Corporation needs Assembly approval at this time in order to pursue its application for development funds.

Once the Housing Corporation has developed a site plan which identifies the specific land it needs for its project within the fifteen-acre study area, the Assembly will be asked to approve the specific land conveyance.

This resolution will have economic impacts as described in the Economic Impact Note attached to the resolution in your packet.

I recommend that this resolution be adopted.

4. Resolution No. 1788

This resolution requests the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs to distribute funds from the municipal assistance fund to the city and borough. Under AS 29.60.350(b), a municipality may not receive payment from the fund until it submits to the department a resolution of the governing body of the municipality requesting such payment. The CBJ budgeted $1,427,600 in FY96 for Municipal Assistance Revenue.

I recommend that this resolution be adopted.

C. Bid Waivers:

1. Bid No. 96-176: Case 821B Wheel Loader with 12' Dozer Blade

CBJ Streets Division, Public Works Department, is budgeted for the purchase of a front loader, wheeled, in FY96. CBJ Ordinance #53.50.090 (F) allows us to purchase equipment by "riding" an existing State of Alaska contract which was established through a competitive bid process. State of Alaska Contract # SEF-218 provides for the purchase of 3.5 cubic yard wheel loaders. It is in the best interest of CBJ to purchase our machine from the existing contract through Yukon Equipment in Anchorage. There are significant cost savings associated with riding this contract versus advertising and issuing our own. The price for our purchase would be $127,908.00 F.O.B. Juneau. This falls within our budgets price target.

This purchase was reviewed and approved through the Fleet Committee on October 4, 1995.

I recommend approval of this bid waiver.

2. Bid No. SEF-410: Three Police Vehicles for the CBJ Police Department

In August, 1995, the CBJ attempted to renew the contract with Lewis Motors of Juneau for the purchase of police cars. Because Chevrolet is discontinuing production of full size police cars, Lewis Motors was unable to provide vehicles.

The CBJ has opted to purchase vehicles from Nye Frontier Ford of Wasilla, off the existing State contract. CBJ Ordinance 53.50.090(f) allows the CBJ to ride an existing State contract.

The CBJ intends to purchase three 1996 Crown Victoria police cars at $19,720, for a total of $59,160.00. This will save the CBJ $1,822.00 per vehicle over last year's price from Lewis Motors. The CBJ has no assurance that any competitive bids for three police vehicles would be received if we went out to bid, since orders for Ford vehicles would have to be placed by November 5, 1995 to guarantee delivery on 1996 vehicles. Due to the small quantity the CBJ would purchase on a bid, and the order deadlines, riding the State contract is a much better option.

I recommend approval of this bid waiver.

D. Bid Award:

1. Contract No. BMH 96-080: Bartlett Memorial Hospital Mental Health Activity Center

Bids were opened on the subject project on October 5, 1995. The bid protest period expired at 4:30pm, October 6, 1995. Results of the bid opening are as follows:


Trucano Construction, Inc. $376,109 9,250 (-4,800) $371,309

RMC, Inc. $398,000 7,800 8,800 $414,600

Architect's Estimate $330,000

Project Manager: Bruce Hahnlen, BMH Maintenance

The Base Bid for this project consists of construction of a 2,500 square foot one-story building with a basement. The building will consist of five modular units to be installed on a site-built foundation and an existing foundation, or, at the Contractor's option, the entire structure may be site-built. Additive Alternate No. 1 consists of installation of a heat recovery ventilator for the Exercise and Arts and Crafts Room. Additive Alternate No. 2 consists of constructing a low slope (min. 11/2:12 slope) EDPM roof in lieu of 4:12 slope roof with asphalt shingles and 30# roof felt. Bidders were to indicate an add or delete amount to be figured into their total bid. Completion time for this project is 130 calendar days after receiving Notice to Proceed.

In concurrence with staff and Hospital Board recommendations, I recommend award of the Base Bid and Additive Alternate No. 2 as a deductive amount of -$4,800, to Trucano Construction, Inc. for a total award of $371,309.00.


1. Ordinance No. 95-11 (P)

In April 1995, funds in the amount of $18,000 were appropriated from parking fee revenue for contractual parking enforcement for the Marine Park Garage commencing May 1,1995 through the end of September. Staff was directed to return to the Assembly in September with a report on the utilization of the garage, the effectiveness of enforcement, and to propose a plan for ongoing management before additional funds would be appropriated from the Parking Fund.

Currently, there are 263 permit holders for 189 permit spaces; the permit area is over sold at 139%. Increased permit revenue is accrued to the parking fund as well as revenue from citations (after a management fee is levied by JPD). Seven hundred and forty-nine citations were written between May 1, 1995 and August 25, 1995, for fines totaling $14,980.00. This is over two citations per hour that enforcement staff was present.

At the Finance Committee meeting of September 28th, staff was directed to extend current contracts for cleaning and enforcement on a month to month basis until such time as other contract options can be explored. Staff will return to the Finance Committee as soon as possible with an analysis of alternatives.

This ordinance is for an appropriation to fund enforcement effort through the end of the fiscal year.

This action will have economic impacts as described in the Economic Impact Note attached to the ordinance in your packet.

I recommend that this ordinance be adopted.

2. Ordinance No. 95-11(S)

This ordinance accepts and appropriates an Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) grant of $122,880 for the Goat Hill Sewer Phase II. This will extend the sewer line along the Back Loop Road from the bottom of Goat Hill at Jo Anne Way to Lee Street, serving Windfall Avenue, Auke Street, and Lakeshore Drive.

This action will have economic impacts as described in the Economic Impact Note attached to the ordinance in your packet.

I recommend that this ordinance be adopted.



1. Clarke Damon Appeal of Planning Commission Action Vacating a Portion of E Street in Douglas

At its regular meeting of September 12, 1995, the Planning Commission vacated a portion of E Street in Douglas to Mr. and Mrs. Ammon McDole. On October 2, 1995, Mr. Clarke Damon appealed the Commission's action to the Assembly.

The Statement of Appeal, the Notice of Decision on the vacation (SV-05-95), the staff report to the Commission, and pertinent minutes of the September 12 Planning Commission meeting are in your packet.

The Assembly is the appeal agency for this appeal, and its actions throughout the appeal process are governed by CBJ 01.50, the Appellate Code. The Code requires that upon receiving an appeal, the Assembly, must first decide whether to accept or reject it. The standards applicable to this decision are set out at CBJ 01.50.030(e):

(e) Action by Appeal Agency Upon Receipt of a Notice of Appeal.

(l) Within thirty days of receipt of a notice of appeal by the appeal agency, the appeal agency shall notify the appellant of the acceptance or rejection of the appeal and, if rejected, the reasons for the rejection.

(2) The notice of appeal shall be liberally construed in order to preserve the rights of the appellant. The appeal agency may reject the appeal for failure to comply with these rules or if the notice of appeal does not state grounds upon which any of the relief requested may be granted.

Mr. Damon, the McDoles, the Community Development Department, and the Planning Commission have been advised that this matter is before the Assembly. In general, the Department and the Commission, have no objection to acceptance of the appeal, although they reserve the right to object to Assembly consideration of some of the issues included in the notice of appeal.

The Law Department has not been significantly involved in this case, and will not represent the municipal parties. Accordingly, the City Attorney is free to act as the Assembly's legal advisor.

The following procedural issues should be decided:

1. Will the Assembly accept the appeal?

2. Will the Assembly hear the appeals itself or assign to a hearing officer?

3. If the Assembly hears the appeal itself, will the Mayor preside, or will he

designate a member as presiding officer?

This matter is before the Assembly sitting in its quasi-judicial capacity. Accordingly, members should avoid discussing the case outside the hearing process. With respect to this issue, the Appellate Code provides as follows:

CBJ 01.50.230 IMPARTIALITY. The functions of hearing officers and those appeal agency members participating in decisions shall be conducted in an impartial manner with due regard for the rights of all parties and the facts and the law, and consistent with the orderly and prompt dispatch of proceedings. Hearing officers and appeal agency members, except to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte matters authorized by law, shall not engage in interviews concerning the appeal with, or receive evidence or argument on the appeal from, a party, directly or indirectly, except upon opportunity for all other parties to be present. Copies of all communications with a hearing officer or appeal agency member concerning the appeal shall be served upon all parties.

Because this is an appeal, I have no recommendation on whether or how the Assembly should hear the appeal. After the Assembly has made its decisions on these issues, the Clerk will contact the parties and the presiding or hearing officer to notify them of the Assembly's decision and to arrange for a pre-hearing conference or other proceedings.


A. Manager's Report - Action Item:

B. Manager's Report - Information Items:

C. Attorney's Report:


Manager's Report - Regular Mtg. No. 95-39

October 16, 1995

Return to List of Agendas
Return to the Capital City Home Page

Our URL is

Last revised on 1/3/97 - tlo