Capital City Home Pagearrow City Government and Services arrowMinutes of Assembly MeetingsarrowJanuary 4, 1999


JANUARY 4, 1999

MEETING NO. 99-01: 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.
  3. Assembly Present: Garrett, Kibby, MacKinnon, Powell, Egan, Hagevig, Muņoz, and Koelsch

    Assembly Absent: Perkins

    A quorum was present.

    Staff Present: Marian Miller, Municipal Clerk; Dave Palmer, City Manager; John Corso, City Attorney; Bob Millard, Engineering; Joan Wilkerson, Personnel; Pam Watts, DHSS; Cheryl Easterwood, CDD Director; Ernie Mueller, Public Works Director; Mary Norcross, Controller; Joe Buck, Engineering Director; Roger Healy, Chief Projects Engineer.




Mayor Egan and Tim Sunday, the JEDC Chair, presented the proclamations.

    1. Valley Lumber and Building Supply
    2. Charles Northrip, the Executive Director of the JEDC read the proclamation into the record. It was accepted by William Graves and Loren Stephens.

    3. Alaska Airlines

Mayor Egan recognized other Alaska Airlines executives in the audience. Mr. Northrip then read the proclamation into the record. It was accepted by Bill McKay, Vice President of Public Affairs, and Bill Ayer, Alaska Airlines President.

    2. MOTION – by Garret, to suspend the rules and schedule this item at the end of the meeting so the Assembly could go into Executive Session at that time. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    3. Resolution No. 1968

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

      Public Testimony: None

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION – by Powell, to adopt resolution No. 1968 and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

      Mr. Powell clarified that LID should be all capitals in the title for both resolutions.

    5. Resolution No. 1969


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

Public Testimony: None

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Powell, to adopt resolution No. 1969 and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

  3. Jeff Mach, 4300 Glacier Highway, testified that he and his wife sent a letter dated December 11th to the Mayor requesting the Assembly request State funding to stabilize a dangerous hillside behind their house, and undertake other storm drainage repairs in the Mountainside Estates area. He listened to the December 11th meeting and the subject was not discussed. The hillside behind his house is what remains after a mudslide came down and damaged their home and property on October 20th. Their home and property suffered more than $200,000 in damages and their homeowners insurance will not cover any of those repairs. They have not lived in the home since that time and they are now engaged in discussions with the bank as to whether they will continue paying the mortgage. They had to find other lodging downtown and cannot afford to pay for both. Several other homes above and below the slide area, as well as the Glacier Highway and the bike path, remain jeopardized by the unstable hillside. A preliminary Engineer’s estimate to correct the problem was more than $350,000, a project far larger than the property owners could undertake and one he felt was well suited to local government. The project has to be done before they can undertake any repairs to their home and property because he would not do it with the hillside setting above him. If nothing is done, it will only get worse. The larger question is the storm drainage repair that needs to be done in and above Mountainside Estates to prevent more continuing, and more damage of the type, that came forth during the October storm. He understood that State Disaster Assistance Funds were available to the CBJ for repair of and protection of public infrastructure. He thought the CBJ should apply for those funds as it was an opportunity to correct the public safety threats by using the States funds. He urged the Assembly not to miss that opportunity.

    Mayor Egan said the reason they had not been in touch with Mr. Mach was because of an attorney client relationship and he hoped Mr. Mach could appreciate the position the Assembly was in.

    Dennis Harris, testified that last month he went to the DOT Statewide Transportation Conference in Anchorage on behalf of the Juneau Free Wheelers. Another Juneau citizen activist, Nancy Waterman, went on her own dime to talk about transit issues. There was no one there from the CBJ, no Assemblymembers, no Planning Department people, no transportation people, no Engineering people and no transit people. Anchorage, Fairbanks, Ketchikan, Sitka and a lot of smaller communities in the Kenai Peninsula and throughout South Central and a number of villages were all there. He hoped next year there would be people present. One of the things they talked about was walkable livable communities and he wanted to suggest one particular consultant be hired the next time there is anything done about visioning in Juneau. There were a number of issues that were very germane to Juneau and our land use and transportation planning being discussed and he thought it was very important that Juneau be represented next year at that conference.

  5. Mr. MacKinnon asked to remove item B-1, Resolution 1976. Mr. Koelsch asked to remove C-1, transfer request.

    MOTION - by Garrett, to adopt the sole item on the Consent Agenda, ordinance 99-01, and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    A. Ordinances for Introduction

    1. Ordinance No. 99-01


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

    B. Resolutions

    C. Transfer Request

    B1. Resolution No. 1976


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

    Public Testimony:

    Joe Helf, 1541 Glacier Highway, testified that he does work in the telecommunications field and has been in the industry for 28 years. Several words used in the resolution concerned him, such as competition, infrastructure and technology competition. The resolution refers to local competition and the two entities involved, one being a regulated utility as regulated by governmental entities, both state and federal, and which have dealt with the issue for many many years and many levels. Being a regulated utility, the entrance into what is referred to as local competition is bringing another non-regulated entity into an area that is regulated. He did not see a level playing field and he said competition wise, the infrastructure, technically and physically, as we know it is owned and regulated and operated by one entity. There was a lot of references to infrastructure and that amounts to dictating to a regulated entity that they must wholesale their services or resources to another entity at a certain dictated level. He said back at the turn of the century, the electricity provider for any given area also owned the light bulbs in the house and if the bulb burned out, you would have to call the Power Company to come and change it. As the power utility is deregulated, he wondered if at some point AEL&P would be told they were obligated to wholesale their electricity at the meter at the house, allowing the entering party or entity or company to charge for services that were being provided by the regulated entity. He felt this issue was more complex than local competition.

    E.J. Caplan, 2908 Simpson Avenue, testified that as an IS Manager, PTI has had a lack of resources to complete any of the jobs that she has needed them to do on time or with quality customer service. She gave a recent example of a data link to a physician’s office. It took three days to complete 56K direct connections, which should have been a test to the central office and a test back. Over those three days she was accused of having bad equipment and many time they told her that the problem was on her side. When she went to GCI and asked for a ticket for them to come and test, she got a response and an apology from PTI saying they had made a mistake inside the manhole cover. They also admitted that no one had ever connected a 56K direct connection. That concerned her because the health care community needs more and more service. PTI seems busy and under staffed and yet they continue to lay people off and allow their staff to decrease by attrition. The corporation has changed hands once a year over the last three years. Therefore, all their energy is going into upper management and none of it is falling back down to the customer level. She said if another phone company was added here for local service, it may give some clear communication to the upper level management that the people in Juneau are not getting the customer service and telephone response that is needed here to be a capital city.

    Donald Burford, 5651 Glacier Highway, testified that Juneau needed a second carrier and GCI was his choice. He said GCI was an Alaskan company with corporate offices in Alaska, and that would keep the money in Alaska. The benefits so far with the existing presence of GCI include cheaper payphones, significant savings for long distance, better attention and hustle which keeps everyone on their toes.

    Gerry Power, 2527 David Street, testified as a self-employed business owner who sells fax machines, copiers and cash registers. His concern was in the sale of fax machines. He has had a lot of complaints and cancellation of orders due to customers not getting their phone lines installed in a timely manner by PTI. It seems to be a two to three week install for a business. He did not think that monopoly was good and bringing GCI in and having competition would shove prices down and increase customer service. There was no local representation from PTI and response from GCI has been immediate. They have a local office with local people who will answer questions. He said he could not see any reason not to let competition in as it has done nothing but good for Juneau. Having GCI could only help the situation and improve matters in the phone industry in Juneau.

    Dennis Harris, testified that this is a consumer issue and he felt it was a stand the Assembly should take. He was one of the first people to sign up for competitive long distance service, and competitive internet service. PTI only offered that when an Anchorage company decided to move into the Juneau market because no one else was doing it. At that time, many people asked PTI’s sales people to get off the old switch 56 stuff and get ISDN, which would allow up to 128 KB service or standard phone service, all on the same phone lines. They would not do it because they had equipment in place and it was already tariffed. As a result Anchorage and Fairbanks have ISDN service and Juneau does not. Anchorage now has subscriber lines which cost about $20 more than a regular phone line, and provides very high speed downloads of web pages. He said he was not as much worried about price as he was about the availability of services. Without competition in this market, no new services would enter the market. The fiber is here, to Lena Point, the fiber is in town on the cable system, and it belongs to GCI. About 90% of the cabling is in place for them to provide their own telephone service and their own high-speed data service to Juneau homes and businesses. That would not happen if they were not allowed to enter the competitive phone market in this community. The APUC was not going to do anything unless there was demand from this community. He urged the Assembly urged the APUC to allow for local competitive phone service as it would not only save money, it would provide new services for Juneau businesses.

    Dana Tndall, 13360 Reef Place, Anchorage testified there had been a lot of confusion about what this resolution means. She thought the Assembly was in the position of constituents who come and testify or write letters giving input of their preferences. As a body, the Assembly simply would be telling the APUC that all things being equal, you think competition is better. You would like universal service taken care of, you would like there not to be cherry picking and given those things, you would like there to be competition. The Assembly is not making any complex decisions here. With regards to cherry picking and universal service, as she understood PTI’s objections to the resolution, those were their two main objection. The resolution as drafted requests that the APUC insure that universal service funds continue to flow and that there not be cherry picking so those two concerns have been addressed. GCI never had any intention of harming universal service of cherry picking. On the cherry picking issue, she said it was important for the Assembly and CBJ to understand that what GCI was requesting the APUC to do is to let GCI lease unbundled services from PTI. GCI needs the unbundled services in order to avoid cherry picking. In order to provide service to all residential customers, they have to be able to lease the last mile of copper from PTI. Without access to PTI’s unbundled elements, GCI could come in on its fiber and offer service to the largest business customers without getting unbundled elements or getting the rural exemption lifted. The questions before the APUC was not whether or not there would be competition; Congress has already decided that. The question was whether or not residential users would have access to competitive choices as well as business users. She thought the Assembly had a very important role to insure that its residential consumers had the same choices as the business consumers. She added that GCI was a regulated company.

    Assembly Action:

    MOTION – by Garrett to adopt Resolution 1976.

    Mr. Garrett said this was an issue that has been touched on in several instances. He thought this resolution was consistent with the Assembly’s proactive policy of supporting competition ultimately bringing down the cost of living for residents in Juneau. This body also has been very committed to Juneau’s role as a capital city. An enormous amount of time and money has been invested to insure this is the best capital city possible for this State. People who live in other parts of Alaska and have concerns about access to government, have their concerns addressed in a way that they realize that through the use of modern technology and through the use of all the things that make it possible to influence government without physically being present, that this can be the finest capital city for the State of Alaska and there is no reason for anyone to consider moving it. He said this body had consistently taken that position and in it’s efforts to do that, one of the things that had been foremost had been the use of technology. There is no way to achieve the use of technology unless the technological infrastructure of this city improves. He believed that competition has always brought about improved infrastructure. This resolution did not say the Assembly supported one company over another, it just says that we believe it would be in the best interest of the citizens of this community for there to be a choice, an option, and that there are very important considerations that need to be protected: universal services, funds, and the right of every resident to have access to the same level of service. This resolution encourages the APUC to consider that in their actions but we are not making the decision for them.

    Mr. MacKinnon agreed and said he wanted to add local cable TV service. He proposed an amendment to the resolution that would add another level or layer of competition in this resolution that perhaps the APUC would consider some time down the road. He had a number of changes to the resolution and suggested going through them and having Mr. Corso print out a clean copy with the changes for everyone to review.

    Mr. Powell also had a couple amendments.

    Mr. Kibby asked Mr. MacKinnon if this should go back to committee for substantial changes.

    Mr. MacKinnon thought it could be expeditious and said the essence of it would be a new section one, a change to the title and a couple Whereases would be deleted. Mayor Egan pointed out that this had been to the COW and it was up to an individual Assemblymember to move a resolution forward. Mr. Garrett had done that.

    Mr. Koelsch said he would like to deal with this at this meeting and he would like to see a clean copy of Mr. MacKinnon’s proposals allowing a side by side comparison. Ms. Hagevig requested that Mr. Powell’s wording changes also be included prior to the clean copy.

    AMENDMENT – by MacKinnon, that section one read: the Assembly encourages the Alaska State Legislature and the Alaska Public Utilities Commission to adopt a pro-competitive policy especially for local telephone and cable TV service. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    AMENDMENT – by MacKinnon to delete section three.

    Mr. MacKinnon said section three dealt more specifically with the telephone and not telephone and cable TV service. He felt section two was very important in the telephone competition end.

    Mr. Kibby was concerned that this was a policy being set by being put in the resolution. With regards to section two, looking at other equities and what is required in other areas of our community as far as competition and equal levels of services, he wanted to be careful of the perception and the precedence that would be set.

    There being no objection to removal of section three, it was so ordered.

    AMENDMENT – by MacKinnon, to change the title to read: a resolution supporting local communications competition.

    Mr. MacKinnon said telephone was communications and cable TV, presently, was communications in one direction. It would not be too long before it was communicating in two directions.

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

    AMENDMENT – by MacKinnon to remove "Tele" in front of communications in the second Whereas, the third Whereas and the sixth Whereas.

    Mr. Powell asked the definition of telecommunications. Mr. Corso said it was electronic communications, broadcast cable and the such.

    Mr. MacKinnon withdrew his last motion.

    AMENDMENT – by MacKinnon that the title read a resolution supporting local telecommunication competition. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    Mr. Corso corrected himself and said Tele meant far, not electronic.

    Mr. MacKinnon said the last three Whereases dealt with telephone competition specifically and action by the APUC specifically and since this resolution had been made somewhat generic dealing both with telephone and cable TV telecommunication, he felt they should be stricken.

    AMENDMENT – by MacKinnon, that Whereas number 7 be removed from the resolution. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    AMENDMENT –by MacKinnon, that Whereas number 8 be removed.

    Ms. Hagevig asked for a better explanation as to why that would be removed because that one seemed very generic. Mr. MacKinnon said it was referring to a previous action that dealt with telephone.

    Mr. Powell said that he also wanted to delete Whereas 8 because it said "has failed." They have not acted yet and it could be inaccurate in the future.

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

    AMENDMENT – by MacKinnon, that the final Whereas be deleted.

    Mayor Egan said in Section two it talked about universal service and he felt it was important that universal service be included. Mr. Powell said that was also his concern but the Whereas basically was a statement which he did not mind deleting. In section two it assures that this body has a priority to make sure that the APUC include in their policy universal service priority. That seemed to be a common thread through out the material they had been presented. By leaving section two in, that assures that priority remains.

    Ms. Hagevig thought the last Whereas was a bit descriptive, it was educational, and helped to bring along the theme we are looking for. It helped put perimeters around the specific issue of universal service as it applies in Alaska and she was not compelled to take it out.


    ayes: Kibby, Koelsch, and MacKinnon

    nays: Powell, Garrett, Hagevig, Muņoz, and Egan

    Motion fails

    Mayor Egan said this would be held until the end of the transfer request, after the break, so Mr. Corso could finalize it. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    C1. Transfer No. T-656: transfers $6,638 from School-Art in Public Places (CIP F431 and $84,596 from School Health Safety and Structure (CIP F422) for a total transfer of $91,234 to New High School/Dimond Park Planning (CIP S454-66).

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

    Public Testimony:

    Dennis Harris, testified that his concern was as it relates to the transfer of the Art in Public Places funding. Sometimes art projects come in on budget, but sometimes the installation, due to site constraints or site problems or building problems on the site, run into overruns. He wondered if it was a high priority to not leave this money sitting in a pool for art in public places and instead transfer it to the on going saga of the second high school. He would like to see it stay in the Art in Public Places program for use with other school district art and public place projects.

    Ms. Muņoz asked if the bulk of the funds would be used to do a conditional analysis of the downtown buildings. Mr. Palmer said yes and that the estimate was about $30,000 for the condition report. Ms. Muņoz asked if the rest of the money would be used for the item listed in the memo from Catherine Fritz. Mr. Palmer said the items were listed in the memo and on the budget under budget Phase II. Ms. Muņoz asked the projected cost of the purchase of the Marine Highway Facility and she asked if any of this was a part of that. Mr. Palmer said no, there is not a dollar amount for that yet. There had only been discussions with administration.

    Ms. Muņoz suggested that the title of the CIP be changed to reflect the actual use of the money and that in addition to High School planning, it includes a downtown educational complex/Dimond park.

    Ms. Hagevig supported Ms. Muņoz’s recommendation but said she was uncomfortable with the amount of money that was set aside to do the building condition analysis. She understood that it was the Assembly’s high priority, but she was not to keen on spending $30,000 on something that would not produce something of substance. She wanted to be assured and did not see anything in the material that the $30,000 would buy what she anticipated at the end of the last meeting with the School Board. She felt the Assembly made a commitment and established a priority on this issue and she was not comfortable. She asked if there was any information about what would be bought with the $30,000 and would it give the kind of comprehensive information we are looking for. Mr. Palmer said it would not be as comprehensive as the study done on Capital School because that report was $24,000. This report would encompass the High School, Marie Drake and Harborview for $30,000 so they may not spend as much money getting into the complexities of the systems. He said that task was based on direction by the Assembly and he suggested that maybe more discussion should occur about more work being done perhaps on the High School component and less on Harborview. Ms. Hagevig wanted assurance that at least the Harborview and Marie Drake classroom space would be thoroughly analyzed. Mr. Palmer said they would put the scope of work together and distribute it to all Assemblymembers before the money was spent.

    Mr. Koelsch said it bothered him that Art in Public Places was being used for this project. He understood it was left over money but it seems like it could be used for art in the schools. With regards to School Health Safety and Structure, he could see structure when looking at the education complex and determining whether the three schools were structurally sound. Going back to phase II of the budget, he asked why it included $15,000 for a consultant. He also asked why there was an additional $5,000 being spent on consultants for ballot information. Mr. Buck said pertaining to the $15,000 for the consultants, that would go to the design team. He said there were local consultants who were continuing to provide services to the school district as subs of the consultant. Mr. Koelsch asked who were the ballot information consultants. Mr. Buck said that would probably go toward preparing schematics. Mr. Koelsch asked if project contingency was normal, and he said he thought it was a lot of money to spend on this project. Mr. Buck said contingencies were normal and he could not say exactly why or what that figures was. Mr. Palmer said the effort was to transfer money from projects that have been completed and his guess was that Ms. Fritz took the money from work that had been done and moved it over into this project for use if needed. Mr. Koelsch asked if he was comfortable moving Art in Public Places to this. Mr. Palmer said the Art in Public Places funds were from a 1981 project, which was completed. The new project includes the 1% for Art. Mr. Koelsch thought from 1981 to 1999 there might have been a need for art someplace in public schools. Mr. Palmer said the district had not identified it since 1981 so when staff asked them what money they had out there that we could use toward this project, this was one that was identified.

    Mr. MacKinnon added concern that there was money being transferred from a 1985 Bond Issue put into this project. He said every year the school district comes to the city for hundreds of thousands of dollars for maintenance of their buildings. He would like to see this money, upon a successful bond issue for a new school, paid back into this account for other repairs and maintenance of school district facilities that are not covered by the new bond issue.

    Assembly Action

    MOTION – by MacKinnon, to defer this to the next meeting, scheduled for January 11. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    Mr. MacKinnon suggested a number of these issues could be dealt with at the Public Works meeting and he asked Mr. Buck to provide information for that meeting.

    B R E A K

    8:20 p.m. – 8:32 p.m.

    Discussion continued on resolution 1976 after receiving a clean copy from Mr. Corso that incorporated the amendments.

    Mr. Garrett pointed out that there were a lot of times when consumers get frustrated with any person who provides services and wishes there was competition, but he pointed out that cable TV was totally deregulated right now. He felt there was a bit of a logical disconnect here in telling the APUC to deregulate cable TV.

    AMENDMENT – by Powell, to change after the word pro-competitive, add toward telecommunication service.

    Mr. Powell said that would be consistent with the general flow of the resolution.

    Mr. MacKinnon objected.


    ayes: Powell, Hagevig, Koelsch, and Muņoz

    nays: Garrett, Kibby, MacKinnon, and Egan

    Motion fails 4:4

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

    1. Ordinance No. 98-26

      Administrative Report: Attached. The Manager recommended that this ordinance be adopted, but amended to be effective March 1, 1999.

      Public Participation: None at this time.

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION – by MacKinnon, for the purpose of amendment.

      AMENDMENT – by MacKinnon on page 2, line 7, the effective date be March 1, 1999.

      Mr. Garrett objected and said that he would prefer the effective date to be July 1, 1999. He thought it was disingenuous to turn around on the first of March and raise the rates a dollar and then four months later raise the rates another dollar. He felt it should be stepped up a dollar a year for the next three years or take the single bite of the two dollars right away.

      Mr. Koelsch liked the idea of having it go up only once.

      Mr. MacKinnon also liked that idea and said it would take modification to some of the other language in order for that to work out.

      Mr. MacKinnon withdrew his original amendment.

      Mr. Garrett thought it would be appropriate to defer this for one week with direction to staff to prepare it to read that the first rate increase would be on July 1 for $2 with a subsequent $1 increase July 1, 2000.

      MOTION – by Garrett, to defer. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    3. Ordinance No. 98-40

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

      Public Testimony:

      Dennis Harris, said at the time he signed up, he misunderstood the amendments to the table. He thought it was important that it be a conditional use, and that the Planning Commission be able to provide tough conditions for this sort of thing including impermeable barriers, berms, and high level liability insurance and bonding for clean-up. He urged the Assembly to put teeth into this and to make sure that the Planning Commission had the scope to also put teeth into it.

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION – by Hagevig, to adopt ordinance 98-40, and she asked unanimous consent.

      Mr. Kibby asked why this was not being included in 1100, the Table of Permissible Uses. He said if this was being rearranged so that people know it was a conditional use process under Waterfront Industrial (WI), why are we not showing it there instead of down below. Ms. Easterwood said when looking at the Table of Permissible Uses, you do not find uses associated with the table. In displaying as it is here, the table is consistent throughout. All the categories have the uses associated with them and the titles do not. Mr. Corso said it was a generic heading and there was no action taken with respect to that heading, it was only the sub-headings that have specified uses. Ms. Easterwood said the heading remains, and under the heading there would now be two subheadings: one would be recycling operations and the other would be all remaining category 1100 uses.

      Ms. Muņoz asked if this sort of activity was currently allowed in the WI zone. Ms. Easterwood said no, the activity was currently allowed in the industrial district only. Ms. Muņoz asked if this was meant to benefit a specific project. Ms. Easterwood said the change was initiated after staff received a request as to whether or not this use would be allowed in the WI area. Several versions of the code that existed in CDD’s office did show 11.200 and some staff thought this category already existed. In checking further, staff found it did not exist so this does two things: clears up the code and adds a category that should be there and also allow these types of uses to be situated in the WI zone. She thought it was important to note that the waterfront districts were established to accommodate uses that require or would substantially benefit from a waterfront location. The first test a development must pass is whether or not the use is water related or water dependent. Then, if it is, it would go on to seek a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission for operation in that area.

      Ms. Muņoz asked how a junkyard was water related. Ms. Easterwood said it may not be that would need to be determined. By allowing the potential of locating in this district, we are not saying that a junkyard would be water related. There would have to be a proposal presented to the department for determination as to whether or not it was water related. If it is not, it would not be located in the WI district. Ms. Muņoz thought this was another ordinance that needed further discussion. This represents a significant change in the code and she encouraged the body to have more thorough discussion before passing the ordinance. She would like to know the full ramifications of the ordinance before passing it.

      Mr. Koelsch agreed. He asked if a junkyard on the waterfront would be a conditional use regardless, with the ability to put conditions on it. Ms. Easterwood said there would first be the determination made of the use of or the need for waterfront. The Planning Commission would look at the analysis and if the Planning Commission did not concur that this use was indeed the type of use that was envisioned for a WI location, the Commission would not approve the permit. If it does approve the permit, it could put conditions on it. When the Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance, they believed that industrial uses were appropriate for the WI district. That is why the WI districts were established. Their main debate was whether or not these activities should be viewed as an allowable use permit, where the Commission’s discretion is more limited, or as a conditional use permit. The Commission decided that, in view of the sensitive nature of the waterfront, the conditional use procedure would be the most appropriate.

      Mr. Powell said the Coastal Management Plan (CMP) would be the law that is dealt with to determine whether or not it was allowable next to the water. Then it would go to the Planning Commission. Ms. Easterwood said the CMP had provisions with respect to the appropriate uses on the waterfront and so does the zoning ordinance. Both would apply if there was a proposed activity on the waterfront.

      Ms. Hagevig had not objection to deferring this for another week if the body felt it was important. She was comfortable this would solidify this kind of activity as a conditional use process and would indeed meet the kinds of concerns as addressed by Mr. Harris. She thought it might be helpful to review the Planning Commission minutes where this issue was discussed, and whatever material the Commission was presented.

      Mr. MacKinnon had no objection to deferring it and he said he thought the conditional use process was a very good process for taking care of concerns. He referred to the operation at three mile and said that was the existing salvage operation that had been going on for a number of years. The scrap was collected and stored at the landfill, and then barged out with a certain amount of on-site storage at three mile. A year ago, metal disposal was free. Right now, metal is $.04 a pound to dispose of. That is a large part of the reason there are large items being dumped by the side of the road. Anything that can be done, with conditions attached, should be done.

      There was no objection to deferring this to the next meeting so that the Assembly could review the Planning Commission minutes, the information that went to the Planning Commission in the packet and a copy of the Title 49 Conditional Use Procedure.

    5. Ordinance No. 98-17 (X)

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

      Public Testimony: None

      Assembly Action:

      MOTION – by MacKinnon, to adopt ordinance 98-17 (X), and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    7. Ordinance No. 98-17 (Y)


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

Public Testimony: None

Assembly Action:

MOTION – by Kibby, to adopt ordinance 98-17 (Y), and he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

  3. Ms. Hagevig said at the last meeting she served notice of reconsideration on the passage of resolution 1973, dealing with the Habitat for Humanity land transaction.

    MOTION – by Hagevig, to revisit that resolution and that it postpones discussion and action on it until the meeting of January 11, and she asked unanimous consent.

    She said the folks from Habitat for Humanities would like the opportunity to put together additional information before the Assembly deals with this resolution. Mr. Kibby asked if there was something within the resolution causing them to make this request. Ms. Hagevig said the people who were present at the meeting did not fully comprehend the Consent Agenda process. The land transaction was being dealt with differently than in the past. They would like the opportunity to meet with Mr. Palmer between now and the next meeting to deal with issues relating to interest and liens against the property. Mayor Egan said he had a copy of the original ordinance that was passed in February of 1997 and a companion ordinance that was passed in April of 1997 along with the minutes of those two meetings. Those would be distributed to the Assembly.

    MOTION – by Hagevig, to reconsider resolution no. 1973. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    MOTION – by Hagevig, to request the Assembly reconsider resolution 1973 at the January 11th meeting because the principals of the Board of Directors from Habitat for Humanities were not able to stay for the whole of this meeting. Some of their main participants are not in town tonight and they would like to discuss this issue with the Assembly on the 11th and also have an opportunity to meet with the City Manager between now and then, and she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    Mr. Palmer said when this came out of Lands Committee, he included a recommended that the city retain a second mortgage on the lot so there would not be a windfall of value of the lot to the recipient of the house. He thought this was going to be a public hearing and it would be discussed and it was his fault for not noticing that it was a resolution on the consent agenda.


A. Manager’s Report - Action Items - None

B. Manager’s Report - Information Items

    1. Capital City Fire/Rescue Volunteer Firefighters Meeting Scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on January 14, 1999 at Centennial Hall.

Administrative Report: Mr. Palmer noted that this meeting was an effort to have group discussions with trained facilitators to do exercises to develop a group consensus and come up with a list of good ideas. The meeting was scheduled to last for three hours.

C. Attorney’s Report

Mr. Corso said he hoped to have some resolution to the Police Station construction bid protest situation at the next meeting.

    1. Revised Pending Items
    2. Unappropriated General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance
    3. Assembly Contingency Fund Balance
    4. Committee Reports:

1. Standing Committees:

a) Committee of the Whole – Mr. MacKinnon said because of the number of items on the revised pending items list, and the lack of available Mondays in January and February, there would be COWs on the 13th and 27th, Wednesdays.

b) Finance Committee – no report

    1. Human Resources Committee – Ms. Muņoz had a the following names to more forward:

Dr. Robert Breffeihl, Donna Herbert and Stacey Toner to the Bartlett Regional Hospital Board of Directors;

Katherine Gouyton, Alex Lukshin and Joan O’Keefe to the Parks and Rec. Advisory Committee;

John Logan to the Sales Tax Board of Appeals;

Dr. Douglas Smith to the Social Services Advisory Board;

and David Hanna, Steve Zimmerman and Carl Schrader to the Wetlands Review Board.

Ms. Muņoz said the next meeting would be the first Monday of February at noon.

d) Lands & Resources Committee – Mr. Kibby had nothing to report at this time.

e) Public Works & Facilities Committee – Mr. Garrett stated there would be a meeting on Wednesday with a number of items on the agenda including the DZ masterplan project; proposed changes to contractor report forms; and also an update on the John/David/Simpson LID project. Mr. Garrett would be out of town for that meeting.

    1. Board Liaison Reports

Mayor Egan said he would be meeting with the folks from Alaska Airlines in the morning regarding their constituent fare announcement. There would be an Alaska Committee meeting Wednesday at 7 at JEDC.

MOTION – by Garrett, that immediately following a five-minute break, the Assembly recesses into Executive Session to discuss the lobbying contract and conduct an evaluation of the Assembly’s lobbyist.



9:15 p.m – 10:30 p.m.


Mr. Powell reported that the Assembly discussed matters concerning their lobbyist and issues pertaining to that.

  2. Mr. Koelsch thought that Alaska Airlines had received a bad rep in the paper with the situation where the person was not able to get a flight out of town. He said when he had a death in the family, Alaska Airlines got him and his family out, on the afternoon flight, and he appreciated what they do locally.

    Ms. Muņoz referred to a letter received from Richard Harris regarding a parking issue at Auke Bay. She said that essentially, he had a parking lot near the Auke Bay boat harbor with 10 or so parking places. The CDD believes it is an inconsistent use because there is a non-water related dwelling on the site. She said the city had a lot right next to his that was being used the same way. Mr. Palmer said he spoke with Mr. Harris and sent a message to Ms. Easterwood and asked her to get together with the Law Department and come up with a recommendation. He would prefer to handle this without a non-code ordinance.

    Mr. Kibby asked Mr. Palmer about the additional information he requested for the Lands Committee with respect to the Gravel Pit. Mr. Palmer said it was all ready and he would get it to him tomorrow. Mr. Kibby said they would be putting together all the information and presenting it at a COW for a final decision.

    Ms. Hagevig also voiced her support of the service that Alaska Airlines gives this community.

    Mr. Garrett noted that one of the items on the agenda stated the CBJ mileage reimbursement rate was $.35 per mile and this year the IRS actually reduced the mileage rate from $.32 to $.31. He thought it would be prudent to always apply the IRS standard rate. Mr. Garrett referred to Mr. MacKinnon’s comment about the rate of metal disposal and he said he felt it was something the city would have to take a more aggressive role in. He asked that staff work out some advise on what that aggressive role could be.

    Mayor Egan said Ms. Sica had been meeting with different recycling people and she would be presenting a plan.

    Mr. Garrett asked about the general issues of drainage. He asked the status of the report Mr. Palmer was working on with relationship to what the damage had been due to floods from drainage and what would be looked at in the future and if there were any things that were going to change in terms of permitting both through building and zoning codes for construction. Mr. Palmer said Mr. Mueller had been working on it and he did not have any recommendations back from him yet. He said he would speak with the Engineering Department about enforcement and what their views were on following up on permits that have been issued.

    Mr. Powell agreed with Mr. Garrett’s comments about drainage. He said he was still looking for the report he asked for in November outlining some of those items. Mr. Mach brought up the question of whether or not the funds had been exhausted to give him some relief. He asked Mr. Palmer to e-mail his response. Mr. Powell then said he spoke with Mr. Buck about culverts and there was something being done as far as redesigning culverts up slope of Mr. Mach’s residence. He asked for a report on that also. He said there would be legislators coming into the community this month and they come from a community that prides itself in having lots of lights around in January. They have a program in Anchorage, "City of Lights" and he asked if for next year, the month of January could be the start of a program for keeping those Christmas Lights on for another month. He went on to say that he thought it would be nice to see the city institute a innovation program. Mayor Egan said it already existed and Mr. Powell asked for a copy of that information.

    Mr. MacKinnon thought it would be nice to get the streetlights functioning properly. He said he would like to take a look at what is being done with abandoned vehicles. With regard to the Engineering Department keeping tabs on projects and drainage, he could cite examples of where the attention might be too close.

    Mayor Egan said the Attorney compensation committee met with Mr. Corso and the committee would recommend to the Assembly that Mr. Corso receive a 1.6% pay increase, retroactive to December 7th.

    MOTION – by MacKinnon to award Mr. Corso a 1.6% pay increase retroactive to December 7th. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    Mayor Egan said he received a request for the Joe Juneau Family Reunion on July 1. There would be about 80 people coming in from around the world to attend the festivities all that week. A representative of the family has requested that the Assembly host a small reception for them in the Chambers on the July 1st.

    MOTION – by MacKinnon to pay for the Joe Juneau Family Reunion reception out of the Host account. There being no objection, it was so ordered.

    Mayor Egan referred to the request to waive a portion of the fee for Centennial Hall for the Inaugural Ball on the 23rd. He gave everyone a copy of what had been done for past inaugurations and said he would like to discuss it on the 11th. The money would all go to the Children’s Trust.

  4. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to come before the Assembly, and no objection, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.


Signed: ________________________________

Mayor Egan



Countersigned: ________________________________

Marian Miller, Clerk