Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-04-20 Council Minutes. A* AGENDA KENA1 CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 1983 - 8s00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. ROLL CALL 1. Agenda Approval B. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 1. led Berns, Hultivisions - Utility Location Ordinance a. Discussion of Recommended Utility Location in City Right of Way 2. Dr. Terry Haws, Music Teachers Guild - Proposal Regarding Performing Arts Center 3. TAMs Small Boat Harbor Status Reports a. 5-11-82 - Sedimentation Study - $131,392 b. 9-14-82 - Additional Marine Facilities - $83,150 C. Proposal - Small Boat Harbor Financial Analysis A Outline Design - $135,600 C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Resolution 83-41 - Setting Special Election for June 6, 1983 for Amendment of Section 7-3 of City Charter - Limitation of Special Assessment Levies to 25% of Fair Cash Market Value of Property to Allow Assessing up to 100% of Cost of Improvements if All Benefited Property Owners Concur 2. Resolution 83-44.- Transfer of Funds - Award of Contract for Airport Fencing - $11,334 3. Resolution 83-46 - Award of Contract - Airport Security Fencing to Alaska Fence Co. - $157,497.70 4-I Change Order 03 - Paint Existing Outside Walls on Airport Terminal Building IIA Change Order #3 - Install Metal Siding on Existing Airport Terminal Building IIB Resolution 83-50 - Transfer of Funds - Metal Siding on Existing Airport Terminal Building 5. Resolution 83-51 - Transfer of Funds - Utility Costs in Shop Area Increase - $7,200 6. Exchange of City Property for Dolchok Property a. Resolution 83-52 - Providing for Conveyance do Exchange of City Property for Dolchok Property 7. Resolution 83-53 - Accept Deed of Release from FA+, for Land 8. Ordinance 848-83 - Increasing Rev/Appns - Jail Facilities Contract Increase from State of Alaska - $6,500 9. Ordinance 849-83 - Increasing Rev/Appns - Donation from Mr. do Mrs. Mishau for Combination Stretcher Chair for Ambulance - $270 10. Ordinance 850-83 - Increasing Rev/Appns - Paving Parking Lot at Senior Citizens Center - $12,950 and Transferring Additional $21,265 in Senior Center Capital Project Fund for Paving of Parking Lot a. Change Order 04 - Paving Parking Area - $34,215 11. Ordinance 851-83 - Dedicating use of Land, Park View Subdivision for Constructing Shelter for Battered Women a. Amended Ordinance 851-83 - Removing Land from Public Use for Constructing Shelter for Battered Women b. Approval of Lease 1 ^iw 12. Ordinance 852-83 - Creating Library Commission, Enacting Title 24 to Kenai Municipal Code 13a Ordinance 853-83 - Increasing Rev/Appns - Walker Extension - $71,000 b Approval of Installatijn Agreement, Subdivision Improvements, Cential Heights S/D, 1st Addition - DeLand Corp. 14. Application for Renewal of Liquor License - Rainbow Bar do Grill D. MINUTES 1. Regular Meeting, April 6, 1983 E. CORRESPONDENCE 1. U.S. Forest Service - CCC 50th Anniversary F. OLD BUSINESS G. NEW BUSINESS 1. Bills to be Paid, Bills to be Ratified 2. Requisitions Exceeding $1,000 3. Ordinance 854-83 - Amending Kenai Municipal Code, Increasing Interest Rate of Special Assessment Districts from 8% Per Annum to 10% Per Annum 4. Ordinance 855-83 - Increasing Rev/Appns - Salaries 6 Supplies for Beautification Committee through June 30, 1983 - $5,450 5. Ordinance 856-83 - Repealing Kenai Municipal Code Providing for Commissions to Realtors for Sale or Lease of City Lands 6. Gym Floor Repair - Change Order fG9 - Blazy Const. - $16,990 7. Lease Application - Bob Bielefeld -- Willow St. Extended S. Termination of Lease - Vic Tyler - Spur S/D a. Lease Modification 9. Assignment of Lease - Covington to Sarks - Cook Inlet Industrial Air Park 10. Discussion - Purchase of Section 36 by Jerry Andrews 11. Discussion - Engineering Proposal - Ryans Creek Park Olympic Game field, Fitness Trail 12. Discussion - Bluff Property by Senior Citizens Center - Purchase, Authorization for preparation of Plat 13. Discussion - Approval of Survey Proposition - Property Adjacent to Lawton Drive H. REPORTS 1. City Manager 2. City Attorney 3. Mayor 4. City Clerk 5. Finance Director 6. Planning do Zoning 7. Harbor Commission 8. Recreation Commission I. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD ADJOURNMENT 2 KENAI CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING, MINUTES APRIL 20, 1983, SZOO PM KENAI CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MAYOR RONALD A. MALSTON PRESin[NG PLEDGE Of ALLEGIANCE A. ROLL CALL Present: Betty Glick, Tom Wagoner, John Wise, Ron Malston, Tom Ackerly, Sally Bailie Absent: Ray Measles (excused) AGENDA APPROVAL 1. Mayor Malston asked that item 8-3, TAM's Report be deleted, they will not be able to be here this date. 2. Mayor Malston noted that item C-1, the election date should be June 7 in the agenda. The resolution is dated correctly. 3. Mayor Malston noted that item C-13, a and b are l reversed. Council approved the corrections and changes as submitted. MOTION: Councilman Ackerly moved, seconded by Councilman Wagoner, to recess the meeting at 12:00 midnight and reconvene at Thursday, April 21 at 7:00 PM. Motion passed by unanimous consent. B. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 8-1 Ted Berns, Multivisions - Utility Location Ordinance a. Discussion of Recommended Utility Location in City Right of way Mr. Berns was not present, Council agreed to postpone discussion till he was nere. B-2 Dr. Terry Haws, Music Teachers Guild - Proposal Regarding Performing Arts Center Dr. Haws said he was acting as unofficial representative of the music teachers, they are a non-profit organization. They hope to have a music center for Kenai and Soldotna. They would like the City to donate land. They will be eligible for State funds for building. They want a place to teach and practice, studios for students, dance studio, and a concert hall. He had approached the Council with a proposal for a dome building for his own use, now he is coming to Council for this organization. He would like City support. Mayor Malaton asked, what kind of support? Dr. Haws replied, land and support of the City in this. He asked if the City had lands available and do they feel it is necessary in the area. They are trying to do something that will enhance the area. Mayor Malston replied, the City does have land but Council would have to be willing to donate. Councilman Wise suggested the group meet with Administration, then go to P&Z for approval. City Manager Brighton asked Dr. Haws to provide Administration with information such as location, type of building, how many people end who will use it. He asked if Administration could have it in the next 30 days. Dr. Haws replied he KENAI CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 1983 Page 2 would do that. Councilwoman Glick suggested the material go to PhZ, we do have land set aside for a Civic Center Complex, this may be a start. Council agreed to discuss this at a work session. B-1 Ted Berns, Multivisions Mr. Berns arrived at this time. He explained the reason for his appearance on behalf of Multivisions is to discuss some con.,zerns Inletvisions and other utilities have regarding specifying locations of these utilities.It has been a concern for many months, not for need, but rather approach. That is, identifying locations and depths for lines. It is not necessary or desirable. There will be 120 miles of cable, some underground. That will be a delay and cost that will be passed along as additional rates. HEA, Glacier State Telephone, KUSCO and Inletvisions had a meeting this date. Inletvisions is more concerned because they are gearing up to start a program for a 35 channel service for Kenai and Soldotna. Anything that would delay runs a risk of pushing them past the construction season. It appears logical for now streets but does not fit existing streets and right of way. The fact is, you must go where the lines are not - you must go into the field Lu locate. There is very little as -built data as to where utilities exist. They vary as to depth and location. To follow guidelines woul%J mean the exception would be the rule. The utilities have discussed an alternate approach. Rather than identify points and then treat them as exceptions. go to a zone system. Zones would exist for utilities, within that zone, utilities would work together. It is in their best interest to work together. Councilman Wagoner said this is premature. This should be worked out with Administration before going to Council. Councilman Wise noted SB-67 is in the Legislature. If the City invokes what Mr. Berns asks for, would the City be responsible for moving lines. Would he be willing to waiver street liability in the event the lines have to be relocated? There have been problems in the City and Borough with placement of utility lines. We have cut lines and had to pay for them. He would like the utility to waiver any application of reimbursement of costs. Mr. Berns said the responsibility for relocation is separate from this. They have had conversations with Administration, they are trying to work out an understanding before an ordinance was made. This was merely to alert Council that there has not been uniformity as yet. As for relocation, that is a different issue. SB-67 says if they were under a valid permit it would revert to the City but does not say what permits. Councilwoman Glick asked Mr. Berns if he had discussed this with Public Works Director Kornelis. Mr. Berns replied, Sam Matthews has, but there are other concerns. On paper we talk about exceptions, in this field everything will by exceptions. In Anchorage, they have a problem also, but all have realized plans have to be changed in the field. Utilities should do a better job of telling the Cities where the lines are located. Councilman Ackerly asked if they were putting the lines in underground in Anchorage. Mr. Berns replied yes, they will do both here. Sam Matthews, HEA, spoke. He would like the City to work out a model ordinance that could be used elsewhere. There �,; are several approaches: c�. KENAI CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 1983 Page 3 a. taking care of existing rights of way b. taking care on new construction The biggest problem is in present rights of way. These is a possibility of 5 utilities - water, sewer, gas, electricity and cable. The basic concept is, the cities would define their areas and the utilities would coordinate. Councilwoman Glick suggested Mr. Berns and Mr. Matthews come to a work session after the ordinance is drafted and review. Mr. Kornelis said they started this in November, and have had 3 meetings. Glacier State could not come to the last meeting, he thought they had everything worked out. There was a problem with the depth of the cable, that was changed. The City problem is to protect the center of the road. He would like them to agree that if they went outside of the area, they would relocate at their cost. He was under the impression that if we had certain areas designated and they found lines in their area, they would move towards the center of the street. We have various widths of streets and rights of way. Regarding water & sewer and drainage, we would keep these in the road as much as possible. The exceptions would be if we went into different zones we would go to the company and work something out. The reason we wanted to set this out so the utility companies would not have to relocate. The Borough has a utility ordinance adopted by Borough P&Z. The utility companies said they would stay within the areas set by the Borough. In 1978 we put into the design contracts that engineers would go into the area to check. The utility companies have to mark all lines. He has no problem with continuing this. Councilman Wise said regarding driving up rates. The public utilities are governed by PUC, they set rates. The rates have frequently been based on management error. The cities are trying to get responsible action before the lines are laid. We need to require liability by the utilities. City Manager Brighton asked Mr. Berns, at the meeting this date, were there any conclusions in opposition to the April 13 meeting when City Public Works was present? Mr. Berns replied no, he +vould to see something generated without a lot of paper work. C PUBLIC HEARINGS C-1 Resolution 83-41 - Setting Special Election for June 7, 1983 for Amendment of Section 7-3 of City Charter - Limitation of Special Assessment Levies to 25% of Fair Cash Market Value of Property to Allow Assessing up to 100% of Cost of Improvements if All Benefited Property Owners Concur MOTION, Reconsiders Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilman Wise, to reconsider the resolution. Motion passed by unanimous consent. MOTION: Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, to adopt the resolution with amendmentvas submitted to Council this date. 00 There was no public comment. i KENAI CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 1993 Page 4 Councilman Wise asked if the additional language rould be underlined for the voters. Atty. Rogers explained he has out the entire section as it would be in the Charter. If we put it in italics or underlined, it would not be neutral, and the City could be accused of preferring one over the other. He added the educational process should be by publicity. He asked Clerk Whelan about the voting record in i the last special election. Clerk Whelan said we had a great deal of publicity and had only 320 votes. (NOTE: There were a total of 388 votes in the last special election) Motion passed by unanimous consent. C-2 Resolution 83-44 - Transfer of Funds - Award of Contract for Airport Fencing - $11,334 l Councilman Wagoner asked that Council consider item C-3, Ordinance 83-46 first. Council agreed to the request. C-3 Resolution 83-46 - Award of Contract - Airport Security Fencing to Alaska Fence Co. - $17,497.70 MOTION, Remove from Table: Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilman Ackerly, to remove the resolution from the table. Motion passed by unanimous consent. Councilman Wagoner said he objected to the resolution. We should go out for re -bid. There should be additional work on specs and warranty. The last fence we put up did not stand up. We should not have to re -build every few years. Councilwoman Bailie asked, if the fence Peninsula Fence put up fell down, was it not acceptable? Were they contacted? Public Works Director Kornelis replied, it was done a long time ago, he did not know. He added, a good portion that is down is not the part Council is discussing. Airport Manager Swelley said CH2M Hill rebuilt the portion of the fence that was down. The other portion pushed up out of the ground. Finance Director Brown explained, FAA will honor only the low bid. if we accept the high bid, they will not participate. Tim Merrill, Alaska Fence spoke. The fence was done in 1979 by The Fence Company, by him and his partner. They re -did 1250 ft., it is still standing. The fence that fell down was put up with concrete. Councilwoman Glick asked, do we foresee receiving additional bids or will we have to change the specs so it will be a new bid? What are the legal ramifications of going to re -bid? What would be the response? Atty. Rogers replied the contract indicates the owner reserves the right to refuse any and all bids. He has no way of knowing if there would be any changes. If these are rejected he would hope Council would have specific reasons for rejecting. Councilman Wise said part of the 1979 fence is down. The area of fencing with concrete has frost heaves, concrete was specified in the contract. It is in wetlands areas. He asked what do the specs call for - driving or concrete? Engineer LaShot replied, the specs are for a driven job. He noted one year maintenance after the job is standard. He did not know of any fence down that does not have concrete. City Manager Brighton said he R KENAI CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 1983 Page 5 recommends the low bid. If we do not, we have to go back to FAA for review. If they don't find a major consideration for rejection, we may lose the Federal money. With as much money as is involved, it may be in jeopardy. Councilman Wise suggested we have a statement in writing when there is a conflict with FAA. MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved to adopt the resolution awarding the bid to Alaska Fence as low bidder. MOTION, Withdrawal: Councilwoman Glick withdrew her motion. MOTION, Amendment: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Wise, to amend the resolution to award the bid to Alaska Fence. VOTE, Amendment: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. MOTION: Councilman Wise moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, to approve the motion as amended. There was no public comment. MOTION, Amendment: Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilman Ackerly, to amend the resolution to reduce the amount to $131,332.30 for Schedules A, C, AA 1 & 2; and award to Peninsula Fence $22,412.80 to do Schedule B. Councilwoman Bailie asked Peninsula Fence representatives if they had any problem working with 2 contractors. The representative replied no. Councilman Wagoner noted this would save $3,750 on the project. Bill Westervelt, Alaska Fence, spoke. When you bid a contract, you normally bid all of it. It is not divided up. He did not think there is anything in the contract that it would be split up. They were low bidders, they should get the contract. Bob Engleheart, Peninsula Fence, spoke. There was no place for the total sum in the bid. It was broken into 5 parts. Councilman Ackerly said Airport Manager Swalley's memo seid we could award Schedule B. City Manager Brighton said we are about to award $4 Million of water & sewer and road projects. If we get ourselves into the position of awarding all to different companies, we will discover we have all sorts of problems. This will establish a precedent. Councilwoman Glick said she would go with the low bidder and hope the other bidder will understand why we do this. VOTE, Amendment (Failed): Yes: Wagoner, Wise, Ackerly, No: Glick, Malston, Bailie V. KENAI CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 1983 Page 6 VOTE, Main Motion as Amended: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. C-2 Resolution 83-44 Council agreed this item was moot with the decision on Resolution 83-46 C-4 I - Change Order #3 - Paint Existing Outside Walls on Airport Terminal Building IIA - Change Order 03 - Install Metal Siding on Existing Airport Terminal Building IIB - Resolution 83-50 - Transfer of Funds - Metal Siding on Existing Airport Terminal Building MOTION: Councilman Wise moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for approval of Change Order #3 of $57,097, for metal siding. Councilwoman Glick said she would like to see old portion remain the same. The art students doing the murals is historical and attractive. It is different from other airports. Councilwoman Bailie asked Architect Gintoli, what were his original thoughts in pulling the building together? Mr. Gintoli replied, his original suggestion was to re -side the new part the same as the old. The only thing we are doing to the existing building is painting the egress canopy, the ceiling and railing on the canopy. His directions were to leave the existing building alone. Councilwoman Bailie said the change order to paint should have been in the existing contract. She noted there are rust stains and cracks on the existing building, there is fading. There is need for repair other than what the art class can do. Mr. Gintoli agreed. Councilman Wagoner said at the time of the motion, we had a project presented at over $2 Million. The original plan we were working on basically ignored the existing structure. We did not feel we had enough money in the project to do the existing walls. He did not say we would not do the exterior of the building. Mr. Gintoli said the $3 Million w.. Schematic #1 on the north and south side of the terminal. It had nothing to do with extensive renovation of the existing walls. Councilman Wagoner suggested we have the previous drawings brought to Council. Councilwoman Glick asked Clerk Whelan if they could get a verbatim. Clark Whelan replied she had just received word that there is a reel to reel available at the Soldotna High School. Mr. Gintoli said the walls discussed in Schematic #1 were the interior corridor. That was when he was told to start over. Councilwoman Bailie said an alternative should have been given to Council. Mr. Gintoli noted he has limited the contractor to 8% for painting and 2% for bonding. If it had been bid in the original contract it would be 26%. The City can do anything they want to the building while the contractor is there, as long as they do not interfere with the contractor. He noted he is going to recommend Council refuse the furnace bid. Councilman Wagoner asked Administration to get a copy from Mr. Gintoli of the documents Mr. Gintoli was working on when the motion was made to cease and desist. He does not recall any discussions on enclosing in metal. He asked about the KENAI CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 1983 Page 7 freight door and the 2 picnic tables. Mr. Gintoli replied. they are not picnic tables. Councilman Wagoner said it should be blocked in to cover, to match the rest of the building. Mr. Gintoli explained, the price to stucco is $2,000. There is no one on the Peninsula who will stucco. It is 150 sq. ft. The intent of the panels and walk was to contact the City for murals to be put there. Public Works Director Kornelis distributed some cost figures that Council had asked far. He said he is not making a recommendation, he just received them this date. MOTION, Amendment: Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, to approve Change Order 03 for $7,491 for painting, etc.; add $2,081 for the front door; and deduct $312; for a total of $9,260. VOTE, Amendment: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. Councilwoman Bailie asked Mr. Gintoli if he was going to contact the art class or will he paint it all -white? Mr. Gintoli replied, it is Council decision. He would recommend white. It would paint over the murals. He noted the blue band is asbestos - would remain, not re -painted. The panels below the window would be blue. Mayor Malston noted the blue looks faded, could something be done? Mr. Gintoli replied the color on the sample is the same as the panel. Councilman Wagoner said he wants embellishment. He would like 2 sides to have some kind of strip. He asked for a price on that. Mr. Gintoli said the price for the band on the north, south and east walls - not on the west - for metal are $15 per lineal foot. A 36" high sheet for an 18" band. He noted they were embarrassed to give him the price. Councilman Wagoner suggested getting it some place else. This is a soffit and can be attached by screws. Mr. Gintoli said Public Works Director Kornelis wanted facia to be all of the building, counter flashing is the simplest way. Councilman Ackerly asked for Administration recommendation. City Manager Brighton replied, the motion is paint and stucco, that is the thing to do. He had no recommendation on the strip. VOTE, Main Motion as Amended: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. Mayor Malston asked Mr. Gintoli if he could review the embellishments at the April 21 special meeting. Mr. Gintoli said there is some concern about dimpling. He will report to Council about that April 21. C-5 Resolution 83-51 - Transfer of Funds - Utility Costs in Shop Area Increase - $7,200 MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Wagoner, to adopt the resolution. There was no public comment. KENAI CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 1983 Page 8 Motion passed by unanimous consent. C-6 Exchange of City Property for Dolchck Property Resolution "' " " 11.. of City Property for Dolchok Property Exchange MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Ackerly, to adopt the resolution. There was no public comment. Motion passed by unanimous consent. C-7 Resolution 83-53 -- Accept Deed of Release from FAA for Land MOTION: Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, to adopt the resolution. There was no public comment. Motion passed by unanimous consent. Councilman Wise asked if we are getting other tracts. City Manager Brighton replied yes, but one at a time. C-8 Ordinance 848-83 - Increasing Rev/Appns - Jail Facilities Contract Increase from State of Alaska - $6,500 MOTION: Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, to adopt the ordinance. There was no public comment. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. C-9 Ordinance 849-83 - Increasing Rev/appns - Donation from Mr. & Mrs. Mishau for Combination Stretcher Chair for Ambulance- $270 MOTION: Coon—;:ilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Wagoner, to adopt the ordinance. There was no public comment. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. C-10 Ordinance 850-83 - Increasing Rev/Appns - Paving Parking Lot at Senior Citizens Center - $12,950 and Transferring additional $21,265 in Senior Center Capital Project Fund for Paving of Parking Lot a. Change Order #4 - Paving Parking Area - $34,215 MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Wagoner, to adopt the ordinance and approve the change order. XENAI CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 1983 Page 9 Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. C-11 Or%i::�dnce 851-83 - Dedicating Use of Land, Park View Subdivision for Constructing ghPlter for Battered Women a. Amended Ordinance 851-83 - 3emoving Land from Public Use for Constructing Shelter fnr Battered Women b. Approval of Lease MOTION: Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, to adopt the ordinance. There was no public comment. MOTION, Amendment: Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, to amend the ordinance as recommended by Administration. Councilman Wise asked, are they dedicated for parks and public use? Atty. Rogers replied this is taking them from public use for this. Recreation Director McGillivray explained this is part of the land under a Federal grant but was removed when the land swap with BOR and Tracts A&B for a sewer treatment plant. VOTE, Amendment: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. VOTE, Main Motion as Amended: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. C -llb Lease MOTION: Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, to approve the lease. Councilman Wise asked if the purpose clause meets the reversionary requirements of Councilwoman Glick. Atty. Rogers replied, the reversal is automatic. This gives the City the option of reverting. Conditions you can terminate are numerous. Motion passed by unanimous consent. C-12 Ordinance 852-83 - Creating Library Commission, Enacting Title 24 to Kenai Municipal Code MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Wagoner, to adopt the ordinance. There was no public comment. Councilman Wagoner asked if we will be dealing with the Commission and the Library Board. Librarian DeForest replied the current Library Board will remain as Friends of the Library, but divorced from the City. e - �-. KENAI CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 1983 Page 10 Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. C-13a Ordinance 853-83 - Increasing Rev/Appns - Walker Extension - $71,000 b. Approval of Installation Agreement, Subdivision Improvements, Central Heights S/D, lst Addition - Deland Corp. MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilwoman Bailie, to approve the installation agreement. Public Works Director Kornelis explained, Walker Lane was paved last year. The Daubenspek property is now City property, above that. The improvements are starting at Portlock to Walker, the extension would be paid by the City. The installation agreement is just to get him the final plat to begin working. Councilman Wise asked, why can't we have an agreement on paving? Atty. Rogers replied we just have lst deed of trust on the property. In order to facilitate their proceedings we took 1st deed of trust only on those that would bring them to specs. Councilman Wagoner asked if he will pave curb and gutters. Mr. Kornelia replied, curbs & gutters in Walker, not Portlock. Atty. Rogers noted this is the first major project to provide security to the City. Councilman Wise noted the portion done by the City is Davis/Bacon. The other is not, but both are the same costs. Mr. Kornelis replied we used costs available. This is enough to protect the City. Councilman Wise asked if we will hold the deed of trust till we get the as-builts. Mr. Kornelis replied no. Councilman Wise said sometimes it takes a year to get as-builts. Atty. Rogers explained we can foreclose under a deed of trust it' it is not complete. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. C-13 Ordinance 853-83 MOTION: Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, to adopt the ordinance. There was no public comment. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. C-14 Application for Renewal of Liquor License - Rainbow Bar & Grill Clerk Whelan said the information is in the packet. Council had objected to renewal because of unpaid taxes. They are now current. MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Wagoner, to send a letter of non -objection to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board regarding the Rainbow Bar & Grill. Motion passed by unanimous consent. KENAI CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 1983 Page 11 D. MINUTES D-1 Regular Meeting, April 6, 1983 1. Clerk Whelan said Public Works Director Kornelis asked that page 8, item C-14, paragraph 5, line 2, after the words "as is," add a comma and the words "paint it." 2. Clerk Whelan said Mr. Kornelis asked that page 11, item G-9, line 3, the amount should be $131,000. Also, line 14, the date should be April 20. 3. Clerk Whelan said Mr. Kornelis asked that page 14, line 5, be changed to read, "improvements have to be in before final plat approval or he has to provide a bond." Then delete, "proposal is in. He will provide bond." 4. Clerk Whelan said Mr. Kornelis asked that page 17, the last line, the word "fountain" be changed to "hydrant." Council approved the minutes as changed and corrected. E CORRESPONDENCE E-1 U.S. Forest Service - CCC 50th Anniversary Council acknowledged receipt of the letter. F OLD BUSINESS None G NEW BUSINESS G-1 Bills to be Paid, Bills to be Ratified MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilwoman Bailie, to approve the bills as submitted. Motion passed by unanimous consent. G-2 Requisitions Exceeding $1,000 V.3TION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilwoman Bailie, to approve the requisitions as submitted. Motion passed by unanimous consent. G-3 Ordinance 854-83 - Amending Kenai Muncipal Code, Increasing Interest Rate of Special Assessment Districts from 8% to 100 Per Annum MOTION: Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, to introduce the ordinance. Motion passed by unanimous consent. k KFNAI CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 1983 Page 12 G-4 Ordinance 855-83 - Increasing Rev/Appns - Salaries A Supplies for Beautification Committee through June 30, 1983- $5,450 MOTIONS Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Wagoner, to introduce the ordinance. Motion passed by unanimous consent. G-5 Ordinance 856-83 - Repealing Kenai Municipal Code Providiog for Commissions to Realtors for Sale or Lease of City Lands MOTIONS Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilman Ackerly, to introduce the ordinance. Councilman Wise asked to speak regarding the ordinance. Atty. Rogers asked if Councilman Wise was aware of the personal interest section in the Code. Councilman Wise replied he was. He said this reiterates the feeling that the City is not moving lands. The Code provides for disposition of City -owned lands. The realtors have not done anything because the lands have not been released by the City. We have lands with the City and airport that, if they were on the market, would be worth $20 Million. Regarding Safeway, the lands were available but on terms that would not let them take active interest. Councilman Wagoner said, regarding Safeway, he doesn't care now. The building has been made. He objected to generic statements without proof. There have been other lands that have been sold. Realtors have not submitted any proposals. City Manager Brighton explained Administration submitted this because he thought there would be tremendous interest in sale of lands. To date there have been only 2 proposals. Every realtor knows we have land available. It is not our job to promote. We now have a land manager. He will promote the land. We have land available for the next 40 years. We have people in every day to look at land with no help from real estate agents. Mayor Malston said it appeared Councilman Wise had a conflict. Atty. Rogers read from Section 1.15.110 of the Code dealing with personal interest. He said he construed that as a conflict. This could mean even the appearance of a conflict. If there is a conflict, the action of Council could be voidable. Councilman Ackerly noted he had a real estate license, but he is not active. Atty. Rogers replied he is not employed in the real estate field, there is no conflict. VOTE (Passed): Yes: Glick, Wagoner, Malston, Ackerly, Bailie Abstains Wise G-6 Gym Floor Repair - Change Order #9 - Blazy Const. - $16,990 MOTION: Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilman Ackerly, to app ove the change order. M KENAI CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 1983 Page 13 Councilman Ackerly asked, why are we going to maple when we had talked about parquet floors? Public Works Director Kornelis replied, it is beech• The reason is the existing is on sleepers. Maple is a better floor, there is a difference in elevation. Councilman Wagoner said regardir►y the sleepers, $3,440 to tear them out. It could be done without that cost. He suggested the Recreation Dept. people do it. Recreation Director McGillivray said there is no money available till June 1. That may be a factor. The Rec. Dept. people could probably do it cheaper, but he didn't know if it was an advantage. Councilman Ackerly asked if they will take pictures before we rip it out. Atty. Rogers replied, he will document. Mr. Kornelis said he plans to take from the Youth Center project, it fits the grant better. AGENDA CHANGESs Councilwoman Glick asked that items G-10, G-11, G-12 and G-13 be postponed till the May 4 meeting. Recreation Director McGillivray asked that item G-11, Ryans Creek Park, be discussed this date. He will leaving the State April 21. Council agreed to extend the remaining items. G-7 Lease Application - Bob Bielefeld - Willow St. Extended MOTIONS Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Ackerly, to approve the lease application. Councilman Wise said there is no action Council can take, it is not a lease. Councilwoman Glick said it is a lease application. Council asked for a concept lease and it has come through P&Z. She asked if we were going to go through platting or just survey this? City Manager Brighton replied, if the appraised value is within his means, he will proceed with a plat. $178,000, or 700 sq. ft. is the appraised value. The reason it is low is because there is no road, water & sewer, or access to the taxi ways. Mr. Bielefeld has filed the appropriate application and money. Motion passed by unanimous consent. G-8 Termination of Lease - Vic Tyler - Spur S/D a. Lease Modification No action was needed on this item. G-9 Assignment of Lease - Covington to Sarks - Cook Inlet Industrial Air Park MOTION: Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilman Ackerly, to approve the assignment of lease, subject to signing of the assignment. G-11 Discussion - Engineering Proposal - Ryans Creek Park Olympic Game Field, Fitness Trail Recreation Director McGillivray explained last year they received funding for a fitness trail and a small grant for stations. All the materials are here. We need to get design I 1 KENAI CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 1983 Page 14 engineering. He felt this would be adequate engineering and ;sv ft4uid iikt t4 yo oiseaii. Coci:cllwoman Glick asked, he only asked for one proposal? Mr. McGillivray replied yes, Mr. Nelson was involved in the trails plan and was familiar with it. Also, most of the engineers were tied up and he could get it done very quickly. Councilwoman Glick said however large or small, we should advertise and go through procedures whether we get bids or not. Councilman Wise said he would like a resolution. MOTIONs Councilman Wise moved, seconded by Councilman Wagoner, that appropriate resolution be drafted for the next meeting. Public Works Director Kornelis said Engineer LaShot had asked some others for proposals. Mr. McGillivray said he had also. Mr. Kornelis said it is a minor item, but it is over the 03,500 limit on bidding. Professional services do not require this. Councilwoman Glick said there is no surveying, that will cost extra. Mr. McGillivray said he did not feel surveying would be needed, it is in a green belt. MOTION, Withdrawals Councilman Wise, with consent of second, withdrew his motion. Councilwoman Bailie asked if it will be named after Bernie Huss. replied yes# tt r. kAc MOTION: 1 vl Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Wise, for Administration to proceed to advertise for proposals through procedures we have been operating on. Motion passed by unanimous consent. �1 City Manager Brighton noted, under those procedures, j inspection on the Tauriainen and Wince, Corthell, Bryson j inspections should also go out for proposals. H. REPORTS H-1 City Manager City Manager Brighton spoke. 1. He corrected the Bob Bielefeld appraisal, it is $168,800. i ' 2. He noted the memo from finance Director Brown regarding the budget work sessions. 3. He would like permission to spend $1,214 for a plat of 2 acres on the River Bridge Access Rd. and Spur across from Dairy Queen. He has an application for a lease on j that but he needs to have a plat. He has been working with other surveyors and has had to wait. Mr. Lobdell will do this very fast. It will be a bowling alley, 12 alleys to expand to 20. There are rumors of one outside of Kenai on Kalifonsky. He would hope we can f� J� work with dispatch to get this. Councilwoman Glick y r. 7 �� KENAI CITY COUNCIL APRIL 20, 1983 Page 15 arcked if it had t;Fen before Ph7. Mr. Brinhtnn renliPdt no it will be at their next meeting. He Just received it April 19. Councilwoman Glick said it should go to P&Z first. If items go to Council first, P&Z feels obligated to approve. Councilman Wagoner noted proper procedure cannot be followed without delaying it. By that time the other bowling alley would be built. MOTIONS Councilman Wagoner moved, seconded by Councilwoman Bailie, to approve the expenditure of $1,214 on a 2 acre survey. Councilwoman Glick said 2 meetings ago we were looking at this regarding setting back for a green strip. Council asked Administration to review this. We keep giving directions to P&Z and don't give them time to operate. MOTION, Amendments Councilman Wise moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, that the action be subject to P&Z approval. Councilman Wagoner noted that delays it 3 weeks. Councilman Wise said it says "subject to," it delays it one week. Councilman Wise said this is the same as in the lease ordinance. If an applicant comes in, even if he is first, P&Z can give it to someone else because it is not the highest and best use. Now w^ are trying to get around the ordinance. We should amend the ordinance or eliminate P&Z. Mr. Brighton explained we have been trying to get Gusty platted for 12 months, it is not platted yet. McLane is very busy. This individual has shown an indication he can get it done in 3-4 weeks. Then we need an appraisal, that is another 3 weeks. Then it has to be subject to P&Z and then Council. He is trying to cut off some time. We may be looking at 6.10 weeks. Mayor Malaton noted it will not be done before P&Z meets anyway. Mr. Brighton sold it is over $1,000, he cannot authorize the expenditure. Councilman Wise said we can recoup the $1,214 from the lessee if P&Z denies it. Councilwoman Glick said in the interest of development, you have to look at a proposal. You should let P&Z look at it. VOTE, Amendment (Failed)s Yeas Glick, Wise, Malston Nos Wagoner, Aekerly, Bailie Vote, Main Motion (Failed): Yess Wagoner, Ackerly, Bailie Not Glick, Wise, Malston Councilman Wagoner said if this guy walks away and leaves the City tomorrow, he wants those who voted against to remember what they said about aggressive attitude. AOJOURNMENTs Meeting adjournedat12s40 AM. Va�3 Janet Whelan fa�Yp �tYX P;dF".fit City Clerk i i. d CITY OF KENAI VERBATIM April 20, 1983 Council Meeting 8-1 Ted Berns, Multivisions Mayor Malstons Ted Berns from Multivisions is here and if he would like to take the podium. Ted Barnst Mr. Mayor and members of the Council thank you for allowing us to appear tonight. I apologize for being: somewhat late. We were, I think we were under the impression we were going to be farther down on the agenda tonight. The reason for the appearance this evening on behalf of Inletvisions, the company that has been awarded the certificate for cable tele- vision construction here in the Kenai and Soldotna area, is to discuss briefly with the Council some concerns that I think both Inletvisions and the other utilities in the Kenai area have over a proposal to by ordinance specify locations for utility use on public rights -of -way. Substantial discussion about this I have seen the copy of the memorandum to Manager Brighton from the Public Works Director and as it indicates this has been the subject of discussion now for many many months. Our concern, our being Inletvisions but I think I speak to a certain extent for other utilities as well, is not with the concept of the need to try to coordinate utility use in public right-of-way but rather with the specific approach that is being suggested that being to identify fairly precise locations and depths for specific utilities our concern being that that proposal or that approach is simply neither workable nor really necessary given what I've been informed is the existing status of right-of-way utility use in the Kenai area. Our concern is that as a company that is about to embark some 120 miles of cable television construction some portion of that being underground, that the result would be an increase in delay and cost for utility customers, costs which would in turn have to be passed along as in many cases in additional rates which we, and I am sure you would like to avoid if at all possible. I want to confess to you at the start that I am not, I don't propose to be an expert in present utility status in the Kenai area most of what I know and what I've learned I've learners from discussion with other utility people in the Kenai area some of them are here this evening, Mr. Sam Matthews from Homer Electric is here. The utilities have gotten together and have met on many occasions most recently this afternoon we had another meeting involving Inletvisions, Homer Electric, Glacier State Telephone, KUSCO Gas, and so much of what I've observed or comment on tonight reflects what I've been told about the present state of affairs in terms of utility use in the public right-of- way. As I say, I think maybe Inletvisions is more concerned then the other utilities about the proposed measure because wn are gearing up to commence a very aggressive expedited construction program this summer which we hope will result in a cable tele- vision system offering up to 35 channels of entertainment programming, news programming, sports programming, and public Verbatim April 20, 1983 Multivisions Page 2 service channels for the citizens of Kenai as well as Soldotna. And anything which would result in (inaudible) a potential to delay that runs the risk of pushing us past the construction season and as I indicated before resulting in substantial delay and cost increases. To comment briefly on the approach that I understand is being suggested to the Council, our concern is that while it, while it on the surface appears logical and indeed is we agree is perhaps a good way to go in terms of new streets in terms of new right- of-way that the fact is it simply does not fit the existing physical situation out in the streets and rights -of -way. As a practical matter we are, my company we are in the process of building a cable system in Anchorage so we have now, we are going into our second underground construction season and we've had considerable experience in trying to deal with the problems of of locating underground utility lines. The practical matter is that regardless of where a plan or where a charge shows a proposed utility to be, the fact is you have to go where the other utilities are not and that the only way of determining that is in ! the field based on an actual physical locate of existing lines. I think it's a safe statement and again Sam Matthews is much better qualified than I, it's a safe statement that the present situation is such that there very little reliable as -built data available on paper as to where the existing utilities occur in the right-of-way. Utilities vary a great deal is another factor, they vary a great deal both in terms of the depth and the terms of the location in which they appear in the right-of-way and given that fact it is really impractical to attempt to on paper determine that, for example, cable television is going to three feet depth, four feet off the edge of the right-of-way or that power is going to be x feet deep and y feet off the right-of-way or that they are going to be on one side of the street or another. Based on the research we have done and the discussions with the other utilities our concern is that in fact to attempt to follow the guidelines suggested in what I understand would be the proposed ordinance, the exceptions as they are called in the proposal would, in fact, be the rule and that virtually every application, every significant piece of work that we would propose to do in terms of cable construction would result in being treated as a special exception, and as I say I'm talking about existing streets in areas in which there is new road construction I don't think anybody would disagree that it would be preferable in the best of all worlds to have a very specific plan and to attempt to stick to that plan so that in the future everything was coordinated and every utility knew where every other utility was. It simply is not the case given what has happened historically in terms of utility construction. Not to simply criticize but to try to offer some constructive sug- Verbatim April 20, 1983 Multivisions Page 3 gestions, the utilities have discussed and discussed today at the meeting an alternate approach which we would like to have some consideration, perhaps given some consideration and it revolvers around rather than trying to identify specific points within the right-of-way for various utilities and then have to be treated as an exception process with the attendant paperwork, the delays and the costs really for the utility and the City that that would entail, the concept is to go to a zone system whereby a defined zone would exist for public utilitieo in the right-of-way and within that zone utilities would coordinate with each other through the physical locate process to avoid damaging each others lines, to avoid conflicts because we are made to remember it's certainly not in the utilities' interest to conflict with other plan or to put themselves in a situation where they are going to run the risk of physical damage to their plan. It is inherently in their interest to coordinate with each other in the construction to attempt to locate their lines in a way which will minimize the possibility for future conflict and future in- convenience and I think the consensus at today's meeting was that it is simply good business practice and will tend to happen as a matter of force without having to go through what we feel might become a lengthy and a very cumbersome permitting process where we try to work out problems on paper rather than out on the field based on discussions between engineers. I'd like I guess the Council's indulgence if they would to maybe hear a few words from Sam, who as 1 say, has for more experience than I have in this area and has many, many more years of dealing with underground utility construction in Anchorage. He may want to flush out a little bit this idea of a zone proposal as opposed to the concept that 1 understand is going to be coming before you on May 4th. So with that I will be happy to try to answer any questions but 1 would think you would appreciate Sam's comments. Mayor Malstons Ye, if you just stay there just a moment there Ted. Councilman Wagoner? Councilman Wagoners Well, 1 think this is all premature. I think these problems in these situations should be worked out with the City Administration before coming to the Council because there hasn't even been an ordinance proposed to Council yet for !Y passage, it hadn't been written, I haven't seen a rough draft of � one and you know did you meet with the City Administration today ij or were you meeting together as a utility group to come to the (i City Council? In my mind you are circumventing the process by not going through the City Administration, that's what they are hired for and I don't want to sit here as a member of the City Council and start hearing proposals or alternative proposals when J Verbatim April 20, 1983 Multivisions Page 4 an ordinance hasn't even been drafted yet and submitted to us. I think that's totally wrong. I don't think was should be taking our time to do that. I'm sorry that's the way I feel. Councilman Wises Mr. Berne, as you know Senate Bill 67 is proceeding to the Legislature and if we invoke what you are asking for, we would be responsible under that Bill for the cost of relocating your lines and any other utility lines. Now I ask you are you and the other utilities willing to waiver the City's liability in the event of a street widening project or something such as this in the event that your lines have to be relocated that you did it at your expense? There is a very real problem here, we have had a history not only in the City but in the Borough of utility lines going in rather willy-nilly and as a result when road projects are consummated engineered we find that we are cutting major telephone cables, we are cutting power cables, we are moving telephone power poles, and what have you, and we are getting billed for them. If utilities concerned would waiver any possible application under Senate Bill 67 for reim- bursement of those costs, then I think it could be written into the legislation or the ordinance that the Administration is preparing for us now but otherwise I personally would not be willing to, because if that Senate bill goes through and is enacted into law which you say is fine but what we are liable into law is something else and your pronunciation for the record is not binding the law is binding unless you are prepared to commit your company. Ted Berns - which I am not ready to do. Councilman Wises Do you see my question? Ted Berne - Ya, I believe really that in large part the question of responsibility for relocation expenses is separate from the issue that we're addressing in this proposal. As to the comment about being premature, to a certain extent I agree we have had substantial discussions with the City Administration. Our understanding was, I think, that we were going to try to work out and come to an agreement on an approach before an ordinance was forthcoming. We did hear that there was, well I understand it is the plan to prepare an ordinance and have it submitted on the 4th and we don't mean to be premature we realize that there will be a public hearing process and there will be time for additional comment at that point. I think this was merely to alert the Council that there hasn't been uniformity of agreement reached as of yet on what the beat approach is, at least based on the discussion with the other utilities today and to certainly we are willing to continue working with the Administration and hope to Verbati April 20, 1983 Multivisions Page 5 work with the Administration to come up with something that is workable for everybody. I think the purpose today was merely to kind of alert members of the Council to some possible alter- natives to some of the conceptual problems that exist. Again as I indicated at the beginning, it looks very good, it looks very logical and in the best of all possible worlds 1 wouldn't argue a bit that it is desirable to have very precise specified locations for utility construction. The problem we have is that theory does not fit reality in this situation and I think our purpose this evening was merely to point that out to suggest some of the conceptual difficulties that we see and to maybe offer just some food for thought so that when this matter comes back, maybe everybody would start with something of a leg up. As far as relocation, I think it is something of a separate issue. The way SB 67 is presently phrased, the latest draft I saw would say that if utilities were located in accordance with a valid permit, then the responsibility for relocation would pass to the City as to what those permit requirements would be is totally silent in the bill. A permit could be something that says your utilities must be within this corridor and within that corridor the other, the utilities coordinate amongst themselves or it could be something as specific as the proposal that we see today from the Adminis- tration. I think to a certain extent distinct issues. Councilwoman Glick: Yes Ted, I just want to thank you for coming down and apprising us of what your feelings are and I realize that you have been discussing with the Administration the various aspects. One question I would like to ask and that is you made reference to zone systems and I realize that you have asked for Sam to come up and to expound on that in a few moments but I would just like to ask, have you talked this particular item over with Mr. Kornelis. Ted Berns: My understanding is that Sam has discussed that in the past and he's probably better able to speak to that then I am. There are probably other alternatives too, that probably isn't the end all. Our concern is, I guess is, being, is getting to a situation where on paper we talk about exemptions or exceptions when in fact we know that when we get into the field everything we do will be an exception, virtually every piece of construction we do will result in an exception. We'd like to see a situation where the standards more fully recognize what we understand to be the physical situation (inaudible). I can tell you that in Anchorage where we've been building a lot of under- ground plant in which I think they have a problem with existing as -built information as well. The way it is largely worked is we have done our locates in the field, we have tried to follow fairly general guidelines as to where we locate but everyone has 7 M 1 W f Verbatim April 20, 1983 Multivisions Page 6 realized that those have to give way to what you find when you get out there ready to start digging and that you've got to have a mechanism that allows you that flexibility. I think one of the keys as to try to do a better job on the part of the utilities in terms of telling the City officials where we have gone, where we have put it so that in the future there is a better record of where that plant is when someone comes in and may want to design a project that they have a good idea of where you are located. Councilman Ackerly: In Anchorage are you putting it underground or are you attaching it to the utility poles? Ted Berns: Both. Councilman Ackerly: Are you going to do both here? Ted Berns: Both here, yes. Mayor Malston: Any objection from Council from hearing the gentleman from Homer Electric? Councilwoman Glick - I have no objection. He's come all the way from Homer I think it would be well to at least give him the courtesy of listening to him. Sam Matthews: Basically I would like to thank the Council for the privilege of appearing here tonight especially since I was not specifically listed on the agenda. I believe that the utilities and the City can work out something satisfactory in an ordinance to address the problems and concerns that have been expressed and I would very much like to see the City of Kenai come up with some sort of an model ordinance that could be expanded elsewhere and whatever ordinance come up I would hope that it would be the best that we could possibly get for all parties because I would hate to see a poor ordinance expanded Borough -wide getting right down to case (inaudible) and for the concept that Mr. Berns mentioned I did have a brief conversation with Mr. Kornelis before he left on vacation so he hasn't probably had much of a chance to really evaluate and there are several approaches to the problems and basically as we see it it's a double barrel approach: #1 taking care of existing rights -of -way where there are utilities and #2 of course, is addressing new subdivisions and new areas of construction for the future and I think by far the biggest problem is in the present right-of-way where there are one or more utilities present and within the City I believe we have the possibility of what four utilities - power, telephone, water, sewer, and gas, 5 utilities so you can possibly have that many in the rights -of -way and there Verbatim - April 20, 1983 Multivisions Page 7 are various widths of rights -of -way so if we take a zoned approach to it the zone would vary but the basic concept is that the municipality would define what their requirements are within the right-of-way and then the other utilities would be within the zones that are left and would have to coordinate among themselves to do it and I think that something can be worked out among the parties if we sit down and do it and we are willing to work with the Administration and it will take a bit of work it won't be done in one sittingor hastily I would hope to come u with Y P P . basically the best ordinance that we possibly can without breaking the backs of the rate payers (inaudible) Whatever we - come up with here eventually comes out of the rates. Councilwoman Glick - Well I don't specifically have a question of Mr. Matthews and on the other hand perhaps it is an indirect b . question. Based on these comments and based on Mr. Kornelis' __- long hours and months of work perhaps when we do get our draft ordinance put together Mr. Bcrns and Mr. Matthews would be able to come and sit down at a work session and we could go through it and maybe try to work out our differences and come to some a compromises if that's absolutely necessary so I guess the indirect question which now becomes a direct question would you be available to work with us on a preliminary ordinance so - that... Sam Matthews: Yes we will, yes we would be available. Councilman Wagoner: I would agree with Councilwoman Glick except ' I think the working out should be prior to coming to Council with the Adminstration not with us and then be there when we have a work session. Councilwoman Glick - Yes, resource people. Councilman Wagoner: Largest amount of their time should be spent with our Public Works Department I would think. Sam Matthews: We would anticipate working with the Public Works Department to come up with the basic details. I don't know what j, all your procedures are within the City but if it requires a . Council work session why of course we'd be available for that ! also. --- '� Mayor Malston: Keith, do you have a comment? :I Public Works Director Kornelis: Like we've been talking we started this thing back in December, November. We've had two, or j three or four different meetings and the latest, last one we had Verbatim April 20, 1983 Multivisions Page 8 that I was involved in was last week on the 13th of April and at that time I thought we had quite a few of the things worked out. We had Dave Bardon and Jim Evans of HEA at the meeting and Oscar Thomas of KUSCO and Ken Bahr of Multivisions was here. We didn' have anybody from Glacier State Telephone. They called and said they were having their budget sessions and were tied up, but the thing that was submitted at that meeting was the last two sheets that was included in the packet and at that time there was some objections to the depth of burial of the tv cable that Ken had and at that time we had it at four feet, for the power and for the tv and (inaudible) three feet to four feet was imbeded so we changed that but other than that I was under the opinion at that time we worked out quite a bit of the problems over the last few months. I did receive a phone call late this afternoon fran Norman Cook and he said he agreed 100% (tape cut out) we had set up and read through them and he didn't have any problems with it but the City's only problem that I can see is trying to protect the road area which is the center portion of the road and if something could be worked out similar to what Sam was saying where the utility companies would come to some kind of agreement that would say that if they went outside of that (tape cut out) their assigned area which is anywhere from zero to eight feet from each side of the road or the right-of-way and if they were in an agreement to come off, all of them in an agreement that if they went outside that area that they relocate the cost of whatever the relocation, I don't see where the City would have a problem. The only reason why we started this because we were under the impression ghat if we had certain areas that were assigned and say the tv was assigned the area within the diagram and when they went to install their tv cable in that area and they found a gas line in that area then they would want to encroach further into toward the center line of the street and in that case we would have a problem should we go to expand the street. The way this thing was worked out was the utilities were scheduled to go in in relationship to the right-of-way because we have various different widths of streets and various different widths of right--of-ways, some of our right-o`-ways are as narrow as 50 feet, in some areas, there are a couple areas that are 40 feet right-of-ways which makes it very, very narrow for the road and the utility to get in there. The (inaudible) the water and the sewer and the storm drainage we would try to keep those within the (inaudible) right-of-way itself as much as possible. But there would be many cases were we'd would go outside the road right-of-way, we would have to and that would be an exception. The exceptions would be something that we had set up where if we went into another zone, say the City wanted to put its storm drain in the area where the power was to be then we would have to go to the power company and say hey we would like to do it these Verbatim April 20, 1983 Multivisions Page 9 are the reasons why and we'd like to get in there and we'd have to work something out. The only reason why we are trying to set this up is so that we can protect the road right-of-way and so that the utilities can get into an area where they won't have to relocate all the time. This is something that is not new, in fart, there are hundreds of hundreds of cases that I have different types of set ups for assigning utility for within the right-of-ways and it seems like every city and every state has a different idea of how to do it anywhere from very elaborate to rather remote and other types of methods. The Borough has a utility ordinance that was adopted from what I understand and accepted by the Planning & Zoning Commission, not the Borough Administration, nor the Borough Assembly so it's not really in effect but in our earlier meetings with the utility companies most the utility companies stated that they tried to stay within the areas that the Borough has set aside for them in the utilities ordinance. I can't say how close the utilities are to those areas and how well they are, their maps show as far as where the lines are and in actuality where they are on paper. I do know that we received drawings from KUSCO and all the utilities pretty much showing where their utility lines are located in the City. We do not rely '100% on those. When we go in to do a job similar to like what Multivisinns is doing as you all know the utilities required of us, asked of us, back in 77 in 78 when we had some problems with utility lines in right-of-ways that we put into our design contract a requirement that our design engineer actually goes out and finds those utilities in the right-of-ways and puts them on their map before we go in and put in our water and sewer and our street work so we have taken that position since 77 when we go to the individual utility companies and request that they mark on the drawings on our preliminary drawings and our final drawings and actually go out in the field and mark those so we know where their utilities are when we are in the planning stage and I would assume that Multivisions or and outfit coming in new to put in utility lines would do something similar to that and go to the other utilities and find out where they are. They may not be in the exact location hopefully they would be within four feet of the location of where they would be on their maps. If they had the time which I assume they don't know they could have the actual field locations by the utilities so that they would actually know where they are at. But this isn't anything new and I have been trying for quite a few months to try to get the utilities to come and get together on this and have gotten together on it and up until now I thought we were heading in the right direction. Unfor- tunately, Sam couldn't make the meeting last week and so he didn't have any input. Dave Bardon and Mr. Evans of HEA were at the meeting and they had a few suggestions that we are incor- a n - Verbatim April 20, 1983 Multivisions Page 10 porating. But I have no problem whatsoever in continuing this. I know this has been a long time, and I know the Council have been pressing pretty heavy to get this ordindnce before them and I have been trying to work something out with the utilities because it is a very sticky and a very hard ordinance that's going to require a lot of work on our part, on Public Works Department and again to start from the beginning I've have no problem, in fact it would be very much easy, very easier for us if the Public Works could assign the eight feet on each side of the right-of-way to the utility companies if they are in agree- ment (inaudible) to go outside that eight feet they would be willing to relocate. City Manager Brighton - Keith, was Multivisions represented at your 13th meeting? Public Works Director Kornelis: Yes at both our meetings. City Manager Brighton - and you've noted their, in your memo what appears to be their problem that they feel they ought to be able to install their cable in any location as determined in the field and later give the City an as -built. Is that.. Public Works Director Kornelis: That was what Ken BARR mentioned at the meeting. He came in rather late, he had a light problem or something, and he came in toward the end of the meeting so we started over and went through the whole thing again with him and he had said that in Anchorage that they were doing that in some locations and just go in and put the utility where their tv cable, wherever they could find room in the right-of-way and later on they'd go back to the City and just say we put it here and at that time the end of the year or whenever when they finished putting it in and they would notify. That was his suggestion. Councilman Wise: I have to say something in response to both presentations and that was a reference to the rate payers costs and so forth and implied comment that we might be driving up rates and so forth. I would point out the history of public utilities both in the "Lower 48" and here are governed by PUC or appropriate PUC and they provide a reasonable rate of return based on the needs of the utility. I think it has been proven to Chugach experience that those rates of returns have frequently been based on erroneous data and gross management error. Management audit the PUC required Chugach clearly establish that there were so many inefficiences and inappropriate actions taken that the rates were sky rocketed and certain costs have been generated that if had been properly managed at the time they Verbatim April 20, 1983 Multivisions Page 11 wouldn't have occurrei. Nevertheless, Chugach and even HEA and us as a local taxpayer drawing from Chugach are burdened with those costs. What the City is attempting to do is to get responsible engineering and responsible location at the time the installation. Proper planning prior good conduct of engineering, proper decision making may be a little more expensive initially but it it is a hell of a lot less expensive than going and having major cables cut because they haven't been recorded properly and they've been carelessly in placed, and all kinds of incidents and accidents some of which have led to serious injury. I think what we are asking for is proper planning, consistency, we are asking for care instead of laying a line, instead of laying it straight and we are laying it by vehicle and we jump to a obstacle we drive around it and naturally when we are working on the road we are going to cut that cable because it's not where it's supposed to be. There has been experiences here in the City where things aren't where they are supposed to be and major disruptions have occurred. Recent work in Borough projects have caused major cable cuts because they simply weren't where they were supposed to be. I do not feel that the rate payer or the City in par- ticular should be more or less liable for management error, or in the field, lack of supervision, and that's why I think we do need to require some liability and responsibility by the utilities to make sure they know what they are doing and they do what they say they are doing and this has not been true. This is the facts and I challenge anyone to dispute them. City Manager Brighton - Sam, at your meeting today in the absence of Public Works Department but among the utilities, do you think there were any conclusions reached by the utilities today that are in direct opposition to conclusions reached at the meeting of the 13th at which time the Public Works was represented? Sam Matthews: Off hand I don't think so. I think it's more a question of methodology than anything else. We would like to see something that would result in a minimum of paperwork for everybody concerned, I mean I'm talking about the present rights -of -way with the utilities and in varying locations. Whatever we work out we would like to see something that could be workable without a lot of generating a lot of paperwork that in the end really doesn't do much for anybody. I think that was our main concern. City Manager Brighton - I think you would also have to agree that when finally there is some conclusion reached in this area that it's going to be to some people's disadvantage as opposed to the way it is right now. I think you would have to agree with that, Verbatim April 20, 1983 Multivisions Page 12 wouldn't you? I mean somebody's going to be burdened with a little more responsibility than they had in the past, us, the utilities. Sam Matthews: Well I think all parties would have some ob- ligations that they don't necessarily have now or that are unclear at the present time. Mayor Malston: Any further questions from Council? Thank you Mr. Matthews, thank you Ted for presenting your side this evening. )&,� 1&, ,dam, //da M__x, ., . �__ ..�W_ --- -- -