Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-09-28 Council Minutes - Special MeetingKENAI CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING, MINUTES �EPTEMBEP. 28, 1981, - 7:00 P.M. CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MAYOR VINCENT O'REILLY PRESIDING ROLL CALL: Present: Jess Hall, Ron Malston, Ray Measles, Dick Mueller, Tom Wagoner, Vincent O'Reilly, Betty Glick Mayor O'Reilly stated that at the last Council meeting of September 16, 1981, we had a motion seconded to pursue the continuation of the Administrative Support Grant with the State of Alaska, Community & Regional Affairs, through the Kenai Peninsula Borough, The Motion was 3 to 2 prior to recording of the vote and Councilwoman Glick changed her vote to a "Yes" vote and gave notice of intention to ask for reconsideration at the next Council meeting of October 7, 1981,. However, since we had a time frame of September 30, 1981, within which the grant offer would expire, and honoring a request from the Harbor Commission for a special meeting, we are here to consider the one order of business: the Motion to Reconsider. MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Measles to reconsider the Motion to direct City Administration to pursue the continuation of the Administrative Support Grant with the State of Alaska, Community & Regional Affairs through the Kenai Peninsula Borough, Roger Maggard of Department of Community & Regional Affairs spoke on the contract expiring on September 30th. In order to extend the contract a procedure must be followed where we write up an amendment to the contract, our Director signs it, we would send it to the Borough for their signature and then we forward it to the Commissioner for signature. This is supposed to occur prior to expiration of the contract. Mayor O'Reilly asked what would happen if we defeated the Motion to Reconsider. Roger Maggard said it would be difficult to meet that deadline as they g€nerally require two weeks to amend a contract as it has to go through our office, to the Borough for the Mayor's signature, sent back to us, and then forwarded to Juneau. If the Commissioner wanted to she could sign the amendment after the expiration date if we had verbal approval. Technically it is unlikely that we could meet the September 30th deadline. If the Council wanted to extend this contract, we would be willing to try. Attorney Ben Delahay informed Council that City Manager Brighton would not return to the office until Thursday as he was in Petersburg. Councilwoman Glick asked Mr. Maggard if the extension of the contract he was referring to is the contract in effect with Mr. Davis as a Coordinator. Mr. Maggard said the contract is between the State of Alaska and the Borough. There is a sub -contract 1 between the Borough and the City, and another sub -contract with the City and Mr. Davis. Councilwoman Glick wanted to know if it was better to let the current contract expire and execute a new one. Mr. Maggard agreed. If they did extend this contract they would ask that certain objectives be identified. Looking at the status report the contract has lost its focus with the City's rejection of the Wetlands study which was the real focus of this contract. That was the memorandum of understanding and since that is no longer in effect they would like clarification of the purpose of the contract. Mayor O'Reilly said that since no action was taken by the Administration at the September 16th Council meeting it appears that we are too late to extend this contract. Would it be your recommendation that a new contract be drawn up? Mr. Maggard said that would be better. He said the money was Coastal Zone money and would have to be tied closely with solving CZM problems. It is not the function of CZM to support normal activities of community government even though they may be related to the coast but must be tied with planning -oriented work. Mayor O'Reilly questioned Finance Director Brown if Council had budgeted money for this activity and if it could be used for general coastal activities of the City? If it is not used for a Match can it be used for Administrative support for the Harbor Commission? Finance Director Brown said the money is appropriated at 30% of the project cost. He felt the Council could use that money for whatever they needed it for. If we were to put someone on the payroll, we would transfer the money. Councilwoman Glick referred to City Manager Brighton's Memorandum to Council dated September 25, 1981 „ where she quoted "You must keep in mind that the $21,668 of City money was appropriated in ` anticipation of match money for a new grant." Councilwoman Glick called for question on Motion to reconsider. Mayor O'Reilly stated we have a motion passed September 16th that Administration pursue the Administrative Support Grant. What is being called for now is reconsideration of that vote. A "No" vote would reconfirm the vote taken September 16th, a "Yes" vote would bring the matter up for reconsideration. Councilwoman Glick hoped that we would vote to reconsider this in view of what has been stated mere in regard to consideration of a ` new contract. I have prepared a resolution which outlines what I J would like to have an opportunity to discuss. Councilman Wagoner said we will have a chance at the next Council =T meeting to reconsider another alternative anyway since if we vote "No" tonight the City Manager is out of town and we are not going to get the contract renewed any way. Roger Maggard said it is against their procedure to request the Commissioner to backdate a contract or approve it verbally. Councilman Wagoner felt it imperitive to extend the contract. " The last time it took 3k months from when requested to when funded. It would be two years down the road until we could ask for additional funds for the Harbor Commission. VOTES Motion to Reconsida- passed with Councilwoman Glick, Councilmen Malston, Measles, and Mueller voting "Yes", and Councilmen Hall, Wagoner, and Mayor O'Reilly voting "No". MOTIONS Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Malston to adopt Resolution 81-97. Mayor O'Reilly wanted to know if Mr. Maggard had a chance to review the Resolution. Mr. Maggard felt it would stand a good chance to be funded as it can be considered Coastal related and he sees no reason why it could not qualify. Coucilwoman Glick said that the original focus of our grant was to deal with the memorandum of agreement. The reason why we were _ trying to get a memorandum of agreement was the problems various people were having obtaining wetland permits. we had hoped to be ` able to coordinate and consolidate the review tine by the various federal and state agencies and at our last Council meeting there were comments made to the effect that the City will have to be dealing with 13 various agencies if they proceed with some of the projects, we should have been into a sedimentation study but for various reasons we have not implemented one. The other item is the fact that we have a problem with drainage in Section 36. At our last Council meeting Councilman Mueller suggested that we appropriate some funds to address this drainage problem which she believes is related to some bluff erosion problems. The $500,000 grant we received from the State last year includes some monies for study of bluff erosion. In order to implement a small boat harbor in the area of tl�o bluff, that problem should be addressed as well as sedimentation as they go together, The reason I put in the possible construction of a bulknead in the vicinity of the area from Ryans Creek to Old Sewerage Treatment Plant is that, a presentation was made to Planning & Zoning Commission by former city manager John wise with what could be a possible solution and she believes City Manager Brighton had requested Mr. Davis to put '`- this on the last Harbor Commission meeting agenda which was not done. In order to develop Section 36 lands, we will have to be able to tie that drainage in and do something with bluff erosion. I think one of the main emphasis we need is some additional secretarial help to take the minutes of the Harbor Commission as well as some of th;.s3e otherz and believe her wages could be a pro -rated from this support grant. -= Mayor O'Reilly asked Councilwoman Glick if she wanted to define the Harbor Commission. Councilwoman Glick stated that in the ordinance that created the Harbor Commission and development of a harbor it states that those plans, etc., will be presented to the P & Z Commission for review. Harbor development is a planning & zoning type of activity and generally these funds are administered through the P & Z Department, Mayor O'Reilly wanted to know how we would assure the Harbor Commission that there would not be a diversion of this effort and that the support personnel would be available to the Harbor Commission? Since h =; City Manager Brighton is directly responsible for giving supervision and direction to this person, she felt that he would not take all the support from the Harbor Commission. City j 3 Manager Brighton would be the one who would determine now many times that person goes to thece commission meetings and the level of support. Mayor O'Reilly agreed but felt that the resolution should be changed in that the wording in the last "whereas" should be deleted after the word "Code". Councilman Wagoner said as far as memorandum of agreement he feels 8 is a little low. At the Elks Club there were 22 people spoke against the MOA and 4 that spoke for. This was one of the considerations Council had to take into account when they rejected the MOA. Secondly, he had been on the Harbor k:cmmission when lot of work was done to get the grant to fund this position. If the P & Z Commission wants a person to carry out these types of functions perhaps they should develop their own grant, and source of funding for this type of Administrative support. A discussion did take place at the last Harbor Commission on that bulkhead but it was not clear in anyone's mind what the discussion was over, and it was waiting for the P & Z Commission to come to the Harbor Commission, or Mr, wise to come, to present the situation. Councilman wagoner has objection to whole resolution combining an Administrative Assistant's position to perform for two Commissions. while the two Commissions do have some things in common, it would be hard to find someone who is an expert for both fields. Councilman Mueller believes that when we first appropriated the money 't was to hire a secretary -assistant for secretarial work. It appears that what is needed is planning and coordinating the plans of several areas where we have it down to one overall plan for the entire area. Councilman wagoner feels it was twofold in nature - one was secretarial support since they were using the Administrative assistant for City Manager about half of the time two years ago. There was also an emphasis for someone with a construction and engineering background. Commissioner Williams spoke of the original meeting with Murray Walsh with the potential of receiving $ti million to do planning and an additional $646,000 in bond money, and of possibility of building a harbor. We told him that we did not have enough money to fund an assistant's job to oversee these projects as we are an advisory group. He asked if we could go to CZM to get funds. The Harbor Commission has not gotten involved in any projects because of the many stalls encountered. For instance, this meeting is a good example. The deadline is here on the grant money and we are being told it is too late. As to the resolution, if you go to the same people and say you want money for Section 36, this has nothing to do with the Harbor Commission. As far as the planning and bluff erosion control from the Sewer Plant to Ryans Creek that is in our engineering statements on the Harbor. The State is going to get tired of us and will take back its $1 million. Our Commission is only 5 members strong now and he would not doubt it if it is less than that after tonight. He referred to the Clarion issue of May 27, 1980 where the headlines reads "Council balks at boat harbor cost estimate." Chairman Peterkin said that on the memorandum of agreement he has the resolution that says Gary Davis works directly for the Council on MOA and CZM. He was in on the first CZM meeting and the Harbor Commission has been in agreement with it all the way, On the sedimentation study it has been held up because of response from the Corps of Engineers. Bluff erosion study was study in the 1968 program and it was part of Task Order /1, Corps of Engineers, The only thing we can do is put the bulkhead down and make a road out of it which the engineers said won't stop the erosion problem as it is due to wind. Regarding the amendment on the floor, Chairman Peterkin referred to Ordinance 474-79 creating the Harbor Commission Section 19.10.020 1(a) & Mr 3. He stated that no where in the ordinance does it mention Planning & Zoning and wanted to know how the Harbor Commission is supposed to work through another agency to accomplish this. Does the Council want a harbor Commission or not? Mayor O'Reilly asked Chairman Peterkin if he felt the resolution before us was too broad. Chairman Peterkin felt that to find someone to fill the needs of the Harbor Commission and Planning Zoning would be very difficult. He referred to the original job description for the Administrative Coordinator. Gary Davis was hired under that job description. The new job description would include Section 36 and he does not feel this has anything to do with the Coordinator's effort related to the Harbor Commission. We are trying to build a harbor. The position should be funded working directly for the Mayor and City Manager. All we can do is make recommendations. Commissioner Williams referred to the job description for the Administrative Coordinator under duties where number 4 refers to Recreation and Culture Center Committees. Did Council want to take monies from CZM to help fund Recreation and Culture Center Committees? Commissioner Weller spoke saying that he has only been at 4 meetings. He never got any feeling except for tonight that the Harbor Commission was not going in the right direction and felt that the Council should have come to the Harbor Commission and said there was a problem. Councilwoman Glick referred to a letter dated May 19, 1981, from Mr. Kimball, Jr. regarding the extension of the Harbor Commission Support Grant was to furnish means for enhanced participation by the City of Kenai and the Borough to prepare a Wetlands Management Plan. Since this project failed to get local endorsement, it was dropped and in light of this development she feels the Advisory Harbor Committee Administrative Support Project should be reassessed. Councilman Glick also referred to a letter to Mr. Labahn dated September 21, 1981, from Mr. Roger Maggard wherein he referred to their meeting of September 171 1981, and said the contract needs stronger direction in terms of identified objectives and sense of purpose and feels that full time secretarial support is unwarranted. Councilwoman Glick cannot understand why two commissions cannot work together as some of the projects do tie together. Chairman Peterkin referred to a letter to Jeff Labahn from the City of Kenai dated April 14, 1981, that asks for FY 1982 Administrative Support Grant be extended. He also referred to a j letter from Mr. Roger Maggard stating the Borough wishes to continue their participation in the Pfarr-r Commission Administrative Support Grant PY 1982, The Harbor Commission does not have funding for a full time Administrative Coordinator as the funding was cut off, yet alone for a secretary, we are at the mercy of the Council. I cannot take any criticism about the way some of the money was spent because we did not have a Coordinator at that time nor a secretary. Everything is on an hourly basis for the contract. Commissioner Williams stated that the entire west side of the ground floor of the City Hall was leased out to two other state agencies and we were not even allowed the courtesy for storage space. As far as identifying objectives and showing purpose, I feel the Harbor Commission for three years has identified lots of objectives and showed a tremendous amount of purpose. However, our objective6 must not coincide with the rest of Administration and Council. Attorney Delahay stated that the resolution is a substitution for the original motion. Councilwoman Glick said that the letter that Chairman Peterkin referred to dated April 25, 1981, from City Manager Brighton to Mr. Labahn was never approved by City Council, Mayor O'Reilly said that at this point we have a resolution before us. If the substitute resolution was passed it would substitute for the actions of September 16th. If the substitute resolution is defeated you have the action of September 16th. VOTES ' Motion to substitute resolution passed with Councilwoman Glick, Councilmen Malston, Measles, and Mueller voting "Yes", and Councilmen Hall, Wagoner, and Mayor O'Reilly voting "No% Mayor O'Reilly said he assumed there would be extensive negotiations between Administration and Mr. Maggard's agency. Councilwoman Glick recommended that Mr. Labahn or Maggard could give us the scenario that includes the Borough's participation in order for the City TO receive grants under any circumstance. Mr. Maggard said that if the Borough should bale out of CZM it is unlikely that any money would be available. Gary Davis stated that one item of interest for PY 1982 Administrative Support funds was on the basis that original grant was on an 80/20 split with consideration that any furtherance of the grant would show more City participation. This year at the request for 1982 funds the City recommended a 70/30 split. Isn't it true that the State has dropped the 80/20 and is now on 90/10 with a 10% local share? Any new grant can be on a 90/10 share instead of 70/30. In this way it could be a larger grant. Mr. Maggard wanted to know if we decided to extend the grant. Mayor O'Reilly said that is what this resolution is about. Attornev Delahay said nothing has been done as yet except to substitute this resolution for the motion. it is still up for 6 consideration for amendment, defeat., or passage, Mayor O'Reilly then stated we have an amendment which is this resolution to the motion. The motion was asking for a continuation but this amendment will effectively ask for a new grant, Recess Councilman wagoner wanted to know if the resolution was amended to take out "the Planning and Zoning Commission is designated as the primary commission," He does not feel it is wise to pass something of this nature this fast without having the two commissions sit down together, VOTES Resolution passed with Mayor O'Reilly, Councilwoman Glick, Councilmen Malston, Measles and Mueller voting "Yes", and Councilmen Hall and wagoner voting "No". j Chairman Peterkin wanted a short breakdown of what happened. Mayor O'Reilly said the resolution became an amendment to the ( motion. The amendment passed and then the resolution passed. i The resolution with the deletion of those words will request a new grant not a continuation. Councilman Wagoner asked Mr. Maggard how long it would take Ulis grant to go through, Mr. Maggard said the City will make their request known to the Borough, the Borough will forward it to us. We should be able to give an answer in a month or less, we anticipate receiving the FY 82 money "any day now". Councilman Wagoner asked if this would be a month from when they received it from the Borough and Sir. Maggard said it depends on the intensity of the contract between the City, Borough and ourselves. Once that is agreed to it should be a matter of a few weeks. Gary Davis wanted to comment on what Councilwoman Glick said about not addressing Mr. Wise's concern on the bluff. He was approached by C:ts Manager Brighton the day before the Harbor Commission meeting that Mr. wise was informed that he should come to. He did not contact Mr, wise the day before but felt he was informed. Commissioner Williams commended Mr. Davis on his performance. He has done exactly what we have asked him to and has brought all his work in in a timely matter except for the delays from the Corps of Engineers. Meeting adjourned at S OO p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mar Ann Dore Act ng City Clerk 1 �U 7 J� a�