HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-08-15 Council Minutesr
AGENDA
KENAI CITY COUNCIL, - REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 15, 1079 - 7: 00 P.M.
KENAI PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A.
ROLL CALL
AGENDA APPROVAL
B.
HEARINGS
1. Ordinance 519-79, recognition of donation in the amount of $3, 22 from X1 Nu
sorority
C.
PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD
1. Presentation of petition - representatives of senior citizens
2. Representatives from Social Security
3. Carmen Gintoli - Schematic II - Kenai City Hall
r
D.
MINUTES
1. Minutes of the regular meeting of August 1 a 2, 1070
E.
CORRESPONDENCE
1. Jack Thompson - lease renegotiation rate
2. Wildwood Development Company
3. Lockheed Constellation - Richard Terrill and Morgan DeForest
4. Mike's Appliance Repair - rental space for City Hall
5. Peter Hansen, M.D. - rental space for City Hall
-
S. "Midnight" Craning Service - offer to sell City Ono -Blower
F.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Cresswell request for Water and Sewer Hook-up
2. Lease of Airport Facilities - Hertz, Raven & Sheffield
'
3. Ordinance 455-78, Tidelands
,41
4. Reconsideration - facility known as the "Mukluk Building"
0.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Bills to be paid - bills to be ratified
—'
2. Requisitions exceeding $500
-- `-
3. Ordinance 520-79, grant from State for modifications to 5 sewer lift stations
=
4. Resolution 79-110, transfer of funds "Water and Sewer Lines" - $1,012
5. Resolution 79-111, transfer of funds, Animal Control - $700
F
_— —� iK •- �
- •::.pia:'
AGENDA, Page Two
n
6. Resolution 79-112, transfer of funds, Recreation - $280
7. Resolution 79-113, transfer of funds, LPW Projects - $459
S. Resolution 79-114, accepting a grant from DEC - $13, 850
9. Resolution 79-115, awarding contract for installation and placement of sign posts
10. Resolution 79-116, transfer of funds, Renovation of five lift stations - $734
11. Resolution 79-117, transfer of funds for installation of sign posts
12. Application for auxiliary power for Kenai Municipal Airport
�
13. Application for expansion of Kenai Municipal Airport Parking Apron facilities
�
14. Lease of Airport Lands or Facilities - Glacier State Telephone Company
- 15. Payments to Wince, Cortholl , Bryson a Freas
16. Periodic Estimate No. 2 - Rockford Corporation
17. Periodic Estimate No. 4 - PRaS, Inc.
18. Parodic Estimate No. 4 - Wildwood Construction, Inc./Alaska Constructors, Inc./J.V.
19. Payments to Ted Forsi a Associates - Kenai Spur Waterline Project
20. Change Order 1 - Wildwood Construction/ACI, J .V.
21. Change Order 3 - Cordova Construction
22. Change Order 1 - Rockford Corporation
23. Discussion - Kenai Municipal Airport Arctic Doors Project
24. Discussion - City of Kenai House Numbering
U (a): Resolution 79-118, Rejecting bid for gravel
it (b): Resolution 79-119, Accepting bids for equipment rental
� g
H. REPORTS
1. City Manager
2. City Attorney
3. Mayor
4. City Clerk
S. Finance Director
0.:lanning a Zoning Commission
7. Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly
S. Harbor Commission
MAYOR a COUNCIL - QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
' I . PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD
ADJOURNMENT
� o
J
i
I
KENAI CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
UGUST 18, 1970 - 7:00 P.M.
ENAI PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
MAYOR VINCENT O'REILLY PRESIDING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Edward Ambarian, Charles Dailie, Dotty Glick, Ronald Malston, Vincent O'Reilly,
Michael Seaman and Phillip Aber.
Absent: None
AGENDA APPROVAL
Councilman Seaman requested reconsideration of the Mukluk Building -City leneo which
would be under item F-4 and Mayor O'Roi11y requested inclusion of items 0-11(a) and
0-11(b) relative to the Parks and Recreation Department.
Council so conourred .
B . HEARINGS
B-1: Ordinance 519-79
Mayor O'Reilly read Ordinance 819-79 by title only. "An ordinance increasing
estimated revenues and appropriations in the 1970-80 General Fund Budget by
$3,212 in recognition of a donation from XI Nu to purehaim a defibrillator for the
Kenai Fire Department."
There was no public comment.
MOTION:
Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for adoption of
Ordinance 819-79, purchase of defibrillator paddles and donation in the amount of
$3,212.
s
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
C. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD
C-1: Mrs. Louisa Miller
On behalf of area -wide citizens, Mrs. Miller presented a petition to Council urging
- -- Council considoration to retain sponsorship of the senior
or citizen pro ram .
Mayor O'Reilly accepted the petition and submitted it to Councilman Seaman for review
- ; by the ad hoc committee from Council on the subject.
r
/
W
7
Adgual 15, 19,79 -• Page 2
0*�C-2: Molly Fiveash - social security
Ms. Fivoash advised Council that she had hold meetings earlier in the day with various
City employees to explain all the ramifications of withdrawing from the AocUl Security
plan. Ms. Fivoash reported to Council that a question and answer period was hold
and many areas of concern wore discussed. Ms. Fivoash left further explanatory materials
for Council review and steps to be taken for future action.
C-3: Carmon Gintoli
Mr, tlintoli, architect, presented schematic II of the proposed City Hall complex.
Mayor O'Reilly referred the matter to the Public Works Committee from Council and also
advised that Mr. Andregg with CEIP would be available to meet with any interested
persons on Thursday at 3 p.m. in the Public Safety Building.
D. MINUTES
D-1: Minutes of the regular meeting of August 1 A 2 ;
Councilwoman Glick requested that adjustments be made to the minutes on pages r
3, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, 19 and 22.
Minutes were approved as corrected.
"
. V
E. CORRESPONDENCE
E-1: Jack Thompson
City Attorney Schloreth advised that the matter would be discussed under the P
Attorney's Report.
E-2: Wildwood Development Company
w
,Lg
Mayor O'Reilly acknowledged receipt of correspondence from Mr. James Power
offering 21.85 acres of land adjacent to the airport to the City for purchase from Wildwood g
Development Company and the City will respond advising that no acquisitions are planned
at this time for additional lands surrounding the Airport.
J
_
E-3: Lockheed Constellation
Mayor O'Reilly advised that the City had received correspondence from Mr. Richard Terrill
i
and Mr. Morgan DeForest in which the gentlemen requested Council consideration of their
purchase of the Lockheed Constellation aircraft in the event that the present purchaser
---
is unable to fulfil his agreement with the City. City Attorney sehlereth advised that
-
Mr. McNamara contacted the City and reported that there was a difficulty in obtaining
certain equipment, ete.,needed to remove the aircraft from Kenai. City Attorney
Sahlereth advised that Mr. McNamara has been given an extension to September ath
to remove the aircraft and during such time, Mr. McNamara will be asked to pay
$25/day for tie -down fees.
s o
.
I IL
Mlr►tr'-„ . - -- " � � ^C:e. - _u:.. ��. ' -tea.-.. - -- �:'
August to, 1070 e page 3
Mayor O'Reilly suggested that Council not grant nny further extensions without Council
discussion at which time the offer submitted by Mr. Terrill and Mu UePorest could be
considered as well as the additional request for extension,
E-4s Mike's Appliance Repair
Mayor O'Reilly advised that correspondence had boon received relative to the
rental of office space to the City until such time a permanent structuro could be
constructed.
Council discussion followed relative to the renovation of the Terminal which would
precipitate the moving of the City Hull offices. It was the consensus of Council
that until such time the renovation of the terminal project did proceed, time was not of
the essence and the City offices would not be moved, Acting City Manager Charles Brown
advised that with regard to the renovation project, Mr. Huff of Wien had indicated a
desire to meet with Council in a work session to discuss and address their needs for
space in the Terminal, Councilwoman Glick recommended encouraging Wien
representatives to moot with Council and Administration relative to their needs.
MOTIONs
Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman Railie, to direct Administration
to pursue with Wien representatives to refine the situation as regards their present
lease and dofino what their anticipated needs are and then sot up a work session with
Council prommt.
Motion passed unanimously by roil call vote.
E-3s Peter Hanson, M.D.
Council reviewed a letter from Peter Manson, M.D. relative to the offer of rental space
for City offices in the Denco Building.
E-6s "Midnight" Craning Service
Mr, Knight submitted a proposal for the sale of a used ono -Boss ono -Blower for
$32,800 to the City of Kenai,
Councilwoman Glick suggested that a work session be scheduled to discuss the
requests from the various departments for equipment at which time Mr. Knight's
proposal will be also discussed,
P, OLD BUSINESS
8-is Cresswell request
Public Works Director Keith Kornelis reiterated the situation of the water and sewer
in the vicinity of Mr, end Mrs. CresswoUls property line as discussed in the last meeting
Of Council and reported that approicimste cast for some 120 feet of line including
repair of the pavement, etc, would run $0-10,000,
i
ti
r
AJkust 1'S, 1879 - Page 4
I
Councilman Ambarian stated that he felt the City was morally obligated to furnish
the service to the Crosswous. Councilman Aber agreed, however, folt a resolution
should be prepared spelling out in detail why the City was providing the water/sowor
service to the owner's property line. Council concurred that a resolution be prepared
for approval of installation of line from the main to the property line in exchange for the
ovor-assessment but also include within the resolution that this by no means relieves
the Cresswelle of paying the proper hook-up fees.
F-2: Lease of Airport Facilitles - Hertz, Raven and Sheffield
Acting City Manager Brown advised that the City has received back the signed leases
from Hertz and Sheffield, however, Raven Transit has not yet signed their lease.
MOTION:
Councilman Bailie moved, seconded by Councilman Ambartan, that Raven Transit
be given a thirty day notice in which to comply with signing of their lease document
or the City will proceed with cancellation of their lease space.
Motion passed by roll call vote with Councilmembers Malston and Aber voting no.
MOTION:
Councilman Seaman moved, seconded by Councilman Bailie, for approval of
lease of Airport Terminal spaco to Hertz and Sheffield House for a term of one year.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
F-3s Ordinance 485-78
City Attorney Schloreth advised that the Harbor Commission had perused the ordinance
in-depth and the Council now has the tidelands section before them for introduction.
MOTION - REMOVE FROM TABLE
Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, to remove the matter
of Ordinance 488-78 from the table.
Motion passed unanimously by roil call vote.
MOTION:
Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman Aber, for introduction of
s Ordinance 488-78 as amended.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote,
F-4: Reconsideration - Lease agreement between City and Peninsula Enterprises (Mukluk Bldg.)
-� As a verbatim transcript of this portion of the meeting was prepared and is quite
lengthy, the City Clerk included the transcript for incorporation in the minutes
and is attached hereto.
l
A
29
August,15, 1970 - Page 5
^G NEW BUSINESS
0-1: Bills to be paid - bills to be ratified
MOTION:
Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Railie, for approval of bills to
be paid and bills to be ratified as presented this date.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
0-2: Requisitions exceeding $500
MOTION:
Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman Bailie, for approval of requisitions
exceeding $500.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
0-3: Ordinance 520-79 ;
Mayor O'Reilly read Ordinance 520-79 by title only. "An ordinance amending Ord. 488-79
in recognition of a grant from the State of Alaska for modifications to five sewer lift ,
stations."
iJ
MOTION:
Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for introduction of
Ordinance 520-79, amending Ord. 488-79, modifications to five sewer lift stations.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
0-4: Resolution 79-UO
Mayor O'Reilly advised that Resolution 79-110 transferred $1,012 in the capital project
"water and sewer lines" for voltage changes and relocations by Homer Electric of
power to lift stations.
There was no public comment.
MOTION:
Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for adoption of
Resolution 79-110, transfer of $1,012 in the capital project "Water and Sewer Lines"
f
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote,
f 0-5: Resolution 79-M
`l
Mayor O'Reilly advised that Resolution 70-IB transferred monies in the amount of $700
to Animal Control, repair h maintenance to buy pipe and fittings to run a sewer line
to the Shelter.
t
There was no public comment.
August 18,,1979.- Page 6
^MOTION -
Councilman Seaman moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for adoption of
Resolution 79-111, transfer of $700 in Animal Control/repair and maintenance.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
G-6: Resolution 79-112
Mayor O'Reilly advised that Resolution 79-112 transferred $280 in the Recreation Budget
to have carpeting installed in the Parks a Recreation Director's Office.
There was no public comment.
MOTION:
Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, for adoption of
Resolution 79-112, transfer of $280 in the Recreation Department budget.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vo:c.
Q-7: Resolution 79-113
Mayor O'Reilly advised $459 is to be transferred in the five street LPW projects
to provide monies to pay the Wince-Corthell bill of August 8, 1079.
0 There was no public comment.
MOTION:
Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for adoption of
Resolution 79-113, transfer of $459 in the LPW Capital Project fund.
r
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
- : G-8: Resolution 79-114
Mayor O'Reilly read Resolution 79-114 by title only. "A resolution accepting a grant
from the Rtate of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, in the amount
$13,850 for modifications to five sewer lift stations."
P
S
There was no public comment.
s,
MOTION:
Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for adoption of
Resolution 79-114, accepting grant from DEC in the amount of $13,050.
Motion passed unanimously by roll tail vote.
G-9: Resolution 79-115
Mayor O'Reilly read Resolution 79-115 by title only. "A resolution awarding the contract
for installation and placement of approximately 200 U4 sign posts with strut name signs.
r ,
I
Al �
' August 15, 1979 - Page 7
There was no public comment.
MOTION:
Councilman Seaman moved, seconded by Councilman Ambarian, for adoption of
Resolution 79-115, awarding the bid in the amount of $28.85 per post to Tolchina
Excavating.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
0-10: Resolution 79-116
Mayor O'Reilly advised that Resolution 79-116 transferred $734 in the capital project
fund entitled "Water and Sewer Lines" to provide monies per change order #3 for
Cordova Construction.
There was no public comment.
MOTION:
Councilman Seaman moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for adoption of
Resolution 79-116, transferring $734 in "Water and Sewer Lines:
Motion passed by roll call vote with Councilman Ambarian voting no.
G-U: Resolution 79-117
Mayor O'Reilly advised that Resolution 79-117 transferred $6,000 to Streets, improvements
other than buildings, for the purpose of installing the street sign posts.
There was no public comment.
MOTION:
Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for adoption of
Resolution 79-117, transferring funds in the amount of $6,000 for installation of sign posts.
Motion passed by roll call vote with Couneilmembers Ambarian and Aber voting no.
0-11(a) Resolution 70-118
Mayor O'Reilly read Resolution 79-119 by title only. "A resolution rejecting the bid
for gravel from Ward Landscaping Service."
There was no public comment.
p
MOTION:
Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for adoption of
t == Resolution 79-US, rejecting bid for gravel at $6/yard from Ward Landscaping.
- f Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
a
�1
I
i
1
-
•
4
�=
i
1
i�
--------------
,Augupt 15, 1979 - Page 8
G-11(b) Resolution 79-119
Mayor O'Reilly read Resolution 79-119 by title only. "A resolution accepting bids
for equipment rental to improve various City parks and to construct the East Kenai
Park Trails."
Administration requested that the following be added to the resolution ...... "subject
to the understanding that the going union labor wage rates will be paid to equipment
operators other than the owner/operator......"
MOTION:
Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for adoption of
Resolution 79-119, accepting bids for equipment rental, as amended.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
G-12: Application for auxiliary power
MOTION:
Councilwoman Glick moved seconded by Councilman Seaman, for approval of submittal
of pre -application to the FAA for ADAP funds to rehabilitate the Airport's electrical
power control, distribution and auxiliary systems.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
City Attorney 8chlereth requested Council approval to utilize Administration funds
under this grant to obtain a title opinion on the Airport lands involved.
MOTION:
Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, for approval
for Administration to proceed with obtaining title opinions as needed and include
such costs under the grant.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote with Councilman Aber not present for voting.
G 13: Application for expansion of Kenai Municipal Airport Parking Apron facilities
Acting City Manager Brown advised that Administration had received a letter of
proposal from Ted Forst a Associates expressing a desire to prepare a pre -application
to the Federal Aviation Administration for a fee of $750. Councilman Malston inquired
if just one bid had come to to the City and Mr. Brown responded that the bid came to
unsolicited, however, he had been informed that the Planning Commission had some
discussions relative to the matter but to what extent he did not know and perhaps
the matter could be delayed.
MOTION:
Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for approval for
E .y
I
f
August 15, 1979 - Page 9
r
r)
Ted Forst & Associates to prepare the pre -application for submission to the FAA for
funds to expand the parking apron facilities at the Kenai Municipal Airport.
Councilman Aber stated that he felt the project was very important to the City and time
was indeed of the essence, however, Councilman Aber stated that he felt the Administration
should allow other professionals the opportunity of submitting bids to the City -- perhaps
going to bid but not just selecting one particular firm for each project. Councilman
Malston stated he would agree with Councilman Aber that Administration should be
aware that all firms must be given the opportunity to bid in the future.
QUESTION:
Motion passed by roll call vote with Councilman Aber voting no.
G-14: Lease of Airport Lands
MOTION:
Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for approval of
lease of Lot 4, Block 5, Cook Inlet Industrial Air Park, to Glacier State Telephone
for a term of one year at the annual rental of $783.90 plus tax for the purpose of
use as a pole and cable yard.
n Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
'"� 0-15: Payments to Wince-Corthell
MOTION:
Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for approval of payments
to Wince, Corthell, Bryson & Press as follows: invoice 77-43 (final) - $578; invoice
79-9-4 - $4,846.50; invoice 79-9-5 - $3,200; invoice #79-9 - $22.783.44.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
G-16: Periodic Estimate #2 - Rockford Corporation
MOTION:
Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for approval of
Periodic Estimate #2 in the amount of $88,069.50 to Rockford Corporation.
Motion passed unanimously by troll call vote.
G-17: Periodic Estimate #4 - PR&S
MOTION:
Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for approval of
Periodic Estimate #4 in the amount of $63,965.34 to PR&S.
Motion passed unanimously by roll tali vote.
G-18: Periodic Estimate #4 - Wildwood Construction
u
A
f �
August 15, 1979 — Page 10
b
?"4' )MOTION:
Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for approval of
Periodic Estimate #4 in the amount of $14,382.50 to Wildwood Construction, Inc./
Alaska Constructors, Inc. /J. V.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
G-19: Payments to Ted Forst & Associates
MOTION:
Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for approval of
payments to Ted Forst and Associates as follows: Project #7908 - $1,476.12;
Project #7908 - $3,203.24.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
Councilman Bailie cut at this time.
0-20: Change Order #1 - Wildwood Construction
MOTION:
Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, for approval of
contract change order #1 to Wildwood. Construction/ACI, J.V. In the amount of
$4,332.90.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
G-21: Change Order #3 - Cordova Construction
MOTION:
Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, for approval of
contract change order #3 in the amount of $733.91 to Cordova Construction.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
G-22: Change Order 4 - Rockford Corporation
Administration recommended that this change order not be approved per the
letter attached to the document from the engineers on the project.
MOTION:
Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for approval of
contract change order A In the amount of $5,789.95 to the Rockford Corporation
on Well House 101 project.
With Council concurrence, Mr. Gary Davis representing Wildwood Construction,
k.
August 18; 1979 - Page 11
a sub -contractor on the project, spoke. Mr. Davis advised that they had encountered
subsurface water and additional costs in dewatering. Mr. Davis reported that
the specifications did not indicate this situation and it was brought to the engineer's
attention. Rockford, the contractor, states the problem arose from the City's
standpoint, however, Wildwood would like to recover their costs as a sub-
contractor. Councilman Ambarian requested that the City Attorney give an opinion
on the situation. Mr. 3ehlereth advised that it was his opinion as there was an
underlying concern on the part of the engineer and they recommended non -approval
then the engineer's recommendation should rule.
QUESTION:
Motion failed unanimously by roll call vote.
G-23: Discussion - Arctic Doors Project
Public Works Director Kornelis advised that the City received no bids for
the Airport arctic doors project. Mr. Kornelis stated he would recommend that
the City contact EDA to determine if the City's administrative costs to -date on the
project could be reimbursed and discontinue efforts on the project. Administration
was instructed to contact EDA and work out the details on the project.
't
G-24: House Numbering
..� Public Works Director Kornelis reported Glacier State Telephone Company had done
considerable work on the house numbering system for the City. Mr. Olson, repre-
senting Glacier State, stated that his firm had entered into the project to enable
them to more readily locate their subscribers. Glacier State requested approval
from the City on assignment of the numbers. City Attorney Schlereth advised
that a public hearing should be held and the Code amended to include the street
numbering system.
Council requested that Administration proceed accordingly.
H. REPORTS
H-1: City Manager
Acting City Manager Brown advised that he had received a letter from the State of
Alaska in which they have had additional reclassification matters, etc., arise on
Section 36 and asked that the City waive the thirty day waiting period to proceed
with the resolution of the process.
MOTION:
Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, that the City
Council authorize notification to the State of Alaska that the City hereby waives
the thirty day waiting period.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
-
y
� q
i
f
1
N
August 15, 1970 - Page 12
/�H-2: City Attorney
' /(a) Union Oil - City Attorney Schlereth advised that correspondence had been received
from Union in which they requested a ROW for a high pressure gas line as when the
line was constructed it meandered and Union would like to leave the line as is --
City Attorney Schlereth stated he would not recommend approval of the request
as it was adverse to the City's present policy. Councilman Malston suggested
that as there is no conflict at present, perhaps the matter could be addressed
when the situation and/or need arises.
(b) RE: Jack Thompson - City Attorney Schlereth recommended sending a letter
to Mr. Thompson thanking him for his agreement to the negotiated price.
Council so concurred.
(c) City Attorney Schlereth advised that Mr. Aaron Barks was present and wished to
address Council relative to foreclosed parcel of land Mr. Barks purchased from
the City and then was advised that a $20, 000+ lien was against the property
by a bank in Fairbanks.
Mr. Barks advised Council that in negotiations with the bank, he had now
discussed settlement with the bank at 40 cents on the dollar. Mr. Barks requested
that the City accept a total price of $3,800 for the parcel of land so that Mr. Barks
could proceed with negotiations with the bank.
MOTION:
Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, for acceptance
of $3,800 from Aaron Barks in total payment of Tax Parcel 043-170-0600,
Lot 126, Section 31, T6N, RUW, SM.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
H-3. Mayor
Mayor O'Reilly advised that he had appointed Mr. Dave Curtis to the Kenai Advisory
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Council unanimously confirmed the appointment.
H-4: City Clerk
City Clerk Sue Peter requested authorization to proceed with preparation of
the proper reimbursement materials for those applicants traveling to the City
of Kenai for interview for the position of City Manager.
MOTION:
Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, for approval
to reimbursement the City Manager applicants called for Interview.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
F �
;
r.
-
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT #20
(Friday, July 1, 1977)
1. Ordinance No. 341-77 - Public hearing on the Mayor's ordinance
dedicating proceeds of land sales to a special Capital Improvement Fund. As you
remember this was introduced as Old Business at the last meeting to resolve the
question over the proceeds of foreclosure sales and in accordance with State law,
come this fall we must notify the prior owner of foreclosed property and give them
an opportunity to claim an appropriate share of the proceeds.
2. Ordinance 347-77, a hearing on the Special Revenue Fund, Kenai Sr. Citizens
Project which is the Title III outreach program. The budget request was sharply
reduced, therefore, we had to revise the budget as indicative in this ordinance.
3. Ordinance 348-77 for public hearing reference authorizing the purchase of
a used motorgrader. . You will notice in the DPW report that this was the only used
motorgrader currently available in the State. We feel, therefore, that it meets all
the special considerations necessary for non-competitive bid.
4. A public hearing on the abatement of public nuisances -- we have received
responses from a number of the property owners concerned. These will be presented
to the Council as the individual items come up for hearing. The City Attorney will have
drafted a resolution which will enable Council to take action on each individual abate-
ment hearing. We have pictures of the properties which 1 feel basically suffice.
I will also have the Fire Chief in attendance to discuss any problems on proposed
solutions by any property owners. I have no objection to eliminating some of these
hazards by fire and controlled burning by the Fire Department, however, I do not
want the City to assume responsibility for the clean-up after such a fire was
properly controlled. This should be responsibility of the property owners.
S. An application for a new retail license, "The Liquor Store". There to
some question whether or not the population of the City permits an additional
liquor store. There will be additional information on this presented.
6. Under Persons Present Scheduled to be Heard we have Vesta Leigh who has
an application submitted to the City for a gift shop in the Terminal Building. This
was presented some time ago and has been held by me pending resolution of the
cafe lease application. If you notice on the application that we did receive from
Mr. Vadan, he included the franchise for a gift shop. Until this particular issue
has been settled with Mr. Vadan, I delayed the presentation of Ms. Leigh's
proposal to the Council, however, in the same manner that Kenai Terminal knterprises
proposal on the Terminal Cafe/Bar was considered by the Council, it would be
appropriate for the Council to take note of this application and defer action on it
until we have determined how we are going to response to the Vadan proposal.
August 15 , 1979 - Page 14
Mayor O'Reilly reminded Council that former Councilmember Whelan held a very
"sensitive" position with the Kenai Peninsula Borough Finance Department and there
had been no conflict of interest.
Councilman Aber commented that he had been continually harassed by a certain
individual on Council relative to his having a possible conflict of interest for some time --
I. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD
NONE
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1.15 a. in.
Respectfully submitted,
o;
-Sue . Peter, City Clerk
•
1
f
i
-2-
CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
Ambarian (contd): this is the reason why if you read the full motion
I think you'll understand the reason for reconsideration,
O'Reilly: I think at this point the chair better have the full motion
read.
i
Peter: Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick that
administration be instructed to renegotiate the lease on the Mukluk facil-
ity starting October 1 through March 1 and proceed with the necessary paper
work for funding for a new warm storage facility to be placed in the vicinity
of our present shop area.
O'Reilly: So that is now the matter being brough to the council for recon-
sideration.
Seaman: Are you directing that to me? I was just thinking yes and no. I
was under the whole wrong impression because when Mr. Carter wrote his letter
he had only referred to Dec. 1, 1 believe, or December 31st, as far as his
willingness to lease the building. So it, I think it was Councilman Malston
F { that suggested asking him about a six month lease. My thinking is that I don't
think he s going to approve it and we think we ought to seriously discuss this
to see about buying ------ This was the reason I brought this back up.
O'Reilly: Okay. Councilman Ambarian.
Ambarian: I believe that legally or to follow Robert's Rule of Order because
of the affirmative votes for reconsideration we do need to discuss the Mukluk
building again because of this part of the notion that was passed at last council
meeting and the next vote after discussion the part of the motion is going to be -
the vote is going to be again on the motion that was made last meeting, with
inntructions to purchase- with instructions to apply for funding of a new
structure. This is what the motion for reconsideration is about.
O'Reilly: What I'm trying--
Ambarian: So that a negative vote on the same motion that was made last meet-
ing would be on the floor but for discussion on whether to purchase the Mukluk
building or not. In other words, the next vote is going to be what are we --
whether it's going to be on the same motion that was made last council meeting.
After discussion of the -------, if I'm correct.
O'Reilly: I think 1 can see what Councilman Ambarian is getting at, but what
I'm trying to get at is the point of discussion that I think Councilman
Seaman wishes to bring out and in discussing that I could say that we are in
the position that we would have to vote to reaffirm the motion last time or vote
negatively with regard to open up the entire matter. Councilman Ambarian.
Ambarian: My point is that because of the affirmative reconsideration vote
that the matter is back on the table for discussion before the next vote on
last week's motion.
O'Reilly: I'm in the same area you are.
Ambarian: So that we need to discuss the Mukluk building, we need to discuss
everyting that was discussed last meeting again.
fr
.
-3-
CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
O'Reilly: That's what I ---I'm in the same area.
Ambarian: Thank you.
O'Reilly: Then that's what I'm saying, is that we could discuss lease,
sale, purchase or whatever.We'll terminate where we're at.
Seaman: So we're just -we're going to start right back from before we
voted last time, now.
"-
O'Reilly: Right. Councilwoman Glick.
Glick: First off. We asked the administration to contact Mr. Carter with
-
regards to lease. Was that done?
Brown: Yes, it was.
Glick: Do we have any communication?
Brown: He said he needed a few days to think about it and would get back
with me and he hasn't done that yet.
Glick: Okay. I widely disagree with councilman Ambarian in that the motion
was a two part motion. 1) To have Mr. Carter contacted with regards to a
six month's lease. 2) To direct adminstration to look into developing funds _.
towards purchase of a building. The motion tonight was to reconsider the
Mukluk lease. Now 1 would ask for a legal ruling on whether we're discussing `
-
one part or two parts. We only specify the Mukluk lease, we did not, in the
motion, specify Mukluk lease and the direction to the administration. I know
what the motion was from the last meeting but the motion tonight was just to
reconsider the Mukluk lease.
O'Reilly: Just a second, I want to take a look at the minutes.
(Inaudible discussion)
O'Reilly: Okay. Councilwoman Glick, you are quite correct. In fact the
motion last time covered two subjects and probably last meeting we should
have divided the question. We didn't do that, however, and I interpreted
it----i'11 point out to Councilman Seaman that ---I interpreted Councilman
Seaman's motion to reconsider to cover the motion which covered these two
subjects.
Glick: But that was not what was requested to be added to the agenda. It
only specified the Mukluk lease. I was just asking what the legalities of it
is.
O'Reilly. Well----
G
` � Glick: I'm not trying to cause disruption, I'm just tring to make sure that
6✓ we're getting this thing right.
Ambarlarp: Mr. Mayor.
`i
O'Reilly: Councilman Ambarian.
4 -
CITY COUNCIL
Augu4t 15, 1979
Ambarian: Could we possible ask the maker of the motion and the person that
seconded the motion to withdraw their motion and they may, if they wish to re-
phrase it?
O'Reilly: I do so, the motion, Councilman Seaman, that administration be in-
structed to enter a lease on the Mukluk facilities starting Oct. 1 through
March 1 and proceed with the necessary paperwork for funding for a new warm
storage building to be placed in the vicinity of our present shop area. Is
that the motion that you wish to have reconsidered?
(Inaudible)
O'Reilly: that administration be instructed to enter into a lease on the Mukluk
facilities starting Oct. 1 through March 1 and proceed with the necessary paper-
work for funding for a new warm storage building to be placed in the vicinity
of the present shop area.
Seaman: Yes, sir. I was referring to the whole motion. Maybe I could re-
phrase it a little bit. Reconsideration for the Carter lease and the directive
to the City Manager, with regard to the funding that he was supposed to check
in on.
O'Reilly: Maybe I didn't catch that. Did you second the motion?
f (Inaudible)
O'Reilly: Clerk asks that you restate it.
Seaman., I would move for the reconsideration of the Carter lease and the
directive to the City Manager in reference to the paperwork for funding of
the new warm storage building.
O'Reilly: That's approved by a second?
Man X: Yes.
O'Reilly: Okay. Clerk, call the roll.
Council passed the motfop: Glick voted no.
O'Reilly: Okay. Now I interpret that we are at the stage where the discussion
preceding - we're at the same stage as we were when we - prior to the making of
that motion last time. Namely that we can discuss all aspects of the Mukluk
building and certainly all aspects of the proceeding with the necessary paper-
work, so we'll have discussion on that matter, on those matters.
Seaman: Okay, start back. In the research I've done, the problem that I feel
we're going to be faced with this winter in regards to tryfng to get the fund-
ing for a new building. (Number 1) Number 2, we still haven't decided where
we want to put it. Mr. Carter has made a proposal to this City for $138,000
�-, for the building. Right now his lease is good till 9-1-80. He had applied
..i back in, I believe it was February for an extended lease, which has never
been answered, and according to what I can find out, the new building is going
to cost us around $190,000 to $200,000, $220,000 at this time. By the time we
get around to building It, It is probably going to be more. And, according to -
also according to what I can find out, the biggest objections that we've had
O
i
-5-
CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
(contd): was to the big doors in the building. And it looks like
It would be around $10,000 to $15,000 probably to replace the doors and
insulate it. The buildings tall enough, I think it could be utilized with
the second story for storage, etc. I just feel that right now it would be
a good move to just go ahead and see about buying the building.
O'Reilly: Councilman Bailie.
Bail4e: Could we hear from the director of public works on this ------------
and what his recommendations are?
O'Reilly: Mr. Kornelis.
Kornelis: (Inaudible)
O'Reilly: Can you be so kind as to ---------
Mr. Kornelis: I didn't bring all the material that I had last time it was
on the agenda last time so I dug into it, but I didn't know it was going to
be brought up tonight. I can remember some of the things I brought. If the
council remembers, I was asked on two different occasions to go out and get
some costs on buldings, and I brought those to the public works committee.
each time, in fact quite a few times. I did a set of specifications that
were relatively close to, well, fairly close to the Mukluk building except
_i for the size, the size is a little bit larger than what we actually need.
And -not much, but a tittle bit. We might, the quotations we asked for 1
believe was for 40 by 120 foot building, which is pretty comparable to what
we have. 1 received quotes of $120,000 and $139,000. I don't have those
with me now. Those are the quotations that I got. Just to bring up some
of the points 1 brought up last time, I'm very much in favor of leasing this
building, but I'm not - not on a temporary basis, but I'm not in favor of
purchasing it, mainly because of the inconvenience that we have in operations.
As I pointed out last time if we pieces of equipment in the Mukluk building,
It's going to require two people to get that piece of equipment use to be
made over at the shop area. Our crews get lined out with their work and will
take 2 people, the operator and somebody in a pickup to take him over there
and pick up the piece of equipment - say, 10 minutes - and 15 minutes there
to get it started, get it running, make sure it's operable and then 10 minutes
(say 10 minutes) to get the pickup driver to get back, probably longer for
the piece of equipment. Totaling that, 10 and 10 and 15 cane up to 35 minutes.
That's an hour's down time, or an hour's time could be spent doing other things
at the shop. Another problem I brought out is that we're continually, always
doing something on our equipment. Mechanics, especially in the wintertime.
Mechanics are always working on them. Maybe a windshield wiper, maybe a bulb,
and maybe - it could be anything, a number of small things, Springs come loose,
break, and we're always having problems with wings. It's a never-ending battle,
alot of things are very small, things that a mechanic may have a piece of
equipment in the shop working on it and he'd run over to the warm storage
building. Ideally the location would be next to our shop where we could run
over and see what the problem is, if it's a windshield wiper or something
like that, we would be right there with the parts. He could run back over,
get the parts and get back to the tools. The ideal situation would be for
us to have the building over there in our present shop area. I know there's
some talk of moving our whole facilities over to our tool buildings or a
-6
CITY COUNCIL
August 16, 1979
Kornelis(contd): quonset but and I guess that whole area over to the
----------------but I don't see that of course in the near future be-
cause of the cost. As far as the Mukluk building itself, it was a wel-
come relief last year. We used a good portion of the building for storing
sand, which we had never had the opportunity to do last year, because we
had to have the facility to do that. We had I think about 20 loads of sand
in there, 200 yards, maybe more, somewhere in that area. A good portion of
the building of course, isn't used because there's offices in there and we
didn't use the offices or the bathrooms or parts or anything like that. 1
can't at this time think of some of the items we had in there last year. We
had an emergency generator in there, of course we didn't use it except in
emergencies which we had very few last year. The sand, 1 think we kept the
backhoe in there part of the time -which we didn't use except for emergencies
and I don't believe we used it last year except for one instance when we
had to dig some frost to get down to a well -box. And every once in a while
we'd park the sander -truck in there when we were loading sand and we'd
leave it there overnight. But again, my biggest problem is convenience of it.
It also took us (Councilman Seaman mentioned the doors that really needed
some work on them). I had constant complaints, it always took at least 2
guys, usually 3 guys and a loader just to open the doors, we always managed
It, but they're not very desirable for sliding -type doors. But I'm sure
that that can be fixed with some type of very -high overhead doors. Are
there any other questions? It's just my preference, gentlemen, you know
It's up to you. It's your decision.
Bailie : I'd like to ask, you do not recommend it, right?
Kornelis: That's correct.
Bailie: In other words, what I'd like to get out of you, you do not recommend
it, right?
Kornelis: Right
------------------It was not located in the right area ------- -------
structurally, I think you made something on that,------------, right?
Kornelis: I don't remember that, structurally - no, I don't remember any-
thing about moving it. I suppose it could be moved, but I didn't look into
it. I dont't know whether it would pay to move the building. I know we were
looking at moving that one building one time from Fairbanks to here and it
was - I can't remember - $50,000, something like that, to move it. I can't
remember, but that was a building that was a fold -down ------ pulled away.
Bailie: (Inaudible) What was your estimate to bring that building up to
what the City could use? Now much would it cost to renovate that building
so it's usable by the City?
Kornelis: I hadn't really gone through it structurally. 1 notice in the
report that the appraiser did, I remember right that he suggested that we'd
have to add insulation. I hadn't really looked at it, Councilman, that
closely. We were just leasing at the time. I do know the furnace is ------
c' pretty constantly in there, and we probably would have to some of the insu-
lation. I know the work on the doors would be necessary because I had cons-
tant complaints and we had yv:te a few problems keeping the doors open and
shut. If we were to purchase the building, we'd probably want to do quite a
-7-
CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
(contd): bit of revamping of the parts room and offices and things
that the Car Company, Alyeska, or whatever the company that leased it before -
had (Rent -A -Car --------that had that). They had some type of parts man
involved and it took up quite a bit of the room. We'd have to tear all that
out. But as far as moving that, I don't know who would do It, I know we
don't have the facilities, at least we don't have the crane or the trucks
to move It. It'd have to be leased out, probably MidKnight Crane would be
the logical one to move it. And then again 1 would mention that we had gotten
quite a few bids, I'm sorry I didn't bring them. I do have them in a folder
at the office and I have brought them on numerous occasions to the public
works committee and, they're not firm quotes but they are in the vicinity of
of $120,000 to $139,000. Of course, this is just for the building ------ land,
And the Mukluk building I'm sure would be land and building. See, their
quotes are just for the building Itself ---------------------.
O'Reilly: Councilman Ambarian.
Ambarian: Yes, I think over this last six months as far as the comments
made by the public works director on this buildingg, I'm quite displeased
with hisiconsistenLies from meeting to meeting. 4he public works committee
has met with him several times on the building. Some weeks he is agreeable
to the building and other weeks he will refuse to discuss It unless he gets
-------at the old shop. 1 think If we looked at the Mukluk building for Its
use, one thing we should keep in mind is that it is suggested that it be
purchased with FAA funds for storage of airport equipment which means no equip-
ment will be used on city streets will be stored there. i think this relieves
the problem the yearly loss of running between the shop and the storage since
most of the equipment of the airport for snow removal Is going to be used
probably at the most 4 to 5 months of the year. I also believe from past
working schedules that the shift first reports to the shop where the equip-
ment Is and then usually takes care of the airport before going out on the
street. So that these operators would be making a change of equipment from
the airport equipment to the city equipment and probably 2 or 3 of them would
be doing the airport then moving on the the city equipment. The offices that
he referred to as being in the way are the same type of offices that he has
requested us to include in the new in the new warm storage building so his
water or sewer treatment would have a place to have coffee or whatever, so
that It would get in the way of the shop crew In the shop building. It goes
on and on. The bids that we quoted a $120,000 now are phone bids, we have
nothing on paper. I think It was pointed out that those bids are over 6
month's old. I would bet that with the announcement of LNG and Tesoro ex-
pansion and other projects that you're not going to get a building that size
for under $200,000 next year. 1 just wish that the public works director
and the acting city manager would kind of take a stand and stay with it
t from meeting to meeting. 1 feel it would help council.
Kornelis: I would like to say one thing. I've never advocated the pur-
chase of this building. I have never In any public works committe meeting
- or in council ever said that I was in favor of purchasing this building.
Last year when the subject came up to renting this building I was very much
in favor of It, as I am right now. But I have never been and very diligently
went out for quotations for a new building when I was directed to by the
council. These quotations, by the way, are in writing. They are not dooe
very neatly, they are done - some of the people gave us quotes in their own
CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
Kornelis (contd): handwriting. But I do have them, and I have brought them
to the public works committe meetings.
O'Reilly: Do we have an alternative for warm storage in the event that the
owner will not lease to us? What will we do?
Kornelis: We would have to make provisions. Of course, we would not be
able to store any sand in the building, I would not have room for that. We'd
have to make some provisions like we did the year before and we'd have to
leave out some pieces of equipment that are not frequently used. We will
probably have to purchase some electrical items in order to plug in these
vehicles so that they could be started at the time that it was needed. It
would be an inconvenience, granted; therefore, like I say, I'm very much
in favor of leasing this building. I've not looked into the possibilities
of other buildings because we are still waiting an answer, of course, con-
cerning the lease of this building.
O'Reilly: Councilman Bailie.
Bailie: -------------Do you have any idea what it would it take to revamp
it?
O'Reilly: Council have any objection to----------
Gintoli: I haven't examined the building from the interior or very closely.
I did read the report that was written by Mr. Frykholm, and just from looking
at the building from the outside, I would have to say that there would be
numerous problems with it. It's much too tall for warm storage for vehicles.
I think Mr. Frykholm was very plain in his explanations that the insulation
was nowheres near what should be required of a building in this day and age,
especially if we're concerned with warm storage. You're talking about minus
209 temperatures even if you're able to keep it 560, that's 750 temperature
addition difference. You should have a minimum of 12 inches of insulation
In the roof, and a minimum of 6 inches nee wall. And,according to Frykholm,
it has 4 and 4, 4 on die rroof and 4 in the walls. So I have not looked at
it, but judging by what I've seen from the exterior of the building and seen
from Frykholm's report 1 would say that it requires that you look into it
very closely regarding the moving of the building, whether you would be pay-
ing more in the long run to purchase it for $138,000 and to add the cost of
moving it would be, 1 think, quite excessive and you could probably build a
new building where you need it for that amount of money. Because when you
move a building, you have to talk about a new slab foundation, plus taking
the building down and ;r--tting it back up again, insulating it, the doors,
and with all due respect to Mr. Carter, that is basically an opinion that
I've come to just by hearing the council's - all the testimony given to the
council - by hearing the problems the public works director has with the
building, 1 vmuld advise that you'd have to look very closely at it before
you purchased it.
O'Reilly: Councilman Ambarian.
Ambarian: 1 think that 12 inches of insulation on the roof and on the walls
is why we're looking at a million dollar city hall that we are not going to
be able to afford. But it seems strange that the building is fine to lease
when we need it, but then when we could save money to the taxes in the long
run that we're afraid to put some money down and buy the ---- thing. If we
� 7®
3
i
�. -9-
CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
Ambarian (contd): lease for $25 a month for 6 months every year we're going
to be paying for that thing in a short time and still have nothing to show
for it. I just think that somebody is not using their calculator property.
Gintoli: 1 just have to object to his comments an the cost of the city hall
and relate it to anything I might do. I will say this, that regarding In-
sulation, sir, that if you look at the uniform building code and the tax rate
1975 regulations, you are obligated to put 12 inches of insulation in the
ceiling, and 6 in the wall. If you were a registered ----- or architect,
perhaps you would know.
O'Reilly: Councilman Seaman.
Seaman: I've got one question. We keep assuming that we're going to have
this building forever, if we was to go ahead and say,purchase the building,
- does that stop us from pursuing trying to iet another building over here
and selling this thing? Do you see what I m saying? Or do we just get one
grant and that's it, forever and ever?
Brown: I honestly don't know. The FAA - if you already had warm storage
I'm not sure what FAA's approach would be then.
Seaman: Well, that's what I was wondering --------- ---
„` Browns I really don't know the answer. I can see ----------.
O'Reilly: Councilman Ralston.
Ralston: Well, I think my question was already answered.
O'Reilly: Kornelis.
Kornelis: One thing I left out John Wise did put In a pre -application
before this building ------for council approval and I can't tell you the
exact status at this time but it still is in the mill. We have 3 grant
applications that are in the FAA. One is the purchase of tt* building -
warm storage building, and the other one -----discussion tonight for the
purchase of a generator, and the third thing is the airport storage (inaudible)
Brown. On the warm storage the letter came from FAA today
around 4:00 and (inaudible) so the answer may be in terms of - I do know
-- 4 that they suggested that we buy the shop at 66% of what we paid for it, I
believe it was, and then they would pursue using next year's budget for
warm storage. It's in the works, it appears to get funds after :ept. 30
for warm storage.
O'Reilly: Councilman Aber.
Aber: Well, to begin with (inaudible) Everybody's aware of the problem we
have with FAA trying to (inaudible). We have a grant app in. inaudible
' s to begin with, which has never been settled, which undoubtedly (inaudible
�./ We don't know at this point in time (inaudible) This has been going on now
- for a number of years and still not straightened out. (inaudible) We do not
have adequate storage for equipment (inaudible)
(Councilman Aber did not have his microphone on)
u ;
I
a
-10-
CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
O'Reilly: Councilman Malston.
Malston: In answer to councilman Aber, I think that's what we tried to do
last meeting, was to try to get off dead center. I'm looking at this right
now and according to what Keith told us, we leased the Mukluk building for
$2500 a month for 6 months last winter. We kept sand in it, we kept the
backhoe in it, and occasionally the sand truck. I'm beginning to question
whether we even need a building.
Man X: In reference to that, I think that there was a misunderstanding,
possibly. What our public works director was saying was about what equip-
ment was stored, and---------
Ambarian: Mr. Mayor.
O'Reilly: Councilman Ambarian.
Amberian: Councilman Malston, I believe that since last winter we have
received snow removal equipment for the airport that was not here last
winter, and this is probably why we are under the impression that the build-
ing was under -used. And I believe that we do need warm storage for the
equipment that has been received since last year and that building, I don't
think, will be adequate for the airport equipment that is assigned to the
airport that we have now.
O'Reilly: Councilman Seaman.
Seaman: Well, I'd just like to make one comment. We keep hearing about the
time spent going over to the building and dragging equipment back to the shop,
and 1'd Just like to ask what, in regards to man-hours, is going to take
longer - getting the equipment started in the cold, or Just keeping it run-
ning? Because we're only talking 4 or 5 months probably, anyway, and the
rest of the time it's Just sitting idle, but if it's sitting out in the shop
out in the cold, I'm sure that it would take slot longer Just to get the stuff
running than it will ever for the maintenance on it.
O'Reilly: Yes.
Mr. Carter, do you want to make a ------ we've never heard from him.
O'Reilly: Any objections from the council? Mr. Carter, perhaps you'd care
to offer something that could help in our deliberations. (instructions on
use of the microphone)
Mr. Carter: Mr. Mayor, members of council. While I digest some of the comments
that have been made, maybe I could present another side of the picture, one
that we've been confronted with, and I say "we" - the building's been referred
to as Mukluk building, and the Carter building, etc.; it's really owned by
Peninsula Enterprises,l'm just one of the members of that particular corpor-
ation. I guess what I want to say is that starting as late as last spring, or
as early as last spring, we had discussions about the city having a require-
ment for that particular building. One of the things that was brought up was
that it was in a clear zone and might interfere with the glide slope approach
to the runway. Another thing that was brought up, would the FAA fund for
used buildings or was it strictly always for new buildings. Those things
were explored and it was found that - yes, the building was in a clear zone
1 ,
N
1
I�
1 13
/'ft� - 11 -
CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
Mr. Carter (contd): but did not interfere with the glide zone. Many build-
ings are built in a clear zone, and the fact - I believe - in your airport
master plan that the area shown as light industrial, to be used for light
industrial. As far as the purchase of used buildings, the FAA said there
was no objections to that as long as it met a particular requirement. Going
on a little further, the city had a requirement to lease the building which
they did for b months. Then there was further discussions about - well, if
the city can lease the building, have a requirement to lease the building,
that maybe the city has a requirement to purchase the building. So I went
out and I had an appraiser come in and appraise the building, and it was
appraised at $208,000 on a lease fee -simple or a replacement cost of $145,000.
My offer to the city was at $175,000, and what I did - I just split the diff-
erence between the fee -simple and the replacement cost, and came up with
$175,000. At the time the appraiser was here, he noted that the lease on
the land was up in Sept. 1980.
(Tape change)
Mr. Carter contd): --- to do a proper appraisal we felt that we should check
into the po icy of the city in relation to giving extended leases. He did,
in fact, talk to the city attorney and was informed that, yes, it was the
policy and that there was probably no problem getting an extended lease. So
based on that, he did his appraisal. On Feb. 15 1 aid submit a letter to the
city asking for a renewal of the lease. That was Feb. 15 of this year, it's
now August, and I have not received a response from the city on this parti-
cular thing.
Bailie: The land lease.
Mr. Carter: On the land lease. Haying not received, and also at that time
we did submit with the letter a check for $708.00, which was for the next
quarterly payment which, according to your lease, when you apply for extended
lease or a new lease, you do submit that next quarter funds. The city did,
In fact, deposit the check, so I felt that maybe i was expecting a response
or, if nothing else, that the city was still actively considering purchasing
the building. In March, was when I submitted - 0n March 23 I did submit to
the city a letter offerring to sell the building to the city for $175,000.
I guess i could say officially I have not received no correspondence on that
letter yet from the city. But there have been discussions, active discussions,
on the city interested in the building and possible purchase, so to me :t was
nothing to get excited about. I feel that the city was active considering
purchase of the building because in May, I believe, you expended between
$700 and $800 to get an appraisal on that particular building, which again
is an indication to me that you must be interested in the building. In Jul,/
you received the appraisal, which the building was appraised at $138,0O0.
Then 1 submitted a letter on July 29 saying since theappraisal turned out
that way for the city that Peninsula Enterprises would accept $138,000 for
the building, With all due respect for the acting city manager, I must tell
you that on July 12 in one of the telephone conversations, that he did tell
we that the public works director felt that that building was satisfactory
and that was the way for the city to go. Now, I am not that mean that I
J wouldn't tell you also that he later told me that he did, in fact, make a
mistake in telling ale that. But 1 think the point is, you have to understand
where Vn coming from, because Peninsula Enterprises has been led to believe
right on up to your last meeting, that the city was definitely on the track
of purchasing that building. Now when the lease expired in April, and it's
i�
a
/f— • 12 -
CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
Mr. Carter (contd): something that we have to take the blame for I guess,
Peninsula Enterprises. We did not actively seek a renter of that building,
because we felt that the city was definitely interested. So 1 guess I could
say by not actively seeking that we have dropped something like $10,000.
So it concerns us that on one hand we are being led to believe that the city
Is probably going to purchase the building and on the other hand, just through
a motion at the last meeting, the whole issue is dead. Now 1 don't mind
telling you also that I've only been a resident here for about a year, but
I've been in business here for about 15 years. And we've seen good times
and bad times and we've seen it when it's really good and really bad. And
I Just think we've kind of been left out.
O'Reilly: Comments or questions for Mr. Carter. I assume that we probably
would be either premature and certainly no way forcing the matter as regards
to prospects of leasing the building for the period dated Oct. 1, and that
any decision has been arrived at, is there any decision that you would care
W render at this point or would you care to just defer it at this point?
Mr. Carter: I thing 1 'd prefer to defer it.
Schlereth:Could 1 ask a question, please?
O'Reilly: Sure.
r�s
Schlerethvdas that with Vern Frykolhm?
Mr. Carter: No, that was with Jack McCarthey, from Anchorage.
Schlereth:?hst visited you?
O'Reilly: This was the appraiser?
Schlereth: Yes. I'm trying to remember that incident. 1 think, as far as
I can say that, say something about that, I hope I didn't say bluntly that
is the policy, 1 hope I said that that is, from my experience, that is the
normal course of events. And I think that is the case, to cane bluntly
(inaudible) And I know when I went over that with Vern Frykoolm, and I don't
remember right now going over with Mr. McCarthey, what I would do is point
out the provision of the lease as it concerns renewal and as far as I'm con-
cerned from what 1 - my own experience - is that is a normal course to renew
leases, expecially with improvements on then. The lease provision does have
a paragraph in it that 4.scribes how - what procedure the council follows
In renewing leases. That is my understanding.
O'Reilly: Okay, we have before us a motion. Councilman Aber.
Aber: (inaudible)
O'Reilly: Okay. We have before us, as I understand it, we have before us
the motion - the administration be instructed to enter into lease on the Mukluk
�— facility starting Oct. 1 through March 1, and proceed with the necessary paper-
work for funding for a new warm storage building to be placed in the vicinity
of our present shop area. Any further comment or discussion by council? Ready
for the vote? Councilman Aber?
Aber: (Inaudible)
i
F-
-13-
CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
O'Reilly: That's correct. Councilman Bailie.
Bailie: Would it be possible to separate this so we could make it 2 items?
O'Reilly: Would you care to call for a division of the question, that would
do It.
Bailie: I so do.
(Inaudible)
O'Reilly: I don't believe so, Division of the question has been called for,
all those in favor of dividing the question will signify by an aye vote.
Clerk, call the roll.
Council passed the motion, Seaman voted no.
O'Reilly: Okay, Taking the motion now to buy it in order, the question now
before the council is that the administration be instructed to enter into lease
on the Mukluk facility starting Oct. 1 through March 1, Are you ready for the
vote on that? Clerk call the roll.
The motion failed. Yes votes were: Bailie, Glick, Malston,
Peter: Failed,
O'Reilly: Okay, the. motion failed. The second part will be voting to pro-
ceed with the necessary paperwork for the new warm storage building to be
placed in the vicinity of our present shop area, Are you ready for that
vote? Clerk,call the roll.
Notion failed, Yes votes were: Bailie, Glick, Malston,
Peter: Failed.
O'Reilly: Both motions have failed, Which puts us into starting position
1 guess prior to last council's action. Councilman Seaman.
Seaman: Would this be the place to make a motion as to purchase of the
building?
O'Reilly: I would entertain such a motion,
Seaman: Okay, I would make a motion, probably directing the city administration
to see about purchasing this building, or whoever takes over. (How do I
want to say that?)
O'Reilly: Your motion would be to somewhere along the line direct the ad-
ministration to enter into negotiations for the purchase of the (we keep
calling it the Mukluk building, we should change the title) Peninsula pro-
perty building,
Seaman: Right. Formerly known as the Mukluk building.
O'Reilly: (Inaudible) Do we have a second to that mot.1-n?
i
V
a f
- 14 -
CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
Ambarian: Second.
O'Reilly: Discussion on the motion? Councilman Malston.
Malston: I wonder if Mr. Seaman wants to put a dollar amount on that?
Seaman: Yes 1 would, $138,000.
O'Reilly: Councilwoman Glick.
Glick: 1 am going to vote against this. I'm going to give my reasons why
I object to the purchase of this building, and with all due respects to Mr.
Carter, 1 have several comments here and some of them I'm going to ask
to be read into the minutes and be part of the minutes. First I would like
to say we did lease the building because we felt like it was a necessary
Item. The second thing, and to reiterate what Mr. Carter said, we received
a letter proposing to sell this building to us for $175,000.
(Tape change)
Glick: At the time we were trying to get squared away with the shop building
outside the present site. However, it became necessary that we proceed with
getting appraisals because I think that if the city council had not went out
to get appraisals that we would have been remiss in our duties. Okay, we hired
Vern Frykolm to do our appraisals. At our council meeting at the beginning of
July, we had a verbal quote given to us from between $115,000 to $135,000. _
The following week Mr. Carter came into my office and he explained to me that
he had called Vern Frykholm. Now, I talked to him with regards to the - his
verbal figure. He told Mr. Frykholm that he felt like this figure was too low.
He discussed with Mr. Frykholm the methods which he was using to arrive at
the appraised figure. I had them written down - notes for different methods,
but I did not bring them with me tonight because I didn't realize this was
coming up. The next council meeting, 7-18, Mr. Brown informed us that he
had another phone call from Mr. Frykholm and Mr. Frykholm had revised his
thinking upward and now he's looking at a much higher figure. My first ob-
jection is the fact that Mr. Carter contacted our appraiser. He had his own
appraiser and I wish the records to reflect my objection to the owner of the
building, Mr. Carter, contacting our appraiser regarding his verbal estimate.
Now if he wished or question the appraiser in regards to his method of appraisal
and what -not, it should have been done after we actually received a written
appraised figure. This was not. It is my personal opinion that the chain of
events and the results thereof leave alot to be desired. Therefore, I think -
Number l,that the verbal estimates receive and relate to the city. Phone con-
tact by the owner of the building, Mr. Carter, with the city appraiser. The
phone call from the appraiser to the city saying he had "revised his thinking
upwards and was now looking at a much higher cost." The appraised figure
came in at $138,000 and white this is only $3,000 above the highest cost of
$135,000, it is nevertheless a higher figure. This kind of action, in my
mind, leaves alot to be desired, and 1 think there's a word that aptly describes
It, although I would hope that this is not the case. Secondly, at our last
� council meeting, we had the written appraised estimate in our packet. Before
council actually had a chance to accept it, discuss it, find out if we had any
objections or anything, there was also included a letter from Mr. Carter stating
that he would sell the building to the city for this figure. I object to this
kind of method. I think that if council is going -to do their business, they
r
- 15 -
CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
Q
Glick (contd): should be allowed to do it. I also believe that what we did
was in the best interests of the city. We ask the administration what their
opinion was. They gave it, and their reasons why. But because it doesn't
satisfy a few of the council members, then the administration is criticized
and I don't think this is right. Secondly, last Wednesday morning at about
10:00 Mr. Carter, after his return from outside, came to my office, and asked
what happened at the council meeting, and I told him. We discussed the building
he discussed his reasons why he thought we should buy it. I told him why I
didn't feel like we should buy it. He asked if I would ask for reconsideration
and I said "no way." I know that he has talked to other councilmembers and I
believe this is why councilman Seaman has made his motion tonight. I think
that this building is an old building, it's 20 years old, it is a very high
building, as councilman Seaman pointed out, and possibly you could use it
for storage. But it's a hanger building, it is now and always will be, re-
gardless of what you do with it. Of course, you can change the doors, you
can do this, you can do that. But nevertheless, it's an old building, and
regardless of what you do to try to dress it up, it will always remain an
old building, and you can have nothing but maintenance and repair costs. I
also think that it should be pointed out that in addition to our warm storage
equipment and while this is very minor, Mr. Carter also has his boat stored
in the building last winter while we were leasing it. I object to these things.
I object to the methods that are being done here to promote the sale of this
business - er this building - to the city. I also object to the fact that
at times certain city administration have been put under undue pressure in
that when Mr. Brown stated that he did not say that council was going to buy
this building, he was accused of lying and changing his mind. I don't think
this is right. Now it seems like if the administration gives the correct
answers they're really "good boys", but if they give the wrong information,
they're criticised. And 1 don't think this is right. Councilman Ambarian
a while ago made the comment that he thought the administration should get
back to administrating. I agree whole heartedly. But let's be open and
above board with them. These are my objections to the reasons why I am not
going to vote to buy this building.
O'Reilly: Councilman Ambarian.
Ambarian: Just a couple of brief comments. Number 1, 1 am not a registered
architect nor am I running for re-election, so I did not debate at all. -•--
But, at the time that the public works comnitte visited the Mukluk building,
the public works director informed councilmembers that were present that the
only reason that the piece of equipment that Mr. Carter had stored in the
building was there was because the city crews had dumped the sand before ad-
vising Mr. Carter to remove the piece of equipment out. It was not his request
or his desire to leave that in the hanger, so 1 believe that also should be
made clear in the minutes for the record.
O'Reilly: Councilwoman Glick.
- Glick: 1 think it's a very low remark on Councilman Ambarian's part to refer
to running for re-election and asking for headline space. I'm doing what I
feel is ii, the best interest of the committee. They are doing what they feel
' is in the best interest of the city. The choice is theirs, the choice is mine.
1 don't think headlines have anything to do with it, I think it's whether or
not you can sleep at night.
s
O'Reilly: Councilman Bailie.
i
1
e. b_ a
n
16 -
CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
Bailie: Has anybody got an estimate on the building to see what it would
cost to renovate that building or refurbish that building, such as --------
or updating that door, practical plumbing, insulation, heating - what it would
take to (inaudible) And I would like to see a delay if they're to negotiate
I would like to first somebody go in there and evaluate that building as far
as these things, and if the cost to refurbish it is not too high, fine, then
go ahead with negotiations of purchase.
O'Reilly: Wright. Are you asking for a dtfect to administration to do such,
and meanwhile the motion be tabled to ------?
Bailie: (Inaudible) Allright, I'll move this - tabled until such time as the
administration can go in and look the building over and see what needs to be
done to that building so that if it's up to grade now, fine. If not, what has
to be done to get that building usable by the city.
O'Reilly: Do we have a second?
(Inaudible)
O'Reilly: Two things, in other words, you're directing the adminstration to
do that type of work, and you're making a motion to table ------- Do we
have a second to that?
Ambarian: I'll second for discussion.
Glick: Can you bring motion that's not discussable?
O'Reilly: I don't know that. (Inaudible)
Ambarian: Mr. Mayor, may I ask a question of the maker of the motion? Not
for discussion, just a question. I just wondered if Councilman Bailie would
like to -put a comparable to that request, in other words, are we going to up-
date this building in the same condition the city shop is, or ------------
Bailie: Now long would it take to get thA building in shape, what needs to
be done to bring it up to code, so that it can be used satisfactorily by the
city for just basic purposes.
Ambarian: By code of a new building, or just to bring it to existing cc-lditions
of our existing -------
Bailie: Make it usable.
O'Reilly: Okay. (Inaudible) Councilman Malston.
Malston: At our last meeting the way the motion read was that we wanted the
city administration to proceed with the funding for a warm storage building.
At that point the vote was all in the affirmative, or I wouldn't say it was
all in the affirmative. It was one against. Since that time, have we decided
that we don't want the warm storage building next to our other shop building,
or what did we decide here? I'm confused.
O'Reilly: At this point, the main item is ------
Malston: We asked to lease the Mukluk building for a period of 6 months and
` b
i
I
1
I -: I
e�
I pl..c
17 -
1 CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
n
Malston (contd): to proceed with the funding for a new warm storage building.
Now we're clear off center again, and I'm wondering why.
O'Reilly: Councilman Ambarian.
Ambarian: I believe that we had a motion for reconsideration that was the
request for division of the motion, and we had 2 votes to reconsider the
lease on one vote, the second vote was pursuant to the financing a new
building. Both up for consideration, both motions failed. So 1 believe
what Councilman Bailie is saying now is to postpone the motion to purchase
of the Mukluk building in favor of getting a report from administration re-
garding the cost of what would be considered would be necessary repairs to
make it usable.
O'Reilly: Okay. Care to vote on the motion? Clerk, call the roll.
Motion passed, No votes were: Glick, Malston, Seaman.
Peter: Motion passed.
O'Reilly: Councilman Aber.
Aber: (Inaudible)
Man X: Somebody better define what usable is.
O'Reilly: Councilwoman Glick.
Glick: We have already had some off -the -hand comments from Mr. Gintoli.
He is a registered architect, perhaps he could go over and review the building
inside.
O'Reilly: Councilman Malston.
Malston: Well, I would think that Y5 sitting here deciding who does it is
kind of out of our line. 1 think that would be an administrative decision.
If they wish - the ministration can find somebody to take a look at the
building, fine.
O'Reilly: Councilman Ambarian.
Ambarian: I would object to Mr. Gintoli looking at that building. -
to this council. I think Councilman Aber posed a good question, the definition
of usable. The building was usable last year.
O'Reilly: Okay, Councilman Seaman.
F Seaman: Going back to Councilman Aber's statement, as far as usable, we know
the doors need to be corrected, and to the best of my knowledge, buildings used
such as this one - steel buildings have 2 to 4 inches of insulation anyway. So
I don't know what we're going to try to base this thing on. And like Councilman
r•.� Ambarian said, we've been using it, it's been fine up to this point, or usable.
I'm going to use the word we've been throwing around.
O'Reilly: Councilman Aber.
Aber: We have existing buildings that we use day in and day out, 7 days a
lo
- 113 -
CITY COUNCIL
August 15, 1979
Aber (contd): week, that the doors are not that heavy, and the insulation's
inadequate also. But we're using the --- things. Now if we can compare this
-
to a new building, what are we going to compare it to?
J
(Inaudible)
O'Reilly: Councilman Ambarian.
;
Ambarian: 1 might remind council that we have a building that's only 5 years
old and we just spend I believe over $60,000 in energy grants of some kind to
add insulation to that building, and it was only 5 years old. So I think we're
kind of nit-picking at the wrong thing here.
O'Reilly: Well, someone of council's got to move that either the administration
do it and/or somebody do it, with certain criteria. (Inaudible) Councilman
--
Ambarian.
Ambarian: I'd like to ask the city manager, the acting city manager, the
amount quoted by the appraiser, his estimate for repairing the doors.
Brown: I don't know that.
-,
(Inaudible) c
„'
Ambarian: I believe, wasn't there a comment made in------
1
Brown: Yes, I've got the figure $00,O00 to $15,000 to replace both doors.
Now
_.
I don't know how close that figure is but it's something we could probably o.
work with.
i
O'Reilly: (Inaudible)
I
(Inaudible) .
O'Reilly: Councilman Aber.
—
Aber: Okay. Here we go again. Are we going to use the --- thing for warm
building, for (Inaudible)
storage or office space?
iI
O'Reilly: (Inaudible) Okay, at this point the administration, the last 1
thing been directed to bring to
the administration has us a report as what
it will take to get the building in usable condition, and the arguments that
It was used last year and obviously usable. Councilman Ambarian.
Ambarian: In order to save the wear and tear on council, I would move for
reconsideration of our last motion .-----------
----
Bailie: On the tabling motion?
Ambarian: On the postponement motion.
O'Reilly: There's a motion ------reconsideration -------- Clerk, call the
1
role.
The motion passed unanimously.
1
O'Reilly: We are now back to discussions of Councilman Seaman's motion which
a
,
'•
- 19- !
CITY COUNCIL j
August 15, 1979
O'Reilly (contd): was to ------
Seaman: My motion was to purchase the building.
E
O'Re111y: Oh, I'm sorry. Councilman Bai11e's motion for postponement to
------- That is debateable. Councilman Ambarian.
Ambarian: When I raised it, I made the motion that Councilman Bailie is '
possibly the way this conversation is going from one side of the table to
the other that possibly you have a figure in mind that would be acceptable
toyoufor renovation which we might incorporate in a motion to purchase the
ibuilding.
O'Reilly: Wright. Well, council we're at a posture where we're debating
a motion to postpone to a time certain, that time certain being when a report
is prepared indicating that the - what would be necessary to make the building
j_
usable. Maybe it's in trying to define making the building usable council
cares to clarify that we can proceed. Councilman Ralston.
Ralston: Well, I would think that if that were the case we would wan;, to ,
know what it might take to repair the doors, to get them in usable condition,
to find out whether - what kind of condition the furnace and the heating system 4,
is in, and what problems there might be with the plumbing in the building.
yO'Reilly:
There would be some kind of criteria that could be used to evaluate .,
he by
what meant -----------
4 -
E
Ralston: Just things that should be checked out. We're going to use the "
building for those things be least in the
warm storage, should at working
building, I would think.
I
O'Reilly: Councilman Malston rejoins us. You can put your clarification of
F
a point in the form of a motion if you so wish.
(Inaudible)
O'Reilly: And you can amend the postponing motion if you so wish. i
010r.ton moved, seconded by Dailie, to amend the postponing motion to include
"Mukluk
,J.
directing a qualified individual to go into the facility known as the Bldg." i
�-
to d6tmbine the costs in repairing the doors. check the heating system, the electrical
(.
system, and the plumbing in the building and submit to Council an estimate of such
f
E
repairs keeping in mind that -the facility will be used only for warm storage. F
'
V
O'Reilly: Okay, any discussion on the amendment? Clerk, call the roll.
I The amendment passed, no vote was Glick,
CITY COUNCIL
August 16, 1979
O'Reilly: Okay, the amendment passes. Now the main motion before you, as
amended, which will now -
Peter: Postpone for administration -
O'Reilly: Prepare a report which is contained in the amendment. Clerk,
call the roll.
Motion passed, no vote was Glick.
O'Reilly: Done. Okay, new business, bills to be paid.
Carter: Mr. Mayor.
O'Reilly: Mr. Carter. With council's permission to hear from Mr. Carter.
Okay, please.
Carter: On that motion, now. What is that being done for? For the po-
tential purchase or is it -----
O'Reilly-, Councilman Malston.
Malston: I would say that at this point that this postponing motion and this
action that we have asked for in no way obligates the city to buy the building.
O'Reilly: Councilman Bailie.
Bailie: To evaluate -----
Malston: To evaluate it, there is that possibility, but I - you know - in
no way would want it to be construed that we are going to buy this building.
(Tape Change)
Carter: The truth of the matter is that Mr. Frykholm asked me for a summary
which goes into all appraisals which kind of helps him speed up in getting
the appraisal for the city. I happen to have one on the appraisal I have
so that is standard at all appraisals. He said it would help him since the
city had put him on short notice and asked him to get it. At that time
we did discuss the methods of appraisals and he did say what he - the methods
that he had used and the range that he was in. Also, in due respect for
Councilwoman Glick I did come to her office and we did discuss these things
and also when it got down to talking about the age of the building, Mrs. Glick
informed me that her husband, Carl, said that the building was really too old
for the city to mess with. Now I didn't know he was a part of the city or
the council.
O'Reilly: Councilwoman Glick.
Glick: He is a resident of the city, and a taxpayer. And when I don't
know some of these things I feel that I can ------for information and I
think that I'm not going to get into ---------
O'Reilly: Okay, we can proceed with new business. Bills to be paid, bills
to be ratified.
I
i
i
i
I
i
y
I
i