Sidewalk Samaritans: Thank You For Your Service!

A friend of mine fell on the ice and broke her wrist in front of the old Video 144 building on Main Street a few weeks ago. She got to wondering: Why wasn’t the Borough enforcing a sidewalk clearing ordinance? She asked me. I asked Police Chief Gary Lowe. And that was how I learned that neither the Haines Borough nor the State of Alaska require property owners to free sidewalks of ice and snow! Like my friend, I had assumed otherwise.

It turns out that clearing sidewalks, sprinkling salt, is another one of the many good deeds Haines residents do for one another – without being asked. This is a great place to live.

Happy holidays one and all.

Whose Agenda?

Many mayors before me have been regarded as agenda gatekeepers. Early on I sat down with former Mayor Mike Case shoulder to shoulder to examine this concept by examining the Haines Borough Code. We read that the code says simply,

2.10.030 All reports, communications, ordinances, resolutions, contract documents, or other matters to be submitted to the assembly shall be delivered to the clerk by Tuesday the week before the meeting (one week plus one day prior), whereupon the mayor, with assistance from the clerk, shall arrange a list of such matters according to the order of business and the clerk shall furnish each member of the assembly, the mayor, manager and chief fiscal officer with a copy of the same in packet form five days in advance of the assembly meeting, including Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.

I have been inclined to interpret this section of the code broadly to mean that anyone, whomsoever, can deliver documents to the Clerk and that item then pops onto the agenda. The mayor is not allowed any special power to control the agenda. Former Mayor Case agreed that this was indeed a valid interpretation; and that "Mayor as Agenda gatekeeper" was a cultural practice, not a legal requirement.

As I threw open the doors to the agenda, our Clerks paled, just a little, at their new Mayor's enthusiasm. Last Thursday, they sat down with me, and explained, as politely and as gently as possible, that it is their job to make sure that the Assembly has the best possible information with which to make its decisions. The Clerks and the Manager are often faced with extensive research tasks to provide background support for agenda items. Might it be possible that my open-door approach to the agenda could result in overwhelming research tasks?

The Clerks offered a sensible modification. How about this? When an individual wants the Assembly to address a topic, the individual fills out an "Action Request" and it is that request that "pops" onto the Agenda. Then the Assembly considers the Request and moves as a body to set the request (or not) on a future agenda. I quickly assented.

This is very similar to the category we have added to New Business on the Agenda: Items for Future Assembly Meetings. It is during this part of the meeting that an Assembly member can move that a topic be brought forward. The motion is seconded; under discussion the maker of the motion provides the rationale for inclusion. The Assembly as a body then votes on the suggestion. The idea is that the Assembly sets its Agenda, with important input from staff and from the public.

The agenda belongs to the Assembly, and to you, through the Assembly.

Connelly Lake Meeting: Did the Assembly Hear the Community's Hopes and Concerns?

I think the Assembly did hear and did respond to both the hopes and to the concerns expressed during the November 29 meeting.

The meeting was convened so that the Assembly could consider submitting a comment to the Federal Energy Management Commission (FERC) pertaining to Goat Lake Hydro’s application for a FERC preliminary permit to investigate the feasibility of creating a hydroelectric project utilizing Connelly Lake.

The evening began with a presentation via telephone by Bob Grimm, president of Alaska Power & Telephone, the parent company for Goat Lake Hydro. Mr. Grimm used approximately 10 minutes to describe the application process and the application itself. The Assembly asked Mr. Grimm a few questions.

Following Mr. Grimm, many residents expressed their views about the risks and benefits of the project.

When the topic was returned to the Assembly, the Assembly worked to craft a motion that both supported the application for a preliminary permit (thus addressing the hopes for additional hydropower) and recommended additional studies.

The additional studies recommended seem to be a direct response to the concerns voiced by public testimony. The Assembly agreed that the dam needed more studies; alternate routes that would be less impactful to the anadromous fish streams running through the watershed need to be studied; the effect of the project on the pre-project water quality needs to be assessed; the financial feasibility needs to be considered in light of levels of sales or lack of sale of power to cruise ships; the possibility of insuring the watershed against a catastrophe needs to be studied.

The preliminary permit does not grant a license to construct. It just allows Goat Lake Hydro exclusivity with respect to pursuing studies to determine the feasibility of applying for a license to construct. As one member of the public said, and I paraphrase, “There really isn’t any reason to fear additional information.” And the Assembly took the opportunity to try to tailor some studies toward the information the community desires. I think they did a good job.