The Haines Borough’s Lutak Dock Working Group is recommending manager David Sosa’s discretionary budget for the dock planning project be cut from $100,000 to $60,000.
Sosa initially sought $100,000 from the Lutak Dock enterprise fund, which would be used for studies, travel to regional docks and other services.
The group agreed Jan. 22 to recommend the assembly cap Sosa’s allocation at $60,000. Several committee members, including Debra Schnabel, also suggested Sosa provide a rough spending outline.
Schnabel said capping the fund at $60,000 would be “politically a bit more comfortable” than authorizing $100,000, because $100,000 added to the $30,000 recently spent on short-term improvements to the dock would siphon more than half of the facility’s savings.
Sosa said establishing a fund solely for the progression of the Lutak Dock project was his attempt to make the process more transparent, not less. “Part of why I wanted an allocated amount of money with a group of people who could advise me on this was to avoid this particular problem: that members of the public think, ‘Well, they’re just taking money and throwing it away.’”
Sosa is allowed to unilaterally spend up to $25,000 without assembly approval. Instead of exercising that authority without oversight, Sosa said putting aside the $100,000 for himself and the Lutak Dock group to work with would increase transparency.
“In my mind having a dedicated fund for moving this project forward is a lot more transparent than the manager saying, ‘I’m going to take $20,000 here, $15,000 there.’ I probably could have done a better job of communicating that,” he said.
As promised, Sosa delivered a rough budget to the assembly last week, though it totaled $83,000, including: $10,000 for travel and per diem, $20,000 for engineering and design, $25,000 for professional and contractual services, $5,000 for communication and outreach, $5,000 for administration and finance, $2,500 for material and equipment, $500 for supplies and postage, and $15,000 in contingency funds.
“My base argument is that we have a problem, the problem needs to be addressed, and failure to address the problem can result in catastrophic failure of the structure,” Sosa said. “To identify a way forward in time to prevent structural failure requires planning, coordination, and the resources to accomplish the planning and coordination. A key resource for this project, or any project, is access to funding.”
In addition to providing Sosa with feedback on his budget request, the working group also briefly discussed Sosa’s suggestion to update the 2012 Northern Economics study, which looked at prospective dock customers and cost $25,000.
Northern Economics representatives Mike Fisher and Michelle Humphrey pitched their update proposal to the group, stating they could review any relevant documents published since 2012, look at any new population information, identify industry representatives to interview, and compose a formal amendment to the 2012 study.
Fisher struggled to articulate what benefits the update would provide for the borough.
“We run the risk that we could just get right back to where we were last time,” Fisher said. “We don’t really know right away what kind of benefit we will get from doing this.”
Fisher ballparked the study update at $5,000, but said it could cost as much as $20,000 if the borough wanted Northern Economics to look at other competitive ports.
While other group members were silent, Schnabel spoke up at the end of the meeting to say she was “not impressed” by Northern Economics’ presentation. “I don’t think it’s necessary,” she said of the update. Group member Carol Tuynman agreed.
The assembly will take up Sosa’s $100,000 request at its Feb. 24 meeting. The request is part of a larger budget amendment.