An attempt to make the Haines Borough scrutinize how it will finance future phases of the Small Boat Harbor expansion project failed Tuesday, with only two assembly members in favor of sending the question to committee for further discussion.
Assembly member Tresham Gregg submitted a proposal to his peers last week, calling for a cost/benefit analysis of the project and an advisory vote on bonding for the unfunded remainder of the project – roughly $10 million.
However, Gregg failed to make a corresponding motion at the meeting. Instead he made a much more unspecific motion, to send the general financial discussion to the Government Affairs and Services Committee.
That failed 3-2, with assembly members Margaret Friedenauer, Diana Lapham and Mike Case opposed. Assembly member George Campbell was absent.
The discussion that followed Gregg’s motion was virtually identical to conversations the assembly has had in the past year amid controversy about the current design.
“A bond is going to cost a lot of money for the citizenry,” Gregg said. “And so if the citizenry would take on a bond like this, that’s their prerogative. But I think it behooves us to not wait until the project is looking at the second phase before we decide how we are going to really pay for it.”
Assembly member Friedenauer seemed irked by the vagueness of Gregg’s motion, repeatedly asking what he was trying to accomplish and what he was asking for.
“The first phase is at 95 percent, it’s funded, it’s going to go to bid hopefully really soon. So you’re talking about phase two, which would possibly put some extra floats in there, the drive down (ramp) if that’s affordable and a sport fish ramp. You’re talking about finding solutions to fund the second phase, or are you talking about stopping the project?” she asked.
“Not stopping the project,” Gregg replied, “but perhaps there is a way that a smaller footprint could be made that would work better. I don’t know. I’m more concerned about understanding whether or not we can really afford to do what needs to be done, and how we can afford to do that.”
Assembly member Case didn’t take to Gregg’s suggestion of holding an advisory vote on bonding, asserting that residents get to vote every October for who they want to represent them and make those kinds of decisions.
Several members made comments about the community being “divided” on the harbor project. Case said the community may be divided, but it’s not divided in half, “or even close to it.”
“There are some people who really feel strongly that we should not have taken the action that we took…and that we shouldn’t continue on it,” Case said. “When you attend ports and harbor committee meetings, you don’t see very many people in there that voice that opinion. I’m sure there’s lots of people, but half the people in the community? I don’t think so. I think most people want us to do just like we’re doing, and if they don’t, they’ll tell us next October.”
Assembly member Ron Jackson, who appeared to side with Gregg, said he would like to see several financial scenarios laid out with different funding combinations. For example, how bonding, loans and/or grants could be applied to future phases of the project and how those different options would obligate the borough financially.
Interim manager Brad Ryan said he sees the project as “multi-phase,” not just phase one, phase two, phase three. The innards of the harbor – the floats, the ramps – will be built over time. “It’s as funding becomes available or priorities get identified,” Ryan said.
Ryan is working with harbormaster Shawn Bell and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game on grant money identified for the sport fish ramp, for example. Having priorities for how money should be spent as it becomes available would be helpful, Ryan added.
The 95 percent design is set to come before the assembly at its April 12 meeting, Ryan said.