Juneau assembly directs staff to develop LID concepts for Haskellberry phase 1b; service-area planning also advanced

The Juneau City and Borough Assembly on June 2 directed staff to develop Local Improvement District (LID) concepts for phase 1b of the Haskellberry HESCO barrier project and to continue developing concepts for a long-term service area to fund flood mitigation work.

Manager Custer, who presented the staff memo, told the committee phase 1a — a near-complete HESCO barrier project — protected substantial public property and that extending barriers through phase 1b would protect an additional 96 parcels (about 90 housing units) but raises technical, ownership and cost questions. "Extending that we don't have time to do any armoring there, and it needs about $1,400,000 of armoring along that bank," Custer said, adding the unarmored riverbank raises the risk of failure in a catastrophic event.

The memo and committee discussion laid out trade-offs: the continuous HESCO line is the most effective short-term flood fight, but armoring the riverbank to protect the barriers is costly and involves parcels owned by ADOT and private entities that aren’t uniformly receptive to armoring. Staff told the committee they had contacted every property owner along the proposed 1b route; all except Riverview Senior Living consented to placement of HESCO barriers on their property.

Why it matters: the Assembly is weighing near-term flood-fighting steps against longer-term, higher-cost solutions. Staff estimates put phase 1 HESCO work (1a and related operations) in the low millions, continuing 1b as HESCO-only at roughly $850,000, armoring for 1b at about $1.4 million, and a full phase 2 long-term armoring solution at roughly $17 million — a combined rough estimate of about $23.5 million for phases 1 and 2 in earlier staff materials.

Discussion and staff response

Committee members pressed staff about neighborhood-specific impacts. Custer said 1a, at 17 feet, protects many parcels but at an 18-foot event the continuous 1a line diverts flow and would adversely impact nine homes on Meadow Lane; staff proposed deployable "super-sack" sandbag barriers across a trail to mitigate that localized flow in high-release events and said DOT had granted temporary placement permission.

View Drive, a low-lying cluster of roughly 20 private homes (22 parcels including two CBJ-owned vacant parcels), drew sustained attention. Staff said some View Drive homes have flooded repeatedly in smaller releases and that two homes sit inside the defined floodway, which triggers more stringent permitting. Army Corps of Engineers personnel have been asked to perform a feasibility analysis for View Drive; staff also said they had petitioned the Natural Resources Conservation Service for program assistance, including buyout options.

On Corps assistance: staff reported the Corps has provided HESCO barriers and technical assistance to date but signaled limits. "They are still providing technical assistance for the long term solution, but there may be restrictions on additional free HESCO supply and flood-fighting support above the historical event," Custer said, noting that if the Corps declines to provide barriers the city could procure them at municipal expense.

Assembly actions

- Moved by Mayor Weldon, the Assembly voted to "direct staff to further develop concepts and an LID for phase 1b aiming for construction next season." The motion passed after some objections and discussion about timing and fairness of cost allocation.

- The Assembly also voted to "direct staff to continue developing concepts of a service area for the long-term solution," a non-financial direction to explore a special tax district or similar mechanism to fund future mitigation work.

What was not decided

The Assembly did not adopt any funding commitment for armoring or construction at the June 2 meeting. Staff told members they could pursue armoring this season only if permitting and contractor availability allowed, but staff later clarified they do not have permitting time this season to complete armoring for 1b. Staff said an LID cannot be applied retroactively to improvements already installed, which complicates assessments for work already completed.

Ending

Staff will return with more refined cost models, public outreach results, and ordinance language if the Assembly wants an LID or special tax district on a future ballot. Meanwhile the Assembly directed further study of phase 1b and service-area concepts while continuing work on broader phase-2 options and View Drive feasibility assessments.