Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Provider Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends adding clinic provider housing option to senior‑center lot
Summary
At its Aug. 26 meeting the Health, Education & Welfare Committee voted to recommend amending Resolution 13‑06R to allow clinic provider housing on the three clinic lots; the committee asked municipal attorney review before the assembly acts. The change ties to an open Rural Professional Housing grant with an Oct. 17 deadline.
Chair Waddell moved and the committee voted on Aug. 26 to recommend that the Borough Assembly repeal and replace Resolution 13‑06R to add the words “or clinic provider housing” to the paragraph designating the old clinic property as the future location of the Skagway Senior Center. The motion passed by voice vote after discussion and a request that the municipal attorney review bond and ordinance constraints.
Al Wall, director of the clinic in Skagway, told the committee the proposal would use a Rural Professional Housing grant available through the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. “We have an opportunity as a community to use grant funds to build some professional housing in Skagway,” Wall said, proposing 4–5 single‑dwelling units on the three lots the clinic formerly occupied near 11th and Broadway. He said the clinic currently spends roughly $18,000–$25,000 a month on seven leases and that on‑site provider housing would reduce overhead and free rental units for residents.
Wall said the grant application period opened Aug. 5 and closes Oct. 17 and that applicants must register intent before the deadline; an informational conference is scheduled in mid‑September via Zoom. He clarified the grant application would be submitted by a 501(c)(3) rather than the municipality and that the buildings would be owned by the nonprofit while the land would remain municipal property and revert to the municipality if the nonprofit dissolved.
Committee members pressed for legal review before forwarding any amendment. Waddell summarized that treasurer guidance indicated the voter‑approved bond backing the original project was never issued, but that attorney review is needed to confirm whether ordinance language or bond counsel opinions create restrictions on alternate uses of the lots. Bob Dietrich noted a past related resolution (Resolution 19‑21R) had failed in 2019, reflecting the long history of discussion about a municipal senior center.
The committee’s recommendation will go to the Borough Assembly for consideration; members asked staff to route a draft amendment for municipal attorney review to flag any legal hurdles tied to ordinance 16‑15 or the prior bond vote.
