Finance committee recommends ordinance to fund Public Works design, urges bond planning
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Skagway Municipality finance committee voted to recommend Ordinance 26-02, which would add $300,000 for engineering of a new Public Works facility, while members debated packaging construction financing into an October bond after staff provides conceptual designs and cost estimates.
The Skagway Municipality finance committee voted to recommend Ordinance 26-02 to the full Assembly, advancing a budget amendment that would provide $300,000 for engineering and design work on a new Public Works facility and related site work.
Committee members focused on two questions: whether to fund conceptual or full engineering now and how to pay for construction, which members variously estimated at $6 million to $10 million. Mayor Orion Hansen told the committee he was concerned the proposal had “leapfrogged the public workshop,” and that while $300,000 for engineering might be affordable, “it’s the $6,000,000 estimate that I don’t know how we’re gonna pay for it.”
Manager Dietrich said staff can solicit a proposal from an engineering firm to produce conceptual or 35%-level drawings and a cost estimate, noting that the layout for the 15-acre site exists but that the town lacks building-specific conceptual drawings. “Either way, we’re gonna get to a conceptual design,” Dietrich said, and an engineering proposal could yield a useful cost estimate in a few months.
Assembly member Henry argued the committee should plan for contingencies and higher costs. “I think we’re probably more in the $8,000,000 range,” he said, urging that demolition/remediation costs for vacated lots be considered separately or explicitly packaged into any bond. Other members urged caution about approving design work the town might be unable to fund to completion without a bond.
After extended discussion about whether to split the ordinance into separate amendments (air-quality upgrades, clinic equipment, and design funds) or keep them bundled, the committee agreed to forward Ordinance 26-02 to the Assembly with a recommendation for approval. Assembly member Burnham moved the recommendation and Assembly member Henry seconded; the committee approved the motion by voice vote.
Next steps identified by staff include: obtaining a clear scope from the public works foreman, requesting a proposal from an engineer (no formal RFP required for professional services but any contract would return to the Assembly for approval), and bringing a proposal or revised amendment back in advance of second reading so the Assembly has a concrete design estimate to consider. The committee also discussed packaging design and construction costs into a bond question for the October ballot if members direct staff to proceed.