Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Improvement Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deputy Manager Rebecca Kamika presents revisions to Skagway CIP; port projects removed from scoring matrix
Summary
The finance committee reviewed a revised Capital Improvement Program draft on July 16. Deputy Manager Rebecca Kamika told the committee port projects will remain in planning documents but will be removed from the CIP scoring matrix; members agreed to run a mock scoring exercise before setting a final cost threshold.
Deputy Manager Rebecca Kamika presented a revised draft of the Skagway Municipality Capital Improvement Program to the finance committee on July 16, saying the document clarifies how projects will be included and prioritized for long-term planning.
Kamika told the committee, "we removed port projects from being scored, but they will stay in all other aspects of the program, like long range planning, asset management, the CIB, and the ultimate in the CIP." The change keeps port projects visible in planning and asset lists while excluding them from the numerical scoring matrix used to rank other projects.
Why it matters: the scoring matrix directly affects which projects rise to the top when staff and elected officials set budget priorities. Committee members said they wanted to avoid language that might inadvertently restrict how port-generated revenues are used; the chair pointed out wording in Skagway Municipal Code 12.01 concerning port revenues and asked staff either to include the exact code text or to strike the summarizing sentence.
Kamika also described changes to the environmental-impact criterion, replacing earlier "positive/negative" language with a clearer 1–5 scale. She explained, "a rating of 1 is none ... 3 is standard good practice ... 5 is high positive impact," and said the scoring descriptions are shown in Appendix C and on page 5 of the draft.
The presentation covered the project submission form (Appendix B), pathways to project inclusion, and a suggestion to keep auto-included items (for example mandatory regulatory or asset-management triggers) visible in the CIP while marking them as automatically included. Kamika proposed adding an additional column to the matrix to indicate auto inclusion but still score those projects so the committee can see where they rank.
Members debated cost thresholds and examples from Anchorage. Kamika noted Anchorage’s thresholds and the municipality’s MOS capitalization at about $10,000; she offered $50,000 as a possible threshold instead of $100,000 but stressed a range of approaches could work. Committee members expressed concern that a strictly 'critical-only' filter could hide useful noncritical infrastructure from long-range planning.
The committee agreed to run a mock scoring exercise using the current CIP list to see how projects sort under the matrix and to test the submission and scoring process. Staff will prepare a test run, update the draft with agreed wording changes (including either quoting the municipal code or removing the problematic summarizing sentence), and bring the mock scoring results back for committee review. The committee’s final recommendation will be forwarded to the full assembly for review and adoption.
Next steps: staff will perform the mock scoring exercise and return with updated language and a recommendation for formal presentation to the assembly.
