Tonight the assembly will weigh the evidence presented to them during the appeal process before deciding whether to grant or deny the appeal or send it back to the Planning Commission. 

The Sitka Assembly meets at 6 p.m. tonight. Raven News will broadcast the meeting live, following Alaska News Nightly. 

View the full meeting agenda here

A Sitka resident and charter operator has pleaded guilty to felony theft of electricity, and he’ll have to pay $150,000 in restitution and fines immediately, or face additional civil enforcement from the city.

59-year old Richard A. Forst pleaded guilty in Sitka Superior Court on January 31, 2022, to one count of criminal mischief in the 4th degree, a misdemeanor, and to one count of theft in the 2nd degree, a felony, for the theft of electric power at his home on Islander Drive, and at his dock property on Halibut Point Road – for at least the last seven years.

Forst was arrested and charged in 2019 after technicians with the Sitka Electric Department noticed that the locking seal had been removed from Forst’s electric meter, and replaced with another not supplied by the utility. A large motor was audible in Forst’s garage. The department subsequently pulled the meter and found that two bypass wires had been installed to divert power into the garage, without first going through the meter. The main circuit breaker was opened, and the motor inside the garage nevertheless continued running.

Technicians later observed that the meter at Forst’s commercial property at Guckers Island Dock on Halibut Point Road had been bypassed in a similar manner. Police were informed of the situation; they obtained a search warrant to investigate inside the buildings at the two properties and found that the bypassed circuits were feeding refrigeration equipment. Based on the age of the equipment and further investigation into Forst’s electrical consumption, the department estimated the value of electricity diverted over a period of years to be around $200,000.

Municipal attorney Brian Hanson appeared at Forst’s change of plea hearing to deliver a scathing victim impact statement, on behalf of all rate payers in the community.

“Sitka is not a cement building at the end of Lincoln Street,” Hanson told the court. “It is not a full of faceless bureaucrats. The City and Borough of Sitka is approximately 8,500 citizens: Men, women, and children who live, work, go to school, and recreate in this community. They also are electric ratepayers in this community. Some are in poverty, many are low income, and the citizens plead to our assembly to keep the rates of electricity as low as possible. Mr. Forst you stole from those citizens and you stole from them for years.”

Under the plea agreement, Forst must pay $144,925 in restitution to the City of Sitka, and fines of $5,200. In an email to city assembly members, Attorney Hanson wrote that “If Mr. Forst fails to immediately pay the judgement, I will initiate civil enforcement.”

Forst will also be on probation for two years, and subject to the the terms of the Court’s “Order to Probation on Suspended Entry of Judgement.” If he’s found to have successfully completed the terms of his probation by 2024, the charges will be dismissed. Otherwise, the judgement will stand and the felony conviction will be entered into Forst’s record.

Neither was Superior Court Judge Jude Pate conciliatory. He told Forst that, had he not accepted the plea agreement, he could have faced 1-3 years in prison for the original charge of theft in the first degree, and paid up to $100,000 in fines. The original charge of criminal mischief in the third degree carried potential jail time of up to two years, and a $50,000 fine.

Judge Pate agreed with the state prosecutor Amy Fenske that when a citizen of nominal good standing, a prosperous business owner, abuses the system so flagrantly, something more damaging than mere theft occurs.

“The bigger and possibly the more long term harm is, as Counsel Fenske pointed out, tearing at the social fabric,” said Pate. “And that’s just the lack of trust that these actions have brought about, at a time where our society is already at odds on so many things. And you pour in this this doubt, this mistrust by stealing. It causes citizens not to trust the government. It causes citizens not to trust each other. It erodes our very community on both a financial and sociological, psychological level.”

Judge Pate offered Forst the opportunity to address the matter in open court, but he declined.

“Mr. Forst, is there anything you’d like to tell me before I decide what to do?” Pate asked. “You’re not required to speak. But if you’d like to speak now be the time.” 

“No, judge,” Forst replied.

Judge Pate went on to observe that if the COVID pandemic had not intervened, this case likely would have gone to trial. As a result, public reaction to date has been “somewhat muted.”

In his remarks, Forst’s attorney, Juneau-based August Petropulos, suggested that the entire question of Forst’s guilt would be moot if two as-yet-unread motions received favorable ruling from the court: the first to dismiss the original indictment, and the second to suppress the evidence in the case. Nevertheless, Petropulos said he wasn’t there to litigate, and urged the court to accept the plea deal.

“We’re taking this deal,” Petropulos said. “I think it’s a fair compromise, given the two motions that were filed. The fact that Mr. Forst has no prior convictions, and that this guarantees the city gets the $144,924. I’d ask the court accept it.”

In addition to the restitution and fines, Forst will serve two years of probation. He also agreed to perform 80 hours of community work service.

Note: This story was updated on February 5, 2022, to reflect that the Sitka Superior Court issued an “Order to Probation on Suspended Entry of Judgement,” which means that Forst’s felony conviction will not be entered unless he fails to successfully complete his two years’ probation.

For more than two decades, companies have hoped to export Sitka’s water and market it globally. But so far, none of those efforts have come to fruition. That’s part of the reason a new contract for exporting bulk raw water elicited strong skepticism from assembly members at Tuesday’s (2-23-21) meeting.

It isn’t the first time the owner of Arctic Blue Waters Alaska, Fred Paley, has held a contract with the city. The company’s last contract ended after he failed to make a required $90,000 payment. Mayor Steven Eisenbeisz worried that this time wouldn’t be any different. 

“It seems to be a bad business partner to me when someone comes and requests another 20-year lease for our assets, and they haven’t even complied with the terms of their last two,” Eisenbeisz said. “I tend to wonder why we continue with this, apparently for the last 20 years now.”

The length of the lease was also a concern for several assembly members, who worried about how much could change in the next 20 years and cited water as a valuable commodity. Member Kevin Knox expressed uncertainty about how climate change could impact Sitka’s water supply.

“Climate models and other things aren’t as accurate as we would like them to be and looking at it today it looks maybe rosy. But 20 years from now it might be catastrophic. And we can’t tell,” Knox said. “That part of it feels a little scary.”

The agreement ensures that municipal water uses retain first right and priority of the water.

“Our electrical needs get served first, and we can stop the taking of water under any circumstances if it affects our ability to provide hydroelectric power,” municipal attorney Brian Hanson said.

State permits allow Sitka to export approximately 9.5 billion gallons of raw water annually. Currently, the city has one active water purchase agreement with Eckert Fine Beverages for around 1 percent of that total allotment. So far, the company has exported a few thousand gallons to a California subidiary, Reigncane Vodka. In an email to KCAW, company principal Brian Eckhert attributed the slowdown to Covid.

This new contract requires Arctic Blue Waters Alaska to make a $10,000 non-refundable payment and export at least 50 million gallons of water within a 60 month period or the city can terminate the agreement. The city has already made about 1.4 million dollars selling water rights since 2009.   

Member Thor Christianson, who serves as the liaison for the Gary Paxton Industrial Park, said he didn’t have strong feelings but thought it was a low-risk way to cash a few checks. 

“And the way this is written is that if they start moving a bunch of water they can continue to have rights. If they don’t they won’t,” Christianson said. “I strongly suspect they’re not going to hit that 50 million gallon mark, but if they do, it means we’ve got a viable operation going.”

He also worried that if the city doesn’t utilize its permits to export water, the state could take them away. 

Park Executive Director Garry White said he understood the concerns about past failures to follow through, but also reminded assembly members that setting up a water export business in a remote community takes time.

“Frankly it’s a pretty tough business, it’s pretty tough to figure out how to take a really heavy commodity product and move it from our remote location to another spot in the world,” White said. “I’m not the smartest guy about water, there’s probably other people that are smarter out there. And I would like to allow them to have the ability to try. I don’t have as many people looking at having us do this as I did in the past.”

Ultimately, the assembly chose to table the decision until their regularly scheduled meeting on March 23. That’s to allow for additional comment from the public and the industrial park board.

Read more coverage of Tuesday’s Sitka assembly meeting here

Note: This story was updated on 3-14-22 to include information that Eckhert Fine Beverages had exported a few thousand gallons of water to Reigncane Vodka.

Erin McKinstry is a Report for America corps member.

A sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a former police officer against the City of Sitka, has settled out of court for over $500,000. Mary Ferguson says she’ll continue pushing for change at the Sitka Police Department. Her settlement includes a provision allowing her to conduct an independent investigation into police management practices.
_________________________

In October 2018, Mary Ferguson filed suit against the city, alleging she had been sexually harassed and discriminated against in the workplace. At the time, she was the only woman working as an officer for the Sitka Police Department. 

Her case settled out of court on Aug. 14, and Ferguson will walk away with $515,000. But her feelings around the settlement are complicated.

“I kind of have mixed emotions about it,” she says. “I want to be optimistic about the city doing something about all of these complaints that have been still occurring. At the same time I get feeling a little bit hopeless because there have been so many people that have come forward, and it just doesn’t feel like anything is getting resolved.”

Ferguson’s is the third suit brought by a former Sitka Police employee that has been settled in recent months. Another detective, Ryan Silva, settled a whistleblower suit with the city last December for over $300,000.  Earlier this year, Noah Shepard, a former jailer and officer trainee, settled his harassment suit for $30,000.

The spate of settlements did not put an end to the complaints, however. In July former dispatcher Allison Kirby published a lengthy letter on social media alleging racial bias in the department. Kirby told KCAW that although she had no plans to take legal action, she believes that racism within the department remains an issue the current administration has not solved.

Ferguson, on the other hand, had hoped to take her case all the way to trial.

“The lawsuit certainly raised a little bit of awareness, but it didn’t do enough to make anything really actionable,” she says. “The thing that I’m missing out on by settling this case, is I don’t get to go before a jury, and I don’t get to have my evidence presented.”

Ferguson’s attorney, Jim Davis with the Northern Justice Project, says her case was strong enough to go to trial.

“She had complained about sexual harassment and nothing was done. She had complained about gender discrimination; nothing was done. She had complained about misconduct within the police department, and as a result of all of that, she was demoted from detective to night patrol, for no other reason except she was ‘hard to get along with,'” says Davis. “So it was a pretty strong case.”

Even so, Davis says the settlement is a good outcome for Ferguson- it’s not clear where a jury would have landed. 

“In this era, where people are more aware of the evils of gender discrimination and sexual harassment, a jury could have been super, super irate at the police department for doing this to Mary,” he says.

“On the other hand,” Davis continues, “maybe a lot of Sitkan juries would think, ‘We don’t want to penalize the police department because we have to finance the police department, so do we really want to award Mary $10 million if we’re going to have to pay more taxes as a result of such an award?'”  

So since Ferguson won’t see justice before a jury, she’s putting her hopes on the second part of the settlement which allows her to pay for an independent investigation into the police department–a circumstance which Davis says is very rare. 

“I would say it’s extraordinarily unusual,” he says. “I’ve been practicing law for almost 30 years now, and I haven’t seen any case where one absolutely essential part of the settlement was, as Mary demanded here, an impartial investigation of the police department,” he says. “Mary was not going to settle this case unless that happened.” 

Retired Alaska Superior Court Judge Eric Smith of Palmer has agreed to spearhead the investigation. Davis says the work could cost Ferguson $10,000-$30,000. And while the investigator won’t be able to force anyone to speak with him or subpoena any depositions or documents, he will talk to whomever is willing and review any documents provided to him.

KCAW spoke with city attorney Brian Hanson, who says the city admits no fault as a result of the settlement. And he says that the city did not “sanction or approve” an investigation in the settlement agreement, but it did acknowledge that Ferguson may conduct her own private investigation, a right he says is afforded to any citizen. 

“All we’ve said that we would do is not interfere with that investigation, and that’s what we would do or not do with anybody who started an investigation. We will not interfere,” Hanson said.

And though Hanson said the city isn’t obligated to give Smith access to records that he can’t legally acquire through the Public Records Act, like personnel files, he says city staff are complying with the investigation.

“We’ve already had contact with Judge Smith,” he says. “We told our employees that if they want to speak with Judge Smith, they’re more than welcome to do so. In fact, I think Chief [Robert] Baty is encouraging employees to do so.”   

Ferguson says she will limit her interactions with the investigator, and she hopes to get participation from as many people as possible.  

“This isn’t just about me,” she says. “This is about everybody. I’m welcoming, even the parties to my lawsuit. I hope that they participate in this investigation. I hope that their voices are heard, that their evidence is presented to this investigator.”  

She’ll provide that investigation to the Sitka Assembly with the hopes that they’ll use it to take action. Ferguson has long been calling for an outside investigation into the department, supporting an assembly decision to earmark over $30,000 to conduct its own investigation. But the hiring of an outside investigator was postponed, and the item has not come before the assembly again for consideration.  

Ferguson says just because the case is settled, that doesn’t mean she’s finished.

“This is not over,” she says. “Because I’m not going to have a jury trial, and the city gave me some money and agreed to not stand in my way? It doesn’t mean things are over. If the investigation reveals that there needs to be further action, I will be right there, supporting that further action.”

City administrator John Leach has been at the helm since the beginning of March, shortly before Alaska saw its first coronavirus case. He declared a local disaster emergency and established a unified command with SEARHC and state health officials in preparation for the coronavirus reaching Sitka. 

With several lawsuits involving the city, and the finalization of the sale of Sitka Community Hospital last summer, it’s been a busy year for city attorney Brian Hanson.  

Leach and Hanson both asked to be evaluated in executive session. When the assembly returned from each review, Mayor Gary Paxton announced that their performance was satisfactory and thanked them for their service. 

Processors like Seafood Producer’s Cooperative in Sitka are caught between the fishing season and a virus. Under a new emergency order, processors and other businesses that employ seasonal workers must require those employees arriving to Sitka to quarantine for 14 days. Pictured: SPC Executive director Stephen Rhoads personally loads a box of seafood for a local donation program. (KCAW Photo/Berett Wilber)

The Sitka Assembly has passed a controversial ordinance that would place tight restrictions on seasonal workers coming to Sitka — tighter, in fact, than already required under a mandate from the governor. And while most on the assembly believe tough rules are necessary right now, there is concern over whether the city might be overstepping its bounds, and facing a legal challenge from state government. 

As the summer season nears, communities across Southeast are trying to figure out how to handle an influx of seasonal workers from the Lower 48. At it’s last regular meeting (4-14-20) the Sitka Assembly unanimously passed an ordinance that puts more restrictions on those who could soon be arriving in Sitka to work in the seafood industry.

The ordinance requires all essential workers traveling to Sitka, with the exception of critical healthcare workers, to quarantine for 14 days once they arrive. And any businesses bringing in employees must submit a plan to the municipal administrator detailing how they’ll continue operating during the coronavirus pandemic without jeopardizing public health. 

If this sounds familiar, Gov. Mike Dunleavy last month ordered businesses to do essentially the same thing. However, so far the state hasn’t released any of the draft mitigation plans to the public or to cities, said Sitka’s administrator John Leach. 

“We were not seeing the action plans of any of the businesses that have seasonal workers coming in, whether it’s a seafood processor a guide company,” Leach said. “We reached out to the state and we were told that the action plans were proprietary and we were not allowed to see them. That is the intent of our emergency ordinance is to see those action plans.”

But is it legal? The state has given smaller towns with limited medical facilities the authority to create stricter barriers to entry. But as the assembly in Wrangell recently considered a mandatory quarantine, the state intervened. Wrangell, with a population of around 2,400 is considered a hub town, with a medical center, and therefore too big to impose its own rules, according to the state. The Wrangell assembly voted the mandatory quarantine down, wary of risking legal action down the line. 

Sitka municipal attorney Brian Hanson wasn’t sure how Sitka would fare if the state challenged its ordinance. State health mandates, in theory, legally supersede any city laws. Hanson said he’d been doing a lot of research, and thought the city could have the authority to enforce its own restrictions.  

“We may have our own authority,” Hanson said, “but it’s undecided on whether or not we could withstand a challenge from the state as to who has the superseding authority here.”

“I think what we’re doing is an overstepping of bounds,” said assembly member Valorie Nelson. “I know people are afraid, and I know it’s a pandemic, but I told you before, I’ve survived measles, mumps, chicken pox, I survived cancer. I’m considered at risk because I have a compromised immune system. But I am responsible for my own self.”

Member Thor Christianson said if the state had followed through, reviewing businesses plans and releasing them to cities for review, the assembly wouldn’t have to do this. 

“I’m not particularly worried about the state saying ‘You’re overstepping your bounds,’ because if they were doing their jobs, we wouldn’t have to do it,” Christianson said.

As of April 14, Sitka still had no confirmed cases of the coronavirus. SEARHC chief medical officer Dr. Elliot Bruhl spoke to the assembly, saying even though the levels were low in Southeast, that didn’t mean Sitkans should rest easy. 

“We’ve performed over 450 tests in the last six weeks and we’ve detected very low levels here in Southeast Alaska. That’s a wonderful thing. It’s also, I think, lulled us into a false sense of security,” Bruhl said. “The idea of bringing many hundreds of people into town from the lower 48 or other areas where the virus is circulating, necessitates significant caution.” 

Bruhl had recently penned a letter to the state calling on it to disallow local seafood processor Silver Bay Seafoods’ plan to bring around 450 workers to Sitka. 

During public comment on the ordinance, Silver Bay CEO Cora Campbell said the processor would work with the city, and as part of their plan, would screen and require workers to quarantine from home before they travel to Sitka. And once they arrive at Silver Bay’s campus, they’d likely stay there for the duration of the summer. 

“We’ll have a closed campus this summer with strict enforcement,” she said. “And we will have medical services available to us at the plant to address any issues that come up. We understand that the community healthcare capacity in Sitka is limited and it needs to be reserved for the residents that you’re there to serve.”

 The city published the most recent draft of Silver Bay’s mitigation plan on Tuesday (4-14-20).  Read the plan here. 

During public comment, representatives from other seafood processors, lodges and charter businesses spoke up. Several voiced concern that the ordinance was too strict in its timeline, and would make it hard for them to get their seasons started. 

But several residents asked for the assembly to pass the ordinance, and some wanted them to go even further. Here’s municipal clerk Sara Peterson reading a comment from Steve Ramp. 

“This ordinance is a great step forward in further protecting our health in Sitka, and I strongly encourage the assembly to pass it regardless of what the state has recently told the community of Wrangell,” Ramp wrote. “Unfortunately I think the ordinance still comes up short and believe all persons arriving in Sitka, employed or not, should be required to submit the protection plan.”

Ultimately the ordinance passed unanimously. It will end when State Health Mandate 10, which requires everyone traveling to Alaska to quarantine for 14 days, is lifted.

In a deal nearly a year in the making, the City of Sitka has sold a derelict dock at its industrial park. And although property has changed hands, no money has.

Hanson Maritime first put in a bid on the 61 year-old dock in November of 2018 — if “bid” is the correct term. When Turnagain Marine Construction last year bailed out on its offer to demolish the dock for $90,000, Lee Hanson stepped forward with a proposal to acquire the dock for his marine salvage business, and rebuild it at his own expense.

The associated tidelands that the dock occupies are valued at only $67,000, so the $22,000 difference between that amount and the anticipated demolition cost of $90,000 is essentially Hanson’s purchase offer — hence he’s “buying” the dock without writing a check.

The board of the Gary Paxton Industrial Park and the assembly have supported the idea from the beginning, but some in the public are still scratching their heads. Two spoke up to question the deal, both involved in the marine trades.

The old utility dock is right in the middle of what many hope becomes a public boatyard and marine services center, to replace a private haul out expected to close within two years. 

Mike Nurco has been a shipwright in Sitka for 16 years.

“I want to make sure that it’s not going to limit our plans for a shipyard that is so important to Sitka,” he said.

Nurco testified that there were many details yet to be settled about the proposed boat yard, and that the dock sale was possibly premature.

Sitka’s interim administrator Hugh Bevan, who has also served on the board of the industrial park, suggested that plans were farther along than many people realized.

“I’m confident that we’ve got the ability to figure out how to accommodate everything out there,” said Bevan. “Some things might get a little skinnier — like this ramp — but timing is everything, and this proposal to build this new travel lift at Sawmill Cove is definitely something that has to happen, and I would expect the whole concept to be coming to the assembly before the end of December.”

Although the utility dock transaction has hung up on other issues — mainly the potential for conflict with the moorage of large ships at the park’s new floating, multi-purpose dock — they’ve all been largely resolved. This decision really boiled down to whether three major purposes could all be served in one relatively small area of industrial waterfront: A privately-owned salvage dock, a public multi-purpose dock, and a marine haul out and boat yard.

Assembly member Kevin Mosher asked municipal attorney Brian Hanson — no relation to Lee Hanson — to spell it out.

Mosher – Lee can still have his operation, and if we had a dock, or a haul out at that ramp area, that could still work. Correct?

Brian Hanson –  Right. The concern all along has been what kind of conflict selling the property to Hanson Maritime would create to the haul out ramp, and that’s why we’ve been haggling over the provisions that would properly protect both the floating dock, and the haul out ramp areas. And when you vote on this one, you’re voting on a document that recognizes that there could be conflicts, and those conflicts could be resolved by strictly following the rules of the road, and will allow that haul out to be properly used.

During public testimony, park director Garry White said his board fully supported the sale, and that a marine haul out remains their top priority.

Assembly members Valorie Nelson and Richard Wein were concerned that the purchase and sale agreement did not include a right of first refusal for the City of Sitka, should Hanson Maritime ever sell the property. Nelson said that she was just looking after the interests of Sitka’s tax payers. Other members of the assembly, however, were reluctant to drag out what has already been a nearly 12 month-long process into yet another meeting over one single detail. The city, as member Thor Christianson said, could always exercise eminent domain if the property were ever needed in the future for a public use. “We have the ultimate hammer,” he said.

The assembly voted 5-0 to approve the purchase and sale agreement of the old utility dock to Hanson Maritime. Assembly members Kevin Knox and Steven Eisenbeisz were absent.

As seen in this promotional image from the Gary Paxton Industrial Park, the old pulp mill utility dock is visible just behind and to the right of the park’s new multi-purpose dock. The GPIP board has one caveat for any possible bidders on the utility dock: To make the new multipurpose dock serviceable for Panamax ships, a forward mooring bollard may have to be installed near — or possibly on — the old utility dock. (GPIP image)

The utility dock at Sitka’s industrial park is going up for sale.

The board of directors of the Gary Paxton Industrial Park on Tuesday (12-18-18) voted to solicit proposals for the purchase of the dock, which dates to the mid-20th Century.

By putting the dock out to bid, the park hopes to avoid controversy surrounding a similar transaction ten years ago that cast shade over the founding of one of the state’s largest seafood processors.

Downloadable audio.

The decision to put the dock for sale under competitive bid was prompted by an offer last month from Hanson Maritime, Inc., who proposed buying the dock in exchange for the cost of repairs — a deal reminiscent of the 2008 transaction that saw the former pulp dock and warehouse go to the then newly-organized Silver Bay Seafoods.

Municipal attorney Brian Hanson — no relation — tried to unravel some of the history behind the 2008 deal with Silver Bay for the current board — even consulting with his predecessor Theresa Hillhouse — but he didn’t have a solid answer.

“I’m giving you this background because I’m trying to put together why this wasn’t competitively bid back then in 2008,” said Hanson. “Because frankly, neither in the resolution, or in the recitals to the purchase contract were there any references to the charter or the code. Or excepting from the charter or the code. There were references to the purposes of the then-Sawmill Cove Industrial Park — now GPIP — to this language about ‘economic development and job creation,’ but there were no references to excepting this from competitive bidding. And I was curious about that: Why would they just completely ignore that? And I frankly didn’t find an answer to that.”

Hanson alluded to the possibility that Silver Bay was one of several tenants of the pulp warehouse and dock at the time, all of whom were given the option to purchase — and that might have satisfied the requirement of the charter that municipal property be sold by competitive bid.

Board member Dan Jones had a different perspective: he thought the arrangement with Silver Bay — which involved credits for expenses the processor incurred repairing the pulp dock — was due to the unique nature of the property, which made it otherwise unsaleable.

Silver Bay eventually got the dock and warehouse, and went on to become a major player in the Alaska Seafood Industry, but the transaction prompted a citizen initiative and embroiled the city in a protracted legal battle that found its way to the Alaska Supreme Court.

The lack of competitive bidding for the Silver Bay dock and some other park properties created problems that Jones hoped to not repeat.

“If we can’t explain why we did it before,” said Jones, “we’re going to open up the question of ‘Can those be challenged?’ Some of those sales were challenged.”

So the board formally voted down the offer by Hanson Maritime, and instead approved a request for proposals drafted by park director Garry White, who argued that the scoring of bids should favor the park’s mission.

“The main thing is to create jobs, right?” said White. “So I put down qualifications, 1-25 points. Conceptual plan — what is this going to do, how is this going to help the waterfront, is it going to fit into the overall strategic plan of the park, is it going to create jobs? Is it going to bring in more revenue and job creation and help the community? And that’s 1-35 points. So you’ve got 60 points tied up in ‘Can this person do this and what does their plan look like?’”

That’s 60 points out of 100. White proposed scoring price at only 15 points because he felt the priorities lay in the mission and not “can we get a whole bunch of money.”

The board agreed to the strategy, on the understanding that there may be no other proposals except the one from Hanson Maritime. Company principal Lee Hanson was in the audience for the meeting. He told board members, “I’m good with it.”

The deadline to submit proposals for the purchase of the utility dock at Gary Paxton Industrial Park was set at January 17, with the hope of reviewing offers in February and March, and finalizing a sale by the end of the fiscal year in June.

The park board’s vote to issue a request for proposals is a recommendation to the Sitka Assembly, which has final authority over the disposal of property at the industrial park.

The Blue Lake Reservoir provides unfiltered drinking water to Sitka, but a recent uptick in turbidity events is causing the city to move ahead with the construction of a water filtration plant. (Photo/2015/Courtesy Lance Ewers)

The Sitka Assembly voted, last night, to move forward with the development of a secondary water treatment plant. The resolution, which narrowly passed 4-2, is expected to cost the city $18 million, though rate increases have been in place to help fund the planned project for months. KCAW’s Katherine Rose reports.

Downloadable Audio

One might describe the water in Blue Lake as a little “troubled” lately. It’s seen an increase in turbidity- that is, a measure of how cloudy the water is. Brought on by heavy rainfalls and sediment, high turbidity can lead to contamination of Sitka’s water supply.

But rather than laying a bridge down a la Simon and Garfunkel, the Sitka Assembly last night passed a resolution permitting city staff to move ahead with the development of an $18 million dollar water filtration plant. The plant will provide a secondary water source for Sitka in case of a turbidity event, a planned inspection or other emergency. The city implemented an increase on water rates in July to help fund the project, and don’t anticipate any other rate increases right now. But several assembly members, including Richard Wein, still weren’t happy with the 18 million dollar price tag.

“This is, in essence, an 18 million dollar tax on the citizens of Sitka,” said Wein, who he felt that less expensive options hadn’t been thoroughly explored. Assembly member Kevin Mosher said that while he didn’t want to approve an $18 million dollar project- he thought moving ahead with the plant was the lesser of two evils.

“If we don’t do it and we lose our waiver, it could cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars more,” Mosher said, “and over time that adds up quick.”

Sitka’s water is technically unfiltered. A special federal waiver allows the city to bypass the filtration process, though they do add chlorine and treat the water with UV light. But that federal waiver requires no more than 5 turbidity events in a 10 year period. The city experienced the 4th turbidity event in four years just last month.

Assembly member Aaron Bean wondered if the turbidity events are becoming more likely, why build the plant? Bean said he didn’t see how a plant would change the fact that turbidity events are on the uptick, and wondered what the point of a filtration plant was if the events are inevitable.

“From the horse’s mouth, what will happen if we have greater than 6?” Bean asked. “I said before at our work session, I see it no different from having three if there’s no bacteria in the water. And if there is, we have a turbidity event in Blue Lake, this further speaks to the point that we’re not, in fact getting rid of those events.”

Public works director Michael Harmon said, with a new filtration system in place, turbidity events won’t be counted as strikes against Sitka’s filtration waiver. 

Mayor Gary Paxton said that not moving ahead with the project would increase the liability and ultimate cost to the city.

“We’re going to be very aggressive in dealing with our federal government, primarily, and our state government, to try to get some money to allay this unfunded mandate,” Paxton said. “In my view it’s a heck of a lot more likely we get money to help the 18 million cost of the secondary water treatment then it is to change regulations for FERC.”

That, Paxton said, was far more likely than the city getting a deferment on federal regulations. Ultimately the assembly voted to move forward, 4-2 with Richard Wein and Aaron Bean voting against.

The Sitka Assembly heard from city staff about their proposal for a secondary water source on Tuesday night (12-04-18). From left to right is Utility Director Bryan Bertacchi, Environmental Superintendent Shiloh Williams, City Clerk Sara Peterson, and Public Works Director Michael Harmon. (Emily Kwong/KCAW phto)

Sitka gets 100% of its drinking water from Blue Lake – unfiltered. If that sounds too good to be true, the City of Sitka worries it is and wants a secondary source of drinking water.

High turbidity events have city officials worried Sitka will lose its special filtration waiver. Combined with an upcoming federal inspection of the dam, the City is pushing the Sitka Assembly to approve the construction of a secondary water source. They presented their plan during a work session on Tuesday night (12-04-18)

Downloadable audio.

To understand why the City of Sitka is pushing for a secondary water source, we’re going to have to roll back the clock. To 2014. The project to expand the Blue Lake Dam was in full swing and for two months, Sitka was cut off from its potable water supply. The city built a backup system. They spent $4 million on a temporary filtration plant at Indian River.

The water met tightened federal regulations, but wasn’t great. Public Works Director Michael Harmon remembers the city got complaints about the color and the taste. “You’d hold it up and you’d smell rotten fish. It would look like apple juice or had a golden brown color to it,” Harmon told KCAW in a recent interview.

Now, a new set of conditions are pressuring the city to once again figure out a secondary water source. There’s two reasons for this. The first is a big inspection.

In 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will inspect the penstock tunnel system. Picture a mile of tunnel – 7 to 10 feet in diameter – far below the ground. “That penstock and tunnel provides city drinking water, it provides fire water, it provides electric power, water for NSRAA, and it’s also the source of bulk water when bulk water does get sold,” said Utility Director Bryan Bertacchi.

To keep Sitka’s FERC permit, Bertacchi has to drain the tunnel completely and close the intake gate. That’s the nail biter for him. The gate weighs 26,000 lbs. Were it to fail in some way, as happened at Green Lake in 2016, the community would lose its source of drinking water. A boil water notice would take effect. The impact for the local economy and public health would be significant.

Fixing a failed intake gate at Blue Lake would take two weeks minimum, which Bertacchi described as a “disaster” in the spring with tourism and fishing about to start. Winter is tough too. “If we did that test in the winter and something goes wrong, we’d need a very large crane that’s not available in this town. We’d have to get the crane all the way up Blue Lake Road to the dam,” he said.

To avoid this whole scenario when the penstock is unavailable – due to maintenance or emergencies – the city wants a secondary water source. That’s the first reason. The second reason has to do with water quality.

The city is always monitoring the turbidity of Blue Lake, a measure of the amount of particles in the water. Harmon is worried that turbidity has been too high for Sitka to keep its federal filtration avoidance waiver, allowing the community to forgo filtering Blue Lake Water. To keep the waiver, Sitka cannot exceed five high turbidity events in ten years. Since the dam was expanded, there have already been four – one as recently as last month.

“We’re seeing this new trend of turbidity events that’s leading us to believe we will likely lose our waiver in ten years – if we have four [high turbidity events] in four years,” Harmon said. He added, “That really homes us in on the best solution for secondary water is a filtration system and a permanent one. We can use it anytime a FERC inspection needs to happen. We can use it any time we’re having a turbidity event. We can turn it on and avoid losing service to the customer.

A schematic of the design for the secondary water source, which includes a river intake system that moves water from Sawmill Creek to a brand new filter plant. The system would bypass the penstock tunnel entirely, in the event it is closed for maintenance or emergency. (Schematic courtesy of CBS)

Harmon doesn’t want to use Indian River again. A permanent filtration plant there would cost $23 million due to . After doing a study up and down the road system, they decided the most cost efficient option would be a brand new filtration unit drawing water from Sawmill Creek. It would cost $18 million.

The previous Assembly largely supported this plan, approving application for a low interest loan from the state and raising water rates this year to pay for it. The current Assembly, however, has their doubts and expressed as much during a work session Tuesday night (12-04-18).

Assembly member Aaron Bean wanted to know, “Why the elevated turbidity?” Harmon said staff are investigating. “The most obvious one is the raising of the dam has changed the lake dynamics. We hope that that will stabilize over time,” Harmon said.

Calling in over the phone, Assembly member Richard Wein described the secondary water source is an “added cost” of raising the Blue Lake Dam and said that this project needed further vetting.

Assembly member Kevin Mosher worried about the project staying within the $18 million budget. City staff assured him it would and that the project would only grow more expensive with time through inflation, by about $1 million every year.

City attorney Brian Hanson said building the secondary water source now would mitigate risk in the future. “Whether or not you talk dollars or cents, that is a primary reason that you should go forward, but don’t forget the health and safety of our community. You can’t ignore that. And to delay I think has a considerable risk in that regard,” Hanson told the Assembly.

This notion – that Sitka needs a secondary water source sooner rather than later – seemed to shift the conversation. While seeing the logic of the project, Mosher wondered whether there would truly be enough money within the water fund to pay for it.

Right now, water rates are not expected to rise. But what if they have to to pay for this project? “We may not have as much as we think we’re going to have,” Mosher said. He wondered, “What’s going to happen if this project does go over and then we’re wanting more rate increases? I just really hope this project stays within budget.”

Mosher is narrating what some on the Assembly have described as a “rate death spiral,” which is exactly what happened with the Blue Lake Dam expansion. The project went over-budget. Rates went up to pay for it, but electric usage went down. The echoes of that deficit – which the city is actively working to close – are all over this conversation about a secondary water source in Sitka. But if there is common ground, it’s in the desire to provide clean drinking water and reliable electricity to Sitkans.

After the work session ended, everyone lingered to chat – Assembly members with City Staff – to unpack the pros and cons even further.

The previous Assembly put the decision-making power for this project in the hands of the current Assembly. On December 11th, they’ll vote on whether to enter into a Compliance Order by Consent with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation – accepting that $18 million loan and moving ahead with the secondary water source. The vote will be on first and final reading. Should it pass, Bertacchi says he will ask FERC to delay their inspection until that secondary water source can be built.