Winter games budget OK'd

Facing nagging questions over whether it had the necessary authority to enter contracts for the 2006 Arctic Winter Games, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly acted Tuesday to remove retroactively any defects in its previous legislative actions, while also approving a $200,000 FY 2004 budget for the winter games Host Society, the nonprofit agency that will raise funds for and manage the peninsula games.

Ordinance 2003-24 was adopted unanimously, but only after much debate over amendments meant to establish firm legal footing for all previous actions.

Since April, questions have been raised about whether the assembly had violated borough code regarding the exercise of its economic development powers. According to borough attorney Colette Thomp-son, that section of the code, known as KPB Chapter 19.30, outlines how the borough may respond to economic development proposals. It has been interpreted to apply to proposals from outside groups seeking borough financial help, not to economic development initiatives arising from inside the government, as the winter games effort largely had.

Not everyone agreed with that interpretation, however. Assembly member Betty Glick of Kenai said that might well have been the intention of the drafters of the code section, but the actual language of the code does not make a clear distinction regarding the source of an economic development initiative. In her opinion, the borough did violate its code.

The action taken Tuesday "cures" any prior actions of defects, according to Thompson. Case law provides that prior actions of a municipality "may be ratified by the assembly to cure any defects in the prior acts, provided that the municipality was capable of performing the acts in the first place."

When asked directly by assembly member Pete Sprague of Soldotna whether the borough had violated its own code, Thompson acknowledged it was a gray area because of the actual language of the economic development code. However, she also said that in her opinion the borough had the authority to act as it had and that those actions, and the cure for any defects were defensible if they were ever challenged in court.

In another amendment, Glick moved to eliminate any requirement that the Host Society submit its annual budgets for assembly approval. She argued that other organizations receiving sizable amounts of borough financial backing are not required to do the same such as various senior citizen centers, CARTS (Central Area Rural Transit System), the Kenai Peninsula Tourism Marketing Council or Economic Development District Inc. The amendment was approved.

The assembly will get regular budget updates and retains some power to affect Host Society actions through its contract with the Arctic Winter Games International Committee.

While Tuesday's legislative actions may have attempted to confirm a solid legal basis for its actions, the assembly and the borough administration still face a host of questions from concerned citizens over the potential costs of the games. These include how much financial exposure borough property taxpayers actually face; who will help the borough fulfill its promises that financial backing will come from industries, cities and other groups; who will build, maintain and ultimately own facilities that may be built for the games; and whether the expense of the games will be a drag on the borough's savings account.

"My family are all property taxpayers, and my concern is the amount of money that will be spent," said Lenore Jones of Kenai. "I've tried to find information on some of this, but I've not heard about financial pledges being given yet. Maybe it's too early, I'm not sure."

She went on to ask just what kind of facilities are needed for the project.

"Will the public have to support these facilities after the games are over? I haven't been able to find that information anywhere," she said, adding that she would welcome additional information.

Charles Dickson of Soldotna asked the assembly to table the ordinance approving the Host Society budget for 120 days.

"At which time I expect you to come back to me with letters in hand quoting people who are going to pay for this," he said. "Right now, you're gambling."

James Price of Nikiski also asked where the money for the games would come from. He called for a cap on borough financial participation and a requirement that borough funds be matched through other fund-raising efforts.

"I question the rosy fund-raising projections and feel that if this project had been well thought out that the questions that many of us have asked previously would have been answered promptly," he said. "With the borough promising to sign a blank check, I believe there is little motivation to cut costs or raise funds. I ask that our borough exercise fiscal responsibility."

Price went on to say he would prefer to see a ballot question to test public support for borough financial backing of the games.

Former assembly member Tim Navarre of Kenai said he believes there were no problems with how the borough moved on the winter games and that the economic development provision in 19.30 is clearly aimed at initiatives from outside government.

Navarre went on to say lingering questions needed to be answered, but some people might not like the answers they get, and that misinformation continues to go out.

"I dare to dream for this borough," he said. "I believe we can put on the games."

He said there would be plenty of financial help coming as the Host Society begins its fund-raising efforts in earnest, including from international companies that will participate, paying money as they have in previous games. Beyond the money, Navarre pointed to the opportunities for cultural exchange.

"Let's not stop the dream. Let's get the questions answered," he said. "You don't need people to put up road blocks."

Glick said those questions deserved straight answers, but to date, the administration had done little to offer any.

"Because people are asking questions does not mean they are opposed," she said. "I would take the flip side of the comment that people don't like the answers they're getting. The flip side is that people don't like the questions that are being asked, therefore they want to kill the messenger instead of listening to the message."

Glick also said she wanted it clear that her difficulties with the way the legislative process unfolded and her demand that public questions be answered as soon as possible did not mean she did not support the games.

Following approval of the two amendments, the assembly unanimously approved the ordinance, taking a major step forward toward holding the games.