Assembly Special Meeting of March 13, 2025

There were also a little bar downstairs. Okay, we're going to call to order the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly special meeting of Thursday, March 13th, 2025 at 6:30 PM. We are in the assembly chambers and this meeting was called by the mayor. Roll call, please.

Mr. Ames. Here. Mr. Griffin. Here. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. LeDoux. Here. Mr. Sharrett. Mr. Smiley. Here.

Mr. Whiteside. Here. Mayor Arndt. Here. You have a quorum.

Thank you. Next item is citizens' comments. For those in the room who wish to speak, please come to the podium and sign in, turn on the microphone, and make sure the green light is on before speaking. And speak directly into the mic. State your name for the record, address all remarks to the assembly as a body and not to any member thereof.

If you're calling in, the local phone number is 907-486-3231. The toll-free number is 855-492-9202.

Please turn off any radio or other listening devices to prevent feedback and state your name for the record. Anybody wishing to come forward under citizens' comments or call in, please do so at this time.

Seeing and hearing none, we'll move on to consideration of matters in the call for the special meeting. We have contract number FY2025-35, change order number 1, for the removal and shipping of PCB materials for the mental health building's demo and abatement with Far North Services, not to exceed $349,563.12. Jared?

I've been gone so long, I forgot my job. You can do it. You can do it. Move to authorize the Borough Manager to approve Contract FY2025-35 Change Order No. 1 For the removal and shipping of PCB materials for the mental health building's demo and abatement with Far North Services in an amount not to exceed $349,563.12.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Staff report, Amy Williams, borough manager. Thank you, Scott. Aren't mayor— the assembly awarded contract number fiscal year 2025-35 on December 19th, 2024, in the amount of $1,310,000.

During the initial site visit and meetings with the successful contractor, Far North Services, it was determined by KIB ENF director and environmental specialist that the materials being tested for asbestos also needed to be tested for PCBs. This is due to the fact that the Kodiak Island Borough landfill permit does not allow for any PCB material to be disposed at the landfill. The contractor and third-party testing concluded that PCBs are present in a majority of the materials. All of the PCB-containing materials will need to be separated from the waste streams and shipped off island. Tonight we're going to look at the change order for the additional separation and shipping of the PCB-containing materials.

The charge— change order includes a per container cost of $14,565.13, and there are 24 containers, so it will be a not-to-exceed cost of $349,563.12. Our project manager, Cody Allen, is here tonight to, uh, answer any questions that you have and probably tell us more than I summarized.

Go ahead and give a little briefing from your end, Cody, please. Okay. So we essentially were unaware this project was bid. We put together a little timeline, probably start there.

So not going too far back in the timeline, but when the construction documents were put together and we received our proposal on December 17th to expedite this due to the ARPA funding, we had the— we had our pre-construction meeting, or pre-bid meeting rather, with all the interested parties and everything. And at that point in time, we were largely unaware of the need to inspect for PCBs, so they weren't contained in the original bid documents. And so it wasn't until our on-site kickoff meeting at January 9th where we were first made aware of the need to test for PCBs due to the age of the building and the type of materials that were present. And the landfills permit that was not— were not able to take PCBs. Subsequently, we found out at that date and time with our third-party consultant that Alaska is different than anywhere else in the state and where Alaska will not take any PCB-containing materials in their landfills that is over 1 part per million, whereas the rest of the state, it goes up to, I believe, 50 parts per million, or 50, 50 parts per million.

Contractors here to keep me straight on that. And so they're from the lower 48, um, well, David's from the lower 48 out of Seattle, and then they have an Anchorage office. And so we were getting some conflicting information with what would or would not be allowed At that point in time, Jenna, who is also here, and I reached out to the state to get clarification on our permit. We were indeed told no PCB-containing material. The contractor had already taken samples February 6th while they were— or January 9th while they were on site.

They provided sample results February 6th indicating that there was indeed PCBs contained in the facilities, but we didn't really know what the gravity of that situation was. Um, to not generate more costs with the contractor, we used our internal third-party consultant that was part of the A&E team. Um, on February 14th, we signed a proposal with EMI, who is overseeing the abatement process on our end. They conducted 50 additional samples, um, February 25th, and then March 7th, uh, the draft report was shared from that consultant, um, saying that indeed the PCBs were in essentially all of the waste streams with the exception of like areas that had been remodeled and things of the nature like carpet, regular construction debris. And so that led to conversations March 7th again.

We originally were only going to start with like 3 containers and just continue testing as needed, and we've seen that there would be significant delays. Instead, the decision was made to do a revision to Change Order 1, and what you see before you tonight And that way we can maintain progress during the construction, but the contractor will only be paid for the containers that they use. And then, uh, it does have specific language in that change order in which myself, um, or a designee will have to inspect to ensure that they're using the appropriate volume. And then in discussions with our legal team, uh, we wanted to make sure that it covers basically the entire waste from cradle to grave because this is a regular regulatory requirement. And there's only limited landfills that they can take it to.

And so essentially what this will provide us is a tool in our toolbox as the project starts, which we had our kickoff meeting yesterday. They're, they're here obviously, um, starting work. This will allow them to continue the work and get containers coming, but own the risk of making sure they don't overextend or order too many containers that aren't going to be used.

Thank you. Any questions? Scott and then Larry.

Is it going to be the case that material that we ship off island is greater than 50 parts per million?

At this point in time, no. The test results are minimal, but it's essentially too much for Alaska. Some are not too much for Alaska, but it's still It's still easier just to take it out of the state. I presume it's coming from paint on the walls. Is that what the source was?

Correct. That's— they took samples of the paint, the wood trim. It's most of the sheetrock, almost all of the sheetrock, the paint, and—. Overspray on the floor? No.

I have that here.

Not important. Okay, if you don't need it. Um, you said 24 containers, but we're only going to use a few of them. Is that the idea? Um, the idea is that we anticipate approximately 24 because of the volume and the tonnage of materials that were to be disposed of at the landfill.

And so to get that estimate, I worked with the contracting team and then the engineering team to validate what, what the estimates were for waste for the particular areas that were identified as PCB-containing. And so we're assuming 24 or less would be what would be used, but it's going to most likely be somewhere between 20 and 24. And you can't just put all the sheetrock in, huh? And leave the rest of the debris for the landfill? No, anything.

So it wasn't just the sheetrock. That, um, it is sheetrock, wood trim, um, I got the whole list here.

Uh, sheetrock, wood trim, um, window trim, the wood like fixtures around the stairs essentially. And then it was identified basically anywhere that the paint from the wall had been repainted, so like underneath, upstairs, downstairs, and both buildings. So that's a considerable amount of waste.

Larry?

Can we assume that once this contract is finished that there isn't any PCB contamination on the land because of the deconstruction going on? I am not an environmental person. I cannot speak to that. Okay.

That concerns me a little bit. Not that you aren't one of those things, but just I'm wondering if that's going to be a new expense. And the other is that I watched those buildings come up, but, you know, when they were building those, they built this building at the same time. What about this building? Remodelled it.

Has it ever been checked for PCBs? To my recollection, no. And this is honestly— PCBs is a first for me in a demolition project. So I'm— every day is a school day and I'm learning as I'm going. Yeah, I'm just sort of—.

It's here. Yeah. Jenna.

So this is a more recent issue. Last year is the first time I've heard about PCBs being tested in paint. I had another demolition project someplace on island, and they sent me some information after their hazardous assessment. I talked to the state of Alaska, and it was mentioned that they are noticing a lot more of these projects testing hopper PCBs. So just to make us aware, know that this is something that they are seeing a lot more of that I bet initially they weren't testing for.

So that's what— that's how it got brought to our attention. If I could follow up with you, do you know anything about whether, you know, this demolition could cause contamination of the land itself? I am not very familiar with that. I can look it up for our next meeting, though. Okay, thank you.

Steve and then Scott.

As I listen to it, what I understand, and just making sure I got it clear, that 24 or less containers will take the material that has the PCBs, and then there is a decent amount of other material that can go to the landfill. And this is a not to exceed, so you went to the high side of the estimate and hopefully we were going to be a bit down around 18, 20, 22 containers. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Okay.

Scott, has we done anything to try to get the state of Alaska to change its mind? Because this is going to eat us alive if it continues.

Yeah, so you can update permits, um, with the state of Alaska. But one thing you have to remember, that we have a solid waste permit, and then we also have a leachate or a discharge permit. So a lot of the times solid waste might allow something, then the water quality does not allow it. So when I reached out to solid waste, we could update the permit, but it has to be under that one level that was mentioned earlier, the 1 versus the 50. So Alaska can have Um, our limit is 1.

However, our discharge permit folks said that if we are now accepting PCBs, we have to update the permit, um, for the water quality. And then also we would have to probably do additional testing to make sure we are not discharging PCBs. And then we would also have to— if we are collecting PCBs, would also have to probably treat for them as well. So that could be a lot of extra work or cost down the road for us to be able to accept PCB material. Well, which is going to be more— excuse me—.

Which is going to be more expensive, the future with all the PCBs in older buildings that we're going to have to deal with by shipping it to Washington State or paying for the liché treatment plant to do those things? So I'm going to jump in and support Jenna here for a minute. The, the clear thing to keep in mind is that the state of Alaska would only allow that permit deviation for sample results that that were 1 part per million or less. And some of our sample results were higher than that. Not 50, but like 3s, 5s, 8s, things like that.

So that material would still have to be diverted regardless, because no one in the state of Alaska is allowed to accept it. But the state legislature could change that, right? Possibly. Um, I reached out to other landfills during this issue, and Anchorage which is a very large facility and huge landfill, they are allowed— their permit doesn't require them to have no PCBs. They are allowed the 1 limit, but because of leachate, I was told they are not accepting PCBs.

So even some permits that are— do allow that 1 limit, they're still saying no to construction demolition debris.

I don't want to monopolize this, but I guess I'm confused. My understanding is everything that was painted back then in the '60s and '70s had PCBs in it, and those places have to have been demolished. Are people just not testing and not reporting? There is a possibility of that. Also, depending on age when people do construction, could have been before us, could have been after us.

Not sure. Okay, thank you. Jared. Uh, thank you. Um, Madam Manager, I don't see a fiscal impact note on the memo.

So the original contract is spent with the ARPA money. So where does additional $350K come from? Does that take items off of that ARPA list, or Yes, so there are a couple items on the ARPA list that we can't take off, and those are those PFOS-free turnouts because that money is gone. Um, and there was— and those were the items that we didn't have other money set aside for. Everything else above that list from ARPA, we can get money from any of those items, remember, because we kind of made that insurance policy.

Um, that will unfortunately— if you take the $1.3 million for the project and the $349 $600,000 change order plus the cost of those turnouts that we bought, that's more than the ARPA money we had. So it'll, um, the excess of the $349,000 will end up coming out of Building and Grounds. Okay, thank you. I think that was what you wanted at the end there, right? Okay.

Yeah, ultimately. Larry, um, I think you mentioned earlier when we did the original contract, the polychlorinated biphenyls was not part of the assessment. Is that correct? That is correct. So is this a, a new requirement, or when did this pop up that we need to check for PCBs?

January 9th, during our pre-construction meeting. Um, we had an on-site kickoff meeting January 9th with the contractor, and, uh, I— full transparency— wasn't a part of the bidding of this project. I was on vacation at the time, and so when this was pushed out there was a blanket term that said consider all materials were deemed hazardous waste and testing wasn't required. But there was multiple addendums that answered questions that directed the contractor to do testing. But the testing and the contract language was specifically focused on asbestos and lead, which both were identified in the hazardous material reports.

The PCBs weren't brought up until it was recognized by Jenna and Dave that it was needed. And so it was an immediate known conversation that it was going to add to a potential cost change. We just didn't understand the gravity of such decision until we got the results. Okay, and the concern that I have, and maybe it's not a concern, is we have East Elementary that was built during this— actually earlier than this. We have this building and we have Peterson.

That were all built, and we've never, to my knowledge, ever even checked them for PCBs. They've all been remodeled and hauled to the landfill. Is this something new that we should warn school maintenance that they need to be aware of, or when they tear down walls or build new walls, or—. So, um, the conversations that I had with Jenna and the state and with the contractor and our consultant for this, it sounds like this is as new as 2024. And they are still working through the regulations and things like that.

And I imagine it is going to be very similar to what we are seeing in the news with PFAS. But it was all new information. So it is just our luck that we are doing this right after the new legislation or ordinances to require this. This federal or state? It is federal and state, I believe.

I will let the experts speak to that. Jenna. So for federal regulations, um, they are set, and then we go to state. States can be more stringent than whatever the federal regulations are. You can't be less than what the federal regulations are.

So like 2024, when it got brought to our attention, um, Cody made a great example, PFAS. Years ago, there was no concern, um, is in everything, use it for everything, buried in the ground. If, um, I was on projects that I read about, they buried the AFFF in the dirt and they let it go. Years later, now we know we can't do that anymore. So it's kind of a new— I don't want to say contaminant of concern because it's always been a concern, but just realizing what material it actually was in and how it could impact our environment.

Thank you. Bo. Thank you. What's the time sensitivity behind this removal? The reason I ask is this is a really high amount.

I don't know if that's reasonable or not, but would it be reasonable to put this— split this off and put it out to bid?

Legally, I don't know if we could do that. No. We're under contract with a contractor for the services provided in discussions with the attorney, and that's what led to this method of change being requested. The options that were presented is we could cancel the contract Or we could modify the contract, and as was presented a few meetings ago, of like demolish the entire building kind of thing, ship it all out. Alternatives are stop basically work and then conduct more testing, but then we're liable for the stop work and loss to the contractor.

And that was a rough summary of what he presented to me.

Follow-up, Bo? Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So given we don't quite know what we're going to do with this building, I don't know what the costs would— the stop loss was the term— was that for the contractor? Would— what would your general suggestion be if we waited to see what we're going to do with that building? Are we under a time constraint notify the contractor of what direction we want to go, or how much time do we have to think about this?

The contractor has mobilized. They're in the room with us. Okay. The contractor has mobilized. They plan to start work Friday, I believe.

They're going to be rolling per the pre-con meeting that we just had. They're going to be rolling 6 10- to 12-hour days. I've been trying to do everything I can in my powers, as little as they are, to make sure that there's work for the guys to do. To continue their efforts because the containers have a 3-week lead time. And so we're identifying some kind of workarounds to keep them busy.

We're providing accommodations for them, not room and board, but like an office space in the old projects office. And so we're trying to be mindful that they came all this way to do the work and there we really don't have the work for them to do approved yet. But with that being said, I think that a decision for the overall structure of the building, there would be a significant opportunity for me as the project manager of the borough to negotiate with that contractor if the decision was to do a complete demolition for a deductive scope, because you are paying a tremendous amount of money to add insulation, add vapor barrier, add house wrap to the facility. And my biggest concern— and I believe the contractor today called me with a concern that I had not shared with him yet— Um, is that vapor barrier, the vapor barrier that's specified for the building itself has a 180-day warranty for the one that's out there. And I know I shared that the UV rating's usually for 6 to 8 months.

Um, but with that 180-day warranty, if that vapor barrier fails and we have two wrapped houses and now we have a mold issue or something along that end, I can't lean into the contractor or the, uh, manufacturer to help us. And so we are on a time clock for a decision to move forward. Okay. Thank you. Carrot.

Thank you. Any further? Jenna. [SPEAKING SPANISH] If we were to accept PCP material at the landfill, it would go into our line cell area. So the material right now construction demolition projects go to our C&D area, which is unlined.

So if we ever wanted to do a permit update to accept this material, it would go into our lined cell, which, um, we are filling up relatively fast. And hopefully we'll have Design 2 coming to you guys relatively soon. But that's just something to keep in mind as well. If we're going to take it, we're going to place it in lined cell, which definitely costs more money, and then we have to do expansion probably a little bit sooner. Thank you, Jenna.

Steve, from what I've heard, tell me if I'm wrong, that any sort of— this work is going to have to be done. The PCB, whether the building's remodeled, torn down, whatever, and these PCBs are going to have to be shipped somewhere. Any delaying, the cost would probably go up because of construction. Also, we're going to have to deal with the contract we have and And there will be some sort of payment the borough is going to have to make if we delay the contract or anything else. So I'm pretty sure any delaying would eat up a good part of this cost, and therefore we should just move forward.

Do you have an opinion on that?

I don't have an opinion, but I can say that the— what you laid out is exactly correct. We have an option of no matter what, the material is going to have to leave the state. State as a whole, not just the Kodiak Island Borough, due to the levels of PCBs contained in it. I think it would be cost prohibitive to separate those waste streams from, like, if it's a 1 part per million from a 3 part per million. That would be my opinion based on the review and the discussions with the consultants.

And, and then two, the cost of disposal in Alaska and the, the scarcity of landfills that will accept accept the PCB-containing materials, it seems like the only solution, unfortunately, is to take this to the Lower 48. Whether you do that this week, next week, or a year from now, I imagine the price is going to be similar.

Larry. I don't want to go too off task here, but I'll try not to. So currently, we're demolishing the buildings, we're taking out material that is PCB-contaminated, and we're going to have to get rid of it. And not in our landfill. I understand that.

And so when this contract is finished, the contractor will have stripped the buildings, covered them in wrap, and insulated them. Is that correct? Partially. The only insulation is going to be in the floor. Okay.

And then vapor barrier, and then there will be no roof on the building. It'll be a temporary roofing material. So there will be a roof, but it won't be— leaking, at least temporarily. So at that point in time, the assembly— and we just recently had a work session, and there was an estimate that it would be $10 million to refurbish this building, these buildings. I didn't hear a lot of real joy in that amount.

So it seems like if we were going to demolish these buildings, we should do that before we spend more money putting vapor barriers down, insulating the floors, and wrapping the houses. Because anything that we do to it right now will be lost if we decide to remove them completely. Is that correct? [Speaker:MR. BOLL] So that, in my world, that is an opportunity for a deductive change order. So you're still going to end up paying for the cost to ship the items off island because they weren't included in the original scope of work, unfortunately.

The way that you shift offset that cost is reduce the rebuild, but then there's going to be a— probably an additional cost if the intent is to demolish the entire building, because now the scope of work has increased. And so you would have a few options. You can cancel, like overall cancel that contract and rebid it as a new project. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know what the repercussions of those decisions would be. In past experiences, I will say they have been substantial.

Okay. Now, the other option that Mr. Ryan Sherrod asked the last meeting for me to reach out to strategic partners for the rebuild, I have done that and I have not gotten any interest. I have not had any responses. So I don't know if that helps answer that question, but I am trying.

You have done fine. Thank you. You have been put quite on the spot tonight. Steve. Um, as I'm seeing this kind of from a construction end, I'm saying that I'm of the opinion we should move forward, ship the PVCs off, and at that time we'd have a little bit while they're doing that.

If we decide the buildings are going to just be demolished, we could possibly negotiate not the temp roof, not the siding, and not the insulation vapor barrier. Is that correct?

We, we would have a little bit of time, but not much. They're currently doing submittals and we're reviewing those. We're down to our last submittal, which is actually the vapor barrier for the siding. There, um, we're taking the windows out, putting CDX, boxing it all in. So you have some time, but if that is the desire So that's something I need to get working on pretty quickly.

Continue, Steve. I understand that and I agree that we need those buildings even with the 6-month temp stuff. We need to just make decisions now. But no matter what we decide, we still have to ship the PV off island and so I'm in favor of this not to exceed. And because no matter what happens, we got to do that anyway, and it's not going to get cheaper.

And then that gives us a very short time to decide whether to do the temporary or not. Thank you for your time. I think what we need to do is look at giving direction to get a price that the deduct for not doing that work, and then what the cost of demolition, complete demolition, is to the concrete foundation. Any further discussion? Cody.

The only other thing I would want to remind the assembly of is that we do have that public forum. That was the other part of the discretion, uh, the direction from the last meeting that I was at, where we're meeting with the community, and we do have a survey. I believe it has 20 8? Above 30. Above 30 responses from the community on what they would like to see the future use of that building or those buildings be.

One of the things I'm hearing, though, is that there's a 6-month likelihood on it. We don't have the money to go ahead with reconstruction or that. You're going to lose the buildings before we get the money together to do something. That's the reality. Of the situation.

So we need to find out what that price is sooner rather than later so we don't put the extra money into wrapping it. That's my thought on there. Further discussion? Steve, that's the last time. Okay, that's fine.

Um, I understand what you say and actually agree with it, but I think at this point We need to separate into approving this and then deal with that issue very quickly as an assembly.

That's what I'm saying. Okay, so further discussion on the motion?

Roll call vote on the motion. Mr. Ames? Yes. Mr. Griffin? Yes.

Mr. LeDoux? Mr. Smiley? Yes. Mr. Whiteside? Yes.

Would anyone like to change their vote? Motion passes, 5 yes, 0 no. Thank you. Request a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn.

It has been moved. Is there a second? Second. Been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. We are going to take a 7-minute break and then start the Work session.

Show me, show me. He was just kidding, Scott. He was just kidding. I'm just trying to press a button. Make sure I'm not between you and the press conference.