The Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assembly introduced, on first reading, an ordinance to appropriate $500,000 for remediation, long‑term closure and monitoring related to an Aug. 15 diesel spill at Point Higgins Elementary School.
The legislation was moved for introduction by Assemblymember Matson and, after a clerical substitute, drew extensive questions from Assemblymember Arntzen and others about contractor line items and monitoring plans. Morgan Berry, public works director, said the Phase 1 contractual services figure (listed as $2,365,856) covers work performed between Aug. 22 and Nortek’s first demobilization on Oct. 17 and that some final invoices for soil remediation were received as late as December.
“Those Phase 1 work were expenses that we experienced between the date that we commenced the response on August 22 … and Nortek’s first full demobilization on October 17,” Berry said, describing invoicing timing and that Republic Services handled some later soil‑removal billing.
Assemblymember Arntzen pressed staff about where items such as a $390,000 site excavation and road‑construction bill appear in the budget; Berry said some Burnett’s Construction charges were subsequently included under Nortek once Nortek began directing the work. Arntzen also asked about repeated air‑quality monitoring; Berry said Nortek’s quote included some monitoring and that the borough will bring Nortek back when incidents merit it.
“Has any air quality testing been done since December 5?” Arntzen asked. Berry replied, “No.”
Assemblymember Thompson raised a financial‑conflict question regarding Full Cycle; after the chair’s review Thompson was cleared to vote. Other members expressed concern about the apparent scale of contractor charges relative to the size of the spill: “I just don't understand how we could have racked up … $2,700,000 on a 2,500 gallon oil spill,” Thompson said, adding that he wanted more detail on Nortek’s bill before supporting additional funding.
Assemblymember Aronson moved an amendment to reduce the requested appropriation from $500,000 to $150,000. That cost‑containment amendment failed on a roll call, 2‑5. The amended substitute ordinance (as introduced) then passed first reading 5‑2; the ordinance will return for a second reading and final action.
The attorney for the borough emphasized that the appropriation covers two critical components needed to secure the building for continued occupancy — a vapor barrier in the basement and permanent ventilation — and urged the assembly not to stop short of those items.
Next steps: the ordinance was introduced on first reading and will return to the assembly for a second reading and final vote; staff committed to providing additional line‑item details and anticipated follow‑up information in advance of the next meeting.