Anchorage Assembly threatens court action to block Bronson administration payment for unauthorized shelter construction

Editor’s note: This story has been updated. Read about the latest developments here.

The Anchorage Assembly on Wednesday took two new steps to block any potential settlement payments from the Bronson administration to a contractor over work done on a contentious homelessness project without formal approval.

The measures relate to Mayor Dave Bronson’s proposed navigation center at Tudor and Elmore roads on the city’s east side, and the bungled procurement process that saw $4.9 million in construction work go forward without the requisite Assembly approval. In February, the Bronson administration told the Assembly that by March 24 it planned to pay Hickel Contracting, the firm that did the work, $2.5 million to settle the outstanding bill.

The Assembly said the move would be illegal, particularly given a measure it passed a few months earlier restricting the mayor’s ability to pay out settlements without getting its approval.

Wednesday night’s measures move the ball another few yards down the field, warning Bronson that should he try to transfer public money to Hickel Contracting, the Assembly will ask the courts for an injunction to halt the payment.

The first measure, a laid-on-the-table item, “authorizes the Assembly Counsel’s Office to initiate litigation, on behalf and in the name of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly, appropriate to prevent an unlawful disbursement of funds.”

That could entail Assembly leadership directing its legal counsel to pursue an injunction in court.

A companion resolution spells out that there are no funds available for any potential settlement to Hickel.

“This is the meat of it, this is what says there’s no money for payment,” said Midtown Assembly member Meg Zaletel, one of the measure’s sponsors.

Members took up the items on Wednesday night in a continuation of the prior night’s regularly scheduled meeting, which, in spite of running until midnight, still had several unresolved items.

Bronson did not say whether he will follow through on the settlement payment by the Friday deadline.

“I intend on following the law as it relates to contracts, the payment of contracts,” Bronson said Tuesday night when asked about what he intended to do. “Sometimes things are not so simple as yes or no.”

“OK. Thanks for not answering,” Zaletel responded.

Wednesday’s meeting was even more acerbic, with several Assembly members ripping into the mayor and administration over what they said was a “shocking” lack of detail or analysis on the legal liability involved in transferring millions of dollars for unapproved work. In the process of questioning where the March 24 deadline came from, no one from the administration knew whether it stemmed from an invoice or a formal demand letter.

[New proposal for Anchorage homeless shelter site quickly turns into a political fight and stalls]

“I expect more analysis and depth of thinking when we are presented with an invoice. I would want to see a demand letter laying out why they think they should be paid,” Zaletel said. “This seems like very little rational basis for the purpose of cutting an over $2 million check.”

Assembly Vice Chair Christopher Constant said he has major concerns about separation of powers if work can be green-lit by the executive branch and public money disbursed without the legislative branch ever weighing in.

“(Then) whoever is the mayor gets to write checks to his friends,” Constant said. “We cannot allow the code to become dead letter.”

For his part, Bronson said the settlement is a legal issue.

“This is a bill we have to pay. I’m kind of agnostic on the whole thing myself. I worry about the credibility of the city,” Bronson said. “We’ve been dealing with this for more than a month, and the lawyers are quite clear I’m obligated to pay this.”

The administration’s acting municipal attorney, Anne Helzer, who has been in the role for just four weeks, said she had not yet had the “opportunity to review the historical side of things” on the proposed settlement.

“We’ve given notice that we’d like to pay the bill, and we don’t want to turn this into a political event, if at all possible,” Helzer said. “I wouldn’t want to see the city incur unnecessary legal fees.”

Both measures passed 9-2, with members Kevin Cross and Randy Sulte the lone votes against in both cases.

“It just kinda feels like it’s more, ‘How do we stick it to the mayor,’” Cross said of the resolutions. “I really wish we were focused on a solution. It feels like this is a step in the wrong direction.”

But the majority of other members did not share that view.

“Frankly, I think the credibility of the municipality is at stake if the law is not followed,” said Chair Suzanne LaFrance. “And the law says … that the Assembly must approve the settlement before any payment is made.”

An injunction also is not a given: The measure creates the mechanism for taking action in the courts, but would still need to be formally initiated by Assembly leadership.

“It’s not just starting the engine and walking away,” said legislative counsel Matthew Hurt.