Mat-Su Borough: Assembly Meeting - Sep. 15

Private. If we can protect public safety without building a permanent infrastructure for tracking ordinary citizens, that is the more Alaskan path. Limited government means government having the tools it needs, but also knowing when it has gone too far. We are seeing these things happen. We are seeing these things happen in the Lower 48.

We are watching Anchorage pursue these things. Um, when I ran for office, I made it very clear that I was going to be a brick wall from any of this Anchorage stuff making its way out here, and and this is what I'm doing.

Um, we live in a free society. We should not be tracked. We should not be recorded. If I step on somebody's private property and they've got a camera, that's my choice to make myself available to that property owner. That's very different than driving down the road, minding my own business, going to the grocery store or my daily activities.

For those that don't know, the borough is pursuing policing powers. They're pursuing a PSA. It's coming. So this is me getting ahead of that before I leave this office. This is me trying to make sure that you, everybody out there listening, and everybody sitting here, and every Alaskan in this borough is not surveilled without their knowing, without their intention, and against their, their constitutional rights to privacy.

I hope every member of this assembly supports this. We have a duty to support this, and it is a constitutional right that we have to privacy. Thank you. Assemblyperson, uh, Sumner. Uh, yeah, I like it.

Um, I was just going to say, uh, maybe the borough attorney could assist me with this one, but I was considering an amendment to prohibit state and federal agencies from putting, uh, flock cameras in our right-of-way. Is that— we do that? So So it says no borough, department, division employee, or agent may acquire, lease, borrow, install, maintain, or operate any ALPR hardware, software, or data collection system on any borough-owned property or facility under any borough contract or agreement. Nobody can put anything into our right-of-way without a contract or agreement, and no borough employee can enter into that agreement to put it in our right-of-way.

Well answered, thank you. For the Deputy Mayor.

So on the corner of, uh, Palmer Whistle and the Parks Highway, a few weeks ago they had some cameras set up for supposedly pedestrians walking and, uh, cars and stuff. And there was another camera set up there by Lowe's on that intersection. That's a state right-of-way.

Does this ordinance prohibit those type of cameras? As a second-class borough, we cannot regulate the state's rights-of-way. And we cannot impose this kind of regulation on private entities either. We can only speak to our, our land, our facilities, our rights of way. Thank you for clarifying.

Assemblyperson McKee and Owen now. I'm sorry, Stephanie. Go ahead, McKee. Yeah, there is an upside to have the cameras because sometimes they catch people that do really bad things. And I, you know, but I'll give you a personal— when I broke my leg, They gave me fentanyl and I told them that I wouldn't do it, but it was— I had to do it because I was going to die from the pain.

So I guess what I'm saying is, it's— we don't— we don't— it doesn't— fentanyl does some good, but it does a lot more bad. So I support this, this.

Assemblyperson Mowers. Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor. So, I mean, it's so interesting, right? Uh, Ms. McKee's totally right. Like, you can catch some of the bad guys, but how much do you sacrifice?

And I just recently, a few months ago, picked up 1984, right? In the beginning of that book, which was written in the '40s by a guy objecting to Stalinism, was the protagonist is making his way through the streets. He's always under observation. There's always a TV watching him. And he has one little corner where he's figured out he isn't being watched.

And you don't have to think hard about AI, facial recognition, and where you might go with that. And there's a story in the New York Times called The New Moscow, a digital Utopia Doubling as a Surveillance Trap. And it's about in Russia how they're using biometric data, so facial data, and in China as well, where you use that to pay your bus fare and everything else. So your face is now your ticket to move around, and they pair that with the cameras and they can track you. So if you want to get out of the draft in Russia because you don't want to go fight in Ukraine, you used to be able to just kind of flee to the country.

It just to what one of the speakers said, there's a lot of potential for abuse in it. And so I think this is a good move right now. I mean, maybe in the future they'll come up with some way to limit it so it just catches the good guys and, and doesn't just track everybody wholesale. But, um, yeah, I support this for the time being. Mr. Attorney.

So I do want to make sure that both assembly members who just commented are aware this does not prohibit the borough from having security cameras on our buildings. What it prohibits is mass surveillance, tying in with the computer systems, constant tracking of individuals. But this still, you know, on some of our DES facilities, on this facility, you know, we have security cameras in certain places, and this does not prevent that. Yeah, I appreciate that. I mean, you talk about like vandalism or stuff like that, you think about the old convenience grocery store, you know, gas station, they used to have cameras on 24-hour cycle, no problem with that.

What we're talking about is something different where you can track somebody as they're moving around. And this prohibits— this certainly prohibits that. I just wanted to make sure everybody's aware.

Further discussion? Assemblyperson Campbell. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with Assemblymember Bowles getting ahead of this. This summer I did quite a bit of traveling down in the lower 48, and I was just amazed at how many places I saw signs that said, this highway under video surveillance.

Or when I was in Atlanta or Portland, you'd see signs that say video surveillance conducted here, and then you just see you know, cameras all over the place, and I want to make sure that we don't ever get to that spot in this borough. Thank you.

For the discussion on the motion to adopt Ordinance 26-016, is there any objection?

Hearing no objection, then the ordinance becomes legislation.

We have another now audience participation. I will open up— doesn't look like we have a sign-up sheet. If you testified under the first audience participation, you are not eligible under this one, but anybody that hasn't testified Again, my name is Simon Gilland. As you are probably aware, I'm disappointed in the vote that you took about the North Road. Um, you will— this is not the last time you'll see me regarding this subject.

Um, I want you guys to take a real good look at the data that was provided for this report. As Assemblyman Mowry showed you, that roundabout is the northern route, southern route, Um, it, it doesn't help the traffic. There's no difference between the traffic. The only advantage to that northern route is it feeds out of one subdivision. One subdivision would have a little better access when they continue development at some point, which we anticipate they will.

It's owned by a developer. Um, the landowners that are going to end up with a mile and a half of road through the middle of their homestead, 100-year-old homestead, no desire to develop. There's no, no inklings that I've heard from the other landowner that's adjacent, the Buffalo Ranch, that he wants to develop. This is a, this is a road that helps one developer. I mean, the road, the traffic counts for that northern route.

If you look at the base number of traffic going down Engstrom Road It does not decrease by more than 50 or 70 cars with that northern route. It actually is shorter. The southern route decreases the traffic going out of that southern— out of the Bogart roundabout by more traffic, by higher number than the northern route does.

Believe you guys have made a mistake this evening. Thank you.

Anyone else?

We have anybody online, Caleb? Oh, okay.

Sorry I'm late.

Madam Mayor, members of the assembly, I'm Lisa Agnew and my partner is Sam Schilling who testified earlier, and he's also the president of Alaska Outdoor Access Alliance. I'm speaking to Ordinance 26-089 tonight. I'm asking you to support Assemblymember Bowles' amendment as modified in her secondary amendment. Strike the Alaska Long Trail Gateway sign and keep the Matanuska River Park campgrounds upgrade. Uh, first I want to remind you that the fight for the National Scenic Trail designation is not over.

U.S. Code Title 16, Section 1244 quotes, the extent to which a state or political subdivision might reasonably be expected to participate. A sign on borough land maintained by borough dollars is evidence to support this when it goes to Congress for approval. And to remind you that the same U.S. code that governs designation also states motorized use is prohibited. Please do not give this trail ammo to get that designation. Second, 4 documents describe this project and none of them match.

The Rasmussen website states $300 grand to upgrade a playground, utilities, and the Matanuska River Campground, utilities at the campground, and signage to designate the park as part of the Alaska Long Trail. However, the grant agreement in your informational memorandum in this packet states $300,000 to support the Matsu Park and Campground improvements, no playground, no sign, and nothing— it's not stated anywhere else in this agreement. The resolution that you'll vote on tonight breaks out $200,000 for electrical and water and $100,000 for the Long Trail sign. The playground completely disappears. The res— uh, the borough's own website, mattriverparkcampgroundupgrades.com, lists upgrades for electrical, water, RV sites, bathroom or ADA bathrooms, utility connections, tree removal, and once again, no Long Trail sign in the plans.

The resolution in front of you funds no playground, and this needs some sorting out so it's transparent to our constituents. Also, I would rather see you spend $100,000 on a playground improvement for kids rather than a sign that doesn't appear to have been part of the original planning. Um, the grant agreement's not at risk. It never mentions a sign in the actual grant agreement that's attached to your memorandum. Striking it takes nothing out of what the foundation funds, and the agreement also says that any remaining funds at the end of the term are simply returned to the foundation.

There's— that's the whole consequence to the whole thing, is just you just return what's left over. As stated earlier tonight, I also have some concerns about ethics. Alaska Trails is the organization that advocates for the National Scenic Trails designation along this trail. According to their own website, the director who brought this appropriation also served as their founding executive director and recently headlined one of their fundraisers that benefits their mission. My concern is, has this disclosure been made to this body?

This body can keep every dollar for this park upgrade and build a playground and leave the assembly's position on the National Scenic Trail designation exactly where you voted to put it back in 2024 in opposing it. Thank you very much for your time.

Anyone else that would like to testify?

Yeah, uh, Rod Hanson with North Lakes. My apologies earlier for getting the agenda out of order. Um, as I was saying, um, I didn't hear any discussion tonight during your debate about the fundamental issue we were concerned about, and that is the safety issues around that Engstrom-Bogard intersection and the stretch of Bogard. You talked a lot about the roundabout, but you didn't talk anything about the dump trucks that have to use that roundabout now for the next 30 years. If the southern route was constructed, those dump trucks would go on and off the southern route and not go through that roundabout.

Every dump truck from— for the next 30 years now is going to exit that pit, drive through that roundabout regardless of whether they're headed towards Wasilla or Palmer. So I would— I guess my request is that you take a look at some of what Simon just said in the data. Page 23 of the traffic analysis report, there's a table that shows the— well, there's a sentence below the table that describes it very well. It says traffic volumes on Angstrom Road and Bogart are most significantly decreased by the selection of the southern route. If you're trying to affect safety in that area, the southern route does so, the northern route does not.

There's a table on page 25 that describes the southern route as the number one option when it comes to length, level of service, and delay, although that's not a great outcome, and Engstrom traffic volume reduction number one. So I would request— I'm not quite sure how logistically you would do it, but if there's a way to reconsider the, the, uh, the resolution that failed supporting the southern route for those who voted on that, I would just ask that you take a little time to look at the real issues we were trying to solve and see if you could bring that back up for another Another vote. Thank you. Anyone else?

We have anybody online? Caleb? No. Okay, I'm gonna close, uh, audience participation. Uh, so we're at the consent agenda.

We did, I believe, already pull 2 items. Is there any other assembly person? Sumner? I just wanted to check which ones got pulled.

Resolution 26103 and AM 26120 on page 5. Thank you.

Assemblyperson, I'd like to pull—. I'd like to pull Resolution 26082.

Could you repeat that?

082 Resolution, very top one.

Okay, any others? Okay. All right, Madam Clerk, go ahead. AM 26118, authorizing the manager to sign a memorandum of agreement with the Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities regarding the Jolly Creek Drainage Improvement Project Phase 1, Hollywood Road, milepost 6.5 to 7.1. AM 26129, approval to extend the final completion date for contract 26123B with Meyer Excavation to June 30th, 2027, for the Nicholson Lake at Homebuilt Circle fish passage project.

AM 26130, acceptance of late-filed and retroactive senior citizen and disabled veteran tax exemption applications for the period of July and August 2026. AM 26-131 awarded bid number 275B to Drennan Construction and Consulting in the contract amount of $2,931,907.50 to construct the Port Barge ramp. AM 26-132 awarded proposal number 2710P to HDL Engineering Consultants for the contract amount of $259,760 to provide land acquisition services For the Hammer Road extension, AM 26-133 awarded contract number 2743-C to Kendrick Equipment in the contract amount of $172,688.61 to purchase a Zamboni ice resurfacing machine. Deputy Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda as read into the record by the clerk. Is there any objections to what what the clerk read.

Assemblyperson Fawnoff, you have your light on. Oh, I was going to say, when can we take another short break?

Short break? I don't have any objections. Okay, well, let's finish. Let's finish with the consent agenda, please. Any objections to what the clerk read?

Okay, hearing no objection. And let's see, Deputy Mayor, you pulled one of them, right? Did he pull both? No, I'm sorry, go ahead. Resolution 2682, a resolution approving the borough's priority transportation projects for inclusion in the MVP 2027-2030 Transportation Improvements Program and committing to providing the requirement non-federal share for projects selected for Federal funding pulled by Assemblymember Farnhoff.

Okay, I move Resolution 26082. You need to move it, right? You want to talk about it? Yeah, I did. Uh, I, I moved to, uh, Resolution 26082.

Um, concern was brought up, and as I glanced through it and, um, talked to a couple people, there is a, um, a valid argument that was brought that kind of makes, I guess, ATVs, dirt bikes as a very— it condemns them and makes them look really bad. And so while this resolution doesn't say that, but when you connect dots, there is something in the user conflict study that's on page 3 on the, on the, on the resolution item, item 10. It's called user conflict study. So what I would like to do is make an amendment to just remove line 10 altogether.

In the resolution on page 3, it starts with number 6, goes all the way to 11. I'm just making an amendment to remove line 10, as it has language, according to what I understand, that kind of favors one set of transportation versus the other. And in Alaska, we are a little different than the rest of the states. So, um, I— for that reason, I want to remove line 10.

Go ahead, sir. Do we need— it's words in our resolution. Yes. Okay, then we can make the change. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't in the MDP document.

Oh, it's striking the words user conflict study that's in the resolution. Just so everybody out in the audience, because there's talk going on up here that's not on the mic. That is correct.

Yes. Okay, further discussion then. Assemblyperson Ball. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So it's 9 and 10, so local road speed management plan and user conflict study, and I'm not understanding why the intent is— what the intent is and the purpose of removing this.

Assemblyperson Summer. I understand the intent. I can explain, explain what I think Mr. Bowles or Mr. Bonoff's intent is, is a user conflict study is to look at the impacts between pedestrians and ATVs and other modes of transportation. And, uh, Mr. Farnov mentioned that someone during the audience participation— I can't remember what, what lady's name it was, but she mentioned that it's potentially adversarial to ATVs. So he would rather not fund this study because a lot of people use that mode of transportation in, in Alaska, in our area, you know.

So we're not adversarial to ATV use. Thank you, Mr. Sommer, for explaining that. Also, the local road speed management plan.

Okay, I don't think he said that. I think he just said remove line 10. I thought it was 9 and 10. Just 10. Okay.

So, is there objection to the motion? Yes, family person hours. So, can you point to the language in the user conflict study that you think prioritizes one over the other. I don't have that in front of me, so I can't point to that.

Well, um, I think there's a real issue with user conflict sometimes. I know in Big Lake recently there was a ATV that, um, there was a fatality. I don't have any— you're not providing me any information to show me that this is an issue and it's being brought up at the last minute, which is not a way to help us make informed decisions with diligence. So I, I don't know one way or the other. I know this has been vetted through a number of folks.

So like the idea of in District 2, for example, um, we have roads where The kids are playing alongside them, and I'm thinking particularly of Roman. It's very straight and people are flying down that road, and a woman had twins and they're 3 years old and she wants them to be safe. I think that's a good thing for the borough to be looking at. So, absent, like, information showing me that this is biased, the idea that we would look at making sure that, you know, people can walk safely, bike safely, drive safely, ATV safely seems like a good idea. So if I had some information in front of me, I might feel different.

So if I may quickly respond—. Assemblymember Sunder is not here. Okay, assemblymember will come back. If I could, uh, at your pleasure, Madam Mayor, I get some assistance from staff to see what the repercussions of, uh, postponing this one meeting would be so we can collect more information.

Go ahead, sure. So, through the mayor to the assembly, um, this was already postponed a meeting, and we are on a deadline to get an approved MTP, or federal funding is at risk. So I wouldn't suggest a postponement because we've already done that once. Um, I mean, if you have specific questions for staff about the study, we'll do our best to answer them.

Assembly president, follow up. We had a couple of presentations by them, and there was a lot of the studies that's been done always favored the pedestrian bicycles and that sort of thing, and they never took account for other ways of transportation, specifically ATVs and things like that. That is part of Alaskan culture, so to speak, and I never agreed to that. If you remember, this might have been a year ago, I always question that they promoted one over the other. It seemed like a very report leaning certain way, and I think back in the day, even then, Esther and a couple other people spoke on that.

So that's my reasons for that. Miss Nowers, I didn't expect you to agree with that, so you don't have to like make it long. You can just say I don't support you in that, and that's fine. That wouldn't be the first time where we disagreed.

Deputy Mayor. Oh, I'm sorry. I don't like conflict either, so I'm going to support you, Dimitri. Oops. Family person, Mickey.

Yeah, there must have been a good reason though for them putting that in there. I mean, obviously this got a lot of thought. Thomas. Yeah.

Question. Well, I guess, yeah, of course, go ahead, sir. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Alex Strawn, Planning Director for the Matsuburo. So, all the projects on this list, and really, there's— this is a small part of a much larger list, are pulled from existing plans, adopted plans.

Excuse me. Thank you. Um, so all of these projects on this list are pulled from existing adopted plans. I believe this user Conflict study was pulled from the recently adopted community safety action plan that was, um, uh, essentially a study to try to minimize the amount of accidents that we have in the borough. So this— I don't have all the details of what the recommendation was other than what is in this packet.

There is a brief description of what's in there, but that's where this was pulled from.

Them to person hours, or just say like from a way a body functions. I, I could support you if you put some information in front of me, but you have no information. You just pulled it and I asked you what in there prior does what you're saying and you don't provide it. So I don't— I can't— that's not a way to make a decision. I don't have information in front of me that says this is a problem, so I'd move forward with it.

And then if you want to come back and put some information in front of me, but if I, I said to you I'd like you to make a decision, I'm I'm just going to tell you and I'm not going to put any information in front of you, you're not going to make decisions that way. It's not a good way to make a decision. If I may respond, I, I think if staff can't explain what it really is, and there was a— why are we putting it and voting and supported if it's there? We should, you know, there's other ones, items on there that have specific names, something that we could do, but this is kind of very vague. And I'm just saying, like, based on previous interactions with that organization, I say there was a very disfavorable opinion towards any motorized vehicles that are off-road.

And for that reason, you're more than welcome to vote it down. I'm just saying, but this is my reason, and that's where I'm at.

So Assemblyperson Sumner. Yeah, I guess question for the clerk, uh, how long will we have to amend something previously adopted if we pass this tonight with it included? And then, or would that postpone the legislation if we then amended something previously adopted? Per borough code, you have 30 days from the date of adoption. 30 Days.

30 Days. But it would not postpone the other action if we were going to. Okay. Well, then for that reason, Mr. Farnov, I'm not going to support you in this so we can pass it this way. And then if we come back with more information that would, that would indicate that the user conflict study is adversarial to ADVs, then I would support you at that time.

Assemblyperson Gamble. Assemblymember Sumner just asked exactly what I was going to.

Um, similar person bowls.

Uh, thank you. Similar remarks, but, um, also I just want to point out that Resolution 2617 from our Planning Commission is in here with a unanimous support of the same language. I just, um, I'm not sure where this is coming from. Um, a user conflict study. I mean, I, I, I get the idea that something like this can lead to government overreach and telling us that we can't drive our side-by-sides on the road, right?

But I'm also in favor of public safety, um, and so I have no problem with smart people looking at a road and saying, you know, you might not want to let people ride, you know, dirt bikes on that walking trail over there. You might want to have them over across the road on that side. So for that reason, and something— and I see the unanimous support from the Planning Commission, I'm going to go ahead and Um, not support this. Deputy Mayor, I call the question. Okay, is there objection to calling the question?

No objection, so need to proceed to vote. If I can get the members to vote on the primary amendment.

Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Fonoff and Bernier in support.

Okay, so now we have the main motion before you. Further discussion on the main motion? Any objection to the main motion?

You don't? Okay, so we do have an objection. Okay, if I can get the members to vote on the main motion. Thank you, Madam Mayor. It passed with Assemblymember Fonoff opposed.

Okay, Resolution 26103, a resolution opposing the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority's application for land in the Houston area and supporting consideration of the Point McKenzie and West Susitna as more appropriate locations for the proposed activities. And it was pulled by Assemblymember Bernier. Go ahead, sir. I move Resolution 26-103. Would you like to talk to— speak to it?

Yeah, you know, we— I had the manager write a letter, and the reason I had him write a letter was back in August they were having a Zoom meeting between DNR and ADA, and, uh, so I, I seen the announcement and there was a phone number on there for DNR, and I called him up to see if we could attend the meeting in person. And he says, no, it's just a Zoom meeting. His name was Dan Jenkins. He said at that time there was 2,000 people, letters written. And I told him, you know, that's my district, we don't want it.

We really think, or I personally think, that we should be developing our port, our industrial area over there west of Sitka Access, there, that area. And he asked me if I wrote a letter to that extent, and I said, well, I plan to. And then I came back to Mike and I asked him to write a letter in support of that, and we did, and it came out. And the next thing I know, in Facebook world It's, uh, we're trying to give away 20,000 acres in Houston, which is— that's not my intention. And this resolution is to make that perfectly clear that we want— we support ADA and DNR, but over there at Point Mac, Wessacitten access.

And one thing I wanted— I'm going to put Mike on the spot. But as far as getting state land into private hands, now if the borough wants to get property, we have to go through— I'm going to let Mike explain. He's a lot better at this than I am.

So through the mayor to, uh, the assembly, the borough is already engaging with, uh, DNR under the Charitable and Public Use Program and making applications, but they have to be for charitable and public use. Now, if we, if we want to pursue land transfers through like the Municipal Entitlement Program, Municipal Entitlement Land Program, or we want to get additional land transfers that we could then just sell off into the private sector's hands, that's not going to qualify under charitable and public use, right? So we've been moving through the charitable and public use program, these additional land transfers that could occur outside of that program, like, we need a vehicle for that. That's what the legislative priority the assembly's been working on does, is like, hey, we want to identify some other lands, but we're not necessarily going to assume that it's— or, or make the case that it's going to be for public purpose, right? It could be, hey, we're going to sell it off and we're going to let it move into the private sector and let them move forward with whatever that development might look like.

So there's a distinction We've already been moving for land transfers. We've already been moving on the municipal entitlement land that we've been granted many, many years ago. The challenges there are a lot of that land is in remote areas, and the surveying requirements to actually take patent for that are expensive and onerous. And so we've also been trying to change the regulations around the surveying requirements to lessen that, uh, with with limited success. And so yes, there is a program for us to take transfer, but it's typically for charitable public use.

And, and working with ADA, that's an actually a way to get state land into private hands, is that correct?

I don't recall if this application was done under charitable and public use or not. I don't think so. But typically, if we want to get land outside of that program or outside of what we've already been granted in the Municipal Entitlement Land Program, we would need some legislative support. And that's what we've been working towards recently with the idea of, hey, if we could get these lands over to the borough, then the borough could dispose of those lands and put them into private sector's hands. If that helps explain it.

Yeah. All right, okay, further discussion on Resolution 26-103?

So, so, question: at the, um, last meeting we passed a letter commenting on the land transfer that we wanted to get in before the deadline. We asked the manager to write a letter. I asked for reconsideration. So I, I am assuming, but I hadn't asked before the meeting, that letter never got sent because of the reconsideration. Through the mayor to Ms. Nowers, that's correct.

Your reconsideration came pretty early on that Wednesday, so no action was taken and nothing's been transmitted to DNR. Okay, and I appreciate that, and, um, I, I'm glad this is coming back, um, to the, the body. I did ask for reconsideration because, um, because of public process. You proposed something that had not been noticed and then took it up in the part of the agenda before people could even comment. And, and I think that was an error, and that's why I asked for reconsideration on it.

Um, I also just know this land transfer is of great interest to people in the borough, including the folks who came tonight. And one of the things that was mentioned was diligence. And, you know, we've, we've had some good ADA projects, but we've also had something where— classic for boondoggles, and everyone knows them. And where you get there is you don't do diligence and you attack people who ask questions. If you have a good project, you should be able to answer them.

So while I support this, I do think there are a lot of questions that need to be asked. Um, I believe that the borough should be consulted. I mean, there's some red flags about this whole thing. Um, and so moving forward with ADA, I think this body should request that we be consulted if we're talking about a large land transfer in the borough that affects residents out here. And I think we should ask for more details than we're going to do a development, but we have no information.

If we're going to try to support, we need to be able to ask those questions and get some answers to make the best decision for the community. So I'm glad this came back and we had a chance to, to do this, and appreciate it. Deputy Mayor, their, uh, commenting period ended last night, so I don't know if a letter resolution is going to do much good anyway. Ways now.

So through the mayor to Mr. Bernier, that's correct. Um, I have spoken to the director of Mining, Land and Water a couple times since our last meeting, our last regular meeting, not the school. Um, and so the intent would be if this passes tonight, whenever the mayor signs it, probably Thursday is our typical cycle, uh, we, we would move a letter to DNR this weekend, and they, they understand this is before you tonight. For all I know, they might be watching. So they're aware of that.

I think they would take the comment of, or the resolution into consideration. I would like to say out of 2,500 letters written, I received one phone call and I had a conversation with him in Caswell, Ned Sparks, and expressed my exactly what the letter support and this resolution. Let's industrialize and build for Point Mac and West Sioux.

Assemblyperson McKee. Yes, so really this doesn't do anything except that we're not getting— sending it into Houston, but we're also not— it just says supporting consideration. That's pretty, pretty, you know, what is the word, amorphous, nebulous, whatever the word is. So we're really not doing anything except we are accomplishing not doing the $20,000 in Houston. Is that right?

Kind of like, yeah, okay, kind of anticlimactic.

Okay, further discussion? Any objection to passing the resolution?

I don't hear any objections, so, uh, legislation passes. Madam Clerk, AM 26-120, authorization to provide the Community Council $15,000 from Assembly Reserve for the restoration of the Butte Community sign. It's pulled by Assemblymember McKee. Okay, Assemblyperson McKee, go ahead.

I move AM 26-120 and would like to speak to it. Yes, go ahead. Okay, um, a couple weeks ago when this first came on the agenda, I— George and I drove out to the butte to see this sign. And we went from one end to the other, both of us looking on our side of the road. And we went on clear up to the tailrace.

We came back and we're now looking on the other side of the road. You know, we switched. We never saw a sign. That was my first thing. It, it must— I don't know, I don't know where it is.

And the second thing is, I was looking at, um, we as an assembly have like, what is it, $20,000 to appropriate. Is that what the— is that what our thing is each year where we—. Through the mayor to Assemblymember McKee, yes, and assembly reserves, there's $20,000. Okay, so we've already used $5,000 for the Christmas dinner for the folks. So that takes a whole balance of this thing and puts it up for a sign.

Um, I was hoping that the reason it was pulled by Mr. Bowles was that maybe he didn't think it was a good idea, but I see it's back here again. Um, I don't know what historical, cultural, or community service it actually— for $15,000, how it actually— any of those three, uh, names apply to it. I kind of was thinking, um, like what the, uh, people were doing when they were talking about the community getting together, that Jason Ortiz, when he first started, I heard the huge thing was a community organization in there, and I thought that was great. So I don't know why, for a lot less than $15,000, if the people in the Butte really want that sign, maybe— and I don't know that the rest of the borough wants to pay for it, but, um, I— maybe the plumbers, welders, electricians, carpenters could get together and make a sign and make it a good deal. That's community involvement, and it wouldn't cost taxpayers anything.

So that's where I stand. I don't see the need for it. Assemblyperson Sumner.

I don't disagree. I think that I did ask about this from— and is sometimes the Assembly does give grants to the community councils. That usually happens at the budget cycle time. So I think this is a little out of cycle, and that's why I would oppose it because, you know, yeah, I mean, this isn't a community, you know, area-wide purpose, and we're spending area-wide funds on it. The time to negotiate what funds are coming to your specific community versus their specific community and how the pot of taxpayer money is spent is better reserved for the budget cycle, I would say.

I mean, I would have— of course, as you guys know, during the budget cycle, I'm pretty opposed to spending any extra money. So I think you know how I'd fall on that one when this comes up anyway. But yeah, I'd be opposed to it right now. Um, Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Oh yes, so this sign, it's one of the signs that were put up around the borough back in the '80s. There's one in Willow.

It's, if you would have stopped at the fire station, you would have seen it. It's pretty dilapidated, needs a lot of work, needs, and it's gonna take some recovery. And so, you know, you did a similar Representative— excuse me, Assemblywoman McKee, he did a similar resolution to draw $5,000 from this reserve to fund a community event out in Wasilla where, you know, volunteers could have volunteered to cook and those sorts of things. So I agree, volunteers from the community, sure, they can. However, um, you know, things cost money, and, um, you know, the— we in the Butte pay our taxes too, and this money is going to get spent.

It's going to get spent on something. And Assemblymember Gamble actually has— he's asked that we possibly move to postpone this. He's got a project, and I think we might discuss splitting this to fund a project in the Big Lake area. So I'm actually going to move to postpone this to the next assembly meeting. But I want to talk a little bit more.

This is very important to the Butte community. This is— if you look, I ask, definitely stop by the fire station. It's, um, it's on wood beams. It's a sign. It says, um, Butte.

It has maps. It shows where different, um, you know, things are in the Butte area. Um, and, uh, it was, uh, the name of the representative that funded this when he was in office, and I can't remember his name. It's 11 o'clock at night, and I apologize. Um, this was something that he did.

This is, um, representative that represented that, this area, 40, 50 years ago. And so the effort here is to preserve, um, something that he did for this, for the Mat-Su Borough. Um, it's one of 6 signs, so it is important. And, um, yeah, we— I don't know if we'll need the $15,000. We actually have a contractor that's going to also provide us with a proposed budget.

I think it'll come in under that, and I think it would be great to go ahead and split off some of this funding for Represent Assemblyman Gamble as well. So I'd be more than happy to postpone this. I do think that it is a good use of our assembly reserve because if it's not used here, it's going to be used somewhere else. And why not fix this sign? Why not brighten up the beaut a little bit?

So with that, I move to postpone this resolution until the next assembly meeting, which is October 6th, Madam Mayor. Okay, so there's a motion on the floor to postpone. So the discussion will be on the postponement from the personnel hours. That's something I've been aware of since I got on the assembly. The assembly reserve is $25,000.

It does not have to be spent. It's not a piggy bank that we get to just spend. Like, it can just sit there and be saved for the taxpayers. Just something that's in the budget. You could zero it out in the, in the budget process.

Um, I know this is on postponement. Um, I just— I will support postponement, and I don't want to sound hard-hearted, but I'm— and I'm a broken record— if we're going to be asked to give money for a project— and I should have asked for the friendship dinner too— give us some information. Show us what—. Does the community have a budget for it? Have they done anything to raise money for it?

Have they tried their community council before they came to the tax taxpayer dollar. Just that, you know, the due diligence that I know we would all agree that you would do. So that's what I would ask if any of us come forward with projects, that you put information in front of us. So happy to postpone it and hope that I can support this if you, if you bring the information to me. Yeah, I don't conflate feeding 4,000 to 5,000 people who are maybe homeless, maybe poor, maybe broke, don't have Christmas, with putting up a sign.

And so to me, to postpone it just says we're throwing it away because we haven't—. Just talk about the postponement. Oh, I don't see any reason to postpone it. That would be ours, but that'll be our third time of talking. Well, it's been on the agenda now for 3 times.

It will be 3 times, so I don't support moving it. Okay, Deputy Mayor, question. I call the question. Call the question. Is there objection to calling the question?

See any objection, Madam Clerk?

Objection to the amendment. Yes, we have an objection. If I can get the members to vote on postponing until October 6th.

Madam Mayor, it passed with Assemblymember Fonoff, Sumner, and McKee opposed. Okay.

We are under unfinished business, I believe. Ordinance 2689, an ordinance accepting and appropriating $300,000 from the Rasmussen Foundation for the Maniska River Park and Campground upgrades in the Alaska Long Trail Gateway installation. And accompanying Resolution 2672, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget for the $300,000 grant from the Rasmussen Foundation for Madness River Park and Campground Upgrades in the Alaska Long Trail Gateway Installation. Okay, so there is a motion to approve, and then there is a pending amendment on the floor, and that the pending amendment was to remove the portion regarding— I'll let you read what you have. Okay, the pending amendment that the, that the assembly need— that's the first thing that the assembly votes on, or it comes up— is I moved to— Assemblymember Bowles moved to strike the language and campground upgrades and the Alaska Long Trail Gateway installation from Section 2 of the ordinance and title from the resolution.

Okay, so that's the amendment that's on the floor now, so the discussion will be on the amendment. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, so I moved to strike and campground upgrades. So I move, uh, I propose a secondary amendment.

I move to strike and campground upgrades from the primary amendment. The intent was only to delete the language regarding the Alaska Long Trail Gateway installation, not delete the campground upgrades from the legislation. Um, so That's what I was trying to achieve. I fully agree with people we've heard speak. We—.

It's been made very clear that, you know, we oppose this Alaska Long Trail. It's a federal project. It's federal government coming down and telling us what we should do at the local level. It's infringement. They have in some areas tried to remove motorized access.

That is not something I think we need to support. It went away with the last federal administration, and I think that, um, this is a maybe a great opportunity to fund these upgrades, but money isn't everything. If we lose this grant because we don't move on this Alaska Long Trail thing, then I'm okay with that. Um, you know, there have been plenty of times in recent history when lots of grant money was offered for people to do things that they may would not have done, like, you know, getting a shot, where maybe they would have thought otherwise. So I think that if we can maintain this grant without pursuing the Alaska Long Trail federal overreach, that's great.

If not, then I'm okay with us losing this grant. Deputy Mayor, will you move for an extension of the meeting? I move to extend the meeting, or the assembly meeting, till 11:21.

Is there objection to extending to 11:21? I don't see any objections.

Thank you. Okay, so is there objection to the amendment? Yeah, Assemblyperson Sorry, not to the secondary amendment. No. Oh, okay.

Assemblyperson Gamble. Yeah, I just want to be clear here. What we—. I don't think we oppose the Alaska Long Trail. What we oppose is to the Alaska Long Trail being designated as a National Scenic Trail, which brings all kinds of other federal regulations along with it.

And so when I received this email I asked the attorney and the manager earlier today about USC 16— or National Trail System Act 16 USC 1241-1251, which establishes the National Scenic Trail System, and then under Section 7 codified at 16 USC 1246 about prohibiting motorized vehicles unless there's an emergency or something like this. And would that allow the federal government in any way, shape, or form, if we designated or put that sign on there, could they do anything to restrict the borough's use of land, motorized vehicles crossing borough land? And they can't. And correct me if I'm wrong, Nick. So the way, the way the federal government would be able to tell you what to do on the trail on borough-owned land, right?

So we're talking about trails on borough-owned lands for, trails on private lands or state land, they would work with them, is if the federal government gave us money and then attached strings to it, right? So if the federal government came and said, oh, we're going to give you a couple million dollars to help maintain the trail every year, but we want you to manage it as part of the historical trail, then the assembly would have to decide. The federal government does not have the power to just show up to a local government and say, oh, by the way, we're, we're taking over your trail. We own the land. It's our land.

It's not the federal government's land. Right, so—. And so we can call it Hoogly Boogly Boo if we want, and it doesn't matter what the federal government says. Oh, you said Long Trail? We say Long Trail, you have to do this and this and this and this.

And we say, well, we don't, not unless you give us money or buy it from us. Right, so if there's borough land and then there's state land and federal land in between, they can do whatever they want on theirs, but they can't do do anything to ours as long as we don't take their money. Yeah, specifically to do something to our trail, the Long Trail, uh, with strings attached. And so the fear tactic that was, you know, kind of thrown out there was, oh my God, what if we get a Democratic senator during this election and we get a Democrat governor during this election and, and then in 2028 we get a Democrat president of the United States? Then they're going to take all of our land and turn it into a scenic trail and restrict vehicles from going across it, and it's just not true.

So we can't take the whole $300,000. We can put a sign up that says Alaska Long Trail because that's not what we really oppose. We oppose the National Scenic Trail designation. Thank you. Assemblymember Sumner.

Yeah, thanks for that, Mr. Gamble, because that adds some clarity to it. You know, I mean, it's You know, Mr. Bowles's concerns are very prudent, but I think that in this case we could, we could probably put the sign up and still be safe. Okay, Mike, did you have a comment? Yeah, through the mayor, I wanted to confirm what Mr. Gamble said is correct about where the body has been on the Alaska Long Trail. It's—.

You adopted in a resolution, so opposing the National Scenic Trail designation but not opposing the Alaska Long Trail. That's why it was included. So I just want to explain for the record, like, for people that are listening, why do we include that? It's typically not a great ask when you go to a grant tour and say, hey, you want to pay for our deferred maintenance? So we try to find ways to make the grant more competitive.

That's what this is. By the way, that was direction you all gave us to go find grant funding. That's what we're doing here. Um, and to be clear for the record, I think, because the last meeting we talked about this I was given direction to go back to the granting organization and ask if we wanted to remove this component, would, would you be okay with that? And they basically said the grant's written the way it's grant written because that's what we applied for and that's what they approved.

And so this idea that you can just amend this and then they're going to give us $200,000 is probably not going to happen, right? And I also want to be mindful, like, we're trying to preserve our relationship with a long-term Alaskan philanthropic organization that does a lot of really good things in Alaska. So I don't want to burn any bridges over a sign, to be perfectly honest. Um, so for what it's worth. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles, and then Assemblyperson McKee.

Oh, I'm, I'm sorry. I can, I can understand all of those, um, comments, and So if there's— so can we move forward on this amendment and leave that language off the sign, Alaska Long Trail language off the sign language?

So through the mayor to the assembly, I don't believe so. We went back to the granting organization after the postponement, asked that question, and they said we're going to stick to what you— because we applied for it in all fairness, right? Like, this is not them dictating to us this. We were trying to find ways to make this grant more competitive. These are not just free-for-alls.

Hey, the borough's going to get X amount of dollars. We got to find out how to, how to do that. And that's what Miss Morrissey's been doing. And we followed the guidance given to us by the assembly as adopted in an assembly resolution regarding the Alaska Long-Term. Like, that's what this was.

There's nothing nefarious or going on here. And we thought, hey, this is a good way. And I think that made a difference. And they actually sent a staff member who we met with on site, and then she actually came back out and spent time at the park, uh, as a, as a, as a renter. I don't know what's the right term, but, um, and spent time at the park and realized, man, this is a gem.

You guys got a good thing going on here, right? And so then they got behind us with the $300,000. So I think you can make the amendment, but I'm just going to be honest, I don't think you're going to see a grant agreement get signed by me that's going to look like what you amend it to, because they're giving us their money. It's not up to us. And in all fairness, we applied for the grant with that scope defined.

That's what their board approved, in all fairness. So I want to be clear, it's not, it's not the foundation dictating terms to us. That's, that's not what's happening here. Okay, all righty. Further assembly person, Mickey.

I just wanted to thank the three gentlemen that spoke, Mike and Bill and Nick, because that really clarified for it, because I was also a little worried about that. But got it.

Okay, so there's amendment on the floor. Is there objection to the amendment? There is. Okay. Yes, question.

Will you turn your mic on please so it's on the record? I have a question for the attorney, Adam. Okay, sure. So if we move on this and it's approved, um, sounds like I'm the lone man out. But 10 years from now, this signs up, says Alaska Long Trail.

Does that open the door for federal overreach to come in and say, well, you've already designated this area here, and so we're just going to tie into it?

Again, if the borough owns land, and like any other landowner, the federal government can't just show up and say, oh, we're going to tell you what we're going to do on your They don't get to do that. The way the federal government does these programs is they give you— they show up with a bunch of money in their hand and they go, you want this money? Well, this is what you got to do to get it, right? This is why the drinking age is 21 in all the states. Clearly all the states have the power to set the drinking age at what they want to.

They all take federal highway dollars, and then to get federal highway dollars, you have to set your drinking age to 21. That's why it's 21 throughout the United States. So they've had strings to their money. So no, the end— I mean, that's a long answer, but the answer is no, the federal government can't just generally show up and say, oh, I'm going to tell you that on this piece of land, this is how you're going to manage it.

And so I just want to mention this on the record. I know it's not published online. We did an artist rendering of what the sign is going to look like. It's in your red folder and you can share that with whomever. Like, again, it's not a final design, but we were trying to show you like to put into context what we're talking about here and like where that Alaska Long Trail fits in there, you really have to look pretty close because it's pretty small in the bottom center left and it's kind of circled.

Like, that's what we're talking about. So it's, it's going to be a Matanuska River Campground Park sign, right? That Alaska Long—. It—. What it was intended to do is— because I want people to understand this— like, what it was intended to do was incentivize people who love to go to something take a selfie and show what, you know, some accomplishment, some achievement.

It's— no, it's, it's at the bottom left of the center. Yeah, right there. That's, that's what we have in mind. Again, we haven't— because we haven't accepted any money, so we had to talk to an artist and say, hey, can you give us a quick rendering? This is what we're looking for it to be like.

Okay, Senator Portman Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Okay, so that's— I just want to get very clear on the record, my concern is federal over breach. My concern is the federal government being able to come in at a later time and tell us what we can and can't do on borough land. Knowing that they legally cannot at a future time tie this into this scenic trail, I'm comfortable with that, and I would like to pull my amendments.

Okay, is there objection to Assemblyperson Bowles pulling their amendment? Primary, secondary, and primary, Madam Mayor. He said I'm going to do both of them. Yeah, okay, for both amendments. Is there any objection to him pulling?

Okay, so then I don't see any objection, Madam Clerk. So then we are back to the main motion as presented.

Is there objection to the main motion? The 26089 and the Resolution 26-072.

Is there any objection? I don't see any objection, Madam Clerk, so the legislation has passed. Okay, there are no vetoes, and I'll give the clerk a minute.

Okay, you ready to go? Yep. Introduction for public hearing on October 6th is Ordinance 26108 with accompanying Resolution 26098, Ordinance 26109, and Ordinance 26110 with accompanying Resolution 26102. Okay, uh, Deputy Mayor, I move to introduce the legislation as read into the record by the clerk and set the public hearing for October 6th 2026. Discussion by the assembly?

Is there any objection by the assembly? Okay, hearing none, and the legislation has been introduced. Deputy Mayor, vacancy report. I move to confirm the mayor's recommendations as follows: Enhanced 911 Advisory Board, Jacob Blessitt. Okay, discussion by the assembly?

Any objection by the assembly? Okay, seeing and hearing none, then the vacancy report has been approved. There is no new business, there are no referrals, but we do have a reconsideration.

And Assemblyperson, uh, Nowers, do you have a motion to reconsider? No, this is a moot point now. I don't think there's any reason to do it. Okay, so hearing there is no motion to reconsider, um, is there any objection to no motion to re— Assemblyperson Bowles? I have a question.

So if we don't reconsider this, this letter moves forward, is that correct? Madam Clerk, through the mayor to Assemblymember Bowles, I would have to venture a guess, and the manager can correct me if I'm wrong, I think the letter letter has turned into a resolution. Okay, so no action on this means this dies pretty much, because I do believe the, the manager is going to say the letter is a reso— is the resolution. My intent is to send them the resolution because that's adopted by the body and signed by the mayor and the clerk. That holds more weight than the manager signing a letter, in my opinion, because it shows the movement of the body.

Okay, because we did pass this So that's my concern, and I think that maybe we should just go ahead and postpone this indefinitely and call it good. You have to reconsider it before you do that. You can't—. Okay, so that to postpone something indefinitely, you have to have a motion on the floor. So you'd have to reconsider it and then have the main motion on the floor.

Assemblyperson Gamble, or we could just vote not to reconsider and it's die. Okay, there you go. Thank you. Or that. Oh, okay.

Um, you'd still have to move to reconsider. You'd still vote no. If you vote no to reconsider, then it's still the issue that you're concerned about that the motion passed. Yeah, we can do it that way too. All right, in the interest of expediency, I will move to reconsider.

Okay, so there is a motion on the floor to reconsider. Discussion?

Objection. Okay, we do have an objection.

If I can get the members to vote on reconsidering.

Pass with Assemblymember Fonhoff and Bernier opposed. Now we're on the main motion, Madam Mayor. Okay, is there discussion on the main motion? Yeah, assembly person, somebody. Oh, you're pointing to somebody.

Okay, I'm sorry, sir. Okay, assembly person, follow up. I think we voted to support that letter. We should stick to that. I know there was a maneuver that was done to drag extra 2 weeks.

I think sometimes I like— maybe not as strategic as some of my colleagues here, but, uh, so for that reason, I think, uh, I want to leave that letter as it was. And, um, not change that.

Member Bruce and Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And that's exactly my concern, um, so that by allowing that letter to move forward, we just contradict ourselves. So, um, to serve the residents in the borough, we need to vote this letter down. We've passed this resolution.

Okay, further discussion? Assemblyperson I mean, I read the letter. The resolution doesn't contradict the letter. The letter says look at, look at the port in West Sitna. Doesn't say— it actually is silent on whether it approves or denies or supports or doesn't support the 20,000-acre land transfer.

So they're not inconsistent.

Okay, all righty. Is there objection then to the— there is objection. I can get the members to vote on the main motion for the letter.

Yes or no to send or not send? Yes would send the letter, no would not.

If we can get everybody to please vote again, and please, if you don't abstain Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Fanoff, Sumner, and Bernier in support.

Okay, over to the point for parting comments. Mr. Attorney, parting comments. Mayor umpire too. I'm glad the meeting's over. Assemblyperson McKee, parting comments.

Yeah, just, just always know that if, if I am talking to anybody else, what they tell me does not influence my vote, and there was nothing except a passage of information there. So lest anybody think there was anything corrupt going on, there absolutely was not. Secondly, um, I'm a little bit concerned about, uh, we continue to receive comments about how we as an assembly, or we as several people in the community, are anti book anti— we want to burn books and all that kind of thing. Couldn't be further from the truth. I went out to Talkeetna and I still hear that a year, maybe almost 2 years later.

We just don't— as JD Vance said at the Republican kind of midterm connection or convention thing, he says, stay the hell away from our children. That's all I want, just to be very, very clear. I love libraries, grew up in them. Don't mess with my babies. Thank you.

Assemblyperson Sumner, parting comments? Nothing to add tonight. Thank you. Deputy Mayor, parting comments. Thank you everyone for coming out, and dear Lord, please, please bless our leaders with wisdom.

Please give our leaders wisdom, Lord, and to follow you. Thank you for your mercy. Thank you for your grace.

In Jesus' name. Oh, and please bless the first responders, our veterans. Please help those that are addicted, that they can overcome. Anything is possible through you, Lord. In Jesus' name, amen.

Morning comments, Assemblyperson Nowers. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, you know, that was a— speaking of votes you don't like to take, that was not a vote I wanted to take, opposing the Northern Route. Um, but it, you know, I didn't feel good about that. Um, but I don't.

I, and I, what I hope is that, um, this body will continue to look at that situation and all the factors, because I fear with the property owners who do not want us to go through that, we're going to be looking at a project, you know, it's like what you can get versus we just took the hard, the hard road, um, that may result in nothing. So we had something that has kind of a lot of support and maybe doesn't do as much versus something that could have an impact. And then again, just reiterating that I don't hear anybody else on this body say it.

We have—. Even if we do this, we have a problem. So let's do something about the development that is coming. Let's try to find some ways. The, the 7 years I've seen, we've gone the opposite direction, and we absolutely have kind of sent the message to the planning staff, don't bother bringing any ideas to us because we're not going to consider them.

We're just going to let everybody do with their land how they want. And then it just breaks my heart to look at people like the Olsons who have owned that property for years. Your grandpa— I mean, there is history in that property. They don't want a road on it. I don't, I don't care why.

I don't get to say to them, oh, you know, you should do it. It's only a part of your property. Um, sorry, so I get passionate about it, um, and I— it wasn't a vote that I just want to let folks know who, who did support the northern route. That was not an easy— that's not a vote I wanted to, to take, but I also looked at the other issues. So, um, you know, if we're 2 years down the line and we don't have a roundabout, or another year down the line we don't have a roundabout and we're not making any headway, let's take another look at this and let's take a look at getting developers online with helping with some of these impacts that are helping happening in a way that incentivizes them to reduce the problems we're creating.

And these are parting comments. Unfortunately, Madam Mayor, I have some additional comments. Sorry, excuse me. So quickly, I just want to clarify. So for the Ingstrup trunk connector, where we are after this decision tonight is the project's essentially at a standstill.

Okay, so just to be clear, I don't want anyone thinking tomorrow borough staff are coming in and they're going to be running at a beeline to develop the northern route because there's no construction funding. There was no construction funding for either any of the routes, frankly, depending on what you would have chosen. The other piece is Russ had texted me during the meeting and said basically the contract that we have in place today for to advance to this decisional document, that authority that we've been granted is— we've used it up, right? So we, even if we wanted to come back and do more work, we would need to get assembly approval for contracts support. You see what I'm getting at?

So the point is, it's not going to go anywhere. That's the reality, you know. And I'll just say this, like, there's just a fiscal reality, um, to bonding for transportation projects. Right, so we typically— and I say we, I'm really kind of like Cheyenne and I— like something in the $30 to $50 million range. We don't like $80 million bonds for different reasons, right?

And, and the likelihood that we would bond a $30 million project in a $50 million bond is probably pretty unlikely because there's 7 districts up here, and I don't think you all are going to sit back and go, well, it's at the confluence of 1-4 whatever, 3 and 6. Yeah, right. So therefore we're good with just having one project on the bond, and I don't think it would pass voters if I'm being honest. Um, and so it would have to be a larger package. My point is there's just a fiscal reality to moving projects that size.

Um, I mean, it's going to be a challenge for us because we are going to have projects of that size in the future at some point, right? Like, I mean, you see Seward Meridian Parkway, which— great job, DOT, thank you for getting that open. You know, that's a big deal having that north-south corridor, you know. But that divided Fort Lane. I mean, that Phase 2 project alone was like a $48 or $44 million construction project, right?

That's in RSA 25, same RSA we're talking about. So there's just a reality to it. So I know it was contested, but in the end, nothing's going to change tomorrow in terms of moving this project forward. So I just kind of wanted to kind of toss that out there so that we understand that's kind of where we are. We're kind of at a stopping point.

With regards to that project. And then I'm going to say this, I almost want to just let it drop tomorrow, but I want to be able to explain it to you all, but it's going to go public. So if you recall, we had two farm properties that were acquired during the Port McKenzie Rail Extension, uh, right-of-way acquisition. We went through this process, we subdivided, we kept what we needed for the rail right-of-way, and the farm parcels, we said, hey, we're going to offload these, right? And the assembly chose to do that, right?

So we, we transferred those properties to DNR with the intent that the state would deal with the Ag Covenants and the parcels and that they would, they would move that because they're state Ag Covenants. Well, they're going to probably release the public notice tomorrow to transfer those properties to ADA, and I have a feeling with the timing of all this Houston transfer that folks are going to make these assumptions that it's more data centers or this, that, or the other. This was— this is development that's been looked at on these parcels for something that's related to rail use. That's the idea, right? I don't know what that will look like exactly, but I'm just saying tomorrow I expect to see a public notice go out from DNR about this potential transfer.

So I'm just giving you a heads up. Obviously we've given a whole lot more people a heads up now. Um, but I wanted to explain that because this is not more of like an 8-end runaround things. This has been in the works for really over a year where we've had conversations. We just had to go through the process to subdivide so we could retain the rail right away and dispose of the other parcel, the, the remnants of that parcels separately.

And so that process is kind of running its course, right? After we got the assembly's approval, we went back, title transferred to DNR, state land, Now they're in the process of conveying it, which was always part of the plan, and we talked about that pretty publicly. So I just want to say that. So if people see the public notice and assume the worst or kind of try to read into it, that's the basic explanation to what's going on, and it will be a public process just like we're going through with the Houston transfer. So here we go.

That's all, Madam Mayor. Madam Clerk, pardon me, I'm not Assemblyperson Bowles, parting comments. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, District 1. Um, it's a privilege to serve you. I appreciate you putting me in the seat.

And, uh, yeah, see you next week, or see you in 2 weeks.

No, we have a regular meeting, and then the planning is the app after that. Okay, good. Thank you. Assemblyperson Gamble. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I also want to say that the decision tonight about the northern route was not an easy one. In fact, I came in thinking I knew what I was going to do, and then halfway through the conversation up here tonight, I was second-guessing myself about my decision. And I agree with you, Stephanie, um, the real problem is Bogard. The Bogard corridor is a mess right now, and it's only going to get worse because people are so tired of trying to drive through Wasilla. In the traffic.

And it's not just in the afternoons and in the mornings now, it's all day long. It's miserable trying to get through Wasilla. So we're coming down the Parks and we're going up Church to Selden and across that way to try and stay out of Wasilla as much as we can if we don't have to do anything in Wasilla. And so I only see the Bogart corridor getting busier, and it's probably going to turn into the next KGB or, you know, the old West Parks Highway out by, you know, Big Lake, where it was only 2 lanes, if we don't do something now and get ahead of the power curve on this. So I think That is the priority is fixing the Bogart corridor going forward.

And Mr. Manager, thank you for those comments clarifying, you know, where we are with that project. I appreciate that. It gives me a little bit more peace of mind because whenever I hear the 2 words imminent domain, the hairs on the back of my neck just stand straight up because that goes against every fiber of my being, taking somebody's land. Thank you.

Morning comments, Assemblyperson Palma. Yeah, um, today, yes, we did make a difficult decision, but I will say to the community council and the other people who spoke, I do think it's forward-looking is what based my decision for that. Mr. Brown kind of indicated how many more steps it will take before anything actually gets done, so therefore That's— I wanted to see the conversation keep on moving forward. So on that, after looking— after we voted a few things today on the resolution, postponed 26-120, not resolution, AM, I looked up on their Facebook, uh, View Community Council minutes from August 12th, and based on their treasurer's report, they have over $51,000 in their accounts. Based on their reports.

So I think, you know, they can afford to sign if they want to. So I would like to have Claire confirm that information with us based on the notes for next meeting, what the amount is in the amount of account, the balance on the Butte Community Council before we take decision on AM 26120. And also, I think we pass money through the state to Community Council. I want to know what that amount annually is that we pass through, that Community Council gets from the state through us. So that's on that one.

And the last thing, um, I'd like to also—. Sir, Can you wait just a minute? I think— okay, has a question. Okay, on your last part, now just to clarify, you said that it was in the Butte Community Council minutes. I mean, I can get things off the minutes, but I don't have access to their financials.

They're a different entity than us, so I could look at the minutes if it's on there. Correct? Yes, that's all I can do. Please do. Okay.

Yeah, that's all. I'm looking at their previous, um, meeting minutes. That's where I got number. So I just want you to confirm that independently so it comes through, just for the— make sure I'm not misspoke on that or misread incorrectly. And then I also find out how much money annually goes to the Mid-Communities Council.

And a last thing, a couple years ago, me, Mr. Bernier, and Miss McKee, we started that library advisory thing, and we had good intention. I think it went right direction, and then somehow, um, after we passed, which was Ordinance 26039, I'm having a little bit concerns myself where it's— where it says, uh, shall perform review, and then may, and then, uh, I, I have concerns for that, and I would like manager, um, maybe in the future, in next few meetings, give us a report how that language got changed in the procedures of our community development side of things, because I do think— we think we passed—. I move to extend the meeting 2 minutes.

I think, I think sometimes we put something and then it slowly kind of changes a different course completely than what we intended to And I would like to have us accountability on that. So, uh, that's my request to, uh, manager. Is there any objection to that request from the manager by Assemblyperson Faulkner? No. Could I just add something to it?

I just wanted to say that I, I too share exactly what you said. It seems like it's just gone sideways, and I think we need to go back and look at that whole thing again because it— I thought we had it when we did the LCAC. And had it all set up. Now apparently we don't, because I just went to talk to the other day and it didn't seem like it. Anyway, yeah.

Okay, um, I don't know if I dare ask a quick question or not, but on the land transfer from DNR to ADA, are they restricted just like what we are in asking for lands from DNR So is it has to be charitable? No. So there's another— okay, I will find it on the record. I'll double-check. I don't think so.

We'll—. Because that would really put a kink in it. So, and just to be clear, Madam Mayor, I like— it's, it's just we're not involved in that process, so we have to go ask. That— I just want to clarify, right? It's not like it's our determination.

Yeah, right. Okay, without objection, then I would declare us adjourned 11:22, and for me, I'm happy the day's over.