Assembly Special Meeting of September 11, 2025

Go ahead and call to order the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly special meeting of Thursday, September 11th, 2025 at 6:30 PM, and we are in the assembly chambers. And this meeting was called by the mayor and the manager. Roll call, please.

Mr. E? Here. Mr. Griffin? Here. Mr. Johnson.

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

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

Thank you. Next item is citizens' comments, and for those who wish to call in, the local number is 907-486- 3231. The toll-free number is 855-492-9202. Please turn off your radio and any other listening device to prevent feedback. For those in the room who wish to speak under citizens' comments, please come to the podium and sign in, turn on the microphone, 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. And basically, this is the only opportunity for citizen comment at a special meeting is at the beginning. So anybody wish to come forward and speak?

Uh, Nova, we have a caller. Go ahead, we'll take the one on the line. Go ahead, please. You're on the line.

No, they'll try again. Please call again.

Go ahead, Jeremy, you have the floor. Yeah, hi, my name is Jeremy Williamson. I'm owner of A Maintenance. I was a bidder on the facilities contract for the Kodiak Island Borough. Um, we, we've been asking questions about this contract to staff, been asking staff questions in reference to the way they process bids for over a year.

The information that we were given was that these types of bids were acceptable the way we turned it in.

Um, we've been fighting this on this specific contract for about 15 years, and I don't know I don't know how to get there. If you look at previous bids, there was clearly unbalanced bids being recommended. I've done it in the past and my bid was rejected and the assembly overrode that, you know, rejection and awarded it to us for a 6-month contract. And then they changed the way they did bids, and I was told in the pre-bid meeting that unbalanced bids would not be accepted. And they were.

So we turned in a legit bid, was a flat fee for every time, no matter how much snow happened. My competitor put a price for the high school of $400 for 0 to 2 inches, but if it got 4 inches or more, it went from $400 to $100, and if it was 12 inches, it was like $25. That is unbalanced. That is unfair that you guys are considering awarding a contract to a contractor that has historically used this tool to make his bids look lower. But I'm trying to provide a service for a reasonable amount.

It's not unreasonably high. And you guys are just tossing me aside like I don't provide the service that I think I do.

What I would like to ask is transparency. Every one of you guys demand transparency at the borough level, but in this process, transparency has been shaded, if not completely neglected. I demand it. I think that it's only fair to do things above board, and I just urge you to consider that. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward and speak under citizens' comments, please do. We got a caller? Okay, let's do that. We're now answering a call from the queue.

Citizens' comments, please. We got a caller. Good evening, assembly meeting. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.

Go ahead, please. Please state your name. My name is Monique Lewis. And first, two comments made at the last work session, um, that I've kind of been stewing on. The first, I hope everyone sees the irony of— you are the assembly that now has to deal with a problem that the assembly 10 years ago said, let the next assembly deal with this.

Secondly, in 11 years, I have never heard the Chinniack community come to the borough asking for the coffers to be opened without offering a solution. Usually we're just asking to be left the hell alone. While I don't have time in the remainder of my 3 minutes to outline solutions, I can assure you we have some to bring to the table. Those solutions, however, can't be implemented, even attempted, until the borough decides to move forward with becoming a public water system in Chiniak at the Chiniak School System, which requires 25 regular users. Everyone is focused on the million-dollar filtration system and water plant, But these things are potentially step 4 and maybe step 5.

We're asking the assembly and the school board to partner with us to get through steps 1, 2, and 3. Those steps cost manpower, which we've offered, and some sample costs, which I'll go on the record right now as being willing to pay for the initial sampling cost personally. The borough has acknowledged the need to test water because it doesn't matter if 10 students or 26 students are exposed to potentially unsafe water, but by not being regulated, the testing that's being done actually doesn't meet the water quality standards. So we really don't know if the water is safe in spite of the voluntary testing and expense that is occurring right now. The intent is good, but in order to know what testing is really needed, we need to be a regulated system, which requires 25 users.

Understand, it's kind of a catch-22. But if we apply to become a public water system, the first step will not be DEC requiring a million-dollar filtration system. They might require a boil order, which is probably a good idea considering we're not doing all of the testing that is required to actually know if our water meets standards, but they're not going to require a million-dollar filtration system. That may not be needed at all. In fact, when we were regulated in 2017, there wasn't even a requirement for daily testing.

Some was monthly, some was quarterly, some was annually. And the oversight level of the level 3 operator was adequate. Now, Dr. Micah is being a good partner in not forcing the borough's hand by waiving waivers. What we're asking for is the assembly to give the manager a wink and a nod that she can pass along to the school board so we can get to that magic 25 number and start the process of becoming a public system. This would allow us to apply for certification Then we'd be given testing requirements, and based on the results of the test, we would be told what kind of filtration is needed.

I've talked to DEC, and they actually can see our system, our previous system, and think there's a chance that that's adequate still. If not, there are grants available for rural water systems, but we can't apply for those until we know what we need. So, at this point, what I'm asking for is that help us get to the point where we apply for that PWS and get to the point where we know what we need, as opposed to just assuming we need to spend $1 million and then saying that we can't afford it. Thank you. Thank you, Monique.

Anyone else wishing to come forward under citizens' comments and speak, please do so or call in at this time. Go ahead.

Good evening. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Nate Saboda. I am the air wildlife biologist for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game here in Kodiak, and I'm just here to bring attention again to you guys.

You might remember I was here a couple weeks ago. Testifying at the bears at the landfill. I'm here tonight for two reasons. One, to again highlight that to folks that that's still an urgent issue. In my mind, even more issue for— more urgent for those who don't know now, the cruise ships are starting to take busloads of people to the landfill to look at our bears, which in my mind is pretty embarrassing for our community.

But nonetheless, that's going on. The second reason I'm here is to extend my appreciation to the borough staff, particularly Ms. Williams and the folks at the landfill. They've been doing everything they can within their power and resources to try to address the issue. Honestly, it's just not enough. We need some additional help.

I know I've talked to a couple assembly members. You guys are really on board with it, and I appreciate that. But the clock is ticking, right? So bears are going to start denning here soon. We do not want what we had last year where we presumably had a sow and cubs denning inside the landfill.

Unacceptable on a variety of levels. You guys received— you might not have seen it yet, but you guys received a letter today from the DEC kind of outlining some of the violations related to DEC about this issue. I just want to remind you again, it's also in violation of Fish and Game regulations. So if It's something that we need to address sooner than later. Again, I appreciate the support from folks I've talked to already.

Certainly appreciate the support from the staff. Uh, but just again, want to express the urgency of the issue to try to get this taken care of before, uh, denning starts in earnest. Um, we currently have a plan with the wildlife troopers to sometime in late October work with the borough staff to push all the bears out of the landfill. I don't know what that's going to result in for our community if these bears are going to move right into town since they're food conditioned. It might not be good for them or us, but we can't have the issue continue to perpetuate itself by cubs being born in the landfill.

So just wanted to express the urgency again. Thank you guys, I really appreciate your attention to the matter. Have a good night. Thank you, Nate. We have a caller.

You are now answering a call from the queue. Good evening, assembly meeting. You're on the line. Please state your name for the record. Hello, my name is Zach Gianotti.

I work for the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation in the Solid Waste Program. I'm calling in regards to the landfill Kodiak Island Borough Landfill currently has a bear issue that is out of compliance with the state of Alaska's solid waste regulations.

This is an issue of concern for us because it is causing a threat to the lives of the wildlife that are present at the landfill, as well as potential hazard for the humans that are active at the landfill, both landfill staff and other folks that use the facility. The Solid Waste Program is letting the borough know that this is being out of compliance, you need to do corrective action. And from what we understand, the borough staff have been working with the Department of Fish and Game to find a solution. Of upgrading the bear fence that is currently present at the landfill, the electric bear fence. Um, DEC Solid Waste Program supports these upgrades, but understands that resources need to be allocated in order for this to happen.

Um, I believe a letter was submitted by one of my colleagues further explaining the situation. I am calling to let you know that this is of the utmost importance to the solid waste program, and we greatly encourage action on part of the assembly. Thank you for your time, and that is all I have. Thank you, Zach. Anyone else wishing to come forward in the audience or call in, please do so at this time.

Hearing and seeing none, we'll move on, um, for considerations of the matters to call for the special meeting. First being, um, abbreviated and informal hearing of the State of Alaska Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office and general wholesale license renewal application for Southern Glazier's Wine and Spirits of Alaska, LLC, doing business as Southern Glazier of Alaska, license number 4860. Staff report, Borough Clerk Nova. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the assembly. At the August 21st, 2025 assembly regular meeting, the assembly voiced protest to the renewal application for this license as required by Alaska Admin Administrative Code.

We have notified the licensee, and in order to provide them the opportunity to defend their application before the assembly, we have sent them an email and also a letter in the mail, and we have provided them a Zoom link for tonight's meeting. And I've observed that they're not online as of the moment, so In the packet was the original agenda item, um, when this was presented to you at the August 21st, 2025, and the information there, um, you can use that information there to refresh yourselves about the reasons why we are protesting this license. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Any questions on there?

Basically, this is their opportunity to come before us and kind of clarify some of the inaccuracies in the application, of which they've not taken advantage of that tonight. And so as I see, this is basically the decision We protested the application, and that stands unless somebody wishes to make a motion to change that. Seeing none, protest stands.

All right, next item is Merrill Vito on contract number FY 2026-6.

Kodiak Island Borough Facilities Contract with MK Enterprises, LLC. And as a clerk's note, if the assembly desires to override the veto, it must make and approve a motion to override by a two-thirds majority, 5 affirmative votes at this meeting. Two-thirds required is out of the entire membership of 7 members and not those who are present. No one makes a motion, the veto will stand. Okay, let me get to my information.

For the public, I'm going to read the veto letter.

Basically, it's from Scott Arndt, Mayor.

Except as provided in subsection C of this section, the mayor may veto an ordinance, resolution, motion, or other action of the assembly and may strike or reduce appropriation items except for school budget items. The veto must be exercised before the next regular meeting of the assembly and must be accompanied, accompanied by a written explanation of the reasons for veto. The veto may be overridden by a vote of two-thirds of the authorized membership of the assembly within 21 days following exercise of the veto, or at the next regular meeting, whichever is later. The veto does not extend to appropriation items in a school budget resolution/ordinance, actions of the assembly sitting as a board of adjustment, or adoption or repeal of a manager plan of government. During the assembly meeting of August 7th, 2025, the assembly approved contract 2026-6, Kodiak Island Borough facilities contract with MK Enterprises, LLC.

I hereby exercise this veto before the next assembly regular meeting of August 21st, 2025. The following are my reasons for the veto. The entire process is flawed as staff continually alters their method of bid analysis. The staff decided to reject one of the bids based on what was referred to as differential pricing. I perceive this as discounting, which is permissible.

According to Alaska Statute 44.62, any policy change must involve public input. 4. However, the staff did not adhere to this requirement. There was no guidance provided to the bidders during the mandatory pre-bid meeting indicating that borough policy was shifting from previous practices. And 5.

Policies should be clear and transparent for all contractors, and I believe that all bids should be rejected, necessitating a rebid of the facilities contract with clear instructions for everyone. That was the letter of my veto. Part of what I hang this on is, is interpretation, and staff misinterpreted some of the borough, along with the Assembly, some of the guidelines that we have. One of those is non-responsive bids. And if you look at non-responsive bids and you go to Section G You see, if any of the unit price bids are excessively unbalanced, either above or below the amount of a reasonable bid— that's in parentheses— to the, to the potential detriment of the Kodiak Island Borough.

That is key. It has to be to the detriment of the Kodiak Island Borough on there, and staff messed up on that. Now, we have a letter tonight here too from one of the other contractors on there. And the letter is from Brecken Construction, LLC, dated September 3rd, from Yasha Sabetnov to the Kodiak Island Borough Mayor and Manager. Dear Mayor and Kodiak Island Borough Assembly, over the past couple of weeks there has been much discussion Regarding the reference contract above and which company to award to.

As one of the contractors that bid on the project, we would like to express our frustration with the process. It seems that through the attempt to make the bidding process more transparent and streamlined, it has caused unforeseen complications and made the bid review process unclear. We feel that adding approximate historical quantities to be used in the bid items, it would make the review process easier to interpretate. Using an average of different rate tables makes it very difficult to compare total bids. Case in point, with this contract, AIM Maintenance was the clear low bidder when using the average of the 5 tables in the base bid.

It would be in the best financial interest of the Kodiak Island Borough to award to AIM over MK or Brecken Construction. While we appreciate the effort by the engineering department to make the process more transparent and streamlined, we feel that certain aspects of the bid process need to be readdressed in the future. As always, we appreciate the Kodiak Island Borough effort to include the contractors in the changing process. Best regards, Yasha Sabetnov, Vice President of Operations, Brecken Construction. And as you saw in the attorney's opinion, the brief answer was reject all bids and rebid was an option.

And part of this is that I think there's also a protest that's been issued in regards to this bid. Depending upon what happens here tonight determines whether the manager has to work on that process. Because I know the different contractors, all of the contractors involved in this bidding process, I also know that the borough is going to have a real hard time in court proving that what they're saying is right when the contractor has evidence of submitting a bid in 2000— not submitting a bid, actually doing the work, the sweeping, for approximately $4,000-some dollars. And there's not going to be a court that— we're going to lose. And I want to keep us out of court.

Just like the attorney's brief answer was. So the thing to do is not override the veto and let this die and let staff clean this up and get it back out on the street. Thank you. What's the wishes of the assembly?

Jared, I'll move to override the mayoral veto on contract number FY 2026-01. -06, Kodiak Island Borough Facilities Contract with MK Enterprise LLC. Second. It's been moved and seconded.

Jared? So I made the motion because I want to have a discussion about this.

And originally, I was— In favor of the attorney's opinion, because I felt that it was muddled and I think a restart is okay.

I still stand— I think I still stand behind that. Maybe not for the reasons that the Mayor gave. But the part of the problem for me was it seems like that there has been some past practice in the bidding process that has been— a lot of it has been unwritten, unspoken. And we have a staff now that wants to enforce what is now written and spoken.

Our contractors maybe just weren't prepared for that. It's like having a teacher one year and they have the list of rules on the wall and maybe that teacher that year really doesn't pay attention to rule number 3. But then you get the same teacher, or you get a different teacher the next year with the same set of rules and then they decide to enforce rule 3. Without really talking to the kids about, right, this is going to be a change. So I really do support in some manner of restarting the bidding process for kind of that transparency.

But I would push strongly back against— staff is not continually altering their methods. There's somebody new, and this somebody new is following these rules that are following these policies or other kinds of memos that maybe hadn't been paid attention to in the past. And procurement staff, they are obligated to assess whether lines are artificially skewed. That is, that is their job, and that is their, their expertise. So I think we should give some Some letters to that.

I don't think that staff was penalizing discounts. I think they were just flagging potential cost shifting. That could indeed put taxpayer dollars at risk of their possible future change orders, right, if it's under.

As for the Alaska Statute 44.62, I think that one's actually irrelevant. That applies to state agency regulations and not borough-level procurement practices. So our procedures are set by borough code, not by the APA. If we decided we were going to go by the APA, holy cow, there's a whole bunch of stuff that we need to change. So I don't think there needs to be any kind of public, you know, really feedback and discussion, policy discussion about this because staff didn't change policy.

They just applied what they knew to be the existing bid evaluation standards.

I don't think— there was some really good feedback from from the letter.

I think they raised some very valid points about improving the methodology of future procurements, but I don't think it necessarily might change the fact that there was some unbalanced pricing going on in this case. We have to make a decision based on this contract, not on what or how we might design the next one to be.

We should, I think, part of this, direct staff to incorporate lessons from this experience, such as providing the historical tables and clarifying evaluation methods into the next ITB.

So with all of that said, I think the only thing that I— marginally agree with is that the process itself was, I think, not as clear as it should be according to previous processes that they've gone through.

So I am leaning at this point to accept the veto unless there are some great arguments to convince me otherwise. But thanks. Scott, and then Bo. Um, I think this has uncovered a mess, and it's apparently a mess that's gone on for quite a while. Um, I think the only solution to it is to redo the whole thing.

I think that the clarification of issues that was brought up by staff is a good thing. I think that makes makes things a little easier for us to understand, which we were apparently lacking in the past. Certainly this hasn't come up before in the past. I'm all in favor of allowing the veto because it's consistent with our attorney's concerns, and I think would be crazy to go against our attorney when we're paying him so much. Thank you.

Bo.

So a few thoughts on this. I think folks are not quite being clear in the attorney's opinion. There are several statements made by the attorney that contradict what folks are saying are clear guidance. So I'm going to push back pretty strongly on that. And I quote, in reviewing the AIM bid, the sweeping rate table is excessively unbalanced and is far below what would be a reasonable bid for the sweeping work.

At the same time, the AIM bid for routine maintenance work was notably higher than the other bidders on an hourly basis and would be expected to result in a higher total contract cost to the Kodiak Island Borough if the contract were awarded to AIM. This is the detriment to the borough, a higher cost through change orders, right? So we're, we're cherry-picking language here. So And continuing with quoting the opinion from our borough attorney, as discussed in the background facts, the evidence available indicates that the AIM bid is unbalanced and therefore non-responsive. So this is— and I also push back strongly against this is how we have always done it.

I wasn't present on the assembly when previous actions from procurement officers allowed unbalanced bids to be pushed forward. That is just ignoring policy and standard practice for procurement. That is, that is unacceptable to me. If we are going to be transparent, we do need to follow policy and procedure. If we are requiring everyone to submit bids that are balanced, previous actions are irrelevant to me.

We have new staff. They're adhering to that. They're paying attention because they do have the borough's best interest in mind. So I think by ignoring all of this information to hit restart is, is us ignoring that someone from staff is doing their due diligence in identifying whether or not bids are responsive or non-responsive. I support our staff's decision.

I think it provides clarity. I think it's transparent, and it is in the best interest of the borough. So I'm going to vote against this to override the veto. Hitting reset, I don't understand the reason behind that. If folks are afraid of litigation, I'm going to look further to Excuse me.

Award to AIM would be difficult to defend against a protest where their bid is apparently unresponsive. So if we ignore this, then we start over, folks get a level playing field, and then we're punishing those who submitted a balanced bid. How is that transparent? How is that fair in the process? To me, that's the complete opposite.

So what kind of signal are we sending? Like, well, we're going to ignore fair and unfair now, reset the, reset the guidelines, make sure folks know that we're now, we're going to follow policy and procedure. That, that to me is just a backwards approach to this. We need to follow, we need to support our staff in their decision making. They are very clear in their guidance for us and why they came to that decision.

So I am going to vote to override this veto. It's the right thing to do. And those that are worried about litigation, you're thinking about it for the wrong reasons.

Go ahead, Dave. Thank you. I have one question for the manager. Does the staff recommendation of awarding the contract to NK still stand? Thank you.

Okay, in closing, the only thing I will add is the court case will be over why it was disqualified. That's what the court case will be. You're talking about unbalance. Do you really want to take a chance on that? Burroughs notorious for losing stupid cases, and this would be a stupid case to lose.

Because it's quite clear it is legitimate. I don't have a problem letting the judge decide that, but I don't think that's in the best interest of the taxpayers, and that's why I vetoed this. Thank you. Roll call vote on the motion, please.

Mr. Ames. Uh, can I ask a question?

Yes, go ahead. The way it was worded, the motion was to override. Yes. So if you vote yes, you agree with the override. You vote no, no, you disagree.

Okay, just making sure. Yes, it's 100% clear. Yes, it's to override the mayor. Yeah.

Mr. Ames.

Um, okay, I got to do again. The yes is to override him. And the no is not to override? Correct. Just make— No.

Mr. Griffin? No.

Mr. Johnson? Yes.

Mr. LeDoux?

Larry? Larry, can you hear us?

Must have lost him. Larry, we don't have you. If you want to quick call in—. I'm here. Oh, there you are.

Um, I moved override, or I vote override. Excuse me, you vote for yes? Yes.

Mr. Smiley? No.

Mr. Whiteside? Yes.

Would anyone like to change their vote? Okay, the veto stands for not having received the 5/3 votes required. Thank you. Give me a minute to regroup here.

Okay, the next item is an executive session. This is discussion of pending appeal of the Luthic Heritage Foundation property tax to the Superior Court. Jared? Sure. Move to convene into executive session under the authority of KIBC 2.30.030(f)(1)(a) to discuss pending litigation of the Aleutic Heritage Foundation property tax to the Superior Court, to which the borough is a party, and to provide direction to the borough manager regarding that litigation.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Staff report. Amy Williams, borough manager. [SPEAKING ALUTIQ] Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. When the assembly sat as Board of Equalization for the Aleutic Heritage Foundation case, they found in favor in favor of the assessor denying the appeal of AHF. The Alutiiq Heritage Foundation has decided to appeal your decision and go to the Superior Court. They actually filed a case that we did not expect in a way that we did not expect, and so we were asking for an executive session tonight to inform you of how they filed that case, and our assessor, Seema Grew, is here tonight to walk us through those details in executive session.

Okay, we want any discussion at this point?

Roll call vote on the motion, please. Mr. Griffin? Yes. Mr. Johnson? Yes.

Mr. Smiley? Yes. Mr. Whiteside? Yes. Mr. Ames?

Yes. Motion passes. Okay, Mr. Mayor, if I may, um, I would like to let Assemblymember Lee do that. We're disconnecting him. Okay, for the executive session, but if he'd like to call back for the work session, no problem, he can also participate.

Thank you. Thanks, Larry. Bye. Okay, um, then next is, uh, Jared. Move to invite the mayor, assembly, borough attorney, manager, assessor, and borough clerk into executive session.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Motion carries unanimously. At this time, we will take a 5-minute recess.

Please make sure your mics are off. Thank you.