Petersburg Borough: Assembly Meeting

Right. Okay. It's 12 o'clock, or 12 o'clock, October 5th, 2026, and this is the regular Petersburg Assembly meeting. And with that, would the clerk please call the roll? Mayor Lynn.

Here. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor. Here. Member Martin. Here.

Member Meechi. Here. Member Newman. Excused. Member Schwartz.

Here. Member Valentine. Here.

Thank you. With that, we have 5 people on the dais, we have Assemblymember Schwartz on Zoom, and we have 1 member who is excused. And with that, I will go on to the voluntary Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We have one set of minutes. The minutes for the September 21st, 2026 meeting is on the agenda for approval. Do I have a motion to approve those minutes? I'm sorry, Mayor Lynn, I have those scheduled for the October 20th meeting. Okay, then they'll be on that agenda.

I will, I will pass over it then. We'll move on. Thank you. Okay, are there any amendments to the agenda for the day, and/or do I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented? I would move to approve today's agenda as is.

Second. Been moved by Member Stan Gregor, seconded by Member Valentine. Any changes to the agenda?

Would the clerk please call the roll on the agenda as presented? Vice Mayor Stan Gregor? Yes. Member Martin? Yes.

Member Valentine? Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes. Member Mucci?

Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes.

The agenda is approved as presented. There are no public hearings today. There are no bid awards. And with that, I'll move on to persons to be heard on items related to today's agenda. Anybody who would like to talk to items related to the agenda, please come forward, state your name and who you represent, and you have 5 minutes.

Thank you. I am David Beebe representing myself. As a Vietnam-era veteran, I feel compelled to begin by recognizing the hundreds of thousands of military personnel during World War I and World War II who sacrificed their lives upholding their oaths to support, protect, and defend our constitutional rights from enemies foreign and domestic. As borough government officials and elected representatives of We the People, your tenures began with similar oaths of office to support and protect both Alaska's and the U.S. constitutions from enemies foreign and domestic. So having begun this meeting with your pledges of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the constitutional republic for which it stands, exactly how do you reconcile the contradictions of your pledges and oaths of office by authorizing the establishment of an AI-enabled data center, and build-out of 5G and 6G networks.

There is no question what these technologies are designed to accomplish. According to ChatGPT's summary, I quote, the upgrade from 4G to 5G and anticipated 6G networks raises significant privacy concerns due to increased data collection and potential surveillance capabilities. These advancements may lead to challenges in free speech, as enhanced monitoring could deter individuals from expressing themselves freely, fearing repercussions from data misuse or unauthorized access. Now, I cite Article 1, Section 14 of the Alaska Constitution, which addresses searches and seizures, stating that people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses and property against unreasonable searches and seizures. Article 1, Section 22 of the Alaska Constitution recognizes the right of privacy, stating that this right shall not be infringed.

The assumption that any data center can be designed to actively protect borough residents' rights enshrined in Alaska's and the U.S. constitutional protections is naive at best and disingenuous, if not duplicitous at worst. This supports a pattern of an institutional culture of maladministration and its obligations to the public process, as well as providing for due process of law, defined as the government must follow rules when it wants to take away your life, liberty, or property. This fundamental promise, known as due process of law, is the Constitution's fundamental guarantee that all levels of government must operate within the law and provide fair procedures before acting against individuals. These Bureau votes have authorized impacts of the highest order upon borough residents by the effective abolishment of our state and national constitutional rights to privacy and to be free from unreasonable search and seizures of our digital identities by the government's outsourced corporate proxies. Did the Petersburg Borough actually foreclose on the legal defense of our home rule borough sovereignty with a foregone conclusion that revenue-seeking was worth more than our oaths of office to support and defend our constitutional rights?

I sure hope not, because that does not fulfill its obligation and responsibilities to fulfilling due process of the law, and that meets the definition of maladministration. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else that would like to talk to items related to today's agenda? Related to—.

Yes, related.

Uh, my name is Jerry Merrigan. I'm speaking on behalf of myself on the new business agenda items C and D, data centers. I've been a Petersburg resident since 1979 and live out the road. I've owned property out there since 1990. About a year ago, I spoke to the assembly about exploring options for extension of a limited number of services outside of Service Area 1 and potential mill rate increases associated with that.

And one of the things I referenced was planning and zoning, and that was precipitated by the towers and mental health. And it's— I also referenced in that testimony, you know, other things besides the towers, which included data centers, detention centers. It just seems like there's hot-button things that just keep coming up. At that time, I was envisioning, you know, a comprehensive planning and zoning outside Service Area 1 and realized that's probably not the way to go. The way we're doing this right now is dealing with these hot-button issues, develop the planning and zoning language for Service Area 1, and try to get the process to extend it outside of Service Area 1 for the rest of the borough is probably the right way to do this.

And I appreciate the language in the revised moratorium that says the intent is to apply the moratorium on data centers for 9 months, or the standards would apply, develop after the 9 months, to try to get those to apply outside the borough. Because when I first read what what came up from out of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and I know they didn't mean this because there's— their authority is only inside Service Area 1, but it seemed to be like a big red flag saying the moratorium applies here and hey, we don't really care about out there. And it seemed to point an arrow to say if you want to do a data center, do it outside Service Area 1. But I know that wasn't their intent, but it just read that way. So I appreciate the revised language.

It's the— where it says, is it the intent to ultimately extend enforcement of data center regulations adopted to the entire borough? I think the original moratorium we had kind of left a lot of loopholes that's been pointed out that, um, and, you know, it's not just out the road, could be hydro, uh, you know, hydropower on the mainland or some other place, even using low-flow hydropower. Um, but what I read was, um, I'm not sure, I guess one This is a work in progress. I understand it. The one clarification I would just ask is about closed-loop systems, if that includes like a heat exchanger.

If someone could have a closed-loop system but use seawater as a heat exchanger to cool the closed loop, because if right now I would say if somebody wanted to develop one and they were looking for outside Service Area 1, they would just go to where there's power and close to the water and a road, and that would be Papke's Landing that already has an antenna right in the middle of it, and that would seem like a really compounding problems there. So this is a borough-wide issue. I think the revised moratorium language reflects that. Um, I know the utility director is working on a large-scale ordinance, and that of course would apply to the entire electric grid, which is also outside Service Area 1 in part. And but there seems to be a policy decision embedded in that ordinance, whether you like it or not.

It's like You have excess power. How much do you want to devote to data centers? What other industries do you want to attract? I don't know how you get that through ordinance, but that's kind of, kind of embedded in that when you start parceling out what you do with the excess. And, uh, but the utility ordinance will not address other data center issues that developing standards would, which would be location and noise and those kind of issues, emissions.

I'm thankful you guys got ahead on that and that you're thinking about outside Service Area 1. So I'd ask you to approve this revised moratorium language and subsequently follow on the process that would allow it to be applied borough-wide. So thanks for thinking about us, and thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it. Anybody else would like to talk to items related to today's agenda? Please come forward and state your name and who you represent.

Hello. Okay. My name is Mary Evans. I'm representing myself. I'm here to lend comment to the ongoing data center conversation.

First, I want to say that neither the Planning Commission nor the assembly member I've asked have been able to give me an answer On how a data center is permitted under PMC 19-44020. I keep hearing that industrial use is industrial use, but as far as I can tell, that's not how our code is written. The list of uses given under Title 19-44020 reads to me as exhaustive. I'm very curious for someone to show me in the code how this conclusion has been drawn. And which, um, how this conclusion has been drawn and which specific permitted use it's allowed under.

I would also like to caution the residents of Petersburg that the interpretation of industrial and industrial and data centers are industrial helps set administrative precedent that data centers are by right and not conditional use. And as I understand it, I'm very happy to be wrong, but as I understand it, This means that no community voter input would be required for any future data center project under this designation. For the community to have a voice, data centers must be assigned a zoning category that requires conditional use, and any ordinance that does not include this is not looking out for the best interests of the community, in my opinion. All of us in our futures will be at the mercy of what an incredibly small group of city officials think is best, and the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. I think that the city beginning this process and allowing someone to spend money developing the property and making plans without having real answers about the code was incredibly irresponsible.

And I understand the developer's frustration when faced with the prospect of a moratorium. However, I will say that I was taken aback by the framing that a temporary moratorium is a drastic measure, and that the deliberation by the assembly on September 21st proved to me why one is needed. Based on that conversation, it is clear that there are gaps in knowledge, all of, all of our knowledge about what this technology is, what the industry often looks like, and what opening the door might mean. This is an industry that, in my opinion, has often operated fast and loose, to which we have seen communities around the country raise serious concerns about. I do not pretend to be an expert.

I'm far from it. We all have gaps in our knowledge again about AI and the arms race surrounding it, and anyone who says otherwise is lying. That being said, there's a lot to say about the complete lack of moral and political leadership on AI computing in government, how the laws we have in place to protect our privacy online are decades behind where they should be before even taking generative AI into account, and how AI is being used for panopticon-like surveillance that grinds our Fourth Amendment rights into a pulp. There's a discussion to be had about the trajectory of this technology the impact it will have, and whether that's something that we want to be a part of. Our privacy is at risk, our resources are at risk, our freedom is at risk.

Let's be very clear, this technology is not benign and it's not neutral. Although I think that it— that this is an incredibly important and worthwhile discussion to have, I'm not attempting to do that here. I'm not asking anyone to trust my judgment about this technology or to make an ideological choice. I'm asking the borough to establish rules that allow Petersburg to protect itself from being taken advantage of by an industry whose expansion into rural communities has generated serious controversy over power, water, noise, infrastructure, and self-determination. My fear is the acceptance and normalization of something that seems fine now but has not been thought all the way through.

When it comes to the project at hand and its claims to be low impact, good, I hope that that's true, but let's prove it. Because the data center FAQ done by Power and Light was based off of specs from a company that is no longer in the picture, and as far as I'm aware, the new company in question is not being made public And we have no context as to the usual nature of its builds. What kind of assurances do we have about noise pollution now, cooling systems, and whether whoever ends up here will use biocides or PFAs? Is it going to be on the old Ocean Beauty Pier? Is that dock even structurally sound?

Regarding the prove it, a Harvard study in 1967 argued that sugar was not, in fact, a cause of coronary heart disease and that saturated fat was to blame. This was true for decades. We now know that not only is this untrue, but it was paid for, um, and designed by a sugar industry trade group. My point being, I do not believe in the reliability of self-analysis, and nobody should. Okay, I got the 30 seconds.

I have 4 pages left. I'm going to try to wrap this up. Um, when it comes to impact, we need to discuss limits for expansion beyond vague mentions of what the grid can withstand. A 2-megawatt continuous load will use almost 10% of all power generated by SEPA. And as Assemblymember Schwartz pointed out, we don't know what our power needs are going to be in 10 years.

So my question is this: Do we end up in a situation where such a large percentage of our hydroelectric is sold to tech companies that our own regional industries lose the ability to expand?

We end up in a situation where all of our surplus power is spoken for and we don't have the ability to build a new processing plant, a shipbuilding facility, a mine, a new community center, a college campus, a hospital, things that bring actual jobs, actual economic benefit, new families. What happens to us then? Where does it end?

Being noticed and being hospitable to AI data centers puts us all at risk, and thus this topic deserves community input. We just have to make sure we're asking the right questions, and I guess I'll wrap it up there. Thank you, Mary. Would you, uh, if you have 4 pages, would you send those to the assembly, um, on the website, if you would, please? Yeah, thank you.

Yep. Anybody else like to talk to items related to today's agenda?

Oh, that's okay, that's okay. Okay.

Judy Omer, and what I was going to say has in many ways already been said, and Mary's got even more. So I'd either like to finish reading hers so the listening audience can, can have it, or have her continue reading what she was reading. Either way you want to do it, you have 5 minutes to continue with it. Okay, let me just start from the beginning of that paragraph then. Okay.

More importantly— thank you very much— more importantly, when it comes to impact, we need to discuss limits for expansion beyond vague mentions of what the grid can withstand. Because what exactly does that mean? We deserve to have an answer. Somebody needs to decide now. Like I just said, a 2-megawatt continuous load will use almost 10% of all power generated yearly by SEPA at Taiyi and Swan Lake combined for one small room filled with computers.

I understand that there's a third turbine coming online soon, but as Assemblymember Schwartz pointed out, We don't know what our power needs are going to be in 10 years. So my question is this: do we end up in a situation where such a large percentage of our hydroelectric is sold to tech companies that our own regional industries will lose the ability to expand? Are we positioning ourselves to stunt our own growth so SEPA can sell power? One edge data center now using 2 megawatts continuously, but are they going to be allowed to expand to 6 megawatts? What about 4 edge data centers all using 2 to 4 megawatts?

At whose discretion will they be allowed to expand? What percentage of our total power will they be able to use? How many companies is the city going to allow to set up shop here? Because, hey, SEPA can sell them power too, until all of our surplus power is spoken for and we don't have the ability to build a new processing plant, shipbuilding facility, a mine, community center, college campus, hospital, things that bring actual jobs, actual economic benefit. What happens to us then?

Do we let a hyperscale data center buy land out the road and build their own power plant? Where does it end? We have to completely pause, in my opinion, to get in front of this and establish a framework that makes sense for the future of our region. Being noticed by and becoming hospitable to AIA centers puts us all at risk, and thus the topic deserves community input. We must make sure that we are asking the right questions, not treating those with questions as hysterical Luddites.

We cannot open ourselves up to fundamental irreversible changes without thinking things all the way through. The consequences of an underreaction will be far greater than those of an overreaction, and I genuinely hope that I'm overreacting, but I'm not willing to silently take that chance. I will close with this. The mayor talked about the phenomenal technological advances that will be realized within the next 10 years and how he doesn't want Petersburg businesses to miss out or for our kids in school to not be able to learn from it or have the opportunities that other people do. My question is, what does that mean?

What, what computation bottleneck is this solving? How does any single child on this island benefit from having an AI data center in town? And what does that have to do with which opportunities they do or do not have? On the subject of emphatic embrace of new technology and its effect on education, we have seen screens in schools for around 20 years at this point, and cognitive test gains are reported to have stopped or reversed in some populations for the first time in modern history. There is emerging research raising concerns that reliance on chatbots weakens critical engagement.

Studies show that users accept faulty AI logic roughly 73 to 80% of the time. We're outsourcing our thoughts and critical thinking in a complete cognitive surrender. We can say the future is here, we might as well accept it. But the future of AI is something that's being forced on us. I don't want it.

Nobody asked me. I don't want it for my kids. Neither does anybody else that I know. I was born in 1992, one of the last millennials, one of the last people to be born who remembers a time without the internet, like the elves who remember the light of the Two Trees. There is a not insignificant number of us attempting to raise our kids with the absolute minimum amount of technology that has recently become so ubiquitous.

We've watched how it's negatively affected ourselves and our peers, the loneliness epidemic that's been created, the negative environmental impact it's had. We've read the studies, we've watched the congressional hearings. We understand that social media algorithms are designed to incentivize the proliferation of misinformation and rage. Profit over people. We have countless reasons to believe that the billionaires creating this unavoidable future do not care about us.

This is clear, and we have no reason not to proceed with caution. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Anybody else would like to talk to items related to today's agenda?

Becky Knight here. That gave me goosebumps, literally.

Um, I'd like to say right up front, I'm 100% opposed to a data center located anywhere in our borough. And I can say that because I'm not threatening any FCC rules.

All that glitters is not gold. The lure of derived income from power sales will come at great cost, as Mary elucidated. Would you approve a nuclear power plant simply because it promised to bring big, big power sales? Or like somebody mentioned, ICE facility, or what, what other, other things could we come up with? What we really need is an ordinance that allows us to give time to get our act together when new technology and outrageous propositions come to our community, which we thought for a long time we are immune from because we're just a small little community out in the middle of the wilderness.

Moreover, I object to any notion that data center operators have to getting a hold of extra power generation from installation from a third turbine at Taihee. And that's kind of been the implication the last few days. I don't do Facebook, but I hear that's been kind of the implication lately. That power is not, in my mind, automatically allocated to a data center or other crazy technology. I like the proposed moratorium, uh, with a couple of exceptions that No one has a corner on good ideas, and those were good ideas.

It should allow for a living moratorium, which I guess is kind of an oxymoron, but that allows for other protective measures as they come to mind.

It should— and it should seek input from the public and incorporate those ideas. And I think the public's been very disappointed that many, if not all, of their ideas have been disregarded in favor of title under the incorrect assumption that they might get sued in court and lose. Um, the developers should understand up front that the end of the moratorium does not necessarily mean that they get the green light. And I have a few questions, and maybe you can answer some of these questions during the discussion, but one of which— if, if Mr. Inoka is out of the project, who's in, and shouldn't they resubmit a new application? It seems to me that's imperative.

And, you know, so far it's just a dark hole regarding what is actually planned for our community. But from what I can tell, we could have a 10,000-square-foot facility, 100 by 100 feet, or we could have a closet-sized facility, and it will be humming 365 days a year, 24/7. Um, and the— so the public needs to get regular updates on the project status, and especially considering that there's a pending local court case that includes at least one of the, um, the developers, and it seems to possibly have something to do with the data center proposal. So thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony.

Anybody else like to talk to items related today's agenda?

Is there anybody on Zoom? No one has their hand up on Zoom. Okay, thank you. With that, I'm going to move on then to items unrelated to today's agenda. Is there anybody who would like to talk about items unrelated to today's agenda?

Please come forward, state your name, and you have 5 minutes. Hi, David Beebe speaking on behalf of myself. I'd like to revisit my prior testimony related to the agenda by referencing my prior timely submitted correspondence to make its inclusion in the Board of Adjustment packet. And that's the prior Board of Adjustment. I would appreciate, and I feel I am due a direct borough response to the contents.

You may recall, prior to my last testimony, I asked for a show of hands as to how many assembly members had appraised the contents of my correspondence prior to that Board of Adjustment meeting. Their answers were central to informing the contextual direction of my public testimony. Seeing no hands raised after a sufficient pause, I was about to continue but was interrupted by a point of order called by Member Stanton Gregor. That point of order inferred no prior allowances for brief exchanges have ever occurred between the assembly and the public testifier behind the podium. I beg to differ and can cite several instances.

And speaking of points of order, this arbitrary, if not prejudicial and discriminatory, prohibition of asking a simple question, in my opinion, gets eclipsed by an order of magnitude of a matter of far higher importance. My interpretation of no hands raised was either The entire assembly was exercising their rights to remain silent or admitting that they had no idea of its contents. I suspect our public servants still don't know and frankly don't care, and I find that troubling. I find it troubling because disregarding public testimony providing evidence that the borough is, quote, knowingly refraining from performing a duty which is imposed upon the public servant by law 'Or is clearly inherent in the nature of the public servant's office,' end quote, is the definition of an abuse of public office. Because that correspondence included evidence of official FCC maps contradicting Title Network claims, the maps unequivocally documented virtually the entirety of the most populated areas of Petersburg already possessed an existing 100% high-speed broadband terrestrial coverage, and only very small portions still maintained 80% coverage.

These FCC maps logically called into question the prospect that had the Bureau properly vetted Tidal Network claims in its application, it could feasibly be found Tidal Network was overstating the lack of broadband coverage Necessitating a borough-wide impact of 3 additional towers. In fact, my correspondence also includes links to short videos by a legal expert with years of experience litigating the Telecommunications Act, defending the sovereign rights of municipalities. His history of litigation pointed out that 90% of tower applicants overstated gaps in broadband coverage, and for obvious reasons. One can understand what then— why Sitka took this matter to court and prevailed, Wrangell considered a data center and wisely rejected it, and Juneau resorted to a moratorium in order to adopt a master plan for cell towers. On the other hand, Petersburg distinguishes itself for being 3 decades late in updating its code to be consistent with the Telecommunications Act Instead, the Petersburg Borough disregarded its obligation to vet the accuracy of Title Network claims.

Instead, the Petersburg Borough preempted the primary functions of its PNZ Commission to properly scrutinize applications. The rubber stamping of title applications effectively surrendered borough sovereignty of our own rule borough. To not only cite cell towers, but to scrutinize the contradictions of its actions to its oaths of office, of to our state and nation's constitutions, and pledges of allegiance to our constitutional republic. Thank you in advance for a thorough response to the submitted evidence demonstrating the case for maladministration.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else that would like to talk to items unrelated to today's agenda?

Please come forward, state your name and who you represent.

Uh, Becky Knight again. I prepared this, um, prior to the Board of Adjustment decision because I pretty much anticipated what the decision would be. So beyond my rational thinking I first of all, I'm disappointed in the Board of Adjustment decision, of course, but beyond my rational— it's beyond my rational thinking that safety considerations and violations of height restrictions were deemed insufficient criteria to uphold PNC's decision-making. And I don't know if any of you noticed, but I included a pretty bulky document. I apologize for it being so bulky.

That included my written statement during my last meeting, but also included the court— example court case by Andrew Campanelli, the attorney that we've been referencing here recently. And it was on behalf of Wading River, New Jersey or New York residents where cell towers were proposed in their attorney area, in their jurisdiction. And they— the document, the court case includes Exhibits very easy to understand, you know, a picture's worth a thousand words, uh, images of a cell tower landing on top of the fire chief's, um, vehicle and totaling it from 50-mile-an-hour winds, which is not at all unusual in Petersburg. Hopefully nothing like that will happen. It also includes mathematical calculations about the velocity of, like, a hammer falling from a worker's belt reaching 67 miles per hour.

These are all credible examples, and then there are— there were many examples regarding the loss of property value when cell tower is located near you. I know no one in this room would like one located behind their house, and I feel absolutely horrible for the person that this just happened to, uh, out by the ferry terminal. It's a horrible circumstance, and it's an eyesore. It's a total eyesore, and it's completely changed the character of our town. And not to mention that the others at Papke's, and now we're going to have one on Haugen Drive.

Um, anyway, uh, and, and, okay, and I'm going to leave it there. And one thing I forgot to read under items relate— related to the agenda was, for those folks that think that the Cordova plant has been the panacea, uh-uh. This is from an article Date of February 24th, Rangelways Growth at Industry Focus Town Hall. An excerpt out of that: a Cordova resident who happened to be in town for work was here and said to be cautious about partnering with the data center. Casey Kinsman and the Greenspark Data Center said that Greenspark Data Center, center in his own community of Cordova, has not gone well.

From a community member, it's been underwhelming and underperforming. For me. He said it's been years and we have not seen this output, the output that was promised with you. And he was referring to Mr. Anoka and the deal you made. He said the community hasn't seen any savings in energy rates like the company mentioned, and he wanted to hear about the lessons the company learned.

And then Anoka said the project in Cordova was intended to serve local compute computing needs but that didn't materialize. He said the company is still learning in Cordova and they're building from that. And that is a huge cautionary tale to all of you to, um, not just buy the PR that's spread around. And I think we all know PR when we hear it. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Oh, and I might mention the article I was reading from. I didn't see any of that kind of coverage on our local News media.

Anybody else like to talk to items unrelated to today's agenda?

Is there anybody on Zoom? No, no one has their hand up on Zoom. Okay, thank you. With that then, I'm going to move on to board committee— commission committee reports. There are none today.

There is one item under the consent agenda. And under that, there's Amendment Number 1 to the Contract of Employment for Stephen Giesbrecht, Borough Manager. This item authorizes Amendment Number 1 to the July 27, 2022 Contract of Employment between Borough Manager Giesbrecht and the Petersburg Borough. The amendment is a housekeeping and administrative item intended to update the written employment contract to accurately reflect salary adjustments that have been previously been approved by the assembly. All other terms and conditions of the existing contract of employment remain unchanged.

Do I have a motion to approve the amendment to Mr. Giesbrecht's contract? So moved. Second. Been moved by, by Member Stan Gregor, seconded by Member Valentine. Member Muci.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, just a clarification on this, um, under the annual salary evaluation and evaluation part, it mentions some, um, dollar amounts, and it also talks about a time period for that. Are those dollar amounts and those time periods— is that a, a prorated salary for the 9 months of that contract in the first one? And then the second one, the same thing, is that a prorated wage or salary for 2.5 months. There seems to be, you know, it just says an amount of money for a period, like on the first item there, of just 9 months.

So is that— am I reading that wrong, or is it just prorated over that time? I can clarify that. So, um, that is prorated, as you say. So it's the salary is divided up by 12 months or 2,080 hours, and then he's paid the same amount for, you know, every, every check.

All right, thank you. Other questions?

Okay, hearing none, would the clerk please call the roll on Amendment Number 1 to the contract of employment for Mr. Giesbrecht? Member Martin? Yes. Member Valentine? Yes.

Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Member Mucci? Member Schwartz? Yes.

Mayor Lynn? Yes. And that passes 6 to 0. Um, with that, I'll move on then to reports of other officers. Under reports of other officers, first we have Petersburg Medical Center.

PMC CEO Hofstetter will provide a report, and his written report is also attached to this agenda item. It's all yours, Mr. Hofstetter. Yeah, hi, good afternoon. Phil Hofstetter, Peace River Medical Center CEO. A few updates here.

We just got off of a pretty busy summer with our ER. I've been reporting out each month on those volumes. We've seen, continued on through September where we're seeing some of the highest volumes consecutively in the last 3, 4 months. It's finally starting to ebb. As the summer season heads into fall, which is, which is good.

We want to see more visits in our primary care, not in our ER. So, so those are some, some good turn. I went to the annual conference and executive board meeting with the Alaska Hospital and Healthcare Association earlier this month with the team, and part of that, or a big part of that discussion, was related to HR1, which is the Medicaid changes that are occurring on January October 1st. A lot of concerns about how that will impact the state, how that will impact not just the recipients that have those direct changes to the Medicaid statutes, but also the administrative burden, which is challenging enough to, you know, people who are normally on Medicaid and getting eligibility and redetermination done. That just limited staffing and the impact to the state is pretty concerning.

At the, at the hospital level. And also that was a pretty big conversation that came up, or a question that came up, with the 4 candidates running for governor who were also present during that meeting as a discussion point. So something to be aware of within the community. We're trying to get education and some training out there with Brandy Boggs through our, as our patient Navigator on some of those changes and to provide some education to the community. So look for that.

We'll have some postings to provide some education to, to get ready for those changes. I have some concerns about, you know, again, from a, from a standpoint of the direct impact, maybe not so much for Peterborough. However, the indirect impact for people who are waiting for eligible for Medicaid or having to go through some of the paperwork process we know is really challenging, that will even be more delayed. So those are the things that I think we have to keep an eye on and make sure that we're keeping connected, and I'll make sure I update the Assembly each month on that as we, as we noted.

The second part of the, the conference was geared towards rural health transformation funding, which, you know, PMC is fortunate enough to have 3 3 grants or 3 programs under that for the first year with maternal child health out of our primary care, behavioral health. We're investing quite a bit in behavioral health to develop that, and then our telehealth programs to provide more specialties locally within Petersburg. And so those are all 3 going, uh, going well so far. We just got started with those, of course, and as we get started the next year, second year 2 is coming up for Rural Health Transformation that opened on October 1st. So we're getting geared up for that.

The focus points for year 2 is around care coordination, and it's also around value-based care. And so those are things that we're going to be working to develop. And, you know, EMS is also part of that equation. But the 2 areas we're prepared to deliver on are related to care coordination and value-based care. So more to come on that.

And speaking of value-based care, a direct primary care model, which is a subscription-based provider or primary care model, is— has been launched and is going pretty well, where we want to encourage people who are underinsured or have high deductibles to reach out to our clinic. We have this alternative payment model where people don't have to go through an insurance company, can go through a subscription-based model through our clinic. And receive primary care. And so that's— once the word gets out, I feel like there'll be more people interested in that. But it's something that's very affordable, and I'm very excited about delivering locally.

Our MRI has seen over 80 MRIs now, so very, very good track, tracking about 20, 20 MRIs a month or so. We've also started seeing some of our first orders from Wrangell coming in, so very excited if we can deliver some more regional opportunities for, for a service. And lastly, our specialties where I just want to thank our team for putting a lot of specialties on in the month of September and, and even last week where we had our SCOPE clinic. So we, we have a nice continuity every couple of months of doing SCOPE clinics so that that's Amazing. Our team helps support that.

That occurred last week. Earlier in September, we had dermatology. We had Dr. Harrison, endocrinology, from Wrangell coming over, and he'll be on a rotation as well. We're very excited about having, having him come on a regular basis. Dr. Raster was here earlier this— or last month— and for ENT.

And then this week we have Dr. Kapp, optometry. So really, you know, building some of those services out. Oh, and we also had psychiatry, telepsychiatry, earlier in September. We're trying to do that once a month. So really excited about delivering some of those and then of course expanding those services.

Thank you.

Member Mucci. Yeah, thank you. Thanks for the report, Phil. Can you give me an example or something of value-based care? What does that mean?

Yeah, value. It's a, it's a term where instead of coming into the hospital or healthcare you receive a service and then you get a bill, you know, so it's an exchange. Value-based care is you're taking, you know, there's different models under this, but value-based care is like you're taking a whole instance of the value of the care and not just every time that you come in you get a, you know, you get a bill, you come in. It's kind of like the direct primary care model that I'm trying to, it's kind of like that, but in a broader model. So you would get a payment on maybe a once a year, how much does it cost to receive services for X person?

And then that would be sort of a value-based model based on the value of care and not just the encounter of care. Right. So in theory, it's, it's really good. It's very complicated, though, to put those into practice. Yeah.

All right. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you, Member Martin. Yeah.

I just want to thank you for your executive summary in the packet we have. It's very thorough. And I enjoy your meetings too, but they are very thorough also, and this is more accessible to a lot of us. So thanks. Yeah, you're welcome.

Thank you. Um, let me ask a question. And on rural healthcare, looking at next year, are there any changes that have benefits to Petersburg, to your, the center? Yeah, I mean, the care coordination, value-based care are interesting. I wish they were more towards the facility design and construction, which is not something that we have the green light on.

So these are programs. I mean, I just feel grateful for, for the funding towards healthcare in general, but a lot of the, the administrative side and the auditing side we have some concerns about, and then You know, can we— the sustainability of some of these programs is really sort of the focus point with, with, uh, with this funding because there's a limited amount of funding. It's 5 years and that's it. So really looking at some of these programs that we can create and doing them in a way that's sustainable so they'll, they'll be able to support itself down the line. Thank you.

Other questions for the assembly? Thank you, Phil. Thank you. Appreciate it. Yeah, I don't see, um, our school superintendent Robin— so, Robin Taylor here.

Um, I do see Carrie Case. If you have anything you'd like to add, um, Petersburg District Ranger. Yeah, hi, good afternoon. And yeah, I'm— my name is Carrie Case and I'm the district ranger here in Petersburg for the Forest Service. I wanted to start out with, uh, there is a slide at Tonka.

We are aware of it. I know lots of folks are out there using that road system for subsistence currently, so I did want folks to know we're aware. It's really close to the culverts that have washed out, probably about a half mile from there. We do have the culvert replacements under contract. Contracting right now for the federal government is not a speedy process.

So we'll— we're looking at options on how to then also take care of that slide. So I know it's an important road system for folks in general, especially this time of the year. So if folks want to talk about that, members of the public, members of the Assembly, please come see me, let me know, we can have a discussion. But we are aware and working through our processes to the best of our ability to, to make something happen out there. Um, our developed rec site use, uh, once again was great this summer.

We appreciate the public using our sites and the great care they take of them. And I appreciate my staff— we're short-staffed in our recreation department— but keeping up on making those usable for folks. We're continuing to do our last kind of fall cabin visits, make sure we have maintenance and firewood wood to the extent we can provide it at our cabins, and then we're going to start our vault toilet pumping contracts, so getting those vault toilets pumped and ready for use the next year. The cabin out at Woodpecker is progressing pretty nicely. Jesse and his crew are down there.

They're starting to pour supports for the cabin itself and should be putting in flooring pretty soon, and we'll see a cabin start coming to life out there. They finished a lot of the site work associated with needing to, to get that ready to build a structure. And work on the Harris Building continues. We're looking at— we're converting that basically back into a warehouse. It was a warehouse, and it was temporary office space, temporary office space for 20 years.

And now we're converting it mostly back to a warehouse for storage, and we'll have some limited office space out there when that's completed. Complete, but we're looking at March as a completion date for that. That's it. Any questions? Member Yuchi.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Hey, I, I had a conversation with Member, uh, Newman about a dinner he had with the U.S. Forest Service chief, and I was curious, when he was in Petersburg, what was his visit? What did his visit entail? Um, his visit entailed getting in late, so he missed out on some of the things we were going to take him to do. So he was here less than 24 hours.

So yeah, having engagement with local borough assembly is something that typically he would like to do, but he had some other things scheduled that were at his request, and then with a shortened time frame, we decided to just do a couple things on the ground, and then he headed up to Juneau. I just, I just wanted to follow up. What were those things that he did on the ground here? Um, what we ended up being able to do with him was having meet all the employees. Um, so that was big.

I think after the last, um, year or so of what's happened in hiring, for them to have time with him to discuss some of those new actions and his plans for the future as being chief, and then to take him out to the mill at Nine Mile, have him meet the owners, take a look at that operation, discuss what we have planned to support that mill, or, you know, what that may look like here on the Petersburg Ranger District. And then, um, yeah, then he headed to Juneau. Great. Yeah, thank you.

Other questions? Thank you. Appreciate it. Hopefully he'll come back, Jeff, and then we can spread them around. That would be nice.

Moving on then, I'm going to move on to the mayor's report. And that's fairly short today. Election Day, October 6, 2026. Vote in person tomorrow at Parks and Rec's activity room at 500 North 3rd Street between 8 AM and 8 PM. Please bring your identification.

Canvassing of the election. The Petersburg Borough Assembly will sit as the canvas board on Friday, October 9, 2026 at 12 noon to certify the results of the of the October 6, 2026 municipal election. The public is invited to attend in person or via Zoom. Go to the calendar on the borough website to join the meeting via Zoom. Last, for information on the election, go to www.petersburgak.gov and click on the orange banner at the top of the screen.

And with that, I'll turn it over to the manager for his report and Tentatively, um, member Stan Gregor will be running the meeting for Friday. Thank you. Good manager. Thank you, sir. I've asked police staff to work with our attorney on an ordinance to issue fines to locations having frequent police interactions.

The ordinance is modeled after an Anchorage ordinance and will be vetted by the assembly when completed. 9 Supervisors and department heads from the Petersburg Borough attended a 2-day manager training hosted by APRA, our insurance provider, in Rangoon last week. The borough appreciated the invitation from the city and borough of Rangoon to participate in this valuable training opportunity. Harbor has approximately a dozen vessels that want to winter over in Petersburg, so staff is actively monitoring permanent stall holders' schedules to sublet stalls that are empty during the winter months. Harbor maintenance is finalizing much of the seasonal upkeep and preparing for winter weather.

And the harbor reminds customers that are traveling to inform the Office of Dates and Boat Watching contact information. A group of staff attended the annual fall U.S. Coast Guard meeting with Sector Southeast Captain of the Port last week. There was discussion on setting up a tabletop to simulate a small tour ship incident to allow local agency leaders to practice response efforts with Coast Guard Unified Command. The advertisement for bids— bidders for the Scalbay Boatyard project went live. It is available via the borough's website and BidExpress.

Bid opening will occur on Tuesday, October 27th. Harbor Arsenal Harbor also reminds people to get back in the habit of regularly checking their vessels with the increase of fall rain and wind. Several staff members, Major Lynn, and I met with a representative from the Mental Health Trust to discuss potential development of the South Mid-Cot subdivision. And Aaron Hakens completed his report for the relocation of the fire department training equipment. The cost of creating the new location is from $700,000 to just over $1 million.

I will be adding this project to the borough's grant requests for hopefully future funding. We have another sewer line project, replacement project. This one is at Mountain View Manor. Traffic flow for deliveries and visits will be disrupted while Public Works and wastewater work on the repairs adjacent to elderly housing.

Removal of the Nordic Drive overhead door is underway at Power and Light. Actually, I think it's completed. The door has not been used in years and needed repairs and allowed significant amounts of dust and cold air into the plant, creating poor conditions for both personnel and equipment. Line crew cleaned and inspected the Crystal Lake substation and the Main Street substation, and Power and Light supported SEPA's work on the Taiyi Project's new switchgear. By operating the diesel plant during a partial day outage.

Site work has started for the new Skow Bay generator project. Foundation work will follow, with building completion expected by the end of the year. The next phase includes mechanical systems, high voltage wiring, and extensive control work. Work is expected to begin shortly afterward, pending the outcome of the revenue bond. Um, aside from equipment procurement, this will be the most extensive and costly phase of the project.

Aquatic Center sewer project continues to proceed. Uh, we— more we dig in, the more things we find, but we're getting closer, hoping it could be completed very soon. And we're pleased to welcome Dania O'Paim to the Petersburgh Borough as our new lands manager. Um, Dania will work closely with the borough clerk and community development director department on land management and related projects. We look forward to having Kirk continue working on the team.

Thank you, Dania. Thank you. Right there.

Uh, Member Mugi. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have, uh, I think 3. Um, in the manager's first motion about our topic about the attorney working on the ordinance to issue fines, so will that help? How does this help in situations like I'm sure you were called about it over the last week.

How does this help that situation? I can't say how that would help that specific situation, uh, but the, the idea behind it— and actually, we looked at this several years ago when Anchorage first brought it up as an idea. We weren't really sure it would pass muster with the Alaska Supreme Court, so we didn't jump into it. It has since passed muster, meaning Anchorage has implemented it. What it does, it basically uses our, our, you know, our ability to track where incidents occur.

And when a location has more than they really should— and that's part of how establishing the ordinance is, what is that magic number— then we can find the owner of the facility. So I don't want to use them as an example because I don't, but let's say I had a place that I rented out rooms, and the police found themselves coming to my place of business 10, 15, 20 times a year, whatever that magic number is that the assembly and the police decide to set it at, we— the next step would be fining me, sending me a fine for excess use of police resources. So the hope would be that people that have locations that have frequent interactions with our police would make some changes in how they do business, and to make it so that these kind of things won't happen in the future. Clearly, finding someone does not make up for some bad things that can happen, but it's a start of getting people to accept some responsibility. Great, thank you.

Um, the other question— one of the other questions was about the Mental Health Trust and the Midcoff— South Midcoff subdivision.

What is— where are we headed with that project? What's— I guess, what is— what's the— what's the purpose of the meetings with the Mental Health Trust on this subdivision issue? So, through the mayor, um, Mental Health approved or presented an idea several years ago on a subdivision that was over 100 lots out on the South Metcalf. The Borough of Petersburg would not sign the plat because we didn't feel it was designed properly and that there was issues with roads. This was a follow-up meeting arranged by the mayor to have a conversation with mental health and say, hey, are you willing to put roads in?

And this is our first meeting with, with them on that issue. We went over our new road standards that the assembly approved. And we answered some questions that he had regarding electric use and location. Um, and he spent several days here traveling around looking at the subdivision. Um, he said some things that was probably good for the assembly to hear, which is he agreed that the design of the subdivision was less than ideal and that, you know, he would talk to his bosses about potentially redoing some of that.

Um, and the idea behind it is we really don't want a subdivision developed that doesn't have roads. If we can avoid it. Um, clearly that's a combination of the assembly and mental health when we get that far, but we would like the roads to be put in place before they start selling lots, and hopefully this will lead to that. The other question I had is regards to the fire department training equipment. Um, you mentioned that you're going to be adding this to the project for borough grant requests.

So If we— if these props get moved to a temporary location and this project is put into our grant request proposal to the state, what are our options if we don't get a grant, our grant requested for this project? I know at one time we talked about possibly getting a loan from the Harbor Department for putting this— putting these training props up at the fire hall where we'd like them to go. But what are we going to do if we don't get the requests that we're asked for at the state? So just to make sure everybody understands, so the project is to move The training materials, which includes a building, several containers that are masked out to look like houses inside, as well as a training tower, they are currently located at the Skow Bay Fire Hall, so Fire Hall 2, and we wanted to move them out of there so that we can move forward with construction at Skow Bay.

The cost, the fire department wanted this to be put adjacent to Fire Station 1. Um, we had another possible location. We asked the director, Aaron Hankins, to do a report. I've given you all a hard copy of that report. It's, it's hard to send via email.

And Aaron did a great job of outlining what that thing— what project will look like. I've said from my perspective, putting it next to the fire hall should be fine at that location. But the cost is somewhere between $700,000 and $1 million, which at this time would be pretty difficult for the borough to eat that cost. So my recommendation would be to put the project on our CAPSES, which is the State of Alaska project, and also the federal earmark list. That will be run by the assembly, so it's not my decision.

I can put it on the list, but the Assembly has to approve the list or make changes to it. So to answer your question about what happens if we don't get the money, I think the Assembly would have to weigh in and decide, do we wait longer? I mean, there are CAPSES reports or items that have been on there for 20 years or better. We don't clearly want this to happen on this project, but that'll be an Assembly decision if we don't get it funded. I'm going to choose to be optimistic here.

The Fed— the state has not done You know, kind of big commercial capital projects for quite a while. I think with the new governor, there might be some interest in doing a capital budget, which has not happened for the last few years, and a fire department need often scores pretty high on those kind of requests. That's no— there's no guarantee. I'm just saying there's a chance of that happening, and again, It'll depend on where the Assembly puts that on the list. Is it a priority item or is it down among all the other lists?

So, all right, thank you.

Other questions? Member Martin. Thanks. So, um, as far as I, I recall, we, we haven't formally given any guidance on the Mozilla data center project, and we don't get many updates, but what can we do to get more in the loop on any staff decisions that are being made or, or I hear things that have been submitted, but I don't really know how to check on those in a transparent way. Sure, through the mayor.

Mr. Harbor, can you hear me?

Yes, I can. Okay, so I'm going to say some things and I want you to correct me if I get it wrong. Okay. Last I heard, we— it is not Green Spark. I mean, I'm going to answer, I'm going to answer some questions and then talk about future, uh, how do we do this.

Okay, so Green Spark's not involved anymore. It is a different company. To my knowledge, the company nor has Mazzella have gotten permission from the State Fire Marshal. Has not occurred yet. And there's a lot of conversations about what they're planning on that Steve Harbour has had with their CEO and with Mr. Mazzella, some of which is, you know, kind of subject to private information that they're working on, and we like them to continue to give us some of that information.

But some of it is questions we've asked and continue to ask and have not gotten responses back, or at least responses that we expect, accept. I'll ask Steve to put something together. We need to find a way to communicate all of this stuff because this happens constantly and involves attorneys. And so I'm not, I'm not sure exactly. Yeah, so there we go.

Thanks, Steve. No problem. So, uh, there's no official application for any service. However, they did ask for the application for a power study, which they received and started on. The first part of that application, I think it's like A through O, was what we wanted from them preliminarily so that we can start to see what resources would need to be looked at.

And we have received that back from them. And I can put together a report on what that looks like for everybody. I don't have it in front of me. I mean, it's a lot of information. And they're moving forward working with their team to bring in their resources.

The electrical engineers, the PEs, a lot of science that I don't understand, but SEPA does. So, they've been brought into the conversation to look and look at whatever is done there, how that's going to affect upstream and the whole system.

And I believe that's where we're at. I can share that it— On the application, it appears that, uh, an outfit called Kurumba would be the AI company. Um, I'm not sure if they're just supplying or they're running the data center. It looks— I got to ask more questions there, but that's what we're— that's where we're at now. Steve, through the mayor, um, A report from you would be great.

Um, the question I think that, um, Member Martin would appreciate is how do we do ongoing updates as far as the project goes so that the assembly can be kept in the loop? Um, I think me and you can get together and talk and we can do— get reports to the assembly and whatever timeframe and interval would be appropriate. Um, this is the first major update. I mean, everything before that was just talk, uh, back and forth, nothing official. So this is the first official document, and like I said, it's, it's pretty big, and going through it, trying to wrap our heads around it right now.

So, um, I'm out of office this week on PTO, and then I'll be working, uh, out of office next week at a conference. But through that time, I can start pulling everything together, and hopefully by the next assembly meeting have a good, uh, yeah. Thanks, and I can't speak for the mayor or the assembly, but I think this is important enough to the community that, you know, probably every, every assembly meeting we probably should ask an update. And, you know, just even a verbal one doesn't have to be a written report. Anyway, you and I can talk about it, but I think I'm doing this for the public's benefit.

I think there's a lot of interest in, in cow questions, and that would probably be an appropriate response. I agree.

Steve, I've got a question for you. Um, at the, um, at this SEPA meeting the end of the month, um, you and I probably need to talk. Do I need to put something on that agenda? For that meeting that we can have a discussion between the 3 communities? Um, I think that's probably— we have enough information that that would be appropriate at this time.

Okay, I'll, I'll follow through. I've already talked with the CEO on that, so I'll do—. Thank you. No problem. Thank you.

Are there other questions? Member Musian? Oh, I'm sorry. I had one more, um, kind of related, but, um, I do think Mary Evans has brought up her point about principal uses and industrial, maybe in August and now, and I, I would like to hear what the process was that has allowed anything to move forward, a determination on a data center and how it fits into industrial use. And if decisions are made, how were they made?

Are they still to be made? Um, I'll speak and Liz may have to back me up here. So our ordinances are not specific for location of data centers. They are very specific, you know, that if that would classify as an industrial use and they would be allowed to go there. Um, I'm not from memory.

I'm not sure what, you know, what the code exactly says for Mary, but we'll look into it. And I think she was going to send it to the assembly so we can put that on the— on to go through the list of what she asked, and we'll get questions back to her, answers back to you in the assembly. Liz, did you— did I say anything totally too wrong, or—. Nope, not at all. Okay, other questions?

Any other questions from the assembly?

Hearing none, I'm going to move on into the unfinished business. And under unfinished business, we have ordinance 2026-19, known as the Petersburg Borough Assembly repealing Chapter 9.36, Violation Penalty, from the Municipal Code to reflect borough incorporation. This is the third reading. This ordinance repeals Chapter 9.36, Violation Penalty, of the former City of Petersburg Code. The chapter contains penalty provision related to interference with health officers in violation of certain health and safety provisions.

The ordinance removes this outdated provision because the applicable enforcement and penalty provisions are now addressed in Chapter 9.04 of the Petersburg Municipal Code. And with that, do I have an ordinance— do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-19?

Second. Moved by Member Mucci, seconded by Member Valentine. Uh, any discussion from assembly members?

Seeing none, would the clerk please call the roll on Ordinance 2026-19? Member Valentine? Yes. Member Martin? Yes.

Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Member Mucci? Yes. Member Schwartz?

Yes. Mayor Lynn. Yes, ordinance 2026-19 on the third reading passes unanimously with the assembly. Moving on, ordinance 2026-20, assembly repealing Chapter 9.08, Food Sanitation, from the Municipal Code to reflect rural incorporation. And this is again the third reading.

If approved, this ordinance would repeal Chapter 9.08, Food Sanitation, of the former City of Petersburg Code. The chapter remained in effect following borough incorporation under charter, Section 19.06, but is no longer necessary because food sanitation matters are regulated and enforced under applicable State of Alaska laws. The ordinance removes the outdated former city provisions from the, from the Petersburg Municipal Code and updates the code to reflect current borough and state regulatory authority. And Ordinance 2026-20 was unanimously approved in the first and second reading. Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-20?

So moved. Second. Been moved by Member Meeucci, seconded by Member Martin. Discussion? Okay, the clerk please call the roll on 2026-20.

Vice Mayor Stanton-Gregory? Yes. Member Martin? Yes. Member Valentine?

Yes. Member Meechi? Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes.

Mayor Lynn? Yes. And Ordinance 2026-20 passes unanimously on the third reading. Ordinance 2026-21, an ordinance of the Petersburg Borough adjusting the fiscal year 2027 budget for no unchanges. And again, this is the third reading.

Ordinance 2026-21 was unanimously approved on first reading and the first and the second readings as amended on the second reading, and which were in that reading, we included the, the Geoa Street sewer line project. And I'll read these just so that the listening audience can know what, what's being approved here. There's the amendments included: Harbor Float Project, addition of $125,000 State of Alaska legislative grant and corresponding port facility expenditures. Sanitation and hazmat increase of $9,000 for hazmat event disposal expenses that exceeded the budgeted amount. Wastewater disinfection and industrial pretreatment studies, addition of $300,000 in state revolving fund loan revenue and corresponding expenditures for required wastewater studies.

Aquatic Center Capital Project, addition of $541,546 in State of Alaska School Major Maintenance Grant funding and corresponding construction expenditures, with the reimbursement retained in the Aquatic Center Capital Project Fund for future facility expenses. Municipal Building Heat Pump and HVAC System, increase of $40,657 for heat pump repair and HVAC duct system cleaning. Electrical grid resiliency project, adjustments to project transfers and professional services funding, including the closeout of the auto control project. Standby diesel generator project, increase of $800,000 in budgeted revenue bond proceeding to reflect the actual bond issuance. Elderly housing, an addition of $20,000 for replacement of two walk-in cooler condenser units.

Fire Department, an increase of $301,327 for self-contained breathing apparatus tanks and masks, previously approved but invoiced in fiscal year 2027. Parks and Recreation, an increase of $5,500 for the purchase of a Genie 2026-32 scissor lift to assist with maintenance and to have— and to be available for for use by other borough departments. Wastewater funding increased by $150,000 to fund the Jewell Street sewer line replacement project. And with that, that includes all the adjustments that have been made to the budget. Any discussion from assembly members?

I would move to approve Ordinance 2026-21. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Clerk, please call the roll on Ordinance 2026-21.

Member Michie? Yes. Member Martin? Yes. Member Valentine?

Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes.

Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Okay, the adjustments to the budgets were approved unanimously by the assembly. With that, I'm going to take a 5-minute break before I move into the new business.

Okay, I'd like to bring the assembly meeting back to order again. We can, and at this point we're ready to move on to new business. And under new business, we have quite a number of items here, but first item under there is Ordinance 2026-22, an ordinance of Petersburg Borough adjusting the fiscal year 2027 budget for known changes. This ordinance adjusts the fiscal year 2027 budget for known changes identified after adoption. Including additional funding for union wage increases, staffing adjustments in the water and wastewater departments, and the public works building maintenance position.

Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-22? So moved. Second. Moved by Member Muci, seconded by Member Valentine. With that, uh, Member Muci.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just curious. I know the answer, but I just wanted the borough manager to explain what this budget adjustment is for. Thank you. Through the manager, through the mayor.

So, um, as you probably already all know, we've been in union negotiations for some time. We reached a point of impasse and we went to, um, the process of going through mediation and such and remained impasse. So we've decided to move forward with the, um, going through our last best offer that we gave the union and implementing that. To implement that last best offer and move the union process, the negotiation process, literally forward, um, we need to budget enough money that includes enough to pay for the union contract. And that's what this really is.

So the wastewater water department is part of that. We, during negotiations, we made some changes there in staffing and we also did some things in public works, again, part of the union contract to make sure we try to free up money so we could afford what we could. Anyway, so it's basically the, you know, when we went and put the budget together, um, at the beginning of the year, the assembly, I only put in 2.5% for all the employees as far as a raise. We knew that going in, that the— that would not be enough for the union, but it was a good placeholder. Um, this is truing up what we've decided, you know, to basically present to the union, and we have done that.

They just didn't accept it, so they want more, and not at this point. Member Stan Gregor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, As it states, this is an ordinance. There will be 3 readings of it, so I will be voting for this today in its first reading.

And I'm—. And as always, I look forward to hearing from the public during the public hearing on the second one. But I'm glad we're able to move forward and at least get this process going. I know no one likes being at a contract impasse, but being able to raise some of those wages right now Uh, feels good to me. So, but anyway, I look forward to hearing from the public at the second reading.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Member Mugi. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So as far as the union negotiating, we still have one more step from mediation. Nothing happened.

We're at an impasse, and so the next step is arbitration. Through the mayor. Actually, no, we have decided not to go through arbitration. It's not required, and, um, we've offered this contract to the union and they have at this point said no. So we're going to go through the process of actually implementing the contract.

Thank you. Other questions for the manager? Would the clerk please call the roll on Ordinance 2026-22?

Vice Mayor Stan Gregor. Yes. Member Martin. Yes. Member Valentine.

Yes. Member Mayor Lynn. Yes. Member Meechi. Yes.

Member Schwartz. Yes.

Ordinance 2026-22, uh, passes unanimously on its first reading. Moving on, Ordinance 2026-23, an ordinance amending Section 3.76.020 of the Petersburg Petersburg Borough Municipal Code to add the land manager as an administrative officer. This ordinance amends PMC 3.76.020 to add the land manager as an administrative officer of the Petersburg Borough. The land manager position was approved by the assembly as part of the fiscal year 2027 budget, and the borough has since hired an individual to fill the position. The land manager provided dedicated oversight and coordination of borough-owned lands, including land sales, leases, permits, acquisitions, dispositions, and other land management activities.

This ordinance is an administrative update to the borough code to formally recognize the land manager as an administrative officer consistent with the position already approved and established by the assembly. It does not create a new position or authorize additional funding. Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-23? So move. Second.

Moved by Member Mewes, seconded by Member Valentine. Member Stanton-Gregory. Just to clarify for those who may be listening at home through Clerk Regula, this is just a housekeeping item. Yes, that is correct. Yes, those listening at home.

Thank you. Thank you.

Other comments or questions from the assembly? Okay, with that, would the clerk please call the roll on 2026-23?

Member Valentine. Member Martin. Yes. Member Michie. Yes.

Mayor Lynn. Yes. Member Schwartz. Yes. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor.

Yes.

That passes unanimously from the assembly. And with that, welcome to the land manager back here in the back, which I haven't had a chance to formally meet yet. Moving on, temporary moratorium on certain data center development. This, uh, this agenda item was requested by Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor. The assembly will consider directing the borough manager to prepare an ordinance establishing a temporary 9-month moratorium on certain data center development.

The proposed moratorium would apply to data centers that cannot meet normal operating electrical loads through the interconnected electrical grid or that do not utilize closed-loop cooling systems with the exceptions— with the exception for emergency and standby generation. The moratorium would provide time for the borough to evaluate potential impacts and determine whether additional regulations or development standards are appropriate. A memorandum from Vice Mayor Stan Gregor outlining the proposed moratorium and recommendation is attached to this agenda item. And to address this is A closed-loop system, as I'm understanding under this proposal, is a true closed-loop system without anything that would be discharged outside of that. And with that, do I have a motion to approve temporary moratorium on certain data center developments?

I moved. I'll second. Okay, been moved by Member Stan Gregor, second by Member Muci, and I'll start with Member Valentine. Um, thank you. I like the memorandum.

I think that it's well written, but I'm curious if, um, is there a reason for, like, in the proposed, meet normal operating electrical loads through the interconnected electrical grid or do not utilize— can we just say and? Can we have both? I mean, right now this to me reads one or the other. I heard, um, may I address this? Yes.

Cool, there's some context for it. Then I will gladly answer your question. I'm gonna meander around a bit. OK, so at our last assembly meeting we were talking, there was a moratorium before us and it failed on a 3-3 basis. That's the way that went down, and Member Newman on the end was in favor of it, and he brought up a very good point that I hadn't neglected to consider.

I'm paraphrasing him, so I know he's not listening. He's in Kazakhstan right now. It's like someone could put a create their own diesel generated plant over in Thomas Bay and bypass the grid. I was looking at it from a grid lens because I am of the opinion with Director Harber and the manager and SEPA that we would not spread ourselves thin in that regard, but there is some vulnerability there. And Stephen Harber, make sure you chime in if I'm speaking out of line at any point.

He had done some research then that at least 16 states minimum have diesel-generated AI centers that have nothing to do with the grid. Like, even— and that includes now the price of diesel as it is, it pencils out. And with our climate, that's— feel to me is a vulnerability to at least things I've heard from the community, a 10-acre data center flaring diesel. And that could apply the way the code stands now. And anybody correct me if I'm missing on that in Harbor.

As well. Anything zoned industrial, like, I don't want to deal with the grid over on Cornelius, so I'm going to build my own diesel generation plant there. Probably far-fetched, but if you start thinking about outside of Papke's, like a community member, Marigan, brought up, I thought that was a vulnerability also, again, off the grid, or Thomas Bay. So is this a perfect memorandum? I don't think so, but It's something I think we could agree on in terms of specific language.

To your point on that, I guess I am asking for today, and why I put this on there, is it says it's to direct the borough manager to prepare an ordinance. This is just the bones of it. Any specific language can be added to that ordinance or will be in the creation process. And then through that, if we pass, approve the go-ahead to the manager today, we can— I'll back up. I'll be working with Borough Manager, the attorney, Stephen Harber, to create a good ordinance, in my opinion.

And if we don't agree with that, we can make amendments as we go once we get an ordinance before us for any specific language. Does that answer your question? Yes and no. So, shoot it. Yes, in the sense that we are— this, this, this current memorandum is language to, to halt things for 9 months.

If an ordinance passes in 3 readings with specific language accordingly, that does not happen today. But what I'm trying to say is the memorandum would blank it today after 3 readings, right? We're not developing an ordinance at the same time as this. We're using this 9 months to develop the ordinance. May I clarify one more time?

Yes. Is that cool with you? Yes. I know it's a convoluted process, right?

With you on the confusion there. If we vote yesterday on this, OK, nothing— a moratorium is not in place.

It is a moratorium by ordinance. This is—. I know it feels weirdly procedural. We'd have to— we're just saying, hey, let's go do an ordinance to get a moratorium in place. It's like the first step in a 4-step process.

Stephen Harbor, am I speaking in line or have I left the map on this thing?

Well, he's thinking—. Sorry, I was trying to get— trying to unmute it. Um, yeah, I think a lot of us were confused. Um, at the last assembly meeting, uh, the lawyer told us, yes, you're correct, Jay, we have to have something to tell us to make a, uh, a moratorium ordinance. This in itself does not make a moratorium effective.

We have to have that ordinance, which would be simple language, quick to get done. And then I believe Assemblyman Muci is proposing in the next new business to make a permanent ordinance that would meet all our needs with more insight.

Does that answer your question, Member Valentine? So what we— what, as I see it, we have to do, we come back very soon with an ordinance for that moratorium. This just puts us in process to get it done. Okay, that's weird, isn't it? Yep, I read it a little different, but that's why I'm asking.

Thank you, Member Martin. Yeah, I think it's a good point. I hadn't really thought of— step back, I should say that I thought the power sale agreement gave us a lot of power control over a project coming out of the blue, and I hadn't really thought about independent sources of power skirting that. So I think this is just fine. Mostly diesel.

I'm— if somebody wants to do something with tide or wind or rain or solar, I'm a little more open to that because that would be such a small scale. But I think this is fine, and a moratorium is a lot quicker than an ordinance, so I'll be voting for this. Member Muching, just a point of clarification on ordinance though. If an ordinance for a moratorium is put forward, that's still going to take 3 readings, which is 6 weeks. Yeah, so it's not going to be any It's not going to happen overnight.

It's going to take several, several weeks. Good point. That's— you're correct. But I don't see any kind of proposal, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Harbor, but I don't see any proposal coming through for at least 3, 4 months. There's way too much, too many questions and issues involved, legal issues to involve with this, both from our borough standpoint and I think I have some, some issues that I've got to work out on the SEPA side of this too.

Way too many questions and not enough. Some very good, very good questions that were asked. We don't have answer for. Go ahead. So, through the mayor, um, I can only answer part of this.

Um, anything more than 2 megawatts is a long ways out, uh, for the study. The service is already there as far as Power and light where we're at, the service is there. You turn it on, you can use it. So that goes to, uh, Director Cabrera because there has to be modifications to the building, um, and the fire marshal and all that to approve the building permit and get the process going. So I don't know the time frame in that.

That would be more her department than mine.

Um, I think the manager was wanting to make a point. No, I actually was just agreeing with Director Harbor. I mean, there's, uh, the moratorium ordinance has to happen so that we can have a moratorium, and it's at least 3 readings of an ordinance. All the rest of this is equally important and equally complex, maybe more so. So Title 19 issues, a zoning ordinance itself that applies to this, the, you know, um, an ordinance about data centers, an ordinance about heavy industrial users, all that, and a power sales agreement.

And one of the questions I asked the borough attorney was, what comes first? And the moratorium is the first thing, and kind of go from there. But it is a— it is the first step. To try to have some control on this. Member Schwartz?

Yeah, there's data centers in the United States that are as big as Manhattan Island. They generate their own power.

I don't know what the point is on that, you know, why— what kind of point I'm making here, but, uh, the potential for somebody to put in a data center and generate their own power is there. So putting an ordinance together that would, you know, put a moratorium on data centers is a good idea. That's really my only input. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Um, you can go. Yeah, Member Valentine. Uh, I just, uh, thank you for all the answers and to the questions. I think that this is good for Moving forward, it sounds like we are staying in front of possible projects coming this way. So as long as we're in front of it, I think that's good.

I know it does take a long time, and it never is fast in the borough, I've come to find. So it's nice that we're at least in front of it. I like that we are thinking outside of, you know, in Toms Bay, in, you know, out south, Midcoff. Whatever, and we can really blanket that. And I think that's a really good idea.

So thank you, and I will vote yes and move forward with this.

Member Stan Gregor. I'm— I'm gonna meet you. Were you waiting to go? Oh, go ahead. Cool.

You want to cut you off? Yeah, uh, just as a clarifier again, there's only the first step, uh, in terms of creating the language of the ordinance. I look forward to working, assuming this passes, with the manager and Stephen Harbor member Valentine, I think you're spot on. We just want to be as proactive as we can. And even from afar, I'd thank Member Newman for getting my brain turned that direction at our vulnerabilities.

So I hope it passes. Member Mewki. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, this, this is a— it's, it's a step in the right direction, but, but I think that— I think we can make it more inclusive. Um, what I would like to see done here is to change a little bit of the language in this motion so that we cover data centers, period, and include in the moratorium numbers 1 and number 2 as part of this moratorium, but not lose sight of the fact that we need to have a moratorium on data centers, that everything, everything that falls under the word data centers.

The two items that are listed here as the closed-loop system and the number one there, I think they're important, but I think it's equally important to capture data centers in general and not give— not have any leave any doors open that a data center can get in as long as they, they don't, they don't hit those number 1 and number 2. So I mean, I could make a motion to amend this, but I just— if that's what you'd like me to do, but I just trying to get some conversation going here. Would you like me to amend that motion, or if you would like to amend it? Go ahead, but remember, Valentine, you have a real quick—. After asking these questions, from my understanding is that that language that you're talking about is coming next.

Am I incorrect on this or correct on this? That's my understanding too. Okay, so it's not that it's— it is probably not needed right now, but maybe when the ordinance— ordinance memorandum comes, that's when we really want to talk about that. That's where I was going to go with that in terms of Sorry, I apologize. I was going to say, remember, Martin, you had a—.

Oh, well, I feel like that would be going back to the thing we voted on last meeting, what you're talking about, Jeff. If you were to amend this, is that what you're advocating? No, I just— to the mayor, I just want to make sure that we're not leaving the door open for anything related to data centers. I want to capture data centers, and if the maker of the motion Number 1 and number 2 are very important to this, and I understand that. I want to include that in this moratorium, but I don't want to lose— I don't want to lose the fact that if everybody— if, if a data center comes in or an applicant comes in and wants to develop something, it's halfway okay as long as they don't trigger number 1 and number 2.

And I want to capture all the data centers. And, and the ordinance that I'm talking about at the next one would just be an ordinance to look at putting together guidelines for data center development. Yes, Member Stan Gregor. So from two pieces. So yeah, like Member Martin said, as a clarifier first, you want to ban— put a moratorium on all data centers, including those on the grid.

Just as a clarifier. Yes. Got it. Thank you, sir. You could amend this, I think, a cleaner way from a parliamentary lens.

Would be to approve this and then, and when it's an ordinance form, have a targeted amendment while it's in process to make those changes, if that was something you desired. I don't know though, Clerk Regula, an opinion from a fellow parliamentarian. I think either one is similar. Yeah, it's fine. You can keep it really simple or yeah, whichever way the assembly wants to go.

You know, we have 3 readings of the ordinance, as you said, so things can be amended as we go. That's where I thought it'd be cleanest. You got 3 readings to make any changes that need be if this passes. Just thinking out loud. Member Schwartz, we, uh, I like the language, but I don't know what number 3, number 4, number 5, and number 6 are going to entail, right?

I'm kind of an old school guy. I think a lot in the 20th century, and the world's moving fast, so, um, I like Jeff's idea, and whatever way you can figure out that's the simplest way to go there, I'll, I'll, uh, agree with. Thank you.

Member Martin, um, I think I can wait till later to really bring it up, but the closed-loop cooling system, it bothers me a little bit because, uh, I mostly want a non-polluting cooling system. And if there was some air cooling or a mixed, you know, some of that hot air goes straight to another purpose, like, you know, it's been brought up, like kelp drying or lumber drying or who knows what. I just don't know. So I'm, I'm more interested in a non-polluting cooling system than specifically a closed loop. But I'll let you guys chew on that maybe as you work on it here.

Thank you, Member Martin. I want to go back. I see one of the possible proponents was on the line, and this is assembly member discussions, and so I'll not allow outside people in at this point in time. Thank you. And then Member Mucin.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, just for sake of discussion here, I'd like to move to amend this motion. And I'd like it to read, I recommend that the Assembly initiate a temporary 9-month moratorium on issuance of borough building permits for data center development, with a period there. And then the motion would also— this moratorium should include data centers that are listed in number 1 and number 2.

Second, did you, did you capture that? Um, remember, could you read that one more time for me? Well, it's the same through the mayor. It's the same. The first part is the same as the original motion.

It goes to— it talks about, I recommend the assembly initiate a temporary 9-month moratorium on issuance of borough building permits for data center development with a period there.

And then following that, this moratorium should include data centers that are listed on number 1 and number 2.

Okay, thank you.

And I believe Member Schwartz, um, seconded it. I'll second it again. OK, thank you. OK, back to Member Mucha. You have a—.

Yeah, I just wanted to follow up. I—. While I, I like parts of this, I want to make sure we're not leaving the data center issue the door open. I feel that these two items that are listed there are part of the overall data center moratorium that we want to capture, but I want to capture all the data center development And I want to make sure there's a moratorium in place while we are working on an ordinance for data center guidelines. Member Stan Gregor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will not be voting yes on the amendment. This is exactly what we talked about 2 weeks ago, and it did not have support from the assembly to pass. That's why I brought back this original memorandum with, uh, with guidance to get an ordinance, because I want to get something everybody could support. I said earlier, I don't think my idea brought forward was perfect, but it struck me as a reasonable place to start.

So, and that doesn't mean putting a prohibition on all of them. So I'll be voting no on the amendment.

Number Martin, I'm curious how this would apply to the Mozilla project and whether we can even get an answer now, or whether that's embarking on a legal adventure already? Yeah, through the mayor, I'm not sure I can answer that. Um, sorry, I mean, Stephen Harbor is most, you know, it has been involved in this with Mr. Mazzella and his staff, and I think just a general across-the-board moratorium, he would probably have something to want to say about it, both Stephen Harbor as well as the vendor that's involved here. Um, I like the idea of putting a moratorium ordinance together. That was what was recommended by our attorney to basically outline all of those things.

I think probably she felt that was more defendable. But I, again, I can't answer your question without checking with other people. You're the mayor, if I may. Go ahead. So as far—.

So that, that again, uh, Assemblymember Martin's question Uh, would be one that should be directed towards Director Cabrera. As I said, right now he has a 2 megawatt, uh, service, um, that would just be turned on. There's nothing for power and light to do. However, the whole building permitting thing falls underneath, uh, Director Cabrera's, and wherever he's at in that process would be Would answer your question.

Director Cabrera, you want to address that?

I guess the way to answer through the mayor is, if you want to put a hold on the proposed project, um, that is presumably proposed for out at Ocean Beauty, then you need to prevent any building permit from being issued. Across the board, if you do not want to prevent or stop the project there, then we will proceed with our process and evaluate it when we get a complete building permit, which we at this time we do not have. Member Valentine. Okay, thank you. So, to clarify, there is no application in right now, and I think we just spoke that we are still There's still too much for Mr. Mazella and whoever he's working with, this new, this new one, not Greenspark, to still apply for all the building style permits, fire safety.

Um, I think it was the emission stuff, whatever, and they have to do a study, right? We already spoke on this. Yes. So we're still ahead of this. Where I feel like we kind of went backwards a bit.

And The language of what, uh, Mr. Staten Gregor just put out is to move this forward with an ordinance that still stays ahead, and there's still no application for this, this said project. So, okay, through the mayor, I did not say that. Um, and I would not be able to tell you one way or the other whether you are ahead or not. If you want to be sure you're ahead, Yes, then there's a way to do that. Um, you would need to stop all permits, but I cannot promise you that, right?

If you went with the, you know, the just the electrical part of it, that you would be ahead, right? Okay. Yeah, we're still on the amendment. Yes, yes, we're still on the amendment. And we're moving.

Yeah. And just to go down farther along that road, um, It's going to take 6 weeks or so for this moratorium, in whatever it comes through, to go forward. And if we pass it, that's great. But as far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, that application process is still moving forward. It's, it's in the loop.

It's—. There's some requirements that they need to get taken care of, but this moratorium is not trying to stop that. These two things are traveling at the same time. The permitting— the person who has applied for this is farther along on the process than we are at this point because we're just talking about it right now. And yeah, my intent is not to stop that project.

My intent is to make sure we have a moratorium in place as well as getting some ordinance language put forward.

Are there other questions, comments from the assembly?

My last comment, Member Valentine. Thank you. I, I, uh, we're here because we're trying to put something forward for a data center. I don't really see how the language, uh, of what we are currently on changes that.

Just, I don't, I don't see how it changes it really any differently. So, that's what I'm juggling right now on the amended of the amendment. Yes. Okay. So, thank you.

It's still getting the same thing. I've, I've got some questions myself. There's, we said before, there's no way that you're going to have a big data center because of power requirements. And one of the things that this, this proposal does is that it limits it to the grid and whatever power we have available. And that's the ordinance that, that Mr. Harber is now currently working on that would limit that.

And there's a whole bunch of questions related to that, that even if you— if an individual had a permit, I think there's enough questions out there and correct me, Mr. Harber, if I'm wrong. I think there's enough questions out there about whether or not we could provide that power, anything over about 2 meg.

It would be— and with the— let me finish— and with the studies that we've had that you've asked for, which I don't think can be done overnight, I don't see a need to go this way. I, I think there's way too many questions that, that would push back. Go ahead, now you were—. All right, through the mayor. So, um, that's pretty much correct.

Right now we have the power for the 2 megawatts, the infrastructure in place. However, the COO of SEPA says right now the infrastructure at the substation is not large enough, um, to make that any, any bigger without changes. Um, that's what— that's the part of the study that gets done, because we already have in place in our ordinances that, um, we're not— Power and Light won't be paying for any needed upgrades or infrastructure changes, um, same as any other customer, or, uh, the mill, for example. Getting power there. That's 100% on the mill to build out that infrastructure out there.

So that's in place where right now they can't get any more than the 2 megawatts till this study is done. The study doesn't have to be done before they use their 2 megawatts. I just want to clarify that because it's already there, it's already hooked up as far as a power and light issue. Um, the only issue whether they can use it for a data center or not would be through the building department. And the permits for the changes there.

Uh, does that answer your question, Mr. Mayor? Part of it. And then the other part had to do with equipment. Is there's— there has to be structural changes made to that, uh, to that dock and stuff down there that before we could even service, uh, or do anything. Is that—.

Am I right?

Not— not 100%, um, for us to do anything bigger than what they have. Yes, um, the— the metering that they have out there, the way it's put together, um, uh, what am I trying to say, um, where it doesn't break down. But anyhow, It's not working correct, and there needs to be some changes, uh, to do that, and we can't get our equipment out there to do those changes. However, I can CT meter it because all the power goes through one transformer, and I believe Mr. Mazzella's plan going forward is to redo that anyhow, that power, and move it underneath the dock. So that's going to take some considerable work and, and engineering and planning.

Um, so there— to do the, the necessary repairs to fix this, the PT metering, which is metering it at the 24,000-volt level, um, would be more cost prohibitive than working ahead on his, his whole plan. But no, as of right now, he doesn't need anything different to do his 2 megawatt from a power standpoint. Um, next, we're waiting on parts to repair his metering at a CT level at the transformer, and then he'll be good to go. Thank you, that helps me. Okay, the other, the other part is from talking with our, our council.

Our council really, uh, I think strongly says we need to have this ordinance in motion, but there were so many parts to it. It is going— that you want to be able to work it through, you know, over a little bit of time. There's just way too many pieces, too many questions, uh, involved with this. With that, Member Muci. Yeah, you know, just, you know, if there are so many pieces and are so many parts to it, why not just have a a all-data center moratorium with these two things listed there so that we capture everything, as opposed to leaving something that might not be— that we might not be thinking of.

I mean, we heard the young lady talk about— I mean, that's like one of the most eloquent testimony I've ever heard, and it's just like, why not err on the side of caution here and make sure that we're capturing everything data center related, and still take care of number 1 and number 2 that were part of the original ordinance language. Thank you. Thank you. Any other points from the assembly? Would the clerk please call the roll?

This is on the, uh, Mr. Schwartz. Oh, Member Schwartz. Yeah, I've gotten a lot of input on this from the community. And I'll be transparent, I don't have any interest in any data centers at all, but, you know, that's a personal thing, but I'll listen to the community. I understand industrial land and land use and private business probably better than most of you, but not all private businesses are equal either.

You know, a mill will create jobs. You know, Wrangell's got the boat building, shipbuilding, uh, project they're looking at. That creates a lot of jobs. Anyway, um, I'm going to be voting yes on the amendment for sure. I don't really have any interest in data centers, and I understand why Steve Harbour does.

I understand why other people do, but I disagree. As far as a need for one in Petersburg. And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you.

Would the clerk please call the roll on the amendment?

Mayor Lynn? No. Member Mucci? Yes. Member Schwartz?

Yes. Member Valentine?

I feel like they do the same thing.

Uh, yes. Member Martin? No. Vice Mayor Stan Gregor? No.

Okay, the amendment as, as presented fails. And with that, now I have one more thing before we call the roll on the main. Go ahead. Thank you. Just, uh, to clarify, I think I misspoke before.

I am not saying this is a perfect, uh, memorandum or perfect ordinance. I look forward to, if this passes, to working with staff to get something before us that we can all find consensus on. It's been a pretty divisive issue. I'd love to find consensus. So this passes, I look forward to working on it.

That's all. Thank you. So, as this moratorium is being written right now, somebody can still come in and apply for a building permit to develop a data center. That's correct.

Okay, would the clerk please call the roll?

Member Michi? Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes. Member Schwartz?

Yes. Vice Mayor Stantengreger? Yes. Member Martin? Yes.

Member Valentine? Yes.

The original motion passes 6 to 0. I'll move on then to the next item, preparation of proposed zoning regulation for data centers. This is some— this agenda item requested by Member Mucci. Yes, the assembly will consider directing the borough manager to prepare for consideration by the assembly an ordinance proposing amendments to Title 19 of the municipal code to establish zoning provisions for data centers. The borough manager may utilize and is encouraged to use outside consultants as necessary in developing the proposed amendments.

Data centers are not currently specifically addressed in Title 19 and were not contemplated when the borough zoning regulations were originally adopted. And he— Member Mucci has a suggested motion on here.

Okay, now we're muted. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to direct the borough manager to prepare for consideration by the assembly, and with assistance of outside consultants as necessary, propose amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code regarding zoning to establish provisions governing data centers which are not currently specifically addressed and were not contemplated when Title 19 as it was originally adopted. Is there a second? Second.

Okay, been moved by Member Muci, seconded by Member Stanton-Gregor. Member Muci. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, the borough attorney helped me put this language together since I struggle with a lot of this stuff. Um, the idea being here is that while the moratorium is in place, um, having the borough manager start to prepare stuff for the assembly, an ordinance for the assembly to consider that would give us some zoning and established provisioning provisions for governing data centers.

One of the things that I'm very aware of is that when we ask borough staff to do stuff, it's— it gets piled on the heap and I, I understand people are very busy and I wanted to make sure that the manager understood that I don't have an issue with him going to outside consultants as necessary to help him, uh, figure out the best way to move forward with an ordinance. Um, I know the electrical superintendent is working on a large-scale electrical user update, but I think It needs— the ordinance needs to be specific to data centers, and I would hope that as we're moving this ordinance forward, that we can make sure that the large-scale electrical users ordinance changes can be looked at at the same time to make sure that we're not missing anything as we go forward with this. You know, one of the things that's very important as we go through with this process is that, you know, there are consultants that either they can take the whole thing and go from start to finish, or they can work with the, with the borough staff to figure something else. But one of the things that's really important here, and we're missing out a little bit on this conversation, is we need to make sure that we include at the start a community conversation about whether or not we really want data centers here. Maybe there's a large group of people that I haven't heard from in the community who really want us to get behind data centers for some reason, but everybody I'm hearing for wants nothing to do with data centers.

And I'll just stop there, and I— and we'll see what happens with this conversation. Thank you. Member Stan Gregor. Yeah, thank you, Mayor Lynn. I'm in full support of this.

I think in particular, I think As we're working on that moratorium, I think this timeline could parallel that very well because adjusting Title 19 to include holding zones outside of Service Area 1, we need to go this, this approach. So this could run wonderfully concurrent with the moratorium ordinance as it goes through, and I understand the language will be work in progress, but I'm glad you put this on the agenda.

Member Martin. Yeah, I think this is a good idea. It's time to get working on it. I'd like to see something clamp down pretty tight and, uh, have a lot of discretion for us to approve things. Uh, we don't know what— it's gonna be really hard to write an ordinance that doesn't become outdated within months, but, uh, we got to get something on the books just like we did the wireless communication facilities.

So let's get going.

Other comments from assembly members? Okay, would the clerk please call the roll on the preparation of proposed zoning regulations for data centers? Member Mucci? Yes. Mayor Lynn?

Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes. Vice Mayor Stanton-Gregor? Yes.

Member Martin? Yes. Member Valentine? Yes, yes, yes.

That preparation of, of, uh, proposed zoning regulation for data centers, uh, is approved 6 to 0 with the assembly. Moving on, request for updated tsunami inundation study. The assembly is asked to approve a letter to the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management and the Alaska Earthquake Baker Center requesting assistance in prioritizing and conducting an updated tsunami inundation study for the Petersburg Borough. Updating updated inundating inundation mapping would provide more precise information for evacuation planning, emergency preparedness, and protection of critical waterfront infrastructure. The borough would support the effort by providing local data coordinating stakeholders, and incorporating the resulting information into emergency planning and public service efforts.

A letter prepared by Emergency Services Director Hankins is attached to this agenda item along with the current tsunami map. Do I have a motion to approve the request for an updated tsunami inundation study? So moved. Second. Moved by Member Meeucci, seconded by Member Valentín.

Discussion. Yeah, this is just going back to the presentation several of us saw a month or so ago about tsunamis and what could happen to communities, and it just gives us something else to have downstairs in Liz's office to talk about, you know, if people are interested in a flood inundation zone or tsunamis and It's a very interactive presentation that they put together. It's very interesting. So yeah, thank you. Other comments from Assembly members?

Would the clerk please call the roll on this— on the request for updated tsunami inundation study? Member Martin? Yes. Vice Mayor Stantengreger? Yes.

Member Valentine? Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes. Member Meechi?

Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes. The request for an updated tsunami inundation study is approved 6-0 by the assembly. Moving on, letter requesting additional tsunami warning sirens.

The assembly is asked by Emergen— Emergency Services Director Hankins to consider approving the letter to the Alaska Division of Homeland Security Emergency Management requesting 2 additional tsunami warning sirens through an available DHS E&M resource opportunity. The sirens would improve warning coverage at Petersburg's harbors and Papke's Landing, which are not fully covered under current FEMA standards. Purchasing the siren heads independently would cost approximately $30,000 each. Though this— through this opportunity, the borough would receive the siren at the cost of shipping would be responsible for installation and ongoing maintenance, providing a cost-effective way to improve local tsunami warning coverage. The letter and a current coverage map are attached to this agenda item.

Do I have a motion to approve a letter requesting additional tsunami warn— warning sirens? Moved. Second. Moved by Member Stan Gregor, seconded by Member Muchi. Any discussion from assembly members?

Would the clerk please call the roll on the request, a letter requesting additional tsunami warning sirens? Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Member Martin? Yes.

Member Valentine? Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes. Member Mucci?

Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes. Okay, and that request to, um, to purchase or to grant to for additional tsunami warning sirens is approved 6-0. And thanks, uh, Mr. Hankins, for all the— your effort in this, this, this.

And I hope that we can continue with looking at the emergency management side of this. Thank you. The next item is evaluate Public Information and Community Services. This agenda item was requested by Member Musin. The Assembly will consider directing the Borough Manager to evaluate the feasibility and cost of contracting for public information and community services and returning to the Assembly with recommendations.

The evaluation should include a potential scope of work, estimated cost, contracting options, and potential funding sources. Do I have a motion to evaluate public information and communication services So moved. There's a second. Second. Been moved by Member Meechie, seconded by Member Valentine.

Member Valentine. Actually, I'll have Member Meechie go first. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This has been on my list. You know, when we had that emergency up at the high school or school several months ago, there were a couple of things that were brought to my attention.

You know, several people said, well, you know, you don't want to, you don't want to call the police department because they're busy, all hands are on deck up at the school taking care of stuff. And, um, we don't really have a public information officer. And while I understand, um, we're not maybe interested in hiring new positions, I was curious if we could maybe find out from the borough manager to see if we need some type of professional public information and communication services that would lay out a roadmap for in the event of an emergency, whether it's an environmental emergency, uh, emergency up at the schools, emergency ammonia leak downtown, um, and find a way to make sure that we have things in place in case there is any kind of emergency in town that we are not asking the police department or fire department to, to help in that situation if there's other stuff going on. And I know we have the librarian is our web administrator, and, you know, this would have to be— we'd have to see. I just want to see if there's a need for and how we would go forward with it.

And that's all I'm asking for at this point. Thank you. Member Stan Gregor. Member Valentine was waiting online. Sorry.

No, go ahead. I'm still thinking.

Not to put you on the spot, Mr. Manager, but I'm reading the action item. It says to evaluate the feasibility and cost. But as the member was talking about, you know, if there's a need, do you think— I guess I should ask you directly. Do you think there's a need?

Not to put you on the spot, sorry. That's okay. Through the mayor, um, the challenge is I— we've never been able to feel— find a way to integrate whether— unless it's a full-time position. So a part-time person or a contractor would not be as knowledgeable about what's going on, so they're pulled into the mix in the middle of a disaster. Reality is most of the information is going to come from Mr. Director Hankins and Chief Police Kerr.

So having— and then the, the model for having that set up is actually done through the National Incident Management System, where they, you know, they talk about disasters and how you basically respond to it. And using the school as an example, Jim and his crew and Aaron and the fire department did a very good job because— and people disagree with that at times, but the reality is every one of those incidents is something totally different, and Jim could speak to that more than anyone. What I, what I struggle with in this request is what do we want? I mean, I, I know it— do you want a person we can call upon when there's a disaster? Well, then you spend a lot of time getting that person up to speed in the middle of an emergency, and the only way to do that is to pull Jim off the line.

You know, again, we're a small department, and when smaller now than we should be, if we have a disaster and we have to update someone to tell the press and people, we're going to have to pull him off the line and not respond, or pull Aaron Hankins off the line. So I guess Some of it is I just don't know enough about this request to know. Um, you know, Jeff tried— he spent some time with me on Friday, talk about it, and I'm honestly— I have more questions now than I did then. That's my own fault. I don't know how to do it, do a— come up with a person or a firm to do this.

And I'm not sure we need it, but on the other hand, I don't want to, you know, I'm sorry. No, you're all good. I would ask Aaron Hankins and Chief Kerr what they think and how they think we should handle stuff like this, which is what would be my first step, by the way. That answers my question. Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to go first to Member Valentine.

Oh, you're going to— Oh, I thought you said you're going first. Yeah, there was a couple other hands. Sorry. I see where Member Muci is coming from. Right?

I'm not sure that finding an outside source is the correct way to maybe go about it. I think that it might be better if we allow our current public figures to maybe lay out public steps, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, of— and then that kind of puts together all of the department heads together. In an emergency, let's use the one at the school recently, right? Uh, you know, step 1, call here. If any other information's—.

It—. This is the call, and then somebody at the borough is taking that. Or, you know, I think it better used internally to make something, and then if that isn't sufficient enough for the public and us, then we could probably outsource, because then we have a better idea where maybe the cracks are. And because we're talking about emergencies, which really, and I, you know, you don't want ever to have an emergency, but they don't— emergencies aren't every day. So I think, I think it'd be better to use our department heads to put in steps to then lay out to us.

And then if there's any cracks, if we need outside help with that, I think that's the way I would go. So that's being said, I would probably vote no for this. Chief Curra, you had a point. So I totally understand where Assemblymember Muchi's wanting information on this kind of thing, and I'll just use the school since that's one of the things we talked about. In that incident, um, we have to deal with what's in front of us right then and there.

Um, it's all hands on deck. We had everyone up there, and so there was no one available. And even if there was someone available Like I left my phones on my desk at the time. I didn't have any— all I had was the stuff I needed basically at the time. And so say if you had the manager designated as that person, he's not going to have that information because we're dealing with the initial threat right then and there or the initial disaster.

So there's always time once that initial response is done, there's always time to give out the information. And that's basically what happened. I mean, pretty sure she met me right down there at the corner. And I gave her a— I gave the radio station a heads up of what, what was happening at that time. But that was really the first time I was available to share any information or get information out, because we were dealing, dealing with the initial threat.

And that would be the same thing if there was any disaster. I mean, you deal with the initial stuff right there facing you, and then as, as you can free someone up, you can designate that person to go talk to the radio, go talk to the, the pilot, go talk to someone. And so that's the way it usually works, and especially with us being shorthanded now, it's even worse now. But I mean, as soon as one of us would be freed up, we could start getting some information out if we, if we were allowed to.

Other— Member Martin. Yeah, well, it seems like if the public communication is really important, it's a public safety issue that should be part of the response, and it probably is. I, I, uh, but then there's another level where the public's curious But it's not a public safety issue, and, you know, it just seems, seems like we've identified a problem and we could work on it a little bit, but it just seems like if there were an incident that had public safety implications, as far as getting the word out, that would be part of the response. So there's that gray area, like I saw after the power outage, there was a notice after a while on Facebook that what was going on, and, uh, that's fine, it wasn't a public safety thing. But, um, so those things are happening, and I think just public probably needs confidence that if they need to know something, someone's going to be getting the word out.

Otherwise, you know, take it easy.

Other questions? Member Mewching. Yeah, I, you know, just to be, to be clear, I'm not asking to hire anybody, and I'm not asking to if there is an incident or emergency going on in town, to get a hold of a communication— public information and communication services to help us get the message out. My intent is just to make sure that the borough is comfortable with, um, how we get public information out to the community and that the system is in place. And if it isn't, let's look at seeing how we can make it better and possibly going out and talking to a company that does this kind of work.

I understand that Rangel has a part-time consulting firm that does stuff with public information for the borough, as well as Ketchikan. And I'm not asking to invent— reinvent the wheel. I just want to make sure that we have the tools that we need when things happen instead of figuring out that we don't have those in place after the fact. And I just want to make sure we're in front of this. That's, that's where I was headed.

But if the manager feels that we're covered that way, then I'm comfortable there. Thank you. I'm gonna—. One more thing. Okay, last time, then we're going to move on.

I really like the idea of like a, a place people know they could go, and it doesn't have to be I think it would probably be a borough webpage or something that, and they say, hey, if there's something I need to know, it's gonna be there. And you can assign that duty.

I'd like to see that assigned. If the public needs to know something, here's where you go. And that's it. You don't have to sniff around various social medias and gossip and whisper. I think that's reasonable.

You know, okay, remember Schwartz. Yeah, keep it simple. You know, if they get— there's— let's say Bob said, I mean, in the old days, if there was something going on, people turn the radio on before Facebook. Well, not everybody has Facebook, um, but, uh, I mean, as long as we had power and you could get into even on the borough web page and there was you know, a link. Say there's a tsunami warning, or if there was something else happening, and then they could— people could get factual information quickly.

And then, uh, not all the he said, she said BS, but you could, you could go to a, um, site that you supposedly should trust to get you the information. That's all I have. And it would be—. It should be very simple. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, go ahead. Director Hankins, you know, Code Red, we've had that system in place here forever and we continue to update it. So if what I'm hearing is right, that people aren't using Code Red, I would suggest talk to Aaron Hankins and they can show you how to sign up for it. But that's exactly what— that why we pay money for that is so a quick, easy way for people to get information.

Not everybody uses it. Not, you know, when we had the COVID issues, people didn't want to hear about it, so we had issues with people not wanting to hear an update. But it's a great way. You log your phone number and you're going to be notified of any emergency stuff that comes up.

Okay, Member Valentine. So thank you. I think that's in this whole conversation, I think that's where the hole was, where I think we do respond really well and I think it's fairly timely, but it sounds like there's just a small disconnect of where the public can go. And so maybe I'm not, again, I'm not sure if, you know, we don't want to contract out, but I do think it probably best to maybe put something up to where there's a step-by-step so the people know. And because like, this is the first time I've heard of it, Code Red.

And so maybe, maybe there's more people like me that didn't know that, and maybe it's better that we put that forward in-house first before we outsource. Okay, let's go. I have 5— 4 minutes. Okay, new information. Sorry, but yeah, I've totally forgot about Code Red.

It's been so long. It's exactly what we're talking about here. Let's maybe use it once a year just so we forget it. Don't forget it, sir.

Sounds like we just need to dust a few things off. Is that what I'm—. Definitely. So would the clerk please call the roll on the evaluation of public information and communication services? Member Meechi?

Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes. Mayor Lynn? No.

Member Valentine? No. Member Martin? No. Vice Mayor Stanton-Gregor?

Nope. Evaluation of public information communication services fails, and on a 4-2 vote.

Moving on, capital projects list. This agenda item is again requested by Member Mucci. Discussion of the capital projects list provided by the Mural Manager to the Assembly. The lists are attached to this agenda item. And do I have a motion?

I'm not sure what the motion is to be. It was, I guess it was just intended for discussion. Yes, please.

Go ahead, go ahead there. Yeah, wait, no action on this. Yeah, that's what I'm asking. Where's the—. What do you, what do you, what's intended, I guess, is my question.

The intention, Mr. Mayor, is we had correspondence from the borough manager asking for input into the capital project list, and I didn't know if we wanted to talk about that and possibly schedule a work session, or what the thought process was.

Hey, you want to speak to it? Yes. Yes. Okay. So, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Through the mayor, every year I do a capital project list. It's a combining of all the lists we get from various department heads. And we put it in a list. There's two different lists. There's one, it's called CAPSES, which is the state of Alaska legislative list.

The other is the federal priorities. That's what starts the whole potential earmark thing. Um, I did something different this year, and it's probably my fault for this conversation, which is normally I go out to the department heads, get the list put together, set the priorities, and then an agenda item, I put it in front of the assembly and say, here, approve it, and you guys across the board approve it, usually with very little input. I thought I'd start this year with the Assembly. If you, if you have any input on the capital project list, things you think should be on there that aren't, things that are on there that shouldn't be, please let me know.

I mean, it can be as simple as that, or as Assemblymember Meechi said, you guys want to go through every list, every item on that list in a, in a, uh, learning, you know, a separate meeting. You don't want to do it in an assembly meeting because it's very long. It would take several hours to do. But there you go. Member Stan Gregor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, having gone through that process with you, and for especially when I was a new assembly member, uh, I actually loved that process of you talking to department heads and coming back. And then, you know, Mayor Jensen, uh, you know, kind of steering that to even after you came back, if it didn't take 2 hours, we could kind of refine what you brought. I found that process helpful, just speaking for myself.

A question, that usually— that list has to go in, what, January, or is it— I'm trying to give everybody time, so we have way, way, way time. The other part of that is, is that we may— because after the elections there may be some substantial changes that I'm not sure are we ready to— I, I think I'm back the same place you are, is that if you've got other things you would like to add and so forth, give them to the manager and then we can come back. And if I may, and if any assembly member individually wants to go through this whole list, come see me, arrange some time, because it'll take an hour or two. Come see me and I'll be happy to go through the list with you. Yeah, that's also another option for folks.

Thank you. I'll move on then. Letter of support for European green crab management. This is some— this agenda item requested by Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor. The assembly is asked to consider approving a letter to the Alaska Board of Fisheries supporting continued state action to address spread of European green crab in Southeast Alaska.

The letter encourages proactive management measures including consideration of reclassifying European crab from a Class A to a Class B invasive species, as well as targeting and trapping, monitoring, and other removal strategies. The letter is attached to this agenda item. Do I have a motion to approve the letter in support of— or for the Alaska Department of Fisheries to support continued state action on European green crab management. So moved. Second.

Been moved by Member Stan Gregor, seconded by Member Valentine. Member Stan Gregor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, this was brought to my attention a little while back when I was reading a newspaper article with, I believe it was Sunny Rice, and she had an intern this year, Bergen Klute Painter, recent college graduate, doing green crab analysis. And as a consequence of their studies, they work together to make policy recommendations, and Bergen had reached out and wanted to know if we would support, because they're sending letters to the Board of Fisheries.

I thought a letter of support for, was a good proactive move, because although it has not really impacted Midcoff Island yet, as we know, my Metlakatla, it's been significant in other places south of us. So it is coming, and I think it'd be good to get the Board of Fisheries You know, help them be proactive. That's all.

Other comments from assembly members? Member Martin? Yeah, I fully support this.

Okay, would the clerk please call the roll on sending a letter of support to Game and Fish on European green crab management? Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Member Martin? Yes.

Member Valentine? Yes. Member Mucci? Yes. Yes.

Member Schwartz. Yes. Okay. And that sending a letter of support for to the Game and Fish for European green crab management passes 6 to 0. And with that, moving on, your communications are on the web and are also attached, I think, attached to the package that we received since the last meeting.

Assembly discussion items. And the first item on here is fire department training props relocation and funding options. This item is addressed— was requested by Member Mucci. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, yeah, we talked a little bit about it earlier.

You know, if, if we are going to move the training props, I, I would hope that we could move them up next to Fire Station 1 as a in an efficient manner. But if it doesn't happen that way, I'm trying to figure out what we're going to use for money for this whole project. And I'd like to, you know, maybe when Aaron gets back, we could talk about, I mean, what are the funding— where are the local funding options? Do we have money within the harbor reserves to use to make this move forward and get those vans up there? And if we do move those vans over to the 12th Street pole yard, will they be available for training purposes?

And especially if we're going to be talking about the capital projects list and adding this site development up by Fire Station 1. I think we probably need to talk about that in the capital project list as well. So that's, that's where I was headed with it. And I, I know we talked about it earlier and Maybe we'll have more insight with it when Aaron gets back. Thank you.

So, through the mayor—. Andrew? Yes, so through the mayor, um, as I said, um, I like the recommendation from Director Hankins to move it up to the fire hall when we have that— we have that built. I hope, as the mayor mentioned, that we have a different environment for capital projects at the state level, and we'll put it on the list. The assembly has the ultimate say on what what's priority, so I can't answer for that.

But, um, the answer is yes, we would move it up to the pole yard for temporary storage. It would not be available unless Aaron comes up with a brilliant idea, um, to where it could be used while it's up at the pole yard. So that's purely a storage move. And, you know, even if we had the million dollars right now, or $700,000 to a million right now, it would probably take us almost 6 months to get everything built with, you know, weather coming on. So it's going to be a project we're going to keep talking about for a while.

Big issue is money. Um, the Assembly would have to decide where that money would come from other than my suggestion to put it on the capital project list, and we'll see what happens.

I think Director Hankins did, I think, a very good job of putting that report together. I have some questions for him which I'll talk to outside of here, But I, and I think his ideas on it are very good. I give him credit, give him a lot of credit for the amount of effort that went into producing what he did. Yeah, and a lot of work into it, a lot of work into it. And then the other part of that is, is that I think we have a— if we have to find another $300,000, I'm not sure where that's going to come from.

That has— that's going to have to be another discussion item from the assembly in my opinion, uh, because I don't know, um, I— we're going to have to decide on what the priorities are is what it's going to come down to. Remember, Member Mucci, I think you had a—. Oh, I wasn't— it was just in a different, different topic after, after the fire department. Okay, any other— anything on that? Okay, I'm going to come back to Member Mucci then.

Yeah, you know, we earlier this evening, afternoon, whatever day, part of the day, we met as the Board of Adjustment. Adjustments. What's next in that process? I'm curious. I'm going to come back.

That goes back now to—. So, uh, Liz, she's— she's like, yeah, not a problem. I don't blame her. So now that the subdivision has been approved, um, Title will start the process of working with Liz to get the building permits and and things like that necessary to put the tower at that location. Yes.

And I, I don't know how long that takes. I mean, but it's— it'll start— the process will start, correct? And the plans and the approval and permits and so forth, is that's the— that's the process, is my understanding. Thank you. Other comments or questions from assembly members?

Are we at comments now? So, sure, since we're running out of time, I'll address Oh, the requests that Becky Knight and Dave Beebe had to respond there. I've been thinking about doing that in the past, so maybe next time when we're not, not in a rush here. And, uh, the one thing I noticed in the borough code is that if you go to the website, there's borough code of ordinances and there's city code of ordinances. And the chapter or Title 19 that Eugene's agenda items refers to is Under city code, which seems sort of like an artifact.

Maybe we could— is it Service Area 1 code, I assume? Is that the more appropriate name for it? Through the mayor, this is why over the last several years you occasionally get ordinances that we're updating language. It's one of the challenges, and, and I don't want to speak for Liz, but the whole concept of getting Title 19 done, um, is going to be a big part of Dania's job. And you know, as she gets up to speed on it, because it's a big job and we don't want to do it poorly, so we have to figure out how to get that done in a way that works with our deadlines on data center issues.

But yeah, Title 19 is in several different places, including plating authority, and we're going to have some work to do, and we've been working on it, but Now it's going to be more critical. Director Cabrera, about now, about 4 years ago, brought forward a comprehensive change in this, which did not— the assembly was not— it was too comprehensive, in other words, and too many questions. And everything was— everything in that code was interrelated, so to speak. And so if we changed— if you changed one piece of it, you changed a lot of the other course. And so it, it actually failed.

It didn't come forward. And so I think that a comment made by Jerry Merrigan today, I think, is more probably more appropriate, that you're going to have to— you take it, you know, piece by piece rather than trying to take that whole thing at one time. It's, it's—. You might—. And we paid a consultant to do that.

Yes, it's part of our comp plan. And unfortunately, the public was not really ready for that, and the assembly agreed. So, messy. And Member Stan Gregor, my bad, to clarify, are we on recognitions or we're still on comments? I was still under comments.

I'll hold back. Okay, any other comments from assembly members? Okay, recognitions now. Go for it. Thank you, Mayor Lynn.

Uh, this— that is, we're on the October 5th meeting. I want to recognize Rob Schwartz for his service on the assembly these last 3 years. Anyone who's been a part of public service on any level knows the challenges comes with it. Now, you, as we all know, you can't make everyone happy, nor that, nor should that be our goal. But I just want to thank you, uh, Member Schwartz, for your time on the assembly.

I know it's not easy. Thank you. Yes, Member Schwartz. Yeah, thanks, Jay. Learned quite a bit.

That's all I got.

We took my thunder. Thank you. Good. Member Muter. Yeah, no, I, I share Jay's, you know, thanks to Member Schwartz.

Rob and I don't agree on a lot of stuff, but we do agree on many things, and it has been quite enjoyable working with him. I'm really going to miss his stories that he has. For somebody as young as he is, you'd think he's like 300 years old, but I'm going to miss that perspective, and I want to thank him. I also wanted to thank everybody else who's running for office here. Putting your neck on the line, and it's, it's a lot of work, and I just want to thank everybody who's running.

I think it's great, and I also want to recognize Mary Evans for her public testimony. You know, we, we hear a lot of people talking to us from that podium, and we don't hear a lot of people her age addressing the assembly in a well-thought-out, well-spoken testimony, and it's very refreshing. And I take it to heart. It was, it was very impressive, and I just wanted to thank her for obviously taking time out of her busy life to come here and address us. And I realize how important it is to her.

Thank you. And to add to that is that I think she made some very valid points that we need to, as we're looking at the data center ordinance, that we need to consider. And so it was very well thought out. Thank you. Uh, Member Schwartz.

Yeah, I've known Mary since she was a baby and then was her teacher. I always knew she was wicked smart, um, but, uh, she speaks for a lot of that younger generation as well, and I think she's, uh, well, I know she needs to be listened to. So that's all I had on on that. I'm really proud of her for having the courage to speak up and then and do it in such an articulate way.

Thank you. Member Martin. Just want to say, Rob, it'll be lonely and boring without you here, but, uh, thanks for your service.

Any other comments from— okay, being none, do I have a motion to adjourn? Moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Meeting adjourned. Okay.