Wasilla: City Council Regular - 09 Nov 2026

Guidelines help ensure fairness, efficiency, and mutual respect during our discussions. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Council Member Cottle. Here.

Council Member Graham. Here. Council Member Schmidt. Here. Council Member Crafton.

Here. Council Member Webb. Here. You do have a quorum, Madam Mayor. All members are present with us in chambers.

And just note for the record, Council Seat F is vacant. Thank you. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Council Member Schmidt, will you please lead us?

Yes, 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.

The next item of business is approval of the agenda before changes are discussed. Are there conflicts of interest to declare? Hearing none, are there changes to the agenda? Madam Mayor, Councilman Crafton. Thank you.

Uh, can we move items 8.1— or excuse me, 8.3.1, Resolution 2670, and 8.3.2, Resolution 2671, to new business, please?

Are there further changes? Councilmember Graham. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd also like to move, uh, Under Communications 11.1.1 to New Business, and I would like to add an item to New Business to discuss Council Seat F applicant interview participation as a Committee of the Whole.

Are we good? Yeah. Thank you. Is there objection? The agenda is approved as amended.

We are now at special orders of the day, and there is one proclamation that I will read. City of Wasilla proclamation honoring Veterans Day. Whereas our nation was founded on the principle that all Americans are equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and whereas in 1954 President Dwight D. Eisenhower enacted legislation designating November 11th as a day to honor all veterans of the United States Armed Forces. And whereas Veterans Day is a time to honor the men and women who have dutifully answered the call to serve, selflessly sacrificing to protect our nation and uphold the rights of all Americans. And whereas the sacrifices made by the veterans and their families have safeguarded the freedoms and liberties we cherish, ensuring that future generations may live in peace and security.

And whereas we take this opportunity to express our appreciation to the veterans and their family members residing in Alaska, as well as the men and women currently serving in the armed forces worldwide. And whereas the City of Wasilla acknowledges the vital contributions of veterans to our community, providing leadership, resilience, and dedication to service. And whereas we express our sincere gratitude for the efforts, sacrifices, and dedications to the duty of our veterans and the men and women currently serving in the armed forces. Now, therefore, I, Alina Rubeo, Mayor of, Mayor of the City of Wasilla, do hereby claim November 11th, 2026 as Veterans Day in Wasilla and encourage all residents to join in recognizing the significant contributions of our veterans, reflecting on their sacrifices, and expressing our profound gratitude for their service to our country. Dated this 9th day of November, 2026.

We are now at commissions and agencies. We will hear from the Wasilla High School student representative. Please come forward by stating your first and last name.

Good afternoon, this is Austin Nucetti representing Wasilla High School. Do want to give a quick congratulations to our girls volleyball team as they finished second in the Northern Lights Conference. Conference championship and are going to the ASAA state tournament this weekend on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Also that weekend, Warriors are headed to the Menard Center for the Lancer-Smith Wrestling Tournament. That is this Friday and Saturday.

The ASAA 2026 Swim and Dive Finals first place for dive was awarded to Wasilla High School student Colter Gose. That tournament happened just this past weekend. Wasilla High School Drama has their first play of the year this weekend on November 13th and 14th at the Wasilla High School Theater. They'll be performing A Lighter Shade of Noir. Adults are $8 and students are $3.

Everybody is welcome.

Leadership and Student Government just wrapped up the Halloween Spirit Week and are ready for— and are already planning for the holidays. The 4th annual Wasilla's Got Talent is on December 9th, with auditions already being advertised. And we are also planning a potential community service project, although nothing confirmed yet. We do plan to partner with My House to help struggling teens. I think that's all I have.

Thank you. Awesome. Madam Mayor, may I ask Mr. New City a question? What was the name of the play this weekend? It's called A Lighter Shade of Noir.

A Lighter Shade of Noir. Noir. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, at its last meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution supporting the update to the City Parks and Recreation Master Plan, approved the meeting minutes, and directed the planning clerk to coordinate with the administration to schedule a work session to receive an update on the master plan. The Planning Commission is scheduled to meet tomorrow, November 10th, at 6:00 PM in the council chambers. The city continues to utilize contract planner Stephanie Queen's services under my direction. The planning clerk is handling the administration, uh, routing and coordination functions of the planning office.

We are now at public hearing. Madam Clerk, please read the ordinance by title. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ordinance serial number 2623, authorizing the execution, acceptance, and appropriation of a state revolving fund loan in the amount of $6 million for the wastewater treatment facility upgrades project. The public hearing on ordinance serial number 26-23 is now open.

Anyone wishing to testify, please come forward and begin by stating your first and last name. Comments are limited to 3 minutes per person.

Nobody. Is there a motion to adopt ordinance serial number 26-23? Madam Mayor. I move ordinance serial number 2623. Is there a second?

Madam Mayor, I'll second that. It has been moved by Council Member Crafton and seconded by Council Member Schmidt to adopt ordinance serial number 26-23. Is there discussion? Madam Mayor, Council Member Crafton. Thank you, Mayor.

Um, two questions, probably for our finance director here. Um, first one is Have we— do we have a complete roadmap on the full $13 million funding that goes along with this? Because I remember last time asking and I never got a clear answer on that.

I believe that would have been with the former Public Works Director. Do we have that, Rick?

Whole amount the dredge or with the sludge and the other wastewater treatment updates?

Um, through the mayor to Council Member Crafton, we do have— sorry about that— we do have a projected roadmap. We still have a deficit. Um, if you read in the, um, ordinance, we're having to get creative and kind of, uh, put a package together. There's some pending federal funds that we're still waiting on. There's the existing funds.

We have $2.55 million that was allocated in the FY '27 budget. We have about $300,000 that was moved from nondescript projects that fit the project description. Right now, it said— I'm showing that we need about $10 million. And we have the $6 million pending loan, and we're still short $4.6 million. So, so we do not have a complete package for this.

Thank you. Follow-up question would be looking at the $6 million breakdown here. We've got a $6 million loan. $1.4 Million will be forgiven, but we're going to spend $1.39 million in finance charges. So we're looking at an $88,000 savings by financing this.

Is that what I'm understanding here?

Could you repeat that? I'm sorry. So the loan's $6 million, correct? $1.4 Million will be forgiven, correct? The finance charge is at 2.2%.

And over the 20 years, we'll spend about $1.39 million in finance charges. So our total expense comes out to I say $5.9 million. So, I mean, there's really only about an $88,000 savings over the 20 years finance versus just writing a check. That is correct. Okay.

What's the other gain by financing this versus just spending the money?

That's a good question.

We've only all lived this scenario.

What are we going to do with the $6 million that we're not writing a check for right away?

What it does allow us to do is pay the $6 million out over 20 years. That's the big difference.

Instead of $6 million all at once.

And Councilmember, um, through the mayor to finance, don't correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we end up making more than the 2% on our investments? So we would actually still come ahead by financing this instead of pulling our money. Yes, that is correct. Thank you.

Councilmember Graham. Thank you.

So this project is pretty interesting. You know, for years and years and years, the city has always said, well, you know, we're, debt-free, or we're going to be debt-free. And we've, we've always cherished that, uh, the ability to say that, particularly in front of other cities and, uh, in the states. However, by doing that, we have put ourselves behind on some major capital projects like this one, for instance. I mean, uh, we're, uh, this is, this will be my 12th year on city council And we're probably at least 12 years behind on working on that sewer plant.

So, uh, if anybody's at fault here, uh, sitting at the dais now, it would be me. But the city has always worked towards this debt-free thing. And, uh, Councilperson Cottle hit the nail right on the head. You know, if we can borrow money at 2.2% when we're making an excess of 10%, return on our money in the bank, which we are required to have that money in the bank as, you know, operating funds in case things go to— well, don't go well.

So we're required to have that money there. So we're actually, by being able to take advantage of this loan and essentially having the finance charges waived through the $1.4 million, Uh, we are essentially borrowing money at 0%, and I'm no finance wizard, but if the city is willing to loan me money at 0%, I'd like about $750,000, and I'll be happy to sign for that tomorrow because I've got a project I'm working on. But, but this project makes perfect sense. However, what we need to think of at the dais is Yes, we're borrowing money at 0%, but we're paying about $3 million a year for this project for the first several years. You know, I think it's $2.85 million a year.

So that's $2.85 million that comes out of all of our budget requests for next year because it won't be capital funds next year. It'll be operating funds next year. So where does that $2.85 million come from? I don't know now, none of us knows now, but come budget time, which is, you know, just around the corner, I hate to say it, but it is just around the corner, that's when we have to think. We are essentially reducing our operating budget by $3 million per year for the first several years by doing this project.

However, this project is long overdue. The estimated life on the digester, I think, our former public works director told me was in excess of 35 years. You know, this thing's going to be paid for in 20 years. So we're, we're making out like bandits doing this. I hate for the city to pick up debt just to pick it up for pet projects, but this is not a pet project.

This is basic infrastructure, and this is very much needed, and I encourage everyone to Vote for Resolution 2623. Further discussion? Councilmember Schmidt. Yeah, so I guess my question— I don't know who it would be to, but wouldn't there be some sort of federal funding for sewer and water treatment plants and stuff like that? It seems kind of odd to me that there wouldn't be something.

That we could apply for or something out there. Do you know anything about that?

Sure. Through Madam Mayor, uh, to the councilmen, um, we do have, uh, we started with $5.6 million of EPA grant and we have used that for design. And so we still have, uh, I think $4.8 of of that left, and that was part of the package. So, we'll apply those funds, and then this is federal funding. This is the way that DEC, through the State Revolving Fund, supports these projects as a loan with a portion of it being forgivable.

And there's also potential for next year, which might be the final year of the program, there might be an additional $2 million And since our project, project cost has grown, we might be eligible for those funds. So, yes, we were using those. And then there's also what the previous Deputy Administrator called Murkowski or Sullivan money. There's an additional $4 million that we have— we're not counting on, but we think that there's a good chance we'll get that. But I wouldn't— count those chickens till they hatch.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Councilor Ian Crafton. Thank you. Um, Miss Cottle's point was what I was trying to get at, was that's the benefit out of it. Do we have a number so that we actually know the definitive benefit of taking this loan versus just writing the check?

We run those calculations.

Well, I think— to the mayor— I think Miss Councilman Graham had it on the head at 0% interest.

That's versus a couple months ago we had— you talked about city investments, but I don't remember the average return on our investments, but it was well in excess of 10%, was it not? Correct.

Is there further discussion?

Madam Mayor, can I make a correction? That's— it is 2.2%, it's not 0%. So just, just to clarify, it's not a 0% loan, it's 2.2%. Thank you.

Is there objection to the motion?

Hearing none, the motion is adopted.

We are now at Persons to Be Heard, a time for members of the public to share their views with the council. Please note that this is not a question and answer period. Speakers may be referred to administration, and items raised may be taken under advisement. Please begin your testimony by stating your first and last name, and if you are a city resident. Comments are limited to 3 minutes.

Tim Johnson.

Tim Johnson, city resident. I'm speaking on Resolution Serial Number 2673, authorizing additional expenditures for the completion of the Wasilla City Comprehensive Plan. There's probably nothing more than I can see coming up, um, that is more beneficial to the city than creating a comprehensive plan. We started a number of years, uh, last year there were some public meetings with goals and whatever. There was some minor changes in some other public meetings, and in the meantime I've heard nothing.

Major projects that I've been related to usually have critical— I mean, design reviews, things like preliminary design reviews, critical design reviews. I think if we're going to give this company additional money, we should stick to some sort of a schedule where they would give us documents that would be like a preliminary design review, where the public and the city council would at least get to see the direction of this plan long before it just gets dumped onto the city council for approval. After that, those comments should be boiled into and then presented back to the city and the city council as a critical design for just prior to the final, where you would actually then start to ring it out. There's many things I'd like to see in a plan which I have had no input at the current time. For instance, while we dumped the core business overlay, we still have, in essence, a core overlay.

And this— the plan should have some sort of a commercial district statement says this is the area where we want to develop our commercial areas. For residents, I've always come across, and in our residential areas, we need various things that are long range. Every morning I watch the kids get onto the school bus at my community. No streetlights. It's 7 o'clock in the morning, and we all know that 7 o'clock in the morning, it's going to be dark until when?

April? No streetlights, no curbs, no sidewalks. So in residential areas, we need to put this into our plan so we can make our plans for residential areas that will meet the safety and needs of the city's growth going forward. Forward. These kind of things need to be embroidered into this plan.

So yes, I'm strongly supportive of this, but when we go back and give these people this money, I think we should also put on some requirements to bring their plans and show us and give us time as citizens like myself, as well as the, uh, council, to put input back into the plan. Thank you. Thank you. Eileen Fox. Already?

Yeah, right, it's over. Okay, I'm back. Uh, Eileen Falkenstein representing Wasilla Area Seniors. Good to see you all again. Um, just briefing you on our holiday plans for the seniors.

We are, instead of doing our famous auction for my oh my, it's pie this year. Sorry, you don't get to bid against your favorite friend for an item. We're just doing a donation event where on our web page you can click on a donate button and list it as pies and donate an amount so that our seniors have pies for their Thanksgiving table, for the Meals on Wheels people, as well as seniors that need a hearing that aren't Meals on Wheels. The next one is our Christmas giving. I've given council members copies of items that we're looking for for seniors.

We do this every year. Items that you may take for granted every day— toilet paper, hand soap, laundry detergent— these are things that seniors need, and they're expensive items. Also fun items— blankets, gloves, hats, games, things that you would just give for Christmas. And we've made it easy this year. We do have on our webpage where you can shop online at Walmart or Target— I'm sorry, Walmart, Target, or Amazon.

We have wishlists, and you don't even have to go to the store. You can just click and have it shipped to us and make it easy. Or if you want to shop take the time and pick something special, you can bring it to the center. Things will be wrapped and donated by December 14th, and they will be delivered to the Meals on Wheels folks on December 15th. And there will be a Christmas party for our seniors on December 23rd at the center, should anyone care to come and spread joy.

Um, these things are really important. The seniors really look forward to these every year. There are so many seniors that are by themselves. I spoke to a friend the other day and she said her mom got one of these last year and it made her holiday. So we appreciate that, Wasilla.

And as usual, we continue our daily operations with lunches and gym, senior classes, yoga, things to keep our seniors healthy and living independently. So Anyway, you can help is appreciated, and we've always appreciated your support. Thank you very much. Thank you, Nancy. Is it racket?

Is that how you say it? How do you say that? Sorry, how do you pronounce paycheck? Paycheck? Paycheck.

Okay, paycheck. Then you'll never forget it. I'll never forget it now.

I knew it wasn't what it looked like, but hey, well, I like to— at least I knew that. I like to confuse people. Hey, that's okay. So as I understand it, that a role of government is to protect its people. At least one role.

State your name, sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Nancy. I know you told me, but—. Nancy Racek, citizen.

Thank you. Wasilla. Okay. Anyway, as I said, the role of government is to protect its citizens. And in this case, I think it applies to property values as well.

Okay, this does not demonstrate protection of property values. So I know that you're going to be looking into Title 16, the land use coming up. So please remove this kind of thing from being allowed in the city in residence. I mean, how? How inappropriate is this?

Also, look at anything else that might be currently allowed, um, that could be a blight on your neighborhoods. Because Wasilla is growing, drawing more people in, people aren't going to want to buy a house with this next to them. So anyway, that's my story for today. Thank you. Is there anyone else?

Seeing no one, we are now on consent agenda. Madame Clerk, please read the items for approval under the consent agenda by title. Thank you, Madam Mayor. We have 3 sets of meeting minutes: regular meeting minutes September 28th, 2026, regular meeting minutes October 12th, 2026, and special meeting minutes October 14th, 2026. We have no introductions.

Left on our consent agenda, we have one resolution, resolution serial number 2673, authorizing additional expenditures to Dowell Incorporated— or excuse me, LLC— in the amount of $73,865 to complete the City of Wasilla comprehensive plan. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Madam Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda as read into the record by the city clerk. Is there a second, Madam Mayor? I'll second that.

It has been moved by Council Member Cottle and seconded by Council Member Schmidt to approve the consent agenda as read. Is there any objection to the motion? Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved.

Council, I'll just— I guess I'll take these in numerical order. So we'll start— unless objections raised, we'll start under new business business with Resolution Serial Number 2670. That's approving Amendment Number 1 to the contract between the City of Wasilla and HDL Engineering Consultants, LLC, for $15,127.50 in consideration for project costs exceeding the original budget. Sorry, is there a motion to adopt ordinance or Resolution Serial Number 26-70? Madam Mayor, we move Resolution 2670.

Is there a second?

Graham seconds. It has been moved by Council Member Crafton and seconded by Council Member Graham to adopt Resolution Serial Number 26-70. Is there discussion? Madam Mayor, Council Member Crafton. Thank you.

Prior to our— well, could be Finance or Public Works here. Um, I was just curious how we got to the decision on these 3 specific funds?

One, I'm— and also I'm most curious about the water master plan.

Forgot I'm supposed to introduce myself. This is Ricky Antonio, project manager with the city. Um, those funds were to cover the Specific, um, let me back up there. The, the project that this is amending was the Interconnect Project, which kind of touched everything, and it was pre-master plan. And so whenever we went over, we kind of picked the budgets that were applicable to those specific projects.

So that would be, I think, Herman Road, uh, water main extension, the water master planning, and forget the third one.

Oh, and then the Herman, Herman Reservoir, which goes under new water towers. So, um, that's, that's where those 3 came from and why it's split up is because we didn't have a fund besides Water Master Plan, and we didn't want to dip into those funds because we have those obligated. I have a follow-up to that. So we're not— the funds that we pulled are not expected to be utilized still, that they were 'Cause if I remember correctly, some of these we more or less overfunded. We overestimated what the original costs were going to be.

So these, we shouldn't need to replace these funds. Yes, we, we kind of overshot a little bit. We did, can say we had a successful project. We use those ARPA funds that were expiring. And so in order to use those in the timeframe, we transitioned to the Water Master Plan.

And so this, kind of COVID the gap between the, uh, the current contract as well. And so those funds are being used for their intent as well. Thank you. Is there further discussion?

Councilor McGran. Thank you. Hey, uh, I would like to say that I'm kind of impressed with HDL on this project, you know. I mean, they're less than 1% overrun at a time where inflation was up and down and up and down. I mean, it was almost 4% one year, it was over 2% other years, but to come in at, you know, less than 1% over, I think was pretty impressive.

And I actually really enjoy seeing this. I'd much rather see it with surplus, but if we're going to have a need for additional funding, less than 1% is a great, great thing. Is there further discussion? Is there objection to the motion? Hearing none, the motion is adopted.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Next, we'll take Resolution Serial Number 2671, approving Amendment Number 5 to the contract between the City of Wasilla and Stantec Consulting Services Incorporated for $199,625.25 in consideration for expanded design, construction bid assistance, and formal task budget reallocation. Is there a motion to adopt Resolution Serial Number 26-71? Madam Mayor, Council Member Crafton. Thank you, I move Resolution Number 26-71.

Is there a second? I'll second that. It has been moved by Council Member Crafton and seconded by Council Member Schmidt to adopt Resolution Serial Number 26-71 Is there discussion? Councilmember Crafton, thank you. That does turn off if you want to, but—.

To Public Works here, kind of a two, two questions here. First one is, I'm seeing a pretty significant change in some of the scope of this work, is what it seems like, especially with the change in how we're handling some of these buildings. How did we get to make that decision, which is now requiring additional funding of $200,000 that we're pulling out of land acquisition?

So, uh, through the— Madam Mayor, uh, to, uh, Council Member Crafton, that project has grown significantly, and a lot of that was whenever we really did an inventory on what we're handling for sludge. The size of the building grew, and so the complexity grew, and that's— and then the project cost grew as well. So the, the relevant design has increased, and so we recognize that this summer, but we had existing funds. It was a lump sum contract, and we negotiated with the consultant to keep that at a minimum. And a portion of this, there's kind of 2.

2 Pieces of this. There's the cost overruns, and that's one of the proposals. And then there is the bidding assistance. And since this is going to be a mix of funding, there'll probably be 6 weeks that this will be out on the street, and there'll be multiple addendums or addendas to the contract or the design. And so that's going to be complex, and so we want that support.

And so there's two proposals that, uh, get you to that $199,000.

And the other part is, why are we pulling from acquisition instead of just pulling from the regular CIP? Because it seems like we're going to need additional funding there anyways.

Uh, originally we were trying to just, uh, use our existing contract, but, uh, due to some of the Grant and Finance recommended that we come forward with a— just for transparency, we tell you that we're going to pull from one task to the other. You know, sometimes we have the ability to do that, and so that's the path we went down. And then also, it won't short the construction funds. Right now, acquisition is stalled on the effluent discharge project. And so we might have to backfill that, but in order to be, you know, in order to move quickly, sometimes we can shuffle between tasks.

But then since we were told to bring this to council for transparency, we just kept down that path. Okay, thank you. Is there further discussion? Council Member Graham. Thank you.

So I'm going to come back to what Council Member Crafton was talking about. You know, one of the bullets on the background justification and intent says land acquisition is not at this stage, and those budgeted funds remain unspent and available for reallocation. However, two paragraphs prior to that, it says land acquisition, acquisition will require further funding. So do you perceive that to mean that We'll have a separate CIP for this additional land acquisition when that's ready to move forward, or are we going to have money unspent in CIP accounts to be able to cover that?

Through the mayor to Councilmember Graham, we have a couple huge projects coming out, one huge one and one medium-sized one, uh, and after we get the sludge in dewatering project out, and we also have the effluent treatment project, which is roughly $2 to $3 million, we'll have a better idea of what we have in our CIP funding. But right now, that's not the highest priority. We wanted to move quickly. We want to get the design finished and get this on this— on the street so we can get some good bid numbers, because every 6 months it seems like this escalates by a couple million dollars. Thank you, and I agree getting this out on the street is important, but just wondering where the future funding is coming from, whether you're going to be coming to us asking for funding or whether you're going to be coming to us telling them, telling us that you're moving pots of money, uh, that the city already has.

So I, I think you answered that. Thank you. Is there further discussion? Is there objection to the motion? Hearing none, the motion is adopted.

Next, we'll take the IM. IM number 20—. Oh, thank you. IM number 2614, Wasilla 2045 Comprehensive Plan Update and Schedule for Steering Committee Meetings, Draft Plan Engagement and Public Comment Period. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Is there a motion to adopt this information? Do you want to go? Do you want to just go? Oh, he did ask for a Committee of the Whole. Uh, no, I didn't.

I asked for a Committee of the Whole on something different. On this one, I was just kind of curious because on the summary statement it says, you know, steering committee consists of, you know, different people and elected officials. However, there's no mention here of the City Council. There is mention of the mayor's office being there, but the City Council is the one that's going to have to end up approving this and moving this forward and amending it. So it seems to me that perhaps the administration should look at adding a City Council member to the steering committee.

Thank you.

Councilman, go ahead. Is that okay, Madam? Yes, go ahead. I just want to address this because Actually raises some questions we had as well, looking at the comprehensive plan program. Uh, their steering committee is an internal committee.

It has to be, otherwise you're in essence creating a committee subject to the Open Meetings Act. So they can't really put a council member on that committee. Um, and I think they're now moving into the process. That's sort of a more traditional comprehensive plan process where it will go before planning. They'll have public meetings, and actually I'll look to the clerk.

They are going to have public meetings that are calendared on the city calendar, correct? It's— I know they're anticipating public meetings for members of the public to participate. So I'm hoping that those meetings— and we'll talk to them and make sure this is the case— that those meetings are on the city calendar and they're held publicly. In the sense that how we consider public, uh, for the— so council members. And if that is noticed as a meeting for council and the commission, that allows council and commission members the ability to participate, because it is the lack of the reference to elected officials.

I also found surprising, and only because The way I understand this model of a comp plan review, it starts with the public and it doesn't necessarily involve the leaders, right? The elected officials and the council members and the commissioners speak not as a body anyway. So while there may be participation, that the intent is to get the voice of the public, then it goes to a few public meetings. In which individual members of the public again express their thoughts on a draft. Then it goes to the Planning Commission, and that's where we see the bodies of the city having active, engaged input regarding the Comp Plan.

So this was an unusual— this model is different than the ones I've seen in the past, where you really start with these public hearings and you have lots of public hearings in front of the commission. With the consultants sort of participating. So I know it's very long-winded, but I guess what I'm saying is, I— this piece, the role that elected official has and when under this model, I— it has been a little difficult to figure out where that voice comes in. So I don't know if that helps, but that's where I— that's what we deciphered sort of their process. Councilmember Graham, I appreciate that and I thank you.

However, Uh, I don't view myself as a leader of the city. I am elected to represent the citizens of the city and the interests of the city. So if I am cut out of the process, if all of us are cut out of the process— and I don't think there should be more than one city council member on this, so there should be no Open Meetings Act issue or anything like that— but if the city council doesn't have somebody there then the, then the, the city itself is not represented. Because when you sit up here, you look at the big picture. And when you testify as an individual, uh, or participate in councils like this, which I have done before, you can kind of focus what you're looking at and try and sway things.

Whereas hopefully folks sitting here at the dais are looking at the big picture and not at the individual, uh, gain or loss, but they're looking at what's good for the city. So I, I appreciate what you're saying, uh, I just, uh, I'm just concerned that this, uh, uh, summary says elected officials when there are no elected officials in the process. No, I agree with that. I mean, I agree with that piece, and there's also a discussion perhaps a committee is appropriate, and there could be a discussion regarding the addition of a committee that involves a council member that sort of steps in for a portion of the process, like the public hearing process. And that committee, we can, um, we can ensure that it complies with the Open Meetings Act because it doesn't take anybody on that steering committee outside of the consultants realm and control.

Once we add another person and then they're making decisions regarding a city product, we will— we, we, we then have created a new committee subject to those. Thank you for the opportunity to express my concern. Now on new business.

Okay, Council Member Graham, I hope I got this right. Last item is council appointment to seat F, and you'd like committee of the whole. That's correct. Uh, Madam Mayor, I move to enter committee of the whole for the purposes of discussing, uh, an email from the city clerk this afternoon titled Council Seat F Applicant Interview Participation. Those participating in the committee of the whole would include the attorney and the city council members.

Madam Mayor, I'll second the motion. So now I state the time. So now we are in committee of the whole at 6:44. Is there discussion?

Council member, if I could ask, uh, the clerk to kind of go through the philosophy here behind the email. Thank you. Through, through, um, to the council, through, uh, Madam Mayor Rubio. So today we had a former council member who filed for Council Seat F came in, filed his application. Um, when submitting the application, he did mention that he will be out of the state of Alaska on November 30th, which is the date council passed for the special meeting to conduct the interviews.

Um, this former council member requested that he call in if his schedule permits, so no guarantee that he would be able to call in. Um, and so I wasn't comfortable because we had already passed the resolution. Laying out the process. I've had materials, notices, application packets out with no mention of calling in. That wasn't a decision I was comfortable making, um, and so I sent the email to council just expressing that.

And the one, I guess, consideration is that, again, as I stated, the notice of vacancy has been posted on the city's website and social media pages since October 27th. The application's been available to the public public since November 4th. Adding the telephone option at this stage perhaps could raise fairness considerations for individuals who may have chosen not to apply based on the interview process, which was provided no call-in. We normally don't allow call-ins for council meetings. Maybe there's an issue, maybe not, but it's not for me to decide.

Was the application process that was published, did it specifically say you cannot call in, or did it exclude that option, or did it just say there will be a meeting on the 30th? Said interviews will be conducted at City Hall on the 30th, so call-in was never mentioned because we typically don't do call-in. But there was nothing that said that we cannot do call-in. It's just we just never done it before, and we're not really sure how to do it. Wasn't even— wasn't contemplated.

I would think in today's much more technological world than I am, I would think call-in, uh, could be an option for someone who's qualified, filled out the application, and I'm pretty sure we could figure that. Well, when I say we, I mean you can figure that out. Thank you. Councilmember Crafton. Thank you.

Um, I mean One, the period's still open. I mean, technically, if it was closed, I think it'd be a different story. While I don't love it because, you know, there's something different when somebody's sitting in that chair across from us, um, during that interview process, uh, it does make more sense. But I, I think it's one of those things that unless you told somebody no, like unless somebody had already come to you and said and you said, no, you can't do that, then that would be a different story. I'd be curious, just for the sake of it, what the attorney's opinion would be on this one here.

But I mean, I'm kind of with Mr. Graham here as well as it doesn't— I don't see why not. We couldn't, because there's nothing that said we were conducting it a very specific way and this is the only way possible.

Sometimes this is how government works, is we realize things, people think outside the box sometimes. I'm curious what, uh, Madam Attorney has to say. I think it's laughable. I mean, I, I do agree with the concerns of fairness raised by the clerk, but I, I think that you are okay.

Madam Mayor, Council Member Cottle, I, I realize that times change, but there's a difference between being able to see somebody and just hear them over the phone. Nowadays people Zoom, And unless that's an option, I'm not in favor of this so that you can actually see the person.

Is there further comment?

Madam Mayor, I move to exit committee of the whole, and then I would like to propose, uh, bring forward a motion. Is there a second? Second. We are out of Committee of the Whole at 6:48. Councilmember Graham.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, I move that, uh, the, uh, clerk for the City of Wasilla, uh, develop a process whereby, uh, applicants for, uh, city council, uh, applicants for vacant city council seats could be interviewed via telecom, with the Zoom being the preferred option but not necessarily the only option if that doesn't work. Okay, through the chair, as we've discussed numerous times, we do have AV limitations. I'll do my best to be able to video them in. Um, you heard from our IT manager, that's on— definitely on the list for goals and priorities.

I can't guarantee. I'd also like to just reaffirm that the applicant said due to his— their travel schedule, they may not even be able to call in.

I'll second the motion.

So I'll do my best to get them on the video, and that would be great if you do your best. Yeah, if not, we'll just go traditional phone. And if you do your best, I'm pretty sure it'll be damn good. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, I just do want to add, I think this goes without saying, but once we allow this, if you know that, that this is the, the fairness would be most at stake if we don't allow it for anybody and everybody who put in an application and wants to present by video.

So if we allow it for one, we allow it for all, for sure. So I'll figure the materials tomorrow.

Is there objection to the motion, Madam Mayor? And unless it is Zoom so you can see the person, in the spirit of fairness, um, unless it can be Zoom, I object. Roll call. Madam Mayor. Point of clarification, I mean, I think Teams would be appropriate because we use Microsoft here, but I mean, it's the same concept, right?

As long as they're video conferencing and we basically turn that camera around wherever we put the laptop so that they can see us, that would be an option, right? Through the chair to Council Member Crafton, we will get with IT and do our darndest to make—. I'm just thinking when we did—. There's creative. Yes.

Waterworth, same concept. We made this work with Waterworth. Um, I would think we could make this work here. Uh, I mean, I think it's on the applicant as well to understand that what it does to the situation, but we'll just leave it at that. Okay, roll call.

Oh yeah, so again, the motion— we're, we're going to shoot for troubleshooting to get the Zoom or the Teams or the video link, I'm going to call it, but if not, we're going We're going to go traditional phone, and I'll figure out a way to make that happen. Councilmember Cottle? No. Councilmember Graham? Yes.

Councilmember Schmidt?

Yes. Councilmember Crafton? Yes. Councilmember Webb? Yes.

Passes with Councilmembers Graham, Schmidt, Crafton, and Webb in support. Councilmember Cathy Cottle, opposed.

Okay, and we have—. Well, we have actually one under Communications. We have IM number 2615, results of the public surplus bids and revenue received from closed auction.

On to public. We are now on audience comments, which is a time for members of the public to share their views with the council. This is not a question and answer period or time for dialogue. Speakers may be referred to administration, or issues raised may be taken under advisement by the council or administration. Please begin your testimony by stating your first and last name if you are a city resident.

Comments are limited to 3 minutes.

Tim Johnson, thank you. I appreciate the discussion that you just had. Um, I'm— I wish that I could be here on the 30th, but that's just not possible. Um, I believe in fairness, true, Zoom is an option for anybody in a modern-day interview process. Zooms are oftentimes used.

I can't think of a, uh, of a company now that doesn't do Zoom interviews, so I'm perfectly comfortable with that. You have my, uh, application letter, and as far as actually interviewing me, if there's anybody here that doesn't know me, I'd be really surprised. So, uh, with that in mind, thank you for your consideration.

Is there anyone else?

We are now at Mayor, Clerk, Attorney, and Council comments. Madame Clerk. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just wanted to— for those of you, if you haven't read my clerk report, I will be out on personal leave from the 23rd of November through Friday the 27th. And former Deputy Clerk Sarah Stanifer, who's still kind of covering both offices, has agreed to serve as clerk at the November 23rd Council meeting.

So thank you to Sarah for that. And then, of course, I'll remain available to staff while I'm out of the office if anyone needs me. City Hall will be closed on Thursday and Friday, November 26th and 27th, in observance of Thanksgiving. Deputy Clerk recruitment is going well. As far as I know from HR, we have— gosh, I think she said about 10 applications the last time I checked.

Applications are due Friday, this November 13th, at 5 o'clock. Clock, and that's all I have. If you haven't got your travel packets into Crystal for AML, please do so. So thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you.

City Attorney? No comment, Madam Mayor. Thank you. City Council Member Cottle? Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I just want to mention there— I have had so many comments about the trick-or-treating here at City Hall. That it was so amazing. And I think this is a great thing for us to do every year, and I love the creativity and the way all the staff gets into it. I mean, you guys transform City Hall into an amazing space. So I just want to commend everybody on that, and that's all I have.

Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Schmidt. Well, I wasn't here for, uh, you to be signed in, but congratulations on that. And congratulations, Bruce, on your appointment over here.

Um, and congratulations, uh, Ian, for, uh, winning that election. That was a tough battle on your part, but, uh, congratulations on all you guys. And, uh, that's all I've got, and I'm glad to be back. Yay! Councilmember Graham.

Thank you. Uh, I too would like to add my, uh, congratulations for the trick-or-treat town. You know, it's the second year that the city has done that, and it doesn't have anything to do with us. It has to do with the, with the employees that we have here and their dedication and their morale, and done great things. And I think it's actually helped do things downtown as well.

You notice we had more Trunk or Treat, more of those sorts of things going on downtown as well. So I think setting the standard there, or not necessarily the standard, but lighting the fire, so to speak, for others to do that. And they know that they've got the city's support to make that work. Doesn't cost the city anything to be a cheerleader. So congratulations on that.

I look forward to seeing more of that in the future. One of the items on the information memorandums, IM 2615, talked about the results of the public auction using public surplus options. I think Auction was the name of the company that did that. Uh, it is a great way for us to, uh, uh, get rid of things, but I would ask that the finance department, uh, send out, uh, an inquiry, uh, to those persons who did bid to see what issues they had with the auction process. I know I bid on some things myself and had others who bid, uh, that were unable to get into the website.

They could get in once, then they couldn't get in again. So I'm not sure exactly how that works, but I know typically these guys are at AML and have a booth there. So it would be nice if we had some things that we could talk to them about, some specifics. It would be nice if we, if we had some feedback. I'd appreciate that.

Go from there. Also want to Let everybody know that tomorrow is kind of an important day. It's a big birthday. 251 Years ago, some people sat down in a bar on the East Coast and the United States Marine Corps was founded. At that time, it was not an amphibious assault force.

It was there to protect maritime shipping, primarily off the Horn of Africa, where ships were being, crews were being kidnapped, ships were being destroyed, cargoes were being stolen and resold. So the United States Marine Corps was founded 251 years ago on November 10th. So if you know anybody, or if you know of anyone whose family has served in the Marines, please shake their hand. It's a big deal. And when they say once a Marine, always a Marine, That is true.

There are no former Marines. There are Marines. And as the oldest branch of the service, they have been there for us for 251 years. And Marines, we appreciate everything that people say about us, even though a lot of it is derogatory about eating crayons and other things like that. But we appreciate being able to serve, and I hope that you get the chance to shake the hands of those service members and their families, because that's an important part of keeping our country free.

And so thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Webb? No comment. Councilmember Crafton?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. A few things— a drum I forgot to beat last meeting was Waterworth. Where are we at with that one? We're getting it to you. Okay.

Are we going to have some proposed rates or are we going to do the open meeting? Like, we're going to have some proposed rates. Okay, perfect. I just know again, timeline-wise, it's— we're running on a timeline here to make sure that we get that done before the next budget cycle, which is weird to talk about next budget cycle. Um, second question is, uh, Our discharge on the wastewater system, I'm trying to remember.

I thought I remember seeing that the permit was approved or something. Do we remember where we're at with that one?

Keith, do you want to go?

Hi there, Keith Jones through the mayor. Um, I think we— Rick will correct me if I'm wrong— we have approval construct is where we're at. We are still working on the permit. Most of the reason why I ask is there is a very strong chance we're going to have a pretty hefty change in administration at the state level, and we've spent a lot of time working with the current ADEC to get this through, and I don't want things to slip through the cracks. So are we thinking we're going to have this done and wrapped up before that change, or what are we looking at here?

I have no idea. Um, We are working with the DEC right now. Things are still moving forward. Been in contact with them, and as far as I know, things are moving along. Okay, thank you.

And then last thing, I think, Madam Clerk, you wanted me to mention was, uh, are we needing a special meeting or something for the city clerk position? How would you like us to handle that? Or how did we want to do that?

I think through the chair to the council, that's really up to you guys if you want to kind of talk about it now. You know, we can— resignation's been submitted, so we can work directly with— if you'd like me to, I can work directly with human resources to get the position posted, but it's totally up to you guys. May I interject here? I was just going to say I've never been through a clerk change, so I feel like I'd have to defer to Mr. Graham here. Well, and I'm certainly not going to pretend to know anything about this, whereas we have a city clerk, an outstanding city clerk, who's been president of the, you know, City Clerks Association, knows every city clerk, you know, in the last 20-some-odd years.

Uh, if we could ask her, uh, to send us an email or some sort of formal thing saying, you know, this look— it looks like these are the options and these are the ones that seem to work best. And your many years as clerk, we defer to you many, many times because we don't— you know, we're talking heads and you're the one that does all the work. So, but if you could send us something that says this would be my recommendation, if you could send that tomorrow or as a minimum this week, that would be great.

The chair to the attorney, do you see any issue with that? No, I think I just take maybe consensus by email, or—. So let me just make sure I understand. You're— so Council Member Graham's suggesting that, um, the— are you suggesting the process for the selection where the city clerk would recommend a process, or the city clerk would recommend the applicants and say, well, recommend the process. The process.

Yes, no problem with that. Thank you. Captain, go ahead. I think that works perfectly. Um, I know you've got the city— city's interest best in mind.

I mean, you wouldn't be moving to a position somewhere else in the city if you didn't. So, uh, I trust that, that you'll handle this, uh, just like you handle everything so well. So thank you. And that is All my comments for today. Okay, I will bring it back to myself.

Um, the finance and public work teams have requested that we move the capital improvement project presentation from November 23rd to December 14th due to the number of projects being reviewed. The additional time will allow staff to prepare a more thorough report and provide council with the information they requested. Is that okay? Everybody's okay with that? Okay, awesome.

Yay. Um, And I have no other comments and nothing further at hand. I'm adjourning the meeting unless objection is raised.