Juneau: September 21, 2026 Assembly Committee of the Whole Worksession

I call the Assembly Committee of the Whole to order at 6:07 on September 21st, 2026. Um, Miss Iskandis, would you read the land acknowledgement, please? Yes, thank you, Chair. We would like to acknowledge that the City and Borough of Juneau is on Tlingit land and wish to honor the indigenous people of this land. For more than 10,000 years, Alaska Native people have been and continue to be integral to the well-being of our community.

We are grateful to be in this place, a part of this community, and to honor the culture, traditions, and resilience of the Tlingit people. Gadoosh. Thank you, Miss Yuskandis. Uh, Miss Hendricks, would you note the roll, please? Thank you, Deputy Mayor Smith.

We have all members in attendance except for Miss Wall, and I have— you have quorum. Thank you, Miss Hendrix. Um, any changes to the agenda? Seeing none, we'll note the agenda as approved. Um, may I get a motion to approve any minutes?

Mr. Kelly. I move that we approve the September 29th, 2025 Assembly Committee of the Whole minutes and ask for unanimous consent. Seeing no objection, those minutes are approved. That moves us into our agenda topics. First one is e-bike and e-moto regulation.

Thanks to the Lands, Housing, and Economic Development Committee members for good discussion.

Tempted to ask, but I don't— I'm not trying to shame anyone. Was—. Who were folks able to listen in to the committee, or was anyone— okay, okay. Anyway, well, there was good work done, and again, that's helpful, but obviously different, different body now. So, um, Mr. Barr, would you like to— should we have you kick it off?

Or Miss— actually, Miss Scandies, do you mind giving, giving a little update from—. Happy to—. On the topic? Yes, happy to. Um, so it sounds we had a good group of people here in chambers.

It sounds like people were able to listen.

The discussion towards starting to where we would like to put the focus, we were generally in agreement with staff's recommendation. A few things people might be interested— one of, uh, I'm looking at page 2 of the, uh, Mr. Byers memo to guide me. But in general, folks are interested in pursuing the e-scooter, e-skateboard later, really. And people also discussed not really focusing on the e-bikes right now, but to focus on the e-moto issue. Um, and members were recommended postponing that PRAC ordinance that moved out of the Lands Committee so that it would be on the same schedule as this one.

Uh, so we can consider that at one time and make it really obvious to the public. The following criteria— the criteria that staff came up with kind of to distinguish with the emotos, we were generally in agreement. So that was the extent of that. Um, we also discussed very lightly the directing law to come up with additional language, and people were generally favorable. But I am sure as this body discusses it, more members will have more comments.

Thank you for that, Ms. Suskandis. Um, anyone else from the Lands Housing Economic Development Committee want to chime in? That was a good summary. I guess any— if there was any other pieces people wanted to make the rest of the body aware of.

Mr. Kelly.

Yeah, I think we did choose to— we did discuss a little bit about the recommendation number 3, which was the possible regulation of e-scooter and e-skateboard regulation. I think there was kind of consensus that that isn't the priority. Me personally, And I think not to— I think Mr. Barr clarified during his remarks when he was reading us the memo or delivering the memo that it was his intent that we wouldn't completely dismiss this, but we would focus more on the other issues up for regulation and then spend some more time later on discussing or crafting regulations for these other items. So I, I do, um, while I, while comprehensive policy might be, um, advantageous, I think this would get us moving along a little bit quicker, um, as long as, um, I think it's important that we do circle back to it eventually. Thank you for that, Mr. Kelly.

So we do have a memo from Mr. Barr, um, there are 4 recommendations that members of the committee kind of spoke to, you know, different elements of those.

I'm open to having Mr. Barr speak about the entire, you know, about pieces of the memo, or if folks just have questions on certain components. But Mr. Barr, maybe give us a, you know, a rundown and of, of your memos, some of the high points. Happy to, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

So I think I'll point to the 2 main policy decisions that I have at the top of page 2 that I'm hoping you can consider. One is answering the question of, do you want to regulate the different classes of e-bikes differently? Um, the prac ordinance that you introduced on the 14th does do that for recreation areas and Eagle Crest. This—. The staff recommendation in this memo does not for borough-wide.

So that's one question, is do you want to treat those Class 1, 2, and 3s differently, or do you just want to focus on e-motos? And then the second question is, do you want a different regulatory structure at all for rec spaces versus general public spaces? And Chair Huskandes spoke to the LAN's conclusions out of that.

The direct— in order to introduce an ordinance at your next assembly meeting, the direction that we would be looking for from you tonight is centered around that first recommendation of— I won't read it word for word, right? But of prohibiting the use of e-motos on public property, and similar to dirt bikes, per those per those regulatory options that are bulleted out below on number 1. Um, and then, uh, you know, for as far as number 2 goes, we don't need a motion on that.

Um, but if— well, actually, we could use one. If you, if you choose to, um, postpone discussion on Ordinance 2026-41 at your next meeting, a motion would be appropriate so that we can be transparent to public in the manager's report and indicate that, that the recommendation that you would presumably follow this motion on would be to take that postponement so that the public knows that there will be a later opportunity for public hearing in addition to the one already scheduled on the, on the next regular assembly meeting.

And if instead you want to table it and focus just on this borough-wide ordinance, which would be introduced at your next meeting. Again, a motion signaling your intent would, would be appropriate, again, so that in the manager's report we could be clear to the public that that's your intent to, to do at that meeting.

Um, I'm sure, uh, the attorney could speak to this, but, um, law also could use direction regarding recommendation number 4. And Mr. Kelly spoke, and Chair Huskandy spoke to number 3. The recommendation to wait on that one is really rooted in staff's perception of it being a priority to get e-moto legislation on the books and enforceable sooner rather than later. And to the extent the body wishes to revisit or additionally visit e-scooter and e-skateboard regulation, that is, that is certainly possible at the date of your choosing.

Mr. Chair, happy to— I didn't do the whole memo, but happy to do more to the extent you think that would be helpful, or that there are questions. Thank you, Mr. Bart. Probably not supposed to ask first, but I guess just to frame for us and the public a bit, could you speak to the note or the incidents or issues that we've had? Again, we've seen things in emails, but I don't know what has happened with police.

We hear things about Parks and Rec. Could you just present some of those to us? I can, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So I guess I'll start by saying that in doing research on this topic, it became really clear to me really quickly that this is a significant topic in many municipalities. There has been a lot of local legislation and statewide legislation passed. I focused my research in the Pacific Northwest. I didn't go too far beyond that, except when really like just jumped out at me. But a lot of communities have very recently been tackling this issue.

There's an appendix in the memo that gives a kind of selected list of those, but it's something that you are not alone and struggling with. As far as the specifics, we, you know, we have long decided, I'd say, societally that like, you know, dirt bikes, gas-powered dirt bikes, and like ATVs and vehicles of that nature are not something that should be on the road in the same way that a motorcycle is, in the same way that a car is, when their power is similar to those types of vehicles. But e-bikes, e-motos, are a new kind of entry into that field, and there's a table on the first page of the memo that kind of characterizes their difference in power and feature and speed compared to e-bikes. They are much more powerful, they can go much faster, and they are much more appropriately compared to a gas-powered dirt bike than they are to an e-bike. And we've been lucky, I would say, to not have seen significant injury, not no injury, but significant injury or more serious incidents of e-moto on pedestrian type of activity.

But we are a little bit unique in that respect. There's plenty of examples of that happening in other communities that spurred, that have spurred the regulation that you're seeing on this front. We have had lots of complaints from the public, and I'd characterize it as as just general outreach from, from the public that, that there are a lot of, in some cases, very young youth on these e-motos that, that have a lot of power that give rise to a lot of safety concerns.

Thank you, Mr. Barb. I think we can move into questions.

But, you know, listening to the chair of the last committee, it seemed somewhat workable to try to go through them in kind of numerical order, but realizing there's of course some things that will spill over. But, um, Madam Mayor, whatever question you'd like to ask, go ahead. Um, just the question, and it was asked at the last meeting, but I just wanted anybody tuning into this meeting, not last one, would you talk about the uses of helmets? On what we all— what we require right now or what's not required. Yeah, I'll take a start at that one, and the attorney may have more to add.

The helmets— we require helmets for kids under the— for youth under the age of 18 on bicycles. We do not have— because we do not currently have e-moto regulation, we do not have a helmet law for e-motos.

The state has their own laws, and I believe we are preempted by the state from imposing a local law on anyone over the age of 18 to wear a helmet.

Questions from the assembly. Again, trying to go in somewhat order, but don't totally confine yourself if it— if you're not sure where to ask. Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this could be a question for you, Mr. Barr, or even Assemblymember Steininger.

Um, when—. You're just very knowledgeable about these. Um, with the classified or the classification of the e-motos, like, is it that if an e-bike goes beyond any of those set out, you know, 1, 2, 3 classification, it then is automatically considered an e-moto? Or is it the fact that, you know, like a gas-loaded shock fork on the front, you know, the independent suspension aspects of an e-moto, is that what puts it? Because I'm, I'm just thinking about down the line as this industry develops and I can very well see them making an incredibly fast e-bike but wouldn't necessarily have the suspension to allow it to be off-road compatible.

So just trying to see, like, you know, yeah, what, you know, if they put one of these way larger wattage motors on an e-bike, does it become an e-moto?

Thank you for that question, Assemblymember Brooks. The first thing that you said, so if it's, it's, if any of these 3 things exist, then it is no longer an e-bike. It is an e-moto. And if any of these 3 things exist, then I'll just read them for the listening public, right? It's functional pedals must— functional pedals installed by the manufacturer are not present.

If a motor is present that is capable of faster than 20 mph speeds on level ground using motor alone. So that's throttle, or if a motor that is present that is rated at more than 750 watts of continuous power. If any of those 3 things are present, it's not an e-bike, it's an e-moto, and that does align with the commonly accepted Class 1, 2, and 3 definitions of e-bike.

Thank you.

I'll hop in if no other questions. Mr. Barr, there, you know, should we move forward with a pro— you know, the recommendation and recommendation 1, there are some areas that I guess do allow dirt bikes or that we may want to allow the use of e-motos. The OHV Park, I believe Montana Creek was discussed in the last committee hearing. I don't know if there's, you know, other spots. So I guess we just hear for that in the motion, or is that your suggestion?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, there's a footnote that I'll point you to on the third bullet point that we— that unless otherwise indicated, or unless the committee directs us otherwise, we would include if you just passed that recommendation, you know, wholesale, which would be to include, you know, unless Unless designated for such use, right? And, and we, and, and those 2 locations that you cited are the 2 locations that I'm aware of that would be designated for, for that, for their use. Thank you for that, Mr. Barr.

Did not see that the first time. Madam Mayor, and just to follow up on that, as far as I know, but I could be wrong, the only places we allow ATVs are Montana Creek Trail and our new Area 35.

I believe it. Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. I believe that to be correct. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Saniger.

Thank you. Kind of another follow-up on that. Effectively, although there's a lot of, you know, technical details here to, you know, differentiate between e-bikes and e-motos, kind of the end result here is e-motos would be treated the same as dirt bikes. Currently are treated. Is that accurate to say, Mr. Steininger?

You are correct. And I will just add to the mayor's question, private property also. Like, you know, I'm not— we're not talking about private property here. But yes, Mr. Steininger, you are correct.

Thank you.

Further questions on the e-moto piece? Maybe we Guess we could go—. Let's—. We can go through them and then we can start trying out motions. How does that sound?

Um, question? Yeah, go ahead, Miss Hall. At what point would we consider fines?

Thank you for that question. So we would integrate fines into all of these pieces. That would be our primary mechanism. We're limited to $500 for infractions, but that is per offense.

Madam Mayor.

We talked at one point about confiscating. Can we do that also? That's correct. We could also implement that if you have a certain number of infractions that you would be facing an impoundment of your e-moto or dirt bike or something like that.

Mr. Saniger. Thank you. And I know I asked this question in the last committee about use of bicycles, e-bikes on sidewalks. Extending that to the other pieces that we're kind of probably choosing not to talk about, but the electric scooters, electric skateboards, are those allowed on sidewalks? Kind of, could you maybe reiterate the sidewalk piece?

I'll start with this, and I suspect the attorney might have more to add. Currently, my understanding of state law is that only bicycles are defined Segways are also defined. They're kind of a weird carve-out, but only bicycles are defined as being, you know, that the cyclists has an obligation to pedestrians to, you know, yield the right-of-way to pedestrians, to give an audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian, to exercise care to avoid colliding, and that they are not to ride on, on side— on, on certain types of sidewalks. Generally, like where a bike lane is present in a business district, wherever they're prohibited by a traffic control device, and that is specific to bicycles. We would include— we would be defining e-bikes like bicycles in this ordinance.

I had Mr. Brooks and Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this would, uh, be for, uh, the attorney going back to what the mayor was saying about, uh, uh, possible confiscation. In the last meeting, they were discussing, you know, things along the line of, you know, permitting and, and whatnot, and It was expressed that, you know, most of these vehicles don't have VIN numbers.

So are we able to properly impound and keep track of something that doesn't have a VIN?

So it's a good question. Yes, I mean, there would be some challenge to that, but we certainly do have items in JPD's impound lot that don't have VINs, but we would— When we're looking at an impoundment and a forfeiture, we're keeping very good track of— or JPD is keeping very good track of the item that they've taken into their lot, what it looks like, where it is, lots and lots of notice. There's a pretty intense process, but we can manage that. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Thank you.

And I wanted to make sure I understood from, um, I think it was Miss Hall's question at the last meeting about, um, about number 4, she was talking about in front of Super Bear, and I'm assuming she's talking about that because that is a privately owned road. So number 4, recommendation number 4 covers that. Is that my understanding? Um, covers enforcement on privately owned roads.

Thanks for the clarification, Miss Hall.

And there was some clarification that Ms. Hall's previous reference was actually inside the Super Bear store, not on the, not on the public-private road. But I'm curious about the road actually, like, yeah.

So I think that the careless drive and the negligent driving, a change under number 4 would be useful in In several instances, private roads, we do not ticket people on private roads, so it would depend. But obviously, e-motos and bikes are not supposed to be in a grocery store at all. But the, the change to those two code provisions would give us a way to ticket and cite those persons for that. Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I'm not 100% sure of this, but is Mendenhall Mall Road private or public?

It's private. Mayor says it's private, Mr. Chair, other than the tiny, tiny little piece of the bus barn. Otherwise, it's private.

That's coming from someone who has some property right there. So, um, I did— did you have a question? Very good. Go ahead, Madam Mayor. I also want this on the record.

Um, looking at the, uh, side, the little note at the bottom, um, we are not regulating, um, things that are used for people that need them to help with their mobility. Is that correct? That is correct, and we would put a specific exemption in there to make sure that's very clear.

Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify a point on sidewalks. I got a phone-a-friend, and CBJ code currently right now does permit both operating a bicycle on a roadway in certain cases as well as a sidewalk, and really just speaks to the care that that individual operating a bicycle owes to others in those spaces so that they're operating safely.

Thank you for that. I was— I'm kind of— again, I don't want to get us into a, you know, a rat's nest on some of these things, but I was actually just traveling for work and noticed people using e-scooters very fast on sidewalks. I know we maybe don't want to get into the full regulation. I guess I'm just curious, are you anticipating language in— should we, you know, direct you to on item number 4 in that, in cases of people using e-scooters or things, you know, in an unsafe manner or Are there other things that cover it, or were you— were we not planning on addressing it?

Thank you for that. I think that— so the way careless driving and negligent driving are right now, as I say them, driving, they specifically say motor vehicles. And so the plan would be under this to focus on the behavior on bikes, e-bikes, e-motos. If you want, I was not planning to add scooters. E-scooters or e-skateboards or skateboards for that matter are also not on there.

Um, but, uh, if you would like me to include that, you would need to let me know.

And I guess just to follow up, Mr. Barr, have we experienced issues with people on sk— I mean, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, you know, I can't categorically say that we have or haven't, but it certainly hasn't risen to my awareness from staff or the public in a way similar that e-motos have.

Thank you.

Further questions on anything anywhere? If not, shall we try a motion to— Mr. Kelly, go ahead with the question. I, I guess to follow up, um, I, I think item number 3 kind of speaks to not wanting to, um, or to wanting to take more time to regulate e-scooter and e-skateboard and the Deputy Mayor was just speaking to maybe including some of that in, in number 4. Would there be any logistical issues if we did choose to go, go with that direction?

If I— I don't believe there would be, Mr. Kelly.

Shall we? Let's try out some motions. Madam Mayor, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm just dealing with number 1 at this time. I think everything else could be dealt with separately.

So I move that we direct staff to introduce an ordinance prohibiting the use of e-motos on public property except Montana Creek Trail and Area 35, which is the ORV park, that are similar to off-road gas-powered dirt bikes and that are distinguished from Class 1, 2, and 3 ebikes based on the following criteria, and that's the 3 things listed there. The functional pedals installed by the original manufacturers are not present, or if a motor is present that is capable of greater than 20 mph speeds on level ground using motor power alone, or if a motor is present that is rated at greater than 750 watts of continuous power, then use of such a vehicle is illegal on public property. Except as designated and may not be used on streets unless it is properly licensed and registered as a motorcycle or other vehicle in accordance with state law. And if I could speak to my, or my motion. Go ahead, Madam Mayor.

Um, talking to several people, and a big shout out to Mr. Bryson, who gave a tour of e-bikes to Mr. Barr and I. We had a little field trip out there. Class 1, 2, and 3 would be very hard to distinguish, so It would be hard to tell by just looking at them what they are, and all 3 of those are considered modes of transportation, and they are not typically our problems that we're seeing with the e-motos. Um, so that's why I, um, like this ordinance, um, and I think, uh, well, I can talk to the next thing, um, about the Parks and Rec ordinance later, but that's why I'm moving this forward at this time. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

We've heard the motion. Is there objection to the motion? Mr. Kelly, then to see Mr. Brooks. Thank you. Just because it was— is worded very specifically to meet staff's recommendation, I was kind of thinking I would agree with, with the spirit of this, this recommendation, but I guess the one column I would have would be with the specific phrase installed by the original manufacturer since, since like maybe, you know, somebody wants to, maybe the specifications for the vehicle have that included, like maybe there are in the specifications this vehicle is supposed to have pedals, but maybe they've changed them out with somebody else that's a different manufacturer or a different vendor.

Um, so I would be— I guess I would just wonder, um, if, um, unless Madam Mayor wants to change her motion, um, just how staff would interpret that.

Um, I'll, I'll start and then hopefully staff can pick up. That's why the word 'or' is there, but staff can take it from there. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I, I, um, I think I understand Mr. Kelly's concern here in that if there was a situation, and I Mr. Steininger, I believe, brought it up at the previous committee where a high-end mountain bike maybe didn't ship with pedals, but still was not going to function without the pedals, right? It had the ability to be pedaled, had the crankshaft associated with pedaling, and it was just that the, you know, individual buying that bike was going to buy pedals after the fact because that's what you do for high-end mountain bikes, that we would not be unintentionally prohibiting that type of vehicle, that type of bicycle.

And I think, you know, unless there's other direction, I think both based on the conversation at Land's Housing and Economic Development as well as Mr. Kelly's comment here, that we could care for that in the ordinance language to not prohibit that type of bicycle. Thank you. I remove my objection. Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and I had to object just for the purpose of an amendment, and it's just a really small kind of a foresight amendment. But when mentioning the, uh, permissible use areas of Montana Creek and Area 35, the amendment would be to add, and all other aerial areas where similar use is permitted. Currently, that's nothing. But in the future, as recreation facilities grow and expand, if new areas were established, we wouldn't have to go back and revisit this. That's all.

Thank you, Mr. Brooks.

Um, you've heard an amendment. Questions, objections? Miss Euskandi. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm digesting the amendment. I appreciate the foresight. From Mr. Brooks. My only— I am in spirit supportive of the amendment. The only thing I'm wondering is if we need to further define all similar uses, or maybe you could restate it.

I'm just—. I want to make sure it's crystal clear. Um, Montana Creek, for example, I had to be reminded that that's, I think, more of snow machines. I just want to make it clear also for the public that I don't know what exists now besides the Area 35. So maybe you could clarify that.

Mr. Brooks, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, can change similar to same.

So that puts it in the exact definition of what those other areas currently are, and it has to be the same permittable use. Thank you. I guess I'll object just for a purpose of a question, and that's similar to what we did just on Peddles.

Should this amendment pass, we will just try to capture the essence of that, of, you know, a permit if used in a, you know, designated for such use or designated for such use in the future. Some language that cares for these issues being raised. Okay, that's correct. I can do that. I can come back with both things and make sure that they match, and I understand.

What the intent is. Very good. Great, then I remove my objection. Very good. I'll remove my objection as well.

Uh, if the attorney is going to draft up something to that nature, I'll remove my object— or my amendment as well. Or keep—. Okay, okay. Yeah, and then they'll clean it up for us. We've heard an amendment.

Is there objection to the amendment? That amendment passes. We're back to the main motion as amended.

Is there objection to the main motion as amended?

Seeing none, the main motion as amended passes.

Okay. Further motions on this topic.

Miss Yuskandis. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I would move that we direct staff to postpone the PRAC ordinance 2020— or sorry, not PRAC, uh, ordinance 2026-41 to align with when this will be heard so they can both be heard at the same time. And in speaking to that, we sent the other one out of committee, um, I felt okay sending the other one out of committee.

I wasn't sure how quickly we would be able to act on this, and in the meantime, PRAC had done the work on that. But I think it's really important that it's clear to the public and it's obvious what our intent is, um, when you all get to vote on that. So that would be my motion. Thank you, Miss Scandies. Objections to the motion?

Madam Mayor. Uh, thank you. I appreciate Ms. Yuskany's motion, but I think we should take care of it all in one ordinance and not have two different ordinances. That could potentially be confusing to the public, especially since the Parks and Rec is Class 1, and I think we could care for that in the ordinance if we put an abide by all rules posted on trails. And Parks and Rec and Eagle Crest could post those rules at the trailhead and then have the same thing.

But I think two ordinances would confuse the public, so I'm not in favor of postponing, which we would have to do at the assembly level anyway. I would like to just see one amendment deal with it all.

Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Kelly, then Ms. Scandies, maybe. Thank you. Um, so actually kind of alluding to what the mayor just said about, um, postponing would have to happen at the assembly level, I just wanted to get maybe clarification from staff. So we would probably interpret Miss, uh, Miss Youskandi's motion to basically change the manager's recommendation at the assembly level to postpone instead of to, uh, to adopt.

Would that be correct, Mr. Kelly? That's, that's correct. Whether you, um, that's correct. Thank you.

Further objections? Further questions? Comments?

I guess I'll, I'll speak again. Just when we spoke of that, I was searching for my head still on Lance, and so I'm probably still have my chair hat on and trying to find consensus of the 4 folks who are here. And then I think people had preferred, uh, that to tabling the overall Approach, I agree it is better if it is obvious, and I don't mind a borough-wide approach, but maybe I misunderstood this distinction here. So I want to ask staff, the key piece being whether we leave— we wish to leave discretion to Eagle Crest or discretion to the parks director, then the path forward would be to maintain the, the 2 ordinances, or can we care for that in the 1 ordinance that it has a discretion? Because I would be fine with that as well.

So I think I'm going to take this one since I'll be drafting both ordinances. It's always better from a drafting perspective to have 1 ordinance versus 2 competing where you might have mistakes that cross-reference So I, I do think it's a good idea, your original motion, to at least get them on the same date for public hearing and action. However, we certainly could take the mayor's— you can table— go ahead and table the prac, the 2026-41, or recommend tabling, and then care for it by, say, by having the new ordinance address Parks and Rec facilities. And, and what I'm hearing is that I would add in a piece that would give Director Wheeler and Eagle Crest the ability to post rules on their own trails regarding e-bikes and e-motos, although your legislation is just e-motos. So if you want to give them ability to regulate e-bikes, you need to, to let me know that one.

Does that help? It does. I think, um, I'm just thinking through what I want policy-wise, and I think I got a little spun around the axle of which way to accomplish that.

So at this point, Mr. Chair, I'm going to withdraw that motion because I think that didn't accomplish what I wanted. Very good. Any objection to Ms. Euskandi withdrawing her motion? Seeing none, the motion is withdrawn.

Any further motions? Madam Mayor, I'm skipping to number 4 because, um, I don't think we should— well, I'll make my motion and then I'll speak to it. Um, so I would move that we direct law to, in our ordinance, review and propose additional language for both negligent and careless driving infractions to address poor behaviors on bikes, bikes and the rest of that sentence. Um, and, um, I think that's appropriate to do that motion. Sorry, Mr.

Chair, if I can speak to my motion. Um, because I think that there are cases where there are problems with some of these, uh, behaviors away from just public property. So I would move to support that motion.

You've heard the motion. Is there objection? Miss Hall? Object for the purpose of amendment and to add, um, the, uh, violation would be subject to a civil fine up to $300.

Can you restate? I'm sorry, Miss Hall, maybe restate the motion, please. Amend this to add, uh, that violation of this would, um, you know, what is developed would be subject to a civil fine of up to $300 and ask for unanimous consent. Yep. Thank you, Miss Hall.

Uh, I see objection from the mayor. I object for purposes of a question, and I'm looking at the attorney. Um, do we start with an arbitrary number, or is there a reason for our fees, or can we state $300? You can just state— so the best practice would be to give your number so people know what the penalty is for what they're alleged to have done. So best practice would be to say $300.

Mr. Speaker, then my objection. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Steiner, then Mr. Brooks. Um, yes, objecting for a question kind of as it relates to, uh, Ms. Hall's Um, Mo— Amendment. So as you're drafting the mayor's motion, in my mind I was thinking there might be different levels of negligence and carelessness that you might be defining.

So there might be some that are up to the $300 level, but some that maybe are $150 worth of negligence. Um, how are we interpreting, I guess, that? Graduated negligence, I guess. Sure. So in general, the way the code is laid out, you have careless is the lowest, negligent is next higher, and then reckless is actually under our penal code.

So there's already steps to that. You can have subcategories that— so it would be completely consistent with code to make one 300 and another one 500, you know, to have it graduated for each. You also can do internal graduations of if you've had so many tickets in the last year, it will go up to the maximum fine. We often do that based on how many tickets you've received in the prior 12 months. So I'm happy to propose something if you would like that based on other code areas, and then you can play with it if you want to see a graduated fine schedule.

That— I think that would be great. Yeah, I think that's what I was getting at. You know, we need to have some teeth to this, but as far as how, you know, that's your area of expertise. So, yes, Ms. Hall, are you withdrawing your motion? Will it still be covered in this without an amendment.

Uh, no, if you want me to do a fine and you want me to do a graduated fine schedule, you would need to maintain your objection, or you would need to maintain your amendment, because the mayor did not have, uh, a fine or a graduated fine schedule.

Okay, so would amend this to include a graduated fine structure and ask for unanimous consent. Are you, are you kind of, are you, are you replacing or withdraw, you know, I guess withdrawing your amendment and putting forward another? That's what I'm doing, yes. Okay, very good. Go talk to the attorney.

Sorry.

Is there— I guess, is there objection to the amendment, Madam Mayor? So I think I would say, uh, give Ms. Hall a moment to talk to the attorney, because is the fine going to start at $300 or is it going to graduate to $300? So if she wants to fine-tune it, she needs to fine-tune it.

Thank you. Um, maybe it's a good reminder, maybe for me. You know, in the Committee of the Whole, we are, you know, proposing conceptual pieces of legislation that we'll then see, you know, more detail on. Obviously, crafting that now can be helpful, but very good. We have an amendment.

Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe Assemblymember Hall's proposed amendment was fine in the sense that she said up to 300, so that allows for that kind of graduated, but also in the earlier meeting, $500 was mentioned. So if our maximum is $500, it should be up to $500, and the language of up to encompasses some sort of graduation bracketry if you needed, right?

Miss Adkisson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could just ask the maker of the amendment, my understanding was that she withdrew the previous, and therefore there is no number on the table and just a graduated fine structure. Is that correct?

That is correct. Okay, we've heard the amendment. Is there objection to that amendment? Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Once again, this is an objection for the purpose of a question. Is 500 the maximum that we can impose?

Yes. So by saying up to 500 allows for all possible variations of graduation. If you are making an amendment, and it would be the last one because you got two, um, so if you're making an amendment, you're— the amendment would be that I would create a graduated fine schedule with the maximum penalty being $500.

Am I correct that that's what you're doing? Yes, there's an amendment to the amendment. Is there objection? Miss Atkinson?

I just need to clarify, Madam Attorney, when you—. Does that—. Is your interpretation of this amendment that you would have to create a fine of $500 under this amendment?

My interpretation would be that I am looking at careless and negligent driving to include e-bikes and e-motos, and that as part of that, I would present to you all a graduated fine schedule with the maximum schedule available. I cannot present anything higher than $500.

And I would note you can change all of those numbers at the next assembly meeting, but that's how I would draft it. Oh, Miss Atkinson. So just—. Sorry, I just want to be 100% sure. There's a lot that's happened tonight.

Um, if you looked at other sections of code and you thought the highest fine should be $400 based on other sections of code, you would bring that to us with the highest fine of $400.

No, I would— the highest I would bring would be 500, and I would graduate it. So if you want me to match it to other code sections, I can do that. Okay, then I will object to this amendment. Thank you. There's an amendment to the amendment and objection.

Is there further objection? I'll object briefly. I appreciate what we're trying to do. I also am like, I think we're maybe getting a little nitpicky here, or trying to get a little too in the weeds. I think we need to get Step.

I mean, let's let the— let's let the— my hope is to let the attorney do some drafting, looking at the proper schedules, and then we can see that when we bring an ordinance back. And if we need to, if we want to change it, we can do so via amendment. So I'll object as well. Again, there's an amendment to the amendment, and there is objection. Further question, Mr. Steingart.

Just to clarify what we're voting on, a no vote would retain a recommended graduated fine schedule but without guidance on where the maximum is. A yes vote gives guidance to make the maximum $500, but they could still come back with a maximum of $500 if that was deemed appropriate by staff. That is my understanding of the amendment to the amendment, and looking at staff, I'm seeing agreement there.

We have an amendment to the amendment, and we have objection. Miss Hendrix, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Deputy Mayor Smith. For the amendment to the amendment of adding language of up to $500: Mr. Brooks?

Yes. Deputy Mayor Smith? No.

Miss Adkisson? No. Mr. Kelly? No. Mr. Steininger?

Yes. Miss Hall? Yes. Miss Hughes-Candies? Yes.

Madam Mayor?

No. Motion fails with 4 yays and 4 nays. Thank you, Miss Hendrix. We have a motion and an amendment. Is there objection to the amendment, which maybe Miss Hendrix or, or staff remind us what what the amendment was.

The amendment was to add a— that a violation of this would be subject to a civil fine with a graduated fine schedule. Thank you, Miss Hendrix. We've heard the amendment. Is there objection to the amendment? Seeing none, that amendment is adopted.

Now we're back to a main motion as amended.

Which my sense is that it's essentially number 4 with a graduated fine schedule. Is that correct, or does anyone need further clarification? We had one of addition to add the exception for Montana Creek Trail in Area 35. Apologies, that was the previous motion.

Thank you, Miss Hendricks. Okay, we have a motion as amended. Is there objection to the motion? Mr. Saniger. Um, I'll object for the purpose of an amendment, um, to add consideration of e-scooters and e-skateboards to the drafting of regulations around negligent and careless driving infractions.

And ask unanimous consent. We've heard the amendment. Madam Mayor, I'll object just for the purposes of saying I'll have to see the language first. I can't— won't say I necessarily will vote for this at the assembly. Thanks.

I'll remove my objection. Is there any further objection to the amendment? Seeing no objection, that amendment passes. Now we have a motion amended twice. Is there objection?

Mr. Kelly.

I don't know if I'll necessarily propose an amendment here, but being as this is a big topic and we might still see amendments to it, I was wondering if it might be a good idea. So we we have this thing referred to our October meeting, perhaps, and then maybe also back to, back to this committee afterwards. I guess before I make that a motion, I might want to see if there's any thoughts about that.

Any thought, Madam Mayor? I would object to that hypothetical motion because Parks and Rec is waiting for this regulation to prevent problems on the trail, and we have to work as a body not to get too deep into the details on some of these things. I mean, this is a pretty straightforward one. We can dig forever and turn it into— what was, uh, the attorney's, uh, thing about our nonprofit? Turn into a Frankenstein.

But it's pretty simple topic of what we're dealing with here, so I don't think it needs to go back to committee. I think we could move forward with it. Thank you, Madam Mayor. We have a motion twice amended. Is there objection to the motion?

Seeing none, that motion is adopted.

Any further motions?

I guess I have a question that I would like— that I wanted to ask. I don't know if it's to the Lands Committee. I guess I'm still not 100% sure how we're curing, or maybe we're not, Class 2 and 3 e-bikes at parks and rec facilities. Are we? That seemed to be the direction that the Lands Committee went.

Well, actually, we haven't— have we altered— we haven't altered course of that ordinance at all. So it is up for public hearing at the next meeting, correct, Madam Attorney? So if it would be helpful, um, you have two meeting dates at play, so you've got two ordinances now. Uh, you've already introduced the prac. It will be up for public hearing on October 26th, that's your reorganization night as well.

So I'll just note that for people who joined at the reorganization last year, that was an interesting meeting. Um, but the, the way this will go is my plan will be to have it drafted and ready to be introduced also on the 26th, which would then— so I'll keep it going fast. Um, that would put public hearing on 14th of November. So if you did want to either table or postpone, whatever you want to do, if you wanted to postpone and have them heard together, you would be looking at the 14th of November.

16Th of November. Is it really the 16th? The 16th of November. Excuse Candice, I can try another motion, see how people feel. Um, I do know that there are reasons that we talked about the different regulating of e-bikes.

It would be a policy decision if we decide, because the e-motos are— is where we want to put our focus, if we table the other one. It is kind of getting out of the e-bike game entirely.

But I will make a motion and see where people are on tabling Ordinance 2026-41.

We've heard the motion. Mr. Kelly with a point of order. Are we—. Sorry, not table, directing. Yes, making a recommendation to staff.

I'm not tabling it. I'm recommending staff do that. Okay, I will draw my point. Thank you, sticklers, for keeping me in line. Was there further objection?

Um, just, uh, I guess a question. Um, so just, just to clarify what we're voting on at this point, um, Ms. Youskandies is proposing that we would table 2026-41, or that we would propose to table 2026-41 at the next assembly meeting. Miss Youskandis, that was my understanding of your motion. Yep, that's correct.

I think I'll maintain my objection. You have a motion and objection.

Miss Youskandis. And to speak to it further, I will note that there were policy reasons that they, you know, PRAC worked on that ordinance and, um, looking at the speeds of different classes of e-bikes, that is also worthy of consideration. So, um, I am somewhat conflicted in saying this, but right now what I'm trying to do is deconflict the path. That's why initially I had, uh, proposed just aligning them. Um, but also no one on the body has spoken about it, so I'm trying to find the sense of the body.

Thank you, Ms. Hughes-Candies. Madam Mayor. Once again, the two opposite sides of the podium are the only ones speaking. I would speak in favor of this motion because, like I said, I think we need to have one ordinance. Otherwise, it's going to be confusing.

The attorney spoke to having one ordinance. And again, I think that Parks and Rec could post rules which included speed limits on their trails, because looking at a Class 1, 2, and 3, you can't tell them apart. So that would be really, really hard to enforce for anybody, including our JPD. So I think, uh, one ordinance is sufficient. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Miss Hall? I, I would also speak in support of this, um, yeah, because it would be a challenge to enforce. And, and, um, just looking at them, you can't recognize what class it is. So being practical, thank you.

I'll, I'll speak in support I guess, kind of with a little bit of a caveat that I think tabling this kind of— well, it's a little funky, look a little funky to the public. But I, I also in kind of the agreement, and I don't know if it's something that happens in the manager report, that anyway, we're doing one ordinance, and at that order, at the hearing of that, the public hearing of that ordinance, we could introduce an amendment that, you know, we have time to figure out what's the best language. To address. And I'm, again, unless I've totally missed the boat on why we don't want to do that, I'm still supportive of trying to do, you know, potentially some type of additional regulation at Parks and Rec facilities. But so, and, but I think it's cleaner to do it this way and do it as an amendment at the, for the ordinance we just moved introduction.

Madam Mayor. And just a reminder to the public, we are taking, um, public hearing on ordinances for introduction, and this ordinance would be for introduction at our next meeting.

I will remove my objection, but Mr. Steineger, go ahead. Just a clarifying question, I guess. Um, Madam Mayor, you mentioned giving Parks Department the ability, like, set speed limit— speed limits and whatnot. Just trying to think through what we've so far tasked Miss Wright in drafting? Is that part of the ordinance we've tasked her to draft?

I'm trying to think of what all we've already done this evening, and I'm not sure if we've given them that direction. That'll be another motion later, I guess. I don't know if that explicitly have given her that direction, but, uh, it would be an amendment if she didn't put it in for me.

Um, I would— thank you, Mr. Steineger. Um, I will— let's hear— go through Ms. Hughes-Gandy's motion, and then I'll make another motion to take care of that. Mr. Kelly. Um, thank you. Um, I guess I wanted just a little clarification from the maker of the motion.

Is the intention to outright table 2026-41, or is it to incorporate it as one ordinance to have 20/76-41 incorporated into the new ordinance.

Mr. Kelly, my understanding is the motion is to table.

All right, I'll maintain my objection just because I think, um, I think we still need to address 20/26-41. I think I would, um, I might be okay with it if we were going to, uh, if there— if we were going to incorporate it into one ordinance, as Madam Mayor suggests that we do. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. We may be taking care of that in a moment. I agree with you, maybe the order of operations is a little off.

Madam Mayor, um, I just want to clarify, I did not say to incorporate, uh, Ordinance 2026-41. I think it's better to start with a clean ordinance and go from there.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. We have a motion and objection. Miss Hendricks, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Deputy Mayor Smith. For Miss Huskandies' motion to have the manager's recommendation changed to table Ordinance 2026-41 at the next regular meeting.

Miss Huskandies? Yes. Mr. Kelly? No. Miss Axson?

Yes. Mr. Steininger? Yes. Ms. Hall? Yes.

Mr. Brooks? Yes. Madam Mayor? Yes. Deputy Mayor Smith?

Yes. Motion carries with 6— 7 yeas and 1 nay. Thank you, Miss Hendrix.

Madam Mayor, I move that, uh, uh, we direct staff in the ordinance, uh, to allow the ability to, um, for rules on behavior to be posted on trails. So just on the behavior, they can't say— offer— sorry, may I speak to my amendment? Sorry, forget, forget you. Sure. So, um, we'll just keep it that so they can post rules at their trailheads for both Parks and Recs and Eagle Crest.

And if I can speak to that amendment, um, I think it'd be more of a behavior. I don't think that they can change the classes or anything else like that, or give permission for e-motos just to, uh, post behaviors.

Heard the motion. Missy Scandies objects. I don't know if I'll maintain my objection. I appreciate what the mayor is getting at, and I think in a very common sense way I can support that. I'm not sure that direction is— would be easy to be taken as staff, because I'm thinking of the subject of the ordinance being about the emotos.

And so it's a borough-wide approach is what we've taken so far, and we've tabled the other one. So I'm not sure then how you— it just seems out of subject area. It doesn't seem, uh, it's the sort of thing that I would say it's like a red herring of what is this doing in this ordinance. So Madam, I will accept Ms. Hughes-Candy's gentle objection to this because— and I will remove my amendment because I think number 4 would— the one where we— sorry, I can't speak— where we asked them to put additional language for negligent and careless driving. I would assume that would be also on the trails.

Anna Mere moved to withdraw her motion, so we—. I'll— okay, I'll object.

I, I, you could—. To withdraw. I'm sorry, it's— no, I, I, I Yeah, I mean, it's so like number 4 is basically a part of the new ordinance anyway, and Madam Mayor's motion was to explicitly state that we would be allowing Parks and Rec to institute regulations. So I think her motion would kind of accomplish the same thing that she's asking, but I think it might be better to be explicit about that. That's, I guess, that's where I'm coming from.

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Here's what I'll propose. How about we take 10 minutes? Break. Do people do what they need?

I have questions about how to deal, you know, what we might need to do here. And yeah, Ted Manatee's come back at 7:23.

I'll bring us back to order. I believe our last motion was An objection to the withdrawal of a motion. That is correct, Mr. Deputy Mayor. I guess my concern was I still would like to see at some point some specific park regulations, and I thought that the mayor's motion might have cared for that. After speaking with the attorney, I think I might pursue that through other means, or maybe see where we land with this ordinance at the end.

So I will remove my objection to the mayor withdrawing her motion. Thank you. Is there further objection to the mayor withdrawing her motion? Seeing none, the motion is withdrawn. Are there further motions on this topic?

Okay, I guess, seeing none, again, I'm a— I guess I'll keep working. I'm still not totally sure what happened with the, you know, the ordinance regarding efforts at the, you know, efforts at Parks and Eagle Crest. So, and I don't believe it's cured for anything we've dealt with. So maybe I don't. Anyway, we'll address that another day.

However, moving on to agenda topic 2, peer-to-peer vehicle rentals. Mr. Barr.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. You have another unfortunately long memo in your packet from me on this topic.

The memo's not unfortunate. The length is what I was referring to. So you'll recall that you last talked about this topic in February at Lands and in March at the Committee of the Whole, and you asked us to do a number of things, and I'm more than happy to go through all those things, and I will as soon as you want me to. I wanted to start this topic by Offering an option that is not in the memo that I thought about after I wrote the memo over the weekend, and therefore failed to include in the memo because I didn't think about it ahead of time. And that is that you— one of your choices on this topic is to wait and see is kind of how I'm thinking about it, because the first paragraph talks about the availability of parking in the Marine Parking Garage and also the Downtown Transit Center.

We, um, we have waitlists. We have significantly— we have long waitlists in both of those facilities right now, more for the Marine Parking Garage than the Downtown Transit Center. Uh, but, but the part that came to me over the weekend is we will be moving out, uh, of the Marine Parking Garage here soon, um, before or right around during the beginning of the next tourism season. And, um, when we do that, we will free up somewhere in the neighborhood of 140 to 150 spaces in that facility. Uh, that probably— I can't know for— I don't— can't speak for certain— that probably won't entirely eliminate the waitlist that we have, but it'll come really close to eliminating it.

Uh, and, and you could decide that you— before, in lieu of tackling this now, you could—. You—. It would be—. I can make arguments in both directions, right? But, but you, you could, you could make the decision that like, hey, that's a really significant change to downtown parking, downtown parking availability, downtown congestion.

And that's reason enough to wait, see what the impacts of that are, revisit this again next fall after, after the summer season, and after you kind of can get a sense of what those impacts were. On the flip side, you could also be like, no, the most important thing to me here is the public subsidy of parking spaces and congestion, and like those reasons. Make me want to do this now. Um, so, Mr. Chair, I, uh, you know, I, I, I, I don't know if, like, you want me to stop there and, like, see if you want to try to tackle that, or if you want me to go through the rest of this, but I'll look to you for that.

Thank you, Mr. Barr. Um, you know, definitely appreciate your thinking and work and, um, and diving into the details on it. And just, you know, I guess as always is our option, there is wait and see or not take action.

I guess, you know, in terms of process, I think it may be more beneficial to decide if people— and see how people feel about a wait and see approach, because if there's a majority of members who are— 5 members who are, who are okay with that approach, then we don't need to delve into the myriad of details, you know, and considerations for the other piece. So that would be kind of maybe how I would start us off, is maybe questions on kind of like either, you know, and wait and see is probably like tabling to a time certain or something would be probably the right motion to do it, to do that. But, um, I guess questions for Mr. Barr. I mean, let's do questions first. I know we'll have comments too, Questions, Madam— Miss Yuskandis, and then Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Mr. Barr, in relation to the deciding between a wait-and-see approach, last time we worked on this, we didn't get there. Am I right? Could you— I had to ask you about where this was, and we talked about this earlier today.

But could you refresh my memory on why we stopped work on this, or kind of the reason for why we're seeing it now? I can. Thank you. Thank you for the question. So, um, we did not get this to the finish line in time for implementation for this season and vehicle rentals and the use of parking downtown and the congestion issue and subsidy that is generally tied to the summer season, right?

It's generally tied to that. So because we, um, because we didn't get to that finish line in time, um, that I think had the effect of deprioritizing this, um, and, and raising priorities of other topics. Assembly committee time is limited.

Thanks, Mr. Breyer. I was just noting that there's a seasonal time component to that as well. So I know that's in people's heads. Madam Mayor, uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Barr. I'm just making sure because it's been a little bit since we've seen this.

We changed some of the definitions, but we're still— I know that this will affect Turo. Does it still affect rental cars in general? Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, I'm going to give you a short answer, and if you want it, I'll give you the longer one too. Uh, the short answer is Yes, and it depends a little bit upon choices that you might make in regards to policy.

So if you, if you choose to apply this to public areas only, it would predominantly affect Turos. If you choose to apply it— and predominantly is a keyword there— if you choose to apply it everywhere in the mapped zone of the map that is in your packet, then it would affect both Turo's and traditional vehicle rentals more holistically. And again, that's the short answer.

I'll ask a question.

I guess in terms of kind of a wait-and-see approach, we're going to have— did you say 150 spots opening Potentially no waitlist.

You know, I was kind of— anyway, it would have been a hypothetical about, like, does it— would a 10% excise tax, like, cause people to not get a permit and to do something else? Therefore, we don't collect— we could have unsold spaces at the parking garages.

Mr. Chair, really hard to predict. I don't know that, yeah, really, really hard to predict that sort of business interest of whether or not a 10% excise tax is enough to incentivize or disincentivize that use.

I will note that there are definitely Turos on the waitlist.

Thank you.

I guess a thought is, if people are wanting to pursue a wait-and-see, it'd be a motion to table until, you know, maybe this time or the fall. Mr. Barker, sorry, just parliamentary thing. Motion to postpone to a date certain. Thank you. So it'd be a motion to postpone to a date certain, and we could, you know, choose some month or something.

Madam Mayor, I move a motion to postpone Ordinance 2026-12, version CAO 2, till March 31st. And I'll object. May I speak to my objection? Yes, Madam Mayor, go ahead. I'm moving us along.

Thank you. Um, I appreciate, uh, what Mr. Barr said about the spaces, but, uh, to me, um, And this is kind of funny because for the business person, but we're basically subsidizing someone's place of business to allow them to do this. And similar to, we charge the passenger vessels at Strider Harbor and their rates just about ready to go up, and yet we're letting cars park in our public parking with no extra fee. So I would speak against that because I think we need to address this sooner rather than later. And yes, I know it's a seasonal thing, but but I would rather have it done and in place than trying to do it in the middle of our budget season next year.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Missus Candies, I will object as well. And when I said it was a seasonal thing, that was to try to encourage people that we needed to work on it now. Um, I agree with, uh, Madam Mayor's concern about the subsidization, and, um, and I think this is a congestion issue as well. I can tell you in the downtown parking spots that I use, I park down downtown, uh, have a garage space.

I see the Turos increasing, and, you know, I park further and further up, uh, which as a resident is weird at night, um, during the summer because the Turos are taking the sweet spots, which I'm okay with, but, um, it just lets me know how much they're there.

Objection, Mr. Kelly. Yeah, I think we've gotten emails. I've certainly had people speak to me in— I've had people speak to me about not being able to find parking downtown. So I think, I think I would rather that we— I will also object. I think we should probably deal with this sooner rather than later.

Ms. Adkinson. I don't need to speak to it, but I object.

We have a motion and multiple objections. Miss Hendricks, would you call the roll? Thank you, Deputy Mayor Smith. For Madam Mayor's motion to postpone Ordinance 2026-12, version Cal, till March 31st, Madam Mayor. No.

Miss Hughes-Candies? No. Mr. Kelly? No. Miss Adkinson?

No. Mr. Steininger? Nope. Miss Hall? Nope.

Mr. Brooks? No. Deputy Mayor Smith? Nope. Motion fails with 8 nays, 0 yeas.

I appreciate you— I appreciate the motion to keep us moving along. All right. All right, now we have all the details ahead of us.

Mr. Barr, we see in your memo there are some, you know, policy goals and directions that you're looking for.

I guess now that we're really going to get into it. The first policy goal is— or the first policy piece is to— are we looking at policy question? Mr. Barr, sorry, help me through. What is the first question you want us to answer? Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Maybe just going through the memo would be helpful. At this— okay, so since we've aligned on that wait-and-see thing going away, so note my weekend ideas, sometimes not the best. Okay, so you'll remember, I guess I'll just remind you that, you know, the direction that you gave us at the March CAO, I believe, Mr. Smith, you were the one that asked us to remove renter from the collection remitted section. That was for clarity and helping people understand. There was also some discussion around adjusting the map, so we followed that.

We did that. We adjusted the map. I wanted to talk about this, though, because there was one piece of policy that you asked us to look at that this memo does not entirely do because I couldn't figure out a way to do it. So you at the, at the last CAO wanted to discuss both if this tax should apply based on business model and if this tax should apply based on geography. And for business model, the two options, of course, are Turo and traditional car rentals.

For geography, it's you have that mapped zone and it's just the public land in that mapped zone, or it's everywhere, depending on your policy goals. In writing a couple of versions of this memo, I wasn't able to— I was only able to achieve what I thought your policy goals were going to be, or your policy options were going to be, based on geography, not based on business model. And that is partially because of information that we learned at the CAO. From the mayor that there's crossover between use of public property and both traditional car rentals and Turo. We think anyway, can't be 100% sure about that, but there sure appears to be.

So what the memo gives you, it asks you, I ask you to think about the policy questions you care about most, and those Those 3 things are, as I understand them, parking availability, both on-street and in the garages. The subsidy of CBJ parking spaces. So we don't fully capture all of the costs of our parking garages in the permits and that we sell, and in the hourly rates that we collect. And so they are, they are subsidized for, for all users. And then 3, how, how much how heavily you weigh vehicle congestion.

And if, if you, the memo gives you 2 options on the second page, dependent upon how you feel about those impacts. And of course, you, you may have others, but those are the ones that I was able to identify in thinking through this.

And it's if you care most about impacts 1 and 2, and you think congestion is less of an issue, or maybe you want to wait and see on that issue because we're moving out, or maybe, you know, whatever. If you deprioritize impact 3 and you think 1 and 2 are the most important thing, or just 1 or just 2, then that would, I think, argue from a public purpose perspective to make make a distinction between applying this excise tax on public and private property, which is to say just apply it on public property, because then you are incentivizing those operators who are predominantly going to be Turo operators, but we think also maybe some traditional car rental companies, to not use public property for this business purpose.

Because their rentals will cost more. They will cost 10% more for the— for their users, for their renters. It also, for those that choose not to do that, who choose to continue to operate on public property, it will help pay for that general fund subsidy. So addressing impact number 2, and it acknowledges that those vendors that operate right now on private property aren't, um, you know, using those public resources, uh, and additionally are, um, are paying property taxes on that private property, which goes into the general fund, can be used for all uses, um, whether that's directly or through, uh, through, through their leases. Alternatively, um, another option is if you think all 3 things are important, right?

You know, in whatever weighting you choose, you could choose to apply this tax in the whole mapped zone. And I think there are two arguments in favor of that. The biggest one is that the simplification of administration. So Turo, and to the extent there are other marketplace facilitators exist in this arena, I'm not aware of them, I think it's just Turo, have the ability to geofence a zone. Um, but we have not had conversations with them, um, about distinguishing between a specific parcel or a specific set of parcels in a zone.

So, um, their, their ability to do that, I think, might be challenged, um, in this, but we will certainly pursue that with them if that's your direction. Um, we will be relying on them to collect and remit, and they do that in other jurisdictions in, in whichever decision you, you rely on, or you, you decide, or another one probably. And then the argument, other argument in favor of full zone application is that if, again, if you heavily weigh that congestion argument, you know, street congestion is, you know, whether rental originates on a private parcel or a public parcel in that zone, its contribution to downtown congestion is the same. So that's the other argument in favor of that full zone thing, full zone piece.

Couple other paragraphs in the memo that are contextual in nature.

You know, we'll use the Alaska Remote Sellers Commission. They— that is a bit of a new thing, but this is something that coordinating with marketplace facilitators is something that they do and that we find value in. That is new in the ordinance. Maintenance. I have a paragraph in here about— that gives you context around the total taxation that vehicle rentals pay.

There is our 5%, there is a different rate that the state imposes on vehicle rentals, 7% for Turo's, 9% for traditional rentals. The 7% the state conceptualizes as a 2% break that goes away over time. I can't remember why they imposed that, but I could figure it out. And the one contextual piece of information that I did not include in here is that there's nothing you can do on Uber and Lyft. That is, we are preempted by state law on Uber and Lyft.

So the extent you want to think about that, it's a state— we would have to lobby the state for changes on that if you feel that is related and relevant.

So recommendation-wise, I guess my recommendation, Mr. Chair, would be to think about to think about those policy impacts, how you weigh them, and allow that to inform your decision on how you want to influence or impact— influence those impacts. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Barr. I'm going to try to summarize back just to see to make sure that we're getting it like the pieces you need from us.

It seems like you asked us Do we institute this tax based on business model, seeing at the top of your memo, or geographic area? And that, that was a decision from your recommendation, or staff recommended, is focusing on geographic question. Then, so then we need to say, is this the right map? And then we need to say, are we doing public, just the public parcels in this map, or all?

You, you have, you have very well summarized where I think you're headed on this, but of course that is at your discretion. Very good. And again, since we're in the Committee of the Whole, we could provide conceptual direction which would then be implemented. And of course, you know, we have some time and it could come back to the CAO for a full look once it's all done. All right.

Questions? From the assembly.

Madam Mayor, uh, not sure if this is for Mr. Barr or Madam Attorney, um, if we didn't do the geographical area, can we tell them they need to have stickers on their car to make it help easy— make it easier to identify, or would that not be helpful?

Uh, Madam Mayor, we could do that.

Miss Candace. Madam Mayor, just so I make sure you're— I'm following your line of thought. You're talking about making operators who are on private property, or you're just not— don't think area-wide at all? I guess I'm not sure how you'd make them use stickers.

Madam Mayor, go ahead. Um, so I am thinking that we just tax solely on public parcels, but he said, uh, Mr. Barr said that might be a little harder to enforce. So I'm thinking if we put MAID stickers on them, that it'd be easier to enforce, because if they're on private lots, they're not creating the same issue that they are on public land.

And maybe in my mind, instead of stickers, I'm thinking apparent, like, visual identification, something that, like, you know, so it's— people can see our staff as we enforce this, how to do it. But license something, I'm not sure how that works. Mr. Kelly, I guess since we're having the peer-to-peer company like Turo collect this excise tax, I guess we would still need them to know regardless of whether— we're not like seeing the car and then saying, all right, we're going to be taxing you more. So we would still need Turo to know that they're on public property, correct? Or I guess, how would stickers help with the collection of the difference in excise tax?

Yes, sir. Thank you for the question, Mr. Kelly. So if the body passed or gave direction for staff to draft, you know, to give you a version of this ordinance that just provided for the excise tax on public property, we would redraw that map that is in your packet that was— that, you know, gave a map of just the public parcels in that zone, and we would give that to Turo, and we would say implement 10% excise tax in this area. And what I don't know tonight is whether Turo would push back and be like, that's way too detailed. For us to deal with, or if we would need to have some other sort of enforcement mechanism like the mayor's concept.

I just— I don't have that information right now. They may be able to care for it. That would, of course, be our preference.

Ms. Euskandiz. Thanks so much, Mr. Chair. I don't want to jump if people have more questions about the memo itself, but otherwise I'd make a motion so I could speak to why I favor that.

Approach. So if that— I'm not seeing anyone too upset about that. So I would move to direct staff to bring back an ordinance, or I would— the policy direction that I would recommend we give is taxing the entire zone. And the reasons for that, I mean, there's, you know, staff argues both sides in this memo. Um, then we have our, our policy questions kind of to ask ourselves, but I will say that we have other plans and other committees right now that are in progress on working on downtown congestion.

So that seems to be a goal of ours, and doing more on tourism seems to be— you're making tourism work better for the residents and the tourists. Downtown congestion seems to be a ripe public purpose to me. Um, and for that reason, that is why I would favor the whole zone. But the reason I asked about the stickers is I think ease of administration, especially when you're dealing with someone that you have to direct— staff is going back and forth with Turo and the tax commission is is pretty good on it, but I can tell you they do a lot of going back and forth with these, you know, third marketplace folks. So having, knowing that they already do a geofenced area, that makes that really attractive to me as far as like slap that on there, good to go.

So I would favor the second option personally, and that's That's where I'm at.

You've heard the motion for some policy direction. Objection, Mr. Kelly. Thank you. I think, I think I kind of like the ordinance that we, we already have in the packet here, which I think tailors more towards Option 1. Because I feel.

That this— the ordinance that we already have drafted, it does more to help the mom and pop. Uh, the— it does more to help the, um, yeah, um, the people who are trying to earn a living off of this. Um, and it, for me, it's more of an issue of fairness because we have the rental car companies have the advantage of their own own proper— I don't know.

I might come back in circulation to better—. No problem, Mr. Cobb. I'll object just for a purpose of a question. Mr. Barr, currently as written, does this apply to both— does the ordinance apply to both public and private? I'm sorry, but I get confused.

Is it?

Okay, one second, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, if you could— I, I believe the current ordinance applies the entire— if you, if you could give us a couple minutes at ease, we can answer that question. Sure. 2 Minutes at least, or a couple, whenever you're ready.

Back to order. We took a brief moment because there's a question on the current status of the ordinance, whether it applies to both public and private organizations. And Mr. Bart, thank you, Mr. Chair. I apparently just forgot my memo because there's a footnote on page 1 that talks about a section of the ordinance being deliberately unresolved pending this discussion.

So the ordinance needs work dependent upon if you want to, you know, focus on public only or public and private. I will say predominantly as drafted it focuses on public, but it needs to work either way. Thank you, Mr. Barron. That's the second footnote I've missed, so learning lessons for me.

We have a motion and objection. Madam Mayor, any objection? Excuse me. Yes, I'll object also. I appreciate what Ms. Youskanyan is saying, but I would object to give staff time to see if, uh, Turo could, uh, do a different geofence.

If they can't, then I would agree with Ms. Youskandi's motion, but I would like to give them opportunity to look at that.

Thank you. Mr. Kelly, then Ms. Adkisson. Thank you, and I think I can articulate a little bit better. Um, first of all, I think I will, uh, I'll agree Precisely with the mayor's comments. I think though also, I want to be a little— I want— I would— I see a specific purpose in doing this.

I think for me the purpose is more to focus on parking downtown, and I would like to have an ordinance that is more surgical to that direction. Thank you. Excuse me. Ella Adkisson. Yeah, Miss Adkisson.

Full legal name. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm going to speak in support of this. Do you need a minute?

I'm going to speak in support of this motion. Uh, like Miss Youscandis said, uh, downtown congestion is a significant issue. We were just talking about in the Visitor Industry Task Force. Um, and if we have an opportunity here to take care of not only 2 issues in downtown, but 3 issues, I think we should. And even if Turo can differentiate, which we don't know the answer to, uh, in general, I think simpler, broader taxes are easier for people to follow and less confusing for the people who are running the businesses, for people in staff trying to enforce it.

I just think it's a better policy overall.

Mr. Saniger. Thank you. I'll also speak in support of Ms. Hughes-Scandies' amendment. I find the arguments about downtown congestion as another thing that we can work to address compelling. But, you know, more so the idea of having a Swiss cheese looking map of places where the tax does and doesn't apply seems challenging, even if Turo is you know, begrudgingly willing to try to accommodate that.

I can see a lot of errors happening in that application, and also I can see a lot of kind of effects that might push some of the problem onto private landowners that have, you know, less restricted, less monitored, privately owned parking lots. I'm singing like the Foodland parking lot, you know. Yes, they could have somebody go out there and start booting what they thought were Turos, but, you know, or cars left over there overnight or, or what have you. But I could see a policy that reduced a tax rate kind of pushing some of that behavior in a way that might be kind of troublesome, um, but solvable. You know, it's private property, they can boot cars, they can have them towed.

It's a solvable problem. But I think it's, you know, something that might not be so great. It might not make us much of a partner. I am sensitive to the argument that, you know, some of these traditional car rental companies own property, are operating from there. But again, those cars are causing a lot of congestion in that area, and that, that's a big concern for a lot of our residents.

I'll object to the purpose of a question, and that's— so we're talking about Turo. There's some, you know, stationary businesses that I could imagine would be, you know, fairly, you know, easy to see if they're, you know, collecting that tax. I guess I'm kind of curious about my understanding is there are some models where it's like people not using a peer-to-peer system, like it's a rent, like a rental car company from the Valley that brings a car downtown and parks it in a spot. What I, I, have you heard that that happens? And then I guess I'm just trying to think about, you know, how we, uh, Anyway, just, it's just enforcement of those maybe type of situations.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. That allegedly happens. I'm not, I'm, you know, not aware of the specific businesses, and I think that speaks to some of the challenges that generally we would not be aware of those businesses unless, I mean, we would be aware through sales tax filings to the extent that those sales tax filings align around the specific industry code. That is used for these types of businesses, and it would fall to our Treasury Division to, you know, successfully enforce or ensure compliance with those businesses. Very good.

Yeah, just like most everyone else. Thank you. I'll remove my objection. Mr. Kelly. Thank you.

After some of the debate and discussion we've had here, I think I did find Mr. Steininger's arguments persuasive. So I think I will at this time switch to support Ms. Hughes-Scandies' motion. Thank you, Ms. Hughes-Scandies. And yeah, I think I want to kind of reserve that judgment if I want to further amend or anything. I think based on what the public feedback that the public gives us and emails or public testimony later, but I think for now I'm willing to allow this to go forward as Ms. Hughes-Scandies moved.

We have a motion and objection.

Miss Hendrix, please remind us of the motion and then please call the roll. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Smith. For Miss Hugh Scandies' motion to provide policy direction to tax the entire zone, Miss Hugh Scandies? Yes. Mr. Brooks?

Yes. Miss Hall? Yes. Mr. Steninger? Yes.

Miss Adkinson? Yes. Mr. Kelly?

Yes.

Madam Mayor? No. Deputy Mayor Smith? Yes. Motion carries with 7 yeas and 1 nay.

Thank you, Miss Hendricks. So I think that answers the zone question and the public versus private question.

Mr. Barr, we're— sorry, looking at my notes and the memo— were there further directions you needed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we have what we need from you, um, unless the committee believes more committee work is appropriate, um, or if this legislation is ready for introduction. I, like I, like I said, we do have a little bit of work, um, to do to get this legislation ready, but it is very close as currently drafted in your packet, so So, I guess, pending, pending different direction, we would bring this to a regular meeting for introduction.

Very good. Maybe we could— quick motion on that, Madam Mayor. Thank you. I move Ordinance 2026-12E-CAL2 as amended to the full assembly. Any objection to that motion?

Seeing none, that motion is adopted. Thank you. That brings us to our 3rd item.

View Drive status update, Madam Manager. Thank you. Lovely to have a couple hour break while Deputy Manager Barr handled all that. Thank you. Uh, so I, I want to start at the end and, um, let you know that we are looking for— staff is looking for input, um, on View Drive, but no decisions are required tonight.

Really what is happening is is we are still in the process of gathering more information, and both the residents and the assembly is going to need that information to make a decision. However, once we have that information, and that information is the cost estimate for both the construction project that is demoing those homes and, and putting the homes and the participating homes at View Drive into Parkland, and, oh, the appraisal information for what those homes are valued at, that information we don't have yet. But once we have it, we're anticipating to have it by the end of October, you will need to move relatively quickly, quickly in making some key decisions to be able to move forward and participate in the program and provide property owners with an agreement that they can then say yes to or turn down. I do want to acknowledge that like all things GLOF, we will be operating with incomplete information and, and that is just a challenge of this topic. Chief among that incomplete information is the timeline for a long-term solution, right?

We are hoping to have— Army Corps of Engineers, I should say, is hoping to have a contractor selected for the long-term solution. If you recall, they're doing a request for information process that will ultimately result in the selection of a qualified contractor, a qualified team to provide us with an emergency, emergency water conveyance prototype system. And but that, that team will be selected and then will be tasked with coming up with that solution. So again, we won't have a budget or a timeline, probably until spring or summer. Wouldn't surprise me if that timeline got, got punted, but I want to clarify that because certainly the homeowners and the City all are going to be waiting for that information.

However, this program is an emergency program, so the The very nature of it is designed to be able to respond very quickly. So it's important that we continue to demonstrate to the federal government and NRCS that we are moving forward on this emergency program to take emergency action. Part of the reason why, you know, I'm speaking to you tonight about this, even though we don't have that complete information. So one of the things that you will need to do as a body, and that's kind of bullet point number 1 in what we're looking for direction on, is introduce an ordinance for the authority to fund the full cost of the project. And of course, you know, way back when we had a $26.8 million cost estimate for this project.

Again, it will matter, it will matter what those cost estimates actually come back at, and it will matter how many properties actually participate in that. The project itself is 75% reimbursable, so you don't have to come up with a twin— let's say, well, we know all 18 properties don't want to participate. We've only had 16 properties elect to participate in the appraisal process. But just for purposes of discussion, let's say all properties decided to participate. And, you know, we needed to come up with funding.

We would only need to actually come up with real dollars for the 25%. You would have to give the manager authority to spend the full $26.8 million because because it's a reimbursable program. We do this all the time with grant, FAA grants. I mean, most of the grants that we get are reimbursable. So I just want to ease the assembly in, you know, you're not going to have to find $27 million under the couch cushions, but you may need to find, you know, that 25% cost share.

So that brings me to the second bullet point that we're looking for input on, and that is the amount that the assembly would want to subsidize. That 25% non-federal match. And, you know, up until now you've indicated a strong desire for property owners to, you know, come up with some mechanism to pay for that 25% match. You did appropriate $500,000 to do the cost estimating. That, that $500,000 is reimbursable 75/25.

So, you know, you, you have essentially already put out $125,000 in general fund. You know, when we looked at the cost of not just the LID but the other general fund money that we have spent protecting the valley, and you look at it holistically, right? So Phase 1 and Phase 2, it's probably around $15,000 a property. That's a very small amount when looking at the numbers that these View Drive homeowners will have to come up with. Up with.

So, you know, you may not be able to give that direction on what you feel comfortable with until you, uh, see what those numbers really are. But that will be something that we will need a decision on, hopefully in a November Committee of the Whole, so then we can prepare an agreement with real numbers for property owners to make, you know, real decisions on. And then that brings us to the third, uh, question that I'm looking for assembly input on, and that's the level of risk that you're willing to assume for whatever the homeowner's cost share is that they're accountable for. We have confirmed with NRCS that homeowners— we could enter into a separate agreement with homeowners to pay back those funds. So for example, we could say we're going to pay the 25% with CBG-appropriated funds, and then we are going to enter into an agreement agreement with homeowner X to pay, you know, their share, whatever share the assembly deems appropriate, back to the City and Borough of Juneau.

That mechanism, we would then be responsible for enforcement of that, right? So there we would have to take collection action and, you know, any legal action if we couldn't collect upon that, establish terms and conditions. And really, you know, normally when we do something like that, we have a property as the asset to leverage charge in that, and we would not. In this case, we are discussing with NRCS a model where the city would be made whole at time of closing, which would be, of course, far less risky and frankly the preferable option. We, we still don't know.

We've had turnover at NRCS. Our main point of contact, Mr. Fisher, is— I'm sorry, Nelson. Wrong agency.

Is not— hasn't been at NRCS for some time. So that has slowed our kind of ability to get these questions answered. But those are kind of the 3 things that, again, you may not have answers to today. You may have questions for me, you may have more information that you would like to be able to make those decisions sometime in November, again, when we have that— a better picture of that cost estimate. Thank you, Manager Kester.

Again, it looks like you're looking for a, you know, actual direction on ordinance for introduction at the November 2nd CAO. Again, this is maybe just helpful for us to hear where folks might be, or the manager to hear so she can, you know, potentially do some work or, you know, inform a future memo. Um, questions? On this topic. Mr. Brooks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Out of the 16 participants that are looking at getting the appraisals done, is there any number of them that have, like, shown a strong desire to want to go beyond that appraisal process and are already talking about that, or is it more so just people want to see where they're at? You know, we believe there are at least a couple homeowners owners who would be interested in participating in the program.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. After this last flooding season, only a couple houses were greatly affected. Will that weigh into any part of the NCRS/NRCS program? We have confirmed with NRCS that they are still setting aside that the federal dollars for this match, but it certainly underscores the need for us to move quickly, and I suspect that will weigh into the homeowner's decision on whether or not to participate as well.

So the answer to your question, Madam Mayor, is we are still eligible for this program and need to continue our work to show them that, you know, we are moving forward.

Um, so if I did my math right, uh, 25% of the $27 million is $7 million. So we'd have to come up with the $7 million. Um, is there correct? I can't remember, but there was some incidents where we would do 90/10, or was that just for the, uh, other project? Yeah, thank you.

So my recollection is the 90/10 is really, uh, the cost share that we are looking for the long-term project. That's not to say you couldn't, you know, use a similar formula for this particular project.

I'll hop in.

I guess just to give the input, I'm in favor introducing an ordinance to fund the project. You know, would prefer a lower-risk option for repayment. I mean, to me, and I won't speak for my colleagues, but the big question is, what is, what is the right number to look at possibly, you know, to consider in terms of contributing? Because zero doesn't seem right. $15,000 You mentioned is low, but I guess, and I just don't feel I'm not— I'm just not an expert enough to know.

I mean, we will then get the land, correct? After this is— after this is done, I mean, it will have its challenges, but there will be some value to that, to that entire area.

All park. But I'm saying there's value in a park of, you know, of that land. So anyway, I guess I'm just like, I'm— I mean, maybe, maybe. Anyway, I'm like just looking for like some proposal or ideas on what is like— anyway, some ideas on, anyway, on a possible contribution.

But Mr. Brooks, it was a question to staff, but, um, yeah. You are correct that we would be required to maintain it as parkland in perpetuity.

Okay, I guess my real— and my real— I guess my struggle, maybe this is more of a comment, is, is there a— is there a reasonable— is there a reasonable number for us? You know, if someone has a proposal for that, I'd love to see it. Um, anyway, Mr. Brooks, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to express a perspective on, you know, the things that we should be considering with this. If all the appraisals come in and it ends up that there are only 2 individuals who want to actually utilize the program, if you break down the full cost allocation between the amount of houses that are interested in is around $1.6 million. So 2 houses, if they opted for it, would be $3.3 million. And if that's the total cost of people who would be interested in the program, then all of our matches and everything else drastically reduce. So I think just waiting and seeing after the appraisals who actually wants to go further than that is going to change all the dynamics of what we're discussing right now.

No, thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh, thank you. Um, I don't know if you guys have had a chance to do this math, but what have we paid per parcel anywhere else beside View Drive? Do you have a number for that, or do you need to come up with that number? Yeah, I would. Um, it's about $15,000, uh, depending on kind of what, um, and that, and to, to be That is not the amount of public funds that have been spent.

That is the amount of CBJ taxpayer dollars. So that backs out the DEC funds, and that backs out any federal funds. Follow up. So by just doing the $500,000 for the appraisals, we've already exceeded that per property, correct?

About halfway over.

So, so you have, you have doubled. Yeah, thank you. And I just want to, um, since I have the floor and I stole it— thank you, go ahead, Tiffany Mayer-Smith. Um, We do— you do have to make a decision on what you are willing to contribute before homeowners get the contract, essentially, to decide whether or not they want to participate. They can pull out at the very last minute, but you cannot wait to know— like, you have to have something to offer them so they can make an educated decision.

So there's still going to be a chicken and an egg I think kind of— and then also just want to point out, there's, um, your number— it's very likely that all 16 members will not— homeowners will not want to participate, right? I think that's probably obvious because we've all met with many property owners there. But you do have to think of like the fairness issue, you know, the minute we have a landslide and someone's home has got a tree going through it and they're like, well, you gave homeowners on View Drive, you know, $25,000 a home or $50,000, you know, that's just something that should always be the kind of public purpose in the back of your mind. And I know that it is. Mr. Bart.

Yeah, just, just to answer the mayor's math question, um, Manager Kester was right that, that the math is, is double the $15,000, but so $30,000 per parcel. But recall the 75/25 split, so the 25 split, The, the CBJ fund element is about $7,000 per parcel.

Further questions on the topic? Again, staff is looking for direct— for input as well. Miss Hall, just to clarify that $7,000, um, see, you said that is the CBJ. Do you mean the property owner? So you, you appropriated, um, I believe about $550,000.

I think it's slightly different than that, but in general terms, you You appropriated $550,000 for appraisals and estimating for all of those parcels. That cost, um, maths out to about $7,000 of CBJ funds of property taxes, sales taxes, general funds, um, per parcel into the, into the project. So the rest of it is NRCS.

Reimbursable. Uh, Ms. Euskandiz. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm just thinking about the chicken and egg problem because as, uh, Mr. Brooks, you know, suggests a lower number, then I think that becomes— feels much more doable or feels like, um, it's an entirely different question than our hypothetical $16 million And so I'm trying to—.

What—. And also this is not— I guess I'm asking a question. It's not going to affect me either way, but the timeline again, because without having a number from us to say this is what CBJ will contribute to offer to people, the alternative to that is you would be saying— and you're going to have to— at one point when we discussed this, we envisioned the homeowner coming up with the whole thing, and it was really just go through the process and know that 75/25 split. So what are— could you say the timeline one more time of what those dates are that the homeowners will need that, or you won't— staff will need that to make an offer? So we would like to give homeowners an offer by January, so that will require introduction of of an ordinance to appropriate those funds and all of that, that public process.

You are correct that, and there is still a path that we, where we could have homeowners be like, hey, what we're doing is facilitating this program and paying for the cost share, paying for the cost estimating and the appraisal. Or you could choose any kind of, any magic number. You could choose a total cost. You could say regardless of who participates, you know, I want to spend no more than X CBJ dollars. That's difficult, right, for the homeowners then because they don't know if their friends and neighbors are participating and what that means for them.

So I don't know if that's very helpful, but that's It's—. No, it is, it is.

Madam Mayor had on the list. Um, thank you. Remind me, does this $27 million include demolishing the houses and restoring it to parkland?

Yes, the, the, uh, cost estimate for demolition and restoring to parkland, we, we suspect will be a significant portion of that total project cost.

Seeing no other hands, we didn't get a lot of input, but that's okay. Um, no pressure. Um, ask for questions. You want input? I said questions or input if people want to give any.

Madam Mayor, go ahead. I'll start and then everybody else can disagree or agree with me. So I don't mind looking at an ordinance to fund the project. It. I think introducing it right off the bat, we have a little bit of time.

Um, and where I am with this, and, uh, I just think that the only fair way to do— and I apologize because we have 2 View Drive people in there— is not to go beyond whatever we've spent on all the other parcels. I don't think that is fair. So at the same time, we're trying to offer them a program that will help them. So, and then your level of risk, I think you had 2 levels of risk, and I would certainly take the lesser risk to Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Mr. Brooks, then Ms. Scandies. Thank you. I have an objection for the purpose of a question. Oh, I don't think we have a motion. Oh, yeah, yep, go ahead.

Um, is—. So can— is it like you get an appraisal and a contract and the whole deal all at once, or can we do the appraisals first, or is, is it all like they either go for the program and get an appraisal and go through with getting the house demolished, or they don't get an appraisal? Or like, how would it go if like everyone got an appraisal and only 2 people actually wanted to opt for it? So, uh, the homeowner can pull out at any moment. So before like we've signed the contract and, you know, bought the house and started demoing it, so there's a lot of opportunity for the homeowner to change their And they all— all 16 participating homeowners will get an appraisal.

So, did I answer your question?

Yes, kind of.

All 16 agreed to getting an appraisal. Like, can we just do that now without doing anything else? So, so we are actively working on getting the appraisal. In fact, we don't just have to have an appraisal, we have to have a review of the appraisal. So it's like a double appraisal, and that is already under contract and happening.

And concurrently, we also have a firm under contract to do a cost estimate. So all of that information we should have by the end of October.

Go ahead, Mr. President. So just, just as a thought then, is like if we were going to have appraisals by the end of October, then that's going to be a point where we'll be able to move forward and actually start seeing exactly how many people want to opt for it. And then from there, we'll have a better idea of what these full costs will actually be. Correct? Madam Manager?

Yeah, correct, which is why, again, I, I appreciate that this memo is a little bit premature because we don't have that information. But when we do get that information, I'm going to push— I'm going to have you resist saying, "Let's just wait and talk about it some more." So that's why I wanted to have this opportunity to talk about it. We will not know at that time how many homeowners want to participate, right? That is going to still be an unknown. Go ahead.

Would the direction— like, if we gave a direct or like directed the approval of amount of funds equal to the amount of people willing to participate in the program. Would that do the same thing without putting a specific number on it?

So since we don't know whether or not it will be a $26.8 million project total, but you need some sort of authorization to be able to spend up to whatever it might be. Can't we just say you have the authorization to spend up to whatever it might be instead of saying $27 million? I think I understand your question. You absolutely, when you introduce an ordinance, can give that direction an up-to number because we won't have the, the complete picture. I do want to emphasize, um, the direction that I'm looking for now is really just this conversation, because the closer the body can get to direction on where you want me to start from, I think the easier your decision-making process will be, hopefully on November 2nd.

So I, I do— don't expect you to, you know, make those decisions tonight, but getting a sense of the body then allows me to start, you know, start you further along when you do have to make that decision. So I don't want anyone to feel too pressured to like come up with recommendations with, with this, like, void of information. Just want you to understand the decision that you will be facing.

Next slide, Ms. Youskandeez, and then Ms. Atkinson. Uh, thanks, Mr. Chair. I just—. A few thoughts and then maybe a question.

Well, I'll start off with a question and then I'll give you maybe a little bit of input. So the $500,000 was already appropriated for the appraisal and cost estimating, but it sounded It sounds like someone said that's really $125,000 because that is also a reimbursable cost. Correct, that $500,000 is reimbursable 75/25. Great. So knowing that, I will say that I have been informed in this process that, you know, I So much of this has been, we are stepping outside our normal behavior with a natural disaster because it is, uh, I have been here when there have been, you know, mudslides or landslides where luckily there was no loss of life or anything like that, but we did not, you know, beyond clearing the right-of-way and, and doing what the city needs, We do not provide assistance, and there were letters about that, and people said, well, it seems like you should do more.

And then we always have this very bright line about public property, private property, and public, you know, the rights. And yet we all know that this is in its own category, and we didn't foresee this. Juno ending, property owners couldn't foresee this when they, when they lived there.

I feel like having something that matches the level of investment that has gone to the other homes is probably maybe the magic number, even though that might— it really— there's so many variables here of what we won't know, because knowing that that 75/25 makes that— shrinks that $500,000 number. I think you still have some room to put some funds towards View Drive, and it's, um, would probably make people feel like they're getting more equal treatment to what our other residents have had, but is still going to keep it relatively low dollar amount, or at least it gives you guys a little bit more headroom. So I would say beyond that though, you really do have to consider, you know, what happens when the landslide goes through a neighborhood. Would, which, you know, knock on wood, I don't want that to happen. But I would not go beyond that amount.

Um, so that would be my recommendation on a magic number. Um, introducing is fine, and I very much appreciate staff's impossibilities, and getting this in front of us multiple times really does help because we think about it the rest of the time. So I appreciate you getting it here early. Um, and then level of risk, I I think has to be less risky, but I think you'll have more detail on that, what different options on that might be, because it will be hard for the homeowners. I'm sure whatever we come up with, because that's— even if CBJ contributes, not everybody has— almost nobody has, you know, a large chunk of cash sitting around.

Um, so those are my thoughts. Thank you, Ms. Hughes-Candies. Ms. Adkisson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm gonna agree with the mayor and with Ms. Hughes-Candies. Uh, you know, even though we do have to think about, uh, the landslides and other disasters that happen in Juneau, we have invested in the same event that is affecting View Drive, and so I would be comfortable with up to what we've spent on similar homes. Uh, I will— the only thing I will emphasize that's maybe a little different from Ms. Huskendy's and the mayor is I am very hesitant to do a higher level of risk. I just think about our long list of delinquent sales tax and how difficult that can be, and again, how difficult it will be to potentially collect without any collateral. So, um, I think— I feel like if we want to pay that amount, we should just pay that amount and not have to spend time hassling folks to do that.

So I would really, really emphasize a lower risk if possible.

Mr. Kelly, thank you. I appreciate the, uh, the manager's decision to, uh, bring this to us, give us kind of a preview of this decision, because I think I still need to think about what I think is a fair number. I think I do agree with what Deputy Mayor Smith said earlier about like this does return some public value value to, to the city, and that we are converting it into parkland. And I— and for me, that also kind of distinguishes it from the situation of a landslide. A landslide, it would be private property that we would be repairing, and it would remain private property after we repaired it, whereas this would become public property and be available for some sort of public use.

So, so I think it's— it might not quite be apples oranges, but maybe apples and pears.

Uh, and I, I think, um, I think I am seeing kind of a consensus building that we do need to give some sort of contribution, which I think is good. I think we, um, we were able to protect much of the valley with the HESCO barriers. We weren't able to protect View Drive, and I would really like to be able to, to do something for the residents of that neighborhood. So thank you. Thank you.

Seeing no other hands, we can move on.

Last item, uh, Gloff long-term funding considerations update number 1. Madam Manager. Thank you, uh, Deputy Mayor. So, um, the purpose of this memo really is to just provide full transparency with the small group of assembly members, uh, that met to discuss some of the questions that were presented at the last Committee of the Whole. So I've numbered this update and plan on just including them on a regular basis.

I want to reiterate that this small group has just been tasked with working through some of these questions to give, again, to give you a starting place. These are not decisions that have been made, and, and your— the, like, decision-making process that, that we all go through is summarized in this memo. And, you know, we'll be continue to be something to bring before you all. So if you recall, there were 3 items that the memo tasked the body with. Timing of a bond or debt proposition for our local cost share.

The group, you know, discussed, discussed that, discussed sharing that burden with the entire community because of the tremendous value of the public infrastructure that a long-term solution would create. But they really wanted some more information on debt schedule. So for our next meeting, I've, I've asked the finance director to draft a bunch of different debt scenarios so that the group can then, you know, wrestle with like, what does, what would $1 mil equal? And, and all of those, those conversations. It's of course very difficult without a cost estimate and without a certainty on our whether we're paying 10% or 20 or 25%.

You know, also makes those decisions difficult, but I think that just talking through those has been helpful. Really, without having— I think best case scenario is we would have a question on a regular election. The earliest we could have a question is a regular election. And so the group kind of talked about that timing just because, uh, we don't have— won't have any numbers from Army Corps of Engineers until the, uh, spring, summer. And of course, you know, we need to make sure we don't put a question before the voters too early so that they don't feel like they can support something because there's a lack of information On the other hand, we need to have that support from the voters early enough to be able to get the support of, of, you know, US Congress.

So that was that conversation. We also talked about creating a flood control district. So really creating a district with protected properties and a separate millage rate and a service area for that and compensating riverfront property owners. I think the group talked a lot about that and again wanted more information about the timing for a long-term solution because the— our kind of current way of managing flood control is through this emergency disaster declaration that we have been in continuously since 2024. And so, you know, there's that model and then the other model would be to create a district.

And there was conversation about different compensation formulas, but in the end, kind of this. Let's, let's take a beat and get a better idea of the timeline. So, you know, like all things GLOF, we need more information. And then the topic that we didn't discuss but is on our next— we didn't discuss in detail— it's just that trade-off that the city is experiencing with the amount of opportunity cost, staff time, and resources that are going towards all things GLOF and what's not getting done. And so that'll be our conversation about kind of like making sure you all are eyes wide open about what the city is not able to prioritize.

And I think, you know, capital projects are an obvious one and kind of bringing that to you. So again, if any of the members want to add to that, I just wanted to make sure we were constantly kind of updating you guys on that conversation. Thank you, Madam Manager. And yeah, Yeah, any member from the strike team? No pressure, but we— if you want anything to say, go ahead.

Have any questions for us?

Mr. Kelly. Thank you. Um, I see that for the— for the match, um, you're, you're talking about the, the possibility of, of a bond, uh, to kind of help with our match towards the long-term solution.

I, and I understand that you haven't had much time to kind of talk about the funding sources for ongoing flood preparedness and mitigation, but you do kind of touch on another mechanism.

You talk about the flood control, or you talk about a special tax district. I'm thinking for ongoing mitigation Have you thought about a possible citywide tax district? Is that something you might be considering at your, your next meeting for continuous maintenance or other issues?

Yeah, I think what that really looks like is a voter-approved mill rate increase, and that was another timing consideration that the group discussed. If the voters approve re-establishing a mill rate cap at 12 mills, the assembly will have a lot more flexibility to respond to this. This emergency without having to kind of create that special district, even if it's an area-wide district. So, so we have discussed that, and, and that's been, you know, part of previous memos too. Um, and, you know, timing— I think a lot of things are, are, are waiting to see how October pans out for us.

Any other member want to respond to that at all?

Very good. I, I guess I'll just point out the first sentence in the first point. There was consensus that any local match should be borne by the entire borough and not a service area of protected homes. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. So, you know, obviously we are still a lot of information coming in, but we recognize the incredible You know, we've got a lot of infrastructure in that area in addition to our housing stock. And so anyway, we'll see how it all plays out. But yeah, I have a question on that topic actually.

Well, if we have to take something to a public vote for, you know, a bond or something, I guess, was there discussions on possible reluctance by the general population to vote for something that, again, I mean, it affects us all, I get it, but it doesn't, you know, directly affect their properties on North Douglas, downtown, or something. And being like, are people going to vote no because they're going to say, why should I have to pay the, you know, pay the exact amount versus, unfortunately, these folks in the area?

Anyway, I might respond to that because, yeah, we definitely had that as part of our discussion, kind of trying to sink in, think through whichever route we pick, we're going to have to communicate it to the community, you know, and what, what route do we seek is, is more viable that community will get behind. One of the concerns was kind of the counter to that of you pick, you know, just that group of couple hundred homes that that we can define as impacted, and you try and apply the debt on, call it, $50 million in local match to those homes, and that would be a pretty considerable debt surface rate for a small population. And so then you run the risk of those homeowners saying, I can't possibly afford that. And then we get into a place where something fails and And I think the kind of— maybe speaking for everybody, I'm not sure, but like, I'm concerned if the consequence of failure on going to the voters with a bond is pretty high in this case. And so putting together a bond package that's just kind of untenable for those people, I think puts a lot of risk on it.

And we had just kind of conversation about, you know, yeah, community— there's a community-wide impact. I think there is a message that we can tell appeal for why that person out North Douglas or on Gastineau Avenue, you know, sees a benefit to not letting half of our town wash away. And I guess I wasn't suggesting necessarily putting like the full burden on, you know, a certain area of the valley, however it's defined. It would have been like one, you know, one finance mechanism borough-wide another one potentially in the area. Just a mix.

Anyway, um, thank you. Mr. Kelly.

Um, thank you. I think, uh, Mr. Snyder kind of opened the door to my next question. Um, I was kind of, kind of curious, especially since this is going to, you know, a decision that's probably going to go to voters. It's going to also go to Valley residents potentially. Um, I mean, it's getting out of voters regardless of what we end up putting forward as the result of this.

So, and maybe, maybe it's outside the scope of what you're working on, but have you, have you done any, any outreach to other members of the community outside of the, your team?

We've had one meeting so far, so we're also working on it, but yes, we're reaching out to people.

Miss Hall, and we are starting to see, um, you know, emails coming in on the topic. And yeah, and I just, you know, as you go look at the valley, you know, the library, the pools, the schools, more than one school in the area, our wastewater water treatment plant, airport, grocery stores, senior living, assisted living, um, you know, so it's so much. Well, and then just the housing stock in the area you know, if we were to lose, you know, a whole chunk of houses in the valley, you know, we're already really suffering with our shortage of housing. So I, you know, I think it's pretty defensible sort of where we've landed thus far.

I have another question if no one does. You know, I see something about looking at the easements in terms of better understanding of a timeline, I guess, was there a thought like if we figure out something can happen in 3 years, we don't need to do compensation, or if it's going to be 6, we should? I guess, was there any way— any thought about that? I mean, you're kind of right on what the conversation was. Maybe not exactly those timelines.

You know, I don't think we got to a point where we kind of had an idea of where our cutoff would be on time. But yeah, if, if as we pursue the, you know, the longer-term solution, if it becomes clear that's going to happen real quick, then it doesn't seem as big of an issue. If those barriers aren't going to sit on the land for very long, it's probably not as big of an issue. But if they're going to sit there for, for a considerable amount— I don't think we landed on any kind of place where that cutoff, where that that gut feeling of when it becomes a true burden and not a just protective action. Yeah.

Further questions? Mr. Kelly. Thank you. This is probably good for a last question, so I'll just make this— well, no, no, it's just— well, okay, all right, it doesn't have to be a last question. It was supposed to be for a last question.

I, I, well, I, I want to first express appreciation for bringing this up. Like, at the next meeting, I think there is some urgency to it. And so my question was just going to be, is this going to kind of stay on, on our agenda? Are we going to keep getting updates each, uh, Committee of the Whole? Or—.

Yeah, that's it. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Maybe for staff there.

Yeah, I'm happy to keep it as a standing item, and when the group meets, uh, we'll just, you know, keep that report out and you can ask as many questions as you want. Again, I think it's a nice way just to be very transparent about the conversation that's happening. Okay, Mr. Brooks. Thank you. And I, I will just say, just because we have a strike force working on this, uh, that doesn't mean that we don't want to, uh, hear suggestions when we do these updates and stuff too, so that we can go forward and further refine Thank you, and thanks you 3 for putting in the extra effort on this stuff.

So, um, seeing no other questions or anything else on that topic, Madam Manager, staff reports. No staff reports, although weren't they all staff reports? Certain staff. Um, our next meeting date is November 2nd, 2026.

And until then, Miss U Scandi says peace out. We will miss you. La.

With that, we are adjourned.