Assembly Meeting

It's live on the radio. Yeah, Olivia. Oh, hello everybody at home, welcome in.

I did that math wrong earlier, didn't I? Yeah. Are, uh, are we ready, Becky? Okay, thank you. I'll start the meeting of Monday, May 18th, 2026, 6:00 PM meeting.

And with that, would the clerk please call the roll? Mayor Lynn. Here. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor. Here.

Member Martin. Here. Member Michie. Here. Member Newman.

Here. Member Schwartz. Here. Member Valentine.

Thank you. And for those listening in, we have 6 people on the DOS, and Assemblymember Stanton Gregor is calling in. With that, we'll turn to the voluntary Pledge of Allegiance.

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

With that, tonight I have, um, two sets of minutes, uh, from the first, from the regular assembly meeting minutes for April 20th, '26. Do I have a motion to approve those minutes? Second. Been moved by Member Mucci, seconded by Member Valentine. Are there any changes?

Would the clerk please call the roll? Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor. Yes. Member Valentine. Yes.

Member Newman. Yes. Member Martin. Member Schwartz. Member Mucci.

Yes. Mayor Lynn. Yes. And those sets of minutes, uh, are approved, uh, 7 to 0. Second set of minutes is the regular assembly meeting minutes for May 4th, 2026.

The Do I have a motion to approve those minutes? So moved. Second. Okay, again, moved by Member Valentine, seconded by Member Mucci. Any proposed changes?

Okay, hearing none, would the clerk please call the roll to approve those minutes? Member Mucci? Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes.

Member Valentine? Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes. Member Newman?

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

That's out of minutes. The minutes of May 4th, 2026, are approved. Um, I'll move on, uh, to the night's agenda. Uh, do I have a motion to approve tonight's meeting and agenda? So moved.

Second. Moved by Member Mucci, seconded by Member Schwartz. Are there any amendments to the agenda?

Seeing, seeing and hearing none, all those in favor say yes. Yes. Okay, that's approved and we'll move on. Tonight we have, I think, 4 public hearings. The first public hearing is Ordinance 2026-06, an ordinance amending Petersburg Municipal Code Title 20, entitled Watershed Management, to update language and to account for borough incorporation.

Any public testimony regarding Ordinance 2026-06 should be given during this hearing. A copy of Ordinance 2026-009 may be found under agenda item 14A. Is there anybody in the audience or online that would like to talk to this ordinance?

I do have someone online. Stuart White.

Thank you. You're, you're on.

Thank you. Sorry, getting unmuted there. I was actually hoping to speak to Ordinance 2026-09, not 06. Is that, is that okay to speak on 09 now? I have you on the line.

Uh, let me, let me see where we are on that one. Uh, yeah, it's— that's the one on the budget. Um, Stuart, I'd like to hold you off till we move to that, that particular ordinance. There may be some other folks that want to talk to it. Perfectly, that's great.

Thank you.

With nobody else is either in the audience or online to talk to that, I'll move to ordinance The second ordinance for a hearing tonight, Ordinance 2026-07, an ordinance amending Petersburg Municipal Code Chapter 4.80 to adjust the marine passenger fee to increase borough costs associated with services to an infrastructure for marine passenger vessels and their passengers. And I— that pretty much that moves the price from— of marine passenger fee from $5 to $8. But any public testimony regarding Ordinance 2026-07 should be given during this public hearing. A copy of Ordinance 2026-07 may be found again under Item 14B. Is there anybody who would like to talk to Ordinance 2026-07?

Is there anybody online? No, there's no one. Thank you. Uh, there's nobody who wants to talk to that one. I'm going to move on to the third hearing then.

That's Ordinance 2026-08, an ordinance updating Chapter 14.16 of the Municipal Code entitled Electric Utility. Any public testimony regarding Ordinance 2026-08 should be given during this public hearing. Copy of Ordinance 2026-08 may be found under Agenda Item 14C. Is there anybody would like to talk to the ordinance regarding the electric utility?

Okay, I have nobody here. Is there anybody online? No, there's no one. Okay, and that, that hearing will be closed. I'm going to move on to the very last one then.

Ordinance 2026-09, the Lawrence of Petersburg Borough adopting budget for the fiscal year July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027. Any public testimony regarding Ordinance 2026-09 should be given during this Public hearing. Copy of Ordinance 2026-09 may be found under agenda item 14D. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to talk to this, this item? Okay, okay.

Do you, do you want to unmute, uh, Stuart? Stuart, uh, you're all— you're on if you want to talk to this item. All right, thank you. Can you all hear me? We very well.

Excellent. Thank you, Mayor Lynn, Assembly members, Clerk Regula, for the opportunity to testify tonight regarding the budget. As noted, I'm Stuart White. I'm the development director at KFSK Community Radio since August of 2023, and I've also been serving as interim general manager since September 2025. We at KFSK were grateful to be able to apply for the borough's community service grant program again this year, as we have many times previously.

Being the recipient of previous grant awards from the borough has demonstrated how highly the community values KFSK and believes in vital support for services that support the common good. This past year for KFSK has been more challenging than most, with the federal funding rescission removing 30% of our budget for this fiscal year. Fortunately for us, the way that we are ending this year is much better than the way that we started it, and a big part of that improvement comes directly from local community support, both through the Burroughs Grant Program and through direct membership support. This community stepped up in a big way when they saw we were in crisis, and we are truly grateful. The path ahead for us this next year is looking challenging but stable, and our success this coming year will be due in large part to continued enthusiastic community support.

You may have heard messages on air recently about some changes being made at the station to our opening hours and some programming shifts coming at the beginning of June. I wish to allay any fears that these changes are being made because we are in danger of reducing our service or shutting our doors. That is not the case. These are mainly quality of life changes for the benefit of our staff to allow them to gain back some capacity in other areas rather than stretching them thinner across the board. These are changes that we probably should have made about a year ago when rescission hit, but inertia is a real force, and change the way you always have always done things can be difficult.

I invite anyone who has questions about things happening at the station to reach out to me at [email protected], and I'd be glad to have a conversation. And I'll close simply by saying thank you. Thank you to this community for your support. Thank you to the Borough Assembly for your support over so many years and for considering our request again this year. And thank you for your time and attention tonight.

Thank you, Stuart. Is there anybody else that would like to talk to this ordinance? Please come forward, state your name and who you represent, and you have 5 minutes. Thank you.

Good evening, assembly. Uh, my name is Bill Tremblay. I'm the treasurer of the KFSC Board of Directors. I'd like to echo Stuart's thanks to the assembly for including our nonprofit organization in your budget. Stuart's been doing a great job as our interim general manager, and he's committed to, to being in that job fully for this whole next year.

Last week, the KFSK board approved our budget for our next fiscal year, which begins on July 1st. Our budget is smaller than last year, so it'll be necessary to make some changes, as Stuart has pointed out. Our mission statement remains the same: KFSK provides community-oriented communication services to inform enlighten, and entertain the people of Southeast Alaska. The board is committed to this mission and will provide the best services to our ability. As he mentioned, last year the federal government cut our funding, um, and KFSK lost $175,000 in those actions.

Because of this, we saw a groundswell of responses to fill this gap from local, regional, statewide, and national sources. That being said, a lot of the sources that provided us information was funding for just one year. Because of that, we looked at our budget and approved our budget for next year, and we're starting looking at about a $70,000 reduction this year coming forward. There's word of possible money coming, but you know, you can't— you never know when the man is going to fall from heaven, so we're not counting on it. So we have to plan accordingly, which is— Stuart noticed one of the reasons why we're having to adjust schedules.

To accommodate the work that we'd like to do, which is important to the community.

KFSK is recognized nationally as one of the top 10 stations in the nation for contributions per capita. Our business and underwriting and volunteer work are, are part of our huge success, and we thank the community for all that they've done for us so far and keep doing for us. And as a reminder, after this year— KFSK began broadcasting in September 1977, which means next year will be our 50th anniversary.

We've weathered other issues in the past, and we'll weather this now, and we'll hopefully serve the community as well as we can be. But just want to add our thanks again for the assembly to help us along. Thank you for your testimony, and it's very much appreciated what you folks do. Is there anybody else that would like to talk to Ordinance 26-09? Okay.

Nobody? Is there anybody on Zoom? Okay, with that, I'll close that hearing. Tonight there are no bid awards, and I'll move on then to persons to be heard on items related to tonight's agenda. Um, anything that anybody that wants to talk to items related to tonight's agenda, please come forward, state your name, who you represent, and you have 5 minutes.

Hello again, I'm Bill Tremblay and Mayor and Council Assembly. I'm sorry, old council habit there, but I'm Bill Tremblay. I'm the president of the Petersburg Volunteer Fire Department Association. For those who are unfamiliar with our association, we are a 501 nonprofit. As an association, we manage 3 funded accounts.

Generated from donations or from our state gaming permit. Our first account is a general fund, which we— where we hold our donations that are given to us by individuals or businesses for providing assistance or services to them. Our second account is the Smokey Howell Memorial Fund. Lawrence Smokey Howell was a local construction business owner and outdoorsman and trained aviator who lost his life in December of 2002 during an individual hunting trip. The funds remaining from that search were put into a memorial fund to be used to assist the future search and rescue activities.

Additional funds were provided more recently by the Neva P. Bartlett Trust and from the proceeds from the estate of Roy Sokol. These funds are being used to support scholarships for persons within our community interested in pursuing education in fire, EMS or search and rescue training, or something related to aviation that could benefit our community. These scholarships are provided to community members, not just those at the school.

The, uh, the third fund is managed revenue from our state gaming permit. We have pull tabs and we sell raffle tickets, and that allows the association to use these funds to help generate to help us to supplement the money that we get from the borough for purchasing items to, to support department services, for our family fun days, for scholarships for graduates at Petersburg High School, to supplement training materials, and to maintain our antique vehicles, which is the subject of the Resolution 26-14 later on in your agenda. Given the long-term commitment to maintaining the antique vehicles, the association voted to take on the ownership of these vehicles. The association has already invested tens of thousands of dollars in the restoration and maintenance of these vehicles. We'd like to acknowledge the efforts made by people like Doug Wildey, Tim Keeneman, Jack Slatt, and others for the time and effort they've put in for restoring and maintaining them.

We'd like to welcome others who might be interested in helping to maintain these vehicles. And just as a note, the, the association does offer some benefits for your contributions. So again, the association is very much looking forward to participating in the ownership and carrying on the tradition of having them in parades and available for different celebrations as we have them. So thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Is there anybody else that would like to talk to items on, on tonight's agenda? Hey, please come forward, state your name and who you represent.

Judy Elmer speaking for myself, and if there's time later, I'll be reading from Kirsten Dupree, who's on the way to the fishing grounds. A lot of times I think about going into the wayback machine in my life, and I'm sitting in Noka Wiccan's kindergarten class, and that's actually where I picked up a lot of evaluation skills. Those worksheets she would have, like which kitten is different and you had to pick that out. I used that same thing when in my more adult life, um, the federal government contracted with me to chair grant and contract review committees, uh, doing scientific and technical reviews for 20 years. And I went back to, in the Wayback Machine, to Noka Wiccan's class, and it's like, which, which kitten is different?

Only this time we were comparing what was what was presented in a grant application and what was presented as the response that they wanted money for. So I picked up a lot of evaluation skills and pattern recognition right here in Petersburg before— is that me? Oh, pattern recognition that really has served me all my life. And I found out that, you know, learning from our own history, with a situation and learning from what others have experienced before us. You know, other people, other places, whether it's other communities in southeastern Alaska or the rest of the state, the United States, and looking to other countries too as to their research on certain subjects.

And we've been faced with that since I— long before I started talking on the telecom towers and now the data centers. So I look outside of what has to be proven is Petersburg's experience, because I think there's something to pattern recognition and there's something about evaluating more deeply than what we see right here in front of us. So we see that with the telecom towers and how they affect property taxes, not just here because we're just getting those things really, and looking at where the sustained proximity is and people get into dangers around environmental issues and health and things that we're not supposed to talk about. And now, of course, we have the data centers. So I guess I just encourage you to look beyond what's right here in front of us at bigger and bigger pictures of what we're really facing, because there's other research out there than what we're being told it is here and in our near future.

So that's my encouragement to you. Kirsten McDowell— Madolin— or Kirsten Dupree says it a little different way. Do I still have time? Sure. She writes, does anyone within our community to truly know what negative impacts there may be to our community.

With all the negative impacts that are being discussed around Southeast Alaska about cell tower proximity to homes and the importance of ordinances to protect people, no one at the borough has felt, um, it necessary to let the public know that cell tower companies, um, were looking for land, and they took the word of Tidal Network as to safety. There seems to be a similar path ahead with the data center. Should the borough blindly believe everything Greenspark and Mozilla are telling them? I do know for certain that the borough will continue to charge the rate— ratepayers and property owners more and more every year because that is the track record. Please do not go along with the data center because, quote, our rates will not increase, or the rate will increase but less.

She says that's total BS. Remember the promises of no new employees and all the City of Petersburg money that would be fixed if we only became a borough? What will the negative effects be if the closed-loop system is not exactly what they're selling it as? What will the noise levels be during the quiet winter months? Will the borough be collecting sales tax from whatever it is that Greenspark is selling?

What will the property taxes on the building be? I don't think the borough needs to rush into any deal with Greenspark Marzella. As I said, our rates and property taxes will go up anyway. If Greenspark goes somewhere else, my guess is that some other company will be seeking out a deal with Petersburg in the future, and Petersburg will be better educated next time. She says that the community information sheet available to the public says Greenspark may rent space at the former Ocean Beauty Cannery, and that would be a good place to put it if they're going to ram it down our throats.

Next to the parking lot for Middle Harbor is not the proposed unit. Supposedly would fit inside the assembly chambers, but they want to build a 15,000 to 20,000 or 2,000 square foot building to house it on land. We need guarantees that our electrical rates will not increase. We need guarantees as to the noise level. We need guarantees that Greenspark will make sure our local fire department has the necessary equipment if it is needed for the data center fire.

We need lots of guarantees for this project. Did not anyone in the city government interested in protecting us from any of the cell tower issues? Don't just tell the public, oh, and we can do what we want. Ordinance changes have been held up, slowed up because they can. Absolutely no accountability plan for those that should be watching out for our health and the well-being of our community.

She has one more page. I suggest everyone on the assembly, the manager, and Carl Hagerman do your best to find what is real and what is not. I've been trying to research what's been happening in other countries, countries with cheap hydroelectric. Most of what I find is promoted— promoting, uh, from the data center businesses. That doesn't really help those looking for real answers.

Is this good for Petersburg or not? Are the cell towers good for Petersburg? Or not. Who will profit from the data center? Greenspark and Andrew Mazella.

Who is going to profit from Tidal Networks telecom towers? I say no negotiations from Greenspark and Mazella until more research is done. And that's Kirsten Dupree. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Is there anybody else that would like to talk to items on tonight's agenda?

Is there anybody on Zoom? No, there's no one. Please come forward. Hi, um, I was going to save this for items unrelated to agenda, but since the topic's already been brought up, I'll just speak now. Um, I'd like to say amen, Kristen Dupree.

Uh, before $50 million came rolling into town for the cell towers. There was no hue and cry for any of this new technology, and now all of a sudden, how do we suddenly need it? That's just a rhetorical question. Um, I'm worried that in— this is a case of short-term vision at the expense of long-term impacts that we haven't even begun to to consider. Uh, for instance, the social impacts have not even been considered yet, and I'm talking about the cell phone— cell towers and, and the data centers.

Um, and why should the city of Petersburg aid and abet the surveillance state, which is what this amounts to? Uh, if For those of you that might be unaware, there's a bill in Congress, S.4214, and the title is, it's a bill to impose a moratorium on the construction of new data centers until legislation is enacted that safeguards the public from the dangers of artificial intelligence.

And this is just a section short findings. I'm gonna— I'm just gonna read some of their findings that are— that accompany the bill. Elon Musk, the wealthiest person alive and worth $826 billion, $600 million, stated that AI and robots will replace all jobs, working will be optional, and that AI is akin AI is akin to summoning the demon. Anthropic— the Anthropic CEO predicted that AI could displace all— half of all entry-level white-collar jobs in the next 1 to 5 years. That includes Petersburg.

And that humanity is about to be handed almost unimaginable power, and it is deeply unclear whether our social, political, and technological systems possess the maturity to wield it. I'll skip down, I'll skip down a few billionaires here. Bill Gates, worth $101 billion, predicted humans won't be needed for most things such as manufacturing products, delivering packages, or growing food over the next decade due to AI. Larry Ellison, the 6th richest person in the world, said that there will be an AI-powered surveillance state where citizens will be on their best behavior because we're constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on.

Leading experts and heads of all of the major AI companies have called for regulation and reasonable pauses to the development of AI to ensure the safety of humanity, yet they keep forging ahead because it's a race, just like what's going on in this town. It's a race. Okay, I'm going to go on a little bit here. And not all that's in this bill would apply to Petersburg, but this just gives you a start. It includes a prohibition.

A moratorium is hereby imposed on the construction of upgrading all, all new AI data centers projects until Congress passes comprehensive AI legislation that ensures the safety and prosperity of the American people. This moratorium shall not be lifted until legislation is passed and such legislation expressly terminates the moratorium. Such legislation must include, but is not limited to: the government must review and approve AI products before they're released to ensure that all AI products are safe and effective. We must prevent executives in the AI industry from releasing harmful products into the world. That threaten the health and well-being of working families, our privacy and civil rights, and the future of humanity.

The economic gains of AI and robotics will benefit workers, not just the wealthy owners of Big Tech, supposedly. Policies must be put in place to prevent job displacement due to AI, and the wealth generated by these companies must, must be shared by the American people. And I could go on much longer, but I know somebody said at one of the previous meetings, well, the owners own the data center. Who owns the data? You and I own the data.

That's our personal data. My data is not for sale. And if it is sold, then I want a cut. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Is there anybody else who would like to talk to items? On tonight's agenda, just come forward, state your name, and yes, represent Dominique Davis. I'm out at Duncan Canal, um, and, uh, I'm just here to say that I don't want my taxes to go up. It's about the mill rates, and I'm not real knowledgeable in it, but I know they go up, they never come down when things get stable. I understand there are a lot of charges being raised throughout town on various items.

I understand the purpose. I understand you guys have a very big job to do. It's very difficult. You cannot please everybody. Everybody wants a handout, and I apologize, I don't have any idea on how to make more money happen.

My ideas are not popular and pretty basic. I I'm just kind of on the basis of, um, you know, if you want something, you might as well pay for it. So I'd like to be given the option that if there is a bill out there that needs to be covered, even though it was supposedly covered, instead of just saying, well, we're going to have to raise taxes, you know, I'm sure something could be brought to where the community can pitch in or assist in some form or another. But it's just with everything from sidewalks to decrepit streets in my storage unit to Pappy's Dock to, uh, rates going up, things being built, um, I just, uh, wanted to come in instead of complain to everybody else, complain to you that I really don't want my rates to go up. I'd like them to stay down if possible, or as fair as we could give it.

Thank you for your testimony. Anybody else would like to talk to items related to tonight's agenda?

My name is Raleigh Cook, here representing myself. I've got a couple of different items I want to talk about. First one is, uh, 2026-10. When I started a business in this town I was very curious why the cap was at $1,200. It's about time that's been changed.

There's so many other places in this Southeast that charge a lot more on the sales tax, and it's— it has to happen.

I don't want it to, but it has to happen.

Another little tidbit of information that I want to offer on the Scow Bay training area: I believe the smoke tower can be moved in one piece.

I would like to attempt that. I haven't got the numbers together, but I will.

If I can help with that in any way, I would like to.

The costs that I've been hearing associated to that are outrageous, and I think it can be done at a smaller rate than that.

So many things in here I'd like to talk about, but I haven't prepared myself properly for it, so I will leave it at that. Nobody wants their taxes to go up. My taxes have gone up for my property 26% last year, which I have done no improvement, so I can't figure that out. But I guess we all got to shoulder the burden. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Okay, um, I believe we have David Beebe on the, uh, on the Zoom here. Dave, if you want to— if you're unmuted, uh, you're— you have your 5 minutes here, make a presentation. Thank you. I'm David Beebe speaking for myself, and I'm also speaking to the sudden explosion of 7 additional cell towers where literally dozens already exist, and now, unsurprisingly, the planning of a waterfront data center.

These existing cell towers, already sited amidst residential neighborhoods, including nurseries, schools, businesses, and public buildings in our tiny town of a few thousand souls, may well factor in cancer morbidities and mortalities. After all, Petersburg Borough ranks number 6 in the state's highest rates of cancer per capita amongst Alaska's 28 boroughs, as well as highly factored in the other 49 states. It would seem the statistic should matter to the Petersburg Borough government. A statistical assessment could be made simply by drawing a radius around the existing cell tower arrays over the school, anonymizing the data, and factoring the percentage versus the total of residents— residences of cancer victims in the whole borough. An overwhelming opposition exists by the borough resident taxpayer public.

This includes hundreds of signatories of concern on top of several dozens of public testifiers and several public meetings. Across America, a new Gallup poll confirms that most Americans hate the prospect of data centers coming to their communities. So what follows should give pause to anyone who understands what we truly face here as a consequence to the borough's bums rush which only sees dollar signs. Regardless, the Petersburg Borough Government is our residents' democratic bastion of last resort. In other words, the cost— constitutional buck stops here at the borough level.

Sovereignty of borough government should matter as well as personal sovereignty and constitutional rights of Borough residents also should matter. Yes, the buck stops here at the Borough's responsibility and accountability to protect public health and safety, and just as importantly, it's the Borough's obligation to uphold the Alaska Constitution. That Constitution provides for our rights to privacy that extends beyond the Fourth Amendment's protections against government intrusion. The privacy of individuals in Alaska is protected under the state's constitutional framework. Cell towers feeding edge data centers such as GreenSparks are specifically required for AI for the purposes of real-time data collection, storage, and processing of vast amounts of personal information that is our commodified private lives.

Alasska's Constitution provides for a legal basis to challenge data center practices that infringe on privacy, particularly when those practices involve sharing personal data without consent or targeting individuals simply based on their beliefs. We, at a minimum, need a moratorium. More appropriately, We need a referendum. This is entirely too much to take at one time under the rules of the bum's rush borough priorities. Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else on Zoom, uh, clerk, that—. No, there's no one. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to talk to items on tonight's agenda?

Seeing and hearing none, I'm going to move then to items unrelated to tonight's agenda. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to talk to items unrelated to tonight's agenda?

Is there nobody on Zoom? No, there's no one. Okay, thank you. I'm going to move on then. There tonight, there are no board, commission, committee reports.

There's nothing on the consent agenda. No report of other officers, and that moves me on to the mayor's report, which is fairly short tonight. I want to talk about the Little Norway celebration for this year. Thanks— thank you to the Petersburg Chamber of Commerce and Little Norway Festival Planning Committee for organizing another successful, fun-filled Little Norway celebration. The event showcased Petersburg's unique history and community spirit and was enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.

Well done to everyone. And I had a chance to talk to the ambassador from Norway, and I really think that after that conversation, maintaining the culture of this community is extremely important. Yeah, we had quite a conversation, and I appreciate everybody who helped bring that forward and keeps that going. Second item on the agenda is high school graduation. Congratulations to the class of 2026 who will be graduating on June 1st.

We celebrate your accomplishments and wish you every success ahead. Employee recognition here. Congratulations to David Mazzella for completing his 8,000-hour lineman apprenticeship and achieving journeyman-level lineman status effective May 14th, 2026. I have to tell you, this is a milestone reflecting years of dedication, extensive training, and a strong commitment, safety and service to our community. Thank you, David.

Much appreciated. And with that, I'll turn it over to the manager. And thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't have a report today, but I can answer any questions if the assembly has any for the moment. Okay.

Member Mugi. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a brief update on where we are with the Tidal network contract, please. Through the mayor, our attorney and I got a commitment from them on all the issues that we had with sovereign immunity being waived. Tidal has agreed.

We've gotten the signature of the Tlingit and Haida president, and the contract should be in front of the assembly at the next meeting.

Thank you. Any other questions for the manager? If not, I'll move on to unfinished business. First item under unfinished business is Ordinance 2026-06, an ordinance amending Petersburg Municipal Code Title 20, entitled Watershed Management, to update language and to account for borough incorporation. And this is the second reading.

If approved, this ordinance would update and codify existing watershed management regulations into Borough Code, reflect borough formation and continued protections for the City Creek and Cabin Creek watershed— water supply watersheds— to safeguard water quality and, and quantity for Service Area 1. Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-06? So moved. Second. Okay, been moved by Member Muci, seconded by Member Schwartz.

Discussion. Essentially what this does for, for the public is, is simply to change it from the old city code to the borough code. And it does, but it does add a little bit in relation to hunting, uh, and what's allowed, what isn't allowed. But it's, it's pretty, pretty much no, not much change. And with that, would the clerk please call the roll?

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

Yes. Member Martin? Yes. Member Valentine? Member Newman?

Vice Mayor Stantengreger? Yes.

That ordinance passes 7 to 0. Moving on to the second item on unfinished business, an ordinance of 2026-07, an ordinance amending Petersburg Municipal Code Chapter 4.80 to adjust the marine passenger fee, which increased the borough costs associated with services to an infrastructure for marine passenger vessels and their passengers. And again, this is a second reading. Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-07? I move.

Second. Good. Okay, moved by Member Valentine. I think Member Martin over here was— okay, I'll move on. And questions or comments from the assembly?

Member Mucci. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just, um, for the folks at home, um, can somebody explain to me how much a rough number that we get per year from this fee based on our $5 a head? Uh, fee. I'll pass that back to the finance director.

For the mayor, currently we receive about $50,000 a year from this, and so this would be approximately another $30,000. Thank you very much. Other questions? Okay, would the clerk please call the roll?

Member Mucci? Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes. Member Martin?

Yes. Member Valentine? Yes. Member Newman? Yes.

Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes. Thank you, and that ordinance passes 7 to 0.

Moving on to the next ordinance, Ordinance 2026-08, an ordinance updating Chapter 14.160 of the Municipal Code entitled Electric Utility This is the second reading also. If approved, this ordinance will update electric utility rates and charges for fiscal year 2027 to ensure Petersburg Municipal Power and Light can fully cover operating expenses, inflation, capital needs, reserve requirements, and debt cover obligations while maintaining reliable electric service and codifying the revised rate and fees in the municipal code. A memo from Director Hagerman is attached. Ordinance 2026-08 was unanimously approved in its first reading. Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-08?

So moved. Second. Moved by Member Muci, seconded by Member Valentine. Discussion? Uh, with that, um, I'm going to go back to, uh, Steve Harbor, who's our our new— going to be our new utility director here.

Would you talk for a minute about the projects coming up that this supports and why the need for it?

So we're looking at a best system to give us some grid stability. This is on a study for that.

Our transformer here downtown is, is very unique unicorn, and we're holding a lot of, uh, money in reserve for it, which we don't think is enough to replace it. So we're looking at other options that are going to reduce that. Um, this year we have a lot of regulatory commitments and some inspections and some studies that we have to do to be compliant with FERC. Um, and that's, that's the, the main drivers and what we're doing there. But then overall, if you look at the, the price of just 3 sectors in the utility world, you can look at the transmission and, and transformers, and then look at wires and look at poles.

In the last 5 years, you those of each of those sectors have gone up between 54% and 74%, and that's even prior to, uh, the surcharges to get it from Seattle to here. And then we see that those same increases in insurance for the vehicles, uh, maintenance on the vehicles, and every corner you look at, the, the costs are outpacing the inflation in, in other sectors. Does that answer the question? Yeah, part of it. Does that also bring online the new, uh, allow us to bring the new, uh, generator online?

It does not. Um, we'll be looking— we'll be presenting an ordinance to, to seek a revenue bond to complete that project. We're about $2.5 million, maybe 3, short Um, when we— when Director Hagerman first was getting the initial estimates, it was in the neighborhood of $5.4 million. And, and then the 4 years since that estimate, that doubled. If that gives you any reflection upon all our costs going up that way.

Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Harper? Hey, Member Mucci. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

So this is going to be a 4% rate adjustment for 2027. Are we looking at additional rate adjustments in the next 4 or 5 years? And, and I'm looking at this Wentworth, or whoever, whatever the name is, is that part of this 4, 5, 4, 4% rate increase up into 2027? 35. That is correct.

Um, we only went for a 1-year increase because, uh, between the mill out on, um, my street— why can't I think of the name of— Falls Creek— and the potential revenue from the data center, we didn't want to overcharge right now and commit to something that we didn't need. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions? Assembly comments?

Comment? Well, it just reminds me of a situation. I heard a conversation the other day and they said, with these utility rates, well, we're all in the same boat. And I said it myself, the hell we are. We're in the same storm, different boats.

Everybody's facing inflation, and we're in different boats, but it's the same storm, and it's a storm. Thanks. Thank you. Member Martin. Is it, uh, Steve, does it seem like the data center boom is affecting these, some of these transmission costs, uh, transformers and stuff?

I would say there's a good possibility of it. Um, I mean, supply and demand. If everybody's building giant transmission lines and, and stuff down south and all over the world, it's definitely affecting our pockets. So, um, it'd be nice to get some of that money back.

Thank you. One more question. Can you explain what the BEST system is? So that is a battery energy storage system, and what it would do is it would be out at the hydro, be approximately— we haven't done the study yet, but about a meg of power. And what it would last for about 15 to 30 minutes, it would help us storm those, the brownouts that we get when something happens in Ketchikan or Wrangell, and we and we have that hit us.

And then the secondary thing it can do for us is if we have a landslide between here and there, we'd be able to run the hydro for the customers on the other side of that landslide. We currently cannot run the hydro off-grid, and the battery would give it a voltage and, and cycle reference Thank you. Any other questions? Member Martin, more about that system. Is that— would that be cited by the hydro Crystal Lake, uh, powerhouse there?

I, I believe that's what the study would show. The good thing about that system right now, there's a lot of federal and state money available for it. Um, so I think it— if that proves feasible, we could probably get a good portion of that paid by grants. And what I'm curious, what kind of batteries that would use? I know there's been an issue about the data center battery backup system.

What, what's going on with the best system? So I don't have an answer for that yet because we haven't done the study, but I imagine, uh, they'll have a recommendation and then we can talk about it. Then, I mean, I know they use lead in some spots and others that, uh, lithium phosphate. But yeah, until we have the study and a recommendation, I won't be able to answer that.

Any other questions, Mr. Harper? Okay, with that, would the clerk please call the roll on Ordinance 2026-08? Member Newman? Yes. Member Valentine?

Yes. Member Martin?

Vice Mayor Stan Gregor?

Yes.

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

Yes. And the ordinance 2026-08, um, on the electric utility passes unanimously. Moving on to the last item under unfinished business is ordinance 2026-09, an ordinance of Petersburg Petersburg Borough adopting the budget for fiscal year July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027. This is the second reading, and on the ordinance, 2026-09 was unanimously approved in its first reading. If approved, this ordinance would adopt the fiscal year 2027 operating budget for the Petersburg Borough.

Do I have a motion to approve ordinance 2026-09?

So second, and moved by Member Muci, second by Member Valentine. And with that, I'm going to go back to the finance director here. Do you have any— an overview or anything you would like to add to that, particularly related to, you know, increases in base rates? Anything that you want to add?

Um, I would like to say that the sales tax revenue in this budget does not include much of an increase for the senior exemption that we— that was removed this last year, just because we're not quite sure how it's going to affect sales tax. And then of course the sales tax cap that you will see in the first reading today will That'll be voted on this fall, so that of course isn't in the budget. Um, with some of these additional revenues, that could really help us keep property taxes down and, and have some money in the future to help with the school and things that are increasing so much. Um, the budget work session that we did, uh, about a month ago is on the borough's website. If anyone wants to see that, um, they can watch that.

There's a lot of good information there. I don't know, it's kind of a loaded question. Sorry, there's a lot of information in this. There's a lot of information, and, and as I said today on the radio, I think that our finance director did a pretty credible job of making things balance. Um, are there other questions for— okay, Member Martin.

Yeah, I just want to appeal to the public. I'm new at this, but I thought I'd be getting a lot more input from the public. Everybody, I hear it every day, the borough spends too much, and we didn't have anyone in the public hearing helping us spend less. And you know, if you got ideas, don't be afraid to come forth. There's a lot of, a lot of homework for us to do, but it is accessible to us.

And I'm just surprised I'm not getting more input because I look at things like, you know, I don't know, is that reasonable? Is that unreasonable? It looked reasonable to me. I know it's expensive, but we need some input from the public. We're not just going to start slashing just to slash.

We got to have some guidance from you guys. So next year I hope to see a little more input from the public. Thanks. Yeah, somebody mentioned that to me, Bob, and I handed them a blank piece of paper and a pen. I said, go ahead, give me your ideas.

They didn't take it. So I think 25 years ago they had a form of almost like a mini DOJ, a committee of guys that went through the budget. They looked at every piece of equipment and they tried to find a way to do it more efficiently. And then they brought that information to the assembly.

And I mentioned that to these guys too. Hey, you're retired. Why don't you go through it? Get you, you, you, and I got 3 others. And you go through that whole budget and you figure it out, talk to Jody, and then come to us.

And every one of them turned their back and walked away. As soon as it was dressed in overalls and looked like work and time. It was over. So if you know who I'm talking to out there, take it as a challenge, with all due respect.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, with that, would the clerk please call the roll on Ordinance 2026-09? Member Schwartz. Yes.

Member Mucci? Yes. Member Martin? Yes. Member Newman?

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

Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Okay, next fiscal year's budget passed at 7-0 on its second reading, and there's one, one more reading on the budget. I'm going to move on now to new business. Under new business, we have A number of items.

The first item under new business is Ordinance 2026-10, an ordinance amending Section 4.28.120 of the Petersburg Municipal Code to increase the amount of single purchase sales tax cap from $1,200 to $5,000 and directing that the proposed amendment be submitted to the qualified voters of the borough. This is the first reading. If approved, Ordinance 2026-10 would increase the maximum single purchase amount subject to the borough sales tax from $1,200 to $5,000 and submit the change to the borough voters at the October 6, 2026 regular election. The increase would raise the maximum sales tax on a single transaction from $72 to $300, modernize a cap that has changed only once since 1959 and helped generate additional revenue to support essential borough services, including the Petersburg School District, while still remaining the lowest tax cap in Southeast Alaska. Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-10 on this first reading?

So moved. Second. Okay, moved by Member Stan Gregor, second by Member Muchi. Uh, discussion?

Member Stan Gregor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, as I spoke to today earlier on the radio, I had requested this be put before the assembly and hopefully to, if we approve this, to put it before the voters in October. Um, back up a little bit. As I mentioned earlier today on the radio, I was reading about Juneau and their massive fiscal crisis they're facing where they're not deciding if they should close schools or pools, but which ones. It's, uh, it is not being dramatic or anything like that.

It is that bad. And I thought of this that was on the ballot 2 years ago. Um, I would like the voters an opportunity to weigh in on this because by raising the tax cap, as you said in the intro, it would still be the lowest in all of Southeast. And it would do— excuse me— it would capture in particular so many visitor dollars. We are increasingly becoming a visitor-focused economy, which is great.

I'm glad people love our town, as evidenced by this last Mayfest weekend. It was lovely. So good seeing so many faces. But though that is— many big-ticket items are spent during that time, and leaving uncaptured dollars, especially from our out-of-town and out-of-state visitors on the table, uh, seems like low-hanging fruit we should grab onto. So I look forward to hearing from all the assembly members, but hope we can approve this and get it before the voters in October.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Other comments? Member Valentine. Thank you.

Um, yeah, I'm, I'm definitely in agreement towards this, especially since I work in the tourism industry and I can see where this really comes from. And just to note for people listening at home, I'll read off quickly where Petersburg and the other boroughs kind of lie. So like the sales tax cap around Southeast, Haines is at $10,000, Juneau's at $15,000, Cake has none, Ketchikan at $2,000, Sitka at $12,000, Skagway has none, Wrangell at $5,000, Craig at $5,000, Gustavus at none, Pelican at none, and Petersburg at $1,200. So it seems as though we should be definitely coming up, and I feel as though this is a reasonable ask. It's comparable to what our sister town is doing, Wrangell.

And, you know, the next reading is when the public can weigh in. So definitely come in and, you know, share your opinion on this. And yeah, thank you. Okay, thank you. Member Newman.

Uh, yes, I have a question for the finance director. Um, so I thought, didn't we— then this wasn't this— just vote on this last fall, 2 falls ago. So how many times has this come before the voters and it's failed? Just the one time? Because I thought it came up a few years ago previous to that.

No, I can't remember. I think it failed by about 5 votes 2 years ago, and I believe we brought it up a while, maybe 10 years ago, but I would have to get back to you on that. Both times was the cap raising it from $1,200 to $5,000? No, I think it might have been $3,000 last time, or the 2 times ago. Oh, like several years ago.

Yeah. And you know, when we— this last time, 2 years ago, Wrangell still had a $3,000 cap, and right after it failed for us, their assembly went in and just approved it to $5,000 because they don't need a vote of the public to change exemptions like we do.

Number slightly less than that would be more acceptable to the voting public. Well, and another thing to think about too, sorry, I, um, Wrangell is $5,000 now, but they also have 7% sales tax, whereas we have a 6%. So, and some of these other communities have a larger sales tax as well. So, remember Valentine? Uh, thank you.

I've thought about this too a lot, especially when, um, I'm a younger assembly member up here, and then when I come in, and seeing that there's rates 20 years older than me and then nothing has been done. Now it's on this guy that's sitting up here today, right, to be that guy. So it, it— I, I always like kind of like incremental steps into the right direction. Um, I kind of thought the same thing. I've talked to Jody about this before where I thought maybe we should start lower, get up to wherever.

However, I think, um, at this point, getting to $5,000, probably just staying there is probably a good idea. And I think 5,000 overall, all around, is just going to be probably what we'll probably hang out at, because if we raise it to 1,000, you know, 3,000, probably in another year or two we'll ask again. But maybe if we say at 5,000, we might be able to just stay there. So at least that would be the hope, at least in my opinion. Thank you.

Thank you, Member Schwartz. Well, it's nice to think about this fall and just on visitors, but I'm thinking about businesses. Amount of money I've spent at Piston and Rudder, or I just ordered $80,000 worth of engines from Napa. So it does fall on businesses as well, and the local businesses will generate probably quite a bit more money than the visitors from out of town. Um, I'll still vote for it, right?

I mean, to put it on the ballot, but I just had to mention that part. You know, it's not going to come from 3 months of tourists. The main income is going to come from hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of business and purchases in town. You'll probably have an $80,000 fuel bill, and I know the Sainers have huge fuel bills. So the visitor thing will be like a little, little bump.

The main businesses in town will generate money from this. I mean, the, you know, for the borough. And that being said, I'll shut up. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Can Somebody explained to me the 6th whereas, talking about the exempted local sales tax due to— can I just get some clarification in that?

Sure, so every month when businesses file sales tax, they tell us what category their exemptions are in, so we keep track of that. And last year, $25 million of sales was exempted because of the sales tax cap. And if we didn't have a sales tax cap, the borough would make— would generate an additional $1.5 million a year.

Anyway, so, and then what it says is that over $6.3 million were from travel, charter, guides, lodges, hotels, B&B sales. That's the whereas you're looking at, right? Yes. Yeah. So, and so just for clarification, so if this If we put this on the ballot and it passes, then based on calendar year 2025, we'd see an additional $25 million of revenues.

Um, no, we, um, if there was no sales tax cap, if we decided like other communities not to go to $5,000 and just say, hey, like down south in Seattle, you— there isn't a cap, you just pay sales tax on everything that you spend, um, it would be at $1.5 million. Thank you. Yeah. Other questions? The YS director.

Okay, with that, would the clerk please call the roll?

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

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

Yes.

Member Valentine? Yes, yes, yes, yes. Member, Member Newman?

No.

Okay, good. Okay. All right, and that passes on the first reading, uh, 6 to 1 with Member Newman, uh, opposing. I'll move on to the second item here, Ordinance 2026-11, an ordinance updating Chapter 14.8 of the Municipal Code entitled Sewer Utility This is the first reading. If approved, Ordinance 2026-11 would update sewer utility service rates for fiscal year 2027 through fiscal year 2030 based on the annual rate review reflecting higher projected operating costs and planned capital needs.

The changes amend Section 14.08.320 of the Municipal Code to establish updated service charges and commodity rate rates to support long-term financial sustainability of the sewer utility. A member from Assistant Director Public— our Assistant Public Director Rommel is attached to this agenda item. Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-11? So moved. Second.

Moved by Member Mewgis, seconded by Member Valentine. Discussion with that, I'm going to ask, I think we have Mr. Rummel back here, our Assistant Utility Director, if you want to give an overview, particularly what the projects we're talking about and why in the future, if you would please.

Yes, thank you. So, we've all seen the Pump Station 4 project that's been going on at Hungry Point. We are already applying for money for Pump Station 3, which is a state revolving fund, which is something we will need to pay back. We also have an outfall repair that we have going on currently right now. We also have, due to the EPA, uh, tighter restrictions, we have disinfection plant that we have to install and also a pretreatment to keep up with the EPA standards.

Standards. So these are— it's kind of coming at us from two sides. We have aging infrastructure that we need to keep up on and repair, along with stricter regulations from the EPA with our, with our wastewater. So we're kind of getting hit by two sides here. Thank you.

Questions from the assembly?

I'm Martin. Just a comment. I had a horrifying fascinating tour of the sewer treatment plant a few months ago, and there's nothing luxurious going on out there. It's— it looks a lot like it did when I was first learning to ride a motorcycle on that road, Rob's backyard here. Um, there are, as everybody probably knows, there are systems running on backup pumps because the main pump needs to be serviced, and there's no backup after that, and there's— it's a— you're not really saving any money at that point by not doing the repairs that you need.

So I'm supportive of this. Member Stanton Gregor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Sorry, I'm lagging a little bit here. Uh, yeah, I'll definitely be voting yes on this. When I—. We look at it from, uh, not a percentage lens but from a dollars and cents lens.

Mr. Manager, as always, correct me if I'm missing, or, uh, Director Hagerman or whoever can chime in on it. You know, the average cost to the average customer would be around $12 more a month to get these covered. If that's inaccurate, somebody please line me out.

That's correct. Thank you very much, Mr. Rummels. That said, I don't like my rates going up on anything. No one does. But in terms of wastewater, not to be simple-minded, I appreciate that we have a high-functioning utility and that when my water goes down the drain, it goes to where it's supposed to go and system functions well.

I appreciate the efforts going into it. I know a lot of these financial burdens are being— burdens are being put on us from the state and federal sources. So I think we owe it to the ratepayers to approve this. Thank you.

Member Mucci, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Please bear with me here. I'm trying to sort this out, you know. So last week or 2 weeks ago, we had a presentation by Whitworth or whatever the name of the company was about the rate study and this, that, and the other. And, you know, we were looking at a 25% rate increase in 2026, which we're at right now.

And then we were looking and they were suggesting a 20% increase in fiscal year '27. In fiscal year '28, it was 15%. In 2029, it was 7%. 2030, It was 7%. And 2031, it was going to be 4.5%.

So, and when I look at the proposed ordinance that we're talking about, And I talked with Director Morrell this afternoon and I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. This ordinance that we're looking at, it, it's going for a 20% increase in fiscal year '27, but it's not raising the rates in '28, '29, or '30. It's just adjusting the rates based on an ordinance that was passed passed in 2025 to adjust the rates in '28, '29, and '30? And I'm— that's where I want to start with this. I'm trying to sort it out.

It doesn't make sense to me, so I'm just trying to understand it. Yeah, so the rate you're seeing right now, we are simply— we're taking this year by year because at this time last year we didn't know about the disinfection or the pretreatment. This is all new from, you know, so we're getting hit with new things from the EPA ever since, even since last year. So we're taking this year by year. What you're looking at there is the recommended rate increase for '27.

And what—. And the rest of that is the adjustments from the rate increase of '27 that then fluctuates the rates in '28, '29, and '30. I also put together today, after your guys' discussion, a rate study that shows what Waterworth recommends. Now, Waterworth is— that's— they recommend, they show us in a forecast. They don't, they don't put it in stone.

They just, they make recommendation recommendations to us. Um, and we've got some copies of that, and if you look at— give it a chance to look at it.

The rate study that is presented with the 20% increase in '27, 10% in '28, which is forecasted out through the, the budget that was already passed, the 10%. And then you look at the 20% rate increase this year, 15%, 7%, and 7% that was forecasted by Waterworth, at the end of the day, it's off by 1%. So we're following the same forecast, but we're essentially—. We didn't—. We're not making those absolute changes to it yet because we don't know what's coming even more.

We know what's coming already, but we can't— clearly we can't forecast as well as we would like to through the mayor of changes. Thomas and— or which one? Does this include the potential for $8 million? Yes. Does it include any future grants that we haven't got yet?

I would assume no. Okay, so for the assembly's benefit, we received an earmark for $8 million. It sounds like that's included. In, in the study. The estimate, and again, it's just an estimate at this point, is somewhere between $12 million and $15 million to do all the work the EPA has asked us to do.

We're going to go back and ask for more money from our federal folks, um, but we need to get the $8 million and get it spent, which is first part of is all the engineering that has to happen. They'll give us a better idea, is it $12 million, is it $13 million, is it $15 million. So it's going to be really difficult, as Thomas said, to nail this down as far as exactly what these rate increases are going to be until we have a better idea what it's— what we're going to be— cost us to build these planned improvements that are going to be— that are required at this point.

Um, for the benefit of the public here and, and assembly somewhat, explain what the— what we're required to do in the changes, if you will, please. As I'll jump in and try, so you're going to have— you have to correct me, okay? Um, so for years we used what was called a mixing zone. So our wastewater came through the plant, solids were screened, and then the leftover liquids were pushed out into Frederick Sound into an area where it mixed with tides and everything else and dissipated. EPA has decided that those mixing zones need to be a lot, um, we can't use them like we were in the past.

So they're asking that we do pretreatment as well as potentially, um, using chlorine on our— what comes out of the wastewater plant. That's where the studies come in. We don't know exactly what they're going to request us to do. We just know that what they want to see is stuff coming out of our wastewater plant that is a lot less— not to say toxic, but a lot less dirty than what it currently is. Guys, can you say it better than that?

No, I can't say anything better than that, Steve. But one thing I would add, Steve mentioned that we have to add chlorine to the wastewater coming into the plant. But we're not allowed to discharge chlorine, so we then need to remove it, and that's part of the disinfection process. Anything deeper than that, I would have to refer to Justin Haley, our wastewater supervisor.

Mm-hmm. Yeah, thank you. Um, I'm not sure really where I'm going with this, but so this rate increase that we're looking at for this 20% rate increase for 2027 is for our known costs in the next fiscal year, or is this putting money aside for future projects?

Um, if you recall the, uh, the, uh, Waterworth presentation at the last meeting where he had the graph, um, And you know, we had our operating expenses and our capital projects. We had our revenues from the ratepayers and our grants and our loans and that sort of thing. And across those, the bar graphs and the charts, there was a— there's two dotted lines. There was The red one for the operating threshold, which our borough code requires us to stay above our operating threshold. And then, um, there was a black dotted line which was our cash position.

And the intention on, on these charts that was presented to you is that we always want to keep our cash position above our operating threshold. And so these— this proposed rate increase will allow us to stay above the operating threshold at a respectable level that should bring us into the future safely.

Omuki. OK, I can accept that. Explanation, but I know there was some discussion at the assembly during this go-around last time about possibly reducing the 2027 increase and making our cash reserves a little less, but I see we're not headed that way. But when I'm looking at this, this new rate that we were just handed, it looks like in fiscal year 2028 it's a 15% increase as opposed to the 10% increase that's on the ordinance that we're looking at. So Is the ordinance that we're talking about now, does that need to be changed in fiscal year 2028 to 15%?

Or I don't understand the difference between the sheet that we just got that says 15% in 2028 and the ordinance that we're voting on that says 10% in 2028. But as I alluded to earlier, the Waterworth, the one with the 20%, 50%, 7%, 7%. That was a direct record. That's— that was the forecast which Waterworth brought up here, and it was— it's an example. So we can—.

We can—.

Like I was saying before, it balances out when you get to your fiscal year '30-'30. We were balanced out, but 20% this year. 10% Next year, 10% in '29, 10% in '30 keeps us at a steady rate increase rather than a 20, a 15, and then a 7 and a 7. So it's, uh, it's really, it's a choice on the assembly on which route you would like to go. Um, we went with the original 20% increase, 10%, 10%, because that's what was already in the ordinance.

Ordinance. So we were just changing fiscal year '27 and adjusting the rates from there on. But both paths get us to the same place.

I could too.

What's in the ordinance is what's being asked of the assembly, so not what was handed around. So that's what, that's what we're asking.

Going much beyond 2028 is probably— it's guesswork that doesn't really matter that much. I hate to say it that way because we don't know what EPA is going to ask us to fully do, and we don't know what those costs are going to be. Sure. So, I mean, I would— you know, the— what's most important is the next couple, 3 years while we wait to get through this project and get through the studies that EPS is going to require. And out of that's going to come much more detailed costs that we can then put back in the rate study software and say, all right, what does that say?

What, what changed, what didn't, and what is that doing to rates? That also gives us a chance to go back to Senator Murkowski and Representative Begich and ask them for more money, um, because I think we're going to have to do that regardless. Um, but we don't know how much to ask for right now, and that, that's a problem that impacts these rate studies, you know, that Thomas is pointing out. I mean, Waterworth did their study, and, you know, they're, they're not going to count on any extra money coming in that we don't have in our hands yet. The ordinance putting forward is, you know, we're really focused on the next 2-3 years, and then we'll hopefully have a better, clearer answer from an engineer that tells us this is what we have to do and this is what it's going to cost.

I'm not sure we can be more accurate than that right now. I have two questions in for you. One is, are we the only ones being affected, or are there other municipalities in Alaska affected? May I believe there's, uh, Carl, if you're listening, correct me. I think there's 9 other communities, or total of 9 communities, that are affected by this, including Wrangell, Ketchikan, and even Anchorage.

And I think Anchorage's bill, the last time somebody talked about it, was $2 billion to do the changes that they needed to do.

He's not jumping in, so I must have gotten close. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, I, uh, through the mayor, yes, I think you're correct, Steve. There's 9 other communities that were affected by the, uh, the primary, um, or secondary treatment waiver issue, um, and that, that issue is an enormous cost to every community With Anchorage being the largest community affected, their project to properly disinfect their effluent, the last I heard a couple years ago, had crested $2 billion.

That's with a B. It's an enormous cost, and unfortunately, the state and the federal government haven't rushed to help any community. It's fantastic that Senator Murkowski did provide some congressionally directed spending towards that project for Petersburg and has done so in other Southeast Alaskan communities, but the cost is still very high to the wastewater department and its ratepayers.

Thank you. Other questions?

Seeing none, would the clerk, uh, please call the roll? Mayor Lynn? Yes. Member Meechi? Yes.

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

Yes. Member Valentine? Yes. Member Newman? Yes.

Thank you, and that passes 7 to 0. On the first reading. Next item is Ordinance 2026-12, an ordinance amending Title 19, Zoning, of the Petersburg Municipal Code to regulate wireless communication facilities and other towers and transmitters. This is the first reading. If approved, this ordinance will— would establish zoning and permitting standards for wireless communication facilities and other towers.

It requires these facilities to be reviewed as conditional uses providing public notice and Planning Commission review and approval while remaining consistent with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and, and related regulations. The ordinance created a new chapter of this municipal code governing wireless facilities, prioritizes co-location and use of existing structures, and sets development standards addressing location, safety, visual impacts, and FCC compliance. It is intended to balance the community's needs for reliable wireless and other communication services with public safety and aesthetic concerns. And in this package, there's not only the ordinance but also a director— a memo from Director Cabrera discussing, uh, the details of this particular ordinance. Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-12 on the first reading?

So moved. Second? Moved by Member Mushi. Seconded by Member Newman. Uh, discussion?

Oh, there's so much to discuss. Um, Liz is here. Liz, can you say something? Can you talk about this, please? Do you want to give a summary?

This took a long time, and we appreciate you for taking all the effort to balance it as best you could. Well, I think basically everything I had to say is in the memo. Uh, but, uh, yeah, the ordinance establishes a zoning and permitting framework for wireless communication facilities as well as non-WCF wireless communication facilities. Such as radio and television broadcast, and then provides exemptions where federally required, and also for personal, um, things like ham radio antennas and satellite dishes and things like that that were required to exempt from local, local ordinance and local regulation. It attempts to address some of the issues that have been brought forward by the public, especially siting issues, by establishing a hierarchy.

So we are establishing a preference for colocation, meaning that we would prefer that new companies coming in colocate on an existing tower. And as you go through the hierarchy, the last one, you know, near the end, it's new towers. And so that an applicant coming in would have to demonstrate that they could not choose something higher on the hierarchy. They couldn't do colocation because technically infeasible. Perhaps the tower can no longer— can't support anything new on it, or some other reason that they cannot colocate before they can look at establishing a new tower.

And then new towers, part of the requirement for that would be providing alternate sites. So where did they look, and why were those sites not feasible for them? And why was this— why is this the best site? So it adds a whole level of scrutiny that we have not had before. Um, it still only allows towers in commercial and industrial districts, so that part of it didn't change, but it did change them from a by-right use to a conditional use.

Other questions for, uh, Member Stanton Gregor?

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to, uh, to briefly and thoroughly thank Liz Cabrera and her staff for the laborious hours spent investing their time and resources on this. Um, as I joked around a bit on the radio earlier today, it is, uh, Encourage all members of the public to read the, I believe it's 17 pages. It is not light reading. There's a lot to digest there, and I very, very much appreciate the thorough effort from staff put into this.

Thank you again.

Member Martin. Uh, Liz, has this gone through the Planning Commission? I didn't catch up on the last meeting there on the 12th. So, the Planning Commission was involved on the front end. And so they provided basically an outline of what they— they recommended an outline.

And so then this ordinance is the fleshed-out version of that outline. So they set the separation distances and things like that, you know, how far things could be, the setbacks. I remember that part. Thanks. Your memo was really good.

It was a lot more fun reading your memorandum than the ordinance. Um, if the public has something they would like different, can that happen, uh, during the 3-reading process, or does it, does it reset anything? Or I mean, how can the public get involved in this if they have further changes or tweaks? Well, there's a public hearing at the next assembly meeting, so that would be, I think, the time— opportune time to come forward with some suggestions. Uh, I would say the structure of the ordinance is complicated, and so changes— change one thing might require some amendments to other things, and so just depends on how extensive you know, the changes you want to make.

I don't have any in mind. I'm just wondering, we'd have to make amendments up here. Yeah, you do that whole process.

Yeah, to Member Martins, I would urge anybody who has detailed thoughts on this that they submit them in writing to the Assembly and/or to Liz at that point, because this is a very complicated ordinance. I think one of the most complicated I've seen. At any rate, I think that would make it much easier to be able to address those, the particular items in there, if it was— if you had the comments in writing and detailed comments. That sounds a lot better than just listening to some public testimony and then trying to craft an amendment here on the fly. That just sounds really awkward.

Yeah, yes, no, I agree. And on this one, I would urge you, if you have comments, to put those in writing in detail, because one of those sections affects another section, which affects other parts of it. And so it doesn't just change one little piece of it, may change the whole ordinance in, in essence. Is there other— Member Valentine? Yeah, I was going to basically echo exactly what you guys were saying.

Um, it's better. There is a public hearing on this next in 2 weeks. June 1st. Is it already June? Wow.

Um, June 1st, and, uh, it's better for anybody in the public to find an assembly member to talk to in advance because very little will be done right here during that time. Because like everybody is saying, it's going to take a lot to readjust all this. And I'd like to note to the public that it's really easy to say just put a blanket stop over everything, but it's never that easy. And I know that Liz has spent a lot of time with our lawyer going back and forth to make this as tight as she could Even though we still have to abide by an old 1996 Telecom Act, right? We still have to abide by that.

And so she did as best a job as she could with what you see here, and I recommend anybody who is really concerned about this read this with a fine eye and then understand the process it might have taken to it, why maybe the setbacks are maybe not to your standard, but why they she may have said it this way, or fencing or height or lighting or protrusions, signs, fencing, all this stuff. Um, so just in the next 2 weeks, if you do, I would encourage you to do it beforehand instead of right at the meeting expecting something at the meeting. Thank you.

Anybody else? Member Mucci. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, to Member Valentine's point, You know, for us to get anything on the agenda for the June 5th— June 1st meeting, it has to be to the clerk by noon on the 25th of this month. So if you get it to us after that deadline, it's going to be hard to be included in the packet for the June 1st meeting.

So hopefully this 17 pages and the 7 pages from Director Cabrera will be on the borough's website. So if people were thinking that they wanted to look at it and weigh in on some changes, it would be nice to hear from them between now and May 25th at noon time, just so that it can be part of our process. And we could certainly do it, um, as an amendment at the meeting, but for everybody to kind of be on the same page, it would be nice if it was in that packet for the June 1st meeting. So thank you. I would go a little bit further than that.

I would say that, you know, present your— present it so that those changes could be made on the last reading, so you have a comprehensive package to make changes if there are to be changes. Member Stan Gregor.

Yeah, just a brief point of order slash clarification. Uh, anything submitted would just be feedback for us for the next meeting. Any changes will be done by amendment. Any suggestions will will not be included in the ordinance as it'll have to be amended by us. So it's fun to clarify that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Member Martin wondered if, uh, Manager Clerk could, could clarify what's the difference, functional difference between persons to be heard and the public hearing portion. Uh, anything really going to change in the next meeting?

No, I don't think so. I think they're very similar, but with that public hearing, it just draws attention to the fact that we're on the second reading of an ordinance. So it just notifies people that that's their time to speak about that ordinance, but people can speak at any meeting on an ordinance. But that public hearing is a great time to bring issues forward.

Yeah, what Becky says is correct. This is an exceptionally complex ordinance. So I think the mayor is right in— if for folks who are interested in this topic, submitting something in writing to the assembly or to Liz, you know, but to the assembly really, I think would be really important. Um, you know, uh, as somebody remember, you know, Stanton Gregor said it right. At—.

Now that this has been presented, it has to be— if it's going to be amended, it has to be by the assembly, by— through the amendment process. I mean, staff can't change it. We can come up with something and we can give it to one of you and say, okay, what do you think of this? But it has to be an assembly member that makes the amendment to the ordinance. And as Liz said, and I really agree, changing things in this ordinance are going to be difficult.

We will have as much time as someone can give us, the more likely we can be accurate on making sure we get it right, because we'll have to run it by the attorney to say, hey, what— by changing this, what else should change? So I don't think I'm, you know, so for some of them, or Meechi's issue, we don't have to put it on the agenda as a separate agenda item. That's just part of the amendment process that goes on with the 3 readings. Yeah, and I would add to that, I would prefer not to look at one item at a time but look at it comprehensively so that if there's somebody had— there's a dozen comments, what have you, that we can look at it comprehensively rather than just one at a time, because then the next, the next idea will change, may change the first idea, and so forth. I'd rather we see— to save Director Cabrera some time, just do it once.

With all the changes.

Member Newman. Oh, thank you. Yeah, I just want to thank Liz for all the hard work she's done on this. I know I've had lots of conversations with her as well, as we all have. But also just wanted to clarify, I guess, just for the public, that once this passes in whatever way, shape, or form that it comes in, it doesn't apply retroactively to companies that have already applied in their permitting process with the FCC.

Thank you. Other comments or questions? Member Valentine? Just a comment. Again, thank you, Liz.

And yeah, I know you're spending a lot of time on this, but this is—. It may—. This may not— like, everyone loves this, but it is really cool to see, you know, an effort to the first line of defense that we've been talking about for a long time. It's here, it's, it's sitting right here. So it's— I really recommend people read it.

And, uh, yeah, thank you.

Other comments from assembly members? Okay, with that, would the clerk please call the roll? Member Valentine? Yes. Member Newman?

Yes. Member Martin? Yes. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes.

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

Yes. And that the ordinance on the first reading of the wireless communications facility passes 7 to 0. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, Resolution 2026-13, Resolution of Petersburg Borough setting the millage rates for the fiscal year July 1st, 2026 through through June 30th, 2027. If approved, this resolution will establish the property tax millage rates for the fiscal year July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027, based on final assessed property values and in accordance with borough code and charter limits. The adopted rates fund area-wide services, education, voter-approved general obligation bond debt, and Service Area 1 services, and sets the due date for 2026 property taxes.

Do I have a motion to approve the Resolution 2026-13, setting the mill rate for fiscal year— for fiscal year July 1st, 2026? So moved. Second. Moved by Member Muci, seconded by Member Valentine. Discussion?

With that, the finance director have any additions, changes? Okay, hearing none, would the clerk please call the roll on Resolution 2026-13, setting the millage rate for fiscal year— next fiscal year for through June 30th, 2027. Member Michie? Yes. Member Schwartz?

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

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

Yes.

And Resolution 2026-13 passes, uh, unanimously. Moving on to Resolution 2026-14. A resolution authorizing the borough manager to transfer ownership of certain antique fire apparatus to the Petersburg Volunteer Fire Department Association. If approved, this resolution would allow Petersburg Volunteer Fire Department Association to take ownership of 3 antique fire apparatus. It is restored and maintained.

The association will assume all insurance and maintenance responsibilities, continue to make the vehicles available for public display and return ownership to the borough if the association dissolves. A letter from William Tremblay, the PVFD Association president, is attached to this agenda item. Do I have a motion to approve Resolution 2026-14?

Second. Moved by Member Miyuchi, seconded by Member Martin. Discussion from the assembly.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So if, if these, these vehicles are transferred, will they just stay in Fire Station 2, or will they have a new home? That would be an agreement between me as the director and the association president. But yes, the plan is to keep them at Scale Bay.

Other questions from the assembly?

Hearing and seeing none, would, uh, clerk please call the roll on Resolution 2026-14, um, authorizing the borough manager to transfer ownership of certain antique fire apparatus to the Petersburg Volunteer Fire Department Association. Member Valentine? Yes. Member Martin? Yes.

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

Member Meechie? Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes. And that passes 7 to 0 to transfer the ownership of the fire apparatus to the Petersburg Volunteer Fire Department Association.

Moving on to Resolution 2026-15, Resolution of the Petersburg Borough Assembly Approving the Sale of a Borough-Owned Parcel to Taylor Jensen. If approved, Resolution 2026-15 would authorize the sale of a borough-owned parcel at 505 Mill Street to Taylor Jensen under the negotiated contract to sale. The Planning Commission recommended approval after a public hearing, and the assembly later authorized direct negotiations. The parcels— the parcels are needed for— are not needed for municipal use, and PMC 16.12.160 requires assembly approval by resolution for their disposal. The contract to sale is attached to this agenda item.

Do I have a motion to approve approve the resolution for the sale of a piece of rural property to Taylor Jensen. So moved. Second. Okay, moved by Member Valentine, seconded by Member Mucci. Discussion?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So this $7,500 just goes into the property development fund? Through the mayor? Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you.

Other questions for the manager?

Hearing none, would, uh, clerk please call the roll on Resolution 2026-15? Mayor Lynn? Yes. Member Meechi? Yes.

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

Member Valentine. Yes. Member Newman. Thank you. And that passes 7 to 0 to sale for the sale of that property of Parson to Taylor Jensen.

Moving on, land purchase application. The borough has received an application from Robert Funk to purchase borough-owned property at 502 Lumber Street. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April April 14th, 2026, as required by PMC 16.12.080, and recommends approval of the sale of the property to the applicant. The assessed value of the property is, is $33,100. The Planning Commission's report is attached to this agenda item.

During this meeting, the assembly shall determine whether the application shall move forward in the application process or be denied. If the application is to move forward, the assembly shall schedule a public sale or exempt the application and disposal from public sale. If public sale, the assembly shall determine if the sale shall be an outcry auction or sealed bid and shall choose a date/time for the sale. If exempted from public sale, the assembly shall establish the alternative method terms and conditions of disposal. Do I have a motion to approve the sale of this property to Robert Funk?

Mr. Mayor, I would approve, or I would move that we approve the application to move forward by direct sale to Mr. Funk, if that works. Okay, Clerk, for language. Yes, that's good. Is there a second? Second.

Moved by Member Stan— Stanton Gregor, seconded by Member Valentine. Um, discussion?

There is— I hear no, no thoughts here. So would Court please call the roll? Member Martin? Yes. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor?

Yes. Member Valentine? Yes. Member Newman.

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

Yes. And that the sale is approved 7-0. Now we need to take a look at establishing a date and time for the sale.

Okay, Mr. Mayor, could I suggest that that be held off? We were trying to gather some properties to do it all at once. I guess it wouldn't matter if it's a direct sale. Sorry, I apologize. Okay, then, yeah, never mind.

I apologize. If it's a direct sale, then we don't need to schedule anything. If that's okay with the assembly. Okay, seeing, uh, yeses here, so apologies. Okay, we will, we will move forward.

Member Stanton Gregor? Uh, nope, I was just going to clarify exactly what you and the manager just figured out, that if we're doing it by direct sale, there's no date. The manager can sort it out. So we're, we're square and good to go. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on, we have a letter of interest for the Planning Commission. Right now we have one vacant seat on the Planning Commission. The assembly has received a letter of interest from Jim Floyd expressing his willingness to serve on the Planning Commission. His letter is presented for assembly review and consideration for appointment.

If appointed, Mr. Floyd will serve until the October 2026 election. Unless without any disagreement, I would appoint Mr. Floyd to the Planning Commission for the duration of this calendar year.

So moved. I didn't hear anything, so Mr. Floyd is— Mr. Floyd is now appointed. Pointed. Yay! Approved.

Okay, I'm going to move on to the next item, Item I. Scow Bay Fire Station Training Prop Relocation Plan. Consider— this agenda item is to consider directing the borough manager to develop a plan to relocate the Scow Bay Fire Station training props to a site adjacent to Fire Station 1. This plan should include a proposed timeline for move, detailed cost estimates for relocating the training vans, burn tower, associated gear, estimated engineering and construction costs for a suitable pad at the fire station, one site, and identification of potential funding options. The plan shall also include coordination with the required approval, uh, for the Department of Transportation. If DOT does not grant approval for the proposed location, staff shall immediately begin evaluation and planning for the alternative of site.

Do I have a motion to approve the plan for the relocation of the Scal Bay training facilities? So moved. Second. Moved by Member Mucci, seconded by Member Valentine. Discussion?

Member Mucci. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I put this on the agenda. I wanted to make sure that we were having a discussion with all the parties involved with the training props. And the training props, I have been told, are the 6 vans that are out there for smoke training, the 2 or 3-story training tower, um, and I think there's a— there might be other miscellaneous equipment up there, but I want to make sure that, um, where this training— where these training props go has been suitably looked at to make sure it meets what the fire department needs and what they want.

I know it's— they can't have everything, but to me it makes sense to have all the fire training equipment next to Fire Station 1 up by, uh, on Haugen up there. So I just wanted it on there for discussion and throw it out there to see what the assembly wanted to do. Thank you.

Uh, Member Martin, I, I kind of wonder if there'd be a way we could have a tour of all the properties in question. And, uh, I don't know if it may be a work session, it would have to be to, to be kosher with Open Meetings Act. But, um, I just feel like I'm kind of blundering, blundering around, you know. I try to do my little drive-by, or I talk to a fire department guy here and there, and I feel like we kind of need to blow this wide open and get informed.

Member Stanton Gregor.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I see a little different than what Member Martin brought up. I actually see this more of as administrative issue. When, uh, at our last meeting, the borough manager had, uh, you know, addressed that we were gonna have to move that training facility from Skow Bay and said he would get back to us, uh, when he'd vetted potential sites. Um, So I'm a little— I know what the right word is— disappointed that it's on as an action item right now when we haven't heard back from the manager, because I know they were looking at 14th Street potentially and behind the fire hall.

For myself, I think it would be— and Mr. Manager, I implore you to cut me off at any point if I'm speaking out of line— but to make a decision when— or give the manager direction until these things have been thoroughly vetted, meaning Is one site significantly more cost-effective than the others? Meaning if we have to excavate Muskeg, uh, what will be cost be? Water, you know, really run it into the ground so the manager can give us good data so that we can make our final decision. So I'll be voting no, but not because I don't potentially like that site, but unless the manager can fill me in afterwards, unless you have the data that you'd recommend this at this point, I want to make sure we're getting all the data before we, um, I'd rather follow the administration's lead than us tell the administration what to do.

So with that, I'll defer and see if the manager is going to tell me I'm way off base. Thank you. Okay, to the manager, the mayor. So what, what's occurred since I put it in my report to kind of let the assembly know what we were doing is we had Director Hankins go through an evaluation of the two sites. One at 14th Street, the other behind or adjacent to the Fire Station 1.

I have some questions. I met with Director Hankins and Chief Byrd last week, kind of talked through those questions. I still have some that I need cleared out, just make sure before I can make a recommendation to the assembly. Um, as you heard, adjacent to the fire hall likely might be a very good location. I just want some answers to some of these numbers that make sense.

Um, and, and Director Hankins has done a good job on it. I just, uh, yeah, I got it Thursday night from him, and Friday was the meeting with Chief Byrd and Director Hankins, and that was also Mayfest. So, uh, it's moving quickly. I'd like some answers on just to go through the budget. There's some things that I think we should add to the budget that's currently existing.

Uh, 14th Street appears to be more expensive than next to the fire hall, but I'm not sure that covers all the costs. But that's what my job is, is to go look at that. And, um, but if the assembly chooses to put it next to the fire hall and without any more, any more evaluation, then that's up to you.

Other questions from the assembly? I'd like to weigh in on this one a little bit, is that I attended a couple meetings on this one, and finding a piece of land that had criteria that Director Hankins needed and the fire department needed was a little tough. And so I think that this particular action item needs, needs not to go through for a couple reasons, is that Even this at the fire hall or another one may, may not be the right location. And I think we need to give the manager and, and Director Hankinson and Liz, a couple other people who have been involved with this, a chance to work this through and come back with, with a proposal. Um, there's the other part of this is that just because, you know, maybe the, uh, I hate to say what I'm going to say, but I think we need to also look at the cost of this.

And if it— it may not be the best site that, you know, that our fire folks want, but if it's going— if, you know, we're talking $1 million, we've got a problem here because I don't know where the $1 million would come from right now. So we'd need a plan for the long run, and that's, I think, some of what the manager is looking at is some of the options. And so let me—. Yeah. If I can finish, anyway, I think that we need, we need to allow the manager to look at all options and other options that may come available along with Director Hankins and the team he has working on with, with Director Moreau and so forth.

Uh, and with that, um, I'll— let me go to Member Valentine. Thank you. Um, this is going to go to, uh, uh, Mr. Hankins there. Um, Can you rank your top, uh, maybe 3 sites in the borough? I'm sure you've looked around by now and you probably have an idea of where it may fit best.

Right now, I, I don't even have 3. I got 2. Okay, 2 listed. Um, we looked at another site, but I mean, it is considerably more expensive, mainly due to utility extension. And so it's a stretch, especially because we don't know where the money is coming from.

Um, figures I've gathered so far are based off what I can get gather from similar projects or information from, um, another set of plans that we had made for a different— that other location that turned out to be pretty expensive. So The volunteers, after I spoke with them, they like the Station 1 area. Every site has some challenges. The issue with that particular site is making sure that there is no interference with the airport, and we don't want to affect their operations. However, I mean, just— and I was thinking about it while we were doing it on Sunday— I mean, we just had the fish bake right at Sandy Beach in the flight path with jets coming in, and there was seemingly no conflict.

And I would wager that the Fishbake puts out as much smoke, if not more, because it's not contained. So DOT tentatively doesn't see an issue with it, but they're going through their process. I think they said there's a—. I think it's a 70-60 study that they do. I don't have— I'm not a part of the FFA or I don't fly, so I have a loose understanding what they need.

Um, with the 14th Street site, there is some utility extension because we don't have an existing building nearby with other facilities. Name—. That's part of the increased cost. You know, it's hard to tell a firefighter to go walk, you know, half a mile to the next bathroom, um, you know, at Outlook Park. It's—.

I don't think that's fair, um, especially when they're out there giving their time for, uh, 2 hours of training and they got to spend a half hour of it just because they had to use the bathroom walking down the street. Um, so if I had to rank our choices, we prefer Station 1, but And barring some specific revelation, 14th Street, 2nd, certainly we can make either location work. It's really a question of what can we get funding for. There's currently zero funding allocated to this project. So, thank you.

Um, you have looked around already, it seems like, with the, with the manager. And it seems like Fire Station 1 seems to be the best. This is asking for us to get more details for Fire Station 1, so I don't see any issue with that. It's from what you just said, and I wasn't sure if I caught it, that you said DOT is okay or is not okay. Tentatively, it's looking like it might be favorable.

However, they are still working through their own process. I do not have a confirmed—. That's fine—. Official stamped. Yeah, that's mainly for the fire— the, the— yeah, the fire tower.

Correct. Right. Which Mr. Raleigh was talking about as well. So I don't see an issue with having a relocation plan for this to get actual costs. This seems right to me, and it seemed like it would be a good spot to be right next to Fire Station 1.

So I like this. This seems good. Okay, thank you.

Member Schwartz. The manager, you're gonna have to do this for whatever, say, anyway, aren't you? I mean, you're gonna have to compare them, probably. You have to do this, and that's, that's my concern. I mean, um, the numbers that Director Hankins came up with shows 14th Street about $1.1 million to move things there, and Fire Station 1, when you add in cost of the stairs and stuff, some minor things that needed to be added to his cost estimate, $7,750,000 for Fire Station 1.

Now, that does not include the tower. I don't know what that would cost, and his current plan doesn't show the tower on the, on, on the plan. So I don't know if that changes the amount of land we'd have to dig out and backfill or not, but that would be equivalent if we moved it to 14th Street. Probably anyway. So it, you know, the reality is next to the fire hall is probably the best location.

I just want to make sure any, you know, any numbers I give you are as close to accurate as we can make them, and I'm not sure we're there yet. But that's, again, that's to get super accurate information, we probably have to hire an engineer. I'm not sure we need to go through that, mainly because, um, we don't have the money. I mean, this for either site, and I explained that to Chief Byrd, which is both of these— probably if it went either way, it's really coming up with a broad-based number, putting it on a CAPSES and a federal earmark list, and hope that we get funded someday. Because until we get the money, or the assembly tries— wants to take money from some other place, we can't do it anyway.

So wasn't a huge rush for us. I hate to sound— I'm like, I'm lightening the impact of it, but because we can't do it, we don't have the money, there's not a big rush. It's just a matter of, you know, making sure we work through those numbers so that I put them on a good report and say, hey, it's going to cost about $1.1 million or $1 million because we want a little bit more because we don't have— we don't know how long it would take a federal grant to come through, we probably want to overestimate a little bit. Anyway, that's all. It's nothing—.

Oops—. Crazier than that. Yeah, I didn't mean to— okay, thank you. Um, clarify for me though, this is— this needs to be moved by December through the mayor, so, right? It needs to be moved by December, correct?

Well, when it has to be moved prior to the construction grading of, of Skull Bay occurs. And if we don't do this, we store it at the pole yard on 14th Street. So instead of moving it twice, moving it once seems like it would save money, right? So that would not really— okay, if you don't have the money to move it, you don't have the money to move. So, for example, 14th Street I think— what was it, Aaron?

Um, like $300,000 for water and sewer on 14th Street? Was that give or take? I'm trying to do this from memory, so I got about, uh, $32,000 or $320,000. Thank you. Yes, so that's the cost to put utilities at 14th Street.

We don't have that money, and they can't relocate there until those utilities are done. Same with next to the fire hall. They has to be dug out and backfilled with rock again. We can't move it there until we have all that money. We don't have that money.

So we're in for this having to move it twice regardless, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. Member Valentine, um, I know we can get creative with money. I'm sure we could, and I'm sure that there are ways and there are people back there that have ideas that could do this, right? But, um, so I'm losing my train of thought. Come back to me.

Thank you. You know, I understand it's a matter of money, but, you know, the only reason this conversation is happening now is because we are We're getting ready to get that area ready for an economic development program out of Skow Bay, and there was a conversation at one time that the vans were going to be able to be moved out and moved back, and that conversation has changed. And so now we need to find a home for these training props or vans. And to say we don't have the money and we're just going to take these training vans and move them to a spot in the interim where they can't be used as training props. I think it does a disservice to the EMS and fire crew who have expressed interest in, you know, trying to save money, not being involved politically, but, you know, their priority is up at the fire hall.

And if that seems to be a top item for the borough, I think we need to really look at that. And I, You know, this motion that I have is just to get some information on it. I, you know, in the last several weeks I haven't heard any discussions about alternative sites about where we were going to move this stuff. Now, if the 14th Street station, or if the move to 14th Street or behind the wastewater, next to the wastewater plant, I've heard conversation that, well, they're going to have access to that road that comes from the Tlingit Haida subdivision. Well, if that's part of the process, then we need to make sure that we include that road building costs so that that fire trucks can get from Fire Station 1 to the 14th Street.

Sorry to interrupt. I have no idea what you're talking about on a road from Plingett High, though. Okay, well, that's fine, but I'm just saying that, you know, Mr. Mayor, what I'm saying is that, you know, I have heard conversations about different departments having money to pay for cruise ship docks, this, that, the other. And we just passed a resolution last meeting saying the importance of the fire, EMS, and I think they need to be included in the conversation. And as far as I could tell, they haven't been involved in the conversations until last Friday, and I want to make sure that they get what they need.

And that they get what we can afford. Yeah, member Stan Gregor.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just briefly, because I feel like we're beating this into the ground a little bit, uh, just to be clear, I have absolutely zero issue with either the 14th Street or the fire hall location. The point of what I was saying was to let's let it sit and let the manager do his job and find out which is more cost effective. Before we rush into anything. We have time, uh, you know, and this isn't something that's going to take until September.

I just, uh, don't think we need— I don't think it's appropriate to vote on this now when the manager hasn't fully vetted both sides. I, I wear out nothing to let it sit for a little bit. So again, if we end up at the fire hall, I'm great with it. I want to support our fire and EMS any way I can. I just want to let our manager do his job so we can be prudent with the taxpayers, and I'm sure the manager will do that.

Thank you.

Member Valentine. Thank you. Sorry, if they— this is just— I just don't know, but if they needed to find money somewhere in the budget, does that have to come to the next budget reading, or would that be like a separate thing? Do they have to move capital projects in order to— in the next reading, which is 2 weeks from now? —And you can move that fast.

You could. Yeah, so it'd be like— and the other part of that is that I think we need to also look for grants and other things once we get this ironed out. Um, and I want to go back to a point I made. This motion directs everything to the fire hall area. I, I have a problem with that because if there's another— other sites, we need to look at other options.

Not, not focus just on this. And that— I'll go back to what, uh, Member Stan— uh, Stan Gregor said, is that we need to allow the manager to do the homework and then come back to us. And going back to what, um, Member Martin said, and maybe we do need some kind of a workshop at some later point, but if that's what the assembly feels— but I think we need, we need to allow the manager to look at all the options along with the staff and come back. Can't recognize you. You can talk to the mayor.

Man, uh, I don't see how this keeps you from doing both. I really don't. I don't see how this ties your hands in any way from looking at 14th Street as well. Gives direction for fire hall is what sounds like what the guys at the fire hall want. And then you're going to have to look at that 14th Street anyway.

I mean, we're going to have to make a decision on this and be nice to know what the positive and negative of each one is. And I don't— there's no— I don't see how this ties your hands. So that's my point. Amend it. So sorry to take up more time here, but I think in a way we're just getting started here.

But this might refresh my memory. Have we given the manager guidance yet on this? I get the impression we have, but I think it was more born of necessity from the harbor, the Skow Bay project. But I don't recall ever giving the guidance that we would be interrupting through the mayor. As you know, the Assembly never gave guidance.

I put it in a report to say, hey, this is a problem we've got that we're working through, just to keep you informed, and started the process with— I mean, Aaron and I and him on his own have been looking for sites for 4 months, 3 months, 2 months. I mean, a while. Um, you know, we run into all the same thing. We didn't have any money to buy a lot. Lots aren't available.

Forest Service at one point was interested in working with us, but they didn't want the training material. You know, so it's been hard. Aaron, we found some money in his budget to pay Alan Murph to do some studies on Frederick Road. Came back at $1.1 million. On Frederick Point Road, the minimum cost I think was $1.2 million and the high was 2.1.

Yeah, so we were like, okay, that's not going to work. And then Aaron and I kind of stumbled on 14th Street, and, you know, he was thrilled for that. We had not engaged with the fire department other than through the director at that point. He did that, and they came back and said, well, we would prefer next to the fire hall. So that became a big option.

We looked at it. Aaron did a nice study on it, came back, you know, with that one at $600,000-something, a couple of things I think we should add to make it more accurate. And 14th Street, he's, you know, maybe we've overestimated a couple things, but not by much, and it came in at $1.1 million. So clearly next to the fire hall is gaining traction because on the surface it costs less. Um, so that's what we're working on.

I mean, it's not a— I— some member, Mucci, decided to put this on agenda. That's up to you guys. You know, I didn't need an agenda item to keep doing what I said I was going to do, which is work through this and make sure I bring to the assembly, here's, here's what we need to do. But I'll say it again, we have not budgeted any money for this. If the answer is we're going to take the money from some other fund, then assembly members need to speak up and say where you think that should come from.

That's again, a pretty big deal. I have a follow-up here. I, I've heard enough. I, if I, when I weigh in the, the morale and recruiting of the volunteers and the use of their time on a Thursday night, I think the, uh, fire hall would have to be a lot more expensive than 14th Street. So I will be weighing that in my consideration, and maybe I'd like you to also, that it was even close.

The fire hall is vastly the preferred spot for me. So, and through there, and I appreciate that because I don't want to waste Aaron's time, my time, or any of the other staff evaluating a site that everybody's already said no, we'd prefer next to the fire hall. I mean, because, you know, Aaron's done a good job on those numbers. There's some things missing that brings the price up a little bit, but not to the level of what 14th Street cost. So I'm okay with the fire hall location.

I, I'm a little concerned that the assembly think there's immediate solution to where the money is going to come from to do it versus we would— the plan was to move the training material up to 14th Street where we have room to store things until such time that we can get the training location squared away for them. The assembly wants to approach that differently. Maybe a work session is the best thing. You have to talk through it because I don't know where to get $800,000 for this, for the fire stuff right now.

Thank you. Um, yeah, I'm— this motion is not to discredit the 14th Street at all. I just— this is the focus of this one agenda item, and I, I want to make sure that we look at that. And also we talk about the finances. One of the things in there is just to look at some of the other financial options of what the borough might have.

But one way or the other, they're going to have to move. They're going to have to move, and we're going to find the money somewhere. To move them from point A to point B. And I'm not asking you to discount the 14th Street, but specifically I just wanted that as an agenda item based on conversations that I have had with a lot of the officers within the fire department. Thank you.

Any other comments? What is the motion? Oh, sorry.

Yeah, you know, we have this, this 3-phase big project going on at Schkow Bay, and there's $17 million appropriated for it from, you know, from various sources, mostly federal government.

Still talking. I was talking. Still talking. I'm sorry. So, um, Yeah, so the Harbor Department has this land that was originally given to the fire department, and now the fire department is being told that they have to move.

So there's, there's some tension going on in the background, and I feel like for the best interest of the community, we all need to kind of come together, and everybody needs to have a, a, um, a say in how we navigate and move forward. And I, I think that we need to consider, um, you know, funding sources within, within the borough.

And I think we all kind of know what we're talking about here, and maybe a work session is the way to go. I don't know, but it seems like there has been kind of a disconnect between you know, the fire hall people and maybe some administration. But in the last week or two, it feels— I feel like that has kind of, kind of fixed itself, and the conversation has been moving forward. And I feel confident in the manager producing something to come forward with. But at the same time, we can't really do anything because we don't have any funding source.

So that's kind of the, the elephant in the room. I mean, the elephant in the room is the Harbor Department is the one that's kicking the fire hall out. So there's a lot of people that feel like the Harbor Department should be the one to help, help pay for the move. So throw it out there.

Any other comments?

Clerk, please call the roll. Did I hear the motion first? Okay, motion is Let me go back to it here.

The motion is to consider the direct— to direct the borough manager to develop a plan to relocate Scow Bay Fire Station, uh, training props to a site adjacent to Fire Station 1. The plan should include a proposed timeline for the move, detailed cost estimates for relocating the training vans, burn tower and associated gear, estimated engineering and construction costs for a suitable pad at Fire Station 1, identification of proposed funding options. The plan shall also include coordination with and required approval from DOT. If DOT does not grant approval for the proposed location, staff shall immediately begin evaluation and planning for an alternative site. And what this does is puts all the effort effort essentially in my mind on, on Fire Station 1, not on any other options.

But just one more comment. I feel like all this is already occurring. Yes. So what are we doing by— what are we accomplishing by actually voting for this? If you— a no vote in my mind would allow— we're still going to go forward and we still may need to have a some kind of a work session if, if the idea is to find more funding for it.

That would have to come at a later date, but I think it needs to allow— the staff needs to be allowed to work both through these options and other ideas.

And I think a yes vote does the same thing. Yes. Okay, if you vote yes or no, the same thing is going to happen. Mr. Mayor, please, please call the roll. Mr. Mayor.

Oh, okay. I've heard enough. I'd like to amend the motion to cease consideration of 14th Street. Second. Okay, there's a— it's been— there was a motion or amended motion here to cease the work looking at 14th Street.

Um, would— is there any comment on that? Member Valentine, um, can you get some more clarification on ceasing now? Does this include the possibility of storage, or just to stop looking at it? And, um, and then I would see it as a temporary site only at this point. So the amendment says that we will stop looking at 14th Street as a temporary—.

More time and money spent working on that site. Got it. Okay. Member Newman. So, for the— The manager is not spending any money other than his regular time.

So this is whether we consider 14th Street or not is not like an additional expense. We're not saving any money, right? But now we're considering one less option. And maybe it's an interim storage place. I kind of feel like maybe we still need to keep everything on the table.

And I, I, I didn't really want to jump back into this, but. So, what, what we're doing is Aaron and I are refining the report he's already done. It shows Fire Station 1 is the best location, but I wanted to make it a little more accurate before I present it to the assembly. 14Th Street is— my plan is to use that as temporary storage for these because we don't have funding solution. So, we move everything to 14th Street.

So, it's nice and safe and you know, can't be used really, but they can do hose drills. And I gave— I threw out some ideas on ladder drills, things that we could be done for training purposes. Not perfect, I clearly am not a fireman, but there are ideas that I ran by Chief Byrd and Director Hankins. So hey, could try some of this. I mean, how many businesses in town would love the fire department to come down and do some ladder drills against their building to you know, see how that would— you know, it's great for the community to see that.

I, I think we can make something work until we can find a funding source. My plan on the funding was to nail this down as far as the costs go, to a little closer accurate, that I could put in a grant request both to the state and to our federal government for the next year's, you know. But as I told Chief Byrd, it's a year and a half out. I mean, I, I want to to be absolutely brutally honest, if you go the grant route, you're an hour and a year and a half before we could potentially get the money. If that's not fast enough for the fire department and the assembly, then yeah, the assembly needs to weigh in exactly where you want us to get the money from.

So that's what I'm doing, short of whatever you guys decide elsewhere here. So again, Fire Station 1 is, is looks like it's the favorite, not just of you guys, but of the firemen, and also of the numbers that Aaron ran. But we want to make sure that's accurate. We don't— I don't want to give you something and say, well, Steve, you forgot the $50,000 stairway, because that's not currently in the report. You know, it— I want it to be accurate.

That's all I'm asking. Beyond that, funding is, is a big issue.

Other member Newman, I just feel like we need to let the manager and Director Hankins do their job and bring this— bring, bring to us the best information possible. I understand. Gregor, uh, thanks, Mr. Mayor. This is more of a parliamentary question. Be easier if I was there, but this is actually for Clerk Regula on the amendment, uh, and I'm going to defer to you because I can't quite wrap my brain around it.

To me, it seems like it'd be cleaner to either vote yes or no on directing the manager to pursue the site adjacent to the fire hall, yay or nay, and go from there, or rather than amend to remove a site that's not even in the agenda item, 14th Street. Can I, can I get your thoughts, Clerk Regula, from a parliamentary lens? Yeah, I see your point that that would probably, probably be simpler since it's not included in the original motion. It doesn't need to be mentioned to remove it. Yeah, because 14th Street wasn't in there.

And again, I'm just trying to think about just to get it right, however we do it. Okay, Member Mewchi. To the amendment, you know, the 14th Street. Is not mentioned in this, in the motion. You know, and like I've said before, this motion is— it doesn't preclude anything about the 14th Street, but that the amendment, it just— well, I understand where it's coming from.

It's not part of this motion that I asked to have on there. So, so I do a lot of—. Do a point of order, Mr. Mayor. Yes, go ahead, Member Stanton Gregor. So do we want to— whoever made the motion for the amendment, would they care to withdraw it, or do they want to proceed anyway and just take them— take the original motion head on?

It feels cleaner to me and Clerk Regula, but you're obviously the chair and I'll follow your lead. I'd prefer to get a ruling from you and how you want to proceed with that first. Okay, I'm going to hold up here before Member Martin made the motion, but Member Newman has a comment here. Yeah, how do you make a motion for something that's not on the action item?

Yeah, I'm going to keep my motion. I think it provides maximum clarity to the manager.

All right, I'm going to call the roll. On the amended motion to remove the 14th Street site for any further looking. Okay. Member Meechi?

Yes. Member Schwartz? No. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? No.

Member Martin? Yes. Member Valentine? No. Member Newman?

No. Mayor Lynn? No. So, the amended motion to remove the 14th Street site was, was defeated. It's 5-5, uh, with 2 people voting for.

And now I'm going back to the original motion on the Skow Bay, which was, which I stated earlier. Was to look at the details relative to fire sta— putting the site or the training facility at Fire Station 1.

Would the clerk please call the roll? Member Valentine? Yes. Member Martin? No.

Vice Mayor Statton Gregor? No.

Member Newman? No. Member Schwartz? Yes. Member Mucci?

Yes. Mayor Lynn? No. And that, that motion fails. Um, but I have to say is that we— the manager is still going to continue to look at these sites, and I, I will have a— I think I will put a discussion item on the next agenda to see whether or not, you know, the assembly would like to have a a work session related to this and the funding at some further time.

With that, I'm going to move on to formation of a housing task force. This agenda item was requested by Member Muci. Consideration the formation of a housing task force discussion to include proposed guidelines, goals, and objectives. And there's a— in the package, there is a list of the things that Member Mucci would like to see looked at. I can't particularly find it offhand here.

I couldn't find it. It's on page 88. And with that, do I have a motion for the formation of a housing task force? So moved. Second.

Motion was made by Member Mucci, seconded by Member Martin. Any discussion? Member Mucci. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Yeah, several months ago we talked about this and you asked me to come back with some guidelines and some goals and objectives, and I have done that, and I just wanted to see if we wanted to move forward with this or just move on to something else. So that's what they're there for. Discussion? Uh, Member Valentine, I just have a question on making a task force. Does this include public or does it have to be assembly-driven?

Oh, I mean, clearly assembly-driven. And led, but does this mean that people from the public become part of that task force? Is that how this works? Yeah, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, what it would be is to put out a— would be a request to anybody who wants to serve on a housing task force, which we had before. We had at one time, we had a housing task force.

Is— and so, but then you would have to determine than what specifically you want them to do, what the length of time is, etc., and beyond. Um, it was part of it. Um, Member Newman. Yeah, well, we had a housing task force and we spent a lot of money for a company to evaluate or assess the local needs of our community. They came out with a study And I just feel like that entire process was pretty exhaustive.

So I'm just curious what the rationale is to reconsider doing it again. Like, has there been any significant changes in the community or economy? What, uh, why, what's the rationale for revisiting all this? Yeah, well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, you know, for me, That is one of the biggest things I hear about every day when I'm wandering around town is housing, housing, housing.

We've got the Tlingit Haida subdivision coming in. We have the Skylark coming in. We're gonna be having to make some decisions about how we're gonna sell those properties up at Tlingit Haida. We're gonna have to look at some long-term, you know, forecasts for the community about making sure that we have enough housing for workforce housing, senior housing. You know, I laid it out in here.

You know, for me, this isn't— this doesn't have to be everything that we talked about, but I just put down some things that were important to me and things that I've heard about. And I'm fine one way or the other if the assembly doesn't think there's a need to kind of continue this, uh, like a working group for folks in the community who are interested in it. I hear people all the time about asking me what's happening with the task force, they're working. I say, well, you know, it's just a process. And, uh, I, I've got some guidelines and some suggestions here for a working group, and I think we'd have to figure out, uh, how long it would be.

And I don't want it to be open-ended. I want it I want folks to have an idea of— they have a timeline to get us some recommendations. But I think there's some really smart people in the community who could really help us address some of the issues in town. So that's kind of why. Member Valentine.

Thank you. Yeah, I'm not, you know, in disagreement that there is, you know, having a group that's more dedicated to just one subject. I mean, that's what— it's nice that we don't always have to you have somebody who specializes and gives us the information. I, I get that. Um, as a person who just bought a house, I mean, I think that affordability is more of the issue than anything, because if we have these new subdivisions coming up, I would probably say that this would be better after that comes, just because then if people aren't buying, okay, well, now there's a different issue.

If we have this new subdivision that's supposed to be this affordable area and the Klickitat and Hyda, and we have these drawings for the one over on Ball Field.

Let's wait to see those come in and then actually see like the trends of like my age or younger, if they're going to purchase, what are the reasons they're not purchasing. I can probably guess on a couple of them because I am part of one right now, you know, affordability on a house that's 50+ years old, you know, things like that. But I would— I like the idea, but at this moment I don't think it's needed right now. Thank you. Member Schwartz.

Well, buying an existing house is a lot different than developing land and building or bringing in a modular. And maybe it could be as simple as, um, I know some developers that are more retirement— hate to keep bringing that up— but have time. If they were willing to not cost us money and volunteer some time and be of a task force to say, hey, you need these permits, you need to talk to this person about this. This is how you go about getting a loan. These are the loans that are available for a 25, 30, 35-year-old, 40-year-old who's never gone through those steps.

It can be intimidating, especially if you're working 8, 10 hours a day.

Maybe it's as simple as that. Step 1, step 2, step 3. Here's the contacts. You know, I don't know, I'm just kicking in a little bit there. I've never built a house.

I sure looked into it. I just bought existing homes, and it was a lot simpler than developing land and building a house. Thank you.

Member Stan Gregor.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, and also just a brief thank you to Member Valentine, although I'm a few years older than yourself. Uh, you hit some of the notes I was going to say. Um, uh, this is a data point. There was a meeting on January 7th when Liz Cabrera gave us what I thought was a thorough walkthrough on the current state of housing, uh, housing coming down the pipeline, etc., etc., in Petersburg.

And I think, uh, as you said, Member Valentine, would be prudent at this point to let some of those things play out a little bit before we jumped back into the Housing Task Force field. Obviously, I'll support whatever the will of the Assembly is, but I think right now we've got some things coming down the pipeline. It'd be good to let some of those things take fruit and let some of the projects take hold and go from there. So I'll be voting no today, not because I have any aversion to Housing Task Force or anything of the sort, but I think we need to let the current process get a little bit of traction so we can accurately assess. Thank you.

Hey, Member Martin. Thanks. Jeff asked me to come up with some names because I've been bugging him about this and a lot of you since I got on here. But, um, I think it was to test whether there was interest, and I, I put— contacted a diverse group of people, and they were almost all interested. They had ideas.

A lot of people don't think we're doing anything. That was a great work session in January, but I would disagree with the Vice Mayor. I don't think much— the public perception is that nothing was done since then. And if we had a task force, I wish it was still present, but I would ask them many things to help vet ideas and percolate them through more minds than we have right here with the half hour or maybe once every 3 months we give the issue. So I'm in support of this.

Member Newman. Yeah, I would seriously disagree with that comment because in the last 3 and a half years that I've been on the assembly, I feel like the borough has taken great strides in incentivizing and advocating and helping to develop You know, with collaborating with Tlingit Haida and Skylark, there's multiple places we've considered every, you know, low-hanging fruit of the available borough properties to list them, and we've done that, stubbed in utilities to these places, and we've considered every option available and have taken this seriously, um, and, and not lightly. So if people think that we're not doing enough, I, I don't know what more we can do. Other comments from assembly members? I just, I, I just wanted to clarify that I meant since the January housing work session.

I I agree, there's been a lot done, but I feel like we're still in progress.

Other comments from the assembly? Okay. I remember, you know, one of the things I wanted to do was to look at the housing situation, what we've done and where we want— where we've gone. And I will give Director Cabrera a lot of kudos for the report she provided for us. But you also remember that we, the assembly and the staff, you know, had a work session.

We came up with, I believe, 3 or 4 options that we asked staff to go back and look at. However, since then, we've had— staff hasn't had a time, you know, we've had dealing with things like the cell tower ordinance and the budget and a whole bunch of other things. We haven't got it done. I like the idea of a housing task force, but I think the timing is not there from my own perspective. I think we need to allow the staff to go back and do the things that we talked about and then come back with us, number one.

But number two, I think we also need to— when I was in Juneau, I had a chance to talk with, uh, with the Housing Finance Corp folks and the financing is something that Member Valentine, I think, talked about earlier was the funding of these and where do you find the funding and what do you do. I think there's more work to be done there, but it's one of those things that isn't going to be done overnight. We got to look at it, I think, in terms of the amount of staff time we have to be able to do all these things we have on there. On the docket. So I'm in favor of the— and union contract, yeah.

I'm in favor, but I like the idea, but I think we also need— the last time we held a— when I want to go back is to Recreation Task Force we did. They came up with an absolutely wonderful report. This has been years ago, but yet we never did anything with it. We didn't give it the direction we needed, and we haven't really honestly followed through And I would say the same thing with the recommendations out of our housing task force. You know, we spent quite a bit of money.

We had that, and I would prefer us to use a task force when we can really define exactly what we want them to do. But I think we need to let the staff, from my perspective, do their homework first. With that, if unless there's somebody— I agree with the idea. I just, I just don't think it's ready. Think it's timely right now.

With that, would the clerk please call the roll? Mayor Lind? Uh, no. Vice Mayor Stan Gregor? No.

Member Meechi? Yes. Member Schwartz? No. Member Martin?

Yes. Member Valentine? No. Member Newman? Okay, and the motion to form a task force fails.

5 To 2 with Member Mucci and Member Martin in favor. With that, I'm going to move on. The— all the correspondences in the packet, and I'm not going to go through any of that, but I am going to move on. I think we have— there's discussion items on tonight's agenda, and I believe first item on here is the Arctic Security Cutter Home consideration. All the items on here were asked for by Member Meeucci.

And with that, discussion regarding the potential for Petersburg to consider as a homeport location for one of the 11 Arctic security Coast Guard cutters. Discussion to include whether any formal outreach or expression of interest with the Coast Guard has occurred and the borough's level of interest in pursuing this opportunity. With that, I'll turn it over to Member Muci. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, over the last couple of weeks, we've been hearing about, you know, possibilities of homeporting an icebreaker here, and I was talking to Sebastian back in Washington, D.C. about possibilities of different things for the community, and he mentioned this Arctic Security Cutter homeporting.

Important consideration and a process that is involved in that. And I didn't get a clear signal from him or a message from him whether or not we were moving forward with that. I've seen resolutions in Wrangell and in Sitka about Coast Guard opportunities that are going on, and I just wanted to make sure that— I, I guess I just wanted to understand if we were in, in that process of one of those 11 Arctic Security Coast Guard cutters to possibly be homeported in Petersburg. Through the mayor, I can speak to it. So I have been talking with Sebastian, and just make everybody's clear, the Arctic Security Cutter are icebreakers.

That they are— it's a different word for the same thing. They're building 2 right now. The others are not even budgeted at this point.

They require a deepwater port, which Petersburg does not have. Okay, um, Sebastian recommended that we keep doing what we already were doing, which is— GLO did a wonderful report on attracting— number one, keeping the buoy tender because they have a whole new design for buoy tenders coming up, and we need to make sure that that is big on our list, as well as GLO has been working with Coast Guard engineers on making sure not only can the buoy tender fit, but, you know, lighthearted conversations, but conversations nonetheless about, you know, the Coast Guard putting one of their cutters in the Narrows, and why can't we homeport one here. So it's far more feasible for us to get another cutter plus a buoy tender than it is to try to get a 330-foot icebreaker that we really don't know where it would fit in, in our harbor. Sebastian agreed with that. He says the reason Wrangell's doing it is because they got a whole big development on a deepwater port that they're working on, and same with Ketchikan.

The Coast Guard wants to double these up at a minimum. Meaning when they put a Coast Guard, uh, an icebreaker at a location, they want to put another one there, not just one spread out a bunch of places. Because Juneau probably has the best chance because they've already announced the Stennis— I think Stennis, thank you, Storis, yeah, thank you— is already called out for being in Juneau. Likely that's where the second one will go, although they're looking hard at Kodiak as well potentially sewered. Because those are so big and they have very large crews and maintenance requirements, smaller communities like Petersburg would have a very difficult time according to Seb, because we just don't have space for them, not only in the harbor but also housing.

So, um, at this point Seb said our best chance would be when they get past the first two and they start having a budget for these others that they've talked about, and it's clearly just talking about— they're all being built in Finland, by the way, um, because the Finns know how to build icebreakers, and that's why it's moving as quickly as it is. But he said our better chance would be to get Skagway Harbor, the harbor, you know, get that funded, and, you know, where— and then decide as part of that design process, do we want to make room for a ship that big, or do we want to go after smaller cutters that make probably a little more sense for Petersburg? That's a local decision, you know, at that point. So that was a conversation with him towards the tail end of last week. Thank you.

Other comments? Member Martin, just want to remind everyone that November we had Senator Sullivan in a conference here with us, and he said bring us your requests. He was very excited about his One Big Beautiful Bill and the Coast Guard opportunities. And I'm not sure we've quite gone on record like Wrangell and Sitka and Ketchikan, Juneau, as far as— yeah, yeah, could you, could you describe that more, how we have done that in 2022? We, we presented to the Coast Guard Admiral up in Juneau when he passed through, and we've had the Secretary of Defense and everybody through here numerous times, and we redid that.

And Mayor Bob and Steve and I sat and pitched it again to the 10-year planning up in Juneau about 2 months ago, just letting them know our future, and they are included in it. And as well as when our Representative Begich was here, we took him on a big tour showing him the future, as well as Mayor Bob and I drove him by the housing to prove to him that there is housing sit there with, with snow on their front steps because there's nobody living in some of the housing here, you know. So to prove that we have space to support some of these smaller vessels. And so I think I'm on record, uh, probably about 7 times last week with the planning group just promoting Petersburg and the next 10 years of how we can support through these projects that we are— you know, we've put money where our mouth is. We've got a lot of planning already in place.

So that's good to hear, but the other communities must feel there's some value in resolution or something that, uh, maybe that's a useful thing also.

We could produce a resolution if that— if you think that would help. And, um, let's, let's think about it.

Any other comments? Member Mucci? No, thank you. Okay, I'll move on to the second item here. Which is on the former South Mitkof Ferry Terminal.

Again, discussion asked for by Member Muchi. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just heard in conversations talking to people in Wrangell and other people that work for us, is there any talk about using the South Mitkof Ferry Terminal for— to put it to use in the future, or is that just going to sit out there and be a swallow nest haven. I'm just trying to sort out where we're going with that, if it's, if it's going to be part of a Wrangle future harbor, or I just wanted to get asked a lot about that. I've asked, talking to the DOT, which that South Midcok terminal is under, I have asked the South East manager, South Coast, a number of questions of which they haven't got back to me.

One of them is, is that could Petersburg actually take ownership of it? I don't know the answer to the question. Second question I asked him is, is could we— if is there— if we took ownership of it or it was given to us, uh, does that eliminate the state from from having the need to pay the back to the feds, which is still on the docket? How much, you know, in other words, would they not have to pay it back if they were to transfer it to us? And then could we then go back to something that our harbor master has asked?

Could we use parts of that for other uses? And I don't know, and I've asked all these questions about 3 weeks ago. I don't have any answers to that. Promised to get back to us, and that's about as much as I can tell you. The other one we— what was brought up since then was whether or not you could actually put some kind of a Coast Guard facility there, and I don't know.

That's yet, you know, another discussion. Thank you.

Okay, move on to the next item here. Power and light ordinances, discussion on large commercial users, discussion regarding potential updates to the power and light ordinances as they relate to large commercial users, including but not limited to data centers and other high-volume consumers of electricity. Thank you. Um, and thanks to everybody for their patience. This is more important than a lot of stuff that I talked about tonight, but you know, during our discussions about the data centers and the cell towers, it's occurred to me, and I think it's occurred to a lot of people in the community, that we don't have any real parameters on any of our ordinances to prevent a large commercial user from coming into town and doing what they want without any guidelines.

And when I talked to Steve Harber and Carl last week, they were already working with the city attorney to start working on changing the ordinances so that there was more control with the borough of Petersburg. And, you know, I could talk a little bit about, but if it's okay, I'm sure Steve Harber or Carl could talk about it, but it's This is not something that's going to happen overnight. It's going to be a summer-long project between going back and forth to the city attorney and to borough staff. And if I could, maybe Steve or Carl could kind of fill us in on how that process works and how it's going to be addressed, please. Mayor, it's very complicated, to say the least.

Um, but I'll give you the, the broad strokes of the direction I'm, I'm going down. Right now we have residential rates, we have harbor rates, we have general service, and large commercial. And to give you an idea what's encompassed in our definition of large commercial right now, we have the new Catholic Church rebuild with what they've changed that moved it into large commercial. And that's, uh, I could be not 100% accurate with the— not this number, but I think it's 150 kW transformer. And lumped in as that is Silver Bay, which has 5.5, uh, megs of potential power.

They don't use that all the time, and they don't use it year-round, but that's the potential. So it's pretty wide. Widespread. So the first thing is defining some new things instead of just calling large commercial one thing fits all. And I'm just using these words as placeholders, not what I'm going with large commercial, say giant and huge, and defining what those are.

And then the process that they would get approval to connect. And the bigger they are would require more research and studies, and all this would be paid for by the person coming in. They would have to pay for the studies if they needed it.

They're large commercial now, some of them, where that would just be, you know, they put in their application and they're approved. And then the next step is it requires some more, and then the biggest, more one is going to require more. And the whole goal of this is not to, uh, stop growth or stop economic development. It's help control it and ensure that our current ratepayers don't pay more because of new people coming in. Um, that's it in a nutshell.

I mean, until I get it more defined, but it's a way to put guardrails on without limiting our growth now and our growth in the future. Right now we have, uh, Tyee giving us 24 megawatts for wrangling us. In 10 years, maybe they're giving us 50 megawatts. So we don't want to put something in writing today that's going to handicap us and kneecap us in the future when we have some other opportunity. Great, thank you.

Good. Is that something we could handle like a, like a conditional use permit is for zoning, where you just— any large customer is negotiated, you know, in the light of day, uh, so the public feels they have a say, I guess, in this, rather than trying to account for every contingency in an ordinance.

I don't believe our charter allows a lot of leeway right now, so that would be something that would be built into this ordinance, um, some different rate structures and a guideline for agreements so that we wouldn't leave ourselves open for liability because we said no to Bob and yes to Jeb when they came in. It would give us defined— a defined structure to say yes or no, and you You all would be able to, when the ordinance is done, be able to see it and approve it then. And just follow— how does that pertain to the hypothetical discussions with the data center? Uh, I, I got the understanding that there was a lot that could be written into that power sale agreement, was at our discretion. Well, there's some conditions that we can put in it, but we can't affect the rate.

Of it. We, uh, with our, our current charter says these are our rates, and to change them we have to make a bunch of ordinance changes. And correct me if I'm wrong with that, Carl.

Carl, you're muted. Sleep. Yeah, he went to sleep. Can you—. Sorry about that, try to get my phone to Act right.

Can you hear me? We can. Yeah, no, I think, I think Steve answered the question very well. Um, there are some things that we can add in, but there are some things that we can't change. And, you know, Steve's research and, and direction on this, uh, on the ordinance that's, that's being discussed, I think is a good one.

And I think it does provide the borough with some guide rails and some protections for our existing customers. And from what we're hearing, that's, that's what the public wants, and the utility agrees with that.

Other questions for Carl?

Okay, I'm going to move on to the last item here on the agenda, assembly member comments. Does any assembly member have comments? Member Valentine? Thank you. Yes, one last thing, everybody.

Um, after talking about this work session with the Housing Task Force, I've thought about this a lot, and as a younger individual who recently bought a home, um, the biggest issue I feel for maybe my generation and a little younger is, yeah, we want a home, but I feel like maybe like just a thought was maybe have like a task force for like a work task force, like how do we get people more money? How do we build more industry here? I think the housing comes kind of follows that. And if we already have 3 different, at least just right off the top of my head, 3 different housing stuff coming. So, you know, that's coming down the pipeline and there, and when they did the 2018, I believe, the housing stuff, you know, it says all these people would like to buy these houses, but currently you look on properties.

They're not, they're not selling. There's plenty of houses for sale, and there's not like only going to be more. So maybe a better use of a workforce— I don't know how, what you would call it, but it's like, how do you get more money to the people here? And like, how do you develop skills that the town wants? Can we— can UAS or the University of Alaska expand their, uh, one of their units?

Like, is there other ways to get a demographic of people more money to be able to afford some of the things. So maybe that, that was just the thing that was running through my head as we were talking about a housing task force. It's like, well, is housing the issue, or is it workforce and money? And it feels like workforce and money seems to be a better use of my time. Through the mayor, James, you said it earlier about, you know, how to— how intimidating it is to buy a house.

I believe First Bank, although I could be wrong, has done seminars for people to go and here's, go through the process. I don't know that those are well attended. You know, maybe— I've been to one. Okay. There was 2 people.

Yeah. Me and my wife. I mean, I agree with you, by the way. Sometimes it's not about the job you have or it's about knowing how to work through the process. And, you know, maybe, you know, groups like First Bank, Wells Fargo, the credit union could do some work more of those for people.

It's just a thought. I mean, you know, trying to find better jobs, we all want to do that for the community. Yeah, that's a tough one. It's a real tough one for the bro to be in the job. We're not coordinators.

It's not really our— yeah, but it was just a thought and a comment.

I know Rob was looking for more deckhands. Well, reminds me of that old commercial. Do you want to make more money? Sure, we all do. I can't remember the rest, but I remember that part.

Didn't get any late. Okay, yeah, I just wanted to say I saw, I saw just dozens and dozens of people working so hard over the festival, hundreds of people having fun. It was just really neat to see. Thanks everybody for putting that on.

Other comments from the staff? Okay, I'll move on. Any recognitions? Second, Amber. Yeah, yep.

Brandy Tinas too. Yes, she did a wonderful job.

Yes. With that, do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second.

Okay, all those in favor? Aye.