Assembly Work Session of January 30, 2025

Okay, thank you. Uh, we'll go ahead and convene the, uh, call to order of the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly work session of Thursday, January 30th, 2025 at 6:30 PM, and we are in the assembly chambers. Um, first item is citizens' comments. This is, um, local number is 907- 486-3231. The toll-free number is 855-492-9202.

If you wish to call in, please do so at this time or come forward to the podium and sign in and state your name for the record. Go ahead, Court. Hi there, my name is Court Neff. And I'm here to speak on the short-term rentals issue. I think that's a good idea to start regulating like you guys were talking about, or licensing anyways.

I think the regulations we have on the books already might be sufficient. Just, you know, we have a lot of R-1s that are not—. They're operating—. We know there's a lot of stuff that is already operating not really according to code.

It's unfair competition and makes this very lucrative situation for some people having multiple short-term rentals in one building in an R-1 area, but it's, you know, not legal and other issues that are going on. So I think licensing, licensing so you can have accountability, and I don't think it's that hard. As the Community Development Director said, all you got to do is say, if you guys advertise in any way, shape, or form on the internet, You're— for short-term rentals, you're accountable. It would be easy to look that up anytime if anybody wanted to check that out. As far as the helping the rental market, I think there's a reality in our economy.

We have boom and bust. Sometimes rentals are just very tight, sometimes they're not, and it can go for a ways either way. Right now, I think there's quite a few rentals. I don't know, maybe not. I know a little while ago there was.

It's something that is not really fixable directly, but I think we could even it out by opening up more land for development. So when things are booming and it is hard, there would be a buffer, a bit of a buffer, some options for some people.

To me, it doesn't— I would say, does it really make sense to cap the number of bed and breakfasts, a very lucrative part or very flourishing part of our economy right now. Does it make sense to cap the number of those just so we can have more rentals in this situation, knowing that we really can't predict the amount of rentals we're going to have in the future? To me, it makes about as much sense as limiting Cannery's ability to produce and have employees so we have more rentals, because they're taking up a lot of rentals. So does that make sense? I don't think that makes a lot of sense.

And I appreciated somebody— industrious person— also cited a study that showed really the capping of short-term rentals long-term has very questionable impacts as far as positive overall for the economy and health of the economy. So just throwing stuff out there for you guys to think about, because I know you're going to think about it anyway and talk about it. And I appreciate you guys working on everything and everything you do. So I'm going to quit right there. Thanks.

Thanks, Gord. Anyone else? Okay, go ahead.

You are now answering a call from McHugh. Good evening, assembly meeting. Please state your name for the record. Yes, my name is Casey Doctorman. Go ahead, Mr. Doctorman.

Thank you so much. First, I would like to thank all the members of this assembly and all the employees of the borough for all that they do for the communities of the region. I wish to strongly advocate for the assembly to adopt the draft revisions of KIBC 10.10.010. I believe these new revisions will serve to enhance accountability to the citizens of the Kodiak Island Borough as well as clean up our beloved communities throughout this great archipelago. We manifest what we believe.

Thank you for allowing me to testify tonight. Thank you, Casey.

Go ahead. Hello, I'm Patrick Dusterlow. I also want to thank you guys for everything you do. You have a hard job. I also want to support the language that I see there in the accountability for abandoned vehicles.

As you already know, I've been kind of doing some research into electric vehicles specifically and giving you some information about that, and the cost can get really, really, really expensive. And so I think a first step, I would say, is to actually clear a good accountability path, and the language seems to support a pretty wide leash for the borough to do what it needs to do to take care of this problem. However, I did hear— I even heard earlier some discussion of trying to track down the owner of a vehicle. It could be really, really, really hard. We all know that, especially if it's licensed to an LLC or to a business or some such like that, or the paperwork wasn't handled properly.

Seems like it should be easy. Call the DMV, you know, who's the last owner, get them on the phone, take care of it. I've never seen it to be that easy. So again, I really, really like and I really appreciate seeing this on the agenda today because it is going to get expensive. It really is.

And not to mention it's ecologically horrible to have all these abandoned vehicles around. They've all got, gosh, several quarts of 90-weight oil and transmission fluid and power steering and antifreeze, each one of them, I'm sure. And over time it's coming out, you know, one way or the other. And so anything that can help us fund and find accountability for getting rid of our abandoned vehicles, I think, is a really wonderful thing that should be supportive. All the way to the point to the evolution in my fantasy of someday we can be proactive and reactive.

And I don't know if that means getting money from people who have vehicles for their disposal up front somehow. A sticker on the window says you can't have this unless you drive in the city. We've taken care of a bond. An insurance company with a local environmental company who's actually qualified to do all this stuff. I don't know how it would work.

I don't know where the borough's authority is, where the DMV's authority is, whose responsibility is what. But if any of you have any information that a citizen could use towards figuring this out a little bit better, I'd love to know. And again, thank you for all your work. I appreciate it. Thank you, Patrick.

Anyone else on the phone? No. Anyone else wishing to come forward and speak? Hearing and seeing none, we'll move on to agenda items. The first one is discussion on Modifying Investment Strategy Ordinance.

Staff report, Amy. I know, but you'll introduce her. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On June 6th, 2024, Assemblymember Griffin presented an agenda item request form aimed at evaluating our investment strategy. Additionally, he sought a comprehensive overview of investment balances, historical data, strategic approaches, and potential modifications.

On August 28, 2024, the manager provided an update regarding the borough's existing banking services offered by Wells Fargo, along with a plan to issue a Fed request for proposal for banking services in September. Assemblymember Sherrod requested that KB did not move forward with issuing the request for proposal until the assembly had the opportunity to discuss banking services. Kodiak Island Borough Finance Director Dora Cross has reviewed the differences between KIB operational investment banking needs and provided updates on our— tonight is going to provide update on KIB's current investments. In your packet tonight is a PowerPoint presentation layout on our current investments, suggested changes, and a draft investment policy. Dora has been doing our investments for a long time, years and years, and there's never been an investment policy.

So these— the last 6 pages in your packet is a draft attempt at actually having the parameters in writing so anyone can learn and see how we actually do our investments. And Dora is here for your questions.

Go ahead, Dora. Good evening. Good evening.

Since I don't want to get tangled up in numbers and I don't want to make us attractive to targeting for bad people, I wanted to just put out that I'm going to focus more on policy and suggested changes in the sample policy instead of talking about specific numbers. So as Amy said, I gave you— I gave information about our current investments.

91% Of them are in U.S. government agencies, which include Federal Farm Credit, Federal Home Loan, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. These are debt securities issued by the federal government or their government-sponsored entities. Because our money is primarily involuntarily contributed by the public, The primary rule for governments is safety first, liquidity for need, and then return last. So these government securities, they are very safe and they're not highly returned instruments.

For these, the biggest risk is default, government default, which isn't very risky. I think out of the 10 years or so I've been working with this, the most problem I've ever had or most concern I've ever had is when there's a government shutdown. Then we're not getting our quarterly interest payments because there's nobody in the government to take the bond money and distribute it back out to the bondholders. But eventually it comes. The next pool of money we have is 6% of certificates, deposits, and investment pool.

And I should say that first grouping, the 91%, the reason that's so heavily weighted is I can buy a 1-year, I can buy 5, 7, 10, 20, there's even 30-year investments that you can make through that segment, that category of purchasing. The certificates and deposits in the investment pool, those are highly liquid short-term. So certificates and deposits are usually less than a year. There's also a $250,000 insurance limit with FDIC, so you have to be careful that you're only putting $250,000 in one particular bank. So if I have 18 of them, I have to make sure that I'm not gonna purchase another one through a bank that we already own or that's not insured.

Amlik Pool, I checked into that a couple of years ago. I think it was 2017. They were going to offer another level of investments. They do have that second tier, but it didn't turn out the way they thought it was going to. They were thinking it was going to be for like, long-term hold money, 10 years or more, and it— that's not the case.

It's shorter term than that. Their pool right now, we use it for our arbitrage. So if I have bond funds that we receive, there's IRS requirements for how long you keep the money, what interest rate you can have the money on, um, that you use it, and if you don't use it, there's a penalty. So I keep those bond funds in there to make it, um, very clear that That's where the bond money is and it's not tied up in our other investments. And then the third category there, 3%, is other state of Alaska or municipal agencies that we've purchased from.

So liquidity, I have all of our investments laddered in order to meet the cash flow needs of the borough. There's a couple of large unknowns. The school district, we hold their money as well. So they don't let me know when they have large pulls out of our banking account. They don't have to really, it's their money.

I just have to make sure it's available. So if they have, you know, $2 or $3 million pull out of the account, I have to make sure that there's money there for them. It's their money. Projects, if EF has large project payments, I don't see them until it comes through our AP batch, and then I go, "Huh!" So, those are unexpected things that I have to be prepared for, which is why I have some in very liquid investments. I can pull those without having to cash a bond.

The things I can plan for are debt service payments. They're sprinkled throughout the year. A couple million in August, a couple million in July, $5 or $6 million in December. I can plan for those. I have debt payment schedules.

Insurance— our insurance payments are due once a year for us and the school districts. I normally keep a fairly sizable amount for those payments because I know they're coming. I try to shoot for a 30% from 0 to 1 year, 30% in 1 to 2, 30% in 3 to 5, and then 10% in 5 plus, just because it seems to work well. I've never had a problem with that until now, you know.

So any questions on liquidity?

Ryan, I don't have a way of knowing if you have a question, so please let me know if you have a question.

Continue. No questions at this time. Thank you. Your Majesty.

You're welcome. So the next part is the suggested changes. I'm only suggesting a slight change in code to increase the permissible investments to include supranational and sovereign obligations. The U.S. is part of these. This would be like World Bank.

Money market, mutual funds, commercial paper, and corporate bonds. Those are the ones that GFOA recommends for investments, and we don't have that, and I'm thinking we can have that.

What I would like tonight is some conversation about adopting the short-term policy that's attached. As Amy said, we haven't had one before. I looked through, I don't know, 20 to 30 different policies from different states, different municipalities here in Alaska, and they're so varied and so different depending on the needs of the community. Different communities have different revenue sources. Different communities have different powers.

Um, they have different sizes, they have different cash needs, some have huge bond payments, some have no bond payments at all. So finding a sample was challenging that fit our criteria. So rather than to do one policy that fit both short-term and long-term, this policy that's attached is for short-term. And so other than opinions on the short-term investment policy, deciding what to do with the facility fund for the long term, I think that's a vastly different, um—.

Discussion. It's a different— it's a totally different environment for that money to live. It's not needed for operational. It's, it's there investing for a purpose, and it's supposed to sit there. Operational funds aren't supposed to sit there.

So the, the flavor of that money is completely different. So I just decided I was going to focus on the short-term policy and get a decision from you all which direction you wanted to go on the long-term portion. So looking at— any questions? Sorry.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] You're audited every year and awarded every year for good performance. Would audits cover all of this, all of these kinds of investments? So our audits— our auditors check to make sure that what I'm investing in meets with code. Okay, thank you.

Anyone else have anything right now? Go ahead. So looking at the investment, the sample investment guide, the first sentence in there, this guide pertains to short-term liquid assets of the borough. I'm not going to read it word for word. I'm just going to point out a couple of things.

In this, I also put under each of the different sections the the code, our KIBC code that relates to this area. So people can go to find more of the legal reference rather than the policy or intention reference. Under the goals and objectives, again, you have the code and then you have the priority for the investments, safety, liquidity, and return.

The investment portfolio, as I looked through, um, all those policies, one thing that they did seem to have in common is that they had segregated their operating cash from what they call their core cash and their strategic cash. So, following something similar—.

Thank you. I put information about each one of those categories. If you were to adopt this, this would increase the analysis of what I do right now. Most of my analysis is making sure that our investments are laddered. So I have a 3-year spreadsheet.

I have, I have the large payments that I know are coming out, I have the investments and when they're maturing, and I match them. So if I have a gap or, um, if a bond is called early and they pay us for it and say, "Here's your money back," now I've got a gap 2 years from now when I thought that was going to mature. So then I have to go out and say, "Hey, I need something that matures on this date. What do you have for me?" And I have the brokers come back and say, "Well, you You can have this at this date or this, this date. And, and then I get to, you know, go shopping.

And that's, that's my current focus, making sure that I have enough for the school district and the projects and that stuff. But this would require evaluating the criteria set here, which would be 120% of expected cash flow over the next 60 days be available in what they term operating cash. For core cash, that would be 30% of the next 120 days, and then the strategic cash would— wouldn't exceed 7 years. The weighted average maturity wouldn't be in excess of 3 years, and that's where all the rest of the money would go.

Diversification parameters would be similar to what we have in code. Eligible investments would be increased.

What I really liked about the code— the sample policies that I looked at is many of them had this investment matrix that had parameters for quality, how much of their portfolio was limited to which type of flavor of investment, and the maximum years at which you could go. So, I included it here. It's an easy way. [Speaker:JIM] You like it. [Speaker:JULIE] I do.

It's an easy way to say, you know, if you look at how the report comes out, I can look and say, oh, you know, certificates, I have this much and the maximum is 2, so I'm good. So it gives me a chance to review our investments and make sure that anyone can follow this. You don't have to be steeped in that industry in order to follow this matrix. You can see, oh, well these have to have a Moody's rating of this. This has to have less than 20% of this type in the portfolio as a whole.

Delegation of authority, our code does list that, but putting it in the sample policy with particular names makes more people accountable and it also gives them somebody to go to should they have a question. I also—. A lot of them included this acknowledgement that employees are under scrutiny and shouldn't be conducting personal business activities that could conflict with their investment responsibilities, their fiduciary responsibilities to the employer that they work for. Dealer qualifications, that was pretty normal. And then compliance and monitoring, again, it means I'd have to create reports.

To track this, which isn't a bad thing, it's just a little different. It would be presenting them a little different than I normally do and think about them.

And back page for exceptions to the policy. Um, the first one is monitoring the ratings that go, that fall. I've never seen any of the ratings that which we get fall, or I've never seen them fall beneath what was acceptable. They might fall from a AAA to a AA for whatever reason, but I've never seen them, you know, fall from an A to a B.

So that would be an exception. And the only other one is that number 2, that calls could make our our matrix out of balance if we were to get a call. Right now, I'm pretty heavy, as you can see, in the Federal Home Loan Bank, the FHLB. I've got 49% of our investments in them. They're the only ones issuing money.

I can't— I can, I can buy FFCB, but sometimes it's a full percentage less than what FHLB is offering. So there's, there's some diversification in weighted stuff that you pay attention to as well. And that exception would be, you know, I can't control if CC or FFCB you know, divest. And what we're going to do, we're going to refund our bonds and get a better interest rate. Well, that's what they do too.

So they call their bonds in and pay everybody, and then they reissue them at a lower interest rate. So, you know, they don't have to pay as much. Well, that means we're not getting as much. And so if that unbalances, that might have an unintended change in our mix that that this exception would allow until we can get it rebalanced. So— Thank you, Dora.

Any discussion, questions? Ryan, do you have any questions or comments? Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I really appreciate the time that Dora put into this effort. I think that this is well presented and I really appreciate the detail.

As far as the request to adopt a policy, you know, we've had public testimony where we've had interested stakeholders come forward and express interest in giving their opinions, giving their advice. I'm not sure that I would want to push a policy forward for consideration until we've had various stakeholder inputs.

So if that means a subcommittee or— and I hate to say that, sorry, but, you know, if that meant some other breakout of organization to analyze the policy and weigh in the factors and the consideration that we are looking for, I guess, collectively, I would just say that we, we want to get some public stakeholder inputs. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Discussion? Amy and then Jared.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I agree with what Ryan said, but about the long-term investments. So when it comes to the bonds and liquidity and being ready to at any point, um, be able to produce $2 million because the school district's spent $2 million or a big project cost comes across, the lattered effect and parameters that are in place right now allow us to be able to be flexible. Um, the outside people who came in and wanted to give us advice on how to invest, and that happened inside of service area fund balances, um, the government cannot invest in the same thing as those people can on the outside because of just what we're supposed to do. We're supposed to just not lose money.

Where those outside investors are able to take more risk because they're trying to gain money. So it's a, it's a different situation. So this short-term policy is pretty much what we do, except with the addition of just adding a couple of things, and it allows our finance director to have access to money. I think the outside investors and the— when we come to the facilities fund and really looking at how we would invest that money because we don't need it right away and that can grow, then I think it would be appropriate to have the outside people. That's just my thoughts.

Jared. Thank you. Actually, Amy said just about what, what I was going to say. I support the policy. It's just putting down what, what is already current practice for, for the most part.

You could probably tell from a couple of my questions to DORA in writing. I— when I saw that 91% in GSEs there, my heart kind of skipped. That just seems— it seems a lot. So I think if we can open it up, diversify, or at least allow the, you know, the ability to diversify into government, or more, I would say more government municipal bonds, but also the corporate bonds, money market funds. I would like to, you know, see that closer up to maybe 10%.

But, so I am in favor of the language here, and I am also in favor of the— where is it? Oh, eligible— our diversification parameters and eligible investments.

Further discussion? Go ahead, Bo.

Thank you. I support this as well. You know, as the manager stated, you know, preservation of capital, but in a way where we can— well, in a way our finance director can help us not only preserve capital but somewhat inflation-proof it, giving more options to do that. I mean, currently the fixed income environment is really favorable. However, that is going to shift over time, maybe not as fast as folks were anticipating, but it is going to happen.

So I think having the flexibility there while also putting some limitations as far as how those funds can be allocated, I think it is a great idea. I will definitely support this when it comes in front of me. Okay. Scott. Yeah, I'm supporting this.

Ryan, any further questions or discussion? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess the only thing— and I respect Amy's position— I guess the only thing that I would add to this is that we, you know, we need to look at these as public funds, that this is not this is, you know, our money, this is the public's money. And I still think that we need to get public input even on the short term and have the public understand why there's a performance difference in the short-term money allocation gains versus the long-term money allocation gains. And I realize that I personally only allow 1 or 2 people to tell me how to make my investments.

So I understand that this is near and dear, but I believe, again, and I'll just reemphasize and rest my case with this, is that as public funds, we need as transparent of a policy pushed forward with public sentiment and input as we possibly can. I think we owe that, whether it's short-term funds or long-term funds, I think we owe it universally to public funds. Thank you. Thank you. So what I'm hearing is we're ready to have a policy drafted up.

This policy, does it end up in the form of an ordinance, or what do we— what's the procedure? Similar to our personnel manual policy, it does. It's just folded in, so the reference is in code, but the policy is outside of code, and it would take an ordinance. And so you would have you know, public input into this. So first reading and then public hearing, right?

Yeah. And I, I, I really— I'm not going to be here forever, and I would like to see some, some lights. As, as a government investment officers association is an organization that helps government entities invest, and one of their favorite mantras is there's no p— there are no peers in public investing, and Well, I'm listening to their webinars and their education outreaches. They liken policies to streetlights on a street so that you can see where you're going, and that's all I'm looking for here is that so people following can see the street they're supposed to be driving on. Not that there's been driven badly, just, just a little more illumination.

Thank you, Dora. Any— so give your direction that this be drafted up in ordinance form and come forward. Dora, thank you for that direction. Um, long term, long term. I think, uh, we should put that on a, uh, not too distant work session, um, because, uh, we need to— one of the things I'd like to see is that everybody has the information on how poorly the money has been reinvested in the fund.

In other words, the principal has grown very little and we need to look at changing the policy. So that's why— and we don't have that information tonight for discussion, so I'm thinking that should be for in the future. That's my intent. Dave? Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I agree with the principle there.

What I would offer is that just from a quick back-of-the-napkin calculation, $45 million invested 30 years ago with a target rate of 6% return would have the borough sitting on $260 million right now. Obviously, you know, a lot of things get in the way of that, but my point being, there's a large long-term fund that the borough holds, and I think much sooner than later, looking to invest it in a way that provides both fund growth and access to capital is critical for the fiscal health of the borough. So I don't want to see that can kicked down the road. Thank you. We agree.

The problem is in the policy. 85% Of the earnings have been spent. Every— just about every year, yeah. So—. That's the problem.

So that's the problem. The principal remains intact, but—. It hasn't been inflation-proof. That's where I'm going with this. So we need to drastically revamp that.

That. So it's a two-part deal. So at the next meeting, you'll be discussing on whether you want to keep that internal or external, or is that something I can prepare for, just ignore it until it comes up the next meeting cycle?

I'm thinking that that— both. Go ahead. So if I, if I remember correctly, that this, this is— this, the long-term is something that we could split off of your desk and have someone manage on behalf half of the borough. Did I understand that correctly? Okay.

Absolutely. Amy. [SPEAKING SPANISH] No, but it would make you feel better. Yeah, there's— I agree with Amy what you're saying.

I think that as far as the short term, I think we can decide that as we're going through the public hearing process and that. I would be in favor of that remaining in-house. The long-term is what I'm interested in putting out, in my mind. So with that, we'll move forward. Thank you.

Thank you for that presentation. Any follow-up, Amy? Nope. Thank you. Okay, then next item will be, uh, discuss draft ordinance modifying Kodiak Island Borough Code 10.10.010, adding language to support accountability for abandoned vehicles.

Staff report, Amy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Assemblymember Sherrod had put forward a proposal to modify KIBC 10.10.010, aiming to enhance accountability for abandoned vehicles. This section of code addresses issues related to junk abandoned vehicles. In your packet tonight is the current code.

If the current code is actually listed right on the first page of your agenda statement, and then the suggested update to code.

When you say the suggested update, right now Okay, so on the first page there, one of the things that I'm looking at is on first page and second page, several places it has mayor on there. So, and then elsewhere it says manager. The, but the mayor needs to be converted to manager on there. So At this time, I'll go ahead and turn it over to you, Ryan, to speak to this. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and fellow assembly members.

So this is a draft ordinance. I'm sorry. Yeah, this is a draft to address several citizen comments that we have encountered over the last several months. This coincides directly with My personal ethos on environmental concerns, we heard from public comment at the opening of the meeting, this aligns with environmental concerns and quite frankly, this is kind of the prelude to abandon facility and facility components that also outlie around the Kodiak area. We're a little premature in that discussion, but this is kind of a, a tailored effort to create accountability where accountability is not currently instilled within our code.

So we do have drafts in front of you. Unfortunately, I'm mobile. I'm sorry I couldn't be there at this time, but I will answer any questions that any of the assembly has. And I appreciate the consideration.

Discussion? Dave? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I fully support this. The scourge of abandoned vehicles is an incredibly frustrating thing in this community.

And if this, or once it goes through our legal review, if these changes give the Borough Code Enforcement some teeth and ability to enforce vehicle regulations, and I will be fully in support of it. Bo?

Thank you. So I'm— in principle, I— yeah, I support this in principle. I'm curious. I should have looked it up, but I did not. Does anyone have a definition for junk readily available?

If not, I'll look it up later. My— what I'm curious about is, to a previous point, is enforcement. I feel that we have a hard time currently enforcing what's in place now. I'm also curious to— this is going to be a discussion coming up at some point in the not too distant future about there's a DMV license fee that's supposed to be covering this service for the community. I'm not sure how much of that extra tax being imposed upon the community is going towards this and how much is going towards school bond debt.

So this is a concern that I share with many people in the community. So I'm not sure how we would pay for this. I do support it in principle, but I would be curious to see what the enforcement mechanism would look like and how it was paid for. I can address part of that. Part of the, uh, ordinance on the, on the tax is that it— there's two things it goes towards, and that's the abandoned vehicles and school bond debt.

And the assembly sets that each year, Bo. We determine that. Go ahead, Bo. And, and so is that a— I don't remember that from last year. So forgive my poor memory.

Is that—. So that's something we adjust within a set range between—. We can establish— we can establish not sliding scale, we establish amount. One of the things we've done is we've been budgeting out of the general fund, so it's been going to the bond debt, but it's there for the assembly each year when we're allocating that. Where it goes.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Larry, just a couple of quick questions. I was looking at a statement that if the offender can show ability and willingness to make the repairs necessary to convert the junk vehicle into an operable vehicle, um, I'm not sure I understand what that is all about. They get a 30-day reprieve.

If so, But this is if we leave it on public property or someone's property that does not have permission to put it there. We don't deal with it on private property. This is on public property. Well, it does refer, I think, at some point that if it's on someone's property without permission, that it fulfills the same category unless I misread it earlier today. And so I'm just trying to figure out what what the statement for under 10.10.040 really means.

And honestly, even though I think maybe the definition of what junk means was maybe said lightly, I think it's an important point because—. It is. Because if I look at B, I'm not sure under 10.10.040, upon expiration of the 5-day or 30-day period where relevant, the manager may a junk vehicle or other junk. What does that mean, other junk? What's— what does other junk mean?

Sofas.

Okay, uh, Mr. Mayor, if I may. Go ahead, Ryan. Thank you. Uh, so I want to address kind of the, the definition of junk as it pertains, uh, to vehicles or equipment. And, and really the intent of this is non-operable, right?

So the idea behind junk or abandoned typically refers to, hey, I can't get this moved, or maybe, hey, I can't find an owner. So, you know, we've, we've had multiple discussions lately around like the airport parking. I think we all have an understanding of what a junk vehicle looks like. If we drove through the airport parking, we would be able to see which vehicles were abandoned or junk versus those that are, you know, utilizing the parking spaces. I think that there is some level of subjectiveness, but I also think that we have a completely capable staff that can make that determination, that we don't have to necessarily codify what junk looks like.

Well, our empowered staff is more than capable. Second is the intent of this is to, again, my prelude to this is ultimately I want to start with, you know, junk vehicles, equipment, and work my way around the Kodiak Archipelago. If anybody jumps in a plane or a boat and goes out to, well, near any nice landing beach, you're going to find other junk, and I think we also have a clear understanding of what junk looks like in those areas. So this is more so from an environmental standpoint, uh, and, and more of an ecology, long-term commitment to sustainable Kodiak. So if I'm missing on terminology or if I've got unclear terms, I would welcome the Assembly to help me tighten that language up, understanding the intent that I just shared.

Thank you. Larry. Well, I appreciate those comments, Ryan. I think that I don't like to give staff a gray area to enforce. I think it's hard, makes their job a lot more difficult.

I like to be as succinct as possible in the language. And, you know, does this include trailers? Somebody leaves. I've seen them on the side of the road. One of the assembly members, Tanya Cheeks, said sofas along the side of the road.

And I realize that vehicles are the big problem, and I definitely support what we're trying to do here, and I think we can tighten up the language. But I do think it needs to be tightened up a little bit because I really don't know what other junk means. And I don't mean just to say that to say it. I just think if it's for vehicles Does it include bulldozers? Does it include, you know, heavy equipment?

Those aren't really—. I guess they're vehicles, but you can't really drive them down the road. But in any case, I'd like it to be succinct, and I think we need to really take a close look at it. But I do support it in principle. Amy, you had a comment.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm concerned about where the suggestions say "shall" instead of "may." So in F, removal of junk or an abandoned vehicle from private property shall be upon the written request of the owner. When I read that, to me that says if someone writes because there's something on their property that we have to go get it. And so I don't think that's the intent. I think we would have to set up a mechanism to pay for that?

Because I just— there, I have a neighbor that has like 15 cars on their property that probably don't run. If they write and say, please remove this, does the borough have to go remove 15 cars? Like, I'm hoping not. So that— I'm just worried about the shall and may and how that will be interpreted in the future. Jared, did you have your hand up first?

I was thinking Jared, Dave, and then Bo. And then me, sir. Okay. I think this is a more important thing to discuss. I think other people have responses.

Okay. Dave and then Bo. Yeah, I would—. This is where I would like to suggest that instead of the body here trying to fumble through definitions and enforceable code, I mean, we hire a law firm for a reason and we turn this to the law firm with the intent language and trust them to come back with a draft code code that meets our objectives.

Bo? Thank you. I agree. Again, I support this in principle, and I certainly am not the person to identify the correct language for this. So I support it, and I agree with the statement that we could get some help with the language to make sure that it meets our needs without any unintended consequences.

Consequences. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As, as evidence, uh, seeing I'm not in town because I've spent all day in court with the administrative law judges and 29 OSHA inspectors, so you'll have to forgive me on my proneness here, uh, and how important shall, should, and may actually is in this discussion. So the word shall is there on purpose.

And again, as I do agree with Mr. Johnson about getting professional legal help, I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. So the intent language of this is to have a definitive statement and have the empowerment for the borough to receive that phone call about those 15 vehicles and the borough to make a determination saying, well, hold on a second, those are your 15 vehicles. So no, we aren't removing them. That's your responsibility. Or have a decision matrices that says, yes, Billy Bob left those 15 vehicles on your property and they shall be responsible for that.

And while we try and resolve this issue, those shall be removed. Again, I'm not an attorney. I think we all understand the intent here, and I do support Mr. Johnson's recommendation to get legal input and guidance on this following the intent. Thanks, sir. Thank you, Ryan.

Amy, what would you like to do? I think that's great. We can Probably have Community Development work on this a little bit and have the Director contact Scott Brant Erickson and have him come up with a code change that does meet the intent. Okay. Jarrod.

Thank you. I have one question that hasn't come up yet. So— and if I can ask Ryan or ask Ryan to respond, can we understand the peace officer officer bit. We don't have public safety powers, so how does a peace officer function in this context?

Yeah, thank you. I wasn't sure what to call code enforcement, but I wanted language strong enough to say there's a rule and we have somebody to enforce it. So the usage of peace officer really meant Code enforcement, but I don't know how to word that correctly. So again, this is why I really support the involvement of the attorney, because they'll have these terms and definitions far better than I do. Okay, gotcha.

That makes sense. Thanks. Any further discussion? Amy, I think you have enough direction there. Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is a discussion on short-term rentals in the Kodiak Island Borough. Staff report, Amy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

This proposal initiated by Assemblymembers Johnson and Ledoux requests staff to draft a resolution that mandates all short-term rentals operating in the Kodiak Island Borough to register and obtain a license with the borough by July 1st, 2025. Additionally, no short-term rentals will be authorized after that date until a licensing system and limit are established by resolution. Following the adoption of this resolution, Assemblymember Johnson requests staff assistance in drafting an ordinance to establish the necessary enforcement mechanisms to ensure the resolution is effectively implemented. From the last meeting in which the assembly discussed short-term rentals, staff was asked for updated maps and hotel occupancy rates The information is provided in the packet tonight. There's only one hotel that actually responded to the occupancy rates no matter how time we called, how many times we called or asked, and Discover Kodiak wasn't able to have the, or didn't have the information either.

So sorry I couldn't get that for you, but hopefully the Shelikhov is maybe an indicator of what those look like. Oftentimes in the summer, in July and August, if your plane gets— doesn't make it in or you can't make it to a village, you can't find anywhere to sleep. Like, I spent a lot of time calling every single short-term rental because all the hotels were full, trying to find places for people to sleep. So those two months in particular are very full. Okay.

So I would ask Dave and Larry to speak next on this request. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER_MILLER] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think we— I mean, we've talked about this a lot in the previous work session, so I don't want to— I want to be respectful of everybody's time. A couple of points I wanted to offer, though, are that research in Boston showed that a concentration of Airbnb in a census tract increased had a direct correlation of increase in rents from upwards of 3% automatically, or $93 a year. In Los Angeles, they found that a 10% Airbnb increase leads to a— every 10% increase in local Airbnbs results in a half a percent increase in rent rates and a 3/4% increase in house prices.

So if you expand that into our local market where we've had a you know, several hundred percent increase in those, um, Airbnbs, short-term rentals in the last, uh, decade, um, we could be looking at a, you know, a 33% rent increase over that time period. Um, I think when our community members talk about their property assessments— and this is really the, the nexus of, of why I keep, um, discussing this point. Our, our community members are incredibly concerned about their assessments, and likewise, our community members are incredibly concerned about finding a place to live, a home to own. Um, when a 1-bedroom, 1-bath house lists for $400,000 in this community, that's a cost of living crisis. Um, we know our population is decreasing.

It is not our population that is driving the cost of these homes. And the— there has not been a community that has found a way to combat this that has not taken on their short-term rental problem. So, you know, all the periphery discussions aside, I think it's when we talk about assessed values and the ability of people to buy a home, if we don't do something about the 160 plus short-term rentals within our community, we're paying it lip service. So I would like to see the assembly take that on. Thank you.

Oh, Larry.

My interest in moving forward to discuss this issue simply because we have a housing crisis in Kodiak that's been mentioned. I think it Taking a look at long-term rentals, Airbnbs, um, is part of, uh, an effort to improve housing availability in Kodiak, which would include the borough finally releasing land to motivate developers to develop large swaths of land for development, um, to move forward on the ADUs, because I understand some of the Some assembly members are opposed to moving forward without action on long-term rentals and ADUs, that we have to start a discussion. I'm not so much interested in developing a limit in Part 2 at this point in time as to understand how many we actually have in the community and what impact they're having on the community. Some families, this is their livelihood. And I think we have to be very, very careful, but I don't think we can even discuss the financial impact on the community until we know how many there are in the community and what is a long-term rental.

As I said last time, does the borough renting apartments on Near Island constitute a rental? Does what the hospital is doing in their short-term rental facility. I think we're really going to have to take a look at what is and what isn't and get a good handle on how many we actually have in Kodiak, and then we could decide how it fits into a broader plan to make housing more available in Kodiak. Thank you. So part of my question is, what are we asking staff to do for us?

I, I I heard you mention a few things, Larry. Amy?

I just wanted— if you haven't seen an agenda for the joint work session next week, short-term rentals are on that joint work session because I don't think we can do anything without the city's cooperation and input on this. So in your packet tonight though, there is some interesting information, and we've been working together with this city. The city gave me a list of how many how many short-term rentals they had inside of city limits, and they gave us the number. It was 58. And then when we ran our numbers for inside the city, it was 69.

So they got to find out— excuse me— about 11 more that they weren't aware of and didn't have their business license and weren't paying an accommodations tax. So I think the communication back and forth has been good because we found ones that they knew about that we didn't know about. And so there's been some good information information sharing. In that conversation, I think it's going to be good to talk about how we can kind of team up with their business license program inside the city and then see what software they use and if that's something like that would work for us. So I think that we'll learn a lot next week about the city and their direction.

Larry? Well, in answer to your question, as I said earlier, I believe, you know, the first step is merely to find out in some way whether by licensing to see how many we actually have in Kodiak and take that first step and build on that. Beau.

Thank you. I agree. I don't think we have a— we have a pretty good idea that 160, that was— that took about 3 minutes for me to find that out looking at 2 websites alone. I think when we have a better grasp at what the actual number is, I would not be shocked if we were upwards of 200 homes in this community that are operating as short-term rentals. My, my view on this, and this, this is one of the reasons that I volunteered my time to sit up here, is thinking about what, what does the long-term economy look like for Kodiak if we are going to think about growth in our economy here, and a big component of that is what do we do with our housing inventory?

How is that handled and who is filling it? We hear more often than not recently that this is an economic boom for our community, but for whom? Is it for the handful of people who own these properties, or does it benefit the community and how much? I view economic growth within the community as single-family homes or multi-family homes that have families in them. Those are people that are living here, they're working in the community, their children are going to these schools.

The fewer of these homes that are occupied by families, I see that as stagnant growth. I think we have a short-term burst in economic activity thanks to these short-term rentals, but I don't view this as the answer to generating long-term growth within the community. These— this isn't going to generate new businesses. This isn't going to generate long-term stability for schools and school funding. This is a transient economy.

It has a burst of activity in the summer, and then it falls off the cliff the rest of the year. That does nothing to support long-term economic stability, in my opinion. So that is why I think we need to find a balance. I don't want to pull the rug out from folks who do rely on this income, but I don't think it should be a free-for-all either, and I do support limitations, whether that is a total cap or a percentage based on certain— if you were to go by, I don't know how we would split that out, but a percentage of units within certain service areas or However you would split that out, city, borough, rural, I'm not sure. But I do think there should be some limitations put on this because the homes— it doesn't matter how much land you release, that's not going to help anything in the next 10 years.

I mean, if we release swaths of land, which I do support that, that's more on the long-term scale. What are we going to do for the next 10 years for folks that that are still looking for homes. I think Jared's— excuse me, Mr. Jackson's information about how this affects increases in property rates, I agree. We're experiencing outmigration right now. The reason these homes aren't being— these home prices aren't stabilizing or going down isn't because the demand of people pouring onto the island.

That's clearly not what's happening here. So we do need to rein this back. I am sensitive to folks who are relying on this, and I'm not suggesting we cancel their ability to continue doing what they're doing, but we should limit new entries into the short-term rental market. Thank you for allowing me for a long-winded statement, but that's how I view the short-term and long-term impacts of short-term rentals. Ryan, I'd like to go ahead and give you opportunity to comment if you'd like.

Up to you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So Assemblymember Johnson articulated his points extremely well, and, and I agree with Assemblymember Johnson. I would also like to add that although there is not one cure-all for the housing crisis and the population decline I do believe that this issue is a significant contributor to both, and I do believe that we need to get a handle on this. And I believe that at some point in time everyone on the Assembly has said something similar.

And so I like this as an actionable item and a methodology to move forward. I am interested to, you know, kind of hear what the solidified path forward is with, you know, fairly quickly resolved so that we can stop talking about it and actually start moving on it. Other than that, that's all I've got. Thank you, sir. [Speaker:CHAIR] Thank you.

One of the things that comes to my mind, as we mentioned, there is the joint work session next week. And then we have another— our next work session is on February 13th. Which would give us an opportunity to review the information we get with the city. Um, is that okay with everyone right now at this point? We're kind of in information gathering is the way I look at it on there.

So it would— Jared, you agree we'd put that on the agenda for the 13th on there? So, okay, then we'll Amy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Is there any new information that you would like us to try to find for the 13th?

Doesn't appear. Thank you. Scott, do you know if other municipalities have different property tax rates for commercial operations like short-term rental rentals as opposed to homeowner-occupied homes? We're not allowed to do that. When we set a mill rate as the assembly, every home gets the same mill rate.

Now, um, this comes up a lot in communities where the schools have shut down. They will often call me and ask why they're still paying property tax because they don't have a school in their community. And so the state law is that when a borough assigns a mill rate, it is borough-wide. End of story. And then that, as you know, the service areas can add on to provide services, but there is no way to do a different tax for different kinds of places.

Thank you. Okay. Larry, then Bo, then Dave. Well, I just want to say I appreciate the comments that Bo made a few minutes ago. I thought they were very relevant and made a lot of sense.

Also, from the meeting with the city, perhaps Assemblymember Johnson could make available some of the data that he shared tonight. I thought it was really poignant to our discussion and worthwhile to share. Bo. Thank you. I just wanted to add that, that there is the added transient accommodation tax for short-term rentals.

So there we are currently levying 5%, I believe. 5%, Right? There's— the city gets 5% and the borough does as well. Right. Dave.

Thank you. Question to that, um, legal question. I don't know that you'll have an answer for me, Amy, but, um, I do— I have read the, the state code and as it applies, but if a home is being operated as a business, would that not potentially change the assessed value?

Because if I am—. I don't I don't think so. Is there no legal way to do that? The assessor says it wouldn't change their value.

So my home that's occupied by my family with a $2,300 mortgage is worth the same as the one next door that's making $7,000 a month? Yes, because they're— your assessed value is based just off the value of your land and the value of your structure. It doesn't matter how you're using it. Yeah, it doesn't matter how it's being used. At the residential rate.

So if they, I mean, if we change and say all short-term rentals are commercial, then they would go on the commercial rate. That's my question. I don't know how you would do that because it's still a residence. So at any time, all of these can go back and forth. You can go long-term rental, you get the, The only additional thing that a short-term rental pays is business personal property.

Amy. Mr. Mayor, if I can have an opportunity when you are ready, sir. Okay. Amy and then Ryan. Assemblymember Sharick can go first.

Okay. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So it is my understanding, to Assemblymember Johnson's point, so there are two valuation methods. There's the comparable sales method, which is, you know, hey, owner-occupied, what are other houses going for?

And then there's the income valuation or income-based valuation. Would this be the appropriate discussion then if we look at short-term rentals as an income-based, which would In Mr. Johnson's example, his mortgage is $2,300 versus an income of $7,000. That short-term rental would be substantially increased in valuation. I'm wondering if we can maybe expand it. I'm not an appraiser or assessor, so I'm hoping to get some clarification.

If I'm wrong in this, please correct me. But the two different valuation methods is as comparable sales and income-based. Is that a matter of differentiation that we should be discussing at this point as well? Seema. State statute says that we are on the market value, so we don't allow multifamily.

So apartment buildings, those are not on income-based. Everything is on market value for us right now. The only difference we have is a possessory interest if it's a city property being leased to someone. That's the only difference that we have, and we just figure it out differently. But we don't have the capability of doing an income-based for— I mean, we do have the capability of doing it, we just can't.

Then that's requiring everybody to come in and give us dollar amounts. And when we had— when we tried to do multifamilies that way, We literally had people telling us that we had $300 a month on income on apartment buildings that we knew they were advertising for $1,000 a month. So then we're going to get into enforcement. How do we make sure that they're really giving us how much they're making?

So income is not a great thing for us just because it is you coming in and telling me what you're making.

Ryan, any follow-up?

No, I appreciate that clarification. I don't have any other questions at this time. Okay, any further discussion?

Okay, so with that, we'll go ahead and move on to the next item on the agenda. Review of the amicus request from Fairbanks North Star Borough. Staff report, Amy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Fairbanks North Star Borough has petitioned the Supreme Court to review a Superior Court case, Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Victory Ministries of Alaska Incorporated and Camp Lewa Incorporated, in which the Superior Court issued a finding similar to the Kodiak Island Borough case KAB v. Women's American Baptist Home Mission Society.

In this decision, the Superior Court remanded our case back and said that Alaska State Statute 29.45.200 gives the appellant the option of either appealing to the Board of Equalization or directly to court, and a municipality cannot require the, um, appeal to go directly to court. So the first time that the assembly did this and acted as the BOE was our Alutiiq Heritage Foundation case, if you were here for that and you remember that case. Uh, the Fairbanks North Star Borough has requested that the Kodiak Island Borough support their petition with an amicus brief that would support them by saying KIB does not agree with the interpretation of that Alaska state statute. Uh, if KIB decides to support the Fairbanks North Star Borough, there is only one scenario in which the brief would be needed. The borough The borough filed the petition— sorry, the Fairbanks Borough filed the petition for review, but they haven't received word from the court if the petition is accepted yet.

The Supreme Court has 3 scenarios. One, they might reject the petition, in which the case— there would be no occasion for amicus. The second would be accepting the petition and decide it's based on the application for petition for review and any opposition, which would also mean no amicus. Or third, the order a briefing on the petition. The amicus participation would arise under this third scenario.

The court hasn't ruled yet on the petition, so it might not arise at all. In your packet tonight, we had attorney fees between $2,000 and $5,000. Our assessor reached out to our attorney to see if that was accurate, or— because that seems like a very big range to me. He came back and said that it would probably be closer to only $500 due to the fact that the original brief has been written and he's very familiar with the case since the Superior Court gave us a similar decision when they remanded it back to the borough. And then that's when we changed our codes.

And I remember Assemblymember Smiley saying, can we please change the name? Because we have two Board of Equalizations. One is the people who come in and then the other would be the assembly sitting as the BOE. So, um, I talked to both the mayor and the deputy presiding officer about how I felt about, um, us having the BOE, and, um, I'm interested in hearing about what your thoughts are. If you think that that Alaska state statute was not interpreted right by the Superior Court, then we would probably want to do the amicus brief.

If you feel like the Superior Court remanding it back to the borough was a good thing, then we wouldn't do the amicus brief. So the borough attorney is asking how the assembly feels. I didn't want to make a decision on behalf of the assembly. Um, I actually like it, but that's just my personal opinion because I want to insert anything that keeps us one step further away from going to court. So, and as we found when we did it, we came up with a solution to go back a step and go back to the assessor and not forward to court.

So that's why I thought it was a good idea. Um, but a lot of other municipalities do not like that, so that'll just be up to you and if you thought that was a worthwhile thing, um, or not. Okay, discussion? What's the thoughts of the assembly?

Jared and Scott.

[Speaker:COMMISSIONER ARKOOSH] You know, this comes down to, you know, if— do we want to keep the process that we have right now, which has its pros and cons to it? But I think the pros outweigh the cons for the reasons that the Manager said, as long as I think Assembly up here on the dais needs to be a little more intentional about the training that comes with being part of a BOE. But personally, I am okay with it being a, you know, the process being a permanent part of our tax appeal procedures. It's a difficult process, but I think it saves money. It does keep us out of court, and I think there's a greater sense of accountability between everybody with that.

I'm looking back through. This is my response that I wrote earlier this week before friggin' Black Tuesday happened. I'm trying to remind myself.

I think, actually, I think that this might be it for now. So I would be, I think it's prudent to, at this point, decline participation in the brief unless, yeah, unless we can come up with a compelling reason to support the petition. Okay. Then Amy, then Larry, and then Bo, and Ryan, I'll give you a shot at it. So go ahead, Scott.

I agree with Mr. Griffin. Easy. Amy. To be fair, I'd like to ask if it's okay if Sima comes up and gives her perspective on this because it is the exactly opposite of mine. And so I think that you should hear both sides.

Okay. Welcome, Seema. I don't think that my position is exactly opposite. I think that we have a couple of things to consider. First, when, when we do an exemption, they still have the option to go to skip the BOE and go right to Superior Court.

So we have added a step that they may do it's not something that they have to do. So they can skip the BOE. And I'm not sure that just looking at it as like, okay, we don't mind having that BOE option in it, that we might want to also consider supporting another borough. That we join the amicus because it doesn't matter to us if it stay— if the BOE stays or not, but we show support. So that if there's something that we need an amicus for, um, other boroughs are also likely to help us out.

So my thing is, is like, really, to us, it might not matter if we have the BOE. Okay if we keep it, okay if we don't, but let's maybe just show support to Fairbanks. So that's the only thing. Thank you. Larry, both, and Ryan.

I like that our public, if they feel uncomfortable with the decision, has the right to make choices. And so I like the way we are. I'm not so much concerned as helping Fairbanks one way or the other because I think their citizens deserve choices too. And I like what we have.

That's all. Thank you. Beau. Thank you. I—.

Thinking about this topic, and this one is really interesting to me, and there are certainly pros and cons of either— going either direction. I view it as if this were to be handled strictly by the court system, it removes any potential bias. For us to make that decision as members of the community. And being in a small community, that worries me that it is— I view if we were to maintain our authority to serve as the BOE, I think everyone up here— and I— it's difficult for me to also obligate folks to spend more of their time for something like this, but I do feel this would be a critical point or intersection where we should think about mandating training if we're going to serve as the BOE. And because I'm concerned about inherent bias of any 7 of us sitting up here, when a member of the community comes up and pleads their case, the odds for bias are really high.

And I think we should have the proper tools to make an objective decision that removes as much of that bias as possible. And that's why I do somewhat agree with placing this in the hands of the court because that removes that from the equation completely. But I also agree with statements that that comes with a cost, and, you know, anytime we can achieve cost savings, I'm typically a proponent of that. But if— I'm on the fence. I'm indifferent.

I could be swayed one way or another. If we do continue with status quo, I do feel that it should be mandatory that all members of the BOE receive formal training. But that's my thoughts on it. Thank you. Ryan, any comments?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate everybody's input tonight. I think everybody's got valid points. I agree with Bo on mandatory training, again, given the reason I'm not there tonight. I think removing ambiguity, bias, I think those are all very critical components of a judicial system, whether it be quasi-judicial or administrative law.

I, I think that we owe it to the citizens of Kodiak to be be as transparent as possible, as bias-free as possible. And I also agree with Assemblymember LeDoux that I like options and the public should have their options as well. So that being said, I look forward to further discussion. I'm not entirely sure what the actionable item is on this, this evening, or if there is actual item, but I I guess we'll just kind of look for guidance at this point. Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan. Amy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think as far as action, we were just looking for a thumbs up or thumbs down on whether we could get a general feeling if the assembly wanted to proceed with the— I say amicus, you say amicus— with the brief. So that if we did want to support the Fairbanks North Star Borough, that he could start work on that in the event that one of those scenarios happened that they needed.

If not, then we just tell our attorney that we are not interested. Well, I kind of— listening to all this, I see that you are saying— I am hearing it potentially about $500 instead of the $2,000. $5,000. I'm hearing that there's some other things that have to happen before we would be needing to do this, and so I'm kind of questioning whether we have a little time that this would— could come back up to us. So the $500 was really because if They're— since is it Kenai and Matsu have already helped them with the petition saying that they want the petition to go forward.

There's almost two steps to this. We can join in that petition. It would cost us about $500 to put that petition in saying, yeah, the— please hear the petition by FF— NSB to hear it, just so that the Supreme Court hears it. If they do hear it and we want to do the amicus, the other attorneys are going to draw up the amicus briefing. All that we would be doing is Scott would see it, look at it, and then recommend to you guys if we would want to sign it, and that would be another $500.

Or so you can, you can say, yeah, do the $500 now and, and write and say yes, we want to. Or we can tell them, yes, well, go into the amicus if it happens, if it, if it does get to that point, and spend that $500 then.

Did Siri answer me? Someone's talking back here.

Thank you, Sima. Um, I guess I would lean towards the initial $500 investment on it at this point, with the future decision down the road on there. Just asking for what the rest of you think. Bo? So if I understand the process correctly, by committing to supporting it, you know, $500, that doesn't commit us to go in the same direction.

Am I understanding that correctly? It's a show of support to have it heard. However, that doesn't commit the Potomac Island Borough to following suit.

I mean, yes, but if you are going to commit to have it heard, you want to commit to the amicus, too.

Larry. I am opposed to spending the $500,000 or the extra $500,000. I, as I said, I like the system that we have. We have had 2 Superior Court judges. Rule that one state law, two separate ones, and $500 is $500 of public money, or $1,000 I guess if they win.

And if Fairbanks wins, more power to them.

I'm not seeing a thumbs up, so it's a thumbs down. Is that correct? Am I misreading it? Thank you. Okay.

Then we will move on. We are going to take a 7-minute break and then we will start the packet review for the meeting next week. Thank you. 7-Minute break.

We'll go ahead and reconvene the work session. Uh, next item is packet review. We have, um, First item is public hearing, ordinance number FY2025-12, an ordinance of the Assembly of the Kodiak Island Borough accepting and appropriating grant funds for the 2021-22 and 2022-23 Bristol Bay red king crab and Bering Sea snow crab fisheries disasters declaration. Staff report, Amy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

A fisheries disaster determination was made for the 2021-22 and the 2022-23 Bristol Bay King Crab and Bering Sea Snow Crab fisheries resulting from an unpredicted crab die-off. Disaster funds were subsequently determined and made available for distribution to eligible communities based on each community's proportion of the estimated gross revenue value. Kodiak Island Borough is eligible for these funds due to the history of Bristol Bay and Bering Sea crab landings made in Kodiak and the associated severance taxes collected on those landings. I received notification that the Kodiak Island Borough was able to— eligible to receive $53,182.40 of the disaster funds to mitigate losses in severance tax revenue. Kodiak Island Borough Code 3.25 authorizes the assembly to accept grant funds and requires that grant funds not designated for a specific purpose be appropriated via ordinance.

As the last time we got this type of funds, we will be putting the funds into the Fisheries Economic Development Project budget, which will hopefully grow into something that we can use. Something interesting happened with this money. The affected communities kind of made a crab community coalition, and they said, let's not wait till March. To put our applications in. So everyone got their applications in and we already have this money.

It arrived a couple days ago. So we, uh, February 6th will give us the authorization to put it in the right place. Thank you. Any questions? This is Amy.

Seeing none, we'll move on to ordinance number FY 2025-13, writing off the personal property delinquent taxes penalties interests and fees of those non-collectible accounts. Staff report, Amy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Staff has completed 9 personal— sorry, compiled 9 personal tax accounts that have been determined uncollectible for various reasons. All legal resources have been exhausted by staff in pursuing collections.

Its staff desire for borough accounts to be current and properly reflect the financial status of receivables in accordance with generally accepted accepted accounting principles. KAB Code does not identify a specific method of writing off delinquent accounts. Therefore, this ordinance requests the approval to write off these uncollectible amounts. We have a base tax total of $10,630.17. We have $3,959.67 of penalties and interest, and we have $601.14 of miscellaneous fees for a total write-off of $15,190.98.

Also, I wanted to bring up that in the past, staff has requested to be able to write off accounts under a certain threshold if all legal resources to collect have been exhausted, and our legal counsel concurs. If the assembly is interested in establishing that threshold, staff would be eager to support that change.

Scott, I'm interested in doing that. So there's one vote for it. And I'll go next when I have an opportunity, sir. Thanks, Ryan. Okay, so—.

Can I go? This will be up on— Go ahead, Ryan. Yeah, thanks. So my question to Amy is, in the business world, when we get ready to write off uncollectible debt, there are factoring companies or debt service companies that are interested in buying this quote-unquote uncollectible debt. Has the borough looked into any of those services either in the past, or do we have any familiarity with those?

Is that something we're interested in doing? I am not aware of any of those efforts. I think, um, I'm gonna have to refer to our finance director, and I can get you an answer probably tomorrow, but if not, we'll definitely have that ready for the public hearing next week.

Perfect. Yeah, thank you. There's a very large secondary market for uncollectibles, bad debt factoring, and I would be interested in, you know, sometimes there's 25 to 40% of the uncollectible debt, but at least it's at that point there is some form of revenue that offsets the existing or the total write-off. So thank you. Thank you.

Any other discussion? Seeing none, we'll move on to the next item, which is public hearing on ordinance number FY 2025-14, amending and redirecting funds from the previous authorized American Rescue Plan Act, ARPA, state and local fiscal recovery funds SLFRF for the benefit of the residents of the borough. Staff report, Amy. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The borough received $2,524,709 of ARPA funds through state and local fiscal recovery funds.

We received half in October 2021 and half in October 2022. We have allocated those funds, so at that point in fiscal year Resolution fiscal year 2022-16, fiscal year 2022-19, fiscal year 2023-09, and fiscal year 2023-09A.

As we approach the deadline, we had only spent $778,157 of the money, leaving $1,746,550 $53 unspent. So the staff created a list at the work session. Um, when you were first presented the list, it was just in alphabetical order, and after discussion at that work session, staff was asked to reorder the list into a priority order for the January 16th regular meeting, um, when we're going to do the intro of this ordinance. The list was accepted, and this— that's what's going to the public hearing at the meeting next week. In your packet tonight is kind of a little bit of the history, and then in the ordinance itself, there are 12 items that we added into that spending of the money into the system so that we can spend that on any of those projects.

So as a reminder, by, um, December 31st First, we had to have the funds either spent or under contract to be considered obligated, and then by the April 30th, we have to report the expenses that we listed from the projects on 1231. And then once we list those, those projects are officially locked into how we spend that money. So when we created the list, the things that were The first two items on the top were things that were already ordered and we didn't have funding for. And then number three, the East Elementary roof design, that was already being— we already have a source to pay for that. And then everything else on the list, there is funding in one way or the other to make that happen.

We entered number four, health insurance, for six months just in the event that something happened and we weren't able to continue with the mental health building abatement and demolition. So Dora's thinking behind that was if something were to happen, some lightning strike or fire or whatever, and we couldn't spend that money in that way, it would give us the ability to spend that money and we didn't have to turn any of it back. Assemblymember Ledoux, having worked with a lot of grants, suggested that that might not be a the best path, and that might not be legal to do. And then we actually— Sue and Dora both researched that and then found the information that because this is revenue replacement, we were allowed to do that. So it's just the health insurance is in there as a backup plan.

The discussion— one of the things I'd like to say is I'd like to— you know, it's going to go to the public hearing. But I'd strongly suggest that we move— swap item number 9 with item number 4. The whole idea of going out on that was to get that funded under here, so it needs to be number 4 and move the insurance down to number 9. If we do that, then we won't have the backup plan, Mr. Mayor. I think we do.

Why don't we? You're asking for it to be a backup. It's already been spent. It's already been spent. So if we use the ARPA funds to replace that, we would have that much in the general fund that we could use towards the mental health buildings.

It's just shifting from one account to another in the event that something happened and we weren't able to finish or the contractor backed out or whatever. It just—. Isn't that already in there if you swap the health insurance for number 4 just like the rest of them down the line? What you're doing is you're taking— right now you're putting the smaller amounts above it. So I have a bit of a problem the way it's prioritized there.

I think that the abatement on those buildings needs to be in the top 4, and then that insurance is down there as a backup. You're—. Rather than taking the money out as insurance first, and then we're going to have to transfer it to that account, is what you're proposing, the way I understand. It is your prerogative to change the order in which you feel is necessary. This was done by the finance Director in the order to ensure that that money was all completely used.

So we can ask her more questions about that, or you can reorder it however you would like. Well, we can— I don't have a problem. We can do it at the public hearing. And we will also fix the spelling of FUND on number 3. Thank you.

FUD.

Okay. Any further discussion? Moving on, we got contracts. Contract number FY2025-42, Kodiak Fisheries Research Center elevator maintenance service contract with TK Elevator Corporation, not to exceed $34,300. Staff reporting.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Kodiak Fisheries Research Center has an elevator that requires quarterly and annual maintenance. And elevator code required testing to continue operating. The Engineering and Facilities Department advertised the invitation to bid on the Kodiak Island Borough website beginning on December 23rd, 2024, and advertised for the designated 3 weeks per Kodiak Island Borough Code 3.30.040, and the bids were due by January 22nd, 2025. Staff received one big pack— bid package.

Following the review of the bid package for responsiveness, Staff determined TK Elevator Corporation to be a responsible bidder. Previous contract was in fiscal year 2020. It was number 10 for the KFRC elevator maintenance services. It was also with TK Elevator. The total cost back then was $12,791.99.

I have both the engineering facilities director and extra help already moved up to explain any questions that you might have about the contract.

Patricia, go ahead and let you explain.

So, um, good evening.

So this is our elevator maintenance contract for KFRC. We have the one elevator over there, and this is for the maintenance and services of it that is done quarterly. We also have a Category 5 test, which is a weight test that has to be done every 5 years. I did want to make an edit to the description here. The previous contract was approved as a not to exceed $25,000, and the costs were separate.

I ran a report for finance— financials on this. The total cost for the quarterly maintenance was the $12,791.99 that I listed there, and the other half was some bigger maintenance items that came up throughout the contract time period, which was a total of $12,202.16, making the total cost on the elevator in the last contract term $24,994.15. And I'm just going to sneak there and say that that $34,300 is for a 4-year term. It's not annual. That's what I was going to ask.

Thank you. 4 Years is what that term's for. Yep. Larry. Trish, I have a question.

The school district has 3 elevators that they maintain and repair. Has— does the Bureau work with the school district to perhaps combine the annual review and maintenance of all these computers? Would they save money if they did all 4 of them instead of just 1?

I'll let Dave handle that one.

As we have a GSA lease for that particular building, we're required to have a separate contract specific to that. Currently, the borough is involved with the school district where the— we have a bid out right now for the rebuild. So typically we don't handle the maintenance agreement. It could be looked at so we could try like multiple elevators. It would be— to me, it would be great if all of the borough facilities could be considered as into one contract because you'd have a more of a reason for folks to come down here.

Your elevator contractors come down here. The longer they're down here, if something breaks down, the easier it is to get something fixed. There's only so many elevators. The problem is that there's so many different generations of elevators that I'm not sure that a single vendor would have the same pricing. I'm not sure there'd be comparable pricing for each of the elevators because of the age age and the potential risk for having to replace outdated equipment.

So you would have to look at whether or not that would balance. I appreciate that. It just seems like, you know, the hospital, Canna, different agencies that all manage elevators, and it costs a lot of money to bring them down. And the same with fire alarm systems and that kind of thing. It seems like if we could ever get together with all of those and come up with, even if it's different.

There could be separate bids, but we'd save money in the, the context of the contract. So we are currently out— we're about ready to put out for the hospital elevators as well as the middle school elevator. So we are trying to group things together so that while they're working on one elevator at, you know, at the hospital, they'll move to the second elevator, and then they'll move to the middle school. We'll have them there for a longer duration and we put the middle school at the end. And please don't think I don't think it important, but it would be better to do it in an order like that because we have critical issues at the hospital with transporting patients where we can avoid that at the middle school, but they're here longer for that warranty period.

So those are the kinds of things we're looking for for elevators. Any questions? Thank you, Dave. Thank you, Patricia. On there.

So next, other items. Confirmation of mayoral appointments to the Planning and Zoning Commission city seats of Sean Clary and Nick Mangini is what the proposal is. That's what came from the city, and, uh, I agree with those. So next is manager's comments. Amy.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Kodiak Island Borough School District decided to close North Star Elementary for the 2025-2026 school year. The first discussion of the impacts of the closure decision by the assembly will be scheduled for the work session on February 13th. On the Russian River Bank stabilization project, we were able to meet with the Alaska Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to learn about the cost share and the 5 to 10 year timeline required to complete a Corps project. Our residents who were also there at the meeting that are very affected by the changing river channel cannot wait to act.

And so after they heard the story and the situation, they told us about a different U.S. Army Corps of Engineers program called the Flood Plane Management Services Program. We submitted a letter and aerial views and lot lines and all the maps we could get of the area and sent that into the Corps. And I had the same day got the chief of the Civil Works Project Management Branch came back right away and said they received our letter and they're going to review the project and get back to us with next steps. So I'm happy to be making progress for them. That will be more short-term mitigation, and the Corps is still interested in talking to us about long-term mitigation, and that would be more like rechannelization of that river.

The new airport parking rules begin on February 1st, so right around the corner. That will be day one of any vehicle that is left there. If you're there for more than 14 days, you will be ticketed and subject to removal. Uh, the fiscal year '26 Budget has kicked off. Uh, the finance director and I have met with the clerks, engineering facilities, community development department, and assessing to review their level 1 budgets.

The last department budget reviews are scheduled for tomorrow, and the level 1 budget will be ready, uh, to be handed out to the assembly on February 20th. At our next agenda setting, which is on Monday, we're going to set dates to review the department budgets, and we also— you'll know what kind of schedule we have going forward on which departments will be here. I think that worked really well, uh, last year, kind of just focusing on one department at a time. If you have any suggestions on how you want that process to change, please let me know. Uh, for the service district contracts, we've made a lot of progress.

The draft template was completed on January 24th. Meeting with Alaska Department of Labor was completed yesterday on the 29th, and this morning the ENF staff had a— their first meeting with the service area representatives. So, um, had a lot of questions this morning, but we're off to a good start and we're still on pace for the timeline that I've given. We have interviews complete and we're preparing job offers for an associate planner that will be our long range and associate planner that will be our code enforcement. Those are two current employees that are moving up into two new job descriptions, and I'm working with the union just to make sure that we're following practices on how to make sure that they're taken care of as best as we can.

In finance, the severance tax and transient accommodation tax reporting deadline is coming up. The reporting and payment deadline for activity that occurred between October 1st and December 31st is January 31st, which is tomorrow. So if you haven't paid those, please get into the borough. Even if you have no activity, you still must report, and if you don't report, you are subject to a no-filing penalty. We are at the very end of the 2024 foreclosure, foreclosure process.

Tomorrow is the payment deadline for removing properties from the annual 4-week publication of the foreclosure list. Properties with delinquent balances on February 1st will be assessed additional fees and interest and will be published in the local newspaper for 4 consecutive weeks beginning mid-February. Please contact the finance department to get get an updated payoff amount if you know that you owe money. For our property assessment and taxation implementation project, uh, we're back to our regular scheduled meetings with Tyler. The main focus is still on assessing, and they're trying to get assessing stuff, but done before they start getting really busy in March.

Our go-live date is still expected to be June 25th, and for probably like 5 weeks now, I've told you that we've been 21% complete. I have been assured that lots of stuff are going around— going on in the background, but they just aren't all the way done. So they're not willing to move our number until they're all the way complete, because I know it's about February and June 25th isn't that far away. So I was starting to get nervous. In Community Development, we had a planning team meet about the multi-jurisdictional multi-hazard mitigation plan on January 21st.

They reviewed version 2 of the draft of the plan. Additional comments were received and the plan document was updated by community development staff. The next step is going to be to schedule a review by the assembly. This is a 364-page document, so as soon as we are able to get it to a size that we can actually email you or give you a link to it on the web page, we're going to give that out as soon as possible because it's a lot of material to take in. The Planning and Zoning Commission will have their next work session on February 12th, 2025.

In assessing, we had a total of 33 seniors and 4 disabled veterans that did not file for 2025. Of those, we've received 5 senior citizens, um, have provided us with late file applications, and we had one disabled veteran who was a new filer filed— also filed a late application. Um, assessing and CANA are going to be here on February 27th to to tell you about how their trip to all the villages worked out this year. Foreshadowing is that it went very well. Assessing has not seen a leveling or decrease in values for properties.

Sales are continuing to increase compared to our assessed values. Notice of values are going to be mailed on February 26th, 2025, and the appeal period begins February 27th, 2025 and runs through March 28th, 2025. So if you get in the mail your notice of value and you have an issue with it, you need to come into the borough during that appeal period and talk to the assessing department. We had our new appraiser tech start on January 21st. His name is Chris Glade.

He came back for a second week, so things are looking good. Mr. Glade is also a volunteer firefighter at Bayside, and so we're working with him in the union to to make sure that he can still leave his job and go respond to any fire calls that happen while he's here at work at the borough. In engineering facilities, in regards to the budget, Dave met with both me and Dora to review his section of the budget. Dave has a lot of budgets, and so— Dave, what, 15, 12, 16? 16 Budgets.

So we made it all through, all the way through Dave's different budgets. We're evaluating the need increased staff numbers due to anticipated expansion of workload, and that's tied to those service district contracts and quality assurance. Um, and staff is prioritizing projects and vehicle and machinery requests for the budget as well. Um, next week, Dave and Jenna will be presenting at the Alaska Forum for the Environment about the history and operation of the Kodiak Island Borough Landfill. There's a focus on Class 1 landfills at this conference, and Class 1 that they have a large volume of stuff going into the landfill.

In the borough building, we have an abatement project associated with the roof drain that needs to be repaired by plumbers and staff after clearance. The—. If you were to walk through the building, you would just see a bunch of red tape on the ceiling, but that's the asbestos test area. And we have a new heat pump AC unit that's been installed installed for the information technology space. There's a controller that came that didn't work properly, but a replacement has been ordered, and the completion and startup for the new unit will be taking place as soon as it gets here.

We have an old rooftop AC unit that's going to be turned off and secured until spring, and then we'll remove it and repair the roof structure and membrane after that's removed. That old AC unit has been dripping, dripping, dripping on top of our servers in the IT space for quite some time, so we're excited to get that old one removed and have those, that, those electronics be in a better condition. At the mental health buildings, the contractor delayed the proposed start date into March and plans to perform abatement and limited demolition in both facilities in a single mobilization effort instead of multiple times. All non-asbestos material will removed for salvage or disposal at the borough. At the KFRC, we had a GSA meeting where our 10/17 financial submittals were discussed and will be reviewed.

Those financial statements are the statements that determine how much rent NOAA pays us. Uh, KABENF staff and the manager met with NOAA leadership to discuss the status of the seawater system and repair. A lot of good information was traded back on back and forth. It's amazing how much information our staff knows about that building. We just went over the elevator maintenance contract that will be in the meeting next week.

Out at the landfill, structure analysis of the baler floor resulted in a restriction of certain vehicles being used at the same time or in specific locations on the floor. So they are putting signs out there saying, "Do not pass this mark when you are leaving trash out there. At the leachate treatment plant, we are still having issues with the lagoon intermittently overflowing due to all of our rain. Discharges are being documented and reported to ADC as required by their permits. For the school district out at Shinniack School, the electrical step-down transformer was installed and the facility well has been reestablished, so they do not have to continue to bring water out, uh, to the school except for from drinking water.

Then we already talked about the school closure, but that has changed how we're looking at that school. It will change the design decisions that we're going to make. I know the mayor is excited about not repairing the, the skylight and putting a flat roof on that school, but that will be up for discussion. So the roof design, and then it also affects the Ot Maloy project because the Ot Maloy project, we added Safe Pathways to School, and it is now Safe Pathways to— I don't know what yet. So, but I have talked to James Brown with South Coast who's running that project, and they are continuing right now just as we had asked before until we determine what the status of that building will be, and then we'll discuss more about what that looks like.

In the information technology, we have two— our LTPs out for the 2023 grant awards to KIB for the local cybersecurity grant program. Um, for security, they're working with Darktrace engineers to whitelist storage network. We'll have to bring Fred in if you wanna know what that means. Um, there's a new Windows 11 monitoring PC that was installed and deployed at the LTP, and they are also working out there to get, uh, better Wi-Fi signals so they can walk around the plant and have— be connected. IT is really busy.

They're setting up microphones here in the chambers for our joint work session with the city of Kodiak on February 4th. They're also redesigning the display and camera layout in the conference room downstairs, and they're working on electrical power issues with ENF, um, in the assessing engineering facilities and community development offices. They were having power fluctuations, and so that got taken care of this week, and, um, there were 3 junction boxes that have been wired incorrectly since install. And in all the junction boxes, there's only 2 colors of wire instead of the normal amount of colors of wire. So it was very hard to tell which should be red and which should be black when they were up there.

Um, and finally, um, we started having meetings with our electronic time clock software folks. Both finance and IT are meeting, and so we're finally going to switch in the near future from paper to electronic timesheets. Some people are upset about this, but I'm very excited to see the paper go away. Uh, we have a couple of reminders for when we do start budget discussions for fiscal year '26, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Dave.

Thank you. This Baylor floor, is that while the curing continues that this weight limit? No, it is cured. The only thing that has to be done yet is we have to put a sealant in the floor where the cracks are, and that product delivery has been delayed. That— correct me if I'm wrong, Dave— that limit on where they can go up, that's a permanent, just for structural integrity of the floor.

Didn't— wasn't that project just completed? It was just completed, but just a resurfacing. So when they did core samples, they did them all over the floor, and amazingly, they did not identify the portions of the floor that were not cured correctly, or they used a different kind. When they started taking the surface of the Bailer floor off, it was almost like you hit the surface of the moon because there was a layer that was—. Like a delamination.

Yeah, there was a layer just covered in footprints, probably as they were walking through it. They thought that no one would ever see that. And so the— right, the structural engineer advised the parameters of how far those heavy trucks— not everything, but the heaviest of trucks— can only go so far into the facility.

It doesn't sound like a very successful outcome. Well, it had nothing to do with the job. It had to do to do with reevaluating the building. The building has been there for 30-plus years, so consequently, with changing structure and changing internal components, we asked to have an evaluation. There were already cracks, and there still remains cracks in the building.

So what we're trying to do is verify our structural loads so as not to potentially threaten our safety of our workforce. So they can only put the bull bulldozer so far in because there's an unsupported slab. You can only put the largest compactor truck that Alaska Waste drives, you can only go back so far on it so you're not overloading those sections over the grade beams down below. Happy to go out there with you sometime if you'd like and show you that it's an old building. So you got to worry about what the integrity of that building is.

Anytime you do a structural change. Thank you. Any other questions? Bo? Thank you.

I don't have any questions. I do want to pass along some thanks from members of the community who are appreciative of Engineering and Facilities improving access at the Dark Lake dumpsters. They said it was a substantial improvement and they are really happy about it. So thanks for the timely response there. And a lot of these discussions we're having, the Baylor facility being an old building, Class I landfill means large volume in the landfill, and recent public testimony all make me feel compelled to dust off the transfer station topic.

So I will be doing that at some point in the near future.

Any other comments on the manager's report? Seeing none, we'll move on to the clerk's report. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the assembly. It's great to be back. I had a wonderful vacation, and I'm really grateful to Lena and Irene for covering for me during my time off.

It was great to get all the positive feedback from elected officials, co-workers, and the public. About how well Lena managed the clerk's office while I was gone. I would like to also extend my congratulations to Irene on achieving the prestigious Certified Municipal Clerk designation from the International Institute of Municipal Clerks. It's impressive that she finished her certification in only 2 years, which is a whole year faster than the typical 3-year period. Period.

She's excellent. She's an excellent employee. The borough offices will be closed on February 17th for President's Day. A friendly reminder that the APOC financial disclosure email was sent to you on January 9th. Please remember that the POFD forms are due by March 15th.

It's important to file on time to avoid any penalties for late submissions. For fiscal year 2025, we have filed a total of 5 PLATS, and we have one pending for case number S23-011. Records update: as of today, we've successfully processed 24 records requests for fiscal year '25, with one still pending that is due on February 5th. We wrapped up our records inventory for the calendar year 2020. 24Th.

On December 27th, a records disposal report will be forthcoming. Our online code is current. Every time you adopt an ordinance, we send that over to a code publishing company and they update our online code, and that— they, they are on top of it. And then twice a year, we send out paper supplements were code. Liquor licenses, we processed quite a few this past few months.

We have processed a renewal for American Legion Henry's and the Second Floor Restaurant. ABC board meeting on Tuesday, February 4th from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. I attached an agenda. The complete agenda is 23 pages and I have it here. Here.

So I just gave you a 2-page, the front cover, if you'd like to participate or listen in to the Zoom meeting. And then I believe the transfers or the, the letters that we submitted will be dealt with at the end, towards the end of the meeting. So we have I have the draft code revision that I will be presenting to the assembly in the next work sessions. I'd like us to completely go through the process of appeal and see if there's anything else I could add to that new code that we drafted. Boards and committees, we started staffing back the Kodiak Fisheries Work Group, and the Borough Lands Committee is active again, and we're also staffing and supporting those meetings.

Administra— with the recent appointments of, um, different board members, uh, we were asking them to come in to take their oaths of office before they start serving on the different committees and boards. We're also in preparations for the Board of Equalization appeal this year. We're setting up a training for the Board of Equalization. I think We're going to do that, schedule that on April 24th. The Board of Equalization filing appeals to the clerk's office will start on February 27th until March 28th.

The BOE meeting this year is scheduled on Monday, May 5th. Um, the assembly agenda item request spreadsheet is attached to this report. It's on the very back. Budgets, we're doing good. Um, 7-month In 7 months into the fiscal year FY25, the legislative budget is at 62%, the clerk's office budget is at 57%.

I met with the borough manager today and discussed the upcoming FY2026 legislative and clerk's budgets. I've been communicating— we've been communicating with the service area boards for noticing and advertising the service area budget public hearings. Travel and leave. The Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference will be held in March. You have— we have the money in your budget.

If you would like to attend, please let us know. We have been working on travel arrangements for the mayor to attend NACO conference, lobbying efforts in DC, and also AML legislative conference. Juneau. Please keep me in the loop if you are planning to take time off so we can predetermine quorum for upcoming meetings. Also, notice of vacancies.

I want to take a moment tonight to highlight how crucial it is to serve on various boards, particularly the service area boards. We currently have some openings available for the Bayview Road Service Area Board. There's one seat seat open. The Manasheka Bay Service Area Board, we have 3 seats. The Fire Protection Area Number 1 Board, there's 1 seat.

The Woodland Acres Streetlight Service Area Board, there's 3 seats. The Women's Bay Service Area Board, there's 1 seat. I strongly encourage residents of the service areas to consider volunteering for these boards. Applying is a straightforward process. And people can apply online.

Filing for this vacancy is essential for the effective operation of the board. Board members and the public's input will also be valuable for the development of the budgets for these service areas. And then I would like to remind everyone that you have a joint work session with the City of Kodiak. It's going to be held here in the Assembly Chambers, and it will start at 6:30 PM on Tuesday, February 4th. And that's all I have.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Any questions of Nova? Thank you, Nova. Um, next item is, uh, assembly member comments. Ryan, I'd like to let you go first at this time, please.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't have any comment at this time. Thank you. Okay. Scott?

No comments. Larry? I just wanted to thank Dora for her great presentation. Thank you. Dave?

No additional comment. Thank you. Jarrod? A couple of things to the Manager. Thanks for just like— I think I sent you a panicked email early Tuesday morning about what our federal grant and loan situation looks like, and it sounds like it's going to be okay.

Nova brought up vacancies on boards, committees, and commissions, and this is actually tied to short-term rentals. When communities that experience a high rate of short-term rentals experience a lot of a lack of social and community cohesion. That means more short-term rentals. That means less participation in the civic government and in civics, less participation in basic things like newspaper subscriptions or PTA involvement, other boards. That, that lack of housing, increase of transient population is not good spiritually or civically in a way for the community either.

So I think we should also keep that in mind when we are talking about STRs. And then what was the other thing? Oh, and then also on page 3 of NOVA's report, NOVA mentioned federal lobbying for Assembly discussion. I think I requested this. I'll have to go back and double-check.

It's important for the Assembly to talk about— to talk to the mayor directly and set expectations for the mayor and any of us who are going to be going, not just the mayor, but any of us who are going to be going to conferences and advocating and lobbying to our constituents— not constituents, our colleagues, our state legislators, and our our federal delegation also. I think we should come up with a set of expectations and points and positions or policy interests that we would like the Mayor and those who are traveling to reiterate and kind of be on message so that we can speak with as much univocality as we possibly can. Thank you. Univocality, one voice. Thank you.

Bo? Nothing further to add. Thank you. Thank you. And I have no further comments, so we will adjourn this work session at 8:46.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, NOVA.