Mat-Su Borough: Assembly Meeting - July 21. 2026

If I can have the assembly come back to the— thank you.

I'm going to go ahead and call this meeting to order at 6 PM. This is a regular meeting for Tuesday. July 21st, 2026. Madam Clerk. Michael Bowles.

Present. Stephanie Nowers. Here. I'm expecting Dee McKee. Maxwell Sumner.

Present. Bill Gamble. Here. Dimitri Bonoff. Here.

Ron Bernier. Present. Madam Mayor, you have a quorum. Thank you. Is there anything that any members would like to pull from the consent agenda assembly Person fall off.

Go ahead. Uh, ordinance 26036.

From the consent agenda? No, from the public hearings. He's not talking about the consent agenda now. Okay, can, can you wait to the next part for the changes on the agenda while we deal just with the consent agenda for a minute, please? Okay, thank you.

Okay, and then I— somebody— I heard somebody ask down here what, what it was. Did everybody hear his motion? No. Are we doing the consent agenda? Yeah, we're doing the consent.

Yeah. Okay, Scott, uh, person Sumner 26098. I'd like to pull up the consent agenda. That's AM 26098, page 7. Okay.

And that's just— that's just a recusal.

Okay. Anyone else on the consent agenda?

Okay. Now, are there any other changes to the agendas? Assemblyperson Falafel, I'll recognize you. Yep. OR-26036.

Which number did he say? He said Ordinance 26036. It's page— well, not on yours— page 4 at the bottom of the agenda. It's the last public hearing. Oh, okay, thank you.

Is there objections? Okay, we do have objection to pull So this is the ordinance that would, um, limit exemptions of overweight vehicles on our roads during breakup to emergencies only. This was postponed, um, in part so that we would have some data from this past season when we were allowing exemptions. So it's back on the agenda now because we were waiting for that information in part, and I would urge my fellow assembly members to keep this on the agenda and allow the public to testify on it. It's advertised as a public hearing, and then we can dispense with it, uh, how we see fit.

But I think we, we owe the public a hearing on it and a discussion about it. Okay, there is objection. Assemblyperson Summer, go ahead. I would just like to hear a piece from Mr. Farnoff. About it.

Okay, well, we already had the report and the success of it, and I don't see it— we have a lot more things on the agenda that will probably take a lot more time, and I don't see that result changing after I'm successful— the report that we had. So just to save the time and to not give people false hope, I just want— and that's— I just— that's my decision for it. Further discussion by the assembly? Okay, Madam Clerk, I guess we need to vote, please. If I can get the members to vote on removing that ordinance.

Madam Mayor, it is passed with Assemblymember Gamble and Nowers opposed.

Okay, is there any further Changes. I'm sorry, Assemblyperson Bolts. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move to remove for reconsideration OR 26-072 from the agenda.

It's Ordinance 26072. It's close to the end, Madam Mayor. It's right before assembly and staff comments.

Okay, is there objection? Speak to it. I actually had a parliamentary question. Can it be removed since it's a reconsideration?

Through the mayor to Assemblymember Sumner, the assembly sets the agenda. Now whether somebody could reconsider it again, I don't know. I'd have to do some research.

Can, can we have the conversation on the On the mics, please, so that everybody knows. Thank you.

I missed that. What was that? We were asking what the conversation was, so that if there was some information that was useful to the body. He wasn't sure. Oh, if you could reconsider it again.

If it could be moved to be reconsidered later. So if it does get removed, then I think the clerk might have to do some digging to see if it can be also reconsidered again when we get to the reconsiderations, because I'm not clear on that either. I'd like to rephrase my motion, Madam Mayor. So I move to table indefinitely the reconsideration of Ordinance 26-072. Nice.

Go ahead, ma'am. Through the mayor to Assemblymember Bowles, you— there's no motion on the floor right now, so you can't move to table. Table wouldn't be appropriate. And to postpone, there is no motion on the floor right now to postpone. So I'll go back to my original motion then to remove it from the agenda.

Okay, Madam Mayor, this again for anybody who's watching at home is the ordinance that would put a measure on the ballot that would give a $75,000 property tax exemption, um, and for people living here and a 1.5% area-wide, uh, 1.5%, uh, area-wide sales tax outside the cities, although that was modified to be a 1% borough-wide sales tax. This has been a topic of discussion for quite a while. Mr. Bowles, you started the conversation. Um, I think we had a conversation a couple meetings ago about not changing the agenda at the last minute, and people are here, they see it on the agenda. If we want to vote it up and down, fine, but this is an important topic, I think, to the public to try to figure out how we could reduce property taxes.

This is one way we could do it, and Miss McKee asked for reconsideration, so I think we should just leave it on. And, um, this is a topic we're going to continue to talk about, um, and it deserves the time and consideration of it. And maybe just out of respect for Miss McKee as well. Thank you. Okay, so, for some votes.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And, um, so this, this was not a discussion I brought up. I have never talked about bringing in a new tax on top of all of the other taxes we already have. Um, this was overwhelmingly voted down, and, um, I think that we should just let it, let it stay dead. Um, there's no reason for us to consider bringing in a sales tax on top of all of the other taxes we already have.

So I would urge my fellow assembly members, to vote this and remove this from the agenda. Okay, let the record show that Assemblyperson McKee has arrived. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Since Assemblymember McKee just arrived, I wanted to let her know what's on the floor right now. The motion on the floor— we're setting the agenda— the motion on the floor right now is to remove Ordinance 26072 under reconsideration from the agenda.

Okay, ready? Assemblyperson Sumner, would you comment? Uh, yeah, this was, uh, 4-3, and I think Miss McKee, uh, wanted more discussion on it, so out of respect for her, I'm gonna vote to keep it on the agenda. Okay, further comments? I just assume we have an objection to removing it.

So I don't see anybody. Madam Clerk, if I can get the members to go ahead and vote on the removal of the ordinance from the agenda.

Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Gamble and Bowles in support. Okay, are there any further motions to change the agenda?

And Assemblyperson McKee, we had already talked about making, uh, pulling items from the consent agenda, but since you just arrived, do you have items to pull from the consent agenda?

No. Okay, already. So I see or hear anything else. So the agenda then has been approved as presented and amended. If you'll all rise and see, where did he go?

I thought, did I see Mayor Cooper out there someplace at one time? And did he take off? Oh, okay. I was going to have him. So I was going to have him lead us in the pledge, but I'll just do it.

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

The next item on our agenda is minutes from the preceding meeting. Those include assembly regular meeting minutes of the 19th of May of '26. The special meeting minutes of June 2nd, 2026, and assembly regular meeting of June 6th— or June 2nd, 2026. Are there any corrections to these meeting minutes? Okay, hearing none, then the minutes are approved.

The next items are agency reports. Um, again, I guess Mayor Cooper has not returned. I don't see anybody from Wasilla or Houston. I don't see anybody from the school district. Um, and I don't see anybody from the state of Alaska.

Don't see anybody from the Matsu Valley Planning for— where's she at? Oh, there she is. Yeah, thank you. Would you come forth please and state your name? And I know you have a presentation for us.

Kim, you'll have to turn on the mic. Thank you. All right.

Well, good evening. My name is Kim Solian. I'm the executive director of Matsu Valley Planning for Transportation, or MVP as we like to call ourselves. Thanks for having us tonight. Um, I'm here to give an update on our Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the development of our Transportation Improvement Program, and to highlight some of the projects, um, Matsu Borough staff have applied for, um, and some of the next steps we need, um, that we're looking for from the assembly.

So, as a refresher, MVP is a metropolitan planning organization. We are a federally funded and federally required transportation planning organization. When the Mat-Su Borough was designated as having an urban area after the 2020 census, we were required to form an MPO. So, uh, We have worked for a number of years prior to that census certification, um, and formed a nonprofit organization governed by a 7-member policy board. Policy board is made up of elected appointed officials from the Mat-Su Borough.

Manager Brown and Mayor DeVries serve on our policy board, as does the mayor of the city of Palmer, the mayor of the city of Wasilla, the deputy director for the DOT, or the deputy commissioner and 2 tribal representatives. Um, so again, we're a nonprofit and our primary purpose is long-range planning for transportation infrastructure. And then we have the ability to program the federal funds that come into our region for transportation projects. So tonight I wanted to hit a highlight— hit some highlights related to our Metropolitan Transportation Plan. That's our 20-year long-range transportation plan.

It's one of the 4 federally required plans that we're required to do. And we've made some progress since the last time I came to see you in January. So I wanted to give you a little bit of an overview. So last January, I came and gave a presentation letting you know that we are kicking off this transportation plan and that we would be calling for projects from local jurisdictions to nominate for that plan. So the public comment or the public nomination period was open for just over 30 days.

We received a total of 87 project nominations from members of the public from the Mat-Su Borough and from the cities of Palmer and Wasilla. Um, once we collected all those nominations, we vetted them to make sure that they were eligible for federal funding. We received roadway projects, active transportation projects like bike and pedestrian facilities, and a number of transit projects also came in. Once we determined which projects were available for funding, then we ran them through a scoring matrix and prioritized those projects. Um, and I'll talk a little bit more about that in a second.

Uh, the phase we're in right now is our policy board has approved the draft MTP project list. So the project list spans a 25-year horizon. Um, and, uh, if any, any of those projects, um, are nominated for our TIP, they would be eligible for federal funding. So, as I, I forgot to mention earlier, our, uh, we will receive about an allocation of about $10 million a year to program to projects, and that's why we collected project nominations so that we can program those funds. So right now we're in the process of finalizing the narrative portion of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

Uh, we expect to release that plan for a 30-day public comment period, um, in October. Uh, and then we're also starting to work on our TIP, which is our short-term funding plan for the projects in the short term that we've received. We're also hoping to finalize the Metropolitan Transportation Plan by December. That is a federal requirement. If we are not able to finalize the plan and finalize our Transportation Improvement Program, our TIP, in December, no federal funding will be— transportation funding will be allowed to be spent in the greater core area.

So it's really important that we get the plan completed so a lot of the state projects that are happening can move forward and the projects that have been nominated to our plan can move forward.

So I mentioned that we received 87 project nominations, um, uh, during the development of, uh, our Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Some of the main things that we do is look at the transportation infrastructure that exists here in the MATSU and try to understand what are the safety issues, what are the congestion issues, what are the connectivity issues, what are the multimodal issues, what's preventing our community from being able to get safely from where they need to— from where they are to where they need to go. And then we develop goals and objectives around some of the issues that we see in our network. And then those goals and objectives that are listed here form criteria. So each project that was applied for is weighed against the criteria and given points.

Is it helping improve safety for all modes? Does it leverage additional funding? Does it support, you know, the state of good repair, like pavement preservation? Does it enhance the multimodal network? So all of those projects were scored.

Matsuburo applied for 57 projects. Uh, 42 of them were roadway projects, 11 were active transportation projects, and 5 were planning projects. Um, once we evaluated the projects and scored the projects, then they were shuffled into short-term, mid-term, and long-range 2 buckets because our short-term range match— it's a 4-year time ban, and that matches our TIP. Normally, in a normal cycle, an MPO isn't developing a Metropolitan Transportation Plan and a TIP at the same time, but because this is our first time, we're having to do both of these concurrently. So the MTP will be updated every 5 years.

The TIP is updated annually, but a brand new TIP is created every 4 years. We also have a number of illustrative projects in your packet is the full project list of all the projects that were applied for. So you'll see the projects, they're color coded. The white projects are the boroughs, um, the pink color are City of Wasilla, and the green are Palmer. Um, that lists all the projects and all the time bands, plus the illustrative.

So if we happen to have additional funding, um, we could move one of those illustrative projects into our TIP.

Um, okay, so here is how the projects shook out. It's hard. I apologize for those of you in the room if you don't— you can't see the screen. Um, it lists all the projects in the short-term time band, the mid-range time band, and the long-range time band. Um, when we scored and evaluated the projects, then we brought the projects to our technical committee and policy board.

Just a couple more slides. I'm sorry. And Matsuburo staff and city staff were able to also reprioritize some of the projects. So that's why you'll notice the numbers don't go in order, because decisions were made to prioritize certain projects over other projects.

So now that we have our MTP project list finalized, as I said, and we are moving forward with the narrative portion of the MTP, we need to start working on our TIP, our Transportation Improvement Program.

So that's our short-term, 4-year, short-range project funding program. We have 3 sources of funding that we can use to program projects. All projects that are going to be programmed in the TIP have to also show up in the MTP. We probably will likely update the TIP annually, and it also must be fiscally constrained. So like I said, we will receive about $10 million a year in project funding, and we have to make sure that we don't program more projects in our TIP than we'll actually be able to afford.

So the relationship between the MTP and the TIP, we kind of like to say that the MTP is high level, really looks at the system, the transportation system, and proposes high-level vision about what needs to change to improve the network. And then the TIP pulls projects into a funding plan so that those projects that were applied for can happen.

So, as I mentioned, we finalized our MTP project list in June, and we've started the development of our, uh, TIP. Um, we expect to release the MTP for public comment in October. We expect to release the draft TIP for public comment in November, and both the MTP and TIP will hopefully be adopted by the policy board in December.

My big ask for you tonight is that in order for us to program the Mat-Su Borough's short-range projects that are in our MTP list, we need a resolution from the assembly stating that this short-term project list are also your priorities. So our hope is that you will work with staff, um, Manager Brown and Mayor DeVries, and Tom Adams is on our technical committee, and Alex Strawn is also on our technical committee. They and their staff applied for all these projects. So we need a resolution from the assembly that says these short-term projects are your priority and that you commit to paying the 9.03%. Non-federal share for each of those projects.

So, in the, in your packet, in the, in the project list, there is a planning level cost estimate for each of the projects, and then the estimated 9.03% match that would be associated. Now, these are planning level cost estimates. The cost estimates are going to change once we move projects to scope, schedule, and estimate. So, You wouldn't be— the resolution wouldn't say an exact amount that you are committing, just that these projects are the priority. And if they come forward, you commit to paying the match.

Um, if you add projects from the larger MTP list to the short-term list, it doesn't mean that they will be funded. It means that they are eligible for funding. And so we will take your resolution and we will go to the drawing board. We will program our TIP and work with our Technical Committee and Policy Board to finalize that. Um, I think that's what our— also, our hope is to have this resolution by early September.

So that gives us the confidence to finalize the TIP and have it available for public review in November.

So, thank you for your time. I know I ran over. I do want to encourage you, if you have questions about any of the projects in the short-term list or long-term list, um, that you work with your staff to, to talk about why these projects, why were they a priority, why they applied for, um, since we just create the container. So we act like a funding agency. We just create the process, um, and make it transparent, um, and, you know, validate that the projects will support improving our transportation network, but they're your projects that your staff applied for.

And that's all I have for a presentation. I don't know, I've never done an agency report before. I don't know if you ask questions, and if not, I'll just pause and say thank you, and you can email me a question later. Assemblyperson Fono, did you—. I don't know if I missed, but, um, the ones that are in the cities, is that match coming from city or also from borough?

The, the projects that the city of Wasilla and the city of Palmer have applied for, they will be responsible for their own match. Okay. And this order, is there any specific reason the numbers on them, or is that the priority, or how are they? Yeah, scored through the mayor to Assemblymember Fanoff. That's a great question.

So when we scored and evaluated the projects, they were in a ranked order based on our prioritization criteria. Then in work sessions with our technical committee and policy board, um, Basically, borough staff helped reprioritize the project, so they were evaluated on the criteria that we developed, and your staff said this one's a priority over this one, and that's why the numbers aren't in order. Okay, and if the, um, our resolution does not match exactly the same order, um, does that change anything? Your res—. So The MTP and the TIP are partner documents, but they are separate.

So the, the— what matters is you may pick anything off the long-term list and put it, or the, the total MTP list, and add that to your resolution. But it isn't a guarantee that it will move forward in this current TIP. So I'm encouraging you to submit your resolution that includes all of the projects in the short-term time band, but if there are others you want to move over, that is your, as the governing body, prerogative. I guess the question was, if we don't include someone because we don't feel like they're as high of a priority, um, I'm not talking about adding new ones, does that change anything or no? Um, no, you, you, you don't have to include all of the projects in the short-term time band.

That will leave potential funds on the table that I assume the City of Wasilla and the City of Palmer might, um, utilize. Okay, well, I think there's other ones with only $10 million a year. I think there's other ones that we can move up the ladder. That's what I was thinking. Thank you.

Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So looking at the list, I didn't see any, um, roads in District 1 on that list, and I'm curious, um, the funding that's being requested, the essentially about a million dollars Is it expected that that will be pulled from the RSAs or those roads or where those— that work is going to be done? Or is this going to be an area-wide increase on everybody expected to pay for these roads that aren't necessarily in areas where these people are living?

So through the mayor, Mr. Bowles, it may depend. I think generally our standing authority to fund road projects is through the road service areas. But it is possible you could have a larger collector, and I'll just use Seward Meridian Parkway, that services the entire region or a good portion of the region that may be beyond a road service area's capacity even to come up with the non-federal match. That may be something where we have to go to the voters and ask for area-wide authority or bonding authority. And so that's part of that planning and laying it out because that would take time to get that kind of authority.

And to answer the question, keep in mind when we talk about the MPO and it's, it's geographically bound, right? So there's, there's only a certain area that fits within that urbanized designation that qualify for federal funds to be directed to it. So when you see roads not included from rural areas, that's because that boundary has already been determined and it is largely, as Kim I think used the term, greater core area, I think is, is a fair way to describe it. And, and so to follow up, that's kind of where my concern lies, is, um, you know, the core area, yes, a lot of us use the core area, but I might go to Walmart once every 2 weeks, um, and, you know, um, the boundaries that I'm looking at in here don't involve Kinnick River Road or the Old Glen until it hits the bridge or Sutton or Chickaloon. So where, where are those residents' tax money, um, where is that being seen in this program?

So through Mr.— through the mayor to Mr. Bowles, keep in mind now there are DOT roads that use federal highway dollars and state dollars that go within districts across the entire borough, like the Old Glen Highway. All of that's going to be upgraded using federal highways and state money, and actually probably won't use any local money, right? And so it's not to say that there's not federal funds being programmed to areas outside the greater core area. It's just that DOT gets to do that on our behalf through the STIP, and we don't get the same level of, uh, local input as we do through the MPO.

Go ahead. And if I would, just for the assembly, just so you're aware of this, so we are planning to bring you the resolution. We will draft that. This is your opportunity for input. So if you have thoughts, I would encourage you to reach out to me or Tom Adams, probably.

Uh, so if there are things that you're thinking about or you have questions or you have certain projects, you're like, why don't I see this on there? That would be a question you would direct to, to Tom or, or me. Um, but we will be drafting that and bring it to you, uh, September 1st. That's our plan. We will be pushing this through the TAB and the Planning Commission over the next month or so, so you'll have some advisory board input when that resolution comes to you.

I think that's it. Thank you very much.

Okay, the next item on our agenda is, uh, a joint— uh, was there any joint school or no, no meetings at all? Then assembly public relations. Does any one member of the assembly have public relations they want to note? Okay, I, I have one. Um, I had— there's a gentleman that has retired in our community, um, and I thought that would be worthy of giving, having a proclamation for him, but he's not able to be here tonight, and so I am just going to read it from here.

So, um, strong communities are built by individuals who devote themselves to serving others. Dave Rose was one of those people. He has served as a longtime coordinator of the Matsu Coalition on Housing and Homelessness. He has been a tireless advocate for sustainable solutions to homelessness in our local area. Not only in our local area, but also nonprofits, businesses, faith-based organizations, and community, and also to address the housing situation.

He has played a vital role in organizing and supporting the annual Project for the Homeless Connect event, helping connect individuals and families with critical housing, healthcare, employment, legal, and social services while improving community understanding of local housing needs. And Dave has also been a dedicated and an advocate for successful prisoner reentry, supporting the Matsu Reentry Coalition and promoting housing, employment, and community resources that reduce prisoners returning to prison. Wherefore, his work with the coalition His faithful service of— to the students of the school district as a natural science teacher and homeless student liaison, helping to establish the Families in Transition program to ensure children experiencing homelessness could remain connected to their students and their schools. Throughout his career, he has exemplified servant leadership, and by meeting and treating every individual with dignity and respect, and recognizing that stable housing, meaningful relationships, and compassionate support are the foundation of stronger families and healthier communities. So therefore, I, Edna DeVries, do hereby proclaim our sincere appreciation, thankfulness, and recognition of Dave Rose.

And I encourage all of you, if you've had any kind of contact with him or anything, just reach out and be sure and thank him for what he's done for our community. Thank you.

All righty, Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I had one question for the clerk. Madam Clerk, do you know if there's anything else special about today?

Not quite sure. She might be sitting in between us. I'm not sure. That's what I'm thinking. It might be the mayor's birthday today.

Oh, thank you, Mayor. I, I mean, I don't want to pass on this opportunity. I mean, I'm not one to carry a tune, but if we could get a rendition of Happy Birthday going— are you going to help me out, Dee? Please don't leave me hanging here.

Whoa. Feliz cumpleaños a ti. Actually, it makes more sense because it's happy completion of years. It's not—. No, it's Yeah, anyway, makes more sense.

Come on, can you give us an English version please? Well, as long as somebody else—. I'll pipe in. All right. And one and a two and happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birthday dear man, happy birthday to you.

I do recognize I will probably pay for that later. Happy birthday. I'm, I'm sitting here, Mike's birthday was earlier this year, and he asked us not to do anything for his birthday, and then he does something like this. So I don't know if we will both be here next year or not, but anyway, we'll get you some pipe. But thank you very much.

Very appreciative. That's all the report you have? That's enough, I guess. We can go home, right? Mr. Attorney, report.

Madam Clerk, the clerk's report with the upcoming meetings and election— important election dates and deadlines is in your red folders. And that's it. Okay, the next item on our agenda is citizens and other correspondence. And as I said in my blog, um, if you are involved or you wonder what some of the boards and commissions and stuff do This is an excellent place because they have to turn their meeting minutes into the clerk's office after they have been approved, and so that becomes then part of the record. So if there's a community council you're wondering what's going on, or board of commission, and you're thinking, well, what did they do, or what has happened, this is an excellent place.

So are there any comments from the assembly on the citizens and other correspondence? Okay, hearing none, then they are noted. Madam Clerk. Oh, I'm sorry. So, oh, I just wanted to recognize Sutton, the community of Sutton, and the library staff.

On July 6th, they joined the rest of the nation, 2 o'clock our time, 6 o'clock East Coast time, in reading the Declaration of Independence. And it was really neat to be there. Senator Rauscher was there as well., and, uh, I just really commend them for holding that event, and, uh, it's extremely important. Yes, it's the 250th anniversary, but in my opinion, that needs to be done annually. So, um, thank you to the Sutton Library staff, um, Ms. Busby specifically, for coordinating that, um, effort.

So I think that was great. Assemblyperson McKee. Yeah, just kind of in line with, with the wonderful things that these communities do, we— that parade this year was incredible. I, I I got to— I had to ride a float because my leg doesn't work very well. But there were thousands and thousands of people along the whole route.

I don't know how many thousands of people there were on the 4th of July parade in the rain, in the wind, and everybody's out there, and it was just amazing. So that's what this community is about, and that's amazing.

Anything else?

Okay, now, Madam Clerk, I am 26-134, informing the assembly of the submission of a grant application in the amount of $45,000 26-136, to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, to assist the shelter in expanding access to preventative veterinary services in the borough communities. IM 26-136, informing the assembly of the manager's signature on and submittal of a grant application to the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration for the 49th State Street and Turn Drive fish passage improvements. IM 26-138, notifying the assembly of the submission of a grant application to the Health Foundation Target Wellness Program in an amount not to exceed $25,000 to be used to participate in the National Animal Care Control Association Field Forward program to conduct a comprehensive organizational assessment and strategic review process. Are there any comments on the IEMs?

Hearing none, then they are presented. The next item on our agenda is audience participation. We do have a sign-up sheet. I will ask those people to testify first and And others can testify after that, and we'll also go online. So, Joseph Owens.

And the mic is on, sir, so just go ahead and talk. All right, I'm Joseph Owens, and I want to take the opportunity to thank you for letting me speak in support of Resolution 26065. My wife Phyllis and I own the property at the end of Main Street in Talkeetna. Some of you have been there. Some of you have stayed in our cabins, Alaskan Dreams Cabins.

So our property is certainly at risk from the flooding and the erosion, really the constant erosion. We don't need a flood to have it. It's eroding while we're speaking. But, we're at risk. But the larger picture is the town infrastructure, very expensive infrastructure is at risk.

And repairs have been made in the past, and funding has been available to do that, and they've not been sufficient. It's just been Band-Aids, expensive Band-Aids. But something bigger needs to be done, and the resolution I hope will lead to that, getting the funding to actually make improvements that will stop the problem for good. Thank you. Thank you.

Phyllis?

Thank you for letting us speak today. Chris, I'm probably going to repeat just what Chris just said. That's my husband. State your name, please, for the— Phyllis Owens. Thank you.

Uh, so we're here about the flood resolution, and, um, we encourage you to approve the resolution and funding, uh, funding the funding for the revampment so that, so that it can be fixed now instead of the 5 to 10 year delay that the studies will take. Our property and business at the end of— is at the end of Main Street on the river in Talkeetna, and we've, we've had to close our business temporarily a few times because of the flooding. And we've seen the revetment in front of our property wash away, and so it's, uh, it's alarming. And because we live on the waterfront We can see the imminent danger to the whole town, and we have seen firsthand the drastic changes in the river. We see the river daily, so, so we're much more aware of how serious this situation is.

What we'd like to see is the dike extended to join the revetment, and the revetment built up to the stronger infrastructure and height of the dike. As it is now, we expect during the next flood, we're thinking that probably is going to wash away part of Main Street. Once the resolution is approved and funding received, we ask you to please move quickly to stabilize and make the necessary improvements so the continuous emergencies will be a part of our past. Thank you.

Tom.

All right, she's faster than I am. My name is Tom Robertson, and I'm here tonight to ask for a letter of support from the borough to the state, uh, on Marsh Road, just up the hill here at mile 49 of the Glen Highway. They're building a new fire station, EMS station, and the only access into that fire station is off Marsh Road. That's only one way in and one way out. I'm asking the, the state to have an alternate driveway put, uh, from the Glen Highway to into the parking lot of the new fire station.

There's about 40 feet of dirt that needs to be moved and a gravel park— gravel driveway. About 3 weeks ago, there was an accident at Marsh Road. Marsh Road is at a— it's a blind hill and a blind curve. There's a tractor-trailer that got hit by a pickup truck and blocked the whole road there. So if there was a fire station there, they couldn't have got out or in because there's only one way.

The fire departments don't do business like that. With only one way in and out. They always have an alternative wherever they go, whatever they do, and they needed an alternative because this way they wouldn't have been able to get out. So I'm asking for DOT to do that. DOT does not want to do that.

I've tried to work with emergency manager here for the borough, but DOT says, no, we'll, we'll address it years later, we're going to widen the road years down the road. The fire department can't do business like maybe years down the road they'll widen it and they'll put the driveway in. Then this is the time to do it during the construction, and it's the best time to do it. Again, the fire departments need an alternative way to come and go wherever they go, it doesn't matter. And I needed a letter of support from the borough to DOT stressing an alternative driveway into the new fire station.

That's important. That's the way fire departments do business. And, uh, right now we only go in and out through Marsh Road, and that's not good enough. Any questions? Anybody know where I'm talking about?

Anybody understand where this is? There's no— DOT does not own the borough. DOT does not own the fire department. They can't— or they don't even own the state. They can't go around and tell people what they can and can't do.

DOT just doesn't want to do their job. And the fire department— that's not good enough to be the fire department. They have to have an alternative access wherever they go and whatever they do. Okay. Any other questions?

Go ahead.

All right. Well, okay. Since it's my birthday, I'll let you.

Put your mic on, please. Marsh Road is— if you go out here to the highway and you start up the hill, that's called Bailey Hill. Halfway up Bailey Hill, mile 49, there's a road on the left called Marsh Road. M-A-R-S-H. There's a new fire station and EMS station being built there right now, but all the traffic has to go through Marsh Road, and that's where the accident was.

Marsh Road has all kinds of accidents. You can go there any time of day and there's a new set of fresh tire marks, skid marks, because of the danger right there. Uh, I'm asking for a second alternative just up the road a little bit, across from what's called the, the Palmer Pentecostal Church. The cross from there, they had a second alternative way access into the new fire station. Okay, okay, all right.

It's only about 40 feet. Okay, thank you, Tom. I know it's going to break the bank, but that's what—. Jackie.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Assembly. My name is Jackie Guilfoyle. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. I've been showing you ad nauseam the obscenity that's contained in this book that is in one of our libraries. What I wanted to do tonight is tell you what obscenity is and why it's not protected by the First Amendment.

It never has been. Now ever since the first law about it came out with—. It was called Memoirs—. And then followed by the Roth decision, Roth v. USA in 1957, it said that obscenity does not get any First Amendment protection. None.

It does not enjoy First Amendment protection. Now the Miller Test came out in 1972, uh, in 1973, and the oral arguments there were on the 18th and 19th of 1972. And the final reargument was on the 7th of November. Now what happened was Marvin Miller owned a bunch of adult shops. And I believe it was in LA.

And he decided to show his, to do an advertisement by sending out a mass mailing to everyone on a list, postal list, showing them the things he had for sale. And a lot of people who got this were not happy about that, and they went down and reported him for violating the obscenity law, because every state has it. And he was charged and he was found guilty and he was fined. Well, he took that to the Supreme Court and his argument was that it doesn't matter how heinous it is or how repulsive or how gross or anything else, if you have a First Amendment right to have that and you have a First Amendment right to shove it at people and they are forced to accept it.

Well, that is not what the court decided. The court decided exactly like the Roths, that Obscenity does not enjoy any protection from the First Amendment. It doesn't. And it had nothing in there about children. It said the public is not required to have obscenity shoved at it.

And I got my tax bill. We're paying for librarians. I'm paying for librarians. I'm paying for school districts. I'm paying for this.

I am not required to have obscenity put in front of my face or in front of anybody's face. Now the child part came from the state of Alaska. The state of Alaska is the one that made it a Class C felony if you distributed it. Now do you think that the publishers and authors know this? Well, let's see what's on their title page.

This is a copyright page, the second page. Do you see what it says? Do you see what it says in there? The authors and publishers expressly disclaim responsibility for any adverse effects that may result from the use or application of the information contained in this book.

So in the event that an adverse action happens, like your child starts cutting themself or commits suicide or something from the stuff in this book, you can't sue the publisher or the authors, but you can sue the Matsuburo.

Just saying. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Linda?

Hello, my name is Linda Spohn. By the way, happy birthday, Edna. You'd make a great governor.

There is more sexual immorality, sexual abuse, and sexual perversion in the world today, and it appears to be on the increase. We have lost our moral compass. In England, the Prime Minister had to step down in shame because 250,000 missing children are unaccounted for. Some of these children were recorded on camera being escorted from government child protection agencies into waiting cars, often with several men inside, never to be seen again. According to The Alaska Story by Susan Downing, on June 30th, 26th, the Seattle Pride Parade featured full adult nudity in front of children.

This isn't just a problem on the other side of the globe. Or somewhere else. According to statistica.com, Alaska has the highest forcible rape statistics in the United States. Reported by Joel Davidson, Alaska Watchman, a Wasilla neurologist was sentenced on June 15, 2026, for possessing child sexual abuse material. Prior to his arrest, he was a practicing neurologist at Alaska Brain Center.

He also owned Alaska Music and Arts, a karate, music, and dance studio. This is the second medical doctor in Wasilla arrested for child pornography this year, in addition to the legislative aide in Juneau arrested for child sexual exploitation. April 16th, 2026, reported by Susan Downing in Alaska Story: 7 arrested in Anchorage, Matsu sex trafficking link, link to massage parlors. June 26th, 26. Joel Davidson of Alaska Watchman reported the former mayor of Shevik, Alaska, arrested for assault and abuse of various minors and teenage girls.

Also reported by Joel Davidson on July 10th, 2026, a 58-year-old Wasilla resident was shot and killed during a standoff in Whittier. He was found guilty of sexual abuse offense of a 12-year-old boy and was resisting arrest. This is only the last 7 months, not a complete— this isn't a complete recent list of abuse here in Alaska and Matsu. The problem is here and to a great magnitude. In addition, according to Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Mullen, 450 children have gone missing in the United States from after being smuggled over the border during the Biden administration.

146 Of these have been recovered and some raped 600 to 700 times. Politicians and elected leaders like to step around these social issues, the same issues that Marxists want to normalize. Teachers, librarians, and museum workers don't want to be prosecuted for what children are exposed to, yet obscene material is showing up in borough schools and libraries. Maybe this assembly could reconsider the ordinance Assemblymember Bowles introduced and withdrew on library collections. In addition, remove the obscene book Let's Talk About It from our taxpayer libraries.

Thank you. Thank you, David.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Assembly members. For the record, my name is David Wilson. Tonight I'm representing my employer, MassHealth Foundation. Uh, Madam Clerk is passing out our last year's, uh, from our annual meeting. Thank you, Madam Mayor, for attending our, uh, annual report.

I'm going to go through this really fast since I only have 3 minutes to cover these, uh, 22 pages or so. Matsu Health Foundation is a co-owner of the Matsu Regional Hospital, and the first is our sort of introduction to sort of what the CEO's last report talks about last year, some of the growth, evaluation and learning, our annual CHANA community health needs assessments, which your Matsu employees were a part of. And then we go on to page 3 that talks about what we do and how we do in terms of finding our way, our evaluation and research, policy and advocacy, and community engagement. I skipped over page 2 that talks about our missions to improve the health and wellness of Alaska's living in the Matsu. And those at home or in the audience that want to follow along or look at the annual report, it's on our webpage, healthymatsu.org.

We talked about, um, you know, so of our belonging, collaboration, equity, respect, stewardship. And tonight, this is mostly going through our transparency and talking about how, what we did, how we do what we do, and what we did for the past year. We talk about our philanthropy and grantmaking, over $21 million to 238 grants and 294 applications received. Our scholarships, over 489, 184 vocational scholarships, 77 professional development, and $3.1 million in scholarships. And just as you know, 80% of those academic awards stay within the state, meaning those funds directly go to our local institutions.

And those people stay right here in the great state of Alaska. We highlight some of our grantees talking about our food security. We highlight some of the other value savers, the reconstruction of the library. And also to note, we also went outside of the state of Alaska funding some other nonprofits. We are the largest sort of private funder of faith-based organizations also within the state of Alaska.

Our sponsorships, 115 sponsorships, 82 organizations, that's $250,000 awarded.. And also our future story is, uh, right here. Um, what we plan to do again is sponsor the First Responders Day at the Alaska State Fair. We talk about our Connect Matsu, um, and helping folks find local needs for local services. We talk about Rock Matsu, raising our children with kindness, the services that they provide.

We talk about policy and advocacy. And if you watch our advocacy video, I believe you will see our, your, uh, Manager Brown and Assemblyman Funoff may make an appearance, or I think another staff member, wonderful bald head on page 16. For those, we talk about evaluation learning, our community engagement, and of course on page 20 we talk about all the grants that were awarded in that time frame for full transparency for the community, and they can see what we did, how we did, and of course our financials. And I also believe on the third, this third, next Thursday is our ribbon cutting. We like to invite you and the public to come down to see our behavioral health hospital, the joint partnership with with the hospital.

Thank you so much, and you know how to find me if you have any questions. Thank you. Okay, John.

Madam Mayor, Assembly, uh, Manager Brown, uh, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. My name is John Miller, and I'm actually here to commend you about something, and that has to do with— I think it was 3+ years ago this assembly voted to get rid of the voting machines, and about 3 years ago you also voted to have a hand count at the precinct level, and 3 years ago plus you listened to the people of this valley that said they wanted, they wanted honest and true elections. And this assembly, I know a lot of you might not have been there at this time, but we're one of the first in the nation to actually get rid of those voting machines. Well, recently President Trump basically blew the lid off the whole conspiracy about the way the votes have been, the voting machines have been rigged, and how our elections are in dire need of some real, real help. And I just wanted to let you know that you guys are way ahead of the curve here when it came to getting rid of those machines and creating a really, really good, solid election that people can actually have confidence 100%.

Now I'm not saying it's perfect. The state has some— they have to do their part. The state has to do their part. But as far as the hand counting at the borough and everything, it's been going really, really good. I hear a lot of good people that are just, you know, confident that in our borough we have good, honest elections.

The other thing I wanted to commend you on is several years ago— I don't remember exactly how long ago, could have been 6 years ago— There was a discussion about maybe mothballing our Port McKenzie and actually just getting rid of it together. Well, this— and thank you, Mayor Edna and Mike Brown and some of you on the assembly— decided to, well, let's just keep it and see what happens. Well, that port is probably one of the jewels in the state right now, and the potential there for a huge amount of economic development and resources and revenue coming through that port is starting to make itself known. So I just wanted to thank you for your foresight and to continue to look forward to the future. Actually, that's the state's slogan, North to the Future.

And, you know, the potential here in this valley is really, really great, and I'd hate to miss an opportunity that's awaiting us. So thank you very much. Thank you, Jim. Hey, I don't see George in here. Oh, pardon.

Oh, he's in the lobby. Oh, okay. So Yeah, go ahead, sir. State your name and give your testimony. My name is George Hightower.

To the chair, Edna, Mayor Edna, and the assembly, we, Edna supporters for Governor for Alaska, I'd like to present to Mayor Edna a token of our appreciation and gratitude for the efforts that she has put forth in establishing this time, this government, to working with us, inspiring us to move forward, being an example for which we can follow.

We would like to present to her this token of our appreciation and our love and our commitments.

And we would like to, if it's okay with the, the, with the assembly, we'd like to just simply sing happy birthday to Mary.

So you have to give— you can't give things to me directly, you have to give it to the clerk. Well, you never know what's in it, you may be tempted. You want to make sure.

So that's all of the people that had signed up. Now I would open up the floor to Anybody that would like to address the assembly on any topic for 3 minutes?

Thank you, uh, Madam Mayor. Uh, my name is Garrett Nelson, representing from District 29, part of, uh, the Matsu Borough. And I got 3 minutes, which is a long time for me because I try to be concise. So, you know, get some stretches in. But I wanted to touch on one point, um, before I get into the meat, is I agree with what, uh, Mr. Bowles said with the Declaration of Independence.

There's two things that I had in my office in the State Capitol. One was the Declaration of Independence, which I think is the greatest document that was ever written by man, uh, below the Bible. But it's second. The other was a quote by James Admiral— Admiral James Stockdale: 'You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end, which you can never afford to lose, with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.' All right, so the thing that I wanted to say to the borough— and this is the first time I've spoken here, but I've called in on a lot of meetings, and some of you I've met some of you, I know some of you are acquaintances, but there are levels to government. And one thing that Mr. Brown and I have talked about, and we need to follow up on that, is state law affects our borough.

And I've been at this for 7 months, and so if there are things that are frustrating the borough, whether it's you as an assembly or citizens that come forward, that we can actually do as a state, that's in our appropriate realm. Like, I want to do those things. And so, um, we've already talked about some of those things with, with whether it's property, you know, what's owned by the state or the federal government or private citizens. A very small privately owned portion of property in our borough, um, things like that. Or just, just whatever is frustrating the borough that can actually be addressed by the state.

I, I want your help, like, we need it, and let's get it done. The last thing that I would say is, Mr. Brown, on the first birthday song to Edna I've gone with a shaved head too when I was a pipe welder. I have long hair right now and it grows out, and I used to just— I would grow it out and then it would light on fire and I would just go with a shaved head. But you went beet red from your collar to the temple to the top. I'm just saying it was good.

But anyways, those are basically comments. I'm, I'm just saying that, um, I want to be available, uh, to the borough and, um, if there's something that we need to address, let's address it. That's it. Nailed it.

Anyone else would like to address the assembly?

Hi, my name is Linda Barkham, and I came to the assembly meeting tonight because I had been sent a message that the Barks Board was going to be decided tonight or put in front of the assembly, and I'm just wondering if you could tell me when that's going to happen because I am one of the applicants.

Okay, I'll have Estelle come down and talk to you. Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to address the assembly?

We have— we do have some people online. Go ahead, the first person online, please.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Manager Brown, and assembly members. My name is Becky Moran, M-O-R-E-N, and I am speaking in support of Resolution 26-065, which is declaring a local emergency in response to the imminent flooding threat in Talkeetna and requesting state assistance. Our home is located along the Susitna River here in Talkeetna, and this has been an ongoing concern We've lost significant land over the past 2 years, estimating between 30 and 40 feet of land along the length of the river. Many other property owners have seen similar changes, and the resolution report makes it clear that this is no longer an isolated issue. The river continues to threaten homes, private property, public infrastructure, the Main Street aviation landing strip, utilities, and the future of Talkeetna itself.

We do appreciate the borough's efforts over the years to repair the revetment system after the floods of 2017, 2020, 2023, 2024, and 2025. In the vein of doing our part, we signed a document in 2021 that would have allowed the Army Corps of Engineers to store equipment on our property as they were at that time moving forward with major fixes. Unfortunately, those plans didn't come to fruition. At that time— excuse me— that said, regarding the emergency repairs that have been happening currently, they have bought valuable time, but as the resolution states, they are temporary measures. The river continues to move and the risks are continuing to grow.

While my family's property has been directly affected, this resolution is about much more than individual property owners. Talkeetna is one of the Mat-Su Borough's most recognized destinations. Tourism generates significant economic activity for the borough, and protecting Talkeetna protects those jobs and that revenue. The resolution report also makes it clear that this isn't only about land erosion. It documents the increasing threat to roads, utilities, critical water infrastructure.

These are the systems that keep residents safe and allow businesses to operate. And if they fail, the impacts extend far beyond Talkeetna. This resolution is about protecting people, protecting infrastructure, and protecting an important community in the borough before the next major flood causes irreversible damage. In closing, I do want to be sure that I thank all of those at the borough that have pursued proactive measures through grant applications, documentation, and seeking monetary support for the fixes needed. The river is threatening homes, businesses, roads, utilities, and one of Alaska's iconic communities.

The question isn't whether Talkeetna deserves this protection. We know that it does. The question is whether we act now while we still can. I respectfully ask a yes vote on Resolution 26065. Thank you.

Thank you. The next person online, please. No, no. Okay, one last chance for anyone present in that would like to address the assembly on any subject.

Okay, seeing no movement, the other person hasn't come back online. Okay, and you haven't gotten any chats Text from anybody. Okay, sometimes if people have problems coming online, they will text the clerk, so that's why I was asking her if she had gotten— oh, would you—. There was only one. There was?

Oh, okay.

Okay, uh, still no movement. I'll close audience participation. Madam Clerk, Ordinance 26028, an ordinance amending MSB 1780. Nonconforming Structures to Repeal the Notification Process and Fees section. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3.

Okay, I'm going to open the public hearing, and at this time, uh, your testimony is restricted to Ordinance 26-028. We do not have a sign-up sheet. Anyone that would like to testify on this ordinance?

This is audience participation, sir.

Okay, I'll close. Okay.

Do we have anybody online? We do not. And one last chance for anyone here. Okay, I will close, uh, the public hearing. And Assemblyperson Sumner, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-028.

And, uh, Madam Mayor, could I phone a friend? I, uh, I'd like to get Mr. Strong up here to explain it. Okay, I could. I don't want to, uh, But he's the planning director. He knows a lot more about, uh, the ins and outs of this one.

Okay. Assemblyperson McKee, your light is on. Did you want to testify? Okay, go ahead, sir. Madam Mayor, members of assembly, Alex Tron, planning director.

So, this ordinance is really a matter of government efficiency. We have a lot of things to do and sort of limited staff to do it. And so we try to get rid of unnecessary processes. We try to streamline things. On its face, it looks like we're cutting out public involvement, but we're talking about determinations of preexisting legal nonconforming status.

So, if a structure was built prior to regulations, for setbacks, they are eligible for what we commonly refer to as grandfather rights. Uh, we use imagery, we use assessments data, we use a variety of different things to determine whether a building has preexisting legal nonconforming status. The code currently requires when somebody applies for this, that we send out a mailing to everybody in the surrounding area. Uh, we've done this for many, many years since I've been working here for the past 20 years or so. We've never really received meaningful comments comments because the building was either there or it was not there.

So there's, uh, it's hard to even imagine a comment that would come into play here. Uh, so we just thought, let's, let's see if we can get rid of this process that doesn't really bear much fruit. Further discussion? Oh, Assemblyperson Sumner. Like I said, you can explain it way better than I can.

Uh, the thing that appealed to me about this and the reason why I want to sponsor this is that a lot of the times when this comes into play is when someone is sitting on a preexisting structure for decades, maybe an elderly person who's trying to downsize, whatnot. And then they realize that they have a structure that's nonconforming or violates some ordinance. And then, you know, they have to get this grandfather right, this permit, so to speak, to sell the property. You know, they don't know that they need it until title gets opened. So this can jam someone up.

This can hold up and slow down the sales process and give them some grief. So streamline the process and getting rid of unnecessary government regulation is to the benefit of the public. Further discussion by the assembly?

Oh, Assemblyperson McKee, go ahead. Yeah, I appreciated the explanation because when I read this first thing, that what just went wrong was public, and I'm thinking we can't do that. And based on that alone, obviously I could not support that. But you put it very well that it actually doesn't happen anyway because it's an either it is or it isn't kind of a thing. Yeah, I'm okay with that.

Thanks.

Further discussion by the assembly? Is there any objection to the motion?

Okay, hearing no objection, then the motion has— the ordinance has been adopted.

Ordinance 2630, an ordinance repealing MSB 8.25, Water Pollution Control, and MSB 1755-020E, under Setbacks for Shorelands, in their entirety. If you're on the phone and would like like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, I'm going to open the public hearing. Doesn't look like we have a sign-up sheet. Again, testimony at this time would be restricted to Ordinance 26-030.

Anybody would like to address the assembly on that?

Okay, we have anybody online? We do not have anybody online. Okay, one last chance. Okay, I'm gonna close the public hearing. And Assembly Summoner again, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-030.

And could I phone a friend again? Yeah, same friend.

Go ahead, sir. Thank you again, this is Alex Drawn. So, this on its face looks like we're eliminating regulations for water quality, that we're abandoning water quality. This, this is actually repealing a section of code that has not been used by the borough since its inception that I know of. We have a section of code, 8.25, that regulates the size of septic tanks that people have depending on how many rooms they have in their house.

That they've constructed. Uh, this may have been well intended, but there was never a program set up to administer and enforce this section of code. The fact of the matter is that this— these rules largely reflect state regulation, and the DEC has primacy over the regulation of septic systems. Now, this has been problematic in certain circumstances where people are applying for variances or trying to do some development subdividing their land when we have these onsite septic systems. What brought us to our attention, there's these onsite septic systems that allow people to treat the affluent from their house.

Um, and the state allows them to go closer than 100 feet from a water body. We have no such provision in our code, so it has jammed some people up that are trying to do some different things. And so we took a look at that. And said, hey, we can either fix this little thing, or we can get rid of this section of code that has not been enforced or administered since its inception. So, that's what this does.

Now, if we want to stand up a water quality program where we start to regulate septic systems, that's a possibility. I recommend that we do that in a follow-up ordinance.

Okay, you have further comments? Yeah, I was just going to add, this is along the same vein as the last one. Um, You know, the thing that comes to mind to me is, like, Mr., uh, like Mr. Strong just said, you know, that, you know, unless we keep updating this ordinance to keep— stay in line with new technologies and all of DEC's current regulations, then it's a— it's a point, you know, duplicitous or duplicates a state regulation, and we have no enforcement arm or anyone qualified to do the enforcement of this. So why would we duplicate that law? I mean, For example, you know, we don't, we don't have codes against all kinds of property crimes and stuff like that, because it's— we don't have enforcement, an enforcement arm.

And we also, it would just be duplicating state and federal law, right? And so, yeah, for that reason, I think we should basically get rid of this. If you did want to have a water quality take deferment from the state for administration of septic systems, That'd be a whole different conversation and a whole different ordinance. Assemblyperson Mowridge. Yeah, um, I looked at this sort of the same way.

I mean, it does duplicate the state, but, um, if the state now changes their code, we don't have anything in our code. So if they decide to change regulations in ways we don't want it— could— and this is a question for maybe Mr. Strawn— like, where does that leave us, um, if somehow the state regulations or enforcement is not happening and we don't have anything in code regarding water pollution? Go ahead, sir. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So the state has changed their laws since we originally adopted this, and our code has remained stale.

So they actually maybe started out matching, but they no longer do match. If the state were to reduce the regulations or staffing or whatever it may be, we would be in the same boat that we are right now. We do not have a program for regulation of water quality. We do not have people trained to do it. We don't have the equipment and we don't have a staff.

So, one follow-up then.

So, what would be the options at that point? What could we— what remedy would there be for that situation? Yeah, so certainly the, Borough could consider taking over primacy over the regulation of septic systems. It would require some staffing and some new laws to be adopted. That's something the borough certainly could do.

If, if they chose to do so.

Sorry, one more follow-up. So, I guess I'm confused if the state were to completely do away with their water rules right now, we have something in code. That we can give infractions for. Like, we have something we can enforce. If we repeal this, we have nothing that we can enforce in any way, right?

Yeah, so if, if we were to take over primacy of that, we'd have to probably— we'd have to update this code. We have to modernize it, and then there's a whole lot of guidelines and other specifics that we would need to adopt to actually be asking. I'm asking a slightly different question. I'm not asking that we're taking it over. I'm saying what's in front of us.

Is taking away all water pollution for— that the borough has, the current system that we have. So if we don't have that, and the state, whatever, is changing theirs, we don't have— like, we don't have any ability to— like, right now we can enforce things with infractions. We take that away, we have no ability to enforce unless we do something. Like, the remedy is that— is what you're talking about, privacy. But But that's where it leaves us if we repeal this tonight.

Okay. Oh, yeah, I was just going to say it seems highly unlikely that the state of Alaska is going to repeal all septic regulations. Um, I don't think that's going to happen. That was a hypothetical you were talking about. If the state got rid of all their regulations.

Assemblyperson McKee. That bothers me. I like double cover rather than no cover. If they bail and we got nothing, then we got nothing. And I'm just thinking that that's a pretty important aspect of community life, kind of like— I don't see— is this a, a solution in search of a problem kind of thing?

Go ahead, sir. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So there are problems with having this old piece of code that is out of date. So one option— because, so this is causing real-life problems for people that, say for instance, there's somebody has a small piece of property that they want to get a variance for, and the only way they can have a treatment system for their waste is to have one of these modern systems They're quite expensive, but they treat on site, and the state will allow them to go closer than 100 feet from a water body. Our—.

We have no such provision, so we wouldn't be able to grant that variance because we have a hard line of 100 feet. So, certainly updating this section of code is a possibility again, but I, as the planning director, do not like having sections of code that are in place that we are not administering or enforcing. That is a little bit problematic.

So—. I feel another—. Just so cliché, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That's also what that feels like to me. It's just kind of scary.

I've been here my whole life, and you see sometimes some pretty horrific things that go on, and people say, oops, and then it's too late. So I wish we could change the language in this, because I appreciate what you're doing. Um, do we have to throw it all out? Absolutely not. And if, if they— if I'm requested to update these regulations, I could do that too.

Could we, could we, could we do that with this? I mean, can I like make it—. Nope. I mean, not right here right now. I don't, I don't think, because it would be pretty— it would be a lot to it.

Yeah.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, I like this ordinance. Um, I think that it removes, um, jurisdictional barrier that's in, in the way. Um, we— like you're saying, there's no enforcement. And, um, there are situations in the borough where there is, um, pollution, and the environmental law section can't go in there because there's borough language.

And so that creates a barrier, creates a jurisdictional barrier. Um, if we remove this, then the jurisdiction then lies at the state level, who has a state plan with the EPA. And so I think this is more beneficial to the borough. They have the staff and, um, they have the resources to be able to go in and actually enforce anything that's happening as far as pollution. If a resident decides to reach out to the environmental law division, or I don't think it's a division, I think it's just an office, and submit a complaint, They can't at this point, if this is repealed, they can't say, well, you need to reach out to the borough.

So at this point there is no language. So then they say, okay, we will have to go out and look into this. So that's the way I see this, is it actually opens up the availability of enforcement. I will definitely be supporting this. Assemblyperson Gamble.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I agree with everything Assemblymember Bowles just said. In addition, Alex, didn't I hear you say that your preference would be just repeal this, and then if we're going to do another ordinance, just to rewrite a whole new ordinance, correct? I absolutely— if, if we do want to stand up a water quality program, if we want to start regulating septic systems, I do recommend that we get rid of this old section of code and spend the time to develop a new one that's done right with the funding to support the positions. Thank you. Assemblyperson Fono.

Alex, can you— you kind of like the history, you have a lot of You like the history part of knowing, I guess. Um, when was this put in place, um, originally? So I don't have that off the top of my head, but I can look that up real quick. Okay, if you may, please. Yeah, because I think So I believe it was originally 1987.

Okay, since that year, having installed a couple septic systems besides just a traditional, you know, gravity-fed septic system, there has been a lot of innovations, and you kind of briefly touched on that. Could you go into a little more detail? Because I believe some of the modern systems, you can literally It's cleaner than gray water that can be pretty much put right on, pretty much on the grass, so to speak. But anyways, talk a little bit so that we understand what has technology has and the treatment plants that have to in order currently that this completely regulation does not have any provisions for. Yeah, so, uh, the developers probably know a little bit more about this than I do, but my understanding is that there is new technology that allows for on-site treatment of, of your, uh, septic wastewater.

Essentially, it's— you can have a much smaller leach field, and the water that comes out the other end of it is technically drinkable, although people don't recommend you do it. It's technically drinkable and can be much closer to a water body and not pollute the water body.

From the personnel office. Go ahead, I recognize you first. Um, just when you talk about water, water is a really important thing. I mean, once it's polluted, it's very hard to unpollute it, and we drink it, so we want to make sure we're doing a good job. Um, and as far as I know, we're really not testing, um, as a borough.

Kind of seeing how we're doing. Um, and one thing I want to just talk about, because when this came up, the thing I thought about is not these specific regulations, but the fact that we allow something called detached fourplexes, where we allow four septic systems on one acre. And, um, and it's, I guess, um, you know, if we're going to try to look at water pollution, like, this doesn't seem like it's really causing a problem, but that 4 septics on 1 acre seems a bit like a ticking time bomb for this borough. Um, and like, if we— if we're not going to have any water pollution controls, like, it seems like we should be going the other direction. Like, we should be— if we're going to get rid of these, then we should have something on the table to replace them and to talk about maybe we should have some kind of look at these detached fourplexes.

And maybe I can just ask, because my understanding of those detached fourplexes, you could put four septics on one acre. And maybe you could just answer. My understanding is that the DEC requires a certified installer, but there's no engineer, and DEC has no staffing to come out and inspect these. So, is that—.

Yeah, the case. And how many of these do we have in the borough? Yeah, so I gave a presentation on this. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I gave a presentation on this a couple of years ago, um, where, uh, these detached fourplexes have sort of found a sweet spot where it was under the requirement for a multifamily permit, and because they were detached, the way state law was, was worded, they didn't require an engineer.

But if they were attached, it'd be a different story.

We, we changed our threshold for multifamily permits, so these detached fourplexes do require multifamily permit with the borough. We still defer to the DEC when it comes to their septic systems. My understanding is that they are allowed to install these with a certified septic installer, which is essentially a course that you take. Um, it doesn't have to be a registered professional engineer. That's my understanding.

I would just hope that, um, if we repeal this tonight, that we put some effort— the other assembly members, we put some effort into taking a look at that issue and making sure that at the very least, we've got a handle on whether a threat to our water quality because nobody's really looking at it. And it seems like when you got 4— there are 4 septic systems on 1 acre. And, and for those people who buy those properties, if their septic goes bad, they're going to have to dig out that hole. They have no place else to go. So I would, I would like us to take a look at those issues as well as just the bigger issue, especially in the core area where you have denser development of are we doing enough to protect our water quality to get ahead of it?

Because you can't go backwards once you've polluted it. Family person, Sumner. Yeah, I mean, sounds like, yeah, you're talking about bringing forth a different ordinance than what we're talking about here tonight. But I would, I would actually, uh, I did read the ordinance that we're looking at repealing, and it also does not, uh, do anything about multiple septics on an acre lot. You could actually have up to 12 septic, functioning septic systems all at once on an acre lot or half-acre lot by DEC regulations if they're all one-bedroom septics, because it's up to 12 bedrooms before you have to do a community water system.

It kind of seems like a loophole we should close. And I am one of those certified installers, by the way, but I still do always hire a professional engineer.

Um, uh, where was I going? Oh, um, Yeah, I also lost my train of thought. I'm like, for some key, it kind of seems like we're going backwards at this because we are getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger, and we're now we're saying, well, it's getting overwhelming, let's just throw out the regulation. I'd rather have too much than too little. Couldn't we just like refer this to you guys to kind of, for a period of time, to kind of look at the stuff that is concerning us and and then come up with something.

I, I cannot—. I can't—. The state of Alaska doesn't always do what it says it's going to do. I mean, you know that. So, well, it might just—.

Yeah, yeah. Okay, I remember what I was going to say. Okay, yeah. Um, so basically, um, reason why this— why I thought this was something we should probably get rid of is that this, this is something We don't have a department that's enforcing it. We don't have any permits that we're issuing because of this.

We, um, we don't have anyone qualified to look at this. And, you know, right now, currently, DEC is issuing permits in the Matsu Borough for people to put, uh, septic systems, these advanced wastewater treatment systems that, uh, Mr. Strong's talking about, closer than 100 feet to the lakes in the Matsu Borough, and people are going out and installing them. So, I mean, this is being ignored. By, you know, the citizens, by our own borough, and by the state. So why do we have this, this piece, this, this law on the books if it's serving no purpose?

So it's— if you want enforcement, then that's a different thing, and we would need to stand up an apartment and budget for it and hire an engineer and hire staff. I don't know that the assembly has the appetite for that, but, uh, we, we really— this is kind of a pointless code, or pointless code as it stands in my book, especially because it doesn't— as Mr. Strong was talking about, these advanced wastewater treatment systems can go closer to the lake because with the treatment pods and the disinfection pods, you know, the water that comes out in theory is clean enough to drink. Not that I would recommend that. You can also discharge right on the surface, and the DEC issues permits for that as well, to discharge right on the surface. You can also put them up to 50 feet away from a well, or you can put them within 50 feet of a well and 50 feet of a lake.

And those are permits that are issued probably not daily, but I mean, probably weekly in the Matsubara. Okay, Assemblyperson Mills, thank you for allowing Assemblyperson Sumner to recall his thoughts. So go ahead, sir. Madam Mayor, thank you. I wish I could have cut them off now.

Um, so I just want to reiterate, so DEC has robust language in place. They, for a brief period of time when I worked with State OSHA, I'd have to work with DEC. They have a state plan. The state plan isn't word for word alongside the Environmental Protection Act, but there's a lot of language that coincides with it. And it's robust.

The DEC has good language in place, whereas not to say that we don't have good language in place, but they have the resources and we don't. And just to address the quarter-acre lots or the small homes on quarter-acre lots, one of the things that we talk about here is affordable homes and affordable housing for people and starter homes and things like that. You know, we want people to be able to afford homes. And so I think that It— there, there is language in place that addresses the septic tanks. Um, bringing 4-plexes, standalone 4-plexes with a septic tank on a quarter acre into the discussion really, in my opinion, isn't relevant because it is fine.

It's not polluting. Um, you go to many places in the lower 48, there's homes on quarter acres with septic tanks in neighborhoods, and, um, We don't hear about these environmental disasters. So, um, I just think focusing on this language is important and thinking about how the language in DEC statute and regulations already covers this, and it's robust, it's strong language. They have the resources to enforce this. They have a— they literally have a section of law enforcement officers that can go in and investigate environmental crimes.

We don't. So I think that by removing this, we're actually doing ourselves a favor. And, um, so just wanted to reiterate that. Thanks. Go ahead.

Just a couple things. Um, I'm hearing Advantix systems, like that's a problem with our current code. It seems like we could fix that by changing our code a little bit to allow those. Um, the, the issue with the fourplexes, um, you know, current code is you can't go smaller than an acre, um, for platting unless you have city water or city sewer. So this detached fourplex thing is really a loophole that allows you to all of a sudden put four septics on one property with a well.

So you've got all that proximity around the well, and then the people who live around them You have all the proximity. So, um, and if we can put 12 septics on an acre, we need to— I don't know if anybody's doing— I know we're doing 4. I know that's happening. And, um, as far as I understand from people who seem to know, DEC doesn't have any staff to come out and inspect. That's what happened with the detached 4-plexes.

The borough said, hey, we'll allow these to happen as long as DEC's on it. And DEC said, said, this is beneath our threshold to, to come out and look at. So you kind of got one of those things where you're like, oh, the state's got it covered, but they don't, um, and nobody's looking. So I would feel more comfortable with this. I think Miss McKee's idea is a good one, but I'll kind of ask the sponsor too, if, um, you know, if we, if we're opening water pollution, because that's what we're looking at, we're looking at getting rid of this altogether, like, I think We need to address the, the 4 septics on a piece of property.

DEC doesn't have any rules against it, um, and maybe we, we should have some limitations on it or some extra, uh, testing to make sure that we're not having a ticking time bomb. So, um, I won't make a motion to postpone, but I kind of like look into the sponsor here if you're willing to consider things like that, because then I feel better about repealing this, but do them at the same time. Oh yeah, I was just gonna point out that there is a DEC office with staff in the Matsuburo, in the valley. I think it's in Wasilla. You go there tomorrow and talk to them about it.

And, and you are required before you install a septic system to put 24-hour notice so they can come and inspect your installation if you, uh, if they so choose, which they do not often. Uh, sounds like you're talking about different ordinance. I mean, I I would say we just vote on this. If you want to bring back a different ordinance, then we can talk about that ordinance and its merits at that time. I don't think the two need to be tied together because what you're talking about is something completely separate.

Or, you know, bringing— I mean, if the code needs to be rewritten and you want stronger regulations, I mean, I would definitely be opposed to that. Uh, so yeah, I guess no, I'm disagreeing. Further discussion? Thank you, Madam Mayor. And this will be— this will be the last thing.

I just want to point out that the Planning Commission did unanimously support this ordinance with a resolution. So, um, it was already sent to the Planning Commission. They reviewed this, they brought it back to us, and with 100% support.

Some person follow-up question to Ms. Nowers. Um, since you have a concern about that 4-bedroom septic systems on one lot, on the standard when just one, uh, septic system. Ms. Norris, what is the separation between the well and the septic system that is currently?

100 Feet. Okay. What is the separation between the well and septic if there is a 4-septic system to the closest septic system?

I guess my question is, what do you do if your septic fails on a— and you already got 4 septics on a 1-acre lot? That's irrelevant. You replace it in place. If you have a spot next to it, you put a trench depending what part of it failed. This has no relevance.

This doesn't put any provisions in place. And what Max brought it up, almost like scared people about saying that, like, there's— it could be a 12-septic system. Well, there could be 12 one-bedroom septic systems, or there could be one 12-bedroom system. So in reality, if you really was to look at it, whether it's detached fourplex or not, what they have is they have a— each house has its own septic system. If one of them failed, the other three are functioning.

So the total amount absorption that goes on the ground and what's holding in the tanks is actually has longer lifespan than one that handles all 12-bedroom system. So at all it is, is just separated into 4 smaller systems versus one bigger ones. So I think this concern that you have is irrelevant to this specific thing. And that's personally, I think if I was to have 4 houses I'd rather have 4 independent systems that if for some reason one of them has failed, the other 3 are functioning instead of them all fail and then all residents are without a septic system.

Further discussion, Assemblyperson Nowers. Just a question back to you then. Why do we have code that doesn't allow you to go smaller than an acre unless you're on city water or sewer? Because of— Obviously concerns about water quality, but then we're allowing 4 septics on 1 acre. We've got a loophole there.

Is that a question or statement? Well, it's a question. Why would we have platting code that doesn't allow you to go smaller than an acre unless you can't go— you can't put more houses, you can't put 2 houses with 2 septics unless you're on city water. But somehow you can do a detached fourplex on one because government decided to change it one day. And before, I currently live on a half-acre lot that has its own septic and its own, um, uh, well.

And all of Memory— hundreds of lots in Memory Lake Estates are half-acre lots, and there doesn't seem to be a problem at all. So, and to correct you, even currently it's not even acre requirement. You know what it is? It's actually 40,000 square feet, which is actually less than an acre. 4,000 Square feet.

I just, you know, you don't see the problem with the septic system for a while, and then, and then your water's contaminated, or you don't have it. So I don't— I may end up supporting this in the end, but we really need to address that we can have a water quality issue as you get more and more denser, and you've got a lot of septic systems, and then you're putting 4 on an acre. You are asking for a problem. And if this assembly is going to just get away, remove water pollution, but kind of have a blind eye to that density that we're having in this core area, that's not a good thing for the borough. So, um, it's— you're right, these two separate issues, but that is an issue we cannot ignore, because if you ignore it and it goes wrong, you can't go backwards on it.

It's like you— the baby's— the genie's out of the bottle. It's— but I'll respond to that quickly, if I may. Um, it's not the size of a lot that changes how your septic works. There's septic systems that fail within the next first few years, and there's ones that work 50 years. It's about the kind of soils, and the only required, um, if If you do the math, probably maybe 1,000 square feet.

I think we've gotten down to the, et cetera. I think we need to come back to the main portion of the ordinance assembly person. Sumner. Yeah, this is, this is on topic. I promise.

As Mr. Bowles pointed out that the Planning Commission unanimously supported this, this was also sent to the Water and Wastewater Advisory Board and they also unanimously supported this. So. I think, uh, with that I'm going to call the question. Okay, so the question's been called. Is there objection to the cash question being called?

Okay, see no objection. And Madam Clerk, is there any objection to the— their answer? I can get the members to go ahead and vote.

Well, I can abstain. Assemblymember McKee, do you want to restate your vote?

You want to voice your vote, Assemblymember McKee? You want to voice your vote? Thank you.

Go ahead, Pluckett. So Madam Mayor, do you want me to announce the vote? Sorry. Yeah, it passed with Assemblymember Nowers and McKee opposed. Okay, all righty.

Then I've been requested to have a break then because the next item has been pulled, correct? We're on, uh, yes, correct. So we, when we come back from break, we'll go into the Second, all audience participation. And let's see, we'll come back at 8 o'clock.

Oh, okay, okay. What's going on? Oh, did you do it?

That was, that was why it was pushed again.

Embarrassment. I mean, you are the mayor, like the face of the borough.

I know, I know, that's what you get. Let me get my— I'm gonna go ahead and call the meeting back to order, please.

We, we don't have a sign-up sheet for the second. Okay, so we're at the point now for our second audience participation. If you testified at the first one, you were not allowed allowed to testify at this, this one. But anybody that hasn't testified on any subject would like to address the assembly, you're welcome to come forth at this time.

Okay, I don't see anybody. Do we have anybody online, Caleb? No. Okay, so I'll close audience participation. We are now at the consent agenda.

Does the assembly have anything to pull? Assemblyperson Sumner? Yeah, could I pull Resolution 26066?

66, Okay. Assemblyperson Nowertz? I would like—. Oops, I'd like to pull Resolution 26065, uh, the one about the Talkeetna flooding. Okay, 26065.

Okay, is there anything else anybody else would like to pull from the consent agenda?

Okay, Madam Clerk, resolution 2662, a resolution correcting the Planning Department fee schedule for the master plan final review fee. Resolution 2664, resolution amending the fiscal year 2027 capital budget to reallocate funding from the Safe Streets for Schools match funding to the Iditarod Elementary cladding project.. Resolution 26071, a resolution amending the budget for the Houston Middle School insurance proceeds and approving the scope of work and budget for the Iditarod Elementary School cladding project. AM 26087, award proposal number 26126P to Jacobs Project Management Company in the annual contract amount not to exceed $150,000 to provide on-call engineering consulting services for the Central Landfill. AM 2691, Approval of an extension of the final completion date to September 30th, 2027, for contract number 2579P with Collins Architecture and Energy Conservation to design school district elevator replacements.

AM2692, acceptance of late-filed and retroactive senior citizen and disabled veteran tax exemption applications for the period of May and June 2026. AM 2693, awarded bid number 26170B to Bristol Infrastructure Design Services in the contract amount of $553,408.46 to complete improvements for the East Kepler Drive Bridge replacement. AM 2694, authorization to vacate two public use easements located within Parcel A3, South Quarter, Northeast Quarter, and Southeast Quarter, located within East— Half Section 4, Township 24 North, Range 4 West, Seward Meridian. Easements were created by Venka Lake, Alaska Subdivision, Plat 8514, Talkeetna Recording District. And easement documentation recorded at Book 103, page 997, recorded on November 8th, 1984, AM 2695.

Approval of contract extension for Contract 2290-PC. With HDL Engineering Consultants to December 31, 2026, for the Engstrom Road to Trunk Road Corridor Project. AM26096 awarded bid number 26166B to Professional Trails in the contract amount of $965,270 to construct Cell 3 Gas Collection and Control Systems Expansion at the Central Landfill. AM2697 awarded bid number 26180B to YH Constructors in the contract amount of $1,921,174 to construct Iditarod Elementary School cladding replacement. AM 2699, award proposal number 26176P to Shannon and Wilson for the annual contract amount not to exceed $200,000 to provide on-call geotechnical engineering services.

Okay, um, Deputy Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda as read into the record by the clerk. Is there any objection? Hearing no objection, then the consent agenda as read by the clerk has been approved. But we do have two— go ahead, Madam Clerk. Resolution 2665, a resolution declaring a local emergency in response to imminent 2026 Tuckitna flooding and request for state assistance, is pulled by Assemblymember Nowers.

Assemblyperson Nowers, uh, I move RS 2665, and I basically just ask for the be pulled because, uh, this is a really major issue for Talkeetna, and I was up there, um, just a couple weeks ago and saw it myself. And I just would like to hear, like, how, how the situation is, um, how bad are we facing up there, what are the remedies, and what kind of costs are we looking at? Okay, go ahead, sir. So through the mayor to the assembly, yeah, I appreciate the opportunity speak to this. We want this to be public.

So I will say this resolution and declaration, just for a little bit of context, when the mayor and I declare disaster, we have 7 days. That's, that's the authority that we have. When the assembly declares it, you have much broader authority. So this, this resolution sets it up for 180 days, frankly, because we are expecting there to be challenges this fall.— we're starting to see it now, I think, the unusual rainfall currently, what that looks like over the next week, and potentially what that could look like going into the fall season. We want to have this in place and have this documentation that we can file with the state of Alaska because there may be the need for more short-term repairs to deal with what we're dealing with right now.

The resolution also is unusual in that it is somewhat preemptive in nature, which we still think it's imminent, so we still think it qualifies for an emergency declaration. The other thing that's developed is we've had two federal funding opportunities, uh, brought before us. Staff have been pursuing long-term solutions for this for quite some time. One of those is a FEMA grant through congressionally directed spending from Senator Murkowski's office, that requires a $500,000 match. Um, the special service area that we have for, uh, mitigating like flood and erosion in this area, uh, only generates about $80,000 a year and has about $100,000 available.

So we can't match that opportunity or the other opportunity that we have federally. And so essentially what we're saying is this exceeds local resources and we need— the second federal funding pot is to actually buy out properties that are experiencing erosion along the river directly. And we believe there are a few residents that may be interested. You may have heard from one of them tonight on the telephone that might be interested in the buyout program, which also requires a non-federal match. So we're kind of going at it— you really are dealing with the near-term damage and repairs, which are very short-term and temporary in nature.

We're looking at buyouts for properties along the riverbank that are being impacted, and then we're looking at the long-term strategy of how do we actually develop a long-term solution that's tied together and protects probably about a 2-mile stretch of the river, which includes rail right-of-way, the road itself, the Talkeetna Spur Highway, and all of the existing revetment, dike that we have in place, as well as some other private properties that are along that stretch. So we're kind of going for all of that. Um, the, the Senator Murkowski money, if you will, the FEMA grant, what that would allow us to do is develop that long-term strategy. It is a planning study to design a solution. It is not going to construct a solution.

The construction could be upwards of over $20 million. Um, but until we get a solution in place, it's hard to advocate for funding when you don't know what you need. Um, this would allow us to pursue and get that. So what we're hoping this declaration would do is open up some state funding to help with that non-federal match for both of the federal opportunities, if that's possible. Um, and then we also are likely to have, uh, some repairs that are going to be needed this year over the next few months.

So that's, that's really essentially why we're putting this emergency declaration before you. As I, as I said, it's a little unusual. Typically we bring you these things after the fact. This one is a bit preemptive, but I think it's fair to say it's imminent, and that's why we're where we are tonight. And this gives us a greater deal of authority over the next several months to walk this thing out and adjust to the situation as it changes.

Okay, Assemblyperson McKee, how many times in recent history does this—. Is this like an annual event?

The— yeah, through the mayor to Miss McKee, it's becoming somewhat annual. That's part of the challenge, and that's why we want to look at this from a long-term approach, because the reality is what we're doing today— and I don't, I don't say this flippantly— is we're throwing money into the water. Yeah. All right, so we need to come up with a long-term solution that protects Talkeetna. I mean, the reality is there's a town there.

We've got to do something. It's not like we can just throw our hands up and keep doing this annual repair drill. How many people are, you know, like residents that stay there like all year round? I don't have that number off the top of my head, and I don't want to guess. Huh?

Assembly question. So, um, the last time we did repairs, how long did that last? Was that just last year? And are we looking at the same kind of repair? Uh, well, the repairs that we, I think, just completed— actually, the contractor's sitting in the room with the Public Works Director, so I think they would have better firsthand knowledge if you want more details about what that entailed., in where we sit today.

The concern is where we're going to be in the next week and the next couple months, um, if this type of weather persists. Because when we've seen it in the past has been late summer, early fall, and then the water levels typically will fall off from there. And I think what we were— have been repairing this summer is the damage from last year. I'm kind of looking for Tom in case he's like starts going east-west. You're welcome to come up Like, help me out here, Tom.

And if it helps, I mean, that was kind of the gist of my question. Like, last time we had an update on these rivers, like a longer update, basically we were told like the rivers could kind of change course a little bit and are pointing right at the town. So are we just in this like rinse-repeat cycle and putting money in the water? Um, and then like, what's our timeline for getting out of that? Like, We've been in this cycle for a while, and it seems like Mother Nature is not cooperating.

It's going the opposite way from the way we want. So, like, what, um, you know, is another $500,000 now? And then, like, how quickly can we— I don't know what, what are the options for turning a river? So, through the Mayor, Tom Adams, Public Works Director. So, Ms. Nowers, I mean, a couple answers there.

One is yes, in the past decade or so, the, the flows of the Susitna River changed direction. Instead of being on the west bank or on the east bank, And, you know, the vectors of flow where the Talkeetna and Susitna come together are effectively aligned straight at, you know, the end of Main Street. And so you had a pretty powerful river coming together, and it's got a roster of forces. As the manager said, you know, typically our high flows are in the late, later fall, the September, October flows. We're already watching hydrographs right now from NOAA and seeing, you know, some of our, you know, watch the the flow levels come up.

And, um, but, you know, what we're doing right now, repairing a large part of that, was due to the ice flows earlier this spring when the, the river broke up. And, you know, you can just imagine the scour that takes place, uh, when the ice flows down the river, and it, um, it takes some of that river rock with it. So, you know, to answer your question, the past 3 or 5— you know, I've been here just over 4 years now, uh, 3 of those years that I've been here, we've we actually had to do repairs under emergency declaration, um, to the dike revetment. Uh, you know, it's losses due to flows or due to ice scour. And, you know, each and every one of those times, all that we can do is, is the Band-Aid fixes.

We can just try to restore the, uh, the revetment that's there or the dike that's there. Um, you know, each of those times has taken, I don't know, roughly $1 million to, to do every time. And Mike said it correctly, I mean, literally I mean, we've stood out there and you toss rock in the river and you don't know where it's at. You're hoping that you're getting benefit out of it. You toss enough rock in there and sooner or later you start coming out of the water.

So, but, you know, that's all that we can do with what we have right now. Effectively, it takes a plan to study long term. You know, I think somebody said it earlier tonight to tie the dike and the revetment together because there's a large gyre or hole, scour hole right at the end of Main Street right now. That really, unless we do something to fix that, it's going to just continue to erode and, you know, it gets behind that revetment wall, and that's the worst thing, because then it just pulls it all downstream. So, you know, what Manager did not say earlier there is that, you know, we have a lot of efforts, you know, both funding, but also we were successful in getting, you know, federal law change under WRDA, the Water Resource Development Act, Act, it typically only allowed federal funding to address coastal erosion.

And we were successful working with our Code Ls to get riverine erosion to be included there. So now we, you know, have that opportunity and we can, you know, point to the fact that riverine erosion is as impactful to people's lives as coastal erosion. So, you know, so I guess I'm just playing out a point that, you know, there's a lot of activity taking place to try to do something to help out the situation in Talkeetna. But when we start talking about $20, $30 million project, you know, really we're trying to get the Corps to react. And, you know, the money that we got in the FY26 CDS was kind of reactive, and we're going to take advantage of that.

But we had another— we have another round of funding that we've requested. It's in the FY27, you know, federal, budget deliberations, I guess, when they, when they finally happen, um, that seeks some seed money that the Corps actually asked us for so they can start their planning efforts. So now that we got this $2 million, I don't know that we're going to necessarily get there, but I'm just hoping that the Corps comes into the mix because eventually it's a project of that magnitude that should be dealt with them at a federal level, um, than us doing it here at a local level. Go ahead, sir. Through the mayor, I just want to add one thing to Tom's point.

Like, what we're saying with this declaration, if we could solve this problem, we would could solve this problem. But with a special service area that generates $80,000 a year, we're not going to solve this problem. It is a much, much larger problem. And so what this signals and says very publicly is this exceeds our resources. We need help.

That's what we're trying to communicate. We want to make sure that's heard very loudly. When the government wants to mobilize, federal or state, to fix a problem— and there's a recent example in this state They move to fix the problem. We need to get them to pay attention to this before it's a disaster. That's what this is an attempt to do, is to draw more attention to this, because if folks want to and they take it seriously enough, there is a way to solve this.

There is? You think so? Absolutely. Oh yeah. You know, you said something earlier about the river directions.

What we're doing right now is not to change the course of the river. I think that's a It's not something we're attempting to do. We're reacting to the conditions that are before us right now. You know, just like the river changed course in the past decade, it could change course again. I mean, we're seeing even the Matanuska River, it changes based on the channels that it creates, you know, seasonally.

Sooner or later, it scours a different channel and it starts finding different directions and creates different problems. And that's exactly what we have in Talkeetna right now.. But if we continue to ignore it and that channel doesn't change for another 10 years, I mean, it's pretty impressive. There's a slide deck on the borough's webpage, you know, where you can slide from, you know, just 10 years ago and see the landform that's been lost to the river. I mean, it's hundreds of feet.

It's pretty impressive, and it just shows you the magnitude of the problem that we have to deal with right now. Assemblyperson McKee. Is it possible that they would ever have to move Talkeetna? I mean, I'm serious, I'm serious, because I know they do that out in some of the villages where, you know, the tide comes in and then they move them to— is there a place to move it? I mean, I would never want to do that.

I'm—. I love the very dirt of this country, and I'm a lifer here, so I wouldn't want to see that happen. But would that be something that means someday they think you have to give up and say the river wins? Through the mayor, uh, Mr. McKee, it won't happen in my lifetime, but, uh, um, you know, maybe since we got the riverine erosion in the Worda, maybe that is an option available in the future. But I, I don't think that's a problem that we're trying to create right now.

We're not, we're not trying to do a scare to the community of Talkeetna that suggests that this is going to uproot, uh, you know, their community and we got to move the community. You know, there are opportunities to address the situation that we have. It's just, you know, it's a— it's going to require the state and the federal government to provide assistance in order to react accordingly. Thank you. Um, yeah, through the mayor, so, uh, I'm just trying to envision, like, what is a $20 million fix that gains you more, like, than a $1 million fix?

It's just a lot more rock and you armor that more, or What is the $20 million fix that—. Well, through the mayor, I mean, without getting in a lot of engineering geek talk, I mean, uh, to do this properly, you really got to get below the, the depth of scour, um, and, and we're unable to do that in the— under the, you know, conditions that we have to go repair the revetments and the times that we do these. So, you know, if you can imagine having to go down, sometimes that depth of scour is 20 feet deep. Deep. So finding an opportunity to, you know, you know, put depth of rock somewhere, you know, that much.

Yes, in essence it's more rock, but it's putting it the right way versus— and I'm not saying we're doing the wrong way, but we're doing it the best we can under the conditions that we have and the funding constraints that are before us when we go to do the repairs instead of the actual appropriate, you know, build. Thank you. Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So at its core, the government exists to protect the people, and this resolution allows the experts to come in and do that.

So I would like to call the question. Okay, so the question's been called. Any objection to the question being called?

Okay. Any objection to the motion?

Seeing and hearing no objection, then the resolution has been adopted. Madam Clerk. AM26098 awarded bid number 27-2B to McKenna Brothers Paving in the contract amount of $661,087.40 for pavement preservation for Fairview Road Service Area number 14, Big Lake Road Service Area number 21, and Middle Lakes Road Service Area number 27 for fiscal year 2027. And Madam Mayor, I do believe Assemblymember Sumner has a conflict of interest. Okay.

Uh, yeah, um, Madam Mayor, uh, my business is done, uh, paving business with McKenna Brothers, so I would ask to be recused. All right, thank you.

So then someone— what should I have? Deputy Mayor? Deputy Mayor, will you move the motion? For that. I moved AM 26-098.

Okay, discussion by the assembly.

Objection by the assembly.

Seeing and hearing none, then the AM has been adopted. And Madam Mayor, I did go right past another piece of legislation that got pulled. Yeah, the We just need Assemblymember—. Yeah, okay. All right, now we'll move back to the resolution that I skipped.

Resolution 2666, a resolution adjusting the Planning Department fee schedule for the utility permit distance fee, fee per linear foot. It was pulled by Assemblymember Sumner. Okay, Assemblymember Sumner, go ahead. Um, yeah, déjà vu. Um, so I declare a conflict because I am on the MEA board and this pertains to utilities.

So, uh, I could recuse myself or stay here. I think I could be impartial on this, but it's up to you, Madam Mayor.

So are you saying that this is a fee schedule that you would be using? This is a fee schedule that impacts utility companies, and I'm on the MEA board of directors, so there is a potential conflict. Potential. And after advisement from the attorney, I should declare it to to you and ask for your ruling.

Okay, um, I guess I don't feel that you have a conflict. I think you're far enough removed. Thank you, sir. Okay, let's see who pulled—. Assemblymember Sumner.

Okay, so now you need to move for adoption, sir. I move Resolution 26-066. Okay, discussion by the assembly.

Any objection by the assembly?

Hearing none, then the resolution has been adopted. And then, of course, I guess that's all of that, huh? We have no unfinished business, we have no vetoes. Um, new business. So, Madam Clerk, if you would read the introductions into the record.

Please, introductions for public hearing on August 4th. Ordinance 2680, Ordinance 2681, Ordinance 2683, Ordinance 2685, Ordinance 2673 with accompanying Resolution 26058, Ordinance 2674 with accompanying Resolution 2659, Ordinance 2675 with accompanying Resolution 2660, Ordinance 26076 with accompanying Resolution 26067.

2677, Ordinance 26078, Ordinance 26079, Ordinance 2682, Ordinance 2684 with accompanying Resolution 2663, Ordinance 26086 with accompanying Resolution 2667, and Ordinance 2687 with accompanying Resolution 2670. I move to introduce the legislation as read into the record by the clerk and set the public hearing for August August 4th, 2026. Is there any discussion by the assembly?

Yeah, move to divide the question and, uh, separate Ordinance 26-083.

Okay, so is there objection to dividing the question? 083, Just to clarify. Correct, Ordinance 26-083.

And for members wanting to look at which one that is, it is on page 8. It'd be the third public hearing on your list, Madam Mayor. Oh, okay, thank you. Oh yeah, I was thinking they were numerical, so Most of the time they are. Okay, all right.

So I didn't hear any when I asked, hear any objection to dividing the question. Okay, so now should we then, like, you pull that and then you have the Deputy Mayor do the— no, we go ahead and deal with this. Yeah, the main— the motions on both Both of them are already on the floor. The first segment would be everything but Ordinance 26083, so we could vote on that. And then the second segment, it's already moved, is 26083.

Okay, so I have to have the Deputy Mayor then? He's already moved. It's already on the floor. Oh, he did move. Okay.

All right. All righty, so is there objection to everything except for 26?

-083. See, no objection. Then those, those for the public hearing. And then let's see, allows Assemblyperson Sumner to make the motion. Well, the motion's already on the floor, Madam Mayor.

He doesn't have to move it. Okay, but he can discuss what he wants to do. Okay, so now do you want to speak to it? Yeah, if I could speak to it. Um, I was opposed to the last tax ordinance, and this is similar to that one, so I'd just like to pull it from introductions.

Anyone else wish to speak? Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So yep, so this already exists, this 5% sales tax for the marijuana. Um, when we discussed this, um, at the meeting where we discussed the proposed 10% sales tax for alcohol, which dropped to 5% sales tax, which is going to the ballot, Point of clarification, you're on the wrong ordinance.

083. I apologize, I saw 3% and I went to the marijuana one. So yep, the brain— I, I recant. Okay, so anyone else would like to discuss? Uh-huh, Deputy Mayor.

So when we were talking about replacing the property tax with just sales tax, it seemed like a lot in sales tax, and I figured this might be a way to even it out and give and take on both sides of the issue. So I figured at least the voters could weigh in on it. Thanks. Further reduce assembly personnel hours. Say, this is, uh, as I said before, I think the, the issue of trying to reduce property taxes and diversify our revenue is a really important one that we need to discuss with the public.

And Mr. Bernier has put a proposal on the table, and you know, we might end up voting it down, but, um, we give it a chance to be discussed. So I will be supporting keeping this on.

Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So now that I'm on the correct ordinance, um, I, I will be in support of this. Um, I— it brings the sales tax in on top of every other tax, similar to the next one we'll be just discussing that's being brought back. Um, so I, I just— I cannot support that.

I cannot support any ordinance that brings a new tax on top of all of our other tax taxes. Um, so that, that's the reason that I will be supporting the motion to remove this.

Okay, already ready to go? Yeah. Oh no, I just want to explain the vote, Madam Mayor. So the motion is to introduce. If you do not want to introduce the legislation, you'd vote no.

If you do, you'd vote yes.

All he did was divide the question. Member Assemblyperson Pala. Okay, question, I guess it would be to sponsor. Are you, um, just friends with this legislation, married to it, or courting it? Um, where are you sitting on this, and how would you take that?

Because I have a lot of respect for you, and if I disagree with you—. Thank you, Dimitri. Um, sincerely asking. You know, if you spent $20,000 last year on property tax, this was an opportunity to where you spend $10,000 and make up the rest in sales tax. So I figured this is a way to cut your property tax in half.

Okay, thank you. Okay, further discussion? Everybody ready to vote? Okay, Madam Clerk, I can get the members to go ahead and vote on the introduction. Yes, keeps it.

Yes, keeps it as it being introduced. No, makes it not be introduced. Okay, Madam Mayor, it is passed with Assemblymember Sumner and Bowles opposed.

Okay, all righty, so now do we Somebody kicked the dog. Maybe rolled over.

Poor dog. Oh, okay, so let me get here to the next part of the agenda.

Um, so now we're to the Vacancy report. Deputy Mayor, do that. Okay. Yeah, I move to confirm the mayor's recommendation as follows: Planning Commission, resignation of Michael Collins.

Discussion? Objection to the vacancy report?

Okay, hearing no objection, the vacancy report has been approved. Um, and so it says here that we have a motion to rescind, and you are to read the legislation. AM 2607-5 awarded bid number 26157B to Two's Incorporated and the contract amount of $1,116,525.33.

For Big Lake Road Service Area Annual Road Maintenance Rebid. Assemblyperson Gamble, you have a motion. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move to rescind the adoption of AM 26-075 and like to speak to it. Yes, go ahead.

Okay, so we're all elected to represent our districts and our constituents, our boards, community councils, and I know a lot of you guys have probably tired of hearing this issue, but, um, you know, that's what I was elected to do and that's what I'm doing. And I know borough code, you know, requires the assembly to approve any contract over $100,000, but it doesn't require that we take the lowest bid. I mean, that should be a consideration, you know, when we're approving contracts, but it's not the only consideration. I mean, we should be out there like I've done, talking to my constituents, attending board meetings, going to community council meetings, speaking to people. And the vast majority of my constituents would rather pay a little bit more money to have a contractor that they trust, that they know, that has brand new equipment, has the workers to do the job, and, um Yeah, so they're willing to pay a little bit more for that.

And the contractor, uh, that we're going to probably award this contract to has a long history of failing to meet, um, you know, his obligations, um, not doing the required work to a standard, you know, that the borough expects. And, you know, as made excuses why, never accepted responsibility for it, you know. And it's not a contractor that was new and just trying to figure out how things work. It's a longstanding contractor, you know, with a history of, of poor performance. And, um, I think that, uh, this body, the majority of this body, is doing my district, my constituents, my RSA board a great disservice and basically disenfranchising them, you know, by making them swallow a contract for a contractor who they don't want.

And so I'm asking this board, this body, to rescind this contract and allow the manager to award it to the second-place bidder. Thank you. Okay, further discussion? Deputy Mayor? A question for the staff.

Sure.

Mhm. You want Tom or the manager? Russ, please.

Oh, Russ. Okay.

How many people are in your How many people are under your department in your position? How many people are, um, to Assemblymember Bernier, through the mayor, um, I have 6 employees. 6, 6 Employees. Okay, and you have qualifications for contractors to bid on packets. And Mokey's bid on this twice now and has been low bid twice.

To Assemblymember Vernier, correct, um, two times we've bid RSA-21. Mokey has submitted the lowest bid both times, and a review of his qualifications and, and based on his previous work along with previous engagements that the borough had, he is deemed qualified to accept an award, to be given an award.

So there's 6 of you in your department?

Correct. And You're hired to do a job for bidding out work and purchasing and all that.

I think you do your job well.

When an assembly person starts picking the contractors to do work for their RSAs, their area, whatever, I think they're stepping out of line. I think that's your, your job, not our job. You, you bring that to us to— okay, over $100,000, but something's fishy when you continually reject the low bid and want to go with somebody else. And I know for When that happened in my district, I went with low bid. I don't want to be accused of something fishy.

Thank you. Assemblyperson McKee. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Over here.

I would like Russ to, to stay if you can. We've been—. This is our 4th rodeo here, I think, on this thing. And every time the same thing is said by all parties or no, not all parties. By Mr. Campbell each time.

I haven't heard anything new. We've gone through this. I just— it's a waste of, uh, your department's time. Those people got to be paid, and you got to be paid for going through this stuff. And I just don't see— I know why the borough has to look at these things.

It's a two-edged sword. There's corruption. There could be corruption in your department because you could just put people in that you want to go in there. So therefore, these— not that you ever would, you understand, but whether you were in that position or not. So the assembly has to look at that.

Then there's the other side of that that says, well, in the, in the RSAs, there could be corruption in the good old boys club or whatever, uh, which is, is a fact of life. It does happen. Uh, there are preferences. And, uh, so there's corruption on each side. I think the only way that we could—.

We have exhausted this thing. We beat this horse to death, and we keep saying the same things. And I just, I can't support Mr. Gamble. I'm not just because you're Mr. Gamble, because I don't support the premise that you're operating on here. Assembleperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I'm going to support Assemblymember Gamble, and, um, I have no dog in this fight. This is Assemblymember Gamble's district. The RSA board representative came to the meeting and provided, um, his input, and it aligns with Assemblymember Gamble. Um, the multiple members, um, that live in that area have also given their input, and it aligns with Assemblymember Gamble.

I would make the same decision if it was any assembly member here, and they're asking— and either one of you is asking us to support you in this if you had concerns for your district. If I had concerns with the contractor in my district and they were the lowest bidder, um, I would hope that you would support me and going with the second highest bidder to ensure a better end product. And so that's all there is to it for me. I'm going to support the person that they put into office and the person that's representing them to make the, the decision for them. And it's not just his decision, it's their RSA's decision, and it's supported by members of the community.

So that's where I stand on that. Assemblyperson Gamble, did Yeah, Madam Mayor, I just take offense at the word corruption and fishy because that could be used for anybody sitting up here as well. And so please don't insinuate that I'm corrupt. Dearheart, uh-uh, don't even— don't go there. I did not insinuate anything.

I said that that is why the law is in place. Well, I'm sorry. Okay, but when do I get to respond to that? Because he's done. Okay.

May I now? I hope I can. What? I can go ahead now. Bill finished what he was saying.

Are you going to be recognized by the mayor? Can I be recognized to speak? Let's be recognized to speak. Oh, okay, but no back and forth. No, I will not.

I will not. All right, I just want everybody out there and everybody up here to understand there was no insinuation of it. I was saying that that is why a particular law is in place is to avoid it on either side or any side. So that's, that's what that is there for. And I would— people who know me, I would tell you straight out if I thought that, but that's not what I think.

I just don't. I think we all represent everybody in this borough, and if we get started getting in these little factions, we're never going to get anything done on a lot of different matters. So, um, if anybody is offended by that, I don't think anything I said could I would even remotely insinuate that that was what I meant.

Yeah, Deputy Mayor, I'd like to ask staff a question.

What would you do in our shoes?

Wow. What would she do? Um, to, to Assemblymember, can I weigh in for a second? This is a contract approval question. We— staff have brought you a contract recommendation and we stand by it.

That's the answer. It's your decision whether or not you want to approve this contract, or I would ask that you not put staff into a position where you— they are asking you to make a decision a certain way. That is not where I want to be as an administration. Okay, can I finish the question and Well, I'm sure salaries and stuff, they're close to $750,000 between 6 of them, $500,000 to maybe their, uh, their expertise and stuff. I think they do a great job and they need to do their job and They brought forth the low bid, and if we're not going to honor their work, and then we might as well just fire them all and, uh, start doing— appointing contractors ourselves.

Assemblyperson Auer. I just quickly wanted to say, um, I have no doubt in my mind that Mr. Gamble is just just trying to be the best advocate he believes he can be for his district, and that Mr. Tu has a long ways to go to rehabilitate his reputation, but he was a qualified bidder. And, um, but I, I have no doubt about the intentions of the representative from Big Lake, that he is just trying to represent his folks to the best of his ability and get the best deal for his community. Any further discussion? Assemblyperson Gamble.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, and so, um, I, I guess then we don't even really need to approve contracts if we're just going to let the departments bring forward the bids. Why do we even approve them? Just rubber stamp them and let them make the decision, and we don't even have to deal with it anymore. Thank you.

Apparently we have an objection to the motion, I hear. So, Madam Clerk, if you want to rescind the contract, you'd vote yes. If you don't want to rescind the contract, you'd vote no. So again, rescind takes it away. That hasn't even been awarded though.

Rescind would take it away. You would vote yes if you want to keep the contract and not rescind it, you'd vote no. No. So keeping the contract would be keeping 2. So it—.

Contract, you'd vote no. So yes is basically for 2 and a no is no. No. Okay, say okay, tell me if you want to rescind the contract, meaning it goes away, the contract no longer exists, you'd vote yes. If you do not want to rescind the contract and keep the contract in place, you would vote no.

And there is no abstain, correct? Correct. Assemblymember Gamble.

Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Gamble and Bowles in support. Okay, the next item on our agenda is— there are no referrals, and then Madam Clerk, it's up to you for the reconsideration. Up for reconsideration, Ordinance 26072, an ordinance adopting MSB 3.15036, $75,000 owner-occupied residential real property exemption, and MSB 110170, 1.5% area-wide sales tax with exemptions for sales tax within cities, and submitting the proposition to the voters at the November 3rd, 26th regular borough election. Assemblyperson McKee. Assemblyperson McKee, would you like to make a motion for reconsideration?

I move to reconsider OR 26-072. Is that okay? You'd like to speak to it? Yeah, I would. Um, when we were discussing this thing, uh, it was one of those meetings where I think we'd had an executive session, we've been here like 8 hours and people didn't even know their own name by the time we finished discussing all of it.

I had a lot more thought on it because I, I liked that it wasn't quite as broad as Mr. Bowles put forth. Um, I, I thought it was more in the realm of the possible. I admire that, that everybody who's brought forth something like this actually did it because the people are saying we don't want our property taxes to go up. So this seems like kind of a balance with that. I, I would like to ask something, and maybe I didn't see in there an exemption for healthcare.

Is there or isn't there? I don't— because that's what I wanted to know about. Is healthcare— does healthcare get exempted in this? It does. It doesn't say that specifically, does it?

Because I looked 3 times for that.

It's either—. We're not talking about the motion itself. We're asking just about reconsideration. Oh, that's why I was telling you why I wanted to reconsider, because I didn't really understand it, and we, and we shut it down, and, and I said I'm not ready for that. Emily Poisson, ours.

To answer your question, yes, it is exempted, and, um, I think we should reconsider because this is the only The only proposal that we've had before us that ensures the benefit of reduced property taxes only accrues to people who live here. Every other proposal we've talked about would benefit large outside corporations who do business here and will not pass the savings on to us. This is the only one that ensures the full benefit of a $75,000 property tax exemption would go to only people that live here. So you're really targeted. With that.

Um, and so I think we should reconsider it and put it before— I'd like to put it before the voters and see if it's a way they want to go. Okay.

Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, um, this doesn't lower taxes. Um, this— yeah, there's the $75,000 exemption, but it also brings more.

Okay. I'll, I'll speak to the, um, reconsideration. So the reconsideration, that's the question before you. Okay, so I move to table this reconsideration indefinitely, and I call for the question. Okay, Madam Clerk.

Ma'am, you mean do you want to postpone the motion to reconsider indefinitely? Indefinitely. And I call for the question. Okay, discussion on the motion to post postpone indefinitely. Okay, okay.

Objection to calling the question. Yeah, we have an objection down there.

Okay, we'll give you a second.

Okay, I'm caught up. Okay, okay. So it is— the question is regarding Calling the question.

Members to vote? Yeah, please. Can I get the members to vote on calling the question on postponing indefinitely?

Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Sumner, Gamble, and Bowles in support. Okay, it's—. Now we're discussing—. Now we're discussing the motion to postpone indefinitely.

Assembly, Sumner, can I call the question? Sure. Is there objection to calling the question?

I don't see any objection to calling the question, so Madam Clerk, now we're on the motion to postpone indefinitely the motion to reconsider. So if I can get the members to go ahead and vote on the motion to postpone it indefinitely.

Assemblymember Bernier.

Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Gamble and Bowles in support.

Assemblyperson Follow-up, can we please pass the— what do you call it— reconsideration so we can actually discuss the merits of it Yeah, go ahead. And I— this ordinance is up for reconsideration, but I wanted to— I handed this out to the assembly tonight. What ended up happening is the motion, the main motion failed. So really, if the— when the—. If you—.

The assembly decides to go ahead and reconsider this ordinance, you're at a 1% sales tax with the exemptions for the sales tax within the cities. I just want to make sure that is clear, that that is part of the reconsideration also, that what you're reconsidering. Okay, Assemblyperson Sumner. Call the question. Okay, is there objection to calling the question?

All righty, so there is objection to calling the question. So I can get the member—. I'm calling the question On reconsideration or on this moment? Right now we're calling the question on going straight to voting on reconsideration. Oh well, and yes means what and no means what?

Right now, if you want to stop debate and get to the vote for reconsideration, you'd vote yes. If you don't, if you want to keep debate— debating whether to reconsider, you'd vote no.

Again, if you want to— the motion is to stop debate on the motion to reconsider. If you want to keep debating the reconsideration vote, vote— you'd vote no. If you want to stop debating and go directly to reconsideration, you'd vote yes. Okay, Madam Mayor, that passed with Assemblymember Bowles opposed. Okay, and if I can get the members to go ahead and vote right now on reconsideration.

Again, yes. Yes now opens the—. Correct. No closes it. Correct.

Doesn't even get there. Okay, thank you, Madam Mayor. Reconsideration passes with Assemblymember Bowles opposed.

Okay, so we are now then to the main motion.

Oh, I'm sorry, Assemblyperson Gamble. Thank you. I got a question for staff if Cheyenne's still here.

Hi, Cheyenne. Hi. Thank you. Um, Can you tell me how this $75,000 reduction in residential property tax is going to affect the fire service areas, the road service areas, and any other non-area-wide? Through the mayor to city member Rick Gamble, um, that $75,000 will be applied to each of those service areas.

I haven't done the calculations to determine exactly how much would apply to it. I would have to couple subreports to be able to determine that, right? So in fact, the fire service areas, road service areas, and the other non-area-wise would be losing revenue? Yes, through this. Okay, thank you.

Okay, go ahead, sir. He—. I want to, I want to ask just to make sure we get it right. You said would lose revenue? The exemption would reduce the value, assessed value which would reduce the revenue if the mill rate wasn't adjusted.

Right, it could, yes. It sounds technical, but the reality is you're going to reduce the value to a degree that's— or you're going to increase the value that's exempted. But with it, you can change the mill rate and still generate the same revenue. Right, but then you're just defeating the purpose because You're raising taxes. Well, not necessarily because certain people may be paying, like you may have commercial entities that may be paying more because you're exempting primary residence, right?

Like it's not equal across everyone. This is a primary residence property tax exemption. I just, the semantics kind of matter because it, this is where it gets complicated. What we're talking about here is the value. What you all do with the mill rate determines the revenues.

Right. So you're just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Yeah. I wouldn't agree with that, but I don't want to cloud the conversation. I just, it's important to recognize that what we're talking about here So I wish we would have had those numbers here tonight so we could actually see what the impact is going to be on the fire service areas, the road service areas, and any other non-area-wide entities.

Okay, um, Assemblyperson Sumner. Yeah, I had actually considered this previously just independently of a tax, and I tabled it because I just chose not to move forward with it because without the sales tax All that it is is a tax transfer. If you're still spending the same amount of money, you know, because, I mean, we set our— as a body, we are setting our mill rate to cover our revenue requirement. If you're spending the same amount of money, then doing a residential property tax exemption just transfers the tax burden from property owners, these property owners to other property owners. And that would be adversarial to rentals, be adversarial to commercial buildings.

So that would be, you know, passing cost on to renters, it would pass cost on to small businesses, uh, and stuff like that. Now, you know, the, the mental thing you got— I guess the, the thing you got to realize is that with the 1% sales tax being passed, we would have additional revenue coming in. So you wouldn't have to offset the revenue loss to the area-wide, for example, for example, by increasing the mill rate to spread the tax burden. So this would, you know, basically you'd be transferring— it'd be a property tax reduction for owner-occupied houses, and it would be a small sales tax. Now, you would still have, uh, on the FSAs and RSAs, you would have a mill rate adjustment because those things are, you know, operating independently, right?

So you would then be taxing commercial buildings and rentals more to get the same revenue in those areas, you know, if— unless you decided you wanted to cut FSAs and RSAs by however much this property tax exemption would be. Also keep in mind that probably not everyone is going to apply for this property tax exemption because you would have to literally file for it, you know. So the first year you'll probably have a lot fewer people than in subsequent years as people actually catch wind of it and pay attention and file for it to save money.

Thank you. Um, the, uh, the owner-occupied houses is a really important part of this. What this does is transfer the payments from people who live here. It reduces their load and transfers some of that to people who visit the valley, the tourists who come here, the visitors who come here and use our services. Use our infrastructure.

So it's a way to get folks who come here and use our services to help pay the cost. Now, as far as the, the districts, the FSAs and the, the RSAs, that is, um, you know, it's a legit thing that would happen. So if you don't do anything, if you don't adjust the mill rate, uh, somebody in Sutton, the far-flung areas that are playing paying 16— Sutton, up the, up the Susitna area, who are paying 16 mills, they're going to see like an over $1,000 break on their taxes. But if you adjust the mill rate for the FSA and RSA to bring the revenues— what the manager is talking about— if you adjust the mill rates for the, the FSA and the RSA, they're still going to get the break on their area-wide taxes. So it's going to be about a $700— for an average person, it's going to be about $700 a year break for people who live here, versus if we just lower the mill rate, we are capturing people who live here, but we're also doing Walmart and Fred Meyer and Enstar, and those entities are not going to pass that break on to us.

So this— I mean, no No proposal is perfect. Um, this one I just think is the closest I could get to making sure that the benefit goes to people who live here, and you pick up dollars from a group that comes and uses our services. And again, it's something that would go— it goes to the voters, so they get to decide. I mean, they keep telling us, or a portion of them keep telling us, we want property tax We want property tax reduced, but nobody's saying we don't want the services. So this spreads our cost, brings in outside money to help pay the costs here.

And maybe that would be— maybe we could find a way to use some of that funding for, um, unmaintained roads. You know, if we have that funding and it's not coming from people here, we've reduced the tax burden. Um, I know MEA is talking about increasing the bills $15 a month. Month on top of grocery bills on top of your car insurance bill. Like, how do we actually reduce the cost of living here?

And this is one way we could with voter approval. So, um, yeah, absolutely, um, RSAs and FSAs have to be taken into account. And the way I would see that is that you would adjust the mill rate for those areas because you need the funding for the roads and for the fire service, but you would would still have the $700 a year tax break for people who live here, not for, um, big companies that don't. So, um, I would like to propose an amendment, um, to restore this to the 1.5%, uh, motion to strike the 1%, uh, across the borough sales tax and replace that with what was originally there, which is a 1.5% area-wide sales tax with exemptions for sales within the cities. And if I could just speak very briefly to that, um, I would say that part of the reasons to not have it— have a sales tax stacked on the cities is you will drive business away because you're raising the sales tax, uh, you know, to an amount that people pay attention to.

And the exemptions within the cities are different So then you've got businesses trying to figure out, okay, this is my portion of the city sales tax and this is the borough, and I have an exemption for this but not for that. So this models the exemptions in the cities as closely as possible. So if you have a business in the city or out of the city, it's less complicated, but it doesn't try to stack it on top and make businesses within the cities try to figure out two different taxes. So my motion is to restore it to a 1.5% area-wide sales tax with exemptions for sales within the cities. That would raise an estimated $11 million.

The maximum cost for the exemptions, if everybody took it, is $16 million. So, you know, we're not— we'll see how that turns out. We could deal with it if we do a 1% across the board. Sales tax, it raises $20 million. So you're already overshooting what could be the maximum expense you have.

So that was another reason I didn't want to go with an area-wide sales tax. So, Assemblyperson Bowles, you were next to speak, but now since there's an amendment on the floor, do you wish to address the amendment? Yeah, um, yeah, I wanted to speak to prior to the amendment, but it's moot now. I'll wait until afterwards if that's all right. Okay, all right.

Assemblyperson Fauna. The reason why I amended this earlier and the reason why I won't support this amendment is because we want it to be fair across the board. There's a lot of Matsuburo piece for schools that are within the, um, city limits a lot of people go who are outside of the city limits to shop in the city. So to make it fair, why is— most of the Three Bears, I think, are outside of the city limits. So therefore, why would we punish them?

Why? Cities establish what's in theirs, uh, you know, city limits. But when it comes to why should we punish now the businesses that outside of the city I think we should treat them all same. Yes, potentially it does bring more taxes, which in result will lower the mill rate because if there is so much more money coming in, then our mill rate will go down even more because we have more money so we can offset that. So I think that's, um, keeping it as it is now is, uh, the only way I will support this thing.

And, um, I remember previously you have said that then you'd want your name out of it. After we vote this thing, amendment, down, if you choose to remove your name off of it and want my name on it, I'll be okay with that.

Okay, further discussion on the amendment? Just a little. I appreciated what Assemblymember Ponov said. If you're charging it on the one end, you're making up for it on the other end, so, by the mill rate. By establishing a mill rate, it would offset that.

That makes sense to me. I hadn't thought of that before, but it does make sense.

Deputy Mayor. So the, the scenario, if I'm shopping at Fred Meyer's, is that 1.5% getting charged there? But if I'm shopping out at Three Bears on the end of Pittman, I'm getting— I, I think it'd be more fair on what Dimitri is saying.

Not— I would support the whole thing if we went the 1.5 or the 1%. Yes, thank you. Okay, Assemblyperson Sumner. I call the question. Okay, is there any objection to calling the question?

Seeing no objection, Madam Clerk, I can get the members to go ahead and vote on the primary amendment.

Oh yes, says—. Sorry.

Madam Mayor, it failed with Assemblymember Bowles and ours in support. Okay, so, so now Assemblyperson Bowles, since we're back to the main motion, do you want to speak to that? Yes, Madam Mayor, thank you. Um, again, I know I've said this 17 times between the last meeting and this one, but this ordinance brings a sales tax on top of all of our other tax taxes. This $75,000 exemption that we're looking at right here is going to go away as soon as the next budget comes around.

That's just— that's reality. Um, passing this off to the idea that it's going to save people in the, the more rural areas $700 is, is not— it's not accurate. Um, they will be paying more for FSAs, at least FSAs if not RSAs. So, um, so we should not bring a new tax on top of all of the other tax. Um, so I would like to amend this ordinance, and I would like to remove all language referencing a sales tax and leave all language with the $75,000 exemption.

And I call for the question.

Point of order. Okay, I don't know that you can— maybe I'll let the mayor rule on that, but you can't just say something and then tell everybody else they can't say anything else.

Okay, Madam Clerk, do you have— that's fine, that's fine. We want it to be accurate, so we will give—.

We can vote on the call in the question though, right? Um, so essentially my amendment keeps the amendment Or excuse me, keeps the $75,000. No, no, no, we have to talk. We have to deal with call the question. I thought I heard confusion.

I apologize. Okay, I'm ready. I'm ready. Sorry. Okay, sorry.

Okay, so I can get the members to go ahead and vote on calling the question on Assemblymember Bull's amendment. Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymembers Sumner, McKee, Bernier, and Bull in Support. Takes 5 votes. Yeah, because we need 5 votes, right? 5 For—.

Correct. Yeah, okay. All right, so we're back to discussing the assembly member. Okay, Assemblyman Fonov. Now this amendment, as Mr. Gimbo said, will officially do the Rob Bill to pay Mike, or Peter to pay Paul, whatever the names you use, right?

So just the senior benefits are sort of— is the way that's their structure. They are robbing one to benefit another. As much we appreciate citizens, it does put on the non-citizens that. So as it's written, I believe the intent is to get that money coming in from somewhere else to give that exemption. Then we're not actually putting that burden on the different people.

So I think there's merit in that specifically on its own, and I believe that's something I would support if voters choose to vote this down. And I, I think there's merit to give the primary residents a break so that maybe people that own the Anchorage property, the Anchorage owners and things like that. That—. But the way it's— this one's intended to put in front the voters is to, um, I believe, to establish that in order to pay for that $75,000 exemption. So I can't support this.

Okay, so Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I, uh, I would encourage the rest of the assembly to go ahead and pass this amendment and then vote down this ordinance altogether.

Assemblyperson Sumner, and then Stephanie. Yeah, um, like I mentioned before, that, you know, I considered this, uh, property tax exemption and I chose to table it and not move it forward because it is a tax transfer, you know, much like the senior disabled veteran, uh, tax exemption. And, uh, you know, what really gave me pause was I realized Anchorage has it and we don't. So I'm like, wait a second, maybe this isn't such a great thing. Because at first I thought this is a great thing.

And then I think, yeah, I gave it some more thought and I realized that this is, this is a progressive tax break, right? Like if you have a smaller, cheaper house, then you're getting a much more outsized benefit. If you have a $75,000 house, you will pay zero taxes. And if you have a one, you know, worked your entire life, built your dream house, you have a $1.7 million house, your taxes will go up because the revenue requirement will remain the same, and we'll have to raise the mill rate to offset the $75K exemption, all things being equal, if we don't cut anything from the budget. So you would be taxing people that have, uh, larger houses than the average.

You'd be taxing commercial property owners, which are small business owners, and you would be taxing, um, uh, rental property owners, which means we'd be passing passing costs on to renters. So for that, for that reason, I would not support this $75K exemption just by itself because it's a progressive tax per cut.

Um, even though I don't support the, the area-wide— I don't like that because of the reasons I've stated— like, I still think it's a better way to capture some of those outside dollars. So you're reducing the overall tax burden on on the people who live here. So yes, some people are losing out in all these things, some people are losing out, but you're gaining overall as a borough because you're getting people in Anchorage to help pay for our services out here. And if we could just clarify what the motion is doing, um, that would be helpful. The motion is to remove all language regarding a sales tax.

And keep the language regarding the $75,000 exemption. Question. Deputy Mayor. Question, please.

Calling question. Is there objection to calling the question? There is objection to calling the question.

Okay, we need to vote on calling the question. I can get the members in the room to vote on calling the question, please.

Assemblymembers Sumner and McKee, calling the question. Calling the question. It passed unanimously. Okay, already. Um, we, we got to go straight to the vote.

Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Yeah, okay. Yeah, can't, can't talk. If I can get the members in the room to go ahead and vote on the amendment Assemblymember Bull's amendment.

It failed with Assemblymember Bull in support.

Okay, now do Assemblyperson Nelson. Um, this still might be voted down, but I want to go for the best proposal I think— I, I think that we could put out there, which is, um, a 1% area-wide, but make it seasonal, May through September. So, uh, Ms. Heindel made some estimates of a seasonal May through September would raise about, I think, about $11 million again. So we're, you know, plus or minus, we're within the range of the exemptions that people might take. So we're close to paying for it, um, and it would help people like, uh, the concerns I've heard like heating fuel.

Heating fuel is not exempted. So if you do May through September, it does give give people a chance to like fill up their tanks in October, and you're maximizing the amount of tourist dollars you're getting and minimizing the impact on local folks.

I'm sorry. Okay, go ahead. If I could just clarify, are you doing the 1% area-wide within the cities? Are you keeping seasonal May through September? Is that also with the 75%?

$75,000? Yes, nothing else would change. That's just—. Okay, thank Thank you. Thank you.

Assemblyperson Sumner, would that be May 1st through the last day of September?

But yeah, that was the way it was calculated.

Assemblyperson McKee, so just to clarify, it's—. We're suggesting 1% area-wide, May through September? Yeah. Okay. Assemblyperson Bowles.

Waltz. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, and I, I appreciate your attempt to lower and maybe get rid of the sales tax. I will support you on that part. Um, I would argue that more people recreate and come to the, the borough in the wintertime, um, versus the summertime, so I cannot support this amendment.

Okay, Deputy Mayor. Does this, uh, 1% during the summertime like that equal out the $75,000? Not even. Is it a draw?

Assembly person, yeah, I, I don't see logically how that would add up 1% for in 3 months or 4 months versus 12 months. I, I miss— Chan, please help. So I think this is some math 101 that doesn't even make sense here.

Okay, so who do you have?

Oh, okay. Oh, all right, some—. Uh, through the mayor, Ariel, through the mayor to the assembly. Um, I don't have the numbers right in front of me. Uh, we did do a 1% borough-wide.

That means it was 1% in the cities also. So that did create—. And I, I believe it was like a million, uh, $11 million in projected revenues. I believe the $75,000 exemption, if everybody took it, was $16 million. So that— $16— if 100% of all estimated single-family residents applied for the exemption, it would be $16 million.

For area-wide only.

Okay, Assemblyperson. It does. I believe, Miss— now I cannot support you on this amendment. I like the consistency. I think government should have a consistency.

This number doesn't even come close to what we want to achieve. I much rather have more in the revenue and then make a decision to lower it to 0.75 or use that over budget to apply to lower the mill rate as a whole versus doing this, um, playing this 3 months or 4 months game. So I will not support you on this amendment. Assemblyperson Gamble. Thank you, Cheyenne.

I just want to verify that in your calculations you subtracted out all of the senior citizens that are getting a discount and disabled veterans. They're not in that calculation. Through the mayor to Assemblymember Gamble, the senior citizens were removed from that calculation. We only looked at single-family residence, um, the way the ordinance is written, you can only have one exemption, whether it's a senior or whether it's the $75,000. Okay, thank you.

Okay, my question now is—. Okay, just on the finances. So it brings in about $11 million, um, the maximum that if everybody took the exemption, the $75,000 exemption, would be $16 million if everybody took it. It. So I think Mr. Sumner is right, not everybody's going to take it.

So you've got some wiggle room there. The other wiggle room is you're just guesstimating on online revenue. You're actually guesstimating on how much revenue just sales-wise there would be too, but you have some pretty good data from the cities. Online revenue, the Department of Labor statistic that they gave us was $3,600 a year that somebody spends online. That's a national average., and they said that they believe Alaska is higher.

They just— the studies that show it's higher, they don't— they're private studies, so they can't see into how that number was calculated. So yes, we might end up a little bit short, but not everybody's going to take the exemption. Perhaps more will come in, but you're not taking a flyer like 60 million flyer. You're taking a few million here or there, and you're giving people a way— you're giving the voters a chance to diversify our revenue base and grab some of that money from Anchorage.

I think it's a horrible idea to invite 200 people to a wedding and only cook 150 dishes.

I think it's horrible to over-collect from the taxpayer and then and say, well, we'll give it back to you because we know it won't go back. Okay, Assemblyperson McKee. Yeah, so you're saying you're not going to have both. You're going to have the $75,000 for primary resident people, whoever they are, how disabled or 102 or whatever. So it's either going to be either or, either the senior/disabled exemption or the— no?

Oh, oh. Or the $75,000. One will cancel out the other. Through the mayor to assembly member McKee, yes, that is correct. So if you are a senior getting senior exemption, you're getting the $200,000 or the $188,000 additional optional plus the $150,000.

If you are a single-family resident that is not a senior or disabled vet, you are getting $75,000 if you apply. You cannot get both. You cannot be a senior or disabled vet and get both exemptions. Exemptions. Has anybody suggested this?

Senior citizens and the disabled vets, that's a shocking thing. I don't know how that's ever going to fly because I mean, I personally don't know what the exemptions, the dollar exemption is. Is it going to get— are the seniors, are the disabled veterans going to like this better than the one they got now? Through the mayor to Assemblymember McKee, the seniors and disabled vets exemption is, I believe, right around $288,000. Okay.

So if your property is $288,000 less, you're not paying taxes at all. The single-family resident who is not a senior is only getting a $75,000 exemption. If you're a senior, you cannot get the $288,000 plus the $75,000. You're only getting the $288,000. She'd be making money on something like that.

Yeah, I see it. Thank you. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles. Madam Mayor, thank you. Um, so just in case this—.

We're on the amendment. Okay, so I'd like to add a secondary amendment just in case. Okay. Um, I would like to amend this by adding a 100% exemption for all seniors on the sales tax as well as all disabled veterans 50% rating or higher. Okay.

For the sales tax to ensure that they don't now have to pay more taxes because a sales tax is being brought in.

Okay. Let's give the clerk a minute here.

Is—. I'm sorry, guys, I'm tired. It has— the secondary amendment has to modify the primary amendment.

It would have to be a different amendment after this one passes or fails, I think. I think so too. I don't think it's— it's not modifying the primary amendment. Okay, sorry you guys, I'm getting—. I'll put that on hold.

So it's out of order, right? So we're back up to you, but yes. Okay, okay, so it's out of order. Okay, so, so we're back to the amendment, primary amendment. So I rescind my secondary amendment, but I want to make the comment that this will now bring more taxes for seniors and disabled veterans.

Come on, Sumner, call the question. Yeah, can I, can I call, can I call the question? You're missing your cue.

You can ask if they're ready to vote. Yeah, okay, I can do that then. All right, I will I won't put you on the spot all the time then, Max. So, are you ready to vote? The amendment is to make it a 1% area-wide seasonal tax, May 1st through September 30th.

I can get the members in the room to go ahead and vote.

Madam Mayor, it failed with Assemblymember Sumner and Nowers in support. Okay. All righty, so now we're back to the main motion. Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. I would like to amend this ordinance by adding a 100% sales tax exemption for all seniors and disabled veterans 50% rating or higher.

What? 50% What? 50% Rating, disability rating or higher, for disabled veterans. Okay, so the motion— everybody hear what the amendment— okay. Assemblyperson Sumner and then Deputy Mayor.

Um, I mean, we had this discussion, uh, about this exemption, uh, amendment on a different sales tax, so just rinse and repeat my arguments previously where everyone's going to send their granny to the grocery store and keep that in mind. Deputy Mayor, can I call the question?

Is there objection to calling the question?

Assemblyperson McKee, was that an objection? Yes. Calling.

Okay, all right, so there is an objection. So if I can get the members to vote on calling the question on the primary amendment.

It has failed with Assemblymembers Sumner, Bernier, Gamble, and Bowles in support. Okay, so let me get Assemblyperson McKees and then I'll come to you, sir. Go ahead. I, I just asked the attorney if you—. Is it against the law somehow, or custom, or whatever, to tax healthcare?

Why? I mean, there's— that's probably the biggest industry in the state of Alaska. Why can you not— why can you not tax healthcare? And it goes up to a certain point, it was $1,000 or something like that. Oh, okay.

Oh. Oh, we have to stay on. Okay, it's getting to that hour. Okay, never mind. How do you want to call the question?

Yeah, okay, let's see. Oh, I'm Assemblyperson Fono. I do think we already give a very generous exemption to our seniors, which in theory, and disabled veterans, in order puts a shifts that burden onto the, um, first-time homebuyers, buyers, families with kids, um, $280,000 or close to $290,000 exemption. So if you have a very modest home, you're 100% exempt. So that 1% is a very modest rate to actually close that gap, to give those families, those first-time homeowners, that, um, $75,000 exemption, which she quoted anywhere from probably $70,000 $750 to $1,100, depending probably where you live.

So I think this is the way it is without this amendment is good. So I will not support this amendment.

Further discussion on the amendment?

Any objection to the amendment? Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. Okay, if I can get the members to go ahead and vote on the amendment.

Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Gamble and Bowles in support. Okay, Assemblyperson Fong Ngo. We've discussed this over and over, Miss Nowers. We can make history today. We can do it.

This—. I had, I had a dream for 3 years, you know, hadn't happened. Um, it's very be a unique opportunity. It's it's, uh, you know, close to my birthday, 2 days away. So, uh, anyways, um, if you still want to be removed, I'm okay with that.

I won't be offended. But if you do want to, um, have something for once that we sort of co-sponsored, uh, welcome me, my name on there. It doesn't have to be— I'm not prejudiced one way or another, but I'm saying this is the way I would support it as it's written. I'd be ready to make a vote on it. I think those who decided had plenty of time to think about it, and we ultimately will let people decide.

That's the beautiful thing about it. I think it's a very reasonable thing. Um, that's the way it is written. I'm supporting. With any additional modification, my support would be absent, but ultimately it's the people that have to support it.

So that's my last argument for it or against it. Assemblyperson Gamble. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And just question for Nick. So Nick, um, If we passed a 1% for this ballot initiative and we brought in more money than we wanted, or we didn't bring in enough money, if we wanted to raise the sales tax, we'd have to go back to the voters, correct?

Yeah. So this way we could do exactly what Assemblymember Fonov said. If we're making— bringing in more than what we really need, then we can always reduce the tax later, and we don't need to go back to the voters to do that, correct? All right, thank you. Correct.

Go down or limit it to seasonal in the future, or change it. If you go down, you do not need to go back to the voters. Okay, thank you.

Okay, any objection to—. Just want to say, beyond making history, I think it addresses something that we've been hearing about for a long time. It gives voters a choice. It gives them a chance to say, you know, we— here's an option to solve this problem that you've been talking about, your high property taxes. You get to vote on it.

So, Deputy Mayor.

Okay, all righty, assembly person votes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, um, before we vote, this does not solve a problem of high property taxes at all. Um, what this does is bring in another tax on top of the taxes we already have. So this does not solve a problem, this creates a new problem, a new tax that, um, I know is going to cause us to pay more money.

So just please keep that in mind when you vote.

Okay, so we're ready to vote. It sounds like there's objection. I just want to remind people we have an executive session yet tonight. Okay, we've been on this subject for, I think, over an hour.

Assemblyperson McKee, you have a thought? We've been on it over an hour, and I appreciate that, I really do. Um, but I think I don't particularly care about the senior exemption. Obviously it applies to me, but I, but I, as far as the disabled vets are concerned, they already paid their dues, and I don't understand if this is going to, if this is going to burden them in any way. I, I just don't think that's right.

They already gave That's just—. Okay, all righty.

We have an objection, I guess. So if I can get the members to go ahead and vote on the main motion.

Pass with Assemblymember McKee and Bowles opposed. Okay.

So let's see, we're going to do—. We probably should do this and then go into executive session. Oh, okay. Yeah, we got comments too. I forgot about that.

Yeah, right. Yeah, Deputy Mayor, you want to do— or— yeah, we're going to do, um, parting comments and go into the executive session, but we may be in the executive session when 10 o'clock comes. So if you want to make the motion to extend—. I move to extend the meeting until 11 o'clock. Okay, is there objection?

Okay, all righty. So now we are at parting comments. Miss— they're busy down there. Assemblyperson Fono, parting comments.

Mr. Bonnier, I did not— I did not support pulling things off the agenda where you had in mind. However, I will say my logic behind— I'm telling you in the future because we're now putting this proposal on the ballot with 1% specifically to address the primary residents. I will not be supporting 2 ballot measures that are tax related. So I'm being transparent, telling you my reason for it, because I do think by having more things that are confusing to people, both have tendency to fail. And one good— well, either one, if it was just one or the other, that would be different.

But now that we voted on this, I hope you consider maybe withdrawing or tabling that idea. And one of the probably biggest biggest reasons is because that exemption goes across the board, including for corporations, investment properties, and things like that, versus the one that we passed is just for primary residence. Other than that, I appreciate the very good debate today, and I think it was, um, we've accomplished a few things. So, and we'll let ultimately the voters decide it. That's all.

Some parting comments? Assemblyperson Gamble. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, and, um, that's the only reason why I voted yes for that is because ultimately it's going to be the voters that decide. But I agree with Assemblymember Bowles and McKee that our seniors and our disabled veterans are on fixed incomes for the most part and maybe, you know, living from paycheck to paycheck.

And this may be, you know, where they got to start going without a meal, you know. Once or twice a week or whatever. And I think that it's a shame that we left that sales tax in there without taking it out for these seniors and the disabled vets. Thank you. Assemblyperson Bowles, parting comments.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I— yeah, that's frustrating, but, you know, I'll wake up tomorrow and it'll be a new day.

We just We as a body just moved something to the ballot that will increase our taxes if the voters vote for this. This is how it started in Anchorage, and I vowed— I vowed when I ran for this position that I would do everything possible to be a brick wall against the things that are happening in Anchorage bleeding out here, and we just allowed something to happen here that's happening in Anchorage. So I'm kind of disgusted by this, honestly. That being said, thank you, District 1, for putting me in the seat. It's a privilege to serve you, and we'll see you next time.

Madam Clerk, parting comments? Just want to say that I hope you were able to do something fun today. You're here tonight. We laughed a few times tonight.

Assemblyperson Mowers, parting comments. Yeah, I just want to be clear, if there's a $75,000 exemption on your property, you're getting about a $700 a year break. So that's what you'll be voting on. Um, I wanted to, um, bring up an issue and ask the manager, uh, to get some information from our delegation. My understanding is that Alaska State Parks in the Matsu, which covers the Matsu and Copper Basin area, is down to 2 rangers.

And, um, Big Lake alone on July 4th was, uh, enough for 2 rangers to handle. Um, they have a 3rd position that is funded, but there's some hangup at the state that they are not moving forward with a new hire, and it takes almost a year lead time to train a ranger. So, um, we'd like to get that started, and if we could just ask our delegation for information about, um, if that's correct and, and if we can rectify that so that we can get a third ranger for this area. Is there objection from the assembly regarding requesting the manager to do this?

Okay.

Deputy Mayor, parting comments. Thank you for coming out. And dear Lord, please bring us all together. Give us ears to hear, eyes to see, and a heart to love with. Lord, please bless our first responders, our veterans.

Just help everybody that's in their troubles. Lord, fill us with your Holy Ghost. In Jesus' name, amen. Boarding comments, Assembly.

Yeah, uh, getting on the Assembly, there was something that I quickly discovered. It was that you can care very passionately about a position and it really doesn't matter because there's 7 people. It doesn't always go your way as much as you care about it or repeat yourself about the issue, you know. Um, but, uh, I mean, it's all about compromise, right? And, uh, I, I voted pretty consistently against putting taxes on the ballot, but it's clear that, like, there is going to be a tax on the ballot.

The discussion was started, started by Mr. Bowles, who started the discussion and shined a light, uh, uh, well-deserved light on the fact that everyone hates property tax and, and we need to diversify our, our tax base case, you know, short of cutting, cutting spending, which we just went through the budget cycle and we didn't cut a lot. You know, we were handed a pretty trim budget, and, uh, if you remember the motions by the rest of the assembly, there weren't a lot of motions to cut things out of the budget. And that's the way to really drive down taxes. You can, you know, if you collect less revenue but you still spend the same amount of money, well, then you're insolvent. So just collecting less revenue is not a solution.

Cutting spending is the solution, right? But we didn't do that. So we, we basically said to the people— the people told us these are the services that we want in our borough, and we have to provide those in the most efficient way possible. That means collecting some tax revenue. I guess it's a long-winded way of saying that out of all the tax proposals that I've seen, the one that I've already asked on, the one that's going on the ballot, is I think actually the most diversified, uh, and which draws revenue from outside people and gives the biggest benefit to the citizens of the Matsuburo.

The Matsuburo has a 77.2% homeownership rate, so most people in the valley own their own homes. The national average is about 65%, so people in the valley far and away own their own homes. So this, if this passes on the ballot, it will actually benefit 77% minus people who have other exemptions, I guess., of the population. So that could be a good thing. Assemblyperson McKee, parting comments?

Actually, I don't think— I think I said about everything I needed to say. Um, I know that the voters have made it very clear that they don't want us taking more of their money. I'm not sure we accomplished that tonight. Maybe with the outside revenue coming in in taxes, that might help a little bit. It's an experiment.

We'll see how it goes. It's kind of scary, but there you are.

Mr. Attorney, parting comments? No parting comments, but if we could extend the meeting before going into executive session. Where are you at? 11. Okay.

Where are you at? Yeah, we may. Sorry. I'm getting tired too.

So I just want to thank everybody for honoring me tonight. I don't feel a year older, but you know, tomorrow may be another day. So anyway, um, Deputy Mayor, you want to move us into executive session?

I move to enter executive session for matters which the immediate public knowledge of which would clearly have adverse effects upon finances of the borough, and matters which which by law, municipal charter, or ordinances are required to be kept confidential, and to discuss matters involving consideration of borough records that by law are not subject to public disclosure, and discussions of matters subject to attorney-client privilege. In particular, to discuss Davidson Family Trust versus the Matsu Borough, 3PA-26-02199-CI, The present— those present during executive session will be the mayor, the assembly, the attorney, the manager, and the clerk. Thank you. Discussion by the assembly? Any objection to the motion?

Hearing none, then we will go in at 9:41 to the executive session.

Deputy Mayor, will you take us out of executive session, please? I move to exit executive session. Okay. Hearing any objection? Hearing no objection, we have exited at 10:42.

Okay, is there any objection to adjourning?

So hearing.