Mat-Su Borough: Assembly Meeting August 18, 2026

I'm going to go ahead and call a meeting to order, please.

I'm going to call this meeting to order at 6:01 PM. This is a regular meeting for Tuesday, August 18th, 2023.

26Th. Madam Clerk. Michael Bowles. Here. Stephanie Nowers.

Here. Dee McKee. Maxwell Sumner is running a couple minutes late. Bill Gamble will not be present. Dimitri Bonoff.

I'm here. Ron Bernier. Present. Madam Mayor, you have a quorum. Thank you.

Is there anything any of the members would like to pull from the consent agenda? Yes. Person hours. I've got a list. These are the, the NSTAR additional cost ones.

AM26-105, AM26-106, AM26-108, 26-109, 26-110, 26-111, 26-112, and 26-116.

Are there any other items that any of the assembly would like to pull?

I'm sorry, assembly person. Okay, okay. Are there any other changes to the agenda anybody would like to make? Assembly person Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I would like to move Ordinance, um, where is it here?

26-095 To the top of the list under public hearings to be the first one, um, discussed.

26-095 To be number 1 in the public hearings, right? The bottom of page 6.

Any other changes? We need to ask if there's objection. Okay, is there any objection regarding moving, um, the ordinance to be number 1 at the public hearings? I don't know if anybody heard you. Okay, all right, we'll try it again then.

There's been a motion by Assemblyperson Bowles to move Ordinance 26-095 to the beginning of the public hearing remains under the regular agenda. Is there objection?

Okay, I haven't heard anything. Then let the record show that Assemblyperson Sumner arrived at 6:03. Are there any other changes to the regular agenda? I'm having trouble. In Assemblyperson Sumner, we did ask for changes to the consent agenda.

There were a number of them. But if you had one, we could add it at this time.

No, I didn't think I had anything.

Okay. All righty. Hey, any other changes, anything to the agenda? Okay, everybody's okay. If you all stand, please, and Deputy Mayor, would you lead us in the Pledge?

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.

We do not have any meeting minutes to be presented. Um, under reports and correspondence, agency reports. Let's see, do we have anybody from any of the cities? Okay, I don't see anybody. Don't see anybody from the school district.

Tom, you have State of Alaska, please.

Good evening, Todd Smolden with the governor's office in the Matsu. I just wanted to stop by quickly. It looks like you have a very busy agenda with a bit of public testimony, so I don't want to take too much time, but it's been a little while since I've been here and just wanted to check in to see if anybody had questions. Assemblymember Nauer, I don't know if you received my email about, about the the park ranger thing, but I— Manager Brown did pass that forward to me, so I tried to get some information. I'm sure it wasn't necessarily the answer you were hoping for, but the governor has always said we, we don't give constituents, uh, necessarily the answer that they want, but at least they deserve an answer.

So, so I passed that on. Um, I hopefully— I, I'm, I'm pretty certain from what I heard that there would be a full staffing of park rangers before busy, busy time next year. So hopefully that will happen. The, as far as what's happening in the governor's office, really right now I guess we are still kind of watching the legislature to see what they plan to do with the legislation related to AKLNG.

There was, the governor did put forward some compromise legislation and included the S corp tax, which he was told was kind of the sticking point as far as moving legislation forward for AKLNG. So he included that. And then we were told that, well, we, the legislature wasn't going to meet. So we're a little bit, uh, well, maybe he's not confused. I'm confused, um, about that since that was— we were told was the sticking point.

But then when that was changed, the legislature still decided not to meet. So they are having a resource committee, joint resource committee, on Thursday. We'll see what happens with those discussions. Other than that, we continue to work on the governor's priority of reducing regulations through AO 360. We have to build a budget for the next administration to use because the next administration will come on board on December 7th, and the budget is required to be filed by December 15th.

So the tradition is that the incoming administration will use the budget prepared and then make changes later once session starts. So the governor and his team continues to build the budget for next year, at least the preliminary budget. I don't know if there's any questions, but I am happy to take them if there are. Deputy Mayor, go ahead. Do you have any information on the Susitna gas field?

Um, my, uh, through, through the, uh, mayor to Assemblymember Bonnier. So I've been following, uh, the gas leasing out in the West Susitna for a few years now. Uh, there, there were leases that were not acted upon, uh, because of, um, the money needed to— for the bond, uh, to engage in activity was never realized. Those leases were then again put out to bid, and someone has— now has access to those leases. And I was told by one of the people who are participating that they anticipate once the court— there's a court case that immediately kind of came up to stop exploration.

Um, that when that is resolved, that they will be, uh, they will be ready to start doing testing. But they also told me that they need some infrastructure and that that was going to cost about $50 million. Um, I, I did not ask them to reach out to Manager Brown about $50 million. Um, I think that they might have been asking me for $50 million, but of course, we have a structural deficit at the state level of $1.9 billion. So that's about all I kind of know about what's happening in the West Sioux with gas.

But there is certain— there are certainly people who would like to develop it. And the leases are there, and the permits to do test wells have been issued by DNR.

Thank you, Todd. Assemblyperson Nowers, go ahead. Thank you. First of all, your hair looks really great tonight. Better than usual, which is, which is saying a lot.

And anyways, that aside, thank you for the park rangers. I think there's more to the story, so maybe we can talk offline about that. And I was curious that 20,000 acres that the state is talking about transferring to Ada, a lot of people have been talking about that, and it looked like in the Sentinel that ADA said something along the lines of, oh, uh, City of Houston was interested in property, we could give them 10,000 acres. And so is that deal extend to, uh, the borough? Because we've been asking for the state to transfer land to us for a long time.

Um, can you speak to that at all? Well, uh, through the mayor to Assemblymember Nauers first, thanks for the compliment on the hair. I don't know what happened this morning, but I'll try to repeat it in the future.

You know, I appreciate your question. I think really what you're trying to say is, is why hasn't the state given the borough some land that Manager Brown's been working on for a while? I do appreciate the question. I guess I kind of lost track on where the borough is at with that process. I hope that there's some progress being made.

You know, I don't want to speak too long about land transfers. I will say that both the state and the federal government have a tremendous amount of land in Alaska that is not used for economic activity. And if we want the state services that a lot of people are saying that they want, and we have a $1.9 billion deficit, we have got to start using more of the land that is available for development, for responsible development. And it's one of the things that I appreciate about living in the Mat-Su is that we can work together on how we develop our resources responsibly. I know there are concerns about the public process that took place with that And, and I don't necessarily disagree with, with those concerns.

Um, but I think to your, your larger point, getting land in the hands of people who want to responsibly develop it should be a goal that all of us have. So thank you for the question. Assemblyperson Falloff, go ahead. As we know, today is the primary election. Um, I know governor, or I guess state, oversees the, uh, Elections, uh, as far as the time we can expect, I don't know if you've heard or have any information for primary results to be counted for those who voted early and absentee.

What is their timeline and by what date can we expect? Because we've had in the past where we waited a lot longer than we maybe should have. So do you have any update for us on that front? And through the Mayor to Assemblymember Fanoff, I I'm sorry if I misunderstood you to say— did you say the governor is responsible for elections? State of Alaska, I mean.

So the lieutenant governor by law is responsible for elections, not the governor. But to your question though, one of the things people don't understand is that Alaska law allows for ballots to be collected up to 14 days after Election Day. So there will be ballots coming in, as long as they're postmarked by Election Day, that will be counted in the primary. So because of that, that is one of the reasons why it takes so long for us to have final election results. I think that some— I mean, ballots are counted throughout that time period, but especially probably in the governor's race, it might be difficult to know who those top 4 candidates are for a few days.

So, but I do know that—. Oh, okay, um, the clerk just reminded me that voting is going on behind the wall, so let's talk about candidates. I wasn't talking— we were talking about timeline of when we can expect the results. It was not specific to a candidate or proposition of any kind. We understand.

We hadn't gone there, but we didn't want to go there. Okay, thank you. I will say no more to honor the clerk.

It takes a long time. That's the bottom line. Yes, it does.

Any other question? Yes. Deputy Mayor. One last thing, as far as the ADA deal with it, is there a way we can convey to them that they should be interested in the Point McKenzie and West Sacitna access area and not the Houston Willow area?

Uh, through the Mayor to Assemblymember Bernier, um, I believe that ADA is currently working on a number of different things, some with the borough, some with other investors and other interested groups— Ambler, Point McKenzie, the port. And so I, I, yeah, there's a number of different things that they're working on. I know that the Willow, uh, the Houston land transfer a lot of media in the, in the Matsu, but there are a lot of different development areas that ADA is working on right now.

Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Nice to see you twice in one day. Thank you all.

Okay, um, on the Joint Assembly School Board, there has not been a meeting, but there is a meeting scheduled for next week. The next item is the public relations. Does anybody from the assembly have public relations they would like to tell us about?

Okay, yes, Assemblyperson McKee. Yeah, I don't know if this is a place for it. But does that include congratulating one of our assembly members for— not as an assembly member, but for what he had— what he did recently in a very charitable thing? Can I say that now, or shall— do I have to wait till later? Yeah, go ahead.

Public relations. Um, Mr. Fono went to Uzbekistan, his birthplace and where he was raised, and they have been having apparently a heat wave there. Hope it's okay if I say this, Demetra, because you deserve it. They've been having a real heat wave there and they have like a church in this particular place that serves like 8 different denominations, religions, and such. And because of this heat wave, people can hardly bear to stand there and they're having a youth group come in for a religious education kind of thing.

So this guy said, "Geez, I know what we can do. Let's raise some money for you. I will start calling people." I was fortunate, blessed to be one of the people that he called. They got their air conditioning units. The ship is moving forward.

And the coolest thing, I actually got my name mentioned in Uzbekistan. I thought, that's like a million miles away. But this is the guy that did it, and that's the generous guy that he is. And he would never tell you that he did it, but I think it should be known. It was a really very generous thing.

And my guess is he put up a heck of a lot more money than I did. So congratulations, Dimitri. Thank you.

A couple things I'd like to make the assembly and the public aware. Uh, today at Tuxilla Chamber. We had a presentation by the Matsuburo. We do that at least once a year, and I spoke, and then a number of the directors spoke, and there was an interactive survey that had been sent out. There's probably 160 people there, I guess.

Place was packed, and, oh, we got some very good responses. I don't know if maybe they are aware, and if the assembly would like to see the questions and how people responded. And so that went very well. One of the other things we noted at that meeting, as well as maybe you've already seen on Facebook, the fires in Tok, and Ken has and Mike, of course, have sent some resources up there, just like we did to Fairbanks a couple of years ago. So we are doing some contributing.

I believe there are 3 fire departments that have participated, someplace between 10 to 12 people. And so we're helping that area both physically, and, and I think everybody is praying for that area also. Okay, Mr. Brown, do you have a report? I'll be very brief, Madam Mayor. I just want to remind folks of the open house at Port McKenzie Friday and Saturday from 10 AM to 4 PM.

That's open to the public. So for folks that may have no idea what Port McKenzie is or what it's about, we open it to the public, bring folks in, give tours, answer questions. Um, and so Friday, Saturday, 10 AM to 4 PM. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Attorney.

Report? Okay. Madam Clerk? Just the clerk's report is in the red folder. Okay.

The next item is citizens and other correspondence.

Are there any comments on the citizens and other correspondence from the assembly?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, Madam Clerk, would you please read the IMs? IM 26157, informing the assembly of the manager's signature on 5 grant applications for the Online with Libraries grants through the Alaska State Library. IM 26161, reporting the conclusion of contract for bid 25007B with Steppers Construction for a final contract amount of $6,776,465.36 for the construction of the Gateway Visitor Center project. IM 26169, Informing the assembly of the submittal of a statement of interest in submitting a match and gap funding grant application to the Denali Commission. Are there any comments on the IMs?

Hearing none, they are presented. Uh, next item is audience participation. It looks like we have a sign-up sheet. We will call on the people that have signed up first, and then it will be open to Everybody, both people that are physically here as well as are online. And Michelle, um, says that— okay, if you come forward and the mic is already on, if you'd state your name for the record and then give us your testimony, please.

You have 3 minutes. Yes, my name is Michelle Rose. I'm a resident of Wasilla and a property owner. Thank you for this opportunity to address the assembly. Um, my purpose for being here this evening is concerning the Seldon Conservation Easement, which is along Seldon Road between, uh, excuse me, Lucille and Wasilla Fishhook.

And this particular conservation easement goes back to the 1980s when Walter Ross, who was the original prescriptor for the easement, was concerned about the Alaska Railroad extension going through that land, which is actually wetlands. My property is adjacent to this particular location of this, this easement. The area is an old lake bed. It's actually extension of Memory Lakes, and as a result is drainage, and it's designated wetlands by the Army Corps of Engineers. And my reason for being here this evening is, uh, nobility.

I believe that, uh, the Matsuboro is experiencing a tremendous amount of expansion, which has compressed this area, especially the wildlife. And I have contacted numerous agencies, including the borough, regarding what could be mitigated concerning protecting the wildlife in this area, which I personally observed all the species that have— and I actually venture out in cross-country skis in the winter, see a lot of tracks. Um, the reason for being here this evening is now I understand there's an advertisement being displayed. I have brought some material if any of the assembly members would like to see it. Being displayed by the current owner, which was defaulted from a 3-year owner.

It's a private property who's advertising a hunting paradise. And inasmuch as hunting and trapping is an issue with the wildlife here, there's several concerns I have, one of which is it's become a migration— excuse me, migration route for the moose. It's also become a lot of the preserved for the waterfowl, including the, uh, tundra swans. Uh, there's a lot of rare species. There's a lot of, um, breeding in this area.

I've observed personally a lot of cat— moose calves, uh, especially right now. Um, and it's, it's something that moves me after 21 years living here and observing the changes around this easement, including the small parcels of private property that developed around it. And the traffic, uh, especially Seldon Road. Concerns me about the possibility of advertising a hunting paradise with the issue of scattering the wildlife, uh, not only in the road out of the easement but also the safety of the residents. And the prescription that Walter Ross devised in 1980, uh, now today is upheld by Great Land Trust, but it does not cover wildlife.

It covers the footprint. On the conservation easement, it's 104 acres. Uh, with regard to that, uh, the prescription suggested that the easement was devised for the enjoyment of the residents, that they could access and observe the wildlife. I urge the borough to consider that there is, uh, from every agency that I've spoken to, including federal, borough, and state, that the borough is the governing agency that would oversee any changes to any conservation easement. And with the growth, you can observe— I'll be brief—.

You can observe the changes in Anchorage, primarily the Campbell Creek tract. There's some interesting developments there to protect the wildlife as a result of development. Thank you for this moment.

Linda.

Oxley, there you are. Thank you. Thank you. Um, good evening, Assembly members, Mayor DePries, and staff. My name is Linda Oxley, and I represent Waco in these comments in support of the Zero Lake Coalition.

We are here again to keep alive our strong concerns about the borough reclassifying the Zero Lake parcel to allow for a future shooting range. Clearly, there's a shooting problem in the borough with more people owning and using guns. And limited developed sites to shoot safely. Unfortunately, the wheels turn so slowly that once a decision is made, people start to migrate to that spot, which is what's happening in Jonesville, which has become beyond dangerous because of the lack of a finished managed site. That would be the worst of the worst-case scenarios for the proposed Zero Lake site.

In contrast, we have the Montana Creek Shooting Range, owned and managed by the Upper Susitna Shooters Association, In 2007, Waco wrote a letter of support for the borough to sell them that land for that range. It's well managed. Its location is excellent, accessible to all with a nominal daily rate. It has a 1,000-yard range which will accommodate many, if not most, of the weapons on the list of usual guns that Alaskans use. If anything, the borough should do everything in their power to support this exemplar of a community group addressing a community need.

We've given you a binder of facts about why the Zero Lake site is such a poor location, starting with it's located right next to properties owned, actively used, and being developed into full-time homes. At a minimum, no private property should suffer the devastating consequences that this type of development would bring. We've given you information on the lack of fire service coverage, the fires that have started at other firing ranges, described the heavy use of the entire area for multiple types of year-round use, by residents and visitors alike, and describe the parts of the cost burden that trying to address the necessary infrastructure will mean. We've advised you that the borough does not own any part of the trail, which is called a road. We've given you information on the danger posed to fish downstream from lead contamination, not to mention the sound pollution for miles around.

We found a better—. Much better location, ready to go with road access, zoned for heavy industry, so that it could be developed much more quickly. Waco remains the bastion of support for the recreation and tourism industry that the area is currently revered for. We think that the amount of money brought into the borough is sorely misunderstood because it goes to small businesses throughout the valley for all these different activities, and the borough needs its small businesses to be successful. Those are sustainable industry.

In summary, please vote this ordinance down about 0 Lake Road turning into a shooting range in the future. Our facts should have provided overwhelming evidence that this site is very poor to, in the future, develop into a range. We've given you another very viable alternative site. If you must continue to look at this site, please put a moratorium on the topic for 2 years to fully evolve the risk, the consequences, and any mitigation methods that might be required and useful. Thank you for your time.

Darcy Morgan.

Good evening, assembly members. My name is Darcy Morgan, and I'm here in opposition to old business OR 26-16, the shooting range classification on Zero Lake Road. As you all know, my cabin sits less than a quarter mile, or about 1,000 feet, feet downrange from the proposed site. We are approaching a year of this process, and throughout that time, we've continued to raise serious concerns about the site safety, wildfire risks, environmental impacts, potential lead contamination, poor access, and most importantly, the proximity to private occupied property. The problem is not the lack of information.

The problem is the site. The proposal would place a public shooting range immediately adjacent to private occupied property. This is not a minor land use issue. It's an extraordinary decision that could set a troubling precedent. If this is approved, it tells every property owner in the borough that a public shooting range can be placed next to someone's home simply because government-owned land is available.

We also cannot ignore that people already go up there and shoot informally, sometimes irresponsibly. But that's not a reason to formalize and increase shooting activity in the same location. Look at Jonesville. If anything, it shows why this is a wrong site, not why it should be further developed. There is a need for a shooting range.

However, it should be built on a better site, one that is safer, more appropriate, and does not place residents directly in harm's way. We have provided information on an alternative location with safer conditions and easier access. We are not asking you to decide this based on a motion. We are asking you to look at the facts. Look at the site, look at the proximity to private property, look at the wildfire risk, and look at the access, and ask yourself one question: if you were choosing the location for a shooting range today, knowing everything you now know, would you still choose this site?

I believe the answer should be no. Sometimes the responsible decision is simply to recognize that the site itself is wrong. After nearly a year, please stop trying to make this site fit a proposal it was never appropriate for. Please protect the surrounding property owners and do not establish a precedent of placing a public shooting range next to privately occupied property. This is not the right site location.

And as we now know, the other side of our property— one side will be a shooting range, the other side is the land transfer. So it feels like we're kind of getting attacked from all sides. So please shoot this down. We would like to move forward with developing our property. Thank you.

Robert. Hi, my name is Robert Morgan. I'm here to speak on OR 26-016. I apologize, but I'm feeling a little under the weather today, so I'll not be as articulate as Linda Ordarzi was, but I'm here, obviously. In opposition to that ordinance.

And I think we've talked multiple times now about all the different reasons why it's an inappropriate location. I'm a big fan of shooting. I think, Ron, you've identified a very serious problem in Valley that needs to be addressed. And I don't like— I don't like that we're talking about 20 years from now. This is a problem today, needs to be solved a lot sooner than 20 years.

So I hope that we can find a better property. I think we've propose a better property. I think that property could address that problem much sooner. So thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Um, Michelle Stevens. Oh, she just walked out, didn't she? Michelle? Okay, I guess we'll come— we'll come back for her. Um, Louise Kondry.

Oh, here she comes.

Good evening. I'm here to talk about Ordinance 26-089 and Resolution 26072, Alaska Long Trail Gateway.

Uh, dear Mayor DeVeers and assembly members, my name is Michelle Stevens and I am vice president of the Alaska Outdoor Council. The Alaska Outdoor Council supports the proposed improvements to the Matanuska-Susitna River Park and Campground, including the much-needed electrical and water infrastructure improvements that benefit the recreation public. However, AOC opposes the $100,000 Alaska Long Trail Gateway portion of the project and asks that the assembly to separate and remove that portion of the proposed scope of work. AOC would like clarification on how the $100,000 designated for the Alaska Long Trail Gateway will actually be spent. How much will go directly towards construction and installation of the gateway, and how much will be used for design, administration, planning, or other costs?

In 2024, the Assembly adopted Resolution 24-056, expressing concerns regarding the proposed Alaska Long Trail and a potential National Scenic Trail designation. Those concerns remain relevant today. While the current federal administration may not pursue a National Scenic Trail designation, federal administrations and policies change. A future administration could revive the proposal, bringing back the same concerns regarding the borough authority, public access, multi-use recreation, and management of these lands. Establishing and branding borough property as an official Alaska Long Trail Gateway now could further institutionalize the Alaska Long Trail route before larger questions surrounding a potential federal designation have been resolved.

The AOC asked the borough to remain neutral on the Alaska Long Trail branding while questions surrounding the future National Scenic Trail designation remain unresolved. So happy trails. I'd also like to let you know that the Alaska Snow Machine Alliance has emailed a letter in opposition of the $100,000 for the Alaska Long Trail Gateway.

Thank you. Next is Louis. Hello, my name is Louis Kalandry, and I'm a— live right here in the area, and I'm also the vice president of Big Lake Trails. And I'm coming to say yes to the campground and all the improvements that it needs, and no on the portion of the Alaska Long Trail. I attended a bunch of the meetings and helped with community resolution to say no to the Alaska Long Trail crossing some of our trails.

You know, it starts here, it's going to continue to push, and we're going to be fighting it again. So that's my nutshell version of yes to the campground and those upgrades and no to the Long Trail portion. Thank you very much.

Tom Blair.

Good evening, I'm, uh, Thomas Blair. Let me get my notes here. I'm here in reference to the, uh, Ordinance 26-016, the zoning issue. Uh, I strongly oppose the industrial zoning for that area, the Zero Lake recreational area. And the development of the shooting range.

Uh, the proposal raises serious concerns regarding public safety, environmental impacts, that property values, infrastructure limitations, and enforcing of the existing rules and regulations that we already have on the books— noise ordinances, etc. I do recommend and concede with them on a 2-year moratorium before any of the zoning issues are decided in this area, so that we can study the, the impacts and effects of the noise, wildlife, water quality and usage, emergency response, but most importantly, how any industrial complex plans to mitigate the Castle Mount fault line that runs directly through that whole area. And that is one of our most active fault lines in the state of Alaska. Zero Lakes serves both as residential and recreational purposes. The shooting range or any major massive industrial complex does not, in my opinion, suitable for that area.

Most Alaskans love recreating in that area, and that's one of the closest areas to Wasilla Willow for recreation. I also proposed that the DNR lands be conveyed to the Matsu Borough. It was to my understanding from DNR that once their permit came up on 2026, that those lands were going to be conveyed to the Matsu Borough. Now they have the plans with Ida. So basically, in closing, if we could just put a slow the brakes a little bit on this whole process?

It seems to be rolling very quickly. And how do they plan to mitigate those earthquake faults? And what kind of environmental impact would we have if their data centers were destroyed or damaged from an earthquake in that area? Thank you for your time.

Carl Salazar.

Good evening. My name is Carl Sadlowski. I am here to beat a horse that should be dead. However, to that horse I say nay to the Zero Lake shooting range at this point. Thank you.

I'll be here all night. At this point, I think those of us opposing location have attended enough assembly meetings that we should either start earning frequent flyer miles or at least get reserved parking, potentially lounge access, uh, if that's available. But I'm here to make a point very clear. We're not asking you to choose between having a shooting range, not having one. We've already identified and presented an alternative location that is by every practical measure better.

It's already zoned heavy industrial, does not contain salmon spawning area, far better maintained access road, significantly less environmental impact. We're no longer asking where else could the range go, we're asking why are we still trying to force it here when we've already shown you a better place to put it. As I've said before, that whenever government creates something for public use, it has to account for both good and bad behavior. As we stated, Zero Lake has not always seen the most good behavior with folks going out there shooting, leaving debris, tearing up the road. There are good drivers, bad drivers.

Good gun owners, bad gun owners, good neighbors, bad neighbors, and good assembly members and bad assembly members. Also had to bring that one back, 'cause it seemed to go over fairly well. And the nice thing is, is unlike shooting ranges, voters get to reconsider assembly members every few years. Joking aside, this is where good government should separate itself from bad government. Good government listens to new information, recognizes when a better option has been presented.

Good government doesn't become so committed to defending its original decision that the decision itself becomes more important than the outcome. Continue to pursue the more controversial, uh, environmentally sensitive location isn't simply a question of whether shooting range is needed. It's now a question of why this location is being preferred over a demonstrably better alternative. I support a shooting range. I support gun ownership.

I support spending public money to build something that can serve this community for generations, especially from the standpoint that my property taxes went from $1,300 last year to $2,400 this year I would like to see all my extra funds that I've generously donated go towards something that's beneficial for everyone. I don't— I just don't support spending money that for— I don't support spending that money forcing a good project into the wrong location when a better one is sitting on the table. You've asked the public to participate in this process. We did. You've asked us to bring forward concerns.

We did. And rather than simply complaining, we brought you an alternative, and we did the due diligence process on your behalf. To help make an educated decision. Now that we're asking you to seriously consider it— and now we are asking you to seriously consider it, because at some point, listening to the public has to mean more than simply giving us a few minutes at a microphone. This is democracy.

The people have spoken. Please listen. Thank you.

Jackie.

Good evening, Mayor and Assembly. My name is Jackie Goforth. I want you to know that despite what anyone tells you, there is an effort in the country right now to sexualize, groom, and confuse our children on their genders. It is being fomented by teachers' organizations and by nonprofits. I give to you a handout to prove this.

The first one is from hightops.org, and as you can see, their goal is to indoctrinate young children by focusing on grades 5 to 8 to catch ch— kids when they're starting puberty. In fact, the director of education says the most critical time to be there is grades 5 through 8 because you wanna catch kids when they're starting puberty. In other words, You can't block puberty if your victim's already been through puberty. That's the intent. And so toward that, there's a book that is trying to be donated in Talkeetna right now, and two of the library board members flagged it.

It's called The Gender Will. You have a copy of page 33 in your hands, and as you will notice, the top person is a juvenile naked with male genitalia who's wearing the sign that says she. And you'll notice on the bottom, there's a female who's wearing the sign of "he." And then for some strange reason, one of these people is wearing a sign that says they're a tree. This is what they want to put into the Talkeetna Library for children as a nonfiction. Now, you think it's not the American Library Association nonprofit?

Well, let's see exactly what they're doing. Here's their lesbian Marxist past president. And what is she teaching? How to queer the libraries.

And if you think the friend— there are chapters. The American Library Association has chapters called Friends of the Library. The Friends of the Library are entrenched into most libraries. They actually think they own the place. They have an agreement with the American Library Association that says they get to use the building, they get to use the staff, they get to use the office equipment, they get to use the storage.

I've seen it. I'll be happy to give you another copy. And this is what the former president, who recently resigned, of Sutton Friends of the Family Library had to say. And I'd really like to read from her entire transcription, which is on the back of this page.

Sex and gender. Biological sex is not as simple as saying XX or XY. Human sex characteristics include chromosomes, hormones, gonads, reproductive anatomy, and secondary sex characteristics and naturally occurring variations that include XXY, XYY, XXX, and XO, and a mosaic of chromosome patterns. She said this in a supercilious tone of voice without one hint of proof. And if you think that it's just— it's not the friends of the family, friends of the library, I have this book for you.

The very opening line is, 'When Aidan was a boy, his parents told him he was a girl.' And to know where it came from, it was generously provided by the Wasilla Friends of the Public Library.

Thank you.

Linda.

My name is Linda Spohn. When government fails to protect the most vulnerable, it betrays the very purpose for which it exists. Where are the defenders of the obscene, perverted book Let's Talk About It? The ones who came in here and said this obscene material was good for children. They told you there was no pornography in our libraries, no obscene material.

This assembly has heard and seen offensive arguments against this book that is challenged for removal from our taxpayer-funded libraries. The same socialists and Marxists come and praise our libraries for the wonderful programs they offer—fun stuff, crafts, entertainment, and children's programs—but the truth is they would be embarrassed to defend this evil, addictive, vulgar, rotten smut that they placed in our libraries. Are you, as our elected leaders, standing behind this obscene material? If this isn't cleansed from our institutions, it will only get worse. Our money wasted on debauchery and degeneracy.

The sad thing is those affected by it becoming perverted pedophiles, also preying on children, like some of our educated teachers, librarians, and museum workers. Doctors and legislative aid. After all, that is the plan, right? You should reintroduce the ordinance that Assemblymember Bowles introduced and then withdrew on library collections as it was originally written, and remove the book Let's Talk About It from our taxpayer-funded libraries. I also recommend that parents do not trust the government with their precious children.

I pray that God will destroy this evil in our country. The state and the Matsu Borough, in our institutions, schools, libraries, and in our government. I pray for protection for our children, minors, and families through the shed blood of our Savior Christ Jesus. Thank you. Also, I have an extra copy if anyone would like to see what we're complaining about.

Chris.

Good evening, uh, Mayor, Assembly. Uh, my name is Chris Leasing, uh, lifelong Alaskan, uh, business owner, and I'm president of Yurka Trails Inc. I'm here to speak on Ordinance 26-089 and Resolution 26-072. I'm here tonight in support of our fellow trail organizations and the people who work hard to maintain and protect recreational access throughout the Mat-Su.

We absolutely support improving Matanuska River Park and Campground. Good infrastructure Improved infrastructure, safe access, and well-maintained trails benefit all of us. However, I believe the $100,000 Alaska Long Trail Gateway portion should be separated from these improvements. There are still legitimate questions about the future designation and what that branding could mean long term. We can support better trails and better facilities without committing the borough to something that deserves its own discussion.

On behalf of Eureka Trails, I respectfully ask you to fund the needed improvements, but keep the Alaska Long Trail gateway portion separate. Thank you for your time.

Uh, I'm Kelton Hensley. I'm the neighbor adjacent to this proposed Zero Light Shooting Range.

Uh, for the last year, you've heard all the reasons imaginable as to why it's a terrible idea. And none for it. Last time I spoke, I relived the worst day of my life to help you understand the human impact. Unfortunately, I know that human impact is lost on certain assembly members like the one who proposed this and has strung this out for over a year. So I'll keep this short, to the point, prevent any further wasted time, specifically on my behalf.

Please listen to those of us that have taken time out of our lives to come up here and speak. Turn this proposed shooting range down. I begged for my life in a classroom once before. Don't make me do it again in an assembly room. Thank you.

Uh, Cory Morgan.

Cory, maybe you do. Sorry.

My name is Cory Morgan. Um, my family owns property up at Zero Lake. We've been fighting this for a very long time. Um, I don't have a speech prepared. I know this is the decision-making evening, so I would just like to lay it all out there.

Um, you've heard everything. You— we've given you plenty of opportunities, um, to make a different choice. We've given other properties that would work better for this. Um, just know that We are the members of your community that you want showing up to participate. Um, we're educated, we're paying our taxes, we're employed.

Um, the target for this shooting range are people that maybe you don't want in your neighborhood, um, that are already going to these areas illegally shooting. Um, we're up there every weekend enjoying this property. And we can tell you right now that we're seeing these nefarious people already out there. So I would really like that the assembly support those community members that can actually make a difference in our community, um, and are making this a better area to be, um, instead of unfortunately forcing us out or making us purchase property in other locations that respect our values and our wishes. Thank you.

Jeff Morgan.

Hi, my name is Jeff Morgan, and I am very much against this Zero Lake Road situation. We've come up and we've talked to you guys.

We've— you've heard it all. You've heard it all. There's no more information to give you. I know that there's some assembly members who are just hard-headed, but I'm begging the rest of you, please be considerate of those of us who have actually lived there and utilized the area. Thank you.

So that finishes the people that have signed up to testify, and now we'll open it to anyone else that, uh, oh, you haven't testified but you would like to testify, not only on that issue but any other issue or any issue that's on the agenda, or even if it's not on the agenda, you're welcome. To testify. So anyone else want to?

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

Hi, my name is Simone Griffin. I am the policy director for an organization, a 501 called the Blue Ribbon Coalition, and we advocate for motorized access to our Paluk lands and waters. And I am calling today to speak on behalf of Ordinance 26089 and Resolution 26072, the Alaska Long Trail Gateway. BRC has questions about the funds being granted for the Alaska Long Trail Gateway and funding appropriated for anything regarding the Alaska Long Trail, as the Alaska Long Trail has never been designated. These trails have to go through Congress, and Congress has not spoken regarding this trail.

A feasibility study has happened. However, that study showed significant issues with the process and with eligibility. There could be unintended consequences of these $100,000 funds being appropriated for this use and this branding that could have long-term effects that could be harmful to the local way of life, the local economy, and community. Any money going to infrastructure improvements for a trail that does not exist is presumptuous and could have some legal ramifications in the future. National Scenic Trails are historically problematic for closing historical motorized use and could harm your local economy and way of life.

So we ask for clarification and for the removal of that part of the grant. Thank you for your time and consideration.

The next person online, please.

Good evening, my name is Esther Huddleston and I'm speaking in regards to Resolution 26-072. I support the Rasmussen Foundation for the Matsu River and Park and Campground upgrades. However, I am asking the Matsu Borough Assembly to make an amendment and opposing the $100,000 to the Gateway Alaska Long Trail. Back in 1980, President Carter confiscated over 140 million acres of land from our state and created a whole bunch of national parks. Ever since 1980, State of Alaska has had multiple lawsuits to be able to exercise Alaska state rights.

The Mat-Su Borough barely has funding to fix roads. What does the Mat-Su Borough think that they can have funding to sue the federal government for their rights to their land? I know you passed the resolution stating that you support the Alaska Long Trail, but you maintain the rights. But how can you, the borough, have the funds to sue to keep your rights. I say no to Alaska Long Trail because that braided long trail through the Mat-Su Borough will become your braided plague.

You will lose access to logging, mineral development if it becomes federal— a federal national designated trail. People won't be able to access their cabins, 'cause they won't be able to take their snow machine or four-wheeler across the trail. The Alaska Long Trail is a plague. I say no to the $100,000. Don't let them open the door, put their foot in the door.

Shut it down before it becomes a problem like the state fighting their rights to our land. And, um, I just wouldn't support this. It's a bad mistake, and, uh, please make an amendment to eliminate that $100,000 towards the Alaska Long Trail. Thank you.

Bye. Go ahead, whoever's next online, please.

Yeah, this is Michael Blakeslee, and I'd like to speak on the Ordinance 26-089.

Um, I support the proposed improvements to the Matanuska River Park and Campground. However, I'm opposed to the Alaska Long Trail Gateway portion of the project and ask that the assembly remove that portion from the scope of work. In '24, the assembly adopted a resolution 24-056 expressing concerns regarding the proposed Alaska Long Trail and potential National Scenic Trail designation. While the National Scenic designation is not on the table right now, it may be on the table come the next administration. So establishing the borough as an Alaska Long Trail gateway should be considered separately because it could lead to more than we know.

Thank you.

We have one more person. Okay, go ahead, who's ever next online, please.

Yes, um, my name is Lloyd Niemann. Um, simply calling just to put my voice on record, uh, saying that I also don't support, uh, letting the federal government in with Alaska Long Trail. And, um, I wanted to comment too. I know we're The borough as a whole is trying to figure out its budget, and we've had a lot of increasing costs, and it's a difficult task.

I do—. I'm aware of the 1% sales tax. I haven't really looked into the details of it in depth, but my general understanding is that that would— the existing exemptions for seniors military, they wouldn't get an additional 2. So it's essentially hurting their pocketbook. And that's really sad to see that, especially with the seniors.

So that's all I had to say tonight. I just want to make my statement on the record here. Thank you.

Go ahead, whoever's next online, please.

Hi.

This is Paul Cook, and I'm just speaking towards 26-067, converting our property to fee simple.

We're known as the Northern Lights Elk Ranch of Alaska, and we're using the land as it's intended, which I think is the minority of the land that was put out this way. When we purchased the ranch 5 years ago, we had 59 head of elk. We currently have 90 elk, 600 broiler chickens, 200 turkey, 100 egg layers, and we're growing seed potatoes. So on top of that, our daughter moved on to the ranch and our son is moving on to the ranch. So that's to help with all the work there is here.

I think by letting us go fee simple, it will actually make things simpler. We were thinking of putting up a yurt a few years ago, and boy, did we have to jump through hoops just to put up a simple yurt. That's actually where my son's going to be living when that gets erected. Or, you know, changing the farm plan if I want to put up another storage area or something. So, uh, that on top of— we would like to, uh, convey this property to our children, you know, when we pass, and they're putting in all that work now, so it'll make it much simpler for us.

So we, uh Also, the Ag Board did review and recommend that the assembly passes, so we would appreciate that you do so. Thank you very much.

Anybody else online? No. So one last chance for anyone here that hasn't testified yet that would like to testify.

Okay. We'll go ahead and close audience participation. And Madam Clerk, we are on Ordinance 26095, an ord— an ordinance amending MSB 3.04.077A to lower the area-wide real property tax from 9.5 mills to 7 mills. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3.

Okay, so I'm going to go ahead. Let's see, do we have a sign-up sheet? We do not. Okay, thank you. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing then on Ordinance 26-095.

Do not have a sign-up sheet, but you're free to— and even if you testified, uh, under audience participation, if you want to testify on this ordinance, the testimony at this time is comments only on this ordinance. Anyone? Do we have anybody online? And we do not. One last chance.

Okay, I'll close public hearing. Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move to adopt Ordinance 26-095, and if I could speak to it. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you. Um, so yep, so I'm, uh, what I'm trying to do here is, is obviously cap the mill rate. Um, at the previous, the budget that we just passed was at 7.95. With, um, the assessments going up, um, constantly going up, the, uh, the revenues going up, even though the mill rate didn't— I mean, it came down a little bit, um, the assessments going up can easily bring in more revenue if the mill rate is not capped at a reasonable place. Right now the cap is 9.5, you know, and not to say that the borough manager is ever going to propose a budget at 9.5 mills.

I don't think that's going to happen. We have a very good manager, a fiscally responsible borough manager, but, um, and 2 years he may retire and we may have a different looking assembly. And so I'd like to get ahead of that if possible with our, our 5-year plan that the tax assessor has discussed at, you know, these constant, these 5 years of assessments going up at particular rates. I think it's, it's reasonable to try and protect residents from potentially large increases of property taxes in one year. I think, um, 7 mils in my opinion is reasonable.

It'll likely, with the increases in assessments going up, it'll likely bring in plenty of revenue close to what we've brought in last year. And I hope that my fellow assembly members will consider that and and move this and pass this ordinance. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Further discussion?

Assemblyperson Sumner. Well, this is a hot potato.

Uh, yeah, we did pass the mill rate of, uh, 7.95 mills, um, back in May, part of the budget process. I believe I might have been the only assembly member that proposed budget cuts, so I think everyone else was okay with that $7.95 mils.

Um, I was the one that proposed the 9-point— well, I proposed a $10 mil tax cap last year, so I brought the tax cap back. We were about 3 years without a tax cap, I think. Uh, Mr. Moneer amended it to $9.5. Uh, $7 represents a significant revenue cut. You know, there's expenditures and there's revenue.

I think that it's irresponsible to propose a reduction in revenue without identifying, you know, I guess I should take a step back. It is the— I think it's our job, the assembly's job, to identify, you know, where we want to spend money, the taxpayers' money. It's not our money, it's the taxpayers' money, you know, and how much we need to take out of their pockets to provide the services that they require. You know, schools, roads, EMS, fire— those are all things that require, unfortunately, tax dollars to provide. Um, the opportunity to dictate how much we're going to take out of our neighbor's pockets came in May.

It'll come again next May. Um, I think this is just a little out of order to, to say that we're gonna, you know, without even knowing— we're only 3 months into this year's budget We don't know what our requirements to provide those services will be next year, and we won't know for many months when we start the budget cycle. I, uh, I did ask the manager to prepare since, you know, this ordinance didn't identify where those cuts would come from, which is, I think, part of the assembly's job, you know, uh, you know, where he would propose the budget, where these cuts would come from if we were to institute a $7 million property tax cap. By the way, I have an election this November, so, you know, it's obviously very unpopular for me to say that I don't want to cut taxes because I do every year. I want to cut taxes.

We lowered the mill rate, you know, many years in both times, both budgets that I was a part of, we lowered the mill rate and cut spending. Uh, I mean, maybe I should ask Mr. Brown to, to give us a report on, on his, the paper he prepared for that. Would that be appropriate, Madam Mayor? I think, yes, maybe staff, if you don't mind. Yeah, if I could, Madam Mayor, if you could just walk through the methodology to talk about the increases in the assessed values and, and the value of new construction as it relates to the revenues.

And I suppose I can talk about spending, potential spending reductions after that. So, through the mayor to the assembly, um, I was asked to do an analysis of where our valuation currently is trending and also look at historical where our new construction was. And we looked at the last several years, 2022 through the current year. So we know this year based upon what we're seeing in the market and what we're seeing on the MLS that property values are increasing about 4%. That's just valuation.

We also know historically that new construction is about 1.5% of our overall assessed value. This year it's trending about 1.59%. So what we did was we took the certified roll, the roll that was certified in May of all of the properties in the borough that were used to build the budget that you guys adopted in May. And we started with the certified roll. We applied the 4% to that certified number to figure out what that increase would be.

We also applied the 1.59% to that certified value to estimate what we thought new construction would be. From there, we came up with the total tax dollars based on 7 mills. Um, so based on those calculations, and then we extended it out, we also extended it out for fiscal years '29 through '32. Um, we came up with for fiscal year '28 and, and basically a 1% increase on all other revenue sources because our other revenue sources are very static. Uh, we came up with $167 million $972,310 in total revenues.

Of that, $119,117,874 would be attributed to area-wide property taxes. Now the other side of this equation is spending, and so we had to look at our spending and where it was going. Our budget for fiscal year '27 for area-wide, the total budget was $198 million and some odd change. For fiscal year '28, I, in this analysis, you can see the, the steps we went through to build it. We know that our wages are based on the collective bargaining agreement.

Looking at ECI. So we pulled the current ECI, which is the economic— or the Employment Cost Index that the federal government publishes. We pulled what it was trending right now, which is 3.4%. We also know that staff under the collective bargaining agreement and the salary schedule, if they're eligible, get a 2% cost of living increase.

So That gave us our base increase for fiscal year '28 for wages and benefits of 5.4%. In subsequent years, we're hoping, we're hoping that the ECI will trend down as inflation hopefully will trend down, and we reduce that rate to 4.5% for future years. We also looked at school debt using the current debt schedules. We did not budget, we did not build any new debt in for schools. The same thing with for all other voter-approved debt, we did not build in any new transportation bonds, no other debt.

So debt, the debt we have on the books today is the debt we built the schedule about. The final thing we did was all other expenditures we looked at and we built in for fiscal year 28, a 3.5% rate of inflation because that's what it currently is. And again, hopefully it will trend down. The Federal Reserve wants a 2% inflation rate, that's what they're shooting for. So hoping, hoping inflation would trend down, we were conservative with the 3% increase.

So if we carry that through looking at this year's expenditures that were budgeted and approved in the budget and projecting all those assumptions forward, that builds an expenditure budget with no capital. And I mean no capital. Nothing to MSCBB, no, nothing to any area-wide capital account. That results in projected expenditures of $189,876,000.

$123 Compared to revenues of $167,972,310.

So where do we go from there? We know that we're going to have fund balance, and we also have reservations. One of our mandatory reservations is the $25 million minimum fund balance that has to be funded. Uh, we also have self-insurance of $1 million That basically, if you think about it, that's our deductible for our self-insurance. Then we have compensated absences in our reserves.

Those, if everybody, we terminated everybody today, that's how much the bureau would have to pay out for accrued leave. There's a small amount for, that's been in there for a while, for assembly projects, and then we also have a million-dollar reservation for major major maintenance and renovations. We've also, by code, have a $1,250,000 reserve for emergency response. So anytime we declare a disaster, that's where the money comes from to pay for the disaster until we know whether or not we can cover it out of operations or we're declaring a disaster that's going to the state level or the federal level. So that creates reservations that we have to fund as part of the budget process of $28,525,270.

So if you're looking at this memo that I wrote, we subtract out the revenue— subtract expenditures from the revenues generated. It generated a loss of $21 million. We applied fund balance. So in fiscal year '27, if we capped at 7 mils there would be a $22,032,955 expected reduction that would have to happen through expenditures to balance the budget. That's the equivalent currently at the current 1 mil rate of 1.35 mils.

Either you would have to suspend the rules and increase the mil rate by that or you have to cut. Now from there, we looked at what— and I'll turn it over to the manager right now— what cuts the manager would propose if we brought in a budget with a $7 mil tax cap.

Thank you, Charlene. So to finish this out with, how do you reconcile that? And I'm not a doomsday guy. Like, I don't like playing the scenarios where I'm like, oh my gosh, the sky is falling, everything will dissolved. But if we're talking about— I'm just going to round off a little bit to keep the math simple for everybody.

Let's say we're trying to overcome a $20 million gap because that's kind of what we're talking about here. And so if I were coming out of the gate and I had to propose a budget with a $20 million gap, obviously we're talking about service reductions. You're not going to do that by preserving all the services that we offer today the way we offer. So I think one of the things, if you look at your property tax bill that you get in your statement, you see that education spending is about 51%, right? So I would start right there and say, well, that's their half, right?

So that's a— that would be an $11 million deduction to schools. I cannot tell you what the impact of that would be. I can just tell you it would be less than the local education contribution. Following that out, there are other programs that I put in the memo that could be cut, just to give you some context for the size of the reduction, because there's some Like if we got rid of the water rescue team, we're saving a whopping $200,000. I mean, they're on-call responders and we don't, like those are not full-time employees with full benefits packages, right?

So you're losing a lot of service for a small gain in spending. And I could go through this. In essence, there's no way that you're gonna reconcile that type of a gap and preserve all the services that we have today. At that point, I think you have to start evaluating what services you just depart with entirely so that you can preserve the services that are most important to you. And so again, I'm not trying to create this scenario where, you know, it's like, oh my gosh, the sky is falling.

But if you're trying to find $20 million in reductions, I mean, our budget— and I get it, it's pretty big in the big scheme of things to your average person— But that's going to have a significant impact. Like, it's not like a 1% reduction in the budget. We're talking about something that's much more significant and that we would have to reduce. So I simply try to provide that for some context so you can understand the magnitude of it, because what the 7 mil tax cap essentially does is directs me to prepare a budget that does not exceed 7 mils. So my job would then be to work with staff and figure out what I would even put on the table for you to consider out of the gate, and then you'd have to figure out what you want to do with that.

Okay, Assemblyperson Moulds. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So a couple things, um, you mentioned the MLS and, um, increase— it sounds like in property values according to MLS, and MLS is where property real estate sold. Um, my concern is the increase in assessments, property assessments for property owners last year going up 15% across the board. Um, and also, so once, once we finish the budget talk process, um, one of the big discussions that we had with schools, and there's concerns with school funding, uh, my understanding is money came in once the budget talks were completed that was higher than we expected.

Um, am I incorrect there? It was quite a significant amount of money that came in above what we expected. So through the mayor to Mr. Bowles, um, I'm going to answer the school question, then I'd like to back up and talk about the assessed values because I don't believe 15% is correct. Um, the school funding, it is likely there will be more, um, funding going to schools until the commissioner for the Department of Revenue releases those projections, which my understanding is they don't come out till the end of this month. The schools don't know what that number is.

The school district is planning to provide you an update during our joint meeting in September about the status of the budget because they should know by then. They should also have some sense for what their enrollment projections are because if the enrollment projections are not met, that would also reduce funding, right? So you could have an increase, but then you could have an offset due to a reduction depending on what their enrollment numbers are. We don't have that data today. I mean, school just started last week.

And so that will be discussed, uh, at the joint meeting in September. Okay, I'm talking about the money we receive from the state, right? I'm talking about the state formula funding that goes to the school district. That additional money that they talked about is a revenue calculation that has to be done by the Department of Revenue, and my understanding is the state will not release those numbers until the end of August. So I We don't have those numbers today.

Correct. Yes. And additionally, the foundation formula is based on student enrollment, and those counts are done in October. And our district currently is projecting lower enrollment than they had last year, so their per-student allocation from the state will be adjusted accordingly.

So while they may get a win on one side, they may get a loss on the other. Okay. And speaking with, I guess maybe it's, maybe it's not complete yet, but my understanding is we're going to be receiving many millions of dollars more than we projected funding from the state for schools. So we underfunded with an expected number, but it sounds like we're, from what I understand, talking with some folks, it sounds like we're going to get millions of dollars more than we expected.

But either way, um, so yes, so I, I understand revenue intake versus, you know, bills that need to be paid and funding. Um, I've been in government for many years now, um, and I understand some of them and Sumner's concerns. I will counter, it's not irresponsible. I think that it is responsible that if you have less intake, then you budget down. That's what responsible government does.

It's what responsible adults do. And I think that we can budget down. I think that we have a responsibility to protect residents and, um, you know, take less money from them. Um, we have a growing population here. Growing population means more houses being bought, means more money into the pool because of more property taxes being collected.

Um, so I think that that needs to be a consideration as well.

So through the mayor, I just wanted to say that on average assessed values did not go up 15%. Like that, I think that's an important number to get right. So if you could—. And I'm trying to remember because I don't have that number with me right now, but it was under— I believe it was under 7% that valuations went up. Now raw land, we did in some area across the borough go up 50%.

But that was just raw land, that was not your single-family residence. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Okay, Assemblyperson Sumner. Yeah, no, I think it is responsible to, to try and cut expenditures, you know, and, and lower taxes whenever possible. Like, that's what I try to do during the budget, that's what we've been doing the last couple budget cycles.

The manager's brought us pretty trim budgets, we've been lowering the mill rate, uh, you know, this This proposal is effectively a 15% reduction in the mill rate. 15% Is pretty significant when you consider that most of our area-wide funds go to the school district, and we don't have control over how they make those expenditures. But, uh, I mean, I'm just gonna, uh, read out, you know, my request from the manager was like, hey, if you're preparing this budget tomorrow to hit 7 mills, what are we cutting? Like, what are you cutting? And, you know, on top of the, you know, eliminating capital expenditures, you know, and the manager can expound on what a capital expenditure is, but effectively roads, park infrastructure, you know, things that, you know, building anything in the borough, that's, uh, cap— area-wide capital expenditures.

There'd also be an $11 million cut to education, eliminate the community cleanup program, reduce one operational ambulance and corresponding staff. Eliminate water rescue, eliminate the entire animal care, which is the entire animal shelter, and reduce 7 positions in various departments, which I'm totally cool with reducing 7 positions in various departments. But the, uh, the rest of it, I think we need more public notice. You know, if we're going to say, tell the manager, let's make these cuts, which effectively, if we do a $7 mil tax rate, we're telling them make these cuts unless we have some other cuts proposed along with the $7 mil this reduction to $7 mil. And I think we need more of a public process to make that, or we postpone this and, and, uh, you know, do it during the course of the budget process, uh, you know, or maybe no, we don't postpone it, but we do an intermediate step of reducing the property tax cap from 9.5 down to 8.5, you know, to try and cap what a future assembly could, uh, could do for expenditures.

But I think we're just a little early in the budget process, being only 3 months into this year's budget to say we need to cut our expenditures by 15%, especially when, you know, this assembly— I mean, let's, let's take a really hard look at ourselves, guys. We did not propose even 1% cut to the budget from this, from up here, from the dais. Now, the manager cut a bunch of expenditures, but we didn't do that. Okay, Mike, did you have— no. Okay, uh, so just Real quick, I just want to clarify, because you read those reductions, I still left $5 million unreconciled.

And so if you were trying to get an idea of how many staff reductions outside of the staff cuts that are included in animal care, ambulance or EMS, etc., it would probably be about 40 borough staff positions.

Assemblyperson Dallas, and then D, and then Deputy Mayor. Question for the attorney. So if we put a tax cap into place in the next assembly, which will not include me, budget time decides, hey, there's no way we can fund these things, like, how— what happens to the tax cap? Can a future assembly— is it set in stone, or can you—. It is not set in stone.

However, if you write it as a tax cap, what's going to happen is the borough manager is basically given the directive to prepare his budget in accordance with the tax cap. So they'll come in with a $7.0 mil cap and potentially all the cuts. But if the assembly says we need $8 mils, there's nothing to keep them from making it $8 mils in the budget process? That is correct. Okay, so just Yeah, a couple of thoughts.

Um, I mean, I appreciate, like, there's a lot of numbers thrown around, and I know the goal is to try to keep budgets under control. And I think to, to Max's point, the way to do that is to make the actual cuts. Like, I can sit there at my household and say I'm going to cut 10%, but reality might be I got to do the car repairs and inflation is going up in grocery prices. So I just don't see this being a, a way to get there. It's not hard and fast.

Uh, the— you haven't identified the cuts that you would make to do this. And I would say, so I've been on this assembly for 7 years now. What we've done is lower the mill rate 6 out of the 7 years I've been here. To counter the increasing property values out here. We've kept the average increase to 3%, uh, a year in terms of what people are paying on an average house.

And we've moved from— one of our big expenses has been professionalizing our fire department. And I know that's— professionalizing is the wrong word, sorry Ken, it's always been professional. But in the core area, we've gone from a volunteer response to to people who staff the stations. That comes with a lot of cost, but it's also a growing pain. I think people want out here, they want— if I need to call an ambulance, if I'm in a car accident.

So a lot of the positions that have driven budget increases and that we've absorbed have been that. There's been a, you know, a fair amount of other work. And then just in terms of this Assembly's fiscal responsibility, I think there's a lot of work on the front end with the manager and assembly members to make sure the budget that comes to us is a tight budget. So you may not see a lot get cut out of it, but that's because the manager has worked hard and told department heads no, etc., and cut things. So I think the budgets that have come to us, if you, if you look at them, are tight budgets to start with.

But just back to the point, like, if you want to, if we want to, if there's things that we can cut we can do that. Um, I think next year, for the people who are on the assembly, I think the school district is going to get about $18 million, to your point, from the state, and they didn't budget that in. So if we get to next year and, you know, we feel like, well, they got $18 million, they can bank some of that, um, we can help the borough not have to pay as much, like, that's a decision to be made. But this is just— I think the way to do it is to actually make the cuts, not just set an artificial cap. And last thing I'll say, we started about $10 mils when I started 6 years ago, and now we're under $8.

And we've just done that because we needed— because we're fiscal conservatives up here. We try to keep a tight budget. Assemblyperson McKee. Yeah, just about everything Stephanie said were the things that I had written down as well, because I've sometimes vicariously been associated with the borough assembly since 2015, and I've watched every year, almost every year, these come down and down and down, and that's admirable. I also think a cap is a cap.

It doesn't say let's shoot for the cap in our budgeting. We don't— we want to shoot for below the cap. I mean, that we don't— if you put it up there doesn't mean you're going to get to it. It means You don't really want to get to it. Maybe you won't have to get to it, but you got to have that.

You got to have that leeway to take care of some of these things you're talking about. And I looked— as soon as I saw this, I thought, why are we even still talking about it? As soon as I saw these, these kinds of cuts and such, why is this even still— why we would think it would have a perv moving forward, I can't tell you, because some of those things, you know, you look— I know the school district has got to lower its its sights one of these days. We're not there yet. I've never seen it do that, but there's always hope.

But the fact is, if you lock yourself into a cap, then it's like you all year long go and take money out of your piggy bank, and you get to the end of the year where you really have to start disbursing this stuff, and you shake the thing and it's empty. And then you've got to go into emergency mode and say, oh geez Louise, we really screwed up. Now we've got to, we've got to do something right here and right now to, to be able to meet it. To make the cuts or to, to look to raise the cap or whatever. So I just, I just, I'm not much of a gambler.

I, I just think this is a crapshoot, and I don't think we can afford to do a crapshoot with the budget. You don't have to make the cap, but you shouldn't make that cap go lower and hamstring yourself. That's— but thank you, Stephanie. Everything that I was looking at, you already said it, and I, I absolutely agree with what you're talking about.

Deputy Mayor, I was actually going to ask Cheyenne, the, uh, tax mills over the last, uh, dozen years. I know it was— wasn't it up like 13% at one time? I know I came in on November '21. And so '22, everything we've dropped every single year. Through, through the mayor to Assemblymember Bernier, um, yes, in the borough's history, the mill rate has been as high as 13 mills.

I can actually provide the historical mill rate for area-wide to the mayor or the manager to disseminate to you. I have it going back to as far as you want. I have it going back to 1964 when the borough was form, because I can give you the historical mill rate.

You know, capping it to a point where it's going to basically hurt us is not going to get the results that we want.

I would, uh, amend your motion to a 9% cap.

That is a amendment to the motion. Deputy Mayor, Deputy Mayor, the, the— able to get your motion Okay, you have the amendment now. Okay, so now the discussion— excuse me, the discussion will now switch to just the amendment. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So, and okay, just to the amendment, I have a secondary amendment of 7.5 mils.

Okay, I pull back my secondary amendment. Okay, um, Assemblyperson Sumner, do you have comment on the amendment?

Yeah, I would support this because I don't want to vote against lowering taxes, but putting a cut to 7 mills is, is putting me in a real rock and a hard place. So yeah, uh, yeah, 9 mills.

Assemblyperson Fonop to the amendment. Well, 2, I guess, to an amendment, but on the report on page 3, when it comes to 20, year '27, no, it would be '28.

It's 7 plus that equivalent orders, 1.35. Is that correct? Through the mayor to Assemblymember Farnoff. Yes, that 1.35 $0.06 is what the, um, what the mill rate could increase to cover the, the shortfall. Okay, um, so as I was thinking, I think Mr. Bernier just— what?

Okay, no, no question. No, can I remain? You're not been noticed by the chair. Go ahead. Okay, um, I think Mr. Bernier just beat me to it on that number.

Um, I think we're all kind of crossed mind. I mean, it's looking at the, the all the way to 32, um, 7 plus 1.72, so pretty much we— 9 is the number. We always have unexpected things happen, and I think we need to be honest with ourselves. There's things that we need to sometimes, um, you know, come up with additional money for certain things, and I don't want to mislead the residents to promise them something and then underdeliver it. I might as well be on that trend of slowly going down with the mill rate instead of saying like, oh, this is what it's going to be, and then come to the place where, um, we're cutting, and then we're seeing people pull up over here.

So the amendment I will support. I think that's a reasonable number. And that's probably as low as— no, that is the lowest I will do. Otherwise, I would have to vote this down. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles.

So, secondary amendment to 7.5 mils, and I'll speak to that. So, with the budget, this 7.95, assessments are going up. 7.5 Is, I think, reasonable because it's likely with a very similar budget, with assessments continuing to go up, 7.5 will get us pretty darn close. Um, and I understand concerns that you don't aim for the cap. I agree, we should be aiming for lower, but, um, 7.5 I think is reasonable.

It, it, it, uh, I hate to use the word forces it, it'll lead the manager to budget according to 7.5 or lower. Um, and also to the point of, um, cutting from the budget, I just wanted on the record that those discussions did happen, um, prior to those meetings. Assembly members spoke to each other and we came to the meetings with understandings of areas of cuts. So, um, those discussions did happen and cuts happened prior to those meetings. So it's a little scary when you talk about Assemblyperson meeting before the assembly meeting and making some cuts.

That's a little bit scary, guys. All right, so anyway, so any further discussion on this secondary amendment? Assemblyperson Nowers, and then I'll move down the line. I just want to clarify I had conversations with the manager. There was no agreed-upon cut.

I don't think that was what Mr. Bowles was implying, but just to clear the air on that. Um, and on the 7.5, I, I just, again, like, I just don't feel like we're doing anything effective. The real way to do this is do cuts and find other ways to fund our government. Um, one of those proposals is on the ballot for people out here to decide, which is the sales tax. So, um, I just— I think, I think we already have the things in place.

This is just not really doing anything, um, to, to help us. Assemblyperson Sumner, go ahead. Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that we— no one on the assembly had any hand in lowering the budget of the mill rate. You know, I was just saying because, I mean, I think every single assembly member has had a conversation with the manager where it was like Yeah, lower the mill rate, Mike. Let's make some cuts.

You know, my implication was that we got 7.95% and we couldn't cut it anymore, you know, without sacrificing services. So we didn't, you know. And so now this proposal is, you know, proposing— sorry, 7.5% would be less than the 7. That's what we're talking about right now is the secondary amendment. But it's the same thing, you know, cutting the 7.5% is is a place where we didn't get to before and we all wanted to.

So yeah, uh, I don't remember which one of us said it, but I don't even know why we're talking about this tonight. We spent months talking about the budget and reducing the mill rate and getting all this stuff done. That's what we did for months. Why are we discussing this now? I just don't— I just— I think we have to throw the whole thing out.

We'll talk about it at budget time. I call the question. Okay, is there objection to calling the question? Don't see any objections. So, Madam Clerk, I can get the members to vote on the secondary amendment.

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

Okay, so now we're back to the primary amendment, is that correct? Okay, and would you read that again so the assembly and the audience knows now what we're discussing? The primary amendment is striking 7.5 and inserting 9.

Okay, so now the discussion is on the primary amendment. Yes, Assemblyperson Powell. Question to Cheyenne again, um, on page 3, the lines that are projecting the reduction cost services, $22 million, all the way to $27 million on that line. Does that, um, after or before taking out the capital? That is—.

There is no capital budgeted in any of those lines. So capital for fiscal years '28 through '20 or '32, the capital budget for area-wide is zero. Okay, so in my understanding, after removing the capital for 2028, it would need to be approximately $8.35 million, correct? For the mayor, to assembly member Fonoff, yes, that is correct. And if we kept the same capital amount, um, of $13 million, let's just say, where does that number all end?

Approximately the, the rate, mill rate? That is not quite a full mill. A full mill right now is $16 million, so it would be a portion of a mill. I like 0.8, probably. I don't have a calculator, so don't quote me on it.

But so, so basically it would need to be, um let's say 2, uh, 2.1. I'm just gonna say, so let's be careful with this amendment. With the 7 plus the 2, we might already be very thin if we want to keep the capital, uh, in there. So I'm also starting to reconsider my support for this amendment because I definitely think one of the things that is super important is to invest into the capital. This is something that people expect of us.

The roads is, uh, as we're growing, we're expecting the, uh, more revenue from new construction, but what about the roads? They get all the wear and tear. There's, um, I think, uh, that is one of the key things that we need to always look forward is because then we're going to have the effect you know, chasing down after we, you know, we delay the process, but then we're 5 years behind. So I, considering that that number does not have capital in there, um, I would warn you even against this amendment. Okay, further discussion?

Assemblyperson Nowers. Just say this is just having a conversation about next— we want next year's budget to be this. You can do this same thing in January, direct the manager to keep— present a budget that has a certain mill rate. Like, we will know a lot more in January when we start this process again. So I'm with Miss McKee.

Like, I mean, all of us can sit around and pick what we're going to spend next year, but all sorts of things might happen in the meantime, and you can do this in January.

I call the question. Okay, is there objection to calling the question? You, you object? No. Okay, all righty.

So, Madam Clerk, if I can get the members in the room to vote on the primary amendment.

It has failed with Assemblymember Sumner and Bernier in support.

Okay, so now we're back to the main motion, right? Okay, Assemblyperson Bolt. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, so many woman hours. I appreciate your comment.

My thought there is my— excuse me— District 1 seat is going to be empty, District 2 is going to be empty, and, um, we're going to have new assembly members in these seats. And then potentially we may have reelections for 2 other seats. We don't know. This very well could be a very different assembly come January. This very well could be an assembly.

And granted, they can change this ordinance potentially, but this is me trying to get ahead and, um, try to put something in place in case a future assembly really is tax heavy and tax hungry. Um, that's, that's all I'm trying to do here. So I appreciate your comment, but January is going to, quite frankly, could very well be a very different looking assembly. So Assemblyperson Sumner, call the question. Okay, any objection to calling the question?

Okay, Madam Clerk, if I can get the members to vote on the main motion.

Madam Mayor, it has passed with Assemblymember McKee and Nowers opposed.

I make a motion to reconsider. He moved to reconsider, Madam Mayor. Okay, is there any objection to reconsidering? Any objection to reconsidering?

Yes. Okay, I move to postpone the reconsideration.

Want to take a break?

I don't know. Okay, can I just— we're out of order. That somebody could move to overrule you, but it's up to you, Madam Mayor. Okay, um, I'm— sometimes I don't like the games that the assembly people play on each other, and so I'm going to rule it out of order.

Is there objection to the reconsideration?

Okay, would you just say that? So I ruled it out of order, so that means the motion has not been made, it's dead. But there is the original reconsideration by Assemblyperson Fauno, and so that's— is her objection to that reconsideration.

Hi, can I speak on the reconsideration?

Um, it's easy to press the button and be winner here and feel good about it and run on something, but I also understand the reality that could come with this next, uh, spring. And I will tell you this, these are the list that was provided, 6 items. It was still $4.7 million short. So, um, for that, it, it was good to support it, and for temporary, maybe there was a win there, uh, and it currently is. But I want to be responsible and say I'm going to change my vote.

Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I appreciate everybody that supported this ordinance. I hope that more assembly members will support this, and then next January, if needed, the future assembly can then raise the mill rate at that time or reconsider this, this ordinance.

Um, thank you. Okay, further discussion on the reconsideration?

And apparently there is objection. Is there to the— if I can get the members to vote on reconsidering.

Reconsideration passed, Madam Mayor. Assemblymember Bowles opposed. We are directly at the main motion right now, back on the main motion. Okay, so you're back on the main motion as originally presented.

Any more discussion? Well, that's what— he's raising his hand. I was just going to We are now on the main motion. I move to postpone the legislation. Okay, I move to postpone the reconsideration.

The reconsideration's passed. You can only postpone the most— the ordinance.

Okay, is there— I'm sorry, go ahead, Assemblyperson Fonov. Question to clerk: if the, um, amendment that was proposed at a, um, uh, at the 9, if I was to propose it again, it does need to be the same— different number slightly, or it can be the same number? Go ahead, ma'am. When the assembly starts making the item— just if I can, Madam Mayor— when the assembly starts making amendments that they've already voted down and then they make them again, ultimately it's going to be the mayor's decision if she's going to accept them, because you can continue to make the same amendments repeatedly, repeatedly, and the same— then the assembly is repeatedly voting over the same amendments.

Thank you. Okay, is there, um, objection then to the main motion?

Yeah, I see a head nod over here. If I can get the members in the room to go ahead and vote on the main motion.

So this would be passing the lowering from 9.5 to 7. Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember— with Assemblymember Bernier and Bowles in support. Okay.

Sure, go ahead. And then break. Okay. Oh, we go ahead and break until 8 o'clock.

Break is until 8 o'clock.

If I can have the assembly come back to order, please.

Alrighty, so I'll go ahead and call the meeting back from the break. Madam Clerk, will you read the next item on public hearings? Ordinance 26081, an ordinance changes school board terms from 3-year terms to 4-year terms, providing for transitory terms to align school board and assembly district terms, and to submit the question to the qualified area-wide voters at the November 3rd, 2026 regular election. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. We don't have a signup sheet.

I'm going to go ahead and open, um, the public hearing. Anyone that would like to testify on Ordinance 26-081, and your testimony at this time is restricted to that ordinance.

Do we have anybody up? We do not have anybody online.

Okay, I'll close, uh, public hearing. And Assemblyperson Sumner— oh, oh, I'm sorry, you're right. Well, the amendment was by— oh, I'm getting ahead of myself. Sorry, sorry. Assemblyperson Fama, I move to adopt Ordinance 26 08-1.

Would you like to speak to it, sir? Yeah, I think there were several of us here who originated the effort to align all of our borough staff elections to align with the state. There was efforts back in a while back when Ms. McKee, before I was even here, collected signatures to change the date, which was historic moment which ended up being turning out a lot more voters to the polls, which was a great success. But we still have, uh, off-year elections, and that's with a very low turnout. It also costs a lot of money to do that.

So we were able to have the change for the assembly and for the mayor because it was within our jurisdiction, but then we lobbied and asked the state to make the change on the state level, and they finally have done it. And this would be great success, what we've been going towards for many years. It would— ultimately, people will have to approve on that, and we will have to make sure we, um, depending on the number of budget— number of how proposition— I don't want confuse that with any state propositions. So after, um, we'll start the discussion, I want to see how we could— whether change a number or change it to a letter so it's a lot more clear, because this is going to help out turnout, save on election, and it is a— it is finally something we've been going for many years too. Emily Burson, Sumner.

Yeah, I'll take that as a segue for my, uh, amendment. I move to amend Ordinance 26-081 by making this proposition number 1. I agree with Mr. Farnhoff. This, this is a great ordinance. I'm really glad that we're able to do this for all the reasons he said.

I think that, uh, you know, this has been a long time coming, so I think this should probably be at the top of the proposition list. Um, I'm not opposed to changing it to letters if we can do that, but I think it should be the first, which is what this amendment would do. Okay, discussion now on the amendment to change, to insert. And, Madam Clerk, do you want to say where it might be inserted, or is it just at the beginning? Madam Mayor, it's, it's in the proposition language.

It says proposition number, and then it leaves a blank line. So this amendment would make that blank line turn into a number 1. Okay. Assemblyperson McKee. I guess before I go any further, then tell me what that's going to do.

My intent is that this is the first proposition people read while they still have their attention span intact before they get to a bunch of dense tax language. So they actually give this some due diligence and thought. And also, this has been the longest time coming out of all the propositions. So, I think deservedly it should be at the top of the list. Okay, question to Clerk.

Assemblyperson Farnhoff. Question to Clerk. What's the, um, the— so far we do have the tax proposition, um, do we have the alcohol proposition? Oh, have those been assigned a number yet by you, or that's to be determined? Through the Mayor, Assemblymember Farnhoff.

What I usually do is I take— unless, and this has happened before, where assembly members have made amendments to make propositions certain numbers, but I take them in the order they're adopted. So the first proposition right now would be the alcohol tax, and then I would go in the number that they're adopted. However, if this one— if this amendment passes, then I would make this the first proposition. Okay. One of the big things that we did have a confusion with the, um, is the numbers, ours versus the state.

And I think there was discussion last or the previous year to change ours to potentially to the letters. And I would like to, because right now I almost want to make a secondary amendment to make this a Proposition Number 2 for different reasons. To, you know, because, you know, with a state, you, you know, because it might benefit, but to make it clear to the voters and be transparent with them, I do think It's good to show a clear distinction. And, um, so whether you retract that and we maybe propose going into letters, then I think there's going to be less confusion. Or I'd have to change that number on that.

I mean, Assemblyperson, were you trying to get my— my questions for the clerk? I think she knows what I'm going to say is how do we change these things to letters? All you need to do is say I need— I want this to be proposition. A and then ask me to letter them. Madam Mayor, can I amend my amendment?

Yeah, I want to change my amendment to Proposition letter A, number A. I don't—. Okay, so the motion on the floor now is to change it to Proposition A, or number A, or A. What good does that do us? Yeah, well, if you put 1 at the top, that's Kind of like right up there, were they?

Well, I, I'm— what did I miss? If I remember what not only Assemblyperson Farnoff is talking about, but last year, uh, well, that would have been 2 years ago, I guess, where there was— we had 1 and 2, and so did the state have 1 and 2. So when people were— okay, yeah, trying to encourage people they had to be sure to say, you know, was Matsu Borough number 1. And so at that time we had talked about doing it, but we had never done anything about it. So that's true.

Yeah, yeah. So Assemblyperson McKee, you have more questions? No, I'm just thinking that would clearly delineate what a state one was and a local one was, so I'm okay I'm okay with that because when you get in there, that's your last shot. So yeah, I'm— I think letter would be good. Further discussion on the amendment?

Is there objection to the amendment?

I don't see any objection to the amendment. So now we're back to Ordinance 26-081 as amended. Discussion?

Question to Olani is the, um, now that we changed this one to letter, is the pattern we're going to keep for the rest of the things? In your opinion, do we need to make a separate motion or direct you to do for the other ones to continue with the letters? Or because then now it would be super confusing, someone was a letter and someone was a number. So I'd like to kind of clarify that and discuss this if somebody opposes, but I would like to I would like to see all our propositions to be in letters. Through the mayor to Assemblymember Fonoff, I think this amendment passing gave me clear guidelines to use letters.

I think I'll use letters for the rest of them. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I call the question. Okay, is there objection to calling the question?

There is objection to calling the question. If I can get the members to go ahead and vote on calling the question.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. It is a tie vote, but it requires 5 votes, right? So it fails, right? It fails. So discussion, Assembly person hours.

I just wanted to state briefly that, um, when we changed the assembly terms from 3 to 4 years, I objected because the assembly did it without the vote of the public. And I think if you're ever changing terms, that is something that the elected people should not do. That's up to the public. So I'm happy to support this because it's going to go to the voters, and the voters can decide if they want 4-year seats for the school board. Okay, anybody else down there?

No? Okay, is there objection then to the main motion?

Amended. Okay, so legislation passes then. Madam Clerk. Ordinance 26031, an ordinance amending MSB 1773, Multifamily Development Design Standards, to align permitting and design standards with the scale and complexity of development projects. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3.

Okay, we do not have a sign-up sheet. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing on Ordinance 26-031. We do not have a sign-up sheet, but anyone is welcome to testify.

Okay, do we have anybody online? We do not. One last chance. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and send the person's seminar.

I move to adopt Ordinance 26-031, and if I could speak to it. Yes, you may. Um, well, I think the title really accurately reflects what it is. Um, it's, uh, you know, previously the— I think that the multifamily development standards, multifamily permit was adopted in a rush. Because there were people that were in the community that were upset about some of the multifamily that was getting built.

I think this was a bit of an oversight because, you know, currently the way that it is currently written, you know, a triplex or an 18-plex have the same standards, and that doesn't really pass the smell test, you know, the impact, the traffic, the, you know, all these require— you know, requirements to keep our community, you know, a place you want to live and are different between an 18-plex and a triplex, or a duplex and a 4-plex, or a 4-plex and a 6-plex, or a 6-plex and a 10-plex. So this delineates the different levels and densities and applies the standards differently to each one. I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty of all of it, but, uh, you know, it's not complete deregulation, but it is relaxing some of the standards that I thought, you know, like some of the pedestrian flow standards You know, like, I don't see how that applies to a drive-up townhouse-style triplex where there is no sidewalks, but those are standards that technically applied. You know, same thing with some of the pedestrian lighting and the ADA access and all that. Uh, Alex Strong, the planning director, I'm sure could give a staff report if you guys want some more in-depth conversation about this, because it is a very dense one.

This is something I, I tried to start tackling. At the beginning of my term, you know, and that would have been almost 2 years ago, October '24, and it's taken this long to get it to you guys because I, I wanted to get it right, and, uh, I think we did. So for the discussion on the more— the motion to adopt, Assemblyperson Nowers, go ahead. Yeah, thanks to Assemblymember Summer for 116 pages of some of the densest reading ever. Cross-reference is worse than taxes.

Cross-reference the subdivision construction manual. And I mean, this is, this is a big change, right? Um, this is how multiplexes, duplexes, fourplexes, eightplexes are regulated in the borough, and the balance between, uh, what they can do and, and how it affects the neighboring property. So I'm kind of shocked to not have any comment today here. We did receive some written comments.

Um, you know, the, the things in here are lighting and drainage and traffic impacts, and I did have, um, if it's okay, I had some questions about the, the lighting, um, and drainage and, um, and sort of cumulative impacts, if I could ask staff about those. Sure. Anybody from the assembly have objection to staff OK, go ahead, sir. Uh, oh, did you want to say anything in general, or are you just— if you have specific questions, that makes it easier. OK. Um, I want to say up front, I do think there's some good— this tiered system of treating a duplex different than a much larger plex.

But, um, I think one of my main things was the cumulative impacts. That you could, you know, you look for, are you creating a loophole that you didn't mean to create? Because like you said, this multiplex ordinance was created in response to something that happened that was a loophole, and then we tried to close it. So do we— how would you handle under this cumulative impact if somebody platted a subdivision and then put duplex after duplex after duplex, which are all exempt, um, from under this ordinance would be exempt from any oversight. How would you— is there anything in here to deal with cumulative impacts if they— a bunch of small projects come together?

Like, when do you decide that's a larger project? Yeah, so go ahead. To some of them now, or through the mayor. So that loophole already kind of exists. The only time a duplex is actually required to get a multifamily development permit is if it's less than 40,000 square feet.

So, conceivably, if you have a 10-acre parcel, you could divide it into, say, 10 parcels and put a duplex on every single one of them. And that— you could do that without a permit currently under existing code. Okay, but the goal of this is to come up with a tiered system so that we treat these bigger developments, have bigger impacts, how they should be treated. It just seems like that's a gap we might want to tackle. And yeah, I can forego my next questions if, if we want to have a discussion about that.

And then I do have some additional. I was going to answer that specific question, which was I'm not trying to burden property owners with additional regulation with this. So if that's what you're looking for, you're not going to find it in this. Um.

Okay, I just— I mean, each lot would meet the definition. I think this was something that North Lakes Community Council said. Each lot would meet the definition of small scale without regulation. But at what point does the entire development become something larger scale? Um, and it sounds like right now there's nothing in there.

We don't have anything right now, and there's— unless you're putting a a 12-plex on one property, you can do 6 duplexes and have the impact of a 12-plex, and you wouldn't be treated the same as somebody who did a 12-plex. Yeah, that, that, so that, that's right under existing and, and the proposed code. I guess I would say this, we addressed this issue years ago with gravel pits where there's a 2,000 cubic yard allowance per parcel, and people were starting to subdivide just so they could pull 2,000 cubic cubic yards from each parcel. And so we actually close that loophole by redefining the definition of what a parcel is. The multifamily development permit does not use the word parcel, use the word lot.

And so that loophole, as you pointed out, still exists with multifamily development permits. So, we do something as simple as change the language to parcel, we might have a way to deal with cumulative impacts, or we could You don't have a solution on the spot. So that's probably an amendment we'd want to chew on for a little bit and kick around with the attorneys. I wouldn't recommend making that on the floor right now. Okay.

And then just to clarify, um, it looked like right now the bigger multiplexes are required to do some perimeter landscaping. Um, this would change that. So that you could just do a fence, no bushes or trees. Does the ordinance exempt all multifamily from perimeter landscaping regardless of if it's a 4-plex or a 12-plex? So there's no— like, it just removes the requirement completely for perimeter landscaping.

And I'm just kind of curious because to me, like, you have a really big development next door, a fence, a 6-foot fence is not the same as having some bushes and trees that will get taller over time in terms of the impact the adjoining property owner is having. Yeah, so I believe the perimeter landscaping applies to all, all multifamily developments that are caught under this code. So if they meet the density threshold to require permit, then perimeter landscaping or a fence would be required. Okay, they could—. Right now, in some cases, you're required to do perimeter landscaping, trees and bushes.

Right now, they're all required to do perimeter landscaping. Okay. Um, and then my last question was just about lighting. Um, I know the old standard was you couldn't have glare on the adjoining property, which is kind of what is glare. Exactly how do you define it?

So this tried to change that, or this would change that to just downshielded lighting. But, um, I wondered if you had looked at doing what they call— when they measure light, they have a measurement called a footcandle. So I mean, even if you have a downshielded light, if it's tall enough, it could be impacting an adjoining property, and there is a way to measure How much light could we come up with? Uh, did you look at having a standard, or could we put some kind of standard in there so you can do something if somebody has a bunch of light coming on their property? So, uh, so I did look at other municipalities that— there are other municipalities that have lighting regulations that measure by foot candle.

They have devices they can use that are relatively inexpensive. It would require we get some equipment, we get some training, but that's certainly an amendment you could make if you wanted to add that. Okay, those are just my questions, um, and just comments. I think this is a lot of the way there. I think, um, those are the things that maybe there's a few tweaks to be made in this, so I can't support it here, but if the sponsor is willing to work on something that seems rational.

I'm just coming at it from the standpoint of, yes, you can do with what you want with your property until you start to impact mine, and making sure we strike that right balance. And I think this is trying to get there. I just don't think it's quite there yet.

Okay, um, Deputy Mayor, did you Yeah, you— she has you on the list. No? Okay. All right then, Assemblyperson Bowles, and then we'll come back down here. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I've got a question for Alex and a question for Nick. Um, so Nick, um, just with this ordinance, are we able to amend this to ensure that if this passes, current builds that aren't completed are also pulled in underneath of this ordinance?

You mean permitted projects that are underway right now? I guess I could come in and talk to Alex about amending their permit. I don't know, it would depend on what they were permitted to do and what they are seeking to change. Some of them might be allowed to change and some of them might not be allowed to change. And it would depend a lot on what the specific development is and what it was they were seeking to change.

For example, if this requires shielded lighting and they were already permitted to do not shielded lighting, we could not force them to do shielded lighting if you change this tonight.

So, I would like to amend this to incorporate as many of these changes as possible, because this is a very large change, um, where possible. Um, and you and I spoke on the phone about this earlier, and I— if you, if you could possibly recap the concerns as far as fire safety.

Okay, so, um, you'll see on the informational memorandum attached to this ordinance that there's a couple of names missing that I wish were on here for signature. One is the Public Works Director and one is the Department of Emergency Services.

They— we were in a meeting not very long ago when it was brought to my attention that the EMS Director had not reviewed this, and so I gave it to them. They do have some concerns that I personally would like to explore. That have not been explored. So that, that's, that was a concern that was brought forward, that this could have implications on fire code review. So I'd like to move to go ahead and postpone this until after the EMS director and public works director have both reviewed this and given Alex their, their feedback on this ordinance, if possible.

So I think that's very important. Do you prefer Time certain, ma'am.

Okay, so how long do you think that would be? First meeting in October would work great. So I'd like to postpone this to the first meeting in October, so that with the intent that the EMS director and Public Works director both review this ordinance and, and provide us with the report. That would be October 6th, Madam Mayor. Okay, ready?

So there's a motion now to postpone until October 6th. Assemblyperson Sommer. Yeah, I don't think any, in fact, I'm positive that nothing in this legislation affects the jurisdiction of fire and life safety, because if you have, if it's either, it's either fire and life safety has to issue a permit for occupancy or they don't. And, you know, single family and under-4-plexes, they do not have the purview of of reviewing the plans, or do they have to issue an occupancy permit? This doesn't change that.

It doesn't restrict, uh, any of their powers or the restrictions of their bureaucracy. So I don't know why it would be necessary to weigh in on, on fire and life safety. So, I mean, this has been a long time coming. I think that, you know, this is the way the multifamily permit is currently structured, is restrictive to development. Every day that we postpone deregulating some of this development is a, you know, a day further away from affordable housing.

Assemblyperson Nowitz. So, um, occupancy in the house is one thing, but there's also the roads outside it. And it looked like this dealt with road standards and when you would have to do road standards. And then I guess the other question I had is, This also addresses condo plats. So condo plats right now are— you can subdivide properties and skip all the review that other subdivisions go through.

And I don't actually understand what this— it seems to open an additional door for those condo plats to do more development without ever getting review, and And those you don't have to build, you can build substandard roads. So I do think there's having EMS weigh in if there is any concern or not, I think is, is really important before we move forward with a change and then end up with not safe places where EMS is going to struggle to get into. Seems like it's not, you know, it's a a month to get that feedback. So, um, I guess that was another— it does seem to have some application in waiting a month to get EMS to weigh in, I think, is important before we move forward. Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I agree. I mean, one of the responsibilities that we have here is create policy, and also as far as government is concerned is public safety, public health. And, um, EMS is an extremely important asset to the borough. And I, and they're the ones that are gonna be moving their fire apparatuses, EMS.

Um, they're go— if, you know, if something happens in one of these locations, they're the ones that are gonna have to maneuver their vehicles and fight the fire, pull patients out, and, uh, you know, and I think that's very, very important. Also, um, I think it's important that Public Works look at how these are, these, um, are feeding the road systems and, and give their input. Um, honestly, my concern is more EMS. Alex, though, being subject matter expert, mentioned Public Works. I can agree with that as well.

Um, so I just, for me to make a, a well-informed decision, I would appreciate that information. And it's only a month away, so, um, it's, it's not that, that long of a wait. Is there discussion on the motion to postpone?

Is there objection to the motion to postpone? Okay, Madam Clerk, and get the members to go ahead and vote on postponing. So this is just to postpone this ordinance until October 6th. Madam Mayor, it has failed. Failed with Assemblymember Bowles and Nowers in support.

Okay, so now we're back to the main motion. Discussion on the main motion? I'm the person now. Just wonder if I can have staff come up and try to explain the change we're making with condo plots, because it kind of seemed like we're allowing condo plots, which already don't have to go through review for roads, to add a lot more structures without review. But maybe I'm reading that wrong.

Go ahead, sir. Sure. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I'm going to do my best here. Uh, there's state law that allows the division of interest in land, uh, through a condo plat process.

We call it condo plats, and Nick's grinning at me because I'm getting— I'm butchering the language here. But essentially, you can go through a state process process where you can hire a surveyor to draw up something that looks like a subdivision with some things that look like roads. They're not actually roads, they're not actually separate parcels, they're division of interest in land. And, and you can essentially go file them and they become so. And the only thing that we have in our code right now, so these don't get captured by Title and, and the only thing that we have in our code right now is multifamily regulations.

And so, a 100-some unit condo will come through and we will say, you need to get a multifamily development permit because these units that you're creating are considered dwelling units. And so, we then process a multifamily development permit, and this is It's very awkward for us as staff and is for the applicants because the code doesn't really fit that type of development. It's really our, our subdivision laws that address that type of development, not our multifamily laws. So it is a very awkward dance that we do when we actually require a permit for these things. What this ordinance does is says that if your units that you're creating are 40,000 square feet or more, they're essentially treated as lots, and they don't go through any review, and they're not subject to this ordinance.

If they're less than 40,000 square feet, then they're considered dwelling units, and they have to go through the multifamily ordinance. So, this, uh, um, this does solve a problem that we have, that we have a code that applied to a type of development that it wasn't a very good fit. But it also has, I guess, potentially the problem of you have these types of developments that occur without any public review whatsoever or standards.

Just a follow-up on that then. I mean, if, if we create large developments that have no standards for roads, so you're allowing people, you're saying as a body, we're okay with these people buying into houses that all of a sudden they don't have good access, like they don't have good fire access to. Um, you haven't— you're not looking at drainage in terms of how that impacts. That doesn't seem like responsible government. So I just, again, I think, um, I just look at this and it— and I think it's close.

I don't— I don't know why we would recognize there's a problem with treating every duplex the same as a 12-plex, but I don't understand why we wouldn't take a month to get EMS to weigh in and take a look at something that would make sure that we don't end up with developments that don't have good, safe access for the people who live there. Because the people buying these places don't know this. If they're for sale, they're just going to buy them, and they assume that somebody's looking out for them. So, um, I think it's, it's honest to to look out for them. And I think we can get there without making it overly onerous, um, on folks.

So I, uh, the motion to postpone was voted down. Um, I think that's the best way to go. But at this point, I, I can't support this legislation as written. I could if it came back with some of these things addressed, like the cumulative impact of drainage and making sure we don't have big— like, what's the biggest condo plat? We have like a 1,000-acre condo plat in Talkeetna, right?

So, through the mayor, so there is a very large condo plat up in Talkeetna. I'm not sure the total acreage. It's hundreds of units though, hundreds of lots and big long private roads. We're not talking about one or two little small places. I think this is important.

I think we should do it right. Um, if the, you know, sponsor wants to reconsider a motion to postpone, I definitely entertain that, but otherwise I can't support this. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I agree, um, I'm 100% behind development, but responsible development, and without knowing the impact on public safety and public health.

So I'm thinking back when I was 20 years old, Columbia, South Carolina, you know, renting an apartment, I never thought about, I wonder if a fire truck could get here. That's just not something that, I mean, maybe some young people think about that, but, you know, me renting an apartment, I never thought about that. And I think that the responsible thing for us to do is to have feedback from our outstanding EMS chief and, or his staff. But without that information and not knowing, how this may impact, um, you know, entrance and exit from main thoroughfares, EMS getting to these, um, you know, multi-family developments. I, I just, I can't support it at this time.

That's, um, I think this is probably pretty good, um, other than the fact that I have no idea how this is going to affect public safety and public health. And I think that that's a very important part of this. Deputy Mayor. Question for Alex.

What, what kind of percentage are we looking at on these condo plats? Are they percentages? Are they something that really exists, that there's quite a few of them, or is it— can you give me a percentage of the new builds maybe? And, uh, that's a To the mayor, that's a, that's a great question. I don't know what percentage of new builds are on condo units.

Um, it seems like we've had a handful over the past few years, so they are a fairly regular occurrence. Uh, but it's probably not a huge percentage of the overall total buildings that are built in the valley. There must be some type of drawback to them, isn't there, or everybody'd be doing it, right?

Yeah, I, I think Mr. Sumner probably could answer that question of why, why he doesn't go through the condo plat process. I heard no borough maintenance. Yeah, surely. Uh, so I mean, for one, you don't— so you have to have a condo association, you have to have a lot of rules set up with the condo association, and then And yeah, they're private roads that are privately maintained with very little hope of ever bringing them into public ownership as well. Because once it's divided out and interest is sold, you kind of have to get everybody together to reverse that decision.

So they become pretty permanent. There's probably other reasons too. I don't know. Please. Yes, Assemblyperson Sumner, go ahead.

I could answer some of that. I mean, that's the biggest one, you know, like why, why would a developer pursue a condo plat or a regular subdivision process? Uh, well, first of all, there's a negative connotation with condo plats because it's fractionalized ownership of a parcel. So even if you have an address and you have a tax ID number, you still are tied to all your neighbors for in perpetuity, probably worse than an HOA. Um, a developer would not do a condominium plat because, uh, you're opening yourself up to, uh, class action lawsuits.

And your liability insurance is much higher because of that, because, you know, you have a pre-made class. By definition, there's a condominium association ready and willing to sue you. There's also— where am I going with that? Yeah, the private roads, you know, there's condo dues that are due. So, I mean, a developer rarely is going to exercise a condominium, the condominium plat.

But I mean, I think you're focusing on the wrong thing here. You know, that's a state— I mean, we could have a really long discussion about condominium flats and fractionalized ownership interests. But I mean, what it is, it's private property. And do you want the government telling you what you can or cannot do on your own private property? You know, the state law says that you can, you know, take a parcel, do whatever you want on it.

And just because there's multiple people that own it does not mean the government has a right to tell you what you can or cannot do on that private property. You know, I mean, you have large acreage, Mr. Brunier. Would you want the borough telling you how you can build your driveway or how you can, you know, how you can navigate the driveway and how many cows I can put on it? Yeah, I mean, and that goes back to the inadvertent evil that is bureaucracy. I actually ran into it today.

So I operate a USDOT number. Every 2 years you have to do what's called MCS-150, where you have to update how many trucks you have and your, uh, physical address and, and all that. Make sure it's all current. So it's literally just red tape. It's shit.

I mean, I know how many trucks I'm driving. I'm operating them safely, but I gotta tell the government how many trucks I'm operating. I registered my MCS-150 2 months ago on time like I should. I went to go register a new truck today and my MCS-150 was not current. I called the state DOT, and they said, well, because you're an intrastate operator and you only operate in the state, our system won't accept your MCS-150.

So you can't currently operate right now, even though you did turn in the MCS-150. What's my options? Well, I guess just wait until we fix it, or I guess just stop conducting business. And that's the inadvertent evil of— inadvertent evil of bureaucracy, I would say. So So yeah, I'm opposed to more regulations on private property.

Thank you. Assemblyperson McKee. Yeah, we've been talking about the safety factor, and we have the safety guy here. Can we have Ken come up and tell us what he thinks about— is there something that he sees that needs some addressing in this?

Hello, the Mayor. Ken Barkley, Director of Emergency Services. I haven't had time to review this thoroughly, so I really can't comment on it.

Okay, Assemblyperson Nowak. I think that's the argument for taking a month to get it right, but, you know, there's a, there's a Yes, bureaucracy can go too far, but that's not what we're talking about with this. We're talking about basic— making sure we do it right so that people who buy in these neighborhoods have safe access to their places and that you don't pawn costs onto other people. Because the other thing about these condo plats, if you put a million people in a neighborhood and they start piling onto the main road, somebody's got to upgrade that road. Right now there's no review process for that with the condo plat.

So it's already— we already know, I already know, I will say that the condo plat is a loophole, and we did have it as a priority as Assembly to get that closed, or at least make it a choice at the local level. Um, we recently chose to repeal that, um, but I, I just, I don't see I don't see this as being an overregulation to have safety take a look at it and not create a situation where people are buying homes they don't realize are— don't have the right access. So let's get the answer first of all, and that you don't push costs on to the rest of the borough by stacking a lot of people in subdivision with no responsibility for who did that or payment of the increase of traffic on roads. So, um, like you said, this is a long time coming. Let's take another month.

Let's get it right.

Assemblyperson Sumner, go ahead. Yeah, I think we're—. I mean, I think we're missing the forest through the trees here because I currently, uh, Division of Fire Life Safety has no jurisdiction over how you do a subdivision, as long as you adhere to the SCM, which is, you know, has mandates on how you build your roads. So, I mean, are we going, you know, if— and this, all this does for condo plat is says we're delineating between 40,000 square foot lots. So if it's smaller than the borough standard of 40,000 square foot, then we're going to treat it as multifamily.

If it's above 40,000 square foot, then we're going to treat it like a subdivision and say that, you know, your private roads are your private roads.

7 Hours. Just when you go through the platting process, they look at access in and out of that subdivision, and they make sure that you can get in and out and usually have 2 points of that. That process doesn't— a condo plat doesn't go through that process. Emily, please. So that's— that would— you would still need a driveway permit, you still need access, and It is a misconception that subdivisions need 2 accesses.

There's a lot— whole lot of conversation about that, but a lot of subdivisions have 1 access into and out of them.

I think I've kind of said everything, but I think having 2 access points, if 1 is blocked, that's why EMS gets involved, and that's why I think we should have them. Weigh in on this. Okay, further discussion?

Is there objection? Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead, sir. No objection. I just want to hopefully end that, um, government exists to protect the people. It doesn't necessarily exist to, um, regulate housing that goes up.

Um, if we're not willing to listen to EMS director, um, or getting a report from EMS director, I think we're doing our borough a disservice. So, okay, uh, I think there's probably objection to passing the motion, right? So, Madam Clerk, I can get the members in the room to go ahead and vote.

Madam Mayor, it is passed with Assemblymember Bowles and Assemblymember Nower opposed. Okay.

Ordinance 26067, an ordinance conveying and merging the borough's development rights interest with the agricultural rights title fee for fee simple title with agricultural covenants for tax ID numbers 853-7000-L002 and 853-7000-L003 to Paul and Margaret Cook and Cook Ravesky Ezra, LK, respectively. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, we do not have a sign-up sheet. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing on Ordinance 26-067. Anyone that would like to testify on this ordinance, you're welcome at this time.

Do we have anybody? Okay, go ahead, whoever's ever online, please.

Hi, good evening, assembly members and Madam Mayor. My name is Amber McDonough, MCDONOUGH. I'm a neighbor of Paul Cook, the owner of the Northern Lights Elk Ranch, who testified earlier. I'm in favor of Ordinance 26-067 to convey the borough's development rights interest in their land to a fee simple title with agricultural covenants.

The Cooks are active in farming in the Fishhook area, and they are a multi-generational operation raising elk, turkeys, meat, and laying chickens, and growing potatoes. I hope you will vote in support of this ordinance to facilitate their current and future ranch development. Thank you.

We have anybody else online, sir? No. One last chance for anyone here.

Okay, I'm going to close, uh, public hearing. And Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move to adopt Ordinance 26-067, and I will speak to it. Yes, Madam Mayor. Thank you. I'm 100% in favor of this.

This is an outstanding use of this, this land. I hope we pass this unanimously. It's a no-brainer.

Anyone else would like to weigh in? Conversations? Anything? Is there any objections to the passage?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then the ordinance becomes adopted. Ordinance 26088, an ordinance to retain for public purpose 3 parcels which were required— acquired by the borough through tax foreclosure. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, we do not have a sign-up sheet, right? So open public hearing on Ordinance 26088.

Anybody? Don't see any movement. Do we have anybody online, sir? We do not. Go ahead and close public hearing.

And Deputy Mayor, I move to—.

Am I amending it first? You have to. I move to adopt Ordinance 26-088, and I move to amend Ordinance serial number 26-088 by striking Parcel 1 from the ordinance. Rationale: balance was paid in full by the property owner. Okay, so discussion on the amendment?

Is there any objection to the amendment? Seeing and hearing none, the amendment passes. Discussion on the ordinance as amended?

Yes, go ahead, sir. What is the property being used for? For future use?

Good morning— sorry, good evening. My name is Jill Ursich. I'm the tax foreclosure specialist for work in the Land Management Division. Through the mayor to Assemblymember Bernier, uh, the properties that are being retained for a public purpose at this time, um, you see the maps in the legislation. The Yetna River has actually taken all of the property, so they wouldn't be used for much of anything at this point.

They're not developable.

Thank you. Is there any objection to passing Ordinance 26-088 as amended?

Okay, so it has been—. Oh, I'm sorry, I actually, I wanted some more discussion. You did want to object? Well, I wanted more discussion. I had a question.

Okay, I'm sorry. Can we rewind that or no?

Why? What? Can we rewind that or would I have to move for reconsideration? No, no, I didn't— I don't think I got the words out of my mouth. So, uh, as far as I'm concerned, it has not been adopted.

Okay, I guess a question for staff. So Okay, we have no intended purpose for the, for these parcels. They're undevelopable. So why would we want them?

So these properties, um, the purpose of retaining them for public purpose, it extinguishes the former record owner's right to repurchase. The former record owner has also made it known that they have no interest in this property. The river has taken 90, approximately 99% of the properties. Um, at this point it's an navigable waterway, so we are looking actually to give the property to the state of Alaska since they're all underwater at this point.

So objection to passing Ordinance 26-088 as amended.

Seeing no objection, then the legislation has been adopted. Ma'am, clerk. Ordinance 2689, Ordinance Accepting and Appropriating $300,000 from the Rasmussen Foundation for the Matanuska River Park and Campground Upgrades and the Alaska Long Trail Gateway Installation, with accompanying Resolution 2672, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget for the $300,000 grant from the Rasmussen Foundation for the Matanuska River Park and the campground upgrades in the Alaska Long Trail Gateway installation. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, I'm going to open up the public hearing on Ordinance 26-089 and Resolution 26-072.

And if you testified under audience participation and would like to testify on this again, you're welcome to do that.

Okay, go ahead, who's ever online, please.

Yes, my name is Samuel Schilling, president of the Alaska Outdoor Access Alliance, and I was asked to speak to you. I'm also a property owner in Mat-Su Borough. I was asked on numerous different occasions from our members and also our partners with our organization, as to speak, on this matter. One, because there's a lot of stigma wrapped around Alaska Long Trail for this national scenic trail that was originally tried to push through that piggybacked on existing trails that were motorized. Now, in our mission statement with the Alaska Outdoor Access Alliance is that we support any and all access and use of trails and lands in Alaska.

And we just want to give fair warning that we had that stigma of what was originally pushed for the Alaska Long Trail, and as long as it tries to accommodate to all users, regardless if they're motorized or non-motorized, that we have no issues supporting such projects that would benefit access and use of the land. And so with that, we do support as long as that we don't get wrapped back into that National Scenic Trail designation. Thank you. You're welcome. Is that the only person online, sir?

So one last time, I will ask if there's anyone here that would like to testify.

Okay, see no one, then I'll go ahead and close it. Assemblyperson Nowers. Yeah, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-089 and Resolution 26-089. -072, And I wonder if I could ask— have staff talk a little bit about the, the work that's going to be done there and the use of the park and, and what that specifically— the electrical and the water work that would be done. Is there any objection from assembly regarding staff?

Okay, go ahead, ma'am.

Good evening, Assembly and Mayor DeVries. I'm Jillian Morrissey, Community Development Director, for the record. Um, if, if I can go back in time a little bit, um, I— we actually brought this forward to you during the fiscal year '26 budget appropriation in order to help do the electric and water upgrades. For Matt River Park and Campground. At the time, Public Works had looked at the, the work that needed to be done out there, and we needed about $500,000 to do the replacement.

Through the, through the budget adoption process, $250,000 were appropriated in order to help with the Matt River Campground upgrades. And then, so that was then contingent upon me going out to look for the additional funding for, for the upgrades at the park. Um, I submitted a proposal to Rasmussen, um, last year for those upgrades and was denied. And so I tried again this year and was successful in being able to be awarded for this. So the work that will be done out there is, um, for this, uh, for the grant that was currently approved, um, or by the Rasmussen board was, um, currently we're working on the electric upgrades, and that's going to be done with the $250,000 that you approved through the capital budget.

And then the additional $200,000 through the Rasmussen grant is at this time proposed to fix the, the water upgrades. The additional $100,000 for the Alaska Long Trail Gateway installation is in like a kiosk wayfinding info station where we get to celebrate the, the cultural history of this area and also make it very specifically about what this, this area, meaning Matt River Park and Campground, is what makes it special, including the glaciology, but also just the, the aviation that we have happening, right, with the City of Palmer Airport. So that is the work that will be done over there. We're actually slated to start the electric work this fall after the closure of the campground. Okay, so the water work is the main work being funded with the Rasmussen grant.

And what's the— I think my understanding is this is the most popular park in the borough, but correct me if I'm wrong. I know a lot of RVers use it, but what, what's the situation with the water now? What happens if we're not able to do the work? Uh, thank you for the question. Through the mayor to Assemblymember Nowers, um, so when Matanuska River Park and Campground was created, gosh, almost over 40 years ago, um, it was done on the ingenuity of individuals in community development to put together this park.

And so things were kind of scrapped together and pieced and parted together. We were notified by Public Works, I think it was 2 years ago now, that they were no longer willing to work on the electrical systems that were there just because they had reached past their lifespan. So the work was really in order to upgrade these for the safety of not only of our visitors, but also the folks that, that work on, on our systems out there. And I'm sorry, I forgot the rest of your question. What happens if we are not able to, like, what's the situation there?

And absolutely. So one of the things that I'll share with you, and we had this in our, the 2025 performance report, is that Mat River Park and Campground had its best year with revenue historically last year. So one of the things of going to online reservations and other things things that we are doing in order to promote that facility is not only are we seeing increased participation and visitation at the park, but we're also recognizing that, that there's just more that we can do there to attract folks to come in. So we're just very excited about the opportunities that we have there, and these upgrades allow us to be able to meet families where they are. RVs are taking different electrical systems, and this allows us to be able to match not only the facilities to what our visitors' needs are, but also just for the safety of visitors and our Public Works folks alike.

Okay, last question. Okay, there's concern about the Long Trail. Sure. So this Gateway Arch, if it gets built, what does it commit us to with the Long Trail? And is there— right now, is there motorized access through the park?

Like, would this affect motorized access? We're putting an archway in this park. Would that affect motorized access in any way in the park? Thank you for the question. Through the mayor to Assemblymember Nowers.

So, um, I do respect the individuals that came to speak tonight, and many of them are our trail care partners that we work on with winter trail grooming throughout the borough. And I, I would remind this assembly that for fiscal year '25 and '26, it was one of your state legislative priorities to support development of the Alaska Long Trail. So this work is a continuation of that, and this installation does not obligate nor insinuate that this assembly is in support of the National Scenic Trail designation. All this will do is provide a kiosk with information information and wayfinding for our visitors there and also will be something— I was going to just share this quick little thing as I was at the Gateway Visitor Center just the other day watching people flow in and out. And one of the things that I thought was so amazing is that I watched every single one of those visitors stop at the Gateway Visitor Center sign and take a selfie.

And so my— the idea around with the— with the the Alaska Long Trail Gateway installation is, is just another economic driver. Bring people to the park. They get that selfie that puts them— marks on the map where they were visiting. But again, this, this funding does not obligate this assembly nor insinuate that there is support for the National Scenic Trail designation. And the funding source is through Rasmussen, which is is an Alaskan philanthropic organization.

There's a piece of that, but the— right now I never see snow machines or four-wheelers going through that park. Is that like City of Palmer rules or just people don't do it? I mean, I know what the park is. I can't imagine it doesn't lead to a lot of— anyways, I, I just am asking, like, as far as access right now for motorized.

Currently, this does not change any of the existing uses that are in the Matanuska River Park and Campground. So the trails that are in there are non-motorized currently, and that would not change with this installation.

Okay, uh, Assemblyperson Bold.

Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to amend 26-089 by striking the language and campground upgrades and the Alaska Long Trail Gateway installation from Section 2 and the title, as well as pulling Resolution 26-072.

Do you mean by pulling it to—. Oh, so deleting the resolution or deleting them? Do they need to be two separate? Okay, I'll start with the the first one. Thank you.

Okay, so we have an amendment on the floor, and the amendment is just for the ordinance. Is that, or is it the amendment for the ordinance and resolution? Madam Clerk, if I can clarify with Assemblymember Bowles. Okay, you're just wanting both this language taken out of both the ordinance and the resolution, correct? And the title, correct?

And the title. Okay, I'm good. Indeed, that works. Okay, thank you. Section 2 of Amendment 26-0.

Okay, so the motion before you is to remove that wording out of the title, out of the ordinance, and the resolution. Okay, I don't know who, but let's see. Max, are you next? Okay, I have a question for staff. Um, can we, uh Is it all or nothing?

Do we have to take the $200,000 plus $100,000, or can we say we just want the $200,000, we don't want that $100,000 for the kiosk? Thank you for the question. Through the mayor to Assemblymember Sumner, the, um, when I provided legislation to the assembly that we were putting the manager's signature on this grant, it is an all-or-nothing proposal.

So whose, whose choice is that? Is it the Rasmussen Foundation that said we're going to give you this and you're going to use it for this, or otherwise you don't get anything? Is that kind of how that goes? Through the mayor to Assemblymember McKee, the grant proposal had both factors in that, and the Rasmussen Foundation has been strategically funding different projects that are either connected or not connected to Alaska Long Trail throughout Alaska at this time. And so that made proposal more attractive to them.

But do you know if they would say, nope, forget it, it's all or nothing? I haven't— I have not asked them. Can you do that? I— yes, I can. Would that suffice?

Because we want to know before we delete this thing if we're losing all this money altogether, when maybe that wouldn't even have to be so, because you could go back to them and say, you know, they really liked everything but this one, could you just throw that out? I'd be okay with that, but I'd hate to turn out and down the whole package.

Yeah, that's a crapshoot. Oh, sorry. Okay, Deputy Mayor, you had your hand up before. I was going to say, under scope of work in the RS 26-072, it specifically quotes $200,000 for the electrical and water systems And then the $100,000 for the Alaska Long Trail Gateway.

But until, until that is cleared up, I think this should be tabled and get some answers first.

I do make a motion to postpone.

Do you have a time certain or postpone indefinitely? We should be able to be postponing my amendment. Oh, postponing everything until the next meeting. That, that should give you enough time to reach out. That would be September 1st.

I, I would suggest a month, give us time, because I don't know if this is going to require board approval or revisiting on their end, and I don't know when their next board meeting is. So I would suggest at least a month. We're happy to go back and ask what that looks like, and we can bring the answer back to you. A month may be enough, but I really doubt 2 weeks is going to get us there. That would be 9:15.

Okay, so is that agreeable? So the motion to postpone is until September 16th— 15th. Okay, is there objection to that motion to postpone There is objection. I just had a question.

Oh, okay. I didn't see the grant documents in the IM, so do we have to build the Alaska— if we accept the grant, do we have to build the kiosk? I guess that's a maybe a silly question, maybe a question for the attorney. So through the mayor, uh-huh, may I? Yeah, through the mayor to Mr. Summer, we did the grant application as a whole.

I think out of respect for the foundation, it would be wise for us to go back. Like, I mean, our goal here is to preserve a relationship with a philanthropic organization that supports things that we like doing too. I don't want to burn bridges and, and torch relationships because, uh, they had an understanding, we changed that understanding, and didn't bother to go back and consult with them. And to be clear, I just want to be sure this is on the record, This did not fly in the face of the Assembly's guidance around the National Scenic Trail designation, and we followed guidance that has been published by this body repeatedly for some time. So I don't— I just want it to be clear, like, Rasmussen Foundation didn't push this on us.

We wrote the grant application with the scope that's here, right? So to answer that question very clearly, we defined that scope. And so if we want to change it, I feel like we should go back and have that conversation and give them time to see how they feel about it. And if they withdraw, we'll let you know they withdraw, and that'll be that.

Okay.

And there is objection, is there, to the amendment?

Pardon? To postpone the amendment. Yeah, postpone. No objection.

And the motion to postpone has been adopted.

Ordinance 2690, an ordinance accepting and appropriating $1,537.50 from the Alaska State Department of Fish and Game passed through the Palmer Soil and Water Conservation District. The accompanying Resolution 2673, a resolution approving the amended budget for the Caswell Creek Caswell Lake Rehabilitation Project. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, we do not have a sign-up sheet. I'll open the public hearing on Ordinance 26-090 and Resolution 26-073.

Is there anybody that would like to testify on this ordinance or this resolution?

Do we have anybody online? We do not. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. And then, Deputy Mayor, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-090 and Resolution 26-073. Okay, would you like to speak to it?

Is there any discussion from the assembly?

Is there any objection passing this ordinance and resolution? Okay, seeing and hearing none, and the ordinance and resolution has been adopted. Ordinance 2691— sorry, Madam Mayor— an ordinance approving the land classification of a borough-owned property Tax ID number 27N05W18A001, near milepost 123 of the Parks Highway, is reserved use land for the purpose of a shooting range. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Do not have a sign-up sheet, so I'll open the public hearing on Ordinance 26-091.

Anybody would like to test testify on this ordinance?

We have anybody online? We do not. One last chance, anyone want to give input to the assembly on this ordinance?

Okay, we'll close the public hearing. And Deputy Mayor, I move to adopt ordinance- 26-091. I'd like to speak to it. Yes, go ahead, sir.

This spring we came up with trying to find properties for future gun ranges, to classify them as future gun ranges. This does not mean that we're getting ready to build them, to— or putting money aside for it. It's just classifying the property as a future gun range 20, 30, 40 years down the line. That way, if somebody wants to move or build property or anything like that, they can say, hey, there's a future gun range coming. We know this.

Um, right now there's one up at mile 91, 92. People down here in the core area typically will not drive that far.

Um, it'd be nice to see 20 miles apart of some sort. We got one at Maud Road, one being built at Jonesville.

And, uh, so I had staff come up, we looked at borough property. I think this one's on 4 or 500 acres, and we're not asking for 4 or 500 acres. These are small, several acres, you know, up to 5-acre type things. And, uh, just looking out for the future because trying to put a gun range in Palmer, Wasilla would be pretty much impossible with the buildup. Not in my backyard.

That type of stuff.

And, uh, there's a lot of people that shoot, and there's a lot of places where you can't shoot anymore, and there's a lot of places that people go and shoot in uncontrolled circumstances. And government is supposed to look out for safety, and I'm trying to do just that in this case.

Further discussion? Assemblyperson Bohls. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So looking at this, uh, Milepost 123, um, the Upper Susitna Shooters Association has a range very close by, and I have concerns with the government moving in on a private company, a private organization. Um, I don't understand if there's a shooting range, which I fully support shooting ranges.

I, I love shooting ranges. I go to shooting ranges. I have many guns. My concern is government infringement on private business and private business ownership. So if, if let's say we were to put a gun range in at 123, um, is that— and it's free, right, taxpayer-funded— is that going to draw away from the ownership or of this club and then they end up going out of business because of it.

I, I just, you know, that might be 20 years from now, but I would just hate to be a decision maker in, in something like that. So I think that's worth considering. Further discussion, Deputy Mayor? Actually, the ex-president of the Super— or the Upper Susitna Shooting Range actually supported this on social media, and when staff looked at properties, they offered me property properties in mile 90— in 90 areas too close to this. And I figured at least a 20-mile buffer, which is 30 miles away from that.

And a lot of people— I mean, there's a limit on how far you're going to go to shoot, but the ex-president said that they needed more places to shoot especially long-range areas.

And I basically, when I was trying to get staff to keep them 20 to 30 miles apart, because most people will travel 20 miles to go shoot. You get going further than that, they're going to try finding a place closer, which may not be a good controlled area. Family person summer. Yeah, I was just going to point out that, you know, as Mr. Muneer said, like, this isn't building a gun range tomorrow. This is designating that this is the intent of the land to, you know, reduce or eliminate future land conflicts like we witnessed with the Zero Lake parcel where there's people around that didn't know that borough property could be used for something like that.

So, I mean, I anticipate that, you know, in 20 or 30 years when there's a need for another shooting range, you know, 28 miles away from the Susitna Shooters Association, that it'll— they won't take away from the business of that existing range. It'll be additive, you know, because it'll be— it would be a necessity at that point. Assemblyperson McKee. I think too, if you're looking that far ahead, the folks that currently own the one down the road could say, you know, we're going to turn our property into I don't know, a cemetery. We don't have to worry about them bothering anybody.

Um, that's just to play a joke sort of thing there. But it does say life is so uncertain. All we're doing is saying this is it, everybody. If you're going to build— because we've got people screaming bloody murder as well, they should, uh, who are property owners on the Zero Lake thing. But, um, this lets everybody know, you know what, you might not want to, you might want to, I want to do it.

It gives them a heads up. So I'm with it. I'm the person hours. Yeah, um, there's 2 gun ranges in Palmer. Both are by my house.

One is Noel Woods one and the other is a law enforcement one. And then there's a bunch of unapproved, unapproved ones that were going at 10 o'clock last night, but hopefully doing it safely. Um, but, uh, it just again makes me laugh because this is actually zoning again, right? We're trying to avoid conflicts by getting ahead of them. So, you know, from a certain standpoint, it makes sense.

And of the 3 proposed properties, this seems like the best one. Um, but I did have a question about— there was like 4 property owners who in the documents made it sound like they go across this property to access 123. Um, that they, they use the property for their access, and it wasn't clear from the documents if they have legal access. So I don't know if that's a staff question.

Peter, good evening. I can give a brief staff report. On that, uh, through the mayor to Stephanie Nowers. Um, they do not have an established permit to establish that access. Um, they'd be allowed to cross it to get to their cabins with ATVs and snow machines as a generally allowed use.

But as far as establishing a parking lot, they haven't done anything with the land management team, uh, to do that. So, did they have any legal access to their properties?

Uh, through the mayor to Assemblymember Nowers, They have access with ATV and snow machine crossing public lands and then across the DNR public lands, but they do not have road access. So they don't have easements and the type of access that we think of as drivable access. So are they able to, like, if a shooting range were to be built here, can they go in on a section line or something, or would they lose their— I mean, I just don't know what the geography property is like up there. Is this, like, unreasonable? Like, they're going to be cut off if we put a shooting range in where they go in now, or if they have alternatives, right?

Uh, through the mayor to Assemblymember Norris, um, they would have other section-wide easements and abilities to access the property. Um, it would not be as convenient as this location, and I believe they've made some improvement and clearing to that trail on the northern end of this property. So there is a spot where they can drive in, park their trucks and trailers, and, and go to their property more conveniently than they would if they had to follow section lines and travel in another way.

Okay, and they're not here to kind of answer for themselves, so I appreciate that answer. Thank you, Peter. Can you give your name just for the record? Uh, yes, my name is Peter Burton, and I work in the land management team of the Community Development Department. Thank you.

Okay, for the— this Assemblyperson Sumner, or—. I was just going to note that I don't think the proposal is to use all 128, or is it 88 or 128 acres for a shooting range? I mean, it's only going to take a few acres to do a shooting range. I mean, we don't have a plan, so it's hard to say that it wouldn't go right where their trail is, but you know, whatever is not used for the shooting range would still be public lands, which would still be an allowable use to pass through if you are, you know, going to your cabin.

Deputy Mayor, this, this classifies it as a shooting range. It doesn't mean it's an outside shooting range. It could be an inside shooting range. It just gives it classification.

For the discussion on the ordinance ordinance. Is there objection to passing the ordinance?

Okay, we do have an objection, Madam Clerk. I can get the members to go ahead and vote.

Passed with Assemblymember Bowles opposed.

Okay, Ordinance 26092, an ordinance Approving the land classification of a borough-owned property, tax ID 20N04W88001, near milepost 77 of the Parks Highway, as reserve use land for the purpose of a shooting range. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Hey, we didn't have a sign-up sheet. I will go ahead and open the public hearing. Anyone is welcome to testify on Ordinance 26-09-23.

2. We do not have anybody online.

Okay, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And Deputy Mayor, I move to adopt 26-092, and I'd like to ask staff report on this one. Mhm.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of assembly. My name again is Peter Burton. I work for the Land Management Division within the Community Development Department for the Matsu Borough. Uh, this item is at the direction of the assembly. Uh, began with a motion from Assemblymember Bernier, which was passed unanimously to direct staff to identify parcels in District 7 that would be potentially suitable for a future shooting range, and then classify those parcels as reserved use.

Uh, Land Management identified this parcel, a 57-acre portion of it, um, approximately a mile east of Parks Highway Mile 77 in the Willow area. Currently, there is a planned gravel extraction at the site. Uh, the idea would be following the resource extraction and following the establishment of access across the railroad tracks in the future, the topography and location would make a suitable site. Thank you. Further discussion?

Um, Deputy Mayor, prior to the gravel extraction there, they would have a logging, uh, log sale or timber sale on it as well to get— take the timber off before they started extracting gravel. But again, this was south of an existing gravel pit for quality, I believe.

Is that— go ahead, staff. Uh, there's a, a current gravel extraction plan for this, the Kashwitni East gravel extraction site. Um, north of this is, um, I'm not sure what the original, um, use of the land was, but there's, uh, if I pull up the map real quick, there's Coeur d'Alaska lands located north and then other public lands surrounding it, mostly borough land. So there's an ongoing timber sale occurring now already. In this area, and then there's going to be a gravel extraction at this site in the future, in the next few years.

Is there objection by the assembly? Oh, I'm sorry, Assemblyperson Bold. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, same as the previous ordinance, I have concerns with the government infringing on private business ownership. Um, you know, we just passed the range going in, or the shooting range future shooting range going in at mile 123.

That's great. I love shooting ranges, love my guns. We need to be able to shoot as much as possible. However, the government should not be infringing upon private business ownership. There is a shooting range 25 or so miles north.

Um, so if we're putting a— if the borough in 20 years is going to put a shooting range in 20, um, 25-ish miles south and 35 miles north then, you know, this business could possibly lose patronage. And, and throw in that there are property owners that already are building a life out here at Zero Lake area. Up there at 123, I get it, it's, it's recreational parcels, might be a little bit of a different perspective there. But we have families here, um, 4 different families that have given us public testimony They're building structures. They have plans to live out there.

We just approved one at mile 123. I think that that's plenty along with this private ownership shooting range that's already in place. So I just, you know, I'm all for shooting ranges, but I'm not for government infringing on private— I think you're looking at the wrong one. There's no people. There's no property, private property on that.

I don't interrupt you when you're speaking.

Okay, further discussion? Assemblyperson Auer's. I do think there were, um, property owners that were affected by this, and, um, I guess I just don't know what the, um, the percentage of— like, is there some magic formula of one shooting range per 50 miles? Proposals like we have, I think, 123, the Upper Susitna. Like, I just— I'm not sure.

And we've got Zero Lake that's also on this proposal. So I can support the Milepost 123, but I can't support doing additional ones with the— without sort of— it just feels a little scattershot. Didn't mean to be a pun there, but Okay, further discussion on Ordinance 26-092? Yes, Assemblyperson Sumner. Yeah, I guess I just want some clarification because I thought this one was surrounded by public land.

Is there private property or parcels that are adjacent to it or not? Can we get some clarification on that?

Uh, go ahead, sir. Through the, through the mayor to Assemblymember Sumner. I, I think just to clear it up, there's a little bit of confusion because there's this one near Koshwetna Lake and there's another one being discussed near Zero Lake. This one has private land to the north owned by CoAlaska, but not residential land. But then the surrounding land is mostly Matsuburo land or mental health and DNR land.

Uh, aside from that, CoAlaska private parcel, so it's mostly public lands. Thank you.

Further discussion? I think there is probably an objection, right? There is an objection. Madam Clerk, I get the members to go ahead and vote.

Madam Mayor, it passed with Assemblymember Bowles and Assemblymember Nowers opposed. Okay, thank you.

Ordinance 26093, an ordinance accepting and appropriating grant in the amount of $100,000 from the Alaska State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Fire Protection, for a project for disposal of debris from Firewise clearing projects, with accompanying Resolution 26093. 75, A resolution approving the scope of work and budget for an Alaska State Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry and Fire Protection grant for a project for the disposal of debris from Firewise clearing projects. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, we do not have a sign-up sheet. I'm going to open the public hearing on Ordinance 26-093 and Resolution 26-06.

-075. Anybody would like to testify about this ordinance or this resolution?

We have anybody on— no, I have nobody online. One last chance. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing on Ordinance 26-093 and Resolution 26-075.

Deputy Mayor, I move, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-093 and Resolution 075.

And Resolution 26-075. Okay, discussion?

Any objection from the assembly? Okay, seeing no objection, then the ordinance and resolution have been passed. Ordinance 26094, an ordinance approving a reappropriation of $125,000 from the Solid Waste Project Fund to Fund Number 25048-2400-2429 and $158,000 from Solid Waste Project Fund to 25-250-20-2400-2414 and $978,320 from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund to the Solid Waste Project Fund to 25-007 for the design and build of the Central Landfill Household Hazardous Waste Facility. The accompanying Resolution 26-076, a resolution, resolution approving this amended scopes of work and budget for the Solid Waste Project number 25-048 2,400-2429, the solid waste project number 2,520, 2,400-2414 in the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, the Solid Waste Project Fund number 2,507 for the design and build of the Central Landfill Household Hazardous Waste Facility.

Okay, I forgot, if you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3.

We don't have a sign-up sheet. I'm going to open the public hearing. Anybody that would like to testify on this ordinance or this resolution?

Do we have anybody? Nobody online. I'm going to close the public hearing and— Emily Personowicz. I move to adopt Ordinance 26-094 and Resolution 26-094. -076.

Okay, discussion by the assembly?

Is there any objection to this ordinance or resolution becoming law?

Seeing none, then legislation has passed. Madam Clerk, Ordinance 26097, an ordinance reappropriating $26,376.35 from the Pioneer Peak Trailhead Project Fund and $23,589 from the Big Lake Lions Recreation Center Project Fund to a Wasilla Pool Repair Project Fund with accompanying Resolution 2679, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget for the Wasilla Pool Repair Project. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. We do not have a sign-up sheet. We'll open the public hearing on Ordinance 26-096.

27 And Resolution 26-079. Anyone that would like to testify on this ordinance or this resolution?

You have anybody online, sir?

Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. And, uh, Assemblyperson Sumner, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-097 and Resolution 6-079. Okay, is there discussion? Assemblyperson McKee, I just have a question and probably be— oh yeah, for the borough manager. Um, I've been here since like 2021.

It seems like this must be the 89th time we've talked about repairing the Wasilla pool. Is it— it's a song that never ends. Is it done? Will this do it? So through the mayor to Ms. McKee, yeah, it's a great— it's a great and a fair question.

Um, yeah, the repair work's done. The issue is, um, the locker room floors are— the flooring you put in is slippery, and so there's a concern with slip, trip, and fall. Yeah, in the locker room, we've had the contractor go back, try different mechanisms to create better abrasion, but you're trying to find that balance between enough to keep it from being slippery and not too much to, like, cut and scratch feet. So I think we're going to take it back to a former tile-type flooring, which probably isn't the lowest maintenance, but it is tried and true. And so this— what this does is pulls money from a couple different projects to allow us to go in there and finish this.

Finish? Well, it was done. Yeah, the challenge is it's hard when you're talking about a wet locker room floor that has people of all ages, like the liability with that. If you know you have an issue, it's in our best interest to fix it and make sure that we don't have that problem. And then I have one other question.

There— it's being taken from the Pioneer Peak Trail and the Big Lake, you know, the recreation center at Big Lake. Is that a loan or is that just a giveaway? Or from them to what, to the Wasilla pool? So through the mayor to Miss McKee, no, they're, they're existing project funds where like the Pioneer Peak Trailhead is complete. So that's, that's leftover funding.

And so no, this is funding that exists already. I'm not sure specifically what the Big Lake Lions was, but I think what Jillian was looking to do is solve the problem quickly, which meant, you know, the budget's set, so we're going to have to pull from another project if this is more important to get done. So that's, that's what this does, is realigns the funding to make it possible. All right, thank you. Assemblyperson Sumner.

So I mean, I've, I've done work in commercial bathrooms, and there's almost always a certification that's necessary for slip resistance on the flooring that you install. So I guess my question is, was it— was this like an experiment, or did we not— was it an oversight of certification? Was the epoxy— yeah, I don't know. That's my— that's my question, I guess, which just hadn't occurred to me when I first read it, but then now we started talking about it, now it occurred to me. Get some help.

We all need help. Go ahead, staff. Through the mayor, Public Works Director Tom Adams. So, uh, 7-member Sumner, um, we actually enlisted services of an architect, uh, to specify, uh, the materials used on here, um, and then solicited a bid for qualified contractors to install, uh, the specified material. And, uh, it's not that, you know, we're challenging the design or necessarily challenging installation.

It's just that in the end, the product that was put in place is continuously show that we're at risk of liability for slip, trips, or falls. Now, we've gone back two different times with some different types of abrasions, different types of cleaning, and we just are unable with the material that was put in place to, uh, to get a surface that has eliminated either the slipperiness, like the manager said, or in some cases being too abrasive and actually cutting people's feet.

I guess my follow-up question is, so did that— maybe you don't know this right now, but so did the architect specify a slip, a slip-resistant certification, or was it just like, hey, let's put some epoxy down?

I don't know the answer specifically, you know, as to whether or not a certificate— a certified installer of a certain product was specified in our documents.

So, so we don't really know whether it's our fault or their fault that this didn't work. I mean, seriously, I, I would say we, we enlisted professional to specify material that, uh, has application in, in the use that it was applied. And, and the case— and the installer put it down as the way it was specified and, and, you know, instructed put down. And in this case, it just— we're just finding that the material isn't working. So I don't know if that's a dance around telling you whose fault, you know.

I, I don't think it's the borough's fault. I mean, except that maybe we, you know, allowed a document to be authored and then bid But at the same token, we got a professional that, you know, this is what they do. They specify materials for, um, for this purpose. Geez, I wonder what would happen if they— I'm sure they're licensed, bonded, insured, and all that stuff, but if somebody went back and said, you, you broke it, you buy it, kind of thing to them, you know. I'm— huh?

I just— I doubt it's— fortunately, it's not a whole lot of money, so it doesn't hurt too bad, but I I wouldn't use those guys again, not for a pool.

Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I call for the question. Okay, the call on the question has been called. Is there objection to calling the question?

I don't see any. Is there objection to the motion to adopt the ordinance and the resolution? Okay, see no objection. Then the ordinance and resolution have been adopted.

Number 2, audience participation. We do not have another signup sheet, uh, on this audience participation. If you didn't testify under the first, you're welcome to testify here. If you testified under the first audience participation, then we frown greatly on you.

So I'm going to open up audience participation. Is there anyone that hasn't testified that would like to?

On any subject, doesn't have to be on something on the agenda, just anything you want to bring to the assembly. Assembly's attention.

We have nobody online. One last time. Okay, so I will take and close audience participation.

Oh no, consent agenda. Sorry, Madam Mayor. Yeah, so we're— I don't know how many consent agenda we have left because we pulled a bunch, but you got it all, so you go for it. Resolution 26074, resolution authorizing the manager to sell the Goose Creek Salvage Timber Harvest. Resolution 2683, resolution amending the scope of work and budget within project number 3476600, Meadow Lakes Road Service Area, to reallocate funds from Saskas Meadows subdivision and Sylvan Road pavement preservation Preservation projects to North Edgewater Drive pavement preservation project.

Resolution 2685, a resolution amending the scope of work and budget within project number 3476600 for the Meadow Lakes Road Service Area to reallocate funds from Treasure Island subdivision roadway improvements to Hermitcure Drive and Spring Drive improvement project. Resolution 2686, a resolution amending the scope of work and budget within Colony Road Service Area to reallocate funds from the France Road improvements to Crimson View and Heavenly Meadows Street improvement projects. AM 26103 authorizing the manager to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities regarding the transfer of Stringfield Road. AM 26104 authorizing the manager to enter— to sign, excuse me, an amendment to a memorandum of agreement with the Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities regarding the transfer of local roads in connection within— with installation, operation, and maintenance of lighting as part of the Glen Highway Milepost 34 to 42. AM 26-107, approval to, to provide the Christmas Friendship Dinner Incorporated $5,000 for the annual Christmas dinner from the Assembly Reserve.

AM 26-113, approval of utility relocation cost of $100,800. $1,367 To GCI Communications for the Mayflower Lane improvements project in the Bogard Road service area, an extension of the project completion date to December 31st, 2027. AM26114, approval of utility relocation costs of $231,637.59 to MTA Communications for the Birch Harbor Drive improvements project in the Kinnick Road service area, an extension of the project completion date to December 31st, 2027. AM26115 awarded bid number 276B to Frauner Corporation in the contract amount of $455,000 to repair the nutritional services steam system. And AM26117 awarded bid number 277B to Swalling General Contractors in the contract amount of $1,770,440 construct Bradley Road— Bradley Road Bridge replacement.

Deputy Mayor, I move the consent agenda as read into the record by the clerk. Okay, is there any objection?

Yes, Assemblyperson McKee. Yeah, I guess I probably should have pulled the amendment about the Christmas dinner so that I could talk about it. Can I— can I just— I don't know. I mean, we know it, huh? It's, it's the motion's on the floor to adopt it.

So can I move to divide the question? Okay. Can I divide AM 26-107?

Okay. Is there objection to dividing the question?

Okay, so, so that, that one now will be taken Is there objection? I didn't think so. I'm sorry. Okay, so the question is adopted, so it will be taken up later.

I'm going to vote two different— okay, the first segment is all the other consent agenda except AM 26-107. That is on the floor right now for adoption, Madam Mayor. Okay, there any objection? And to Okay, seeing no objection, then the MAS ones that haven't been removed pass. Okay, now, now we're on the second segment, which is AM 26107, Madam Mayor.

Okay, so Assemblyperson McKee, if you will move to adopt it. Sorry, on the floor. It's— we got it on the floor. We can discuss it. Okay.

So I'll be really brief. And most of us have read this, I'm assuming, but just for the rest of folks that don't know, this is a really huge deal and they've been doing it like forever. They have everybody as a volunteer. They serve 3,500 to 4,000 individuals every year. They do takeout.

They deliver to people who are homebound. Nobody gets paid to do this. It's all done with things like this, just the whole town kicking in and saying, you know, Some folks don't have Christmas dinner. Let's make it so that doesn't happen. So I just wanted to say that and give a shout out to those people that put in so much time, because I know several people that work on it and they don't have Christmas at home with their families.

They go and do this. This is how they spend their time, and I think that's pretty worthwhile. I just wanted to give them kudos and a shout out. Okay, further discussion? Is there any objection?

I see a couple lights.

Okay, ready? So go. It is passed then. And then we have some other ones, right, ma'am? We do.

AM 26-105, approval of additional utility relocation cost of $57,914.10 to Enstar Natural Gas for Fern Street upgrade and pathway phase 1 in the Fairview Road service area, pulled by Assemblymember Nowak.

You have to move it. You need to move it. AM 26-105. And yeah, we could take these all together if you want. You want to meet up?

Yeah. Okay, sure. Anybody object? No. No.

Good. Okay, then let me read them all. Okay, I just read 105. Now AM 26-106, approval of additional utility relocation costs of $220,624.38 to Enstar Natural Gas for the Crimson View and Heavenly Meadows Street improvements in the South Colony Road Service Area. AM26108, approval of additional utility relocation costs of $31,527.37 to Enstar Natural Gas for the Kinnick View Drive and Kinnick View Circle improvement project in the Greater Butte Road Service Area.

AM26109, approval of additional utility relocation costs of $80,277.67 to Enstar Natural Gas for the West Hermiter Drive and South Spring Drive improvements project in the Meadow Lakes Road Service Area, AM26110. Approval of utility— additional utility relocation costs of $65,716.44 to Enstar Natural Gas for the Adele Circle and August Circle improvement projects in the Midway Road Service Area, AM 26111, approval of additional utility relocation cost of $94,928.86 to Enstar Natural Gas for the Jolly Creek drainage improvements in the Big Lake Road service area and extend the completion date to December 31st, 2027. AM 26112, approval of additional utility relocation cost of $98,749.57 to Enstar Natural Gas for the Birch Harbor Drive improvement project in the Kinnick Road service area, including an extension of the project completion date to December 31st, 2027. And AM 26-116, approval of additional utility relocation costs of $44,207.49 to Enstar Natural Gas for the Helen Lane reconstruction project in the Bogart Road service area, pulled by Assemblymember Nowakoski. Okay, and let me ask Deputy Mayor, will you move for extension on time, please?

I move to extend our meeting till 11 o'clock. Okay, is there objection?

Okay, all right. Now Assemblyperson Nowers, go ahead. Okay, so I'm going to move all those that the clerk read into the record. And then the reason I, I pulled this— we've been talking about budgets, and, uh, reading these made my eyes pop out because NSTAR basically doubled the cost of all these projects, uh, to the tune of almost $700,000 on average. They doubled the cost.

It looks like at the last minute, and in the— what they said to the borough was, we discovered an estimating error. And then they— my understanding is they waited till the end of the project and said Oh, you know, you gotta, you gotta pay us this much more. And this is $700,000 out of the RSA budgets just on one project alone on Crimson View. The project went from $160,000 to $389,000, and that money to pay that additional cost would have to be stolen from France Road, which is slumping and has a major— this goes to the Pathway School. So it's at Porton Road.

It's, it's fallen off the edge, and it also has a really bad intersection. You're trying to get onto the Palmer Russell Highway, and I know we've got contingencies in place for utilities, um, and they're supposed to tell us, I think, if they go above 15%, they should give the borough some warning so we could have a discussion. So I guess the question I have for staff is, what happens if we just say we're not going to pay this amount?

You know, like, I feel like if we don't push back, this is okay. They just can tell us whatever the cost is and we're gonna pay it, is what it feels like. So can we tell them no, we're not, you didn't tell us you're going over your 15% and You're going to have to do a better job internally. It's your error. Go ahead, staff.

Uh, through the mayor, Assemblymember Nairz, Tom Adams, Public Works Director. The answer is yes, this body can direct us to reject payments, and it's kind of why we're here. Um, we had several projects that, uh, we had letters of agreement with the utility that established, uh, the fact that they provided estimates that we relied on making good decisions and, and set a 50% cap on overages without prior written notice. Uh, projects were constructed and completed, and then we received bills from the utility, and like you said, in excess, sometimes 2, sometimes nearly 3 times as much as the estimate they provided. Uh, our staff, Public Works, rejected payments just as our letter of agreement said we could, and you can imagine the response that we got from utility.

So we had a meeting with utility, um, Basically, they acknowledged their errors in providing estimates. There's 3 specific projects that, you know, they went through construction and now we have these overages. And most of these other projects are in earlier forms of development, and so they just updated estimates. And now we can, you know, even though they're impactful to other projects, at least we have the opportunity to budget our projects, uh, and make decisions about moving forward with them or not. Unfortunately, with several of the projects, we don't have that advantage.

So long way of answering your question, but yes, uh, if these were to be denied tonight, then we would effectively, uh, not be making payment to the 3 that have invoices due, and then we would have to figure out a way to move forward on projects that require Enstar utility relocations and try to figure out a path forward about getting projects done without having their participation. Okay, thank you. I, I think we should say that we're not going to pay this and the buck stops here. And errors happen, but those are really big errors. And to just load it all on the borough taxpayer, because the taxpayer will pay it, I think unless we kind of say no, then from NSTAR's perspective, there's no— what's the motivation to change?

So, I mean, I think there's an in-between, you know. I don't think that we don't help them out some, but I don't think we just say, oh, that's fine, you underestimated by 3 times, we'll just pay that.

I don't disagree on the projects that are already completed. The projects that have not been completed yet could present some problems. I mean, every road project's different. Maybe you can design around moving utilities, maybe you can subcontract out the utility moves. It might be more expensive.

So I mean, I think that opens another can of worms, and the best path forward would be to pay the projects that have been performed at updated rate. It would be my, my two cents. Assemblyperson Bowles. Essentially the same thing, but also just let them know that this can't happen moving forward.

If I may, I'm going to wade in here and give it a slightly different perspective. So yes, this is extremely frustrating, and it's extremely frustrating primarily because Instar wasn't very communicative as these issues were coming up. It was becoming an after-the-fact. We put these all on the same agenda for a reason so that it wasn't piecemealed and you could see it. I agree, it— staff have been working to make sure that doesn't happen again.

The challenge is the work was done, and had they provided a proper estimate, the odds are we would have paid— we would have brought that approval to you and we would be paying the same bill because the work still needed to to be done. The issue is they gaffed the estimate, right? And they've acknowledged that. So I just want to be clear, like, we're talking about public regulated utilities here, not just private companies that are out there doing their thing. And this is the cost of permitting utilities within public right-of-way, which I'm not arguing the merit of that.

I'm just suggesting that in the end we can go to fight, but that's the reality. The work was done. And we're not contesting the invoices. We're just not happy about the estimates being so far off and how it's adversely affecting our projects. So I just want to provide that advice to you as you consider whether or not you want to reject these AOCs.

Okay, Senator Worsen, hours.

I guess I feel like they're just in general, their estimates are often off and there are real reasons for that, but also, I mean, what's the motivation for them? Um, I, I get that they made an error, but any company that made an error of this big would say, you know, mea culpa. They don't get to just say, oh, you've got limitless dollars. So I still agree with Assemblymember Sumner that we should look at the projects that are done and not create any issue with the timeline. I would like to hear Tom weigh in on that.

Because that makes sense to me. But if that kind of makes sense to you too, I don't want to get those. But I, I want the message to get to NSTAR that this isn't just a money bank that you can just come to when, you know, we didn't take our time and do our due diligence. So through the mayor, if I might, I mean, believe us, I mean, we're not very thrilled about these changes either. I mean, We've been dealing with utility costs as a portion of our projects overall for the past several years.

We're spending $4 or $5 million a year just in utility relocations alone. And like you said earlier, you know, the burden on the RSAs is pretty substantial.

But I, you know, I think to Max's point, to Senator Summer's point, you know, we could certainly contest this, but we have other projects that we need their willing participation. This is not like utility where we have a choice to go elsewhere to get their utility relocated. We require Enstar to be a partner in doing so. And if we were to pick a fight, you know, by not paying at least 3 of these invoices, um, it would definitely have an impact on our ability to advance other projects that we have not yet started.

Hey, Assemblyperson Let's get some people that haven't talked. Somebody first, McKee. Now, this is something that anybody who ever comes to these meetings, and we all do, uh, that I've been, you know, concerned about for years. It's like, and then you always give an ex— a good explanation. You do, no doubt.

We've just never seen them all together in one place like this where it just hit you right in the headlights. And I, I really, I agree with everything that Stephanie said, but if you— we're between a rock and a hard place because if you don't pay them, then We don't have— they don't have any competition. So I don't know. I don't know where to go with this other than maybe amend it to just pay those that are completed and then chat with about the rest of the stuff. Would that work?

I think the mayor's letting me in first, Mr. Sumner. Um, and, and actually the attorney suggested this, and I, I'm— I'd be totally fine with this approach. You could move to continue and invite Instar to come and discuss. Um, I will tell you, I've already reached out to their vice president. We've had a conversation about this, and I told them what would be on the agenda tonight.

They had an opportunity to be here. So this wasn't— this isn't going to be a surprise. But if you want, if you want an NSTAR rep, I will reach out to them if you want to continue this, and we can continue this conversation at the next meeting. And I'll add to you, we had a meeting with several pretty high-level folks at NSTAR in a room, and they, they got the message. They were pretty embarrassed about where we are at right now.

And, you know, they made some changes internally to get us some revised estimates that are more accurate. Now, do they swing the ball too far? Do we get a little bit more too conservative in our estimates? I would probably expect so for a period of time. But, you know, like the manager said, you know, I think the message has been made.

You know, we won't know until next summer when we start doing our projects again about how accurate their new estimates are. But, you know, as much as I'd like to be able to get their attention and reject payments, I think the outcome of that is probably more detrimental than actually paying the bills at this moment. Like Mike said, you know, if their estimate's been right, it's not like we're challenging that they took too long to do a project or errantly billed us. They did the work. This is what it actually cost.

They just didn't estimate it correctly at the time that we needed good estimates. Assemblyperson Bowles.

Okay, Assemblyperson Sumner then, and then Deputy Mayor. I move to postpone. Yeah, 9-1. No, yeah. Okay, there is a motion to postpone until September.

Can I, can I add to that and direct the manager to invite in are. They need to make their case.

Mr. Sumner, can I interject? I mean, there's only 3 of these that actually have invoices that are over— that we're working on payments. Many of the other, uh, AMs here are just rebalancing projects that haven't started yet based on revised estimates. So perhaps we could go ahead and take care of those and then just leave on the table the discussion about the the willingness of this body to make payment on invoices that far exceeded their estimates. Madam Mayor, can I amend my motion to— for that?

As long as, as long as the clerk has it. No, at this point you'd have to withdraw this. We need to divide the question, know what AMs now that we're talking about. Can I withdraw my motion? I would like to Motion to divide the question, and I need the AM numbers.

So, Madam Mayor, if I may help the clerk here, AM 26106. Just a minute. So is there objection to withdrawing his amendment?

Is there objection to dividing the question? Got to know the AM numbers first. Yeah, so the two—. There's two out of the three. There, there are forthcoming legislation that aren't on tonight.

So one of the three that I've mentioned is in forthcoming legislation. So on the agenda tonight are only two: AM 26-106, that is the Crimson View and Heavenly Meadows subdivision. AM 26-116 is Helen Lane. Those are the two jobs that have been completed and have change orders that exceed our estimate. So divide the question for those two.

Okay, Madam Clerk, are you okay? Yeah, I'm fine. I just want to know, are these the ones that you're wanting to be approved tonight or not be approved tonight? So those were the ones we would withhold approval and postpone to the next meeting.

Okay, Assemblyperson Sumner, are you, you okay then with His definition of what we're doing. Okay, Assemblyperson Nowers. Okay, so, um, there's additional ones coming, but they are not completed projects. They're revised estimates through the mayor. Uh, Assemblymember Nowers, no, one of them is a completed project.

The Midway Streets project is another project that we just did not have legislation prepared in time for tonight. Okay, but it is a completed project where the estimate, um, was more than 130% And at this point, if we, if we just held all the payments until the revised estimates, is it going to slow any projects down if we wait 2 weeks?

I guess it depends on the utility's reaction to the hearing that we're not going to make payment. Okay, because they certainly do more work until we resolve this issue, because, and this is, this is why it speaks to dividing the question. I think there's a bigger issue too with just having a conversation with NCSTAR about bringing costs down in general, like beyond just this error. This is like a constant thing. And one of the questions I do have is I've heard they use external contractors at really high rates.

And I don't know, you know, like maybe they have to do that, but like I think this body can have a conversation, a better conversation with them, just put everything out there. Let's sit down with them and, you know, A, this error happened and you can't just make the borough make it go away. Um, B, what else can you do to bring cost down? Because this is really driving cost projects. And, and C, like, it— from our position, we're a pretty big partner with them too.

We do natural gas LIDs, which enable all sorts people to hook up to their lines, which is a monopoly. So I don't think, you know, it's not a— I don't want to be a bad partner with them, but this is a big budget cost for us, and I think this body can send that message by not dividing this question, just holding these all, and we're going to have a conversation and hear from the vice president. So I'd rather not divide it and just go forward since it's it's not— I don't think it's going to hold up any projects, but I do like the idea of having them come and discuss it.

Further, yes, somebody—. Person Sumner, go ahead. I mean, yeah, I don't, I don't want to hold up the projects. That's— it was the reason, the rationale for advancing the, the ones that are revised estimates and not— and withholding just the invoices. Until we can talk to Enstar, maybe negotiate a middle ground.

Uh, and yeah, I do— Enstar does have a single contractor that buries their gas lines. I mean, that's a further discussion. Maybe you can talk to Tom about it. Enstar puts a lot of their gas lines in the right-of-way, uh, not in utility easement. I don't know why that is, what the— what, you know, what the rationale or reason is for that.

But, you know, if you have a utility in the right-of-way and you have to do work on the right-of-way, a lot of times you gotta move it.

Frank, is there any— what's the problem?

Oh, well, can we at least move on the motion? No, you need to have a break right now.

Okay, so let's have the, the vote. Is there any objection to the amendment, to dividing the question? I thought— oh, okay, so there is. Okay, I can get the members in the room to go ahead and vote in dividing the question.

Madam Mayor, passed with Assemblymember Nowers opposed. Okay, all righty, so I am We need to take a— let's take a break till 10:15 then.

We're going to have to extend the meeting again to go into executive.

Yeah, okay. I have to tell you how much I like it.

I think the big lesson, characteristic for today, we think that a South Korean scenario would exist all over the world. But I'm not sure that it would be there. Who's saying that? Who was that?

So we've divided the question, and so, um, would you— so what is the— how is the division done? Because I think we had a long list of them, and which ones are in which pile now? And I need to make sure that Mr. Adams tells me if if I'm wrong. So Segment 1 are all the ones— they're the majority of them that's not 26106 or 26116, correct?

Go ahead, sir. I'm going to keep moving through the mayor. Uh, Madam Clerk, so just to be sure, so the way I am trying to suggest to you that AM 26106 and AM 26116 6 are those that are pending payment, and it's my understanding this assembly wants to withhold approval of those. So those would be the only 2 AMs that are set to the side. Okay, so the first segment, Madam Mayor, would be all the ones that Mr. Adams suggests the assembly moves forward with and adopts.

Okay, second part of the deal, so the other 2 Yes. So now we're on the first segment, Madam Mayor. Is there any objection? Okay, is there any objection from the assembly on the first section? Sure.

Has NSTAR said they won't sign future agreements with the 15% notification if they're going to be 15% or more over? Through the Mayor, uh, some member now is yes. That alone makes me want to keep all these on the table.

Okay, so if you still have an objection, then— so we need to vote then. And so the first ones will be the bulk and acceptance of the AAMs, right? It'd be the— all the ones that the administration is recommending moving forward with. Yep. If I can get the members in the room to go ahead and vote on for Segment 1.

Again, can you repeat one more time which ones are— because we did 2, Segment 1, Segment 2. Segment 1s are the ones that administration is recommending moving forward with tonight.

Yeah, Madam Mayor, it passed with Assemblymember McKee and Assemblymember Nowers opposed. Okay, now the second motion now is to postpone, right? Well, I think somebody would have to move to postpone the second segment, Madam Mayor, and we have Assemblymember Sumner. Okay, I move to postpone to September 1st and invite— have the manager invite NSTAR.

Did you say a date? 9/1. 9/1. Okay, is there objection to that?

I don't see any objections, so that passes.

Okay, that takes care of all of the— so let's see now, here we are to the unfinished business, ma'am. Is that right? Yep. Ordinance 2616, an ordinance approving the land classification of a borough-owned property as reserve use land for the purpose of a shooting range. Okay, there's the main motion that's on the floor.

Now it's time for any discussion. Discussion by anybody? Assemblyperson Bowles, go ahead. Madam Mayor, I move to postpone this ordinance indefinitely.

Okay, so there's an amendment on the floor to move to postpone indefinitely. Deputy Mayor? I want to take care of this now. Okay. And I have a good reason to.

Thank you. Okay, so we have an objection. A further discussion? Yes, Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh, this is the, uh, parcel that, um, there are landowners again, but also more importantly now, this is a third shooting range. Again, very much in favor of shooting ranges, but there is a private ownership shooting range already in place. So I just think that this is— I mean, talk about excessive government overreach and government infringement on private industry, private business. We're looking at it tonight. There is a private range that is in this area.

This is now the third proposed shooting range to go within 25 or 30 miles of this private ownership shooting range. I don't think the government should be infringing upon the ownership's ability to make money at their shooting range. Okay, assembly question, McGee. Well, if we go with that premise, then we better not ever recommend anything for a shooting range because you got to be able to get to it. These people have built their own shooting ranges on basically, I guess, the road system.

Does that just pre— that would— I, I'm sorry, but that would seem to me, Mr. Bowles, to preclude the borough ever recommending anything you could get to. I mean, if you fly in by helicopter or maybe take your boat in or whatever. Then you wouldn't have to worry about competing. But everybody who buys land that is next to a borough, something borough-owned, or starts a business where it's— it could go any way at any time, until we use the Z word, we're going to have this conversation a lot. So I don't think that that's a valid concern.

We can't just say, well, who, who started a business? Well, when you start that business, you gotta— if you didn't figure the odds Thanks for you, Assemblyperson Sumner. Yeah, I was just going to add that, you know, nothing— obviously there are no definitive plans on any of these parcels that have land classifications. Nothing precludes the borough from, uh, or, you know, opening up to a request for a bid and selling the parcel to someone that is going to operate, you know, a private party, uh, a private ownership to operate a, uh, a shooting range on this parcel. Purchase it and operate their own shooting range.

And I am definitely an advocate of free market capitalism, which includes competition and not the government, you know, regulating a monopoly to a shooting range.

Okay, Assemblyperson Boldt. Sure, yeah, free market capitalism is private entities competing with each other, not the government competing with private entities. The government competing with private entities is moving towards socialism. And as far as access to shooting ranges, flying— that, I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Um, there's a— I wasn't talking about access there.

The road leads right to that shooting range. So I, I just— that doesn't make any sense. What I'm trying to do is, um, ensure that the borough, as it grows, doesn't push out private industry, because that is the definition of socialism.

Okay, Deputy Mayor.

Okay, is there any objection to calling the question on the postponement amendment? I think I object. Yeah, I'd like to talk about it a little more.

Yeah, if you Okay, got it. All right, so is there objection to calling the question on the postponement? Okay, so then I guess we're ready to vote. Yeah, there's a motion to postpone indefinitely. Now you're going to vote on that.

Assemblymember McKee.

To clarify, no, we'll continue discussion right now. Yes, we'll kill it. Okay, so no to continue discussion.

Okay. So, let me— let me— so people in the audience knows what we're talking about up here. Motion to postpone this indefinitely would mean the discussion stops. You want to move to, or do you want it discussion to stop and the item to get postponed indefinitely? You would vote yes.

You want to continue talking about it, you would vote no.

Madam Mayor, it failed with Assemblymember Bowles in favor. Okay, so further discussion? Deputy Mayor. So back in '22 King Arthur was getting paved, and I got a call from Bobby Hunter, who had a driveway on a corner and had a fifth wheel and some stuff. And when they redid that road, they paved it and did ditches and upgraded culverts and all that.

They moved his driveway, and, uh, he couldn't get his truck and trailer in there without rubbing, and he had a problem with that. So we went out and talked with him and had Tom and Mike go out and visit. And long story short, he was talking about, you know, it was hurting his neck. And it came about that he'd actually been driving his four-wheeler, or side-by-side, out at Zero Lake and got shot. Took a .45 round to the neck.

Went through his neck, hit the back window, bounced off, and he actually has that .45 slug.

And so last winter he calls me up, he says, you know, we got to talk. And he says, we, we need a range out there. People go out there all the time, they shoot the place up, it's unsafe. You know, if they just had a range out there where everybody went one spot and shot. It'd make it a lot safer.

And so last winter he called me up and he says, have you done anything on that? And so that's what got my wheels in action and in motion here. And I got a letter that, uh, I wanted him come speak in person, but I'd like to read an email that he sent.

This is Sidney Burrow and Assembly Planning Officials. Dear Borough officials, I'm writing to express my support for the proposed gun range on Zero Lake Road. This issue is particularly important to me because I have a personal history with firearm safety in that area. In 2020, while I was riding my side-by-side with my wife on Zero Lake Road, I was shot in the neck. Thankfully, I I survived, but it was a life-changing experience that I will never forget or heal from.

Because of what happened to me, I understand firsthand how important responsible firearm use and safety are. I believe that providing a properly designed and regulated gun range could be a positive step for our community. I— a designated shooting facility can provide people with a safe and appropriate place to practice, learn, and become more proficient with firearms rather than having people shooting in uncontrolled areas. I support having appropriate rules, safety requirements, hours of operation, measures to address noise, access, and surrounding community. I believe those concerns can be addressed through the proper planning and responsible management.

My experience in 2020 has given me a different perspective on this issue. I don't want what happened to me to be used simply as an argument against firearms or responsible gun ownership. Instead, I believe it is a reason to promote firearm safety, education, responsibility, and safe places for people to shoot. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the borough to consider moving forward with a proposed gun range on Zura Lake Road. I believe a well-planned and properly operated facility could benefit our community and promote safer firearm practices.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments and for allowing me to share my personal experience and support. Respectfully, Robbie Hunter. Okay, Assemblyperson Sumner. Yeah, one of the previous meetings we had, uh, postponed this so that to give an opportunity for some members to go take a look at the property, which, uh, me and Mr. Farnov coming back from, uh, one of the budget meetings in Willow, we actually did take the opportunity to go up there and, uh, and take a look. And we actually submitted photos to the rest of the assembly.

So I'm sure, you know, it's in the, uh, IM now. Um, so I'm sure you guys know what I'm saying when I say that there is already a shooting range on this parcel, but it is unregulated and unsafe. So the question before us is not whether we are going to have shooting here on the Zero Lake Range— Zero Lake Road parcel, because there already is, I mean, thousands, tens of thousands of bullet casings and bullet holes. The question really is, do we want them, you know, to try and, uh, make it a safe a safe, uh, and regulated, uh, shooting range? Or do we want to just let people, uh, shoot willy-nilly there and potentially kill someone?

Emily Purcell McKee. Until I saw the photos, I kind of was thinking how dangerous it was right now with everybody shooting anywhere at whatever they liked. But then you see the pictures, and that very first one that has a sign that says— basically it's saying behind this sign is private property. And it's full of holes, and everything that could be shot at is full of holes. And so that, that picture's worth a thousand words.

And then my— the final clinch for me was when the gentleman talked about being shot. For God's sake, if at least you've got a shooting range, everybody's shooting in the same direction. Here it could come from anywhere. So whereas I have always supported the folks that testified, I still do, but I think you're going to be safer, um, with something that's going to corral some of these yahoos and Give them a place to go and shoot, and then you can have more recourse when you're, when you're going after them. Uh, you might even know who they are when there's, when there's some sort of regulation.

So I'm, I'm for it. Assemblyperson Nowak. Oh yeah, people like to shoot in the valley, to shoot dryers, trees. I mean, Jim Creek is the, is the example of a place that was the Wild West. And we put in a shooting range in Maud Road and get it cleaned up.

But, um, this— that differs from this one. In that case, there was a local champion and local champions who wanted that. And then it wasn't just putting in a shooting range, it was putting in a shooting range and having a concerted enforcement effort that was teamed with the state and the borough. We're just talking about putting— classifying land in a place where I haven't heard anybody in the area say they want this. I think you need that, that local support for it.

And there's— if you have more shooting ranges and you do enforcement, you can get— you can solve the problem in other ways. If we had a local champion in this place, but we have a lot of property owners who say the last thing I want is a shooting range. And, um, Mr. Bernie is showing me pictures. I don't doubt it, but this is Jim Creek all over again. I mean, they had trees, cottonwood trees in Jim Creek that were mature, 3-foot-around trees, and they had been blown in half by it.

Um, and, and there was all sorts. So, um, if that's my, my issue with this place is you don't have a local champion and you existing people that feel like they're going to be significantly— their property values and use is significantly impacted. Can we, can we get the, the Wild West cleaned up without doing a shooting range in there? I think that's worth exploring, but let's get the, the neighbors on board. Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I think, I mean, we've got— there's 3 different layers here. So let's address the The guy getting shot, yep, that's, that's absolutely terrible. Um, and you know, was it a year ago there was a woman that was shot in her home because somebody shot at a sign driving into Palmer? And, um, so I mean, things like that happen.

I'm not saying that this place is, is safe, um, but things like that happen. It's terrible. Um, you talk about shooting safety courses, so I'm looking at the website of the Upper Susitna Shooters Association, the range, the private range that already exists in this area. And they, lo and behold, offer hunter safety classes. They also have a library of material available on hunter safety, range rules, all kinds of things available to people.

So these things already exist by a private entity. Um, this place exists not far from Zero Lake, not far from the other proposed areas. And again, I'm not against shooting ranges. I'm all for shooting ranges. Um, I just think that trying to designate all of these areas around this existing shooting range is infringing upon this private entity.

And, and so what it sounds like is we need enforcement in this area, law enforcement. It sounds like we need to probably maybe, maybe have the borough manager reach out the troopers and enter into a memorandum of agreement and have the troopers police that area of the borough a little bit more frequently, or maybe a lot more frequently if, if it's a safety concern. Designating an area as a shooting range and then saying, well, it's not going to be 30 years, well, then it's not really a safety concern to you. You can't say I'm going to designate this as a shooting range because it's a safety concern and then say, well, it's not going to happen for 30 years. I mean, those two contradict each other.

It doesn't make any sense. So what, what I see being pragmatic is in 30 years, if all three of these places have a government-run shooting range, then maybe the son of this person or the grandson who, who this might get passed down to is now out of business because of the government. That's what I see.

Deputy Mayor, would you drive to Anchorage to go shooting?

I have driven to Anchorage to go shooting. Okay, well, most people wouldn't drive from Wasilla to go all the way to mile 92, which is basically 50-some-odd miles, the same as going from my house to Anchorage. Okay, the other thing is this is proposed. Okay, now you look at Maud Road You go down Maud Road, you see a bunch of signs all shot to hell.

I have shot at Maud Road many a time. So did you shoot at the street signs? I don't shoot at signs. No, I can't control anybody else's behavior, right? Okay, okay, all right.

What I'm getting at is if you have a gun range, you're gonna have respectable shooters there shaming anybody that's not respectable. That's just going out and blasting cars and washing machines and whatever on side the road. When you put in a nice gun range like Maud Road or Jonesville or any other place, they're going to take and have respect for it. I'm not disagreeing. Okay, no, no, no, no, you have not been recognized.

Assemblyperson Falloff.

Um, this has been a long time we've discussed this, and honestly, I sincerely heard the testimonies very well and clearly, and my position might have been different. And like Miss McKee said, um, picture worth a thousand words. But if you actually went there in person— and I don't know, we can voluntarily say who did go— I know I did. I know another assembly member who was with me. We did, um, going there and seeing it, it's more than 1,000 words.

It's, you know, it's million words, right? Because you get to see actually a gun range that's actively being used except with no rules with them. So it's actually, as much as you might not like our decision here tonight, it's actually in the favor of certain, um, and as a matter of fact, the faster we promote for it to be actual, uh, uh, or gun range with the rules and directions, it is actually safer for those people out there. Because us voting this down today might make a temporary good feeling that you had the win, but that doesn't shut— doesn't stop the shooting over there. That's just the reality of it.

And we've seen thousands, tens of thousands, maybe even more, maybe hundreds of thousands of us. And not in just one place, but at multiple locations as we drive by. So I'm going to say Planning Commission— we have a very qualified Planning Commission. They supported this, and, um, and, and I can't just based on feelings vote it down because we don't want this kind of letter that we had from Mr. Hunter. In the future to be that somebody actually did get killed.

I'm sure he, if he was in that area and he's driving there before, he probably would have was against a shooting range, so to speak. But after that experience, he much rather have it well organized. So for that reason, I will support that. And as much as it's not the pleasant decision that you would want to see, but I think long term it will benefit the safety of the people that are surrounding that area. Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So you, um, the, the— you alluded to that if we approve this tonight, there's going to be an automatic shift towards a safer environment, and that's just not true. It did— it's just not true. It didn't happen up in Sutton with Jonesville, and it's not going to happen with this. What it would— what it is going to do is in 20 or 30 years, it's going to run this this range out of business.

That's what it's going to do. That's what I see. And, and we're— it's Alaska, and yeah, it's unsafe. I understand that.

Um, but there is a range here already. There's a range here already. There are many opportunities to go to the ranges. There's Mod Range there. Supposedly in about 5 years there might be a range up in Sutton.

Um, there is a range out here, Upper Susitna Shooters Association. There's a range in Paul Palmer. There's a range at Rabbit Creek. There's a range— I mean, there's ranges all over the place. So I take issue with growing government and government infringing upon a private business.

I can't say that enough. And selling this as this is going to immediately change the environment out there to a safer environment, I think, is dishonest.

Assemblyperson Howard. I just absolutely agree with Assemblymember Bernier that you bring in good people and it drives out the bad. The Park rangers will tell you that, like, what's the best way, you know, to, to get the bad guys out of the parks is have more activities in the parks. But I agree with Assemblymember Bowles, designating this as a future gun range does not make this a safer place if that is our goal. And we're already trying to bring— we've been trying to bring Jonesville online for how many years?

So realistically, maybe there's something else we can do to bring in the good guys to this property. Than a gun range, because the gun range has got no support from the local people who feel like it's going to lower their property value. So there might be another way to do this that actually will bring safety and have support from the community.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And, and I think, I think there is a serious concern with safety, and, um, and I think that should be addressed. And I don't know if it's something that's been done in the past or something that can be done with the borough reaching out to the troopers and identifying this area as an area of need for trooper presence, a significant increase in trooper presence. That's what I'm hearing. I'm hearing people are out of control out there and there needs to be a true law enforcement presence until it settles down or until there's a maybe a culture change.

Um, so that's what I'm hearing. I'm hearing it's, it's, it's unsafe. Somebody got shot in the neck, um, but there's a range 30 miles up the road and that's not quelling any of the unsafe activity. And 30 miles isn't that far in Alaska. So I, I think there is objection to the motion.

So the motion is to postpone indefinitely. So actually, no, that already failed. Oh, that already We're on the main motion. Okay. And it hasn't been modified then?

No. Okay. I think, if I may, I think most of us have made a decision in our mind. I call it a question so we can vote and move past this, and people who are here will know at least this chapter has closed. So, thank you, Madam Clerk, keeping me on the right motion here.

Senator, I call the question. Okay, is there objection to calling the question?

Okay, so now proceed to vote. I get the members in the room to go ahead and vote on the main motion.

Madam Mayor, it passed with Assemblymember Bowles and Nowers opposed.

Okay, so there are no vetoes and And now we're ready for new business and, uh, introduction.

Do you have something regarding— that's enough.

Um, yeah, introduction for public hearing on September 1st. Sorry, got to get to the page. Ordinance 26096 with accompanying Resolution 2678. Ordinance 2698. Ordinance 2699 with accompanying Resolution 2680.

Ordinance 26100 with accompanying Resolution 2681. Ordinance 26101 with accompanying Resolution 2684. Okay, Deputy Mayor, I move to introduce the legislation as read into the record by the clerk and set the public hearing for September 1st, 2026. Discussion about the introductions? Any objection?

Okay, hearing none, then the legislation has been introduced. Deputy Mayor, I move to confirm the recommendations for— of the mayor as follows: Board for Advisory Review of Kennel Standards Harry Roffle, Linda Barcombe as vice chair, Jennifer Hennessy, Kay Letty, Alyssa Boozer as chair, and Dee McGee. Board of Adjustment and Appeals, resignation of Michael Dale. Platting Board, resignation of Igor Galloway.

Discussion? Is there any objection?

Hearing no objection, then the vacancy report has been approved. There is no other new business. There's no referrals, there are no reconsiderations. Uh, we are to the point of parting comments. Mr. Attorney, parting comments.

We're not to that point yet in the agenda for parting comments.

I want to thank Ms. McKee for wearing a shirt. Is that going away present to George, her husband, who sat here, uh, 6 years and brings back a lot of good memories? That's all. Parting comments, Assemblyperson McKee. Yeah, I'm sorry that the folks left because I know they're hard.

I've been through that where we thought we were safe where we were. And then the government-owned, otherwise owned land, we lost, we lost the freedom of a 600-acre meadow that we had just ridden horses in and everything. So I understand the hurt. But I'll tell you what, I would not buy a piece of property from those people who own property out at Zero Lake, because I don't— after seeing those pictures and hearing that testimony, I wouldn't go out there on a bet. I wouldn't buy property, I wouldn't rent property from anybody that owns it out there, and I wouldn't take it— I wouldn't go to lunch out there.

I just hope that they understand that this is a sincere effort in a time when government has to make a decision that says, folks, you just don't understand, this could make it better. And someday maybe they'll see that. That's what I hope. That's in my heart. 'Cause I hate for how we had to do that, but somebody's gonna get killed if we don't start making a move in the right direction.

And to me, that's the right direction, is to say, maybe this will get 'em corralled and regulated.

Assemblyperson Sumner, parting comments, sir? It's really easy to say that you like the idea of shooting ranges without actually having to delineate where they go.

Deputy Mayor, parting comments? You know, it was actually the topic of shooting ranges that brought me to my first borough meeting back in— was it 19 or 20, when Tam Bovee introduced legislation to make it really difficult to start a shooting range.

And we had 60-some-odd people get up and testify, don't mess with the Second Amendment. 4 Or 5 people got up and said, we need, we need legislation, and it passed. Okay, so I I get it, but that's what inspired me to actually step up. And August 25th, '21 was the last day you could take and sign up. At 5 o'clock was the deadline.

I, I waited and waited for somebody to run against that lady. At 4:54, I walked through that door, or she would have been unopposed. And that's all because of gun ranges.

And I want to thank everybody that helped me here today, and, uh, I want to thank Jesus. Thank you, Lord, for bringing us all together. Thank you for our borough. Thank you for all the great things and blessings that you give us, Lord. Please, please Bless our veterans, our first responders.

Take care of our elderly, the sick, the needy. Help those that have addictions that they can overcome. Lord, thank you for your blessings. Thank you for your grace. In Jesus' name, amen.

And then, of course, some hours— parting comments. I just want to recognize the people who took a lot of time out of their days to come here. 3 3 Times on the Sarah Lake and express their passion about what is the biggest investment for them in their property and, and how they felt this was going to impact them. And, and I was listening to what they said. They didn't express the concerns about their safety and didn't support this.

And I just, I want to recognize that because there's a lot of people who, that's, that's their biggest investment and now they feel like, you know, I'm uncertain about the future of that. And if they, you know, what's it going to be like? I don't— when we did something, we designated it. I don't honestly think we will have a gun range up and operating on that. I mean, we got to get Jonesville up first, and like I said, it's just a big lift.

But I just wanted to recognize those voices and know they were heard.

The Alaska State Fair starts Friday. So come on down. They're recognizing the Farm family that day. Um, and then at the— when we were discussing the, um, multifamily condo flats came up and how many are in, uh, the borough. And there was a memo from the manager in January saying that there's 4,171 acres in condo flats, and the amount of condo flats created in 2024 doubled, uh, just— oh, increased by half.

So 325 acres in 2025, 148 in 2024. So the number of acres that were condo-platted doubled in those 2 years. So there's a significant number of acreage that's in condo-plats, for what it's worth.

Mr. Manager, Parting comments, Madam Clerk. Parting comments, Assemblyperson Bowles. Parting comment. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So starting with shooting ranges, so whether or not to build a shooting range has nothing to do with our rights protected under the Second Amendment. That's ridiculous. Our rights protected under the Second Amendment is that I can bear arms and the government can't infringe upon my right to bear arms. I can shoot in my backyard. I can shoot down on the Knik River.

I can shoot many places in Alaska. The concern with building a gun range, um, in an area where people have homes or an area where there's also a private range not too far away, that if a government-run range goes in there, it may run their business out of business— I have, I have concerns with that. I mean, you know, any government-run entity that may run a private entity out of business, I have a concern with. That's where my concern lies. So I just want to make that very clear.

Um, huge proponent for protecting our rights protected under the Second Amendment. Um, so other concerns I have, um, I, I'm a little concerned that, um, we weren't willing to consider fire and safety issues, you know, in, in code. Um, that's, that's a little concerning. Um, I think it's our job to really think about that, think about how our decisions will affect the residents in the Matsu Borough. And, and I am all for building and I'm all for economic development.

However, we have a responsibility to make sure that residents aren't going to be put in a position to where, um, if they need emergency services, that it might be delayed or or infringed somehow. Um, you know, our taxes pay for infrastructure, and those main pieces of infrastructure are EMS, schools, and roads. And so that, that's concerning that that wasn't considered. Um, so, um, I'm also concerned, and I have to say this, that for the last 8 months there seems to be this concerted effort to raise taxes. And, and I just— that's concerning to me.

Um, I will continue to fight that fight, and, uh, you know, it is what it is. But, um, we— I don't know, I don't know why we're trying to raise taxes so much here in the borough. Um, it's a privilege to be in the seat. It's a privilege to represent District 1. I greatly appreciate you putting me in the seat, and, um, see you at the next meeting.

Assemblyperson Fono, parting comments? It's, uh, when people run, they run on a lot of promises, um, and it's easy to promise something when you don't have to make the decision. Then you come and sit in this place, and whatever decision you're gonna make on a special issue that is somewhat, you know, split, you're gonna make make half or third of the people mad and you please the other. And on the next issue, the same people you just made happy, they might be mad at you. It just comes with the territory.

And at some point we need to make those difficult decisions. And it's very easy for a temporary split moment to push the right button and, uh, please the people, but that does not necessarily mean that's the best result for the future, or even for those people who are sometimes asking for it. Um, so same thing goes with budget. Today was one of those things when just, you know, to thought like, huh, maybe, yeah, I'll put my name on it so later I can say I voted for it. But then the reality hits that in several months from now, have to be creating a budget, and the list, not the 5 or 6 items that we had on the list It'd be 20 maybe, and hundreds of people from this school that's being affected, road, and everything else would be here.

But some of the assembly members might not be here at that time. And so it was good, maybe decision, even popular, something that you could use in the future, but it's not necessarily the best one. So that's where you sometimes you have to have— be able to look at the people like I did it today into them and say, you know what, this is what we're doing today, might not necessarily please you is what you wanted, but it is a better outcome. So I like to say, um, that's just the reality of it. I would like to direct a manager to, um, send maybe somebody and take a look and maybe evaluate situation on the Zero Lake Turn, what it will take to clean up clean up a little bit of the mess there now that we designated this, and potentially give us a report what it would cost to put some signs up and things like that.

Because I think, uh, in the short term we could do something that would at least put some kind of basic barriers there for the safety, um, because I do think that's something that immediately we'd be able to address. And if it costs a reasonable amount of money to just do the cleanup and put some signs up, I would I would like to do that as soon as possible.

Input, go ahead, sir. Can I ask for clarification, Mayor? Are you looking, Mr. Ponnoff, for that to be restricted just to the borough land or to include state land? I mean, because that's the one thing that did not come up in the conversation tonight is some of this is occurring on state land that's not being managed. And if you want us to assess that, I'm happy to do it.

I just want to have the appropriate scope. Mr. Brunier might be more knowledgeable on that. When I drove there, it felt like the whole road needs to be at least, uh, and at least evaluation. So whatever the best option would be, so that maybe it's more than one, to see to get some evaluation after this meeting. Now, Mike, who was the outfit that came in and did the cleanup this spring for us, that volunteered and donated time?

Well, we use multiple— they were multiple— they reached out. I mean, we have Adult and Teen Challenge that we regularly work with, but there are lots of nonprofits and other groups and individuals involved. They actually had a nonprofit come out this spring and do— I think nice safety— some, I think.

Yeah, and they did a great job. But as far as putting signs up, I think those are called Targets, and on Zero Lake Road Honestly, so I think there's— if I may, I, I have a good relationship with the ATC management at Albatross Teen Challenge. I'll probably, uh, we'll talk to them, see how much manpower they can offer, maybe in conjunction with our already cleanup coordinator that we have, to see what we could do, because we want to keep it in as minimum cost as possible, but Um, but to see what we can do to make that place a little more safer and cleaner. So I didn't hear an objection, so I'm going to move forward with an assessment of some sort. Okay.

All right. So I don't have parting comments. Deputy Mayor, you move us into executive session.

I move us into executive session. Okay, where is it at? In your file right here. Oh, right in front of you. Read that.

I move to enter executive session for matters which the immediate public knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the borough, and matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be kept confidential, and to discuss matters involving consideration of borough records that by law are subject to the public disclosure, and discussion of matters subject to attorney/client privilege. In particular, the discussion of David's Family Trust versus Amatsu Borough, 3PA-26-0219, 199 CI. Those present during executive session will be the mayor, the assembly, the attorney, the manager, and the clerk. Okay, Deputy Mayor, will you move us to extend the—. I extend this meeting till 11:59.

I object. Okay, it's your objection to extending the meeting. We— you can't You can't object. Sure, it's 11:50— 10:58. So he wants to extend it for an hour.

He can't object. Okay, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I object, um, because I have a motion, um, to vote down the executive session coming up. Yeah, at this point in time, we have 2 minutes to do that.

We're going to run out of time if we don't extend the meeting. Right, and there's going to be discussion on your motion, sir. So, okay, so any objects, other objections to 11:59? Okay, all righty. So the motion on the floor then is to go into executive session.

Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, I move to table this executive session Um, we've already gone over this. Um, I think the attorney is working on this. He's doing a good job.

I don't think our discussions are going to do anything or change the course, and I don't think we need to spend any more time on this at this time until the attorney is ready to provide us with the report. Wait, the motion to postpone indefinitely, Madam Mayor. Okay, discussion by the assembly. Assembly Chairperson Sumner? Who put the executive session on the agenda?

Okay. Is there any new information from the attorney?

There was a request by a member to have further discussion on the issue because of the timing and the last conversation we had.

Yeah, I would ask that we would have it, we probably will have it briefly. Um, and those who don't want to participate, um, maybe mayor can excuse them.

Further discussion on the motion to postpone indefinitely?

Deputy Mayor? I'm in favor of hearing out the attorney.

Okay, further discussion on the motion to to postpone indefinitely. It sounds like there is an objection, right? Get the members to go ahead and vote.

It failed with Assemblymember Bowles and Nowers in support. Okay, so, uh, I guess we will move into executive session then at Are you asking if there's any objection to entering executive session? Any objection to going into executive session? Okay, so we'll go into executive session at 11:01.

All righty, Deputy Mayor, you want to move us out of executive session, please?

I move to exit executive session.

Okay, discussion? Any objection?

Hearing no objection, then we're out of executive session at 11:48. I'm sorry? Oh, I said all right. Oh, okay. I thought you were saying— okay.

Oh, yes. Comment. I request that in, uh, 2— a month from now, we continue discussion executive session.

Is there objection to the motion? Because we said 2 weeks, we have a busy schedule. The following meeting, which is about a month, right? Or whichever that date Second meeting out— second, the following meeting, September 15th. Yeah, as many as you want.

Okay, I, I just prefer to do it in 2 weeks. If we need to, if we need to, we can push it off 2 more weeks, but the sooner the better. I'm okay with— are you proposing it in 2 weeks? I'm proposing 2 weeks. I, I, I would draw mine and I will support Motion.

We don't need a motion. I think the direction was already done.

Okay, is there further discussion? Meeting adjourns at 11:49. 10 Minutes early. Yeah.