Mat-Su Borough: Assembly Regular Meeting - August 4th, 2026

Mr. Sumner. Yeah, about the watering down of the $75K tax deduction by increasing mill rates, I was just going to add that the state statute only allows up to a $75K exemption, but it does allow an inflation adjustment after that once it's enacted. So in theory, the $75K exemption could grow with assessments.

Ready? So the motion before you is to rescind your previous action, which was to pass, uh, that ordinance. So, um, Madam Clerk, correct me if I'm wrong. So if they vote— so if they vote yes, then it would rescind the previous action. If you vote no then the previous action stands.

Is that right? Correct, correct, Madam.

Okay, if I can get everybody to vote. Assemblymember Fonoff, are you still with us?

Yes. Hello, sorry, could you repeat that, the last part again, because, uh, my phone was Setting up the motion. The mayor was explaining the motion to rescind. If you want the ordinance to stand as adopted, you would vote no. If you want to rescind the ordinance, you would vote yes.

What is your vote, Assemblymember? No, no. Correct, Madam Mayor. The motion has failed with Assemblymember McKee— excuse me, with Assemblymember Actually, it's passed. Give me a second.

I—. It's failed. Sorry. Was this assembly member failed to rescind it? Correct.

With Assemblymember McGee, Assemblymember Bernier, Assemblymember Nowers, and Assemblymember Fonhoff voting no. Yeah, so the motion to rescind is passed. The previous motion now stands.

Okay, all righty. So I think we're ready for public hearings then, Madam. Work. If you're ready, do we have a sign-up sheet for any of the public hearings, please? Monica, Ordinance 2680, an ordinance adopting the area-wide power to acquire public rights-of-way, design and construct roads, streets, sidewalks, and related drainage facilities, 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. Okay, I think she's getting to see if we have a sign-up sheet, but while we're waiting— no, no sign-up sheet. Okay, so it's now open to— yes, Andrew, come.

So at this time, the testimony is restricted to Ordinance 26-080.

Go ahead, sir. Good evening, Andrew Traxler. Um, at the last, um, large RSA board meeting, we did take up this topic. We were not able to have a resolution ready in time for this meeting, but we did hold a vote on the area-wide road powers, and we voted, um, in favor to support you putting this in the ballot for the area-wide road powers. Only one of the voting members decided not to vote, that he wanted to look into it further, and other than that, it passed unanimously.

Okay, and so my personal, you know, stake in this or comment is that I wish this would have happened 10 years ago. For us to have area-wide road powers, we could advance the borough so much with that ability. It is—. I could talk about it for an hour why area-wide road power should definitely be in the borough's hands. Very important, and I thank the manager for bringing it forward.

Anyone else? Yes, sir.

Good evening, Assembly. My name is Simon Gilliland. G-I-L-L-I-L-A-N-D. Um, a couple things. I'm generally in support of the ordinance. I think it's a good idea for the purposes of long-range planning.

From the standpoint of clarifying for the voters what area-wide is, maybe some verbiage could be added to clarify that area-wide is borough-wide, just so there's no confusion for them.

Um, uh, difference between RSA powers to procure right-of-ways for existing present needs and roads, then potentially an easement for our future road needs. Um, I think potentially changing right-of-way to Um, easement would be a prudent change from the standpoint of their plans. They're not actually going to be constructed right now, roads, um, and needs change, plans change, um, etc. We don't know we're going to build a road there. Um, you still build a road in a public use easement.

Section line easements are a perfect example. Most of Bogart is section line easements. Um, uh, so instead of, um, easements, instead of, uh, potentially wholesale purchasing of properties, um, potentially residential properties, um, the borough in ordinance, um, 26066— a large part of the reason of the Point McKenzie Farms going back to the state was the desire to not be a residential landlord anymore. Um, you guys recall back to June, so, um, it's about all I have to say. I think that discussions of using easements versus actually purchasing a right-of-way would be prudent.

Right-of-ways are much more of a platting action. They're a lot harder to get rid of if you decide that you don't need a road through here anymore. Easements are substantially simpler because they're on an existing parcel. And not actual, essentially separating the right-of-way from the existing parcel. Thank you.

Not for this one. Okay. Do we have— would you have— okay, we'll go to the person online. Please give us your testimony.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, borough officials, assembly members. My name is Michelle Heun, H-E-U-N, 44-year Alaska resident, homeowner in Borough District 1. My comments are in support of proposed ordinance 26080, information memorandum 26126. I want to emphasize this ordinance supported by the Mat-Su Borough Transportation Advisory Board resolution 2604. Acquiring rights-of-way before roads are built will be less expensive and more efficient than waiting until land has been developed.

We hear frequently project cost increases because of poor planning. In the Transportation Advisory Board resolution, it states, "Whereas providing local match and project design increases competitiveness for discretionary grants, potentially unlocking vital external funding for infrastructure needs." In my opinion, the borough must plan better for growth, and this ballot proposition can help avoid future costs. As stated in borough documents, the ordinance itself does not impose a tax increase. I urge assembly members to vote in favor of this proposed ordinance and let the voters decide on November 3rd. Thank you.

End comments.

Anyone else here that would like to give testimony?

We have— we do not have anybody else. I give them about 5 seconds, maybe.

Okay, don't hear anything. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. And Deputy Mayor I move to adopt Ordinance 26-080. Okay, discussion by the assembly? Assemblyperson Sumner.

Can we get a staff report on this one and an explanation on the difference between easements and right-of-way?

You go ahead, Chair. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm gonna— I'm gonna do a handoff to the attorney for the second question, um, but I will take the first one for the staff report. So, uh, through the mayor to the assembly. Just to give a quick overview, when I took this job, it's been a few years now, um, I heard roads, roads, roads.

I still think that's our number one issue and challenge in the valley. I don't think that sentiment's changed. Certainly I think the sentiment around hating property taxes has moved up. I think that's fair. But the roads issue is still an issue, and when we've been trying to play catch-up for years and we're not catching up.

I mean, if we're going to be honest with ourselves, I think that's where we are. So we have to look at solutions that are different than what we've been doing for years. It was previously mentioned, this ordinance, if voter approved or approved by voters, would not change the RSA construct in terms of their abilities to continue to maintain roads. What this allows is for the assembly on an annual basis when you— when we do the capital budget to put road projects in there and use area-wide revenue to support acquiring right-of-way, designing projects, and even constructing them. And so it would allow us to really kind of deconstruct and break some of these projects down into phases and execute them more efficiently and bring cost estimates to voters if we choose to bond.

That's been one of my other challenges is, you know, our, our current approach is to put a ballot proposition together with two questions. Number one, can we use area-wide road powers? And we list the projects. And the second question is, can we go and sell bonds? In other words, buy debt to fund the projects.

That's been our approach when we want to go out and do these larger transportation packages. Frankly, I don't think that's where we want to be in the long term. This allows us to look at, and I think what it really allows you as assembly members to do, is look at roads, schools, all these things on even footing and determine how you want to allocate resources in a given year to support infrastructure development in the valley. Right now we cannot do that with roads because the area-wide power to design, acquire right-of-way, and construct them is not a thing. And so this would put a solution before the voters to decide.

So a couple years ago we did the We provided a revenue option. We put that out there, or the assembly put that out there for an advisory vote. Now this puts out a powers question, so it's a different solution entirely. And the idea is just to, let's put it out there. If we have this issue that we all know about, I don't want to be here 6 years, 5 years, 7 years later and then go, well, what did we do to change the number one problem that we had?

And the answer is, well, we just did more of the same. So this puts a solution out there for voters to consider. If they don't like it, so be it. But I feel like as an administration, as a staff, our job is to bring solutions forward for people to consider if they want to try to change things up and maybe make some progress on this issue. So I hope that gives you some context.

I really see it, you know, for like the general public, it would play itself out in the annual budget process, right? So this were approved, you know, just like we do with proposing a budget now, Public Works would bring road projects forward for you to consider. RSAs would have a say in what projects they want to see. You would have to consider how do you get projects done in your district, but it would allow us to bring that forward in a budget process and figure out how do we leverage the revenues that we have to potentially get some of these projects done, and how do you want to allocate those resources. You're very limited with your ability to do that from a capital perspective today because the road service areas just don't raise enough revenue to support larger capital projects.

And then this would be my last, and I could go on for an hour or two, Andrew, but, um, you know, when you look at the growth in the valley and you look at some of these larger transportation corridors— and I'll just use Bogard-Selden corridor—. Is it—. Does it make sense for the residents that live in RSA 25, for example, to fund a large corridor expansion, or those that are in I guess 25 for Seward Meridian Parkway to support a divided 4-lane highway that supports commerce and movement across a corridor and have one road service area be responsible for doing all the heavy lifting to, to construct and maintain that. And I think that doesn't make a lot of sense. And there are plenty of those roads, even in some of our rural areas, where it's probably unreasonable to expect the tax base for that individual road service area to support it.

And I would also remind you, because this is kind of one of those things that goes under the radar, we still have over 300 miles of unmaintained roads in this borough, and we haven't done anything to improve that in years, or ever, if, if we're being honest. And, and again, I'm not trying to be hypercritical here. I'm just looking at the problem and going, sitting back and admiring, it's not fixing anything. This is just a solution. And if the voters say nope, we don't like the idea, find something else, we'll keep looking.

But this proposal is a way that I think could make some reasonable headway in the future. So that's that, and I'll be quiet and turn it over to the attorney for the easement, uh, the simple question.

So, um, you could probably have an entire class on this in a law school, but when you say the word right-of-way, that generally talks about the allowed use on a land. It doesn't talk about who owns it, right? So when we say the borough would have the area-wide power to acquire rights-of-way, it would be that we would be able to use area-wide monies to go out with landowners and purchase rights-of-way, that is, roads, streets, sidewalks, related drainage facilities, just like the RSAs can currently do. So the intent here is to mirror what the RSAs can currently do, but make it an area-wide proposition, not including maintenance, of course. An easement is a character of ownership.

And an easement actually isn't ownership in land. An easement is the right to use the land of another. You could use an easement as right-of-way. You can use an easement as snow storage. You can use an easement as, uh, there are navigation easements.

Palmer Airport has one over the, uh, Matt River Park so the trees can't grow so high so that airplanes can come land, right? Easements are the right to use the property of another even though you don't own it. So to say you might want to limit this to acquiring easements only would be limiting your ability to go out and let's say there's somebody who owns property or is in the process of subdividing, the borough can show up and say, oh, hey, we want to buy that strip of land from you. If you said easements in this ballot question, you would not be able to acquire the land. You would only be able to purchase the right to use the land, if that makes sense.

So the borough would not then own it. And I know the one speaker raised concern about you know, potentially vacating rights of way. You know, there's a state statute directly on point. Our planning board does it. You guys get the, uh, the rezos all the time on vacating rights of way.

You go right to the planning board. State law specifies where the land goes and how it goes to vacate an interest in a right of way. Vacating an easement or relinquishing an easement likewise would, would come to this body as well, because you'd be giving up ownership in land. Probably worth over $25,000, which means all disposals have to come to this body anyway. So whether you're vacating an interest in land via easement or fee, you're coming to this body anyway.

So, are there any questions about the character? So, rights of way can be easements, or they can be ownership. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I think this is a good ordinance. Um, I do have concerns with rights of way versus easements.

So, my understanding, um, is when we pass this, we're going to pass this, um, when it goes forward, if the easement language is in there and the borough moves forward in creating easements, but the road isn't planned for another 15, 20 years, that property owner can still use that property. They can farm it, they can homestead, they can do whatever they want on their property versus a right-of-way where the borough then has purchased that property and it sits there vacant for 15 or 20 years. Somebody can squat there, somebody could dump garbage there, and then they have to go through the process of getting the borough involved to remove that squatter or that trash, and that property owner can't access or use that property. And then if in 15 or 20 years the borough changes its mind or they move a different direction on that road, if that property owner— if that— if there's an easement, that property owner— that could go back to the property owner versus a right-of-way, which is then the borough is stuck with that, and now they they have land they're not using, um, similar to what Mr. Gilliland said as far as the property we discussed last month. Um, is that an accurate perspective?

Okay, further discussion by the— yeah, attorney. Okay, I'm sorry, I would not agree with all of it, but you could characterize it that way. I've been in this job for 21 years and I have always advised land management and public works, if you can get a fee interest, get a fee interest. I don't— I can't really conceive of the borough getting enough money to buy rights of way that aren't going to be used for the next 20 or 30 years. I mean, money is so tight to get road project money anyway.

I can't really— see that happen, but I mean, it could, it could happen.

Okay, Assemblyperson Owens. I just wonder, kind of a point of order, we're talking about easements and right-of-ways, but, and I know there's an amendment that might be proposed, but if we're not going to have it on the table, like, let's maybe get it on the table.

Okay, Assemblyperson Owens. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I move to amend Ordinance 26-080 by striking the words rights-of-way and inserting easements in its plays throughout the legislation.

Okay, so now we have a primary amendment, so the discussion will be on that subject, whether the rights-of-way should be— word should be replaced with easement. Discussion by the assembly. Assemblyperson Sumner.

I mean, there's no reason why the, uh, Public Works couldn't be purchased easements if they, if they saw that that was the best way to purchase the land, the future interest in the land. You know, if you, you know, left the legislation as it is, when you change it from right-of-ways to only easements, you're restricting what the borough staff can do, and they can only purchase easements, which, you know, I mean, I'm not sure how that would impact future use of the land. There's some legal implications, you know. The attorney is always advising to get fee simple ownership. So that's probably better when you're building roads, especially large roads, which is what— you know, the only roads that the borough would be purchasing, I see, are larger roads.

So probably better off to own them rather than just have access through them through a parcel. Deputy Mayor, I will be voting on advice of counsel.

Further discussion on the assembly person Gamble. Thank you, Madam Mayor. You know, I, I'm not saying that it's never happened or it never will happen, but I'm not aware of the borough going out and purchasing any right-of-way before a project has been approved. And I, I just don't see that happening. So I think this is a great ordinance.

Thank you. Okay, assembly person. So, I agree. So, where this is kind of coming from is the—. Is—.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I heard something. So, the Planning Commission meeting last night, and an example was brought up as far as Fairbanks, and, you know, the borough purchased a lot of property and it didn't go into use for, you know, decades. And so that's, you know, we just— so this is forward thinking, and, you know, of course, this is bringing into, you know, consideration of property rights, right? So easements versus rights of way. So either way, this is a good ordinance.

I'm going to vote yes on this ordinance. But if we can protect property rights and save the borough some money and a potential sale that doesn't get completed, then I mean, I'm always in favor of that.

So, further discussion on the primary amendment? Is there objection to the primary amendment? Okay, I can get the members in the room to go ahead and vote.

Assemblymember Fonoff?

No.

Madam Mayor, it failed with Assemblymember Bowles in support. Okay, so now you have before you Ordinance 26-080.

Oh, I was going to ask if there was objection, but I— we have comments going on. We're on the main motion. Um, just, I mostly like this. Uh, you know, I, I do like putting things in front of the voters and letting the voters decide. I, um, a couple qualms.

One is that the bulk of the area-wide money is raised in the urban areas, and so if that money was to disproportionately be used in rural areas, um, that I think would be sort of a transfer of funds. And it's just something I think a future assembly needs to watch out for. As the manager noted, we would be doing this during the appropriation process. Um, hopefully the assembly would look at how that money is being spent and prioritize the projects that are most important, and the public would be involved in that. Um, my second qualm on, uh, this is just I wish it was paired with more of an effort from the borough and this body to head off the kind of problems that we are spending a lot of money retroactively to fix.

There are a lot of plans, studies, um, solutions to try to figure out how to keep traffic from becoming a nightmare. And, um, you know, sub-area solutions study, um, developer impact fees, uh, planning ahead with our schools. If you just look around the Bogart-Ingstrom intersection, that situation can happen again today because we have no mechanism in place that provides for keeping those intersections way down the line from becoming a nightmare. I was just in Wasilla traffic today, so Um, you know, and it's a balance, right? Um, you don't, you don't just— we can't develop, you know, we're not— we don't want to be like, oh, you know, nothing can go in in the borough.

But, um, we spend just— I mean, I've been up here 7 years. We spend a ton of our money on roads, and just one road project just makes my heart hurt with the amount of taxpayer money that goes in it. So a little bit passionate about that. Um, I think this is good, but I wish we would have more of an effort to come up with ideas that work for the community and for developers to try to reduce these problems that happen outside our schools and in our neighborhoods and our main arterials that then cost a, you know, a deep ridiculous amount of money to fix retroactively. So, Assemblyperson Sumner, go ahead.

Impact fees, yuck. Uh, I'm pro-growth. Um, I would say the developers build some of the nicest roads around and give them to the borough, and then they add tax base, so that helps reduce the burden on everyone else. Um, I like this ordinance because it has the potential to save taxpayers money by purchasing right away ahead of time instead of later on when it's more expensive. I don't like this ordinance because, it grows government and gives more avenues to spend tax dollars.

So I wish there was an abstain button, but unfortunately there isn't. Deputy Mayor? I just want to thank the manager for bringing this forward, and Planning Commission unanimously voted for it, and I think it's good for the voters to get their opinion. Okay, is there objection to passing Ordinance 26- Okay, we do have an objection, Madam Clerk. I can get the members in the room to vote.

Assemblymember Fauna, uh, yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. It passed with Assemblymember Sumner opposed. Okay.

Ordinance 26083, an ordinance adopting MSB 110-170 and MSB 3.35, 3% area-wide sales tax, enacting an area-wide real property tax cap of 4 mills, and submitting the proposition to the voters at the November 3rd, 2026 regular borough election. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing for Ordinance 26083. Brenda, would you put the—. Thank you.

So this is Ordinance 26-830— I'm sorry, 083. Uh, testimony is restricted to this ordinance at this time.

Yeah, come.

I'm Mike Alexander, I'm from Big Lake.

Uh, I would like to see also sometime on these ordinances— I like the 4 mills, and if you up it, the tax goes away. It's a great idea. The other thing is, is the actual way you can— the property values seem to jump all of a sudden every year. I would like to see some kind of a a restriction also that you can only raise property values, say, 3%, just a number that's reasonable, not have properties jumping $15,000, $20,000 like they have over some people in the last few years. But overall, I like this ordinance the best because the, uh, mill rate is set, and that helps out a lot, I think, as far as your planning on the— you know what you can do if you have to go above that on mill rates.

Then your tax goes away. So either way, you're kind of restricted on how much money y'all can spend, and hopefully you'll spend it a little wiser. But that's one of the things I would love to see is—. I'm—. I really like this ordinance the best of the two, but the $75,000 is nice.

But you know, when you're— you worry about on the other ordinance, uh, everybody gets this, but then somebody from out of state get— doesn't— you know, an out-of-state business doesn't get this same cut. But they get a favor of it. But the deal is, to me, if everybody's treated the same on this, it's pretty well, and you will increase things. And I think the taxes will take care of themselves, but it also lets you plan better. And that's something I would like to see as far as the mill rate held where it's at.

And I would like to see, not on this ordinance, of course, it's not written in, but I would love to see someone amend it to the point where you can only raise property values so much each year to keep— because I mean, you could do 4.5 mils and then you raise my property value by $10,000, $15,000, I'm still not getting the tax break out. I'm not getting what I really want out of it. So, and I don't mind paying the sales tax. That's not a bad deal because at least for sales tax, I know I've got something at the house. Or something I spent my money on.

Whereas with this, I'm just— to me, when I do property taxes, I'm just paying unrealized future gains that I haven't seen yet. And I certainly haven't sold my house for that much. So I'd rather have the sales tax with the limited amount of mill rate on it, the 4, I believe it is, whatever it is. I would rather see that than I would anything else. Thank you.

Anyone else? Yes, sir.

Good evening, my name is Fred Myastas.

I'm right along with that fellow there. You guys ought to put a freeze on the assessment of our property January 26th. If you're going to do this, drop it down to 4 mils, because I've seen it in other places where it's been jacked back and forth. So that would be mine. Or take it to 5 or 6%, but no property tax.

I've owned my house, paid for it, and it feels like I'm still renting it.

I don't know, do you guys feel that way?

I don't mind panel a lot of money for, for sales tax, but I'm getting sick and tired of keep paying on something that I built and paid for.

That's it.

Anyone else?

Hello, Jolene Coleman again. So looking at this, I am also concerned about the assessment going up to whatever it wants to be because you can't raise the mill rate. So now here is another option we could do. The other thing I'm concerned about is that this will give discounts to a lot of people, including big companies. Then people, regular people, are paying the sales tax to make up their Discount?

That doesn't make— seem very fair to me. Also, people pay rent right now, so technically they're paying sales tax, because I can tell you that most renters or landlords are not going to be like, I'm getting— my taxes are going really up, I'm going to keep their rent the same. They raise their rent to match that to cover their costs. This does not make them lower their costs. They can keep this even though they're now getting this discount.

This does not change how much they charge renters. And those people are ones that can't afford a house right now, and they will pay that extra added tax. It's been said before, a lot of people work in Anchorage. That will also be a deciding factor of whether they want to come out here and spend their money or if they want to pick up all their stuff in Anchorage where they don't pay the tax before they even make it home. That will definitely not help our small businesses.

And our local community and jobs that are in our community. So it's this double-edged sword that we are trying to walk on to fix a problem. I do believe that once again this should also be up to vote because it is up to the people to decide where they want to be taken advantage of or, or, uh, fix their pocketbook. I mean, either way, we are getting something and losing something. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Do we have anybody online?

Okay, one last chance.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public hearing. Deputy Mayor. I move to adopt Ordinance 26-083. Okay. And I'd like to speak to it.

Sure, go ahead, sir. This was brought around when we're trying to do this 6.5% sales tax, get rid of the property tax, and then it, it looked more like 7, 8% probably on sales tax, and it was just a a little bit too much, I think, and I was trying to do the best of both worlds. And I'd really appreciate it if we can at least put it on the ballot for the people to vote on.

Further, let's see, Dee, is that you that has—. Yeah, does this still preserve the disabled veterans and senior exemption to Does it change that at all? I'm sorry, be what? Does this, if we do this, does that, like the one with that, that Nowarz had put forward was a 70, they could do the $75,000 or they could do the senior disabled veteran kind of thing. Does this preserve the right of seniors and disabled veterans to take exemption?

Yeah, okay, okay. Yeah, it is a possibility both could go on the ballot and both could be passed by the voters. Yeah, okay. Did— did you want a staff or no? No, I, I was listening to the last lady and I think it starts to get to the point really when we know how many people leave the valley to go shop in Anchorage, uh, anyway, uh, and load up before they come out here.

That's— this gives them even more of an incentive to do that. So that makes me a little uneasy. It doesn't, doesn't mean I don't support this, but certainly that's out there. The McDowell Group. Address that in its report.

Assemblyperson Summers, did you have comment? Oh, I was just going to say the only thing that gets more tax-hating voters out to the polls than one tax on the ballot is two. So, and I think getting tax-hating voters to the polls is a good thing. So I might actually support this. Assemblyperson Bolden.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, I feel like somebody tried to repeal the area-wide property tax, which would have been 60% not too long ago. And, um, anyways, uh, during that discussion, I remember the discussion was about, you know, make sure it gets on the ballot then as well. Um, either way, I, I think that this is the least of the two. I think this is the least damaging.

Um, ordinance, I will be in support of this to put it on the ballot. I'm not necessarily in support of this, for anybody listening. Um, I'm in support of putting this on the ballot because I think that if you have to choose, if you're going to choose between the two, um, We the People, I would suggest you choose this one over the other one. So with that, um, just the other one does not lower your property taxes. This one guarantees to lower your property taxes in half, at least your area-wide from approximately $8 million right now to $4 million.

And yes, it brings in a sales tax, but remember, a lot of people come here and spend money that don't live here, and then they leave and go home. So this ordinance could actually be a property tax lower— property tax relief for us out here, and it could possibly be a shift and a broaden in our tax portfolio, if you will. Um, so, uh, I will be a yes on this one. Okay, for the discussion, Assemblyperson Nowers. I think first a lot of people have brought up, oh, won't my assessment of my house value just go up?

And I just wanted to note that if you think your house assessment value is out of line with what it would sell for or other properties would sell for that are comparable, you can appeal it. And now there's a new rule that the borough assessor, if you appeal it, you can't— you can't— if they say, well, your property is actually worth more, they can't raise it to more. So there is an option if you think your value is out of line. I just want to mention that for folks who don't know. This is a tough one because the cities have not been on board with having a borough sales tax stacked on top of their sales tax.

And so for Palmer, this would be a 7% sales tax. I think that could really drive people to shop elsewhere.

And, and just in terms of the benefit it gives some outside corporations, I did look, um, if we, we cut the mill rate in half, like for Fred Meyer, their bill would go from $480,000 to $200,000.

$240,000. I'm sorry, that's not right. Fred Meyer would go from $677,000 to $240,000 left—. Less. So they would have a savings of $240,000.

So I just, I struggle with that piece of it, that you're benefiting big outside entities that can afford to pay it and won't, you know, we won't see reduced grocery costs. They'll just pocket that as it is. Their right to do. So, um, anyway, so those are a couple of my thoughts on it. Assemblyperson, Assemblyperson McKee, go ahead.

And one of the other things that I noticed was, um, that it would cost $360,000 staff money to, to administer this thing, which is also kind of scary. But I kind of agree with, with Bowles, the idea that You know, the voters are going to have a choice. This is—. This is—. That's what makes it attractive to me, but it's kind of scary at the same time.

Just saying. Okay, Assemblyperson Gamble. Thank you, Madam Mayor. A question for the attorney. So, Nick, what happens if both these go on the ballot and they both pass?

The Borough Assembly will have to decide which one stays on the books. Oh my gosh.

Couldn't the assembly choose to enact neither one?

Yeah, I mean, what— as a practical matter, so these are both written that they take effect, I believe, April 1st. Yeah, April 1st. So they would take effect second quarter. So sometime before April 1st, the finance director and I would come to you with, you know, we would have discussion, probably work session, to talk about which one you wanted to pursue, because the— if the voters vote yes, according to the ordinance, it takes effect April 1st. So you'd have to take some action before April 1st because they both can't take effect because they're— they don't— they wouldn't— a 1% sales tax, no.

They don't work together.

I guess I just have a theoretical question. Why, if the voters say we want both— I mean, this is theoretical because, uh, there is no way, um, but why would you not do both? Because one gives a 1% sales tax to give an exemption on homes, the other does a 3% to reduce the mill rate to 4 mills. They do different things. And if the voters voted, maybe we'd have to go through them line by line and see.

I mean, I wasn't really expecting to address this tonight. I would have to do some research to see if they could both exist without being in conflict with each other. If unicorns can fly. Yeah, I mean, if they could both exist without being in conflict with each other, it's possible. But, um, I don't know that they were— I don't know that it was contemplated by each sponsor that they would both go forward and they would both pass.

Is there—. Looks like we're done talking. Is there any objection to Ordinance 26-083?

All righty, there is. Madam Clerk, if I can get the members in the room to vote.

Assemblymember Fauna, uh, no.

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

What did Fawna say? He said no. Oh, it sounded like to me he said yes. Okay, all right.

Ordinance 26085, an ordinance defining a newspaper of general circulation and the words publish or publication. You're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing on ordinance 26-085. And this—. Or testimony at this time will just pertain to this.

Oh, we do have it. Okay. Oh, Amy, all right, you're going to come to the other side of the table here. Okay. All right.

I'm Amy Bouchatz. I'm a borough resident and the founder of the Matsu Sentinel, a nonprofit news organization. I know it is very strange to see me standing up here, and it's weird to be here. Uh, for the last 3 years, I've attended these meetings until the bitter end because I believe in one thing: the importance of public notice and making sure residents know what's happening in their local government so they can have a chance to participate. So I'm here tonight.

Uh, OR 26-085 changes the borough's definition of a newspaper. The IM makes clear that because there is no longer a qualifying print newspaper, the borough would instead post notices on its own website, on social media, and on bulletin boards around the borough. Yeah, the Matsu Sentinel shut down the printed newspaper because it was not financially viable. So public notices exist for one reason: to ensure government actions are made visible to the public they affect. They are not advertising.

They are a legal safeguard built on the idea that an independent third party, not the government itself, should be responsible for publishing public notices. I don't think I need to spend much time explaining why California tech bros should not be trusted to throw residents important government information on social media. We all know social media decides what we see, and somehow I don't think the planning board agenda is going to supersede cat videos. The borough's website is different, of course. It's a valuable public resource, but when the government is both crafting the notices and deciding where they're published, We've removed an important layer of accountability.

The borough was spending an astonishing $100,000 in taxpayer money. I'm a taxpayer, so that's my money to publish notices with the Frontiersman to meet its legal requirements. That was their pre-shutdown profit margin, which is bonkers. And no, there's no way to publish on a third-party website for free because things cost money to operate. But it doesn't have to be expensive.

It can be done at cost. So, I say do it with Sentinel, do it with somebody else. Doesn't matter to me where you do it. It just needs to be done. What matters is that it is independent and in control of someone who's bound to post a certain way, not via social media algorithm vibes.

An independent publisher creates a permanent public record. If there's ever a dispute about whether a notice was published, someone outside the government can verify it. It also increases visibility. Most residents don't routinely check the borough website hoping something important has been posted. Independent publishers put those notices where people are already looking for local information.

Most importantly, it protects public trust. Transparency is strongest when it's verified by somebody outside the government. So public notices, in my view, belong to the public, and the public deserves more than the government saying, "Trust us, we posted it." Thanks.

Anyone else would like to testify on this ordinance?

We have anybody online, sir?

Oh, one last chance. Anybody?

Yes. For the record, my name is Bailey Stewart, and I concur with her testimony. Thank you.

Anybody else?

No, still nobody online. Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And Deputy Mayor— oh, oh, that's right, it is his. I'm sorry, sir. Go ahead.

It's okay. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-085. I'd like to speak to it. Mhm, go ahead.

So full disclosure, um, Last week, Amy came to me and we discussed this ordinance and her concerns, and I told her that I was reluctant to do anything to Lonnie's legislation, um, to amend it. Lonnie assured me that it's okay that for assembly members to amend her legislation, um, and I understand Amy's concerns too, having somebody outside of government posting notices just kind of makes everything a little bit more transparent. So I guess, Loni, I'd like to make an amendment to— or I'm not sure if I need to amend this or just direct you to look for a third-party publisher, or at least go out and get pricing.

Something—. Somebody help me here with some language here, uh, so that we get somebody other than just government that's posting our notices, as long as it is reasonable financially to do so. I could make a comment. Go ahead. And to Assemblymember Gamble, I just want to do a little explanation before I get to why I'm saying putting it in the item.

I appreciate it. Thank you. So in reference to the state statute of newspaper regular or of general circulation, we no longer have that. So then state statute requires that we post these items in 3 separate locations. Web pages and the internet are not posting the, the publications.

So instead of changing code to say do that, I would say amend the IM to add third-party websites to the list of items that we need to do. So they're on the, on the IM itself, it says for a website, social media, and then notices of agenda public hearing under the— at the Dorothy Swanda Jones Building. I would go ahead and add, um, it right there. Okay, I'd like to make that amendment then. And also just a comment about social media.

I know that, um, sometimes I don't get notices on social media or things until days and days after they've actually happened. So I'm not even sure if we use social media if people are going to get noticed on time. So I think using third-party vendor is actually a good idea. Thank you. Okay, so Assemblyperson Norris, go ahead.

Just have a question. So is that amendment to require that we pay somebody to put it on a third-party website, or is it just to— I'm just trying to understand how that got amended, um, or that we also make sure our notices are—. Go ahead. I can tell you how I took it. I did take it as to look for a third-party publication, get pricing, and do that.

We do still have the money in the budget that was adopted last year to— for the Frontiersman, for the borough page. So we still have those funds to be able to publish. I don't know exactly. I can tell you, I don't know if I want to say the prices. Ms. Bouchette's told me before, but I would assume it's going to be anywhere between $50 and $100 per, per publication that we do.

And just for the assembly alone, I can tell you for regular meetings and the weekly calendar, we would be posting maybe 8 a month.

$800 A month. Yeah, but then you've got the Planning Commission and Platting Board, but they don't, they don't publish as much as we do. And then we've got our election ads too. Could I follow up? Just sure.

And now I have that information, um, I'm wondering if we could consider something that gives you more flexibility. And the reason I'm thinking about this is because the, the whole reason you had a newspaper in the first place of general circulation is in the olden days when we only had 3 TV stations and 2 newspapers, everybody was looking at those. And now it's totally fractured. Some people are looking at TikTok, some people are looking at Instagram, some people are, I don't know, on Reddit. It's very difficult to find a single entity that most of the people are looking at.

So I don't know how much value we get from just picking, picking a third party like website, even though the Sentinel is kind of the news thing now. I don't know what the penetration is in terms of readership, eyeballs, compared to anything else. And, um, I just want to give the clerk some flexibility to tell us how to do it. And, and I have talked about other ways that we could help the public, make it easy for them. Like, you sign up for a feed and you say, hey, if it's in my neighborhood, send me an alert.

If it's got housing or water or something, you know, like issues that people are interested in. So I think there's other ways to crack this nut, and I'd like to give the clerk flexibility to do that. So I don't know if that's a secondary amendment, maybe we can discuss a little bit, or the clerk could suggest a way we could word that so it's not forced that we've got to pay for a third-party website.

Mm-hmm. Yes, I'm good with that language too. I mean, we don't have— yep, it's on. Yeah, we— I mean, we don't have to pay for something. If we do, we do.

I know that our contract with the Frontiersman was over $100,000 a year, and this is going to be substantially, substantially less than that if we go with like the Sentinel, from what I understand. But if we don't have to pay, then I'm good with that too. I just want, like you said, give the clerk flexibility, but try and find somebody that's not governmental to, um, to help spread the word about our meetings. Assemblyperson Bowles, the attorney had his hand up. Can I get his— the attorney wanted to say something.

Can I get him first, please? Thank you. Go ahead, sir. Sorry, um, to clarify, Assemblymember Nowers, Assemblymember Gamble's amendment, because it's in the IM, already does that. The ordinance here amends it because we have no choice under the Alaska Open Meetings Act.

Right? We have to publish either in the newspaper, or you have to post it at at least 3 places. And what the IM says is, yeah, we're going to do the posting in 3 places, but we're going to do more than that. So, you know, the minimum legal requirement will be met, but we're talking about good government. What you're talking about here is more good governance and better notice and a third-party outside person.

His amendment already gives the clerk the ability to do that because it's in the IM, and it talks about going above and beyond the bare minimum of the ordinance. Okay, so flexibility is there already. Okay, I'm good with that. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles, go ahead, sir, now. Or did he answer it?

Okay, further discussion on Ordinance 26— oh, the amendment, the primary amendment. Okay, any objection to the primary amendment? Okay, seeing and hearing—. Yeah, I object. You object?

Okay, all right. If I can get the members in the room to go ahead and vote on the primary amendment.

Assemblymember Sumner.

Assemblymember Fonoff.

No.

It passed with Assemblymember Fonoff opposed. Okay, now you have Ordinance 26-085 as amended. Objection. Assemblyperson Fonoff, do you still have an objection or are you ready to vote, sir? I'm ready to vote.

Okay, Madam Clerk. Oh, did he object? No, I don't think he— I just asked if he was ready to vote, so I don't know if he means— do you continue to have your objection, I guess, is what I should ask. No, my objection was strictly to the amendment. Okay, okay.

All right, thank you. That's okay. Everybody ready for a break? Okay. It passed without objection.

Yes. Yep.

Let's— you want to do 8:10, 8:15? Okay.

Hello!

Yes!

If I can go ahead and have the assembly come back to order, please. You can announce that some of them left the meeting. He's calling in. Is he calling? He's calling.

Let's make sure he's on the phone.

Okay, so let the record show that Assemblyperson Gamble— hey, hey, hey! Calling the meeting back to order. Thank you. Um, let the record show that Assemblyperson Gamble is not here. He is on the phone.

Can we verify that Assemblymember Gamble is on the phone? And Assemblymember Gamble, you would hit star 2 to unmute yourself and star 2 to read me. You Mute yourself.

I'm here. Can you hear me? We can. Thank you. Okay, next item on the agenda, Madam Mayor, is ordinance 26073, an ordinance accepting and appropriating $5,000 from the Scotty Gomez Foundation for improvements to the Big Lake Lions Recreation Center, with accompanying resolution 26058, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget for any improvements to the Big Lake Lions Recreation Center.

If you're on the phone, I would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open— we do now have a sign-up sheet, right? I'm going to open the public hearing, and at this time your testimony is restricted to the ordinance or to the resolution. Is there anyone that would like to testify on either the ordinance or the resolution?

Have anybody online? No. Okay, one last chance. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. Deputy Mayor, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-073 and Resolution 26-058.

Okay, is there discussion by the assembly?

Is there any objection to the ordinance or the resolution?

And if you—. Either one of you are online, if you have objections, now is the time to voice that objection. Okay, hearing no objection, then Ordinance 26-073 and Resolution— oh, you just moved it on me, Brenda. 059— Oh, 059— 074— sorry, 058, uh, has been adopted. Ordinance 26074, an ordinance reappropriating $400,000 from the Central Mat-Su Fire Service Area fund balance to the Central Mat-Su FSA facilities and vehicles project for the— I'm going to mess this up— —substances mitigation and remediation activities, with accompanying Resolution 26059, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget for that same word, substances mitigation and remediation activities.

I apologize. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. We do not have a sign-up sheet. Our testimony at this time is restricted to the ordinance and to the resolution.

Okay, see, not— do we have anybody online, sir?

No. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. And was it Deputy Mayor, I guess? Huh? I move to adopt Ordinance 26-074 and Resolution 26-059.

Discussion by the assembly.

Any objection to the ordinance or the resolution?

Hearing no objection, and the ordinance and resolution have been adopted. Madam Clerk. Ordinance 26075, an ordinance approving appropriation of $275,000 from the Westlake Fire Service Area fund balance to project upgrade radios. With accompanying Resolution 2660, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget for a project to upgrade radios for the Westlakes Fire Service Area. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3.

Do not have a sign-up sheet. I'll open the public hearing on Ordinance 26-075 and Resolution 26-060. Testimony at This time is restricted to the ordinance and resolution.

Good evening, my name is Cindy Michelson. I'm on the Board of Supervisors of the Westlake Fire Department. This project, along with a couple other capital improvement projects, were discussed at a board meeting with a quorum, and there were zero objections to these items. They were dismissed in the budgeting process. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other testimony? We have anybody online, sir? No. Okay, so go ahead and close, uh, public hearing.

And, uh, Deputy Mayor, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-075 and Resolution 26-060. Okay, discussion by the assembly?

Is there any objection to Ordinance 26-075 and Resolution 26-060?

Hearing no objection, then, uh, ordinance and resolution have been adopted. Madam Clerk, Ordinance 26-076, an ordinance approving an appropriation of $25,000 from the Westlakes Fire Service Area fund balance to a project to purchase a new brush skid steer unit— skid unit, excuse me— with accompanying Resolution 26061, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget for a project to purchase a new skid brush skid unit for the Westlakes Fire Service Area. 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, and we do have a sign-up sheet. Cindy?

It was the same con—. Cons— uh, comment. Basically, this was, uh, approved during the Board of Supervisors meeting. It just didn't make it through the budgeting process. Thank you.

Mhm. Thank you. Any other testimony?

Anybody online, Sarah? Nobody online. Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Deputy Mayor, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-076 and Resolution 26-061. Okay, discussion by the assembly.

Is there any objection to Ordinance 26-076 and Resolution 26-061. Okay, and then hearing no objection, then the ordinance and the resolution have passed. Madam Clerk, Ordinance 2677, an ordinance amending the composition of the Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission to reduce the membership from 8 voting members to 7 voting members. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, I'll open up the public hearing on Ordinance 26-077.

We do not have a sign-up sheet.

Madam Mayor, members of the assembly, my name is Jim Sykes. Before I start my testimony, I would like to say that I am currently the non-voting member on the Mat-Su Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission, and I am not speaking for the commission or as a commission member. This is my personal testimony only. So, uh, I totally support the intent of this legislation.

The 8 members, I don't believe has worked out that well. But I would like to recommend a couple of changes.

I don't know that retaining the non-voting member who was a previous member is very useful anymore, as I am that member and I look around and I've tried to recruit new members for the position that I will eventually leave here, there aren't very many people left to recruit because the older ones are older than I am and the younger ones have gone on with their families and their professional lives, and they know it's hard work and they are not coming back probably right away. So I believe that we should equalize the membership and just have— change paragraph 4 under the changes just make it 5 members and make them all voting members. It, uh, if you leave it the way it is, you still risk the possibility of having a 3-3 tie vote, and they're generally not very, very, uh, helpful. So I would recommend that you just do 5 members. And since we don't have our first meeting scheduled until late September I would also propose changing, making the legislation effective on January 1st, 2027, since we do have 2 people's terms ending on the 31st of December.

So, um, I think that it's a very hardworking board. I urge the assembly member who is going to serve on this board to really take it very, very seriously because I know being on the assembly, it's a very busy job. Just stopped being an assembly member, but we just have the federal government taking over management in Lower Cook Inlet, and we still have the State Board of Fish to deal with. And just 2 days ago, the federal government closed fishing for coho, which may be okay, but it was a hot issue last year, and it's going to be hotter when we get there next year with both the federal government and the state meetings. That are coming up.

So it's a heavy load. We're a small group, but we're widely respected for our expertise and the fact that we stick to the facts. And, you know, you get political when you get down there, but we try and avoid the politics as much as possible. So I would suggest those, uh, two amendments, and that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you, Obama. Anyone else that would like to testify on this ordinance?

We have anybody online, Caleb? We do not. Okay, I'll go ahead and close, uh, public hearing. Deputy Mayor, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-077. Okay, thank you.

Assemblyperson Bowles, go ahead.

Yeah. You— okay, all right, I wanted to give the courtesy. So I think that's an outstanding suggestion, um, from Mr. Sykes. So I move to amend this ordinance by removing A subsection 5 altogether and changing the word 8 that is underlined to 7.

What? I'm sorry, you changed the word 8 to what? 7. 7 Membership from—. So I'm looking at page 1 of the ordinance, 4.75.005A, subparagraph 5.

Remove that in its entirety, the one previous member, and then substitute in A, uh, excuse me, remove the word 8 that's underlined and replace it with the word 7.

Mr. Attorney, did it— I see, no, you did.

Okay, all right. I don't understand the math here. If you're changing 8—. Oh, I'm sorry, you got to go ahead. Yeah, if you're changing 8 to 7 and then the The rest of that thing says voting members to 7.

Don't you have to change that to like 6 or something like that? I don't know. Under— it doesn't—. What am I missing? Can you— oh, okay.

Well, let me go and look at that. What does that— what would it actually do?

Okay, I'm okay with that.

You get your question answered. Okay. All right. Okay, so Assemblyperson Sumner. Well, sorry, I just wanted to continue after that, just end with, um, I appreciated Mr. Sykes and, and his his time on this when I was on the commission.

Um, he is an outstanding member of this commission, and, um, he is just a wealth of knowledge. So thank you very much. Okay, Assemblyperson Sumner. I was just going to point out that functionally there is no difference, because if you can't fill that seat, then it would just be empty, and then you'd still have 7 voting members. If you can't fill the previous member as a non-voting member, and That, but then you would still have, if you didn't make this change, you would still have the option of the wealth of knowledge of a previous member.

If 10 years or 15 years from now, we just have people clamoring at the wall to be on the Fish and Wildlife Commission. So they could fill the at-large seat or any other seat. And we've, while I was on the commission, I think we about half the time had a vacancy. So, um, yeah.

And I'll add that, that previous member could not vote. So that person with that, the knowledge, that institutional knowledge, couldn't vote on things. Whereas now we remove this, all 7 members could vote, and that person could still be on the commission in a voting position.

I'm confused, I think, because— so, so you— so the ordinance as presented goes from 8 voting members to 7.

And you're changing that to what? So that's going to— the title is a little— the title is a little confusing, Madam Mayor. Oh, okay. So what it's going to end up happening is that you're still— you're going to have 8 members, but the 1 non-voting member is going to go away. So it's still 7 voting members.

Okay. Okay. Assemblyperson Sumner. I guess I had a question for Whoever can answer. Uh, some of our boards and commissions have term limits.

Does this one have a term limit?

I could— Madam Mayor, through the mayor to Assemblymember Sumner, I do not believe so. They do have to reapply every 3 years.

Okay, Madam—. For the Assemblyperson Mills. So I would, um, if you wanted to run an amendment, I would support that. I mean, I'm all about term limits, so—. Well, we have an amendment on the floor, right?

So yeah, yeah, we need to take care of that. Or you can make a secondary amendment. Would it— wouldn't— no, that won't fit. Okay, okay, so let's take care of the amendment first, then the primary amendment. Is there objection to the primary amendment?

Okay, hearing none, then the primary amendment has been passed. Then did you want to make another amendment, sir? No. Or Sumner? No.

Okay.

Do you have a cons— okay, Assemblyperson Bowles. Um, thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, also I'd like to amend the effective date to January 1st of 2027. Okay, this will give time to— for the board to— okay, react— excuse me, commission to react. Okay, so the primary amendment is to change the effective date Discussion?

Any objection?

Hearing no objection, then that amendment passes. Further amendments or further discussion?

Any objection to the ordinance as amended?

Okay, so then Ordinance 26-077, as amended, has passed.

Ordinance 26-078, an ordinance amending MSB 1539-190D and MSB 2430-30B-10 to require deliberations to be held in open session. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. We do not have a sign-up sheet. Anyone that would like to address this ordinance 26-078?

Okay, very— no, do we have anybody online? Oh, okay, so a closed public hearing. Deputy Mayor. I move Ordinance 26-078. Okay, discussion by the assembly.

Is there objection?

See, not an objection for me, but could you amplify this a little bit? Deputy Mayor's got his light on, but—. Oh, I'm sorry. No, go ahead, Dee. I just wanted to be sure you Could you just expand on that just a little bit?

How does that change things? Well, like, to me it's just a matter of transparency regarding the actions of the boards and commissions that need to be in public. And maybe the attorney would like to add something, or if he can further explain.

Yes. Okay, further discussion, questions? Emily, Chris, McKee, are you okay? Okay. Is there any objection to Ordinance 26-078?

Okay, hearing no objection, then Ordinance 26-078 has been adopted. Madam Clerk, Ordinance 2679, an ordinance amending MSB 212.112F to clarify the effective date of an assembly action when a motion to reconsider is withdrawn or fails. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Do we have a sign-up sheet? No.

I will go ahead and open the public hearing for Ordinance 26-079.

Do we have anybody online, sir?

Okay, I'll close public hearing. Deputy Mayor, please. I move to adopt ordinance 26-079. Okay, so, Sim— now, sir, Sumner, whoever. Oh, um, just I know this came up during the data center action, and I just wondered again, same question as Ms. McKee, just if you want to expound a little bit on how this changes things, what it does.

Yeah. Well, let's see if I can remember correctly. There was an action by the assembly, and before I did my veto, or as I did my veto, I guess, the next day, that also a reconsideration came in, and the reconsideration then took place over my veto. So the ordinance came back to the assembly for reconsideration, and that— and so then you guys considered the reconsideration, but that nullified my opportunity, or any mayor not just me, but the mayor, uh, opportunity to veto. So my problem was that, uh, I felt that there was something in the code, either the way we were practicing it or the way that it was, that, uh, it was taken away an elected official's right to be able to exercise their duty.

Assemblyperson Sumner. So I had a question, perhaps for the clerk. So could, uh, the mayor, uh, exercise the veto concurrently with a reconsideration, or does one supersede the other?

Right. And, and how do— yeah, so you're taking away somebody's right to do—. Well, that was the question. Does Could the veto run concurrently with a reconsideration or not? Maybe it's a question for the attorney.

I'm not sure. Go ahead, Madam Clerk. Through the mayor to Assemblymember Sumner, I can't say that it's never happened. I can't say that it can't, though. If something passes, the mayor wants to veto it, she has up until the next regular meeting.

These say it could run concurrently. But that you definitely have to deal with the reconsideration before the veto on the agenda. Yeah, so I guess I have a couple of hypothetical questions. So an ordinance passes, a reconsideration is filed. Can the mayor file a veto after that reconsideration?

If I could, Madam Mayor, to Assemblymember Sumner, if the reconsideration fails The mayor has up until the next regular meeting to veto an item. That— if reconsideration is also on the next regular agenda, if somebody moves to take that reconsideration off, the mayor can no longer veto. That timeline is gone. So she would have to veto prior to the meeting even beginning for the reconsideration that got taken off the agenda. Am I answering your question?

Maybe I'm just confused, but okay, but the order of operations— so if— so the mayor would have until the next regular meeting to file her veto. So just because a reconsideration is filed does not preclude the mayor from filing a veto. But when the next meeting came, then reconsideration was withdrawn and my time period for the veto was over. Yes, but you have the time until that meeting to file the veto, I guess, is my question. You do.

So this didn't preclude the right, it just had a confusing timeline. It did. I don't know whether you think it could, but it did, because when the reconsideration was pulled, then the date— the effective date for that original ordinance went back to your first meeting that you had. You see what I'm saying? And then that wiped out the time in the code for the mayor to veto.

Yeah, go ahead. I would be opposed to this ordinance because I do not believe, uh, as it's currently written, that it precludes the mayor from vetoing, if I'm understanding correctly. But what it would do if it's passed would be to draw out, uh, legislation You know, and that basically add another meeting. So something could have a meeting, it could have a reconsideration, it could then have a veto, then after that it could have a motion to rescind. We might never get anything done ever again if stuff like this keeps going.

Well, I think for reconsideration there's a timeline, right? So when the timeline came up for the next meeting and then the reconsideration was pulled, then I don't know, can you— can they go back to that original passing of that ordinance to do another reconsideration? No, Madam Mayor, they can't. So there wouldn't be consideration then. Yeah.

Okay, further discussion? Yes, Assemblyperson Bowles. So I, I actually I think it might not be a bad thing, um, because if it— if there is confusion, I, I mean, specifically to that resolution, a good example is people are still referring it to as, as the data center resolution, and never was a data center resolution to begin with. And so it didn't have anything to do with it. The confusion though that was around that particular— you're talking about the resolution for the— well, Something— Woman Nowhere was talking about the data center resolution.

No, no, no, no, it had to do with water body setbacks. I believe it wasn't data centers. Okay, so the point is the same, was it, Madam Clerk? If there's confusion, no, more time is a good thing because it gives people opportunities to clear things up and work things out unless there's a, like, a like, we need to get this done because of public safety, public health. I think more time is not a bad thing with government.

Um, you know, when we push things through government, oftentimes it cannot— not necessarily be the right thing, as I've learned on in this seat. And, um, so I'll be in favor of this because unless it's— again, unless it's a public safety, public health issue, more time to think about something and to talk with people and to learn about an issue and if there is confusion, to work through those things, in my opinion, is a good thing to make sure that the outcome is correct. Okay, let's see, everybody, uh, Deputy Mayor, and then I'll be in favor of it. Okay, thank you. Assemblyperson Hours, I just say if there is a, a mayoral veto, you get a chance as Assembly to come back and do an override of the mayor, so that just would automatically happen.

It just allows the, the mayor to not have the timeline, uh, get cut short for vetoing.

Further discussion? Assemblyperson Sumner. Oh, I was just going to say, you know, in this instance what we're talking about, this is not the confusion of the public, this is the confusion of the elected officials. You know, there, you know, there is no— you know, as it currently stands, the mayor has the right to veto. So she feels, or any mayor, if they feel strongly about an issue, they can still veto it even if it is being reconsidered.

You know, obviously they might want to, as our current Madam Mayor wanted to defer to the assembly, and that's— and I don't think anyone realized that that would preclude her power to veto later until we had a, a more definitive reading of the code. But now that we're clear on that, that shouldn't happen again.

How can it not happen again if we don't change it?

Well, my point is that you could, if you feel strongly about an issue, issue a veto even concurrent with a, uh, a reconsideration. Well, yeah, but my time limit was up. I couldn't. I have a time limit on— and not me, but the mayor has a time limit on how much, when they can veto. Correct.

You could have vetoed before the meeting that had the reconsideration.

I did. She did. I did. But then the reconsideration, then the reconsideration was pulled. So then, but the point of order, time limit was up to veto.

I believe that's not correct. I believe that you did not issue a veto.

We have some clarification. Well, I don't know. All I know is that the time limit was up and I didn't get the veto. So whether this takes care of it or not, or that's not a problem, I don't know. You'll sit in this chair someday, sir, and you'll realize— you'll say, oh, she was right.

Further discussion on the ordinance? I guess there is objection, right? Okay, go ahead, Madam Clerk. I can get the members in the room to go ahead and vote. Assemblymember Fonoff?

No. Assemblymember Gamble?

Yes. Madam Mayor, it passed with Assemblymember Fonoff and Sumner opposed. Okay, thank you.

So, you know, I'm, I'm not very good prophesier then. Is that what you're telling me? That's Ordinance 26082, an ordinance to decrease the marijuana sales tax levy from 5% to 3%. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing, and we do have a sign-up sheet.

So, Bailey.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Assembly members. Uh, for the record, my name is Bailey Stewart. I'm a local business owner. I actually opened your first dispensary here in Amatsuburo. I've been collecting taxes from day one.

Um, I'm the chairman of the city's marijuana control board. I sit on multiple nonprofits, and my finger's on the pulse on how these attacks have affect our consumers. I'm here to support Ordinance 26-082, and I want to begin by thanking the assembly for listening during the hearing on Ordinance 26-061. Many of you heard from the industry and from the residents and the real challenges we face. You, you listened, you considered those concerns, and you voted the tax increase down.

That decision meant a great deal to us, the regulated cannabis community, and thank you for hearing us, Assemblymember Bernier. I especially want to thank Assemblymember Bowles for introducing this ordinance. This is a constructive and thoughtful response. It is the first time a body of government has clearly recognized the pressures facing the legal marijuana industry, including the significant pressure and presence of the black market. I understand that not every member of this assembly or constituent supports marijuana, and that's okay.

What I appreciate is a recognition that this conversation is ultimately about public health and safety. When the reg— when the legal market is overtaxed struggling, consumers are pushed towards unregulated sources. Those sources do not test products, they do not do age verification, and do not contribute to our community. Supporting a viable legal market helps ensure that adults who choose to consume cannabis do— can do so through regulated, tested, and age-restricted channels. This is the system Alaskans voted for, and it is a system that best protects public safety and it protects our children.

Children. This ordinance is a step in the right direction, and I respectfully ask the assembly to support this ordinance and continue working toward a balanced approach that strengthens the legal market rather than weakening it. Thank you for your time, your consideration, and for treating this issue with the seriousness it deserves. Keep up the good work. And regardless of how you vote today, I support this body, and I am grateful to you all for representing the Valley, Valley, and supporting local businesses.

And I want to say one thing. This is my personal testimony. I should have added that at the beginning, but thank you all.

Okay.

Um, Sarah. Hello again.

Assemblymember Fanoff, can you mute your phone, please?

Good evening, Mayor and Assembly members. My name is Sarah Lorimer, and I'm the founder of Country Cannabis. And owner of Boone Alaska, which is a local cannabis manufacturing facility I just opened here in the Mat-Su Borough. I want to begin by— again, by thanking Assemblymember Michael Bowles for introducing this ordinance. The Mat-Su Borough's 5% marijuana sales tax was approved by voters in 2016.

After nearly 10 years, we have real-world experience to evaluate its impact on local businesses, consumers, and our economy. I believe this ordinance is a thoughtful adjustment based on what we've learned over the last year— years. We've seen how higher taxes influence customer behavior. People compare prices, and many people choose to shop in communities with lower taxes. Others unfortunately continue to purchase from the illicit market where products are untested, businesses are unregulated, and no tax revenue comes back to our borough.

Reducing the borough marijuana sales tax from 5% to 3% isn't just about helping cannabis retail businesses. It's about making legal market more competitive. So consumers choose licensed businesses. Every legal sales means products are tested, IDs are checked, businesses are held accountable, and revenue stays in our local economy instead of supporting the black market where zero taxes are paid. The ordinance strikes a better balance and makes legal cannabis more accessible, supports local employers, and strengthens our legal market while still generating revenue for the borough.

I want to thank this assembly for being willing to to revisit this issue. It takes leadership to look at nearly 10 years of experience, evaluate the results, and make thoughtful adjustments. Your willingness to listen to business owners and the community is appreciated. On behalf of our employees, our customers, and other licensed cannabis businesses in the Mattsu Borough, I respectfully ask that you support Ordinance 26-082 and encourage a yes vote to reduce the marijuana sales tax from 5% to 3%. Thank you for your time, your service, and I appreciate the consideration of this ordinance.

Thank you. Anyone else that would like to— that— yes.

Good evening, my name is Esther Huddleston. Um, this is the sin tax, and I think we should leave it at 5%. I have problems that the minimum feet away from marijuana shops to churches, schools, and neighborhoods is 500 feet. Um, we get— I live in Meadow Lakes. There's like another pot shop coming up, another one, another one.

Every time I go to a planning commission, they approve another one and another one. Yeah, I mean, when are we going to draw a line? We need to keep our children safe and have a further distance away from schools, further distance away from churches for these marijuana shops. Thank you. And especially keep them out of neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to testify?

Do we have anybody online, sir? No. Okay, one last chance.

Okay, we'll close the, uh, um, public hearing. Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move to adopt Ordinance 26-082. Would you like to speak to it? If I could, a little. Um, so I can't say any more than the speakers already have on both sides.

I've had heard that as well. Um, this specifically, um, is an attempt to protect members of the borough, residents of the borough who choose to participate in this activity. It is a legal activity in the state, whether we agree with it or disagree with it morally. Alcohol is a legal activity in our state, whether we agree with it or disagree with it morally. Um, that whole issue as far as how close they are to certain types of buildings, that's a different discussion.

I actually had the discussion earlier today with another assembly member before the meeting because that is a separate approach to public safety and public health. This one specifically, though, is to hopefully address people that are utilizing the black market rather than a, a facility that does regulate their product. Um, if somebody's going to use this product, they're going to get it from somewhere. So do they get it from somewhere that's— it's been vetted and an owner is going to be held accountable if that person has a bad, you know, like a bad health experience? Or are they going to get it from somebody at school or somewhere else where it's laced with something, and then they end up in the emergency room and have a, you know, maybe a near fatality.

So that's, that's my intent here. Um, you know, I understand that this is a controversial issue, but this, this specific ordinance addresses the tax, lowering the tax, and it really is an attempt to, address public safety and public health. Um, and this came up before the previous tax ordinances when I was going to different marijuana stores in District 1, and every, every owner said the same exact thing that we heard here tonight. This isn't a, uh, this isn't just for these two store owners. This is across the board in the borough.

From my understanding is, um, people are receiving product, that it's laced. It's coming from areas that isn't regulated. Um, so, um, that's, that's what's on the docket for us to consider. Thank you. Um, Assemblyperson Sumner, go ahead.

Yeah, the— so Google search says the average purchase at a marijuana dispensary in Alaska is $60 to $100. So you're looking at about $1.20 to $2 reduction in sales tax after this ordinance. And I just fail to see that that's going to make an impact on where people— people's purchasing decision, whether they go to a convenient marijuana dispensary or they go meet some, you know, drug dealer in some back alley or out there, their trap house. You know, I mean, if you, if you want to make that argument or you want to incentivize people to use a legalized marijuana dispensary, then we should be subsidizing the marijuana, the legal marijuana dispensaries. You know, I think 2% is not enough to make that compelling argument.

Deputy Mayor.

So I don't think the black market, so to speak, is a real thing, seeing it used to be $4,000 a pound Now it's like $1,600 a pound. I don't know of a lot of people that are going out to grow marijuana anymore because legalizing it took the profit out of it. It really did for a lot of people. Secondly, I don't think they would— anybody would be here complaining if— say, okay, for the state, there's only so many liquor licenses. Can you imagine if they gave out liquor licenses like they give out marijuana licenses?

That everybody— you'd only have 3 people in your bar instead of 20 people in your bar. So now you got all these pot shops opened up, but you don't have the customers coming into them because there's so many of them. It's watered down any type of profit that's available. I think, uh, it needs to stay at least at 5% because this was supposed to help out schools and stuff like that. If this got lowered, wouldn't the alcohol— if that passes, wouldn't that have to go down to 3% as well?

No, because we have a transient accommodations tax, event tax. It's at 5%. Would you put And then, uh, yeah, I, I would say at least at 5, because I, I know that it's a matter of there's too many pot shops and they're not making enough money. They're, they're all hurting each other. We need to lower the number of marijuana shops so they can actually make a profit and a business out of it.

Assemblyperson McKee, go ahead. Now, the last time this came up, um, I was very much in favor. I think we were going to try to raise it to 10, and then we brought it back down to— we just said no for all of the reasons we discussed, and I was certainly in favor of that. However, bringing it down even lower, I don't see it. There's— that's not something in most cases that people need.

It's something that people want. So if you look at it, I don't like to call it a syntax because it doesn't— I don't associate it in that way. I don't think it's a moral issue for me. It's not. Um, but the idea that that's something that people make a choice to do— we've been talking about finding ways of lowering costs to the citizenry in this, in this borough.

And if you look at the amount of revenue, I think the revenue reduction was something like $774,000.

$417 Or something like that. That bring you down? You want staff to come and give you some figures? I was getting them from what, what the—. From Cheyenne's, I think was your, your thing.

And was it— was it $777,000 for— yeah, $777,417 loss of revenue. We're talking about taxing people and You know how I feel about the, uh, the Big Lake Recreation Center. So you've got, you got $877,417, then you're going to purchase a piece of property out at Big Lake for $110,000. Now you're up to $877,000, and you've got the Scotty Gomez thing going on. We're just throwing money away, and I just, I, I don't see the point.

This is something that We— the people in this room must be totally confused right now about what we're— the direction we're actually heading into. They— when we did the fuel tax, they said, no, we don't want that. Now we've got tax and tax and tax, and we've got lowering somebody else's tax. So I'm— I can't be in favor of it. I don't think it's going to drive people to the black market.

We already— my heart was in what I said, so I, I would leave it where it is at 5. Okay, further discussion?

Assemblyperson Bowles. Uh-huh. Okay, I'm trying to, um, so, okay, as far as taxes, um, I'll just point out that, um, This— okay, as far as taxes, this is an attempt to lower a tax, um, not add a tax. And as far as we're just throwing money away, it's not our money. This money belongs to the people that earn it.

Um, so that's how we should be thinking about tax money. The money belongs to the people that earn it. The borough just takes it from them. Um, and so And as far as this particular ordinance and what it addresses, it addresses a public safety, public health concern that has been brought to us by professionals in the field. Um, the subject matter expert for the state who's sitting in front of us.

So I think we need to stay on this subject. Um, if you don't agree with it, you don't agree with it, but let's, let's not deviate from the purpose of this ordinance. Um, so I would just ask that the purpose of this ordinance be considered in your decision. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I'd like to amend this motion to raise it to 7% and be placed on the ballot.

Okay, okay, so there is a primary amendment to change it from 5% to 7% plus put it on the November ballot. Madam Mayor, uh-huh, do we have ballot language? What are we doing?

Yeah, I would copy the last one that was at 10 and replace it with 7. At least I have something to go off of now. Okay, further discussion on the primary amendment?

Is there objection? I'm sorry, just a minute. Somebody online, was that a cough or was that— oh, I guess whatever. Okay, Assemblyperson Bold. So I just— last couple months there's been a lot of discussion on raising taxes from people who talk about lowering taxes.

That's all I've got to say about that.

Okay, are you okay, man? I'm good. Oh, you're good? Okay, good. All right, Assemblyperson McKee, uh, in regard to that, the last comment, you're only raising taxes for people actually who choose a thing.

It's not— it doesn't hit everybody. Whoever smokes dope or drinks alcohol, that's a choice. Property owners are a choice. You choose to buy a home. She has the floor.

And I'm sorry, because I've done that before too, because I didn't realize that I wasn't supposed to. So you're— it's okay with me. But I just think that not only are we asking people to pay more taxes, but then we're cutting out a tax base from them, which is not something that people have to have. It's not like fuel, or it's not like food or anything like that. So I just, I just, I don't see who it harms except the business owners, and I think they're doing pretty well.

I mean, if they can— whatever the tax is bringing in, there's, there's substantial business out there. So I just, I just don't— I, again, I just don't see the reason for lowering it any further than it is.

Okay, further discussion? Assemblyperson Boldt, did you Want to say anything? Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, um, yeah, owning a home is a choice. Nobody— the government doesn't force you to purchase a home.

Owning a vehicle is a choice. The government doesn't force you to own a vehicle. Um, you know, buying soda in the store is a choice. Government doesn't force you to purchase soda. Everything we do in life is a choice.

God blessed us with that option. So just saying that this is a choice, yes, it is a choice. That I think the issue here is the product, and I agree I, I personally don't use this product. I don't, but it's, it's a legal product in the state. That's that we are— our job is to direct policy and understand policy.

This is a legal— we, we aren't a dry state as far as this is considered. And so the attempt of this ordinance was to lower taxes and to make it a more safe environment for those that choose to utilize this product. Um, I would ask that if you want to bring another ordinance forward, a, my understanding is it's too late to go on the ballot, um, or just run your own ballot. Um, don't try to hijack this one. And, um, you know, at least give me that courtesy.

So vote this one down, then run your own ballot. Or ballot measure. Thank you. Okay, Deputy Mayor, would it have to be a, a secondary amendment to raise the alcohol one from 5% to 7% as well? I, I don't think this could— I'm— Madam Clerk, go ahead, but I don't think that could be added to this one.

Madam Mayor, through the mayor to Assemblymember Bernier, that is not in front of you.

The alcohol tax is not in front of you. The marijuana legislation is in front of you.

Okay, I was under the impression they had to be equal. You'd have to speak—. Go to the attorney for that.

The state law says that you cannot tax alcohol at a higher rate than some other product or service that gets taxed in the borough. That is the only restriction. It only applies to alcohol because alcohol gets special treatment. So the alcohol tax as proposed that's going on the ballot this fall, 5%, that matches the bed tax and it currently matches this marijuana tax. So if this marijuana tax does get lowered tonight, the alcohol tax is still okay because it would still match the bed tax, transient accommodations tax.

But there's no other requirement that all the other taxes have to match, or that marijuana products tax has to match any other tax. Thank you for clearing that up.

I would assume we have an objection to the amendment. Is that right, or do we want more discussion? Yeah, could you restate the amendment? Was it Bernier's? Yeah, yes, the amendment is to raise the sales tax to 7% and place it on the ballot with the same ballot language from the previous ordinance the assembly voted down.

Okay, one, one last thing, a question for staff. Do you, do you recall what it raised?

Through the mayor to Assemblymember Bernier, Cheyenne Heindel, Finance Director. Currently, with the 5% sales tax that we have, we, we have raised in the last, the last fiscal year I'll just make sure I got the right number before I throw it out there.

Okay, let me start over. The average we have raised since 2022 to 2025 was $1,806,000 approximately. Um, this last budget cycle, we budgeted $1.7 million at 5%.

Okay, thank you. Okay, are we ready to vote or want more discussion?

Okay, Madam Clerk.

Yes, we're voting on the amendment. Yeah, if I can get the members in the room. Okay, Assemblymember Gamble on the amendment.

No. Assemblymember Fonoff?

Yes. Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Sumner, Bernier, and Fonoff in support.

Okay, all right, so now we're back to—.

Back to the main motion, Madam Mayor. Yep, we're back to the main motion.

Okay, I was waiting for you to be sure you were done. Okay, I'm done. I've got— okay, sorry, that's okay. I didn't know you had it that way. You know, Assemblyperson Bowles, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I call for the question.

He called the question. Is there objection to calling the question?

See any objection to calling the question? Their objection to the main motion, sir? Objection to the main— there is objection to the main motion. If I can get the members in the room to go ahead and vote on the main motion.

Assemblymember Fonoff?

No. Assemblymember Gamble?

No, Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Bowles in support.

Okay, okay. Ordinance 26084, an ordinance reappropriating $110,000 from the Land Management Permanent Fund to the Big Lake Lions Recreation Center project for the purchase of the adjacent lot, with accompanying resolution 26-063, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget for the purchase of the lot adjacent to the Big Lake— Big Lake Lions Recreation Center. 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 26-084 and Resolution 26-063. Um, we do not have a sign-up sheet, so Hi, my name is Esther Huddleston, and I support, uh, purchasing the adjacent lot for the Big Lake Lions Recreation.

We have a lot of youth that play hockey, and we need more hockey rinks. This gives our youth extra activities to keep them out of trouble. It also gives a place for community events, and I think this would be a good thing for our community, and I hope you support it. And I'll give additional parking, and also they have motocross events and things like that. It'd be good.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else that would like to testify on this ordinance and this resolution?

Okay, anybody online, sir? No, nobody online. One last chance. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. Deputy Mayor, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-084 and Resolution 26-063.

Okay, discussion by the assembly.

Is there— Assemblyperson McKee, go ahead. The first thing that I found curious about this was that we did vote for the purchase of this thing, but we didn't vote for the money to make the purchase. I don't know how that happens or why that happened, but that seems kind of different. How could you vote to purchase something and not vote to— okay, put the money there? We have staff coming.

Yeah, okay. Yeah. Through the mayor to Assemblymember McKee, Cheyenne Händel, Finance Director. The reason this happened, because we— in the legislation that you previously approved, there was no approval for where the money was coming from to purchase the property. So that's why this legislation is coming back, is to get that actual approval.

The legislation stated it would come from the Land Management Permanent Fund, but it did not appropriate the money to do so. I see. Thank you. Um, how many acres is this? Or I mean, in this, this lot, is it like 1 acre or 5 acres or what?

Here comes staff also.

Good evening, Jillian Morrissey, Community Development Director. I feel like this got very loud all of a sudden. Um, through the mayor to Assemblymember McKee, it's about 2 acres, about 2 acres, something an acre. That's not bad. The comment that was made about using this for other things, and I— one of the public who testified was talking about the other things that you could enhance at this place, at the recreation center.

This is primarily, as I understand it, for parking and possibly for sewage, but not for other kinds of things.

Yeah, through the mayor to Assemblymember McKee, that is correct. Okay, I have heard from various members of the public that they don't think that, that this is a good idea. I'm probably— I'm not going to support it just because it's another expenditure of taxpayer monies while we're asking them to actually pay more taxes, and I just can't do that. So thank you. Something for Senator Sumner, go ahead.

Yeah, I believe the front of this lot actually abuts a fire station. So there was some talk about using it for something EMS-related, a portion of it anyway. But I, you know, yeah, I had pause with this too. I went out and looked at it and there's, you know, there's a current— the septic for the Big Lake Lions Club is on this lot with a septic easement, but there's not space for a replacement septic and the current septic will one day fail, necessitating a replacement in place. Which is, you know, very expensive.

So there's also not a lot of places, you know, uh, functionally there's no place to plow snow on that side of the building. So you kind of need this lot to— for snow storage, to get access, emergency access exits and stuff like that, and the, you know, access the back of the rink and all that. So yeah, you know, I, I don't like spending $100,000, $110,000 of taxpayer money, but since we own the Big Lakes Lions club. I think this is money that is, is well spent. I'm going to go ahead and send my first to McKee.

So what we did is we voted ourselves, um, an asset, but then we find that that asset is costing us lots of money because wasn't the original purchase price like something like $400,000 or something like that?

And now we've got a quarter of that up again for a little more money to spend and So through the mayor to Ms. McKee, I'm pretty sure I'm going to say what I said the last time the assembly adopted this, and we just had the technical issue with where the, the appropriation was coming from. Yes, we acquired the facility for $400,000. Um, this facility is well over— worth well over $2 million, uh, and this issue was identified in the original report before the assembly made the decision to procure the facility. This was identified.

This was not a surprise. Um, the reason this got delayed is because there were a couple of assembly members that wanted to make a site visit and look into it further, which happened. And so that's why it's happening separately from the original, um, acquisition. But this was known from the very beginning.

May I? Yes. Um, it just seems that that's going to be the nickel and dime— I was going to say nickel and diming us to death. That 25% of the original purchase cost plus more has now gone into this lot that we're going to buy. Have they all— have they always had a parking lot problem?

Have they— has snow plowing been a problem out there? I mean, through the assembly to Ms. McKee, yes, that was also detailed in the report before the decision to buy it was made. And you understand, like, it was being run by the Big Lake Lions Club, right? So they get latitude that the government doesn't get in terms of the use of, like, adjacent property and some sharing of resources. That doesn't always extend to the government because people are like, pay for it, as opposed to a nonprofit community group.

And so this is making sure that we have everything lined out for the future. Future, and we don't walk ourselves into an expense later because of a failing septic or some other issue where, um, folks that are visiting the facility are parking on private property, for example.

Deputy Mayor, a question, Mike. Uh, the pro— or the parking lot across the street from the Big Lakes Lions Club, is that part of the Big Lakes Lions Club?

Through the mayor, yes.

Yeah, just, um, you know, having good recreational facilities is such an important quality of life issue and pays dividends that you don't see— externalities, if you want to call them— for the kids who find something to do there. So there's a real value in those facilities. And then I just can't let it pass. We just had a conversation about detached fourplexes and allowing four septics on one acre, and that requires people to replace septics in place. And I mentioned how expensive that was.

There's nothing— now we're talking about how expensive it is to replace a septic in place for a facility.

Further discussion? Somebody person votes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd just like to point out that we already approved this, and if we don't pass this, then we're basically pulling the rug out from underneath of this. So, um, we've already approved this.

Thank you. Further discussion? I can ask a question. Sure, go ahead, sir.

So what is this, um, the lot Uh, we assess it out on the borough place because I don't have information in front of me.

Maybe a question to a manager, Brown, or to a financial staff.

Go ahead.

Through the mayor, I don't have that number on the top of my head, but I think another assembly member is on their phones looking it up on Parcel Viewer.

Okay, yeah, let's see if you can get me. And the price tag on it is what currently?

$110,000. $110,000. Um, and there's a Matsu Borough, uh, lot that is at least like 5 acres right behind that touches, uh, this property, that Lions Club, is that correct?

Yeah, if you know it, um, through the, through the mayor to Assemblymember Fonoff, um, again, for the record, Jillian Morrissey, Community Development Director. There is DES property that is adjacent to these, to this property that is classified for for Department of Emergency Services.

Yeah, and that section of that particular parcel, they think it might still have trees and it's not being utilized, um, and based on satellite imagery, is that correct?

Currently at this time, no, it is not being utilized. We did discuss with the Department of Emergency Services to see if when we initially brought this legislation, uh, before all— before the assembly. Um, and Department of Emergency Services also has a plan for that property. And so, um, currently Community Development does not have access to that property.

Yeah, I understand, but we still— as a borough, we own it. It's not being utilized, so we could have it where it's additional parking lot. I understand the logistics about skeptic and being directed to the back. I think Miss Nikki pointed out a lot of important things. I was no on the purchase originally because it seems like a continuous money— I wouldn't say a pit, but they don't require a lot of money.

So even though it was a good deal, you don't always have to buy a good deal just because it's a good deal. So I will support Miss Nikki and your way of thinking. So I I was no then and I would be no now. Assemblyperson Sumner, do you have input? Yeah, I was just going to answer the 2026 land assessment was $25,300, which is typical for vacant land to be assessed far under value.

Okay, further discussion? I guess my only— the reason, if I may make a comment, Please. My only question for that was just maybe we are valuing vacant land a lot differently than what it would occur. We're being charged a lot more in this negotiation than what that piece of property was. So I mean, 4 times, 4-fold is quite a bit of difference, you know.

So maybe somebody who's negotiating on the other side knows that we really want it. And they don't have our best interests at heart, but they want to, knowing that thinking government has unlimited amount of money, so they want to take it out. So I'd love to see if the sales for them go back to renegotiate the number on it.

Further discussion? Assemblyperson McKee, go ahead. So you— Assemblymember Sumner said that it's 20 That parcel is valued at $25,000. You know, $25,300 is the borough tax assessment. Okay.

And so was that assessment made before they started their, their forward march on vacant property? So it was like there's something like 6% per year or something like that they were going to do. Through the mayor to the assembly member, Ricky, Cheyenne High School finance director. That assessment is before for the current move to bring land values up to what the market value is. We have not done the Big Lake area, so I can't tell you what, what that factor is for that area, but we are working on those.

So at this point, I would say it's extremely undervalued on our assessment records. It's undervalued at $110,000? No, for the $25,000 on our assessment record. Well, probably that It's true, but that's a big stretch to go from $25,000 to $110,000. It just seems to me that every— it's like when you buy a pair of shoes because they are knockout and you got to have them, and then you get them home and they hurt your feet and the toes fall out and all that kind of things.

Like, what did I do here? And I'm just thinking this— the other thing I have to tell you that really bugged me about this thing, and it just— it was when I found out that they could serve any kind of booze that they wanted to out there if you had people come on board to, you know, parties doing that, or marijuana because legal. If you're going to do booze, you better be doing marijuana. It just seems to me this thing is— anybody ever see the movie The Money Pit? Um, it's a very funny movie, but this is not very funny.

Thank you.

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

I don't hear any objection. Uh, do we have objection to the motion to adopt? I can get the members in the room to go ahead and vote on the main motion.

Assemblymember Gamble?

Yes. Assemblymember Fonoff?

No. Madam Mayor, it is passed with Assemblymember Fonoff and McKee opposed.

Ordinance 26086, an ordinance approving the extension of the area-wide budget appropriations for the Bradley Road Bridge replacement over Trapper Creek project, the 2024 Shirleytown Bridge maintenance project, and the 2024 Montana Creek Bridge maintenance. An armoring project to June 30th, 2029, with accompanying Resolution 26067, a resolution approving the scopes of work and budget for 6 bridge 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 will open the public hearing on Ordinance 26086 and Resolution 26067.

-07. Testimony at this time is restricted to this ordinance and resolution.

Have anybody online, sir? We do not.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. And Deputy Mayor, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-086 and Resolution 26-067.

And I'd like to make a move and amendment. Okay. IM 26-137 and RS 26-067 as follows: by changing 6 bridge projects to 5 bridge projects throughout this legislation. Secondly, remove oil well bridge over Moose Creek throughout the legislation. Thirdly, amend budget for Bradley Road Bridge replacement over Trapper Creek to read $1,531,540.18.

Rationale: Since the introduction of the legislation, the borough received bids for work at Bradley Road Bridge that exceeds available funding. This provides the funding needed to complete Bradley Road Bridge.

So discussion on the amendment?

Any objection to the amendment?

Okay, you're— no objection, then the amendment passes. So you have before you now Ordinance 26-086 26 as amended. Further discussion on the motion?

Any objection to the motion?

Hearing and seeing none, then Ordinance 26-086 is amended and Resolution 26-067 has passed. Ordinance 26-087 and Ordinance accepting and appropriating $323,298.14.

From the Alaska State Department of Health and Social Services, approving the scope of work and budget for the Human Services Community Matching Grant Program with accompanying Resolution 2669, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget for the Human Services Community Matching Grant Program, and the other accompanying Resolution 2670, a resolution allocating fiscal year 2027 Human Services Community Matching Grant Program funding to nonprofit agencies for the provision of critically needed essential health and social services to the citizens of the borough. I don't have any sign-up sheet. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing on the ordinance 26-087 and resolution 26-069 and resolution 26- -07. Okay, anyone would like to testify?

We have anybody online, sir? We do not. Going to close public hearing. Deputy Mayor, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-087 and Resolution number 26-069 and 26-070. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles, would you—.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would like to amend Resolution 26-070 by striking, the $50,000 that's going to Alaska Legal Services and to shift that towards the Mat-Su Food Bank, bringing it up to $93,642— excuse me, don't have my glasses on— $93,642.59.

Okay, there is an amendment on the floor. Discussion on the amendment?

Deputy Mayor, would you read that amendment one more time, please? Yes, Deputy Mayor. So I move to— what's that? Oh yeah, I know, getting old. All right, middle-aged eyes.

I move to amend Resolution 26-070 by striking the line that states $50,000 to Alaska Legal Services and moving that $50,000 down to the Matsu Food Bank, bringing that number to $93,642.59.

Okay, Assembleperson Sumner. Thank you. I mean, Alaska Legal Services is just as worthy of a cause, I would say. Um, I don't know why we would bring that— bring their, uh, you know, this is a— believe this is a matching community grant that happens every year, so they're probably expecting that and have budgeted for it. So a little unexpected just to pull the rug out from underneath them at this point.

Same thing for Matsu Food Bank. They, you know, they probably budgeted for the $43,642.49, which sounds like a highly accurate strangely accurate number.

Okay, Assemblyperson Boldt. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So yeah, Alaska Legal Services, uh, brings in a large amount of money, money from, um, many NGOs, um, so they are well funded. The Matsu Food Bank is not as— I won't say they're not well funded, but not as well funded. It's local We need food security here in the borough.

This is a resource here in the borough that absolutely focuses on food security here. I'm not— has nothing to say negative as far as Alaska Legal Services, but Alaska Legal Services is well funded. They can find the $50,000 from other sources. Matsu Food Bank keeps that money here. It feeds a lot of Matsu Borough families.

And one of the biggest things that, that food banks anywhere across the United States need most is funding. It's not food, but it's funding. So I, I hope that you'll support this.

Assemblyperson McKee. Yeah, I just noticed, uh, a couple days ago, Sunday, uh, went by the new brand new food bank. And, um, who— this, this is a relevant question— do you know who funded that brand new building? Where did those— that money come from? And the reason I asked the question, so that you'll know that it's relevant, I'm hesitant to give more money to an organization that probably could have found a lot cheaper place than building a brand new building.

And I'm just saying, because I don't know where it came from, but if they went out and got a brand new building and they could have used something else, then maybe you don't need this $93,000 you're talking about. The problem, when I think there was some money from the state Right now, that's by the rep— the local representative. I think there was like a million or something. I don't know, maybe somebody else can— that's, that's what I remember. Probably Rasmussen and things.

I do, but I, I can't say. Assembly person, now, where you have more information? Um, I don't have specifics to that, but I, I do know that they worked out of like a gumshoe to put together clapboard spot for a long time. So that was a long time coming to have a facility. But just to this amendment, I mean, I just process-wise, I just have an objection to like last-minute throwing an amendment out and we're all trying to like— is Alaska Legal Services not deserving of this $50,000?

You know, I think there's a review process that this goes through, and I would just like if we want to change this, like get in earlier on the process or offer an amendment earlier so we up here can make an informed decision. So I'll pose that just on this reason, you know, and if you want to come to us, you know, or do something where you've talked and the food bank comes to us and or it's part of the process for reviewing those, I just think that's a better way to go about that. I don't know, Max, did you have— oh, Deputy Mayor. So off their website, Alaska Legal Services Corporation is a 501 nonprofit that provides high-quality, free civil legal services to low-income Alaskans in need. Since 1967, ALSC services have reached thousands of Alaskans and their communities to protect their safety, their health, and promote family stability.

And they are hiring.

Okay, let's see. Mr. Sumner hasn't spoken yet. Thank you. Go ahead. I did speak once at the beginning, but I was going to say, I mean, I'm just going to echo what Ms. Nauer said.

I mean, I haven't— I don't have enough information to vote yes on this, so I'll be voting no on this amendment.

Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles. All right, one more attempt to convince y'all to support this. Um, there are many legal resources out there that do pro bono work, okay?

Um, as far as legal work, that has nothing to do with physical growth, good nutrition, access to food. Um, the Matsu Food Bank is an absolute resource in the borough that feeds people, that puts food on people's tables. The Alaska Legal Services— I'm not saying it's a bad— that— please don't take this the wrong way— that— but that $50,000 that goes to Alaska Legal Services If we move this, I guarantee you tomorrow they're going to be getting it from somewhere else. Um, there are many organizations that they will reach out to and, and it will be funded. The Matsu Food Bank will be an immediate, direct, positive result by our vote if we move that money over.

That's going to put food on people's tables. It's going to feed kids that need food. And so this is an attempt at improving food security here in the borough.

Further discussion on the most— the amendment?

Yes, there is objections. Can I add? Okay, something. Go ahead, sir. Yeah, um, Mr. Boltz, I think you have me convinced.

I do think if I had to choose to help somebody with the legal advice or feed them, I choose to feed them. So that's— I can see a point of that, and there is, I think, when we're feeding people, money is well better spent. However, when it's legal services, we oftentimes don't know if it really benefits them, if it helps the families or destroys the family, to be honest with you. So therefore, I'll support you on this amendment.

Uh-huh. Staff, go ahead. I was waiting for an answer through the mayor to the assembly. Um, just so everybody is clear, there is a $50,000 maximum grant that can be awarded under this program.

Can I move a secondary amendment? Uh-huh. Um, I would change the— well, hold on, I gotta do some math here.

Yeah, we would— yeah, we would just switch the numbers between Alaska Legal Services and Mat-Su Food Bank to max— max fund Mat-Su Food Bank at $50,000, and then the $43,000 something or other would go to Alaska Legal Services.

Got it, Madam Chair. Okay, Assemblyperson Auer. Uh, it's just crazy making to like have a whole process for reviewing these in Grants and then like, we're just gonna— I mean, it's, it's not a huge difference, but why? Like, and I know the name is Alaska Legal Services. That doesn't— like, that's all we know about it and what we've read online.

They may do a lot more than, you know, like, I briefly looked at their website, helping people with housing and stuff like that. So I just, like, I think we should have a good process up here. That's part of what we do. So I don't think we should make decisions like this on the fly when we don't, uh, we don't need to. So no is the answer on this one.

I want to make sure we're on the secondary amendment. Okay, so the motion and discussion now is on the secondary amendment. Assemblyperson Boldt. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think this is, knowing this information, a great compromise, and I appreciate this, uh, the secondary amendment.

Um, and I will say $6,500 goes a long way for young mothers with brand new babies that can't afford food for their, for their babies, um, versus, you know, I, I'm not— again, Alaska Legal Services does fine work. This isn't— has, has nothing to do with that company. This has everything to do with food security here in the borough. So I, I'll absolutely be voting yes on this. Okay, so Assemblyperson McKee.

If you go to jail because you don't have any legal defense, then nobody has to worry about whether or not you're going to get money from the food bank. So it all depends on what kind of situation you're in. You're either hungry or you're going to jail. I— Alaska Legal Services— just because it says legal services doesn't mean that's not a bad word. So I can't support either one of these.

Okay, so I guess there is objection to the secondary amendment. Madam Clerk. Okay, if I can get the members in the room to vote on the secondary amendment.

Assemblymember Fonoff?

Yes. Assemblymember Gamble?

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

So now we're back to the—. Is it primary amendment as amended, Madam Mayor? Yep, we're back to the primary amendment as amended.

Objection. Yeah, we have— I can get the members to go ahead and vote on the primary amendment as amended. Assemblymember Gamble.

Yes. Assemblymember Fana.

Yes. Madam Mayor, it has passed with Assemblymember Bernier and Bowles. It has— wait a minute. Thank you. It has passed with Assemblymember Sumner, McKee, and Nower opposed.

Okay. Now we're back to the main motion. Is there objection to the main motion?

Hearing no objection, then the main motion as amended has passed.

So I think we now to audience participation. So we're now to a second time for audience participation. If you testified under the first audience participation, you're not allowed to testify under this one. But if you didn't testify under the first one, and even if you testified under a public hearing on an ordinance, you can still testify under this audience participation. Patient.

Hopefully that's as clear as— I don't know, everybody— I don't know if everybody's asleep or not, but yes, come forth, representative.

Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, my name is Garrett Nelson, live up in Sutton, and, um, I know the property tax has been a serious issue in the borough lately. And frankly, I want to applaud Mr. Bowles on bringing it forward. I think that our founding fathers— I think, uh, aside from the death tax, property taxes would be the most anathema to them. Thomas Jefferson, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Pursuit of happiness, that comes from previous documents, and it was private property. And so Any effort that can be made to, uh, I mean, not make private property a perpetual rental agreement between you and the government is a good thing. And frankly, I don't care if it's a big corporation or somebody who lives here, as I do. Eliminating property tax or any effort to do so is a tremendous thing. Our state had an income tax, and we are the only state ever that had an income tax and repealed it.

Now, we can debate on the reasons for that and, um, whether we're talking about oil and things of that nature, but the reality is we are the only state that ever had an income tax and repealed it. Property tax is a stickier thing, and, uh, I have recognized in my time um, just in the last year that, I mean, budgets are a real thing as well, and providing services to citizens that you all represent are a real thing as well. However, efforts to move towards a, a system that provides more liberty to where people can buy a piece of property and live on it without paying rent to the government is always a good thing, or at least move that conversation forward. Uh, Ed, the old boy who used to own the property up in Sutton where the house is about to fall in the river, you know, it's been that way for a long time. Um, your predecessor, Mr. Brown, I still have— he would get property tax notices from the borough and he would open them and he'd read them and he'd put them in a pile.

I literally have a stack that's a foot and a half high and he would ignore them. And, you know, we can argue that, but I really admire that spirit that he came up here in 1956 and built that house with his own hands and basically told you guys to, you know, go do something else with your time. He was not going to pay property tax. That's debatable. However, I think that spirit is admirable, and I think that's the spirit what our founding fathers would do..

And we as a state have moved from an income tax and we don't have it anymore. I think that we can move away from property tax. We can move away from punishing somebody who decides to buy a piece of property and then has to live in constant fear of retribution. So I think we can be leaders in that. I thank Mr. Bowles for moving the conversation forward.

I appreciate the debate tonight. That's all I got for tonight. Thank you. Anyone else?

Anybody online, sir? No? Okay, we will close the audience participation. And we are at the consent agenda. I don't think we have anything pulled, did we?

Now, is there anything Anybody wants to pull from the consent agenda?

Okay, hearing none, Madam Clerk. Resolution 2677, a resolution amending the budget for the Dorothy Swanda Jones Building environmental system maintenance and repair project and improving the scope of work and budget for the animal care facility drain field replacement project. AM 26100, award bid number 273B to Northern Asphalt Construction. In the contract amount of $327,234 to construct and improve South Adel Circle and South August Circle. AM 26-101, approval of change order number 2 for contract 25-114-P with Strong Data to add $61,000 to the current contract for, for providing enterprise waste management software.

AM 26-102, authorizing the manager to enter into a memorandum of agreement with the Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities regarding the reconstruction and transfer of roads in connection with the Big Lake Road— Big Lake Road Milepost 3.6 to 9.1 rehabilitation project. Okay, Deputy Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda as read into the record by the clerk. Okay, would you also move to extend— is there any objection? Would you move to extend? Yeah, I also move to extend the meeting until 11 PM.

Okay, we don't need to use it. Come on. Okay, the next item is unfinished business. Madam Clerk, would you please read the unfinished business into the record? Ordinance 2671, an ordinance approving an additional land classification for 16 borough-owned properties along Deschka River as watershed lands for the purpose of fish habitat.

Okay, the main motion is on the floor. Is there further discussion?

Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, um, I appreciated Mr. Traxler's— he must have left already. Um, I appreciated his comments earlier. Um, That was not a perspective.

So I served on the Fish and Wildlife Commission when this was before us. This— not this ordinance, but this ordinance came from discussion on the Fish and Wildlife Commission, and there was some very good discussion, and I was initially in support of this.

However, I think we can achieve what Mr. Traxler has discussed a different way. I think that the borough can identify timber lands and, and then classify those separately than, than this ordinance. My concern here is very different. I share the concerns of an organization such as the Susitna River Coalition attempting to block land in the borough. They, they have done their work and they've blocked progress in the West Susitna access, and I think that we need to be very careful helpful, um, in blocking anything that may inhibit future natural resource development and economic growth.

And because of that, I will be against this ordinance.

Further discussion? Yes, Assemblyperson. Yeah, I would just like to point out that, you know, we had a lot of— uh, well, actually, compared to other things we've had people testify on, not that much, but we've had a good amount of testimony about in opposition to this because of public access and recreational use. If you read the IM, um, you know, I mean, here, I'll just read the IM, um, or portion of it. Uh, the subject parcels have been classified as either public recreation or land bank in accordance with Assembly Resolution 1990-134.

The proposed action is to add another classification on top of the existing classification. So it's not to remove the recreational use or access to these parcels. So I think that it's people misconstruing what's, what's going on here. Um, that being said, I would be really opposed to this if it did limit access or recreational use of these parcels, because I don't really think there's going to be— I mean, the fish aren't going to know the label that's on this land one way or the other. This isn't going to do anything to affect, uh, the fish., you know, one way or the other, because it's just a label in a file at the, uh, borough's office.

So pass or fail, whatever. Family person hours. I just wonder if we can maybe have staff come up and talk about whether this would effectively restrict or could restrict. I think that's always a concern. And then what the point is of having this classification, or what the use is.

Go ahead, sir. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the assembly. This is Emerson Krueger, work in the land management office here at the borough. I'm not aware of any borough land classifications that would have effect on recreational trails or access across their property.

The borough land classification is a tool that we use in the Land Management Office to communicate to other land managers that come after us what the land was intended to be used for. So classification, the state does it, the borough does it, most of the public landowners do it, and it's guidance for land managers when we're looking at applications to use borough land.

So there's no effect to existing trails, and, um, it would affect future adjudication of an application for a new trail in that a land manager looking at that future application for a new trail would see that it's classified and then dig into why it was classified that way.

Paula, so if somebody owns a piece of property on the river and it's already classified as public use, public recreation, public recreation, thank you. And, and they add this, like, say somebody says, oh, I want to build, you know, I've got a cabin, I want to build another cabin. Well, they don't really have to come to the borough for permission for that. I mean, I guess the question is like, that's what I would worry about. That somebody would be restricted in the use of their private land.

Yeah, anyways. Would— so it would have no effect through the mayor to the, to the private land, even if it's abutting the land that's being classified. It would have some bearing on an application from the neighbor that's looking to build a trail on the borough land. Only insofar as land management staff would look at the classification to see if there was a conflict between the way it was classified and whatever the proposed use of the borough land would be. Okay, this wouldn't affect private land at all.

No. Um, on borough land, you would look at it. Yeah. And what, what is the purpose of having this classification? Like, what, what use is it to the borough?

I mean, you kind of spoke to it, but like, the, use of knowing these areas exist? Like, I'm just trying to imagine a situation. So somebody comes to you and says, well, we want to put a trail here. Does it— you say, oh no, this is classified as it's cold water refugia where you can't do it? Or how does that work?

Like, is it an absolute no, you can't do things on this land? Or does it restrict the use?

So the best example we have of where the borough's classified its land is the Natural Resource Unit Management Plan. So that, that's an adopted borough plan. It applies to most of the borough-owned land. I think there's 225,000 acres of borough-owned land, and that plan classified all of it. And if you look in that plan, there are processes for what to do if a proposed use is in conflict with a land classification.

So, you know, I sell timber and gravel. That's what I spend a lot of my time doing. And I look at areas where we've classified lands for watershed and public recreation, and what that slows down is timber— timber and gravel sales, but it doesn't stop it. You have to go further than that if you want to stop land use that would conflict with the land classification. But you do have to go through a process that's outlined in that plan that basically, if you want to do something on the borough land that's in conflict with the land classification that's in that plan in particular, then you have to go through the manager or the assembly to say, hey, we've got a use that's conflicting with this classification, but it— we think it's a good use of the property and we'd like to move it forward.

So it's kind of the opposite of what we're— what, what the concern is over the current proposed land classification, because public recreation and public access aren't generally seen as in conflict with our land classifications. It's the more heavy uses of the land, like logging and gravel mining, where you would see some kind of a conflict with the land classification, but not recreational use of trails. Okay, that's, that's really helpful. I just, um, my understanding when this came about was we're just trying to get something on a map of research data that's out there of these areas so that if we are considering decisions, we know that these areas exist. Otherwise, like, how do you even know to, to consider that, hey, this might be a spot that is important to keeping those temperatures low.

And I've been around the valley long enough to remember when it was an annual event to see boats stacked across the mouth of that river because the runs were so good. And yes, pike are super destructive. Trawling takes fish, but then the, the river temperatures play a role too. So it seems good to have this on our radar.

If I may, through the mayor, um, I, I can't answer the technical questions that Emerson does. He dives deep into these areas, to use the pun, dive deep. But, um, one thing that I will share is that when the assembly passed, their number one priority for, uh, your legislative priority was for fish. Um, as for, uh, so in Borough Land Management, we don't have a lot of tools to help with that, to be perfectly honest. Once we hit the waters, that is out of our jurisdiction.

Oftentimes this is a tool that we have within our Land Management Division to help support what your number one legislative priority was. I just wanted to share that with you. Thank you. Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I appreciate that, and I agree we need to protect our fish.

Um, what this does though, I, I do not think that this is an effective way. Um, I think that the Fish and Wildlife Commission did an outstanding job by going to the Board of Fish and getting the EEZ changed to allow more silvers through. That's effective. That's going to get more silvers up here. That's going to get more fish up here into the rivers.

Um, locking up land, yes, borough land, Remember, Berlin, it's public land, right? What's the state constitution say about public land? It's public land, and that's going to be locked up with a designation. And then when somebody in the future, if somebody buys that land, now they're buying land that they may have to go through a process to use their own land in a way that they want to. Yes, they will understand that designation on their property when they purchase it.

However, There are far more things than a 2-degree difference in water that's heavily affecting the fish in the Susitna drainage. I think that in the long term that this is going to not be what is intended. Think about, think about Think about who is pushing this. Think about what else they've come up against, okay? Think about public lands, who owns public lands.

Think about access. Think about Matsu Borough residents accessing those fish and putting it in their freezer to feed their families. We care more about the fish than other people flying up here from Colorado. Okay, so I would just ask that you consider that.

I, I think that this could possibly not be a good thing. Now, as far as timber sales, I could wholeheartedly support the borough going through and start designating areas throughout the borough for timber sales and logging the borough. We need to do that. We need to open up areas for to log more. That's It's an outstanding natural resource and an abundant one here.

So as far as that's concerned, if Nornen comes in front of me to support that, designating areas for timber, absolutely, 100% on board. Blocking access for a couple degree differences in temperatures in areas where, um, you know, people— that's our private— our public access. And who knows 20 years from now what this designation may affect as far as natural resource development and economic growth. So that's all I'll ask you to consider, and I'm the person that sat in all those meetings.

For the discussion, yes, some of the person— some of it I call a question. Okay, is there objection to calling the question?

Okay, I don't hear— is there objection to the ordinance?

I can get the members room to go ahead and vote on the main motion.

Assemblymember Fonoff?

No. Assemblymember Gamble?

Yes. Madam Mayor, it has Failed with Assemblymember McKee, Nowers, and Gamble in support.

Okay, so the next item on the agenda is vetoes, and there isn't any of those, but who knows, right?

Oh, so Madam Clerk, will you please read the— you're done— the instruction, the introductions into the record. Introduction for public hearing on August 18th: Ordinance 26031, Ordinance 2667, Ordinance 2688, Ordinance 2689 with accompanying Resolution 2672, Ordinance 2690 with accompanying Resolution Resolution 2673, Ordinance 2691, Ordinance 2692, Ordinance 2693 with accompanying Resolution 2675, Ordinance 2694 with accompanying Resolution 2676, Ordinance 2695, and Ordinance 2697 with accompanying Resolution 2679. Okay, Deputy Mayor, I move to introduce the legislation as read into the record by the clerk and set the public hearings for August 18th, 2026. Is there any discussion?

Is there any objection?

Seeing and hearing none, then the legislation has been introduced. Deputy Mayor, I move to confirm the mayor's recommendation as follows: MSB Fish and Wildlife Commission resignation of Kendra Sam-Zhao.

Okay, is there any discussion?

Is there any objection?

Okay, hearing no objection, then the agency— the vacancy report is approved. And we did the new business, right? We do not have any referrals. No reconsiderations, so we are ready for parting comments. Assemblyperson Farnoff online, parting comments, sir, please.

Um, no comment. Thank you so much. Uh, sorry I was not there, was able to be there in person, but I'll be there next time. Thank you so much. Okay, parting comments, Assemblyperson Gamble.

No comments. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles, parting comments. Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor. So, yep, um, I appreciate the discussion. Didn't agree with all of it this evening, but I do appreciate it.

Um, you know, it's, it's great that we have this process. I, I would hope that, um, our fellow residents look into the, this ordinance that's going to be on the ballot Um, really consider it, consider what it's going to do for you and your family if this passes. So with that, District 1, thank you for putting me in the seat. It's a privilege serving you, and I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Madam Clerk, parting comments? No. Mr. Manager, parting comment? Assemblyperson Mowers, parting comments?

I want to recognize Kendra Zamzow for her work on the Fish and Wildlife Commission. That commission does an amazing amount of work to help everybody in the borough with fisheries and wildlife. Particularly, they've worked on our fisheries because, as everyone knows, we don't have a king season anymore, and sometimes we don't have a silver season. And I find that, you You know, when I look at that seal and I see fish on there and I think of— I went to Fish Creek recently and saw the parents out there with their kids catching fish. You know, the kids are netting it, they're falling in the mud.

That's just part of why we live here. That makes us different than New York or Topeka. And if we lose that, we are losing just a fundamental thing to be an Alaskan. I feel like. So, um, the doing something about our fisheries, um, and the work that the Fish and Wildlife Commission has done and Kendra has done— I think she was taking a— she was resigning because she's taken a second job, and so she could not do that position any longer.

And I know Mr. Bowles has been sitting on that commission, so he knows just how deep the work goes on there. And so I just wanted to say how much she— her work there was appreciated, make people aware of how much work there is, and try to interest more people in taking a position on, in particular, that commission and try to work on our fisheries issues. I do— I'm disappointed that it got so complicated to just recognize these things that contribute to the fishery on the Deschutes. Like, okay, there's these places where they measure the water temperature and cold water comes in. And you, if you go out on that river with them, you will not— it's not obvious, like, oh, this is where the creek comes in, like anybody can tell.

It's places that are just kind of like, oh, what, what's going on there? I mean, they take us on a boat and it's like, you wouldn't know that's the spot where cold water is coming in. And those fish shut down at higher temperatures. So 2 degrees, yes, it makes a difference, um, for those fish. You know, what, what happens when the sun comes up?

The bite goes off. 'Cause the fish are sitting. So there is some science behind that. I'm sorry that it got to where it is that now if we're considering decisions on that river, we won't have that in our database. Like, if there's a way that this administration can do it, I mean, I think the way they were doing it was fine.

It didn't block, it didn't sound like it was gonna block anybody.

But, so, you know, I just, I think having that information at our fingertips to avoid making a situation worse is important, and I hope people enjoyed the two days of summer this weekend.

Morning comments, Deputy Mayor. Thank you everyone for coming out. I want to thank you, Lord, for blessing our valley. Please help those that are addicted and have problems, that you give them courage and hope, Lord, that you might open all our hearts to receive your love. Thank you for your gift.

Thank you for your mercy and love. Please keep our first responders safe. Give wisdom to the governing people that they may know the hearts and give— just give them common sense, Lord, that we can govern without corruption and greed and all that that goes along with things that the public perceives. Lord, we just ask you to give us a heart of flesh, and we love you. In Jesus' name, amen.

Any comments? Assemblyperson Sumner? Uh, no comments. Okay. Assemblyperson McKee?

No. And Mr. Attorney? No. Okay. The only parting comment I have is we got the, uh, last application in for the BARCC, so it will be on the vacancy report on the 18th.

Okay, and we will adjourn unless somebody else has something at 10:04.