Petersburg Borough: Assembly Meeting

Member Stan Gregor, I'm going to move on then to the voluntary Pledge of Allegiance.

I would like to—. To the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, leave the senior— leave that. Okay. Yeah, the minutes, minutes from previous meeting are not available for approval, so we'll move those on to the next meeting. And with that, I'm going to move on. Uh, do I have a motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented?

So second. Okay. Are there any changes proposed? Okay, hearing none, would the clerk call the roll on the, on the agenda as presented? Vice Mayor Stenberger?

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

Member Newman. Sorry, Member Marsh. Yes, Member Meucci. Yes, Mayor Lynn. Yes, and that the agenda is approved 6 to 0.

Moving on, there's no public hearings today. Under the bid awards, there's one major bid award today, and that's a Shell Bay boat haul-out project award of construction contract to Rock and Road Construction. The Assembly will consider authorizing the borough manager to execute a contract with Rock and Roll Construction, the sole responsive bidder for the Skow Bay boat haul-out project, in an amount not to exceed $13,535,650.

PND engineers reviewed the bid and recommends this award. The project is funded through federal grants, ADAC loan financing, Denali Commission funding, and local funds. A memo from Director Cabrera detailing the bid and funding is attached, and there is a suggested motion attached to your package.

I move to authorize the Borough Manager to execute a contract with Rock and Row Construction for the Scow Bay Boat Haulout Project for an amount not to exceed $13,535,650.

Second. Moved by Member Valentine, seconded by Member Stan Gregor. Discussion from Assemblymember. Questions?

Yes. Um, so was this, um, how much over or under was this on the recommended, on the proposed estimated project cost? I'm going to move back to the Harbor Director.

Liz had to step out, so through the mayor, uh, we are absolutely thrilled to say this bid came at $10,000 under the estimate.

Thank you. Other questions? Okay, would the clerk please call the roll to— roll on awarding the contract, construction contract, to Rock and Roll Construction? Member Meucci? Yes.

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

Yes. Member Martin? Member Stanton Gregor? Yes. Okay, thank you.

The construction contract is awarded with a 6-0 vote, with all members voting yes. I'm going to move on now to persons to be heard related to today's agenda. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to talk to items related to today's agenda? Please come forward, state your name, who you represent at the podium here, and you have 5 minutes.

Thank you, step out, mayor. I'm David Berg. I'm here as an assistant chief for the Petersburg Volunteer Fire Department. Uh, thank you for addressing our concerns regarding the relocation of our training facility. As you know, we support moving forward as quickly as possible with the construction of a new training pad at Station 1 so that our training containers can be reassembled and put back into service.

We have reviewed the proposed funding options and believe a— believe a reasonable compromise would be to share the cost between two accounts using a portion of the harbor funds and a portion of the property development and general fund. One outstanding concern is whether our existing three-story training tower can be safely dismantled and successfully reassembled at the Station One site. The structure is approximately 30 years old and may be nearing its end of its useful life. Making the investment in relocating it potentially shortsighted. We believe that a better long-term solution, one that would benefit both the department and the community, would be to construct a new training tower as proposed by PVFD staff at your last meeting.

While this represents a greater initial investment, a new tower would better address the training needs of all department branches and provide a modern, reliable training resource for the next 30 to 50 years. We recognize that the new tower could be placed on a, on a future capital projects list. However, concerned that it could be repeatedly deferred in favor of other projects considered more pressing, leaving the department without an adequate long-term training facility. We would support a phased approach to accomplishing these improvements. The immediate priority would be to construct the training pad and establish the basic infrastructure, including water and lighting, allowing us to reassemble and restore the container training props.

The second phase would focus on securing and installing a new training tower as funding and the procurement, construction, and delivery process allow. We believe that this approach strikes a practical balance between addressing our immediate training needs and making a meaningful investment in the department's future. More importantly, it would help ensure our volunteers have the facilities and resources necessary to remain well trained and prepared to respond when the next emergency occurs. Thank you for your consideration and continued support. Thank you for your testimony.

Is there anybody else who would like to talk to items related to today's agenda? Please come forward, state your name and who you represent.

Hi, I'm Becky Knight. Uh, the following regards Ordinance 2624, and as its title suggests, would establish a 9-month moratorium on the issuance of borough permits for certain data center development. Moratorium is defined by Merriam-Webster as a temporary prohibition of an activity. In fact, the so-called moratorium reads more like a de facto conditional use permit because it would allow such facilities to operate during the 9-month period so long as they conform to 3 limitations contained in Section C. That is, and to paraphrase, number one, its normal operating electrical load must be fully supplied by the borough's current grid capacity. Number two, the data center may not rely on other generators to provide its normal operating electrical load.

Number three, it must be fully self-contained and closed loop. Most importantly, this would also mean that in order to meet the conditions the facility would already be constructed and operational, rendering any further guardrails imposed in a permanent ordinance moot. It's kind of a catch-22.

In short, the three stipulations will be defeating and will be self-defeating and too late to impose any other ordinance restrictions deemed important to meet the borough's stated goals. In short, the borough will once will once again have turned over the regulatory reins of power to the tech bros. For this reason, I request that the moratorium conform to the definition of moratorium with no exceptions and be extended to at least 1 year. I also request an immediate town hall meeting to hear the full concerns of the community and respond to questions which cannot possibly be addressed during an assembly meeting. The possible introduction of a hugely transformative, consequential data center into our community is permanent and must be considered in depth. I take solace that my request is not unique within Alaska or nationally.

Among a few, for instance, the city of Houston, Alaska just enacted a 2-year data center moratorium Their ordinance covers the size of the one proposed for Petersburg, and I've attached it to my testimony. The Sitka Planning Commission members just recommended in a 4-0 vote that Sitka define data centers in the city zoning code and for now prohibit data center development in any zone. The commission's recommendation will go to the assembly for the consideration. Commissioners agree that data centers should not be allowed as a conditional use in any zone of Sitka because the the city's conditional use permitting standards are inadequate for determining whether harm— excuse me, whether these facilities housing rapidly evolving technologies could harm local people, nature, or resources. The Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor Greg Hopkins recently proposed a moratorium on land use permits for data centers through the end of 2027.

The Wrangell Borough Assembly unanimously voted down a proposed land lease for privately run data center. The assembly on June 9th supported the manager's recommendation to retain the waterfront for future maritime industry expansion. And Seattle passed a 1-year moratorium on new data center construction. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Further, I request that under the first whereas, in addition to health, safety, and welfare, needs worthy of protection, that he also please include quality of life, constitutionally protected privacy, and freedom from illegal search and seizure, which is exactly what data centers foster.

These are not lofty goals, but rather amongst the due diligence of any elected representative. Attached to my comments are the City of Houston, Alaska ordinance and Our Bureau should incorporate many of their provisions. For instance, modern data center safety standards, including NFPA— that's National Fire Protection Association— NFPA 75 must be included. Currently, the Bureau lacks expertise and financial resources to adequately monitor these. This duty should not be entrusted to the developer.

Moreover, data centers require substantial quantities of electronic waste. Containing hazardous materials, including lead, mercury, and cadmium. And Alaska's limited waste disposal infrastructure makes proper management of such waste impractical, creating a long-term environmental liability for the borough. Finally, just because we use technology does not mean that we must surrender to any and all big tech onslaughts. Our borough was getting along just fine without all the big tech invading our community.

As other communities have recognized. I believe lucrative power sales agreements are the real driving force behind the support for these monstrosities. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else who would like to talk to items on today's agenda?

Please come forward and state your name and who you represent.

Uh, my name is Robert Fudge. And I represent myself, and I just came in. It's about the snow removal out of Paptes. You know, when we became part of the borough, that was the only thing that we were offered. The only thing that was— that only carrot that was hung in front of us was we would have snow removal.

And for some reason, you know, like all these taxes are taken, but that's been taken from us. And to be honest with you, I feel really betrayed by it. And really betrayed. And also, there's another thing. There's a rumor going around that Rock and Road doesn't want the contract.

That's not true. I called them and talked to them, and they would bid on it. But it's just not right. I mean, it's just not right, you know, like We feel like we're being treated really, really poorly. You know, this, this was, this was promised to us and it was the only thing.

And to add insult to injury, after our only service is taken from us— the only service we get— garbage out there, but you know, we pay for that every week. After our only service is taken from us, uh, our taxes are raised. Substantially, which kind of made me feel like somebody just spit in my face. And that's pretty much all I got to say. Oh, one more thing, you know, like, there's— it should be before all these projects are tackled that the basic services are taken care of.

This is a basic service. It's a, it's a service too for, uh, like, you can't get in the, uh, ambulances in and stuff. Those should be taken care of. They should be taken care of. And for me, I can't, you know, address what everybody else is going to do, but, uh, until this is taken care of and we get that— I don't usually even vote.

I don't pay attention to what goes on in town. I come into town as seldom as I can, to be honest with you. I don't feel that I would be an informed voter. But from now on, until this is taken care of, I'm going to vote against anything, any kind of projects, any kind of thing for, for to raise taxes for anything. And I've been retired for 18 years now, so I got plenty of time to go around.

If I have to go around and knock on people's doors and make a real pest of myself, I'm going to do it. And thank you for listening to me, and that's about it. Thank you for your testimony.

Is there anybody else would like to talk to items related today's agenda?

Hey, good afternoon. My name is Stephanie Landon. I'm representing myself, and I'm just here to, to back up Roger Fudge's request for the one thing that we were asked for, for snow removal out of Papke's. Um, our taxes have been raised significantly. As a matter of fact, we found out that some of the assessments were raised 130% over value because of some of the state sales that have gone on.

And so My taxes personally doubled. We don't see any benefit from the general fund. We don't see any benefit from these taxes that we're paying. So I'm just backing and reiterating the need for the one thing that we were promised out of PAKI, which was the snow removal. So that's all I have to say.

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

Hi, I'm Sarah Holmgren representing myself, and I'm not sure if this falls under— it's similar, uh, for the same reason. I also live out at Papke's, um, and I just actually— I'm going to read an email that I sent a couple years ago making the same request. I'm requesting that plowing of Papke's Landing neighborhood roads be added back into the budget. I counted over at the time 30 households that commute to work almost daily. That doesn't include retirees that also come into town on a regular basis.

These were only homes that I was absolutely confident and knew who was living in there and where they worked. So if I had any suspicion that— or not suspicion, or any guess, then I didn't count them. At the time, we had 3 drivers. Now we have 2 commuting daily. Following services were offered up years ago, as we said earlier, a carrot stick for property owners in the neighborhood to sign off on borough formation.

There was an increase in the mill rate for those property owners then, and currently an increase in valuations more recently. Those promised increases in services were also as part of our real estate taxes to pay for the plowing. Plowing services were then added and have been provided until 2025, although last— the year of 2024-25, it was cut and then added in back in. As far as I know, despite budget cuts, no other neighborhood in the entire borough has had their services diminished or eliminated. So I'm struggling to understand why snow plowing is once again being eliminated in our— in a particular neighborhood only when no other neighborhood is being affected.

It's not quite equitable. Uh, in 2023, the cost of plowing out there was under $12,000, and in 2024, it was less than $2,000. In 2025, it was not done, and here we are in 2026. So please consider adding that back in. I know we're in a budget crunch.

We've also lost revenue because of the current the recent voting. So I know it's going to be a tough decision, but it is a small drop in the bucket for providing services that were promised to the residents at the time when borough formation happened, or find a more equitable way of dealing with cuts than just picking neighborhoods and arbitrarily saying, well, we're not going to plow anymore for you. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else like to talk to items related to today's testimony?

Please come forward, state your name and who you represent. My name is John Mergis, and I wish to speak on your request for work session for Scallop Bay Boatyard operations management and financial planning. And I'm representing myself and many small businesses in Petersburg that rely on Scallop Bay haul-out facilities. And typically work sessions are listen-only for the general public. Since your decisions on that, on the planning, are going to have a profound effect on many businesses and boats, the majority of boats in the harbor, so I request that you allow participation by the general public other than just listening in on any work session pertaining to that.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, and I've got a note on that. We'll, we'll take a look at it as we set it up.

Anybody else like to talk to items related to today's agenda?

Good afternoon. My name is Susan Martinez, and I'm speaking for myself. Um, I did write a letter to the editor this week, then I've gotten quite a bit of comments back because of it. But I had some serious questions after I wrote this letter that I would like you guys to think about and address. Number 1 is there's 3 methods that you can, um, relieve the excess overages from the general fund every year, but yet you choose number 1, which is to direct all fund surpluses into isolated capital improvement accounts.

50% Of whatever is left over, which this year amounts to about $616,666.50. That will be transferred to the general fund to cover capital improvements this year. Now, you guys also have the option to absorb— by absorbing or backing up emergency shortfalls, which I guess this senior tax exemption that passed has a thorn in a whole lot of people's sides. But it also helped this community more than you will know. Um, 3 people have to supposedly be laid off because you don't have enough money now to pay them because $350,000 shortfall.

Give me a break. If that $350,000 shortfall is running this town, we've got major, major issues. And the third thing that you could do, which you never seem to even consider because you raised our mill rate, raised our taxes, raised our assessments and everything else. And next year they're going to be even worse. Um, you can dedicate cash to reduce future property tax pressures or offset unforeseen baseline deficits.

How come number 2 and number 3 are never considered? Everything goes to capital expenses, and then we have to get a bond out there, which the town did pass. For the harbor situation down there, for that harbor generator thing. But you also had, um, American Cruise Lines in here where you had a huge amount of money dedicated to that project, which is now off the table. So number one, where did all that money come from to allocate it to that project?

And where's all that money going to go now that that project is off the table? So there's just a lot of questions about how some things are being directed and handled as far as financially. This general fund is only one, one revenue fund or source of income for this town. From what I understand, there's at least 12 or 13 more. So how you can honestly say that you can't afford to give seniors in this town that are 70 years and older that have worked their whole life a tax exemption card because it's going to cripple this town and take away your revenue.

I feel sorry for you. I really do. But I see a lot of mismanagement going on in this town, and I'm far from addressing a lot of it. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Is there anybody else like to talk to items related today's agenda? We have Mozilla Alaska on Zoom. Okay, Andrew, if you're on there.

You have the floor. Hi, are you able to hear me now? Yes. Hi, this is Tara Favilla with Mazela Alaska, serving as the president and COO, to talk to you all today about the Dana Center project, which is the only one that is being addressed via moratorium, just so that For those of you who are saying we need to address these large-scale data centers, this is not one of them. The only project that is live and being put forward is a very small data center that has been requested— permits requested as late and early as August, with those being approved by the State Fire Marshal.

And the reason for them is to be able to help communities like the one who just spoke. And to be able to give back to the community and give some relief back into the general fund. However, that continues to be lost in whatever Google search people are doing when you think about data centers. This is not a hyperscale campus consuming municipal water for cooling. It's a small business on existing private industrial property.

Using a planned closed-loop cooling system, that means that we're not taking in the water. In fact, we don't want it because the water from the community is actually infused with chemicals. Our systems can't have any chemicals. We'd be bringing in our own water in to create that closed-loop system. For those who are looking to know, it is not an enterprise data center of the kind that you already have operating inside hospitals, government offices, schools, and banks.

Similar technology, different business model, for those who are curious.

We plan to grow only as power availability, engineering, and utility approvals and grid conditions allow. More importantly, we are paying to determine how we can fit responsibly into Petersburg's system and help strengthen it, and that has been illustrated in our presentation given to the Southeast Alaska Power Gantiyaakw Séedi last week in our request to use unused surplus power that is currently right now flowing over the dam. The benefits are practical. A year-round power customer can turn otherwise unsold hydroelectric capacity into recurring revenue for SEPA and Petersburg Municipal Power and Light, and by extension the borough and its community members. It would broaden the utility's customer base and help spread those fixed costs.

The borough's own information projected approximately $2.1 million in annual utility revenue at 2 megawatts only, which is the amount the Cannery had already been using for years. We are also paying for engineering to identify potential grid improvements, which there are numerous, and the city and its residents would otherwise be left paying for those updates over time. These include transformers, cable interconnection, protective equipment, metering-related infrastructure. Those investments can remain here and benefit Petersburg long after installation that we again would be paying for. Our load can also be flexible, purchase power when it's abundant, like right now when it's being wasted, and curtail it when residents need priority.

We have offered to discuss covering incremental diesel costs even attributable to our load during constrained periods rather than passing those costs to residents. We want to help carry the systems, not ask the system to carry us. Then there is heat to consider. Nearly all electricity use in computing becomes heat. With liquid cooling, that thermal energy can be captured rather than simply discarded.

The opportunity is basic thermodynamics. I say that seriously. Its usefulness depends on the temperature leaving our system, the temperature required by the receiving use, and the outside temperature. In Petersburg, when outdoor temperatures fall and heating demand rises, Recoverable heat may become particularly useful for buildings, hot water preheating, workshops, warehouses, wood drying, industrial uses, or if engineering supports it, a future district heating system. That same hydroelectric kilowatt per hour can do computing work first and potentially use thermal work second.

We're not proposing free energy. We're proposing that Petersburg study the value of energy it would otherwise throw away to be smarter, if you will. So this project offers a fairly simple combination: new utility revenue, privately funded engineering, potentially grid upgrades, flexible demand, possible resilience resources, and useful heat recovery, all while putting existing industrial property back to productive use. Against that backdrop, one fact deserves particular attention. Mozilla Alaska submitted its building permit package back on August 10th.

The record confirms that submission, and the borough has had our project details since then, and we know that those project details did not go unnoticed. They were used to create the moratorium against it. This application and its permit have been approved at the state and local level. I hear you, Mayor, and so I'll wrap it up. Please preserve the opportunity, and thank you for having us.

Okay, thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else like to talk to items related today's agenda?

See none. I'm going to move on then to items unrelated to today's agenda. Is there anybody, um, would like to talk to items unrelated to today's agenda?

Is there anybody, uh, clerk, is there anybody on Zoom? No, no one has their hand raised. Okay, thank you. Today there's no board, commission, and committee reports. There's nothing under the consent agenda.

And with that, I'm going to move on to reports of other officers. Under that, uh, the first item is the Petersburg Medical Center. PMC CEO Hofstetter will update the assembly on medical center activities. Mr. Hofstetter. Hi, good afternoon.

Phil Hofstetter, Peterborough Medical Center CEO. I submitted my report, um, it's enclosed in the packet. A few things to highlight are at the last board meeting last week, we had our formal acceptance of the rural healthcare transformation projects, which were telehealth program, behavioral health program, maternal child health, and those are a little bit over $1 million for year 1. We also submitted year 2 projects, and we'll hear in the next couple of months about those. Those projects are care coordination, value-based care, which we submitted our direct primary care project in that, under that designation, and then our Level 4 trauma designation, which is one of the projects that has been on our roadmap for many years, and we're starting to make some progress in that, in that designation, and we added that to the RHDP project.

A couple other highlights from the service expand— service expansion. As the volumes have come down for the summer months on the ER, we've been seeing some increases in our primary care. It's pretty standard. Our specialty care is seeing quite an increase with psychiatry, ENT. We had our SCOPE clinic last month.

We had dermatology, I believe, in August. And we're optometry as well. So expanding some of those services, which is exciting. And then our MRI, our newest service line, we've done over 100 MRIs. And so we're, we're, we're really scaling that service as well.

So any questions on my report? Member Muchi. Yeah, thank you, Phil. Hey, when you have like traveling nurses and doctors and clinicians coming to town, Is that a hospital project that houses them, or do you reach out to local real estate companies for housing options for people? Oh, yeah.

Housing is actually on my bullet. It's a— that's something that we, we rent apartments around town, and certainly something that we are wanting to add to our capacity is as a housing project. Yes. Great, thank you. Any other questions?

Mr. Hofstetter, thank you for your, your presentation, Phil. Appreciate it. Um, before I get into this, I'm going to make a little bit change here. I noticed we have Robin Taylor has walked in, our superintendent of schools. Robin, do you have anything you'd like to present?

Good afternoon, I'm Robin Taylor, the superintendent for the Petersburg School District. Um, I do want to apologize for not being present last month. I was, uh, in Colorado for the birth of a new grandchild, so I figured that was an excusable absence. Um, a few things to share: the middle school and high school just started quarter 2 today, actually, so they are in the second quarter of the school year. Next week, the contractor for our capital improvement project will be on site to walk through the facility with us to still address some of the pieces regarding the summertime construction that are, are pending out there that still need to be completed.

So we're looking forward to hopefully getting that wrapped up sooner rather than later, but it's all dependent on contractors' availability. Then last week and the week prior, we sent out calendar surveys first to our staff to kind of get a baseline start, and then we sent a calendar survey out to the parents of our school community as well as high school students. We're taking that information right now to draft next year's school calendar and hope to have that ready to present to the school board at its November school board meeting.

Shannon is already starting to work on all of the budget prep for next school year. Of course, we, we don't control revenue, so we do our best guess and try to navigate what we anticipate for expenditures and We're doing that also going into negotiations here with our teachers' union, so there are definitely a number of unknowns out there. And then I also wanted to remind the community at large to just drive safely. It's dark now, it's raining, and we did have an incident last month with a student and a vehicle and so this is just that safety reminder. Drive safely, drive cautiously, watch for students and just the public at large, but also for those pedestrians who are either walking or biking to please wear reflective gear.

Finally, I wanted to offer some celebrations. Middle school basketball hosted Wrangle, I believe it was last weekend, and so it was a great turnout of our, of our community at large. And not being present for the October board meeting, or the October meeting, I also wanted to share congratulations to our girls high school cross-country team as the state champions. Then just this last weekend, we had our regional swim and dive events. We had several students who are regional champions, and what I understood today is that we have either 6 or 7 students who have qualified for state.

Finally, October was National Principals Month, so I would just like to give a shout out to our, our 4 administrators that I consider all principals. At the middle and high school, we have Mr. King and Mr. Kiparal, and then at the elementary school, we have Ms. Khan. And finally, I also like to include our special education director, Cindy Fry, in there because she also often steps in as a building administrator when individuals are absent. Finally, I would like to share that Mr. King was just named the Region 5 Principal of the Year. So we have had some wonderful celebration and accolades for a very hardworking staff at the school district.

They're all deserving of the awards and accomplishments they've earned. Do you have any questions for me? Any questions for me? Thank you, Robert Schwartz. Much appreciated.

I'm gonna move back then to the landslide risk mapping update for Mitkof and Kupreanof Islands. We have, I believe, on the line Dr. Nick Matthews of the Sitka Sound Science Center to present an update on collaborative landslide risk modeling and mapping efforts conducted in partnership with Alaska Sea Grant and the Petersburg area homeowners. Presentation will include the latest landslide risk maps for Mitkof Kupreanof Islands, an overview of the mapping process and methodology, and information on how the maps can be assessed and used. Dr. Matthews will also respond to questions from the assembly at the conclusion. And with that, I'm going to open up— Can I just give a quick introduction for Nick?

Sure, you can do it. Sunny Race with Alaska Sea Grant. I wanted to let you guys know that this is part of an ongoing project. That we've been working with in town, starting with some weather, weather collection devices along McCuff Highway that people can access at kfsk.org and see what the weather is like. That's sort of answering, trying to help answer this when question of when might landslides occur.

This mapping project that we've done with Nick is about the where. There are additional, there's much additional work to be done on that when question, and I wanted to let you know that just today I got a grant opportunity came through my email that's limited to only tribal, state, and municipality organizations to do landslide work. So I've let Aaron Hankins know about that, um, and if anyone is interested, you can talk to me about that more. But Nick's been great. I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to share with you all.

Okay, thank you, Sonny. Um, Mr. Matthews, you have the floor here if you would like to make a presentation. Sure. Great. Yeah.

Thank you, Sonny, and thanks to the Assembly for having me today. Um, I just want to make sure, can you all see, um, this presentation on the screen? Okay.

Is it showing up for you guys? We can. It shows very well. Okay, great. Um, well, I'll just introduce myself really quick.

I'm Nick Matthews. Um, I was born and raised in Anchorage. Um, and, uh, I've been studying landslides for, I don't know, 10 or more years now, formerly of the USGS Landslide Hazards Program, and now I work as the lead geoscientist for the Sitka Sound Science Center in Sitka. And so, yeah, I felt really fortunate to work with Sonny on this Alaska Sea Grant project doing work in Petersburg. It's been an awesome way to see Petersburg and, yeah, hopefully, yeah, produce something that's helpful for the whole community.

So with that, I'll just, yeah, as a quick overview of what I'll be talking about today, just a quick introduction to kind of landslides in Southeast Alaska, which you all probably know about, and then what we're trying to accomplish with this work, and then kind of go over some other landslide awareness tools and kind of what's coming next and then hopefully, yeah, leave some time for questions and that kind of thing for you all.

So, I'll just start by saying, as you all know, Southeast Alaska is a very landslide-y place. You've seen many that have happened in the last, like, 10 years from Sitka to Wrangell to Haines to Ketchikan, and the tragic results that can those landslides can produce. But there have been Forest Service folks mapping landslides back to about 1950, and there's a database of these landslides. And you can see on this map here, there's over 14,000 known landslides in Southeast Alaska. So they're all over the place.

We often see them as, as hazards because those are kind of the newsworthy events that that grab our attention, but they actually have a lot of positive impacts for the environment. They've shaped the landscape that we love.

They provide health benefits for the forest and sustain aquatic habitats for fish and other things like that. But when they interact with our communities and they impact our homes and our houses and our electricity, like you've seen in in Petersburg, they can become quite destructive. And that's kind of the main motivation of this work, which is to map where landslides may be likely in the future. And so before I get into what we're doing, I just wanted to show you kind of the— what currently exists in this space. So what we have currently, kind of the only landslide susceptibility map, which tells us where landslides are likely, is managed by the USGS.

It's a national-scale project or map, and this is what it looks like. And so one thing to point out, if you look at the map of Southeast Alaska and of this map of Petersburg, Alaska is really steep. And basically this map highlights all the steep slopes and says, well, I guess landslides are going to happen everywhere. And the reason this is the case is because this is just a really coarse map and it's based on how steep the hill slopes are and how much relief they have, but that misses a lot of important processes that are relevant to us, you know, on a community scale. And so what this project, what its purpose really was, is to say, okay, how do we take this and how do we scale it down to really capture where on those steep hill slopes we should work about so that we can start to say things like which houses are really at risk, which buildings, which sections of the road are at risk instead of just painting the whole place red.

And so that's kind of been the motivation of this work.

And so how we kind of think about this problem is we think about landslides in two phases. So we think about them in terms of where they start, so the landslide initiation, and that's kind of shown in red in these, in these images, and then where they go after they start. So as you've seen, you know, these things can start way up on the hill slopes and they can run a pretty long ways. And that's what we'd call the runout, and we show that here in yellow. And so how do landslides start?

Well, basically it's a combination of these four factors here. And so What we're concerned about is, you know, how steep is the slope we're looking at? That's important. How deep is the soil there? So you'll see a lot of these landslides that you've seen on Mitkof Island, they'll start in these kind of soils that are perched up on the steep slopes.

So we want to know how much of that stuff is there. We want to know how strong those soils are. So how well they resist coming down. And then we want to know about the water. As you know, you know, when it rains really hard, that's when we get concerned about landslides.

And that's because that rainfall saturates the soil. And so we want to try to get it all for these things. And when you bake these all into a model, you get something that looks like this. And so what you're looking at here is a hill slope. It's kind of hard to put yourself in space here, but trust me, this is a hill slope.

And instead of the whole thing being red, we can kind of dial in on these red areas here where we know things are the least stable. So we're not just saying, is this whole slope dangerous? We're saying, where on these slopes are dangerous? And that's an important distinction for, like, for community planning, for example. And so once we have an idea of those dangerous spots on the hill slope, we can then feed that into a secondary model that kind of takes these red spots spots.

This is where we expect landslides to start, and then we can model where they go, and that's the runout. And so that's kind of what— this is kind of what that ends up looking like conceptually.

And so let's look at kind of a first stab at this kind of mapping for Mitkof and Kupreanof Islands. So I've zoomed into some kind of, you know, important areas. So this is Crystal Lake, near the hatchery and an area that's been known to produce landslides above the power lines that feed Petersburg. And so this is just an example. You know, these black polygons here are landslides that we know have happened in the past.

And these modeling results, these yellow streaks are kind of where we expect things might happen in the future. And keep in mind that this is like, We're talking geologic time here. So we're saying in the next maybe 5,000 years, maybe all these could happen. Maybe some of them could happen.

And then, yeah, Mitkoff Highway and Tane Creek. Here's just another snapshot. This has been kind of a hotspot in Petersburg, as you all know. City Creek Reservoir. This is an area of known landslides.

And and Cabin Creek Reservoir. So, these are just some examples of areas we've mapped, but on the right, this whole area that's kind of shaded gray, that's the whole extent of the map, what this modeling would cover. And so, I just want to take you back to that national-scale USGS product and kind of compare what we're doing to that. So, the kind of red, you know, painted-on red and orange shading is the national-scale product, And these blue streaks are what we are working to produce. And so hopefully they can provide a little bit more nuance, a little bit more of a, I don't know, zoomed-in look at what we might expect.

And so, um, how do you use this information? Well, I, I tend to think of landslide situational awareness as kind of this multi-dimensional problem, and it kind of starts with these National Weather Service atmospheric warnings that you may have seen, where they send out a warning, they say, hey, an atmospheric river is coming. There's going to be wind, there's going to be rain. And sometimes they'll say landslides might be likely. And so in my mind, that's kind of where you start.

In some places like Sitka, they have these dashboards where basically they know how much rainfall has caused some landslides in the past and what hasn't caused landslides. And they can say, based on the rainfall we're having now, do we expect a landslide to happen somewhere? What's the risk of that? That kind of thing. So kind of a yes or no answer.

And then from there, if we're expecting that a landslide might happen, this is where we might turn to our maps and say, okay, where is most at risk? And that's the part that I'm working on.

And so Petersburg, you currently have National Weather Service, and you're about to have these maps, um, and the gap is kind of these rainfall thresholds, um, that kind of tell you, okay, if it's raining this much, we might expect a landslide. And so I just wanted to highlight that because, um, as part of this project that Sunny and I are working on, um, that is kind of a next step for next year to try and develop these thresholds thresholds as kind of that missing piece of the puzzle. And that will likely be done by a PhD student at the University of Oregon named Reece Plesher. He's been developing these thresholds for Prince of Wales Island and has developed a nice way of doing this.

And then ultimately, kind of the, you know, the, the gold nugget is to kind of have this online dashboard that the community can reference where it tells you, okay, it's raining really hard right now. Do we possibly expect a landslide? And then you can look at your maps. So one exists for Sitka right now. One is in the works for Prince of Wales, and this would be a great goal for Petersburg as well.

So with that, I'll just kind of highlight what's next for Petersburg. I've just submitted kind of a scientific paper to a journal where, you know, leading scientists in the field can give me and my co-authors' feedback on the methods that we've developed to make these maps. And I'll be using the methods that we developed to make a version 2 of the landslide maps I just showed you. So I'm currently working on that. That's in the works.

And then it'll be time to release these maps to the public. So I'll be working with Sunny Rice and Jeff Meucci to kind of think about how we want to, you know, release those Currently it might be like some PDF maps or something like that, with the ultimate goal to host them online so you can kind of scroll through them and, you know, click around, but that's kind of a future goal by the Sitka Sound Science Center. So I'm not sure when that might happen, but that's, that's kind of the ultimate goal, and we have some mechanisms in the works to do it, but we still need funding.

So, get feedback on the current methods and then develop these rainfall thresholds I spoke about. And so, I want to keep this brief and just kind of open the floor for questions. As you can imagine, landslides are infinitely complex, and I've just skimmed the surface here, but I'm happy to answer anything you might have. Thanks for your time.

Thank you. Does the Assembly have any questions? Member Stan Gregor. No questions, but I really appreciated the presentation, and as a person who has an undergrad in geology, I look forward to seeing your finished product. Really look forward to it, man.

Well, thanks so much. I appreciate that. Member Meucci. Yeah, thank you. Thanks, Nick.

Good to see you. Hey, can you talk a little bit about the SEPA, um, power grid lines? Have you noticed any kind of places that might be susceptible? To the SEPA power lines? Thank you.

Yeah, thanks, Jeff. I can't speak to that yet. That's kind of been kind of the first phase of this is it's been kind of getting the version 2 of these maps for Mitkoff and Kupreanof, where we know we have a really good LiDAR dataset and this high-resolution topography. But it's on the docket to hopefully look at the SEPA lines as well. So I'm hoping to get to that soon.

Thank you. Yeah, other questions?

Thank you for your presentation, uh, it was well done. And Sonny, do you have anything to add to conclude with?

As, as we're finishing up these maps, we'd love to hear from the borough, the staff, about what form they'd like these maps made available to the public in. So Maybe I'll come back and talk once we get a little bit further along, but that's an important part of this. We don't want the maps going somewhere we don't want them. We want to make sure they're accessible, but we understand that there are issues that some might have with this. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay, with that, unless there's anything else or any questions from the assembly, I'm going to move on. And I see we have a Kerry Case in the audience. Kerry's not on the agenda, but do you have anything you want to add about the Forest Service? Sure, I have just a few things, and I'm glad—.

I was wanting to hear this landslide presentation, so that worked out great. Um, cabin out at Woodpecker Cove is coming along. The walls are up, and the contractor is making great progress, so we're hoping to have that available to the public soon-ish, depending on weather and what the winter turns out like. We did get the okay from above, the folks within the agency that determine our hiring And we are going to be looking at hiring some seasonal employees this year. So probably not that many because we do have a pretty significant staff reduction that's still in place, but we will be able to get some seasonal help.

So I wanted to put that out there. We're going to start outreaching to the community if there are locals, kids or adults that are interested in seasonal employment with the Forest Service. We will have a few spots available this year.

So more coming on that soon, and I'm anticipating the job openings being in January and February of this year under a couple of different hiring authorities. Petersburg is getting the Together Tree, which is the tree for Alaska that goes to the Governor's Mansion every year. The Tongass provides one. That tree will be coming from Petersburg this year, so we're looking— we're out looking for candidates. Um, and I want to give a thank you to the school district and to Lisa Adams specifically, who's going to help us make ornaments to send up to the Governor's Mansion with that tree.

And the Denali Commission has some representatives that will be in town tomorrow, I think, possibly to meet with Liz. I'll be coordinating with them as well, and hopefully maybe sitting down with Liz if, um, that's possible to sit in on that meeting. Okay, so That's it for me unless you have questions. Thank you. Any questions from the assembly?

No? Thank you, Carrie. Appreciate it. I'm going to move on then to the mayor's report here, and there's just several items on there. Veterans Day.

Veterans Day will be observed next Wednesday, November 11th. We honor all those who have served in our nation's armed forces and recognize your courage, sacrifice, and dedication protecting our freedoms. We are grateful for the veterans in our Petersburg community and across the country and extend our sincere thanks to them. Their families for their service. Much appreciated, everybody.

Seeking letters of interest, I have two items there. One of them is that we're accepting letters of interest from citizens who wish to serve as board members in Southeast Alaska Power Authority for calendar year 2027. The borough assembly will appoint one voting member and one alternate to the SEAPA board. And with that, each community has Except for Ketchikan. Ketchikan has 2 voting members, 2 alternates.

Petersburg has 1, so does Wrangell, 1 voting member and 1 alternate. And there's 1 that transitions between communities next year. Ketchikan will have the 3. And I'm going to move on then to seeking letters of interest for the citizens who wish to serve the community by filling 1 vacant seat in the Harbor Board and 2 seats on the Planning Commission until the October 2027 municipal elections. If anybody's interested, letters of interest should be submitted to the clerk at Petersburg offices located at 12 South Nordic Drive by sending to P.O.

Box 329, Petersburg, Alaska 99833, or by emailing to [email protected]. And with that, I'm going to move to the manager's report. Thank you, sir. Big thank you to the Public Works and Baylor crew for assisting the harbor in demolishing 2 impounded vessels. Boat owners are reminded to notify the harbor office when you're out of town and supply the names of your boat watchers.

Staff and I met with the Corps of Engineers and Seb, our federal lobbyist, on Wednesday of last week to discuss feasibility study for the Skow Bay Harbor project. Skow Bay Boatyard Project successfully bid on Tuesday, 10/27, you've heard about that, just a little bit under the engineer's estimate, so thanks very much to Rock and Road and their subcontractors that'll be doing this project. Power and Light has been working on a mass notification system for a couple of few months now and will begin a soft rollout over the next 2 weeks. Once testing is complete, we will share enrollment information with the community. Power and Light will soon begin extending power to the mill and Falls Creek.

Once the primary lines are in place, we will continue working to get the primary metering and transformer installed. Iron Light would like to remind customers with heat pump permits issued before the end of October they have until January 31st to complete installation, pass inspection, and submit their rebate applications to receive their rebates. Iron Light has received its new high-capacity data logger and will work with the water plant to conduct a month-long study of electrical loads and system harmonics. The information will help the plant's engineering firm plan repairs and upgrades.

We've been informed that the Department of Energy has released the next rounds of funding through the Tribal Grid Resiliency Grant. PIA has included Power and Light as a subawardee to support improvements to our system reliability. We will work with PIA to present the next project soon. Thank you to PIA for its continued support and partnership.

Partnership. Skow Bay generator project is moving forward. Concrete has been poured and we expect the walls to go up soon. Completion is expected in mid-2027. Parks and Rec is wrapping up another great youth basketball season with 127 players.

Thank you to all the volunteers who coach, ref, and scorekeep. We'll be heading to Wrangle for our tournament on November 6th. Construction crews are continuing to make progress to get the Aquatic Center project finished up and locker rooms reopened. Assisted Living has job openings for resident assistants, both full-time and on-call, as well as an employee supervisor position. Crews have been working to reinforce the containment barriers at the borough's mud dump while redirecting the primary drainage flow to improve water management and prevent potential overflow.

We're in the process of installing the winter tires on borough vehicles in preparation for the upcoming winter season while continuing to address routine maintenance repairs and other departmental equipment needs.

Building maintenance staff are working to complete the remaining upgrades at the municipal building and library. Um, all necessary parts have been received for the second heating and cooling system with installation expected soon. We get this building a little warmer for everyone. Crews are troubleshooting intermittent video and connection issues with the mainline sewer inspection camera. Staff are also coordinating with RMC to attain a quote for upgrades to the aging SCADA system.

Work continues with HDR on both the wastewater disinfectant study and the industrial pretreatment program. The disinfective alternatives analysis report is expected to be submitted to the EPA. And ADEC by the end of the reporting week. An industrial user survey is being developed and is anticipated to be distributed to non-residential customers within the next 1 to 2 months.

Staff have been begun the annual discharge monitoring report quality assurance study. That's a mouthful. A mandatory program that demonstrates laboratory testing accuracy and compliance with EPA and ADEC requirements. Water staff completed quarterly inspections and routine maintenance at both dams, and crews also ran a foam cleaning swab through the Cabin Creek raw water transmission line to clean the line. And in November, the library will offer programs for all ages, including early childhood stories and play, LEGO Club, children's art activities, and Baby Raven Reads Storytime.

Family events celebrating Lingit, Haida and Tsimshian cultures. Why? Additional programs include yoga, a 4-session creative writing workshop, and an enamel earring workshop. More information is available at psglib.org. That's it.

Let's ask questions. Member Meucci. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thanks for the report, Steve. Hey, can I get just like a tentative schedule of work for the Skow Bay Boatyard project?

Just for the folks at home.

Sure, we can give that to you. So it closed and where you awarded it, and we, uh, it'll be open to the contractor to start work just right after the 1st of December. So December 7th, that Monday, gives us about 9 days to, um, when the leases are complete and everybody should be out out of there just to make sure that everything's clear. If we need to go in and clear anything out, we'll do it. And then they turn it loose.

Their real crunch is in-water work that has to be done prior to permitting for Fish and Game, those kind of things. So there's definitely a schedule that they have to maintain in order to stay ahead of the project. Great, thank you. The other question I had was about the PMPL mass notification system. What does that cover?

Peter the Mayor, thank you. Whatever the community wants once we get going. Um, the initial rollout, um, I sent emails out to many of the organizations in town, uh, government and private, uh, and the department heads and assembly members for kind of a soft rollout so we can test it. But— and then we'll show it to the whole community. But basically, when we have an outage, we can really quick with it send out a notification to everybody that opts in and say, "Hey, the power's out.

We're responding." And then 15, 20 minutes later, we should be able to update and say, "Oh, we're going to start restoring, and everybody should be in power within the hour," or, "Hey, we had a pole break." uh, Nine Mile. Everybody prior to that should be restored pretty quickly, um, and also use it for PSAs. We're working on a road and there might be a lane closure or whatnot. So just to follow up, is it just for power and light, or is it a borough? It's just power and light.

There is opportunity once we see how this goes if other departments or the borough in whole Um, want to be part of it. Okay, other questions? Member Marsh. Thank you. Um, thank you for the report, Manager Giesbrecht.

Um, I do have some questions. One is power and lights, new high-capacity data logger, and how that correlates with the water plant. Wonder if you could—. So, through the mayor, So, there's a slight correction there, so I'm glad to be able to speak about that. It's the wastewater plant.

Wastewater. Okay. So, we had some smaller data loggers that would only do single phase and a couple hours at a time. This one will be able to go 45 days and large 3-phase systems. And part of the study looks at peaks and valleys.

It looks at the harmonics, which is basically saying it looks at the disruption and frequency when, when large loads get started or a VFD is controlling the speeds. It's something that's required for the engineering to be done, and the most cost-effective way for this was for Power and Light to get this because we need it and, and do that study, then have their engineering firm send somebody and set it up and leave and come back and set it up. And then ongoing, um, we've had issues at customers' houses where they've had blinking lights, and we've been— we've had to use those short-term ones, and that resulted in taking a week or more to get a good picture of what was happening and, and working with either the local electrician if it's something inside the house to help pinpoint them in the direction. Or, uh, we've swapped out transformers because there's an issue there. It helps us find, um, loose connections.

Does—. It does a lot. So other questions? Yes. Okay, okay.

Member Marsh, can I just keep going? Sure. Okay, so, um, the oil-fired heaters at the Baylor facility— I remember some time ago I was able to go up with the former director Chris Cotta, uh, and he explained those. Is this kind of the same thing? We're getting those up and running with that used oil?

It's exactly the same. Okay, these are the same.

We have, uh, two large four-star heaters that run on used oil. The Baylor facility, one is, uh, 350,000 BTUs, the other one was 500,000 BTUs.

We burn approximately—.

Okay, thank you. We burn approximately 10,000 gallons of used oil every winter. We have a pretty complicated system where we pump the oil around into a cone tank where it's heated with an immersion heater, then run through some centrifuges to pull out the water and some impurities. Through some various filters and pumps into the heaters themselves.

We actually bypass any sort of thermostat, so the heaters just run all winter long. At the end of the burning season, we send the heaters out down to Seattle where they're just overhauled each year. They'll go through the entire burner unit. And replace any worn-out parts and clean any carbon from those. And so we were just reporting that that had been done, reinstalled into the heaters and tested.

So we're ready for cold weather.

Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Any other questions in the assembly? Okay. With no other questions, I'm going to move on to unfinished business.

Under Ron Finney's business, there's two items today, and I'll take the first one, the— which is Ordinance 2026-22, the ordinance of Petersburg adjusting the fiscal year 2027 budget for known changes. And this is the third reading. This ordinance suggests the fiscal year 2027 budget for known changes identified after adoption, including additional funding for union wage increases, staffing adjustments in the water and wastewater departments and the public works building maintenance position. The ordinance was unanimously approved on the first reading and passed on second reading with a 5-1 vote. Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-22?

So moved. Second. Moved by Member Gregor, seconded by Member March. Discussion from the assembly. Member Gregor.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll be voting for this today. I know we've gotten some feedback by letter from different members of the community, different members of the union. You know, right now they're going to be going out to vote on this. Uh, currently, this is the idea of allocating the money.

I think this is prudent for us to vote yes in the 3rd reading, so we have staff So staff has the discretion to implement this if and when they see fit, and by amending the budget, it gives them that latitude. So I'll be voting yes. Other comments from member— no, member Marsh? Yes, thank you. So I have done some research and I'm trying to figure out numbers.

People have asked me in the community, so what's this going to cost? And my response has been, I don't know. So, gratefully, staff with Jody and Tiffany have been able to help pin that down. And what I'm looking— what has been presented, it looks like the difference is about $200,000 between a borough proposal and a union proposal. So I'm trying to— I think, and, and if we divide that out into 3 years, that's $65,000 a year approximately.

Um, but if by passing this now, it allows an increase, even if it's not the final, uh, numbers, it allows that increase to be allocated now to the employees. So, so it kind of gives them a boost at the present rather than prolonging it and not. Is that my understanding? Is that correct? Uh, to the manager, or to Becky, you have a—.

Yes, I can speak to that. Thank you, Member Marsh. Um, if the assembly would like to implement the wages that the borough has proposed, uh, the increased wages as outlined in the proposal, then you can pass that budget amendment today, and that would allow us to implement those wages. But it does not prevent the union from voting on their contract, or possibly that would even go back to negotiations at some point if they would like to. We're always happy to do that as well.

I do appreciate all the, the tentative agreement that was given in the packet and all the information that it provided. It's a lot to process and to digest, and so to have people to help me go through it, it made more sense. So I will be voting in favor. Member Valentine, I was just clarifying question. If did the union end up voting on this yet?

They have not yet. I believe they have it scheduled for sometime within the next week or 2. Within the next week or 2. Okay. Member Meucci.

Yeah, no, I just wanted to make sure I understood it. So if we pass this in this 3rd reading, then the retro— this will go back into the retro pay for borough employees starting in July of 2026? That is correct. Okay, great. And then if there is some discrepancy at a later date, we can still go back and make things whole, but this just gets them back to where we are today?

That's right. That allows the wages to be implemented when the borough would like to. And again, we can always go back to the table as well. Great, thank you. Other question to Member Martin?

Could I get clarification there? What was it, your answer, Clerk Regula, to Member Meucci? This will be spent—. This would allow the borough to implement the increased wages immediately, including retro wages. Back to July of this year.

And, and again, we can implement those. The employees get increased pay now, but it does not prevent the union from voting on their contract and from asking to go back to the negotiating table. But we feel like we've heard from employees that it's difficult right now with inflation, and we'd like to help those people out as well. So this, this will get spent if we pass the 3rd reading? This will go to the employees?

Yes, that was the plan unless we hear something, because the union will be voting within the next 2 weeks. Um, uh, it's hard to predict what might happen, but that is— this will allow the borough to spend those extra monies. I mean, through the mayor, just to jump in. So it doesn't require the borough to spend the money next week or anything like that, but it does give us the authority to do so if in fact everything goes in the direction we think it is. So, I mean, you're asking a question, just are we automatically going to spend this money?

The answer is not automatically. I mean, we're continuing to talk to union folks, our attorney. This allows us to do that. And we hope to be able to do that, and we hope to be able to, you know, get the retro payout so our employees can get the money that they deserve.

Member Stephan Gregor. I pass. The manager did a good job explaining that. Yeah. Member Meucci.

So, I guess a follow-up question to the manager. Why wouldn't we, if we're passing this in the 3rd reading, why wouldn't we get this to the employees? Through the mayor. It's if something changes in the negotiations between us and the union. I don't expect anything, but I just want to be clear with the assembly.

And if that was to occur, we'd let the assembly know that something's changed and we're going to hold off for a week or 2 weeks or—. Yeah. Thank you. Now, Clerk Wray Gillen. There is a process set out in the Alaska Labor Relations Act and the Alaska state statutes that will outline next steps for us.

So we'll keep the assembly updated as we go through the process as well. Thank you. Any, any other question from the assembly? Would the clerk please call the roll on Ordinance 2026-22?

Member Marsh? Yes. Member Meucci? Yes. Mayor Lynn?

Yes. Member Stanton Gregor? Yes. Member Martin? Yes.

Member Valentine? Yes.

And Ordinance 2026-22 passes unanimously. Moving on, Ordinance 2026-23, an ordinance amending Section 3.76.020 of the Petersburg Borough Municipal Code to add Land Manager's Administrative Officer. This is the 3rd reading. This ordinance amends PMC 3.76.020, the Land Manager Administrative Officer. The land management position was approved by the borough as part of the fiscal year 2027 budget, and the borough has since hired an individual to fill the position.

The land manager provides dedicated oversight and coordination of borough-owned lands, including land sales, leases, permits, acquisitions, dispositions, and other land management activities. This ordinance is an administrative update to the borough code to formally recognize the land manager's administrative officer consistent with the position already approved and established by the assembly. It does not create a new position or authorize additional funding. Ordinance 2026, as I said, was approved on the first and second reading. Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-23?

I moved. Is there a second? Second. Been moved by, um, Member Valentine, seconded by Member Stan Gregor. Any discussion from members?

Okay, would the clerk please call the roll on 2026-23? Mayor Lynn? Yes. Member Meucci? Yes.

Member Marsh? Yes. Member Stan Gregor? Yes. Member Martin?

Member Valentine? Yes. Ordinance 2026-23 passes unanimously. And before I move into new, new business, I'm going to take a— we're going to take a 5-minute break here, and then we'll move into new business from there.

Thank you. I'd like to bring the Petersburg Assembly meeting back to order again. And with that, we're going to move on to new business. There's quite a number of items under new business. I'm going to start first with Ordinance 2026-24, an ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on issuance of Petersburg permits for certain data center development.

And this is the first reading. The ordinance is approved in 3 readings, a temporary moratorium through September 30th, 2027, will restrict issuance of borough permits for new data centers and expansions that exceed available PMPL grid capacity, rely on generators for normal operating power other than in case of PMPL outages or curtailments, or use cooling systems that are not fully self-contained and closed-loop. Do I have a motion to approve 2026-24 on its first reading. So moved. Second.

Okay, it's been moved by Member Stephan Gregor and seconded by Member Meucci. Member Stephan Gregor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I was working with this with staff and Stephan Harbour, and this ordinance is a result of that. Big thank you to Stephan for doing the heavy lifting.

Couple thoughts. I know I spoke to this during the last meeting. I'll be very clear in my language. It is—. I don't believe it is a perfect ordinance, but I think it addresses the bigger concerns the community has.

For those who weren't listening a couple of weeks back, what this would do would be present— prevent a large multi-acre data center that is off the grid, because obviously a large multi-acre data center would never be supported supported by the grid. Many states down south are having those in their communities and don't want them. They're purely diesel generated or other sources. I don't think that reflects the, uh, the views of the community or reflects the way we want our community to be.

Um, since this is a 6-week process and it's only the first reading, um, I won't be making any amendments today. I don't think there's any I want, but, uh, Hope the Assembly can pass it in its first reading so that we can get this to a public hearing, get more feedback from the public. But again, although not perfect, I think it's something we can all support of what we know we don't want as a community. Anyway, I hope this passes in its first reading. I hope it passes as is so we can get— so the community can really weigh in and then give us their two cents on this thing.

And it still leaves us over a month worth of time in case any changes need to be made. So, obviously, be voting yes. Thank you. Any other members? Um, I think we've heard a lot of input from community members over the months, as well as conversations that have transpired at Planning Commission meetings and people testifying.

So, This seems pretty comprehensive. Um, but I would also agree with Member Stanton Gregor that it is not perfect, but it lays some groundwork. I think perhaps fine-tuning, um, is a good idea, but I think to get the ball rolling into a more perfect ordinance I think this is heading in the right direction. Thank you, Member Meucci. Yeah, thanks, Mr. Mayor.

Um, you know, I think, I think we all understand it's not a perfect ordinance, and I, I'm going to make an amendment to this and we can talk about it. Hopefully it gets a second, but, um, I happen to listen into a, uh, a SEPA board meeting over the weekend. On Friday, and it brought up some concerns that I have. But is it a proper time to make an amendment right now, or do you want to have more discussion? You may make an amendment if you would like at this point, or would you rather wait and do it more comprehensively on the next reading after public testimony?

I'd like to— thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to get it out there for discussion right now and have that conversation now. Go for that. So I move to amend the ordinance to make its provisions applicable to all data center developments, regardless of whether they utilize closed-loop cooling systems or operate on or off the PMPL electrical grid, and to direct staff to make all necessary changes to the ordinance for inclusion in the meeting packet and the public hearing process at the next scheduled meeting. So moved.

Second. Okay, been moved by Member Meucci, seconded by, I think, by Member Marsh. Uh, Member Valentine. Thank you. Um, you know, with, uh, how controversial this, this becomes, um, I think that, you know, a moratorium on all data centers is not a bad idea.

You know, there were— as I continue to talk to the community members and continue to expand on different parts of how this might affect the community. 9 Months gives me a better— especially come with the winter coming, and then we actually have like a year, like a data point that I can look at, you know, with how much we're using when it's really, really cold. SEPA doing their things, maybe we can get more information from them. Are they getting asked from Ketchikan side, from Wrangle side? What are the other—.

I think that having a full stop for Petersburg is not so hard to say no to. Now, that being said, after however the moratorium is going to last, whether it be 9 months, a year, whatever it is, It is— it needs to be clear that this is not a stop forever. This is a pause to get information, and then based off that information, if it all passes, it could possibly pass here. If it doesn't pass those things that we are concerned about, then it would be no. So it's a yes or no thing, but it's not a full stop.

This is just a pause so that we can get the right information out and make a better educated vote. Thank you. Member Stephan Heideman Gregor. Yeah, just briefly, I'll be voting no on the amendment. This is something we've talked about.

Remember, Jeff Meucci has brought up several times, um, this amendment. To be clear, if passes, I won't vote for the thing as a whole because pretty much very contradictory to the intent of my ordinance. I said this the last meeting and I still think it has some merit. Instead of amending this, which you're very entitled to do, I think it's better to bring up an ordinance consistent with your views, meaning— and it's failed twice already. So like I said, this I put forward is not perfect, but I think it is comprehensive and gives us room to work room to work, as opposed to a flat-out blanket moratorium, which I will not support and I don't think is, uh, good business.

Thanks. I'd like to weigh in a little bit here, is that our Utility Director, Harper, and I spent considerable time last week with the other two communities talking about the issue of power, and there is pretty much agreement between all three communities to have some kind of moratorium on the use of power in some way.

We had a lot of questions about that, and we've agreed to go back into session on the 14th, I believe, of November to discuss then in more detail. There is concern by all three communities for a couple reasons. One is between— we do have new power coming online, but we also have a 5% increase in power between each of the communities over the, you know, each year now. And so that's a significant add-on. But then on the Ketchikan side, they're looking at dock electrification for the cruise ships.

That's also expanded out to Ward Cove, which is another possibility. And their JAG facility in Ketchikan is running full tilt. And Wrangell would like to build a JAG facility. They've got $50 million to do the planning and so forth and are looking for additional, and they would like to preserve the power for their facility. We have, you know, a couple projects coming online here with Skalban, a couple others, not to the magnitude they have.

But there is concern from the three communities to do whatever you need. There is some feeling that there needs to be an allocation of power between the communities. I'm not sure I'm there, but that's one of the thoughts. And with that, I'm going to— before I come back to the assembly members, would our utility director, Steve, do you have anything to add or change to what I said? No, I think you're right on how all three communities are feeling.

We do have growth coming on and we don't want to end up where we were in the next— out of power in the next 10, 15 years. I do know that we are talking about expanding generation capacity and what that might look like at its very initial thoughts.

Um, but yeah, no, I think, I think that's right on. I drafted this amendment from the instruction of the borough manager who received his instructions from the assembly, and I think it follows what that ask was.

Um, yeah, thank you. One last thought. I'm going to also vote no because I would like to understand what this amendment is in much more detail, and also understand some of the concerns that were being expressed by, uh, the other, the other mayors and member communities before I, I'm willing to go. Um, I'm not saying we shouldn't, but I just, I'm not there yet. I just, I need to study this some more.

Thank you. Any other member would like to talk before I call the roll? Member Meucci. So the amendment that you're speaking of is the one I'm bringing forward, or amendment I'm speaking to you? Yeah, I would vote no on your amendment now, only because— not because I just— I mean, I may be totally in your camp.

I just— I don't have enough information for me to say yes or no at this point. Okay, well, you know, all it— you know, it's pretty simple in that paragraph, you know. When this goes to a second reading, it's going to be in the second reading that comes out of this body here, whether it's amended or not.

You know, the public hearing process should be on kind of a finalized document that we're working on, and my intent to have this as an amendment would make it to the second reading so that we would talk about data centers in general. You know, when I listened into that SEPA board meeting last week, I was very concerned by the presentation that was there because it's nothing like a 2-megawatt presentation or megawatt data center that they're talking here at Ocean Beauty. They're talking about either a 5, a 10, 12, or 15-megawatt data center somewhere within the grid here, whether it's Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan. And I, I think The community needs to know about that, that this presentation is being given to the SEPA board for them to make a decision on. You know, and I finally did some research into who was involved with this data center, and if you look at the Missoula, Montana data center newspaper article that talks about how a community got behind a small data center originally, and then the small data center turned into a bigger data center, then it turned into a bigger data center, and the people that were originally in support of it didn't want it because it was bigger than they wanted.

And I think we just need to, you know, if we didn't learn anything with the cell tower debate that we had here, I want to look at this stuff with clear eyes. I want to make sure that, oh yeah, I'm happy with this 2-megawatt data center here because it might help with electrical generation, but I'm certain we haven't heard from the community about what we want for a data center. We've heard some ancillary discussions about people who don't want data centers, But we haven't had a community discussion about data centers. I mean, Mrs. Mark— or the lady who put the sales tax ordinance together for the— I mean, maybe we're going to see something from a community that wants to have no data centers on Mitkoff Island or Mitkoff Borough. I mean, these are all things that need to get discussed on the front end of this and not on the back end of it.

Because once the door is open for this data center thing, It's just like dealing with the Federal Telecommunications Act. There's nothing we can do. And I'm not going to— I am not going to sell my soul for $1 million or $2 million coming out of electrical rates. I'm not. And that's the reason I'm moving forward with this amendment.

I hope it passes, and I can't understand why it wouldn't pass. Thank you. Any other thought? Uh, Member Valentine, um, to clarify, I am in agreement that, you know, the— of all the— just encompass it all. And I agree that if it was a 2-megawatt and it stopped there, what we've discussed before in many, many long meetings here, that made sense.

But this at least gives us— because if it came back and said, oh, hey, it's actually 4, that actually technically can fit in our grid. But doesn't necessarily mean that we need it. So, I— this is why I'd like to encompass it all. Thank you. Clarify my understanding from that presentation from Mr. Mozilla was to buy all excess power, which would allow him to go.

It wasn't the issue of going— of that we're dealing with here on the 2-megawatt one. Is that your understanding too, Mr. Harper? That was my understanding, um, exactly. And I feel like the SEPA board was not for that one, but I can't talk about what went on in executive session. But regardless of that, if I may just give you my opinion real quick, that no matter what happens today, whether, whether you amend this to all and it passes, or you leave it as is.

This ordinance needs to pass because either all-inclusive or, or as it is, banning generators, because it's not out of the realm of possibilities. I've read so many newspaper articles in the last, uh, couple weeks about communities that have generators running 24/7 to bridge what the power company has available, or they're in the middle of nowhere with power. And I don't want to be tarred and feathered and ran out of town because I supported a 2-megawatt data center and that's what they got, and somebody decides down the road to run generators 24/7. It's a very real possibility, so just keep that in mind. Thank you.

Thank you. Would the clerk please call the roll on the, the amendment?

Member Stanton Gregor? No. Member Martin? No. Member Valentine?

Yes.

Member Marsh? Yes. Member Meucci? Yes. Mayor Lynn?

No. And the, the amendment fails with a 3-3 vote. Now we'll go back to the main motion as presented. The clerk, please call the roll. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, I had a question I was saving for the main motion.

Where are we? It just seems like this— unless we address borough-wide, we're not being very effective with our moratorium. And where are we in terms of extending that out and creating a holding area or whatever else we were talking about?

I think Member Stan Graver can address that. I will, and Stephan Harbour, cut me off as always if I'm speaking out of line. Um, as is currently written, it will incorporate everything, including outside of Service Area 1. And as Member Meucci brought forth an ordinance to amend Title 19 several meetings back, that would run concurrent to have zoning catch up to this. So they'd, in theory, run concurrently.

So my intention is to cover this entirely borough-wide, including outside of Service Area 1, whether it be in downtown Petersburg or in Thomas Bay. Am I on good footing there, Stephan Harbour? Um, sorry to put you on the spot, and Liz can correct me, correcting you, but thank you. It doesn't specifically call out Service Area 1, but it does say where the borough has permitting authority, and right now the borough does not have permitting authority outside of Service Area 1. Touché, but as Title 19 catches up, that would encompass that as well.

To Bob Martin's question, it's the same intent behind the cell tower ordinance that eventually it would encompass everything. Am I correct? Right, but not now. As we're not there. Okay, not there, not close to there.

Follow-up: so this moratorium would in effect change automatically as borough code title Chapter 19 changes because it doesn't specifically reference—. Correct—. A certain boundary. Okay, interesting. That was the intent, at least on my part.

Okay, so someone better get working on that other part then.

Any other questions? You know, we're called—. Not questions, but, you know, I just want to reiterate that we're leaving the door open here for data centers in the future. Um, the data centers in the future are the things that have me concerned here. Um, there's interest to put a bigger data center in on the grid to take up any excess power, and I think that we're not We're not, we're not admitting that.

We're just saying, oh yeah, this is a good thing and we need to do this for 9 months. I think we're, we're, we're not. Once this is out the door, there's nothing we could do. And I think there were— we're struggling with some of the things that are happening now with the current data center that's going on. There's a lot of misperceptions about what's going on out there, and I don't think we have a good read of what the actual story is down there.

So I'm going to be voting against this because I don't think it's. I don't think it's broad enough. Thank you. Thank you. Member Valentine.

Thank you. Um, just for my clarification, um, SEPA is going to be talking again here very shortly, and we buy our electricity from SEPA. So if SEPA were to have their own moratorium or anything like that, that we would also fall under that. Am I correct on this? That's correct.

So if the— if SEPA decided to be like, yo, we gotta stop, just full stop, that also is another hurdle, I guess you could say, right? That's correct. There are some other questions I think that our utility director would address too, has to do with harmonic systems and a lot of other questions here that we're also wrestling as part of this. And let me finish. And so the legal questions that came up and why this had to be, you know, just essentially tabled till we can get together again is to go through and wrestle a lot of these questions.

There is strong— I would say it was strong support from the three communities to have some type of a moratorium on the use of that power from where we're at. The only last thing I was going to say was Um, I like that SEPA is getting ahead of it too, because it's not just Petersburg talking about it, but it'd be all 3 communities talking together. So I like that. Thank you. And I'm ready to move forward.

Thank you. Would the clerk please call the roll on the ordinance, please? Mayor Lynn? Yes. Member Meucci?

No. Member Marsh? Member Valentine? Yes. Member Martin?

Yes. Member Stanton Gregor?

Yes. Ordinance 2026-24 passes with a 5 to 1, with Member Meucci, uh, voting no. I'm going to move on to the election of Vice Mayor. Chapter Section 2.05B provides that no later than the first regular meeting The assembly in November each year, the assembly shall elect from its membership a vice mayor. I would, I would like to entertain a motion to select, uh, member Stan Gregor as vice mayor for Calphurnia in 2027.

So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?

Would the clerk please call the roll on Making, uh, Member Stan Gregor Vice Mayor for the next— for 2027. Member Marsh? Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes.

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

Yes. Uh, Member Meucci? No.

And, um, making, um, Member Stan Gregor, um, the, um Vice Mayor for 2027 passes with a 5 votes with me and with Member Meucci voting no. Appointment of the Assembly Parliamentarian. In accordance with Petersburg Borough Code 3.08-1.130, the Borough Assembly may appoint one of its members to serve as Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian will be responsible for ruling on issues of parliamentary practice during assembly proceedings. And with that, do I have a motion to appoint an Assembly parliamentarian?

Incidentally, I had to go back and take a look myself into our charter. The charter actually says that to appoint a parliamentarian, the parliamentarian must be from the members of the Assembly, which surprised me. And with that, do I have a motion to appoint an Assembly parliamentarian? So move. Second.

Or do we have to appoint it? You need to appoint somebody. Oh, I move to appoint Member Gregor as Assembly Parliamentarian. I move or second that? No, I second that.

I second that. Sorry. Okay. Any discussion? Briefly, if I might.

Yes. Just a reminder for those here and those listening at home, the role of the Parliamentarian, which Clerk Regula shared with me, is a purely advisory role. Um, it was kind of— and any member of the assembly can always call a point of order, any of the other parliamentarian things. We're expected to be a little tighter on it. And when the dust all settles, uh, the mayor, the chair of the meeting, always makes rulings.

Just a purely advisory role, just as a data point for those. So thanks. Okay, would the clerk please call the roll on appointing member Stan Gregor as a parliamentarian? Member Martin? Yes.

Member Valentine? Yes. Member Marsh? Member Meucci? Yep.

Mayor Lynn? Yes. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Okay, and that passes 6 to 0, making, uh, uh, Member Stanton Gregor the Assembly Parliamentarian.

I'm going to move on then, the Assembly member appointments to boards. I would like to appoint Member Meucci as the voting member to— as our Southeast Conference representative. I would like to appoint Member Meucci as the voting member to— as our Southeast Conference rep, and Member Valentine as the alternate. Okay, moving on to Alaska Municipal League. I'd like to have— continue myself as mayor, as a representative to Alaska Municipal League, with Manager Giesbrecht as my alternate.

Okay, liaison to the Harbor Board. I'd like to have Member March as our representative to the Harbor Board.

Liaison to the Hospital Board. I'd like to continue with Member Martin as our representative to the Hospital Board. Board if he would do that. And I'm going to move on to the Local Emergency Planning Committee, and member Meucci has, has showed interest in continuing in that role. If he would do that, I would appreciate it.

Then liaison with the Public Service Advisory Board— member Newman was our representative, and I will continue with member Newman in there. And then we have PEDC And on there we have Member Valentine, I believe already is a member of the board. And if it would be okay, I'd like to have the manager as our other representative to that board. Okay, with that, and I think for right now that takes care of all the appointments to the boards at this point. Um, and I'm going to move on then to the next item on here, which is The fire department training prop relocation site preparation and project financing.

And the—. It talks about discussing the proposed relocation of the fire department training props to a temporary storage area, including the steps and preparation required for the site adjustment to Fire Station 1. Review how the relocation and site preparation fit into the overall project timeline, scope, and financial plan. And identify any necessary decisions or actions. A list from Manager Giesbrecht for options to fund the fire department training facility is attached. And with that, this was shown as a discussion item, and I could make this— we need to turn this into an action item if you so choose.

I would need— you can go back to Manager Giesbrecht's letter. Is there a proposal of how to fund and how to proceed on this. I have a motion just to get it on the table and we can go from there. You would please? You bet.

I would move to move to the qualified voters a bond of $1.3 million to fund the project adjacent to the fire hall while also keeping the project on CAPSES. Just to the data point. That way, if it is funded through CAPSES, we wouldn't need to put it to bond, uh, pending the vetting of the $1.3 million funding amount that has been provided to us. I'd want to make sure that's an accurate amount. So to make it more concise, bond— put a bond of $1.3 million to the qualified voters of Petersburg for a site adjacent to the fire hall while also keeping it on CAPSES, pending a vetting of the $1.3 million price tag.

Sorry, Becky, I know that was a mouthful. Did you get it? Yes. Okay. Okay.

Is there a second?

Okay, let's ask a second.

Didn't I hear Member Valentine? Was that a second? Yeah. Okay, thank you. Okay, I'm going to open it for discussion here.

Okay, Member March. I, um, don't like that myself, um, and the reason is, uh, this would be put forward in October. You've got a long time till October. Um, if we were to get the funds from a combination of multiple options, number 4, as I'm wondering if we could extract the $1.3 million, if we divide it by 4, that's $325,000 coming from the harbor, the PEDC, the general fund, and I'm actually not sure with my fourth entity, uh, where that would come from. But that— I, I think time is of the essence.

We've had testimony that moving the training equipment to a temporary spot and then moving it somewhere else temporarily before it goes back to its permanent spot is not efficient, and I'm wholeheartedly agreeing on that one.

And regardless, it's either ratepayer or taxpayer funded, whether it's bonding or ARPA or PEDC or wherever it comes from. So that would— I think we need to get the training prop, uh, all the other props up and going as soon as we can because it is a life and safety issue. So that would be my proposal. Proposal. Mr. Mayor, let me do a brief point of order.

Yes, Justin, uh, Clerk Regula and Mary Lynn, correct me if I'm missing. So, guys, put that out there to get it started. Um, instead of amending it, we will play this out whichever direction it goes, and it gets voted down, we just put a new proposal out there by different member of the assembly, right? No need to. Yeah, we take it, we take things one piece at a time, just as a procedural standpoint.

Does that resonate? Okay. No, it's okay. I just want to make sure we're on— okay, whatever direction it goes, that we're on the same track. Member Valentine.

Thank you. I agree with, um, kind of like the thought of spreading out the burden, you know. I mean, uh, uh, Member Marsh is correct that it is all basically still funded by us in, in, in one way or another, whether it be another bond or through Harbor or whatever it's going to go through. Um, but to note, I'm not like fully against doing a bond per se, because $1.3 million to me is still like small, small chump change compared to some of the other projects we're dealing with. But if we were to borrow from any of the general funds, it still needs to be paid back somehow.

Or are we asking it for it to be clean cut, give me money kind of thing? I'm going to go to the manager, please, if I could. So, um, the money does not have to be paid back if it's borrowed from the harbor, although the harbor has fully allocated their, their balance. So the assembly would have to figure out which of their projects you'd want to stop or slow down. Take the money from the general fund, it does not have to be paid back.

Um, if you— if the money is taken from any of what we will call the utility funds, so power and light water, wastewater, it would have to be paid back with interest. So, Harbor's the only one that doesn't have to be paid back? General fund as well. And general fund, those are the only 2, correct? The rest— property development fund, I'm sorry.

And property development. So those are the 3. And I definitely don't recommend— sorry, not my place. Um, thank you. I need to think a little bit more.

Thank you.

Member Martin.

Yeah, I'm not even on board yet with the 1.3 figure. I, I feel like, uh, we haven't really had a very thorough vetting of that number and other options as what we could get by with that would still meet requirements until we could float it around on the capital projects list for a while. So I'm interested in more research, like a work session, see what we could carve that down to to get by until we see if, if there's going to be some funding out there. And I don't want to just throw it out to the voters. Who knows how that would go?

But it's like, like Donna said, it's— that's a year out, and, uh, I think we need to do a little more homework before before we go ahead on this.

Member Meucci. Yeah, I just assume— let this motion be defeated and, you know, maybe entertain Member Marsh's, but I agree with Member Martin. I think we need to be kind of narrow things down here and figure out what we really want. I mean, I think we've been kind of in a hurry to understand that we need— how big of a pad and what we need up there, and I want to make sure that Since we do have funding mechanisms in place that— and I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that we've got a couple of the training towers have been moved so that they're operational. And so I'd just like to make sure that we're looking at a number that is a real number, not just something we're just making up here this evening or afternoon, whatever time of the day it is.

Thank you. Member Stan Gregor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I probably should have gone first to explain my thinking. To be clear, I don't want to bond $1.3 million for this, uh, for several reasons.

My concern though was, uh, looking at the Harbor project list, I felt the winds were blowing. I'll just take from that, and as I know this is not the intent of any of the assembly members, but almost treating it like it was a piggy bank for bigger projects. And I don't want to see that at all. I think one, it's a bad precedent if we need money for something to go grab it from somewhere else. I think that is— it doesn't feel fiscally responsible to me.

Again, I don't really want to bond for $1.3 million either, because I— and it hasn't been vetted. So I just use it as a starter. That was my own, not my own personal desire to go that way. My own personal thought, though, is that when we vote down my initial get this on the floor idea, because I think it should be voted down too. So, to get the discussion started, I think it would be prudent, as Member Martin said, to schedule a work session to really thrash out in a looser fashion where it isn't binding what we're going to do, and get it back on before some more actionable things sooner than later, but in a way that is more fiscally responsible.

I think Member Martin was on to something there. I think a work session would be a great— Member Meucci touched on it also— a great way to get us all closer to the same page so we can have something that makes sense to the general public, and whether it be the taxpayers or the ratepayers. That's all. Member Valentine. Uh, thank you.

I also— I want to give a little credit here to, uh, Mr. Hankins. Uh, that 1.3, I'm pretty sure he spent a lot of time getting as close to that as possible. However, what we're alluding to is shaving it a bit and shaving, getting more hard numbers, which I thought from my understanding of all the presentations we've heard, was really hard to get because we're kind of talking into the air. No one wants to give quotes of something that might or might not happen. So, um, I just want to make sure to give Director Hankins a little kudos at that 1.3.

I think he was pretty close, if, you know, plus or minus maybe $200,000, I'm sure. So anyhow, um, yeah. Okay, that's it. Thanks. I'm going, um, just a minute.

I'm, uh, I'm going to go back. I need to weigh in there too with you folks, um, and I'd be okay with it with a work session if we'd want to schedule one at some point. If you want somebody later at some point here wants to make a motion to have a work session, I'd be okay with that. But I have— I'm same place as Member Martin is. I The funds out of the enterprise funds, and I would also include the harbor as one of those, are collected for a purpose.

And I have a problem taking the money out of that where our ratepayers are paying into those funds for certain types of things to keep those facilities going, etc., etc., on that. And so the other part of that I would say is that although I'm I guess I'm also with Member Martin. I'm not convinced the $1.3 million is needed because I think we need to— I think when we never talked about any kind of phasing or a strategy to do pieces at one time or make some changes over the long term, uh, and we haven't done that. So a meeting, I guess, workshop would be probably in order. And with that, I'm going to go back to Director Hankins here.

I just got a quick comment.

After the cutoff for information to be submitted into the packet, a local business, Amaran Wicon, was generous enough to allow us to temporarily, at a max period of 2 years, to operate 2 of our containers there on their backlot or their building. That is a hard limit, 2 years. There is a limit on what kind of training we got to do. We're not going to be blasting water everywhere because we don't want to disrupt their pad that they're ultimately going to build on. So, quick plug, thank you, Hammer and Wicon.

We appreciate it very much. So, some training will be able to continue. We do have some time to figure this out and do it correctly. That said, I'd be open to work session too. That's all I wanted to say.

Thank you, appreciate it. Uh, Member Meucci. Yeah, just to follow up on Director Marohl, it was just a casual conversation with Jim Floyd in the hardware store about— we were looking for a place, and we were also looking for a place to, you know, the Chamber of Commerce thing, and he said he put it before his board, and a few days later he said, yeah, they moved it. And so it's— for me, it's kind of taking the pressure off to have training props somewhere where the firefighters can train on them. And I think this will give us an opportunity to kind of look at this very thoroughly and figure out what we want for the long term and figure out how we're going to fund it.

I mean, the only reasons we're kind of in, in this situation right now is because we didn't expect to have to move the training props and they're being moved and we have a solution here and I think we'll get there in a dignified manner. And I appreciate— I just wanted to say thank you to Hammer Week on Jim Floyd for kind of just making it happen. It's great. Thank you. Would it be okay, uh, if, uh, we had the manager, uh, write a letter from the assembly thanking him for that opportunity?

100%. Okay, if you would, I would appreciate it. Okay, any other thoughts before I call the roll on the motion that's on the table? Let's vote it down.

All right, would the clerk please call the roll? Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? No. Member Martin? No.

Member Valentine? No. Member Marsh? No. Member Meucci?

No. Mayor Lynn? No. First time I think I've been on assembly where there's a unanimous no. And with that, uh, we— I will— I'm going to come back to scheduling a work session here because I have this a little bit later on the agenda.

PMEA tentative collective bargaining agreement approval. Borough manager recommends the assembly approval of the tentative agreement between the borough and PMEA for the periods of July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029. PMEA membership is expected to vote on the tentative agreement within the next 2 weeks. A summary of the borough's proposal is included for the assembly's reference. The letter from Manager Giesbrecht and a copy of the tentative agreement are attached to this agenda item.

Do I have a motion to approve the tentative collective bargaining agreement with PMEA? So second, and moved by Member Meucci, seconded by Member Stan Gregor. Discussion? Member Meucci. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Um, can somebody for the folks at home explain what this really— what this means? For the assembly and for the community. Yes, I'm going to go back to the clerk to answer that. Yes, thank you, Member Meucci. So what happens during negotiating is that each negotiating team presents the TA contract to their members for a vote.

So the union has agreed to do that to their members, and this is our part of presenting it to the assembly for the vote here. So it may not happen on the same day. The union schedules it when it works out for their meetings, and we schedule it for when it works out for us. So that's why it's in front of you today. And just to follow up to this, so this TA, this is what our— what the borough's position is for the contract proposal.

And so we're— this will be sent to the union, and the union will decide whether or not they want it or not. They have— the negotiating team for the union has TA'd it as well. You'll see their signatures at the bottom of their— their union representative has signed off on each page, so they've already seen it. And then the members as a whole will see it soon. So go ahead.

I was going to say, quickly, would you define what— when they've TA'd it, what that means? A tentative agreement. So as we went to the table, we went through all of the articles that were opened and agreed tentatively to many of them. And then the wage agreement, they have TA'd it as well. And then it's up to the members if they would like to approve that offer.

And so the tentative agreement that we have and we've given to the union, it's the same document. That is correct. And so do they have a TA that they would like us to look at? Or are we just looking at our T8? We are just— both parties have agreed to this T8 agreement.

And so if their members vote no on this agreement, then we may be back at the table with them presenting something else for us to look at. And just to follow up, these documents that you prepared for us that we've been trying to get, you know, trying to help us sort it out, one of them is what the borough proposal is, increased by the year, and the other one is the union proposal. Based on yours, and you can see where the discrepancies are for greater or less. That's correct. Okay, thank you very much for putting this together.

It's very helpful. You're welcome. Any other question, Member Martin? Oh, just a question. How does this differ from when we made our final offer?

Isn't, isn't this sort of implied? It is the same offer, but the union, the assembly has not voted on it yet, and neither has the union. So it is that last best final offer. Just officially TA'd by both parties and then presented to the assembly for a vote. What we did before, we spoke about the last best final, but it didn't come to the union.

It didn't come to the assembly for a vote or to the union for a vote. And now both parties are voting on it. Thanks.

Member Marsh. So this item, item F here, relates to the ordinance of the changing of the budget for known changes. This is just spelling out what the ordinance was that we did. So, in essence, it could have gone first. Could have, could have gone first.

So, okay, so essentially it's the same thing, just one by ordinance, and this one is by the tentative agreement. Yes, it lays out the tentative agreement. Yes, thank you. And then the tentative agreement includes other articles, not just wages, but other articles as well.

No other questions? Would the clerk please call the roll on the PMA tentative agreement approval— bargaining agreement approval? Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Member Marsh?

Yes. Member Martin? Yes. Member Meucci? Yes.

Member Valentine? Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes. That approval of the tentative collective bargaining agreement passes 6 to 0, with all, all members voting for.

Moving on, requesting for work sessions. I've, I've asked that a number of, number of work sessions for scheduling, that the assembly schedule public work session featuring a asking for a presentation from the land manager, Deanna Alpine, on municipal land entitlement future planning process. The session would provide an opportunity for the assembly and community members to learn more about the topic, ask questions, and discuss future planning suggestions. And I believe there are some dates here suggested. One of the things that I was asked is that the one person I'd really like to have present is our economic development director.

And, uh, if we could, are you going to be available at any of those dates, or do you have alternatives?

Actually put in already for PTO for this case, um, and I'm going to be out of town for— I'll be out of town the For sure the 24th and 25th. Um, I'm leaving the 20th, so, so the 18th or 19th would be okay from your perspective? I wasn't going to be at work either those days. Um, uh, I can come in on—. I'm just suggesting what's the date that works for you.

Yes, that's where I was going to go. Well, uh Probably the first week of that week of November 30th, you know, after Thanksgiving. The first week in December.

Would that work for you, Assembly? And the reason I'd really like to have our Economic Development Director, because she was the primary person behind when we looked at plans and the entitlement package. She's probably more knowledgeable than anybody else. Uh, about that, all the issue of that issue in terms of you guys scheduling, speaking freely, uh, pick a date that works for you guys. I'll either be able to make it or not based on my work schedule.

So you guys set the course and I'll either be there or I won't.

Mayor Lynn, can we check with the Lands Manager and make sure she'll be available during the first week of December? Do that. Thank you. Transparently, I, I'm on 6 months where I'm not going to have really an opportunity to go anywhere. So yes, I'm absolutely Absolutely available.

Okay, okay. And so looking at the first week of December, um, we have, um, we could like to Wednesday the 2nd at noon. Would that work for the assembly? Would that work for the assembly?

Would we get more public, uh, attendance if we held it at 6 PM? I know for staffing it probably works to have it for their workday, uh, but for public work session, it's just—. No, exactly. Okay, never mind. It's fine.

Good thinking, because I think where we can, we need to include the public. And I think there needs to be some follow-up. The purpose here was, in my discussions with them, is to bring our, our assembly up to knowledge level of what it is before we proceed. And I know that our land manager has some new ideas of how to proceed on this after that first discussion. So to answer your question, yeah, there needs to be more.

What did you say, Becky? Uh, Wednesday, December 2nd would be a proposed date that works out for the assembly.

Okay, okay, sure, let's go. Okay. Yes. Okay. Noon.

Okay.

Okay. We agree then on Wednesday, December 2nd at noon. Okay. I'm going to—. May I ask a clarifying question?

Sure. Is this with the public there or not? No, I think at this point we need to follow up. I think the assembly needs to hear some of your ideas of how to proceed and as part of this.

I'm going to move on then. The request for a work session on the Skow Bay Boatyard operations, maintenance, and financial planning. And I believe the manager had— the manager had a letter attached to this, or in the part of this package. But I would, um, and I believe that January you were— was it, Glo, or you were asking for a later, like February?

She's shaking her head yes. So can we pick a date in February that would be reasonable?

After she's done, or can I have a question while they're thinking? Yes, you can. What, are we stuck on noon? Can we like do that like 9 AM? Oh, 9 AM would be all right.

Yeah, sure, whatever the assembly decides. Remember Valentine's? I mean, yeah, I mean It's on you to buy coffee and cookies. I'm just thinking when we have these kind of things, I don't— I guess if it's a work session, I mean, I would like to think everybody's already up early, like to use your fresh brainpower in the morning. I don't know, I'm just wondering.

That would be OK. Coffee and donuts. See, that sounds great. That would be OK. I just don't know why we have to be stuck at noon, but I'm not saying that we don't change it, but I might ask that later. Yeah, thank you.

So when we have the Skow Bay Boatyard operation management and financial planning, we roll into this some of our thoughts about our management of the Papke's Landing operation. Yeah, I was going to make— once we can agree on a date, I was going to ask each of the assembly members to send their ideas or what they'd like to see discussed to the manager and, and just pick a date on it, and so that we could include that. That's great, thank you. So what are some dates, Becky? How about, uh, Wednesday, February 3rd?

Yeah, at 9, 9:00 AM. That's it. Do it. Okay, send it.

9 AM. Okay, that'll work. Yeah, that's far enough out. And with that, I'm going to ask, um, uh, if the clerk would, would, uh, send a note to all assembly members and ask them to provide— pick the date, whatever you want, you know, by the middle of December or earlier, uh, or however you want to pick— but topics they would like to be— to see discussed or presentations made as part of that Skal Bay work session, you know, uh, including, you know, how it's going to be— however, what assembly members would like to hear, and then allow the manager to collate that so we can, we can have a productive session. Okay, I will do that.

Okay, 9 AM. I'm, I'm going to move on there. This is not on the agenda, but we just talked earlier about a session related to the training facility and so forth. Could we schedule a meeting to discuss that? What month would you like to do that?

This year or moving into 2027? Could we double down on the land?

You don't want to do both? I'm ashamed. No, we don't. I don't think so. I should speak for myself.

I don't want to.

Well, since we learned we have a couple, you know, 2 years flies by. I don't want to minimize, you know, Aaron Hankins and they're going, but we do have some. I'm very glad to hear it's bought us some time. It doesn't feel like an acute urge, you know, no pun intended, but the house is burning kind of thing. So, like, but again, I'm open to whenever the assembly wants to do work session on that one.

I'd lean into January 2027. Okay, how about How about January 6th, which is a Wednesday? And if you like that 9 AM time, we could propose that. Yep. Okay, send it.

All right. Okay, very good. See if you guys like that. So, and if, if the clerk— when we get done, if the clerk would make sure she sends out the notes, we all can remember here, I would appreciate it. Okay.

Okay, I'm going to move on and Communications are included in the packet that was received since October 15th, 2026. I'll move then on to assembly discussion items, and the first item under there is agenda management software and borough website updates. And Kirk, Kirk Legia, you have the floor to discuss some of those items, if you would please. Yes, thank you, Mayor Lynn. We recently had an upgrade upgrade software update to our clerk agenda meeting manager software.

And part of the upgrade with CivicPlus, they also manage our website, and they will be— there will be a soft rollout of the new website mid-December. I checked with the library director, Tara Alcock, who is also our website manager, And the new agenda management software overall, talking to the 4 other people that use it, uh, as you know, every time something new rolls out, there's a learning curve, but we all like it better than the previous software. The updates have been a good thing, more user-friendly, and I think that people will like the new borough website. We kept it so it looks similar So it won't be a whole new learning curve, but I think the usability and the public interface will be better. So, but people are always welcome to give us feedback.

They see anything that they don't like or that's not working, let us know because it'll, it'll take a bit for us to roll it out successfully. We hope there will be no glitches and no broken links, but let us know if you see anything.

Questions, comments from Assembly member. Yeah, thank you for this. So when the public goes and they access the website and they don't have to have a username and password, they just go click on it. That is correct. Okay.

And as a suggestion, you and I've talked about once, is there a way to put on this printed version of the agenda where the agenda item number can float somewhere at the bottom of the page, possibly by the page number, so that I can follow it at home? I mean, I, I checked with tech support and they said they would look into it for me. Okay, great. And I'm hoping we can get that back in because I found that useful as well. All right, thank you very much.

Comments, questions? Being none, I'm going to move on to the second item, snow removal at Papke's. And this agenda item was requested by Member Valentine. Well, thank you. Um, we heard some testimony on this.

Um, so doing a little Just like a little bit of digging, right? Um, one, who owns the Papke's Road? Can somebody—. Manager—. Through the mayor.

So Papke's Road from Midcuff Highway to the dock is owned by the state of Alaska and maintained by the state of Alaska. So in years past, We have been doing it as a borough, as kind of a—. Not Papke's Road, the private roads that come off of Papke's Road. And that's what— sorry, I need to clarify what I was hearing from folks is they would like the borough to take over plowing and road maintenance on the private roads that come off of Papke's Road. Okay, so I need that clarification because I don't live at Papke's.

You know, to me, I wasn't sure if it was made for the borough. Um, our charter says we're not supposed to do road maintenance outside of Service Area 1. According to our charter, according to our charter, right? So if the borough wants to take that on, we probably should have a conversation with the attorney and make sure— how can, how can the assembly violate the charter or make sure that you're not in trouble for violating the charter? It was done going way back to borough formation.

One of the employees that we think very highly of made a statement during borough organization that said, and the borough would, would take care of some road maintenance out there, particularly snow removal. Okay, that was on for— we did that for a while, 2, 3 years. And then we stopped doing that as a money-saving and also because it was pointed out to us by her attorney that it's a violation of the charter. Um, being on the borough now, this is my second year leading into the third, it has come to my attention more and more often now of the he said, she said type of stuff. And it always— it's like a really feel bad for me because I was probably 10 when this was you know, and so I was a little younger.

So it always stinks because like, you're touching on people's feelings and what was said and so on, but then we have this writing that we have to go off of. And so it always feels bad when people are approaching me about these issues where I'm like, ah, I'll do what we can to find funding. But this kind of alludes to the fact that, you know, and I'm sure And I would like to actually dive a little deeper later and make it some kind of ordinance to try to help out. But it does allude a little deeper to that. Just in this meeting alone, we're going to be asking for more and more money, more and more money, more and more money.

And this is just for basic things that the community needs and wants. And I'm a little disappointed that our sales tax cap didn't get moved. Because no matter, you know, I've talked to many people and I have a billion ideas because I'm young and I have all these da da da da da. But no matter what, I get kneecapped at $72. It's like, how can I raise more money bringing more new things to this town, but if I get kneecapped at $72?

And so I would like to, moving forward for my— who knows if it's my last year— work on something that makes a more digestible version of our, our taxes so that the community doesn't feel like it's going from 0 to 100, because it is to the point now where— I mean, it's not even now, it's just everything was deferred for so long that it's coming to the table now that we need to make change, and the community needs to digest the sacrifice surprises that are about to happen, because this is just one. There's some bigger things that I'm sure that's going to come up just this year that are much bigger that we're all going to have to digest. So I think that this is alluding to a much larger fact. However, I would go deeper for the community that's listening. There's no rule for PAP keys, we just have to do it in the correct way.

If I may, so the question— you want to talk, you want to talk to our attorney and what's the easiest way for the borough to have authority to take care of those roads? Is it changing the charter? Is it forming a service area, or is there some other method that the assembly can override the— what it says in the charter? That's— that would help. Roger.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, uh, Member Meucci. Yeah, so just to be clear, that the snow removal that you're talking about are the private roads on Papke's? Yes. And so if those private roads were to be turned over to the borough, they would have to be brought up to borough standards.

You are correct, because we have private roads in town that we don't plow. Yes. So, okay, I just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same question. Yeah, no, I just wanted to make sure. Yep, yep.

One of the—. If I'm—. I'm sorry, through the mayor— one of the reasons that Papke's Road was kind of problematic for us, the private roads, was because they're in such bad shape, was tearing our equipment up.

That's, that's kind of a challenge for how do we manage that going forward? Um, you know, so it starts off with how do you get— how does the assembly get permission to do that? Is it again a charter change? I just hope that the people that are listening that live in Papke's, that these are the issues that we are running into. It's not that we don't care about you.

Okay, so to follow up here, are you Are you looking for some numbers from the borough to what it would cost? I've seen numbers in the past. What it would cost to plow the private roads that Pat pays? And if you were comfortable with that number, you'd like to see it in a supplemental budget, or what are we thinking here? That is the greatest question.

I don't have an answer to that because I need to do more studying before I can say it publicly what I'm going to do because I'm not sure yet. Thank you. If I'm—. If I remember correctly, during borough formation, as part of when we went back to the Boundary Commission, there was promises made in there. It also specified the roads that would be done, if I remember.

And that's what— that's what we started with, and that's what the folks— those particular roads. And I, I, off the top of my head, I could probably tell you, but those are the roads that the folks are, are talking about, and they've come to me numerous times on that. And what's happened over time was the road list has expanded. So it was a certain number of certain roads, and then it turned into all of the road, all of the private roads of Papke's, and that's where it started getting kind of interesting, um, as far as how we can afford to do it. I mean, And again, the roads themselves need to be badly in need of maintenance.

And does the borough want to take that on? And how to— what's the best way for the borough to take that on? Because it won't be cheap. I mean, that's setting up how we grade roads here and doing all that. That's a big deal.

I mean, in the past, we really just focused on snow removal. But if we're going down the road of providing road maintenance out there, that's a That's a bigger number. It's snowplowing, though. Could be, could be done. I've seen them.

I've seen Rock and Road do this, and I have to, in disclosure, I benefited from that. So, and they, they did a very good job, you know, raising the plow and going down if that's what, you know, if that's what the assembly chose to do, you know, at some point in time. Okay, is there anything else that I mean Can you talk about— Member Marsh here first. Yes, the same question. Under what authority did we previously plow the roads if it was against the borough charter?

It was based on— well, sorry, through the mayor. It was based on exactly what Mayor Lynn said, which was statements made during the formation of the borough that the borough would— and as I wasn't here, so as I understand it, it was we would plow snow on certain roads for emergency services purposes. That's— and that stuck with everything. We got into an issue where the attorney got— she was aware of it and said, well, you're not really supposed to do that because you're not supposed to do road maintenance or plow snow outside of Service Area 1. And again, so that just became the, you know, the conversation.

On the same token, we're not supposed to send EMS out there either, according to the charter, correct? So, so we've got some conflicting things here, whereas if we overturn the whole apple cart and assume responsibility for all the roads out there, we— maintenance— we can't do it. We can't afford it. So at our current structure, so, um, it seems like in years past we've just allocated X number of dollars for snow removal on whatever roads are out of Papke's and left it at that, rather than creating this huge monster that we can't contain, right? It was essentially the roads that were included as part of the charter, you know, that were as part of that.

So then I don't remember what— there was 5 roads, I believe, Steve. It was—. By the time it was over with, we were doing a lot of roads. Out there. And, um, because what people would come forward and say, well, you're doing my neighbor's road, why can't you do mine?

And, you know, um, you know, they raise a valid point. It's a pretty valid— and it just became this conversation that, you know, how do we, how do we prioritize it? How do we do it? What's it going to cost? Um, as— and does the assembly want to go down that route?

I mean, the Assembly orders tells us to do it. We're going to make sure it happens. We'll come to you with a price and we'll say this is what it's going to cost, but we'll make sure it happens. It's up to the Assembly to worry about the charter issue, really. And that's not— and I know Aaron's, you know, cringing back there because it's a big deal.

It's a— to drive our trucks out there It takes time and money, and then to plow when we're also under pressure to plow here in town, he gets— it's a tough, you know, and we got personnel that we'll have to deal with, meaning do we have to hire somebody to add to that in the wintertime? Anyway, Member Martin. Yeah, we don't have to do it now because we're running late here, but I'd like to know more about how— who owns these private roads and how that works. Yeah, they are privately owned. By who though?

People— well, it goes back to when those subdivisions were built, the people who bought lots adjacent to those roads took on the ownership of the roads.

Is it like in their deed or something? I don't know, I'm just curious how they solve that and how they raise money to maintain them and all that. But we can talk about that later.

Other questions, comments on this issue? Okay, I'm gonna move on to the big beautiful barrel, keeping Petersburg clean. And that goes back to Member Valentine. Yeah, the big beautiful barrel. This is an idea I've been playing with in my head.

This is the kind of— I'm trying to— I want to do more fun, in my head, fun things, right? But anyhow, I'm in tourism in this community, and I get a lot of feedback about the community, especially in the summertime. And one of the ones that keeps kind of echoing at most times is that they love our community. It's feeling aged. That's almost the exact wording that I would get.

Love it, feeling a little aged. Now, I can't, as a borough member, like, tell any one person who owns any building to put more money into their building. I'm not allowed to do that, nor should I. However, I think that little things stack up to big waves, right? And so with— I was talking to Mr. Marohl, I talked to Miss Payne.

I think it'd be— I think it would be beneficial to the community to have a summer employment under whomever to add an extra one, maybe 2 or 3 people to do all the little tasks that the other parts of the borough just can't get to, right? So, Parks and Rec hire people to do the parks, but then they miss everything between South Harbor and Singley Alley. There's trash, there's weed whacking that could be done, there's paint that could be done there. It's just kind of like doing the little things to make it So like, hey, we're not skipping the stuff underneath the sink and things like this to where if we continue to do this over and over again, it just makes our town just this much nicer. And just remember to do so, just polishing where we need to polish.

And as a summertime gig, it could be for college students. It'd be, I think, a low entry, high reward. And that also, I'm going to look more into it. I think we probably could use the marine passenger fee because it does have to do with tourism. And so we just did raise that and we could take a small chunk of that to help beautify the town.

That's my thought behind it. And I want you guys to be on board. So there you go. The table's yours. Thank you.

Uh, comments from Assembly members? Yeah, keep playing with it, man. I'm playing. Bring us something. I like it.

Okay, I wanted you to hear my biggie first. Okay, okay. Moving on to assembly member comments. Uh, Member Meucci, I'll start on that end. Thank you.

Did we ever move the—. Are we—. Was the Chamber of Commerce van ever moved out at Skull Bay? Do we know? Van or container?

The container, van, whatever it's called. Where I'll just—. Aaron may be able to answer.

Sorry, having problems with my mic today. Uh, right now the chamber van is still sitting out at the fire hall in Skow Bay. I spoke with Aaron Hankins last week. I've looked at an area in the landfill that I think it might fit, and so he is going to talk to Sarah Holmgren about that and work on getting that moved up to the landfill. Great, thank you very much.

Member Stan Gregor. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to— I guess more or less recognition, but it's a comment of appreciating the community's patience over the last several days. As many people either know or do not know, the FBI has been making rounds in our community to see if people are confused as to who they donated to. My family was not exempt.

They were at my house this morning. I know for many citizens who've approached me, it can be very unsettling to have the G-men knock on your door and stand outside. It can feel intimidating. Again, many folks have reached out to me with frustration, so I just wanted to recognize them as members of the community enduring a situation they probably never thought was going to happen. And I'm very disappointed that it's happened in our small community.

And just a thank you to those community members who've just stayed calm and endured such an odd kind of event, because it's like we're living in the Upside Down. So just hang in there, folks. Thank you. Anybody else? Member Martin?

Yeah, I'm just thinking about this work session coming up later this winter with the Skow Bay Boatyard, and just keep in mind as we go into that that The harbor is an enterprise fund primarily, at least to a lot of us. It's where we keep our boats. We pay rates and it's a significant amount. And so we're always very sensitive about things like Papke's or a boatyard that may affect our rates. And as far as I know, that is not a harbor project out there.

There's a proposal someday to put a harbor out there, but right now As far as I know, that's not part of the harbor enterprise.

So there's been a lot of talk about, you know, dipping into some harbor reserves to make things happen out there, and I think that's a little bit misplaced and premature. So let's keep that distinction in mind as we go forward.

Thank you. Is there anybody else? I, I'll just have one. I, I will probably have an action item on the next agenda related to sea otters. I've been talking with the mayors from both Ketchikan and Wrangell, talking about, you know, the need that we need— we need to have a coordinated approach from the southeast communities related to where we want to go, such that, uh, and so I'll probably have a proposal on the next agenda.

What would would also require some funding to have an outside party look at crafting some kind of way, an agenda or a policy that we would like to take to Washington. Anyhow, just as a heads up. Anybody else have anything? That recognitions or still comments? Okay, I'm going to move to recognitions then.

Okay, member, member Meucci. Yeah, I just wanted to say thanks again to Hammer Weekon and Jim Floyd for kind of taking the pressure off for moving those training vans. It was a casual conversation I had with Jim, and it was a long overdue conversation. We hadn't spoken about things in common in a long time, and it just worked out great. And it was kind of a win for the fire department and kind of a win for the community, and it just worked out good.

It was just— it was a good deal, and I just wanted to make sure that he understood how appreciative I am of him helping us out. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Member Martin?

Yeah, I agree. That was very welcome news to hear. Thank them and their board for allowing that, and we'll, we'll stick to our end of the deal there.

Any other, any other recognitions from assembly members? With that, uh, do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Meeting is adjourned.