Mat-Su Borough: Regular Assembly Meeting June 16

Assemblymember Gamble. Here. Assemblymember Farnoff. Here. Assemblymember Bernier.

Present. Madam Mayor, you have a quorum. Thank you. Is there anything the members would like to pull from the consent agenda?

Is that a yes? Assemblyperson McKee, did I hear a yes from you? Okay, I'll give you a minute. Anybody else have anything to pull?

Will you put your mics on, please? AM26-083. Yep. And, um, wait a minute, I'll get there. Which is the one about the— I got it.

Oh, no. I guess that's the only one I pulled from there.

Oh, I know, 26-089. Yeah. Okay. I heard some questions from the audience. Madam Clerk, would you repeat what she asked to pull?

Assemblymember McKee pulled from the consent agenda to address separately AM26083 and AM26089.

Okay, so everybody here? Okay, okay.

So there are some changes to the agenda, so Oh, I'm sorry, Assemblyperson Sumner. Yeah, I'd like to amend the agenda to move Ordinance 26-058 to third in the public hearing and Ordinance 26-072 as the second in the public hearing. I know I kind of said that a little backwards, but the two sales tax ordinance would be one after the other, and then the gravel tax ordinance would be third. Okay. Okay.

Is there objection from the assembly?

Okay, don't hear any objection. Yes, Assemblyperson Bohomes, go ahead. Uh, well, I guess I object. I'd like to flip-flop 7.2 and 3.2. I'd like 3.2 to be third.

So you'd like to have Uh, 72 prior to 58. Is that what you're saying to me? Correct. Okay. Say that again.

72 Would be number 2 and 58 would be number 3. No. No? Madam Mayor, I'm saying I would like for 72 to be ahead of 32. I would like to discuss 26-032 after 26-058.

Oh, way too big here. I thought you were just flipping those two. Okay. Okay, well, we'll give the clerk a minute here and then we'll have her recite so we fully know and the audience knows also what's going on.

I do believe, Madam Mayor, Assemblymember Bowles made a secondary amendment to reorder the sale— the tax legislation 072 as the second public hearing. 058 As the 3rd and 032 as— excuse me, 058 as the 1st and 032 as the 3rd. Correct. Okay. Correct.

Assemblyperson Nowers, go ahead. Assemblymember Bowles could explain why you're doing that for the audience that wants to give us their input. Yes, absolutely. Yep. So there was an updated financial sheet.

And so I think it's important to discuss that financial sheet with your ordinance and carry that discussion to my ordinance since my financial sheet is a few weeks, if not a month older. So, for the people watching and potentially testifying, we take up the 1.5% sales tax proposal first and then discuss the 6.5% sales tax proposal. Is that correct? With the repeal of area-wide? Yes.

Okay. Okay, further discussion. Is there objection to making the changes in— on the agenda?

Okay, I don't see any objections, Madam Clerk.

Okay. I got it. You got it.

Got it. Got it. Okay, good. Is there any further changes to the agenda?

Assemblyperson Bowles, you have your light on and you still want to speak? You have your light on. Okay, thank you. Okay, so hearing no more changes requested, then the agenda has been approved as amended. If you all stand, and Madam Clerk, would you lead us in the Pledge?

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

Okay, I'm going to come down front because I have a number of proclamations to do.

Gonna take— turn on the mic, Madam Mayor. People can't hear you. Right, thank you. Okay. So—.

Hello. So first of all, in here, I'm gonna give you the 25— So, whereas on June 19th, 1865, the last enslaved African Americans in Texas learned that they were free, more than 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued, and whereas Juneteenth marks an important moment— in our nation's history and celebrates the freedom of those who have been enslaved. Whereas Juneteenth reminds us of the importance of liberty, equality, and opportunity for all people. And whereas this day provides an opportunity to learn from our history, honor the contributions of the African Americans and reflect on the progress our nation has made. And whereas committees across the country observe Juneteenth through education, remembrance, and celebration.

Now, therefore, I, Edna DeVries, Mayor of the Matsubara Borough, do hereby proclaim June 19, 2026, as Juneteenth Day. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] In the Matsue Borough, I encourage all residents to take time to reflect on the meaning of freedom, appreciate the diversity of our community, and celebrate the values that brings us together. So would you, either one of you, say a word or two? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Yeah, you can do that. Mayor, Assembly, general public, first I want to say I do appreciate what the mayor's done for many years.

She's been very active, not just with our organization but the community itself at large, and we have not seen that in a long time with different mayors in different cities. That I know this mayor has been from Sutton to probably past Talkeetna. So she's very engaged. This event, and as she stated, is— it is American history. I invite you guys to come because at the Palmer Museum, we also are in conjunction to have a partnership with the Alaska Highway Project.

We had an opportunity this Saturday to actually go to just outside of Tok and visit the site where some of the African American soldiers built part of the, their portion of the Alcan. And it's, you know, it's an interesting site to go to. In the Palmer Museum, there's also a display there that have various artifacts and also history. This coming, this year, we have some surprises about Juneteenth that I was not aware of. And I'm learning almost every year something new.

And I suggest you guys participate and come and see because there are some really interesting surprises. So we thank you for your support, Mayor. Of course, are you going to have the horses back?

Yes, there'll be a horse reenactment.

I don't want to spill the bag. Oh, okay. All right. But I will spill the bag. Okay.

We actually have this year for the first time, there's a 9th and 10th Horse Cavalry Association. Oh, wow. That are across the United States. And we have one locally in Anchorage that are going to be dressed in the actual attire. Wow.

And so that'll be part of the reenactment. If everything goes well tomorrow on my horse ride, I may be there Friday. I can't guarantee it, but I'm gonna try to recover by Friday to be on top of one. So the whole idea is to create a healing It's not to say white people, you are bad. It's to say that we have come so far, we still have a long way to go.

And if we don't play— address the elephant in the room, we're not going to ever be able to relate to each other. Because one of the problems with Juneteenth that I've noticed over the years is a lot of misinformation. And that's our goal. Mm-hmm. Is to make sure that the right information is put out.

And that's our purpose, is to try to be as authentic in the celebration of American history, because it's not just Black history, this is American history. And I don't know if you've ever been on Facebook, we've received a lot of crazy—. Comments. Yeah, comments. And most of it is misinformation, people not really understanding what it's about.

You know, there's a lot of negative stuff, but in spite of that, we still want to let our community know that this is part of us. And we can't sit there and do a Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and forget certain people because, you know, when we repeat that, we mean All of us. And it takes all of us to be able to fight some of this stuff that's going on locally and nationally and globally. And yes, we want to toss in the hat. I know me personally, you know, because it's— I take it personal, but I got a higher calling.

Mm-hmm. God has been my help. These are just only a few of the individuals that have created the organization and give us a good foundation to go on.

Other than that, I hope to see you guys. Thank you.

The next proclamation we're going to do is recognizing America's 250th year anniversary. And I think probably the majority of you do know that that's what we're into right now, but you may not know some of the things that are going on in our community to recognize that. So whereas on July 4th, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, establishing the United States of America as a free and independent nation, and whereas in 2026, our nation celebrates the 250th anniversary of that historic event. Making 2.5 centuries of freedom, self-government, and opportunity. And whereas the Matsu Borough is proud to join communities across the nation in commemorating this milestone and reflecting upon the sacrifices and achievements of those who helped build and preserve our country.

And whereas, all of the Mat-Su Borough Libraries will host the 250 events during the months of June and July, providing opportunities for residents of all ages to learn about our nation's history and founding principles. Whereas, copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States will be on display at all of the Mat-Su Borough Libraries and at the Borough Administration, which is this building in Palmer, and residents are encouraged to visit and learn more about these foundational documents. Whereas the Mat-Su Borough is honored to participate in both the 2026 Colony Days Parade, which we did this last weekend, and in the City of Wasilla on the Fourth of July, celebrating the spirit of patriotism, community, and service that has defined our nation for 250 years. And whereas, on Saturday, July 4th, in the City of Palmer, there will be an Independence Day celebration featuring Feel Free family activities, food, the recitation of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and a demonstration of a historic 300-pound cast iron cannon with festivities beginning at 3 PM at the St. John Lutheran Church, which is just across the street there.

Now therefore, I, Edna DeVries, Mayor of the Mat-Su Borough, do therefore proclaim July 4th, 2026, America's 250th Day. In the Matsue Borough, we encourage all residents to celebrate this historic anniversary by learning about our nation's founding, honoring the freedom we enjoy, participating in the local activities, and renewing our commitment to the principles that have guided this country for 250 years. Thank you. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] [MUSIC] Okay. Whereas individuals with Down syndrome are valued members of our community.

They contribute their talents, their abilities, their kindness, and demonstrate to the Mat-Su Borough and beyond. Whereas the Alaska Down Syndrome Network has worked to provide support, education, advocacy, resources for individuals with Down syndrome and their families throughout Alaska. And whereas the Alaska Down Syndrome Network provides inclusion, acceptance, opportunity, and withstanding while helping other individuals with Down syndrome reach their full potential. Whereas through community outreach, family support, education, and public awareness efforts, the organization has made a meaningful and lasting impact on countless lives throughout the nation. Whereas the Mat-Su Borough recognizes the importance of building communities where every individual is valued, respected, and given opportunities to thrive.

Now therefore, I, Edda DeBries, Mayor of the Mat-Su Borough, do hereby recognize and honor the Alaska Down Syndrome Network for its dedication, advocacy, and service to individuals with Down syndrome and their families throughout Alaska, and extend appreciation for the organization's continued efforts to foster inclusion, support, and awareness within our communities. You'd like to say something, Roger? Yeah. Yeah. Hi, my name's Roger Baird.

I'm the president of the Alaska Down Syndrome Network. And in 2011, my wife and I were blessed with a baby boy with Down syndrome. His name is Ezra. Mayor Edna, you know Ezra. To know Ezra is to know that he loves you and to know that he is loved.

And as his dad, I just love every aspect of him. He's a blessing to my life. He's a blessing to everybody that's around him. And our goal as a network is— Oh, first of all, when we first found out he had Down syndrome, my wife and I, Charlie, we were— We were scared. We didn't know how we were going to take care of someone like this.

We didn't know a whole lot about Down syndrome. So we need people who knew to come around us and to show us just what to do, where to reach out, and what exactly to do. And that's what our network is here for, for those who who, um, do feel like they're alone in this, in this, um, in this moment in their lives. But we're here to let them know that they're not alone. We're here to support them.

We're here to support families and, and to, um, to really give them a place, uh, to talk and to, um, a place to find out— to find out where they can go to have appointments and the doctors to go see and And just to, um, just, just to have a place for the people to talk to, um, and to love on people. We're here to love on those who need to be loved. And, um, I know now the news, if you've seen on social media, that Down syndrome, um, it's been popular lately just with, um, uh, an influencer, uh, giving up their baby to just because they knew they were going to have Down syndrome. Um. And we believe that we could counteract these, these things with education to let them know that even though they're going to have a baby, that it's going to have challenges, of course, but they're also a blessing.

If you know anybody or any families that has someone with Down syndrome in their family, know that that family is blessed. That family is having the time of their lives. Thank you. Every day, and I have the time of my life every day. Ezra is my most favorite person ever made, other than Jesus, of course.

He is just an amazing guy. And so on June 27th, it's a Saturday, we are having what we call is a Walk for Down Syndrome over at Iditarod Park in Wasilla. From 11 to 3 is when we get families together to walk for Down syndrome. We also, it's our big fundraiser for the year. And what we do with the money that we get from the fundraisers, that we support families.

We give annual sponsorships and scholarships to families that have members that have Down syndrome. Like my son Ezra won— Ezra. One summer got a bike. He really needs a tricycle because, um, he wanted to go out biking with us, um, and, and just because of his balance and stuff, he couldn't really ride a regular bike. So through the Alaska Down Syndrome— and this is before I was even on the board or even the president— um, they gave us the funds to get him a tricycle.

Now he gets to ride and ride with us, and he just loves it. Um, and certain things like that, just to support them. That's where the funds go. We also, one of our goals in this year, in the upcoming years, we want to reach out to families in rural areas. Right now we have representatives in Juneau, Fairbanks, Matsu, Anchorage, and Kodiak.

And if I left anybody else off, I'm so sorry. But we're looking to get representatives in rural areas in the hub cities of Alaska where we can reach out to those Families who are in villages that, um, who feel like they're alone in this, and they're not. No one's alone in this, and we want to just be there to love on them and to be there for them. So Alaska Down Syndrome Network, if you want to sponsor us, we have some sponsor packages. If you go to our website, the alaskadownsyndromenetwork.com, you'll see it there.

We also have, um, Facebook, Alaska Down Syndrome Network, um, Instagram, you name it, we have it. Just look it up. Um, so we start— yeah, so if you want to sponsor us, please sponsor us. That'd be awesome. Anybody out there on Facebook watching us, sponsor us.

Um, and, uh, we love you guys. And, um, so yeah, Alaska Down Syndrome Network, don't forget about it. Thank you.

The next item on our agenda is the minutes from preceding meetings. We have the assembly special meeting from May 5th, 2026, and the assembly budget deliberation minutes from the 7th of May of 2026. Let's see, why is only Oh, I missed the special meeting of May 5th, 2026. Okay. Are there any changes that maybe the assembly would like to make to those minutes?

Okay. Seeing none, then they are— have been presented. And we'll next online— or next in person is the assembly's reports, reports from the city.

You want it? You can do it now, or you want to do it now? Okay, good. Crystal, you'll have to turn the mic on, and you can just leave it on. I can leave it on?

Yep. Okay. Good evening, assembly. Um, Crystal Nygaard, Deputy Administrator for the City of Wasilla, and I just want to thank you for, uh, your continued support. We're doing a lot of things on a regional level And we're out there telling the story for the entire region, so we appreciate your partnership.

I was going to update you on everything we're doing on the city, including the Fourth of July parade, but then the sales tax took— trumped it all. So I'm here representing the city in strong opposition to the ordinance 26032, and I just want to read our resolution into your record. Resolution— City of Wasilla Resolution Serial Number 2633. Whereas, pursuant to Wasilla Municipal Code 5-16-030, the City of Wasilla levies a 2.5% sales tax on all non-exempt sales, rentals, and services. And whereas, the city sales tax is the city's primary revenue source and supports essential city operations, services, facilities, and capital projects relied on by Wasilla residents, businesses, and visitors like yourself.

And whereas the borough's ordinance serial number 26032 would impose a 6.5% area-wide sales tax in addition to the city's existing sales tax, resulting in a combined sales tax of 9% within the city of Wasilla. And whereas the proposed borough sales tax would substantially increase the tax burden on purchases made within the city and may negatively affect local businesses, residents, nonprofits, and consumers. And whereas a combined 9% sales tax rate may discourage retail activity within the city, place Wasilla businesses at a competitive disadvantage, and encourage consumers and businesses to shop, conduct business, and relocate outside the city and the borough. And whereas the proposed borough sales tax may affect other communities within the borough that also implo— impose a local sales tax, including Palmer, Houston, and Talkeetna, And whereas the City of Palmer adopted a Resolution 26013 on May 12th, 2026, opposing Matsu Borough's Ordinance Serial Number 26032, and whereas when both a borough and a city impose a sales tax, Alaska Statute 2945700 may require the borough to administer, collect, and enforce the tax, and whereas the city currently employs trained and experienced personnel who administer, collect, and enforce the city sales tax, And whereas transferring administration, collection, enforcement, audit, and remittance of the city's primary revenue source to the borough could create operational uncertainty and financial risk to our city. And whereas it is in the city's best interest to retain local control and oversight over the administration and enforcement of its primary revenue source.

And whereas the proposed borough sales tax may limit the city's ability to independently determine and administer lawful sources of local taxation unless the borough expressly authorizes cities to do so, and whereas the city supports the financial health and economic stability of all communities in the Mat-Su Borough. Now therefore be it resolved that the Wasilla City Council opposes Mat-Su Borough Ordinance serial number 26032 adopted by the Wasilla City Council on June 8th. I also want to add that Based on the information that we've reviewed that came from your finance department, the impact on our city is a decrease gross sales of 9.75%. Consumers will shop outside the region. They'll go online and they will buy less.

It also threatens local control. We are in Juneau all the time talking about local control, how important it is to have local control. Wasilla sales tax is our primary revenue source. We fund police and roads and parks. This is a transfer of administration to the borough, and with an estimated $360,000 for 2 full-time employees to manage this, what I would say, a very complex tax system— we literally chase people around for $12.50.

It's quite amazing. This is very optimistic. But last and most importantly, we urge you to reject this ordinance. Our regional partnership is very important. Over the last 12 months, we have permitted almost 850,000 square feet of new construction that's coming online in the city.

That means this— the borough is going to collect property tax, bed tax, alcohol tax. There's a variety of tax you're going to get from the development of the businesses located in Wasilla. So I urge you, listen to your cities, protect the local economies, and let local control be your priority. Thank you. I don't see anybody else from any of the other cities.

Um, do we have a report from the school district? Okay, report from the state, sir.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Manager Brown, assembly members, staff. And constituents, Todd Smolden, Governor's Office. I know that you're going to have a long meeting, so I am not going to talk very long, but I haven't been able to be here in a while and wanted to make sure that you had an opportunity to ask questions if you had any. As you know, we're watching the special session. The governor is encouraged by the House vote on legislation that was 35 to 4 with an— or 34 to 5 with an absent legislator to move that legislation to the Senate.

And he supports the legislation that was moved, and the investors in the AK LNG project support the legislation that was moved, and the Senate is currently looking at it. And—. Thank you. I know there was a question before the meeting started about more special sessions, what happens if they don't finish on the 19th, on Friday. I did a little research.

I guess that if, I guess the governor could call another special session before this one ends, or the legislature could, with a two-thirds vote, call another special session before this one ended. Which would then result in another special session if they were not able to finish their legislation. But my understanding is that legislators don't want to be in Juneau the rest of the summer. So we're anticipating that something's going to happen by the end of the week. And I think most people are hopeful that it will be legislation that does not harm the advancement of the gas line project.

So the only other thing I would mention real quickly is that there was a lot of legislation that was passed. Some of it's been transmitted to the Governor, some of it has not been transmitted to the Governor. The Governor has to wait for it to be transmitted before he can act on it. Some of it is coming up due with a decision by him very soon. On the 18th will be some of that legislation that he has to act on.

There's some education funding, the omnibus crime legislation, and some other, some other maybe big or important pieces of legislation that he'll have to act on by the 18th, by Thursday. Thank you. So you should be looking for that. And then, yes, I don't know if anybody has any questions, but I'm happy to try to answer them if you do.

I don't see any, sir. All right. Thank you for being here. Thank you very much. Thank you.

And I understand there has not been a joint assembly school board meeting Meeting, so no report. And are there any public relations from the assembly? Okay, uh, Mr. Brown, no report. Okay, Mr. Attorney, no report. Madam Clerk?

The clerk's report with the upcoming meetings, important election due dates, and quasi-judicial report is in your red folders. Also, a while back before the budget started, the assembly wanted to schedule another water body setback meeting, and I wanted to give you suggested meeting dates, probably before the regular meetings, either September 1st or September, September 15th at 4:00 PM. I'm not sure if one day works better or the other for the assembly. Assembly. Person Sumner, go ahead.

I will be moose hunting September 15th. For both time, both dates? September 1st was final. Assemblyperson McKee. And how close to Labor Day is the first?

I don't— I'm not looking at a calendar. I don't know when Labor Day is, but I can look for you.

Labor Day is September 7th.

So I'm hearing— Yes, Assemblyperson Bowles, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would suggest, um, August 25th, if that's friendly with everybody. Um, that way the only thing interrupted is, uh, silver season.

Yeah, well, silver season is August 25th. That's not a regular assembly meeting, right? Correct, but this is strictly for the water body setback meeting. Correct. Yeah, I would suggest August 25th, or excuse me, yes, August 25th.

Okay. Assemblyperson McKee, you have your light on. Yep, you did say that that's when the silver salmon derby thing is going on. No, that's, uh, Silver Seas and the derby, I believe, is on the weekend. This is— that's a Tuesday.

And when does— well, it's not going to work for me. Assembly person hours, did you have a thought? Between fishing and hunting, I just wonder if there's a reason we can't maybe pick a date in October for this. Sure, we could do that.

And the first meeting in October is October 6th, but we will only have half assembly chambers because Palmer City election will be happening. And then October 20th. Does that work? That's assembly person Bowles. You have your light on.

You just turned it off, sir. Okay, so I have October 20th at 4 PM. Thank you. That's all I have, Madam Mayor. Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, the next item on our agenda is citizens and other correspondence.

Okay. Are there any comments from the citizens and other correspondence? See any? There are no informational memorandums. That's pretty unusual, huh?

And we have now audience participation. We do have a signup sheet where some people have signed up to testify. We will do theirs first. And then we will open it up to anybody that didn't sign up, and we'll also check online to see if there is anybody. So, Mary, you're first.

Good evening. My name is Mary Robinson. I'm a Matsu Burro resident taxpayer, and I represent myself. I appear before you on a regular basis to speak in support of intellectual freedom Library staff, libraries. I believe that libraries provide free and equal access to information for everyone, which is the bedrock of democracy.

Before I launch into my book report— and I brought some books with me— I do want to thank— I attended the Matsu Health Foundation annual meeting, saw Mayor DeVries there and a few other political people, and I just want to remind everyone how much the Matsu Health Foundation does for us. Last year, they provided over $12 million in grants and scholarships. 561 Students received scholarships to pursue careers in healthcare and health services. The Matsu Health Foundation jumped into the breach when inexplicably the Matsu Borough School Board decided to delete school nurses And the Health Foundation pledged $1 million for school nurses for the '26-'27 school year, which I think is amazing, and they deserve kudos for that among the other things they do. They have pledged over $4 million to the My House operation with the Carson Cottle Building, which is gorgeous.

If you're ever on Fishhook across from the police department, I recommend that you look at it. They, on a regular basis, I think even this evening, that the spinoff, the Parks and Trails Foundation, is granting $100,000 to the Matsu Borough. So I just wish everyone would appreciate and acknowledge how much the Matsu Health Foundation does for us, the community members. So in honor of Juneteenth, a couple of books that I would recommend that are available at the library, and if they're not available at your local library, they can always get it for you from another location.

One is the story of Ruby Bridges. As the first Black child to attend an all-white elementary school, Ruby Bridges showed how, how brave and how forgiving a 6-year-old child can be. She was brought to school every day by U.S. Marshals. She faced angry white people screaming at her that she had no business for an education.

Mm-hmm. Second book that's available, The Rope: A True Story of Murder, Heroism, and the Dawn of the NAACP. It talks a little bit about how occurring exactly halfway between the end of the Civil War in 1865 and the formal beginning of the civil rights movement in 1954, the brutal murder and a highly covered investigation at the historic intersection of sweeping national forces "Class Struggle: The Infancy of Criminal Forensics and the Racial Violence of Jim Crow America." One last one I have to say, "The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Write Me, Can't Wait: Letters from the Birmingham Jail." Thank you.

Okay, we have Daniel— Daniel Potter.

Good evening. I'm Daniel Potter, District 1. First and foremost, to Miss Tiffany Richards. I don't know her face. It's simply a name on an email.

She's amazing at her job. She handles the public records requests. She is awesome. Instead of just being angry, I'm going to try a little bit of humor. I want to apologize as a taxpayer.

I'm no longer and haven't been able to support a $200 a month tobacco tax for buying Copenhagen because it's $25 a log that comes with the borough and tobacco tax per log. I couldn't afford that, so I had to switch to a cheaper brand, but that's okay. Because in the past 3 years you doubled my house's property assessment. So I think that kind of evens out. According to this administrative memo, which should be obvious, the reason that I'm here, you're paying contractors more than the average household incomes of Alaskan families.

And when there is— [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] potential evidence of potential inappropriateness, um, that could potentially be called falsification of business records and theft by deception, which is a Class B felony. Um, reasonable and prudent people would investigate it, right? Um, so we've currently given this contractor a $1.2 million contract. Now we want to give them another $600,000 contract. I submitted a public records request just to figure out, like, what's the metric?

Because we have the borough code that says contracts go to, you know, responsible individuals. And I was like, hey, you know, what's the rubric metric checklist? What's the determination? And I got the response in my public records request that we perform a review, a positive determination is documented, a negative determination is you know, in the rejection notice. But if you look at Matsu Borough Code 38238 subsection C subsection A subsection B, submission of falsified invoices or billing summaries is grounds for debarment from borough contracts, but that's not happening.

Famous lies as I've been growing up, uh, I did not have relations with that woman. No new taxes. There's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And the most recent one, this contractor is the responsible bidder. I'll take my 3 minutes and I abide by the laws.

I think our contractors and our assembly people should too.

Okay. Andre, did you still want to speak? Yeah.

My name is Andre Jackson, current president of the Martin Luther King Jr. Foundation. Just want to remind you that Juneteenth is the 19th, is coming Friday. We have a partnership with not only the Palmer Library— excuse me, Palmer Museum, but also we got the partnership with the Friday Flame Palmer Change it. A greater Palmer— well, the chamber's okay. I want to thank you for those books, guys.

I think you should really consider looking at those books. I'm actually here for the landfill, the solid waste. I spoke last week at the Palmer City Council, and I'm hoping that the works department for the barrel and work with the state or the city of Palmer to find a way that when you exit the solid waste and make a left turn on the Palmer-Wahsilla Highway, that you install a left-hand turn signal, because there's not one there. And if you're on that road trying to get out Monday through Friday between 1:00 and 3:00, it's usually very difficult to make a left-hand turn. I never understood why it wasn't there, but if you're on the Wasilla, Palm Wasilla Highway going north towards the solid waste, there's a left-hand turn signal.

But when you come out of there, it's not a left-hand turn signal. It should be a really easy fix. I think a couple of times almost gotten hit, and I've seen accidents almost happen because, because it's not a left turn signal to be there. So I hope you guys would one day consider putting something there. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, Sarah, what would you say that her last name— Lauren. Okay. Can I please approach the clerk of funds? You can, yes.

Give something to the clerk. Uh-huh. Madam Mayor and members of the assembly, I am here today because another dead dog was found on Misty Reader's property this weekend. Zoe was not one of the sled dogs. She was Misty's senior house pet.

And somehow, despite a felony investigation, despite troopers and animal control searching the property, despite initially charging Misty with 26 felony counts of animal cruelty, Zoe's body was missed entirely. When officials realized the number of bodies they had did not match the number they originally accounted, no one went back to the property to verify. Instead, they reportedly reviewed the footage and reduced the charges. 2 Months later, when the landlord was finally allowed back into the small 2-room cabin, Zoe was found dead on the bed, where she apparently remained the entire time. And what happened next is almost as disturbing.

Zoe was placed outside in an unlocked, open kennel, and animal control reportedly said they would return the next day to retrieve her. This was not only a sweet soul who had already suffered enough, she was potential evidence in an ongoing felony investigation. Thank you. If concerned citizens had not insisted, if they had not called every official they could think of, Zoe's body would have remained there overnight. This is why so many people in our community have lost confidence.

This is why concerned citizens in Fairbanks refused to wait for animal control and took matters into their own hands. The incompetence that allowed more than 2 dozen dogs to die is heartbreaking enough, but the continued incompetence afterward is traumatic and borderline monstrous for those of us who have fought for justice for these animals since January, the day Mark Walker left the state. I was there on property when animal control removed her. Every time I close my eyes, I see Zoe lying there for 2 months in that cabin, covered in a sleeping bag, her tail sticking out of the bottom, waiting for justice. No one should have to witness that.

And I ask you, if this has been a human being left undiscovered for 2 months during an active felony investigation, would we be accepting these explanations? Would we be satisfied with miscounted bodies, missed evidence, and delayed actions? Because I am not, and neither is the community in Alaska at large. We deserve accountability. These animals deserve justice and dignity, and Zoe deserved better.

Mary— Mary Ann Copper.

Hello. Hi, my name is Mary Ann Cochran. I've been a longtime Valley resident, and I just want to address about the gravel tax. I believe we should tax all the gravel pits, not just the big boys that use the train. I have seen many new roads destroyed after a few years of a nearby gravel pit pulling rocks out.

Last year, the borough proposed a gas tax to help us with the roads. I'm willing to pay my fair share of the taxes, but it's time the gravel pits pay theirs. Put it on the ballot in November. Thank you. Jackie.

Good evening, Mayor and Assembly. My name is Jackie Goforth. You know, one would think if you contact a public service that you have an issue with, you wouldn't face a coordinated wall of nonstop attacks that ridicule, call you names, question your intelligence, your sanity, your integrity. They engage in character assassination and career destruction, and all of it is flavored with condescending self-virtue. Oh, and let's not forget the latest— vandalism.

You heard me right. My car is now getting vandalized. You know, the front license plate was wrenched and bent at a library board meeting. I know that. I saw it.

I won't name the library, the date, or the person I parked next to. But now I have a fellow repairing one of my cars, and he has seen a whole bunch of key marks now on the back door of my— vehicle. Why would this be happening? Well, maybe it's because entities— the American Library Association comes to mind— are determined to sexually groom other people's children using obscene library books, and nobody is allowed to interfere with that objective. You know, the harassment isn't just aimed at me.

Anyone who speaks up receives it. The library board's getting set up right and left now with a barrage of complaint letters that will allege that the board members are uneducated, unqualified, untaught, ignoramuses, etc. How does the setup work? The borough policy keeps changing without anyone noticing. And if you haven't looked at the one I just showed you, that's on your website right now.

I filed a comp— a challenge on this book because I had to wait 3 years, and unfortunately now it's stuck waiting for an LCAC committee that doesn't exist. How do you follow a policy when they can't even get it right? Now, this book is obscene and is booked as a nonfiction, which means it has to have fact in it. So if you look at your second page, This is page 78 of the book. Now the first thing you're gonna notice, this is what tells children what puberty does.

And if you'll notice subliminally, the picture on the bottom, you have a 50% chance of being trans. That's what the figures on the bottom show. Okay? The other thing it says is, "Lots of people also medically change their bodies to have the traits that are right for them." Mm-hmm. This includes cisgender, transgender, and non-binary.

Cisgender means that you agree with the sex that you were born as, and that's what you are. If you're a girl, you become a woman. If you're a boy, you become a man. And nobody who has gone through puberty would have had to have medically helped to achieve that. That is a falsehood.

And the only one who would believe it is a prepubescent child. Because everybody who's been through puberty already knows. If you were a girl, you became a woman, and if you're a boy, you became a man. You didn't need any medicine for it. So why are they saying you have to have it?

Why? This is an obscene book, ladies and gentlemen, and now I don't even know if I can challenge it and with who. There's no LCAQ. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

Linda?

Hello, my name is Linda Spohn. As you know, the obscene book "Let's Talk About It" has been challenged for removal from our taxpayer-funded borough libraries. The final decision on this vulgar, perverted, obscene material is this assembly's responsibility. You are our elected leaders. The borough employees work for this assembly and we the people.

You give them direction. This moral responsibility is on your shoulders. Your final ruling on this decision will tell us exactly where our elected assembly stands morally and for the people of this borough. We the people deserve to know, and we hold you accountable. There are no laws against removing books from the libraries.

In fact, Several statewide libraries have been systematically removing good books for over 20 years and replacing what's on the shelves with the darkness— with darkness, obscenity, and a whole lot of complete nonsense. At the same time, they want bigger, more modern, and beautiful buildings. There's something dreadfully wrong here. Exactly. Who benefits from this addictive material?

We must raise our standards. Are you going to stop this moral decay, or will you continue forcing our communities down this slippery slope of debauchery? It is with your authority what the final decision will be on this filthy addictive book, lawsuit or no lawsuit, come what may. This is now in your hands. The possible cost to protect children, minors, and adults of our communities from this vile addictive obsession obscene filth would be worth fighting for.

The borough department heads, borough manager, and borough attorney are not our elected leaders. They are hired employees who may not have the best interests of the people. We are fighting for truth here. We are fighting for what's right and moral for all people. Where do you stand?

You must decide and take action. I implore you, do the right thing. Remove the obscene book "Let's Talk About It" from our taxpayer-funded libraries. Thank you. I quote lyrics, a song written by Irving Berlin.

Okay. Alrighty, that concludes the people that had signed up, but now we will open it to anyone that would like to testify or give input to the assembly on any subject, whether it's on the agenda or not. And the items that are under the public hearing, there will be an opportunity to testify at that time also. So anyone?

Okay, do we have someone online? Okay, go ahead, who's ever online, please.

Yes, my name is Samuel Schilling, property owner up here in the Caswell area. I'm also president of the Alaska Outdoor Access Alliance. I'm calling in to speak on behalf of the proposed clarification change plan ordinance for OR 26-071, proposed change to reclassify the lands over to watershed. We're calling into this because we've seen this time and time again that we want to reclassify lands, not really specific solutions. We claim that there's a problem, but we know there's a problem, but the solution that we're proposing doesn't actually fix the problem.

And what we do see is that we want to reclassify land so we can change the policies and the regulations pertaining around to how we can change things within it without actually going through the public. So I'm here to call in to testify and oppose against it, that I don't think we need to reclassify land, especially when we don't have a clear outline in the data what we're proposing is going to fix. We understand in some of the data that there are changes to the river, but we're not seeing the whole data as a whole, seeing what may be the actual issue and cause of it. But we're just going to sit there and classify the land that this particular chunk is the reason that's causing it when we know that it's not. So that's where we come to testify in that we're opposing against the classification lands because this could be severely impacting the future community on how they can utilize these lands.

I don't think we need to be giving up that opportunity to the public for those areas of lands in question. So with that, we oppose it, and we request that a little bit further data and research be done onto this on what we're actually hoping to gain out of this, not just saying that there's a problem and that this is what we think might help or what we think we should do for first steps. We should see a clear outline and then see what those proposed changes will actually be. And right now, we see that there is no actual clear definition of what we actually think is going to change when we change the policies and regulations behind it. With that, we stand against the change of reclassification of land.

Thank you very much. Mm-hmm. Do we have anybody else online, Caleb? No? So one last chance.

Anybody who were under audience participation, if you want to address the assembly on any issue, you're welcome to come forth and testify. Yeah, come on.

Go ahead and state your name. Okay, just make sure it works. Sorry. Yeah, uh, good evening, assembly, and everybody here. My name is, uh, Sam Tanksley, and, uh, my background is I've worked as a, um, boilermaker, and I've also worked inside of the mine.

And so in the state of Alaska, I know we have a lot of natural resources, and I've spoken on it a couple of times before, but I wanted to bring it up again. And I don't claim to know everything, and I'm willing to have anybody who knows better educate me on something that I don't know. But one thing that has always been curious to me is the state of Alaska has a lot of natural resources, especially as far as oil goes. Yet at the same time, we also have some of the most expensive gas prices. That I've seen in any of the states, and I'm confused by that.

Now, I can't speak for how companies run from top to bottom, but I can speak personally on how energy is produced. I worked at the Four Corners Power Plant in New Mexico, and I worked at the Healy Power Plant here in Alaska, and I worked at the, uh, Kinross Gold Mine. And up there, it was, you know, relatively a simple process. We took— at the Healy Power Plant and at the Four Corners, we were taking coal, and we were basically turning it to electricity. And we also had smaller ones at Four Corners where we use gas and turn that to electricity as well.

So the process with which we take a resource and we produce energy with it is understood, and there are people in Alaska who are more than capable of doing that as well as teaching it. And personally, I think that should be a mandatory part of education so people in you know, at high school age, even junior high age, could actually learn how the resources of Alaska are used. So if they want to go into those fields like engineering, they can get that education much sooner. And they're not confused about how things work, because a lot of people might ask, why is something so expensive? But they have no idea why it's expensive or how it's even got, especially as far as a natural resource goes.

But the resources there within the state for it to be taught, and they're also here to be used for the citizens. And personally, I know I spoke to Ms. Snowers and even Mr. Brown before, and I said, I don't know why Alaska doesn't have its own refineries and its own state-run, um, with taxpayer money, uh, engineers. Why doesn't have its own refinery? Why doesn't have its own gas stations? And we're using our resources for our own state.

And so if anybody's willing to educate me further on that or give me any reference, I'll be glad to listen to you guys educate me on something I don't understand. But really and truly, I do think that is essential because every time something goes on in a different country where we're getting resources from, it impacts us at home. But if we're using our own resources ourself and we're basically set up to be more self-reliant, I don't see how that would be a problem in the future. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anybody else come online, sir? No. Okay, so close the audience participation.

And Madam Clerk, whenever you're ready. Just a reminder, we are on Ordinance 26072 on page 5, Nornith adopting MSB 3.15036. 75,000 Owner-occupied residential real property exemption and MSB 1.10170, 1.5% area-wide sales tax with exemptions for sales within cities, and submitting the proposition to the voters at the November 3rd, 2026 regular borough election. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, so we'll go ahead and Brenda, would you change— Brenda, would you change the— will you change the agenda, please?

I'm going to open up the public hearing. And do we have a sign-up sheet? We do not have a sign-up sheet. So at this time, your testimony is welcome, but it needs to pertain to Ordinance 26-072.

We do not have a sign-up sheet. Yes, come.

Thank you. My name is Christian Cheveta. Just quick few words about this ordinance. I just feel it hits the poorest in our community the hardest. You're taxing their rental income, you're taxing the services that they're buying.

Meanwhile, we're giving exemptions to landowners. Uh, we should be avoiding any kind of taxation and making our borough, uh, more lean and able to, uh, facilitate the services in the most effective way possible. Uh, looking over the actual ordinance, uh, the definition of a seller, uh, states a person, you know, nitpicking a little bit, corporate entities such as Amazon may use something like that in order to fight paying the tax at a later date. On top of that, with sales on Amazon, a lot of times Amazon is not the seller. I myself own a company and I sell on Amazon, so I would be the seller.

I don't hit $100,000 a year in sales. So how do we make sure that tax is being collected properly from Amazon? Once again, I'm just thinking of big corporate entities and try to find a way to fight it one way or another, paying when, when the bill is due. Same goes with eBay. They facilitate the sale.

Could they be considered an agent under that seller definition? I don't know. I'm not the lawyer, but just food for thought with that. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to?

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Mr. Manager, members of the assembly and staff. I come in opposition to this ordinance here. I find it appalling, actually.

For one, you're adding another tax which didn't exist before and keeping the old one. The, uh, there is another ordinance coming up and you guys know what it is. Mike Bowles is presenting it. And, uh, you know, it gets rid of one of the taxes. It's deceptive in nature as well, you know, because now we're going to put 2 ordinances on the, on the, uh, or possibly put 2 ordinances on the ballot.

What for? Just to confuse people? Don't even think about putting this one on. It's stupid. Thank you.

Brian, would you come back and state your name for the record, please? Thank you. Brian Edel. Thank you. Anyone else?

Do we have anybody online? Okay, go ahead, whoever is online, please.

Hello, can you hear me okay? We can, thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. My name is Kai Letty.

I'm a full-time resident up here in Talkeetna. Thank you for hearing us tonight on this ordinance. I wanted to call in and show opposition towards this ballot. I think it's, um, I think these taxes would be put undue on the populations. Um, the majority of the services are public services that taxes pay for.

A lot of those services are only available in the cities. And it seems unright to apply those taxes upon all the folks of the borough that are living outside of the city limits. I think part of the idea here is to tax more tourist dollars, but as was mentioned before, this is going to have massive impacts on the low-income populations of the borough who generally live outside the city limits, out in these rural areas. And those, those populations are going to take a brunt of these taxes. Um, it's, it's fine buying stuff at the local businesses, the stores, that they're gonna, they're gonna have to pay those taxes, and I don't, I don't think that's appropriate.

So I urge the assembly to please oppose this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. The next person online, please.

Oh, they hung up. Okay, thank you. So one last chance for anybody here that would like to testify on ordinance Ordinance 26-072. Is the person trying to come back on? Are they?

No. Okay, okay. So close, uh, public hearing. And Stephanie— oh, Stephanie, Stephanie, go ahead. I move to adopt Ordinance 26-072, and I can speak to it.

Sure. First, I want to address a few things that were testified about. The long-term rentals would not be taxed, just so folks know. That's something that's exempted along with healthcare. And then as far as the administration with Amazon, eBay, etc., this is modeled after how the cities do it, so it would work the same way.

And they are collecting the— they started collecting the online sales tax. Chris will probably know, but 4 or 5 years ago. And so it would follow that same pattern. And then as far as the rural areas, that, you know, is a big concern. One thing about this is because it gives a $75,000 property tax exemption to people who live here, it would have the biggest break for people who live in the rural areas.

So because they pay higher tax rates out there, it would be about $1,000 for a lot of people living in the rural areas a year off your taxes versus $700 in the core areas. And then just to, you know, just again to address— I've had some really good conversations about this, and, and this really grew out of the whole discussion about we have a current system that we don't like a lot. It's very reliant on property taxes. So some of the complaints have been, um, and concerns were just adding one more tax, just tighten your belts. Um, that is always where the borough starts.

I will note that the borough budget passed this year was kept to less than 1%, and the assembly also lowered the mill rate. And that's because I think you have a very conservative assembly who is looking to tighten our belt. And I think, and that's come while we have this growing area that we have demands for roads and growing demands for emergency services, and we're trying to tackle that and do it in creative ways.

Sales tax are regressive. It does hit the poor harder. But, you know, if you give a property tax exemption just across the board, if you get rid of property taxes, you are benefiting large corporations that don't live here, um, that will get a big tax break that other people will have to pick up. So I did, you know, look at that part of it, um, and like I said, the rural areas are going to benefit more. So what I'm trying to do is like— What you're trying to do is thread the needle, um, and I'm open to suggestions for how to improve this.

I'm looking at it for how we can benefit people who— how you can most benefit people who live here and get people who come and visit to help pay the cost of the services. And so that's what this does. At 1.5%, it's a pretty modest increase. That was the other thing for impact on seniors and renters, 1.5% with healthcare exempted, with long-term rentals exempted. And you get $75,000 off on your property tax.

So it's— what it does is take some of the burden off property owners in the valley and get some of the visitors to shoulder the burden, the overall tax burden. So that's the gist of it. You know, we don't like our current system. Do we want to switch to another system? And do we want to give people an option?

One option for how to do this. And that's kind of the things I tried to weigh here. A very modest sales tax increase that doesn't impact the cities, that doesn't have a sales tax on top of the cities where the exemptions are different. So businesses will have to deal with a borough tax and a city tax that have different exemptions and a property tax exemption. So it just— if you give a property tax exemption to people who live here, again, you're just benefiting people who live here and not outsourced— outside corporations, um, that can easily absorb the cost of the property taxes here and won't pass the savings on to us.

So that's it. Okay, go to the next one for now. I'll leave it for the end. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So, I guess a couple things here.

If this was simply an ordinance bringing in the $75,000 exemption on primary homes, I'd be all for it. You know me, I like to lower taxes. That's— I would love to see zero taxation. However, this ordinance does bring in another tax. It just brings in a sales tax on top of every other tax we already have.

So the reality of that exemption is a future assembly who may not be as conservative can just raise the mill rate. And then, yeah, that $75,000 exemption is still there. But as our property assessments increase and the mill rate increases in, let's say, 4 or 5 years, that, that really isn't gonna matter. And then we have a sales tax. And then also that now that we have a sales tax, maybe that future assembly decides, well, let's go ahead and put it to the ballot to raise that percentage.

So bringing in a sales tax on top of all of these taxes that we already have is, um, I just don't think it's the right way to go about this. Um, I think that we really need to consider, um, what's going on in the world. We're paying $5 a gallon gas. We just voted to decrease, you know, the proposed alcohol tax from 10% to 5%. So the appetite's not there to bring in more taxes.

The appetite's there to lower taxes. And I just, I feel like having multiple— and I will also agree with Mr. Endle that having multiple similar ordinances on the ballot are just going to cause confusion. And, um, and I don't think that that's a good route to take. Um, so if somebody wants to amend this ordinance to remove all of the sales tax language and just exempt primary homes at $75,000, I'll be a yes vote right now. But the rest of it, I can't vote no on this, or I can't vote yes on this.

I'll be a no. Okay, Assemblyperson Sumner. Oh, just gonna comment on something that was said that we don't like our current system. But, you know, I mean, folks can not like property taxes and also still not like other taxes. Both the things can be true at the same time.

So just pointing that out.

Okay. Anyone else? Okay. All right. Assembly Personnel.

I'll just respond to a couple of things because that is definitely having additional taxes is a big concern. And then how much leeway does a future assembly have to change those taxes? So, um, as Mr. Bowles noted, the 1.5% sales tax would have to go back to the voters. There's no way to implement this and then kind of have a switch and have the assembly raise it. So that would have any attempt to increase that would have to go back out to the voters.

As far as just giving a property tax exemption, the cost of that is $8 to $16 million. So the way that the assembly would make up that difference is to raise the mill rate on everybody else. And that, that is kind of— when you talk about the senior and disabled veteran exemption, those folks already get about a $300,000 a year exemption. Okay. The cost of that to every other taxpayer in the borough is about $600 extra in taxes a year on an average home.

So we do that because we honor seniors and disabled veterans and what they've contributed to our community, but there's a cost to that. So, um, I can't just— Blindly give an exemption and not know that that exemption is going to be passed on to other people. What this tries to do is give the exemption and get the people who come visit the valley to help pay more of that cost because they will be paying some of that 1.5% sales tax where they're not paying property tax. So that just kind of bleeds into, do we not like property taxes enough to have a separate system where we get other people to help pay that, that cost? So—.

I think the fundamental benefit of a 1.5% sales tax, and also Mr. Bowles' sales tax, is that you are getting people from outside the borough to help pay the cost here, and that means a lower tax burden for everyone because you've got a bigger group. So, um, I don't think it's any different than the— The other proposal is also a tax on a tax because you're stacking a borough tax on top of a city tax. I mean, it's all It's all taxes. It's all how we want to fund this community and, um, and being as smart as we possibly can with the public's dollar and benefiting the people who live here. So, again, this is— that was the needle I'm trying to thread is how can we come up with a proposal that potentially gets other people to help pay the cost here and lowers the cost for everybody else here?

And then the only benefit you give is only to people living here, not to corporations, but, um, that would be up to the voters. So I think it's a good proposal. Um, I hope folks will support it. And, um, if you have suggestions for improving it to better benefit people who live here, I am all ears. But I think it's a great discussion to have because we hear a lot of complaints about property taxes.

Um, What could we do to change that? And this is one idea. Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And so, uh, address Assemblywoman Nowers.

Just that you said that we would have to make up for $8 to $12 million. And so my perspective, and a lot of perspective— we— a lot of people share this perspective— is it's not about making up the $8 to $12 million. It's about lowering the budget, lowering the intake, and the borough adapting to a lower intake. So that's part of what I'm trying to do. And I know we're not talking about mine, but, um, so I think that that's a perspective to consider is not how do we replace across the board, but how do we lower that intake?

Because everybody here shoulders that burden that, that either rents or pays property. Yeah. And, and so that's, I think, an important way to look at it. Assemblyperson Sumner. Yeah, I just actually, I was going to say something else, but then you got me thinking about that, Mr. Bowles.

But we just went through the budget process and there wasn't a single budget amendment from anyone on this table, yourself included, that cut anywhere close to $8 to $12 million. I mean, I wish there was. I wish we could cut spending. But if you look at where, where the money goes, primarily the schools and then to road and, you know, maintaining our roads and fire and EMS. You know, there's not a lot of fat left on the bone to cut, which is why there weren't tons of budget amendments cutting $8 to $12 million from our budget.

But, you know, I mean, the conversation about property taxes, you know, a lot of people have a problem with property taxes. And, you know, maybe it's an unpopular thing to say, but— Pop— Property taxes are economically efficient. They don't cause a lot of economic harm in the community. And I would argue that a tax that's in your face that you are offended by is one that means that you are going to watch your government like a hawk and demand that they, you know, keep the spending cut to the bone. You know, so those are possible benefits to not go away from property taxes.

Not that I— Mr. Mayor? I don't also hate property taxes because I do.

Let's see. That's all we have. Oh, Assemblyperson Palmer. Question is, what are the provisions in place? Because we can't really speak for the future assembly, just like the previous assembly who was here.

Um, you know, that's what we ran for sometimes and change something that previous assembly done. So there's, you know, no really provisions in place that we can put that the future assembly can't really just undo what we're doing. My only question is, is specifically when it comes to, is there any guardrails in place that if the assembly, a future assembly or this for that matter, decides to take away the exemption, does this automatically void the 1.5% tax or that stays and it's exemption? , The $75,000 exemption goes away. I guess a question maybe to attorney, is this how it's written?

Does it have that in place or not? So the Supreme Court of Alaska has not ruled on whether or not that would be the mechanism. That would be my advice to this assembly and to any future assembly. But like you said, the assembly could change, the lawyer could change too. But, um, just like with the other sales tax ordinance that Assemblymember Bowles is proposing, You know, it ties together the sales tax with another proposal.

And so my advice would be not to do it because they're presented to the voters as being tied together. If some assembly decided to disregard that advice, it would take a lawsuit to figure it out because our Supreme Court did have the issue in front of them one time, but they ruled on a different way. They didn't have to reach the issue, so they didn't. So it's an unanswered question in Alaska law, but it would be my advice that they are tied together and you would not redact one without redacting the other. So what you're saying is, although it could be written, it doesn't mean that it needs to be followed, right, by future people?

Well, what I'm saying is the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it, right? I guess a question would be, the sponsor, is there like an intent for to make sure that the exemption is applied to those primary residents? If not, how does the, you know, how could make sure that, you know, there's not a new tax established, but exemptions now kind of under the rug, so to speak? Right. Yeah, it's a really good question, right?

Because you want to lock things in. And so I looked at kind of both sides of the equation. So the 1.5% sales tax cannot be increased without going back to the voters. And then the $75,000 exemption, the assembly theoretically could reduce that, but practically, I mean, maybe the—. Well—.

The people who sit at this table, like, that has never occurred in terms of giving an exemption and then an assembly saying, oh, you know what, we're going to take that exemption back from from the seniors, from the disabled veterans. So, sorry, I'll let the attorney—. That's actually true too. I don't remember, and I don't know if Cheyenne remembers at all, I don't remember a tax exemption ever being revoked by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough once it's been granted at all ever for anything.

But, right, so if the Borough Assembly was gonna say, you know, hey, we got the $75,000 exemption, we're going to get rid of it, but we're going to keep the sales tax, you would hear me say, don't do that because we're going to buy a lawsuit and you're liable to lose. I would also just add that the $75,000 is the maximum allowed by state law. That's why I chose that, or why that figure came to the fore. And then once it's in place, you can inflation-proof it. So once it's in place, you can each year come back and increase it.

You just can't start any higher than $75,000 for the exemption. So what can it start increasing at annually? Have you looked into that? How long does it take before it gets to $100,000, let's say, on exemption? Is this decade or a couple years, or is there a percentage that it goes by?

I mean, it could be the same as we use for the senior disabled veteran exemption. We also inflation-proof that by the CPI index, is what we use?

We actually have a different, we have a different index for the, the state statute specifies CPI Urban Anchorage, Alaska. I believe it's Anchorage, but it's CPI Urban in Alaska that increases the exemption amount every year. So just every year, it would just go up by CPI if you wanted to change it. That too would come to the assembly. Yeah.

Is there, is Anchorage currently the only place that has the primary residence exemption statewide, or is there more places that you know of?

I know Anchorage fairly recently, I think, implemented that. No. Okay. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I think the way I looked at that is you can't increase the sales tax and the potential for an assembly trying to pull back the property tax exemption, even though it might technically, technically be allowed or might not legally.

It just seems like a very, very remote, like being hit by an asteroid. And what is your logic for not making it across the board and only giving exemptions to the cities? Because we do know majority of the money that comes, that's spent in the city, is outside of the city limits. Yeah, um, because I don't like a really high sales tax. I think it does drive away people.

Like, that you start at 1%, if you, if you go 5, 6, 7 people are motivated to leave and go, I'm going to drive to Anchorage. So that was one motivation. And then the other was in looking at the revenue estimates generated from outside the cities, it was enough to give the meaningful property— it was enough to make up the difference for the $75,000 property tax exemption. So that seemed like we could make it work numbers-wise. And then— when you do it outside the cities, you don't have the problem with layering conflicting exemptions on top of the cities because the cities don't have the same exemptions and they don't have the same cap.

So if the borough comes along and, you know, we make it a $1,000 cap and Palmer has $500, like, the business has to pay tax on the first $500 to the city and a thou— I mean, it just gets— it would be confusing for businesses. So I wanted to try to keep it as level across the board and uncomplicated and not add on to a city's sales tax where you're driving people out of the cities. Yeah, well, I, I'd argue that city of Osceola needs to change to probably be $1,000 as the other places. So in your opinion, 1.5% is okay, but 4% is too high, right? Well, you'd be stacking on top of the 4%, so you'd end up with a 5.5% sales tax Palmer and what, a 4% in Wasilla?

I think at a certain point, you know, you start boiling the—. So where's your cap? Like, you're willing to go to— I mean, Palmer went, didn't ask us, and went to the 4 or whatever percent, right? I, I don't have a magic number for you. I just know when people see a high enough number, they, they're motivated to— I'm gonna make the drive.

Whereas they're like, yes, extra, you know, uh, 1.5% on $100 is $1.50. I'm not, I'm not going to change. I'm still going to shop here. I'm actually, it's a little more level playing field between the online businesses and the brick and mortar, evens the playing field a little bit for them. So I don't have a magic number for you, but I, you know, everybody has their own number where they're like, I'm going to do the extra effort and I'm going to go somewhere else.

Well, playing field for specifically for Matsuburo would be if we're collecting it borough-wide, not exempting certain ones just because they have their own tax, because we do provide services that are inside of those cities. So I just wanted to— and then I'll— if there are any more discussion need to be taken by others, so let's do that, but then I'll make my amendment. Okay, Assemblyperson Sumner. Oh, I was just going to point out that, uh, Ms. Nowrath, you keep saying that people make the effort to drive to Anchorage with a high enough sales tax, but 31% of our workforce makes that drive every day.

Okay. Okay. Assemblyperson McKee. Thank you. Yeah, it's always stated that a sales tax is a regressive tax.

It hits the people who can least afford it and that people who have enough money to actually own property Here we have that to me a bitter pill. Grew up extremely dirt poor, so I know how that works. A few dollars here, a few dollars there, then you can't afford to have, you know, meat for dinner unless you shoot a moose, whatever. So what I don't like about this is it says— it's a huge hit to say to the people who really can't afford it because they don't have the money to buy property that you get to pay a tax, but the people who own houses, they get to pay a tax, but guess what? They get a $75,000 break.

That seems— extremely inequitable to me. I realize what you're trying to do. I certainly will not vote for the 6.5%. I've read that thing until I'm blue in the face. I think it's a commendable effort to mitigate that.

But you look also at the stability of property taxes. I know people say, yeah, mine's gone out of sight. Well, you know, we kind of had to deal with this huge influx of people into the valley, so things did go like that, and it was kind of shocking. But still, that's— you leave the folks out there who can least afford it being the ones who are going to— they're not going to get anything for it except a little more tax and maybe have to drive to Anchorage. So I can't vote for either one of these.

Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I'd like to make an amendment to 26-072. I move to amend 26-072 by removing all language from Section 3 down and leaving the language above it addressing the $75,000 exemption.

Madam Mayor. Okay. If I could just make a comment that, uh, we— this does not need to go to the ballot to just do a $75K exemption. So you would be putting this on the ballot if you made that amendment. So If your goal is to make the 75K exemption, then I would say just get a different ordinance written because we're just going to be, you know, putting something that's unnecessary on the ballot.

But can we get an opinion? Yes, Mr. Attorney, go ahead. I just need to jump in and clarify, the $75,000 residential real property exemption has to be approved by voters. Never mind, I'm wrong. Okay, Assemblyperson Did you?

Yeah, to make it more fair to residents of borough and lower that number from 1.5% to 1%. I'm going to make a proposed—. We already have an amendment on the floor that we haven't voted on yet. Okay, let's get through that one. Then after that one's done, up or down, I'll acknowledge you.

Okay, so any further discussion on the amendment that's on the floor? Assemblyperson Sumner. Yeah, if you make a $75K primary residence property tax exemption without any offset, you're, as Ms. Nowers pointed out before, you know, unless you cut, which we've proven that we're incapable of cutting, we just went through a budget cycle and we didn't do it, then you're gonna make a transfer. That means that you're gonna have to raise the mill rate on everyone else to pay for that $75K residential property tax exemption. Now everyone else that's not a primary residence is commercial buildings and vacant land and landlords.

So landlords are gonna pass on that cost and increase rents. Commercial buildings are gonna pass on, you know, commercial tenants are gonna pass on that cost and increase prices for goods. And then, I mean, I guess the vacant land holders just get left holding the bag. But you know, there's, it's more nuance than just, hey, it's a tax break for, for people that, uh, own a house, you know, someone else is going to pick up the bag, you know. Uh, for instance, if you own a vacation property like a cabin, remote cabin, those, those taxes will go up too.

Assemblyperson Bowles, did you comment? Thank you, Madam Mayor. So yes, to address that, um, so then we have to ask ourselves, then, do we want to bring in a sales tax, or do, like I've heard in some conversations from some assembly members and some members of the public, Do we want to pass a little bit more of a tax onto corporate entities? This would achieve that. This would pass some of the greater burden onto corporate entities.

I'm not saying I'm for that. I'm saying that that's a reality of passing this amendment, is it passes on that burden to, as I believe Ms. Nowor stated earlier, some that can afford a little bit more, or I'm generalizing that statement. I don't necessarily agree with that. Um. Again, I'd like to have minimal taxes, but what I don't want is to bring in a—.

No, no, we're on the amendment. Yes, yes, Madam Mayor. What I don't want is to have a sales tax on top of everything else. I would rather have an exemption, pass the burden to other entities, and no sales tax. That's what I'd like to achieve with this.

I'm sorry, Assemblyperson Bowles, I thought you started to say amend And so that's why— so anyway, Deputy Mayor, is—. So if everybody got a $75,000 tax exemption, what's that come out to? What— how are we going to make that up?

Okay, just a minute. The clerk would like to, um, clarify the amendment. Okay, just want to clarify the amendment with you, Assemblymember Bowles. It looks like if you're wanting to get rid of the sales tax in the legislation, it would be Section 3 and Section 4, plus we would need to get rid of the sales tax, um, language in Section 5 for the proposition language. So I just want to clarify that that's what you're wanting to do.

Correct. My amendment removes everything from Section 3 down in this ordinance. If I could clarify with the attorney, does it not have to go to the vote for $75,000?

But then that, that, that this getting rid of Section 5 deletes the ballot language. I know. Okay, so leaving the ballot language in. So, okay, with the changes of getting rid of the sales tax, I just want to make sure that that's clear to everybody. Thank you.

Yes. That's the intent. Okay, now Assemblyperson McKee. It's kind of confusing. Um, you're putting forth some things that will— that you would— the amendments to Ms. Nowers' proposal, but then you're saying getting rid of the sales tax if we do her proposal.

Is that right? Yeah. Am I allowed to? Okay, so, so yes, what, what my amendment proposes is to remove the sales tax portion of this ordinance. Leave the $75,000 exemption on primary homes in place.

And the concern— some of the— I don't know if it's concern, but some of the outcome of that would be that to match what we are bringing in right now, the $130 million, that taxes would still have to increase in other areas, which would be corporate entities, vacant land, and other entities that aren't primary residences.

Deputy Mayor, did you have your—. Yeah, can we ask Cheyenne how, how much money this is— comes down to, the $75,000? That would cost— that would cost— okay, yeah. Is there any objection to calling staff forward?

Go ahead, ma'am. Good morning, ma'am. Good morning, Mr. Mayor. Cheyenne Heindel, Finance Director. The attachment that was provided with the legislation estimates that a $75,000 exemption for owner-occupied residential real property could range, if only 50% of the people applied that are eligible, from $7.9 million to 100% would be $15.9 million.

Yes, so that would be the tax— taxes that you would have to offset with something, or the cut that would have to happen to the budget.

Okay, anyone else? Assemblyperson Gamble, do you have a question for us? I do. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, Cheyenne, that does not include disabled veterans or or senior citizens?

That does not include senior citizens or disabled veterans because they already have an exemption. So it's only— you only get one exemption the way the ordinance is written. Yeah, so we can't stack and include disabled veterans and senior citizens? I'm going to turn it over to you, yeah. And if we can, do you have any idea what that dollar figure would be?

Okay.

Mr. Attorney. If I can have one moment to scroll up the ordinance here, I believe— sorry, it's been a long time since I wrote it.

Sorry, some of them are gobbledygook. I did not anticipate that question. I believe this is written that it does not— does not— I believe this is written that it does not stack. It does not. It does not.

Yeah. You can't. Okay. I think it's been requested that we take a break here to get—. Sorry.

If I could, right before the break, subsection J says the exemption under this chapter may not be combined in whole or in part with any other exemption provided by federal state law— federal law, state law, or borough code. So this will not stack. Right. If I can follow up, Madam Mayor, and I understand that the way it's written, but is there anything in our code that prevents us from stacking tax exemptions? So if we change the language of the ordinance, could we include senior citizens and disabled veterans?

Let me take a quick look during the break. Okay, we will take a break. We'll come back at 8. Perfect.

I think most of the assembly is back, so I may snitch back 2 minutes from the break. Is Lonnie— where's Lonnie at? I'm not leaving. I'm just getting off. Oh, okay.

Oh, so we wait till another minute? Okay. So sorry. The public, if they're on the phone, they're thinking, oh, 8 o'clock.

We're trying to emergency cool it. Okay. All righty. I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting back to order. And let's see, you— Yeah, that was— that's— we're still on the amendment, right?

And so, um, Assemblyperson Norris, go ahead. Um, so a couple questions. So one is, um, if we were to just give the property tax exemption and it costs $16 million in revenue that's not collected, is that the equivalent of, like, a mil on everybody else's taxes? Like, a mil brings in about $15, $16 million? Through the mayor to assembly member now, the under the current budget, the FY27 budget, one mil is equal to $16,288,000.

Okay, so, so 16. So, just— I mean, this is a really good discussion because this is the whole, like, how we fund the borough. And then, and again, accountability is number one. But, um, you know, I think when you look at a budget last year that increased by 1% despite all the inflation, you see an assembly that's doing— and a management that's doing a lot to tighten the belt. Like Assemblymember Sumner said, if there was an extra 12 or 16 million sitting around to use, we would do it.

So I think the reason I would not support this is because what would happen is to be able to pay for all the services out here, everybody else would pay an additional mil about, which is an additional $400 a year on their property taxes, and I can't. I can't support that, um, because it's just shifting the cost burden from some taxpayers to the ones who are still paying. Okay, are we ready to vote on the amendment? Okay, do we have an objection to the amendment? We do.

Okay, okay. Did you want to— I don't want to cut you off. I thought you were— I didn't know if you were objecting to the amendment or what. Thank you. No, Madam Mayor.

Um, I, I just wanted to so clarify. So with just this, the exemption, it would increase the mill rate, increasing taxation, therefore negating the exemption, or passing some of it off to corporate entities. No, so it's kind of a— it's a—. It would not negate the exemption. What it would do is the homeowners would get the exemption, and yeah, the— right, the whole mill rate would have to come up.

And then corporations do pay some of the taxes, but they are not the majority. It is paid by homeowners in the valley. Like, we do have some really big, like the hospital, Walmart, that are big taxpayers, but in the scheme of things, they're, I don't know, probably less than 10% of the total tax load. So the primary payer that— who's footing the bills is the homeowner. Yeah.

So essentially, with or without this amendment, that can still happen with the sales tax also. With the sales tax, you have— you're generating the revenue to cover the property tax exemption, and some of that revenue is coming from visitors who are coming to the valley. So you're paying for it and you're getting visitors to help pay for it. Until future assembly raises the mill rate. Can I call on some other assembly members, please?

Assembly member or deputy mayor or Sumner, whichever one. Yeah, I can't— I can't support this amendment. It's classic government. Here's $75,000. Thank you very much.

It's take with one hand or give with one hand and take with the other. Assemblyperson Sumner. Yeah. So like what we were saying at the beginning was it's, you know, unless you make the cut, which, you know, we just went through the budget, we didn't do that. So unless you make the cut and there's, then it's just a tax transfer.

And in the thought experiment where, yeah, you're right, there would be some corporations that would pay that tax. Pay that tax bill. There'll be some landlords that pay that tax bill. I would argue they'd probably just pass on the cost, but, you know, whatever. The big evil entities are going to pay a little bit more in taxes.

But also, uh, anyone with an above-average price house will pay that, that tax bill. So this is a progressive tax, uh, tax transfer, if you will. So the harder-working citizens who saved up to buy their dream home, now their taxes are going up. And you're, you know, you're better, you know, and hey, if that's what you want to do, then vote that way. But, you know, I'm, I'm against it because I think it's just a tax transfer.

It's not, you know, classic government, you know, we're giving you this great tax break, but it's not really a tax break. Okay, Assemblyperson Boldt. And I agree 100%, so I'm going to pull my amendment. Is there any objection to the amendment being pulled? I see no objection, Madam Clerk.

So the amendment's pulled. So we're back to Ordinance 26-072. Do we have Assemblyperson Farnoff? Yeah, I'd like to make an amendment. I'll have you read it for me, please.

Assemblymember Farnoff moves to amend Ordinance 26-072 as follows: 1, strike 1.5 and replace it with 1% throughout the ordinance. 2, To strike the words with exemptions for sales within the cities from the title. 3, To strike MSB 3.35050D in its entirety, page 2325 of the ordinance. And 4, to strike the ballot language and replace it with the following: Proposition number 75,000 owner-occupied residential real property tax exemption and 1% area-wide sales tax shall the manuscript Sitna Borough enact a $75,000 owner-occupied residential real property exemption and exercise the power to levy, collect, and enforce an area-wide sales tax in the amount of 1% in the entire Madnuska-Sitna Borough. Okay, you want to speak to it, sir?

Yeah, if we're going to treat everything across the board, we're going to treat it same. It lowers it to a 1%, and it keeps it a lot more cleaner. Achieves the same results for the lower price because a lot of the people that live outside of the city go to city to spend it. So why should a store that's on the other side of the street, um, has— is exempt but the other store is not? So I would say this proportionally spreads it across the board fairly and it lowers the percentage and achieves the Same result, really simple.

And this is the amendment that I— if this amendment does not pass, I cannot support the ordinance as a whole, just letting you know. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, as we just discussed with my proposed and then pulled amendment, um, this, this $75,000 amendment— or excuse me, exemption— really does nothing. It, uh, it's a, it's a smoke and mirrors type thing. It, uh, it makes it look like it'll lower property tax, but then in reality, um, the mill rate will have to be adjusted to reach that $130 million mark, or will now depend on a sales tax on top of all of the other tax. So, um, I just, I think that it's important to note that, that this now brings in a sales tax on top of every other tax.

So I would strongly urge a no vote on this. Okay, Deputy Mayor. Oh, question for staff. What would 1% sales tax look like?

It's in the report that we've gotten, but she'll probably say the same number.

Through the mayor to Assemblymember Bernier, Cheyenne Handel, Finance Director. So in the attachment that was supplied with the amendment, I believe, or even with the other legislation, 1% would bring in approximately $21,484,000 when you consider the city's online sales and sales outside the cities.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Something that's kind of confusing to me, we have two bills on taxes.

We're voting on a much smaller one at 1% or 1.5%, but I think it's kind of ass backwards because we should maybe consider the big one first and say we want it or we don't. And then if we don't, maybe the second one is more attractive. Maybe neither one is. That's just a comment, but I think we're kind of backwards on that. Move to postpone.

Maybe we should move to postpone this one until after the other one's voted on. Can I do that? I move to— huh? You're on an amendment, so you could make a secondary amendment, right? I'm sorry, what?

I want to move to postpone this until after the other one's been heard. Just to clarify, Assemblymember McKee, you're moving to postpone this ordinance until after the discussion of Ordinance 26-032 tonight. Yep. Okay. Okay.

Is there objection to that amendment? I would like to not object. I'd like to get through amendment and then I agree with that. Would that be okay with the, uh, uh, Ms. McKee, for you to go through the amendment and then leave it? Because in the middle of an amendment, it's pausing it and going to the next one.

I Feel like maybe not the best time. Okay, so there is an objection. Deputy Mayor. I just wanted to thank Cheyenne, and, uh, that this way people in Facebook world and stuff like that, they can follow along with us. And, and 1%, we've got this in front of us, but they don't.

Thank you.

This is Thurston Gamble. Yeah, I actually agree with Ms. McKee that we should postpone it now before we get through your amendment. Um, I, I think your amendment is, is good, but I'd rather get through the, the other sales tax thing and then come back to this. Um, because there's no way I could— I'm just going to leave it on the postponement. Yeah.

Okay, so we're ready to vote in. Oh, a couple lights down here. Assemblyperson— Just so you know, I'm not— generally, I'm not objecting to swapping them around. I was just trying to say if we could get that through, but if there's no— I'm okay with that.

Okay, so the question may go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to say something. Okay, all righty. So the question before you is the moving of this item on the agenda, right? Does anybody have any questions?

Okay. Do we have any objection?

No, we don't have any, I guess. Nope, I thought we had one down there, but no. Okay, so then, Madam Clerk. We're ready for the next one. Public hearing.

Ordinance 26058, an ordinance establishing a tax on certain natural resources whenever the natural resource is severed and removed from property within the Maniscusena Borough and providing for the penalties for failure to pay taxes due by adopting MSB 3.55 Natural Resource Severance. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, I'm going to open the public hearing on Ordinance 26- 058. Do we have a sign-up sheet? We do not.

Okay, anyone that would like to testify on this ordinance? Yes.

Hello, my name is Jade Laughlin, owner of Central Gravel Products. Um, I'm not opposed to this. I'm opposed to parts of this. There's been some misinformation that we need to tax all the gravel pits in the valley because of the damage they're doing to the roads. The gravel industry, the entire trucking industry pays an FET tax, federal excise tax.

It's a heavy use tax that you guys all benefit from when you guys are building your roads. That we're paying for every aspect of a dump truck. Uh, it's 12% on everything— fuel, tires, maintenance, the purchase of a truck, all of those items. And that money funnels back to local and state road projects. So we are paying our fair share and then some to use our roads.

Um, in this deal, the only things that I don't like about it, um, is one, How are you going to enforce it? We've called in on gravel pits that are operating without a gravel extraction permit, and nothing's changing. So we would like to see— I'd like to know what you guys are going to do to enforce this. The other thing is the burden of surveys on the smaller operators. What's stopping the borough from walking in and asking, how many yards did you sell?

I sold 20,000 yards. Well, I think you sold 30,000 yards. 30. So now you have a $200 an hour surveyor or a $6,000 drone pilot to come out there and fly your property and determine how much gravel you did or did not use. So I'd like to see that, some more conversation about that, how that would be done.

Um, there's a lot of gravel pits in the valley that don't have scales. I have scales at two gravel pits, our old pit and our new pit, and I very rarely use them. They're a waste of time, paper, and money. And so I'd rather just sell by the yard, but are you going to force me to use the scales? Which is like, as you said, is going to fall back on you guys when you guys' borough jobs are coming through there.

It's going to slow your guys' process down, which means your truck time goes up. And then the final thing on it that I really don't like is access to my books. It's of no concern to you who is buying my gravel. It's only of concern to you is how much gravel I sold. It doesn't— no concern of yours of who hauled the gravel.

It's just how much gravel did I sell. So I think there's some invasive things in this that I would like to see spoke about and some engineering done to mitigate them. But for the most part, I'm not opposed to this. I think it's a good ordinance and I like some of the language in it, but I'd like to clear up some of the more— the rest of it. Thank you.

Thanks for your time. Anyone else?

We have anybody online, sir? No. One last chance. Anybody else on Ordinance 26-058?

Okay, go ahead and close the public hearing. Assemblyperson Nowak. I move to adopt Ordinance 26-058, and if I could just speak to it briefly, and then I had a question for staff if that's possible. Um, so reason I brought this forward is residents have been asking for gravel tax for quite a while, and there was a forum, debate forum, where people were polled on what kind of tax they could support, and Gravel tax received a, a large percentage of folks who were in support of it. So heard a lot from the community.

And this again is a way to kind of diversify the tax base a little bit. It helps share the burden and it does it in a, in a small way. It's not an excessive amount, $0.25 a ton over 150,000 tons. So nothing on the first 150,000 tons. Tons, so it doesn't penalize the mom-and-pop operation.

It takes into account that the residents out here bear the brunt of the impacts from these operations, while at least in some cases, the majority, if not all, of the gravel is going into Anchorage. And then lastly, I would note, like, in terms of the, the tax burden, one thing gravel pits don't pay a lot of is property taxes out here, and that's because the the value of the property is so low. And I shared this with the assembly, but I will share it with anybody who's interested in it. It's a map of the Palmer area and the large pits. And if you add up the acreage, you have 700 acres of gravel pits that are bringing in $47,000 a year in taxes.

In that same area, there's one business, a boat business, that's 12, 13 acres. Mm-hmm. And 2 single-family homes. So 15 acres of land that is paying $34,000 in taxes. So the homeowners on a per-acre amount are paying a large portion of— much larger portion of the property tax, which is the main way we fund ourselves out here.

We weren't totally relying on property taxes, you wouldn't see this disparity. Um, and at least one of these properties Um, is 100 acres valued at $282,000. It has not been graveled for 12 years, um, and it was supposed to be reclaimed into houses and marina trails, etc. So the, the value of that land has been a long-term devaluation, at least in that case. So, um, I did have a question, if I could, of staff to respond to some of those, the points that were brought up.

Sure. Anybody have any objection to bringing staff up? Okay, go ahead.

Just wondered if we could address those concerns that were brought up, like how do we deal with, um, you know, the tons versus cubic yards? How will we enforce— let's start with that— and how will we enforce this on, uh, you know, across the valley. Through the mayor to Assemblymember Nauer, Cheyenne, the finance director. Um, there are conversion factors for tons to cubic yards, which is what we would use. Um, as to enforcement, this ordinance is anticipating one full-time staff needed to do this.

This is going to be primarily a self-reported tax, with the one, basically, an appraiser going out in the field and visiting the various gravel pits. I'm sorry, one other question that came up, and I don't, not sure who can answer it, but maybe somebody on staff can. Are we not, what was mentioned was that we are getting notified of pits that are operating without permits. Can anybody speak to how we are enforcing that, or—. So through the mayor, Caleb, is Alex online?

If you could allow him to chime in since I— we weren't sure where this conversation would go. And I'm sorry, that was— I was going to chime in now because we do have somebody that was trying to participate in the public hearing and wasn't able to get through. Okay, so we might have to— he may have made it in. Alex or Mr. Culligan? Okay.

Yeah, this is Alex. I'm online. So do we have— do we have Steve on there?

Okay, let's see if we can get Steve on because he wanted to testify. You don't have him?

Do you want to let Alex answer the question? And then while we're waiting for the— well, he wanted to testify under the public hearing, so yeah, if you don't mind. Hello? Yes, go ahead.

My name is Melody Wright. I'm sorry I missed the public comment part, but I did want to weigh in with the gravel tax. When we moved here in 2006, there was a gravel tax that was on the ballot that was refused by the public, but I think it's a long time coming. I would say either gravel tax or a penalty on non-reclamation pits, because if you start fining gravel companies who aren't doing reclamation, one of two things is going to happen. Either they're going to pay a lot of money in fines that they're not paying in property taxes, or they're going to reclaim it, and then property taxes can be collected on that area.

So I am in favor of a gravel tax. I think it is one way to recapture lost revenue for the borough. Thank you. But I think that, and I don't know if the borough is the right class for this, but enforcing reclamation laws are actually a long-term solution to a long-term problem that we have, given that we have a moonscape in lots of areas of the valley that nobody's bothering addressing, that is just a hole in revenue, as Assemblymember Nowers has said. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you. Just give the— yes, yes, yeah, please.

Mr. Culligan, go ahead, go ahead. I, I've been trying to I'm going to get online here for a bit as this is kind of lathered on. Steve Culligan of Wasilla, represent Alaska Rock Products Professional Organization that represents the aggregate industry. We sent a letter of talking points in earlier, emailed to Assembly for consideration. Our first and foremost though is the fiscal note that was attached published yesterday, a day before the meeting, claiming that there's almost $1 million of revenue from this.

I haven't heard exactly how that is, but from industry, from the main people that are affected by this, it's— that's overstated by a factor of 3. And I believe your enforcement is understated by probably half. You need more than just an accountant to take money. You're already not enforcing the small operators that are— have been causing trouble and Aligning the entire industry. There's plenty of things, and the state decided— I included information from 2012 when the state got rid of their gravel tax for the same reasons.

You're taking money out of one pocket of government and putting it in the other pocket of government. You're driving up uncertainty and construction cost. Much of the large operators provide the bulk of materials for large construction projects, public works projects. That uncertainty provides for risk, which comes out in higher bids from the contractors. There's many other reasons for discussion, but first and foremost, I'd like to understand how you come up with almost $1 million of revenue that is— from knowing the internal numbers and talking to the vendors, private companies, that's overstated by a factor of 3.

And ultimately, again, this just gets passed on to the public one way or another. The vendors you're talking about all have more than 60% of their employees live in the valley, pay taxes, are your coaches and other people involved in the community, buy stuff in the valley and the lake. The borough has been down this road of discussion of gravel taxes many times. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Assemblyman Nowers has an issue with a particular pit, rather than taking out an entire industry— we're not speaking for them, they're not one of our members— that she should address them directly.

Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Now, do we have anybody else that— as far as we know, we don't have anybody. Okay. Alrighty.

So we She was asking Alex. Oh, Alex. Alex. Okay.

Do we have Alex on? Okay, go ahead, sir. Hi. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, so I believe the question was, how do we enforce, um, extraction permits?

And the answer is, if we get notified or it comes to our attention that we— that there is an illegal gravel pit that started operating, there's several different things we can do. One is to kind of watch the entrance and count vehicles that are going in and out, and we have to count, uh, essentially 2,000 cubic yards. If they're over that, they—. It requires a permit. That's one way to do it.

The other way is if they have road projects that deal with the state or the borough, we can track those numbers and see how much is being extracted. The other— if over time we have different sets of LiDAR, then we can do sort of a cut-fill analysis based on topography. But our LiDAR data is spotty, where we have one in 2011, 2019. We can— if we get more LiDAR data than we, you can tell how much has been extracted. So those are the ways.

Just a follow-up. So we just had two entities that work in the gravel industry tell us we're not enforcing, or testify that we're not enforcing when we're getting notified. So I just, I don't know if you can respond to that. Like, I understand how we enforce it, but are we having a problem with actually doing enforcement? Because we have both the Rock Products Association and a gravel pit operator who I respect and knows a lot about the industry saying that we're not taking action.

So we are enforcing the gravel code. There are some times where a project will occur between private entities that they get away with extracting more than 2,000 cubic yards, and we're not able to easily prove that they did that. So yeah, there are, there are times where people get away with it, but if we learn about an illegal gravel pit and we have the ability to sort of demonstrate that they have extracted over 2,000 cubic yards in a calendar year, we will take enforcement action. Okay, thank you. Okay, Assemblyperson— oh, let's see, who do you have?

Alex, um, this is Bill Gamble. Can you explain to the rest of the assembly what happened with the small gravel pit on West Lakes Boulevard and how the owner of that property tried to circumvent our code and how long it took your department to stop the more than 2,000 cubic yards of extraction of gravel from that property?

Yeah, so you're talking about West Lakes and Bellardi, that one? That is correct. Okay. Yeah, that was many years ago. There was definitely a lot of extraction occurring.

There are some weaknesses in our code that some of them now are actually pointed out at the last meeting, if somebody claims it's not for sale, that is a potential loophole. If we're having a difficult time proving it, there are ways we can prove that as well. But if we're not able to get receipts somehow and somebody claims that they're not selling the gravel, that does make it difficult. In that particular case, there are some issues with it. You had a— bus stop right there where they're pulling out a lot.

They're driving right by little, little houses, right next to little houses in their development plan. They actually said that they were going to subdivide the property. It was 40 acres. They were subdividing the small lots and extract 2,000 cubic yards from each individual lot. After that, we did change the law to sort of close that loophole.

Um, that person did apply for a permit, ultimately withdrew the permit, and then followed up years later with an administrative permit.

Okay. Actually, Alex, this one was the one that was just resolved, to my understanding, was that the owner of the property leased the property to another entity who was extracting the gravel. And then when he was, I guess, best word to use is confronted about the amount of gravel that was being taken off his property. He said it wasn't his responsibility because the property was leased to somebody else, and it's taken months and months and months to resolve this. Are you familiar with that?

That does not ring a bell for me. Generally speaking, we can go after— the way our code is written, we can write a citation to the landowner as well as the operator, or either one or both, but I'm not, I'm not aware of that particular circumstance. Okay, thank you. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So, um, I cannot support this. So obviously it's another tax on top of all of our other taxes, um, on the surface, but what this actually does is much worse in or could be much worse. I've spoken with people in Anchorage and municipality, our neighbors, and kind of gotten their take on this. And if we impose a gravel tax on gravel going to Anchorage, it's not a guarantee, but it's likely that they will start taxing our sewage. All of our sewage and septic tanks go to Anchorage.

And as we have seen for years and years, the Anchorage municipality has no problem in increase in taxes, even if it hurts their residents. So I am going to be a no vote on this because if we bring in a gravel tax, you're— it's highly likely that Anchorage will create a sewage tax, and then we will be in a tax war that we don't want to get into. That's just going to hurt residents. Thanks. Okay, Assemblyperson Sumner.

Uh, yeah, I was going to say that I just Googled it and I confirmed it. Anchorage Waste and Wastewater Utility, who handles the septage from the valley, is a regulated utility for the RCA. So they can't just arbitrarily raise their rates, and they definitely can't raise their rates for just, just trucks coming from the valley. So that's— that probably wouldn't happen. I don't think that there would be a tax war.

Assemblyperson Ponna. I guess question to sponsor, I guess, what are you actually trying to accomplish with this? Because most of them are exempt with just exception of just a couple of them. And I kind of want to understand your way of thinking. I know we've disagreed plenty of time on the gravel side of things, and— but I'm trying to understand your essence and what you're trying to achieve with this.

Yeah, I think, I mean, I spoke to that a little bit, right? You know, that the residents are bearing the brunt of the impacts, and, um, it's just a way to diversify the tax base a little bit and recognize that. Um, as far as, um, how many PITs it would apply to, like, one of the issues we have right now is we don't track, um, how much is taken out of PITs. And so I did share with the assembly the spreadsheet of all the the permitted gravel sites. And if you look at that and sort it by— it does— we do permit them for a certain amount.

And so if you sort that by permitted amount per year, you'll see there's more than 20, just over 20 pits that this would apply to. So one of the things we would find out is just how many pits this would apply to. And that, that might not be a bad thing for us to know in the valley for a resource that you can't, you know, once it's gone, it's gone. So, you know, again, like, just the motivation was residents have been asking for it, and it just gives some recognition of the impacts these pits have on the surrounding property owners, kind of levels the playing field, and a fair amount of the gravel is going into Anchorage. And so it's been— if we're bearing the impacts but the benefits are going to Anchorage.

Are you not concerned that there's going to be a lot of 120, 149 tax a cubic yard, thousands of gravel pits now? I absolutely do. I mean, somebody might even come at 149, 999. You know, they might try to play that game. But that's one of the reasons I have, like, as far as the question about enforcement, one of the reasons to have like a larger size recognizes that those have a bigger impact, but also, like, it's just easier to enforce.

Like, if you were trying to tell the difference between 20,000 and 25,000 cubic yards, you're not gonna, you know, that's hard. But if somebody says, I'm taking 40,000 cubic yards out, and it looks like it's— or, I'm sorry, tons, right? And it's way over that, you can kind of police it. So, I mean, if they're really— and again, I guess the last thing I did look at is like Mr. Strawn mentioned, you can use LiDAR and come up with some rough estimates. So, you know, if somebody's over by a little bit, probably not gonna be able to police that, but if they're a large amount over, I think it's doable to catch that.

And then we can ask to be able to look at the books with them to double-check it. So did you say, according to what the permits are issued, potentially up to 20 gravel pits could qualify for this? There was 20 on that list that were over— were permitted for 100,000 cubic yards or more a year. So when you do the math on what the tonnage is for that, would potentially apply to them. And the projected revenue of about— let's just round it up to about $1 million.

That's what isn't anticipated to what could come out of it. That was the estimate that, okay, but it is, it is a guess for sure. Staff, if I may please, I think they also connect a little bit. Um, if we had to hire 20, uh, part-time 1,000-hour employees to sit by the gates to count the, uh, dump trucks, how much approximately is employee cost?

Um, well, we're anticipating it for this that one full-time employee would be $132,000. Uh, I mean, the best way I guess is to actually count the trucks. Let's just be honest. So I'm just saying, how much is our 1,000-employee cost currently?

Through the mayor to the city member Von Hoff, with without actually having a salary schedule, I would just throw out there, you're probably figuring maybe $20,000 to $30,000 per employee on call. Okay, okay. If we did that at 20, so we're going to spend about $600,000 if we really want to monitor it, because that's the only really fair way to making that. And we're going to get about $900,000. I don't know if that makes sense, and I don't know, Ms. Nowers, how that will actually benefit those people who are impacted by this.

I just don't see how they directly will benefit, except knowing that the industry that they strongly dislike are now paying a quarter more. So I don't know, to me, math doesn't make sense, but, um, I'm open to continue this discussion. Okay, Assemblyperson— oh, I'm sorry, And Campbell, you had your hand up too, do you? A question for Alex. Alex, are you still on?

Yes, yes, I'm still on. All right. Do you know the number of permitted gravel pits in the Matsubara right now, and do you know how many of them are actually producing?

I do not have those numbers. Okay, so I guess that's why I'm wondering. We got to a million-dollar revenue figure, but we don't even know how many pits are actually producing compared to those that are permitted. And I would like to comment that I've had a lot of people tell me that they don't want any more gravel pits, but I haven't had a lot of people tell me that they want the gravel pits taxed. Thank you.

Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, As far as the reclamation aspect, I'm looking here. I understand there's concern as far as enforcement for the borough, but there's state statute that addresses reclamation and it falls under DNR. So I think that if that's a portion of this, that maybe the borough can reach out to DNR and see if they can up their enforcement efforts, you know, in the Matsu borough, if that's really part of the intent of this is reclamation.

But again, the last thing I'd like— I want to see us do is get into a situation where we're taxing something going to Anchorage and then they decide to somehow tax something that's coming to us and then it just blows up from there. So. Assemblyperson Sumner, did you or Assemblyperson McKee, I guess. I don't know. Bill, in accordance with your Um, comment that they didn't ever ask, they didn't want the gravel pits, but they didn't say anything about the taxes.

I bet you, I bet you 99% of them don't know they're taxed. I absolutely did not know that. I figured it was just a given when somebody comes on, you know, rental land and digs up gold by the barrelful. I would assume that they're— if they're taking that off my property, somehow or another something's got to be paid. Several years ago, about 4 years ago, when we had a bunch of gravel people appear before us and They said— I asked my final question to them was, well, what's your net profit?

They wouldn't tell me. I mean, they really hemmed and hawed and double-spoke and all that kind of thing, but they must be making a buck out there. And when we say, okay, you're making a buck out of something that you just dug out of our ground, I just think taxing is a good idea. Every person sign up. Yeah, question.

Uh, when does this, uh, does this ordinance take effect?

Mr.

It says upon adoption. Yeah, so I don't know, that's what I thought because that's what I was reading. But a couple things, we have a responsible, well-respected gravel pit operator who's here tonight who said, I'm not totally opposed to this. I bet you he would be opposed to it in the middle of the season. A, you know, especially when he hasn't collected the revenue required to cover this tax for all the sales he's already made.

But, you know, B, he brought to you real genuine concerns and said, you know, these are the things that must be addressed before you, you foist this upon our industry. So I would just ask everyone to vote this down. The sponsor, take your time, work with, uh, gravel pit operators, bring back something that addresses these concerns that is not enacted in the middle of the season. Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

You know, I actually would like to postpone this and do a committee and come back in a month with some— fine-tune this because we got something here.

And, you know, by all means, any gravel heading to Anchorage, I want to see it taxed. You got my support on that. But I don't want to mess with the mom and pops or digging in people's back pocket and looking in their underwear and stuff, just trying to dig. You know, this is kind of invasive. But I think if we took 3 people and literally went down this and refined it, and either you or the mayor appoint people on there, um, and then come back in a month.

Okay, so there's a motion on the floor to postpone, uh, in a month. I guess that's what, July 21st, right? Yeah. Yeah, that would— July 21st, which is just a little bit over a month, but it's the next meeting. So is there objection to this post—.

Discussion. Okay. I think it does make sense to fine-tune those things. I do think a month might not quite get us enough time, especially if there's more than one assembly person is involved. However, I'm all excited to see Ms. Nowers working with gravel operators and trying to figure something out.

That'll be a new one for me. So, just for that, for that reason, I'll support you in that. Thank you. Okay, Assemblyperson Sumner, and then—. Yeah, comment on the postponement.

I don't think there's a rush since I would definitely vote against anything that's enacted in the middle of the season because, you know, these are small businesses that must collect the revenue to cover this tax, and they haven't had that opportunity. So, uh, I share Mr. Farnell's sentiments that maybe, uh, there's no rush. We should postpone a couple months.

Somebody first? Wouldn't it just be a little bit easier to set a postponement date? I mean, God bless the gentleman in the orange sweater. I mean, I really like everything that you said. What?

Okay, I, I just think, I mean, that's taking the whole thing and going through all the stuff again and all the testimony that we've heard, when maybe we could just say, you know, we pretty much— maybe we like what we got. Why not just say, okay, it's going to be at the end of the season or whenever that is? I mean, set a date certain if you need to, to postpone it to, because I don't know what else there is to say about it. Okay, so everybody's spoken. Okay, 70% knowledge.

Um, I think the, the point is well taken. Like, I mean, it makes sense to to make the effective date at the beginning of the year, the season. I think the things that have been identified are very concrete, and I think we could get through them in the next few months, and either we're going to come up with a solution that works or doesn't. So I think we can get it— we can get her done by July 21st. And, you know, I don't think there's that many things on there.

I think the overall is there, and working through how we enforce it without being invasive. And how we measure is maybe the key things that we could. And so I'm willing to take that on. And if there's 2 assembly members who are not violating anything that are interested, or 1 or 2, um, I'd be happy to, to work with them. I would support postponement to July 21st.

Okay, is there objection until July 21st? Not really an objection, but would Alex Strong be part of this group that you're talking about?

Okay, I don't see any objection. Now, you had a— I think part of that motion was for the committee, right? Part of the motion was for a committee, right? Correct. Okay, and what do you have down regarding the committee?

Madam Mayor, he's talking about 3 people. I don't know if that meant assembly members. Um, you don't have to appoint 3 assembly members to get together. They can decide to do that. Okay, so that—.

I don't know.

Um, Mr. Attorney, what I recommend you do is just continue the ordinance. Let Assemblyman— Assemblymember Nowers as the sponsor, and it sounds like Assembly member, a Deputy Mayor, want to be 2 of the 3 people to talk, let them decide who to talk to, to not violate the OMA. If you form a subcommittee, it is subject to the Open Meetings Act, and all their talking and all their meetings must be advertised. If they just want to get together and talk, they can get together and talk as the sponsor and the Deputy Mayor and somebody else. So just—.

Mm-hmm. My recommendation is that you just simply continue it, let 3 members talk, they can come back with recommendations or proposed amendments, then we can take it up at the second meeting in July. Anybody have any objection to the attorneys? You do, or did you want to talk? Okay, so we have an objection then.

We don't have a motion though. Yeah, there's nothing on the floor to object to, Madam Mayor. Well, I object to postponing. Oh, I thought she already called for that. I'm sorry, I have no objection —for postponing.

Yeah, I thought there was no objection for postponing. I'm sorry. The conversation was going and I didn't want to interrupt. Well, you have to. I object postponing.

I want to vote this down tonight. So, okay, so we'll reverse then and we'll have to vote on the motion to postpone until the 21st of July because we have an objection, right? Can I do that or Okay, thank you. Let's make it easy. Yeah, right.

Okay, some of you guys, I did reset your, your voting because I didn't know what you had voted on. So Assemblymember Fonhoff and Gamble, if I can get you to vote, please. And we're voting postponement to July 21st. Okay.

Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember McKee, Bernier, and Nowers in support. Okay, so we have now still before us Ordinance 26-05A, right? We don't have any amendments on that, right? No. Yes, Assemblyperson Bowles.

Madam Mayor, I move to postpone this indefinitely. Okay, so the motion before you is to postpone indefinitely Do we have— question for the— question for the clerk. Can we make the amendment to postpone indefinitely to a date certain and make it— no, we'd have to take that up separately. So you have to vote this down, and then we could bring a motion to postpone till Mr. Sumner's preferred time, correct? Okay.

Yeah, so I think there is an objection to postponing indefinitely, is that correct? Yeah. So would members please vote?

Madam Mayor, it passed with Assemblymember Fonoff, McKee, and Bernier in support. I'm sorry, this was postponed indefinitely. Yeah, I had to vote no. You want to reset, Madam Mayor? It's up to you.

Is there any objection to resetting and letting everybody re— Vote? I wouldn't do that because you already let somebody go back in. Stephanie, you're not going to get a second chance. I If I can get the assembly to go ahead and vote again on a motion to postpone indefinitely. Okay, so Assemblymember Bernier.

Madam Mayor, it has passed with Assemblymember McKee, Bernier, and Nowers opposed. Okay, so it is— okay, so give the clerk a minute and we'll go on to the next item.

I have a question. Am I okay to ask? We're going to go on to the next public hearing, but what is your question, ma'am? My question was, does that negate the idea of the committee of 3 that's going to meet? It does.

Jimmy Christmas.

Madam Mayor, we are now on Ordinance 26032, an ordinance adopting MSP MSB 110, 170, and MSB 3.35, 6.5% area-wide sales tax, repealing area-wide property tax, and submitting the proposition to the voters at the November 3rd, 2026 regular borough election. You're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, so, um, we do have a signup sheet, and— but I think Crystal has gone, right? Yeah. And Brian?

Thanks again. Brian Endle. I want to talk about a few scriptures on this one, and then I also want to go over some values that are in here and give you an example. So first off, in Deuteronomy 28, It says in 28:8, "I will bless you in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." So God blesses me in the land that he gives me. He did not give my land to you.

He did not give my land to anyone else. He did not give the rights to my land to anyone else, period. Now, for that purpose, other people before me have went too far and given rights to the borough and other places to tax my property. That's not right. That's why I agree with this ordinance, and I want to see it.

I want to see it put in place because it removes at least some of the property tax, the area-wide mill rate. Also, instructions for you who are collecting these taxes is this. Jesus said to the tax collectors in Luke 3:13, don't collect any more than you are required to. Required to collect. That means what you're required, that means not what you want.

And don't try to push that rate up higher. It's pretty high as it is, 6.5%, you know. Mm-hmm. Don't push it up any higher.

So I'm going to go over an example right here real quick, and I'll be real quick about it. So in In the 2025 assessed values listed here, $388,087 is your average value. Mill rate area-wide, 8.485. So the total tax paid would be $3,292. If you take 6.5% into that, you find out that you have to spend about $50,646 to meet the same tax you would pay for the property.

So in other words, the tax is spread out over more people and the property owners are relieved from some of these taxes. So your average assessed value that you list in here and on the borough website, you know, $388,087 with an 8.48% area-wide mill rate, you have to spend a lot of money. The homeowner has to spend a lot of money. Yes. To make that happen.

And so it's, it's going to be a benefit to the average, uh, well, the average assessed value people and those above. And the lower that rate gets, the more people it benefits. Thank you. Mark?

Madam Mayor, Assembly, Mark Johnson. I'm in support of this ordinance.

There's kind of a misinformation out there in the borough that the senior citizens and the disabled veterans get a tax exemption. Okay, they're— you don't have to pay taxes. That's not true. Um, on If the assessed value is less than $276,000, I believe, then yes, they don't pay any property tax on that. If it's above that number, yes, they are paying property tax.

If you want to really truly help the senior citizens and the disabled veterans, then this is the ordinance that helps them. It reduces— it eliminates their property tax. And I'm in for— thank you. Anyone else that would like to testify on Ordinance 26-032?

Have anybody online, sir? No. No. Okay. One last chance.

Anybody else want to say something?

Jolene Coleman. Um, I work with— in the school district at a very impoverished school. We're talking a 6% on top of Wasilla or on Palmer's tax. We're talking $65 every $1,000 less of food or other things that families can buy for their kids. They're already hungry, starving, and this is also going to be on medical.

Not everybody has good insurance. I can tell you right now, working for the school district, I no longer have good insurance. So another $65 there. Thank you. Another this, another that.

I do own a property, and yes, it does sound really, really good to have my property tax to be a lot lower, but I cannot do that in the thought that more children will be even more hungry than they are right now.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Okay, do we have anybody yet? No. Okay, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And, uh, Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I move to adopt Ordinance 26-032. I'd like to speak to it. Yes, speak to it. Uh-huh. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, this Probably gonna be a little bit. So this ordinance came about, this was one of the first things I came to Nick about, our attorney about, and I told him I wanna get rid of property taxes altogether. He said, you can't do that. Says if you attack 'em, you gotta attack 'em individually 'cause we have 5 different types of property taxes. We have the area-wide, which is the largest.

We have non-area-wide. We have the fire service area, we have special service areas, and then we have the road service areas. So with those other types of service areas, the money pulled from property taxes fund those specific services. And for example, fire service area in Lazy Mountain, there's very little commerce in that area. To bring a sales tax to replace a fire service area tax is really not feasible.

You know, we want to make sure that there is fire service, there's road service. So I said, okay, well, let's target the biggest one first, basically. I'm summarizing. For me, my combined mill rate where I live is 12-13%. You know, last year was 8.4%, 8.5%.

So that's a significant portion of property taxes for me. Others in other areas, it's, it's maybe not as significant like Sutton, but it's still a significant part. Other areas where the RSA and FSA is lower, it's going to be a larger removal, the area-wide. So like Mr. Endle said, with at 6.5%, to achieve the same taxation as you would removing your area-wide, you're gonna have to spend 50 to 55 $100,000 a year in the borough. Um, that's a lot of money.

That's a heck of a lot of money. Um, to address the health, health services, we talked about this in our meetings, and, um, I, I wanted to leave that in. That's on me. That's not on any other, um, staffer or any other assembly member. Um, I own that.

And the reason is most people have health insurance. So right now, the Matsu— Matsu Regional, their property is being taxed at approximately $2 million. That's how much the borough pulls in for property taxes. Last year they had 190,000 patient encounters, and that means they had appointments, ER visits, whatever. So if you take half of those at 95— I think my math is right— 95,000 patient encounters, it's capped at $1,000, so $65 is attached to their medical bill.

That's going to bring in $6 million. So this idea where it's removing a corporate tax is not exactly accurate. It does remove the property tax from something like Matsu Health— excuse me, Matsu Regional— but it passes it on to the insurance company 90 to 95% of the time. Time. Yes, there's private pay people out there, there's people with not as great insurance, there's people with copays that aren't the same, but once you reach your max annual or your copay, all the rest of the bill is going to be taxed unless it's Medicaid or government-funded.

And please correct me if I'm incorrect on that, Nick. So this, as far as, so it does not tax pharmaceuticals, any kind of products, medical products, and those sorts of things. Just the actual care you receive at a for-profit healthcare facility. So that's going to be a huge reduction. We don't know exactly what that looks like because we haven't done this, but that has the potential to be huge.

The other, the other big thing is, you know, this, this idea of stacking taxes. I had a problem with that in our meetings. I wanted 5%, I actually wanted very little tax, but the numbers that we were provided by Cheyenne basically show that we would need about a 6.5 to 7% sales tax to reach the same $130 million. The latest information that I saw in Ms. Nauer's ordinance at 1% equates to about $22 million actually lowers that number to, um, 6%, 5.5%, 6%. So before I move further, I'd like to amend my ordinance.

Um, everywhere it says 6.5%, I'd like to change to 5%. So everywhere in my ordinance where it says 6.5% sales tax, I would like to change that to 5%.

There's an amendment on the floor. Yeah, and I'll stop there for now. Okay, uh, you want Assemblyperson Summer, go ahead. I mean, I think we just had this discussion in the last ordinance where we just went through the budget cycle. We didn't cut $20 million off the budget, but now you're proposing to cut $20 million off of revenue.

And I, I mean, I I mean, that's bonkers to me because, you know, if you were the head of your household and you came home excitedly and told your wife that you just got a job for 20% less than what we made last year and we're hand to mouth and we don't have any savings, I mean, it'd be pretty ignorant. You know, you're not gonna be able to run your household that way. So I mean, I definitely would not support reducing the revenue and creating, a situation where we can't function and run our and fund our government. So yeah, I mean, that's— I think that based on the conjecture that I've seen for the tax analysis, we need to be closer to 7% to bring in enough revenue to actually run the government. I really wish we could, you know, run our government on tens of millions of dollars less, but I don't see how that's happened.

Further discussion? Assemblyperson Bowles, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I understand, um, I understand that concern. Um, the reason I'm aiming for lower is I'm confident that, um, a couple of things we've discussed— elasticity, right?

The higher the tax, the more it's going to push revenue out. If we lower the sales tax, it could potentially push the elasticity less out in the beginning and make it more favorable for people to just say, well, I'm not going to Costco, I'm going to shop at Three Bears. Uh, 6.5, you know, and right now on top of the cities that, you know, in Palmer, that's what, 10%? I think Wasilla, 9% is what we heard. And I know there's places like Nashville, Tennessee, where you go there, you're paying 10% sales tax and but we're not Nashville, Tennessee.

And, and yes, this also removes area-wide, and so that removes a big chunk of taxes. But, um, I, I, I really think that if we start at 5%, we see how that first year goes, and if we need to increase, we can always put it back on the ballot. But in my mind, if we put it at 6.5 on the ballot and we get— we pull in too much revenue, I don't trust that that money is going to lower. I don't trust that we're going to lower. I just, not necessarily us, but a future assembly will lower that sales percentage, sales tax percentage.

So that's where I'm at on that.

Can I respond? I think it's incredibly irresponsible to try and run a government on I hope and I wish, and that's what you're saying right now is that I hope we're going to make more money than The math says, and I wish that we had a lower sales tax rate to replace area-wide. That's not reality. I mean, I mean, we don't really know what reality is. We've never had a borough-wide sales tax.

We don't really have appropriate data for it. We have a 2019 study that's 7 years old, and we have city sales tax figures. And then other than that, it's conjectures and guesses. And if we repeal area-wide, which is all the money that comes in, and replace it with a sales tax, which we hope— I mean, the math, even the math you just showed means we'd be $30,000— $30 million upside down, you know, at 5%. I mean, yeah, I mean, yeah, I think it has a way better shot of passing the ballot at 5%, but we're lying to the people if we say we can provide all these services for you and we're only going to charge you 5% when we know we can't provide those services at 5%.

Like, no way we should put this on the ballot at 5%. Deputy Mayor. Question for staff.

Any objection for staff coming forward? Okay, go ahead. Cheyenne, do you know what we would be looking at at 5% and what kind of shortfall we would have in numbers? I, through the mayor to Assemblymember Bernier, I do not have that calculation with me. I can go to my desk and look it up and see where it is, because as you know, we applied the elasticity from 1% all the way to the 6, 6.5%.

So the, the number for what the, the first ordinance that we looked at the 22 million, that, that was at 1%, but there's 1.5% elasticity applied for each percentage increase. Could I just times that by 5 then? Yeah. Okay, so 105, but it, like I said, it's you, you're, you're not— if you times it by 5, if you take Stephanie's, uh, ordinance for 1% and times it by 5, you're not taking into effect elasticity and the loss of revenue because of elasticity, because of the increase. So if I could explain that real quick.

So elasticity of demand means that as you increase the price of something, you know, supply and demand, right? As you increase the price of something, then fewer people are going to make that purchase. So if you tack on a percentage cost to every good and service, fewer people are going to purchase that good or service. So as you raise the tax rate, you're going to reduce the total sales in the valley. And that's the elasticity of demand she's talking about.

It's 1.5% for every 1%, uh, is, you know, based on a study we have from 2019 of increased tax. Assemblyperson McKee, did you have comment? I was thinking when you said at 6.5%, how you said something about how many— $50,000 to $55,000 we would have to— per person, the family— expend in the valley and spend in the borough. In order to make up for the loss of revenue on the property taxes? Is that okay if I ask that now?

Um, we— through the mayor to Assemblymember McKee, when we looked at the calculation for sales tax, we did not look at individual spending per capita. We looked at— this is what the city of Wasilla, Palmer, Houston, Tuckerton Sewer and Water brings in at 1%, and we work those calculations based upon what they were bringing in and our best estimate as we increase the taxes further. So $50,000 to $55,000 that a person spends is not an unreasonable— That was not part of the calculation. I see. It just kind of bothers me.

Where would that $55,000 or $50,000 $100,000 came from. Some families don't make that to start out with, and if you don't— if you can't even hit the most basic, the lowest level of things you'd have to spend on for food and other things, I don't know what you give away, one of your kids or something. I, I don't think you can— I just don't think you can afford that. So anyway, yeah. Deputy Mayor— oh, I'm sorry, did you want to say something?

So this $55,000 number that's been bouncing around? That's at 6.5, or is that even a real—. That's not part of the calculation, the $55,000. I don't— no, we did not do anything with $55,000. So can I ask a question then?

What on average house or household would we have to spend to meet the 5% budget?

Through the mayor to Assemblymember Bernier, I don't have that calculation to be able to give that to you now, um, because this is anticipating the numbers that we started with include out-of-state, out-of-burner rural sales, it includes online sales, it includes more than just per capita calculations.

So I mean, it— I, I don't have what each household would have to spend. That was not part of the consideration.

Okay, through the mayor, so this is probably more for the benefit of the public than anyone else. So when these tax proposals started to come forward, Finance Department looked at what assumptions we have to make because we have no historical data for sales tax within the Matsubara, right? So we used city numbers because that's actual data. We had to make some assumptions around online spending, again, because we have no historical data. All of those, um, steps and assumptions were documented in the memorandum and published for 032 back in February and for the other ones as they've been introduced so that the public has access.

Like when you made a comment earlier, Deputy Mayor, about, well, we have these numbers, the public doesn't have any— from— you have no information available to you that is not available online for the public. They have all of these memorandums and they've been published as these ordinances have been introduced so that everyone sees the assumptions we're making. And if somebody disagrees with an assumption, that's fine. That's why we put it out there, because they're assumptions. And if we're wrong, we're in the uncomfortable position of undershooting on revenues.

Right now, area-wide property taxes for fiscal year '26, I think it was, was about— it was just shy of $130 million. We didn't even run a 5% calculation with all the price elasticity of demand and all that because we never had this conversation. Like, we want to help you with these numbers, but some of this stuff is just happening right now. And there would— so there's been no analysis on 5% because no one mentioned 5%. We, we ran numbers on 6, 6.5, 7, and 8 to provide a range.

We haven't even looked at 5. I think it's, it's going to be close, but there's going to be a little bit of monkeying there. The memo— the memos document those assumptions and steps for calculating. I know it's a little bit complicated, but when you have no historical data, that's what we're left to do. And so that is, from an administration perspective, an uncomfortable place because we're talking about, well, is— if the goal is to make $130 million so that you can sustain existing services, that's fine.

If the goal is to undershoot revenue and then we'll figure out the spending next year, that's fine too, I suppose, if that's what you want to do. Our job is to just tell you that, and then you make the decision for yourself, and then we'll sort through that. But what we don't want to do is not explain the consequences of those decisions, and you're like, well, how did this happen? It happened because a decision up here at the dais was made that led us to this point. And the challenge is it's going to be complicated enough to explain this to the public when it goes to a ballot as is.

That is another concern and/or consideration is like, it is difficult to get access to people and actually explain what these things mean. So there's a lot of beauty in simplicity, uh, and the more complicated this gets, the more challenging it gets to actually explain to the public what it will and won't do. What we can tell you right now, we, we spend $130 million on area-wide based on area-wide property taxes today. That is matched with the service. We're not building a surplus every year.

I mean, we do have some fund balance that's generated. We roll that right back into the budget, and that gets factored into the mill rate for the following year. We're not building a savings account. So if there's a something that comes in lower than $130 million, we're going to be talking about reducing spending, which— That's not true. We kind of just did that in the budget, and we saw how that went with school consolidation, closing schools, and conversations around what that could look like moving forward.

$130 Million is the number. 5%, I don't know what that number is, but 6% is $120 million. You can do the math from there. It's going to be less than that. So that kind of gives you some context for where we sit.

Okay, Assemblyperson Gamble. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, I also wish in this information that we had, that we have, that we could have looked at some other states. I know I've traveled quite a bit in the past year down into mainly Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, and I mean, they have sales taxes on everything. City tax, county tax, state tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, gas tax, and I'm sure there's more.

And so when I was down there and I'd go out to dinner, I'm looking at my bill, I'm like— I'd ask like the waiter, waitress, you know, how do you guys afford to live here? They pay almost no property taxes. Everything is sales tax. And I mean, that's where eventually I'd like to get. I don't know what the right answer is at this point, but we got to get off the property tax hamster bill, and we've got to figure out how to fund government, like Assemblymember Sumner said, at a point where we can function.

I'm just not quite sure how to get there, and I think going down to 5 is, is not the answer. I think Max said it's got to be at least 7 to break even. Is that right, Max? That's a question for Cheyenne, but that's the analysis I saw was 7.

Through the mayor to Assemblymember Sumner, if you look at the, the analysis that was done, 6.5%, we estimate will bring in $128,309,000.

7% Would bring in $138,179,000.

Can I just follow up real quick? I just want to add one comment. A friend of mine has a 20-acre piece of property in Missouri and pays less than $1,000 a year in property taxes. Okay. And through the mayor to the assembly real quick.

So I agree with what Cheyenne said there, 6.5% gets you there. Because part of this analysis, we adjusted the cost per capita for online sales. We brought it up from $2,000 to, I think, the $3,600 based on some numbers we got from state DOL. That was factored into Ms. Knauer's proposal., and we went back and factored that into Mr. Bowles's proposal so that we were using the same numbers across the board. The original numbers for Mr. Bowles's were the lower numbers.

We brought those numbers up when we got the new number, and that's factored into the memo that's online today. Okay, let's see, Assemblyperson, let's see, oh, Stephanie first, I guess, and then Mike. I'm just kind of speaking to the amendment, um, you know, whether it's 5 or 6%, I think one of the things about this that you got to look at is just how it, it benefits people that are not people who live here in the borough. So I looked at the top 10 taxpayers, which are the hospital, Enstar, Fred Meyer, Alaska Hotel Properties, which I think is probably Princess, Maple Springs, Cook Inlet region, Walmart, Target, and 2 folks, at least one of which does not live here. I don't know the other person.

So that's $6 million in taxes those folks pay. If you get rid of the area-wide property tax, that's almost a 5— just assume it's 80% of the taxes they pay. So you take out the non-area-wide, that's like $5 million that then falls onto the local taxpayer that we have to make up through the sales taxes. So, um, I guess I just— I, I can't support 6 or or 5%, and then the, you know, the flyer you're taking with the budget, um, you know, it's a, it's a big flyer if you come up $20 million short. Mine is also a guesstimate, um, but it's, it's in the range of, you know, $2 to $3 to $4 million.

Like, it, it, it's something you could budget for and, and manage. Um, so I guess for those two reasons, I can't, I can't support a a 5%, um, and I really can't support a 6% either, just given those two factors. Okay, so the person bowls. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, um, you know, I'm a realist.

Obviously there's no appetite for that, so I'm going to pull back that amendment. And, um, to speak to that, like I said though, as far as the 6.5% on healthcare bills, insurance companies are going to be paying just at half of those, half of those encounters, $6 million. So if 75% of those patient encounters, you're looking at $8 million. So I want to make sure that's very clear, this idea that, you know, it's going to be, we're going to be pulling property taxes away from these corporate entities. But also something to think about is all of this growth, this economic growth that's happening, these restaurants that are opening, You know, this alcohol tax that's going to be on the ballot now as well, which will go from, if this passes at 6.5%, it will go from, will stay at 5% or will it stay at 6.5% or will it raise to 6.5%, Nick?

The alcohol tax. I just wanted that on the record as well. The alcohol tax is at 5%. If this ballot makes it— It will stay at 5%. Okay.

So that 5% in alcohol tax is going to increase revenue. Right now alcohol is not being taxed in the borrow. So that's going to add to this. Um, so that's— those are what I was thinking and why I, I wanted to lower the percentage rate, because I think that I, I really— all of this change, it's, it's scary. Big changes is scary.

Um, but unless you take chances, you know, you never find out if you're really doing something that's great, that's going to help the people. Every— every— I mean, you look at American history, and I know maybe I'm getting elaborate on that, But when people have stepped out and made big change as far as these types of things, there have been many, many opportunities to just, you know, increase revenue and to grow and to just change life for people, for Americans. As far as this idea that a sales tax is regressive, that has been debunked by the Heritage Foundation. I would encourage anybody to go to the Heritage Foundation. Mm-hmm.

And do their own reading on sales taxes. That is a liberal talking point from 10 years ago. So the sales tax is not regressive. It's actually the most— consumption taxes are the most, quote, "fairest" type of tax there are in the United States of America. A property tax unfairly taxes people.

It unfairly taxes people. That have generational wealth, that have had property passed down to them, that have worked hard their entire lives and have built equity and have built up, you know, things for their family that they can pass down. So, um, I think it's, it's very important that we consider that and look at it from that perspective as well. So this is an opportunity for us to fundamentally change the way that we tax our residents, our fellow residents, and And this will absolutely, in my opinion, help the majority. It'll capture a broader tax from everybody that comes into the borough and spends money here.

We have a large tourist industry. We have a large hospitality industry that we're not capturing any of this revenue from. Everybody that drinks beer across the street, um, that, that's a potential person that's going to pay into our tax revenue before they Hopefully they don't drive home before the designated driver drives them back to Anchorage. So, um, we, you know, so I'd ask that you consider this, that we can lower the tax burden on property owners throughout the borough and spread that whole burden to everybody that comes in here, steps foot in the borough, and spends money here. So, thank you.

Mr. Attorney. Uh, Assemblymember Bowles, I apologize. I have to rephrase my answer. When you were asking the question, I thought you were asking whether or not the alcohol ballot question would change to 6.5. Okay, because that one's already on the— that's already on the ballot.

It would not change. But I think your question— now, now that you've finished talking, I'm sorry, I maybe misunderstood you. I think what you're asking is, if this passes, would we then set that 5% aside and then everything gets taxed at 6.5? The answer is yes. And I apologize if I answered that wrong at first.

I didn't quite understand. Okay, let's see, who do we have? Deputy Mayor, I guess. No? Yes?

Okay. Yeah, I never heard that $55,000 thing, but I just did some math just to— in the perspective, if we are with a 6.5%, we're trying to attract about $128 million, and this is up on the report. So what I did, just from the earlier that we had eligible residents, and that's— I'm assuming that's eligible who is primary residence, right? $26,611 People. I divided that, which came out to be $4,821 is what that family or that residence would need to spend at 6.5%.

Then you add the other 93.5%, that will be combining up $74,169.

And what that means is in order to collect that $4,800 per that family, we'd have to— that family needs to spend here in the Valley $74,169 on the purchases that are taxed to come up formula. So 55 was actually a low number. It's actually a $74,000 number according to these numbers. So that's just to put it into perspective, and I think that's a lot of money, and that's more than a lot of what people make. So—.

I went too fast. Assemblyperson Bowles did pull his amendment to 5%, and I didn't ask if there wasn't Any objection? I just ramrodded through. So is there any objection? Okay, all right.

But I wanted to be sure the minutes were correct. So, uh, let's see, we don't have anybody down. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles.

Oh, I was just going to say, I think that, um, people keep talking about this $55,000, and I think that, uh, Maybe somebody, somebody misheard it. The analysis was that the average, as I heard it from the audience, that the average home is worth $400,000-something. And in order to, you know, for it to cost you more than what you would save as an average homeowner, you as a family would have to spend more than $55,000 a year, you know, in purchases that are tax applicable, which would be, I think the cap is $1,000. $35,000 A year in small, under $1,000 purchases. That's what I heard from the audience.

It's a little different than what everyone else is trying to interpret.

Okay. All righty. Assemblyperson—. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So yes, and that was— so just so the people listening can understand, um, that was something that has been discussed in various groups, um, and that discussion also does not take into account the however million— or not however many, excuse me, I got a million on the brain— however many people come in and to the borough that don't live here that will spend money here that will be contributing to our tax base.

So, um, that's just taking into account the number of residents who own property. If it was be a one-for-one shift, they would have to hypothetically spend $55,000-ish to make up the difference of the area-wide property tax. So That's, that's what that is. That's what that thought is.

I guess a little bit of conversation to the sponsor. So I guess in your opinion, and I want to go a little bit back and forth on this, who do you think benefits if this was— obviously has to go to the ballot and people need to approve, let's not rush ahead— but if that was to happen, who kind of benefits at the top and the mid, and who benefits the least in your opinion? And I want to have a follow-up on that. Who are you asking? I'm asking a sponsor specifically right now because I'm trying to— Mr. Bowles.

Yeah. Would you be okay answering that? Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead, sir. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So, my opinion, um, discussions I've had is the overwhelming majority that will benefit from this are the 120 property owners. I have had one landlord reach out to me and say that they would lower their rent. I know that's not likely to happen from every landlord. I've been asked if that person would be willing to give their name and speak on the record, and I have not gotten that. Thank you.

But I'm telling the truth. I had one person reach out and say they would lower their rent for the renters. So overwhelmingly, the people that live here will benefit from that. The people that live here, that own property, that own homes, and the people that I guess you could say will not benefit are those that come here and don't live here, but they eat at our restaurants, they use our EMS system. Um, break their ankle on a trail, they fill up at the gas station on their way through to go snow machine up north, they won't benefit because they will be paying tax and contributing to our tax structure.

Okay, so do you— I'm trying to spin the logical a little bit from different perspective. So the people that will now not have area-wide tax, they will spend money in the store and pay equivalent or somewhat close to a portion through the sales tax. However, if you take the corporations, and I did in the city of Wasilla, we got Walmart, Lowe's, Fred Meyer, Home Depot, Cars, and Target. Approximately the tax revenue that they bring on an annual basis is $969 million. Whether it's 80% or 60% of that, it doesn't matter, but that's what, based on last year's assessment, they are directly stopping paying that.

I don't think they're discounting the merchandise or anything like that. So basically, we're shifting the tax burden from the corporations to the residents. That's my concern here. And on top of that, I think the person locally who would be— So corporations, one thing, and those are the addresses when I looked up those properties, they're all out of state. Second category, I think that benefits directly right away are the people who own maybe a lot of real estate, a lot of property.

And I know a few of them that do, and they're directly are going to have a great impact by that. However, none of them have, to me, committed that they're going to lower the rent properties. And, and that is concerning because we now kind of shifted who is paying it. So those are the concerns I have, that the people who own a lot of real estate, whether it's a corporation or local owners that own a lot of rental properties, commercial or residential, they'll see a direct impact. But the average person that goes to a store those are the ones that are picking up that thing.

So that's, I guess, would be my concern. So, yeah, so, um, just discussion was just about, uh, who benefits and who pays. And I would like to point out that I think that there's— we talked about people who benefits— benefit. I think you said, uh, the residents, the homeowners, and the landowners. That's, you know, that's— and the residents that are homeowners, residents that are landowners benefit from this.

People that do not benefit from this, the people who will pay more, who shoulder more of the tax burden, are renters, the uninsured, and small businesses. One of the first things that I asked when I got on the assembly was I asked Cheyenne, you know, hey, I really hate property tax. How much will we have to— levy an area-wide sales tax, get rid of property tax. And I mean, off the cuff, I think it was 7 or 8%, you know, and I dropped it right there because I knew of, you know, I have an economics degree and I know what the impact of having a 7 or 8% sales tax or a 6.5% sales tax 40 miles away, well, not even 40 miles away, 40 minutes away from a municipality that has a 0% sales tax when 31% of our workforce leaves every day and goes to that municipality, it's very easy for them to stop and make purchases there. So I think that one of the things that the elasticity of demand that we calculated didn't take into account is how many small businesses will shutter if this thing were to pass.

Because a 10% loss in, in revenue, you know, in sales to someplace like Walmart or Fred Meyer might not make that big of a difference, but it makes a really big difference to a small business. And, you know, we're right now a bedroom community. 31% Of our workforce leaves every day to go to Anchorage. We need to foster economic growth. And that's not just cheap homeownership.

I'm a homebuilder. So I really think that cheap homeownership is a vital part of the economy. I think that another almost more important part of the vital economy is having jobs and businesses being open. Mm-hmm. To provide those jobs is important.

So, you know, I would be all about this if we lived in a state like Missouri where all the other municipalities around us had 5, 6, 7, 8% sales taxes, you know, and we weren't losing business and losing jobs to our neighboring municipality. And I'd also like this if Anchorage had a 5 or 6% sales tax. I would love to get rid of property tax. And I'm one of those— Uh, —people that owns multiple rentals, like Mr. Farnoff mentioned, you know, I would benefit directly from this, and I still see the larger picture here and see that this could be really harmful to our community. And for that reason, I'm definitely opposed to this.

Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So to address Assemblymember Farnoff's statement, all of these corporate entities already pass their property tax to their customer. That's just the way it works. I mean, so the idea that they're eating their taxes, just, that's not accurate.

Also, they're already paying, generally speaking, those, you mentioned Lowe's, Walmart, those are inside city limits. So they're already, that's, I mean, Walmart, I've been told Walmart basically funds the city of Wasilla. So the taxes that they collect there. Okay. And that's from somebody who was on the Wasilla City Council.

So, you know, did everybody in Wasilla start shopping in Anchorage? I don't think so. And I understand that. And I agree, right? I agree a lot of our workforce does work there.

I commuted to Anchorage for years, my wife and I both. And until, you know, we used to stop at the Fred Meyers in Eagle River to fill up before we came back here until Anchorage put in that 10 cents fuel excise tax. We stopped filling up there. Um, we also both stopped commuting. When we both stopped commuting, we don't go into Costco anymore.

We just eat that $15 to $20 we're going to save at Three Bears, um, because we don't want to go to Anchorage. We would rather pay a little bit more not to have to go to Anchorage. And so— and that doesn't have anything to do with commuters, but, um So I agree, that is a concern.

So we, I think, you know, a lot, this really started when I was campaigning and I've talked to you about this. I've known two people that have gone through the foreclosure process. One has since passed away. This person homesteaded, my neighbor homesteaded out down Knick River Road, and he was getting ready to lose his house that he never had to pay a mortgage on because of property taxes. This man lived there since the '70s, um, and he passed away before it was foreclosed on.

And another member, um, another person we know also went through that, but they went through that in the actual municipality, um, ended up having to sell.

So I never want to see that again. And we saw 2, 3 months ago, 6 or 7 people, fellow residents here that were dealing with foreclosures because they fell on hard times. Nobody should ever fear losing their home because they fall on hard times. If you can't buy name brand Coca-Cola and you gotta change to Shasta, well, you might have to change to Shasta if we have a sales tax. Um, so, you know, I was talking with somebody at a, a meeting and they said, well, what about a young couple that wants to buy that side-by-side that but they can't afford it.

Well, then they can't afford it. When I was a private in the Army, you know, I lived in the barracks and I ate at the dining facility as much as I could because I couldn't afford to go out to eat and, you know, a lot of those things. So you, when it, there's a, it's a sales tax, you have to decide what you're willing to spend money on and where you're willing to spend tax. And you make that conscious decision. Am I buying this tri-tip or am I buying ground beef?

Well, and the ground beef's expensive now, but You know what I mean? You have to make those choices versus we don't get an option with property taxes. We don't get an option when the government says you owe me $5,000 and if you don't give it to me, I'm taking your property. And so I'm standing on this. I hope that others will vote to at least put this on the ballot.

I understand if you don't fully agree with it, but please allow the people to vote on how they want to be taxed. Thank you. Madam Mayor, if I could just respond to that real quick. I guess what I'm saying is, is you don't have to decide if you, uh, have to buy Shasta or Cola or Coke or get the tri-tip or the side-by-side. You can just stop on your way home in Eagle River or Anchorage and buy those things.

Assemblyperson Nowers.

Just, I think that the other part of this equation that isn't in the loser column is the cities, right? Because if people stay away from their businesses, they're gonna also lose income. So I would add that. And I think a lot of people are already down to the ground beef, you know, so don't really have a choice. And if you're doing a tax, a high sales tax, you know, relative, right?

And it has a $1,000 cap on it. You are most— the people get hit the most are the people with the lower incomes. So I just think— and I think you kind of gave a perfect example of elasticity. There was a 10-cent-a-gallon tax, and you decide to drive the extra and not— and then you don't go into Anchorage because it's, you know, it's not worth your time on $20. Yeah.

$10. So $0.10 a gallon is, you know, a 20-gallon tank or 15-gallon. That's $1.50. Like, that motivated you. So I think when people see that— Mr. Fawna was asking me the magic number.

Sometimes that magic number can be really low. It's perception. And I would really worry about this driving, driving businesses under, because it's— that, that's also— that number is that for the same reason Mr. Sumner was saying, when you get to 7%, it's just kind of like, no, you don't. I don't even know how to say it, but it's like 6, 5, you know, if you're above 5%, you're starting to get into real high territory. So I get the, I get the motivation behind it.

And that's a horrible story, the person losing their property, but don't want to like create a solution to that and create a bunch of other problems in the process.

Yeah, I still am very concerned that the person that owns a lot of real estate, uh, is going to benefit the most, and the, um, that rental, uh, difference is not going to go to the actual tenant. That's my thing. I do have a question to sponsor. Like, when— if you're not here next year and we're $20 million short Where would you want us as decision makers who are still here? Which departments do we start cutting?

Where, like, where is the realistic— then we can't get it more than 6.5 because we're limited at that. We don't have an area-wide. How do we handle that? Like, put yourself in my shoes when I'm here and making a decision. And this is a sincere, sincere question.

If we're 20, let's say, or even 10. Where do we start cutting so that we can still be functioning borough? So I pulled that amendment.

At 6.5%, I still believe there's a decent amount of shortage because the realistic number, when I talk to, uh, finance director and things like that, it should be anywhere from possibly from 7.5%, possibly even to 8%. I still believe there's going to be, uh, the shortage because some of the shopping that is projected is going to be, um, leaving. Go ahead. So as previously stated, the new alcohol tax is going to bring in revenue. The taxation on healthcare that the insurance companies are going to be paying, so, um, the borough is going to be able to take money that we pay to insurance companies and and that will pay taxes.

Right now, again, $2 million is being paid. If you, in fact, if you look at only half of the patient encounters, if they reach their cap, that's gonna be $6 million. I'm confident that that'll be more than that. If you look at what we're spending in healthcare now, I mean, I would be, I'd say it's closer to 80, 90%. We're probably gonna bring in, my guess would be $8 to $10 million in tax revenue, from insurance companies.

So, I mean, we can do ifs and buts all day long, but we've got numbers in front of us, and, you know, it's— I think this is a matter of, you know, is— do we want to continue threatening people, threatening to take people's homes, or do we want to provide them a different avenue and give them— give our fellow residents the opportunity to make decisions at the register? I, I do like to give more options. We did try that one last year with a few, and that, um, overwhelmingly was voted down. This one, um, you know, we can— I would almost ask if we'd be honest with people, realistic, and ask for 7.5, because then we can lower it down. But we cannot go above than what people will approve, and if we're short, we have some serious, uh, problems.

Okay, Deputy Mayor, would you move to extend this, please? I move to extend the meeting till 11 o'clock. Okay, is there any objection?

Okay, is the Assemblyperson Sumner, and then— yeah, go ahead, sir. Uh, yeah, I have a question for, uh, for Finance Director Cheyenne, if that's okay. Is there any objection? No, go ahead. Hey, Cheyenne, there's been conversations about foreclosures, and I was wondering how many homes foreclose a year.

I mean, sorry, sell at auction and people can't get back because the foreclosure process is a long, drawn-out process, right? Yes. Through the mayor to Assemblymember Sumner, The foreclosure process starts in my department. We start with the delinquent taxes. We send out, as described in a previous manager's post, we send out courtesy notices to approximately 2,000 property owners.

That starts the process. By the time we get down to where we have taken clerk's deed and transferred that property to land management for sale, we're talking probably less than 100 properties are left in the foreclosure process. By the time we actually sell properties, we're probably talking less than 30 properties that are sold. And in my recollections, not one of those has had a home on it or an owner-occupied home on it. For how long has that been— it hasn't been a home?

I have been at the borough for 32 years. We mostly sell raw land as part of that foreclosure process. Thank you. Okay, let's see, Gamble, and then Assemblyperson Gamble, go ahead. Thank you, Cheyenne.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I don't know if you can answer this, but how would a sales tax affect WIC and SNAP participants, would they pay sales tax? Do they pay sales tax, or would they? I'm— I'm going to throw this to Nick, but I don't think we can tax federal benefits. Okay, that's the last thing I'd want to do is harm the most vulnerable. And also, could you kind of, um, explain to me how the transition would happen from property tax to sales tax?

So when we spend a year with people still paying property tax until we started collecting the sales tax? Through the mayor to Assemblymember Gamble, one, it only removes area-wide property taxes, so we would still keep a fully functioning, um, assessment department because we still are levying taxes for road, fire, special service areas. Um, what we— this, I believe, the ordinance, if it's adopted or a pass by the voters, we start collecting in April. So we have one quarter before the end of the fiscal year to get an idea of what our tax collections would be and to be able to build a budget upon that. Okay, so we would not be reducing any staff.

In fact, we'd be adding staff. We would be adding— we would be adding at least 3 staff to start with, and that's probably low. Okay, thank you.

Nick, I think had his— you had your hand up, sir. Yeah, to Assemblymember Gamble, just to be clear, food stamps, food coupons, food instruments, WIC, all of that, that every purchase made with those are exempt. Okay, Assemblyperson I don't— McKee hasn't spoken. Let's let her speak a minute. Thank you.

And I'll come back to you, Steph. Yeah, we've been talking about 6.5 and then saying, well— and then the one where we just had the 6.5% with the taking away the property tax. And then when we had talked about the one that had the disabled veterans and seniors. And that particular one there, it says, however, if the reduced revenue is closer to the higher estimate, sales tax would need to be about 9%, and that comes from— that was May 21st, I think. May 18th.

And then the one for—. Huh?

I didn't know that was an amendment. It doesn't say it's an amendment. I just— it's a letter from, I think, Cheyenne's department saying— it's from Massachusetts Department of Finance. It says that at 6.5%, it would have to be at least as 7% area-wide tax. Then when you get to veterans and seniors, it said would need to be at least 9%.

Am I reading something wrong there? Through the mayor to assembly member McKee, the handout for the seniors is an amendment that would need to be moved. It has not been moved yet. I see. But you are reading it that if— That if it is— If it is amended and introduced and approved then you have an additional $12 to $26 million that would have to be funded somehow.

And I'm also looking at the fact that it says that the— to administer this tax, it is estimated 2 full-time employees would be needed, costing approximately $360,000 annually. That's on the same one we're just talking about. And I would say that's a typo. That is actually 3 employees. I'm really hoping so.

Yes. And I don't think 3 could do it. But anyway, just wanted to point these out that they're in there.

Assemblyperson Mowers. Just, um, I know we're talking about a lot, but I think it's a really good discussion to have to talk about, to think this through and think through things. And so one thing I just want to point out, when you talk about health insurance picking up the tab, the one thing I do know about health insurance is they do pass those costs along to us. Oh. So they might absorb 'em for one year, but those are gonna show up in our premiums the following year.

So I don't, I don't really see that as like cost savings. I think it's gonna get passed right on to us. But if you give, you know, if you give Walmart a $300,000 tax break and you give Target a $200,000 tax break, that's not gonna, they're not gonna change their prices. So I just, you know, again, thinking about winners and losers and, how it benefits— like, I like getting rid of the property tax, but you're benefiting some folks that are helping pay the bill now, and you're making it harder in some ways for people who live here. You are picking up visitors, but it just— I just wanted, like, you know, think about that.

Like, health insurance, it'll definitely get passed back on to us the next year in premiums. If the health insurers are paying it, they're going to pass it back to us.

All righty, are we ready to vote then, or Deputy? Mhm. So I, I would love to get rid of property tax, but I don't see us being able to do the completely all on sales, and I don't know if anybody's got an appetite for an amendment as far as doing a less percentage on our sales tax, like 4%, and half on property tax, something like that, to where that way we're evening it out. People that are apartment owners and stuff like that and landlords, they're, they're contributing still.

But it's not putting the burden on the average person and the small business as much as, you know, the 6.5%. And this, you know, realistically, I think if you put 6.5% down and put it on the ballot, I don't think it'll pass, honestly. If you're actually trying to accomplish something, I think more people would go 3.5%, 4%, something like that. And if you cut your taxes, property taxes in half, I think you would get a more, more support overall.

Is that a motion? Discussion, motion, and amendment. I don't. On Nick's recommendation.

Do we need to have any of these? Yeah. Okay, all righty. Let's go. Let's have a break until 10.

Okay, if I can have the assembly come back to order, please. Okay, where's Cheyenne go? We got what we need. You got what you need? Okay, so who's— who's— so is Deputy Mayor going to do it then, or attorney, or— oh, the Deputy Mayor has the amendment.

He has the motion. Okay, you have the— I move to amend. You have to— do you— was the other statement an amendment? Do we need to withdraw that amendment? We don't.

Okay, so So go ahead, sir. So I'm going to read the amendment in for Assemblymember Vernier. This amendment will change the sales tax rate to 3% and enact a real property— area-wide real property tax cap of 4 mills. Okay. So the first part of the amendment would be to amend the ordinance throughout to change the sales tax rate to 3%.

Okay. The second part of the amendment would be to amend Section 3 of the ordinance to add the words above 4 mills so that it would read, the borough may assess, levy, and collect ad valorem property taxes, except that the borough may not levy an area-wide mill rate above 4 mills. Okay. Third would be to change the ballot language —to read Proposition Number 1, Adoption of a 3% Area-Wide Sales Tax and Enact an Area-Wide Real Property Tax Cap of 4 Mills. That's the title.

And then the ballot language itself would say, shall the Mattanuska-Susitna Borough adopt and exercise the power to levy, collect, and enforce an area-wide sales tax of 3%— and then the 3% written out as a number— on all sales, services, and rentals within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and amend borough code to enact an area-wide real property tax cap of 4 mills. Yes, no? And then the final part of the amendment would be to change the title of the ordinance so that it reflects what I just read, and that would be an ordinance adopting MSB 110, 170, and MSB 335 3% area-wide sales tax and enacting an area-wide real property tax cap of 4 mills and submitting the proposition to the voters at the November 3rd, 2026 regular borough election. That would be the amendment. So, Deputy Mayor, I understand that's your amendment.

That is my amendment, and I would like to postpone it until July 21st. Yeah.

Okay, uh, yes, discussion. Assemblyperson Bowe. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I absolutely object to this. This, like Ms. Nauer's ordinance, brings now a sales tax in on top of all of the other tax.

So I mean, We, you know, this— if this, if this is something that this assembly wants, it makes no sense to me. It really doesn't. We have— and I'll say we have 4 Republicans, 5 Republicans here, and you're talking about wanting to raise taxes and bring in another type of tax on top of that. We all know a future assembly, all they have to do is move an ordinance to increase a mill rate cap. That— so, I mean, as soon as there is a more left-leaning assembly, that's exactly what they're going to do.

And then they'll have a 3% sales tax. So it'll be a 3% sales tax, and who knows, sky's the limit on the mill rate— 8, 9, 10, whatever it is. So I wholeheartedly object to this. I think this is a terrible, terrible approach to my ordinance. And, um, and I think I would appreciate that this be— that this amendment gets pulled back and not brought in on my ordinance.

And that if you really want to do this, maybe bring it in a different ordinance at a later time. Point of order. Aren't we on the postponement? Yes, the postponement was postpone this to July 21st. Didn't want to cut you off, but I think we're on the postponement.

Okay. Well, he had it all in one breath, so do you want to move to divide? Can he move to divide that question then? Divide what, Madam Mayor? Well, one had to do with the sales tax.

No, we made two separate motions. He made an amendment and then he made a motion to postpone. Two different amendments. Okay, okay. I, I thought he just went one breath.

So we didn't vote on the amendment. So we haven't voted on anything, sir. Well, if I can, Madam— Yeah, go ahead. So motions can be made and they can be postponed. Yeah, correct, correct.

So, Assemblyperson Nowak. So, just to clarify, if we voted to postpone, that amendment would just stand and we would take it up on July 21st, but we might have some more information before us, and then we can make the arguments on it. But it would— it would not— it would not be passed, would just be introduced. It would be the first item the Assembly brings up if the Assembly decides to put postpone it on July 21st. Assemblyperson McKee.

I have some questions about the, the 4%, uh, what would you say, 4 mils or— Yeah, or just— Okay, so I can't talk about that yet. Well, since it's all together in one piece— No, the clerk says it was 2 motions. So first we vote on postpone or not? Yes. And then we vote on other things?

No, yeah, that's what I respond. Yeah. So if you pass to postpone, then we will move on to the next item on the agenda. If that is defeated, then we will take up the other part of the amendment.

Okay, Assemblyperson— oh, you know. Okay, Mike, let me get to Assemblyperson Fauna first since he hasn't spoken. Question to Mr. Bonilla. The logic for postponement? Because we're discussing postponement now.

Where is your logic? I'd like to get in your head. This gives the public a month to mull it over. Okay, that answers my question. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles.

So as far as the postponement, speaking to it, I think that this is a disservice because this ordinance was introduced in March and the public has had plenty of time to mull over the language in ordinance. And, um, so I would ask that we do not postpone this, and that if you would like to take up your amendment in a different ordinance, we do that. Because quite frankly, if this— I don't want to be associated with this amendment. I don't want my name on this ordinance with, with this amendment.

A similar person, Paul. Maybe to sponsor amendment, he retract that. And then the next one, then the Stephanie's, we try to modify that one. Then Stephanie wants her name off it. We have, you know, so I'm saying like, I'll— I like the month extra to give people, but I also respect Mr. Bola's request that he doesn't like that to be the thing.

It's like we had previously one time Stephanie proposed something that she's like, vote against my thing because it got hijacked. So I do like to respect the sponsor on this thing. Thank you.

Okay, uh, and I guess there is objection to postponement, so the clerk will take your votes. If you can go ahead and vote on postponement.

Madam Mayor, it failed with Assemblymember Sumner in support.

Okay, so now we're back to the other amendment he wanted to make. Deputy Mayor, then the other amendment that—. I'm going to pull my amendment and bring it out next meeting in as an ordinance. Okay, so is there objection to him pulling his amendment? Okay, all righty.

Bill you have before you then, 26-032.

Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. All right, so my next amendment, I want to amend Ordinance Serial Number 26-032 to allow seniors and 100% disabled veterans to get an exemption card so that they would not have to pay the sales tax. Therefore, therefore, I move to amend Ordinance Serial Number 26-032 to insert a new section, MSB 3.35.085, resident senior or for Disabled Veteran Exemption to read as follows. And for clarification, do I need to read the entire thing?

Yes? I can read it. I can read it. Okay. All right.

MSP 3.35.085, Resident Senior or Disabled Veteran Exemption. A, any individual 65 years of age or older, hereinafter called a senior, or any individual who is a 100% percent disabled veteran who is a resident of the state of Alaska and resident of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough for not less than 90 consecutive days immediately preceding the application therefore may apply for and be issued by the finance director or designee a senior citizen or disabled veteran sales tax exemption card, which card entitles the individual to be exempted from the operation of the sales tax levied under the chapter. However, the 90-day consecutive day period provided for in this section may be reduced to 30 days if One, the applicant has previously held a senior disabled veteran exemption card in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Two, the applicant has not been absent from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough for more than 24 months. And three, the applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the borough finance director or designee that either A, the absence was for medical treatment of the, of the person or an immediate family member, or B, the absence was due to circumstances beyond their control.

No seller within the borough shall change shall— excuse me— shall charge or collect the sales tax levied under this chapter on exempted purchases from any person who displays such valid sales tax exemption card. All sellers within the borough shall keep records of such exempt sales and submit quarterly totals of such sales to the borough's finance department, together with any other information required by law. In the event the individual ceases to be a bona fide resident of the borough, entitlement to the sales taxes exemption that requires such residency shall terminate, and the card shall be void as to that sales tax exemption. Section B: No individual who has duly applied for and received such a registration card may use it to obtain such tax exemption when the, when the rents, retail purchases, or any of, any or all of them otherwise subject to the sales tax are used or consumed by any person or persons other than the individual duly holding such registration card or his or her spouse.

See, no person who has not duly applied for or received such a registration card may use it to obtain such sales tax exemption. Provided, however, in the case of an individual who's eligible for an exemption under this section, is otherwise authorized to receive a registration card under this section, and who is physically or mentally unable to use this said card, a special card authorizing another person to use a special card for the benefit of the individual, individual who is physically or mentally unable to use the card may be issued. A card issued under this subsection may be issued to either: 1, an individual specifically authorized to make purchases on behalf of the eligible individual and who certifies on a form designated by the finance director that any purchases under the special authorization shall be only for the use of the eligible individual or their spouse; or 2, a governmental or nonprofit agency which, as part of their services to seniors or 100% disabled veterans, regularly provides such services to seniors or 100% disabled veterans who are physically or mentally unable to make purchases for themselves. In the case of a governmental or nonprofit agency, such charge— such cards shall be issued in the agency name, shall bear distinguishing markings, and any employee authorized to use such cards shall certify on a form designated by the finance director of That any purchases under the special authorization shall be only for the use of an eligible individual or their spouse. Governmental or nonprofit agencies will accept full responsibility for the safekeeping of such cards and maintain an appropriate accountability of the use of each card.

When making purchases using the authorization, the employee shall keep a log of the purchase, the amount, and the party for whom the purchase was made. The log shall be retained for at least 3 years by the agency and shall be subject to an audit by the federal. Section D. For the purposes of this section, resident of the state of Alaska means an individual who is physically present in the state of the— with the intent to remain in the state indefinitely and to make a home in the state. An individual demonstrates the intent required under this subsection by maintaining a principal place of abode in the state for at least 90 consecutive days immediately preceding the date of application for the exemption card provided in this section. Notwithstanding the above, an individual who registers or is registered to vote outside of the state of Alaska cannot be a resident of the State of Alaska for the purpose of exemption card under this section.

For purposes of this section, a resident of the borough is an individual who has established a residence in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and has the intent to remain in the borough indefinitely and make their home in the borough. An individual demonstrates the intent required under this subsection by maintaining a principal place of abode in the borough for at least 90 consecutive days immediately preceding the date of application for the exemption card. Notwithstanding the above, an individual who registers or is registered to vote outside the Matanuska-Susitna Borough— cannot be a resident of the Borough for purposes of the exemption card under this section. E, any individual who ceases to meet the definition of either resident of the State of Alaska or resident of the Borough immediately forfeits the exemption granted in the subsection and must return the exemption card to the Borough. F, the finance director shall periodically review the qualifications of holders of senior citizen exemption cards, may require proof, verification, or other information from card holders and shall revoke the card of any person found not to meet qualification.

A written notice of the revocation, together with the basis therefor, shall be sent to the residence address provided by the exemption cardholder. A revocation decision is a final administrative decision and may be appealed to the Superior Court in accordance with the Alaska Rules of Court. G. Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a violation. Upon conviction, they're sure— thereof shall be fined an amount not to exceed $500. And such sales tax exemption card shall be surrendered to the court, which in turn shall return the card to the borough for cancellation and destruction.

Lawful use of the card is a condition precedent to its validity, and any unlawful use thereof shall render the card void from the date of its inception. By applying for any such card, the applicant thereby agrees to be bound by such conditions. And H, use of an exemption card in violation of any provision of this section is prohibited. Each and every item or service purchased with an exemption card in violation of any provision of this section is a separate violation. The borough may seek injunctive relief and a civil penalty up to $1,000 per violation as provided by Alaska Statute 29.25.070(b) 29.25.070(b) and pursue any other legal and equitable remedies provided by law.

Okay. So, uh, Assembling and Sumner and then McKee, or McKee and Sumner, whoever wants to— I have my light on. You did not swipe for me. I know. What I'm thinking about when you just read that amendment, and that's the one that I talked with about Cheyenne before, if you read her note on that, it says that the proposed sales tax is is projected to generate $121,398,669.

The FY 2027 area-wide property taxes are projected to be— to generate $129,576,700. And she goes on the next paragraph and she says, if the reduced revenue is— wait a minute— if the exemption is implemented, the amount of reduced revenue could range between $12,028,900 and $6,833,700. If the reduced revenue is $12,028,900, that's the first one, the finance department recommends at least an 8% area-wide sales tax to offset the reduced revenue. However, if the reduced revenue is closer to the higher estimate of 26 blah blah blah, the sales tax rate would need to be at least 9% to provide revenue. So we're not, we're not, we're not talking anymore about 6.5%.

If you introduce this amendment, we're talking about 7 to 9, 8 to 9. So are, are you sure you want to go up to 8 to 9%?

Mike, something—. Am I allowed to answer, Madam Mayor? Sure, sure. So again, these numbers are all speculation. If I had it my way, I'd have 5% or even less.

Um, I don't think we need 6.5% to meet, meet the revenue that the borough needs. So, um, as I've made it very clear, um, the lower the tax, the better, in my opinion. Um, so, and we absolutely need to exempt seniors and vets. Um, so, you know, we can guess it'll be $12 million, we can guess it'll be $26 million, maybe it's $2 million. I don't know, um, how much until we have a year or two of this ordinance in place and we actually have data.

We really don't know what we were going to collect, and it could be a lot more than the projected numbers. So I think on this one, I think that we, you know, we all, I think most everybody here wants to do away with property tax. Not me. Okay. Most everybody here wants to do away with property tax.

This is the way to do it. If you get a $26,833,700 shortfall, people are going to remember this conversation.

Absolutely. I don't care, and I never did care, but, um, yeah. Okay, Assemblymember Sumner. Yeah, I mean, I see what you're doing here because we do have a residential, you know, we respect our elders and we have a residential property tax exemption for seniors and disabled veterans. That's not 100% exemption though, you know, they don't pay $0.

They are exempted for a portion of their property taxes, and this would be a 100% exemption on sales tax. The other issue I see with this is somewhere around 14.6 to 15% of our population is seniors, and then of course there are veterans. So you just cut out a sixth of your, of your revenue. So maybe that's, maybe that's high, but maybe that's low, that $26 million. And, you know, the other thing that I think that this is going to— we know a couple things for sure this is going to accomplish.

Um, we know that seniors and disabled veterans will pay less in taxes. We also know we're going to collect less revenue. One thing that I know for certain is you're going to see a lot more grandmothers pushing carts around Target Walmart because everyone in the Valley has a grandmother or mother or uncle or cousin that's 65 or older, and it suddenly got a heck of a lot cheaper to send them to the grocery store than to go yourself.

Yeah. You know, and the thing about it is, is I know honest, honest people that wouldn't steal a nickel from another citizen, but it ain't the same when you're stealing from the government.

Okay, further discussion on the amendment? Yes, Assemblyperson Allen. I know, wouldn't— under, under this, so the seniors and disabled veterans right now get a $300,000, almost $280,000 a year property tax exemption. So they're losing the benefits. Like, you get rid of the property tax, they're losing the benefits of that exemption and having to make it up in Sales tax rate.

I mean, because the, the rate at which you're charging them, like, they still get the exemption, but suddenly the, the benefit of that, the mill rate is much less because you're getting rid of the area-wide. They're only getting the exemption on the non-area-wide, the fire service area, and the road service area. And so to make up the difference, they're paying a sales tax. So if you're a senior right? You're losing what was a big perk, sort of.

I mean, you still get it, but it's worth less, and you're having to pay because we're trying to make up the revenue. You're, you're making it up in sales tax. Oh, I see what you're saying, because you're now giving them— you're trying to give them an exemption from the, the sales tax. Yeah, well, I don't know, maybe grandmas will be pushing carts buying $10,000 in groceries, But it's kind of like, that's the one hand and the other. You've just taken away a big perk and, well, you're giving them this other one, and then other people are going to pay to make up the difference.

I don't know.

Okay, is there objection to the amendment? Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just want to address, so on the assembly, our job is to create policy. Policy and ordinance.

Our job is not to anticipate fraud. So, um, it absolutely is. It's— it absolutely is good policy to anticipate human nature. So when we talk, I mean, anything— anybody can take advantage of anything. We know that.

Um, I think that it's important to think about the larger benefit to the, to the 122 residents in the borough. I mean, of course we know fraud's going to happen. Fraud happens every day. We know that. Every time something changes in law, there's going to be fraud.

COVID, rampant fraud. It was brand spanking new, and then within, what, a month, we started seeing cases of fraud. So I mean, so I think that maybe that's not the correct way to say it, anticipating fraud. Okay. Of course, you know, maybe we need to factor that in, but, um, anything we do is going to be manipulated somehow.

So I would ask that we consider this from the perspective of how can we do the best for all residents in the borough. Okay, is there objection to the amendment? Yes. Okay, so there is objection. I can get the members to vote on the amendment, please.

Yeah, me too. You need to.

But I think it's important for these different folks. We're getting rummy already. Assemblymember McKee, can I get you to vote on the amendment, please? Please, I don't know what I have to ask you a question about it. Because if I— of course, I'm for an amendment like this, but I'm not for the main thing.

So how do I vote? I don't know how to vote. If you're for the amendment, you'd vote yes. If you're against the amendment, you vote no. Okay.

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

Okay, so now we're back to Ordinance 26-032. Are we ready to vote on the ordinance? Okay, is there objection to the ordinance? There is objection. Okay, so now go ahead and vote on the ordinance, please.

Madam Mayor, it failed with Assemblymember Bernier, Assemblymember Gamble, and Assemblymember Bowles in support. Okay, ready? So we're ready to move on to the next item? No, we're going backwards.

We are going back to Ordinance 26072 and the amendment on the on the floor is Assemblymember Fonovs that changed everything, the 1.5% to 1%. The handout is in front of you unless you want me to read it back into the record.

Is everybody okay, or do they want the clerk to say something on the amendment? Everybody fine with the amendment?

Okay. Would you say— is there objection to the amendment? Would you just read the amendment again? I'd like to make a few comments about it. Oh, okay.

Yeah, I do have objection to it. Okay. And, uh, you know, for the, the same reasons I mentioned earlier, that you're, you're putting a sales tax in on exemptions that don't match, um, you're raising the rate in Palmer to 5%, so that's for the same arguments we just had, hurt businesses. And the other thing about this is you're overshooting by a pretty good margin how much you, like, extra revenue you're going to collect. So this is estimated to bring $21 million almost, and the, the cap on the exemption is $16 million.

So I think you lose some of the perks that you had doing it outside the cities. Mm-hmm. Um, I would urge people to reject this and stick with a simpler one, um, to voters that goes outside the cities and does not stack on top of the cities.

Okay, Assemblyperson Gamble, and then—. Yes, Madam Mayor, I'd like to postpone this amendment until July 21st when Assemblymember Bernier brings his tax ordinance ordinance forward. Okay, so there's a motion before us to postpone. You look like you're supposed— you're trying to say something down there, sir. The only thing I was going to mention to Assemblymember Gamble is his ordinance will only be introduced on that day.

It won't be heard on that day. Okay.

August? Yes. Okay, so the most— what is motion to postpone until 8/4? 8/4. Okay, already.

Yeah, similar person. What's the deadline for getting something on the ballot? 8/28. Oh, okay, okay. Um, Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to amend that, um, to postpone it indefinitely.

Postpone— if I could verify— to postpone the amendment indefinitely? Are you talking about postponing the amendment and the main motion? Correct, both.

Okay, so don't we already have a motion to postpone on the table? Just a minute. Okay, just a minute.

No, you can't amend that. Bear with me, you guys. I'm sorry, it's getting late for me too. I don't believe you can amend the motion to postpone with the motion to postpone indefinitely. You'd have to vote the postponement down and then move to motion to postpone indefinitely.

I apologize. Okay, so the amendment on the floor is to postpone until August 4th, 2026, and there is objection. Discussion.

No, you got to do the first one first.

I'm going to do the definite one first, and then you can do the— Okay, Assemblyperson Pawlowski. I'd like to ask to vote this down so we can discuss it, to decide where we sit on the amendment, and whether amendment passes, then we can postpone to give more time. I do think we have given people plenty of time. We did not have too much people show up. I think it's a good time.

To make a decision now, uh, 1 month or 1 meeting away, is honestly not going to change anything. It seems like it's just a tactic. So, um, whether we don't like it, we vote it down. We like it, we vote it up. I mean, that's— the postponement's kind of starting to get a little bit hideous, honestly.

Okay, Assemblyperson Mold. Oh no. Okay. All righty, so we do have an objection. Right from the— I would just— well, I called on him, he turned off his mic.

Turn your mic on, please. Sorry, Madam Mayor, I was asking some member Gamble if he was going to pull it back by request. Um, doesn't sound like you are, so I'd like to— secondary amendment to postpone that until the first meeting in September.

You have the postponement for The meeting— the meeting in August, correct? I want to change that to the first meeting in September. Do what? I'd like to change— I'd like to change the date of this postponement to the first meeting in September. So he's striking 8/4 and inserting 9/1.

Okay, so that's different than the indefinite one. It is different, has a different effect, but it is different.

I mean, the effect of that is you couldn't put it on the ballot because you'd be missing the deadline. So, you know, from that perspective, I would say vote it up or vote it down. Don't, don't do that because you're just then causing a meeting for no reason.

The— I think I would advocate for having it on the 4th because if we're going to do— if we're really serious, we want to put a proposal out there, the best proposal we can find for getting off property taxes, then let's discuss it. And, and Ron's going to bring his. And, um, so, you know, if we really want to do something about this, let's postpone it till August 4th, give the public a chance to weigh in. If we've just decided we're going to throw in the towel, then let's vote all these down and say the response is we're living with property taxes. And, um, you know, We haven't found it.

We can't craft a solution. We're discussing the change of date to September. I am discussing the date, changing it to September.

Okay, guys, let's be a little bit civil there. I know it's getting late, but come on, be really respectful.

Okay, this is for September.

So it's like a secondary amendment to September. September 1st. Okay, initially like killing it is what we're doing.

Yeah. Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Sumner, Assemblymember McKee, and Assemblymember Bowles in support. Okay. All righty, now we're back to the our first meeting in August on the 4th. Is there objection to that?

We are, but we have an objection. Okay. So go ahead. I want to again say I would welcome— let's have this debate now. We already extended the meeting to 11:59 if we haven't.

Let's just get this thing over with.

Okay. Ready to vote? Yep. Oh, I'm sorry. Did you want to say something?

I would. This is, you know, we all try to come up with some answers as far as alleviating property tax. You know, Mike had his at 6.5. Stephanie came up with an idea. I was silent until I listened to you guys go on and on tonight.

And, uh, But all in all, we're literally just trying to give our constituents a choice. So if they got a choice at 6.5 or the 1, 1.5, or a little bit of both, I think the more you give them a choice on the ballot, then maybe we'll actually come up with an answer. And for people that voted down Mike's, I'd reconsider. Thank you. Okay, Assemblyperson Nowers.

I would just say the one thing about your amendment, Mr. Fonov, is that gives the city's time to weigh in as well. So that's, that's an argument for allowing them to respond because that hasn't been on the table. Okay, we do have Assemblyperson Fonov. Miss Nowers, I do want to discuss this amendment, but Like, if you support the postpone, that doesn't necessarily help the fact. So because you're— anyways, let's— if you want to postpone, that's fine, but I'm saying that we're just kicking can down the road.

It's not like we're gonna get a different result, so let's just mature up and get it done. It just gives the cities a chance to respond to a proposal they haven't heard. All right. All right, all right. I'm going to call for the— for you guys to vote.

Come on. I can get the members in the room to vote, please. Postpone to 8-4. 8-4. Madam Mayor, it has failed.

Okay. With Assemblymember Bernier, Assemblymember Gamble, and Assemblymember Nowers in support. Okay, so now we're back To the primary amendment. I will speak on amendment, please. Okay.

Ms. Nowers, here's the argument for you, and I will make this very brief. You're okay with taxing at 1.5% people that live outside of the city, but you're not okay with giving— taxing 1% to the tax. I think there's no logic there. If you want my support to put this on the ballot, woman up or man up, whatever the proper term in English, support the amendment and we'll give it to option to the voters. If not, that's okay too.

Your choice. Assemblyperson Bowles. So I think that we should vote down this amendment and this ordinance. This brings in a tax on top of every other tax. I just want to make sure that that's said again, so it's fresh in everybody's mind.

This isn't removing one type of tax and then bringing in a tax. This is adding a sales tax onto everything else, which we should not be doing.

Okay, so maybe for some hours— I don't usually do this, but I call the question.

Okay, the question has been called. Is there objection to calling the question? No objection. Then I can get the members in the room to vote on the primary amendment.

The primary amendment is Assemblymember Fawnoff's amendment to change it from 1.5% to 1% and not exempt the cities and change the ballot language.

Running. Madam Mayor, it is passed with Assemblymembers McKee, Bowles, and Nowers opposed.

All righty, so now you have Ordinance 26-072 as amended before you. Assemblyperson Bowles. Madam Mayor, I move to postpone this ordinance indefinitely. Okay, okay, there's a motion on the floor to postpone indefinitely. Is there objection?

Okay, we have some— Assemblyperson Gamble, go ahead. And, uh, Lonnie, can I amend his postponement to date certain? No. Okay.

Okay, we do have an objection. Then are you objecting? Okay, so there is an objection to postpone indefinitely. You can vote on postponing indefinitely. I would just— one comment.

I, uh, also for the same reason Mr. Bowles stated, would not want my name on something that added to the cities that I will support postponing indefinitely because— and if we want to bring this back, um, we can always bring it back. So remove your name off of it. Okay. Assemblymember Bernier.

Madam Mayor, it is passed with Assemblymember Farnhoff, Assemblymember Bernier and Assemblymember Gamble opposed. Okay, so we're going back to the—. Clerk, you said it the wrong way, just so you know. You said it passed with different names. You said it backwards.

We're going back to the second scheduled public hearing for this evening, Ordinance 26039 and Ordinance Accepting and appropriating $100,000 from the Matsu Trails and Parks Foundation for the upgrades to the West Butte Trailhead. Resolution 26025, resolution approving the scope of work and budget for the upgrades to the West Butte Trailhead. And if you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, please press star 3. And can we get the meeting extended, please? Deputy Mayor, you want to extend?

I move to extend the meeting to 11:59. Is there any objection? No objection. Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing on Ordinance 26-039. Do we have a sign-up sheet?

Ma'am, we do not. Anyone that would like to testify on this ordinance? Do we have anybody online, sir? We do not. Okay.

So I'll close public hearing. Let's see, who am I supposed to ask for here? Uh, Assemblyperson Bowles, I guess. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move to adopt Ordinance 26-039 and Resolution 26-025.

Okay, discussion by the assembly? Any objection by the assembly? You have an objection? No, I was going to just say something, but I'm too slow. I'm sorry.

I just appreciate the manager and staff bringing this forward. That trail's in really bad disarray. And this isn't— this isn't new tax money that's being pulled. This has already been worked into the budget. So thank you very much on behalf of District 1.

1. Okay. Yeah, I don't think there is any objection, so the legislation passes. Madam Clerk. Ordinance 26066, an ordinance authorizing the borough manager to convey certain borough-owned excess land from the Point McKenzie Rail Extension Project to State of Alaska for economic development, Tracks 10A and 13A, Point McKenzie Terminal Reserve, plat number 2025179.

Palmer Recording District. You're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, so I'm going to open the public hearing for Ordinance 26-066, and we do— Michelle, we do have a sign-up sheet.

I will be brief. I know it's late. Um, Mayor DeVries, borough officials, and members of the assembly, Michelle Heun, H-E-U-N. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I'm a 44-year Alaska resident and I live in District 1. Full disclosure, I filed campaign registration to run for Borough Assembly Seat District 1 on November 3rd. My comment tonight is on the proposed non-code ordinance 26066 and information memorandum 26108 authorizing the Borough Manager to convey certain borough-owned excess land from Point McKenzie Rail Extension Project to the State of Alaska for economic development, specifically tracts 10A and 13A.

As a community member, I have previously attended several Agricultural Advisory Board meetings and was aware of these parcels that they were being discussed. There is concern by some of the public that this action is being taken for the purpose of an IA data center. When you take this up for a vote, I have no doubt that you will pass it, but I think it's important to allow staff probably too late now to speak to how the subject parcels were originally acquired as part of the Point McKenzie Rail Extension project using 2013 grant funds. As part of the record, the public needs to hear these parcels have been subdivided to separate the rail easement from the remaining lands, distinguishing transportation corridor from the remainder of the farm property. Holding on to this land and buildings is costing the borough money.

For utilities maintenance and management. A public sale would have to be returned to the state program with no financial gain to the borough. Conveyance back to the state is responsible and timely. Good work to the Agricultural Advisory Board and to the borough asset manager. Thanks.

Mm-hmm. And Simeon Gilroy.

Good evening, or almost good morning, Assembly. Um, I, uh, my name is Simon Gilland. I don't have any objection to the borough conveying the property back to the state. My concern is, um, with the paragraph midway down page 2 where it sounds Like, the intent is for the property to have the agricultural covenants removed for the purpose of economic development. This state has, in comparison to many other states, very limited soils.

It takes time, like hundreds, thousands of years, years to build those soils. There's a reason there's ag covenants on that land. It— there's plenty of other places where economic development, storage yards, whatever is desired to be done with this land could be put that does not detriment the agriculture and food security in this state. So I would ask that an amendment would be put forward to remove the— A covenant remove— being removed from the Um, from the ordinance conveyance to state, I understand the reasons. I understand why the borough is in current ownership.

Something else I would like to see, um, the question raised at least is to make sure that there's no active leases on this land. The last time the borough tried to terminate leases, um, you did it like the week before hay was supposed to be cut on those properties, and that's extremely Um, that's just straight up wrong to any tenants. Um, and thankfully the assembly overrode that request from— I believe it's the administrative side of the borough. But, uh, that's something that needs to be a question that needs to be at least answered and thought about, um, if it's going to change ownership or any tenant is going to be terminated. So thank you, and, uh, I will look forward to hearing the discussion tonight.

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

We have anybody? We do not have anybody in line. Okay, one last chance. Okay, so close, uh, public hearing. And let's see who— who's— Assemblyperson Gamble, you're already speaking.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move to adopt Ordinance 26-066, and I have a question for the manager. The gentleman spoke to it earlier. Mike, could you just tell us how that property is being used right now? Yes, through the mayor to the assembly, it is correct.

A lot of what you've heard already is correct. So if you recall, there were two parcels that were subdivided from the rail right-of-way that have structures and have served as farms. And the last direction I got from the assembly was to, uh, just, you know, subdivide and then sell. So that was the track we were on to do that this summer. My ultimate outcome here is to not have the borough own this land anymore because it is costing us money, and really we're just— we don't need to be landlords.

And so what this did, since that's happened, the state of Alaska reached out, asked and requested that we transfer the— or convey this property no cost to the state because essentially it was paid for by state legislative grant funds. And then the idea is that the state would work through potentially removing the ag covenants. That's why we were very clear that the intent may be to do that for them, but that would be a separate deliberative process executed by the state of Alaska, not the Matsu Borough. Mm-hmm. And so I looked at this and said, well, the decision about how to convey this land is a decision for the assembly.

Assembly. That's why the ordinance is before you. And so if, if you vote this through, then we will convey the land probably through a donation agreement to the Department of Natural Resources, and they will take it from there. And again, they have their own deliberative process, public process, for what that might look like if they choose to, to work to remove the Ag Covenants and then further convey it potentially to ADA. There's a couple gentlemen here, uh, that may have interest, uh, in the Alaska Power Corporation has also expressed interest.

Um, if not, then we would just leave as is and move it forward for sale this, this summer. Regardless, I want to convey it, uh, I don't want to sit on it and continue to retain the property. So we're honoring the request from the state by bringing it forward to you as the assembly to make that decision, and then we will move with whatever direction you provide tonight.

Assemblyperson McKee, how many acres acres is this? I believe it's a— I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna round. I think it's about 600 acres each parcel for a total about 1,200. So, which is now classified as agricultural? Uh, currently there are ag covenants on both parcels.

And each one of them is 600? I believe that's correct. Roughly 600 acres each.

Assemblyperson Fauna. Question, Mike. So did you say that the parts that have the structure house, they have been subdivided or they are going to be going back to the state with those as a whole pieces? Through the mayor to Mr. Fauna, if they— those structures are on the part that's been subdivided out that are part of the farms. The rail right-of-way, I don't believe, has any structures on what we will be retaining.

Okay. So the— that what we're returning, what would be given to the state, is just the land, or it's— those structures are on there, or they've— those— can you explain that? Yeah, through the mayor to Mr. Faulkner, the structures are on the land that would be conveyed to the state. Okay. So we wouldn't be landlords anymore?

Correct. Because, I mean, we look at the rail right-of-way as right-of-way, right? We retain right-of-way and And what will happen with that will depend on what happens to the rail extension. Is that railroad right-of-way recorded and that cannot be changed because— and not have any problems when it comes to the railroad? Yeah, through the mayor to Mr. Foss, that's correct.

That's why we went through the subdividing process so that we could legally separate all of those. So what was 2 parcels is now 4, right? Is it—. Or actually 1 right-of-way and then the 2 remaining. Is it subdivided far enough where there's potentially like additional lanes that width enough, or it's only for the narrow path?

Yeah, I want to, through the mayor, I think it, I don't remember the exact dimensions of the right-of-way, but it was what was originally envisioned for the terminal reserve when the Port McKenzie Rail Extension Project was, when they came up with the idea, they had set that, they had conveyed an area, or they had set aside an area that they intended to use specifically for rail siding, and that's what we subdivided and retained. Okay, I believe it was like quarter mile or something with something. I'm gonna—. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I've got, I think, at least 3 questions.

So I just want to verify, if this land goes to the state, it's not going to affect a future railroad going— it's not going to affect the railroad, is that correct? Yeah, through the mayor, that's correct. I mean, it could in the sense of if the railroad expresses an interest in this and they have the Ag covenants removed, the railroad could use it for any rail purpose that they see fit. Okay, right. So is there— is this land being currently farmed in any way?

We— I think the gentleman mentioned we have had hay leases. That's been the bigger use. We did have tenants there in the past. One was doing some smaller farming operation, and I think the other gentleman was primarily using it as a resident— residence. So there have been— they have used it for hay.

Is that happening right now though? Because I believe we allowed the hay leases to continue through this summer so that it wasn't just idle, because we knew it would take— even if this gets approved tonight, it's going to take some time to work through the mechanics of handing that off. So I believe the hay leases go through this fall. Okay, okay. I'm sorry, let me correct that.

They're hay permits, not leases. We have not conveyed any interest. They're permits, so they're short-term agreements. So would it— if we amended Section 3 to actually put a date of, say, October 1st, would that hold up any economic development or the conveying, or would it disrupt anything, just to ensure that they can continue to finish their crop? Well, I would say through the mayor to Mr. Bowles, we already have those permits in place, so we already have an agreement with them to be able to do that, and that would just be a condition of the agreement with the state is that they're, they're allowed to continue that use through the summer.

I don't think we need to postpone it necessarily, because what I don't want to do is go into the winter with structures that we have to deal with. That's, that's what's costing us money, is dealing with the structures, because if you get squatters— we haven't had, but I don't want to wait and find out when we do and then have to come back and tell you we have squatters that we're trying to evict. Like, we're just trying to avoid those costs. Okay. Okay.

I have a question. Yeah, are there questions? So if—. Assemblyperson McKee, go ahead. If this were— if we were to vote this down, would the railroad still run through there?

I mean, is it still— Yeah. So through the mayor to Ms. McKee, if it gets voted down, we're going to move forward with a land sale of the two parcels. To— but will they actually—. It'll just be competitively made available, and who Whoever buys, buys, and it'll— and, and the Ag covenants that are with the land will convey with the land. Okay, so the Ag covenants are borough Ag covenants or state Ag covenants?

Through the mayor to Miss Nowers, they are state Ag covenants. That's why we want to convey them back to the state. I expressed to them that I did not want to bring the borough into this idea of condemning state ag covenants. That we did go through that with the rail alignment years ago. Yeah.

It's not a fun process. And I was like, if the state wants it and their state ag covenants, let's let the state deal with it. And is the state planning to, a data center was mentioned. Is the state trying to use this land as a data center spot? So through the mayordom of Miss Nauers, there was a company several months ago now that had come up and it had expressed an interest for a data center in the area.

That company has since said, we're not interested, and they're not interested in moving to the state. So I believe that's why ADA is here. They have an interest in it for resource development is the angle that they're looking at, not an AI data center. But obviously once we convey it to the state, unless it's a regulation that the borough has for a conditional use permit, The state can do whatever the state wants. So I can't make any promises or guarantees around what the state will do.

And as was mentioned previously, this land was acquired with state legislative grant funds. So it's not like if we sell it, the money's going to come back to us. It's going to go back to the project. Go ahead. One follow-up then.

So we potentially, if we do this, we are selling ag land to the state that gets turned into non-ag land. Ag land potentially if the ag covenants get removed. And if we keep it, the ag covenants would stay because they're state ag covenants. Correct. Okay.

And, um, did the— I'm sorry, there's been so much with the taxes. Did the— I don't know, did the Ag Board weigh in on this?

Not that I'm aware of. Kind of like to hear from the Ag Board. Word on it. That would make me feel better about the decision.

Is there a— can we refer it and postpone it? Does that—. So, through the mayor, I am here to receive direction. The last direction I got was sell the land. I've had a request from the state of Alaska.

That's your decision. Assembly Missin' Key. Mr. President, this may not be meaningful to anybody who doesn't have livestock, but I have had horses for 100 years, and sometimes you have to go all the way to Delta for hay or something. And I'm just thinking, I don't want to do that anymore. I like the egg covenants.

I also think that we are— we started out agriculturally in this valley in 1935 with the colonists coming here, and we just seem to be eating up the ground, um, the available places to grow things by leaps and bounds. I'm— so I don't support it. Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Is Is it possible to hear from ADA as far as what some thoughts are as far as economic development?

Because I'm kind of— I'm in agreement. I mean, Matanuska-Susitna Borough is ag country, and God's not giving us any more farmland. You know, it's getting covered up. But I'm all for economic development and natural resource development. So I just kind of want to— I just want to get a better understanding of what the possible plan is.

Before I, I cast my vote. I guess we could find out. Is there objection from the assembly?

Yeah, so state your names and then they'll be heard. The question—. Madam Mayor, assembly members, and residents of the borough, thank you. My name is Kelvin Good. I'm a project manager with the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, or AIDA.

And my name is Jeff San Juan. I'm the infrastructure development program manager for AIDA. And to answer some questions, yeah, we did express interest in obtaining these properties, and it's actually 800-some-odd acres. And yeah, and so the total amount prior to the subdividing was just over 1,000 acres, but it's— so it's 800-some-odd acres. I can't— it's in, it's in the ordinance.

But initially what we're planning on doing is making it a sidecar, a sidetrack. And so in the future, with all the potential infrastructure development that we see across the state, and we see a lot coming down the pipe with the potential of the Ambler Mining District, the potential of the West sit in the mining district, potential of other commodities across the state. When, say, in the instance that the Arctic mine opens up in the Ambler mining district, we're looking at 470,000 metric tons year one. That's just one mine. And so the entire, the entire belt of the Ambler mining district is potentially ore-rich.

We could potentially be looking at a million tons a year or more once it's all developed by all the different mines. And that also, when that road goes in, if, if it goes in, there's the potential for new claims to be staked. And so we see the, the need for sidetrack, and I, I think that's what this sidetrack and maintenance— and that's what that location would likely be used for. Because in the Port District, there's a rail loop that's being planned. The extent of how the extent of the design, we're not entirely certain yet, but, but how many trains can we bring in and out of that location without clogging up the rail?

So that's the question. But, but to answer the question, no, we don't intend on putting any data centers there. It's, it's mostly just all rail support and maintenance support for, for the Port, the Port Mac area. And just to follow up on that, so ADA has been basically trying to figure out how to create a transportation corridor from the Ambler Mining District all the way to Port McKenzie. So we actually published a study that you may or may not be aware of that talks about the mineral resources, the transportation, and the ports for unlocking Alaska's mineral potential.

Mm-hmm. And basically we looked at Port Mack and as not only an export port but an import port. And the way we looked at that, that's why AIDA has been investing a lot of interest in developing Port McKenzie. Yeah. So we've invested lots of money in studies to be able to unlock Alaska's mineral potential.

Yeah. So if you look at that study, we have some ideas of refining at the port. So we, we have, there's a lot of potential at Port McKenzie that we're trying to unlock. And so that's part of the reason why, you know, any possible land that we could develop on the rail helps economic development for the port itself. So that's, that's what, you know, storage— there could be lots of potential.

We don't want to limit it to just storage, but it's— there's a lot of potential that we're looking at. So that's one of the studies that I would point you to. Yeah. And that study can be found on ada.org, our publications page, and the title is ADA Mineral Production Transportation Port Capacity Study. It was an evaluation of all the different ports as well as other commodities statewide, but it did mention Port McKenzie and it emphasized the importance and the strategic location of that being really the only deepwater port in Alaska that is greenfield.

And also, we would like to express our thanks and gratitude to the borough and to the staff for working with us. It's been— we've been working closely with Dave and with Mike, and just the efforts are appreciated. Regarding— just a quip regarding the design, we did issue a notice to proceed with McQuarthy Alaska Industrial Partners, which is combination of the Macquarie Group and Martinez. They're the rail developers, but they're going to be— Look, they're moving into Phase 2, which is a bottom-up analysis on what it's going to take to, to construct the rest of that rail extension. We're also in an agreement with HDR Engineering to look at producing a 5% concept study for for Port McKenzie, which is going to aid Port Mac in their strategic plan.

But so those— so we're trekking towards that direction to see really how we can get the extension built. And, and I think that we, we think that this property would go a long way in servicing not just the state, but, but also the the entire area of the Port Mac District and District 1 or District 5. So, yeah, that's— Yeah, we're, you know, and so we're all in on trying to help provide access to economic development. So— And we have had several meetings with multiple— there have been multiple entities from out of state that would love to bring refineries and factories and a lot of infrastructure to Alaska. And they've been expressing a lot of interest in District 5.

And so just because of its proximity to the— its proximity to Deepport. But—. It's true. There is a lot of opportunity. And that's kind of what we see.

As far as that right now, it's just the sidetrack to accommodate all that potential traffic. I'm not sure where District 5 is, but on the West Sioux— on the West Sioux Access Road, there's a lot of interest in development on that road. Does the assembly have any questions for us? Yeah. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I guess the only— so, this sounds outstanding.

The only question is, Until ADA gets there, will there be any disruption with farming that's currently going on? So to answer your question, as the Borough Assembly— I mean, the Borough Manager, Mike Brown, mentioned, is there's a process. So ADA has an interest, and I think the Alaska Railroad has an interest in this parcel. So it goes it goes through the state. DNR has to remove some of the Ag Covenants so that we can actually develop it into economic development facilities.

Without the Ag Covenant there, we won't be able to develop them. Short-term answer is no. So yeah, thank you. Yeah, so it's gonna be— it's gonna take a process to get— I don't know what that process Yeah, the DNR, we expect it to be quite a while, but for as far as the permits that are in place, we don't anticipate that affecting the permits that are in place. And so, I don't see the gentleman here, but the cutting of hay or the cutting of whatever product is there, I don't see that being an issue.

And we typically see when land gets transferred all the time, whatever permits exist get transferred along with that land, and then we estates it, uh, you know. There is also the caveat in the, uh, in the ordinance that if there's no infrastructure development on that, on these parcels within 5 years, it reverts back to the borough. And so we— the clock is ticking, but we anticipate that with the, the natural gas line, with the mining development, with all the potential for all the other resource development, that the, the construction period for this is likely around the corner. You know, an exact time frame, we couldn't really give you that because we're assessing that now. And so once the final investment decision is made, then we can go from there.

Okay, thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, is there— yes, Assemblyperson Norris. Um, I appreciate that, the input on that.

Um, when we, when we decided we would sell it I thought we were selling 1,600 acres of ag land, and that made sense because the borough shouldn't be in that business. Now that we're like looking at that changing, I do think it should go to the, um, the Ag Board, because that's 1,600. You know, we don't— we, like you said, we don't get it back. So, um, I'd like to make a motion to refer it to the Ag Board and bring it back July 21st, or the earliest date we can make that all happen. Okay, discussion on the motion to refer to the Ag Board and bring back on July 21st.

Assemblyperson Bowles? Yeah, I just object. Okay, ready? So there is an objection then. So we can vote on the referral, please.

Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember McKee and Nowerson's support. Okay, so we have before us still ordinance— is there objection to passing Ordinance 26-066?

You have an objection? Okay, I can get you to vote on the ordinance, please.

Madam Mayor, it has passed with Assembly Members McKee and Nowers opposed. Okay.

Ordinance 26069, an ordinance accepting and appropriating $3,468 from the Alaska State Department of Natural Resources Office of History and Archaeology for the 2026 National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, NAPC Forum Travel Grant Project, with accompanying Resolution 26054, Resolution Approving the Scope of Work and Budget and Authorizing the Manager to Enter into the State Grant Agreement for the 2026 NAPC Travel Grant Project. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and open up the public hearing. We don't have a signup sheet. Okay, so this is for Ordinance 26-069 and Resolution 26-054.

Testimony will, will need to pertain to this ordinance and this resolution.

Okay, we have anybody online? No. Okay, so go ahead and close public hearing. And, uh, let's see who's—. I move to adopt Ordinance 26-069 and Resolution 26-054.

Okay, discussion by the assembly. Assemblyperson McKee, go ahead. Yeah, I was looking at this thing and look and kind of broke it down. It says altogether we've got a 60/40 matching grant on this, and that would cost the borough $2,325. $12, And then when you put that together with theirs, it's a $5,780 travel package for 4 days for 1 person.

That would be $1,445 a day. I'm going to join whatever organization that is for a 4-day trip at $1,000— at $1,500 a day. I think that's exorbitant. I just— I don't care where the money is coming from. That's exorbitant.

My major in college was travel industry management. I never saw anything like this. That's government money because somebody else's pocket. I don't like it. Further discussion?

Assemblyperson Pownall, go ahead. Is there like— I guess now that Miss Mickey brought it up, some good points. Uh, is that for manager to travel or there's a manager to enter into the agreement? Is there like staff report that we could get on this or no?

Or maybe Manager Baum can explain if there's anything that he knows about this.

I mean, if you look at the— I am— the in-kind match is the commission chair volunteer time. So I think that it's not spending local tax dollars, spending Alaska State Office of History and Archaeology grant tax dollars. So I'm a little more comfortable with that. I am not really sure what they're doing at this conference, though. Where are they staying is what I want to know.

Geez Louise. Deputy Mayor, you have your light on, or is that— oh, okay. Further discussion? Is there objection?

We do have objection.

Members, to vote on this ordinance and resolution, please.

It has failed with assembly members Bernier, Gamble, and Bowles in support.

Ordinance 2670, an ordinance accepting and appropriating $21,595 of revenue from fiscal year 2026 public donations to the Animal Care and Regulation capital projects budget for Animal Care Division facility programs, with accompanying Resolution 2655, resolution approving the scope of work and budget for Animal Care Division facility programs that support animal care and regulation priorities and objectives. Yaron Fono would like to speak to this. Press star 3. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open up the public hearing on Ordinance 26-070 and Resolution 26-055. We do not have a sign-up sheet, right?

Anyone in the audience that would like to testify on it? Either this ordinance or this resolution. Do we have anybody online? We do not. Okay, I'll close the public hearing.

Deputy Mayor. I move to adopt Ordinance 26-070 and Resolution 26-055. Okay, anyone have discussion? Any objection? Okay, hearing no objection, then the legislation passes.

Okay, Ordinance 26071, in order to approve an additional land classification for 16 borough-owned properties along the Deschutes River as watershed lands for the purpose of fish habitat. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing on 26071. -071, And we have a signup sheet, and here she is. Good evening.

My name is Esther Huddleston, and I'm speaking out against Ordinance 26-071, the reclassification of borough lands off the Deschutes River as watershed classification. Borough staff is claiming that the reclassification of the land as watershed will have no change in regard to recreation and access. What borough staff fails to mention is the type of recreation which could be negatively impacted. According to the Matsuburo Title 23 Land and Resource Management Division Policy and Procedure Manual on Classification of Borough Land, Part 20, Section 3-1, Restricted Areas, C, Wetland Mitigation, Bankland Lands, if used to grade the natural land and generally allowed uses, Part 31, Section 4-1, the borough manager shall retain authority to prohibit or restrict any specific use under these generally allowed uses provisions when in conflict with 23-5-10. This means the borough manager holds the authority to restrict the land.

Under Ordinance 26-71, you are reclassifying land as land bank and watershed, which falls under the restrictions at the borough manager's discretion. The Massie Borough has kept people off from accessing their cabins under the Fish Creek Conservation in Big Lake. Who's to say that this change in the reclassification won't do the same? People rely on jet boats, airboats, and snowmobiles to access hunting areas and cabins. Will this land reclassification violates state statutes 2477, 19-45-001A, the ANILCA Section 1110A, and 43 CFR 3611, which are state laws protecting motorized access to remote locations.

Please vote no on the Matsuburo land reclassification to protect motorized access along the Dushka River. Second. And I hope that you guys don't support this land reclassification. It can have negative effects to people who own cabins in the area. And supposedly you guys contacted people in the area, but my— that own the property, but my concern is, did you contact people past the borough land reclassification?

I'm wondering how many properties have you reached out and notified them about this reclassification? And they rely on borough land to access remote properties and hunting areas. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to testify on this ordinance?

Do we have— oh, we have 3 people. Okay, go ahead. Who's ever in line first, please.

My name's Jessica Speed. I'm coordinator of the Natsu Basin Salmon Habitat Partnership. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in service of your decision related to OR-26071. The partnership's a voluntary, non-regulatory coalition of 65 diverse organizations that includes local, state, federal, and tribal governments, businesses, fishing interests, and more. The borough is a founding organization and holds a seat on the steering committee.

Partners share a vision of thriving salmon, healthy habitats, and vibrant communities coexisting in the Mat-Su. The partnership has funded 128 salmon habitat-related projects in the Mat-Su. Totaling $5.1 million. 38 Science projects have included among them stream temperature monitoring to increase our knowledge about water temperature trends in Mat-Su streams, including the Deschutes River. Healthy cold water habitat is foundational to healthy fisheries.

It's a defining feature of salmon habitat and survival, with each life stage existing within a relatively narrow range of temperatures. The Deschutes River hosts one of the most productive fisheries in the Nat-Su Basin. It's also among the warmest, with summer water temperatures regularly exceeding thresholds considered detrimental for juvenile and adult salmon. Cold water seeps and springs provide essential cold water stepping stones that help salmon traverse areas of warm water. The temperatures Sorry, as water temperatures are predicted to get warmer in many of Alaska's streams in the years ahead, cold water refuges may be critical to the survival and persistence of salmon.

Identifying and finding ways to retain these cold water stepping stones that allow salmon to migrate and survive even as overall river temperatures rise will be key in this time of thermal change. Based on lessons learned elsewhere, we know that maintaining these functioning habitats is far more cost effective and successful in trying to restore them once degraded. The borough has done award-winning work to proactively maintain healthy fish habitat, and finding a mechanism to highlight key salmon habitat on the Deschutes River is an extension of this forward thinking. With a general trend of declines in salmon returns, maintaining healthy habitat is more important than ever. Special thanks to Assemblymember Gamble, Fish and Wildlife Commission and borough staff for bringing this high-quality science forward for Assembly consideration.

Thank you. The next person online, please.

Hi, my name is Sue Mauger, um, and I want to thank you for your work tonight, um, and to thank Assemblymember Gamble for bringing this forward to you. I spoke to you back in August in 2025 and presented a presentation about this work, and it really is exciting to have really locally-based science that's supported by local partners. This particular work that has resulted in these particular parcels being highlighted as key habitat was actually funded through the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund. This is work that has had a lot of review and support. It's rare that we actually do have local science that can tell us about unique characteristics of public parcels.

And so this is a really exciting opportunity to make sure that we don't lose this information and that it's tied to these borough parcels where we know specifically that they have really important cold water, groundwater inflows. And that when I'm gone and you all have termed out and new folks of the community are taking on this public service, that we haven't lost the knowledge that these particular parcels are important. And I continue to be hopeful that salmon will remain a key iconic part of the Mat-Su Valley. And it's really only by making sure we're paying attention to local knowledge and local science that can help ensure that into the future. So this is not meant to be a big hammer of regulatory impact.

This is really just a note related to the parcel that tells us this is pretty unique lands, and we want to make sure that we are aware of that when we're doing future decision-making. So I hope the concerns about local landowners being impacted by this. I hope that they understand that that's not the intent, and I don't think that will be the outcome of this, and that this is a really good proactive long-term vision for the future of salmon habitat. Thank you very much, and that's it for tonight. Thank you.

Okay, there's another person online. Go ahead, please.

Hello. Hello. Go ahead. Hi, good evening. My name is Michelle Stevens and I serve as Vice President of the Alaska Outdoor Council.

We represent 47 to 50 members' clubs and 10,000 Alaskans. I respectfully oppose Ordinance 26071 and the proposed watershed classifications of these borough-owned parcels because the borough has not adequately evaluated or disclosed the potential long-term impacts on public access, public multiple-use management, recreation, hunting, trapping, snow machining, and other traditional uses of these public lands. Everyone supports healthy salmon and clean water. However, this proposal raises important questions that have not been adequately answered. The borough is proposing to classify more than 2,000 acres of public land along the Deschutes River based on current cold water input locations.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Yet the public has not been provided with a clear explanation of how this designation may affect future access, recreation, trail development, easements, or other traditional uses. The Deschutes River corridor is an important area for recreation, hunting, fishing, trapping, transportation, and outdoor access. Public lands should remain managed for multiple and history has shown that special land classification can gradually lead to reduced access and increased restrictions and traditional uses. Before moving forward, the borough should provide a detailed analysis of how this proposal may affect public access, established trails, and easements. Recreational opportunities, and future land management decisions.

Protecting salmon habitat and maintaining public access can and should go hand in hand. The borough should protect the resource without creating uncertainty about the future use of public lands. For these reasons, I urge the assembly to reject Ordinance 2607-20. 1, Second. Or the minimum postpone approval until more thorough analysis of the impacts have been completed and made available to the public.

Thank you for your consideration.

We have anybody else online? No. Okay. Anyone else here that would like to testify on this ordinance?

Oh, we did. Oh, okay. Good evening, Assembly. For the record, my name is Margaret Stern, and I am speaking on behalf of the Susitna River Coalition in support of the proposed reclassification of the borough-owned parcels along the Deschutes River as watershed lands. The Susitna River Coalition The Alaska Salmon Coalition is a watershed health organization comprised of 14,000 members within Alaska and beyond, mostly in the Mat-Su Borough.

The Deschutes River is one of the most important salmon-producing tributaries in the Susitna watershed, as we know, and the parcels identified in this proposal are associated with documented cold water inputs that provide critical thermal refuge for salmon during periods of elevated summer temperatures. And these groundwater-fed areas help maintain suitable habitat conditions when fish are under the greatest environmental stress. What makes this proposal really compelling is that it reflects a direct connection between scientific research and proactive land management. Recent work supported through the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund has identified these very specific locations where cold, oxygen-rich groundwater enters the river, and research has shown that these areas are disproportionately important important to salmon, particularly during those warm summer conditions. Classifying these parcels as watershed lands is a really amazing opportunity for the borough to recognize and protect these important habitat functions before they are threatened or degraded.

As changing conditions continue to affect water temperature and fish distribution across south-central Alaska, protecting these coldwater refugia and groundwater-connected habitats is increasing increasingly important for sustaining healthy salmon populations. Because of this, the Susitna River Coalition and our membership strongly supports this proposal and encourages moving forward with this reclassification. Thank you so much for your time and consideration this evening. Okay, we have another person online. Okay, go ahead.

Hello, my name is David George. Everybody is so concerned about the salmon, but nobody cares about the Big Lake Channel, the no wake rules. Why doesn't they take care of that? Why don't they patrol that? People go flying through there, eroding shoreline, killing off the little ducks, killing off the salmon.

Nobody cares. I called the troopers numerous times. They don't do nothing. They don't show up. People have almost been killed going through there.

I've seen a couple head-on close calls. One family was almost killed in a pontoon one time when the racing boat come flying by and the pontoon ended up in the shoreline. Talk about killing fish and killing birds. Why don't they do something about that? Put no wakes on it.

Put a stop to the 50 miles an hour going through that Big Lake Channel. It needs to stop now. Thank you. The last person online. Okay, I don't see any movement here, so I'm going to close public hearing.

Yeah. Madam Mayor, I may suggest we have a robust, uh, consent agenda that has a lot of contract approvals that we will have to wait one month on if we don't get through it tonight. Would the assembly be willing to postpone this now that the public hearing's occurred so we can at least get through some of that business that's fairly straightforward? Because I, I would hate to wait a month on all of that consent agenda. Okay, so Assemblyperson Gamble, would you like to make that motion?

Madam Mayor, I move, uh, to adopt Ordinance 26-071 and would I would like to also move to postpone it until date certain August 4th. Okay. That's it. Is there objection? Did you say August?

Yes. Your light is on, Deputy Mayor. So is there objection to that motion? I bet we could just assume vote on it as not, but if everybody else wants to wait, I can do that. Okay.

Ready? Go ahead. Yeah, or you're objecting, or you—. I'm objecting, but I'm ready to order this down as it says. The problem now, we're debating.

We've got a big old consent.

Okay, so we have an objection. So let's— we're ready to vote.

Assemblymember Sumner. It passed with Assemblymember Fawnoff and Sumner opposed. Okay, ready. So the next item is audience participation. Participation.

I will open the audience participation. We do not have a sign-up sheet. Anyone wishing to testify to the assembly, of course, on any subject?

Do we have any? We have one person online. Go ahead, please.

Good evening. My name is Tasha Street, and I'm here regarding the reconsideration of action Resolution Memorandum 26-075 and the proposed award of the Big Lake RSA Maintenance Contract to Tewes. What I continue to struggle with is understanding what's changed. Following the last meeting, a member filed a motion to reconsider after stating they had additional time to review the contract documents. Respectfully, the contract documents have not changed.

The bid has not changed. The concerns that previously led this that led the assembly to reject this award have not been clearly explained as having changed. If there is new information that justifies a different outcome today, I believe the residents of Big Lake deserve to know what that information is. At the last meeting, there was a discussion that Chuhs had served their time. Respectfully, I do not believe the question before the assembly is whether a contractor has served their time.

The question is whether this— Whether this is the contractor that Big Lake residents want responsible for maintaining the roads they depend on every day, especially during Alaska winters. This assembly previously reviewed this matter and chose not to award the contract. Those decisions were not made lightly. If a different conclusion is being reached today, the residents of Big Lake deserve to know what new information exists that justifies reversing those previous decisions. Have the concerns been resolved?

Has new information been— [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] presented. Has there been a significant change in qualifications, performance management, or oversight? And so I believe the public deserves to hear it. From the public's perspective, it appears that the facts remain the same, but the decisions changed. When that happens without a clear explanation, it raises legitimate questions about consistency, accountability, and confidence in the procurement process.

I also remain concerned about looking only at the total bid amount. Several frequently used pieces of equipment increased substantially in hourly rate, while less frequently used items were reduced. A lower number on paper does not necessarily mean the lowest overall cost to taxpayers during the life of the contract. Assemblymember Bill Gamble, who represents this area and whose residents are directly affected by this contract, contract previously urged this body to find Chuze not responsible and asked assembly not to approve this award. The concerns of the representative class closest to the residents affected by this decision should carry significant weight.

Big Lake residents rely on these roads to get to work, get to their— get their children to school, and access emergency services. Before reverse— before Before reversing previous decisions, I respectfully ask the Assembly to provide a clear explanation of what's changed and why this contractor is now considered the best choice. The public deserves confidence that the borough's decisions are driven by facts, transparency, and accountability. Thank you, guys.

Okay. Do we have anybody else? Okay. Go ahead, whoever is online.

Good evening, Madam Mayor. My name is Dawson White, W-H-I-T-E.

I had someone call me a few weeks ago saying that, um, someone from the Borough Assessment Office was, was there at their property to, uh, ask them some questions. And, and they asked this person if they knew who Dawson White was and said that because of, because of me I've been giving a real headache and have made their lives hard and this and that. And I just want to say that I'm not trying to make anyone's life hard. I'm just trying to get the borough to follow the law. And all the homeowners, they're already assessed at market value according to the Borough Assessment Office and to all of our current borough assessor.

And it's really the raw end. Thank you. The raw land parcels that need reevaluated and reassessed by the borough. And the borough needs to follow law according to the Alaska statute. And you guys don't need to pay attention to the homeowners.

It's the raw land owners. And just follow law. That's all I'm trying to get you guys to do. And you don't need to bother any more time with people's homes. Just focus focus on the raw land and you'll get it squared away fairly quickly.

I'm sure if you just put the homes aside and focus on the land. I appreciate the work you guys are doing trying to get this squared away, and I really appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Do we have anybody else online? No.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public hearing. Madam Clerk, consent agenda, please. Resolution 26052, a resolution waiving Matsuburo Landfill fees for Alaska State Adopt-a-Highway Program for fiscal year 2027. AM2666 authorizing the manager to enter into a grant agreement for fiscal year 2027 with Valley Community Recycling Solutions in the amount of $200,000. AM2670 approval utility relocation costs of $118,533.52 to MTA Communications for the Jolly Creek Drainage and— Drainage.

Improvements project phase 1 and 2, Big Lake Road service area, to— and to extend the completion date to December 31st, 2026. AM2676, approval of change order number 5 for contract 23049B with Western Construction and Equipment for Central Landfill annual operation compaction contract to add $190,482.48 for fiscal year 2027. And establish a $35,000 contingency fund. AM2677, approval of change order number 3 to term contract number 23100PA with HDL Engineering Consultants to renew fiscal year 2027 annual contract authority and to extend completion date to June 30th, 2027 for engineering and surveying services. Mm-hmm.

AM2678, approval of change order number 3 to term contract number 23100PA 23-100-PB with Lounsbury and Associates to renew fiscal year 2027 annual contract authority and extend the completion date to June 30th, 2027 for engineering and surveying services. AM26079, approval of change order number 4 to term contract number 23-100-PC with the Boutet Company to renew fiscal year 2027 annual contract authority and extend the completion date to June 30th, 2027. For engineering and surveying services, AM2680, authorization to purchase hardware and professional services in the amount of $155,829.55 with—. Sorry, sorry. Covangent Technology for the Dorothy Swanda Jones Building security upgrades and updates to DSJ Building Lenel access controls.

AM 26081, award of proposal number 26153P to All Points North for the contract amount of $225,000 to provide survey services for a new government peak recreation area to Ski Talk Trail. AM 2682, authorization to amend contract 24134P with Kaufman Engineers for the Dorothy Swanda Jones Building seismic evaluation services to extend the contract completion to June 30th, 2027. AM2684, awarded bid number 26173B to Northern Asphalt Construction in the contract amount of $330,800 to construct West Hemeker Drive and South Spring Drive improvements. AM2685, awarded bid number 26165B to HDL Engineering Consultants in the contract amount of not to exceed $300,000 to provide all-call construction materials, testing, and Construction Inspection Services, AM26086. Awarded bid— awarded quote number 26152Q to R&M Consultants in the contract amount of $177,786 to provide engineering consulting services for the Yoder Road Bridge evaluation repairs plan and erosion protection design under term contract.

2696P, awarded bid— excuse me, AM2688, awarded bid number 26171B to JGH Plumbing and Heating in the amount of $444,021 for the school district administration boiler room improvement and boiler replacement. AM 2690, authorization to renew VMware vSphere software with GC-CIT under a 3-year agreement covering July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029. Total cost of the agreement is $195,360 with annual payments subject to appropriation. Deputy Mayor, would you move the consent agenda, please? I move to approve the consent agenda as read into the record by the clerk.

Is there any objection? Hearing no objection, the consent agenda is approved. Madam Clerk. AM2608, 3, approval contract amendment, authority to contract 25176B with Roger Hickel Contracting to establish additional changeover 30, and an amount up to 6.5% of the contract amount as modified, and to authorize extension of the contract completion date by up to 90 calendar days for the American Charter Academy project. Pulled by Assemblymember McKee.

You gotta move it and then we gotta move it. I move. Okay. This amendment and then AM 26083 and like Okay, is there any objection? Hearing no objection, then it has been approved.

Okay, next one is AM26089, awarded bid number 26172B to Ficklin Construction in the contract amount of $585,000 to construct Burma Road safety improvements. Pulled by Assemblymember McKee. Madam Mayor, I need to recuse myself for business that I've had with Ficklin, if I may. Does McKee have to move it or can— because she pulled it, right? Yeah, but he has—.

I still need to recuse myself. He still needs to recuse himself before it gets pulled up. Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay, so you move to approve?

I move whatever that is. 25089. 25089, And would like to speak to it. And maybe it's because it's 11:49, 9, but it really was more of a curiosity thing. I'll ask about it later.

It's not— it's a big deal. Is there any objection? Hearing no objection, then it has been approved. Okay, there is no unfinished business, there's no vetoes. Introductions, Madam Clerk.

Introduction for public hearing on 721, Ordinance 2628, and Ordinance 2630, and that's it. Okay, Deputy Mayor. I move to introduce election as read into the record by the clerk and set the public hearings for July 21st and 22nd. Is there any discussion? Any objection?

Hearing no objection, the legislation is introduced. And Deputy Mayor, will you please—. I move to confirm the mayor's recommendation as follows: Agricultural Advisory Board, resignation of Alexandria Hoffman. Meadow Lakes RSA number 27, Nicholas Scott. Is there any objection?

Hearing no objection, the vacancy report has been approved. There is no new business. There are no referrals. Madam Clerk, would you read the reconsideration? AM260715, award a bid number 26157B to Two in the contract amount of $1,116,525.33 for Big Lake Road Service Area annual road maintenance rebid.

Okay.

I guess I move to reconsider, and if we get to that point, I'll speak to it. But I did, I did reconsider that vote after looking at additional information, and if we have a positive vote, I'll speak to what I, what I saw. So she has moved to reconsider. Okay, discussion? Objection?

I see no objection. There was objection. I can get the members to vote on reconsideration, please.

Madam Mayor, it has passed with Assemblymember Bowles opposed. Okay, uh, so the main motion to adopt the AAM 26-075 is on the floor. I did ask for reconsideration briefly, um, I did, I did vote the first time to deny the bid to Mr. Tu. I respect the poor record that he has and that the community's concerns have for him, but I could not in good conscience deny him the second time. This— he was the low bidder because he is an eligible bidder, and I would just also note that the contract is for 1 year, so I hope that he will prove people wrong and do a good job, but if he doesn't, it's 1 year.

Okay, uh, is there objection to the AM? Yes. Okay, so people proceed to vote then. The approval—. Assemblymember McKee.

Right, I'm sorry, ma'am, go ahead. Yeah, okay, Madam Mayor, it has passed with Assemblymember Gamble and Bulls opposed. Okay, so we are to parting comments. Assemblyperson Farnoff, parting comments? I would have a history today, another time with Miss Nowers, but it did not go my way.

Um, but maybe sometimes before the year will do. That's all I have. Assemblyperson Gamble? No comments, thank you. Assemblyperson Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, I would— so I move to have the manager work with the Butte Community Council on a management agreement to manage the property formerly known as the compound. Um, I spoke to the manager about this as well as, um, Joe Metzger. Um, what the Butte Community Council hopes to do is enter into a memorandum of agreement, I believe, to pursue putting a park in that area. Is there comments and discussion by the—. Putting a what in that area?

A playground. Yeah, playground. The only playground in that whole area is— excuse me— at Butte Elementary, and it gets closed up, and it's, you know, it does— there's not 24/7 access. And they've— my understanding is they've already got the funds and everything to build it. It's not going to cost the Bureau any money.

So they just need the Bureau to allow them to build it, essentially. So I could be a little wrong on the details, but that's what this motion is for, to get those details worked out. Member McKeever, you have your light on. Do you comment? Well, I'm just glad it's over.

Member Hurston-Howers, were you trying to— I'm gonna let that one go.

So I'll finish my comments. I think we had solid discussion tonight on all of the tax ordinances. The conclusion obviously is that none of them passed.

So—. Just a minute, we didn't vote on Your direction to the manager. Do we have any objection for the direction to the manager? Okay. All right, now go ahead.

Now go ahead with your parting. Okay. Um, I think that there's no appetite, so I, I'm not planning on reconsideration. I hope that the rest of the tax ordinances Sponsors feel the same way so that we can finish out this summer moving other good work forward. I do appreciate the discussion, even though we disagreed in a lot of areas.

I think we all agree that property taxes, generally speaking, aren't the most— aren't well received by the majority of people that live here. So, on that, Um, it's— it is a privilege to serve District 1. I appreciate you putting me in the seat, and continue to reach out, continue to tell me how I can best serve you for the next 5 months. Thank you. Madam Clerk, reporting comments.

Thank you for the earlier meeting and the evaluation, and I think that Brenda's right, the timer helped me read faster.

Parting comments. Um, I just wanted to publicly correct the record. Mr. Sumner reached out to me after the last meeting, and during that meeting I misspoke and said that Sumner Company had a gravel operation, and what we were talking about was the list of gravel permits, and Sumner Company is on that list, but they had applied gravel permit, but then chose not to pursue it. So I just want to correct the record because the, the correction is that they had applied for a permit but do not have a gravel operation. Deputy Mayor, parting comments.

Thank you everyone for coming out. Dear Lord, please bless the borough. Please bless our veterans, our first responders. Please help those that are addicted and in need of you, Lord. Please Thank you.

In Jesus' name, we, we pray and praise you. May we glorify you, Lord. Amen. Parting comments, Assemblyperson Sumner? I'm glad there's no new taxes.

That's all. Assembly McKee, parting comments, ma'am? People I've ever been around in my whole life, but at the end of it all, and I say this all the time, we all care for each other and wish each other well, and no that we operate from our hearts and from the research that we do. So bless you all. Mr. Attorney, parting comments?

Okay, so we will adjourn at 11:57. Woo! We got, we got 2 minutes left.

The conference has ended. You will now be disconnected. Goodbye.