Juneau: Joint Assembly with Docks & Harbors Board followed by Finance Meeting

Hello.

We will bring the special assembly joint meeting with the Docks and Harbors Board to order for November 4th, 2026. Mr. Steininger, would you read the land acknowledgment, please?

We would like to acknowledge that the City and Borough of Juneau is on Tlingit land and wish to honor the indigenous people of this land. For more than 10,000 years, Alaska Native people have been and continue to be integral to the well-being of our community. We're grateful to be in this place, a part of this community, and to honor the culture, traditions, and resilience of the Tlingit people. Good night. Madam Clerk, will you call roll of the assembly first and then the Docks and Harbors Board?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Kelly? Here. Ms. Atkason? Here.

Mr. Steininger? Here. Ms. Hall? Here. Mr. Brooks?

Here. Miss Cosgrove. Here. Madam Mayor. Here.

And we have Miss Niven is absent, and I will look out for Deputy Mayor Smith. For Dachshund Harbors, Mr. Leiter. Here.

Mr. Emerson. Here. Mr. Box. Here.

Mr. Horseshover.

Mr. Suter here, and we have Mr. Ridgeway online, but we do have a mic issue, so I will look out for him joining us. And you have quorum. Thank you, appreciate that. Any changes to the agenda? See no changes, then we will consider the agenda approved.

Go right into topics. So introductions, and all we're looking for is names and how much time you've been in your particular spot.

Chair Souter. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, my name is Shem Souter. I'm in the first year of my second term on the Docks and Harbors Board, and I'm still having fun. So perfect.

Thank you for your service and for it. You'll be busy tomorrow, Mr. Leiter. Uh, my name is Matt Leiter, and this is, I think, my 6th year, so I'm coming to the end of my second term this summer.

Mila Cosgrove, I'm an assembly member, and I have 10 days in.

Tyler Emerson, uh, I think I'm in, I'm in my second term. Uh, first term was, I think, a little short. I think I got near mid-24 or something like that.

Nano Brooks. I'm in or going on to my second year of my first term.

Neil Steininger, just starting my third year of my first term.

Maureen Hall, in third year of first term.

Steve Box, and I'm just on my third month of my first term.

Ella Adkison, technically second year of my first term but actually fourth year on the assembly. Thank you for that. Mr. Kelly. Um, Paul Kelly on the assembly, um, 10 days into my second term. Thank you.

And did we get Mr. Ridgeway's mic fixed? And do we see Mr. Horschhofer? All right, thank you for that. Um, so with that, we'll jump into the, uh, agenda, but give me 2 seconds.

Sorry about that. Um, update on proposed passenger-for-hire increase process. Jim Suter.

All right, thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, so We started a process to look at and reevaluate the passenger-for-hire fee that we charge, basically lightering the tourists across the dock in Statter Harbor, and came up with the fact that we needed to increase it in order to stay current with staff requirements, projects that need to be completed out there, recapitalization, and just basic general overall use by the tourism industry there at Statter Harbor. We've gone through our public process, we've had a couple of different meetings, we've had numbers of different emails back and forth, pro and against, and I believe that we have sealed everything that we need to do, and it will probably be coming in front of the assembly I'm not sure exactly when, but maybe in a week or two.

And that's kind of my update on the passenger-for-hire process. If there's any questions, I'd be more than happy to try and answer them. Any questions on that, or any member of the Docks and Harbors Board want to speak, or Mr. Ukitel, if you want to say anything on that topic?

Comments, questions?

Mr. Emerson, you look like—. I just wanted to comment. I think the rate that we came up with was somewhat, uh, we, we hadn't really considered if you might consider giving us back the seafood tax. So feel like maybe if there was something, I don't know. It is what it is, I guess, as it stands.

But I guess that would be worth noting that I don't think we thought that money was on the table as far as perhaps coming back.

I'm going to look at the port director because I thought this money was for capital improvement projects more than operating expenses. So, but I could be wrong.

Thank you, Mayor. So just to back up a little bit, so currently that Passenger for hire fee is $2.05. It's adjusted annually to CPI, but that is what somebody pays for fishing and whale watching charters that go across any of our facilities, but 98% of them are all at Statter Harbor. We were looking at that fee primarily because what—. Now that we have Statter Harbor completely built out, or at least the passenger hire portions, which took 4 phases over several years.

We actually thought that there would be less staff oversight than what really— what is observed this year. So we've got very nice facility, very efficient, but we have now 272,000 passengers coming through there. So we originally looked at this fee increase as a need to augment staff at that facility. As the Dock Harbor Board started talking about this, then we started looking— the question was, what are our long-term needs out at Statter Harbor? And so then that, then the question is, well, we know that we need additional staff to handle all the charter operators at Statter Harbor.

Then the question is, well, how much— what should they— what are the needs out there? And that's where we landed on increasing it from $2.05 to $7.50. And Mr. Emerson is correct that that's somewhat of an arbitrary number, but it's also based on what we thought would be a loss of revenue due to the raw fish tax or the commercial, the fisheries business tax. So we've went through all the process, we've heard concerns, pros and cons about the rate, but that is the number that we were looking at. And you could throw in that raw fish tax if we are going to get it in the future, that could be adjusted, but we'd have, We have tens of millions of dollars of new infrastructure that needs to be built out at Statter Harbor.

So that's—. We're just trying to be proactive and being able to respond to the needs of the community.

All right, any other questions from anybody?

Sorry, Mr. Brooks. Thanks. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I know that we just had a meeting recently where we were ironing out, you know, the uses of that raw fish tax, and the language we put in were like extraneous financial circumstances. So the—.

I guess the question is, was this rate increase under the assumption that we'd be taking that raw fish tax every year, or was it just based off of the one year?

You're going to answer that? Sure, thank you. Mr. Brooks, the loss of the raw fish tax was definitely considered when we were working through the process.

If it were to be, which I think now it probably is, returned maybe moving forward in the future, we could take a look and say maybe we could chisel at that a little bit. The big pretense was the recapitalization of the breakwater at Statter Harbor and recapitalizing the existing float system out there. That's the meat and potatoes of it. Yes, the raw fish tax definitely did come up in the topic of conversation. So I hope that answers your question.

Yep. And one of my questions was, is, are we looking at increased fees for any other user group, or is it just the whale watching boats because they have such use right there and it sounds like you need more staff? No, we're going to look at everything out there. The yachts, for instance, that tie up to the breakwater now, there's a reservation system. Miss Karina Buckland is working on overhauling that entire reservation system and how the fees and the— how the fees in the program all works.

She's right in the middle of it, and I've asked her when she gets it finished to bring it to the board and present it to us. Okay, that sounds good. Go ahead, Miss Hall.

I should probably know the answer to this, but our commercial fishing fleet, is that spread out throughout all of our harbors or is it concentrated in, you know, I mean, do we have a fair number of commercial?

I'd say it's equally represented at all the harbors, or I'd say actually probably more in the downtown basins just because it's a cheaper moorage. Most folks, there's not as many seasonal spots or permanent spots at Auke Bay. So if you have a transient spot, it's hard to plan around working in and out of Auke Bay. I think Mr. Box has a permanent stall there, so that lets him work there pretty efficiently.

That kind of depends if you're just looking at the gillnet fleet, they do have a little bit of a seasonal thing as they head up. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. To Auke Bay in the later parts of the summer, but it's pretty stable all around, I think. Yeah, so follow up.

So it'd be safe to say this is mainly tourism-related impacts that we're looking at. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Good. Yep.

So my question, and I've already told the Port Director this question, and this is just a discussion with the bodies. If we know there's congestion and we know we had to increase fees and we know the Visitor Industry Task Force is looking at whale watching, Should we be putting a moratorium on permits there while we're dealing with the congestion? So that's my question. You guys can think about that. I'll go to you, Mr.

Chair, because you have the— you make the big bucks. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think, um, yeah, I've definitely been thinking about this, not only at the Harbor Department level, but more so on the Visitor Industry Task Force. We've discussed it quite a bit. I haven't put it towards the body.

We haven't had it as a topic so much on our agenda at the Docks and Harbors level. It's something that we could definitely do.

I guess I would say that I was kind of waiting to see how the— that have rolled out their recommendations before we move forward with that. Does anybody else have anything?

I, I would probably be not inclined. I'd prefer a larger fee increase to kind of capture some of that revenue for Docks and Harbor, and instead of just artificially cutting it off and granting an essential monopoly to the current operators, I think that fee increase is going to serve as a slow— slowing the growth by itself. So I mean, that, that kind of achieves the same goal in some effect.

Any other comments?

Mr. Leiter. Um, thank you.

Um, one of the things that I've tried to keep in my brain, um, throughout this process is the number we're asking for is the number we feel like we need to have for the future and to have to function. And so, um, this is— you hear about it at every meeting that you go to with me, but Title 85 is hard to wrap my brain around. Um, and so in my mind, policy is policy. If you guys want to put a moratorium or not, that's, that's totally different than, than this number we're asking for, which is what we feel like we need to function regardless of what the policy is. That's my, my opinion, not necessarily the board's opinion.

And just to make clear, that is just my question. The Assembly has not even discussed this yet, so it's not in the opinion of the Assembly at all. I just— why we were talking about fees and everything, and we know that the Visitor Industry Task Force is working on it, but I have no problem waiting to see what the results are of the Visitor Industry Task Force. I just thought it would be food for thought for everybody. So, but I don't see anybody raising their hand, so we'll go to item 3, status of the Sea Drone property.

Mr. Chair. Oh, Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just had one, uh, one more thing to mention on there.

I, uh, it's just food for thought on perspective when we're going into these kind of discussions. And I talked with some of the, uh, you know, tour company operators, and, you know, they're Their perspective on this is that, you know, it's— they feel like it is very targeted at them, but also their ability, their ability to adjust with these rates.

And they're— for some of the operators I've spoke with, they're expressing to me that is like, you know, with the ship cap and the passenger cap that has already limited the, you know, their ability to leverage that industry of visitors to ramp up their businesses. And so the— and then some of their tours are sold on a flat rate for multiple years. So a lot of these rate increases will, you know, they'll be a direct impact on their bottom line and they don't have a way to, you know, raise, raise it based off of the number of visitors, you know, it just goes to higher costs across the board. So it's just something worth considering as we go into these discussions that we're going to be collecting more from this group. But we kind of limited the amount of people that they can capture money from in a sense.

Thank you for that, Mr. Brooks. We are trying to be sensitive to the whale watching fleet, but remember why we have limited the number of tourists. They haven't— they don't take every tourist out, so they have to figure out better, more ways to get the tourists to go with them. But we are— remain sensitive to that. I chat with the whale watching community often.

So, status of Sea Drone property. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So the Sea Drone property, we were approached by Gold Belt. Well, I think the Docks and Harbors Board randomly throughout maybe the last 7, 10 years has been approached and—. Could you give a little explanation of this for our newer members?

Oh yeah, gotcha. I'm sorry. So the Sea Drone property is— Just over here, it's the Port Director's Office. Gold Belt owns it. It's— I'm sure everyone knows where it's at.

It's a hodgepodge of cut-up parcels, and due to code, no one can really build setbacks and such, anything other than what's already there. So Gold Belt proposed buying the city's portions. I think there's 3 pieces there. They total about a third of an acre. And then they would most likely vacate all those property lines, and they've got a, a really nice rendering of a building and a dock they'd like to build there.

So recently they came— recently, a year ago, I think— they came to us and we went back and forth, and some of the board members were for, and the majority of them were against selling for market value, which is about $610,000, I think. $630,000. Thank you. And ultimately the board made a— do you remember what it was? Was it a $1.2 million offer?

And Gold Belt—. Yeah, it was either $1.2 or $1.5. I don't recall. Gold Belt wasn't interested at that level, um, but they've been going back and forth between the Harbor Board Yeah, or gosh, like I say, 7 or 8 years. I think they've been trying to hash this out.

So I know that they're still interested, but they don't want to pay really more than market value. I don't know if they've approached the assembly at all, but that's pretty much what I know about that. Well, they have grumbled that the price was way above what they originally thought it was.

So Mr. Light is raising his hand too. He might save you. Call a friend. That's okay. I, um, it's a year ago, and so my brain was fuzzy, and so I, I went back through some of the minutes so I could try to remember, uh, why I was thinking what I was thinking.

And, and I wish, um, we have some other board members who are really eloquent on this and, and do this you know, in this realm for a living. That's not me. But one of the things that, that was, um, I think in a lot of our minds at the time was the, uh, the appraisal was $630,000, and, and we make around $60K in, in lease from that property. Now you can, again, as Mr. Souter said, there's different parcels that all are kind of packed together. And so it's not an exact replica that that's the $60K we would make from this exact piece, but it's pretty darn close.

And so there was this concern that we already make a lot of revenue from this property, and, um, selling it, we're not going to have that revenue anymore. There was a concern that the appraisal didn't take into effect, um, what we felt like— well, I shouldn't say we, it's not my realm. What some of us felt like was an accurate assessment, just considering the subport dock that's going to come in and all the tourists who are going to walk by there. And one board member, I remember, said that this, the way they appraised this, made it worth less per square foot than his own home and residential property, which kind of struck a lot of us as maybe not fair. And so I think that's where several of us were coming from at the time.

We had offered to— our thought to them initially was we don't feel like the appraised value is fair, but we asked them to make an offer. They ultimately opted not to make an offer, and so we threw out a number, and that's what we came up with.

Any questions or comments on this one? I just put it on here, um, with Chair Suter's permission, just because I didn't— I'm just trying to catch everybody up on the seed drone property in case it was asked or something. So is Mr. Ridgeway— are you trying to say something? Yeah, Madam Mayor, thank you very much. Um, just another, uh, point.

It's got a long history. Um, we had originally— when we originally approached by Gold Belt We had worked out, spent at least a year working out a land exchange, and, and they, the folks we were dealing with, agreed to it. And then unfortunately, they took it to their board and the board decided against it. Just a little bit more history on that.

All right, thank you. Anything, Mr. Brooks? Thank you, Madam Mayor. You were mentioning the types of revenues that get brought in from the property being around $60K. Is there— is that kind of like the upper limit capacity of what revenues that could bring in, or is there a way to maximize or increase those in any way?

You know, there's nothing that can be built on those parcels as they are. The city can't do anything, and Gold Belt can't do anything. So if there's going to be an improvement in the waterfront in that area, those need to be combined and those property lines need to be vacated. So, Mr. Burke, just to follow up on it, um, more— less along the lines of aspirational, more along the lines of like, uh, bolstering the current, you know, current revenue streams that are happening.

Is there any way to increase those? I'm not sure if we're bound by code on what we can lease on the percentage versus fair market value.

I think there might be. I'm looking at Mr. Ukitel. He might know. Mr. Ukitel. Not sure if I have an adequate answer, but really, this— the areas that Mr. Souter spoke about, they're small parcels.

And to do a development, a real development, that's why you can't have buildings that cross property lines. So that's the issue at hand, that one entity probably can develop this area that needs development. It could be that, you know, CPJ could buy the whole thing from— buy the property owned by Gold Belt. And then lease it back to them to do it. But that's— they're just like everybody wants to be the property owner.

And so the proposal is for them to do it, for them to buy CPJ property and then develop their vision. But as far as having other available land, everything— we've got a little bit of kind of, I'll call it useless land that we own that doesn't help them. In development of their property. It just— I should have been prepared and showed a picture of the different parcels, but there isn't a lot. There isn't available land that makes development beneficial to Gold Bell at this point to lease them more land.

If the question was how we lease property, we follow code and it's assessed at— it's appraised at fair market value. There's— we've had other board discussions about whether fair market value should be the process that we use as opposed to— there's various other appraisal techniques that are used commercially, but our code requires fair market value of— and there's more language to that— but fair market value of a reasonable purchase for its intended use. I'm not speaking— I'm not quoting it correctly, but we are limited by the means that we appraise CBJ-owned property. Thanks. Just so, just to summarize, the revenues that are being generated from that are all through leases, and we can't really mess with the leases.

That is correct. All right, uh, Mr. Emerson, I was just saying, this is kind of a tough one for me, like waffling back and forth. I feel like, I think the perceived kind of, or the differences between the board is this kind of incongruency between the fair market value to you know, an uninterested third party versus what we perceive it to be worth to Gold Belt. And I think a lot of the board wants to capture some of that delta with, with the purchase price.

And I guess I have it— I'm not exactly sure what the right answer is, but I think that's like, to me, the main issue is like, oh, do we just— to some guy on the street, maybe it's worth $600, but we know, we know it has more value to Gold Belt. So It's like, how much as a public entity do we want to try to capture from that, but— or not? I don't know. It's kind of an interesting issue. Glad you're wrestling with it.

Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Mayor. It's worth noting too that we also rent from Gold Belt for the Port Director's Office. That rent is about $60,000 a year.

And the revenue that we generate from these properties is about $63,000 a year.

Leave it at that.

All right. I don't know if there's any more questions on this topic. So item number 4, potential impacts to docks and harbors from West Douglas Gold Belt Project. So the reason this is on here is some of us were surprised at the Use permit for Gold Belt that there was no comment from Docks and Harbors, and I was just going to ask you guys why you didn't think you'd have any impact, especially instead.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. We definitely remember this coming through, and we put it to the body and there was no—. Mr. Ridgeway, you need to mute yourself. We're getting a lot of feedback from you. Oh, the clerk is muting you for you.

Thank you. So we put it through the body. Carl brought it to us. We had it at an ops meeting, and the consensus was that we really didn't have much to say on the conditional use permit. I believe at that time we felt that if Gold Belt was going to— I don't think we knew what their plan was as far as bringing people from their site on West Douglas into Statter Harbor.

We know that's a potential now. We also know that they've been talking with, um, Allen Marine, so we're not sure how those relationships are going to develop. We figured that if we were asked to accommodate them, you know, bringing passengers for, say, buses to go to the glacier, if you will, that we didn't figure that that would be a huge issue, um, given that Gold Belt really hadn't said what their plans were, so there was really no comment from the body.

Anybody else, comments, questions on that? Mr. Emerson? Yeah, I think that was kind of my thought of just the uncertainty of not knowing their plans. Are they going to have a full-scale whale watching operation out there? Are they going to try to utilize the existing city infrastructure.

I guess I wasn't quite sure, but maybe that's just— I haven't looked into it enough. Well, right now their conditional use permit is for a dock and a receiving facility, and that's it. So those passengers have to go somewhere.

So you might consider commenting, is all I would say. Anybody else from the assembly? Um, Mr. Box, since he's a guest, and then Miss Hall.

Yeah, I just think that the development of that, we need to be a little bit careful because in Auke Bay, what's happened is it's been overwhelmed and a lot of users of Auke Bay now go out to North Douglas to get away from the chaos in Auke Bay. And just speaking for residents You know, I think that it's mainly used right now, the parking lot's full of residents and there's a few vans and whatever with the, with the kayak operation that's out there now. But if that gets complete, if something is developed there, you know, we don't know how they want to use it. If something gets developed there and then becomes overwhelmed out there also, which does have potential because right now there is no restriction. I mean, the whale watching thing is open-ended and it seems like every year there's a boat or two or three more boats or whatever brand new.

So I just think that the pushback from the public is going to be huge on that myself, uh, as far as what the full intention of that is for.

Thank you. Um, before I get to you, Miss Atkason, unfortunately the pushback is the conditional use permit, and if they get the conditional use permit with no nothing from Docks and Harbors, then they have the conditional use permit and the city has very little pushback after that. So I don't know if we've hit the deadline, but I would think that you guys should consider potentials like— I didn't even think about the North Douglas. So anyway, Miss Atkason. Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh, it's been a while since, uh, we had Goldbelt come to the Visitor Industry Task Force, but they did mention, uh, Occ Bay Harbor and, um, potential impacts there. And so, uh, I would maybe consider looking into what they've said publicly, um, even if their plans are a little amorphous right now. I don't think it will involve no docks and harbor structures. So comment if the deadline has not passed may be a good idea. And remember, it can be just potential impacts rather than just impact impacts.

Anybody else on this one?

You guys are a quiet crowd tonight. This is our chance to chat with each other, folks. Okay, you're just waiting to build things, I can see. So, so number 5, proposed 1% sales tax initiative projects, and I see you have 3 of them here while you have et cetera, so you probably have more than that. There's lots of pictures in the packet.

So, um, I would ask you to rank them tonight if you can without having to meet. If you need to have a meeting and rank them separately, I'm not making any promises, just saying. But, uh, you got lots of projects going on. And thank you, Mr. Yucatel, or your staff, for all these pretty pictures.

Do you want to do this, Mr. Yucatán? Thank you, Mayor. So, um, on behalf of Docks and Harbors, we appreciate the opportunity to meet with, uh, the assembly once a year, but also more importantly, once every 5 years for the opportunity for consideration for the 1% sales tax initiative. This is something that is really drives our program.

Docks and Harbors board and staff is always, always willing to talk about operations or impacts to harbors, but we also pride ourselves on planning and constructing infrastructure. So the ability to have a discussion and just tee up things As part of the 1% sales tax initiative is very important to Docks and Harbors. I will say that just to remind, or just to state that the 2027 1% sales tax, Docks and Harbors was very grateful to get $6.5 million as part of that process. We use that to complete Aurora Harbor, so that took us a dozen years, but we always were leveraging that money with Alaska Department of Transportation Municipal Harbor Grant money. We also used that $6.5 million for replacement of the approach boarding floats at Taku Harbor, which is now an elevated walkway, and that was a 75-25% match with Fish and Game grant.

And then we also use that money for dredging the Diepack— it's Wayside Park, but the Diepack drive-down float. And so that's something that it's a kind of a one-off that Duxton Harbor has management of that facility, the drive-down float. But it's something that we would be hard-pressed to use harbor funds to do that dredging. So we're very grateful for all of that. So that money is still— there is still money in that to be used to leverage an upcoming drive-down float at Aurora Harbor.

So we're still using that money that was appropriated 5 years ago. So that's just teeing things up for potential projects moving forward. And so what's shown here is the Statter Harbor breakwater. So this existing Statter Harbor breakwater is 40 years, it's getting close to the end of its useful life. We're seeing more and more maintenance issues.

Breakwaters, jetties, groins are a federal responsibility, so we have the opportunity with the Army Corps of Engineers, and after many years of lobbying them, 2 years ago they took on a feasibility cost analysis, which is the first phase in recapitalizing that breakwater. So we will have a draft report on December 7th of this year that will lay out what we think the Army Corps is proposing to do. And so that's that new breakwater. Mr. Ukodel, could you grab your mic and bring it over there so Maybe Breckan Hendricks can kind of use the—. So that's— this will be the new proposed breakwater.

This is the existing. Oh, I'm sorry. You're correct. Yeah, that existing breakwater is there, and then what the Army Corps has just penciled in is an expansion. Don't pay attention to that.

We probably won't we put transient moors, we— with stalls, we get a lot more boats in. But anyway, this proposed breakwater, floating breakwater, it'll be anchor stage just like the existing, and we think the estimate's going to come in at about $125 million. So the federal government's responsible for 90% of that, And we as the local sponsor are responsible for 10%, and then we're responsible for another 10% of maintenance over the next 30 years. So for rough numbers, I always say it's an 80/20 match, but I just want to be precise in this group that is really— so we're going to need $20 million for— to recapitalize the breakwater. And then by extending it out here, we'll have the opportunity to do more— expand Statter Harbor more because we know we have a— right now we have a basically a 15- to 20-year waitlist for the existing stalls in Statter Harbor.

So we know we have a need out there. So And then the first item that we talked about was increasing the passenger-for-hire fee. And part of that discussion and part of that algorithm was to say we're going to need to bond— to bond for $10 million of new projects. We're going to need $1 million of new revenue for 15 years. So that's part of that.

Decision of needing $7.5 million of new money. So that's— this is, uh, I won't— this is one of the highest priorities for the Docks and Harbors board, is to come up with that local match for the Stata breakwater, um, recapitalization. Okay, who has questions or comments from the board?

Um, for the old breakwater, are you planning on replacing that with somewhere that boats can tie to, or what happens to the old breakwater? So, Mayor, when the Army Corps builds a new breakwater, we'll just keep the existing breakwater, use it as we always have. Um, and then we just know that we have the potential to expand the harbor, and that expansion, rough numbers, is going to be another $100 million project. So we have tens of millions of dollars of future projects just in Statter Harbor. One thing that I'll say with the Army Corps, they are adamant about not allowing us to use that breakwater to tie up vessels.

We're always looking for more moorage. And they, they are, they will not entertain that option. So the new breakwater will just be a breakwater. Yes, it works. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

What is the Army Corps' timeline for the design and engineering work on this? And what are the funds needed to complete that? So we're right now, we're in the first 3 years of the feasibility. So we're 2 years into a 3-year feasibility study. So we'll have a draft report on December 7th, and then they will have the final report to us in September 2027.

So Docks and Harbors, this feasibility analysis is $3 million split with the federal government and local sponsors. So Docks and Harbors has already committed $1.5 million to this. We will start— there's another milestone in January that we will be able to start petitioning or lobbying through the WRDA, Water Resources Development Act, which funds the Army Corps. We'll start the process as early as January to say we want the federal government to consider the construction funding for this project. But again, it's going to take lobbying efforts and being persistent, so there's no guarantee that we'll go right from the final report to construction, but we're optimistic.

Mr. and Ms. Cosgrove, Director Yucatel answered my question in his explanation of his books. Looking at your little chart there, how much of that are you trying to get from the 1%?

It's probably a better board question than my question.

Anything would be grateful. All right, well, I can see if we— this is get decided on, it will have to probably do a combination of a 1% and perhaps a bond. So, because I don't know that— I can't remember what the 1% is off the top of my head, but I think that's about half.

Mr. Barr, or maybe it's more than 1%. Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd want to do some math. Uh, the numbers have changed substantially since the last time we had the 1%. Yeah.

Okay, Mr. Kelly. Thank you. I was just kind of, um, Thinking about how you were saying that there is a waiting list for people who would want to tie their vessels up, would a bond then be the right mechanism that we would have in order to, to get those funds now and then kind of leverage that interest in tying up more vessels?

Mr. Pukato. Through the mayor, Mr. Kelly, I guess we're not— we're still looking more short-term. We know we do collect like $50 a year for people to be on the waitlist, so that's not real money, but there's a requirement if you want to be on the waitlist, it's about $50, just CPI. But really, nobody wants— we're not going to be able to collect real money awaiting recapitalization of the breakwater, and then another— we're probably looking a decade out at the earliest, really, before we can really start seriously talking about expansion. But it's, it's part of a long-term planning effort that the board is looking at.

Meeting the needs of the community.

So just to follow up then, it sounds like—. I guess where I was kind of going was if this was a little more certain, then you could basically, you know, put out a bond and then as people who are on the waiting list now tie up their vessels there, then they would end up helping to pay that bond back. But if I'm understanding you correctly, you guys haven't really had the opportunity to discuss about the expansion as of yet.

Through the chair, Mr. Kelly, yeah, we just— first things first is just getting the breakwater replaced, but knowing that we're going to do so to do no harm to our future plans out there.

Thank you. The mayor, if I'm one of the thing that one, we're also leaning hard on the Alaska Department of Transportation Harbor Facility Grant. And so right now that is capped at $5 million. Harbor Master Creswell is the president of the Alaska Association of Harbor Masters and Port Administrators. We're trying to get the legislature to increase the increase that to $7.5 million.

This floating breakwaters are an eligible expense under that grant. So ideally, that program would be fully funded year to year. It's not, but if we had $7.5 million either through 1% or bonding, we could leverage that to $15 million, which is basically would serve us very well in this particular project. That is our hope, to increase that eligible grant amount and be successful in a grant application. Thank you, Mr. Barr.

And then Mr. Emerson. Thank you, Madam Mayor. We will of course bring you forecasts and more accurate numbers for the Assembly's sort of big picture thinking. You, you could conceptualize the temporary 1% as bringing $15 million per year.

Thank you, Mr. Emerson. Through the Chair, I think I'll just hazard a guess that the potential revenue from the additional stalls would not be anywhere close to servicing a bond for the capital costs to build that harbor expansion.

Yeah, I would agree. It's going to be a general obligation bond. It's not going to be a revenue bond. Mr. Cottrell, do you have anything to add to that? Only because it might answer another question.

The, the amount of revenue that we received at Statter Harbor last year just from moorage is $1.3 million, and that includes what we get from yachts as well that are paying a premium of $7 a linear foot per day. So, um, there's a lot of infrastructure need here. We don't get a lot of revenue from morrage. So to collect the same amount of morrage with that fee increase that's proposed for the passenger-for-hire, we'd have to double what our morrage fees are at in Statter Harbor. So that's just kind of the, the calculus there.

Miss Hall, sorry. I was just wondering, so this project would not be eligible for any of the marine passenger fees given the tourism impact in Off Bay or at Statter?

Miss Hall, we will look for every opportunity to fund it. Yeah, at this time it would not unless we had an agreement with the CLEA about it. So just so you know. I think it could play into the health and safety of the visitor experience. Yep, we look under every rock.

Ms. Cosgrove. Just a quick question, and it's going back to what we talked about in the passenger-for-hire. Could you just clarify for me the additional funds that you intend to raise through that? Is that intended just strictly for operations, or is it also intended for capital projects? Chair, Ms. Kasarov, docks and harbors, we don't typically firewall our harbors revenue to, to one facility or for one use.

It just, it goes into our revenue. What we don't expend in that fiscal year goes into our fund balance. And so the additional clarification, if I may, I don't see anywhere in the white paper what you're anticipating is an I see the increase in the fee, but not the increase, projected increase in revenue. And just wondering if any of that increase of revenue goes towards potentially funding this project, which I know you all have been working on for a very long time. It's exciting to see it moving forward.

Mr. Yucatel. So the quick math on, through the chair, Ms. Kaszuba, quick math on, we collect, I'll just use 250,000 passengers at $2. So $500,000 a year is what we get. We need $1 million a year for— to get a revenue bond, and whether it's a revenue bond or not. So we'd have to triple that to $6 for $1 million of new money for a $10 million.

So, and we're looking at $750,000. So that's just rough numbers, what we— how we would be— how we kind of look at that. And we also know that, you know, we have tens of millions of dollars of other needs once the breakwater is completed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Emerson.

Yeah, I just— clarification that I think built into that is servicing a bond to fund some of these capital projects.

Anything further on this one? OK, next, your next wish list.

So this, uh, we need to replace the Aurora Harbor office. It's, uh, it's a 1960s garage. It's well past its useful life. Building maintenance doesn't even like to go in there. There's, um, it's rotted.

We have sewage issues. We've been very— I've been very patient with the staff. The staff rarely complains. We're at a point now, we've completed recapitalization of nearly all of our needed harbor float facilities. So it's just now, it's time to be looking at replacing this facility.

We do have $2 million that the board generously moved into a CIP from a Harbors Enterprise.

We would like to move the port director's office in there as well to avoid the, as was mentioned earlier, $60,000 a year that we're paying for rent at the Sea Drone building.

But we're This is something just for morale and climate for the folks that work in Aurora Harbor that we need to replace this aging old garage building. So the total amount you still need is the $3 million, so the whole project is going to take $5 million. Am I getting that right? Yeah, Mayor, that's it. We'll talk about the bathrooms downtown that we're working on, and just things are crazy expensive, and I— we want to build things right and proper and for the next 50 years, and things are more expensive than they should be.

But I don't— I want to go in not shortchanging what needs to be done. All right, any questions on this one? Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was tuning into the last meeting you guys had when you're talking about these projects, and there was discussion brought up about the UAS Tech Center.

And, uh, I know it doesn't have the most ideal office space, but I'm pretty familiar with the building, and there are some pretty nice offices in there. Um, I'm just wondering if there's ever been discussions in the past of trying to acquire it and what kind of numbers, if any, were given when those discussions were happening. I'll let you answer that, Mr. Yucatel, because some of us are very familiar on how you've tried to buy that building. So, wow, that would be a satisfactory solution to our harbor needs, to buy the VOTAC building. We have, um, so history on that, history on the lease property.

Back in 1988, CBJ entered into a 33-year lease with UAS, or actually UALands division, but we were paying because back in '88 the city gifted $500,000 to UAS for the Egan Library. We had a sweetheart deal with the lease of what's called— we call it Fisherman's Terminal. So it's basically the crane docks and the boatyard. We were paying about $10,000 a year for 33 years. The lease read that upon termination, we could renew the lease one time at fair market value.

So in 2001, when it came due, fair market value for the leased area was $250,000. And so we pushed back and said, it's a quarter million, you know, we're providing, we're subsidizing a boatyard, we're subsidizing the commercial fishing fleet with the crane docks and all this. And after many discussions with, over a course of several years, UA agreed to, lease, continue the lease, which is 3.8 acres at $100,000 per year, so down from a quarter million, but we also provided concessions citywide. So that's when the city has offered to UAS students free use of the pools and Treadwell and the field house. Docks and Harbors has supported it with We provide at least 3 paid internships a year, so that's another $30,000.

We provide snow removal, we provide a kayak ramp out, etc. So we did all these things to have this lease agreement. We always— we went in saying we want to buy this property from UA. So the UA, you know, they need— they have a nursing program in the Vo-Tech building. They have a diesel program, diesel mechanics program.

They have a welding shop there. They would like to co-locate their facilities out at the Auke Bay campus, but they're also subject to appropriations from the legislature. So the The agreement was to extend that lease for 4 years until next June at that $100,000 lease that we're paying for the lease now. I have had recent conversation with UA Lands Management. They're in the same situation that they were 4 years ago.

What most likely will happen is they will extend existing lease for another 5 years. So the, the property that we lease is, is about 3.8 acres, and it would sell— if they were to sell that, it would be about $4 million. The entire property is like 6 acres, which includes the parking lot, the Vo-Tech building. That was appraised at about $10 million. So that's kind of where we're at.

UAS, we've got a good relationship with the university. We're willing to— we want that property that's adjoining Harris Harbor and Aurora Harbor. We would never let them sell that to a third party, or we would fight tooth and nail that they can't sell it to a third party. But that's where we're at. They don't want to be there.

They don't have the money to move out, and we're stuck with the status quo. But yes, if we ever— we'd love to have that Vo-Tech building either for our use, and the shops would be great for shipwright work in the Juneau community.

Just so everybody knows, we have hit our hour, so we need to go quickly. Mr. You could tell.

Hopefully not.

So what else do you have on your 1%, but we need to go a little quicker. Okay, I'll be quick. So this is North Douglas. We've started a process for North Douglas launch ramp expansion. So we've done— we really want to move forward with this.

This has been a community need. It's very inadequate out there right now. There's only about a dozen truck and trailer parking spaces in the right-of-way. We've done a lot to work with DOT to get some concessions for some right-of-way property. We've— the Assembly will be asked to approve an RFP contract with P&D Engineers to expand this.

This particular drawing shows about 100 truck and trailer parking spaces with a large fill. We've also contacted— we have an MOA with Kensington Mine. They have excess waste rock. We would love to work out some deal where mutually beneficial for us to expand North Douglas. So I could talk more about this, but Anyway, this would be a good use of a 1% sales tax.

It's also eligible for DOT Harbor Facility Grant. It's also eligible for Fish and Game Grant. So this is just a community need. Okay, I'm not going to ask for questions anymore. Just keep going.

This next one is Douglas Upland. So again, we've recapitalized all of our floats. Doxan Harbor's next priority is facility-wise would be the Aurora Harbor office, but there has been interest from many Douglas community members to do something with the upland. So it's one of those things. Yes, it should be done.

It can be done. There's a lot of the, lots of options.

The rainbow there, you can go make it like Statter Harbor and very nice with a seawalk. You can just pave it. So there's something that would be appreciated by the folks in Douglas. Next slide, please.

This is Statter Harbor. So again, we're very patient in what we do, and this is all the way we're at Statter Phase 4. This is The top part of that is just zinc anodes to extend the life of our newly constructed piling out there. In the lower portion, we call it the horseshoe, that is 1960s infrastructure. It needs replaced.

It's getting unsafe at that, in the horseshoe. So it's the last remaining, that's not the, it's the next remaining need in Satter Harbor.

We have applied for a harbor facility grant, and we'll see where that goes this year. Next slide, please. And then just as for another discussion is just the dock electrification project. We have a 35% design that working through AOMP, but this is a costly project and we'll need to have more direction from the Assembly at some point. Next slide, please.

So this is— we were fortunate to get a recent, what's called a Pittman-Robertson Hunter Access Grant to install a boarding float at Echo Cove. We just got that a couple— about a month ago we were notified, so we will be working on that. It's about a $1 million project. We are on the hook for 25% of that. We've also applied for a— there's a Denali Commission grant that may pay for our local match for another federal grant.

So we're hopeful that maybe we get this at no cost to Knox Enterprise. Next slide, please.

So, right, just because that's, that's all your 1% list, right? This is the next—. These are not 1%, these are just—. Okay, um, just a question on the 1%, is the order that they're in, is that your order of preference, or have you as a board not ranked them? I'm not going to ask you to rank them tonight.

I'm just asking if that's—. We have, we have not ranked them, but Madam Mayor, this is, this is adequate. Okay, because at some point we will ask you for— and you know, you don't get everything.

So, okay, and these are your current projects that you're working on, is that correct? That's—. So if you're paying attention, we have moved to our Item 6.

So this is the drive-down float at Aurora Harbor. This is a MARAD grant for $11.2 million. We also have augment money, augmented money from the Alaska Department of Transportation Harbor Facility Grant. We are going to open bids in, in December for a bid award through the assembly in at your December 14th meeting. I thought at one time it would be next on the 16th of November, but we're— manufacturing issues are going to delay bid openings on this.

Next slide.

Oh, and then these are just— this is the downtown bathrooms that we've been working as part of the downtown waterfront improvements. And it's— we will be advertising for this. This is Marine Pastor Fee project. This is the Phase 2 of the deck over for the— in the area of the Pretreats Plaza area. But we will be advertising this in the next couple weeks and just maybe just slide through.

It's just giving— it's going to be 7 Toilets, male and female, plus a family bathroom. We're doing it— we are trying to be smart and clever in keeping the bathroom, the family bathroom open year round. Just some idea where it will be, the 15 toilets, and then we'll have a waiting area open.

We have these doors that open up. Just something for cruise passengers to hang out awaiting their tour or have a seat. And next, yeah, keep going. So fairly, very conscious about making them graffiti-proof and easily cleaned. And so we're all, all those things are part of the our plan.

And I know you're 90% design, but any way to make that waiting room smaller, cut down on the costs?

Probably not, not at this point. Okay. And my only other question is, do you have staff to keep our friends without homes away from there? Well, that's in the winter. We're looking at social engineering and maybe smartphone technology to have access.

So we don't, we don't want to give up and we want, we know people walk their dogs and are there all winter long and we want to, we want to try, we are going to try to make that work. Is that the last slide? Okay, so this, this is what we're looking at for We're not going to have any— we thought we were going to try and push this through so that they would be constructing to have it finished in July, and it's just that we're going to wait, going to give them another year so that they're working in the winter and not disrupting the downtown waterfront during the summer. Juneau. And Yeah, that's, that's all I've got.

Alrighty, so, all right, any questions on projects or anything else for docks or harbors, or vice versa, from docks and harbors to us?

You guys are talking to group. Yes.

Seeing none, as Ms. Hall said, we appreciate all your work. Um, uh, we're very grateful that we don't have to deal with the toxic arbors, and, uh, appreciate Mr. Yucatel and all his projects and designing them and getting them moving, because, uh, he does a good job of getting projects done. So, but thank you guys for your time, and nothing further, we are adjourned. Finance coming up.

Uh, we could get I would like to call this meeting of the, uh, Finance Committee to order. It is 6:48 PM. PM. And, uh, Miss Wendell, would you please note the roll? Thank you, Chair Atkason.

We have all assembly members present in chambers besides Assemblymember Kelly, who is present on Zoom— on Zoom, excuse me— and Assemblymember Smith and Niven absent. Thank you very much. Uh, we're on to approval of minutes. We have the September 2nd, 2026 minutes before us. Are there any— are there any changes to those minutes?

Seeing none, those are approved as presented. Agenda topics, Director Flick. Thank you, Chair Atkinson. Um, welcome to your first finance committee meeting chairing. This is, um, going to be a fun year for sure.

Um, we are going to hopefully have 3 fairly quick topics tonight. Uh, the first one starts on page 12 of your packet. And it's a resolution to just give direction from this body on how to round transactions when a customer is paying in cash. I won't read the memo to you. I don't think it's a super exciting memo, but it is important to get your direction as the body as like, this is what we're going to do because that means we're going to have when a customer is paying in cash a little cash over, cash short, because whoever's being the cashier in the moment, whether it's in the cash office or at the pools or at Eagle Crest or wherever, will adopt these rounding standards.

This being brought to you in the form of a resolution, and if you all are comfortable with it, we would request that you forward it to the full assembly for adoption. Thank you very much, Director Flick. Are there questions on the pennies resolution? Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I know Deputy Manager Barr is burning to talk about this. And as a penny collector, I figured I'd preface this with a history of pennies. I'm just joking. Go ahead.

Mr. Kelly.

Thank you. I was wondering, so would this completely get rid of our policy of collecting pennies at all? Like, if somebody really wanted to pay in pennies instead of rounding up, that would no longer be an option under this current policy?

Thank you, Assemblymember Kelly. You know what, absolutely. If somebody has pennies and they can do exact change, if they want to pay a bill in pennies, they could. No different from today. We have been told by our bank that we will no longer be able to— that We're not allowed to get rolled pennies, and so once we work through our supply, we don't anticipate being able to get any more unless a customer pays with them.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So can you further clarify that? So if I have pennies, I can pay to the cent. So let's just say it's $1.03. I can give you 3 cents.

But if I don't have pennies and it's $1.03 and I give you $1.05, I'm not going to get any change. Is that what you're saying, Madam Mayor? That is correct. So if somebody has exact change and they want to pay with exact change, beautiful. Um, if they don't, we will round to give them change back.

Other questions from the assembly?

A motion, Madam Mayor. Uh, thank you. I move resolution, um, uh, I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, it doesn't have a number yet. You can call it just the resolution. I was just going to read the title.

A resolution providing for the rounding of all cash transactions with the city and borough of Juneau to the nearest 5 cents to the full assembly. Any objection?

Seeing none, that is so moved. On to our next agenda topic, SeaWalk revenue bond. Director Flick. Thank you, Chair Atkinson. Um, so you all had this ordinance introduced on the October 26th, um, meeting that you had.

Um, it is the legislation required for the city to enter into a revenue bond, and because It is a financial transaction. I'm sorry that the ordinance is like 24, 25 pages, but we have to define every, everything, um, per our code. We have to have this ordinance passed before we can officially apply with the bond bank to participate in a bond with them. The reason why we're going through the bond bank is because the pledge for this is a very, very narrow, precise revenue, which is the port development fee. It is a portion of what we kind of generally call the marine passenger fees, right?

It's got the port development fee, the state marine passenger fee, and then our own marine passenger fee. So for pledging purposes, it's just the port development fee, although we can use the generic marine passenger fees to pay it back. So that's why we're going through the bond bank. Um, I don't really want to get into a project update because you all have heard from the, the project many times. It was recently at PWFC.

Um, we can answer some basic questions. The important part of this is the timing in that, um, the engineering group is wanting to do their solicitation for Phase 2 of the project, and in order for them to do the solicitation and award a bid, we need to have the funding in place, which means the bond bank is going to look to issue for us in January. And, um, that's necessary for planning purposes, but also for a lot of long-lead items. And we know the project will take about 2 years, so that fits in with, um, really kind of a bond perspective, spending bond proceeds within, um, 2 to 3 years maximum. So, um, really, I'm happy to take questions about this.

The bond issuance will cover the project cost, but also the bond reserve that we have to set aside for— because it's a revenue bond, and that'll be held by the custodian bank. It is our cash, and we put in our balance sheet, all of that good stuff, but it's held by them for purposes of the transaction. So I'm happy to take questions if there are any. Thank you very much. Mr. Brooks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Just for clarification, is the timeline that the engineers are working with, is that for them to capitalize on Phase 2 design or actually putting out for Phase 2 work? Thank you for the question, Assemblymember Brooks. It is for the actual work. The design will, for all of it, Phase 1 and Phase 2, is to be 95% complete this month.

So really it is to go out for the construction part of Phase 2. Mr. Kelly.

Thank you. I guess this— my question is kind of about the port development fees. It seems like— I'm not sure, I think I might have read at some point the length of the loan, but I don't recall it off the top of my head. So I'm just kind of wondering Will this impact us being able to use the port development fees for other things we had planned to do? Is there any debt that the port development fees are currently being used to repay, like any debt that's going to be expiring that this will kind of be replacing?

Or if you could maybe tell me how this will impact our debt and our projects.

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. That's a great question. I'll answer it in pieces. So the port development fee is specifically being pledged. It is also the pledge for 2021 bonds related to building of docks and also bonds that were refunded last year, refinanced last year, and so now they're the 2025 port bonds that I think go back to 2007.

I don't have that off the top of my head, but they've been refunded a couple of times. As far as pledging of this revenue and its impact to us in the future, certainly we will be using the, the global marine passenger fees to make this debt payment, and that will, that will be a draw on the revenue that comes in from that, from that source. On page 24 of your packet, this is a 20— it is being designed as a 20-year bond, and you can see how the principal amounts increase over the years. Our first payment will be due in fiscal year '28, and there will be, on top of this principal payment, every 6 months in interest payment that's paid out to the, to the bondholders. And we don't pay the bondholders directly.

Again, we pay through a custodian bank that manages all that on our behalf. I think I got all the parts to your question. Did I miss any, Mr. Kelly? No, I think that does, that does kind of clear it up. So it sounds like it, it will be kind of reducing the marine, the passenger fees that we'll be able to use for other projects.

It'll instead be being going towards paying off this project. Um, and, and thanks for that table. So it looks like going on until 2047.

Other questions on this ordinance?

Madam Mayor, do you have a motion? Certainly, Madam Chair. I move Ordinance 2026-44 to the full assembly. Any objection? Seeing none, that is so moved.

Our last agenda item, and I'm sure we'll be quick. Eagle Crest Fund Deficit. Director Flick. Thank you, Chair Atkinson. You guys are doing great tonight.

I know you've already had a long week of meetings because I was with you on Monday, so this takes you to page 40 in your packet. Um, as I apologize for the length of the packet material, I know we've got some new members. We also have a new general manager at Eagle Crest, and so I thought putting some of the history in the packet would be prudent. Um, we don't always go back and rehash the past, but I felt like in this case there was some, some value there. Um, in FY26, in building that budget, um, the assembly, uh, made the determination that Eagle Crest— the Eagle Crest Fund could operate to a deficit.

And with that, we, um, you held in reserve part of the restricted budget reserve to offset that, which is required by code. So as we worked through the '27 budget process, it was determined through your decisions that Eagle Crest would have a balanced budget. The revenue would equal their expenses. There was included in there a one-time additional subsidy from the general fund, but we, we also just held in reserve that— we'll call it $2.5 million in the restricted budget reserve— and, and said we will come back and talk about this in November. And time has flown, and here we are.

So, um, there's a couple of things that you can do, um, with the, um, actual events of FY26. And again, they're not completely closed out, but we don't think it's going to change significantly. The deficit in the Eagle Crest Fund will be $2.5 million— $2,499,400. And, um, the budget reserve that we have is $2,500,000. 5— I should have written that number or highlighted it.

Thank you. It's right there, $2,505,400. Um, so the difference is about $6,000. Um, you can decide to do— take no action tonight, um, in which case that reserve is just going to hold for $6,000. I don't know that it's worth our time to do an ordinance to redo or a resolution to change the amount.

I would just say let it ride until we're ready to resolve the deficit. Um, you could also request that we draft an ordinance to transfer funds to cover that deficit and basically absolve the FY26 ending negative balance, and that would then free up your restricted budget reserve. You could do that multiple ways. One is to say just use the restricted budget reserve to pay off the Eagle Crest Fund Or you could say use unrestricted general funds, pay off Eagle Crest, and then let the thing— let the funds that are being held in the restricted budget reserve go. They kind of get you to the same place, just two different ways.

Um, through the budget process, um, there was a motion to get back together with the Eagle Crest board. Um, I think the motion was to meet in November. Um, there was work being done on a strategic plan. You all wanted to give the Eagle Crest board time to kind of figure out a path forward once the, the gondola project came to a halt. That is now projected to happen in January, although I don't think that date has been solidified yet.

So you certainly have more discussions you're going to have about Eagle Crest and its fund. And with that, I'm happy to answer questions. We obviously have Eagle Crest members and board members in the chambers if you have direct questions for them. Thank you, Director Flick. Actually, you reminded me, with our new general manager, if you would like to come up and introduce yourself and everyone you have with you, that'd be really great.

Forgot the button. Good evening, I am Julie Piper. Happy to say hello to the Finance Committee and the Assembly. Thank you for having us on the agenda, Angie. I feel like you gave a really great synopsis of what's going on.

With me tonight is, uh, Erin Luprow, who is interim general manager a number of times over the past couple of years, uh, holding a strong position. Thank you. She is my teammate. Um, and then Jim Calvin, who is a longtime board member, I think returning board member, and also Eagle Crest Foundation board member as well. Who is integral in our planning efforts with SE Group, and we look forward to sharing that with you after the board retreat, which is tomorrow.

Mr. Kelly, look forward to having him with us, and thank you for having us. Thank you. While she's up here, does anyone have any questions specifically for the general manager?

I— oh, Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is it everything you hoped and dreamed for so far? I will say I knew what I was getting myself into. Yes.

And it is amazing to be back home in Juneau. Thank you.

Madam Mayor, and then Mr. Steininger. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Piper, for being here tonight. I'm wondering if all of our hopes and pleas resulted in some strong sales of season passes. We did have really strong Tier 1 pass sales this year.

I think at the close of our Tier 1 sales, which was the end of September, we were up about 24% in past sales with past pricing going up a little bit too. The revenues were really strong. So we're really hopeful for that. Lots of positive energy and commentary from anyone I interact with in the public too. So we're feeling good.

And yes, there's a looming Super El Niño and you never can predict the weather, but we're ready to adapt to it. Just like we've done in the past. We've been through some, some bad snow years, but we're still hoping for good. Mr. Senninger, uh, the mayor asked my question.

I just wanted to give Miss Piper an opportunity to brag about the good past sales this year and welcome on board. Thank you so much, and for the softball questions, because I wasn't prepared to say hello. Good, I think you're off the hook. Thanks for being here tonight. Thank you.

Questions for our staff?

We can move on to discussion if folks don't have any questions. Mr. Senninger, you look like you have a question. I, I'll ask a question. So if we, if we let it ride, the, the do-nothing, let it ride with the negative fund balance, are there kind of any, I guess, problems that creates for you other than just a number on a spreadsheet?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Steininger. Um, there are no real problems for me because we have cared for that negative balance by reserving the restricted budget reserve. Um, the balanced budget position for FY27, um, is important. Um, and so holding that, um, negative fund balance with the offsetting reserve, um, it I don't know that it would hurt anything, and I know that there's a lot of conversation yet to be had, um, but I did just want to bring this back to the body at this time, um, in case somebody was feeling compelled to do something at this point.

Other questions, Madam Mayor? You have a motion? Go for it. Sure, um, thank you for that, um, Madam Finance Director, and thanks, Miss Piper, and I'm glad to hear that you have increased revenue, but I'm realistic. And, um, so this is just sending a draft, an ordinance.

Everybody can think about it, but I've already said with a little bit extra revenue that I was going to look at protecting our restricted budget reserves. So this is my motion, has to do with that. So I direct staff to draft an ordinance to transfer $2,499,400 to the EcoCrest Fund from the unrestricted general fund, and this would release the hold on the restricted budget reserve and introduce it to the assembly. Any objection to that motion?

Without objection, so moved. All right, record meeting. Yeah, thanks guys, I'm getting softballs too for my first meeting.

Don't give Mr. Barr ideas. Before we go there, anything else from staff? Uh, nothing else at this point. We do, um, thank you for your comments and questions on Monday night. We'll work to get as many of those answered for the retreat as we can.

We are scheduled to have our next meeting on December 2nd, which is shortly after that retreat, so that also gives us some buffer if there's questions unanswered that you want to come back to. Um, we have that opportunity, but I don't have anything else for tonight, Madam Chair. Thank you very much, Director Flick. I will just give everyone on the Finance Committee a heads up that I am going to have staff, uh, draft an ordinance to make our restricted, uh, restricted budget reserve whole from fund balance, um, in addition to the, uh, reserved amount from Eagle Crest, which we can talk about at our retreat and in the future. But I just want to give folks a heads up that that's coming.

Anything else before we adjourn? Seeing nothing.

Oh, December 2.

Are, are we adjourned?