July 14, 2025 Assembly Committee of the Whole Worksession

I call the Assembly Committee of the Whole on July 14th to order. It is 6 o'clock. Ms. Hall, would you read the land acknowledgement, 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 continue to be integral to the well-being of our community.

We are grateful to be in this place, a part of this community, and to honor the culture, traditions, and resilience of the Tlingit people. Binishtish.

Miss Hendricks, would you please note the roll?

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Smith. All members are present, with Mr. Steininger and Miss Wall on Zoom. You have quorum. Very good. Thank you.

And do we have any changes to the agenda? Seeing none, we'll note the agenda as approved. Um, 4 topics tonight. First one, Juno Douglas North Crossing. Um, I know we have an array of folks.

Madam Manager, would you like to introduce them and Thank you, Deputy Mayor Smith. Uh, we have Christopher Goins here, who's the South Coast Regional Director, Denise Koch, Engineering and Public Works Director, and Steve Noble with Dowell Engineering. So, um, if we could invite, uh, Mr. Goins up to give kind of a DOT introduction, followed by Director Koch, and then, uh, Mr. Noble will do the presentation.

Mr. Goins, thank you for being here. Please come on up. Thank you, Miss Ackerson. All right, well, thank you very much for having me. It's great to see you, all the friendly faces in the room.

Um, you know, this project— the first time I got to meet you, Katie, was you walked into our office and said, this is the number one priority. For the city of Juneau, and I've been given this, this job and this mission to go do this. And we looked across the room, and at least I did, and thought, let's go do this, let's go figure this out, let's work together as a team, because that's what we're here to serve our communities that we're in. And so this project was exactly that, and as a group, we decided to go forward with a new process called a planning environmental linkage study before getting into the NEPA. Because we recognize this is a highly complex project, highly, highly complex project with lots of different options.

I refer to it a bowl of spaghetti, and I hated spaghetti as a kid, and you probably— some of you have heard this story, but I couldn't stand it. And much like going into NEPA with a whole bowl of spaghetti or alternatives, each noodle that you got to slurp down is just super painful. And so we decided we wanted to narrow that down to the least amount of spaghetti I could eat on the plate. And really, Dallas come alongside us and helped us with that. And, you know, some PEL studies get to the point where you have one or two options left, and that's great.

We're not going to get to that. There's just so much complexity here. We're going to get to a few, and Steve's going to go through that. But that means that we're going to have a lot less to bite off going through the NEPA process. The NEPA process can play out for decades in some cases, going through and examining all these noodles.

And not everybody wants to go and do that, much like I didn't want to. And a lot of things that we would be investigating, for instance, a tunnel underneath the airport, is something we're not going to have to carry into NEPA because the PEL is where it is. And we submitted the PEL now to headquarters for final approval. And we plan on moving forward into the NEPA process. And that's going to play out for several years and investigate.

I'm thinking like 3 to 5 years is the kind of timeframe we're going to be dealing with as we move into that NEPA to figure out what's going to happen. So, a lot of effort, but I think we are getting to a good place in the limited level. And I'm going to let you follow up, Denise, with kind of your take, and we'll go from there. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gons.

Scott, please.

So thank you, Director Goins. Uh, first off, I just wanted to mention what a great partner DOT has been to us in this whole process. Uh, we have as a community identified and talked about the Juno Douglas North Crossing for decades and decades and decades. Uh, it was listed as Pre-GLOF, it was the number one item on the legislative capital priorities, and we've been working hand in hand with DOT to move through this, this Pell process. I would mention that in addition to some of the items that you'll see listed more prominently in the purpose and need, that there are real connections to other CBJ priorities such as economic development and housing.

And wanted to mention that the map that was part of the supplemental materials in the Cal packet shows where CBJ's developable land is in relation to the borough. And a lot of that developable land is located in, in Douglas. So I think it also serves beyond the redundancy, the safety elements that there's real nexus to housing as well. So really looking forward to wrapping up this Pell process and working hand in hand with DOT moving into NEPA, where there will be a much deeper evaluation of many aspects, including the environmental aspects. And lastly, I would mention that when I talked about, oh, this community has been discussing Juno Douglas North Crossing or a potential for a bridge for a really time.

We actually saw that that was even discussed in some of the minutes of the legislation, state-level legislation that created the Mendenhall Wetlands, that there was envisioned a future need for CBJ to have a transportation corridor. So this has been in the works for a while, and it's really exciting to, you know, move forward and get more data to help the community make informed decisions. Then I will pass it over to Steve Noble.

Good evening, everyone. Got to get the IT squared away here. Hopefully you can see it. It's good to be here this evening. I appreciate the opportunity to come here on a sunny Juneau evening.

I'm gonna take that as the reason why more people aren't in the audience. My name is Steve Noble. I'm a senior project manager with Dow. I've been there for nearly 30 years, most of that time working in Anchorage and doing a lot of projects in Juneau. And I have been involved in this PEL study since its inception several years ago.

And pleased today to give you our— really, this is our wrap-up presentation on the project before the project moves on to the next stage. So I think you're mostly familiar or fully familiar with who the project team was between DOT, CVJ, and the Dowell team.

So from a schedule standpoint, this is our graphic that we've used along the way to kind of show we did start back in spring of 2022. And so, kisquint, we've been about 3 years, a little over, and but We are here, we're at the end of the PEL study phase. In fact, we turned in the final PEL study to Statewide Environmental for approval on Friday. So we are anticipating that they might have— they either will approve it or they'll ask us for some minor comments and then we'll address those. But with any luck, we should be done by the end of— fully 100% done by the end of this week or early next week.

And so, that will really be the culmination of what's been probably the project that's had the most public involvement of any project I've participated in in the last 30 years. Each one of those circles represents a public meeting or a stakeholder advisory committee meeting. We've had 7 of those meetings with the advisory committees, and we've had the 3 open houses, and And we've gone to Eagle Crest and done pop-up open houses and been out at Mendenhall Valley doing pop-up open houses. So we've tried to listen to anybody who would talk and talk to anybody who would listen. And that's really been our goal on this project.

So Denise talked a little bit about the purpose and need. That was largely one of the beginning efforts of this PEL study is to really identify what is the purpose and need for a second crossing. And FHWA has a very discrete definition of what can go inside of a purpose and need. And we, when we had that public outreach effort initially, we got this long laundry list of all the things that people thought should be in a purpose and need statement. But when you narrow it all down to what the code or what the statutes will allow us to put into a purpose and need statement, it really came down to providing that alternate access that had resiliency, decreased traffic pressure on the existing bridge and the adjacent intersections.

And then to make sure we didn't lose the content and that input of everything else that really goes into a purpose and need, we established these additional goals, which was improving the connection to North and West Douglas, providing that additional traffic capacity, enhancing the public health and safety, safety of travelers. We heard a lot about multimodal, desires and needs. We heard a lot about— we heard a lot about housing and economics, but we also heard about avoiding and minimizing and mitigating impacts to the environment in residential areas and maintaining the visual and the identity of the Juneau and Douglas Island area.

And that purpose and need will carry forward into the NEPA phase, but they will They will be asked to reassess that, to be honest with you. 3 Years ago, not that long ago, but to be honest, there's some things that have happened in the last 3 years that might influence that that purpose and need might have some additional elements that meet FHWA's criteria in the next phase. So just a summary of all the public involvement, open house, public and stakeholder work that we did over the last 3 years. I won't read it to you, but I think most of you have probably been to some of our meetings. I recognize a lot of you, or participated in those in some fashion.

And it has been a very extensive process, and just hats off to CBJ and to DOT for being willing to do that kind of a process. That's really the purpose of the PEL study is to get that engagement up front. The goal there, as Chris talked about, was— is really to narrow down those alternatives and help us streamline the next phase, which is the NEPA phase. Not because we're gonna cut corners, but because we put more effort into it up front Therefore, the NEPA phase should be more streamlined, should be less iterations. And what we don't want to end up in is one of these reputational EISs that last for 10 or 15 years and never get anything done.

That's why this process has been established. And so we go through this pre-screening. It looks like a funnel. If you look at it conceptually, we go through the pre-screening, which is that spaghetti phase that Chris talks about, and then we get into the level 1 screening. And then we use a, we use really a desktop exercise to get us down from the pre-screening to level 1 screening to level 2 screening.

And whatever gets through level 2 screening are the alternatives that we carry forward to the NEPA phase.

And from an expectations management perspective, it's never been the goal of the PEL study that we get down to one alternative. It is really to get down to the alternatives that are considered feasible and reasonable and that need to be evaluated in more detail during the NEPA phase. As I mentioned, most of what we've done so far, with the exception of a 1 or 2 week field effort, has been a desktop exercise. And that's not nearly enough field work to be able to make the technical decisions that we need to for these to choose an alternative.

So here's the spaghetti map. I should just label it that 'cause I keep following Chris and he keeps referring to the spaghetti map. This is the spaghetti map. And this— when we— I call it crowdsourcing. When we heard all that input from everybody at the beginning, there were alternatives.

Yes, there were alternatives that went right across the runway that people thought we should do. And then it really was a lot of the same areas but different ideas. People thought we should maybe go different routes than we had looked at previously. But if you really squint at the spaghetti map, it really narrows into these 8 corridors that we started with in our Level 1 screening. And whether or not the Mendocino Peninsula attaches right at at One Creek or at the Peninsula or over into the— over further along Douglas Highway or whether Sunny Point attached at this property or the next property.

If you kind of take them from a wider bandwidth, it was everything from the existing crossing all the way out to MAN PEN.

So after our Level 1 screening, we really eliminated the alternatives that we thought did not have— really comes down to how did they achieve towards meeting that purpose and need and the available information that we had. And so the alternatives that were immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and the Eagle Creek and then the alternatives right near the airport, those fell out. And we ended up with these really 5 locations. And we call them Salmon Creek— working from east to west, we call them Salmon Creek, Twin Lakes, Vanderbilt. We kind of have a Sunny Point A and B.

And then we have the Menonhaw Peninsula option. And so those alternatives carried forward into Level 2 screening.

With feedback from the public and from the stakeholders, We evaluated those alternatives and we ended up doing some additional fieldwork, as I mentioned, about 2 weeks worth back in October of— it's been 2023 now when we did that additional fieldwork. And we— and then we went through kind of a— we'd had an initial Level 2 scoring and then we, after the fieldwork, we had a revised Level 2 scoring.

And then we got a lot of feedback on the scoring. And initially the scoring did not have, did not have any weight assigned to the criteria for crossings that went through the refuge. And so based on the feedback from the stakeholders, advisory committees, and the public, we did add a weighting criteria to the alternatives. That put your finger on the scale a little bit for if wetlands within the refuge were more important than wetlands outside the refuge. Cultural resources within the refuge or the footprint within the refuge was more important than footprint outside the refuge.

And so that's why the alternatives that all cross the refuge, they all score more poorly than the alternatives that are outside the refuge. So for example, Salmon Creek scored the highest, Menahal Peninsula scored higher than you might have thought given how, given some of the other criteria on Menahal Peninsula, given how expensive that option is and how long it is, how long of a corridor it is and how much the impacts might be, but it's outside the refuge. And so that, as I said, that is some explanation as to why Menahal Peninsula and Salmon Creek are are scoring a little bit higher. Stoney Point East and West, Vanderbilt, Twin Lakes, all pretty close. Twin Lakes scoring amongst the best of those.

And then the no-build kind of in the meat of the alternatives. And then you can see our recommendations for these. We've recommended that the no-build, of course the no-build by statute has to carry forward, but we also recommend that it be carried. It's what we compare those alternatives against, and it's a very real possibility that no-build could be selected in the NEPA process. And then there— and then the other 5 alternatives, we all— we recommend that all 5 of them except for the Mendenhall Peninsula alternative be carried forward into the NEPA process.

Despite, you know, the difference between a -23 and a 3, that really is largely due to the weighting factors for the refuge impacts. And from a technical standpoint, there was not a good— and particularly the limited field work that we had, there really wasn't a strong case for eliminating any of those individual alternatives. And so all 5 of those are being recommended to carry forward into the NEPA phase, and all of them have some question marks surrounding them that could change what these scores are enough that it— that again, those, those bright lines between them was, was not strong enough that we would opt to eliminate them. Menahal Peninsula largely You know, it's largely based on cost, to be honest. It is, it's probably 3 to 4 times more expensive than any of the other alternatives, and it does have a lot of other impacts and other question marks surrounding its constructability, but it's in the $1.1 to $1.7 billion range for the Mendenhall Peninsula alternative compared to the other alternatives that are in the generally in the $300 to $400 million range.

And so one thing that's important to note on these scores is really when you go into NEPA, these scores don't really mean a lot in NEPA, in the NEPA world. It's really based on the facts of what they go out and collect the data. And so this kind of weighted process for scoring the alternatives, that doesn't carry forward into NEPA. They'll really objectively look at those 5 alternatives that you get pushed forward.

So we end up with the alternatives that are really kind of northeast Douglas from Sunny Point around to Salmon Creek. And happy to answer any questions of those. I wasn't planning to go into them individually in this meeting. We've done that on other meetings. But I did want to talk a little bit about some of the things that we've heard and then give you a chance to ask any questions that you might have.

Just common themes, this is by no means an exhaustive list of all the comments we received. We received over 600 comments just on the final draft of the PEL study. So people obviously have a lot of interest in this project. So comments about avoiding the refuge, you know, from a variety of reasons, from habitat, from hunting, visual, protected lands, there are conservation easements on top of the wetlands, on top of the refuge criteria. And of course, of course, the refuge in and of itself also is important, important to the residents.

And a lot of people feel strongly that it should be avoided. Sunny Point and Vanderbilt alternatives, some people felt like the scoring was enough that they should have been eliminated. Then we had certain, we had people support, submit comments of support and critique of specific alternatives. Some people like Salmon Creek, some people like Sunny Point, some people liked Menpen even though we were not recommending that it move forward. There was concern about the Salmon Creek Dam and its possible impact on the Salmon Creek alternative.

The alternative as presented in the scoring does assume that we're able to build in that, in kind of the watershed area of the dam. We, one of the reasons we're a little bit 6 months later on this project than we had planned to be was that we did submit a FOIA request to FERC to try to gain some information relative to the safety status of the dam. After waiting about 6 months and getting nowhere on that FOIA request, we decided that it was, that there was not an end in sight that we could see. And so we wanted to push that off to the NEPA phase to get more, to add that to the technical analysis that'll be done during the NEPA phase. And so at this point we've kind of made an optimistic view of how Salmon Creek would be looked at, but when that, when we eventually do get that information from FERC, which is Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, we would be able to have more information about the condition of the dam.

It is a 100-year-old dam. It's got several— from an engineering standpoint, it's a very cool dam. And one of the first of concrete arch dams built in the early 1900s. I won't bore you with more details, but it's a really cool dam. And, but anyways, I'll move on here.

But if we learn more about it, it could affect whether or not Salmon Creek alternative is feasible or not, or if it needs to be changed in some way. Concerns about impacts on the airport, we did have a presentation to the airport board. We made the commitment that any alternative that conflicted with any of the airport master plan, that we would consider that to be a fatal flaw for that alternative. So far, the Sunny Point alternatives are not fatally flawed by being in conflict with anything from the airport. However, they are updating their master plan, and so during NEPA, they'll have to evaluate that consistency.

Concerns about private property impacts. A lot of these are crayons. We tried to keep them big wide lines so people that lived on Douglas wouldn't come to other meetings and say, you're going right through my house. That happened anyways, but we tried not to. And then we had, because there is a lot of flexibility in where we put those crayons at this stage, concerns about the Douglas Highway and the need for a bench road.

It's Douglas, irregardless of this project, the Douglas Highway has some needs. It was not designed for, you know, it was designed with a lot of residential driveways along the way, which is really not how you would design a modern highway, but That's how it is, and so you got to make the best of it. Got some people who just said flat out, second crossing is not needed, this is a waste of money, don't spend it. We should spend the money somewhere else. We did get feedback from CBJ reminding that there were rights for a crossing within the regulatory statutes that established the refuge, as Denise was talking about.

And then we got a lot of comments particularly from folks that are concerned about the environment, about the need for a lot more environmental work and study that's needed. And we wholeheartedly agree.

So what's next? We are wrapping up— we've wrapped up— I'm going to start using past tense here—. In a couple of days. So we've wrapped up or are wrapping up the PEL study. And as Chris said, we are— we'll be embarking on the preliminary engineering and the NEPA phase here soon.

I'm more optimistic than Chris. I think it should only take 2 years, but he says 3 to 5, so I should have changed it to 3 to 5. But it— but could be 2, could be 5. And then the engineering and design of right-of-way is probably 3 more years after that before construction would be able to start. So with that, I'll ask if you have any questions.

Mr. Noble, thank you for your leadership and work on this project, for being here. Um, questions from the assembly? Mr. Kelly.

Uh, thank you. Um, one of— I think you were just wrapping up with one of, um, one of my interests in the second crossing, and that is the potential environmental impacts. So, I was— I mean, I realize there's going to be a NEPA process that this will need to go through. I was wondering if maybe you could maybe speak to what happens in the NEPA process and maybe what design elements you might be incorporating to mitigate environmental impacts.

Good question. So, The NEPA process, no, the scope of the NEPA process is still yet to be fully established. But what I, I'll speak to what would typically and what I would foresee being included. And I'm not the ultimate say, Chris can overrule me if I say something I shouldn't. But what happens during the NEPA process, there'll be an initial scoping effort where you'll go out to the agencies, you'll go out to the stakeholders, you'll go out to the public and say, what should we be looking at.

And those agencies provide the feedback back to the team, and then they craft a fieldwork plan around that scoping effort. What we would typically envision for a project of this magnitude is at least a 2-year field study for— that's 2-season, I should say, not 2 years. Usually it's a 2-season field study. So If it can get started quickly enough, you get most of this year and then you could do next season, which might be enough. That really depends on how those agencies feel about it.

And I'm an engineer, I'll categorize that. I'm not an environmental scientist, but I've been working on environmental. I thought about getting a second business card because I use it a lot, I do it a lot. You know, there'll be a lot of— there's been a lot of work already out there, to be honest with you. The refuge has been studied a lot.

There's a lot of information on bird habitat and wetlands, and Sealaska— or Seal Trust, I mean, just did a completely brand new wetlands evaluation of the corridor. So there's a lot of things that have been done that we can build on that frankly can shorten some of those field efforts. But particularly with regards to bird habitat and fisheries, you're probably looking at 2 seasons of data that you're gonna need to try to get.

Just based on the feedback that we've heard so far from the agencies. And so, I don't know, that's, I hope that answers your question, but we would envision a lot of those things, which would be fisheries, wetlands, birds, cultural resources, visual elements, noise, right-of-way ownership and status. You know, if it's a 4F property or a 6F property and those types of things, we would certainly have to take into account the Salmon Creek Dam issues. There'd be consultation with all sorts of agencies. Coast Guard in particular will play an important role at the beginning of the consultation process because we need to know how high they're going to require the bridge to be built because there are— it is a navigable waterway, depending on how you define navigable and what watercraft you're going to as a community decide we're going to try to navigate, uh, under this crossing with.

So, okay, thank you, Mr. Noble. You, uh, did a very good job of answering the first part of my question. I did throw you a two-pointer, so, um, okay. Why don't you give the second half? So, so the second half, and maybe it's too early to really answer this question, maybe the NEPA process has to play through a little bit more, but what sort of design elements would you do, would you incorporate in order to mitigate the environmental impacts?

So, I would say that we've already tried to incorporate some of those environmental that we think are are relatively obvious, and plus based on the feedback that we've received so far. So specifically, all the alternatives are priced as if the bridge is going to be fully structurally supported across the refuge. If indeed one of those options is chosen, then all of them would be structurally supported. They, you know, during the NEPA phase, they'll have to look at cut and fill and and versus structural options. But from a pricing standpoint at the planning stage, we assume that they would be structurally supported.

And so that's one thing that certainly can go a long ways towards it. But there's a lot of things you can do that— but that's a big one, to be honest with you. You can keep your hydrology conditions very similar to what they are today by structurally supporting it. And there's things that we can do from a fisheries standpoint where we're tying in. We can actually try to fix some of the— there are actually some culverts out there that are fish barriers today that this project might be able to help solve when this project moves forward depending on where it's located.

For example, Salmon Creek and some of the Lemon Creek crossings, they're they don't meet current fish passage criteria, believe it or not, and some of those. So that's the kind of thing that can be incorporated in there from an environmental standpoint. You can do things from an aesthetic standpoint to make the structure and minimize impacts to the adjacent properties from a lighting, you know, from a lighting perspective, from a noise perspective. Those are just some of the things off the top of my head. Thank you, Mr. Noble.

I appreciate it. Mayor Weldon, you had a question. Thank you. Since the— and thank you for being here today, Mr. Noble and Mr. Goins. Since the Manhasset Peninsula was my favorite one, I'm going to push back on the price.

What made it 3 times more expensive than the other ones?

So it's primarily the length and the height. Of the bridge. Uh, the optimistic perspective on that bridge is that we're in the neighborhood of $120,000 a linear foot just for the structural, um, elements of that bridge, and possibly, possibly more. And that's using— really, that's using today's dollars, not even probably 5 years or 10 years into the future. And so we're talking about, you know, we didn't get out there and do soil borings out there where that crossing is.

So we had USGS data for how deep the bedrock is out there. And we—. So then we measured how deep we— based on that USGS data, a lot of assumptions. How deep are the piles? Would they have to be?

And then how big a diameter would those piles have to be to support something that's 50, 100, 150 feet up in the air, uh, based on where— based on the Mendenhall Peninsula option and where it— where it lands on the peninsula side of the alternative. So that, that's why I'm only willing to give you a range for that option, because I just don't have very good geotechnical data for that alternative. But if it's up on the optimistic side, if it matches exactly what's in the USGS data, then we're on the $1.1 billion. If that USGS data ends up being more like what happened at Brotherhood Bridge, where we're down even deeper, then we're talking $1.5 billion. Follow-up, Chair.

Would that make a difference whether we determine that's a navigable water or not? I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear the full question. Would that make a difference, pardon? If we determined that wasn't a navigable water?

So yes, honestly. If you lower it and it's not a navigable waterway, yes, you can greatly reduce the cost of that one and some of the other alternatives as well.

And, but it also was a little bit up in the air depending on where it lands on the Mendenhall Peninsula side of things. If you kind of skirt the side of the peninsula and follow along the existing road that goes by the homes, which we, to be honest, we tried to avoid that routing. We went along more along the top because we knew we were, for two reasons. One, we knew we were going to have navigability questions, and then secondly, we knew that who were trying to avoid some of the private property impacts. So that's, but you're still gonna be, it's still gonna be expensive, maybe not $1.1 billion, but based, you know, just my gut tells me still at least double any of the other options just because of how long that alternative is relative to the others.

Very good, I don't see anyone else's, so I'll ask one. Um, with, you know, development on the backside of North Douglas, the west side being a, you know, an important piece, and it was mentioned as one of the, you know, guiding whatever principles or something. Did all of the remaining alternatives, did they provide, I guess, enough like traffic capacity at the bridge, which my understanding is like, the prohibiting spot to, you know, would they all equally provide like more traffic capacity or was that, was that analyzed or were things further west preferable?

So the traffic analysis that was done for the corridor shows that the highest volumes that would use the corridor are in the Sunny Point area. The further you go around to the north, you really cut the lane miles, you cut the trip length down for people who want to go from Mendenhall Valley to the west side of Douglas Island, but the number of cars that are using it based on current development is, it drops off considerably because it then becomes faster for the people on the kind of north and west, north and east sides of Douglas Island to come back to the other bridge, depending on where they're headed. If they're going to Lemon Creek, it's kind of a wash, you know. And the caveat to that is if you get a lot of development on West Douglas that's currently not there and that there's really not a good master plan for, was really, so it was hard to try to guesstimate what that would look like. And so, uh, that we're really basing it on what the existing traffic and what the existing zoning shows for that area.

And, uh, so I'll just say that when it gets all the way over to Menorah Peninsula, the numbers drop way off. But, but, but from an opt— from a, from a use standpoint, whether it's Sunny Point or Vanderbilt Twin Lakes, they get about the same. The further you get, closer you get to downtown, the numbers start to drop off a little bit the closer you get to downtown because eventually you'll get to the existing bridge, you know, if you think about it. And that's, that's why the existing bridge went away because it was really just putting the traffic on the same route that's there. So that So from a traffic standpoint, you get this, you get, you also get the benefit of if you're in the Sunny Point, Vanderbilt, Twin Lakes area, even Salmon Creek, you, the further you are to the north, you get less traffic back and forth on Douglas Highway itself because the traffic from the west side of Douglas doesn't have to come around as far.

And so you get less traffic in front of the residential, some of the residential areas along the highway. But that's— that traffic study still, you know, particularly in light of, you know, all this information about West Douglas, it's post-traffic study for this project. And so that's one of the things that needs to be evaluated in a lot more detail, I think, during the NEPA phase. Thank you.

Okay, one more if no one else has any, and that's Is it useful at some point if, like, this body being the political body for Juneau, to say this just doesn't seem like a politically viable option? I mean, is that useful for the team or the project to know? Like, we just are like, we don't think we would do Sunny Point because the environmental impacts are too big, or is that useful, or do you just Um, I certainly, certainly public opinion is one of the factors that weighs into alternatives and how they're and whether or not they carry forward, particularly during the NEPA phase. Uh, we haven't heard that strongly communicated to us thus far, otherwise it might have affected whether or not it went forward. If you were just saying hypothetically that one or any one of them, yeah, I mean, if— Chris, you might want to weigh in on this, but from my perspective, if the assembly had strong feelings about one of the alternatives that they didn't want it to carry forward, that would be good to know.

I'll tell you that the scientist in me says that that is better to come out during the NEPA phase when you get more of the data and have something that you can weigh in on. There's certainly been people on pros and cons on both sides of the issues, but it's not for me to tell you what the Assembly should do there. But I don't know, that's my response. Chris?

Thank you.

Once we get into the NEPA phase, I completely agree that hearing from the body that has been elected by the people, you know, what some of the options and things that they think is not politically tenable is worthwhile to let us know. One of the things we gotta remember about this project is we made it clear that it's gonna be a local match project that is gonna be funded not by the state, but by the community. To move forward. And that's a substantial amount of money depending on the grant or how it's funded. That's 9%, 20%, sometimes even higher.

So when you're talking these big, big numbers, that's a financial decision for the city and the people that you represent. Um, and so hearing that sort of feedback early on in that process is going to be very helpful for us moving forward for sure. So. Thanks for that. Appreciate it.

Miss Hall, have subsea tunnels been explored as, uh, an alternative, or is that totally cost prohibitive? I'm, I'm thinking of what's happening in Norway. Yeah, I've been to Norway. I love I love tunnels. I would love it if they were more cost-effective.

Unfortunately, they're probably a 2 or 3— my guess, I mean, we looked at them early on enough to know that they were cost-prohibitive, to be honest with you. So the cheapest alternative from a tunneling standpoint was in the $2 billion range.

Norway has a different governmental structure than we do in the United States. So, very good. Not seeing any more questions. This was for information, so I think that wraps up this topic. Mr. Noble, Mr. Goins, thank you.

Appreciate the teamwork with our team, and thanks for being here.

Okay, moving on. Next we have public camping community impacts in ordinance 2025-28. Um, we have a good bundle of memos. Some new, some from the past, recent past. And also, you know, in the newest memo, you know, 4 different things to consider, one of which is kind of a, do you want us to come back with more info or do more things on the topic?

I guess with that, Mr. Barr, this is for you. And, you know, maybe it'd be helpful for us to also know, you know, we've all spoken recently with people from the Glory Hall and Teal Street, and some— most of us have, and, you know, are understanding some of the problematic behaviors out there. Um, but yeah, if you go ahead and let us know what, you know, you need from us. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll also just note that members of the Glory Hall staff and board at the Board and Teal Street Center have asked me to convey that they are listening online. Some of them had hoped to be here today, but had conflicts or other situations that arose that precluded that. So I'll start with just the— also, I'll just note that both Chief Boss and Attorney Wright have been closely working with me on this topic and will be good resources for us tonight. So just going over the memo in your packet, I start with an overview of the current data. There are two main data sources that we look at, that I look at when trying to get kind of a data-focused understanding of our unhoused population and, you know, our people who are experiencing homelessness.

And those are our Point-in-Time Count, which is an annual count that is conducted, as the name implies, at a point in time. It is a rotating responsibility of our providers. And then there is also the housing inventory count, which does exactly what it says like. It counts the number of beds in the community in 4 different categories that are available to people who are experiencing homelessness. Kind of key takeaways that I wanted to share on the data is that We as a community, in large part thanks to our providers, compare very well to the national average in terms of the number of beds that we provide per capita.

And at the same time, we probably still have more people in need of beds than we have beds. And I say probably because the data is pretty imperfect. It leaves a lot to be desired. The population is rapidly changing. And as I note, I think at the top of page 2 in the memo, there are a number of folks in the population that either refuse services or unwilling or unable to comply with communal living rules.

And that is a factor as well. The memo goes in to talk about our enforcement actions and practices. I think that they are both in line with the conversation that we had about a year ago, post the Supreme Court's Grants Pass decision, as well as internal guidance that we've been— that we've provided to departments. There's more detail in the memo and on the packet on that.

I will just note that generally speaking, it is our top priority when it comes to enforcement to first seek voluntary compliance before engaging with enforcement action. And it is, it is absolutely typical for our staff, including the chief, and it goes all the way to the top at JPD, to get to know people and have conversations and try to connect people with resources. And services that can support them, explain what is permissible, what is not, and in general emphasize at the same time both compassion and firmness and giving clarity to folks about what is available to them and what our expectations are. The memo goes on, as the Deputy Mayor noted, to talk about 4 kind of categories, I'll say, of tools that you, you may wish to consider when it comes to mitigating impacts associated with public camping. The first one involves a code change to our disorderly conduct code.

And put simply, this would give our officers a tool that they could quickly deploy when they're seeking to address camping impacts on public paths, sidewalks, rights of way, garages, bus stops, those sorts of areas. And importantly, it would be clear to the folks that they're having conversations with, and again, seeking that compassionate voluntary compliance, that they do have a tool that they can use if necessary. The goal is not to use it, but it facilitates those conversations, facilitates the seeking of voluntary compliance, which is, which is the goal. I do want to note that right now it is possible in many of the situations that this change to the disorderly conduct code would make it easier to address. It is still possible to address them right now through trespass code, through disorderly conduct code.

It is simply more challenging, takes more time, is more burdensome, is not always the highest priority for the response scenario that JPD is working on at any given point in time.

The second— sorry, I am getting over a cold. I promise I'm on the tail end of that. Uh, the second category is, uh, involves creating a shelter safety zone, which is what many, um, uh, meetings that I know individually you have been reached out to by, uh, Teal Street neighborhood folks are advocating for. Uh, the memo highlights the staff concern that we have with that, which is that choosing a boundary we think will be quite challenging, and, and it will also, I think, be challenging to convey to people who receive services in an area where there is now a potentially a boundary in place, how they go about getting those services. Not impossible, will be challenging.

Um, I'll, I'll just kind of be fair and note that a counterargument that, uh, folks would make to that is that the individuals receiving services in the Teal Street neighborhood right now are different from and impeded by those who are camping in the Teal Street neighborhood. That is the argument that they have made to us. I'll note that our kind of collective staff experience on that point is mixed. Maybe there's elements there that are accurate, and we certainly can point to elements where that may not be accurate. On that point, I think I also wanna share that we've been tracking legislation moving through the municipality of Anchorage that they— their assembly met on and discussed just last week, did not take action on, still under discussion.

If enacted, it would criminalize camping within 200 feet of paved trails, within 200 feet of water bodies, within 200 feet of streets with speed limits greater than 35 miles an hour, and within 500 feet of playgrounds, schools, licensed childcares, recreational centers. And homeless shelters. So this is not a topic that only you are considering right now or being asked to discuss. The third option discusses reestablishment of a summer campground. I'll be brief on this point and just note that the challenges with that are many.

They are centered around location, safety, and staffing. St. Vincent de Paul has had, and others, St. Vincent de Paul has formed a group of partner agencies we are also participating in that has met twice so far. This meeting too has two more meetings scheduled, uh, that is discussing this topic specifically. I don't have much to share. Like I said, they've just been, just started meeting on that topic, but I, I can't underscore how difficult this one will be, uh, for anyone who's interested in this topic and listening online.

I would encourage reading this, the State Supreme Court decision that is cited in my memo. And then the fourth option just speaks to the framework of time, place, and manner limits, which, along with considering the general public interest, is the framework that we have when working on regulations associated with this topic. That's what I have for you. I'm happy to take questions. Very good.

Thank you. Deputy Manager Barr. Um, my thought had been to go with these like in order, just, you know, going through the categories just to kind of keep us focused, because these can obviously go in many different ways. So that was my thought. Um, the bodies that be involved can do that.

But Mr. Bryson? Yes, uh, sorry, Mr. Deputy Mayor, I needed to declare that I serve on the Glory Hall Board of Directors. It's never been a problem. I just wanted to make that known as we're about to have a discussion about that entity and many others. Thank you.

Um, saw a few hands. I think Miss, Miss Hall, Miss Hall might have a disclosure as well. So, Miss Hall. And I also would like to disclose that I serve on the board of St. Vincent de Paul.

No financial gain there though. Very good. I did have Ms. Hughes-Scandies first if we're doing questions or discussion on the disorderly conduct code and Ms. Wall. Ms. Hughes-Scandies, go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I was also process-wise looking to verify with you that that sounds like a fine approach to me bit by bit, but I would like to start with just some general questions on the memo and to staff if that's an okay approach with you. That definitely makes sense. Yeah, go ahead, Ms. East Candice. Okay, uh, thank you.

So my first one is, uh, something you just said, Mr. Barr. So you've come back before us, we have those old memos, we've checked in after going to this dispersed camping method, uh, at least once publicly, but definitely maybe twice. And definitely you've checked in with us as just individual assembly members.

The kind of process that the JPD undertakes now where they start by trying to connect individuals with services, they keep an eye on encampments and look for encampments to get to a certain size and there is a good understanding among leadership and within the department that, you know, enforcement is kind of a not last option, but we're not seeking to do enforcement out the gate, uh, conversations about, you know, human waste or garbage. Um, and that when we've gotten to those, there's been two this summer at least, that, that process has been very well explained to me in the past and I didn't hear anything when you talked about the ordinance that's in here. You said something along the lines of this gives them a tool to do that. Whereas my question then is, what, what is different about that from how they've been doing it now? Because I believe they've been doing it now.

So that's my question. Thank you, through the chair. So the difference is that, um, The large-scale disbursements that we've engaged in, that we've conducted, the two that are referenced in the memo this season so far, come to be, as you know, when an encampment grows and impacts become significant from a variety of perspectives— safety, collection of human waste.

Likely, likely or perceived or reported illegal activity, that sort of thing. The dispersed camping, or sorry, the changes to the disorderly conduct code would enable officers to more easily, again, have those conversations with folks and have a tool to utilize if necessary, if those conversations fail. In a more one-on-one situation. So imagine like needing to clear a parking garage or a bus stop or a right-of-way that has an encampment on it, that sort of thing. Does that help answer the question?

So is it accurate to say that your the way you're characterizing this as it gives them a mechanism to do that when it is smaller, to do it when it is not significant impacts.

Because otherwise it feels like we're just restating the same thing and saying, and now they have a tool. I think that, that is accurate. Um, it, it gives them that tool when there is when there is a smaller situation happening, usually with a single individual in a parking garage and a bus stop. Yeah. Okay, thank you.

Miss Adkisson. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, if you'll bear with me on this, mine's sort of theoretical, um, because when we last spoke about this, we were going dispersed camping, and we had had a campground that obviously wasn't ideal for a few reasons, and when I asked you, you had said that you actually thought dispersed camping might be better in some ways than having a campground. Assuming we find a location and it's in a visible area and there's someone who isn't the city to staff it, do you think in theory a campground could make this situation better, or do you think that dispersed camping— we should figure out ways to make that better, but that the campground isn't a better solution necessarily?

Through the chair, I think that's an incredibly complex and challenging question to answer. So, it's kind of my first response to it. Um, I think in theory, with appropriate monitoring and good safety and security practices and adequate staffing and, um, kind of an appropriate set of campground rules that were enforced, I think for the individuals that would choose that theoretical campground, safety could be improved for sure. Um, I think it would be very challenging to find a location. I think the assembly would have to accept a significant amount of liability that it does not currently accept and hasn't been willing to accept in the past.

And I think that there's a very real question about whether or not the population that we're trying to serve would choose to be at a campground like that.

Miss Wall.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I missed a little bit your description of how you want to have this conversation, but I think this follows on Miss Hughes-Canady's questions. Hopefully it's not out of order. Um, the, uh, Memo, I appreciated the sharing the memo that went out to leadership team, um, just because I feel like, you know, that's kind of the information that we've asked for as kind of we, we, you know, are under new guidance about how we take enforcement.

Um, I wasn't— I, I was surprised, um, not not with any judgment, but just, it challenged my assumptions about kind of the campsite, campsite turns to encampment with 3 or more tents. That felt like a smaller number than I was under the impression that we were enforcing. Is that just Where does that number come from, or why is that the number that, that's used here in this, in this memo?

Thank you for the question through the chair. So that's, that's one of the— I would, I would say that's one of the criteria that we, that we utilize. Um, and it is, it is certainly, uh, somewhat more art than science, but in general, that as the number of tents in an encampment grow, we see an exponential rather than linear increase in impacts most of the time, not all the time. And when it falls in— and when any given encampment scenario falls into the kind of not all the time category, then that particular criteria weighs less in taking enforcement action. There's certainly been a number of times over the season where we've had encampments of 3 or more tents where enforcement action did not take place for a while longer until impacts started to grow in other areas.

That's helpful. Can I ask a quick follow-up? Go ahead. Are there situations where we have been breaking up 3/10 or somewhere in that range?

No, not yet.

Okay, Mr. Kelly.

Thank you. And if I'm getting a little too— this might be a question for Chief Voss. If I'm getting into the— a little too far into the nitty-gritty, somebody can probably let me know. But I, I'm looking at the, at the ordinance, and this is actually some of the existing language that is there. It says on page 2 of the ordinance, lines, basically paragraph 5, I guess line 7 and 8 that if somebody, you know, couldn't easily pass, that this would, you know, being in these expanded areas would basically constitute disorderly conduct.

And I was kind of wondering about what sort of discretion is used for that. Like, if somebody is maybe, you know, huddled sleeping and they're maybe in one of these areas, but they're not really obstructing, like people can easily go around them. What sort of discretion are we expecting our officers will use under this both existing and maybe expanded language? I'll take that one. Chief Boss, thank you.

Yes, through the chair. So we give them a lot of discretion on that. There's many variables there, not just an individual, but how much property do they have? How long have they been there? So those are all factors we want to look at.

And I think it's hard to, you know, bullet point those out in an ordinance. Each scenario is unique, each scenario is different. So we would like a lot of discretion. I do want to say one of the concerns I have with this very paragraph is the request to have somebody move. And is that burden on the public or is that on the officer?

And so that's one of the things we want to clean up and give the officer that opportunity and not expect the public to do that. So I think that goes hand in glove with that discretionary piece. Thank you. I'll jump in really quick. Maybe we're honing on the ordinance and all good, we can bounce around as well, but My question was just, you know, it sounds like there are other tools to possibly achieve this, potentially more burdensome.

I guess I was kind of wondering if you could give us hypothetical, or I mean, examples where under this new ordinance you would be, or under this ordinance should it be enacted, would be able to do something you couldn't before, or what the difference is. Anyway, if you, if there are any examples that you could share, certainly useful. One of the key differences is the kind of the 48-hour window. So an encampment, we give them 48 hours notice. We have to give them that per our existing ordinance.

This is if we have a problem that needs to move now, it gives us the ability to address that in a more expeditious manner. An example of that, we had a homeless individual move into a bus stop. That under existing code is a 48-hour notice, but it's impeding the operations of the bus. It's impeding people from getting to transportation, maybe just based on perception, not necessarily actually. Is it scary?

Do I want to go to the bus stop or not? Is, is the question. So this gives us a tool to address that quickly. Um, and I think that's the key difference is this is looking more at those 1 or 2 individuals that are creating a genuine issue now, as opposed to an encampment that's not necessarily disruptive, but as it goes on over time, it becomes disruptive. Okay, thank you.

Um, going back down the line, Ms. Suskandies. Got her. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm gonna ask a way more general question, just about— this is still about the memo itself.

Um, and I, as I read this, this is, you know, good, a good use of, or not good use, this is a nice collection of materials to get us primed for tonight.

And the recommendation, we have some different tools for us to discuss, uh, and then provide direction. And the recommendation is to refer this ordinance for introduction. So normally, as an assembly member, if I get an introduction, or if that's a recommendation that I'm getting from staff— here's an ordinance, it's a tool, I recommend you introduce it— obviously you, you also said discuss it, and you know, that's, that's our decision. What I don't get in this memo is the why, or I would expect then a memo saying we've been doing this Here's how it's not working. You've gotten updates from us this summer.

Chief Boss says his officers need these tools, or we did 2 and now we've done 10 in the last month, so we would like other tools. But the data that I see, the data points that I see in here, and the discussion reads as a review of things we already know. So I'm trying to understand from the overall, it seems like there would be things in this memo that aren't here. So I guess help me understand the staff perspective. Mr. Ruffin.

Yeah, thank you, through the chair. I think in addition to the chief's comments, the other thing I would point out is to a why behind the disorderly conduct code change. Is related to the other tool that we commonly use when confronted with these situations, which is the trespass code, which is a tool that works. It simply takes time and capacity that the officers in most of the situations that I see don't need to spend their time going down that path dealing with, right? I'll use the example of parking garages or For instance, we don't have an onsite facility manager in a parking garage.

If an officer is confronted with a situation that we think requires the officer to move that individual along out of the parking garage, out of the parking garage stairwell, whatever the case may be, the officer needs to contact the facility manager, needs to tell, have a conversation with the facility manager about what's going on, what the situation is. Facility manager needs to issue a trespass letter, get that to the officer, officer needs to deliver it. It's that time and JPD capacity issue that where these changes are rooted in. Thanks, that's helpful. Miss Adkisson, and then I miss Wall.

Oh, Chief, pardon, go ahead. If I could just add to that, Another variable for us, say it's 2:00 AM in the morning, you know, that becomes even more complicated trying to track down everybody that we need to get involved. And it delays our response to the issue 24 hours at best. So this gives us much more of an immediate action. Thanks.

Ms. Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just another question on the memo. I see a lot of—.

Obviously, the 4 options you've given us are about enforcement of the actual people and where they can camp, and also potentially a place that they could camp. But another way— another thing we've been hearing a lot about is the impacts of the people that are left behind, like waste, like syringes, like trash, which I know city staff do frequently deal with. But has there been any thought from city staff about maybe preventative actions on that front, like porta-potty availability, sharps container availability. I recognize all that will come with costs and significant challenges, but it kind of seems like we already are spending a lot and already do have a lot of challenges. So, are there anything— is there anything we can do, or has staff been thinking about ways we can make dispersed camping less impactful on the community?

Through the Chair, yes, that's a conversation we commonly have. JPD has a garbage bag initiative where they hand out color high-visibility garbage bags, ask individuals to utilize those instead of, instead of, instead of just dumping garbage, and then placing them near trash receptacles. And then officers, community service officers, parks and rec staff, kind of whoever's available, will go collect those. It has, I would I would say that the chief might have more to add on that, but I would say qualified limited success at best on that one. We have certainly experimented with porta-potties and sharps containers.

Our experience thus far has been that the sharps don't end up in the sharps containers, or at least enough of the sharps don't end up in the sharps containers, and some end up in the porta-potties themselves. While we have explored whether or not mechanized systems exist for removing those sharps out of porta— out of the porta potty containers themselves, like for the fecal matter and urine, we have not found any. And thus far, every time we've experimented with that, we've— but the contractor or our staff have had to manually remove those because they can't be discharged into the wastewater system. Understandably, and that, that isn't a sustainable long-term solution. So it's a conversation we're having.

It's not a conversation—. We—. Another element of that conversation is talking with the provider community about our needle exchange program and kind of balancing the harm reduction elements of having a needle exchange or a needle provision program with the harm that exists when needles just end up in, you know, on public land randomly, you know, disposed of inappropriately. So that's also been a conversation that's been ongoing, but it is a challenging conversation, and the chief might have more to add.

I don't. That was great.

Miss Wall.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I think my, you know, my energy for engaging in, in kind of new tools at this stage really centers around what's happening at the Glory Hall and the Teal Street Center. And it does feel like an untenable situation to have the operations of those facilities who are treating many of our most vulnerable you know, threatened. Um, and so, you know, that's how I'm kind of approaching this conversation tonight.

Um, when I met with those folks, it was a few weeks ago. Um, you know, I'd like to, you know, defer to them often on what our, you know, best solutions are. Have, have we talked? I know, I know their interest in exclusion zone. I know why that's challenging.

Um, but have we talked to those folks about this? Disorderly conduct ordinance, or is this kind of, um, the beginning of that conversation?

Chief, uh, I would say we have discussed it in broad— or broad terms. We haven't talked specifically with them on direct impacts. Um, I see the disorderly ordinance as, um, probably being utilized everywhere else but the Teal Street Center. Uh, the, the problems around Teal Street are very different, very unique, and more embedded. So, um, while there's a correlation, I think the disorderly ordinance really helps us out in other areas of the community more.

Uh, specifically downtown, uh, is where I see it being much more utilized.

Thank you. I appreciate, um, your Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I'll also just note that Commander Weske and I meet with the Teal Street neighborhood kind of nonprofit group generally monthly.

And what the chief said, we haven't gone over the specifics of this in general, but I'd say we have in concept and haven't, certainly haven't heard any opposition and only support. Very good. I had another one, Chief. You mentioned downtown, and that's something I definitely hear from a number of people, just issues. I guess, you know, you, you mentioned the— anyway, other problematic situations downtown that would be made easier to deal with with this ordinance, if you list off any that you're aware of.

Certainly. Um, so a few additions, you know, This ordinance, we add stairwells, we add language of sit, lie, stand. We definitely see individuals standing, obstructing sidewalks, obstructing stairwells, um, you know, or camping in the stairwells or whatnot. So I think those are some of the more specifics. Really, we see a lot of problems in the parking garage areas.

That's where we feel like our hands are tied. You know, and my initial discussion actually was about a no loitering ordinance, but we feel after discussion with Emily and Robert, we feel like it fits better here because we already have most of this in place.

Mr. Bryson and then Miss Yanes. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. I'm trying to bring this topic closer back to the Glory Hall, St. Vincent's area. Um, over the last couple of months, the Glory Hall has explored, uh, closing the doors and no longer providing service to the community. Uh, the last board meeting, they had a discussion about not providing day services, uh, to anyone that is not a resident of the Glory Hall because they're asking for more protections from the city.

If we don't do anything and we stay on the course that we're on, and the Glory Hall does something like close the day services, so 8 AM Glory Hall would just be closed, or permanently the Glory Hall would just— if our staff walked, we would not have a replacement staff and the Glory Hall would close. Um, if that happened, could you maybe describe some of the problems that, that we would see in the area if we're no longer to be able to adequately provide services at the homeless shelter, uh, because we weren't taking enough action or giving the police enough tools? Thank you. Yes, sir. Um, I, I think, one, there's a lot of conjecture there, so, uh, I'm, I'm taking a wild guess at some of this, but I think we would see the problems more widely dispersed through our community.

Right now they are centralized more around the Glory Hall area. If that goes away, there's no reason for everybody to congregate there. So we will see it disperse more, which means crime will disperse more. We'll see theft in other areas, see drug use in other areas of the community. That's step one.

You know, I think other things we'll see, more health, negative health impacts. Right now, DeKloret Hall is a place where individuals can go and shower, use the bathroom, basic sanitation, basic, uh, personal hygiene items, uh, that would go away. Um, you know, I don't know what that looks like. That's, that's a guess as to the negative impacts there, but it would be not good. Um, I think we would see more issues around food.

People don't get fed or get fed on a regular basis, there's negative health impact there. We'll see more thefts in other areas where they're just trying to get food. So, you know, you go back to people trying to satisfy their basic needs. Beyond that, I don't want to make a lot of guesses. Ms. Youskandis.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Barr, I didn't catch the end of what you were saying. So you said Lieutenant Weske and yourself meet with that group, I'm guessing is Teal Street and Glory Hall, and you said there's no disagreement, or just if you could recharacterize it, I didn't take the meaning away from it.

Yeah, thank you for the opportunity to clarify. So Commander Ruski and I meet with that group, I characterize them as kind of the Teal Street nonprofit neighborhood. It includes folks that are tenants in the Teal Street Center, the Glory Hall, St. Vincent de Paul, Jami, occasionally Tlingit and Haida. Sale. Yeah, tenants in the Teal Street.

Yes. Um, and, uh, I, yes, I'd say that we have, we have talked about this concept in general and there has not been opposition for this topic in general, disorderly conduct of the ordinance. And certainly, certainly that group is very much interested in the shelter safety zone concept.

I will add, you know, as a result of a meeting I had with folks from the Glory Hall and Sale and Till Street Center, we did get a good I mean, a lot of people in the mayor's office, the mayor, Ms. Hall joined us, all the staff up at the dais there, and then a number of people from the different service providers and talked through the problematic behaviors and tried to, you know, obviously this is a challenging subject and no, not many easy answers or else they had already been done, especially with our resource constraints at JPD and prosecuting and also, you know, or the state is, you know, a big player in this in terms of their willingness and ability to prosecute. So we are looking at— we're looking at some other, you know, other possible smaller fixes and things there. But anyway, I just wanted to bring— we're evaluating there, but have not found the silver bullet by far. Miss Hall. Yeah, well, first I'd like to say I think The ordinance is one piece that definitely would empower, you know, give folks a tool that would help with some of the behavior.

I would really advocate for a stronger presence in the area, you know, realizing staffing issues are a problem, but hearing the general lawlessness of what's going on and how distressing that is for unsafe for, you know, people using the services there. It's unsafe for the folks living at the Glory Hall and, and, you know, the seniors over in Smith Hall on St. Vincent's property. You know, people do need to eat, and that is our one and only soup kitchen in the community. So, you know, perhaps as a community we need to look at some other options, such as food truck that goes around to different areas, or a big old cafeteria in a bus, kind of a concept. But, you know, we're not here tonight to sort of think up all the different, um, possible solutions.

But I just do know that when the cold weather shelter was open, there was far fewer impacts in that neighborhood, and just underscores the need for expanded, um, low barrier shelter space and how we do that as a community. I think we're expending an incredible amount of police and CCFR resources in dealing with this. I think of our police officers out collecting garbage, you know, that just seems like not the best use of your time. And is there some other way that that can be done? Without using our police officers, um, you know, providing the individuals themselves with small little sharps containers, and when they come to their needle exchange, that they turn those in.

You know, that might be an option. But I definitely think moving forward with this ordinance, cleaning up the language a bit on line 25, that seemed a bit arbitrary. And maybe not the most professional language. So, you know, those aren't the only two body parts. But anyway, I just, I don't know where you might find language that's a little more general that would address the same situation.

Anyway, and I think that's it. You know, this is a super hard topic, and I think we can all continue to look for other solutions to expanded low barrier shelter space and consider year-round of something like, like the cold weather shelter. Thank you.

Could— Ms. Hall brought up a point about page 2, I believe it was re-referencing page 2, line 25. Miss Hall. Very good. Miss Wright, would you comment on that inclusion there? I don't know if it was added.

And anyway, I know there have been questions about that, so. Sure, thank you for the question. So this language mirrors state law. We just pulled it right from the state statutes. I am happy to change it as needed, but it does mirror state law.

There was a question that I received that this is limited to one side of the body. Obviously, there are other parts of the body. We do have other code provisions like indecent exposure and lewd acts, things like that. We have other provisions that cover everything else, but this is specific to state statute. That's all we did.

We matched it. And I think it's a policy decision. By you if you want to limit that or take it out.

You know, I think possibly have something a little broader and, you know, in that language.

Yeah, and I'm wondering how long it's been since the state looked at their language. You know, that might be decades old. I am happy to look at that. I mean, I would, I would say, you know, this is an area where I would think that there would be police officer discretion and the chief certainly could talk about it. You know, this would potentially criminalize mooning people, which has a very different feel than maybe something, something else, something more lascivious or something like that.

So there's a lot of, um, discretionary action here, and I am absolutely happy to look at it. I know this one felt uncomfortable for a few people. You're welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Um, first of all, I wanted to thank Chief Bose and our attorney for meeting with me and several of the neighborhood groups in Teal Street area, including several of the business owners and Commander Westry was also at some, and at the meeting in my office, of course. Um, so just reading through the ordinance, it seems like, um, this would, uh, address some of the behaviors we talked about. But, uh, my question is actually for Ms. Wright. Um, when we talked to the group, um, in my office with, uh, Sayle and, um, Lori Hall and St. Vincent's, we talked about a drug-free zone.

And would you let the public know what you found out about that, because I had asked about that. Sure. So, um, at the time we— thank you for the question— at the time we were looking at a whole bunch of different options. How are other communities responding? The safety exclusion zone, for example, that the, um, Teal Street Center, Laurie Hall, has requested, it is very common, uh, around other homeless shelters, other areas.

The other thing that we are seeing come through is a drug-free zone. And I did a little bit of research into that. It basically creates an area around homeless shelters that, you know, a drug-free area. The information that I was able to find is that it is there are pluses and minuses to it. So, in general, what's happening is at the state level, state legislatures, Arizona, for example, is looking at this, often falls along party lines as to whether to do it.

But the, the one side is it gives protection for an area, it gives tools to police to make drug arrests. The other side is, people who are in that area are seeking out potential help. And it's overly criminalizing something that they may be asking for help from. And so what I can tell you is there was no good answer on that one. It didn't look like it was very effective in what it was trying to do.

And it, it, it's not something that I would recommend at this point. Point. I don't think it meets what you're trying to do. It, it just criminalizes something, um, that people seek help for.

All right, I had Mr. Kelly, Ms. Youskandies, and then Mr. Bryson.

Thank you. Um, just, um, a little follow-up, a quick little follow-up to Ms. Hall's question. You said that this language mirrors state law.

Is it then strictly necessary to have it in our statutes? Could the police simply use those tools granted by state law?

Through the chair, Mr. Kelly, so it is never necessary for the city to have language if there's already state language. However, there are two prosecuting agencies in Juneau, and the state district attorney's office and our prosecution office. 99% Of misdemeanors are prosecuted by our office. Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor. The state district attorneys, rightly so, spend a lot of time on felony cases.

The likelihood that a disorderly conduct for exposing the buttocks would be pursued by a state agency is fairly low. That's why we tend to mirror their language so that we can provide that prosecution when it's necessary. Thank you. Ms. Uscandese.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is also about the state law pieces. It sounds like there were specific things that were asked for. You talked about you hope to achieve with these rewrites within the CVJ team.

I'm wondering what pieces of the changes are— I had assumed they were all at the request of within CBJ team.

If you had to characterize, like, what percent are also just cleaning up to add state law, or are these all at the request of CBJ staff?

Thank you for the question. These are all at the request of CBJ staff. Thank you, Mr. Bryson.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Um, I, I had two questions, real simple. Um, I'd heard, uh, people talk about the needle exchange a couple of times as we've had questions here, and at the last neighborhood meeting I went to, my understanding— and I thought Mr. Barr might be able to answer this— it's not a needle exchange. Nobody's bringing in used needles, they're just giving out more needles. Is that correct, sir?

Thank you for the question through the chair.

I think I would characterize it as a little bit of both. Okay. Both an exchange and I think the general practice, although I can confirm this, is that if folks come without needles to exchange, I don't believe they're being turned away. Does that answer the question? That was my understanding as well.

Okay. Um, and I think my second question is for the attorney. So, um, I asked this question as there were 2 overdoses in the Glory Hall parking lot last week or over the weekend. Um, meth, heroin, fentanyl. Possession of those drugs is illegal right now, correct?

You are correct. So if we had a protection zone around our vulnerable population services, how would it be different than— that stuff's already illegal now, and it's happening to the point of hampering providing those services to our vulnerable population. So we're already facing the crime even without— with or without a protection zone. What would change if there was a protection zone? Because, I mean, we have very clear evidence that those crimes are actively happening at the place right now.

How would a protection zone change it? Through the chair, if I could ask just a clarifying question, if a drug-free protection zone Was there, or if it was an exclusion zone in general? Any level of protection zone that CBJ law would be able to provide for that vulnerable population area. Okay. So in general, whether it's disorderly conduct, trespass, drug possession, public intoxication, loitering, we have a fairly huge toolbox currently at both the city and the state level.

So the state handles all drug cases in CDJ. So those things already exist. If there was a drug-free zone in particular, similar to maybe this change with this disorderly conduct, it has to do with how rapidly you can respond, what the penalties are for response, and, um, kind of the ease of response. That's what the idea is behind those drug-free zones. But all of those laws exist, um, already.

If it's a full exclusion zone, uh, that I believe the Teal Street Center has requested, um, that doesn't change anything in regards to the laws as they currently stand. For prosecution or, or arrest prosecution of those crimes. It just provides, again, one more piece if it's happening within a certain area, and it may be an increased penalty or an increased response in those areas. These are all tools in the toolbox to try and allow police officers to more rapidly and effectively respond to crimes that are being committed. Could I just have a quick follow-up?

Sure. Chief Boss, do we not have enough tools? I mean, when people are talking about the crimes that are being committed in this area, there's video surveillance, there's overdoses while the police were on the premise, was the second overdose. So we obviously know that there was crime taking place. Why aren't we doing anything about the crime that's taking place there now?

I think there's, there's many factors there, but it, at its simplest, it's what we know and what we can prove. And they're two dramatically different things. You know, it's one thing to know these people are using drugs. How do we prove that? How do we go and say, yes, that's an illegal drug in their possession?

And that's where it becomes very challenging for us. We get pictures of a person with a needle in their hand. Maybe they're a diabetic. How do I know that's an illegal substance in that syringe from a photograph? I don't.

And so that's where we really see the challenges. Do we have enough tools? I would say yes, we do. I would agree completely with Attorney Wright. There are many things in place here.

I think, the disorderly conduct will really give us kind of fill in that last missing piece for us. But a drug exclusionary zone, we still have that challenge. We have to prove that's an illegal narcotic and they're in possession of it, which if we go that far, there's many other charges we can file.

Mr. Kelly. So, so just to follow up on that, I think What I'm hearing is that it's difficult to prove that somebody, and I am speaking maybe more broadly to the exclusion zone, like not the drug exclusion zone, but just like the exclusion zone around the services in general. It's easier to prove that somebody is someplace where they don't belong than it is to prove that they are taking drugs without a prescription?

I will punt that a little bit to the attorney. I would say yes, from my perspective, but I don't know that it's quite that simple.

In general, I would agree if we're looking at an exclusion zone that says no camping within 200 feet of the Teal Street Center. If we were prosecuting that case, we would— it would be fairly simple. Were they in an area that they were not supposed to be in, period.

There's always defenses, there's always things there. But yes, I agree that that would be much more simple than proving a drug case. You know, especially often officers— there are situations where officers are there because rapid-fire things happen, but mostly they're responding afterwards. Thank you.

Not seeing any more questions from the body on this topic.

Anyone just in a motion? Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move ordinance serial number 2025-28 be, uh, committee of the whole.

Madam Mayor, did you say to the table or did you say—.

Okay, I'm moving it to the assembly. Thank you. Very good. Seeing some hands up. Miss Hall, I'm just wondering, would it be here or when it gets to the assembly if we were going to suggest striking that one line on line 25?

You know, the Or is there a purpose that we need to have that stay in there?

Yeah, I guess that's a question for you. Question for me. Thank you. This is the time if you want to strike that, we can, we can do that and I can, if it passes, then I would make that change before it goes to the assembly. I guess my follow-up question, is there specifically a reason that that those additional— I just need to look at it again.

Um, the additional wording is in there, or could it just be no person shall urinate or defecate in any or upon any streets? No, could we just leave it at that? Thank you. I would say the verbiage as is is very helpful for us. Um, you know, it goes back to what we can prove and what we can't prove.

If I get a photographic image of somebody's buttocks, now we have something we can do about it. Whereas if I'm not there to witness what's going on, I couldn't say they were defecating or whatnot. So it gives us the ability to do more as is written. I would also just add, in an officer's world, as close as we can mirror state law, it's easier for us just in our interactions. Okay, with that, I'll remove my objection.

Are there further objections to the motion? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will speak to my objection.

To start with, you know, you all heard me ask the question of staff, you know, where is this coming from? Why? Where's your data? Build the case before you recommend introducing an ordinance and just listing it as a tool. Until Mr. Bostar or Chief Bostar answering questions, I had no basis for this.

So that's the most compelling, um, case that I've heard here tonight. So I would say from where I sit, I'd love to talk with Chief Boss more. Um, I would be potentially— I see a world where I'm fine with this moving forward, but not at this— not at this case, not with this amount of information. I think it's been good questions asked tonight. Knowing that each individual change was requested by the CPJ staff gives me some pause because I had— gives me some pause for some of the amendments that I had thought to make, but now I know that those were specifically requested.

But for my part, I would want to talk with Chief Bosmore understand where the department is coming from, understand the need for this as a tool, and I think very potentially that then I would be, you know, ready to support that. But I'm not there tonight just because it hasn't been built beyond the questions and answers that we've received. I also want to point out, I think what is probably in in most assembly members' minds, uh, and I, I think definitely maybe, uh, Ms. Wall specifically spoke to that she was coming to tonight with a perspective of being concerned for what was happening at Teal Street and our most, uh, vulnerable citizens trying to access services. I've heard Mr. Bryson bring up Teal Street. I mean, I think I've heard multiple people bring up Teal Street.

We've had public testimony of about Teal Street to where, and those have been situations where we've had the public say, you gotta give the police more tools to do something. That has really been the, if you asked, how is homelessness in Juneau and what's your experience as an assembly member from the public? How's your, what's homelessness like in your city? I think that would be front of line, front of our minds, just because that's the hot topic among our unhoused population and some of the effects of that. And I also heard Chief Boss say that this would not be a tool that's specifically great necessarily for that.

It's great— he sees it more being utilized downtown and in some other areas, uh, of the borough. So I have to reconcile those two things and then get a better understanding. Um, and I will also speak plainly that I— that's why I want to have those conversations, because I want to support the department. But I also have some pause just as somebody who lives downtown and has concerns about, you know, I walk around people standing in the stairwells all the time, in the parking garages. I don't think if I stood down there dressed for work that I would have any problem with CBJ telling me to stop standing in the stairwell.

And so there's always those concerns. I think our department does a great job with forming relationships and avoiding discrimination. But that's the other— these are all the things that give me pause. So for me, I'm not ready to move this, so I would object and I would hold it in committee and do a little bit more work and get a little more information. Thank you, Miss Ziskandis.

Miss Wall.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was gonna say something similar to Ms. Hughes-Scandies about my, my wish would be to keep it in committee because I think in addition to what Ms. Hughes-Scandies discussed for her own, you know, research and feeling comfortable, I think there are many people in the public who will be asking similar questions and wanting to kind of socialize it with those folks. I know that this concept has been talked about broadly with our social service providers, but getting, getting an opportunity to hear from them about— and those who often are the ones advocating on behalf of our unhoused Um, I think would be good. Otherwise, I think we have lots of different theories on when we send something to assembly, but I like to send things to assembly when we're getting close to a decision.

And I feel like if we send this to assembly, we're going to get a lot of feedback that's going to feel like we're not quite ready to make this decision.

Thank you, Mr. Bryson.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. While I appreciate the assembly wants to take the appropriate amount of time, study, make sure you get it, talk to as many people as you need to talk to, the situation for the social service providers is becoming untenable. I do not want to be part of an assembly that lets the problem continue to worsen until the Glory Hall closes. We are literally on that trajectory, and to We're doing kind of the same thing that we've always done. We don't want to do a rule because we're afraid we might hurt a feeling or step on a toe, and it has set us backwards.

We have at the beginning, the very first page of Mr. Barr's memo, we have more supportive housing beds than any other city in Alaska, and the situation is still getting worse. If we were moving on the right course of action with that many beds and as much energy, money that we've put into this problem, the problem would be getting better. We are not taking the right course of action. That is why the problem keeps getting worse. We want to pretend— no, that's not fair.

We need to be realistic about what the police are facing on a day-to-day basis what the business community is facing being near this or in it, amongst it. A disorderly conduct— this change would be another tool that would help the police, the community, and the vulnerable population that is being victimized. That's why we're trying to come up with a better system of how we're handling this. Doing nothing, we will only continue to get the exact same results that we have now, and they're continuing to get worse. We must take a different course of action if we want the situation to improve.

Thank you for the time, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Mayor Weldon. Uh, thank you, and I appreciate, uh, Miss Youskany's and Miss Wall's, uh, concerns. But, um, you know, looking through your the email, which I'm not always the best at, but I'm trying to catch up this week, and talking to people on the streets, on the phone. These are a few— I rarely get stopped in the grocery store, which people are probably surprised by that, but this time I have been stopped, and it all is, what are we going to do with the homeless situation?

And it's not referring to people being homeless, it's referring to what's happening this summer that's different than everybody else. Everybody else. So, um, you know, working with the chief and the attorney, they say this is a tool that will help them. Um, I have seen them in action. They are very compassionate.

They are working hard to make relationships. But if they're asking for a tool, I think we need to get them. So I think the time is now. Thank you, Mayor Weldon. Further comments on this?

Miss Hall.

And I also appreciate the fact that it feels a bit rushed, but I will say this has been brewing since the cold weather shelter closed down, and it has been brought to our attention time and again. And while I feel like this, this is just a little drop in the bucket of what could happen, needs to happen, some other shifts that could happen, I think it's something that we can do, and I think putting it off is, you know, when we have staff and patrons of those areas literally begging us for some relief. I think this is something, and then move forward with compassion and consistency in how we're delivering services to our vulnerable population. But I do think this is kind of a drop in the bucket tool, but it's one that, that we can support the people out there on the front lines doing the work. Thank you.

Miss Edgerson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I will be supporting moving this to the assembly, but I do have to offer a slightly different perspective from folks that are also supporting it, which is that I think this will be, uh, minimally effective on the problem. It's not going to make, uh, the core of the issue any better.

I do not think it will in any way help our unhoused population. What I see the use for this is to make it a little easier for our police department to do something they're already doing, to make it a little less clunky. And for that reason, I do think that I'm comfortable moving it on to the assembly. But this is just the starting point of a longer, broader conversation we ought to be having. And I don't think at the end of that conversation we will end up in a place where everyone's happy and we've solved the problem.

But I do think there is something we can do to maybe make it a little better for our community. That being said, me moving this forward is not me endorsing a punitive approach. It's not me saying that this is going to do anything for the larger problem or make life any better for the people who are unhoused. I just think this makes it a little easier for the police department to do what we've been asking them to do. And for that reason, I will support moving into the assembly.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Kelly. Uh, thank you. Um, I think I, I as well would be, um, amenable to moving this forward, uh, to, to the full assembly, but I also see, um, I see value in and make sure that we get this right.

I see value in Ms. Hughes-Candies and Ms. Wall's comments. And for that reason, I think I will be moving an amendment to the mayor's motion. I move that we amend the mayor's motion to, in addition to introducing this ordinance, that we refer it to another Committee of the Whole meeting in between and ask for unanimous consent.

Madam Mayor, objection. I object for the reasons I stated. I think the time has moved this now.

Very good. We have an amendment.

Oh, Mr. Kelly, would you please repeat that, your motion? So I, I am moving to amend the mayor's motion in addition to introducing it. That we would be having another hearing at the CAL in between introducing and, um, holding a hearing. Very good. There's a motion.

There's an objection. Ms. Wall. Um, I— Mr. Kelly's First Amendment and Second Amendment were pretty different in my mind. One was adding a public hearing, I believe, or you're just, um, asking for an additional Committee of the Whole? I'm just asking for an additional Committee of the Whole in between introduction and the public hearing.

Mr. Bryson.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Um, I would invite more public testimony, uh, and rather than keeping it and having public testimony committee of the whole. I believe that we've had public testimony on the night something was introduced. Is that unallowable? So we could take public testimony the next time it shows up to the assembly for introduction, and then— or is that not an allowable course of action?

Anyone take that?

Oh, Miss—. Miss Raker, through the chair, so I believe that previous advice has has been to schedule another— another date for public testimony, similar to what you've done with ranked choice voting. So a double public hearing, but not to do it on an introduction night, as that muddies the water for your introduction.

That's all. Thank you. Very good. We have a motion and we have an objection. Miss Hendricks, would you— On Mr. Kelly's amendment, yes.

Miss Hendricks, if you would call the roll on the amendment, please.

Miss Adkisson? No.

Mr. Bryson? No. Miss Hall? No. Miss Hughes-Candies?

Yes.

Mr. Steininger?

No.

Miss Wall? Yes.

Madam Mayor? No. Deputy Mayor Smith?

No. Mr. Kelly? Yes. Thank you, Miss Hendrix. Um, that motion did not pass.

We're now back—. Oh, here you go.

I don't want to take your job. The— Mr. Chair, the motion failed with 3 in favor and 6 opposed. Thank you, Miss Hendricks. We now have the main motion back before us.

We have objection. I'm the only one who didn't speak, but I'll pass. And, um, Miss Hendricks, would you call the roll?

Mayor Weldon? Yes.

Miss Adkisson? Yes.

Mr. Bryson? Yes. Miss Hall? Yes. Miss Hughes-Candies?

No. Mr. Kelly? Yes. Mr. Steininger? Yes.

Miss Wall? No.

Deputy Mayor Smith? Yes.

The motion carries with 7 in favor and 2 opposed. Thank you, Miss Hendricks. Um, it's 7:58. I think maybe a quick break here. Excuse me, Miss Wall, see your hand.

Mr. Smith, there were some other, um, potential actions suggested in this memo. Um, I imagine this would be the right time to discuss those as well. Um, if—. Are you planning—. Is, um, if, if you turn to those when we—.

After we come back from our—. After a break. Okay, just making sure we weren't moving on from the topic. Yeah, just thought maybe. Okay, thank you.

Time for a little break. Um, 7:58, let's take 10 minutes. 808 Will return. Thanks. Bring the committee back to order.

We just took action on the disorderly conduct ordinance, a couple other items as possibilities. Um, the next one is the shelter safety zone. Um, We have heard about this before, but again, we've also heard about a lot of the problems out of the Teal Street Center. Did folks have questions on this concept?

Shelter safety zone. Madam Mayor. I do. I can't remember if it was the chief or Ms. Wright that said 250 feet. Feet?

Where is 200 feet in that area? Um, through, through the chair, I believe I just gave that as an example, as, as a possibility. I believe the Anchorage is, is at 500. Um, so it's just an example.

I have a question. Um, have we Well, I guess I might know the answer because maybe the pastor didn't give you direction. Have we, have we thought about what the zone might look like and thought about, you know, where the boundaries might be? And then of course we would expect be just beyond the boundaries of an exclusion zone, there would, depending how far away they are, there would likely be congregation of unhoused people. Is that a reasonable expectation?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think, um, as far as boundaries go, that is, that is largely a policy call. I think the shelter operators would advocate for a somewhat larger boundary than the 500 feet that is, that is proposed in the Anchorage ordinance. Um, there are examples of communities we can look to, uh, that conceptualize a certain number of blocks or, or a 4-foot radius.

And then to the second part of your, of your point, yes, I think it is fair to say that, um, we, we would, we would expect, because, because folks that generally are camping close to, um, or in the area right now are seeking services in that area, we would expect there still to be a desire to camp close to that area. Thank you.

Madam Mayor, I'm just asking questions if no one is. Um, Miss Quinto, the executive director of the Glory Hall, stated when we talked to her that her problem was not so much the campers but the cars that would come to the parking lot to basically to sell drugs. Can we trespass those cars to make that not happen, that they can come in, or is that something that we can't do because it's a public parking lot? I, I think we've resolved that, so yes, we can trespass those cars.

Miss Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess That last answer confused me slightly. So, um, we talked about in the disorderly conduct of being minimally useful out, uh, at Teal Street.

So when we're talking about a safety zone, what are you getting that isn't those sidewalks in the parking lot, which is also what the Teal Street Center mainly communicated to me in my meeting with them? Like, what, what other issues are we Seeing that there's— that they're concerned about that the safety exclusion zone would target that we don't fix with the disorderly conduct. I guess. Thank you. And the chief might have more to add here, but the safety zone concept would be to criminalize camping without a 48-hour notice with a higher penalty.

Um, and on all public and private property in the radius of that zone.

No 48 hours. Mr. Bryson. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Mr. Barr, how many organizations have asked for some type of protection zone since this discussion has started? Thank you.

Thank you for the question. I'm just dredging my memory. I don't know of any outside of the Teal Street area, but I would speculate that if that became an option, that there would be requests. Does that answer your question?

Mayor Walden. Sorry. I'll let you guys keep thinking about questions. So I've spent a lot of time out in this neighborhood lately, and, um, I've seen some of the campsites that people get out of the tents and go into the Glory Hall. So they're obviously a patron.

But if we did any kind of shelter safety zones, those people would have to move also, correct? We can't discriminate against Glory Hall patrons and non-patrons. Right? Everybody's gone.

That's correct. Mr. Kelly, I guess I'm trying to put it together.

So the shelter safe safety zone prevents people from camping within a certain radius, but there's other kinds of destructive behavior that's been described to me both by people at Teal Street, people at the Glory Hall, and I've even had a constituent call me on the phone and talk to me about not being able to get out of her car when trying to access sales services because she was fearful of somebody Um, right outside her car door.

Would the shelter safety zone that just prevents camping prevent or alleviate any of that activity, or are there maybe other options within the shelter safety zone concept that, that would be helpful for people trying to access services at those locations?

Thank you for the question. Through the chair, I'll just very briefly note that I don't have a good answer to your second question. On the first question, I will work to put myself in the shoes of the— of our nonprofit partners, and I think they would say that a shelter safety zone would help because a number of, most, many, you can choose one of those, of the individuals who they struggle with from a behavioral perspective are also camping. And then putting myself back in my own shoes, I would say that, I would say that it would, it is It would be challenging to speculate how successful a shelter safety zone would be pre-enactment, but I don't have reason to believe— I don't have— I believe that our nonprofit partners are speaking with Good intent.

Miss Wall.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I think this is a question for you, and I'm not trying to sound crunchy, but I guess I kind of assumed that, you know, we've got one line about this in this long packet. I assume this would be a conversation that we would, you know, provide direction on whether we are going to keep having it. As opposed to spend a lot of time on tonight.

Maybe I'm just trying to figure out how much, how much I should dig into this tonight, or if this is just the beginning of the conversation.

Thanks for that, Ms. Wall. I would say this idea had been brought to us in the past. I don't know if situations have changed or, well, We have— we do have new assembly members, um, so we do have a new body. I—. Again, we know there are— there's no silver bullet.

Um, it was an idea that had been brought up before. I've had it, you know, added to the agenda as a topic for discussion and to gauge and see if this, this assembly is interested in pursuing it further. I mean, I would expect, you know, a possible direction would be bring us back a draft ordinance or something on what a shelter safety zone might look like and bring it back to this body. And we could evaluate, or I mean, you can choose any path, but I would imagine that would be a likely one. And then we could decide, then we could look at it further should there be a majority of assembly who wishes to do that.

Was that helpful? That is helpful. That, that sounds good to me. I just didn't know how many questions to ask. I'm happy to make a motion, um, when you're ready for one.

Mr. Chair. Very good, thank you for that. Um, seeing a couple other questions. Miss Hall and Miss Yuskandis.

I would say right now there's— I'm sorry, I would say right now there's a couple things happening in the neighborhood, or, or, you know, Forget-Me-Not Manor is opening up and there the Glory Hall is actively moving people into that. I'm not sure what the number is now. Mr. Bryce may know. But so that's going to be 28 beds for really vulnerable people going in there over the— you know, they do it in kind of a gradual— you know, don't want to move 28 people in all the same day. They just sort of gradually transition people into that.

So that's going to free up beds at the Glory Hall. And also, I understand Teal Street, Glory Hall have hired some private security to kind of help them with some of the illegal parking, you know, people showing up and hanging out. And, um, and, uh, well, I also got the call regarding that one, uh, person that was trying to use the Teal Street services and had that unfortunate incident. I'm not hearing from a flood of their patrons that that's happening. Although, you know, I think with this heightened awareness and some of the things that are happening, I think this shelter exclusion zone conversation, we can perhaps table it and, and see how things play out.

Thank you. Ms. Youskandji, then Mr. Bryson. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I was just thinking that there's probably a, you know, a nice explainer that we could create out of this for members of the public.

You know, when you bring a policy idea and it gets voted down by the assembly, how to get that policy idea back in front of the assembly, maybe.

And the Gloria Hall and various folks, there might be a nice how-to so all members of the community knew what those steps were and how you end up back on the agenda. And I say that not to make members of this body feel attacked or our social services providers feel attacked, But again, because when I look at this packet, I'm looking at it from the perspective of just a citizen reading this packet. And you might be like, hey, you know, when I have a situation in my neighborhood, it doesn't get this level of attention. So how do I, how do I work the assembly the same way?

And, and I say that like really sincerely because I do think that Some people in our community know how to use kind of the system that we have set up right now, but not all members of the community know how to use it. So, maybe something for our communication department and as we, you know, talk about in future retreats and things like that about how to make it more accessible and how to follow our system more easily. Thanks for that, Ms. Escandese. We do have a different assembly. Things can be brought back up.

We are looking for different options. We have some familiarity with the topic. It was an option that has been brought forward, so I thought this new assembly, hearing again the potential impacts to the providers there, we're hearing about ending day services, we're doing other things. The situation appears to have gotten worse. So, um, anyway, no idea dies for good.

So, Mr. Bryson. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. And, uh, it was a good segue into what I want to talk about, because the people that I'm thinking of right now as we're having this discussion, the people that I want to be able to have this protection zone for are the most vulnerable of our community, the patrons of the Glory Hall and the patrons of the Teal Street Center. By not having a protection zone, we are failing to protect the most vulnerable population.

The people that are causing the problems are not coming at anybody in this room. They don't come and bug me in my car. That's not what we're dealing with. But the patrons at the Glory Hall, those are the people that are scared right now. Those are the people that are being victimized.

And by not doing a protection zone, we are allowing a criminal element to continue to victimize the vulnerable population that we are trying to do so hard to protect and help. We want to get these people into homes. But allowing the criminal element to prey upon our most vulnerable that we're trying to help is not the right course of action. We all have rules. We have to adhere to those rules or we have consequences in our life.

Trying to absolve those consequences is not going to work. The sooner we get tough on this situation, the sooner we crack down, or the sooner we say this is how you have to behave in our community, the sooner we will have less of these problems. But if we continue to allow the people who are victimizing our homeless community to continue doing that, the situation will continue to devolve. Thank you for the time. You may have moved into the comments portion of the meeting on this topic.

Ms. Wall, did you have a motion for us to then discuss? Sure, I'll give it a try. Thank you, Chair Smith. Um, I move that we direct staff to bring us back more information on a shelter safety zone and, and other potential tools for specifically protecting our social service provider operations at the Teal Street neighborhood. And if I could speak to my motion, of course.

Um, you know, I have all the same concerns about this as I did when we talked about it a year ago. I will remind folks that we did not vote this down. Um, the, the, those advocating for it, um, took it off the table because they were interested in, in the other tools that we were going to be working towards. And, you know, it's been a year and, and those haven't worked. And I do think we're in a tough situation there.

I, I don't think that I, you know, my concerns are that if we start putting up zones, everyone's going to want a zone. And I only do this because of this particular location and, and, um, what the folks who work there are trying to do for our community. So I, I don't know that I will support it, but I think we have to have the conversation about what solutions there are. Um, and so, um, that's my motion.

Mr. Kelly, thank you. I am going to speak in support of this motion.

I'm sorry? Yeah, we don't have any objections. Oh, sorry.

Are there any objections to the motion? If not, that motion is adopted, approved. Um, that gives us some direction on maybe 2 and 4. Um, I don't know if there's anything that needs to be said or directed about the summer campground. Um, is there further discussion or motions on camping homelessness, you know, the suite, um, that we see from the assembly?

And, and is this good direction to staff on next steps? Okay, very good. I think we'll see nothing else on that topic. We will move on to the next. Mr. Kelly.

Actually, I was just kind of wondering, so I'm kind of wondering with Ms. Wall's motion passing, is there going to be any further? It sounded like she kind of made it broad that it would be the exclusion zone and other options.

Is a campground or another option like that still on the table? Would you interpret her motion to still have those kinds of options also on the table? Mr. Park. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Through the chair, yes.

I think Ms. Wall's motion was broad enough that other potential options as stated would, could, could be included, um, and, uh, campground would certainly be among those other potential options, uh, if, if it, um, if that particular option evolves in a way that, that makes it ready for the next meeting. Thank you.

Very good. Moving on to the next item, hazard mitigation plan. Manager Kester. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. First, I'd like to invite our Emergency Programs Manager Ryan O'Shaughnessy up to give a presentation.

And while he's coming up here, I'll just introduce the topic briefly. You all know we have been racing at breakneck speed to try to update our hazard mitigation plan. We were long overdue. And I really want to commend staff for— and our consultant, actually— for just doing an awesome job. Not only are we ahead of schedule in developing this plan, It's a very comprehensive plan.

The plan is designed to give decision makers like yourself, administrators like Deputy Manager and I and the program manager, kind of guidance on what our potential risks are borough-wide, right? So everything from, you know, landslides to terrorism to tidal waves and just all the risk and all the mitigation, potential mitigation measures we could take so that we're ready for opportunities. And, and, uh, we specifically need this, uh, plan to be approved by, uh, October so that we can apply for some, uh, flood mitigation, uh, grants. Um, before I, uh, turn it over, uh, to the emergency program manager, I just want to say we are looking for a resolution, uh, that's included in your packet to be forwarded to the assembly that will adopt the plan. It is not a, uh, regulatory document, and I I'm sure he will go over that.

The resolution does have language in there that allows it to become a real plan, even if FEMA has some changes that they want recommended to it, because our next step after hopeful passage at the end of this month is to submit it to FEMA. So that's just something I want to make sure that you're aware of in order to kind of keep the process moving. If FEMA's like, no, you can't we need you to change this or that, we would make those changes. So I understand that there's some trust in that. So I— with that, I will hand it over to you.

Welcome. Thank you. Thanks for everyone's attention after this long meeting on a Sunday night. I appreciate it. So I wanted to start today just by introducing this, this plan and our efforts.

I'm joined today by Lori Young with Fairweather Science, she's on the line and is our contractor supporting this effort.

So this plan is a multi-jurisdictional hazard plan. We're doing this in partnership with, with Tlingit Haida. These plans are, like Manager Kessler mentioned, non-regulatory plans. They identify all different kinds of hazards within our community, everything from cybersecurity risks to Natural disasters. And this document really is intended to act as a guiding framework for making decisions related to community resiliency, to all different kinds of hazard mitigation, and is intended to position us well for funding opportunities and implementation opportunities as they become available.

Hazard mitigation plans are required to access several different funding sources from the state and federal government, including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program that Manager Kester alluded to. These plans are also required by FEMA to be based on the best available and most currently available science and data. I think it's important to note that for this plan, no new studies were initiated. This is entirely based on the best science that we have available to us at this time.

Slide, please.

So just a quick overview of our history here at CBJ with hazard mitigation plans. So the CBJ first approved its first hazard mitigation plan in 2004. And I'll just back up a moment. I should have noted this in the previous slide. These plans also exist on a 5-year approval cycle.

So they do need to be renewed renewed and reapproved every 5 years. Our first plan was approved by the Assembly, FEMA, and the state in 2004. We subsequently updated that in 2012. In 2017, we did draft a new plan, but that was ultimately not adopted due in part to some changes in FEMA's guidelines for plan approval during the time that it was drafted. This update, our 2025, is our first multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan, and it speaks to hazards that impact our jurisdiction as well as the jurisdiction of Tlingit Haida, which this plan acknowledges as tribal citizens in the ancestral lands of the Tlingit and Haida people.

So I also wanted to take a moment and acknowledge the timeline for this this project is a little bit accelerated from how these projects are usually handled. Again, we are really trying to move at that accelerated pace to be eligible for some funding opportunities, specifically the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which applications are due for in October. So we started this plan in— we kicked it off in January. We started working with Fairweather Science and had our first public meeting on January 29th, 2025. That was really an overview of process and what the public could expect from this plan.

There's a long gap, right? The next bullet on my timeline is June 17th. During that time, our planning team and the team at Fairweather Science were compiling our risk assessment. This document is made up of two primary components, the risk assessment and the mitigation action plan. And the risk assessment, which I'll speak to in just a moment, is really the meat of this document.

It's over 300 pages long and details not only our history with natural hazards, cybersecurity threats, and all these things, but really details all the science that's available and went into this kind of, forecasting. Excuse me. On June 30th, we did have our second public meeting where we reviewed the risk assessment with the public. We got a lot of really good feedback, not only from the public, but from other agencies, both our partners from FEMA, from the state, And that feedback in the risk assessment has been rolled into the draft plan that is before you tonight.

We are asking the assembly tonight to, to consider forwarding this plan to the full assembly for adoption on July 28th. Assuming that would happen, that would kick off a process, a state approval process, where the plan would be forwarded to, um, the State of Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, where they would review the plan and forward it to FEMA. Again, this is a very, very accelerated timeline. Typically, these projects take around 18 months. And we have moved through this very quickly.

To care for any concerns that might come up and risk approval status with the state and FEMA, we have incorporated them into our planning team. Have been working with the state mitigation— hazard mitigation office, as well as the FEMA team throughout the entirety of this.

So earlier I mentioned that there's two— slide, please— primary documents or primary pieces of this document. We have the risk assessment and the mitigation action plan. So some of the hazards covered in the risk assessment, we have— these is actually a complete list. We have earthquakes, severe weather, wildland, urban fire, landslide, tsunamis and tsuchis, flood, shoreline and bank destabilization, which is formally referred to as erosion, changes in the cryosphere, glaciers and avalanche, volcano hazards, high-hazard potential dam failures, hazardous materials, and cybersecurity. Those last three are new requirements from FEMA that were not were not part of previous plans, were not required to be part of previous plans.

The second phase of this, of this document is the mitigation action plan. This is the part of the plan where we assign projects that could potentially mitigate the hazards identified in the plan. The project ideas that came forward as part of this effort were sourced from previous plans. They were sourced from a survey that's been open to the public since late January. They were sourced from our agency partners and from known best practices suggested by FEMA and our contracting team at Fairweather Science.

We, I think we initially started with a little bit over 200 projects. Some of those were duplicates, so we kind of narrowed that down to 187. Of that 187, The planning team selected 104 projects for inclusion in this draft plan. We are required to select per jurisdiction, we are required to select at least one project per hazard identified in the risk assessment. It's really important to note that inclusion of these projects, excuse me, in the hazard mitigation plan really doesn't obligate the CDJ or Tlingit Haida to implementing these projects.

Or to funding them. This is a way, if opportunities become available, to apply for these grants and show that these projects have been through a public process and have been vetted by our partners at the State Hazard Mitigation Office and FEMA. The list is broad. It includes—. The list of projects includes everything from fire-safe ashtrays downtown to regulating development in known hazard areas, requiring landlords to notify tenants of hazards of homes that they would be renting, simulating earthquakes in schools and doing earthquake drills in schools.

So it is a broad list, and it's important to recognize that we are not obligating ourselves to these projects by including them. The mitigation action plan was— we've been really putting this out in pieces for public comment and agency comment because we are acting on such an accelerated timeline. We want our partners in the public to have the most opportunity possible to comment on this plan. The mitigation action plan was released for the public this past Friday, and already we've received plenty of comments from not only the public, but from funding partners, from agency partners. And so I will just acknowledge that the project list selected for this plan will likely change in the draft, in the final draft that you will see before you at some point.

Slide, please.

After the risk assessment public comment period, we did receive a quite a bit of comments on the inclusion of the Tetra Tech landslide maps. So I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge that our strategy for acknowledging these maps within this plan. So FEMA does require that we use the best and most currently available data. There's really no way around us acknowledging these— that mapping effort or that project in this plan. Regardless of any past, past action by the Assembly.

Our strategy to communicate these hazards without implying any regulatory authority was to take the 2022 maps and overlay them with the 1992 maps and refer to these as areas with known historic landslides or historic landslide risk.

We have been careful to not tie this to any parcel-level risk. We are not saying this area is, is, is more than the other. We're simply saying these areas have been geotechnically mapped, and there is a potential, and we acknowledge the potential for landslide risk in these zones.

As I said before, FEMA and the State Mitigation Office have really been with us every step of the way. Um, and so we have confirmed that this approach with them, uh, is acceptable, assuming that it is, um, paired with a very transparent narrative of decision-making, not only of the Assembly's, um, uh, decision to not adopt these as regulatory map— the Tetra Tech maps as non-regulatory. Um, but how we've included them in this plan, they've indicated that this is acceptable and, and would not risk, um, plan approval or pose any threat down the road.

Slide, please. And so you can see on this next slide how we've indicated this area with areas with historic landslide risk. These two maps are overlaid and again are not tied to any parcel in particular or do not indicate any kind of regulatory Mr. O'Shaughnessy, can I ask you a question here? Please.

First off, very good work on moving this. I mean, I was looking at the document today. I want to say it's like 300— I mean, it's very, very lengthy. So good work on moving it forward. We know it's important for a number of programs and things.

So I hate to focus in on just one slide, but I can't help it. My only comment on this, and I know in the In the draft report, again, I was kind of just skimming around for landslide. You— it is mentioned that some of the other landslides that have happened throughout the borough, the one out North Douglas, I think maybe the one on— anyway, it mentioned other landslides that had happened. I guess my only critique on this slide, or just more of this title, is like, these are just like the areas that we have studied mass wasting risk, but we know risk exists throughout the borough, and we just haven't studied it. So, that's my only kind of critique on the, on just the title.

It was that areas with historic landslides in Juneau, because we, there have, and you do know the report, again, 325 pages, like a lot of work. So, I hate to focus in on that, but that, that was just my, that was my one, that was my comment on this, on this slide and that title. So, thank you. I appreciate the feedback. Um, we do acknowledge in the plan, in the risk assessment, under the landslide hazard analysis that the majority of the borough is unmapped for this particular hazard.

And it is, again, put forward in the mitigation action plan that thorough geological mapping and soil stability mapping of the borough would be a beneficial mitigation project. I do appreciate— I appreciate the feedback on the title, and I think it's a good opportunity to stress that We are doing this again in a very accelerated manner, and we are asking this assembly to recommend forwarding a draft. And I know that's unusual. We are trying to move on an accelerated timeline. So I do appreciate the feedback, and it's timely because we can still incorporate that into this document.

So I appreciate it. Okay, very good. Thank you.

Slide, please.

So next steps are really what the adoption and approval process look like. Typically, again, I keep harping on we're on an accelerated timeline. Typically, these plans before municipal adoption would be forwarded to the state and to FEMA for approval, and then we would bring it back to you and say, this plan has been approved by our partner agencies. Would you please consider adoption. We're doing things a little bit out of order, and we're asking for some trust from this body that the feedback that we've received from— we will receive from FEMA and from the state as part of the approval process will be in the best interest of the community.

If this body were to adopt the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan on July 28th, and Tlingit Haida were to take an independent but similar action to adopt the plan, we would submit this to the State Hazard Mitigation Office and to FEMA for final review. And we would hope that they would be able to turn that around by that October deadline to apply for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. That can take quite a while. There are quite a bit of staff shortages at FEMA right now. But we're optimistic that, that our partner agencies can meet that timeline.

Once again, this is— these plans do exist on a 5-year lifecycle approval cycle. So we will be bringing an update back to this body in 2029 to 2020— excuse me, 2030.

One strategy that we have in place for this in order to not get into a position where we're at now, where our has lapsed is to work with our partners to do a formal annual review of this process, which we believe should really expedite the update process every 5 years.

So there's a link in your packet where you can— slide, please— you can check out the— there's a story map that's associated with this project, as well as the draft hazard multi-jurisdictional hazard plan. We do currently have public comment open on this. It's open through July 25th, and comments can be sent either to myself or to [email protected]. So that's what I have, and I'll take any questions. Thank you, Mr. O'Shaughnessy.

Questions on the hazard mitigation plan? Mr. Kelly. Mr. Mayor Weldon. Thank you. You mentioned that you're going to be doing this a little bit out of order that normally you would seek input from our partners and then come to us for approval.

So if my question is, if they find something that needs to be changed or revision, does it come back before us for, for reapproval, those changes? Thank you. I think that it would depend on the scale of the change because we've been partnering with the state as well as FEMA every step of the way through this project. We're pretty confident that we're not going to see any large changes come back. They've—.

Both agencies have been very, very active in part of agency comment and public comment. So we are asking for some trust.

We got further questions on this topic. Um, we do have a recommendation, obviously trying to move this thing quickly. Um, Madam Mayor, a motion— oh, Miss Wall, pardon me. No worries, I got in there at the last minute. This, this is actually a question for our manager.

Um, I had this conversation with her, um, early on, but wanted to, um, cue the body into it. Um, you know, I, I was a bit kind of frustrated when I saw, you know, the headline about that said, um, you know, that we were removing maps due to public opinion, essentially is how I read the headline. And the manager helped, you know, helpfully reminded me that the Assembly had set some policy direction that informed the decision to to remove those maps. So maybe, um, Manager Kester, you can just remind us what we did and how you interpreted that when that decision was made.

Thank you for that question and that opportunity. Um, the, uh, in, it was in 2022 when the Assembly decided to not adopt these maps, and there was a lot of debate around it. There was 2 specific things that guided kind of how the planning team— how the planning team approached the inclusion of, or rather, not including the detailed Tetro Tech maps. And one of those was that the Assembly specifically had the maps adopted a sentence that the maps had not been formally adopted by the Assembly that are published on the map. So the conversation at the time was that they wanted to make sure that information was available, but wanted to point out that those were not adopted by the Assembly.

And the statement goes on to talk about how it's not site-specific information. And I think there was a lot of discussion at the time, and it was reflected in the comments that the Emergency Program Manager made that like, well, you can't make, you can't make determinations on my property. Then this map looks like you could say my property, you know, is at the bottom of a red zone that's high hazard, or my particular property, because this is true, has a high hazard zone, you know, right in my yard. How do they know that? They don't have any site-specific data.

They didn't do soil sampling. They didn't come to my property, and so the Assembly really wanted to acknowledge at the time that it shouldn't be used for that type of site-specific analysis. I do want to mention, just as a bit of a disclaimer, the Assembly also made a motion at the time to publish a statement about hazards in general on property tax bills. That did not happen. So that's my, coming clean to you on that.

When I was reviewing the minutes from this, I realized that we have not been publishing, publishing that statement. So now I've admitted my sin, and I can ask if there are any questions about that, that debate that happened in 2022 and kind of why the planning team took that approach to the mitigation plan.

Want to go back? Should we go back in time? Ms. Euskandi.

Further questions on that? Ms. Euskandi, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually do have one question. Thank you, that was great. All good materials.

Why are— is there like a move away, nobody says erosion anymore? More, or is that a science thing, a FEMA thing? And now FEMA's gone, so it's a Corps of Engineers thing. Okay, uh, that's, uh, Laura Young, our, our—. Laura, Miss Young, I totally forgot you were there, and it was so startling, and I was like, well, they know.

I'm sorry for jumping in. Always watching me. Uh, okay. So it's just a term they don't use anymore, or it's more accurate to say bank stabilization, perhaps. It's going to be, it's going to be hard to change.

We've called it erosion for a really long time, but recently one of the representatives at the core just provided some guidance in changing and moving towards bank destabilization. Instead of erosion to help support project funding. So that's, that's what we do. Let's destabilize some banks. Any further questions?

Mayor Weldon, maybe. Anyway, go ahead. I move Resolution 4— 4022 to the full assembly and ask for unanimous consent. Any objection to that motion? Ms. Wall?

I will object for an amendment, um, which I am not sure how popular will be, but feel like I have to bring it up. Um, I might— my amendment would be to, um, add back, um, the more detailed landslide maps into this hazard mitigation plan, and if I could speak to my motion.

Go ahead. Um, you know, I, I don't think it's our business in getting into the details of what's in and out of a plan, but because it was removed for policy— because of policy direction, I do feel like this is a policy that I want it, you know, that we can weigh in again on if we would like to. Um, I feel like when we made the decision back in 2022, I, I felt strongly and I feel strongly now that we, we shouldn't be regulating where people develop based on these maps. However, I felt like when we said we're not going to regulate, um, where people live based on these maps, then we should do everything that we can to inform people about what the risks are to choosing to live in these areas. We have detailed maps of the flood zones in these, um, in this plan, um, that affects people's property values and their ability to buy houses as well.

And so, um, I know if we move to put this back into this version, we will get significant, um, feedback from the public when this goes to a vote. So I don't do it lightly, but I just can't kind of sit with, with being on this body and not feeling like I tried to make a case that informing people about the risk is more important than, you know, considering these folks' ability to sell their houses. I think there are good arguments on either side, but I come down on the wanting to help the public understand the real risks to living in landslide zones. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Wallen. I'm sorry for having any tone on my response there. I appreciate your amendment. Um, let's see, is there objection to the amendment? Mr. Bryson.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Uh, I'm going to object. I like the direction that we went in '22. We could beat this topic up again. We got a new assembly so we could talk it over.

Um, anybody that is having to develop in this area will have to do their due diligence. Adding this doesn't change any of that. Uh, could potentially prevent, uh, housing from being built, and it could definitely increase the cost when The direction we went in '22 was put the responsibility on the owner of the property. It's their responsibility. They want to develop it.

They have to be aware of the hazards that they could be facing. And that's what helped us, or that was what helped me decide in '22. And I still think that's the correct course of action. If you're going to want to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into developing in an area that could have a potential landslide. You don't get to that level without doing some level of due diligence.

And I thought we removed this to reduce bureaucracy on it. So I'm going to have to maintain an objection against that amendment. Thank you. Mr. Bryson, I also maybe failed to mention, Ms. Hendricks, were you aware that Mr. Steininger had to drop off? So he had fell off at the beginning of this, at the beginning of this topic.

I'm sorry, I should have let you know that. Mayor Wilner. Thank you. I object also. I appreciate Ms. Wall's concern, but we took several meetings and took a lot of public testimony to make that policy.

So trying to just change it in one evening without any public in the room, which she can't see, I get it. Um, I don't think that's wise. Um, also, if you recall what mollified me a little bit in this topic is Ms. Lawhorn said that if you build on a slope, you have to get special permission or do a special plan anyway to build on a slope. So if you go to get a building permit, you'll know you're on a slope and you're at danger. So, um, I appreciate her amendment and, um, I will scold staff that we didn't get that message out as we had planned to do it.

We'll do better again, but I object. Thank you, Mayor. Well then, I'll object for the purpose of a question. We— these maps are— we actually do— most current maps and the other versions are posted on like the city website as like a— I mean, they are, they are out there in the public. They just have a disclaimer statement on them.

Is that correct? You are correct. And that was kind of the angle we, I think we went with, is that we're putting the information out, but we're with disclaimers and subtleties, just 'cause we were concerned about how they would be used. And obviously then, and then remove the prohibitions on development. Hmm.

I know I'm still thinking about what I wanna say. Um, oh yeah, I'll let Ms. Atkinson talk first. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, just to— for two very quick clarifying questions.

One, to restate, we will not be regulating, uh, like development based on this mitigation plan, is that correct? That is correct. This is not a regulatory document. Thank you. Um, and then my other question was, um, if FEMA, for instance, had a problem with certifying it because it's not the most up to date, or somewhere down the line not having the Tetro Tech maps in there caused a problem, the resolution, as I read it, would allow staff to make that change if need be to get the mitigation plan approved.

Is that— am I reading that correctly? That's correct. This, this is a draft plan, again, because of this accelerated timeline timeline. We are asking this body to forward the draft plan to be considered. So if during this comment period we do get that feedback from our agency partners, we would make those changes as we do not want to risk approval by FEMA or the state.

Thank you. I'll remove my objection. Ms. Huscandiz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Based on— I would vote in support of this amendment, and I'll just say really briefly, To me, it's a really clear difference. You know, déjà vu, we all lived it, we all landed where we landed. But to me, there's a big difference between regulating and regulating development specifically versus including the most accurate and most up-to-date data that you have in a hazard mitigation plan, which is indeed the guidance that they give you. And because it is a non-native binding reg— it's a non-regulatory document. I think let's put them in there.

It's just more data. So I'll support that, and I thank Ms. Wall for the amendment.

Very well then. So I appreciate they're focusing on the development side, but as you recall, the public comment was more on lack of getting insurance. So it's not just development, it was also endangering their ability to get insurance.

Ms. Hall and— oh, I'm going to let Ms. Hall go first because she hasn't spoken yet, and then I'll give Ms. Wall and Ms. Scandies another swing.

Thank you, Chairman. I also object to the amendment. I had quite an extensive conversation with Mr. O'Shaughnessy, and knowing that this is not a regulatory document, and that time is of the essence. I think this is a conversation that if we want to go back and revisit that, that we can do it at a separate time. But I would, I would say, you know, the, the plans are overlaid over the 1992 one, and so they are in, in the document.

But, um, you know, I, I think that should suffice and and, um, in order to keep things moving along.

Um, Miss— let me get to Mr. Kelly, and then I'll go to people to speak again. Thank you. Um, I, I was, um, feeling inclined to support this motion and still might, um, but, uh, the mayor's comments did, uh, raise a question for me. Um, it would, um To staff's knowledge, would the inclusion— would Ms. Mould's amendment potentially affect insurance for homes along— homes in the affected area? Manager Kester.

Thank you for that question. You know, it was really difficult when we were debating this for us to understand as staff what an insurance— you know, if— if people had true challenges getting insurance or not. I will say that we didn't— we were not successful in getting any, like, clear guidance from insurance companies. We certainly heard that concern from homeowners. I can say I'm in a high-hazard zone and I still have insurance.

And I know of only one, uh, person who's been able to get landslide insurance, and he unfortunately had to drop off the meeting. But Mr. Steininger does, uh, does actually have landslide insurance, which until I met I didn't know that existed. So it's a really difficult question to answer because there's so many particular variables and we just weren't able to, you know, nail that one down. It's definitely a concern that many homeowners expressed at the time and continue to express. Ms. Young has her hand up.

So just going to pop over you for anything. I called my insurance company because I I had a house fire and I experienced going through that process, but I've not dealt with living in a hazard area like a landslide or avalanche hazard area. And so this was his answer to me. He said, if you had cash and you were going to buy the home, I would insure it. If you were going to finance it, the mortgage company is going to look at it.

And if it's in a hazard area, then they're going to require hazard insurance. And his information was Lloyd's of London was really the only resource that he knew of to insure for anything outside of flood zones.

Okay, Ms. Wall.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Um, I did want to just take a moment to say, like, I, I, um, I am not asking anyone to make a big policy decision tonight. I just, when I saw this come up, what I didn't want to do was to get to our deadline of when we have to pass this to protect people's homes and have a document that I felt uncomfortable with without having had this discussion. And so my amendment tonight is to basically ask you all whether you want to open up this question again. Many of us have been through this.

We know how we feel about it. Some of our new members may need to, you know, do some research and spend time with it if they want to consider it. But if we didn't talk about it tonight, we're not going to get a chance until we get to those two adoption.

Yep, and we will have another opportunity to hear from the public on this. If we do move forward with, with the amendment. So I think the question is, do you want to open it up or not? I feel like I, I can't not put the best available information out there into our hazard mitigation plan, which is precisely to, to do that very thing. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Wallin. As I said before, no idea ever truly dies. Missy Scandies, did you have another comment? Mr. Chair and Mr. Witticism, you had no idea what?

Oh, that no idea ever truly dies. Oh, no idea truly dies. Truly, that is the theme tonight. I was just going to add briefly that because someone brought up insurance. Yes, I mean, one, as you go on, you get longer in the tooth and you get more information that maybe changes your mind.

But also, to me, it is so important that what is the assembly doing? Are you getting public information, public testimony, and people are saying, I can't get insurance, I won't ever be able to sell my biggest asset I'm ever going to own, please don't regulate this, or, you know, please don't do that, then that might sway you a certain way. But to me, the public body, a city that is building something that is a hazard Mitigation plan, public testimony could come and say all those same things, and it's not that they would fall on unsympathetic ears, but my responsibility would be to make the best plan to mitigate hazards. So they're just night and day, and it doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. Um, if, since we're just adding personal data facts, I looked at a house on Basin Road, and it was in the slide zone.

And the only thing that changed was I had to provide more of a down payment to use the financing, and I didn't. But, and I would have had to, you know, do a couple of other things, but it didn't mean I couldn't buy it. So yeah, I just, I think it comes down to like, what is this document for? And this document is for mitigating hazards. And so for that, I gotta say, we gotta go with the best science.

And you guys may not feel that way, but that's why it doesn't matter to me about the insurance. Mr. Kelly. Thank you. I think what I have in mind at the moment is the disaster down in Texas. And I've heard, and I think I will need to verify this for making a final decision when we vote on this on the 28th.

But I think, I believe I heard in media accounts that the FEMA flood mitigation zone had been amended at the request of people in the area and that people were unaware of a flood of the dangers that were, that ended up being very catastrophic. And I would very much regret being, I would very much regret contributing to such a situation here. So at the moment, I think I am going to vote in support of this motion. And, um, it— yeah, I think I'll leave it there for now.

Very good. Um, everyone had a chance to speak, so I'll speak. I'm kind of torn about it. I hear the point completely about having the best possible information. I would definitely want like the disclaimer on there, and I don't know if that would pass muster.

Um, but I'm not convinced enough at this moment and don't fully understand the impacts of adding it to say, yes, I'll add it now. We can see what happens at the 28th, but as of now, I'll be a no, and I'd like to have some further conversations about what the impacts might be, but I'm not, I'm not ready to— I don't have a good enough sense of that at this moment. So with that, we have a motion and objection. Hendricks, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Deputy Mayor Smith.

For the motion—. For the amendment to the motion to add back more detailed lands guide maps, Ms. Wall.

Yes.

Mr. Bryson.

No.

Mr. Kelly? Yes.

Madam Mayor? No.

Miss Hughes-Candies? Yes.

Miss Hall? No.

Miss Adkisson? No.

Mr. Chair, the motion fails. Oh, oh, I'm so sorry.

Uh, yeah, uh, no, thank you.

So sorry.

Mr. Deputy Mayor Smith, the motion fails with 3 yays and 5 nays. Thank you, Miss Hendrix. Okay, um, and now we're back to main motion. Is there objection to that? Mr. Kelly?

Thank you. I, I was thinking of offering another amendment, but I don't think I will. Um, I think what I see in Section 2 is that we are putting a lot of trust in staff to make changes after we've approved something. I don't normally feel comfortable offering a blank check. I think considering the circumstances, I would be okay in this situation.

However, I, instead of making an amendment, I would simply request that if changes are made, that it is brought back before us and we are at least able to review what we are approving. Thank you.

Staff, any feedback to that desire? Uh, Deputy Mayor Smith and Assemblymember Kelly, I interpret that to mean we need to report back to the assembly on any changes that are made, but that the document doesn't need another layer of approval.

That is very well stated. Thank you, Madam Manager. Okay, sounds good. I do want to flag for the assembly, um, that would pose a risk of our timeline, not a risk, that could pose a delay to our timeline in getting that approval process started with the state and FEMA.

So, Madam Chair. I think what Assemblymember Kelly is saying is just that we just need to write a memo that says this is what we changed in the final version, which we can do.

Maybe not. Yeah, moving the plan is priority number one. Getting back to us after that. Okay, um, I believe we are good on that topic. Now on toward—.

Sorry. Oh, we— oh, oh, I forgot we hadn't moved it. Um, okay, so we have now a motion to send the resolution to the assembly. Is there any objection to that motion? Seeing none, that motion is adopted.

Now we can move on to the next topic if we're good there. Excellent. Manager Kester. Thank you. Improvements to meetings.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. This is my favorite topic. Which would be impossible for this one. I will just say, wouldn't even be possible.

So I will briefly summarize my memo. But basically, this is— this started as, hey, what if we met a little bit earlier? And I've talked with you all about that and tried to kind of collate your different opinions. And the opinions vary. But I will say that every one of you has expressed an overwhelming desire to be collaborative and, you know, kind of do what works best for the body.

I do want to note that K2 has committed to broadcasting our meetings no matter when they are, um, our regular assembly meetings, no matter when they are aired. 6 PM is best for them because it's better for it to be a little bit early and allow listeners to listen to the news. So I incorrectly stated that they no longer broadcast it. I wanted to clarify that. Um, so I have a couple of options for meeting times here.

You know, the general feedback was people were okay with more lunchtime meetings, okay with earlier meetings. People were very cognizant of the fact that we have a working assembly and how challenging it is for members to make it here for a 5 PM start time and/or a lunch meeting. I heard feedback from people that was like, hey, I can do a 5 PM or I can do a lunch meeting, but you're, you know, all of that at once begins to be a little bit difficult. There was also a real preference for like consolidating our meetings so that you guys get breaks, right? Like you didn't want to just have like drips and drabs of meetings all, all month long.

So I present 3 different options: the status quo, a small change that just basically bumps HRC to 5 and assembly at 6, and then a broader change that would put all meetings at a 5:30 start time and would require having new meetings for our committees. So noon for land, housing, economic development, and HRC. I'm just going to keep going and then Deputy Mayor, maybe you can collect or in an organized fashion, collect feedback. The other thing that we would love to just get your chime in on is timing of executive sessions. We've done a couple of different approaches recently.

We tried to schedule a meeting where all of the things that like the that the public would be really concerned about happened before we adjourned for an executive meeting, but wasn't at the end of the meeting. It's really hard to ask you to make really impactful decisions at, you know, 10 or 11 o'clock at night. We tried last week doing it before a regular meeting to inconvenience the public less, but have a hard stop date— stop time. That, of course, makes it difficult if you're struggling with decisions. I do want to note on that topic Getting your feedback just allows us to advise chairs and provide recommendations.

The chair, of course, has the discretion of when they want to time that executive session. And then the third and probably most important topic is location of meetings. The sound quality in this room is abysmal. And, and I do think that it's getting to the point where we're disenfranchising our public.

I don't— I think it would be difficult to make this topic all about like when we are going to move, if we're going to move. But I have a proposal in here where we would have regular assembly meetings offsite, and I have reserved Centennial Hall for the 28th meeting. We had a meeting there when this room flooded and it worked really well. We would bring snacks, etc. I know there's a lot of desire by members to just like, let's find some money and just fix the system.

We don't know how long we're going to be in this building. So getting some feedback on that would also be really useful. And again, that might be the most important because if you guys are all like, we don't care, find the money. But we're willing to meet offsite until that project is done because You know, issuing, writing an RFP, issuing an RFP, finding a contractor and doing that project is going to take months. For potentially for, you know, the next, let's say we're in this building for another year.

Again, I can't, I have no crystal ball on that, but that would be at a minimum a year. There is no scenario where we are not in this building for at least another year. So my recommendation is to, to give me some direction on making a change to meeting times, which would require me bringing back assembly rules and procedures, and also provide input on the schedule of executive sessions and either the relocation of regular assembly meetings or, you know, that kind of sound quality question.

Thank you, Madam Manager. Um, my—. If people have questions, we can ask them if you're To me, they seem like the options and things for consideration are pretty well presented. I was thinking maybe just maybe going down the line to talk about how people feel. Let's start with maybe the— let's start with the timing of the meetings and the meeting start times and things.

And you can also add, you know, do you like executive session before, you know, anyway, add that piece in knowing that sometimes this may not be able to happen. Anyway, Mr. Bryson, you want to go? I was volunteering to start you off, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Please do. All right, uh, I like option 2, trying to get our— I'm getting tired now— so getting our, our meeting times down to like on the Monday night so that we're not here as late.

Not a bad idea at all. I'm a little hesitant to ask for more lunch meetings because I knew the impact that they had on my life and what those Mondays look for me. I'm not opposed to it, but I thought if we started with a smaller change, see if that makes improvements, and then if, hey, we could go this direction, make more improvements. The hard stop, having the executive session right at the beginning and said, okay, this is your topic, you've got to hear the information and make a decision, that's your hard stop, that was probably the most effective executive session that I've participated in as an assembly member. So I like that, like, you got to get here and do this work, and we're doing it early so that you can be— everybody's on point.

And, um, those two minor adjustments I, I think would make a, a significant improvement. My hesitancy about the lunchtime removing me or my schedule, the— for this to be a working assembly those lunchtimes just become that much more difficult to be, to have a full-time job and to be an assembly member. So I don't know that I would lean on that unless we really had a good reason to go into more lunch. Thank you for the time, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Mr. Bryson.

Ms. Yuskandis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will start with timing of executive sessions. I didn't get to participate in the one that you guys did the other day, but I I love that idea.

I think if it's a topic that seems like it could be done in that everybody's fresh, you have a stop time, it's a good idea. So doing it at the start, I love that. Um, for the options, I think I would echo Mr. Bryson. Lunch meetings are hard, and not only would adding more of them, I think, be harder for a working assembly. But the other piece of it is, uh, I'm chairing Public Works and Facilities Committee right now.

You know, I have to work with the director pretty closely to— it's hard if, if there's a ton of transfers and there's a, a ton of city business to be done, then that kind of— I think the danger is that we put something through that committee and the committee doesn't they don't really have time to talk about it. And then they have this feeling of like, oh, we got to get all these topics done, you know, so we can get back to work. So I wouldn't want the other meetings to suffer even though— I will say that most of, you know, when I served on HRC before, I can imagine HRC as a noon meeting. So there's a million variations beyond this 1, 2, 3, I appreciate the manager starting us with these. But, you know, if I had to choose from what this is, a menu, I also prefer option 2, just to do a small tweak, see, you know, that helps the people who get sleepy.

And that doesn't stop us from tweaking it more.

You know, and maybe people do feel like they could do that as a noon meeting. For HRC. I don't know. And if they don't, then I like option 2 even better.

I, I'll not say that. I will say that this sounds important. I think we already paid someone $60,000, or we paid a contractor or something and had them in and they ripped out the system and this is what we have. So I'm a little skeptical of investing until we get like a money-back guarantee, or it's like, you know, a golden ticket and we offer everyone in the land a chance to tear up our sound system to, you know, I don't know what's gonna fix it. So I agree moving offsite is a good idea.

And then I would just wanna look long-term at something that's cost, you know, maybe using the high school or something that we own.

If this is gonna be $1,000 every time, I would wanna look into that a little bit more. Like, are we exempting ourselves from that? Are we using something that doesn't cost something? That's all, because that was in the memo. Very good, thank you.

Mr. Bryson, I did give you, I did kind of just say, oh, let's just do timing of the meetings. Did you have a perspective on location of the meetings? We can just, I was gonna go back down, but maybe it's just more, it's okay, maybe just more efficient. I'm very comfortable in this seat, but I'll meet where we can hear the, testimony people clear. Um, we're more comfortable in this room, but if we had good sound quality, uh, I think, uh, Manager Kester is correct.

We could be disenfranchising, uh, some citizens that come here to meetings that can't hear anything that we said. Um, so, uh, I would go with manager's direction to get us, uh, good sound quality. Thank you. Very good. Thank you.

Ms. Adkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I feel much the same as Ms. Suski and Mr. Bryson. If, I mean, I also find the status quo, but I recognize that's probably where not people are at.

So I would say wait, option 2, and I would also stress that I think that it's good to have the ability for an assembly member to not have to go to any noon meetings. If in the future there's someone who works a job that genuinely cannot make a noon meeting, which I don't think I don't think we have anyone here now, but that could feasibly happen. There's a way for them to be on committees and not have to be at a noon meeting. So I would be pretty hesitant to move anything else to noon meeting. I think the executive session we had last time was excellent.

When we can do that at the start, I think that's great. But I also think we should be careful not to shoehorn pretty meaty executive session topics into a before assembly meeting. Executive session because there, I think there will just be some times where we have to take a long time at it and that might mean we either do another meeting or we end up being tired and do it at the end. But when we can, I liked the before executive session. That was really nice.

In terms of location of meetings, I am also fine with doing Centennial Hall because I agree, I want people to, not only for us to be able to hear people, but for people to be able to hear us. And I know it must be very frustrating frustrating for people to come for a topic they very much care about and pack those seats and just not be able to hear us. If Zoom is more effective than being in person, I, I find that troubling. But I think if we're in a situation where we're like, we're going to be in here for another 2 or 3 years, we're going to have to look at another option.

Thank you, Miss Adkinson. And sorry, I skipped Miss Wall as I'm going down the line. So, Miss Wall. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Um, I'm with everybody so far. Option 2 is my favorite, um, um, for all the reasons others spoke about. Um, timing of executive sessions, I think, um, uh, you know, I'm, I'm doing it before was great. I, I think kind of there's a read the room element here with looking at agendas and schedules and kind of strategically picking when we to do it. I know, um, the mayor and staff are good at that, um, and committee chairs and such, just trying to figure out where to work it in in a way that doesn't exhaust us.

So I'm down to change our current— our status quo of always doing it at the end after a late meeting, but with an earlier start time, maybe, you know, maybe we, we do, um, have more energy to, to do those afterwards. Um, and location of the meetings. I'm definitely up to finding alternative locations. I've— Centennial Hall, maybe there, maybe there's a place we stay. Maybe we bounce around and check out different parts of town, and there's pros and cons of that probably.

But, um, but I do think that this isn't tenable, what people not being able to hear. And the one thing I'll add is, um, We may, if we figure out something that works, um, I would suggest us talking to the other body that is most impacted by public not being able to hear, which is the Planning Commission. Um, I think they've been dealing with similar things, and if we figure out— I know that adds to cost, but if, if staff there in that body, um, would benefit, um, I think that would be worth it. I don't think we open it up to all of our meetings. But they in particular, you know, are built around getting— having members of the public come, come and speak and be able to be heard.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Wall. Ms. Hall. Yeah, I'm option 2, small change. Leave the executive sessions up to staff. If it's like Ella said, a meaty session, maybe have that at the end.

Yes to tightening up the agendas and, and definitely yes for the location of the meeting someplace where people can hear. And I'm tossing Thunder Mountain Auditorium out there as an alternative to, and maybe going back and forth between Thunder Mountain Auditorium between downtown and the valley. Just a thought.

Mr. Kelly, thank you. I think it might be the sole outlier here. My vote is, I guess, Option 2 would be my fallback. I don't feel very strongly about Option 3, but it would be a modified Option 3. I—.

The whole reason that I kind of wanted to split things apart was partially not only the late meetings, but also the very condensed schedule that we have on days like today, there's 3 meetings I need to study for over a weekend. And sometimes there's pretty meaty topics in one or both of, one or multiple of the committees that I'm studying for. And so I was hoping for maybe a little bit more time to study for them. Option 3 doesn't quite work for that because if we have a Cal meeting on Monday, then meeting the next day on Tuesday, that's not going to give me extra time to study for the meeting. And so I was thinking sometime later in the week, like perhaps Wednesday, but seeing that there isn't a version for lunchtime meetings, which I, being somebody who works as well, I understand.

I understand that aversion, and option 2 is a close second for me. When it comes to timing of executive sessions, I think Mr. Bryson said it right. Yeah, it was— I thought it was very efficient that we went there, got business done, and we're ready to start our next meeting. It was good having kind of a fixed time to add things. I also agree with Miss Atkinson that if something is particularly meaty, then maybe scheduling an executive session on an odd assembly day would be preferable for me.

I think either way, it's my preference to not do this at the end of the meeting because I— sometimes they are pretty big decisions and I would prefer being able to, to think with a clear head when I'm making those decisions. As far as the location of meetings, I am flexible. I thought things went well when we did it at Centennial Hall, but I also am a former member of the school board. I think it'd be completely reasonable to, to host meetings in our high schools, provided it's not at disruption, um, to the high school. So, um, I, I'd be open to working with them, um, if, if that's a solution that would work for them.

So, um, that's all I have to offer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Madam Mayor, uh, thank you. I'll be short.

Option 2 sounds good to me. Um, as far as timing of executive sessions, a lot of that just is with what's the executive session and what's our agenda. I had no problem with me doing it early before AFC, but we either move our assembly time if we go with option 2 to 6:30 to start an assembly meeting if you want to do it ahead of that because you can't run into HRC. But like I said, I think the chairs can do that fine. Location of meetings, I don't express frustration very often with staff, But I'll have to express it this one time.

I've been asking for over a year to have do something about our sound system. So I am in full favor of spending money to fix the sound system. And, um, in the meantime, if we need to meet somewhere else, that is fine with me. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, I'll— I can be quick too, I think.

Uh, also good for option 2. Executive session timing was Yeah, that is beginning, but obviously a lot to consider. Um, sorry, Manager Kester, have we gotten a design or an estimate of the cost of the sound system? I couldn't hear your response. Yes, we have an estimate that it's $60,000 to design a new system.

We also have experience trying to improve the sound and failing, mainly because of the shape of this room. Okay, very good. Uh, yeah. Um, so kind of a follow-up to what you're talking about, about needing to go out and get an RFP that'd be, um, more than a year. Um, if we do end up getting, um, making progress on, um, negotiations with the Burns Building, um, what happens to those RFPs?

Um, at that point. Yeah, so I just want to clarify that I, I don't think a new sound system would take a whole year. I do think that we will, we will be in this building for a minimum, uh, another year. So, um, under that scenario, we would, we would proceed with the project even if we were successful in negotiations with the Burns Building and had a timeline for moving in. But, but I would need that direction.

Because right now I think Mayor Weldon has, uh, been the most vociferous in, uh, moving forward with designing, uh, a new, uh, new system. I'll, I'll also say that when Miss— that someone brought up the Planning Commission, it, it's like there are other groups that meet here that also do suffer. I mean, the Planning Commission probably anyway, anyway, a, a very important one we need to consider.

Hopefully we can get City Hall, but I'm actually interested in looking at what it would cost to do the sound system as well. I don't—. Are there—. Are there— can I— I don't know if people want to show hands or say if people are interested in looking at that or not. To be clear, it will cost $60,000.

It will cost $60,000. And I will find $60,000 and start working on it if you give me that direction. Okay, I'm open to it because, you know, we don't know how long it's going to take. And then in the meantime, I'm fine with alternative areas that where people can listen. I mean, I don't want to, I don't want to bounce around too much because I think people would get— I do worry about people getting confused and not being sure, and oh, I have to check where the meeting is all the time, and as opposed to just being like, it's here and this is this spot.

I— anyway. I bet people could figure it out, but I'm sure it could lead to some confusion and stuff. Okay, Manager Kestner, do you need there? Thank you so much. I think that was the direction that we needed to move forward.

I just want to mention one other thing that I will be experimenting with on July 28th, and that is a plain English summary of your ordinances. So feel free to grade me on that after the meeting, and we'll see how that goes. We look forward to it. Okay, seeing—. I mean, Mr.

Chair, can I—. Ms. Yurskandis. Just one other comment on this overall topic. Excited to be experimenting moving forward. Glad we're talking about this.

I personally have talked with Manager Custer about a more radical change to our rules of procedure and our meeting structure once she started talking with all of us about this. And it's not, you know, it's— I'm just putting this in all of your heads. So starting— I'm seeding it. That's the first step in socialization, and I'll keep working on it. But I do think it would be interesting to look at what a CBJ would look like if we didn't have HRC, and we didn't have Public Works, and we didn't have LANDS, which made it— you know, what are those What are the things that you truly need a committee for?

What is that committee truly accomplishing? And that's just— you can go home and sit with that and think about the work you've done in committee. I can think of work that I've done that's been really digging into stuff, and I can think of plenty of meetings where I rubber-stamped stuff on its way to the Assembly, and the only place we really dug into it was CAO. And so that's just for you all to think about. And maybe you'll rethink about it further, or maybe I come back and I have data or something.

So that's all. Thank you. Very good. She's planted the seed. We will see if it grows.

Mayor Weldon. Thank you for that nice seed, Ms. Hughes-Candies. I'm not going to talk about that whatsoever, so I'll surprise you there. Just remember, everybody, that if we start earlier, we should add in our rules procedure that we end earlier too, so we go to 10 instead of 11. So just remember that thing also.

Very good. Our next meeting date is August 4th, and seeing nothing before— else before the Committee of the Whole, we are adjourned.