Petersburg Borough: 7.6.2026 Assembly Meeting

It's Monday, July 6th, 2026. I'd like to call the regular Petersburg Borough Assembly meeting to order. And with that, would the clerk please call the roll? Mayor Lynn? Yeah, here.

Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Here. Member Martin? Here. Member Mucci?

Here. Member Newman? Here. Member Schwartz? Excused.

Member Valentine? Excused. So then with that, we have 5 members present. We have 2 on Zoom and 3 on the doss here. And with that, I'll move on to the voluntary Pledge of Allegiance.

I do allegiance to the United States of America.

That I have one set of minutes, the regular assembly meeting minutes of June 15th, '26. Do I have a motion to approve those minutes? So moved. Second. Moved by Member Stan Gregor, seconded by Member Newman.

Any changes?

Hearing none, would the clerk please call the roll on the approval of the minutes? Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Member Martin?

Yes. Member Newman? Member Bucci? Yes. Mayor Lynn?

Yes. With that, approved 5 to 0 on it. I need a motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented. I would move to move forward with the meeting agenda as presented. Second.

Moved by Member Stan Gregor, seconded by Member Newman. Are there any amendments to that agenda?

Hearing none, would the clerk please call the roll on the agenda as it's presented. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor. Yes. Member Martin. Yes.

Member Newman. Yes. Member Meechi. Yes. Mayor Lynn.

Yes. And that's approved 5-0. Moving on here to public hearings tonight, we have several public hearings. First public hearing tonight is on Ordinance 2026-13, an ordinance authorizing the borough to issue electrical utility revenue bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $3 $1,315,000 to finance the Scow Bay Standby Generator Project, and directing that this matter be submitted to the qualified voters for consideration at the next regular election to be held on October 6, 2026. Is there anybody that would like to talk to this ordinance?

Okay.

I don't— is there anybody on Zoom? There's no one. Okay, with that, um, I'll close that. Hang on one moment. I have someone who just raised their hand on Zoom, and their name is iPhone, so I'm going to allow them to talk.

Whoever you are, iPhone.

Hi, Becky, this is Dana Tinas, and I just can hardly figure out this Zoom approach. I want to speak on the next ordinance, not this one. I'm sorry. I'll get off.

Okay, thanks. Thank you. Um, since there's nobody, um, I'll close that hearing on that and ordinance 2026-13. Now move on to ordinance 2026-14A, an ordinance amending Title 19 zoning to the Petersburg Municipal Code to regulate wireless communication facilities and other towers and transmitters. Any public testimony regarding Ordinance 2026-14A should be given during this public hearing.

Copy of Ordinance 2026-14A may be found under agenda item 14B. Is there anybody that would like to talk to Ordinance 2026-14A? Please come forward, state your name and who you represent, and you have 5 minutes. Um, this is Dana Tinas. Can you hear me?

I'm on the phone. I can hear you. Um, go ahead, Dana. All right, yeah, this is Dana Tinas speaking on my own behalf concerning proposed ordinance 14A to regulate wireless communication facilities. I just spent a week down in Prince of Wales Island.

Now there's a place that could really use some better connectivity, but here in Petersburg we've got cell providers stepping on each other. I read the letters that were sent to the borough assembly by the Alaska Wireless Network and Title Network. I couldn't help but notice that there was an open threat from Alaska Wireless Network of litigation against the borough should the assembly dare to pass this ordinance unchanged. Title Network is worried that locals have too much say, that requiring applicants to prove that alternative sites are unsuitable may improperly substitute local preferences for technical design decisions. That rubs me the wrong way when anyone takes against locals who wish to make decisions about their own town.

In the letters, there were references to the law and appeals to follow FCC legal guidelines. However, the FCC itself has ignored a legal court order for years to review and update their health and safety standards in this field. The standards have not been updated since 1996. What does this tell you? Obviously, their concerns are for the advancement of these telecommunications companies, not the health of Americans.

The Telecommunications Act is a very bad law that harms American cities and citizens. Why should we roll over for it? I say let's not worry too much about their requirements until the FCC itself obeys the law. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Is there anybody else that would like to talk to this ordinance? Please come forward, state your name and who you represent.

Good evening, my name is John Murgas. Thank you for giving me a chance to speak. Um, with the sale of the property to Title Network, the city, the borough has set a precedent for future sales to other telecommunications companies for towers. And, um, the, uh, the cost for them to put up a tower here in Petersburg is really low, and there's no incentive to, uh, rent from other existing towers. Um, so I, I have concerns that there'll be other demands for that similar property along Haugan and maybe other areas Right in the city.

And I don't know, I'm not smart enough to come up with any recommended changes to, to make, but I think you should have some type of mechanism, or at least start thinking of a mechanism to limit the number of towers that are coming into the community. Perhaps something like the state limits liquor licenses or pot shops or things like that. That's more based on number of towers per capita than just strictly the zoning situation. And I just think it could be helpful for future quality of life issues. Within the city here.

Um, there, there are so few restrictions that we have on the towers, and the price of property is so low that, uh, it could be a little more attractive than we would like. And just, uh, the community might be a tower farm for all the telecommunications companies. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Is there anybody else that would like to talk to this ordinance? Hi, Micah Klein speaking on behalf of myself. Um, all of these amendments, um, don't really seem to be serving all of the taxpayers and community members and your constituents that have put in a lot of personal time researching and putting input and showing up at Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and these Assembly meetings, I feel like all the amendments have become workarounds for Title Network. Um, and there have been lots of alternative sites within their parameters that have been given. And another thing I noticed, um, uh, in number 6 here with this amendment, I'm not exactly sure what it means, but it says, um, It says eliminates borough's authority to direct changes.

The director will instead provide technical review information to the applicant to design and implement changes. Does that mean cutting out somebody having to follow a process of going to Planning and Zoning like other people do, or how like the process is now?

Um, I'll, I'll bring that up when we get into that issue. I won't answer that right now. OK, thank you. I just was looking for a little bit of clarification, but I just have a I have some concerns as someone that has put a lot of time and energy and thought. I'm a somewhat younger person in this community wanting to raise a big family here and stay here for a long time, and these— this is something that will impact a lot of my family's decisions on, you know, where we live and do business in the community.

And I think that a lot of these amendments serve these companies and that are not serving the community members that have valid concerns and have put forward ideas and recommendations and participated in this process. So, um, I really hope that you guys will rethink this and listen to the people that are here tonight. Um, and some— I don't, I don't like— think these amendments are beneficial to the community. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else that would like to talk to Ordinance 2026-14A?

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

My name is Luke Short. I'm a private citizen. As a preface, I'd like to say that after I finished my Army stint, 1968 to 1970, I returned to Southeast Alaska. I've been here about 56 years. I've raised 4 kids here.

2 Of the 4 still live here, and 4 of my 6 grandchildren are here.

Their health is important to me. Their safety is important to me.

As I understand it, you all were elected, elected to your positions to represent us. To do what is in our best interests to essentially protect us. To that end, I expect that you have basic equipment to determine, for example, the quality of the tap water that is delivered to our homes to ensure it is potable and not harboring pathogens that could destroy our health. May I inquire whether you also possess the tools to measure the amount and intensity of electromagnetic forces transmitted by 5G, soon to be 6G, cell phone towers? And if these readings are made and recorded, whether they reach or exceed the levels that are deemed dangerous or excessive by independent researchers.

Do you have those tools? Not that I know of. If these tests or observations have not been made, if you do not even have the equipment to ascertain these important measurements, then I would have to state that you as a whole are remiss in your duties and obligations. And that a moratorium should be imposed while these important tasks are addressed and facts established. Once such studies are made, measuring intensity at different distances and the results are made public, more meetings would be the correct pathway to follow.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else that would like to talk to Ordinance 2026-14A.

Hello, Tom Kowalski, and I want to follow up with Luke here and also ask for a moratorium on any development in ordinance language and/or tower development. I think, I think this is a pretty deep subject that is going to require even more knowledge than what we all know now. It takes a lot of time to get this under our skin here, to really get to the meat of things, and, and to be able to pinpoint some of the issues, uh, it's going to take time. One of those issues is, um, we need to figure out exactly what the coverage gap is, and we can require, uh, that these telecom companies provided that to us. And there's a, there's an amount of time that that'll take.

And, and if you're questioning our authority to do that, you can check out the Ninth District precedent, and there's, there's precedent there for that. Also, the FCC put some language in the Telecommunications Act that does provide local communities the ability to look into data gaps. And so, and the other thing is that these setback requirements are very important here in Petersburg, and one of those rationales being that there's safety issues, including ice buildup. We had, had a lot of ice this year, and, and that's something that, that needs to be considered with setbacks. And, and also, you know, it's not the borough's responsibility to share the burden of a business's bottom line.

So if there's an alternative site that they might have to build a little road on, Well, they need to share the responsibility of putting in roads or power, just like anybody else here that has property somewhere where there's no road or power. We all have to do that, so we're not treating them any differently than we would anybody else trying to build on a new site. So the sites that are in progress now, the one that is, um, right next to the fire hall also has its issues with the fire hall being the only fire hall we have. There's fire potential. We have dry seasons.

There's subterranean fires that occur, and somebody can start one of those just flicking a cigarette out their window. There's fireworks. We have fireworks all the time. You know, there's, uh, it's right by a highway. Automobiles can, can get out of control and, and hit the tower.

And there's a parking lot right next to where the tower is going to be. And, um, and if you spend any time in the Lower 48, you'd, uh, you'd come across a story or two where somebody put it in drive instead of reverse and ran right into a 7-Eleven or something. That's a possibility. And, um, and not only that, but we have an airport nearby and a lot of small fixed-wing aircraft on occasion, multiple at the same time, will fly, come in, go out, fly around each other. There's already a tower on Mill Road that they have to avoid, and now there might be one by the fire hall and maybe even another one over there by Skylark.

So, you know, these, these towers pose a, a risk, and, um, and risking damage to our fire hall, our only fire hall, is something to be seriously considered. And there are places for that tower right behind the fire hall. Yes, they'll have to build a little road, but that's the cost of doing business here in Petersburg. And, and that is definitely a better situation than risking our fire hall. Not to mention that these particular towers that Tidal Networks putting up has 300 gallons of diesel fuel sitting underneath it.

So, you know, that's an added risk.

And that's pretty much what I want to say about that, except for the setbacks, sensitive areas. I believe that hospitals where patients are hard to move and also living, assisted living facilities, the fire hall, places like that, uh, very important infrastructure should be protected even more than just the average, uh, structure, building, or whatever. So anyway, thank you very much. Thank you for testimony. Is there anybody else that would like to talk to this, this ordinance?

Okay, please come forward, state your name and who you represent.

Hi, Becky Knight here. I request that you do not make concessions to industry that will result in a weak wireless ordinance overly permissive to industry and largely unresponsive to Puro residents' concerns. During the June 15th assembly meeting, several amendments were made to the first reading of the new WCF ordinance. All were approved, most with little to no discussion. The ordinance was reported by KFSK this morning as slightly revised.

However, they are anything but. Repeated testimony has cited numerous communities that have been successful in the right to maintain local control. There's no evidence that this information has ever been considered by this body. Because the public had no opportunity to weigh in on those amendments, please consider 3 of them— please reconsider 3 of them during the second reading as follows. Number 1: On June 1, a public request was made to the assembly to insert language in the proposed ordinance which addressed the topic of oversight.

The rationale was that the borough should retain local control because the FCC has acted in a lawless manner due to its failure to comply with the 2021 court order to review and update its standards. Instead, during the subsequent meeting on June 15th, a first reading amendment was approved for the new ordinance with no discussion, identifying, identifying the FCC as the entity to determine a carrier's compliance with FCC regs, not the borough. Many other communities have been proactive in protecting its citizens in this and other realms, by adopting local control ordinance language. Abdication of local oversight to the FCC is akin to allowing a fox to guard the henhouse. Also, that the FCC will simply rubber stamp compliance on behalf of their billionaire overlords is likely.

Again, and with minimal discussion, an amendment to the proposed ordinance was approved to alter sensitive areas by striking assisted living facilities, children's nursery, and hospitals and adding licensed to child care facilities from that section to make it consistent with earlier ordinance language in the, in the new ordinance version. The earlier section only identified two, two sensitive areas: an existing school or licensed child care facility. In fact, to maintain consistency, the sensitive areas language should include all five sensitive areas throughout the ordinance.

I later learned that the borough staff— from the borough staff— that the earlier language, which identified only two sensitive areas in the sensitive area setback section— schools and licensed child care facilities— was a policy decision. Under what deliberative public status was that policy decided upon? On what basis does one sensitive area upstage the other? Given the overwhelming public concern for the sensitivity of all 5 areas, the exclusion of all 3 of them was arbitrary and has no apparent basis other than in-house decision-making. While I maintain that all residents of Petersburg are sensitive, hospital patients and residents who reside in assisted living facilities are also quite sensitive.

The same for non-commercial children's nursery, where newborn infants and toddlers not enrolled— in a licensed childcare facility reside 24 hours a day and whose parents may lack sufficient funds to cover enrollment in a licensed facility if they can even find one. Deletion of a children's nursery creates two classes of children. Number 3, most importantly, I request that you reconsider the approval to reduce sensitive area setbacks from 1,500 feet to 500 feet. It was an arbitrary decision. First, GCI's claim that the tower closes a significant gap needs to be approved under Ninth Circuit precedent, and I emphasize that.

Second, when asked, the amendment sponsor was unable to provide a rationale for a reduced setback. Another member came to the rescue and mentioned that during a conversation with Brea staff, that additional land to locate a WCF would result in a 500-foot setback. It was also asserted that failure to appease industry with reduced setback distances would cause further assemblies to be in a hard position because an all but certain implementation of the waiver provision would, would result. Isn't the waiver provision intended to be a high bar to navigate, not an automatic get out of jail free easy out to accomplish the initial intention? Regardless, if the goal was to appease the tech industry, it remains unclear if even the 500 feet would be sufficient for industry as indicated in their recent correspondence.

Also, how were multiple nationwide communities enacting far, far more protective setbacks than this ordinance proposes, yet our borough finds it near impossible? Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else that would like to talk to Ordinance 2026-14A? Please come forward, state your name and who you represent.

I'm Judy Ulmer speaking for myself. Seems like we're the, um, the ones that keep coming back, and like since October, um, much has been learned though about the dangers and the drawbacks since the, uh, already existing towers in our town were erected. And just because those towers have been close to the schools and the child care centers assisted living facility doesn't set a precedent for continuing to do the same. Three wrongs don't make a right.

Um, you know, since October that I mentioned, in 2025, in every public meeting, testimony has been about the placement of proposed telecom towers. It's not been about no towers.

The 150-foot or the The 1,500-foot setback required in a lot of other communities is neither a random number nor designed to deny tower construction. You know, it's a safety issue. And in all that time, the intent and the hope has been to work with the assembly. I know we've been here on a regular basis, and I don't even know if you can hear us now because the concerns that we've had have never shown up in the newspaper or on the radio. We've just been kind of that obnoxious group that keeps showing up.

Um, but what we care about is what's best for Petersburg, its people, and the future of this community. I wrote a report that should be in your communications, and I have more that I'll, I'll put in for next, uh, next meeting's agenda. You know, in the go— in the wayback machine, and I've been doing that lately as I look around Petersburg, the town I was raised in, the town I love. And I go back to 1976, 1977, 1978. That's when I was teaching 5th grade to the people who are basically now grandparents themselves, some of which sit on the assembly.

And it's also a time when the, um, they were expanding the road along Wrangle Narrows that's now called North Nordic. There used to be warehouses there. Fishermen lived across the street. The warehouse was on the water side. And so in front of the 5th grade class, I said, stand up, get your coats, and follow me.

And we used to be able to do that. I don't think you can today. You need all the permission slips and everything. And I walked down the lines of the desks like that, and it was almost like the bunny hop that you see in the dances of the '50s or whatever. And we were, we're quiet.

They knew to do that. And we walked out the door and we walked down because I said This is never— this street is never going to look the same again. They're taking down the warehouses. So I want to have you have a chance to really appreciate what we have in Petersburg and the way of life here. When we got back to the, uh, the classroom, they all took another half an hour and wrote about what their experience was.

Then we shared it with each other. So it was a common experience and yet different for everyone. And I'm having that feeling this week about the towers. You drive around and you see— you can see trees and you can see, you know, our homes and you can see them. And you don't have to look at a tower everywhere you go.

But I'm starting to get the sense that after today and the amendments that are going in and things, we are open season for the telecom companies. We are easy pickings and we don't have the land to give to that. They don't want to work with the state. They don't want to work with mental health. They don't want to work with the federal government and the Forest Service and everything else on any other lands.

They want to be right in here on borough land with private property as the easiest deal. And that's what we're seeing here. That property, like across, across on Haugen at the fire hall, my brother was able to buy 2 lots on the other side of the street and is putting duplexes up there, places for 4 families. And yet with the fire hall situation, borough land, we're going to end up with a tower. And it just seems that, um, we have very little private land and very little borough land for housing, and that's a critical issue here.

So it starts touching other parts of life. Um, so I really hope that, um, you consider very much the open season— yeah, I see it— uh, open season on that, because there's future expansion mentioned in the telecom companies' letters here threatening to sue if we don't do— you don't do what they want you to do. Uh, Tidal Network and GCI are not done with us. They've talked about an expanded program, and now here's AT&T involved. So I feel like we're losing our town, and it's bigger than warehouses.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Is there anybody else that would like to talk to ordinance 2026-14A. Is there anybody on Zoom? No, there's no one. Okay.

Hi, my name is David Beebe. I'm speaking for myself. I too would like to see a moratorium on this. To begin with, the first whereas of this ordinance is legalizing a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies often sound convincing, making them particularly deceptive.

Whereas the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 in fact explicitly does not preserve the authority of local governments to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. How do we know this to be a logical fallacy? Because Section 704 Article 2, Paragraph C is appropriately titled Exceptions.

According to this, I quote, Section 704 of the 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. I pause now for the classic catch-22 as a consequence of well-documented FCC regulatory capture. Quote, to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC regulations concerning such emissions. The catch-22 has a solution which involves two simple questions: Does the FCC remain in a perpetual state of regulatory capture? Why, yes.

How do we know? Because the purpose of a system is what it does, not what the first whereas claims it is to be doing. This brings up the logical legal question then, qui bono, Latin, to whose benefit does the exception provide? Well, first, the financial benefit is to all of the elected representatives of the people in Congress, those who rely upon corporate donations to bolster their political campaign war chests in order to maintain their privileged status, to self-enrich by way of insider trading, for example. And second, the far more vast financial benefit of environmental deregulation further inflates the bottom lines of telecom tech bro multibillionaires at the expense of public health and safety.

They understood deregulation provides an exponential increase in profiteering at the consequence of public health, safety, and environmental integrity. Is the FCC non-compliant with a court order to update EMF safety standards? Of course. I now quote AI: In fact, the FCC is operating outside the bounds of lawful administrative procedure. The FCC's failure to comply with the court order creates a situation where its entire regulatory framework, including Section 704, is built on a foundation of non-compliance.

The Act relies on the premise that the FCC is actively and lawfully regulating those emissions to protect public health. Consequently, the legal basis for preempting local control becomes fundamentally compromised. The borough encountered a fork in the road far before the public weighed in. That choice would surrender borough sovereignty by not taking the matter to court. That would be protecting the public trust and best interests of the taxpayer borough residents.

Instead, the borough clearly represents the best interests of the telecom tech bro multi-billionaires bottom line and to join the ranks of their trickle-down proxies. How dare you! Thank you for your testimony. Anybody else like to talk to this ordinance?

My name is Kirsten Dupree, and I'm speaking for myself. Um, one of the things right here, um, Petersburg recognizes the increasing demand of wireless services and the necessity of high-quality telecommunications infrastructure for public safety, education, economic development.

I don't think there's anywhere in the community, in this— the town area where I go, and I don't have service. And I don't know about the rest of you. I think we have service pretty much everywhere. I don't think that's an issue. I'm totally opposed to the fact that the idea is that FCC can say you can't mention health, you can't mention what this is going to do to you, it's going to do to your family, your friends.

We all remember when you could smoke anywhere. You could smoke on the airplane, you could smoke in the restaurant, you could smoke in the bar, you could smoke everywhere. It didn't matter. And then they decided that that wasn't really good and, and cigarettes weren't good for you. And they finally accepted the fact that cigarettes weren't good for you.

And then they decided that secondhand smoke was not good for you either.

Now you can't smoke anywhere except at home, and most people that I know of, because I'm not a smoker, and I've never lived with a smoker. People who smoke smoke outside other people's homes because of the hazards. I look at this as the same way. You're not supposed to mention that radiation is harmful and that it's getting into our children, is getting into old people, but mainly children. This is the worst part, is that kids are going to be affected by this.

And it looks to me like nobody in the borough or you guys even care about the health and well-being of the community because FCC says, no, you can't mention health. And, and that's not right. That should set a precedent. That should be top, that health is most important, not these communication companies We already have coverage. If you go out in the outlying areas, you don't have coverage.

Put your towers out somewhere where they will be useful to people. We don't need them right here in town.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Anybody else would like to talk to Ordinance 2026-14A?

Please come forward, state your name and who you represent. Hello, I'm Nicole McMurrin. Thanks for enduring and keeping on, keeping on with this, folks involved and all from all perspectives here. I've been bopping in and out of this issue since it came around, and I recognize that it's somewhat convoluted, the ordinance along with the title piece and a bit of a spider web, and the lines do cross. So I think, um, I think we notice that in what we're hearing from folks' testimony too, you know, is how this ordinance would directly impact the actions of Title in particular.

Um, there are a couple of things in the proposed ordinance that I find kind of wishy-washy, and I'm curious about how they might actually be interpreted when push does come to shove like it is. One is— I, I could well be wrong in this, I'm not sure— is there actually— is there such a thing as a, um, a qualified radio frequency engineer? Maybe there is. There is. There is.

Great. Um, an item Following it back to 1958.050 Development Standards for WCFs, uh, item K, visual impacts. WCF shall be configured and located in a manner that shall minimize adverse visual impacts on the landscape and adjacent properties, including through use of alternative tower structure or other stealth technologies. You'd have to be a pretty stealth technology to disguise a cell tower. I'm kind of confused as to how that, that particular portion of the ordinance might be interpreted.

I, I think they're kind of ugly pretty much wherever you put them, so I'm not really sure how that might be interpreted.

And the, the, the height, the height restrictions overall, I just, I found confusing, particularly if you're looking at in the public use area conditional use permit. I'm not sure where exactly it falls back to, if that, if it comes back into then commercial and how you address this, but that all seems kind of wonky donkey. And I would agree, I'm curious where the 500 feet setback comes from for sensitive area. Somebody brought up, you know, 500 feet from the fire hall, particularly if there's diesel fuel at the base of a cell tower, is not— safety first, maybe that's not such a groovy thing. 500 Feet is not a very long distance visually, aesthetically, safety-wise, or other.

And it seems as if other communities have been successful in offering greater setbacks. One thing that I particularly dislike about this whole discussion is, is just the way that it seems to have departed so rapidly from discussion into loggerheads. And it seems like if you're not on one side, you're on the other. And I just kind of watch the way people even look at each other as we kind of hear each other's viewpoints and have discussion with one another. And like, these settings are so difficult because you can't really have discussion, you know, it's just you hear me.

And I, um, encourage us to really think about our community members first and foremost, um, before trying to cover ourselves as a borough and see how we really who we are serving first and foremost. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony. And, uh, there's several of your questions that we'll try to put some more meat behind, so to speak, as we go along. Is there anybody else that would like to talk to the ordinance?

This ordinance?

Okay, there's no one online. All right. Then I'm going to close the, uh, this public hearing, and I'm going to move on. There are no bid awards tonight. Then I'll move on to persons to be heard on items related to tonight's agenda, and I think we have one.

Our utility director, I think Stephen Harper, has some comments he'd like to make. Are you on there, Stephen? I am. It was going to be unrelated, but I can do it now. Sure, go ahead.

I just wanted to give everybody a brief update on the SEPA shutdown, um, and the surcharge that's related to it. So, uh, based on everything, it calculate— calculates out to roughly 1.4 cents a kilowatt hour. I think last year was 1.35 or 1.37, so about $12 to $18 per person. But there was a lot of good things that happened this year. Throughout the course of the year, the hydro ran really well and we had high output.

We created 20% more energy from our hydro facilities than we have in any other year and over last year. At the same time, we sold 5.5% more and we bought about 3% less from SEPA. These numbers are, are preliminary, but I think the final numbers will come in pretty close. Um, during the run, the average temperature this year was 6 degrees warmer than last year for those 9 days, and customers did an excellent job of conserving electricity during the shutdown, and the operators at the plant They ran the generators as tight as they could and ran them really efficient. And then one other factor that really helped this year was a community pool was offline at the same time, which further reduced the loads over past years.

So all this was good and great. And because of these combined factors and recognizing that all our customers We're already squeezed pretty hard from every direction with the rising costs. We decided that we're not gonna collect a diesel surcharge this year. Doesn't mean it'll always be that way, but this year between the hydro and everybody's conservation efforts, we think that we can make up that shortfall through some spending cuts. In a few other areas.

So that's basically all I had to say. Thanks. Any questions from the assembly?

Stephen? Okay, hearing none, um, thank you, Stephen, and, uh, have a good vacation out there. No problem, thanks. I'll stick around through the ordinance reading. Okay, thank you.

Is there anybody else that would like to talk about items per— or items related to tonight's agenda? Please come forward, state your name and who you represent.

Yes, good evening. Dave Kensinger representing myself, and I'd like to speak about Ordinance— I can't find it at the moment, but it's Ordinance 2026-18, accepting conveyance from the state. Of Papke's Landing. So I just thought I'd give a little brief update on Papke's since I've been using it for— since the early '80s. And I know a lot of you guys who are sitting on the assembly know all this, but I thought for people out in the public, it'd be interesting to know.

Papke's was an original homestead by Old Man Papke's. He donated several acres of land of the uplands to the state with the express purpose that it be used for the development of a future dock for people that live down the Narrows.

The state built a dock in 1960. Same dock is still there today without a whole lot of improvements. Then in the early '80s, the Forest Service, which Mayor Lynn was involved in, built a beautiful boat launch, but it was originally intended to be used for logs. And it was used for a period of time for a log transfer facility. Then, um, probably the bigger shock came about when mental health decided to select the uplands at Papke's and promptly announced to everybody in the area that they're going to put a gate across Papke's Road and, and block it off to access.

Fortunately, that wasn't able to happen because one, even though they own the uplands, they did not own the tidelands. So that plan never really came to fruition on their part. At that time, there was a group of us out there that said, you know, we better start paying attention here. The stock is in bad repair. We need to do something about it.

So we contacted the state and specifically DOT, and they said, well, guess what? You're not a city. We don't recognize you. You know, if you want anything done, talk to the city of Petersburg. So we were kind of stymied, even though we contacted several state representatives.

I've called every state representative we've had since John Sun was a representative, going way back into the early '80s. So everybody's been out there. Every senator has been out there. They know the situation, but they've all said you got to get Petersburg to do something about it. Well, guess what?

Petersburg did something about it. They decided to become a borough.. And in the process of becoming a borough, they assumed responsibility for all the lands within the borough. And at the time of borough formation, there was quite a bit of— as there was quite a bit, as everybody knows, there's quite a bit of animosity. Big battle lines were drawn.

People that lived outside the city who opposed it and were for it. I was one of the few that was for it, and the main reason was because said that it would be a priority of the borough to develop a facility at Papke's Landing. Now fast forward to today, um, since then the use of Papke's has exploded. I mean, it used to just be a handful of people, and there still is just a handful of people that live out that use the dock for, for going back and forth, but the majority of the use is by people that live in the borough, in town, out the road. It's amazing.

You would be amazed if you went out there and saw how many boats are parked, how many trailers are parked, how many vehicles are parked. And the— even in the wintertime, there's an entire mosquito fleet of small boats that go out every day and fish for king salmon, even in the dead of winter when I really don't like to be on the water, but they seem to be okay out there dragging a hook trying to catch a king salmon. And then in the summertime, it's gotten completely goofy. You have 3 lodges right across from Papke's, and they bring in over 100 people every week across that facility. So the use has exploded.

But unfortunately, nothing has been done to the dock by DOT for a long time. They did do a few repairs, but they have stated they're not going to do anything. The dock is derelict. I spent a lot of time shoveling snow, trying to patch it up, and it's past the point of no return. So what I'm going to suggest is that you guys— it's time for you guys to put your big boy pants on, become a borough, and take care of this vital piece of infrastructure.

There's money. There's money to get to build the facilities. There's money to maintain the facilities. You're bringing several hundred thousand dollars a year in new tax revenue. Strictly from the transient room tax and the sales tax and the property tax that you're charging those 3 lodges that are across the water.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else that would like to talk to items related to tonight's agenda?

Please come forward, state your name, and you have 5 minutes.

Becky Knight, since I have the second opportunity to speak, I'm going to, going to utilize it. Thank you. Now I see 10 proposed ordinance amendments that appear to address recent correspondence made public from Tidal, GCI, and AT&T. It's threatening correspondence. I do not see any amendments that address public concerns.

The carriers even suggested that the 500-foot setback could be too restrictive. Restrictive for their future plans. Industry's absence during public deliberations is glaring. Instead, only one can only conclude the backroom pressure from industry obliquely referred to during the June 15th meeting is driving decision-making. These communications should be publicly disclosed.

Areas freed up from political reduced— from potential reduced setbacks must be disclosed so that all residents are informed now before adoption of an ordinance. WCF should be— could be coming to any resident's front yard and impact their privacy, their health, their property value, aesthetics, and more. They deserve a voice in decision-making. And I see that, um, some of the language was removed in the whereas in this version, but in the previous version it referred to the community's connectivity goals. I'm unaware of any assembly discussion or public process regarding these goals other than the vague public safety, education, and economic development mentioned in the second whereas.

Our community's connectivity goals— and I'm putting that in quotes— at the beginning of this process should be clearly defined to provide a basis for every aspect of the WCF ordinance, including specific metrics and will add essential clarity. The process should have begun with a public engagement stage to determine our genuine needs. And further, I would ensure that all— I would ask that all residents are legally notified about pending wireless antenna applications with a defined process for appeal. And there should be an acknowledgement that protection of and consideration for both borough residents' existing infrastructure does not amount to a prohibition of wireless service in our borough. What it amounts to is protecting our citizens.

Our borough was humming along quite nicely a year ago until the feds forced this expansion of the billionaire empire Megaverse upon our tiny town of 3,200 souls. The borough claims they're under the duress of federal law, FCC, and the telecommunications Act. Well, if local governments can't protect their residents, that it seems the borough should write their elected leaders and a strong— with a strong letter to the representatives and state that the law needs to be changed, despite our representatives being industry shills. And another letter should be written about how foisting this infrastructure on our tiny town in the absence of any request for strict said infrastructure amounts to an unfunded mandate. Consider, consider the borough's time and expense we're currently shouldering, and there will clearly be plenty more as the expansion of this industry gets a further toehold on Mitkoff Island.

And I'm saying this to you guys, you know, I— one assembly member said, you know, it's really kind of hard to look at you, you know, constantly be disparaged. And I don't mean to disparage you, I'm just trying to bring up the issues and raise the issues. I know you guys are doing hard work. We're all in this together, and we all need to join. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else would like to talk to items related to tonight's agenda?

Judy Umer again. Um, this just goes back to in October when, um, a lot of us started to get aware of what was going on with the towers.. And we came out with a statement of concern, and you've heard the number grow of how many people have signed that so that you have an idea that it's not just this small group of us that show up at the meetings. There's a lot of people who, you know, signed that towers do not belong in residential neighborhoods or near childcare centers, assisted living facilities, and schools. There's a list of the concerns that they signed.

One of them was health effects, which we understand that through the FCC rules, We're not supposed to talk about that, but it is a First Amendment right. And even though it can't be considered in what you're deciding today, there's a level of it that needs to be concerned in terms of the safety that it creates or doesn't create in a community. That another concern was the property values. And while they say, oh, we, we haven't seen any of that in Petersburg, well, you, you can see it though in other places of the country. And Petersburg isn't that unique in that way, it'll follow.

The environmental preservation is retaining a natural surroundings essential for the well-being of the community and future generations, along with that of the wildlife, the trees, and other living things. They were concerned about the community character, the historical and cultural uses, and the aesthetics. All of these things have been introduced to the assembly over a period of, what, 8 months now, 9 months? And so I'm hoping you're hearing it in the decision you make, and it doesn't just go back to one part of the FCC ruling. I'll talk about that more next time and have a report on it.

But we have like 350-some people that have signed this now, and that's more than enough people to do something in terms of a petition, a referendum. I mean, that's a big piece of Petersburg's voting public. So I hope you take it more than just the few of us that, that show up and some of the larger meetings that showed up but still packed the room here.

There's a lot of people. We set up a booth downtown during the 3rd and the 4th of July, and people came, they took information, they signed— several more signed, well, 50-some signed, signed the statement of concern. People are interested in it. They don't always know what to do about it or how to voice— not everybody's comfortable with public speaking. Some of them who are have shown up here anyway, um, but there's a lot out there in the community that care about these towers and where they're located.

We know we can't say just no towers, but gosh, give us the setbacks. Give us— I mean, it affects you all too.

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

Hi, David Beebe speaking for myself. Yeah, I'd like to point out the second whereas is in the Petersburg Bureau recognizes the increasing demand for wireless services and the necessity of high-quality telecommunications infrastructure for public safety.

Education and economic development. Well, it seems that there's a lot more to this than that, whereas. And so I asked AI, what exactly is the issue, given the fact that there has been no public outcry for better broadband services. As a matter of fact, the— as I said before, there is a U.S. Census of 2020 to 2024 that documented nearly 90% already had broadband subscriptions, and we all know that since that time Starlink has been rapidly increasing that ability. So when asking, uh, AI, what is the difference between what we have now, 4G, and a mixture of 5G, uh, this is the answer that I got: 5G technology presents a significant escalation in potential harm compared to 4G frequencies.

Primarily due to its use of higher-frequency millimeter waves and the necessity for a vaster, dense— vastly denser infrastructure. While 4G operates on frequencies under 6 GHz, 5G occupies a spectrum from 30 GHz to 300 GHz, utilizing shorter millimeter wavelengths that have not been thoroughly studied for long-term health effects. This fundamental shift in frequency introduces unique biological interactions absent in previous generations. The handouts that we provided during the festival of the 3rd and 4th involved 38 different peer-reviewed medical science— coming out of this century that demonstrates biological harm well below the frequencies that permit warming of the skin. The most critical difference lies in how 5G millimeter waves interact with human tissue.

Unlike 4G, these higher frequencies can penetrate human skin up to 2 millimeters. Where they are absorbed by the surface of the cornea and conducted by sweat glands. Israeli researchers have found that our sweat ducts effectively act as antennas for these millimeter waves, meaning the body absorbs more energy. This mechanism is so potent that the US Department of Defense uses millimeter waves in crowd control weapons like Active Denial System, which produces a severe burning sensation. This is a direct indication of the biological power of these frequencies, which are linked to immune suppression, neurological effects, and skin damage.

Lastly, any licensed professional of the mental or medical health profession who would be publicly supportive and professionally comfortable with accepting any legislation that outlawed applying the latest medical science in the public interest, in my opinion, should have their licenses revoked.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Brief point of order, Mr. Mayor. As a licensed professional mental health counselor, I, I do not appreciate hearing personal attacks on the dais because that is my profession. Thank you.

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

There's no one online. I'll move on then to items unrelated to tonight's agenda. Anybody else like to talk to items unrelated to tonight's agenda? Please come forward and state your name and who you represent.

Yeah, Tom Kowski, and, um, I'm just, uh, wanting to point out a, a thing that maybe you don't think about, but, um, there are a lot of people in this town that are opposing this technology. There are ways that we can win this in litigation, and, and you guys should know that when this large body of people stand for something and you fight for them, they're going to back you. We're going to back you guys.

And I just want you to keep that in mind. You know, you represent us, and if you represent our values, we're there with you all the way.

And the other thing I want to say is, uh, our group— we're formalized now and it's called Alaska for Safe Tech. And we're also connecting with other organizations to help our efforts. And some of the things that we plan on doing in the future may include canvassing neighborhoods where towers already are to explain the dangers of EF radiation, the cumulative effects, and also the compound effects of having multiple towers, Wi-Fi in the house, cell phone, all that all together, it adds up, and there are ways to mitigate that. So regardless of where this goes, whether the towers— numbers of towers increases or decreases, safer or not, we're going to educate folks the best we can on how to overcome these challenges with the side effects of this technology. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Anybody else like to talk to items unrelated to tonight's agenda?

Good evening. I'm Eric Wolf. I'm also not speaking on items. I'm speaking on items related to the agenda, but I'm also speaking on behalf of PMEA. So I'd like to speak to items unrelated to the agenda, and I'd like to thank the council, the mayor, and everybody, and how they supported the borough, the city workers, the teachers, and when they sent that letter for HB 78.

However, that— we know the pension didn't pass. It was vetoed this time. Kind of anticipate something like this will come forth again. And we, we really appreciate the council stepping forward and supporting that because it meant a lot to us. I also want to add it, it shows the members of PMEA that the council is listening to the concerns of the borough workforce regarding the status of the current retirement programs and their inadequacies.

Um, and further, PMEA recognizes that the council is listening and being an active partner with PMEA and other borough employees, doing what it takes to ensure that the community and the residents have and continue to have the workforce to keep this place as well serviced as it is today and for the future. And I'd like to thank you again, and we look forward to continuing this positive relationship for years to come. Thank you very much. Thank you, appreciate that. Anybody else like to talk to items unrelated to tonight's agenda?

Okay, seeing or seeing none, I'm going to move on then. There are no board, commission, committee reports tonight. There's nothing on the consent agenda. Under the report of other officers, there is a written report by Mr. Hofstetter that's included in the packet. And then I will move on to the mayor's report tonight as soon as I find it.

Um, there you go. Got you. There's one item on the, on the, uh agenda, and that's individuals interested in running for election— elected positions in the borough will be able to file for candidacy beginning on July 28, 2026, until August 25, 2026. Candidacy forms will be available beginning July 22, 2026, at the front desk on the second floor of the municipal building and on the borough website. Additional information and details on open assembly and board seats is attached to this packet and is available, and it's also, I think, available at petersburgak.gov under the, uh, the election information page.

So you can take a look at that to see what, what positions are open and the ex— and the time of the term of service. With that, I'll— there's not on tonight's agenda, but there's one other item I'd like to talk about, and that's the 4th of July celebration. And I think I can say for the assembly that we thank everybody who was involved, and there was a lot of people it took to make that a success. And so with that, thank you everybody. And I was— when I was down there, I really enjoyed the kids.

They were having a good time. And I'll move on then to the manager's report. Thank you, sir. Property tax invoices were mailed on July 1st. The back side of the invoice contains a lot of information people people might have questions about.

However, please reach out to the finance office if you have any other questions. The borough continues to meet with, with the PMEA board to discuss a new 3-year contract for the borough's largest union. And street crews completed the new staging site at the water treatment plant for the disposal of filtered sludge generated during the water treatment process. They also began improving the borough mud dump containment wall in preparation for future projects, and work was completed on the new access road at the landfill to better accommodate wastewater compost and construction debris. Public Works assisted with setting up the tent for Amy Hollingstad Day, and we had a technician on site this past week completing warranty work on the new 950G wheel loader.

Sanitation truck has been repaired and returned to service, allowing the crew to focus on catching up work at around the Baylor facility, including cleanup and additional baling operations. Staff are also working through the final implementation of the new garbage billing codes in preparation for the July 1st rate changes.

Building maintenance staff repaired broken toilets at the portable restroom facilities, installed new locks in the Harbor restrooms, and produced some new keys for multiple rural facilities. Crews also responded to clogged toilets at the police department installed a new air purifier, purifier at the motor pool, and continued work on the municipal building heating and cooling system. The EPA compliance inspection at wastewater was completed successfully. The inspection focused primarily on implementation of our new permit, with extensive discussions regarding compliance monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping requirements due to areas of ambiguity within the permit. To help maintain regular compliance during the summer months, staff constructed and installed an additional tablet chlorinator.

Higher summer temperatures has increased the chlorine demand, and the additional chlorinator is expected to significantly improve disinfectant performance. Water Department completed the annual spring maintenance of the Cabin Creek air and vacuum relief valves. Cabin Creek Reservoir was temporarily lowered to allow application of a vinegar solution to control algae, algae growth on the spillway face. Staff also included— installed a gauge on the concrete column to assist with the ongoing hydrology study.

Congratulations to Sadia Arna, Karin Christensen, and Kayla Perry for passing their EMT-1 exam. And the Petersburg Volunteer Fire Department will be hosting a Community Emergency Response Team, or CERT, training course for the public. This class is free and will take place in the fire hall July 10th through the 12th. This training is provided to train community members how to assist first responders in the event of a large-scale disaster. For more information, please call the fire station at 907-772-3355.

Outdoor season is upon us. The fire department would like to remind folks hiking, driving off the road, or boating to make sure they are properly equipped with supplies and leave someone they know with their travel plans and estimated return time in the case of mishaps. Stay safe. Skow Bay Generator Number 2 is moving along. Power and Light should be bringing a contract amendment to the assembly in one of the next few meetings, and construction on the core structure will start soon after.

Mechanicals and grid tie-in won't be completed until spring of 2027, pending voter approval of the revenue bond in the fall election. Blind Slough Hydro finished out the year with high output. Roughly, roughly, we generated 20% more than 2025, sold 5.5% more power and bought 3% less from SEPA. The final numbers will be complete by the end of the month. The annual SEPA shutdown went well, as you heard from Steve Harbour.

It was 2 days longer than last year, but we wanted to again thank everyone for conserving power. There was a noticeable reduction in load this year. Power and Light wants to remind everyone that solar installations need to go through a permitting process and inspection process for everyone's safety, including not only the homeowners but linemen, firemen, and their neighbors. There will be letters sent out shortly addressing homes that haven't followed the process. Improper installation can lead to backfeeding high voltage and put our linemen at danger.

Powerline also wants to remind never— the community can never touch anything that has or is contacting the power lines, such as a tree that may have been burnt. There's a strong possibility that there are still energized even though the sparks and flames are gone. Tour ship season is going well. A reminder that the updated schedule can be found on the borough's website. Staff posts the upcoming week's schedule by location for customers trying to work around the drive-down port dock, sea float, and the loading zones.

Launch permits were set up for renewal as of June 1st. Stop by the harbor office and pick yours up. And just as a reminder, parking is being enforced in the harbors. Please pay attention to the signage and ask the harbor office for directions. The longest parking available is 7 days, so anything over that, people are encouraged to figure out a different location for their vehicles.

That's it. Any questions from the assembly? The manager?

I was asked one today, Steve, that I couldn't answer, and that had to do with Parks and Rec and where we are on our project there.

Um, I'll probably not get this 100% correct, but I can feed in. So it's— every time we get into it, we find more things that need to be worked on. So, um, it's, it's a big project. We'll be lucky to be done with it by the end of August. Um, we added another couple hundred thousand to the budget because of issues they found digging up what what was in the building.

Um, kind of a quick backstory, we actually hired a company that brought a radar machine down to be able to spot where all the wires and conduit and such was underneath the floor. And that's, that's the state— stage we're at right now is making all the full cuts to the floor to uncover all these various sewer lines, water lines, and electrical lines so that when they go to work on it, they don't hurt themselves. And so we've had a lot of time where we've had to turn the power off to the building when they're cutting, just to make sure people are safe. We've had issues with the internet service because where the internet comes into the building is where we're having to turn power off. So it's, it's been a challenging project.

Um, we got some good news. One of the school requests on our behalf was funding for the first project that we did up there, and it got funded by, indeed, Department of Education to the tune of a little over $500,000, I think. Um, that money, once the school gets it, can be put back into property development towards this project, um, to try to make sure if we have any more cost overruns that we have the money to complete the project and get it fixed. But it's a big project, and, and We know the general public is aching to be back in the pool, and we're doing everything we can do to try to make that happen, but it's a long project. Thank you for the update.

With that, before I move on to unfinished business, I'm going to take a 5-minute break. Thank you, boss. Appreciate it.

I'd like to call the meeting back to order. And with that, first item, I'm going to move on to unfinished business. Under unfinished business, the first item is Ordinance 2026-13, an ordinance authorizing the borough to issue electric utility revenue bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $3,300,000.

$315,000 To finance the Skow Bay Standby Generator project, and directing that this matter be submitted to the qualified voters for consideration at the next regular election to be held on October 6th, 2026. This is the second reading. PMPL is requesting approval of Ordinance 2026-13, authorizing the issuance of the revenue bond for the completion of the Skow Bay Standby Generator Generation Project. Construction costs increased since the project initiation caused a dramatic budget shortfall that would be funded through this bond issuance if approved by the assembly in 3 readings. The question of issuing the revenue bond debt will be placed on the October, October 6, 2026 local ballot for consideration by Petersburg voters.

Ordinance 2026-13 was unanimously approved in the first reading. Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-13? Second. Or excuse me, I was so moved, I apologize. Second.

They've been moved by, uh, Member Stanton Gregor, seconded by Member Newman. Um, is there any discussion from assembly members?

Okay, seeing none, would the clerk please call the roll?

Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Member Martin? Yes. Member Newman?

Yes. Member Michi? Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes.

And that to put it on— to put the, uh Bond on the ballot has been approved 5-0. Moving on then to Ordinance 2026-14A, the ordinance amending Title 19, Zoning of the Petersburg Municipal Code, to regulate wireless communication facilities and other towers and transmitters, second reading. If approved in 3 readings, this ordinance would establish zoning and permitting standards for wireless communication facilities and other towers. It requires these facilities be reviewed as conditional uses, providing public notice and Planning Commission review and approval while remaining, remaining consistent with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and related regulations. The ordinance creates a new chapter of the municipal code governing wireless facilities.

It would prioritize colocation. Sets, sets development standards and provides a waiver process procedure if strict adherence to the development standards would require technically impossible designs, cause structural instability, or result in an inability to close a significant coverage gap or leave a coverage area functionally unable to handle emergency calls. It is intended to balance the community's needs for reliable wireless and other communication services with public safety and aesthetic concerns. Memo from Director Cabrera, a list is including— a list of proposed amendments and supporting maps is attached. Ordinance 2026-14 was approved as amended in the first reading.

Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 20— 2026-14A in the second reading. I move to adopt Ordinance 2026-14A in its second reading. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved by Member Newman, seconded by Member Stanton Gregor.

Go ahead, Member Newman. I move to amend Ordinance 2026-14A by adopting the 10 amendments proposed in Director Cabrera's memorandum dated July 6th, 2026. Is there a second? I'll second that, Mr. Mayor. Okay, thank you.

It's been, uh, put forward by Member Newman, seconded by Member Mucci. Uh, and with that, uh, let's go through it. I— there was some questions from the audience here tonight that I'd like to address first, uh, and there was one related I think you made some notes, uh, Member Stanton Gregor, uh, on it. Might be different than yours. Okay, go ahead.

Uh, then you go ahead with yours and then I'll find mine. That's right.

Um, this is not, uh, in regards to the 10 things, but I will speak to the amendment. Um, I think some very good, uh, points were raised, uh, one by, uh, Committee Member Knight on the process. You know, on the first reading we had 5 amendments, and now here we have 10+ again because there's subsets A, B, and C. I think this is a very rushed ordinance that due to all these amendments can appear that it lacks transparency. I don't think that is the intent of this, but I think it feels that way. During my time on the assembly, I've never seen 15 amendments on an ordinance.

My take is, if we have to do 15 amendments, we should have not brought it forward until it was done. It's not a good ordinance, not a good piece of legislation. So I wanted to be very clear on the record. I think this process is and has been deeply flawed in how we got there. I said this in the first reading, I would have much rather seen both concerns of the public, concerns from the assembly, and potentially telecommunications stakeholders addressed through council.

And through the borough clerk before this is brought to us.

It doesn't feel like a clean process. I want to— another community member, Ms. McMurrin, spoke to some of the vagaries and ambiguities on here. K, what about visual impacts? WCF shall be configured and located in a manner that shall minimize adverse visual impacts. I agree.

I think it's a wholly subjective and not useful piece of language. One, to speak more specifically to these 10 amendments, Amendment Number 2, 19.58-050B, to the word separation, add to mitigate visual clutter. And then, you know, to add explanatory information to the need for sensitive area buffer and tower separation requirements. I think even the wording to mitigate visual clutter is not productive. We have existing towers near our school right now, and the ones on top of our grocery store— one could very easily argue those are already visual clutter.

I'm on the fence if I'm going to vote yes on the amendments or the ordinance itself. Again, I think it's rife with issues and shouldn't be before us right now, so I'll pass the floor to whoever wants it.

Um, I'll go back to Director Cabrera there. There was a question asked about definition on item number 6. Would you address what was intended and the meaning behind it?

Right, so the, um, it talks about the conditional use process and, uh, third-party review., and you get, uh, from the third-party review, you actually get, um, a report, um, from a— usually a consulting company that looks at all the applicant information. And so what is the language that is struck? It authorized the director to require changes to the WCF design or location. And as a local authority, We don't really have authority to regulate the WCF design. And so, instead of having the director do that, the director instead is just going to provide information from the third-party review to the applicant, and they're going to have to make any adjustments to design that would be necessary.

So it's not— it's just sort of taking the borough out of that role.

Thank you. I'm going to go— if any of the members want to make— want to strike items or to make adjustments, you could do that with a motion, or we could go ahead and approve all those all as tonight.

Does any do either? Member Mucci, thank you. I'll put my hand down here if I can figure out how to do that. There you go. Yeah, you know, I agree with Member Stanton Gregor.

You know, it's not a very— it doesn't— this whole ordinance does not flow very well. Um, I've spent a ton of time on this ordinance with the borough attorney, city staff, and, you know, trying to— somebody told me the other day— thread the needle on protecting the community's best interest and, you know, walking that fine line from some of the concerns that we heard from some of the letters we've received from telecommunication companies. You know, I'm not impressed at all when I get a letter from the telecommunications company with veiled threats to the community about lawsuits. And, you know, that's no big concern of mine. What is a concern of mine is to continue forward with this process because I just see there's examples that have happened since we started working with this wireless communication facilities ordinances about without having anything in place, we have a potential to have a, a cell tower out at Papke's.

We saw one up at Mill Road and we see one that's going to be put up there across the street from the ferry terminal.

And I don't like that, but there's nothing I can do to prevent that from happening. And without this wireless communication facility ordinance, I— this is the first step for protecting the community. And whether or not people believe that, for me, this is how I look at it. I, you know, this might not be 100% protect the community, but I think it's going to get us to a point where we can continue to look at it. And if we need to make adjustments to it as we go along, um, I'm willing to do that.

But, you know, and I know these 10 amendments that we're looking at here, you know, some were— have more weight than the others, but a lot of them were kind of cleaning up some language that, you know, there was a— to eliminate the number 10 there about eliminating the requirement to minimum bond of $150,000. That was just an arbitrary number that was there. And so, you know, for me, I'm fine with that. And for all these 10 amendments, I'm fine on it. You know, I don't know how to get, how to get out to the community these 10 amendments so that they can chew on them in between the 2 assembly meetings, the 2 weeks between the 2 assembly meetings.

These have been— we've spent, or some of us have spent a lot of time trying to, like I said before, thread the needle. And I'm gonna vote to support these 10 amendments, and I'm going to continue to work for the next 2 weeks to make sure that, or before the next assembly meeting, to make sure that, you know, we're protecting the community's best interest and making sure we have some some type of guidelines for cell towers in the community. And I agree with a lot of the comments that have been said about, well, who says there's a cell coverage shortage? I mean, it's very arbitrary. But yeah, I just want to, you know, I know a lot of members of the community are kind of frustrated with the whole process, but, and I know a lot of members of the assembly are working very hard, and I know, and I want to I really want to recognize city staff for really, really being patient with me and other members of the assembly asking the same question over and over because this is a— this, for me, this is a brand new language, trying to understand, trying to put together an ordinance that would regulate a business in town, and it's new to me, and I just wanted to thank city staff for it.

And like I said earlier, I plan to vote to support this to move forward, and I'll be working on it between now and the next meeting to make sure that if there's some concerns in the community that I think aren't being met, that we can drag those along into the process. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody, any other members have a comment before I call the roll? On the amendment?

On the amendment.

I, I want to follow up with, uh, what Member Mucci said, is that I think that I've watched, and I think this assembly has spent more time on this ordinance than I think I've seen spend on a lot of other things. And I know we've racked up considerable expense with the attorney on this ordinance. And so with that, I I'll give them a lot of— I'll give our assembly a lot of credit for the amount of work and time that's been spent on this. Whether you agree or disagree, I don't think any of the members have shied away from looking into the details of this. And with that, would the clerk please call the roll on the amendment?

Mayor Lynn? Yes. Member Meechi?

Yes. Member Newman? Yes. Member Martin? Yes.

Vice Mayor Stantengraeger? Yes.

Okay, and the amendment passes 5 to 0. And now, going back to the main motion, uh, as amended.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay, main motion as amended. Would the clerk please Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, just as a lot of talk had been had tonight around, uh, being under the so-called underserved, a lens I'm looking through as a member of the public— so eloquently said, I'm a mental health provider, uh, and, uh, we have clinic and a hospital here, and telehealth is going to be increasing as we move forward. And I'm not looking at today, next week, 2 years from now, 5 years from now, I want us to be able to be prepared to provide good services going into the future, and I think increased telecommunication presence will be a part of that, or we will get left behind.

I'm not sure this ordinance solves that right now, but I just want to let the public know that's something I'm thinking about long term. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members like to make comments on Hearing none, going to— oh, Member Muci. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Yeah, I'm, you know, just repeating a little bit of what I said earlier. Yeah, I'm committed to getting a good ordinance out, and I know some people won't be happy on the assembly and/or in the community about what the final product is here, but I'm committed to, you know, if there are some glaring errors in this that just we can't live with or we're just messed up on, I'd like to hear them in the next 2 weeks. I'm kind of traveling tomorrow, but I have a cell phone with great coverage down here, and I just, I am, I want to get a good ordinance out. So, and Judy and her, that group knows how to get a hold of me, and I'm willing to talk to them. See what we can do.

But yeah, I plan to work on it, I imagine, pretty much every day for the next 2 weeks, just to make sure we get a good ordinance out the door. So thank you very much. Okay, thank you, Member Mucci. Anybody else? Any other member would like to make comments?

Would the clerk please call the roll? Member Newman? Yes. Member Martin?

Yes. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor. Yes. Member Mucci. Yes.

Mayor Lynn. Yes. India, it passes with, uh, as amended. I am to 5-0. I'll move on then to the next item on the agenda, and lost my place here.

Oh, just a second.

Resolution 2026-17, a resolution of the Petersburg Borough Assembly amending the current regular meeting. Oh boy, I'm, I'm on a different—. There you go. Yeah, I've, I've got too many papers in front of me is what the problem is.

Is here it is if you want it.

But we're on to new business. And, okay, new business. Resolution 2026-18, a resolution accepting conveyance from the State of Alaska of approximately 8.8 acres of tide and submerged land at Papke's Landing, ADL 109287, including the associated dock and boat launch infrastructure. And authorizing the borough manager to execute all documents necessary to complete the conveyance. If approved, this resolution will accept conveyance of the Papke's Landing dock and related tide and submerged lands from the state of Alaska.

Do I have a motion to approve Resolution 2026-18?

So moved. Second. Okay, moved by Member Stanton Gregor, second by Member Newman. Discussion from assembly.

Hey, Member Stan Gregor. Thank you, Mr. Manager. Just for those listening at home, you know, this is an issue a lot of us on the assembly have been navigating for a decade plus, or some version of. For the sake of discussion, let's say this resolution passes.

What would be the next steps? And if you could just take it from there, is that okay? Sure. Thank you, sir. Through the mayor.

So we started this process about a year ago at the borough level with applications to DNR for both the tidelands and the uplands. It's taken this long to get to the tidelands portion, and they're ready to send that to the borough. DOT, which owns the actually above-water stuff, can't give us that until the tidelands. It's kind of like a catch-22, so that DNR says we can't get the tidelands until We own the dock and DOT says we can't own the dock until we have the tidelands. Anyway, this will allow us to make that happen.

The uplands, which is still an outstanding application, maybe another year. DNR was noncommittal on how long that process will take. And that was an important part of what we wanted at one point was to be able to expand the parking. The borough owns 3 lots down there. And so this will be the first step.

One advantage of taking the tidelands and the dock and getting that in borough hands is then we can start looking for grants. That's always been one of the problems is how to get a grant on something we don't own. So this will help with that. I have no grants lined up or anything, but it does give us an opportunity to make a push for that. So thank you, Steve, for clarifying for those listening at home.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Any other comments from assembly members? Would the clerk please call the roll on Resolution 2026-18?

Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Member Martin? Yes. Member Newman?

Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes. Member Mucci? Yes.

Okay, and the Resolution 2026- 18 passes with a 5-0 vote, and we will accept the conveyance of the tidelands at Papke's Landing. Second item on there is replacement of sanitation unit number 1117. Public Works recommend replacing sanitation unit number 1117, a refuse truck nearing the end of the service life, with a new unit from the Alaska Municipal Equipment LLC via SourceWell for $385,758.38.

The memo from Director Moreau and a quote is attached. Do I have a motion to purchase the replacement for sanitation unit number 117? So moved.

Second. Been moved by Member Stan Gregor, seconded by Member Member Newman, a discussion?

Seeing none on the screen, and would the clerk please call the roll?

Member Michi? Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes. Member Newman?

Yes. Member Martin? Yes. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes.

Okay, and that passes 5-0. So we will be purchasing a replacement for Sanitation Unit 17, the refuge truck. The next item on the agenda is a letter to Alaska DOT regarding snow removal. With the help of, with the help of the clerk, we've put together a letter, prepared a letter to the Alaska Department of Transportation requesting additional snow removal snow removal services within the community to improve public service and accessibility in the winter months. And this is the follow-up of some discussion of several months ago, uh, with, uh, and with the Assembly's approval, I would like to send the letter that is part of this packet to Alaska DOT.

Do I have a motion to approve that letter? So moved. Second. Okay, the move by Member Mucci, second by Member Newman. Uh, discussion?

Seeing none or hearing none, would the clerk please call the roll?

Vice Mayor Sten Gregor. Yes. Member Martin. Yes. Member Newman.

Mayor Lynn. Yes. Member Mucci. Yes, yes. And we will be sending then a letter, the letter to the Department of Transportation, asking them for some additional snow clearance on some of our roads here, side roads here, and walkways here in Petersburg.

The correspondence and communications, the correspondence is part of the packet. And I'll move on then to assembly discussion items. Um, the first item under assembly discussion items is the airport subdivision. This discussion item requested by Member Mucci, potential criteria and procedures for the sale of 9 borough-owned lots in the expanded airport subdivision, as well as other borough-owned properties, including valuation methods and sales options such as auction, sealed bid, or other processes. Assembly guidance is requested regarding the preferred approach for marketing and selling the parcels.

And with that, I'll turn the first part of the discussion over to Member Muci. Yeah, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I was talking to Steve last week and he has been sending us updates about what's going on up at the— look at Haida Extension subdivision, and I think he's looking for some opinions from us about what we'd like to do and how we'd like to sell parcels up there. Steve might want to speak to this, or the manager might want to speak to this a little bit more, but I think the idea is to have this as a discussion item and an action item, possibly at the next assembly meeting. But maybe I can hand it over to the borough manager to maybe fill it in a little bit.

I didn't cover everything. Thank you. Yeah, I, you know, this is our second go-round on subdivision, and I think that the manager has some strong views. And so if you'd like to present what you would like to do, I would appreciate it. Sure, through the mayor, I could resend, work with Liz and our attorney and resend some things that we've kind of tossed around internally.

But this is an opportunity for the borough. You're going to have— borough assembly is going to have 9 lots up in the airport subdivision. It'll be ownership maybe by the end of the summer. It may slide into the fall. And staff's going to want to know, because we're starting— we're getting questions from people in town already.

Can I buy that and just make my lot bigger? I don't know what the assembly wants in those areas. Can I buy the lot next to my house that I already up there? Can I buy it and create a duplex? The answer is yes, actually, to that.

Um, so there's a— I kind of need to know from the assembly's perspective what, how you, if you, what if any restrictions you want to put on the sale so I can start letting people know that are calling the borough and calling Liz and me to ask, hey, can I, how can I buy one of these lots? Um, anyway, that's where this comes from. I can send some stuff out that we've tossed around, but I think it's probably best for the assembly in a, in an open meeting to kind of have that conversation. Anyway, that's unless you have questions here that I can try to answer. I'm going to start on the side.

Member Stanton Gregor. Yeah, more of a clarifier, I guess. Even when that original airport subdivision was sold, were those by outcry auction? I believe, or maybe I'm way off on that. So, through the mayor, there was 2 groups of property that were sold.

One is those lots owned by the borough, the others that were owned by Tlingit Haida. So I can't speak to how the borough-owned lots were outcry auctioned. Okay, that's what I thought. And I mean, I recommend that it be outcry auction on the 9 lots in this time. I mean, I think that gives people a chance to bid on it.

And then I've heard a lot of— I've heard from staff, I've heard from a couple of assembly members at various times about restrictions that the assembly may want to put on how people developed a lot, timeframes, you know, things like that. And I can't answer those questions right now. People are starting to ask. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

So just as a follow-up to it, so if I'm hearing you right, we would need to put something, create some sort of action item giving you formal direction on what criteria, if there are any restrictions, obviously by outcry or by sealed bid, blah, blah, blah. But In short, you're gonna be looking not in discussion, but down the line on some sort of formal action item to give you direction through the mayor. Correct. And I can send out to everybody kind of some things we've talked about internally. That'd be helpful for me.

And we just take a look at it when it comes out, is all I'm asking. It's a big deal to community members who want or happy to see some things done in housing, and we're going to have 9 lots. That the borough is going to own available here pretty quick. They're putting pipe in the ground as we speak, so it's not going to be too far out. One of the things we, we've talked about earlier was, is that we want to see— we want to see the lots developed.

That's our whole purpose here. And so whatever we do, in my opinion, needs to have— needs to go towards making sure that those lots are developed. And so with that in mind, one of the recommendations I believe you had was, is that we only have one lot per person or per family, however you wanted to do it? To answer your question, yes, I have some ideas on that. I'd be happy to send them out to the assembly.

Um, and just because they're my ideas doesn't make them right. I, I— that's— this is an assembly decision on how you want to go about selling these lots. It's a big deal. These are 9 really nice lots in a nice subdivision, and we have a lot to thank Clingit Haida Housing for all the work they've done, the amount of money they've spent getting the infrastructure in. Um, it's a, it's a chance that we don't— it doesn't come by us very often to have this available, and, uh, I just want to make sure I do it the way the assembly wants.

But I'm not— I'll speak for myself, is whatever we do, I believe we should have it. Our objective is to get those lots developed, you know, to provide more housing in town. And so whatever criteria we come up with, in my opinion, needs to focus that we get those— we get those— how not only sell the lots but have them developed. Yes, sir. Um, anything, Member Newman?

Member Martin?

Very quiet. So if you're— then what I guess what I'm hearing is you can come forward with a proposal that how we would approach it. Yes, you'll have it this week. Okay, so thank you. Decide how you want to go from there.

Very good, thank you. Um, there is no other items under assembly discussion items. I'm going to move then to assembly member comments. Does any assembly member have comments tonight? Um, Member Mucci.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I just want to go back to the wireless communication facility ordinance. Uh, I'm planning to spend a lot of time in the next 2 weeks trying to make sure that we have a document that everybody is halfway happy with, and especially members of the Assembly, make sure that they like it better than they like it now. So that's my commitment for the next 2 weeks, but I just wanted to say thanks to the community for all their hard work, and especially to the staff for, you know, putting up with me and being patient with me and helping me understand all the nuances that are involved in this new language to me, and I just wanted to make sure they understood how much I appreciate what they do. So thank you.

Thank you. Other comments from assembly members?

Okay, seeing none. Is there any recognitions tonight? Member Stanton Gregor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, I would— as he briefly mentioned, the mayor's report, I wholly agree, is the huge thank you to everyone who's a part of the massive Fourth of July celebration here in town.

A little bit of rain on Friday, beat it for most of Saturday. Good seeing our community enjoying it, and I know a lot of work goes into it. Then a secondary recognition, it's more of a— it's not assembly related, but I want to recognize Mr. Thomas Kumps because today the US was playing Belgium in the World Cup. I was really pulling for the US, but our friend and neighbor Thomas Kumps is from Belgium, so he is celebrating right now. So I want to Enjoy yourself, Thomas.

I'm a little bitter, but I'm happy for you. So there you go. Thank you. Other comments and recognitions?

Okay. With that, last item on the agenda is an executive session, and I have— I believe there's a motion in front of the members to move into executive session. I move that the assembly enter into executive session in accordance with Alaska statute 44.62.310 to discuss the status of wage negotiations between the borough and PMEA with members of the borough negotiating team. Is there a second? Second.

A move by Member Newman, seconded by Member Stanton-Gregor. And with that, um, would the clerk please call the roll? Vice Mayor Stanton-Gregor? Yes. Member Martin?

Yes. Member Newman? Member Meechi? Yes. Mayor Lynn?

Yes. With that, uh, there were no— there were no decisions will be made in the executive session, but we will move in. We will then move into executive session, and that requires us then to clear, uh, to only the assembly members, the manager, and I believe the negotiating team. Is, is involved.