Infrastructure, Enterprise and Utility Oversight Committee-of-the-Whole

Alright, let's go ahead and get started. I would like to call this meeting to order. We're here for the Assembly Infrastructure Enterprise and Utility Oversight Committee of the Whole meeting for May. We're now today from 11:15 AM to 12:15 PM, and we'll start with member introductions in the room, please. George Martinez.

Janice Park, Jared Gerker, Anna Brawley, Zach Johnson, Erin Baldwin-Day, Sydney Scout, and I believe we have Mr. Hanlon on the phone.

Yes. All right, great, thank you. Let's go ahead and dive right in. First item of new business, stormwater utility update.

Okay, um, so thanks for having us today. My name is Kenan Billups and I am the watershed manager under project management and Engineering Department. I'm here today to kind of talk about our stormwater issues that we're facing now in the municipality and just kind of give you a background briefly too. So starting off, I want you to start thinking about the issues that you are starting to notice as you're walking your dog, as you're driving to the grocery store. So these are some of our issues that we're facing of our failing drainage system.

Failing culverts, our roads are getting blown out, we're starting to see flooding, we're seeing pollution. So these are all big major issues that we're starting to see. So for this, I'm going to do a little quick background on what watershed is and our stormwater, and then specific on our system here in ARTSA, and then a lot of the systems that we are— issues that we're facing with our system.

So first off, what is a watershed? So a watershed is an area that transports all of the water that enters an area, and this is both surface and subsurface, and this moves everything down through rivers and then eventually out to the ocean. So when urban development starts happening in these watersheds, impervious surface is added within that watershed, and pollutants start to run across these surfaces now and discharge out into the ocean if it's not properly managed. So this is an image of our watersheds that we have here in the municipality, and I've labeled them out by the assembly districts just to kind of give you a reference of where these are. So as you can see, we have a vast amount of watersheds.

And the blue lines are those channels that the water goes to and then eventually out into Cook Inlet. So this is just kind of to give you a reference that everyone is impacted by a watershed here.

So now I want to talk a little bit about stormwater, and stormwater is a precipitation event, and this is anything from a rainstorm to snow, and it even includes snowmelt. So in urban and development areas, these impervious surfaces prevent water from soaking into the ground, therefore it increases surface runoff. So stormwater flows over the surface picking up pollutants such as oil, gas, trash, sediment, and so that has caused stormwater to be one of the leading causes of water pollution in urban areas. So management of stormwater is not only essential for environmental protection, it's also crucial for preventing damage to our infrastructure, which are our roads, our buildings, our homes, and it's also crucial for flood prevention. So the way to manage stormwater in this image here is to control, treat, and slow down the runoff, and to do this, we have two different types of infrastructure.

We have gray gray infrastructure, which are our physical pipes, catch basins, our, um, GS separators, our treatments, and we have green infrastructure, which is more of the natural stuff like our, um, vegetated swells and basins, our rain gardens that we have. And so it's a mix of all of these different types that help treat the stormwater in Anchorage.

So Um, the State of Alaska DEC regulates a framework for controlling the pollutant discharge and maintaining water quality under this APDES permit, and so they issue us this Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit, also known as the MS4, and this permit is jointly issued to the MOA and DOT, and so the MOA administers this Um, and it designates stormwater as a core responsibility of the MOA. So I want to do a big distinction here though. Um, our stormwater system is completely separated from the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility, completely separate. AWU is regulated under a completely different section of the Clean Water Act than this permit. We do not connect in any ways, and we do not have the same regulatory requirements.

So I just want to make that clear that we are completely separate.

So, um, our storm system is very unique in the way that it is maintained. So the stormwater system follows very closely along with the road maintenance operations. So moving forward for this presentation, I'm going to focus only on the Anchorage Bowl. Um, Eagle River and Chugiak have Subersa. Um, Girdwood has GBOS, which these are all managed within their respective communities.

Um, so within this Anchorage bowl, we have these 4 main entities, and so the stormwater systems comprise of all of those infrastructures of the green and gray infrastructure, and it's important for these groups to start to work together to upgrade and help replace our failing systems. Um, so to give you an idea of what we have, Right now we have 590 miles of storm pipe, 155 miles of open streams, 325 miles of open channels, and then we have 9 distinct watersheds within the Anchorage Bowl. Um, so, um, so our storm system is facing detrimental issues. So our first main issue is that our system is aging and failing. It is now beyond the capability of keeping up with our development, um, and the Public Works Department has produced multiple assessment studies on the stormwater system and have estimated a $1.3 billion deficit.

So to give you an idea of that, 590 pipes that we have in our system, we know that over 400 of them are already failing. That's 68% of just the pipes that we know are currently failing. So it's just, and this amount increases every year as our infrastructure degrades and fails. And so these are some of the issues that we see from happening. We have sinkholes, our roads are degrading, our pipes are blowing out.

So all of that $1.3 billion deficit is so large because of the second issue. This is our unpredictable and limited funding levels. So right now, storm system rehabilitation improvement projects are only funded through the annual ARDS bond. Since the annual bond package funds such a wide extent of projects, a small portion of them include, um, these drainage projects. So the annual package funds, um, just a small portion of it, and it addresses emergent situations and immediate failures.

So unfortunately, the number of locations that are stormwater capital project repairs that are needed far exceeds the number that the capital projects are able to complete each year. It's a big gap. So the storm system in ARTSA is deteriorating faster than being repaired or replaced. Um, so in the current program, it is not able to meet the needs of our management of our storm system.

So this leads us into our third one, and this is, um, another contributing factor is our resourcing. In the current environment, the MOA can only perform basic maintenance such as street sweeping or cleaning our OGS systems. So when we encounter smaller maintenance problems such as a catch basin crumbling apart or a treatment that needs to be upgraded for the more development in the area, um, these issues aren't addressed. We just add them to a list in the Public Works Department and they just sit on this list until like we have able ability to get to them. Um, and so it's a— we have a limited ability to def— any of our deferred maintenance in proactively upgrading our system.

Like, we don't have that ability. So to show you an example, here are oil grit separators, catch basins that we know are failing and need replaced. These have been on our list, some of them since 2013. So it's been over a decade before— since we've been able to even do any maintenance on this. So that just kind of shows you that We have inadequate resources right now to be able to fund this.

Sure.

Yeah, okay, well, I think we'll pause briefly for a question. I have 2 members in the queue. I just first want to note that Member McCormick joined us at 11:17 and Member Silver is at 11:21. And then first in the queue, I have Member Brawley. Thank you.

I'm glad we have yet another billion-dollar liability. We keep adding them up. Thanks. Sorry, not to make light of it. Light of this.

Um, so just, I want to be very clear though, make sure I understand a really basic point. So we fund these through ARSA, and presumably there's other systems, as it said, there's, you know, service areas, in some cases there's, uh, private systems. But I think a layperson would say we're talking about pipes in the ground, we're talking about water moving through them. AWU, you know, is our water utility, but that's for drinking water and wastewater, right? So can you just kind of briefly describe I guess why historically this was, if it's known, kind of why it wasn't part of that.

And I know that's part of the whole discussion, right, is making it a utility. And then also, is this typical? You know, I don't actually know. I know most cities have some kind of stormwater management system. I don't know if those are typically within a utility or if it's a kind of general government, or in this case our service area function.

And I know maybe that's a big question, but just curious kind of how we compare to other cities.

Yeah. Okay, um, so stormwater utilities are a very common practice. There are over 2,800 of them in the country, um, and it is unique here in Anchorage that our systems are separated because a lot more of the public facilities and stuff throughout the country have combined them, but That's just, yeah, how it was developed back in the '60s and '80s. Okay, thanks. I just wanted to make sure I understood that, and I think that's helpful as we go forward to remind kind of the public how unusual we are.

So thank you.

Member Martinez was in the queue. Question: What point in the slide presentation are you? Halfway through, three-quarters through, almost finished? Almost done. All right, cool.

So I'll save one question for the end, but one question for a slide back, and potentially you're going to show it on the subsequent slides. What's the result of these failures actually in the community in practice? Like, what do people experience with these sorts of failures in our lived-in experience? What do they mean to us? Yeah, so I can look at this slide right here.

So When these pipes in our catch basins start to fail, we are starting to have to go out and do our replacements. We're starting to get sinkholes. They get— a lot of flooding is a lot of the issues and stuff.

So as we go back— one more, please. It's going. Right on. Yeah. I notice areas of regular, recurring maintenance problems with flooding for years on some of the areas that that seem to have the dots in my district.

So I just wanted to make sure that I was accurately, to some degree, connecting that there, some of the calls for service are a direct result of these failures in the district, particularly with flooding. Mm-hmm. And a lot of these stem as treatment in the infrastructure. So when these oil grit separators, um, are failing, it, we don't get the pollutant treatments. And so those discharges, people are seeing, um, petroleum products get into the lake.

There's—. It's the issue with University Lake of the treatment isn't there, and so we're allowing that pollute to get into our streams and impact our stuff. Thank you, that's, that's helpful and effective contextualization. Uh, Chair, just put me back in the queue for the end. Thank you, appreciate it.

Okay, I just confirmed with the clerk that we have this presentation online. We got posted. Great, thank you. Uh, please. Okay, let me see where I was here.

Uh, Okay, so we have an aging system, we have unpredictable funding, we have our insufficient resources. So this has forced the MOA into a reactive response. Um, and so our staff routinely respond to these drainage-related emergencies. Um, these actions are immediate and short-term fixes because the problem with these reactionary responses is we don't have time to properly plan for them and develop long-term solutions for. Um, and so these issues aren't getting adequately fixed, and so it occurs again and again.

We'll fix it one year, but we're there 3 years later fixing it again. And so it's putting us in this revolving cycle. Um, and so it's noteworthy too that these temporary repairs are costly, and they substantially add up over time. And so it's costing us more doing this instead of properly planning. So, these are some of the impacts that you can see that our residents are starting to feel this impact of the system not working correctly.

And we have these 4 major issues that continue to worsen over time. And we're starting to drown in our stormwater. And these— so I'm here today just to say that these issues can't be ignored. And I'm asking that we as a community need to come together. To fix this moving forward.

And so this is just what I brought. Um, just wanted to throw these problems out there, and so I can take any questions now. All right, I have a couple members in the queue. Mr. Martinez, you have to save a space for you. Yes, thank you, appreciate it.

Um, if you could keep the slide— yeah, up. And, uh, you had the slide of the watershed of the bowl. Um, if you can pull that one up again. Um, here it comes. Keep going.

Yeah, that one, uh, that shows the watersheds of all of the parts of the—. That's great too. Um, even if you advance one, I think that'll be fine. Perfect. So the question that I have is I'm aware, and I actually had one of the projects that around the food security, uh, had, uh, that I worked on, had some conversation in it around permaculture and other green infrastructure as you described it.

The municipal's green infrastructure is going to be rain gardens and those sorts of things. But I'm aware of other communities nationally that have incentivized a different pattern of urbanization and development, moving away from lawns, for example, which cause a tremendous degree of runoff, to permaculture, lasagna gardening. So the, the way that food security could potentially interact and interface with, um, this question is something that I think is important for us, but other communities not necessarily with food security as a, as a paramount issue, have utilized some of these green strategies for citizen development and participation to offset some of this concern. When I see the development here, to what extent have you analyzed, or have we analyzed, some of those other alternative development strategies, particularly around the permaculture movement and the way it can offset some of the concerns that we currently have today. I see that looks very much like today with stormwater running off, even in the streets where you had some of the photos.

I see the lawn right behind it, which is a straight runoff. There's no stopping the water, but permaculture strategies, food gardening and stuff, offer that as alternatives. To what extent do we analyze that, and is that an area that needs to be further explored from the municipality's perspective because it's an important part of the food security from my vantage point as well.

Um, yeah, that is definitely a big option that we had, and in the past we have had programs that incentivize that, um, but that brings us back to that limited resource thing is we don't have the resources now to help incentivize that, but we would definitely support it. So, so just essentially in terms of building patterns and the things that the municipality, we incentivize in terms of development strategies, uh, land use. If we are encouraging permaculture as part of the stormwater, it would be helpful to have data to help us make that case because we are moving from, like, we've reduced parking lot, parking minimums for housing incentivization. Why wouldn't it be the same where we describe, you can have lawns which contribute to the stormwater problem, or you can do a better development on the housing that we want to see grow in the first place. So maybe that also goes backwards and retroactive.

In my community, for example, we have a lot of those older R-1 properties that are quarter-acre deep, and there are probably contributing to the runoff without having permaculture. So thinking of ways that people could take on, even beyond our incentivization, seems like this is part of a strategy that we should be investigating as a body. I appreciate that, and, and I offer— and actually, I ask for additional insight or information that you all have as this moves forward, area of research. Thank you.

Thanks. Next thing, I have Member Brawley. Yeah, I had a separate question, but I appreciate Member Martinez bringing up the permaculture. I think the other piece is, you know, we've reduced parking requirements, you know, because the more paved surface we have. So I think there, there isn't a really interesting connection between development and this infrastructure, and then of course our budget.

But my— and definitely interested in looking at that going forward. Um, shoot, I just totally lost my question. We can come back. Yeah, yeah, come back to me. I just want to know quickly, I have 2 more members in the queue.

I think I want to not spend more than another 7 or 8 minutes on this. I mean, I certainly have questions and want to dig into this deeper because I mean, when it's exciting to finally see something happening in the space and feel free to reach out to me, the stormwater utility was, I think, sort of put into existing code due to an ordinance that was adopted. Like 6 years ago or something like that. So anyways, I don't want to cut this conversation short because there's certainly a lot more work to do here, but we do have several other presentations that are pretty important we get to today. So with that, I will go to Member Aldwin Day.

Yeah, I think my question is slightly on the more technical side. I'm wondering if we have a full— have we done hydraulic modeling of the Anchorage Bowl? Do we have that? Available to us. We are currently in the process of that.

We have two studies that we have done on Chester Creek and Campbell Creek. That is the hydraulic analysis, and we have also done a risk assessment of our pipes on there. So those are the only two out of the nine that we have done so far, um, but we are planning to start on Ship Creek next. So it is our plan to develop them. Have we accessed like the HEC-RAS software to do that, or are we using something else?

It's just a GIS. Okay, yeah. Next in the queue, I have Member Hanlon.

Thank you, Chair. When we talk about, I know that the municipality primarily uses a sand-based for winter maintenance. With a little bit of salt in there. But have we looked at the long-term infrastructure damage from both, you know, sand creeks built up in storm drains, culverts, catch basins, where salt can increase corrosion in our steel pipes? Have we compared kind of a life cycle infrastructure cost to both of these and maybe shifting that in our winter prevention methodology?

Through the chair to Member Hanlon, this is Kent Coley, Director of Public Works. We haven't looked at that specifically. We know that, you know, 40 years ago we were using primarily metal pipe, and that is much more susceptible to the corrosion you're describing. We use exclusively plastic pipe now, so we've moved away from that risk in our currently installed infrastructure, but the old stuff is still subject to that damage.

Okay, I mean, I guess for— I guess, sorry, follow-up, is that okay?

Yes. So I guess, have we looked at, I mean, if we're starting to move away from, I mean, the steel, I mean, maybe transitioning more into using a higher concentration of salt to kind of reduce that, or is the sand that we're doing is there not much impact on our infrastructure with that? Through the chair again, Kent Kohlheiser. I think the impact to the infrastructure now is more on the operational side. We clean all of our catch basins twice a year.

We clean our OGSs. And so, we're, you know, as part of that, we're pumping, vacuuming that material out, and hauling it away. So, there is an impact to it. I can't speak to specifics, but we have gradually moved away from high levels of salt because of the other problems it presents with corrosion older pipes and damage to vehicles and things like that. Not to say that a change is off the table, but that's been the past practice.

Thank you. Okay, now I believe Member Brawley has remembered her question. Thanks so much. And this is also something I think that would be helpful for a follow-up, but Kent, since you're here, I was wondering, can you briefly describe the relationship or interaction between these drainage issues and our surface roads? Because it seems like like erosion, potholes, like a lot of those things, it seems like is because of water moving underneath the surface, but I am not an engineer.

So, so I'm just curious, like, because I, it seems like those things are related, but how related are they? Obviously, the stormwater utility is not paying for roads, but it seems like it is contributing to our liability of road damage as well. Through the chair to Member Brawley, that's exactly correct. Water is probably the single biggest element that damages our road system. If we had a perfectly functioning subsurface storm drain system, we would expect to see little deterioration to our roads due to water.

I guess along with that, the pavement surfaces on many of our roads is so old that even if we have a functioning drainage system, water infiltrates from the top and causes damage as well. So a lot of interrelationship there. Okay, thanks. Yeah, and I think if there's a way to quantify that as we move forward, or at least give some more color to that, I think really again explaining to the public how these things are very related is helpful. Thanks.

Yeah, then I, um, I have myself in the queue. Um, you, you know, you, you kind of put a number on, on sort of what we identify as the need, but I also know, you know, especially as you kind of move out of the arts and into some of the, um, other areas that are in service areas or not in a service area at all, where a lot of this infrastructure is either very limited or never built in the first place, and where there hasn't been funding for capital projects well, who knows in how long— since the state was freely handing out money, probably. So, I mean, is that something that is considered when we sort of look at the scale of the problem we're contemplating, not just sort of the known problems, but maybe in those spaces where we haven't had as much interaction between, you know, municipal services and impacted communities? I mean, do we— I guess maybe that's for another day, but do we have a sense of that, or? To what extent are we—.

Through the chair— or to the chair— I apologize, I'm not sure I quite understood the exact question. Well, I guess, you know, I think about when I go into some of the limited road service areas or places that aren't in service areas at all, you know, where there's very little drainage infrastructure. I mean, have we taken inventory of what is there and what needs might exist? We have—. I would say we have not inventoried the needs in the LURSA, the various LURSAs that that are largely uphill of the Anchorage Bowl.

We haven't inventoried those needs. We know there's needs up there. Some LRCAs do have larger budgets, do a very good job managing their water. Some have more challenges, but we have not inventoried the needs across sales. I mean, maintenance is a part of it, but also one of the challenges there is, you know, there's no funding source for capital projects, right?

So even if you say we really need a culvert here, you know, it can be hard. And then also, you know, I guess kind of with that, and maybe it's a question for another day as we sort of contemplate how to address this, you know, One thing we see when we don't have a comprehensive system is perhaps you fix a problem here and now the water just becomes a problem down the hill. And it doesn't look like, you know, just from my anecdotal experience in the community, like, that we contemplate how changes in one area affect another area, to where sometimes the, the street or community that's most impacted is not where the source of the problem lies. But I would think that as we sort of perhaps look at this as a more systematic level, that that's something that we would consider. Absolutely.

Thank you for that. And then I think for a final comment, I'll turn to Co-chair Baldwin-Day. Yeah, thank you all so much for being here, and I just want to say I really appreciate your— the passion with which you delivered your presentation. I think we've all experienced to some degree our constituents reaching out and saying, hey, we have these really significant issues. And so I would love for there to be a future update at this committee about just the status of the Stormwater Commission and how that work is unfolding, and really what the critical path is to the development of a stormwater utility.

So I think we're all aware that something has to give so that we don't continue to find ourselves between a rock and a hard place and a lot of water. So I thank you for being here, and I look forward to, to future updates on how we go about resolving this challenge that we've inherited. Thanks a lot for being here. Anything further? Mr. Spafford?

Yeah, Mark Spafford, Deputy Municipal Manager, Anchorage Hydro Power Utility. Director through chair. So I just wanted to add on to that. This is that— this is kind of like— this isn't kind of like— this is the preview to give the new members, maybe individuals that aren't experienced with stormwater. Maybe you're getting a lot of calls now about it, but just to kind of start the process for discussing this.

And I think subsequent meetings, which we plan on having, you know, on a regular basis, we'll talk about the work that we've done in the past, municipalities done in the past, you know, for the last 30 years, taking a look at this, and then ultimately lead to you know, this is what we need to do, or this is what the recommendation would be. But it's just to mainly get the bodies to start thinking about it, start asking questions, and then there'll be subsequent meetings where we talk more about the history and what we've done and different strategies that we looked at and different options that we have as a community to, to better manage stormwater, or, you know, leave it as is. So, and finally, go to Mr. Culhace one more time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to maybe convey an anecdote. I was We're emailing back and forth with Member Brawley about some issues in South Anchortoff Constitution Drive, and we've determined that the cost to replace that storm system— about 4,000 feet of pipe, 4,000 feet of road that would need to be rebuilt— is in the range of $25 to $50 million. Several years ago, we spent $18 million in Campbell Woods subdivision to rebuild that entire system. It didn't have a drainage system. We installed it.

A good portion of those costs are the cost to rebuild the road and the infrastructure above, but I just wanted to offer that as a, you know, kind of talked about a billion or more dollars, a single subdivision, $15, $20, $25, $30 million. So that's this, that's kind of puts a maybe a little different perspective on the cost of doing this work. Thank you. It adds up. And then I'm very quickly, one last word from member Brawley.

Just, just question, how old is that existing storm system? Just for scale, is this 100 years old, 50 years old, 30 years old? I would put it in the 30 to 40 year range, and I can find out exactly, but—. So not even that old, all things considered. Thanks.

All right, more to come, and lots more to do in our remaining 28 minutes. So, Mr. Spafford, looking to you for a quick update on waste-to-energy.

Mr. Chair, um, uh, and kaché, where— pretty— when you are. Yes, please. Thank you. Good morning, my name is Aaron Hudson.

I work for Jacobs, the consulting company, and I'm the program director for the Anchorage Waste to Energy Project, working for Mr. Mark Spafford, the Deputy Municipal Manager. Thank you for your time today. We're here just to give a short update on the waste to energy project following Mark, Mr. Spafford's presentation to this same forum about a month ago in April, and just to provide some additional updates.

Looks like the formatting on our presentation is a little bit misaligned. I apologise for that. Our project is proceeding as planned. We are currently through, from 2019, a feasibility study which commenced this project. In the Assembly meeting a week and a half ago, we received additional funding from the— approved by the Assembly for $4.5 million, and I'll explain how that's being applied shortly.

We're in the middle of delivering a number of contracts, including a siting study which will determine the optimum location to put the waste energy plant and any other alternate locations. We're working through what we call a waste shed analysis study. That's a study that's intended to identify any diverse sources of income and additional revenue streams that this project can achieve as part of its delivery. We're kicking off a waste characterization study. The diagram, the image on the right-hand side, if I draw your attention to it, is the job of a very, very lucky person who gets to sift through our garbage once per quarter.

And as they do so, they'll be determining the calorific content of the garbage, which then in turn informs us about how much energy we can create through the Waste-to-Energy Plant and how to size it properly and how to design it properly, which then leads directly to some of the engineering decisions and revenue calculations. And we're shortly about to commence a baseline air monitoring program so that we're understanding existing pollutants in the atmosphere. And when we go to determine the final engineering design, we use that in determining, uh, in conversations with the DEC around managing the control of the pollutants that for the Waste-to-Energy program. We're also about to commence, or we're in the middle of, a public relationships and communications program, which I'll talk to just shortly. We've achieved quite a lot so far through the project.

We have a draft basis of design that's informing this project, a draft concept of operations. We have a very good understanding of the permitting regulatory environment that we're working within and what's going to be required to see this project through to approval and commencement of construction. We're working through the allocation of land, potential land options, in an annex to the existing Anchorage Regional Landfill. And as I mentioned, we're working through a study— sorry, a siting study report, pardon me. At the moment, we have a design RFP on the street due to be closed at the end of this month, which will be for front-end engineering design services, which will be required to bring us through to a final plan of finance.

And very shortly, in the next few weeks, we'll be advertising an operations management at risk and a construction management at risk contract which will help us understand the operability and the constructability implications of the design processes. We're also looking to engage some legal services.

All of that, when we look at that in terms of a table, just this provides a bit of an overview of where the spend is going. And for the total $12.5 million that's been authorised and approved so far, about just under $8 million has been encumbered to date— sorry, about $7 million has been encumbered encumbered when we appoint the design services contract. Sorry. Ah, thank you very much. That's now showing a bit cleaner.

It's a little bit clearer. When we appoint the design services contract and legal services, we will have encumbered the original $8 million that was first authorized for this project. The back end of the services that we're awarding are all designed for really one thing. It's to make sure that we have an absolutely robust design supported by a clear and affordable plan of finance, making sure that the project that we're developing is as self-sufficient and self-funded as, as absolutely possible through the revenue streams that we intend to generate. Over the next year, between now and May 2027, we have a couple of key milestones, certainly commencing with the air quality monitoring contract.

This is a pivotal contract because it forms the critical path. There's a minimum period of time that we need to monitor the environment, and that informs how fast we can move forward on this project. And then towards the October-November area, we expect to award these design— sorry, the design OMAR and CMAR contracts. In May 2027, we have a target to deliver a plan of finance, which will be how this project will be funded through its subsequent stages. And of course, the assembly will be looking to review that.

And you'll see from the diamond shown at the very bottom row there, between now and then, we're initiating a public engagement communications campaign to not only make sure that we understand any of the community's concerns and that we're addressing those, but also to make sure that we're improving information and awareness of the benefits of this program as we roll through it.

I've mentioned the term plan of finance. Just in— for those that aren't aware of what that is, It's a document that explains how this project will be funded, where the revenues are going to come from, and how the project will get funded and pay its various suppliers. To get, to get to that point, there's a number of different sources of information we still need to identify. That's where those studies that we're contracting are working. So where we— they include the kind of waste that we're getting in that calorific value, engaging supply agreements across the city with our various suppliers, and potentially outside of the city if there are other sources of waste that we're able to process.

Our partnerships in terms of treating biosolids, treating regional waste, potentially treating PFAS-contaminated soils, and then working through some of the sales agreements that we intend to generate, including maximizing every bit of available revenue from the waste streams that we process, which include metals recovery and ash recovery at the end of the, the waste-to-energy process. And then of course the financial due diligence and risk analysis that we need to undertake to make sure that this project is well thought through and is properly capturing all the technical and financial risks.

I've moved one ahead. And then just simply lastly, I've touched very quickly on a communication strategy. We've really got this in 3 phases. At the moment we're in this March to May period where we've been talking to you, the Assembly members, around alignment of this phase and moving forward and the decision makers to make sure that we're on the right track. Over the next 5 to 6 months, we're looking to build partnerships with various suppliers and understand who the contractual partners will be for this project and make sure that they are lined up well and truly in advance, in addition to starting to engage the community through various touch points and understand those concerns and reflect on them.

We can elaborate on this in future meetings. But that's pretty much it, members. We just wanted to give you a very, very quick update and happy to take any questions. Any questions? Member Baldonde.

Thank you so much for being here. So $12.5 million allocated or encumbered so far. Do we have a sense of what our all-in upfront costs are going to be for— what gets us up to the the ready to proceed with construction point? Thank you, Member Baldwin-Day. The $12.5 million brings us to a plan of finance where part of the work that we're doing over the next period is to define those future stages.

We don't have a number for that at the moment, but we'll be bringing that to you in a future time. So the $12.5 million gets us to the plan? Correct. Excellent. Thank you.

All right, last call for questions. Not seeing anybody. Thank you very much for being here and for the update. Thank you for your time. Oh, wait, just a moment.

I have one, Zach. Member McCormick, just before the buzzer.

Yep, I just wanted to kind of echo what Member Baldwin-Day was saying with kind of concerns of $12.5 million getting us to that financing stage and any of the upcoming costs. I would be very interested to hear of like what what we could expect upcoming and cost-wise before we get to financing stage.

Sorry, your mic's not quite on. Sorry, thank you. Thank you for the question. I'm not sure if I fully understand. So the—.

It's okay. Yeah, okay. So, Mayor McCormick, I'm getting some nods. I think they understood your question and we'll report back.

Thank you.

Member Park. Thank you. With that investment, what ROI would we expect to see in terms of energy produced?

Oh, in terms of the plant itself? Will be—. When it is operational. Thank you very much. We'll be looking to generate between 25 and 30 megawatts of power, which is about equivalent to 20,000 homes.

Thank you. All right, thank you very much for the update. Appreciate you being here. With that, we're going to move on to our next item, which is an update on the Anchorage Regional Landfill closure and post-closure investment fund board discussion. And Mr.

Chair, while they're getting settled, I just want to make a note that the picture of where that potential plant looks like, looked potentially like Eagle River. So just throwing it out there, making a plug.

All right, well, good morning, almost afternoon. I am the chair, and I'm really excited to be here, so, and share this with you. So I'm here today on behalf of the ARL closure and post-closure investment fund. We are not asking for money. Um, so I'll just, I'll just start there.

For the record, there was applause from Member Gerker. So my name is Angie Astle. I serve as the chair of the investment fund. I am truly grateful to have Jeff Sins, who is the vice chair, also a public volunteer member as I am. Joining me today.

He has a long history with the fund and has been and is an influential and extremely knowledgeable leader on our board. Today's presentation covers two topics: an overview of the fund and its governing board structure, followed by our investment performance update through December 31st, 2025. Um, sorry, I have old eyes, so I'm going to try to do that. We have two items to cover today. First, we will walk through the fund's purpose and how the board operates.

This is particularly important context for the newer committee members, and it grounds everything in the municipal code. Second, we'll present the investment performance results and how the fund performed in 2025, over the past 5 years, and since its inception in 2017, and how we expect it to perform going forward. On the next slide, you can see the board members. This fund is governed by a 5-member investment board. As required by code.

Our current members are myself serving as chair, Jeff Sins, who is the vice chair, Ross Risvold, who's the secretary, Kelly Toth, who is a member, and Chris Richardson, who's also a member. Under the code, the board must include at least one member of the Solid Waste Services, at least one member from Public Finance, and at least two public members, which is Jeff and I. Members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the assembly and serve staggering 3-year terms to ensure continuity of oversight.

For the next slide, I'll give a fund overview. To understand why this fund exists, it is important to understand the regulatory and legal framework behind it. Under both federal accounting standards, which are called GAAP, and EPA regulations, The landfill operators are legally required to accrue liabilities and fully fund during the landfill's operational life the present value of all anticipated closure and post-closure care costs. This is a regulatory— federal regulatory mandate. In 2016, the Assembly acted on that obligation by amending AMC 268060 and enacted a new AMC 268060 8065.

Those two code provisions together created the ARL closure and post-closure care restricted cash investment fund and established the investment board to manage it. The fund's purpose is straightforward. It accumulates sufficient assets during the useful life of the Anchorage Regional Landfill so that when the landfill closes, the money is there to pay for the closure and and 30 years of post-closure monitoring and maintenance. A significant amendment was made in 2020 when the Assembly clarified that all, all users of the ARL, past and future, bear a proportionate responsibility for these costs. Funding requirements are now determined prospectively using the Solid Waste Services long-term financial forecasting model, and we call that the Raftelis model.

Model, and it is updated on 5-year cycles. Two transfers of excess funds have been authorized. In 2021, the Assembly authorized a return of more than $25 million in excess funding back to Solid Waste Services to support its capital improvement plan. And in 2026, following this first 5-year update of the RAFTELES model, the Assembly authorized an additional transfer of $5.2 million that was determined to be excess funding. These transfers reflect that the model works as intended when the fund has more than is needed for the projected liability.

On the next slide, I will talk about the highlights. AMC 268060 establishes the core funding obligations for the Solid Waste Services Department. Key provisions include the federal compliance and the municipal code directly incorporates this obligation. Annual budgeting. Solid Waste Services is required to include in its annual budget the liability associated with the future ARL closure and post-closure costs, and that is calculated based on the utilization of the expected landfill capacity.

Cost is shared through tipping fees. Each user of the ARL pays for a proportionate share of the closure and post-closure and it ensures these costs are borne by all those who generate the waste requiring the eventual closure. Annual deposit requirements are set aside from Solid Waste Services, and those amounts are deposited each year by June 30th. The amount to be deposited on June 30th of this year is $210,033. It has a restricted purpose.

Deposits into the fund can only be used for their specific purpose closure and post-closure care costs. And assembly oversight for any withdrawals— any withdrawal from the fund for purposes other than those closure and post-closure care costs require assembly approval. And this is an important check and balance, and the board cannot unilaterally just redirect these funds. We go to the next slide. AMC 268065 is the provision that actually creates the fund and defines the board's authority and responsibility.

Key provisions include the fund's establishment, the purpose, which is simple— to accumulate, manage, and safeguard the fund's assets on behalf of the ratepayers, of the public— the board's authority, which is responsible for managing all the investment activities of the fund, the board's composition, which we already reviewed, investment policy. The board is required to develop and adopt a written investment policy that's called an IPS. Or an investment policy statement. The investment policy statement was developed and is supported by our advisor Callan. The IPS is reviewed on an annual basis and amended as it's deemed necessary.

The investment objective is that the fund's investments to achieve the long-term return on the— on that investment together will be sufficient to satisfy the ARL closure and post-closure future costs. And then professional. The board can engage financial advisors and others, and we're supported by public finance. On the next slide— trying to go fast, I'm sorry— the key provisions of AMC 268065: we oversee the depositing of the fund, the 5-year forecasting cycle, the annual deposits are determined prospectively as part of that 5-year period cycle, and the board reviews those deposit amounts.

And we have at every 10-year period beginning in 2020, the board must engage an independent analyst to check on the closure and post-closure care liability and report, and report back on an external check on the funds' adequacy. And then the last slide is the fund's performance. Net of fees, as of December 31, 2025. So the 2025 1-year return, the fund returned almost 17% at 16.9% compared to a benchmark of 16.8%. On the 5-year return, the fund returned 6.3% annualized compared to a benchmark of 6.2%.

6.1%, And since inception, the fund has earned 6.9% compared to the benchmark of 7%. A forward— based on the current asset allocation and Callan's capital market assumptions, the board projects a 6.7% annualized return for 2026 to 2030, 5-year period. Um, this—. In summary, this fund continues to perform in line with its expectations, the board is satisfied with the investment program and the oversight of our investment advisors. I'm happy to answer any questions, and I just really appreciate your time today.

And we appreciate yours. And I, I do have at least one member in the queue. Before we do, just looking at the clock, I want to look around. Is anyone here for audience participation?

I take that as a no. With that, uh, Member Hanlon.

Thank you. With the potential waste-to-energy project, I'd imagine the closure date potentially being shifted back. Is there potential of another extra payment transfer?

Sure, short answer is yes. That's— and actually, when the, the Solid Waste Services long-term financial planning model was developed, that was specifically provided for and anticipated as a potential event during the life of the fund.

And then, through the Chair, Mark Spafford, I just want to add that, you know, the withdrawal that we made recently was due to operational improvements over the last several years that we have made to the actual working-face operations that directly led to a longer landfill life, which extends out the investment period, which allows us to then draw from that. So basically, The longer you extend the life of the landfill, the more you're able to invest that money, the longer term, better returns, and able to draw that money out for, you know, whether it's a waste-to-energy project or other capital improvement projects. You know, it's like essentially like we did at the transfer station, right? That was part of that withdrawal in 2020 to help fund that. So it's a really, really good program.

Member Baldonde. Yeah, quick follow-up to that. The allocation that we made here recently, if I'm not mistaken, was actually a portion of the funds from the ARL Post-Closure Fund that actually are helping to support the next— that unallocated, unencumbered piece of the waste-to-energy project. Am I correct on that?

Through the Chair, Member Baldwin-Day, correct.

We love a self-sustaining system.

Alright, looking around the room, any other members, any questions related to the, uh, ARL closure fund?

Does not look like it, so we got 5 minutes left. I checked with the Port Director. I think we're going to leave the general PAMP update till June, but there is an item that I believe will be up for Assembly action prior. To our June meeting, and that is the funding for the 2026 fender repair. So since we have 5 minutes left, I thought perhaps to see if members had any questions for anyone from the Port of Alaska, since that will be before the body, I think, at our first meeting in June.

Looks like Member Brawley has a question. Yeah, just to clarify, is the fender in that area where there was the north stable stabilization where they had to remove things, or what location is it? Yeah, sorry, uh, Eric, we'll get you on a mic. The engineer has been summoned.

Good afternoon, Eric Adams with Jacobs, uh, supporting the port on this question here. Great question. Through the Chair, Member Brawley, it is along the existing cargo docks that are not going to be torn down that these fender repairs have to occur. I think it was last year one of them fell off in the water and we had to— and so this is just repairing those ones as needed maintenance before the new cargo dock is built. And they go along Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 currently in use by Matson and TOTE.

Thank you.

And then I asked, I want to just confirm, that is the only time-sensitive thing we have from the PAM? So we'll have you guys back for a longer update in June, but nothing else that we need to be ready to act on between now and then? Chair Johnson, correct. Just want to give a quick status update. Everything's on track, we're looking great so far.

So No issues to report, which is positive. And come down in June, there's going to be a lot of construction. Most of the cranes are there, so it's just a status update. Everything's looking good, on track for August 15th, 2028, which is my big concern. So thanks.

When are we going to start hearing the bells ringing? Great question. They're going to be starting temporary— they've started some temporary piling. It's probably going to be the first week in June when the large pilings start going in. You're going to start seeing the temporary pilings, and the temp is built first, so middle of June you're going to have that temporary noise start bumping up throughout the day, and so the communities that are around the Port of Alaska, just, you might start hearing some, you know, members be concerned about that, but go to our website, point them to the website.

We literally update that every Thursday. It's in your pamphlet there. Send all your people to the website. They can see what's going to occur the next week down at the port, and they kind of anticipate what is going on. So, any other questions around the room?

Last call, any questions? No? All right, one last call for audience participation. Nobody online, I assume. All right, great.

Well, thank you everybody. Look at that, I can't believe it, but we finished a little early. With that, we will be adjourned at 12:12 PM.