Mat-Su Borough: Assembly Meeting - September 15

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and call this meeting to order at 6 PM. This is a regular assembly meeting for Tuesday, September 15th, 2026. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? I will. Michael Bowles.

Here. Stephanie Nauers. I'm here. Dee McKee. Yep.

Maxwell Sumner. Present. Bill Gamble. Here. Dimitri Fono.

Here. Ron Bernier. Present. Madam Mayor, you have a quorum. Thank you.

Is there anything that the members would like to pull from, um, the consent agenda? Deputy Mayor.

Resolution 26-103. Okay, thank you.

120.

Okay, anything else?

Are there any changes to the agenda?

Hearing none, then the agenda is approved as presented, uh, as pulled. If you all stand, please. And Representative— Representative— sorry, Assemblyperson Gamble, will you lead us in the Pledge?

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

There are no meeting minutes that are being presented. The next item on our agenda is agency reports. Um, do we have a report from the cities? Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and Assembly. Uh, this is Crystal Nygaard with the City of Wasilla, Deputy Administrator. Just bringing you up to date, uh, last night Resolution 2655 was passed. That is the city's participation in planning for the new regional dispatch facility and authorizing the mayor to sign the memorandum of understanding. We also passed Resolution 2646 that approved the priority transportation projects for nomination to the MVP 2027-2030 TIP.

The city committed to providing the required non-federal matching funds for those projects. For all of you hunters out there, please note that the— there will be overnight closures at the Wasilla Municipal Airport this month. So before you utilize our airport, make sure you look at the current conditions. We just permitted a 22,000-square-foot professional office building that's going to go at Nelson and Lucille in the next— they'll do some site prep this fall and then build it next spring. And we also approved a 12,000-square-foot gas station and convenience store that will be on just this side of SBS.

On the Parks Highway. So Wasilla is open for business, and we appreciate all the opportunities to partner with the Matsu borough to make this the best place to live, work, and play. Good for you. I don't see anybody from Palmer or Houston. Okay, now let's see, do we have a report from school district?

I don't see anybody. Report from the state. I don't see Todd. Committee reports. Do we have any reports from Joint Assembly and School?

I don't think they— you had a meeting, right?

Okay. Assembly public relations report.

Okay, Mr. Brown, you have a report. I do, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Um, so I'm going to invite, uh, Mr. Ortiz, uh, up. I think Mr. Long as well.

And as they're moving forward, I just have two quick updates, and then they'll provide you an update on the Peaceful Place, uh, cleanup. So I just wanted to give you two updates on Port McKenzie. Uh, last week we had members, uh, from one of— I believe it was from the Transportation Committee of the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce, uh, actually came down and visited the port. So, uh, great dialogue. And really trying to connect the dots for how Port McKenzie supports exports, bulk commodity exports from interior Alaska.

And so we had a lot of great dialogue and questions. Appreciate Dave Griffin putting that together and having that group out. So that was last week. This— today we had Industry Day for the first time out at the port, probably somewhere between 70 and 80 folks. It was packed and a little tough to manage, but that was a good problem to have.

So a lot of industry folks, I think the farthest traveler was from Australia, and then some folks from New York and other places in the lower 48, from various government agencies, private sector firms, local businesses here in Alaska, but a lot of great dialogue connections and crosstalk that occurred today. Pretty excited about what that looks like, and I think that'll become a regular theme, and I just— or a regular recurring event. And I'm kind of excited to hear about some of the conversations that may occur outside of that from people just getting connected. Like, I was talking to one individual and he's like, oh, I'm having dinner with such-and-such tonight. And I was like, oh great, didn't know that.

Like, these are connections that'll happen that don't require us to do anything just because we brought people together on a single day. To have those types of conversations. So kudos to our port staff— Dave, Sandy, Greg, Kareem. Brandy was out there helping, like it was an all hands on deck. I think George and I were running traffic control for a while, which meant like putting out candlesticks.

And no, we were not flagging or anything, but we did, you know, it's just like what it takes to get it done. So I really appreciate the effort that went into that today. And I think, and really the folks that drove all the way around, you know, that came in from Anchorage. And I mean, it's just not a short drive. So I just want to give you those 2 updates.

With that said, turn it over to Jason, and he's going to give you an update on the Peaceful Place cleanup in the Big Lake area.

All right, good evening, uh, Madam Mayor, Assembly members, Mr. Manager. Jason Ortiz, Deputy Director, Planning and Land Use. Uh, so this is, uh, just a quick update on Peaceful Place project. This was not an intended cleanup project.

This started, uh, where we— it started with a complaint, and it's been several years in the making. Uh, a lady out— and her name's Helen, and she lives out in Peaceful Place, and, uh, she has been trying to sell her house and has not been able to sell her house because no, no real estate agent would take, uh, to put the listing on because they would not go past all the junk and blight that they had to get to to go to this property. So, um, Oh, which one do I hit? The button, the big button. All right, so to give you guys context what, uh, where this is, and I'll kind of tell you how this came about and how it's moved so fast.

So what you're looking at on the picture on the left is the actual neighborhood. Those red dots represent code compliance cases, and on the right represents some of the blight that you would see. The challenges of this neighborhood was 3 of the parcels, the person passed away, and so squatters are just living on those properties. 3 Parcels on the north owned by the archdiocese were vacant, and then 1 particular property on the north just had some people on there, just lots of crime and lots of blight going on. So we convened a meeting.

This was a unique one. I asked the manager's permission to do a different approach and communicated with Assemblymember Gamble, and what we did here is I drew a map kind of surrounding out, just zooming out of that a bit. 120 Residents, we sent a mailer to them and said, we'd like to meet with you. We'd like to meet with you right on that corner and bring a, bring a camp chair because we want to talk about all the problems. And so we did a pre-meeting with the, with the district attorney.

So, um, Ms. Trina Sears was very instrumental in, in showing up. We did pre-meet with them, with the troopers as well. And basically, we're like, hey, what can we do to solve some of these problems? We don't have policing powers. We don't have the health powers.

How can we work together and solve some of these problems? So we held a meeting. We sent a mailer out. Everyone brought their camp chairs. We did a partial road closure.

And the backdrop was all the squatters. We had 120 mailers that went out. 122 People, I think, showed up, plus not counting the ones that were streaming online. So it was super impactful. That is what happened on August 6th.

It was recorded. It was, if anyone wants to hear it, it was very, very impactful. Those neighbors showed up and they wanted to see change and they wanted to know what we were going to do and how we were going to do it. Basically what I told them there is like, change is going to happen. We're gonna, we need to work together as a community and we need everyone to step up and we need all eyes and ears.

The troopers committed to putting a criminal suppression unit into that area. So like round-the-clock troopers, lots of people being arrested, uh, that, that needed to be arrested. And the district attorney, it was very impactful because rather than just explaining this over the phone or sending an email, they stood on the corner and they were able to make contact, see what they're looking at. So when they do see these arrests coming through from this neighborhood, they know exactly what's going on and the impact that it has on this community. Uh, so from here, I'd like to turn it over to Wade Long, our Development Services Manager, because really he's the one that, uh, lit a fire and got this going here.

So I'd like to bring up Wade.

Thanks, Jason. Uh, Wade Long, Development Services Manager. Um, as Jason said, uh, this was This was impactful. So I attended this meeting also like everybody else, and I was impacted. I'm like, what can I do?

Which is really kind of a mantra I have, like, what is the path to yes? What can we do? And so I knew that the Criminal Suppression Unit was gonna be on in the area for a short period of time, like a month. And I knew that I had a very effective team in our CLEANS Unit, which are my program coordinators here. Mandy, Amber, and Reese.

I knew they're very, very effective. And so I wanted to take advantage of that time. So this was on— the timeline is kind of important because this meeting happened on August 6th. And then I just, uh, you know, I heard what they said. I talked to the people that were, um, uh, you know, the neighbors that were there that were impacted by this, have to live among that.

And I came up with a multi-phase plan to do what I could do, which is why it says here, what can we do now? Well, we can do a right-of-way cleanup. If I was to go back here, just one slide, all that stuff there on the right picture, most of that is in the right-of-way. So you have the roadway, but then the right-of-way is like 60 feet wide and all that stuff's in the right-of-way. And that is actually missing a lot of cars, cars and trucks and trailers.

So I was like, well, I have a clean budget and I have, um, Mattoon Borough Code. So thank you guys. And so I made it, um, fullest impact. So I told Assemblymember Gamble what our plan was. And then on— so on August 6th was this meeting.

August 11th, I presented to the Big Lake Community Council and told them what my multi-phase plan was going to be. The first thing we're going to do is we're going to extract all the vehicles that were in the right-of-way. And then the next thing we're going to do is on August 28th and 29th, we were going to do— ideally, we would do a cleanup with Big Lake community volunteers. So it was a call to action for labor and equipment, whoever could help out. And the only reason I did this is because the troopers were gonna be in the area.

This was an adversarial cleanup. This wasn't like previous cleanups. So the only thing I could do was a right-of-way cleanup at the time because we did not have property owners that were interested in partnering with us. It was adversarial. Like Jason said, there was arrests.

That did occur. So, um, so on August 11th, I had that meeting. August 12th, I had, uh, planned a tow swarm with our code compliance— Nick Appas had helped me coordinate, um, along with the, um, program coordinators for every tow truck in the valley to be present. And we extracted 50 vehicles and trailers and, uh, the like in about 5 hours. Unheard of.

Um, And then actually somebody sped away that day and fled from the troopers and they were able to get 'em. So I can't thank the troopers enough for being on call, on the ready, and very supportive of our entire operation. The next thing was going to be the cleanup, and that occurred on August 28th and 29th. We had about 18 volunteers from the Big Lake community, not counting a couple of companies had totally donated their equipment and time, which was Black Ice Excavating and Alaska Junk and Trash Cleanup. We filled up 11 dumpsters.

I want to keep in mind, just to kind of like give you this impact here, is that this was in a half mile of road. We pulled out 50 vehicles off half mile of road. We pulled out 11 dumpsters of trash. To start with. And just like pre— but what was like previous cleanups was that eventually some property owners did come on board with us and signed some releases.

And so we were actually able to help out 3 property owners through the CLEANS program. One of them was the Catholic Diocese of Fairbanks. Actually, we told them how much it would cost to clean up the property. And so they said, yeah, we're going to go ahead and pay you. Reimburse you for that cleanup.

So we're looking for a check from them. But that was a nice partnership. Um, all told, this was about 50 tons, 50 tons of trash and about 60 vehicles, because we did pull vehicles off the properties.

Uh, I did want to thank, um, especially the Alaska State Troopers, because even on that, that one day, this was very adversarial. People were, uh, not necessarily, um, they didn't necessarily want us there. And somebody got arrested like right in front of us on the last day on the 29th and it was, or the 28th and it was quite shocking, but we were able to get it done. So I applaud the bravery of my team and the volunteers. But Jodi Rydell from the Big Lake Community Council and the community council was very supportive with this.

They rallied people to give money donations and there was a barbecue on the second day. Black Ice Excavating, Valley Trash Junk and Removal, they provided equipment. And their time, they did dump runs, Valley Trash did dump runs all the way to Central Landfill. DC 907 Diesels, HDL Painting and Drywall donated some money. DeBock Towing, Patriot Towing, Elite Towing, Alaska Car Crush in Big Lake Towing, they were all They all participated in the extraction of those vehicles.

Alaska Waste Frontier Waste, a new company in the valley. We were, I think we're the first ones to use one of their 40-yard dumpsters. So we got it. It was all, they didn't finish painting it, but we got it, got it dirty for them. AK Holloway, True North Recovery.

So these projects, they can't be successful unless there's an ultimate, buy-in from all the resources we have in the community. And the mobile crisis team was present to be available to anybody because there is active addiction with the squatter situations going on. So we're very grateful that they donated their time and showed up. Adult and Teen Challenge, as usual, the Catholic Diocese, and these neighbors that Helen— I don't really know how to pronounce her last name, we don't want to insult her, but You know, it's like the people— she was very— she's been very vocal at the Big Lake Community Council. She's been very— she— I think she has a position on the community council now because that's like a community activist that has been very vocal about situations, just trying to sell her house and go move with her kid who had to move downstate, you know.

And, uh, and look what— look what she's gotten done. You know, she just kept— she kept knocking on their doors. But Nori and Gary there, they filled up dumpsters and rallied some squatters to help clean up some stuff. But so one of the final phases is that road through there also. It's not a borough-maintained road, but reason why we did this is because it was so choked out from junk and trash and vehicles in this blight that people that were, you know, good neighbors couldn't even access their property.

Couldn't even access the property. One of the greatest things was, as I was telling Reese here when I saw it, is like, do you see that car come down here using peaceful place? That's the Deckmans. They— this is the first time they've been able to use the road. They've been using people's backyards.

This is the first time they've been able to use the road to access their property to come and go. So it's actually very moving. Uh, but the RSA contractor said that he's going to donate his time and money to fix that road. So it's not a road— maintained road, but he's— he said he's going to fix that road. So I got to follow up with him because that's the final phase for this.

But Senator Rauscher, Representative McCabe, Commissioner McCabe, They were out there. Senator Rauscher has been at every single one of our cleanups, so a huge shout out to him. But, and Borough Administration Manager has been at our cleanups too, and we really are grateful for your support through this. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those as best we can.

Assemblyperson. Uh-huh. Assemblyperson McKee, go ahead. I have a question. The, probably the pivotal thing in this was that the stuff was in the right-of-way, right?

Is that a lot, was that what allowed you to do what everything that you did. I'm sorry, say that again. Probably the pivotal thing here was that this junk and trash was in the right-of-way, and that's what allowed you to do what you did. And I, you know, I've seen— there's a couple, I can't remember their name, but they come here, and I just want to— I wish you guys could do the same thing. Is there any way to modify that so that you could get something done for some of the other folks out there that it isn't right-of-way?

Through the mayor to Assemblymember McKee, Yes, the reason why it was successful is because it's right away. We were also very cognizant, like, of throwing money at things that aren't gonna be able to fix a problem. So that's why we partner with the Troopers on this so that we can get people either that need to go to jail, to jail for committing crimes, or get 'em treatment because they need to fix the addiction problem. We're also working really, really, like, we had a lot of people that were interested just as investors. So like our, my goal, long-term vision in a year, I wanna to see 6 brand new houses built in that neighborhood, contributing to the tax roll for the borough, and a nice road.

And I believe that just the cleanup, changing some things, helping with this, and making the neighborhood be responsible for their own neighborhood and helping with it is going to help solve that. To answer your second part of your question about, um, could it be replicated, I think this was, this was a very unique call to action, and after we had this meeting and after people read about it and they saw the stream and the troopers, you know, put it out on their social media, I think others might want to do something similar. But it's definitely unique. But the nice thing I like about this is it's the community coming and stepping up and doing it, and they're doing the heavy lifting on stuff. We're doing the coordinating.

So, well, maybe those communities— yeah, maybe the communities will say, geez, that really worked. What can we do to get this done? Because I'd be leading the charge on something like that for my, my place. Thanks, Deputy Mayor. Any idea what basically the bottom line, what kind of— if we want to do this again, what would it cost?

I don't think there's a set parameter of what it costs because everything's unique, right? But, um, depends on the area. Like, I, I just since this time I've had multiple people reach out. One person lives on Burma and he's like, I own an excavation company, there's a problem in my neighborhood. Tell me what I can do.

I'll use all my own equipment. So we're already trying to figure out how we partner and keep taxpayer dollars low but get bigger impacts. And so I, I couldn't give you an exact number, but if you'd like to discuss it or see more of the stuff we're doing, I'd be more than happy to meet with you, could chat about it. Any, any rough estimate? I mean, I could tell you what this cost.

This one was like— yeah, it was $42,000. However, Some of that money is going to be recoverable. And also, we are— the money that— the things that we're actually taking that we know came from properties, we're tacking it on to— they're going to end up being associated with being owed, you know, sending a bill. We're sending bills to people like, you owe the money. And so, to property owners that, that made part of this problem happen.

So, um, we are very mindful of how we go into a project because we don't want to just go somewhere where we know it's going to recidivate and it's going to be right back at the same, right? Because that's a waste of tax dollars. And so we're very, very mindful. This one moved really fast because the entire community showed up. And so the one thing I stress to them is we need them to call and report every instance of everything that's going on.

And so one, one example that I gave them is when I drove there the first time for this meeting, the road was horrible, potholes like crazy. And I had 128 whatever people there, and I asked them, how many people have reported the road? Nobody. Before that, I checked Problem Reporter, I checked all the lines. Not a single resident had reported the roads.

And so I kind of told them, I was like, you guys have to accept responsibility and let us know, like hold us accountable so we can get the roads done. So we can— you need to let the troopers know when there's a crime. So, um, it's also just bringing education and telling the public, call, call and call and call, and, and don't stop calling. And they're, they're rebuilding the road Um, so Wade was working on that. Um, Representative McCabe made a call to the state to see if they would donate the gravel, and it sounds like that's working out to donate material.

And the RSA contractor, it's said he would donate his time to fix the road. So, um, there's lots of stuff moving and not, not a cost to us as taxpayers. And that'll come up to borough specs then. I'm sorry, will it be a borough specs? Borough specs, is that what you said?

The road? Oh, I don't, I don't know about that one. Through the mayor to Mr. Bernier. No, this is gonna, this is gonna be a design. This isn't going to be the borough specs.

This isn't going to be to just take the road within. Yeah, make it better. And in the end, that may be good enough. Uh, if you know, I think the community is probably going to work with the RSA board to see about potentially bringing it on to under borough maintenance. But, you know, there's still going to have to be a conversation about whether we choose to do that, knowing it's not up to specifications.

Yeah, but, you know, if the RCA has thoughts about that, you know, we'll see where the conversation goes. Right now it's really just get it to a point where it's passable year-round.

Thank you.

Assemblyperson Gamble. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I wanted to wait till last because I've got a lot to say on this. And Jason, you don't take nearly enough credit for what you did here. This was kind of like a pilot program where he was familiar with the property and what was going on out there when I came to him with the problem Helen brought to me.

And I mean, she was in tears and just so angry over not being able to sell her property for several years because of what was going on out there. And so Jason had this idea of bringing the troopers, the borough, and the DA, you know, together and having a plan to deal with everything that was going on out there. It wasn't just, you know, the trash and the junk vehicles. And Jason and Wade, I mean, I just commend you guys for what you did. I thanked the troopers at the last meeting.

I want to thank you here, you know, and staff. Mr. Manager, what a great, great team you have here, and what they did out there is just phenomenal. So thank you very much. And I also want to thank Assemblymember Fonhoff because he took the time to go out there and look around and see what was going on.

Also, after dealing with the Willewa situation last year, and this is just a great example of how, you know, government and law enforcement and private, you know, partnerships can come together and solve a problem. And so thank you for, for everything you did. And you know, because I've contacted you since, and we've got more phone calls now because people have seen what, what happened out there. Now, um, like Assemblymember McKee alluded to, you know, other people want to see it happening in other places in the borough. So thank you very much, appreciate it.

Wade, you can leave the mic on. Thank you, sir. Okay, do you have further report, sir? Okay. Mr. Attorney, do you have a report?

No. Madam Clerk, your report? The clerk's fold— or the clerk's report is in your red folder with the upcoming meeting schedule and the election brochure, and I did send it out to the assembly last Friday. Did the assembly have any changes?

Okay, thank you. That's all I got. Okay, thank you. Uh, the next item is citizens and other correspondence. Do there any comments from the assembly on the citizens and other correspondence?

Okay, seeing and hearing none. Madam Clerk, will you please read the IMs into the record? IM 26186, reporting the conclusion of contract for bid number 2645B with Steppers Construction for a final contract amount of $265,297.61 for the design-build of operation and maintenance covered storage. IM 26188, reporting the conclusion of contract for bid 2688B with Jim Posenik Construction for a final contract amount of $708,500 for the 2025 Talkeetna Dike and revetment repairs. IM 26191, informing the assembly of 12 fiscal year 2027 winter trail care and grooming grant agreements that will be provided to the manager for signature.

Are there any comments on the IMs?

Okay, hearing none, then they are presented. The next item is audience participation. Oh, and we have a sign-up sheet. As is our policy, we will call on the people that have signed up first, and then we will open it up to anyone else that's not, uh, that didn't sign up as well. As we will go online and you will have 3 minutes, and you can discuss anything whether it's on the agenda or not, some item or information that you want to make the assembly aware of.

Uh, Sebastian White.

Good evening, assembly, uh, mayor. Um, my name is Sebastian White and I live in unincorporated Palmer. Um, I'm here this evening to talk about the proposed land theft that's going to occur outside of Houston. Um, and it's going to be quick, just a quick question and answer. Um, I see Assemblymember McKee has left.

Um, so I'll start with you, Assemblymember Sumner. Um, have you— are you currently under NDA with Terra Energy or AI? We— you can ask the question, but there will be no answers from the assembly, so no good give and take regarding questions. Is there a way? I understand.

Okay, thank you. Um, all right, well then, um, I just wanted to finish with, uh, addressing Assemblymember Bowles. Um, I disagree with you on almost everything. Um, however, Ordinance 26-106 to ban ALPRs in Matanuska Borough Um, full support, love it. I hope if it passes that we can go on to maybe address, uh, like Kroger and other corporations to stop surveillance pricing and their use of FLOC commercial products.

Thank you. Thank you. Daniel Potter.

Good evening, Daniel Potter from District 1. On April 7th, I was here and I gave— tried to use humor instead of anger about the almost 2 years that I've been coming here about road maintenance. And I said, you know, this contractor being responsible is one of the biggest lies since I never had sexual relations with that woman. Um, the clerk, if you want to, if you email that out, if you push publish it publicly, please redact my email on there. Um, there's the proof because Assemblymembers Bowles, which was my own, uh, Nowers, Gamble, and the mayor, um, made it pass.

And I provide 2, um, reports to Public Works of this contractor's failing to meet the standards, included over 10 photographs of each time, first on August 21st and then on August 28th. Um, over 75 foot of potholes on the 21st and over 150 foot of potholes measured with yardsticks and with real tape. So I'm putting money where my mouth is. I'm bringing the proof that these contractors are not meeting the standards. Um, but as the Animal Control Department recently showed, we cannot trust unelected public officials because the Public Works Department wants to blame the legal department for saying that our contracts are not enforceable, so they can't, you know, force our contractors to do it.

Our purchasing officer says that even though it's in the statutes that he's supposed to, you know, determine the responsibility of the bidders, he says, well, Public Works is just a yes or no, and he blames Public Works, and it's a point the fingers. Well, the only one who that the public can actually hold accountable is the assembly. We can't fire people who are not doing their job here. All we can do is vote in new assembly members. Um, I want to say thank you to Assemblymembers McKee, Fonov, and Bernier for listening, and I will just continue to document and create the evidence.

Thank you. Mike Alexander.

Mike Alexander, excuse me, Big Lake. Uh, I kind of like this ordinance you got up on the land grab up by Houston, and that's great, but I wish you would look across the road there to Susitna Gas Field. There's 69 to 240 trillion cubic feet of methane gas there.

Rather than build an 800-mile pipeline, to me, if there's any money in it, Exxon would have done it years ago. But that said, I talked to the guy from Denali Petroleum and Oil, or Petroleum and Gas. Anyway, they can deliver in 18 months they can have a gas line out into Enstar for $158 million, not $70 billion, $158 million. They'll sell it at $12 a thousand, which is about $4 cheaper than the $16 a gallon, or $16 a thousand that was guaranteed by Glenfayne to Enstar. So I think for overall, that area that they wanted to give away someday might be viable as an industrial park, but right now it's not.

But with that gas, it could be. And the whole public would be a lot better off for it. And the only other thing about it, you guys were really great. You got out and you paved Big Lake Road, which goes to my house. The Big Lake— the Lodge Road was really great, but the state left a pothole right in front of it.

It's just a kind of a little bad thing. It's not a— it's not one of our bigger potholes. It's only this big. And we have 66 potholes between And that's on the state, it's not y'all. But we have a total— I counted one day, we have— we had 66 potholes from the library to Hollywood.

I was really impressed with that. One of them was 7 feet long. It was kind of impressive. I got my tape measure out. But on this ordinance tonight, I would like to see this— at least y'all are— they should have contacted you, City of Houston, somebody said, hey, we're going to give away 20,000 acres here.

It would have been nice to know. But they didn't. So, and like I said, it's possible in the future if we can get this gas field over there developed that that would be an obstacle viable. But right now McKenzie's set up for it. I think that's where it ought to go.

And the thing is with the gas field that Susitna there, the rivers are protected, the streams are protected with exclusionary zones. There are the rivers I think have a half a mile each side. So they're sitting in the middle of a mile-wide area. That there is no drilling, there's no, uh, what's my word, exploration basically. So that one, and all the small streams have at least 500 feet on each side.

So the water looks like it's pretty well protected as far as streams, fish, and that kind of thing. And it'd be really nice to see that developed because I think overall that's going to do the borough a lot better than bringing a pipeline clear from the North Slope. And especially when they only have 35 trillion cubic feet up there they want to get rid of. If they want to do it, that's fine, but that should be on them and not the taxpayers of all America for the public. Thank you.

Mhm. Thank you. Karen Lewis.

Good evening. My name is Karen Lewis. Mhm. Madam Mayor.

I'm here responding to an article in the Matsusento. And it was about these two librarians that are stepping back.

Jerry Denk Walter says that it's, you know, it's a community. She was in Talkeetna. A place where everyone is safe and everyone is welcome when they come in. As you will see in Talkeetna, the last page of what I gave you, it has, it's called Fun Home, and it depicts oral sex from self-proclaimed lesbian terrorist. Who protested Christians.

And this stuff just shouldn't be. I mean, it was designed for children. They call young adults 12 to 15. And I know they've moved a lot of them, about 100 books they've moved them to adult, which is good. But nonetheless, it's still a Class C felony to have this garbage in there.

And if it gets in the hands of a child, it's a Class C felony. And, um, Maybe we need a lawsuit. I don't know what it takes to get that filth out of our libraries. But as adults, especially the Christian ones of us, we don't want to pay for this. We don't want to see our children have access to it.

And so we need to get them out of there. And we certainly better not put them in our Palmer Library. I know you don't have anything to do with that, but we better not have filth in our Palmer— New Palmer Library.

The other librarian said that community members with strong opinions about what material should not be in the library lobbed personal attacks against her professionalism and even made indirect physical threats. She said one individual told her that she should be taken out and drowned. Now I think that's probably— she was referring to what Jesus said in Matthew 18:6, And Jesus said, "Whoever shall cause to stumble one of the little ones of these believing in me, it is better for that person that a heavy millstone should be hung around their neck and be sunk into the depth of the sea." And that's probably what she was referring to. But it probably should have been depicted that way in the article. Because I'm sure that nobody said, you know, you should be drowned.

I think these librarians who think these books are OK for children don't—. Shouldn't, shouldn't be librarians for children. You know, they just— they're untrustworthy. That's untrustworthy to have someone who thinks that that type of material is good for our children. Our children need— Thank you.

Thank you. Patty Fisher.

Hello, my name is Patty Fisher. I'm a resident of Meadow Lakes, and I am speaking tonight regarding Resolution 26-103, which is the proposed transfer of 20,000 acres to AIDEA, or as one speaker here earlier referred to it as the great land theft. Um, I am— that this proposal was originally submitted by Mr. Bernier in favor with— as a statement that the Bureau should approve, support this transfer. I'm very grateful that Mr. Bernier has now changed his— yes, that's the way it was on the original, um, 2 weeks ago, asking the Bureau to support this transfer. Uh, the— it should be known that this land is adjacent to Willow, Big Lake, Houston, and Meadow Lakes.

All of those community councils submitted resolutions to DNR opposing this transfer. If it were— Mr. Bernier had known that, I can't believe he would have ever made a statement suggesting that the borough support this transfer.

So where we are tonight, I'm not sure, since now the Resolution 26-103 has been pulled from the consent agenda. This is prime recreation land, and those communities had—. Were—. Have been very upset that it should be transferred to AIDEA for a bunch of reasons, one of them being that there was no revisionary clause in this— in the agreement that DNR put out. So if we're talking about perhaps looking at making some changes and including development in Point Mac, West Susitna, I would suggest that if you're doing this, a revisionary clause should be included.

And if in any agreement with AIDEA should include a— should be clear as to what the purpose of the land is and let the public know in advance what this is so that they will have a timetable for their comment and discussion on, on the use. Also, why am I— where is it not considered that this land should come to the borough? I think the borough has been interested in having state lands transferred to them for a number of years, so that should be another option. So, so what I'm saying is revisionary clause, clear purpose, public opportunity to comment, and Perhaps a transfer to the borough. Thank you.

Mhm. Uh, Ardenda Ralph.

Hello, my name is Amanda Wraith. Oh, that's okay. I'm sorry, and this is the first time that I've ever been here, so thank you, Madam Mayor and Assembly people. Thank you so much for letting us have a chance to come and talk, and it was awesome to see what happens when community buys in and, and people who live in an area are, are allowed to take part in, in what happens in their area. And I'm here for two reasons.

One is that I, I want to urge you to support that resolution that you, that you did pass last meeting that Mr. Bernier, um, I know you were involved. I'm not sure exactly how you were involved, but you're my assembly person. I'm from Meadow Lakes, so I appreciate that you, you sent a resolution opposing that land transfer. I'm not against resource development. I'm not against doing things with public property, but that is not the place, and that is not a well-thought-out situation.

And I, I didn't know anything about ADA before, and doing some research in this process, I have concerns about the public and charitable transfer from DNR of that huge of a property with no plan, or no plan. I'm not sure what the plan really is, but it's such a huge property, there must be a plan. But please continue that opposition to that transfer. We do need to develop things. We do need to develop our resources, but we need to do it wisely.

And the other thing I'm here to talk about is, Mr. Bowles, thank you for your resolution. Um, surveillance technology is dangerous, and it's, it's already in use. It's not Flock, but it's another brand, and it's already here, and it's going to be very hard to keep privacy within our Constitution. And I, and I don't know how we're going to do it, but I, I think the little steps from the communities is the first step. So thank you, and I hope that you will all support that.

I just— there's got to be limits on that, and we have to, we have to think about that now because it's going to be a problem in the future.

So at the very least, oppose it in the borough and put limits on the license plate readers. And in the future, maybe the assembly could ask the state to make a statewide policy that protects privacy. And that's all I have to say. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you.

Mm-hmm. Jackie?

Good evening, Madam Mayor and assembly. My name is Jackie Goforth. I hope you're all in receipt now of my opinion piece where I wrote to you that the Community Development Department appears to have usurped your authority and is now trying to stop my First Amendment rights to redress a grievance with the government. And this only works because when you change a policy and put a new one up, the last one disappears and goes poof into the ether unless somebody actually saved it on their hard drive. The other reason it worked is because the LCAC page has been completely poofed into the ether unless somebody saved that to their hard drive.

So whenever they change the policy, you can't know it unless you have the hard drive saved. Which I do. So when you look at the first page I gave you, it shows you what the policy was before. It says, and I quote, "The library services manager shall form a challenge materials review committee, and they shall review the challenge, the objection." You do see that, right? Well, when you guys first did the ordinance that formed the LCAC, 24039, on number 4, page 3, it said The committee shall perform a review of challenged library materials.

They shall perform it. It's kind of like the Second Amendment. They shall perform it. Well, a month later, the Community Development Policy came out, and what did they say? The Library Citizens Committee will request a review if accepted for review.

If accepted for review. That doesn't say shall. So where does it go if they don't accept it?

The one I sent you that's online right now under the agendas for August 12th says the same thing, only it says they, they will put it on a future agenda. They'll put it on an agenda. They'll send it to the ACLC chair and they'll put it on an agenda. Well, this is what happened to it on June 17th when no one was watching and the library board was on hiatus for summer. Now it says, if you file a challenge, the chair may add it to a future agenda.

Now, how did it get convoluted to that when it was supposed to be, you shall review it? The next line's even better. The library board may choose to review it. They may choose to review it. What happened to they will review it?

They shall. What happened to that? Do you know that your parks and Parks guy, he actually said, "If you choose not to review it, it just dies on the vine." In other words, it goes what? Into the ether for another 3 years? You've seen this book.

I challenged it. I followed their procedures, but they keep changing the procedures without anyone's knowledge. And then they disappear into the ether if you're not keeping track. You have something called malicious compliance. It's pretending to follow it but doing everything not to.

And there's your proof.

Thank you. Steve Charles.

Good evening, Mayor, Assembly, and staff. I'm Steve Charles. I live in Willow. I would like to speak in opposition to the land conveyance to ADA. Uh, at a PAC August meeting in the Willow Area Community Organization Resolution opposing land transfer of nearly 20,000 acres from DNR to ADA for industrial park passed unanimously.

Our community has vested interest in this beautiful area, having 24 sections of land within the land transfer area, and has managed the popular Hassler-Norris Trail system. As a longtime Willow resident involved in trails and recreation, I would like to give you all a briefer on how the area has been used by the public and the reason the area should not be overrun with manufacturing hubs data centers, energy and utility corridors, and gravel pits, as described in the preliminary decision. For over 25 years, the Willow Trail Committee has invested 6-figure dollars on the 52-mile multi-use Aspen Rose Trail system through construction, clearing, surveying, maintaining, and grooming the trails. The Matsubara itself— Matsubara invested $250,000 in trail improvements through the recreational bond package in 2015 and made a tremendous difference on those trails. The area offers looping trails in the lower wetlands leading to sweeping views of the Matsu and the Kinnick Arm in the higher subalpine elevation.

The area is rich in history with the historic RS2477 documented easements, trails which the Houston Willow Creek Trail, it was the first freighting trail to the Hatcher Pass area 125 years ago. And that's all within our transferred area. The Hassler-Norris Trails has a history of training with sprint and long-distance dog mushers including many Iditarod mushers, too many to name here. In recent years, the trails have enjoyed ever-increasing use by snow machine riders, bikers, and skiers. Our communities have benefited economically from the recreational use of the area through increased spending on tourism, guide services, recreational supplies, fuel, lodging, and related outdoor services.

Our economy is centered on recreation and is what our communities identify with and we promote. It is what draws people to this area. Data centers, manufacturing hubs, gravel pits, not so much. The state of Alaska would be leveraging the unique strengths of each parcel of our state land to lock up the 20,000 acres of popular public land for private industrial development would be a travesty. I would like to invite each of the assembly people this winter to get on a snow machine and visit our trails up there.

And just to see then, see if you made the right decision, uh, of preserving or giving away those trails, uh, if you made the right decision tonight. Thank you. Uh, Lindsay Korn.

Good evening. My name is Lindsay Cronin, and I am here today in my personal capacity as a member of the Willow community to ask the assembly to formally oppose the proposed transfer of nearly 20,000 acres of public land to ADA for a variety of reasons. First, there's no legally binding protection in this proposal for continued public access. I regularly use this land year round. I run on it in the summer and And when there's snow there, I ski, I skijor, I snow machine.

I regularly run into members of our community out there enjoying the beautiful public land and public access that we have. If that public access is not protected, it will be lost. Um, second, there is no plan that's been made publicly available as to what will actually happen to this land. Um, there are a variety of potential proposals put in, uh, the proposals what could happen to it, but there's not an actual development plan. So we really have no idea what come of this land.

Um, related to that is the state proposes to drop its reversionary interest, meaning that once Ada gets this land, it could do whatever it wants or nothing, and the state has no legally binding way to get that land back for the benefit of the public. And last but not least, what I handed to the clerk there is a copy of the Waco resolution that Steve Charles just mentioned. Um, the Willow Area Community Organization unanimously passed that, um, the board and all members of the community that were present on August 5th at that meeting voted unanimously to pass that resolution, which formally opposes the proposed lands transfer. And I ask that the assembly take into account the community's opinion on this proposal and the benefit that the continued public domain of this land has to both Willow, all those who come to the Willow area, um, Meadow Lakes and the surrounding areas. It is truly a treasure of our, our borough and would be quite, quite disheartening to lose that.

Um, then for all these reasons, I ask that the assembly oppose this land transfer. Thank you. Thank you. Louis Kounderei. Louis.

Louis Calandry. Oh, okay. Thank you. Regarding the land transfer, thank you for everybody, all your assembly up there. Um, yeah, I am against it.

And like others have said, let's protect the current and past public use of the land. Uh, we don't need any data centers. Um, What would be next, big billboards? You know, where are we gonna go with this? People come to Alaska because it's pretty and the scenery and the wildlife.

I'm looking for something here. I'm just gonna hit play to give a sound for the background here of what we might hear.

This is what a data center's gonna sound like, maybe 5, 6 miles away.

That's not a pretty sound. We don't need this. Let's protect what we have, our environment, our past of public use.

There's other places they can go, somewhere else, not in here in Alaska. Let's keep that out.

We don't need this kind of a hum noise and no protection for the people of what they're going to do with it in the future. Yeah, just no. Thank you.

Linda.

Hello, my name is Linda Spohn. First, I want to thank you for the excellent Port McKenzie tour. There's a real positive vision there, a good plan laid out, and a prosperous future in the making. I would encourage the development and investment into the Port McKenzie infrastructure if you can do it without a lot of debt. Second, it is positively wonderful to see Edna sitting up there as our mayor of the Matsue Borough.

You gotta love her, folks. Now, in the Watchman on September 11th, No less, Joel— on September 11th, no less, Joel Davidson, may God bless his heart, reported in two articles, quote, "State invites drag queens to alert Alaska teachers about grooming tactics. Alaska Department of Education is organizing a conference that includes a featured talk by a man best known for his controversial drag queen performances in front of young children and throughout Alaska's gay bar scene." I guess they're having a hard time trying to find someone to talk to these teachers about teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, huh? I hope these people remember the terrorists who hated America so much they flew airplanes into the Twin World Trade Center towers in New York, killing 2,977 people. The second article by Joel Davidson, and I quote, Fairbanks looks to push radical LGBTQ agenda on students throughout October.

The resolution emphasizes the school district intentionally strives to foster LGBTQ History Month celebrations by allowing students to acknowledge the history, culture, and contributions of LGBTQ individuals, role models, and historical events across the country and community. Unquote. Who do these people work for? Certainly not the taxpayers of Alaska. And after listening to Jackie's testimony, who does the community development director work for in the borough here?

Is no one else even a little outraged? What about the children and minors? What are we teaching our students? The Bible calls this perversion an abomination. I would like to honor— in conclusion, I would like to honor the late Charlie Kirk for his bravery, backbone, for trying to reach the youth of our country, for his knowledge and wisdom, for his faith and conviction.

His messages are still available. Jesus's message is still available also. He shed His blood for my sins. He died a cruel death in my place, and I accept His free gift of salvation and His shed blood on my behalf. He paid it all for me, and He did the same for you if you accept it.

Glory, honor, and praise to His holy name, Jesus. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Andrea?

Good evening, Madam Mayor and assembly. I'm back to talk about the Talkeetna water tank. I'm Andrea Larson. I'm a Matsu business and property owner and have run a flight business as pilot and owner starting in Talkeetna with a hangar on the Anchorage Airport for over 25 years. I'm here to oppose the borough construction of a 375,000-gallon storage tank facility and upgrade on the DNR property in Talkeetna Townsite, which would eliminate the 1.4 acres of Front Street Bear Trail woods.

To be, to be clear, I'm not opposing the project, just the site selection. I'm asking the assembly to consider the logical alternative to put the tank on the existing water site on C Street, where there is plenty of room and no known community opposition. The railroad is in full support of this use on the existing property, and we established that in a special meeting with the borough and the railroad representatives present. There is a second potential alternative by the Talkeetna Fire Station also, and it has not been considered yet, and it is also owned by the borough. Formal opposition has been submitted to you by the community council.

The sewer and the Sewer and Water Board has submitted opposing resolutions, and there are 300 petition signatures in opposition. After D&I conveyed this little wooded property a couple months ago to the borough, um, but it comes with provisos and requirements. They told us that it is the borough's responsibility to address the Talcottness concerns. During a recent one-on-one meeting with the public works director, after presenting all this information, he simply stated that They are moving ahead with the project, which was kind of a head scratcher. Because, I mean, I think the community— so much opposition should have a say on what's moving forward.

It appears the community is not being heard. I believe it's an irresponsible choice to unnecessarily level these woods only to discover that it's not suitable and then hand the gravel pad back to DNR while the town is left with the devastating results. More specifically, it's not suitable because it's a small lot bordered by 2 private septic systems with barely enough clearance to address legal contamination issues. The property has a deep floodway diversion channel and a 100-year flood zone. It's a trail corridor with native historical significance connecting Talkeetna's east and west, used by locals and tourists year round.

And, um, just think it's really an unnecessary necessary choice, and I'm hoping that you will consider utilizing the existing site. Thank you for your time. Alan.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm Alan Larson, and I can just say she said a lot of what I was thinking about saying. The fact of the matter is, I, I'm retired, um, I designed and built a bunch of houses in Alaska. I understand construction and I understand the value of, you know, finances and things like that. About a year ago, we were told that the DNR was gonna petition to transfer that property.

We got involved in researching. Since then, I've been to all the Water and Sewer Advisory Board meetings in Talkeetna and learned a little bit more about wells. I talked to half a dozen different well drillers that worked in the Talkeetna area. And, um, Mr. Brown, uh, was gracious enough to talk to me for a little bit and listen to my concerns. And, and he put together a meeting with the Public Works Director, and, and they listened to my, you know, babbling of all the different things that I think are— have not been considered or have been considered improperly about site.

I assure you that I could care— I'm not here because it's close to my property. I'm here because I, I'm a Talkeetna resident. We have 3 other properties in Talkeetna that are all benefited by this. As Andrea said, I think the current site has, uh, a lot of potential. I've been in Talkeetna for 40 years.

I didn't even know the site was there north of town because it is out of sight and out of mind, and our railroad railroad property. The borough has mentioned multiple times and told the city that the railroad— or that they can't get the forgivable loan for $1.5 million from DEC because they don't own the property. I talked to DEC, I said, that's not true at all. All you have to do is get a lease agreement. The current lease was designed by the federal government in 1988.

It expires in 2 years, and All we have to do if we want to stay on that property is get a lease that extends past the useful life of the improvements, maybe 30 years.

Senator McCade was at a couple meetings that we were— discussed all this with, and he said that it would be very likely that the railroad— that the State of Alaska could work with the Alaska State Railroad to get the property transferred to the borough. And the existing site, like they're doing in Whittier and Seward. I mean, it's, it hasn't been on the books before, but now that the state took over, they're reevaluating things. And when I stopped in and talked to the state, they're more than welcome to talk about things, but they don't have a standard for transferring a land use facility to the borough because it hasn't been done, not because they don't want to do it. So again, my concern is that some— we did a study in 2024.

DHL was an engineering firm. They studied 5 other sites up there.

And thank you very much for your time. Uh-huh. David, you said?

Thank you. My name is David Eastman. I'm a resident of Meadow Lakes. I live a walking distance from Little Sioux River, and I'm here to talk about the resolution from Assemblymember Bonnier. Um, but I have to say, I believe the resolution is woefully inadequate.

I believe the Assembly made a decision, members, a little while ago, which was a mistake. This resolution in one sense corrects that, but it doesn't go near far enough. I mean, I look at the resolution and I see the very substantial financial interests behind the proposed 20,000-acre transfer, and I see our Natsu legislators lining up behind that, and I saw with the previous letter our assembly lining up behind that as well. And while this resolution is an improvement over the letter, it does not stand against those interests for the public. It does not reflect really any of the concerns properly that I've heard from the public or even from members speaking tonight.

Yeah, you were to more accurately represent the concerns that I'm hearing and that were mentioned here tonight. You would not just be opposed to the land transfer because of where it's located. But because of the process that's being pursued. We have an administration that's here for less than 3 more months, which is trying to push through on a fast track 20,000 acres of state land into ADA. Um, 20 years ago, $44 million was invested by this borough and others to build a ferry.

Why didn't that work out well? Why are we still paying, you know, that debt today? Because due diligence was not performed at the time. And we can see looking at this proposal that due diligence has not been performed. It's, it's obvious the details are not there.

Critical questions that should have been asked and answered are not answered in the proposal. So moving it to Point McKenzie does not solve that problem. And that is under all of the concerns that I'm hearing. And so while it is in my backyard and I don't want it there, I don't want it at Point McKenzie either until there's a real plan in place so we don't waste another $44 million or another 20,000 acres. Thank you.

Okay, so that's everyone that signed up, but anyone is welcome. Yeah, come on, Travis. So if you haven't testified and would like to, just make your way to the front after Travis is done.

Hello, my name is Travis Friesen. I live in Palmer. I have some questions that I don't expect you to answer while I'm speaking, but about the heat, about the industrial corridor. I've done some reading. You want data centers, manufacturing, logistics hubs.

You know, that's all good, but you can't get very much as much vague as that. Manufacturing— I would like to know what kind of manufacturing. Logistics hubs, you know, what kind of logistics are you talking about? The details isn't there. But what is there is a lot of people are opposed to those data centers.

People don't know that those data centers, they're probably big as 10 Costco buildings and they employ about 10 people once they're complete. Sure, they, they give— they make a lot of construction jobs, you know, a lot of jobs constructing it. But yeah, but once they're done, yeah, those jobs aren't coming back, and they're very underwhelming. 10 People for a whole, whole data center. And not to mention about the water, you know, it consumes so much So much water that the natural sources can't keep up.

And a lot of states are dealing with dried up aquifers. And once all that water's up, the byproduct with all the minerals and deposits are dumped into the stream. So not only you're left with less water, you're also left with more polluted, more pollution in the process. So yeah, so I think it's time to rethink about the data centers. I used to be all for the data centers, but they're, they're not— I don't think they're a good thing.

I like the manufacturing, and I would like to know more about it, and the logistics, and all those industries, but the data centers, So that's where I stand. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

Um, good evening. And actually, I'm— so I'm Rod Hanson, but I'm actually here on behalf of John Miller. Uh, he was sitting beside me and intended to testify but had to leave. He wasn't feeling well tonight. And what he asked me to do is simply bring your awareness to a Road Service Area 25 resolution in support of the southern route.

I know there's a public hearing on that coming up, but the RSA 25 board— he's a member of that board— endorsed a resolution supporting the southern route. So I just wanted to pass that on to the clerk for you guys. And then secondly, just as an individual, I wanted to acknowledge the work the borough is doing along with Fish and Game and a number of other entities looking at protecting and helping salmon grow and expand in the Matsu Borough. I was able to, as a relative of a property owner, participate in a field visit the other day where they had installed a pike barrier. To prevent pike from entering upstream in Cottonwood Creek and ultimately into Anderson Lake.

You do have a couple public hearings tonight related to funding some fish passage type projects. These are all great works and it was really cool to see they had actually captured— we— there was a salmon trying to get its way into Anderson Lake as we were there and there were buckets full of salmon young salmon that they were helping get over the weir and up into the system. So if you look at the Cottonwood Creek drainage as a whole, you know, salmon are using that stream. And I just really want to thank everybody who's paying attention to that and, and taking steps to, to keep it going. I'll have further testimony tonight on a public ordinance, but here's what John asked me to pass out.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

We have— we do have 4 people online. Go ahead, the first person online, please.

Hi, this is Sean Arnold. I, uh, Was calling to speak today on support of Ordinance 26106. The local government should respect the privacy of all citizens. We need to be avoiding costly network dependencies with outside surveillance corporations and uphold our right to the privacy of the people, as the people in Alaska voted for in 1972. Ballot Measure 3 in the 1972 election stated plainly the right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed.

This measure was passed overwhelmingly and was written in as Article 1, Section 22 of our state constitution. I urge you to pass this ordinance to prohibit mass surveillance technology in our borough. I'd also like to bring a point on Resolution 26-103, uh, the land transfer This would be giving away 30 square miles of valuable public land at no cost for speculative development. Um, it's bad policy, and especially when it strips away popular recreational land that local families rely on for hunting, fishing, snow machining, and trail access, placing heavy industrial operations right next to residential neighborhoods. Threatens local wildlife, water sources, and energy grids.

I urge you all to pass these resolutions and stop free land giveaway and protect public access to our lands. Thank you for your time. Go ahead. Who's next online?

Yeah, this is—. Hi, this is Steve Edwards, EDWARDS.

I guess I'm calling in also on 26103 because it's right in my backyard and I use that area for snow machining quite a bit. And, you know, one of the reasons that many of us moved to the valley is access to recreational land. And so it's very important to preserve that. I can ride right from my house to the mountain. Through that area.

Um, so I find myself in a little bit unusual position of strongly supporting, uh, Ron Bernier's Resolution 103 here. I support that. I appreciate, uh, that you've listened to the community and you're representing us in this. And, uh, you know, there's many people are okay with development but put it in the right place. And so, I'm not sure the port is the right place either, but I am sure that your point about not having it here is correct.

So, I appreciate you putting that forward.

I think, you know, I don't support ADA in any fashion, sense at all. And so, I would prefer that if land is to be transferred, it'd be transferred to the borough and ADA but not involved. They just have an awful record of failed projects, and I feel like this would be another one, even if it was at the port. Um, the borough could probably do a much better job of, of developing that. So first of all, don't give it to ADA, and second of all, I support this resolution to move it away from the recreational areas that people live in the valley specifically for.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, who's online?

Hello, my name is Liliana Bash. I live in Meadow Lakes, miles through the woods where Ada wants land in Houston. I'm here to tell you I don't approve of this land transfer. Alaskans want this land to stay recreational, keeping it the way it is It should not be near communities at all. You've heard time after time that nobody wants them.

Nobody wants data centers, industrial parks, or whatever, whatever other names you want to call them. Our government wants people to stay as busy as possible so that we cannot fight things like this. As a community, we have already came together and shown you the number of people who do not want this. So what will you do? Continue to suppress the community or actually listen to us?

Somebody said earlier, all we can do is vote you guys in, but we can do a lot more. Make your decisions wisely and constitutionally.

I'll say also to any community member who wants to know about the— about ADA contacting assembly members, you have the right to request all the documents through Alaska's Public Records Act. You can get all those documents. So you should request those and also request all the FOIAs. You need to hold Alaska's government accountable. This is genuinely retarded.

Please do not give the land to Ada. Thank you. Thank you. Next person online, please.

Yes, hi, my name is Brittany Fintel, and I am calling in regards to two things. Um, the first one is the ADA land transfer. I am not in support of it at all. Um, there's just too much unknowns, um, from going to any of the ADA meetings or anything. All they say is, quote, we can't speak on what we plan to do in reference to the types of developments to take place.

Quote, we don't have any plans for any infrastructure at this point. Now, they keep trying to backtrack saying that there's not going to be any data centers, but it's literally stated 7 times in their proposal for this industrial land park or giveaway or whatever you want to call it. Same data center development designated sites for secure, scalable data centers leveraging existing and planned utility corridors for robust, robust electric, natural gas, and fiber connectivity, and more. You've heard from many community members. I'd actually say we're at 10 public comments right now against the land transfer to ADA.

All sightings from everyone uses the public lands. People don't want it in their backyards because who wants to be next to an industrial park or a data center at this point? So again, highly against it. I hope that that resolution— I don't know the exact number off the top of my head— but doesn't get passed or gets passed saying that the Matsuburo does not want Um, the ADA land transfer, um, and then also the ordinance. Let's see about the automated license plate reader systems and associated mass surveillance technology.

Um, I also am against having Axon or Flock cameras or any type of brand camera or surveillance in the Matsu Borough. I believe Anchorage should also follow suit, even though they spent so much more money for more mass surveillance. I don't feel like we should be like Anchorage at all. Again, most of us move out here to get away from the city type structures. We want to be in nature, and bringing those two specific things to the Mat-Su Borough go against pretty much anything that most people come out here for.

So that's really all I have to say. Thank you for your guys' time. Mm-hmm, thank you. Do we have anybody else, Caleb? Oh, 3 more, okay.

Go ahead, who's ever next online, please. Hi, good morning, or good afternoon, good evening. My name is Suzanne Hayes, the last name is spelled H-A-Y-E-S, and I also oppose Ada's proposed plan to take approximately 20,000 acres from within the borough for future industrial development. I believe that there has been little transparency in this land conveyance, and it's a rush to dispose of valuable property. The Natsuo Borough is the fastest growing area of the state.

The Parks Highway is a major transportation route from south to interior. The portions of this area that could be built on are better left for residential, small business, and real public and charitable uses that occur with residential growth. The streams, lakes, wetlands should be protected as they are important salmon, trout, moose, bear, and bird habitat. This area falls within the watersheds of the Little Sioux Sitna and Willow Creek. The fish populations of Willow and the Little Sioux depend on both mainstem and tributary habitats for spawning and rearing of rainbow trout, coho pink salmon, chum salmon, and king salmon The selected area includes numerous tributary streams that rear salmon and trout, and it's bordered by Deception Creek.

In turn, these populations contribute to recreational and commercial fisheries within Matsu Borough and Cook Inlet. So I agree with Resolution 26-103 that this is a bad idea and it's in the wrong place. However, I do not know if encouraging Ada to select land in the West Susitna area is any better. Thank you. The next person online, please.

Yeah, this is Mike Blakeslee, B-L-A-K-E-S-L-E-E, from Willow. And I'd like to speak in opposition of the land transfer. Uh, in ADA's plan that they submitted to DNR, the first phase of their plan is to mine the gravel for large pads to support future buildings and ADA projects. This probably includes the West Susitna Road project. Since ADA says it has no data center customers now, it stands to reason we will be stuck with large gravel pits with no need for them to finish building them and no one to use them if they did.

I'd like to have— make sure that everybody knows that this is going to be a gravel pit mining 19,000 acres. I'd also like to speak in opposition of, uh, 26089. I think that the borough assembly has passed Resolution 24-056 expressing concerns regarding the Alaska Long Trail potential as a National Historic Trail. Now, that's not in— not going to happen in this administration, but that's not saying it can't happen in the next administration. Therefore, I'd like you to consider whether or not it would be a smart move to put a gateway on Matsuburo property.

Thank you.

Next person online, please.

Good evening, my name is Esther Huddleston. Under Ordinance 26-089, under unfinished business, I support Michael Bowles' amendment to strike the language Alaska Long Trail Gateway installation We do not need to give the federal government an opportunity to take more land away from Alaskans. Also, I have concerns in regards to 26-082, and my concerns is about the user conflict study. Will it hold prejudice? In Safe Streets, ATVs were less than 1% of accidents.

Board, uh, RSA passed the resolutions for restrictions on ATVs, and they called ATVs dangerous in their resolution, which is an opinion. It's not facts. It's not based on statistics. In Safe Streets, there were more than 4,800 car accidents in the Mat-Su Borough. We had more accidents in roundabouts car accidents than we did ATV accidents.

We had more bicycle accidents than ATV accidents. So this is going on a prejudice opinion, pushing this user conflict in regards to ATVs. And on Ordinance 26-106, I support Michael Bull's ordinance adopting MSB 2330 to prohibit acquisition, installation, and operation of automated license plate reader systems and associated mass surveillance technology. From 1993 to 1996, Anchorage had a photo radar speed enforcement program. Anchorage did not want to tie up police resources.

So they did hire a private contractor which had white Chevy Blazers with radars and mounted cameras, and tickets were mailed directly to the car owners. The legal challenges— Anchorage v. Baxley, 1997— argued that on certified police officers, only certified police officers who visually, uh, witness citations can hand out citations, not automated machines or uncertified third-party— certified third-party contractors. Constitutional rights critics point out mailing tickets to car owners violated presumption of innocence. The burden of proof shifted to the driver to prove that they weren't behind the wheel. In 1997, Anchorage voters passed a ballot initiative to ban the use of photo radar and red light cameras.

We do not need to repeat the past, so please vote yes on Ordinance 26-101. And thank you and have a wonderful evening. Thank you. Your line is mute. Your line is unmuted.

Do we have another person? Okay. Oh wow, okay, go ahead, who's ever next online, please.

Hi, my name is Caroline. I live in Willow and I've, I've lived in Alaska my entire life. I'd like to voice my strong support of Ordinance 26106. As we've seen in communities in the lower 48, mass surveillance technology is fallible and makes frequent errors. There have been many cases of misidentification resulting in innocent civilians being subject to traffic stops, home visits from authorities, and in some cases even arrests.

Before the error is verified. This is not how our justice system works. Here you are innocent until proven guilty, and that burden of proof lies with the prosecuting party. What we've seen with these misidentification cases is the burden of proof is then put on the innocent party. There have been many cases like this around the country.

Uh, for the sake of time, I'm going to offer two. In Arkansas, a state with hundreds of Axon and Flock-style surveillance cameras, a family was pulled over and detained at gunpoint under suspicion the vehicle was stolen The couple, who were handcuffed at the scene, had their 1-month-old child in the vehicle. This happened because the AI surveillance camera was mistaken by one letter. In Florida, a woman spent 13 days in jail facing 8 charges related to vehicular manslaughter. According to the arrest report, officers cited a flock camera capturing her plate and a tag nearby the scene on the same day.

However, further analysis of her speed and direction of travel determined she could not have been present for the incident. The responsible individual was later arrested and charged, and the innocent party was released, uh, and the wrongful charges dropped. However, she will never get those 13 days back. New technology is not always progress, and use of this kind of surveillance technology in our community would simply build substantial distrust. Additionally, I'd like to make a comment on the ADA land grabs and my support of Resolution 26103.

ADA has a poor history of transparency and a strong history of making decisions against the public's interest. These decisions were not made in the interest of the residents that would be most impacted and was done without notification to the Houston City Council. Through public testimony and public comment, there have been an overwhelming amount of constituents with serious concerns about ADA and the land transfers. I do also agree with the previous commenter that moving the location to Point McKenzie does not really solve the issue at hand. Public land should stay in public hands for recreation subsistence as it has.

I urge the assembly to formally oppose the land transfer. Thank you for your time. Can we get a last name? I don't think she ever said her last name. The next person—.

I'm sorry, Caroline Arnold. Next person on the line, please.

Yes, my name is Samuel Schilling. I'm a resident of Caswell, new property up there. I'm also president of the Alaska Outdoor Access Alliance, and I wish to testify in the second half, but it's moose season And as most Alaskans, our schedule revolves around that. So, two particular items that I wanted to cover in my testimony here is one, of course, is the transfer of land over to ADA. We've always had kind of some positive impacts with ADA in the past.

Along with that, ourselves and AOC and quite a few other organizations have supported some of their projects. However, this particular one we have had concerns with because of the fact that they want to make it unrestricted. And we want to protect not just our 2,477 trails or 17B easements, but the purpose behind it is to protect also the access and use of the land. And that doesn't mean just trails, that's how we use the land itself. And so with that, what we've seen that we wary on the side of caution when we want to transfer from one location that we don't approve of and transfer it over to another location because it might be a little bit more unpopulated in the area, but we still put— we hinder those restrictions onto the land.

And that's what we urge, that if there might be possibly an amendment we would adopt into it, that it's under conditions that we protect the use and the land. As a tradesman, I do support the development construction of new projects in the state because it helps keep my paychecks coming in and my family fed. But as president of the AOAA, as I have an obligation to uphold to the protection of the use and access of the land, and that's why I have to step in and make sure that we and firm or guarantee those protections of land if we're talking about future development. The other one is pertaining to the ordinance, which is 26089, which is also the funding for the Parks Creek— Park River Campground and Playground. And there was a couple concerns wrapped around it.

One is that the borough passed resolution not supporting the Alaska Long Trail scenic trail designation. With that, some of the things that people forgot in with that is that any kind of support to initiative that fuels the feasibility study of this National Scenic Trail, and that includes borough and government participation, that includes their support on developing and the funding that goes into it to show that they can establish a participating hand into it, gives the feasibility study more grounds that it's possible. And with that, Borough passing its resolution and rejecting that National Scenic Trail kind of contradicts that. However, the other key point that I've noticed since talking in the last borough assembly meeting pertaining to this funding is, one, I work— we work a lot with grants and different government contracts. You don't lose a grant because you want to eliminate a part of the section of the grant that you don't want to necessarily use.

So if we're talking about building a Gateway Trail, which I don't see how it could cost $100,000 for Gateway Arch, but if we don't want to use that money for that, you just have to give it back. You don't lose it, you just you don't get to use it and you have to give it back. So you can approve it without approving the initial project for over the Gateway Trail and still get the funding for it. You just have to give that portion of it back to whatever you don't use. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. Next person online, please.

Hello, my name is Rochelle Evergreen. Um, today I'm speaking about Resolution 26103. As a Matanuska Valley resident, I importantly reject the economic development of proposals by Ada in Alaska. The question I have for them as a company is, with all this energy usage and all these different things that you're developing, who's going to benefit from this? The argument is that it is Alaskans, and it can easily be disproven just by a simple look at different factors that we've already seen from other companies, um, environmentally, economically, and through morality of consciousness.

Historically, the companies that cause the majority of environmental distress are not the ones paying the consequences for their actions. Why then, in such a fragile environment as the Arctic, would we expect a company causing impacts to our environment to let it be their problem? If we are to build structures, there are several environmental factors that need to be considered, things such as infrastructure, wildlife, water, the temperature, energy, greenhouse emissions, and others, just to name a few. Seclusion is one of the many benefits statewide because of the environment that we're living here in Alaska. We like to have our mountain views.

We like to be able to roam around in our backyards and be able to go out into the wilderness. Why then would we place a large-scale company in an area that we know is designated towards recreational use. Um, it just doesn't make a lot of sense why we would want to give that land away to a company that historically hasn't been very transparent about what they're doing. We know that there are risks to innovation. We're told to accept these risks, for we will inherit the benefits later, yet there's never a later.

We're told that the economic development is coming, yet Poverty persists. We're told that this will create jobs, and yet they are all temporary and unsustainable. We've seen the injustices already plaguing communities and environments affected currently by companies who are building things such as data centers in over 4,000 cases throughout the U.S., and we've learned that the later that we're all promised just is never going to arrive at this point. So we cannot wait around when future generations depend on our voices speaking out truth. It's been decided that we're to write our own history because protecting the land, the water, and the air is activism, and it's our weapon against the terrorism of innovation.

They will be recorded in history and remembered as such. Thank you for your time.

Do we have anybody else? No. So one last chance for anybody here this evening that has not had the opportunity to test. Yes, come on, just state your name and then what you'd like to say to the assembly. My name is Austin Aho.

I would like to speak on data centers. I'm simply an uninformed citizen. I don't know very much about data centers, but I would like to propose the idea that it's possible that data centers are being unfairly demonized.

I think there are some data centers that don't use water at all for cooling, so that's an example of how they can be not so harmful to the environment.

Furthermore, I don't really think in Alaska, with our population being so low and the quantity of land we have up here in Alaska, I don't think it's really a serious concern that we're going to like run out of water.

And then there is— I understand there's a noise issue, but I don't really think these things produce even more noise necessarily than like a highway.

I think that it's possible also— this is very new technology.

It's possible that there are benefits to these data centers. To local areas other than just the minuscule amount of jobs they provide.

I'm not saying I know that at all, but it's possible. And then furthermore, our president and his administration have claimed that these data centers will be very beneficial to our country. And so as patriots, I think that we should not be so hasty to be against them. Thank you. Thank you.

Do we have another— we do have a person online. Go ahead, who's ever online, please.

Mayor and members of the assembly, thank you for the rec— thank you. For the record, my name is Michelle Stevens, president of the Alaska Snow Machine Alliance. The Alaska Snow Machine Alliance represents snow machine clubs and motorized trail users throughout Alaska. We respectfully ask the assembly to amend Ordinance 26-089 to remove the Alaska Long Trail Gateway while allowing the Matanuska River Park and Campground improvements to move forward. The Community Development Director states that installing this gateway does not create an easement convey property rights, change borough management, or create a National Scenic Trail.

We understand that. However, the question is not simply what this gateway does legally today. The question is what the borough's official participation may mean 5 or 10 years from now if Congress considers designating the Alaska Long Trail as a National Scenic Trail. The effort to pursue federal National Scenic Trail designation remains active. If Congress eventually designates this route, the borough may still own and manage its land, but it will no longer be dealing with just borough management.

The trail would enter a federal administrative system with this administering secretary— with an administering secretary, a required comprehensive management plan Selection of the trail right-of-way and federal responsibilities that do not exist on this borough land today. Section 7 of the National Trail Systems Act states that motorized vehicle use by the general public along a National Scenic Trail shall be prohibited. Public— subject to statutory exceptions including emergencies. Alaska Trails points to the Continental Divide Scenic Trail as proof that motorized can coexist with designation. But when Congress designated that trail in 1978, approximately 424 miles of the proposed route were existing primitive roads, and Congress specifically protected certain existing motorized uses.

Since then, federal policy has directed new and relocated portions towards a non-motorized setting. That is the history Alaska needs to understand. If the borough accepts this funding and installs a braided— a branded Alaska Long Trail gateway on borough land, it is an official record of borough participation. It does not designate a National Scenic Trail or transfer ownership today, but it does turn a line on the map into built-in infrastructure with a local government partner. That documented record could become relevant to Congress later, considers the National Scenic Trail designation.

So before you vote, the AFA asks you to consider one question: if a future Congress designates the Alaska Long Trail as a National Scenic Trail 5 or 10 years from now, can anyone guarantee to this assembly today what federal requirements Use restrictions, management conditions, or protections for motorized access will apply to the gateway where you are being asked to build today. Happy trails.

We have anybody else online, Caleb? No. So one last chance for anybody here that hasn't had an opportunity to address the assembly.

Okay, with that, I'll close audience participation. We're going to take a break till 8 o'clock. Thank you.

I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting back to order, please.

And, uh, we'll now go into some public hearings. And we do have a sign-up sheet, but again, if you didn't sign up, we'll still allow you to testify. And even if you testified under the audience participation, you can testify in support or in opposition in these public hearings. But in these public hearings, you can only test— apply according to the ordinance or resolution that is in front of you. You can't start talking about, you know, I don't know, whatever— move the capital.

That's what we've been talking about up here. So anyway, Madam Clerk, Resolution 26094, resolution selecting the Northern Route 1 as the preferred route identified in the July 2026 Route Selection Report for the Engstrom Road to Trunk Road Corridor Project. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open public hearing. And, uh, oh, let's see, the first person was John Miller, but I think you gave his testimony unless you want to give it again.

Oh, we can't add on to it. You can't add on to it. I can't add on to John's. Okay. Yeah, yeah.

So, and I think you gave the copies of the stuff to the clerk, right? Correct. Yeah, yeah. Okay, okay. Good evening, everybody.

Um, my name is Rod Hanson, and I'm speaking on behalf of the North Lakes Community Council. Um, our council, the Fishhook Community Council, Road Service Area 25 Board, which has accountability for the Angstrom area, and your Planning Commission have all recommended through resolutions that have been submitted endorsing the southern route as the route for the minor collector between Angstrom and Trunk. Our reasons remain clear. First is public safety. By removing— with the southern route, we could remove gravel trucks from Bogart Bogard and the Bogard-Angstrom intersection, significantly improving public safety.

Traffic study also shows overall less traffic on Angstrom when comparing the southern route against any other option. Our second reason is the financial impact. The southern route is significantly less expensive, whereas northern Route 1 could cost up to 3.5 times as much. We also value individual property rights. Northern route faces strong opposition from landowners, and the southern route impacts only two— or could impact only two property owners, both of whom have expressed a willingness to provide right-of-way.

The assembly approved bonding at $2.5 million as part of the TIP 21 package, and it was actually for the southern route, and public approved that in that package. Actual costs have obviously escalated. The northern route won now ranges from $21 to $31 million, depending on which estimate you believe. The Bogart-Angstrom intersection connects— actually, if you look at the map, Districts 1, 3, 4, and 6 all come together right at that, right at that intersection. And certainly voters and residents in those districts expect timely and reasonable solutions.

The southern route was identified in the 2017 Long Range Transportation Plan. It is included in the 2022 Official Streets and Highways Plan, and it aligns with the Bogart-Selden Corridor Access Management Plan, which you adopted in August of last year. Concerns regarding snow drifting, intersection safety for— related to the southern route can easily be addressed during final design. Uh, there are 3 other major collector projects that are moving forward. To address connectivity, growth, and significant development in the Fishhook Triangle.

These are the North Engstrom connection from North Engstrom up to Texal, the connection of the two Texal roads together, and there's now a borough priority project to extend Covington to— from the north end of Engstrom all the way straight up to Wasilla-Fishhook. We recommend completing those projects before you consider another northern route connection. Constructing Northern Route 1 primarily benefits the Stone Creek subdivision development, allowing expansion there without upgrades. And I just want to say both community councils, the RSA board, and the planning commission urge you to replace or modify the resolution you have in front of you and advance the southern route. Thank you.

Thank you, Louie.

Hello, individual and president of, uh, Strowood Subdivision, which is right at where the southern route is planned. Why have all of the traffic come through from from all the way, Wolf Lake, all the way down Engstrom to less than half of a mile to exit out. You know, let's go with the northern route. Yeah, it's more expensive today. What will it be in another 10 years when we try to do it?

You know, safety— we got a few dump trucks. What about the emergency vehicles? You know, they're going a lot further distance up and down that wiggly road to get up to Wolf Lake versus if there was a northern route They'd be quicker and shorter, faster.

Let's not do a Band-Aid fix right now because it's cheaper. Let's do the right thing for the people. We need a major collector first. Safety is an issue. No to the southern route.

Thank you.

Sharon Johnson.

Good evening, Mayor and Assembly. My name is Sharon Johnson. November 2nd, 2021, the Matsu voters voted for $61,135,000 bond package. Proposition 1, the TIP 21, in that bond package was $2.5 million for the Angstrom to Trunk Connect connector, a southern connector, now estimated at just over $9.1 million. Also in that package was the Texel Drive extension upgrade and pathway for $6,325,000, now estimated at $14.2 million.

In TIP 24, the Angstrom North to Texel extension was approved by the voters at $6.1 million. It is now estimated about $7.2 million. Now the borough has prioritized another project in the near term, the extension of North Covington Street all the way from Engstrom North to Wasilla Fishhook. That project estimated at $11.3 million. These 3 projects for the price of 1 proposed north connector with possible eminent domain issues, I feel it's a bargain.

What we need is a cost-effective relief for it with the southern connector from Engstrom to Trunk. With the $2.5 million towards the $9.1 million already bonded, voted for by the voters, that reduces the cost to about $7 million. I am not an engineer, a road designer, but I am sure building the roadbed by Central Gravel Products also reduces the cost significantly. Let's start relieving the traffic hazard on the Engstrom-Bogart intersection in the most cost-effective and timely manner possible. As I stated 2 weeks ago, how many of us had encountered that wonderful intersection, thanking our lucky stars that we did not get in an accident?

I cannot speak about the experience coming off of Engstrom. I don't live there, but there's a wonderful baker, and I don't go and buy bread up there because I don't want to go through that intersection. But watching the frustration of people trying to get out of that intersection onto Bogart Road I really feel that they would rather make a right-hand turn onto— go south on Trunk. It would be a much more pleasant experience, and the morning rush is going south, not north, on Engstrom. So the left-hand turn would not be that great of a difficult.

Thank you for your time. Let's work together to get relief for the Bogart-Engstrom connector sooner than later.

Spencer, Audi Spencer.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the assembly. I wanted to, excuse me, support a southern route and in opposition to a northern route. Uh, in addition to the southern route being the only route proposed to the voters and voted on, uh, the northern route has just been seemed to be forced from the end. It doesn't provide any benefits that I can see over the southern route. It's markedly more expensive, impacts many homeowners that, uh, and homesteads that have no interest in having their properties split up, and furthermore encroaches upon the approach and departure end of a previously functioning runway that are going to have some aviation impacts with this route departing 20 and coming into 2 to where, where we live and a bunch of folks operate out of.

I really can't see any benefit to a northern route other than to improve access to a private development that's going in, and it's never been approved by the voters. I just wanted to voice my opinion. Appreciate it.

Vanessa Morgan.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, and all the assembly members. I'm Vanessa Morgan. I, I'm in support of the southern route instead of the northern route being built. We are— I'm sorry, this is coming off the top of the dome, so I don't have anything very eloquent or concise.

We, um, we would be really impacted by the northern route. The route would just plow through, you know, my chicken coop, established berries, and just all these beautiful things that we've had. And this land has been, um, it's been in our family for generations and will continue hopefully being in our family for generations. I do have a 14-month-old son and hopefully many more farmers, um, and it's, um, our farmland. Um, we would— I'm sorry, we would just, you know, really appreciate the southern route being built.

Um, like everyone else has said, it's, it's expensive. Um, there's so many, um, you know, uh, natural habitat that would be, uh, affected by, you know, uh, the northern route being built. Um, you know, weird, um, engineer problems. I don't really understand. Um, but, um, yeah, thank you for having me up here today.

Um, and yeah, have a wonderful evening. Thank you. Uh, Greg Sinness. Greg?

Hi, my name is Greg Scent. We request the assembly replace the draft resolution number 26094 with a resolution that selects the southern route for the Anson Road trunk connector. We request our September 3rd letter, which Patty, my wife, just handed out to the clerk And this testimony be part of the record of this meeting. Approximately 1.5 miles of the northern route cuts through property owned by my wife Patty, her family. This land was homesteaded by Patty's grandfather, Arsene Olson, about 1915.

We've cleared and installed about 4.5 miles of fences and constructed 2 bridges on this property, some major improvements. Northern Route 1 will significantly impact the use of our land. It'll divide the land into some nearly unusable portions. Since the proposed route will take our existing bridges, it'll be very difficult to access part of our land because it's going to be very, very, very difficult to construct bridges across the very wide remaining Wasilla Creek floodplain. We discussed our opposition to the northern route concept with borough staff on several occasions since we first became aware of the borough's preliminary plans in July 2024 when we were asked to grant permission for access for conducting geotechnical and environmental investigations.

There are multiple technical and practical considerations that favor the southern route over the northern route, as detailed in our September 3rd letter, which you have a copy of. Public opinions were not accurately represented and considered in the Route Selection Report and by a borough staff. The Route Selection Report states there is, quote, overwhelmingly support for the north route, close quote. But it also states they received only 17 comments at the March 2025 public meeting. On the other hand, the North Lakes and Fishhook Community Councils, which represent more than 15,000 residents, strongly support the south route.

The route selection process did not consider the northern route impacts on property owners, our neighbors along Heaton, uh, who will probably receive no compensation for loss of their property value and degradation of their quality of life. The aesthetic impacts of the northern route were not considered. The southern route is adjacent to land that has been altered with gravel pit operation. Borough staff indicated, quote, agricultural land use and proximity impacts are legitimate considerations and would be evaluated in greater detail during preliminary design, close quote. We think the impacts on land use should be considered now as part of the route selection process.

The traffic congestion safety issues at Engstrom and Bogart are the most important public concerns, and the southern route addresses these concerns somewhat better than the northern route, as supported by the data in the traffic analysis. The estimated cost for the southern route is at least $13 million less than the northern route. The Route Selection Report did not consider the cost of right-of-way acquisition and failed to recognize the offer by the southern route landowners to provide right-of-way and assist with roadbed construction. Again, we are not interested in selling right-of-way.

The southern route is a feasible and technically preferable alternative to Northern Route 1. The taking of our property for Northern Route 1 construction is not justified. Thank you. Colleen Vega.

Good evening. My name is Colleen Vague, and first I want to commend the planning committee for their proactive approach in working towards a solution to the future traffic concerns at the Texel interchange. I support their efforts, and I hope— I encourage them to continue to have a forward-thinking trajectory. Having said that, I am here speaking in support of the substitute resolution 26094 in favor of the southern route. Some 33, 34-ish years ago, Colony Junior Senior High Complex was developed just west of 49th Street.

It had an impact on Bogard Road because more schools always bring more families, more homes, and more traffic. Then a few years later, they built Larson Elementary and extended Bogard Road down Sheldon Road so that it would connect with the Wasilla Fishhook Road. More schools, more traffic, more families. A few years after that, then they had Colony Tech and Teeland Middle School built just off Bogard Road, where Sheldon was, was extended through there. Again, more schools, more families, more homes, more traffic on Bogard Road.

After that, after the extension of Bogard Road down Sheldon, they decided to go the other direction and extend west of 40 or east of 49th Street so that Bogart Road would connect with West Arctic Street, thereby creating a bypass to avoid Palmer-Wassilla Highway, creating more traffic in a bypass around the— I don't know, 45 stoplights on Palmer-Wassilla Highway these days. After that, finally, Trunk Road, just most recently, was taking the curbs out, extended, making, making much commuting much more pleasant going in a north and south direction to avoid Wasilla if you're coming back from work in Anchorage. Do you see the problem? We have extended and improved the west end of Bogard Road. We have extended and improved the east end of Bogard Road.

We've extended and improved the north and south, right, south route to make Bogard a better bypass for all the traffic that we didn't like coming in from Palmer, from Anchorage, and out towards the Fishhook Road. And yet we have left the center windy, dangerous part of that road untouched, except of course for paving here and there. We've asked the gravel pit operator to make accommodations, which he has done. He has made it as safe as possible to— for gravel pit for gravel drivers, gravel truck drivers to go through there, but he's only allowed legally as a private citizen to do so much. He's also partnered— I heard that touted earlier tonight— partnered with the borough in order to supply base gravel at the tune of a couple hundred thousand dollars savings to the community.

We also have a homeowner that has said, yep, you can drive through my property. I will donate it. I will give it. I will sell it, whatever they've decided in their bargaining. Arguing with the borough to do.

And we're still discussing the northern route. Thank you.

That takes care of everybody that signed up. Is there anyone else that would like to testify that didn't— hasn't signed up? Now, it will— your testimony is restricted to Resolution 20— what is it— 26-094. Go ahead, sir. Uh, I'm Jade Laughlin, owner of Central Gravel Products.

Um, I'm in favor of all the routes personally, but financially the southern route does make the most sense at this moment. And to correct Rod, there's 3 landowners that would be involved in that right-of-way. Um, I'm only speaking for myself as one of them. Um, I would be willing to discuss a right-of-way through there, and also being gravel pit operation, uh, help with doing some rough-in work, you know, for us to remove material before the right-of-way is purchased. But the design, the finish work, the ditching, the paving, that's all on you guys.

I think this is a good way to— it is a bit of a band— the southern route, in my opinion, is a bit of a Band-Aid. The Covington, Ingstrom, Texile connectors are going to be extremely valuable, and I encourage you guys to get on those as quickly as possible. Um, but the northern route, I think, is going to really be a butt kicker for you guys. And as you've seen with the Lohman-Olson family's comments, they don't want to cut up their property. Neither does the Heaton's, and they've had it for 100 years, and I think we need to really value that.

So thank you for your time.

Next person.

My name is Simon Gilliland. I'm a resident of District 1 in RSA 16. I want to remind you guys that the Planning Commission voted unanimously in opposition to the resolution supporting the northern route that you have in front of you, and unanimously in support of a southern route. When the projects were presented to them August 3rd. I would also like to bring to the Assembly's attention that the RSA 16 has really no roads in their region off of Ingstrom Road that they maintain.

The only connection to the project is that the terminus of the Northern Route would be within their RSA where it hits Trunk Road. Closest road to the Northern Route within RSA 16, they don't even maintain. Me and my my neighbors maintain it. Um, the roads that generate traffic that feed onto Ingstrom are primarily within RSA 25, who wrote a letter to you guys in support of the southern route, which John Miller and Rod provided to you.

Uh, this letter from RSA 16 is one that truly holds weight as it comes from the RSA that works and maintains the Ingstrom corridor roadways. Both North Lakes and Fishhook Community Councils, as you have heard, have written letters in support of the southern route, citing reasons such as lower cost and foremost, a much likely faster route to a decade-at-least-old problem on Engstrom Road. The Transportation Advisory Board did not hear from those who support the southern route prior to their letter of support for the northern route. Based on the draft route selection report by the borough's consultant that Public Works presented to them. None of us who were notified going to— it was going to be presented to the Transportation Advisory Board, despite inquiries to Public Works in the couple weeks prior to the meeting about what the next step for the project was going to be.

I might note that Alaska DOT weighing in this late, September 2nd, which was after the packet was posted, seems to be at the request of Public Works. Being that they were the custodians of the letter, as seen by the care of MSB Public Works at the top of their letter. I wonder just how much of the opposition to the northern route DOT was made aware of, or was it a one-sided argument, much like the Transportation Advisory Board heard during their meeting in February of this year, when no opposing views were able to be aired because we were not aware? I provided written and verbal comments numerous times on this project, and you have a letter and map with many items, facts, details, and analysis from my perspective as an engineer, land surveyor, and construction project manager in the documents you received. I would ask that you prioritize— your priorities be to fund the TIP routes that voters have approved and finish the Texel and Engstrom connections that are within existing easements and currently being designed prior to considering another roughly $30 million road that's coming from the, um, the trans— the new MPO, um, and add to the borough's expenses when a less than $10 million road, which is part of TIP 21, would reduce the traffic at Ingstrom and Bogart roundabout intersection the same amount.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Do we have anybody? Okay. Go ahead, who's ever online, please.

Go ahead.

They hung up.

Okay, one last chance for anyone here.

Okay, I'll close the public hearing and assembly person bowls.

Oh, don't— can I just hold it a minute? Assembly person bowls, go ahead. Whosoever online, thank you. Hello? Yes, go ahead.

Okay, sorry. Hi, my name is Brittany Fintel. I live on Texal, and this, um, resolution was actually new to me. I was here for two other resolutions, but it— I don't really support— I mean, I understand we need to build more roads, but the last time we voted, we all voted to approve the connection between Texal because Honestly, trying to go up and down, uh, Wasilla Fish Hook in the wintertime is super dangerous, whereas opposed if we can connect it to go to Palmer Fish Hook, it's going to be a lot safer for a lot of the people that live in this area. And again, we already voted on it, and as another person mentioned, like, if we don't do it now, it's going to cost even more money to do it in the long term, and there's so much more development that's actually happening up here.

So the road is getting a bit busier, and we just need to focus on doing all the roads that we've already approved of coding-wise. And that's all I have to say on that.

Okay, one last chance. Anyone present? Okay, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing for good this time. Assemblyperson Bowles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I move to adopt Resolution 26-094, and I move to amend by a substitution resolution. Okay, and I'd like to speak to that if possible. So I believe everybody on the dais has been handed out the substitute resolution, which changes a resolution that approves the southern route. Um, we've heard a lot of public testimony. Um, I personally have attended every— all but one North Lakes Community Council meetings in the last year.

I've spoken with members of the community in Fishhook. I've spoken to, um, members of Public Works, and I think it's important to have a wide understanding of this project before making a decision. And there are multiple subject matter experts out there, both that work for the borough, that live in the area, they do this for a living. And, um, and it was voted on. It was voted to fund the southern route 5 years ago, and it still hasn't moved forward.

And now it's $8 million more expensive. So we need to— I believe that we have a duty to, um, move the southern route forward. That's what the residents in the borough voted on. I work for the residents of the borough, and I think that this is the most appropriate thing to do at this time. Now, at a later time, if the northern route is necessary, I won't be on the assembly anymore.

You guys can work on that. But right now, I think we need to honor the 2021 vote, and we need to honor the communities that have put forth all of the resolutions, the RSAs that have put forth the resolution supporting this, and the Planning Commission that supports the southern route and get this done. Okay, so we are on the primary amendment, right? Or the substitute? The substitute.

Uh-huh. Assemblyperson Sumner, go ahead.

So, uh, TIP 21, I believe, was in '21, like 2021. So it was 5 years ago, and, um, the voters, uh, approved, you know, $2.5 million to build the southern route. And man, wouldn't it have been great if we could have built that thing 5 years ago for $2.5 million? But, uh, we can't rewind the clock and go back to 2021 and build it for $2.5 million. And I don't think that The voters that told us to build this for $2.5 million gave us, uh, you know, carte blanche to spend 4 times as much on the southern route.

Um, you know, also the reality of the situation has changed when the roundabout's going in, you know, next year. I think it's going to drastically change the traffic pattern down there and alleviate a lot of the congestion. So, and I'm not saying that I think the northern route's great. Debate whether we should spend $25 million on that. What I am saying, though, is that $10 million for the southern route doesn't seem like that great of a deal when a lot of the issues that we're dealing with on them are going to be alleviated by the roundabout.

And also, I mean, if you read all 203 pages of the IM, which I did, in the engineering report for the traffic analysis— I guess I should back up and say that I used to live on Engstrom, actually literally on Engstrom. 25 Years ago, and my shop is a couple blocks away from Engstrom. I've built dozens of houses in the Vail Estates and Stone Creek area and Goodwin Estates. So, I know the area well. I guess I contributed to part of the congestion problem, but if I hadn't built those houses, someone else would have, right?

But, um, uh, and I, I, you know, besides all the dense traffic count analysis about why the northern route's better than the southern route, I did a little mental exercise. Uh, I can't remember what— who suggested it or said, well, when would you use the southern route? And, you know, if I lived in one of the neighborhoods accessed off of, uh, Engstrom, I thought, well, when would I, you know, instead of going to the roundabout to go to Wasilla or going to the roundabout to go to Palmer or going to the roundabout to go to Anchorage, when do I take a left turn to go on the southern route? Then, you know, go on to Trunk. Now, you wouldn't go to Hatcher's Pass that way.

You'd go up north to Texal. You wouldn't go to Wasilla that way. You go to the roundabout. You wouldn't go to Palmer that way because it'd be faster to go straight and then hit the roundabout. So who is going to use this southern route?

I, I couldn't really come up with an answer when someone would use this open route, uh, especially making a left turn across traffic, you know, to go on to the southern route. Now, there is a good argument for using the northern route, but that's That's not what we're talking about right now. We're talking about just, should we spend the money on the southern route today? And, um, and I'm opposed to spending 4 times what the taxpayers approved on the southern route. Okay, further discussion on the substitute?

Um, Assemblyperson Falloff, please. Um, since this is a kind of completely changes the whole ordinance, can we— because it will be— everything is going to be related to this amendment, actually. Now, can we get a staff report? I have a couple questions for that.

I'm asking if we could get Tom Adams for staff, please. You want to do a staff? Yes. Okay, he's coming. All right, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

So the amendment completely changes the, uh, you know, our ordinance from one to another. I think Max brought up some of the points. One of the things I wanted to ask, um, do we— do you have a way to display in IM? There's a similar map to this that has the routes, so we could display that because I think that will help us. Look at it.

It's loading right now. I don't have— if somebody has it, they might have page 9 would be okay. And that's in— yeah, yeah, I think page 9, I think, would help out for us to see and then kind of zoom in on the picture so that we could see it better. Okay, question to Tom. On the roundabout, that's— what is the update currently?

Because that's— well, that has a lot of relevance to which route is the roundabout of the Inkshuman and the Bogart. Do we have update on the timeframe on construction of that? Uh, through Mayor, through Member Bonoff, Public Works Director Tom Adams. So, um, you know, yes, I have an update. As recently as today, I spoke with the DOT regional preconstruction engineer and told me they fully anticipate putting that project out to bid by the end of December, but certainly by within the first quarter of 2027.

So, uh, fully expect that project to be in construction in the 2027 timeframe. Okay, when they start construction on roundabout, at what point in the construction— I know the finalizing of the grass and everything like that takes at like a bottom of the season or sometimes even the following season— when do you expect that if things go the way it should, for the actual roundabout to start having traffic going into a roundabout? So that particular project, the initial construction activity is going to rely heavily on a lot of utility relocations. And so that, I would anticipate the first, you know, 6 or 8 weeks is going to be not seeing a lot of activity as far as constructing the roundabout. But you'll, you'll see that develop.

My expectation is sometime during the 2027 construction timeframe, that roundabout will be functional, but it won't be until 2028 until it's actually reaching a substantial completion or nearing final completion towards the end of 2028. Okay, Lani, sorry, it's page 17 that I was referring to. Okay, once the roundabout is completed, the need for the southern, if somebody's going to, was to go on a trunk road towards Palmer-Wassila Highway. I did the math. It's from where the southern route would start to the inner, the roundabout by the trunk and Bogart is about 1.54 miles.

Does that sound about right? Mr. Bond, so I'm clear, you're saying the distance that you're measuring is between Trunk and where? If southern route and then to Trunk and all the way to the roundabout that is on the trunk and the boulevard, because when you take that, basically the, the distance from the proposed southern route, if you were to go the distance to the trunk and Bogart roundabout through southern route or through the, what currently traffic goes through with including the new roundabout that will be built. To me, when I measured it out based on our, like, it's through the roundabout that was going to be built, going through that section all the way to the trunk roundabout is about 1.04 miles.

But going through southern route, it's 1.54 miles. Basically, we want to scroll it down just a little bit up so that we could see where the— a little more. Yeah, okay, I think a little more so we could see that road. Oh, that doesn't— okay, are we on the page 17? On this page 17.

Okay, well, this Okay, okay, that's fine. So I guess the distance by southern route, does that actually add the distance compared to going through the what is currently the length of the actual road miles? And I apologize, Mr. Fahrenholtz, but here's what I think you're trying to suggest. You know, on Engstrom, the distance between Bogard and the proposed southern route is roughly 1/2 mile, whereas the northern route is about a mile and a half north of Bogard. Now, at their intersections at Trunk, if that's what you're talking about, the distance between the current roundabout at Trunk-Bogard and go northwards to the, uh, roughly proposed intersection of the southern alignment with Trunk is just over half a mile, whereas the proposed intersection of the North Route 1 to Trunk Road is, you know, about 1.1 miles north of the Trunk-Bogart intersection.

Okay, is that answering your question? I'm gonna re-explain myself. So basically, if we— if the southern route is built and the roundabout is in place, why would somebody take an extra half a mile longer road to get to the, uh, Trunk and Bogart roundabout versus going through the new roundabout, because it is, based on the distance that I'm measuring, it's about half a mile longer compared to the way they're currently— traffic is driving right now. Basically, the road miles will extend by 1.54 miles by having a southern route. That sounds about accurate.

I—. Mr. Fonov, I think that's exactly what Mr. Sumner was saying. For anybody traveling south on Engstrom trying to get Bogard, that by— if the southern alignment was— southern route were to be available to them, and that was the only other alternative route to get to trunk, by the time you get down to there, instead of stopping and trying to take a left-hand turn to compete with northbound traffic, it's very likely people would just continue to travel down to Bogard and use the new roundabout to make their maneuver to head east or west. Okay, and the distance distance between the starting of the northern and southern route based on this is 1.2 miles, the one that goes right between the lakes. Is that— sounds about right?

The northern route is, yes, roughly 1.5 miles north of Bogard. Okay, tell me about that section because I drove it and I've seen that section to be pretty problematic. I guess, is that a— was that part of the concern of having a northern route in order to avoid that, uh, 1.2 miles of what I would say not the best section of that, uh, road. Well, I would say that, I mean, it's a benefit, you know, certainly that, that where Northern Route 1 takes off on the west end on Engstrom, um, that, that intersection would be converted to a T-intersection. But the remaining existing portions of Engstrom south of the North Route 1 all the way down to Bogard will remain in its current, you know, alignment.

So it is, you know, it has a number of curves. It, it, uh, um, you know, kind of navigates its way between a couple of lakes, um, and it, you know, it's narrow, you know. So, so I guess what I'm trying to, you know, I think what you're asking is if the southern route's there, there will still be be a fairly deficient roadway for Engstrom Road coming down to south, you know, until you get to the south, south route. Correct. But once people already passed that, they have shorter ways to go through the new roundabout by half a mile.

So potentially, you know, so I guess that answers the question. I'll probably follow up with something else if somebody else wants to ask Tom something else. So that answered my question. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, Tom.

And, um, so, and I appreciate you meeting with me, um, about a month ago to discuss this, and there are some very positive things on the northern route. And, um, I appreciated that meeting and having you explain all 3 routes, you and Cole. Um, and I think that the northern route, um, absolutely has some, some benefits. For me, it comes down to not just this, but a reality, right? So if this southern— if this resolution passes and we support the southern route, um, in reality, how soon could work get started on that, and how long would it take to finish that southern route?

Uh, Mr. Bowles, it's a difficult question for me to answer because we still have a $10 million project. Yeah, I don't— there's, there's not a funding source currently for any of these alignments. That's, that's something that will have to be addressed once the corridor is selected. Is there— has there been any possible eminent domain land identified on the southern route?

That again is a difficult question to answer because we haven't entered into the right-of-way acquisition phase, so we haven't addressed or engaged property owners directly, um, because we just, you know, it'd be inappropriate to do that not knowing which corridor we're actually pursuing. Okay. And so the reason I asked that is obviously we have landowners here that, um, and I've spoken to them, they've made it very clear that they will go to eminent domain. And so we're talking if even if this northern route gets approved and even with its benefits, how long is that court process going to take before that northern route, before we can even break dirt on that northern route versus going ahead and moving forward with the southern route that we the people voted on at 21 to support, and the residents of the Mat-Su Borough support, that will alleviate some traffic and lessen safety concerns. And yes, the roundabout's going in, that's great, but this will lessen some safety concerns as well.

And my understanding is Jade is willing to help um, with his property, he's willing to help with some work that'll alleviate some costs versus the overall cost of the northern route being potentially 3 or 4 times more expensive. And then the length of time that the, the borough will most definitely spend in court for eminent domain. So that's, that's where I'm stuck, is I think we should move on the southern route. It makes sense. It was approved.

It's supported by everybody but the one person I've spoken to in the community, and that person has concerns with snowdrifts, and that's been addressed. Um, so, um, that doesn't mean I don't support the northern route in the future if, um, those property owners reach out to the borough at a later time. But I think that the southern route has been supported, has been um, has been discussed to, uh, to death, and I think we need to move on it. That the people in the— that live in this area, the residents in this area, have told us that that's what they want. So I think that that's what we need to move on.

So, Mr. Bolsonaro, to answer your question quite honestly, um, once a decision by this body to pursue eminent domain occurs, we would work with the attorney's office to file a declaration of taking. And to be candid with you, the, the actual court process to— that enables the borough to actually possess that right-of-way can be very short. A judge just declares, based on the declaration taking, if he acknowledges the need, um, that that conveyance is made to the borough. The time to actually come up with the value can take quite a while. But while that negotiation is going on, the borough, you know, given the, the court's decision, can be building a roadway.

So I guess what I'm trying to tell you is just because there is a property owner that is not a willing seller of property doesn't mean that process is going to take years as far as getting the authority to use that. That right-of-way. Um, you know, I would just caution the fact that if, you know, there's been plenty of large— this is a significant project, and for all of our significant transportation projects, if we were to balk at advancing them based on a suggestion of property owners, unwilling seller, we would never start significant transportation projects. Is it unwilling, or not unwilling, is it unreasonable to say we've been talking about the southern route for 5 years. Let's, let's, let's move forward on this and let's not table the northern route, but let's move forward on this southern route.

Let's continue discussions on the northern route. Let's continue discussions with property owners. Let's look at the numbers. Let's look at the Texal, um, um, construction project coming up, and then at a future time maybe pursue the northern route. But I think at this time it seems reasonable to pursue the southern route right now.

Um, I think it's 5 years in the making, and I, I, I just overall think that that's the most appropriate thing for us to do, just based off of all the information. Well, if I might, I mean, I mean, obviously we— I think our Public Works position is fairly well documented in our decisional memorandum. Um, thank you. You know, let, let's step back a little bit. Let's see where this project actually was instigated.

Uh, in TIP 21, the project for a connection between Angstrom and Trunk did not start by Public Works as, you know, as a project. It started by a nomination by one of the assembly members on the dais. So, you know, the, the, the value of $2.5 million was not vetted. It was produced in some manner by this, you know, by the body at the time. Um, so I can't justify how $2.5 million was the right number.

You know, obviously we're seeing today it's not. I will also suggest to you, you know, you heard earlier by Rod Anson that the southern alignment was in OSNHP. It is in the OSNHP, as is is the northern route. The LRTP doesn't speak to any specific route. It talks about having secondary access between Hengstrom and Trunk.

That's purely what it is. So, you know, when I became Public Works Director, and given my background, when this project was presented to me, I looked at it and saw, you know, it deserved merit to expand the scope of the review of the area to get the best benefit for the secondary access. Process. And, and here's where we are. I, I don't know who said it earlier.

I think Miss Colleen Vague said it. Um, you know, we're, we're constantly looking in the rearview mirror about, I wish we would have done, I wish we would have done. And when we decide to finally go do, it's too late, or it's very expensive, especially when it comes to transportation projects. So from Public Works perspective, we're not looking at just to build a road. We're looking at an opportunity to improve our transportation network to the maximum degree possible.

And again, you know, I think we're very clear that the northern route does that better than the south route. Yes, the south route's cheaper, it's half the, half the length, um, but it's got terminal ends at Trunk Road and terminal end at Engstrom. It has no opportunity for expansion. Uh, we're sitting here right now talking about the fact that people that travel south on Engstrom are unlikely to actually use that route once the roundabout's in, whereas the north route, um, you know, again, it's our, you know, overall the criteria that were evaluated, it has the best long-term benefit to improve our transportation network. Okay, if I can interrupt, we do have some other assembly people.

Thank you, Tom, I appreciate that. Assembly members. I didn't have questions for staff, so I'd like to— I have some comments, but I don't know if we're done with staff questions. I can wait until we— if there's other staff questions.

Assemblyperson. Oh, quick question. You kind of touched it towards the end. Um, like you said, by the time we get to it, it's like we wish we could have done this 25 years to 30. 5 Years from now, I guess, um, what we don't want— somebody else obviously will be sitting in this position.

They say, why didn't they choose this? That— give the argument for and against it, against your own, and maybe a proposition why people said, yeah, that should have been done versus that should have been done. We're talking about a couple, uh, you know, 20 to 30 years from now.

Well, we all know how fast that area is growing. Um, you know, the, the— I, I would just point to 5, 7 years ago, you know, I'm sure the folks that own the dairy farm didn't expect to have to, you know, sell their property, you know, because the type of business they were in, you know, and, uh, is no longer there. And, and now it's turned into a gravel pit, a much different use. You see the amount of residential development, you know, going on in that area, and who knows what the next 2, 3 decades does for those vacant lands around there. And what I would suggest to you, as, as those transportation corridors become developed without the benefit of preserving those corridors, then the cost of developing a transportation corridor certainly escalates.

You know, the southern right route, and Jade said it earlier, at some point it will have merit. You know, when the gravel pit, you know, and I think he's got a 30-year plan, that, that was what was identified in the CUP that was approved. Um, you know, ultimately there will be a repurposing of the land around the gravel pit. You know, perhaps it'll be residential development. At that moment, then perhaps the, the south route will have some benefit.

But right now, having a road that basically runs north along a gravel pit without really any traffic generators. We're relying on the fact that everybody that's coming down Engstrom from the north sees value in taking a left-hand turn and going to Trunk. And I think we've kind of beat that one to death already. But, um, I just, you know, I've expressed this to some folks, you know, in my opinion, if not the north route, then no route. Because, you know, we're not— it's not like we have $10 million just to go spend on a project, but the expectation that we're going to find $20 to $30 million the next one.

I mean, we should make a decision, but make the right decision. No, just because something's cheaper doesn't make it better. Last thing, how many years ago did the intersection became really problematic? And Bogart, is it within the last 10 years, 7 years? One more time, I'm sorry.

When did the intersection of Bogart and, um, Ingstrom became really problematic? How many years ago? Because obviously it's I know this didn't occur overnight, but just to give us perspective, like 5, 10 years back, it wasn't as big of a concern as it is now. Well, you know, DOT's been working on the plans to improve that intersection for about 7 or 8 years now. So, you know, I think, you know, leading up to that, we already knew it was a safety concern.

So I can't answer that specifically, you know, probably in the past 10, 12, 15 years, you know, you can see what really is going on. It's not really that Angstrom. Is a problem, it's the growth of traffic on Bogart. You know, Bogart, you know, and you'll see it in our own reports, you know, in, in our 2050 time frame, regardless of the alignment, that intersection is headed towards failure. And it's not because of the decisions we're trying to make, it's because the Bogart corridor needs to be something greater than a two-lane facility.

We're, we're projecting that there's going to be, you know, north of 24,000 vehicles in the 2050 timeframe. You know, it's a topic of discussion today with DOT. You know, um, at some point there needs to be some plan to resolve the Bogart corridor. But meanwhile, projects like the ones we're doing, you know, finding an east-west corridor that provides travelers an opportunity not to have to go to Bogart to make their movements, does have an impact. So that's why when you look at the Northern Alignment, there is an opportunity to remove traffic off of Bogard and have some small impact.

But again, regardless of the south alignment or north route, one south route, we're projecting our traffic model suggests that the Bogard-Angstrom intersection, even with the roundabout, fails in the 2050 timeframe. Okay, and lastly, there's a letter attached that maybe not many seen from DOT. Can you briefly say what that is and summarize, uh, the letter that was dated September 2nd from the DOT? Yeah, I mean, there's reference earlier. There's certainly, you know, we, you know, we're, we're partners with DOT.

We're, we're often collaborating with them about projects and how to improve our transportation network. You know, they have, uh, facilities and, and corridors they have jurisdiction over, and similarly, we, you know, we have our own, you know, transportation corridor So, yes, the Deputy Commissioner for DOT recently authored a letter in support of the northern alignment, but it wasn't just recent. And you go back and look at the route selection report, there's indications in there of statements by DOT in support of the north route. And effectively, it's because of the— you know, it goes back to the same thing, the distance between the Bogard corridor and the south route is insignificant. It really provides no benefit, whereas you provide more spacing, there's a greater benefit for the north route.

So while there might be a suggestion that, you know, Public Works developed a letter from DOT, that's just false and uninformed. Okay, thank you. Um, Deputy Mayor, you had some comments. On the Texol extension and the Engstrom to Texol extension, what kind of time frame are we looking at? Through the Mayor, uh, some member Bernier, so we have entered into the right-of-way phase for that particular corridor.

The design is 75% complete. We have about 60 different properties that are impacted to various degrees. Most— many of them are sliver takes as far as, uh, easements or slope easements or something like that. But if you recall, I came to this body in about January talking about our right-of-way process and about the fact that, you know, historically, what, you know, what has happened is we went out and paid for very expensive appraisals to value those small takes. And we were headed towards spending nearly $1 million on professional services that included appraisals for property that was valued about a tenth of that.

So we changed our process before we actually got there. We actually recently used our own right-of-way acquisition specialist, developed working with our finance department. You know, you all recognize, you know, the conversation about assessed values versus market values.

So developing just comp— you know, the, the basically fair market value for those acquisitions. And now we have offers for each of those 60 parcels about ready to be released. So I don't, I don't know how successful we're going to be as far as negotiating, you know. My guess is we'll have fairly good success for a good component of those. We're going to have some additional conversations and, and probably back and forth offers between property owners in order to finalize that.

And it's possible that we may come back to this body suggesting that we've made more than several attempts to successfully negotiate the acquisition, are unable to do so, and then the discussion about eminent domain will be had. If, if we kind of put south and north on hold and put our money towards these extensions As far as rerouting traffic out onto Palmer-Wassilla and out that way, do you think we can get more for our money that way?

I want to make sure I understood what you just said. If we don't choose to do either of these Angstrom trunk projects— yep, put that money towards Texol. Well, the Texol project's already been budgeted and approved through both the TIP 21 and the TIP 24, we came back and had to plus up on the money. So it's funded, you know. So we, uh, right now we have, uh, the funds dedicated to both acquire the right-of-way, you know, through, you know, our estimate of what the right-of-way acquisitions will cost, and for construction.

So we're not, we're not seeking additional funds right now for the Texel project.

Assemblyperson McKee. Yeah, I've been in this, in living in Wasilla for going on 34 years, and I remember way, way back when, probably 20 years ago, and they had a lot of public meetings and everybody said what they wanted and didn't want. And I think I'm going to make a statement that people are going to throw rocks at me. I think at that time they listened to what everybody said, and now we have gridlock traffic in Wasilla. Used to be on a Friday afternoon.

You just better, you know, take your lunch and, and, uh, and a blankie maybe to get— because people are coming in from Big Lake. But that was only generally on a Friday afternoon. The rest of the time it was OK, and then it just got worse and worse and worse to where now we're blocked in. I don't know where we would put— I don't know where we would put a road that would get us through Wasilla any quicker than we are now. So I listen to what everybody's saying.

It— the idea of eminent domain is painful to me as it is to everyone else. But I've heard the gentleman in the orange shirt say, at this time, you're saying that they did— maybe the southern route is okay at this time. And Mike was saying, well, at this time, that's what we said 20 years ago, 25 years ago. At this time, we'll fix it now. And I think he also used the word Band-Aid.

It would— I think the southern route would be a Band-Aid, and I don't think it would get us what we need to get. I— and what— if you— anybody who's been here any length of time looks at the gridlock that we have in traffic anytime between, say, after 3 o'clock now, anytime, any day, you just better be prepared to wait a long time or go, go earlier or later than you actually needed to do that. So painfully, I support the northern route, and, uh, that, that's why. Well, I, I agree with everything that everybody said, but in the final analysis, it's what's better in the long run because we're totally screwed as far as what we did going right through Wasilla. Ms. P, I appreciate, because that's, that's basically where Public Works is looking at this.

We're trying to find the best long-term benefit. Um, not, you know, if our objective was just build a road, I mean, we, you know, certainly we could do that if that was the will of the body. But, you know, from our perspective, the south route does not provide long-term benefit. Okay, so let's go ahead and proceed to Vote. We don't see anybody else.

I didn't have questions for staff, I just had some comments before we voted. Okay, um, somebody mentioned that this touches Districts 1, 3, 4, and 6, and it's kind of funny because it just— a lot of District 2 also passes through this, and anybody in District 5 and District 7 is pretty aware of the Bogart-Engstrom intersection, so It's infamous for not good reasons. And when I started on the assembly in 2019, I put a lot of faith in what DOT said. Oh, we're going to have that project done in a year. And I used to believe that.

Well, you know, DOT has been working on that Bogart Ingstrom roundabout since I got elected in 2019, and they had 75% design in 2020. 2021, And we're looking at what, 2028, 2027? Because apparently because of right-of-way. So, um, when I think about, do I want to look back from this night in 8 years and have a project that because of right-of-way— and I'm in agreement with Ms. McKee about the worst thing you can do is tell somebody what to do with their land. I mean, that's what this assembly stands for.

We don't tell people what to do with their land. And then it sticks in my craw to think about, well, but these guys whose grandfather homesteaded the land, we're going to tell you what to do with your land because we didn't tell anybody else what to do with their land. So, um, Lonnie, could you bring up page 50 of that IM? 50, 5-0.

Um, that's You know, I don't think anybody on this assembly got elected saying, yeah, I want to tell somebody we're going to force them to put a road across their land. And then so what stood out to me is a very small portion of their land. Is that what you just said? I don't—. I don't—.

Very small print. Okay, thank you. Um, so if you look at The impact on the intersection. So this graphic shows the— what sort of intersection you're going to have after you did nothing, if you did the southern route, if you did the northern route. And the first line there shows the Ingstrom-Bogard intersection.

And if you look at no build, well, the intersection right now is EF, and F isn't good. Let's put A is good.

If you do nothing, it's FF, depending on which direction you're going, FF, CF. If you put the southern route, it's still FF, CF. If you do the northern route, it's still FF, CF. If you did the other two routes, it's the same. And you go down the line.

So right at the end of the day, we could do any of these things and we're still not solving the problem that's been created. And so, you know, you go, well, is the solution something that you end up in— and this is 2050— you still have a horrible intersection that's slow, or do you start to look, maybe start to think about other ways to address the problems out here? And I've been a voice for a long time about some of the things we could do to work with developers to think ahead and get ahead of some of these problems, because Bogart-Ingstrom is the problem now, but it used to be Palmer-Wassilla Highway, and then we built Bogart. So what's it going to be after this if we don't start to think about some of the things? And I'll just mention a few of them.

One is a sub-area solutions plan that looks at these heavy growth areas and tries to get ahead of them. One is a townsite idea that was introduced to me when I got on assembly, which is building the infrastructure in place to attract development. So you're planning ahead, but you're not doing it by forcing it. Um, developer impact fees. So developers would think about how much their traffic's impacting them.

And in the planning process right now, when we do a subdivision, we count the traffic as if it was going to be all residential single-family homes. The person can turn around the next day and put multiplexes or commercial on it, and we never take another look at, oh, how is that traffic going to impact? So that's all to just say that while we're talking about solving this problem and ending up, even if we do these things, with an intersection that still fails, I think it is the poster child, eye-opener for this assembly to think about, are there things that we could be doing that are known things and start trying to do some of those things, because otherwise we're going to keep ending up with horrible traffic and really expensive roads. And, um, I just sort of can't stomach pushing through a northern route on pushing this sanctioning, saying we're going to take your land because we can't think about any of these other things. And then looking back in 10 years and we still don't have a connector over because right-of-way takes so long to get, that would be very— for— I mean, then you would end up with whenever DOT gets around to a roundabout, we might be 5 years more down the line, not have a roundabout there and not have a connector over.

So I understand the issues with the southern route And it, it'd be ahead of its time. I can't— I just can't support the northern round without any sort of recognition from this body that maybe we should also be looking at how we avoid another situation like this. It just seems like a— these guys have to suffer the penalty on their land and we take no responsibility. And, um, for doing something to avoid that situation. We just say, well, you got to give it up.

So, um, I'll support the, the southern route. I can't support the northern route, but I would continue to work with the property owners on it and see if we get there in the future with something that could work for them. Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, so you bring up a point.

Um, you've been here 7 years and that project's not done, that roundabout. Um, so I worked on a resolution to designate the Old Glenna safety corridor. Um, all 3 community councils in that area— South Kinnick, Butte, and Lazy— uh, submitted their resolutions to me and asked me on their behalf to submit a resolution, and this body passed that resolution unanimously. And the author of that letter that was presented to us today, by the way, um, is the same person that came back and said that I'm not going to designate the Old Glenna safety corridor, essentially because there haven't been enough fatalities. So in my opinion, safety isn't necessarily a priority for DOT, and I don't have faith that this roundabout is going to make it in this year.

Next year or 5 years from now. Um, what I do know is that this southern route here was approved by voters, and I thought that vote was a bond to approve funding that route. Um, and I know that I've heard many times from people that they vote on these bonds, these roads don't get built, and then that money gets shifted to another project. This is an opportunity to honor a vote that occurred in 2021 and put this road in that the people in this area that live here asked for 5 years ago. And yes, inflation happens, costs happen, uh, rises in cost happen.

So do we just say, well, yeah, that was 5 years ago, it costs more? Well, yeah, well, we should have done it then when we voted on it. And yes, it does cost more at $10 million, but that northern route's going to cost $30 or $40 million. In. Um, so I don't know, I just— A, we do not need to rely on Alaska DOT for anything as far as safety, from my experience.

Um, and B, the voters asked us 5 years ago, us being the assembly, to move on the southern route. It hasn't happened yet. I think we have the responsibility to do that. Another thing to consider is, and I'll say it, we're an ag community. If, if we rip through that area up there, we're destroying agriculture agricultural area.

And I'm just— I'm not going to vote to support ripping through agricultural area up there on the northern route.

Assemblyman Max, Assemblyperson Summer, I was going to call the question. Thanks. Is there objection to calling the question?

Any objection, Madam Clerk? If I can get the members to vote on the substitute Resolution. I don't want either one of them.

Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Vernier, Bold, and Nowers in support.

Okay, now we're on the main motion. Now we're back on the main motion. Assemblyperson Bold— I mean, go ahead.

Just say I kind of like, um, Mr. Bernie's idea of focusing on the, the other connections and not— and pushing on DOT to get the roundabout in. So I don't know how I would amend this, but I would amend it to recommend fast-tracking as much as possible Texal, Covington, and the Ingstrom connector up to Texal. Okay, um, you had bowls first, did you? I think amendment should go whereas on the end to not support either route. Instead urge support either route to support fast-tracking the other connections to include Covington.

Hold on, I'm writing other routes, right? Sort of. So yeah, to include Covington, Texile Connector.

And Ingstrom to Texal.

So no-build with priority on those.

So that wasn't part of the language you did. So are you wanting the no-build part of the language of what you just said? I'm sorry, I need to make sure I get it right. Yeah. Recommending the no-build option with the prior— the rest of it stays the same with the priority on the— those 3 connectors.

Okay, you got it. Assemblymember—. Madam Mayor, I have a question for clarification about this amendment, if I may. Uh, I guess, I guess the question is for, uh, the manager or Public Works. Like, if this passes tonight, what happens without this amendment?

Like, I mean, we have no funding, so what's the action if this, uh, ordinance passes?

Go through the mayor. Senator Sumner, uh, if I understand the amendment correctly, basically they are proposing a no-build, so effectively it just kills the project. There would be no— there would be public works will quit working on the project.

Simply, we would just won't do any improvement to that recognizes any corridor between Engstrom and Trunk. Madam Mayor, if I follow up, so what, what action would be taken by Public Works if this passed without the amendment? The amendment was voted down, and then, and then we voted for the northern route. What action would be taken without funding identified? Well, we, we have, uh, I mean, part of the $2.5 million is still available that will allow us advance into preliminary design.

It's unlikely that there is sufficient funding to completely fund all the way through, let's say, 75% design, you know, all the field studies and everything that would be required to get to the point where we would specifically identify our right-of-way impacts. And then, you know, typically the 75% design is where we start preparing our right-of-way documents. Madam Mayor, one more. So what would happen to that remaining $2.5 million from TIP 21 if this was a no-build vote? The $2.5 million would be distributed across other projects that are in the same TIP package.

Yeah, that's trouble. So summarize the amendment so we know exactly. What it does. Okay, thank you. There's going to be a whereas clause added at the end to fast-track other routes to include Covington, Texile Connector, and Engstrom to trunk, recommending no build to this project, meaning the northern route.

Did I get that right? Assemblyman— is ours okay?

Can you read that Engstrom piece again?

Did you say Ingstrom to Trunk or Ingstrom to Tech South? Sorry, Ingstrom to Tech South. Thank you. Can I just point out, Mayor, to, uh, just to recognize the Covington project is actually a project as part of the MVP, and it's legislation that's before you tonight that you haven't acted on yet. So for some reason that doesn't happen, that's not a project we would move forward on either.

Okay, everybody understand now the Okay, the whereas clause reads, to fast-track other routes to include Covington, Texal Connector, and Texal to Ingstrom, recommending no-build to this project.

Okay, Assemblyperson Fono. I make a secondary amendment, which is all that stuff except the last sentence, because that last sentence technically kills the projects. So reread that, recommending no build at the end. I'm— my amendment is to remove that portion of it. Got it.

And reread it as if— read without that so that we understand what we're voting on. Secondary amendment: whereas fast-track other routes to include Covington, Texile Connector, and Texile Inkstrom. And that's what— how it would read if your amendment secondary passed. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles. And thank you, Madam Mayor.

So that secondary amendment essentially does nothing because it's already on, on the list. So the whole point of that amendment is moot now with that last part removed.

I guess my— in regards to amendment, Miss Nowers, this amendment literally just puts a stop on this. Then what's the point of doing this if we could just kill this altogether than amending it, like saying all the case why we support, and at the end saying kill it. I just don't think that's a very clean message. If you want to kill it, let's vote this thing whole down without amending it. I withdraw my amendment.

I recommend that we vote down the amendment, or you can withdraw the amendment, and then we can vote it up or down as it written, because this confuses us. Okay, so your Assemblyperson Falloff is withdrawing. Is there objection to his withdrawal of the secondary? Can I ask a question?

Go ahead. I'm trying to— so I'm trying to understand, um, you know, we are being asked to pick a southern or northern route, and, and we don't have agreement on that, so I don't know how to say prioritize those and not say something about a southern or northern route? Like, are you suggesting— is your intent that those would prioritize, and what would happen with the southern northern route? I think the cleanest way to bring a separate resolution or separate ordinance instructing them to— which, from what I understand, this is— the coming connection is completely irrelevant. It has to do with a separate piece of legislation, different project, MPO, or whatever that is.

So I'm just saying this complicates this thing. If we just don't support the no notes, we should just be straight with voters, vote it down. If we support it up, but putting that little amendment to make it feel good and given initially Tom sort of like this is on but it's off, I just don't think that's the right direction we want to send to our, uh, our Tom's department. Okay, I would just say I think we need to give them clear direction. So the clear direction is prioritize those others in that I'd stick with my original proposal, but killing the project— and I think there's an objection for him withdrawing, right?

Is that what you're— no, no, just haven't decided his withdrawal yet, Madam Mayor. Right. And we started— but that's why I thought she had an objection, because I asked if there was— is there an objection for him withdrawing? Okay.

All right, so that— Assemblyperson Sumner. Yeah, I mean, I agree with Mr. Fonov. I think that, um, you know, the best thing for these funds, if we don't want to build either one, is that they go back to the TIP that was approved, because the voters looked at that entire list and said we want to sell these bonds to pay for these projects. Our money doesn't go as far as it used to. Unfortunately, we didn't get them all done, but I think the voters still gave us a mandate to build the roads that we we could with that, that TIP project.

So for that reason, I would support, you know, just cleanly voting this thing down if that's the will of the body, rather than amending it to say we want to do these other projects. Okay, Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, my understanding is the Texal, um, portion is part of that same TIP. Um, if I'm mistaken, please correct me.

But I believe it's the part of the same one, so I support that language. Um, I would caution anybody from just relying on voting this down because we can't guarantee that that will happen. So I support this amendment. This would at least prioritize, um, yet another route that can create more safety, um, in that area, and that is the fastest growing area in the borough. That, um, that fishhook triangle area.

So I 100% support this and I'll vote yes on it. Okay, so we're ready to vote. Or Assemblyperson McKee? Yeah, I just think that if Assemblymember Nowers appreciates the thought, but it just completely changes the whole game. It's like we're not even talking those— our big deal is safety and like on Engstrom and Bogart and all that kind of thing.

Now we're saying, well, throw out the other, the north and south route. Northern and southern routes, we won't even talk about Engstrom and Bogart, but we're going to do Covington and so forth. That's what that feels like to me, so I can't support it. And like, for some hours, I would just say if you look at Engstrom, this all connects. So Texal is a connection, Covington is connection.

So it's, it's all, you know, that's our road system. It's all put together. So it does work on Engstrom in certain ways. So it's not, it's not completely— it's addressing some of the problem. Might not be way everybody wants to do it, but it's the way I'd like to do it until we— you know, I think I've already stated my piece on some of that other stuff.

I don't like to take people's land. Deputy Mayor, the way I looked at it is if Texol went through and connected and stuff, you wouldn't have to go down Engstrom. You could be just going out Texol, alleviating a lot of the southern and northern route. Okay, are we ready to vote now on the— okay, I think we— Madam, if I can get the members to go ahead and vote on the primary amendment.

Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Bernier, Bowles, and Nowers in support.

Okay, yes, assembly first and phone off. Okay, question to Tom on the Pages in our IM from page, I would say, 173 to 180, it has the public comments received. There is—. I glanced through them. There are 7 for the Southern Route 22, for Northern Route 106 that have no preference.

For the record, to transparency to our audience, has these comments been someone been removed to manipulate those numbers?

No. So the answer is— I mean, we, we have been very transparent with all the information we've collected through the public process. Um, we provided the clerk every letter that we've received, uh, that was submitted to us, and we've reported the results of all the, uh, the surveys that have been done, the public comments received. Uh, there's a table in there that summarizes all the comments received and how each of those comments were adjudicated. Um, so there's absolutely no manipulation of information to try to gain a result.

So those numbers are, uh, like the number of comments we received in preference and/or no preference is what we've gotten. We didn't filter to make this report look better or worse? We filtered the information we had. Our, our first open house for this project is probably one of the most well-attended open houses we have ever had. Mr. Summer asked you a question earlier.

If this to be voted as it's written, um, would— when is the next step? If something will be in front of assembly, obviously before the shovel hits that, I guess the ground, would there be still more voting that needs to be done by public or by assembly before this would contract? Where are the next steps so we understand if we vote this down or we move this forward what the consequences is? Mr. Foner, so I mean, if the decision by the body was no bill, there would be no point in coming back to this body because we would just quit working on this project. If, on the other hand, one of the routes, any route, were decided by this body for us to, to advance, um, we, we could bring back milestone deliverables, you know, whether it be a 35% design, a 65% design, absolutely, before we move forward to right-of-way acquisition.

As you recall, I came here, like I said, in January and spoke about the right-of-way acquisition process. Any decision about funding, any decision about right of, you know, using eminent domain, all has to come through this body. So there are several opportunities, um, for us to, to, you know, to advance a, a route and, uh, start firming up information and then bring that back to this body, uh, for, for additional conversation, if that's what the— so this is what's asked of us. So this is not a marriage certificate, is this like courting or dating, or where we at bypassing this, because I want to know, because if there is preference to just vote it down and, you know, years later say like, oh, we should have made that step, or, or how does this keep alive? And next, if we do vote this up to support it, when do we expect to hear a next, I guess, proposal or idea or next move from your department?

Well, if you do the no-build, we're getting a divorce, right? So I mean, we're not even married yet. Um, I'm just saying that, uh, the next process is we would negotiate a change order with our consultant to advance the project. Um, we have their scope of work allows us to go, uh, deeper into design, but, you know, their current contract doesn't necessarily have that amount in there. So we would negotiate a contract that would come back for the— before this assembly to see what the cost of, you know, moving forward would be.

Once preliminary engineering starts, you know, there's a number of field studies that have to happen, and we would collect information. We could certainly bring back the results of that information to this body. Um, you know, we could, we could set out more detailed design work and whatever that looks like, whether it's a 35, you know, you know, I'm using kind of percentages that kind of align with, you know, our milestone deliverables. So 35%, 65%, you know, we can bring that back. Um, I mean, there's plenty of opportunity for this body to participate in you know, either, you know, validating a decision they make or deciding they want to go an alternate decision.

I guess I would just throw in, you know, if we decide not to do anything, second-guessing the opportunity that is going to be lost because development will eventually creep in around this area, um, could be, uh, you could find yourself second-guessing that at some point in the future, whether you're on this body or not. Okay, so 2 years from now, when the roundabout in place, we want to revisit this. Is 2 years significant enough time when it comes to losing 2 years? If we were to downsay, wait till roundabout gets built to see how that helps or not, is 2 years significant time in this case? You know, while I recognize the frustration of— because we've dealt with the DOT, same thing, continuously getting answers, you know, and they've got a very regimented process because of the federal aid requirements.

But I just want to make sure the disconnect, right? The roundabout project is a safety project. It is not a capacity building project. It's not a resiliency adding project. It is not adding a secondary access as mandated by, you know, the, the, the, one of the objectives and the purpose needs for the project.

Um, so while the roundabout has a benefit to the area, it, it, that's all it does is it makes those turning movements coming off of Engstrom safer. So, Just because the roundabout's there does not mean, you know, the transportation network is improved. Okay, thank you.

Hey, Assemblyperson Nowers. Thank you, and thanks, Tom. I know we talked a lot about this, and I really appreciate where you're coming from. I'm kind of looking at this bigger picture of the valley, like other, other issues we have with Old Glen, etc., that we're just allowing to be created. In not solving.

I—. The northern route question. So we have a route that we picked without boots on the ground because the landowners have not allowed us on their property because they don't want us to be there. So if we move forward with the northern route, how do you get— at what point would you— do you have to go to Condomnation to get boots on the ground on their property to even know if you've got a feasible route that you've drawn on paper? Ms. Nowers, that's a great question.

I mean, after our conversation, I had the same curiosity because you're right, and, you know, the SINTs acknowledged it earlier, you know, when we start trying to first engage with them about rights of entry in order to, you know, start investigating, you know, potential corridors, you know, they denied that entry. So I don't know the answer to that, honestly. You know, ideally, we understand that the decision that this body has You know, and ideally to gain right of entry. I don't know if Nick wants to weigh in on this conversation. I mean, I know there, you know, it's— there's no rights of way that— I mean, where there is not a right of way, we would not be necessarily entitled to step onto private property without permission.

Um, so I don't, I don't have an answer for that. Can we ask the attorney?

So, yeah, I was actually corresponding a little bit here with the finance director. Yeah, if there's no landowner permission, then you cannot get onto their land and just say, well, we're thinking of this as one of the alternative routes, so we want to make sure that, like, you know, there's not, like, buried garbage over here, or, or this thing's going to be a sinkhole, or, right, do preliminary geotech. You simply can't if, if, if they won't let you. One of the things I do want to make sure that everybody understands. I know you mentioned you're going to proceed forward to start initiating design.

You cannot use bond funds just for design. You have to have a usable capital project when you're done. So any money you're using is area-wide money. It's not going to be bond money. Not that it's illegal, but it's area-wide money only.

It's not bond money. So I don't know how much design you, you get without going back to the voters enough money for a usable capital project.

So what I'm— I guess my concern then is by the time we can get boots on the ground and maybe we discover, you know, that might be— I don't know how long it's going to— 4 or 5 years before we can get boots on the ground on a piece of property, know whether we've even got a viable route.

Feel like we need to do something sooner than that. And so I get what people are saying about the northern route, but if we can't get it built, we can't even get in there to take a look, and we really don't— we want to avoid condemnation as much as possible. I just like— this does not seem like a great path to go down to try to solve our problem if we're going to be sitting here 5 years from now and realize at that point that, oh, there's a lot of wetland there, there's a cliff there, there's— oh, we might have to come diagonally across their property. You know, it just— there's— it's the unknowns. It's the unknowns that make it really uncertain for finding a solution for that.

So I would go back to the southern—. We have great GIS information, great LiDAR information. I mean, it's very possible— not preferred, very possible— to come up with a decent design and right-of-way impacts using that information. And to, you know, it's possible based on that information, bringing that back here without the advantage of rights of entry, that you might have to use the power of eminent domain in order to gain entry. I don't know that.

I'm speculating. I'm just saying, um, you know, if we— again, I said it earlier, you know, if we, if we don't evaluate the need to improve our transportation network across certain properties based on suggestions that they're not willing sellers, I mean, we wouldn't have Bogart, you know, the Bogart extension between, uh, the Arctic and, and Trunk Road. Same thing, you know, Bogart or the, the borough ended up using eminent domain for that purpose as well, you know, because you had unwilling property owners. And, and don't get me wrong, I mean, it's not our preferred method. We would love to be able to evaluate, negotiate, and successfully acquire rights-of-way.

But unfortunately, you know, projects, transportation projects of this significance ultimately have impacts, and sometimes those impacts have to be evaluated on the public good versus the singular property impact. I think where I'm sitting is I'd rather have a known something than an unknown, maybe we're sitting here in 8 years and we don't. It just— and, and to not recognize some of the things we're not doing to try to avoid future situations. Like, until we're willing to do something on our side, I'm not willing to say take, take land from those. So I I appreciate it, I really do.

And, um, it's a, it's a tricky problem to solve. Assemblyperson Bowles. Oh, oh, oh, you had Max first. I'm sorry. Assemblyperson Sumner.

Sorry, I had a question for Tom. So, um, what's the design horizon? Because I, uh, I noticed that it was somewhere in there I read that it was a major collector But I thought that an average daily count for major collectors is 3,000 cars a day. Is that— or is the breakpoint between minor collector and major collector is 1,000? So, Mr. Sumner, I mean, yes, generally.

I mean, you're in the— there are ranges generally associated with functional classifications, but, you know, there are a number of different jurisdictions. I mean, ADT isn't the sole qualifier for functional classification. You know, if you start comparing our jurisdiction versus like an anchorage and what they classify the ADT on a certain road for certain classification. You know, they just have much higher volumes and therefore the, you know, it's about function. It's about, you know, taking a subdivision road and linking it to a collector that ultimately gets to an arterial.

So we use those types of functions without necessarily having to define it by average daily traffic. Now, that being said, you know, you can in our area, we can generally define, you know, local roadways as having a certain volume of traffic before we start are, you know, moving on to a collector, requiring a different, wider road or different type of road facility. So I guess, you know, yes, I mean, in some manner, you know, 3,000 to 10,000 vehicles for a collector, greater than 10,000 vehicles for an arterial. You know, you can put those kind of ranges for ADT. I guess so.

The reason I was asking is there's a— there's a table, Table 5. In 2050, Northern Route Number 1 would have a proposed ADT of 1307, which to me doesn't dictate that it needs to be a major collector, would be a minor collector. So, but somewhere else in the proposal, it says we're planning on doing a major collector. So is that like we were floating the idea of a major collector? And is there any significant savings between a minor collector and a major collector?

Or whether they're planning for the future? Yeah, they're, I mean. Major, minor, there certainly is the suggestion there's a difference, but, you know, it really comes down to what types of roads are tying into them and how you're distributing that traffic to their higher order types of facilities. So, you know, it's not a clean answer. I mean, you know, the difference between ADT between a minor collector and a major collector is not well defined.

But you might want to consider, like, you know, taking a minor collector might funnel You know, some of the subdivisions, roads, and then from a minor collector to a major collector, you know, it's just a hierarchy.

Assemblyperson Bowles, did you have a comment? No. Okay, then do you have a comment? And then I'll come back to Tom. Do you have any idea how long— I'm going to talk about Seward Meridian, which by anybody's measure is a howling success.

It took forever, and I'm sure there was a lot of angst and drama and all of the discussions that go into something like this. But I can't think of anybody that would think— that wouldn't think that this is an amazing road now. Do you know how long it took to get from where we are right now to where we can all now drive down that road? It's been years. I mean, you understand that the one that just opened is Phase 2.

You know, Phase 1 started the Parks Highway, extended to Palmwassoa Highway. And then now Palm Wasilla to Seldon, basically. Yeah. Keep in mind, those are borough roads. You know, DOT completed those projects.

They're borough rights-of-way, borough— they will be borough maintained, but they're completed under a federal-funded program, CTP, Community Transportation Program. And so federal funds come in, DOT manages them, builds, you know, designs, builds, constructs, and then hands it back over to the borough. But, well, I don't know if anybody— I've been in the valley since 1982. Um, I can reach back. I mean, it was started 15, 20 years ago.

Yeah, I guess what I'm trying to say is, yeah, it took a long, long time, but it ended up being really, really good. And I'm not— that's how— what I'm kind of evaluating between these two routes. Yeah, I mean, I'm on my back again. I mean, obviously we've put Public Works position is well stated, I think. And, you know, if not, if not now, when?

I mean, I'll just leave it at that. Mr. Attorney, did you—. I was just going to let Assemblymember McKee know that the borough's agreement to maintain the Seward Meridian extension was first inked in 2009.

Assemblyperson Fama? Yeah. I'll just say to this, and I'll speak to people who are here, um, there's a time as an assemblyman, uh, that you have a feel-good vote where you're pleasing the crowd, so to speak, and you supported and they felt good, good, you know, happy because they got somewhere. And there's a time sometimes that you make a tough decision, but it's the right decision because it looks more into the future and future generations. And, um, So that's my rationale for supporting this legislation.

I would want it still to keep on being alive and move forward because obviously, as we learned, there's going to be more steps that this will be in front of Assembly again and in front of the voters ultimately approve the finances. So for that reason, I think it's, it's wise to not just kick the can down the road because those problems and those developments are not going away. And as a matter of fact, they're growing. So I just don't want to be in 10, 20 years from now not being here on assembly saying that, you know, I voted that down and that could have prevented a lot of problems. So for that reason, I think I ask assembly to support this so that the department can go forward, move, um, and propose or something.

And at that time, you know, Ultimately, I think voters will get to decide if they want to fund that project, but that's ultimately where I think we should make the right decision here.

Okay. Are we done? Okay, so the motion before you is to— oh, um, Assemblyperson Bowles. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, um, you have— of course, the developers want to develop.

That's what they do. Um, but we have more to consider than just the developers wanting to develop. Um, this is people's lives. This is their, um, their home. This is their land.

We have farmers here. We have, um, people that have asked us not to support this that actually live on, on this land, um, that's, that's possibly going to be taken from them through eminent domain if we pursue this. Um, I think that, um, that was— I thought that was actually a great idea on the fly. To shift our focus on Texal. That, that actually, that was a great amendment, and I think that that would have alleviated a lot of traffic and we could have pursued that, but didn't happen.

Um, I think that if you support this moving forward, you are supporting the borough using eminent domain. It's going to come to that. So I would urge you, no vote on this. Okay, are we We ready then to vote? Everybody, I guess.

Madam Clerk, I can get the members to go ahead and vote on the main motion. Main motion is to adopt. Madam Mayor, it has failed with Assemblymember Fonoff, Sumner, and Gamble in support.

Okay, move on, I guess, huh? Oh, Deputy Mayor, we move to extend the meeting, please? I move to extend the meeting till 11 o'clock. Assemblyperson McKee? I'm sorry, I got lost in there somewhere.

Did we just vote that we're not going to do either one? Ee gods, that is not what I wanted. I'm so sorry. I, I vote to reconsider.

Point of order. He, he did. We didn't ask if there was objection. Oh, point of order. Motion to extending the meeting.

Oh no, what did you say?

I move to extend the meeting till 11 o'clock. Yeah, okay. I was going to ask her clarification and I thought I had it, but I, uh, didn't, because that is not what I would have—. Point of order. I would like to reconsider.

Okay, your point of order. Yes, after that vote, um, Mr. Sumner leaned over and spoke to McKee about the vote, and she is trying to change that now. We discussed it in length. Oh, excuse me. We discussed it in length.

I may say, she asked— if I can clarify, she asked what we just voted on. Exactly. And I was just clarifying for her what we voted on. There was no— I was not trying to persuade her vote, if that was your— if what you're inferring. I don't know what that was.

Pardon? Is she moving to reconsider? That's what I was going to ask. And can, can the reconsideration be taken up tonight, or no, it has to be the next meeting? No, it can be taken up tonight.

Okay, so Assemblyperson McKee, it's my understanding you can vote for reconsideration and ask that it be taken up at this meeting tonight. Right now. Right now. Yes, that's what I would like to vote for reconsideration to take it up this meeting. Do I need to ask if there's any objection, or that's just her right to reconsider, right?

No, that's a motion. Is there any objection to reconsideration? Okay. Is there any objection to reconsideration? One person.

Okay, I can get the members to go ahead and vote on the motion to reconsider.

Madam Mayor, it passed with assembly of members bulls and nours opposed. Okay, all righty. So now we have before us the motion. The main motion is to adopt the original 2 and a half, 3 hours ago, Resolution 26. Sorry guys, I just had to get a dig in there.

We left this morning at 8 o'clock to go to Point McKenzie. We've been there all day, so my temper's getting a little bit short here. Uh, 26-094. Can I get the members to go ahead and vote on the main motion on the resolution, please? Would you please read that so that I don't make— it's adopting Resolution 26094.

4. So it's a yes vote if you are in favor of it and no if you're not. It's the original motion for the northern route. For the— if I vote yes, I'm voting for the northern route. Okay, Madam Mayor, it passed with Assemblymember Bernier, Bowles, and Nowers opposed.

Okay.

May we request a quick break? If we're— don't get interrupted again, Madam Chair. Clerk, Ordinance 26102, an ordinance reappropriating $35,812.84 from the vehicle replacement project to fiscal year 2027 area-wide operating facility maintenance, with accompanying Resolution 2688, a resolution amending the scope of work for fiscal year 2025 vehicle replacement project to fiscal year 2027 operating area-wide operating facility maintenance fund. And if you're on the phone, would like to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, I'm going to open the public hearing on, uh, Ordinance 26-102, and we don't have a sign-up sheet apparently.

Anyone that would like to testify on this ordinate Okay, seeing— and do we have anybody online? We do not. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. Deputy Mayor, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-103 and Resolution 26093. Okay, thank you.

Discussion by the assembly.

Is there any objection to the adoption?

Okay, I don't see any objection, so it becomes, um, the legislation passes. Madam Clerk, Ordinance 26-103, an ordinance accepting and appropriating a grant of $45,000 from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, appropriating required match match funding from the fiscal year 2023 and fiscal year 2024 area-wide budget appropriation, and approving the time extension of the fiscal year 2022 and fiscal year 2024 area-wide budget appropriation for fish passage improvement match funds. The accompanying Resolution 26093, a resolution approving the scope of work and budget and authorizing the manager to enter into an agreement for Anderson Lake Outlet fish passage culvert replacement. If you're on the phone and would to speak to this, press star 3. Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and open the public hearing.

We do not have a sign-up sheet. Uh, anybody that would like to testify, can I have it on the screen please?

Is there anybody online? No. Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And Deputy Mayor, I move to adopt Ordinance 26-104 and 103 and 99. 93, Isn't it?

26-103 With Resolution 26093.

We already did that one.

I thought— is that what he read? I move to adopt Ordinance 26-103 and Resolution 26- 093. Okay, discussion by the assembly?

Any objection by the assembly?

Okay, so the legislation passes. Madam Clerk, Ordinance 26104, an ordinance approving the time extension for 4 project accounts related to the Coal Creek at Sushana Drive, Fish Passage, and the Cottonwood Creek at Fern Street fish passage projects. If you're on the phone and would like to speak to this, press star 3. Going to go ahead and open the public hearing. We do not have a sign-up sheet.

Anyone that would like to testify on this ordinance? We have anybody online, sir? We do not. Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Deputy Mayor, I move to adopt ordinance 26-104.

Okay, discussion by the assembly? Any objection by the assembly? Hearing none, then the legislation passes. Madam Clerk, Ordinance 26-105, an ordinance accepting and appropriating a grant in the amount of $7,891,044 from the United States Department of Transportation Maritime Administration for the Port.