Petersburg Borough: 9.21.2026 Assembly Meeting

Are you, are you ready, Becky? Yes, we're ready. All righty, it's 6:00 PM Monday, September 21st. Uh, I'd like to bring the Petersburg Borough Regular Assembly meeting to order, and with that Would the clerk please call the roll? Mayor Lynn.

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

Member Mucci. Member Newman. Here. Member Schwartz. Here.

Member Valentine. Member Valentine may call in, may not, so I'll, I'll excuse him for now. Thank you.

With that, I'm going to move on to the volunteer Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance. 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.

We have one set of minutes from the regular assembly meeting of September 8th, 2026. Do I have a motion to approve those minutes?

Moved. Second. Been moved. Um, I— anyhow, it's been moved and seconded. And are there any changes, any proposed changes?

Okay, hearing none, would the clerk please call the roll on approval of the minutes from the regular— from the regular September 8th, 2026 meeting? Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor. Yes. Member Martin. Yes.

Member Newman. Yes. Member Schwartz. Yes. Member Mucci.

Yes. Mayor Lynn. Yes. And that's, that's approved unanimously. I'm going to move on to the agenda.

Do I have a move to approve the agenda as presented? So moved. Second. We move by Member Mucci, second by Member Schwartz. Um, are there any additions or changes?

Hearing none, would the clerk please call the roll on the approval of the agenda as it stands? Mayor Lin? Yes. Member Meechi? Yes.

Member Schwartz? Yes. Member Newman? Yes. Member Valentine?

Sorry.

Member Martin? Yes. Vice Mayor Stan Gregor? Yes. Thank you.

All right, thank you. With that, I'll move on to public hearings. Tonight we have a number of public hearings to take place. The first one is on Ordinance 2026-19, the ordinance of the Petersburg Borough Assembly repealing Chapter 9.36, Violation Penalty from Municipal Code, to reflect borough incorporation. Any testimony regarding Ordinance 2026-19 should be given during this public hearing.

And a copy of that ordinance may be found under agenda item 14A. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to talk to Ordinance 2026-19?

Is there anybody on Zoom? No one has their hand raised. Thank you. With that, I'm going to— since there is nobody wants to talk to the ordinance, I'm going to Close that for that particular hearing. I'm going to move on to Ordinance 2026-20, Assembly repealing Chapter 9.08, Food Sanitation, from the Municipal Code to reflect borough incorporation.

Again, any testimony regarding the Ordinance 2026-20 should be given during this hearing, and a copy of this ordinance may be found under Agenda Item 14B. Is there anybody that would like to talk to Ordinance 2026-20?

Okay, is there anybody on Zoom? No one has their hand raised. All right, thank you. With that, I will close the hearing on Ordinance 2026-20. The third ordinance tonight for public hearing is Ordinance 2026-21, an ordinance of Petersburg Borough adjusting the fiscal year 2027 Budget for no one changes.

Any testimony regarding this ordinance 2026-21 should be given during this public hearing, and a copy of that ordinance can be found under agenda item 14C. Is there anybody that would like to talk to ordinance 2026-21?

None. And again, anybody on Zoom? No one has their hand raised. Okay, thank you, and I will close that hearing. Moving on, there are no bid awards tonight, and I'm going to move on into person to be heard related to the agenda.

Anybody that's interested and wants to talk to items related to tonight's agenda, please come forward, state your name, who you represent, and you have 5 minutes.

Hi and good evening. My name is Tara Favilla, President of Mozilla Alaska. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. We first presented this project in April. At the time, both the utility and the assembly expressed support for continuing to evaluate the opportunity.

Since then, we've continued investing the former Ocean Beauty property, advancing engineering and design work, improving infrastructure, and developing plans that provide long-term benefits to the community. We also had very productive meetings today with borough and utility leadership and are continuing to move forward collaboratively, which I'm thankful for. A significant amount of discussion is focused on power availability. Rather than speculate, we are taking action. We are immediately funding a comprehensive study of the electrical system at our sole expense.

The public is not paying for this work. The study will identify available capacity, existing constraints, and opportunities to utilize power that is currently going unused. It will provide the facts needed to make informed decisions about this project and any future development. The study will establish what capacity exists, what limitations exist, and what development is realistically possible. Any future projects will ultimately be constrained by the available power and infrastructure, making growth naturally limited by the system itself.

This project has always been about putting an underutilized industrial property back into productive use. Creating a new industry in Petersburg, strengthening the local economy, supporting the utility, and generating long-term benefits for the community. We have been transparent about those goals from the beginning and have consistently worked through the established processes to move the project forward. We welcome questions. We welcome public scrutiny.

What we are asking for is decision-making process grounded in facts rather than assumptions and a fair opportunity to complete the work necessary to answer the community's questions. The power study will provide those answers, and we are paying for it ourselves because we believe the facts will speak for themselves. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions from the assembly?

Okay, thank you. Anybody else would like to talk to items related to tonight's agenda, please come forward, state your name and who you represent.

Not sure whether I should be speaking now or on unrelated. I want to speak about the tax exemption that's going on the ballot. Am I in the right place? No, let's go to the unrelated, please. Okay, yeah, I'll wait till—.

Thank you.

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

I'm going to move on then to items unrelated to tonight's agenda. Anybody would like to talk? And Judy, please come forward now. Hi, Judy Ulmer. Um, with the tax exemption, it's going back on the ballot.

I understand that there was 340 people who signed the petition to have that done. That happened in a very short period of time, like 2 weeks. So, um, I know there's interest in that. The language was cleared through the borough lawyer and through the Director of Economic Development. Um, I think in terms of how it was phrased about how you're going to talk about it tonight, it had to do with how to let the people know, or the public know, of what it was about, or something like that.

I don't probably have the words exactly.

Um, to be make it really simple as it is written, it doesn't change anything for the people that are 65 and above who have the state certification, or whatever that word is, that they're on the poorer side of, of life and that this would be helpful to them.

The number that the Bureau has projected that the Bureau will lose if this goes through for 70 and above is the same number basically that they talked about from 63 65 and above last year at this time, and it just— it doesn't seem to pencil when you take out 5 years' worth of people and still come up with the same number. So the people that are being hurt right now are those that are on a fixed income, and they're being squeezed, as is pretty clear around Petersburgh. Everything's going up. The property tax is up, the mill rate's up, the mortgage rates are up, sewer dumpage is up 50%, electricity is up, food's up, gas is up. And income on a fixed income isn't up.

And so that's where it gets harder, where you're, you know, having people that are starting to really consider the things that you think of in a, um, a less income group, that they're really being squeezed. And I just worry for more that, that middle range, middle class, the people that are hurt. Some are looking at, can they keep up with it all? And what are they going to have to do if they can't? So I really encourage you to talk about this tax exemption for 70 and up, up, is in a positive way that brings some relief to that group of people too.

You still get a card. It costs $25. You don't have to get a card. Nobody asks how old you are when you're in a store. It seems like it's a pretty simple and straightforward thing that would help a whole lot of people.

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

Is there anybody on Zoom? No one has their hand raised. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, uh, we do have Mr. Beebe on Zoom. Okay, if you would like to unmute him.

Hi, my name is David Beebe, speaking for myself. I'd like to present a brief regional telecom tower timeline providing a surprising background of relevant telecom tower tidbits of history starting 12 years ago in 2014. For those paying attention to what has happened in Petersburg in 2025 and 2026, one will notice striking similarities of how the city of borough and borough of Juneau Assembly and Manager struggled with a Verizon cell tower application, but also a history providing a stark contrast to how the Petersburg Borough Assembly and Manager proceeded with the 4 Tidal and GCI tower applications. So in 1996, Clinton signs the Telecommunications Act and infamously claimed the TCA was passed to foster a new level of competition in US communications. Communications, media, and ownership.

Keep in that mind now, AT&T and Verizon had already established their private game of a veritable nationwide duopoly. Media critics' concerns were totally validated. The major corporate media ecosystem diversity in the US collapsed from about 50 owners in 1983 to just 6 by 2005. Now cut to that quick slice of local history I mentioned. In 2012, CBJ Planning Commission approves a 300-foot cell tower.

Despite outcries, the city manager says options were extremely limited, short of moving the tower. By the way, did you notice the Juneau Planning and Zoning Commission actually played their intended role in examining the tower application before their approval of utmost consequence to the outcries of borough residents. Their manager was quoted saying, "We have no standing. The appeal period is over. We don't have any options." End quote.

Lo and behold, a couple years later, Juneau residents apparently and certainly had enough of their cell tower. On January 28, 2014, the Juneau Assembly enacts a moratorium on cell towers to establish a wireless communications master plan. The assembly asked its manager to look for ways to mitigate the visual impact of a 300-foot cell tower within their international airport flight path. The manager said there were no options. A 120— 155-foot tower was planned instead, complete with daytime strobe and 3 nighttime flashing lights within the Mendenhall glacier viewshed.

A borough resident testifies, I quote, "Juneau has a huge vested interest and financial interest in protecting its viewshed," end quote. Hey, Petersburg, does that sound familiar? Lo and behold, a couple of months later, March 11th, 2014, Juneau blocks cell tower installation. The Juneau Assembly calls off a search for a solution to the 155-foot tower and the flashing lights that have disturbed area residents for more than a year, the manager, Win Press, suddenly found 6 options. To quote the manager, 'I was wrong.

I should have said that the CBJ has no good options,' he told the Assembly Committee of the Whole. This brief history raises many procedural questions for the actions and claims of the Petersburg Borough Assembly and manager. First and foremost, after 30 years since passage of TCA, why did our borough leave its citizens without a legal leg to stand on to defend our sovereign rights to have greater control of the siting of cell towers? Strike one. Second, and just as important, after 12 years of bearing witness to the CBGA debacle and public outcry just 100 miles to the north, How could our borough continue to leave its taxpayer residents abandoned and ripe for predatory tech bro multimillionaire billionaire intentions?

That's strike two. Then, how could the borough claim to achieve anything meaningfully different in a thrice revised bumbling of a supposedly updated ordinance? How could the assembly ignore a highly qualified second opinion by a legal expert in TCA representing municipalities across the nation, why have they refused to pursue and preserve borough sovereignty by expert legal codification of TCA? Strike three. Thank you for this opportunity to question.

Thank you for testimony. Is there anybody else would like to talk to items unrelated to tonight's agenda? Yes, we do have Rebecca Knight on Zoom. Okay, if you would like to unmute Rebecca, we could, um, can you hear— you have the floor. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can very well. Thank you. Um, yeah, Becky Knight here. Um, hello, Mayor and assembly members. And by the way, um, Mr. Beebe and I did not collaborate on our statements tonight, but I find it coincidental with what he also had to say.

Following is my statement for the record along with attached documentation regarding the recent debacle between our Planning and Zoning Commission and the Assembly regarding the proposed subdivision of property on Haugen Drive for the purpose of construction of a wireless communication facility, aka tower. First, to be clear, no one that I am aware of has advocated for the Borough Assembly to, quote, break federal law regarding the siting of cell towers in our community. Instead, they have advocated that you act on behalf— excuse me— of the residents of Petersburg and substantively address the serious issues that they have raised about such siting, including serious consideration of professional materials previously provided to you and also attached to my statement. Which I'll be submitting later. Despite that, you have received very relevant plain language materials disclosed to you by concerned citizens.

There is no indication that you have read or explored them. Specifically, I refer to a short 10-minute presentation by cell tower specialist attorney Andrew Campanelli, and another one you may have not received attached with my statement. Mr. Campanelli offers experienced representation to property owners, civic associations, and local governments who seek to invoke their civil rights to oppose respective applications— excuse me— for the installation of cell towers and cell antennas, or who seek the removal of antennas which have already been installed. He has been litigating these cases for 20 years and done 7,000 cases and has general court admissions as high as the Supreme Court, multiple Court of Appeals, district courts, and more. Clearly, Mr. Campanelli is not just some internet dude making wild assertions, and his expert advice should be taken seriously.

With no ill intent, your reluctance to even acknowledge or consider these materials gives the impression that your due diligence on behalf of Petersburg residents has been absent. It is also notable that other Southeast Alaska communities have successfully fought similar attacks by title. In my opinion, and again with no ill intent, other than a couple of ordinance language cleanups, your decision-making has entirely rested on the impression that the borough will be sued and suffer financial losses— loss if they don't capitulate to titles publicly undisclosed demands. In fact, regarding liability, in the second attached video link, Mr. Campanelli said, quote, "Let's say for argument's sake somehow you violate the Telecommunications Act and you get sued. I tell local governments every day, 'So what?

If a wireless carrier sues you and somehow proves that you violated the Telecommunications Act, You don't pay them a penny. According to the United States Supreme Court on the Telecommunications Act and 42 USC 1983, they cannot win damages and they don't get attorney fees. So if you get sued and lose, the only thing you have to give them is the permit to build the tower. And the only time you get sued and lose is if you don't draft your code the right way and you don't teach your local board what fact-finding determinations they have to make, and you don't apply them in a manner consistent with the code. The Planning and Zoning Board, or Commission, through no fault of their own, was disabled in the absence of the fact-finding determinations and assembly guidance per Campanelli that they should have been informed of.

Finally, I investigated but one of the court cases Campanelli is litigating on behalf of residents of the Town of Riverhead and Wading River Fire District in New York, and their concerns greatly parallel those of Petersburg. I've also attached the court case and two media pieces and urge you to review them. Similarities between the Wading River case and ours is striking, including an exhibit depicting the tower that blew down and 50-mile-an-hour winds, just like we often have. On the local fire chief's truck, towers on fire, and a mathematical analysis of the ability of proposed towers to withstand wind and ice events, property devaluations, aesthetic impacts, and much more. Based on these substantive considerations, P&Z has documented more than adequate basis to deny the subdivision.

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

Anybody else on Zoom? No, no one else has their hand up. Okay, with that then I'm going to move on. There are no board commission and committee reports tonight. There's nothing on the consent agenda, and then under— there's nothing on report of other officers, and I move on then To the mayor's report, which I have to find here.

The assembly meeting schedule change. Beginning with the October 5th, 2026 meeting, the first regular assembly meeting of each month will be held at 12 PM noon. 12 PM noon. This schedule change will remain in effect through April 2027. Absentee and early voting information for municipal election.

Applications to request absentee ballots are available on the borough website or upstairs in the municipal building. Early voting is going on now, Monday through Friday from 11 AM to 3 PM downstairs in the municipal building. Election day, vote in person at the Parks and Recs activity room between 8 AM and 8 PM on Tuesday, October 6th. To view the sample ballot and for more information on the election, go to www.petersburgak.gov. And click on the orange banner at the top of the screen.

And the last time I asked, go, please go vote. It's your right, and we'll see you. Let you— let your voice be heard with that. And with that, I'm going to move on to the manager report. Thank you, sir.

Streets crew is working on resurfacing Oden Lane. And they helped demolish the launch ramp at Four Men's Float, and preparations are underway to begin a sewer repair on Chief John Lott Street. Completed the final work on the counterweight for our sand truck, getting ready for winter. And the annual landfill inspection was completed with no significant concerns identified. Facility heaters have been tested, and staff are monitoring the oil supply in preparation for winter operations at the Baylor.

And the Sanitation Division hosted a booth at the Tongass Rainforest Festival to educate the public about importance and proper installation of bear-resistant straps on trash containers. Performed cleaning and maintenance throughout the wastewater collection system, and staff pressure washed the top of the $2 million— $2 million gallon, excuse me— storage tank and patched areas where deteriorated paint and exposed bare metal and caused rust. Um, MARAD grant agreement has been officially signed by all parties, and staff intend to advertise the bid for construction of the Scalbay Boat Haulout Project on September 22nd. Big thank you to Liz for her work on securing the project funds for this huge accomplishment for the citizens of Petersburg. Harbor has been working with Becky and the borough attorney on a public information request for 13 Marine concerning Scalbay project emails.

And the harbor continues to contact dormant vessel owners who are subject to compliance requirements and review next steps. Harbor has 2 vessels that are getting auctioned this week and removed from the harbor for non-compliance. We're still seeing some transient vessels heading south, stopping in for weather, etc. The harbor has approximately a dozen vessels that want to winter over in Petersburg, so staff is actively monitoring permanent stall holder schedules to sublet stalls that are empty during winter months. The outlying lodge operations are coming through the harbor to store their vessels and winter over equipment.

And Harbor Maintenance is finalizing much of the seasonal upkeep and preparing for winter weather. Public Works streets crew did a great job adding fill to the assisted living parking lot, filling potholes, and adding new blocking around the light pole in the elderly housing parking lot. Mountain View Manor is pleased to welcome Troy Larson as our maintenance technician for elderly housing and assisted living. Big thank you to Sean Blake from Public Works for helping us keep afloat for the past 2 months. Assisted living has announced rate increases for the retirement community rent and assisted living service fees, and selected staff are working on setting up a meeting with, um, Boston Reed to discuss repairs to the Papke's facility.

The borough negotiating team completed a mediation session regarding the PMEA union contract. The union and borough continue to be at impasse, and a request was received for clarification of the geographic definition used in borough matters. Area-wide means throughout the borough— example, dispatch and harbors, including all cities and service areas. Non-area-wide means the area of the borough outside all incorporated The cities in the Petersburg borough— this includes the entire borough except for the city of Cooperstown. Examples like planning, platting, and land use.

And service area-wide means within any established borough service area, currently Service Area 1 and the Thomas Bay Service Area. Example for Service Area 1 would be police and fire. There's several spots in the charter that kind of outline this better than even what I can put here. Charter Section 7.03 and 7.04 and Charter Section 14.02, and they list out a lot of the borough services and what type of— are they area-wide or not. So anyway, that's everything for my report.

Any questions for the manager? Member Mucci. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the report. Um, you know, when we got the last borough packet, it came to us via civic clerk.

And people have asked if you have to sign in and create an account to go through that, or is that just part of the initial startup for that? That is available just in the same way that the packets and agenda, um, agendas were available before. Go to the same place on the website, and there are options for board members or assembly members to log in and maybe take notes, but for the general public It will be the same, the same access point. No need to create an account. Thank you.

Under the water demand has increased. This is, I think, on last year or last month's manager's report. It talks about the decrease from $2 million to $1.2 million. Is that a concern for Public Works that there might be an issue, or is that just the way it goes for the summertime? It's so through the mayor.

Yeah, our water use varies a lot based on cannery operations, and we start getting to this time of the year and the canneries are basically shutting down, um, canning operations. The amount of the water use goes down, and that's very normal. And the last question I have is on the September 8th meeting. You know, we talk about the police department continues to experience critical staffing shortages. Are we working on trying to come up with some creative solutions to— I know we're short-staffed, but are there— are we coming up with any ideas on how to alleviate some of the staffing problems, or not problems but issues that we're having?

Yeah, we kind of sent out some reminders. We do a recruitment bonus so that existing employees, if they you know, send a friend our way and we hire that person, we will pay them a cash bonus spread out over a couple of payments. So we sent out some reminders about— to our existing employers— employees about those. We've also talked particularly in police about hiring bonuses, and not—. We—.

Not sure if we put that in place yet, but we've talked about it. The biggest challenge is in real terms— I'm sorry, you know, is finding— we seem to have an issue with having more jobs than we have people that live on the island, so that continues to be a challenge for us. We hope that the union contract, at some point it'll be approved, and, you know, raise some of the starting salaries, that hopefully that will help a little bit. But it feels like right now we're just stealing people from everybody else in town who then raises their wages, and kind of we go back and forth a little bit. So, um, Tiffany works really hard on this, and we're trying to involve our employees as much as possible in, you know, getting their friends and neighbors or relatives that might want to work for the borough.

Okay, thank you very much. Any other question from assembly members? Member Martin, I know we're going to talk about it in executive session, but what is mediation? What is that like? And then what's next?

Um, okay, so I'm going to stumble over some of my words about what I can say and can't say, so I apologize in advance. So mediation is a process where both the union, two parties involved in the sit down, an outside mediator goes back and forth between the two different groups to try to get us to a point where we might have some agreement. Unfortunately, we went through mediation. The borough altered our offer at one point a little bit. Unfortunately, it was not enough for the union, and me— so mediation was not successful at solving the problem.

Next steps, um, we can talk about an executive session. I can't really talk about it right here, but, you know, it could, could be strike, could be arbitration. Um, we'll know more later this week and possibly talk about it tonight. What, what is arbitration then? So arbitration is a process where you actually— it's almost like a court case.

So the borough will write up why we think our offer is fair and what we think it should— why we justify it, the union will do the same, and an outside arbitrator will review that and say, we agree with the union, or we agree with the borough, or we are halfway in the middle. So that's what arbitration is. It comes down to much more of a plead our case situation than mediation, which is a back and forth thing.

Anything else? One follow-up. Did we have a price tag on that, on arbitration? Yeah, not yet. We have not priced that out because we're hoping we didn't have to get that far.

Thanks. Yeah, just a follow-up to the arbitration. So one way or the other, if when the ruling comes from the arbitration, it's not binding arbitration, so we are not committed to following the decision On arbitration, the assembly is not the borough. So arbitration— so I'm going to make something up. So if the arbitrator decides the union is right, then it's the opportunity of the borough's negotiating team to support that.

The assembly, on the other hand, does— it was— does not have to approve the money for it. You are correct. Thank you.

Any other questions for the manager? Okay, hearing, hearing none, I'm going to move on to unfinished business. Under unfinished business tonight, we have Ordinance 2026-19, an ordinance of the Petersburg Borough Assembly repealing Chapter 9.36, Violation Penalty, from the Municipal Code to reflect borough formation. This Ordinance repeals Chapter 9.36, Violation Penalty of Former City of Petersburg Code. The chapter contains a penalty provision related to interference with health officers and violations of certain health and safety provisions.

The ordinance removes this outdated provision because the applicable enforcement and penalty provisions are now addressed in Chapter 9.04 of the Petersburg Municipal Code. Ordinance 2026-19 was unanimously approved in its first reading. Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-19?

So moved.

Moved by Member Meechis, seconded by Member Newman. Um, any discussion?

Would the clerk please call the roll on Ordinance 2026-19?

Member Newman? Yes. Member Martin? Yes. Vice Mayor Stanton-Gregory?

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

Yes. That passes 6-0. Moving on, Ordinance 2026-20, Assembly repealing Chapter 9.08, Food Sanitation, from Municipal Code to reflect Borough Incorporation. This ordinance would repeal Chapter 9.08, Food Sanitation, of the former City of Petersburg Code. The chapter The chapter remains in effect following borough incorporation under Charter Section 19.06, but is no longer necessary because food sanitation matters are regulated and enforced under the applicable state of Alaska laws.

The ordinance removes the outdated former city, city provisions from the Petersburg Municipal Code and updates the code to reflect the current borough and state regulatory authority. Do I have a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-20? So, second. Moved by Member Martin, seconded by Member, Member Meechi. Um, any discussion from assembly members?

Okay, would the clerk please call the roll on Ordinance 2026-20? Member Meechi? Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes.

Member Newman? Yes. Member Martin? Yes. Vice Mayor Stratton-Gregor?

Yes. Mayor Lynn. Yes.

And Ordinance 2026-20 passes with a 6-0 vote. I'm going to move on to Ordinance 2026-21, an ordinance of Petersburg Borough adjusting the fiscal year 2027 budget for known changes. This is the second reading. The Ordinance 2026-21 was unanimously approved in the first reading, and I'll read through real quick here again what those items are.

The items are Harbor Float Seed Project, addition of $125,000 State of Alaska legislative grant and corresponding port facility expenditures. Sanitation Hazmat, increase of $9,000 for hazmat event disposal expenses that exceeded the budgeted amount. Wastewater disinfection and industrial pretreatment studies, addition of $300,000 in state revolving fund loan revenue and corresponding expenditures for required wastewater studies. Aquatic Center Capital Project, addition of $541,546 in State of Alaska School Major Maintenance Grant funding and corresponding construction expenditures, with the reimbursement retained in the Aquatic Center Capital Project Fund for future facility expenses. Municipal Building Heat Pump and HVAC, Increase of $40,657 for heat pump repair and HVAC duct system cleaning.

Electrical grid resilient— resiliency project adjustments to project transfers of professional services funding, including the closeout of auto control project. Standby diesel generator project increase of $800,000 in budgeted revenue bond proceeds to reflect the actual bond issuance. Elderly Housing: addition of $20,000 for replacement of 2 walk-in cooler condenser units. Fire Department: an increase of $301,327 for self-contained breathing apparatus tanks and masks previously approved but invoiced in fiscal year 2027. Parks and Recreation, increase of $5,500 for the purchase of a Genie 202632 scissor lift to assist with the maintenance and to be available for use by other borough departments.

And then there's a proposed amendment here if somebody would like to make that, make that motion to an amendment. Mr. Mayor, should we get the main motion on the floor first? I would, thank you. You bet, I would move. I'm ahead of myself.

You're doing great. I would approve that we move. We approve Ordinance 2026-21 in its second reading.

Second. Move by Member Stan Gregor, second by Member Muci. Member Stan Gregor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would move that to amend the supplemental budget ordinance by increasing the wastewater fund by $150,000 to fund the Joe Street sewer line replacement project.

Second.

Motion was made by Member Stan Gregor, seconded by Member Muci. Discussion? Member Stan Gregor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Briefly on the amendment, I want to thank Director Mural for a thorough and detailed memo explaining the need.

So thank you, sir.

Member Martin, where does that $150,000 come from?

Through the director, would want to address that. Yes, thank you. We plan on taking this $150,000 from the wastewater reserves. Thanks.

Other questions on any parts of it? Hearing none, would the clerk please call the roll on Ordinance 2026-1?

Let me back up. We, uh, would you please call the roll on the amended amendment? Member Newman? Yes. Member Martin?

Yes. Vice Mayor Stan Gregor? Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes.

Member Mucci? Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes. And that passes 6 to 0 to increase $150,000 to fund for the Joe Street sewer line replacement project.

And now with that, I got ahead of myself, so we'll go back to the main motion as amended for Ordinance 2026-21. Would the clerk please call the roll? Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Member Martin?

Yes. Member Newman? Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes.

Member Mucci? Yes. Mayor Lynn? Yes. And that the amended ordinance of 2026-20 2021 passes unanimously.

I'm going to move on now to new business. Resolution 2026-30, a resolution of the assembly of the Petersburg Borough approving a project agreement with the State of Alaska Department of Education and Early Development for the Petersburg Aquatic Center Shoreline Repairment Project. If passed, this resolution will allow the borough to enter into to project agreement with the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development and receive up to $541,546 in grant funding for the Petersburg Aquatic Center sewer line repair project. The funding will support replacement of failed sanitary sewer piping and related repairs and restoration with the required $291,602 participating share already appropriated by the borough. The project agreement is attached to the agenda item.

Do I have a motion to approve Resolution 2026-30?

So moved. Second. Moved by Member Mucci, seconded by Member Schwartz. Um, with that, I'm going to turn that back to our rec director here and for a little explanation of of how this operates and what it— what I'll do, or, or would you rather have, uh, the finance director do it? Either way, she'll explain it better than me.

That's all the technical stuff behind it. Okay, haven't looked at this in a week, but, uh, so this is just an agreement that needs to be signed. Um, the school normally deals with these, but since the project is our project, even though the state of Alaska considers the aquatic center mostly an educational facility, which is why we're getting some of this grant. There are certain steps that we have to meet, and they're in the back of this agreement, you know, payment 1, payment 2, and once we meet those agreement— those steps, we'll get payment, a certain percentage of payment each time. We've actually met 4 of those steps already, so once this is approved and signed, we will— shall start receiving money.

And it's a great— it's great that we got this. I mean, it's just in time because we had some increased costs in the supplemental. And so yeah, this is a good thing.

Questions from the assembly?

Okay, hearing none, would the clerk please call the roll on Resolution 2026-30?

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

Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes. Member Meechie? Mayor Lynn?

Yes.

With that, Resolution 2026-30, uh, is approved unanimously. Moving on, authorization of sole source professional services contract with HDR Engineering Inc. for wastewater industrial pretreatment study. Public Works Department recommends that the Petersburg Borough Assembly authorized Borough Manager to negotiate and execute a sole source professional services contract with HDR Engineering, Inc. for the wastewater industrial pretreatment study in the amount not to exceed $88,789.

The borough issued an RFP on July 23rd, 2026, but received no proposals. Additional information regarding the procurement process, justification for the sole source award, and funding is provided in the attached memo from the Public Works Public Works Department. Do I have a motion to approve the sole source professional services contract with HDR Engineering Inc.? So moved. Second.

Moved by Member Muci, seconded by Member Martin. And with that, I'm going to go back to our Public Works Director and to give an explanation of what is intended and what, what the results are to be. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In July, the Public Works Department issued 2 RFPs. One was for the wastewater disinfection project, which was awarded to HDR at the last meeting.

The other RFP was for the industrial pretreatment study.

Um, that RFP garnered no proposals. At that point, I spoke with HDR representatives to ask them if they would consider writing a proposal for the study, which they did. So I am recommending the sole source procurement of the study to HDR. Again, at the last assembly meeting, we did approve the state revolving fund loan for this project.

Member Martin, it may pertain to our next agenda item too, but could you tell us what industrial pretreatment is?

We'll try.

Um, what that includes is, um, the, the the pretreatment of industrial pollutants into the sewer system. Currently, the Petersburg Borough only has one industrial facility that discharges into the wastewater stream, and that is the Baylor.

Um, all the canneries discharge directly into the Narrows. So the baler is the only one that does.

Follow-up? Yeah, we'll maybe in the next item we'll talk some more about that. So other questions?

Would the clerk please call the roll on the sole source professional services contract? Mayor Lynn? Yes. Member Mucci? Yes.

Member Newman? Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes. Vice Mayor Stan Gregor?

Yes. Member Martin?

Yes. The authorizing of the sole source contract to HDR Engineering Inc. was approved unanimously to us with the 6-0 vote. Moving on, Planning Commission recommendation for an initiation of a temporary data center moratorium in Service Area 1. The Assembly will consider a recommendation from the Borough Planning Commission to initiate a temporary moratorium on the acceptance and processing of land use applications and building permits for data centers in Service Area 1 while land use standards for the use are developed and adopted. The Planning Commission memorandum is attached.

Do I have a motion to approve the recommendation for the initiation of a temporary data center moratorium in Service Area 1?

So move. Second. Moved by Member Muchi, seconded by Member Newman. Uh, discussion. Uh, before I get into that, let me talk for just a minute about— I want to change my hat a little bit and talk from the SEPA standpoint on this, is that there's been a lot of discussion about the power, and power is going to be a controlling factor between all three communities.

There's no question about it. We've— I could sit here for 20 minutes and talk in detail about what we've done to increase power, but right now we have about probably about 5 megapower that'll come online soon. That power right now is dedicated to Wrangell and Petersburg, but I know that Ketchikan, it would be sold primarily to Ketchikan if it's not used. We are required to buy all— we, when I say we, Petersburg Wrangle and Ketchikan are required to buy all power from SEPA before other sources. That's part of the agreement.

So with that, there's— we've looked also at looking at new power. We've looked at all kinds of options, and there's 3 or 4 things to have a strong potential to come online. Ketchikan, I'll start with Ketchikan. Ketchikan is looking at increasing their JAG facility, one. Two, they're also looking in Ward Cove of putting in a whole new harbor system for more cruise ships.

That has substantial chance for more use of power. I'll move back to Wrangell then. Wrangell has a— is looking at a JAG facility to bring in more maintenance of ships in their area. And they're also looking at a couple other things to go along with it. The three communities are looking at it and extending out.

Our use of power is increasing about 3% a year. That's the way it is. And so, what I'm trying to say is power is a limiting factor. You cannot have a 10 or 20-megawatt data center. It just isn't going to—you can't—we couldn't do it.

The power requirements go directly when it comes to Petersburg. It goes to our consumers here, and that's dedicated. It, you know, here. So I don't see a— it's from that perspective, it's— power is a limiting factor on that end. And with that, I'll open up for discussion.

Member Mucci. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, you know, my intent here is not to decide whether the moratorium is a good idea or not, but, um, my intent is to at least get some work started on an ordinance that would get us farther down the line on some type of zoning requirements or moratorium on data centers. And I'm not just concerned about data centers in Service Area 1. I think any moratorium that we have should include the entire Petersburg borough so that we have some control about what is going to be happening in and around our borough, not just inside Service Area 1, outside Service Area 1, area-wide, borough-wide.

I'm concerned that if we don't look at the big picture for the Petersburg borough, that we are going to cut ourselves short, similar to the situation that we have going on with the cell towers at Papke's Landing. And I want to make sure that when we're doing this that we, we look at this whole picture and make sure we're protecting some of the areas that are important to us over on the mainland and in other places. I want to make sure that we've thought this process through. I want to make sure that— I know the, the power and light superintendent is working on a large-scale electrical user ordinance revision. And I want to see how that incorporates with this.

What I'm also concerned about is giving borough staff a big task to work on, and I'd like to— and we can talk about this as we go forward with this verbiage here— I'd like to get an honest answer from the manager through his borough staff that if If this is an ordinance that can be done efficiently with the, with the borough staff, and if it can't, I suggest that we go to outside, an outside entity to help us put this ordinance together so that we have it sooner than later and not pile more workload on borough staff if it's out, if it's too much for them. So I know that covers a lot of stuff, but I think if we're going to do something, we need to kind of figure out how we're going to move forward. Thank you.

Other comments? Member Martin.

Yeah, I've been thinking about this a lot. I have a lot of questions too, but I don't know who to direct them to yet. But my thoughts are we're not being overwhelmed with applications for data centers, and so I think we've had a heads up now for like, was it mid-April?

We, uh, we've had a time to work on a power purchase agreement. I don't know where we are with that, but I think we can handle this as it comes. But I was curious if there's a shot clock of any kind, even, even a figurative one, like the cell towers had. What's to stop us from taking all the time we need to vet this application?

Steve, I guess. Member Newman, can we hear from Steve on that one? If that was your intention, Bob? Yeah, yeah, just, just how, how long can you take to decide on some of these conditional use permit type decisions? Well, um, through the mayor, so it's not as much about how long can we wait on when it relates to zoning issues.

It's really how long would it take to put something together and what should that look like? So, Mr. Mazzella and his group, you know, are in the middle of negotiations with somebody. I don't believe we know yet which data center environment, and I don't know their timetable. Director Harber can probably answer that better. He's met with them today, in fact.

To talk through some of that. And you have a representative from Mr. Rosella's company here. So, yeah, the question is, do you want a moratorium, or do you want an ordinance, or do you want both? And I can't answer. I mean, the assembly is going to have to say what, what you're interested in at that point.

Um, I think we, we know we can support it. We know that it would help us with electric rates. Those are known. We don't know the other impacts that they can speak to. And, you know, as the mayor said, the chance of us getting a data center that overwhelms us is not very great.

They, they're not going to want to come to a place that they can't get enough power to run their operation. So I think we're okay there. Director Harber has been working on this large user ordinance for a while. And, you know, we can do that internally with our attorney and get that done. But again, I don't, you know, I don't know what other things the Assembly is thinking about trying to monitor here or trying to control.

So, your question? Well, it seems like maybe you said we have to decide between a moratorium or an ordinance, but we can also have neither. And just, can't we just do a power purchase agreement and regulated like any other industrial, uh, uh, request, Mayor? Absolutely. And that's other— another option is we don't— you don't have to do either one.

We can just do our normal process, which is considered with permits and the process of, of making sure we're working with the vendors involved here and the companies involved here. And I think Steve Harber has done a great job of that so far. Thanks, Member Newman. Well, I feel differently. I feel like we need to do both because I think we need— this is a, this is a technologically very complex issue, and it has— I feel like we need to get out in front of it.

I feel like past assemblies didn't do, do us any service by not addressing the wireless communication facility issue beforehand, and, and we were basically behind the 8-ball on the, on the entire issue because we had no ordinance in place. So yeah, I'm in favor of a moratorium. I'm in favor of giving us time to develop an ordinance, to get it in place, and to take everything into consideration so that we're not in the same situation that we were with the wireless communication facilities.

Member Stan Gregor. Excuse me, uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Couple thoughts on this, so just bear with me, grab my notes.

Um, couple things. One, the large industrial ordinance, Director Harbor— and Director Harbor, make sure you cut me off if I'm missing at any point. I liked that, I liked that direction he was taking for— it doesn't just include data centers but any other large users because I'll be simple in my language. Both for Ketchikan, Wrangell, and Petersburg, we want to make sure we're not selling too much power and our lights stay on. The residents need electricity.

If our grid cannot support any industry, the permit will not be granted or the power sales— I should actually ask directly, Director Harbour, if a request is made to purchase power and our grid can't handle it. And I know this feels rhetorical, agreement would not be signed. Yes, correct. The application would be approved without assembly approval. The way I'm looking at it is the large commercial move from just large commercial now to 3 different tiers, and each one would require more studies and more data and a percentage of what our peak power is to leave us some residual.

And if it goes beyond a percentage of what we have available, then the application is denied and it goes— appeal would go to the assembly to say the benefits outweigh the risk or not. Roger that. Meaning, to put it simply, you make sure the lights stay on for the residents of Petersburg. Thank you, sir. The follow-up then, with that as a premise, um, and same obviously goes for water, whether it be data centers, data centers.

Um, we also have 3, at least 3, I could be wrong, there could be more, of the 4 gubernatorial candidates who've spoken about, uh, having a statewide standard, uh, for data centers. I don't know where they're going to go with it, I don't know if their plans are the same, doesn't matter to me, but I'm glad at least those 3 are looking at it. Um, I think a moratorium right now feels very unnecessary given those factoids. If we're not in danger of not having— of Ketchikan Wrangle and Petersburg not having enough power, I'm comfortable moving forward and letting our utility director vet any project again. But since this data center project doesn't make sense to our grid, it would never be approved because we need to keep the lights on.

Pardon me for being redundant.

Um, moratorium at this point. Nelson, to the entire planning and zoning meeting the other, uh, from a week or so ago, I heard the logic. I hear where they're coming from. And to be clear, I have no vested interest in data center success or any other industry. I try to think of what's good for Petersburg long term.

Um, I don't— I think the large industrial ordinance that Director Harbaugh is working on covers us really well. In terms of concerns about a data center ending up on the mainland, there's no grid over there. Whether the grid is the same either way, whether it's Papkes or here, if there's not enough electricity, it can't be done. This feels clichéd as a piece of language, but the moratorium feels like a solution in search of a problem. We don't have a problem with this right now because again, if a plan doesn't make sense for our community, It's the director's job to look after the community.

Um, so I'll be voting no on this. I don't think it is, uh, necessary because right now the application that is in process hasn't even been vetted yet. Again, that doesn't pass muster, it would be denied. I mean, meaning there are safeguards in place to protect our entire community right now. Thanks for your patience on my kind of monologue right there, but I want to be very clear that I, I want Petersburg to be protected and our grid to be protected and our utilities to be protected.

And I think right now those safeguards are already in place, um, and I feel comfortable moving forward. Thank you. Well, in the private industry, private sector, I heard a guy to say it a long time ago, there's three types in the private sector. There's the victim that doesn't do any good to anybody. There's the information gatherer who just gathers information all the time.

And then there's the executioner who executes. And then there's that guy that, you know, kind of in between, gathers information and then executes. So in the private sector, it's always— they're always itching. I know this. You want to get going.

I'm for a moratorium. I agree with Scott. We need information. And I don't— I don't have a real itch to have a data center. I'm not really chomping at the bit to have one.

I understand where the Mazelas are coming from because I'm in the private sector myself, but I've heard enough from the community and there's enough distrust about— how did somebody put it? Well, they're promising us lower electrical rates and there's distrust with that. They don't— they, they won't know until after the fact whether they're actually going to get lower electrical rates because the data center. Um, I'm all for the moratorium. Pause, gather information.

Yeah, eventually if it all pans out, sure, put a data center in. But right now, um, and I'm not going to be around long, so it's going to be somebody else making the decision anyway. Short-timer. That's my two bits is, hey, you've got Ketchikan coming online with the big projects. You got Wrangell coming online.

I went out there and looked at that thing. There's $300 to $400 million being invested in Wrangell for that shipbuilding. It's not just repairing ships, it's building ships in Wrangell. That's going to suck up a lot of power. And We voted once or twice to up utility rates with our electrical.

People are like, where are we going to get the power? And you're saying there's going to be more power with SEPA. Well, great. But then people are also saying, why are we giving power to Ketchikan or selling them to them? And then we're going with diesel in January, February, you know, in December, and we get up to utility rates.

There's all kinds of questions in the community and distrust when it comes to this. As far as, uh, one guy said, well, it seems like they're polishing a turd and putting a big ribbon on top trying to sell this data center. And I was like, well, I don't really know what the actual truth is. I'm kind of out of the game for 3 months and I'm not going to be around very long, but I'm all for the moratorium. Pause it a little bit.

That's my 2 bits. Thank you.

I will mute you. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I'm not saying I'm in support of a moratorium. I'm, I'm saying that I am in support of getting some groundwork done to see how a moratorium would work within the Borough of Petersburg and how an ordinance would work within the Borough of Petersburg. A moratorium might not be the best thing to do, but if we wait until we have an issue that is in our face And then we task borough staff to hurry up and get us an ordinance to protect us from just the last year's example, a cell tower.

Um, we're not being very proactive here, and one of my pet peeves is I hate being reactive, and I feel like we've been reacting to things for the last 12 months. And just to begin the conversation or to begin the work to look at a moratorium and to look at an ordinance to put at least get this conversation farther down the line, and to just ignore it and expect that things are just going to turn out all right, I think that does a disservice to the community members. And we've all been sitting through here for the last year and some longer talking to folks about cell towers, that this is a perfect example of being proactive and looking at an industry that is interested in doing some work here in Petersburg. And, um, you know, maybe the, the staff recommendation to the assembly might come up around the same time as the large-scale electrical user ordinance. And maybe at that time we can figure out, well, maybe we don't need that moratorium, or maybe we don't need any guidelines on this proposed industry coming to Petersburg.

But to just ignore it and pretend like it's it's not going to affect us. For me, that's not why I got involved. I, I try to be proactive, but, uh, and that's why I'm happy to see this thing go forward if it does. If not, and it's the will of the assembly, is just to, you know, not have it go forward, then that's the will of the assembly. Thank you.

Member Stan Gregor. Brief clarification, Mr. Michi, what we are voting on is a moratorium, not to develop an ordinance or to create safeguards. But today we're voting on as a moratorium, just a point of clarification. The rest is, uh, moot for this vote. That's all I had.

Member Schwartz? No, I understand private property rights too. You've got private property, you had a transformer there. I understand all that part, but we got to balance it out between the needs of the community, and I've gotten a lot of input on this thing, and then also the rights of the, of the property owners. So I want to kick that in.

Um, that's all I had.

Member Martin.

So I feel like nobody's asking us to make decisions based on no information. I don't know why we can't gather the information we need. So I still don't know who to address things to, but the other issues that come up— we talked about power. The other one is water pollution, and another one is noise. But could we talk about water pollution?

Why would there be water pollution? And if there was, who would regulate discharges, industrial discharges? Aren't those already regulated by the state, federal government? Through the mayor and Some of this was talked about when we, we had the meeting earlier about when Greenspark was the vendor. They were, and I don't think that's changed from a standpoint of the water use, but we, you know, that's part of what we would, which is that it's a recirculating system.

So it's, they're not pumping new water in, they're using the same water over and over again and using our cooler climate to cool off. So, won't have an impact on our water system. Um, what was your other— uh, sound. Depends on the location, but we're talking about a series of servers that would easily fit in half the size of this room. They're not— they're going to generate a lot less noise than the old cannery probably did.

Um, again, I'm not— I'm not saying I know all this, I'm just saying I'm speaking to what was presented to the borough when we had the initial meeting with, with Mozilla's folks and the, in Greenspark. So I think those questions have been answered and we can get clarification on more. I think the biggest issue is what's the acceptance rate of the community. Um, you know, I, I kind of like what Rob said, uh, you know, I have a high regard for for public or private enterprise and their rights. And that we want to make sure we're not chasing business away.

And at the same time, we want to answer the questions that people have. Um, you know, Steve, you add anything to that?

Yeah, I think, uh, I mean, I've been a vocal supporter. I've done the math, I've done the research on the power usage. I also look at the growing inflation. I talked about a 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4 rate increase over the next few years, and I think we were way off with the inflationary impact of the buildout of the grid down south. I expect those rates to be nowhere near what I come up with.

The influx of the over $2 million of revenue and into our coffers, and out of that, $1 million of it to spend. That's how it keeps the rates lower. It's not going to necessarily lower the rates, but it's going to reduce the increases substantially because you have fixed costs in any business. My payroll doesn't change this year to year. I mean, it does with inflation raises, but it, it stays the same.

The, the equipment cost are the same with inflation. The building, the maintenance, all that stuff remains the same with inflation. And right now you have less than 3,000 meters at our annual usage splitting those costs. Well, you, you add another $2 million worth of revenue to— what, what is it now, $9 million about our revenue? So that substantially reduces everybody's share on those fixed costs, and that's how it keeps the rates lower.

Um, the diesel that we ran, we ran, um, in the last— what was it, I think in my presentation— the last 2 or 3 years we ran 6 days for partial for peak shaving. Um, that isn't going to increase with the data center because it's going to either have an interruptible rate, meaning that I say you need to shut off in the next half power until our peak loads are under control, or we'll have— um, uh, what was I going to say? I lost my train of thought there. Uh, well, we'll have some sort of agreement, either the interruptible rate or they need to shut down to avoid the peak shaving. Um, and then by the end of 2027, SEPA is going to have the third turbine in place, and its sole job is to eliminate peak shaving in the communities.

That's 5 megawatts. And right now our peak is hitting 13.8.

And that's what's putting us into the peak shaving. With this, our peak isn't going to change because when we start to approach that, I will tell whoever the operator is they need to shut down. And if they don't, all power already is invested in our department to go shut them down, whether they have a power sales agreement or an interruptible rate, if that's a detriment to other customers, we can shut them down and then they don't get it turned back on until they prove that they're going to be compliant. Um, so there's a lot of stop, a lot of guardrails in place. Um, if, if it doesn't happen, the worst case scenario is rate increases.

It's not going to cripple us, but I listen to everybody every day say that they're squeezed at the gas station and everywhere else, and this would be one area with that we can take some of that pressure off. Um, so that's my opinion. It is what it is. And I am impressed that with the study that they're doing— they don't need to do the study that they're doing to move forward with the data center. They need to do the study if they were asking for more power, like thinking in the future with the seaweed processing, if that was a thing, then they would need to do the study.

But they're doing it right now to see how it's going to impact our grid, impact SEPA and all the equipment. And that alone should give everybody more confidence than just Steve Harber saying, I did the math and I looked at the past. So. Thank you.

Anybody else? Member Newman? Yeah, I, I don't feel like Petersburg should be in the data center business. I don't want to be covered up in data centers. I want Petersburg to be in control of their future and not be controlled by outside influences and outside entities, private, doesn't matter.

I just don't think that— I think if we allow one, we've opened the door.

And if we do not come up and create an ordinance that will specifically address, you know, different types of data centers— I mean, I understand this one little one is, uh, uses recirculatory, it's very small, it's very low impact, it has a lot of good things is going to do for our electrical rate users in the future by not raising rates. I mean, I see the benefit to it, but I feel like we're leaving the door open. And I think we need to— you know, part of the role of the Assembly is to look forward, have some vision, have some vision to protect the people of the community for things that they don't necessarily want. And I think there's enough people that have voiced their opinions. And, um, you know, with the— what I see online and what I hear, that, you know, I don't— I don't like anything that has the potential to run away.

And I understand, you know, the large-scale electrical user ordinance would limit things. Through a power sales agreement, whatever. I understand that, but I still think that we need to have a moratorium for other types of data centers, all types of data centers, so that moving forward we are protected. And something of this scale is going to take time for that to, um, you know, be fully and thoughtfully considered. So I think it would be remiss if we didn't consider doing that.

Now, it doesn't say that we would not allow, uh, the smaller data center. It's still well within the scope of what is possible or acceptable in the community, but we'd still be protecting ourselves from the other types of data centers that, you know, we don't want. And I agree with the comment by Assemblymember Muchi that it should be borough-wide, because limiting it, limiting it to just Service Area 1, um, you know, we have a lot of land outside Service Area 1, and there's large investors that have the capabilities to come in and buy up up tracts of land and then take advantage of us because we don't have a moratorium.

I think we need to really, really consider it.

Member Schwartz. Oh, there's—. I don't know this for certain, but I think there's a pretty big mine operation going down in Woodwitski Island. I don't know what we're going to do with the development of land and homes. We don't know what our power demand is going to be in 10 years either.

As far as development and Thomas Bay, apparently we're going to have police, fire. I mean, there's talks of park and recreation over there. Anyway, I wish I had a crystal ball to look into, but then I get to represent Petersburg for 2 more meetings, this meeting and one more, so that's it.

All right, I'm about due to shut it off. I'm gonna, I'm gonna take the last crack at this. Everybody's had 2 chances at this. I'm gonna look at it from a different perspective than you. I think that the changes that are coming about in the technology sector are going to be just phenomenal in the next 10 years.

What I'm concerned about is I do not want to shut off the opportunities for our businesses to be part of it, one. Two, for our kids that are in schools to be— not to be able to learn or to have advantages that maybe other people do. I think that we have— I'm going to back to what Member Martin talked about, is it between what we have in effect, the processes we have in place, the, the power that can— and considerations on power that you aren't going to increase it. Um, I, I think it's wrong to look at a moratorium. I think that we have enough processes that we can allow these things to go forward right now without a moratorium, and so I can't support a moratorium.

And with that, I will have the clerk please call the roll.

Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? No. Member Martin? No. Member Newman?

Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes. Member Mucci? Yes.

Mayor Lynn? No. And with that, the motion to have a moratorium on data centers fails with a 3-3 vote.

Communications. The communications that were received by the borough since September 3rd, 2026, are in the packet. And then I'm going to move on to the assembly discussions item. There's a couple items on here that we already talked about at the last assembly. Members, is there a need— since there's been no change in the manager or the staff hasn't come back to us, is there a need really to talk about some of these?

And these are all Member Mucci's, uh, items. Sure. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I— we never really had any resolution on this tsunami risk assessment study. Um, I— that we had that executive session, so we kind of pushed that off, and we never really talked about that. Um, the community outreach for the sales tax ballot initiative— I was wondering if the borough was going to be doing any kind of community outreach, um, about some of the impacts of a sales tax initiative passing in the community, or are we just gonna ride it out and see how it goes?

And I didn't know if we had talked about what we were going to do.

So you're on to the sales tax exemption ballot initiative. Um, I believe there was an article that the finance director had put in the paper, and I'll turn that over to the manager. Is there any follow-up? And, and/or I guess I would also ask, is that it definitely will affect what, where we're going in the future with it, with that kind of reduction in dollars? And I guess Member Mucci's asking the question also is what effect that has on the budget.

Am I correct? Uh, yeah, kind of. I was just curious if we were going to do any community outreach, whether it's a radio interview or article in the newspaper about, um, the, the pros and cons of this, or the cons of it, I guess, since we weren't— that wasn't— didn't come from the assembly. I, I just didn't know if we were going to do anything else. Um, talking to, uh, the attorney at one time, she said if we were going to do any advertising about the, uh, consequences of the initiative passing, that we'd have to budget some money.

And so I didn't know if that was part of our process and if we were going to do that or just see what happens in a couple weeks. To the manager, I don't believe the assembly's taken a position on this yet as far as spending money and advertising. This is one of those things where not all of you are on the same page necessarily as far as support for the item or against the item. So I think it would be appropriate for the assembly to decide that and then give direction to staff to go ahead and either put something together or let it ride.

Member Stan Gregor. Yeah, with respect to the manager, uh, that would require an action item and the next meeting is on the 5th. So, but, um, that isn't— we've ever— we've already advertised, have we not?

There was something in the newspaper about the sales tax cap. I actually have in the budget, in the assembly budget, I budgeted around $4,000 for advertising for ballot propositions. I believe the senior initiative, you voted no ultimately, so I didn't feel like we could put something in there. Plus, I apologize, but we've been so busy that that dealing with doing this has been a lot lately. So yeah, the sales tax cap was— I worked on it last week and put it in the paper and on Facebook.

I don't think we're going to send it out as a flyer just because we've been getting so many flyers in the mail. I think people will just throw it away. Thank you for that clarification, Director Tau. Yeah, I had that confused as for the sales tax cap and there's not money budgeted because the assembly didn't vote for it. That makes sense for the senior sales tax.

Appreciate it.

Um, other question, other comments on that issue? Uh, if you want to put a proposal on the next agenda to spend, we could do that. But I let that— no, let that answer the mayor tonight. With respect to the elections the next day, you wouldn't really advertise? In practical terms, it wouldn't have any— it would— it's not a thing.

I mean, right? In practical terms, that's not a thing. You know, come on, start.

You could— yeah, we could have a proposal, or if you have a— you would like to do that action item on the next agenda. Yeah, thank you. Okay, and then you were moving on to the fire department training props. We talked—. Yeah, I didn't know if we were farther along in the process.

I didn't, um, I put that there just as a talking point. I don't know, um, and we don't have to belabor the fact I know Department Head Hankins is working on it, and I didn't know if we were at that point to talk about it, and if we're not, that's fine. I'm willing to wait until he's done, but we're coming up on a deadline for the leasees to be out of that area out there, and I want to make sure that we're hanging out with the same schedule that the leasees are. Thank you. Chamber of Commerce storage van.

Yeah, we have a Chamber of Commerce storage van out there, and I didn't know if there had been any assembly— or not assembly, but staff conversation with the Chamber of Commerce about moving that van out of there as well. I didn't know what the— how that process worked, and I didn't want that to get stuck out there when we're trying to move our training props out of there as well. In short, the chamber was notified in May that, hey, we're having to move, so you have to move too. That's on you.

They were made aware of it and I am unaware of their future plans. Thank you. And the American Cruise Ship Line, Doc, that was just something that I had a lot of calls about. People were concerned about it, but it just sounded like it was an Army Corps of Engineers public comment period and people could write letters in favor of supporting them.

Tsunami risk assessment. Yeah, we had— this was on the agenda from the last time. If we are interested in participating in that tsunami risk assessment study, it just requires a letter from Director Hankins or the borough manager just to say, hey, we're interested, what it was it cost. And I was curious if the assembly was interested in it. When I went to the two presentations, Petersburg was one of the only communities that wasn't represented in a flood inundation study that showed the effects of not necessarily a tsunami, but a large wave coming into Frederick Sound and into Petersburg.

And it looked like it would be helpful for people who are looking to build a home in the low areas. And I just wanted to know if the assembly was interested in doing that. That's all. Thank you. Comments from the assembly?

If you're interested— Mr. Hankins had something to say.

So I haven't gotten a chance to really speak to this, but essentially they are willing to do the study with federal grant money that has already been allocated to the Alaska Earthquake Center if the municipality requests it. It's a study of underwater and above-ground slopes that can generate landslides that can trigger what is called a local tsunami. One of the big outfalls of this is the Sakeen River Flats. So we have a lot of submarine cables that run through there that can be affected. Um, Bob could probably speak more to where they actually run, but there is a history of cables being severed in that area and its impacts to town.

The information for them to run the study is free as long as we request it. If we want to spend money after that doing something with that information, that's another conversation. I'm simply asking if you guys are interested in writing a letter requesting that information so it can get done.

I'm, I'm pretty interested.

Member Miki. Yeah, maybe I could suggest that We get a letter for us at the next meeting, and if it meets— if we agree on the contents of it, we could move it forward. Great, thank you. Okay, I might direct just to have a letter on the next agenda with no guarantee of spend of additional other monies. With that, any other— I don't— any assembly member comments?

Okay, Member Martin. Well, if it's appropriate, I think I'd share my views on the tax cap initiative here. So I know everybody is squeezed and everybody wants the tax exemption, and I get it. I, I pay a lot of property tax, I pay a lot of sales tax, but in 1959 this tax cap was set at $1,000. And I don't know their thinking.

It was right after statehood. They probably wanted to keep business here or something, and that's great, but a Ford F-150 cost $2,000 back then. You could buy 5,000 gallons of heating oil with $1,000 back then, and that amount now is about $11,000 or so. So whatever they intended back then has sailed past us so far, order of magnitude. So bringing that up to $5,000 is a very reasonable thing to do.

And, uh, for example, uh, I think a lot of us don't ever hit the cap. I mean, I bought over $10,000 worth of fuel for my boat this summer. Every penny was fully taxed. If I bought it all in one day, I would have paid $72 total on tax. And to me, that just seems like I'm subsidizing someone else's business or usage.

So I'm strongly in favor of raising the sales tax cap to, uh, $5,000 worth of goods, it would be $300 maximum.

You got a big, bigger fuel tank.

Other comments from assembly members? Okay, comment in response to his— Member Newman. Thank you. Yeah, I spent about $100,000 in fuel in a year, and if every time I go and get fuel in my little tank I have to spend $300 in, in sales tax Who's going to pay that? I'm not paying it.

The customer's going to pay for that. And that's what happens when you raise taxes. It raises the cost and services for everybody.

Other comments from assembly members? Okay, with that, uh, we— the assembly at this point will move into executive session, and that's the end of the meeting as is. And do I have a motion for the— to move into executive session? Mr. Mayor, I would move that the assembly convene in executive session pursuant to AS44.62.310 to discuss the status of wage negotiations regarding the labor agreement between the borough and PMEA. For a second.

Motion made by Member Stanton Gregor, seconded by Member Newman. Um, with that, is there any comment before I— with that, we'll call the roll on the motion. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Member Martin?

Yes. Member Newman? Yes. Member Schwartz? Member Meechi?

Mayor Lynn? Yes. With that, the, um, the assembly now will move into executive session. So we'll take a few minutes to, to make those changes and come back in order.