Juneau: June 8, 2026 Regular Assembly Meeting

You ready?

We will bring the regular assembly meeting to order for June 8th, 2026. Mr. Kelly, will you.

Lead us in the flag salute.

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Uh, Mr. Smith, will you read the land acknowledgement? Of course, Madam Mayor. We would like to acknowledge that the City and Borough of Juneau is on Tlingit land and wish to honor the indigenous people of this land. For more than 10,000 years, Alaska Native people have been and continue to be integral to the well-being of our community.

We are grateful to be in this place, a part of this community, and to honor the culture, traditions, and resilience of the Tlingit people. Gunalchéesh. Madam Clerk, will you call roll, please? Thank you, Madam Mayor. Deputy Mayor Smith?

Here. Ms. Hughes-Candice? Here. Ms. Wall? Present.

Mr. Kelly? Here. Ms. Adkisson? Here. Mr. Steininger?

Here.

Ms. Hall? Here. Mr. Brooks?

Here. Madam Mayor? Here. A quorum is present. Uh, thank you for that, Madam Clerk.

We have no special order of business, so we'll go to approval of minutes. Mr. Kelly? I move that we approve the April 29th special assembly meeting minutes and the May 18th regular assembly meeting minutes and ask for unanimous consent. Any objection? Seeing none, those minutes are approved.

Uh, next we'll go to Manager's request for agenda changes. However, before we go that, we are going to now close the non-agenda items public participation on non-agenda item sign up. Um, you can certainly still sign up for other items on the agenda, but we're gonna pull that one right now. So, Madam Manager, do you have any agenda changes? Madam Mayor, I have no agenda changes.

I will highlight for the listening public that there is a staff report on Midterm flood mitigation solutions at the end of this meeting. That will just be a very brief verbal update, so.

There's nothing in the packet in case people are searching for that. All right, thank you for that. So next we'll go to public participation on non-agenda items, and we only have a couple so far. Um, so our first one is, uh, Michael Cole for seasonal sales tax. Is Michael Cole here?

Please state your name and area, town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes because we have a lot of testimony tonight. Yeah, hi, I'm Michael Cole. I'm from, uh, Lemon Creek. I am here tonight because I am one of the group members that proposed the 1% seasonal sales tax. And the reason we have gone with this seasonal sales tax is because we need help.

As a parent, having all this uncertainty with our recreation sites and everything else is, you know, in our books, unacceptable. So with a little bit of study and a little bit of talk, we came up with just to give it a good go as a 1% seasonal sales tax, which would make us some money and help us out. And it might be one of those things that we find that we like it. I talked to the head of finance down in Ketchikan. They have a standard sales tax of 5.5% and a 2.5% seasonal sales tax, so pretty much steeper than us.

And they really like it down there. They make enough money that they're sitting happy, no problems with budgets and stuff like that. So they're Recreational areas are open, and hopefully something like this can help us.

Thank you. Uh, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Cole? Mr. Brooks.

Thank you for your testimony. How, uh, is this, um, proposition going to help with recreation facilities? Uh, the way the, uh, the proposal is written is the intent of the sales tax revenue would be for indoor and outdoor use. Recreation.

Thank you. Anything further? Thank you for your testimony tonight.

All right, next we have Susan Clark.

Susan Clark, there she is.

Please state your name and area of town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes.

Okay. Um, my name is Susan Clark. I live in the Flats downtown. And I want to let you know that tomorrow is the first anniversary of the assembly saying the people who were living up in Telephone Hill should be evicted. And when that happened, it got our attention.

It got the community's attention. It had been quietly happening when the houses were belonging to the state through eminent domain. And then in 2022, they came out of the state and Juneau had it. And the idea was to have a redevelopment up there. Um,.

Major redevelopment, but none of the, the work had been done to see if that could happen. Right now it's a huge dump of money. We have 4 now consultants that we've paid, um, a lot of money to, and if they, if they do build 4, 5-story houses, apartment houses, units up there, and possibly 2 floors of the parking garage. That's a huge amount of money. That's $1.4 million just for consultants.

And the last consultant that they just hired for the 3rd time is Leland, who was a subconsultant to the main consultant, and that $50,000 just to write an RFQ for, to find a developer, that would pay for 2 months of the library.

Um, just that $50,000. Oh, thank you, Ms. Clark. Any questions for Ms. Clark? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Um, if you sign— if you have budget in your signup sheet anywhere, or City Museum, or anything else that's affecting the budget, you're going to be speaking when we talk about the budget, which is our 5th action item, just so everybody's clear on that.

Um, I don't see her. Looking for Serene Hutchins. I have to ask her a quick question. Do we see Serene?

One minute at ease.

So please bring over from Zoom Josh Adams.

Mr. Adams, you have 2 minutes. Please state your name and area of town you live in for the record.

You're still muted. Okay, can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Go ahead. My name is Joshua Adams, and I'm with Friends of Telephone Hill Downtown.

Juneau's fiscal 2027 budget faces unprecedented cuts.

And many speakers are here today to protest the defunding of many cherished organizations. However, there is one priority that never seems to get cut: the phased demolition of Telephone Hill. Ironically, the one thing that absolutely no one wants, that is the most logical to defund, and yet the money remains there. Why not divert that money into other programs? I urge the assembly to take the $9 million that has been earmarked for the demolition and site work of Telephone Hill and divert it into something that the people want and need.

That money belongs to the people of Juneau, and we should get a say in how it is used. In more than 3 years of continuous protesting, the assembly is yet to hear even one person testify in favor of the demolition of Telephone Hill. Not one. We want the Juneau Assembly to give that money to JAMI, the Glory Hole, Housing First, the Juneau Douglas Museum, our schools, Eagle Crest.

If it's our money, can't we say that we want to give it away? If the funds belong to the people, shouldn't they be allowed to say in 3 years what happens to their own tax money? The people have expressed that they want to keep Eagle Crest and the Juno Douglas Museum open. $9 Million could go a long way to that end. If taxes are our money, the people's money, aren't 3 years of protest enough to prove that Juno cares about Telephone Hill and its history?

If JAMI is facing defunding the Glory Hole, Eagle Crest, and the Juneau Douglas City Museum and the downtown swimming pool, many more, why not defund the one thing that nobody wants? A lot of people are trying to blame the Affordable Juneau Coalition for defunding local government when in fact a lot of the money is still being squandered on something that voters don't want. We could think of a lot of things that could be done with $9 million. If Juneau is facing cuts, there's one thing we should cut. Let's defund the telephone hill face demolition.

Commission. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Adams. Any questions for Mr. Adams? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony tonight.

Okay, next we'll go to the consent agenda.

Is there any public request for consent agenda changes other than ordinances for introduction? Seeing none, we'll go to the assembly. Is there any assembly requests for consent agenda changes? Seeing none, we'll go for action. Mr. Smith.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move the consent agenda as proposed and ask for unanimous consent. Any objection? Seeing none, the consent agenda is approved. So that brings us to public hearing.

Item 1, Madam Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ordinance 2026-01.

6-27, An ordinance amending the Uniform Sales Tax Code to amend the cap on single goods and services under CBJ Code 69.05.040. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Manager. Thank you. This ordinance increases the threshold for the exemption on single goods and single services.

Uh, current code, it's at $14,300, and the ordinance before you raises that to $30,000. I recommend you take public testimony and adopt this ordinance. Thank you, Madam Manager. We do have a couple people that have signed up to testify.

So first we have Steve Ball.

Mr. Ball, please state your name or area, town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes. Steve Ball in the Valley. So good evening, Mayor and members of the Assembly Finance Committee. My name is Steve Ball. I'm the general manager of Core Alaska's Kensington Mine.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak again.

About the proposed ordinance to amend the single goods service tax cap. Kensington is proud to be Juneau's second largest private employer and property taxpayer. In 2025 alone, we contributed nearly $3 million in local property and sales taxes, supported approximately 400 year-round jobs, and spent over $70 million with Alaska-based vendors. These are stable, non-seasonal contributions that help strengthen Juneau's economic base. We recognize the city is facing real fiscal challenges, and we appreciate the need to evaluate revenue options.

However, eliminating the sales tax cap on single goods and services would place a disproportionate burden on a very small number of taxpayers, primarily, primarily large industrial operations like ours, operations that are already your largest taxpayers. Based on our recent spending, removing the cap would increase Kensington's annual tax burden by approximately $5 million. Roughly tripling the sales tax we pay today, a significant.

An ongoing increase that would directly affect operational decisions and long-term investment. It's also important to note that through the Remote Sellers Tax Commission framework, this tax applies broadly to goods and services sourced outside of Juneau, further amplifying the impact. Unlike many businesses, we have no customers to pass the increased cost on to. Also, unlike other businesses, mining operations are subject to Alaska's mine license tax. In addition to our local property and sales tax, we paid over $6.5 million to the state in 2025.

As you are all aware, Kensington operates independently of the road system and fully funds its own infrastructure, utilities, and emergency response. While we are a major contributor to CBJ revenue, we receive relatively limited direct municipal services. We remain committed to Juneau, not just through taxes, direct employment, and local business spend, but through sustained investment in local organizations, nonprofits, Schools and community facilities, including those owned by.

Cut you off. Sorry. Any questions for Mr. Ball? Um, Ms. Hall? Yeah, thank you for that.

And Mr. Ball, I'm— if you could just share a little bit of what percentage of your salaried staff live here in Juneau. Uh, we're at about, I believe, 29%. Yeah, just under 30%. Is that salaried or just staff in general? Staff in general.

Okay. Thank you for that. All right, any further questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

And I think— I believe Cody, maybe Richardson, wants to speak to this one.

Is this the right, correct ordinance for you to speak to? Yes, I figured as much. So thank you, and hopefully I didn't slaughter your last name. Please state your name and area of town you live in for the.

Cut you off. Sorry. Any questions for Mr. Ball? Um, Ms. Hall? Yeah, thank you for that.

And Mr. Ball, I'm— if you could just share a little bit of what percentage of your salaried staff live here in Juneau. Uh, we're at about, I believe, 29%. Yeah, just under 30%. Is that salaried or just staff in general? Staff in general.

Okay. Thank you for that. All right, any further questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

And I think— I believe Cody, maybe Richardson, wants to speak to this one.

Is this the right, correct ordinance for you to speak to? Yes, I figured as much. So thank you, and hopefully I didn't slaughter your last name. Please state your name and area of town you live in for the.

Families to use a few Alaska Airline miles, fly to Anchorage, take a beautiful drive down, put their car on a ferry, and come back because it's literally going to save them $1,500 to do that. I do commend you for not taking care of putting— not getting rid of the cap completely. Um, there's also— there's, you know, We, my family's been here for a few years. We just got through the winter that we all still haunts us in our dreams, and I think there's reasons why people would not stay in Juneau having been here for a few years. I haven't been here long enough to call myself a Juneauite, but I, I'm proud of this place.

We came here, we fell in love with it, and, and we want to continue to be a part of the solution to bringing more families and helping growing grow people. In this area. My fear with people leaving is those— as great as those dealers are in Anchorage, they're not supporting our local high schools.

They're not writing checks to our local nonprofits. They're not, they're not supporting any other civic opportunities that are happening here. And that's important to us at the Juneau Auto Mall. We want to keep our arms around the people in Southeast Alaska and we want them to continue to buy cars here from us. And I think lastly, for— we want people to— there's enough reasons between the weather and there's enough reasons why people wouldn't stay or while people wouldn't come.

And I just, I would hate for this to be one more of those reasons why we couldn't recruit the right people, or we give people a reason to go. Any questions for Mr. Richardson? Mr. Kelly. Thank you.

Uh, would you support an amendment to the sales tax cap that would fully exempt electric vehicles from the sales tax? If we could get electric vehicles here, I would say that would be a support to our business, but right now that would have zero effect on our business. But to answer your question, yes, I would support that. Mr. Brooks, and then Mr.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you for the testimony.

Is there any purchases for your business that would be affected by this that aren't vehicles? Any other operational expenses?

Uh, excuse me, equipment that we buy. And when we do that— and I'll be really— I'm very sympathetic to the cause, what's going on here. I know there's more revenue that needs to be collected, and I don't have a problem paying more as a business owner to get our equipment. That's not the problem. This is an affordability issue for our customers.

I'm more concerned about, you know, that, that cap, that costs a family here $35 or $40 a month in a payment by removing that cap. That's significant to people here. If you want to charge me more for our equipment, that's a separate issue to me. All right, Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Mr. Richardson, if there was a value of a car that we.

Maybe that at that price, and then below we kept it the current sales tax cap and trying to like keep affordability for anyway, middle class working families. Do you have a number that you would say, or like a, you know, anyway, a justifiable or reasonable number to say, yes, let's keep these cars at a cap and things over maybe the higher cap? Yeah, um, that's a great question. The, the, the median price of a new car right now just tipped $50,000. So, um, that's our average transaction price.

Isn't quite that much, but it's $35,000 is our average transaction price. So on average, every, every unit that we sell would, would, would exceed this cap. Um, we saw it make a small jump a few years.

Years ago, and, and I would support a small jump up to maybe 20 or 25. Yeah, I, I think we're in the right arena there. I just— I've been here 3 years, and this is now 2 of 3 years we've had this conversation, and I would just really, really hate to habitually be having this conversation because when the average price is $50,000, it's an affordability issue for people here. So to answer your question, yes, I would support something like that. And I, and I am sympathetic to what you're going through and, and know the revenue needs to be found.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony tonight. And that's all I had.

Oh, sorry, Miss Hutchinson. Nope, you want— never mind, sorry, got you the wrong one. You wanted to follow, uh, the other one. Never mind, sorry. Uh, so with that, we'll bring it to the assembly.

Ms. Hugh Scandies. Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor. May I have a quick at ease? Yes, you may. 2 Minutes, okay?

All right, um, Ms. Hughes-Ganies.

Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor. I would move the assembly adopt.

Ordinance 2026-27, and I would object for purposes of an amendment. Uh, go ahead. Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor. On— I'm looking at page 1 of the ordinance, uh, line 17. I— my amendment, uh, the motion would be to delete all of 21, and on page 2 of amendment Line 22, all of 22.

So essentially what this would do is delete all of this language that you're seeing in 21 and 22 and hold that in reserve. And the function would be to remove the exemption entirely, so remove the cap entirely. And I can speak to that. Do you want to speak to your amendment before we go to the body? Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.

So, um, I'll start by saying, you know, we've had.

Chance in the Finance Committee to discuss this ordinance and this, uh, amendment conceptually. Within the Foregone Revenue Subcommittee, we discussed this concept. Um, we discussed whether it was better to double the amount, which is what this ordinance as it stands does, or whether it was better to remove the exemption completely. Um, we have some data on what financially you would expect to see if you remove the exemption completely, and it is on that basis that I am making this amendment. A large— I know that this is a large drastic change, and I think we've discussed some members of the body have some discomfort with whether that's good governance to make such a large adjustment in a single year, and I understand that.

Um, hesitance, but.

But the reason that I still move to, to make this amendment is that when I look, we're going to act on our budget overall as a whole tonight. We've received a good amount of feedback from the community about things people would like not to be defunded. We've talked about what we set out to do within this budget year, and we know where we got on that. We set out to make reductions in services of at $2 million, and we did not meet that. And the way that we got our fund balance out of the negative numbers and back to a positive number was to eat into our CIP.

When we got, uh, the community, um, process that we did with the budget workshops, one thing that we heard.

From the community was that they didn't want to see cuts and that they did support us seeking new revenue. You've heard me kind of repeat over and over that for each tax exemption that there has to be an equal public good. Um, when I look at this one and I look at the taxpayers who will be affected, and I hold that on one hand, and I hold the, the what the public good would be if we removed this exemption, it is an easy decision for me because it would allow us to fund all of these things that people don't want to see defunded. Um, I don't think that in the balance that you can argue that it is worth making cuts to all these services, uh, to benefit this small number of taxpayers. And so it's for these— all of these reasons that I make this amendment.

Uh, thank you. Any objection? Mr. Brooks.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um,.

Um, I'll just object for the amount. Um, I, I definitely appreciate that trying to handle it in, in as few moves as possible, but I think the, the implication and effects on private industry, and it not just the mine or car dealership, but a lot of different industries would be affected by this. I think that it would have a greater negative impact than the financial windfall we might receive from it. Thank you, Mr. Brooke. Ms. Wall.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll support this motion, and I will say begrudgingly, I guess. I, I do think that the single sales tax cap has a public good. It supports You know, our economic development in our community, it supports our mines that we.

Want to see, um, uh, continue to operate here. Um, those are good things, and normally I wouldn't, you know, approach something drastically like this, but, but our— the situation that we find ourselves in is, is drastic. And, um, Miss Yaskandy spoke to some of the cuts that we're considering tonight. Um, cutting those things will also have economic development impacts. Travel Juneau, we will see less people come here.

JDC, we will see less economic development. City Museum, Eagle Crest, those things will have economic impact too. So I'm weighing those. But what I'm really looking at is next year. This year we are— if we pass the budget that we have put forward tonight, we will have passed a balanced budget, but only because we have eliminated all of our savings to do so.

And next year we will look at a $7 million deficit that we will have not have savings to fill. I went back to our list, the list of real ideas that this committee brought to.

Um, to the assembly in terms of potential cuts that we will need to look at to balance our budget. I added up what it would save us if we were to cut both pools, close both pools, the field house, Eagle Crest, fully close the museum, JDC, Travel Juno, eliminate the housing fund. Move the prosecution of misdemeanors to the state, get rid of taking care of our ball fields. That is $7 million. That is the scale that we are talking about.

People say I'm scaremongering when I say that. Those are the real ideas that this committee came up with when they looked at their budget. So that's what we're facing next year. And so removing this cap would actually solve that problem. So I have to consider.

Hear it. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else want to comment? Ms. Hall?

I will object to this removing the cap entirely. Um, you know, we talk about economic development, and, you know, it— we, we're very fortunate to have tourism, to have our capital here, to have, um, our two operating mines in the area. We've got a great economy here. We have hydroelectric power. So we've got a lot of great things going on, but to, you know, the public good of funding everything we're wanting to achieve all on the backs of one industry that is a major producer in our community.

You know, these are family wage jobs that are very seldom do we find them in the nonprofit world, in the tourism industry. I have a story of.

A Haitian immigrant that arrived in town in 2024, several family members. He was able to get a job out at Greens Creek earning $44 an hour steam cleaning equipment. And, you know, talk about a family wage job. That was life-changing for that family. You know, the mines, it's a commodity.

So prices go up and prices go down. And right now they're doing You know, the prices are up, but like with every commodity, that can change in a heartbeat. You know, not only do they pay sales tax on maybe purchasing big equipment, but they also— all their contractors, their food service, their drillers, you know, they would be paying sales tax on that as well. So for those reasons, I'm really objecting to removing the cap entirely. I think there— willing to help out by doubling the cap, and I see that as a reasonable, you know,.

You know, first starting point for this discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Hall. I see Mr. Kelly and then Mr. Smith. I get 90s, uh, certainly 2 minutes.

Okay, we'll bring us back to order. Uh, Mr. Kelly, did you want to speak or you just needed an ease? Um, I would— I have a motion. I move to amend Ms. Gandy's motion to add in an exemption for commercial and personal electric vehicles, and I can speak to it. You want to speak?

I don't know if that's a— it would seem that we would wait till Miss Huskany's motion is done, that amendment is done, before we went to something that's a little bit different. But looking at you, Madam Attorney. Madam Mayor, so, um, the— there are a couple motions that I know are people have been considering tonight, but the specific motion by Mr. Kelly. So if Ms. Hughes—.

Andy's motion passes, this turns into a reserved number 21 and 22. His motion would be to change 21 to include an exemption for EV and commercial and personal use. So it is an appropriate motion. All right, thank you for that. So we have heard Mr. Kelly's amendment to the amendment.

Do you want to speak to your amendment? Thank you. When I was thinking over this ordinance over this last weekend, I was putting a lot of thought into thinking about how gas prices have risen a lot in the last few months as we've had the conflict in the Middle East. I was thinking about how this ordinance, as written or as it could soon be amended, would have a profound impact on anybody looking to buy a new vehicle. Somebody was looking to save money on their.

Their gas purchases by, by switching to, to a purely electric vehicle. This would create an added barrier for that. I also had done some homework earlier during our, um, but during our budget discussions, and I also looked at what the potential impact might be of just exempting electric and commercial vehicles. And the best data I was able to get from Ms. Flick, from Finance Director Flick, is that basically the, um, the V parts— this isn't just these EVs, this is other.

Vehicle, I'm assuming this involves parts and, and so this would at a most, like if all of that constituted, that would have, if all of, if AVs constituted all of that entire sector, we would be losing potentially 18.5%, but of course it doesn't. So I think the impact of this is on our budget is going to be minimal, and I think the impact to our constituents, uh, could be profound, uh, especially, um, on their, on their pocketbooks. So, uh, with that, I ask for unanimous consent. Thank you. Any objection?

Ms. Wall, um, and then Mr. Brooks, and then Mr. Smith. I'll object first for a Question to the maker of the motion. Am I interpreting this correctly that your— if your exemption was to— if this language was to be included in the ultimate, however this passes,.

That you— that only purchases over the cap that we choose would be exempt, or all purchases? Mr. Kelly, this would fully exempt commercial and personal electric vehicles. Uh, Mr. Brooks, thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'd object just because of the intent is to do away with it completely, and then selecting one specific thing to give an exemption to doesn't really resonate fairness all too much. And it'll just be a matter of time before more things get brought up. Is like, okay, electric vehicles, that's the renewable that everyone wants now, but there's going to be a new renewable or maybe a whole new industry that starts serving the same purpose. So by trying to eliminate something completely and then highlighting one specific industry that addresses, you know, part of an issue.

I think is just setting us up for more headache in the future. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I guess a question for the maker.

Does this impact hybrid electric vehicles or they have to be purely full 100% electric vehicles?

Mr. Smith, my, um, my intention would be that it would be fully electric. All right, um, seeing no more hands, I'll object also, but Mr. Brooks spoke eloquently enough for it to, um, have my objection already stated. So, uh, with that, we have Mr. Kelly's amendment for lack of numbering. Um, we have an amendment and we have objection. Madam Clerk, will you call roll?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. For Mr. Kelly's amendment to change 21 to add in an exemption for commercial and personal electric vehicles. Mr. Kelly? Yes.

Mr. Brooks? No. Miss Wall? No.

Miss Adkisson? No. Mr. Steininger? No. Miss Hall?

Nope. Miss Hughes-Scandies?

No. Deputy Mayor Smith. Yes. Madam Mayor. No.

Motion fails with 2 yeas and 7 nays. So we're going back to Ms. Yuskany's amendment. Anybody wish to speak to it further? Mr. Smith.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, appreciate that, you know, I don't think it's a surprise to many in this room, or hopefully the public at large.

Just how dire our revenue situation is. I will say, as we talked and kind of developed principles on some of the reductions we did make, some of mine were, we know we need to make reductions. We— there's also— there is uncertainty in terms of lost revenue, those type of things. And therefore, I was like, not going to try to take drastic actions in this year's budget. I'm going to apply that in the '27 budget.

Excuse me, I'm going to apply that same principle here and say I don't know what FY '28 looks like, but I think for '27 this is just too big of a step for me at this time. Thank you. So I will object. Thank you. Seeing nothing further, I'll just talk quickly.

I would also object. One of the reasons is what Mr. Smith just said. Another reason is I just think it's um, too big of a jump. We don't want unintended consequences like our ballot measures had, so we certainly don't want to go there. And one of the reasons is I.

I don't think we should put it on the backs of not only the mining industry, but we'd also do it on the car sales people. So, and then I also don't think this was the intent of the vote on the ballot measures, was to scramble and find new revenue versus cutting, which we did not do the best at cutting services. So with that, we have— unless anybody wants to speak— we have an amendment and we have objection. Madam Clerk, will you call roll? Thank you, Madam Mayor.

For Ms. Wall's amendment to delete Section 21 and 22— Ms. Hughes-Scandies. Apologies, Ms. Hughes-Scandies' amendment to delete Section 21 and 22 to remove the cap entirely. Ms. Hughes-Scandies? Yes. Deputy Mayor Smith?

No. Mr. Brooks? No. Ms. Hall? Nope.

Mr. Steininger? No. Mr. Kelly? Yes. Ms. Wall?

Yes. Miss Adkinson? No.

Madam Mayor? No.

Motion fails with 6 nays and 3 yeas. Uh, thank you, Madam Clerk. Um, looking around, I think Mr. Smith has one. Do you want to talk about it or not? It's up to you.

Do I— I thought there maybe was going to be some discussion on a different number, but if without, I will move my amendment. Pass these down. I guess I should say our amendment.

As we read, I believe I may need to make a slight.

Numeric change in one portion, but I'm happy to do my motion. I mean, I'm happy to do it now. I'm happy to do it if someone is going to do a different cap number, but And I'm sure if no one raised their hands, we'll go ahead and do it now. Um, Ms. Hughes-Candies, since I am a co-sponsor of this, I'm passing you the baton and you have it from here. Great.

Uh, Mr. Smith, thank you, Ms. Hughes-Candies. Um, my amendment would Keep the current sales tax cap. Or the same on vehicles with a selling price of less than $20,000.

Less than $50,000. It would, for vehicles with a selling price of greater than $50,000— yes, um, it would increase, it would increase the sales cap for, for vehicles with a sales price of over $50,000 to the new cap amount. I believe in my amendment, uh, the top portion has the $30,000, which is as it's currently presented in the ordinance, and then in this bottom section it has it at $50,000, which is— anyway, um, so for the purposes of that amendment, please, on that last line, um, that number should be $30,000 because that's— and just looking at— just looking at the attorney for confirmation. Okay. Right.

So, so again, as currently presented in the, in the ordinance, sale.

Sales tax cap would raise to 30%. This keeps the current sales tax cap for vehicles with a sales price of under $50,000 and would, for vehicles with a sales price of over $50,000, raises it to as proposed in the ordinance. Sure, yeah, yeah, sorry, should have done that. The language I seek to add says— not, it would be Section C and, or excuse me, Paragraph C and Section 21. Notwithstanding the exemption provided in this subsection, for a motor vehicle with a selling price of $50,000 or less, that part of the selling price that exceeds $15,000 shall be exempt from taxation.

For a motor vehicle with a selling price greater than $50,000, that part of the selling price that exceeds $30,000 shall be exempt from taxation. And I guess I'll just speak to briefly, Madam Mayor. Um, oh, excuse me.

Madam Chair, yeah, that's okay. Go ahead. My understanding is for most people in Juneau, the purchase of cars is probably the biggest expense they will take that is subject to sales tax. Home repairs, and I'm looking to the manager as well as the finance director, home repairs, assuming they need a building permit. And I believe the construction of a home.

Anyway, those, those larger, those costs are not subject to sales tax again in certain cases. So the sale of a car is the big one. I saw things on social media where anyway, it's not— there's a lot of exemptions and especially for most normal people, it's It's buying a car. And my point is to do this, it's, as we heard, the.

Average sales price is $50,000. Um, hopefully it helps our families that need a vehicle, and also hopefully provides a level competitive playing field for our local businesses that are selling vehicles. That's the intention of my amendment. Great. We've heard the amendment.

Are there any obj— uh, Madam Mayor, do you want to speak to it? Anymore. Okay, great. Uh, so we've heard the amendment. Are there any objections to the amendment?

Seeing no objections, I think I will object, and I'm gonna just re-clarify. So Keeping— if I'm buying a car that's greater than $50,000, then I'm.

I'm going to get taxed according to the $30,000 tax cap that exceeds, uh, but less than that, you're going to keep it at the $15,000, correct? Okay, I just wanted to restate that.

So I'm seeing no other objections. Uh, Mr. Steineger, go ahead. Um, object for a question. So currently the $15,000 cap adjusts with inflation, I think every other year. With this amendment, would that $15,000 cap for the vehicles then continue to adjust with inflation or just stay stable?

I'm assuming it just— that is my intent, so I, I will—. That is the intent of the amendment, and I will look to the attorney.

It would be cleaner if you said that This would adjust for CPI. Section 21 does adjust for CPI, but the subsections.

Um, you're not. So, um, if you intend for this to, um, bump up with CPI, you should say that. Yes, that is— okay, the current level but adjusting with CPI. So, okay, thank you for the catch. Great.

Okay, so we have clear understanding. I'm not seeing any objections. I think I'm going to object to this. I appreciate what you all are trying to do. I think if this goes through, won't be the worst thing.

I appreciate the affordability argument. This is again something we talked about in the subcommittee. We went back and forth because we knew that the place that this touched the greatest number of taxpayers is going to be purchase of a car. It's one of the most expensive things people do. I think with the— Mr. Brooks made reference to.

Kind of trying to find that equality argument, or the how are things born. I'm torn on this one because I understand that we're trying to keep things affordable and we're trying to keep things in town, and yet I don't see what it is about buying a car that is necessarily yields that. So we have an amendment and we have objection. Miss Hendricks, will you please call the roll?

Thank you, Miss Huskandies. For amendment by Deputy Mayor Smith to add paragraph C to Section 21: Notwithstanding the exemption provided in subsection 4, a motor vehicle with a selling price of $50,000 or less, that part of the selling price that exceeds $15,000 shall be exempt from taxation. For motor vehicle with selling price greater than $50,000, that part of the selling price that exceeds $30,000 $30,000 shall be exempt from taxation, with language adjusting with CPI.

Right, Deputy Mayor Smith? Yes.

Miss Wall? Yes. Mr. Kelly? Yes. Miss Adkinson?

Yes. Mr. Steininger? Yes. Miss Hall? Yes.

Mr. Brooks? Yes. Madam Mayor?

Yes, Miss Hughes-Candy. No. Motion carries with 8 yeas and 1 nay. Great, thank you. Amendment, I will throw back the gavel to the— Thank you, uh, Mr.

Smith. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just because the public didn't see this item, and because it was— it was on state, I just want to give credit where credit due. This actually was kind of your idea. And anyway,.

I just want to appreciate your thoughts and work on it and co-sponsoring the amendment. So I just want to make that public. Thank you. My idea, you did all the work. It's perfect.

With that, we're back to the main motion. Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll object for the purpose of an amendment. I'd like to change that single item amount from $30,000 to $20,000, and I can speak to that if you'd like.

Um, go ahead.

Kind of going back to, you know, that talks about not making something too impactful too quickly. We got time with this. You know, the $30,000 is just a flat-out double on select industries.

. And, you know, I know that the discussion has revolved around the mines and car dealerships, but talking heavy equipment, boats, all sorts of other large purchases happen and all sorts of industries use that in one way or another. So it's not just, you know, one or two industries that have a handful of companies each. It's, it's a little more wide-reaching than might be applied right here. We can definitely make the changes later on if they will be necessary.

Doing $20,000 is a reasonable increase. And once we get a better idea of what the other type of foregone revenue collection be, it might change the whole circumstance of where we're at and might not make it be as much of a necessity. So I think doing it in more of a stepped matter would be a little more fair to those, uh,.

Select industries. So, you know, do $20,000 this year. If it, if it needed to go up, could do $30,000 or more the next year, and so on and so forth. Or we might find the opposite of that. Well, thank you, Mr. Brooks.

So we have an amendment. Do we have objection? So there's a little bit of objection. I saw Ms. Atkinson first and then Ms. Wall. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I, I am going to object to this amendment. I think we've discussed a similar one before. Uh, while I did not support the removal of the cap altogether, because I, I do think we have to go about this in a balanced manner, uh, we are looking down the barrel of an incredible amount of budget cuts next year, and we really do have to find the balance. I don't think it's going less, and I don't think it's removing the cap altogether, but I frankly would be comfortable with a higher number than 30 even. I, I think we need to do it balanced, but we also need to bear in mind that we are in real financial trouble.

And $20,000, I just don't think will get us there.

Uh, thank you, Ms. Wall. Do you need to speak to your objection? I do. I just wanted to point out, um, in this conversation there's been statements made about, um, those who are being exempted currently or would be being disproportionately, you know, impacted by removing these exemptions or raising the cap, and it is That is an incorrect use of language. When we raise this cap or get rid of this cap, we are making sure that everybody pays the same percentage, whether it's you, me, somebody buying a large purchase, or an industry making a large purchase.

And so I just wanted to correct that for the record.

All right, thank you for that. I think I saw Mr. Steingart, did you have your hand up? Sorry.

Yeah, I, I'm objecting, um, you know, for a lot of the reasons that Ms. Atkinson pointed out. You know, I vote against eliminating the cap entirely, but I do think we need to raise the cap, and I think we need to, you know, do so in a deliberate manner and not in, you know, very small changes. You know, $30,000 seems like kind of actually a small step when we think about where this revenue is actually coming from and the impact that it'll have. You know, we don't have great data from our finance director, but, you know, just from the public input that we've received, I don't think it's going to have a dramatic impact on our revenue. Um, but, you know, we will see that over time.

I don't think $20,000— a $20,000 cap would really have any meaningful impact on our FY '27 revenue. Enough to, you know, kind of take the pain of making this change. So I would stick with 30 or another number, but not down at 20. Thank you.

Uh, thank you for that, Miss Youskandis. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, I will keep it relatively brief because you'll know, you know, for my First Amendment where I'm coming from with this one. I do think the odds are good that this will be revisited in the future, but that being said, I know the reason we wanted to do this over a 2-year process is because we want to make sure that we don't take, you know, that we're not so far wrong. And I think this year more than other years, we will be continuously checking in with staff, and there's nothing magic about April or June beyond our charter requirements to get a budget in place.

Budget adjustments can be made throughout the year, and I'll remind us similarly, revenue adjustments can be made throughout the year. So I'm just saying that as a reminder to all of us, if we change our minds later. I just wanted to say something that I didn't get the chance to respond to the last time, and I think, you know, it relates to here.

Again, for anything that we have like this where we've chosen to put an exemption on the books, we're saying that— forget about the public good argument, but that there's a reason to eliminate— that someone is not going to pay tax. There's something special about this purchase that they're not going to. And I know that mining is an important industry, and I agree it's not just the mines that this affects. We also received a letter from ALNP talking about how it would affect their own CIP projects or infrastructure projects rather. But we're talking about situations where when someone is making purchases at that magnitude, generally the earnings are also disproportionate, that the taxes they're paying right now are disproportionate to the earnings.

And something like that is not a surefire thing all the while. But if we look at that and compare that, someone sent us You know, earnings calls today in an email.

Um, again, I think we're going to end up coming back to this because what we're balancing this against right now is all of the citizens. So when we say we don't want to make hard choices with cuts and we don't want to make them with revenue, you know, I think it's worth remembering that we can come back to this, but I will object because it's too little. All right, anybody else? I'll object also, but I don't need to speak to it. So, Miss— Madam Clerk, we have a motion and we have objection.

Please call roll. Thank you, Madam Mayor. For Mr. Brooks' amendment to change the single item from $30,000 to $20,000, Mr. Brooks? Yes. Mr. Steininger?

No. Miss Adkisson? No. Miss Wall? No.

Mr. Kelly? No. Deputy Mayor Smith? No. Miss Hughes-Candies?

No. Miss Hall? Nope. Madam Mayor?

No. Motion fails, 8 nays and 1 yay. Thank you. So that brings us back to the main motion as amended. Any objection?

Ms. Adkinson. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I won't speak to this because I just feel I have to give it a shot and see if what the votes are there. I would move to amend the amount from $30,000 to $50,000. And ask unanimous consent.

Would you care to speak to your motion? Uh, any objection?

All right, Mr. Brooks. I don't need to speak to it. Anybody else wish to speak? Since nobody else wishes to speak, I'll just speak, um, to it. I appreciate where you're coming from, Madison.

At one time I thought that I could get there, but, um, I think we just need to check the $30,000 first and see where we are with, with, uh, all these folks, and including the public, trying to.

Buy things and see how it affects us before we go any higher. So with that, we have an amendment and objection. Madam Clerk, will you call roll? Thank you, Madam Mayor. For Miss Adkinson's amendment to change a single item from $30,000 to $50,000, Miss Adkinson?

Yes. Mr. Brooks? No. Miss Hall? Nope.

Mr. Steininger? Yes. Mr. Kelly? Yes.

Miss Wall? Yes. Miss Hughes-Candies? Yes. Deputy Mayor Smith?

Yes. Madam Mayor? No. Motion carries with 6 yeas and 3 nays. And just to be clear, that $50,000 will be throughout the whole ordinance, correct?

Yeah, so it would even touch Mr. R— our amendment, right? All right, so now we have a motion as amended twice. Um, any objections.

Madam Clerk. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ordinance 2026-26, an ordinance amending the Uniform Sales Tax Code to modify the geographic parameters for the sale of goods aboard cruise ships under CBJ Code 69.05.040. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Very good.

Um, Madam Manager. Thank you. This ordinance expands the geographic boundaries for sales of goods within CBJ waters. Essentially, uh, if you're on a cruise ship in in all CBJ waters and the sale begins and ends while you are in CBJ waters, you will be required to pay sales tax. I recommend the assembly take public testimony and adopt this ordinance.

Thank you, Madam Manager. Sorry, at this time I have nobody signed up to speak to this ordinance, so we'll go to the assembly. Ms. Wall, I move the assembly approve Ordinance 2026- 26, and ask for unanimous consent. Any objection?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ordinance 2026-28, an ordinance amending the Uniform Sales Tax Code to repeal the seller's compensatory collective collection amount. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Manager. Thank you.

Seeing none, that ordinance passes. Item 3, Madam Clerk.

This ordinance removes the $30, uh, compensation available to sellers when they use the online portal, or in layman's terms, when you are remitting your sales tax as a business. Right now, if you, uh, do it online, you get a $30 refund.

Um, times have changed, so this, uh, ordinance, um, repeals that section of code. Thank you, Madam Manager. I don't have anybody signed up, um, from the public on this ordinance either, so go to the assembly. Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I move Ordinance 2026-28, uh, for approval and ask for unanimous.

Ms. Consent? Any objection? Seeing none, that ordinance passes. Item 4, Madam Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ordinance 2026-25, an ordinance amending the Uniform Sales Tax Code to repeal the exemption of commission charged by an agent of travel, lodging, or tours under CBJ Code 69.05.040. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Manager. This ordinance repeals the exemption for commissions charged by agents selling travel, lodging, or tours.

I think it's important to explain that we currently do collect sales tax on tours that are sold on board cruise ships or tours that are sold by tour companies. This just removes the exemption for the agent that is selling, is the in-between business selling that tour on behalf of a tour company. I recommend the Assembly take public testimony and adopt this ordinance. Thank you, Madam Manager. We do have people.

Signed up for this ordinance. Let's see here. So first we'll bring up Jeff Fanning.

Please state your name and area of town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes. Uh, my name is Jeff Fanning. I live in Douglas. Uh, I am in a unique situation where I am a travel agent and also a tour operator. So I understand this, uh, probably all too well.

Um, this is not a carve-out or tax break, um, for the travel industry. This exemption ensures that income is taxed one time, not two times. If you vote yes tonight, you are saying it is a public good to tax someone's income two times. A previous assembly examined this business structure, a service being sold through an intermediary, and conducted— and concluded that the right policy was to prevent double taxation. CBJ tax code is layered with exemptions to prevent double taxation, also known as cascading taxes.

Preventing cascading taxes again is the public good. This commission structure is unique. There have been many attempts to come up with similar analogies, but they have all fallen short. In the travel agent and operator relationship, the agent is merely a conduit of the sale. They contribute nothing else to the service the operator is providing other than connecting customer and operator.

I hope you've all seen my infographics trying to explain this relationship. Um, CBJ tax code has other exemptions to prevent similar transactions from being taxed twice. The closest comparison is the Reseller Exemption 31, where CBJ allows products and services to be purchased at wholesale tax-free and then resold. The final sale price is the only time the service or product is taxed. In the $100 example that I've previously provided, only $5 would be collected.

Um, to compare travel agent sale and the reseller business model, the difference is the agent has never even seen this inventory. You don't have to buy it ever. You are just connecting A and B. Yet tonight we would be saying, if you vote for us, that the second should be taxed twice. All right, thank you.

Any questions for Mr. Fanning? As well.

Sorry about that. Thank you for being here, and thank you for your correspondence on, on this tonight and in an email. You know, you— I think some of the conversation around this is, is whether that agent is, you know, providing a service. You said that they are a conduit between these two, between the operator and the customer. What it is, can you describe a little bit about like what that looks like?

Would be a customer walks up, purchases a ticket, the agent sells that ticket to the customer, and then that's all they do. The customer then goes and experiences the tour operator's experience, and that's it. They're purely connecting customer and operator together. They aren't providing, as was previously mentioned, accounting services or any other ancillary services to this business. They're purely connecting the two together, just like any other facilitator would of a sale.

What is that service? Sure, yeah, absolutely. So, um, best example.

They aren't providing any actual other service, and when they collect those funds on the $100 example, $20 of that $100 in a 20/80 split, which is normal, that $20 is kept by the agent. The tour operator never sees that $20. Yet if you repeal this tonight, that $20 would be taxed by the— to the customer, and then also from the.

Operator to the agent. So that $20 would effectively be taxed 2 different times, resulting in $6 in total sales tax being collected instead of $5 in total sales tax collected if you purchase through an agent. Any follow-up? Go ahead, Ms. Wall. Oh, different question.

I have a different question. Okay, Ms. Hughes-Candies and then Mr. Smith. No, I know. I was asking Ms. Wall if she had a follow-up. Okay, thank you, Madame Mayor, and thank you for being here, and thank you for the infographic.

So staying on that, that $20, because the idea, I think part of this, the crux is, is that that agent, that conduit, is that a service or not? And you just talked about what would be a typical split, 80/20. So What is that person being compensated for? Talk about that compensation a little bit. Yeah, because they're providing something.

The consumer is $80 and the commission is $20 for a total sale price of $100. Okay, so $5 in taxes in the $100 example is being collected on both of those aspects, and that $5 is being remitted to the city.

So I would say don't think of it as a— the tour is not $100. The tour.

And to further answer your question, because I see the look of confusion based on my answer. Okay, sorry. Maybe I might disagree with you. It's not confusion. To further clarify, to touch on the reseller example again, what service is the reseller providing?

They are buying something completely tax-free, which is great. That's fine at wholesale, and they are reselling it. Why are we even talking about the agent's commission being taxed twice when you can buy something tax-free, resell it, add a markup, souvenirs, a case of Coca-Cola at wholesale, whatever you want, you're going.

Going to pay taxes one time on that full amount. So what is the service being provided there? I would say it's the exact same thing. Okay, thanks. Uh, Mr. Smith.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Fanning, for being here. Um, I guess should this ordinance take effect, could you speak as much as you're willing to share what the impact would be on what you would do for pricing and then also on administrative costs you would, or, you know, administrative changes you'd have to do. Yeah, I, I reject the idea that more taxes mean higher prices, at least before taxes are in place. Um, but I think what, what would definitely happen is travel agencies in Juneau would utilize what other avenues they have to not pay double taxation, and they would probably recategorize themselves as resellers, and they would probably purchase a seat on a bus, for example, for bus tour.

Tax-free at wholesale and resell it. And that's part of the crux of all of this is these businesses will adapt. They will use other avenues available to them to not pay extra taxes unnecessarily. Um, and the end result will be no additional foregone revenue because there are other exemptions as CBJ is layered with other exemptions to prevent exactly what we're talking about right now, this cascading tax. Effect.

Does that answer your question? Go ahead, Paul. And then just the second part in terms of, like, administrative changes or— well, I guess if you go that model, you're not going to be passing tax back and forth between your— between a salesperson or something. Anyway, okay. May I follow up to that?

So yes, this would prevent undue hardship on businesses because they've been operating in a certain way for as long as I have been around, um, as long— as far as I know. And they would have to reorganize how they do everything, which in my view is unnecessary.

Given that there would be, in my opinion, zero additional tax dollars generated by CPJ. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wall. Do you have another question? All right, Ms. Hughes-Caniz.

Uh, thanks, Madam Mayor. And I think just to— this will just help me get it, Crystal. The— as it is currently with the model that they're currently operating under, the reseller— or sorry, not the reseller, but the But that agent, if I don't sell that for— I've never owned it, is that accurate? Correct. So I didn't make a commission, but I also didn't do anything here.

I didn't— I'm not losing money. If you never sold product, then yes, you never made money, and you didn't—. Because I didn't own the product, correct? Yes. Okay, great.

Thanks. Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Fanning, for your testimony. Thank you.

Next, we have Greg Pilcher.

Please state your name and area of town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes. My name is Greg Pilcher. I live in Douglas. Um, testifying in opposition to the proposed repeal of Exemption 24. Um, I just feel like repealing this provision abandons kind of a principle that has guided CBJ tax code for a long time, where a dollar is taxed one time at the consumer level and not repeatedly taxed as it passes through the supply chain.

Um, the exemption protects consumers from hidden cascading tax that would push their effective tax rate above 5%. I do think the exemption supports small local tour operators who depend on travel agencies as their only sales channel. And I just guess I'm having trouble understanding. I just feel like the true taxable transaction happens one time.

And I think I feel like we're proposing to change it into 2 taxable events, which it's not. And I, I just don't think it's going to move the needle like you guys think it's going to move it. I do agree that people will just reorganize and register as a reseller and buy seats and sell them. I don't think you're going to get any tax revenue from this or any additional tax revenue. I feel like, and again, the money has to come from somewhere.

They're mostly last-minute sales. These prices, it's not like a retail rate that stays consistent so that we can't raise prices anymore to accommodate for any sort of tax increases. And I just feel like, I guess, if a business never really touches the inventory— or I'm sorry, should a business that never touches inventory be charged more than a business that does? So, um, yeah, that's it. Uh, thank you.

Any questions for Mr. Pilcher? Seeing none. Mr. Fang answered all the hard ones, so thank you.

Jeff, bring Jeff back up here or something. But thanks. Uh, next we have Serene Hutchins.

Please state your name and area, town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes. Thank you. I'm Serene Hutchinson. I live in downtown. Uh, you're seeing representatives of 3 of the kind of larger— well, small businesses, but where the larger pure independent companies.

We don't operate with cruise line contracts, so we get all of our sales either last minute on the docks through brokers and agents, or through our website, or through other online brokers. So we really rely on this. I can't say anything better than what, what Jeff has said. Thank him for all of his hard work in explaining this, but the one thing I would point out is that we're trying to do something that's going to help the public good, and this will really affect All the truly small businesses. Many of the agents that I work with.

Are mom-and-pop, brother-and-sister, two-person businesses that don't have a lot of huge overhead, and they're able to sell and resell our tours. But they have— oops— but they have no influence on prices. They don't hold an inventory, and like was mentioned earlier, if they don't sell, they're not accountable to pay for that product. Thank you. For—.

Thank you. Any questions for Mrs.— for Ms. Hutchinson? Seeing none, thank you. Oh wait, sorry, Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Ms. Hutchinson. And understand, if you may not know this, I guess if someone's making a sale for a tour on a cruise ship, they are typically an employee of the cruise ship, and therefore there's not— they're not paid in, you know, in the same type of commission, nor would collect and remit this, the same type of sales tax. I wouldn't— you're right.

I would not be able to speak on that because I don't work with people like that. I don't have any, um, any kind of contracts with the cruise lines, so all of my sales come direct. Thank you. All right, thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

And then, uh, Dan Wayne, is this what you wanted to speak to?

Is there a Dan Wayne in there? All righty. With that, we will come back to the assembly. And let's see here, whose turn is it? Is Atkinson— wait, did he come in?

Uh, Dan Wayne?

Okay, uh, so he is not going to testify.

We prefer that you signed up ahead of time. Sorry.

Unless, unless, unless the body— okay, the body is going to say yes. Come on up, please state your name and area, town you live in for the record. You have 2 minutes.

Uh, Cody Richardson, I live in West Juneau. We also rent cars seasonally, and these folks know this way better than I do. I just felt like maybe my simple mind might help you understand this. We rent a car for $100 to a tourist. We collect $15 in tax— $5 that comes to CBJ, $10 that goes to the state of Alaska— and I pay a salesperson 20% of that, so they make $20.

If Serene sold one of my cars for $100 she would collect $115 in tax. She would remit that to the state. She would remit that to CBJ and.

The commission in hand here would be the $20 that she would keep. And what you're proposing is that she should have to pay sales tax on that commission when, when I sell it, I don't have to pay it. It feels to me that this is a burden to the business owner, and I don't know how it could be passed on to the customer. Um, simply speaking, like I said, they know this much better than I do. I don't see how you can pass another one mysterious 1% that a customer doesn't know about onto them.

This will 100% be paid by local business owners, not by tourists. Any questions for Mr. Richardson? Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Richardson. So you're saying There are times your employee will rent a car and they get a commission. But if we rented a car, so let's say.

So let's, let's, let's— I'll use my employees. If I— if they sell a car, I pay them 20%. If we sell a tour for someone else, we collect the tax. In this case, there wouldn't be the rental car tax. It would just be the 5% that CBJ collects.

And then we maintain that commission. So we pay the tax on that and then we remit the difference back to the person that's operating the tour. And what you're asking us to do is then to pay tax on that commission again. And there's just— I don't see a way to collect that from a customer. That's my point with this.

I don't see a way that any, any business operating out there can collect this from a customer. It is going to be— they're going to have to do something crafty to do that. Because when you, when you go to the store and it's 5% sales tax and you spend $100, you expect your tax to be $5. And what you're saying is that it is $5, but also.

$1, And I know we're talking about a dollar in this scenario, it's also $1 on this, this other transaction, that becomes a burden to the operator, not to, not to a tourist.

Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I understand that, you know, the, the person in this case who's selling the thing, who's not an employee, and you pay a commission, they're providing— I'm going to say they provide a service. I, I'm not sure, sure if that How is that different than the accountant or the marketing company you use that charges— provides a service and I believe would charge you sales tax when they charge you for that service? I would argue that in that scenario, what you're asking is that once that marketing agency pays their sales tax on the media that they buy and they have a commission baked into.

To that. What you're proposing is that you then go back to that media company and say, well, that 15% that you marked up that media that you charged the Juneau Auto Mall, you now need to pay sales tax on that when the entire amount was submitted and paid tax on the first time. There's not more revenue being created.

Okay, I get— because my sense is that the accountant and the media, they are paying sales tax in this case anyway. I don't know the accountant. I understand the media business. If you go— if you're a media company and you go place a buy for someone and I negotiate a deal for $500 to buy media from MediaFirst, and then I'm going to charge a 20% commission on that. So it's then $600.

Sales tax should be collected on that $600. But what you're— and if that's how that was done, what you're proposing is that that $100 commission that is, is changing hands between Juneau.

Autumn Mall and some media conglomerate that bought media for us should be taxed again when it was taxed the first time.

Okay, I understand. Thank you. I hope I didn't confuse everyone more on that. Thank you for your testimony. All right, so we are coming to back to the assembly.

Ms. Atkinson. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move Ordinance 2026-25, and I ask for unanimous consent. Mr. Smith.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I object for the purposes of amendment, line 20, between 22 and 23, Section 3, the effective date. I move that we amend the effective date to January 1st, and I'll speak to my motion. I've, I've heard from our finance team it makes.

Makes sense for sales tax changes to be done at the quarter. This does that. If this were to pass, it seems just extra onerous to make folks who are doing these sales and changing the way they're, you know, potentially having to then remit sales tax between these, you know, vendors and things for essentially like 5 days of the tour season. I know it applies to more than just tour salespeople, But I'm just, I just think to make that change again, I don't think I conceptually, I don't believe, I mean, the vast majority of the revenue and the sales are happening not in October. I can understand there will be some financial impacts.

I don't believe it to be tremendous. And I only talked to Ms. Flick about it today, so she wasn't able to pull data. But anyway, it just seems like if it were to be done, why make these folks have to make this change for like 5 days of the season where there's probably very limited sales happening? That's the purpose of my amendment. Thank you.

I thank you. So we have an amendment. Do we have an objection? Ms. Atkinson and then Ms. Wall.

I'm not going to object to it overall, but just so we're 100% clear, I assume you mean January 1st, 2027, and not have it be retroactive. Yes, thank you very much. Not going back. Thank you. Are you maintaining your objection, Ms. Wall?

No, I'm, I'm, I think my question got answered as Mr. Smith. Keep talking. Thanks. Uh, thanks. So we have, uh, Mr. Smith's amendment to change it from January 1st, 2027.

Any objection to that? Seeing none, we're back to the main motion as objected. Any objection? Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'll object for a lot of the purposes mentioned here in the public testimony. You know, as, as a business owner.

There's a resale exemption for a reason. And if this same kind of action was taken in the broad stroke, like, you know, the attempt on some of these other decisions, you would, you know, be affecting every contractor and house being constructed. And, you know, we have those exemptions on resale in place for reasons, and it's not unique to Juneau either. You know, plenty of other places do that for their businesses to support the private industry because you need a healthy and robust private industry to fund government and fund nonprofits and make these grants and do these types of loans. So it's just like it was mentioned, it's too close to resale.

It's a really easy adjustment with low capital costs to reclassify how you report things, which would skirt it, and then we would have just spent our time and resources to.

To no avail. So for those reasons, I'll be abdicating. Uh, thank you. And I saw another hand down there, but— oh, maybe it was Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, I still— as we— when we talked about on Wednesday, the fact that we collect $100— we would collect $100— we would collect $6 of sales tax on a $100 sale still perplexes me. I've tried to run examples by others, and the examples I came up actually were exempt due to resale. I can see, okay, accounting services and things, but I believe in those cases you can raise the price to account for it. I guess I still just don't see— this one still doesn't make sense to me. So until I hear better ideas, I will object.

Thanks. Thank you. Ms. Huskanes.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll speak in support of this ordinance. I think, um, perhaps maybe what's at the heart of this one is whether or not the service is a service, whether or not that this agent is providing a service to this business. And what I heard tonight in the public testimony is that truly it is a service. It is a service that that our independent— in this case, I will say, and I, I don't know that for all three, so I shouldn't say that, but, uh, but our folks who are working in the tourism industry are working with the travel industry, that not only is it a service, but it is a service that they could not do without.

And so when I hear that, it is, it is, uh something that you rely on to get your product to the market, I don't understand why one service would be tax-exempt but other services.

Services that are also required for your business to operate would be taxed. In this case, the other question besides whether or not the service is a service is, in terms of getting confused about that extra dollar, is who's remitting it. And it's two different people remitting it. So there is somebody remitting tax on the service they provide, and there is somebody remitting tax on the that they're the actual tour industry— or not industry, they're the actual tour agent in that case. So because that I am hearing that this is a service, and because I know that it's something they say they rely on, then I ask myself, is the public good great enough that this exemption should rely— it should remain in place?

How much foregone revenue is there? How.

How does that affect our current budget? And all of those things compel me to say that no, this is something that should not be tax-exempt when other services are not. So for all of those reasons, and for the amount of funding that I know that we are foregoing, I am going to strongly support this one. Thank you. Mr.

Kelly. Thank you. I'm finding myself on the fence with this one at the moment. So, I'll object for the purposes of a question. I remember that Deputy Mayor Smith had asked at the last Finance Committee meeting if there was any record as to why a previous assembly had created this exemption.

So, I think I would find that helpful in helping to form my own opinion about whether or not I'm going to vote to reverse their decision or not. Madam Attorney, are you taking this one? I am. So we looked through all the prior ordinances. It looks like this— we have no documentation.

On any conversations that were had by the Assembly. Uh, this has existed since the late '70s. It has always been there. There's several commissions that are peppered throughout, um, these exemptions. They have been there since the late '70s, and we do not know why they were put in.

Sorry. Thank you. All right, Ms. Wall. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I will speak in support of this ordinance for many of the reasons Ms. Hughes-Scandies talked about.

You know, I believe this is clearly a service, and we tax other services even if, you know, they interact with someone buying something at some point in that chain. I'll give an example. I very rarely will Provide yoga teaching services, and I provide that to a yoga studio.

I'm in there teaching students. The students are paying for those classes. They're paying to their— and they're paying sales tax on that class. They pay that to the studio for all of the things the studio is providing, connecting me to them, but other things. And then I charge the studio sales tax and I remit sales tax and they remit sales tax.

You know, I think there is value being generated by a travel agent, just like there's value being generated by any other business that's intermediate between someone providing a larger service. So I will also remind the body that this was actually a sizable chunk of money when we were balancing our budget in looking through our cuts. And so we.

Very interesting.

Item 5, Madam Clerk. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ordinance 2026-01 lowercase b, an ordinance appropriating funds from the treasury for FY27 city and borough operations. Uh, thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Manager.

We will bring us back to order.

Thank you. This ordinance appropriates $545 million for the entirety of the city and borough of Juneau's FY27 operating budget, excluding including the school district. If you recall, we had to pass that earlier.

This ordinance also recognizes $525 million in forecasted revenue and $20 million in transfers from different, different fund balances.

I recommend the assembly take public testimony, adopt this ordinance as amended by the Assembly Finance Committee. I also will note that you do have in your red folder item a summary sheet provided by the finance director with your actions taken thus far. So that is available to you.

For reference. Uh, thank you, um, Madam Manager, and thank you, Madam Finance Director, for the sheet. Um, we have a little bit of public testimony on this one, so let's start with the people on Zoom so we don't have to worry about them anymore. So we have 2 people on Zoom. Um, would you please bring over Dixie Clow?

Can you hear me? We can hear you. Please state your name and area of town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes. Yes, my name is Dixie Clough. I'm the director of Museums Alaska.

We're the statewide museum association, and I'm calling in from Anchorage, although our board president does live in Douglas, and we have given several grants to the Juneau Douglas City Museum, and one is currently open. So we have an open grant with them. I wanted to talk about the funding for the museum. I appreciate the difficult financial situation you're facing, and I appreciate that you're no longer considering outright closure of the museum. What I'm struggling to understand is why.

Why the museum appears to be kind of bearing a disproportionate share of the budget cut burden. It sounds like you're planning to use your savings to protect many services from significant reductions or any reductions at all for the next year. And if that's the case, I'm— I don't understand why the museum is losing more, more than half its staff while many other services maybe aren't experiencing any staff reductions at all. It doesn't seem very equitable, and it will actually cause a lot of problems in the future because the staff won't be able to plan for a future with less staff. If they have— they're basically limping along with one collections person and an admin person, they can't help you figure out grants that they can apply for, they can't help you figure out with the Friends organization what fundraising they can do to help cover these costs.

Basically the museum will be mothballed. You'll also lose a bunch of experience from the staff that you currently have, the ability to understand what they can reduce and what they can't reduce. I just don't feel like the museum staff maybe has been involved in this.

This conversation. They can maybe help you figure out which positions would be best to keep and which positions maybe could be reduced. So I would really recommend that you, if at all possible, keep more museum staff on for the next year to plan for the future, where they might have to plan for more cuts for the next year. So that is why I came to talk to you, is to please keep the staff to help plan for a better future. We lost funding.

Apologies, lost my— that's right. Thank you, thank you, Miss Clow. Any questions for Miss Clow? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony tonight. Next we have Alex Wertheimer.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes, please state your name and area of town you live in for the record and.

And you have 2 minutes. My name is Alex Wertheimer. I'm out the road. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this evening, and I really appreciate the job that, the effort and time that you put into this job and a very, very difficult time with the status of revenues. My wife Margaret and I would like to voice our support for Mr. Kelly and Ms. Hall's amendment to restore funding for the Juno Douglas City Museum.

It's essential for us to have the city museum to present the story of our community and cultures. The museum is a beloved resource for history, education, and the arts throughout the year. It also offers the over 1.6 million tourists the opportunity to learn about the city they have spent their time and money to visit. Juneau, as a major tourist destination, must have the museum to welcome visitors and to tell our story. Please approve the amendment, and in the future, please consider using visitors' fees.

Fund to help support the museum's essential functions that benefit tourists and locals alike. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? See none from the assembly.

Thank you for your testimony. Uh, next we have Carlos Caliente.

Please state your name and area of town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes.

My name is Carlos Cadante. I'm a homeowner of downtown Juneau. Um, I've spoken about this before. All cuts should include all departments, including public safety, and all the departments know— need to learn how to do more with less. Um, I think all departments should basically take a 5% cut across the board and help stem the tide till we get in a better position financially.

Uh, there should be a hiring freeze on vacant positions. And I spotted where the new fire chief has a position, uh, that he wants— a battalion chief. I asked him about that and he said he has a lot of programs. And I said, well, that's your job, the way I see it. I think that privatization of EMS from fire would be a good thing.

80% Of the call volume for fire is EMS. Particularly when you have personnel tied up. If there was someone— privatization, you have basic life support only, just to transport, that's a minor thing, and they don't need all of the Capital City Fire Rescue to do that. My concern is quality of care for patients, and, uh, the— I've asked that there be a public forum with JPD and Capital City Fire Rescue to state the position of what we've learned over the last year relative to Chris Williams' beating by Juneau Police Department. And, uh, my words are here to remember Chris Williams and what happened to him by Juneau Police.

Police Department. I ran into Lieutenant Sanchez of the fire department down in Foodland shopping, and he was in uniform, and he said to me basically, do not speak to me. And I thought a public servant, uh, on duty had that— I had, as a civilian and a member of this community, had a right to, uh, talk to city personnel. And I appreciate the assembly and what you do for our community, and I respect what you do and what you're doing, and thank you very much for your time. Thank you.

Any questions for Mr. Caliente? Seeing none, thank you. Uh, next we have Dan Cannon.

Please state your name and area of town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes.

Great. Dan Cannon, The Flats. First, thanks to the assembly for making tough decisions to try and fill the gaps. I love Juneau, and I want.

I want to be able to fund what I love and budget for generations to come. This is why I fully support the Juneau Commission on Sustainability's proposal for a gross smelter return tax to endow a Juneau permanent fund. For every dollar of gross income a typical Juneau household pays in local taxes, Kensington and Greens Creek Mines pay just 8 cents. Based on 2026 mineral prices, Kensington gross value will be roughly $667 million, and Greens Creek gross value will be roughly $1.2 billion. The CEO of Hecla makes 47 times their median an employee and the CEO of Courier makes 62 times.

Over $1 billion in mineral wealth leaves CBJ boundaries annually. In 2025, CBJ property taxes captured only 0.36% of the value of precious metals extracted. Juneau deserves more. Current mineral reserves project, um, only through 2044, after which Juneau would face a huge fiscal cliff. A 4% gross smelter return tax tied to a permanent fund would convert a temporary resource into a perpetual one.

This proposed proposal could add $10 million to general fund revenue with 5 years. While dependent on investment returns, precious metal prices, a fund could reach a value of $1 billion by 2050, with general fund revenue approaching $40 million. The proposal is reasonable. A 4% gross smelter return tax is below the 4.5% severance tax already in place in Northwest. Arctic Borough.

Through a 4% of market value draw.

Now is the time, not only because of the recent cuts we have had to make, but record gold and silver prices are rare opportunity to capitalize a fund quickly. A general permanent fund would allow for long-term sustainable funding for schools, flood mitigation, museums, recreation services like Eagle Crest. It would give us fiscal stability beyond the life of current mines and a fair share of Juneau's mineral wealth. I'd like to request that the assembly hold a special public meeting focused on the proposed gross smelter return tax for the purpose of endowing a Juneau permanent fund. Thank you.

Any questions for Mr. Cannon? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next, we have.

Chuck Cohen. Please state your name and area, town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes. I'm Chuck Cohen. I live in West Juneau, and I have been in Alaska since 1971 and Juneau since '76. When I first came to Juneau in '76, The City Museum was a library.

I spent a lot of hours there. The City Museum is a wonderful place. With a show of hands, how many people have visited the City Museum? How many assembly members have visited? Good.

So we've all been to the City Museum and we all love the City Museum. Why in the dickens are you cutting half of its operating budget? It doesn't make any sense. It's a very small percentage of a very large.

Large, I believe, $545 million budget, and we have to get rid of the main director of the museum and the person responsible for public participation. That's public participation by our children and by ourselves. I think you folks are very short-sighted. I ask that you accept Mr. Kelly's Amendment to restore the funding to the City Museum. If it turns out that we really don't have the money, we'll deal with it in the future.

But right now, the city has historically always ran a surplus, and I know you folks are trying to deal with that by ramping it down. But as I drove out to the valley to get off my truck, I found 4 different Parks Department pickup trucks, collectively worth probably in excess of $250,000, with one occupant.

Beach, driving somewhere to do something. I think they could carpool.

Thank you. Any, uh, questions for Mr. Cohen? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. I'm going to read out a few names this time so we could, uh, be a little more efficient. Um, next we have Ben McIntyre Coble, and then Sharon Denton, and then Mona Stevic.

Okay, Sharon Denton, and then Mona Stivik, and then Mary Marks.

I'm Sharon Denton from the Valley, and I'm here for the City Museum. Um, I came to Juneau in 1971 and.

I was thrilled that there was a community college, uh, the Alaska State Museum, and the library down the street. For me, education has always been a number one priority. The city museum is a treasure and perhaps overlooked by many of the residents and too far to walk for many of the tourists. The assembly proposes to cut $261,000, and that's like a 39% reduction, I think. I recently heard a presentation by Beth Weigel, the, um, director right now, and I was so impressed by all the programming which will probably go away with a cut.

They do more than just display history. They involve the community with the 12 by 12 community art show. They showcase local artists. Have education kits for teachers to.

To use and encourage school visits to the museum. They also lead walking tours of the Capitol, the historic downtown, and Evergreen Cemetery. These activities can also engage the tourists if they can make it up the hill. So one suggestion, and some of you have heard me say this, if the city would someday invest in a circulator South Franklin congestion could be reduced. That's where it is.

And more tourists could visit the City Museum and the Capitol and the Governor's Mansion. And that could bring more revenue. Currently, the City Museum does have a revenue of about $85,000.

And for the current— oops, I had another idea, but you wouldn't like it. Um, any questions for Ms. Denton? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. So, Mr. McIntyre-Coble, you.

Actually signed up to speak on the consent agenda, which was just an ordinance for introduction. So you can speak off on that if you want now, or you can wait for next month to speak on it when it actually will pass. Yes, go ahead, come on up. Sorry, I didn't see that. I just saw school district, so I thought you were part of the budget.

So please, your name— state your name and area of town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for having me. My name is Ben McIntyre Coble. I'm from Douglas.

Uh, I'm the parent of a 2nd grader at Sayak Gastineau Community School. Um, a couple of months ago, my daughter celebrated her 8th birthday, and my wife decided to bring cupcakes to her class. When she arrived, she was told she needed to sign in using a new access control system from a company called Verkada. She had her driver's license scanned, a picture was taken of her, and had to provide a digital signature. This personal and biometric data, all very sensitive and potentially a wealth of information for identity thieves, was then cross-referenced against some unknown data sources to check for evidence of criminality or presence on a sex offender registry.

On badge. My wife was unnerved by this experience, so I started to look into Verkada. It's a slick Silicon Valley-type corporation. It's a company that carries a lot of baggage with it. There was a 2021 hack of Verkada's cloud-based, uh, video platform where 150,000 live camera feeds were accessed from everything from schools to women's health clinics to prisons.

She was cleared and given a stay.

Or the fact that recently the Chico Unified School District in Northern California terminated a Verkada contract over concerns about the use of AI and Verkada's advanced video monitoring program. Verkada also operates on a licensing system where you buy technology, but if you fail to pay the ongoing licensing fees, the cameras you buy become worthless. They call it bricking. That's not a great thing for a school district that seems to constantly teeter on the edge of financial crisis. There's a lot to talk about with Verkada, but the Juneau School District is pushing ahead with the $2.2 million Verkada contract for security cameras district-wide on common viewing platforms, entry security and access controls linked to security cameras.

I found in March 2025.

Memo that specified the contract includes 225 cameras across Juneau schools. This security-related upgrade is now included in the $16 million of potential school-related projects that may be funded through municipal bonds in October. I want to state definitively that I'm all for school security, and I'm not even anti-Verkada. Verkada might in fact be the best option for Juneau schools. My concern is that the community would be interested in this topic but hasn't been afforded the opportunity to discuss it at all.

I'm a very active and informed parent, but I knew nothing of the arrival of the Verkada system And when I sought answers from the former Superintendent Hauser, his answers were entirely unsatisfying. My recommendation is to decouple the security-related project from the list of items potentially to be funded in municipal bonds. Thank you for your time. You made it. Um, any questions?

Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Mr. McIntyre-Coble, for bringing this to our attention. Have you spoken to the school board or the school district about these issues with the So I raised this issue through the parents group at my daughter's elementary school.

I would say entirely unsatisfying, um, and, uh, he could not point to a specific example why the technology was being employed, what precipitated its arrival. They couldn't address any kind of, uh, new, um, policy documents that would accompany the arrival of this technology. And like I said, I'm not anti-Verkada for that matter. I just think that this issue is entirely, uh, in flux, and I think it belongs being discussed at the school board prior to going on a municipal election in October.. And I think it's entirely possible to have robust discussions about the privacy implications, the financial implications, et cetera, about this technology well in advance of municipal election in October.

The former superintendent graced us with his presence at a meeting. His answers were, uh,.

Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Uh, so next we have Mona Stevic and then Mary Marks and then Mary Pat Wyatt.

Please state your name and area, town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes. Yes, my name is Mona Stevic, and I live in the Valley, and I have testified, uh, for in support of the Juno Douglas City Museum, and I'm here to speak in support again of the Juno Douglas City Museum and its current staffing. The museum is a very important part of Juno's history. It is run by top-notch educated staff, and cutting the staff by half would devastate the museum and it would cease to function. The museum without a director is like trying to lead an orchestra without a conductor, or running a school without a principal, or a town without a mayor.

I ask that all current staff positions at the Juno Douglas City Museum be retained, fully funded, to keep our heritage and history alive. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

Next we have Mary Mark.

I mean, the whole group, an average of about 1 FTE a year, about 2,000 hours a year. This has been going on for about 30 years. So that's a lot of volunteer hours. It shows a lot of support from our community. They act as front desk receptionists, researchers, tour guides, collections documentation people.

That's one of the things I'm doing right now. They've designed exhibits, and actually they've all just served as brute labor, especially when it's an all-female staff. Get those husbands in there and other people. The other way that this community has showed support is through the donation of collections. I don't know how many objects are in the collections right now.

I know when I left it was about 6,000. $100,000, And it probably has easily doubled by now. Um, people started donating things when we finally moved.

Moved into the old city library building because they thought it was a permanent place. They thought they could count on us to take care of their family treasures, to keep them as a museum should keep them, and preserve them for in perpetuity. Um, and that's what the museum has tried to do, and Many of the early pioneer families donated things. We have things from the Peterson girls, from the Snow Theater family, from a lot of different organizations. And we've also received a lot of financial support from individuals, hundreds of—.

I have to ask you to stop. Sorry. Yeah. Any questions for Ms. Wyatt? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

Okay. Next we have Katherine Cohen, Kim Metcalf, and then Bonita Nelson.

Hi, I'm Catherine Cohen. I've lived in Juneau for 38 years. I've been in Alaska for 50 years. I'm speaking in support of the Juneau Douglas City Museum. And by reducing the staff, you will significantly diminish the services that museum can provide.

Not only that, but you erode public trust. It becomes an unreliable institution. People will not donate their family heirlooms. They will not continue to provide the kinds of artifacts and the kinds of things museum needs. The museum gives the community an identity.

It, it's kind of like its memory, and if it's gone, then that's gone. Juno is the state capital. It's important that.

That it has a strong identity, and I urge you to accept the amendment and not erode public trust. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

Uh, next we have Kim Metcalf, Bonita Nelson, and then Jean McBride.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the assembly. My name is Kimberly Metcalf. I live downtown. Um, I'm here to ask you to continue to fully fund the City Museum. I'm aware of the fiscal issues we're faced with, but there must be a way to raise funds to fully fund the museum.

When I think of revenue sources, of course, my mind always goes to the billionaires in our harbor. The multinational foreign-flagged non-US tax-paying corporations that have jerry-rigged the fees their passengers pay.

So that the money can only be used close to the dock. But I'm not interested in having the passengers pay for funding the museum. I'd like to see those corporate entities like Norwegian Cruise Lines, Carnival Corporation, and the Royal Caribbean Group make a recurring contribution to city coffers from the billions of dollars of revenue they make from their Alaska cruises. According to online sources, quote, the Alaska route serves as one of the highest yield most profitable cruise markets in the world, end of quote. If the cruise lines don't volunteer to make a recurring contribution, I ask that you find the money somewhere.

I've seen people outraged on Facebook demanding that their donations to the museum be returned if you decide to cut staffing so deeply that the need to deaccession items is necessary. The American Alliance of Museums states, quote, deaccessioning, however, is never a fast or simple solution.

"It may take a great deal of time and other resources to research the material in question, determine its provenance, identify any restrictions on the title, and arrange for an appropriate and safe transfer. In the short run, it may actually require additional expenditures on the part of the museum to conduct the necessary research, prepare the documentation, arrange for disposition, and effect the transfer." That's end of quote. Uh, so in closing, I urge you to fully fund the museum. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Metcalfe?

Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next we have Bonita Nelson, Jean McBride, and then Sally Donaldson.

Please state your name and area of town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes. I'm Bonita Nelson and I live out the road, and I'm the president of the board of the Friends of the Juneau, uh, Douglas City Museum.

So you've received a lot of stuff from us lately. And of course, I'm here to advocate for the director and for the program curator's positions. Without it, I think the museum will, will definitely lead to closure. With them, with their positions, we could find alternatives, as Dixie— so handy dandy, she called in first— Dixie Clow talked about. And looking at things like collaborations, partnerships, and things which this organization, the Friends organization, have started to talk about.

So I think it's good to just think about the museum as a library. You know, this is our library, our history library. We have a history library here, and it, it catalogs our heritages. And so that, you know, allows us to honor and learn from our past, celebrate our community today, and preserve all of this knowledge for tomorrow and future generations. So I hope we can find a way to work together to continue.

Thank you. Any questions for Ms. McBride? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Oh, sorry, Nelson. Our next one is Jean McBride, Sally Donaldson, and then Susan Watson.

That's it.

Please state your name and area of town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes. My name is Jean McBride and I live in downtown Juneau. Good evening. Good evening. At a time, at a time when Indigenous land acknowledgments are being removed from public places across the country, this assembly chooses to read one at the start of every meeting.

By doing so, you honor a vital part of Juneau's history. But we must ask ourselves, are we just talking the talk? Or are we willing to walk the walk?

Just as families cherish their history through heirlooms and photos, our community preserves our identity through the Juneau Douglas City Museum. If a family locks away their memories in a dark attic, the history dies. The same thing happens when we restrict public access to our community's shared heritage. Events like Celebration show us exactly how history comes alive and resonates across our diverse community. We are who we are today because of those who came before us, and as the City Museum so beautifully displays, it was Alaska Natives who led the way.

Let's truly walk the walk. Let's honor our ancestors, our elders, and our shared history by keeping the doors of the City Museum Open wide. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions?

Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Next we have Sally Donaldson, Susan Watson, and then Lois Killam.

Thank you. I'm Sally Donaldson. I live downtown on Star Hill. I really love to be able to walk to this assembly meeting, to go to the National Forest in my backyard, to walk everywhere I want to go. And then I have the buses.

Um, on Wednesday, I'll be walking down to the City Museum where I'm a volunteer. I've been volunteering for about 10 years. This year I'm doing tours for historical walking tours for downtown, and I want to say in the past 10 years, every single person who's— who's— who I've encountered has been excited to learn something new about Juneau, and that was because of the museum and this program. I don't want to lose my job, Please keep on, um, the director and our assistant director and, um, the.

4 People, there are only 4 people on the staff, and they're all vital to the, to the City Museum's operation. So really, I really thank you for that. I'd like to say that one of my favorite things on the tour is going up on the State Office Building and looking out over the expanse toward the Governor's House and the Elizabeth Peratrovich Hall and imagining what that was like about 100 years ago when it was tideland and the Auck people came to go fishing. And people are always excited to understand about that before the mine tailings were brought in and all the buildings were built. So I ask you please to fully fund the museum.

It's not a lot of money out of the huge budget deficit. And I want to thank every one of you for your work. It's so difficult and it's tireless. And thank you very much. Thank you.

Any questions?

Seeing none, thank you for your testimony tonight. Next we have Susan Watson, Lois Kilowich, and then Carol Buchless.

Hi, my name is Susan Watson and I live in the Flats, and a lot of people have said how important the Juneau Douglas City Museum is, and it is to me too, and I'm here in support of it. But I'm here primarily as an artist. I just exhibited there in January, and for a gallery space in Juneau, it has— it's— it probably has the best gallery space. As a— it's a nonprofit, so artists don't feel like they have to do art that will sell necessarily. They promote kind of unusual shows and And it's just a beautiful space.

Go there. And the Junot Dólares Museum is a gem that we have here, and it would be such a shame to lose it. So I don't have anything more to say. So that was— I just want to hope that you keep funding for it. Thanks.

It was a real privilege to be able to show it to.

Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. The next we have Lois Kilowich, Carol Buchlis, and then Dan Monkeith, maybe from Douglas. Sorry, can't read their handwriting.

Go ahead. Thank you very much. My name is Lois Kilowich. I am a local. I grew up in Juneau and I graduated from high school here in 1969.

As an adult, I didn't live in Juneau for many, many years because I happened to choose a career that it wasn't possible to do here in Juneau. But when I moved back here 10 years ago after I retired, I realized.

I realized that a good part of the reason I was moving here was because, you know, has a very active art committee— art community, excuse me. And that meant a lot to me. It wasn't a cultureless small town. It was a small town with a big image in that regard. What you're proposing to do in terms of your cuts to the City Museum, as I understand it, is to eliminate all of the community programs that the City Museum provides.

And these have been discussed some already tonight. They include a— they've sponsored over 120 local artists in terms of exhibitions, gallery space, the ability to sell their art, and they provide grants. There's a prize called the Marie Darland Prize, which is an unrestricted $5,000 grant to a person who has contributed significantly to the community of Juneau in terms of arts and.

Public service. They also provide, as Sally mentioned, a large number of tours in the summer, which include tours that are appealing both to the tourists— the Downtown Juneau Historic Tour— as well as tourists to local history sites like the Treadwell Mine and the Evergreen Cemetery, which are populated mostly by locals. They provide educational programming to students at a variety of different levels. This includes high school students, college students, and students from outside outside of Juneau. And in FY '24 and '25, these programs involved more than 1,000 students.

It's a very small percentage of your budget. Please consider funding it fully. Thanks. Thank you. Any questions?

Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. So then we have Carol Bookless, Dan Monkeeth. Open. And Kathleen Harper.

My name is Carol Bookless, and I live in Douglas. Here are my suggestions on the budget. Number 1, do not increase the city manager's budget by $1 million. Do not increase the IT budget by $700,000. Do not increase the finance budget by $1.4 million.

Do not increase the police budget by $2 million. Do not increase the streets budget by $1 million. Do not increase the transit budget by $1 million. This all comes from your budget comparing last year to this year. Those are my suggestions.

And then another suggestion is do not demolish Telephone Hill. Put the demolishment off. That's another month, $9 million. You can end up with a surplus. I think that would be really— make everyone really happy, and you would not have to do anything to the City Museum.

You would not have to.

Sell Jumbo Jim. You would not have to close any pools. None of that. Just stop bloating up people's budget. Thank you.

Thank you. Any question? Oh, Ms. Wall has a question. Thank you. Um, are you aware that, you know, a lot of those funds that— those increases you mentioned are negotiated salary increases for unions?

But But it's really weird because I work for the school district and I got a 2% raise this past year. The city manager went from $3 million to $4 million unless she got a 25% raise, which, wow, that's a lot. I don't think it's from the contract negotiations.

Uh, Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Miss Bookless, are you aware that the demolition of Telephone Hill has been paused and that we're not spending money to demolish telephone unless that's a pause until next year? Um, I was not aware of that.

I heard it was paused for a few months. It's paused to see, but it is paused anyway. Thank you. Yeah, pause it till next year. You'll save $9 million this year.

Anything else, Mr. Steingart? Did you have anything? All right, thank you for your testimony. Next we have Dan, and please say your last name for me correctly, and you have 2 minutes. Yes, ma'am.

Uh, Daniel Monteith Douglas. Yaakei wushtini shadnegi anyetkusani. Akhtawasi gugunishcheesh. I'd like to start off by thanking Weldon, Kelly, and Hall for at least not in their proposal totally closing the museum, but I think you come way short, and I want to.

Speak, that you need to keep the museum open to the public because otherwise it will be a loss in educational services to K-12 and also nonprofits. It will be a loss in economic development opportunities and activities for artists and writers in the community. While we have SHI and the State Museum, their mission is not local history. In ours, the city museum is loss of a competitive advantage in Southeast Alaska in a very competitive tourism industry. It's ironic and laughable that a town like Tenakee Springs can have a local museum and the state capital, Juneau, may be closing their museum to the public.

Now, a little bit of my allegiance are with Ketchikan and Saxman. And I'll help them laugh at Juno as you close the museum. Closure to the museum, uh, plain and simple, uh,.

The public closure will significantly impact the public and private funding of the museum in the future, donations, benefactors, and employment. And I kind of end with a cliché or old saying that those who do not know their history or their past struggle to find their way into the future. And I would look at each and every Assembly member, if you vote to close the museum publicly. Maybe that epitomizes your state too. I've worked at many different museums from the Field Museum in Chicago and Oriental Institute to working with the Ketchikan Museum for 10 years, and I think there's a variety of ways we can raise funds in the future, and I'd be willing to talk to you about that if you'd like to ask that during questions and answers.

But closing the museum publicly, I think, will have significant impacts on what we present and have for our community, but also to the world. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Kelly.

Thank you. Just because I, I was mentioned, so I just wanted to make sure I get clarification from you. You mentioned the, I think, the amendment that Ms. Hall and I co-authored. Are you— it seems— are you aware that that restores the funding to the manager's originally proposed budget? As long as you keep all the funding to support all the personnel, I'm good with it.

You know, that's what I want to see, keeping it open or keeping funding just to keep the curator on. As David Nuhn talked about, you know, if you close the museum altogether, it's gonna have.

Huge legal and financial consequences, as well as so many other things. So yeah, any proposal that keeps on all the personnel, you know, they might have to absorb a little bit of a percentage cut too, but please do not cut, uh, you know, our director and our education specialists. They do amazing amount of work for very little money and provide a lot for the community. And I think it would be a great loss if you guys vote to cut those two people, and is disproportional, as other folks have said, right? Thank you.

Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. So next we have Kathleen Harper, Michelle Stewart, and Beau Anderson.

Please state your name and area of town you live in for the record, and you have 2 minutes. My name is Kathleen Harper, and I reside in North Douglas, um, and I am here in support of keeping the full funding for the Juneau Douglas City Museum. Um, a lot of people here have said a lot of really great things, many of the things that I would also reiterate. Um, the, the, the 2 staff that are kind of on the chopping block with the, the budget reduction would really mean that The key pieces of the outreach to the community would just not be able to be sustained. And having been through various other organizations that have gone through very large changes and transitions and had staffing go away that were in leadership positions, it can take a really long time to get your feet back under you and get any of those programs back on their feet, even if the Assembly were able to find money later to, like, reinstate those positions at a later time.

So I think that like keeping those people in their position, working with them to maybe find other budget, like income opportunities to help support them.

Sort of like fund the gap is really the best way forward. Getting rid of them now will just set everything back so much. I speak as a person who has had an exhibit as an artist in that gallery space, and so that's part of why I'm passionate. I'm also like the history and all of that that other people have talked about, that is so important as well. So I think those, those various pieces, they're not really available in a lot of other places in town.

I will also say as an artist, I think there's really only two actual just gallery spaces, like that's all they are is a gallery space, and it's the City Museum and the June Orton Humanities Council's space at the JAC. All other spaces that you could have a show in as an artist are like a brewery, or they're an art, or like an art shop, and maybe it's a tiny space of wall in a retail space. So like,.

Artist, having that opportunity is huge. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions?

Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. So next we have Michelle Stewart, Beau Anderson, and then David Noon.

Hi, my name is Michelle Stewart. I'm a resident of North Douglas. I'm an artist in the community, and I've spent quite a bit of my time and energy over the last few weeks advocating for the museum through my artwork and through my social media platforms. There's a lot of people who've spoken tonight about how important our museum is, and I agree with all of them. I don't need to reiterate it, but I will say that from my personal perspective as someone who moved here 3 years ago— I was born and raised in Anchorage, spent some time outside, and moved back home.

But did you know the City Museum was an important part of me learning the history of my new home? And this is where I plan to spend the rest of my life. My husband and I live.

We love it here and we love the museum. It's a must-stop when we have people visit from out of town. My parents come multiple times a year. They always request to see our city museum. It's important to them too.

They spent 30 years in Anchorage, didn't get down to Juneau very much, and they enjoy learning the history of our state capital as well. As an artist, as Kathleen said, it's important to have a gallery space available to us. I haven't personally had a show there, but I would love to. And I think that it really would be a shame to lose out on that. I'd also like to speak to how difficult it would be to re-up the programming at the museum if we lose these positions.

I understand that the proposed cuts would be for a year and with the goal of refunding the museum fully afterwards. But those people are not going to be sitting around.

Around waiting for their jobs back. We're going to lose institutional knowledge, and we're going to lose that continuity that's important for the museum to continue to exist. So please fully fund the museum, keep those staff members on, and let them help you figure out how to balance the budget for the City Museum. It's really a small drop in the bucket of the overall budget. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? Uh, seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Could we take side conversations outside, please? Because it's pretty hard to hear.

It echoes up here. Uh, next we have Bo Anderson, David Noon, and then Brendan O'Mara Moore. Hello, I am Bo Anderson. I live in North Douglas. I own property.

I pay property tax. I buy cars. I pay tax. I buy services and goods. I pay tax.

I'm not afraid of taxes. I'm afraid of cutting to the point that we lose what makes this place special and good. Uh, please save the City Museum. I, as an artist,.

Artist in this town, found my voice at that museum. Starting in the pandemic when everything shut down, they start— opened a free little art gallery, and I have put thousands of pieces of art in that free gallery that found a home in this community. I make a 12 by 12 piece of art for their open to the community art show every single year and enter it into there. And then this December I had my very own art show there. It's a wonderful space.

I don't want the community to lose that space. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

So next we have David Noon, Brendan O'Meara Moore, and then Mary Irvine. Thank you. My name is David Noon. I brought my own timer. I live in just yonder, down in the Flats, and I'm a history professor by, by trade.

I have been on the board of the Friends of the Junot.

The city museum for a number of years. Um, I've tried not to take it personally that every institution I've become involved with in Juneau has been followed by a dark cloud, whether it's the university, public education, or now potentially the museum. If anyone's got an institution that you would like to target for failure, my rates are reasonable. We can talk later, but it does make me a little salty. And, you know, by now you've all received abundant, I think, belated information from members of the community about what exactly cutting into the museum's budget would do, much less the most embarrassing and catastrophic outcome, which was narrowly avoided.

Closing it entirely. You know, the fact that these cuts are still.

Under consideration is, you know, kind of shocking. This is, as many people have indicated, an irreplaceable and unduplicated repository. It's an opportunity for artists. It is an educational resource. I do very crummy watercolors.

My work will never be exhibited in the museum, but it's a wonderful space for emerging artists, and I think that On top of everything else that we've heard, lots of volunteer hours donated, tours given, grants administered by the folks whose positions would be cut. Uh, I would echo what someone said earlier. We've heard exactly zero testimony on behalf of cutting the budget. So please don't.

Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Noon? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. So then we have Brendan O'Mara Moore, Mary Irvine.

My name is Brendan Omara Moore. I live in the Valley, and I'm here to ask you, uh, essentially what exactly it is that you think that you're doing. Because from my perspective, last year we took a vote that basically said to the city, you're spending money inappropriately. You're not listening to the community. You're not making any compromises with us.

You just seem to be doing your own thing. And now next on the chopping block, we've got the City Museum, a thing that goes into the same category as libraries. If you want the City Museum gone, I'm sure one of you has a lighter. Just be honest. Be yourselves.

Go and, go and do what you want if that's what you want. If you want to talk to the community and listen to the community, Do that instead. That'd be my much preferable. I pay taxes in this town. I have no problem with paying into the common good.

I haven't been for some time now, and that bothers me.

Thank you. Any questions? Seeing— oh, Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Omar Moore.

I guess, were you aware of the very significant public outreach that we have done in terms of public feedback as we were— as we're having to evaluate where we have to make reductions because we have, you know, lost revenue. You're aware of, you know, surveys and all those things of the other side of that from the community where we're being asked which things do we want to get rid of out of our public day-to-day lives so that we can continue to pay for incredibly expensive contractors to tell the city things that the residents don't want.

Thank you for your testimony. So then we have Mary Irvine.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the assembly. My name is Mary Irvine, and I'm one of the lucky souls that lives way out on North Douglas at the mouth of Fish Creek, place known as Anguiaxge. Some of you may recognize me from my work over the past 34 years at the Alaska State Museum, where I now serve as Field Services Curator, helping the over 125 museums around the state with their policies and procedures, troubleshooting problems as they arise, and yes, even helping them find and keep funding, which, as I know you know, is very rough. However, I'm here tonight in a personal capacity, representing myself as a citizen of Juneau and Douglas, not as a representative.

Representative of the State Museum. I'm here to encourage you to please find a way to fully fund the Juneau Douglas City Museum. This remarkable gem of an institution plays a unique role in our town, as others have said, and deserves 3 to 5 full-time permanent staff members with health benefits. Our city museum has enjoyed a long history of not just competence but excellence, with curators, collections managers, exhibition specialists, and people with full graduate degrees in museology— something I never even dreamed of when I was going to school. Over the years, they conserved and stabilized objects.

They collected significant pieces. They exhibit and interpret displays of value to so many in the community. I have watched the quality of in-house procedures clarify and become ever more professional. I've also watched as the City Museum's Director has done other things, such as coaching interns to.

Write, apply for, receive, and execute no-cost-share, no-match-needed grants to the City Museum from external sources so that that in turn could help build a show. In short, I use the City Museum not as a professional, but as a citizen of Juneau. I used to do tours down to Tracy Arm, and a lot of the research that I brought to light at the City Museum is now used by most of the cruise ships and the small boats that go to the Ts'haundan Bay area, Tracy and Endicott Arms. And sorry, I have to cut you off. Please find a way to fund the city museum.

Any questions? Seeing none, uh, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Is there anybody that has not testified on this ordinance, wishes to testify on this ordinance? Seeing none, we'll bring it to the assembly, and we will start with our finance chair, Ms. Wall.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move the assembly approve Ordinance 2026-01B, an ordinance appropriating funds from the treasury for FY '27 city and borough operations. And if I could speak to my motion. Certainly. I'm gonna support us passing the budget in its current form tonight.

I'll use the word again, begrudgingly. I've been thinking as we have been going through this process whether I would ultimately be able to vote for the budget that we came up with. You know, on one hand, this budget doesn't reflect my values. I, I don't— you know, I want to live in a community that's willing to pay for the services that we currently provide. And there are some things in here that we will be cutting.

That are going to have impacts for a long time. And on the other hand, you know, I feel like we haven't— given our fiscal position, we have not cut enough. And it puts us, the city, in a very precarious place now, given our fund balance size. And it puts us in a tough place to make or we have a lot of work to do to, to right the ship before next year. Um, but, but I'm gonna— despite those, those, um, misgivings, I'm gonna support it.

Um, you know, when I think about where we were, um, in December, we were looking at a $14— approximately $14 million, um, a year deficit moving forward. Um, we— and I say we because staff have done lots of this work— have essentially halved that.

That deficit. We canceled almost $5 million in projects. We are going to be bringing in— I was going to say $2.8 million in new revenue. I'll change that number now to $2.4 million, and then $4 million that staff have taken on in terms of just general belt tightening across the organization. When I look at the things that we do have on our reduction list, you know, JDC, Travel Juno, Eagle Crest, and the City Museum being the big ones that we reduced here, my heart breaks.

And when you look at how much those things cost, who uses them, how many people use them, Um, I, I think we did right by identifying those areas. There are lots of other things we're going to have to look at in the next year, but hopefully we have a year to figure out how we.

Get there so that we don't lose these things that are just critically important to the community. So I'm, I'm glad we have the savings to do that and spend the next year doing that. And with that, I will see who else has something they want to say. All right, thank you, Ms. Wall. So we have a motion.

Do we have objection? Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'd like to object for the purpose of an amendment.

Um, I'd move to amend 2026-01 lowercase b to reduce $12,000 in assembly member expenditures, and that would specifically be deleting my stipend for the fiscal year. And I can speak to that. Go ahead. Thank you. I, I know that it's not.

A large amount. I don't know how much of an impact it'll have, but I don't feel right asking the community to give up so much if, you know, if we don't sacrifice something on our end too. So it's, it's a good faith gesture to show that, you know, take it serious and feel the pain of the situation. And anything to help in any little way does make a difference, even if it is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount that we're tasked with.

In that same vein, I noticed it's easy to default and say that this is all the Citizens Initiative's fault. We're in this position because of the Citizens Initiative, and that's just absolutely not the case, because when those citizens initiatives happened, they don't just happen for no reason. It's actually a relatively rare thing. And it's a symptom of when the community feels like the government isn't doing what's in their best.

Interest, whether or not that's actually the case. That's why these things happen. And that citizens initiative was heavily tied to a handful of large projects that people felt weren't in their best financial interest. And after they passed, we went ahead and did them anyways. You know, we had $30 million in the bank.

We had 3 years of grace for these deficits that we didn't have to change anything. While we could have figured out something else out. But instead, we decided to deplete all of our funds and put ourselves in this position. So it's not the Citizens Initiative that spent our $30 million that we had saved, you know. It's not the Citizens Initiative that kept putting projects forward after the people said multiple times no.

And even moving forward with the approval of our CIP.

There's the Civic Center, $60 million under bracket of future. That's another thing that could very well get a citizens' initiative brought against us again. So we, the assembly, the community, we are all a team together. We all share this responsibility, this burden, and I hate seeing it always just put on the people, what all do you want to see cut? This initiative, all this was your fault.

Now it was everyone. It's all of our faults and we all have to get through it together. And just recognizing that circumstance and, you know, I, I can only speak for myself, but as a body, I'll do everything I can to try and restore that good faith. And that trust in the community to make sure that we move forward and do what's in the best interest of everyone without.

Trying to put it on anyone's side.

Um, do we have objection? Uh, Mr. Kelly, I think I saw yours first. Um, and then, uh, I think people are gonna have some questions also. Go ahead, Mr. Kelly. Thank you.

I I can agree with some of what Mr. Brooks said in the beginning of his remarks, and that part being like, we are asking people to— and we are asking departments to take a lot. Um, and it's been a very, very tough discussion. And when I was coming up with cuts myself, I didn't feel like, uh, like it should just be, uh, the services that we would have to cut, um, the departments, the people who, who rely on those departments. I, um, so.

I can relate a little bit in wanting to put forward something that would put a little bit of my own skin or our own skin in the game. I'll fess up, I'm the one who put 50% of our stipends on the chopping block initially, and that didn't end up proceeding. I guess the reason why I am objecting specifically to this amendment is, is for a couple reasons. One, um, while I appreciate his, his intentions, this technically is a seat that Mr. Brooks is, is occupying, but it's not necessarily owned by— I mean, and I, and I, I understand he understands this, most likely understands this, but this is a position that we occupy in service of the.

People. He— his term is slated to run through the end of the fiscal year, but there— any, any number of things could happen. So if we end up recruiting somebody mid-session, then that— the needing to recruit somebody to fill a vacancy mid-session, then we're end up having to tell that person the rest of the Assembly receives $1,000 stipends a month, but you're not getting anything, and you're going through this change mid-year. Um, so I think that might be a little bit unfair in that unlikely and possibly unfortunate circumstance. Um, I, I have also, um, uh, reached out to staff and I, I've asked them, and, uh, there, there is another way I think Mr. Brooks could achieve his same goal of having a little bit of skin in the game, and we do have the option to defer, um, portion of our stipend if we choose.

So I, I think I will vote against this because I think this is a position that belongs to the people, and because Mr. Brooks does have, have an.

Another avenue available to him. All right, thank you for that. Who is next? Mr. Steininger, go ahead. Yes, I rose my hand to object, but I'll say that Mr. Kelly spoke to it far more eloquently.

I think there, you know, if there's a desire to give back to the community and take, you know, some personal financial loss to help make up for the revenue situation the community faces. There are ways to do that. Any private citizen can, you know, provide money to the city, and I don't feel like this necessarily is the right avenue to do so for a lot of the reasons that Mr. Kelly brought up. It also puts others in an awkward position if they feel that they need that stipend in order to make ends meet in their own lives. You know, it, it creates an expectation.

Expectation of, you know, who's going to raise their hand and say, I need that $12,000, or I don't, you know, by, you know, one-off individually, you know, in a public forum, putting forward motions to do so. It puts a lot of pressure on others that may need that stipend. And for the points that Mr. Kelly brought, you know, could put pressure on future assembly members as well. In a way that I don't think is constructive or productive to the democratic process and to attracting people to join this body and sacrifice their time, their lives, their hours to trying to work through the very difficult, challenging decisions that we have to make decisions on. And so I can't support this.

Ms. Wall, and then Ms. Agassiz, do you have your hand up? Okay. As well, um, thank you, Madam Mayor. I think Mr. Steininger, um, spoke to my points well, um.

Mr. Brooks can make this choice in private, um, to save the city money by not taking his stipend or by donating it to the city or to charity. Um, but I think when you put it out there publicly, it does make, um, it's, uh, a precedent that people who, um, want to serve, um, that stipend may make a difference. I am not planning on running, um, in November for a third term, and I have been working very, very hard to try to find someone to fill my seat. And, um, nobody wants this job. Not many people.

Um, and I do talk to people who do, but they have kids and they don't know what they're gonna do for childcare, or they have a job that is hourly and they don't want to sacrifice— they can't sacrifice that, um, time lost.

To do this job. And so I think the stipend is a small way that we can help folks like that serve in this role to have better representation.

And I think Mr. Brooks's objective can still, can still be met without us altering the budget to reduce that stipend. Thank you. Uh, thank you for that. Anybody further? Mr.

Brooks. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just for clarification, this is specific to my personal stipend, not someone else's, even if they were to take office. It's for me, and if putting my name in there specifically would, uh, satisfy, that's fine. And it's just for one fiscal year, not perpetually.

I'm not trying to ruin future assembly members. I'm just for this year, giving up my $12,000 and nothing more. Uh, thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to this? I'll.

I'll speak to it briefly. Uh, first, I'll object to the motion because even though you put your name on it, if something happened to you, then whoever took your seat would not have the money in our budget. Um, second, you mentioned the Capitol Civic Center in our CIP. Mr. Brooks, you mentioned the Capitol Civic Center and our CIP. I don't see it.

So you— could you tell me which page that's on for $60 million?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I, I only have the draft one here in front of me. It was discussed at our finance meeting when I was actually—. When you It's in your packet right there.

I have a little trouble with some of the numbers you're— we're talking about, and that's in particular, I have trouble with that one. When we, um, had the finance meeting where we moved it forward, I was asking if— and I can reference the minutes on it— but I was asking if it's— if we're bound to every project in the list because it did have the Civic Center for $60 million under a future.

Expenditure bracket, uh, bracket. But, uh, I will find it, uh, while we're— all right, voting on this. That sounds good. So, uh, in the meantime, doesn't look like anybody wants to speak. Madam Clerk, we have an amendment and objection.

Please call the roll. Thank you, Madam Mayor. For Mr. Brooks' amendment to Ordinance 2026-01 lowercase b to reduce $12,000 in assembly member expenditures, specifically Deleting Mr. Brooks' stipend for fiscal year FY 2027. Mr. Brooks? Yes.

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

Miss Wall? No. Miss Adkisson? No. Miss Hall?

Nope. Miss Hughes-Candies? Yes. Deputy Mayor Smith? No.

Madam Mayor, no. Motion fails with 7 nays and 2 yeas.

Okay, with that, we're back to the main motion. Mr. Brooks. I'll object for the purpose of a comment and then remove the objection. Um, so I'm just going to donate that amount to the city, and now we'll use city resources that'll be issuing me checks, and we'll be spending more money. Just wanted to put that out there.

Uh, so we have a motion. Any objections? Ms. Wall—. Hall, sorry. And I would— so again, we're back to the main motion, correct?

Correct. Yeah, so I'd like to, uh, object for the purpose of an amendment. I move to allocate an additional $261,000 in.

Recurring general funds to the City Museum and ask for unanimous consent. And I would like to speak to my motion. Uh, go ahead. Yeah, so again, like so many of our experts on running museums have testified and shared with us, once you cut these positions, it's not as if we're just pausing it for one year and then seeing how how the revenues shake out, you would lose incredible knowledge. And having lived through budget cuts at the school district and laying off staff, it's so hard to get the staff back.

And in these positions, they're very technical, a great deal of expertise. So, um, very short-sighted to do that. Um, also, with our budget has so many moving pieces, um, potential, a couple ballot measures coming up this fall. We've had the disaster declaration for the snow, snowpocalypse this year. That money, you know, it's been allocated.

Been spent, you know, the, the plow drivers have been paid, but, um, you know, insurance hasn't determined how much they will reimburse us. And then because it was a disaster, the state will ultimately be paying what the insurance doesn't. So, you know, again, there's many moving pieces out here that may take a few years to get that money, but nonetheless, it will be coming back.

Um, yeah, again, I believe I read someplace that $85,000 of revenue from the museum. That will go down to zero, including sales tax that they're collecting at the City Museum. This was not really part of— it came kind of late in the game, this cut, and I do feel like it is disproportionately affecting this one institution, and I think our.

History is too vital to, to shutter the doors, especially at this point in our nation's history when that is happening in so many places in so many ways. So, um, again, that's what— and I believe Mr. Kelly may have an amendment to my amendment. Uh, thank you for that. So, um, So your motion is to completely fund the museum with your source's general funds? Correct.

All right, Mr. Kelly, do you have an objection? Objection. For the purposes of amendment, I move to amend this funding allocation, designate that the funds be one-time FY27 funds taken from the Lemon Creek Multimodal CIP. And ask for unanimous consent. Could you state that again, please?

I move to amend this funding allocation to designate that the funds be one-time FY27 funds.

Taken from the Lemon Creek Multimodal CIP. I can speak to my motion. Certainly. Thank you. In the past, I have put a lot of support for the Lemon Creek Multimodal CIP.

This is not a fund that I— that I take lightly in defunding. Um, however, I kind of look at the impacts of what defunding this for until things get better versus defunding the museum until maybe our revenue picture changes. If our revenue picture changes at all next year, all the work that we put in, um, that Ms. Ball was saying that we were going to put in for the next year, uh, the possibility of citizens initiatives that might.

Change our position a little bit, we might be in a position where we can afford to fund the museum through general fund. But if we let go of these highly qualified positions, we're, we're in a position where it might be difficult to hire these people back. It won't be as simple as just putting the money back into the, the funding of the City Museum. However, if we are in a better financial position in a year, It will not have impacted anything to have to put that money back in. Then the project is not slated to have any action in this year.

So I see this as a temporary measure to— with low impacts and with a much lower impact of defunding the museum.

Ask for unanimous consent. There's no need to do that because you're not going to get it.

So why bother? Um, anyway, uh, thank you for coming up with a different funding source than general fund. Um, and then we'll hear from people that may or may not agree with that. Uh, any objection to that motion? Ms. Houskandis.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm gonna have objections throughout this, but I will start with that change of funding source. You know, we in the Finance Committee, we went over all of those items that we had taken out of the CIP and had moved to the pending list, and the Lemon Creek Multi-Modal Path was one of them. And we talked about the merits, or lack thereof, of that project there on that evening. So I don't— I won't necessarily restate all of the same arguments I made that evening, but at the heart of this, there's two.

2 Things going on, and I'll start with this project specifically. It is such a poor decision, in my opinion, to look to Lemon Creek and habitually, and to look to this project habitually, which we did this last year. We already defunded the year before. So when we say, oh, and if situation changes magically, we'll go back and we'll put money back in. You've already taken a year of funding out.

And I feel like we fought kind of tooth and nail with one another in good spirits, as we always do, to decide whether to fund it this year. So I agree that the effects are more invisible at this moment in time, but they are far-reaching. When you, when you make the decision not to put funding into a specific area, you can just starve one area of town of municipal funding. And if there's nothing happening over there right now anyway, I agree, it's— it feels like the more painless choice.

But what we're doing is making sure that nothing improves, that that project does not go forward. So, to the merits of that project, I would say we— and we are not going to get forward if there is not clear consensus that we want to fund this project and we want staff to work on this project and we want to see something happen in this area. Um, and I think when it's thought of as this go-to piggy bank, then that doesn't happen. Uh, so I really— I, I don't agree with this as a funding source. The second part is not on the merits of that project itself, but it's about looking to CIP for funding.

The CIP is where we have looked to the funding for funding this budget the most already. The only way we have a positive fund balance right now is by cannibalizing the CIP And again, if that's something we knew we were going to.

To do at the outset. Well, we could have all had many Wednesday evenings off, and, you know, not gone over the, the hard stresses of looking at the, the counts of who uses our different municipal facilities and, and hear people talk about what it means to them specifically. The whole point, uh, sort of, I thought at the outset of this was that we're going to take some from CIP, some from operating cuts, some from asking staff to make operational changes in, in the way they account for things. And so I think this makes this an easy choice, but it's not really an easy choice. It's just like a sort of kick the can down the road choice.

It's that we can rate it now because there's money in the CIP now, and we've actually already rated it. We've already rated it many times this year.

So we're hollowing it out from underneath, and when that collapses, it's going to be a lot more expensive in the end.

So I'll speak to the First Amendment, Ms. Hall's amendment in a moment, but that's what I have to say to the amendment to the amendment.

Any— Mr. Steininger? I'll speak in support of the amendment to the amendment. For 2 reasons. First, it makes this one-time funding, and while, you know, I don't think it's great to do operating costs on one-time funding, that's not kind of what I'm advocating for here, but I think it's more honest to make this one-time funding because if things do not change in our revenue picture, if things don't change come October, if, if we are still facing these significant reduction in year-over-year operating revenue. Every city service should be kind of thought of as one time every year, because we're gonna have to make really big.

Reductions next year. And I don't want to see this funding put back in in a way that gives a false promise to all of the people who just spoke very passionately about their support of the museum, you know. And I, I don't want to scare them either. That's not, that's not the intention here. But the intention is, you know, we need to acknowledge that if big things don't change, all of these small nice things that we have in Juneau are very seriously threatened right now.

That's a hard conversation we've been having for months now. Um, the second piece, and that I'll speak in support of, um, is a fund source. And then reluctantly, I reluctantly voted in favor of pulling that out of the CIP. I'm going to reluctantly vote in favor of using some of that funding here as well. And, and the reason being is that there is no you know, concrete action to be taken on this project in the next fiscal year.

I understand fully that we need to put away money for this project.

Project until we're able to pay for it, until we're able to execute it, until we can find that state or federal grant that makes it happen. I think it's a great project. It increases the safety of those that are biking through Lemon Creek, whether it's, you know, commuters moving from the Valley to downtown, or people just using that area to recreate. That's a very dangerous part of town. If you ride a bike, it is not fun going through Lemon Creek.

So I fully understand the project. I really like this project, but given there's nothing to be done on the project this year, that money will sit in a bank account earning interest, which is great, but it's in a bank account not being spent on something that benefits Juneauites. I think this is an appropriate compromise to make something happen here. And so I, you know, thank you for putting forward this amendment to the amendment, and I'll be supporting it.

Go ahead, Miss Hall. Yeah, I'll speak briefly in support, just to.

To, um, speak to what Miss Huskandies, um, you know, back when we did discuss it previously, we had not heard from the museum community. And so that's, that's what has changed this time around. Thank you. All right, we have Mr. Smith. Never mind.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, appreciate creativity and how to— how to get through this. I'll oppose the amendment. I think it— yes, it's a small portion of the project, and yes, the project is, you know, years away. I'm opposed to it for the principle of using one-time money to pay for a recurring expense.

Um, and I think that lulls us into a sense of, oh, we don't have to make significant changes, and we will if we do.

We do not have more revenue. Um, I'll speak to more on the, you know, big picture and then in the number of cuts we looked at. Um, you know, the museum— anyway, I'll speak to that later. But just on the principle of, um, using one-time funds to fund recurring items, which is just not a good idea, um, I will oppose the amendment. Thank you.

All right, we have an amendment to an amendment. And we have objection. Uh, Madam Clerk, will you, um, state our amendment to the amendment, make sure everybody knows what they're voting on? Thank you, Madam Mayor. For Mr. Kelly's amendment to amend the funding allocation to designate that the funds be one-time FY27 funds taken from the Lemon Creek Multimodal CIP.

Mr. Kelly? Yes. Ms. Hughes-Candies? No. Deputy Mayor Smith?

No.

No. Miss Wall? No. Miss Adkisson? No.

Mr. Steininger? Yes. Miss Hall? Yes. Mr. Brooks?

Yes. Madam Mayor? No. Motion fails with 5 nays and 4 nays.

5 Nays and 4 yeas. There you go. So that brings us back to the amendment. Uh, would you restate the amendment?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. For the Miss Hall's amendment to allocate additional funds, $261,000 in recurring general funds to the City Museum and to the City Museum. Ms. Hall.

Um, wait, we're— we weren't going to vote yet. I just wanted you to restate that. Um, any objection to the amendment? Uh, Ms. Huskandies and then Ms. Wall. Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor.

I will object to this amendment. I appreciate what, um, the makers of the amendment are trying to do here. We have heard, uh, loud and clear from the community the support that there is for the City Museum. We received lots of feedback, uh, both email and written, uh, also expressing strong support for the City Museum. And, uh, to the folks whose emails, as I worked through them, I started my responses with, I also love the City Museum.

I agree with everything you said about the value it provides. The reason that I'm going to object to this amendment.

Is because the balance to that is that my job in this capacity is that I have to make— be a good steward to the city's finances. And that, unfortunately, this year has been an unhappy task of responding to a real projected revenue shortage and real actual revenue data being taken in. What that means is that, as I just referenced, we, at the assembly retreat, our approach to the budget was that our, our task that we set for ourselves as a body, that was that we would need to make a $2 million, uh, $2 million reduction in operating services. So not one-time cuts, um, taking.

Small bites where we could, but a real reduction in operating services. And the City Museum is one of the only ones that you see represented here. If it seems like it's disproportionate, it's because the Assembly didn't do a great job in that task, which only increases the need to support this cut. Because we didn't make as large a cut as we could in other areas. As a citizen who lives here, I value all of the services that the city provides.

I am more excited by the idea of finding revenue that would allow us to not make any of these cuts. And you saw we started the evening with some of those tax ordinances. Those ordinances did not pass. Those ordinances did not go the way I wanted. And then my job, whether I like it or not, is to make the budget balance and to look.

Ahead to future budgets and future assemblies and think about all of the needs of the community and all of the projected, uh, those things that we anticipate that are coming up, like the flood, um, like a lot of things. And it means that there have to be real reductions. And so for all of those reasons, uh, I can't support making this refunding this because it was a real cut that needed to— that goes with all of the other cuts and all the other reductions. And no one member of the Nine got all the things that we wanted out of the budget season. You know, I wanted higher reductions in other places, and, you know, I know that some of the high reductions I wanted in some places, people are upset that we got as high a reduction as we did.

In the budget, um, but I, I have to vote no on this amendment.

Because, uh, I'm looking at the highlighted number here and I know how we got to it, and it's just not a number that I can see go down.

Any other objection? Ms. Wall, I think you had your hand up. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think Ms. Huskendy spoke to, to my— any of my points, and, and I made some of them when we started this conversation in terms of our fiscal position. Again, I, I, I don't— I, I don't want to make this cut.

I don't— I believe everything everyone said about what the impact will be long-term for the museum, even if we, you know, want to live in a world where we get to bring the city museum back. You know, the same thing's going to happen with Travel Juno and JUDC and Eagle Crest. They are going to suffer for the cuts that we, um, are right now planning on making to them, and it.

It's not the world that I want to live in.

And but our fund balance right now is one bad sales tax quarter away from having no funds to deal with our operating expenses, let alone a major natural disaster or other disaster. And we live in an uncertain world, and that's what our fund balance is for. Is to make sure we can weather that uncertainty that we expect. Um, and, uh, it's— now it's, you know, it's $400,000 less than it was when we— than I thought it was going to be when we started this conversation tonight. And so I can't entertain, um, increasing it even more, um, this evening.

Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else? Ms. Paul?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, yes, this is going to be a recurring expense if we vote to add it back in, but so are the pools and the ice arena and, you know, so many other programs that we didn't fully fund. And I would like to see us spread that around a little bit next year should we be in this same position again. The one thing we didn't account for is the change we did make to the cap, which not just doubled, but, you know, went to $50,000. So, and there's a big zero for the estimated amount that will bring in.

We don't know, but it's not going to be nothing. And so for those reasons, I think we should, you know, our projected ending fund balance right now is around the $3 million, $3.5 million.

, And, um, I would like us to, uh, protect this gem of our community and, and recognize that opening it back up next year is not going to be so simple if we lose these two key positions. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Mr. Brooks, then Mr.

Smith. Thank you, Madam Mayor. It's just a point of context to lend to Assemblymember Wall there, or Hall, sorry. Um, one of the mines said that the doubling of the one-time exemption would be a difference of $200,000 to $300,000 just in what they pay. One mine, that was for from $14,000 to $30,000, but we went to $50,000.

So, there is going to be a, a pretty decent chunk coming from that industry, I believe.

Um, Mr. Smith, and then— oh, Miss— well, have you spoken yet? That's why I went to you. I don't think you've spoken on this.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, there is no doubt that the cuts and reductions that we have made and have proposed to make, of which there were at least 34, probably more added after, have impacts. And that's just the reality of having less revenue to fund, and less recurring revenue, I will say, to fund recurring expenses. Um, we move forward 10 of that 34, um, and people will notice many, if not all of them, people will.

Lose their jobs, even if this amendment passes. Services will be reduced. Marketing efforts for Juneau to visitors will be reduced. I mean, there are just— there's just no— we didn't find just the fact that we cut that doesn't have any impact. Like, that just isn't there.

The manager made significant cuts. We looked And it's just the reality that we're in, and we are far from closing the gap of reduction in recurring revenue and what we need to fund the services that we do and do well.

It pains me to do it, and I— but it's the reality that we are in. We're not closing the museum. I completely understand the significant impact.

Impacts to the long-term impacts of, you know, of these positions should we make this reduction.

So I regret to do it, but I will vote against this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Thank you. I think I've heard a few things in in our discussion that I kind of wanted to bring up some counterpoints. I agree with Ms. Wall that it is concerning that we have a pretty low fund balance as the budget is currently written.

I— but that's also not the end of the story. Next month we're going to be voting on additional revenue items. We also put forward the sale of Mount Jimbojim. Um, that would add potentially another $2.25 million to our fund balance, even though that's something that's not budgeted.

And while we have missed our target with making cuts, I think we— it's my understanding that we have exceeded our, our target, or we have at least hit our target of finding recurring revenues. And so I think with the revenues that we have found, even if we took away this, this a little over $200,000 that we're proposing to, to put back into the budget, we would still exceed the initial goal of $2 million in revenues that we, we set out, um, set out to gain. So I think, I think it's important to consider we're not just kicking the can down the road. We have found a recurring revenue source that does help. The fund balance might be concerning, but it's not the end of the story.

We are looking— there are opportunities to gain more revenue, um, and.

So with that, I will be supporting Ms. Hall's motion.

Thank you for that. Um, Ms. Atkinson, you've been quiet. Do you want to speak? Okay, sounds good. Um, I guess I haven't talked unless you want to talk, because you're not going to talk after me.

We're going to vote. Do you want to say one last word? I just wanted to get clarity on this funding level.

Keeps the museum open to the public. I understand it is a reduced level, but maybe I'm— well, maybe I'm asking because I'm not— I just want to get verification.

Folks, if you guys can't keep quiet in the audience, we're going to have to clear you guys. That's not the time to be saying that. We're asking staff a question. And just for the record, I have— I'm aware, but I'd like to hear it so everyone— anyway, we can hear.

From the experts on the impacts. Thank you. At this level of funding reduction, the museum would not be entirely closed to the public. Hours would be reduced, but there would still be some public hours.

All right, I'm struggling with this because, as Ms. Wall said in her beginning statement, that The city manager and the finance director did their job, and they cut over $4 million out of the budget. We gave ourselves the task of cutting $2 million out of the budget, plus finding revenue of $2 million. We did not cut $2 million out of our budget. We barely scraped by with $1 million, and then we added a bunch of other things. So I would guess the net result's probably about $200,000.

Just doing the math. And yes, I see that there is some revenue coming down the pike, but it's not going to start till October 1st. And we also know there's going to be some impact.

Tax on that revenue because people probably are going to buy a little bit less. So we unfortunately didn't do our job. So I'm struggling with this. I like the museum, but, um, struggling with this one quite a bit. So anyway, um, but the key thing is we didn't do our job, guys.

We should have cut more in other places too. Um, anyway, with that happy thought Um, Madam Clerk, we have an amendment and we have an objection. Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Madam Mayor. For Miss Hall's amendment to allocate an additional $261,000 in recurring general funds to the city museum.

Miss Hall? Yes. Miss Huskanes? No. Miss Wall?

No. Mr. Steininger? Yes.

Ms. Adkinson? No. Mr. Kelly? Yes. Deputy Mayor Smith?

No. Mr. Brooks? Yes. Madam Mayor? No.

Motion fails with 4 yeas and 5 nays.

Any other amendments? Miss Scandies. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mayor, I would move to amend the ordinance in Section, uh, on page 2 of the ordinance, special revenue funds in marine passenger fees. And my motion would be to— the overall amendment will be for a total amount of $360,000.

And the motion would be to zero out the amount that is going to the AJ doc and the Franklin doc for.

The security and restroom costs and move those marine passenger fees into the seawalk expansion CIP. And I can speak to that if you like. Um, go ahead. Uh, thank you. So I wasn't here when we acted on marine passenger fees, and I was very surprised when I was reviewing the work of the committee on the, um, meetings at that I missed because I was at that one and stepped out, uh, had to partway through, that the funds were added back in for the private docks because we had spent basically a year-long process with adjusting our dockage rates, uh, and part of that, the intention was always to, when we got to that point, move forward.

With us paying for ours and them paying for theirs. And that was always the intent, and it was something that we had worked on. Um, I fundamentally— and I think it's backed by the feedback we get from the community— but I fundamentally try to look at the allocation of our marine passenger fees as going for maximum value to things that are benefiting Juneau residents. Uh, and I I don't see how funding these private docs, which are charging rates which allow them to pay for their own restroom cleaning and their own security contract expenses, why they need the city funds to do it. So that is my amendment.

Any objection?

Ms. Hall and then Mr. Brooks. Ms. Hall, sorry. Yeah, I, I've.

A little weary. Yeah, I, I think we, the public uses the bathrooms just like we use the seawalk. So I don't see a problem with using marine passenger funding for this purpose. Okay, and Mr. Brooks.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And then in a similar vein to that, there is a lot of residential traffic on those docks. Um, you know, having the security, the crosswalks, the bathrooms available, it's not a sole— solely private interest. And the economic activity that they bring to the community is pretty substantial too, compared to the economic activity the seawalk would bring to the community. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.

Ms. Wall, and then Mr. Smith. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, I'll speak in support of this amendment.

And you all know, I, I didn't appreciate this change when, when we made it the first time. I don't, I don't think anyone is doubting that this isn't an important thing that we have that our residents and our passengers need and use. The, the real issue is, is who pays for it. Right now we have enough dockage fees to pay for our restrooms. And we know that the private dock owners also have enough dockage fees to pay for the restrooms.

And so that was, that was the theory behind why we went through the long effort of raising our dockage fees so that we could do that. I think this budget process has, you know, re-cemented what I, what I already know to be true, that when people look up here at the decisions we're making, They do not understand why we are not getting more benefit from the.

Industry, and I appreciate those of you who have been on the opposite side of me on this one. I understand your theory about why this is a good expenditure. They do not. They see this as a, a perfect example of how the city is not maximizing the value of the industry. For the everyday person.

Thank you. Uh, thank you. Um, Mr. Smith. Thanks, Madam Mayor. We've debated this numerous times, um, and I'm not going to bring up all the, the debate and the legal memo and other things about it, so, um, Hopefully don't keep renegotiating or bringing up everything we didn't disagree with that happened earlier, but I'll oppose.

Thanks. Uh, thank you, sir.

Communications from the 2 private docs that there would be a lawsuit should we make this change. I will tell you that is purely hearsay. I have not received a letter. I haven't received any actual notice of a lawsuit. I think that there were some communications that were going on throughout, throughout the community indicating they may do that.

When I looked back at what the reasoning might be for that, when we had the CLEA lawsuit, um, one of the things that then City Manager Rory Watt negotiated was he looked at all of the things that we had been doing with marine passenger fees, and those were included in the settlement. So it very explicitly does say in the settlement that we.

May use marine passenger fees to fund private docks, security, etc., etc., in addition to all of the other things that we all want to fund. But it was called out as one of the acceptable expenditures, and historically we use those funds and we have continued to use them since lawsuit, and I think Ms. Pierce has indicated, and you have indicated that perhaps it is time to relook at the CLIA settlement and have a conversation about what better reflects our needs and CLIA's needs there. But that is the only thing I can come up with as to where it came from. There have been indications that a lawsuit would be filed. Okay, thank you for that.

Ms. Huskanies, I'm coming back to you.

Oh, thank you. Well, I'll use you coming back to me to ask a follow-up question to that. When you say there have been indications but also that we haven't received anything, I'm wondering how you're defining indications. My understanding is, is that members of the two DOCs have communicated with some assembly members and maybe some staff, Ms. Pierce and others, that, uh, that they would file a lawsuit. Nobody has directly said anything to me, nor have they sent anything to me.

Thank you, Ms. Wall. Thank you, Mayor Weldon. I'll follow up on that line of questions. You know, we know anyone could sue us at any time for anything. The, the more important question is, you know, what, what's the risk of us losing?

And, you know, what What kind of risk are we talking? Um, thank you. So in general, the risk, um, on dockage fees and.

And marine passenger fees is that those fees are meant to benefit the vessel. That is what the current law, that is what the Constitution says, right? We all have done the tonnage clause homework. We've written many memos on it. We have a ruling by Judge Holland saying that these fees are meant to benefit the vessel.

We then had the settlement saying neither CLIA or CPJ likes that, so we're going to expand it. The risk is that you would get a lawsuit with a judge saying that money has to go to support the vessel on everything. So, so the risk is we CPJ would lose the expansive settlement that we have that allows us to have marine passenger fees used for more things. Klea, AG Doc, Franklin Doc, they also have that risk because they like the settlement that we've come to. So we, we.

Fundamentally have similar risks. Okay, and I'll object for purpose of a question since we're discussing risks and marine passenger fees. What if we use some of those marine passenger fees for the City Museum?

So I have not looked specifically at the marine passenger fees, um, where the— how the museum would fall into that. I, I think that That absolutely should be part of the conversation if we renegotiate, but I believe it's outside of Zone A or Zone B, which really was a lot of the negotiated agreement. Those are clear— those are clearer issues, but it certainly is something that would be very beneficial to talk about. But I've put Ms. Pierce on that. Ms.

Hall? Yeah, actually, that was a question Paul and I asked today, reached out to Ms. Pierce and caught her at the airport, and she said that it can't be.

Used for city-owned attractions. It needs to be for passenger services, unfortunately. So anyway, and I see this as being perhaps— I'm looking at the hospital and thinking, you know, that's an area that I would like to see increased support from the cruise industry. And I see this as buying a little goodwill, maybe a little give and take to maybe get where we need to go on something that really is going to benefit the cruise community as well as relieve a little bit of the burden on our local people.

All right, so I'm going to bring us around. So we have a motion and we have objection. Madam Clerk, will you call roll?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. For Ms. Hughes Scandies' amendment to amend the Special Revenue Funds Marine Passenger Fees for a total amount of $360,000 and to zero out the amount that is going to the AJ Dock and the Franklin Dock for the security and restroom costs, and to move the Marine Passenger Fees into the Seawalk Expansion CIP. Ms. Hughes Scandies? Yes.

Ms. Hall? No. Mr. Brooks? No. Mr. Steininger?

No. Miss Adkisson? Yes. Mr. Kelly? Yes.

Miss Wall? Yes. Deputy Mayor Smith? No. Madam Mayor?

No. Motion fails with 4 yeas and 5 nays. Okay, we're back. Well, before we go there, um, folks, we have to make.

Make it through at least Item 11. Um, so Mr. Smith, can I have an extension motion? Thank you, Madam Mayor. I move that we extend the meeting until 10:30 and ask unanimous consent. Any objection?

Seeing none, we are extending till 10:30. Um, so we are back to the main motion as amended. I think we've amended it. Um, any further objections?

Seeing none, that motion passes.

We're, we're through all the amendments, right? We're back to the main— okay, just making sure. Okay, item number 6. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ordinance 2026-03, an ordinance establishing the rate of levy for property taxes for calendar year 2026 based upon the proposed budget for fiscal year 2025.

2027.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Manager, thank you. This ordinance sets the mill rate.

At 9.29. This is a reduction in point of 0.32 mills from the FY26 adopted budget. Uh, this decrease comes from a reduction in area-wide of 0.16 and a reduction in debt service of 0.16. If you recall, the citizen initiative that passed capped the mill rate at 9 mills exclusive of debt. Um, exclusive of debt service.

I recommend the assembly take public testimony and adopt this ordinance. Uh, thank you, Madam Manager. I don't have anybody signed up for this ordinance, so we'll bring it back to the assembly. I think we're with you, Mr. Steininger. I move the assembly adopt Ordinance 2026-03 and ask for unanimous consent.

Any objection? Seeing none, that motion passes. Item 7, Madam Clerk.

For the record, public hearing item number 5, we did not have an amendment. Can we make that motion one more time for a public— thank you. So I couldn't remember if all the amendments got moved down. Okay, so we're going back to number 5. We have the main motion by our lovely finance chair.

Any objection? Seeing none, that motion passes. So now to Item 7, Madam Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Resolution 4044 lowercase b, a resolution adopting the City and Borough of Juneau Capital Improvement Program for fiscal years 2027 through 2032 and establishing the capital improvement project priorities for fiscal years 2027. I have nobody signed up for this, so we'll go to the assembly. Ms. Hall, I move resolution.

4044 Lowercase b and ask for unanimous consent. Any objection, Mr. Brooks? Thank you, Madam Mayor. And this, um, circles back a little bit to where we were earlier. We're, uh, going to adopt the CIP for 2027 through 2032, but we only have a list of the CIP for this year.

Where is the rest of it? Madam Manager, thank you. Uh, you are adopting the Capital Improvement Program, which is the planning document that you have before you. It's the booklet. Um, so that is like a forecasting document that we use for looking into the out years.

Think of it like a plan, but you're only appropriating the funds outlined in Resolution 4044B. Thank you.

Um, any objection? Are you removing your objection, Mr. Brooks? Remove my objection. All right, seeing no further objection, um, this capital improvement program passes. Item 8, Madam Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ordinance 2025-01, lowercase b, uppercase AM, an ordinance appropriating $18,015,000 to the manager for the Hesco Barriers additional phases capital improvement project.

Funding provided by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Clean Water Nonpoint Source Loan State Revolving Fund.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Madam Manager. Thank you. This ordinance appropriates a second tranche of funding that we are receiving from the Department of Environmental Conservation through their loan program. If you recall, that is a 50% forgivable loan based on our federal disaster declaration.

So we are essentially amending that loan from 7.8 million—.