CERAB Zoom Meeting June 14, 2025

Hello, Diana. It's Marie.

Can you hear us?

Um, oh, I can hear you.

Diana, can you hear me? Oh, there we go.

Hello. Good job, good job. All right, you're set. All right, yay! Did you get some chairs yet?

I can't hear you. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you now. Can you—. I got the camera to work.

So what I sh— what should I do with the camera? Just, just, uh, that's good right now. Oh wait, when— if I can see the speakers. There you are. Yeah, like the officers.

There we go. Okay, hold on. And then, so if you want to put some chairs like facing— oh, I think that's— hi, I think that's Debbie. Is that Debbie? Hi, Debbie.

Debbie, meet Diana. She's helping you all today. Diana, nice to meet you. Nice to meet you, Debbie. Uh, I won't shake your head because of the bad Okay, no worries.

With camera on? Let me just—. I didn't know what she said. Well, I'm worried we're gonna have very limited attendance. Very limited?

Okay. Yeah, I'm gonna put a few seats out though. Oh no, I can do that. I was just getting the camera set up, so you have a seat, or actually sign in and I can take care of this if you're not feeling well. Thank you.

Probably no more than 10 or 15, but it doesn't— looks like nobody's here yet.

Will this work, Debbie? I, I have no idea.

We'll get started here, but there's, uh, It's kind of like a hybrid of what we put together. There's a very first version copy, a second version, and a third. So if you're interested in background or you want to look at some of that, feel free to get up and take a look. We'll get started here. My name is Sean Murphy and I'm the chair on the CRAB, and we'll just go around the room real quick and introduce ourselves.

Debbie Osiander with the Van Kold from virtual. In Omegle River, uh, Jake Wierzdowski with the TN Community Council. Lee Hammermeister with Southport Community Council.

Chuck Goldman, president of Steel River Community Council.

Member of the community council. Tyler Beltz, uh, Chugiak resident. Oh, Matty, for the, um, in Chugiak, Tom Handeland, Southport Community Council. Teal Skyheller, the Clifton Hill Community Council.

This has kind of been a traditional open floor for some testimony, some feedback from anybody that wants to speak, and then we've got our business as a board to decide on a final resolution. So that's kind of our task today. Um, I, um, I'm gonna put you on the spot, Chuck, if you don't mind. If you want to introduce— do you want to talk about what you researched with road. We're talking about AO 20-2540S and AO 20-2552.

All right, you don't have to—. Yeah, I guess I really not totally up to speed on that, but basically the bottom line is that the developer doesn't necessarily have to do off-site development to the access to the development. We're —generally they've been required to make improvements to the existing road and sidewalks. Um, and but Carroll Creek, that's included in this resolution, uh, that is a Class 1 development, and staff has taken the position that Harry McDonald Road is already a public street, which it is clearly— is not a public street. Uh, and but they're not requiring the developer to do any major improvements here in McGowan Road.

I think, in my opinion, in violation of Title 21 as it's currently written. And, uh, but yeah, that is an example, like the staff taking the position that they are, uh, that's supposed to be developed as a Class 1 collector street with sidewalks and Development plan included upgrading here on Connell Road to a Class A-1 collector, and now the developer is not being required to do that, and he seems to have the support of our assembly members to do that, and he doesn't have the support of staff and I believe that whether with and without this ordinance or in violation of Title 21, because it says—. And that ordinance, if you know, Matt, if you can help me with the history of it, it came from, uh, LaFrance and, uh, Scott Myers. Yeah, the goal is to reduce the cost to the developer for improving infrastructure to the surrounding area.

Where, you know, to meet this goal of 10,000 homes and make it more affordable. But what they're doing is transferring that cost that's going to be needed onto the local taxpayers. And, you know, in the ordinance they do reference that there is bonding available, that they can bond and put that cost on the taxpayers. Where in Eagle River, Chugiak here, uh, we don't have the ability to bond. It comes right out of our property taxes.

And puts it on the back of the Subversa Road Improvement. And, you know, we have limited funds. We get very little to no money from the state and federal government that comes through the, um, capital improvement project, AMAS. None of the AMATS dollars, even though we make up a portion of AMATS, comes to our local roads. They do spend money on state highways, but as far as their local improvements, all that AMATS money goes into the Anchorage Bowl municipally owned roads.

So there's this. Thank you, Jim. I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but I know you got a lot of experience with that. Appreciate the background. Anybody want to add to that, Matt?

Yeah, you know, I, uh, I'm not for or against it, so I'm a little confused. I've been talking to both sides of this thing. I'd really like to see more clarification on it personally. But besides, uh, for the developers to redo those roads and all that, I hear their side. It makes sense.

I mean, you're building subdivision, you should pay for development of that subdivision. Then the other side, I'm talking to like Skyler Quinn, and he's like, yeah, we got to build this house here, but they want me to develop way over there and fix something for the city, which is like, I don't know why they would have you do that when it's not even in the area. But I'm personally confused about what this resolution truly is and what it's accomplishing. Now hopefully you guys can give us a better clarification on that because it's, uh, Uh, because I don't, you know, I don't want to go for it or against it. I don't— I'm not educated enough on it, right?

It'd be nice to get some clarification on that. Gotcha. And maybe not so great, make it black and white. No, I understand, because right now it's all gray with the city, right? You'll get a permit, everything's gray.

And that's— I've done that a bunch of times. I know it's gray. It'd be nice to have black and white. Yeah, I'll do that. But in the meantime, like, you know, the basis of So when I look at it, the basis is— did anybody come to the community councils when this ordinance was brought forward?

Anybody talk to anybody? No. So we're being left out of the loop. That's my biggest angst. So, um, so Debbie, are you able to give us a history of this resolution and what—.

It's kind of a shock to see it. We've been following the Carroll Creek development, and a lot of people from this community came and testified the Fort Flannery zoning, when that was approved, to say, hey, wait a minute, the road from the MAC Center up to Carroll Creek is not up to standard. And the developer— the requirements are you have to, right now, you have to improve it if it's immediately adjacent to the project you're doing, if it's access to the project you're doing. So I don't know why anybody would have to approve, have to do something way down the way. It's just to get into whatever you're doing.

Yeah, can I respond to that real quick? Okay, so I asked about that and then the feedback I got from the ones that are, you know, don't want that resolution for saying that that road's already on the list to be repaired anyway to get it up to code, whatever that means. It's a CSI— what's the initial? There's something wrong. What is it?

CIP. It's already on the CIP list. And so if it's already on the list, it's supposed to be done within 6 years. Why are you making developer yet. So I'm not saying I'm not for that, I'm just curious about that.

So, uh, we tax our own people to do our own streets and road maintenance, so we have our own CIP list for our own projects. What the developer has done is they've gone around us, essentially behind our back, CIP list, and they got it thrown on there completely bypassing our local public process in order to make it appear as though it's on a CIP list that's relative to this. Oh, so you like it. Even sounds better than that. So I'm not a firm believer in the CIP list.

So across the Anchorage Bowl, community councils are tasked every year to submit their CIP projects. But it was interesting to see this year to actually look at what percent of these projects are being passed. And the reality is none of these projects that are put on the CIP It is an illustrious list that can be used as, look, this is a priority with the community councils. So the different funding sources we have is from AMATS, TIP, the Transportation Improvement Program, and relatively we have been completely cut out of funding from the TIP. Why?

Because we don't have any low-income areas, which are the main focus of the scoring criteria for the TIP. So AMATS is a pass-through from the federal government for CIP dollars that basically come into the community. And because of that scoring criteria, we're not going to be receiving AMATS funding. So then we move to the state. So the state, as everyone's aware, is in a very dire fiscal situation right now.

We'd be lucky if we have some type of supplemental funding for Subversa I mean, it is not likely we are going to be receiving much funding from the state, and I'll just leave it at that. So the last is bonding. So our current structure is we have dedicated CIP funding through the mill rate. So we have one for operating and we have one for CIP. So the intent of that CIP funding is to invest and to maintain the existing infrastructure.

So I would come back to these developments. The infrastructure that accesses the development is a burden, but the question that solely relies on the, the AO, uh, on taking off-site developments and not making it the responsibility of developer— the real question is whose burden should it be? Should it be the people that own houses are penalized for owning houses, and that burden goes to them to pay for the new developments. Or when, uh, be it whatever land group is— so we have Heritage, I'm assuming it was Heritage Land Bank— I put out that section right there, and the developers put out bids for what they thought the cost of that development would be. So as part of that bid that they're putting in is bringing in the infrastructure to access these areas.

So I think it is disingenuous by this resolution saying that if we have specific projects that are nominated on CIP lists, that that means that there's intended plan to fund this project. That is not the case. We try to participate in Anchorage's plan to nominate projects that are important to this community. But the reality is these projects are not getting funded. The funding that we have is through our CIP from Subversa, which is the Chugiak-Virtuan Eagle River Rural Road Board service area.

So I would just like to highlight that I think the burden should be relied on the developer and ultimately the people that are buying those houses, as it is a built-in cost to that. It shouldn't be the penalty of the homeowners across the entire area, because I come back to the simple point: it is a burden. The question is, whose burden is it going to be? If you do a large development, you are going to have to bring up the road eventually to standards. So who is going to pay for that?

And why is that? Why? Yeah, that's the end— that's the question. It's great. So maybe Chuck will answer that.

Oh, so the value of the property— you got to draw a piece of land That's like Matt said, the developer looks at the total cost and municipal code says you got to do these off-site developments. Okay, well, ultimately that reduces the value of land, but that developer can pay for that. On the Carroll Creek project, the minimum bid on that was very minimal. The cost per home to purchase that land, because the Harry Schleinbeck knew what the cost of bringing that infrastructure into that development was, so they weren't asking a whole lot of money for that project. And the developer, like I said, knows what, you know, he's got to do to bring that up to standards.

And so that's, you know, anyways, that's a big chance. I'll play devil's advocate. Sure. For our CIP funding, I mean, we have a CIP list and we've been running it for years. I've been on the council since 2013.

We've got a lot of cool trails built on the side of our roads in our community. We've made improvements for our own roads, but the funding is not unlimited. Um, we went through the process with Heritage Land Bank on the specific parcel of Feral Creek, and it was our understanding that those costs for fixing that driveway, that access to the McDonald's and the school, is going to be the developers. It should not be carried by the city person. There's just not enough money there for it unless we increase our mill rates, which the residents just voted down to increasing the rates.

So we don't necessarily have money to fix the road unless we want to make it a priority to fix the road for houses that we didn't want there. Can I ask another question? For clarification, so the Carroll Creek and the other development have already been started. Would these AOs be retroactive then to deal with road improvements? So I'm just wondering if— or, Debbie, do you have an answer to that?

Absolutely, because it's already— they're built. Okay. Lake Creek, as of— yes. Okay. All right.

So I mean, they've had public meetings. People in my council are very worried about it. Um, the CIP is like a wish list. If you put it on a list, you also have to fund it or it's meaningless. And that's another thing I want to say is I have a copy of the ordinance here, and it was So y'all feel this resolution was made because of Carroll Creek?

Sure. I think that's a straight question. I just want to know. I would like to speak up. I've been to a couple meetings of this kind of topic before, and I feel like once again Anchorage Assembly is trying to overturn the the way that we run things out here as far as our land use.

That is what has really got my interest. As somebody who bought a piece of land on a dirt road, built their own house out of their pocket, pays taxes for 20-some-odd years, and so I'm on a paved road, I'm fighting to get my road upgraded.

I just keep seeing this overreach from Anchorage, the assembly majority, trying to impose what they think they should see the Anchorage Bowl, the way that it transforms, done out here. And I don't think that the majority of people out here want to see that happen. Well, I think you're right. I think that there's a well-meaning and definitely a need for housing in Anchorage, but when you're looking at it from the perspective of, I live in Anchorage, not in Chugiak-Gulu, I'm surprised it's not part of the last month's I'm sorry he's not here to hear this conversation. Um, that's a, that's a little more worrisome to me that I understand when somebody from downtown says we need to improve housing, we need to make it easier for redevelopment.

There's a lot of infill that could happen in downtown and Midtown. This may all very well be appropriate for the Bull. It's not appropriate for us as entitled, uh, Chapter 10. That's the part I'm a little worried about, is that there's this— there's a need they're trying to fill it, but they're not seeing the nuances of the different neighborhoods. And I would imagine Eric Wood is probably having the same conversation.

Um, so that, that said, I also think that the developer, if you're putting in water and sewer, if you're putting in electric, if you're putting in everything else, why wouldn't you also be developing access? That's just another piece of infrastructure that goes to add to the value of your development. Yes, you have to pass the cost along to the buyer, and that's it. But that's their call when they bid on some of these lands. I think it's important to realize I don't think this is in response to Carroll Creek.

What's really important to realize though is we probably have the most undeveloped land of any part of the bowl. I mean, there is Heardwood also, but what works for Anchorage doesn't, doesn't work for us at all, especially pocketbook-wise. And then when you look at property taxes there are exemptions for military, and not that there shouldn't be exemptions for seniors, but that really reduces that pot of money also that we have to take care of our everything else.

I'm a little confused about something, so I need some clarification. So if I'm not thinking right, that road, Parks and Rec Road, Is that correct? If I know about that. So how does that interfere with the whole situation? That was Parks and Rec, so I'm a little interested on that.

Matt, that road, like the Stella Blanca, like we talked about years ago, it was built for the schools and for the area. Right. It's not built as a big collector and the subsurface is failing on it, so it just, it needs an upgrade to a certain That's what I'm curious about. I feel like, you know, so yeah, as we were going through the therapy process, it, uh, it was understood that that was a driveway. Oh yeah.

And so I'll just speak in facts and you can make your own assumptions. And so Matt made the question Was there any personal, uh, do you think it was targeted potentially with that area? And having Scott co-sign that, maybe he didn't understand the implications, but I will call it out that he specifically recused himself from a recent conversation because he is representing the developer above Carroll Creek over there, and he is co-signing a resolution that will specifically advance the developer's needs for that area. So I am going to call it out. So I do think there is some special interest.

So he is representing the developer? Yes. Yes. Well, he refused himself and he said he is— I, it was at the Eagle River Community Council, so I refer to someone that was specifically there, but he has some level of representation with working with the developer. But just for the record, I haven't heard builders for the last 35, 40 years imploring complain about this scenario.

You know, I know Carroll Creek's probably getting tightened, right? I've heard developers constantly complain about this. Oh, they're making me put this in over here and I shouldn't even have to do it, that's not my area. I mean, that's something I've heard over the years, right? Constantly from different developers and builders.

So that's why I was kind of curious, just how far has this thing really gone? And just really confused, but it sounds like this is a Carroll Creek thing. As a local realtor in our community and a lifelong resident, I would say that the lack of affordable housing is a huge problem in the entire Cambridge Ward, including specifically Chugiak/Eagle River. And so while this resolution may or may not be specific for Carroll Creek, I do think that there needs to be be a solution to the lack of affordable housing for especially young families, any sort of starter home in our community. And while it's a beautiful thing to put the burden— because I do agree it is a burden on— to develop land, and when we put it only on one party, we don't solve the problem that a lack of housing is hindering our economy.

With that being said, I think that we have done a disservice to ourselves by not updating our comprehensive plan in a timely manner, because I do think that it needs to be— you know, I completely agree that it needs to be updated. And I would ask, what are we doing to facilitate that happening in a timely manner so that it gets done, so that we can respond to these resolutions with an active and current document supporting, protecting where our community is yet and where it wants to go.

Anybody else? Question: In the interest of updating where this— these resolutions, where do they stand now? Introduced in—. Passed— I'm sorry, approved, passed. Approved and passed.

The resolutions, the ordinances are approved and passed. Is that what you asked? Yeah, I just want to know exactly where they're at. Yeah, no, they're approved, voted on, and passed by the mayor's assembly. And here's one of the— There's that automatic reconsideration process too, that the 3 levels.

I don't know about that. So it's possible that they're not signed. Possible, but I think you would have heard about it. Anybody else? I have questions, if it's appropriate for me to read them out.

These are specifically with regard to you, Ernesto. So the first— and I guess I'll just list them all and then I think we can decide how to deal with them. My first question is, it seems to me that 2025-40-S directly conflicts with Chapter 10 of Title 21, and I am curious, what is the, uh, what's the legal nature of, or how is that kind of conflict resolved?

Or vice versa, is it later in time, uh, take precedence, or earlier in time? Take all of those things. I assume that the charter lists rules for that. If the charter doesn't, the assembly must have procedural rules for it. I'm looking at Crystal because what's happened in my past experiences, it'll only come up as a court case in the assembly room.

Chooses it, or if a group of citizens come together and go together and plead for their community consideration. There's no automatic viewing of conflicts. So then what happens when a conflict actually has parties on both sides, people who agree with both sides? The assembly rules are—.

I mean, I think so. Like you said, the only method is to take it all to court. How do you take it to court? That's what I'm driving at. How does it get to court?

I can't just sue the city, right? Hire an attorney. Sue the municipality. Yes.

We have all the attorneys in our pockets.

Okay, so that was my first question. I think we agreed that there's an actual conflict. I didn't hear anybody disagree with that. Um, and so we can take the position, at least in a declaratory sense, that the ordinance is unenforceable because of that conflict.

Because what's happened is when there's been requests from— I know Matt and Chuck both have asked, why does this apply to municipal engineer, right? And you said— and they said no, there's no reply. Isn't that what you were told? Or nothing for us?

Well, I think actually even staff, uh, some person staff, Tony, uh, said it question in, how does this affect us, and do we just subversively need to remove all of our projects off our CIP and not have a CIP list? Yeah, so, um, you know, so yeah, it affects us. Well, then you're talking about 52, right? Not 40. Yeah, they've taken a position that they're not required to.

Chuck's done a great job at arguing and specifically calling out Chapter 10, but Paul LaFrance, I don't know his relationship, he's been the, one of the planner, is he a planner, Chuck? Yeah. He's been quite adamant. Yeah, that the municipality is not responsible. The only portion development needs to upgrade is a culvert.

Going into—. Wait, I don't— I'm looking for legal responsibility for legal conflicts here. Is the municipality responsible for conflicts in its own code? The municipality is responsible for following its own code, but they need somebody to kick them in the rear or push them sometimes to make it happen. And then I would advocate that we do that in pretty forceful language.

And if somebody's gonna have to do it in forceful language, or we just give up, do we even have a Chapter 10? Matt? Absolutely, we do have a Chapter 10. So what I would say, my point is, I think our assembly members need to push for an amendment to exclude Chugiak/Eagle River from both of these ordinances. And by our community taking a position of, this is the position that we're backing, uh, and keeping pressure and making clear signals to our representatives, I think that would be the best outcome possible, is moving forward with exemptions for Juliette.

Okay, and I'll just advocate that that has to be part of the position, that, that we should not allow these statute. Well, yeah, the statutory context. Okay, we'll get to verbiage, we will get to that. Okay, I'm taking testimony and questions right now, and I have some more if you bear with me. Okay, I'll give that to you.

Actually, never mind, I'm going to stop and I'll raise that. Okay, discuss the resolution. In reading about the 40,000 It is to deal with the rezoning. And what exactly did they resolve? They haven't done any of that yet.

What is that? I don't— Debbie? It was an ordinance that was passed to allow greater flexibility for the assembly-initiated or municipal staff-initiated rezoning. The reason it caught my eye is all the language is about Cambridge Comp Plan, and that the rezoning has to be in accord with Cambridge Comp Plan, and it is absolutely silent that another— that other comp plans even exist. So it basically creates an expedited additional way to rezone property, but it omits the required public meeting that now you have Yeah, limits who can testify and appeal on the rezoning.

And because of the way they outlined it, it's questionable if we would be notified as CIRA. It would only be the people inside the rezoned areas that could appeal it, or as I read it, And I had a copy of that here too, if anybody wants to— Is this in regard to multiple dwelling buildings, or— I think what's happened is this is about that same building more affordable housing and trying to make their— they've got another one just coming to make transit-supporting communities, and so they've got a map there. They want to allow increased density within certain areas within Hageridge. And so rather than go through the somewhat lengthy process for a rezone, they're trying to say here's another way you can do it, and it's quicker and it doesn't require as much talk to the community.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. No, that's all right. My main argument is when I read it, I said what the heck, where is Chugachio River here? All— every bit of language is— the requirement is the rezone has to be in accordance with the Anchorage Comp Plan. Why not out here?

Well, that is the benefit. The point of my questions is, if, if the new ordinance prevails over an old ordinance, which is what our comprehensive plan is, then what the new ordinance does is for a pretty large fraction of the rezones that might happen, Chapter 10 becomes irrelevant because all of this happens. Yeah, nobody has to be aware of anything, right? Well, there's that, but even if we're aware of it, it doesn't matter because it has no legal— our chapter then has no legal status as long as The proposed rezone is consistent with the Anchorage Plan. It depends on Anchorage.

Well, we are in the municipality of Anchorage, and this ordinance apparently applies to us, and it does not require compliance with Chapter 10 for municipally initiated rezones, but it requires only compliance with The Anchorage Public Library is creating county law books. I think it was just they're so focused on doing what they want to get done in Anchorage, but it's frustrating. So, not to pull off on a limb here, but I just want to highlight some of the dangers that that in particular could create for our community. As far as a density modification. This community is relatively low density compared to Anchorage, and we enjoy a number of characteristics to the identity and values of our community because of that.

We are a bedroom community. People come out here to raise their children in a place that's safe with relatively low crime, and it's been that way for as long as I can remember. I was born and raised on Highland.

96, And it's really important that this community doesn't turn out like Anchorage. You know, I'm sure everyone's had some personal experience regarding crime when they're in Anchorage. It's, uh, it's really not a good thing. I mean, one time, uh, I was walking home, uh, with a box of breadsticks. Somebody tried to mug me for my breadsticks, literally, like, like the shard glass.

You know, it's, uh, it's really bad. Um, if we have more density, it will change the kinds of people that live here. Most of the crime in Chewabiki River occurs in those large complexes right over there, and that's another example of density just changing who's here and exactly what happens. If there is more density, you can expect more homeless people, you can expect more public transport. The kinds of housing that would be built out here is no longer the, the 3-bedroom, 2-car garage housing.

It'll be apartment buildings that don't even have garages because they expect people to use bikes and buses and they, they walk everywhere. So if you really enjoy living in the Eagle River that we have today, it's I think it's incredibly dangerous to allow Anchorage to make decisions for us regarding our own comprehensive plan and changes to density. I say it's the most dangerous thing that could happen to this community out of anything that I've seen in my time, 5 years here in the political scene. [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] Can I just speak to the fearmongering of your statement? I own a couple businesses here in our community in the lowest density.

We just had our second break-in attempt last night, the second of this summer, and that's after a very large successful break-in attempt earlier, all in the lowest density of the Chugiak-Eagle River. So while I agree that I don't want the high density of Anchorage here, to say that low density prevents crime is a bit of fear-mongering because in my experience with my own local businesses and my home, it has not. So you think that Chugach River has more crime per capita than Anchorage, which has higher density? You didn't hear those words come out of my mouth at all. I think the implication is that your anecdotal experience is overriding, uh, statistical I'm saying that you're oversimplifying an issue and saying that low density will prevent crime, and I don't believe that that is absolutely true.

I think community, um, our sense of community, our looking out for each other, our solid comprehensive plan, and the quality of our community is what prevents crime. Crime. I do agree with you that high density is not something that fits into our community plan out here, but I do think that you went a little far on fearmongering because, sorry, there's crime here. Okay, thank you. So I think there's all different kinds of groups and they're all going to be advocating for what benefits their overall— I think we can all agree with that.

And so what is this body right here is the Chugiak/Eagle River Advisory Board. It is representing community councils. This is the advisory. This is our representation from community members, homeowners, taxpayers, not necessarily large business. And I'm not saying that that shouldn't have advocacy or not.

All I'm saying is this advocacy is representing community members specifically. And one thing that we have strongly believed in is, uh, notice requirements, having a discussion about when changes are to occur in the community. So I think if I was looking from the perspective of large developments, one of the biggest oppositions is when you come in and you wanted to rezone a large plat to something that was too higher density, likely the community councils are going to have objection to any large modifications to their area. It makes sense that they would have objection— any community council across Anchorage. So for me, uh, that's a different set, a different set of advocacy.

This group is representing community members, and I would fully support that not reducing as the crow flies notice to being sent Limiting testimony, not requiring public meetings right there, that does not support the best interest of the community. The community should always have the opportunity to discuss and weigh in to significant changes that modify the county. Thank you, Matt. Anybody else got any testimony or any more questions? Thank you.

You know, I don't want to lose sight of the impacts to SBERSA when, you know, if you're talking about the fact that we're contradicting Chapter 10, we're also contradicting the reasons why SBERSA exists and the fact that we do have the right to draft and approve a budget for how we spend our money. So Anchorage has never been able to come out here and say, "Chugiaq Eagle River, you will do this." And So that's kind of a new territory for us. All of a sudden, Anchorage is telling us how we have to spend our money. It's one thing for us to say we have this pocket of capital that we use every year for certain projects that have been on our list and typically are on a staggered rotation kind of a list. But for them to come out now and throw something in there that says, well, now you have have to do this, that is outside of what we are actually authorized to do.

So I would think that that would be a significant contradiction and even more rationale or more of a reason to try to ask them to either repeal it, which they recently did over the whole alcohol ID thing, or ask them to, you know, to amend it to exclude Chewbacca and Grover because they They are throwing something at us that we, like I said, we're not really authorized to do. We have taxpayers that are paying, funding what it is the subversive board agrees to pay for every year. And the other thing that really stuck out to me was I can still hear Mark Littlefield say, we don't build roads, we maintain them. We don't build new roads, we just maintain them. Maintain what is built.

So again, all of that conflicts with this entity that we've had out here for 40 years. So just more kind of ammunition, I guess, to try to put into that resolution in terms of getting them to look at this again. Thank you. Um, with that being said, um, I would like to ask the board— I'm going to go ahead and read what the— what our resolution relationship states based on what you were saying, Crystal? I'm sorry to interrupt, but I also apologize for coming in late, but what's the relationship between— there are 3.

There's 3 dredges? They're just different words. Well, which one are we going to consider? I'm going to ask before— I was just about to say that— ask before we work out with this one. I can't see that far.

What is it?

It's draft 3. Yeah, I think it would help to— if I could move that one and then you know which one you're working on. And if it doesn't get enough votes, you can go on to discuss it. We'll go to the next one. That's right.

Okay, I move that we move the draft 3, and there's a copy of it on the table there. And I have a spare copy that I took on my actual— I second.

Discussion? Questions? I was going to say, um, I think the gist of it, based on this conversation, and Crystal, you hit the nail on the head, is that we include a 'be it further resolved that these documents be amended to clarify' by the city of Beaver River is excluded from these ordinances as per Chapter 10. Could you go back to the recitals and then consider the resolution? I think for me that would be better.

So, so you want me to read this? No, no, I, I just— before proposing amendments to the resolution, I think maybe we should propose amendments to the recitals.

I just wanted to speak for version 3. There was an original version that came out and then people sent out other versions and we tried to not talk back and forth because of what meetings had. So I haven't told any of these guys which one I like, but I like this one that Peter worked on because it's melts, melts it. It's also good, I think, for us to not be super worried, you know, be clear as you can. And I think this one does.

And if it needs more teeth and strength, then we can amend. But I think we did a good job. Thanks for the drafts of it, because that's been— it's easier to comment on a draft than to write something. So do we have to make motions to make his amendments. You have to make a motion that you can amend a whereas to change a whereas.

Yeah, or actually any word in the proposed resolution. Well, unless it's inconsequential, for instance, character is spelled wrong. So that's— but that's all I'm—. I have some errant commas and things. Go ahead.

Um, so a question for this group, and it could be that I was talking to Will one-on-one, but the question about the comprehensive plan, that Chugiak Eagle River Comprehensive Plan from 2006, we have talked about in a draft resolution at our previous meeting to request it to be updated. And my understanding is that there is— are funds allocated within the planning department to do so. I can't remember if it was this group, but the question is, is there anything significant that requires updates to that 2006 Comp Plan other than the population density, some of the demographic maps, that kind of thing? The goals, the vision, the objectives that talk about our community character and and all that. Those things I think still hold true today.

Well, but I mean, there's a— again, it's required by ordinance that we do revise the density periodically.

I just wonder if we request and make more noise about it, they would come in and it starts becoming something we don't want it to be. Well, it easily could. I mean, look, the assembly is gonna— the assembly controls, you know, ordinances. So the assembly might approve something that we wish they hadn't approved. I mean, it seems that happens from time to time, right?

And this is one more of those processes that the assembly could override our own wishes. So I'm okay with the draft as written. I did have a question about whether you wanted to— there was a whereas related to updating the comp plan and a being further resolved related to updating the comp plan. I didn't know if you wanted to maintain those or— I don't know if you need to do a resolution and vote on it. On the comp plan, there is— I don't know if you guys remember when Kevin Cross introduced legislation, maybe you introduced it, he had a bunch of lectures after that to talk to the whole complex redlined, you know.

And like, the comp plan should be updated, um, and at least we look at it carefully. Because like, in my community council district on the Oakland Highway, there's a ton of E3s. And if you guys have noticed, there's a bunch of high-density housing going there right now. Like, you can't believe it after HITS, because that— all that E3 is specifically for high-density housing. So I think the comp plan should be looked at, um, and I think we should, yeah, just kind of take a look at the because like in 50 years, if you open that highway called B3, if they develop that housing, you will have apartment, like really, really high-density apartments along that.

So if they can water it too, so I think it's worth debating. But that's a little bit separate to this. So I could draw my comments. Yeah, maybe. So, um, It seems to be that— I mean, I think we have a violation of the adopting ordinance in not having pre-biased counseling, and it would be nice to know whether we can blame that on the municipality and not take any of the blame on ourselves.

So can we do that? First off, I'm surprised you believe that. I'm okay either way though. I took part in the last two code plan writes, and basically if you get a strong committee to work on it and you have assembly members who support you, which is really critical, then you're usually— at least in those two times— you're in good class. I think in code it says how often plans should be rewritten, so there's already an obvious violation.

Right. Yeah, so what do you want? Well, I think we'd be on stronger grounds, um, relying on the plan if the plan conformed to the code. Or if it doesn't comply with— what? I'm sorry.

Okay, well, no, I think I— my position would be any new ordinance should have been written to comply with with our— with Chapter 10. Sure, but we'd be on stronger ground if people couldn't argue that, well, you guys never made any effort to revise Chapter 10 and it's required to be revised. Well, I'm sorry, correct. Yeah, we're asking for that in here. So is there any changes to this anybody wants to make?

We might, we might want to speak to the fact that we do have areas of kind of a high-density development out here. I think that, I don't know, it's an idea that B3 on the Chugach River, like, people are going to have to make this about high density, but it exists already. So to make it easier to rezone, it's just, it's going to trouble, um, because there's already areas that, you know, it's a legend.

So, I mean, our resolution is stronger or not, we don't think it's stronger. We do reference that it does not consider our land use now. I keep holding it up. 1993, Folks. That's our current land use plan.

No!

Still works, right? So is there any other word changes or anything to this? What are we looking at, all 3 sides now? Sure.

Well, I mean, I, I would still advocate that we— and I'm— maybe I haven't even— I haven't read this draft, I don't think, but I would certainly strongly advocate there being a recital, which just accuses these, these two ordinances with being in conflict with Chapter 10, basically.

Well, can you come up with words? You say it does not consider Chapter 10. I know I would like to make a much stronger statement than that. I would like to basically say these These ordinances are essentially illegal because, because they're in conflict with them. Not that they didn't consider it, they are in conflict with it.

I think you can say they're accomplished. I don't want to give them a better, bigger view than he's had. Well, are you trying to create a position with which to actually launch a lawsuit with this ad? Launch a lawsuit or just give them a powerful reason why they maybe should consider some amendments.

Yeah, I mean, just saying, you know, we're miffed because, because you didn't consider our plan doesn't seem very strong to me compared to you're doing something illegal because you're basically violating Chapter 10.

Well, I don't know either, but I, you know, I'm just saying it would look for a stronger statement.

Specifically requiring them, believes that this ordinance conflicts with the Chugiac River Comprehensive Plan and Track Plan. Yeah, and I just think that that should also be recited, that rather than it just being a conclusion of the board, it should be recited as a fact, which, you know, people dispute the facts. But that's what recitals are for, is to give the reason for whatever we say in our resolution. If there's a whereas—. Right now it's whereas AO 2025-40S does not consider the provisions.

If we change that to whereas is in conflict with the provisions of Chapter 10, Does that address your comments? I think it would, yeah.

I will make a motion to amend that line to say, whereas AO-23-5-40S is in conflict with provisions of Chapter 10, GBIP River Comprehensive Plan, and it probably should be and the land use map. Yeah, any discussion? Oh, any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye.

Now, now can we do— go back to the original motion and pass the whole thing? I think we—. Well, I was asked to keep another whereas to things up to the end. I propose that we add a 'be it further resolved' that these amendments be clarified to exclude— clarify that Cheektank Eagle River is excluded from ordinances per Chapter 10. Maybe say we are excluded for these two ordinances.

Okay, yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't follow that. Proposing to clarify that Chugiak/Eagle River is excluded from these two ordinances for enterprise. Yeah, where would that go? It would be a new— it would be a new— it would be a further exception.

I don't know if you could say it for Chapter 10 because I don't know if Chapter 10 specifically does it, but like we should just be excluded from this. Okay, just—. Okay.

Read it one more time. Be it further resolved, um, that these amendments are these ordinances, uh, clarify that Chukwiamkeegle River is excluded from these two words. Be it further resolved, Syrup insists that I don't know if we can insist. You don't want to insist? Well, we can stop our fee.

Exactly. They may not acknowledge it. Yeah, we could demand it. Well, we could request that the assembly clarify which individual member is excluded from the steward process. All right, what would the meaning of that be?

Are we just asking for a declarative statement? Statement from them, statement of interpretation, or are we asking them to change the board resolution? No, it's a statement of clarification that we are excluded from these two ordinances. How would they do that? By— yeah, we would need our representatives or our assembly people to carry forth that happen.

So I do think it comes down to a demand from a member, or a request from whatever strength you want to give the person. We're not just asking various assembly members to state something, we're asking the assembly to take an action. Okay, so making it so.

Assembly to amend. And why do we say the assembly should amend? Why do we make it— we should request them to? I'll second that in spirit. I think we're touching on a topic right here that's really capturing a lot of things.

And I support, uh, the— I support Draft 3, but it's really a matter of tact. Do we want to have a tact of being more aggressive, shall we demand, or— and of course they don't have to listen to us— or are we taking the more diplomatic form? I'm not saying which, which way is better. I really don't know. But I think that's the discussion right there that's driving a lot of your questions right there.

Is what tact are you guys taking with this resolution? I think ultimately it's going to be pressure on our political representatives that's going to make this change.

Well, hopefully our representatives will pay attention to this and propose something at the assembly. I suggest that everybody write to our representatives on the assembly and ask them to also take this up.

Does this, uh, resolve the 2025-40-S-52? Does that apply to the whole municipality or just to— yeah, the ordinances apply to the whole municipality. Our objection is how they affect us. Well, I think that by going in there and say just us Then they said, oh, you're special out there. It affects the whole municipality as far as the quality of development.

Developers in the past have always had to do their own road work, sewage, and all that stuff ahead of time. It affects everybody, not just Chugiak/Eagle River. It affects everybody. And I think if you go into the assembly and say Look, this is going to mess up everything municipality-wide, and we especially don't like it out here.

We have our own comp plan and we have our own subsection in chapter— we have chapter 10. You think we do? Yeah, that's why we're here. We're just the advisory board for this area, okay? So that's what we're speaking on today.

Is there— a couple of things. One is that we have to remember that we don't have the same revenues as Anchorage does for a lot of the things that are going to go on in Anchorage. They can bond for stuff. That's what they live by for doing all of their roads. They bond for everything.

We don't do that out here, so it leaves us kind of without any kind of funding source. So that's another reason That's another reason why we kind of have to look at— you know, we've talked about this before. That's another reason why we have to look at what's happening here is because of the unintended consequences that basically come against the uniqueness of our community. So that's going to require another recite. You really have to put these things in recites.

I think for that whereas, I would like to propose a whereas is we should speak to the tax that road work is greatly increasing. Yes. There you go. So I mean, maybe we got a whereas that says we had the road board after two heavy snow years was low on funds, or maybe you want to put it there, but like we, we asked for a low-rated base for our road work. Well, we can say so there's a whereas about the financial burden, and you can say whereas the bond community was unwilling to support—.

Was that failures due to The local vote or was it due to the anchors? What? It was just— I don't know if we want to highlight that we've been refusing to pay for our roads. No, no, we just— it was— we asked for an increase and they say both of the residents voted it down.

Okay, so whereas the mill rate increase failed by reducing—. Could we, could we vote on one thing? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm that way. Read the whereas now about the first one. Okay, so I thought, I thought that was going to be a good further result.

Okay, so We approve the resolve. Sierra requests the assembly amend the ordinances to clarify Chibiaki River is excluded from these ordinances. Can we vote on that? I guess now I am confused because I thought we did have a revision. I thought I moved the addition of a new recital.

I seconded her language. Isn't it fun to be chair? Okay, well, that's fine. Okay, we got a motion. It's on this whereas, and we have a second.

Is there any more discussion? Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Wait, did you just vote on, on the alignment? What you just read, we voted on.

Yeah, so that's approved. Okay, we're done. Yeah, and the next one is about the mill rate, or if he wants to do research. That's all right, good, we'll do the resolutions first, but I'm going to keep asking about it. Yeah, it was—.

Yeah, so just on the mill rate thing, it wasn't increasing the mill rate, it was increasing the cap on the mill rate. That was one of the things where a lot of voters and stuff were kind of confused on, hey, we're increasing taxes, but it was just increasing the cap. So just want to make sure that's clarified. A bond proposal? No, increasing the cap.

The ability to tax more. The ability to tax more, not a tax cap. I don't understand what a tax cap is. Any more motions for amendments? You have many, right?

Yes. What happened to more than 10%? The number you want? Yeah, I don't think we have—. You don't have a motion.

This discussion, is there an entertainment for a motion to include that? Is there a second? Can you read what was in this bill? Uh, something whereas the cap on mill rate increase—. Those are the cap—.

Yeah, mill rate increase failed 2025 reducing Are you keeping track of amendments? I'm recording. You're recording? Yeah. Who's keeping track of the amendments?

We don't have a secretary. We did this all ourselves until we got help. But John—. Well, we got the one amendment, and that one's motioned and approved. The second amendment is to include this email rate form.

Okay. And then we're going to get a final— Then we're fine. And you're going to do that? I'm going to ask you to do it.

Yes. So it's— so minus— so we're shifting the financial burden to local factors. Yeah.

Whereas—. So then, whereas—. Are we talking about a resolution? We talked about a recital. Recycle.

So whereas— whereas— and then go ahead and Whereas the vote to—. On the cap of the mill rate increase failed in 2025, reducing funding—. Yeah, maybe not reducing, I would just say limiting. Limiting. Okay, I will second that.

Okay, we got a motion to include that, a second. Any more discussion on it? All in favor, aye.

Good. Now, okay, now is there any, any more recitals or amendments?

Well, I would— I think if we're gonna see— that was a recital, right?

Um, yeah, I have— let's see, where is it?

We, um, we— I think we cite a complaint about, about the violation of Chapter 10, or what I'm calling the violation of Chapter 10. Yeah, and then we recite the fact that the comprehensive plan is, is, um, is updated and currently scheduled for revision.

I have concern, and I know Teal actually raised it, but I agree with it. I have a concern that it doesn't look good to say you have to make any zoning revisions that you propose consistent with our comprehensive plan and then say, but you can't do that because our comprehensive plan is outdated. I, I think that if we're going to rely on the comprehensive plan, we should just rely on the comprehensive plan until it gets revised. But is this a specific whereas you're talking about? Well, I think it's— yes, it's the— and I like them numbered, but so 1, 2, I guess it's the 4th recital, and I would actually strike that recital.

All right, I move that we strike that recital. Is there a second? Whose line is it? Sorry, it's the 4th recital.

Yeah, I think it's like saying, well, you can't do this because it doesn't comply with our plan, and you can't do it because the plan's outdated. So that's right, it's catch-22. As an engineer, So you're agreeing with me is the way I see it. Potentially. Potentially.

I mean, is there a second? I'm thinking about whether I want a second or not, because if you pull that out of there, is that weak in our argument? Strong. Well, you also have to pull out the first via for the resolved because it talks about updating. So if you remove one, so—.

But I, I agree with you there. We'll get to that. So, so for this one here, I think I don't know, I think it— I guess I think it's okay with it in there. So that's what I mean, just because we— I don't want to say anything. Mr.

Jen, is there a second? No second. No second. Let's move on. Any more recitals or amendments?

No amendments or recitals. I Ask for a vote to approve this. So if you raise your hand— I, I, I'll just vote. I mean, if you're fine with it, just vote. All in favor, raise your hand.

Okay, motion passes. Thank you, Robert. Julie, do you mind getting that around?

Thank you all for coming. Can I make a final statement real quick, John? This is a little off topic, a little bit. There's a few of you guys— I've been in this meeting for almost 40 years— a few of you guys in here are against legal exit. If you know you're against it, but yet you want your economy right here, but you don't want your economy when it comes to the whole town community, I would rethink your position on legal exit.

Mr. My Buddy over here. I told you all to rethink it a little bit. Man, I want a divorce. Yeah, right? So I just say this is halfway.

The final portion is dissemination of this, and because this is the representation of the entire Chugach Eagle River and all the associated community councils, I'd make sure to use Federation Community Councils so that everyone that's associated with the mailers for FCC receives a copy of this resolution. And our assembly members. Okay, please adjourn. Thank you all.