Mat-Su Borough: Planning Commission Meeting - August 3rd, 2026

Applicant Little Flare LLC, property owner 900 Tower Holdings LLC, staff Wade Long. Public hearing date August 17th, 2026. Introduction for public hearing.

Legislative matters. Resolution 26-17, a resolution of the Mad News Casino Planning Commission recommending approval of the borough's priority transportation projects for inclusion in the MVP 2027 through 2030 Transportation Improvement Program. Staff: Alex Strawn, Planning and Land Use Director. Public hearing date: August 17, 2026. Are there any objections to approving the consent agenda as written?

Hearing and seeing none, the consent agenda is approved.

Committee reports, none. Agency staff reports, Mat-Su Valley Planning for Transportation. Kim Solene, please come on up.

Lacey, do you want me to sign here or no? I don't need to, and I think And will you advance slides when I'm ready, or do you want me to do it?

You should have— you don't have a PowerPoint presentation for me?

Remember I sent it to you?

Well, I remember we were scheduled for a previous meeting.

It's in the packet.

Sorry, I know you have a packed meeting tonight, so I'm trying to— going to try to be quick.

Okay, I think this is— I think this is the right one. Okay, well, I'm just going to get started. Um, hello, um, Matthew Borough Planning Commission. My name is Kim Solian. I'm the executive director of Mat-Su Valley Planning for Transportation.

We are a new organization in the Mat-Su.

Um, and so I thought I'd do a little introduction on who we are as an organization. Um, but tonight I'm here to really talk about, um, one of our major long-range transportation plans that is kind of coming to a close. I wanted to introduce you to the process that we went through to develop this plan, the projects that were applied for by the Mat-Su Borough and the City of Palmer and Wasilla, and then what our hope is to be able to program our transportation improvement program, which is the resolution that you will have on your agenda at the next meeting. We need a resolution from the.

Assembly nominating, formally nominating the prioritized projects to our TIP. So I wanted to give you the overview of who we are and what we do and what we did so that hopefully you would also want to make a recommendation to the Assembly about what project should move forward in our TIP. So next slide, next two slides. So as I mentioned, we're a metropolitan planning organization. We are federally funded and federally mandated to do transportation planning and policymaking for the greater core area of Matsu.

So some of you remember in my past life when I was here, we were anticipating forming an MPO because we expected the 2020 census, once it was certified, to designate a portion of the greater core area as an urbanized area. Which triggered the requirement for our region to form a metropolitan planning organization and work together.

The DOT, the cities of Palmer and Wasilla, the borough and Chickaloon Native Village and K'nik Tribe to plan for how we want the federal funding to be spent on transportation investments here in the Matsu versus what was happening before we were an MPO, which was the state DOT would get their allocation of federal funding and they would decide where projects would go. So really the creation of an MPO means that now there is local control over those federal funds in our urbanized area, and that requirement is because the federal government back in the Kennedy administration realized that local communities know better where transportation infrastructure should go than the federal government or the state. So they wanted to empower local governments to have that voice. Um, we developed both long-term and short-term plans. I'm going to talk about 2 of them tonight.

Um, there are 4 federally required plans that we're supposed to do, and.

Tonight I'm going to talk about the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program, a long-term and a short-term plan. So we're one of 459 MPOs across the country, and we're the 3rd MPO in Alaska. Uh, there's an MPO in Fairbanks, um, they go by FAST Planning, and there's an MPO in Anchorage, and their name— well, they go by AMATS. Next slide.

So MVP was formed, um, kind of officially. We opened our bank account on February 14th, 2024, but we had been planning with the borough, um, and the cities and the tribes and the DOT, um, since 2019 to form this new organization. Uh, so the policy board decided before we were a full entity that instead of having our organization hosted in one of our regional governments, that it should be a nonprofit organization so it would have autonomy and independence and none of the local governments felt like they could house the organization. So, we're governed as a nonprofit by a 7-member policy board.

Our policy board is made up of the mayor and the manager of the Matsu Burro, the mayor of the city of Palmer, the mayor of the city of Wasilla, 2 tribal transportation representatives, and the commissioner of DOT's designee, who's the deputy commissioner. We're also guided by a 16-member technical committee made up of engineers and planning professionals from the Matsu Burro. Alex Strawn is on our technical committee, as is Tom Adams, the director of public works, and then similarly, the cities. DOT and the tribes have engineering and planning professionals on our technical committee, and then we have representatives from public transportation, freight operators, active transportation, the Matsu Burroughs School District, and the railroads. So the technical committee is kind of like the workhorse for our organization.

They're really engaged with staff on the planning projects that we're working on, and then everything gets floated up to the policy board, much like the Planning Commission works on things and then it gets floated to the assembly.

Policymakers to make the final decision. Next slide.

So, for folks that are new and haven't seen us before, um, our planning area is focused on an area called the Metropolitan Planning Area. It encompasses the whole area that was designated by— during the 2020 census certification as the urbanized area for the Matsu. And it incorporates the area we expect to come or become urbanized over the next 20 years. And so that lighter shaded area in the box is the urbanized area, and then the dark blue line is our planning area. So for our long-range plan, we have a 25-year planning horizon.

So that's why we're looking out ahead, not just at the needs of the current population in the urbanized area, but what the needs are going to be of that future population as we continue to grow. Next slide.

So I'm going to transition a little bit to what is our Metropolitan Transportation Plan and hit some highlights about the work that we did on that plan. So again, it's a 25 or 20+ year long-range plan. It guides regional decision-making and investments in multimodal network. So we're responsible for planning not only for roadway infrastructure, but bike and pedestrian infrastructure, public transit needs and infrastructure, and the needs of freight. Um, as an organization, we worked with our technical committee to come up with the goals of our Metropolitan Transportation Plan based on an assessment of the needs of our area.

Um, and then the Policy Board approved those, and then those goals turned into, um, yeah, project nomination and criteria. We update this plan every 5 years because our population grows and changes, and it's really hard to project out 25 years in advance and say, this is what we're going to do. Um, so The plan is broken up into short-term, medium-term, and long-term segments so that, uh,.

We can be nimble if project priorities change within that next 5-year horizon. Next slide. Okay, awesome. You're ahead of me. Good job.

Um, so I just wanted to highlight that the different components of a plan— as a planning commission, you're very familiar with long-range planning and all the pieces and parts that go into that. We took a very similar take as, as far as looking at this long-range transportation plan. We developed goals and objectives based on a vision for what we want our transportation system to look like. We assess needs. Where do we have safety issues?

Where do we have connectivity issues? Where is there congestion? Where does there— where is there a break in the multimodal network? Part of the federal requirement is that our plan be based on federal performance-based planning as part of the requirement, and we can't just do whatever we want. We have to be able to justify These are the projects we wanna move forward because they're meeting these goals and they're serving these, these communities.

Community needs. The other thing we need to do with our plan is it has to be fiscally constrained. We cannot program more projects into our long-range plan than we will have funding for. So on an annual basis, we expect to receive about $10 million a year to invest in transportation projects. So with our long-range plan, we have to look at if we get $10 million a year plus the non-federal share, how much money will we have over that 25-year horizon?

And then we have to slot projects into those short-term, medium-term, long-term sections. And with that, um, with our— and I'll share a little bit about it in a second— we did get a number of nominations that ended up being below the threshold, so we couldn't pay for a list of the projects. In your packet, I did provide you with all the projects that were nominated to the MTP, their score, and then their time band. So the illustrative projects are those projects that are eligible funding for funding but not.

, As part of the MTP project list because we couldn't show that we could pay for them. Next slide. So back in December, um, we held an open house. We did our public call for projects where we launched an interactive comment map and a community survey inviting the public to let us know where they think that they would like to see transportation investments, where they see safety issues, where they'd like to see connectivity. And we collected about 200 comments on the map and a similar a number of surveys, and then from there we did our formal call for projects where we invited the Matsu Borough and the cities to apply for projects following a GIS-based nomination process that Matsu Borough's GIS team hosted online.

Then once we received all the projects, I think we received about 87 projects, and once we validated that they were.

Eligible product— projects. I think we ended up with 75. Then we scored and evaluated each of the projects based on a 7-point criteria. And then once we did that, we put all the projects in rank order based on their score. So the scores for the criteria were things on does it improve safety?

Does it increase the connection between where people live and where they work? Is it supporting a gap in the multimodal network? Is it supporting public transit?

Is it improving or upgrading functional class? So there was all this criteria. So did that, and then this summer we worked with our Technical Committee and Policy Board to finalize that project list because we're hopefully going to release our internal review of our MTP to our Technical Committee next week. And so we needed to have that short, medium, and long-term project list finalized. And then this is all to say we're trying to complete the project and get it approved, or the.

Plan by our policy board in December so that we can unlock the federal funding that's available to our region. If we do not pass the plan by December, all federal funding for transportation infrastructure stops. Like, so all the projects that the DOT might be doing, plus the ones that have been nominated, can't move forward until we finalize our MTP and program our TIP. Next slide. I won't go into this, but I talked a little bit about the evaluation criteria and fiscal constraint.

And that's what this slide is highlighting. That's the 7 different criteria and the time bands that our projects were organized in. The short-term time band is the one to pay attention to for tonight. That's a time band that mirrors the time band for our Transportation Improvement Program. So the MTP is kind of the vision for what we want, and the TIP is where we actually are programming projects for funding.

Next slide.

So this is how the, the project lists.

Sorted out again in your packet. There's the full project list, um, the short time band. You can see the color coding signifies the pink projects are projects for the City of Wasilla. The white projects are the ones that the Matsu Borough nominated, and then the green shading, which doesn't show up very well on this slide, are the City of Palmer. So you can see those projects are broken up into a short-term time band that represents our TIP.

It's 4 years and then medium term and long term, another 10-year time bands. Next slide.

Go again. So that's our MTP. So, in order to program our TIP, all of the projects that we want to see have federal funding have to be listed in our MTP, and it has to be physically constrained in order to be able to program it in our TIP. So our TIP again is 4 years. It identifies specific projects for funding.

Um, in order to receive funding,.

It has to be in the TIP. We'll update the TIP annually because the DOT will manage the projects, projects, timelines, and costs. There'll be constant tweaks and changes as the project goes from initial, you know, Phase 1 design, right-of-way, um, and assessment to then when it moves over to construction. So we'll be in constant communication with them. Um, and then, uh, I guess that's all I want to say about that slide.

Next one. Um, just a quick highlight of the timeline. We finalized our MTP project list in June. We've started working on our draft, uh, TIP development, knowing that that short-term list is likely what's going to be in our TIP. Um, we're hoping to release the MTP in its entirety in October for public review.

Make edits and changes in November and bring it back to the policy board for approval in December. And we're also hoping to release our tip for.

Public review in November and to the policy board, uh, in December for adoption. Um, all of the plans and projects that we do have at least a 30 or a 45-day public comment period because we want, again, to be true to the, the intent of an MPO is that it's local control over federal funding. And so we want the public to know what we're doing, have a chance to weigh in, be responsive to their comments., as well as our policy board and technical committee and the representative jurisdictions, um, that they serve. Next slide. So, 2 more slides.

I'm almost done. I'm trying to go fast. Um, so what we are requesting and what we need in order to feel comfortable programming our TIP, um, and that also has to be fiscally constrained, we need resolutions from the governing bodies, the Matsu Borough and the 2 cities, stating that they, um, are formally nominating projects to the short-term list or to the TIP, um, and that they are formally committing to pay.

Pay the 9.03% non-federal share for each of those projects. That's why you'll also see in this project list is the planning level cost and the associated match requirement for each of those projects. Now, those aren't set in stone numbers because those are planning cost estimates. The, the total cost will be refined once a project is moved into the TIP. So we're asking the assembly to provide that resolution by September so we can comfortably program our TIP, get the draft done, and put it out for public comment.

And so tonight, hopeful that you all, you know, will review this list, certainly reach out to us if you have questions about the process, but you will also feel comfortable nominating that short-term project list, or I mean, any project can be nominated to the TIP.

And we may or may not be able to program those projects, but certainly if you see priority projects on this list that aren't in the short term, you can— it's your prerogative to make that recommendation to the Assembly that it is included. And with that, next slide. You do have any specific questions about projects, I would direct you to your borough representatives. We— our job as an MPO is to create the container, to create the process, to be transparent, and to let everybody know how we made the decisions that we made. But in terms of your specific projects, yeah, you'd want to talk to your representatives.

And with that, um, that's all I have. Thank you, Ms. Sully. Appreciate the presentation.

Sure. Are you— yeah, does anybody have questions for Ms. Sully? Any questions?

All right. Thank you very much. Thank you so much.

Moving on, land use classifications. We don't have any audience participation. 3 Minutes per person for items not scheduled for public hearing today. There's anyone on the phone? Thank you, Caleb.

Doesn't sound like there's anyone on the phone. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak to something that is not On the agenda today.

Okay. Seeing and hearing that there are no persons to be heard, is there any objection to closing audience participation? No objection. Audience participation is closed.

Public hearing, quasi-judicial matters, Resolution 26-10, a conditional use permit in accordance with MSB 17.7. 70, Regulation of Alcoholic Beverages, uses, uses to expand operations for a preexisting alcoholic beverage dispensary, a bar located at.

10204 South Knick Goose Bay Road, tax ID number 718-6000-L-001, within Township 16 North, Range 3 West, Section 24, Seward Meridian. Applicant: Knick Landing. Property owner: Broken Boat LLC. Staff: Wade Long, Development Services Manager. This time I need to read the ex parte memo.

In order to ensure a fair process on Planning Commission decisions, I need to read this memo before each quasi-judicial case is heard. So to the members, do any of you or a member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision?

Or recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision? Okay, seeing everyone shaking their head no. Have you received or otherwise engaged in ex parte contact with the applicant, appellant, other interested parties, or members of the public concerning the application either before, during, or after this matter was submitted for decision? Everyone is indicating no. And are you able to be impartial on this decision?

Chair, Commissioner McCabe, I must recuse myself from this, um, resolution. Okay, thank you, Commissioner McCabe. The appellant or the applicant is running against my husband for a legislative seat. Okay, thank you, Commissioner McCabe.

Commissioner Carpenter. Uh, Commissioner, I have to recuse myself from this particular issue. Okay, thank you, Commissioner Carpenter. Um, Mr. Strawn, does that still leave us with enough people to proceed?

Yes, Mr. Chair, we still have a quorum. Thank you, sir. All right, then I'll ask again of the remaining members.

Um, are you able to be impartial, uh, in this decision? Everyone is indicating in the affirmative. Thank you. All right, Mr. Long, please provide your staff report.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission. My name is Wade Long, and I'm the Development Services Manager assigned to process proposed conditional use permit application associated with Planning Commission Resolution 26-10. A conditional use permit application has been submitted by Knick Landing, formerly Knick Bar and Grill, for the expansion of an existing legal nonconforming status issued in 1985. The applicant proposes to add a 5,000-square-foot event building and a 2,000-square-foot outdoor deck. On the western portion of the property located at 10204 South Kanikgus Bay Road, tax ID 7186000.

L001. The property is approximately 2.76 acres and is located near the intersection of Canic Goose Bay and North Shore Drive, adjacent to Canic Lake. The proposed event building and deck are intended to operate in association with the existing beverage dispensary alcohol license. The applicant is seeking to include these areas within the scope of the authorized use and licensed premises. Because this is an expansion of existing beverage dispensary use, a conditional use permit is required under MSB 17.70.

As stated, Kinnick Landing has operated under borough-issued legal nonconforming status since 1985. Borough records later identified an expanded outdoor service area, commonly referred to as a beer garden, that was not clearly documented in the original approval materials. And had not gone through the conditional use process due to prior administrative oversight.

Site, that issue has not been addressed. The assembly subsequently waived the application fee, and this application is intended to bring the expanded use forward through the conditional use permit process while also considering the proposed event building and outdoor deck as part of authorized use. Staff met the public notice requirements by mailing notices to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property. And to the Connect Fairview Community Council. A total of 18 notices were mailed.

The public hearing notice was published in the Frontiersman, and the application materials were posted on the borough website. A public notice was also mailed to the Connect Fairview Community Council.

2 Written comment letters were received. The comments raised concern regarding noise, traffic, parking, light and glare, and impacts to Connect Lake and surrounding residential properties. No response was received from the Connect Fairview Community Council.

Staff report was finalized. Staff received correspondence from the applicant indicating that the Alcohol Marijuana Control Office approved the transfer applications for licenses number 596 and 597 with delegation during the June 16th, 2026 board meeting. That approval is not final until the delegated items are satisfied, including local governing body review and fire department compliance. Also, since the staff report was finalized, staff received a complaint of parking along North Shore Drive during events. Application materials showed a greater and more structured parking.

Matsui Public Works is evaluating no parking signage, and Mr. Massey stated that he is installing a fence along North Shore Drive. And showed me a receipt. Staff also received correspondence regarding complaint asking us to.

Contact the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the development's impact to Kinnick Lake. The complaint included photos of shoreline work at the subject property, uh, at the subject property's lake edge. Staff verbally contacted the Corps, who stated that the report had already been received and was under review. I recently followed up, but no findings have been made, and any determination will take additional time. Regarding noise, Staff included condition number 3, which limits outdoor use areas, including the deck and event-related outdoor activities, to the hours of 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM daily.

Staff also included condition number 4, which requires compliance with MSB 8.52, noise amplified sound and vibration. Condition number 3 was included to acknowledge that the proposed event building and outdoor deck may generate more sound than the historic use. Particularly, particularly because the use is located directly adjacent.

Adjacent to the Kinnick Lake, where sound may carry across open water. The condition was intended as an added land use safeguard to respect neighboring properties and reduce potential late evening impacts. That said, staff is not opposed to the removal of Condition 3 if the Commission determines that the separate requirement to comply with Borough's noise ordinance is sufficient. Ultimately, staff views Condition 3 as an added safeguard rather than an essential condition of approval. And would defer to the Commission's judgment.

My conclusion is staff reviewed the application under standards of MSB 17.20 and 17.70, and staff recommends approval of the permit with conditions.

Thank you, Mr. Long. Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Long?

Um, I have one for you, Mr. Long. Um, can you tell me.

Are there some examples of similar venues with time constraints? It just seems like 10 is pretty early for, you know, 7 days a week. I'm wondering, are there other places that have that same restriction, or can you talk about that a little bit? I appreciate the question, Commissioner Allen. Full disclosure, this is my first staff report.

And I was sympathetic to the resident complaint, but to answer your question directly, there are no other venues with such limitation. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions?

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Long. Appreciate your report.

Uh, to the applicant, please state your name and spell your last name, and you'll have 15 minutes to discuss your application. Douglas Massie, M-A-S-S-I-E. I'd like to thank the Commission for having me and allowing me time to speak today. Um, as he said,.

Spoke, uh, we've gone through the entire application process, including the initial process of getting a land use permit. I do have a— I will speak to the, um, the bank restoration. I have a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to do bank restoration. Everything I did on my property was within the confines of this permit, and I can provide this to anyone who wants it. I believe you have a copy.

Yeah, so, um, we've owned the, the bar and grill for 5 years, and we decided, you know, after talking to people in the community, that there was a need for a venue that could host larger events. Some of the events that I'll highlight that are coming up that have already booked with us: the Kinnick Historical Society has booked us for October. Kids Cupboard has booked us for December. Houston High School senior prom in the, in the fall.

In the spring has booked us already, as well as Reddington High School. So we're— we aim to be a mixed-use facility that offers community events as well as, you know, private events. A lot of weddings have already been booked. So, um, this move is essentially, you know, my wife is back there, our way of kind of moving away from the bar business. We wish to kind of step away from that a little bit, but As with many events, people want to have a glass of wine or a beer with their, um, uh, whatever event, wedding they're having.

So, uh, we thought it was, uh, appropriate to expand our use permit. As he stated earlier, um, AMCO has approved the expanded use. Um, uh, in fact, one of the highlights of the meeting with AMCO is how impressed they were with our security plan. How detailed it was and above and beyond what they had normally seen. So, you know, this, this bar has been in operation for over 50 years on that.

Lake. Um, there have been concerts, there has been noise. We haven't had any concerts outside since we've been there. Um, and I'll speak to the restriction on use after 10 PM. I did call around.

I called Everett's, um, I called Susitna Bar and Grill, I called, um, Lake Lucille. None of them are required to cease operations after 10 PM. They are, however, required to comply with noise restrictions, which we fully intend on doing. I mean, that's just— obviously that's written, that's part of the, the borough requirements. So we will comply with that.

But being singled out, and I don't think that was by ill intent. I think it was just, you know, maybe oversight or something. We don't feel that that's appropriate, and we don't feel that we should have another set of rules than, than other organizations.

Operations in the valley. So, um, in essence, that's, that's about all I have. You know, we're just looking to expand our operations into the new building, which was— it has an approved— it has been approved by the Borough Planning Commission. The building was, and this was the next step. So we're here to ask that you guys approve our expansion of the alcohol use permit so that we can we can serve beverages in the new building.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Massey. Um, does the Commission have any questions for Mr. Massey?

I have one. Um, so, um, do you have a stage inside your, your bar for, uh, live music? We do, but it's being removed. I have one of the conditions of the new building is that, uh, and I— people may have noticed, but I, I put a new roof on the old building where Part of the, the process of this whole expansion is to improve and make the old building nice again.

In. So it'll be getting new flooring and the stage is being removed. Okay, so do you anticipate hosting any live music events? Possibly. Okay, I mean, that's not off the table, but it will, it will be within the confines of what the borough requires as far as sound restrictions.

Okay, all right. And I assume if you're hosting proms, there will be DJs and— yes, okay, yeah. And that'll all occur indoors. Okay, um, because those are usually in April. Okay, thank you.

Any, any other questions at all? All right, thank you, sir. Thank you.

At this time, we will proceed with opening the public hearing. There's anyone on the phone? Is anyone on the phone, Caleb? No, thank you. Um, if there— is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak?

Oh, did we just get one on the phone? Sorry.

Okay. Person on the phone, if you would please state and spell your last name.

Jeff Jenkins, Jenkins. Okay, go ahead and proceed.

Yeah, I'm opposed to the expansion of the liquor license.

Mixing water and alcohol is never a good idea. Especially if they're going to be drinking them right on the water line. And this building is way too close to the water. I, I understand that they got an exemption from actual needed required setback, uh, once the building was already built. And I'm under the impression that their permit for— from the Army Corps of Engineers also outlined specific requirements, and I don't feel that they've met those requirements.

They've actually, uh, really defaced the lakeside there and, uh, taken away the.

The natural beauty and aesthetics of Kinnick Lake. And, uh, you know, it's going to make it so that people can sit on the deck, uh, drink to their heart's content, jump in a boat and go out and raise hell on the lake. Probably be some drownings out there, that kind of thing. Um, I'm just 100% against it and want to put in my two cents worth.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else on the phone to speak? Okay, thank you very much. There's anyone in the audience who'd like to speak?

Please state your name, spell your last name. My name is Don Rosenberg. Sign in, please. What's that? There's a sign-in sheet there.

Oh, I hit this. Okay. My name is— no, no, no.

Oh, sign in. Sorry, I don't hear very well.

So I hope I didn't miss anything and repeat things. I'm sorry.

Okay, now do I hit something? Nope, you're good. Go ahead. Yep, just please. My name, my name is Don Rosevear.

We moved to Knik Lake in June of 1970. I moved to Fairbanks in 1980. I returned to Knik in 1993 and have been there ever since. I am here opposed to what is going on. I want to address one thing real fast, the thing that Mr. Massey said that everything that he did on the lake was approved in his, um, Corps of Engineers.

It was not. His Corps of Engineers permit.

Was for putting wrap around the shore. There was nothing about punching a hole in the lake, which dropped the level of the lake 2.5 feet. Okay, that was not in the permit. That is what the Corps of Engineers is looking for. I'm going to address a couple things.

One is off the Knick Lake, Lake Management Plan. It was made in 19— August of 1995. John Duffy was the one that made it. And I'll be using— citing that, and I'll also be citing things from MSB Code 1770, Regulations of Alcohol Use. Nick Lake Management Plan.

I got to go really fast. It was established basically as a reg— uh, protection of residential quality of life of Kenick Lake. Page 1. Page 5 talks about that, um, the DEC were all.

All waste sewage stuff has to be 100 feet away from the lake. I would suggest people really check that out.

Um, page 9, 3.1, the goals. The water level of Knick Lake should be maintained at natural level. Going on to page 12, water level. The higher level being caused by disturbance with an outlet located to the east portion of the lake when a natural gas line was put in. That did happen.

Okay. Uh, it says if anything is done like a culvert or something, step 1, the first step is obtaining a consensus from the lake's adjacent property owners that the lake level should be lowered. Other steps that need to be accomplished include obtaining necessary permits and reviewing impact of lower water level. Uh, And then the other thing you're going to have to address, since this happened, he's had every right to do it. He has shut down access to the lake.

The borough access to the lake is absolutely horrible. You're going to have.

To put money into it so people can get to the lake. Right now they're using the DOT right-of-way down on that end, and that's what everyone is using. You're going to have to put money into it. One thing we know, he did not have a permit when he built his building, so that means no permit, no inspection of things. Yeah, there's— so that needs to be addressed.

And my last thing before I close It is off of 1772-100. I want to go with the 110 thing, go with B and go number 3. The applicant person of the interest of the application demonstrated the person is untrustworthy or unfit to conduct operations. He has lied about everything he's done, and he's done it in the dark at night. Thank you, sir.

Anyone else in the audience to participate in.

Public participation.

Mr. Chair, if I may. Yes, sir. I just want to clarify, uh, signing in is an optional thing if you want to leave your information. Uh, if you don't want to sign in, please just state your name, spell your last name for the record so we know who you are.

My name is Jay Tucker. I live at 10360 KGB. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I'm here tonight to voice my strong opposition to Resolution 2610, Broken Boat. Unless strict Infrastructure and conditions are imposed under MSB Title 17.

The conditional use must provide adequate infrastructure.

Must not endanger the public. Historic bar versus the commercial center. The plan radically transformed the character and volume of operation in our neighborhood. Loss of neighborhood character. The existing building is historically a quiet, low-capacity neighborhood bar with a predictable minimum impact on local residents.

The double load reality. Extension Extension allows simultaneous operation of both the historic bar and a brand new separate event center at the exact same time, which increases the combined capacity. We're looking at 200 in one building and 400 in another, and there's not the capacity in the parking area for that. So we're also looking at, uh, Peak volume of the patrons is dangerous and unmonitored. Shared parking difficult.

No study provided the existing lot can handle the regular neighborhood patrons and a massive event crowd at the same moment. This guarantees heavy overflow onto KGB, which we all know is highly dangerous road at this time. And then I live right across from 3 garage doors that will be opened up. And I can hear my neighbors across the lake. Talking.

So when that happens, it's going to reverberate right off my house. I have a full glass front, and all that will just reverberate all hours of night. The CNIC plan when I bought the house stated that 8 to 10 Monday through Friday, 10:00 on weekends. So the insufficient application completely fails to evaluate the severity The auditory disruption a commercial event center brings to a residential zone. Unstudied noise pollution.

If live entertainment, outdoor events, or increased occupancy are anticipated, those impacts must legally be evaluated before approval. No noise mitigation plan has been submitted. Bass and vibration. Like a quiet neighborhood bar, Event Center Entertainment utilizes high-powered audio systems. Low-frequency bass penetrates residential walls and windows, directly violating neighborhood quiet hours.

Outdoor patron disruption. This applicant fails to address noise from outdoor gathering areas, late night loading zones, and patrons shouting or lingering near vehicles or residential streets that are closed. If the commission chooses to approve this permit, we demand you protect our community by attaching the following mandatory conditions approval for the permit before it takes effect. One Cap building maximum allowable occupants require the owner to install permanent.

Physical barrier, which we heard today was, and then private flaggers to watch the road because it's a dip right there and people are doing 70, 80 miles an hour through that dip right by our houses. Thank you, sir.

Anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak? Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Terry Rosevear and I'm going to sign in. I'm the brother— sister-in-law to Dawn, so we live on separate pieces of property. I want to make that clear.

If you could spell your last name, that would be helpful. So my name is Terry Rosebear. I've lived on the property at Knick Lake since 1977. My concerns for the impact of the increased activity along North Shore Drive and the current business improvements located at the Knick Bar. Increased traffic entering and exiting the BAR property onto KGB via the entrance of the more commonly used North Shore exit.

Connecting directly to KGB. Increasing the use of the current liquor license to include a second separated business on the same property draws concerns for more traffic and safety issues involving the access to unsupervised lake activity and the use of alcohol between the two separate businesses. With two separate businesses providing alcohol, there is little monitoring of consumption and the consequences of probable accidents occurring while exiting onto KGB. This is not just a concern of those using North Shore Drive, but the many persons attending the large venue evidence, as well as those at Connect Bar. I respectfully ask the Planning Commission to consider these concerns before making a decision on granting a preexisting use of a beverage dispensary license located at 10204 South Connect Goose Bay Road to a separate, separate business.

And I'd also like to put into— give this to you so you receive this.

Petition, whatever I'm supposed to say there.

Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else from the audience who'd like to speak?

Is there anyone else? Caleb, is there anyone else on the phones?

Okay, yes, sir, come on up. Please spell your last name. Give us your name and please spell the last name.

Morgan Merritt, M-E-R-R-I-T-T. I have some maps and drawings that I hand out to you. Okay.

From my experience as an engineering manager of highway design projects, I know that the approaches of North Shore Drive and the Barr Driveway onto KGB are already hazardous. An increased traffic with alcohol mixed in will increase hazard. Sight distances on KGB are impaired by horizontal and vertical curves on both sides of the intersections and by brush in the right-of-way. Steep highway grades, almost 5%, on both sides reduce braking distances. Clear zones are reduced by minimal shoulders, guardrails on the east side— that's the inlet side— and steep embankments leading to abrupt ditches and culvert ends on the.

West side, the lakeside. Traffic, including doubles from the port, speeds through the dip typically at 50 to 60 miles an hour and is distracted by rare views of the K'nik Lake, the Chugach, the inlet, and Redington's boat. DOT designated KGB a safety corridor with double fines because its accident rate was was much higher than average, and traffic has increased significantly since then. But worse, North Shore and the bar— the bar driveway and a driveway from the east and ATV traffic accessing the lake make a cluster of activity that can confuse or even obstruct highway traffic.

The clearance of the bar driveway from North Shore and the other driveway is substandard, and that's perhaps the most dangerous aspect. The DOT driveway standards.

Table 1190-4 requires a 230-foot minimum clearance between a driveway and other approaches like Northshore to a highway like this. The current clearances of the Barr driveway from Northshore and the other driveway are only 100 feet and 75 feet respectively, blocking visibility and confusing oncoming traffic. All this confusion would be made worse by the effects of alcohol on any of the drivers from Knick Landing. I don't think that DOT and PF has had an opportunity to reassess the driveway permit in light of this new usage. At the very least, bar traffic should be redirected onto North Shore to reduce confusion and to increase the site distance from the hill.

The curve, and the other driveway to the south. KGB may need to be widened to include a 3— to include a left-turn pocket for northbound traffic and.

And a right turn lane for southbound traffic, similar to the Three Bears intersection on KGB.

Increasing the traffic with the possibility of alcohol impaired drivers on the bar driveway, North Shore, and the whole length of KGB would almost certainly lead to serious accidents. I ask that you protect the public by prohibiting alcohol at the new events building. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak? Yes, ma'am.

Anyone else that couldn't get on their Starlink from the park? Okay, if you could, uh, state your name and then say the person saying that you're—. My name is Bridget Wizenand. I'm speaking for Keith Hull. He's a 20-year North Shore Drive resident living and enjoying his property on Kinnick Lake.

I'm here to support Mr. Massey's.

Endeavor to establish a large event center. As a small business owner myself, I realize the large investment of time and money that has gone on and that he has spent on this property. My wish is for him to be successful, but in a manner that follows all borough, state, and federal guidelines. We could go down a lot of bunny trails regarding the Lakeside development, but for this committee and commission scope, I will limit my concerns to public and health and safety. Borough Code 177010 addresses the need to provide adequate off-street parking to handle capacity.

This capacity must include the needs of existing, um, the existing Knick Bar, as well as the new 5,000-square-foot event center. There is no way the existing site plan passes this requirement. Residents of North Shore Drive have already seen what happens when the parking lot can handle The need— cannot handle the needs of an event. We have seen cars, trucks, campers lined up both sides of our narrow road.

Road for over a quarter of a mile. Bear in mind that North Shore is already narrow with a very steep hill and a blind curve. In the winter, it requires a good run to get up the hill successfully. Hopefully no one's coming down in the other way. Add snow berms and it quickly becomes a slick, steep, single-line road with no room for error.

When event attendees park on North Shore Drive, the safety of myself and my neighbors become at risk. First responder access becomes a great concern. Please note, North Shore Drive is a dead-end road. I respectfully asking the commission to deny or delay the approval of this expansion until the safety concerns are resolved. I invite any of you or staff member to conduct a site visit to, to validate our concerns, to see how narrow and steep and twisted our road is, and to see how inadequate the current proposed parking lot area is for 2 businesses.

Once the safety address is issued, I will be happy to support and promote his new business venture.

Thank you, ma'am.

Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak to this issue?

Caleb, anyone else on the phone? No? Okay, last call. Anyone else? All right, seeing and hearing none, uh, I will now— is there any objection to closing public hearing?

I'll ask that. Okay, seeing and hearing none, I'll close the public hearing.

At this time, I'll entertain a motion for Resolution 26-10.

Commissioner Scoggins will make a motion for 26-11— or, I'm sorry, 10. Thank you, Commissioner Scoggins. Can I get a second, please? I'll second that. Thank you, Commissioner.

Um, all right, discussion? Actually, you know what, I'm sorry, I wanted to give, um, Mr. Massey a chance to respond, and that's normally what we do in this.

And I'm sorry, I skipped that step. So, Mr. Massey, I'm going to give you a few minutes if you wanted to respond to some of the public comment. And specifically, I'd like to hear about the parking, sort of what the plan is there. Yes. Um, one of the things I'd like to respond to is the claim that I did not have a permit prior to construction.

I do have— I did have a permit issued last August that was approved prior to any construction. Um, so that's there if you want to see. You guys have it, obviously. Um, the second thing, as far as parking and traffic flow, I do have an approved traffic flow and parking— or I'm sorry, driveway permit from DOT. It was just issued about a month and a half ago.

Um, I had to provide measurements for approach. Um, it had to meet all of their thresholds, all their requirements, and it also had to provide a traffic plan. One of the conditions of the, the driveway permit is that I remove access to North Shore. So any parking concerns that you've heard.

Will be eliminated. There will be a fence there, and my, uh, uh, clients will not be allowed to park there. If they do, it's at their own risk because they have parking. We've also expanded the parking area to include an additional acre of parking. Anyone who's been out there lately has seen that the parking lot has quadrupled in size.

Uh, and once I put my fence up to disallow people from coming through North Shore, There'll be an additional 75 to 100 parking spaces there. Okay, thank you. Um, any other questions for the applicant? All right, thank you. Thank you.

Okay, um, we've got a motion on the floor. It's been seconded by Commissioner Glenn. Uh, any discussion? Commissioners, any discussion? All right.

I'll ask, is there any objection to approving Resolution 2610 as written? I specifically want to ask about the condition, I believe it was number 3, about the 10 PM cutoff. Any discussion about that at all? I guess, I guess my question is, why is this person singled out and no one else seems to have to be applied by that? That's not fair.

I'm not— can Mr. Wade maybe understand? Can you answer that for us? Yes, sir. Wade Long, Development Services Manager, through the chair. Um, as I stated earlier, I was just sympathetic to the complaints of the lake residents, but you're correct.

I also stated that, um, that it isn't imposed on any other permittees, and so I am not opposed whatsoever to removing that condition. Yeah, I just, I just don't like— it's an unfair business practice. Um, we can't censor one business and not all the rest of them. I understand, but this business has been here for 50 years.

New. Um, so I, I guess, I guess one thing— excuse me, folks, folks, that's— we had public comment. Either you need to shut up, either you need to be quiet, or you need to leave the room. Your time to speak is over. This is up to us right now.

We're asking them questions. I would appreciate if you'd be quiet and respect us.

So, Commissioner Scoggan, um, did you want to propose an amendment or an alteration? I feel like it should be removed. If we can't— we can't censor one business and not others in the Valley. It's not fair. There's no reason that we would take this away from one.

Yeah, it's just— it's just— it's a— it seems like almost a legal issue coming down the road in my mind. I, I do understand what you're saying, but I do think, you know, it seems to me that each.

Situation is a little bit different. Um, you know, I think about, um, some of the venues that, that the applicant mentioned earlier, they're maybe not quite as close to residential areas. I'm wondering if, um, if there's maybe room for compromise here that, uh, you know, we have a 10 PM, uh, Sunday through Wednesday, but Thursday through Saturday they can, uh, be open a little later for events, that kind of thing. I'm wondering if that might be something because I think it's some of the bigger ones like the Massoud Resort And the Lake Lucille Resort, there's literally houses right next to them. Those are those— well, the Matsudai, not so much, but the Lake Lucille's, it hasn't been here for 50 years.

And yeah, I just, I just think in all fairness we should look at that, address that, because we're impacting a business and that's not what we're here to do. The valley needs to grow. This business will provide more taxes back in, and we can't shut that down, I don't think. I think we need to.

Address that. Like I said, I, I compromise, um, maybe Thursday through Saturday or something. But would you— what would you suggest, like midnight on those days, or what would be reasonable? I say midnight would be fair. Okay.

Just, I mean, otherwise I think we're looking at problems. Okay. Um, so just to clarify, you're proposing an amendment then, uh, to the, the current resolution that would allow for, um, them to have— I guess it's the noise restriction to only— okay, you got some proposed language here. Great.

What are the other— what is like, just the Massu, is it— what is their, what is their shutoff time? Where are the other businesses at on Friday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday? I'm not sure there is a specific encompassing rule for that. Um, can you speak to that, Mr. Long? I'm not.

Specifically what the— I don't have it off the top of my head. I'm sorry. I don't have those, uh, that information directly in front of me, but there are conditions on the permit. The hours are conditions on the permit. Okay.

But so it's not just, um, it's not just open to them. I just don't have it off the top of my head. I think midnight's fair. Okay. I mean, yeah, and certainly somebody else has a better idea.

Well, no, I mean, the other thing I was just going to say, I mean, it's important to remember that You know, even if we do say, okay, you can be, you can have music till midnight on the weekends, Thursday through Saturday, they still have to abide by noise, the noise ordinances and all of that. I mean, they still have to do that. We're just saying that you'd be able to stay open a little longer, you know, with entertainment on the weekends. I would feel like if you're having a prom, I just seem like 10 o'clock is pretty— right, that's kind of wedding, you know, it just— I don't know. Right, right.

Um, so let's see if we can look at some proposed language here from Ms. Scoggan.

8:00 AM to midnight. I think what— instead of daily, I think we were saying it'd be midnight Thursday through Saturday and 10:00 PM Sunday through Wednesday.

Is that what you had in mind, or did you want to make it midnight every night? What was your proposal? I think Thursday through— that seems reasonable to you? Yeah, we just went through this on— where was that? About a year ago out Big Lake Road on a bar restaurant, correct?

Remember that? Yes, I do. And we had noise ordinance. Of course we have noise ordinance in place on all that. And it was— was it midnight that we set that?

Do you remember, Mr. Long?

Again, I don't want to— I'm, I'm perjur—. Or thing of this, I just don't have it off the top of my head. I apologize. I think you're right, but I would also say.

Should we ask the applicant if this is fair? What we're proposing? Sure. But let me— let's let Mr. Long finish here. Yeah, and this wasn't to reduce his business hours.

The specific language in the condition is outdoor activities. So it's like pulling it inside. So I wasn't trying to restrict his business operation to—. Oh, so that's important. So he'd be allowed to have music inside till late at night.

The 10 PM restriction was only for outdoors. Is that right? Oh, okay. I guess I misunderstood that. Um, but still, you would— you'd say, um, at 10 PM he, he would be expected to pull people, take everybody off the deck?

Is that— would that be the idea? Okay. So I still think that—. I guess I— yeah, but no one else has to do that. So I think in the summertime in Alaska, it's a beautiful place, and not every day this year, but most times, if you want to be on the deck, it's kind of cool to be on a deck till midnight, at least.

You know, so certainly. Okay. Um, but is that fair to the Apple.

Second, I guess. Yeah, let's— I have no problem with that. Let's ask Mr. Massey, uh, can you live with that compromise, sir? I, I would just ask the commission to follow the law as it, as it reads, as it exists, uh, hold me to the same standard as everyone else. Don't create new rules for me, um, letter of the law.

And if— and, and hold me to whatever noise conditions exist, uh, but I don't think that I should be singled out or treated any differently. Just let's just follow the law where the code is written. Okay. I mean, the law is sort of the minimum standard, and the Commission, you know, has a role in shaping, you know, these regulations. Um, but this is your amendment, sir, so can I change Sure, I would just ask that that get— be removed and that I be held to the same standards as everyone else.

I, I think that's the right answer. I do, just because we are, you know,.

When you, when you, when you look at it from that perspective, where now we're making a special set of rules, even though it's a little bit better than what the initial compromise was, it's like we're still compromising even at midnight. So why wouldn't we just not remove it, I guess, altogether? And so it's just like every other venue in the Valley. So your proposal now would just be to take out number 3 altogether? Take it out altogether because it's still unfair.

Any, any discussion about that, Commissioner Glenn, Commissioner Ponoff, any discussion with that? Okay. Mr. Strawn, I just have one comment to make. I, um, I do just— I think those other venues that we're discussing very likely have grandfather rights, and so are not— they were never subject to a conditional use permit.

I think that is probably the case in those ones. Um, and, uh,.

I mean, I'll leave it up to you guys whether you want to modify this or take it out or leave it in or whatever you want to do. Um, just that Wade looked at the unique circumstances of this and put what he thought was reasonable conditions.

Certainly, the— I, I, I know some of the older venues would have been grandfathered in, but the one that Commissioner Glenn referenced in Big Lake, that was within the last couple years. So do you recall what, if any, restrictions we put on that? I, I just don't remember, it's been so long.

I, I don't know the specifics of that. I will say that I have not seen a condition that limits outdoor activity to 10 PM though. That's— this is new. Okay, I say we strike 3 altogether. Okay, so as a procedural matter, Mr. Strawn, Um, then do we need to vote on the original and then the amendment separately, or should— can we do that?

So, I think the first thing to do is make a motion to amend. Okay. Then vote on that. Yeah, if you could just go ahead and state—. Commissioner Scoggin would like to make a motion to amend, removing number item 3, the original amendment.

Okay. Is there a second? I'll second that. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Glenn.

All right. So, you want us to vote on the— we should vote on the amendment first then. And then proceed to the— okay, then I'll just ask you this. Is there any objection to the amendment? Any other discussion about the amendment?

Right, then the amendment passes.

All right, then with regard to the main motion as amended, is there any objection to that motion?

Seeing and hearing none, the amount passes.

All right, moving on to public hearing legislative.

Matters, and we can call back the other commissioners.

Welcome back, Commissioners.

All right, public hearing legislative matters. Resolution 26-11, a resolution of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Commission expressing support for the proposed annexation of the Chugiak Eagle River Peters Creek Lutna and associated areas into the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Staff Alex Strawn, Planning and Land Use Director.

Mr. Strawn, please provide your staff report.

Well, so I do not have a staff report. I have, um, Mr. McCarty was going to get up and talk about it, is my understanding. Um, he is the one who knows all about this and is kind of, uh, ramrodding the, the process here. Can you, before, um, before we begin, Mr. Strawn, can you tell us, did This resolution, this came from the assembly and you tell us the origins of this resolution. So this, uh, this resolution was, uh, there was a motion made by, uh, Commissioner Carpenter to, to take a position on this topic and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to go ahead and do that.

So, uh, they also directed staff to draft a resolution to.

In support of this annexation. So, this is not the assembly requesting that the Planning Commission weigh in on this. This is the Planning Commission itself saying that they wanted to weigh in on it. Okay, I just recall the discussion being that we would hear from this gentleman about this proposal, not that we were going to be doing a resolution to support it today. So, my recollection is I specifically asked, we can do both.

And the Planning Commission said, yes, the Planning Commission wanted not only to hear a presentation, but to actually have a resolution in support. Okay. I missed that. Um, all right. Um, oh, it was while I was gone.

That's why I missed that. Okay. I was because I, because the meeting before that, I remember having a discussion and I thought it was just an informational meeting. So that changed. All right.

Um. So, sir, go ahead and please state and spell your last name. And hi, I'm Ken McCarthy. McCarthy, M-C-C-A-R-T-Y, from.

Chugiak. All right, please give us your presentation. So, uh, a little history here. Back in '74, the people of Chugiak/Eagle River were interested in becoming its own borough, and the people voted upon that, and the courts ruled that that's unconstitutional according to Article 10, Section 1, in which all our designers of the Constitution didn't want to have a bunch of little boroughs and to keep it larger like Matsu. So it had to stay as part of Anchorage.

Matsu wasn't very big back then. In fact, it could have been that Sugieq River was larger in size with people. So over the years, in fact, in '75, Anchorage, which was borough at the time switched to become a municipality and such. So over the years, there's been concerns about.

What's going on with Anchorage and the people of Chugiak/Eagle River. Like, you know, what can we do about that? Over the years, when things need to be done, that we've gone to Mat-Su for help in different things. Like our MEA, our electrical came from MEA. Our telephone services, you know, Matanuska Telephone.

And if there's any fire-type issues that went on, we came to Matsu asking for help to put out a fire. So there's a strong relationship that's existed between Chugiak and Eagle River. So back about 9 years ago, about 2017, there was a group of people that were discussing, let's go through this process again to maybe become its own borough or at least break away from Anchorage. And a few people were asking, let's explore the idea of annexing into Matsu back then. In July of '24, Natifu came to.

Matsu and asked the question, has that question been asked of Matsu to annex into here? And we were told no one ever asked that question. And so as we're just like looking at options, of course, you know, making informed decisions, you've got to gather information, right? And so what are different options to be able to break off from Anchorage? So that's been over the past couple years.

Exploring that in March of '25, that a technical review was sent to the Boundary Commission. And let me just mention the State Boundary Commission is the entity that looks at any type of changes in boundaries throughout the state. And so technical review is not an official proposal, just they give you a freebie. You know, we're going to review this and tell you where you need to be going, not to say what you need to do, but just kind of like you're deficient or this is good or whatever. So in July.

July of '25, we received back the technical review, and you have a copy of what they responded back to us regarding that. But one of the big questions that they asked is, what does MATSU say? And so that's the question that's been at forefront. It's like, what does MATSU say? What's the information to gather?

And the whole process of that. In December of '25, that commissioner that put a resolution in place to give the borough manager the ability to ask the question, is this very feasible? You know, it's not taking a position statement, it's just, is this feasible to be done? At that assembly meeting on the 16th of December, that there are people from Legal Exit that came and said, we need— we encourage you to table this. The assembly didn't seem to understand really what— and I've asked, talked to various.

People in the assembly after the fact and go, oh, I didn't know it was just a resolution to give Mike Brown the ability to investigate this. And so, um, that was put on hold. Matsu couldn't even explore this, couldn't, uh, the manager couldn't assign projects to people. But coming to Matsu and asking the question of different departments that, uh, Manager Brown and others were very receptive to answering questions. He just could not initiate it.

Does that make sense? So where it's come is like back to the basic questions. What does Matsu say? The Boundary Commission has asked that question. What does Matsu say in the process?

And so coming to you and asking the question, can this be sent on to the Assembly so that it could go on to the vote of the people in November as a, um,.

Um, what's the technical word? So information vote. It's not, you know, but yeah, that's Matsue is interested in this. Now, if Matsue, the people Matsue say we're not interested in annexing Anchorage or annexing Chugach Eagle River in, then it becomes a dead issue. But the question is still out there, and so here I want to answer any questions that you may have.

And before you have this 29-page document. This is just kind of a synopsis of over 800 pages of what is the proposal to the Boundary Commission. The Boundary Commission received a document that was about 540 pages, and answering some questions that are in there expanded the information that's needed. One of the pieces that you see in your, your document here, multiple pages of maps, is they want to see the meads and bounds and the technical language that describes that. If you look at your.

Document here on page— one of the last pages of the map.

I guess it's page 22. Yeah. So you see on page 22 the size of Matsue. And then if you look at the very bottom of that, That's the size of the area being considered requested to be annexed in. Most of that area is wilderness land, but the population that exists there is about 37,000 people based on the census and evaluation for districts.

Okay, now I like to bring your attention to something that, you know, the question is What is it the benefit to Matsue to even consider this?

Certainly, people of Chugiak River see a benefit because we want to get away from Anchorage. But look at— there's a spreadsheet that breaks down the expenses.

Sorry, page 20— page 26, try that. 26.

Okay, great. So turn to page 26.

So, Chugach Eagle River has service areas of its own. And so one of the big things is that it's not imposing upon Mat-Su to have to go and now take care of an area.

We already have fire, we have roads, we have parks, and we have service areas for lights. So if there's road lights, whatever that area that has streetlights has to pay for that, we're going to add in police. So that'll become a service area for the area. I know that the borough here is a secondary and doesn't have law enforcement services. However, if you have a service area for that, then it serves the area of need.

Another piece you see in here towards the bottom part of that is a service area at the very bottom, the Sunset Repayment Bond, that the Anchorage has about close to $800 million in bonds. And first of all, I just want to say I applaud Matt Su by not going out there and grabbing bonds just to try to.

Function. But that's not the case with Anchorage. And so Eagle River, Chugiak is going to be responsible for about $90 million in bonds to pay off. This is not— if the annexation happens, this is not imposed upon the people of Mat-Su, that the Chugiak Eagle River area will have to take on those bonds to pay them off. So in this formula here, at $10 million a year and paying back the bonds.

And you see the number there, a mill rate of 1.5, that'll pay back the bonds, and, uh, and then it's completely free of that debt. But also you see at the bottom part of there is that the service area's totals come to $35,800,000, or $35.8 million, okay. You see, in the school district area, that's $27.6 or $27.7 million that go to.

Matsue School District to attend to the schools of Chugachiga River or whatever. I mean, certainly have to tend to that, but whatever expenses that they see to appropriate. But then look at the other borough total there of $19.4 million. That's money that the borough is free and clear to spend on whatever type of things it needs to deal with. So as you look at taxations or different things that Matsu needs to attend to, here's a funding stream that could come in.

We're already— that money is already going to Anchorage, so now it could be redirected to Matsu. It's a belief that Matsu would do a better job in managing that flow of money in the economic development for the borough as well as for the state.

So that's— and, and then you see at the end of that, in that sunset that currently with those numbers there, uh, that $82.9 million is coming in annually.

Annually to— from the taxation of Chugach/Eagle River with all the expenses and the mill rates and such. And then you see after the 10 years, that drops down to $75.1 million on the Chugach/Eagle River. So there's an incentive for them to say, we're getting— it's charging us less in taxation. Now, another incentive for Chugach/Eagle River is wanting this is they want their voices to be heard. And being at several different places and also being a former state house representative, there is a huge difference when you cross the Kinnick in how people are treated.

And so, um, I applaud you all in treating people more fairly than what's happening on the other side of the river. Any questions?

Yeah, so you're saying that we're going this route because.

It would allow the assembly to put it before the people of the Matsu, uh, on as a, like, a ballot measure in November. That's correct. If it's the will of the commission here to send it on to the assembly and the assembly, you know, sees that's of merit to put it on the ballot, then it could be heard in November. So the way I see it, it's like, um, it doesn't make much difference what Chugach and Eagle River say and Anchorage says if you have nowhere to go. So if we vote we'll take you, now you have a place and a means to do what you're asking.

So then the vote to annex or to leave Anchorage makes sense instead of just having a vote for the foreseeable future that this will— if, if we can get it, if you can get this on the, on the ballot, it allows the Matsu to say, hey, we're down with this, we would take you, now you guys have a place to go, correct? That's.

Correct. And again, this is an informational vote only. So in the Boundary Commission flow, that to detach, that the area of interest to detach, that they are the only ones have a say. Anchorage has no say in the matter. So it's Eagle River, Chugiak, that— and, and to detach, they need 25% of the voters involved in the petition to say that we want to detach.

Right? Then to say we want to go this route to be annexed, it needs only 10% of the voters from the areas of concern or interest, which means that's Chugachic River, 10% of the voters there doing the petition, but also 10%— so later on down the line, 10% of Mat-Su, uh, saying yes, we do want to do this. So this vote in November is strictly an informational vote of the people saying, do we want to.

To say to the ugly stepsister of Chugiak/Eagle River, we will take you.

Commissioner McCabe, Mr. McCarty, Ken, how many people in the Chugiak area out of that 37,000 have expressed an interest in being annexed to the borough, to Mat-Su Borough? That the process is— there's no survey that's been done from there. But Eagle Exit, as example, they're doing a petition right now saying, do you want to detach from Anchorage? And they're getting a lot of interest to want to detach. So that's kind of a given indication that people want to get away from Anchorage.

I was talking to someone just yesterday. And they just started this petition process 2 weeks ago, and they have 2,000 people on the petition listing, and they need something like 11,000 people to take action.

Take it to the level.

Yeah. Follow-up question. So in your survey, did you ask them— did you just ask them if they wanted to detach, or did you ask them where they wanted to land?

The Eagle Exa is asking the question of both, of where do you want to detach and be part of Eagle Exa to make your own burrow. OK. Let me explain something about this.

Certainly watching this process, being open to whatever can happen because Anchorage is coming out of control and it's greatly affecting our state. And that's a grave concern, not just because of Anchorage, you know, it's a grave concern for our state. So the people hearing about Anx now to Matsudō, the common theme that they say,.

That makes perfect sense. And this could happen very quickly compared to the other. The Eagle Exit, what happened in '75 in Article 10, Section 1 hasn't changed. So Eagle Exit is still facing that. They have to change the Constitution to exist.

And changing the Constitution, if you took that out, then that says we're going to allow for small boroughs to exist. So it has a great impact upon the state, and we don't want that in the state. For example, let's say a small borough is established and the state says, okay, we'll recognize this small borough, and then it economically cannot function. The state's got to rescue that and whatever type of debts that they have. Already we have, you know, Anchorage with $800 $1 million bonds in debt, and their credit rating's not good.

I'm not saying the state's going to have to go rescue that, but that's a tough situation.

Situation. So Eagle Exit, as example, if they could pass this hurdle, great, but they've had 9 years and this thing has been around since '75. And so that's the concern. But people don't know the details of that, but I'm explaining that to you. It's— that's a huge hurdle, as we know, that to change the Constitution is Very difficult thing to do.

Commissioner Carpenter. Go ahead. Commissioner Carpenter. Um, my, my sort of thought on this is it sounds like how many people, but there's people in Eagle River that would like to be like their own city, so to speak, instead of an area within Anchorage. So it'd be like if you annexed into the Matsue, you could follow like wasabi.

Apsilla becoming a city, or Houston, and you see that kind of autonomy and having a bit more say, having a full seat at the table instead of trying to work your way at the assembly in Anchorage, in an area that seems to have the same, I don't know, same thoughts or the same concerns as you, or at least similar, where maybe you don't have those similarities with Anchorage. So it's not so much like where you end up as it is how you end up, if you have the ability to get your autonomy. Is that close to what—. Well, that's a good— I like what you're saying. And that question of autonomy being recognized even at the grassroots level, uh, you have community councils.

Our community councils are no longer recognized by Anchorage. We meet, but they like, we don't care what you say. The Comp Plan that was established back in '75 and continued on, that Anchorage doesn't recognize the Comp Plan. So just on the grassroots piece of being heard, we're not being heard, and we wanted to go to a place that will hear us, you know. And so that's a commonality that exists here in Matsu.

Yeah, now the aspect of like back in '75 when Anchorage was a borough, that there wasn't a discussion of saying, well, let's just make Chugiak/Eagle River a city. It could have done that, just like Wasilla, Palmer, so on. Okay, but when they became a municipality, the city of Anchorage is from the Knik Bridge all the way to Girdwood. And just that whole vast area. In fact, you look out the window and you see Pioneer Peak, and then you see the city of Anchorage in the mountains there.

There. So it extends all over.

Yeah, Commissioner Glenn, so this— it make— this makes good sense to me. Is if Eagle Exit were to actually form, they'd have to have a constitutional amendment, they'd have to form a government body, which means electing everything we've got here This is an easy go for it, for just for the Matsuburo to inhale them. So it makes a lot more sense than them trying to set up an entire government. So, because that's virtually what's going to have to happen. I mean, they have to build an entire borough in order to do this.

So from a road commission to you name it, we've already got it all. And I can— you imagine what that would cost. To do that. I wonder what it would cost. So anyway, yeah, I'm interested in this.

So thank.

Thank you, Commissioner. So, Commissioner Skye, what would happen to MOA infrastructure such as the water plant, the Kootenai Lake? Does that come with that, or does it stay with them? How does that— how would— I don't know if you know anybody looked at stuff like that. I was just curious.

That's a good question. Yeah, so utilities stayed the same. So it's a utility, and the regulatory commission is going to be overseeing that. So, I, you know, the boundary lines you see, we're not wanting Anchorage dump. Eagle X wants Jay Bear and Government Hill and the dump and stuff like that.

We're like not wanting to poke the bear. Anchorage could keep the dump. You know, the boundary lines are just clear to that of kind of like Moose Run in that area there. Golf course. That's kind of like where the boundary line type thing, um, you see the lines there.

You go to the.

Annex Now website, and you can see I flew my plane on the boundary line. And so seeing where the lines are at from actual, from the air looking down as well as the map. Yeah. So like the, so the whole Cluton water line up to the lake would be still part of the MOA? It would be under the utilities, the regulatory commission for the state regulating the water.

Yeah, I just do. Yeah, so people that are in Chugach River that are getting water, a lot of them have wells, but if they're getting water from the Eklutna Lake and the AWWU, then that's utility and they'll be paying for that. And the same thing for garbage. If the company that's providing the garbage truck pickup, that they're negotiating whatever to send that garbage to wherever, if it's coming to Mat-Su, that there probably needs to be a.

I'm guessing the staging area that go at, and that's not difficult. I'm just wondering if you can't charge Anchorage for the water coming out of that lake if it was part of the— Mat-Su is actually where I'm going with the payoff part of the debt is more— this is where I'm going with this, by the way. I'm not sure. I'm not picking on you here. I'm just— no, I'm not a fan of Anchorage politics either.

And the key thing is like, what is going to help out Mat-Su? How about the state? This is a tremendous amount of money that could boost Mat-Su, but it boosts the state. When I was a legislator, going on the trip to see the Anchorage port and then going over to Point McKenzie and seeing that port there, and as a pilot flying over the very nice snowmobile trail that's supposed to be a railroad track, And like, man, what is holding this thing up? And if this money brings money in to help economic development,.

Development, then here's another avenue to do that.

So I want to turn to the letter, and you referenced this letter from the State Boundary Commission from July 11th, 2025.

And it, it indicates— I mean, no, it's just a preliminary finding, but it indicates several problems with the proposal, shortcomings, I guess. And one of the things that it talks about is is that it doesn't really talk— it talks about coming to the valley, but it doesn't talk about the process of leaving Anchorage. And also, well, I just would like to start with that. I mean, what do you have to say about their criticisms there, that it's sort of a one-sided proposal? Sure.

So let's go through this real quick here. As you see in the Under General Organization, about the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7th line down.

Is, for example, the resolution from Matsui that they're wanting something, but nothing was done because it was, you know, tabled. So again, the question is, what does Matsui say? Going to the second page—. Sorry, not to interrupt, sir, but the rest of that sentence says the petition should also identify the municipality of Anchorage. Um, so I mean, yes.

Uh, so in the 540-page petition that was done, the, uh, the technical, you know, review petition, that the section regarding detachment was just included into the language of the annexation. And so what's been done is addressed the language that needs to be in that section for detachment. So that's been done in the 800-some-odd page document. Okay.

So when I saw that, it wasn't like a difficult thing to resolve. It was like, okay, they want this. So some of it could be redundant. Okay. But yeah, it indicates that you hadn't made the case why it's beneficial to the state of Alaska.

I know you've sort of tried to make the case today so that I— if this were to go forward, you'd have some more arguments in that regard, I take it? Oh, yes. Okay. Thanks. All right.

I do. I have some more. You know, my concern, like, I'll tell you, I, since I heard about this, I actually, you know, tried to talk to some folks from, from your area, from Eagle River, Chugiak, and no one I spoke to had ever heard of this proposal. They'd heard of breaking away and becoming, you know, your own borough or own city, but never that you would join the valley. So I say that because I'm worried that we are premature here.

Do you plan on— because we have no information to indicate to us that most of the people in Eagle River and.

2GEC would like to join the MATSUBURO. Do you plan on conducting some surveys to gather more information in that regard? Yes, and, uh, in, uh, on December 16th, that, uh, had the understanding that it was going to just— the resolution is going to pass and then Mike Brown was going to be able to sign to investigate and all that. We have over 5,000 rack card pliers to go out. But one of the big questions was like, okay, let's make sure we have a lot of different things already answered as much as possible because people can have questions we won't be able to answer all.

But if we can have as many questions answered, then it helps people to know. And so I've seen some places that they'll— or some individuals, they'll start throwing out an idea and a bunch of questions come out and they say, well, I have to get back with you, and it kind of diminishes the interest, even though it may be a great idea. So we want to make sure we have as much information that we can tell the public. So when that was shut down.

On the 16th, and it was given a statement. In fact, in the assembly they said, are we tabling this forever? Are we tabling it for a week? Tabling it for several months? Uh, that they— the assembly was told that Eagle Exit would hear from the Boundary Commission within 3 weeks for resolution to this, their petition.

They haven't formally filed their petition yet. Is still in process. And the reason, I think, is that the issue of Article 10, Section 1 hasn't been addressed. And if they file and they're denied by the Commission, they cannot file again for 3 years. So it just keeps on telling people, this is on the edge, we're about ready to do this, and all this stuff.

But they have a huge hurdle that they have to establish. Okay, so in talking to, you know, if, if the.

In favor of Matt Su is to send it to the people so they could make a decision on that, saying, on the information, yeah, we're interested. This thing is going to move very quickly to let people know. And the general consensus in talking to people is like, this makes perfect sense. But, but aren't we getting the cart before the horse? I mean, isn't it more— don't we need to know if your people even want to come to the valley before we say We want you to come to the valley, right?

Uh, except for the Boundary Commission again says, what does Matsu say? And as we submitted that, that's one of the questions that, you know, we addressed the question of meets and bounds. We addressed the question of putting in the detachment language. But we still need to address the question, what does Matsu say? So it's your position that you need to hear from Matsu before you hear from the people of Eagle River and Chugiak on this?

The people from that I've talked to in Chugach River asked the same question. Okay. I had another question about the.

The, the police issue, um, you indicated service area, but then which police entity would provide that service? We would make our own police. Oh, that, that would be that you'd have an Eagle River Police Department or whatever, right? Okay. Okay.

Any other questions? Yes, sir. No, go ahead. So, I mean, essentially what I think what you're trying to say is you're, you're basically a vessel out there. You're just looking for a place to land.

And you want to see if we would be willing to accept you first and then go to the next steps, obviously. That's what— That's correct. Yeah, that's what they're— I think that's what you're asking. Well, yeah, I mean, I think it's a legitimate question to know if the majority of the people there even want to do this, even want to be part of the Valley. I mean, I wish we had survey data that we could look at before we were at a resolution stage.

Everybody wants to be a part of the Valley, Rick.

If that were only so. If that were only so. Commissioner Carpenter, I believe that when you're asking a group of people that big, I think it makes it an easier yes, or at least it's no longer a no, to just say, hey, do you guys want to leave? Well, where would we go? How would we get there?

What's going to happen? Having an answer to say, hey, look, The Matsou said they'd take us, we could land there, then we could become a city like Houston or Palmer or Wasilla. I believe that knowledge makes it an easier yes to say, you know what, that's better than begging at the assembly in Anchorage. Just my opinion. I think it's an easier yes to know that there's something out there that would take us if we did it, rather than just looking at the blackness and saying, mm, maybe, I don't know.

I mean, that— I guess I would— my response to that would be maybe that's true, but shouldn't, shouldn't that have been asked to those people first? I mean, shouldn't we, shouldn't we ask the people.

People of Eagle River, or certain someone asked the people of Eagle River and Chugiak, would you like to? I think they have. And for the last 10 years, it's been a group that has to change the Constitution. So some people have become numb. And I think with another option, many people get back on board.

So I think the question has been being asked. I think it is being asked. You— we— the number was like 2,000 after a couple of weeks of having it out there. That's for the exit, right? That's for the— just the straight exit, right?

That's what you were referring to. That's the 25% is the detachment. Yeah, but he's talking about the 2,000 signatures on the petition. That was what you referenced that the other group was trying to do, right? Or that they've gotten.

So there's 2 parts of the process. One is they have to have 25% of the elect— the voters who say they want to detach, and then they also have to have a petition to say Do you want to be with this idea? What Eagle Access does, they put that in the same language. I'm not sure if—.

If that could fly, because you're gonna have to have another petition. But the point is, is that people are quickly signing this because they do want to get away from Anchorage. I think there's people that want to get away from Anchorage, but you're unsure. And I think, like, I don't think there's any harm for anybody in the Matsu that saw that on the ballot and said no way, or people said yeah, sure, I'm interested in that. That at least gives people of Eagle River, like, it's not just an unknown.

There is possibility, rather than for the last 10 years a group that's got to change the Constitution asking the same thing with no end in sight. Just my opinion. That's the way I hear it.

If I could add one more thing in this process here, there's an old saying, hope deferred brings despair, and The case of this annex now is I see it's really viable. But Eagle Exit over the past 9 years, which I'm—.

Applaud them for wanting to do these different things, but they're building the house with no foundation. Foundation is you got to change the Constitution. And so they just are building this house and saying how wonderful this house is, but it's not on any stable ground right now. And so if they could change it, but there's a lot of hurdles that have to happen. And in the meantime, the people of Chugach River are given this hope that it's going to happen tomorrow, next week.

Even the Assembly was told that they're going to have an answer in 3 weeks, and it didn't happen. So, if it's a favor of the Commission to send it on to the Assembly, and the Assembly sends it on to the people, it answers the question, or at least resolves the issue. Is there hope in this process? Commissioner McCabe, I have a question for you. What is the attitude toward your effort from the Eagle Exit folks?

Are they on board?

Are they pushing back, or can you describe that relationship? So a number of these people I've known for a long time, and like I said, it's like, okay, if they can make this happen, great. You know, I have a desire that we need to exit from Anchorage. That definitely has to happen. As example, Anchorage just made a statement that they would like to have 10,000 homes built in our area.

Well, some of our area is not desiring to have Like, I have 2.5 acres, I would be a greedy land baron in the eyes of Anchorage, which is sad. So we do need to separate from Anchorage. How we could do it as quickly as possible and in an efficacious manner. That's the question. Yes, sir.

Commissioner Glenn, just as for Commissioner Allen, they have to know they have somewhere to go before they can make any decisions, and we have to know that will accept them or not. So,.

I can see we need to start the process. So I think we need to hand up to the borough manager, or to the assembly, I should say, you know, some direction, and then they can run with it. So yeah, no, I, I, I, I hear you, Commissioner Glenn. I just— it's just the order of the process to me is the— is that I just— I'm having a hard time getting over. It seems like the the people of Eel River and Chugiak should say that they would like to come into the— to the valley, and then we say yes or no, we will take you, as opposed to the other way around.

This almost has to act simultaneously, right? In my mind, this has to act at the same time. So it's not one asking the other, it's both of them going, yeah, but this can work. So, yeah, I mean, the idea of them forming this Eagle Exit deal and starting their own government there is daunting. I mean, I can't imagine what that would cost.

It would be high millions.

Well, I tend to agree between the 2 proposals. I mean, I don't live there, but if I did, I'd probably, I'd probably favor this one between those 2. But yeah, but I don't know what those people think. None of us do yet because there hasn't been any surveys or any data collected on that. Um, it's Commissioner Carpenter.

Just the fact that they've had Exit Eagle River, like Exit Eagle, Exit for 9 years suggests people want to leave. That's— and, and you can't go somewhere— like, I've never gone on a trip without a destination.

So like, if we have people that want to leave, the next question is where we're going. So in a way, we are kind of fulfilling what you said, and may not be the exact way, but we've seen for 9 years there's people in Eagle River that would like to leave Anchorage Okay, but where? And all we're doing is saying, hey, we'd like.

You land here. And it's putting it before the people instead of being like Anchorage and saying no, because we're Anchorage and we can. In my opinion, you know, I just think putting it before the people and taking a 9-year— I don't know— question is kind of proof that some people want to leave.

Commissioner McCabe. Um, I don't know if anybody has delved into this part of it yet, but if it were to go on the ballot in November, do you envision what the cost would be added to the borough manager's department to review the question? Do you have any idea of a budget that might be needed to do something like that?

I do not know the answer to that. I just know that the manager said for him to.

To do anything, to assign anything, he has to get the assembly to, uh, authorize it. In the resolution, I did not see a fiscal note to that resolution on the 16th of December.

Um, I just had one more question. I think, um, in terms of the, the police force, just because my background is a particular interest to me, um, do you have a ballpark figure in terms of what you would think, uh, a new to set up a new police force in the Chugiak/Eagle River area would cost? That's a great question. So let's go back to page 26, or is that right, 26?

So, uh, let me ask a question on top of that question. The borough can't have a police force, so are we saying the city of Eagle River? That's what you're saying? That's what was my previous question. Okay, it's gonna have to be a city police force.

It can't be a— we don't— we're not We can't have a Mount Soo Borough Police Force. Right, exactly. And so I, what I.

I wanted to know was, you know, um, are they going to start it from whole cloth, which it sounds like that's what they would do, or would it be one of these scenarios where, you know, they work out a deal with the City of Palmer or something, for example? Um, I mean, you saw in Girdwood they've struggled to have law enforcement coverage, and they worked out something with the City of Whittier. Um, so, um, I just didn't know which, which path was, was more viable. You think a whole new police forces. Well, seeing what can possibly happen, already we've had some dialogue with the Palmer PD, the city manager Palmer, and asking the question, can a service area exist for law enforcement?

And especially like in, uh, second-class borough. And that question is still out there. So It may be viable to do that. Okay. But the point is, the original question, if you look at page 23,.

6, That, um, uh, towards the bottom part there you see public safety, that we are right now paying $18.6 million for our 3 officers on duty. Palmer has 3 officers on duty and their law enforcement budget is around $8 million. Wausau, I understand has a budget about $8 million, maybe $9 million. So we're spending a lot of money for our 3 officers. And so you see in the budget, with— if we were annexed in, we're dropping it down to about $7.7 million.

So where is that other $10 million going? Well, that goes down to the Sunset Repayment you know, uh, issue there, uh, the $10 million to pay off the $90 million of the bonds.

To Anchorage. So that's— as you look at this, it doesn't look like we're going to be charging more in mill rates. You know, there's still going to be this about $81.9 to $82 million out of the Chugach River. So that— but that's an annual cost. I guess my question was, I mean, you're starting a whole new— so cars, building, Dispatch center, like everything.

Um, what, what's a— do you have a ballpark number for that? No, I don't. Not at this point. Okay. Um, Commissioner McCabe, so is it 3 officers or is it 3 officers on each shift?

Is it 3 officers on duty? Yeah, right. Yeah, it's not per shift, right? So like 9 officers, add a few other people, so it's like, uh, Palmer, right? Yeah.

All right, any other questions?

Okay, uh, this time I'll.

Entertain. Well, let's see, um, is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak to this issue? All right, Caleb, is there anyone on the phone on this for this issue? Doesn't look like it. Anyone on the phone?

Okay, thank you.

Um, and again, anyone in the audience? Doesn't look like it. All right, seeing and hearing no other persons to speak, is there any objection to closing public hearing? All right, go ahead and close public hearing.

And at this time, I'll entertain a motion for Resolution 26-10. Commissioner McCabe, I'll move 26-11.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong page. You're right, 11. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Fonov, I'll second that. All right, thank you.

Um, the motion was moved by Commissioner McCabe and seconded by Commissioner Fonov. Any discussion?

I kind of, at first, I think it's a pretty good idea. I mean, it's going to be a lot— people are going to— it's going to be a lot better for the Eagle River. We're a lot less— I've done some work in the Anchorage. I don't work in the MOA if I don't have to. On the JBER, I will.

But it'll be— I think it'll be a lot better for the people of Eagle River. And I think there's a lot of good people there that don't have a voice where they're at now. So I think it's going to be a good thing right now anyway. Any other discussion? Commissioner Carpenter, I think it could be— I think there's a lot of unseen benefits that it could give to the valley as well.

I just, um, yeah, I don't see why we wouldn't at least give it a vote, see what our people out here say.

Commissioner Fonov here, uh, also adding to what Commissioner Scoggin said about, uh, work in general construction, uh, people living in Eagle River, Truegate,.

Wouldn't have to go through the Anchorage Permitting Office for construction. Uh, new additions, you know, you put in a shed over there, put in a temp meter, electrical, uh, very tricky to work around compared to Matsu's process.

Just, um, one thing to think about is that the, uh The, um, census is coming up at the 10-year mark, and the count of our population determines how many people we get to choose to represent us in Juneau. So having people that are more aligned with our valley principles might be beneficial, and it might give us an additional, uh, 2 or 3, maybe 4 seats potentially in the state House and Senate.

I guess my, you know, I think.

I think, um, to make clear, I— we all live in the valley because we love the valley and think it's a great place, and, you know, we kind of wonder why everybody else doesn't want to live here. But it's, um, you know, I guess my take is that, um, I'd like to hear from the people that we're, uh, we're talking about annexing, and unfortunately, um, we don't have any of that kind of data yet. So I just feel like this may be a great proposal, but in my mind, it's, it's, it's a little premature. I think that getting a survey done by those people is sort of a minimum first step on whether we should move forward on this. But that's, that's my take.

So at this time, we've got a motion, a second, and I'm going to object to approval. So I'd like to go ahead and have a vote.

We're gonna use the clicker or we're gonna do a voice vote. You can do clicker. Yeah, clicker should be working, so all right, please express your vote.

All right, as expected, please. Main motion has passed with Commissioners McCabe, Glenn, Scoggan, Von Hoff, and Carpenter in favor and Commissioner Allen opposed. Right, um, at this stage, the motion has passed.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Resolution 26-13. A resolution of the Mattanusca-Sitna Borough Planning Commission supporting the Angstrom Road to Trunk Road corridor project and recommending North Route 1 as the preferred alignment identified in the October 2025 Draft Route Selection Report. Staff, Alex Strawn, Planning and Land Use Director.

Mr. Strawn, please provide your staff report.

Thank you, Commissioner. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair, but actually Cole Branham is going.

Going to be delivering this presentation. Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Cole Branham. I'm the project management division manager at the Batsue Borough.

I'll give, uh, Lacey just a minute to pull up our presentation.

Do I have a clicker up here? Just gotta let you know. All right, no worries. All right, so, um, again, my name is Cole Branham, uh, here to give you guys an update on the Inksham Road to Trunk Road corridor project, uh, specifically about the final route selection report. Um, so this presentation will, will summarize the final route selection report and talk about some of our findings that we.

We've, we've had during this. So, you know, obviously this project's managed by the Matsu Borough. We've contracted with HDL Engineering Consultants, who's helped us through this process all the way from the beginning with the reconnaissance engineering study through traffic and safety analysis, public involvement, and then this route selection report. So in this presentation, I'm going to go over the history, the purpose and need, the scope of the project, talk about some of the analysis and public engagement that we've gone through, share some of the details in the decision-making process for this, and then talk about our recommended route for this. And before we move on from this slide, hopefully you guys can see it okay in your image, but this is the Fishhook Triangle.

So it's bounded by Wasilla, Fishhook, Palmer Fishhook, Trunk Road, and Bogard Road. And this is the area that we're working with in this project. And I just want to point out, you know, we've had a lot of development in this area.

Area in recent years, but the road system is pretty disconnected throughout there. So what, you know, the problem we're dealing with here is there's a lot of traffic funneled down Engstrom Road and limited connectivity in the area. So I just wanted to point that out. We had a figure that had the full triangle in here. If you can move to the next slide, please.

So purpose and need. So the purpose of this project is to improve safety and increase the capacity of the road network in the Fishhook area by providing an alternate route between Engstrom Road and Trunk Road. And this is driven by the, the need to increase road connectivity and reduce congestion to accommodate current and future growth. And like I said, this has really been driven by the amount of development that we've seen in the Fishhook Triangle. We know that there's congestion issues or safety issues in the area and the lack of connectivity.

So, project history. Um, so this project is identified as a major collector roadway in the 2035 Matsuburo Long Range Transportation Plan, um, as well.

As the official streets and highways plans. Both of those are borough-adopted documents. And then in November of 2021, TIF 21 was approved, which was a package of projects. And in that, we had the Engstrom to Trunk Road project. And the original corridor that was presented with that had a conceptual alignment of the southern route.

But one thing we recognized when we inherited this project was that there hadn't been any engineering studies or any evaluation of routes completed., in that. So that was kind of the first step that we took. Um, so if you can move to the next slide, please. Oh, let me go back. I think I just skipped a slide or two.

Can you go back one slide? There we go. Um, so we did— we started this project off by doing the reconnaissance study. Um, we conducted that in 2022 through 2023. Um, and in that analysis, we identified Northern Route 1 as another viable alignment in addition to the southern.

Route. Um, it's kind of hard to see in here, and I'll have a better figure, but the southern route on that top figure is the red line, and then the northern Route 1 is the purple line. Um, in March of '25, we, we held a public open house meeting, uh, for this project. It was very well attended. We had over 100 people participate in that, um, and we talked about, um, the findings from the reconnaissance engineering report.

Um, we looked at, at the, at the different routes and then also solicited feedback, uh, from the public on what they wanted to see, you know, in a preferred route, and then, you know, are they interested in pedestrian multimodal accommodations, those sort of things. We did have a comment period for that during the meeting and then following for, for a month or so after that. And from the comments received, we did have about 80% support for the northern alignment at that time. After the, the comment or the public meeting, we had a survey, and in that survey we didn't necessarily ask.

Folks, you know, which route do you, do you prefer? We asked, you know, what were the preferences, um, you know, what did they want to see out of this project, like access and mobility, you know, bike and pedestrian facilities, you know, what was their highest priority? Were they really concerned about environmental cost? All those. And out of that survey, um, we had about 400 respondents, um, and the, the top priority of folks was access and connectivity.

Um, then we completed the traffic study in October 2025., and then the route selection in July of this year.

Next slide, please. Um, so what does the route selection report do? So it establishes the criteria to evaluate and compare the, uh, route options, um, and it identifies a preferred route based on a combination of all the criteria, not any single factor. And then ultimately it ends up with a recommendation for the preferred route.

Next slide, please. So, here is a look at the routes that we evaluated. Um, so starting with the southern route, um, so this is at the bottom of your map. It's the red dashed line, and it is about a half mile north of Bogart Road, and that segment is about a mile long. It's a little bit less than a mile.

I mean, it ties in at the intersection of Old Homestead Road, then moving up to about the middle of the map, we've got the purple alignment there. That's North Route 1. That alignment is about 2 miles long, again, just shy of 2 miles, and it connects to about the center point of Trunk Road at a planned official streets and highways intersection. And those are the 2 routes that were on the original reconnaissance engineering study that we completed. Then from the open house, we had a role plot out and we took feedback from folks about what, you know, what they wanted to see.

And so that's where we developed Northern Route 2 and Stone Creek to Aspen Ridge Route. So Northern Route 2 is basically an extension of Route 1.

Extends a little bit further to the east and then connects in off of Heaton Road, which is an existing intersection on Trunk Road, and it's slightly longer than Northern Route 1. And then Stone Creek to Aspen Ridge Route, which heads up north and then ties over to Palmer Fishhook, which is a little bit outside the bounds of this project that's titled Inksrum Road to Trunk Road corridor, but we felt it merited further evaluation. We did receive the feedback, so we included it in our evaluation for routes. And then, of course, not listed on here, but we do have a no-build option that was included in the report.

Um, so this slide shows the selection criteria that we utilized for this project. Really, we wanted to make sure that we had a balanced decision framework for, for evaluating the routes. So these first couple of items here, connectivity and mobility, those really tie into the purpose and need of the project, what we're trying to achieve., with it, you know, environmental, community impacts, engineering constructability, and other considerations. Look a little bit more into the impacts of what these routes are going to be, you know, the.

Cost and those sort of items.

Next slide, please. So looking at connectivity and mobility, so the preferred route should encourage traffic to go to Trunk Road and provide a useful alternate access. You know, our goal is to redistribute traffic away from adjacent congested roadways, provide alternate access and egress, and then meet, meet the engineering standards of a major collector. So these figures here, the, the top one there, it's a really simplified textbook-style figure, but it, you know, just shows what a well-connected street network looks like compared to typical subdivision cul-de-sacs. And then the bottom figure there talks about classifications of streets.

So, you know, we have local streets which are focused on a lot of access and low mobility. So they're, you know, slower roads, lots of driveways, access points on them. Once you get into collector roads, you're balancing access.

Access and mobility a little bit more. Minor collector is going to be focused a little bit more on access. Major collector is going to be focused a little bit more on mobility. And then when you get to your arterial streets, you're focused on mobility with very low access points, really looking to drive and get people where they're going.

Congestion and relief.

So this is, this is your queue lengths, how long you're sitting at an intersection. You know, think about driving through downtown Wasilla during rush hour. You know, that's a prime example of congestion. So we evaluate this with level of service. So this table on the top of the slide here shows, you know, the service levels from A through F, with A being the best and F being the worst.

You know, a preferred route option should reduce future traffic volume delays from Engstrom Road at the Engstrom-Bogart intersection.

And so looking at these, at these figures,.

Figures here. We're showing the southern route and northern Route 1, and through our analysis, we found that both routes, or all routes, reduce the delay at the Ingstrom-Bogart intersection. Actually, the, the southern route shows a slightly larger decrease in delay at that intersection, but given that this is a projection out to 2050 and the, the level of difference between those, we really feel like it's within the level of precision or margin of error for a study out that far. But one notable difference from the traffic analysis is that the northern route collects more traffic. It encourages more people to use the route.

It's, it's nearly double that of the southern route at a little bit over 1,300 vehicles per day versus around 740 for the southern alignment. So there is a higher projected traffic volume use on the northern route.

Alternate egress emergency access. So this is, you know, looking at the, at the broader area of the Fishhook Triangle. I just really want to point out that having, having limited.

Connectivity really is a detriment to access, and whether it's your daily congestion and connectivity or emergency access points, whether it's, you know, natural disaster or emergency response, it's better to have a well-connected network. We feel like providing that connection within the Fishhook Triangle is an important aspect of this project.

Next slide, please. So roadway classification. So we're looking at kind constructing a major collector. Um, as I stated before, you know, it balances traffic mobility with limited property access, provides key access point for folks, and then serves medium to high density residential areas. And I've got a figure on the next slide that we'll look at that shows where some of that development is in the area.

From our design criteria manual, it would be a 35 to 60 mile an hour road. Um, you know, obviously we're thinking it's going to be on the lower end of that for this particular project, but that would be sorted out through the design process.

And then intersection spacing with roadways of equal or higher classification, minimum of 1 mile. So this, if you look at the official streets and highways plans or some DOT type planning documents, you'll see that theme where major collectors, arterials, they're spaced out, you know, about a mile. You know, it depends. You know, our borough has a lot of topography and a lot of lakes, a lot of obstacles that we have to get around., to make that spacing. Um, but that's something that you'll notice even on our currently adopted Official Streets and Highways Plan is that kind of spacing for those roadways of that classification.

And then, of course, that they begin and end at a road of a similar classification. So you don't want a major collector, an arterial tying into a local street and funneling a bunch of traffic into a road that's not intended for that.

So this figure here, this shows— this is a heat map that shows the residential development within the— I guess it'd be the eastern side of the Fishhook Triangle.

Um, so you can see some of the areas where we have more dense development. And then, uh, I wanted to point out that the orange lines on here are existing major collectors, and then the dashed orange lines are unconstructed proposed major collectors. So you can see basically what the existing major collector network is in this area. And then we do have a project proposed to extend Ingstrom North to Texal. It's in the works currently.

And funded through the TIP 24 package, and then also to connect the east and west legs of Texal Drive, to connect those connections in. So looking at this, you know, we have the southern route, which is about a half mile from Bogart Road, and then northern Route 1 and 2, which are around the mile mark, tying into Trunk Road. And then of course, Stone Creek to Aspen Ridge ties into Palmer Fishhook, and that spacing is close to.

Mile from, from Texile Drive there where it ties in. But this kind of illustrates the area where we're— where the congestion is coming from and why we are preferring to have a connection with the corridor on the northern alignments.

Another important criteria for us is environmental. So at this point, we've just done a desktop analysis because we haven't had boots on the ground. All— any of these alignments require new right-of-way. But we have identified the existing streams, or at least that are mapped, you know, with Wasilla Creek being the largest of those. And you'll see the orange hashed line there, that's the floodplain for Wasilla Creek.

So you can see it varies quite a bit through that corridor, gets wider in certain areas than others. And then on the north side, you know, where the northern routes or Stone Creek to Aspen Ridge would go through, you've got tributaries to Cottonwood Creek up there, as well as some mapped wetlands. So the southern alignment has less impact.

Impacts on the environmental side of things compared to the routes on the north end of the project.

Community impacts. So this, you know, ties into a lot of the efforts that we've completed so far, you know, including the open house. But on top of that, we've been to the Transportation Fair multiple years. We've presented to the Joint Assembly and Planning Commission, I think, 3 times now on this project. We've been to community council meetings.

As well as met one-on-one with stakeholders. So, and we have a project website where we've received feedback from the project, you know, after we have meetings, it's open, you know, continuously to, for people to provide feedback as well. And then, you know, for example, when we had the draft route selection report, we distributed that to the email list, folks who have signed up for it, for them to provide comment back. We received those comments and looked through those as we went through this effort. And this route selection report really is a, you know, it's kind of a part of the feedback that we receive from the community.

Community after we went through the reconnaissance engineering study. You know, we recognize that there was an interest in looking— there was other concerns to be addressed, and there was interest in looking at different routes. So that's why we went through this effort and developed this route selection report to look at these different options.

And then engineering constructability and other considerations. So this is really the nuts and bolts of the project. You know, how's it going to be constructed and what's it going to cost? That's really what it boils down to is the cost of of things. So the southern route is the lowest cost option out of all these, followed by northern route 1, 2, and then Stone Creek to Aspen Ridge.

As you can see, the, the cost breakdown here for this. So on to the next one. So the selection criteria results are shown here. This is a snippet right out of the report. You guys can see the full detail in there.

So we broke down the, the criteria that we just went over and talked through into all these.

Different categories and questions and rated them poor, fair, or good based on our analysis, including the no-build option. So obviously the no-build performs very poorly when we talk about purpose and need, what we're trying to achieve with the project, but has low environmental impacts and low cost because we're not doing anything. Southern route, you know, overall performs fair. The northern routes perform good when it comes to the purpose and need, what we're trying to achieve with this project., but have more environmental costs and a little more costly. Um, once— one place where, uh, Northern Route 1 stands out over Northern Route 2 is cost.

So Northern Route 1's a little bit, um, less expensive based on our, uh, estimates. Um, and it has fewer impacts. And so that's driven by the length of the corridor and where it ties in and the kind of the development along that alignment. And then Stone Creek to Aspen Ridge kind of falls somewhere in the middle there, as you can see.

Our preferred route recommendation is Northern Route 1, as labeled on the proposed resolution to you guys.

We feel like it's the best overall balance of connectivity, resilience, access, future growth, and public support for this project. It offers similar transportation benefits to Northern Route 2, but at a lower cost with a few— with fewer impacts.

And so this recommendation is to advance the project into preliminary design. It does not determine the final design. And certainly doesn't authorize construction. And to be clear, at this point, we, we do not have funds identified to move this project forward into design. So we are looking at moving this decision forward.

And then at that point, we'll be looking at parking this project until funding is identified to move this project forward at that time.

So, at this point,.

At this point, you know, I'll open the floor to any questions. I do have Trevor Straight here from HDL Engineering who helped with the traffic and safety analysis if you guys have any questions regarding that. If you go one slide forward, I'll mention really quickly, so my contact information is up here as well as Kelsey Means, who's the public involvement coordinator with HDL, and then we have the project website available. So all of the project documents are listed on the website from the reconnaissance engineering all the way through the route selection report, including the summary of the public open house meeting on there. And you can sign up for the emailing list and submit comments to that webpage.

Thank you very much. Commissioners, questions?

I had one. Um, so the, um, I see that the southern route is less than half the cost of both of the northern routes. Can you tell me, um, why that is. Is it just longer, or is it about, uh, or there— maybe you can just explain why the huge difference in cost. Yeah, so, uh, the southern route is about half as long as, as the northern route.

It's, it's a mile where the northern route's roughly 2 miles. So that's probably the— or that.

Is the biggest factor in the increase in cost. Then you also have the additional water body crossings for the tributaries to Cottonwood and then the wetlands that were mapped. If you look at the environmental slide, maybe if you want to scroll back to that slide real quick. So you're talking about bridges then, we're gonna have to build— Well, not necessarily. You know, Wasilla Creek very likely could be a bridge, and that was something we evaluated when we did the reconnaissance engineering study.

The southern alignment actually crosses, at least as shown, crosses where the floodplain's quite a bit larger. So there is a fair chance that we would need to construct a bridge so we wouldn't impact the floodplain. But it depends on the analysis. We would do a full H&H analysis, hydraulic analysis, to look at, you know, what are the impacts to the floodplain, and can we install, you know, like an arch pipe culvert, or do we have to.

Go to a full-blown bridge. Any of the tributaries to the north, you know, obviously I'm speculating a little bit, but, you know, those are probably small enough where we could install a culvert and we wouldn't need a bridge for any of those crossings. Okay, thank you. Other questions? No questions at all.

Okay, thank you for that presentation.

Yep. All right.

At this time, we'll proceed to— proceed with opening the public hearing. Caleb, is there anyone on the phone?

No. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this issue? Yes, sir, come on up. And we all know who you are, sir, but if you'll just state your name and spell your last for the record, please.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'm just handing out the statement I plan to speak to tonight. Uh, so good evening, Commissioners. My name is Rod Hanson.

Hanson, representing North Lakes Community Council. In Cole's presentation, and he referenced the official streets and highways plan, there's actually 2 routes in that plan. There is a minor connector at the southern route, and there's a northern connector— I'm sorry, a major connector along the northern route. We and the Fish Hook Council strongly support timely construction of a southern route minor collector road between Engstrom and Trunk, and it should have been built years ago. We recently signed off on a joint community council resolution.

You have a copy of that in your packet. It was sent to you by the clerk last Monday. Um, I'm not going to read the resolution, but I just want to highlight the reasons why the south route should be selected. And number 1 at the top of the list is safety. The southern route significantly improves safety on the most dangerous section of Bogart, which is not a collector.

That's.

That's an arterial, at the end at the Engstrom intersection on Bogart. It would remove the vast majority of loaded gravel trucks in the area for the next 30 years of that gravel pit operation. The DOT traffic numbers that we reference in the, in the resolution, they were taken in the summer by DOT when school was out. So think about the 8 months of the year that school is in session, and our safety concerns are even higher. Students, parents, and buses travel through that area to 15 different boundary-exempt and charter schools that are served somewhere along Bogard and Seldon.

Number 2 is cost. Uh, you recognize that already, but, um, cost to borough taxpayers. Borough estimates show the minor collector, as you pointed out, is only about 40% of what a northern route would be. And when compared to an even more recent DOT, uh,.

Cost analysis that was done, they're estimating the northern route at over $30 million. Means the southern route could be like 30% the cost of the northern route. And as you may hear tonight, there's other opportunities for the southern route to be completed even less— at less cost than what is estimated. Property owner rights is another major reason we object to the northern route at this time. The major— that major collector would cut through areas of undeveloped homestead and agricultural properties.

The owners strongly object, and they will fight hard to keep their family properties whole. And then the 4th reason is really what we believe is a biased route selection report. If you really take the time to study the detailed traffic analysis, you'll see— and Cole kind of acknowledged it tonight— the southern route actually meets many of these— those important project objectives better than the northern route. The narrative in the overarching route selection report, though, appears to be written to support a predetermined.

Predetermined— is this working? You're good. Predetermined northern route and is not supported by that underlying traffic analysis. Moving on, I want to address several things we've heard from the Public Works on why they don't support the southern route. One, they'll say we're just pushing this to the benefit of the gravel pit operator.

And that's simply not true. It's actually the other way around. Central Gravel Products is willing to contribute their time, their labor, their product to benefit the borough and our community for a timely and cost-effective and much safer project. We've heard concerns about intersection spacing and intersection design, and in fact, the spacing of the southern route more than meets the published borough design criteria for the minor collector that it would be. Safety of all intersections is a detail that would be addressed in final design.

We've heard there's overwhelming public support for the northern route, and I think this is also disingenuous. Both community councils represent a broad.

Broad cross-section of our area, not just those who live along Engstrom or who participated in a public outreach event a year and a half ago. We're addressing the broader safety concerns of the many people who travel Bogart on a daily basis and who want the borough to carefully manage costs and get some solutions in place quickly. On their behalf, we've, we've provided extensive public input on this on an ongoing basis over the last 2 years. And in fact, more recently, over 50 members at official community council voted unanimously to support the southern route and make this a joint resolution.

Number 4, we've heard a bridge across Wasilla Creek on the southern route would be very expensive. That's true, but it is included in the cost estimates you have in front of you, and it's much less than a northern route would be. We've heard borough concerns about snow drifting on Engstrom. That problem was largely solved by Central Gravel when they built the berm along the old Havemeister Fields. That problem, though, between Cornelius and Nicholas.

Between the two adjacent lakes is currently being addressed with tree removal along Engstrom right-of-way, and the addition of a simple snow fence installed on Cornelius Lake in the winter months would resolve the issue. I'll just take a moment to wrap up. We've heard the southern route, if it was built, wouldn't be much use because southern Engstrom drivers would simply keep going to the new Engstrom roundabout. With ever-increasing daily traffic, school commuters, and buses on both Engstrom and Bogard, We simply don't agree. Even with the new roundabout, that intersection will remain a frustration.

Southern out route adds relief where it's most needed. To wrap it up, on behalf of both community councils and the thousands of Burroughs and Engstrom commuters that drive through that area, we're asking you to replace Resolution 2613 with a resolution supporting the southern route. And thank you for listening. Thank you, Mr. Hanson.

Anyone else in the audience would like to speak to this issue?

Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, can I make a quick comment?

Yes, go ahead. This is Alex Strawn, Planning Director for the Matsu Burrough. I just— people may have noticed I gave Mr. Hanson 5 minutes. That's because he's representing Community Council. Our commission handbook says that councils get 5 minutes.

That's always been the way we do. I appreciate you explaining that. Thank you. Yes, ma'am, if you could state your name and spell your last name, please. All right, my name is Sharon Johnson, J-O-H-N-S-O-N. Good evening, Planning Commission members, commissioners.

Um, as a retiree, I no longer have to leave for work to avoid the morning congestion at that lovely intersection. However, I remember that if I left as late as 7:15, I could wait up for 50 vehicles to go by before I could get onto that street. I've been a resident off of Bogart Road since 2003. Um, and if there's any.

Accident at that intersection, it could be even longer because I'd have to try to then turn left on that blind hill. I'm here to support the southern route from Engstrom to Trunk Road. The Bogard-Engstrom connection handles approximately 4,400 vehicles per day according to DOT traffic count, while between Trunk and Bogard Road carrying approximately 13,100 vehicles per day. The planned roundabout was originally scheduled for design in 2018 and completion in 2021. It is now 2026.

Land acquisition is still incomplete and utility relocation remains ahead of this project before construction could begin. In my view, meaningful progress may not occur until 2028, more than 10 years before residents see relief from the anxiety of navigating the Bogard-Angstrom.

Intersection. The first consideration should be cost. The southern route is estimated at just over $9 million compared to approximately $21 to $31 million for the northern route. Central Gravel Products has expressed support for reducing truck congestion entering Bogart Road from Angstrom Road, which makes southern route an especially practical option going on to Trunk Road. Particularly with school starting now, and those bus drivers, I think, would be very happy to not have to go through that intersection.

Having witnessed buses throwing on their brakes because somebody pulls out in front of them with the busload of kids is not a pretty sight. The Northern Road also faces strong sustained opposition from the affected landowners, and further pursuit could lead to eminent domain.

Um, thank you for your time. I really believe that the Matsuburo working with the.

MPO and Central Gravel Products can deliver a southern route much sooner than how the intersection is progressing with the roundabout. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, I'll see if there's anyone else who's present here. Anyone else in the room? Yes, sir. Come on up. You state your name and spell your last.

Thank you. Hi, Aaron Mason, Mason. Uh, proud resident, uh, in favor of the southern route. Uh, as a father of 5 girls, I got a lot of kids going up and down Bogard. Yeah, that intersection is terrible, and, uh, the blind hill and everything.

Uh, so a southern route is like way faster, uh, the cost is like way less. So I think those should really like ramp like production and like what we should do, if that makes sense, because like a northern route.

With undisclosed time is a lot more time, like, uh, of the road not being cleared of trucks and other vehicles, if that makes sense. Also, if a business owner, like you said, is pro-business and pro-community, why wouldn't we support that, like, option too, if that makes sense, if it adds to the, like, um, increased speed and development of the land? So, with all those reasons, I would hope that you would also consider southern route instead of the northern route. That's all. Thank you.

And Caleb, it sounds like we have someone on the phone. Um, on the phone, please, uh, uh, state your name and spell your last name.

My name is— What's happening? Sir, sir,.

We're getting a lot of feedback. If you could turn off the volume if you're listening to this through YouTube or something.

Okay.

Hello?

Is he still there? Oh, he hung up. Oh, okay. All right, maybe we'll call back. Anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak to this issue?

Yes, sir.

Sounds like Greg's back. Um, my name is Simon Gilliland. That's G-I-L-L-I-L-A-N-D. Um, I would ask that you would refer to my written testimony and comments, um, in your packet.

To summarize what I wrote, um, like, you look at, uh, page 6 of my written testimony, which is.

An excerpt from the, from your packet and also from HDL's traffic analysis report.

It shows the southern route with less traffic than the northern route, and also somehow the southern route with less traffic than the, with Engstrom having less traffic than the northern route with when you look, compare the southern routes.

If you move on to the second page here, or I should say page 7 of the, which is an excerpt from what you guys will be hearing next week from the MPO. If you look at project ID 3 and project ID 16, Ingstrom Road reconstruction and pathway, estimated by the MPO at $32 million. Um, the congestion relief, which is the connector road, is— they're estimating at $31 million.

$1.2 Million. If we go back to the previous table, we would be spending 4 times the dollars per anticipated traffic vehicle for a northern connector road versus just simply upgrading Engstrom Road. Sometimes you got to spend a little bit more money, but 4 times, that's a lot more.

If you could look at page 9 of the written testimony there, I used a map from the, uh, from the borough here and put some notes on top of it. So we start on the top of the page here, TIP 18, or the top left, top right of the page, TIP 18, Farm Meadows Avenue. That was something that was approved. Still not constructed, very much would help with traffic in the Eastern Corridor. Um, Tip 21, the bottom, which is the southern route,.

Not really any progress on that. Now we're looking at putting a third road in the middle. The northern Route 1 does affect fewer landowners, but that's a fight that the borough's going to be— going to be long, it's going to be hard, and it's going to draw out the length of this project, as will northern Route 2.

Um, you can see that the yellow lines there, the existing section line easements, these could be used, but they're not being used. Um, in fact, um, the Aspen Ridge route goes and cuts through more private property. There's no easement there.

Um, if you refer to the last 5 pages of my testimony, um, there's the written plaques where you can see where this these easements, section line, right-of-way, etc., exist. So I would ask that you would look at that written testimony before you would discussion vote. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Anyone else in the audience would like to speak to this?

Good evening. My name is Colleen Bag, last name B like Victor, A-G-U-E. I'm going to read you something from your study, Section 8.1, the last line. The northern routes 1 and 2 will improve total wait times by nearly twice as many seconds as the Stone Creek to Aspen Ridge route. And the southern route provides the greatest reduction in traffic delay overall for this intersection.

So I'm wondering why we're not taking the best route that's going to reduce the traffic by the greatest quantity. I am a member of the North Lakes Community Council, and for 2 years we have been discussing— more than 2 years, but for the last 2 years we've taken votes, many of them. We have discussed this on nearly every meeting, and we have always— the conclusion.

Has been the community council wants a southern route. We sent those to you in resolution after resolution, and now we have another resolution that incorporates Fishhook Community Council. They also want the southern route. So it seems to me that the community knows what they want. In addition to that, the gravel pit operator has plainly indicated he will help with some of the costs of this.

Moreover, currently with the community, with the gravel pit there. The trucks now have to make required left-hand turns, go down the road, make a U-turn around a roundabout, and then come back. So every gravel pit truck that comes out of there drives that road twice, once in each direction, before they can even get to their destination. And then they may have to do it again when they come back, and they have to make a right-hand turn instead of a left-hand turn. Those creating more travel on that road.

School is going to start, and might I remind you that the school is a high school with high school drivers driving that route every day. The southern route needs to be.

Selected, it is going to be the most expeditious and the cheapest and the safest way to go. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we have, we have 2 people online.

You're online, uh, please state your name, spell your last name.

Hi, my name is Greg Simdt.

We request the commission replace the draft Resolution 2613 with a resolution that recommends the south route My wife Patricia's family owns the property along 1.5 miles of the North Route. This land is homesteaded by Patty's grandfather in 1915 and is being used and developed for agriculture and wildlife habitat uses. We've cleared and installed 4.5 miles of fences and constructed 2 bridges for livestock movement and protection of Wasilla Creek. The proposed North Route will significantly impact the use of this land. Please refer to my, Patty's July 27th letter and attached.

Attachments included in the meeting packet for details of our objections to the North Route. The following are our most significant objections and concerns. First, lack of consideration of impacts on property owners, including our neighbors on Heaton, who will be impacted by a road located in their backyards. Second, biased statements regarding public preferences for the North Route. The Route Selection Report states there is, quote, overwhelming support for the north route, but states they received only 17 comments at the March 2025 public meeting.

North Lakes and Fishhook Community Councils, which represent 20,000 area residents, strongly support south route. Third, failure to consider aesthetic impacts and impacts on wildlife. The south route is already impacted by the gravel pit operations. The north route will transect the Wasilla Creek Valley and be a barrier to free movement of wildlife. Fourth, failure to consider impacts on land use.

Borough staff indicated, quote, agricultural land use and proximity impacts are legitimate considerations and would be evaluated in greater detail following preliminary design. We think the impacts of land use should be considered now as part of the route selection process. Fifth, inaccurate interpretation of traffic analysis Appendix A to Route Selection Report, as previous speakers have commented on. The south route provides greater reduction in Anston Road traffic volume. And less delays at the Volkart intersection than the north route.

The south route is technically the better route as it addresses the most important Engstrom traffic issues. In summary, the south route provides better relief from congestion at the Volkart intersection and relief from gravel pit traffic issues as per the traffic analysis. The north route has significant impacts on property owners and land use. The south route property owner indicated willingness to work with the borough on right-of-way acquisition and assist with road construction.

We, on the other hand, are not willing to sell right away. The south route costs $13 million less than north route, provides greater benefits to the Engstrom traffic issues, can be constructed sooner, does not take land from unwilling property owners. We suggest the following alternative approach: construct the south route now, then complete projects currently in design phase—Texel Drive extension, Engstrom extension Texel Drive, and the Antrim Boulevard roundabout, and then evaluate the need for and location of an additional connector after these improvements are completed. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.

Thank you. I think there was someone else on the phone. No, they hung up. Okay. So, anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak on this issue?

Yes, sir.

Uh, my name is Jade Laughlin, L-A-U-G-H-E-N.

G-H-L-I-N. I'm the owner of Central Gravel Products, and I have expressed, uh, my willingness to— not only, uh, the Kircher family and myself have both worked with the state and the borough in the past to sell right-of-way. As you can hear, the Lohmann-Olson family is not at all interested in selling anything, and I'd respect that 100%. Um, secondly, I also expressed my willingness to do the rough-in for the road. You guys design it.

You guys, you know, we work together on the design. You guys design it, we can rough it in, you guys put in your ditches, you guys do your D1, you guys pave it, and you guys build your bridge. When I was going through my gravel extraction permit process, because of all the hubbub about Bogard, which I agree with 100%, and what my effect was going to be on it, uh, I reached out to two different bridge manufacturers and and one of them is in Seattle. And for $250,000, I could, I could have a girder bridge, single.

Single-lane girder bridge installed, 125 feet long, which puts you outside of the floodplain. So you don't even have to fight with the Fish and Game or DEC or anybody on that. So I figure probably $600,000, $700,000, you could do a two-lane girder bridge pretty quick and pretty easy and do it outside of the floodplain. So that would speed up your, your process dramatically. Um, the first time I heard of the southern route was actually in his office, Mr. Strawn's office.

When we came to notify the borough that we were going to apply for a gravel extraction permit, that's when I first seen the yellow line across there. And at first, I was a little taken aback by it, but the more I concentrated on and looked at it, it makes the most sense, you know, not only for the community, but for everybody that doesn't live in the community, just is passing through. I worked closely with Alex on a number of mitigations that we're— we've all implemented to try to lessen our impact on the community. And I've worked closely with the North Lakes.

Community council on this. Personally, I, personally, I support both routes, but as a business owner, the southern run is the only one that makes sense. The borough can't afford $30 million, much more than they can't afford $9 million, but if we're going to take a hit, let's take a $9 million hit instead of a $30 million hit. Um, I'm willing to have anybody over that wants to come and talk to me about it. We can go walk the route and see what it looks like so you guys can make an informed decision.

But, uh, just like the gentleman on the phone said, I think we do the southern route and the Engstrom roundabout and get Texal built. Let's concentrate on those because I think you're going to see that those 3 routes are going to relieve a lot of pressure. And the last thing that I would ask, and maybe you guys could push this onto your road service, Rod Hanson, North Lakes Community Council, has never done my bidding, and I find it insulting personally that he is being accused of doing something for me. If anything, it's quite the opposite. I'm a member of this community as well, as well.

As a business owner, and I have put myself out there to help you guys out in every way, shape, and form. And you guys need me as much as I need you. So if you guys could tell the people within your control, let's, let's tamp that down, because that's not at all what's happening here. All right, thanks for your time. Thank you, sir.

Anyone else in the audience like to speak to this issue? All right, is there anyone on the phone? Caleb? Okay. So, would you like to come back up and maybe address some of the public comments that we heard?

And specifically, one thing I'd like to hear from you is about, um, you know, which project is it? Is it your belief that the southern route could be completed much faster than the northern route? I'd like to hear from you on that as well.

Um, so regarding timeline, Uh, it's very difficult to anticipate that. A lot of that's tied to the funding for this project.

And it also, and in addition to that, depends on where the funding is coming from. You know, if this project were to go be federally funded, that's a much more lengthy, involved process that draws out the length of how long it takes to complete a project. As far as time to completion, there's, you know, there's a lot of different factors that go into it that determine that.

If they were both funded at the same rate, could move forward. Um, you know, in theory, they could be completed on around the same time frame. Obviously, the construction is a little bit longer for a northern route. Um, so, um, yeah, but there's— it's hard to give a clear answer to that with the information we have today. Fair enough.

Thank you. Would you like to address any of the other, um, comments that were made? Um, Trevor, do you want to speak a little bit to the— some of the traffic comments? Specifically, yeah, um, I think, uh, and as some of the commenters.

As noticed, the southern route— and I'm going to speak primarily to just traffic and safety issues. So the southern route has a very— has a slightly greater benefit, I guess, to the Engstrom-Bogard intersection in 2050. So we're talking 20, 25, 24 years in the future, and this is all based on modeling that was done in the past. So I that the margin of error that we're talking about here between kind of the southern route, the northern routes, is, is pretty— I would say the difference between the, these, these different routes traffic safety-wise for, for delay at the intersection falls within the margin of error. So there is a slight benefit to the southern route based on just the pure numbers that come out of the model.

However, again, we're talking many years in the future, and so I don't know if that benefit would necessarily be realized.

Between the southern and northern routes, or even the route that's even farther north. So I would say there is, as mentioned, that the model does show a slight benefit there. But again, with delay and queued vehicles, there's a 1-vehicle difference between the different routes. So I would say that the change there is pretty negligible between those different alternatives.

Commissioners, any, any questions? I just hear you say there's been more benefit to the southern route.

So, if you look at the just the pure delay at the intersection, so if you look at, I don't know if you have the report from you, but the traffic safety report page 22 has a table where we lay out basically the expected delay at the intersections under the different conditions. So if you look at the.

The southern route and the level of service for the intersection, we're talking about a level service F at 27.7 seconds. And then under the northern route, we're talking about 24.3 seconds. So that would be the average delay per vehicle difference between the two. I find it appalling that we would even bring up the northern route. The southern route's half the— less than half the cost.

The people were more in favor of it. I don't even know why we're even talking about the northern route. Someday, but not today. It just doesn't make any sense at all. I mean, I feel like this is a waste of time at this point to even talk about the northern route.

In the future, yeah, but if you got the textile road coming through and then you build the southern route, someday maybe, but you got willing landowners and less than half the cost. It just appalls me that this is even brought up.

I could speak to that a little bit. You know, some of it ties to the amount.

Traffic that we intend— that the traffic analysis shows that the northern route captures over the southern alignment. So it's, so it's nearly double that. So we're looking at trying to put in a major collector road to build out that network. We do see value in a southern alignment, you know, when, when the development supports it. But at this, at this current time, you know, looking at the spacing between Tex Al Drive and Bogart Road, the northern alignment serves a broader area and distributes traffic, um, better than the southern alignment.

The southern alignment also creates a left-hand turn, which is a potential conflict on Engstrom Road, where the northern alignment would carry traffic through. Any of the northern alignments, including Stone Creek, Aspen Ridge, would carry traffic through to Trunk Road. And then that intersection of the southern leg of Ingram Road could become a controlled intersection there. So, so right now, all that traffic's coming down Ingram Road in that horrible intersection.

So that can handle that. So why would— this is a huge improvement, the southern route. I mean, in my world, you're talking over $10 million. That's a lot of money for the taxpayers as borough, and you can say it's federal money, but that's still taxpayers. It's still a waste of taxpayers' money.

I think the southern route is the way you should— I just— I'm just appalled, I guess, that it doesn't make any sense at all. You're splitting hairs here, and, um, but other than the price, but I mean, the top— Yeah, the southern route's the only way to go. I just— it's just shocking, I guess, that we're doing this. But Commissioner Carpenter, I think this is an important issue if you think about the rate at which the valley is growing. So I think it's a good, uh, issue.

I don't understand how anybody who lives in the valley could say, uh, that the northern is.

Better and safer when you— just go to Band of Brothers on Bogard and try and turn across traffic. I mean, anywhere on Bogard, that's just— to be able to keep any extra traffic hitting that particular stretch on Bogard, like, thank you, Lord. Somebody saw something and we actually are doing something about it. But we're arguing about extending where we want to keep traffic is further away than I would say that the need right now is Bogard with a gravel guy that like— I have a CDL, you know, so like he obviously knows the truckers and they're behind it. I just, I just think that in my mind, if I was going to move somewhere else, I, I would move to Fairview.

View or Fishhook before I moved anywhere on Bogart. But to sit here and say that, I don't know, I can think of roughly 12 million reasons why the southern is better if I just went basic economics and the fact that you don't have as many environmentalists chasing us because it's a lesser impact. So two of the biggest things that are going to fight us, environmentalists and finances are both on the side of the south.

I— and everybody that lives out there says the south. I, I— yeah, I— for me, I, I want less cars hitting Bogart, especially there because of that corner and the hill, um, and coming down from Engstrom, and the fact that you could probably alleviate I mean, just look, you got the hotspots on your own map. That whole area says, okay, everybody lives right here, go right there.

Whoo! Now we're not waiting a half hour to get out, especially at school. You got Front Terrasse, Matsu Day School, cut through, and you have Teeland, you have, um, Matsu Career Tech, a couple other schools, and they all funnel down to Bogard to go to Colony Middle and High. That's an extreme amount of traffic on Bogard that's heading to that intersection. And this southern route says no moss.

I just think it's kind of a no-brainer for me.

Thank you. Just my opinion. Mr. Kerpenich, any other? Yeah, Commissioner Glenn, I'm in favor of the southern route. I mean, it's less money, it's going to get the job done.

Let's do the southern route. We need to quit talking about this. We keep hiring companies like HDL and we study this crap to death. What do we got? What do we have into this study, studying this?

How many dollars? I want a number. You got a number for me? I don't have that figure right now. I would like to certainly follow up with.

With you. It's millions that— and that's not pavement on the road and guardrail. It's less than— yes, I'll get you the number. Any other questions or comments, Commissioners? All right.

Um, Commissioner McCabe, I just have a comment. Sure. I think that the, um, I lean toward the quickest and cheapest, um, means of making our roads more safe. Okay, thank you. All right, last call for anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak to this.

Um, okay, uh, at this time, seeing and hearing none, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing.

All right, um, at this time I'll entertain a motion for Resolution 26-11, and if anybody's got an amendment Oh, 12. I'm sorry, I apologize. Uh, 12.

Uh, yeah, we go 11 to 13, don't we? Yeah.

Um, so, uh, I'll entertain a motion and then any amendment. Um, at this time, Commissioner McCabe, I'll make the motion to move Resolution 26-13. And I'll second the motion. All right, so the, uh, motion is made by Commissioner McCabe and seconded by Commissioner Glenn. Um, is there anyone who'd like to propose an amendment?

Commissioner Scoggan, I'd like to propose an amendment that we would amend the resolution to strike the northern route and add the second route. Southern route. Southern route. Strike the northern. Yes, sir, if I could.

Um, so this is Alex Tron, Planning Director. I anticipated this could be a possibility, so a lot of the whereas within this Resolution support the northern route.

Um, I have prepared a draft resolution if you were to fail this ordinance, uh, to support the northern route. I prepared another resolution that would support the southern route with some findings that would support that. It largely matches the resolution that the community councils put together, and the whereas is found within that. So if you would like, uh, you have the option of failing this resolution and adopting a substitute essentially. Um, I guess I'm— my concern is, um, sort of the public process.

Um, wouldn't we need to take that up at another meeting if it's— if we're going to have a whole new resolution that hasn't been provided to the public beforehand? So, I mean, I would— if the attorneys want to correct me, I do believe that it has been advertised that you're taking this issue up, that you're looking at a route selection report. Certainly people know you're talking about this topic, and adopting a resolution Solutions.

Supporting a different route is not outside of the realm of acceptability. He's correct. It's the notification that the hearing is happening. You regularly change the language within a resolution at any meeting. So this is no different.

Okay, thank you. Just want to make sure we wouldn't run afoul of any issues there. All right, so let's take it. We'll just take a clean vote then. On the Resolution 2613 as it stands now.

So if we use the clicker, it's yes for— would be saying northern route. No is no on the northern route. And then, uh, that's my question. Yeah, yeah. How do we want to say that so we're all on the same page?

Yeah, that's, that's just to clarify. That's, that's, that's, that's the question. So, um, if we— a yes vote is, uh, the proposal.

As it is written, which favors the northern route, um, and that's an up or down. And then depending on what happens there, we can go on to the next, uh, matter of business. So a negative, a no vote would be saying non-the-first. Correct. All right, so Lacey, if you want to tell us when you're ready for us to vote.

All right.

Okay, so go ahead, Lindsay. The main motion has failed with Commissioners McCabe, Glenn, Scoggin, Fonoff, Carpenter, and Allen opposed.

Thank you. Um, so Mr. Strawn, it sounds like you had some— you might have been reading the leaves here.

Okay, so the resolution that I prepared, I think I'm going to have to probably read into the record. So I apologize for that. It's going to be rough. Um, so as a new resolution number 26-18, a resolution of the Mattanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Commission recommending the Ingstrom Road to Trunk Road corridor project and recommending the southern route as the preferred alignment identified in the July 2026 Route Selection Report. Whereas in November of 2021, MSP residents voted and approved the TIP 21 road bond package, including $2.5 million for an Inkster Road to Trunk Road corridor, the information memorandum supporting the TIP 21 package approved by the assembly stated the project would provide connection from Inkster to Trunk Road, connecting to a segment of Homestead Road north of the Trunk Road roundabout, reducing heavy traffic on Egstrom Road.

The statement describes what is now referred to as the Southern.

Route, whereas the Assembly adopted 2022 Official Streets and Highways Plan calls for both the southern minor collector and northern route major collector connections as necessary to serve the long-term needs for transportation infrastructure, whereas the OSHIP also calls for major collector connections from Texal to Texal and from Ingstrom to Ingstrom North, both directly serving the northern portion of the Fishhook Triangle, and both of which are currently underway. And whereas, upon completion, the Texal and Ingstrom North connections will provide substantial congestion relief, improve safety, and alternative access for emergency response vehicles to the northern part of Fishhook Triangle. Whereas, in August 2025, the MSB adopted the Bogart-Selden Corridor Access Management Plan. Section 3.2 of the CAMP outlines key strategies, including— main goal is to reduce the number of conflict points and the use of fringe and backage roads, which will effectively consolidate access points, reducing.

, Conflicting points, and improving safety. A new southern route would by definition provide a package road consistent with the Bogart-Selden Corridor Access Management Plan. Whereas in July 2026, MSB Public Works completed a final route selection report exploring multiple options for locating a connector road, and with the stated project objective to provide congestion relief, safety improvements, and alternative access along Inkster Road— reference is the Route Selection Report, Section 1.1. Whereas Central Gravel Products operating to the northeast of the Engstrom-Bogard intersection over the next 30 years uses Bogard Road right turn only and Engstrom Road left or right turn for driveway access, and all trucks except those heading north on Engstrom will pass through the Engstrom-Bogard intersection. And whereas construction of southern route connector between trunk road and Engstrom Road would provide an alternative primary access to Central Gravel Products, remove the vast majority of CGP truck traffic from using this section of.

Bogart Road between Trunk and Engstrom, and from using the Engstrom-Bogart intersection, thereby addressing the primary safety-related concern of the nearby communities. And whereas, a decision to move forward with the southern route at this time would still meet project objectives by providing additional congestion relief, safety improvements, and alternative access to Engstrom Road. And whereas, a southern route is estimated at 29% to 42% the cost of the northern route, even before factoring in the potential cost savings associated with right-of-way procurement and road construction in collaboration with the owner of CGPU, offer potential cooperation savings. Whereas major property owners along the northern route have expressed directly and publicly very strong opposition to negotiating right-of-way for a major road along and through their undeveloped and historical homestead properties. In contrast, the primary property owner impacted by the southern route has gone on record expressing his willingness to provide right-of-way.

In addition to respecting property owner rights, this could drive the cost premium, premium of a northern route.

Now even higher and add significant schedule delays involved with contamination eminent domain proceedings. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Mattaniscus-Susanna Borough Planning Commission hereby recommends the southern route as the preferred alignment for their Ingstrom Road to Trunk Road corridor project and recommends the Mattaniscus-Susanna Borough Assembly adopt the southern route as the preferred corridor for advancement into preliminary design, right-of-way planning and acquisition, environmental permitting, and future project development. Subject to the availability of funding adopted today.

Mr. Strawn, thank you for doing that work ahead of time. I appreciate you anticipating that, and, and, uh, you just saved a ton of time by doing that, so I appreciate you doing that. Um, all right, so we've got, um, 2618. Um, is there a, uh Um, is there a motion for Resolution 26-18? Commissioner McCabe, I'll make a motion that we move.

26-18. All right, Commissioner McCabe has moved the resolution. Can I get a second? I'll second that. All right, Commissioner Glenn has seconded the motion.

Um, is there any discussion?

Feels like we've had—. Oh yes, Commissioner Von Hoff. Quick comment, uh, especially on the last few sentences of the, uh, the resolution, uh, especially regarding the right-of-way eminent domain. That's something that nobody, nobody wants to get into. It's especially with a family that's been living on their homestead for over 100 years, and just to cut their property in half, that, that's a bad option.

So I'm very happy that we're, we're going forward with, with this other route. Thank you. Any other comments? All right. Um, then I'll ask it this way.

Um, are there any objections to approving Resolution 26-18 as written?

Seeing and hearing no objections, Resolution 26-18 has been adopted.

All right, um, moving on. We're a little out of order then. 26-14, Uh, a resolution of the Matanuska-Susitna Rural Planning Commission recommending approval of the area-wide power to acquire public right-of-way and design and construct roads, streets, sidewalks, and related drainage facilities, and to submit the question to the qualified area-wide voters at the November 3rd, 2026 regular election. Alex Strawn, Planning and Land Use Director. Mr. Strawn, please provide your staff report.

Okay, thank you. I actually do have a staff report on this one. Excellent. I'm not going to punt it to somebody else.

This idea, this notion of asking the voters.

To give the borough limited road powers came out of the planning department based on several observations. Um, one is that we have all of these future road corridors identified in the official streets and highways plan, and we have some language in our subdivision construction manual that prevents developers from sort of developing the road system in a way that ruins the, the future corridor there, but it doesn't require that they sort of preserve it. And I think a great example is actually the northern route. Someday we probably do want to do the northern route, and there was recently a— the Stone Creek subdivision, very large subdivision that would have sort of made that future road corridor completely undevelopable in the future. Fortunately, we did have a, uh,.

TIP project that the voters had given us approval to construct that road and to get funding for it, to bond for it. So we were able to sort of acquire that right-of-way during the process where they're doing the subdivision. And someday we'll be happy that we did that, say, 50 years down the road maybe. But I have seen many corridors that we have identified as an important future corridor that have been completely made unbuildable because of home construction there. So the idea is that we can, if we're given the power to acquire rights of way in advance when this is raw land and not developed with homes and businesses, that we can do it for much cheaper.

Uh, there it's often if we're building a new corridor, we are.

Tearing down homes, we're relocating families and homes, and that is at an extreme cost to the taxpayers. So the idea is to do some forward planning and, and acquire these rights-of-ways when they're affordable and when people are willing to actually sell them to us. There are other examples. There's times where a platting action goes forward and our road is not— it veers from the right-of-way. And it goes on to private property, and we really want to acquire that right of way.

And we have— because we do not have road powers, we can't even really purchase those rights of ways without those road powers. And we could do it through RSA funds, but some of the RSAs don't have the money to do that. So this would give us the power to be a little bit more nimble as a government and to purchase rights of ways when it makes sense.

There's other— there's also the.

This whole formation of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, that, that boundary that Kim presented today of the Metropolitan Planning Area, that actually bisects several RSAs. And so part of it's— there's parts of that boundary where it's partially within an RSA and partially outside of an RSA. And with that federal dollars that we get for those road projects, it's a 10-to-1 ratio. So we can contribute 9% and we get the rest of the 91% funded by the federal government for our local road projects. And it is, um, a very difficult notion to have each RSA provide that match.

This would allow us to provide that match on an area-wide basis. Which was something that actually wasn't even contemplated when I originally came up with this idea. But, um, it is an added benefit to it that we're able to do that. There's also.

Um, uh, right now, if we want— when we put the, the project forward to the voters for their consideration on what to fund, I was finding that there's— the estimates that we provide are grossly inaccurate. So we may say that a road project costs $10 million, but it actually costs $20 million when we go to design it. That's because we don't have the power to actually do any sort of, uh, type of design so we can get an accurate estimate when we go forward to the voters to say to bond for a project. This would allow us to do some, at least some preliminary engineering so that we can come up with more accurate cost estimates.

So the idea is that we identify future road corridors, corridors on the official streets and highways plan. We then prioritize those future road corridors which would be reflected in the Long Range Transportation Plan. And then the idea would be that we.

We would over time acquire those rights of ways, the ones that we think are the most important, and acquire them while they're raw land and not houses and businesses. So that's the idea of this. Thank you, Mr. Strong. All right, Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Strong? Commissioner Carpenter, based on this evening, I mean, if, if that plan in place, we would not even be talking, it'd just be a northern route.

Or are you saying that we would have already had the— do you— like, that's my question, is allowing them to have the ability to say, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, and actually what they said to every single one of us made much more sense.

So yeah, because I think everybody lives in the valley is tired of driving down your Google Maps and I, I hit a cul-de-sac and the house I want to go to is right there, but I've got to go 15 minutes down another path, around, around.

Nobody wants that, but at the same time, we didn't want what was happening tonight. There's a conundrum, and that's why I said with the rate of growth we're facing, it's good that we're having this now rather than in the middle of like, holy crap.

Or maybe this is holy crap. Yeah, so I mean, I guess what I'll say is, you know, both the northern route and the southern route are largely unconstructed right now, right? So, uh, and there's not houses right now. They're both raw land, right? Um, I, I firmly believe that 50 years from now we're going to need both routes eventually.

I think that you're probably right. Yeah. And, and there's never going to be a cheaper time to purchase those rights-of-ways than right now, before there's homes, before there's developments and things like that. And, and There's nothing stopping if we.

We do not have right of way, um, it is very difficult for us to protect those future corridors without the ability to purchase that right of way. It makes sense that we have a fair exchange between the government and the private entities that— and we do it in advance when they're willing to do it, as opposed to later on down the road when we're saying we have to get a road here because we need a connection from point A to point B for an efficient road network. And we're going to have to take out 12 houses or something like that. That's what we want to avoid, and there's never a better time to do it than now. And as time goes on, as developments occur, those corridors get more expensive or impossible to build.

Yeah, I— Mr. Strawn, I think this— you've got a great idea here. I think it's very, very forward-thinking. It, um, really takes into account, you know, our exponential growth.

And there's just no, no reason for us to believe that that's going to slow down anytime soon. And so I think it does make sense to start thinking about, hey, what's this valley going to look like for our kids, grandkids, you know, beyond our own lifetimes, frankly. Um, and I think that's what you're trying to do here. Um, so I commend you for that. Um, any, any other questions?

How do you acquire land now for roads?

So, so right now, if we— so it has to be approved by the voters right now. So we put together a TIP, a Transportation Improvement Package, that gets approved by the assembly to go onto the ballot. The voters then give us the power to build those roads and to bond for those roads. Now, once we have the voter-approved package, then we can go out and acquire rights of ways. And it's not until then, or the Arasakes can acquire rights of ways because they have essentially road powers in their little area.

I, yeah, go ahead. So, but like the, I'm not sure, I don't wanna call the guy's name, but the guy has a farm out there, the homestead we were just talking about, which is a good example right now. So you would use eminent domain 'cause he's not gonna sell is what you're saying. This gives you the power of eminent domain to force them to sell. So this would give us the ability to go knock on their door and say, hey, someday down the road, we want to have a road corridor here.

Are you interested in selling it? I think he knows that in this case, but it doesn't give you eminent domain powers. Not any more than we have right now. Okay. Yeah.

And a couple of things, this does not take away the ability— so RSAs will still exist. They will still maintain roads. They also will have a RIP list, Road Improvement Program list. They can still construct roads or improve roads, and they will still have the.

Maintenance responsibility. So this isn't full-blown road powers, it's limited road powers.

And, and I guess, you know, if you were to have an argument against this, is it does give the borough more power. And anytime you give the government more power, that should be probably a red flag. But I will say, any acquisition of right-of-way, any— I think any large acquisition of right-of-way would still require that it go to the assembly and there'd be a public process. So yeah, so currently, if you have— you, since you don't have the eminent domain powers currently, you'd have to hand that project over to the state of Alaska to build that because they do have eminent domain powers.

So I don't know the ins and outs of the law associated with eminent domain. My understanding is that eminent domain is generally when you already have a road project and you're going to construction and you're trying to acquire that right, but you don't have that power with.

The state does have that power of eminent domain. So I think we may have eminent domain power once the voters have given us the power to build a road, but I'm not 100% sure. I think this— I think you guys have to hand that over to the state currently based on experiences. Commissioner Carpenter. It just flew out of my head.

Um, it's not— what you're asking for isn't necessarily bypassing community councils. Like, we heard from somebody that lives in Eagle River where they feel like they— it's basically talking to a rock, so we don't have it. And he listened to people who absolutely have it because they changed. Their voice helped change your— what you're asking for isn't— you, you get what I'm like.

We're not bypassing or blocking or telling community councils we're, we're doing this so we don't got to have to happen tonight. You get what I'm saying? Like, but it's 50 years down the road.

So, I mean, so when we do transportation planning, we are involving the community councils. We're— we recently did an official— recent— we, we did a corridor access management plan official streets and highways plan update, we are getting input from community councils saying, hey, this is where we think future road corridors should go. And then, uh, and, and so this would give us a prioritized list of future road corridors that it would make sense for us to go approach landowners and say, hey, would you be willing to sell us this narrow strip of land that we may have a future road in? Sure, sure. And, and I guess there will be a public process anytime we are acquiring rights of ways.

It has to go to the assembly. We can't just acquire a right of way without it going to the assembly. So there.

There's a public process and community councils will be involved. Yeah, it strikes me, I mean, there's going to be people, there's always going to be people that are going to be opposed to parting with any of their land. I mean, that is a thing and that's why the whole doctrine of eminent domain exists, but it's certainly less arduous and painful for people to be willing to sell land if it's, wilderness and untouched, and we don't have a neighborhood in there and a bunch of, you know, other things. I mean, I think that's, that's really the gist of what you're trying to, to achieve here. And so, uh, I mean, I just kind of think about it from a dollars and cents perspective.

Um, that it just could be major. Uh, I mean, once you start having, like, as you, as you already pointed out, I mean, once you start to have to move families and move houses and stuff like that, the price tag goes way up.

Yes, Commissioner McCabe, um, thanks for bringing this up, um, Alex. I remember we had this.

Conversation a couple years ago. Was it in Planning Commission or in planning where we were talking about proper prior planning and how we're so reactionary and we don't have any foresight? So a prime example to me of how not to do it is KGB Road. So I don't know if you guys remember the 2 phases. I remember hearing about the land procurement officer trying to acquire the easements and then On top of that, they had to move all of the utilities and everything after the fact, and that made it more expensive and it created time delays.

And that's what we're looking at if we don't plan ahead. Mm-hmm. Through the chair, uh, Mr. Laughlin has got a pretty good sense of, uh, this imminent domain stuff. Is it all right if he talks to us for a second? Jade?

I guess I don't object to that. Thank you.

Sorry, if you just come to the mic and I'm sorry, you'll have to say your name again and spell it for the record. Thanks. So, Jade Laughlin, L-A-U-G-H-L-I-N. The best example in Alaska is Fairbanks. So, my family came to Fairbanks in '51.

And we've built roads in Alaska ever since. And what the city of Fairbanks forefathers did in the late '40s, they started mapping their growth. They started paying attention where everybody was buying, where it was going. So what is today the Mitchell Expressway and the Johansson Expressway? The city of Fairbanks, as those plots became available to buy, they bought them, right?

When they went on to the— when they went on the public open market, they bought that land. The smart play, and this is the play that you guys need to play, is when they bought that land, then they rented that land.

The land out and let business be there, whatever, knowing that 25 years from now that they want to— they're going to want to build a road there, right? So they controlled where utilities got put, they got control where ditches, everything got put because they own the land. They rented it out for development, developer did the work for them. When the 25-year lease came up, or 10-year lease, or whatever the case may be, they walked away. The city's like, we're not re-upping your lease, you need to move your building.

Bye-bye, thanks, appreciate the last 10 years. Think of the pipeline days, the whole Johansson Express, it was a laydown yard. They made millions of dollars, you know, during that time. And that's 100% what Alex is trying to do. I have 4.6 acres on the other side of Bogart Road that I have no use for.

The state's going to take a portion of it for Angstrom, and the rest of it's going to— is going to be unusable. Well, it's going to be perfect for your guys' camp project. I'm going to put that out on the open market. You guys approach me and go, hey, we need this corridor for bike paths and future utilities and stuff. It gives you guys the powers to buy it.

And as far as.

Imminent domain goes, the borough does have imminent domain because that's what they did when they extended Bogart Road from Colony High School to Palmer High School. They claimed imminent domain through there, the borough did. So you guys do have that power, but this is, this is a polite way to get the property without irritating people and, and putting people in a corner and starting a fight. Because like I said, the Lohmann-Olson family, they've been there since 1915. You got a fight on your hands.

They fought with the state over 100 feet, you know, just, and they delayed the project a year. Just imagine what they're going to do for you. So this is a brilliant resolution, and I think you guys should unanimously pass it right now. I mean, this is, this gives you a big leg up on saving money in the future for future development, especially like when Jess Hall is going to open up another area. Hey, we want to buy this track through here for your northern route eventually.

Potentially down the road. So yeah, I appreciate you using Fairbanks as an example. I was born and raised there, and my grandfather was one of those, those founders of the roads. But I will say this, we had Uncle Ted Stevens for the Mitchell and Johanson. Those wouldn't exist today, I don't think.

Anyway, any other questions for Mr. Strawn? Okay, so yes, sir. So you're not looking at this to like And I don't want to hate to keep using the same poor guy up there in Engstrom, but you're not looking at this to like force him to sell land. You're looking at what Jade's saying is open. If I have some plan to sell and you go, man, I'm through here someday, you're looking at that.

That's what you're trying to do here. Yeah. I mean, this is in hopes to avoid eminent domain. You know, when you get a road project, you're not forcing anybody to sell, I guess is my question. You're buying up parcels that So like if, like once, yes, some developers get ready to do a subdivision, you say, hey, we, you know, yeah, you want to, you want to buy a piece of that now at the market value.

You're not forcing.

Correct. And I'm trying to go buy through people's property right now, and probably a lot of people will love it. You know, if you have 10 acres and you want to subdivide it and the government is willing to purchase the top 100 feet of raw land, you know, or, or whatever it may be, people might be willing to do it. Right now, if you get a road project approved, it's just full steam ahead. We got to build this road.

The voter said we got to build it, we're building it. And so you're gonna cram it down people's throats. This allows us to get ahead of the game. When people are willing to sell, we can try to procure it and secure it for the future. This is, this is something I, I've always thought would be important, is when you buy 10 acres from someone, you should always have— the borough has so much land, I think that they should offer land in trade, land trades.

I've, I've tried to do that with the state on a deal and just, you just couldn't get there. But it's like, that made so much sense, like I'm not looking to sell. I don't want to sell land. I don't— it's, it's kind of a pain to sell land, and I just, you don't.

I just wanted— I'd rather just have it as kind of— I'd rather be paying taxes as a borough than get a check one time, pay the federal government. Either way, right? It's— if you're paying taxes. But I think that's something you guys should look at. I know it's not part of this, but just keep that as a thought.

Okay, any other questions for Mr. Strunk? Yeah, this is a good forward thinking for a change because we've moved so many buildings around this borough in the last 20 years. Unbelievable. So It's expensive. So we got to— yeah, this is a good deal.

And, you know, like Kurt just said, the trading is another option. The borough's got the ability. We have so much empty land around. Say, hey, we'll just trade you. We'll give you 50 acres over here for the 2 acres right there that's worth some money.

You know, it's— what are you going to do? I mean, it's a good idea. So, yeah. Yeah. All right.

All right.

Commissioners, any other questions for Mr. Strawn? Okay, at this time, we'll proceed with opening the public hearing. Anyone on the phone, Caleb? Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak to this issue?

Yes, sir.

Please give us your name and spell again, please. Thank you.

My name is Simon Gilliland, G-I-L-L-I-L-A-N-D. Um, I gave you some written testimony with some thoughts. I'll keep it brief so we can maybe be home reasonable hour. Um, I agree with the general premise, and I think it's a good idea to do some forward planning. Um, my reservation is primarily with the purchase of right-of-way. Um, Ingstrom Trunk or Fiship connecting being a pretty good example.

Um, that's been talked about since the 2018 TIP. Nothing's been built, um, as opposed to purchasing right-of-way.

Which did occur, I believe, on the south side of Stone Creek during the Phase 7 of that subdivision. I would propose that easements be utilized instead of right-of-way purchases. When a plan changes, needs change, easements go back to the owners as opposed to right-of-way being vacated, and then it's It's a much more complicated and messy process rather than an easement being vacated where it goes back to the prior landowners. You can still build a road on a public use easement, section line easements being a perfect example. Um, blanket easements, however, can't happen.

I mean, that's not a defined location. Any easements need to have a defined location, much the same as a right-of-way would. However, an easement as opposed to a right-of-way limits the platting issues when a plan changes, someone's mind.

Changes, needs change. Um, so, um, again, there's written testimony in your packet if you'd care to read it. I'd be appreciated. Um, so thank you. Thank you, sir.

Anyone else in the audience care to speak on this issue?

Hi, Aaron Mason, MAS1. Again, sorry, did you hear that? Aaron Mason, MAS1. Uh, just one comment, concern, question, I guess. Uh, is there a time when you would purchase it?

Like, once they came to you with a development or something like that, is that when you would purchase it? Or like, do you know what I mean? Like, you want to see how committed they are before you just go buy land. I'm sure a lot of developers fall through before road or subdivisions in. Is there like a safeguard to that so we're not just buying up a lot of little lots?

Or little parcels that will never actually be completed. But that was all. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Sure.

This is Simon Gilland again. My apologies. Um, in regards to purchasing small lots with houses on it, um, I believe it was the 21st of June, the assembly, um, voted to get rid of borough property with houses on it. Because they didn't want to deal with the maintenance. So that's something that should be considered, is purchasing land.

It's got a house on it, then the borough's— the assembly was, and the administration is concerned about squatters, so they basically gave it away.

If I could, yeah. Alex Strawn, Planning Director. I, I want to say right now the borough has the authority and the power to purchase entire lots. We can buy and sell real estate. This would give us the power to purchase long, skinny, either easements.

Or rights of ways for future road corridors. So, yeah, just want to throw that out there. Okay, thank you.

All right, any other members of the public wish to speak? No one else on the phone, it looks like. So, all right, seeing and hearing no other persons to speak, are there any objections to closing the public hearing? All right, seeing and hearing none, I now close the public hearing. This time I'll entertain a motion for Resolution 26-14.

I'll make a motion for Resolution 26-14.

And Commissioner Glenn has moved the resolution. Can I get a second, please? Commissioner Carpenter, I'll second it. Okay, motion is seconded by Commissioner Carpenter. Any further discussion?

All right. Are there any objections to approving Resolution 26-14 as written? All right, seeing and hearing no objections, Resolution.

26-14 Has passed.

All right, correspondence and information, none. Unfinished business, none. New business, none. Commission business. Commissioners, do you have any questions regarding the future agenda items provided in your folders?

Not seeing any questions, then we will go ahead and move to director and commissioner comments, and we'll start down at this end with Commissioner Konop.

Mr. Fonof here. My only comment was, uh, I'm glad that we got quite a bit of paperwork and a lot of effort from everybody sorted through, and I appreciate everybody's time here. Thank you. Commissioner Carpenter.

Thank you for coming out. I think, um, seeing the community involvement, getting involved with issues, I don't know, at least tonight.

Shows somebody else that it still is alive. It still works and it's worth coming to. Um, and you can go tell all your buddies to make sure they want to move too. Uh, I think it was a good night. We got a lot of positive stuff done and it's good to be a part of it.

Thank you. Thank you, Dan. This is Commissioner Glenn. No comment. Thank you, sir.

Commissioner McCabe. Thanks for everybody for coming out, and I agree with everything that's been said about this being a very productive night, and it's kind of unusual for us to have such a long meeting.

Commissioner Scoggin. No comment. Thank you. Uh, I'll, I'll just, uh, echo what my fellow commissioners have said. You know, today was a, a busy one, um, and sometimes we have these, sometimes we have short ones, but, um, you know, healthy, uh, positive debate is always good, and I, I do feel like we got a lot of business done today.

Um, Mr. Strong, I do have one comment. So on Thursday, which I think was July 30th, the attorney Nick Sparopoulos gave a presentation to the planning board.

It's available on YouTube, and it was all about quasi-judicial ex parte Open Meetings Act. Super informative, very kind of— I guess maybe it's just me, but I thought it was entertaining and fun to watch. But it absolutely directly applies to what you do on this board, and it is— I encourage you all to go visit that and watch that meeting. So July 30th planning board meeting, which is what you would search for on YouTube. Okay.

Thank you. Um, well, if, uh, there are no other— if there's no other business for the good of the order here, I will, uh, call this meeting adjourned at 9:37 PM.

Yeah, let you know.