Petersburg Borough: 6.15.2026 Assembly Meeting

I'd like to call to order the regular borough assembly meeting for June 15th, 2026. Will the clerk please call the roll? Mayor Lynn. Mayor Lynn is excused. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor.

Here. Member Martin. Here. Member Mucci. Here.

Member Newman. Here. Member Schwartz. Here. Member Valentine.

Here. Thank you. With Mayor Lynn excused, we have 5 members in chambers with Member Martin on Zoom. I'm glad you could join us. And with that, let us stand for the voluntary Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, Liberty and justice for all.

That brings us to item number 3, approval of minutes. We have item A under that, the regular assembly meeting minutes for June 1st, 2026. I would entertain a motion to approve those minutes. So moved. Second.

Motion has been made by Member Mucci, seconded by Member Valentine. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The approval of those minutes passes on a 6-0 basis.

Item 4, either amendment or approval of tonight's agenda. I'd either take a motion to approve tonight's agenda or to amend it. I move to approve the agenda as written. I'll second. The motion has been made by Member Valentine and seconded by Member Muci to approve the agenda as is.

Will the clerk— or excuse me, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Excellent. The meeting agenda has been approved as is, 6 to 0. There are no public hearings this evening.

We do have one bid award, wastewater outfall repair project bid award. Public Works Director Morrell requests approval to award the wastewater outfall repair project bid award to Rock and Road Construction for an amount not to exceed $220,000.

$2,000. A memo from Director Mural is attached to this agenda item. I would entertain a motion to approve this bid award. So moved. Second.

Motion been made by Member Meechi and seconded by Member Valentine. Any discussion on this bid award? Member Meechi. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Hey, just for the folks at home, could we get a brief description about what this is and what it's for?

Thank you. I defer to Director Mural if you'd be so inclined, sir.

Yes, thank you. In February 2025, an attempt, a diving attempt to locate the wastewater outfall revealed that the outfall was broken, separated at some unknown time. We reported this deficiency to the EPA and the DEC, who mandated the the damage be repaired.

Through the DEC and EPA, we were given approval to put the outfall pipe back as originally designed in 1974.

It initiated a solicitation to bid, with Rock and Road being the, the low bidder. Answer your question, Member Meechi. Yes, it does. Thank you. Any further discussion on the bid award?

Seeing none, would the clerk please call the roll? Member Meechi. Yes. Member Schwartz. Member Newman.

Yes. Member Valentine. Member Martin. Yes. Vice Mayor Stan Gregor.

Yes. That bid award passes on a 6-0 basis, bringing us to item number 7. Persons to be heard on items related to tonight's agenda. This is the time when people wishing to share their views on any item on today's agenda may do so at this time. If you so choose to do this, please step forward, state your name, who you represent, and as we know, remember the rules of decorum.

Do not direct comments to any individual, and please be respectful of the space. The floor is yours, sir.

Thank you. My name is Tom Kowalski. I'm speaking for myself. I just wanted to provide an update. This morning, myself and 6 other concerned citizens met with the Children's Health Defense, and this was our second meeting, and a lot has happened since our first meeting back in November.

So we had a lot of updating to catch up with. The meeting went pretty well. There weren't any surprises.

We've been providing you guys with some pretty good information. We hope you use it. We still have more information if you want any more. I just wanted to bring some points to light that came out of the meeting. One thing that we realized is that there's a lot of fear in the fire hall sale.

There's some fear that If we don't sell it to Tlingit and Haida Title Network, there could be repercussions. And there's fear for doing things, and there's facts for doing things. And I just want you guys to separate the fear from the facts when you're making decisions. That's really all I'm asking for you guys. And we're hoping that the facts that you guys base your decisions on will be something that can hold the ground for a very long time.

The short gains that we might get from some of these decisions, they're gonna be around for a long time, so please be careful with that. There were some significant questions that have been raised for some of the sites that, Tidal Network has done some work on, for example, the Mill Road site. That was a muskeg site that had rock placed on top. Not too many of us feel like they dug all that muskeg out and replaced it all. And so there's some concerns, some structural engineering concerns that should be addressed, at least looked at.

And so there's also alternative sites. We've pointed them out. I know that they've been discussed, but the public has not received a comprehensive evaluation of those alternative sites, and we would like those to be investigated.

Now, selling land now.

Under the circumstances that we're facing. And if you do sell based on fear, it's going to come back and bite us. You're going to lose respect, your authority. Our town is, is quickly becoming a town where it's the government versus the people. We need to, we need to resolve this.

We need to come together. And find some common ground and, and try and work together.

So that's pretty much all I have to say about that meeting. It's ongoing, and anything that develops, I'll be sure to let you guys know. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else in the audience who'd like to speak to person to be heard on items related to tonight's agenda?

Now would be the time to come forward.

As always, please state your name and who you represent, and you have 5 minutes. Uh, Becky Knight, representing myself and probably a lot of other people in the community, 300 of which who at no, uh, great effort signed a commission— a petition in opposition to, you know what I'm talking about, the towers, and, and probably implicit in that is the data center as well. Anyway, so I'm, I'm speaking to the contract issuance and the ordinance, um, and I'm probably going to overlap some of what, um, Tom just spoke about. Uh, the Assembly should not dispose of public land before fully evaluating the impacts of the proposed towers on nearby residents, property owners, public safety, and the environment. And I know I've mentioned this a few times, but NEPA should have been instituted from the get-go on this, and that would avoid a lot of the rumors, a lot of the confusion, and lay out all the alternatives in a coherent manner.

Significant questions remain regarding the suitability of the sites, including structural engineering concerns, geotechnical stability, fire safety, icefall hazards, property value impacts, and visual impacts on the surrounding area. And you know, one thing that just came to light at the GCI meeting the other night— Uh, the lot that they have planned to purchase only has a 20-foot setback, and there's going to be a tower right behind poor Dean Roundtree's Home. And, you know, whether or not— despite the zoning restrictions, it's just plain wrong. And plain wrong ought to play into some of this. The public has not yet received a comprehensive evaluation of alternatives, including less invasive locations, co-location opportunities, or other solutions that we would reduce impacts on residents.

And what we've been relying on is just the faith of what they tell us rather than hard data that we can evaluate with our own two eyes. Selling the land now effectively commits the community to a course of action before critical issues have been resolved. The Assembly has a responsibility to protect public assets and should not transfer ownership until all relevant concerns have been thoroughly investigated and addressed. And I would also like to remind you that selling land is a short-sighted game that only focuses on fear, and that's what Tom was speaking about. For this, the assembly will be trading the community's goodwill— or excuse me, the sellers will be trading the community's goodwill for one-time financial proceeds and insulation from litigation over a land sale contract.

Where no federal preemption applies. And I, I think that this will not end if these— both these measures get approved tonight. It will not end the opposition. So I could probably go on a lot further, but I bet there's somebody else that'd like to speak. And I know this isn't a whole lot of fun to— for you guys that just got on the assembly.

This is like one of your very first issues to address, but I thank you for being here, and I thank you for your hard work. All of you. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Knight. Is anybody else in the audience who'd like to speak to, uh, items related to the agenda? Please step forward now.

State your name and who you represent. I'm Judy Ulmer, speaking for myself. Again, on the, the fear thing, um, as it relates to selling the, um, the land up by the fire hall, the idea of we're afraid to get sued for bargaining in bad faith That came up, gosh, way back, way back, and it seems like it's not been looked at really, and bargaining in bad faith almost against the community. It was already voted down. And so I guess the question I've been hearing the last 2 weeks is, so you're just going to vote until you get what title wants?

And I don't know whether that's true or that's not true, but it, it seems to go a lot against public testimony that's been presented here publicly. And then there's the argument about we're afraid to give them— if we don't give them what they want, they'll just put it in a neighborhood. And then I'm looking at, well, what neighborhood are you trying to protect when it hasn't felt like, hasn't seemed like the other neighborhoods affected have been protected at all. And it can keep going back to the old— well, it's not zoned right, or it's not zoned this, or it's not zoned that. And I think we need to look better at the zoning issue and how it's mixed.

And if towers are serious enough that it needs to apply to all, I think we need to take a deeper dive into the ordinances. Thank you. And have protections in here for Petersburg and its future. And I don't see that happening.

Should they just put it in some neighborhood out of spite or vindictiveness? I don't know. There are identified alternative sites that have been gone over. Maps have been shown. There's an overlay in the works with planning and zoning.

So I don't understand that one. I don't understand. Thank you. Then there was the question also about taking the sensitive areas and redefining them where the hospital is out of that zone, and it's about how—. Mm-hmm.

People said, well, you know, it's 600 feet from 3 of the designated sensitive populations, meaning the hospital, childcare centers, assisted living, where all those people will be in sustained proximity to the towers.

So I don't know, I look at it and say, well, if it's the same distance basically from the other towers are from those sensitive areas, do three wrongs make a right? And I don't think so, but I'm not sitting where you are where I have to make that decision publicly. You know, it's been said that bringing this up for a vote after it, um, it went down on a 3-3 vote last time is just a cover-up for failed negotiations. So you got to take another run at it. I don't know whether that's true or that's not true, but it's not a good look for governance.

So that's more on the fears. It's more of what I'm hearing, more than what I've heard in assembly meetings since October. So I hope you careful with, with selling that land for the purpose stated, and that all of the safeguards are going to be put in place for Petersburg. Thank you. Thank you.

And just as a point of clarification for you, Ms. Ummer, the land sale failed on a 2-4 basis, just, just as a detail, just so you know. Anyway, thank you for your testimony. Anybody else would like to speak to items related to tonight's agenda? Now would be a great time. Or if there's anyone on Zoom, Clerk Regula.

As well. No, there's— oh, hang on. Yes, I do have Chief stepping forward. Let Chief go first. Cool.

I saw you standing up, Chief. Go for it, man, and thank you.

Okay, my name is James Kerr. I'm the Chief of Police for the Petersburg Police Department. Tonight you've heard people talk on fear and facts. I want to speak on facts and to— and to provide the public safety perspective on the proposed Title Network land sale. I want to focus on what I see is the biggest benefit of this proposal, the opportunity for the borough to secure long-term access to communication infrastructure that can support public safety for years and decades to come.

Reliable communications are critical for police, fire, EMS, search and rescue, and 911 dispatch. Every emergency response depends on responders being able to communicate with dispatch and with each other. Today, there, there are areas within the borough where radio communications are not reliable to no radio communications. Improving communications has direct benefits for responder safety, coordination during emergencies, and service to the public. One of the most valuable parts of this agreement is the— is the ability for the borough to place public safety communication equipment on Tidal Network towers located on Mitkoff Island.

That gives the borough options in the future without having to build and maintain its own tower infrastructure. From a taxpayer standpoint, that is important. Infrastructure is expensive. Securing access to infrastructure that is already being built can save a significant cost down the road if additional communication coverage is needed. I also believe it is important to look at this with— as a long-term investment.

Communications— communication needs will continue to evolve Tech— technology will change. Future borough leaders may face challenges and opportunities that we cannot predict today. This agreement gives the borough flexibility and preserves options for the future. The borough currently provides search and rescue, 911 dispatch, and jail services boroughwide, along with limited police, fire, and EMS services outside Service Area 1. Whenever an emergency occurs, communications remain one of the most important tools responders have.

A simple way to look at this, when the borough sends responders, we owe them reliable communications. As Chief of Police, I believe this agreement is practical, forward-thinking investment in public safety, responder safety, and responsible planning for the future. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony, Chief Kerr. Uh, good time to transition to the Zoom one, if that works for you, Clerk Regula.

Yes, we have Mr. Beebe on Zoom. The floor is yours, Mr. Beebe. Proceed at your leisure. Hi, my name is David Beebe. I'm speaking for myself.

I think it bears, uh, just providing the full context of what we have here. And it's arguably among the most controversial and consequential matters in the borough history. Why is that? First, to begin with, there was no public outcry or nor burning desire to add 4 more cell towers and a data center to the Petersburg borough. The US Census 2020 to 2024. demonstrates this clearly.

Over 88% of the borough households were already subscribed to broadband services. That was 2 years ago, prior to the build-out of Starlink, and it would not be surprising if that percentage is even higher while, while the borough population itself is declining. So how long can we pretend to not know what this sudden build-out of AI-powered data centers connected to 4 new cell towers will actually be used for? Total information awareness through the Internet of Things. In other words, every aspect of our private lives, thoughts and feelings.

That's what That, of course, is why we have a Bill of Rights, which also spells the end of our constitutional republic if we can't have freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts and feelings, and private— privacy that requires the ability to remain anonymous while we are participants in this republic. The public outcry has rightly resulted from wondering exactly who the borough's primary obligations are to serve. Is it to serve the public trust as resident taxpayers, or does the borough exist to serve corporate shareholders of telecom giants? The borough and some assembly members are on record Decrying public testifiers, some even go so far as to pretend the impacts of 150-foot cell towers next to residences are no different from same skiff and crab pot storage. Really?

Is that how to respond to concerns being the central point to the public process of local governance? The assembly has a responsibility to protect public assets and should not be transferring ownership until all relevant concerns are thoroughly investigated and addressed. The stark evidence is clear. The borough disregard for residential property devaluations and disregard for assuring public safety through applied medical science of the 21st century defies comprehension. Thank you.

This indicates borough government is here to serve telecom giants. They're bought and paid for proxies and politicians. So what if two telecom giants, that is AT&T and Verizon, literally bought Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act in 1996? Should it not matter to the borough government? These telecom giants knew damn well 30 years ago, to quote Section 704, quote, environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, end quote, would interfere with their profiteering.

After all, the records of scientists in the '60s working for the oil and gas giants also knew damn well climate catastrophe from oil and gas emissions would at some point wreck their profiteering party. By the way, the courts are doing exactly that to the tune of billions of dollars. At some point, the borough government is going to have to realize the buck stops here. If the borough—. 30 Seconds, Mr. Beebe.

—Has failed its due diligence obligations to property owners, public health and safety. This matter will not be over for a long time to come. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. Thank you for your testimony this evening, Mr. Beebe. Is there anybody else either online or in chambers who'd like to speak to items related to tonight's agenda?

Not online. Seeing none in the room. Okay, with that, we'll move on to item 8, persons to be heard on items unrelated to tonight's agenda. If anyone would like to speak to items not on this evening's agenda, now is the time, either online or in chambers.

Anybody online? There's no one online. Okay. Seeing none, we will proceed.

We have no board commissions or committee reports this evening, which brings us to our consent agenda. Item 10, 420 retail marijuana store license renewal. The 420 has applied with the Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office, AMCO, to renew their retail marijuana store license. AMCO has determined the application to be complete. Local governing body may protest the renewal within 60 days of notice the application was filed.

I would entertain a motion to approve this license renewal. So moved. Second. Motion has been made by Member Meechie and seconded by Member Valentine, since this is a consent agenda item, all those in favor say aye. Aye.

Those opposed? Yes. That license renewal passes unanimously on a 6-0 vote. Down to report of other officers. SEPA meeting report.

Director Hagerman will provide one last update on SEPA activities. His report is attached to the agenda. Good sir, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You bet.

Just read some points into the record from the SEPA regular meeting of May 27th. 100% Design for the Tahee third turbine is completed. This project will increase the power output from Tahee Lake by another 12 megawatts and is the highest priority in the agency's 5-year strategic plan. A license amendment has been filed with FERC to add the third turbine. Progress is being made on the equipment procurement contract with Canyon Hydro out of Washington State, with the Pelton turbine being milled right now and other equipment also in production.

Folgos per schedule, the third turbine will be installed and operational in calendar year 2027. Current plans are to issue the construction RFP in July of this year, so just next month. The Ketchikan substation design is also completed. This project will increase the amount of power available to Ketchikan from SEPA and is second highest priority of the current 5-year strategic plan. Draft procurement specs are completed, as is the RFP document.

However, the agency is waiting for federal and state funding sources to solidify before soliciting bids and awarding a contract. Detailed discussions on funding sources and funding streams will take place at the next SEPA meeting. The SEPA board visited the selected grid reliability and stability project site in Rangel, a project that addresses the third priority of the Five-Year Strategic Plan, which is development of new generation. Petersberg's Rock and Road Construction was awarded a contract to work on the road into the site and has completed about 80% of that work at the time of the meeting. Potential layout of the solar panels was visibly flagged on the 44-acre site.

Discussions of the board at the site ranged from timing of the project, cost, future maintenance considerations, and effect on operating turbines. The initial project will be 1.5 megawatts with a 5-megawatt battery energy storage system, known as a BESS, and it will be expanded to a 5-megawatt facility over time. When finished, the solar facility will allow the savings of water in both Swan and Tyee Lakes for later winter use, as well as diesel fuel savings for Wrangell. For now, completion of the road and completion of the final design and spec package will meet the requirements for significant IRS investment tax credit rebates that are anticipated to pay for 50% of the project cost. Also during the meeting, other updates were given by SEPA staff.

On helipad replacements, roadway embankment reconstruction, drone mapping and geological structural stability analysis at the Swan Lake Dam, Tyee and Swan FERC relicensing efforts, right-of-way clearing, generator maintenance, scheduled work during the June 2026 SEPA maintenance outage, which is happening right now, and Petersburg and Rangel switchyard and substation maintenance.

The staff reported the snowpack surveys at Taihee and Swan watersheds were performed in April. Surveys showed higher than normal snowpack at Taihee and lower than normal at Swan Lake. But the overall snowwater equivalent for the SEPA system is in keeping with historical averages. With the Intertie in place, it is the agency's plan to balance the lakes throughout the year by sending power north or south as needed to utilize all the impounded water to the greatest benefit to their customer communities. Water levels in lakes are healthy at the present time, and the forecast is for warmer temperatures with average precipitation this year.

We'll see how that pans out. It was my last SEPA meeting, as the mayor mentioned, so it was nice to get a little recognition from the board. Appreciated that very much. And that meeting, Steve Harber was also able to attend, so he is all set to assume the role of the alternate board member for the remainder of this calendar year. Thank you.

That's my report. That's your report. Any questions for Director Hagerman? Member Muchi, the floor is yours. Yeah, thank you very much.

Um, I'm gonna miss your reports, Carl, um, but I appreciate the information. You know, you talk about the, the highest priority, um, in the 5-year strategic plan and the second highest. If I went to the SEPA website, could I see what those priorities were in the 5-year strategic plan? I'm— other than in an agenda packet that is posted on the website, I don't think that they have this 5-year strategic plan posted directly to the site. Thank you.

And then the other question regarding the solar panels that are going to be put on a 44-acre site. So if the initial project is to be 1.5 megawatts, And if it could be expanded to 5 megawatts, does the acreage have to increase, or do the solar panels increase? That's a good question, but no, the, the site is— the 44-acre site is the size, so they only use a portion of that at the outset for the 1.5-megawatt facility, and then they'll build out the remainder of the footprint for the 5 megawatts. All right, thank you very much. Welcome.

Any other questions for Director Hagerman? Seeing none, thank you for that report. We'll move on to the mayor's report. I think I got that right. Yep.

Amy Hollingstead Day on June 28th, PIA will be hosting a celebration of Amy Hollingstead Day in the PIA parking lot on 12th Street and Haugen. Go to the PIA Facebook page or to the PIA website at piatribal.org for more information. I hope that is a well-attended event. Amy Hollingshead was a dynamic human. SEPA annual shutdown.

The hydroelectric feed has been shut down since June 11th. You can hear the generators out the window and will resume operations on June 18th. Thank you to all customers for conserving power during this time. Carl Hagerman's retirement. Carl is retiring after 33 years of service to the city and now the Borough of Petersburg.

The public's invited to help us show our appreciation for his many years of service On June 19th from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM in Assembly Chambers. I was going to save this for recognitions, but I'm just going to do it now. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. What? 29Th.

29Th? What did I say? 19Th. Dang, I'm slipping. Yeah, June 29th.

Thank you, Mr. Manager. Although there's enough to celebrate, we could probably do 2. We should. Yeah.

Thank you so much for that, Manager. Sorry. From June— no, I appreciate it. Got to keep me on track. From June 29th, on June 29th from 1 PM to 3 PM in Assembly Chambers.

There we go. Um, those who have worked with Carl Hagerman or worked around him, I'm going to state the patently obvious: Carl is a man of deep integrity, deep honesty, and deep principles. Anybody who's ever crossed paths with him in the Venn diagram of life, whether it be in personal or professional life, I'm sure has seen this. He's able to keep, even in stressful times, an air of levity and humor, which I think has helped maintain sanity over 33 years of employment. His deep curiosity of every issue during my time on the assembly he has navigated, I've always found impressive.

There's no way Carl can be genuinely curious about every issue he finds, but he digs in, and his level of professionalism is beyond compare. In short, I've been honored to work with you, Carl, over the course of these years. You're truly a darn good human. I'm honored to have known you. Thank you.

So thank you, sir. Last item on the mayor's report, celebrating Pride Month. With June being Pride Month, I, Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor, want to take this occasion to clearly say this: [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I unhesitatingly and wholeheartedly support my lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, non-binary, and queer friends, their rights, their marriages, their pursuit of happiness, and their breath. This is also very true July through May. With that, I'll give it to you, Manager, for the manager's report.

Thank you, sir. You bet. The library's Great Summer Reading Challenge officially launched on June 5th. Children ages 0 to 13 are invited to join the fun by logging their reading and completing engaging activities throughout the summer. The program helps support youth literacy, encourages a love of reading, and combats summer learning loss.

Visit the psglib.org to sign up and get started. Program is funded in partnership with FHLB Des Moines, and made possible through the generous support of many local businesses and individuals in our community. Apex Refrigeration is completing the final work on reassembling the elderly housing cooler and freezer, and administrative staff at assisted living are preparing for the INSPIRE inspection of the facility at the end of June, conducted by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Continued expanding of the new landfill access road to provide additional areas for wastewater compost and construction debris is still underway. Water Pool Group completed all scheduled preventative maintenance activities for the month, currently performing maintenance and repairs on snow removal equipment.

Sanitation successfully completed the annual hazardous waste collection event. The, the collection van was shipped out on June 9th. One sanitation collection truck remains out of service, resulting in reduced capacity. Operations are currently utilizing the reserve truck to maintain service levels.

Building Maintenance Group repaired some broken toilets at portable restroom facilities, and we had to rekey several locks and installed new locks in the Harbor restroom facilities. New air purification system in the motor pool facilities is installed to help reduce dust and, um, for the workers. And Pump Station 4 is nearing completion with the final punch list items expected to be addressed this week. We installed a— reinstall a pump at Pump Station 3. Department has been operating for several months with only one of the three pumps available while repairs were being completed.

One replacement pump had to be manufactured from scratch and is expected to arrive within the next few weeks. This is our next really big wastewater project, and it's, it's going to be a challenge. We don't know how big a challenge, but access alone is going to pose some problems for us. Congratulations to Zane Browning on obtaining his Class A commercial driver's license. And the visit from Department of Natural Resources, DNR, Dam Safety Program Manager went well.

DNR toured both dams and were satisfied with current operations and maintenance practices. We had several leaks identified and repaired by Public Works over the past few weeks., that estimated to saving approximately 250 gallons of water per day. Scalbay Generator Number 2 project is moving along. The 95% cost estimate for completing the first phase of construction was received, and Dawson Construction is drafting the design-build construction amendment for the assembly's consideration. Carl has been working on completing some of the old— updating the old city ordinances on snow removal, local improvements, and utility extensions.

And have been forwarded them to the borough attorney for review. He continues to update the electric chapter and will complete this before June 30th, he tells me.

[LAUGHTER] Blind Slough Hydro continues to run at a high 2-megawatt output. And the line crews' summer is shaping up to be very busy. We have several line extensions in the works, including the airport subdivision. Power and Lights ArcGIS mapping is continuing. Joe Vignicchi has been spearheading this effort.

It's making great strides at getting all the meters, poles overhead and under ground wires into the system. Our electrician Randy Harvester passed his state exam to become a journeyman electrician. Randy started at Power and Light in January of this year. He did his schooling and apprenticeship in Oregon. The new Main Street lights and poles are scheduled to ship from the factory June 26th.

And Power and Light reminds everyone that while we have the capacity to meet customer needs, conserving electricity now through the end of June will help reduce the fuel surcharge that will appear on the July billing statement. Thank you. The annual SEPA maintenance shutdown is running, as you've heard, and runs through June 18th. During that time, diesel generation is used to provide electricity to all customers.

Trail connections from Frederick Point Drive to City Creek Trail have been mapped by the Petersburg Volunteer Fire Department and recorded with Police Department for emergency calls along the trail. Trail connections are numbered at both locations along the trail, and the road for people, for folks to help identify where they are on the trail should emergency response be needed. More information can be found on the Parks and Rec Facebook page or by contacting Stephanie Payne.

Our Aquatic Center is 20 years old. Come join us in celebrating on July 3rd from 12 to 2 with burgers and ice cream. See the Fourth of July schedule for more information. And the Petersburg Bike Park invites you and your tots for the Tot Jam on July 3rd from 10:30 AM to 11:30 AM. Come see what the bike park is up to with all your progress.

And just one more Carl-related thing. I thought people might find this interesting. His hire date was 10/12/1992. He worked in wastewater, sanitation, public works, power and light, along with several stints as the acting borough manager. His last day before retirement, as we've said, is June 30th, and we will be celebrating him on the 29th.

So we really I hope everybody in the community can make a trip over here and say hi. Hello. And that's everything. Lester's questions. Thank you, Mr.

Manager. Questions for the manager? Seeing none, thank you for your report, good sir. All right, bear with me as I get caught up here. All right, that brings us to unfinished business.

Ordinance 2026-10, an ordinance amending Section 4.28.120 of the Petersburg Municipal Code to increase the amount of the single purchase sales tax cap from $1,200 to $5,000 and directing that the proposed amendment be submitted to the qualified voters of the borough. Third reading. If approved in 3 meetings— readings, excuse me— Ordinance 2026-10 would increase the maximum single purchase amount subject to the borough sales tax from $1,200 to $5,000 and submit the question to borough voters at the October 6th, 2026 regular election. The proposed change would increase the maximum sales tax collected on a single transaction from $72 to $300, modernize a cap that has only been adjusted once since 1959, and generate additional revenue to support central borough services, including the Beersburg School District, while still remaining among the lowest TAP tax caps in Southeast Alaska. This is approved on reading 1 by 6 to 1 and in second reading by a vote of 5 to 1.

I would entertain a motion to approve this ordinance in its third reading. So moved. Second. Motion made by Member Michie and seconded by Member Valentine. Discussion on this third reading?

Member Schwartz, the floor is yours, sir. Yeah, I was questioning the no vote at the beginning. Because it's going to go to the qualified voters. Um, I mentioned at last meeting, no two private businesses in this town are equal, and, uh, some spend a lot more money than others on a day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month basis. This is mostly going to fall on the businesses that spend money, and I know a lot of those business owners And I've talked to quite a few of them, probably more have talked to me about this.

I'm understanding the no vote a lot better in this third reading here. I mentioned also that anything that would go to the qualified voters, I'd be in favor of because it goes to the people. Mm-hmm.

Again, conflict, because I can see where that no vote came from. Thank you. Thank you, Member Schwartz. Further discussion? I'll just chime in real briefly.

I was out on the water this weekend. Actually, let me back up. I flew south on Friday down to Seattle, came back Saturday, and I was in the airport Friday seeing fish boxes Lining up, it was large transition data. I know we've talked about fish box tax, so I started mapping out how many dollars in fish box tax that would be. And then I, uh, because I had a lot of time to kill in line, it was about 45 minutes, then my lens shifted to, okay, uh, the sales tax cap had been raised, what uncaptured dollars are sitting in the terminal with me at the airport?

And, uh, my God, that was a lot of money uncaptured. And I don't disagree with your comments, Member Schwartz, whatsoever, in terms of some of that burden on in-town businesses, no argument for me. When I was seeing those untapped out-of-town resources, the numbers added up quickly. And then I was coming in, I was running crab gear, gosh, it was just yesterday, we were out in Scott Bay and saw this yacht, beautiful yacht pulling through and they're tied up at the Petro and I shuddered to guess how many gallons of gas were in there, but it was more than $72 in taxes, I imagine the cap had been raised. Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I'll be voting yes. One, because I believe in it, but two, unless I have a very compelling reason not to, I trust the voters to make a decision. So I'll be voting yes to put this on the ballot. Further discussion?

You look like you're—. The original no vote. And the floor is yours.

I still maintain that this is going to affect Um, like Member Schwartz said, you know, a disproportionate, you know, a percentage of the local businessmen who are the backbone of our community. And while I understand that, you know, the borough needs money to maintain things and infrastructure and all that, I just feel like this is not the right move at this time. Thank you, Member Newman. Appreciate it. Uh, any other comments from the assembly?

Of course, Member Valentine, the floor is yours, sir. Thank you. Um, yes, it will. Thank you, guys. It will very much disproportionately be on people making the— I own a couple businesses and it will definitely fall.

However, I don't think continuing to defer things after stepping into the borough finding how long things might have been deferred. Just, it doesn't change anything for the future. Eventually the Band-Aid needs to be ripped off, and it's not, this puts us in the middle. This doesn't put us in like the highest in Southeast. It doesn't put us, we're just no longer at the lowest, right?

And so you think about the other businesses and there are other places. Yes, you know, businesses are the backbone, but I mean, I have recently been getting a lot of people talking to me about, like, the age of what Petersburg is looking like right now. Will extraborough money help with that? I'd like to think so, yes. But I mean, that's just one of, you know, a ton of other reasons.

But I don't think that just continuing to defer this really helps anything. I think that we need to move forward. And I do like that it goes to the voters, so it doesn't really matter what I think. So it'll go to the voters and the voters will either say yes or no. And my opinion is my opinion.

So there you go. Thanks. Valentine, hang on. Member Newman, would either Member Mucci or Member Martin like to have the floor before I give it back to a member who's already spoken? Thank you.

All right, go ahead. You got one more there, Member Newman. It's all you. I just want to make a fundamental, uh, case for the role of government. I feel like it's the role of our government to incentivize business and not detract and take away from it.

We should be promoting business and incentivizing business so that, you know, they have residual effects from that economically instead of taxing the ones that are supporting us. Anyway, I'll leave it at that. You'll leave it at that. Thank you, Member Newman.

Regarding that, we'll have the clerk call the roll. Vice Mayor Stan Gregor. Yes. Member Valentine. Yes.

Member Martin. Yes. Member Newman. No. Member Schwartz.

So—. Member Michie. Yes. The ordinance passes its 3rd reading on a 4-2 line, and that will go before the voters in October. And the 2 nos were Member Newman and Member Schwartz.

Moving on to the next item, Ordinance 2026-11, an ordinance updating Charter 14.08 of the municipal code entitled Sewer Utility. 3Rd reading approved in 3 readings. Ordinance 2026-11 would update sewer utility service rates for 2027 through 2030 based on the annual rate review reflecting higher projected operating costs and planned capital needs. Changes amend Section 14.08.320A of the Municipal Code to establish updated service charges and— commodity rates to support long-term financial sustainability of the sewer utility. A memo from Assistant Director Rummel is attached to this agenda item.

Ordinance 2026-11 was unanimously approved in its first reading and unanimously approved as amended in second reading. I entertain a motion to approve this ordinance in its third reading. So moved. Second. Motion has been made by Member Meechie and seconded by Member Valentine.

Any discussion on this item in its third and final reading? Member Meechie, I see you have your hand up. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. You bet. I had some questions at the last meeting regarding the vector service and the portable toilet service and the marine pumping service, and I spent some time on the phone with Director Moreau and he walked me through the process and I'm comfortable, as comfortable as I can be with the rate increase, but I'm comfortable with those 3 sections in this ordinance.

Thank you. Thank you, Member Michi. Any further discussion on this 3rd reading?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll? Member Michi? Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes.

Member Valentine? Yes. Member Newman? Yes. Member Martin?

Yes. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. That passes unanimously in its third and final reading. Um, oftentimes we take a break before new business.

What do you guys think? You want to plow ahead? You want to take five? What's the Feel the assembly charge ahead. It says Newman, we're charging ahead.

That work for you, Member Valentine? All right, we'll keep plugging. I happen to agree. All right, new business. Item A, Ordinance 2026-13, an ordinance authorizing the borough to issue electric utility revenue bonds in aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $3,315,000 to finance the Skow Bay Standby Generation Project.

And directing that this matter be submitted to the qualified voters for consideration at the next regular election to be held on October 6th, 2026. This is the first reading. Petersburg Municipal Power and Light is requesting approval of this ordinance authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds in the amount of $3,315,000 for the completion of the Skow Bay Standby Generator Project. Construction costs— Excuse me. Construction cost increases since the project's initiation caused a dramatic budget shortfall would be funded through this bond issuance.

If approved by the assembly in 3 readings, the question of issuing the revenue bond debt will be placed on the October 6, 2026 local ballot for consideration by Petersburg voters. I would entertain a motion to approve this ordinance in its first reading. So moved. Second. Motion has been made by Member Muci and seconded by— excuse me— by Member Newman.

Discussion? Member Muci, the floor is yours, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So this is similar to the sales tax cap. This will be going to the vote of the public if it moves forward.

But if we do pass this revenue bond, how is it— how is the bond paid back? Is it paid back through— maybe that's just a good enough question. How is this paid back? Thank you. One of the, either the one on his way out to the one on his way in, care to handle it?

And so the floor is yours. That's a good question. This bond will be repaid through revenues of the electric utility solely. It is a revenue bond, not a general obligation bond. A general obligation bond requires taxpayer backing, but this is a ratepayer issue, so the rates and the electric department will pay the debt on this.

So over 20— the next 20 years, there'll be debt payments every year. And I guess just to follow up, Mr. Mayor, and so are we talking then a rate increase to cover this? Is that what you're saying? No, we— so the, the assembly just approved a rate increase. Yes, the electric utility— this, this bond was actually factored into the rate study already, so no additional increase due to this bond.

Thank you very much. Just briefly on my end, I'll be voting yes. Stable electricity is a critical infrastructure for our community. Also, it's the first reading. If members of the public would like to show up at the next meeting, that is the time of public hearing, we always— the more feedback, the better, as always.

I'll be voting yes. Further discussion from the assembly? The clerk, please call the roll on this first reading. Member Schwartz? Yes.

Member Meechi? Yes. Member Martin? Yes. Member Valentine?

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

2026-13 Passes unanimously in its first reading. Bring us to Item B of new business, Ordinance 2026-14, an ordinance amending Title 19 Zoning of the Petersburg Municipal Code to regulate wireless communication facilities and other towers and transmitters. This will be the first reading. If approved in 3 readings, this ordinance would establish zoning and permitting standards for wireless communication facilities and other towers, requires these facilities— facilities to be reviewed as conditional uses.

Sorry, I lost track of myself right there. Conditional uses provided— providing public notice and Planning Commission review and approval while remaining consistent with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and related regulations. The ordinance creates a new chapter of the municipal code governing wireless facilities. It would prioritize colocation, sets development standards, and provides a waiver procedure if strict adherence to the development standards would require technically impossible designs. Cause structural instability, or result in an inability to close a significant coverage gap, or leave coverage area functional— functionally unable to handle emergency calls.

It is intended to balance the community's need for reliable wireless and other communication services with public safety and aesthetic concerns. A memo from Director Cabrera is attached to this item, a map illustrating the proposed 1,500-foot separation distances from schools and licensed child care facilities required by the ordinance. May be available at the meeting. I would entertain a motion to approve this ordinance in its first reading. So moved.

Second. Motion made by Member Muci, seconded by Member Valentine. Member Muci, since you made the motion, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a series of 5 amendments to this ordinance in its first reading.

Proceed. Okay, so the first amendment that I would I would like to propose is on page 42 of the agenda, what is on page 11 of the ordinance. All right, page 11 of the ordinance, Roger. Yep, it's letter number— letter number N as November from the top. And it talks about significant coverage gap.

And then it says a WCF shall be placed, constructed, or installed only to fill a— and then insert the word carriers— significant coverage gap in the least intrusive manner available. Is there a second to inserting the word carriers into that sentence? I didn't see who said that one. All set. Yep, motion.

This amendment was made by Member Mucci and seconded by Member Newman. Discussion on the amendment? Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, this is, you know, it clarifies that the, um, it's the carrier's coverage gap and it's not the borough's coverage gap, and it just kind of, it makes it a little bit more clear.

Do I have that right? Yep, yep, that covers it. Thank you. Any further discussion on that language amendment?

Will the clerk please call the roll on that amendment?

Member Michie? Yes. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Yes. Member Martin?

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

Member Schwartz? Yes. Alright, that amendment passes on a 6-0 basis. We're back to the main motion, but Member Muci, I'm going to keep you at the floor if you want to keep chugging through amendments. Thank you.

You bet. The second change is on page 12 of 17, page 43 of the agenda packet.

Um, letter D at the top of the page. I want— I'm proposing to remove the words in paragraph D, following the public hearing and, remove those words and start that sentence with notwithstanding the requirements. And so that sentence would start with notwithstanding the requirements. So remove the words following the public hearing and. Roger that, striking that language and starting the sentence with notwithstanding.

Is there a second to that amendment? Second. The amendment was made by Member Mucci and seconded by Member Newman. Discussion on this amendment? Remember, Mucci, uh, obviously feel no obligation, but what was the intent of the amendment?

Um, it's just, it clears things up. Um, it takes away, um, the Planning Commission shall grant or reject the WCF conditional use permit application within a previously reasonable period of time. So this just kind of, uh, it's a more concise sentence as far as I understand that. Roger that. Thank you, sir.

Any further discussion on the amendment? I feel like it's a matter of protocol. Sounds good. Yeah, seeing no more, then have the clerk call the roll on this second amendment. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor?

Yes. Member Valentine? Yes. Member Martin? Yes.

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

Yes. The amendment passes unanimously. We're back to the main motion. Proceed at your leisure, Member Mucci. Yes, the, um, the 3rd amendment I'd like to make is on page 13 of 17 of the ordinance, on page 44, under Section C. I would like to add at the end of Section C the sentence that says determinations of compliance here— hereunder shall be made by the FCC, and the borough is not responsible for enforcing or interpreting FCC requirements.

Adding that sentence at the end, yes? Member Mucci, to clarify. Yes, that's for amend Section 19.58.080. Is there a second to that amendment? Second.

The amendment was made by Member Mucci, seconded by Member Valentine. Discussion on the amendment.

Can you say that again, Mr. Mucci? Sure. I'm adding the sentence. Determination of compliance hereunder shall be made by the FCC, and the borough is not responsible for enforcing or interpreting FCC requirements.

After that, um, discussion on the amendment, or the member— meet you like to discuss the the reasoning behind it any further? Well, again, feel no obligation to. Sure, it just says the determination of compliance. It just— amendment clarifies that's the FCC and not the Bureau who determines whether the carrier is meeting the FCC compliance. I'll do that.

Thank you for that clarification, sir. Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, will the clerk call the roll on this third amendment? Member Schwartz. Yes.

Member Martin. Yes. Member Valentine? Yes. Member Newman?

Yes. Member Meechie? Yes. Vice Mayor Stant Gregor? Yes.

That amendment also passes unanimously. Looks like there's one more you had your eye on there, Member Meechie, if you want to—. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had two more here, but the 4th one I have here is located on page 17 of 17, page 48 of the agenda packet. It's under Section 1B.

And what it's doing under the sensitive area setbacks, it's removing the words assisting liv— assisted living facility and putting licensed child care facility and removing the words children's nursery or hospital.

To reflect that, striking the words assisted living facility and adding in, or licensed childcare facilities, striking the words children, nursery, or hospital. Yes. Is there a second to that amendment? Second. So amendments been made by Member Meechan, seconded by Member Newman.

Discussion on the amendment? Yeah, so Mr. Mayor, all this, all this. Change here is reflecting earlier in the ordinance, um, the same verbiage. It's already in there, but we didn't— we, we missed this. And so this is just going to reflect what's already back in the ordinance in terms of sensitive area setback language.

Yes.

Okay, any further discussion on the amendment?

I have some heartache with that, even though we're still talking about a 1,500-foot barrier.

So, and given the fact that one of them is on top of an existing school already, that's fine. It's the first reading. I can go with it, I guess. The clerk, please call the roll on the amendment. Member Valentine.

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

Yes. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor. No. Member Marsden. Yes.

Excuse me, the amendment passes 5 to 1 with Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor opposed. You had one more, Member Mucci. Thank you. The last one I have is on the same page, same paragraph, page 17 of 17, page 48 of the agenda. It's under setbacks.

It's number 1B. And it's in relationship to the, the 1,500-foot setback minimum, and I'd like to remove the 1,500-foot and replace it with 500-foot setback.

Is there a second to that amendment? Second.

Amendment's been made by Member Mucci and seconded by Member Newman. Apologies, Member Mucci, I didn't have that on mine. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So that's okay.

That wasn't— I wasn't missing something anyway. Discussion on the amendment to change the subtext from 1500 to 500.

Okay, so since the last meeting, there's been some developments, I guess you could say. There's been some emails, and the emails from some of these companies basically getting their perspective and realizing after going back and reviewing the, the ordinance the previous ordinance and then this ordinance with the proposed changes. And I realized that this ordinance is extraordinarily restrictive.

Okay, so more restrictive than Juneau. We don't allow— we won't allow it in any zoning of residential areas, so it's already been restricted to commercial and industrial. So that kind of changes the dynamic of the land that is available, and then you couple that with these setbacks and it further complicates the issue. And then when you add in the, the provision for the towers, theoretically 110% of the height of the tower. All of a sudden, they got no place to go.

So we have a waiver. The waiver gives us an out, basically gives, gives them an out, because when they come to get the conditional use permit and then they start looking at places, then we can't go here, I can't go here, can't go here. Pretty soon they got no place to go. The intent of the ordinance is to help navigate them to the least intrusive area. If, if they keep getting doors closed because of these restrictions, then they're going to be forced to take advantage of the waiver.

And the waiver process, I really feel, will put a future assembly in a hard position. Because now all of a sudden they're gonna have to make a decision that nobody's gonna like, and the intent of the ordinance has not been achieved. So what? It's not popular, but I feel like we need to back up a little bit. Change things a little bit so it's less restrictive, and hopefully we can navigate them to a better position so that we won't end up in court.

Because as it stands, the way this is written, it's already been expressed to us that we are in violation of the federal Telecommunication Act of 1996. Member Newman. Member Schwartz, I've been waiting patiently. And again, this is on the specifically to the amendment of removing it from 1,500 to 500 feet. Thank you.

You bet. The whole reason that we have this ordinance before us right now is because of an outcry from the public. For a multitude of reasons. Some you couldn't even mention, like safety. So then it had to become something else.

If we're gonna go least restrictive, why don't you go 150 feet?

All right, go 75, past where it might fall on their house. So I don't know. I understand we heard about it November and December, oh, lawsuits, this and that, court. It's being fought all over the nation, so I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Member Schwartz.

Just briefly, I, I do support this amendment. As those who are listening at the last meeting when we discussed this ordinance, that was my primary reason of voting no. I didn't feel like going through a full amendment process during that meeting. My time— my thinking at the time was to either have Planning and Zoning looking at— look at it, or legal counsel. So, um, uh, I feel like this is an important amendment for the very specific reasons Member Newman mentioned.

Any further discussion on said amendment? Member Valentine. Thank you. Um, thank you for that detailed explanation. Um, I like— I mean, we have been getting a lot of emails about this, and, um, what you said it really well, and I think— I hope the public can hear that too— is that we're still under old regulation that we all agree is too old.

That's federal, right? We can't be, we can't say no to something, to this tower thing. That's what everyone wants, but it's not necessarily what we can do, right? So where we sit. So this 500 really starts moving them in this direction till now it starts narrowing down.

And then hopefully, these other carriers can look into other land options that might not be within the borough's control, right? This doesn't work. This doesn't work. But okay, now it's clearly funneling us to different land options that maybe the borough is not in part of, which hopefully in turn kind of gets what we're trying to accomplish here. I really— [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I really like that, but I just wanted to remind that it's easy for us to say no out here, no towers, but we are stopped from doing that.

So this makes sense, and you explained it well. Thank you. Thank you, Member Valentine. Any further discussion on this specific amendment to reduce the feet from 1,500 to 500? I have one.

Please, Member Martin, the floor is yours, sir. Thanks. Yeah, I've asked the 1,500-foot advocates to give me justification, and some of them have. And I guess I would ask the same of the justification for 500. Where does that come from?

Or is it— it seems like a lot of these are somewhat arbitrary, but I'm interested if that went through some sort of a different process to be derived.

Thank you, Member Martin. Uh, Member, you should again feel no obligation to respond, but since you're the one who made the amendment, feel free. Otherwise, I'll gladly speak to it. Um, yeah, I don't need to speak to it right now. Cool.

Um, again, I'm no borough attorney. I think, uh, from my own perspective, I think it is— you're on the right track that it feels arbitrary to me. Um, I, I'll try not to stray too far into the main topic, but, uh, I have some serious concerns with the ordinance still in its existing form over being FCC compliant, but whether this gets us all the way compliant or not, to me it feels like a closer step. But Member Newman, you want to speak again? Go ahead if you'd like, sir.

I'll address the, uh, please, the question by Assemblymember Martin. Excellent. So I did, I posed that question to Director Cabrera, and I, the way I posed it was, if we reduce the setback from 1,500 to 500, Will that make more land available to these companies? And her answer was yes. There you go.

Does that answer your question, Member Martin? At least somewhat so? Yeah, I think so. I just wonder still if the justification is sensitivity, how do we justify any number, I guess, other than the tower falling on a— sensitive area.

Phil, that 110% of the height of the tower requirement in the— so there's that, and then there's the 500 feet from, you know, the change to the previous change we just made. Under setbacks. And again, this is also just the first reading of said ordinance as well. Okay. Member Mucci, one more time.

Go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, I'll support this amendment. Yeah, like this last go round, I'll probably spend 2 weeks trying to figure out if it makes sense to me. But yeah, for the sake of this meeting and moving it to the second reading and spending some time checking on that 500-foot But yeah, I'm going to support this.

So thank you. Thank you, Mayor Meechan. Any further discussion by the assembly on the amendment? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment? Member Meechan?

Yes. Member Valentine? Yes. Vice Mayor Stanton-Gregory? Yes.

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

No. Passes on a 5-1 basis with Member Schwartz against. Now therefore bringing us back to the main motion as amended times 5. Discussion on the main motion as amended times 5. Member Meechie, the floor is yours, sir.

Thank you very much. Yeah, I asked to have this brought back up because I didn't feel well after the last meeting, and I know We've been talking about this since October, or I have, and without this, this in place to help us sort out all these different things that are coming towards the community, it makes me very, very nervous. We've got Power and Light working on large electrical user update ordinances for big projects that might think about coming to Petersburg, and we are seeing an increase in the, the need or the perceived need of cell towers in town. And without any, any type of guidelines here— A good example is that public meeting that I went to last week for another carrier who bought a piece of land across the street from the ferry terminal, is putting a cell tower up. They're going to start in September, they're going to have it up by the end of the year.

And here we are struggling to get this ordinance moving through, and, um, I am comfortable with this ordinance at this point, and I imagine that we'll be hearing from some people who aren't comfortable and who might want some changes. And for me, that's just part of the process here. So I am voting in favor of this. I am comfortable with this ordinance. Um, And I will be voting yes on it.

Thank you, Member Muci. Further discussion from the assembly on the main motion? Member Schwartz? Yeah, you know the part I'm uncomfortable with. So first reading, I'll vote in favor of it, but I don't think this is over.

Thanks. Thank you very much, Member Schwartz. Further discussion from the assembly on this first reading? Member Newman, the floor is yours, sir. Yeah, from day one, many, many, many months ago now, I've advocated that this is the tool in the toolbox that will help us navigate this issue.

And while I agree this is not perfect, I think we're a lot farther ahead than we were previously because we basically have no say, no control, with, um, with what's in the, in the, in the code. So, yeah, we got 3 readings. I appreciate the time and effort that Assemblymember Muci has put into this and has really helped us focus on the, uh, the fact of the matter and specific issues and wording and meeting with, uh, everybody in the attorney— the borough attorney to, um, put us in a lot better place. So I appreciate that, and I will be voting yes for this. Thank you, Member Newman.

Further discussion from the assembly? Member Martin, I see your wonderful yellow hand raised. Go ahead, sir. Hey. Yeah, I'm glad it's back on again.

I think it does start a public process, which we didn't have for Mill Road or this, uh, the other one we're talking about by the ferry terminal. So I'll be voting yes. Thank you, Member Martin. Any further discussion on the main motion? I'll just briefly chime in.

I'll be very upfront. I was very against this actually coming back so quickly, not because I have any aversion. I think Member Newman phrased it quite aptly. We need to have some controls in place. My concerns are more of sort of just doing something.

I want to make sure we do the right thing. That's why I voted no on the previous one. I thought it was riddled with major federal holes. I would rather have this gone through further through legal counsel, potentially through FCC counsel. I even, you know, the one that came before us, still at 1,500 feet.

I would rather have a polished product before us. I'm going to be voting yes tonight. It's first reading. I generally do when I get to before the public hearing, but I imagine we'll be hearing from some of the telecommunication companies on this amended version to see how that feels for them. No, I'm not some shill of the telecommunication industry, but I think we need to be very careful.

Thank you. Cognizant of federal law, and I look forward to gathering data over the coming weeks. Without seeing any further discussion, please call the roll on this main motion as amended. Member Meechi. Yes.

Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor. Yes. Member Martin. Yes. Member Schwartz.

Yes. Member Valentine. Yes. Member Newman. Yes.

Resolution 2026-14 passes unanimously, 6 to 0, in its first reading. Bring us to Item C, Resolution 2026-16, a resolution approving the sale of a borough parcel to the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, doing business as Title Network. At the request of Member Meechie, Resolution 2026-16 has been placed on the agenda. This resolution was previously considered at the June 1st, 2026 assembly meeting and did not pass. It failed on a 2-4 basis.

If approved, Resolution 2026-16 would authorize the sale of an approximately 0.23-acre borough-owned parcel in the Petersburg Borough to the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, doing business as Tribal Network, under the terms of the attached contract of sale. I would entertain a motion to approve this resolution for sale. So moved. Second. Motion been made by Member Meechie and seconded by Member Newman.

Discussion? The floor is yours, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I put this on here, obviously.

Um, while I'm not— I wish this tower was going somewhere else that didn't have so much controversy around it, around somewhere different, but Tidal has come forward and wants to buy this piece of property. I think when I look at other places, in that general area. This part, this piece, I'm comfortable with. I've gone through looking at the Petersburg Property Viewer days on end trying to figure out the distances from the proposed site to the childcare facilities and the hospital, and I've heard— I've heard positive things for the borough regarding public safety equipment on it. That is important to me, and this piece is kind of out of the way for me, uh, and I don't know if the word's comfortable, but I am supporting this resolution tonight.

Thank you. Member Mucci, further discussion? Member Valentine, the floor is yours, sir. I was not here for last meeting, so I apologize about that. So here we are with, with this.

This has been quite burdensome on, I mean, every Assemblymember here, and it's like, it, it gives me like heartburn trying to figure out what the best move is. We have a lot of public input, and I respect that. We have people that have showed up here every single meeting, giving different views and things like this for us to think about. And I mean, that is, that is huge. I mean, that gets us thinking about other things.

And then we have the borough side of things, and then the FCC side of things.

And then I was thinking a lot, and I've tried different kind of avenues about this. For example, I was curious when we were thinking, you know, there's public safety concerns, and if I'm correct on this, they waived sovereign immunity. They have. They have waived sovereign immunity. And so with this tower here, where it's located, I was always wondering whether or not, is the tower the issue, or is it 5G the issue?

Because we keep kind of turning back to carriers and 5G. Tidal Network currently, the way this has been written to us, is gonna be offering Starlink to the community.

With the option to possibly lease below it. If we attended the GCI meeting, and I had heard about it, I did not attend, but I got a lot of facts from it, it sounds like no carrier wants to lease a tower, right? No, it doesn't sound like it. It sounds like GCI has no interest in doing that. Granted, I don't talk to, T-Mobile or AT&T or any of those guys.

But if that's the case and this tower goes up, then will 5G go up? It makes you wonder. But then we talked about earlier, some people brought up fact and fear. Well, are we— according to the thing that they proposed to us, they are going to give us Starlink via this tower. Are we— is— so that's fact, right?

And then the fear part is like, the fear is the 5G to come to our shores. Currently, we're sitting at LTE, which I honestly don't know the difference. But I'm just talking now because I wasn't here last, and I'm kind of viewing how my brain is working on this. And although it would be great if this has never existed for us, it's going to be— what our future holds. We're going to get more of these coming up, and that current location does not bother me as much as the new one that has just been proposed to us.

Not to us, just in general, just to the public, right? Because that's on literally on top of somebody's house. This one has setbacks, I think, at least from the Childhood Center, if I remember right, at least over 500. But then it's like, at what point is it acceptable? What, what would the public like to see?

Is in general, no, is that just what we want? That's just no towers whatsoever, no tech future. Is that basically what everyone's waiting for? Yeah. But that's the hard part.

And so with this currently sitting in front of me and the ordinance that's going to help us for the future and the concerns that we are bringing up today, this is, uh, this has been very, very difficult. And I respect everybody that's given their, their responses to us and given us a lot of information. And so moving forward, we will see how this goes, but it's, uh, it's been— Thank you. It's been interesting, and this one up there, although I won't love seeing it per se, I don't see it being the worst. It's like the lesser of all evils to me, I guess.

But anyhow, it's been tough, and I want the public to know that it has been very tough, and we're all the members up here trying their best to put public concern out there as well as what we are regulated to do as well. So, thank you. Thank you, Member Valentine. Further discussion from the assembly? Member Schwartz.

Yeah, they'll— they said at the meeting they'd like to leave space on it. So, eventually they'll leave space on it. It's the way it's going to go. I mean, it's a business. You want to leave space, so leave space.

Yeah, they said they wanted to. Anyway, that being said, uh, I don't want to see it right on top of somebody's house. I'm not fearful. I've heard fear 15 times. It's concerning, irritating, but I don't want to see it on top of someone's house.

I voted no last time, but I vote yes this time. Thank you, Member Schwartz. Member Newman. I have to admit, that last meeting was, uh, this vote came down to a pretty crazy vote. Um, I literally said I was going to vote for it, and I, 3 minutes later, I voted no.

But I was able to vote on a very personal level because at that point, because there wasn't a full assembly, my vote didn't matter what I voted. It wasn't going to pass, didn't have 4 votes. Um, so on a personal level, no, I don't want it there. But I'm, I'm not here to decide things on a personal level. I'm here to decide what's best for the community and the people.

And I'm afraid, as others are, I think, of the law of unintended consequences. And this is the— this is a known factor. And I think it's like it's been said more than once, it's the least bad of all the bad places. So, and I don't think it's really that bad. There already is one up there, much, much closer to assisted living and a grocery store and Lincoln Heights Housing.

So this at least has some distance. And I think, um, positive benefit for communication to the borough. Thank you, Member Newman. Member Martin, I see the yellow hand. The floor is yours, sir.

Yeah, well said, Member Newman. Um, 2 weeks ago I voted no. I was looking back at how the whole thing happened and following through on some things I'd said, and, uh, Looking forward on its own merits, I think it's, it's a better site than the ones that have been sprouting up organically without borough involvement. So, um, it's not a terrible spot. And I'm no longer opposed.

Thank you, Member Martin. I guess I'll go last before we call the roll. Um, I will not rehash every argument I've made in favor of approving this over the last 10 months. I was disappointed it didn't pass last time, and I found to be honest, I was disappointed it was brought back up. It's like, all right, cool, we're going to vote no.

Let's put our foot down and move on. That said, I'm going to vote yes. It's something I believe in. I think it is the best location. I'm going to say that several times.

I understand the pressure sometimes we as assembly members can feel, and I don't know what played into the way we— direction we went last time. Doesn't matter, it came back. I just want to briefly touch on a thing that I was glad Chief Kerr spoke tonight about, you know, from the public safety aspect, that's real stuff. We live on an island where communication is very important for public safety. And I'm glad Chief really drove home that point.

I think it's important for members of the public also to hear because it's important. It's infrastructure. It's safety infrastructure. And I think it's also— we don't know what's coming down the pike 10 years from now, 15 years from now. I think having infrastructure in place is critically important.

Again, I know I've said these things several times. And on the— to go back to my original argument for this, I, I don't think it's the borough's place to insert itself into private business or into businesses where people are following the rules and doing what they're supposed to do. I don't think that's the role of government. We can curate things, we can find good neighbors, and I think we have here. So we've gone around the horn.

Clerk, please call the roll. Vice Mayor Stan Gregor. Yes. Member Martin. Yes.

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

Yes. Member Michie. Yes. The resolution passes unanimously on a 6-0 mark. That brings us on to Item D, Resolution 2026-17, Resolution of the Petersburg Borough Assembly Amending the Current Regular Assembly Meeting Schedule to Provide that both regular meetings in the months of May through September will be held at 6:00 PM.

Approved, this resolution would revise the Assembly's meeting schedule to hold regular meetings on the 1st and 3rd Mondays at 6:00 PM from May through September, with the October through April schedule unchanged. This agenda item was requested by Member Meechi. Is there a motion to approve this resolution? So moved. Second.

Motion made by Member Meechi and seconded by Member Valentine. Member Meechi, since this is your resolution, the floor is yours if you'd like it. Yes, thank you very much. Yeah, I, uh, we had a little bit of discussion about this at the last meeting and, uh, Honestly, I've been on both sides of this issue many times, and I told myself I wasn't— whatever the assembly wanted to do. But, you know, for me, I hear all the time that— not all the time, but people are talking to me about meetings, if they listen to them, that they can't come at the noon meetings because they only have an hour for lunch and whatever stuff.

And some people can't come in the evenings because it's too dark during the winter. And a lot, several of the assembly members and our commercial fishermen and have businesses that have them busy all day long. As somebody who's retired, I could go to a noon meeting and a 6 o'clock meeting, but honestly, those 12 o'clock meetings don't give me much time Monday morning to kind of make sure everything's together, together for my noon meeting. So I'm in favor of this. It's just from May through September, or, you know, with the October through April times unchanged.

So I just wanted to see if there was support for it. I won't be too upset one way or the other, but I just wanted to see if there was any support for this. Thank you. Thank you, Member Muci. I'll chime in briefly.

I'm definitely not in favor of this. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it either way, but as a self-employed person, Neither time is great for me because I'm busy. Any of us who are elected officials and working do give, donate a lot of our time to this role. I've said this several times and I'm going to stick with it. I think it is a perfect compromise because no one's totally satisfied.

Those are the best compromises when neither party is totally satisfied. Two examples I hear that also, Member Mewtwo, that some folks are like, oh, I can't come to a noon meeting because I'm at work. A lot of parents with kids. You know, the kids are in childcare. That's when they want to pop in or call in, because at home they're making dinner for their kids, and the idea of coming in during that time is far from convenient.

So it cuts both ways. And on a personal level too, in the summer, I think staff wants to get out of here sometimes and not be here till 8 PM, and that's a real thing. I know they— the staff will do what we ask, but I respect the efforts they put into them, so to their job, so much. I think that compromise is great for them too. One evening with their families, one day while they're, you know, middle of the day on the clock.

I don't want to overplay that one, but having at one time been a non-self-employed person and having to do later in the day extra things as a salaried person, it can wear you out. And so I want to be very mindful of them too. So again, even though noon and 6 isn't super fun, I think it's the best compromise because No one's totally satisfied, so I'll be voting no. Further discussion? Member Newman.

Well, this really affects me because I probably won't be able to make any more noon meetings for the rest of the summer, so I feel like I'm not doing the role that I've been, you know, voted on to do. By having noon meetings. So yeah, I agree with your comments though. It cuts both ways, and there's no perfect answer. But I think we do better work when we are all here together, and there's a synergy that we use together, and we don't have that when we're all broken up.

So anyway, I'm going to vote yes. Thank you, Member Newman. Uh, Member Martin, your hand is up, sir. Member Newman's on fire this evening. I agree.

I'm for it. Thank you, Martin, for the discussion. You know, I'm for it. So, thank you, Member Schwartz, for the discussion. Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Member Michie? Yes. Member Schwartz? Yes. Member Martin?

Yes. Vice Mayor Stanton Gregor? Nope. Member Valentine? Yes.

Member Newman? Yes. Passes on a 5-1 basis, with Vice Members Stanton and Gregor opposed. Moving on to communications. Correspondence received since May 28th, 2026 is on the borough website for those who care to peruse it.

Which brings us to assembly discussion items. Item A, monthly department presentations. This agenda item was requested by Member Amici. The discussion is intended to support assembly understanding of how the level of service the assembly wishes to maintain. Discussion of implementing monthly department presentations beginning in October.

Purpose of these presentations would be to improve assembly understanding of department operations, service levels, and strategic priorities in advance of the budget process. Proposed presentations would include an overview of each department's mission and staffing, recent accomplishments, current operations, financial status, capital projects, challenges, Planning priorities, performance measures, future trends, and community benefits. List of the presentation topics is attached to this agenda. Before I give the floor to Member Muci for his discussion item, just a reminder for us on the assembly and those listening at home, this is not an action item. No decisions will be made on this this evening.

Member Muci would like to turn this into an action item. He can do so at a later date. So we're just speaking in the hypothetical right now. And with that, the floor is yours, Member Muci. Absolutely.

It's hypothetical. Over the last several weeks or months, we've I've been going through the budget process and, you know, I'm guilty of this, that I never ask enough questions about how things work with the borough. I understand how, but how things work. But the community is always asking us to— you need to cut, you need to reduce, you need to cut. And the purpose of this month— and Steve and I, Manager Giesbrecht and I had a conversation about it.

I might have not worded this as smoothly as I wanted to, but what I was hoping for is to see a schedule where department heads could come in through the winter, each department. It doesn't have to happen every year, but maybe once every 3 years, and explain what they do, how many employees they have, rolling stock, customers they serve, and have an opportunity for assembly to ask them questions in a give and take kind of conversation. Because remember, Martin brought up a good point when we passed the budget in its third reading last go around, is that, you know, we did pass a balanced budget, but it was balanced on rate increases and— I can't remember the other thing— but, you know, L&N property assessments. So while it looks all good, We're still not digging into trying to figure out how to find cost savings for the borough. And I, and I know it's not a business, but a lot of people who are business people in town think that there's places that we could look to maybe make things a little bit more streamlined.

And I think this would be a better— this would be a start in that conversation. And Well, it's just a rough draft. I just wanted to get this out to the assembly's thought process so they could start thinking about it. Then I'll bring it up as an action item probably a little later, but I wanted folks to kind of at least think about it. So if there is some support for it, I'd sit down with Manager Giesbrecht and try and figure out how we could get that information to the assembly.

Thank you. Duly noted, Member Michie. You have planted the seed. Remember, Valentine, you had your hand up. Thank you.

The floor is yours. I don't think it's ever really a bad thing to hear what's going on. I think we hear a lot from Manager Giesbrecht's report. So I would be against monthly and maybe quarterly is probably a little bit more, probably a little better. But then again, you know, once a year we get the big presentation from Water Works, or is that once a year?

Does that just happen to be Okay, yeah, so we got Water Works, which helps us. And anyways, I'm not necessarily opposed to having, you know, some nice good conversation, but I feel like, yeah, I guess I would have to have more public input because it's more for the public, right? Like at this point—. He's speaking about us for the assembly, not like a town hall meeting, but for us to— and Member Michie, of course, cut me off if I'm speaking out of line— to help us and better prepare ourselves, right? And yeah, I don't know if— but regardless, I'm not, I'm not for monthly.

I'd be more quarterly or biannually. Yep. Thank you. Thank you, Member Valentine. Member Schwartz.

Well, yeah, I think it's good to be looking at efficiency and make things as efficient as possible. I also think that it would highlight a lot of the challenges that these different departments have. You know, I was triggered a little bit this winter when somebody said they were criticizing the snow removal. And I said, well, I'll tell you what, buddy, you take some equipment and 5 guys and you have all the roads cleared by, you know, 8:00 AM when they start at 2:00. And it's a challenging job and I thought they did an excellent job considering the snowfall we had.

It would also highlight a lot of the good things that are happening within the borough., in the different departments, you know. So, and, uh, I'm with, uh, Jeff with— I'd like to know more. I don't go visit the departments, got other things to do, but that would be a good opportunity, quarterly or something. Thank you. Thank you, Member Schwartz.

Any further discussion? Member Martin, I see your hand. Yeah, I like the general idea, but I think we could probably focus that list way down to some more— a tighter list of things that we really need to make decisions on and not— let's just be careful with creating work for the department heads. Let's make sure it's stuff we really are seeking.

Thanks, Member Martin. Much appreciated. Yeah, just briefly on my end, um, if— I look forward to an action item that Member Michie brings before us. I would be very cognizant of borough staff time. One of the things I like from my time on the assembly of working with borough staff is they're very giving of their time.

I can't think of a time when I've had a question for a department head, they haven't been able to schedule either phone call or meeting with me. Some department heads I don't meet with a whole lot. I read their memos, makes sense. I don't need to bug them and be redundant about it. Sometimes there are legitimate questions, and at face value it doesn't seem particularly useful to me, but that's just me.

I think I see where members Michie's coming from. Thank you. Because again, even today I spoke to 2 department heads today, and I try to be efficient with my time so I can make reasonably wise decisions while I'm up here. So anyway, in short, I look forward to seeing what you bring before us, Member Michie. Thank you.

Yep. Assemblymember comments on this fair evening? I'm going to see none and go right to recognitions. Member Muci for recognitions. Yeah, sir.

Thank you. We've already talked about Carl more than enough, but I'll do it though. It's good. I've known Carl since I moved here back in the early '80s, and I knew Carl. I was introduced to Carl when we did two-man basketball or two-person basketball up at the community or at the high school gym, and we ran up and down the court till I couldn't, you know, probably for 20, 25 years.

He was unflappable on the basketball court. He was so steady. It was just— and then I started— I knew him when he became, um, his public works role, and I watched him through his whole career, ending up at Power and Light. And, you know, he helped us through a very uncomfortable time in this community that I honestly can't think of anybody else who could have helped us through that time. Anybody other than Carl, and I will always be appreciative of Carl.

I'm going to miss Carl for his, his honesty and his ability to tell me things that sometimes I don't want to hear. And I know we just had a conversation about a week and a half ago that it was very heated for about 15 or 20 minutes, and by the time we ended up with— we had both calmed down a little bit, and he understood where I was coming from, and I understood where he was coming from. And we retain— we continue to be friends, and I'm going to miss him. And I'm glad we have him in the community, and I wish him a lot of good health and fun times in his retirement. Thank you, Carl.

Well said, sir. Further comments or recognitions? Member Newman. I would like to give a huge shout out to the, uh, The Petersburg Viking baseball team, Division II, runner-up to the state championship. They had a tremendous season this year.

You know, they went from last year of not having a single win to this close to a state championship. And I'd like to give a shout-out to Coach Engel, Coach Breiner, And the 3 seniors that have graduated are gonna be moving on, Nathan Kerr, Logan Tao, and Aiden Knudsen. Huge amount of effort. Those boys poured their heart out and they did amazing this year. Really glad to give that recognition, Member Newman.

Yeah, that's stellar all the way around. Any other recognitions on this fair evening? Before I move to adjourn, there's one last one for you, Carl. I am a better human and better assemblyman for having known you, man, and having worked with you. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Nice work, everyone. Thank you.