Chugiak-Eagle River Advisory Board Meeting, March 22, 2025

On what have been issues for Birchwood but are unverifiable for other councils. So, uh, I took Julie's And I rewrote that. So the two resolutions that you have in front of you are— one is about jurisdictional clarity on how we make— how you deal with decisions and how you— who makes the rules. That's one. And the other one is the issue that we seem to have unanimous agreement on, to call for involvement councils.

Now, it may be as we talk, if you don't like some of our whereases, but I'm hopeful that the intent of the resolutions will match the discussion that we've heard.

I unfortunately have immersed myself way too much in this, and so have a whole bunch of background stuff in if needed and called for. So I would appreciate the opportunity to bring that up. Sure. And I would follow up with that because I was at, um, was it the Birchwood? Yeah, the Birchwood Community Council meeting, and there was a talk about a variance, one of the variances that one of the neighbors is asking for.

And it came out very clear, and it makes sense that we don't want to come— you can't come out with the variance because you don't like what What, uh, they're trying to close the street. Vacation. Yeah, they want to— they have a stream vacation. Yeah, they want to vacate that area, and they can't come out and say it because they don't like the gaming hall. They have to come out and say it because there's a barn in the way and there's a shed.

So that makes sense to me. I verified that conversation. Anybody else? The only other thing that happened since the last time we met is there was a notification that came out from the new head of the Department of the Interior, and he has pulled, uh, 40 decisions that were made under the Biden administration. And of those 40, one of them is the one that authorized, uh, this, uh, the undolo allotment casino.

I don't come out against that or for that. I merely list that as one of the rationales for potentially asking for a pause in construction. That's the only other change that, that I know. Oh, I also have— there was some discussion about the environmental assessment and what was in it, what wasn't in it. And so I, I have that, and I also created a list of what we at Birchwood see as problems with the environmental assessment document.

So I can provide that, but I don't want to just throw it out there because you may not— you may not jive with that, but it's here if anybody has any questions. Okay. Well, one more thing and then I'll be quiet. I do— if we move these resolutions, I have copies of them here that are available for the people that I made, I made 40, not 100 I made last night. Just go back to your— sure.

Um, what if, if you wanted the Moody's to vacate, it would be the Moody's that would be vacating this street. Um, why could you not say that you want to vacate because you think the traffic would Um, the way the, the way the contractor, the, the guy that is carrying that case, the surveyor, he, he— it was very clear to him that you couldn't come out and say you didn't like something just because you want— you wanted to vacate it just because something might bad happen. It just— that's what he came out and said, so I'm just sharing what he told us.

Anybody else? Have all the board members seen Julie's resolutions that she emailed? She's trying to get copies. I don't know that I've seen the latest version. I've seen a version.

Will you read them? I have read Julie's, and our council took action on Debbie's, so we— I'm more prepared to take action on Debbie's. Oh, and by the way, I seem to only have one resolution.

There's a 2-page resolution.

Respond to that, that email because we are bound by the Open Meetings Act and 4 is our magic number, and there were already 3 people talking back and forth. And so I, I did— all I did was tell Julie I'm not with you. So I read them, but, um, I didn't respond. I just wanted privately to Julie rather than the entire thread. That's better.

Yeah.

Well, if there's no more discussion from anybody in the crowd here, have anything to say, go ahead. I don't understand what they keep the road—. What road? There's a small road that goes between two houses and it's called Shawn Street, okay? And it's just— it's about a block long, but it's never been done.

It's only been planned. It's like in the—. If Look at the flat map. It's not like a real road yet. No, not yet, but they're concerned that the casino will probably punch it through because they bought the property all the way to that road so they could circle.

Oh, I know where you mean. Yeah, okay, so that would give the road— take the road back from the public and give it to the private landowners, so it would become private land. But there's already houses on it. Yeah, there's a shed. They built a shed in the Wrote right away.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else? I guess I better say something, then I'll keep my mouth shut. Um, and I apologize for the Thursday night meeting, and I was not acting extremely professionally. One of the issues that I heard on the Thursday night meeting was, um, hesitancy or reluctance to move forward on these resolutions because we haven't heard from Occludna, or Occludna hasn't been given the chance.

Um, I think if we kind of look at it possibly in a different way, um, nobody to my knowledge, as far as a community council or this group, has had a response from them since October. They have not been in any of the meetings since October. Um, I think the EA coming out as in the manner that it did right before Christmas and with a very short response time to it. Um, the fact that Marnell Gainey finally had the meeting with Debbie and they said they're not going to follow municipal code, they're not sure what state laws they're going to follow. I think their intention, or their— whatever it is, they're— where they're going now is pretty clear.

I think delaying another month to wait for them to respond to see if they're going to come to a meeting when they haven't come to one before, I don't think we're really too consequential on where they're going and what they're doing.

Conversely, you have neighbors and friends who have been going to meetings, have been following, uh, guidelines, responding to the EAA, showing up at meetings, trying to do things to at least have a communication with them. And we just kind of— we're like the ones following the law and they're not. Obviously they don't have to. So maybe some of these resolutions should be looked at more about who's been playing the game fair and who hasn't, or, or what the, what the past 3 or 4 months has done. And you say wait another month to invite them in, you need to see what they've done in the last— I mean, they're going right now.

They are not, but I mean, they've got stuff cleared, they've got buildings up, they've got— well, the fake buildings I mean, they're going gangbusters. So I think a month of us not showing them that at least we realize what they're doing or asking for some jurisdictional issues, um, I think it's— I think we're just— we're hurting nobody but ourselves when dealing with this. We need some of these issues, um, at least who we're going to talk to or who's gonna— who's gonna fight the fire at the that they're on their land, or who's responsible for all the stuff they're dumping on the road since they don't have a sewage plant. I think some of those things, we're only people that are getting hurt by it, or us as a, as the whole community, that they can go do whatever they want on their thing and they're not responsible for being in the community with the rest of us. That's all.

Yeah, she addresses that really good. Rich Greenfield with the Chuyak Community Council. Could someone give a brief thumbnail of what the history is between the village of the Klutna and the community councils? I'm not—. It's not clear to me whether they are actually a member of any council, or I've seen them come for several reasons.

Representations, but, and whether, to what degree they have a vote in anything. Yeah, Debbie, does FCC recognize them as a community council? No. However, by code, they are a representative member of this board, and because they have this, this relationship with the city, they also typically have a strong individual voice as a village with legislation. Specifically, if you look at Chugiak/Eagle River Code, there is an overlay district, a Plutna Village overlay district, that has specific restrictions and allowances for activities within the overlay district.

So the voice— they, they have legitimacy of voice even if they're not recognized as community council. Additionally, in response to the previous comment. Um, Anthony Mardell came to town, is head of the gaming consortium that's actually building and running the casino, and he met with Kim Collins, Matt Crookshank, and I for about an hour and a half. And the communication pathway that he outlined for us was if we have any complaints or comments we should call Brenda Hewitt, who is the administrator at the Village, and she could pass on to him down in Vegas if there's anything that he needs to do. Um, I have called her 3 times now.

I called her about the noise and the dirt. Additionally, she was specifically invited as a member of this board to this and other Well, just as a tag on to what Debbie just said, I was the person that sent the invite to Brenda Hewitt, and a few days after the meeting, um, a couple weeks ago, she, um, she said thank you for the invitation, so she had received it. Um, Rich, it's, it's quite confusing because there's 3 different entities, as I see it, 3 different entities that are on Eklutna. And so there's often confusion between Eklutna Incorporated, which is the village corporation that owns a lot of the land, the actual village itself and the people who live there, and then the native village of Eklutna, which is a recognized tribal government. And so, um, it's easy to get those three entities mixed up.

Chugiak Council, because Eklutna Incorporated is a business that owns land, they are invited to vote at Chugiak Council. Also, the members that live in the village are part of Chugiak Community Council, so as individuals they are welcome to vote. But the Native Village as a government has relations, like Debbie said, directly with the city, the state, and the feds. Thank you. Just—.

I understand why it's confusing, right? Because they had come and spoken and put different entities known as included. That was included in corporate. Well, I appreciate everybody's feedback, and I, I've listened to some several community councils and presentations. And, um, as far as I'm concerned, something needs to be said because, you know, some people say, well, what, we shouldn't say anything because we don't have any control over it.

But that's not why we're here. We're here to have a voice and give our constituents a voice. So I'd like to get something said. And, um, and, and the fact is that nobody else would get away with what they're doing in the municipality. Nobody.

So for us to sit back and not say anything ridiculous in my mind. So can we move to, uh, board discussions? We can get some action done. Can I motion? Yeah, this resolution.

So Debbie's Resolution 2025-2. This is the easy one.

Um, do I need to read the whole thing or just— okay, um, I'll just read the resolution. I move that we adopted the resolution as we resolve the community's of Anchorage must adhere to a municipal code and ensure that community councils and advisory boards receive early continuous notice. They must have opportunities to review and participate in decisions within their council boundaries. Motion to approve. Any discussion?

Yes. Um, first, this question just occurred to me.

What you just told us about the tribe's relationship to the muni and sounds different from the relationship of the allotment that's going to be the casino in terms both of sovereignty and jurisdiction. Am I wrong about that? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Well, I guess where I'm leading with the question is, why is the casino not being located, uh, somewhere in the village? Because they— the Bureau— Department of the Interior specifically was asked for this one allotment.

So it's a decision made by The tribe, that's what the tribe petitioned, but the Department of the Interior made the decision, right? So for some reason the tribe wanted it to be in Birchwood instead of in the Klute, right? You want to explain him? Because there are people here that are expert on this too. Go ahead.

Uh, the, the land in the village does not qualify. Okay. But this allotment— tell me what, uh, Native claims were extinguished through the Native Claims Settlement Act, and is that tell me if I'm wrong— Native Claims Settlement Act, and then also through ANILCA on the lands that were transferred at that time. However, this allotment predates those, right? So this is—.

Yeah, this is a— this, this was given over before those claims were extinguished. So that it was an allotment, it's an allotment, not anything else. Yes, it predates the state. To worry about. But there are people in the audience who know a lot about this.

You want to add anything? Okay. No, but I would like to know the number— well, maybe you know this— the number of allotments, which are 17,000, that have been accepted. How many of those predate? The allotments should all predate.

And it's, uh, it's— yeah, I mean, there's been a series of laws. The extinguishment one was here, these predate that, therefore they're claiming that it's— they still have— the argument is not over whether it is a Native allotment in Indian country. The argument is whether there's jurisdiction over it. The argument was too that because this allotment is so close to the village and has been operating under the control of the village that as such it's an extension and so qualifies. As I understand, that was how it was explained to me.

So they're using practice arguments.

And it has been turned down 3 times before, correct? It's been turned down multiple times. Yeah, the other discussion— when, when was it turned down? You need to talk to somebody else on that one. The state of Alaska has brought decisions over jurisdiction of allotments, who has primary jurisdiction, a number of times for 30 years.

This is really the other one. And it's always been the state has jurisdiction, but in the end of 2023, or maybe the beginning of 2023, The attorney in Department of Interior said, well, this is one exception.

So the decision was made then and it differs from decisions made in the past. So I understand that's the basis of the state position. Okay, so any more discussion on the direct involvement in compensation?

25-2. I use Julie's— a lot of Julie's stuff. The one change I put in is I specifically mentioned about the mayor and the assembly chair with their letters because the— that's what galvanized my personal sense about change. And so if you don't object to that, it's basically really similar, very specific. I find that that's very appropriate.

Thank you. I have a question about form, and it's basically— it seems like in all of our prior resolutions that I can remember, there's been some boilerplate about the particular meeting at which the resolution was established.

Resolved by the council on this day. I understand that, but that's not responsive to my question about what's normally the first or second recital. And I took it out because she would hand it out, so— oh, she thought it was redundant. And I have no idea, but I just know that we've always done it before. We can, whereas the advisory board was established in title, blah blah blah, and all that.

I think he wants to know what councils are here. That's— that one's the essential one, I think. Yes. Well, I think so. In the— in my version of the resolution for collective compliance with municipal entities, the first two whereases, I think, get to what you're saying.

That seems to be one. Not in this, but it is. Yeah. So if you look at these two whereases, we could just copy those into Debbie's—. Yes.

I think so. Okay. All right. Wait, whoa, philosophy. Okay, so those, those recitals are in these drafts.

Yeah, so again, this— it says community council chairs and working— no, but in this one, it just establishes the words of business and the way it needs to If we add these two into your— okay, the only argument against it is my experience with resolutions is they pack more punch if they're shorter and you just say what you want to say as easily. It's up to you, and I have no opinion. It's a matter of habit, I guess, but I thought maybe it was required.

Any other discussion? So this is number 2. Yes. Okay, so we can go ahead and vote on the first one. Can I— just a personal privilege, um, Mr. Hall has joined us, and if anybody has any questions about the litigation, he's a litigant.

He could fill you in. So far there were more general things about the federal, not your specific. Okay, I would like to ask a couple questions. Sure, if they're real simple. One is, uh, what's the venue?

What's the venue for the suit? Yeah, uh, we don't believe— basically we don't believe—. I mean, where was it filed? What court are you in front of? It was filed in the federal courts at the federal district court in Anchorage.

However, it's being heard in Seattle because of the shortage of federal judges here. Okay, and could you say what the primary claim is? Uh, the primary claim is about sovereignty of the land and the jurisdiction of the land, uh, and the legality of the Indian Gaming Commission to allow this process to go forward when the there isn't a federal statute in place that allows it. It goes back to ANSCA, so the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. So in 1971, the federal government decided that they would capture the Native community, the Aboriginal community, and settle with them over the resource management portion of what was going on in the state because they were pushing a pipeline through and they wanted to settle all that.

And so it was a debate and had been for some time. As part of that agreement, they decided they did not want to capture those agreements like they did in the Lower 48 because it was so problematic and they were creating reservation systems to do that. The Department of Interior had jurisdiction over all those reservation systems in the Lower 48. It had been problematic for more than 160 years. The Native community was adamant about not doing it that way, and they wanted a new system.

They wanted a new process. As part of that process, they were— they did not have reservations. They were not recognized as tribes, and therefore they had no reservation systems. And the laws for casinos and Native gaming are impinged on a reservation system. We don't have that here, with the exception of one place, that's Metlakatla in Southeast Alaska on Annette Island.

Those folks were approached back in the day, late '60s, prior to ANSCA's settlement and agreement, and they said, do you want to do this? Do you want to become part of ANSCA? They said no, we like our reservation system, this is what we're going to do. Today they have a gaming facility because it was approved, because it was part of the law. They were, they were allowed to do it.

There was no argument because it was played as Jane, the that that was what they were allowed to do because of the laws that were in place for more than 150 years. We did not capture that, Fanska. That's not what happened in this state. The people in the community.

In the state had very little— had a ton of— the Native community had a ton of discretion how those things were going to go forward. But one of the things the Native community did not capture by virtue of the settlement with ANSCA is to have a reservation system. And because of that, they do not have legalities and the rights to have a gaming facility because you have to only do that through a reservation system. That's how it's captured. That's the simplest terms I can put it.

Put it to you. They have tried, they have pounded the door for 40-plus years trying to change that unsuccessfully. There's been at least 4 court actions that have eliminated and not allowed them to have a gaming facility or gaming in this state because of those laws that were put in place and because of ANSCA and the way it was settled. And they haven't tried to do that by amendment, only by They've tried to do that with court actions, by lawsuits, and they have failed. Under, I might add, all administrations, both Democrat and Republican.

This is not a political process. This is what's in the books as law. Now, they have attempted to interpret that in many, many different ways, and of course to their advantage, and they have done that so far unsuccessfully until now. Until, in my humble opinion, a rogue Solicitor General decides to come along for the DOI that has been placed there by an Interior Secretary who used to head a gaming facility in New Mexico. Okay, so in the last administration, the head of the Department of Interior was somebody who used to run a casino in New Mexico.

People don't understand this and don't know this, and that's what happened. So she placed—. She decided— Yeah, find out what the issue is. So anyhow, I mean, needless to say, I can go down a rabbit hole with this very quickly and get into weeds, and I won't go that far with you, but there's a lot happening with this particular legalities and these things in the state. That you also have to understand that the Native community decided— 10 members of the Native community, Aboriginal community, decided the gaming pact and the gaming laws in this state.

10 Of them. With the legislature in Juneau years ago. They're the ones who decided the gaming laws. They did not— at that point, they didn't want anything to do with it. They didn't want to hear.

And the overall community was like, we're not doing this because of the socioeconomic issues that layer on top of our community and our society already right now. I mean, it's bad. We have enough problems with FaceTime.

Yeah, okay, we're gonna call her, call the question. Um, can I just spend a minute or two reading this?

This is number 2. Yes, sorry, I should have called it more. No, I, I, um, you might have been following my suggestion. I'm pretty sure, I'm not sure. But okay, um, okay, all in favor, raise your right hand.

Okay, it passes. With some sadness, I'm going to say I was instructed to vote against the resolution, although it's a little different. Instructed by who? By the council. Okay, Bob, you're an independent board.

They elected you as a representative, but you You vote on your conscience versus what our constituents here tell us. Well, I don't have to go back to this case. I, I want to represent my council. And so against the public involvement? Yeah, and I, and I will say I, I do not find this objectionable, but I'm voting against it.

Bob, just a quick question. What was the rationale that they, your council, used to argue against the ability of Sierra? Primarily, I think it was that they, they thought this was the wrong meeting at which to adopt a resolution like this. You know, I think they might well support it if we just— for some reason, this meeting or another community council meeting? No, the board meeting this morning.

Yeah, they, they think it's enough of a localized issue that it should be in its own separate enough issue from —when we were reading it— a separate enough issue from the gaming hall.

I think the motion passes. Motion passes. We don't need to discuss it. I will just say that the Eagle River Valley Community Council did, after the Birdwood Board of Supervisors issue, pass its own resolution in support of public involvement and the role of the council being an advisory body to the administration, the assembly. So anyway, just to say that our council voted also separately in support of participation.

And ours hasn't taken it up, but they might well do the same.

So let's, um, so that motion's over. Let's move on to the next motion. I've been asked by two council to send whatever we pass out. And so if there's no objection, I'm going to do that. Also, if you want copies of this, they're there now.

We just passed resolution number 25-2. Can I move? I just want to— before making a motion, I just want to ask Debbie, you know my council did not support the last line on this. Would you like to submit it without that line? I have to vote no on it if that lines up.

I understand. What I would suggest is you make an amendment to withdraw that particular request. My counsel strongly wants that. Okay, and I will. Which is—.

I'll make a motion. We need a motion. Motion to approve resolution 20-501, existing renters. Thank you. Discussion?

Okay, um, I'll ask, why does your community council feel that the last line there doesn't hold? Well, we took a vote on it, uh, and, and so I have clear direction from my council on that one. And, and I personally, um, we, uh, we strongly agree with We need clear jurisdictional authority. At the moment, we, you know, being a part— having the Native Village in our area, our council has a policy not to oppose projects until we hear from them. We have not invited them there, and I was not at these meetings when they were invited.

So mostly it's just an opportunity to investigate further.

Who are we asking to pause? Yes, please. Basically, we would be asking that Marielle Navy hold off on construction, with the rationale being they're sinking a lot of money into something that has a lot of impact, and they may be stopped. I don't know. Another part of the rationale is I cited some of the whereases, the court cases that are there, and use that.

It would just be helpful if we knew more about jurisdiction before the thing was wide open. We're not asking them to stop the casino that's operating now. That can keep going. Just stop with the new stuff until we know more. What's happening?

This is Rashid. So Debbie, one thing, so one of our members on the council is a lawyer and is working with federal law, and they are getting a part of ours. Just the background on why we're talking about the jurisdiction is there was the Oklahoma case that basically, as it was told to me, half the state of Oklahoma lost jurisdiction, and that included reservations and allotments. And so that was— yeah, like this same thing just happened in Oklahoma, which gave reservations and allotments jurisdiction for as Indian country and removed state jurisdiction. And so that's something that we are— one of our members is personally working with.

And so they had some pretty strong—. Could I respond to that by asking, would it help then if we asked for hold on construction instead of the wording now just says a pause. I don't think—. Because my counsel gave me a direct, direct thing, I can't— I have to oppose that one. But just to give you some clarity, there is some experience in the board of the uncertainty of the jurisdiction.

Right. Um, Sean, we do have a pamphlet in the audience. I know that's not our typical process, but would you allow it since we answered people? What was the question? Something, but he won't— Brian wanted to comment.

Oh, sure.

Usually allowed, but I think you should let it. I guess I would only add that, um, the state— and I can't speak for the state, but I do know that there's a strong possibility that there will be an injunction filed against this development in a very, very strong possibility in the very near future. And that's all I'm going to comment on. Thank you. And we would support that injunction.

Yeah, we just don't want to take a position as our, as our council, but we would support the state.

So is there—. Oh, so I would, uh, motion to amend it to reserve, to remove that last sentence. Discussion?

I would just say personally I'm fine if it passes. I just feel like I can Should we say specifically who we want to pause the gaming? Because if we're advising the municipality, I mean, we have, right? So you would want to list specifically the company that's bringing it up, the municipality, and the state in the request? Yes.

When you say you're asking for something, you're usually asking some particular person for something. Are we asking multiple people for something? Are we asking just the, um, just the owner? Can I ask another clarifying question? My understanding is it's Marnell Gaming in concurrence with the village.

Marnell Gaming is doing construction. So I don't think we're— I don't know exactly what do you want in there. Well, I'm just wondering if we should be more specific. Do we ask the tribe for applause or something like that instead of—. I just want the friendly amendment to be specific.

Yeah, you can help me with that, I appreciate it. So the board asks for Marnell Gaymay, what the municipality Well, I think that my motion was to strike it. Yeah, so we should vote on striking it or not. Well, no, I guess—. I'm sorry.

Okay, so the motion is to strike the last sentence. It's been discussed. Is there any more? It's been seconded. Is there any more discussion?

All in favor, raise your right hand.

Would you like to make a separate amendment to more specific?

It wouldn't change me, but it doesn't hurt for you to, you know, make a motion. I think the request would be then for a pause by Marnell Gaming and the native village of Kootenai specifically. I don't think the meeting can do anything about it, so if we say the board asks for Marnell Gaming and the native village of Kootenai to pause and giving Hawk Construction a final decision. Second. Any discussion?

Okay, motion to pass this with an amendment to change the last sentence to specifics of who we're going to ask to stop. We're motioning on the amendment. Yeah, just on the amendment. Okay, so motion just to change the last sentence to specifically who we're asking to stop or pause or stop construction.

Any more discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. Yes. I need to have an English if this is going to kill my whole thing, because frankly, I'm a political animal here. I want this.

Great, I love it. And so give me some hints here.

Um, I believe in supporting Birchwood as they're the most effective. I want to know from you three. You'd be okay? All right, thank you. Thank you.

Any more discussion? Appreciate it. Okay, all in favor, raise your hand. Of the whole thing.

Thank you guys. Thanks, Debbie. Debbie, I think it was well written. And we'll get them sent out to the community councils. Any more discussion?

Um, yeah, so I just want to thanks Julie for, uh, you know, doing all the work on these things. I, I, you know, I know it was a lot of writing and stuff, and I'm glad we're able to come to make a decision today. Maybe, maybe our councils can grab language from this, all alliterations for their own. Regardless of my vote, I'm glad that it passed personally, so thanks. I also— it was kind of a shock to me that you guys didn't know more about things that were consuming us, and I claim culpability.

I should have send out more information. And so one of the things I said at the GPI Council is I will try to copy you on resolutions that our council makes. If it drives you crazy, tell me to stop and I'll stop. But at least— oh, we like our resolutions. We go for them.

And so you should know about it because this is really It was. I was, I was taken aback after the last meeting. Well, I get about 30 or 40 requests for money every day, so I can probably—. I'm not going to ask you for money. All right, and the other thing is, thank you so much.

Yeah, I just want to say something. South Fork Community Council should have in the past made one or two requests for a CRAD meeting in response particular with the Montauk Marston Trail and other issues that, that we've been having over there, and we haven't. And I'm really glad that Birchwood called the meeting this time to do that. So I just wanted to say to the other community councils here, if people are trying to put projects in your district and your community council doesn't agree with it, don't hesitate, because we're all here to support each other, and that's the only way that we're going to be able to do that effectively, is if the issue is brought up. So don't make our mistakes.

I'm sorry, can I respond to that? I basically— a couple people asked me to call this and I said I can't, I can't just do a virtual thing. Virtually is already the heck out of here. We've been talking about this a lot, so I want to say thank you to Southport and Beacon River who basically called me in. Virtually, if I could just add One of the things that we talked about is just our comp plan being so out of date, and in theory there's funds to going to the planning department in order to do an update.

Is it worth it for this group to meet to do a resolution in support of an update sooner rather than later and ask people to get off their butts? Or should each council— I know Debbie, you said Birchwood did.

Why don't we take that to our community council this next month? Yeah, so it's a little late to raise it, but— [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I'm just curious, and the question is, is this actually a reconsideration going on in the U.S. Department of the Interior, or are we talking about lawsuits? It is— it wasn't a reconsideration. It was a term that— what I read about it was hold and evaluate.

The Trump administration is going to evaluate some 40 decisions that were made under the Biden administration, and it just so happens this is one of them. It doesn't mean it's going to be revised. It just means they're evaluating. No, we can adjourn this. Okay.

All right.

Second. Thank you. You're adjourned. Thank you, Julie. Um, so when I read the comprehensive plan, at least the last update, I think it's really— I think it is slightly out of date, but just, it just— so what would be really— I'm working very closely with the trails plan revision, which is a really, really good plan, and so I'm very curious [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] [FOREIGN LANGUAGE].