We will bring the Assembly Finance Committee to order for December first, twenty twenty-five.

And I believe we will have Ms.

Wall on Zoom that will work with that.

Would you call Roll.

Thank you, Mayor Weldon.

We have all assembly members present in chambers, besides Assemblymember Wool, who is available on Zoom, and Assembly Member Smith, who is absent.

Going to approval of minutes.

Any objection?

See none, those minutes are approved, which leads us to agenda topics, and I'm going to make one slight difference.

Kind of in things that are alike.

So the first grouping are things that you don't actually get to control.

Those are exemptions that exist by another body, which is passed down to you.

The only element in this grouping that you do control is with respect to the senior and disabled veterans, state mandated property tax value reduction.

There is a deadline by which people need to file for that.

Those who file past that submit are submitted to you for approval.

And so your decision to approve them or not in that current year in which they submit is completely at your discretion.

But if they file timely, they are granted that exemption.

The next grouping is everything that is a credit or rebate that's based on a dollar threshold.

Most of these don't have an inflator involved or a sunset time or a reset prescribed in code.

Many of these haven't been touched in years.

And so this is an area where we can certainly look at various items.

I will say number 10 on the list, the dollar cap on a sale of a single good or single service.

Just before I came down from for this meeting.

Because it gets adjusted every even year.

So January 1 of 2026, it would be adjusted.

The next group is credits or rebates that are on a series of properties that don't follow kind of the normal home titling process.

So we've got motor vehicles, vessels.

These are items which when they're sold, don't go through the state for titling purposes.

Number 14 in here is just an item that we as staff struggle with, and so we wanted to include it on the list.

Manufactured homes are taxed as real property, just like other homes, other property, but they are not titled through the state regular natural resources.

Rather, they go through Department of Motor Vehicles.

And so we often find ourselves in cases where we end up with delinquent taxes with somebody who's a new owner, and they change titles ship at DMV but never inform the city.

So we don't have that same route of information.

In 24, just a stat that I had available.

Manufactured homes that are in a mobile home park represented 467,000 worth of property taxes.

So we're not talking about a huge property tax value.

The next set of exemptions, 15 through 17, deal with health or other areas of required expenses in our journey of life.

So medical type things and burial type things.

So where the property doesn't stay here or may not even originate here, but flows through the city on its journey to its end location.

The next the last group on page 12 of the packet are a series of exemptions and credits that are related to economic development.

So most of these are real property.

And then the 31 through 47 is a whole host of things that just aren't like the others, and so they ended up in a popori group at the end.

Just a group of random various things that we have as exemptions and credits.

So with that, Madam Mayor, I'm I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

Huscanys, Mr.

Steininger, and myself.

So just to give you an idea how deeper diving into it, I think we put up to about four hours now, almost close to four hours of work.

So if you have anything specific, um send it to Ms.

Flick's way, and if it's something different than what we've already looked at, then we will figure out a way to air it publicly before we because we are a group of three, but um I'll take any general questions at this time.

Mr.

Kelly.

Thank you.

Um I guess what is the timeline this group of three is is looking at for bringing something back to the full assembly.

Yes, time allows, I think.

I don't know that we've set up uh big time frame.

Um as you as everybody knows next week we're going into a last municipal league, so and then we'd probably be on the holidays.

So I don't know if we'll be able to meet in December again or January might look a little bit better.

So Ms.

Flick um has quite a bit of homework that we gave her to do, so it's when she can find time also.

So no further questions.

Excellent job, Ms.

Flick.

We'll move on to our next item.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh the next item is uh for information on the dockage fee usage.

Um, so you'll recall a while ago, um the dockage fees were um increased, and the anticipated additional revenue uh you had requested that we come back and bring um some potential uses for those.

Um we estimate that the additional revenue generated will be roughly 2.9 million dollars, and as part of this um decision to raise the dockage fees, um, you all also noted that you wanted to um have all of the docks then pay for their security restrooms and maintenance, and so part of the increased dockage fees would remain with docks in order to cover those expenses that they now have to pay for on their own and would not be getting marine passenger fees for.

So that leaves us about 2.2 million dollars estimated additional revenue for FY27.

Um, as we've talked about before, um, typically when an enterprise fund um has increased revenue, that revenue stays with the enterprise fund.

Um it's it is raising fees to provide a service, and as we talked about um earlier this year, where um where there is a clear um relationship between the uh fees that are being collected and potential uses, there might be opportunity to transfer funds out of the dock enterprise fund to another fund to accomplish something that's related um to uh the generation of that revenue.

So we have folks coming in off of a boat, and um when those folks come to Juno, they touch a lot of things within our community, and so there are um some options that we have that we could utilize some of those funds.

Uh part of the direction that I had was to not try to offset marine passenger fee funds because those are already established.

We've got a specific use for those.

Um, so I I would um let you know that I had many conversations with folks.

I'll start with um the port director who um, as the director of the enterprise said, yes, we should leave those funds within the enterprise.

We have a long list of things that we would like to do with those funds.

Um, and um it would make sense.

So that is certainly an option that you have.

Um it's important to note that the dockage fees are recurring, they're operating in nature, so we could use them to offset operating fees through an allocation process.

We take marine passenger fees and apply them to transit, to fire, to police for the increased um burden that they have in the summer with all of the increased um folks coming in.

Um, it doesn't quite offset all of their increase in cost in the summer months, so we may potentially be able to take some of the dockage fees to um make uh JPD or CCFR whole above um what the marine passenger fees allows because those are more restrictive, so that could be one area.

Um quick estimation, we think there's probably a million dollars or so in operating general fund dollars that we could offset there.

Um we could also one of the things that pops into mind is oh, we've got all these buses on the road, and the buses tear up our roads.

A lot of those buses are on roads that we don't maintain, so they're maintained by the state.

So while at first glance it's like, oh, we could do some great road rehabilitation, actually, where there's that nexus of those passengers coming off the boat, those are roads that we don't actually maintain.

So we've we have some more stones that we can overturn, but um, there were some um just a handful of obvious operating type expenses that we could offset.

Um the other thing that we um have plenty of are project-related expenses, um, and that can be anything from you know, the state wants to redo South Franklin, we've got utilities down there, so those water and wastewater lines that all of these folks coming off the boat utilize that could be a fine project to um direct some funds to.

Um, we know Basin Road gets a lot of tourist activity, there's a lot of work that can be done that.

Um, and you know, as another idea, the gondola fits within kind of having that nexus where we're anticipating that folks coming off the boat will be primary users of the gondola in the summer, so that could be um a way to um supplement funding needed on that project as well.

So um this uh memo isn't the be all in all of places that we could look to um utilize those dockage fees, but it's a starting place for us to begin a dialogue and um take whatever direction you have for us.

Thank you, Ms.

Fleck.

Who has questions?

Mr.

Steininger.

Um when you talk to our uh Docks and Arbor's director, and yeah, he his response was yeah, there's plenty of things that we could spend this money on.

Um I'm thinking of the opportunity cost of using this elsewhere.

Those plenty of things, you know, are they kind of new concepts for docks and harbors, or is it hey, we need to fill some holes in our defer maintenance savings, or you know, are these things that he was planning to spend the money on that we eventually are going to have to spend money on no matter what, or are they new nice to have?

That's a great question, Mr.

Sidinger.

Um, I think it's a combination of both.

Um, the the docks and um the harbors that are utilized by the tourists coming off of the boats.

Um, there's a long list of maintenance type activities that will need to be done and will need to continue to be done.

Um be funded through the marine passenger fees.

Um there are um I think there's lots of funding opportunities, but it's uh you know, certainly as an enterprise if they're bringing in revenue, um, you know, caring for their own facilities is is a normal uh method of using those funds.

As you scan these.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

My question is a bit conceptual, and if you remember the last time we talked about this, you might see a continuation of thought.

So when we talk about the nexus between this is the enterprise, this is you know, we provide a service, this is where we're getting the money for, this is some obvious ways that they impact the community.

Could you talk a little bit about that?

When you say nexus with, for instance, I guess I'll give you more context.

For the marine passenger fees, we have a cost allocation, we have a settlement, we have somebody come in, we have formulas, and we can say we can justify this much, and this is why we put exactly this much towards these different other funding categories.

Is the way we're talking about this more of a like gas be red face test type thing, just like hypothetical hypothetically, if we wanted to take this whole amount and put it in a specific CBJ funding thing that you don't see an obvious nexus, what would prevent us from doing that?

Ms.

Flick.

Thank you, um, Madam Mayor.

Um Rahus Scandes, um, the marine passenger fee funds are very restrictive, and they're restrictive for a number of reasons, um, including the Settlement Act, and and you're right, we have a very prescribed way of working through that process and how those funds are used.

Um, this is what we're talking about is a little less restrictive, and yet needs to, I think you put it well past the red face.

We need to be able to clearly articulate why funds generated here can be spent over here.

And I think is as long as we can articulate what that what we're doing and why we're doing it, you as the assembly have the ability to make transfers.

And so we would you know you can make those decisions.

But certainly what we would be looking for is some sort of a touch point where we can say these folks or these activities that are generating revenue, it makes sense that we can spend it over here or over there.

Do you have a follow-up, Ms.

Hughescandys, or should I move on?

I guess just a follow up.

If I'm looking for that consequence, because it makes total sense to me, and I think red face tests I can wrap my mind around.

But what if it doesn't pass a red face test?

I guess I'm trying to find the other wall.

So I think you have an idea.

Robert, it's gonna bring me to bring me back to Earth.

Thank you for the question, some of you scandes.

I think I think it's it's a risk analysis in the legal realm.

Say that again.

I think it's a risk analysis in the legal arena.

Yeah, that's helpful, those words.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Mr.

Brooks, thank you, Madam Chair.

And this is kind of the piggyback on what uh Alicia was talking about.

That would be Ms.

Huscanys.

Assembly member, Ms.

Hughes Scandis.

Sorry.

Uh so it, you know, the the red face test essentially, you know, is uh how justifiable it is.

Um, I I think it would be uh pretty justifiable to say that uh tread well in Sandy Beach is an attraction of a type as well, too.

And therefore, that could that justify that these fees be used to build a whole brand new bathroom facility over there and update the dock and repay bit over there as well.

Mr.

Barr.

Thank you, Madam Mayor and Summit Rooks.

Um I think the the question ultimately is you just thinking about in making that risk analysis who is going to object to the use of the funds, and then countering that with whatever justification you as a body might have for the use of those funds that make sense that like connects that nexus uh between its expenditure and its initial collection.

And you as the assembly can certainly make that argument, and then uh we will implement it and if if needed, your your attorney will defend you.

Thank you.

Madam Manager.

I just will add to that uh analysis as you all do this risk analysis.

We have had a couple of cruise lines say we think these are shootings restricted as passenger fees, and we're like, nope, we don't agree with you on that.

So, you know, when when you think about like what does the red face uh test look like, I also think that there's just plenty of expenditures that clearly are more that they clearly have a a nexus, you know.

We're not we don't have a shortage of things to spend uh general fund on Mr.

Burks.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh this uh earlier uh you're speaking about you know how the marine passenger fees, you know, being used for emergency services, and uh you know that's that's a historical precedence that's taken place.

Uh how much could be used for emergency communication system that we're currently redoing.

You can do that, Director Flick.

Um that's a good question, assuming member Brooks.

Um we probably could use some towards that because certainly the emergency responders are using a communication process in the summer um with the additional um influx of people.

Um so that certainly could be a project um that we could look to you know see what the funding need is and if it makes sense to to use dockage fees for that.

Thank you.

Ms.

Hughescandies.

Uh thank you, Madam Mayor One more.

The dockage fees um when we talked about it related to the marine passenger fees for the restrooms and security.

So use it.

I wanted to verify that I understood you correctly.

The enterprise will retain the funds necessary to pay for the docks that are ours.

That is correct, Ms.

Hughes Candies.

And then thank you, and then follow up, and then the other ones as part of that, that's just for hours.

Is that correct?

I went back and saw how confused I was in that meeting, and it was very confused.

So I'm just making sure I understood correctly.

Roger Flick.

I don't have the minutes in front of me, but the uh restatement in my memory is that all of the docks charge a dockage fee, and they um should be charging enough to cover their expenses.

And so putting our docks on the same playing field where they can cover their own expenses.

We wouldn't have to use marine passenger fees for restrooms or security or maintenance for any of the docks then.

Thank you.

That's such a good way to phrase it.

I would have gotten it at the other meeting.

Thank you.

This works.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh just backtracking a little bit here.

Uh uh hypothetical popped into my mind on the marine passenger fees for the emergency communications.

Let's say that we're able to cover a majority of what the cost would be to implement the new system.

What would then come about the voter approved bond for the same project?

Director Flick.

Uh so I would um we have already sold the bonds and we're under obligation to pay those back, and they are restricted for solely the use of that um public safety uh communication project.

So I would have to go back and look at all the bond documents to see if they're callable, if we could pay them back early.

Um I would expect not all of them would be.

Um so certainly there's um there's always a risk of holding on to cash that we receive from the proceeds of a bond sale.

Um, because we run into issues with the IRS if we're holding on to cash that are on tax exempt bonds, so municipal bonds are tax exempt.

So the communications project I want to say is roughly 23, 24 million dollars.

Um, the bonds are covering about half of that.

These dockage fees, you have about two million dollars next year to work with.

So I think that the the bonds would be retained as part of the funding for that project.

And I um I don't know the exact amount, but I know that they also have grants involved in that project.

So those would um we would want to use those restricted funds for that project before we use these dockage fees that could have multiple uses um to offset that.

Thank you.

That's great information.

And as I recall in public works, I don't know if it was you that somebody's gonna give us an update on where we are with that project.

I don't remember who it was.

But someone was we will make sure you get an update.

Yeah.

Um, Ms.

Wall.

Thank you, Madam.

Excuse me, thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, I've got a motion or to throw out if if the moment's right for that, unless there's more questions.

I don't see any further questions, so throw out your motion.

Okay, I'm gonna give this a try.

Um I'll move that the assembly direct the manager um to in the FY27 budget.

Um fees in excess of dock operations to offset general operating expenditures to the fullest extent possible, and then bring us back a list of potential projects to you to use any of the remote remainder fund of the funds.

And if I can speak to that motion, maybe I can clarify just a tiny bit.

Okay.

Um, would you speak to your motion?

And would you uh define a little bit general operating that is for the city correct, not the docks and harbors?

General operating for the city.

So my um idea would be you know, whatever is left over after docks have taken care of their infrastructure that that we take that excess funding, and as much as we can, the the manager has given us some options here.

It sounds like they're still kind of working through where you know, police and fire, some other, you know, maybe transit, maybe some other things.

The most money that we can use to fund those ongoing expenses, we do anything that we feel like is extra that we can't apply to operating, um, come back with some proposals on projects that are priorities that we could spend these funds on.

know police and fire some other you know maybe transit maybe some other things the most money that we can um use to fund those ongoing expenses we do anything that we feel like is extra that we can't apply to operating um come back with some proposals on projects that are priorities that we could spend these funds on um you know when we started this conversation about in uh bringing in additional rebel revenue from the visitor industry you know this was I believe the assembly's intent at the time was the community sees the cruise industry as not providing enough benefit to our community um or that many people in the community think more benefit should come to the community they get frustrated when we tell them about the restrictions of marine passenger fees this is more flexible funding for us to use um to fund our city services in a time that is you know that we are um you know strapped for for funding they'll do that so this would kind of maximize our ability to do that and I'll stop there.

Okay before I ask for an objection um do you want to restate your motion one more time sure um I move the assembly direct the manager to um in the FY27 budget um utilize all dockage fees in excess of dock it docs operations to offset CBJ general operating expenditures to the fullest extent possible and bring back um to the AFC a list of potential project uses for the remaining funds all right thank you for that objection Ms.

Atkison objection just for purpose of the question because I'm pretty sure I like this motion just to be crystal clear when you say uh funds in excess of dock operations are you're referring to the 700,000 correct um I think it was more than that but now I don't have it in front of me so we're gonna phone friend and look at directly uh Ms.

Atkinson yes that um we and we anticipate the docks needing 700 thousand dollars that they've gotten in the past for marine passenger fees perfect okay so we weren't giving them additional because I know the port director had indicated interest so with that I'll remove my objection I support this motion can I make sure now I'm not sure I'm clear um the um the memo says you know estimating 2.2 million dollars of new revenue and so I'm talking about that funding.

Okay director Flick are we all in agreement that we've given 700,000 extra to docks and harbors we have this 2.2 million and that's the number we're talking about that is correct Madam Mayor we expect the increased dockage fees to be 2.9 million docks will retain 700,000 for their security restrooms maintenance that leaves about 2.2 million that can be allocated as Ms.

Wall described okay and Ms.

Wall is nodding her head so she's in agreement with that.

Ms.

Isson you maintain your objection uh Mr Steininger and then Ms.

Hall um thinking I guess I'll object just for the purpose of maybe a comment um or uh request I guess and pull some body on this um in so within that motion if I understand correctly you know some amount of the 2.2 million will go towards kind of that maximization of offset and there likely will be some left over with which Ms.

Wool's motion would then direct towards projects um I guess I'd like to see within those project options some that may come from the port director's list of priorities um I know I've had expressed to me a lot of complaints about um you know Mr.

Brooks brought it up um the restroom facilities at the South Douglas harbor has been a very common thing I've heard about and you know I know for some people paying those fees you know from the small boat harbors you know when they see their fees increase they would like to see some level of service increase and an understanding of that context in the decisions that we're making outside of the portion that's maximally offsetting.

I guess I just like to have some options that might be things that help out docks and harbors as well as just things that help out the rest of CBJ.

Does that make sense?

Thank you and I'll remove my objection Ms.

Hall.

And mine is an objection for the purpose of a question um uh to the maker of the motion um you mentioned that this would be for operations uh for docks and harbors you know we would be um hanging on to in excess of anything above what they needed does that also include their needs for um capital needs or is it just for operations and um in the memo it points out that uh potential um on you know uh this could potentially alleviate the need for sales tax initiatives for funding for docks and harbors Ms.

Wall um I I think staff might be able to do a better job than I can but I'll take a crack at you know um as an enterprise fund docks and you know the docks maintain funding that both takes care of their like annual operations and their you know capital needs and so when I say operations I mean kind of their their regular annual budget um and I'll see look at staff to make sure I'm correctly using the correct words and in describing that director foot thank you assembly member wall um assembly member hall um the pardon me um the motion would only um provide for the uh 700 thousand dollars that docks would have gotten from marine passenger fees that they're now getting from um the dockage fees um it does not address putting additional funds into their fund balance for future capital okay any objection further objection we'll let Ms.

Hall think about that and just for everybody's um memory remember it's docks and harbors so there's two different enterprise funds two different operating budgets so um I know Mr.

Steiniger you talked about the uh bathrooms at um Mike Pusage harbor I want to say um but those would probably come from the harbor side not the dock side these are the big docks so but anyway doesn't mean that they can't still put them in there so Ms.

Hall I'm looking for you are you maintaining your objection no I I will remove my objection all right so we have a motion on the table um does anybody need it read do we have any objection okay we seem to have worked through that thank you Ms.

Wall for that obvious uh go ahead do you have another motion I have another motion and this one might be even more vague for the body but my intent will be to um Ms.

Wall hold on one second just to make it quite clear see no objection that motion passes make that clear on the record Ms.

Wall you have something yeah okay so my next my intent by putting this out there is to give us something to to start working on um my motion would be to direct staff to bring us back a resolution um that would uh memorialize um the process that um this process for the future so that in future years we also the intent of the assembly would be um that that additional funding coming from that revenue comes back for CBJ operational expenses and projects um so that you know a resolution really just um you know is meant to um speak to our intent um so that we can keep that practice going see what questions you have on that do you want that resolution to come back to the finance committee or go to yes yes please let's send it let's bring it back to the finance committee any objection to that um I'm getting a couple thumbs up and then I'm getting Mr.

Kelly do you have an objection um I guess maybe just an add on to this resolution um because I do see like the the docks enterprise as having um capital needs and maybe um maybe in a given year there's a project they want to do so if we're going to be doing a resolution that kind of memorializes this in perpetuity I think I would want to include it somewhere in the language of this resolution um some sort of uh process for for working with docks and harbors board to make sure that um we're not um on stepping on anything that they need to get done or or any any pressing priority so um if we could just include in the resolution uh some sort of language that we are working with docks and harbors on this okay I'm going to go to the body on that one because I would rather see the resolution before we add the things Ms.

Okay, I'm going to go to the body on that one because I would rather see the resolution before we have the things.

Ms.

Hughes Candies.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Perhaps that last comment you said would take care of it, and it could be discussed then, but I would just in the interest of giving temperature.

I would not want that because I think resolutions work best when they're fairly obvious what the intent is, and every year as part of the budget process, the enterprise will come before the body, and capital projects will be part of that.

So I have some faith that the port director and the city manager, as such capital needs arise, that would happen outside of that.

Because the assembly ultimately, with this way that it's directing the manager now, that is part of that funding, and the assembly would be responsible to break off that funding as they need it.

So perhaps what Madam Mayor just said solves it all, which is I would say let's get the resolution back from staff, and then we could talk about it then.

Um so I'm looking at Mr.

Kelly.

Do you want to do that or do you want to treat this as an amendment to Mr.

Ms.

Wall's motion?

Um I think um just getting it back would be fine.

I just kind of meant to offer that as feedback.

Um be on everybody's radar, but I'll remove my objection.

Okay, and just remember the dots touch the boat, so they are prime for marine passenger fees.

Anyway, so um uh Ms.

Wall, second motion, any objections.

See none, you've done well tonight, Ms.

Wall from afar.

And that motion passes.

Okay.

Any other comment on this topic before we go to the next one.

Okay, next we have FY25 assembly grant update.

Is this nope?

Looks like Mr.

Barr is clearing his throat.

And Mr.

Barr, I know you have a bad voice, but slowly and as loud as we can get it from you.

Yeah, thank you, madam mayor.

Uh I think my voice is worse than it normally is.

Um with these microphones.

So you have in your packet a memo from me uh that is this is the first time we've given you a memo like this in the finance committee.

I believe you asked for it last year during the budget process, um, where we included this cover memo, which summarizes all the assembly grants that you provided in the FY25 budget process.

So you may look at these and think that's not what I remember because you're remembering FY26, which we just did this this uh past budget process.

And the reason for that is because the FY25 grant reports were due 90 days after the end of the fiscal year.

That that leads us to being able to provide them to you tonight.

So you have uh and so you will receive uh the same report along with all the individual reports from your grantees on the current fiscal year projects this time next year.

So you have a table that uh summarizes the amount of the award, what they actually spent, if there are any funds remaining the funding sources, those are gonna be general fund or marine passenger fees, and any notes, any staff notes that uh we we had that we thought might be of interest to you.

The uh grantees that are asterisk are your partner uh grantees.

So remember in your assembly grant process, there's a multi-pronged uh path where there's a handful of uh assembly assembly partners that receive partner organizations that generally receive operating grants every year.

Uh and then there's also community grant requests, and so that's how those are designated and separated.

There are um occasionally you provide direction to grantees um to uh expect a one-time funding of their request in lieu of an ongoing funding of their request.

When you do that, we include in the memorandum of agreement that we provide to the grantee a request for a plan uh for the either the continuation of that program, if it's an operating program in nature without CBJ support or detail on how that program will expire, given your direction to provide one-time funding.

And there are notes uh where that is relevant for uh the grantees for whom in FY25 you designated either in both cases it was partial one-time funding.

So I'll just note that for you.

And excuse me.

And as you read those reports, you can keep the first three bullet points on that memo in mind.

Those are the things that we ask the assembly grantees to report on.

We ask them to provide an accounting of how they used the money funded with the CBJ grant, including for the community foundation and the JAC details about regranting, so who they then granted CBJ funds to we ask for a report on the programs that they funded and some detail about how the community benefited from the funds that you provided and any other sort of relevant information that they think is useful to provide.

And so that's you can then as you as you skim through.

I know you already have you've had this packet for a little bit now, um, skim through those reports, just keep in mind that those are those are the things that we ask for.

And again, this is the first time we're doing this.

So if you have feedback on what you would like to see next year uh when we do this again, all years for that, as well as questions.

Questions I will kick us off with a question.

Um before everybody gets excited, let me say the whole question.

Do we have the ability to uh direct some of these enterprises on how to do their business?

And um, I don't mean to tell I'm just uh picking Alaska He Smart how to spend their money because they know much more than we do.

But in my case, and I'm not trying to pick on anybody, um, but this is relevant.

Um, one of our problems that people may or may not know in the public is the reason we can't put porta potties at our homeless encampments is because of the needle problem.

Um, no matter how many sharps containers you put in them, needles go down into the toilet, and the pump trucks can't pump the needles out.

So, for instance, in the four A's, is there some way we can put a little stipulation on the money that they have to do more of an exchange program?

If you look at their number, they have 107,000 syringes giving out, and they dispose of 23,000.

So that gives us about 83,000 needles that were unaccounted for and creates a problem for us.

Thank you for the question, Madam Mayor.

You when you are um providing uh when you are making decisions about funding or not funding grants during the budget process, you can also um make a decision about what we should or should not include in the terms of the memorandum of agreement that we do with any particular grantee.

Um, so that I think that would be the place to accomplish that if you uh so desire.

Okay, and I'm not doing anything with that tonight.

I just wondered if we were able to.

Again, I'm not against the four A's, I actually support them, but um, and I'm not against nonprofits being able giving them freedom to use their money as they sit.

But there's certain instances on some of the things some of our grants do that it would be nice to tighten up just a little bit.

Any further questions?

You guys are a quiet crowd tonight.

Seeing none.

Mr.

Burkins.

You almost didn't make it.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um as far as you know, there's the um Juno Economic Development Council and then the Juno Small Business Development Center.

Uh, you know, how much crossover is there between those and then any of these other uh you know organizations and entities that are doing similar type work that we finance.

Mr.

Barr.

Thank you, assembly member Brooks.

I'm not sure I have an excellent answer to that question.

There are a couple of notes uh in the staff notes about organizations that received both a grant and a regrant or you know CBJ funds through multiple different sources.

Um as far as the specific crossover before J between JEDC's work and the small business development center, I'm not intimately familiar with either.

I would say that in general, at least my my lay understanding is that the business development center spends more time doing direct consulting with people that are looking at starting up businesses and seeking to develop business plans and learning about kind of the basics about how to run a business, whereas um JBC is a little bit more focused on higher level.

I guess I would say economic development, but you you you could and and I could help you if you participate with you and engage in conversations with those two entities directly if you if you wish thank you.

Ms.

Hall, are you ready for just a comment?

Just a general comment.

Are there any further questions?

Go ahead, Liz Hall.

I would just say I appreciate this level of detail, and I think this will be really helpful as we do delve into our community grants this coming year.

So thank you.

All right, with that, thank you, Mr.

Barr.

You did a great job.

Um moving on to our next item.

Fourth of July fireworks display.

Madam Manager, is that you?

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh so it may seem like the Fourth of July uh July fireworks display is a long ways off.

Um, but there is a tremendous amount of planning and preparation that goes into this uh beautiful display that we get to enjoy every year, and frankly, our community has been enjoying for the past 40 plus years.

Um, so I want to just provide a little bit of background and you know, let you know why we're uh bringing this this conundrum to the body today.

Uh, but for many years, a volunteer group who refers to themselves as the judo fireworks crews and putting on this show.

You have Sigrid Dalberg and Ron Flint and the audience who are two core members of this group.

There are many other faces uh that help them uh put on uh this show.

Um we discovered last year, uh I don't discovered is is a funny word, but I guess we realized that uh this is the only organization in our list of assembly grantees that we have this unique relationship with where we pay the vendors directly and um there's no memorandum of agreement indemnifying the city and borough of juno.

And that raised a real flag because um not it just it would raise a flag with any of our grantees, right?

To not have that that check in balance.

Um we brought it to you last year, uh, worked with the crew on different uh possible solutions for a variety of reasons.

You know, we we couldn't have come to any solution in time for last year's show.

So the assembly uh did pass an ordinance exempting this uh this purchase from our procurement code because one of the issues is you know, we're not following our procurement code, one of the issues is is a liability, uh and those are those are really the two core issues that we're trying to address.

Um working with the crew uh you know, since they um have expressed a uh a willingness to form a and and I would say not a desire, but a willingness to form some type of corporation that would be able to cover all the uh liability and kind of provide what we want when we when we ask them to sign an MOA, right?

Identifying the city, be in charge of um all the procurement, be in charge of storing the fireworks, be in charge of procuring the uh barge, be in charge of you know the millions of details that we can't even understand that go into that show.

So it's not their preferred alternative, but they said that they would be willing to do that, and you do have a letter in your packet uh that talks through that option and what they they think that might cost, which is anywhere from 250 to 300,000.

We have a um right now the appropriation is 45,000 for uh for the fireworks for this show.

I do want to um note that the uh the uh company that the fireworks are purchased from does provide insurance for the day of this show, and there are lots of rigorous safety standards uh that are required to be able to put on this show, of which I know almost nothing about because of course I'm not the expert.

These uh these people are the experts in that, but they are required to be certified by the state of Alaska.

Uh they're required to you know get permits.

They there are lots of lots of steps that go into putting on a safe show that uh that we can enjoy.

So um I did have the opportunity to chat a little bit with some of my uh fellow city managers and in a phonograph to see how other communities manage this fireworks show because it's something that that many uh Alaskan towns enjoy.

Um in uh Wheatier, they hire a contractor to put on a show, and that is funded by the city and the chamber and uh local donations.

So again, that is a contractor relationship.

In Homer, it's a volunteer group uh that um puts on the show and funds the show.

The city just permits it with a special event permit that makes sure you know the the fire department's involved and and all those things.

In Seward, it's very similar.

The chamber puts on the show.

Again, the city's only involvement is that event permit.

Um but Kodiak is an interesting uh community where they actually put on their own fireworks show.

So the city of Kodiak puts on their own fireworks show.

And it's a very short seven minute show on New Year's Eve.

And they do this in a way that I think could be a model for us going forward if the assembly chose to kind of that option.

Um the city itself procures the fireworks, stores the fireworks, transports the fireworks, does all the permitting for uh for the show.

They don't they don't put on the show because of course the city employees are not licensed uh to be able to do that.

Again, it's a very rigorous licensing process.

You have to have lots of hours of service and all of that.

Uh, they bring in someone to do that on a volunteer basis.

Um, they do have city employees that are becoming certified with the fire department, and it's really a collaboration with the fire department, the manager's office, and then bringing in someone who has that certification in the hopes that you know over time their employees can get uh certified.

So when I go to the options listed in your memo, I want to talk about them in the in the context of what we're trying to care for, right?

We're trying to care for being able to enjoy this show that is put on every year that lifts our spirits, that is a tradition, uh, that has a lot of historical significance, uh, that's listed in almost every uh real estate listing for Douglas Island uh home.

So again, this is a very important part of our cultural, and care for the the liability.

And again, why you are involved is because eventually there'll be a risk assessment that you know I'm deferring to you as how much risk that you're willing to take on to to be able to continue to provide that.

So the first option on page uh 192 of your packet is to increase the annual budget for fireworks and issue an RFP.

Again, this is um an option.

This is not an option that uh the crew is you know preferred alternative, but it's something that they would be willing to do if they were asked to absorb all of that uh risk and liability.

I I do want to say uh you know, we could work with like a volunteer organization, kind of like the chamber or other organizations that communities uh do that in.

And there's various reasons why that is not an ideal scenario, or we haven't been able to like land on that ideal kind of nonprofit scenario for um for this, but that that could be another option.

Um, so that's kind of option one is the like hand everything off to an organization, they identify the city, we wipe our hands of it and just all get to enjoy that show.

Challenges with that option, uh benefits too.

Uh then, of course, the there's the option to not fund the fireworks show and uh just say, hey, we we it's the the risk exposure is too great.

I do want to acknowledge that if we did something like that, I'm I'm sure there are expenditures that we would still need to fund in the kind of closing up.

I mean, the the crew has been putting on this show for years.

I can't imagine there aren't uh lots of loosens that would need to be tied up, so we would need to care for that.

And then the third option is is maintaining the status quo, and and I think that this is um probably the most palpitable option, and so trying to get us somewhere where we can like maintain the status quo but care a little bit better for risk.

I think that looks a little bit more like the Kodiak model where we, the city has a much greater role in the procurement, permitting, transportation, storage, and oversight.

Um, again, not because we are uh experts, not because we know any of this, but because if we can manage that um that risk, right?

It's all about managing our risk.

So we'll have the risk, it's a risky, you know, life's risky.

But if we can manage that, um, then if we were to have a claim at any time, we could tell our insurer we did all of these things to manage the risk.

We followed all the appropriate protocol.

So I think what that would look like is dedicating uh staff in one of our departments, maybe the fire department to be that uh point person to have that relationship with the volunteers to make sure this chain of custody to make, you know, they probably have to teach us all the things that they have to do that that we have to would have to check off.

And I think there'd be an increased expenditure in that option just because we would need to be um procuring um the uh storage of the fireworks in a real you know in a reliable way that um that we found you know safe and and uh all these things that really have been managed by these volunteers.

So uh that is my um kind of discussion on the the three options that are presented in the memo.

And um I am happy to answer questions to the best of my ability.

Thank you, Madam Manager.

We'll do questions first, Mr.

Kelly, and then Ms.

Anderson and Mr.

Steiner here.

Oh, sorry.

Um thank you, uh Madam Mayor and uh Madam Manager.

Um you mentioned that there is uh some insurance policy for the day of the events.

Um I guess this might be either for you or for Ms.

Flick.

Um how much does that insurance um protect us from liability?

Is there any uh any maximum that we could be liable for depending on what happens the day of the event?

Madam Manager, you can take this.

I do I do not know I uh what the minimum and maximums on that are.

I know that the day of the event is not the kind of greatest concern that we have from a liability perspective, it's um all the the work that um leads up to that.

Okay, then we have Mr.

Steininger on them as well.

Um so uh commander Kessler, it sounds like you found one community that or at least one community that currently contracts it out, similar to what option A would be.

Is that 350, 250, 350,000 price range comparable to what they're paying to contract it out?

You know, I do not know how much uh they are paying.

I do believe I asked that question.

Um it's it's probably it's a city of Whittier, a much smaller community, probably a smaller show.

So I will follow up with that information once I get it.

Kind of a follow-up.

Sure.

Do we have more information breaking down how Juno, the Juno Fireworks crew got to that 250 to 350,000 number?

Like it because it you know, it sounds like based on your statements, a lot of the you know, the liability around the day of show is already covered by the fireworks manufacturer and all the licensing and all of that's taken care of, like what explains that 300,000 difference.

So I I can't um answer that detail except uh know that there are things that have to be cared for, like the barge, transportation, uh storage that all have a cost.

We did issue an RFI, a request for information to try to get some of that detail, understandably, uh that you know, producing that type of cost estimate would take a tremendous amount of work from this uh group of volunteers who you know really just want to be able to put on a show, not have to uh justify uh their expenditures.

I mean, they've been um donating volunteer labor, right?

So so that's also a huge part of it is there's uh you know many many people over many months that go into putting it on this show.

I'm sure um you know we could get more information.

I I also am sure that if the assembly appropriated um a number, uh they would then you know put pen to paper and do that exercise to provide something that was more nuanced than this kind of back of the napkin number that that we've been getting.

All right, Ms.

Wall.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I think Mr.

Kelly asked my question, but I'm gonna try to maybe state it somewhat differently to make sure, you know, the to me the liability cost and the risk assessment of you know the city being liable or not really comes down to you know how much we're liable for.

Obviously, everything's you know, we've had safe operations for a long time, but this is you know, things can happen.

And I remember last year we were talking about like a cat, you know, that we had a cap on what it might cost around 350,000.

Is that still kind of a good ballpark estimate for what we could potentially be liable for if something was to go wrong, or is that an area that we need more information on still?

Madam Manager.

So the uh $350,000 numbers based on our deductible.

Um and I think that in order for our insurance to cover um any incident, if we would need to be able to show that we that all of the the all of the safety precautions were taken, that we were doing everything correctly, and so um uh we weren't able to get in touch with um our insurer due to the holidays, but um we would have a concern that without any uh higher level of CBJ engagement that um coverage could be questioned.

And I did want to follow up that uh deputy manager of our was able to find the policy, and it's one million per incident at two million total, and that those are 2023 numbers.

Okay, I will think I will okay, Ms.

Hughes Ganny's.

I was gonna do a question, but I'll go to you first.

Uh thank you, Madam Mayor.

I just um making sure I'm thinking through the option three correctly.

So that does that's a uh one of the pros is it enables the volunteers to stay volunteers, that's their preferred what they'd like to do versus making a corporation.

Do we feel like from the CBJ side it sounds like we're gonna have to have more of involvement in any case based on or maybe I misunderstanding in the letter the request for storage space?

Do we feel like we have we know where we could store some fireworks at firework uh fire department sounds likely, but do you feel like in your capacity that you could see like, yeah, there's a way for a CBJ to get there to have that involvement to manage that risk.

Does it seem palatable or maybe not palatable, but doable matter manager, sorry?

Thank you.

I I do think that um there are um mechanisms to you know find CBJ property that I think has to be a hundred feet away from a road and you know, adequately uh stocked, I mean adequately locked, uh checked on those those types of things.

So I do think that that is doable.

Um, I do think that providing, I mean, it's not even I hate to use the word oversight because it's like nobody at CBJ knows what uh all the work that the crew goes through and all the safety standards, it's more like our bureaucracy, like we need to like put it through our bureaucracy.

I do think both of those things will have a cost associated with them.

I I certainly don't think it's you know hundreds of thousands of dollars, but I would bring back some uh increase in the 2027 budget, and you know, once we figure out how to solve those.

I do think that there is a level, there is still a level of risk.

This is just my proposal to manage that risk uh more actively.

Thank you.

That's a helpful characterization.

Mr.

Brooks.

Thank thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um the current budget for the fireworks shows at 45,000.

Is that like historically how much has been spent on it?

Madam Angela.

Thank you.

Uh there's minimal increases uh annually, or not every year, but minimal increases to adjust for inflation, but it it hasn't increased significantly.

Well go ahead.

So uh essentially the other two option, the increase in the budget is that so we could procure all the things to maintain the operation, like uh and own them and permanently maintain them, or is it on uh on an annual basis just kind of like leasing or renting?

Madam Manager.

So just so I can um hopefully answer your uh your question.

Option one and that uh specific ask is like we don't do anything, we like wash our hands entirely of it, and uh independent organization uh does that.

And again, that is very much a guesstimate.

Um option three when I say maintaining the status quo plus some would be uh we we would be purchasing, maintaining owning um and providing oversight for you know the chain of custody and and other things that that would need to be, and I don't have a cost estimate for that.

Um I just want to acknowledge that if we choose a managed risk version of option three, so option three plus that there you will would expect me to come back with greater than 45,000 in the budget.

No, you have to wait your turn because there's other people, Mr.

Steininger and then Ms.

Helm.

Um and this maybe it's unfair to ask you a question about um letter written by the Juno Fireworks crew, but if I'm reading this correctly, it is a correct understanding that you know absent the you know discovery that we weren't following process.

If we were just blindly going for it with the status quo, we'd still be running into significant issues and putting on the fireworks show because of the loss of the barge and storage already.

So really the indemnity issue is just kind of a small art procurement process and indemnification issue is just a small piece of the larger problem confronting a fireworks show this year.

Is that an accurate interpretation of the this long bullet point list?

Um that is certainly how I uh I read that letter and and in conversations that that regardless of you know where we end up, those issues need to be cared for.

And to be fair, the crew has brought those issues to me uh, you know, since I became city manager, like, hey, we're gonna need storage, like storage is a major issue for us.

So it's kind of brought uh brought these things to the head.

I don't know that the storage is the um biggest issue.

I I feel like the liability is still a bigger issue as far as kind of where we're stuck.

Okay, as long as you keep it with the question.

Yeah, and and so in solving those other issues, when I read this memo, it sounds like a lot of the 250 to 350,000 cost estimate is based on the idea of not being able to seek volunteer donated services to solve those storage and barge issues.

Is anything about our adherence to the city procurement process or adherence to the grants process in this situation set up in a way that would bar JFC from going and continuing to seek donated services, donated storage, donated barge time, you know, those saying the way that they've ran this show for decades, you know, would we be barring them from doing that?

I mean, it's my understanding that we have other grants that we give out to entities that then go and get volunteer labor, volunteer services to accomplish their goals.

Madam Manager.

The difference is those other agencies sign an MOA indemnifying the city in Brev Juno, and then we could care, we we don't care how they procure those services.

Um I imagine we would have uh I I don't know what those particulars would be, but I definitely could foresee a situation where it would be more difficult um when the city is kind of in charge versus a volunteer organization.

I imagine a situation where it would be more difficult to um gather donations.

Uh now that doesn't mean that there aren't ways around that and um and you know creative themes that can can be done.

But you know, generally when we're involved, things are more complicated, more expensive.

Ms.

Hall, do you have your hand up?

Yeah, thank you.

My question was very similar to Neil's, so I that was Mr.

Steinagers.

I don't know why we're willing to parse things tonight, but we'll stop that.

Okay, Mr.

Kelly.

Um thank you.

I um was looking at the price tag, and it does appear small 45,000 for we for the status quo, but I also think about that in terms of of the budget uh reductions that we're facing, and that for some job classes that could maybe be half a year's salary and benefits.

And so um you mentioned a couple things.

Uh you mentioned that uh the city of Seward uh for, for example, works with their chamber.

Um and you mentioned that if we were to do something similar, I think you might foresee some some difficulties with that.

Um would would you be able to elaborate and on those difficulties?

Or thank you.

Madam Manager.

Thank you.

Um so just to clarify, I I do think that if we were to grant the funds to an organization like the chamber, um we would do this, we would wash our hands of it, and we'd be like, Chamber, you figure it out.

And then though all of those difficulties of procuring a par and storage and all of that would be uh be on the chamber.

So uh or or in to you know nonprofit.

And I think the challenge is that you know finding someone who's willing to take on all of that, right?

And um, and that challenge is very real, and uh and uh and so I I just want to clarify that I don't uh I do think that a nonprofit or any uh or formal organization, be it a business or or uh a for-profit business or nonprofit business, um, we could enter into MOA with and say we're not responsible at all.

Now, is that a practical solution?

Pro I have been informed by the people who have been doing this for 40 years that that is not a practical solution, but certainly it meets my requirements of washing you know our hands of that that liability and all of those kind of concerns.

Okay, I'll go to Ms.

Wall and then I'll ask my question.

Go ahead, Ms.

Wall.

Thanks.

This is this is kind of just a follow-up on that conversation that because when I remember us having this conversation a year ago, that was I believe the comp way we were going was let's find a nonprofit that can have you know own this, um, whether that's started by the volunteers or one that we have in the community.

Uh I believe we did get somewhere with that conversation.

I mean is the reason that that's not a solution here because you're still concerned about the the risk, or just because it wasn't parties didn't want to do that.

Does that make sense?

Hopefully, Madam Manager can make sense of it.

Yeah, thank you, Assembly Member Walls.

So we did work with the Fourth of July committee uh um, you know, asking them if they would be willing to um uh host this activity, and they did indicate um that you know they would be willing to to work on that, but there are other challenges that uh I think the crew had with kind of being absorbed by an entity like that.

And and I this is where probably I've spoken on behalf of them far too much.

So I can't I can't go into a lot of detail on what those are, but I I can imagine um you know their preference is to continue uh working in a in a close relationship with CDJ and not as a separate entity.

Perfect segue into my question.

So my question is regardless of what well, if we pick number one, they have to form a business, but um, and I'm assuming we're not picking number two.

So number three would be eventually they need to either form a nonprofit, align themselves with a nonprofit or other business, or we haven't talked about it yet, but as there's a potential that they become CBJ employees for a week or whatever it is, is that an option too?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor.

I think that um that is really the version of um my maintaining the status quo plus, which is CBJ actively managing that risk.

Now I don't know that we need to like pay them.

We could pay them if that was something that was necessary for for the volunteers to feel like they were adequately uh protected.

Um, but that that is kind of the nature of the more actively managed risk, right?

That we would we would take and assign it, you know, staff in a department to be a contact to make sure pay you know all the the things were done adequately and possibly enter into some, you know, definitely enter into some uh official relationship with individuals if not an organization.

And my follow-up to that one would be but at this moment we don't have time to pursue those avenues because it sounds like we need to get busy on the fireworks.

According to I don't remember his name, his letter, time is of essence.

Thank you, Mayor Will.

I think you do bring up a good point.

I think it would be difficult to even uh I think we can move in the direction of uh option three plus certainly this year, but um there would definitely be things that would be difficult to implement in time for this show.

Um, and we would be requesting something similar to last year, where there was an ordinance to um exempt that from procurement code.

So I think my uh if you were to give me direction to to implement something like option three plus, we would get as close as we could, uh, but give the crew the latitude to continue doing, you know, doing business um not knowing all the things that they have already in place or need to have in place before we can work out those details.

Uh thank you for that.

See no questions, Ms.

Wall.

You want to try another motion?

Since you did well the first time, even though I had to write it down.

I'll write this one down too.

Can I just say three plus?

No, I'll um I'll do my best to capture what I believe is three plus here, maybe maybe with an spin.

Um, so I move that the assembly um uh direct staff to um for this year maintain the status quo, um, which would include an increase in the budget, an FY27 and an ordinance.

Um continuing to exempt the purchase of fireworks from purchasing code.

Um but in the meantime, move forward on um options to take care of um in demification.

I I think from my perspective, whether that means the city playing a much more active role in making sure um they're taking we're taking care of our risk, you know, or a separate and you know, if there's a nonprofit that is you know a better option for the for the volunteers.

I'm fine letting staff in the in the crew work out what that option is, um, but something different than what we have right now.

That's my motion.

Thank you for that motion.

Do you have a dollar sign for that motion?

Or do you want to leave that open?

I'm leaving that open.

All right, we have heard the motion.

Anybody need to uh hear the motion again?

Everybody understand what she's saying.

The three plus option, I guess.

Um thanks for coining that phrase, madam manager.

Mr.

Brooks, you have an objection?

Uh an objection for uh an amendment.

Certainly.

Uh I'm thinking uh adding that dollar amount to it would be useful because if we go beyond 350,000, then we're outside of the realm of what a private business can do, and then we wouldn't be as efficient.

So state your amendment a little more clearer, please.

Uh I would like to add an amendment that uh we direct staff to um proceed with option three uh um but looking at those um additional supports, storage and equipment procedure up to the amount of 350,000.

Any objection to this motion?

Mr.

Steininger.

Um I'll I'll object.

Um not because I think we should spend more than $350,000, just to be very clear.

Um, but I think leaving the number off, I would like to see this as close to 45,000 as it possibly can be, I guess is where I'm getting at I think by although I don't want to go above 350, obviously.

I think putting that number in there gives a lot more leeway for just solving problems with money instead of going out and seeking donations of of time and labor and barges and and so on and so forth.

Okay, Ms.

Hughes Candies, and then Ms.

Atkison, did you also want to?

I couldn't tell.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I was just alerting you to Ms.

Well.

Oh, thank you.

But since my mic is off, I'll say uh I think I appreciate where Mr.

Brooks is coming from, and I agree with Mr.

Steineger is coming from, and I'm looking across the room.

I think I would feel more comfortable just with no number, but I don't think staff or the volunteers needs sidebars.

A number that's I I think people are gonna try to do it the way that they've done it, which is cheaper.

I think people are gonna try to do it cheaply because they want to keep doing what they've been doing.

So all right, uh Ms.

Wall.

Yeah, I I think I'm with everybody here that my intent but behind not putting a number here is um that this will come back to us in the budget, and I would expect it to be very close to 40 as close to 45,000 as we can get.

Anybody else want to speak against or for the motion?

I'll objects also for the reasons that are already been stated, I think $350,000.

Although you said up too, so I appreciate that.

And I understand what you're coming from, but that is way higher than I would look at.

So miss what uh Assembly member Wall was saying too.

So I'll I'll remove my amendment.

Thank you for that.

Um back to Ms.

Wall's motion.

Any objection?

See now that motion passes.

Let's take a ten minute break.

We will bring us back to order.

I think we have everybody here.

And I was remiss uh not saying thank you for many, many years of service to the general fireworks crew.

It's been a volunteer organization for a long time.

And we appreciate all the work they've they've done, and all of us have enjoyed the show every year.

So without Phil.

Right or shine.

So probably down in the snow, even with that, we go to our next item, legislative capital priorities.

Who is taking that one?

All figures are getting pointed at you, Madam Anger.

Yes, that is me, although we do have Director Crotch online if there are questions.

But we need a place to put like bigger projects or things that are uh a little bit, you know, more visionary.

Um, and that we are likely to ask for federal state funding or apply for grants for.

And so this list um goes through a pretty extensive public process and is um reviewed by all the boards and commissioners with the opportunity to review it by all the boards and commissions.

The planning commission has a special review of it.

Sorry, uh reviews it.

Um, they are asked to uh comment on or contribute no more than two priorities.

So you will see some projects on here that uh are definitely not from staff, definitely not projects.

I mean, I'll just use Eagle Crosshousing as one that you know.

Came from the Eagle Crest board, has been prioritized by the Eagle Crest board.

And that's why it's in your um in your packet.

So, what we are asking for you today is to um amend this list um and forward it to the uh full body for adoption, then we will discuss it with our um legislative delegation at our legislative breakfast, submit uh a booklet to both our state and our local delegation.

I just want to emphasize that this list is the list is present in your packet, it's just math.

It's an amalgamation of of rankings.

Um, just to give you a starting point.

This is your list, it doesn't have to uh look exactly like this.

I think Director Caj asked for some clarification between 15 and 16, just because those were two ties without um without any clarification, we would just leave it as stated in the booklet.

Those are pretty low projects.

I I will say we just spend most of our energy on the top 10 as far as projects that we actually made progress on.

That doesn't mean that we wouldn't made progress or apply for a grant or welcome funding from something lower down the list.

It just means that that's kind of how things shake out since we've been uh working through this process.

So I'm happy to answer any questions, and like I mentioned, we can always point to Director Cotch if you have real project specific questions, and I'm not able to answer.

Uh, thank you.

That madam manager with the body's merch, and I would just I would rather not fight about 18 and 17 and those kind of things, and I really don't care about 15 or 16 because we're gonna stay with the top ones.

The other ones will stay on the list just in case there's some weird little grant somewhere.

Uh, for instance, um, let's just say there was some federal grant for off-road vehicles, so it would be there, and it might potentially get a grant, but we like uh the manager said we typically stayed in the top 10.

Um, we certainly could go to 11 or 12 or even move it up to eight for all that.

But so that's more of the discussion we want.

We certainly don't want to care about whether some of these things are even on the list.

We don't want to waste our time with that.

So um is everybody happy with this list, or is someone want to make an argument to move something forward or down with the criteria I said before?

Mr.

Steiniger.

Yeah, so I'll take a crack at breaking the 1516 tie here, but maybe throw wrench in the gears a little bit as well.

Um I move that the Fish Creek Road reservice and reconstruction project be moved up to become number 11 and shift 11 through 14 down by one and renumber accordingly, and I can speak to my rationale.

Um before you speak to is there objection?

Okay.

So there's objective.

Speak to your motion and then we'll hear from the objectors.

Um well, aside from just uh you know trying to break the 1516 tie.

Um, my logic here on Fish Creek Road resurface and reconstruction specifically is this is a project that kind of needs to get done in a fairly near time period because we have a pretty big another big project that relies on that road being more passable than it is now.

Like we are planning to have or potentially planning if we if we go forward with the gondola project, you know, 70,000 more visitors coming up via buses over Fish Creek Road.

You know, there's a lot of just general traffic safety concerns on North Douglas Highway, but there's very specifically Fish Creek Road as a problem, and I think we need to be trying to push a little bit harder now to get the state to reconstruct that road so that it is a safe passable road for that additional amount of traffic.

And you know, to the comments of we only really try that hard down to about 10 or maybe we can get to 11.

I think putting it up in that spin and range of trying might be a good move.

Thank you, Mr.

Steininger.

Um who objects?

Um Ms.

Atkison and then Ms.

Wall.

Thanks, Madam Manager.

I'll keep my comments to just this move.

Um, but I'll foreshadow that I have a move of my own that I'll try to make.

Um the in terms of the way I approach this breaking a 15-16 tie.

I was just gonna say you are 15 and you're 16.

Uh, I appreciate from your arguments why you think this needs to be higher up in the priorities.

On I'll keep the meat of my argument, I guess, to Saturday at the retreat because I think it's more helpful there, but I have um concerns about moving forward with the large capital project that you mentioned, and that is kind of if you're gonna do it, then this becomes really more important.

And if you're not gonna do it, then this is maybe not as high in the priorities.

And so for me, I don't feel surety, like, yeah, that's going forward, and as a piece of that, we need to do this road.

So seeing where it fell in the rankings, and I would just say, you know, you could make that 15 and make the other one 16.

So I object.

Uh Ms.

Atkison.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I pretty much agree exactly with Ms.

Hughes Candy's.

I I also just think it's a bit of a shakeup of what I think most of us rank how most of us rank these projects, and I'll caveat all this with we're probably fighting for a ranking for state capital funds that just won't exist this year.

So maybe this is all move point, but I just don't feel comfortable with that shift at this point.

Uh Ms.

Wall.

I don't have anything to add.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh so we have a motion and objection, Madam Clerk, will you call roll?

Wait, Mr.

Seininger.

Um seeing the writing on the walls, although my motion to just make it 15 and 16 then.

Any objection to moving it to 15 instead of 16.

That motion passes.

So there uh Ms.

Cotches will be happy.

Okay.

Ms.

Hughes Candy's, you mentioned that you might want to make a little move on your own.

Thank you, Madam.

Hughes Scandy's dance mayor, and thank you, manager Custer, for cueing us up to start tearing into this list.

Um I am looking at last year's uh scorings and this year's scorings, and thinking about I tried to keep my own thinking to which projects are top 10.

So it's gratifying to hear staff characterize it that way.

Um, and I also spend time thinking when I'm doing my rankings, which items are top three, and I think you know, we have some issues that make those no-brainers.

Um telephone hill in our um mathed out ranking landed in spot 11 the year prior, it had been spot four.

Uh it certainly has been a topic of much discussion and community engagement.

The assembly and staff have put time and energy into that work, we have put dollars into that work, we have allocated money.

I don't want to mix up the whole list too terribly.

So my move would be to move telephone hill redevelopment up to where Statter Harbor Wave Attenuator is, and then just bump those to Statter Harbor and Shore Power down, and that would keep everybody else um in that same order.

And I guess I would just say for reasoning behind that, if if telephone hill redevelopment based on all the work that the assembly has done and the staff has done, if if we're truly going this course, which I think we've you know gotten a lot of community feedback, and we've said we're gonna keep going this course, then it makes sense to me that this would be in the top 10.

And I agree we're unlikely to get money.

But um, I think that's important to me to see some consistency through our priorities and what we're working on, and then for my own personal spin on it, I'm always gonna be moving to put housing higher up in our priorities because I think that is a linchpin to so many of Juno's issues.

So I'll stop there.

Uh you've heard the motion.

Is there any objection?

Mr.

Kelly.

Um thank you.

I appreciate Ms.

Hughes Candy's comments about continuity.

Um, but I also um I think I did the rankings the way I did.

Um we with very specific and almost mathematical reasoning.

But um the reason why telephone hill, I guess the reason why Standard Harbor might have ranked higher for me was uh because for me that's more of a safety issue, and I prioritize safety above um above all other issues.

Um so I think um I think I would object to that placement.

Thank you, Mr.

Kelly.

I'll object just so I can oh sorry, Ms.

Wall, go ahead.

I'll speak in favor of this motion.

Um I know you know these lists, everyone's got their different rationales for how they rank them, and sometimes they come out weird.

And and to me, this one comes out very weird, you know, as a result of multiple people kind of prioritizing things differently, and I'm less I'm interested in hearing how people are thinking about it when they put it down here so low.

But to me, number one priority is always housing housing, housing, housing, housing.

We know that this project to be successful to reach the vision that we have been working through for years and that we all talked about when we move, you know, when we move forward with this, it is going to cost money, and we may not have that money, and so we are gonna be have to be looking for that money to make sure these are affordable units um that get built there.

And so it, you know, uh, if this isn't, I would put this much higher, um, you know, I did put this much higher on my list, but I'll take what Miss Hughes Handys is is doing because to me, if we're talking to our delegation in a few weeks and they see telephone hill down here at 11, you know, they're gonna wonder whether this is something we're committed to and and I I'm committed to it.

I think this body is, and so to me, a higher placement um shows that we're we're moving forward on making this a project that um meets the objectives that that we have been working towards.

Thanks.

Thank you for that, Mr.

Brooks.

Thank you, madam chair.

I would uh kind of tail on what assembly member Kelly was saying there.

Uh definitely um safety comes first, but then also with what we're facing currently, cost saving measures as well, are a thing to be putting in the um and the preference uh for the housing uh I'd like to see uh you know Peterson Hill and Telephone Hill closer together, maybe moving Peterson Hill down closer to Telephone Hill, but looking at them kind of in a peer review of like, you know, now that we're facing legal challenges with one of the developments, reassessing issues for the incremental infill or ways that can address both of those housing projects with slightly alternative options, but still leave it available for types of state funding and other things.

Yes, thank you for that.

Um, Mrs.

Hall.

I'm going to speak in support of the motion.

I also had telephone hill rank quite a bit higher.

You know, I had it as my number six.

Um, so I uh for all the reasons that were stated, I support focusing on housing and prioritizing this.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Um I'll object and I'll speak to my objection.

Um I rank telephone hill lower.

Uh not because I'm not 100% committed to the project, but we have spent some money on it, and I have said from the beginning, once we do some money, I would like to see us get away from it and get it out to private development.

Um I also was being realistic, and I figured we'll be lucky to get money for the first three.

But with that said, I understand where Ms.

Huscanys is coming from, so I will remove my objection.

Mr.

Steininger.

Um, I'm gonna object and vote against this motion, but I want to make it clear it's not because I don't think that telephone hill redevelopment is a high priority for us as a body.

Yeah, we have committed quite a bit to it.

Um just time in addition to money, and and I want to see that project completed and successful.

But when I think about what this list is used for, I I think it's kind of meaningless to bring telephone hill above number 10, but have Peterson Hill up at five, because if we're looking for a pot of money for housing, they're gonna stop at five, and they're not gonna move past Peterson Hill.

If there's a pot of money for housing, they'll look at our highest ranked housing project.

So I think it's kind of meaningless to put it above there, and there might be projects that could be in the top 10 that maybe they're not housing projects, which is a very high priority for us, but being in the top 10 might give them a little bit more credence for a specific pot of money when somebody's looking at this.

Thank you, Mr.

Steiner.

Any more Ms.

Hughes Canis, would you repeat your motion one more time, please?

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I moved to reorder the list by moving telephone hill, which is currently ranked 11 into Satter Harbor Wave Attenuator spot, which is ranked nine.

All right.

Uh for them, well, go you want to.

Oh, I'll just say, and to me, when I did that, I was kind of looking for a compromise spot in recognition that others must have ranked it lower, um, which is why I decided to settle for top 10 instead of a higher number for myself.

I did I ranked it number four, which is what it was last year.

So all right, thank you for that.

We have a motion with objection, Madam Kirk.

Will you call roll?

Thank you, Mayor Weldon.

On the motion to reorder telephone hill redevelopment up to number nine and shift the Souter Harbor Wave Attenuator and Shore Power Projects down.

Assemblymember Hughes Scandies.

Yes.

No.

Assemblymember Steininker.

No.

Assemblymember Atkinson.

Yes.

Assemblymember Brooks.

No.

Assemblymember Hall.

No.

Assemblymember Wall.

Yes.

Mayor Walden.

Yes.

Motion fails.

Four A's, four and A's.

Anybody else want to go for their project?

Try to move it up a little or down a little.

Madam Mayor, can I make a comment?

Not quite.

Which is what.

I'm trying to think if I want to do a motion.

Yeah.

Okay.

It could inspire the minds of motions.

But I'll wait.

Um okay.

I will make a motion.

So Mr.

Kelly, I'm gonna hand you the gavel for two seconds.

Madam Mayor.

In light of what Ms.

Hughes Scandi said, and we usually do just sit through the top 10, and I don't want people to get the wrong idea about Telephone Hill.

I would move Telephone Hill to number 10 and uh keep it on the top 10.

And ask for unanimous consent.

Any objections?

Mr.

Brooks.

Uh I would like to object just because uh the long-term implication of uh the shore power has uh a more broad um support and uh more tangible uh savings in the future.

Any further objection?

All right, we're ready for a roll call.

Thank you, Chair Kelly.

On the motion to move telephone hill redevelopment to number 10 on the list.

Mayor Weldon.

Yes, assemblymember Brooks.

No.

Assemblymember Hughes Gandhi's.

Yes.

Assemblymember Atkison.

Yes.

No.

Assemblymember Wall.

Yes.

Chair Kelly.

No.

Motion passes.

Motion passes five A's, three nays.

All right.

Everybody good?

Going once, going twice.

You still want to make your comment, Ms.

Hughescanny's.

Uh Mr.

Mr.

Brooks, do you want to just try and do something before she makes your comment?

Go ahead.

I would move that.

We uh uh move number 20 up to number 19.

I'm gonna look at the body for that because I asked at the beginning, do we stay away from these minor things?

Yeah, no, I I we're gonna look at the pretty much the top 10.

It might dip down 11, 12, but um is the body willing to take entertain motions that far down.

I guess I've seen some no's so prefer not to remove my motion because we can argue about those all day because some of us didn't even want some of the bottom ones on the list.

Um anything further.

Ms.

Hughes Scannys.

Thank you, madam mayor.

Um, and thanks for indulging me.

I do think it's good sometimes when we have something like this and the meetings moving along okay.

It's good for us to look at the different actions we're doing, the different lists we have, and are there random inconsistencies or not?

I just wanted to point to shore power at Doc 16B.

I think major, you know, if we could magic one that we're all supportive, we all know what the benefits would be.

Um actually, you know what?

I'll wait until after we do the bit if I was there are things that sometimes simultaneously we're saying this is not really realistic anymore, or you know, when we do a conditional use permit, we take that uh condition away for the um stock.

So I just think it's important for these all feel like you know, letters to Santa that are never gonna get any money, but just to be looking at it for that consistency if it matches what we're doing with our other actions.

Ms.

Manley comment.

Thank you, Ms.

Huscannies.

And remember, shore power is a little bit different animals.

So if there is some weird grant, that might be a one place that we because that's how we picked up grants for the shore power already, is they do go past 10 because they have a special energy grant that gets down there.

So even though we try to stay at the top 10, um, our delegation is very aware on both the state and the feds, although, as Ms.

Atkinson said there's not much free state money, but they're very aware that that's still one of our priorities.

So with that, do you need any more direction on this, Ms.

Madam Manager?

I love a motion to move it to the CD for adoption.

You would love one.

Ms.

Candies, would you be so kind?

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I move that the reordered list be moved to the assembly for introduction and ask unanimous consent.

Any objection.

Seeing none, so moved.

Okay, with that, we're gonna jump over retreat for view because I want to keep that as close as we can to our final chat and go to the visitor industry task force.

So we do have our tourism director, director of tourism.

Sorry, forget your title.

Um she's a director, all I know is that in the room for questions, but uh this is taking a while to make.

We had hoped to get it out, but we've been very cautious with this and trying to dot all the I's and cross our Ts and make sure it's something that will help us uh moving forward.

Um, since we do have some newer members, a task force is made when we want to spend lots of time on a particular um subject, um, get a lot of public input, but we necessarily don't have the time as a body to do work on that.

With that being said, when this when their work is done, it comes back to the assembly similar to the other ones, and then we can weigh in on that.

Um, and I will acknowledge the last time we did the visitor industry task force.

We had this pesky little thing called uh the COVID, and so it came back at a bad time, but we have um one already that's we're gonna be looking at, and that is the short-term uh rental task force had recommendations, and we're gonna see it in lands pretty soon, I imagine.

So, with that being said, um, and we just didn't make this out of the air.

Well, let's have a visitor industry task force because we haven't done one for a while.

There is some issues that need to be addressed, and our tourism director relies heavily on these recommendations on how to move forward with her job.

So that's one of the reasons we're doing this.

So, with that being said, um, we'll go through this.

We do have a typo in the first part, it's Matt Katterson, not Patterson.

Um, I have tried very hard in coming up with people.

Um, I would say this community is no longer deadly against as a community as a whole, deadly against tourism, nor are we a community that's opening our gates wide for tourism.

I would say most of our residents fall in the um understand tourism is really good for our economy, but at the same time cautious on growth, and so on that realm of cautiousness is how I picked assembly or people to be on this committee.

So with that, I won't go through which everybody is supposed to be in case something happens, but our proposed member of the public are Kirby Day, uh, Kircha Hughes Scandys, Sarah Lowell, Matt Katterson, Melani Shivens, uh Adrian or Rand Scott, Shem Suter will be our docs at Harvard's liaison.

Uh we missed that last time, which was an error, so we put uh someone there.

And Jeremy Timothy is our tribal um member that uh the tribe has come up with, all the way I've talked.

Uh Ms.

Adkinson has agreed to chair this committee.

Um, and Neil Steininger has agreed to also be on the committee.

So with that, um you can see that they have five charges.

Um couple people have helped me with this off the assembly, and uh so one would be revisit and update 2020 bit recommendations.

So there is some recommendations that we have worked on, completed, um, done a good job.

There's some that need to be um either removed, tweaked, um, or looked at differently.

Um, and then we're going to identify opportunities for managing impacts, including infrastructure projects and policy directions.

Um, a lot of concerns we have that you may or may not be aware of is there's quite a bit of congestion in Ok Bay.

Um fight scene, we'll still look at that, um, which is one of the reasons that we put someone up one of the people on the assembly is they work for helicopter company.

Good to have them, and whale watching is also an area that um actually the whale watchers are trying to self regulate, and uh we can help them by looking at a little further and hopefully help them with that direction.

Um, develop a structure for revolving loan program, and this is thank you for Mr.

Steiner for this sentence, uh, to uh encourage investment in projects, including clean energy emission reduction and other impact and mitigation capital investments.

And number four is within a larger regional strategy discussion, develop a broad 10-year tourism direction for Jinno.

Some people think 10 years is too long, but it's just looking out the the focus shouldn't be on the years so much as try to uh keep us in mind that we are part of the region and what we do affects others.

Um not even just birthing, but also Ginoa is seen as a leader in the tourism industry.

Um, so people pay attention to what we do, and then they sometimes do similar, or sometimes we are lessons that alert that you don't do.

Um hence lawsuits with cruise the cruise lines.

Um, and then we also, since we're looking at little revenue opportunities, identify visitor industry revenue opportunities that we not might not be thinking about.

So I'll entertain questions, and like I said, we have Ms.

Pierce in the audience if anybody has questions.

Ms.

Walt.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, and thanks for all the work and that you and others put into thinking about this.

Um lots of these things seem like good um things to get guidance from this group on the one that caught my eye, and but it's a long list, and the one that caught my eye as kind of quite question I questioned is the last one about in visitor industry revenue opportunities, only because I feel like we just spent a lot of time kind of on this topic.

We did reach it, we did you know, decide to raise um dockage fees.

We've been looking at kind of lost revenue.

Do we expect and I just wouldn't want this group spending a bunch of time on something that um there's not a lot to uncover if we already kind of went through it, but maybe you or Ms.

Pierce can let like talk to me about the types of things that this group might look at that we haven't considered or that you we'd want more guidance from others on.

I'll start and then Ms.

Pierce thinks I need help, she can run down.

So this isn't looking at the at the revenue options the same way we're looking at.

This is actually going to compare our fees and charges against other communities and look at the global market.

For instance, do we have the same fees as the Caribbean, and which is should be a little probably more expensive than us, or we have the same fees as uh Europe.

Those are those are what more we're looking at.

But Ms.

Pierce walked up, so she thinks she needs to add to this conversation.

Go ahead, Ms.

Pierce.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and um through the chair.

We are working as part of the poor community to Alaska group to commission a rate study that compares Alaska ports to elsewhere in the world for exactly the reasons that the mayor described.

Um, you know, where do we stack up compared to other regions?

And so I think that work can be an input to this process.

I don't think that this is uh it was not in the original charge, it was added um rather late, but um, I don't think that this is an extraordinarily burdensome exercise.

We just did a commercial use study um as assembly member will pointed out.

We just raised our dockage fees.

Um we've been looking at um these types of things, but I think just looking at not only our rates compared to the rest of the world, but um kind of what we charge in a holistic way, staff going through the exercise of gathering that information.

And just to further that means well, I'm not looking from this group to say raise or lower your fees.

I'm looking at them to say here's what the rest of the world is doing to give us the ability to think whether we need a raise or lower.

And I did want to uh touch on one thing that Mrs.

Mr.

Kelly brought up, and that is legislative to legislate our um like our five uh moas, like our five ships a day.

I thought that still should be at the body and not at this group, because that is a definite policy decision.

So we didn't put that in here, whether we're gonna legislate our MOAs or MOUs.

So any further questions?

Seeing none, I need a motion, Ms.

Huscanies.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

And what kind of motion are we looking for?

Uh move that we accept this charge and the proposed members of uh visitor industry task force 2.0 and direct staff to begin reaching out to committee members and schedule a meeting.

Thank you for that.

And that's I think all we need, correct, Madam Manager?

Yes, thank you.

Okay, so you heard the motion.

Any objection?

See none, that motion passes.

All right.

Do you want to take a break before we go to review retreat review or nope, or moving on?

Ms.

Agas has we move it on.

Oh, for crying out loud.

Who is taking this one?

We'll give it a stab, uh, Madam Mayor and phone a friend uh as I need it because Director Flick has been intimately involved in preparing uh for uh your retreat.

Um I think that we're gonna have a fun-filled day of talking about budget.

This will be a budget focused retreat.

Um so mostly I just want to do like a brief overview here of what the work that staff is doing to prepare you to make those decisions and make sure that there's no gaps, that we have uh information that you want to make sure we cover those types of things.

Um so after a fabulous icebreaker that will top last year's personality test, uh, I'm sure.

Uh and breakfast burritos.

Uh Director Flick will go over uh the FY25 um budget.

This is the same information that you received a couple of finance committee meetings ago, but it's always good to have it at the top of your mind and kind of know our overall position.

Uh after that, uh this lovely panel here is planning on a review of general fund services by department for you.

And so the the purpose of this is really to just look at general fund because that's I mean it's a shame.

But this remember, this isn't our budget retreat.

This is actually your your retreat retreat.

So this sounds a lot like your budget retreat that actually happens in April, but because you have to give me budget direction now so that I can give the department heads budget direction.

We're we're talking about a whole lot of budget stuff.

And so we have organized a presentation that is by service.

So it's organized by department, but really we've asked Farmin Heads to talk about each service so that you can understand each service that uh we deliver and how it's supportive by general fund.

Uh and the idea there is that when you uh look at it from a service delivery level, you can think about okay, if I want to make cuts to that service, this is what that would look like.

And we will provide some context for you as far as like you know, I use the transit example all the time, and it was brought up in public works and facilities committee today.

What does a service reduction look like in transit?

So basing that off of those priority based that priority-based budgeting exercise, just because that is how this body had organized it before.

We have um probably uh just about 80 different slides to move through and a two-hour time block, and we need to ask questions because the purpose of this is you to ask questions.

So we're gonna be practicing to make sure um that we uh give you the information that you need to give direction.

Um, you know, when we look at the uh the general fund budget that's impacted, where if you kind of take out schools, right?

You you narrow down the areas where you can find that reduction.

After that, we have a uh we're hoping to give you a break for lunch, still tense debate between salad and soup versus taco bar.

So stay tuned.

More pizzas.

You may be you may be surprised.

Uh after lunch, um Ashley and her team have uh provided a Madam Manager, can we stop?

Um we have a few different people than we had last year.

Is there anybody has allergies or anything that we should be aware of?

I have an allergy to sandwiches.

Okay, sorry.

Sorry, but I just wanted to just a fiber allergy.

No, there's five room pizza agreeing allergy.

Um after the Ashley has prepared just uh a plan for uh you to review that is our outreach strategy to the public.

Because you're gonna have to give uh me direction to on how to formulate the budget, but then we also know that you want to ask the public about uh reductions that they want to see, services they they value, and really trying to get from this exercise some core values information.

So we have you know, a survey, we have different uh tools, focus groups, uh those those types of things.

So trying to get input from you to make sure that we're covering the constituencies that you want to make sure we reach out to, uh, to make sure that we're using the tools that you want us to uh to reach out to, the tools that you want us to use, um, to make sure that we're giving you the information in a timely manner, right?

So that you can use it to make your budget decisions, and probably the most important question that we will ask you is um how do you plan on using this information?

Because when we go and ask the public to give uh us their time and attention, we will be leaning on that.

Um, and then probably the the mediest part of uh of the day is gonna be giving the manager that specific direction.

And so we're really trying to frame it uh for you with some different options as far as uh you know giving the manager direction to manage laps, giving the manager direction to, you know, uh as we talked about the last AFC, you know, budget prudently and what that looks like.

Um we want to talk a little bit about uh phased um cuts, right?

Do you want to do uh do you want to look at phased cuts because we we have imperfect information and what does that look like?

And the idea being that we we come out of that process with a number that uh number based on this year's budget that you are comfortable with asking the public to do that uh that exercise with, right?

I mean, obviously, if we were to go out there and ask the public, like, hey, we want you know, um, 12 million dollars plus and anticipated six million dollars in inflation, and you're gonna have to make all those cuts.

Like that might be the reality is that number is probably between zero and uh you know, whatever 16 million dollars, right?

That that you are gonna feel comfortable, that's defensible.

So I think that's gonna be a big question that is gonna take up some some time and and uh and require um input.

And then uh and uh we have uh a couple of hours reserved for assembly goals.

This is usually all this retreat is is assembly goals.

So you know, it's a it's a little bit difficult to try to squeeze that in in two hours.

We have asked department heads to give us updates, and then we've sent all those updates to you, and then have asked you to give us any suggestions or changes by the end of today.

And I know we have heard from a couple of you, a few of you, three is few, couple is two.

Um what we plan on doing is a format similar to last year, where we take those recommendations in a kind of a go and go uh go goal by goal with staff giving you um input on like if a goal has been you know, Title 49 rewrite is a great example of like, well, we've done the next tranche, so now we need to do the next step in it.

So that would be a case where I would give you amended language as a suggestion based on the progress that we've made.

There may be goals that uh your colleagues have recommended changing or removing, we would bring those up in that process too and go through those schools.

So that is kind of we've been working with the mayor on on organizing that.

I'm sure uh she has some context to add, and of course, Director Flick is doing the yeoman's work of pulling all this together.

The only context I have, we're assuming that a lot of people didn't submit changes on the implementing actions because um of realizing that we're gonna have our hands full, and I do know I have not seen what people have submitted because I can't do that, but I do know the general feeling is remove, remove, remove just because of the time that we're gonna spend on the budget, and uh we know that we only have so much time.

But if you just are dying to submit something and you forgot over Thanksgiving and ate too much turkey, we could get it to tomorrow, but that's our last day because the staff has to have it the time to compile it.

So send them to Mr.

Barr if you really wanted to weigh in on something.

Um if not, then uh, like I said, we'll assume that um nobody really has any substantial changes other than we may be looking at removing stuff or keeping everything the same and knowing that we're gonna work on our budget and bluff, because those are our two favorite subjects.

All right, with that, uh Ms.

Flick, do you want to director Flick?

Sorry, do you want to add anything?

Um I'll just add that you know, we'll um in preparing visuals and um options, we're gonna try to make it as um as simple as possible because this is gonna be a super complex um conversation to have.

So um we want to make sure we give you enough details and um and lots of things to think about, but not overwhelming overwhelm you with so many details that we can't get to the direction that the manager needs, and really that I need you to give the manager so I can write her um direction to the directors.

So um we'll try to walk that balance of um big concepts, um uh good options, but also sufficient detail for you.

Right.

And if you know of questions that you're gonna ask ahead of time, please ask them now so they can put that in their presentations because chances are if you have that question, other people have the same question.

So Madam Manager, you're gonna finish this off.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I just will also note that uh we have a lot of presentations prepared, but we don't have any packet materials because we are going to be working through this and tweaking things.

Um we may have a couple of memos.

We haven't quite decided on that to help organize your thoughts.

But in general, uh, the bulk of the information will be um at the retreat, and and that's usually how we do retreats.

I just wanted to let you know that before you're like, where's my 200 page packet?

Yeah, typically we just have um the finance sheets that we have in the budget review is part of our packet.

Um, does anybody else need anything before then?

I don't know if we need to have um our overview that Robert gave us of our social services grants or if we need our assembly priorities or anything like that.

Anyone else need anything?

Okay, looks like we're just gonna get our finance pieces of paper.

Go ahead, Miss Hall.

We need to bring anything with us that you've already provided is previously.

I don't think so.

I mean, we will make sure if there's anything that we plan on referencing.

We have a couple of copies from your laptop if you you know, if you if you're comfortable working from that.

Uh Mr.

Burks Thank you.

On the um the summarize of the grants list that you got us is for the um for the 2025 year, and it's just based off of what was given in that year and what might be remaining.

Is there a way to get like um like a comprehensive uh financials on those organizations to see what like their total holdings are or um assets and revenues and things like that?

That's probably not the detail we'll go in on Saturday, just so you know.

This is just a general overview on the budget, and I would think that we're gonna deal with that uh as we progress through the budget.

Madam Mayor.

Go ahead, Mrs.

Flick.

Um, not for Saturday, but um for the January, February, March AFC meetings.

We do intend to have partner agencies um present during assembly finance committee.

Um, and we've asked them to um not just talk about what the programs do, but to be prepared to talk about their financial picture and not just what CBJ has granted them, but the larger picture.

Um so the partner agencies you will see in January, February, and March will space them out.

Does that make sense, Mr.

Burks?

So basically, our goals if we had goals for this thing is um putting our head to some of our services that we might consider um decreasing because of what we're having, but we probably won't do that.

Burks so basically our goals if we had goals for this thing is um putting our head to some of our services that we might consider um decreasing because of what we're having but we probably won't do that they're just gonna let us know what these services are so we can be thinking about that in the back of our head looking at our communications and engagement plan to make sure that's where we want to go giving general budget direction to the manager and then working out our goals so the hard working detailed stuff will come through finance as and uh Ms.

Wall will do a fine job with that in finance I'm just the pitch hitter today all right any questions uh so airport Alaska room um all of you should have your little thing to get in and out of the airport for your parking um please be rested ready to go 8 30 is when the door is open and the breakfast but if you whip through the door at nine o'clock you'll still be able to eat breakfast so any more direction other than tacos or sandwiches tacos should we let's assume number hall there's far too an important decision to leave the staff um what should we do just a little quick thing uh Ms.

Atkison make a motion on tacos or sandwiches okay I move that we have tacos in aspernanimous consent actually I'm just gonna move that we do that any objections tacos just nope not entertaining objections Mr.

Kelly I I prefer I I as much as I enjoy tacos it won't be Tuesday um and uh I uh dude it's so hot in this room let's wrap it up okay all right I'll just leave it there okay so uh we're not taking a formal vote but it looks like we only have one person so if you want a sandwich bring a sandwich otherwise we're getting tacos or you can make them into nachos like I'm gonna do that ask your question all questions uh some tea would be nice some caffeinated tea okay uh see that we're starting to get squirrely so Saturday we'll all see each other uh but for the next meeting for uh finance is January 7th we are adjourned