Mr.

Steininger, would you do the land acknowledgement?

We would like to acknowledge that the city and borough of Juneau is on Clinkett Land and wish to honor the indigenous people of this land.

For more than 10,000 years, Alaska Native people have been and continue to be integral to the well-being of our community.

We're grateful to be in this place, a part of this community and to honor the culture, traditions, and resilience of the Klinket people.

Thank you, Mr.

Steiner.

Um, Madam Clerk, would you uh note the role?

Thank you, Chair Ekittson.

Ms.

Gandis.

Absent.

Mr.

Steininger.

Here.

Mr.

Brooks.

Here.

Chair Atkinson.

Here.

All right.

We have quorum.

And I will uh watch for Alicia on Zoom and bring her over.

She joins us.

Thank you very much.

Then we are on to approval of agenda.

Are there any uh changes to the agenda?

Uh Director Koch.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh I request to swap the order of agenda items one and two so that we start off with Blackerby.

Any objections to that amendment?

Seeing none, we'll approve the agenda as amended.

Thank you very much, Director Koch.

All right.

Now we on to approval of minutes.

We have before us the January 16th, 2026 meeting minutes.

Are there any changes to the minutes?

Seeing none, we will adopt those as presented.

All right, on to agenda topics.

We have Blackerby up first.

Uh Dr.

Koch.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I am looking at page 11 of our packets.

Um and this one is probably familiar to you because it's it was only a few months ago that we came to you to talk about the problems with the water main breaks that we had in that neighborhood and the need to uh get beyond doing patching and doing a more comprehensive project in that Black or B area.

Uh and as our engineers have continued to do their research on what that project might look like, they think that we need additional funds.

So this is part of you know the beginning of these meetings.

We we always do these potential swaps.

One project, the Dudley project, we think has more funding than we think it needs.

The Blackerby project has less funding than we think it needs.

So we are uh making the request to this body to do a transfer.

The other item of importance I always think is that um right now we're asking for this this transfer based on our engineers' estimates.

We of course don't actually pay the costs until we do an RFP process and we do we do our bids.

So just because we're transferring the money doesn't necessarily mean that we wind up spending that money.

We're always hoping that we spend less, but we do try initially to have as much uh what we think is an appropriate amount of funds in the CIP before we do our procurement so that we can you know then proceed um proceed without delay.

Thank you very much, Director Koch.

Are there questions from the committee on this item?

All right, seeing none, do I have a motion?

Go ahead, Mr.

Steininger.

Um, I move that the public works and facilities committee forward a transfer of $370,000 from the Dudley Street CIP to BlackBerry Subdivision Reconstruction to the full assembly for approval and ask for unanimous consent.

Any objections to that motion?

Seeing none, that is so moved.

Now we're on to Bear Creek.

Um go ahead, Director Koch.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And part of the reason I had requested this uh swap of items in the agenda is uh with the action that you just took or the motion that you just made, that would leave a million dollars in Dudley's fund.

The next uh the next request to transfer funds, the source of the funds would also be Dudley.

So if you approve this next request, what would be left in the Dudley Street CIP is that 800, I think uh it was 820,000, yeah.

The 820,000 dollars.

Because that I just wanted to do it in order.

Um so this that's why you'll have the lower amount in Dudley if you approve uh making this this transfer for Bear Creek.

This is a similar situation in that uh we have just done more research on what we think the true costs would be, and we're requesting a transfer to match what we think the true costs would be, but we'll of course only spend what uh our lowest our lowest bid that we receive.

Um and this is uh an issue with uh culvert uh that that caused sinkholes on First Street in Douglas, and the project is complicated because there are uh utility lines in that in that area, and that any time you wind up doing that street work that also pulls in utility work, it gets uh a little bit more complex and a little bit more expensive.

So we are requesting this transfer of 180,000 dollars from Dudley Street to the Bear Creek culvert.

Thank you very much, Director Koch.

Other questions from the committee on this item?

Go ahead, Mr.

Brooks.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you, uh Director Koch for being here.

The uh I was glad to see that you know that uh assessment and evaluation on the sinkholes, you know, not related to the culvert were being addressed.

I'm just curious if there's other areas that have been identified that have a similar type of issue that are going to be needing some attention in the near future.

I'm gonna bring up my uh chief engineer.

Madam Chair, just so you are aware Paul Kelly and Maureen Hall are on Zoom.

Perfect.

Go ahead, Mr.

Bohan.

Uh thank you, Ms.

Atkinson.

Um the chair, Mr.

Brooks.

Um, we have them all over the place, be it culverts, be it water and sewer failures.

We're patching just to keep the wheels on.

In a perfect world, we'd be rebuilding every street sooner.

Um, but we're we're in the basis of discovery.

We're trying to do analysis and evaluations to stay ahead of as much as we can.

Um you've got two cases of catastrophic potentially catastrophic failures in front of you today.

Blackerby and Bear Creek were both failures that are going to cause a problem cause problems.

Um fortunately on Bear Creek, we were ahead of it upstream.

We replaced the culvert that crossed up at 4th Street in Douglas, and then Alaska DOT slip lined the culvert that crosses under Third Street.

So at least Bear Creek, after this project's complete, should be better off than it was before with good culverts.

But to answer your question, it it's it's an emergent problem everywhere.

We can we can try to evaluate, but the problem is that we can't catch everything all the time.

So is that helpful?

Yes, thank you.

Other questions?

Madam Chair, Alicia Hughes Gandhi's is now on Zoom as well.

Gotcha.

Uh welcome Ms.

Hughes Scandis.

We are uh discussing the Bear Creek culvert at the moment.

So if you have any questions on that item, feel free to ask them now.

I'm not seeing her jump to raise her hand.

So uh can I have a motion on this item?

Mr.

Steininger.

I move that the public works and facilities committee for the transfer of 180,000 from the Dudley Street CIP to Bear Creek culvert to the full assembly for approval and ask for unanimous consent.

Any objections to that motion.

Seeing none, that is so moved.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Steininger.

Now we're on to item number three.

Thank you, madam chair.

For this item, I'm gonna call up our port director, Carl Yukatel, uh, to speak to you a little bit about uh some potential waterfront restrooms.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee.

Carly Catel Port Director, in your packet, you have a uh memo that I drafted.

Essentially to this up, the the question before the assembly in this committee is uh we're at a point of Fisher Cut bait for the next development along the seawalk.

And so uh the long story trunk gate is uh when we finished the uh uh downtown cruise ship dock 16B in 2017.

Uh Dr.

Narborough's uh executed a planning document called the Urban Design Plan Marine Park to Taku Dock, in that we had uh vision for improving uh the connection between uh the seawalk and um Franklin Street.

And uh we executed uh the downtown waterfront improvement plan phase one, which was the deck over.

So in the back, you can see you know the previous, I'll call it kind of a uh dumpy gravel lot that wasn't fully utilized.

Uh we executed contract for um about 12 and a half million dollars to deck it over, make preparations uh for further development along the the waterfront and um the the phase two the fall-on phase that was considered during the phase one was for um awaiting area in bathrooms downtown.

When that project was underway, the city manager at the time said uh asked us to pause the phase two project.

We descope certain elements of phase one with the idea that uh have a a longer term look at whether a relocation of the Geno Douglas City Museum down to the waterfront was feasible.

Um at this point, um, and tomorrow there'll be a uh the planning commission will list will hear a request for a developer to develop the archipelago property, which is the uplands property um shorewood, short shoreward of the DWI phase one project to develop a um basically a large theater in that location.

Um I point this out suggesting that um there doesn't appear to be um momentum for a museum in this spot, and the question before the assembly is whether we want whether the assembly would like to direct um a restart of the bathrooms waiting area along the seawalk.

So that's the intent of my memo is if the assembly elects to forego a the museum project, which intended when the city manager back in 2019, his vision was that the museum would have bathrooms, public bathrooms.

Um if that's not going forward, um docks and harbors is prepared through marine pastor fee requests to um move forward with the bathrooms.

The next item on your agenda, um, I think um manager Kester will be here to talk about the museum.

Um but my portion is just that Dox and Harbors is ready to move forward with a a bathroom waiting area and more development, if so directed by the assembly.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Yukatel.

Are there questions from Mr.

Yukatel on this item?

Or should we do uh Miss Kester and then ask questions of both?

Let's do that.

So we may bring it back up in a second, Mr.

Youcatel.

Thank you.

You have quite a bit of information in your packet on this, but I want to direct you to page 35, which is uh the cover memo that um I wrote to try to kind of steer your conversation.

As Port Director You could tell mentioned uh the uh vision of having a city museum on this um on this property uh has been around for about the last five years or so.

It has been supported by an appropriation of passenger fees.

So you have a half a million dollar appropriation of passenger fees.

That idea that we can spend um passenger fees on the portion of this project that directly benefits uh visitors, and that would be the restrooms.

So the industry has said, yep, we totally acknowledge that uh restrooms are are needed, and that in was indeed part of the settlement agreement.

We don't uh feel like we could make an argument that the cost of the entire museum could go to passenger fees, but certainly we can incorporate some of that.

So that's why you see that half a million dollars in there.

Um you also had two appropriations from one percent funding um in the uh in the account.

The first one was about seven, I think it was like seven hundred thousand dollars.

I asked you to reappropriate for uh renovations to the municipal building.

Some members have said, well, isn't that uh the the assembly pausing construction on advancing the uh waterfront museum?

I don't think so, which is why I wanted to make sure you had the opportunity to explicitly consider whether or not that idea at that location was still alive.

However, uh the CIP draft CIP before this body uh does also include not funding a million dollars in waterfront museums.

So we have addressed uh the funding shortfall in with the the voter approved reductions in sales tax revenue by not funding uh this project in addition to other projects.

Um just to talk a little bit about why a waterfront museum at that location, um, really uh the vision is that you could capture a lot of revenue there because you it would be so uh conveniently located, and then we would not have to spend general fund.

We spend about half a million dollars in general fund right now to subsidize or or support, you should say, because a museum is is often municipally supported.

And so if you had the the funding uh through sales, you could potentially not have to support uh a city museum.

It's also a great uh uh venue to bring more people off the seawalk, capture people's attention, right?

We're all as we manage visitors, being able to capture people's attention with um attractions that remove a large amount of people are gonna really help with our congestion, and this would be one of those.

Um Port Director Yucatel mentioned that the archipelago lot is being um under under per under contract to be purchased and developed into an experiential theater that would take um some of some of the the property away that in this in the vision that was included in your packet from about five years ago was intended to use a little bit, not just the deck over, but also a little bit of the archipelago property behind it.

I don't think that necessarily uh that just means you have to reinvision the project, right?

I mean, it it would have to be designed differently to not take advantage of that uh property, assuming that the uh theater uh moves forward.

However, those are very um symbiotic experiences, right?

To have a uh a museum experience and a theater experience.

So those are some of the reasons why the waterfront museum has been a priority that's before you.

You know, some of the reasons why it hasn't advanced, why we haven't spent time and energy on it, is because it we've just had so many things going on from a big project perspective.

And so it's been hard to say, okay, we're gonna uh set aside time to prioritize design and flushing out of that idea.

You certainly could, I don't I don't think you know, you you could come out of this meeting uh and say, we need to restart that project.

We have half a million dollars in passenger fee still left in there, and we need to do some of this design.

I don't think you need to make that motion to um if you just want to kind of let it sit for a while longer.

Another alternative is you want to support the uh bathrooms and the queuing project that poor director Yugatel presented, in which case, you know, again, you would be saying wrong uh wrong location for this project.

So just wanted to give you some uh background on um on that spot.

Uh the other advantage of relocating the city museum there would be the current facility, which is um an old veterans building, uh has a lot of really good history, important history to our state and to our community.

It's not climate controlled.

We have a lot of flooding uh and moisture issues in the basement there, which of course is difficult for management of exhibits and and artifacts.

Uh it's very constrained, and being able to um move out of that building would let us house not only existing artifacts, but also the Morris Art Collection, which is the art collection that was housed in the June Empire building.

So that has been sitting in storage, waiting for this opportunity to be developed.

I uh, you know, the family has been agreeable to extending that agreement.

Um if we decide that we don't want that art anymore, the family would would need to, it would be their responsibility to do something um else with that art.

But but up until now, we've basically been storing it saying, hey, we think there's this opportunity on the horizon to take advantage.

Um and then the other uh advantage of the waterfront museum project is uh the legislature needs more space and um being able to have that building used as part of the capital complex would be an advantage.

So those are kind of the pros.

Uh, I mean, I think you know, some of the cons are just capacity funding, right?

We're not gonna be able to fund this all from passenger fees.

There's probably Rasmussen Foundation and other grant funds out there that we could pursue.

You certainly could uh, you know, if you were to restart the waterfront museum project, you could um ask us to look at uh pursuing other grant opportunities, but you know, we're we're in a we're in a fiscal situation that where it um seems difficult to be all systems go with that project at this moment doesn't mean there won't be a future moment, but if you put rushrooms there, it does constrain the future use of that site.

So I am and Port Director Eucattel are happy to answer any questions on uh either aspect of use for that property.

Thank you, Manager Kester questions.

Mr.

Stenninger Um Thank you, Manager Kestor.

And with the existing museum facility and the condition that's currently in, have we gone through process of getting kind of a rough order of magnitude of what it would cost to you know get it up to spec to be a little more secure for our artifacts if we choose to stay in that facility?

Um, we did have a CIP project to do some of those improvements, and um it was this was when I was engineering and public works director, and it just was logistically almost impossible.

So because of the groundwater level and you know, and all of those things.

So we haven't, I can't remember the cost as you know, we had money set aside in deferred building maintenance.

I can't remember how much it was.

It was in the hundreds of thousands.

I'm sure there's a bigger number out there for you know truly renovating the facility, but the type of uh more maintenance level projects have not been successful there to help with that climate kind of climate control issue.

Other questions?

Mr.

Brooks.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you, Manager Kester.

Uh if we were to go with an option that was just uh supporting the restrooms, uh is would all the funding of that come through docks and harbors and marine passenger fees?

Yes.

Ms.

Hugh Scandies, and then I think Madam Mayor has a questions.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

So I'm looking at sorry, it's so hard on a laptop.

Um looking at the design page.

Uh and so we're really talking about with that I I understand you know, it's revised down, you know, you do some redesign as it was originally, but support for Director Eucatel's um moving forward with the bathrooms with this marine passenger fees.

We're really talking about that rectangle, that blue rectangle, um and re-getting that going.

Is that correct?

That is my understanding.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

Madam Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is there a way we could design it that we build the bathrooms that are the first floor of the future museum?

We certainly we have not done any design on this project.

The any drawings you see are are uh through um in kind work from a local architect firm.

So I imagine that is uh a possibility, but have have put no time or effort into that.

It looks like Port Director Yucatal has a comment on that.

To the chair, Madam Mayor, uh you're asking whether the the bathrooms kind of as concede, whether that could be the first floor of a future bath future um museum.

Well, maybe not exactly as conceived where it is on the uh map, but as I recall the museum itself, the first floor was had bathrooms in it.

Is there a way we can start the building and put the bathrooms and a little gathering space and then at the future, if we can in the future build onto that bathroom and space to put the rest of the museum?

Madam Mayor So the questions about building a museum.

There have been some pro bono work by both MRV and Northwind architects about museums.

And I just I will caution that museums are expensive, and when you start talking about a museum over water, and these are all what we're talking about right now, are over um water, there's certain is not real easy to build that vapor bearer to make them you know very tight.

So it's it's not as easy to say, oh yeah, we can build the the bathrooms and a waiting area as the first floor.

You'd have to you should go into that thinking you're going to build a world-class museum on that first floor with the idea that you're going to come back with a future uh design.

So what has been designed to date, again, we went forward with the downtown waterfront improvement plan phase one, the timber deck over, and we were also bringing utilities for a future bathrooms, which was going to be phase two.

So those are I'll say more minimalistic for a facility for bathrooms in a waiting area.

So if there's going to be um if we're gonna pivot from that design, it just it it's a different ball game, I guess, is what I'll say, madam.

Paula.

Um I'll I'll ask a question.

Maybe this is getting a little cute here, but um, if we're moving the museum primarily so that it will be closer to tourists for revenue generating purposes, how come we can't justify the whole cost as uh marine passenger fees?

We we have had those conversations, and you know the settlement act is always uh it's always a dance on uh what you know we think is um within the bounds of the settlement act, and it's a uh a dance that we would rather have in negotiations than in court.

So we've negotiated the current understanding, the current uh proportion of funding with CLIA already, and this is what they've said is okay, or we are just sort of guessing at what that negotiation will come out with.

So I have not, as city manager, because I've only been city manager for the last three years while we've been talking about this.

I have not said, hey, would you fund a city museum?

However, I believe it would be very defensible to fund uh a portion of a city museum that was open and free to uh public because it's in our settlement agreement.

I mean I I guess my opinion is I won't say my opinion because that would probably put me in a place that I wouldn't want to be.

Thank you, Manager Kester.

Other questions, Mr.

Brooks.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh you know, the the downtown locations, um, you know, some people in the community would argue are make it the accessibility an obstacle.

So if we move it further out of the middle of downtown, uh how does that make it more accessible for people in the valley and uh on the further ends of town?

Well, um I I think that probably parking is your biggest challenge when it comes to um accessibility, and there is the parking garage, uh Marine Parking Gauge closer.

Um it's maybe the same distance, but you don't have that hill is a is hard for some people.

So, you know, there is a parking garage down from the current location.

There's a parking garage very close to the proposed new location.

So either way, those would be uh you know, using those kind of either off-street parking or parking garage uh opportunities.

Other questions on this item.

We can move into discussion now if we'd like to do that instead.

Don't everyone speak up all at once.

Mr.

Brooks.

Thank you, madam chair.

I guess I can start it off by just saying that uh, you know, it's definitely the time to be very uh cognizant of you know the financial situation and circumstances.

I see that there could be potential for bringing in revenue, but uh what rate of return as opposed to some of the other challenges facing the community currently.

So uh I'm not a huge fan of spending spending a bunch of money in an area that's not gonna have um a quicker return on it.

Thank you, Mr.

Brooks.

Ms.

Hughes Scandi's.

Thanks, madam chair.

I'll say that I feel like I'm a little bit of a broken record on so many things, but uh one of them is um bathrooms downtown, just because I know that's a major need.

It gets crowded, we don't have enough public restrooms.

That's something we've been kind of you know on that delay about.

So I'm supportive.

Uh I believe in in moving forward with um getting this going.

There is a part of me that says, oh, is that you know, short-sighted just with our budget problems now?

Um, you know, once you lose a location, then you kind of fouled it up.

But I don't think we're building a grandiose uh footprint of bathrooms that you know, I'm not sure that we totally are mucking it up in the future.

Um so I wouldn't want to hold up uh a project that I think will be beneficial right now to some of our current needs uh in terms of mitigating um some tourism issues.

So I think I'm kind of where I am right now, I feel we'll see what happens at planning commission tomorrow night, but um I think it might be useful to look at that moving forward with that scope.

Thank you, Ms.

Candies.

Mr.

Steininger Um, I guess I do kind of have a sort of question.

I think I know the answer to the question, but I figure I'll ask it anyway.

Given that you know, one of the challenges with putting the museum on this site is that it's out on boardwalk, and Mr.

You could tell spoke to that being a pretty significant consideration for like moisture issues and things like that.

Are there any other you know, solid ground sites in downtown Juneau that the city owns where the museum could be placed?

I mean, in my mind, I can only really think of where this building is right now.

Second in Franklin is a property that uh we've longed tried to preserve for housing and have had a couple of unsuccessful um offers from from developers that you know haven't come to fruition.

Um also 450 Whittier where was going to be the site of New City Hall.

Those are two pretty buildable lots that I can think of Minister Kestern.

Mr Steiniger follow up was a comment I I guess I'm they'll comment kind of in the same vein as Ms Hughes Candy's and um and just say that I think I would lean towards the you know restroom concept the concept of the design here that we have in our packet um you know just thinking about the kind of cost challenges that we would face with placing museum on the site and you know kind of our lack of money to do so we might have to kick that so far down the road that we might as well have built bathrooms in the meantime anyway so I I think this seems like a a better route to go.

Thank you Mr Steiniger Mr.

Brooks thank you madam chair and uh I'll resonate what assemblymember Steiner was saying a bit of I I definitely am very supportive of having those types of facilities available in the downtown area but uh to the point that Mr.

Yugatol was saying as far as you know not wanting it to create a roadblock for any type of future thing uh I think you know depending on how the proposal go in the planning commission I'm I'm sure that they plan to have bathrooms in their facilities as well but as far as a city you know a proposed city museum location if we're moving into the Burns building and then there's the Bill Ray Center who just had the partial collapse is like having City Hall and the city museum right next to one another would be kind of cool.

All right does anyone have a motion then on this item Mr.

Steninger let me see if I can put this together I move that the public works and facilities committee um oh there is oh thank you thank you all right yes I move that the public works and facilities committee direct staff to include in the managers FY27 passenger fee request funding for a waterfront covered shelter with restrooms and ask for unanimous consent.

Any objections to that motion Mr.

Brooks uh objecting just for purposes of financing it's uh not the right time and there's other um projects that might fill that need okay we have a motion we have objection madam crack would you call roll please mr steininger yes mr brooks no chair at Ms Hughes Gandhi's yes Chair Atkinson yes motion carries three A's and one nay all right uh thank you very much Mr.

Yukatel and Ms.

Kester for being here and presenting on those items all right up next we have a verbal update on the recycling center.

Uh director Koch I assume you're giving the verbal update yes madam chair thank you I just wanted to we didn't have an item in here in the packet in terms of anything written down because we wanted to see what the experience was on Saturday when you know we were able finally it was great on Friday to be able to reopen the recycling center but we anticipated uh that most of the traffic would come on Saturday now the weather was pretty bad on Saturday and we think that that may have uh depressed the number of people who uh would have otherwise come uh come to the recycling center but it was manageable in terms of of the the flow and the amount of materials that were received we still have a little bit of that hesitancy because the weather was really really bad and that can sort of change things but uh we do plan on uh putting out some public messaging today talking about for the rest of the week so uh Tuesday to Saturday we're going to uh continue with uh slightly reduced hours we're gonna continue to accept um mixed paper and cardboard which is makes up more

We still have a little bit of that hesitancy because the weather was really, really bad, and that can sort of change things.

But uh we do plan on uh putting out some public messaging today, talking about for the rest of the week, so uh Tuesday to Saturday, we're going to uh continue with uh slightly reduced hours.

We're gonna continue to accept um mixed paper and cardboard, which is makes up more than 90% by weight of what we receive in recycling.

So we think that that's helpful and useful for uh for our residents, and add um the addition of glass.

So we'll start collecting glass again.

And then if this week goes well, we're also this week um we'll be working on trying to uh increase the number of recyclables that we can accept to include the next step would be aluminum.

Uh, that's another material that's uh really really valuable and it doesn't take up that much space because you could crush it.

Um in all of this, I wanted to first say, you know, uh that we're open again to the public, which really feels great.

I also want to acknowledge a couple of other things.

One is that we have Stuart Ashton in the room right now, and uh this is a he's our contract manager for uh recycling and household hazardous waste, uh, but really functionally to get he's been the person and the driving force behind getting the recycling center uh running again.

And it's partially that I want to acknowledge his work, but I also want to acknowledge that we pay a lot of money to waste management to run this facility.

Uh but ultimately when it has problems with a piece of equipment like the bailer, um the community comes to CBJ and they look to CBJ to solve the problem, and we're lucky that we have dedicated staff like Stuart who you know finds a technician to fly into town to fix the bailer and all of those sorts of pieces.

Um, but this connects to me to uh at a root cause sort of level to the next topic that we're gonna talk about, which is solid waste more broadly, and it comes back to there's this common theme of CBJ doesn't have you know full control over our our waste stream, and we have uh oftentimes the community will come to us with concerns about a particular item.

Maybe it's recycling, maybe it's about construction and demolition waste, maybe it's about you know uh disposal of tires, and all of those items are really important, but I feel like they're all the the common three theme and the common thread that binds them all together is that we don't have control over our waste stream.

So we have limited uh amount of control, and then ultimately when there's a problem, like in this case, CBJ winds up paying for the repair, it's our staff who does that work.

Um so I think this has a good nexus to uh control issues.

Um the other thing I just want to want to mention, and then I'll pause to see if there are any questions about specifically about recycling.

Before we go into the other waste topics, I did want to also acknowledge that our very valued colleagues from Clinken and Haida are here today.

Um, and their their point person is uh Mr.

Ray Paddock, who is there um want to make sure I have the right title, the director of environmental and natural resources for Clinken and Heida.

Um and I'm and I wanted to mention and acknowledge them as well and give them an opportunity to come up after we talk about recycling, because we have in the past talked about uh CBJ and Clinken and Heida have a memorandum of agreement and working together on a vision for you know waste and I want to give them an opportunity to kind of speak to that that vision as well.

But I'll pause here to see first of all if anyone has questions specific to recycling or the recycling center.

Questions from the committee, Mr.

Brooks.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you for the update.

I was curious that when there's like an issue with this with a contracted provider for CBJ.

Is there any kind of like penalty that they get for not being able to provide the service that was contracted for like were they able to help out with you know the repair costs or the staff time necessary to uh get it back into operating condition?

Through the chair to Mr.

Brooks, thank you for that that really important question.

Uh we are we've been looking at that contract and we plan to move forward with trying to seek liquidated damages under that that contract because you know we pay almost $30,000 a month to uh a private entity to provide this service on the city's behalf.

And that center was down for almost 27 days.

Um they uh they of course have their own staff, people and and did assist, but really the heavy lift, the leader on uh getting uh the piece of equipment for um the physical problem that I had with the with uh guide wire and obtaining a contractor and working with that contractor on the sensor control issues, all came from CBJ.

Thank you, Director Koch.

Other questions on recycling or the recycling center.

All right, seeing none, do we want to bring up our click and head folks?

Yes, please.

Mr.

Mr.

Paddock, if you would.

Thank you for being with here with us today, Mr.

Paddock.

Uh go ahead whenever you're ready.

Thank you, madam chair, council.

Um sorry, a little bit on the spot, but yeah, we're fully in agreement at Clinkenhida.

I can't really say much right now as we were able to present our um the proposed work that we've been working with Stuart and Denise on uh to our executive team at the tribe, uh, which in turn I think later this week we'll pre be presenting to council to get approved full approval in this.

But uh we are in agreement with CBJ right now that there is an issue with uh the landfill.

And um we do feel that in a privatized area where it's being handled, um, they have control of it and leaving the city and the community members kind of held hostage um for lack of a better term.

I'm sorry.

Um, but we feel that that's stuff that just kind of needs to be put back into the people's hands.

Absolutely.

Thank you very much for being here and for being put on the spot.

Uh don't think you'll hear any arguments on any of those terms you used.

So any questions from Mr.

Paddock.

Seeing none, thanks again for being here and for sitting through our meeting.

All right.

I think we have a solid waste presentation up next, Director.

Yes, madam chair.

Uh, first of all, many thanks to to Mr.

Paddock for coming up that I really enjoy working with him and his whole his whole team.

Um so next up, we should have uh Tara from Jacobs was going to give a presentation.

Uh hopefully she is she's on.

I'm getting it, I'm getting a nod.

Uh so if we could bring her over and uh pull up the the presentation, that would be wonderful.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

All right, and I'm I apologize.

My uh my connection cut out while I was transferring to um to your promoted to panelist.

So uh director, did you pass off to me?

Would you like me to to proceed?

Yes, please proceed with the presentation.

Thank you.

Uh and I just want to share my screen here.

Let's see.

All right, how does that look?

Are you able to see my screen here?

Yes, we are.

Okay, excellent.

Um, and I will start the presentation now.

Okay, excellent.

Okay, so I I do want to just say thank you to the assembly and and thank you to the director for having us here and giving us an opportunity to talk about the results of the phase two of this solid waste study.

Uh so my my team, I have uh my colleague here, Janet, who is also from Jacobs, who will be here to answer questions as well.

Uh, we've been working with the director at CBJ to evaluate the future of solid waste management in Juneau for some time now.

Uh Jacobs is also the prime consultant supporting the municipality of Anchorage waste energy program.

And we've also supported Kodiak's solid waste management planning.

Uh so we have a pretty wide range of experience in solid waste waste systems across Alaska.

Um, and so this solid waste study, it was really a high-level evaluation of three different disposal options.

And the intent was to support assembly decisions and community discussion.

And phase one, which we actually presented to this assembly last spring, that focused just on feasibility and capital costs.

And then we entered into phase two.

And phase two expanded the analysis to include operating costs and a qualitative comparison of emissions.

And so today's presentation, I'll provide an overview of the study, and then I will also be will be able to evaluate if you respond to questions.

There will be time for discussion at the end.

Please feel free to interrupt me in the presentation if you have an urgent question, but I do have quite a bit to get through in a limited time.

So we want to maximize the time at the end for discussion.

And you should have in your packets the technical report, which has additional detail on methodology and findings on this study.

Yes, just a quick correction.

So and I apologize to Tara, I did not tell her that, but on page 37, you have a screenshot of our website.

And on the top right under news and events, it says February 2026 solid waste disposal operating costs and feasibility report.

And if anyone at home just were to Google CBJ and Solid Waste, this is the landing page that you would come to.

Thank you very much, Director Kotch.

You can go ahead, Tara.

Okay, thank you.

And thank you for clarifying, Director.

All right.

So just to start off some very important key takeaways from the study.

The first being that the capital disposal landfill is expected to close in the next 10 to 20 years.

Now that's based on the 2015 landfill closure plan.

We do understand there's a new permit application that's pending approval, and that could change the landfill closure date.

But really the point is that it can take a very long time, sometimes up to 10 years to open a new landfill if that's the direction that CBJ wants to go.

So if the CBJ does not act soon, there is the possibility that Juno will be left without any disposal options once the landfill closes.

And that could essentially trigger a public health crisis or at least risk significant cost increases imposed by the private sector without any public oversight.

Now, the second and third bullets, uh, those address control over cost increases.

The capital disposal landfill was constructed in the 1960s and that predates today's regulations.

So once the landfill closes, the cost of waste disposal is expected to increase substantially, regardless of whether disposal remains privately owned or transitions to public ownership, ownership.

So by choosing to increase the level of public control over the solid waste system, the CBJ will have greater control over rate increases.

And they will also have the flexibility to prioritize community needs over profit.

Also wanted to point out that if the CBJ considers a regional waste solution, for example, partnering with other Southeast Alaska communities, that most likely would also require a greater level of CBJ involvement and control over the solid waste system.

All right, now that the fourth bullet on your screen, um, the the point here is that a transfer station is a necessary component under all three of the scenarios that we evaluate in the study.

So really, no matter which disposal pathway is selected, a transfer station would provide CBJ with flexibility to consolidate operations or adapt to sudden changes in waste flows, for example, with disaster debris, and it could enable regional waste management partnerships or more diversion opportunities to reduce the amount that's landfilled.

And finally, it's important to make timely progression towards a solid waste strategy.

So we've recommended at the end of this presentation.

I'll go into more depth about a three-year time period that we recommend to that will essentially begin once the assembly provides clear direction and funding to move forward.

And so again, at the end, I'll go into more depth about the details of these recommendations.

And this diagram shows the flow of waste in each of the scenarios we looked at.

So the dashed lines here, uh, they show where the CBJ could build and own a local disposal solution.

And you'll see that a transfer station here is a key component of all three scenarios.

All right, and to bring your attention to the top box here.

So in this scenario A, waste would be routed from a transfer station to a land new landfill in Juneau for local disposal.

And then in this scenario, recyclables, household hazardous waste and junk vehicles would continue to be exported off-site.

In the center, we have scenario B.

Um, here waste at the transfer station would be consolidated and prepared for off-site shipping by barge.

So in the study, we evaluated barge transport transport to Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Washington, as well as to the waste to energy facility in Anchorage because the municipality of Anchorage has expressed strong interest in receiving municipal solid waste from Juno.

And then finally, the bottom box here, scenario C.

In this scenario, all waste and recyclables from the transfer station would be routed to a local waste energy plant constructed in Juneau.

Now, I did also want to note that this study did not investigate incineration without energy recovery simply because of regulatory challenges and operating costs.

The municipality of Skagway is one of the few communities in Southeast Alaska that does incinerate most of its waste, but they generate very little waste.

And so therefore they qualify for exemptions from ADEC that Juneau would not be eligible for because of the waste volume.

And so the next few slides will look at the estimated operating costs that we that we provide during the study.

For new transfer station, a local landfill and off-site shipment, which are essentially the essential components under scenarios A and C.

And now just to point out that after the first phase of the study, we didn't identify sayenario C as the least feasible of the three scenarios.

And so moving forward in phase two of the study, we did not include operating costs for a waste to energy facility located in Juneau.

And really the key reason for that is that the waste stream in Juneau is substantially smaller than other regions where waste to energy plants have been constructed.

And this is a pretty important distinguishing factor that makes waste to energy practical for Anchorage, but not for Juneau.

Anchorage generates about 10 times more waste than Juneau, and they're still seeking waste from other jurisdictions to improve the economic viability of waste energy.

All right, so we'll look now at the operating cost for a transfer station.

And again, a transfer station is relevant for all three scenarios.

So for example, the cost to operate a transfer station would be added to the operating cost for a landfill if we're looking at scenario A.

But to present here, I'll just show the operating cost for a transfer station.

And these were developed based on operating budgets for five facilities across Alaska, which are listed in the top right of your screen.

And as you can see from the power trend line here, the operating costs were closely related to the tonnage received, which is on the x-axis of the of the graph you're looking at.

And so based on this power trend analysis of these five Alaska jurisdictions, we estimate the operating cost per ton for transfer station in Juneau to be about 79 per ton, and that ranges between 73 and 84 dollars per ton.

Now you'll see a table here for landfill operating costs.

And this is different from transfer station operating costs because we didn't observe a strong trend in operating costs as a function of waste tonnage from the landfill data as we did for transfer station data.

So for this operating cost, we compared costs based on size and site conditions of six different landfills across Alaska and the lower 48.

And we chose the landfills in the lower 48 just because they had smaller waste generation that was more similar to Juno.

And then for the lower 48, the costs were then adjusted to Juneau to reflect geographic cost differences.

And so that's the final column there on your on the table on the right.

So for this evaluation, we compared costs based on size and site conditions, as I mentioned.

And when we looked at it, Kodiak and Laramie landfills were considered to be the most comparable to Juneau's needs.

And so they essentially represent the high and low ends of the estimated operating cost for landfill in Juneau.

Now, Laramie's landfill operating cost per ton, you can see it was further adjusted to account for the increased precipitation and higher expenses in Juneau.

And so as a result, the estimated operating cost for landfill in Juneau ranges between 155 to 270 dollars per ton.

Now, I should note that the operating costs here reflect routine landfill operations only.

So that means they don't include landfill closure costs, debt service, or operation of an entirely separate leach heat treatment facility.

And then finally, for the costs component, export costs is shown here.

So off site transport is export, including transportation by barge and rail, and it also includes tipping fees at an off-site landfill.

So to develop these estimates, we reviewed export costs from Alaska jurisdictions who currently contract with Republic services to transport and dispose of municipal solid waste at the Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Washington State.

And as you can see, there's a strong linear relationship between the export cost per ton, which is on the Y axis, and the barge distance from each local port to the port of Seattle.

And so based on that relationship, we estimate the cost to export waste from Juneau to be approximately 283 dollars per ton.

But we also received estimates from Republic Services, which reduce that estimate slightly to a lower range between 210 to 283 dollars per ton.

And as I mentioned, we also explored the option of exporting waste from Juneau to Anchorage through discussions with municipality of Anchorage and AML.

But this option would require consistent and sufficient waste volumes to justify creating a direct barge route between the two locations, because currently that does not exist.

There's no direct barge route service between Juno and Anchorage.

And so as an accumulation of the operating cost information that I just presented, this information was fed into our rate estimating tool to provide an approximate disposal management cost, which is essentially the tipping fee under each scenario.

And it's important to note that these costs are anticipated to increase from current levels once the capital disposal landfill reaches capacity, regardless of if the CBJ type takes action or not.

And I'm referring to the costs that are currently paid at capital disposal landfill.

So in this table, you can see that under scenario A in that second column there, the disposal cost range is projected to be slightly higher than under scenario B.

And that's primarily due to the capital costs that's required to construct a new landfill in Juneau.

It's standard practice to recover the loan payments for landfill construction through the tipping fees and customer rates.

Now, this slide is important.

It presents a conceptual overview of different ownership and operating models and different procurement options, which range from fully public on the far left to some private involvement under contract in the middle, to heavy reliance on private funding and operations on the right.

And so Juno sits currently pretty far on the right end of that arrow there.

Now in the ownership line, you'll see here that second line down.

The CBJ is unique in that it currently has no direct ownership role or formal control mechanism mechanism over its solid waste disposal system, as the director indicated earlier.

Of the Alaska jurisdictions that we looked at in the study, five of the six of these Alaska jurisdictions currently own and operate their own solid waste facilities.

Sitka is the only exception where the city owns the facilities, but they contract operations to a private provider.

In most communities, public entities maintain some level of control through ordinances, service contracts, or public ownership, direct public ownership of these facilities.

Now in the third line down the procurement options, CBJ does have several options for financing solid waste infrastructure.

Commonly used are municipal bonds, low interest loans or grants that could be used to fund capital investments.

And in many communities, an enterprise fund is created and dedicated solely to covering solid waste operating expenses and debt service.

These enterprise funds could also earn revenue through in interest generated by the account.

All right, uh this slide, I'm finishing up here, but this slide contains too much information for you to read.

So I don't want you to do that.

The main point was just to show that we have a preliminary ranking of the three scenarios based on the evaluation criteria that we developed and agreed upon with the CBJ.

All of this is presented in the report, so you can look at it in more detail.

But for now, I just like to focus your attention on a few points.

The first is uh that in developing the ranking, uh, the estimated disposal management cost, which is um here in this column here, that was ranked more heavily than other criteria.

So the cost considerations ultimately drove the feasibility ranking that we've shown here.

And based on our this initial analysis, the off-site shipping under scenario B is ranked first.

Uh, it outperforms scenario A.

Uh, sorry, scenario B is off-site shipping, scenario A is a local landfill.

Uh, so scenario B outperforms scenario A from a near-term cost perspective, really only because um scenario A and scenario B remain both remain viable pass forward and are worth continued exploration.

So, some pros and cons.

Uh, so for a new landfill under scenario A that would provide more long-term local disposal capacity and increase local control over the long term.

But this option does involve more substantial upfront capital costs and has a lengthy regulatory and permitting process.

In addition, um for a landfill, a site has not yet been selected, and so a new siting study would be required.

On the other hand, uh for scenario B, reliance on off-island privately owned landfills carries its own risk related to transportation and long-term rate fluctuations.

So, as I mentioned, these rankings are a starting point and could change as a CBJ investigates funding opportunities and engages with partners and vendors.

All right, so this is uh the timeline that I mentioned earlier.

So, really, this timeline could begin after the CBJ establishes the authority to gain control and allocate funding needed to proceed.

And essentially have three three required steps in that on the left in the red box.

And so we're recommending a three-year timeline that includes designing permitting and procuring of a transfer station.

In this three-year timeline, we also recommend taking steps to prepare for scenarios A and B, um, including making making decisions over ownership and procurement, also pursuing funding sources and communicating with the public and developing a long-term comprehensive solid waste roadmap that documents assembly decisions and prepares for implementation.

And so based on the findings from this evaluation, these are these are the key um key recommendations that we have for this assembly.

And we develop these in collaboration with the CBJ.

The technical report does go into more depth on recommendations, but these are some of the critical recommendations that we wanted to bring to the assembly at this time.

So first, uh we understand that the assembly's indicated that CBJ would like to gain more control over the solid waste solid waste system, but uh just have a chance to reaffirm that that that is the direction that CBJ would like to go to make motions to assume control over the solid waste system.

Secondly, uh continuing to fund transfer station design to prepare for design bid build or other procurement mechanisms with the flexibility to expand the the capacity of that facility depending on the scenario too chosen.

Third, uh, as I mentioned, waste to energy is not recommended as the primary disposal solution because Juno does not generate enough waste to make waste to energy cost effective.

And then finally, uh CBJ needs funding to pursue one or more disposal options and prepare for implementation.

So the CBJ should devote resources to move forward, and that could include uh providing the authority for staffing or forming a solid waste working group with the authority to make decisions about who will own, build, operate, and finance the disposal facilities.

As I mentioned, scenario A's and B are both viable and could potentially be pursued simultaneously if desired.

Um the scenario selection ultimately depends on CBJ's desired level of long-term control and the procurement model that's chosen.

All right, with that, I'm happy to answer questions.

As I mentioned, my colleague Janet is also on the line.

Um so happy to answer questions from this assembly.

All right, thank you very much, uh, Tara, for the presentation.

Are there questions from the committee on this presentation?

Oh, uh, Mr.

Kelly.

Mr.

Kelly, you can go ahead, just be mindful.

We are running up on time here.

So brief if you can be.

Uh I don't think.

Are you able to hear me now?

Okay, now we can hear you.

Go ahead.

Now we can hear you.

Okay.

Um in the scenario B, I think um, I think you mentioned that the um there might be a little bit of more risk with the cost.

Are you basically kind of talking about the unpredictability of of uh of fuel or um because it the cost of uh shipping the material might increase or uh would we all right thank you?

Yes, uh director, would you like to me to respond?

Yes, go ahead, Tara.

All right.

Uh so through chair to Mr.

Kelly.

Um, so to answer your question, yes, uh, fuel is one of the components.

Also, because this scenario does still rely heavily on private contractors, uh the the, for example, the shipping company and also the landfill owner.

Um CBJ could be uh subject to rate increases over time.

Um, that is another financial risk of the scenario.

All right, brief questions.

Mr.

Brooks.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh just the way I'm looking at the options, you know, I'd I think you know, we've we've discussed that there definitely needs to be a transfer station, regardless of uh what um final product will be going with, but you know, whether the transfer station is going to serve a more immediate need or focusing the resources on trying to get a landfill.

Um, because I just see like both of these A and B say that uh with all waste as well as recyclables, uh hazardous waste and junk vehicles transported off-site by barge.

So there's you know that level of sustainability that just isn't there for either of the options.

So has there been any look into uh making it to where any of those options don't have the need to uh barge out the recyclables or hazardous waste, if there's any way to deal with that in-house at a more effective cost.

Brooks I don't foresee any situation where Juno would have the capacity to to ultimately process and dispose of household hazardous waste um I think that that's uh a waste stream that's always gonna have to leave Juno thank you very much Director Koch any other brief questions from the committee I'm gonna close it to just the committee now all right seeing none uh thank you very much Tara for your presentation um and uh we have microtransit on here but I think we may have to bump that to the next meeting so we're not here forever.

Um so with that uh director Koch is there anything else you need from us today thank you madam chair uh I just want to have one final statement on uh waste just wanted to acknowledge that uh the assembly has made a transfer station one of the assembly goals which I am really excited about um and in the CIP that is before you we do have the 25000 doll for a transfer station but just to give you a sense of like we use those CIPs sometimes like a piggy bank you can make deposits for multiple years before you have enough money for a project um transfer stations are in the order of about 20 million dollars typically uh for design uh work that you rule of thumb is about 10% so just to give a sense of like we're we would need if the community wanted to move forward ultimately probably around $2 million to do real work on uh on designing a transfer station the 25000 I think is a great move just to you know have us thinking about this but just to leave with a sense of uh if that is something that the community wants to move towards that's it's a it's a much higher number and and would probably take multiple years of of um deposits to to get to a place before we could even design a transfer station thank you director cot that's helpful to have that scale in our our minds as we move forward on this any other closing thoughts seeing none I we are next meeting is on March 16th 2026 here in chambers at noon and I will call us adjourned