Uh welcome everybody.

I will call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, December 16th, 2025.

Please join me for a flag salute.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

The Assembly of the City and Borough of Sitka would like to respectfully acknowledge the traditional first people of Sheetka.

With gratitude, we proceed on Clinket Ani.

Sarah, roll call, please.

Mayor Eisenbais.

Here.

Mr.

Pike.

Here.

Miss Carlson.

Here.

Ms.

Riley?

Here.

Mr.

Christensen.

Here.

Mr.

Mosher?

Here.

And Mr.

Selene.

Here.

Thank you.

Any correspondence or agenda changes this evening?

Seeing none, that'll bring us into special reports.

The scheduled special reports this evening.

We have our department quarterly reports.

We'll start with human resources and Josh, please.

Good evening, Mayor and Assembly.

A lot of the report is uh kind of this normal stuff that I uh put in here every quarter.

Um, some highlights are that we have finished with collective bargaining for the year.

Um, so the uh ASEA, IBW, and IAFF are now all through June 30, 2028.

And then uh PSEA um was given the extension earlier this year, so they're gonna be in the next calendar year.

Um still continue doing our NeoGov rollout and building that out with the goal to um have that finalized very soon.

Um then as far as staffing, uh we have 25 budgeted positions we are seeking to fill.

We have around about an 87% fill rate, which is um you know it's been around 85, 86, 87 for the last year or so.

Um kind of uh trending in the in the in a good direction.

Um we hired four temporary and nine full-time employees for various positions this quarter, and uh yeah, we still are advertising our vacancies at the governmentjobs.com slash careers slash sit go.

And that's all I have.

Pinning any questions.

Thank you, appreciate it.

Uh that'll bring us to IT and Grant, please.

Uh Grant Turner, IETU director.

Um department there is uh fully staffed and has been for some time, and got a good crew of guys there working on everything, keeping our uh improved stability, better response times, and uh project throughput has been uh doing pretty well for that.

Uh we've got a few projects we've been working on.

Uh some of the ones I've listed on there where uh we got our Windows 11 uh push moving towards that.

Uh Windows 10 is uh not supported any longer.

So we've been moving towards that.

Got everything about 80% there.

There's a handful of machines that are just really non-cooperative that we have to uh kind of force it onto, but we're getting those ones going.

Uh we anticipate that being done definitely by the end of the year.

Um we've got uh several uh we're working with several different departments on our uh fiber optic project.

Uh we're laying new conduit in uh one of the new projects going along with Seawalk to make sure we got connectivity between this location and the and the uh city hall, and we're working with them uh on future projects, making sure there's room for conduits for us to put our fiber in uh to connect all of our facilities in the future.

Uh we also got uh working on replacing all of our um aged out um access points for wireless connectivity in all of our buildings.

Uh we've got the all the equipment coming in here and should be putting those up here in the next uh January, February time frame.

So we should have the uh standard high-speed uh modern equipment everywhere in all of our facilities.

Um in terms of our uh help desk itself, uh we actually had a little bit less support tickets in there than we usually do, only about 180 of them, uh which we tend to have about at any given time 20 to 25 tickets open and we constantly closing them and new ones come in.

Um but uh we keep working through those and tend to have about I show there is a uh 68% uh first contact closure rate, meaning we pretty much fix it as soon as they get in touch with us.

Some of them are more complex, and this last quarter there are definitely a lot more complex ones.

So usually the average time to close the ones that are not first contact closure tend to be about two days on average.

Uh as far as the budget goes, uh we're it shows that we're a little bit under our going under our budget right now, but over on some parts, some of those parts, specifically the contracted services.

That one actually is be funny because it's a lot of a lot of spend in the beginning and a little bit more at the end, but not much in the middle based on just the time frames when these happen and they're all annual.

Um the rest of them though, issue we're right on track with what we've got budgeted, and we should be uh finishing up pretty much right on or right under by the end of the year.

So basically, yeah, we're fully staffed, our projects are moving forward, and uh we're keeping on our budget as best we can.

Any questions about anything?

Thank you, Grant.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

And the most festive for last, the clerk's report.

Holly, you want to give it all your um so in the clerk's office, uh there are uh three of us, uh myself, deputy municipal clerk Holly Bain, and then assistant municipal clerk uh Brian Schoenfelder.

Um I'll start with some stats for this last quarter.

Um back to October for the municipal election.

We had 2,150 ballots cast.

839 of those were at early voting.

So we've seen an uptick in early voting, which is um I'm pleased to see that.

Um election workers, we had 17.

And then uh public record stats.

Holly has been dreaming of public records requests in her sleep.

Um we've had 42 of those um over the last quarter, and uh we I think get a few every day, so we've been busy processing those.

Um, as far as projects in our office, um uh the clerk's office has been working with the legal department on the code review and the legal review.

We spoke to the assembly in September about that project.

Um we've recently the agreement has been signed, and so um, you know, in the process, well, for quite some time we've known that um there are some inconsistencies and errors, and so we're gonna move forward with the full redef recodification.

That'll include a full legal review and then transition to a new platform, and so that's going to be about an 18-month process.

So our next step is to work with legal on a timeline and then um notify the public staff, the assembly of that transition to the the new platform.

So we'll be working on that.

Um we've also been working on the work culture initiative to help foster a positive work environment and then um promote our core values.

Um staff had a um Halloween lunch party in October.

We had multiple departments um decorate for the holiday, and then in January we'll have our staff party.

Um the final project that we are work continuing to work on is laser fees records migration and digitization.

So we continue to go through storage areas in City Hall reviewing records, um, getting them ready to ship out for scanning, um, or destroying them in accordance with our records retention schedule.

So that's what we've been up to.

And uh we have expense 38 percent of our budget.

Thank you, Sarah.

Appreciate that.

Holly, uh, you'll be on the hook for the next one.

At least I'm giving you fair warning.

Uh are there any other special reports tonight?

Government to government, municipal boards, commissions, committees, municipal departments, school district.

I see none that'll bring us on to uh persons to be heard.

This is public participation for any item off of tonight's agenda, not to exceed three minutes for any individual.

Please at the bottom of the microphone, there's a button.

If you hit the it'll turn red, and then you're live.

Oh, okay.

Can you hear me now?

I'm Peter John Karish Jr.

and I own the and operate uh um business available helping hands, and I um didn't um pay my sales tax on time, and I tried to find out what I could do, and by the time I um figured it all out, it was already into the next month.

So now I am um asked to pay 40 dollars um for being late on my taxes.

And um I asked if I could be forgiven that the person I was speaking to, and I can't remember who it was, told me I had to come before the assembly, and I do have proof of um that I have a good running record of my sales tax, and also I have paperwork indicating why I would be late.

So I don't know if um that's something that um I could take back to the office or if we can take care of it here at this meeting.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Unfortunately, this isn't an opportunity for a back to uh back and forth discussion.

Um, however, I see multiple assembly members making notes on this.

So okay, so go ahead and go back to the sales office.

Uh I think someone will be in contact.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I hope you don't mind if I record myself.

Not at all.

This is a publicly recorded meeting.

It's kind of what I do.

My hair is a little bad.

So my hair is a little uh you should probably fix that before you record, though.

Oh, well they're used to it.

It's it's my shtick.

Okay.

Hello.

Um, my name's Kyle Larson.

Oh, am I on?

Am I three minutes?

Uh yes, my name is Kyle Larson.

My name is Kyle Larson.

I've lived in Sitka, Alaska since 2017.

I'm uh grateful to be heard today.

Um I even just forgot my notes back there, but I'll just spin it.

I believe we are at a cultural moment that we cannot ignore.

I make online content, particularly short form video on a YouTube platform.

And I am now recognizing the relationship that artificial intelligence is playing in finding me viewers for what I do.

I am now seeing this as a necessity for businesses and institutions, including governments, to be very active in the digital space.

I feel as though the power is moving from corporations to personalities for better or worse, and I think this is an inevitability over the course of the next 12 to 18 months that we will see people growing in in stature and in voice.

I I believe the city should collaborate with creators.

I think this is an educational opportunity.

I think this is an opportunity to highlight businesses.

I feel like we could we could make them into customers before they get here.

We can make them customers when they're on the boat, and we can make them customers when they leave.

The creator economy, we could introduce them to our stories, our skill sets, and the unique uh lifestyles of the people who live here.

I think that's it.

I'm good.

Appreciate your time.

Anyone else for persons to be heard this evening?

Any item off of the agenda.

I see none, we will go on to consent agenda.

I move to approve the consent agenda consisting of item A, approve the minutes of the November 25th, 25th Assembly meeting.

Item B, approve the acting administrator list for 2026.

Josh Brantover, Amy Ainsley, Sarah Peterson, and Ron Vincent.

And item C authorizing a grant application to the environmental protection agency administered by the state of sorry, administered by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for lead service line inventory.

Second has been moved and segmented to approve the consent agenda.

Is there any public comment?

Sarah.

All right, on the motion to approve the consent agenda consisting of items A, B, and C.

Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson?

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosier.

Yes.

Ms.

Riley?

Yes.

And Mr.

Celine.

Yes.

The motion passes 7-0 on the consent agenda.

Thank you.

That'll bring us to board commission committee appointments this evening.

Item D, please.

I move to reappoint Lisa Moore to a three-year term on the tree and landscape committee.

And Robin Sherman to a three-year term on the planning commission.

And finally, Rob Scott Wagner to a three-year term on the local emergency planning committee under category five owners, operators of facilities.

Second.

That's been moved and segmented to reappoint the above named individuals to their respective commissions or committees.

Is there any public comment?

Assembly deliberation.

As usual, just thank you.

Exactly.

Sarah?

All right.

On the motion to approve the reappointments, Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Mr.

Mosher.

Yes.

Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen?

Yes.

And Mr.

Celine.

Yes.

The motion passes 70 on item D.

Unfinished business item E, please.

I move to approve ordinance 2025-26 on second and final reading, authorizing a property tax exemption for the Center for Community for Center for Community for the property located at 700 Catleon Avenue.

Second.

Just real quick, my name is Jacqueline Young.

I'm with Center for Community.

And it was pointed out that Brian mentioned that we are in multiple communities.

I just wanted to clarify that 90% of our efforts are here in Sitka.

Three of the four programs are 100% in Sitka, only one is outside of Sitka, and they are all self-sustaining, just to clarify from last time.

Any other public comment on 25-26.

Assembly deliberation.

But um I'm gonna read it, we reiterate.

Sorry, um, that with a with a millage rate of six mills, the price we pay for having a millage rate that low is there can't be exemptions.

There's very as few as absolutely possible.

And we have a number that we have no choice on the matter, government supported and government entities and a few others.

But if you know again, I and like I said before community, it does great work, and I I applaud the work that they do, but we just with the millage rate that low.

I don't think we should be handing out exemptions except in extreme circumstances, just because you know, when you have a millage rate that's half the state average, and it's the lowest in the state.

Would we can't afford to cut start tripping away at it?

So again, I'm not gonna beat it the dead horse any longer, but uh it's I think we need to make that point.

JJ.

Thank you.

Um to add to this conversation on second reading, because I was traveling at the last one, and I watched the meeting, some kind of up to speed was bald would have been said previously.

Um I had a conversation with the executive director two, three years ago about why they weren't at that time on this exemption list.

And Brian said, yep, we we know it's there, we just don't need to.

Our numbers work, um, and we're gonna hold out to the day when we absolutely need to ask for it, and then that is when we'll ask for it.

And unfortunately, with how things have gone, um, here they are asking for it.

Um, but this wasn't because they didn't know about it because they hadn't seen it was we don't need it yet.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide um funding for the schools.

We understand our place in the community, we want to do our thing to help.

I mean, they've been around since the 90s and have never asked for this exemption and have owned property, probably one of the larger pieces of property by a nonprofit in this town.

Um because of that you know, background being added to this.

I I'm definitely voting for this because I understand that they absolutely needed it, and that's why they asked for it.

Kevin.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you, Tor and JJ, for your comments.

Appreciate it.

Uh I'm gonna vote yes just and explain uh again what I said last time.

Uh and Tori, you make some very good points.

Um this is the kind of thing that we need to be thinking about big picture.

Uh but for right now, um, from my point of view is that uh we have a history of I think it was 35 uh organizations like that, something like that.

That um yeah, uh what is it?

Okay, 25.

Sorry, 25 organizations.

Uh that was Larry Reader letting me know it's 25 that uh have this, and so if we were to make a change on this kind of thing, I would think that maybe that should be a part of a bigger picture discussion.

Um but right now I'm uh kind of siding with JJ on this one.

Um I hadn't even thought about what the way you had said that they haven't asked this for this before because uh they haven't needed it, but now they need it.

And um, I know I mean I don't a lot of people know that CFC does uh great many things for this community, and uh and is a uh as just a blessing in that way, and um I think if they weren't here, then the city would end up having some additional uh unintended additional expenses.

So uh I'm definitely gonna support this.

Thank you.

Katie um yeah, I just have a question about the comment that uh you made last time, um, Mr.

Mayor, around the process that we might go through to uh reauthorize or assess these um after a set number of years.

Um I think what we discussed was that they weren't reassessed or re-looked at um, you know, once they're gotten received, and um I just think that that would be a good process and wanted to see if we had any timeline or anything to uh do that.

I don't want to get too sidetracked on the motion at hand.

Um, however, it was indicated by our assessor that that is a process that they do go through internally.

Um if we wanted to codify something, that would be up to a couple assembly members to to tackle that and and put something more substantial in code.

Okay, thank you.

Anything further from the assembly, Sarah.

All right, uh the motion before you is to approve ordinance 2025-26 on second and final reading.

Mr.

Christensen, no Ms.

Carlson, yes, Mr.

Selene?

Yes, Mr.

Pike, yes, Ms.

Riley, yes, Mr.

Mosier?

Yes, and Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

The motion passes 6 1 on second and final reading for item E.

Thank you, thank you.

Item F, please.

I move to approve ordinance 2025-27 on second and final reading, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2026 to replace harbor outboards for the 32-foot munson.

Second, it's been moved and seconded to approve ordinance 25-27.

Is there any public comment?

Assembly deliberation.

Sarah, all right.

Um the motion to approve this ordinance on second and final reading.

Ms.

Carlson, yes.

Ms.

Riley, yes, Mr.

Selene, yes.

Mr.

Mosher?

Yes, Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

And Mr.

Christensen.

Yes.

The motion passes 7-0 on item F.

Item G, please.

I move to approve ordinance 2025-28 on second and final reading, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2026.

Uh E911 phone consoles.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve ordinance 25-28.

Is there any public comment?

Assembly deliberation.

Sarah.

All right.

On the motion to approve this ordinance on second and final reading, Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

Mr.

Mosier.

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

Mr.

Saline.

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Mr.

Christianson.

Yes.

And Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

The motion passes 7-0 on item G.

That'll bring us to new business items.

Uh, first reading on item H, please.

I move to approve ordinance 2025-29 on first reading, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2026 for the airport terminal project.

Second.

Second.

Uh, thank you.

Uh John, I understand Mark has an introduction to this item for us.

Good evening, Mayor and Assembly members.

Mark Seavie, public works director.

You have a supplemental appropriation request for the airport terminal improvement project in front of you.

Uh I'm sure most people are familiar with the project.

It's been a long effort.

We're now into phase two.

Uh phase two is largely the remodeling portion of the existing terminal building.

Uh closing out phase one, it came in just under GMP as we're evaluating the rest of phase two and as a design build project.

We've moved from 35 to 65 to 95 to now 100% drawings issued for construction.

Some items came up that were covered under contingency.

So you have three essentially uh charts in front of you that are the grant funding requests.

Uh two are eligible, one is aneligible costs.

The first one is construct construction contingency, so things that have changed in the design.

The second one is CBS requested add-ons for the project, and then the third is the ineligible cost expenses.

It's essentially two parts to the appropriation.

One is to raise the ceiling on our grant funding by $800,000.

We had about $1.2 million left that allows us to cover the first two charts, and then there's a $650,000 appropriation that would be added to the capital and the bond funds that we have so that we can execute all three of those tables to include the ineligible costs.

Do you have any questions before public?

Uh thank you.

If we have questions, we'll call you back up.

Is there any public comment on ordinance 25-29 Assembly deliberation?

I don't even know where to start on this one.

It's big.

Um, I think that's probably why everyone no one's jumping at the mic here.

Um I think it's gonna take me an entire reading cycle to go through this and kind of distill down because I still have a lot of questions.

Um I was hoping to hear from the introduction kind of some more info, um, but it leaves me still with a lot of questions.

So I think I'll probably vote forward to pass it on first reading because I understand we're pot committed at this point.

Um, but we'll we'll see where I end up uh finally at the at the next meeting.

So JJ.

Questions for Mark or Brooke or John or whoever wishes to there's pieces to this, so I'm sure it'll take a team to address.

Um thank you, Mark.

Um, and congratulations for getting this far in this big project.

It is an undertaking to operate a facility to these standards FAA requirements while rebuilding it from the from the ground up or the side over more in this case.

So thank you.

Um and please share that thank you with your team.

Um so the grant eligibility piece, gotta get my hand around my head around, like the mayor said.

Um the majority of all of this is getting paid for by the FAA.

Is that correct?

Funded through two different grants, yes.

Okay.

And we're hitting the end of this, and there's just some pieces that don't fit into their scope or their eligibility for grants.

Is that so?

There's some pieces uh mainly in the construction contingency that there's minor changes going from 95% to 100% in the drawings, and that has created additional work that was not in the scope, so that would change the the guaranteed max price for the project.

Okay, but they are grant eligible, so we're still looking at our five percent match for those.

Okay, and that five percent match is the six hundred and fifty thousand that's being requested.

The the five percent match would be essentially for the grant eligible, the the two that have the green header on top.

Every essentially five thousand, I think it's in there that we spend, we get a hundred thousand for.

Okay, so fifty thousand gets us a million.

So for about two million dollars worth of work from the grant, we're paying a hundred thousand dollars.

So is that hundred thousand dollars part of this supplemental appropriation request?

So the phase one has essentially come in approximately with a hundred thousand in our bond funds remaining.

Okay, but to get all of this work done, we would exceed the previously approved ceiling for the grant funds.

So that's where the 800k comes in to raise the total appropriation we can go after through the grants to Get funding.

The 650 is directly supporting that third page, which has the orange header, and those are the ineligible scope items.

And those are the ineligible scope items.

So for most of the items on that page, we have gone back and forth, and some of the representatives with the FAA have changed as we've gone through this project.

Some of them as many as a half dozen times arguing for eligibility and not.

And these are the ones that right now have been deemed ineligible.

So those come at a hundred percent cost to our funds.

And there's no way to find another grant to pay for those?

Currently, there's not another way to get those into either of those grants.

Those were largely into the passenger screening and the TSA portion of bag screening.

Yeah.

But they don't cover some of the ineligible costs that are up front as far as moving the bags essentially from the Alaska Airlines counter to the back where they're then screened by TSA.

Yes.

Yeah.

That's unfortunate that there's some TSA required elements here that just couldn't be fitted into a grant in some way.

Um but that often happens, and we're we appreciate everyone who's giving us money on this.

Thank you, TSA.

Thank you, FAA.

Um thank you, staff for figuring out all of this and providing it in a you know simple ish three-page summary.

So that that's quite helpful.

Um is there's 150,000 here for contingency.

Um that's a nice little kind of set aside for other kind of unforeseen, or is there um particular is that a particular need to meet any eligibility requirements for it's not designated to one item yet.

Uh this we're still about six to seven months from project completion, and as we're getting another portion where we're tearing into the old terminal building, I'd like to have a contingency to plan that if they find something else during that process that's going to need attention, that we have at least some funding.

If it's eligible, that funding will go extremely long ways.

But as you can see with some of the items, if they're considered ineligible, then it becomes a direct cost, and we have to pay that.

So is that a piece of money that could become our five percent match if need if something is found and is eligible?

If there was another item that came up that was eligible, it it could be used for that.

Okay, so it's if you're the funds are kind of going together, so the approximately just over 100,000 that we have remaining in our bonded match funds.

This 650 would be augmenting that with the purpose of completing essentially the green can borderline be covered by the remaining funds.

Yeah, however, any of these items in orange would be a direct cost, and then we can no longer afford the green.

So they they kind of played together.

Gotcha.

If that makes sense.

Thank you.

Yes.

Um it's nice to see uh some roof replacement elements here and having it be eligible.

That's great.

You know, a couple months ago, um, this group saw some of those expenses when we're talking in the parking lot conversation about upcoming costs.

So I'm telling me if I'm incorrect here, but is was that those numbers being incorporated into this this current yes?

So the goals for the the roof replacement is essentially trying to save money at the first stages of the project.

They did not plan on replacing all of the metal roof on the existing terminal building with this funding opportunity and not knowing when it would come around again.

I I would not like to see an airport that has a mixed match roof or trying to paint portions of a 20-year-old roof to make it match what's new.

Additionally, the plan here is to replace the metal panels with uh metal insulated panels, so it should increase the efficiency for the building as well.

Okay, and then there's other roof items in there for the other torch down, those were not completed, so those membrane roofs.

The goal with this plan is to have a new warranty starting for the building for the entire roof system.

That is a great idea.

I got a question for you on the panels that you just mentioned, or those the ones at the beginning of this that were going to be similar to the city cold storage panels.

You remember that in the beginning of this?

I was not here for the beginning.

I don't I don't recall the court storage panels.

I think I think yes, they're all SIP or TIP or whip or rip panels, depending on how they're composited.

Well, that's where my question was when the city coal serves is first built, those experimental panels are what let moisture seep in so that extra defrosts were required, and then the electric defrost design had to be replaced with hot gas because they were amorphoidate waste of money.

Yeah.

Um thank you for for all of this.

Is there anything that you want to bring attention to you think might um help us?

Like are we are we asking the right questions?

Is my question?

I think you're asking the right questions, and I I had seen your email earlier.

One of the items I think you brought up was the exit lane vestibule modification.

So on the orange again, these are ineligible costs.

So the original plans called for two of the dorma, comma dorma cabba exit lane vestibules.

So the one that we have right now that has the motion activated doors that let you walk one way to exit the lower section of the new terminal expansion, there were going to be two in an effort to try and save some money and facilitate airport operations, which would allow personnel to badge through and get upstairs, specifically the Alaska Airlines gate agents.

They could check in and then not have to go through the security because at the time there was no other path for them to badge through and get to the top.

That required essentially for security a two stage, two doors for them to badge through, so it's not just one door gets left open and you can get into the secure side of the terminal by creating that space which facilitated operations, and this is the one that we've gone back and forth with on the FAA.

Uh, even though we have it designated and we considered a code required emergency egress for the building, since that square footage is not normally in use by the traveling public, that square footage is deemed ineligible.

So when you take that square footage as a percentage of the terminal expansion and it becomes ineligible, that's why the costs rise.

That's not a cost of what it would take to build the walls and put in the doors.

That's the ineligibility square footage adding up to a 200,000 dollar hit to the project.

The ineligibility square footage.

That's why some build out and some bathroom stuff has a high higher price tag, is because of square footage.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm gonna tag on um that exit lane thing.

So that already exists as is.

We're just changing the formula because they don't think that that's and we won't go into the politicking of that one.

But so the other solution to that one would be to go back and buy another dormacaba, make that space eligible and have two of those exit lane vestibules side by side, but that eliminates our our ease of access for gate agents to going back through.

Um that that would be a grant eligible expense, but for facilitating operations and with the goal of primarily using the jet bridge and the ramp to deep plan for now, I think it makes sense to leave that vestibule in place.

Understood.

Thank you.

Uh any other questions for Mark while we have them in front of us.

Kevin.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

Uh so I'm I'm in favor of this um for a variety of reasons, but we're not in the discussion phase resting questions.

Um do you anticipate any other large scale expenses like this coming up?

Like, are we gonna before this is completely over?

Do you anticipate anything like this coming up?

I mean yeah.

Um the loaded question.

Uh I know it's uh it's a hard one, but no, we've spent a lot of time working with our PTS project management team going back and forth with the FA and trying to identify everything.

We did put the small contingency in there in case there is something that comes up.

Um we have also worked to try and get some 2021 pre-2021 spending considered eligible that would net us back about another 140,000 dollars.

Uh my goal would be to come in well under this budget uh and not need to use the entire 650,000.

Um so related to the project, no, I do not anticipate others.

That being said, we and it's not really the discussion item for tonight, but we still have the potential for the parking lot and trying to implement pay parking, and while not a part of this project, that will be an airport fund-related ask at some point.

Okay, uh thank you.

That my my concern was just basically about the building.

So uh that you know we do not foresee anything else with the building.

Okay, thank you.

JJ question I don't know if it mark would be able to answer this, but this is money that will transfer from the general fund to the airport fund, or does it go to a different fund because it's a project?

When we were making the decision to make our transfer from undesignated working capital into the public infrastructure sinking fund, we held back some funds with the anticipation that we were going to have some of these projects and asks come up that we would need funding.

So this would go from undesignated working capital into the airport project fund.

So not to the airport operations fund, but the capital improvement project for the airport terminal.

Capital improvement, so not necessarily the enterprise fund no, but it's separate working.

Okay.

So if that money is not needed, if contingency is not spent, um, it would be returned to the general fund.

Okay, thank you for your nod and confirmation, Brooke.

I would probably add the caveat that if we are able to lease or enter an agreement with the parking lot, if there's anything left, we would probably ask to keep this as the first part to chip away at any improvements required for that.

Anybody else have questions for Mark before we go back to Kevin?

Kevin.

Sorry, I was gonna ask a question about the parking lot, but I think that's not germane to this.

Correct.

Just got me on.

Thank you.

Anything else for Mark while he's in front of us?

Mark, appreciate you.

I would stay close.

We may have others.

I'll just add uh Mark did answer one of my questions as well, got John off the hook for it.

Um, my question was gonna be what is this $650,000 hit to our undesignated working capital going to affect down the road?

Um, but it does sound like we held that out from putting in the infrastructure sinking fund.

Um, so this was anticipated loosely earlier and is not going to have a drastic effect on our undesignated working capital.

So uh John, thank you for that foresight, and my um most of my concerns are satisfied on this one.

Anything further on uh 25-29.

Um just say because we were in the question asking phase.

Uh obviously I support this.

I think most of us do, if not all of us.

Um just for those listening, you know, the money that we got from the FAA, these grants and other um I consider kind of a once in a lifetime thing where the federal government several years ago started um pumping milli billions into the um the infrastructure in the United States, and we got a good deal with this, and um I don't foresee this happening again.

I would love to see something like that happen again, but I'm not gonna count on it.

So this helps um although I don't like spending this money on the general fund, I think it is um part and parcel of the many projects that we've been doing with those funds, grant funds and otherwise, uh, to help and fruit uh improve SICCA's aging infrastructure.

So I'm very much in support of this.

Thank you.

Katie Yeah, I'm uh I'm in support of this as well, and that these seem, you know, especially to be the required improvements that are needed um to operate the airport that are ineligible uh for FAA funding, which is unfortunate.

Um, and I understand that, and I understand that this is a generational investment into the future of sitka and that these grants don't come along.

Um, but I'm pretty concerned with how the process went that we built an airport that we have uh heavily increased the floor space that we have to maintain and operate and find funding to do that while we do not have the usage uh required of that.

And I know that at the time, you know, there was an additional airline client, and like hopefully we are able to fill that space again and contribute to that.

But I think that there's an opportunity as we consider these infrastructure investments to take a closer look at what the expected uh level of use is and not just say what can we do, um, but what do we need to do, right?

And really like align the resources that we have with the level of service that we need and not just what we can do because we have to adopt these maintenance and operation costs, and that is not grant eligible.

And so um just kind of a moot point.

I know that we're here at this point, and I'm very excited about the airport that we will hopefully have for many, many, many years to come.

Um, but just want to have that consideration present for future uh large-scale infrastructure investments that do have these additional contingencies show up.

Dor, just real briefly.

I don't have much heartburn for this for starters on a project this size, there's gonna be things get changed and reality hits.

So it or you know, hey, we can do the little bit better anyway.

Um as far as the size of the airport there, and I know that like say with Delta was here.

We've said a number of times, this is gonna be a generational thing.

None of us are gonna be dealing with this again on the assembly.

Um I'd hate to be in a situation where somebody does another airline does move in and we don't have anywhere to put them, and so they don't come in.

So I mean, we you've got to take things like that into account that sometimes you gotta have you gotta be ready for expansion even if it never happens, because uh you just you know we don't know what's gonna happen.

So I don't I don't mind that.

I don't think that the actual square footage is what costs us the money so much as keeping the lights on and things, but I mean it's a good point, but like I said, I don't have any heartburn over this at all.

Anything further from the assembly Sarah.

All right, on the motion to approve ordinance 2025-29 on first reading, Ms.

Riley Yes.

Mr.

Celine, yes, Ms.

Carlson?

Yes, Mr.

Mosier, yes, Mr.

Pike, yes, Mr.

Christensen, yes, and Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

The motion passes 7-0 on first reading item H.

Uh, thank you.

Uh, it is a little bit early, but I think we're at a natural middle point of the agenda.

Uh, so we'll go ahead and take a brief recess.

Um, please be seated uh when you're ready to continue assembly.

All right, the assembly is seated.

Thank you.

Uh, we will jump back into our agenda tonight uh with item I, please.

I'm moved to approve ordinance 2025-30 on first reading making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2026, visit Sitka supplemental funding, and authorizing municipal admin to execute the contract.

Second, that's been moved in second before we go into public comment.

Um, Amy Ainsley has an introduction on this one.

Thank you, Amy.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Assembly members, Amy Ainsley, planning and community development director.

Um, most assembly members here have been involved in kind of getting to this point today, but just for uh everyone to kind of be on the same page, a little bit of back history.

Um, starting in late 2024, the assembly worked with staff to um develop a re uh request for proposals or RFP to put the visit Sitka contract out to bid as we were approaching our final option year of the existing contract, and we wanted the new contract to more closely align with our tourism management and marketing priorities, which changed really substantially from the beginning of the contract to present day.

In early 2025, our current contractor, the chamber notified us that they would be um terminating those services on uh June 30th of this year.

Um we were unsuccessful in finding uh and securing a new contractor with that RFP.

Um, and so the chamber offered to temporarily extend its services through the end of this year, so that's December 31st, and to be available for a handoff in January with a new contractor if should we be successful in finding one.

In July, the assembly provided direction to reissue the bid in the form of a request for qualifications, and in August, we took that to the tourism commission to get their input on kind of building out that RFQ.

Um the RFQ was open from October 2nd through November 13th.

I am very pleased to report that we received a responsive qualified submission to our RFQ from Element Agency and AgNU Beck.

Um, Element Agency has been a subcontractor to the chamber for the visit SICA contract for several years.

They are very familiar with Sitka and they do have some staff in Sitka, but they also have staff statewide.

Um, and are again very familiar with Visit Sitca in providing from primarily a lot of the promotional and marketing support, and they were very intimately involved in the development of their recently adopted um three-year strategic marketing plan.

AgNU Back is a consulting firm based in Anchorage, but again, have um employees kind of stationed statewide, um, and they provide a variety of services, including uh planning, public engagement, economic and feasibility studies, among many others.

Um they're very familiar with Sitka, and they've had some recent work here on housing and recreation and have also done a lot of tourism planning efforts in other communities throughout the state.

Um, under the proposal element would be the primary contractor for the city, and agnew back would serve as an approved subcontractor.

So talk a little bit about what is the same in our current contract uh versus what would be different in the proposal.

So some of the things that would stay the same would be our payment schedule for disbursements, um, kind of the the general marketing and promotion of Sitka, including our um CBS venues, um, as well as um kind of abiding by and helping to maintain our and develop when the time comes our strategy our three-year strategic marketing plan, uh general administration, brand management, doing things like publishing the cruise ship calendar for the public, providing visitor resources like maps and guides and annual reporting.

Some of the things that are different in this proposal.

So those ads include serving as a liaison to the tourism commission, managing the tourism best management practices program or TBMP, performing a little bit more kind of regular and robust economic data collection analysis and reporting services, and tracking their expenses related to cruise passengers for use of our head tax funding or CPV to help pay for the contract.

So first is that element didn't feel that they had enough staff capacity and a location here in Sitka to field a visitor center.

And so we're looking into options to bring some of that more into Harrigan.

We already have seasonal staffing to help support those services here at Harrigan.

However, Element would be providing year-round responses to visitor inquiries that are received via email, via phone and via the website inquiries.

That was uh kind of an important piece just personally for me as a staff to see because that was a piece that I think would be difficult to absorb within other city departments, kind of timely providing those those responses.

Um the same vein in terms of staffing capacity.

Um also at this time didn't feel that they had the capacity to provide on-the-ground conference support, so putting together welcome packets, name tags, signage at businesses, and those sorts of things.

Um they will still be promoting Sitka for conferences, meetings, and events, and including our you know, venues like Herrigan Centennial Hall, and we're looking into other potential options to provide that service if the assembly would like to see that service fulfilled.

The supplemental appropriation is necessary as we did not budget for this contract in the regular FY26 budget because we were in this process of seeking a new contractor.

Um so the appropriation that is before you tonight is for a first kind of um partial term, so that's to kind of get us through the remainder of FY26, so January through June of 2026.

Um and the total for this first six-month term is 303,000.

Um, it's a little bit higher than you know, just a half a year.

There's some increased costs related to transitioning from our existing contractor as well as some kind of intensive startup work, particularly as it relates to getting the TBMP program really off the ground, as well as establishing parameters and developing some um visitor intercept surveys for economic data collection.

We've identified uh that 271,000 um will come from visitor enhancement.

Um, and as the contractor continues to or begins to operate and to track its expenses more closely over the years, we look will look to shift more money from to get more money from CPV for this contract, but off the bat, we were really able to quickly identify that TBMP is a very eligible expense, and so um the whole of that expense would come from from CPV, and that is 32,000.

Uh both of these funds have adequate balances to cover this supplemental appropriation.

The contract would be for five uh in addition to this first partial term, five full terms that would be run on the fiscal year beginning in FY27, looking at approximately 590,000 with a 4% annual escalation, um, and those appropriations will be included in the regular budget process.

Um I'll be available for questions after any public comment or deliberation if the assembly would like me to come back up.

Um, but we're very excited to have received this response from a qualified experienced team with a lot of sitka knowledge and a lot of visit Sitka specific knowledge to help also kind of smooth the transition as well as with the timing of getting this executed come, you know, kind of early to mid-January so that we can facilitate a smooth handoff with our current contractor.

Uh thank you.

If we have questions, we'll call you back.

Is there any public comment on ordinance uh 25-30?

Not seeing none back to the assembly for deliberation.

Sarah I just wanted to um mention that the response or the companies are on the phone or on Zoom.

So if there are questions, they are available.

Uh great, thank you for representatives from the element and agNubek for joining us either or Kevin.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

I'm in support of this.

Obviously, I think it's I think it's uh a really good thing that you did.

And I just want to say thank you to Amy and for even the contractors uh for putting this you guys working with you to put this together.

Um I know you put a ton of uh work into this, Amy.

Uh I remember when July when we were kind of desperate and we asked you to do the RFQ, it was very I'm gonna say hopeless, but it was just frustrating because we didn't see anybody on the horizon to do this, and so I think the RFQ was a good way workaround.

And I really appreciate all the work you did and it.

I'm fully in support of this.

Uh I like the fact that there's gonna be a little more data collection to help us uh zero in on the CPV money.

I think that's gonna be very helpful in payoff in the long run.

Um I I like that the um the element has been a subcontract for a while.

I think that's that's really good.

Um and so I'm hoping this will be a fairly seamless um transition.

The only question well, I'm sure I might have other questions as people ask, but the four percent escalation, Amy.

Um is there a limit or a cap to that?

Um, just because say four percent of a couple hundred thousand can uh add up um so four percent of what six hundred thousand is like twenty-four thousand dollars and add that to six hundred thousand, that's an estimate for the year, and then you just keep on ongoing like that.

I just wanted to make sure, or just find out if there was a limit to that.

I mean, I'm okay as is because this is for five years, so I'm I'm okay with it.

I'm just curious.

So to answer your question, I don't there's not a there's at least at least as proposed and negotiated at this point, there's not a cap on the on the dollar amount.

The the the four percent is sort of the cap.

Um and so and and I think I it's a that's a that's a fair point that it does add, you know, a fairly significant cost.

We're we're looking at over the course of the five years going from you know approximately 590,000 a year up to 663,000 dollars a year once we reach the fifth term.

Yeah, that's that's what I was wondering.

I mean, we need this desperately if we want to keep uh tourism flowing, which is a huge part of our economy.

Um I just worry about say at five years, you know, if we keep escalating at that percentage.

Uh I uh I just worry about our ability to pay that.

Um but that's all I have for now.

Thank you, Amy.

Toy?

Yeah, I have some questions for Amy.

When I look through this, it looks like the vast majority of the work that we'll be doing will be will be aimed at cruise ship passengers.

So how can we say that only 10% of the funding can come from the CAP?

I mean all the guides and maps, vast majority go to cruise ship passengers.

The data man data collection, we're looking at cruise ship passengers.

Um the uh you know obviously the liaison to the tourism commission.

Um the it just strikes me that you you can pass a sniff test with and going 50-50 easily, just from what we have here without tracking, just because of their deliverables are majority aimed at cruise ship passengers, which is a huge shift from the old convention bureau.

Um since um and I and I don't know when you in your discussions, and we'll be talking a little bit when we actually so the lack of support for conventions.

I've um what was their personal reasoning for not being able to do that?

I mean that that's a core need for this for these you know, this group.

That's why we it was developed.

Sorry, I don't want to get into advocacy at this juncture.

So on the on the first question, um I I agree that over time we should be able to more clearly identify CPV eligible expenses from this contract and allocate a greater portion of that um from you know from from both from well a greater portion from CPV and the therefore less from visitor enhancement.

Um the you know the thing to keep in mind is that CPV is not just about whether the expense is related to cruise passengers, it's also you know, is it related to you know either you know sort of dock infrastructure and that sort of thing, or you know, promoting the safety and efficiency of interstate travel.

Um and so things like promotion don't cleanly fit into that area, but things like maps and guides I think I think really do.

Um, and so again, our goal will be to have the contractors track those expenses so that we can more reasonably make a split between these two funds in the future.

Um and if we you know, and we can also do that sort of on the back end.

So if we get to the end of you know this first six uh month initial term and we have that number, um, you know, we can either as a supplemental appropriation, potentially in um the in the new fiscal year budget, we can make a transfer um from CPV to visitor enhancement to essentially kind of pay back visitor enhancement.

So I totally agree with the goal of um, you know, I've heard I've heard the direction really clearly from from the assembly that that's the direction we want to go.

Um we just don't have a really solid number right now to to base that allocation on, other than TBMP was a really easily identifiable piece.

Um on the meeting and convention piece, um that was that was an issue of of staffing capacity.

Um they have I believe one employee in Sitka who is um you know primarily does um kind of marketing and graphic design work, they will be working to hire an additional position that's a communications manager that will be um based out of sitca.

Um and so that you know that new position will be very busy with a lot of elements of this contract and just you know, having you know, you kind of need a a team of people to gang up on getting packets and all those kinds of things ready.

Um, and they just didn't feel that they at this time could commit to doing that.

Anything else for Amy while we have her in front of us, DJ?

Thank you.

Um this is this is excellent.

Uh the assembly in last year's fiscal planning cycle put aside a hundred and forty thousand dollars um for data collection um from visitor enhancement fund.

Um can some of that go towards this initial bit because that is what I see Agnew Beck's strengths being economic and impact studies.

Correct.

Um so my understanding is that um the the RP split the funding evenly between the two funds.

Um it seems that there was something kind of lost in translation, and so the regular budget has the CPV portion, but not the visitor enhancement portion of that $70,000.

And I believe that's the plan is to rectify that in the the mid-year supplemental.

Um but I think you know, we'll definitely have a discussion about whether or not to allocate the full $70,000 out of visitor enhancement given that we have some of the economic data collection now being provided through this contract, and so we may not need to have that additional $70,000 instead.

So in order to get the contract terms to match up a lump sum now, and we'll figure out some of that potential overlap in the next budget cycle.

Is that what I'm hearing?

Okay, thank you.

Um so yeah, that's that's a factor here that I'm considering.

Um appreciate.

And can you um outline the timeline here?

I was reading that recommendation paragraph.

Um because we are very close on when things need to get inked.

Um what's what does that look like for your um ease through the holiday season?

Sure.

Um, yeah, normally I I would have very much liked to be able to present you with a a draft contract, a full draft contract to go along with the appropriation.

Um I think as Kevin noted earlier that the timeline's been pretty aggressive to get to this point, and so um I've gotten as far as I could by by this point and the um packet deadline for your next meeting is on the 24th, um, which is essentially a week from today.

Um, and just between drafting that reviewing with legal and reviewing with our contractors.

Well, I don't think that that's probably super feasible to get complete that within the week, um, which is why we've included the terms and scope of services for your review, because that's you know, the the rest of the contract will be a lot of our um kind of regular professional service will use our professional service um template for it.

Um we have there's always modifications that we have to make for every for every contract from the template that takes a little bit of time, but um the really I think the the kind of meat of it is in that those terms and scope of services sheets, so we we did want to provide that to you.

we've included the um terms and scope of services for your review because that's you know the the rest of the contract um will be a lot of our um kind of regular professional service we'll use our professional service um template for it um we have there's always modifications that we have to make for every for every contract from the template um that takes a little bit of time but um the really I think the the kind of meat of it is in that those terms and scope of services sheets so we we did want to provide that to you okay thank you um so if we vote yes tonight we're voting on the supplemental appropriation and to authorize the administrator to do those details of the contract correct so it's it'll double there okay and what does the you know I'm sure there's details to work out um but in the future it's a five year term what's that review process like is it tourism commission is it you is it attorney um you know will this ever come back to the assembly um what are your thoughts there so the um the tourism manager would be the would be the contract manager um and so they would definitely be doing most of the sort of um oversight for for performance um a lot of the particular um report like kind of reporting whether that is annual reporting on um sort of the effectiveness of of marketing and KPIs from marketing efforts our data collection analysis as well as T BMP guidelines are at least right now slated to go to the tourism commission um for review um and um if there's interest in having the assembly play a a greater role in that or shifting that towards you know kind of towards the tourism commission um that's definitely a something that can be discussed and we'll we'll follow your lead I think we just discussed that plenty over the last three years um I I don't have an interest in it I just wanted to know um what the plan was thank you Katie questions for Amy yeah thank you JJ for those questions um that covered a lot of what I had and just in terms of the review of the contract and uh you know how how it's performing I saw the boilerplate language in the last one around um you know any adjustments that need to be made um does the tourism commission have a opportunity within this process to kind of weigh in and adjust uh you know if there's a new set of economic data that they want gathered um or if I assume the assembly could like work with the tourism commission you know to identify those things um is that uh a process that they would go through to to make that adjustment with the um contractor um I mean with really with the with the tourism manager um again the visa sitka will be a liaison to they'll be communicating directly but ultimately you know it's a staff member that manages a contract not the commission but the commission can provide feedback to say we would like to you know we'd like to see certain types of data collection if we if the you know if the city and the contractor feel that that's in the scope of the contract um then they can they can make those adjustments if the tourism commission has recommendations for um whether it be special projects or um increasing augmenting um certain services that are in already in the contract then I would anticipate that those would come through in the regular budget process so we're working to align all of our annual you know trying to get ourselves on this annual cycle of you know plan do check act and you know by the end of the season and the kind of this time um every year for us to be reviewing reports um to help us you know get both more um kind of regular review and and an improvements for how we're managing tourism before the season and planning and or after the season and planning for the next but also to align those things with our budget calendar.

Okay and then um gosh I had something oh oh just the tourism manager hiring process is ongoing and that will hopefully yeah be the contract overseeing and we're just waiting for responses on that.

Okay thank you Amy I did have a a couple questions on this um and there's a good chance I'm wrong on this um but doesn't visit sitka currently hold a seat on the tourism commission correct um but then that was added as something new within the scope of services correct it was not identified in the existing contract as a as a role the chamber has agreed to do that and sees sees the value in doing so but it's not specified in the contract.

Are there performance metrics?

Um, how are how do we know that they're they're holding up their end of the deal?

The I think the I mean, some of the some of the key things are the um there's I mean there's certain services that are you know kind of to be that are observable to be a performed so promote you know promotion of Sitka and like in the annual reports that come out about website engagement, search engine optimization, social media posts and engagement, and those sorts of things.

So that's you know, we can sort of track efforts through there, and other things are sort of did you do it or or didn't you?

Did you put out an annual visitors guide?

Did you post the cruise tourism?

Sorry, did you post the cruise calendar?

Did you know were there maps and brochures printed?

So some of those things are I think really observable.

Um in terms of contract success, I think that's where again the annual report that would come through on marketing efforts, TB and P and economic data collection and analysis to measure against our our three-year strategic marketing plan is I think how we gauge success for how effective those efforts are.

So you're looking at uh on the scope of services, you're looking at a five plus to be determined.

Sorry.

Um sorry, let me get don't have the numbers off the top.

I it basically reiterated a bunch of of what you had just said as as performance metrics for that.

Correct.

So yes, I'm seeing that now.

Yep, pay five.

Okay, and then uh last question from me for you.

Um I understand Visit Sitka has a January um rider in order to do a transition with a new um contractor.

Um other than that, um, what is ultimately needed in January from this contractor and why the rush to get it in place right now as opposed to after uh we have a contract in front of us again visits so the chamber is contracted to have yeah time and staff available for the handover between themselves and a new contractor, and we want to be able to take advantage of that time.

Um we also have you know, if we are you know, the the tourism commission at least is has really prioritized um you know, like the TBMP program getting you know, really getting up to speed and like you know, executed in a really robust way for the 2026 season, and um planning for that needs to start really early.

Um there's I think some of the the work that's gonna be done on the economic data collection analysis isn't quite so urgent as for January, um, but definitely in the first couple of months of 2026, if we're going to actually execute you know, like a visitor intercept survey, um, important to get those those things rolling early pre-season.

So the handover is the only life and death, everything else can come as needed.

Potentially.

Okay.

Other questions, Tor?

One quick question.

I you and your question made me think of it.

Um so as I read and understand this, and I know as it's a draft, we can't terminate this for five years.

Is that correct?

That uh so generally speaking, our our standard contract terms have provisions for termination.

Um I don't know if you have uh yeah, sorry.

Um and I can if you give me a moment, I can try and I can find those in our existing contract.

We would we would likely use sort of the same termination language that we use in either sort of our standard template or at least this.

Um I also did note as well that we would include in this contract a non-appropriation clause, um, because again, this is a again a commitment for five years, but we're budgeting one year at a time.

So instead of appropriating five years worth of this contract all at once, we would do that as a part of our regular budget cycle, and that if you know, as staff we make efforts to get the funding for the contract as agreed to appropriated, but we are unsuccessful, we're able to exit the contract with no penalty.

I mean, yeah, you guys I mean because it just wasn't in the draft anything like any language like that.

So I wanted to make sure that or at least I didn't see it, maybe it was, because it strikes me that when we're going to a new vendor, we should have the ability.

If it's not working out, I mean I would hate to be up here and say, well, we've got to do this for four more years, because that's the contract to be side, and nobody's happy with it.

So yeah, I can definitely before your next meeting, I can update the draft terms to more clearly specify what termination provisions would be.

John?

Yeah, just to a couple things I want to catch up on and clarify and answer some of these questions is yes, there will be a termination clause.

Most of our standard contract language has a termination clause in there.

Sometimes they're 60 days, sometimes they're six months.

Um, you know, we'll we'll work on uh termination whether it's from the contractor or from the city, and then what that termination looks like.

Um Amy did discuss the uh non-appropriation um clause in there that understanding we have to renew this every year, uh, and going back to another one on on how we gauge performance.

What we did with the last contract, we literally had appendix A scope of service is the same thing, and when the chamber would make their annual report to us every year, um, or when they approached me about the renewal, that's my checklist.

Um, you know, not just A5, as you said, mayor.

It's it's everything in this scope, and I'll go well, the tourism manager at that point will be going item by item um seeing if they they met it, if it's uh if it's a kind of a just an action, did the action take place?

If it's something that they needed to provide metrics on, we'd make sure those metrics are there and put together in a report before there's any um before there's any renewal and to just gauge the performance throughout the year.

Katie?

Yeah, sorry, this was the question I forgot earlier, but um, and I'm not sure if this is outside of the scope of this discussion, but just considering it was pointed out.

I'm wondering if we are still looking for someone to do the convention and uh kind of you know work that's not being done in uh for advertising the centennial hall as a spot to host places.

Is that gonna be a supplemental appropriations request?

Are we looking for other contractors to do that work that's missing here or something to be taken on by the tourism manager?

So just to just to clarify, the marketing of Harrigan as a venue is is included here.

Um so marketing for conventions and events is included in this proposal.

It's the what was that?

Yeah, it's the yeah, the hook, yeah, event hosting.

We're looking into into some options um for that potentially as a contracted service.

Um if you know we're we're kind of just kind of fielding the you know, available contractors here or organizations that might be interested in doing that.

Um if we were to find one that would probably come back as a supplemental appropriation or would come as a part of the since we're sort of entering the budget process this year.

Thank you.

Tim.

Uh thank you.

Uh so what was then was there what was the conversation about a three or five-year term on this contract with this contractor?

I read in their proposal or information that they were open to a three-year contract.

Was that discussed?

And not to a large extent.

Um both, yeah, both firms indicated that of that a five-year term would be would be more ideal.

Um if there's concern from the assembly on that piece, we can, you know, because they both indicated that a three-year was a minimum acceptable term, we could scale that back to be a three-year.

Um, you know, we definitely you know learned a lot through this process in the last couple of years and heard a lot of public comment, particularly at the tourism commission when we were reviewing this for you know, sort of the the need for stability and having you know, kind of an established team to carry these thong the you know, to carry these efforts on and to improve over the years and to to build, you know, to build a team, especially with high you know, hiring local folks there to be able to provide some stability for that in a longer term is really beneficial.

Um, but if the assembly is concerned about that piece, we can we can certainly go back and see if uh three-year term would work better for everybody for Amy or please sorry, I trying to keep up with the discussion, there's a lot of information coming and going.

Um I apologize if I missed it, but um under D section D number six uh annually review uh TBMP guidelines, program operations and community feedback with the CBS Tourism Commission and integrate changes additions from review for upcoming program years.

Will that like when the tourism commission reviews that will that go to the assembly for like a tacit, yes or no, or they might have suggestions or change and they just incorporate them?

It wasn't envisioned that it would come to the assembly, but if the again if the assembly has interest in reviewing or approving those guidelines, we can certainly do that.

I don't have interest in that.

I was just curious.

Yeah, I'd like to work myself out of a job with this one.

We gotta hire her out of a job.

Anything else for Amy while she's in front of us right now.

Uh thank you, Amy.

Appreciate all of your time.

Um hopefully we won't have to call you up again, but I would remain available.

Uh so John, I have one pressing question on this one.

Um I am not at all opposed to element agency doing this.

Um I had anticipated a response once we broke them out since they were the marketing firm already.

Um so glad to see them on board.

I think the transition will be fairly seamless.

Um let's hope next time when they do the the convention guide that they use a little bit better picture of myself because that turned out horrible.

Um I'm not gonna hold that against them, however, I remember.

Um John, this is I understand the timelines, I understand the crunch in this.

We want to get them going.

I don't like the process, right?

I don't like to authorize you to sign a contract that I have not seen.

Can you convince me why this is okay in this instance?

Because at this point, I'm gonna vote no simply because of process, and that makes it look bad for the entire thing.

Like I will I will approve a supplemental, um, but I'm not approving you to sign the contract that comes back to me that we can then been cancel after work has already been done.

Um I'm not there.

Um no, I I respect that uh viewpoint.

Um, and I will say we discussed that when we uh when we evaluated the proposal and and looking at our timeline and knowing things are tight.

Um our hope was that with providing the scope of services and just the as Amy said the the meat of the contract um seeing that we we had hoped that that would be um sufficient for the assembly to review to make sure the scope is good, knowing that 90 percent of the rest of the contract I hate using that term boilerplate, but it really is boilerplate language uh with the exception of the uh termination clause and the appropriation clause, and and we could bring that back.

Um but you're you're right, Mayor, that the process is messy, um, and if preferred, we can bring the contract back to review.

There is some time that's going to be needed to put that together, it will extend the timeline further.

Um the pressure that we're under and the risk that we would take on with that is that uh the chamber was very clear that services will just the general visitor um visit services will cease at the end of this calendar year, and the the January services they will provide provide is just for transition only.

So knowing that it would be early January um before we could get a contract in front of you to review and then get the authorization to sign, we're already looking at, and that's if we move fast after putting this contract together, it would be mid to late January before we get all parties to sign, and we've already stretched that time out.

Um and you know, just like any other vendor, I don't think they would want to work for free um in the in the month of January in in hopes that uh that it would be signed for them to kick off in February.

So yes, the process is messy.

Um and um I don't I don't know if I can convince you as you stated, uh, but the hope was with the with the scope of services in front of you that we could speed the process up a little bit, but there's not gonna be any hard feelings if uh if the contract needs to come back, just we'll have to absorb some risk tour and then Kevin.

Yeah, so I understand Stephen's issue there, and I'm not as concerned about that if I really like the scope of services.

I'd be like, okay, I trust John to make a contract that's reflects that.

However, I do have some issues with the scope of services because I keep coming back to the fact that 90% of this budget comes from the bed tax.

So in my mind, that means 90% of the work should be done to promote visitors who are staying in hotels and bed and breakfasts and short-term rentals.

And to me, marketing for cruise ships.

I mean, no matter what if we put all of our effort into marketing for cruise ship visitors, it's not gonna be but a tiny fraction of what is already spent marketing for cruise ship by the cruise ship lines.

Um and I don't think it'll move the needle.

Um and plus we don't have much control over that.

Maybe if we're marketing the cruise ships to stop here, it might maybe a different way.

It might be a different way.

And that's a week-long one with 150 people in March.

And that's to me, that's what to mean that's what this fund was always about.

Getting people in the hotels, you know, all year long, but especially during the shoulder in winter.

And that's and that's conventions.

And so to me, that's a major point that we need.

And you know, it's especially if the money is coming from those hotels.

And that's part of the reason I was asking about the only 10% from the visitor enhancements fund.

I mean, the if I had a hotel, I'd be kind of I'd be bad.

Um the uh you know, and plus the fact that the cost is significantly higher for a lot less of scope.

I understand there's a inflation and things, but still, um, you know, to run a convention or to chase down independent travelers requires things like hey, this is how you get to the assembly to get a reduced rate for your for your uh hotel for the deno building, um or and things like that.

Um so I I I'm not saying I can't be convinced, but um I really disturbs me the lack of support for conventions and marketing to convention people is great, but what we really want is like we're dealing with Juno right now.

They're going and getting us bids for all the hotels, they're finding us caterers, they're they're making it easy for us to go to Juno.

And not to mention Ketchukan last year, they just rolled out the red carpet, and we had to do hardly anything.

It was great, and we spent a huge amount of money there.

Um, and that's what the convention side does.

It doesn't just market it, it's it actually helps walk you through it and throughout all aspects of it.

And while your conventions on, they you know, would come down and say, hey, is there anything else we can do?

You know, do you need help?

You know, and and that's what we need.

If we want to try and actually get use this money for that comes from the hotels to put people in hotels on the off season, that's what it's gonna take.

So I I um I I say this just seems like we're spending money, and some of it's management, I understand that to get people here who are already here, and and what we should be working on is getting people here who weren't gonna be here and get them to spend their money in Sitka.

So uh like I said, I could maybe can get uh convinced, but right now I'm pretty skeptical.

Thank you, Stephen.

Um Tori brought a lot of uh point good points, something to think about.

Um definitely very valid.

Um I agree with the mayor.

I I don't necessarily care for the process.

Um, but at the same time, because of the the deadline and the need to have continuity of service.

I'm I'm ready to approve this.

Of course, if you think that logic, then we have to approve anything if it's last minute and we're under pressure.

Um, you know, but I'm I'm ready to vote yes on this.

Um and I I could be persuaded, but um one thing you said, Tor was that people uh come who are already come, that's not guaranteed.

Obviously, we have bookings you know, usually for next year or two, but getting people here is a lot of work, and it takes years to keep that flowing, and we have a really good thing going on, and I don't want to interrupt the services.

Um I want to I want continuity of service because I think it's really really important.

Uh tourism is basically our biggest industry now, and we have to continue doing that, and people are counting on the revenue from the tourism industry to help fund things that they care about and things that are very, very important.

And things that are very, very important.

But you you know, you make a good point, make some really good points toward.

I don't really know what I have to say about that.

Um but I'm I'm willing to I'm willing to go forward with this as is.

Thanks.

Uh JJ, please, and then I have a motion, Sarah.

So you might want to prepare yourself.

Yes.

Uh thank you, Stephen.

Um that I know maybe a split's coming, maybe I'll I'll vote for maybe both, but definitely um the supplemental appropriation.

Uh on the notes, I've been hearing about uh the scope of work and the process.

Um been looking into this for years.

Um I think we really have a good thing here.

Uh convention services weren't the strong suit of the last contractor.

Um, and we still have been hosting quite a few conferences in this town.

Um it hasn't been the best level of customer service.

Um, but people do still come.

More people could come, and that'd be great.

Um, but I think this is a a great deal.

We're getting um a lot of additions that the tourism task force asked for, the tourism commission um supported as valid.

I think the department um, although lacking a manager has a great director and has listened and and combined a lot of our requests, um, but we can't have everything.

Um there that's just perfection doesn't exist.

And we need the bulk of this, we want even more.

Um we are Sidkins, that's how we roll.

And I I'm going to be voting yes because this is a really really good thing.

Uh so I'm gonna make a motion here.

Um I move to divide the question by removing the supplemental appropriation uh from the rest of the contract.

Second it's been moved and seconded to remove uh the supplemental appropriation from the rest of the contract.

Is there any public comment?

Uh seeing none, Sarah, I should have asked you if you had a complete motion there before I went to that, but you that is a um non-debatable motion, so we'll vote on that now.

All right.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

I'm just trying to follow.

Uh so I just want to vote on the funding separately from the signing of the contract.

And if this passes, I'll explain further.

So we're dividing the question so instead of a motion to approve the funding and authorizing the administrator to sign the contract.

We're removing the funding piece and just focus so we would just be voting on executing the contract.

And I I get that, and I'm confused about the non-debatable part where we're not allowed to talk about it.

That's correct.

Robert's rules of order indicate it's not a debatable motion.

The motion to divide the question is not debatable.

We will then have a further opportunity to talk about each one individually.

Okay.

Thanks, Sarah, for helping us through that one.

Parliamentary on the motion, please.

So on the motion to divide the question to remove the supplemental appropriation.

Um, so you would just be voting on the executing the contract.

Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson, yes.

Mr.

Mosier.

No.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen.

Yes.

And Mr.

Celine.

Yes.

All right.

So the motion to divide the question passes a six-one.

Uh Sarah, what should we handle first?

Should we handle um supplemental appropriation or should we handle execution of contract?

Um I guess I would go with the supplemental appropriation.

Okay, sounds good.

I'll agree with that.

So first we'll be talking about the supplemental appropriation half.

Um, as I made this motion, I'll I'll take the liberty.

Um, I have no problem with the supplemental appropriation at this point.

Um I want the contractor to have some assuredness that I appreciate their response to our to our RFQ, and uh would intend to select them as things go forward.

So I'm happy to put the funding in place to make this happen at that point at this point.

Katie what is the effect of separating the appropriations from the contract signing in that can we utilize those appropriations without a contract, or does it just extend the runway in which the appropriations can be utilized and assures that the money is there?

Uh I'm trying to track your question.

Um so you're asking, does that appropriation then sit there for anybody, or does it allocate it towards?

Um at this point it would sit there for anybody, is my understanding and this is this just the supplemental appropriation for the next six months?

Correct.

John and then Tor.

Oh, yeah, sorry.

Um do you mind if I call Brooke up here?

I want to make completely certain about uh please question.

Brooke, do you mind?

So the the question was if it if the appropriation passes, would the funding just be available as like an extended runway, right?

Open for anybody to provide this service, but the language in the ordinance states increase appropriations and contracted services by you know an amount to execute the first partial term for contract services, and it lists the agency and both of those.

So I I want to make certain that if this appropriation goes through and the ordinance lists the agency for the reason that the appropriation is there.

Is that would it have to go to that agency, or is it available for the service regardless of the agency?

I don't want us to get into trouble on audits.

Um Brooke False Gang Finance Director.

That is not how our budget typically works.

Um no, it would not restrict us to just that contractor.

So thank you.

So I could get behind this.

Uh because it is I understand that this convention visitors bureau needs to evolve, and we have the the um uh wherewithal, you know, we need to do something for the people there, but we also need to have the people the people who are receiving the services indirectly pay for them with the head tax or other or even sales tax for that matter.

Um and the reason I'm saying that is because I would like to see us talk about well, how could we improve our convention, but also independent travelers?

Like maybe we use that money to subsidize the centennial building for the conventions because we are incredibly expensive to use the centennial building for conventions.

So that's why the money is important to me where it's coming from, because then we can use the rest of that money for figuring out ways beyond just marketing and making sure that they have hotels and caterers to bring people in the off season.

Um so uh again, it's to it especially considered the limited scope.

I then where the expense, I understand I don't like it, but I don't understand.

But where the money comes from is making me uncomfortable uncomfortable.

Kevin, thank you, Stephen.

Um yeah, this is a really healthy discussion.

I'm enjoying this.

Um this is good.

Um I have a question, but I do have comments.

Um so if this if this passes just this one, we will theoretically be able to engage with element even if we don't have a contract, or I mean I so that would be the next part.

comes from is making me uncom very uncomfortable Kevin Thank you Steven uh yeah this is a really healthy discussion I'm enjoying this um this is good um so I have a question but I do have comments um so if this if this passes just this one we will theoretically be able to engage with element even if we don't have a contract or I mean I so that would be the next part so what if we what if we pass this but then the negoti when the the other part we're like well let's turn it around let's fix this with add this so then there's nothing agreed upon what would happen then nothing then right uh correct then at the my understanding would be at the end of the fiscal year um the supplemental appropriation would lapse and roll back into the general fund well this one may go back into visit um visitor enhancement okay thank you so I have a couple comments um I really appreciate the thought behind that Steven I think it's um it's a good thought um and you know you guys are bringing up some really good points uh the process is weird there's some things that tourists brought up which are very valid but I'd like us to back up a little bit and think about what we're about to do okay um we rely uh well just be honest we're relying on tourism for our economy it is one of the main pillars as I've said a couple times uh nothing is guaranteed us having a steady stream of tourists is never guaranteed at all and you know if we start messing around here well let's add this it's change I don't think we are I think we're kind of forgetting like the tight deadline even from July for Amy and staff to get this together is a huge undertaking.

Kevin just for clarification are you on the supplemental appropriation side or the signing of the contract side I'm on the supplement because we're dealing with supplemental appropriation at this point.

Well I think they're kind of connected okay thank you.

You know we're trying to split this up and you know I feel like we're kind of doing work at the table kind of thing.

It is a lot of work I guarantee it was a ton of work for Amy to get this to the table and so let's look at the risks um if we split this up say we approve this but we don't approve the next one because we want to change uh for one we lose we we risk losing the advantage from having a smooth and uninterrupted service that's that's really really a big deal.

It may not seem like oh we have a couple months a season no all this hard work is ongoing throughout the whole year there's a lot of work that goes into it.

The other risk is that we lose we risk losing the contractor altogether I can remind everybody back in July or whatever we were had our hats in the hand uh trying to ask Amy to help us get out of this mess um because we were risking not having anybody um I have not been involved with those negotiations and it's would be inappropriate if I was so I don't know the conversations I don't know um you know what element and Mr or the Beck person or group um would think about it if we started changing but if we start messing around here and trying to change it um they could walk away and then we will have nothing uh we don't even have a tourism director hired um so then it would fall on staff it's just it's just not a good thing it's not a good scene if this happens um having said that I agree there's some really valid concerns but um you know tourism is a insanely important part of our economy and I don't want to assume we're just gonna have continue uh you know uh full steam ahead because like I said nothing is guaranteed whatsoever so I just want us to like take a step back here pause and breathe and think what are we about to do and what we're about to do is try to split it up and piecemeal it in my opinion um I don't think these these things should have been split at all although I don't necessarily like the process that much I don't think it should have been a split because if we've approved the funding but then we don't approve the next thing it the whole it's pointless in my mind.

So I just really hope the other members will really think now me acknowledging that there's some concerns that are valid I want us to take a minute to pause and think about the decision we're making right now because it's very important uh for sitka long term um it's very it's just extremely important um so I think that's it for that thanks Tim thank you.

Yeah I mean I think uh so on the supplemental I think uh having it's I think it's very important for anyone looking at this process to realize we are very committed to this which is something that's been very important to us but there have been a couple of words that have stuck out to me uh tonight and convince persuade those are the words that that I've heard from lots of common comments on this one and I think you know one of the strengths of the Roberts rules of order is you get two shots at it right so it's the first reading second reading because sometimes it takes us a little while to come to grips with it.

And I think uh I think that's where we are here.

So I'm totally I was I voted in favor of splitting it because I am uncomfortable uh in saying uh without a contract what we're doing.

Okay, because I think um and I I would argue that I think the people expect us to uh be uh careful with their money and just blindly offering contracts doesn't make sense, and so I'm not interested in doing it that way.

Um and so I'm glad Steven did that because I mean otherwise I would have had to come up with a different way uh of getting to that same point.

And I agree with Kevin that you know doing this at the table is less desirable than making sure we have a complete package.

Um but I I don't get the sense from anyone that moving forward from here, if we make passes supplemental, that we're looking to change where we're headed.

I think we just want to make sure that we are being careful of the process.

Um having said that I think uh that it's also important for um the staff and for a future contractor to understand more about what we want out of this process, and that's uh then that so as we talk about this contract coming up, which I'm trying not to get into that too much.

I think we're gonna have that's the that's the process that we're looking at.

And that's what that's the opportunity that we have.

So I am comfortable uh with the risk, as it were.

I mean, I think we can encourage people to move quickly, but it sounds like we're pretty much there on a contract already.

Um, but I think it's very important for us to have an actual thing to vote on, uh, because that is kind of one of our things.

So I that's why I voted to split it because I think it's important for us to I think us putting forward the supplemental indicates to everyone going forward, we're very committed to this process.

Having said that, let's make sure that we know exactly what we're saying and what we're asking and what we're doing.

Um, and and you know, when we get to the contract, you know, a lot of what Tor said is gonna come back back up.

So I will be in favor of the supplemental JJ.

I am in favor of the supplemental um totaling $33,000 to 71 coming from visitor enhancement.

That's a bed tax.

32 coming from CPV, and that is just because WIS is a start.

Amy said it more than once because we asked the question.

Um we just need to have the facts, the evidence to prove because it is hard to touch CPV money, and we just need to cover our bases to make sure that we're doing it well within the constraints because we don't want to get sued.

And that is something that is happening to other communities in Southeast.

So it is not that we don't ever intend to have there be a more clean approaching 50-50 split between these two pots of money.

It's just not uh really a good risk management strategy to do it from the beginning.

Um and if you know we ever think Amy will forget that, she knows that we'll follow up.

Like that's going to be something that we'll all have eyes on and see.

And you know, our liaison to tourism commission can make sure that gets communicated as well to that group when they're reviewing things going forward.

Um this is just a start, and it's also been said that there's that extra 70,000 out there somewhere that might come back around and kind of fill in some money here through our regular budget process when all that gets addressed.

So it's it is a perhaps a bit messy because there's more than one step here.

Um maybe it's a little confusing as well, but it is just to initiate things that we're looking at a perhaps disproportionate to the uses of this where the actual content is going between visitors from the independent, you know, coming in from an airplane and visitors coming in from a cruise ship.

Um that will I have 100% trust uh and confidence that that will get worked out soon, and not through the five-year term of this contract Scotty, I salute Thor and the mayor for this because tourism is the reason why a lot of people are hate in town, and with Tor saying that 90 percent coming from the bed tax and stuff, it's our duty to do this to show people that we're just not signing and caving into the inrush of cruise ship passengers.

So this is my second most favorite discussion of me being on the assembly.

Thank you very much.

I got a new goal in life then.

Katie?

Well, it's not my second most favorite discussion, but it's right out there.

Um, it's been it's been really interesting, and uh I I do appreciate all the discussion, everything that's been brought up.

Um from my discussions, I as well am concerned about the use of the bed tax and the the CPB funds, and have stated, you know, pretty frequently that I think that the city should be more aggressive in uh proposing, you know, not not aggressive, proactive, right, in proposing um to the cruise ship companies to CLIA, like how we want to use these funds and really making the case for that and making that a data-driven case, but also making that um a persuasive argument case about you know how these uh funds are used to benefit the cruise ship passengers and um and therefore are applicable for for these uses.

And I do think that there are things in this contract that will be reimbursable.

The process for the use of those funds, from what I understand is through reimbursement, right?

So we have to appropriate them from somewhere to then be able to get uh reimbursements from the CPV to re-account for it.

So it has to come from somewhere to start.

Um we can go out on a limb and assume some risk and you know, saying, well, 50% of it should come from CPV, but if we can't back that up later, that creates um a sticky situation for us.

Whereas if we uh go in reverse and take it from the bed tax fund first and then uh reimburse back to that fund with CPV later when we have the data about you know how it was used.

Um I think that that is the approach that we have to take right now, given that we don't have a tourism manager who can really be the person that can proactively make these negotiations and make the case for our community that the CPV funds should be used to support um things like this contract.

So I am in favor of this approach appropriation as it's structured in the sense that I am banking on the city to bring on this capacity that is going to allow us to have these conversations in a better way and set our community up to be able to have those proactive negotiations going forward.

I don't want to get ahead of ourselves given just what I understand staff to be already burdened with, um which I'll discuss in the next motion.

And you know, a lot of this is falling on John, who is handling uh quite a few other things besides you know, technically the tourism manager job right now, um, as well as Amy, I'm sure y'all share that responsibility, but that is uh a lot of work in addition to the rest of their portfolio, right?

So I think that to set ourselves up in a good way that protects the city from liability, you know, the way that this appropriation is structured is proper for now going forward.

I I absolutely do want to see changes, and I think that you know there's some steps that we have to take before we can get there.

So that's why I'm in favor of the appropriation as structured.

Tor, yeah, so um a couple of things.

First of all, I'll I'll probably vote for this to go to next vote, yes, because it's still it's not the final vote.

Um I will say that so the the way the CPV fund works is we're all good unless they sue.

And as I understand it, the only time in recent history is when Juno made that sculpture.

But the own there is no law, it's very fuzzy, and there is no state saying you just use that.

No, no, it is not fuzzy at all.

It's very clear, and I wish we had our risk manager here right now to no, I'm not saying that we can discuss.

But as long as it's I think is if we get sued, then we're yeah, but it but it's if we can show that it's for the benefit of the cruise ship and the safety and things like the maps uh and the guides and and answering questions about SETI for the you know, I'm just saying that I don't think we need to be quite so afraid, but what I can see is that even the first time that it gets renewed and or coming up in July, or you know, the next budget round.

Um looking to do more even in six months, uh, because to me that there's some very clear stuff that's only for the cruise ship passengers, and it's more than just being a liaison to the commercial tourism.

I mean the TMP desk management practices and the guides and that's directly.

I mean that that's not and and so um and it doesn't require us to study to say which ones were used because they're made specifically for them.

So um the uh you know we I mean again I'll I'll vote for this to go on to the next reading at the very least, but I think we need to be very clear that um we need to be switching the burden over to and like city, even if it's sales tax, which is you know, we get a lot of sales tax in the summer, and there's no question about that.

But just a little bit of information about other southeast communities that have been sued Skagway for constructing a playground.

I imagine the cruise industry um considered the public relations piece on that.

It's like a playground.

And um, I think there's possibly something active happening now in Skagway again about sales tax related but outside of their jurisdiction and this and that and the other.

So um previous and current um lawsuits around Southeast around use of CPV funds, Tim and then Scotty.

Yeah, I think I I just wanted compelling to me was Amy's case.

She says we don't actually have enough information yet about where all these things are going to make the case that we can then turn around and say this is what we're gonna do.

So I would say this is our this is our time.

I mean, getting a little off topic with this appropriation, but not in a sense as well.

This is our moment to figure out how what percentage of this are we spending on the cruise ships so that we can then come back and do it.

Because I mean getting sued is gonna cost us way more than we're ever gonna save.

So uh I think you know, while this is unmaybe not the best method going forward, this is what we have at the moment.

Let's go with this.

Let's take advantage of this moment to gather data.

Um, and I mean, looking at the at potential contract that we might sign later, it looks like we're gonna gather that data.

So um, and I think thinking back to when we set up this RFQ process, even gathering that data was a key piece because we do want to spend the CPV money um where it's appropriate.

So, but at this point in time, we just don't have enough information to do that.

I mean, sure, we could risk it, but you know, I think the risk of that is is too much at this point in time, and particularly for this amount of money.

Scotty, I was just curious as to you were saying that Skagway using CPV funds to build a playground, and then that's to support the kids going to school or for like the people that work in Skagway that is all about cruise ships so that their kids I mean, I'm I'm just like if I'm blown away that they'd even try that from you know everything in June where they make a taxidermied killer whale and and get that gets sued and everything, you know.

Uh so I that's all I would just wow anything further on the supplemental appropriation side of our question, Sarah All right.

The motion before you is to approve ordinance 2025-30 on first reading, which is a supplemental appropriation for visit SICA.

Well, it's been split though, so we're just talking about supplemental right, okay.

Yes, this is only the ordinance piece of it, yeah, for supplemental funding.

Mr.

Christensen.

Yes, Ms.

Carlson, yes, Mr.

Selene, yes, Mr.

Pike?

Yes, Ms.

Riley, yes, Mr.

Mosher, yes, and Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

Motion passes 7-0 on first reading for the supplemental ordinance.

Uh thank you.

As the splitter of the motion, um, and then I'll talk about the other side of this and thank you for splitting it so we can take a break.

I wasn't going to.

I really wanted to wrap this up.

Um, but uh, due to popular request, we will take a brief recess um before we continue with the other side of the motion.

Uh we will jump back into our agenda tonight.

Um, we are continuing on um with ordinance 25-30.

Now is to vote on the rest of 25-30, which in is in essence approving a uh contract with our new visit sitca um contract E.

So if anyone would like to start that discussion, Tor.

I just have a quick clarification.

So if I understand this correctly, if we vote no, then the contract has to come back to us.

If we vote yes, then the con then that's do the contract and initiate it.

Is that correct?

That would be my anticipation.

Yes.

If you are not comfortable voting on a draft, um because I'm not um then the contract would come back.

And Sarah, would we have to word that differently?

Yeah.

I think we would, wouldn't we?

It's yeah, we would because at this point we're simply killing it.

Exactly.

We're not asking it to come back in a different form.

Yeah.

Um and so that brings another really good point here.

Um if we intend to start modifying at the table, um, this is already we've all identified that the process is out of the norm, right?

Um so if we are going to start making modifications like that at the table, um it is a recommendation that we would postpone this item um until we see whatever it is that we might want to see uh a full contract or such.

So John.

Thanks, Mayor.

This is actually a question for Sarah, or if anybody else knows, I want to be certain that if there's a motion made and the vote is no, that does not mean that we are saying no to the bid.

Like I don't want that message to come across wrong.

Correct.

Um we're not giving you authorization to sign a draft contract.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

If I might make a motion to amend that might fix that.

No.

No, I mean it might sorry.

It's just to authorize a missile administrator to I'm I move to authorize the amendment or do you execute to negotiate a contract and bring it back for approval?

That's the I don't believe that a motion is appropriate with that.

That's not an additional, or it's not an amendment to the motion at hand.

That's a whole a whole nother motion on its own.

So authorize to add in the wordage to strike and execute and put in negotiate to negotiate and bring back to the assembly for approval.

I mean, that's what we're after, right?

I'm I'm standing where I'm at, Sarah, that it's not an amendment to the motion, it's a whole new motion, but can you say it again?

Okay, I move to strike the words to execute and replace it with negotiate and bring back to the assembly for approval the contract.

Yeah, I think that's acceptable.

I just need to figure out how.

So I didn't realize anyway.

Yeah, I guess within the the within the motion in front of us that we originally had.

Right.

Um we split it from a supplemental appropriation, and then the other half of it is authorizing the administrator to execute the contract.

So then we would need a motion to amend the current motion that's on the floor, which you would be making a motion to amend.

Yes.

And then if you don't even think that works on the I I think after looking at the motion that was originally read for 25-30.

Um I believe that to be the intent of myself when we started this.

Um, but uh I also didn't think it was going to fail.

Um I thought it was going to go on as indicated.

So if that is the motion, um, is there a second?

I'll second.

Uh it's been moved and seconded to amend um the second part of our motion.

Sarah, can you read the language back, please?

Um to strike the word execute um and then replace that with authorizing the municipal administrator to negotiate and bring back to the assembly for approval.

Draft contract to the assembly for approval.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Now I have more questions before I can even vote on it.

Is there any public comment on the motion and the amendment to the motion?

Uh was I'm sorry, was there a second?

Yes, there was a second on that.

Um back to the assembly for deliberation.

Katie?

Sorry.

Can Sir read that just one more time?

I want to like really hear this.

All right, so the motion before the amendment before you is to strike the word execute.

So then it would read the motion read to authorize the municipal administrator to negotiate and bring back a contract to the assembly for approval.

So that's thank you.

I get it now.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh Katie, please start our discussion on this.

Um thank you, uh Tor for that amendment.

Um, because what I wanted to do was discuss the scope of what would be acceptable to this body.

I am also uncomfortable with um approving a contract that I have not seen.

Uh, but some of the things that I am considering are the following.

If we do not sign anything, um, or if we do not like establish a transition period for these services before the end of the fiscal year, uh, I think that visit Sitka as a platform shuts down, is my understanding.

And I'll I'll invite um Amy or or John to correct me if I'm wrong.

And so if that shuts down and there is no one to continue hosting it, we are running into issues um with continuity of services, right?

And uh how long that get takes to get picked back up, where the server you know, location is to access and store this data, um, passwords, like all of all of these transitional things.

Uh Katie, I'm really really sorry to do this in in the middle of your train of thought there, but right now all we're voting on is changing the wording of it.

Um so one if we do, then we can have the discussion that you wanted to have.

Um so I'm really sorry to cut you off in the middle of your wonderful train of thought there.

Now the motion is just to strike the an amendment to strike the word execute, right?

To to negotiate and bring back for approval.

Yeah.

If I am leading to the things that I want to be included in the negotiation for that would be the next round after we've approved the approved the language changes, then we would give some guidelines on what we want John to bring back.

Okay.

So first we have to change the motion because the motion is not about negotiating, it's about executing currently.

Right.

And so we're debating the change from execution to negotiate.

Correct.

And then after the amendment, then you're gonna go back to the main motion as amended, which is which then opens up the floor.

Yeah.

And the benefits of changing from execution to negotiation are not pertinent to the scope of this discussion.

Yeah, I don't mean it be out of order, but I feel like Katie's line of thought was completely in line.

Uh it's all kind of connected very well.

If we're saying, yeah, I mean, like what I'm trying to say is why I would prefer to pass this amendment to negotiate and amend is because the stakes for denying and just not allowing the execution of this are very high uh to our economy, to the continuation of services.

So I would like to see um this amendment pass so that we can discuss what would be acceptable for the municipal administrator to bring back for a negotiation and what level of a draft contract this body is acceptable viewing.

I think the the detriment to our um the service that we have right now and the accumulated body of work and just like the technology that supports it.

Um if we lose that by completely taking off the table, uh the ability to you know consider this at the next meeting, let's say um, I think that that that risk is is too high for me uh considering the season that we're going into.

So I do want to be able to continue the discussion about the draft, and that is why I am voting in favor of the amendment to negotiate and uh potentially have another draft contract brought up to us, Jim.

So John uh and or Amy, the con draft contract I see here, this was negotiated already.

So this is already that is correct.

Yeah.

So I think so.

I question whether or not we want to start the negotiations over again, or whether we want to see a fine a finished contract, right?

Like which one that's a complete contract based upon this.

And that's so I mean, I guess for for me, I'm not I don't know that the negotiation is the right word or that I'm comfortable with that.

So I'll probably vote no on this one actually because what we've seen here is the scope that's already been negotiated.

Um are we sending them back to start this process over again, or do we need to see a finished version of this?

And I think for me that's the that's the defining moment.

So I'm gonna vote no because I think what I'm interested in is a finished version of this.

Now it's not to say that I don't have a question about this the for example the duration, but um or or something along those lines, but I'm not sure that I want to start this process over again.

Um so I'm gonna vote no on the negotiation word.

Uh which is my exact concern, which as we came up, it's already been negotiated.

We just don't have a contract in front of us.

Yeah.

So uh first of all, I was just trying to get something out there that allow us to so um I understand what you're saying completely, and that would be really good reason to vote no to this.

Uh the am I the we're negotiate meant things like the termination clause?

Minor things, but things that aren't in the draft that we've seen.

So that means the definition of negotiation, because and John said, well, that's boilerplate, it'll be in there, but we won't see it until it's signed.

So the reason behind this uh amendment is to say we're gonna do it like we do almost every other contract where we approve the idea, then we approve the con the contract, we have to do it twice.

So the earliest we could if we pass this would be the first meeting in January, assuming they get something on our on the 30th.

Um so, and again, my my whole goal was just to get us moving saying that what we want to do.

So, but I don't think the negotiations would be particularly long.

It's just the things that we talked about tonight getting in there like the termination clause.

Um, so thank you.

Um yeah, I I get the spirit of what you're saying, Torah, but I agree with Tim uh and Steven on this one.

I I'm very concerned about when we say renegotiate or negotiate, because like I was saying before, this that could open up a whole can of worms and really delay things.

And as Katie said, the um the risk of losing that continuity is is great.

It's very great in my mind.

So I I understand there's been some good questions and stuff, but I don't want to start renegotiating at all.

I because once you say you're gonna negotiate, then people are gonna say, well, let's talk about this thing that you know who said and or then this person said, and then it morphs into this thing.

So I think we really need to be careful that if this ends up being passing um, you know, the way Tim said it, um, that it's it remained that way basically within the spirit of uh what we see before us today.

Um so I'm I'm gonna vote no on this one.

Katie?

May I ask a question now, John?

Um my understanding of negotiate and bring back a draft contract is that the part of the contract that has not been negotiated is all of the wording in, for example, the current contract that we can see that is not in the scope of work, right?

So the bulk of the contract has been negotiated, but the definitions, the contract time, the contractor qualifications, the termination clause, duties upon termination, those are the components that would need to be negotiated.

Is that true?

That's correct.

Okay, so with that being said, um, I am comfortable moving forward with the words negotiation because I think that we can we could point out right now at this table exactly what things need to be negotiated, and my intent in voting for this amendment is to identify those exact things where this assembly thinks the most critical components are.

Uh what else staff is dealing with.

Um, and we don't have a contract manager to be putting these things together, right?

I would instead like to identify the exact components that we want to see come back in front of us that are the most important and critical and tell the manager to go negotiate those components as well as whatever else they can get done in that time period and then bring that draft contract back to us I mean I would like to do it by next week if they think that's all possible but I think that you know um this is potentially potentially critical enough that we could maybe consider doing that um I I would I would invite staff's opinion on that on like what exactly could you get us before our meeting on the 30th I'll be brutally honest we will our deadline for the next meeting is Monday at noon.

Monday materials have to be done we would cease work in in at least administration on everything else and spend tomorrow Thursday Friday putting a contract together to have in the packet for Monday this would be number one focus and uh no other no other noise and if you did not do that what are the exact implications of us not having a contract in place on December 31st there's still time to do it at in the beginning of January um but it shortens our transition timeline.

I mean we I think it's and and Amy if you want to join me you can but um if if the contract came forward it'd be more reasonable if we did it at the first meeting in in January although not desirable but more reasonable and at least if we got it signed quickly after that we can give a a notice to proceed essentially that you know signing this thing says go and you'll have a shorter probably two week timeline to get the transition done wouldn't you have to do it anyway Tim was next in line thank you and then Tim and then Tor I mean it's funny how the English language works but I would actually probably be comfortable if it had been phrased finish negotiations right.

So I mean I think that's kind of what what we've been all kind of working our way around right so finished negotiations bring us back a finished contract uh a draft final draft contract however you put that um would be I mean that's the goal right that's where we're headed so um because I don't but the but open ended negotiation I think I mean we have they're they're listening we don't we don't want them to walk away from this thinking they're that everything's off the table and we're gonna start from scratch so because that's not any of my intent so finish it in my mind is exactly what Katie just said get all those bits and pieces that need to be in a final contract and bring it back to us.

You know I'm gonna I'm gonna leave the timeline for that if we move forward with this up to you.

So whatever fits with what's important to uh what you see I think is is critical to us so I guess I'm a little confused.

Let's say we passed the original language wouldn't you still have to go to the mattresses to get this done by the end of the year I mean that's what we're talking about.

Yes and no the the the ordinance takes two readings absolutely but if the ordinance passed if if we had passed the original motion if the ordinance had passed first reading and second reading with the language that I execute the contract I would build the contract by using the scope of work here and the rest of our standard language work out the termination clause and some of those other things we've discussed I would have the that capacity between the now essentially and the beginning of January to have that contract together and be ready to sign at the beginning of January without having to come back to the assembly again.

So what you're talking about is the last line in the recommendation the contract will be subject to a non appropriation clause in which CVS can exit the contract with no penalty in the case that it demonstrates it made the best efforts but was ultimately unsuccessful in well in securing budget authorization we already did that.

So that is then null and void.

Because they won't work without a contract.

Correct.

But um that meeting being on when is the next meeting?

The 30th?

Yeah, December that meeting being on the on the 30th.

Um I'd still try to get that contract again.

We're putting it together.

Sorry, I have to collect my thoughts here.

Um the once a the timeline to get the contract in front of the assembly is the is the hard part right now to be ready by January.

Um so having that put together for the December 30th meeting, knowing that we have a Monday deadline to do it is the that's the challenge right now.

And I guess I just wonder then um has anyone been able to identify how long the transition actually takes.

Is two weeks sufficient?

Do we know the answer to that question?

Do we need a month?

Um a month seems like a long time for a contractor that has already been working within visit Sitka for five plus years uh read, um, not downplaying their significance previously if they've been working longer, but thank you, Stephen.

Uh just your last comment.

I think a month is uh could theoretically be viewed as not enough time.

I I think we are you know, when you're in it doing it, it's it's not as simple, nothing is as simple as it seems.

Like in my mind, I'd think, yeah, you know, it's probably really easy, take two weeks, right?

But in reality, as we all know in our jobs, nothing is ever simple.

Um and so the more time the better.

Um so yeah, I have these concerns about the word negotiate, but if as uh looks like a majority of some of you members have said the the negotiate part simply means uh adding the termination clause and things like that, and does not include any type of renegotiation of anything outside the um what we have before us.

I could I could get behind that Toronto Yeah, so just on a final note, I mean I I hear some hesitation about uh reopening negotiations.

I think the contractors are online, right?

Like they're hearing this discussion, they're very much hearing that we will not accept a change scope of services, and I don't think it's in anyone's benefit to see a draft contract either in you know on December 30th or at the first meeting in January with a change scope of services because we will obviously probably not support that, right?

Given that we already have hesitations about that.

So I would trust that you know, for all of the parties who have observed this discussion tonight, um, there is an understanding that we uh you know feel pretty strongly about this um scope of services as is, and we feel that the remaining items to negotiate are the uh boilerplate, it's not exactly boilerplate, right?

It does change from contract to contract, but the relatively um familiar terms of contracts for indemnification and period time periods, termination clauses, things like that.

So I just want to try to assuage some of those concerns, and that I think if you're paying attention, it's clear that we're not willing to renegotiate any of the substantial items that are in this contract.

Um that being said, I think two weeks onboarding, not ideal.

We're all doing things that are not ideal tonight.

So uh, you know, let's all like work a little bit outside of our comfort zone, and I would expect that of our contractors as well.

I think we're asking that of city staff right now.

Um, and we're also asking that of the assembly, you know, to to expedite this timeline in a way that um everyone is a little uncomfortable with.

So I uh I I would be willing to look at a draft contract in the first meeting at January, um, or or whenever it is that we can do that to have you know a bit of lee time to get the contractors, you know, transitioning and onboarded two weeks.

It's not ideal, but you know, we're we're all there.

So real quick, so so the reason I put forth that amendment is so that we knew what we were voting on.

So the idea was I heard a lot of people concerned that we want to vote see the contract before we vote on it before we do it.

That said, I might vote against my own amendment here because it was it was meant to clarify what we were voting on because it was our questions.

If we voted on the way it was originally, did we just contract's gone?

So now it's clear it would this would clarify that.

However, um the comment is made that they're listening, John's listening.

I actually have a lot of faith in John that he will bring back a contract that takes into account what we've been saying that there will be a good termination clause, that there will be all those things.

Um so again, the the the point of bringing this forward so that we can have a clear vote.

We want it back to vote on it, or we don't.

And do we trust John to bring one forth without it?

It's good, it's not not the greatest policy, but we are in a timeline.

So, like I said, I I like I said the very I actually don't have that much heartburn that we're not voting on the actual contract, because I know John's gonna I'm gonna want to see it, but um I guess we can't fire him though if he does it wrong because he already quit.

Um anyway, um the but it yeah, so I like I said that was why this amendment was put forward so we could have it very clear what we're voting on.

So Tim?

Yeah, it's not about trust, it's about responsibility, right?

Like that it's not that I don't trust John if we voted to ex have him executed that he'd bring back a contract we're after.

But that's not my responsibility.

My responsibility as an assembly member is to vote on contracts.

Um and I'm not gonna vote for one that I haven't seen.

And so um, you know, I think that's where I'm at with this one.

Um also not interested in renegotiating this one.

The contract would take two readings, is that correct?

One reading.

Okay, thank you.

So it would be a two-week on party.

Okay, John.

I have a pr another procedural question for for Sarah.

I'm I'm so sorry, and please, mayor, if I'm if I'm out of line on this one.

Uh with this amendment.

If the amendment had let's say the the assume the amendment doesn't pass if we go back to that original second part of the motion, um, and if it were just postponed, if that language stood as you know municipal administrator execute the contract.

If it were just postponed until the first meeting in January, that's when I would come back with that contract and the vote would happen then.

Is that okay?

Um yeah, that sounds like a cleaner way um of the mud that we've made ourselves while trying to clean it up.

Yeah.

This is why in other cities mayors are non-voting, so they can track everything better as opposed to having to track it and the issue.

Uh anything further on the floor the motion as amended.

Well, no, we're on the amendment still.

We correct, that's what I meant to say.

So the on the amendment to the motion, if you could read that back before we vote, please, Sarah.

Thank you.

Okay, so the amendment on the table is to strike the word execute and replace it with negotiate and bring back a draft contract to the assembly for approval.

That is the amendment that you're voting on.

Are we ready?

All right, Ms.

Riley.

No, Mr.

Christensen.

No.

Ms.

Carlson.

No.

Mr.

Celine.

No.

Mr.

Mosier.

No.

Mr.

Pike.

No.

Ms.

Mayor Eisenbais.

No.

All right.

The amendment fails.

So now you're back to the main motion.

This is just to authorize the municipal administrator to execute the contract.

I move to postpone or the uh remainder of ordinance 25-30.

Second.

There needs to be a date on which you would postpone it to.

Uh when do you want it for?

First meeting in January.

First meeting in January.

Thank you.

Second.

That's been moved and seconded to postpone the uh uh execution of the contract until the first meeting in January.

Is there any public comment?

Assembly deliberation.

I I hate to bring it up.

Don't you dare.

I I I hate to bring this up, but this is only first reading.

And it's I'll figure it out, but we have I will I've never done an item like this before, and I never will again.

So when you split the con when so it's split, and so second reading of the ordinance is gonna come back on the 30th, and then we'll deal with this item.

Wouldn't it be okay?

So we can because I'm afraid that we would get to the first meeting in January and only that be first reading.

No, you're gonna do second reading of the ordinance on December 30th.

Yeah, there's a couple parts here.

I'll work with Sarah on that.

Um the contract itself can be executed in one reading.

Yes, but that's the same.

But since we've got two distinctly different things this time, we were even talking about without before this, we were even talking about the procedures to bring it back if it comes back as a singular or dual item.

So that was my only concern.

Yeah, yes.

Sarah's aware.

Yes, I'll make it happen.

Okay.

Motion to postpone any further comment from the assembly.

Amy, please.

I was just I was just going through procedures again, and I'm just making sure that it was correct to solicit without us asking for.

So I was making sure that it was good, but please go.

I uh I apologize for inserting myself, but I want to make sure that if we're bringing this back to you in January, that the terms that were laid out for you are acceptable, so we don't draft that contract with terms that you may not find amenable.

I think that's exactly why I was gonna tell John that I intend to reach out to you through him and work through some things that I don't see in here that I know previously um have been talked about.

Um, example is paid advertising versus non-paid advertising in the visitor guide, and how are we playing that out?

Um I didn't see any language in there about that.

So interesting points for me.

Um, but John, I'm letting you know I'm reach out through you to have a meeting with Amy and other interested parties.

Katie.

Um that is in the terms, and I didn't really like it because basically it says that you know, since we are paying for the contract, all of the uh businesses in town get free space, and then you can pay the contractor more to get a bigger space.

Um I did not love that term, and if I think that if we want to debate the scope of services, uh we should do it here because we need to give them clear direction so that we can actually have a contract um in front of us by that date.

Uh yes, we would.

We would have to deal with the motion to postpone first if that is the intent of the body.

Mr.

Mayor.

Kevin?

Uh Sarah, first, please.

If you want to discuss the terms, I would recommend that you withdraw the motion to postpone and then talk about it.

Because if we voted down, we can't bring it back within the same meeting.

Thank you for the clarification of withdrawing the motion if intended to discuss terms at this meeting.

Kevin?

Thank you.

So I'm confused because we just got done round talking about how we liked the scope of services as is.

And now I feel like we're just now talking about changing the scope.

So I'm like confused and tired.

Uh this is a weird situation.

We literally just said um like voted down that amendment because we all felt, or at least it was my interpretation that we all felt confident that the scope of service services as presented was good, and we agreed with it.

We just wanted to have um things like the termination clause in there, but now I'm hearing maybe not.

So like I feel like we're I don't even know what's happening right now.

So mayor, can we take a five-minute recess?

Yeah, and I I think that this is just the the side effect of having um something that we haven't seen before and and realistically two issues here, um, which is approving the contract and that um Sarah does need five minutes to gather her parliamentary thoughts, and um I will definitely um accommodate her on that one.

So we'll take a brief recess until Sarah is ready to continue.

Sarah, were you able to uh receive the clarification we needed in our process tonight?

Yep, ready to go.

Perfect, thank you.

Um we'll jump back into the discussion.

Tim.

All right, I will withdraw the postponement for the moment um of what we had before.

If my second concurs.

Second?

Yes.

Okay, having said that, I will also like if I can have the floor for a moment, please.

I would like to um clarify that we've negotiated a contract already.

And um I will I do not think that between now and 10 30, we are likely to come up with new terms and contracts that we need to do here.

And so what would be before us would be um sort of a discussion direction moment uh and and the next opportunity for that might be later this week, for example, or maybe New Year's Eve, I mean, I don't know, something like that.

Um and I would argue at that point that we've seen this story already play out, right?

We lost our last contract or two, a process very similar to this, and I don't want to go down that road again.

So I think if we can uh if we open this up and we all come up with little things that we don't like about this, um then I think we have our ourselves a problem.

I think there might be some small changes we can talk about.

Like if if if we're feeling uncomfortable about this contract, maybe we can um direct that we're interested in a three-year contract, and then agree amongst ourselves that we're gonna be a strong evaluator of where we are with this so that we can see where we're going.

But I think uh we're at a position right now where we need to make sure that we get a contract and we get it moving and we go forward from here.

Um I am willing to bet that between the seven of us, there's not a contract out there that we're all gonna like.

So um let's get a good one that will get us where we need to go for the moment and get us through this transition period, and then make sure that we can gather what we need to change.

Having said that, as contracts go, does not mean that we can't change them as we go, right?

If we find some piece of this we're really unhappy with, we can re-enter negotiations at that point with our contractor to see if we can come up with something else.

Okay, so my encouragement is having withdrawn that postponement temporarily, hopefully, um, that we will not engage in a huge contract negotiation right here.

And I can agree with that.

Um I have questions because I have not lived this document daily.

I think a lot of our our conversation tonight comes from those who have worked on this for an extensive amount of time and us who we're seeing it new, and so we have questions on what does this mean, what does this mean, where others have already experienced it, they they understand what it means.

Um I as well want to get a contract in front of me.

Uh my initial splitting of the motion, um, I thought I was gonna be in the minority.

I thought we were okay going forward tonight uh with this scope of services and signing it.

That's honestly where I anticipated, but due to setting a precedent of bringing forward an incomplete document, I could not procedurally move forward with that.

Um so I thought we were gonna go forward with this scope of services as indicated.

Um I still have questions, and I know that all of those can be answered when I when I work with John and Amy or John or Amy offline later.

Um, but I'm happy to see a contract come back for approval, and then I have the correct procedure to work off of Katie.

So if I understand from my discussions, like the most helpful way that we can do this um for staff is to, you know, we've got we've withdrawn the motion to postpone.

We should have the discussion about the terms right now.

Um and give the direction of where we want them to go.

And this isn't a vote, this is just saying, do you understand the direction that the assembly wants to go in?

I think you know, Tim is right in saying like none of us are gonna be happy.

Um I I'm not happy with the premium advertising component of this, right?

I don't like that, but I am accepting that as a condition in this that I don't necessarily like because that's how contracts work, right?

There's all gonna be things that we don't like about it.

So I think that we need to be really clear with staff right now in order to execute the timeline that we have put forward about exactly what needs to change in this draft contract terms and provisions.

Um, or they are going to bring us something that could be different enough that we will indeed uh, you know, be what is this thing left holding the bag here in a couple weeks.

Um I think that we need to have the discussion right now about whatever changes we want staff to make uh at this table.

I'm gonna say I can live with it as is, and that's probably the phrase I'd use.

I can live with it.

There's some things in there I really not crazy about, but I'm not gonna they're not gonna change.

Like they're not, there's only one person sit giving, but that's just I can live with it.

JJ.

I was looking forward to the time, this discussion tonight when I got to say uh as third string liaison to the tourism commission.

Uh last week this was looked at by them, and um they were happy they had some clarifying questions.

Um, they liked to see where it was at.

They understood um from the task lists from the tourism task force recommendations that this hit a lot of boxes, and they were um you know, although they didn't vote to recommend that we adopt this, um, they were pleased with what they saw, and we're we're wanting it to get get approved um on the timeline um for that month overlap.

Um so perhaps I'm a little bit farther along because I've looked at this for longer because I had that that chunk of time um when I was sitting at the tourism commission meeting last week.

Um, but I'm comfortable with this, and my questions um have been answered by staff.

Um I understand that that concern um about the advertisements because it perhaps in the past that was maybe used by past contractors like a secret pot of money, and we didn't really know there wasn't transparency around that money.

Um so I would encourage you know the the potential new contractors listening tonight to know that there are no secret pots of money um associated with visit SICKA in any way.

Um transparency around that is um expected, and um we'll be keeping in touch uh so our motion on the floor I would like to make a motion to postpone until the first meeting in January It's been moved and seconded to postpone the execution of the contract to the first meeting in January.

Is there any public comment?

Assembly deliberation on postponement.

Um Katie, you made the motion.

My understanding right now is that we are voting to postpone this item, and that staff has the direction that we support the scope of services outlined within it, and that there will be no changes to that scope of service.

The changes that will come before us within the contract are expected to be to things like uh language around termination, um duties upon termination, contract period, the the legalese that goes into the contract, that is what will be coming before us in January.

But the scope of the services are as we have discussed tonight on this list.

And if anyone has any thoughts about changing any of those, they need to withdraw this motion again and say what those changes are and then bring the motion to postpone back.

And that is the only way that we are going to get this through in a way where staff can approach this uh with any kind of sense from my understanding.

I'm getting some nods.

Great.

So that is the motion on the table to votes postpone at that first meeting in January.

We will see a finished draft contract, which we will then vote to execute.

Kevin?

Yes, as Katie just said, I concur.

Um I do not want to do any substantial changes whatsoever.

Thank you.

The only thing I'll add because I understand um both parties to this contract are vested right now, is that I intend to execute.

Procedurally, I can't execute something I don't have in front of me.

I intend to go forward with this.

I intend to make this work.

I'm excited to see a contractor who has already done this work for many, many years step up to the plate.

So as we go forward, that's where my stance is further deliberation on postponement.

Sarah.

All right, and the motion to postpone execution of the contract to January 13th.

Mr.

Celine.

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

Mr.

Christianson.

Yep.

Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

Ms.

Riley?

Yes.

And Mr.

Mosier.

Yes.

Motion to postpone passes 7-0.

So we'll hear the item on January 13th.

All right, everybody repeat after me.

Now Melissa's sitting in the back going, I don't want to go do that.

Like ready for the next one.

Ready?

Thank you.

Additional new business items.

Item J, please.

I moved to approve resolution 2025-15 on first and final reading adopting the third annual update to the Sitka Strategic Plan 2022 to 2027.

Second.

John, I understand Melissa has an introduction to this item.

Melissa, please.

Okay, I'll make it brief.

Um good evening, municipal official of the year, Mayor Eisenweiss and Assembly members.

Melissa Lounis, public and government relations director.

So here we are.

It's the uh third update of our five-year strategic plan.

So each year we do a formal check-in and it just to make sure that the plan stays relevant, transparent, and responsive to what the community is experiencing right now.

So the process began in the fall, and it included a SICA community and also an employee survey, outreach to all the board and commission members, and the option of assembly interviews, and a workshop with the assembly and staff where we you know looked at the progress, uh, community feedback and proposed updates.

So the updates are as followed, more green check marks, which means the actions are complete and ongoing.

Goal one for housing included to pursue opportunities for goal 1.4 with regards to child care.

We updated it to say develop incentives and identify revenue sources rather than to develop a community-wide strategy to improve.

Goal 2.1 added continue to develop and execute for the communication and engagement plan.

Goal 3.5 added identify economic development operities to diversify economy, and then goal 4.

Um had a few changes, so in its entirety, it now reads continue to identify and prioritize infrastructure gaps, allocate and pursue funding to address capital need and deferred maintenance.

Um, same for goal point three, 4.3, refine, set and communicate the levels of service for CBS infrastructure to align with the available resources needed to support community needs.

And we added goal 4.5, which was to identify where resources overlap with existing infrastructure, align effects for improvement, maintenance, and service delivery.

So next steps are um compiling the work that has been done in this last year, and we'll include that in the annual report that John will do on January 28th.

Continue communicating the work that's been done and ongoing.

So look for our CBS news.

Uh it'll be coming out at the end of the year, and then we'll do this again next year in the fall for the fourth year.

Uh great, thank you for the introduction.

Uh, if we have questions, we'll call you back up.

Is there any public comment on uh the resolution to adopt the third annual update to the strict sitga strategic plan?

So, ladies and gentlemen of the assembly and Mr.

Mayor and um Mr.

Leach, I I just came down here to talk about the.

You could identify yourself for the record, please.

Excuse me.

Uh Randy Huey, Sitka Community Land Trust.

And um that was informative, and I just want to say thank you for your service.

You guys labored through a really difficult thing there, and you kept smiling and kept working together.

So that was well done.

I I I just want to speak in favor of the adoption of this revised strategic plan and to commend those that worked on it.

The document is clear, concise, and achievable, and it's hard to get a large number of inputs pared down to five goals and five or fewer action steps.

So again, good work.

Execute this plan in your decision making in 26 and 27.

There will be many good people with good ideas for the good of the community, which are outside of this plan.

And I just urge you to stay focused on executing this plan.

Thank you very much.

Any other public comment on adopting the strategic plan.

I'll bring it back to the assembly for deliberation.

Kevin.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I just want to let everybody know I do intend on making a motion adding something.

Sorry, Randy.

But I I wanted to just say my opinions on the overall thing, and then have everybody say their things, and then I'll make mine.

It's mine is going to be to add something on the uh infrastructure for recreation.

Um but I just wanted to say that I really appreciate all the work and the effort, Melissa and all the staff as well as our contractor did to make this happen, as well as the assembly giving their time that Saturday, answering surveys and all the members of the community who uh answered these surveys.

Um it takes a lot of work to do this, and so I uh am very grateful and I'm very supportive of this.

And I'm not gonna make the motion yet, but before I do, I wanted to just say that although the motion I'm gonna make is gonna be about recreation.

I do understand and acknowledge that the core, the biggest and most important pillars of our duties as an uh municipality is for public safety funding schools and infrastructure.

And so my plan to try to add something if it passes or not, is to just encompass something else that um just to get some verbiage in there.

Um but I wanted to definitely say I acknowledge that you know the other stuff it's a priority, but I just want to try to include something else that would that's part and parcel of the the whole thing.

So that's it for now for me.

Katie the updates that we made to this are um kind of minor, um, but I think that they are much more action-oriented.

And I also wanted to um take take us of the perspective of the whole document and not just what is in the resolution.

I have a feeling that some of the feedback that we received was focused on what is listed in the resolution, which is not the entire strategic plan, right?

We discussed a strategic plan in whole, and what we chose was to modify the language of a few items to prioritize action on some of the most critical needs.

And I think that those were really good um amendments because it reflected our shared understanding uh that we don't just want to consider these as priorities and think about them, but actually like leverage resources, allocate resources, and pursue opportunities.

Um so that was from my understanding what we collectively agreed on at our meeting um that we really wanted to make progress on these items, and that this was the language that was going to allow us and staff to do that.

And in terms of the fiscal note that was included in the memo, that is the language that is also going to help us prioritize what available resources are spent on and ensure that those expenditures are in line with the approved plan.

I think that we identified these priorities for a reason, and those reasons are stated in the fiscal note and the memo itself.

Uh you know, there's been this updated recognition of needing to work within our means, and if we want services and infrastructure, you know, we have to pay for these.

At AML, we discussed that a lot.

This decline in state support, the budget that we're facing next year.

Um, and so we need to be really intentional about how we maintain the infrastructure that we have, provide the services and the level of um service that the community needs uh within the bounds of what is available right now.

Um so that's what I'll say about the priorities as identified.

I just want to add that one thing that I noticed was missing was that during the work session, we discussed a revision of the goal 2.3 to foster relationships with underrepresented groups and populations uh in the community to improve engagement and representation.

The revision um that we made, if I had to guess as to why it wasn't included, is because it was quite wordy and not necessarily uh great for a strategic plan.

Um, but it it did call attention to the fact that when we say underrepresented groups, we often come with an understanding that that means you know, racial or ethnic groups, and we wanted to uh specifically identify that there are underrepresented demographic groups and specifically the under 30 uh demographic group that is not um is is significantly underrepresented voice into city decision making, and that we uh my my understanding was that we shared an understanding that this was a priority to address this.

And so I am comfortable not pushing forward a um language change uh as long as I can ensure that we have that shared understanding that that discussion occurred because it's not necessarily reflected here.

And if I was a member of the public who didn't pay attention to a work session all day on Saturday, bless you, um, I wouldn't have that knowledge that the city discussed that, right?

So I just wanted to bring that forward and make sure that we are in alignment on that, and that if that is true, I don't see a need to change the document.

I appreciate all of the work that went into this and the process that we had and think that that what we have settled on here uh is what I want to move forward with prioritizing in the next year and and recognizing that we are going to do this again in December, and that there is going to be another opportunity to select the most important things.

Um just last thing, in regards to the concerns that we've heard that there isn't a strategic priority around recreation.

I don't think that's necessarily true because I think that recreation infrastructure priority priorities are adequately addressed in the plan under goal 4.4 and goal 2.2.

Uh goal 4.4 says collaborate with public land management agencies and stakeholders to maintain and develop sustainable active transportation infrastructure, including parks, fields, cabins, trails, and water access.

And I take that to also include uh the local parks and fields that we have here.

Um 2.2 is collaborate as needed with nonprofits and community groups to discuss community challenges, updates, and opportunities, uh of which we have a great number of fantastic recreation advocates that are very good at working with our staff and with the parks and rec department to uh move these priorities forward.

But the changes that we made were to really focus on the allocation of resources and the impetus of staff and assembly energy towards very specific goals that the vast majority of respondents to the survey highlighted for us were their top priority, and that we have heard from uh you know our constituents as their top priority.

So that is why I will be moving to vote for this without any changes tonight.

JJ.

Uh due to a stuff scheduling conflict, I was unable to attain um or excuse me, attend that work session.

So uh with fresh eyes is how um I'm reviewing this, and I'm seeing kind of three areas.

Uh the language updates, uh two new added goals, and then the check marks applied.

And I think the language updates really do show our progress.

Um, as AD said, um, you know, changing things from identify to like implement and showing that we're moving along.

Um I have questions on the two new additions, probably because I wasn't just part of the discussion.

Um, and then the check marks.

Perhaps we were a little bit too soon with checking off um tourism since we delayed from the last conversation, but it is imminent and understand this is a yearly review, so we will definitely have that done here in a month.

Um, so my question's on the two added ones.

One was about identifying economic development opportunities, and the other one was around overlapping of existing resources.

Um, so if anyone wants to kind of help me understand either of those, primarily um is it the assembly's responsibility or city staff's responsibility uh to identify economic development opportunities to diversify the economy.

Um then I'll ask the next one next.

And I think that is um up to us if we want to fund it.

Um it can be a staff issue if we want to go for it ourselves.

Um we have that opportunity as well, but I'll let others add to that conversation.

Okay.

I didn't realize that that was a responsibility that we find needed to be on the on the assembly's table.

We support a local nonprofit whose mission is to do that.

And I'm not sure why you know three years into this process, identifying economic development opportunities is something the assembly wishes to take on.

I I think the list is pretty substantial without that addition.

Next question, uh goal 4.5 identify where resources overlap and existing infrastructure with existing infrastructure and align effects of approvements, maintenance, and service.

That sounds like we have um we're like spoiled for choice in our existing infrastructure.

So maybe it's just a language thing there.

I don't know what align effects for improvements quite means.

So if anyone can clarify um that to me, yeah, they came out of the group that I was working with.

Um it was uh you know, uh obviously something to do with infrastructure.

We had a number of people, um, as you're aware, of course, this isn't just the assembly members that are there, this is also includes city staff, and so um it had more to do with making sure that we uh focus on when you know, for the example that came up the most was if we open up a road, make sure that we don't just do just that, right?

Like let's make sure we change out the electrical or whatever is in there.

So um, and I think that was more the uh that's more what this is talking about.

It's making you know, as resources are diminishing, make sure that we take advantage of the opportunities that are presented by all the infrastructure projects that we put forward.

So I think that was that, you know, and it was a new one because it's a it's an idea, it's not that we haven't done that, but it it's it's you know, and I and I I'm not gonna I wasn't part of the 3.5, but if you don't put a goal down, then it isn't in front of people when they go forward.

And I think this is that same sort of thing.

This is encouraging the city and as every one of these projects goes forward to make sure that we take advantage of all those opportunities.

No sense digging up the street twice, right?

So and I think uh, and and there were many more examples, but because you know, a lot of our projects overlap with each other, and that was the goal here was to make sure that we put that in front of ourselves so that we um you know didn't duplicate the services when we had that opportunity.

So hopefully that's explanatory.

Okay, so if we're digging a hole to fix sanitary sewer and we're passing water as we go down to sanitary sewer, we should probably look at the water line.

Okay, thank you.

Um then um, yeah, I made my comment about check marks.

So I appreciate those clarifications.

I again apologize for not having been there.

Um it's a fun day of snacks and conversations, so I um I'm I missed you all at my niece's birthday party.

Tim.

Thank you.

Um I mean Randy left before uh I was able to say that I share a lot of what he talked about.

Um maybe it's because we work next door to each other for 10 years or more, but um you know I've been involved with strategic plans for a long time uh both at the city and other places.

I mean, that's the school district and other places, and they're only as good as their implementation.

They're only as good as their focus.

And um I think what Mr.

Huey's point was is that it's very easy to uh list off all of the things you'd like to do, and and and any time someone speaks in your ear, you got this opportunity, you're like, hey, we should try that.

And um, and what that does, of course, is just mean that nothing really gets done with any focus.

Um, and I commend the city uh for going through this process and implementing it.

Um, and I think what we're seeing here, I think one of the presenters uh said uh a word that stuck with me with this, and um we're no longer an emerging um strategic plan, we're a more mature strategic plan.

And and that's it's it's deliberate that there are more action words in here because before there's a lot of identifies and collate and collect and things like that, which is perfectly legitimate to do when you begin a process, but as we've gotten into this, um now it's time to do something with it.

And so these are all fairly actionable words.

Um, you know, we see identify with some of the new new ones, and again, that's sort of that process of you know emerging versus mature.

And so um I just commend the city for staying on track with this, you know, and making sure that decisions are made in reference to this, um, and that it hasn't after three years just sort of been put on a shelf, right?

So I mean it is an active thing that we do as a city, and that's very important.

So I had a great time at this process because I've always enjoyed that sort of um exploration of it, and I appreciate all of the public that was willing to take some time and share their information with us too.

Um it's always one of those funny situations where you'd like more people to communicate what they think because you know that helps us kind of understand um kind of what people are thinking about.

Um on the other hand, um you can also take away from the fact that there weren't as many people as there might have been that people think that we are focusing as a city much better than we have in the past, and so you know, I think there's a couple of different things to take away from that.

So I'm a strong supporter of strategic plans and I appreciate this uh watching this process.

The city's done a really good job of keeping it in front of everyone.

Three years in, it's still a reference document.

Um, and that's not always that common.

Yeah, I think I got year one and year two, but I do.

I got both of them here, so we well have three now that we'll continue to reference.

Um, Jim, I think you just said something right there that that puts a lot of this in perspective for me.

Um I kind of didn't want to go to this meeting because we do just argue about the meaning of a word and then change the word.

Um and I didn't want to do that.

Um Sarah can attest to that.

Um but uh when you when you identify that the plan is maturing, and so instead of identifying, we need to take an action now because we have identified.

Um that gives me renewed hope uh for next session and what we can do with that um because then we will be implementing and finalizing.

Um so as much as I might not want to argue about the words shall or may, um thank you for that perspective.

Scotty I I really appreciate what Tim said because I don't have any faith in this strategic plan.

I think it's a waste of time, it's a boiler plate thing.

The village where I live is in need of infrastructure for many years, and there's no other neighborhood that has a greater uh economic opportunity than Catleanne Street, and uh I just hope that something becomes of this because all I I see is may shell support and nothing changes in the neighborhood I live in.

That's the way I see it.

Thank you.

Kevin?

Is everyone else done?

Because I don't want to get ahead of anybody.

Okay.

So I'm gonna make a motion.

I just have a feeling reading the room that I don't know if people are gonna like this, but my intention is to make a motion.

I'm not reading it yet, but um to uh actually I guess I'll just do it.

I don't want to go through the whole process, but um because I have a feeling if people don't like this, I maybe we can edit another one.

But um I guess I'll go ahead and do it.

The um I guess I'll talk about why after it's made.

Um I move to amend resolution 2025 15 on line 49 to add a new infrastructure goal 4.6 to read seek external funding sources, including state, federal, and private opportunities to enhance SICA's athletic and recreational infrastructure.

If there is no second, the motion will die for lack of second.

Second, it's been moved and seconded to add goal 4.6.

Kevin.

Okay.

So uh I need you to read back what 4.6 would be.

Sorry.

I don't know, it's fine.

Uh infrastructure, yeah.

Goal 4.6 to read, seek external funding sources, including state, federal, and private opportunities to enhance SICA's athletic and recreational infrastructure.

Is there any public comment?

Uh back to the assembly.

Kevin is the motion maker.

Thank you.

So the reason why I clarified before when I was talking about everything is that I understand and acknowledge, you know, we don't want to lose focus of the core uh duties of a municipality.

I 100% agree uh on that when I first started running.

That was one of the things I was pushing for infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure, and of course school funding and and such.

Um we can never uh swerve away from those.

I mean, we can do other things, but those have to be the core tenants.

Having said that, I think there's um something to be said about the recreation.

Um I view that as part and parcel of kind of a bigger picture vision that we have going on right now where um biggest uh issue facing the community is a sign from the fact of unfunded mandates, infrastructure that's old and needs to be repaired.

Uh is housing, child care, and I think recreation is something very important to the community.

And I used to not really believe this per se as much, but now I'm starting to understand uh because on the liaison for the Proxene Rec um commission.

Um it has a place to it has a big picture place, in addition to just being a part of something the community really loves.

I I do believe this community really loves and supports recreation as noted by the 61% or so uh voting in favor of that um proposition.

Was it one or two?

It was whatever one, whatever the number was uh to um allocate the tobacco tax to uh recreation funding.

Um that post by pass by high margin.

So it's important because I believe this community loves and cherishes that.

Uh I truly do.

Um it also serves a bigger picture of, you know, we've said that the community is aging.

I mean, it's not just we said it, it's happening.

Uh community is aging, and so I I'd like to do kind of things.

I'm hoping, I believe there's some people working on housing, that's a great thing.

Um, I'm working on child care with Tim and Tor.

Of course, all these is gonna require big picture team work, of course.

Um but those are part of you know, you fix some of these or help help address some of these issues, and part of it is recreation because we want people who are young and and who are who are from here to say, you know what, I want to I want to stay here.

I'm gonna fight to stay here because it does take a fight, it's expensive because I want my children, I see that my children are gonna have something to do that's positive outlet, it's not drugs and alcohol, and that could give them a future um in college or or what have you.

Um so or people from out of town, young, you know, people of all ages from out of town, but to keep our um population robust and uh a population that is um that is contributing to the economy.

I'm gonna be careful the way I'm saying these words, because I do not in any way mean to insinuate that uh aging population is not contributing.

That is far, far, far from the truth.

My point is is I believe trying to get attract young families to stay helps encourage our tax space, um, which helps everybody.

So that all to say, I think adding the in the the recreational, I I understand it could be kind of interpreted in 4.4.

I I get that.

Um, and I'm not gonna cry on my bed tonight if this doesn't pass, but I would if it doesn't pass, I would like to maybe add recreation to 4.4.

Um I think just adding the verbiage in there is helpful uh for when we're seeking grants and things, and yes, we're gonna be seeking grants for for infrastructure, you know, our utilities and all these other things, but um, I think there's a place for recreation too, and just stay saying it in there opens the possibility.

Um I I think you know, when you see in uh I forgot who was I think uh maybe Katie, I can't remember, said 4.4 has um things that could be included in it, like that could be interpreted as having uh recreation, active transportation infrastructure, including parks, fields, cabins, and trails, and water access.

Um but I like added the idea of adding recreation because I think it's just another piece to the puzzle.

And I failed to bring this up at the um at the uh strategy session.

I apologize, that's my fault.

Um I did not think of it at the time.

I just didn't have it formulated in my mind properly.

So, and I've had a lot of time to think about it.

And so obviously the members of this body have not had a lot of time to think about it.

If you're hearing about it right now, so I understand that.

It's my hope that we'll have a robust discussion about this and consider adding this.

And uh that I talked to Sarah today or you yesterday, and if this uh amendment is added, we will have to bring this to second reading because normally uh what I thought you said that we I know, but I thought you said if we if they everyone votes in favor of this, we still have to bring it to a second reading.

You said that.

Yes, you do okay.

So I guess you don't have time to think about it, so make or break it.

But I just think this is something that is helpful and a piece of the puzzle, and I'd like that.

Open that for everyone's consideration.

Okay, sure.

I think it is in 4.4.

Um, and uh I think the word focus has been used a lot.

Um I think we have a lot of support for recreational stuff already, and it's in 4.4.

And I guess I don't I mean, if we have an opportunity for external funding for something, we're gonna jump at it whether it's in the plan or not.

Uh so um I have to admit I was kind of like Scott earlier in this process where I put a whole lot of faith in these because they tend to sit on a shelf and require dust and or they're used kind of like the Bible where you you find something you want and you find it in there, and you know, I could probably figure out a way to say tearing up Lincoln Street fits this plan, but but that's not how we've used it, and it's actually been every time there's Thursday, it's gonna say every you know we went to get this item or spend this money, and here's where in the plan it fits.

Um so I'm not sure that's necessary at this juncture.

Um maybe convince wrong otherwise, but I think it's there in 4.4, and I think we have a lot of support for recreational stuff anyway.

So Tim Yeah, I seconded it because I want to I do want to have a bit of a conversation about this process because I think um there is a lot of support for recreation, and and there is a lot of support um for athletics from this uh from the schools, and they're very important, and you know, there's people that say they help keep kids in school, uh athletics, and there's certainly some truth to that.

Uh I don't think it's the only thing that keeps kids in school, but it is definitely a piece of that, and and it kind of speaks to um the community's the students can look at it in terms of how does this community consider us, right?

So if if for their playing football on a gravel field, um does that represent the community cares about what they're doing necessarily?

Um, or are they willing to invest in that?

And so you know, I think that's the the key piece to it.

The only real problem I have with this particular one is the word seek.

Okay, because again it's an act seek, it's an action word, um, and it implies that someone's going to be going around looking for stuff, and I don't really want to do that.

I uh because I'm more with Tor, like when things come around, I think we should make sure that this is something that we we go for, but seeking them out is uh the action of a the groups groups that have spoken to us already here.

Um that's their job, I think.

Our job is to uh make facilitate that process if and when it comes along.

So I you know I think we've spent tonight talking about words um specifically, but this is one that's quite powerful, right?

Seek is not the same as facilitate.

So you know I think in this case I'm not gonna say yes to this one because I don't want to put in front of us this um an action thing that's gonna detract from all the other things that we're doing.

Um but I also want to make sure that we understand that it is very important to the students, particularly to see that the community supports them uh as they go through their athletics, and it isn't just athletics.

I mean intramurals is a piece that the kids uh uh see they participate in.

It's also important for them to see that these are not students who for whom athletics is gonna keep them in school for the rest of time, so um necessarily so but you know sometimes it's about messaging as much as anything else.

So I think it's an important piece to it.

I agree that there are places in our strategic plan already that kind of allude to it.

Um is it something we should be more specific about?

Probably, right?

We should be very specific about how important we find that to our community.

Um getting out and about is something that's very important for the health of our community, and we live in an environment where that can be challenging.

So um, and it's certainly much easier on a day like today to stay home than it is to go out and start walking, so um or do whatever I think that's important, but again, I think the word seek is gonna stop me from being supportive of this at this point in time.

Anything further on the amendment, Sarah All right.

Uh the motion before you is to amend um on line 49 by adding another goal 4.6.

Um, and it would read seek external funding sources, including state, federal, private opportunities to enhance SICKA's athletic and recreational infrastructure.

Mr.

Selene.

Yes, Mr.

Christianson.

No, Mr.

Pike?

No.

Mr.

Mojère, yes, Ms.

Carlson?

No.

Mayor Eisenbais?

No.

And Ms.

No.

All right.

The amendment fails.

Uh two five.

Uh thank you, Beckett.

The resolution unamended.

Mr.

Mayor.

Kevin?

Okay.

I felt like I saw that coming.

Is it worth it considering doing uh this all night?

But amending 4.4 to change.

So I don't want to make the motion yet unless I feel like there's uh possibility, but say after, so I'm gonna read 4.4.

Collaborate with public land management agencies and stakeholders to maintain and develop sustainable active transportation infrastructure, including parks, fields, cabins, trails, and water access.

What if we added, say, after trails, recreation comma and water access?

Just to get that word in that helps with funding when you're when you grants come available, like say it's our strategic plan, recreation.

Is there any will on this body for that?

Because I'm not gonna bother doing an amendment.

Uh so you're asking how I feel about it.

Um I we went through this pretty substantially on a Saturday.

Um, none of this was brought up.

We didn't have the opportunity for a robust consideration.

Um, I'm not gonna say any amendment that you make, I would vote down, but uh the bar is very high at this point.

Um maybe if I understood like where this was coming from more so than just wanting to put that on, um, then we could go forward with that.

Um, but I'm at this point uh somebody could make an amendment on just about anything, and like I think we've already done this.

This horse is beat.

Um, and I think it it's time to to vote for this and go on.

My opinion, which you asked for.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate letting me know.

Um I feel that well, where is this coming from?

I think that there's a large portion of this community that supports recreation.

I think adding the word recreation is not uh a mo uh adding a mountain in here, but um if there's no will for it, there's no will for it.

What's water access meme?

Stafford, you put it in there.

No, I didn't write water access.

I did not put a walk water access, it's already in there.

I think it means things like boat ramps.

Like this one here that's been shut down or build a new one or open it back up.

Yeah, yeah.

Water access to that.

Let's separate that from everything.

And but no, that's all right.

No, I did not add water access.

It's already just reading it, so I didn't know what that meant.

So that's all I was sarcastic.

And hey, let's separate that and get this open again for the people of town.

But I'll shut up.

All right.

No, you don't have to shut up.

Just tell me what you think about the whole thing.

I tried to support you on it because I wanted everybody to talk about it.

That's what I think about it.

But uh Scotty, can you grab your mic?

Thank you.

Go ahead.

You can try that's all I have to say.

Got it.

I'm just gonna drop it.

I have to admit I'm a little frustrated, but I respect everybody's will.

Thank you.

Katie?

I will just say for my understanding of a strategic plan and what it is used for.

This document is really critical, not not for us, but also for staff, right?

And where they spend their time and energy and focus, which is limited.

And uh it can be easily captivated for easy, easier to get things or more attractive things.

Um, and my concerns are that you know, we've just seen here tonight.

We talked about a contract, right?

And how difficult it's going to be to get a contract back in front of us in the time period that we suggested.

So we know that staff are very burdened with the work that they have, and it's extremely difficult just to get things that we've been talking about at the planning commission onto the table, you know, like regulations on cruise ship docks and cell phone towers, like other priorities of our communities.

It's very hard to make progress on the the massive amount of priorities of our community.

Recreation is super critical.

I am like the first person out there, you know, playing rugby on our fields and like using our trails.

I am a huge fan of recreation.

It has definitely contributed to me staying here, but we need to really laser focus on some of the things that are preventing people from coming here, preventing people from staying here, and just spend one year dedicating focus just to that.

I think that the amazing recreation advocates that this town have will be able to pursue funding with the support of staff, um, where that is in alignment with the ballot proposition that was passed and the things that are already in this document that refer to recreation, even even the new economic development line, right?

Like ballot one was passed in part saying this is an economic development strategy for our community.

So I think that the document can be used by external partners in many ways that suit their needs without giving staff you know more directives than we already have in here.

I think that at that gathering that we had that it was very clear where we wanted to focus them on, and by introducing this, we are introducing the opportunity for you know distraction to those other things.

And so that's where I'm coming from.

It is not that I don't think recreation is important.

I extremely value it.

I know that this whole body does, and this whole community does.

It's why we live here, it's why we love this place.

Um, but I really just want to spend some dedicated focus time on addressing the critical needs that our community has stated again and again and again, and it's like they're kind of frustrated that we're not making any progress on that, right?

So, like, let's focus on that, let's do our due diligence there, and then um, you know, if uh if we need to write a letter of support, if we need to pass a resolution and for a grant, like we will do that, right?

Like, because we as a body support this.

So I'm it's not that we don't support that, it's that we're saying we want staff to be really focused on the things that we have in here already.

That's how I feel.

Anything further on the um update to the strategic plan.

Sarah.

All right, on the motion to approve resolution 2025-15 on first and final reading, Mr.

Pike.

Yes, Miss Carlson.

Yes, Mr.

Celine?

Yes, Mr.

Mosher?

Yes, Ms.

Riley, yes.

Mr.

Christensen, yes, and Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

The motion passes 7-0.

Thank you.

That'll bring us two persons to be heard.

This is public participation for any item on or off tonight's agenda, not to exceed three minutes for any individual.

Uh seeing none, we will move on to reports.

Um for myself, had the opportunity to go up to AML up in Anchorage this last week.

Um it was actually much warmer when we came back here.

Uh, there was a day where it was zero degrees and blowing 30.

Um, I don't think we went anywhere.

I think we ate at the hotel lobby and had some charcuterie or something because it was so cold to leave.

Um, but had the opportunity to attend um newly elected officials training uh along with Katie.

Um was really impressed to see the questions that she was asking.

Um, her contacts that she already has um are widespread, and it was amazing to see her jump into a role that it seemed like she had been working at for quite some time.

Um, you know, very similar when JJ went up with me and um uh blended in and started um working with other groups uh as if she had been doing it for for quite some time.

So I'm glad that Katie got to go up and see that.

Uh next day we had mayor's conference, uh, a couple things from that.

There was caution about a state sales tax, which sounds like the revenue that they the state may be pursuing right now.

Um state sales tax would remove local control on that uh as anticipated right now.

The state would collect all of the sales tax and then remit some back to the communities if we already had some in place.

So that's something to pay attention to for a municipality like ours that does receive and give or take half of its revenue from sales tax.

Uh lack of capacity is a statewide issue right now.

I think a lot of people are trying to do a lot of things, and we're running into barriers of we're just not able to get a get them done.

Uh so I know that we are taking a good look at grants right now and opportunities and determining if it's actually feasible for those to be completed within the time frame of the grant.

Uh, this was kind of anticipated years ago when we were applying for everything we possibly could.

Um trying to get the money that we could.

Uh now uh we're we're running into let's just finish what we have.

And uh one of the mayors in there um said something that's gonna stick with me for a while, and you're probably gonna hear this come from me.

Um it may have helped in our previous item where we kind of went round and round and round.

Um, but that mayor, uh, once we get to a point of just talking, um looks at her assembly um people and says, is that going to affect your vote?

And I think that's an important thing for us to consider as we deliberate here.

Are we are we talking to talk or are we talking because we're looking for information that may affect our vote?

And I don't think we do that very much, um, which is amazing.

Um, but if I say that, I stole it from somebody else.

And then uh the other thing I do want to talk about um going to Juno because there was a small presentation about the effect of their two recent ballot propositions and some, you know, how they're working through that, right?

So they did remove uh sales tax on SNAP eligible food and utilities and capped their mill rate at nine mills.

Um, all told that's gonna reduce their budget by about 11 million dollars or 9% of their general fund as a point of reference.

Every single June recreation center to include the ski slope and all of that currently costs them about six million dollars.

So even if they shut down every recreational opportunity right now, um that would still not make up the shortfall there.

So it is gonna take about uh two years uh to completely um implement all of the cuts.

Uh they do have a little bit of reserves that they're going to work on so that it's a slow process, um, but they're trying to strictly follow the intent of the voters.

Like there could be other revenue opportunities presented, but that's not the path that they're going down right now.

So they're trying really, really hard to bring the public in and make sure that the intent of the voters to reduce the budget is listened to while they go through uh cutting out about 11 million dollars out of their budget.

Also, uh got a couple good ideas on dual use uh infrastructure in uh with the Coast Guard because I know we're working with the Coast Guard and it's it's been a process basically helping Coast Guard build housing.

How can we help incentivize that?

How can we get that process going?

We had some good ideas from from Juno again, um, because they're very similar, they're getting the the icebreaker while we're getting the the cutter that's coming here.

So uh all in all, it was good session.

Um froze my butt off.

It was nice to come down here to 30 degree weather because it was much warmer, but uh yeah, had a good time there.

John Thank you, Mayor.

I'll be quick.

Uh, but I'm gonna start it out with proud dad moment.

I would say I I had to leave the conference early a day early, and that is because my son graduated with uh from Montana State on Friday, so I was able to make it there uh late Thursday night to be there for his his graduation uh that Friday morning.

Uh but the first two days of the conference I was in the Alaska Municipal Management Association meetings um running those meetings because I got to finish finally my term as uh as president there, so I passed on the gavel.

Um little nerve-wracking in there because we had the um ICMA president that attended our sessions.

We had um uh Katie, the manager in uh Juno is now a um a board member.

She's the West Coast Regional Vice President of Um of ICMA, and then we had the West Coast director of uh ICMA there too.

So um a lot of eyes on me while we were running this session.

Um we had some great discussions and Rachel was actually one of the presenters on the board with a couple other attorneys.

We talked about Linky versus Freed.

We've heard about that a lot.

Um we talked about social media and communications policies and how things happen on Facebook and do you turn comments on, do you turn them off?

We talked about um uh you know limited public forms, public forms, notice boards.

Uh we also talked about um, you know, there's a there's a slew of First Amendment auditors around the country now.

We had a good uh good talk there, but all in all, I think we stand very firm on our uh based on the advice we heard.

I think we stand very firm on our um on our policies with our social media and communications.

Um a really eye-opening discussion on nonprofit support, uh, as we know that funding is dwindling from the state and the feds.

Uh a lot of our nonprofits are struggling.

And you know, I I went into that with how are we going to manage more nonprofits asking for support from the city?

And I I started to look at it as like, how do I how do I nicely say no when I have to say no?

But it quickly changed my mind when the presenter, um, it was uh Lori Wolf, she's a CEO of uh Fouracre Group, um put it in perspective that we're a nonprofit too.

Uh and she talked about how at any given point she she kind of outlined the number of times that you interact with a nonprofit.

And her example was when you get up in the morning and put your feet on the floor and flip your light switch on, you just interacted with a nonprofit.

We own that utility.

Our utility is a nonprofit organization.

She talked about social services and how we can complement each other.

And it really came down to how cities and nonprofits work together to achieve um mutual goals.

Um it really took she she really expressed the uh um economic impact that nonprofits have too.

So really eye-opening discussion.

Um we learned of some housing and some code changes that they're working on in Juno.

They're making some pretty bold moves there, uh specifically around tiny homes, ADUs, um allowable uses of properties without having to go to the building official.

So uh some really interesting things there.

Um, and as municipalities do, we wait for somebody else to do it, and then we steal their homework.

So, of course, we'll be keeping a close eye on on that one and seeing where we can get some further good ideas.

Um, as AMMA was over, I moved over to the AML sessions.

Um that first day I was a other than the group sessions in the morning, and they had the breakouts in the afternoon.

I went to uh one of the sessions on essentially how do you operate your your city when we're low on cash.

Um, and it really boiled down to be more efficient, use more automation, go back to your core services.

Um, you know, we've we've talked about it already tonight, your your public safety, public infrastructure, and your contributions to education, and then really really really analyze what you're gonna do outside that scope.

They even talked about property tax exemptions and really look closely at those before you grant them.

Um so it was interesting that that came up tonight.

Um after that session, we had it was titled Ask Me Anything, and we had another board of attorneys up there.

Um, and of course, they put their disclaimer like I am not giving you legal advice, please consult with your own attorney.

You know, don't take this forward as them being our advising attorneys.

Uh, but some really interesting questions that came out of the ask me anything.

Um the next morning I had uh we did a uh hybrid session with Port Communities of Alaska.

Um I know there's been a lot of uh and we funded it economic uh the desire for an economic impact study, uh, and we've talked about doing that as a group to look at Southeast Alaska as a whole, and we also talked about um reviewing all of our fees regionally and trying to come up with I see it like an Excel spreadsheet or a calculator that we can you know it's got the different actions on the top and the different cities on the uh on the column here, and it will show what each of those actions or things that we have to do, what they truly cost in our area using a common formula.

So that's something we're gonna try to develop.

Um then unfortunately I didn't make the the last night, so I'm I'm sure I uh missed a uh a fun time at the um at the 75th anniversary, but uh I know Melissa already brought it up.

Our mayor was uh was chosen as the municipal official of the year for Alaska Municipal League during their 75th anniversary.

Um so congratulations to the mayor and and well Melissa already left.

I was gonna say thank you to Melissa as well for uh um for helping put that together and to to make the presentation to the mayor.

So that's all I have.

Thank you.

John, I got a question for you.

Isn't the electrical enterprise fund really for profit and make and breaking even on it?

Like when it changed from the electric utility where they had a budget of half million dollars a year to fix transmission lines and another half million, all that went away, and then now we have the enterprise fund.

But doesn't the enterprise fund the structure make it break even?

Isn't that what that means as being called an enterprise fund?

Yes and no.

Uh an enterprise fund is a working capital fund and a working capital fund is another fancy way of saying it's essentially a nonprofit.

You you generate working capital only to keep the facility operating in the manner that you want it to operate.

Nobody's um we don't have a board of directors or investors that we're trying to make money for.

All we're trying to do is cover our costs to keep the utility running at a rate that's reasonable for for the citizens.

So we operate as a nonprofit aka working capital fund.

I'll be back.

I'll be back at you at that because I'm not seeing it that way.

So I really need you to hold my hand to see how it is because of not investing in the transmission lines, the whole thing going to an enterprise fund is why Catlean is the way it is right now with electrical infrastructure.

So that's why my hackles go up with all the infrastructure cost and search rerouting their power instead of the original plan going from the Rean Street substation down through Kirkman Way and then across the channel, would have fixed so much stuff that if you went to Catleyan right now and looked at it, you'd see anyway.

Would have fixed so much stuff that if you went to Catleyan right now and looked at it, you'd see anyway.

I'll just provide an update in the context of I did go to AML.

It was very instructive.

I attended all the newly electeds, and there was a lot of pertinent information for some of the things that we're facing right now.

So just a heads up that there is a planning commission meeting tomorrow where there will be an item discussed that is a CUP for a cruise facility and um or uh a bus facility downtown and uh assembly members cannot engage in ex parte communications.

Uh so a heads up for all of us and um any of the community members um that want to speak to their assembly members on this issue.

I just ask that you direct that to um staff so that we can uh remain impartial.

I learned that that was very important, learned a lot about it.

It was a long session, and I got very nervous about um just keeping ahead of all of that.

So um, yeah, the experience was really instructive, and then that's on um tomorrow's agenda at the planning commission meeting.

Um, and then also just learned a lot of exciting things about housing, attended um all of the housing sessions and have been discussing a couple of those ideas with planning commissioners as well.

So um I'm sure that we will have those discussions as well as a body.

JJ.

Tourism commission uh reviewed comments from their end of year survey at the last month's meeting.

Um they collected all of the data.

It took a little bit more time for staff to kind of sift through all those kind of open comments.

Um, and it was in line with kind of uh our actions as we've been taking.

Um, you know, e-bikes are still up there as a concern, you know, collecting more data is of concern, um, and some pieces here and there.

So that um will be coming available to us um to make more decisions in that topic area, and also as liaison to Ports and Harbor Commission.

Um they're moving into their kind of looking at rates time, um, and we might see some kind of increased their standard rates, uh, but the assembly is part of increasing mortgage rates that will come to the assembly um when that's revised and reviewed, um, but the other rates of the assembly does not review, um be up being updated soon the other liaison representatives.

I'll tell you about my time at AML next meeting.

Uh Sarah Clerk's report.

Uh we have a budget meeting on Thursday night at six.

Um, packet materials went out today.

Um, and then the next regular meeting is December 30th.

Um we have a number of vacancies on boards and commissions, um, health needs and human services, historic preservation investment committee, library commission, parks and recustability, um, police and fire, and the tourism commission.

So lots of opportunity to serve.

Um, if folks are interested, they can stop by our office.

Any other reports this evening?

Uh, the only thing I did neglect to report on during my report, um, I was voted back to the AML board.

Um, it was a unanimous vote because I was the only person running for the seat.

Uh so um back on the AML board.

Uh, the same duties as the last two years will apply there, but for the assembly's information.

Katie, other report.

I just wanted to say one um thing for the community that came out of AML.

Um, both Tor and I attended a discussion on uh Alaska electric uh the A-red project, which has to do with electric vehicle infrastructure, and there is funding available.

Um that's the Alaska Rural EBSE deployment project.

And so they're aiming to reduce barriers to entry for electric vehicle adoption by uh assisting with the um installation of charging infrastructure.

There is funding available, and they have to spend it.

I think by 2027.

Uh so if there are um properties in town, um uh businesses, nonprofits, whatever um, that are interested in hosting charging infrastructure, they can help fund that.

And I would uh just encourage anyone who's interested in that to to reach out and happy to um relay that discussion more.

Thank you.

I see no other reports.

Adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Thank you.

We are adjourned.