Thank you and welcome everybody.

I will call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, January 27th, 2026.

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 Clinkett Ani.

Sarah Rollcall, please.

Mayor Eisenbais.

Present.

Mr.

Pike.

Here.

Ms.

Carlson.

Here.

Ms.

Riley?

Here.

Mr.

Christensen.

Mr.

Mosher.

Here.

And Mr.

Sleen.

Here.

Thank you.

Any correspondence or agenda changes this evening?

My only thought for the assembly tonight.

If you look at the length of our agenda, we do have a few items that are gonna require some robust discussion.

So if we could just take that into mind and uh make sure that our comments are succinct so that we can get through to the end of the agenda tonight.

I think every uh co-sponsor and sponsor would appreciate that.

Uh no ceremonial matters this evening, so we'll move on to special reports.

We do have a scheduled special report.

Um, the presentation of our 2025 audit um by BDO.

Joy, have you been able to join us online?

She is not online.

Well, we failed that part of the audit, didn't we?

Um the good news is Lillian is here to speak on behalf of uh Sikka Tribe of Alaska Tribal Council.

So Lillian, please.

Good evening.

Uh good chief for this opportunity to share some information about the Sica Tribe of Alaska, Mayor and Assembly.

January 21st, we um held our first our tribal council meeting and appointed our council leadership roles and approved the following.

The STA scholarship ordinance update.

We um reviewed a new draft and had a held our first reading.

And that is available on the STA's website.

And to become tribal law, the we must accept the ordinance, of course, at three readings.

So we will have uh two more, February 18th and March 18th.

We will there will be a black seaweed community meeting with um we are partnering with uh Sea Alaska Heritage Institute in support of our project recording traditional knowledge about black seaweed including how it's harvested processed, eaton, shared and used in art.

So please feel free to join us uh February 5th from 5 to 7 at the um 204 Sikonaka.

Return of the sculpt and hat and the sculpt and headdress.

We are thrilled that the National Museum of the American Indian has approved Sika Tribe of Alaska's claim for the return of the sculp and hat and the sculpt and headdress.

The sculpin or the bullhead fish is a secondary crest of the Kixadi clan.

The representatives from the Kixadi and the Cogwanton clans will be flying to DC at the end of the month to retrieve these treasured items.

They are the sculpted headdress and the sculpted hat are Atu, sacred clan objects that hold the spirits of our ancestors.

They embody our history, our resistance, and our enduring connection for those who came before us.

And that is all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I think you'll sweet.

Um I know you're gonna hear from your auditor, but we finally have a draft to our lead auditor.

Um so they're going to continue that process.

The sad news is that our final still probably won't be done until the end of February.

Um we're not the only district in the state that has had to face this delay.

We've heard of other districts in similar circumstances.

Um, due to various reasons.

One major one is that the federal shutdown actually stopped some work because the auditors work with federal agencies that were shut down during this fall.

And we continue to deal with routine maintenance and proper coding in our financial records that were unaddressed during the turnover in our business office.

We also just have you know new staff in the business office.

Everyone has less than five years experience in school finance, which is a different beast than regular finance, as we all are finding out.

So there's some capacity building that is that we continue to address.

In terms of the budget, the board looks forward to our meeting next week.

You'll be receiving my letter for funding request based on our initial needs assessment by Thursday.

I regret I won't be joining you, but the team is ready.

So we're just gonna have to continue to look for other funding sources during this second year of this session to address the un underfunded mandates of the Alaska Reads Act and an increase to the career and technical education cost factor, both of which are currently funded out of or currently funded out of the general fund.

Um thirteen would have been earmarked for both of those things.

Um and then we continue to try and find money for deferred and ignored major major maintenance in facilities around the state and here in Sitco.

Um good news.

We've heard rumblings that the State Board of Education is not going to be looking at redefining local contribution.

So that's good news for education in general and us specifically here in Sitka.

Um and in other good news, you know, we continue to listen to and hear from the community about the need for college career and cultural readiness.

So we've purchased a post-secondary planning tool that will support students and staff in exploration tracking and communicating progress in those areas for student staff and families.

And then we just like to invite everybody to come out to KGH night, Friday night at Sica High School.

Big fun.

Everybody's gonna be there.

Uh there boys and girls play, boys 5:30, girls seven seven o'clock, I think.

So and that's what I have, unless anyone has any questions.

Thank you, appreciate it.

Thank you.

They're really nice.

All right, and uh circling back, um Joy.

I understand you're on the line.

Hi Ann, hi everybody.

I apologize, I had trouble joining here.

We can see you and hear you now.

Great, thank you.

Um, we're good.

Um, so we'll uh jump into the results then of our fiscal year 2025 audit.

Uh Joy, please take it away.

Great.

Thanks everybody.

Um, I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen if that's okay.

Um, and hopefully I can get that to work and you can see everything that I can see.

So let me uh go first to your audit results um summary, and I'll can you see that screen okay.

Yes, yeah, it just popped up.

Okay, great.

So let me just get you know, just to give you a high-level overview of where we're at.

So you may have noticed the big draft stamp in the front of the financial statements here in a minute.

Um we'll look at some of the financial highlights, and I won't go through in too much depth on those yet.

But um, the biggest thing is so you don't know we came and did the field work in October and early November, everything that very well at the city.

You'll find this audit report fairly boring as it relates to the city.

Uh, we can't issue the final audit without the school district's report being finalized.

So you'll notice there's a draft on there because um we don't have that yet.

Now we did touch base with their auditor yesterday.

Um they're close on the draft of the financial statement, hopefully next week, and they anticipate hopefully issuing by the end of February.

So uh your audit will be delayed for issuance until then.

But we have completed our audit work.

Um it's still a few things are being reviewed, but really the audits been done.

Um and so we thought it would be best to present a draft so you know that at least on the borough side, um, everything is complete and you know the results of the borough's audit.

Um, there is not a slide here as it relates to the results of this of the uh school district's audit.

So I just want to kind of reiterate that.

And I just really appreciate you giving me the time and the floor to to meet with you today.

I'd love this to be a discussion, and I can see most of you, I think.

So if you want to say something, you know, please through the mayor, just uh get my attention and interrupt um me, and we can kind of go through anything that you have questions on.

Um, so in terms of audit results, um, I did mention here, you know, we've got kind of a summary.

We'll go through where we're at with the audit, uh, but it is substantially complete.

Um, in terms of the audit results, there's a lot here, but let me highlight a few things for you.

So the audit is substantially completed, waiting on the school district.

The objective of our audit is to obtain reasonable, not absolute assurance.

And I do say that every year because I want to make sure it's clear to everybody that we didn't test everything in your books and records.

We do select samples, we look for things that are unusual.

We use a lot of data analytics and technology now and Power BI to pull out anything that might be indicative of an error or fraud.

Um, so there's uh reasonable in my mind, it's reasonable assurance that we are able to form an opinion.

And we're looking for material misstatements.

So things that would cause you as the assembly to make a wrong decision about the city.

Uh, we do plan to issue an unmodified opinion.

That's a clean opinion on the financials and a clean opinion on both the federal and the state single audits as well.

Um, and you know, as usual, your team did great.

This is Brooks' first year being fully in control, Melissa was still helping a little bit with some of the airport improvement program projects, and uh there was a lot going on there with spending down bonds, and um I got a chance to go through the new airport on my way there.

So that was really um fun to see the the new um extension and and see all the the all of the work coming to fruition.

So uh, but your team was uh very responsive, excellent to work with as usual.

And um a couple quick things, no new major um accounting pronouncements this year.

You did adopt one that had very little impact um and no significant items that you know why we consider to be unusual in nature.

We did focus on three areas had a little bit of additional testing, and that relates to your IT uh risks because you do have um some super users in your system.

So we look at your IT system and how it's designed.

Um, we also look at management override, which is really if something gets initially recorded here by say payroll or accounts payable or the revenue cycle, and it later gets moved or adjusted manually.

Um, often, I mean, always for that should be appropriate, right?

There are reason to move things around after they're initially recorded, whether it was done improperly or it's an accrual adjustment, but we look at those manual adjustments more closely.

And then also as it relates to grants, uh just because they carry a little bit of higher risk in terms of allowability.

But we didn't have any corrected or uncorrected misstatements overall to the financial statements and to the books and records.

So your team recorded everything they needed to record during the year.

Um, and that's um for a city government, your local government, your size, that's pretty rare.

I usually can find a couple of things.

So um, especially in a year of transition with a new finance director.

Um, so big congratulations to your team for that.

Otherwise, we do want to report to you anything we find in internal controls areas where we feel like um the team has uh, you know, a deficiency in the way that your systems are designed.

Um and the only one we have reported is the same as last year in that you do have some superusers in your system.

Um, this is by design.

It's something a lot of our local governments have just because of the way the systems are designed themselves.

But right now, the finance director, accountant, uh controller accountant and senior accountant all have the ability to post their own journal entries in the system.

And also your finance director is what we call a super user, that kind of um administrative level access.

Uh, very hard to avoid in the size of team that you have, but you do have really good reporting and monitoring controls on the side.

So even though in the system this is possible, you have your own reviews that are being done outside of the system to supplement that.

So um we just our recommendation there is they continue your team continues that.

And this is not reported as a finding at all in any of the reports that are submitted to the state or federal government, it's considered a kind of management letter comment um level deficiency, what we call a control deficiency.

Questions on any of that?

I know I covered a lot.

I have a couple other quick things on the audit wrap-up before we look at the statements, but um any questions from you all on the wrap up so far?

Uh Joy, I just have one questionslash comment that I hope you can clarify for um the public.

So when you talk about super user access and how it's normal in our size, um, along with that super user access, we've had that for multiple years now, and we've also come back with very clean audits.

So while this might not be the best way in a very large organization, in an organization our size, we have set up enough controls that it works very well and has continued to work well.

Is this am I summarizing that correctly?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Otherwise, um, I always just like to remind remind you of the things in the statements that are what we call estimates.

So you know how much a dollar is in the bank account, for example, but there are quite a few other accounts that are based on estimates.

Um they're listed here on the right side.

Um the biggest ones being depreciation, where you're depreciating your capital assets over an estimated useful life, and then your landfill um estimate that's based on an engineering report.

Um, you do have a pretty big estimate in the pension liability and the OPEB assets.

I say liabilities, but actually the OPEP plans are all at the state level in an asset position now.

Um so those are based on the state, though.

So your team cannot change those estimates if they wanted to.

But no big changes to the estimates this year, and I don't have any concerns about the way they're being applied.

Um, and then lastly, we're required to tell you if we had any significant difficulties or disagreements, findings, issues, fraud abuse, uh, nothing like that on here that we had to report to you as the assembly.

I would have been calling the mayor much sooner than this if we had significant issues, um, but things have gone really well.

Um, other than the delay in the school district, um, you know, I think that uh those things are all kind of uh right where I would want them to be.

Uh so with that, I want to turn over to the draft and cover just a few quick things.

I know I only have um a little bit more time, but any other questions on the status of the audit or the wrap-up before we look at some numbers.

Okay, hearing none, I'm going to um start in on the financials, which is I'm sure everybody's favorite part.

Um we I like the financial statements because this is really going to show a picture of what's going on at the um City and Barossa.

So a couple quick things is what's included in your financial statements is a lot of information.

So you have an introductory section.

Um, I'd really encourage you to read the letter transmittal because a really good summary of this of SICA for external parties that don't know about you.

And then the financial section is really the section we focus on.

You can see the independent auditors report.

I already mentioned that's a clean or unmodified opinion in that report.

And then your team puts together a management discussion and analysis, which gives you kind of a two-year look back, what's really happened over this last year, how does it change from last year to this year?

Um, what are the big capital projects, big debt changes that happened?

So on your own, those 11 pages are really useful, at least, you know, maybe eight of the 11.

There's a lot of um accounting speak at the beginning, but they do really do a good job of summarizing the activity for the year for for you during the year.

And then the basic financial statements is what you're paying us to audit um all the way through the notes and the required supplementary information.

We'll look at a few highlights here.

And then in the back, you have supplementary information that provides more um documentation for each of your funds.

So if you want to see more detail about what's actually happening on your governmental enterprise and internal service funds, the back statements are really helpful.

And then you also have in the table of contents a statistic, sorry, a statistical section in the back.

And that just summarizes things.

A lot of this data is in 10-year increments.

So if you're trying to see what kind of changes were in your fund balances over the last 10 years, you can go back to page 121 and you can find that information.

So just encourage you to use this as a reference and a resource when the final is done.

I actually have yours printed out.

It's in my drawer because I if I have a question, I'll pull it out and look at it.

So maybe I'm just old enough to have paper copies of things, but I think it's useful just to even look back sometimes for you know, trends if you wanted to see, you know, pre-COVID, you know, what do we look like when we were in 2017 compared to now?

Um, now that we're kind of normalizing a little bit, it can give you some really good background without having to pull all that data.

Um, let's skip now to I'm gonna go to the statement of net position, which is on page.

This is page 19 of the what we call the ACFER, which is the annual comprehensive financial report.

What you have in liabilities is on the next page.

These are things like long-term debt.

And then what's left over at governments called net position.

I'll highlight a few things for you.

In terms of total assets, your total assets are $685 million.

Overall total assets are largely based on capital assets.

Those are the largest category of assets for you.

Some of those aren't depreciated, like land and land improvements.

But then the depreciated assets are things that are being used.

They're placed in service.

So this is net of all the depreciation that you've recorded over time.

The actual cost of those assets far exceeds what's recorded here.

And then your other large asset is your equity and central treasury, which is your cash and investments.

You have certain other things where people owe you receivables or special assessments, those kinds of things.

And then you have some restricted assets related to your bond covenants, monies that have been set aside for capital asset acquisition from your that's largely because of the bond issuance for the airport, the monies that are still being spent down.

And then what's over here in liabilities are things you ought to others, largest categories here are your bonds notes related type of debt for your capital assets, and then your things like your compensated absences and your long-term net pension liabilities, things there.

You can also see that landfill postclosure liability included in the statements here as well.

So what's left over is what we call net position.

We're going to look at this in the general fund fund balance here in just a moment.

But overall on that position there is uh 474 million split between business type and governmental activities.

Most of that 293,000, sorry, 293 million is invested in capital assets.

You really don't have access to it right now.

Um, some of it isn't spendable or it's set aside or restricted for debt service.

So your total unrestricted net position there of 123 million overall, you know, generally speaking, that is approximately the amount of kind of liquid liquidable assets that you have.

But let's look at that a little bit more closely at the fund level because I think that might be more helpful if you skip with me to page 23.

This shows you our governmental side.

So I want to focus on the general fund here.

The general fund fund balance is at 25.3 million.

Um, and you have total fund balance there in the general fund 25 million, but 13 million of it is already committed by the assembly for certain um items.

And then you have some that you can't spend because you've loaned it out elsewhere.

Um, this is your advances that you've made to some of the other funds.

So unassigned 8.9 million, and when you look at expenses in the general fund, which is two more pages down, total expenses in the general fund of 32 million.

Um, so you know, when you look at percentages-wise, that's approximately a quarter of your annual expenditures are in this unassigned um fund balance number, uh, which you know is kind of what I would expect.

You have some committed things for reserves and and those types of things, but uh I typically don't like to see that number run uh much lower because you do need amounts for working capital, making investments, and um just timing differences of when you levy your taxes when they come in.

So um on the general fund side for revenues and expenses, you can see total revenues here 38 million for the general fund, 49 million overall for all your governmental funds, expenditures 32 million for the general, 38 overall.

There were transfers out, significant amount of transfers out for the general fund to fund various um types of activities in the other funds.

Um, but overall change in fund balance is a positive for the general fund of 1.8 million overall for governmental funds and increase of 9.7 million in fund balance.

And then on the enterprise funds, which are your you know for profit type activities, you're not actually earning a profit, but they're generally expected to cover their own costs and charge enough to cover their maintenance and the cost of the capital.

Um, we did quickly look already at the assets and liabilities, but let's look at the um revenues here.

So you can see the electric utility operating at income from operations of 3.8 million.

Largely that's used to cover your interest expenses.

Um, and then you do receive some other um federal sources and investment income in that fund.

So overall, the electric utility is operating in positive 3.8 million.

Um, keep in mind that that also includes some amount of depreciation that can be used for future capital replacement.

Water here, uh operating loss of 75 uh thousand, solid waste operating um income there um from solid waste of 1.2, wastewater positive 987.

Harbor at a negative 1.2, but just keep in mind that this doesn't include the raw fish tax, that's um below that.

So it's actually more like a 400,000 loss.

Um, and generally speaking, we're not seeing harbors be able to recover the full cost of depreciation.

So if you take depreciation out, the harbor is operating in a cash positive position.

I know I'm I'm giving you a lot of information all at once, but we can dive in anything that you're interested in.

And the airport is a basically at a break-even position uh for 2025.

Um, so I know I covered a lot of detail on here, but I think the enterprise funds are really important to look at in terms of the financial position and results.

Um, and uh happy to answer questions on them here if you have any um in a moment.

I'll just conclude what I want to say by just saying starting here on page.

34 are the notes to the statements.

And if there's anything that you have questions about in the actual statements themselves as you review this, the notes you had a great job of giving you more information.

So if you wanted to find out, for example, what your cash and investments are invested in, what they're set aside for, or if you want more information of your capital assets and the activity for the year, um more information about your debt, those are all included in the notes.

And I just encourage you to refer to the notes where you have additional questions.

Um I don't plan to go through um all the other pages, but if there are specific questions or areas that you'd like to discuss, I'm happy to do that.

And I just want to um just emphasize to you this is a huge undertaking from your team putting together this.

They did draft the statements this year, which is fairly rare for my clients.

Um, and uh did a great job.

We had minimal changes that we recommended from our end for them to correct.

So uh Melissa certainly left them with a great starting point.

Um and um, you know, your team there just really stepped up to get everything um figured out and uh to do that work this year.

So that's great.

Um with that I'm gonna um stop sharing.

And if there's specific pages you'd like me to go back to, I'm happy to do that.

I just want to thank you for your time and for your team's uh hard work this year.

Yeah, thank you, Joy.

I appreciate that uh overview.

Um, you know, this is the document that I refer back to whenever someone has questions about our finances or anything going on in the city because it is a wealth of knowledge.

Um, I hate to say that in one book you can figure out everything about us, but you really can in this one.

Um so I'm also looking forward to next year when we just basically change the dates on all of this because it seems like it's gone so well for so many years.

Um, that yeah, we just swap a couple numbers, swap some dates, and there's our new uh audit, right?

Um but no, that's uh that's a credit to your team in working with us throughout the year, and then our team uh continuing to operate at a very high level uh throughout um I think the entire time that I've sat on the assembly.

I don't think I've ever seen a major significant finding or anything that could not be correctable.

Um so that uh as I tell people you know you might not agree with where the money is being spent, um, but you can be assured that the money is not being spent spent uh fraudulously.

Um so we uh we appreciate this effort.

Um we know that this is an assemblies effort and uh look forward to seeing you again.

Uh any questions for Joy while we have around here to just to echo that into say when I first came on, we were just coming out of an era where that wasn't true, where we we were getting good audits then, but they there were people in the assembly then who very much remembered when we were our audits were grueling.

So I again I want to echo what Stephen was saying and appreciate our staff and team and yours that this becomes almost pro forma now, and that's the way it should be.

Good government should be boring.

Indeed, indeed, thank you.

Yeah, Brooke and Amanda did a great job this year, and um, and just the transition.

I always get nervous with transition to um it could be very good, but it also can be um uh difficult.

So they really stepped stepped in and did a great job.

Just gonna ditto what uh Tor said.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Joy, for you and your team, and thank you, um Brooke for you and your team and everything you've done.

Uh, this is an extremely complicated accounting um organization.

So uh they did amazing.

Thank you.

All right, Joey.

Well, thank you for your time this evening.

Um, and weirdly enough, look forward to seeing you and your team in a year because it is it is actually a pleasure to work with you.

So we appreciate all the work that you guys uh put into this.

Thank you.

And I will be sure to send you the final documents once they are done.

Um the single audit information is submitted and due by the end of March.

So if there's any jeopardy there, I'll make sure to let you all know.

But I don't anticipate that being an issue as the work's done.

Um so it's really just pending the school district side of things.

Great, appreciate it.

Have a good evening.

Okay, so uh next in our scheduled uh special reports this evening.

We have department quarterly reports.

Uh we'll start with the library and Jess.

Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and Assembly members.

Um, so uh tonight um I'm going to just talk about a couple points that I had um given on my report to you.

Um the first one is the library.

We have spent about approximately 56 or 50 percent of our FY26 budget, and so we're really right where we need to be at.

And the next is that um we have put together a best books of 2025, Sitka's top picks, and it's just something that's interesting to see kind of what our community members are reading.

We did um assembly of our top reads for adults, teens, tweens, and children this year, and we posted that on our Facebook page.

So so if anybody's listening out there and they want to see what their community members are reading, um, you know, what the top picks around SICA are, they can get on our Facebook and check that out.

Uh next is our annual maintenance closure that is coming up February 9th through the 10th.

So the library is going to be closed to the public, but um people can still return their items in our book drop and we'll be checking them in.

And so our maintenance team is gonna be working on some open work orders.

We're gonna be doing a deep clean of the library, so from top to bottom a clean, and we're gonna be working on just a few small projects in the library, and then we'll be doing an inventory of all of our DVDs, new books, and the children's room.

So that will take us the entire three days.

And uh the last thing is SICA.

We are hosting the 2026 Alaska Library Conference here in Sitka.

And we're gonna have approximately a hundred librarians from around the state and some from the lower 48 that are going to be coming to town.

And the last time we hosted this conference was in 2001.

So it's been quite a while, and people are really excited to come to town.

And I want to give a shout out to Harrigan Hall, Tony, and his team here.

They have really made planning so just easy and uh seamless and helping us to be a success for our conference.

I just really want to thank them a lot.

And the very last thing is just to please check out our Facebook page.

We have so many programs going on right now, and many of the programs do require registration.

So uh please uh make sure to um anyone listening out there take a look too and make sure you um get registered for the programs that we have going on, and that's it.

Thank you, JG.

Hi, Jess.

Hi uh question about you know FTEs last kind of budget cycle.

We moved around some percentages um from that front of front desk staff.

Um, just a couple of words.

Uh how is that going for you?

Do that improve your operations?

It is going really nicely.

We needed that kind of seamless um uh person that uh could be there throughout the day to help us with operations instead of being kind of broken up into so many uh disjointed part-time FTEs, and so it's going really well.

Thank you.

Great.

That's great to hear.

Yeah.

I just want to say I've got four of the books.

Oh, you do.

Well, that's great.

Three of the fiction and one in the nonfiction.

It is really fun to look through to see what see what our top books are.

Well, it's good news to know that uh Centennial Hall is playing nice with their neighbor on planning this conference because you're within water balloon distance.

So good on Tony.

Yeah, thank you for your time this evening.

All right, thank you so much.

And then our second uh department quarterly report this evening, uh, electric department and Ron.

Good evening.

My name is Ron Vinson, and I'm the electric utility director here for the city.

Uh, and with me here is Bree Gable, our sustainability coordinator for the city as well.

Um, I'm going to go through and give a quick update on this last quarter, and then um Bree is going to do some follow-up and talk about some of the kind of collaborative interdepartmental activities that we're doing uh with the national labs and with DOE.

Um so just jumping in here.

Um last uh quarter's developments kind of get bucketed up into three different categories.

The first of which uh was preparation for winter operations.

Uh we had a couple replacements on uh critical systems.

We also had some training and some minor codings and things like that.

We did some operations prepare uh preparation, um, but largely preparing for uh for winter operations.

Um another major bucket that we jumped into in the last quarter of 2025 was regulatory compliance.

As you all know, uh regulatory compliance becomes more critical each year.

Uh the requirements grow.

Um and so uh oftentimes at the end of the calendar year, uh, there are many due dates.

Um, and so this year was no different.

Um we had to uh check the box for a number of FERC requirements uh involving uh safety and security.

So that took place.

And then our last bucket um was preparation for spring projects.

We did a significant uh amount of uh contract development, solicitation, uh, preparation with contractors for some major projects that we have coming up this spring uh that are pretty exciting.

Um regarding our staffing.

Uh we currently, I I think it was December 1st, we were able to fill our last lineman position, which is um sounds insignificant, but it is.

Uh, that's uh the first time I think within the last handful of years that we've had a full line crew, uh, and that's actually tying into some of those springtime activities that um that we plan on uh engaging in, um lowering uh a significant amount of risk by by uh taking care of um some critical projects that have been hanging out for a while.

Uh we currently have 22 filled positions.

We have three vacant positions that include the general foreman, general system the generation systems manager and the relay technician.

That relay technician position is really a position that was pulled from a different area in the department a while back, and um and is no longer relevant as we've gotten an apprentice into a journeyman level.

Uh the other two positions are actively being recruited for, and uh we we see some successful candidates uh in the pipeline uh for at least one of those.

Uh and we also have um currently have one temp that's helping us with some data management and um doing some documentation and digitizing um some of our documents uh for records management.

As far as our budget, um we're at about 45% spent.

Uh that was on January 13th.

At the same time, we were about 55% through the year.

Um that lag is largely due to the upcoming work that's anticipated for the spring.

We also have been very cautious about spending um in anticipation of uh just the the cold that's that we're experiencing this year.

Um and then lastly, I just wanted to highlight a couple um data points.

I know in these reports I try to load them up with some uh some good data.

Um there's some good charts at the end.

One thing to note um specifically, um we actually reached a uh a record peak high of um for for our load this this uh last month in December.

Uh we reached 26 megawatts.

Um that's about 0.8 to one megawatt um over what we would typically uh expect for a cold month in the past.

However, it does line up with uh the new search hospital coming online.

Uh that is the load that we had been kind of monitoring um being ahead by about 0.7 or 0.8 megawatts, and so that's uh actually trending in expectation of what we what we expected.

So um yeah, and with that, I'm gonna pass it over to Bree.

Good evening, Assembly.

Bree Gable here.

Um, as you know, I managed the E2C project, which stands for energy to communities.

I believe I gave you a quick update, or I should say a longer update.

About a year ago when it was still called C2C, uh, Clean Energy to Communities, it's now energy due communities.

And because of all the cool things that Ron mentioned, he thought it'd be nice just for me to give you a couple quick highlights of where it's kind of at after about a year.

And the biggest update from the Q4 time frame is really that that project is starting to become uh in that stage where we can start sharing things and talking about things.

For the past year, we've had over about a dozen scientists from the two national labs that we're working with, the National Lab of the Rockies, which was previously NREL, as well as the Pacific Northwest National Lab.

And they've been focused on building a really robust model of our grid system and a computer.

That's at a point now where we can really start to start looking at things possibly in the future, or even trying to go back in time with some historical data and see how things may have played out differently under certain circumstances.

And we are currently at the spot where we are hopefully going to be installing some equipment that has been recommended to us by some hydrologists to help us monitor our rainfall and our water flow through our pen stocks and our reservoirs, and a whole bunch of other great things with workforce development.

That includes working with Sick Assembly Conservation Society on some intern work as well as a science center on some education stuff.

And the social scientists at the Pacific Northwest Labs have been helping us kind of evaluate and give us some recommendations for more internal workings as well.

So I'm excited to hopefully be here back sooner than later with some more updates as more of that project becomes less of me trying to describe a concept and being able to show you results.

So hopefully the scientists will have some fun with the data from the last few months, knowing that we've broken some records and there are cool things on the horizon for us.

So thank you.

We don't do equity maintenance that you would do if you if this you know if it was a business that you were trying to keep going, you know.

So like the old Marine Street substation that happened before you guys came here and the neglect of all that, then building that up.

Um I I guess I've lost where I was going with that now, other than your new modeling.

I sure hope that that shows what how many more feet per second we could run with the pen stock being lined.

Yeah, I so a couple things there, just really quick.

Um I I don't know what specifically has happened in the past.

Yeah, I wasn't completely involved in that.

Um I do know uh we have a great team, they do a lot of great work, they're capable of doing a lot of great work.

We have a lot of great work planned.

Part of the work that we're working on with um NREL and PNL, uh, they're helping us develop a risk register that goes through and systematically looks at our weaknesses and our strengths, and uh that's one of the factors that's actually helping drive our capital planning.

And so um, I think we have a good plan going forward.

Again, I don't know what's happened in the past, but I I think we do have some good things coming up in the in the future here, uh, relatively quickly.

And then uh as far as the pen stock lining, there's some activities going on there.

We're gonna do some surveying with some um uh autonomous drones.

Um, some pretty interesting stuff coming up here that'll allow us to keep things running um per se with the system and not necessarily shut things down and still get a good a good solid uh 3D survey uh of that uh asset.

So good there's good stuff coming.

Good stuff coming up.

Sounds good.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, you're welcome.

Uh clarification did I you say that the new search hospital, that single building is 0.7 to 0.8 megawatts.

The load that we've been seeing is 0.7, 0.8, something like that.

I think we as we've been monitoring it, I think it's gotten up around like point 0.87, something like that.

Um we usually do a check-in with it.

Our TND manager, he'll review that data almost daily.

Um in the development agreement that we had.

I think that their plan was to max out at 1.5.

So we're still within acceptable range.

I assume that they will peak at, you know, for various uh short periods as they're operating specialized equipment.

They'll probably peak at that 1.5 over the next year or two.

I would assume.

Wow, thank you.

Yeah, you're welcome.

I just want to say thanks, Ron, and thanks, Brie.

Um, I've had the privilege of being able to talk to these folks a couple times over the past uh year and uh and have kind of come to learn that they are really have done a good job and transforming the department from trying to ask money in the budget for emergencies to trying to uh ask for money in the budget for to prevent emergencies from happening.

And I think they're doing an amazing job.

Ron, congratulating.

Uh thank you, heads off and you too.

Right.

Uh, thank you both for the presentation.

Appreciate it.

Uh that brings us to the end of our scheduled special reports this evening.

Uh, following on in that agenda item.

Is there anyone here for government to government?

Municipal boards, commissions, committees, municipal departments, and school district.

Thank you.

That'll now bring us to persons to be heard.

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

Hi, my name is Lorna Marcello, and I speak today of a distressing national issue that can should stir concern and action and all.

That is Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents assaulting and even killing members of the public.

On Tuesday, January 13th, Aliyah Ramon was driving to a medical appointment at the traumatic brain injury center.

En route, she encountered stop traffic.

Federal agents shouted contradictory information at her, smashed her car windows, cut away your seatbelt rather than unbuckling her, and then dragged her away by her arms and legs, even after she told them she was disabled.

She is a U.S.

dis citizen and was detained without charges.

During that detention, Ramon asked for a disability accommodation to use her cane.

Instead, she was put in irons and told to walk.

Agents saying walk, you can do it.

And then as they pushed her back.

She begged for medical care for over an hour and was denied.

She eventually fell unconscious.

When an ambulance was finally called, the ER treated her for assault.

On Wednesday, January 14th, the Jackson family was heading home from a youth basketball game and the grocery store afterwards when federal agents threw flashbang grenades and tear gas next to and underneath their vehicle.

The attack jostled their SUV, shattered the windows, and caused the airbags to deploy.

The Jackson's infant required CPR to survive.

The parents, the infant, and two more of the children required hospital treatment.

On Saturday, January 24th, Alex Pradi was filming federal activity and directing traffic on a street in Minneapolis.

Federal agents approached the area and pushed a woman near Party to the ground.

As Parti extended a hand to help the woman recover, a federal agent deployed a chemical irritant at his face.

Agents then pulled party to the ground from behind and began to hit him.

As Parti was face down, an agent took what has been reported as a lawfully carried firearm from the back of Party's waistband and secured it.

Only after that, one shot was fired, rendering Pradi motionless, and then agents fired approximately nine more shots aimed at him.

Before Parti's lifeless body had cooled, and without any independent investigation into what was a federal agent's use of deadly force.

Officials from the executive branch engaged in coordinated character assassination against him.

I will not repeat their defamatory words.

Prattie was only 37 years old and a U.S.

citizen.

He worked as an intensive care unit nurse at the Minneapolis Veterans Administration Hospital.

Michael and Susan Prady issued a statement asking others to tell the truth about their son Alex.

Similarly, the accounts of Aliyah Ramon, the Jackson family, and numerous others, as difficult as they are to hear, deserve our full attention and memory.

Thank you.

Anyone else this evening for persons to be heard?

Any item off of tonight's agenda.

Thank you.

That'll bring us to consent agenda.

I move to approve the consent agenda consisting of item A, approve the minutes of the January 8th and 13 assembly meetings.

Item B, approve liquor license renewal applications, brewery manufacturing, brewery retail, winery, and manufacture for Harbor Mountain Brewing Company at 1209.

Some Creek Road Suite A, and item C, approve a liquor license renewal application, and new endorsement applications, package store shipping, package store sampling, package store repackaging, package store delivery for House of Liquor at 705 Halbert Point Road.

Second.

That's been moved and seconded to approve the consent agenda.

Is there any public comment?

Sarah.

All right.

On the motion to approve the consent agenda, Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais?

Yes.

Ms.

Radley?

Yes.

Mr.

Mr.

Celine?

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosier?

Yes.

And Mr.

Christianson.

Yes.

The motion passes 7-0 on the consent agenda.

Thank you.

Item D, please, board commission committee appointments.

I move to appoint one, Sherry Blinkenship to an unexpired term on the tourism commission and to Lillian Field Pash to a three-year term on the tourism commission for the Sica Tribe of Alaska nomination.

Second.

That's been moved and seconded to appoint those two individuals to the tourism commission.

Is there any public comment?

Assembly deliberation.

Sure.

Just as normal, thank you for being willing to step up.

Um I'm I'm happy to see both of these candidates and and it's uh always nice seeing people willing to come in and help Sarah.

All right, on the motion to approve the appointments, Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais?

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosher.

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Mr.

Christianson?

Yes.

And Mr.

Saline.

Yes.

The motion passes 70 on item D.

Item E, please.

I move to approve ordinance 202601 on second and final reading, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2026 child care study.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve ordinance 26-01.

John, I understand you have some updates for us on this one.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor.

Just a really quick update.

I know some uh questions came out uh in the last or in the first reading of this um supplemental appropriation about uh including some more community sessions to involve some of the groups that were uh that had provided a lot of information previously.

Uh I reached out to the potential contractor and asked and said yes, no problem.

We've modified the scope of work to include that, and there were no additional uh fees included and included in the uh in the proposal to add those meetings on.

Thank you.

Is there any public comment on 26-01?

Any further assembly deliberation, Sarah?

All right, on the motion to approve ordinance 2026-01 on second and final reading, Mr.

Christensen.

Yes.

Carlson, yes.

Mr.

Celine, yes, Mr.

Pike?

Yes, Ms.

Riley, yes, Mr.

Mosher?

Yes.

And Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

Motion passes 7-0 on item E.

Uh, thank you.

We are a little ahead of not ahead of schedule, but we're a little bit ahead of the hour.

Um, but I think new business could take some time.

So we'll take a recess before that.

Uh please be seated when you're ready.

All right, thank you, Assembly.

Um, we will move on on our agenda this evening with unfinished business.

Um negative.

We're going to new business.

Let me uh flip my paper back over here.

Get us back on track.

Uh new business item F, please.

Okay.

I move to approve resolution 2026-02 on first and final reading, adopting and submitting the fiscal year 2027 legislative priorities to the state of Alaska and Alaska Congressional Delegation.

Item Foxtrot, please.

Sorry, my confusion has now confused us all.

I move to approve ordinance 2026-02 on first reading amending title two administration and personnel of the SIC uh general code by amending chapter 2.31 sustainability commission.

Second.

Okay.

That's been moved and seconded to approve uh ordinance 26-02.

Uh sponsors, would you like to interduce this item, please?

Absolutely.

So I'm new to the sustainability commission uh this time around since the election.

And um, but I've been impressed with what they've done up to now.

And I I remember when uh this was established how important the community felt it to be.

And at that point in time, um, and as we have done with commissions through the years, when we established them, uh there were seven members of the commission, and the purpose and the idea behind it was to get a lot of work done.

Um, and they've done that, and um and they've done a fantastic job.

But uh it's kind of it's they've kind of been a slight victim of their own success.

So as they've been um moving forward and people are seeing forward motion on it.

I think people are not I won't call it complacent, but it's been more of a situation of feeling like they're doing a pretty good job.

So uh I think a lot of the urgency from when it was established has evaporated.

And so they've had they've struggled to have a full commission.

Um and the problem that arises from that is then they struggle to have um a set of meetings.

So this is a move to try and recognize that while this is not saying that that they are not interested in using the full resources of the community, which have been fantastic in helping.

But the fact is that they need to make sure they can have a meeting.

And the best way forward very well may be to bring that commission down from seven to five so that they can have a better chance at having a quorum.

So they have had struggle to find a quorum, didn't have a meeting in December, um, didn't have a quorum.

Uh and while there's thankfully been another member joined, um, and we have other interest, you know, I think in the long term is probably in the best interest of the community to um make sure that this commission can meet.

Um I know it's also come up about the meetings.

There the way that works best for them is to is sometimes the meeting is a is a formal meeting, sometimes it's a work session.

Um, and and certainly they are I think they're a model of how to include the community in any and all things that they're working towards.

So in front of you tonight is an opportunity for us to recognize this commission um doing great things as well as let's try and make sure we can help them get a quorum as they go forward.

Thank you, Kevin.

Anything to add to that?

Great.

Is there any public comment on ordinance uh 26-02 back to the assembly for deliberation?

JJ.

Question here.

Was it discussed by the sustainability commission uh to explore the use of alternates?

Uh but not useful alternates.

Help me.

What's that?

Um the I believe the finance committee uh has an alternate and it is a person that participates, um, you know, is available.

I don't know if finance committees work sessions, but would be available for work sessions to support that kind of research.

Um, but isn't a you know primary voting member.

Um, if you can't find quorum with the five, then there would be two more to fill those seats.

You could always be going.

That's my understanding of it.

Um unless Rachel or or Sarah have something else to say.

Or or Bree, I mean she has more experience with than I do.

Also can lend some perspective.

Um when I was on the commission, uh, we you know, as as um Tim mentioned, struggled from just in engagement and interest.

So I don't think that we had enough people interested to consider um that we should have alternates.

It was like we didn't have a plethora of um interest in that.

And so I would say that that was not discussed.

It was like how can we you know meet quorum regularly and uh after what almost two years of not having enough members to do that, you know.

Um, then this solution was um put forward.

So if I could uh just add that because you asked a question about that.

Um my experience because I was uh liaison for several years is that they had a nice core group of people that are interested in doing hard work.

Uh Katie knows that she was one of them.

Um and they they just would like to simplify it.

Um in fact, when we were forming that commission, we are kind of back and forth on whether it should be seven or five.

We ultimately opted with seven, but I think the model is it'll work better with five, and then they can have uh the the formats of the meetings can be better to be more productive.

Katie?

Yeah, I just want to say that commission does great work.

Um really enjoyed being a part of it.

I know the folks that are on there are um gung ho, it's fantastic that there is other interest, and I am sure that there will be an opportunity to serve uh a lot of members have been on there for a long time.

So if they are ready for a break, you know, that's great to know that there are some sitkins in the wings.

I I know that folks will be happy to hear that, but I do think that um reducing that number and and just making it a little easier to meet quorum uh will help.

It is um you know a passion project for many folks and just like what they're able to commit.

So I think that this is a a good adjustment.

Uh sorry, JJ, you'd still have the floor and you just had a question answered, please continue.

Yes, um Sarah and Rachel, do you guys know um of any other use of alternates or did I explain that well with reference to investment?

Uh that's uh only current um committee that has that.

And right now we just have one person on that committee, so um volunteerism isn't what it um has been in prior years, so um we're definitely struggling to recruit.

Thank you.

Um for that.

So five members would be three people to make quorum.

Um and this is a group that does goals and then works through the goals, right?

Okay.

That's helpful.

Um, you know, very similarly um liaison to health needs, and they're you know, seven members with the goals and getting those working groups in.

Um so I think their struggles kind of mirror what I'm hearing is happening on sustainability.

Um so this isn't the only example of that going around, um, but it's uh the first you know piece of paper to come to the table for for a you know a solution-oriented outcome.

So thank you.

Uh Tor.

Yeah, just real quickly.

I I was the liaison last year and um saw some of this.

I don't have strong feelings about this, but I think it also they should be made that if they go to five people, there's certainly nothing to stop peep members of the public from coming to the meetings and quite honestly interacting as non-voting members because they're kind of informal and and can have a real input.

Uh and so if there is that that interest, honestly, I don't think there would be much less impact from somebody just not being an actual member who is there.

Tim, thank you.

Yeah, I think to be clear, they're not asking to do less.

Like this isn't a this is not uh this is not saying we we want to do less, we have no, you know, we've finished our work or anything like that.

This has more to do with um really making sure because they have so much that they're interested in and they really want to do it, they want to make sure they can always meet, right?

Like not meeting quorum uh in December is not what they had planned, right?

Like the there's a lot they want to do and a lot they want to get done, and and I and Tor laid out very well, like the public is welcome and is asked to help them uh complete their tasks.

So they they reach out to people that to help make these things happen.

So if you're interested, you know, please come to the meetings and participate.

So I this isn't because they're done or they're unhappy with it, or this is they want to make sure that they have a better opportunity to be successful.

Well, further assembly deliberation.

So on the motion to approve ordinance 2026-02 on first reading, Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Ms.

Riley, yes.

Mr.

Celine?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosier?

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

And Mr.

Christensen.

Yes.

Motion passes 7-0.

Second reading will occur on February 10th.

Okay, uh, JJ, since you've uh already split most of this one out.

I move to approve resolution 2026-02 on first and final reading.

Adopting and submitting the fiscal year 2027 legislative priorities to the state of Alaska and Alaska Congressional Delegation.

Uh thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to approve resolution 26-02.

Melissa, thank you for your timeliness in coming up here.

Please.

For the second time.

Good evening.

I'm Melissa Lounis, the public and government relations director.

Tonight I'm presenting the legislative priorities and unfunded mandates for the upcoming legislative session.

Um approval of this resolution means that staff can have a clear direction, and it also strengthens our ability to um to go after funding and for policy support with both the state and federal levels.

These priorities were developed collaboratively across departments and are organized into five different categories.

I'll briefly run through the priorities.

It's partial funding for um phase two of the marine hollout, the Thimbleberry bypass electrical project, and support for housing, child care, and nonprofits, and reducing barriers to um federal grants.

We're also requesting funding for the updated for an updated police and jail feasibility study, Alaska DOT action on traffic and safety improvements, and continued support for reliable Alaska Marine Highway ferry service.

In my memo, I missed the new federal priority.

So this is to modernize port fee authorities so communities can better recover costs associated with cruise passenger impacts, which current federal law doesn't clearly address.

This includes mandate uh this includes mandates related to wastewater compliance, education funding, public safety and community assistance, harbor grants, and CPV revenue.

New included are the CPV related mandates.

The funding has not kept pace with current community costs that we've incurred to support cruise visitation.

So next steps with these include sharing them with our state and federal partners, meeting with legislators in June of next month, and advancing them through our lobbyists and meeting with the delegation and uh federal federal agencies during our April uh visit to Washington DC.

I'll give points to anybody that found my typo or any typos.

There's one you only found one so far.

Uh thank you.

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

Is there any public comment on resolution 26-02?

See none assembly deliberation.

All I can say is we're going to Juno in two weeks.

You guys better pass this, so we have something to take with us.

JJ.

Thank you, Melissa.

Um, can you tell um me a bit more about how you know the two items on the legislative or the one item in the legislative priority about updating federal port fees and then two items on funded mandates about CPV revenue and distribution?

Um did those come out of tourism commission?

Were those related to tourism task force findings or it's just been weighing heavily on the city's mind and the you know boom with tourism?

So this has brought been brought forward, I believe, from community members to the assembly in the past.

Um like current federal law was written in 1949, so it was for cargo and vessel use, and it doesn't clearly account for like any impacts to the cruise passengers that are coming through on local services services.

So the priority is about updating that authority so that port fees can be used in a way to help address visitor-driven costs that communities are trying to manage, and so that's the um federal side of things on the legislative priorities.

The other ones are at the state level with CPV funding.

So the state began collecting CPV funds in 2006, and then it was lowered.

They lowered the amount in 2010, and so communities get five dollars per passenger, and it's for the first five or seven communities, I can't remember exactly.

Um, and so they haven't changed that cost, the cost hasn't gone up, and we all know that there's increasing um cost with you know the infrastructure that we have.

Um, and so there's a piece of it to increase that cost, and then there's also a piece of it to expand the idea of like allowable uses for those funds.

Great, thank you.

I think that's you know been an outcome of every end of summer survey that we've done.

It's like why can't we use this money to blank?

And it's you know, we're restricted by the rules of the state, and for that legislative priority one, um, you know, it's it's restricted by the constitution.

Um so we're essentially asking um, you know, for an amendment to the constitution here.

So uh let me just read it so people know um what we're up to because I think it would really resonate um to hear the words.

CBS asked uh statutory language be revised to clearly authorize non-federal entities to level levy port and harbor fees on vessels engaged in um experiential travel, including cruise vessels.

Revenues could be applied in dressing passenger-driven impacts on port facilities and host communities.

CBS further requests assistance from the delegation to identify constitutionally sound language to add a new subsection to 33 USC, section two six three six that reflects today's passenger-based maritime economy while remaining fair, equitable, and directly tied to services provided by host communities.

So utilizing that chunk of money for the host community's benefit, which would then benefit um the passengers because passengers are not cargo.

Um it's it's just written in a way that doesn't serve um serve the people.

So I hope Sitka, you you hear that we're we're doing all we can.

Um now that we've had a bit of space in our priorities list, um, that we've we've added this piece and um hopefully other Southeast Alaska communities are are doing the same, so we can have a unified voice and in addressing this as a region.

I would add that while it hasn't been a official um on our sheet um legislative priorities, uh we have brought it back to both Juno and DC multiple times on the restrictiveness of it.

So I think we've warmed it up and now to see it on paper, it may go somewhere.

We'll keep trying.

Other questions for Melissa while she's up here?

Katie.

Yeah, I just I did have a question about um the CPV stuff.

Was that um something that the port communities of uh Southeast Alaska were jointly working on advocating on, or is there any kind of effort um in those communities?

Like are did they include this language in their legislative priorities?

Is there some kind of joint resolution that could be passed?

Yeah, I haven't been a part of the port communities, but I think John has something.

Yeah, I think um that group, since we're more of uh uh an information sharing type uh group underneath um basically administratively managed by Alaska Municipal League.

Um we try not to take any um political position on things such as this because having different communities involved, the different communities that are part of that port communities when we start talking about legislative and political decisions might not agree with uh with what's coming out of that group, so we tend to uh focus more on operational and data collection sort of efforts.

On the other hand, though, I'm a part of the legislative commission uh committee with the Alaska Municipal League, and there has been some traction with this, and so putting it in writing it and approving it by the council and the community, like allows us to come together and have a unified voice.

So that's kind of where we're going with that.

Thank you.

For Melissa?

Yep, on my please.

Uh on legislative priorities, that top one about funding for expanding housing.

The CBS request a transfer of state owned land in the Indian River Valley.

Um can you tell me a little bit more about that?

You know, I've heard of this, I'm familiar, but you know, to say it is and it was in part of the land and feasibility study that we did, but they kind of took it out of there.

Um, and so it's not quite a part of that because we're waiting for maybe on a different level of trying to see if we can exchange uh you know land with the state or a different entity to kind of access that valley.

And is that a piece of land that's kind of behind what the CDM borough needs or adjacent to or BihA?

How does that kind of orient the yeah?

It's um it it requires access through the Forest Service land, so that's kind of where we're at.

We're working and have had conversations with Forest Service at the federal level and local level, and then trying to access beyond that to get to um land that Senator Steadman has mentioned to us in I think three two or three years now.

Great, great.

That's good to hear.

And that for service land and is administrative land.

There's some flexibility in use there.

So may not seem like a high priority potential, but I think we can we can kind of can I would consider it to be likely.

It's worth keeping on that back burner for sure.

Great.

Thank you.

I just mentioned that because you know we're talking about land and housing later.

So we might that might come back here in an hour or two.

Thank you.

Anything else on the resolution from the assembly.

Thank you for your time, Melissa.

Sarah.

Right.

Um the motion to approve resolution 2026-02 on first and final reading, Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

Mr.

Mosher?

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais?

Yes.

Mr.

Selene?

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen.

Yes.

And Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

Motion passes 7-0 on item G.

Thank you.

Item H, please.

I moved to approve the Gary Paxson Industrial Park.

Uh traffic management and vehicle operations policy as recommended by the GPIP board.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve the GPIP traffic management and vehicle operations policy.

Gary White, I understand you have an introduction to this one.

You weren't nearly as quick as Melissa sitting down.

Hi Gary White, uh Gary Pax Industrial Park, otherwise known at GPIP director.

So yeah, this came the board asked me to draft a policy, something to just manage the traffic out there now that we've got multiple industries up and running.

Um we got a robust tourism industry, we've got of course the hall out now, and we've got our regular tenants, and we have a seafood processing industry, and we've got all kinds of vehicles moving around.

And this this next item you're gonna be discussing also is is part of this.

Um, and the board asked me to implement a policy of when the next item will be implemented, and just uh to kind of get some rules of the road out there.

You know, the goal is to protect the public safety.

We want to preserve the the service life of the infrastructure, our roads, our sewer lines, our water lines, um, provide some some um expectations for everybody that uses it, including the public, and to make sure that it's excuse me, safe for for operations out there.

So the this policy that I've um developed kind of kind of directs that it doesn't limit very much.

It's gonna be business as usual out there, fork trucks can still drive around.

You know, if if someone wants to take a golf cart to drive around the park, that's fine.

Regular vehicles.

Um one of the things that's in here is that the um that that the board a couple years ago addressed um bus traffic, we had buses staging in the park.

That was becoming um a problem for some of the tenants, and so they passed that.

You know, buses can come and go, but they can't park and stage there, nor can uh regular taxi cab vehicles.

Um basically there's there's two vehicles that will have to two types of vehicles that will have to be maybe investigated further.

One is vessels being moved on on machinery that's otherwise not a street legal trailer, and that if we've got a really heavy load coming in that doesn't meet regular state and and city road standards that could damage the infrastructure, then then that will be looked at as a on a case-by-case basis.

So I think it's it's pretty straightforward.

Hopefully, you guys had a chance to read it.

We we put some thought into it.

Uh, thank you, Gary.

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

Is there any public comment on the traffic management and vehicle operations plan?

Back to the assembly for deliberation.

JJ.

The question for Rachel, our attorney.

Uh on page four of this section eight, uh, stopping standing and parking of buses, and for higher vehicles, at first a bullet point starts with it is unlawful for any person to park or stop and continues.

Um, since this is a policy document, are you able to make things lawful or unlawful in this way?

So unlawful is kind of a vague and confusing word that can mean a lot of things.

Um, and and maybe Gary can help clarify.

Um, it could mean we're creating an infraction with a fine.

That would need an ordinance.

Um, it can also just mean don't do this.

Um, and then the enforcement penalties in item 11 apply.

Um, if we're not creating an infraction, um, just to make things as clear as possible, it might be better if it just said no person shall.

Um we we could change that.

We just I just pulled that directly from this the existing uh sick of general code about commercial buses parking and staging downtown.

So that's probably that's where it came from.

I pulled it directly out of the code.

Gary, I got a question as far as the description of being an industrial road system out there, and then right at the end you said if there was something that differed from a state road, it does the state have a category of industrial roads.

No, it it's more for uh um load loads.

Like I actually have it back there, and it's kind of really complicated, but it it says that each tire can only put so much pressure depending on the axle lengths and everything else and the number of tires.

It's just that if you get if you get a really heavy load that comes in on a four tires, it's it's got a lot of pressure that could destroy our infrastructure versus if you have six tires, you know, like a like an 18-wheeler, they they can distribute the weight load so it can manage on the roads.

And so we're just saying that if it you can't follow that.

I I didn't want to detail all that, I just wanted to refer back to the the state requirements already.

I'm just kind of confused because I took the first engineer underneath that dock PND went underneath, and he taught me about all the uh lime that's squished out of the concrete because when the Japanese built the mill, it was only supposed to be 1,500 square 1500 pounds per square foot of pulp waiting on the dock to be shipped out, and they had 2500 pounds that actually squished everything out of the solidified concrete, and that's why I'm kind of confused as to putting a state thing of a regular road with axles on an area that's an industrial area that's already been you know industrial strength, and then you're gonna apply a road system axle weight on it when it's an industrial area within it.

Uh anyway.

That's only going to be per going towards the I I didn't want to call them roads because they're not roads, they're industrial corridors.

They're actually access seasements, and that's to protect the the asphalt and all the all the infrastructure that went in below it.

But it like if you're over on an empty lot and there's no infrastructure, do whatever you want.

I mean, to it to an extent, but yeah, it's just to protect the ask the the city's infrastructure out there from being destroyed.

So, like each each vessel, or maybe I'm getting ahead of this for any is it had to be an engineer's uh report for each vessel being transferred.

No, nope, that yeah, that's on on the next one.

I'd be happy to address it there too.

Yeah, so do you intend to have there be an infraction for stopping standing a parking of buses?

Like a fee schedule or some sort or this is we we haven't really got that far.

This is kind of a policy to say, hey, it's not allowed if it becomes an issue, then I can work with high courtesy.

I mean, right now section 11 enforcement doesn't have infractions and fines, it just has written warnings, revocation of permits, administrative remedies, yes, um, which would be not an infraction.

Um, we would need to get it into that whole minor offense project that I'm working on if we were creating an infraction.

Um so I think the best language there might just be no person shall um and take out the word unlawful.

Okay.

And I and hit me in the back of the head if I'm saying the wrong thing or something, but um in my mind, if you change this to no person shall, and uh and you know, we have a list of policies here and plus our enforcement mechanisms, which is verbal or written warnings.

I would uh assume that with enough warnings um we could uh potentially trespass any person that um repeatedly uh violates the policies in place.

That's correct.

You don't need an infraction for access revocation.

It does say in here that um basically if you don't abide by this, we can 86 you out of the park other questions for Gary while we have them up here.

Thank you, Gary.

Yep.

Other deliberation from the assembly.

Uh Sarah it's it's been talked about um a slight wording change on here.

Um if that wording change was made, would that be an additional reading, or do you feel it to be within the spirit of no an additional reading isn't needed, it's not an ordinance.

Um I think it's um more along the lines of clerical or just I guess I would defer to Rachel if she thinks it needs to come back again, but I I don't think it's substantive.

I think it's choosing a more precise wording that clarifies the intent.

Do we need to make a motion to make that change or can you just do it as a clerical thing?

I think that the code for the GPIP is that this the policies and regulations are submitted to the assembly for review.

Um so I think if it's the body's will that the review is that the language is changed, it'd be good to have a vote on that.

I would just suggest for clarity that a motion is made to make that change I move to strike the phrasing under section eight stopping, standing and parking of buses and for higher vehicles, uh, remove the words unlawful and replace with no person shall.

Six that's been moved and seconded to replace the words unlawful with no person shall in regards to standing and stopping within the GPIP service area.

Is there any public comment?

Assembly deliberation, Sarah on the amendment.

Um the amendment, Mr.

Saline, yes, Mayor Eisenbaus?

Yes, Mr.

Christensen, yes, Miss Carlson, yes, Mr.

Pike?

Yes, Ms.

Riley, yes, and Mr.

Mosher.

Yes.

The amendment passes 70.

Uh thank you.

Original motion as amended.

Any further deliberation on that?

I think that's a good clerical um fix on that.

So I appreciate the assembly going through that process, Sarah.

All right, on the main motion as amended, Mr.

Mosier.

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Ms.

Riley, yes.

Mr.

Christensen, yes.

Mr.

Saline, yes, Mayor Eisenbeis.

Yes.

And Miss Carlson.

Yes.

Motion passes 70 on item H.

Thank you, item I, please.

I move to approve the requirements for commercial vessel movement operations within the Gary Paxton Industrial Park as recommended by the GPIP board.

Second.

That's been moved and seconded to approve requirements for commercial vessel movement operations within GPIP.

Gary White has an introduction on this one as well.

Sure.

This also came uh from the board.

They asked me to set up a policy.

Um and this has to do with uh obviously everyone know that we just built a a shipyard there, and we had a request to move um a vessel on a large piece of equipment.

That piece of equipment wasn't defined at the time, but we wanted to set a policy on how to do so.

Um so I came up with this.

This is um, and I I went to multiple different sources to try to figure this out because we're kind of creating something newer.

Um basically we're saying that that vessels can be moved, um, but they have to have we have to have some some some information gathered.

And it's what what type of equipment are you gonna use?

We need to know what the dimensions are, what the weight, the weight footprints are gonna be, um, where are you gonna move those vessels from to and from what your route?

Um, make sure that there's a a coordination plan, make sure that there's a spill response plan or emergency plan, and then it kind of outlines uh you know what are the common areas and the common areas are pri primarily the the uh travel corridors.

Um it it outlines what the operators obligations are and and like how do they how do they present what this what this machine's gonna do and what the impacts could be on the roadways out there, I'm sorry, the industrial corridors, and then we wanted to have insurance.

Um, you know, the the contract between the city and borough and and high mark marine has a list of insurance requirements that they have to follow to to move vessels around in case there's any issues.

Um one of the things that the board talked about the high mark marine policy requires a five million dollar umbrella of pollution policy.

Uh the board had some discussion that we're not over water.

Um, you know, the boats aren't sitting there for a long time.

Perhaps that should be reduced.

We met with the city's insurance provider and talked to Rachel and John, and we got that lowered down to a more appropriate rate.

And it makes uh the operators a demnify the city to protect the the citizens here.

So um, you know, I I did see some emails out today, and I know Mr.

Circa's here to talk about it.

I have no issue with changing what he talked about.

That this all of this in the insurance area was copy and paste pasted from the uh high mark contract, and that wasn't caught.

So um, but the the board did pass it, and and this is what I have for you.

So just great, thank you, Gary.

Uh, we'll call you back up if we have additional questions.

Quick question for uh after public comment, please.

Okay.

Is there any public comment on the commercial vessel movement operations within GPIP?

Welcome.

Hello, um, Jeremy Serga here.

Um we have a facility down there.

We will be uh putting in a permit to to move vessels once it's um approved.

Um the uh I'm here just to speak on the uh insurance requirement, and it's not the insurance necessarily, but it's this statement.

Um, and I try to send this to you guys, and had a hard time getting this off.

But says the operator shall uh be responsible for securing an annual environmental survey of the shipyard facility by Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

Um that's that's the issue there.

So I believe that was required of high mark, and uh the big difference is we're only moving vessels uh 100 yards down the roadway.

We're not working on them.

Um this doesn't apply to uh to us.

There is some requirements to assess the roadway, and I think that can be easily done by anybody in the city.

Um, but one of the requirements is to have an engineer to assess our equipment and make sure that we're not gonna harm the roadway.

So I think that was a copy and paste error.

Um if you know, and I think if you even look further into high marks um finished contract, the city takes responsibility for those EISs as well.

So um, so I don't believe that should be part of this contract.

Um thank you.

Any other public comment on commercial vessel movement operations?

Uh seeing none, we'll bring it back to the assembly tour.

You had a question for Gary.

Well, and I think he answered it.

I just wanted to make very sure that you have no problem getting rid of the uh environmental impact statement or from the from DEC.

I think that's also a question for administration and legal, but I don't see an issue with it.

Right.

And then I guess my other question would be for Rachel.

Is that a major change?

Uh if it is indeed a copy and paste error, I don't think so.

I would classify that as clerical, but if it was in there purposefully and we're removing something that was intended to be required, then I might have a different opinion.

John?

Thanks, Mayor.

Yeah, I was trying to get ahead of a lot of that, and I I know if we couldn't get it in the uh introduction, but it it was um a clerical error on our on our part, and I've had it marked before we came in here.

Um so starting with that section under insurance A 2D where it says the operator shall be responsible for.

Um I already have stricken out everything and the rest of that paragraph, um, just honestly, as a as a uh transfer from one insurance agreement to the other.

Um and I I would hope that we could just have that removed and continue on.

Yeah, I think the copy that gets back to uh to GPIP for their final approval.

Um would be nice and clean without that.

Anything else for Gary Well JJ?

Um I understand this to be just the list of requirements for someone to use a vessel.

Um so would there once they meet the requirements, would they receive a permit to transfer vessels and would there be another document that describes that process and maybe like a fee schedule for utilizing city land for so yeah, John and I have talked about this and kind of the processes will be that umce this is is the the rules, right?

Um and I've talked to Jeremy about this is that the the person whoever wants to move a vessel with on a non-standardized road trailer um would come to us, provide the information that we're that we're requiring.

Myself and the um municipal engineer who evaluates all that type of stuff on city roads would would look at it, we would present it to the GPIP board, the GPIP board that would then either say we agree with this or we don't agree with it, and then if they if for some reason they turn it down and the applicant wants to appeal, they can come to this body, or if um the board approves it and administration doesn't have a problem has a problem with it, then they can appeal it to this board.

So there's a there is a process.

We have not established a fee structure.

We just haven't addressed it with the board, but it seems like it's just every day doing business out there.

Yes, but it utilizes the municipal uh engineers' time to review those documents as well.

Um that's that is a good point.

So I I would encourage um some review of of cost and revenue associated with this.

John Hebrew I do um just because we're talking about that process and the permit, um, you know, trying to bring that administrative function underneath this policy in-house.

I I take a lot of parallels with the uh um like parks and rec commission, you know, their their city properties that are permitted for commercial recreational land use permits, and those permits go through that board.

That board makes a recommendation, they come to me for signature, um, and then the appeal process would you know go through me and then through the assembly as necessary, and I see that process working the same way.

So a um uh permit form and a fee schedule would would need to be created as well.

Great, thank you.

Okay for Gary.

No, I was gonna uh anything else for Gary while we have it in front of us.

Thank you, Gary.

Tor?

Yeah, and make sure with we can we we do have to make a motion to strike that, it's not just clerical, right?

Can we just make a motion?

Please all right, all right.

So I move to strike uh the language on paragraph D on page two.

Um starting on uh uh the operator shall be responsible for securing an annual environmental survey of the shipyard facility by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservat Conservation or other qualified regulatory authority uh agreed to by the parties to identify any gradual pollution issues, um etc.

Operator shall remain any remediate any issues identified in such an admiral survey and extend sub-issues are caused by the operator in such remediation shall be subject to the operator's indemnity obligations.

I would just strike that.

Second let's be moving and seconded to strike the lines that we've been speaking about this evening in item D.

I wish if I could have gotten away with that, I would have succinct, right?

Is there any public comment?

Assembly deliberation.

All right, on the amendment to strike the words that we've been talking about this evening.

On page two A to D, the operator shall be responsible piece.

Um Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Mr.

Mosher?

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen?

Yes.

And Mr.

Saline.

Yes.

The amendment passes 7-0.

Further deliberation on the policy as amended.

Sarah.

All right.

On the main motion as amended.

Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen?

Yes.

Ms.

Riley?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosier?

Yes.

Mr.

Saline?

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

Main motion passes 70 as amended.

Item I.

Thank you.

Item J, please.

I move to approve a memorandum of agreement between the Federal Aviation Administration, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the City and Borough of Sitka regarding federal funding for the Sitka seaplane base on Japansky Island and authorize the municipal administrator to execute the document.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve an MOA with the FAA and the City and Borough of Sitka.

Is there any public comment?

Mark has an intro.

And I so wanted to hear you speak.

I don't know where the wanted to skip over you.

It's probably because he wasn't up here as fast as Melissa was.

That's the new standard.

Good evening, Assembly Mark CB Public Works Director.

So in our last seaplane based project update, we had talked about that we're currently under an environmental assessment and a section 106 assessment.

When we get federal grants for project like these, it's in U.S.

code that we're subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.

Those are the assessments that essentially determine whether the project has impacts that are negative to either of those policies.

The project has been stalled at the 65% design, waiting for the conclusion of those assessments.

That's called the findings of no significant impact.

In order for us to conclude those assessments, there were several items to be addressed.

They're outlined in the MOA.

The first one is essentially that there are a couple of structures that are going to be impacted.

One observation posts that would be demolished, and then the view from the naval observation base and the coastal offenses would be essentially changed by the project.

In order to mitigate those, there's essentially four primary items that the city and borough of SICA is helping administer, and then there's some additional items for the project.

First, we have to design the project, which has already been incorporated.

Then we will lower the elevation to minimize disruptions to the view from the coastal offense and naval observation base.

Additionally, we need to do a historic American building survey, and that happens two in there, one for the structure, the observation post that is being destroyed, and then one for another that we're going to essentially provide minimal maintenance and upkeep for as we go forward, and then we're going to implement some of the design and architectural features from that observation post into a passenger waiting area for the project.

With that comes kind of a basically an interpretive panel that's going to go up delineating where we go from the historic property that is registered into the new seabling-based property.

Outside of that for the project, as we proceed forward, if we go into construction, there would be essentially cultural resources monitoring and uh discovery plans that if we come across anything historic, we will have to have a secretary of the interior qualified archaeologist on site to help us work through what to do if those are discovered.

Um that plan is included at the bottom of the MOA.

All of these were essentially pushed to the Historic Preservation Commission back in October.

These are the recommendations that they had.

They convened again in December and approved these actions.

When we go into the fiscal note, most of these are going to come into the actual project expenses, so we don't have a direct expense right now.

Currently looking at 93 to 97% roughly for the federal funding, so we'd have a pretty low percentage match on the construction phase for those other piece is the maintenance.

So if down in the the actual MOA, it's a little more explicit what that maintenance is.

It's minor repairs, some brushing, some trail maintenance.

Uh looking through our maintenance grounds maintenance budget right now for the last five years, we've come in under on supplies, repairs and maintenance and contracted services.

Um I've gone out to the site.

It doesn't look like it's anything that essentially would push us over the existing budgets, but we don't have an exact number for what that would cost.

Uh thank you.

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

Is there any public uh comment on the MOA regarding our seaplane base?

Seeing none assembly deliberation.

JJ question about the passenger waiting area.

Mark, I'm wasn't aware that we were building a building, or is this a pavilion, a shelter, or it's really just a covered shelter in the upland area that we're passengers that could be out of the elements, not a full building.

Okay, so no plumbing toilet plates and if anything.

No, looking for plumbing toilet right now.

And that that will still come out as we move from the 65 to the 95% design.

Okay, thank you.

And we're lowering the elevation of the float plane parking area.

Um the uplands is essentially yes, we'll lower the grade of where we're connecting to the floating structures so that the views are unimpacted.

We will still be above 18 feet.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions from Mark?

Katie.

I think I just had a question about the um was there a projected expense for the 65%, or do you only get that at 95% completion?

We're at 65%.

So once we get the theory for the cost of the project, though, is that when can you get an estimate for the rough estimates right now for the construction phases of the project are between I think 40 and 45 million, but that has the potential to change throughout the the completion of the design.

You can almost get a full-size airport for that price.

Almost it's not floating.

Yeah, very true.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions for Mark while we have them up here.

Thanks, Mark.

Appreciate it.

Further assembly deliberation tour.

I'd like to see a 737 land on a floating next bar.

Anyway.

JJ.

Yeah, this is um we've heard a lot about this area and you know the significance of Japanski Island and the overall idea of you know, we fortunately, due to just not having much space to relocate for for safety reasons on the outside of the center of the channel, um, that we do have to you know pour some gravel over some World War II um concrete.

And the trade-off being, you know, we take care of of some other World War II concrete in a different area of Japanski that um may seem a little simplistic, but that's kind of how how it works around the nation, and we're kind of just taking pay pace with um standards within historic preservation.

So I think this is um you know, a long time coming.

It's effortful to do MOUs of this uh with the references to uh the list of all the different tribes around Southeast where we're communicated with um SDA was the one that responded.

It it's it's a lot that goes into these documents.

So I appreciate all of our staff and and the staff or the or the volunteers historic preservation commission um for getting it this to this point.

I thought another historical note it was 1895 by presidential executive order that Japansky Island was taken away from the Clinkett people.

Um and so by only mentioning World War II stuff as being of concern, one of the heaviest stories uh involves that beach.

Um anyway, there's a lot more to that spot than just World War II.

Well, hopefully this gets us one step closer to a seaplane base so that before my kid has kids um we can be landing float planes again.

Well, seems like this project um needfully um has taken a while, but happy to see every milestone get turned over.

One other aspect, Your Honor, is that you know when it says maintenance costs are not included in this, and with no the way that attenuators were always a big thing, and you know, a lot of people haven't been here long enough to see the big Southwest storms that come every 10 or 12 years, but uh losing that place due to the big swell that will pick up on the big Southwest is coming downrange for us.

Kevin?

Uh yeah, I just want to echo the thanks, Mark, and uh for everyone who's worked on this.

Thank you for collaborating with multiple entities to make sure all concerns are addressed.

I'm very appreciative of that, and I'm excited to see this eventually move forward.

Thank you.

Katie?

Sorry, I just have one more follow-up question for Mark and uh thank you, Scotty, for highlighting that uh complex history of the area.

And I'm wondering if I think this was in the historic preservation plan that uh that commission and the tribe and the city all collaborate on signage.

Um I just wanted to ensure that that is happening in this regard because I would like to have that broader history represented.

Um can you confirm that that will happen or I can't confirm directly on the interpretive panel.

I know it it is specifying um for the construction phase.

It is specific that we have the archaeologist on site, and then the SICA tribe of Alaska is also invited to have someone on site throughout construction uh to help identify if there's anything uncovered that we need to pause operations for and they have a plan for that drafted for the actual panel itself.

I I can't say to definitively if we have other history or if it's specific to the transition from what that observation post was back to the naval operating base and their Army Coastal Defenses.

I would like to ensure that we are able to uh include a more complete history of the area.

So thank you.

Anything further from the assembly.

Sir, on the motion to approve the MOA for regarding federal federal funding for the SICK sea plane base on Toponsky Island, Mr.

Christensen.

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson, yes.

Mr.

Celine?

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Ms.

Riley?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosier?

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbaiss.

Yes.

Motion passes 70 on item J.

Thank you.

It has been about an hour since our last recess.

Um, so we'll take a brief pause here.

Please be seated when you're ready.

All right.

Uh thank you, everybody.

The assembly is seated, so we will move on to item K this evening.

I move to approve a memorandum of agreement between the city and borough of Sitka and the SICA Recreation Foundation for creation of a parks and rec master plan and authorized municipal administrator to execute the document.

Is there a second?

Anybody got a second?

Second.

We don't want to talk about anything tonight, do we?

Uh thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to approve uh memorandum of agreement uh with the city and the Sitka Recreation Foundation.

Kevin, I understand you have uh introduction here, and you are abiding by the standard.

Love it.

I took a clue from earlier.

Good evening, Mayor Isemeis, assembly members, Kevin Knox, Parks and Recreation Manager.

Uh, before you is a authorization of a memorandum of agreement between the SICA Recreation Foundation or SRF and the City to finalize a parks and recreation master plan.

Uh as you may recall, or actually probably Stephen, you may be the only one that is sitting at this point uh that way may recall this.

But in FY23, uh the assembly appropriated funding to create a plan to ensure uh sustainability for our municipal assets and to establish a community-driven prioritization list of current and future recreation infrastructure.

Uh to date, we have achieved some of the technical milestones that needed to be done within that, including a comprehensive asset list and some condition assessments.

However, the final phase uh that we need to complete, which involves community visioning and prioritization has stalled uh due in part due to uh capacity constraints and a need to contract with a specialized firm to complete the work.

Uh, we currently have a bit over 14,000 remaining from the original appropriation, uh, which is insufficient to fund that robust public engagement that we need to do.

Uh this MOA would allow us to partner with SRF to complete the work.

As noted in the memo, SRF is uniquely positioned uh to leverage our remaining funds as a as seed contribution and to secure larger grants and donations, allowing us to achieve a comprehensive study that would otherwise be unaffordable at this time.

Uh this ingredient agreement offers several benefits and offers us some protections as well.

Uh addressing some strategic alignment as the master plan will serve as a guide to for future capital improvements for both the city and for SRF, ensuring they align with our community needs rather than ad hoc requests as they come up.

Uh it's non-binding.

The MOA explicitly states that the plan is a guidance tool and it does not obligate the city city to fund uh or construct any specific project.

Uh it also includes some financial protection, including the city is held harmless against overages or third party liabilities.

Uh we also have a repayment clause if SRF is not able to uh secure the funding in order to complete the uh the plan um and we have it in there for one year with some possible extensions.

Um by approving this MOA, we ensure that the work already completed uh both by contractors and by the parks and rec committee is not wasted, and that we deliver a strategic vision for SICA's recreational future.

Um I'd like to recommend that we uh authorize the administrator to uh execute the MOA.

Um, and if you have any questions after public comment, I'd be more than happy to come up to get that right too.

You did get the memo.

Is there any public comment on approving the uh MOA between uh the city in Sitka and the Sitka Recreation Foundation for a parks and rec master plan?

Ben Huey, on the record, when I joined the parks and rec committee over five years ago, Sarah Laurie, uh member at the time, had started a process upon Michael Culliver's request to create a master plan for a lot of park facilities.

We have a lot of beautiful municipal land with very little vision for what the future is.

Think about the turnaround park, that's the skate park.

Mostly just a vacant parking lot, beautiful waterfront, a lot of potential, but we public work staff lack um any sort of public direction on a vision.

Um same thing exists for a lot of our other facilities, Herring Cove, for instance, and we would benefit as a community if we could uh get some public engagement, think about these facilities and make some progress.

So that's what the intent here is to bring some private resources through the recreation foundation um to bear and get this master plan forward comment on item K.

Seeing none will have assembly deliberation, Tim.

Um, I guess I I think the original vision for this was the right one, which was the city was going to put together a plan.

Um, and I'm I don't necessarily want to put it on a on someone else to fundraise the rest of what it's gonna cost to do this for us.

Like, I mean, I guess that's kind of one of my concerns.

It's less to do with whether um whether we want to enter into an agreement with them to do the work.

It's a question of whether or not we want to pay for it or not.

And I think that's that's my hesitation.

Like we put money into it, we spent some of it, we didn't finish the project.

Now we're gonna have somebody else fundraised to finish the project.

I mean, I think that's a I'm not sure that's a model that I think is one that I we want to continue to do that.

So um, so I mean I instead why would we not just fund this and have them do that for us?

I think that point's very well taken.

Um I think that this is a unique situation where it could be self-funded, but is that the right thing to do?

Uh Tor and then Katie.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying, Tim.

I think we're gonna wind up putting some of the bill no matter what, honestly.

Uh I think that we're getting seed funding.

If they can find grant funding, great.

Uh, but uh I would be a little surprised if there's not holes in that and that we wind up paying for a good hunk of it anyway.

So I don't see a problem with seeing what they can dig up with the understanding that ultimately we're gonna be responsible for it, and if we need to step in, we would you know we will look at that.

Um but kind of history is any indication we're we're probably gonna be ponying up at least some more before we're done with this Katie Um Yeah, I'd I'd actually love to hear a little bit more clarification on that um comment because my understanding from this was that if the entity does not raise the funds, then we recall our funds and don't do the plan.

Um but I have a question for Kevin.

Um if you could share it.

Sounds like y'all are thinking of employing a contractor to do the master planning, you're hoping to fundraise to employ a contractor.

Correct.

Do you have a contractor in mind?

Uh SRF, from what I understand, has uh talked with potential contractors, yes.

Okay.

Um so this is like uh, you know, taking seed money saying there's there's skin in the game from the city, and then going out fundraising the rest of it, and then employing a external contractor to complete the master planning and prioritization process.

What part of that um is guided by the SRF in terms of like contractor instructions, I guess.

Well, they would they would go out with uh a scope of work which would be informed by, as is outlined in the MOA, uh informed by this the scope that we would also help with.

So staff from parks and rec and public works would uh work with SRF to be able to come up with that scope of work to make to ensure that the product, the end product or the final product is something that is useful to the city.

Um and uh work with uh a contractor to be able to uh produce you know the final master plan.

Um there are uh a few contractors that specialize in this kind of work, and there's one in particular that uh SRF has been talking to that has done several master plan parks and recreation master plans in Southeast.

Um and uh is probably the likely contractor that they would lean towards.

Um yeah, and to speak to the a little bit to the the concern about having an external entity do this, uh the recreation foundation benefits from having a master plan too.

It helps inform their work uh in their partnership with the parks and recivis.

So um so that they're not uh you know coming up with just ad hoc, you know, on the whim projects and throwing them uh our way.

We you know, we get a both entities get a prioritization list and you know, a kind of a focus to work on that is community driven, which is very helpful for both parties.

Um and let me know if this is not for discussion, but did you get a uh a quote from this contractor?

Do you know the potential uh full cost for this kind of project?

The estimate is somewhere around 30 to 45,000.

Okay at this point.

A large part of of the work that has been done already with uh the asset planning and the condition assessments is a b oftentimes a very big piece of this uh this process, and having that largely done now is a very helpful product and and data set for the contractor to work from.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions for Kevin while we have them up here.

JG what do you anticipate or what was the discussion around the relationship between the Recreation Foundation and the Parks and Rec Committee Commission?

Would there be good collaboration there?

Oh yeah, definitely.

Um Ben uh Huey is on the on the board of uh SRF, he's also a member of the committee.

Uh and uh you know the the committee will be uh very much engaged.

Uh and as part of um their duties and responsibilities, they they definitely need to be engaged in this work as part of the public engagement.

Thank you.

That's that's helpful.

And then I think Katie.

uh and uh you know the the committee will be uh very much engaged uh and as as part of um their duties and responsibilities they they definitely need to be engaged in this work as part of the public engagement thank you that's that's helpful and then i think kitty i'm just i i read the mo you between the city and um srf and i'm just hoping you can help me understand a little bit more that relationship is like i kind of understood it as analogous to like friends of the animal shelter fundraises for animal shelter operations friends of the sickle public library fundraises for library um you know benefits or operations things like that i understand srf to be analogous to those models for the parks and rec program is that correct correct okay so that program as I understand it should be driven by the committee and the you know staff um and the direction that the assembly gives y'all um not like the priorities of SRF and I'm just having a little bit of um confusion around the relationship between SRF and SCORE which seems to be something that is referenced in the next item um because I want to just ensure you know that this process is community driven and as perceived as impartial so that we're able to you know use this document to the benefit of all all sitkins and all of the facilities that we have um but one of those entities has a priority and like a timeline that has already been identified um and so I guess I'm just trying to understand how all of these entities uh that work together to represent um the views of broader sit pins like I know there's so much good work that goes into this and so much good energy um put towards our our recreational assets here in sitcab but um do you see my dilemma between that and I just if you can share any more information around that like working relationship between maybe all of those entities yeah uh the uh I can speak to some of it I'm the I'm the staff liaison to the foundation or to SRF um and have been you know in discussions uh with the efforts are with SCORE as well um score is uh essentially a subcommittee now within SRF uh SRF uh operates as with their their fiscal agent um and uh and collaborates with them in partnership with you know trying to get some of the goals met there uh I think the fact that we don't have a master plan at this point um and we haven't had those broader community engagements and prioritizations uh points to the fact that you know there is a very dedicated group of people that have come forward in SCORE um to pursue um you know something that they really want to they want to realize and sick uh um I think those the relationships and and how um the work prioritization falls out is something that is still a work in progress though.

Okay and do you feel like um through this MOA we could uh you could ensure that the master plan process is going to be conducted outside of the you know stated priorities that any subcommittee that's that yeah SRF might have yeah I think given the fact that the parks and recreation committee will be engaged with it um and that's a pretty diverse group of folks um I also that the you know the the public engagement in general will be open to the entire public um that that should ensure that we would get you know a decent representation I mean it's not to say that any one group couldn't load that but you know that's I don't know how you prevent something like that from happening.

Yeah I mean anybody could any different group could do that any somebody that wants to just golf group could come forward and say they would really want to you know they load that up I know yeah absolutely and if if that is what comes out of the public process and there's effective organizing I respect and totally understand that um I just wanted to make sure that there was you know an ability to have an impartial really robust um public prioritization process just given that uh that conflict there yeah and with additional resources beyond what we already have dedicated I think that's what ensures this if we tried to go out and use just staff and the remaining um funding that we have right now I think that's where we would fall short uh if we really get out there and and SRF is dedicated to ensuring that you know they fund it to a a a good capacity then yeah we we get a good a better product okay thank you for Kevin uh no okay anything else for Kevin JG thank you um we're just really really excited about this one um so the municipality is setting the scope of the program master plan and is that what I heard say that again the the scope of what we're considering in it so for instance it um

Okay, thank you.

Kevin?

No for Kevin.

Uh no, Mr.

Joe.

Okay, anything else for Kevin?

JG?

Thank you.

Um just really excited about this one.

Um so the municipality is setting the scope of the program master planning.

Is that what I heard?

Say that again.

The the scope of what we're considering in it.

So for instance, um the parks and rec department um does schedule programming within the schools, but the schools aren't to be included in this, or will they be?

Like school facilities or playgrounds, uh yeah, school playgrounds, um, school gyms.

They are part of the asset um management system and have been given condition assessments.

It's a good question.

I mean, by and large, most of our school playgrounds are seen as public assets and are open to the public.

Um I would imagine that they would be a part of um some part of this prioritization planning.

Okay.

They do add a different layer to it though, because they are on school grounds.

And in particular, if you consider Baronov too.

Because that isn't really public access.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Kevin.

Appreciate your time.

Uh it was Kevin and then Tim.

Thank you.

Uh Steven.

So um I like this.

Uh I I think uh what this does is do what we do uh well in SICA is leverage uh people who are passionate, uh, such as the SICA Recreation Foundation uh and their subcommittee score to help um where staff is lacking time, resources, et cetera.

Um my thought th uh is to pass this, but Tim does bring a good point.

And uh far as my understanding is is Tim, you're saying you like this, but well, why aren't we paying more or paying for it?

And uh it's a really good question.

Um you know this is just uh kind of a brainstorming idea.

What if we pass this and then see how their r fundraising goes and then if they fall short, then we can come back and possibly pony up some some money because I think the city does have a vested vested interest in this and and I would be supportive of uh doing that if if it was necessary.

But um I think starting this way is probably a healthy path.

Um so I'm in support of this.

Tim, thank you.

Yeah, I'm I'm not as big of a fan here, and here and here's why.

Because when this is done, whose whose strategic plan is it?

Right?

Who who who created this and whose is it?

Um I think if you know I'm in I'm a big fan of making sure we have exactly what you're talking about.

We need this master plan about where we're going and we need to make sure that takes place.

Um and we meant we wanted that so much that in the past we put money into this thing, right?

And and I if the staff doesn't have it, but there's contractors who can do it, then why why don't we contract and get that done?

Um and so uh and I you know I'm and this I want to say up front, I'm very glad that that SRF came forward and is willing to to help us with this, but I don't want uh there to be a perception that it's not the city's strategic plan when we're done.

And I think um we run the risk of that.

So that's that's really where I'm at on this one.

It's not I appreciate that, and I agree with Kevin that we are great at leveraging things, and I expect that that would be a really good point, but I don't want us to to mix up whose plan it is when we're done.

And and this isn't I'm not trying to cast aspersions.

I'm not expecting that this group's gonna be anything but fair, but when we look at it four years from now, whose plan came out.

Tim you bring up a good point that I've been thinking about and trying to distill through as well.

Is how does adding Citco Recreation Foundation between us and hiring a contractor help the process, right?

And I've heard some ways in which they can help the process.

Um grassroots efforts are always amazing and get a lot of work done uh for very little outlay on the municipal side.

Um and I've heard how groups are going to liaise.

Um but you're you're right as well.

If we should be paying for it, let's write a check for $30,000 to a contractor and just go.

And I think that's kind of where I'm a little hung up on is the additional help.

But there is a huge group.

And so there's there's help, there's additional inputs, there's additional thoughts.

I don't know.

I thought I think it was a lot more, you know.

I I came into this only wanting to ask Rachel if she's had adequate legal review.

And I think it's uh it's kind of morphed uh a little bit longer.

So Rachel, have you had adequate legal review on this?

Uh we had extensive conversations in reviewing this, yes.

I guess my thought is that it's kind of kind of more in the case of uh crowdsourcing to a certain extent of getting the input from the community that's interested in this.

And then if we just contract it out, the first thing they're gonna do is have to go back to them and and to get their input.

So why and you know, we we maintain overall control.

I don't see uh what's wrong with trying to get outside funding.

I mean, if we were to said, okay, we're just gonna do it.

One of the first we would very likely say, hey, Kevin, can you apply for any grants to do this to take the load off of us?

So um to me, the first thing that has to happen is you have to have community input in any kind of a plan like this, and these guys are very well situated to do that.

Um I don't have the heartburn that we're farming it out, we're farming it out to Sidkins.

It's not like this is an outside group.

Um, and they would be involved either way.

So I don't have strong super strong feelings about it, but I just don't see a problem with it either.

Kevin.

Sorry, I just I wanted to answer some of those questions.

Is those are good concerns uh guys or uh everyone.

Um the question one, the parks and the to make sure that it's ours, because this is going to be liaison with the parks and rec uh committee commission.

I can assure you as liaison, I've seen uh Kevin and and that group work extensively over a year and a half for the land use uh plan.

They they do a tremendous amount of public outreach.

So through that, that alleviates my concerns about this being kind of just a one uh group.

Uh and uh another thing about the funding is yes, say we we were to pay it and kind of agree with Tor, even if we did just say you know, screw it, we're just gonna pay it for the whole thing, we would probably end up turning around and asking for sick recreation foundation's help anyways, because these people are very passionate, as he aptly said, um, they're part of this community.

They have, I mean, they gave us money to help buy a V uh electric vehicle.

Um they are more in the know of all of these uh things than most of our staff.

So I I think either way, incorporating a memo uh memo of understanding uh sorry, um a with these guys is gonna be necessary.

So, you know, I I see your concerns, but I don't see um that as being uh not mitigated.

And uh these folks also know how you know they may, you know, maybe they won't be able to be able to fundraise for everything, but they they know people, they know uh institutions and things who are might be willing to contribute.

So I don't see any harm in letting them try to do that.

Uh I think it ensures community buy-in in a way.

Um so yeah, but those are my thoughts.

JJ Um Thank you, Fred for that.

Uh Kevin.

On the topic of you know, letting a nonprofit help.

I essentially see this as a friends of group.

We have a friends of the library who help with with functions, a nonprofit affiliate of the library, as it was mentioned, McKitty, you know, and the friends of the animal shelter, they help financially or volunteer or otherwise with the operations, the animal shelter.

And even though their name isn't friends of the recreation department, um, that's essentially what they do.

And it's very common for those nonprofit affiliates to help fund things like studies.

Um I'm a worker for a friends of group in my day job, and you know, we helped that that department do an interpretive plan.

It's kind of just what these types of groups do.

We're putting forward 15,000 the estimate was 30 to 45 if that um master plan comes in in the 30 thousand dollar range that's us paying for half.

If it's that upper range that's the municipality paying for a third.

I think this isn't um extravagant amount of spending but if anyone wants to put forward a research proposal to increase that amount during this budget season I'd be happy to to let that let that go through out of the general fund.

I don't see it as giving up the municipalities status of having uh ownership over something especially with that's why I asked the question about how much collaboration will happen uh with the parks and rec committee because that is the advisory body to this group and through a liaison they're arguably telling us every other week um what's going on with that with that body um so I think the checks and balances are there for us to be aware of what's happening here and be be okay with it.

It's within my range of of comfort um although that 30 to 45 thousand doesn't seem a little low because last budget season we spent 7500 looking at fire hydrants at GPIP um but maybe it's more in range with earlier tonight we put 2500 way for a child care study.

So the what it costs for a master plan is is very wide ranging um but if they if they wish to help us with this to get it going outside of our limited staff in the recreation department then I'd say please please help us um yeah so I'm I'm happy for this um if we do need to put more funny money forward um because we want to see a a better balance then let's do that during this budget cycle thank you well I think you know if they were uh up here offering a grant to us so that we could do this you know which is what it sounds what the friends of the library kind of does um I think there's to be a whole different conversation I think contracting with another organization to do something that will eventually be a city thing is for me um you know when when we have you know so you're coordinating with a coordinator to coordinate something I mean I think those are the that's my concern if if you're you're if they're just a funding agency and they're just out getting a grant and giving us the money to finish this thing off hey I'm all for that like I'm not in I'm not dismissing the community's interest in this thing.

If if we have been remiss in getting this thing going and they're willing to help pony up some money to get it moving hey let's do that.

Because like Tor says we would look for grants first right so you know but in the end it's the product needs to be the city's product and and handing it off to a to an organization that's going to talk to one of our commissions before we get our product I think that's where my concern lies I think the big benefit that just because I've been going pros and cons um I'm sure people will respond to Sitka Recreation Foundation surveys much more than they will respond to City and borough of sitka surveys.

So we may have a much more robust uh participation model.

Um we know that the city needs work on its communication plan and that's why we're headed down that path right now but they'll have a lot more buy-in perhaps yeah it's just I I think I'm much more comfortable with flexible or fuzzy ways of doing things um and I understand what you're saying but like to my idea that saying that it's not the city's plan when it's made by Sitkins for Sitkins through sitkins it is a city's plan because we're Sitka.

So I I don't have any heartburn with this if we went a different route I wouldn't have much heartburn for that either but I don't see why this shouldn't work.

And it's to me it's a kind of typical sit a way of getting things done which is cool.

So I don't have a problem with it.

Katie our lovely and diverse community has so many um interests and people that work and dedicate and volunteer their time to so many different causes.

So um I I do appreciate your point, Tim, about uh having a city product.

Because I I think there's been examples in the past where other groups have you know approached the city offering to do things, and that hasn't been taken up.

So it's kind of for me less about like absolutely, I think we need a master plan, and I I appreciate the funding support that SRF is offering.

Um, but the process for how those decisions are made for who we do accept support from and who we don't, I think is um a valuable point to bring up.

Uh, and I besides the the point that you just said, uh Steven about answering surveys um being being more likely when you've gotten a great gauge group of people on your listserv.

Um I am wondering, you know, what what is the benefit um to contracting to contract in a circle?

Um I'm wondering if someone can share about the uh van.

I I was like adjacently involved in those discussions, but that was a um priority that was then came in front of the assembly for like an appropriations, and then y'all couldn't make the difference, and so SRF stepped in and helped fundraise that money.

Um just like how how did these processes normally work for receiving support where the full funding picture isn't there?

Uh so a little bit backwards on the funding.

Um the van was proposed originally to be donated to us, and then we made up a shortfall later after we had already approved going forward with a van.

But it yeah, it was a grassroots effort from them to try and raise all the funding.

Um a valiant effort and lots and lots of funding came forward.

Um, but eventually we did uh fill in the the remaining gap.

So yeah, not a direct analogous situation or anything like that, but um yeah, I don't know.

I uh am torn I I want to move forward with this.

I'd like to get this done.

I think this would be really valuable for um the city and the program and the commission, but um I I do have concerns about the process and the kind of precedent that sets.

Um anyone else on item K Sarah Right on the motion to approve the MOA between the City and Borough of Sitka and the Sitka Recreation Foundation for creation of a parks and recreation master plan.

Ms.

Carlson?

Yes, Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

Mr.

Celine?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosier?

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

No.

And Mr.

Christianson.

Yes.

The motion passes uh six one on item K.

Thank you.

Item L, please.

I move to approve a memorable memorandum of agreement between the City and Borough of Sitka and Sitka Rocreation Foundation for feasibility studies and design concept creation for a new real uh recreation athletic facility and authorize the municipal administrator to execute the document.

Second, it's been moved and seconded to approve uh MOA between the city and borough of Sitka and the Sitka Recreation Foundation for a new recreation athletic facility.

Kevin, you have an introduction on this one as well.

Yes.

Uh good evening again.

Kevin Knox, Parks and Recreation Manager.

Uh second MOA before you is for the authorization for an MOA between uh SRF again and the city to uh create a framework for a feasibility study for a new uh or uh upgraded athletic facilities uh specifically uh rubberized track and in uh turf in field as well as improvements to the women's soft uh field at uh Kim Sham.

Uh we touched a little bit on uh the relationship between SRF and SCORE or SICKINGS for community outdoor recreation enhancement uh earlier, but uh the two groups um are uh pursuing funding to revitalize uh the track and field as well as the um women's softball field um so that's uh uh they can do the uh do an update or uh get a new feasibility study uh for for these facilities.

The update uh would be on the lower molar field uh facility.

Uh a new the potential of a new feasibility study would be for the Kim Sham area.

Although the uh the leaning right now is mostly just towards that lower molar field update and uh the Kim Sham um softball field.

Um the proposed MOA is designed to balance the community momentum with a bit of city oversight.

Uh while the project has been discussed in the community, it has not yet formally been recognized as a uh city project, nor has it included any uh funding in our capital planning.

Um so this agreement allows uh an interested community group to come forward and uh move the project forward.

Um and then also meet our the needs that we have.

So within the the MOA uh we've um outlined some areas that uh include um bringing together our our uh our scope of work so that it's aligned uh and that it meets the needs of our engineers and and uh other planning um groups, so that uh if a construction project were to come forward off of a design concept that it would uh be useful for the city.

Um and then something that we could put into bid documents as well uh if that uh came to bear.

Umce the uh the feasibility and design concept is complete, uh the uh SRF would donate the final study uh and design, and uh the assembly would adopt that uh that finding or that that plan if if it uh saw fit.

Um it is outlined in the MOA that there is no um no obligation to the city to construct the facility once uh this uh plan is complete.

Um and the group uh has plans to look into the the fundraising and uh and um you know the future of you know realizing the the project completion if that's uh at all possible for them.

Um yeah, and it uh like the last MOA it also provides some other protections for the city that uh that um don't require us to to fund any part of this or uh like I said the the future construction.

Um the collaborative approach allows us to support a community-led investment again uh in our parks without diverting any of the uh city funds at this time.

So happy to answer questions after.

Thank you, Kevin.

Appreciate it.

This evening assembly deliberation I actually when I was reading this have a little bit of an issue with it, not so much as the mechanism for how we would develop it, but the fact is that I think the expectation is that the ballot measure that passed last year would provide funding for this eventually.

And that's not gonna happen for a really long time.

Right now, there's no money in that fund.

We don't know how long the obligations for the old Citro Community Hospital are continue.

So by the time there's actually money flowing into that, these plans would be incredibly stale.

I mean, we could be talking 20 years, and uh it just strikes me as premature at this point until unless the idea is that we're gonna find funding from someplace else.

Uh I I don't see how it's time for this yet because the tobacco tax isn't gonna produce.

I mean, Brie told us many times it's not gonna produce anything for a long time.

And you know, if you are building a house, and if I got a design and did estimates and everything and said, okay, I'm gonna build that in 20 years, they're worthless by the time I'm actually building it, or maybe not worthless, but I'm definitely having to redo a lot of it.

So that's my my concern about this is that it's this expectation on money that's not there, not gonna be there for quite some time.

Tim I agree with what you say in terms of when the money will be available, but the other piece that that ballot manager did was create a fund into which this group could fundraise and deposit.

So this is a mechanism for them to to begin the process of getting it put together.

So it isn't that fund the tobacco tax isn't necessarily gonna fund this process anytime soon, but in order to have a place to put it in order to fundraise off of it, you have to have two things.

You have to have a design and you have to have a place to accumulate the money.

And I think uh that's what I took away from that ballot initiative as well.

So I don't actually have a problem with this particular thing, other than I'm not exactly sure why the city is involved with it right this moment.

Does SRF need us in order to do this?

Or can they do this process and then have their own design fundraise off of that and move forward?

I guess I'm not I'm not 100% sure why we need to be involved in it at the moment, um, or whether or not they can do this.

I mean, this is the way I read it, the city's really not involved in it, other than just sort of ancillary.

So that was my only real question about that.

But in terms of the funding piece, I think the creation of that mechanism is the big piece that came out of that vote in my mind.

Katie um yeah, I I can potentially provide some answer for that.

I did discuss this with staff, and the I think the reason behind the city's involvement, and feel free to correct me if um if I'm wrong, is that the group did not want to design something that was did not contain the information that the city uh required, such as like you know, what kind of electrical capacity exists in this area for uh the lights that we want to put up or you know, associated infrastructure is basically like um meant to ensure that the group had the most information possible to create a design that was actually useful and they didn't come with something that the city then says we need XYZ information that isn't included in this.

So um, I think meant to uh help streamline and not waste time.

Um seeing some some head nods there.

Um, but my concern with this is more around the uh the the process, right?

Like I like that we're doing a master plan.

I think my understanding of the ballot initiative was that it was not meant for a specific project, what was meant for the uh creation and maintenance of you know, current and future uh athletic and recreation facilities.

Correct me if I'm wrong, uh ballot measure writers, but so that to me implies um a broader picture of what those funds can be used for.

And I think um, you know, logically, like when I think of how things should be prioritized, you do a master plan and then you contribute funding to the priorities that are stated in the master plan.

And so I think for me the issue here is just uh a bit of timing in terms of getting ahead of um a master plan and and fundraising for a facility that has not been identified as sick as top priority.

Um and so I I kind of want to uh slow the role there, not because I want to um throw brakes on something that uh you know passionate community volunteers are are willing uh and able to fundraise for, but more like if you know the city is going to be committing funds to this, like which at some point we will have to, there will be um maintenance you know, costs and upkeep costs that are not insignificant from what I understand for turf fields uh related to such a project.

And so before we you know go ahead um doing that, even though we're not committed to this, it's like gets us pretty far along to being committed to that.

I'm I'm kind of uncomfortable with that um implied obligation uh that we are expressing there, um, given that we don't have this master plan.

So I kind of want to see one happen before the other.

Um and then just in terms of the last thing that I'm a little concerned with is the naming policy.

Um this says that you know, from what I understand, in order to fundraise uh there will be a need to offer things like um, you know, naming rights for complex reserved for legacy and major donors.

Um it this says that the CBS and the assembly agree to honor that donor recognition, including but not limited to.

And so right now we are agreeing to honor um you know, donor recognitions that we don't know anything about, or I don't know that we have a naming policy in place, or if we did it's not included in here.

And so I just I don't think that I have enough information to feel comfortable committing the assembly this far out to um a particular naming scheme for a facility.

Um that that does, you know, tie our hands a bit there.

Um so that's Kevin.

Thank you, Stephen.

Thank you everyone for your comments.

I appreciate it.

Um couple clarifications.

Yeah, uh, you know, the vote was you know, I do remember we made clear there was this people were asking, is it just gonna be for this new thing that people want, or is it gonna be for possibly both, maybe repairing old, and we did say it would be for for both, and it was added to have it for maintenance uh if necessary.

Um it's my understanding that Sick Recreation Foundation or uh score would theoretically um save money uh or raise money and then deposit it on uh with the Sick Ration Nough Foundation with which they then could donate at a future date.

Uh it's my understanding that they they don't they want to do this now because they don't want to get ahead of themselves in that they don't want to do a bunch of work and then have the city say, Well, we didn't you didn't even work with us.

So it's my understanding that they they want like city approval to just kind of go forth, and they're very aggressive on the idea of uh uh fundraising, even including but not limited to reaching out to you know major league uh teams and stuff.

I don't know if it'll work or not, but sometimes you can get some money that way, and sometimes you do have to offer incentives for for things like that because people want their name on things if we're gonna give you 10 million dollars or what have you.

Um I don't know if uh this is you know with the success rate in this.

I think there's a lot of people devoted to it, and I don't see any harm in allowing them to try it.

That's that's kind of my my perspective.

Um I don't think it's it's anything terrible about approving uh approving this.

I think it's a good idea.

Um yeah, I think it's a really good idea.

JJ.

I understand where we're all coming from here.

Um it's just a you know, you get a pull as much information as we can out of a two and a half page document.

There always leaves more um more questions at the question about you know the timing here with the master plan.

Yes, uh, but I see this as just you know zooming into one aspect and kind of doing a case study of that, and although officially this hasn't been set as a priority, arguably this town.

There's the you know, swimming pool people, and then there's the track and field people for for fighting for that top priority.

Um, and we've put a lot of effort into you know the feasibility of the swimming pool.

So that's kind of covered.

Um so this is you know that that next thing.

And yes, in a you know, perfect world we do one thing completely and then the next thing.

Um, but we might just have some parallel timelines going on here to get to an adequate result.

Uh there's the naming policy.

I I guess I don't intend to see anyone rename lower molar.

Muller was a nice guy who who did good things for us in the past.

Um, but you know, putting a little bronze plaque on a on a hurdle saying someone spent 200 for this, um, or that green building um with the current kind of white used to be colored, um, used to have the names of sponsors on them, and they're all faded because it was 20 years ago the last time uh we we did that.

Um my guess, although I haven't asked anyone, is that what we're that's what we're talking about, a sponsorship.

I'm just putting more um of those of those plaques on that building there, which is storage on the first floor, and then kind of the announcing kind of office up top.

Um there's it's nice to see a community group um you know ask for partner a partnership, and that's what I see this as coming to us at the beginning saying, hey, we think we can help in this way, we think we can collaborate well in this way.

Um can we do this together from the beginning?

Um that's what I see this as.

And I'm we appreciate that, and I'm happy to vote vote yes on this because um we we need that grassroots.

We need um people that are dedicated um to want to aid the city um in managing all of our features because it's an exhaustive effort for a three-person department to do on their own.

Um so thank you for this group over here in the corner.

And uh I I hope it can it can get get done in uh well, or you don't end up pulling out any hair.

So thank you.

Uh so for me on this one, I think I'll have to vote um in the negative.

Um and the reason being is that I I see a distinct conflict here that I'm trying to eliminate.

Um on the previous item we signed in a memorandum of agreement with the same group to study all of our recreation and set priorities.

Um in the very next item, that same group is setting the priorities, and I don't see how you can de-conflict that without the master plan being done.

Um whether the bias is perceived or actual, I don't think that that we can eliminate that through the process that's happening right now, and I don't want that shadow of a doubt to come through at any other phase because we were very worried about making this a city document.

Um so with two things already identified and charging forward, um, it shows you where a potential recreation master plan could go, or also could ignore because it's already being handled.

And so that that changes the whole gist of the of the recreation master plan to me.

Um and I don't like it.

So Katie, thank you for bringing that up.

Um again, I was gonna ask if there was adequate legal review, which I'm sure there was on this one.

Um, but the conversation is definitely deepened for myself.

Tor?

Yeah, so you kind of helped me crystallize my thinking on this a little bit, and that and from what I said earlier about the money from the tobacco tax is gonna have to be part of this realistically.

It's gonna take a while.

I don't see how we hurt by getting the master plan and then looking at something like this.

It's gonna be a long slow process no matter what.

And I don't see how that honestly sets us back waiting until we have the master plan because then we're gonna have that way if you're gonna be going for funding, then you have this master plan to say hold up and say this has been identified as what the city of Sitka wants.

Um and I I think that Steven brings up a good point that they do, I'm not sure conflict of interest, but they're putting the cart before the horse, maybe.

Um I would try and be a little bit more polite about it.

But the um not that sorry, I didn't mean to say that you were being impolite.

Uh, but that uh to me, I I just don't think we need to do this now because we have to wait for the money to grow anyway, and let's get the master plan, and we probably would have a more focused plan for something like this after that as well.

Tim, thank you.

I think the key word in this one, to be honest with you, is feasibility, right?

So the question that needs to be answered is whether or not and where, if we were to do something like this, we could do this, right?

Because um there are deep questions about whether lower molar would work, right?

And without the opportunity to discover whether it's feasible or not, um, we're not gonna have an answer that we could even so then then our strategic plan, our comprehensive plan doesn't include it because we don't know if it's possible.

Um so I think uh in some ways uh allowing this group to move forward with figuring out if it's feasible or not is probably the most you know is something we need in order to answer some of the questions that the group's gonna ask.

Um I I could see how you could say that they're presupposing this is the main focus.

Um and on top of that, without a somewhat of a design, you're not gonna know whether what you're looking at in terms of feasibility, right?

If you if you don't even know what you want to build, then is it feasible to build it is not a question you can answer.

So I think um, and there's a little more history behind this.

So I mean, the um Bert Steadman has we've there'd been conversations with him about trying to put some money in to find a fund of feasibility study to whether or not this facility would be possible.

So I you know it's cart beho before the horse, or is it making sure we know what we're talking about as we start asking the questions as we go forward?

And I think um in this circumstance I lean more towards the latter.

Like we need to find out what is possible and whether or not you know, is it is it does it need to be someplace else?

Is it have to be above the high school?

Is it like what where is this thing gonna go if we're gonna need to do this?

And scoping what that looks like includes what this looks like before you can answer that question.

And so, would we be not giving ourselves the best opportunity for a full plan if we don't understand what it is we're trying to build?

So I I I get what you're saying.

You know, I think it looks like this group is saying this is the most important thing, but I don't see that as presupposing it's the most important thing as opposed to saying, is this even possible?

Because what if they find out it's not possible?

Then they're gonna have to figure out how they're gonna break this thing up into different pieces around town, right?

So is that not a good thing for them to know as we start moving forward with this plan?

I think it is.

So thank you.

I I just want to say thanks to Tim.

You just connected something for me that I was not able to.

Uh I think it's a really good point.

Why not let them uh help us uh figure that out?

And that does coalesce with the master plan.

And these folks have not been hiding the fact that they uh uh uh are interested in this, so they've been very open and honest about it.

I don't think it hurts us anything to do this.

I think it like Tim pointed out very well, this will actually help us with our overall goal of getting the master plan done.

I think that was a really good uh really good point, Tim.

Anything else from the assembly on this MOA?

Sarah.

All right, on the motion to approve the MOA between the city and SICA Recreation Foundation for Feasibility Studies and the design concept creation for a new recreation athletic facility.

Ms.

Riley No.

Mr.

Christensen some more time to think about it after that.

Um Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbays?

No.

Mr.

Celine?

No.

Mr.

Mosier?

Yes.

And Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

The motion fails.

Uh three four.

Uh thank you.

Um it is the top of the hour.

Take a break before we move into our last agenda item this evening.

Just a quick one.

All right, the assembly is seated, so we will move on to our last agenda item of the evening, item M, which is a discussion direction regarding the disposal of municipal land for a public benefit purpose.

Um, I'll go ahead and let the sponsors, Katie or Kevin, uh, introduce this item, and then we can have a uh deliberation about it.

Thank you, Mayor Eisenbeis.

Members of the assembly, I am excited to bring forward um this discussion item.

Um I won't uh belabor the point, hopefully you read, um, but want to use this as a chance to have a really good, robust discussion and answer questions.

Um, but to introduce this item, you know, we know that the cost of land often makes housing development prohibitively expensive for a broad range of sitkins, and the assembly has expressed um interest and has dedicated you know municipal assets to solve the housing crunch through the strategic plan direction and the commissioning of the land study.

And so I think that we share an understanding that the city land can play an important role in addressing our housing issue.

But where we run into challenges now in terms of process is that we don't have a mechanism or a particularly clear-cut way of disposing of land at low uh low cost to or below assessed value for these kinds of public benefit purposes.

And so this is um this proposed ordinance that you know, we don't have the language here, but it's like directing staff um to to craft an ordinance that would be meant to fix that and create a streamlined and consistent process that has multiple points of input for public hearings to ensure transparency and accountability.

So tonight we're discussing, you know, do we want to direct staff to develop an ordinance that permits the disposal of municipal lands for public benefit for less than assessed or appraised value, where the proposed disposal is for a project that is either uh involves the construction of more affordable and more accessible housing, or the city determines that the project would result in significant short or long-term benefit, uh public benefit to the city more of SICKA, that public benefit being defined as one or more positive economic or non-economic impacts on the community that the assembly determines uh to outweigh the maximization of that um direct monetary value of the land.

So another benefit of this type of ordinance uh is that it would streamline um city processes, eliminating the need for time and resource consuming um RFPs.

Um where uh so that we can use city assets for public benefit, especially where other uses are not immediately apparent.

Um the competitive bid process that is currently required in city code is not suitable for all of the uses that the city wants to use its land for.

Uh the community gardens plot was a good example of this.

That was something that um had to go out to competitive bid and RFP, but was you know relatively unsuitable for for other uses.

Um this staff has identified this process as something that would improve efficiency and timeliness in dealing with land disposals uh right now, competitive bid processes, especially for something um like affordable housing purposes can run one to two years, and this could cut months off of that timeline while retaining uh really robust um public input and assembly input and direction.

Um and so I've come up with a flow chart that uh demonstrates how this would um work and can answer any questions about that, um, but wanted to see if this is something that the assembly is interested in uh directing staff to um pursue.

This idea came from Petersburg.

Uh they passed an ordinance in 2024 that was very similar to this, and um had a a great talk with the planning director over there about how that has worked for their community and uh thought you know, after talking with staff that we could benefit from the same type of thing.

Do you have anything you want to add, Demon?

No, Katie, you you really just nailed it all.

Um I was just gonna say, you know, as opposed to processes where sometimes we just have gotten into the habit where we just bring an ordinance forth because this is a big picture thing, and this this is just the beginning of a conversation, which we would like to move forward on, but um we're doing this as a discussion direction so we can get the flavor of the uh assembly um before we go too far down.

But I I am fully a support of this.

Um I think um, yeah, I I think this is a great idea, it's something to consider.

Uh personally for me, I don't like the idea that lakes when we do have public land available, you know, say in the future we had some city land we were gonna sell.

I don't want it to sell it necessarily sell it to the highest bidder because I don't want uh second homes for people for people who want to come here and spot do we see if that a year here, I want to be able to be more specific and more strategic.

Uh that's really really important.

So we can get into the discussion afterwards.

Um, but that's just uh my introduction.

Uh thank you both, assembly deliberation tour.

So when I first saw this, the first thing I thought was, well, we can do that now, which we kind of can.

Uh I mean, honestly, we mean we can but we then I thought about and I read through the packet, and I appreciate you guys putting this together that well, yes, we can.

We definitely have to sometimes do some contorting to and lots of uncomfortable votes.

Um I think a lot of the times we've diverted, we've gone to a public vote just to avoid that, honestly.

Is it because we don't want to show this appearance of by the way, I'm supporting this if it isn't obvious.

Um we don't want to show this appearance of we're giving something away.

And even though we may have total agreement on the assembly, we get nervous about that.

And so we defer to the public vote, and honestly, we waste time because most of the time when that goes out, if it has any value at all.

I know I've had friends that may say, why are you bothering us with this?

Um I like the idea that we'll you know, we have a procedure now.

And the one thing that this is a little more fuzzy is that sometimes when somebody doesn't want to do something, they tend to defer to well, you know, we have to that's not exactly what the code says, and even though we have the ability to go around it, I want to stick with the process be and sometimes it's perfectly legitimate, and other times it's like I really don't like this, and so I don't want to do it.

So I'm gonna throw up roadblocks.

And so this would make it much clearer.

I mean, we're still gonna put it to a vote.

But saying that, yeah, we've talked about it and it's okay.

Um, but I think I know that we've probably got some land coming up where this is gonna be an issue.

Um, but I think I know that we've probably got some land coming up where this is going to be an issue, and I think we should be aware that our idea our definition of what is a profit we're making on something doesn't necessarily mean money.

I mean, if we get a bunch of affordable housing, we've made a profit.

Our my personal goals if I owned a piece of property are very different than when I'm up here, and this recognized that, and that the definition for lack of a better word profit should not be purely dollars and cents, and it rarely is.

So I I thank you guys for bringing this forward.

Gigi.

Thank you.

Um, no, some of my process, I have a few processes I go through when looking at stuff, but one of them is you know, the who, what, why, where, when, how.

And this is something that's getting at how, but I don't think we've really addressed the where and the when.

And those come first for me.

Um, we're doing this land study, and I looked at last week's packet for the planning commission, so I'm aware of what that's said, but that hasn't come to the assembly yet.

So similar to our last items discussion, like what comes first.

Do we know what we have available, and then look at how we you know dispose, which is a strange word.

I'll just say sale, um, or give.

Um and that can help me understand in like a concrete fashion what we're talking about here.

Because if we're just looking at abstracts, then you know, it could be any parcel of city land.

So it could be, you know, a green strip by a harbor.

And we don't it could be, you know, and that just doesn't quite fit with you know the the good because we're trying to do for public benefit.

Um that's it's too big of a parameter.

I mean, the city and borough of sitca is the largest city in the United States.

Um there's too many factors without some kind of tangibles here.

And if there was some help to help have me understand what we're working on here, because when we change the code, I mean that's changed forever.

Um, but when we do, you know, this this body votes on something by ordinance, that's a specific case study for a moment in time for current situation.

Um the language that I'm reading in, you know, 18.15 point one zero one zero.

Um that part of code that we're looking at, you know, updating.

Um there's plenty of room in here, you know, even though Tor saying it's uncomfortable and we we don't like doing it historically as the city assembly.

Um there's a lot of place for us just as four members of the seven to say yes and it to happen.

Um I'm looking at E, that's competitive bid portion.

The the assembly may also bid and says for circumstances surrounding disposal.

We can say housing crisis is a circumstance.

Thank you.

Tim.

Yeah, I well, you're 100% correct.

I mean, I think Dora pointed it out too.

Like we could do it right now.

And um, but it's just this one's gonna hinge for me.

Okay, so first of all, the question is should we explore an ordinance on this?

And I think uh I'm with Tor.

I think we should explore an ordinance on this, whether or not once it shows up, I think it's sufficient, or that we don't I'm gonna support the ordinance necessarily.

That that's a question for when it shows up.

But I do know it's gonna hinge on definitions, it's gonna hinge on defining clearly for us and for the future what we are what kinds of things fit within that public good.

Um I like what I see in terms of that definition, but it's not enough of a definition to act on.

So I think in terms of setting up a structure and a process to make it easier for an assembly to do that, so they don't feel like they're giving away something because there's already a process in place, because in a sense, the current code requires almost an the finding of extraordinary need, right?

Essentially, and I think that's a that's a bar that requires, as Torres pointed out, you know, eventually the assembly says, you know what, this is above our pay grade, let's get the people to tell us what we're gonna do here.

And I think it's worth exploring the opportunity and seeing what an ordinance would look like and seeing what the definitions are in terms of what meets those criteria to see whether or not it's worth going forward with.

So you know, I think this is a one that moves that down the way.

Also, you know, as as always, the ordinance gives us a chance to hear from the community is what do they think too?

So I think that's a that's an opportunity that we don't want to miss in terms of this because this is their property when all said and done.

So you know, I think the community is well aware of the issue, and today's issue is housing, maybe tomorrow's issue is I don't know.

I don't know.

So, you know, what what what what meets the criteria for public good at that point in time?

So, you know, let's if we're gonna do it, let's structure a good one, but let's make sure we define what we're talking about.

Uh John, a question for you on this one.

Um obviously a lot of burden, not burden, um, obviously a lot of priority has to shift amongst your staff.

Um, have you evaluated what could potentially fall off in order to make this a priority?

Um I don't think your staff has idle time on their hands right now.

Um so what what would this look like from your perspective?

Because I've heard staff writing the ordinance, I've also heard multiple touch points.

Uh so that would sound as if it's a town hall or or similar.

Um I just want to I want to know what the the lift looks like from your side, and then what what would we potentially be uh deprioritizing in order to make this happen?

Um thank you for the question.

I um I think it was made pretty clear through the last strategic plan update that housing is a is a top priority.

So I don't think we need to shuffle anything around.

It's it's been made clear to me, it's been made clear to staff that uh you know, housing and child care are the things that that shifted up to the top.

Um, and I think we're all prepared to do that in terms of prioritization, it just may slow some other internal goals that we want to achieve uh as far as our just efficiency and operations.

Um in terms of where the priorities are for work here, uh this was already at the already at the top of the list.

Just the housing projects in general I that's actually really reassuring because I think it needs to be at this point, and I'm glad that we're starting this discussion.

Uh Katie, when you when you got elected, I knew that this was gonna come fast, and I'm and I'm glad to see it here, right?

Um, but also I think you're moving at a speed that is not leaving the body behind right now, which is also amazing.

Um bringing out a discussion as Kevin indicated earlier, helps to build some consensus before we move forward on what could be a very massive change to how we conduct business and operations.

Again, very needed, very necessary.

Um hesitant going forward with just a couple things, um, and mainly that's just I think that's just shifting mindset for me.

Um, and the you know, some of the costs associated with that, and but I don't I don't think that this is not a needed and necessary mission and a needed and necessary goal for our community.

Um it'll be interesting to crack this egg open and see what other opportunities there are for kind of a triple bottom line disposal of land as opposed to simply the the profit side of it there.

So we're uh we're headed down the right path, and uh I I'm assuming Kevin and Katie will shepherd this very well as it goes down um goes down those roads.

Uh has anyone not spoken that needed to no go ahead, JJ.

So is that a was that a summary or is that just your opinion?

I have an opinion.

Um, I wasn't trying to summarize, I was trying to state where I was at at this point because that's uh I just adding to the discussion.

Thank you.

Um is there like to build on the you know what is the definition?

Um zoned areas does have to be R1 or two, could it be anything?

I mean housing.

There's you know, trailer courts and commercial land, and that's housing.

Um what what are we looking at at?

Are there any you know perceived parameters here?

Are we modeling it directly uh of Petersburg, or is there some potential updates to make this sitka?

Um can I hear a bit more about those things?

Yeah, um thank you for all the questions, uh, great points, and just wanted to address some of them.

We did consider, you know, is this right to do first, or is this something we want to do after the land study?

Um, and we settled on this is right to do first because this establishes uh a way to look at the results of that that releases a little bit of pressure.

I think um when that land study comes to the assembly, you know, there's gonna be a push.

Uh we're all feeling the crisis.

We have different opinions about you know what to do to solve it, but there's gonna be a push to really like do something, I think that we're feeling from the citizens, the community, you know, this body itself, and so we wanna establish one process that can be pursued.

It's not you know gonna apply to all the lands, it's not gonna be the thing that's good for every municipal land.

Um, but this is creating a process and a tool where one currently doesn't exist, uh, so that we have that in our toolbox when we consider um how to develop those lands.

Um so we're just we're creating options um that are not currently at our disposal.

It was mentioned we have uh the assembly has uh done this in a kind of an ad hoc manner.

Um so you know, there was uh the the land trust vote um by the people in 2006 to designate old city shops for affordable housing.

There was um the lease to the community gardens at less than assessed value.

So um there's been a couple instances, but this creates um some more structure, you know, which I I think is beneficial right now.

Um the way the process would work is if uh say someone came.

So right this is possible to a certain extent right now.

If you go, if you look at the um flow chart, uh right now a developer can approach uh CBS staff, they can express interest in a parcel of land, um, and then it can go to that public review, and then it immediately goes to RFP.

So it doesn't, it doesn't skip RFP, even if um there's potentially not other good uses for that land.

And then with the development of the RFP comes a lot of work.

Uh and you know, what is the city want to judge the criteria for?

What do they want to see this land used for?

Like that is a conversation that has to happen between staff and the assembly that takes time to do.

So, you know, what what direction we're giving to staff tonight is that like we want to prioritize this.

This is a good time to raise any things that you really want staff to look at, like the definitions point is great.

Um, so staff has that direction that the definitions need to be really planned out.

Um, and then they're gonna be able to take that and the hope is to um match that with the resolution from the planning commission about like what our housing priorities are in terms of you know, types, affordability, different ranges, populations that we're trying to serve, they have those discussions a lot of the time, and um we'll be able to use that as like a more um what's it uh uh a more uh like not something that we come up with on the fly, right?

It's like an established list that we agree upon that creates a structure that this is what we want to do, and you know, with with the strategic plan, everything that we do, we've created these like okay, we've made a plan and we're sticking to it, and we don't want to be doing these these ad hoc things, right?

So I think that this ordinance proposal helps create that process um and that will get us uh to those um to those outcomes a little bit quicker.

And so that is the dual ask is that you know, we staff uh task staff with this, and we're certainly working with them.

There's a good you know robust amount of language uh to work with, but obviously to make it sit because specific, that's like where the the input from the assembly and also the planning commission is gonna be really important because um you know we have a pulse on our community, and then that body has been discussing um the the housing for a long time, and so they're gonna have uh you know what what does it look like for Sitka specifically to be able to do something like this.

Hopefully I didn't put my foot in my mouth during that time.

Okay, thank you.

So we're talking about parcels of land, not residential lots.

We're talking about neighborhood scale.

I mean, you could talk about any size, any size of scale.

Um the Osprey street lot that is uh for the preview of the report from the planning commission that was like identified as the most uh viable for development, score the highest, it's one acre, so it's not gonna create that much housing, right?

And then you've got um other lots that are anywhere from you know 30 to 70 acres.

So with this, you could identify any parcel of land, you know, any size.

It doesn't have to do with uh zoning or anything.

Uh it's like someone coming to say, you know, they they can't, or it would be up to the assembly, I guess, if you were what uh Osprey Street is probably zoned like R1R2.

Um if you wanted to, you know, if someone was like, I think it's in our public benefit to to embed like an industrial compost facility here that might not fit with the neighborhood um you know surrounding, and so that would probably not pass this body, right?

We get pushback from that.

So it's like, but for a lot of the areas that are in the land study, they are uh undeveloped.

I don't know if like the land of the Harbor Mountain Roadland is even zoned or anything, so it wouldn't it wouldn't depend on zoning, and it would be open to to all lands.

Like if someone was like, I w I propose to lease the green strips at the harbor to build uh edible food garden, you know, for the community, like that would be a possibility under this.

Yeah, I just I'm looking back to that master plan in my mind, and the parcel of Gavin that was looked at goes there's this really big triangle part that goes all the way up to the snow line.

Like we our parcels in this town are are not well defined for for anything.

Um this is just so open that there needs to be parameters for for feasibility.

Um we don't have we like you know, subparcel or you know, just draw on a map and then get it surveyed because city land is there's really no real kind of a reason to it.

If you look at the lots that make up Kim Sham Ballfield, they're cut all different which ways and don't represent um any of the utility of it.

So I just I would need to hear so much more to understand what the goal of this is.

I understand the goal is housing, but the rest of it is just very murky and just we'd be given away a lot, and we we've seen how difficult it is to develop in this town, how expensive it is, and when we give away that land, then perhaps it doesn't turn into anything because it's too expensive to develop Scotty, you haven't had the floor yet.

I'm uh I'm just trying to see how you can control if you got one acre, and it's gonna go to a contractor, how does it stay in an affordability deal, like with Chase and equity and stuff, like how the land trust.

If you sell your land trust house, so much of the equity stays back.

So if we're gonna vote to not be at market value to have more housing that's not for people in the summer, that's where I'm I'm I'm all for it, but I I'm just I don't know what it's going on.

Yeah, if I may, um great question.

So currently it's suggested that this ordinance just apply to uh nonprofits and governmental entities, so that would be um like like Bihaw or the tribe or whoever else um that fits that description, and so uh this is not like something that uh for-profit entity could apply for uh if if we want to express as a priority of this body that for-profit entities would be eligible potentially in collaboration with nonprofit entities, like that's a direction that we can give staff, but they're really gonna hammer out the details.

I think something that I hear from this body a lot and the planning commission is retaining that permanent affordability on the land, and we don't have to solve that question here tonight.

We have you know, staff who's been putting a lot of time and effort into thinking about that, and so when they bring forward an ordinance, I think some of these like specific questions will be answered.

Um, but one of the ways that this could be used is like you have the Osprey Street, um, you know, one acre, you can't put a lot on there, right?

Let's say the land trust ex uh expresses a proposal for that, they submit an expression of interest, it goes through this process.

If nobody else uh comes up with an idea that says, oh, I have a better use of this land within 30 days, and that's after you know a month or two of uh planning commission deliberation and assembly deliberation, then there's a negotiated uh disposal ordinance.

So none of this like permits, you know, you just give it away.

It's like this comes back in front of the assembly multiple times, it goes to the planning commission for review, and then we have to do have to vote on a final ordinance.

This is really just creating a process for all of that to take place that doesn't currently exist.

Tor?

Yeah, so I think we're overcomplicating this.

There's we're just creating a process for disposing of city property that isn't purely how much money we can get.

And it's gonna have to, and I don't think it should be tied to housing, because I could see scenarios where you have a city building to something wild, like let's say we the city decides to build us a new police station by and we move City Hall there and we've got the old city hall.

Turning that into a child care center, something like that.

I mean, I'm uh but I'm just saying that anyway, all this would be is a process for saying we're not purely gonna look at how much money we get for it.

We're gonna look at other criteria that in the public good.

And I think it having it going to a government or nonprofit, it's a pretty good safeguard on that.

But every single thing that comes forward is gonna have to be go through this process, this body and the planning commission.

And so um, we're not deciding any specific piece of property, and nor should we.

We don't know what it's gonna be.

I mean, who knows?

We could be putting where the quarry is now that it's nice and flat.

Whatever.

But we can say that we don't just we aren't just gonna be held to how much money we can get.

We have to look to the total public good.

And it's a pro developing the process for how to do that.

Um it's not that complex, and or rather, at least not for at this point, and then when it any proposal comes forward, we would look at that proposal, or the certain assembly would.

And so I don't think you want to tie it to a certain zoning or specific piece of property because we don't know 20 years from now what the assembly then will want to do to advance the public good.

Kevin.

Thank you.

Yeah, I would just say I I agree with what Tor's saying.

Uh this offers us flexibility, and by the way, Stephen, you asked if we were going to be shepherding, yes.

This is basically Katie's baby.

She's the one who came up with this, did pretty much all the work, so thank you.

But I will be supportive and be a part of that with you, Katie.

Um couple things.

Tim, you said you wanted to uh you were wanting to know what other purposes, so you're saying maybe more including more than just housing, is that correct?

Okay, like Tor said.

I was just asking him that question.

Okay.

So yeah, I just think this is offers us a lot of flexibility.

We're not um the whole point is, and there's things like if say if uh we wanted to a contractor approach us, or if we had the pop possibility of you know, say giving some land to a contractor in ex for very cheap in exchange for them developing uh several other lots or something like that.

This is all about offering flexibility to so that we're not just bound to sell to the highest bidder, you know, and so that helps us with in uh with the housing and and other needs.

I'm kind of seeing it that it should include tide lands also, it's not just gonna be about housing.

Uh my hold up right now as we've been going along, um, we talk about flexibility, we talk about availability, we talk about um getting it in the hands of contractors, but yet we only say state or federal agencies, tribes or nonprofits.

Um, and that severely limits the real world functionality of this.

Um I think we're eliminating a large segment of the world or of the of the world, I could say, that uh has ability to develop within either deed restrictions or guidelines from sale.

Um that may not fit those those groups.

And if that's our intent, that's fine.

But I think we we limit how much is actually going to be done long term at that point.

Uh yeah, Kevin, one more thing, um, JJ, when you we were talking about everything you want to see, um I wrote down the words working group.

I don't know if we need to have a small working group um of assembly members who want to help shape this a little bit more, but I I did write those words.

Kevin.

Kevin Stephen to clarify, yeah.

Um I was this is a discussion item, so all this information is being taken down, and so we'll be into the calculus.

Can you clarify your last comment?

Like you said you're concerned because I I I wasn't following you exactly what you mean.

Your concerns at the very end of your last comment.

Oh, it specifically states um a state or federal agency, federally recognized tribe or nonprofit um is who the city lands can be disposed of too.

Um so that eliminates any sort of any other group, which I think takes a big chunk out of the available um entities who can provide housing in the form that we need in Sitka.

So are you saying you'd prefer to not have it restricted to those ones and because the contractor comment just something I thought of as an example, but um so you're saying you'd prefer if it was wider open?

I think it's a necessity for project success.

Okay.

Um I still think there needs to be guidelines in there, and I don't know if that's deed restrictions.

I don't know what that looks like.

I think this process could help determine that, but I'm just fearful that there may be limited capacity within those organizations to do as we're looking for, and if we're looking to put a meaningful dent in there, I think we need more ability to get the projects done as opposed to less.

Okay.

So more, okay.

Um yeah, I I absolutely agree, and that's like something that we thought about um, you know, by restricting it, it uh it offers us more ability to achieve things like the permanent affordability things because these entities have the structures to be able to track those deed restrictions, whereas developers might not.

Um, but I'd be really interested at looking at what kind of uh partnerships, you know, we we can create because the thing about deed restrictions is like they you have to monitor them, right?

So the land trust is in a really good position to monitor um the permanent affordability of the houses as they sell and don't you know accumulate that have that limited amount of equity 25% that you can gain um because they belong to this HOA and so uh developers more often it's you know use you develop and I think that developers could develop land affordably under this, but how do we maintain that public benefit over time is the is the thing that I'm really um concerned about, and so that's where um those entities have more ability to do that.

They also can bring in um it's it's like even free land is not enough to create affordable housing, right?

Like you need to subsidize utilities, um, you need to subsidize roads.

It's it becomes just unaffordable really quickly, even even without the cost of land itself, um just the building costs alone right now.

And so uh I want to see, you know, how can those entities collaborate together and very much willing to explore this with staff, what we can do, because I I don't want to hamstring it too much.

Um, but at the same time, do want to ensure that that this is not like a uh a one-time benefit, right?

We want to make sure that the public benefit that was intended when the land was disposed, uh, is maintained over time.

So that was the the purpose for that, but can definitely look at um how we can creatively pursue that one more thing.

I was just uh I had been meaning to say too this is the beginning of a process.

I do understand that there's things going on at the city right now.

I think they're working on budgets and there's several things, so we're not I don't think we're expecting them to drop everything right at this moment and start working on this.

It's it is important and we're gonna start we'd like to see progress, but we understand like in the next month or so or what have you.

Um there's we have to give some uh flexibility for staff.

Um I just wanted to add that.

But I think this is a lot of good healthy information and something that we can think about and um incorporate some of these ideas.

I see this being parallel to the recreation master plan might be a lot of land that's suitable for housing that's currently used for recreation.

And so I see here that the planning commission will draft annual resolution to kind of set these priorities.

Or does the you know the Bijas of the world and the CLTs of the world come to this city?

How does that because I could just see there being some challenges because we're we're tight here?

We've kind of done what we can on the flatland we have a lot of that flatland as ball fields and turnaround parking areas for the two versions of float plane stocks ago.

Um right now I don't think that uh anyone at the planning commission is considering developing recreational facilities um into housing, and I likewise am very grateful um to the the recreation folks who I know approach the planning director to say, hey, we're thinking about this plot of land for a facility, and um there's that opportunity to say no, we're thinking about this plot of land for housing.

So I think that that communication exists between those uh those groups to ensure that uh we're not you know on each other's toes.

Like this community very much values recreation.

Um we we see that time and time again that that quality of life is really important.

So uh we're not talking about developing ball fields into housing right now.

I think it's it's mainly a process for any land, um, but especially like the undeveloped land that's coming up.

John Thanks, Mayor.

Um I think there's a lot of great conversation happening, and that's why we have a discussion direction item here.

Um I'll I'll try to summarize just what I learned in my conversation with uh assemblymember Riley.

Um section of code under real property disposal, as Assemblymember Christensen said, we can do this already.

We we can dispose of land uh by foregoing competitive bid.

Um and I know that it was brought up about um the public vote.

Um it's listed in the code as the public mo the public vote is a may, um, and and that's there to kind of provide some protection for those tough decisions.

And uh it's it's right there in section E that says competitive bidding uh can be found inappropriate due to the nature of the property, yada yada yada.

Um and I think what assemblymember Riley was looking for in our discussion with us is if something was added about public benefit, trying to determine what that demon definition of pet public benefit is, and then what are the what are the processes and the rules around maintaining that public benefit if the land is disposed of under that exemption?

Did I get it close?

Yeah, and I'll just say that the you know, section E that we're referring to.

Um when I was on the planning commission, we had a couple parcels come up.

This is in my experience only been used for um like city land that is kind of completely encircled by a single owner.

Like we we really mostly always go to competitive bid, always, and unless it is like this land is an island amongst a private property owner's surrounding, and so therefore it's only useful to them because no one else can access it or things like that.

So my understanding is that we we don't actually have the opportunity, or it would be a new strategy for us to say this is uh inappropriate to go to competitive bid um because of uh an opinion that we have about the the housing crisis.

This creates a more well-defined, you know, legally defensible process that is clear-cut and states what our priorities are, gives us the opportunity to assess those, gives us the opportunity to change and reiterate those over the years as they change and um just creates a lot more clear-cut process that doesn't exist right now.

I got one last thing.

Kevin, you got one last thing too.

We all got one last thing.

Um I got one last thing on this.

Um, and I think a lot of this happens through the entity that's selected.

Um, but I see a lot of really good thoughts about affordability and costs down.

Um if I'm someone who doesn't live in Sitka and I'm looking to move to Sitka right now uh for a potential short term or this, I'm loving this discussion because that means my costs will go down too.

I think the part that's lacking is a residence-only or local preference, and I don't know legally how we go about that at this point, um, but it scares me to go through all this work and then not keep it within our community.

So that'll probably be the last thing I say tonight, and it probably won't.

I'll just say that there are some entities that are more suited than others to monitor uh and ensure that these homes uh or whatever is built is going to local residents.

So we'll definitely be addressing that.

But in terms of um direction, uh I don't know how these items normally work.

I I don't know that we make a motion to proceed, or is it just sound like staff have what they need to be able to proceed with an ordinance and potentially um JJ, would you like to be involved in the conversations as well?

Okay.

Yeah, uh it's been done both ways.

John, I think you have a very solid handle uh right now on what the assembly is looking for and our goals.

Um I'm sufficient with that tonight if you are, um, especially knowing that you'll have uh Katie and JJ um helping this along.

Hope you can run fast because they're gonna run fast too.

Kevin's very important.

Thank you, Stephen, for saying that.

Someone needs to keep them hydrated.

Uh so uh from John's summary.

Does anybody need to add anything to that this evening?

Kevin, you got what you needed out of the discussion.

Yeah, I what I got was um just a lot more information, a lot more uh desires to include other things, uh a little more clarity.

I I think it was very very helpful.

Okay, Katie, you got what you needed out of the discussion.

Yeah, absolutely, and thank you everyone for your uh questions.

Okay, anything else from the body on this one.

Great, thank you.

I know we're almost at the top of the hour, but we are going to charge through these last couple of things on our agenda this evening.

Uh that'll bring us to 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.

The comment was the door.

Oh, look at that guy back there.

Uh reports.

Um, I have no report except that I will be missing uh the school budget meeting.

I have uh a personal trip uh the first week of February, and then myself um John will be gone for two different trips in February to Juneau as well.

So I'm glad to have the legislative priorities with us in order to take those up.

Uh I did uh inform the tribe at the the tribal council meeting that we would be going back to DC in the middle of April, and uh some ideas for collaboration and uh working together have already started to come out of that.

I don't know if we're gonna be there at the same time, but at least uh taking each other's priorities and talking about them as a succinct unit is has always been the goal for that.

So that is a good thing that came out of the uh tribal council meeting um the other day.

John uh report.

Yes, mayor.

Uh lots of travel for the month of February.

I'll be leaving Monday to go to the Pacific Northwest symposium.

Um we've got a lot of good meetings set up with um I've got MSC set up, Norwegian cruise lines, Royal Caribbean, uh Virgin Voyages.

I'll be sitting down with Clea and I've also been asked to speak on a panel, and that's all happening in the very first day that we're there.

So it'll be a busy day.

Uh and then as you said, we've got uh Southeast Conference the next week, and then AML then the week after that.

So um a lot of travel happening.

Uh tomorrow I have my state of the city presentation that I do every year uh with the chamber.

Uh that'll be happening at noon, and then uh after the presentation, uh or maybe before the presentation, we'll have the speech and the slides and everything posted online for everybody to look at, and then I'll be on the radio uh Thursday morning to discuss it, just uh the quick morning interview.

Um, and then I'll end with a bit of good news if you didn't see it already.

Uh but Senator Murkowski and her staff were able to secure uh 10 million dollars in the FY26 interior and environment appropriations bill for our wastewater effluent disinfection project.

Um so her support is definitely going to reduce the financial impact on Sitka's ratepayers uh who would otherwise have to bear the the cost of getting us in compliance with a federal mandate.

Um and since the project was included in the bill, um we're just waiting for the bill to be enacted, and then the funds will be made available to the appropriate agencies, and then the agencies will reach out to us and we'll put together all the the subgrant agreements and everything that needs to happen there.

So it could be several months before that takes place, but uh we did get um some very good news on that end that lobbying helps.

Thank you.

Uh Rachel, attorney's report.

Uh nothing to report.

We just covered most of what I've been working on lately.

Liaison representatives.

GG.

Last week at Health Needs and Human Services.

I shared with them the most likely passage of the 25,000 uh for the health, sorry, for the child care study, and liaisoning back to this group.

They were very appreciative of that.

Um that report that they submitted was an important piece to getting to this point, and so they were grateful that their work has turned into something something bigger.

Um also liaison to Ports and Harbors, and their January meeting was canceled.

But the next one will be on February 11th.

Katie We did talk about the land study at the planning commission meeting um last week, so that was awesome.

Um there was uh you know, eight properties considered that was Ospreay Street, Sica High School, Benchlands, Harbor Mountain Road, Gavin Hill, Green Lake Road, Harringcoe Peninsula, and Upper Edgecombe Drive.

Those fell into one that scored really really high uh as most suitable for development, that was Ospreay Street, the small site that I mentioned.

Sicka High School was second, it got uh 71 points out of a hundred.

Osprey got 90.

Um, and so there is uh a lot of opportunity there, but still a smaller parcel, and then three um have about the same score, and that was Benchlands, Harbor Mountain Road, and Gavin Hill.

And so um they're going to be doing some more research on those and uh analyzing debris flow and um more kind of landslide-esque questions for those areas that have those significant hills.

Um, but no one is suggesting that we build uh up to the snow line, yeah.

Um so there's there's designated parcels within that.

But uh was a great presentation, and um really excited to see um the the further analysis um and then the past the you know Green Lake Road, Harringco Peninsula, Upper Edgecombe Drive just had really um a lot of issues with access or buildable land, and so um those scored uh you know between 41 and and 34 and on the lower end.

But we've got some uh some good stuff to work with there, and then that will proceed to phase two um to look more at build out and like what um the development would look like and then what kind of information we need from the slope constraints um that would uh affect that development.

So more to come.

Not seeing anyone else jump.

Is there a clerk's report?

Um I think you already mentioned these uh dates, Mayor.

Um the there's a joint budget work session February 5th with the school board, and then our next regular meeting is February 10th.

Thank you.

Any other reports this evening?

That'll bring us to adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

I thought that second would come a little faster, but uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

We are adjourned.

Thank you, staff for hanging out with us till the wee hours of the night.