I think we've reached the top of the hour.

Good evening.

I'd like to call to order the February 10th assembly meeting.

Please join me for a flag solution.

I leave through the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic or which 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 Plinketani.

Sarah, roll call, please.

Mr.

Pike.

Here.

Ms.

Carlson?

Here.

Ms.

Riley.

Here.

Mr.

Christensen.

Here.

Mr.

Mosher?

Here.

Mr.

Selene.

Here.

Mayor Eisenbais is absent this evening.

Thank you.

And I believe Rachel's with us via Zoom too.

And Rachel, you are online.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Are there any correspondence or agenda changes this evening?

Seeing none, we'll move on to special reports.

All right, we're gonna start with Ms.

Ainsley.

Sit the land sustainability and feasibility study phase one summary and recommendations.

Thank you, Mr.

Deputy Mayor and Assembly Members, Amy Einsley, Planning and Community Development Director.

I'm just gonna get a couple things pulled up here.

Here so I think that most assembly members have had an opportunity to review the total report.

It was published at towards the kind of middle of December.

We did include it in the planning commission's packet in December and January, and in your full packet tonight as well.

But I have just a couple of really quick summary slides to kind of walk everyone through.

So the scope of phase one, um, well, let me let me back up one moment for context for those who are um who are newer to the project.

The goal of the project, so this is the land suitability and feasibility study, is an opportunity for us to look at all municipal lands in our inventory and to essentially kind of rank at least in this first phase to really get a better understanding of what the best opportunity set for housing development using our lands would be.

Um so this was primarily um a technical study.

Um so we looked at you know, kind of civil engineering and geotechnical um aspects, but we're really looking at you know what are our best opportunities for land development.

We know that we're you know, the the low-hanging fruit is largely gone.

We're looking at mostly marginal tracks, but where should we be focusing our attention?

Um, what's the best opportunity, what how much housing can those opportunities provide, and at what cost?

And so we're on that phase one of just kind of looking at what is the best opportunity set and what is the development potential.

So the scope for phase one was to look at uh several different areas that are a part of our municipal land holdings.

Um, and so we can walk through each one of these in a little bit more detail.

Um, but generally speaking, we were looking at again that um kind of technical standpoint.

Um, we had some site visits and wetlands reconnaissance that took place during this phase, uh desktop studies for topography, hydrology, landslide risk, and other environmental constraints, um, LIDAR analysis as well, which we'll show you on some of the next couple of um slides here, as well as utility analysis.

So looking at the current condition and capacity of our water, waste, water, and electric systems in these general areas.

All of that was building towards coming to this kind of decision matrix.

Again, we wanted to have a ranked order of our lands so that we understand where to where to really focus our time and resources next.

And so throughout the study, we were thinking about these kind of criteria of what makes for a good piece of municipal land to develop for what makes it suitable or feasible for housing development.

So we looked at um kind of broke these factors that you see across the top here into three primary buckets.

So, first is just constructability.

Um, so we looked at slide risk factors for the area's construction access, how easy would it be to get construction equipment into these sites?

Um, what are the physical conditions like the topography, how flat of the area are we talking about, as well as you know, things like uh prevalence of wetlands and proximity to utilities.

Um, you know, how can we build from existing utility networks into potentially new areas?

Um but looking at next the density potential, how much land, you know, are sorry, how much housing could we get from these different sites?

The we were looking at the buildable area in terms of acreage, and that was really looking at some of these maps to see areas where we had you know at least less than 15% minimum grade, the utility capacity in the area, so not just the proximity of how we could run utilities to the area, but what is the what is the capacity of those of that utility infrastructure in the area as well as transportation capacity as well.

What kind of roads are already developed towards the area and how much more traffic could they handle.

We also looked at pretty lightly, but a couple of other kind of desirable factors in terms of environmental impacts, and that primarily was around impacts to like recreational access sites, and then it's proximity and access to services.

So areas that are closer to shopping, schools, government services, social services, that sort of thing, had a slightly higher factor.

So a couple of the different areas that we looked at.

Um this is one of the larger tracks in the study, that's uh Gavin Hill.

So this is behind Sitka High School.

Uh these two lower tracks here in total are about 60 acres with a much larger track that goes up the hillside, which is you know, largely, largely undevelopable just given the grade there.

But um, as we'll look when we kind of circle back to the rest of the rankings, this was one of the definitely one of the key sites that we looked at.

Also proximate to the high school here.

I'll show you on this slide because it has if you can see it over the text box there.

Um, right here to the if this is north, that's gonna be plan east here to the high school.

Um, there is this tract of land here that we spent some time looking at as well.

Um, just a little bit over seven acres as well.

So that's called the Sitka High School or SHS site.

Um we also have in this is to the west of Gavin Hill.

This is what we're calling the upper Edgecombe Drive area.

This is a tract of land that kind of runs between Charteress Street and town towards Cascade Creek Road as well.

Um we also took a fresh look at the benchlands, remaining lands that the municipality owns along Kramer Avenue, as well as lands on Harbor Mountain Bypass Road.

We also looked at these are the two tracks that the municipality owns on Indian River.

We do not own this larger tract out here.

This is owned by the Forest Service.

So we were primarily looking at this, not necessarily for housing development because it's so constrained by the river, but we are primarily looking at it in terms of its suitability for providing road access should other opportunities in Indian River Valley become available.

We also looked at Green Lake in a couple of different sections in Herring Cove.

Um, and when we come back to the ranking criteria, I think some of those, some of those pieces will become a little bit obvious.

But even as you can see from just a couple of these snippets, you're seeing a lot of red, which means you know, we're looking at grades of over 45%, very, very limited pockets of area with kind of more buildable terrain.

We also looked at uh Osprey Street as well.

There's a small portion of property off of Blachley Middle School that has some bit of development potential as well, and that actually was the highest ranked parcel out of the ones we studied.

So again, we uh developed this decision criteria as sort of a baseline for the study, and then we also discussed this with the planning commission.

They helped with some of the particularly really helped with the weighting of these criteria as well.

Um, and you know, helped us kind of prioritize what are what are the really some of the most important factors here.

Um, after that re-kind of calibration of our decision matrix and the evaluation criteria, um Osprey Street rises to the top as the most developable opportunity.

It is also the smallest as well, you know, just at about an over an acre.

In terms of when I talked about earlier, low-hanging fruit, this is one of the the you know only kind of low-hanging fruit opportunities.

Um, but given it, you know, given its size, it doesn't rate as well for you know, things like you know, buildable area, um, but it has it's you know readily accessible, it's relatively flat, it's close to town, it's close to services, um, and so that was our top-rated or top rated area.

Um, the smaller tract, um, this about seven acres by Sitka High School was next on that list.

Um really um really nice kind of flat kind of piece of bench up there.

I'm not sure if for some of you might be very familiar with the area of there pretty frequently, others not.

Um but there is a there is definitely a lot of development potential for Sitka High School.

Some of the things start to get, you know, some of the things that that get a little bit challenging for the area definitely tend to be the road access in.

We're definitely looking at smaller residential streets and a lot of really aging infrastructure in that area as well.

You can see that there's pretty close scores between the next three tracks for the benchlands, Harbor Mountain Road and Gavin Hill.

And my opinion, some of these numbers are just really almost too tight to even parse out.

And we're dealing, you know, with really sizable tracts of land in this for these.

And so I think for where we're at in phase one, it becomes clear that you know the the two smaller tracks, smaller, easier to develop, really exciting potential.

We want to move, want to move study of those forward and closer to you know, you know, what a real development would look like.

More analysis is needed to be able to really kind of differentiate between these middle three.

Green Lake Road, Herring Cove Peninsula, and Upper Edgecombe Drive very clearly fall out in terms of the rating.

We talked a little bit about Green Lake Road with just very limited pockets of flat land and also just distance from other utilities except for electric as well as Herring Cove.

Upper Edgecombe Drive, than we talked about here.

Um not a lot of buildable area.

There's a couple of pockets where we have these sort of flatter spots, but we don't have a good means of road access in.

And so we'd be looking at looking at trying to buy right of way, likely from the Forest Service in, and even if if that were, you know, the and the Forest Services talked with us about, you know, and just sort of what their process is generally for seeking right of way.

So it's not so much that constraint, it's the physical constraints of even trying to get a road in it in this area.

I'm not sure if any of those who are here or listening are hikers and tend to, you know, often use this connector that's on the chart end of the charterist street.

It's a pretty good hill between Charteress Street and up to the trail.

Pretty similar change in topography here along this tract as well.

And so the prospect of being able to route a road and utilities up through this area is pretty limited, which is why in our opinion drops out of phase two.

So then, what does phase two really look like?

Um, for especially for our high development potential areas, we want to start looking at preliminary um layouts and density scenarios, especially want to do that with the planning commission in yeah, with a with a lot of involvement there.

Um, and looking at some boundary serving surveying and potentially some playing for you know, if we're going to subdivide off pieces of land from other adjacent school properties, um, kind of going through that process there.

We want to do a higher detail uh slide risk analysis for the remaining area of the benchlands that was not included in the 2016 Shannon and Wilson report, as well as looking at Harbor Mountain Road and Gavin Hill in a little bit more specificity.

Um of the an additional level of detail that's included in that slide risk analysis is also consideration of potential mitigation of can roads be rerouted or redesigned to also serve as mitigation and really when you know when we have a better sense of that.

Is there enough area here that's even kind of worth developing, or is it in a high enough risk area that we want to walk away from it at the end of phase two?

Um we also want to look at some more detailed hydrologic studies for Harbor Mountain Road and for um for the Gavin Hill area.

Harbor Mountain Road has quite a lot of drainage and properties that are developed beneath it, and so we'd want to make sure that stormwater was appropriately designed and conveyed out of that area.

Were we to consider any development there for Gavin Hill?

It's not so much there are you know, there's there's natural drainage points, but there is a fish-bearing stream that runs through the property, and thinking about how roads would have to be routed in that area to accommodate that with either you know, kind of fish um passing culverts or are there ways, you know, are there certain areas of the tract that make more sense to to avoid or to to try and plan for access there?

So that's a lot of kind of what the hydrology for Gavin Hill will look like.

Um want to do some updated um utility analysis based on the density scenarios that we talk about for these areas as well.

Um so, for example, like for the Sitka High School site, um, you know, if we were doing something, you know, moderate to low density, we may, you know, we may be able to support that in the area.

Um the higher density we look to build out, uh, the more that may need to accelerate other projects that are already in our capital plans for road, water, and sewer utility and for uh infrastructure improvements in those areas to support a higher level of density.

Um, particularly for Gavin, not doing a full-blown traffic study analysis at this point, but at least want to look at some trip generation analysis for the area to get a sense of the volume of vehicles that we would be looking at and appropriate routing there.

And we may also be looking at some potential environmental permitting.

Want to keep that at a pretty base level because we don't want to spend a lot of money getting permits that may, you know, that would potentially expire before we could develop.

Um so definitely want to be really thoughtful about not getting too far ahead of ourselves, but there are some potential environmental um permitting options, um, particularly around um uh trees in the area, like eagle bearing trees in the area that we would want to take a look at early on in this process.

Yeah, I just have a question that uh I guess has any thought to been given to uh because of the variation in scoring focusing more on our phase two on the top two uh areas and not necessarily giving up on the other ones, but saying down the road, we we have limited resources.

Let's both you know monetary and and staff and time saying, hey, let's just focus in on the two that are scoring significantly those top two.

I agree.

I do think that um more I think more of our time and resource let's left on the project should probably be focused on the top two given the potential for those to more quickly become housing opportunities.

Um I think you know, and if and if we want to um if we want to adjust the scope at all to you know kind of put some other things aside, I'm happy to happy to take the feedback.

Um we are I definitely agree with your with your assessment that the middle three tracks, right?

Looking at the benchlands, harbor mountain road, and gavin hill, these are really long term, you know, we're looking 10-15 years plus, whereas some of the other opportunities may be a little bit more immediate, um, which is also part of the reason that the phase two scope has more detailed scope items for those two areas in terms of doing things like the density scenarios, the platter, the trip analysis, the environmental permitting, um, because those are more likely to be um feasible in the near term.

And this is a two-phase study total, there's no phase three.

We could potentially phase three could potentially be more detailed design work.

Um, but that depends on what we find out.

Well, we what we find out how much farther we want to go, and then you know, this this project will eventually run out of funds, and we'll have to think about you know, if we're doing design work for a particular track that that may need to be its own project.

Um, but if there is if there is money remaining after phase two, um we may we may look at some design work for a phase three.

So that was my second question.

Phase two is funded.

Correct.

Same contractor, same everything, just continuing on.

What's the timeline?

We think we'll have some information back.

Um the preliminary estimate for phase two right now is six months.

Six months.

Thank you.

That's great.

I think what you've scoped for phase two makes sense, you know, more detailed approach for the top scoring ones with kind of still holding in reserve those other three.

Um, because you know, things things can shift.

I mean, we kind of put a lot of eggs in one basket with previous um explorations of land, and then that that changed.

Um, so understanding kind of more of the totality of our our options and kind of doing progressive incremental increases is I I think wise.

Um thank you for this.

I I everything that you've said has kind of been, you know, thoughts of mine, but the way that you explain it and in your slides put it in a much more um clear path.

So thank you for your clarity.

Well, I don't really have much to add.

Thank you.

Um that's a ton of work.

I'm sure you know you have a whole team working on this.

Uh and of course you're working with the contractors.

I um I'm excited.

I I you know I had hoped that there'd be more low-hanging fruit, to be honest with you.

You know, I think we all did.

Uh, but I'm glad that we're doing this.

I think it was very important because we need to know what we had, uh, inventory that we had and what we can do with it.

And so I'm I'm kind of agreeing more that I think the Osprey and the high school are probably the ones we should focus on now.

And it doesn't mean like J said, doesn't mean we have we're ignoring the other ones, it just let's use our resources we have now for that part, and then you know, get that uh in the pipeline and then maybe start looking at the other ones.

Uh the only other question I had was um and Harbor Mountain Road.

Um do you see any easier just I mean, no, this is like we said, this is gonna be a while probably, but Harbor Mountain Road.

Do you think there's any easy places to mitigate landslides that um in that region?

Let's see, Harbor Mountain Road, um I guess I guess I don't I guess I don't know how fully how to answer your question.

I think that's and I think that's also I'm not qualified to answer the question either.

And maybe I'll get with you on offline on that and talk about it.

Um yeah, let's just talk about it uh another time and maybe when you have a little more information about that.

It's it's not a big key.

And that yeah, and that's and that's part of I I do want to just kind of broadly say as well that we you know in looking at a more a more detailed analysis for potential um landslide risk um is wanting to make sure that there are you know that if there are if there are areas that are that can there's sort of like protect like pockets that can be protected, um and we have other no development areas.

We want to get to that level of granularity because right now the level of of granularity we have is just like in general, this is underneath the mountainside, so there is a risk, right?

Um or there was previous risks, there were previous, you know, there's signs of previous slides, sometimes you know, more recent than others in the area, right?

So there's a very clear indicators.

Um and so trying to get away from the general right now, like these are these are and that's part of the reason the criteria is slide risk factors, right?

There are factors at play that indicate there may be slide risk, and we need to be able to get to a finer level of of granularity there.

Of course.

Um I do want to just voice that the um and you know, Torah or Katie might be able to tag into this because they've been at the planning commission meetings as well, is that the the planning commission is um you know real you know, really, really going, I think going to be very hyper-vigilant in reviewing um the results of that study as well.

Um and they you know, at least they've made very clear as well that um you know we want to be we want to be really realistic about you know what what the risk is and to make sure that we are you know being responsible about putting development forward.

Absolutely Yeah, just like I said, I till very recently went to a lot of means of the planning commission about this that both the study and the lands and yeah, the I don't think there I think the amount of work on the high risk areas is so high before we even think about platning.

Uh that honestly I don't think it's worth the the sweat right now.

Um I I know that at the planning commission level and the and that this land up by the high school has been just the obvious candidate.

Um and so I'm excited about this.

Uh thank you, Amy, for bringing this forward.

The I know that we've back the napkined it a few times, and you could have a lot of lots in that area if you did like a planned unit development.

I mean, upward over a hundred.

I mean, if you wanted to.

Uh there's obviously some challenges for there, but um so I think it's exciting.

And uh and I it's it's I'm so glad to see this report come through since uh you know, I I was thinking when uh we were talking about the other areas, it's like I don't want to go there because the assembly uh terms are only three years, we will never ever see any movement.

Um but this but the airplane high school has real potential and it has enough potential to to actually move the needle.

Uh so I'm gonna be watching this and I'm excited about it.

Absolutely.

And I'm excited too for that planning unit nomenclature.

Just wondering on the risk thing for Indian River on the on the flooding of the river zero, how uh is what just brought to my never thought of it of you know changing that river pattern.

How heavy is the risk for Indian River, like for flooding from a change in the river course due to a shake up.

Sure.

So the um Indian River is in um FEMA's floodplain maps.

Um and so FEMA has a pretty, you know, does a pretty detailed analysis that was updated in 2019, I believe.

And so they they model like hundred-year storms as a part of that floodplain.

Um and so in so again, we're we were looking primarily at you know suitability for road access, not like housing um it, you know, in and of itself, but it's it is already kind of part of a mapped floodplain, and so we're able to use that information to at least reasonably have you know have at least reasonable certainty about um changes in river level and where we would put infrastructure.

I'm then thinking on Osprey Street, like with the hydrologist report, like is there a way to dry that that one out, like going downhill, you know, uh, or is it like just a deep pit, like everybody saying there's there's there's there's definitely a lot of there's definitely a lot of water in there, and that's um part of we're you know, the the phase two scope that I had kind of put up for you here.

Um we're so you know, part of wanting to wait for tonight and have this conversation with the assembly.

Um part of the feedback I was also giving um with our consultants as well was needing a little bit more level of detail for Osprey Street and the we may potentially be bringing in some road design work um for phase two for Osprey Street specifically, um, because there's you know there's at least visibly it looks like there's some subsidence in the area, and we know that there's a lot of water there.

So um we are potentially advancing some design work in phase two, just because osprey this would be a pretty small section of of Osprey Street, and it's a pretty small street, so we think we might be we might be able to absorb that in phase two.

That's a good idea.

Uh going back to the Indian River piece.

Um it was part of our legislative priorities um to kind of start talking about the state or to follow up on the conversations with the state about that land, and that's just the land to the back.

Um that does not acknowledge the state land that's near the trooper academy.

Is that correct?

There's some unbuilding land.

Let me get a couple of closer to services, part of the criteria.

There we go.

So yes, so we are you know, like as a part of our legislative like priorities, we've we've been looking at Indian River Valley, so that's the valley that heads back this way.

If you can see my cursor there, um, which is northeast from the um from this forest service tract here.

Um yeah, we've we've not primarily been looking at this state land on that's kind of yeah, approximate to the to the quarry and trooper land here.

Okay, thank you.

Um so is could there potentially be some phase two, you know, if we're looking at road work for Osprey um rough units of magnitude for for road up into that area as well.

As of right now, that I think that was not part of at least what I was envisioning for phase two.

Um given that we have we know that we have better opportunities for you know for some of the smaller tracks that we want to look at as well as the more detailed between kind of between the three.

Um I wanted to kind of follow the the lead of the assembly um a couple of years back when um you know the direction was to not spend a lot of resource on this project on Indian River.

Um and so kind of leaving uh not planning to take that particular piece much farther.

Yes, I wasn't asking the questions to kind of show my intent.

I was just asking the questions to know your thought process.

Um thank you.

And if things do develop in that area more, we'll kind of address it then.

Thank you.

Katie, we don't want to leave you out of this if there's something you would like.

Uh can't see your hand on this screen.

So um no, I I don't really have anything to add.

I've tried to uh keep the assembly apprised um uh through all of the discussions that have happened on this, but just big thanks to Amy and the crew at the planning commission have done a great job of um really bringing the priorities and concerns of sickness to the forefront of this, um commend their uh elevation of the the slide risks as something that we really need to look at as the predominant concern and for life and safety.

So looking forward to seeing this move forward, and um that's all I got.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think your scoping looks great.

I mean, from the conversations we had at the beginning, I agree you guys have uh done a really good job of looking around and seeing what's available and also you know, I mean, this a big part of this was making sure everyone had the information they needed to understand what was available and what wasn't.

And so while there's you know the side of Gavin Hills available, I don't know that anyone really wants to deal with building on that.

So, you know, I think that's a big piece of it too.

Um, you know, if if and when the state gets going and gets more land available to us and the Forest Service trades with us, and you know, can kind of see the 15-step process, you know, then I think we're we'll be ready to put some resources behind figuring out what we can do up that that way.

So advocacy from the community in terms of getting the state off the dime on that would be helpful, but that's not part of this scope.

So thank you.

Any more questions for Amy?

Thank you very much.

Sorry.

Just a quick comment.

You know, I'm thinking about this in conjunction with the no name mountain study from a couple years back, and they were looking at kind of pretty much the to total of city lands, um, is what what we've what we've seen so far, and now we're really um picking those those priced pieces.

So thank you for all of this.

Thank you.

Now expecting a comprehensive harbor report, Mr.

Kellen.

Well, I'm back.

Just came back yesterday, so here I am.

Um the Crescent Harbor Highload Dock and Fisherman's work float, both those projects are underway.

Uh we have a little bit of a delay on the Crescent Harbor High Load Zone.

The fisherman's work float actually looks like it's gonna stay on schedule, so that'll be good.

Umward setting our scope with the Elias and Harbor Electrical and Float Ugrade Project, and then this winter we ended up with uh we sent 14 proof of operation letters to vessels that don't get used, and seven delinquency notices out of the 21 accounts, 15 of those were resolved.

So we ended up impounding six boats this winter.

We're not through the process yet, but in the middle of it.

Um this last summer we had four finger float failures in the back half of Crescent Harbor.

So we've lost 30 or 632 foot stalls and two 24 foot stalls in the back half.

So that's a pretty decent hit, especially for one harbor.

Umce we get through getting the Elias and Project moving, Thompson Harbor is gonna, or the back half of Crescent's gonna come up pretty quick.

Um other than that, we're starting to ramp up for our summer season and do our temp hiring.

And right now our budget as of December 31st, we're at 34 percent for FY25.

So if it's just crescent high load dock um kind of an a stall, does that mean you're still looking at a March completion or which is the completion date for the worker float?

Yeah, the workflow, I think it's gonna be end of March.

Yeah, and with the 32 um foot stalls and 24-foot stalls, what's the wait list on those two lengths right now?

If we've just lost the 24-foot stalls, we don't have a wait list, the 32-foot stalls as of today, we have 59 people on that wait list.

This summer we had 77.

So it gives you an idea of what we were able to assign this year.

Yes, that's great.

Um, and with your plan, you know, we're in we're in budgeting now, looking at capital.

Uh you said if I recall crescents coming online after Thompson Harbor upgrades.

Can you tell me more about that?

Uh yeah, the back half of Crescent would be after the Elias and Electrical Project.

Elias and electrical, okay.

Um so the scope of that project originally was much greater than what the project was granted for.

Um so with the reduction of the project cost, we'll hopefully be able to shift funds over to the backside of Crescent Harbor to apply for grants to replace the backside of that harbor.

Great, and that kind of shifting is in somehow how we do it now because of the state matching grant program.

Um, but that's a legislative priority.

So hopefully that can turn into something to help you guys out.

Thank you.

Hopefully.

Any other questions for Brandon?

Thank you, and congratulations.

Public and government relations.

Melissa, you'll likely see that on the um next legislative priorities.

You'll likely see that on the um next legislative priorities.

So good evening, Melissa Lounis, public and government relations director.

Here to give you my quarterly report.

The citywide comms plan is moving along.

We just closed out the community survey, staff staff survey on February 7th.

So everything will be compiled and come together.

That should be ready and completed by March or in March.

The ADA Title II policy will likely be coming to the next assembly meeting.

So look for that.

And then we're getting ready to launch our new website.

So meanwhile, content managers sort of moving stuff over right now or creating pages for that.

And then I'm happy to report FY26 CDS request for the wastewater effluent disinfection treatment system, which is a mouthful, is back on track following the federal shutdown.

So it's been cleared by all the legislative steps, and the project includes 10 million in federal funding.

So that's exciting.

For FY27 project proposals will be drafted and entered into the portal as well as CAPSIS requests.

Those are also being drafted and will be put into the portal by the end of this month.

And I wanted to highlight that Mayor Eisenbeis earned the municipal official of the year award from the Alaska Municipal League, and that was in December.

And then in the next few months, I'll continue working on the comms plan, the CDS and CAPSIS requests, the website, the next CBS news issue, and just advocating for our legislative priorities at the state and federal level.

So ahead.

Yeah, we end up looking at those legislative priorities, and so those are capital projects that get input.

Any other questions?

Tell me and the community about that a little bit more, please.

Yeah, so um we're just coming all together uh so that we can have a unified voice with the city.

It's been on the strategic plan since the beginning.

It hasn't rose to the top as a priority, but now it has, and so here we are.

And it was convenient, you know, before it was sort of um looking at implementing something, and now we're executing something, and so that priority has or the action item has changed a little bit in the last year, and um we're just gonna check those off, and it'll be real exciting.

We're just gonna do it, yes.

And is that to kind of make what templates, a strategy?

Is this a communication for capital projects for newsletters?

All of the above, none of the above, or is that what the survey was about?

Yeah, all of the above.

Um there are a lot of different voices within the city in the different divisions and departments, and so sort of coming together and trying to make that look uniform because then that grows the transparency, and then therefore the public trust is the idea.

Is the goal?

Yes, thank you.

Um I'd also like to just ask about that communications plan.

Uh, something that we discussed during the strategic plan meeting in November that also came up in uh various discussions during the election was like ways to connect uh citizens with both city resources and also um community resources better.

And so I'm wondering if there's a way that the communications plan can include circulation of um information about you know the variety of uh social services that and support that our nonprofits provide.

I think um I think it was the tribe that during the government shutdown put out just a good amount of information about like where people could go to get meals um and food support, and you know, does the city have a way to do that for uh similar things or for utility support, things like that?

Yeah, so what we're doing is of course getting a baseline of what we do comms out and how the community you know absorbs that so that is first where we're starting at, and then um it we're going to see what the feedback says from the communications survey that was sent out, and I will see like where that rises to.

Um not exactly sure where it lies yet until we kind of pull all that information together from those surveys.

Okay.

Is there an intent to have a working group with the assembly to look through that, or is that gonna be all internal city staff pulling those?

There is a steering committee within the um city, and I think in the last meeting that I had with the consultants, it sort of sounds like we're going to be possibly creating like a quarterly meeting with steering committee folks.

So I don't exactly know what that looks like yet until we again get some of that feedback and see where we go forward.

Thank you, Chief Warren.

Good evening, Deputy Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the assembly.

I'm Craig Warren.

I'm the uh fire chief here for a little bit longer.

Um I guess this will be my last quarterly report for you, which is exciting and a little nervous at the same time.

Um as usual with the fire department, you know.

We uh we train, we prepare to respond, and we respond to emergencies.

So I don't have any grand projects to bring up to you.

Uh a lot of my time right now is trying to just memorialize my couple years of service with the city and and make sure that there's a smooth transition to uh whoever takes over the reins after me.

Um exciting things.

Uh I every time we finish up this class, these classes it's it's exciting for me.

We've got 10 new uh personnel that are trained to the firefighter one standard.

Uh we have 10 new EMT students in class right now.

Hopefully they'll be on the street with the ambulance come April.

Uh right after they hit the street, they go into wilderness EMT class.

We start all of our spring testing and training, well, not training.

There's a lot of spring get ready for the year.

Uh we have required tests on all the hoses.

There's about two miles of fire hose at the fire station.

Uh all of our trucks have to be tested.

It takes about a day to a day and a half if we are really fast and we don't have any calls in the meantime.

Um the only real project we brought on is a new software pack for uh training.

Uh basically it's how to document better.

Uh it should help Brook out and finance with some of the insurance stuff.

Should I I can never give finance enough training reports?

Uh it should also help us understand uh where we are deficient in our training.

So we're a little excited about that.

Unfortunately, it's so task saturating that it probably won't be online all the way by the time I'm gone.

But that's our one big project.

Does anybody have anything for me?

I was just gonna say I was gonna say thank you for years of service and change your mind and want to stay for another 10.

More than welcome.

Appreciate the offer.

I'm not sure it was yours to give, but thank you.

What's your retirement date again?

April 30th.

Um, what's your favorite dessert?

Uh well, it's peacone pie, actually.

Okay.

Any other questions for Chief Warren?

Congratulations.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Okay, other special reports, government to government, municipal boards, commissions, committees, departments, anyone from school district, students and invited guests.

Anyone from school district.

Students and invited guests.

I think before we go into the next item, we'll take a quick break.

Thank you.

We are now at persons to be heard for public participation on any item off of the agenda tonight.

Not to exceed three minutes per individual.

Is there any public comment for items off of the agenda?

Great.

All right.

Good evening, Deputy Mayor, Assembly members.

My name is Taylor White, and I'm here on behalf of the Alaska Longline Fisherman's Association and the Alaska Sustainable Fisheries Trust.

We would like to thank the Assembly and the City and Borough of Sitka for their support through the fisheries enhancement fund with the support from the Fisheries Enhancement Fund and additional regional and national and local partners.

It's a free all-day event that provides hands-on practical workshops and training for commercial and subsistence fishermen across all gear types, as well as anyone else interested in the fishing sector.

This year's expo features sessions with C grant on direct seafood marketing, research on seafood safety, updates from the Alpha Hybrid Boat Projects, NOAA Sablefish updates, deckhand electronic logbook tools, an AMS vessel stability workshop, and much more.

These sessions are open to again new fishermen crew and all community members.

You can join in person at the NSROC conference room in SICA or attend online.

So thank you again for your support.

We really appreciate the city's ongoing investment in the education safety, resilience, and strength of Sitka's fishing community.

Thank you for your time and your service.

One that was at the academy, who withdrew from the academy because he did not receive his bonus, and one that was in Seattle International Airport prepared to come up here and be hired, who withdrew because he did not receive his bonus.

And then uh why that decision was made.

But I uh as the assembly is aware, there is currently a federal lawsuit against the city for First Amendment uh violations already.

So now to be sending an email to the administrator and to my elected representatives who are the assembly and receiving a kickback uh notice seems to show a pattern of conduct.

So I would like to have that investigated as well.

Uh and that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

How are you guys tonight?

I have a pus procedural question.

I have a testimony on a subject that's on the consent agenda.

Would I said appropriate to do this now or do I wait?

You would do it at the consent agenda.

So either is it.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Tests.

I'd like the land acknowledgments that you guys have.

I don't know how often it is that you actually see people that are alive.

I'm sorry, you didn't understand that.

But since you guys do a land acknowledgement, maybe you guys can learn the basics of an introduction so you understood that.

Thank you.

Respectfully, the amount of time that we've been here should put us in a spot where consultation exists on the front end, and we don't find out about things after the fact.

So it's important for us for uh time to time to come here and weigh in on things of importance.

Um, not on the agenda tonight, but a similar uh concept I would like to work towards with any of the representatives here is the establishment of a subsistence zone in the areas from the Stargabin parking lot to Harbor Mountain Road as described in your few in your um previous report.

I noticed um there were no recommendations or consultations or recognitions of the use historically by the people and the inhabitants of Sitka as a subsistence priority.

You say so eloquently in your legal documentations and resolutions.

You speak eloquently at the beginning of the meetings, but I want to see the action.

I'm requesting the action at the beginning that says Sitka is and always will be a subsistence community, and in doing so, we're establishing a place within our territory owned by the city that recognizes this as a subsistence zone.

The area I describe would probably be used temporarily from November through December 15th, respectively, every year.

As I stated to some of the assembly members who were present before you got here, I think this would serve justice to the many uh people who are seeing rising fuel costs, grocery costs, um costs, and food security issues impacting not only us, but the region and the nation.

So if our community could be proactive in following suit with the tribal recommendations to establish subsistence zones for herring, which we did so in 2007, and it's still working today.

We uh work diligently on creating uh provisions so that all people can set subsistence out of it skates, and this is a part of the federal subsistence priority that allows you guys to live the way we have always lived.

So um you can put on your robes, you can be given a name, but to sing and dance like we used to requires knowledge, and that's what me coming to the meeting tonight is doing for you all.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else seeing none?

We are now at the consent agenda consisting of items A, B, and C.

Unless there are items to be polled, may I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

JJ.

I'd like to pull item A, please.

Thank you.

Item A is polled.

I'd like to pull item C, please.

Item C is polled.

May I have a motion?

If B is still on there, may I have a motion for B, please.

I move to approve the consent agenda consisting of my item B, a liquor license renewal application for Alejandro Vesquez, not operation.

Second.

Then moved and seconded to approve the consent agenda consisting of item B.

Is there any public comment?

Seeing none.

Oh sorry, go ahead.

Good evening again, guys.

Um this is kind of in general to the topic on the consent in general and agenda.

Um tonight I'm speaking about the restaurant your name.

Oh, I apologize.

Sherry Blankenship.

Tonight I'm speaking about the restaurant or eating place public licenses that have recently become available in SICA.

I believe that competition is healthy, it strengthens businesses and benefits our local economy.

But competition only works when the licensing process provides an equal playing field for every business seeking a license.

However, the city made the decision to accept only three licenses, even though more were available.

That decision appears to have been made without fully researching how many qualified businesses intended to apply.

By limiting the number of licenses, the city created an extremely selective process where only three businesses could move forward.

What is most concerning is that one of those licenses did not follow the same competitive path as the others.

A seasonal license was allowed to convert into a permanent license through an expedited process.

That option was not clearly communicated to the other applicants, nor were they given the same opportunity to pursue that pathway.

We have known that if we had known that converting a seasonal license was a viable route to securing a permanent license, we would have pursued it.

Instead, applicants operated under different expectations and different standards.

That is not equal or transparent process, decisions about how many licenses to accept and how that process is communicated directly affect investments, jobs, and long-term business planning.

I ask that future decisions ensure transparency, equal access, and a true level playing field for all applicants.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing that assembly deliberation.

Yeah, um Katie.

I just I want to point out that this is the fourth waiver that this business has received for having a non-operational license.

Um that is uh relatively abnormal, I believe, um, for businesses, and you know, I think our intent in increasing the number of REPLs in our community was to satisfy a uh a growing demand for those licenses that weren't available, and so the fact that we are approving a license that has been non-operational for um at least four potentially five years, um does not bring me great joy.

Um, however, I did contact AMCO uh to inquire about this and um what the potential process was um for getting this license operational, and my understanding is that um if we don't approve this tonight, uh the city will lose the license because it was um it was like an extra one, it was outside of the original number that we were allotted, and so um I just wanted to express my desire to the business owners, like I understand there have been um you know attempts to to transfer this license, um, and I I would like to see those proceed um so that we can get those licenses operational and um make sure that they are are being utilized within our community.

Hey Katie, talking on what you're saying, I'm just uh so the memo it says so I understand what you're saying, I agree.

Um but it says the waiver of operation.

Uh I'm just reading off the memo, the waiver of operation submitted with the renewal application indicates that the licensee is in the process of applying for a transfer of ownership and location to you use you use pizza in Mexican restaurant.

So although I agree what you're saying, but I think that if it's going to be transferred to a business that will be operating.

I'm okay with that.

Yeah, their um paperwork to complete that transfer has not been completed and submitted.

Um, there are some outstanding issues there, and I expect that there will be more deliberation on that transfer, and um taking a good look at that.

It uh it does seem like Amco has has taken some shortcuts um that are that are outside of the public process uh as previously referenced, and so um more just to flag for the assembly that um this particular license might need a closer look in the coming months.

Interesting.

I think this is our time to look.

I don't know what um that would be like.

Uh it's perhaps right.

This is deliberation time.

So Ray Rachel, I've got a question for you if you're available.

Um what is our role or responsibility as the assembly in um looking at this liquor license renewal?

So the assembly is allowed to protest.

Procedurally, um we're required to if we're going to deliberate the content of whether this is going to be protested or not.

The applicant needs to be served with notice that that's the case, that it's gonna be taken up at a public hearing and given an opportunity to defend the application and present evidence.

And so I think anyone where a protest is possible, it's not just going to go through on the consent agenda as a routine sort of thing.

We would need to set farther out so that we can provide service to the applicant and that opportunity to be heard and present evidence with a long enough lead time for them to prepare for that, because the the consent agenda, I don't think put them on adequate notice that you might need to bring all your evidence and defend this application tonight.

Thank you for that.

Um Sarah, do you have anything to I do have a little bit of information?

I spoke with our um representative at AMCO this afternoon specifically about this license.

They did receive the renewal um contingent upon the transfer uh application coming forward.

So and the applicant is here if you would like to ask um him any questions, but that is a contingent upon um that happening.

Okay.

And if so it's the fourth um waiver.

Um, and so I was told that with that contingency being put on if they don't receive that paperwork um later this fall, um, then yes, it could potentially be gone.

Then the relationship or the relationship, um the license lapses and that license goes away.

Um that's the potential outcomes to that, okay.

Okay.

Thor.

Yeah, I think it's it's worth saying here that this really isn't our process.

I mean, it's the alcohol control boards.

Uh the we can object, and that might probably would make a difference, but not for sure.

They could say okay and do it anyway, or they but even if we did object, we would have to give reasons why we object.

Uh and I am not, I mean, I've been through a lot of these, and I I don't think we've ever turned one down, uh, especially in renewal, even though there are some special circumstances here.

But I just wanted to make a point that this really isn't our part of this is pretty minor, comparatively minor.

Uh that the real decision is being made at the alcohol control board.

So I'm just confused as what the what's the deal?

I mean, like uh somebody's feeling that they're just reapplying to prevent that license from going back out into the business world.

You know, I I got analogies of me keeping my sea cucumber permit active, even though I can't afford to go dive.

And if I didn't renew it every two years, I'd lose the chance when I could finally get my boat going and start diving again.

So thank you for that, Thor.

That this is an art process, and that's all I got is thank thank you.

Um Scotty, and thank you, Tim.

Yeah, I spoke with Josh this afternoon because I had questions on a different one, and because yeah, we've never really had any interest in having, or I've never had any interest in not contesting, but um I'll get to the other one when I when we get there, but I don't have any problems with this one.

But the bottom line is from what I learned after talking to Josh is that you know, we could all this is based on a yes.

I if it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, Rachel.

Our yes or no tonight is based on if a process that is legally set in law and code has not been followed or we feel there's something issue, not on whether we want uh an establishment here or there.

It's based on uh our only ability to protest is based on uh whether we think the process wasn't followed correctly, which I believe it has.

Um so it's interesting.

We could vote uh uh no on this if say if we were say to say no because we just didn't like that particular business in that location, it would still go through.

Um the only way we could I will jump in there for a sec, Kevin.

Um there's a difference between don't like it and have legitimate public interest concerns.

Um there's some case law on this, and protests are upheld as long as they're not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

Um, and and it's a case called the Stultz case that kind of expands that a little more.

Um, and and the language that case uses is that uh the grounds for protest has to be based in facts and it has to be logical.

So it can't be we wish we had changed our code to ban this earlier, right?

The the applicant has a reasonable expectation of relying on the law as it is now.

Um, but the cases where and it's an OAH one where where a protest has been upheld by AMCO were like really serious public safety concerns.

There was a guy that wanted to get a license for a bar, like not in a downtown, but like out the road in a residential neighborhood that was a high crime neighborhood, and there were facts presented um regarding you know, there were armed robberies in the area, there were armed burglars in the area, there have been shootings in the area, and there were legitimate factual concerns about that location that were in support of the protest and had a logical relationship to alcohol possibly increasing that crime.

Um and so it's it's not that the city um doesn't have grounds to make public interest decisions, but it can't be it can't be feelings and it can't be what we like wish we had made our zoning code say.

It has to be based on the facts in this individual's application.

Absolutely, thank you.

I appreciate that correction.

And I didn't mean to say it's I like or don't like, I'll explain my concern or my reason for pulling the third item.

Um it's just an interesting lesson on on what this is all about and our role here.

Um so thank you.

And a point of clarification, Rachel, you were speaking that that applies to the three items that we're talking about.

Yeah, I was just speaking about these licenses in general, yes.

Thank you.

So another question for you, Rachel, on procedure.

So if we did vote no on this tonight, then it would go to a hearing and that would get noticed, and that would be a special assembly meeting.

I don't think so.

It's it's the language isn't a hearing, it's an opportunity to be heard.

Um, so I think I think if there was a yes vote to move the license forward, then the consent agenda notice is enough.

Um, but if it's a no vote to not move the license forward at this time, then the defendant and not the defendant, sorry, we're not in court, the applicant um needs to be served with the fact that um the substance of their application will be taken up and given an opportunity to defend it.

So I think it can go on the next irregular assembly meeting or the next next regular assembly meeting as an agenda item.

Um, consideration of whether the city should protest this application or not.

Um with the possible outcomes being the the no protest after taking evidence and it moves forward, or or then after taking evidence, the protest.

Does that make sense?

It does to me.

So I hope we're all on board with that.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks for that.

That's um probably questions we should have asked a while ago, but this is where it's um becoming um you know really relevant.

So here we are.

Thanks.

Yep.

Not at this point.

Unless an assembly member likely chat with him.

Okay.

I still need a clue.

I don't I don't understand why we're holding this up.

I mean, they're not somebody's not raising the equity rate of it like other permits that we've seen transferred.

I don't understand why we're even talking about this.

I I say same thing, Scotty.

I I I don't say I don't see why this is no different than I mean any other ones we've had.

I mean, it's slightly it's it's been extended, but I don't see any reason to hold this up.

I'm pretty sure this is gonna pass.

I'm voting yes for it.

But I'm just I'm curious.

I think I think the issue that I am bringing forward is that this permit hasn't been used for like four to five years, and we had a discussion about um increasing the number of permits in our town because there was demand for these types of establishments, and we voted to do that um while there are not currently while we currently have permits that are not being used.

And so um my intent was merely to say that you know we need to be judicious.

I think that the assembly absolutely does play a role in this process, and that is why it is in front of us is to provide that local perspective and information um that AMCO might not have.

And I do plan on voting for this tonight because I do want to see that permit remain in our community, and I do see want to see that transaction uh finalized so that um that transfer can go through and that permit can be put into use.

Um, but this is just something that we should be aware of uh to ensure that you know we're we're making those those resources available to the folks that are gonna put them to use.

I hear no grounds for protest.

Sarah, vote please.

All right, the motion before you is to approve item B, a liquor license renewal application for Alejandro Vasquez.

Mr.

Christianson?

Yes.

Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

Mr.

Mosher?

Yes.

Mr.

Celine?

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson, yes.

Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

Motion passes six zero on item B.

Item A.

I move to approve a new restaurant or eating place liquor license to be application for campfire kitchen LLC at 331 Lincoln Street and forwarded to the alcoholic beverage control board without objection.

So I got good.

Okay, Sarah, is there something you'd like to comment on before we open this up for public comment?

Oh, sure.

I have a few comments and Josh and Rachel might as well.

Um so last fall the assembly petitioned the state um for additional restaurant or eating eating place licenses, and we refer to those as REPLs.

Um we petit we requested three additional licenses, and the state granted us three.

Um so the application before you tonight is the first one to be submitted um for one of those three additional REPLs.

Um Rachel and I spoke with AMCO a couple of weeks ago to learn more about the process, and we were advised um the applications for the three additional REPLs will be processed on a first come first served basis for the first two that are received.

Um once an application is received for the third and final REPL, it's not automatically processed.

Um instead it's held for 30 days to allow competing applications to be submitted.

Um and if additional competing applications are received in that 30-day period, then the mutually exclusive and competing application criteria that's in the Alaska administrative code um are applied to select an application, and they will send us all of those um competing applications at one time.

That's all I have, Josh.

I don't know if you have anything, Rachel.

Did you want to say anything?

I think that that covered that process well.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Or at public comment on item A.

Is there any public comment?

Seeing none.

Thank you.

Um Rachel, I've got a question for you.

Uh the last two words in that motion are without objection.

Um, can you expand upon um what is a possible objection that the assembly may have?

I know we kind of talked about it on the last agenda item.

Um, but if there's anything specific to this one, I'd I'd benefit from that explanation.

Um, sure.

And I think you know, without objection is just another way of saying no protest.

Um and so it would be those grounds.

Um I was coming back to um not arbitrary, capricious or um unreasonable.

Um the things that are really obvious um that were pointed out as as items where the AMCO board in our meeting has seen protests is things like uh being out of compliance with your sales or property taxes.

Um maybe there's building code violations that AMCO wouldn't know about, um, those sorts of things, like like city code application to the particular business or um a zoning code violation for why it wouldn't work in this particular zone, um, sort of things applying our code to the premises or the operations um that that would be outside of AMCO's jurisdiction.

Um my understanding is that there are not those kind of concerns from staff about this application, and then that public policy piece, uh public interest piece, sorry, that I explained from the Fairbanks case, um, like why this particular location would be really bad.

Um, a high crime area was upheld.

Um, and then the other OAH determination, I think where I saw an uh a protest being upheld was um a bar next to uh um senior housing facility, and there were particular fact-based logistical concerns um about about what would was going on there.

Okay, thank you.

Um that's helpful uh to frame this because we'll be having this conversation once more, and then with that third, thank you for that introduction, Sarah.

Um, with that grouping for any additional ones that come in at that 30 day mark.

Um great.

So discussion pieces.

Um, I do see a different piece in this application um from last time we've discussed this on a whole.

Uh it looks like there does not intend to be any alcohol consumption in the auditorium.

I know that was a thing of concern for the community, and I wanted to just highlight that.

Um, if you didn't have the opportunity to go all the way um to page 13 of the 17 pages in the packet, um, that is um a note of interest.

And I do intend to to vote this through because I think um I can't find anything capricious, arbitrary, or unreasonable um in in these documents or you know, of something that the AMCO couldn't find um that we as seven eyes in this town um could help them discover.

So I I see this as very reasonable and not capricious and not at all arbitrary.

I don't think that that did exactly what you said.

Um I'll just jump in to clarify the standard there.

It's it's not whether the application is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

Um, it would be AMCO reviewing whether you all the grounds that you protested on were arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

The the applicant's burden is to follow the application process.

Yeah.

Does that distinction make sense?

Yeah, yes, we got it.

Yes, it does.

Um so I think first of all, I have no problem with this, and I don't, I mean, in general on this.

I I just want to do a quick comment.

Uh we've already heard some comments saying, how come you only got three?

And the answer is there was a lot of opposition in that three.

And this was uh, you know, if you remember, we tried started out with six, and then you know, anyway.

Um so uh, you know, it's it was a compromise.

Uh you know, I wish we could have done you know, six, but there you know, if you remember there was a lot of opposition to that.

So um I have no problem with this.

Um to me, this fits exactly what we were after when we applied for more.

Um, and I know that there's some others coming forward.

Um you know, this kind of a license is meant to be for the place to have a drink with your dinner, not to go drinking, and so that's exactly what we would have here.

So um I will wish them the best of luck.

Should be able to have a beer on a mobile food cart too.

You know, I mean, there's only three people in here that remember when the city tried they did make kamikaze and duck farts illegal for about four weeks in town, which was a joke.

But uh anyway.

So I think um I think when we initiated this uh an increase um or application, I think we started a legal process that we I mean this is a this is a state level process, it's quite complex.

And so I think pulling this one and kind of talking about it a little bit in terms of what's in the future for any others who are applying, I think was well worth the time.

So any other comment, Sarah.

All right, the motion before you is to approve a new restaurant or eating place clicker license application for campfire kitchen at 331 Lincoln Street and forward to Amco without objection.

Ms.

Riley.

Yes, Ms.

Carlson, yes, Mr.

Mosier, yes, Mr.

Pike, yes, Mr.

Christianson, yes, and Mr.

Selene.

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0 on item A.

Item C, please.

I move to approve uh new retail marijuana store license application for Michelle Jones DBA, the joint at 327 Seward Street Suite 7, and forward this along with the findings effect and decision for the conditional use permit to the marijuana control board without objection.

And forward this along with the findings effect and decision for the conditional use permit to the marijuana control board without objection.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve item C.

Sarah, any further.

I just have a few comments that are noted in my memo.

This applicant, she went through the uh she received a conditional use permit process or license from the planning commission.

Um of note in on the application, it shows that there's a drive-through.

Um the commission did not approve uh that component.

Um and so if this is approved tonight, I will be sure to pass that information on along to AMCO.

Um there were also some conditions related to signage.

Um but other than that, I that's all I have.

Thank you.

We'll open it up for public comment on item Cone.

Kevin.

Thank you.

Um yeah, I you know, I found a lot more information even from the time I talked to Josh.

This has been actually very helpful and educational.

Um I feel based on the facts that I need to vote yes on this.

I think that the planning commission did everything right.

I think uh Amy did everything right.

Um concerns with this, and by the way, I mean I think the applicant did a lot of work and it's it's awesome.

Um and I hats off and I definitely support new businesses.

I think it's great.

I mean, it's back to one of our community.

Commerce is absolutely crucial.

Uh I just had a per few personal concerns about having a marijuana shop downtown so close to places where kids are and just um you know, a central business district.

I guess if I had it my way, I I don't know that I would want something like that here.

I I feel like it might kind of change the character but uh of the of the area, but um based on all this information given today, uh I I don't feel like I have any choice but to uh vote yes.

So you know, I actually started to think that I was gonna say something a little flippant, but it actually isn't.

That so the hesitation that you feel, Kevin.

I think when I was reading my packet over the weekend, I was talking to my wife saying, I don't know how I feel about this.

Uh and it struck me that not that long ago, if we'd have been having this discussion in the big picture, we'd all been arrested.

You know, I mean it really wasn't that long ago.

Um, or at least we would have been sending the police out or something.

Uh so it's it's a little bit of a paradigm shift for all of us, but once you get past that, to me, it's it's just like any other just you know, anything else like a like the last item or cross the street at what used to be the Westmark.

Um so you know, it and like you said, it's pretty straightforward.

They've passed they've jumped through all the hoops.

There's nothing, there's no red flags showing up other than the fact it's a new thing that's kind of strange for all of us sometimes.

So I'm gonna vote for it.

How much uh goes to taxes for that?

It's only been 13 years for the whole now.

Just reading about it today.

That uh 8% for us.

But I mean overall, for like if you buy an OZ for the whole state and everything.

I I want to there's considerable uh state and federal taxes, I believe, on these uh on these things, and yes, as Tor pointed out, it's eight percent now.

Here that's just for the borough, but with yes, when you consider other it's it's it's a bit of a lift.

I do have a question for you, Amy, if you have a moment.

I think it'll be a quick question.

Um so there are as part of all this process, the planning commission went through determining distances from different things, right?

Educational and religious places.

Can you explain how that distance is determined?

Sure as the crow flies may not be what we're talking about.

Sure.

Um so the distance requirements for marijuana establishes are um established by AMCO, they are not local law.

Um, and but it's something that we generally double check as just sort of a matter of due diligence when we bring these conditional use permits forward.

Um so there are uh classes of you know things that are considered sensitive uses, such as churches, correctional facilities, and educational facilities, and yeah, um kind of to what to what you alluded to.

Um, generally speaking, those are not measured as the crow flies, they're measured door to door on the shortest pedestrian route.

Um, and that shortest pedestrian route is you know, not cutting through, you know, not jaywalking across a road or cutting through something, you know, using an approved pedestrian route, but it should still be the shortest pedestrian route from door to door.

Um, so myself and my staff um did measure a couple of distances for this particular application because we're in the downtown area and there are a lot of kind of concentrated uses.

The closest um sensitive use was the Church of the Nazarene, which is a little bit closer to the roundabout.

Um, and so uh myself and my staff um rolled that distance there from door to door.

We measured it at a I want to say 582 feet.

Um, and so if um, and um again, this is AMCO standard, and there are sometimes differences in how they they you know the methodology that they choose to use to measure distances, sometimes they measure from property lines or from door to door.

Um, but again, since it's not our standard, we used you know, we used the door-to-door methodology, and that was that was the closest, that was the closest one.

Um St.

Michael's Cathedral was considerably farther at you know, over 800 feet, um, and we didn't really bother with the um with the jail facility because we would have had to go past the Church of the Nazarene up to the roundabout through the crosswalks and then back down Lake Street in order to get to it.

So we were confident that that was well well outside of 500 feet.

Thank you.

I have a follow-up question for Amy.

Uh the State of Alaska Department of Child Services, is that considered a sensitive use?

It's on the second floor.

I don't believe so, I don't believe so.

Um, but in either case as well, um, because you can't jaywalk across Lake Street, you'd have to go again up to the roundabout or down to Seward Avenue.

It's not any closer than the church than Mazarine.

Absolutely thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh just one more question, Amy, real quick.

Um I just I just want to clarify that this is a conditional use permit, which means that um if the planning commission um receives complaints that the permit is you know causing disturbances uh to other surrounding uses or um that there's any issues with it, that conditional use permit can be revoked.

Is that true?

Correct.

It can be um it can either be modified so additional conditions of approval could be added, or it could be outright revoked.

Thank you.

All right, I think we are done now.

Thank you.

Any further deliberation.

This had um, I believe 12 attachments.

There is just so much background um information here.

Um about you know, fire plans, all premises designs, that there really is heavily heavily monitored.

Um if there is, thank you, Katie, for mentioning that in the kind of local context too.

Um if the neighborhood does have something to say about this, there is a process for for updates in the future.

Um if if there is um concerns after this initial, it seems to be approval.

Yeah, that yeah, thank you for uh uh Katie for pointing that out.

That's good to know.

Sarah.

All right, the motion before you is to approve a new retail marijuana store license application for Michelle Jones, DBA the joint at 327 Seward Street, uh suite number seven.

Mr.

Christians, yes, Ms.

Carlson, yes, Mr.

Selene?

Yes, Mr.

Pike, yes, Ms.

Riley Yes.

And Mr.

Mosier.

Yes.

Motion passes 60 on item C item D, please.

I move to approve ordinance 2026-02 on second and final reading.

Amending Title II Administration and Personnel of SICA General Code by amending chapter 2.31 sustainability commission.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to amend title two uh general code.

Is there any public comment?

Hello, my name is Leah Mason.

My um application to attend these meetings and take part in this has now been in the hands of the Clerk for over a month.

I have attended many of their meetings.

Uh there have been many people who have applied for and been appointed to this particular commission.

I have to say it's not my favorite meeting.

It's rather strangled in many ways in terms of how it's been handled over the years.

It has a lot to do, and they've done a lot of good things.

So I am utterly perplexed at the idea that at a time when they are going to need to do a lot more engagement with the community, uh, the large part of which is being handled by the coordinator.

So going from potentially seven hands plus one to five plus one with a much larger set of tasks in front of them.

The elephant that they chose to take on several years ago, it's not smaller, and it can't be done by a small and intimate crew of five with the assistance of one staff person.

So having listened to a very lengthy discussion of this subject, uh it appears that we have an attendance problem.

I'm not clear that that is a structural or institutional issue.

I think that is a personal issue.

So I do believe that if there are concerns about wanting to have summer off to do things other than attend regular meetings, that this can be accommodated by simply doing what the tourism commission does, which is to not meet during those months.

Um if they are interested in work sessions, um those can be those can be three meetings in summer can be transformed into three work sessions distributed over a different period of time.

Uh I think that is a more productive and more realistic and frankly efficient, less lazy way to address this problem of a lack of quorum.

Uh they have a lot to do.

Their objectives for this particular period are to work on solid waste and a community renewable energy strategy and look at doing things regionally, which is an incredibly exciting and valuable thing to do.

It cannot be done by five people, not usefully.

So I would suggest that we ratchet up the effort and uh interest in broader participation for this particular situation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further public comment.

Seeing none, assembly deliberation.

Tim, did you want to say anything?

Okay.

Um, I think I covered most of it last time.

Yeah.

Okay.

Just want to thank the hard working volunteers on the sustainability commission for the the work they put in.

Absolutely.

Sarah?

All right.

On the motion to approve ordinance 2026-02 on second and final reading, Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

Mr.

Celine.

Yes.

Mr.

Mosher?

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

And Mr.

Christensen.

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0 on item D.

Thank you.

Item E, please.

I move to approve ordinance 2026-03 on first reading.

Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2026 mid-year.

Second.

Been moved and seconded to approve making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year mid-year.

Uh Josh, I think Brooke is coming up to talk with us about this.

It's Brooke of EB so kind.

Thank you.

Okay.

So about halfway through the fiscal year, it's been um fairly standard uh for staff to bring forward a mid-year supplemental to address some items that couldn't be fully anticipated when the budget was adopted.

There's a fair amount of detail in the memo, um, but the ordinance primarily does three things.

So first, it covers previously under unbudgeted or underestimated costs that can't be absorbed within existing appropriations.

So things like the legal support for negotiations, fuel-driven increases in solid waste costs, and a few time um sensitive capital needs.

Second, it includes a small number of net zero reallocations where charter requires assembly approval, even though total departmental budgets are unchanged.

So, for example, um temporary staffing replacing a mayor core support for parks and recreation.

Um third, it authorizes several transfers to other funds uh so that spending can occur in the correct place.

From a fiscal perspective, the key takeaway is the general fund impact.

The net cash impact to the general fund is 133,000.

The remaining items are funded through restricted or dedicated funds or are net zero re-allocations.

We do have staff here tonight to answer item specific assembly questions if there are any.

I have a quick question for you before you is it okay?

Okay, no, sorry.

Thank you.

We'll call you back up.

It sounds like don't go far.

Uh any public comment on item E supplemental appropriations.

Okay, seeing none.

Back up quick question.

So what was the net impact on the general fund?

133,000.

Just wanted to make sure.

Um and just remind me what the general fund total budget is.

Oh, okay.

I don't know it offhand.

What's that?

I don't know it offhand.

Approximately 50 million on the that sounds about right.

Yeah.

My point being is it is inflementesimal.

Uh that, and and I want to say I appreciate that you put it all together at once rather than we'd be doing this at every meeting.

And that's in the budgetary process, and I I have a malice of forethought bringing this up now as we're getting in the budgetary process.

It's an estimate, and we will always have these.

And to me, this is a testament to our staff that we are talking 0.001% off the budget.

Uh, that's that that close.

And that the estimates and appreciate you know, and that were made at the beginning have proved to be remarkably close, and that this is nothing.

And I appreciate again you bringing them all at once so we don't have to do it every meeting.

Thank you.

Agreed.

I have a question.

Um and Brooke, I don't know if you're the right one to answer this.

Um, let me know if not, but the community survey and impact study um that's coming out of the visitor enhancement fund.

This just seems like exactly what we contracted visit SICKA to do, and I'm wondering why this is an additional uh appropriation.

So this was actually part of a resource proposal from the FY 2026 budget.

I do not recall offhand who submitted that resource proposal.

Um, Amy might be able to answer that question a little bit better.

But essentially that resource proposal was approved.

It was intended to be included with half of it from visitor enhancement and the other half from CPV.

The CPV half made it into the budget, and the other half did not.

Um, you know, in error it was intended to be in there, it just didn't make it in.

But as to your question about what that actual study is, um JJ might know the answer to that too, actually.

Yeah, me plus Amy.

I'll quarter back it to Amy.

Um, but this is more of a rugby, you pass it to me, and then I pass it back to Amy.

Um it's I think it was money that was there, but then it's gonna get moved around, and Damie can tell you how exactly.

Um, Katie, to your question, yes, I think that there's a lot of what was proposed as a part of the new visit Citica scope that gets us a lot closer on the economic um impact study, particularly the the section that um would that would generally entail an uh a refreshed look at visitor spending um levels, so that part is already kind of covered by the Visa SICA contract and looking at our economic indicators.

Um and so I think for now we probably will want to see the fruits of that um towards the end of the fall before uh you know, potentially spending more on like an economic impact study, but the piece that's not covered that this helps to supplement is a community survey.

Um so we've done community surveys in the past, um, but again, there's a lot of that kind of self-selection bias with doing an open survey.

Um, and so I know assembly members have had interest in doing um, you know, like a sampled survey and contracting for that.

And so this funding would uh match the other half that was appropriated out of CPV to cover that expense.

uh you know potentially spending more on like an economic impact study but the piece that's not covered that this helps to supplement is a community survey um so we've done community surveys in the past um but again there's a lot of that kind of self-selection bias with doing an open survey um and so I know assembly members have had interest in doing um you know like a sampled survey and contracting for that and so this funding would uh match the other half that was appropriated out of CPV to cover that expense but it's it's very possible that we will not spend the entirety of the you know in total the 140 which is you know the half and half from CPV and visitor enhancement for this effort given that some of the work has been picked up by visit sitka okay but this is this at least gets us to a 5050 appropriation for the effort so that we can spend those down together 5050 but again we will not spend money on duplicate effort okay so there's yeah but it's like not expect I mean a lot of money went into the visit zika contract 1400 is not a small chunk of change like you know in terms of what we could be paying for as a city so I just want to make sure that we're not duplicating efforts um and if that is uh if that is the case and and you expect that there might be some left over from this and um happy to hear that thank you yeah as but and just unless you know unless you know the administrators directed not much you say unless the administrators directed otherwise like my understanding at least at this point that our direction is to at least kind of see our our first um uh end of sorry our first end of season um an end of year economic report from visit sitka before um investing more into economic impact studies so is this one like expected to be completed before the visit sitco one or is there a timeline no so sorry the I might be confusing the issue um so right now the this funding is primarily going to be used for the community survey that's its primary use um okay yeah because visitica is going to do a lot of the economic impact correct assessment correct okay that's a very expensive community survey we lost her oh my god any other questions for Amy and not for Amy if anyone has a question for Amy and I'd be happy to go after okay thank you brook um question about a cemetery fund uh three thousand dollars increased expense um is that an ongoing increased expense or a one-time or I just we rarely rarely speak about the cemetery fund so it's weird to see it in a supplemental so there's always an annual budgeted amount in there for us to remit the um interest earnings we have over the last um several years we have um received substantially higher amounts of interest income than we have in prior years so what we found is that when we went to go and uh remit the normal amount to them that we didn't have enough of an appropriation to do it so this is just to um let us catch up and get that sorted and then um we'll have a you know a more true number in the FY27 budget on um that line excellent great problem to have was that interest earned in the rest of the funds as well did we see higher returns across across the board yes excellent I'm glad I asked that because that was a really great answer.

Anything else for Brooke thank you any other go ahead I just um yeah same thing I kind of agree with Tor on this one I mean could you write 100 and what 30 thousand or whatever is a sizable chunk of money um but given the complexity of this I I feel like uh and as to to quote Tor famously a budget is a living document um and so you know we have to be flexible on these kind of things but um I'm just really impressed by the hard work uh Brooke it's awesome and uh thank you for you and your team for doing that yeah thanks I mean that's awesomely close to what uh what we had estimated so good Sarah all right on the motion to approve ordinance 2026-03 on first reading Mr.

Pike yes Mr.

Mosher yes Mr.

Staline yes Ms.

Carlson yes Mr.

Christensen yes and Ms.

Riley yes motion passes six zero first reading on item E thank you continuing our tradition of early breaks we're gonna take one now

We'll start again.

I move to approve a recommendation by the Gary Pax Industrial Park GPIP board.

All right.

It's been moved and seconded to uh approve item F, a lease agreement.

Uh I will say I'm going to take a second here to say we are having some streaming difficulties.

So if you're trying to stream this, be aware that we're working on that.

All right, public comment.

I'm sorry.

I broke this, Josh.

Scott.

Wagner will be giving us a brief introduction or a long one.

All right.

Good evening, Scott Wagner, chair of the GPIP board, uh, Gary White is unavailable tonight.

So I am here to um kind of answer any questions or and just kind of review uh why this is back before you guys.

So you have your memo from Gary.

So hopefully you had a chance to review that.

But um after the final lease was uh drafted, the leasey has some concerns about some of the his ability to have some storage or um whether it's boat storage or or equipment storage on that parcel in addition to using it as primary access for the boat show that he was um is in the process of building.

So he brought it back to the GPIP board.

We reviewed those concerns.

The new draft of the lease has some modifications to the terms of use for that parcel, and then um it also did include some additional timelines for when that parcel would need to be used for primarily for vessel movement.

So those are the main changes between the previous lease that was before you guys and the current one, and this passed uh this was unanimously passed uh recommended for city uh approval.

Thank you.

I'm sure we'll have you back after public comment.

Okay, any public comment seeing none?

I just say I was at one of the meetings they talked about this, and they went through it in excruciating detail.

So I'll guarantee you you won't come up with something that wasn't asked.

Well, maybe not anyway, but the point being is that this was thoroughly vetted.

Question for Scott?

Okay, I promise I won't talk about dessert.

Uh so vessel movement was the primary use for the last one.

Is that good?

Was he only use for the last one?

And now we're adding to the list.

Uh what are the other items being added to the list?

Or can you help me find it in the lease agreement where it covers that?

And the terms of use, yes, please.

Somewhere in the beginning.

Uh the section one.

Okay.

Now that's for the progress portion of it.

Um thanks for this.

Um, if you if you don't mind my jumping in, go ahead, Rachel.

Which section is that uh I think it's the second paragraph of section one.

Um so in the first three years, uh the lot will be used to support operations of the lessee, so that's much broader than just movements.

Um, and then once the boathouse has been constructed or substantial progress made, you've got that access path in there again, which was the movement, but also adding parking and storing lesie's equipment, materials, and also staging vessels.

Does it answer your question?

Thank you.

Yes.

I think I can answer your question a little bit from being there if it's okay.

Um, so as I recall, and you can jump in, Jeremy, if I'm wrong, but so the he leased the whole thing, and the actual movement of vessels isn't gonna use the whole lot by any stretch.

And he kind of is like, well, I'm paying for this whole lot, and I can't even stage gear on the sides.

Uh which I think everybody agreed made sense.

It wasn't it was not unreasonable, and but to his credit, he didn't want to do anything that was outside the lease.

So he wanted to have it slightly amended to say it's okay to stage equipment, not in the path that they're gonna be moving boats.

So it's pretty simple, it's not much of a change.

Is that Jeremy?

Is that pretty much the point?

All right, thank you.

So I'm not seeing any, but I'm maybe it's a racial question.

I don't know.

We'll play right beyond this one too.

Um is there anything here that's gonna prohibit him from leasing out this space that we're to sublease this space uh then to a crew any profits?

Is there anything is intended for operations related to the boat building and repair business, not leasing a property?

Not leasing the property for food service or sorry, just jumping in there.

Section 8.2 has limitations on sub-leases, and those cannot be done without prior written approval by the assembly.

Great, thank you.

That is and is it still a 10-year term with four updates potential?

I just remember that from when we talked about this in September.

That's all the same.

I don't believe any of the lease terms changed.

I think I made one or two edits to sections to clean up some typo things, but the only substantive change is that expansion of the purpose.

Okay.

And in one point one second paragraph.

Great.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Scott Thank you.

Anything else from the assembly.

Sarah.

All right, on the motion to approve a lease agreement between the City and Borough of SICCA and Pacific Jewel Marine for Block 4, lot 9b of the Gary Paxton Industrial Park.

Mr.

Mosher.

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen.

Yes.

Mr.

Celine?

Yes.

And Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0 on item F.

All right, item G is discussion direction decision on requested amendments on the purchase and sale agreement with Sound Development LLC for the Whitcomb Heights subdivision.

This is amongst us at the moment.

If a motion is made, we'll have public comment at that point.

Is there a staff introduction?

Amy has the intro for you.

Yeah.

Is everybody again?

Amy Eansley Planning and Community Development Director.

So in 2013, the City and Borough Sitka entered into a purchase agreement or purchase and sale agreement with Sound Development LLC for certain parcels in the Whitcomb Heights subdivision, which most people kind of colloquially oh I can never say that word.

More commonly referred to as the benchlands.

But most notably, there was a restriction that prohibited sound development from selling any of the subdivided lots on blocks eight and nine prior to the installation of utilities and right-of-way improvements.

So that really mirrors our my our major subdivision code in which generally developers would be responsible for installing roads and utilities before individual sale lots can be sold out of that subdivision.

But because we had platted the the area back in the 80s, um there, you know, is kind of carrying that same restriction forward.

Um though there was a amendment in 2019 to that purchase agreement, um, that restriction still remains in place.

It is, however, no longer time-bound.

Um, but there is still a restriction that those lots cannot be sold without the installation of roads and utilities first, and that those improvements are adopted by the municipality for ownership and maintenance.

So sound development has requested two amendments to this agreement.

Um the first is to allow for the sale of lot 18 block eight for the purpose of a telecommunications tower without the installation of water sewer services or the completion of the right-of-way improvements.

Um in your previous um in the sorry, in the correspondence that's included in the packet that was previously identified as lot 15, but it's been clarified that it's lot 18 that is of interest.

Um and the second requested amendment to the agreement is to allow for phased development or staged kind of development of of the lots um in blocks eight and nine.

So on the on the first question about the sort of the exemption potential uh exemption for lot 18.

So right now, staff doesn't have a lot of information about this location suitability for a telecommunications tower outside of you know essentially the stated position from sound development and from Clinkett and Haida, um, doing business as title network.

Um, those documents again are in your packet.

Um, however, there are you know there are definitely some benefits given that there's not existing development there that this is kind of you know pushing up against in terms of um having telecommunications infrastructure in a you know in an area um and you know also could have some potential benefits in terms of advancing the overall development in terms of adding to you know project funding available there.

The the lot in question is you know just shy of 12,000 square feet.

It is identified um as moderate slide risk per the um 2016 Shannon and Wilson study that we have commissioned.

Um the area is a part of a planned unit development in which the uses for the subdivided lots are specified on the plat.

Um it was specified that this lot could be used for either a single family home or for a duplex.

And so, in order to allow a telecommunications tower on the site, the PUD or planned unit development would have to be amended by the planning commission first.

Um the second request in terms of um phasing or staging um the development of blocks eight and nine.

Um had an opportunity to to talk with um with sound development about this request.

Um and generally speaking, you know, phase development is is pretty common to take on a you know to take on a smaller piece of a project um, you know, and to you know, be able to have the gain, you know, the the capital gain of the sale in order to fund a second section of the development, you know.

Generally speaking, you know, as a you know, generally speaking, this seems to be a pretty reasonable request.

Um staff's generally supportive of it.

Um I think it's still in you know honors the spirit of the agreement, which is also again honors the spirit of the subdivision code that we are selling lots that are ready to build on, right?

That they have roads that have utilities to them, and so as long as the agreement still protects those provisions, generally speaking, I think this is a um you know a pretty a pretty common approach for development, um, particularly in our community.

Um I did want to note that um you know there may need to be some discussion about you know appropriate uses of these lands, um, given that we do, you know, that we have the city commissioned landslide study for this area, um and we have several lots um in this area that are identified as higher and or more or moderate risk.

Um and so if we're you know kind of going through the process of amending the planned unit development for considerations of a telecommunications tower, there should also probably be some discussion about other appropriate uses for the property.

Then I've talked with um with sound development a little bit about you know looking at other potential um you know kind of lower lower occupancy uses that might be a better fit for that area.

So, in terms of of moving forward with the request, um on the lot on the exemption for lot 18.

Um I think the assembly, you know, I mean you could also also just not kind of consider the request, but if you were to consider the request, um you could either um you know direct staff to um draft up that amendment to the purchase agreement contingent upon approval of the the planned unit development amendment from the planning commission, or you could wait for the PUD amendment process to take first and then have the purchase agreement kind of mirror that you know the outcome of that.

So there's there's different ways to to approach this.

Um in essence, the you know, really the you know, the things that have to happen if this request is going to move forward would be for the agreement to get amended and for the PUD to get amended, and those to some extent can move in parallel um with one of which other, and there are some choices to be made about which one of those we advance first.

So quick question for Amy if that's okay.

So Amy, just to make it clear, if we went with if we said yes, we'll have the amendment.

It still has to go to the planning commission for the planning and development amendment, correct?

Correct.

So no matter what, it's going back to the planning commission.

Correct.

And so I I guess so not so oh, sorry, can I sorry, I might have um for the for different uses of the property.

If the assembly wanted to allow the amendment to allow the phasing of development, that's not part of the PDF.

Totally just wanted to make sure that that part is.

No matter what we do, it's going to the planning commission.

So all right, that's that's kind of where I but if we do, I guess the first one it goes to the planning commission, then would it have to come back to us if we if we go to uh send it to the planning commission for the suitability, then it would still have to come back to us again to to do the actual to approve the approve it.

Yeah, yeah.

So it would be a second time it'd be up here.

All right, lay out the two questions in front of us again.

So is the in is the assembly interested in amending the agreement to allow a cell tower to be built on one of the lots?

Um and that would and really again the exemption that's being made by the assembly in this case is allowing that lot to be sold without the water sewer and road improvements.

Is kind of question number one.

Question number two is is the assembly interested in entertaining a proposal to stage the development of road and utilities for the lots on blocks eight and nine such that they can be sold, developed and sold in two stages rather than all at once.

Do you need a motion on either of those?

I think we have some we have some motions drafted for you.

Um this is also a direction item.

Um and so I would kind of defer to the clerk and to the acting administrator, but I'm also happy to just take the direction.

I always prefer a motion, but um and I've I we've laid it out um for the first amendment and then the second amendment um a motion for each.

I like the first amendment.

Never mind.

Um but uh sorry, I was making a pun.

Um I I so I I'll go ahead and make the motion then as I move to direct staff to draft an amendment to the purchase and sale.

What's that?

I ask a question.

Okay, um, yeah, I mean, are we are we like moving on to deliberation on a motion, or is this still an appropriate time for questions about this?

Tor was in the middle of making a motion.

But he's willing to let you ask a question.

Okay.

Um my question is that like currently uh I mean, sorry, it's late.

Remind me.

Um cell phone towers.

Are they a permitted use in R1?

Um under a PUD, or like does this also open a can of worms with you know, the questions over variances and like accessory uses that we had um with the cell phone tower that was coming out of Nancy Court.

I'm wondering like, you know, how how does that um deliberation play into this um being an allowed use on this currently designated R1 property?

Right.

So the so it could it could be permitted if the planning commission approves the PUD amendment.

Um and that because it's a PUD.

Correct.

And also and also as well as an R1, and we can um get in the but in short, depending on the the type of telecommunication infrastructure that is potentially considered public infrastructure, uh like public utility infrastructure that would be allowed in an R1 zone anyway, but really the important piece here is that it's a planned unit development.

Um and so it could be it could be amended through that process as as well as as well as um unique development standards as well.

Okay, would that be height correct standards?

Could yeah, could be could be unique development standards including height setbacks, those sorts of things.

Have you considered um like just with the code request that you have in um to develop that telecommunications tower code?

Um I I'm not necessarily interested in you know holding up this whole process um to wait for that, but did that you know have you deliberated on that at all?

Sorry, in what the utility of doing that code um before adjusting this.

I mean, I have I have I have not.

Um I you know, I think that's if the assembly would like to hold off on considering this until that's done.

I think that's totally appropriate.

But that's I think ultimately the assembly's call to make.

Still need a motion.

All right, all right, all right, Tor.

Okay, I move to direct staff to amend to amend the purchase of the sale agreement with sound development to allow for the sale of lot 18 block eight.

Is that the right one?

Is it right we done?

Okay, for the purpose of telecommunications infrastructure without installation of water and sewer services or completion of right-of-way improvements subject to planning commission approval of the amendment to the Whitcomb Heights subdivision PUD allowing such use.

Second, let them argue it out.

It's been moved and seconded to uh amend the PUD.

Is there any public comment?

Uh just clarify that's amending the lease.

So sorry, Lee.

Hello, my name is Robin Sherman, and I want to clarify that I'm speaking in a personal capacity and not as a member of the planning commission, um resident of the neighborhood.

I am not necessarily opposed to uh cell tower in that location.

I'm not necessarily opposed to phasing the development.

I want to express a general concern about development in an area that where we've had a slide that has killed three residents of our community, and where experts have identified that there is still moderate slide risk when these lots were sold.

I don't think we had the same understanding of the risk that we do now.

Um and I think our understanding of the risk of development in that area is still limited.

So I don't have specific um a request of the assembly, other than I hope that we have more information on the stability of that land and how we can mitigate slide risk before anything is developed there to protect lives and property downhill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further public comment back to the assembly.

Do a deep dive, and that's their job.

I mean that they're good at that.

And this is um you know we're we're not so much at doing deep dives into things like that.

Um and so to me, I don't have a problem in a vacuum with not having you know with allowing a cell tower there.

Um but it needs to be looked at hard, and but that and that's why it's set up to where there has to be the amendment to the planned unit development, which you know they're gonna have if if the uh give lots of time for people to comment and you know, work the the people putting the cell tower in will have to justify it.

Um so um I think that's why we have the planning commission is to do that kind of work.

And so uh, you know, if if you have if a member has a problem with having a cell tower there, that's different.

Or if you have a problem with amending, you know, having it not be a house.

I understand, but if if if we're okay with the cell tower, I think the people to look at it are the is the planning commission.

So thank you.

It seems oh go ahead, Kate.

No, go ahead, Katie.

Oh, I just wanted to say that you know, I agree with what you just said, Tor, but I think that the motion um that is better suited to accomplish what you just said is the first motion that is to refer the matter to the planning commission to determine location suitability for telecommunications infrastructure rather than directing the staff uh to do that amendment, you know, upon granting.

Um I think that specifying that we want them to look at, you know, is this location suitable for this kind of infrastructure?

Um is it is a different direction than the one I just heard.

Yeah, that's a decent, I mean that's a good point.

Um I don't care how we do it.

I I like the thoughts and theory uh as Tor said uh public comment was actually pertinent, I think.

Um, and so if we send it back as we're going to, I'd like them to look into that kind of stuff.

I'd like the planning commission to look at this before we tell them what to do.

Discussion before decision, and the motion made um was not the deep dive option, it was the we've already decided you're just gonna do the detailed work.

Um so I'm gonna be voting this motion down because I don't think it matches unless there's an amendment coming up with the intent of what Tor uh said.

I I just don't think it needs to come back to us, giving me if we that's the reason why I voted I put up this motion, is that um either way it's going to the planning commission.

I don't think if the planning commission signs off on it, it's I don't think it needs to come back to us again.

Uh and the um the the if the planning commission signs off on it extremely unlikely we're gonna vote no.

And unless you like don't unless you hate the whole idea, then then that's different.

But um if it I don't see the need to come back to us again after they have because it they have to vote on that.

Um so I guess I would I I understand that completely.

Um I would I think you know I think Katie's probably right.

I think the first motion is probably the better one having it come back.

But um so I think I'll vote no on this one, and then maybe we can make the first one if this one fails.

And just to I don't I don't know if this question for Amy, but I mean, as I'm reading that first motion, I don't necessarily understand that it comes back to us, it just says that we really want the planning commission to assess the location viability and not just like whether or not the you know the PUD needs to be amended, but like is the in the middle of a slide path the right place for telecommunications infrastructure.

Is that can you clarify, Amy?

So it's a let me try and take a step back in order to move forward again.

So in order to move forward with this request, both the agreement and the PUD have to be amended, right?

One is controlled by the assembly, one is controlled by the planning commission.

That's if this the lot is actually going to get sold and actually going to get developed as a telecommunications tower.

So the assembly, in its role as a you know, interested party used to be the landowner here, um could say through the agreement the amending of the agreement, right?

That as a former owner as a party to this agreement, we are fine with this so long as the planning commission in its regulatory capacity takes a look at it, and they may you know they may decide to approve this this PUD amendment or not.

But we're saying we're you know the assembly is gonna get out of that and just say we're fine letting you explore that, and if it if you can get the move the amendment for your POD, then you'll be allowed to sell this lot for a cell tower telecommunications tower without the roads utilities to it.

That's one approach.

The other approach is for the assembly to say we don't want to move forward with allowing an amendment to this agreement if they're going to hit a roadblock getting the PUD amended, anyways, and so we're going to refer this to the planning commission first to see if that PUD amendment's going to be successful.

Um, and then we will base our decision whether or not to amend the agreement on that outcome.

Um, and that's I mean, that's also part of the I will say just outright, that's also part of the reason this request has been a little bit difficult, is that there's a lot of chicken egg here.

There's a lot of different ways to do it.

Um I think either is fine.

Um it just matters, it's just it's just a matter of whether the assembly wants to kind of make the decision and then you know, sort of in a way, plain language, kind of step out of the way of the planning commission, say we're we're gonna allow this amendment to the agreement, and the assembly gets out of the way, and now it's all being held, you know, it's all a matter of the regulatory process through the planning commission, or if the assembly wants to say we want our decision as landowners to be informed by that regulatory process first before we make the change to the agreement.

So the planning commission, if we approve this one, is not gonna do any kind of sort of the stuff we see in the first one.

You're saying that's what's gonna happen, or are you saying as due diligence as the planning commission, you would automatically do everything that you see in the first amendment?

The first option.

Can I try can I chime in there?

Yes, please, please.

I I don't see this either amendment changing the scope of what the planning commission is doing.

They they have to do their job to approve the things that they're in charge of approving.

It's just it's like a chicken and the egg situation for the potential buyer.

Do they bother going through the whole planning commission process if they think the assembly might say no at the end of the day, even if it's approved by the planning commission, or do they get the reassurance from you all right now that if it gets all the way through the planning commission, you'll agree to amend the agreement.

I think that was my point.

My point was that the planning commission is likely to do everything we see in the first one in the one that we currently have in front of us.

The only question was whether it comes back to us in the end and whether or not we're giving guidance at this point as to whether or not we think we're going to head in this direction.

That's kind of what I took away from that.

I mean, I think that's a good question.

That's that's correct, and I share that's what you said.

So I think that's the question in front of us in terms of the this.

I mean, I I don't see this precluding the planning commission from doing all of the things that we could you know speci specify them doing in the first one.

Um my question for you, Rachel, is there what's the city's liability in approving these sort of develop this sort of thing in a slide zone?

That's a little bit of an open-ended question that I would need to dig into more on the regulatory side and and look at examples of of where regulatory bodies have been um held liable or not.

Amy, do you have case studies on that off the top of your head?

Not off the top of my head.

Yeah, I would I would really need to research that.

That's a really good question.

And that kind of like um have an additional question, you know, from the planning commission's perspective, like they're um limited in what they can review based on code, right?

And so it does an additional um layer of assembly review when it comes back, you know, if if we were to go with the first option, um allow for considerations that potentially can't be like legally made at the planning commission.

Sorry, I so I might have misspoken St.

Louise, it's a purchase agreement, so it's you know, the the liability to a certain extent transfers with the developer in terms of in terms of the the assembly side, we have this purchase agreement that we're mending to allow it to proceed in different ways, but that those agreements don't change the planning commission's duties, which are controlled by code.

So the planning commission can only do what is in the code.

We're setting additional requirements based on public policy concerns by the assembly in the purchase and sale agreement.

So you have to develop it.

It has it originally it had to be developed within a certain amount of time, right now it all has to be sold because it can't be phased.

Uh, so that the planning commission scope doesn't change based on what the assembly is deciding for for an amendment to the purchase and sale agreement or not.

It's it's those additional requirements in the purchase and sale agreement.

The planning commission stuff has to happen no matter what.

Yeah, but the assembly can do different things that are outside the scope of the planning commission.

Right, like a lot of a lot of the agreements that are in the purchase and sale agreement already are outside the scope of the planning commission, setting up those originally those timelines for sale, and now that that lack of phasing, for example, is not something the planning commission would do.

That was that was the city's interest as the landowner bringing in other concerns.

Yeah, I mean, I think that I um would like to stick with my previous statement with this comes back in front of the assembly.

I think that they're this deserves some additional consideration on that potentially is um out of the scope of what the planning commission is legally allowed to look at.

This is an important issue for a lot of our community.

Um a lot of public comment on it, and um just want to make sure that we're doing our due diligence here.

So I I would vote down this motion and do the first one another piece to to this.

Um Amy mentioned in her introduction, and if the planning commission is asked for their opinion, um, you know, their determination, we could also ask them to look at that lower occupancy, lower density of the other lots adjacent to it that were also in the slide risk.

Um, and then we could have a more kind of comprehensive recommendation from that group, um, whereas that would not be part of the motion that is on the table right now.

So I guess I mean if either way we're taking sending the planning commission.

I I mean we're gonna make I think Amy brought up a really good point that we're asking the title network to jump through a whole bunch of hoops, not knowing if they're spinning their wheels, if we're gonna allow the adjustment to the sale agreement.

And I don't think that's fair.

I mean i i it's understandable to want to know do they even have a leg to stand on?

Either way they've got to go through and get through the planning commission.

Uh and to ask them to get through go through all that and to do all the work for that, not knowing if they're gonna turn around and there's another who the the if they're if we're not gonna allow the change to the uh um lease and or excuse me, the sale agreement.

Um and so again I come back to is if you hate the if you want it to be a house and you hate the idea, you would vote no either no matter how we do it.

Um but if you're like I'm open to a cell tower, then we should let them know that we're willing to change the lease contingent upon this the the planning commission because this says if they don't give them the change to the planned unit development, uh then this this goes away.

Our the change to the sale agreement goes away.

And uh so it is definitely contingent on that, and and I want to make one more point that we talked about the restrictions to code that the planning commission has.

Well, with the plan unit development, it's significantly, and correct me if I'm wrong, there's a lot more variability there.

They have a lot more freedom to because it's a planned unit development.

The the whole idea behind your plan unit development is it's outside the code, it's its own little zone.

And so they have a lot more flexibility to make put requirements on to make changes.

And I don't think it's unreasonable to have the have title at least have an idea that we're willing to change the lease before they jump through all those hoops.

And at the very end, they will have to jump through all those hoops.

And again, if you hate the idea of and and you don't want a cell tower there, you want houses, that's different.

But if you're like, I'm okay with the cell tower, I just want to make sure that it gets looked at well, I think this does that.

And it gives uh title at least a little bit of an idea that you know, we're not just throwing because it would be I would be really if I was in their shoes, it would be like, man, we're gonna go through all this, and then maybe we we'll have to go back to the assembly and maybe we won't be able to change the original lease.

I I get it.

So you I'm putting it together now.

Um what you're saying is um we vote yes on your on the one on the right, it will already go through all those thorough vetting processes looking at the safety of it and and such uh like that.

Um but if uh but and then if it's approved then you know by the planning commission, they can go forth and and do that.

But if we do if we voted down and vote on the first one, they could do all that, come back, and then the assembly could say, well, we just decided we change our mind.

Yeah.

I see that.

I I don't think this is about just changing our mind or hitting cell phone towers.

I think this is about just offering this subject um that has been, you know, quite uh important to our community and like on on multiple fronts, both cell tower development and the slide areas, uh due diligence in front of this body.

I am not opposed to cell tower development here.

I very much look forward to the planning commission's review of this topic um and and the use of these areas uh that that might not be suitable for housing.

Um, but I think that the you know direction for that lease, like I want to make that with the planning commission's uh information in front of me.

I don't want to proactively make that, and I don't think that we owe a company um you know an affirmative decision uh before we have uh full picture of what we're dealing with.

I I see what you're saying, Kate.

Sorry, just to clarify once again, it's it's a sale agreement, not a lease.

So we're not the landowner.

Yeah, I mean which I I misspoke on that too, but we're we're not the landowner considering use of our land this there is already a sale agreement in place, the the buyer owns the land.

Yeah.

Yeah, I I I think what Tor's trying to say is um when we send it to the planning commission, we're trusting that they will vet it properly for safety and and and all these issues, and that's yeah, that's the argument there.

And what I'm saying is that the planning commission faces restrictions in their vetting that the assembly does not, and so that's just like a consideration.

Is this body comfortable, you know, letting uh that body um make those decisions entirely, or does this body want to exercise uh you know its its authority and um its responsibility to to the citizens of this community and to the future citizens of that subdivision um to take a closer look at this?

I think we're uh circling around here a little bit.

Um so I think the question in front of us for me is whether exactly what Katie just said.

Do we want to do we want to give the planning commission the position and and um responsibility of making this decision for us and allowing the public process to play out in front of them, or do we want it to play out in front of them and then play out in front of us?

And I think um that's the question.

So do we want to um do we want to do this back and forth?

This is a fully noticed meeting, like people could have come here and talked to us about cell phone towers tonight.

So um, you know, I think that for me I am comfortable with the planning commission being responsible for um and to the community about what this means and how this goes forward.

So um, I don't feel I think this is a uh been the opportunity to for us to talk about you know whether or not we see this moving forward uh about this particular thing, and I have every confidence that the planning commission is gonna do a very good job of looking at this.

And they might say no, but that stops that process.

I'm willing to let that go at this point in time.

All right.

Further comments, not that we've already covered.

All right.

I'm trying to be like Stephen.

I think you said something about that.

Okay.

Sarah.

All right, so the motion before you um is to direct staff to draft an amendment to the purchase and sale agreement with sound development to allow for the sale of lot 18, block eight, for the purpose of telecommunications infrastructure without installation of water and sewer services or completion of right-of-way improvements subject to the planning commission approval of the amendment to the Whitcomb Heights subdivision PUD allowing such use.

Mr.

Christianson.

Yes.

Ms.

Riley.

No.

Mr.

Mosier.

No.

Mr.

Celine.

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson.

No.

Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

And it failed.

33.

Oh, is that what happens?

Yes.

Sorry, I didn't know that.

Okay, we're back to discussion direction decision.

I move to refer this matter to the planning commission to determine location suitability for telecommunications infrastructure, and if so, recommended for approval, direct staff to draft an amendment to the purchase and sale agreement with sound development to allow for the sale of law 18 block eight for the purpose of telecommunications infrastructure without installation of water and sewer services or completion of right-of-way improvements.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to uh do all the things Katie just read.

Sorry.

Uh is there any public comment?

Okay, seeing none, is there anything new for the assembly to talk about?

A little bit.

Tor.

So I mean obviously I'll vote for this to move it forward.

But this again, this is gonna mean they're gonna be back.

And when people talk about it's hard to do business in Sitka, this is exactly what they were talking about.

That we are putting barriers up, making it harder.

They're probably gonna get it in the long run.

It's gonna cost them more money, and it's gonna cost them more time, and it's gonna be frustrating.

So uh we'll have another long meeting when it comes back to us.

Kevin.

Sorry, I just wanted to respond to his comment.

I agree uh with a lot of what you're saying.

Um I definitely we I but I I disagree.

I think we're we try to be business friendly.

I think this is a highly unusual situation.

So, you know, I was kind of on the fence on I could have gone either way, but decided to vote no on that last one.

Um but it's it's a very unique situation because of the slide risk and and other medicating factors.

So um yeah, we'll be voting yes on this further comments.

JJ.

Uh in relation to the I know we're just talking about lot 18 of block eight here, but that whole kind of stretch, this isn't the highest slide risk lot in the area.

Um if it would need to be another discussion direction item or just talking about it later, you tell me if I'm not being germane um about you know those neighboring lots and if there's something the planning commission would like to recommend um for those as well as a as a third option.

And here we're talking about housing, you know, single family or duplex or telecommunications.

And I was hopeful that this motion would then talk about or what else are we not discussing yet?

Um that was my hope and goal for um the planning commission, if possible.

Yeah, I support that um direction, JJ, and um sure that Amy has clocked that and we'll be able to have that discussion at the planning commission meeting, but just um, you know, life and safety of citizens of SICK is our highest priority, and so I just think that this one deserves a little bit of um deliberation and appreciate the body's willingness to engage in that yeah I'm kind of in a in the pickle of my own making in a sense.

I mean it if I vote no, it's not because I don't believe in the development, it's I vote no because I think it didn't need to come back to the assembly, right?

Like I think um I think that the first motion was the best one of the two.

So um and I think it was the best one of the two because I think it it is as kind of what Tor says, um we're adding to the to the belief that the city is a difficult place to work with, and I don't really like that.

So all right, on the motion to refer the matter back to the planning commission, Ms.

Riley.

Yes, Ms.

Carlson?

Yes, Mr.

Mosher?

Yes, Mr.

Pike?

No, Mr.

Christensen.

Um Mr.

Celine.

Yes.

Okay, the motion passes 5-1 to refer the matter back to the planning commission.

And then there's a second item that needs to be addressed.

Yep.

So we have answered one of two questions.

Here we go.

Move to direct staff to draft amendment to the purchase and sale agreement with sound development, allowing the phase developments and sale of lots in block eight and nine, parcel D of the Wickham Heights subdivision as described in the request.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to direct staff to draft amendments to the purchase and sale agreement with sound development.

Is there any public comment?

Hello, my name is Tom Gamble.

Thank you guys for the deliberation this evening.

I think that something that you guys should be considering um in addition to the city is difficult to work with, is that the city is unaffordable for current citizens.

So before you guys start looking at expansions of services and things like that, you guys should start looking at the extremely high cost of living.

Well, this place here is this city is unaffordable to live in for most of the inhabitants who ever originally call this place home.

We can see the numbers of the people who have vacated.

So when you make this consideration about whether it should go to one board or the other, I hope that the bottom line is that you're willing to hear citizens no matter where this meeting is.

And uh if they support the cell tower, um it's for the causes for economic development, and that is passing all the rigors of of health standards for our community, but most importantly, you have to address the areas that we have that's described as unaffordable housing and living considerations for the current people, and I'd hope that that's front and center when you guys start moving these over, because I'm gonna say the same thing at the planning commission and come back to the same meeting and say the same thing.

So I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Further public comment.

Yeah.

Yeah, I thought about this at first.

I think I was on the assembly when we first sold it to them.

I wouldn't swear in a stack of Bibles.

Um, but I will tell you the situation has changed dramatically.

Um so it's gonna be a rough place to develop no matter what, so I don't mind giving some leeway.

Um if this makes it a little easier, fine.

Um at first I was on the a little more on the fence about it, but the more I thought about it, I I don't have a problem trying to make it a little easier to develop that land, and it probably won't wind up truly residential, maybe probably shouldn't be, but uh this might allow it to do something with it, or at least help.

Question for Amy, if you don't mind.

That we removed um kind of time bound correctness.

Okay, and that time boundness would have happened in 2023.

Correct.

Okay, and there's no um timing in the phased approach as proposed.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

So we're not amending it by removing last amendment and doing a whole new one, it's just adding to um with the phasing pieces.

Okay.

And what um did this go through the planning commission?

No, this is the first the first stop is us.

Um is there is this going to go to them for their opinion or recommendations, or this is us final decision after we direct.

Well, we've made a motion, so decision tonight.

Unless the assembly refers this to the planning commission, it would not go before them.

Again, this is again regulatory hat versus landowner hat.

This was an agreement made when we were the landowner.

Um, and so this is not a you know, the the phasing of the of the development is a product of the agreement, not our not necessarily like our regulatory role in this.

So, no, the planning commission would not look at the the phasing of development unless the assembly refers it to them.

Okay, thank you.

Um that helped me because you were talking about how um the last one was maybe making business difficult, and I wanted to know if that was any piece to this here.

So there's this is the end of it.

Um back and forth with planning.

Appreciate that input.

Thank you.

Other deliberation.

Yeah, I think this is uh an amendment that um provides some flexibility to a local business owner and um you know demonstrates our understanding of the uh very expensive nature of developing lots in Sitka, and um I'm in favor of it.

A general question, I don't know if this is uh Rachel or Amy.

Um is there anything written down anywhere that would stop these this landowner from building a cell tower and then not doing anything else with the neighborhood?

The sale, I mean the sale agreement.

The because again, right as of as of right now, the sale agreement is written that none of these lots can be sold without the road and utility work being done.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for Amy?

Thank you.

Any further comments, deliberation?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Sarah All right, on the motion to direct staff to draft an amendment to the purchase and sale agreement with sound development allowing the phased development and sale of lots in blocks eight and nine of the Whitcomb Heights subdivision as described in the request.

Mr.

Christianson.

Yes, Ms.

Carlson?

Yes, Mr.

Selene?

Yes, Mr.

Pike?

Yes, Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

And Mr.

Mosher?

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0.

Five minute break.

All right, let's see if we can get uh back on the road here.

Thank you, Mr.

Selene.

I'll do the item for the last okay.

Moving along, we are on item His 2026-03 on first and final reading regarding the Federal Subsistence Management Program under Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

Second it's been moved and seconded to uh adopt resolution 2603 regarding federal subsistence management program under a NILCA.

Is there any public comment?

Good evening, Deputy Chair.

Good evening, Sitka Assembly.

My name for the record is Paulette M.

Marino.

I am of the Clean A D clan.

I'm a child of the Cogwanton.

My clinket name is Take Unyake, and I am on the ancestral homeland and always will be of the people of the Sheetka Kwan, which is always an honor.

I come before you at this time, and I would like to thank the authors of this particular resolution this evening.

Number 202603.

Thank you so much for the support.

I have read through this resolution and am in strong agreement.

I am a member of Sitka.

I wear many different hats, but right now I'm here as a sitkin and as your neighbor, and also as a clinkant woman.

It is very important that with these type of things that come forward that we see not only ourselves, our tribal governments or national governments at times, our state governments, but especially our federal governments, that we see them come forward and make a very strong statement that they stand with us on the protection of inherent rights that have been here since time and immemorial.

We have an affront of many things that are taking place on our way of life.

It is within these rooms that we stand in these places that we speak that have a direct effect on our food source, on our time on the boat when we're fishing, when we're hunting, when we're gathering, when we're harvesting to feed our families.

Thank you, Mr.

Alley.

Thank you, Mr.

Celine, for um being within your position to be able to bring these things forward.

I think it's extremely important that we continue to watch what's happening with the Federal Subsistence Board with them looking at a review that in any way, shape, or form could hurt Alaska Native or Native Alaskans in any way.

I would encourage you to unanimously support this.

It would be more than just a vote, it would be a clear message from the city of Sitka and your position of leadership to us as people who live and gather and together have a future with you here.

Thank you again.

Thank you.

Further public public comment.

Excuse me, Tom Gamble.

I assume that the assembly meetings were relatively quick.

Uh, but maybe if we talk a little longer, we can close this place down at 10 p.m., right.

Um Sitka tribe and and um elders who are no longer present warned us against some of the future changes and what we're facing right now with these proposed changes with the um federal subsistence board process and the management program.

I want to reiterate again the importance that uh our United States Coast Guard here as a lifelong member relying um heavily on their experience um as lifesavers, and um that they're also uh able to subsist just by them being here based in our community.

And I've seen a lot of our our people who rely on these resources um claim as their single source.

I mentioned previously it might strengthen um the resolution, which I strongly support, and I'm grateful that our city is taking a stance like this on subsistence.

I can't recall a time in my lifetime where we had acknowledgement uh in advance of an issue that could impact natives and non-natives alike.

It's a common issue that we all share, and I think that we're strengthening community.

What I might recommend, and I don't know if it even matters with my previous experience with Alaska Native Brotherhood Presidency or my time on the Sitka Tribal Council, but in resume reviewing many of our resolutions, it seems to me that the more we collaborate and strengthen our words and resolutions.

Um adding language about um the recent um Ninth Circuit decision in the Court of Appeals that it acknowledged that navigable waters are in fact um subsistence areas that are um deemed Indian lands for the purposes of subsistence.

My worry is that there's going to be an increased discrimination by the state troopers against natives in particular who may not understand some of these changes, but they're gonna continue to live their life anyway.

So what you're looking at is the possibility of a criminalization for someone making a choice about just maintaining the life.

My mom predates the the state of Alaska.

Um she was here at born in the territory and sent to Mount Edgecombe High School where that diploma recognized her as a citizen.

So if we weren't recognized as citizens in 56, we're still struggling with that issue today.

And um we maintain our lifestyle, no different.

Sometimes people put on robes, like I said, sing songs and dances that represent us all.

But I still say that if we strengthen this MOA or the language of MOAs, um, it sends us a clear message to the boards that uh we're unified, not divided on this issue.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

My name is Andrew L.

Roberts.

My clink name is Gutshua.

I'm of the Yanye D clan.

I have uh just a few comments, but mainly I'd like to um honor the the producers of this uh resolution.

I think uh uh most of the wording is really well.

I I would like if I could, I would make one change in the uh to be further resolved.

I think that uh on the end of that paragraph, um respect for local knowledge since time memorial.

I I think that would make this uh a much better uh statement.

But I just mainly like to uh thank the the producers of this resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further public comment.

Okay, seeing none, assembly deliberation while they're working out their amendment on general one.

Um go ahead.

I just wanted to, yeah, I just wanted to thank um assembly members, um and Mayor Eisenbeis for taking this up and co-sponsoring this um and working with me uh to put it forward.

This has been something that our city has consistently weighed in on.

Um, you know, these traditional life ways are extremely important to our original residents, the Alaska Native people of Chicaquan, as well as all of the rural residents that get to um enjoy and practice this this life way.

So really grateful to to those folks for the strong support.

And um just wanted to say that I did try to reach out to the tribe um to to do a joint resolution.

I think that would have been fantastic.

Um the timeline was uh too abbreviated to fit within their governance process, but they are submitting um substantive comments on the issue, and I think we share uh a lot of alignment, so I want to give a big gunakchish to the tribe as well for for weighing in on this issue that is so important to um many sitcans.

And um, yeah, thank the assembly for just um really laying the groundwork over the years.

The a lot of the language from this resolution I took from previous resolutions that were passed um by Sitka.

So big thanks to Marlene Campbell as well in her role over the years in weighing in on these issues.

Kevin.

Um I don't have anything to say other than I fully support it, and uh thank you, yeah, to the sponsors.

I'm really I was really glad to see this in the packet.

This is important.

Um yeah, I just I I obviously support this and I I thought about encouraging everybody for unanimous, but I don't think that's an issue.

Um but a couple of quick little points.

Um it's it's because of planning.

I sometimes two resolutions are stronger anyway.

You know, they have two sheets of paper in front of them, two different resolutions, one from the tribe and one from us.

Um might be, hopefully.

Um, you know, this has been a this, of course, is near and dear to everybody in Sitka.

I know that I do subsistence.

I have my whole life.

Um not the best salmon fisherman, but I can catch all of it.

Um, but um, but anyway, that it's it's very important.

I'm glad the sponsors were aware of this.

I wasn't.

Um I think it's telling that the Safari Club is the group that's petitioning it, which just brings out all kinds of negative connotations in my mind.

Uh so um hopefully they'll listen.

Uh and hopefully, you know, for what it's worth, it's not gonna hurt.

Um and hopefully this isn't the beginning of a long campaign that hopefully this will help stop it now.

So enthusiastically supporting this.

Thank you guys for bringing it forward.

I know we're getting kind of late, but um this is a great opportunity to tell the community what's going on here.

Um would the sponsors like to share a little bit more about why we we wish to communicate with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Agricultur Agriculture.

Yeah, if uh folks folks have stayed up to hear it.

Um there is currently a comment period uh happening until this Friday, February 13th, where the Secretary of Interior and Secretary of Agriculture have asked um for um folks in Alaska to weigh in on the federal subsistence management program.

Um they this is called the scoping period, so they are figuring out whether or not to do a rulemaking um as a result of a petition that was received by the Safari Club in May 2025 that asked them to make some changes.

Those changes included removing public seats from the federal subsistence board and reducing the membership to just the land management agencies, um revising the criteria of who serves on the regional advisory councils that forward uh resource management proposals to the federal subsistence board.

Currently, um you have to have local knowledge, you have to be a subsistence practitioner.

Um, and so you know, they wanted revisions to those criteria, and then um also uh some other things uh looking at the board's ability to do special actions um when there's you know um concern about meeting subsistence harvest needs and requiring deference to the state of Alaska instead of the uh local regional advisory councils that are comprised of um you know local residents and subsistence practitioners.

So um the department uh basically put out a set of questions, and that is what this resolution weighs in on.

It answers um the questions that they put forward.

One of the questions was the board's process for rural determinations, um, you know, and that one in particular is important to SICA as we've defended our rural status for uh many years.

So the process of how they did that changed, I think back in 2015 or so, and now we don't have to defend it every 10 years.

Um we have it until uh you know we don't, it's petitioned against, and so just in in as much as um I think that this body really appreciates public input and um knowledgeable uh decision makers um being able to weigh in on uh the issues uh that are important to all of us as we've seen in you know many of the things that we've deliberated on tonight.

Um I uh am grateful that we are making a strong statement about how um you know subsistence users and uh local and traditional ecological knowledge holders are the ones that are um best suited to occupy those boards and that um subsistence is um uh extremely important to our rural way of life here in in Sitka and in Southeast Alaska, and I would encourage um anyone that feels strongly about this issue um to weigh in on this.

Uh you can do so until um you know 8 p.m.

on on February 13th, and um grateful that the the city is um supportive of this resolution as well.

Did does the group know of any other municipalities in Southeast around Alaska that have submitted comments or submitted a resolution on this?

No.

Yeah, Pelican, I believe, um, submitted a resolution on this.

I know that there's several tribal governments across the region uh that are considering resolutions on this as well.

Um I think Haynes was looking at it.

Uh there was there was definitely interest um from some of the folks that I speak to on municipal bodies, and I did share this language um in case anyone else wanted to use it, but haven't uh haven't heard of who took it out besides Pelican, I think past one.

Great.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

It was very important discussion for me to make my decision.

Scotty, uh, thanks for writing this up, Katie.

For me, it just starts with the Yukon and the word subsistence, and no no family living on the Yukon has dipped a subsistence net to catch a king salmon and they keep dragging in the bearing, and then this is like with the Texas Safari Club, and there's no public hunting lands in Texas, and people are after our deer and the caribou out west.

Uh it's only gonna get worse every year, so yeah.

I think um I want to thank the sponsors.

I think um subsistence is an essential part of living in in Southeast Alaska, and particularly in our area here on the outside uh coast, and I think um I'm just continue to be amazed by uh choices that are made in Washington that have impacts locally that they have no idea what they're talking about.

So um I think us speaking up is uh both appropriate and timely.

So okay.

Any other comments?

Sorry.

Or for that little paragraph, and then like uh respect for local knowledge to continue, and just to get the uh First Nation catchwords of time and immorial time and memorial in there, or uh make a motion.

Okay, never mind.

No, we're good.

Yeah, I think the main point is the emo the emotion of it with resolutions like that.

Wordsmithing is rarely the point.

They're gonna get the point.

All right, back to Sarah.

And the motion to approve resolution 2026-03 on first and final reading, Mr.

Christensen.

Yes, Mr.

Pike, yes, Mr.

Mosher?

Yes, Mr.

Celine?

Yes, Ms.

Riley.

Yes, Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0 on item H.

Thank you.

All right, we are at persons to be heard again.

This is for items on or off the agenda, not to exceed three minutes per individual.

Is there anyone for public comment as they walk out the door?

Okay.

Moving on.

We are now at reports.

Um the mayor is obviously not here, but I am gonna steal his slot for a little bit because I went up last week to the CLIA conference, and I know John has better notes than me, so when he gets back, he can do and he does his report.

I think you can do it.

So I'll give you some impressions that I took away from that process.

Um, it is very much a get-to-know people thing, um, and those folks are very good at that.

And met a lot of amazing people and talked to a lot of different cruise lines.

Um, and I think um they have a great deal of respect for Sitka because they feel that we um have been doing a good job of communicating.

So we communicate clearly what is important to us, as we did again um sitting in meetings.

Um and I think that was a very important piece for them and for us.

So I mean it was interesting to see um their reactions when uh and everyone knows John, which was helpful.

Um but um to see us coming, and they knew um you know that we're gonna be serious.

A lot of interesting information that took place.

I mean, we there were a couple of them that weren't a couple little sessions where I was kind of like interesting.

I didn't know that, but um wasn't particularly appropriate for what I needed to know.

But um, and a lot of good networking in the area, so a lot of networking with other communities, um, catch can Juno.

Um I think they're all pretty there were a lot of people interested in picking our brains on how we are dealing with um communicating to our community so well so that people are feeling a little bit better about it.

Um obviously there are still issues that we deal with, but you know, um having a communication plan is a good idea.

John got to sit on a panel, it was kind of good to see him up there answering questions.

He did a very did a very good job even though they threw him a few curve balls.

Um and uh Judson Rusk was able to join us, he's our new tourism manager.

I think he's coming in this week sometime for a couple of days.

He is looking for housing, so if anyone has any leads on that, please get old and we have two little kids.

So um he's very interested in in that.

Um moving back here, he's uh former student of mine.

He's been in Sitka High Kid, been doing some pretty amazing stuff in the tourism business.

So I think he's a an excellent choice.

Um very committed to our community, so that's what I did.

But that meant I missed the sustainability meeting, so um, I don't know what I I read the notes, it was sounded like they got quite a bit done.

So uh right, Josh, you're up the only thing I have is uh John is at the Southeast Conference mid-session summit in June of this week, Rachel.

No report okay, other liaisons I attended uh parks and rec commission meeting today at noon.

Um they were discussing some additional uh permits uh for requests for outside of our our normal land use plan, and uh I I was there for most of it, but I had to get back to work, but I believe they uh approved all of them.

Uh they were basically uncruise requests to go to um uh I forgot how to say it.

Tatsit to Cat's Lake.

Um and so there was quite a bit of deliberation, but they decided to to pass it, and then I think they got um kind of Kevin brought up Kevin Knox uh staff liaison brought up that that's uh that's a good thing that they need to be looking into as as well as a possible including that those areas into the Latin use plan for future.

Um I also attended the school board meeting last um week, and uh I'm always impressed by uh you know they do um student monthly student recognitions for from kids from all all the schools and seeing all the parents there and uh it's just really something special to see uh proud parents up there and and then the things that the school does, and there's lots of different programs and uh just see the passion in students and uh teachers' eyes.

Yeah, it's really cool to see.

Tim, I just had a question on the when you went to the CLIA thing.

Are those guys are they talking at all about helping the passenger vessel funds being distributed in a less stringent criteria?

Is that something that they feed back to the municipalities uh that they're trying to help us?

Yeah, I think uh John will be a better person to answer that question than me, but yes, that's a always a part of our conversation as we're up there.

So that was a big part of you know, clarifying our role and their role in that particular thing.

So okay, any other liaisons?

I've got one.

Um tomorrow night is Ports and Harbors Commission.

If anyone was interested in, you know, they're talking about fees and morage rate increase um to bring back to the assembly.

We have that rate discussion term budgeting.

So if you want to have some public comment on that, uh that's tomorrow night here at Centennial.

The next week, Wednesday at noon is the health needs and human services commission I'm part of.

Um we haven't had a community member in a while.

So if anyone wishes to come and speak to the health and needs of this community, please please show up then.

Thank you.

Sarah.

No report.

All the commissions are full.

There might be a few vacancies.

Okay.

Good to know.

Motion to adjourn.

I move to adjourn.

And I have a second.

All in favor say aye.

Opposed.

We are adjourned.