All right, welcome everybody.

I will call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, March 24th, 2026.

Please join me for a flag salute.

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

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

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

With gratitude, we proceed on Kinkitani.

Sarah Roll Cole, please.

Mayor Eisenbeis.

Present.

Mr.

Pike.

Here.

Ms.

Carlson.

Here.

Ms.

Riley.

Here.

Mr.

Christensen.

Here.

And Mr.

Selene.

Here.

And Mr.

Mosier is absent this evening.

Thank you.

And Tor, even though you're right in front of my face, sometimes I miss people on uh on Zoom.

So if I do happen to skip over you, please uh feel free to jump in there.

Um Tim's a really good hand at that, uh, making sure you get acknowledged as well.

Uh any correspondence or agenda changes this evening.

Seeing none, that'll bring us to our special reports.

Uh, we have two scheduled special reports this evening.

I will start with Sica Tribe of Alaska Tribal Council.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Good evening, assembly members.

My name is Elena Peterson.

I'm the vice chair first of the SICA tribe.

I am not Yeti Kuka.

She unfortunately can't be here, so I'm happy to attend and provide an update and a report on her absence.

Uh I guess first I want to flag that on your agenda tonight as you're talking about the CVP fund C VP funding.

We had submitted a letter requesting additional CPV, additional funding for the ride, and um just knowing that we do see a major uptick in use in the summer, and so to ensure maintenance and continuity of service, we are requesting additional funding.

Um I'll try to stick within my time limit here, but I have quite a few updates.

So at our March 18th tribal council meeting, we approved the following agenda items.

The scholarship ordinance on a third and final reading, and this ordinance will go into effect in 30 days.

The election ordinance on first reading was approved, and the next reading of this ordinance will be April 15th.

So we're encouraging all tribal citizens to attend and comment.

The draft election ordinance is available for review at STA's website at SICATribe.org, as well as in hard copy at the front desk of our headquarters at 204 Siganackaway.

Uh we have a resolution requesting a secretarial election to amend the STA constitution and appointing representatives to the Secretarial Election Board.

We also approved a repatriation claim for the Kalchian Tunic, and we approved a letter responding to the U.S.

Forest Service invitation for consultation on repatriation of funerary objects and human remains.

Some other things just happening at STA right now is we're kicking off our tribal needs assessment.

So people are going to start seeing um advertisements and opportunities to fill out a short survey.

So enrolled SICA tribal citizens are invited to complete that voluntary and confidential questionnaire.

And as a thank you for participating, eligible um participants will be entered into a prize drawing for cash prizes and other high-value items.

And this needs assessment is really going to help guide the SICA tribe strategic plan and program implementation over the next uh future.

And we also at the council are doing something that's probably been the biggest work that we've done since I've been on council, which is to revise our constitution.

And so this has been a multi-year effort to amend the constitution, and so a special federal election to approve these changes is going to be held with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

That's that secretarial election that I mentioned before.

So all eligible STA voters are going to receive a mail out from the BIA through which they can register to vote in this special election.

And I'll just briefly share some of the proposed amendments.

We're going to change the name of SICA tribe to Sheetka Kwan Tribe.

Um it would also, the amendments would allow children under 18 to be eligible to be enrolled in STA and allow dual enrollment in any tribe.

It would also uh allow STA citizens to be eligible for Clinkett and Hyda enrollment based on their own eligibility requirements.

It would reduce the minimum age to serve as an elected member of tribal council from 30 to 25.

It would remove the secretarial election requirement for future amendments, and it would change the terms of council office from two years to three.

And so many of the purposes of the amendments are to increase access to services, especially for children under the age of 18, and open more opportunities for citizen-led initiatives by removing the need for future special federal elections, um, which helps us to work towards sovereignty and decolonization and open access to tribal council for younger people.

We have a Kayani Commission open seat.

Uh so this commission is accepting letters of interest to fill that open seat, and the deadline is March 27th.

So you can forward completed letters to Sienna.read at Sica Tribe NSN.gov.

Uh we also just uh ended the SICA Cultural Tourism Conference.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor, for your words and opening and inviting uh the more than 100 people that attended the 11th Heritage and Cultural Tourism Conference March 17th to 19th.

And the theme this year was catalysts of authenticity and innovation.

It was a great event, and I really applaud Camille Ferguson and the team that she pulled together to make that event happen.

DYP uh week, that's the Discovery or Potential Week happened at Blachley, and we just wanted to send a special thanks to our staff, Alec Duncan, Lizzie Hardison, and Charlie Skulka who generously shared their time, expertise, and passion to offer some of the courses for the students there.

Uh another deadline, um, higher ed scholarships are due April 1.

Some upcoming events.

We have Zumba on 325 from 5 30 to 6 15.

We also have an STA fish distribution this Thursday, the 26th, um, from 10 to 3 p.m.

at the City Cold Storage Facility on Catleyan Street.

Uh there will also be an opportunity there to update your um enrollment information and participate in that community needs assessment that I mentioned.

We also have a gentle flow yoga nidra on Thursday from 6 to 7 p.m.

at Yoga Union.

Um, and those happen Thursday nights um in February and March.

And uh there's an STA picnic, and the date that we set um is July 11th, 2026.

Those are all my updates.

Appreciate you all.

Uh thank you, appreciate it.

Our next scheduled special report to special report tonight uh is our department quarterly reports and the police department.

Chief Nothing like jumping in with both feet, right?

Yeah, right.

I want to thank Miss Pat Alexander for turning off her snow machine so I could actually get out today.

Thank you.

I gave her a hard time when I came in.

I was told when I came here that it didn't snow much in Sitka.

So who told me that lied to me.

I'm not going to mention any names because some of them are sitting here.

So making some good progress in the uh police department.

When I first came in as a lieutenant, my uh my biggest task sent to me by uh Chief Gaiden was uh the recruiting aspect.

And um happy to say that we have increased candidates in our recruiting.

Uh we um have uh four in the background investigation currently, uh one actually turned in another one today, so we have five uh to fill three positions, knowing that not all make it through the background checks, uh the ones that we do have come uh to a good point.

One is finishing up and uh after the psychological evaluation and a and a physical uh testing that, which I think he will, uh we'll be here May the 18th tentatively.

So uh we have another one coming through the academy currently and a graduate in May, uh and we offered uh another uh gentleman a position here in Dane Smith out of Alabama who started um a few months back.

He's now off FTO and is on the street himself, uh a lateral transfer.

And so our staffing is increasing.

Um we also have uh four dispatchers in the investigative process.

Two are probably um more liable, reliable than the other two currently in the investigation.

One is moving here, uh, her husband's gonna be a um the master chief at the Coast Guard Station, and another one is coming from Virginia, who uh was a retired uh firefighter, a lieutenant in the fire department and uh was a supervisor dispatch.

They're currently going through uh the background investigation and have to do testing and then come to SICA for an interview.

So if that's the case, then if we get the two out of the four dispatchers, our dispatch should be fully staffed.

Um if we get the others from the police department, then the patrol section will be fully staffed.

Looking at restructuring some of what the police department is.

I think we can have uh too many supervisors versus people on the street, and so we're trying to reorganize to see uh what do we need administrative wise working through that um budget.

We're about 50% of our annual budget, uh still remaining well within our projections.

Um we have some special projects.

We started a crackdown on high schoolers buying alcohol from adults.

Um we received several complaints from the school, uh both schools, both high schools, and um received some information, generated some informants, did one undercover operation where uh one person uh received two felonies because uh the state of Alaska, even though marijuana is legal, it is a B felony for an adult to uh purchase or sell marijuana to someone in high school or underage.

Um a B felony would be the same as pointing a gun at somebody's face, so it's pretty serious charge.

Um in that investigation, we were able to wrap up three other folks who were selling teenagers alcohol, and uh one of those came from a younger who ended up in the hospital from alcohol poisoning.

So uh we rarely wanted to focus and target our our uh high schoolers here, especially during the spring break season.

Luckily, the weather uh helped out in those efforts because uh kids weren't out um doing what they would do normally in spring break because of the snow.

Uh a couple other things come some community um outreach initiatives.

We're still gonna continue the walk on Lincoln Street.

We're preparing for the cruise ship season so they can see a nice friendly police face.

Um also going to the schools and having lunch uh with the schools during the during the week.

Uh we're gonna do sit good nine out against crime again.

It's always successful.

We're preparing that right now and uh looking forward to that.

The the national night out is August.

Um, so we're now preparing for that.

We're also doing the uh torch run for uh the Special Olympics is gonna be the first part of May.

Uh we are doing that in um coordination with the uh THR THP the Alaska Highway Patrol or uh troopers.

Well, if I say patrol, they'll kill me.

The Alaska State Troopers, uh, the torch run.

I would anybody here that uh wants a flyer.

I have to in my uh in my office.

I'm gonna start putting those out.

It's a it's a pretty noble cause.

Um the equipment.

I want to thank the assembly uh one for the uh the vehicles that they uh said we could purchase over the next two years, as well as the axon body cameras, which we are uh still in negotiation with them to uh to get them finalized and then uh have them come and do training and hopefully um April, May we have their officers fully uh ready to go with our axon body cameras so that we can get some more PRR requests because we don't get enough of those, right?

Um barring any other questions.

I'm here far away.

Thank you.

We appreciate you.

Uh I like that question.

Thank you.

I'm moving on in our special reports.

Is there anyone here?

Anyone else for government to government tonight?

Municipal boards, commissions, committees.

Um, under municipal departments, uh John.

I understand you have a report.

I do.

It's uh I guess not necessarily a municipal department.

I'll call it I'm calling it a department because of the incident command.

Um I know snow removal and the snowfall over the past since November, I guess.

Um the snowfall has been very, very, very difficult to keep up with.

Uh we stood up an incident command, not declared any emergency or anything like that, but I just wanted to get everybody uh refocused on making this uh a priority.

Um the crews have been working around the clock.

I mean, the three up three o'clock in the morning wake ups are getting pretty old, the equipment's tired, the folks are tired, and um we needed that help.

Um, you know, right when I say that it turns sunny outside, but um it's a good opportunity.

Um so in the an update from the incident command yesterday, we were able to get some short notice uh contracts in place with three of our local contractors to help with um with the snow removal, uh getting it basically off the street and put to another location uh so we can start to clear up some of those routes and get the trains cleared so we don't have uh a lot of flooding.

And um, I will just say this ahead of time when we have snow like this and road um clearing operations, uh the roads aren't gonna look the best when the snow is gone.

Um so as much as we're hitting it with the uh with the snow clearing right now.

Um I expect a uh a pothole filling rally uh as soon as the as soon as the weather warms up.

So we'll be focusing on that and we'll keep pushing out the communication as we know more.

But thank you.

And then uh Josh under municipal departments as well.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor and Assembly.

Josh Brandtover, assistant municipal administrator.

I wanted to provide a report and update regarding the municipal administrator hiring process, as you all are aware.

After reviewing the applications, the assembly will be conducting interviews with three applicants on April 9th.

All three applicants have scheduled their time slots with the first one beginning at 5 p.m.

The three applicants that will be participating in first round interviews are Jenny Albert, Stephen Dahl, and Matthew Zeke Jackson.

In the lead up to the meeting, appropriate application materials will be provided in the meeting package that will be available for public review.

And that's all I have, Penny.

Any questions?

Thank you.

I'm glad we were able to get them all uh all three scheduled, and I'm sure the town will be excited to learn more about these applicants.

Anyone here from the school district tonight for special reports?

All right, that would bring us to persons to be heard.

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

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of the assembly.

My name is Bill Spivey.

I'm a 20-plus resident of Sitka.

And I don't know what makes me feel older looking in the mirror every morning or seeing Miss Riley sitting in the assembly table.

Her mom was the one that recruited me some many years ago to be a PT here, and I know she'd be very proud of you.

I know I am.

I wanted to come up this um evening just briefly and and mention uh I think I was here about a year and a half ago and was on my first few weeks as the administrator for Mount Edgecombe Medical Center.

Uh far reached from working as a physical therapist in the community, and over the last year and a half have learned a lot.

One of the things that I learned working in my current position is how important the relationship that I needed to have with my local police department was, which I will be the first to admit never occurred to me when I when I accepted that position.

So I wanted to take this opportunity tonight to sit and tell you how much I have appreciated the opportunity to work with Chief Caden.

Um we meet on a monthly basis with the police department, and now I'm looking forward to working um with your new chief as well as we work to keep a strong relationship with local programs in the community.

Um without that relationship, the patients that show up in our emergency room at all hours of the day and night needing our care and our help would not be possible.

So that was a um a very welcome and very much appreciated relationship.

I wanted to be sure and make that public.

Thank you.

So thank you very much.

I also should take just a second.

Looks like I'm counting down to remind folks.

I know I believe everyone sitting at the table, probably.

I hope got an invitation to the upcoming ribbon cutting.

We're very excited about that.

That's April the 23rd.

I look forward to seeing you all there.

Um, we also have um the annual opportunity for the community to come to the Sitka Community Health Council meeting, which will be here at Harrigan on April the 6th, and talk to us about those things that they would like to see us do better, and hopefully um identify a few things they think that we're doing well.

Um I'm excited for that opportunity as well.

Happy to take a question or two about the new hospital if you wanted to use my last 59 seconds for that.

Otherwise, I'll just say thank you.

Uh thank you.

We appreciate another persons to be heard.

We're not allowed to do a back and forth.

So thank you very much.

You do like Gary White did earlier and post your phone number.

Uh the button right on the bottom of the microphone.

It'll turn red.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Uh good evening.

My name is Pat Alexander, and I wanted to give you a quick update.

The um Sitka Klinkett and Heida Community Council election just ended, and we have five delegates that were elected.

Um Charles Sculka Jr., Lisa Gaston, myself, Paulette Marino, and Bob Sam.

Additionally, there are another uh six people elected as community council members.

The difference is the delegates go to the tribal assembly, and uh the community council members do the work of the tribe, but they don't attend that tribal assembly.

And um I just like to say um the uh snowmageddon that we've had this year is um not something that we plan for.

We don't have that kind of uh weather, but I really appreciate all those people that get up at three in the morning to scrape the snow away for us so we can be safe.

And um we're uh the Klinkett and Hyder Community Council is looking forward to coordinating with the Sitka tribe of Alaska as well.

And um we look forward to working with you as well.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else this evening under persons to be heard?

Any item off tonight's agenda.

I see none that will bring us to consent agenda.

I move to approve the consent agenda consisting of item A.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve consent agenda.

Is there any public comment?

Sarah.

Sorry, on the motion to approve the minutes of the March 10th assembly meeting.

Mayor Eisenbais?

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen.

Yes.

Ms.

Riley, yes.

Mr.

Celine, yes, Ms.

Carlson, yes, and Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0 on the consent agenda.

Item A.

Item B, please.

I move to reappoint Mike Johnson to a three-year term on the Gary Paxson Industrial Park Board and appoint Amanda Bauer to a three-year term on the Historic Preservation Commission.

Second.

Osman Newman seconded to appoint and reappoint those named individuals to their commissions.

Is there any public comment?

Assembly deliberation.

Sarah?

All right, on the appointment and the reappointment, Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

Mayor Eisenbais?

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson?

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen.

Yes.

Yes.

And Mr.

Celine.

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0 on item B.

Thank you.

That'll bring us to item C.

Um, Mr.

Deputy Mayor on item C, I would ask for recusal.

Um, I'm personally going through a process right now that involves a historic preservation plan, and do not believe that I could deliberate without a bias on this one.

You are thank you.

Thank you.

That brings us to item C.

May I have a motion, please?

I make a motion to approve and adopt the Sitka Historic Preservation Plan.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Sitka Historical Preservation Plan.

I believe Ariadne has a presentation for us tonight.

Good evening, Acting Mayor Pike and Assembly members.

My name is Ariadne Will.

I'm Planner One and the staff liaison to the Historic Preservation Commission.

I'm here tonight to introduce the historic preservation plan.

The historic preservation plan has been created by the Historic Preservation Commission as required by SICKA General Code.

It allows for the maintenance of Sitka's CLG or certified local government status, which is a nationwide program.

The plan before you has been underway since 2009 and is meant to act as a guiding document for the Historic Preservation Commission.

The meat of the plan is within its goals.

There are five main goals, which I'll read for you.

Goal number one is to develop new partnerships and raise awareness of historic resources representing the history of underrepresented communities, especially Clinkett history.

Goal two is to identify, preserve, protect, and enhance the historic and cultural resources in the city and borough of Sitka.

Goal three is to improve city processes to include consideration of historic preservation and planning.

Goal four is to educate and encourage the public and students in historic preservation, and goal five is to promote heritage tourism.

Within each goal are between two and seven actions.

Other actions will require assembly approval, such as the application of CLG grants.

The plan is in concert with our comprehensive and strategic plans.

Our comprehensive plan has an entire section titled Historic Cultural and Arts, which correlates with the historic preservation plan, and there are many goals in common between that section and the historic preservation plan, including support of heritage tourism and the advertisement of historic preservation opportunities.

It also aligns with strategic plan goal to identify opportunities to foster relationships with underrepresented groups and populations in the community to improve engagement and representation.

The historic preservation plan advocates for support and protection of cultural resources, significant to think it history in particular, and it was also created in collaboration between Zika Tribe of Alaska and the city.

Fiscally, there are no direct expenses from the adoption of this plan.

It does allow money to be brought in for preservation projects.

Properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places are eligible for the CLG grants, which require assembly approval prior to application submittal.

Any expenses related to the plan and goals and actions will require assembly consideration and approval.

There's been a lot of public engagement since this plan began over 15 years ago, and at least 10 opportunities for public engagement took place since January of 2025.

Those have included Historic Preservation Commission meetings, hearing at the Planning Commission, a public input meeting that was held last April, and review by the STA Cultural Resources Committee.

The plan was also forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office, and that review was returned to us in late February.

Both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of this plan.

Thank you for your time.

Amy and I will be available for any questions.

Thank you.

We'll call you back if we have some.

Brings us to public comment.

Anyone who's interested in commenting on the adoption of the historic preservation plan.

Please come forward and state your name for the record.

Hello, Assembly.

My name is Stephen Eisenweiss.

I am co-owner of Russell's located at 208 Lincoln Street.

Potentially one of the oldest continually operating businesses in all of Alaska.

We have records dating back to 1897.

Our founder, Ferdinand Roll and his brother, was the first treasurer for the city of Sitka.

He uh he was also a founding member of our Chamber of Commerce.

Pass that on to Russell Rowe, who then ran the store for quite some time.

You guys might recognize that last name from the Roe Endowment Fund when you'll you will go through your budget process.

Um Mr.

Rowe then pass that on to Cecil McLean.

Uh Cecil sat in a group in this very town who included John O'Connell and got the uh bridge built in our town.

I only mention all of this because I do care about the history of Sitka, and I needed to set that precursor because some of my comments are going to sound like I don't care, but I genuinely do.

Um Sitka history is very important to me.

Uh but I do have several questions that I hope will spur conversation amongst the assembly.

Um if there is doubt about your answer to these questions, it may be wise to pause, as this item does only have one reading tonight.

The first thing that I want to bring up, um I am I'm currently working on a um not a remodel of my building, but we had some some rotten studs that need to be replaced.

So I need to go through a planning or a uh a permitting process for that.

Uh, in this, I'm being mandated to get a recommendation from the historic preservation committee.

Let me say that again.

I'm being mandated to get a recommendation.

Um, as I said, in this case, all I'm doing is replacing some rotten studs on a 2010s remodel of this building.

I would ask the assembly in this instance to consider an administrative review process as you could see within just a few minutes that what I am doing to the building is not in a historical nature at all.

It would take someone just uh a minute or two to come down, ask a few questions, and indicate that we are not in um changing any of the historical structure.

This process adds at least two months to my permitting process.

I would point out the code indicates that the historical preservation commission meets a minimum of twice a year.

Now, this is unlikely, but if you look in your appendix D, that is the codified minimum.

Tonight is the assembly approving the workflow found in appendix G.

This workflow C appears to give Historic Preservation Commission more power than identified in establishing code.

Code does not state the power for denial, it states recommendation.

Again, you'll find that in appendix D.

In my last couple seconds here, I'd like to ask if uh any of the property owners have been notified of this change.

I think that uh people on Lakeview Drive would be particularly interested to know that potentially thank you.

Thank you.

Other public comment.

Seeing none of assembly deliberation.

Tor.

Yeah, it wasn't sure.

It's it's a little odd since I can't see you guys.

Um I have to say that some of the comments we just heard were some of the same concerns I had.

Um not that we don't value our history in SICK.

That's I mean that's Sitka's claim to fame, but that relatively minor things or um can you know, like like it was it can it make a project that's benign and and trivial almost take months and add a real burden to uh a property owner, and I don't think that is the goal of this document.

So I'm not sure what the answer is.

Maybe sending it back for uh a little bit to say hey, how can we address this?

Because to have you know comparatively minor things, uh not have to go through the whole process, I think is is something that not very many people would uh have real problems with.

Um, but like I said, when I in I've been in the middle of the busiest time of my year, but I I did look through this and they had exactly the same concern.

Uh you know, I I guess I would like to say the uh commission for the uh for the big guns, I mean for the big things and not the trivial.

So uh I would be in favor of sending this back just to try and address that concern.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Saline.

Uh the reason I joined, well, I'm just I'm really confused because the Historical Preservation Committee is not a binding decision.

And if we look at our precedent from the Sitka Summer Music Festival and everything that fell out from that, which there's actually a lot to that, and then how the Summer Music Festival reacted to the commission when the commission is just following uh national criteria.

I don't know what this specific case is, but I joined the historic preservation committee because I was called an evil Republican developer with no respect for indigenous culture.

And then when I joined the historic preservation committee, it became a matter that when this plan was finally brought before this body that it did not have a staff, a paid uh employee that not to to just to attend, but an employee that its specific mission was historical preservation.

So I'm confused right now as to unless there's been changes to that plan that it doesn't stop anybody from building.

Um, you know, and especially if it was just as the last person commented on some joist hangers or over, I don't I don't know what it was specifically, but it's been over 10 years in the making, and some people have there's been a lot of people that have tried to rewrite this thing, and I think we should open it up deeper right now before we send it back to them because oh, go ahead.

No, I just wanted to um and potentially invite uh staff up to to speak to some of these things if we have some questions about those.

Do we have a specific question we want to answer it?

I guess is my first question.

Sure.

Uh Ariadne or because I think it's depending on how you read the documents, it can read as there's approvals that happened, not recommendations that happen.

So I'd like to hear um from you too.

Is this still all recommend recommendations?

Or is there more powers being given to the commission for approvals of permits?

Um this is Amy Easley Playing Community Development Director.

Sorry, Tor, I know you can't see faces, so I'll try and note uh have my name stated.

Um to clarify the his the review process for building permits, so that's the review process for local projects.

What's included in this plan right now is not a new process or a change in our existing process.

This is the process that I inherited when I started with the you know the planning department seven years ago.

Um there are parts of it that it looks like this process, including the historic district maps as well as this kind of flow chart that you see, these were developed or as best we can tell circa 1994 or 1995.

So they have been implemented.

I will say they're not fully formed, they're not as formally adopted as I would like to see, or we that have that would be helpful, which is why they're included in the plan now.

But this is a representation of the status quo.

This is not a change.

I did want to note that in the in the um flow chart, it states that the historic preservation commission will recommend the permit for approval, approval with stipulations or denial.

They will make that recommendation.

They did not this does not change their authority under under code or give them additional authorities that they don't currently have.

So perhaps um at the end of that flow chart that word approve both of those wings will return to recommend.

Oh, I'm sorry, the the last step in the process is the planning and community development department.

We approve the permit with stipulations or approve the permit.

Um thank you.

Um so a couple of points.

One I'm not sure the way we're doing it now is right.

I think that was part of the reason we were doing the rewrite.

Um, it should be clear, very clear what the roles are.

Um, and then three, just getting a recommendation is a a burden.

Uh you know, it again adding the time where we they have to go to a meeting and get rec and get approval or not appropriate or recommended recommended or not.

I understand that the planning commission or department actually makes the uh determination, but that I think we need something in here that says this is not rise to the level of needing to go to the planning department or to the planning uh historic preservation commission, excuse me.

Um I don't think it's particularly a heavy lift to do that, but I just don't want to approve this tonight without something in there like that.

Uh and this has been something that's concerned me for a while, is that I think it would be in the uh Sword Preservation Commission's best interest to not be caught up in things like that, because then people it it it turns them from a body that is doing good work and everybody you know the side of the angels to okay, we've got to somehow get around get through them.

Uh and you know, they put them in a negative light.

Um, so I would I would I would just like to see this kind of go back a little bit for a little bit of tweaking to uh take into account those comparatively small things that don't rise to the level of needing that recommendation because even just a recommendation is a pretty it costs money.

Uh you know, I'm I'm doing a little bit of work on one of my on my house, and I don't want to if I had to stop for two months for something compared to tribal, that would cause me some real not just uh it would cause a lot cost a lot of money.

Um so that's all I'm saying, and and I think that uh you know the the speaker had a point.

So thank you, Ms.

Riley.

Did you want to respond to anything, sorry?

Um I if I if I could, but I don't want to interrupt if you had go ahead and yeah, I just wanted to point out that one of the one of the plan goals is action, let's see, I have this pulled up here.

Action 3.3 of the plan is to improve the process for local project review and to increase public information about it.

I agree right now that the process is not as well defined as it could be.

There are probably some you know general exemptions for types of work that could potentially um have an exemption, but those things have not been the plan has been in a place of hold for about 15 years now.

Um and so the historic preservation process has essentially remained static in that time.

And so I don't think that adoption of this plan means that the the current process that is being documented by adoption of this plan is the one that would stay in place.

The goal, the plan, one of the plan's goals is to clarify and then to improve this process.

Um, and if that were to happen, that would come back in front of the assembly as a plan amendment.

Um, because again, I want to avoid in future um you know these processes that were implemented but maybe not as formally documented, and to have that memorialized as a part of the plan, which is why that would come back to you.

So it's recognized in the plan that this process is not as well defined as it should be.

But that's that's one of the goals in finalizing this plan is to then move on to that next project of improving the process.

Yeah.

Um that that was my question, actually, was um around whether or not this process was defined in the plan, or is it just in the appendix that it lays out the existing process, right?

This isn't like the plan describes the resources and the goals, and then it's an appendix to say this is how we currently deal with it.

And so that seems to me like a uh city policy change that we can direct an effect as an assembly uh rather than something that is necessarily approved as a part of this plan.

Like even if we didn't approve this tonight, that process would still exist as it does.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Yeah, okay.

Mr.

Selene.

I'm just really confused because like the the aspect of the whole plan is to like if our if Lincoln Street is like 1940s ambiance, I can't remember what it is, and you have buildings that support 1940s look, if you look at stereo north and with all the rock facade and everything, that didn't really fit in with what the downtown looked like, even though that's their right to build it and all that.

Whereas the Sitka Summer Music Festival, that whole criteria about the effort to not use Andersonville windows and to redo windows as were done back in the day that last a million years that does not deter from the neighbor property that is a national historic uh architectural thing that depends on the one their neighbors maintaining the same air of the same uh and so I don't understand why you couldn't look at it and see that this isn't changing Russell's, and I'm I'm lost in it on how if it hasn't been focused in on that that we can just spit it out right now.

I I'm I'm really confused on it from having read it and then watched it be implemented, and especially if they meet more times than two times a year.

We missed a meeting last Wednesday.

I didn't get to, I you know, so I just uh if we got to send it back, fine.

But um I'm really bummed that this minor of a detail is causing a thing where it's a bigger scope issue as far as historical preservation, not to cock up somebody's financial schedule and get going, you know, by the springtime or whatever.

So yeah, for first just wanted to note that we first we overlap the period of time from when someone submits their building permit, so build the building partment, sorry, the building department is doing their review on the permit while we are doing zoning review for things like setbacks and lock coverage and types and use types, as well as historic preservation review.

And so we're it's our goal to not add to the process of issuing a building permit.

And just from my you know, from my vantage point from what I have seen, it is exceedingly rare that historic preservation review is what's holding up building permit issuance out of the building department.

Um and so I just want to clarify about times being added to permit review.

Um, I don't think that we are we're trying to run these things concurrently so that they don't add time to the issuance.

Um, but Ariadney can also clarify what happens in the case when a historic preservation meeting is canceled and what that does to for project review as well.

Yeah, this is very annual planner one.

Um yeah, so we the cutoff for uh permit to be recommended heard for recommendation at a historic preservation commission meeting is one week before the meeting, um, and they do we schedule them to meet monthly.

So ultimately you shouldn't have to wait more than like five weeks to go before the historic preservation commission in the event that the meeting is canceled.

We sign off the we sign off on the permit and note that it did not go before the historic preservation commission due to cancellation.

I just got one more comment that I gotta make about this because the hackles are up on this all over the place.

I can just feel them.

But when you go back to that summer music festival, you got in order to have a certified local government, you have to have a historic preservation committee.

You don't have to have a plan written, and that's why it's been 15 years of trying to focus in on every little frog here.

But when the people made the decision and in the vote of the historic preservation to deny or to allow the Sitka Summer Music Festival to let them use Andersonville windows and not be they came back and uh and with a smear campaign, which was really profound, and that was a huge detriment to anybody volunteering for any city uh commission after the way these commissioners were treated and um and then denied being readmitted to it while they're in hospice with their mother after spending 15 years on this plan and just following national standards of historic preservation, not making anything up, but the venom that came back from the summer music festival, unbelievable.

And it didn't blossom up into anything more, but it's it's what I'm trying to emphasize right now, and then this plan uh it shouldn't stop anything that is of common sense that you're not trying to put art deco in with uh colonial neighborhood.

Um thank you.

John Thanks.

Um I have a helicopter pilot brain, so it's I'm still catching up to everybody else here, but I I got kind of some rapid fire questions for Amy and Ariadne to uh to frame around the the process.

So I like the the bubbles and arrows, like I said, helicopter brain, this is makes it really easy for me.

Um I I like that it's it's outlined to define the process that as you said is really already existed, but not clearly um portrayed to everyone.

Um and you mentioned something about qualified exemptions, things that that could happen as an amendment or an update to the plan.

So right now, and I should know this, um, right now, what um what defines when something needs to go to historic preservation commission?

Is it is it in code or is it just in this plan?

So the it is it's not specified in in code.

Um code requires that um review of local projects happens in um what's the word I'm looking for?

Um, in accordance with the historic preservation plan.

The historic preservation plan that we have in place is from 1994, it's less than two pages long.

Um, but as a result of working on the historic preservation plan at the time, staff and the commission, you know, again, this is the early to mid-1990s, developed working copy drafts of historic districts as well as this this flow chart, this review process flow chart.

Um we have updated it slightly, but it's essentially the same updated, it's essentially the same flowchart that was produced again, 1994, 1995.

The working copy historic uh of historic districts is based on um some of the Sitka inventory work that we have compiled existence of National Historic Landmarks, um, and also where we have um kind of recognized, you know, as as uh Mr.

Selene was talking about sort of historic districts, um, some of those have been in incorporated into other resources like the Alaska Historic Resources Survey.

Um so we use the work at least the working copy for historic districts, um, but we also will consult with a AHARS again, that's the Alaska Historic Resources Survey as well.

Um and if a project is located in either one of those areas, then we forward it for built for um review with the historic preservation commission.

Thank you.

So, what I'm getting at is you mentioned this idea of categorical exemptions.

Um, you know, they uh like if I were a uh if I owned one of the buildings in the district that needed to go to the historic preservation commission trying to do a project, and I was doing something uh like in kind replacement because I've had damage or rot or whatever the case may be, if you were to put in place something like one of those categorical exemptions where the planning commission said this happened, we're just gonna bypass this, so that wouldn't come through in code.

That would be an amendment to that to that plan.

Right, right now, some of those things are um are like department policy and things that and those are some of the things that we've talked about with the Historic Preservation Commission.

So, for example, when folks are replacing, you know, in kind um, you know, like a deck or something, you know, kind of something exterior on the property, but it's a residential structure and it's not specifically listed on our inventory or recommend or in AHARS, we can do exemptions for that.

Um, heat pumps on non-resource bill or not, you know, national historic landmarks.

We've tried to exempt some of those to speed up that process.

So right now, those live as sort of department policy, um, those could those exemptions could be more formalized through the plan if the assembly would like to see a more defined or um yeah, a more defined or more formal process for the types of work that would receive exemptions if we were to you know kind of act on again action 3.3 of the plan to improve this process.

Ms.

Ryland.

Um well, I'll try I'll try and make this a question for you, but it might be just a deliberation question.

But uh, you know, if we were to approve this plan tonight with additional direction that we wanted you to pursue action 3.3 expediently to improve this process.

Um, is that something that would come back before us, or would that just be an update that was given?

Can you can you explain the process of what it would look like to improve the process?

Yeah.

I think that the I think that if the assembly has particular interest in this part of the historic preservation commission's role or in this part of the plan, I think it's totally appropriate for it to come back to the assembly.

Um, and so that would be helpful guidance for us to know.

Um, is if you would like to see this as just sort of um a review update where we kind of tell you here's what we worked on, and this is the draft policy that we're thinking about implementing, we can do that.

If we want to go a step farther and make it a little bit more formal and essentially replace appendix G with something that is you know more robust, better defined, and have that actually adopted um as a plan amendment, we could do that too.

Um I personally would be more comfortable with the latter.

I would like to see if this process is going to get better defined and you know, more clear, more robust.

I think it should be formalized in the plan as an amendment that would come back to the assembly.

That's personally what I would advise.

Ms.

Carlson.

Question.

Um so Lincoln Street is not or is it a national historic district?

Um so Lincoln Street was, I believe there was an application put together to nominate it as a national historic district.

That nomination did not end up being submitted.

Um so instead, a lot of research was done on how it could become a historic district, and a lot of cultural resources on Lincoln Street were added to the Alaska Historic Resource Survey.

And there is there is uh a separate AHARS listing for um for Lincoln, like the Lincoln Street business.

Yes.

So there's yeah, there's there is an AHRS listing for the district itself, and then there are some individual listings for some of the businesses on Lincoln Street.

So it's it's recognized at the state level as a historic resource in the form of a district, but it's not actually like a federal, it's not through the federal recognition program recognized as a district.

So those building owners or buildings can't get the national grant, but they have to live with these process or these restrictions.

See many of the many of the properties are listed on the national register as individual sites, um, and a lot of those buildings are eligible for funding.

Um the CLG grants are also available to help someone prepare a register nomination.

So if someone would like to kind of go from well, I'm listed as a part of you know, as a potential site, but not actually formally recognized on the national register.

Um, that's also what the CLG group program can help do is to is to offer resources to help make that happen, which then opens potentially more pools of funding.

Okay.

It just seems like there's a bit of a jumping through hoops but not getting out of the benefits of being um formally designated a landmark here or on the registry.

Um so even within districts, we care about the inside historic value, or is these just exterior value of historic context?

This is about maintaining the the facade of the building is the main thing.

I believe there are other components that apply to the inside of building specifically if you are on the national register, but um it's also I think it's been described to me as all carrot no stick, so there would still not be anything stopping you if you wanted to take some drastic changes to your building.

And and just to be as a part of our and again, something that could be something that could I again fully admit could be better defined or could be you know listed here.

Um we don't take um building permits for in for you know um wow, my words are for interior work um to the historic preservation commission.

We only take um we only take building permits that would affect the facade of the building.

The exterior that historic context greater the the greater scene.

Okay, exactly.

Any other questions for area or Amy at this time?

I do, Tim.

Sure.

Um we don't take um building permits for in for you know um wow my words are for interior work um to the historic preservation commission we only take um we only take building permits that would affect the facade of the building the exterior that context exactly greater the the greater scene okay exactly any other questions for Ariadne or Amy at this time I do Tim Um with John's nomenclature of in kind and then the last speaker speaking about uh in his words a historic replacing historically with uh you know paying attention to history did the historical preservation committee vote that it was not an in-kind retrofit that the last speaker wanted to push him back in where that committee could just say yeah it's in kind go for it you're not gonna significantly alter the or go ahead are say that the commission hasn't reviewed Mr.

Eisenbaiss's permit it hasn't it has not yet gone before the the historic preservation commission Ms.

Riley um one more question I know you guys did a lot of uh public outreach on this I believe I saw this plan actually when I was on the planning commission previously um was there public outreach conducted to uh property owners in all of the historical districts that were mentioned or no we did not we didn't do you know like a like a mail notice or that sort of thing again we were if and if there's interest in us doing that either as a prerequisite to adopting the plan or immediately after adoption we're happy to do either um we again was not thinking about individual property owner notice again just not part of code requirement for kind of plan adoption and we're also you know using the existing you know property maps just trying to clarify and refine them as they were um rather fuzzy in the past um so we're we're happy to do that and again if if the assembly wants to see that happen before the plan is adopted or or after either way we're happy to do that go ahead I just want to throw one more comment out um Amy you and your team have done an amazing job on this and I know it's been what'd you say since 2009 I think this is 17 years in the making um I think we're all seeing the um fuzziness around this process and I and I think uh Amy's up here taking a lot of tough questions and trying to make something clean and work um so I I do appreciate the effort that you've put into this and try to get it uh try to get it put to bed and something in place so thank you any other questions while we have them up here no I have a more of a comment and a question.

Thank you we may call you back you never know go ahead Torre I had to get my ass off off my um yeah so a couple of things one I understand uh that we can change this and that we will ask them to do it.

I just I would rather see it I I I'm afraid that uh it could become a rather lengthy process and it may go into the back burner uh and so I'd rather see uh that administrative review or you know clarifying of what you know the abil what is a change in place you know or repair versus needing to go to it the other uh comment I I'd like to or observation I'd like to make is it isn't so much that's that something is is uh doesn't get a recommendation it's the fact that they have to go through the process in the first place that becomes uh a burden um I mean I think one of the issues that we have as an assembly is not realizing just how hard it is to get something done sometimes uh and this is just one more thing and again if it is a major external thing where it truly gonna change your character that's one thing but if it is a comparatively minor thing or just a repair essentially we should not be doing that and I don't I'd like to see it before we pass this and I and it's I'm sorry I'm being on Zoom it's hard to tell the tone of the room so if I'm by myself on this I apologize but I'd like to see that kind of clarity beforehand before we pass this and I I just want to wrap it up to a group uh to echo what John said is that I understand Amy and her crew have been working hard on this and I appreciate that and I'm this isn't meant as a dig at them uh in fact just the opposite I think they do great work.

So anyway that's my thoughts and if I'm on my own on that that's okay.

Ms.

Thank you.

Um yeah, I I do want to give kudos to the planning department.

I know that Ariani has been working hard with the commission on this and and Amy and the rest of the team as well.

Um this did come before us in front of the planning commission, and then there was extra legal review to ensure that uh this wasn't holding the city to anything, and that you know the the final decisions do rest with the assembly.

My impression and understanding from from the discussion that we just had is that even if we don't adopt this tonight, the issues that have been raised don't get solved, right?

Like that's a process that already exists, and uh that you know, passing this plan or not passing this plan will not actually materially change that.

I think this is an opportunity for us to um you know give that direction that we actually want to see those changes prioritized, and we can do that by passing this plan.

And so I really don't have um you know any any issues with passing it, and uh the the kind of direction that I would want to provide in addition to it is saying uh that you know action 3.3 is a priority for us as an assembly and that we would like to see the development of a process uh for approving changes to historic buildings that uh includes a list of you know categorical exemptions and what the process is to deal with those, and then I would also like to see as a part of that um some outreach to the properties with property owners within the district to say, hey, what would actually help you you know upkeep your building uh in good condition?

I think that's in all of our interest that we have an attractive downtown and attractive um historical places, and so let's work with those property owners to figure out how we can facilitate that um within the boundaries of the plan as well.

So rather than not passing this, I would like to pass this with the uh with that direction that we want to see that action prioritized, and I I would like to see that um process come back in front of the assembly.

I think that's in the interest of of everyone.

Thank you for that, Katie.

So that would be an addendum for uh what was a what was John?

What'd you say for you know the not altering the thing?

What was it?

What'd you say same in kind or something?

I said like in kind, something like that.

So that's specifically missing from the plan.

And I can see having been to many of the meetings with apprehensive contractors there thinking they got to jump through a hurdle and everybody at the table goes, yeah, it's it's not gonna alter anything.

And then just going back to summer music festival, uh, you know, anyway.

So I appreciate that, Katie, that you're looking at you'll pass this and then have them come up with the you know, focus in on in kind retrofit nomenclature, a rebuild or whatever it would be, but that's really what they do, you know.

And I just think of the sitka hotel where the sitka hotel, when the guy, you know, first rebought it and went through everything, and then the the siding and the the cut of the font, all of these were concerns of people that were on the commission, and in the end, he got to do what he wanted anyway.

Along that similar lines, I think we independently were on on track with each other there by approving this historic preservation plan tonight.

We are not the assembly is not giving our stamp of approval in that process.

And we we I'm happy to vote yes um with staff acknowledging that that it um appendix G gets replaced with an updated flowchart.

Um those you know general exemptions and some category exemptions um become a process a part of that new new process because the plan said the process needs to get reviewed.

So I'm I'm happy um to see to see staff uh carry out the plan that they already put in place by by uh by renewing um uh emphasis on on improving that process.

Yeah, I think well, what what I so I like a lot of what I saw.

Um I and it's been in process for a long time.

I mean, from 2009.

So if we were to wait a little longer to get a complete plan, I mean it's been in process since 2009.

What is a few more months in that time frame?

Um, and I think I would prefer to see a complete plan and a complete process and everything buttoned up the way that you've heard about tonight before I'm willing to support this.

And it isn't because I don't I mean, I I this was an awesome plan when I read it.

I was impressed.

I mean, there's a lot there.

And and there's a lot of little ways that it's heading that I think are really important to our community.

Um, and I think it's very important for us to this plan is going to help us identify what's historic for us down the road too, and I think that's a very important piece to this.

And so that's been a piece that was missing from the original plan, yeah, in my opinion.

So I I've sat here long enough to realize that if we approve something and it has to come back, then we go through the process over and over again.

And it and as Tor says it can end up on a back burner, or it can be six months or a year, and people are still struggling through that process.

And I think the other piece of this is that uh if you listen to the national news, you know, historic preservation processes are restrictive and are um declarative and people have to pass and submit to these things, that's what you hear about.

And ours is very much more of a oversight and recommendation process, and I think that's not very clear.

So people are not under I mean, kind of like what Scott was saying about the Sitka Hotel.

In the end, you know, you can build what you need to build, do what you want to do.

You it's a recommendation thing, not a mandate thing.

And in some ways, like we maybe we missed a little bit of a trick on that.

I think there's you know, I mean, it's important to have that, and historical um pieces are important, but there are pieces of history in Sitka that we're gonna want to really protect.

And so uh, but in this particular circumstance, I would like to see a complete plan.

And I think that's kind of where we're we're talking about.

We're talking about whether or not it's a complete plan or whether or not we could pass what we have in front of us because of the work that's been done, and then we come back and take an amendment to it.

I just don't I think for me, I'm gonna vote with Tor.

It sounds like in the sense that I want that plan to be finished, and I want it to come back to us, and I want to encourage them to work on this quickly so that we can get the final plan in place for the next building season, for example.

Because clearly there's an issue here.

There's an issue of understanding, there's an issue of uh, you know, and what Tor's talking about can be the cost can be in time or it can be in money, and it can be in process and it can be in and all those other things, and I think that's uh you know, it's important in a historic district, but we need to be clear about what's important in a historic district and what isn't, and what is something we can as was indicated can be an administrative decision and what has to be something we want the community to hear about, the community to speak about, the community to be per participate in.

Everyone's welcome to a historic preservation commission meeting, so everyone can talk about whatever is there and is important to them.

So I think those are all and and the person who's applying or who is affected by the commission has that opportunity to hear from the community too.

So I think those are very important to me.

So I want to plan pass a complete plan.

I'm not not super interested in a in one where we're gonna have to come back and do it again.

So I think that's kind of where I'm at on this one.

Yes.

So my understanding is that um, you know, if if we don't pass this, the current direction continues as it is already, right?

Like we are not considering a motion to direct the uh planning department or the historic preservation to amend a process that already exists.

I think by adopting this plan, we are adopting a recommendation that they change that process.

But I think if we vote this down, there would need to be some additional guidance over what we wanted to see changed because right now the plan that is in front of us says we need to revise this process, and I think if we adopt the plan and say we would like you to prioritize this goal and accomplishing this, it's not bringing the whole plan back in front of us, it's bringing a specific review and process piece in front of us, right?

And that is um ensuring that you know we're seeing progress on on some specific direction that we've given.

But I don't think we actually solve any issues if we don't pass this tonight because then the status quo continues and we continue to elongate building times and and this, you know, it's like we have to tell them through the actions that they've identified that we do want to see them take that.

Um, and if we deny this plan, I don't necessarily know that that happens.

Tor.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh, first of all, Tim, can I hire you to encapsulate my thoughts because you did a nice job of it.

Um the uh no, uh the reason why I would prefer that we not vote for this tonight or delay it, um is because human nature uh it will not be on the front burner.

Uh it it it can't be.

Uh we've got so much going on, and that this while I understand that the old process will still be in place, the new process isn't substantially different.

Um so uh I think we need clarification of what exactly does have to have be go to the planning commission and what doesn't, and then and what you know, and if we pass this eventually they'll get around to it.

We won't have to reclass the whole uh plan, but it's not gonna be something that happens quickly.

Um and so I understand and and I understand exactly where your uh others are coming from, but I would like to see a more workable plan in place now rather than later.

So thank you.

Uh sorry, go ahead.

I just have a question um for you, John.

Is there currently an administrative exemptions process in place at all, or is it just appendix G and everything goes to the Planning Commission or the Planning Department, the historic preservation commission?

I think I'll I'll defer to Amy's response on that was it's essentially internal department policies on what kind of exemptions can exist and not exist, but sorry, this is Amy Easley again.

Sorry, Katie, could you could you restate the question about Yeah?

So uh, you know, there's some concern that by passing this plan tonight we are um allowing this process of you know that that there's some disagreement over right of like the burden of this.

So there's been reference to like wanting to see some administrative exemptions.

Do those already exist or are they decided on a case-by-case basis, or is there no uh administrative exemptions that currently exist and all things go through this process as outlaid in appendix G?

Currently right now exemptions are are very limited.

We don't have a lot of explicit exemptions um from an administrative standpoint.

Um the only like I said, the only ones um that I'm aware of are three.

So first for um for again for entry like for for decks and entryways on residential structures that are you know again not a not a register site, not a landmark site, not an AR site, um we can exempt review of that.

Um if they're expanding, if they're expanding the footprint of them, then those will likely go to the historic preservation commission.

But if it's it if it's on the exact same footprint, um we will exempt that.

The second is for heat pumps, again, if again if it's not a his if it's not a landmark site.

If it's not listed on the sorry, this is Ariadnewell Planner one.

Um if it's not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, well not that's right.

So register and landmark sites, um, if it's if it's uh not either of those two, then we don't require heat pump installations to go to those.

And then the only other exemption then is that if a historic preservation meeting is canceled, um, when that's you generally if we have like a quorum issue that we don't postpone the building permit issuance for at least from the planning.

I have a question for you as well.

Um so if we were to postpone this, I'm not super excited about voting it compound down as a as an item.

Um if we were to postpone this, how long would it take to come back with a revision to this section?

I think that depends on the level of the level of review in detail that the assembly wants to see.

If we want to see um more, if we want to see kind of you know, just like a documentation of more of our current process, um and what I'll call some maybe low-hanging fruit type exemptions.

Um, I would imagine that maybe over the course of three or so historic preservation commission meetings, um we might be able to get that hammered out, and then we would also want to have public engagement go along with that, knowing the extent to which we want to have public engagement in that process is also gonna drive timeline.

It's right now I I'm having a hard time answering the question because if we're looking at sort of minor tweaks or clarifications to the existing process, that could happen you know within I would guess four to six months if we're talking about sort of wholesale let's revisit the the process and make it you know lax, you know, really lax in some areas and really spell that out.

If we want it to be more robust in others, um how extensive do we want the public engagement process for this to be, then you know, we could be looking at kind of a year.

So there isn't any particular advantage to move forward with the the plan as it is coming coming incomplete without having that there I'm just looking to see like what are we yeah like how long would it take for us to get because as Tor was pointing out it could take a while to come back and get fixed and so what does that look like so rather than vote it down if we postpone it is how long do we need to postpone it for so yeah sorry if if I may add to I I guess I would want to point out as well that that this is mostly tied to one of those actions um I think part of why it's taken so long to get to this point with this plan is because of how large it is and how much it encompasses and I think that it might also be easier if the plan is passed tonight to really drill down into that one action and take the time and care to um to make something that is um yeah just really great and really strong in how permits are reviewed um as opposed to also going through that process and then being in that same point um when it comes back of having another action that maybe we really want to drill down on at that point in time.

I take your point on that but I think um I don't know that there's any particular benefit to not letting this uh be completed uh as opposed to what you're saying in terms of of that I don't hear any objections from the rest of the assembly to most of the plan or to the rest of the plan that I've heard here tonight.

I certainly was impressed with all the work that had been done and I would expect to see all the same things come back.

I don't we're not sending it back and saying the plan has failed we're sending it back and saying there's a portion of it that this point is making the community a bit uncomfortable and I think we need to make sure we have some clarity on it and that's where I'm standing and I think that's the the point and I'm not actually asking a question so I'll stop at this point.

Any more questions yeah so my question is that if we do not pass this plan tonight postpone it or or whatever um the current process as laid out and the current exemptions that you just mentioned stay in place and they are not changed and unless there was an alternative motion made to direct those changes as expediently as possible those would just continue to stay in place is that correct correct until yeah until we have direction sort of one way or another then the the current process would stay in place.

And then whereas if we passed the plan with the direction to amend this um process section the process and review and clarify those exemptions those would change and until then the play the the current process would also stay in place.

Correct okay so I'm not seeing like any difference to passing the plan versus not passing the plan is my thing.

So I I would prefer to I think just pass the plan so that we can make specific the direction that we want this process to change but that's a comment not a question necessarily thank you.

We have had them back any questions for these two Mr.

Selene we're just talking about in kind fixing something right that's it the amendment is it's in kind repair it's in kind retrofit it's in kind rebuild that's it right I think there's more to the question than that.

I think there's some clarity as to the process and and the sequence so at least in my mind so okay well I'm good for postponing it or passing it.

May I propose an amendment Tor and then Katie yeah um I guess uh first of all is as to the direction I think this discussion works quite well for that if we don't pass it um I think it's very clear that why we would if we do if it doesn't pass tonight why it didn't and the administrative review of some sort is what we're looking for.

If we pass it with a definite that we want some sort of a administrative review we should put a timeline on it.

Uh I would suggest three months, uh, because the reason why at this juncture I'm not willing to vote for it is because it'll like I said, it'll hit the back burner.

Um it's just uh and so I think we are looking at low-hanging fruit, as I believe it was Amy that said, I'm not 100% sure.

I can't tell from here.

Um we're looking at pretty much administrative review is is this a substantial change to the character of the building?

The answer is no, then it doesn't need to go to the uh planning to the historic preservation commission.

I don't think it's a huge lift.

Um, but I'm afraid that if we pass this as you know, without something like an uh uh and a motion to um add on that we want to see that administrative review section within three months, uh it'll be a year or two.

Uh and I probably you know uh and none of us may we may not be on our current uh you know terms when we when we next see it.

So that's again why I would like to see either delay it saying we want to see some sort of administered review, or if we do pass it, set a hard timeline.

We want to see it administrative review within three months.

Thank you.

Any further questions for Amy and Maggie?

You never know.

We may be back.

Thank you.

Ms.

Riley.

Okay, Sarah, help me out if I'm um speak slowly.

Yeah, I move to amend the previous motion to approve and adopt the SICA historic preservation plan with the inclusion of the current exemptions as stated by the planning director tonight in appendix G, and the prioritization of goal 3.3 to improve the current process for reviewing rehabilitation of historical buildings.

I think I'm gonna suggest that that's not a motion that we can.

I think it's got too many variables and too much uh referral.

I'll refer to Rachel to us and Sarah, but it seems like we need a little more specificity in a motion than that.

It it's cleanest if like there was an and in there.

So if you had each thing that's changing, be its own amendment.

Does that make sense?

Maybe let's take a five-minute recess.

Can we uh can we take a recess?

I think A, we've passed the seven o'clock hour, and secondly, I think it would be worthwhile for uh Sarah to have a moment.

Barring objection, we're on recess.

Ten minutes.

All right, I think we have River Buddy Tor.

Okay.

All right, I think Katie, you had the floor.

Yeah, thank you for um your patience.

Um I think that it is in the interest of this body to uh pass the bulk of this plan that we all agree on and deal with the issue that we don't agree on separately.

So I will like Sarah to read some language that we can vote on as a so um a possible amendment.

Um could be I move to amend appendix G to state that it shall sunset one year from adoption and must be replaced prior to sunset.

So moved.

Is there a second?

It's been moved and seconded to amend appendix G to be uh sunset in one year and replaced prior to that time.

Is there any public comment on appendix G sunsetting in one year's time?

A lot of people don't go to historic preservation committee.

Valerie Nelson for the record, lifelong resident, over 70 years.

A lot of people don't go to press historic preservation committee meetings.

I used to be liaison, and some things that were said tonight weren't true.

But as far as this appendix G and not having the plan complete, you know, I think I heard our planning director say that it was 1994 that we last had one.

I don't understand what the big rush is, and I think if this news gets out about how it's affecting one business owner and how it could possibly affect other people, that more people are going to be concerned about what you're trying to foist upon us.

You give lip service to making this community an affordable community, but the more plans and the more crap that you pass, the less expensive we become.

Thank you.

I mean, the more expensive we become.

Thank you.

Uh thanks, Assembly.

My name's Stephen Eisenbeis.

Um, I understand what the the motion is trying to do here.

I've listened to the conversation, but I don't think it does that.

Um by telling that item G or appendix G is going to be replaced within a year, you still don't give any specific directions to staff.

Um I did hear that my concerns were being evaluated by this assembly, which I am thankful for.

Um I would remind the assembly that uh the uh the things in appendix G are actually department code or they are department policy, they're not code that was stated by uh your planning director earlier.

So I think that there is an easier process than the one that is going forward right now with this motion.

Um however, I do support the gist of the plan as you're trying to get at here.

I also understand that if you bring the plan back, it may open up another can of worms.

However, uh, this might be a good thing because as we heard earlier, there are property owners uh within these historic districts that have been made who are unaware that they live in a historic district.

I started to talk about Lakeview Drive.

Lakeview Drive is a historic district in this.

I think a lot of those homeowners would be surprised to learn uh that mill era how or mill era houses are uh historic in our context, right?

And I think if you do put out mailers and invite those people in, I think there'd be more like me who have comments um and concerns or or maybe praise for this process.

So um I understand.

Um I think there's some other ways to get where you need to be, but I appreciate the uh deliberative process tonight.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Assembly deliberation.

Katie?

Yeah, so um I introduced this amendment because I believe that all of the discussion that we've had tonight pretty much centers on appendix G and currently the process for um that rehabilitation of historic buildings have to go through and putting it in front of the planning commission or the the historic preservation commission and having this be a burden on businesses, and so or any kind of property owner that wants to do upkeep.

And so that that being said, you know, the bulk of the plan that's been written from 2009 or to now the past 17 years, we are all um seemingly supportive of there's been multiple expressions of support for that.

So I wanted to remove appendix G from like the contention around the whole plan that we support and say this is something that we as an assembly specifically want to see improved.

I think if we want to provide additional direction over how that improvement happens, that might be another amendment.

Sorry.

Um, but you know, the main things that I want to see to improve appendix G is uh, you know, very clear um process for how we can, you know, what the exemptions are, what exemptions we want to see, and have those considered.

And also I would like for that that public outreach to occur, right?

To the the specified um historic preservation districts so that those folks can weigh in.

I just don't want to hold up adopting the whole plan because of appendix G, right?

Like that's something that can and should be dealt with.

And if there is an other avenue outside of this this first amendment to provide the direction over what department policy should be as they review, you know, building permits.

I think that that is also appropriate to make during this um this deliberation, but you know the bulk of the plan, like we like it, you know.

I think it provides certainty to people when we say this is what it is, and it provides further certainty um and expeditiousness to both the commission and uh you know the the property owners when we say these are the adjustment, this is the time frame that we want those adjustments to be made within Sarah.

Can you reread the motion since it's an auditory thing for us?

Yeah, yeah.

Um so the amendment um or the motion before you would be to amend appendix G to state that it shall sunset one year from adoption.

Um and must be replaced prior to sunset.

Okay, thank you.

Um because we're talking about removing it, but we're not really removing it.

Um we're letting it stand for now with a definitive one year date.

Um I think that it's not as tidy as you know what I like to see the assembly work be, but it does get one aspect of our point across.

And if that's how the body wishes to communicate with staff, we have staff here, we can communicate with them directly, or we can communicate them through through motions and amendments.

Um want to see us vote on something.

I think that's a given.

Mr.

Selene.

I'm still confused.

I thought we settled it that it's in kind is is addendum uh amendment G about in kind repair, and then that's still not we're not seeing that in this what we're doing.

I think among other things, it would be in kind, yes.

Mr.

Christianson, anything sorry, I had to get my mute up there.

I've been trying to listen to everybody else on this.

Um I understand what Katie's trying to do.

And I appreciate it.

I'm not a hundred percent sure it does what we want it to do.

Um I I love going to meetings.

However, if if this discussion isn't good enough direction to staff, then maybe we need a work session to hammer it out.

Um but I think this discussion very clearly says the staff what we want to do.

We want an administrative review that covers things like in kind uh uh uh repairs and things.

Um so I I don't think it's a heavy lift.

Uh I honestly think we could uh postpone this by a month.

And the staff has listened to this discussion.

Um I bet you they could have us a revised plan in a month with this low-hanging fruit of covering things like in kind.

So I would rather just have us you know postpone this for a month and ask them to bring us a revised uh plan.

Again, it takes low-hanging fruit.

I don't think it would take more than one meeting of the commission.

I don't think there's gonna it's not gonna be particularly uh controversial.

Umbe two months, but uh and I I'm not I I I wish it did, but I don't think that this amendment does that, especially since amendment G is not code, which is gonna make it iffy.

So um I I realize I'm a little scattered on that, but I I just don't think this accomplishes what we're trying to do.

Um I can be can maybe convinced otherwise.

So thank you.

Yeah, I think this is uh if you know, I think we've boxed ourselves in a corner again here in a sense because here's the deal.

I think our goal here is to add clarity to everybody, right?

Our our goal here is to actually remove responsibility from the planning department in terms of making these determinations, right?

We're saying put in code put into this process, lay out and delineate what it is we want to see and how we want this process to play out.

That's what we're asking for.

Um, so that future planning people will understand this and future generations of assembly members will understand what we're doing here and how we came to this point.

Um, and I think that's the goal of appendix G.

Appendix G, and as we're talking about it needs to be clear in terms of those things.

And I like Tor's idea of postponing it for a month, but I think we already heard from Amy and Crew that that's not gonna work, that they need more time than that.

And I think we also need more time than that for the public to have an opportunity to talk about this, and I think it's not as simple as it sounds.

It's not just an in-kind thing.

I think we're talking about an entire process that makes sure everyone understands what it is, and so I think just saying replace appendix G with something else in a year, it could come back and we could say it could be the same thing or something similar.

The other thing I think we want to avoid is the circumstance where we send it back, they come back, we say no, they go back, they come back, they say no.

I think we want to be real clear, and we want to tell them before we send it back or before we do anything else with it what it is exactly needs to happen to it so that it can pass at this table or it can get where we need to get.

And I don't know that we're there yet.

And I don't know that sunsetting this clause is gonna get us there.

Maybe that's the right answer, but I'm not sure it's the complete answer.

So I think that's kind of where I'm at with this particular one.

And clarify for me for a second here, Sarah, if you would.

This is a four vote majority.

Is that correct?

Yes, there needs to be four votes to approve the amendment or any vote.

It's not a simple majority, it's a four vote.

Yes, yeah.

Okay, Ms.

Riley.

So I think um I think that this amendment uh has support.

Um it's obvious that appendix G needs to be fixed.

It's not obvious how long that will take or how much public process there should be.

Um I think that if we want to specify assembly direction for exactly what we want to see in appendix G or what kind of process that we want to see followed, that could be a further amendment after this.

Um, but right now saying we want amends G to be fixed or it's going to sunset within a year.

I feel like that's pretty clear direction that you know this specific part is the problem, the whole plan is not, and I would say, you know, if if that is true, if the if that's what the assembly thinks, let's vote in the affirmative on this and then do another amendment that specifies an administrative review for in-kind and also a public process that allows uh property owners within historic preservation districts to share their thoughts about how to make this process better.

All right, I'm gonna take another stab at this.

Thank you.

I I think postponing it for a month makes sense for the following reasons.

I think we postpone it for a month so we can hear from the planning commission and planning group and the historical commission what is gonna get fixed in G, right?

Like what are they gonna work on in G.

And then we'll bring it back and we'll do exactly what we're doing right now.

But we'll understand what it is we're changing based upon what we've said here tonight.

Whereas we could be here until we run out of time, amending ourselves into getting more clarity as to what it is without us actually knowing.

I mean, I'm not gonna claim to be an expert on this.

Ariadney has way more experience with this than I do, and we could ask her to come up here, and we're still gonna end up amending this thing into to death.

So probably the cleanest thing to do is to postpone it for a month, giving the planning and historical group a chance to come back and tell us what they're gonna fix in G, they'll have to come back with the full plan, and then we can sunset G and expect to see some changes by the time we come back.

That's my suggestion.

I would be open to a motion to postpone.

Motion to postpone we're we're still on the motion.

Don't don't postpone motion to proceed.

Yes.

Sorry.

Can I I well go ahead?

There is no second.

The motion fails for the moment.

Second, second, and trying to get it on here.

Second.

Oh, hold on, we're happy.

Sarah has a comment first.

Okay, well, I'm interjecting more than I should be, but another option if you want to provide further direction, that could be at a future assembly meeting as a discussion direction item.

Discussion direction decision item.

To specify a date to the first meeting in April.

Sorry.

Let's say first meeting in May gives us there a second.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded a postpone the this to give the planning commission a chance to come back to give us some information about G appendix G until the first meeting in May.

Is there public comment on postponement?

Seeing none, assembly deliberation.

I don't I don't want to vote for postponement.

I would rather vote to amend appendix G within a year and then have a work session with historic preservation where we go over everything that we've talked about tonight and we say exactly what we want to see changed and like let's just do you know let's let's let's get to the solution that we want to see rather than just delaying and kicking the can down the road John I have a procedural question.

We did a postponement.

Is the postponement on the amendment or is the postponement apply to the original motion?

Meaning if we postpone the amendment, are we right back at the original motion whether or not to adopt the plan?

Which were you intending to postpone?

Item Cara.

Second, I agree.

All right, so the motion before you is to postpone item C to the first meeting in May.

Ms.

Riley.

No.

Mr.

Christensen.

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Mr.

Celine.

Yes.

Let's see.

Uh Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

So the motion to postpone uh passes 4-1.

Thank you.

So that would bring us to item D tonight.

Uh this is a discussion direction decision on uh the commercial commercial passenger vessel tax fund balance.

Uh John, I understand you have an introduction for us.

I do, thank you, Mayor.

Um this is a it's become pretty routine over the past few years.

Uh this um the ordinance passed in 2008 established the marine passenger fee fund, which we called CPET for many many years.

Um and I think uh I'll tell the story again every time I would talk to other uh state municipalities, I would bring up CPET and they'd all look at me sideways and everybody else called it CPV.

So just to get on that common language in uh 2022 ordinance 2023-17 was passed to align that nomenclature with CPV funding and to clarify and streamline an administrative and appropriation process for uh use of any CPV funds.

Um so in accordance with that uh ordinance, no later than the second regular assembly meeting in March of every year.

Um I am to notify the assembly of what the balance available in is in the CPV fund for the upcoming fiscal year after uh general governmental expenses and operations have been incorporated into there.

So in the memo, um right now the available balance, and I may call Brook up for some help here in a minute, but the available balance is a little over 4.2 million uh remaining in the uh CPV account, and then there are three choices that the assembly can make or a combination of any of them.

First one is to direct me to pursue any special assembly identified projects that align with the law.

The second is to uh retain the fund balance, basically save it for a rainy day or for any unanticipated needs.

Um or the third is to direct me to initiate a call for public proposals in accordance with that section of code, and we would return to the assembly in September with any of the uh uh public proposals that are called for for your consideration.

So uh what we're looking for tonight is just some guidance on what to do with that balance.

Thanks.

Uh great until we have a motion on the floor, it'll just be uh an open discussion here.

So Katie.

Fantastic.

So yeah, that's that's the idea I wanted to put forward as uh a way to um you know meet the needs of the the cruise industry and also um use our existing infrastructure.

We'll go JJ then Tor.

Yes.

Um thank you for that, Katie.

Uh and you said that would be under the possible motion number one just to pursue a project, not really put a construction value to it or a set aside or a time frame or anything, just the idea of utilizing that area.

I think that we have to do the the planning and design to know what the budget would be for that.

Um I did discuss this with uh John and with um Mr.

McGraw, and you know, it sounds like there's support for a project like this, but we don't know how much it will cost or if that remaining fund balance would cover it.

Um so there's the option to apply for you know additional state CPV funds, but the the first step would be planning and design of that kind of um remodel or facility so that we know uh exactly how much money we need to work with.

Okay, yeah, um, and that would be a great location if and when this uh seawalk project happens, but I believe that's been stalled for quite a while.

Um, but it's been on the books for over a decade.

And so if there's a reason for that location to be utilized, it would be for the amenities of the connection between um all of the other points of interest.

And so I think utilizing CPV funds to actually complete that seawall um expansion extension um would supersede a bus depot under the bridge.

And so I think we could also use that first motion um to have staff explore uh our continuing investment in that project because I believe the grants we have and the state constitution has maxed out, and so if that project is to go forward, it would be with local funds.

And the best pot for that is the CPV.

So I I think that there's uh a half step before that full step of utilizing that area for for bus drop-offs.

Tor.

Yeah, um first of all, uh, I want to say that this sounds familiar from when we just had uh lettering, but um I also I agree.

I think that to all three proposals that are that Katie um and JJ put forward.

I think at this juncture, it's just getting a basic idea of what we're talking about and putting it through the public process uh would be enough would would be a big lift for this year anyway.

Even if we put all the money to it, we couldn't get more than that done this year if that so um it would obviously be a multi-year project.

Uh and getting the CWA involved as well.

Uh so I think it's a fairly comparatively modest proposal to say let's try and get some uh you know back of the napkin call it idea of what we would try and do there, so that then we could get on to uh real planning.

Um so I I agree that it is uh it makes sense and I think that it is um you know easily meets the criteria that uh CPV funds meet.

So uh I I would support something like uh that they're talking about there, and also um I agree that let's go ahead and uh push push some over to the ride.

Thank you.

Scotty, and then we'll come back.

Um I tried to contact the state because uh the city records for the Alaska title survey underneath the bridge are dated before the bridge, and then the state wouldn't get back to me because I wanted to have this to pass out just to show you know, outboard of the city parking lot uh down there.

But with these funds and the purchase of a 480 volt rapid charging station, and if that could be spotted underneath the bridge wall paperwork's going to go forward, uh I've been told by the cruise dock shuttle guy that they'd buy their first electric bus.

And so then that with a million and a half bucks or whatever it costs, then we could start seeing or they could start seeing what happens when you try to rapid charge the shuttle batteries twice in one day because they'll have to have so many trips, but you could at least start a baseline and then there'd be enough power there because the city's bringing Coast Guard power underneath the dock, and then apparently Ron told me that the islands are gonna get new power from the bridge, and so this is the perfect time to try to get a charging station for the whole town for that matter, on the premise that if we asked Amy now to file for Corps of Engineer permits, even though we don't own the state tide lands.

Amy told me that you don't have to own the property anymore to file your core of engineer permits that you could get that going.

So if there's years down the pike, we could go forward with the 480 volt rapid charging station, have the paperwork filed so the core could start processing that, and then you could see what we need to fill in if we could go all the way out to that uh second coffer dam, that'd be a pretty big space.

There'd be a lot of rental places there for vendors, and I could see old timers casting with cut plugs and catching king salmon right there, casting underneath the dock.

And uh so I'd like to talk about us telling Amy to go ahead and file paperwork for this just to get it going as we try to proceed and look at getting a rapid charging station for the whole town underneath there that would do the buses, and we could use that money for something for town.

GG other projects um to add to this discussion.

Uh I was looking through the packet for tomorrow night's budget meeting and seeing that heat pumps here at Harrigan Centennial Hall and at the library um are on that list for replacement.

Um, you know, jumping the list from other items that have um been shown on that capital improvement program for a while.

And since the Harrigan Hall is utilized quite extensively in the summertime for all of the needs of the cruise industry, um looking at funding portion of the those replacements, including the library, maybe the library at a slightly lower degree um through CPV funds, I think is well within what we have been doing since this building was originally well expanded um with CPV funds.

It it follows that that track.

Um that's not necessarily a pursue a special project like the motion states, it's more of a reallocate um to explore reallocating uh an existing capital tomorrow night existing um capital needs.

This one's a hard one for me because uh JJ, you're not wrong.

Like this vis this facility is utilized by quite a few visitors.

Could we shave some of the cost off of our heat pumps with it?

Perhaps I think it's a worthwhile look.

But I've been long interested in revitalizing our under the bridge facility.

Um I think it's kind of sad that it sits there essentially unused.

Um now with Alaska Dream Cruise is not uh loading and unloading there.

Uh the use is gonna drop even further.

Um unfortunately, the half million dollars we spent to firm up those pilings never turned into a yacht dock like we intended it to.

Um that's uh a little bit of money under the bridge there, but uh oh yeah.

Um so I don't know, do we do we piecemeal this out 20 bucks at a time like we did with our sitca economic development fund, or do we utilize it in one big chunk?

And is the a potential bus depot underneath the bridge even a good utilization of this?

Um sincerely hope it doesn't cost four million dollars to revitalize that area to what we need.

Um perhaps but uh I I guess I'm I'm a little concerned on what's on the horizon as well.

We uh we tend to spend money for the immediate need, not anticipating future needs, and I I don't know what those will be.

I haven't identified those.

But if we get to that point, 10 million dollars goes a really long way to any potential future needs that are unseen.

So uh that's kind of where I'm at right now is between bus and uh just socking it away.

Tim.

So John, how much do we annually receive in CPV funds?

About uh we'll call it about 1.2 million.

Uh well, one 1.1 is a better number, 1.1.

Thank you.

I think uh it was interesting when I uh subbed for the mayor at the CLIA conference.

One of the questions I asked all the cruise lines was um, well, so what is the five-year outlook and what is the 10-year outlook?

And they were pretty positive.

They felt like cruising to Alaska was very popular, it would be here long term.

But interestingly, one of the other things they indicated was that it was full, that Southeast Alaska was it was at max levels, like they weren't gonna be bringing more people up here.

They weren't gonna be trying to stuff more people through the door.

Um instead, they were gonna be offering maybe more expensive cruises, better cruises.

Uh, but I don't think we can anticipate an increase in revenue down the road.

So I think we need to keep that in mind as well that this is a limited resource, and you know, there is potential for it to be go down over time per se.

And it certainly could go, it's certainly gonna go down in terms of its value due to inflation over time.

So, you know, I I'm kind of with Steven Torn a bit between um which way to go on this one.

If we spend it all now, it may not be any of it, it may not be able to do the things we really want to do down the road.

And um, I like the idea of exploring what it would cost us to hook those things up.

And Scotty's charger intrigues me.

But um, but I don't think we want to commit the entire set of resources to this because I don't, you know, a million dollars doesn't go as far as we think it does.

So I think we want to be real careful with that because I think thankfully for our community in some regards, I think we are seeing the numbers we're gonna see, and we're not gonna be seeing an increase in in uh money unless they change that CPV in some way.

I know we can get some state money for some of these things if we identify big projects, but maybe we should make a conditional on that, actually.

I I need to make a quick correction.

Um I read what we were using for the uh um governmental reimbursement.

What we what we typically get uh what we saw last year was a 2.95 million, right?

Okay, I got it right.

Uh 2.95 million uh for the fiscal year 26 calendar year 25 disbursement, and the way we get that is the cruise passenger count times the five dollars.

The number that I gave you was after we take the uh McKinley Research Group cost study that we adjust for inflation every year, uh allocated out to the governmental expenses.

So what we've been using is about 1.1 for those governmental expenses.

But what do we receive before that happens is typically 2.2.9 million per year.

Scotty and then Katie.

Just going on what Tim said, but that that money we don't get to spend that for town, right?

That's where I'm I'm on this.

That this is for them, but in my comic book, mine they get it for five months out of the year, and we get it for seven months out of the year with the increased walking and everything underneath there, because the Seawalks on the other side of the lightering facility, and then coming around to Hippie Radio with the whole bulkhead, you know, built there.

Uh I could see it enhancing the whole the whole town that we would get that for the town more than them even.

Uh don't say that too loud.

It's a shared facility.

It's the shared facility.

If and when the C walk phase, is it called phase two?

Uh phase two gets done.

Now it's paused for permitting reasons and also financial reasons.

So we would need to arguably contribute more for that to even happen for there to be something to utilize throughout the year.

May I um call up our public works director for some clarity on C Walk 2 timeline?

Because I believe it's maybe my understanding was that it is starting construction this summer, so I'd love uh clarity on that.

Your answer better be a good one.

Uh I haven't heard a recent update.

The last they were looking at the permitting through December, and that they were hoping to be further ahead, and that they're currently delayed, but they were they were still hoping to mobilize and be working this summer on phase two.

But there is an additional phase three to that as well that it's supposed to extend around the rest of the way under the bridge, and that that piece is not funded or working yet.

So, what is phase two exactly?

Can you describe it?

Phase two should be connecting more from the library side down to right underneath the bridge where the parking lot is.

And there is a transformer section there, which is where the islands are getting their power, and I think that's what Scotty's talking about, and they're that's in the um the build pass, so they were going to upgrade that, and while they're doing that, get the power to the islands upgraded as well.

And so then what is phase three?

Phase three would continue around from I think behind the KCA Raven radio building over towards the parking lot and the Totem Square.

Okay, so phase two connecting from Harrigan Centennial Hall to underneath the bridge is starting construction this summer.

That's the part that they're looking at right now.

Yes, and I think the city's portion right now is that we were we had committed additional funds from the IT side because we're looking at putting conduit underneath the sidewalk so we can interconnect some of our buildings more easily for IT.

Do you anticipate any other funding needs from the minute municipality to complete phase two?

I haven't heard yet.

The last I heard was the additional funding increase for the IT work that we had already approved.

Okay.

I I will check back and find what the most recent update is on that project.

Okay.

And we had discussed um earlier.

Not not to put Brooke on the spot, but looking at that project holistically, if it is three phases and the investment that the city has made, if we look at it as a complete project with three phases, potentially trying to tie the value of the end result and using that as the baseline for the percentage of CPV that we would use, and if that is sufficient, potentially having a bigger pool to put towards the last phase.

And then a separate question.

Um do you know, best guess back in Apkin, how much a planning and design uh you know project would cost for what we're discussing for an underneath the bridge revitalization and improvements um while also studying the potential for uh charger.

Um can you can you tell me like to look at I'd have to get a better idea of what the end result would want to be and the rough order of magnitude that we would predict for that, and then usually planning it and design is between 10 to 20 percent of the total cost.

Okay.

So depending on what all we're how drastically we want to change that facility.

Um because I mean, to my knowledge, we have restrooms there and some asphalt parking, and we have the the lightering dock.

So if we're looking to expand to have passengers to offload from a bus and be under a shelter and be somewhere and adding buildings, I mean, all of that would get more expensive.

So would it be helpful if tonight if we you know were in favor if the assembly were in favor of discussing this bus depot project further if we specified what kind of changes that we wanted to see, and then you know, made that motion to direct the administrator to pursue the special project, you would come back to us with a better assessment of what that might cost.

I think a baseline level of infrastructure that would be expected there would help us move forward with a predictive cost for that.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for Mark while he's up here?

Thank you.

There might be a work session ahead of us if that's really of interest.

Um I don't know if if we well, perhaps me with my background, but if we as a collective group are very good at scoping um projects, uh asphalt is very expensive if we're looking at changing, you know, the path of the bus, like moving curbs doing that, like we're way farther, we're way above four million dollars.

Um yeah, I I don't anticipate changing the curvature of the buses.

Um the main changes that I was thinking about was uh revitalization of those bathrooms.

They could just use a little touch-up.

Um the sign that's underneath the bridge needs to be um fixed, uh updated, so it increase improve signage throughout the area as well that directs along the seawalk and how to access downtown, and then uh construction of some stalls for vendors and probably repurposing of that um small uh parking lot that is next to the bathrooms to use as a vendor space or or design for um and providing for some construction of vendor stalls um and other suitable areas, but kind of limited changes, um, more just like you know, how can we better use this area?

It already fits buses, it's already got the turn radius, and I think mostly is set up for this purpose, just needs um some upkeep to improve it.

Question on the idea here is would that be the only short shuttle drop-off area, or would we split shuttle drop-offs, or would we ask the shuttle operator um or or would we provide two locations for shuttle drop-off?

Yeah, I think there would be like both facilities would be used, um, because what sick tours and some other buses are to utilize Harrigan, as well as McGrage shuttles, right?

So I was thinking drop off McGraw's passengers over there, and then continue dropping off um other tours, other buses using this facility.

So you've got that dispersion of both.

Um, but you would have a significant portion of traffic diverted and kind of meet meet the needs that uh Mr.

McGraw laid out in his application, right?

Of just like this place is really busy and uh what he's looking to reduce congestion, things like that.

So I think if we split them up, um that would that would help solve those problems without uh again changing a significant component of our downtown core.

And then we wouldn't be able to contribute for toilet paper for this building.

We would because it would still be receiving cruise passengers at a significantly decreased level because the shuttle is the majority of yeah, so all of that would need to get explored.

Um, because I would not be for um moving all operations over there because of the value of this building and the historic use of CPV funds to fund this this building.

Yeah, absolutely.

And I mean, like that's the seawalk, right?

Directing everyone towards here.

So I think like we're we'll still have vendors here, we'll still have the visitor center, the historical museum.

I think there's still a lot of tourism infrastructure here, and I'm very interested in directing people towards this facility.

Um I just think that we need to, you know, in improve and increase our our drop-off spots, right?

So I think that we can get around that uh question and you know, still still be having significant tourism traffic come through this building in a way that we can still pay for toilet paper and electricity and all those things.

Um, and I think that you know, all these considerations are part of the planning and design discussion um that the administrator could put together for us.

Tor, go ahead.

Yeah, sorry, it's awkward being on online here.

I think this idea has some merit.

Uh, but I also think it's not gonna get fleshed out enough to make a motion tonight.

Uh I would suggest that we maybe have a work session about it, and now that staff has heard the bare bones of it, they can again dive into it a little bit and say, okay, here's roughly, you know, again, not holding anything, but some ideas of budgets and things and how it might work, and allow others to weigh in.

Um the I I I again I I think this has some real merit, but we like so we're not gonna figure it out tonight.

And so I would suggest that either we either have a work session and or have a more a little bit better uh uh proposal again, not not the details, uh, before we could begin to make a decision on this.

I have a question if I may.

Um Amy, I know you're probably a little fatigued from the last one, but if you uh wouldn't mind answering a question about the tourism commission.

Um I believe in scoping the duties of the tourist commission, um, part of it was uh infrastructure related and kind of the the physical the built environment of town in service to our our visitors.

Um we were just talking about a work session.

Do you think that um within a reasonable time frame the tourism commission could take up this idea of under the bridge and see if there was some utility there um that could be explored and bringing that back to the assembly?

Yeah, absolutely.

I think that the um the tourism commission I think this is definitely within their purview.

Um and if the if the request is for the the tourism to commission to come back with a recommendation about you know the you know starting sort of top to bottom, what would be the prior if we were going to revitalize um this facility?

Um I think first answering the question um that I think that you and Ms.

Riley were talking about in terms of what what does what does that look like operationally first?

Um and then the secondary question about what would sort of be the the list of priorities of things in this facility that need to be updated in order to you know sort of achieve a a a better operational plan.

Um that's yeah, I think that's something that the tourism commission could absolutely take up for the assembly.

Great, thank you.

Anything else for Amy while she's thank you.

John Yeah I just want to clarify.

Um obviously you're not boxed into making some hard and fast decision tonight.

Um, you know, the assembly has the ability to um use this fund really at any moment within the confines of of the law.

Um but um yeah, if I a work session, if this is an idea that that uh you want to flesh out a little bit, I think a a work session would be helpful.

Um, you know, that would fall under the save this for a rainy day or save it for a work session, and we get some definition on what you would like to see.

Uh and then that information could be provided to the tourism commission if desired and and give them the priorities and we can come back with some thoughts.

To me, I think it'd almost be the other way around.

Um I think tourism commission would start the process because they're closer to the stakeholders.

Um because without stakeholder engagement, we're going to build a facility that isn't utilized or can't be utilized correctly.

Uh because one thing I still haven't heard is uh a cover and a wind wall, because when the wind blows in there in you know late September, uh nobody's gonna be wanting to stand out there.

It's gonna be a horrible unused facility.

Um so I I think sending it back to a tourism commission to see if there's even public desire for this.

Um, because we are going down a road too where we're assuming public desire.

We're assuming public want.

Um and I think Mr.

McGraw assumed a public want to reduce congestion here.

Um, and it came out that that was not the the request of the citizens.

Um so to me, I would send this to room com tourism commission to um investigate this idea further to get stakeholder input, and then we could put potentially move down that.

Um I do also want to make a plug, I forgot earlier my pet project um that has been my pet project forever.

Um I think we should spend a couple hundred bucks and paint the seal and the whale that are in the green strip.

I'll remind everyone they have their own Google maps listing.

I believe a epoxy was in last.

Didn't we add I thought we added 2000 for that?

Yeah, you you already it hasn't happened yet, but I believe my painting is not adequate.

So it sounds like potentially we don't need a motion if we have a direction that we'd like to pursue, which is this going to the the tourism commission for feedback and then a potential work session to kind of scope out a design.

Is that accurate?

Yeah, who's the liaison for tourism commission?

Are you comfortable articulating that to them?

And well, sounds good.

Okay, perfect.

If you need uh backup, let us know.

We can submit something to them.

Um we and we may need to as a whole, but yeah, that'd be great.

Is there any interest in the heat pumps for Harrigan?

Because I my thought was hearing about potholes earlier.

I don't believe we have any money in there for for repair, road repairs, this upcoming budget.

If we move some capital around, then we would could be able to have some money available for potholes.

Yeah, I'm interested in that as well.

I was noticing the Lincoln Street potholes, and I was like, this is in everybody's interest to get these repaired.

Let's use some CPV funds for those.

Um my impression was that the finance director already kind of takes CPV funds and appropriates them where appropriate.

So if that hasn't happened, I guess I'd like clarification on that.

Um, but I I'm in favor of using it for those things.

Brooke, do you do you want to share a little bit?

I I believe as you come forward, I'll ask that direct question, but I believe that's more of an operational thing and not necessarily you know materials for things like it was like the bathroom discussion that we were having, though, about the one near the science center.

So I have Amy up here with me because we're gonna kind of I think there's a two-part answer to this.

Um is kind of the piece that I deal with, and there's a couple of components to that.

The one is the indirect overhead portion that's based on a study that McKinley um group did for us.

Uh the study was completed, I believe, in 2022, and that takes a portion of our costs that are indirectly attributable to um cruise ship passengers and assigns a value to that um per passenger.

So what we do is take that dollar amount and uh multiply it by the amount of passengers that we receive for a season, and that's what drives the indirect portion, and and that's been about 1.2 million.

We then also have another category of expenses that we that are basically things that staff code directly to um that fund through a project number, and that would be for the type of expenses that would not occur had those cruise ship visitors not been here.

So those are the kinds of direct expenses that we that we code out that you couldn't really see like an itemized breakdown in in any of the kind of reporting that you get from us.

Um but the road piece and the street repair is a little bit more complicated because what we kind of go back to is how to justify what proportion of that road or street is um used for the benefit of cruise ship passengers versus everybody else, and it's a little bit more challenging to collect information about um road use.

I I'll let Amy talk a little bit about that.

It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but it would take a little bit of work.

So that's not something that I would do in a vacuum on my own.

It would be something we'd have to pretty um heavily be able to justify.

So uh indirect cost, you wouldn't really consider street repair indirect costs, but the administrative time that it takes to supervise all of the people that are are are doing direct work for CPV, you know, your harbor um director, your administrator, all of those kinds of things are the things that they um worked into that indirect calculation by the I mean McKinley group when they did that study for us.

See, and uh this is this is Amy Eansley.

Um the based on the last review when we were looking at resource proposals and we were looking at the the bathroom for um the Crescent Harbor Playground.

Um I did say that I would kind of go back and sharpen the pencil, and that's something that we worked to have ready for um for the budget meeting um tomorrow on that particular project.

Um, you know, I think we still have some work to do in terms of formalizing this methodology, but I did take an attempt to look at a couple of different ways to do it.

Um the you know, what I've what I've been working with right now is using our um mobile analytic data subscription um to analyze um particular areas to see levels of use.

Um, because we can see zip code 99835, and that's you know, that's obviously here.

We can see Alaska, other Alaska municipalities, and then we can see out of state and then from within, you know, out of state visitors trying to come up with a proxy for how many of those are potentially independent travelers versus cruise travelers, you know, we can either sort of apply like a 90 10 split because that's what we generally see with our you know with our types of visitation.

Um but I was also looking specifically at the mobile analytic data to see if we could you know get a little bit more granular than that, and I think that we're I think that we're um we have some options there.

Um so for you know, for that particular project, um we're looking at um potentially increasing the allocation um from CPV up to 43% of the total project based on um the amount of use and sort of subtracting out how many trips are by repeat visitors because cruise visitors are generally not repeat visitors because it only clocks one trip per day to a certain location.

Um and so by looking at the percentage of trips to a location that are from out of state visitors and then how many of those are repeat visits, we can kind of back our way into some more specific um determinations.

So I also have I've been looking into doing that for some other projects, including the library.

Um we have you know, we have the potential of you know being able to justify upwards of 34% of that project through CPV using this methodology.

Um and still working a little bit on some of the um the Lincoln Street data as well.

Um I had to I'm still working with our vendor for this building because we're having some issues um with sensitive uses being flagged at this building for some reason and the the report not generating there.

Um but looking at you know, at least one portion of of um Lincoln Street, we might be up to you know 24% for the Lincoln, like for the Lincoln Street project to be um CPV eligible based on this methodology.

So we're working to ref sorry, that's a very long-winded way of saying we are working to refine that methodology so that we can capture more CPV funds in some of these capital projects.

Amy, are you saying that uh Catleyan Street could qualify for some CPV funds by this high speed math you're talking about?

Potentially, potentially.

I haven't looked into, I haven't looked as much into that as of yet.

I've been mostly looking at the um the projects that are kind of at the top of the list for this year's um for this year's budget.

Amy, what was the 43% project?

That was the uh Crescent Harbor Playground Bathroom.

Okay, thank you.

So it sounds like a further direction that we could provide is um where CPV funds can be used for other priority projects that are within our budget.

Um please do that.

And it I'm like the roundabout potholes, the Lincoln Street potholes, and I don't know if there's because I know most of the buses go on state highways that we're not responsible for fixing, but where those uh are um and can be bolstered by CPV funds using that formula.

I I'd love to see that as well, along with what JJ said.

The important part about that is when um when we have mixed use and and CPV only pays for a portion of it, is that we also have to be able to afford the general fund component of those things.

So if it means spending more on street repairs, yes, we pull some from P uh from CPV, but it also means more from the general fund.

Doesn't mean you can't do it or that there aren't appropriations to do it, it's just kind of a piece of the consideration.

Torque, if I might.

Yeah, I mean, along that discussion, do you take into account the fact that the bus is weigh a lot more than most of the vehicles that are I mean so if a passenger car or light pickup costs uh runs on a street versus a full-size bus, the bus is gonna do more damage to the street.

So you should possibly pay a higher uh amount from the CPV funds.

Aren't we talking about foot traffic?

No, I'm talking about we're talking about potholes, the fact that the bus is weigh more and they do more damage to the road.

No shuttle or bus goes down Lincoln Street to my knowledge.

Sorry.

Amy, do any shuttles or bus go down Lincoln Street?

Generally, I think that I think the conversation was about some of you know, potentially at the intersection or you know, on along Lake Street or at the roundabout.

Um I think if I was understanding some Miss Riley's um kind of lit locations that she was looking at.

And I agree, this methodology may not work as well for you know, for those kinds of operational costs when there's other factors at play in terms of not just like the frequency of use but the intensity of use.

And so um, you know, I I think I think the point is her that we you know we definitely want to develop more clear methodology for different types of use and different types of impacts.

Um I'm not sure we're as far advanced yet as you know, kind of looking at things like um street infrastructure um and sort of like rates of degradation.

Although on the other side of that, um what you just stated was one of the most reassuring things I've heard in a long time.

Um this body continually looks at both of you, honestly, and says, let's spend more CPV funds.

Let's do it, and we we think we come up with these great ideas.

And what you told me is, yeah, we've already got that, right?

And you're not telling us that directly, but you using your methodology, using what you have both said is like you're exploring all of these ideas already.

You've heard it from this from this body, and we are maximizing every single dollar that we can get back into the community through these CPV funds to reduce that burden on our visitors.

So um yeah, listening to your methodology and how we're doing it and all this, like I can agree or disagree with a certain project, but you got it locked on.

So uh so how much of our 4.2 million have you already spent then I I'm not gonna say none because I made a couple more adjustments to our FY27 transfer after that memo is finalized, but um that none of that is allocated out for anything else at the moment beyond um what we have in the FY27 um draft budget and what was already approved for FY26.

So you're saying all of these things calculations are already included in that in that bigger number.

Some of them, the pieces of the calculations that have already um been completed.

So Amy was talking about the the Crescent Harbor Playground bathroom.

So we specifically looked at that area because we have an RP for that project and we were trying to determine how much of that funding would be appropriate to come from CPV.

Um so only those kinds of things, but where um where we're at with the streets part is that our methodology isn't complete.

So um that could mean we have use for some of that 4.2 million after we have that complete, but I I don't know when that would be.

And at that point, there's probably another disbursement and some more funding in there.

Keep up the good work, thank you.

Anything else for staff while we have them in front of us.

It was just my point that if the tourists have to look at us driving all over the potholes, it looks terrible.

I understand that's really hard to calculate in your methodology, so we'll make that a hard and fast thing, but um I I do feel like some CPV funds could be used to pay for the potholes just for the downtown character appearance, but um yeah, I think you guys have a great methodology and you're you're keeping us honest and doing your job, so thanks.

Well, with that, Katie, maybe our manhole covers going out to the mill could get redone.

I trust your methodology.

Thank you for your time.

Back to discussion.

Please.

Yes.

Um so I think that was really great to get some of those numbers to understand where we're at, um, so we can apply to this conversation.

Um the the direct use of CPVs for potholes is not what I was interested in because of that effort that then has to go into a staff staff time.

Um if we take some money to cover heat pumps at the library at 34% here again, Centennial Hall at whatever one we use, um, then that would allow for money in that fund that can then go to potholes and no one can stipulate to us um correct use because that's general fund money, or that's fund 700 money.

Maybe not, maybe maybe not.

So there wouldn't be any oversight um from an agency that um is litigious if we just kind of do a three-part there to get pothole funding.

Any other discussion this evening on uh potential uses of CPV funding?

I think we have a little bit of uh forward progress that needs to be made still.

Um I think we have a couple taskings here, Tim.

I move to uh spend 100,000 for the ride.

That's already in the budget.

Is it I saw it from tomorrow night's packet?

Yeah.

Never mind.

Dies for lack of a second.

John, do you need a motion um to explore use of funding for I I don't.

The only motions I would need is if there's a very specific project that you wanted us to move forward with, or if you wanted to open it up for public proposals.

If there's no motion to do anything else, we've heard the discussion.

You've heard the what what to explore.

Okay, thank you.

John, I I got a question.

Just prior to this when I asked the state across the bridge if they could forward to Ariadne updated Alaska title surveys and they blew me off, never emailed me or anybody.

All of the stuff at the city is from before the bridge was built.

Do you think could could we ask you to ask the state to forward their current title bottom sounding charts and everything that they have underneath the bridge?

Because we don't have it at the city for me to go there to bring that here for people to look at at this meeting.

And with the state blowing me off, I'd like to get our stuff updated with their information, particularly under the bridge.

If you want to catch up with me after and give me some clarification on what you're looking for, I'll see if I can get us in the right direction.

Okay.

Robust discussion as usual.

Thank you, assembly.

Um we'll move on to item E.

This uh, do we want a recess?

We do want to recess.

Um we'll take a recess and we'll uh punch through our last couple items tonight.

Uh all right, just a couple more items left for us this evening.

Uh we'll be on item E, please.

I move to approve ordinance 2026-07 on first reading making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2026 snow removal.

Second.

Second.

Uh John, you have an introduction for this item?

I do have a quick introduction.

The uh appropriation is for 225,000 in total.

Um we were looking to to use 250,000, but we already had 25.

Brooke, can you come up and help me with this?

We got snow, you need money.

Summary.

Uh the request is for 250,000 total, um, 225,000 for contractual services, and 25,000 in personnel across multiple funds.

Understood, thank you.

If uh we have questions, we'll ask John and he'll call you back up.

No, I um all jokes aside, I do understand that this came um a little bit rapidly uh due to our somewhat unprecedented need for uh snow removal.

So I appreciate the the look at that.

Um I appreciate the effort to get us back to normal.

And I really appreciate, you know, I wish that uh like I don't wish that the overtime budget was bigger, right?

I understand that our our staff has done all that they possibly can at this point.

Um, seven days a week at 3 a.m.

is not an appropriate work schedule for anybody.

Um, but the you know that that cost is not um doesn't display my true appreciation for them.

Uh they've been you're right, thank you.

Um open this up to public comment for snow removal.

Dollary Nelson, 70 plus year resident.

I um had the occasion to drop off a few uh property tax assessment appeals yesterday, and driving home, I took um Catleyan Street.

I am very much in favor of this.

I hit a hole that was underneath all that water and slush right by, I think it used to be there's maybe still is Sitka Sound Seafoods, and I thought my tire was gonna fall off.

So I would suggest that um as soon as they can get to it that they start clearing those drains because you can't see where the holes are when that water is that deep.

Thank you.

Any other public comment on supplemental appropriations to remove snow?

Uh seeing none.

Um yes, I think uh that that uh last public comment we had uh sums up the the rest of my um desire here, John is that we got to get uh drain holes covered too, because as we start to warm, um if we start to warm and we start to get some rain, um that's gonna build up quickly.

So thank you for bringing this forward, and thank you for uh to our city staff who have been working around the clock tirelessly.

Um, and I hope you get a break here on these next couple sunny days.

JJ question John or whoever has the answers.

Um is this a dipping into reserves, or is this kind of moving around money that has been previously budgeted?

Brooke Falls Gang Finance Director.

Um I'm gonna give a slightly unsatisfactory answer of maybe.

So, kind of how it works in general for um any mid-year supplementals or additional appropriations is it depends on where you end up at the end of the fiscal year.

So when assembly members are approving a mid-gear supplemental, what you're saying is that you're comfortable with that potentially relying on the use of reserves, but because our our budget is based on projected revenues, it it just depends where everything falls at the end.

So it could shake out that way, or we could have uh you know, a surplus that covers it.

Or we could not need to use the entire 225 for contracted services.

So there's several factors there.

Um, but it is thank you for saying that is our comfort level in authorizing this expenditure.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Any other questions for finance while she's in front of us?

Thank you, appreciate it.

Katie, you had something.

I would just say my comfort level is high.

I think this is really important, and I'm really appreciative of John for getting it on the agenda in a short time frame.

Uh yeah, my only other comment would be, John, I think you need to start working on preparing another one of these for the pothole again that we're about to experience uh along with a unprecedented snowfall and freeze thaw cycles is going to come pothole season, and I've already noticed those starting.

So I know we had this conversation earlier.

Um you indicated you're on top of it, but for uh public knowledge, um, we do see the potholes.

Uh we understand you have to get through this freeze thaw cycle that it will be a little bit before we can start to properly repair those.

Um, but know that uh we have your back on that.

I just want to make one comment on the freeze thaw cycle that if if there was a snow push gate at Harry Jimmy's right by the airplane walk down ramp, that none of this would really be happening to the extent that it has, and it's been 40 and 50 years of trying to get a snow push gate there.

The city used to keep that little uh aluminum retaining wall with four by four wood four by fours, so that when BIA and Tribal and Calvin's and everybody in the city would push huge mounds there by Harry Jimmy's, the city would send down the the poor front end loader with poor tires, and then inadvertently slide in and break the four by fours and then come back and then just replace them with four by fours.

And in 2004, we had a public works director that lasted for three months here, and he went back to replace those four by fours, and he used the schedule eighty galvanized steel that's there now, of which we have had the front end loader hang up on it and trash them, didn't break the loader, but then the borough went back and replaced it again with the schedule eighty steel, and it's just right.

But then the borough went back and replaced it again with the schedule eighty steel, and it's just right.

So it it took up 18 inches, so that uh trucks bumpers stick out into the road now because of how the city replaced it and then repaired it again.

And I'm gonna be coming forward looking for support for this swing gate, and it doesn't have to be how staff has said it would be too expensive to build a swing gate to push the snow out.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Anything else?

All right, on the motion to approve ordinance 2026-07 on first reading, Miss Carlson.

Yes, Mayor Eisenbais.

Yes, Mr.

Salim, yes, Mr.

Christensen.

Yes, Ms.

Riley, yes, and Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0 first reading, second reading will be April 14th.

Thank you.

That'll bring us two persons to be heard.

This is public participation for any item on or off the agenda, not to exceed three minutes for any individual.

Once again, Valerie Nelson, and for those youngsters that may not be aware or know me, I'm a former mayor.

I'm a former assembly member.

I love Sitka, and I keep hearing you talk about affordable housing.

I encouraged a young family to come here with two small kids.

I got my um property tax assessment from the assessor yesterday, and was very shocked that my house doubled in assessed value, and I'm afraid it's putting it out of range of what they will be able to qualify for at a bank.

I have filed an appeal, so I will be back in front of you on May 4th, although I hate coming here because I sometimes think that I'm not heard or not listened to.

Um, I would also suggest that if we're going to not learn from past mistakes that we look into, you know, older assembly meeting agendas and minutes.

I know that one of you is pushing to change the zoning regulations and make it easier for people to buy housing and whatnot.

I think that we have pretty good zoning codes, and I think that our planning director does a pretty good job of enforcing them.

I think sometimes she has too much on her plate.

I know that I've had a a lot line request in for it's been almost three months now, and with the snow, I guess it's probably going to be another three months.

So I can't tell the Shang couple what's gonna happen.

Um I know that that we need to make more and more money because we're hiring more people and we have all these needs, but if we want to make it affordable, people we've got to look at the decisions that we're making.

I know tomorrow you're gonna have a meeting.

I may not make it off my icy hill, and I know that the rates are going up.

I'm old and on a fixed income, and uh my retirement check went down by about 40 bucks a month.

So I expect you're gonna do me some damage too, and it's time for me to sell my property and leave town, and it hurts.

Thank you.

Good night.

Anyone else for persons to be heard this evening?

I see none that'll move us on to reports.

Um, a couple things to report for myself tonight.

Uh, first and most importantly, um, I attended the Port and Harbors Commission meeting as liaison.

Um, and I think uh a very important note for this body uh is that Port and Harbors uh did not pass a recommendation on rates.

Uh they had a four percent increase on their agenda.

Uh it was discussed, and uh a majority of the body voted not to pass that four percent rate increase.

Um I got a couple looks from some of the members, like what do we do now?

Um and I indicated um if the commission does not want to pass a rate increase, um, then I'm gonna come back and recommend a zero percent rate increase.

Uh the budget process happens tomorrow, obviously.

There are some members who have brought that back in an alternate form so they can discuss what rate increase, if any, is feasible to the commission.

Um, but that uh won't happen until April 9th.

So I do think it's also important to note that right now Port and Harbor's Commission is out of compliance with code as one of their duties is to recommend a rate increase.

So by not doing anything, they have not fulfilled their duties yet.

I do suspect them to bring something forward after their April 9th meeting, but I don't know what that number is.

So I'm passing on the recommendation that I told them would that I would uh that we consider a zero percent rate increase and uh see where that brings us.

Also had the opportunity to speak uh in front of the Heritage and Cultural Tourism Conference this last week.

Um didn't fully realize what the the scope of the agenda was, but somehow my speech actually nailed exactly what it was.

Um so I was pretty happy about that.

Um, and then went to a few of the the sessions as well.

I think that conference continues to grow in not only popularity but in the caliber of speakers that it brings in.

And uh was definitely nice to have that here in town in March, where they brought you know 50 people or so um into town that uh definitely went out and spent some money, bought some hotel rooms and all the the stuff that we're trying to do with conferences in our off season.

So it was good to see that as well.

Uh John, uh report.

Thank you, Mayor.

Got a couple things.

Uh Northwest Managers Conference starts on Monday, and my plan worked out perfectly.

The sun's out and uh the whales are here, and it's gonna be great for all the visiting managers.

But um, we have about 70, I think, that uh registered for it, so pretty good crowd.

Um we got a lot of sponsorship, and uh we asked for um statements, presentations from our delegation and come to find out.

We're gonna have Senator Murkowski here in person on April 2nd, so she'll come speak to the group.

Uh, we'll have video messages from the rest of our delegation.

Um attended the SICA community health council meeting that is in place uh that was chartered on the uh the hospital sale, and we have coming up their annual um public session, it's public listening section or public engagement session.

I forgot the term for it, uh, but that is happening on April 6th here at Harrigan Hall.

And uh finally, um I just want to take a moment to thank um Mark, the public works staff, uh everybody in the streets crew, um, and well, and everybody that's been helping out with the streets crew.

I I wasn't joking when I said those those three o'clock wake ups have been happening quite often.

Um we don't have a ton of snow on the ground, the snow just didn't stop for the longest time.

Um and it isn't just the streets crew, it's water, it's wastewater, it's the folks here at Harrigan Hall, uh, it's people at the library helping out, it's all over the place.

Um, you probably saw the front page of the paper today.

It had two of our officers helping shovel somebody out of their driveway.

Um, so I I really want to thank our crew for the hard work that they've put in.

I also want to help or I want to thank our um our residents that are helping each other out.

There's a lot of volunteers out there doing a lot of great work.

Um, you know, we've got the uh um the Sitka ATV writers that are out um clearing sidewalks for folks.

Um it's a it's a big help and it's uh a sign of neighbors helping neighbors, and I appreciate everybody's patience as we try to get through this.

I want to thank the contractors for stepping up and helping out.

Um, and our plan is to get the snow out of there as quick as we can, get the drains opened up, and uh and then we'll start on potholes after that.

Thank you.

We'll put the snow in the potholes.

That'll work, right?

Mark, that's approved.

Uh Rachel, attorney's report.

Uh, just catching up after vacation.

I got back over the weekend and uh jumped right back into things yesterday.

Uh so yeah, on on track, catching up, going smoothly.

Liaison representatives.

Kitty.

Uh Planning Commission meeting on March 18th.

We discussed two items, which was um zoning text amendment to GPIP.

So that will be coming back in front of the assembly.

Um, there were a couple changes that were made, and the commission had a pretty robust discussion around it, so they aren't finished.

They I think need to go back in front of the commission again for clarification, but just uh to let folks know of kind of what they can expect.

Um I think one of the bigger changes was that it amends the intent of the zone to specifically describe it as supporting maritime manufacturing and industrial storage uses, um, and then changes the permitted and conditional uses um for some of that and outlines appropriate residential uses within the zone, how limited those are and how they have to connect to that primary intent and then maps out the core as well.

So that will uh come in front of us um in a bit, and then they also had uh discussion on the Whitcomb Heights subdivision um and a clarification of where the um the power sits to amend the things there and the planning commission is looking at uh looking further at those allowable uses.

Um unfortunately our resident um landslide expert was missing during that meeting, and we were all feeling her absence.

So uh they're they're gonna do a little bit more work on that as well.

Any other liaison reports?

Uh clerk's report, please.

Um I just wanted to give a recap of upcoming meetings.

Um tomorrow night we have the draft general fund budget, and then April 9th, uh we have the special meeting for the administrator candidate interviews, and that begins at 5 p.m.

Um here, and then um the week of April 13th.

We have two meetings, uh the regular meeting, and then on the 16th is the enterprise um fund draft budget.

And then I wanted this as an important clarification for item C the historic preservation plan item.

So your motion to postpone there's a hierarchy of motions.

So you made the motion to postpone so everything below that, the amendment and the main motion will come before you on that first meeting in May.

So you will start with the amendment, correct.

So that's all I have.

Thank you, Sarah.

Any other reports this evening?

Meeting.

Um to follow up on uh the community health council first search meeting on um Monday the 6th, that it will be from 11:30 a.m.

to 2.30 p.m.

Um and it won't be the town hall style that we've seen in the past.

Uh it'll be more like tables and breakouts facilitated tables and breakout sessions that will encapsulate searches kind of strategic plan and comments in relation to um that strategic plan.

So come um with your comments, um, but know that they will be organized in a different fashion.

Great, thank you.

Good info.

Uh no executive session tonight, so adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you, assembly and staff.

We are adjourned.