All right, we'll get started.

We'll let Tor join us when it gets here.

Good evening.

Like to call to order the April 14th assembly meeting.

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 Clinken on E.

Sarah.

Roll call, please.

Mr.

Pike.

Here.

Miss Carlson here.

Miss Riley.

Oh, did you?

Mr.

Christensen.

He is here, but just not here.

Mr.

Mosier.

Here.

And Mr.

Slain.

Thank you.

Are there any correspondence or gender change agenda changes this evening?

Seeing none, we will move on to special reports.

Tonight, we uh well, we're on SPUF reports.

We have two municipal department reports tonight.

Mr.

Seedy.

Public Works.

Good evening, Assembly.

Mark Seabi Public Works Director for the last quarter for public works.

We are now at 73% spent down as an entire uh department within that.

Again, as I said the last time, solid waste usually encumbers most of its funds for our contracts in the beginning, so they're in the 90 percentile while our other divisions are around the 60 percentile averaging out to that 73.

For our personnel, we're currently at 93 percent of our FTEs are filled.

We have three positions the contract manager and two positions in building maintenance that are currently vacant.

We have a potential fill for the contract manager within the CVS employee network right now, and another potential fill for one of those building maintenance, which is a step up for an individual.

So if those go through, we would still result in two vacant building maintenance technicians as one will be filled in-house.

Moving on for training, uh, we had members of the ground maintenance division complete their master gardener's course.

We had them complete a playground safety inspector course.

Building maintenance has completed a class three boiler license, which is a part of their curriculum to make it to a building maintenance work building maintenance worker three.

Uh, in the last quarter, I'm sure everyone is aware we've talked about it.

We got approximately four feet of snow.

Uh that included a lot of additional time on our payroll for standby snow removal workers from three divisions, basically our streets, our building maintenance, and our grounds.

Uh, we also ended up having three contracts go through for additional snow removal uh support, and that effort would also not have been possible without the additional volunteers that stepped in to help clear sidewalks, ball fields, uh, and neighborhoods that are not supported.

Additionally, that created some work for Central Garage that were very busy fixing our equipment as it spent more time.

They also ended up replacing an engine in one of our police vehicles.

If you remember, we had vehicles 502 and 503.

One of those was involved in the accident during a drug bust.

Uh the other vehicle had an engine that consumed a lot of oil for every fill-up, so we took the good engine, put it in the good car, and we will be disposing of the one that was no longer shootable.

Moving on to our projects.

Uh the secure port terminal project continues to consume a lot of our time.

We are progressing forward with the supplemental appropriation you have spent uh that you have authorized us to spend with uh estimated completion time still at this fall.

We have awarded and began our public outreach on the phase one for Lake and Kincaid Street.

That's the Lake Hirsch Monastery Kincaid project, and we're looking to fund the phase two of that as a follow-on in the FY27 budget.

We've reached substantial completion and the final completion for the City Hall HVAC project.

We are not closing that project because we have identified through balancing that there's some additional work that could be done with the fan that was in place before the project.

So we have a minor contract we plan on going forward to complete that project.

The Crescent Harbor High Load Dock is substantially complete, and we'll be wrapping up that project as well.

The fisherman's workflow project is also substantially complete.

We have a small punch list ongoing for that, and then we expect to close out both of those projects.

And then finally, the the less good news is our granite creek bridge project.

So we did award that project with a notice of intent and working with the design team that the contractor had on board, they're looking at spending over 50% of our entire budget just on the design work, which was not going to be feasible to complete the project within budget.

So we have canceled that notice of intent, and we're gonna look at other design options to come in cheaper and still try and deliver that project on budget.

Coming up for minor projects, we also completed the Marine Service Center sprinkler shutdown and that sprinkler project.

So those are completed, and we have mobilized and have contractors on site for the senior center sprinkler project.

The future projects coming up are Kirkman, Mak Sudov, and Lake Hirsch Monastery Kincaid phase two, and we have a meeting later this week with STA to coordinate on the Kirkman project.

The boiler three certification, is that like a seminar that you go to, or is that like uh you just study?

An online training complete.

I was just wondering about the $60,000 funding gap in the airport um project.

Can you so without speaking out of turn so Brooke doesn't give out of me?

Um we have not spent any additional funds, however, given the length of that project with our last supplemental appropriation.

We feel like at some point near the beginning of the project when it was transitioning, there was an error in the appropriations.

So we're looking at potentially not having 60,000 worth of appropriation from the assembly yet.

The plan is to have that uh rectified through the FY27 budget.

And how have the community input meetings gone for the neighborhood project over here by Swan Lake?

I did not get to attend that.

My the feedback that I got was that there was a good attendance.

Uh the primary concerns were learning about how the temporary water lines are going to work, and the focus from the design team is going to be able to try and get information back out to folks on how that will work.

But they it seemed to be well attended.

Great.

So if you're you know listening um and in that neighborhood, that project is coming, and public works, you know, is happy to help you understand what's going on.

Additionally, while not one of our projects, I know the assembly had asked about the phase two for the seawalk, and we are hearing that they we should have contractors mobilizing the end of next month.

Is that what the people surveying today were doing?

That project?

I I am unclear if they were surveying for that.

They may have been that that's going to be a DOT project.

I got one more for you on the Kirkman way deal.

There's a couple restricted deed properties down there that got missed with uh getting new water put in when the street got done in 82.

Is there anything in there for maybe the city bringing a regular three-quarter inch or seven eighths OD line to any of those restricted deeds there that are still on 1940 half inch galvey pipe?

That's part of the discussion we'd like to have on Friday with the tribe is seeing uh what's available.

There are several restricted D properties there, and some of which do not have access without a formalized easement, uh, which I've not been able to find, but we'll we'll be looking at seeing if there's ways to partner with the tribe and obtain some easements and maybe reroute some of the access for water that's currently coming from Cogwanton and have it actually come from Kirkman instead.

Right on.

Seeing no other questions.

Thank you.

Our second special report tonight, Harrigan Centennial Hall, Mr.

Rosis.

Uh good evening, assembly.

My name is Tony Rosas, uh manager of Centennial Hall.

Um, I'm gonna go ahead and start with um uh my past on is not nearly as complicated as public works.

So uh I have myself supervisor John Devine, uh building attendance, three uh Harry License, Sonia uh Bries, Jacob Buxton.

Um, what we've been doing here for the past couple weeks that we've been preparing for the summer season.

It's gonna be kicking off for us on the 26th.

Um, so it's gonna get very busy for us.

You're gonna see a little bit of a transformation out on the plaza and in the lobby.

We'll have our tables out for our visitor center people and um and we're gonna start putting up signs and that kind of stuff on the outside.

So you'll see a little bit of a different different face to Herrigan.

Um with that, we are also in the process of hiring six uh temp uh temper visitor desk attendants, as well as four temp uh uh temp pedestrian safety attendants.

Um to uh some of our meetings and highlights from the last three months during the first quarter of 2026, Harrigan Centennial Hall has continued to serve as a central hub for the city, uh providing continued service to citizens commissions and CBS staff.

Um so some of the things that we've had here at the building uh so far.

We have uh here the last couple months we've had AARP.

Uh today was their last day of the tax prep for the community, so we always welcome them every year.

Um we also had the Greater Sick Arts Council of the Wearable Art, uh, Ramshackle Cabaret.

Um we had a job fair from the Department of Labor, um also a science fair from the uh from the science center.

Um we had a rainy day bazaar that went off really well.

That was in mid-March.

Uh then we also had the Heritage and Cultural Tourism Conference, and then also we also followed up with the uh Northwest Managers as well as the library conference as well.

So we've been pretty busy here.

Uh some of the stuff coming up in the next few months.

Um we have uh the C Alaska Summit, which starts, we had set up today, so that'll start for the next couple, start tomorrow for the next couple days.

Um we have the um sustainable Southeast Partnership Spruce Root coming up.

Um we also have uh UAS graduation, and for May, uh we have the Herring Protectors Kuweek that's coming in.

Um we have a senior night here.

Um we also have uh the historic museum, they'll be having an art show uh later on in the next few months.

Um and then also starting in June, we'll have the Sica Music Fest every Friday and Saturday through the uh through the month of June.

Uh some of our statistics uh we've had 341 bookings across it's uh across the auditorium and meeting spaces.

We've had 37 nonprofit meetings, 117 general public events, um, one commercial for state and 182 city and sick meetings, city of SICA meetings.

Um we are currently at 81% of our budget uh for fiscal year 2026.

Um some of our budget items um include uh the dimensional communications, we have a maintenance contract with them.

As a matter of fact, they were just here about three about two months ago, and uh they actually did um a lot of the stuff that we don't notice was a lot of the stuff that he fixed while he was here, so that keeps us going up and going.

So we also have janitorial um 32 hours a week.

Um and then in the future, some of the future stuff that we're gonna be doing.

Um we always we continually have a maintenance uh contract with uh PLC.

It's uh um it's a lighting company that we bring in every once in a while, and we'll have them mess with our board and and look at our lights and make sure everything's up to up to operating.

Um, and then we're still trying to refurnish the uh refinish the auditorium stage floor, and then also we are still pending on the rain gutter um repair that we have here.

So that's kind of all that we have here at the building.

Tony, could you ever envision like one parking spot out there for cab service?

Like just something along that just for you know, people that want to step out and get away from your the cryout area, and there'd be a cab thing sitting there and they could hop in a cab and go somewhere.

Yeah, that was the same question you asked me last time.

Um, so one of the things that we had uh talked about, but so we actually tried that one time and we did an actual we did I think three or four spaces as a um kind of a waiting area for the taxi cabs.

It was rarely used, so we got rid of it.

We chose more on the let's let have parking for the community instead of having to do something like that.

Um, right now, what they have been doing here in uh well this last summer is they've been parking out on um Harbor Drive.

Uh if you go on the exit side of the loop on the right hand side, there's an area there where they've been kind of stacking up right there.

It seems to be working out for them there.

Um but to answer your question, no, I hadn't thought about that for this year.

Uh, we're gonna go ahead and um uh see if we can continue with them parking on Harbor Drive.

I think it because how it's working out right now is a lot of the the cab companies, because I don't want them sitting and waiting.

Um one of the things that they designed when we went through the whole tourism part is uh everywhere around here is a no-idle zone.

Of course, the buses that take people you know here and there.

It's a little bit different for them, but for cabs and for a lot of the vendor uh transportation.

Uh we we really try to stress a no idle zone.

So they um they gather all their people, they call in their their vans, they they pick them up and they go.

Um so uh no, it wasn't, and the way it was last year was we were I was letting them pull up in the parking lot away from the library in that little corner there, and then um loading up there.

Um we we have two different types of permits.

We have a load unload permit, um, and part of that is um that is for um taxis.

No, that's that is for tours, tour operators.

Um, and a lot of the taxis out there are taxi tour, and so it's really hard for me to define who is doing what.

So um, unless the taxi tours get a load unload, they can park on that side, picking up people, you know, uh meeting their people and that kind of stuff.

But as far as on the taxi side, we're gonna go continue to have them on the on Harbor Drive this year.

Like right by the tsunami sign or right in that little spot, the first little right that you can take, getting out of here.

Yes, yes, and they can also park along that whole front area of of Harbor Drive as well.

They just for some reason ended up on that little corner there for some reason.

But um, yeah, that's yeah.

Thank you.

Sure.

Seeing no other questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Roses.

Are there any other additional reports?

Government to government.

Municipal boards, commissions, or committees.

School district, students and invited guests.

Seeing none, we are now at persons to be heard for public participation on any item off the agenda, not to exceed three minutes per individual.

Is there any public comment for items off the agenda?

If so, please come forward and state your name for the record.

Howdy, Gary White with the SICA Economic Development Association.

I just wanted to come in and introduce a new uh entity that's forming in SICA.

It's called the SICA business, or I'm sorry, it's called the Southeast Alaska Business Alliance, started by Sherry Blankenship and Ian Dempster, and I just recently joined their board.

Um when I was here for the work session, and thank you guys for that.

You guys talked about workforce development, and I knew these folks were working on it, and so I decided to partner with those guys, and we're gonna be able to do some training for our workforce, and I'll let Sherry go on and explain that the organization.

Good evening.

Um thank you, Gary, for that.

I'm Sherry Blankenship.

SIBA, the Southeast Alaska Business Alliance is a 501c6 regional business alliance focused on strengthening business performance, workforce development, and long-term economic growth in SICA and Southeast Alaska.

We were created to address common regional challenges, workforce shortages, training gaps, employee retention, limited business support systems, and too little coordination between organizations.

SEBA provides practical systems, work partnerships and infrastructure to help solve those problems.

Our first major focus is workforce development.

We have built a comprehensive workforce platform that helps individuals identify strengths, aptitudes, and career fit through assessment tools.

From there, users can connect to aligned job opportunities, vocational pathways, certifications, and continued skill development.

For employers, that means stronger hiring alignment, better retention, and access to more prepared workforce.

For individuals, it means clear direction and stronger career opportunities here in Southeast Alaska.

Our second focus is education and training.

We have built a vocational and certification platform centered on workforce readiness, leadership development, industry relevant skills training and advancement pathways.

We are also pursuing formal accreditation.

So these programs carry recognized value for both participants and employers.

And our third focus is business growth.

SIBA supports businesses through marketing tools, visibility systems, visitor connection platforms and resources designed to improve performance and expand opportunity.

Collaboration is central to our model.

We are not here to replace any organization.

We are here to work with them, reduce duplication, improve alignment, and help create stronger regional strategy.

That is why our partnership with Alaska with Sitka Economic Development Association is important.

It reflects a shared commitment to stronger outcomes for SICA and the region.

In simple terms, SIBA exists to help businesses perform better, help people become more employable and successful, and help communities compete more effectively.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm a homeowner of the Sushini Shock neighborhood, which is developed by the community SICA Community Land Trust.

It's a planned neighborhood, and we're going to be complete in about two years from now.

I'm here to really press upon you the importance of stable housing for low to median income individuals and how the CLT model is working and will continue to work.

I am fully confident in the effectiveness of the model.

Its introduction could not have been timelier for SICA given the pressing need, as we all know.

And uh for not only housing but affordable housing, really.

The Sikki Community Land Trust offers individuals the chance to secure lifelong housing, which while building equity, land trust homeowners can then use that equity to upgrade to larger homes outside of the land trust model as their lives and families grow.

Furthermore, the sale of the home limits the seller's equity.

This most importantly allows the home to be affordable for the next buyer, creating an ecosystem of stable housing prices in the SICA area.

I also want to share with you what home ownership can do for a person with within our community.

Homeownership creates a ripple effect of positive outcomes.

Not only can it provide stability during early adulthood, but it also fosters family formation, ensures educational continuity for children, and facilitates career mobility without the risk of unstable housing.

These benefits collectively strengthen the fabric of the SICA community.

And I believe this model has already helped retain younger and moderate income residents who might have otherwise left.

Speaking from personal experience, as a lifelong Alaskan from Southeast, I never believed I would be able to get a home in this market, honestly.

Especially on my own.

At times I even considered moving.

When the land trust option appeared, although unfamiliar, it was worth taking a leap.

If not only open it not only opened the door for homeownership for me, but greater financial security, and I cannot tell you how lucky I feel every day that I have a home.

In closing, I think it's crucial for all of us to recognize the reality of rural housing in Alaska.

For people and families with low to moderate income, the community land trust model is often the only pathway for homeownership that also allows them to maintain financial stability.

In today's housing market, this approach stands out as the best solution for first-time homebuyers seeking greater stability and opportunity for SICA and indeed for most of rural Alaska.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Angie Bowers with UAS.

And I just wanted to take a few minutes to share some information about a project that's being undertaken over on our campus.

Some of you may have noticed some construction going on along the channel there and the parking lot in front.

Um so that is um we're building a structure to support a floating mariculture facility that's going to be coming to town this summer.

So the facility itself is being brought up from Ketchikan, where it's been used in a lot of different ways as a hatchery since around 2010 through a nonprofit organization called Oceans Alaska.

And if everything stays on track, we're hoping to move it up this summer.

And bringing it to SICA gives us a chance to use it more fully, connect it to students, the community, and farmers in a more direct way.

The facility will function seasonally as both a shellfish hatchery and kelp nursery, and will create a space that supports a mix of things, commercial production, hands-on education and training, and applied research.

So we've been working closely with community members and industry partners across the state while we've been planning this out, and the goal is to make sure that we meet workforce needs and support the growing mariculture industry in Alaska.

And at the same time, we want it to be a place where people can come learn about where their food comes from, how mariculture works and the benefits it can bring from jobs to food security and to environmental improvements when it's done thoughtfully.

It also opens up some really fun opportunities around educational and sustainable tourism.

This will be a place where visitors can see shellfish and seaweed early life stages up close, learn about ocean stewardship and get a look at another side of SICKA's working waterfront from the Japanski side.

And maybe while they're there, they can try an oyster taste seaweed for the first time.

So to clarify, this facility will not be directly producing shellfish and seaweed for consumption.

It's not a really a great site for that.

Um but everything raised there will go elsewhere on farms and clean water to to be grown.

Education is of course the main goal of this project.

The facility will train students on all aspects of hatchery and nursery techniques.

They'll learn about aquaculture systems, plumbing, be able to carry out research projects, important for new species development, and answer other important questions related to our marine environment and mariculture.

So there'll be uh opportunities for local students to visit, take dual enrollment classes, get hands on experience, and we feel it'll be a benefit for the community, support farmers, train technicians, and the next generation of farmers, creating new opportunities and help grow sustainable local food system.

I'm Kristen Reynolds managing the project for the university, and we are building a floating dock.

It will not have any peers due to the design of the construction.

We expect the project to be able to be complete before the semester starts in the fall of 26 in August, and it's funded through the Alaska State Economic Development Funds through the Alaska Mariculture Cluster Grant through state capital funds as well as the SICCA campus funding.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Thank you.

This brings us to the consent agenda.

May I have a motion, please?

I move to approve the consent agenda consisting of items A and B.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve the consent agenda consisting of items A and B.

Is there any public comment?

Seeing none, assembly deliberation.

Sarah.

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

Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Mr.

Celine?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosher?

Yes.

Ms.

Riley?

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen.

Yep.

Motion pass the 6-0.

Thank you.

We are now at item C.

I move to appoint Chad Chad Gaden to a three-year term on the investment committee.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to appoint Chad Gaden to a two three-year term on the investment committee.

Is there any public comment?

Assembly deliberation.

Just thank you for serving.

Because I've been on that in one form or another for a long time, and it's really nice to get some more people on there.

It's an incredibly important committee, and it's really surprising that it's hard to get people on it.

I'll be happy to be there.

Yeah, I just want to say there's two more open spots on that committee, and very grateful to um Mr.

Gaden for continuing his public service and uh would encourage others who are interested in investing and are sick permanent fund management to apply.

Absolutely, thank you very much.

All right, on the motion to appoint Mr.

Gaydon to a three-year term on the investment committee.

Ms.

Riley, yes.

Ms.

Carlson?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosher?

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Mr.

Christensen?

Yes.

And Mr.

Selene.

Yes.

The motion passes 6-0 on item C.

Thank you.

We are now at item D.

I move to approve ordinance 2026-07 on second and final reading, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2026 snow removal.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to uh pay our debts to the snow.

Is there any public comment?

Assembly deliberation.

So if we pass this, it'll stop snowing, right?

That's our goal.

Sarah.

All right, on the motion to approve ordinance 2026-07 on second and final reading, Mr.

Christensen.

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson?

Yes.

Mr.

Celine?

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

Yes.

Ms.

Riley?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosher.

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0 on second and final reading.

Thank you.

We are at item E.

Sarah.

So this one's going to require a little explanation.

Sarah, would you be able to provide us a little bit of overview before we start this one?

Yes, I would.

So this item at the March 24th meeting, it was postponed.

It is coming back before you this evening for further discussion and action.

So the motion before you on the table right now is the amendment.

And as we go through the process tonight, I'll walk you through the steps.

But the first thing is the amendment.

And the amendment that's on the table.

Just to refresh everyone's memory, it was to amend appendix G to state that it shall sunset one year from adoption and then it must be replaced prior to sunset.

But before we vote on that, staff is hoping that we can get some further clarification on some of the discussion that happened at the last meeting.

So if we could do that first, that would be great.

All right.

And also for the audience, the main reason it's back is because uh we have a part of our code that we follow Robert's rules of order.

And uh the rules specifically state that you have can only postpone it from one meeting to the next.

And sitca is traditionally done, and you may, if you look through the agenda, see we're gonna modify that hopefully down the road.

Uh but that's why it's back here as early as was.

As was, we had postponed it to the second meeting in May.

Um, and I will clarify again that we are on an amendment um, which is not the main motion at this point in time as we go forward.

All right, I am open for a motion at this time.

It we don't need a motion just yet.

We both on the floor.

Yeah, so now we're at public comment.

Well, so now we're at um discussion discussion and staff um getting further clarification.

Okay.

Thank you, Amy.

And then after discussion, then we'll um go into public comment and then vote on the amendment.

All right, thank you, Deputy Mayor and Assembly members.

Amy Ainsley, planning and community development director.

So following the direction that we received at the March 24th meeting um regarding appendix G, and that's going to be the the shortcut name for the appendix in the plan that outlines the local uh review process or the historic preservation review process for local projects.

Um, and it was our understanding that there were really kind of three primary goals that the assembly wanted to see, um, which was to have the current process described with more clarity and detail, to outline any exemptions that are currently granted or incorporated into the review process, and to consider any additional exemptions to the review process when like for like replacements are proposed.

Following that direction, um staff um drafted up the um essentially an outline of the current review process um on how well excuse me and how projects right now are identified review, exemptions that we currently make, um some preliminary thoughts on additional exemptions and the review procedures.

We took this in front of the historic preservation commission at their meeting last week um to get their preliminary thoughts at this point in the process.

I just because there's a there's a lot of moving parts here, so I want to try and make the decisions um as clear as possible.

Um, and from I think from where we're at right now, there's really two primary paths forward.

The first is to continue with the March 24th direction, which is to replace appendix G prior to adoption of the plan.

That's my understanding of the assembly's direction at this time.

Um so that's currently what we are aiming to do.

If we want to stay on that course, that's where some additional detail and direction is needed.

Alternatively, when the historic preservation commission met last week, um, they were you know generally receptive to what staff has outlined as a replacement for appendix G, but they also voiced a very strong preference to see the plan passed without any further delay.

A motion to recommend assembly approval of the historic preservation plan as presented, sans appendix G and for staff to draft an amended appendix G for review and approval by the Commission and the Assembly at a later date past five to zero.

So that would be the second option, which is to essentially move forward with the amendment that's on the floor, which is to pass the plan and to bring forward a replacement for it at a later date.

Those two options being said, those are again the the motion that you currently have on the floor, the amendment motion, which is to adopt the plan with a essentially a sunset provision for appendix G is consistent with the request made by the Historic Preservation Commission, and so that motion could be could be approved, and that would follow the recommendation of the commission.

If the assembly, however, would like to continue the path of a placing of replacing appendix G prior to plan adoption, these are the couple of pieces that we need a little bit more information and clarification on as staff from the assembly.

So first, I want to make sure that the goals that I've outlined again document our current process with more clarity and detail, outline current exemptions, and consider any ex additional exemptions for when like for like replacements are proposed.

I want to make sure that that is the scope of what we should be looking at in bringing forward a replacement of appendix G.

If we are you know, kind of going through, you know, one of the plan actions is to improve the process, um, and that could mean a lot of different things to a lot of people.

That could make the you know, that could for some folks um be a you know a much more intense process that you know tends towards historic, you know, a more um I don't want to say aggressive, but potentially a little bit more of a stringent approach and a little bit more of a preservation approach.

Um whereas for other folks that could be a scaling down of the process.

Um and so if the assembly wants to see essentially a replacement for appendix G that's a status quo for the most part of our current process with only minor tweaks made to our current process, that would be really helpful for staff to know so that we can kind of provide some guardrails about what we are looking for in bringing back a replacement to appendix G.

Are we wholesale kind of rebuilding the process or really just kind of documenting it as it exists with minor tweaks?

So that's the piece of direction, the first piece of direction that we're requesting.

The second is that there was um some comment about um potentially wanting to see an extended mail notice sent out to affected property owners and for a more extensive public comment period or forum to be provided.

Um we again we are certainly able to do that.

Um that does just extend the timeline for for what we're looking at.

Um and so if the assembly would like to see that more extensive public review process, the the third thing that we need to know is really what extent of that of that repro of that process is requested.

Um I outlined in your memo a couple of options for um for moving forward that a really expedited timeline um would be you know like a 30-day public comment period with uh property owners invited to a meeting in May to review the plan with um sort of earliest um recommendation by the commission on June 10th and adoption by the assembly on June 23rd.

That's the more expedited public, you know, a expedited process with public review.

A more moderately paced timeline would provide a 60-day comment period, um, have property owners invited to a meeting in June with assembly and commission um recommendation and adoption of that coming in July.

Um so those are those again two primary paths.

Move forward with the current direction, replace appendix G before we adopt the plan.

Take the recommendation or take the recommendation of the commission and approve the plan with a replacement for it appendix G to come at a later date.

But if we do want to move forward with replacing appendix G now before we adopt the plan, I want to make sure I understand the scope of that change, the scope of public comment, and the pace or timing for that for that process to take place.

So as it stands, and I know it's it's weird because appendix G doesn't actually do anything, it's more like a bringing together of other parts of the plan, right?

I mean, it's not um but so one of the issues that was brought up is just being in an historic district trigger a review.

Not again, not necessarily.

Um it depends depends on the type of work that's being undertaken and the type of and the and the property that we're that we're discussing.

And and the other issue kind of related to that is who decides I think one of the complaints I was hearing last time was that when something is essentially fixing something, not necessarily changing it, and that triggering a review.

Um is it I mean that that's the problem I had with it last time is that it was how do we how where in this process is it just says uh staff decides to send it to the historic preservation commission, and and I don't see a whole lot of gut guidance on okay what triggers that.

Right.

And and yeah and again, this that's I think that's part of the reason this was identified as a as a plan action is because right now that doc that process is not super well documented and has kind of essentially been a department policy and practice that's been handed down without that level of specificity.

Um of the exceptions that we talked about with historic preservation that we've talked about over the years is um looking at when something is a um when something's non-structural and if the same materials are going to be used, um, then we then we probably won't go through the the review process on the end unless we're talking about like a register site in that case.

And that's that's kind of the one of the differentiations in our process right now, which again to you, I mean to your point is not well documented in appendix G.

Um, but that's you know that's a that's the process that we go through now is to is to consider the type of work that's that's taking place and the type of structure that it's happening on and whether it's a registered site or not.

Amy, could you get section G up here for people to stare at while we listen to everybody?

Oh potentially.

Yeah.

No worries, we're prepared to go on without looking at it.

It's on there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Tim.

So I had heard this was a long discussion, so I listened to the entire thing uh last time.

It was quite lengthy and robust and interesting.

Uh first of all, I want to say thank you to everyone who who worked on the plan, uh, including the SICORIC Preservation Commission and staff and and everyone else in the community who uh contributed their time and effort and public comment.

Um as I was listening to the whole thing um and then thinking about it.

I agree with with uh pretty much everyone that I I like the bulk of the plan.

I really do.

I think it's it's awesome and timely.

Um the concern that uh Stephen made the mayor made as a member of the public is a valid concern uh as Tor mentioned, something um if you live in a building regardless of whether it's in a register or not, um I would hate for something, say a safety issue to someone have to wait a couple months to have um to fix you know a two by four or something that has nothing to do with the um the facade of the the building.

So my my thoughts right now, and I'm interested to see what how the conversation goes.

Um I think whether we approve the plan as a whole now or not isn't really um a substantive.

I think the biggest thing that we're trying to do is as everybody likes the plan as it is, we just want to make sure that there's administrative uh ways of dealing with minor repairs or repairs that need to happen to a building, uh, whereas someone doesn't get caught up.

Uh and it my input so far is that as far as where there's things are gonna be more stringent or or loose, I would like the the general process to be more um status quo, you know.

I I I like the historic preservation having uh input, but I don't like um I don't like the idea of uh strict um well I guess I understand the heart of it, the facade of the building should be kept in line, you know, with uh uh the character and the history.

Um but um I think if if some my point is I'm kind of rambling, if someone needs to fix their building and it's not gonna affect the outside, I think they should be able to, however, we've accomplished that is fine.

Um I wouldn't mind passing this plan as is today, um, but if the assembly decides to not and hold off, I'm not gonna go cry over it.

Uh regardless, I think uh amending um item G is gonna be important.

And uh as far as the timeline, I know you're looking for a timeline, Amy.

I think the aggressive one is pretty pretty aggressive for you guys considering you have other things to do.

Um I would be in favor of the moderate timeline.

So basically what I'm trying to say, my input is uh as far as the the guardrails, I'd like to stay status quote.

I'm assuming we're talking about item G or um appendix G and uh a moderate pace.

Um I would prefer, like I said, to pass the whole plan as a whole today, but uh I'd be flexible to hear what other people say.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Amy.

Can you tell me are there any permits that would be uh expedited or move through this review process faster if a minor rewrite the clarification of the goals that you identified happened um and came before us on May 26th?

Would that free up anything for this construction season?

Not that I'm aware of in terms of in terms of like actively pending permits right now.

And can you tell us um what gets punted?

And no, you guys work hard and you've got limited capacity there.

What doesn't get worked on if we prioritize um moving this, you know, rewrite major or minor uh kind of as quickly as possible.

Yeah, I think that I think the two major efforts in our department um that are I think that are most likely to be affected are probably um the um the code amendment for cruise ship docks um because we had planned to do a joint work session between the planning commission and the tourism commission with a public meeting um to happen at at some point either well we uh we were kind of we were hoping for that's potentially be later this month, but other things have had to take priority.

So that would that was probably planned for May.

So to do to do that and to do you know an expedited public process on this as well in the same month.

Um those those are some of my preliminary or that's that's one of the projects I'm mostly thinking about, as well as the um getting the um cell tower code zoning code rewrite um initiated and and kicked off.

Thank you.

Is now a good time to say our thoughts on her clarification or questions.

Yeah, I mean, I don't know if it right time or not, but I mean my I don't necessarily have a problem with Katie's amendment for giving a year to say, okay, we'll pass the whole thing, but we've got to have G and its you know applicable things in the main plan back in a year.

Um but I think I just want to make sure that we understand that I think it should be a fairly high bar to have to go to this sort to the commission.

Um because one of the things I heard over and over last time was that goes to the commission and they almost always approve it.

Well, just having to go to the commission is a real burden.

It adds a significant amount of time and and anxiety, and I mean we are used to going to meetings, and not everybody is.

Yeah, of course.

But like Stephen was saying, if you're replacing rotten studs, no.

And it's just adding, you know, we we tend to forget up here that just dealing with the city is hard for most people, even if we're being everybody's being nice and trying to be helpful.

So um that's I don't know if I'm I have a question for Amy if now it's an okay time.

Okay.

Amy, um remind me, I was liaison to historic preservation for um a year or two, um, but not currently.

Um reminding you, is it typical that the homeowner comes and pleads a case during permitting for this?

Um I don't recall really anyone presenting it was just in the packet and it got looked at.

Is that accurate?

Yeah, on it on occasion um property owners will attend the meeting.

We don't require their attendance as opposed to you know, a planning commission meeting, um, it's a quasi-judicial setting.

There's you know, it's our code specifies that the applicant be, you know, provide testimony on the on the case, and so they have to be there in order for the item to be heard.

Um, given that we don't have, you know, we don't have that kind of requirement in the in the code.

We don't we don't require that property owners come to meetings.

Um sometimes, sometimes they elect to, but oftentimes they don't.

Thank you.

Um, and then also similar to that, uh, is it the goal of historic preservation or planning to to do this process in conjunction with other permitting aspects, or or does it typically extend um the permit time?

We always aim to do this in conjunction with permitting times so that historic preservation is not a delay in that process.

So um our building department works really hard to get us permits as fast as possible when they come in to make sure that not only for historic preservation issues, but if there's any other planning issues that we're you know that we're getting on top of those quickly and not delaying permit issuance.

Um, and so you know, we the building and planning teams work really closely together to to align those timelines and to not create additional time as a function of historic preservation review.

Thank you.

Um, because I recall that being one of when I saw the org chart and how things were shifting and how building is within planning, um, I saw that as a nice synergy for these processes.

Was that part of of the goal with that with your department?

Part of, yeah, and actually, and even going even farther back to it, that was part of our goal in physically moving the planning office and the building office together because there was a lot of running up into town between flights of stairs.

Applicants had questions for both planning and for and for building at the same time.

Um so yeah, we've been working for a long time to to try and make ourselves a one-stop shop and to try and consolidate processes.

Thank you.

Yeah, I have a question for you, Amy.

So um initially we postponed it till May 23rd or whatever date that was, 26th.

Um, and did you find that was that a sufficient amount of time to rewrite item G in your opinion?

So the the motion that the assembly passed was to postpone till May 12th.

And unfortunately, that timeline is non-achievable.

Um between taking a at least a draft of you know what we thought could work as a replacement to um to appendix G at this, you know, at last week's historic preservation meeting.

Um their next meeting isn't until May 13th, which is obviously after the 12th.

Um, and so if we wanted to move forward with replacing appendix G without uh you know a more extensive kind of mail notice and public process, you know, we could potentially bring that back to you on May 26th, but that would be the earliest.

Thank you.

Oh not a question, but I understand kind of a question.

You're seeking feedback on what kind of minor tweaks we'd like to see.

Is that accurate?

Not necessarily I don't think I don't think we necessarily have to I think I under I think I understand the intent.

I just want to make sure that that intent is shared, and that we're we are talking about um primarily documenting the current process with only minor tweaks as opposed to sort of wholesale reconsideration of how this process works.

Okay.

I share that intent um this is kind of the Thor's thing about uh changing a two by four, whatever really staff calls the shots as far as is this in the realm of historic preservation.

There hasn't been one permit that's been held up in construction from the start of the hysterical preservation committee.

Um last meeting, the impression was set that there was, and that impression was set years ago on a member's family's property that the city staff forgot to pass it on to the historical preservation committee.

And when the Park Service drove down Lincoln Street and saw scaffolding in this area, that's when that family incurred expense, and then once it was brought to their attention that that building, the Park Service wants to buy because it's one of only three Russian buildings remaining in North America.

That family, our mayor's family, voluntarily chose not to build on their property, which was totally in their rights because of the ambiance of historical uh merit.

And so appendix G or a denim G has no teeth in it whatsoever.

And the key thing to remember about the historical preservation thing is it's the only thing in the whole city government that started from the bottom up.

And just the other day it was explained to me how it started in New York City, where the city planners wanted to put a freeway through Greenwich Village.

What?

And then they wanted to destroy Penn Station.

That is how it came to where the community has to have a voice to say, hey, wait a minute, uh, we want to look at it.

And so this whole hysterical preservation has no teeth in it whatsoever.

You can change your facade, you can do whatever as long as it's not a historical registered building that the feds are already into it.

So it's there's a lot to it as far as for the community and not stopping the private property owners' liberty with their own property.

So I think for me, it just happened to be an anomaly that the mayor had a problem with appendix G.

Because uh Appendix G is really where the public runs into the or how the public accesses the historical preservation plan.

And because it is vague and undefined, it isn't helpful.

So a person in the public who wants to start a project doesn't have clarity as to what is and what won't and what should be done.

And so the reason why I didn't want to pass the plan last time is because without appendix G correctly indicating for the public um how to um what to prepare for when they are involved with this process.

Um I think it's an incomplete plan.

Now, do I like the rest of the plan?

I'm I'm 100% like that.

The work involved and the clarity of that is awesome.

But this is a crucial piece.

Appendix G is not a just a little thing.

This is actually lays out how the public is going to interact with this plan and the commission and and what they can expect when they start a project and what they can also expect not expect when they start a project.

So they understand the process, they go forward.

I mean, the one thing that defines the planning department is and the building department is they have a very clear process.

Everyone understands it when they apply for a permit, they know exactly what they're gonna be doing, and they understand why they're doing it.

They may not agree with all of it, but they understand why they're doing that.

And so that was the main reason why.

Then the second reason why I didn't want to pass the plan as an incomplete plan, even though I really like the rest of it, and I could see myself saying yes to the rest of it, was I do want to maintain a little bit of pressure on this process to get this done done for the public.

And also the public may the public may have a comment about this process once we lay it out more clearly.

They may be able to say we like this, we don't like this, or actually we want to be more stringent on this, and I think it's an important opportunity for the public to get involved in that.

And so I'm still not convinced that passing the plan in partial and waiting for appendix G is a good idea.

And I certainly don't want to wait a year for it.

Um I think if I could I could potentially get on board with shortening that time frame, you know, on the amendment, make it shorter so that that everyone maintains focus on that, but I'm not interested in passing it as is, and it has nothing to do with the rest of the plan.

It is not my that plan is is awesome, it speaks to the community, it is everything we want, but without that crucial piece about how the public gonna interact with it.

I think we're missing a piece here.

So um I think that I support this plan.

I think it's important that we move it forward, whether we remove appendix G entirely or pass it with appendix G and the amendment that's on the table to fix it within a year or shorten that period.

Um I don't think it makes sense to delay the entire plan over an appendix that we all agree needs improvement and is is by all accounts on track to receive that improvement.

To hurry up and get this done because this is an existing process, right?

We're not talking about creating new law.

That's what you would be or new process is what you'd be doing with the revision.

I think if that you know is gonna be intentional and uh well done, like take some time to do it.

I don't think that we're gonna get good public comment as we are you know two weeks away from entering the visitor season, which affects a couple of our historic districts down here, as well as every person in town that you know spends time outside harvesting or doing whatever with their family.

So this is like not uh a great time for public engagement, and also there was an extensive extensive amount of that that already happened as reported.

Um, you know, 17 years of plan development as well as uh what over 10 opportunities to engage um over the past couple of years.

So I feel like the people who were passionate about historic preservation probably made their voices heard during that, and uh you know, you guys did a great job of laying out exactly how many ways you asked for people to give that input.

So I feel like the public engagement needs have been met, and you know, whatever we do with appendix G tonight, take it out, leave it in with a a note to fix it, like it will continue to exist, is my understanding because that's just the process, right?

You can take it out of the packet or take it out of the plan, but if someone asks, that's what you're going to tell them until it's changed.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

So you know, if we want to take it out and make it a little bit harder for people to find that information, um that's fine.

I I don't necessarily see uh the utility in that.

I'd rather us move forward with the the pretty clear direction that I think the planning department has right now to revise appendix G in collaboration with the historic preservation committee, and um, you know, it sounds like you have as well clear understanding of uh what what we want to see happen, which is simply you know, clarity and uh make it easier for people to upkeep their properties in uh good looking shape.

And so I um I would you know my my position is to vote for the amendment that's on the table and move forward with this plan, uh and then I'll look forward to seeing a revised and improved process here as quickly as you can.

It says within a year, it doesn't hold you to that if you want to do it in a shorter period, if you have capacity to do that, I would welcome you too.

Yeah, um, I mean as long as I I was thinking that I would probably go ahead and vote for the amendment.

In fact, if we don't vote for the amendment, I won't vote for the whole thing.

Uh because with a year is you know, knowing the way meetings work and all that and public notice and all that, but I think we've given guidance what we're looking for.

Um as long as we say you know, appendix G and all the code that it affects, you know, it's not I mean appendix G is just an outline of what it is, so it's it me what it really means is getting back into the plan and uh the uh so but I can I can support the amendment and then they as long as we have that sunset provision that if it you know because uh it really does need to be looked at it, and I guess one of the things I heard is you know, people who care about historic preservation, we also need to get the people who don't to be really blunt out there, uh or at least they don't care about how accurate the molding is on the inside kind of thing.

Uh so I can go forward with the amendment if we pass the amendment uh as long as we and I know Amy will keep that one year in mind.

So thank you.

Um so Amy, say amendment uh the amendment passes and then the whole thing passes.

You are understanding your guidance that you're receiving right now to be uh to clarify is to go back to get public comment from property owners too to include that process, correct?

That's my uh that's actually not in some at least yes, some form of public comment, but I I wasn't sure about the extent and again if you want us to do the to do mail notices, we're happy to do that.

Um I mean because it's just not clear if that's what we're gonna do.

Okay, that's what I was wondering if you were clear about that, because it I'm not sure that it is clear.

Um, in addition to getting clarification on some of these things like administrative things.

So um I guess uh I hope this doesn't throw a wrench, but I I'm prepared to vote yes on the uh the amendment and the main motion uh understanding that when you go back to do some revisions that you do um some outreach to the owners affected as well question for you.

Is there another discussion after the amendment before the main motion or just on the main motion?

Sorry, can you say that one more time?

Is there another discussion uh after we vote on the amendment while we're just reviewing the main motion?

Yep.

So it'll be a public comment or for the amendment, it'll be a public comment, then we'll vote on the amendment.

Yep, then we'll go to the main motion.

We'll take public comment again.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, but there will be assembly discussion.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

I wanted to know that to know where to put my comments.

So I'll comment now what staff's request uh for what the assembly goals are for replacing of appendix G uh listed out in one two three.

I agree with all of that.

I'll save my comments on the 30-day 60 day um notice for public comment when we get back to the main motion because I think it's applicable there.

Um so thank you for crafting that, Amy, with your team and a simplified you know, process clarity, number one, number two, outline the existing exemptions and then you know what we'd like to see for the added exemptions.

That's very helpful, and I agree.

Amy, anything you need?

Anyone anything else for Amy?

Thank you.

Did we also not take public comment on this particular amendment?

No, we would have taken public comment.

My recollection is there was public comment on both the amendment and the underlying motion.

Right.

So at this point it's just the assembly discussion.

I understand.

Sarah.

So before we vote on the amendment, uh we can take public comment on the amendment again.

We can if we could please.

I know there's some folks here tonight that would like to testify.

I was just clarifying where we were.

Yeah.

Okay, so can you read the amendment?

Yes.

So uh the amendment on the table is to um amend appendix G to state that it shall sunset one year from adoption and that it must be replaced prior to sunset.

So that would be um if anyone would like to speak to the amendment, um, please come forward and state your name for the record.

Clarifying this is on the amendment to postpone.

I understand that oh my name's Robbie Littlefield.

Um, I understand that this is on that we have to make public comment now in just in case you don't pass the amendment.

So then we wouldn't get to speak.

We just want to speak.

So we had there's a number of us.

So you I'm you can count me down.

Um my name is Kuhiach Robbie Littlefield.

I've lived in Sitka since 1971.

I'm the chairman of the Sitka Historical Preservation Commission, and I have served on that commission since 2009.

I wanted to mention some people who are uh who have spent count uncounted hours working on this exact preservation plan.

I'm just gonna read them off real quick, um, in the order of the longest to go.

So that's Judy Osmond, Steve Johnson, Kitty Sopal, Archie Nielsen, Clara Gray, Bob Sam, Martha Moses, Peter Gorman, Scott Saline, Mike Miller, Nicole Fiorino, Candice Rutledge, Chuck Miller, Stephanie Eden Shaw, um James Paulson, Karen Lucas, Nancy Douglas, Anna Ditmar, Jay Kinsman, and Yeti Cook uh Brady Howard.

So those are the uh commissioners that have um stayed with us.

Uh when I was first appointed, uh we had just received a small grant to update the Sitka Historical Preservation Plan.

The plan being presented to you has been in development for 17 years.

It has gone through at least four versions, and it has included many opportunities for community input.

And this plan is meant to help protect what makes Sitka unique and to guide us into the future.

I'd like to take a minute to explain why Sitka or historical preservation or to explain what it means and why it's so important.

Um historic preservation is about protecting buildings, places, landscapes that have cultural or historical importance.

Preservation planning is the process of identifying these important places and documenting them.

This helps make it very clear what our community values and what we want to carry forward for future generations.

The Sitka Historical Preservation Commission is more than just a board.

Hi, uh Nicole Fiorina with the Sitka Historic Preservation Commission.

Uh so Sitka has had a formal historic preservation program since the early 1990s with the government to government relationship between STA and the city and borough of Sitka at its core.

CBS became a certified local government in 1994, making the city eligible to receive federal preservation grants through the Federal Historic Preservation Fund.

The presence of a historical preservation commission is required to maintain CLG status.

Sitka currently has the lowest historic preservation standards required to maintain that CLG status.

Appendix G contains no specifics for that reason.

Our commission reviews local projects that may have an impact on historic resources.

It's responsible for educating the community about preservation and for surveying and preserving historic and cultural resources.

The adoption and maintenance of a historic preservation plan is another CLG status requirement.

Our proposed preservation plan has been in the works since 2009, which was 17 years ago.

This version of the plan has been worked on and rewritten by at least 10 to 15 experts, including Bill DeArmond, Ann Polnow, Danielle Pensley, Rebecca Paulson, and Robbie Littlefield.

In addition, the state historic preservation office's recommendations have all been incorporated into this document.

Our CLG status has resulted in local historic preservation efforts receiving $562,427 in CLG grant funds to date.

We would like to remind you that we are a consulting party.

We are advisory only, and we make recommendations based on what best serves the common good.

Private citizens are not required to abide by our recommendations.

All members of our commission recommend and support approving and adopting the Sitka Historic Preservation Plan 2026 version in front of you tonight.

Now, if the Assembly would like to see stricter processes and additional restrictions for members of the public, we then suggest that city staff, city staff rework appendix G as a separate item to be submitted to the HPC for review and adoption, adding it to the plan when complete.

Thank you.

And we are coming before you, as Roby had stated, that uh we need this amendment passed so that we can uh suggest that you would adopt approve and adopt the historic preservation plan.

There's been ample public input over the years on this, and there uh we had uh many meetings.

Anyone can come to a commission meeting and and speak um to the to the topic.

Um we had a public meeting that was hosted by staff, um, which comments were incorporated when appropriate.

Sitka tribe of Alaska Cultural Resource Committee also had an opportunity to review this plan, and um the planning commission has also supported this plan.

So, in addition to the public engagement, the plan was forwarded for final review by the highest authority in the state, the SHIPO, the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, and it came back with do nothing, it looks real good.

Um, so it successfully passed muster with the state.

Um, so I'm asking you not to lose sight of the big picture that we can finally get this important guiding document approved and adopted into the city charter.

17 years is long enough.

We could call it 32 years if you want to talk about the very beginnings of the historic preservation commission and trying to get this plan in place.

Not to mention the fact that the plan is educational and it covers a lot of topics that there seem to be misconceptions amongst some assembly members on what what are we?

I mean, when you talk about the like for like or the in kind or not always necessarily required, and so it's a guiding document, and it's important that it get passed as soon as possible.

Um because it it's been it's you know, kicking the can down the road concept that this it's it's time to say yes.

Um we do understand and recognize the importance of addressing the concerns of citizens uh that are about appendix G and the whole process, and yes, it can be improved, and time should be taken to do that, make it uh more understandable.

Um the educational benefit of this plan encompasses the many aspects of and gives information on the significance of historic preservation and its application when within the city and borough of Sitka.

This plan provides information about local, state, and national legate legacies of historic preservation, historic preservation related resources for lay people and contractors, historic context to which which classifies SICKA's historic resources, those places that are already recognized on the National Register, and um it also gives a path forward.

So I thank you for your extra time.

Thank you.

Good evening, Deputy Mayor and Assembly Members.

My name is Ann Holnow.

I am an archaeologist and a cultural resource specialist, uh, a former chair of the Historic Preservation Commission Commission, a former Alaska representative for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and former president of the Alaska Association for Historic Preservation.

I want to address the review process using two examples from my experience as chair, one being what the mayor raised last meeting.

When the former owner of Russell's Mr.

Ron McLean applied for a building permit to expand his building to the zero lot line, which he is entitled to do, a city official failed to forward the project to the planning department for the commission to review.

It was the National Park Service, as Mr.

Sleen alluded to, who oversees National Register and National Landmark properties, who noticed the scaffolding on the property adjacent to building 29 and asked why the project hadn't come before the commission.

Mr.

McLean was politely asked if he would possibly appear before the commission and uh just to discuss the property.

Mr.

McLean and I believe his construction contractor Kelly Pellet did um retroactively come before the commission.

The commission explained the significance of building 29, one of three Russian era structures in Alaska documented on uh Prince Max Hudov's map as number 29 that later served as the territorial customs house.

McLean sympathized with the concern and voluntarily revised his plans.

There is no mandate.

He also chose not to sue the city for procedural failure.

That little cubby off the sidewalk that doesn't have a zero lot line is today a stopping point on walking tours of SICA, allowing residents and visitors alike to observe one of the remaining examples of Russian era log construction in the country.

That outcome was a result of community members and property owners working together in good faith.

At the time, I very much understood Mr.

McLean's frustration and continue to thank him for his effort and being one of many of our community stewards of history.

At the same time, she Clyde Schaeffer, Clyde Schaefer's project at the Mae Mills House offers us a contrasting example.

The building official, having learned from Mr.

McLean, Mr.

McLean's experience, made sure to forward the permit to the planning department for review.

Prior to the commission meeting, Schaefer invited me as chair to the House and shared his plans to protect and maintain the building by enclosing the porch in a manner that worked with the historic character.

The commission had no further recommendation.

The process worked exactly as intended.

The review process is tied to the building per minutes deliberately.

That's three minutes.

Okay, I'll come back if you've asked this.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

See none.

Assembly deliberation.

Sarah.

All right, so the amendment that you are voting on.

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

Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

Mr.

Selene?

Yes.

Mr.

Mosher?

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

No.

Mr.

Christianson.

Yes.

Okay, the amendment passes 5-1.

And so now we will go back to the main motion as amended.

This discussion time.

So since the amendment was approved, the conversation about 30 days, 60 days isn't necessary because now you have 365 days.

So I have no comments on that.

Yeah, I'm just uh I do appreciate the public comment and uh all the work that the community put into this.

Clearly, people's hearts and souls were put into it.

Thank you.

Yeah, I don't think there was any ever any question about the entirety of the document.

Uh the I mean the only question was about this review process.

Um, now that we have a clear path towards working on that, um you know we never get what we went.

I would probably would have picked six months, but uh you know, uh a year is probably reasonable, but um like I said it it's sometimes almost more the perception than the reality, and that can be just as um uh heartburn inducing as you know uh so I'm glad we got that.

And so like I said, there's never been any question in my mind about the entire document.

Uh we just wanted to make sure that we addressed that.

So and again, thank you guys for putting all the time in on it.

I've done my share of time on the as a liaison at least.

Sarah.

All right, um, and then just to clarify so the motion on the floor um is to approve and adopt the SICA historic preservation plan as recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission.

Um and that has been um recommended or amended, excuse me.

Uh Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

Mr.

Mosier.

Yes.

Mr.

Celine?

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson?

Yes.

Mr.

Christianson?

Yes.

And Ms.

Radley?

Yes.

All right.

The motion passes uh six zero.

We will take a break.

Okay, we're gonna start back again if we can, folks.

Okay, we are now at item F.

I move to approve a lease agreement as recommended by the Gary Paxon T4.

Did I miss one?

Yeah, we're on F.

I move to approve ordinance twenty twenty-six-08 on first reading.

Oh, this one amending title two administration and personnel, chapter two point oh five city and borough assembly of the SICA General Code by adding section two point oh five one six five to postpone to a certain time.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded.

Uh Josh, I believe the clerk has an introduction for this item.

Thank you.

All right, so as the deputy mayor uh mentioned in our previous item, um did a deep dive into Robert's rules and learned that SICA has historically been uh using uh this motion incorrectly or out of order.

Um so I'm bringing um forward the resolution or an ordinance to um adopt a rule otherwise um are outside of Robert's rule.

So let me start over.

So under Robert's rules, um when the assembly votes to postpone an item, it can only be postponed to the next regular meeting um unless we have adopted a rule allowing otherwise, and so that's what this ordinance would do.

Um we um could postpone it to uh after a certain meeting, like we've historically used it.

So that's basically what this is doing.

Thank you.

We'll go to public comment.

Is there any public comment on this motion?

Assembly deliberation.

Is that a question?

Who caught it that we because we've done that a number of times over the years.

Who caught that we weren't following the rules?

Well, I did.

Okay.

I thought maybe it was this one, but yeah, I no, I uh I did, even though anyway, I did.

Yeah, yeah, I'm in support of this completely.

Just question does this align with other communities what they do?

Um there are a handful of communities that have an exception.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think if you look around, it's almost an Alaska rule in some regards.

So I mean, and it's not uncommon.

DJ.

Yep, just that clarifying piece to make it all connecting the dots.

So thank you, Sarah, for finding that and doing expert job writing this ordinance and bringing it forward in a such a timely manner.

So thank you.

So in the future we may use this thing.

Yeah.

Again.

Any further Sarah?

All right.

On the motion to approve ordinance 2026-08 on first reading.

Mr.

Christensen?

Yes.

Ms.

Riley.

Yes.

Mr.

Mosher.

Yes.

Mr.

Celine?

Yes.

Ms.

Carlson.

Yes.

And Mr.

Pike.

Yes.

Motion passes 6-0 on first rating.

Thank you.

Now we are on item G.

Now.

Okay.

I moved to approve a lease agreement as recommended by the Gary Pax and Industrial Park Board between the City and Borough of Sitka and Northern Southeast Regional Aquacultural Association for block 4 lot one of the Gary Paxson Industrial Park and authorize a municipal administrator to execute the document.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to approve an agreement between the City and Borough of Sitka and the NSIRA.

Josh, I believe that you, Gary White has an introduction.

That is correct.

Thank you.

I do.

Thanks.

This is uh Gary White with the Gary Paxson Industrial Park Board.

So I'm gonna give out some some history here because this seems kind of convoluted, but it's somewhat simple.

So in 2006, INSERA came to the city and asked to lease lot two.

Um they did it on a 10-year term with four four extensions.

2016 came, they extended it.

Um, and then they decided that they wanted to expand their hatchery, so they came to the GPIP board and the assembly to acquire the smaller lot next to a 17,150 square foot lot.

Um, and and they wanted to build another hatchery.

And so the the board and the assembly approved a lease for for three years to make sure that they were really gonna build a hatchery.

They did so.

Um that was also a uh 10-year term.

I'm sorry, it was a three-year term with with uh four tenure extensions.

Uh they when they when they finished that they came back, we extended it and we put the the the lease term instead of 10 years, we put it concurrent with lot two.

So when we got to this point in 2026, that we could align all of the leases together.

Um when they were when they were building it, they're their building started to get into setbacks, and so the board and the planning commission agreed to take lots two and three and combine them into this new created lot lot one.

So we're at the position where their lease is going to expire next month, and so we were bringing it together, and the board said, hey, let's just start over.

Um has been here for 20 plus years or 20 years, and and what they said is let's let's do another 10-year term with four tenure extensions.

Um, there was some discussion around the uh leak lease rates.

Um, traditionally we've always asked for a nine a nine percent return on the asset value, but because NSRA brings in um uh revenues to the whole community through through through the different fisheries.

When we started the the lot two, it was for a hundred bucks a month, and then in 2016 we went to 200 bucks a month, and then theirs is now expired.

Um for lot three, the board decided to go and you all did it at 50 percent market rate.

And so what now INSRA is asking for is that um that they would like a lower rate and they would like it to be um a flat rate with with no CPI adjustments based off of the value that they're bringing into the to the common property fisheries.

So we're here to look at ext um basically um letting these uh the leases for lot two and three expire and entering into an undue lease for 10 years for lot one.

And I'll be here for any questions if anybody has it.

Hopefully that wasn't confusing.

Uh is there any public comment good evening, Assembly members.

Uh my name's Adam Olson.

I'm operations manager for NSRA, uh replicating or representing the applicant in this situation.

I guess we wanted to touch base a little bit on some of the discussions that happened at the GPIP board level.

Um kind of the primary driver for our request for reduced rate.

Um, as Gary mentioned, we do contribute substantially to the economic viability of the community and the commercial fleet.

Uh, we are a private nonprofit.

We sell the licensing right to a portion of our returns every year to balance our budget, a net zero.

So any costs borne by the organization through leases, any other operations is a direct removal of fish out of those areas that are not available to common property.

So we recognize that that um you know, moving forward those terms made sense to us, it cleans it up, it's very simple.

The other thing to point out is there's a lot of salmon um landing taxes that are collected in SICA.

Um there's a 24 CETA report out that total value of all seafood landed in SICCA was 37 million dollars.

24% of that was chump salmon, and I would venture at least 90% or more of those chump salmon are Anthroproduced fish.

So the state collects 3% revenue on that.

Um, half of that is given back to the city.

So if you do the math, it's roughly 120,000 in that year, and that'll range, but um pretty good economic contribution from AnthraProduce chump salmon.

There's one point I guess I would like to bring up in the draft lease document that's before you that was a little bit confusing for myself reading through it.

There's uh section 2.3, it's regarding the rent calculation and any subsequent 10-year renewal terms.

The language is maybe a little unclear to me on how that calculation would be done.

Um, first read it appears that um on execution of those 10-year terms, there could be a possible compounding of how that rent would be calculated in every year moving forward.

We'd reached out to city attorney, and we believe and have an understanding that that would be done just on the renewal, and that new flat rate would apply for the 10 years, but would possibly request kind of a friendly language clarification of that section just to make sure that that's clear to everybody reading it moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, um, I'm Jackie Foss, a commercial fisherman.

I'm also an ENSER board member.

This um facility is really really important because it's a place that produces commercially and sport um priority species Coho and soon-to-be king salmon Chinook.

And so the economic importance to my fishery, plus the everyone who likes to pull on a king salmon or a coho are really tied to this facility that um has been slowly coming online over the few years that this is being built.

So I'm just here to say I support this work and I appreciate your time and thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Justin Peler.

I'm a commercial fisherman and small business owner.

I serve on the Enseraw board as the president and have for the last eight years.

So as staff talked about earlier, we you know, there's more to Enserah than just a common property in what we do.

We also work partnership with many other entities and give back to the community of SICA in Southeast Alaska.

We partner with the Sica Sound Science Center in a um dual partnership in which we use uh one of their permits and release fish over here in Deep Inlet, and as N Sarah does better, the amount that we give to uh to the Sika Sound Science Center goes up.

Um it goes up to a certain percent or number amount, and then they're allowed to put in for a special project.

I think uh you guys have all seen that part of the spawning shed was one of those special projects that you guys have seen grown up there.

Uh we also uh partnership with uh Armstrong Kita, which is a hatchery down at the end of the island in Port Armstrong.

Uh we partnership in a similar um circumstance with them.

We're using one of their permits of one of our release sites on the other side of the island.

Um they receive funding for us for that permit, and um they're able to uh continue their contributions to the Coho Harvest outside of Baranoff Island, which commercial users, sport users, everybody uses.

Um we also have partnership with NOAA in the past at Little Port Walter and worked on the development of a king salmon stock to be uh released, hopefully here at our new facility, and uh give back to um I it's hard to say give back.

Let's see.

I hate to use this word, but mitigation funds from the Pacific Salmon Treaty built built this hatchery out here.

And you know, this is kind of one of the final stages of this is uh to get this going and to use these fish that we've partnered with um NOAA to build and and bring along at our other facility at Hidden Falls, and uh it's a big project.

It's um it could be uh a great driver for um this area.

salmon tree built built this hatchery out here and you know this is kind of one of the final stages of this is is uh to get this going and to use these fish that we've partnered with um noah to to build and and bring along at our other facility in hidden falls and uh it's a big project it's um it could be uh a great driver for um this area those fish will be released um down um at crawfish inlet we're permitted to release those so they'll be not only uh great fish for the commercial fishermen but um sport and uh charter as well um you know there's a lot of different things it's not just the fishermen it's uh processors it's the um the electricity that the um processors use and freezing the fish um what enter does and and the amount it brings to the sick areas is uh tremendous and we thank you guys for our continued partnership thank you further public comment all right we'll bring it to the assembly thank you Tim just wanted to say uh well thank you for the public comment uh I'm 100% in support of this uh as is um after thinking about it um you know the the value that NSRA gives to this community in South Alaska Southeast Alaska literally cannot be measured um we're they're literally giving um you know life to the community um the fishing fleet has been under attack for quite some time there's always legal challenges and things like that and um anything we can do to support uh our fishing fleet which affects our entire economy I believe the fishing fleet used to be the biggest portion of our economy now it's uh been overtaken by tourism slightly but um I believe it's really important that we that we continue supporting them I understand I see the memo uh about the fact that it's under market rate and I appreciate that um but for for my my position it's more of a policy decision I believe that we should effectively be because even though it's they are paying money it's we're effectively subsidizing them and I believe that we should because I believe we get that money back many many many times over uncleably so um I really uh I'm very grateful for this and I'm supportive and um I'm hoping that we pass this thank you so yeah um so yeah so this is a bit of a no-brainer uh we you know I've fished uh I'm sure I've caught a fair number of them especially when I fish jums with some on some other boats uh my hands we maybe needed the same from doing that much snapping but um anyway yeah and this is we have a long partnership with them and uh so I have no problem with this I've got questions um probably for Gary let's start there um the top of this lease says draft three um is there any insight or maybe that's a Rachel question uh on what was revised in draft one two to get to this point uh we we just went through two previous drafts making sure we were so we had to combine the provisions of the previous two ENSER releases and then we added them to a a kind of more modern template that the legal department's using for GP leases to make sure our force major language and stuff is up to date um and in doing that kind of smooshing together there were a couple rounds of edits making sure we had taken the CPI index increases out as directed making sure that it's kind of all the pieces I don't I don't draft three should not have been left in there.

Yeah I was just trying to see if that had any indication of like was the GP board you know negotiating down a rate um because how did this 800 dollars as opposed to 3480 dollars come to be you know per month that's not annual sure so uh traditionally I I've always done this whenever a lease comes up I figure out that the the nine percent returns that's what the market rate's been out there and then I leave it up to the board if the if the board chooses to lower it um the the the board has their the recommendor authority to do so insurer proposed the the 800 flat and the board agreed with that so that's how it how it came to be I actually have a question for you so um so GPIP's an enterprise fund is that correct that is correct and uh are you guys currently solvent or is this assembly subsidizing you are currently solvent but not by much and we've got a huge capital needs out there I mean our phase two and three of the of the haul outs right around 27 million dollars okay 27 million for the design uh and the ongoing um I've attended a few GPIP meetings and what we've heard from liaisons is that the the raw water fund and the South East um economic development fund often gets uh tapped uh to supplement in addition to the general fund um is that what you're looking at for for funding for this next fiscal year because this body hasn't seen your contribution yet or is that a a finance director question I was gonna say can I

27 million for the design uh and the ongoing um I've attended a few GPIP meetings, and what we've heard from liaisons is that the the raw water fund and the South East Um Economic Development Fund often gets uh tapped uh to supplement in addition to the general fund.

Um is that what you're looking at for funding for this next fiscal year?

Because this body hasn't seen your contribution yet, or is that a finance director question?

I was gonna say, can I ask for Brooke?

Yeah, for a I'd like to use my lifeline, please.

Yep, that's next week's meeting.

We'll be looking at the GPIP enterprise fund.

So thank you for providing a bit of a preview, Brooke.

Um so the question was about whether the bulk water fund is um subsidizing the um GPIP fund for the 27 budget.

Yes, and some kind of general framing too of how often that money, those other two funds, three funds general fund get used to keep the enterprise fund at GPIP solvent.

Can I go?

Since I I have some history on this.

So um, you know, we we we um based off of the the water asset, we raised about a 1.5 million roughly, and so the boards always asked for 30 grand a year off of that 1.5 to come in at one point back in history, all of those monies ran into the GPIP until we signed a contract.

I think it was in 2009 where we brought a million dollars in, and then everybody went, wait a minute, GPIP can't have the million dollars.

And so the city set up a raw a raw water fund, the money flew to that or flowed to that, and then we've been asking for a portion of that back.

We've never really asked for the Southeast Economic Development Funds until the city had the opportunity to buy the uh the old uh boat boat company building Billy 4 4690, which is now the hall out operations.

And and the and that really came from administration, they they they knew that they had the opportunity to buy that building and found funding to do so.

So that wasn't driven by the board, that was like, hey, we got an opportunity administration pushed it that way.

But other than that, we haven't really tapped it.

And what about fiscal year 27 brookly?

Um fiscal year 27 budget does not right now have any funding from those sources.

What I saw in recent history is is those funds had primarily been used for capital projects, not so much for operations.

Um there is a very very small um surplus in the uh 27 budget right now, but I think it's it's probably like a couple thousand dollars.

That still makes a line black.

Um thank you.

Um I think that's my questions for Brooke, unless anyone else has money questions.

Um help me remember where that um what was called landing tax, but it's also called what raw fish tax it's also called the fisheries business tax or something similar.

Um that goes into the hybrid harbor fund.

Is that correct?

We can all remember that a different enterprise fund than GPIP.

Um yeah, so I'm trying to piece together how with the structures of enterprise funds, how this pencils um if anyone through this discussion can give me.

Um yeah, Gary.

With the $800, you know, 10 years ago it was two over $2,000 per month.

Um 20 years ago it was over a thousand.

So we're we're looking at like a substantially lower rate.

What what was the reasoning and the support um that that NSRA gave for this seemingly very low rate off basically what they just said here is that you know all of the money that came in and that that that swayed the board to uh agree with their request to go to an $800 flat fee.

Did was the board aware of how the other funds work and GPIP's enterprise and that money doesn't impact your guys' kingdom?

I think they did.

I talked to him a few afterwards, and I was kind of the guy that said, you know, this money's flown to the raw fish tax, maybe we guys should ask for that, but um they did not.

Okay, thank you.

Um is there any tidlands?

Tidows.

Yeah, they we also have a lease.

I didn't bring that up in my in my little history introduction.

Um, they have uh a tide land area out there that for forever was just, you know, with their first lease uh on lot two, we allowed a uh uh an an outflow pipe to go out there and it wasn't really documented.

And as we started building it, planning to build infrastructure, namely the haul out, they wanted to make sure that that area wasn't infected, and they needed to put in a second outflow pipe for the new hatchery on lot three.

So we we we basically documented that now per code, Tideland leases do require a four percent, a four and a half percent return on asset value.

Um, but the assembly then when the Thailand lease was approved, decided that because of the the economic impact that they were not going to charge a um uh uh a lease rate on it.

So it's it's it's zero dollars for 30 years.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for that.

Um more questions for Gary.

I need to let that settle for a bit.

So if anyone's your discussion that will I might have some, I apologize for for the walking backcomes.

We'll call you back if we need you.

I actually um you know, you say it's no brainer, I actually think there's brainer on this one, and here's why.

Um I've always you know it's always puzzled me, or I mean it looks funny that we that all these central garage does some work and they use electricity and they pay out of their fund to the electrical department.

It's all the same city, right?

But in order to make this all work, each enterprise fund has to stand on its own.

And so uh I think in a sense, the the problem isn't that I mean ANSRA made their case about the economic impact in the community.

I've known this for years and I totally agree with it.

They just asked the wrong group.

They need to ask us.

Because I don't really want to uh I don't really think that an enterprise fund should be subsidizing things.

So we don't want the electrical department to decide to give a cut rate to somebody just because they do good things, and um I think the assembly um should subsidize ANSRA's thing through the through the general fund because we have charged GPIP with being self-sustaining.

We've charged GPIP with asking for market rate.

And so I think um I like to send this back to them and have them do a market rate lease and have ANSRA come to us and ask for relief on that.

And I know it seems weird, it's but it's like the Electoral Department and Central Garage or any other department.

Every enterprise funds need to stand on their own.

And in this case, that's what we've told them we want them to do.

And uh and the reason I asked about whether they were solvent or not is because that brings in another problem.

If they drop a low solvency, then what that board is doing is spending general fund money.

Okay, so um, and and we are tasked with that as a group.

And so I would like to see us send it back.

I like to see a different lease come forward.

I think Gary even spoke about the Tide Lands thing, which group gave them the zero lease on the Tide Lands.

It was the assembly.

Who who sets the rate on the the lease?

Who decides what subsidization we're gonna give a group?

The assembly.

Um and I think GPIP board needs to focus on what's important, which is collecting the revenue they need to run.

Um and I like to see as strange that it as it is, like with their electoral department.

I think they need to we need to keep the accounting square.

Um that makes some sense, although I think it'd be good to remember that GPIP when it was formed was with the intention of getting itself out of business.

It's not your typical enterprise fund.

Uh the idea was that GPIP would get all the land either leased or sold, and that would be the end of GPIP.

And um hasn't really worked out that way.

But they have different metrics for what is success than the some of the electrical fund, for instance.

Um they're supposed to be supporting industry in Sitka.

And so if we want a more market rate lease, and maybe like you say, we pull from the fish tax for to make that up, um, that's fine.

But I think that again, the GPIP was designed from the get-go to be a driver for the forty much marine industry, and so this feeds that goal.

So their like say their metrics of success are not the same as the electrical fund or the water fund.

Um I do say my eyebrows went up a little bit at that rate.

I mean, that seems as a really nice rate, but um, on the other hand, it fits in so well with the rest with the haul out with everything, it's all around and it doesn't do any good if they haven't got fish to catch.

So you know, you could argue that all the other leases are being that our market rate are being driven by this.

I mean, because the the dog fishery, I remember very clearly working, I worked at SBC for a long time.

The first time a boat came in with a hold full of chums, and I was like, usually there's like eight chums and a full load, and then all of a sudden they've got two thousand.

Uh, and that was in the late 80s, early 90s.

And um, so uh I don't I wouldn't have a whole lot of heartburn if you say we want to go market rate, but then we do have to turn around and do it with the fish tax.

Um, but it so I my mild preference is to keep it as is and realize that GPIP has a different metric for success than your typical enterprise fund.

Oh thank you.

Uh yeah, I would just agree wholeheartedly with Tor.

I understand what you're saying, Tim.

I I get it.

Um but enterprise funds are just a tool that was being used uh to account for things.

Um in this case, uh yeah, the money that we're receiving back from this, like I said before, is incalculable.

Um it is just it's not even close.

So uh I mean how do you account for that?

You know, you can't.

Um so yeah, I I'm not gonna lose heartburn if we change it.

I just would hate to see a situation where we you know move around how we're doing this, and then it creates a level of instability.

I would like to see personally, I would like to remain as it is.

I wouldn't want to see something set where they can just count on it.

Uh the fishing industry is a very unstable uh industry right now, and there's fishermen who are trying to decide whether they want to stay in you know in business and uh we want to provide a level of uh strong stability.

Um, this body approved what fifth 20 or 5 or 50,000 a couple of years ago to legal fund to help fight a lawsuit.

Uh I forgot which fishing group it was, but uh we need to keep our powder dry and and make sure organizations like NSR have their powder drive so they can help contribute to these kind of things because it's not like the fishing industry um is free to go about their business without problems because there's always an attack on them.

So uh yeah, I I'm not gonna go stress out if we want to change the mechanics of it, but I would prefer to keep it as is.

I agree 100% with what Tor's saying.

Um and I just would really encourage this body to find a way, however, we do it to provide long-term stability and continuity to how we're supporting this industry.

Katie Yeah, I'm really grateful for the um benefit that NSARO brings to our community, and thank you guys for your hard work there and uh especially building out um the new facility, and just I think really demonstrates the uh you know commitment and the identity um that our community has made towards being a fishing community.

Um the whole of GPIP and all the development that's happening out there, it's really clear um that SICA is strongly invested in supporting our fishing community, and I am in support of um subsidizing NSRA to that extent.

I think what uh what gives me a little hesitation here is we're talking about a lease rate that is 22 percent of the market value, which I'm okay with.

Um CPI increases over 40 years is a little bit harder to swallow.

That's about worth 200 uh at the end of 40 years, and that does not account for the uh increased value of the park as it continues to develop.

So I'm happy to move forward with this tonight.

I do want to see a CPI increase in there, and um, you know, really again want to recognize NSRA's contributions um to the community, and I still think that that is a uh a very favorable deal.

So I'll just put that out there.

Yes, I forgot to say earlier that I really appreciate and Sarah, and I that just seemingly it goes without saying, but you know, so much of what the city does, we we think that, but it's not true.

You have to say it out loud.

So thank you for all your hard work.

Um and you know, expanding upon um your services here for for the species and the quantities um and investing in in that land there there at GPIP to to be the spot to do it.

Um still have questions on the numbers.

Um and and how this subsidy comes to bear and to what degree.

Uh, we we have a fisheries enhancement fund that is structured to enhance the fisheries, and it seems like that would be a good opportunity because it's available to 501c3s uh to subsidize this this lease.

Um it's a more paperwork.

Um, but I'm not seeing why that isn't utilized in this mechanism and why we're dropping the revenues for for GPIP when they're what Brooke said a couple of thousand dollars in the positive, and that rate will be going to what they currently are receiving.

It's two thousand four hundred to eight thousand.

That that seems like it would be enough to tip the scales.

Um it's important from this you know, governing body to balance you know the value of the community and the town and the assets and our people with keeping things solvent.

And I wouldn't if if Brooke, did you look at that?

Did you see pieces there?

Was that part of your analysis of that decrease?

It shouldn't need to be.

That should be something that the GPIP board um would acknowledge and and see.

Um, because I've spent less time with this than them, but um if I can get a nod from from the group, anyone at those GPIP groups did meetings.

Um, was the fisheries enhancement fund um considered as an opportunity um for this?

Not even a nod.

Come on up.

It was not the the board seemed uh they were in support of NSRA and they they like I said NSRA proposed 800.

They said cool, we're gonna go with it.

Yeah, okay.

Um so it means if there wasn't a mechanism to do that, I would be in more support of just reducing the rate and having it be there for 40 years.

But there is this opportunity, there's no need to change anything.

Um it's the nonprofit submitting to a nonprofit program that's existed since one year since I got out of high school, and that's over that's 25 years.

Um yeah, thanks.

Appreciate it.

Do you have a question for Gary?

No.

For regarding JJ, um the year that's funded by the fish box, right?

Like I think NSRA already applies for that funding.

Uh it's one of the three nonprofits that receives funding from that pool already.

They could use it to apply.

Oh, you don't?

Okay.

I think it's the science center.

I thought it went to multiple nonprofits.

It went to the uh apprenticemage program, I believe.

And the science center, I forget what the other one was.

But it welcomes applications from yeah, a variety of entities.

So big for me it's about getting everything square, right?

Like not putting GPIP in a hole.

And I you know, while I appreciate Tor's comments about enterprise funds, it's an enterprise fund, and I want it to be solvent, and I want it to.

I mean, I think they're they're even their own charter talks about the nine percent thing, so I think they need to respect that particular thing.

Are we offering enterprise funds to subsidize different entities?

Because if we are, we're opening a whole different door here.

Um, because while GPIP might seem like its own thing, we call it an enterprise fund.

It's just like the electoral department.

Do they have a different goal and a different thing on that and an entire board?

Yeah, and I I remember they're supposed to work ourselves out of the job.

I'm totally in favor of subsidizing NSRA from this table.

I am.

That's not a problem.

That's not actually what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about whether their rate should be $800 or anything else.

I'm talking about whether or not the GPIP board is the place to make that decision or whether it belongs here.

Now they brought it to us, so it's our decision at this point in time.

But does that mean down the road that if they find something else they like out there, they're gonna go less than market rate and we're gonna be in the same boat here?

Are we letting them not draw in the resources that they we have asked them to draw in to run themselves out of business?

I think that's my question.

I'm not opposed to N Sarah in our dollars a month.

That's that's not part of the conversation in my mind.

They provide vast vastly to our community.

The question is, I mean, it's almost not even a question for that group, it's a question for us whether or not how are we gonna get this accounting right and how are we gonna pay this bill?

Um, and I just I'm uncomfortable with ceding that ability to spend our money to the GPI board when it's our responsibility.

And that's all.

What would the market rate be?

34 something.

3,480.

I thought that was the old market rate.

No, so 3,500 basically monthly.

What?

Monthly, yeah.

So I'm wondering like where where you're coming from, what is the mechanism to do that or to approach that?

Do you have that idea?

Brooke, do you have a comment?

Thank you.

So the easiest one without making any changes would just be for that to come from the general fund.

Um it's a little bit more complicated, but we do already have um a subsidy for utilities that comes from the general fund and goes to the electric fund to provide that electric utility um subsidy that we um provide to uh custom some community members.

So it wouldn't need to be as complicated as that one that has a different fund because um there's lots of different entries involved in it.

There's a uh there's a special revenue fund for that, but um the easiest most appropriate way would would probably be the general fund.

Um, but there is that um that application process for the fisheries enhancement funds that I I think the total has been around 46 or 47,000 a year that's been put out there for um proposals.

Um you're you're talking about uh line item from the general fund that goes to GPIP that's specifically says NSRA lease subsidization fund.

Okay.

And we would have to what figure out how much that is every year, or how how would that be adjusted or kept up to date?

So that would be approved through the budget process at that point.

Um it would end up being part of the transfers out if that's the mechanism we decided to do, and it would be subject to each year's budget approval.

Wouldn't that create a level of unstability?

Because from year to year, if things get tight, we're gonna say, well, we're not gonna subsidize this year, or would there be like this approved just with a a change like an actual set rate agreement that's set in stone, and then we just have to fund another general fund, or would it be something where we just have to approve every year?

They have to ask every single year.

I might not be the best person to answer that, but it would that would be uh proving appropriations for future years and and potentially future assemblies.

So I don't think there's a way to do that.

So that's that's what I don't like.

Yeah, it's 32,400, right?

Would be if we're to bring it up from that's how much we're talking about from 800 to that is 32,400 a year.

Let's let's hear from Rachel.

Uh it's just to follow up on Brooke's answer to Kevin's question, we can't use a lease to lock future assemblies into future appropriations.

Each assembly has to do that in their own budget year.

So it sounds like if our goals are to create a long-standing stable lease and funding situation for NSRA, that is not a good way to do it in the sense that it would not accomplish said goal.

That's not where my memo and financial considerations are coming from.

My focus is on the city and the individual funds within that city, and what we do as a city is is not necessarily the same as what happens within each fund.

So to say that the city supports something, it it it really means there's you know, I can't think of offhand exactly how many funds we have if you count special revenue funds a lot, but um it's it's just a little bit more complicated than that.

And the fish tax right now pretty much all goes to the harbors, correct?

It depends.

If you're talking about the raw fish tax, that 100% of that goes to the harbor fund.

There's a fish box tax that gets split between fisheries enhancement harbors and the general fund.

Kevin, thank you.

I just saw Gary were did you have something to add to this scary?

You were trying to come up before, or no?

I'm not sure it'd be helpful.

Okay.

No, I mean, if you don't feel it'll be helpful.

Um I guess I although I appreciate it.

This is what is concerning me about this whole line of thought.

Because we have no idea what a future assembly could be, and uh case in point this year would we have almost you know $800,000 deficit budget deficit.

I was out of the uh country for that meeting, but I've been appraised of it.

And um, I think this is the exact opposite of we want to do uh that's just my opinion.

We want stability, long-term stability for an industry that's under attack and putting it in a place where they're kind of having to ask every year, or whether they have to ask, or it's just at the whim of a current assembly, not that there's that we don't care or future assemblies won't care, but you don't know, and or future assembly might not understand the gravity in the midst of the pressures of trying to balance a budget.

That's just my kind of personal opinion on that.

Josh, yeah, just a budgetary thought.

Like if there's a future situation where the city couldn't absorb that, then we're making the assumption that the GPIP could, right?

So if there's a situation where you know GPIP can't be solvent and on a 40-year lease related to this, then the city should be able to.

Well, I the city would be responsible for it at that point.

So I mean it's gonna happen one way or the other.

Uh any more questions for Brooke while we have her.

I mean, we may bring her back anyway, but thank you, Brooke.

Tor.

Yeah, I I would uh Katie was saying I could I I think the you know adjustments for inflation, the CPI probably be a good thing.

Um but I am I've been listening, and I can I come back to what the goals of the GPIP are, and it's not the same.

I mean, we want them, and major stuff we do out there, this not gonna cover it no matter what we do.

Uh and you know, they're gonna have to be looking for other funding sources, and at best this would be a rounding air.

Uh and to me GPIP can and probably will come to us for funding at some point.

Um, and that would be the place where we would do it.

Now, I fully understand what Tim was saying that we should have made that call, not GPIP board, but we're at this point now.

I mean, uh you know, you know, in a perfect world, we should have made that call.

Um, but we the GPIP board does have a lot of autonomy.

They're kind of you know, a little bit like the old hospital board where that they actually had some spending ability.

Um so not perfect, but right now at least I'd rather vote on the way it is.

Um not saying I couldn't be convinced otherwise, but I I guess I don't see throwing it back out right now.

Uh is and we have a month, right?

Till half a month.

So, you know, if we're gonna if we're saying we need to subsidize it, we need to sub we can just we should subsidize GPIP directly.

Um, and and I'd rather just vote for this now as is.

Well, I mean, I don't think we can.

I mean, I and here's why.

I think there's so first of all, public comment brought up an issue with the language already in the in the lease.

And if you're talking about CPI, that's a whole nother deal.

Might even be a substanti substantive change to it to the extent that it needs to go back and get negotiated over again anyway.

Um, because I don't didn't hear NSRA agreeing to a CPI increase.

So I'm not sure that that the conversation we're having here is going to be going to be something that this lease will support from my reading of what I read of it.

And I you know, I think it's it's been interesting listening to the future assembly situation.

I can't imagine another a future assembly saying answer is not important to our community.

So I can't imagine that if we structure this in such a way that it's a line item in our budget that we're not gonna do it.

And as Josh points out, we're responsible for the solvency of GPIP.

And if GPIP is insolvent because of this particular thing where they're handing over $2,500 a month, because they do have operations out there, then we are going to be responsible for it regardless.

And so I'd rather get it straight first.

I'd rather make it real clear.

I'd rather have the community see the how much this assembly actually is appreciative of Ansara.

I'd like to see that formally.

Katie.

Not to change the topic.

Two questions.

First one being, I do want to talk about that section 2.3.

And Rachel, I was just wondering if you could clarify it, because I was also confused.

Sure, yeah.

Um, so what happened there was um, like I said, we were combining the two old leases plus our current template, um, and then we did our draft revision taking out the CPI index and that provision.

Um so it's it's setting the the rent for the lease term at 10% of the appraised value when you're renewing it, and then that next sentence, but like notwithstanding the 11 months, 12 months, um, is to set setting a cap so that it doesn't like if the property at quadruples in value, the rent is still capped at no more than a 10% increase.

Um, and it made a little bit more sense when the CPI provision was still in there because you'd be looking at that combination of the appraised value increase plus the CPI increases, not wanting to it to go over a 10% increase in any year.

Um, the way it ought to read now, if we change the words to make it less confusing, um, is that for each of the 10-year renewals, we'll calculate the rent off of the appraised value, but it's capped at 10% of an increase.

So if it's $800, the appraised value brings it up to where it should be $900, it would still be capped at 880.

Um, and that would just be a matter of cleaning up that language, so it's a little tidier to say it's um you know it's equal to one twelfth of 10% of the appraised value not to exceed a 10% increase to the rent for the entire 10-year term.

Do you do you think that is substantive?

Um, I don't because I think it was the intent um all along, um, and the wording is just kind of funky because we had cut out the CPI index.

Um, adding back in a CPI increase, I think would be substantive and and need a rewrite.

It it took us a couple drafts to get all of that language out of there.

And then uh what is the process for a substantive rewrite like that?

Does that have to be approved by the GPIP board?

Uh substantive changes need to go back to the GPIP board.

Um, clerical changes to clarify that language.

I would just do if you guys approved of what the substance was.

I think thank you.

I think there's some things if we're gonna put back, I don't think we have a votes to pass it.

I'm like looking at the numbers here.

Um I don't think trying to force a vote on this is gonna be wise.

Um so if this is going back, we need to provide clarification because I've heard CPA adjustment, which I think um if it's done properly and not too aggressively, um periodic, not necessarily every year.

I don't know.

Uh I could go for that, but then we're talking about you know, Tor and I are wanting it to stay uh and GPIP.

Tim, you're wanting the general fund, maybe some other members from the general fund.

That's a big change.

So what are we gonna tell the GPIP board?

Uh my biggest concern is I would like to see a long-term lease that locks in rates.

And as far as I'm understanding, we can't do that if we're doing it on a general fund.

So we need to talk about that before we try to send it back.

But yeah, I well, I um I just wanted to say that the applicants are here tonight and we could potentially ask their thoughts on uh the things that we're talking about if we desired.

We could.

I'm I'm not sure negotiating with them here at the table is the right option.

Um and I don't think that's probably why is Gary Just wanted to add a point.

So CPI adjustments were discussed at the GPIP board, and they voted to not have any CPI adjustments.

So the the language that showed up with the 10%, that was just a little unclear to me coming through, even though I did have a chance to review it.

I didn't catch it, but though the the board voted for no CPI, they wanted a flat rate.

And then just another comment out there is is the GPIP board's always been a recommendary board to this to this body.

There's been times, for instance, the the Fortress of the Bear, their their lease rate when they locked in should have been 34 or something a month.

The GPIP board voted for $100 and the assembly dropped it to 50, and they're now locked in at 50 for 99 years.

So there's been this weird thing going on where um the enterprise has not really been looked at historically, which for someone that's trying to manage is pretty frustrating, but uh it's it's it's up to the the the boards and the and the assembly and the commissions to set the rates they think they think.

So that's just my copy.

Yeah, yeah.

I uh I noticed that the board did not recommend a CPI increase, and I was assuming that it had to do with the accounting errors um that were made previously that caused a jump.

Was was there any other reason why, or can you can you lend some insight?

Yeah, that was um it really wasn't an accounting year.

Um so the the past leases what they said was that at the extension that the bodies would then renegotiate the leases.

That's the the past leases, right?

And so when they when they came in and asked for fifty when they came in when in 21 when their their lease on lot three had expired, the property was revalued and it was revalued at 50 percent of the of the appraised value then at that point.

So it wasn't this big 17% jump, it was that's what the new value was the lease was, and we didn't have that that that information during the meeting at that time.

But now we went back and and truthed it out and figured out why it jumped like that.

Can you explain why there was no CPI increase suggested then?

Is it the board wanted to go with a flat $800?

Was there a discussion about it?

Oh yep.

What were some of the was it just a statement and everyone said yes?

I agree.

Yep.

Okay, thanks.

I support NSERA.

I've been waiting for GPIP to evaporate for a really long time from you know, just on the whole enterprise fund, and then talk about them being solvent and with their no record in the city of how the transfer from Baronoff Select went to Silver Bay, and then how the city engineer negotiated electrical rates with Silver Bay and then quit working for the city and went to work for Silver Bay.

Uh I just wish that it wasn't like the way that it was.

So uh for this right here, I'm supporting NSRA, but I'm really chapped about the way a lot of stuff's gone out there at the mill, and I don't know what's up, you know, with the special criteria that GPIP has, but uh need to change some stuff.

JJ.

I've done a little reading in our code over the last half an hour.

And um, if anyone wants to follow along, it's chapter 2.100, Gary Paxton Industrial Park.

And there's nothing in here that says it's a special consideration enterprise fund.

There's nothing saying, you know, but but this is why we feel a certain way.

I mean the facts state um that it's there and that the goals of the group are to do a general good and make wise business decisions.

And um it may be the memory or an opinion of you know why it's there set up this way, but the the code says very broad language, and I I just I can't confirm with my perception from from my history sitting in this seat as the one of the seven that makes decisions for this general town.

Um I it doesn't say that the industrial park is special, so I I can't vote um in that manner um with some historical context.

That's that's not listed in code.

So I'm confused on what you're saying.

Are you in favor of this as is or no?

I don't know if that's why we vote to postpone or send it back.

You can send it back, but we need to provide direction because we need to know whether it's gonna be coming out of general GPIP or general fund.

We can just say take do do it that we have to tell them what we want them to do.

But we'd have to make a motion to send it back to the board to renegotiate, right?

But we need to tell them what we want them to do.

And I think that's what we're trying to settle on.

And we do not have a solution because it sounds like some of the main disagreements are uh where the money comes from is a is a big sticking point, and then there's a smaller consideration around a CPI increase and a clerical consideration around adjusting the section 2.3 language.

So um, you know, it Brooke, correct me if I'm wrong, or whoever else.

Um I think that locking in a rate for NSA is probably one of the more important things um out of this discussion.

And so uh I would like to pursue the option that allows us to do that, is the only option to do that, having it come out of the GPIP fund, or is it possible through another way without superseding the uh appropriations authority of future assemblies?

That's more of a brook question.

Well, I don't know.

I think that's more of a policy question.

I think it's a policy question more than anything.

It's uh you're welcome to come up, Brooke, if you'd like to talk about it, but I think um yeah, I think so we can say no to this right now, it'll go back.

I mean, this this is actually not an agreement.

This is an agreement with the GPIP board um and NSRA, and if we send it back to them, I think they've heard a lot of what we talked about.

Um and that they'll bring forward something different.

That's one option.

The other option, and right now we have a motion on the table, so we're gonna have to do something with the one we have.

Um we can't just form another one.

And so the question is what do we do with this?

I I've said from the beginning, send it back, get it fixed, bring it back.

Um, and the get it fixed part is to have the GPIP board do their nine percent thing, and then we get to figure out how we're gonna fund it from there.

So I'm not trying to cast this into the into the pac, you know, on their shoulders.

I'm saying directly what it is I would like to see them do.

And so they've also heard about CPI, right?

So I think that would be another thing that they need to they would want to take up again.

Now they may vote again to say no to CPI, that's fine.

They can send it back up to us and we can decide what to do with it at that point.

So I'm encouraging us to send it back.

I'm encouraging to send it back because I think it's not currently up to them to subsidize out of their funding.

So Josh has a comment.

Um Rachel has a comment.

Thank you.

Um not to throw more fuel on the fire, but um, I just did want to raise the issue that these leases are set to expire next month, um, which will put NSRA into holdover status.

Um and they're the current leases um in holdover status, the rent increases to 175% of the current rent, so they they pay three quarters more.

Um and if you don't want that to happen, the proper mechanism is to extend the two current leases.

Um can you just just a quick moment on the CPI thing?

If we're working off of the assessed value, that is the CPI because we that's what we should be working on, because the land may become significantly more than that, or maybe significantly less.

To my mind, that supersedes the the going for a it's not like a because we're working off of what the land assessed value of the land is.

So um it and that's what we should be doing at the nine percent or whatever percentage of the actual assessed value.

So that's why I don't have much heartburn for the by the CPI if you think about it, because it's off the actual assessed value in 10 years.

So I I know except for the 10% thing, but but as far as the um Yeah, I'm Katie.

I'm having trouble understanding the $800 a month rent, which is you know, section 2.1, less you shall pay rent each month, blah blah blah, at a rate of $800 versus the assessed value and the adjustment of the rent.

Can you explain this?

The assessed value and adjustment of the rent kicks in at the first 10-year renewal, and then it gets redone at the next appraised value at the next 10-year renewal.

Okay, and so that's the it can be up to 10%.

But that is just the standard language from our template.

We didn't the legal office didn't get direction on what the GPIP board wanted the renewal rent to be.

We just stuck our regular template in there without direction from the GPIP board on what the rent should be for those renewal periods.

But the REM will be going up.

Under the current structure, but that wasn't a GPIP decision that was legal using our template because the direction from the GPIP board was these lease provisions, and then all of our standard provisions.

And we didn't have directions specifically on the renewal rate, so we use the standard provision.

Yeah.

Okay.

That okay, sorry.

That makes Katie still have the floor.

No, I think that makes more sense for me.

Um that gives me a little less heartburn.

I was I was concerned about an $800 lease that doesn't adjust for 40 years.

That is seems very similar to the previous situation that was just mentioned.

So if there is built-in adjustments, I am I think okay with that.

Um I think the funding question that you're talking about where it comes from.

I just I don't want to leave this decision up to a future assembly.

I don't think that provides stability.

I'm not willing to bet that you know every assembly forever is gonna back that.

So I will I don't know what the mechanisms are, but I want to hear from finance like what can we do to lock in this kind of rate while also addressing your concerns about where it comes from because it seems right now those are incompatible for further comment.

I think we are I think we need to come to some agreement.

We're kind of circling around here.

So new new ideas is where we're at.

JJ.

Great transition.

Um I have a split the difference opinion or option.

Um so that $800 could increase, there's still a subsidy in the contract, um, and then the other portion to get it to $800 total could come from that different funding source.

So we could request or do it at the table tonight.

We'd have to consider what our our options are for the mechanics of that.

Uh, but if the monthly instead of 800 was 2,000, and then either through fisheries enhancement or line item in the general fund, that additional subsidy could come from a different funding source.

Does anyone have any opinions on splitting the difference?

I would say um I like it in theory, but it still adds confusion because then you're still uh trying to get money from the general fund.

Uh I would like to find answer to Katie's question, and she was asking kind of Brooke if it's okay to ask her to come up here.

Brooke, can you come up?

You heard Katie's question.

Could you answer that, please?

It's not this isn't only um a finance issue, it's kind of a legal one too.

But I would say that the way that it's being done, the the lease is the is the only way to do that because you can't commit future assemblies to appropriations, like that has to come through an adopted budget, so there's no way to um commit them to funding for 40 years um to line up with the terms of a lease.

And then a a follow-up question.

Um this is currently our only option to pursue, I think you know what we what we have recognized is important, which is uh affordable rate for ENSRA.

Um is there a different policy mechanism that you know of that we could put into ordinance that would allow us to do what is being discussed, or is that just not legally viable because of the future appropriations thing?

I think some of the issue or complication in this case is the length of this lease.

Um because it is uh what for 50 years total.

I think it's 10 years with four 10-year remote uh renewals, is that right?

I think I think it comes out to 40.

Oh, it's 40.

Okay.

So that is part of the problem here.

Is that technically this would not be revisited then until the end of those 40 years?

I'm more like it that would be a situation where if if they're if you're like, oh, I know of a policy ordinance that we could pass that would allow this, we could extend their current lease and we could have a longer discussion, but it's it doesn't sound like we've got a good option on the table there.

Or it's like it's something that requires a lot of thinking and work to put together.

Yeah.

I'm trying to find uh the correct way to answer this without getting myself or the city in too much trouble, but essentially this lease is being used as a mechanism to subsidize, which is not how leases are intended to be used.

So the issue isn't necessarily that there's no way to deal with this, but that there's no way to structure it the same way that the lease does, because this is not typically the intended purpose of a lease.

Okay.

So this is new, I promise.

Well, Josh has a comment.

Yeah, I just did some math here, and uh so the starting at the $800 per month, is where we should on the same page that at the end of 40 years, it will have only increased to 1171 dollars.

Um so it's roughly one percent per year that it goes up.

Um but so at the end of the 40 years, it'll still only be 1,171 dollars and 28 cents per month because of the way it's worded with that 10% cap.

So regardless of what the value of the land is, it will still be substituted, you know that 10% cap.

Okay, torn.

Yeah, so honestly, the eight hundred dollars is so nominal that's not really an issue for me.

I mean, if we were getting anything close to it, but we're basically saying we're it's a nominal fee.

It's not quite Fortress of the Bear 50 bucks a year, but it's getting there with there.

Um the issue there uh in and if I could fix anything, it'd be that.

But the um the issue is that if we want to ensure Nensera has a inexpensive place to do it, the this is really our only way, and we it's a it's kind of interesting that we may find ourselves having to subsidize GPIP because of it, but at least then we only have to subsidize it as much as we need to.

I mean, because we have to is it saying if GPIP doesn't need it this year or as much we can we don't have to do the full uh thirty-two thousand dollar difference?

Um or maybe more.

But uh so the question in my mind is is do we want to go for something approaching market rate or not?

And if the answer is yes, and invite them to apply for subsidies from the from the city, great, but there's no guarantees.

Um or do we say we're gonna subsidize this because GPIP's a special case and understanding that we'll probably gonna have to subsidize GPIP then at some point in the future, maybe not immediately.

So if you if you want to hang out, you're welcome to hang up.

I'm just gonna say it.

I don't want GPIP to spend general fund money.

DPIP board is not authorized to spend our money, and it's up to us to do that thing.

I'm that's I mean, this isn't about NSRA Tim, what's it gonna take to get you on board?

Send it back, let's get the accounting right, like figure out how we're gonna do that.

I mean I I'm I'm always how did we get to fifty dollars a year for the fortress of the bears?

Like, you know, are we giving the GPIP board the authorization to to enter into other things like that too and spend more of our money?

You know, I think that's I mean, this is a policy thing for me.

This is a this is uh enterprise funds don't subsidize, like we subsidize.

So and I really can't imagine another assembly not subsidizing ENSRA personally.

I mean, if so they should be voted out.

So in order to keep it in GPIP and thus allow us to and lock in the long-term lease, would you be okay if we send it back for them to uh negotiate a a better rate?

So in order to keep it in GPIP and thus allow us to and lock in the long term lease would you be okay if we send it back for them to uh negotiate a a better rate like a higher rate yeah like what they're what they're authorized to do but I'm one vote I mean there's more I don't know the votes on this but um I don't know okay we're running out of moments here and we're running out of new ideas so it's time to decide if we want to vote do we want to send it back if we say no it goes back if we say yes we're moving forward.

Can we do we want to take a five minute break?

Or can we just pick and ask each person how they're intending on voting is that is I don't no that's not how this works.

No Kevin sorry no that's when we asked Sarah to count the votes I like Katie's five minutes and please keep it to five folks all right I think we're all back together.

I definitely told you I would not work thank you Katie for that awesome idea I think that gave us all a chance to come up with new ideas and chit chat a little bit brooke would you come on up and give us a solution to our problems please so I don't know that it's simple but it could work so the way that it currently works with the fish box tax is that um 40% of that tax goes to the general fund 30% to the harbor fund and another 30% to fisheries enhancement you could change code to have that portion that goes to the general fund go to the GPIP fund instead is no different than just taking from the general fund now.

But we're trying to find a solution that gives this over time.

Ordinance had a question lost it that money will fluctuate over time as well depending on fish caught yeah I think just pointing out I think Rachel had a comment I'm okay questions for Brooke on that one we're looking for a solution about how to codify this I think that is one option that we can continue look forward to why would that be well I don't know if we have to give them the whole amount do we I don't know well that's my question is like we're we're discussing uh a permanent appropriation or whatever to GPIP fund how do we ensure that that is used for the purpose that we're discussing tonight which is NSR's subsidization of their lease I mean I think if you tie the reason for the transfer into the GPIP fund for the ability to subsidize fisheries related leases that would be um a pretty clean way to do that that's a good idea.

There's a lot of fisheries related leases out there is the only thing what I just would want to be pretty specific because it's a park for maritime and marine and fisheries like business.

So Rachel is that an ordinance you could craft that would be that specific I think we can do that yeah okay uh JJ question for Brooke 40% would be the majority of that tax that distribution correct the majority of that goes to one place yes but you could change it to 30 10 30 30 or any sort of allocation okay so we're not all kind of nodding in unison that 40% would go to GPIP or kind of thinking some portion of fixed fish box tax would go to GPIP is that what I'm hearing?

Okay.

Okay.

Um, not question for Brooke, but if we were to recall a couple meetings ago, I gave a report because I'm the Harbin Harbor Commission's liaison that that group did vote um to recommend to this body to increase the fish box tax from 10 to 15 SSCPI adjustment.

And there are two sponsors looking at that bringing bringing an adjustment forward.

So we're we're having a rate increase in a proportion adjustment all in a similar time frame.

So this is kind of not necessarily as clean as an update as we were thinking, but but thank you for that, Brooke.

That's a very valid and important.

And um, and that's why you know you get the big bucks.

I appreciate you being a director here.

So this is speculative right now because we can't do it tonight either if we want to.

Um I think uh so what I would suggest is we vote on this.

If it votes yes, I don't think you'd have a problem finding two people to have to create an ordinance to do that to allocate from the fish box tax.

Um to make up that gap.

Um a couple of thoughts.

One, we need to know how much money we're talking to try and roughly hit the 32,000 right now.

The other thing is that's gonna flip like I said, it's gonna fluctuate, it's probably okay, and it may not survive because I've been told a number of times that we that that whole program is on shaky ground.

That what is on the shaky ground?

I don't want to make a self-fulfilling prophecy here.

Um challenged.

What's that it's getting addressed?

Okay, there's two sponsors and it's getting addressed.

Yeah, I'm just saying that the the whole fish box tax, if it got challenged legally, might have issues.

So are you suggesting, Tor, that sorry, Tim.

Are you suggesting that we vote yes on this as is?

And then with the good faith commitment of two sponsors saying we're going to work with staff on an ordinance.

That's the only thing we can do to work with Brooke and our staff.

Or we vote no, and we go back to the drawing board.

But it was saying, but if if we if it gets voted yes, then we would go try and do that.

We can't do that tonight if we want to, because it's not on the agenda.

Well, we could what I'm saying is if we we get two sponsors that commit to it and promise to bring something forth, we might be able to get the votes to vote yes.

Or maybe we vote no, in which case we say we renegotiate.

So if we vote yes, do that.

If we vote no, renegotiate.

Josh.

Rachel.

Um, Brooke, was your suggestion that the market rate be charged to NSERA and then the subsidy come in through the fish box tax to reduce their payments, or that the lease go in at the subsidized rate, and then the subsidy go in to make up the GPIP's budget shortfall.

I don't think I got that far in my thought process.

That's what I was wondering.

Any more questions for Brooke for the 12th time?

She's up here.

Thank you, Brooke.

Um, I'm it's not the only way to do it.

I think we can vote it down.

We can get them to come back with a marker rate thing.

We can get two sponsors to sponsor a subsidy directly to the NSRA.

I mean, it can it's just accounting, it'll end up in the same spot.

They'll pay $800, and then the other money will go to the GPIP board, but it's clean.

The lease is square, and uh and they have met their obligation as far as I'm concerned.

I don't want to get into another circumstance like the portraits of the bears, for example.

Like it's market rate, that's how that thing works.

They they're running operations.

That's a as much as their goal is to be out of business, they're currently operating.

We need to make sure that they are made whole.

I have a general comment on this.

I'd like to speak to the future generations of Sitka.

Um I trust you.

Uh, the premise of this conversation so far has been to not trust future sitkins to say we need to lock something in today because they're not gonna do a good enough job.

And that's just not our decision to make.

Like we are all stewards of this place, we all love this place, we all make hard decisions every time, but we haven't defunded any of the other line items that we've had in there because we see the value and we understand, and we want to be here together, holding ourselves up.

So the premise of this conversation from the other groups at this table is saying, no, they're not gonna make wise choices.

We need to do this now because we know best, even though the future always circumstances change.

Things are always different with new factors, and to say no, we we know now best for the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years.

Future sickness, I trust you.

Okay, Kevin always says very little good is done after nine o'clock.

Final comments, and I think we're gonna take a vote of that point, Kevin.

Thank you.

Uh respectfully, I understand what you're saying, JJ, but I I don't I don't see it that way.

I see it as um providing long-term continuity for an absolutely crucial organization that benefits this community in ways that can't be measured financially, uh, among other things.

And we all know what this table, what it can be like when you're facing tight budgets, and you can there's so the volume of line items and items to think about can be overwhelming, and I would hate to see just human error or oversight or whatever accidental.

I don't think for one minute that a future generation is gonna not value it.

But that's my opinion.

Let's just vote on it at this point.

Katie.

So I do that too fast sometimes.

Um, but I'm wondering, you know, if this is gonna be voted down tonight, like we have a lease extension that needs to be considered.

Um is that uh maybe question for you, Sarah.

Is that just something that comes?

Um, does that need sponsors to come forward?

I mean, how do we how do we extend the runway here a little bit?

Um my understanding um from Rachel is that it would just be it would just be a future item, an action item on a future agenda.

So we have four meetings next week, so okay.

Um I think we could pick one to put that on, but then I guess my question would be we wouldn't I'm not sure we would want to postpone this item.

Yeah, it sounds like we don't want to actually do that at all.

It sounds like however this vote goes is how this vote goes, and then if additional action is needed next week, that just comes as an additional item next week.

The GPIP board meets on Thursday to discuss whatever happens here tonight.

They do not meet on Thursday.

We do vote notices are already it could be revised, there's still time if if we were if it happens first thing tomorrow morning.

Okay, so just to line out our understanding for everyone, if this is not passed tonight, it will go back to the GPIP board with all of the comments that we have made for their understanding and interpretation of what we want them to do, and then we will receive whatever they come up with on Thursday to be considered at a meeting next week.

Is that correct?

I guess I or an extension, yeah, an extension.

Right.

I mean like an extension, a new lease, whatever, whatever the GPIP board comes up with to address the comments that we've made tonight would be considered next week.

I I think those are separate questions.

So whatever the GPIP board comes up with needs to come back to this body at a regular meeting as another go at this lease.

Um the issue I was raising is if that goes into May, then SER is gonna be a holdover status, and their rent's gonna increase by 75%.

So separately, right?

Um if it looks like that timeline's going to be that long, the body may want to add to a special meeting with proper notice and extension of their lease to give them time to not have to pay the holdover rate.

Okay.

So that would just be like however the vote goes, um, then they consider it again, but we separately of everything would next week consider a lease extension to allow them a longer run line.

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

Yes, if we don't vote yes.

Maybe speaking out of term, but I'm just gonna put it out there.

So this Gary, this wouldn't necessarily have to be on the Thursday agenda for you don't need to revise your agenda, is what I'm saying.

It could be at next month's meeting.

If it goes that way it's I think we did a lease extension with visit sick to buy more time to get that one back to the correct commission, also it's it's not different than something we've done before.

It was a contract, it was a contract, not a lease, but it's a similar thing.

Or I guess it was going to terminate, they didn't have a holdover provision.

I'm probably not, I don't think I'm on the same page.

So there's two different things that we're talking about.

The lease extension.

Right.

The lease extension is just totally separate if figuring this out is going to take longer than the start of May.

Um just so that NSR is not punished with a 75% rate increase, right?

Because this isn't moving forward right now.

Or maybe it is, we'll find out.

Final comments.

It could pass.

Anyone else?

I I do just want to reiterate that what you said about uh commission or a board not making appropriations for the city is uh very impactful.

That does seem really inappropriate.

You know, doing hard things isn't a bad thing.

So figuring this one out is not gonna hurt all of us to work our way through this process.

And I think um, and again, this isn't about NSRA in my mind.

This is about um making sure that we don't set up precedent that gets us in problems with down the road.

Like we don't we don't allow anybody to spend the general fund money, and I think it's probably in statute actually that we're responsible for that.

So um I think that's very important.

So that's why okay.

Sarah, here we go.

All right, the motion on the floor is to approve the lease agreement uh between the city and borough of SICA and NSARA for block four lot one of the Gary Paxton Industrial Park.

Ms.

Riley No.

Mayor Idson Price is not here.

Ms.

Carlson.

No.

Mr.

Mosier?

Yes.

Mr.

Pike?

No.

Mr.

Christensen.

Yes.

And Mr.

Celine.

No.

Okay, the motion fails.

Two four.

Josh, bring us back a lease extension, please.

Three months, I think.

I've lost track of where I am in this thing now.

Thank you.

Okay, this brings us to persons we heard on any item on or off the agenda, not to exceed three minutes.

If you're interested in speaking to the assembly, please come forward and state your name for the record.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, Mayor Assembly.

Uh my name is Chris Yosted, Commercial Fisherman and InSRAW board member.

Um sorry I didn't get a speak at the last agenda item.

I was at baseball practice, so um saw this was still going on, so thought I'd come down after hearing some of the discussion.

Um things I do want to comment on.

Um actually I do think using some of the fish box tax would be appropriate.

Um if we're talking subsidiation and how do we pay for that subsidation.

Um those two facilities that are sitting out at GPIP um produce many of NSRA's cohost and King Salmon that are sport and charter sectors target.

Um so I feel as though the fish box tax would be appropriate and helping for that subsidation.

Um but overall um the GPIP park has been used as a economic driver for the community to uh stimulate new economic activity, and I would definitely say that in SRA is a perfect example of that.

Um I was just looking through my board book, and um we had some stats in there that NSRA um over its years since 1984 has given 400 million dollars to the commercial fishing fleet.

Um obviously not all just Sitka's fleet, but um of the commercial fishing fleet around Southeast and uh Seattle, Washington based areas.

So um NSRO is a huge economic driver um for here and abroad.

Um Sarah also has 50 employees, many of them located here.

So um, you know, it's they're they're kind of one of our quieter um organizations that contributes a lot to sit game and um Petersburg Cake, just all of our Southeast communities.

So um I definitely understand your guys' conundrum that you're having to go through, but um in SRAW is definitely one of the uh kind of poster childs for what the park was meant to be, and not necessarily a revenue generator in itself for the city, but um more of an economic driver for the community and Southeast as a whole.

So um I just wanted to put that out there since I missed the first comment.

Um, it sounds like this will be coming back to you guys.

So I just wanted to kind of have my little piece here.

So um, yeah, thanks for the good discussion there.

Thank you.

Further public comment.

Seeing none brings us to our reports.

Um I don't have the mayor's report.

So we'll I'll hold mine for uh liaison.

Josh.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

I wanted to provide a report related to the fire department.

As we all know, fire chief Greg Warren will be retiring at the end of this month after more than 30 years of dedicated service to our city.

I have hired Brian McLaughlin as our interim fire chief slash emergency manager while we continue searching for our next fire chief to fill the permanent position.

Brian has decades of emergency management experience, including within Sitka and the state of Alaska and has been volunteering as our search and rescue leader at the Sitka Fire Department since 2024.

I'm confident that Brian will provide the oversight of and support to our valuable staff and volunteers as we work together to keep our community safe.

That's all I am.

Thank you.

Rachel.

Uh not much to report.

I'm caught up following vacation and things are moving along.

Kevin.

I attended the uh Proxion Rec Commission meeting today.

Uh they discussed one uh application um uh for commercial use and uh was approved.

Uh also discuss uh the budget um for GPIP.

No recommendations were made, no comments really made.

Um I'm sorry, did I say GPEP?

I meant sorry, I meant to say parks and rec.

Sorry.

My mind's on this.

Uh parks and rec.

Um and recently I found out someone sent me some pictures of some damage that was done probably unintentionally on uh lower molar.

Um looks like somebody drove a tractor or four-wheeler or something and tried to clear out some snow, but they inadvertently um pulled or dig dug too much dirt or something like that.

It's kind of a problem.

And so I'd encourage people to not do that kind of thing uh without approval from city staff because they're gonna have to try to fix that, and I don't think they have sand to fix it.

Uh thanks.

Ms.

Ryland.

Uh planning commission update.

Uh last planning commission, the folks approved.

Um they they went over the short-term rental report.

There was a couple short-term rental applications as well that got approved.

But um one of the policy discussions uh that was started was you know, one of the figures in here, the average implied revenue per permit is $29,000.

Um so those uh spots are often just rented for the summer months, and you're able to make around 30 grand doing that and not having the wear and tear that a long-term renter has.

It's really a market condition that uh is stacked against um long-term rentals, right?

It makes it makes perfect economic sense uh for people to do short-term rentals.

So given that, you know, what can we do as a community to incentivize or encourage long-term rentals was the question that was asked by one of the commissioners to which I did not have an answer.

Um, but you know, it is something that um I hope that we can all be thinking about um to that regard.

Uh I will just flag that tomorrow night's planning commission meeting.

Um we will be having a discussion over uh ADU code changes.

Um it's gonna be uh a robust discussion, and that is one of those options that we have to kind of increase the the housing stock that is uh intended for long-term rental use.

So Harbor Commission's meeting last Wednesday.

Uh they did vote uh on a recommendation for mortg increase.

Um, you know, our last budget meeting there wasn't one.

Um, and it was the three percent uh the working value in the budget now is four.

That's what was recommended from finance and part of that kind of three year adjustment cycle.

Um, and then the amendment to the three percent was that the Harbor uh commission promises to work on strategies um to make up that difference from other funding sources.

Um part of that discussion was reallocating fish box tax uh general fund into harbors, so that is a conundrum we are under.

Um so this is a bigger, bigger topic.

Um if their earlier recommendation of increasing fish box tax from ten dollars a box to 15 passes, then hopefully there'll be more money to go around to all.

Um other kind of conversations around the community, you know, that $15 was just a CPI adjustment.

And if we're finding more needs, then perhaps a higher value is needed.

Um so things are happening at Harbors Commission, and anyone is welcome to attend.

It's the third Wednesday of the month, six o'clock in this room.

Thank you.

Uh sustainability.

Uh, we had the awesome opportunity for Sarah and her team to come in and work with them.

She did a great job of helping them with Robert's rules of order.

Um, and that's an awesome uh group.

If you haven't been part of sustainability, that is a that's a rock star group they put a lot of work in.

They're gonna be coming to us.

I'm not sure exactly when the next couple of meetings, somewhere, the 20th, yeah.

Um, and they got a their plan.

Uh it's amazing the work that they put into that.

I mean, this is pretty incredible.

I know they are uh there are organization that deals with solid waste, so they're also interested in working with you two guys, I think, to work on the bear uh issue.

So I think you know, if we're looking for a group that's gonna take something like that on this, might very well be that group.

They'll be here, they'll be talking.

They're quite nervous, so be nice to them when they're here doing their presentation, please.

But um, I think we're gonna be impressed as usual with their work.

So they they work hard, so awesome group.

Any other reports from liaison's Sarah?

All right, um, just a reminder we have a number of meetings next week.

Uh Tuesday are the annual evaluations for the municipal attorney and municipal administrator.

Tuesday night is a second interview with administrator um applicant Stephen Dahl, and that will be by Zoom.

Uh Thursday night is our final budget meeting.

Um, we're going to talk all things budget.

It'll be enterprise funds, internal service funds, special revenue funds, the general fund, capital improvement um program, and then Friday night at five.

Um Wednesday night is the same.

Both the interviews start at 5 p.m.

Um, be a second interview uh with Jenny Albert by Zoom, and then the uh following Tuesday is a regular meeting on the 28th.

Thank you.

Any other reports?

It brings us to motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

We are adjourned.