[2:28] I call the assembly committee of the whole to order at 6 p.m. on June 2nd,

[2:35] 2025. Mr. Steininger, would you read the land acknowledgement, please? We would

[2:40] like to acknowledge that the city and bureau of Juno is on click land and wish

[2:43] to honor the indigenous people of this land. For more than 10,000 years,

[2:47] Alaskan Native people have been and continue to be integral to the

[2:51] well-being of our community. We're grateful to be in this place, a part of

[2:55] this community, and to honor the culture, traditions, and resilience of a

[2:59] clinka people.

[3:03] Thank you, Mr. Shininger. Madame Clerk, would you please call the role? Thank

[3:07] you, Mr. Chair. If I might just note that all members are present in person.

[3:13] Thank you for being here. The quorum is present. Thank you, madame clerk.

[3:18] Um, any changes to the agenda? Seeing none, we'll note the

[3:24] agenda as approved. So, on to our agenda topics. First topic, Hescoberry

[3:30] installation phase 1B/Future

[3:33] phases. A dense memo in the packet. Um, the manager does seek some direction

[3:42] from the assembly, but manager Kuster, start us off, please. Thank you, Deputy

[3:48] Mayor Smith. So, I have pulled together a a very short presentation from images

[3:53] included in this memo, uh, mostly as a way to help organize my thoughts and

[3:58] walk you guys through the memo. So, um, uh, next slide.

[4:05] This is an image of 1A at 17 ft. So if you recall last committee of the whole

[4:11] you gave staff direction to um continue with installing Hesco barriers for um on

[4:18] CBJ property. It was about a a half a million dollar project. We could do it

[4:23] relatively quickly. That project is wrapping up. And I just want to um show

[4:27] that at 17 ft the amount of public property that is protected there is

[4:32] significant. Um at 18 ft you're protecting 271 parcels from inundation.

[4:39] Um so again that that that work is being done that decision was made but uh I

[4:44] think was a you can you can see here um the significant protection that that

[4:48] decision made. Next slide.

[4:52] So, um 1A at 18 feet does have some downstream impacts and specifically

[4:58] there are nine homes on Meadow Lane that would be um adversely impacted as a

[5:05] result of 1A. And so this slide just shows how staff is working to try to

[5:12] mitigate that. And um the uh the proposed mitigation there would be a

[5:18] 3-ft tall 30 foot wide uh supersack, so sandbag barrier across the trail that

[5:24] you see in the bottom right hand corner. And um we believe that would prevent uh

[5:30] a lot of the water from flowing into the neighborhood. Uh and we do have

[5:35] permission from DOT to um put that in a temporary manner. So that would be

[5:40] something we would deploy like you know when we know that the basin is releasing

[5:44] we would deploy those uh those supersacks and then we would remove

[5:48] those supersacks. But but the good news is we do feel like we have a way to

[5:52] protect not only the nine homes adversely impacted from 1A but also the

[5:56] the remainder of the homes um in that neighborhood approximately 30 homes in

[6:00] that neighborhood. Um so uh let's talk about 1B because really this memo is

[6:07] about 1B. So, at the May 12th committee of the

[6:11] whole, we also ask for input from you on uh extending continuing to extend Hesco

[6:17] barriers all the way to Brotherhood Bridge. And this protects 96 additional

[6:21] parcels. However, there's a lot of housing units there. Um a lot of multif

[6:26] family housing. So, we calculated it to be about 190 housing units. Also,

[6:31] there's a lot of commercial property there. So, you know, commercial

[6:34] infrastructure. So, pretty high value property that uh that that protects.

[6:38] However, extending that we don't have time to do any armoring there and it

[6:42] needs about $1.4 million of armoring along that uh that bank. Um so that

[6:48] would be something we would have to come back uh next year and do. There's also a

[6:52] concern that the weight of the Hesco barriers on that uh river bank if we did

[6:56] truly have a catastrophic event, right, we can't guarantee that there wouldn't

[6:59] be uh be a failure there. just installing the Hesco barriers on that

[7:03] just continuing on 1B is about an $850,000 project and again it's on non

[7:10] CVJ eight non CVJ parcels and so you gave us direction on May 12th to go do

[7:15] some public outreach and you know get some more information from that affected

[7:19] area and we did meet with every one of the property owners along there and

[7:23] everyone except for Riverview Senior Living was amendable to putting Hesco

[7:27] barriers uh on their property. Um, you know, the memo states that without the

[7:33] mandate of an LI, it would be difficult to enter into people's property and, you

[7:37] know, install those barriers uh if they didn't consent to it. I think, you know,

[7:42] we would use the same argument for um that we have emergency powers to be able

[7:47] to do that and it and it's a very valid argument. It's just, you know, when we

[7:52] had the LI and the buyin of all of those residents, it it's just a stronger

[7:57] argument to be able to uh exercise those powers. So, there's no like legal

[8:02] argument there. It it just is a stronger a stronger sense of purpose for phase

[8:07] one and and the couple of properties that we have had that have been not

[8:11] amendable to installing barriers. Another challenge with phase 1B is that

[8:16] uh the armoring that it would be required there is not on uh so the the

[8:21] the property owners that that the Hesco barriers would have barriers on it are

[8:25] not the same property owners that would have the armoring. So in phase one we

[8:29] were able to say hey you're significantly benefiting from the um

[8:33] armoring so you should you should pay more uh for four properties and those

[8:38] four properties did not object to phase one. In this case, the the riverfront

[8:42] property is owned by a DOT and a private property owner that owns just the sliver

[8:47] of Riverbank and and is not interested at all in armoring that property,

[8:51] doesn't have value to them. Very amenable to the work being done and and

[8:55] allowing us entry just is just a challenge. It's, you know, um and it

[9:00] kind of weighs into that fairness issue as you guys evaluate how to proceed with

[9:05] 1B and who uh who pays for what. Um, so I think I I articulated uh some of the

[9:13] cons of um 1B now and I guess another con would be uh participating in

[9:19] financing for uh future stages and and phase two. It could disincentivize that

[9:25] participation. I mean I made a strong argument on May 12th that we just are

[9:28] going to have to uh count on our our residents, you know, agreeing to

[9:34] participate in long-term solutions even if they're uh already benefiting. And I

[9:38] think that argument is still valid. Uh nevertheless, uh we couldn't for example

[9:42] go back and do an LI for any improvement that has already occurred. Right? So

[9:47] like we could go back and do an LI maybe for the armoring but not for the Hesco

[9:50] barriers because those Hesco barriers are already installed and the

[9:54] improvement has to be before the L. So that takes me uh to chatting a little

[10:00] bit about Oh, I'm sorry. I did do want to mention one other thing about phase

[10:04] one uh B is there is a um kind of some new inundation in that lower uh that

[10:11] middle square there. Uh there's just some some new uh water that we see uh in

[10:18] like the near the Pavitz building and those parking lots and we're still um

[10:24] working with Michael Baker to see how that uh that property would be in

[10:28] inundated. But importantly, phase 1B cures the and protects those metal lane

[10:33] homes that 1A adversely um impacts. So there are there are pros and those pros

[10:38] and cons are outlined in your memo. But I think when uh fa you can next slide.

[10:45] When I was thinking about this and trying to kind of figure out how to

[10:48] present these different phases to you guys, I I really thought about phase

[10:52] two. Well, we've always talked about phase two. And I think it's hard to make

[10:56] uh you know make these incremental decisions about phase one without

[11:00] thinking about phase two. And as originally envisioned, we uh propose

[11:06] installing barriers all along all populated sides of the river for phase

[11:10] two. This is um you know six months ago when we were advocating for funding from

[11:15] uh the delegation and others. Uh that phase two uh the cost estimate is $17

[11:20] million. That uh means it's $23.5 million for phase one and phase two. and

[11:28] you really do get a diminishing uh level of return return on your investment the

[11:33] more you spend. So, um and I think that's the one of the policy decisions

[11:37] that the assembly is going to have to struggle with once we're able to give

[11:41] you of course more information that uh with phase one 1A and 1B, you're

[11:47] protecting all but 40 homes in a 17t event. And there's lots of assumptions

[11:52] there, right? like what if we have an 18 event then we would uh you know

[11:56] potentially protect other homes but but basically you know you're getting a lot

[12:00] more expensive per parcel as you uh protect some of those outlying um

[12:07] neighborhoods. Well, those neighborhoods are experiencing very real flooding,

[12:11] very real uh events, but you know, there's that you you will have to weigh

[12:16] that kind of public purpose of prot using public funds to protect the the

[12:22] most uh the most people possible. So, as I thought about phase 1B and phase uh

[12:29] two, I really wanted to be able to bring you guys more answers to help you make

[12:36] those decisions, which is why, you know, when I was thinking about it, I thought

[12:40] phase 1B is obvious, but but it's also something that it would be reasonable to

[12:44] make a a riskbased analysis and say, how likely is an 18 foot event? Um, and can

[12:51] we mitigate for phase 1 A? Yes, we can and delay that until next construction

[12:56] season. The reality is we are going to know a lot more after um our yokaloop

[13:01] season this year. And frankly, the public's going to feel um a lot more

[13:06] motivated to participate and pressure you all for continuing flood mitigation

[13:10] if we have a a a really uh high flood event. And if we don't, that pressure

[13:16] will probably um not exist as much. So just to kind of walk you through my

[13:21] thought process as I spent a significant amount of time trying to to think

[13:25] through this uh next

[13:30] slide. So the next next uh real question that you've all been facing is what

[13:35] about View Drive? It's just a really tough pickle. This thumb of property of

[13:40] 20 properties. There's actually 22 properties, but two of them CBJ owns and

[13:44] are unoccupied. is 20 homes very close to the lake uh makes it very their

[13:51] elevation makes it very difficult uh to protect those properties. So um we have

[13:57] uh the

[14:02] US Mr. President mind if we ask questions right now while we're

[14:08] Sure. So my understanding is that View Drive and some of those other low-lying

[14:13] areas have flooded many more times than the two Yakahop floods that August 623

[14:22] and August 624 that View Drive has been flooded numerous times that were just

[14:29] high level or lower Yakal releases and like I've been on that river View Drive

[14:36] has got like annual or bianual flooding on it. Do we have information about how

[14:42] often View Drive was flooded prior to this

[14:46] situation? Because they might have already had they were already facing

[14:49] this um before the rest of the community was facing the Yakahop is my

[14:54] understanding. It's a flooded area. Yes. So, some homes uh on View Drive flood at

[15:00] 13 ft uh and not all homes. Um, so many of the homes have experienced uh

[15:07] repeated uh flooding. Some of the homes have taken um mitigation measures

[15:12] themselves to help protect against that. When you look at an 18 ft flood event on

[15:17] our interactive map, and that's a map that you can access through the CBJ

[15:21] website. If you go to uh if you go to the CBJ homepage, there's a there's a

[15:25] flood button, and then from there, it takes you to the University of Alaska

[15:29] Southeast uh interactive map. And that map is really useful because you can

[15:33] pick a flood stage and then toggle over individual homes and areas and and do

[15:37] the depth. And so I did that before this meeting to say, okay, at 18 feet, how

[15:41] deep is the water on View Drive? And the answer is really varies. So there are

[15:44] some homes that are only a couple only have a couple feet of of like in that

[15:48] image. The depth for some homes is only a couple of feet feet. For some homes,

[15:52] it's nine feet. For some uh you know yards, it's 12 feet. So really uh

[15:58] matters. details matter, right? But but you are correct that some of the homes

[16:03] um on View Drive do routinely uh experience some some water. Um in fact,

[16:10] two of the homes are in the flood way and the flood way is a more uh difficult

[16:15] has a more rigorous level of permitting than the flood plane. And um so when we

[16:21] talk about Hesco barriers, we're also concerned about being able to get

[16:25] permitting and maintain our FIP status for those particular uh those particular

[16:32] properties. Now, now that probably means that there's some combination of

[16:35] solutions out there for Few Drive and Army Corps of Engineers has uh directed

[16:40] some attention. and they've pulled pulled their um principal engineer from

[16:44] the long-term solution and they are having them look at Vue Drive and do a

[16:49] feasibility analysis for Vue Drive. I know that uh deputy director cotch and

[16:55] uh deputy manager bar and mayor will be meeting with you drive residents this

[16:58] week to talk about options for fug drive. We also have uh petitioned the um

[17:04] um natural resources conservation service for participation in a um

[17:11] program uh that uh it buyouts are one of the solutions, but it proposes other

[17:17] solutions for homes that experience these multiple losses and understand

[17:21] that they're looking at booking uh some travel this summer to come and do some

[17:24] of that that analysis work. So, we're we're really trying to, you know, figure

[17:29] out what uh what can be done with F Drive because it really is I mean I I

[17:33] know that the um families that live there, I'm sure are very frustrated uh

[17:38] because it because of just the elevation and the location of Vue Drive. So,

[17:42] that's kind of the summary of View Drive. And um I think that's my last

[17:48] slide. So, you can probably stop there. I we'll keep talking about um how to how

[17:55] to pay for it if you guys uh with at your discretion. Uh Chair Smith. Okay.

[18:03] Maybe we'll pause just for some questions on inundation or things. Mr.

[18:07] Kelly, uh thank you. Uh you are mentioning that

[18:11] the Riverview Senior Center uh would not it is not agreeing to the uh phase 1B.

[18:19] Um, do we know what would be the impacts like if we had hesco barriers

[18:24] everywhere but on on 1B except for Riverview Senior Center?

[18:31] No, we haven't done modeling of individual uh properties. I mean,

[18:35] generally speaking, that's the continuous line is uh most effective.

[18:42] Thank you, Miss Wall. Thank you, Chair Smith.

[18:49] Um, in your memo you talk about pros and cons of

[18:54] 1B now versus later. You don't mention do my question

[19:02] there. There's mention here about the core being, you know, potentially

[19:08] um challenged to help us if we're protecting areas that

[19:13] are would be protected over 16 feet. Do you and this is probably just a guess

[19:20] but based on your conversation with them do you feel like we if we don't move

[19:25] forward with 1B this year we potentially lose ability to install Hesos in 1B next

[19:32] year based on that conversation with the core or can we do it without them I

[19:37] guess is the other part of that question. Yeah. So, so we have not asked

[19:42] that specific question of the core. However, we do have those barriers on

[19:46] site and we do have that preliminary engineering done. So, uh we could do

[19:51] phase 1B without their uh technical assistance.

[19:58] Miss Candies, thank you chair. My question is a followup kind of on the

[20:04] same topic of the core kind of being out if it was more than 16

[20:10] feet that you know in your memo will add to the expense if we're on our own.

[20:17] Could you speak a little bit about how and what order of magnitude?

[20:24] Yeah. So, um if the core were not to participate in flood mitigation for

[20:29] phase two, uh they would not be providing the Hesco barriers uh for

[20:34] free, which is what they're providing. And they're providing uh technical

[20:38] assistance. I I want to say the cost of Hesco barriers would be a couple million

[20:43] dollars for phase one. I don't know if I'm I'm getting so so let's say we phase

[20:48] one uh a $6 million project um represented a couple million dollars of

[20:54] hesco barriers. So you could you know let's say that $6 million in hesco

[20:58] barriers uh and of course the value of their text technical assistance is

[21:02] harder to quantify but almost more important because it adds that

[21:06] legitimacy to uh to any work that we're doing. I will say, you know, this was a

[21:11] conversation that we had with um with the Army Corps late last week. Um we

[21:18] haven't, you know, we haven't pushed back on that because I really want to

[21:23] understand a little bit more um what phase two looks like before we uh you

[21:30] know do before we engage in kind of that that push and pull with um with the Army

[21:36] Corps. They've been such valuable partners and I feel like we just need a

[21:40] lot more information ourselves to be able to know what we're doing to be able

[21:44] to kind of have those follow-up conversations. Uh I also think that the

[21:49] event that we experienced this summer, I mean, if we have a higher event, then

[21:52] we'll have a higher record event that we will need their assistance with. So I I

[21:56] I'm not stop talking. Quick followup. I

[22:03] Okay, I appreciate that. And I was thinking that it was much more the

[22:06] technical assistance piece and the legitimacy piece and what that looks

[22:10] like to go alone. But if it's something as clear-cut as you can't have our Hesco

[22:17] if it's over 16 ft, am I understanding that correctly? Because that changes

[22:21] everything in here. And I didn't get that from reading this. So are you

[22:26] saying that's a conversation or a remark that happened really recently? So you

[22:31] have you need more time to see if that is no you can't have our hesos but it

[22:35] could be no you can't have our escos from I think it could be you

[22:41] cannot have additional hesos and additional technical assistance for

[22:47] flood fighting over the historical event. They're still providing uh

[22:54] technical assistance of course for the long-term solution.

[22:58] Okay, I'll hold for and wait till we get through this. Kelly,

[23:04] just a follow up to that. Um, we you mean say they wouldn't they wouldn't

[23:09] provide hesco barriers? Like we could still get them, but they would be at our

[23:12] own expense, right? All right. Thank you. Correct.

[23:18] Manager Ker, I just had one question from you said it. I just want to make

[23:22] sure I understand it and maybe for others to hear too. You mentioned the

[23:27] modeling shows with 1A which is nearing completion that it

[23:33] would direct water onto certain areas of Meadow Lane. But you believe you have a

[23:39] solution for that and that's the super sacking near the bridge or whatever to

[23:44] pro that would so that that would protect those houses on Metal Lane. Is

[23:47] that correct? Correct. It would protect uh those uh

[23:52] nine homes that one would would impact in addition to other homes on Meadow

[23:57] Lane. Okay. Thank you, Miss Wall.

[24:04] I remember when we were talking about phase one and phase two and you know it

[24:09] was you know the idea of phase two we just put barriers up along the whole

[24:15] river felt like of course that was the best we

[24:19] could come up with and we didn't know much at the time like after going

[24:24] through the process of putting these up in a strategic place

[24:30] where we were protecting ing most of the most vulnerable homes

[24:36] and pushing water to the undeveloped side. Like, do we still feel like phase

[24:41] two as originally envisioned is the

[24:47] right going to be the right fit or like do we think it'll be we need less

[24:52] barriers than we thought at that point or it's actually going to be really hard

[24:57] when we get down to that lower river and because there's properties everywhere.

[25:01] Um, do we have a sense after going through the last year of how much that

[25:05] initial proposal really reflects what we think it would look like today?

[25:12] Yeah, I think your thought process is definitely um some of the struggles that

[25:17] I have had when looking at uh you know where do we stop right because we're

[25:21] getting that diminishing level of return and it really depends on um how severe

[25:26] of an event we think we're going to get. So if we think 17 which scientists

[25:31] cannot tell us right but if we think 17 feet is a reasonable assumption then

[25:37] doing phases one 1 a and 1b protect all but but 40 homes according to our

[25:43] modeling which you know I think you'd be hardressed to spend an additional $17

[25:47] million uh to protect those those 40 uh 40

[25:51] homes. Um, but I think director Kotch talks about it just like chasing water,

[25:58] right? We're chasing water and we do something here and then we're like, we

[26:01] need to mitigate here and we need to So there's there's likely um some

[26:05] additional mitigation and additional nuance that we can bring to you with

[26:09] more time and with more engineering that can make, you know, that can do even

[26:13] better than that. Um, but there will be a policy call that you will have to make

[26:18] and and and you will make need to make sure that uh you get your questions to

[26:22] me so I can get you the questions that you need to make that about like where's

[26:25] the diminishing level of return. But certainly when I look at the work that

[26:28] we have done it I feel like we've really done a lot uh to protect uh the menal

[26:35] valley.

[26:39] Mr. Bryson, thank you Mr. Deputy Mayor. So, I think I just want a real

[26:45] clear answer. If we don't do 1B now, it's

[26:51] going to be more expensive to do on our own, end of the summer, next

[26:57] summer. If we do 1B now, while we still have everything set

[27:03] up that we would have it substantial savings like we would get Hesco barriers

[27:09] or where is the split? it it become it's not too expensive we do 1B now but it's

[27:15] super expensive we do 1B later or am I wrong and it's just super expensive

[27:19] whenever we do 1B I know I asked a confusing question

[27:23] sorry about that yeah so your I think your question really revolves around the

[27:26] efficiency of doing 1B while we're still mobilized and I do think there's some

[27:31] efficiencies there however because we would have to come back and do armoring

[27:35] we would essentially still have to be in that uh in that area so it may add some

[27:40] project cost because you know we we will have to kind of remob uh the the some of

[27:46] the hesco barrier filling etc but um I I don't don't see it in the in

[27:52] exponentially more costly to do the entire project next construction season.

[27:58] Okay. Thank you Mandes.

[28:02] Thank you Mr. Chair. A follow-up question about armoring on that front.

[28:08] We say in the memo here that we don't have time to do armoring and hescoing

[28:15] this season, but we do have time to put hesos if we wanted to on

[28:21] unarmored. I know we start getting into the season, but of course, minus the

[28:30] fact that it seem to favor a specific day, we also don't know when it's going

[28:35] to hit unless it hits green again, but um how can you give me a sense of how

[28:43] long it would take to armor if we wanted to try to I guess I'm wondering if we

[28:51] said let's armor and Tesco this season and we'll just see if we can beat the

[28:56] flood if there is because also there could not be an event this year that's

[29:01] also possible. How much longer does that add?

[29:07] Well, I think that really all depends on contractor availability and we have

[29:11] pulled our contractors from other CBJ jobs to be able to continue doing the um

[29:18] 1A work and we we would continue to do that for 1B. So I don't I don't have a

[29:23] good question for you that's like well in one month we'd have it armored. I do

[29:26] know that uh the armoring goes relatively quickly. Uh so is there a

[29:31] scenario where you could authorize AR armoring and you know hope that we could

[29:35] get it done before August? Our goal is to have all of this work done by July.

[29:40] That's that's been the kind of goal that we've been working towards. So I I

[29:43] imagine that there is a scenario where we could um you know have armoring

[29:51] done at some point this this summer given contractor availability just not a

[29:57] guarantee that it would meet that July deadline that we've set.

[30:01] Okay. Thank you. So what I'm hearing if July wasn't the deadline we could do it

[30:06] this summer. Well I I I I imagine possibly it's

[30:10] possible. Yeah it's possible. Okay. Thank you,

[30:14] Mayor Welen. Uh, thank you. But if we armored this summer without having an LI

[30:20] in place, we would have to pay for that armor. And is there any way to collect

[30:24] that money back? Um, you are correct that if you were to

[30:29] armor uh this summer, you could not use an LI as a mechanism to uh help spread

[30:36] those costs. uh you could use a special tax district

[30:41] and I could start talking about mechanisms to pay for it. This is a good

[30:45] segue. Uh

[30:51] sure. Maybe keep it brief and then we can see which way we're going before we

[30:55] get deep. But go ahead and give us a little overview. Thanks. Yeah. So um you

[31:01] talked uh you've asked for information on establishing a uh service area and a

[31:06] service area can be established by the assembly. The

[31:10] um 100 voters or 10% of the affected voters uh can petition that and then it

[31:16] goes to the voters. I and I think we would get that threshold right now. So

[31:19] there is a scenario where you could decide to establish a service area and

[31:24] use that as a mechanism to pay for uh improvements and the assembly sets that

[31:29] mill rate. I do think there are some important questions that you would want

[31:32] to have answered before you took that to the voters. The first question that you

[31:35] would have to have answered of course is how big do you draw that circle? And um

[31:40] as I struggle I struggled to be able to give you the information I felt like you

[31:44] would need to make that decision, you know, in the next few months because we

[31:48] don't know what our phase 2 project looks like, right? We don't know what

[31:51] we're committing to. We don't know what uh and ergo we don't know what the

[31:55] circle should look like. That being said, um there's certainly a way that we

[32:00] could design a um tax district and nullify the LI to pay for those

[32:07] improvements. Um, you know, I I did a little back of napkin math on the

[32:13] assessed value of all the properties in the 18oot inundation, and it's about um

[32:18] almost $900 million of value. One mil gets you shy of a million dollars, but

[32:24] that's protecting every single property um that floods at 18 feet, which, you

[32:29] know, I think we might struggle to do. So, you can see how I quickly got to we

[32:33] haven't made that decision yet, so this might be difficult. And and so one

[32:37] avenue that I propose is kind of reserving that special tax district to

[32:42] when we have a long-term solution, we're going to need uh to pay for match and

[32:45] and to pay for um a lot of things associated with the long-term solution.

[32:49] And of course, we will know that the long-term solution will protect

[32:52] everyone, right? Because uh because of the nature of that solution. Um,

[32:56] nevertheless, there is definitely a scenario where you could introduce an

[32:59] ordinance and we could send it back to the cow so we could do more discussion

[33:03] and make that timeline for this fall's ballot. Uh, the memo goes into more

[33:07] detail on what it would look like to do an LI for phase two, but I won't um uh

[33:12] belabor what that looks like since you're all pretty familiar with the L

[33:15] process.

[33:20] Um, Miss Hall, did you have a question? Yeah, I uh have we discussed an LI for 1

[33:26] A and B.

[33:32] So, we cannot do an LI for 1A because we've already done the improvement. So,

[33:38] there's nothing to assess them. Um the justification being it protects a lot of

[33:42] public property. It also was rel I mean it was $500,000. So, it really was the

[33:47] least expensive um project.

[33:54] Sus Gandies and Mr. B. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You just referenced the strategic

[34:02] decision waiting to establish a service area until you were trying to pay for a

[34:08] match or something for the the longer term solution. And I want to make sure

[34:13] I'm understanding what's strategic about that. So, you're saying in some ways you

[34:19] could make that choice because your your entire circle is a lot larger. Is that

[34:25] what you're saying? Yes. Yes. uh there's a lot more certainty in

[34:32] that um long-term solution then and I think the body would struggle with

[34:36] drawing a circle because first you would need to know what the project is and you

[34:40] may want a different circle for like paying for flood fighting than you would

[34:44] for paying for long-term mitigation which will I mean long-term mitigation

[34:48] will protect to a 20 foot event. there there's like different different

[34:52] decision points uh and risk analysis when you're talking about like a

[34:56] short-term solution and when you're talking about the the solution for the

[35:00] next hundred years follow so based on that answer you it's not

[35:07] just the size it's also partly the policy argument that you're

[35:13] making to those residents or am I wrong to read that in

[35:22] Because one would be saying, "I'm building you a levy and you live in

[35:26] this. We clearly you benefit. You benefit forever cuz I I built you a levy

[35:31] and you helped pay for it versus I'm putting up super giant

[35:39] sandbags next to your house and I feel pretty good about it." Is that part of

[35:43] what you're saying as well? not just a geographic size or am I misunderstanding

[35:49] that? Um I will

[35:56] leave and easier question might be is it purely about the size the size of the

[36:03] circle? Um I think it's about the size of the

[36:07] circle and the um project that we would be funding with that. So, you don't need

[36:13] to know the project obviously to to uh draw those back. You can say we're going

[36:18] to protect this circle, but you kind of do cuz how do

[36:23] you know what you're protecting if you don't know what the project is that

[36:27] you're funding with by drawing the circle? So, so I think that it's

[36:32] um I think that at this moment in time it would be a diff it would be difficult

[36:39] to draw a circle but but you could draw that circle. You could say we want the

[36:43] circle to be one 1 A and 1 B manager cast and bring us that uh ordinance at

[36:49] the next meeting for introduction and then answer these five questions at the

[36:53] next committee the whole so it's very much doable to uh to go down that path

[36:59] of course it has very different you know payment uh implications right le every

[37:03] parcel pays the same u mill rate is assessed is you know value of your

[37:08] property um median property value in in that area. I I want to say it's

[37:14] $415,000, but of course that includes vacant property as as well or you know,

[37:19] so it's undeveloped property as well. Um so so that piece I'm not opining on as

[37:25] far as like do you do a uh le you know and and that impact that it has on the

[37:31] residents and that's very much an assembly level uh conversation. I just

[37:35] struggle to give you the the advice on how to draw the circle.

[37:41] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bryson. Uh, thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. If we

[37:49] wanted to do something, say like add a service area for the valley for flood

[37:54] fighting and flood future flood protection. And one of the ballot

[38:00] initiatives that capped the mill rate at nine, would that service area be

[38:05] subjected to that 9% cap? um which would almost like eliminate our

[38:12] ability to use it. Um I'm looking at Miss Wright because I

[38:17] think that might be the question for her.

[38:21] Who else? Thank you, Assembly Member Bryson. Yes, it would be uh subject to

[38:25] that cap. The only thing that's not subject are the geo bonds um under that

[38:30] ballot initiative.

[38:34] And Mr. Kelly, thank you. And would um you were

[38:39] mentioning that some DOT properties would be protected um since it's the

[38:43] state would they I assume they don't pay property tax.

[38:50] You are correct. Okay. Uh the DOT property would be uh we would need to

[38:56] armor on DOT property and follow up like would would they be

[39:01] contributing anything if it was the lid?

[39:09] Um I think technically you assess you we do assess

[39:15] uh state properties. I don't know what our success has been in getting those

[39:20] state properties to pay those assessments. I know that I have dealt

[39:23] with this a lot in a a former role and had um you know the the state agency

[39:28] kind of depends on how they participate based on how they feel like they are

[39:32] impacted. So I think There is a scenario where if if DOT is like that's vacant

[39:38] land that you know we just have an easement on which we have a lot of

[39:43] parcels like that um that they would make an argument that they would not

[39:47] participate in the L. Thank you.

[39:55] I think I'm good for right now. Thanks. Please.

[40:01] Thanks Mr. Chair. Just a quick one. With Riverview Senior Living Complex being

[40:06] the only hard no out of those other properties, we're communicating with the

[40:12] out of town land owner that because they are the one who would be paying it. We

[40:18] have that reflects nothing of the tenants living inside there or what the

[40:23] families of the tenants might think. You are correct. Thank

[40:28] you. This will That brought up a question for me and

[40:34] Miss Ker, you you reflected a bit on it's harder to make an argument without

[40:40] an LI to go into that property without their permission. Maybe this is a

[40:44] question for the attorney. I imagine our legal risk is greater given that this

[40:50] area hasn't flooded to go into someone's property to put up a to a barrier if

[40:56] we're talking about 18 feet um instead of 16 ft. Um thank you for

[41:03] that question. So I would um say that your legal risk is the same whether

[41:08] something has flooded or not. if you have the maps um that show it has the

[41:12] potential to flood, you still have the emergency power, police power to do to

[41:17] go onto their land. Um so I I don't I I don't think that there is a increased or

[41:23] decreased risk if it hasn't actually flooded yet because you've got the maps

[41:29] that show there is a potential for a flood.

[41:32] even if it's at a significantly higher water level that it would flood than it

[41:38] has historically. Um that's correct. So my argument would

[41:42] be that you've got the maps that show it could happen um and the science behind

[41:47] it. The other lawyers on the other side if was there would say but it hasn't

[41:51] flooded yet. But um you're relying on the scientific modeling to show um the

[41:57] potential and you're responding using appropriate police power to do so.

[42:05] Andrew Ker, I just want to make a clarification on something that I stated

[42:09] earlier about if we have time to do armoring uh before uh next before this

[42:15] yolk loop season. And the answer is we do not because we don't have time to do

[42:18] the permitting.

[42:26] Very good. More questions. Yes. Last one. More Hugh Scandies. Uh, last one.

[42:33] Generous Jar Smith. Uh, just a quick one. The other funding sources that are

[42:38] noted you did talk about the six million of CB CDBGDR

[42:44] funding and it just made me curious because I know those funds can be used

[42:49] for buyouts or I believe they can be used for buyouts. Do we have any sense

[42:54] just because we referenced View Drive, but I'm also thinking of where we're

[42:57] talking about diminishing returns, you know, seven houses, $17 million or

[43:02] something like that, smaller and smaller. Have we done any work to have

[43:06] any sense of what the dollar amount would could look like

[43:12] buyoutwise? Um, so no, but we do know what the assessed

[43:19] value of those properties are. Um I don't know that that would be uh the

[43:25] total cost because of course there's uh for some programs we have to turn the

[43:30] property into park space. So there is a significant additional cost with with

[43:34] demolition. For example, the NRCS program is a uh cost share 75 the

[43:41] federal government pays for 75% of that and um the local match whether homeowner

[43:46] or municipality is 25%. And and then in addition to that, there would be some

[43:50] like remediation costs.

[43:55] Mr. Kelly, do you have a question? I think so. Uh this is in followup to to

[44:00] manager Kers's um comment a moment ago. Um it's about the permitting. Like do we

[44:06] currently have the processes to do an accelerated permitting if we needed to?

[44:11] And if so, would we have the staff power to to do so?

[44:17] Um So since I incorrectly stated that we

[44:22] might be able to do per to do barriers this summer just because I know how

[44:26] quickly Jean Cheeseman can work and I was corrected by my staff who said we we

[44:30] could not do them this summer because of permitting. I'm going to answer that

[44:33] it's not our uh it's not our staff that is limiting their the permits are uh

[44:39] both through DNR and Army Corps and and CBJ to maintain an FIP status. Thank

[44:46] you.

[44:49] Very good. Seeing no further questions, maybe let's try a motion to get us going

[44:56] here. Madame Mayor, did you have something? Um, certainly. Uh, tough

[45:02] tough on this one. I will take option two, direct staff to further develop

[45:06] concepts and LID for phase 1B aiming for construction next season.

[45:12] And uh my second option would have been do nothing. But I think if we develop

[45:17] the concepts, we can always go to defer to do nothing. I agree with you there.

[45:23] Um you've heard the motion. Any objection, Miss Wall and Mr. Kelly?

[45:29] um not objecting necessarily to the um option two relative to those other ones,

[45:36] but kind of a question about you know I um my understanding of why we've been

[45:42] talking about 1B is because it was potentially easy to get done quickly and

[45:50] I would as we explore that I I'd want to know more about phase two and view drive

[45:55] and you know having an extra year I lets us think about all of those because I

[46:00] don't necessarily think if we have time um more time that we shouldn't be saying

[46:07] 1B is definitely the only thing that we're doing. I want to weigh that

[46:13] relative to you know something more likely to flood or you know however I

[46:18] realize it's the lowcost option and it saves a lot of homes but I just want to

[46:22] consider it in the context of the other things we might do. So just going to

[46:27] maybe this is a question to

[46:33] staff. Is that kind of direction helpful right now or or is this option written

[46:38] as in we want direction to kind of very clearly focus on 1B.

[46:46] So the the way that I'm interpreting your direction is not to come back with

[46:51] a process for initiating an LI for phase 1B, but to come back with more

[46:58] information holistically about phase 2 and other options. So I I would think

[47:02] that would be different than the mayor's motion, and I would take that

[47:05] differently.

[47:08] And can I ask why your motion focused on oneb for next year and not a larger

[47:18] suite of options? Um yeah, I mean I think we

[47:23] obviously still need to start keep thinking about phase two and I have so

[47:26] many unanswered questions for you about phase two. So I don't think it would be

[47:29] that there's an absence of that. Um, I just think uh and and speaking with

[47:34] staff um that 1B we really should do 1B and it's hard to make the argument to go

[47:41] super quickly because of the cons that have been expressed, but there's just no

[47:44] way that I uh I it just I think that the the value of the infrastructure and the

[47:50] properties being um protected, it seems like a no-brainer to to move forward

[47:56] with 1B. Um, but I think if you want to pause and spend some more time thinking

[48:00] about it in the context of phase two that you know I don't I don't think that

[48:05] necessarily slows us down on 1B to a certain point right at like next couple

[48:10] of months. Um, but at some point we'll have to be like we need to do move

[48:14] forward with 1B regardless of of what we decide to do on phase two.

[48:20] one clarifying question. It and is that because 1B is like high bang for the

[48:26] buck I guess is what what I'm trying to make sure to understand it's it's not

[48:30] necessarily that those properties are more valuable than some of the other

[48:33] properties we could protect in phase two. It's that it's they're important

[48:39] and it's an e easier solution. Does that make sense? You're correct. You correct.

[48:44] Yes. Okay. Good. I'm just trying to make understand. I'm not questioning that

[48:47] judgment. Thanks. Mr. Kelly, do you have a question? Uh, I

[48:52] do. Yes. I'll I'll object for the purposes of a question

[48:56] and it's my understanding from looking at the flood maps and I just want to

[49:00] make sure I kind of get this from not just looking at the flood maps but also

[49:03] from a conversation and I just want to make sure this is accurate

[49:09] that I Well, yeah. So

[49:15] would if we did not complete 1B this year and we did complete 1A there there

[49:22] are additional homes from completing 1A that would be

[49:27] at risk that wouldn't be that 1B would protect but if we don't do 1B this year

[49:33] we're basically depending assuming we get like a high 18

[49:39] foot we could be putting other homes

[49:43] in the way of the water.

[49:49] Mr. There would be 96 parcels if we did not do 1B that would flood in a uh 18 ft

[49:57] event. We would attempt to mitigate the impact on 30 of those parcels uh that

[50:04] are on meadow uh meadow link. Thank you. I'll maintain my objection.

[50:14] Very good. Further questions or comments on the man on the mayor's

[50:22] motion? I guess my comment is just that we don't seem to have a way to fund

[50:29] this fairly this year. We don't have a way to armor the bank and ensure the

[50:35] barriers are going to be properly installed this year.

[50:40] So therefore, it doesn't to me it just doesn't seem like the right amount of

[50:45] effort. I mean, obviously, we're Anyway, we want to do as much as we can, but

[50:49] this one just doesn't seem to make sense to me to put in funds and put in I don't

[50:57] just speaking to your motion in support of your motion. Um,

[51:05] Miss Scandy's comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a comment on the motion

[51:10] since that's a good thing for the public to hear when we're having public

[51:15] meetings. Um I the reason I was asking about armoring is I think you made a

[51:22] good point on trying to find a path

[51:26] that talks about paying for things uh both to find the money and both to do it

[51:32] fairly with regard to what we've already done with the first group of folks. But

[51:39] if I'm hearing that we can't armor and we can't, you know, I don't have a lot

[51:43] of is uh interest in hesing without armoring, which is why I asked about

[51:48] armoring cuz I I think I could support saying, "All right, let's not take the

[51:53] chance. Let's just keep going until it floods." And and that is a situation

[51:58] where I could consider it. But no, hearing that no, that's not an option. I

[52:02] just think that's yet another reason why this is the smart thing to do. And with

[52:07] that, I remove my objection. You miss Candies. I'll actually object for a

[52:12] purpose of a question. Um, with the mayor's motion, and should

[52:18] it be approved, you you're still going to be there's still going to be work

[52:22] being done on phase two. Correct. Yes. Very good. Thank you. I'll remove

[52:28] my objection. We have a motion and

[52:34] objection, Mr. Kelly. I'll remove my objection. Very good. Any further

[52:38] objection to the mayor's motion? Seeing none, that motion is

[52:44] adopted. Madame Mayor, uh, thank you. Um, and I think we do

[52:50] have appetite for a service area. Perhaps not as quickly as it says in the

[52:54] memo. So my motion would be um direct staff to continue developing

[53:01] um concepts of a service area for the long-term

[53:10] solution. Hopefully that gives staff enough

[53:13] direction. We've heard the motion. Is there objection to the

[53:17] motion? Seeing no objection, that motion is adopted as well. Andrew Ker, is that

[53:23] all you needed on this agenda topic? Very good. Thank you. All

[53:30] right. So close. Are we good to move to

[53:36] RCV or do we need a Sorry. Very good. Moving to agenda item two,

[53:44] ordinance 2025-13, HRC rank choice

[53:49] voting. Who is firing off on this one.

[53:55] Deputy Mayor Smith, I'd be happy just to let you know what is different about the

[53:59] ordinance in front of you than um from the last time you discussed this. Um the

[54:04] version uh in your packet today includes language that makes it possible to

[54:09] implement um rank choice voting for um multicandidate seats uh without choosing

[54:16] designated seats. Do you recall there was a lot of discussion last time you

[54:19] talked about this about the schoolboard seats having to choose designated seats

[54:24] and um after talking with Dominion who does our voting uh machines they can do

[54:29] a cascade style voting and implement rank and trace voting for those uh those

[54:35] seats without them having to kind of change change their practice. So I just

[54:39] wanted to clarify that that's the um change in the version in your pack.

[54:45] Very good. Thank you, Manager Kester. We also have Deputy Municipal Clerk Hirs

[54:50] here who's pro on election things, but any questions on the topic on the

[54:56] ordinance? Mr. Bryson, thank you. Uh, your previous explanation

[55:02] was helpful, but uh what about in a uh an assembly election with it being

[55:09] two seats? Would the the same effect be in play if there was like um I got a

[55:16] one-year seat my first time out because there was two seats in that district 2

[55:20] column. How would that how would this be impacted in an assembly race?

[55:28] Thank you, Assembly Member Brace. And it's the same. So, um Cascade or

[55:33] Dominion um has the ability to handle multi-member races. So, in a situation

[55:39] where there's a resignation, um, last time we talked about having to break out

[55:43] individual seats, we heard back from them that we do not need to do that. So,

[55:47] whether it's an assembly member or school board, we have the ability to get

[55:52] the first choice, second choice, um, and go from there.

[56:02] Mayor Welen, thank you. I was asked this question

[56:06] before, so I'm just getting it out to public. Um, so when I talked to Deputy

[56:11] Clerk Hurst earlier today, one of my concerns was we still wouldn't get

[56:15] election results on election night. And if I paraphrase her right, she could

[56:20] race down here and change me. We still would get some results similar to what

[56:24] we have. So if you had one candidate that was way ahead

[56:30] of one candidate that was way ahead, you'd know that race. if there was only

[56:35] two candidates and um any ballot propositions, you would probably have a

[56:39] pretty good idea, but I will let her speak to that because she probably will

[56:42] do a better job. Thank you. Um this is Andy, deputy uh municipal clerk Hersh.

[56:48] Um so our current system, we do produce uh election results on election night.

[56:54] Those generally reflect between 50 to 60% of the total votes. um by the Friday

[57:01] or so after the election, our total votes are generally in the 80 to 90%

[57:05] range. Um if we move to rank choice voting, we will have the ability to

[57:11] prover produce first round or first rank results kind of like the state of Alaska

[57:17] does. So um people's top candidates um will be available in the basically the

[57:22] same proportions and at the same timing as we currently do. we would not be able

[57:27] to run the rank choice um portion where you drop out lower candidates and um

[57:34] figure out who the eventual winners are um until after the canvas review board

[57:40] meets and we have all ballots approved for counting. So like Mayor Walden said

[57:44] that means that for ballot propositions that are just a yes no we would have a

[57:49] we probably would have a really good idea. um any race that's really close,

[57:53] we still won't know until after the cameras review board, regardless of if

[57:56] we're ranked choice or if we stick with our current method. But um ballot

[58:00] propositions that are just a yes no. Um races that only have two candidates or

[58:06] races with more than two candidates where one person has a very large u

[58:11] majority or um has a very large lead over the other candidates. Um there

[58:17] would be uh it is probable that the results that we produce on the Friday

[58:22] after the election would um remain throughout the remainder of counting.

[58:28] What we wouldn't know are um races that are very close. So if there's three

[58:33] candidates um and they're all between 30 and 35%, we won't know that until we run

[58:38] rank choice voting. We also would not know the candidates um for when we have

[58:45] to use the cascade style. So that would be the um if in in the assembly if there

[58:51] is a vacancy and there's multiple seats in that district or with the school

[58:54] board. We may know just by looking who the top candidate is um that they will

[59:00] win the first round. Um but we wouldn't know until after we run rank choice

[59:04] voting which is after the canvas review board meets um to know any subsequent

[59:09] winners.

[59:12] Mr. Senator and then Atkinson is it a like a technical limitation or a legal

[59:19] limitation that we couldn't run at each update for ballots that we

[59:24] couldn't run a sample of the ranking?

[59:30] It is not a technical limitation. Um I don't know if there is a legal

[59:34] limitation. This is what the state um this is based off what the state of

[59:38] Alaska does um with their rank choice voting. I will say

[59:42] um one of the issues is with rank choice voting. Um the results can change pretty

[59:49] dramatically when you don't have the full set. So what we when we ran between

[59:55] on election night between 50 to 60% if we're actually ranking all of those

[59:59] through that may look very different to the results that we produce on Friday.

[1:00:04] Um and I um the more different results we produce um the more election

[1:00:11] integrity um can get be called into question by the public.

[1:00:18] Miss Ederson. Thank you Mr. Chair. I just want to

[1:00:21] clarify on the cannabis review board timeline. Uh basically we wouldn't have

[1:00:26] certain results for the your 30% 30% 30% spread or anything like that until at

[1:00:31] the same time we'd have certified results for elections. So we do it

[1:00:34] today. Correct. Thank you Mr. Kelly.

[1:00:39] Uh thank you. So with the cascade system, it's it's um my understanding

[1:00:43] from reading this that we could basically this first person winner would

[1:00:49] would be winning with um a rank choice plurality I mean majority but the second

[1:00:55] person would just have a plurality from the remaining candidates. Is that

[1:00:59] correct?

[1:01:02] I don't believe so. Let me see um I if I'm understanding your question

[1:01:07] correctly. So, um, if we have two open seats and four candidates, people rank

[1:01:16] their, uh, their top choice and that would run just like the state, right?

[1:01:20] So, if somebody is a clear winner, they get 50% of the first place votes,

[1:01:24] they're elected. If they don't, you drop the lowest candidate, and votes are

[1:01:28] redistributed until you have a winner. Then to determine who the second winner

[1:01:33] is, you would functionally remove the winner from everybody's vote uh ballot

[1:01:39] and shift um everything up. And so in that case um then you run the results

[1:01:46] again. And so every person who votes, presuming they fill out um or they rank

[1:01:53] at least two candidates will their vote will count for both races. So it won't

[1:02:00] necessarily be a plurality. Does that is that a better does that answer

[1:02:06] your question? I I think so. So it'll it'll be a majority of the remaining

[1:02:09] votes, but it'll be a it could be a plurality of the

[1:02:17] um Never mind. I'll probably follow up offline. Sounds good. Um it's very

[1:02:22] similar to how we do block voting now where um in a schoolboard race if there

[1:02:27] are three open seats and there are six candidates you get to vote for three. Um

[1:02:32] so this maintains um the ability for a person to basically vote in each seat.

[1:02:43] Kelly. So, as a

[1:02:47] followup, in block voting, um, so as you said, we get to vote for two people, but

[1:02:52] in this system, we only get to vote. We're basically just voting once.

[1:02:59] Like, we're ranking people, but we're just Okay. So, we do.

[1:03:03] Okay. Um, I think we're having I we can

[1:03:08] definitely follow up offline anytime you want. I think um we're having a bit of a

[1:03:13] definition issue. Um so with the cascade

[1:03:19] style, every person who votes, assuming that they just like in block style

[1:03:26] voting, even though you can pick three candidates, some people still only pick

[1:03:29] one, right? So not accounting for that but account um if people rank their

[1:03:37] choices one of uh their choice counts towards picking both the first candidate

[1:03:43] and picking the second candidate. They're not dropped from the system. Um

[1:03:47] and so they get to vote basically in both races.

[1:03:55] No, maybe maybe let me try one second just

[1:03:59] because so my my understanding from watching the video and some other things

[1:04:05] was say there say there's a school board election

[1:04:10] with you know three seats available and there's six

[1:04:15] candidates. The ballot would have the six names and people could rank them

[1:04:19] one. They would just rank one through six or one through four or one through

[1:04:25] two. I mean one and two, but they're just they're just ranking the

[1:04:29] list. They're voting them down one time. Is that right? Correct.

[1:04:35] So, you're just ranking the list as far down as you want to rank them.

[1:04:44] Um, Mayor Welen Scandies. Uh, thank you. Um, another question I asked every clerk

[1:04:50] earlier was um with the delay in waiting to the canvas review board change our

[1:04:57] assembly reorganization meeting in October so I'll ask that question

[1:05:03] it would not miss scandies I no longer have a

[1:05:08] question

[1:05:13] further questions on madam clerk

[1:05:19] Um, following up on Mayor Weldon's question, it would not change the timing

[1:05:24] of the results, but just so everyone is aware that it could, as has always been

[1:05:31] the case, the canvas review board could be delayed by up to three days. That

[1:05:36] then would have a domino effect on when the mayor can contact whoever is elected

[1:05:42] and get the committees figured out. So there's a compressed time if you're

[1:05:47] looking at um later in that week having the final decision and then having a

[1:05:52] Monday meeting right after that to where your committee uh

[1:05:56] reorganization deputy mayor process takes place.

[1:06:05] Miss Atr Chair just to clarify on that last

[1:06:09] point but currently the canvas review board can also be delayed. Yes.

[1:06:15] If I might, Mr. Cherry, that's correct, Miss Atkinson. Um, it has been in our

[1:06:19] code the entire time I've worked in this office that they can be delayed for on a

[1:06:25] day-to-day basis for up to three days. It's happened once and that was during

[1:06:29] COVID in my tenure.

[1:06:35] Further questions from the

[1:06:40] committee? See no further questions. Anyone interested in a

[1:06:44] motion? Miss Hughes Scandies. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question

[1:06:50] for not our staff, but I guess for this body. I wasn't here when you all

[1:06:55] discussed this before. So, I guess I can just I'll I can keep my piece and see

[1:07:03] what motions come forth from this committee. But I'll be especially

[1:07:06] interested to know how much you all talked about public um feedback, which

[1:07:12] I'm sure is something that everybody here wants. So, I'll wait for a motion.

[1:07:22] Okay, Mayor Welen. Thank you. I would move ordinance uh

[1:07:27] 2025-13 cow version that takes care of the clerk's amendments uh to the full

[1:07:33] assembly. Very good. Objections, Mr. Kelly and

[1:07:38] Miss Atkinson, Miss Scandies. Um, thank you. I I think this uh Cascade

[1:07:45] um amendment is is interesting. I'm not sure that I'm completely ready to

[1:07:51] endorse it. I think it might be simpler for most people to maybe have, you know,

[1:07:57] specific C's like a 1A and 1B or an area wide A and an area wide B in the case

[1:08:03] where we have a resignation or or something along those lines. Um, it's my

[1:08:07] understanding it wouldn't take a great deal more to to change that. We wouldn't

[1:08:12] need a charter amendment. We could do that as well in the ordinance, but I

[1:08:16] feel like, you know, candidates that would also not impact candidates because

[1:08:20] candidates could also um you know, as long as they're within

[1:08:24] the filing period, it's my understanding that they can just choose to um you

[1:08:29] know, file in a different seat. I I've seen that happen um when I was running.

[1:08:35] Um, so I think I would like to explore other

[1:08:41] options more. I'm not sold on the cascade. Um, if anything, I would I

[1:08:46] would probably move to to strike this portion, but I'll um wait for the

[1:08:50] opinion of the rest of the assembly. Great. Miss Atkinson. Thank you, Mr.

[1:08:55] Chair. I was going to say I think I I very much appreciate the mayor's motion,

[1:08:58] but I'd also want to look at potentially a second public hearing so that we can

[1:09:02] be sure that we do a good public process for this. But before I get into that, I

[1:09:06] just want to address Mr. Kelly's concerns. So, um I would say for one, it

[1:09:11] does not require a charter amendment to designate seats. So, that's one thing.

[1:09:14] But also, there is some impacts to the candidate when you do designate seats

[1:09:19] because while candidates can switch back and forth between seats, they have to

[1:09:22] fill out a new petition for signatures every time they do that. And that's

[1:09:26] particularly problematic for the school board. Um, if you're try there's no

[1:09:30] functional difference between the seats, but if you want to run in an open seat

[1:09:33] instead of one with three people in it, for instance, that can get complicated

[1:09:36] fast. So, there's actually a lot of uh benefits for keeping the current system

[1:09:40] and having the cascade of interest voting.

[1:09:46] I'd miss you scandi next. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I don't have I I'm

[1:09:52] eager to uh hear what the public thinks about this, you know, for getting into

[1:09:58] the weeds of exactly how this works. I love that we do rank choice voting at

[1:10:02] the state. I love that we voted to keep it. So, I don't have a problem saying,

[1:10:08] "Yep, and this is how the state of Alaska votes, and this is how we vote

[1:10:11] locally, too." It seems like you guys worked out the kinks in that. I was just

[1:10:16] going to say sometimes I look at our mechanisms as a body. I've you

[1:10:22] frequently heard me say, "Oh, we never get to talk to each other besides a cow,

[1:10:26] but also we want to keep the cow moving." So, you know, we can only ever

[1:10:30] talk to one or two people. Um, and the reason I say that is

[1:10:35] because in some ways I'm very excited about our communications department and

[1:10:41] how that will uh improve our ability to engage with the public. But this seems

[1:10:46] like the perfect kind of thing where moving it to the full assembly almost to

[1:10:51] me I'm like what would it look like if we had just a public meeting and we

[1:10:57] said we're getting ready to move this to the full assembly and this is

[1:11:03] aformational meeting and it's in the chambers kind of like we do when we're

[1:11:07] doing something weird like kuna totem or uh you know some more of our oddball

[1:11:12] projects. Um, so I'm just throwing that out there for our consideration because

[1:11:16] I wonder what else public feedback. We've also taken public feedback at

[1:11:21] committees like lands and public works. I feel like that doesn't I don't love

[1:11:26] that cuz it doesn't feel that I feel like you don't get as much engagement as

[1:11:30] you do with the full assembly and it's essentially the same thing. But uh I'll

[1:11:35] certainly remove my objection, but I wish there was something better than

[1:11:39] moving this to the full assembly just because I I feel like for people who

[1:11:43] aren't geeking out over our process, then it feels, you know, it brings up

[1:11:49] these strong emotions in them if they're not sure if they want this or not

[1:11:52] because it feels like you're just a step away from making a law and you're not

[1:11:56] you don't really want my opinion. You're you've already decided on this. So, I

[1:12:01] just bring this up cuz I know people have strong feelings about elections,

[1:12:05] but I'm happy to let it go to the full assembly. And with that, I remove my

[1:12:08] objection. You're good. Mayor Welen, we could bring it to um the full

[1:12:14] assembly as for public hearing and bring it back to the council. So, it's an

[1:12:18] option.

[1:12:22] It's an option. Further comments? Mr. Kelly, do you have a question or

[1:12:26] anything? No. because um the mayor beat me to she said exactly what I was going

[1:12:30] to say. Erica, just to I guess I'll object for a

[1:12:35] question. Um do we I guess I'm just trying to think of what we would want to

[1:12:42] show the public at a public hearing. I mean, I don't know if just having them

[1:12:48] speak about an ordinance would be that useful or if they need to like see

[1:12:54] examples of what it looks like. And anyway, I guess I'm just kind of

[1:13:00] thinking about what's actually beneficial for the public to to better

[1:13:04] understand. And I I mean, another thing we also need to recognize is this is not

[1:13:08] impacting the 2025 election. If if it does pass, it will be impacting the

[1:13:14] 2026. But I I guess it's a question for staff,

[1:13:18] like how quickly could we pull something, you know, with examples

[1:13:27] or something that would like show they just show those ballots, I guess, and

[1:13:32] then Okay. And then they just It doesn't really show the counting. I don't know

[1:13:36] if you need to do that. If people feel like that's fine, I'm

[1:13:40] fine with it. But it's just pieces of paper. Yes. Uh Mr. Chair, you have in

[1:13:46] the memo in your packet a link to a video that demonstrates exactly what

[1:13:51] you're asking for. Also in the packet are sample of what a ballot looks like

[1:13:57] as well as what our current ballot um has been. So what the comparisons

[1:14:04] might be. Um, we'd be happy to do a show and tell if the general public would

[1:14:11] like, but it's already right there in the packet linked so that anyone that

[1:14:16] has internet access can go and watch that if they would like,

[1:14:23] Miss Atkinson. Um, I'm thinking I might as well just

[1:14:27] make uh an amendment to the mayor's motion and add in uh that we also bring

[1:14:31] it back after injection the assembly bring it back to the next cow for public

[1:14:34] hearing. So the July 14th cow.

[1:14:41] Mr. Chair, I didn't quite hear Miss Atkinson. Can you repeat your motion,

[1:14:44] please? My motion my amendment to the motion was uh to also bring it back to

[1:14:48] the cow the next cow for public hearing. have the public hearing in the cow

[1:14:53] meeting second an additional public hearing at the cow. So it going to the

[1:14:57] assembly having a public hearing at the assembly bringing it back for public

[1:15:02] hearing at the cow. Mayor shaking her head. So, Madam Mayor, go ahead. Madam

[1:15:07] Mayor, um I appreciate Miss Agass's sentiment, but I would think you'd do it

[1:15:12] the other way. Have the next cow, have a public meeting on it, and then move it

[1:15:17] to the assembly. But to move it to the assembly to have public hearing and back

[1:15:20] here to have public hearing, it just seems a little awkward to me, but um I

[1:15:26] can't remember. But you also said just have a public hearing. That might be a

[1:15:29] way for people to be able to play with things a little too.

[1:15:33] Madam Attorney, um if I may suggest just to keep your cows clean, um if you want

[1:15:39] to have a special meeting to talk about um rank choice voting and a public

[1:15:43] hearing at a special meeting, that's probably cleanest. I don't know that you

[1:15:46] want to start opening up your cows um for public hearing. Um but you certainly

[1:15:51] could schedule a a special meeting, you know, wherever you would like.

[1:15:58] [Music] Comments, Mr. Bryson.

[1:16:02] Um, Mr. Deputy Mayor, I was just going to offer up uh the Lands Housing and

[1:16:07] Economic Development Committee. Uh, no, we've held public testimony, but if

[1:16:13] not, if that's Thank you, Miss Scandies.

[1:16:20] Thanks, Mr. Chair. I I just would say that I I mean like now I think we're

[1:16:25] getting making it messier. The what I was proposing before is we don't do

[1:16:31] things like that in general by practice. A public meeting where you just schedule

[1:16:35] a public meeting and you do a public it it wouldn't be a public meeting with us

[1:16:40] sitting here on a day. It would just be wherever you put it and you would have

[1:16:46] sample ballots and things. I think when you start adding public hearings at

[1:16:52] other meetings besides the assembly, it gets messy as the clerk just noted. So,

[1:16:57] I'm fine with this going to a public to the full assembly for a public hearing

[1:17:03] and then sending it back to the cow, which I believe the mayor has already

[1:17:06] amended her motion to do that, but maybe she didn't.

[1:17:11] I believe the current Madame Clerk, would you remind us of the current

[1:17:15] motion? Thank you, uh, Mr. chair and correct me

[1:17:20] if I'm wrong, Madame Mayor, but the motion was to forward ordinance

[1:17:25] 202515 version cow to the assembly for introduction.

[1:17:30] That would be at the June 9th regular assembly meeting next week.

[1:17:39] I'm looking I'm looking for the will of the body. I'm I would h be happy to do

[1:17:44] that to public hearing and move it back.

[1:17:49] I guess a question for the team. I I mean I guess we could just

[1:17:55] have public hearing at the June 9th regular assembly meeting. No. Okay. So

[1:18:01] we need to do a special meeting for the July the the standard

[1:18:07] public hearing would be July 28th. But I think we are saying we would like an

[1:18:13] additional we would like an additional public meeting before adoption day. So

[1:18:27] Mr. Bryson, Mr. Deputy Mayor, I definitely want to see this at public

[1:18:31] testimony. Um, but I'd like to remind this body that we have tried to do extra

[1:18:36] meetings for extra public testimony and not necessarily received a lot of extra

[1:18:42] participation with the extra public testimony avail uh time available. Um, I

[1:18:49] hear you there, Mr. Kelly. Thank you.

[1:18:53] I I kind of hear Miss Husandi suggestion perhaps a little bit differently. Um, it

[1:18:59] sounds to me, um, and correct me if I'm wrong, are you suggesting perhaps like

[1:19:02] not an actual like other public meeting, but something that's a little more

[1:19:06] informal, something more of a workshop where people can kind of bring bring

[1:19:09] forth their thoughts and ideas or Yeah. Uh, through the chair, I I was

[1:19:16] envisioning something like you do it here in the chambers. You have stuff on

[1:19:20] tables. City staff are present. Someone plays a

[1:19:25] video on the screen. People can just mill about and

[1:19:29] ask questions. We've done that for other things. We did a presentation on the

[1:19:33] assessments and how they work one time. So, I was envisioning just something

[1:19:38] like that. And for the record, I now am at the point where I say move it to the

[1:19:43] full assembly, introduce it, let it come to the public hearing. I'm sure it's

[1:19:48] been in the empire now. I'm sure we'll get some public hearing about it. If we

[1:19:52] get to the public hearing section, send it back to the cow if that feels right

[1:19:57] to us. Um because I think if we're not going to do like a little standalone

[1:20:02] informal meeting, then let's just follow our normal process and trust that we'll

[1:20:07] get feedback because we always do get feedback on on all these topics.

[1:20:14] Very good. The current motion is to Madame Clerk.

[1:20:18] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just about to ask if the amendment was on the floor

[1:20:22] or not. I do not believe there's been an

[1:20:25] amendment. So, Miss Hughes Candiy's amendment is withdrawn.

[1:20:31] Yeah. To the ex. Yep. If I made one, then I withdraw.

[1:20:36] To the extended. Very good. So the current motion is to

[1:20:40] introduce this ordinance at the June 9th regular assembly

[1:20:45] meeting. Are there amendments to that motion? Is there objection to the

[1:20:55] motion? Seeing no objection, that motion is adopted. And we'll take a 7 minute

[1:21:02] break. We'll be back at 7:25. Thank you, Deputy Clerk Hersh, for

[1:21:07] your work. Thank you.

[1:30:08] Very good. We are back to order for the committee the whole on that rank choice

[1:30:14] voting item. Madame mayor, did you have another I have another motion for staff

[1:30:20] to make sure that we're getting our sound like from our conversation. So, um

[1:30:26] I would direct staff to come up with a educational uh outreach to the public

[1:30:33] on rate choice voting. Very good. You've heard the

[1:30:38] motion. Any objection to the motion? That's helpful for staff. Very

[1:30:43] good. That motion is adopted. Moving on to the next item.

[1:30:48] Trash. Let's talk trash. Manager Ker or is it

[1:30:52] Director Cotch?

[1:30:57] Cotch, please. Very good. Director Cotch, please start us up. Thank you

[1:31:01] very much, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to see if we could get the uh the slides on

[1:31:07] the screen, please.

[1:31:22] If not, I I could go with just if you have it in your packet while the slides

[1:31:27] are loading. There we go. Okay. Thank you very much. I am really excited to be

[1:31:34] here tonight to talk to you about garbage and I am being sincere about

[1:31:38] that. This is a a topic I uh really like to talk about.

[1:31:43] Um so uh more recently uh in 2021 the assembly had established uh waste

[1:31:51] reduction goals as one of the assembly's goals. Uh so we have been spending

[1:31:56] probably about three years at the public works and facilities committee talking

[1:32:00] about uh trash items. We actually um reclassified an existing position that

[1:32:06] is Diana Robinson right here uh and created a new environmental project

[1:32:11] specialist from a previous position to really uh dive deep uh and be a she's

[1:32:17] our subject matter expert along with Stuart Ashton on waste items.

[1:32:23] Uh and it's really interesting as we have looked at this issue uh we have a

[1:32:28] great website and there's uh a URL to it at the at the back of this packet but uh

[1:32:33] there's a bit of a a timeline and what caught my eye is that we have been

[1:32:38] talking about trash in this community since

[1:32:41] 1984. Um in the early 2000s the estimate on the uh lifespan of the waste

[1:32:49] management landfill in Juno was about 30 years. So here we are it was I think it

[1:32:55] was 2004. So you know a little more than 20 years later and it's like oh I've

[1:33:00] come to tell you that we've got about 10 years uh left of uh lifespan left on

[1:33:06] that landfill. It's a little bit hard to know precisely how much uh lifespan is

[1:33:11] left in that landfill because it's privately owned and operated. It's

[1:33:15] sometimes hard to get really precise information, but uh we rely on some

[1:33:19] information that they have to um disclose to the Alaska Department of

[1:33:23] Environmental Conservation. And really the I'm going to go into a couple of

[1:33:28] more details, but not much. But really to some extent I feel like the punchline

[1:33:32] is I want us to think about trash and the future of trash for this community

[1:33:38] because if we wait to the day where one day Waste Management makes an

[1:33:42] announcement that uh their landfill is closing, they'll probably give us two or

[1:33:48] three years worth of notice. And if we wait until that point to start having

[1:33:53] this conversation, it will be too late. there's a long lead time on uh you know

[1:33:59] getting the capital in place uh if we wanted to do something different uh the

[1:34:04] permitting uh to do something different would take a long lead time so that's

[1:34:08] that's really why uh we're talking about this today if we could do the next slide

[1:34:13] please thank you uh this slide I think um is simple but powerful and it just

[1:34:21] shows that most in most communities including in Alaska that uh those

[1:34:26] communities have some level of control over their waste and Juno doesn't and

[1:34:31] we're on the short list. So, we are uh the way that we uh don't handle trash uh

[1:34:37] in this community, our hands-off approach is definitely an approach.

[1:34:41] Hannes and Glenn Allen do it as well, but uh we're more the exception than the

[1:34:45] rule. Next slide, please. Okay, so uh flow control. So

[1:34:52] there are generally two ways at a really high level that uh communities uh

[1:34:57] municipal governments interject themselves into the trash conversation.

[1:35:02] They either uh own the waist they get into waste hauling. So they own um a

[1:35:07] certificate of necessity and convenience from the regulatory commission of Alaska

[1:35:12] uh or and or they uh have some control and over the solid waste disposal

[1:35:18] methods. Um, and if you could go to uh the next slide,

[1:35:27] please. I want to talk sort of more tangibly about uh what it means, I

[1:35:33] think, for this community uh to not really not have any control over or over

[1:35:38] its municipal solid waste. We do, I've said in the past, we nibble around the

[1:35:42] edges. We do recycling. We do household hazardous waste. So, we do some really

[1:35:46] good things. But um I wanted to give some tangible examples of you know uh

[1:35:52] essentially I always say when it comes to things changing at the landfill uh

[1:35:56] oftentimes I think and citizens understandably because in most

[1:36:01] communities most communities have some level of control over their municipal

[1:36:05] solid waste. So when residents have questions or concerns they come to you

[1:36:10] as an assembly or they come to us as as staff. Uh, and I always say, you know,

[1:36:15] we don't own for in terms of the waste management landfill. We don't own it. We

[1:36:20] don't operate it. We don't regulate it. And what that means is the um the owner

[1:36:25] of that landfill can change the hours of operation. They can change the disposal

[1:36:30] rates. They can change the conditions uh under which they will accept waste. Uh

[1:36:36] we just found out um because we did a public records act request to the Alaska

[1:36:41] Department of Environmental Conservation um that uh there's a new plan at Waste

[1:36:46] Management where they're going to require much more documentation for

[1:36:50] construction and demolition uh waste and it's going to be more ownorous for

[1:36:56] residents to bring in those uh those streams of trash. And that goes into

[1:37:01] effect according to their plan today. And what I anticipate will happen like

[1:37:05] when when the landfill has made other changes um people will come to the

[1:37:10] assembly or to to staff and we just we we can't compel waste management uh to

[1:37:15] to make any of those changes. Um next slide

[1:37:20] please. So this is the uh the website I was mentioning just a few moments ago.

[1:37:27] Uh we have the QR code there for anyone who's looking at the packet. But if you

[1:37:31] go to juno.org or and you uh select the department of engineering and public

[1:37:36] works, there's a solid waste planning website and uh that has been put up

[1:37:41] thanks to Diana Robinson putting a lot of work into that trying to you know

[1:37:45] piece together this fuller picture uh and the discussions that we've had uh

[1:37:49] for several years. Um and with that I'm actually going to hand the next portion

[1:37:54] of the presentation over to Tara at Jacobs. Hopefully she's been promoted as

[1:38:00] a panelist. Uh and she could talk to you about um the most recent just quick

[1:38:05] snapshot. Uh you may recall uh we have come to you as a body before to ask for

[1:38:11] permission to do a waste characterization study which we have

[1:38:15] done. Um that's kind of a foundational document to understand what's in our in

[1:38:20] our waste. And then the next step uh we had come back to um the assembly and and

[1:38:26] public works and facilities committee and had had asked for permission to uh

[1:38:30] spend money to do a really high level study, a tech a capital study

[1:38:35] essentially to get some um high level understanding of the different options

[1:38:40] there are if uh the community decided that we did want to take uh a more

[1:38:45] active role in waste. uh to look at what those capital costs would be. And before

[1:38:51] I hand it over, I will just say and start maybe steal Terara's thunder, but

[1:38:55] there are basically three options and all of those options include a transfer

[1:38:59] station. Uh so keep that in mind. And with that, I will hand it to Tara from

[1:39:03] Jacobs. Thank you. Director Coach, can you hear

[1:39:08] me everyone? We can. Okay. Excellent. Well, thank you assembly for allowing us

[1:39:16] to take the time to present the results of this feasibility and capital cost

[1:39:21] estimate study. And so my goal here is to provide an overview of this study

[1:39:27] that we conducted with the CBJ to evaluate the feasibility and the capital

[1:39:31] costs of these three possible solid waste disposal scenarios for Juno that

[1:39:37] were mentioned. Um, and myself and my colleague Lindseay Lopez, who is also

[1:39:41] online, we will be available to answer questions at the end related to the

[1:39:45] technical portions of the study. Um, and you're welcome to stop me throughout the

[1:39:49] presentation if any urgent questions come up, but I'm hoping to keep this

[1:39:53] relatively short so there's plenty of time for discussion at the end. Uh, next

[1:39:58] slide, please.

[1:40:03] All right. So this step was really just that first step in the planning process

[1:40:08] for waste management. And the goal of the study was to conduct a limited

[1:40:12] high-level review of capital cost and feasibility. And um we wanted to

[1:40:17] initiate conversations around the future of solid waste management in Juno. Next

[1:40:23] slide please.

[1:40:28] And so given that this is an initial highle study, there are several factors

[1:40:32] that could not be considered for the study and so we made several

[1:40:36] assumptions. So we wanted to be transparent so everyone is on the pa

[1:40:39] same page. So many of these assumptions are listed on the slide here and I'll

[1:40:43] highlight just a few of them. So the first assumption that we made is that a

[1:40:48] new transfer facility would be in the lower Lemon Creek property and this is a

[1:40:53] 207 27 acre site that's owned by the CBJ. So now we assume that the CBJ would

[1:40:59] need to address zoning requirements for this property before construction and

[1:41:03] likely sighting would also be necessary for construction of a new facility such

[1:41:08] as for example a landfill or a waste energy plant. And then jumping to that

[1:41:13] third assumption there. So this really highlights the results of the 2024 waste

[1:41:17] characterization study uh which revealed that up to 59% of waste in Juno is

[1:41:23] categorized as either recyclable, reusable or compostable with current

[1:41:27] diversion programs. So this means that there is potential for increased waste

[1:41:31] diversion in Juno. And then jumping forward to

[1:41:34] assumption number five. Uh so in general there are other factors that are outside

[1:41:38] of the scope of the study that could still impact capital and operating costs

[1:41:43] and that includes things like the limited construction season in Juno. Uh

[1:41:47] the ultimate selected location of these facilities and the chosen ownership and

[1:41:52] operational model. And so because of these factors, it's important to

[1:41:56] remember that the costs that I present in the next few slides um are just

[1:42:00] initial approximations for comparison purposes. And so the CBJ will need to do

[1:42:04] more detailed cost estimates before moving forward with significant

[1:42:08] financial decisions or setting final budgets for these projects. Next

[1:42:14] slide. All right. And this diagram here is is really the meat of the study. So

[1:42:20] it shows the flow of waste in each scenario. And these dashed boxes on the

[1:42:26] screen, there's three dashed boxes. and they indicate points where the CBJ has

[1:42:30] an opportunity for increased control over the waist stream. And as you'll

[1:42:34] notice, as director mentioned, a transfer facility, which is shown on the

[1:42:39] box on the left, is a key component for all three scenarios. And this transfer

[1:42:44] facility would serve as an interim waste management solution while the CBJS

[1:42:48] explores other disposal options. It would also help to better manage large

[1:42:52] influxes of waste from things like tourism or de disaster debris. and it

[1:42:57] could act as a centralized point for waste management as well. All right. And

[1:43:01] then in the center of the diagram, you have the three uh waste management

[1:43:05] scenarios. So at the top we have scenario A. In this scenario, waste

[1:43:10] would be routed from the transfer facility to a new landfill in Juno for

[1:43:14] disposable for disposal. And in this scenario,

[1:43:19] recyclables would be sold and transported to local export markets

[1:43:23] ultimately. And then in the center we have scenario B. In this scenario, waste

[1:43:27] at the transfer facility would first be consolidated and prepared for off-site

[1:43:31] shipping by barge. And so this scenario would require a larger transfer facility

[1:43:37] because um than the other two scenarios because there could be risks of

[1:43:41] disrupted barge services. And then also a quick thing I wanted to note about

[1:43:46] scenario B is that the c capital costs for this scenario are lower compared to

[1:43:51] the other two scenarios because only the transfer facility would need to be

[1:43:55] constructed. However, um the CBJ would need to

[1:43:59] negotiate shipping costs and off-site disposal and fuel search charges. And

[1:44:03] all of these factors could add up to significant operational costs that were

[1:44:07] not included in the study. And then finally at the B bottom,

[1:44:11] scenario C. So in this scenario, all waste recyclables from the transfer

[1:44:16] facility would be routed to a waste to energy plant. And so there are a few

[1:44:20] very important points that I want to make about a waste to energy plant here.

[1:44:24] Um, and the first is that the CBJ's electricity currently comes from nearly

[1:44:29] 100% renewable hydroelectric power and AEL does not provide energy credits for

[1:44:35] surplus generation. So, as it stands, the power produced by a waste energy

[1:44:40] facility would not provide a direct electricity benefit for the CBJ. And the

[1:44:45] second point to make here is that the waist stream in Juno is substantially

[1:44:49] smaller than other regions where waste energy plants have been constructed. Uh

[1:44:53] so Juno generates about 100 tons per day of waste while the majority of waste to

[1:44:58] energy plants in the US are constructed to operate at 800 tons per day uh tons

[1:45:03] per day of waste or more. And so in order to optimize the efficiency of the

[1:45:08] waste energy plant uh it may not be in Juno's best interest to divert waste for

[1:45:13] recycling or composting because essentially all of that waste would need

[1:45:17] to be used to optimize the efficiency and

[1:45:20] operations. Next slide please.

[1:45:25] All right. So now we'll look at costs. And this slide looks at the anticipated

[1:45:30] cap capital costs for a new transfer facility in particular. And so just to

[1:45:35] talk about methods very quickly to get these estimates, we looked at the per

[1:45:38] unit construction costs of five different transfer stations in the US.

[1:45:42] And these transfer stations were at various stages of project development,

[1:45:46] various sizes and locations to get a range. and the costs were escalated with

[1:45:51] a cost index through December of 2024. So, it's a snapshot in time. And we

[1:45:56] chose these facilities for comparison because they are relatively recent

[1:45:59] projects in small to medium building sizes similar to Juno's needs. And I'll

[1:46:03] I'll mention that the facilities are listed in that column on the left in the

[1:46:07] table. Uh with the exception of that Anchorage transfer facility in the

[1:46:11] middle. So, this is a larger facility as you'll see, but it does provide a data

[1:46:15] point for an Alaska specific project. Now the the costs the forecasted costs

[1:46:21] for Juno are on the right and the size and the capacity of the transfer

[1:46:26] facility will depend on the scenario. So as I mentioned before a smaller transfer

[1:46:32] facility would likely be sufficient when local disposal options are available and

[1:46:36] that includes scenario A with the landfill and scenario C with the waste

[1:46:40] to energy plant. So, a smaller facility size between 9,000 to 13,000 square feet

[1:46:46] would cost between $9 million and $20 million in capital costs. And then on

[1:46:50] the bottom right corner, we're showing the um the capital cost for a transfer

[1:46:56] facility that's larger to accommodate increased storage for potential

[1:47:00] disruptions in shipping for scenario B with off-site shipment.

[1:47:04] And so in this scenario, we um estimate that we would need to accommodate 7 to

[1:47:09] 14 days of storage and additional processing space. And this larger

[1:47:13] facility would be sized between 13,000 and 26,000 square feet and would be

[1:47:17] estimated to cost between $14 million and $40 million in

[1:47:22] capital. Next slide, please. Mr. Deputy Mayor,

[1:47:28] Miss Miller Casman, we have a question. Uh yes, ma'am. Uh we knew that uh

[1:47:36] previous times that we'd looked at waste to energy that Juno didn't produce

[1:47:40] enough. Did you look at an incinerator so that we could potentially get rid of

[1:47:45] that 100 tons or dent that 100 tons a day but not uh convert it to energy? Uh

[1:47:51] was an incinerator uh looked at in in this process?

[1:47:57] Uh director coach, would you like me to answer that?

[1:48:01] Yes, please. All right. uh we did not consider just an incineration without

[1:48:06] energy capture in this analysis. We only considered with energy capture to get

[1:48:11] the

[1:48:14] benefit. Any follow-up questions on that?

[1:48:20] Doesn't appear so. So, please continue. Thank you. Okay. Thank

[1:48:23] you. All right. Um All right. So now we'll present the landfill capital costs

[1:48:29] and we use the same comparison method to estimate landfill costs and the

[1:48:32] landfills that we considered on the left in the table. Uh and it's important to

[1:48:37] note that the capital cost for landfills can vary significantly based on the

[1:48:41] landfill geometry and design parameters. But for this estimate you we use very

[1:48:45] conservative parameters. And the cost for a 50-year

[1:48:50] landfill are at the top right. And we estimated that a 50-year landfill would

[1:48:54] cost between 50 million and $162 million. And now a 100red-year landfill

[1:48:59] is also listed. It would cost nearly double, but this would set the stage for

[1:49:03] more regional waste management. And it's also important to note that the

[1:49:08] there are differences in the timeline of investment between a landfill compared

[1:49:12] to the transfer facility and the waste to energy facilities that I mentioned

[1:49:17] because the capital costs for landfills are applied in phases as the cells reach

[1:49:20] capacity and new cells are constructed. While in contrast, the capital cost for

[1:49:25] transfer stations and waste energy facilities are required upfront and

[1:49:29] likely would require significant replacement capital over the same time

[1:49:32] period. Next slide.

[1:49:39] All right. So, now looking at the waste to energy facility capital costs. Uh,

[1:49:44] and as you'll see, the results are print presented differently here. And that's

[1:49:48] because the Jacob's waste to energy team could forecast costs by modeling using

[1:49:52] data from 18 different waste to energy plants that were built in thei United

[1:49:56] States, United Kingdom, and Asia. And so, this graph plots the capital cost

[1:50:01] for constructing a waste to energy facility. and that's on the y- axis per

[1:50:06] megawatt of thermal energy. They're on the x- axis. And the black dots that are

[1:50:11] in the center represent the comparison waste to energy plants, those 18

[1:50:15] different waste energy plants. And the orange dot on the top left of the plot

[1:50:20] indicates the forecasted capacity and cost for Juno at 30,000 tons of waste

[1:50:24] generated per year. Uh and as shown by this orange dot, a

[1:50:28] small waste energy facility to process 30,000 tons per year year of waste would

[1:50:33] cost around $90 million. Uh and I will note that the

[1:50:38] data on small waste to energy facilities is limited which could introduce some

[1:50:42] uncertainty in the capital costs and so these are rough order of magnitude

[1:50:46] estimates and the larger facilities in population dense areas are more

[1:50:50] typically built because of the operational efficiency at a higher waste

[1:50:54] capacity. Um and also the construction costs of waste energy plants are mainly

[1:50:59] impacted by the facility size and the caloric value of the waist

[1:51:02] stream. Um and as I mentioned before, waste energy can disincentivize

[1:51:06] diversion or source reduction of waste because of the need for more waste to

[1:51:10] operate the facility efficiently. All right, next slide. Miss

[1:51:16] Miller Casman, I have a question for you. Yep. Go ahead. Following up on Mr.

[1:51:20] Bryson's question about the incinerator, we do get questions about that. I guess

[1:51:24] with your, you know, expertise, could you just let us know the rationale for

[1:51:29] why that, you know, wasn't evaluated? I'm sure there is one, but Sure. Well, I

[1:51:34] will say, you know, I would say that this was decision that was made in

[1:51:37] conjunction with the CBJ. Um, but my understanding is that incinerators alone

[1:51:43] without, you know, just incinerators in general, we're seeing more air quality

[1:51:47] permitting requirements. There are many regulations for incinerators. And so

[1:51:52] there are, you know, the cost to build an incinerator in general would be high.

[1:51:57] And um so without the additional energy benefit and therefore potential revenue

[1:52:03] benefit from either a um just pure direct energy or a a heat and energy

[1:52:09] combination just would make you know somewhat of a wasteful um facility to

[1:52:14] build. Very good. Thank you for that.

[1:52:21] All right. Okay. So, based on this uh this

[1:52:27] initial study, we present a preliminary ranking and these are based on criteria

[1:52:32] that we agreed upon with the CBJ. And that includes things like capital costs,

[1:52:35] the implementation timeline, diversion goals, and the relative ability to

[1:52:40] address Juno's waist stream in the near term given the impending closure of the

[1:52:45] existing landfill. And I do apologize for the small text. We wanted to present

[1:52:49] all the information on the slide here, but I will say that the two columns on

[1:52:53] the left are what I'll focus on for now. And we can address the other columns

[1:52:57] during Q&A. Uh, but based on this initial

[1:53:01] analysis, scenario B with off-site shipment is ranked first, followed by

[1:53:05] scenario A with a new landfill. Now, I will say that both are worth pursuing at

[1:53:09] this time. Uh, a new landfill comes with high capital costs and a lengthy

[1:53:13] regulatory process. Though we do recognize that relying on off island

[1:53:18] private landfills has its own inherent risk and we suggest that the CBJ explore

[1:53:22] funding options and ownership models for a new landfill while engaging with

[1:53:26] shipping partners and off-site landfills. Now scenario C with the waste

[1:53:31] to energy facility does rank lowest for now. Um, and that's due to those high

[1:53:35] relative construction costs that I mentioned, the low operating efficiency

[1:53:38] with Juno's waist stream, lack of an energy benefit for Juno, as I mentioned,

[1:53:44] and especially the need for specialized labor and technologies to build these

[1:53:47] types of facilities, which could drive costs even higher. Uh, and I will say

[1:53:52] that these rankings are just a starting point and are likely to change as the

[1:53:55] CBJ investigates operating costs, funding opportunities, and starts to

[1:53:59] engage with partners and vendors. Next

[1:54:06] slide. All right. So, recommended next steps.

[1:54:10] Um, so the first we're we're hoping that um the results of the study could help

[1:54:17] this assembly and the CBJ determine the desired level of control that they would

[1:54:21] like over the future of waste management in Juno because this decision is really

[1:54:25] key to inform the subsequent next steps. Number two, we recommend constructing a

[1:54:30] transfer facility as was mentioned. Um, and the transfer facility should be used

[1:54:34] no matter which scenario is chosen and ideally include design considerations

[1:54:39] for future expansion if desired. And this is especially important given the

[1:54:44] upcoming closure of the landfill which could happen before another disposal

[1:54:47] facility can be completed. Uh, and I'll note that there

[1:54:51] are many ownership and operating models available to help finance and run these

[1:54:56] facilities. So for example, one type of partnership um the public entity may

[1:55:01] provide the land for this facility and work with a private entity to design,

[1:55:05] build and or operate the facility. And so that division of control and

[1:55:09] financing is determined by agreements between the public and and the private

[1:55:13] entities at that time. Uh number three, the CBJ can start to gauge operational

[1:55:18] costs by engaging with shipping partners and haulers. And finally, the CBJ should

[1:55:23] continue to move forward with additional studies for one or more of these

[1:55:27] scenarios or facilities. And in the next phase, we recommend an in-depth analysis

[1:55:31] of operating costs or a life cycle evaluation of one or more of these

[1:55:36] scenarios. And I believe the last slide is just our contact information. And I

[1:55:42] will hand it back over to Director Coach to wrap us up.

[1:55:49] All right. Well, thank you. Um, in terms of, you know, our coming to you today

[1:55:55] and and functionally what's what's our ask um that I feel like we keep building

[1:56:01] on uh this this topic of, you know, do we want to does the community want and

[1:56:07] does the assembly want some level of control in in their waste? Do we want

[1:56:11] something different than the model that we have right now or do we like the

[1:56:14] model uh that we have right now in terms of our uh waste being handled in in the

[1:56:20] private sector? Um and as I mentioned, we did the waste characterization study.

[1:56:25] We've gotten uh some more information on the capital costs of the three different

[1:56:29] options from this particular study. Uh I would recommend that uh we move forward

[1:56:36] and look uh at the get a little bit more essentially each of these these studies

[1:56:42] is getting a little bit more granular and trying to fill out a picture of what

[1:56:46] a waste future could look like a different waste future a waste future

[1:56:49] that CBJ had some level of control in. Um, and that next level of study, if the

[1:56:56] assembly uh wanted us to move forward with that, would also drill down and try

[1:57:00] and get some more clarity about what the costs would be for residents to dispose

[1:57:06] of of their waste under these various options. Um, now I don't think they'll

[1:57:12] get uh there's there's a lot of uh policy decisions to be made along along

[1:57:17] the way. Um it could be, you know, there uh the cost to the end user can change

[1:57:23] based on whether or not CBJ wants uh wants waste to be essentially an

[1:57:29] enterprise fund completely uh paying for itself, whether there's some level of

[1:57:34] subsidy. So there will still be a lot of discussions and policy points moving

[1:57:38] forward, but I would recommend um that we move forward and and take this next

[1:57:44] step to try and further flesh out uh these three options. But probably this

[1:57:48] emphasis on on this these two options which would be uh shipping uh our waste

[1:57:54] out and in general when you ship waste out um in this part of the world you are

[1:57:58] shipping to Washington or Oregon. Uh there's a major landfill in Roosevelt,

[1:58:04] Washington, and another large one in Columbia Ridge, Oregon. So we would

[1:58:09] likely be those are mega landfills. They're regional landfills. Um and look

[1:58:15] a little bit more closely at at that. Um and then that's I think probably the

[1:58:20] most actionable um step that I wanted to pose to you to tonight and to see what

[1:58:26] the as the will of the assembly is. Uh then the the second item in terms of

[1:58:32] guidance requested because the next one doesn't require funding but uh as we

[1:58:37] both mentioned if CBJ wanted to have any level of control in our waist stream uh

[1:58:44] and we wanted to be involved in disposal uh all any kind of disposal option has a

[1:58:51] transfer station on the front of it. whether you're shipping it the waste

[1:58:55] out, whether you're taking it to a landfill, whether you're going waste to

[1:58:58] energy. Um, and we are about to begin a planning uh study for uh the Lemon Creek

[1:59:05] gravel pit. We're going to do some planning there. Um, that's where the

[1:59:10] zero waste campus would would be. That's where we would have our compost

[1:59:16] facility. That's where when the waste management landfill fills up and uh our

[1:59:21] recycling center can no longer be located there, that would be located at

[1:59:25] that location. Um, and I just wanted to gauge uh your interest in our even just

[1:59:32] planning to have a transfer station as we're doing this planning process for

[1:59:36] this for this waste campus. is a a transfer station interesting or enticing

[1:59:42] enough for us to even plan for it as we're we're looking for the use of that

[1:59:46] that site. So, those are the two that's the the two items I'll leave you with

[1:59:51] and we'll I'll I'll pause for questions. Thank you, Director Cotch. Questions

[1:59:58] from the assembly. I had Mr. Kelly, Missandis, Miss Atkinson, and then Miss

[2:00:02] Wall. Thank you. Um, looking at these u these

[2:00:07] hefty fries, it all looks uh pretty daunting, but I I was wondering if you

[2:00:13] also I imagine like some of these are kind of spread out over 10 years. I was

[2:00:18] wondering if you can maybe give a little bit of a breakdown on when we would be

[2:00:22] needing to make some of these investments.

[2:00:26] Thank you through the chair to Mr. Kelly. I I'll get started and then I'll

[2:00:29] see if Tara wants to add anything else. Um, I think that we're a little ways

[2:00:34] away from actually coming to you with a request for a CIP or a a revenue bond or

[2:00:41] that sort of thing in terms of putting the cash up for a a transfer station.

[2:00:46] Um, I think the next step would really be just looking at this uh South Lemon

[2:00:52] Creek gravel pit, planning out what we want on a waste campus. um and and

[2:00:57] continuing to evaluate, you know, moving forward with uh drilling down on the

[2:01:02] operational study, looking at at costs and then if there were uh we that

[2:01:08] information was gathered. Um and if there was a point where uh the assembly

[2:01:13] really felt like, okay, yes, we do want to have a hand in our waste destiny. We

[2:01:18] think that's an important thing for the community. Then um Tara started talking

[2:01:23] a little bit about there are various uh I think financing mechanisms that

[2:01:28] communities use for um for paying for a transfer station and it it it doesn't

[2:01:33] necessarily just need to be um having a getting all the cash up front

[2:01:39] functionally and building it ourselves. We could enter into some sort of

[2:01:43] long-term agreement with a third party um that's somewhat similar. where it's

[2:01:48] not an identical situation, but somewhat similar to what we've done with um

[2:01:52] recycling, for example. We have a long-term I think it's 30-year contract

[2:01:58] um almost with with waste management that we'd had in place, and the cost of

[2:02:02] that the building was built into that long-term contract. So, there are there

[2:02:07] are other mechanisms, but I think that, you know, that's uh probably a couple

[2:02:12] couple years away. Follow up, Mr. Kelly,

[2:02:18] thank you. And actually, yeah, I So, so yeah, I guess like what I'm

[2:02:23] kind of just looking at like there's with these there's different stages. So,

[2:02:26] we have can we have the the transfer station, which sounds like it's common

[2:02:30] to to all of those. So, I'm kind of wondering like like when we would need

[2:02:34] to have like the capital ready ready for that, you know, with all the options

[2:02:38] that that you guys will come to us, but like when are we going to be ready for

[2:02:42] at each of these stages? like assuming we give you direction today and we want

[2:02:47] to do such and such option. Um like when are we going to need to have the capital

[2:02:52] for a transfer station? When we going to need to have the capital for like if we

[2:02:56] wanted if we wanted to do a dump uh with or a second a second dump when we going

[2:03:02] to need to have that capital um be thinking

[2:03:07] through the chair to Mr. Kelly. I think if uh today the assembly said we want a

[2:03:14] transfer station go forth. Uh we would probably go back and we would huddle and

[2:03:20] we would most likely come uh back to you with some uh some sort of financing

[2:03:26] agreement with uh another vendor somewhat similar to what I mentioned for

[2:03:30] recycle works. we would have conversations with different companies,

[2:03:34] private companies that do this sort of work um and likely come to you to that

[2:03:40] would be I think probably the most feasible way to get that rolling in in

[2:03:46] the short term without having to have all of the the cash essentially up

[2:03:50] front. You enter into a long-term agreement. And I'm not sure if if Tara

[2:03:55] um not sure if you have any other uh comments that you want to add about

[2:03:59] public private partnerships and some of Jacob's um expertise there. Yeah, I can

[2:04:04] I can add on a bit and I'm sure Lindsay will have some more to say on that

[2:04:08] topic. Um so I I did want to just also um dive into the details of the process

[2:04:13] a little bit. And so what we've talked about is understanding operating costs

[2:04:18] for all the facilities is important, but also a public engagement step would be

[2:04:22] critical. Have starting to have those public discussions. And then from there,

[2:04:27] you know, there's a few steps before you just go into the construction and that

[2:04:31] includes permitting and design as well. Um, and so there you can bite off

[2:04:36] something like this in in smaller chunks once you make the decision to move

[2:04:39] forward with the facility. Lindsay, you want to add on to any of that? Sure. And

[2:04:44] as as far as the different models there are, you know, with the the various

[2:04:48] public private partnerships, you can structure it in whatever way is, you

[2:04:54] know, best suits you. So, some projects have a publicly owned piece of property

[2:05:00] and then the rest facility is actually funded by a private entity. Um sometimes

[2:05:06] you it's best if you have your public entity is the owner of the facility as

[2:05:12] well and then they just look out for contract operators. So the next phase of

[2:05:16] the project we could explore uh you know which of those CBJ is most interested in

[2:05:22] and do some pros and cons of the the various you know risks associated with

[2:05:26] each model. Um but the more you know control that you want um then you you

[2:05:33] take a little bit more of that public ownership

[2:05:36] model. Thank you. Thank you. Uh I'd miss Hugh Scandi next.

[2:05:44] Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you all for this presentation.

[2:05:49] I'm trying to get a better sense of um I thought previously that we had said we

[2:05:56] do want some relative control over our waste destiny because I think we

[2:06:01] recognize at this point that having it work poorly with a having no control.

[2:06:07] We're not really ever going to get to our diversion goals if we don't have

[2:06:11] that control either of the waist stream or of the waste flow.

[2:06:16] And I understand

[2:06:20] there's wise or you know decision points all along the way and then you know that

[2:06:25] requires a lot more study with each decision point but I'm trying to

[2:06:31] determine with the next step um with that

[2:06:36] cost study that you're talking about and forgive me the slide's not up however

[2:06:41] you characterized it but if you could talk a little more about that and help

[2:06:45] character that for me what you expect to get out of that or what that product

[2:06:51] would look like because it's very hard for me to imagine that you would have

[2:06:56] anything that's uh you know like a really

[2:07:00] useful what comes out of it when there's so many still unknowns because how can

[2:07:06] you know the operational cost of something if you don't even know how

[2:07:09] much the thing costs you know we know everything costs more right now than we

[2:07:13] think it'll cost I'll shut up but could you talk a a little more about that.

[2:07:17] Sure. I I'll start off. Um actually, I guess I should ask director, is that all

[2:07:22] right with you if I kick it off? Uh yes. And I I think I just frame it in terms

[2:07:27] of also just uh before I hand it off to Tara. Uh that some of the things I'm

[2:07:33] envisioning that we would do with this next step. For example, we talk about uh

[2:07:37] this current study talks about a transfer station for shipping, but there

[2:07:41] hasn't there haven't been any discussions with AML. We haven't had uh

[2:07:47] those sort of discussions. I'm like, well, what does that shipping really

[2:07:50] look like? We haven't had I mentioned the name of uh two major regional

[2:07:55] landfills in in the Pacific Northwest. We haven't engaged them to talk about uh

[2:08:00] what contracts could look like, you know, for them to accept our waste. We

[2:08:05] just have there are a lot of uh it's a little bit I feel like it's like peeling

[2:08:08] back this onion and you're right we're we probably uh at the next after that

[2:08:14] next study if we got the appro approval to move forward we probably wouldn't

[2:08:17] have all of the answers but we're we're getting more and more refined and with

[2:08:22] that I would hand it over to Tara. Thank you. Yes, that's excellent framing. Um,

[2:08:27] so you mentioned several key points there and that is having those

[2:08:30] conversations with the the partners and the vendors and that is a a key aspect

[2:08:35] because that will provide a lot of information that we don't have today.

[2:08:39] For example, are these landfills available for off-site shipping given

[2:08:44] the waste generation in Juno? Um, you know, at any point along the way we

[2:08:48] could uncover something that could eliminate one of these options, uh, one

[2:08:52] of these three options or put an option back on the table. Um but I I'll say

[2:08:57] that for the operating cost evaluation that that we are you know we are uh

[2:09:03] proposing here is really to look at um you know talking to those vendors

[2:09:09] understanding what the forecasting costs are also um obtaining estimates for

[2:09:14] shipping rates for example as well as um some construction estimates and

[2:09:19] understanding for waste energy for example are there vendors available and

[2:09:24] willing to build a waste to energy facility in Juno. So those are some of

[2:09:28] the key questions that we would want to ask. We could also evaluate uh tipping

[2:09:32] and collection fees under the different scenarios which would be important

[2:09:35] information for the public to have to make some of these decisions.

[2:09:42] Follow up, Miss Scandies. Yeah, just a quick followup because you have some

[2:09:47] very gross uh estimates for capital costs. It the shipping trash one. that

[2:09:53] one. I completely understand how you get that refined, but for something like

[2:09:59] operating the you you it sounds like essentially you would dial in and do

[2:10:03] more study on what the capital cost would more realistically look like. Is

[2:10:08] this just vary back in the napkin?

[2:10:13] That is the option. I'm more like tell me how you winnow that down from what

[2:10:17] you've done here.

[2:10:21] Director, do you would you like to start it off?

[2:10:24] Go ahead, Tara. Okay. Um, so we it all depends on what level of analysis you

[2:10:31] would like to do. So we could do another back of the napkin for operational

[2:10:35] costs, which again would just be high level trying to ever uncover, you know,

[2:10:39] failure points of these scenarios um and also high level operating costs. We

[2:10:44] could also speak to other um landfills within the Alaska region to understand

[2:10:49] what their operating costs would be and evaluate how that would change customer

[2:10:54] rates um is a very important factor in all of this is understanding with a new

[2:11:00] with construction of a new landfill and once it's up and running for one you

[2:11:05] know what size of landfill should we consider is it something where we would

[2:11:10] like to consider a regional approach or just local for Juno and how Do those

[2:11:14] costs influence what customers will pay?

[2:11:20] Miss Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh this is your

[2:11:25] staff. Uh seems like unless we decide to throw up our hands and wait until the

[2:11:29] landfill closes, we're going to be looking at a transfer station. Um my

[2:11:32] only question is if we're putting it potentially into a site planning

[2:11:36] process, how different is the transfer station for those three scenarios? Is it

[2:11:41] like is your generic transferation to work for no matter what direction we go

[2:11:44] or do we kind of have to call our shot when we're doing something like site

[2:11:47] planning through the chair to Miss Atinson. Uh

[2:11:52] Diana Robinson, environmental project specialist. Um oh my gosh, I just

[2:11:57] completely lost my train of thought on that. Went through my whole intro. Um

[2:12:03] will you repeat the question? Transfer stations.

[2:12:07] Transfer stations. Yes. as a transportation. So what I would

[2:12:11] recommend and uh I recommend this for all of the facilities that we're

[2:12:16] planning uh I recommend planning for a phased approach right so we know that we

[2:12:23] will need that smaller transfer station footprint regardless um you know it's

[2:12:28] really common in solid waste and please correct me if I'm wrong Tara but uh to

[2:12:32] to plan in these phases right for population growth

[2:12:37] degrowth additions of new communities into like a regional waste authority. So

[2:12:42] that would be my recommendation is that we start with that smaller footprint to

[2:12:47] just get you know we're kind of with all of this there is a universe of

[2:12:51] possibilities right we're trying to just narrow it down to what is going to be

[2:12:55] workable for Juno so that would be my recommendation is um it just for the

[2:13:00] purposes of what Denise and I are requesting um for the zero waste campus

[2:13:04] that is more like a placeholder for a space on a map that that's kind of the

[2:13:10] level of detail we're looking at currently. Um, but you know that's still

[2:13:14] starting that ball rolling, right? So that's

[2:13:19] Miss Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to be clear, so generally what you

[2:13:23] guys would do would say we will need this much transfer station for any of

[2:13:27] these options and when we get more clear direction, we'll start adding on to it

[2:13:30] for whatever option. Correct. Okay. Thank you,

[2:13:35] Miss Wolf. Thank you, Chair Smith. I think this kind of follows on that

[2:13:39] question nicely. Um, I think when I first started getting

[2:13:45] involved in city things, and this was maybe inaccurate, but I had the idea in

[2:13:50] my head that someone had told me that we'd likely never be able to be

[2:13:55] permitted to have another landfill in Juno. And, you know, you would have

[2:14:00] never permitted a landfill in the middle of a salmon flood plane. And, you know,

[2:14:05] that that would be very challenging. Um, is that still a challenge or do we in in

[2:14:11] these scenarios, I know we were talking about potential transfer sites at Lemon

[2:14:17] Creek that at that property? Are we talking about potential landfill there

[2:14:22] or how would we go about identifying a site if that's a

[2:14:28] possibility? Through the chair to Miss Wall, I'm going to get started and then

[2:14:31] I'll see if uh Miss Robinson wants to add anything else. Uh, I think when

[2:14:37] people think about the permitting for a landfill, they think a lot about the

[2:14:41] current situation that we're in, which is an unlined landfill on the edge of of

[2:14:46] a a wetland. Uh, I don't anticipate that we would be able to even get that sort

[2:14:52] of facility. Like, I don't think that landfill could be permitted probably

[2:14:55] today. Uh, but you can permit landfills. uh they just oftentimes they're now, you

[2:15:01] know, as as you might imagine, the the rules tend to get more strict over time.

[2:15:06] You tend to have uh lined landfills. Um but the permitting process is

[2:15:12] um it's possible, but it is um probably going to be ownorous. I mean, anytime

[2:15:16] that you do anything with with waste, there's often times the neighborhood is

[2:15:21] not necessarily uh in favor of it. Um, permitting for landfills generally takes

[2:15:26] a really long time. Uh, I would I would anticipate that there'd probably be a

[2:15:31] lower level of push back, for lack of a better term, for a transfer station, but

[2:15:37] it would still be handling waste. Uh, and I would still imagine would get a

[2:15:42] lot that process would get a lot of scrutiny, but I still think it's

[2:15:45] possible. Not sure if you have anything to add. Yeah. Uh, I would add a transfer

[2:15:52] station is a relatively low lift in terms of permitting. Um, this it it

[2:15:58] especially in the state of Alaska. Um, very minimal permit requirements

[2:16:03] compared to a landfill. Denise is correct. Um, landfills take a long time

[2:16:08] to permit, but not necessarily because of the environmental review process.

[2:16:13] It's I think everyone here is familiar just the public process of going through

[2:16:17] making all these decisions, right? It takes a very long time to do any solid

[2:16:22] waste planning. It doesn't happen very often. Like something like this doesn't

[2:16:27] happen very often. This is kind of a unique opportunity to retool the entire

[2:16:31] waste system here, which is not something municipalities get to do very

[2:16:34] often. Um but on the flip side, right, there's not a lot of examples of that.

[2:16:39] So, and there's not a lot of examples of a

[2:16:43] municipality taking control after not having it for a very long time. So,

[2:16:47] that's going to add time to that public process, right? So, but environmentally

[2:16:53] um with modern landfills and engineering changes, I I think the landfill you

[2:16:58] could permit it in in Juno. And I'll let Tara add anything if she

[2:17:04] disagrees. I don't disagree. I would just say that

[2:17:08] a sighting study would be a step in moving towards a landfill is is doing a

[2:17:12] sighting study to uncover where an appropriate location would be for the

[2:17:15] landfill. As well as you have followup. Very good.

[2:17:20] Mr. Bryson, thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Um, what's

[2:17:25] kind of gotten us into this position is that we don't own the stream or the

[2:17:31] holding facility. in one of the scenarios where we ship

[2:17:36] down south. To me, that just adds a third entity that we don't control. So,

[2:17:42] we still won't control the stream. We still won't control the transportation

[2:17:46] because that'll be AML. And we won't control the

[2:17:50] destination as we're trying to solve this. and we went um I'm just saying uh

[2:17:56] maybe we picked Oregon and then Oregon says we no longer want any other state's

[2:18:02] trash to be brought to Oregon. And so now we've done all this work and the

[2:18:08] state that we want to ship our stuff to and then we're paying God knows how much

[2:18:12] oil to ship our trash down south. So you have another environmental

[2:18:18] issue there. Um, how does shipping our trash

[2:18:23] eliminate the problems that we're trying to solve right now of not controlling

[2:18:28] our trash? It seems that a transfer station to ship our waste out just makes

[2:18:34] our it just literally adds a third element of of unknowns. How can shipping

[2:18:40] waste down south for mis for a municipality be a sustainable long-term

[2:18:47] solution when we just be facing the same problems that we're facing today? I I'm

[2:18:52] I'm not seeing how shipping is helpful. Maybe somebody could help explain that

[2:18:58] through the chair uh to Mr. Bryson. Uh, I think that's why there's certainly

[2:19:04] vulnerabilities associated with shipping uh, waste down south, but many other

[2:19:09] communities in Alaska do that. Uh, and I think that's why we're at the point

[2:19:14] where even at this at this stage, there were essentially a high level three

[2:19:20] major types of ways that you deal with uh, waste disposal. and there was a

[2:19:25] ranking of them but not an elimination of any any of the options because we

[2:19:30] would need uh through that next step of looking at operations really digging

[2:19:34] into a little bit more about the the shipping piece. I still do think though

[2:19:39] that even if the community made a decision to build a transfer station and

[2:19:45] to ship that waste down south versus maybe putting it in a landfill, which is

[2:19:50] its own its own why decision point, what we would gain is that uh a waste hauler

[2:19:58] uh is regulated and they have to bring their waste to uh the the most lowcost

[2:20:05] option. So we would wind up being the disposal. The transfer station is the

[2:20:10] first step in the disposal. And having that step in disposal enables us to make

[2:20:17] more decisions about you know if the community wants to do something

[2:20:20] different with the way we we uh process tires or you know or uh the way that we

[2:20:27] process our recycling. the fact that all the waste would be coming to a facility

[2:20:32] that CBJ has some level of control over. Uh I mean we could either own it and

[2:20:38] operate it, although I doubt that that's really the model. We would probably own

[2:20:42] it and have some partnership with a private company, but that private

[2:20:46] company, if CBJ owned it, they would CBJ would be able to direct um what we

[2:20:52] wanted to do with that with that waste flow with diversion. Not sure if you

[2:20:56] wanted to add anything else. Uh like Denise mentioned at the beginning of the

[2:21:01] presentation, a lot of issues that arise there, it's not just because it's going

[2:21:05] in a poorly designed land film, right? It's hours of operation, it is materials

[2:21:10] accepted, it's rates like she mentioned if so just a

[2:21:15] hypothetical CBJ decides to do nothing. Uh the p someone in the private sector

[2:21:21] builds a transfer station because that will be what

[2:21:24] happens. we then don't have any input into when they're open, what materials

[2:21:29] they accept, um the rate again the rates. So yeah, it's not a perfect

[2:21:34] solution by any means. Uh but it does also give us another opportunity to push

[2:21:38] diversion if we are able to incentivize by you know like recycling's free. You

[2:21:45] have and now you you know there's different uh models for payment also um

[2:21:49] that we can look into. There's something called pay as you throw, right? you go

[2:21:53] to the transfer station, you're just paying for that waste that you're

[2:21:55] throwing out. Uh it's not like a, you know, right now we have a minimum charge

[2:22:00] at Waste Management, right? So that's not really incentivizing you to have

[2:22:04] less waste that goes through that transfer station. You can incentivize

[2:22:07] recycling, composting, and reads, though. Um and if you control each of

[2:22:11] those pieces, then it's it's the system just works better, right? So I would say

[2:22:17] that's very good. It looks like you as a

[2:22:21] followup, Mr. Bryson. So the answer that I heard is that the transfer station

[2:22:26] regardless of the scenario is how CBJ can insert themselves into the waist

[2:22:34] stream control. Is that essentially the what you're saying through the chair?

[2:22:41] Yes.

[2:22:44] Very well then. Did you have a question? I did.

[2:22:47] Um, so a transfer I forget um how many acres the zero waste campus site is. Is

[2:22:55] there room for a transfer station and its growth that's needed potentially

[2:23:01] through the chair to Mayor Weldon? Uh yes that because that uh that site is um

[2:23:08] more than 20 acres we would have we would have plenty of space to you know

[2:23:13] make if the assembly wanted to make the decision and pro provide the guidance

[2:23:17] that uh you're interested enough that we should at least include it in our plan.

[2:23:22] Um, we would still have space to have recycling and compost and other things

[2:23:28] on on that site and then even have we would design it such that uh the

[2:23:32] transfer station um had a little bit of room for growth so that we could I think

[2:23:38] we could accomplish all of those things in that in that site.

[2:23:50] I actually had a question on this. I guess

[2:23:53] just, you know, you're asking if we should include it at the Zurista campus

[2:23:56] site. I mean, is there another site we should consider? This one just totally

[2:24:00] makes sense. Okay. You just kind of Okay,

[2:24:04] [Music] Mr. share. Uh that was that uh South

[2:24:09] Lemon Creek gravel pit is the area that we had identified as um the area that

[2:24:15] would be our waste campus. We know that even if um the assembly was not

[2:24:21] interested in having a a transfer uh transfer station. Um the community has

[2:24:27] been interested and has been running a recycling program for a long time and

[2:24:30] running a household hazardous waste program for a long time. And the most

[2:24:35] likely outcome is what when the local privatelyowned waste management landfill

[2:24:41] closes or as it gets close to closing. They're going to need that that space

[2:24:45] where we currently have our recycling and household hazardous waste. So at

[2:24:49] some point uh CBJ will probably get pushed off of their private site. And if

[2:24:54] those are uh services that uh the assembly and the community still want

[2:25:00] CBJ to offer, we'd have to have another location to offer those those services.

[2:25:05] And that's also where uh we had planned um to have a a compost facility that we

[2:25:11] had pursued the congressionally directed spending for.

[2:25:16] Very good. Any further questions from the assembly? Seeing none, anyone open

[2:25:22] to making a motion? Mr.

[2:25:27] [Music] Kelly? I'll uh start with the guidance

[2:25:34] requested. Um, I move that we provide a motion of

[2:25:41] support uh directing engineering public works to include a transfer station with

[2:25:48] possible growth in the zerowaste campus um

[2:25:54] site. Very good. Further motion. Any objection to the

[2:25:58] motion? Seeing that, that motion is adopted. Any further motions?

[2:26:05] Madame Mayor, I'm not quite sure if we need this or not, but we would give

[2:26:09] staff direction. So, um, I would direct staff to use up to $100,000 from the

[2:26:15] zero waste CIP number D12-103 for high level solid waste

[2:26:20] facility operational cost. Very good. We motion. Any objection,

[2:26:26] Miss Wall?

[2:26:32] Um I was I didn't realize we were making a motion that specific, but um I see now

[2:26:39] that that's the slide. Um I this I can follow up more with um

[2:26:47] staff regarding whether we would need a amendment. But I'm interested as we move

[2:26:53] forward with this on on making sure we include um as well as cost estimates

[2:27:01] um looking at our carbon footprint and environmental concerns. I know we live

[2:27:07] in a society that chooses to add that on, but I think we're increasingly in a

[2:27:12] place where that should be just as important as our dollar values. And

[2:27:18] although it's hard to think of this right now, someday those concerns will

[2:27:24] drive our dollars potentially. So, um, if if staff could bring up a bit more

[2:27:29] information on whether that would need additional dollars to include those

[2:27:33] analyses, um, that would be helpful. So, maybe not an amendment, but just a

[2:27:39] general direction that if we have to change that amount, we can. Yeah. Yeah.

[2:27:44] If that was it was going to be provided, it would have changed the cost. Very

[2:27:48] good. Any further objection, Mr. Um, yes. Um, probably just an objection kind

[2:27:55] kind of on a a similar vein. I think uh what would be kind of useful for us in

[2:28:00] making future decisions as well is um is a little more information. I I I realize

[2:28:07] a lot of this is still kind of in the beginning stages, but I think it would

[2:28:10] be helpful for me to have a little more information on on what sort of um what

[2:28:15] sort of timeline things would see that. And um I think

[2:28:21] also um it may be cost comparisons that possibly include the the cost for

[2:28:27] shipping.

[2:28:31] I'll remove my objection. Very good. Those comments, we've heard a

[2:28:38] motion. Miss Gandis. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry for this just now popping

[2:28:43] into my head. Will that include Are you already planning to include looking at

[2:28:49] this also as a potential for a regional landfill? I think you mentioned that

[2:28:54] earlier, Miss Scandi, I had a hard time hearing you. What did you say? Sorry,

[2:28:58] Mr. Smith. I had a hard candy in my mouth. I believe earlier you said that

[2:29:03] you would look at citing it as a regional landfill and just as a local

[2:29:08] landfill or I'm asking will this include that?

[2:29:15] through the chair to Miss Hugh Ganges. We certainly have been um participating

[2:29:21] with Southeast Conference. We know that they're looking at uh regional waste

[2:29:25] solutions and we're continuing to have that that dialogue with them.

[2:29:30] Um we are I think a little bit um it's interesting a lot of the other

[2:29:37] communities in the southeast who are t having this conversation about a

[2:29:41] regional solution have more control over their waste than than we do. I think

[2:29:47] there's certainly um it's certainly apparent that any regional solution in

[2:29:51] terms of the economy of scale that they would get. Um, Juno is certainly the

[2:29:56] most likely location that that that would happen. Um, so we are taking that

[2:30:03] into account as we're as we're doing some of these plans, but it's a little

[2:30:07] bit of this balancing act because we don't want to uh box ourselves in. And I

[2:30:13] I wouldn't um probably proceed with or give our consultant the advice to

[2:30:20] proceed with uh the focus of of us being a regional hub because we don't know if

[2:30:26] that will wind up happening. I think that um we would give them the focus uh

[2:30:31] ask them to focus on uh looking at these solutions primarily assuming that it's

[2:30:36] just Juno's waist stream but knowing that you know keeping some openness so

[2:30:41] that if there you know later on if once the regional planning catches up and if

[2:30:46] it's the community and assembly's will to you know to be more regional that we

[2:30:51] wouldn't shut any doors but I think it's um it's probably a little early for us

[2:30:56] to plan based on that. Yeah, I will add that we can do look at

[2:31:01] like the 50y year versus the 100year land though. I think that would be a

[2:31:06] really reasonable thing to do to get a better because that 100year landfill

[2:31:09] would be more.

[2:31:13] Okay.

[2:31:16] Okay. I'll

[2:31:21] thank you. And uh in a similar vein of just comments under emotion, I actually

[2:31:26] have one too. You had you had brought up and the thing

[2:31:30] that I've talked about almost every time we talk about solid waste is like cost

[2:31:36] to the residents because oh great, we have a $20 million solution, but it's

[2:31:41] going to triple the cost versus a $50 million solution that will just increase

[2:31:45] by a third, whatever. So anyway, I I thought I heard you mention that that

[2:31:49] would be a component of this study. Again, if I was incorrect or that's not

[2:31:55] going to be considered or something, I would appreciate, but I just wanted to

[2:31:59] emphasize that three other people that emphasis

[2:32:03] and I didn't want to be left out. Mr. Chair, you are correct. We are we we

[2:32:09] really want to get this to a place where we understand what the cost is to the to

[2:32:13] the residents. Uh there will be what I had mentioned earlier is that there are

[2:32:16] probably opportunities for policy calls in there in terms of whether or not um

[2:32:21] the assembly wants uh ways to be an enterprise fund if they were thinking

[2:32:27] about it that way or if they were thinking about subsidy or not. But we

[2:32:30] would certainly be driving to try and understand what the cost would be for

[2:32:34] the resident because we really understand that's that's where the

[2:32:36] rubber hits the road. Very good. Thank you very much. And with

[2:32:40] that, I'll remove my objection for emphasis. Was there any further excuse

[2:32:46] me any further objection on the

[2:32:52] motion? Seeing none those that motion is adopted. Thank you all very much for

[2:32:58] this information. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we have one last

[2:33:05] item. Advocacy on ballot measures. Manager Kester. Thank you, Deputy Mayor

[2:33:11] Smith. So, you have a memo. the very last page of your packet that just talks

[2:33:15] about generally speaking advocacy on ballot measures. As you know, we are

[2:33:21] required to uh appropriate funds and register with Apoch if uh the city wants

[2:33:26] to do like more than kind of a basic just the facts public education

[2:33:31] campaign. So, um we we have uh multiple ballot initiatives potentially on the

[2:33:37] ballot, including a CBG initiated uh ballot measure for um seasonal sales tax

[2:33:44] and an exemption of tax on food and utilities. We also have the um the uh

[2:33:52] mill rate cap and the uh just the exemption of sales tax on food and

[2:33:58] utilities that is being circulated. they are out getting additional petitions

[2:34:02] right now. And just to highlight the impact of that exemption of of those two

[2:34:08] measures, an exemption on food and utilities is about a 10 to 12 million

[2:34:12] hit to our budget. And while the mill rate cap because it excludes uh debt

[2:34:18] service, it would have a small impact on this year's budget. However, it would

[2:34:23] really limit the ability of the assembly to make um budget decisions and respond

[2:34:28] to community needs. So, you know, those are kind of our the um body's potential

[2:34:34] interest in advocating one way or another on those. If we were to uh not

[2:34:40] take if we were not to take any action to advocate, so no ordinance um

[2:34:45] appropriating those funds, we would provide a a pretty robust FAQ. We would

[2:34:51] respond to inquiries, but that would be from staff's perspective the the limit

[2:34:54] of it. Of course, assembly members individually can take a more proactive

[2:34:59] role, but um but staff would be very careful about that. Um in the contrast,

[2:35:04] if we did uh if you did approve an advocacy campaign, we would recommend

[2:35:09] hiring a third party consultant with experience in these types of um these

[2:35:14] types of voter education campaigns. The new city hall campaign, we were quite

[2:35:18] close to it. You know, we did some some great uh work, but I think I would uh

[2:35:22] advocate for being a little bit more who's getting a really robust um media

[2:35:28] and direct mail campaign organized uh through uh who a a company a consulting

[2:35:34] firm that specializes in that. Um as you know the deadline to um have anything

[2:35:42] put on the um ballot is um the end of July. So, this is really uh kind of fast

[2:35:49] approaching in order to be able to uh meaningfully develop any type of a

[2:35:54] campaign and I laid out a schedule on the memo. Um, if you're interested in

[2:35:58] keeping the conversation alive on potentially advocating, I would

[2:36:02] recommend uh introducing an ordinance at the next meeting. You don't have to pass

[2:36:07] that ordinance, right? We have a very long time actually in between our June

[2:36:12] 9th meeting and our uh July 28th meeting. Lots of things can change, but

[2:36:16] if you do um if you are interested in having that option, I would recommend

[2:36:21] introducing an ordinance. And you know, I I don't I'm silent on a number in this

[2:36:26] memo. Uh the new city hall campaign was under

[2:36:30] $50,000. Um depending on kind of how many how many campaigns, how many

[2:36:35] measures you want to advocate on, I think um would uh influence that number.

[2:36:40] And I would just encourage you to use a higher number and use language because

[2:36:44] again, you know, we're going to have a long time of between now and when you

[2:36:48] have to make a final decision on that. So, I'm happy to answer any questions on

[2:36:52] advocacy and I know attorney writes also very um involved in this issue. Madam

[2:36:58] manager, just to frame it in and I'm sorry if you said it right there at the

[2:37:01] end, the the information we need to provide on an ordinance, it's the amount

[2:37:08] and do we do advocacy. It's not necessarily advocate for this or

[2:37:12] advocate against that. Is that correct? You are correct. Very good. Thank you.

[2:37:17] Questions from the assembly. Mr. Bryson,

[2:37:22] does the uh the citizen group that is putting on uh these initiatives or

[2:37:28] attempting to get these onto the ballot? Um have we looked at what's the right

[2:37:34] way to ask this question? Um, would it be appropriate for the city's level of

[2:37:39] information to be equal to the group's information of what they're trying to uh

[2:37:47] get past? Would we try to like match the level of activity? Um, could you maybe

[2:37:54] just speak to a little bit what we would do is in like a camp if you had a

[2:37:58] campaign um to do with this manager. Thank you for that

[2:38:05] question. So, uh, no, I I probably would not, um, I I really don't think there's

[2:38:09] time to be have much of a reactionary campaign. Um, if approved, uh, I would

[2:38:15] suggest a, um, social media presence where we do, uh, social media ads. I

[2:38:21] would suggest radio ads. Uh, I would s direct mail is still the like best way

[2:38:27] to get a hold of those individual voters. So I would um you know pro we

[2:38:32] would probably be we would take the advice of the consultant who who does

[2:38:35] those types of activities or the media marketing campaign but direct mail um

[2:38:41] public speaking I would still be relying on I think assembly members to do many

[2:38:45] of those requested public speaking events but I think it would probably be

[2:38:49] uh mostly media focus.

[2:38:55] Other questions? Miss Miss Hall and then I'll

[2:39:00] come back to Mr. Preston. I I it it seems to me with the city hall campaign

[2:39:07] that backfired on on us and so I guess I'm a little hesitant to you know how

[2:39:15] common is it for um municipalities to advocate for something like this or do

[2:39:21] we you know I the FAQ page and relying on

[2:39:27] Q&A around election time would that be a wise er approach

[2:39:33] than using public funds to have an advocacy committee.

[2:39:39] Yeah. If you maybe go ahead and answer but then the thought I think was

[2:39:43] interesting is you know what other communities have done advocacy for you

[2:39:47] know something. Yeah. Um so I know that when I was in Homer we did a advocacy

[2:39:53] campaign for um a public safety building. Uh when we looked it up last

[2:39:57] year I believe Katchakan had done an advocacy campaign. I I don't think it's

[2:40:01] very common. Often when you have a bomb proposition, for example, you have a

[2:40:06] constituency group that is, you know, advocating for that. The reason why uh

[2:40:10] we advocated for a new city hall campaign was it was just a it was really

[2:40:15] hard uh for anyone else to be a champion of a new built new office space for uh

[2:40:22] bureaucrats besides the bureaucrats themselves. And it would be really hard

[2:40:26] for us to distance ourselves, we felt like, from anything just sounding like

[2:40:30] advocacy. Um, I think your other question of like should we do it or

[2:40:34] should we not do it is 100% a policy call that is squarely in your uh arena.

[2:40:42] Mr. Bryson, then Mr. Kelly, could the advocacy advocacy be combined?

[2:40:50] Let's say that two of the propositions were to cap the mill rate and um exempt

[2:40:56] the for food and utilities. Would we be able to have like

[2:41:01] one message out there or if they have two ballot initiatives, we'd have to

[2:41:07] address them separately? Do you have any insight on how you might

[2:41:12] handle if there was two or three ballot initiatives that we'd have to go against

[2:41:18] or advocate against whatever appropriate phrases?

[2:41:23] Um I think that there'd be a lot of synergy and similar messaging. I mean I

[2:41:27] think really there's just a lot of messaging that uh CBJ could do that's

[2:41:31] not specific to any ballot uh proposition. If you know if if

[2:41:39] One option involves drastic cuts to our budget or a giant hole in our budget. We

[2:41:43] could certainly do a lot of uh educating on what that could look like, things

[2:41:48] like that. Um I think a more nuance level of your question that I don't have

[2:41:52] an answer for is like how would we register with Apoch if we were like

[2:41:57] doing a campaign here and a campaign there and and you know I would just have

[2:42:00] to research that to make sure we were following the rules. I mean, we want to

[2:42:03] be very very careful and very um a stickler on on all of those uh campaign

[2:42:10] disclosure rules. Mr. Kelly, thank you. Um this might be a

[2:42:17] little too creative. Um so I guess I'm asking if this is something that would

[2:42:21] be permissible. I think a a big part of a lot of people's objections was they

[2:42:26] they're getting mailers that were paid with their own tax funds trying to get

[2:42:30] them to take an action. Um

[2:42:34] would we have to would would all of the funds have to come from the city? Could

[2:42:40] we coordinate with u maybe another interested citizen group and they could

[2:42:45] also raise funds so this wouldn't be an entirely taxpayer funded effort?

[2:42:52] Whoever would like that. Yeah. So I think that uh logistically it would be

[2:43:00] difficult for the assembly to accept and appropriate donations for the purposes

[2:43:06] of an advocacy campaign. I think a simpler solution would be for that

[2:43:12] entity to register and and have their own advocacy.

[2:43:18] Thank you.

[2:43:24] Further questions from the assembly on this agenda

[2:43:29] topic? Seeing none, would anyone like to make a

[2:43:33] motion? Miss Wall, Mr. Smith, do you mind if I have a take a brief at ease?

[2:43:38] Of course. a couple minutes or something.

[2:47:58] We are back on the record. Um, Miss Wall,

[2:48:05] do you have a motion? Thank you, Chair Smith.

[2:48:07] Um, I move we direct staff to introduce an ordinance at the June 9th regular

[2:48:14] meeting um in a corresponding RO res resolution on July 28th that would

[2:48:19] provide up to um $50,000 for to provide public information that may influence

[2:48:26] the outcome of future val ballot propositions. And if I could speak to my

[2:48:32] motion. Very good. as well.

[2:48:35] Um I I've been through this question of how we deal with these situations a

[2:48:41] number of times on the assembly now and I've changed my mind a few times about

[2:48:46] it. But um why I'm feeling motivated um this year um two things. One there is

[2:48:55] something has changed in the last 5 years. We used to be able to just

[2:48:58] provide public information on these ballot initiatives. Now, we cannot do

[2:49:02] that without allocating public funding to do so. And so, it puts us in a tricky

[2:49:07] position that there's really no way to be neutral. Um, I'm but I want to move

[2:49:12] forward on this particular year because we're considering a seasonal sales tax.

[2:49:17] I think a seasonal sales tax, we've got a bold proposal to transform the way

[2:49:22] that we're collecting sales tax in Juno before us.

[2:49:27] Um it is going to take um some work to make sure people understand why we are

[2:49:35] proposing this um and and the information around that. I think it is

[2:49:39] complex and I know that if we don't get ahead of the message um a lot of

[2:49:45] misinformation will be put out there about the proposal. people see it as a

[2:49:49] tax and and they'll um they'll we won't be able to provide a clear understanding

[2:49:56] of why. Um and so um if it turns out there's there's other things on the

[2:50:02] ballot, then I think we still have the option to um decide how we feel about

[2:50:06] that. But for me, this is about seasonal sales tax. I actually think that I won't

[2:50:11] vote for putting seasonal sales tax on the ballot if we don't allocate funding

[2:50:16] to help educate the public about it. Thank you.

[2:50:20] Thank you, Miss Wall. Any objection to the motion? Miss

[2:50:25] Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I very much

[2:50:29] appreciate where where Miss Wall is coming from, but I am hesitant to take

[2:50:34] positions on any of the potential ballot measures as a city uh that could be

[2:50:39] coming forward. I think that if the case of ballot measures proposed by the

[2:50:44] citizens of Juno, uh there will be like if people reach out and ask what size

[2:50:49] hole will that put in the budget, we are allowed to share that information. But I

[2:50:54] don't think we should be taking a position on any of those potential

[2:50:56] ballot measures because that's just I don't feel our place as the city to be

[2:51:01] doing that and to be advocating for one or the other. Providing unbiased

[2:51:04] information is one thing and advocating for a particular side is another. And as

[2:51:08] far as the seasonal sales tax goes, I I understand that we that is complex and

[2:51:12] it will be a heavy lift to educate the public, but also that's partially what

[2:51:17] um people campaigning that year are for when city hall was on the ballot. I know

[2:51:21] we got questions about city hall and every candidate forum. Um, and so that

[2:51:25] is already sort of an organic part of the process that uh people running this

[2:51:29] year can undertake if need be. And I just don't I think that it sends a bad

[2:51:34] message to be using public dollars to advocate for anything on that.

[2:51:39] Thank you, Mr. Bryson. So uh I was uh listening to Miss Atinson

[2:51:45] and uh I bet in uh my first year I would have had that same thought. I'm

[2:51:51] suspecting that the groups that are advocating for these are going to give

[2:51:55] their version, their side of how this is going to go down. And if we don't give

[2:52:01] city staff um the funding and ability to deal with this, we're going to be

[2:52:08] dealing with a misinformation campaign that negatively harms the community in

[2:52:14] the long run. We need to be as loud and as available with the real

[2:52:20] information because some of these things that have already started to come out,

[2:52:24] I've already heard some of their ads. We need to be as uh we need to be

[2:52:31] as assertive um or we could find ourselves in a bit of trouble. Thank you

[2:52:34] for the time. Thank you, Mr. Bryson. Miss Scandies.

[2:52:38] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just keep it brief. I I support it. You know, I

[2:52:42] thought about this for a long time and specifically for me, how I can support

[2:52:48] this and keep this alive and keep this moving and I appreciate the motion is

[2:52:52] because of the work we're doing on the sales tax proposal and I want that to

[2:52:58] have a fair shake and I want people to feel like they really understand the

[2:53:03] whole proposal and the whole model and why we're doing it and I think this

[2:53:06] allows us to do that. So, I'll be supporting this motion. um to give that

[2:53:12] a a full chance. Very good. Mayor Welen, I'll just speak in support of the

[2:53:18] motion, but everything I was going to say has been said, so I'll keep it

[2:53:21] short. Mr.

[2:53:24] Singer. Um, so I'm speaking support the motion because, you know, looking at the

[2:53:30] potential on the ballot of what could be two very similar looking ballot

[2:53:35] propositions put in front of the voters. I think it's important that we, you

[2:53:39] know, give staff the ability to educate the public on what that choice means. I

[2:53:44] see it not necessarily as an advocating for or against a citizens initiative,

[2:53:50] but explaining to the voters. We're placing one option in front of them that

[2:53:56] looks similar to another option being discussed in the public right now and

[2:54:00] making it very clear what the impacts of both of those would be. You know, what

[2:54:04] why we're proposing an option that looks similar to something being discussed for

[2:54:08] the public. Um but and also if I can ask a question of staff very quickly. Sure.

[2:54:14] With an objection. Um objection for a question. How how much control will we

[2:54:22] as a body have over the actual content of the messaging and you know how much

[2:54:29] how much can we direct the content and the tone and the type of messaging

[2:54:33] that's done by this third party. Yeah. My my favorite is um drafting uh

[2:54:41] FAQs by uh assembly. I've had experience with that. Super fun. Um I would uh

[2:54:50] suggest that uh you know we come forward with a uh maybe a a uh plan for public

[2:54:58] information and that the body have an opportunity to provide high level input

[2:55:02] on that plan. But um I think it is difficult maybe I mean if you really

[2:55:07] wanted some more granular level of control I maybe a small committee or

[2:55:12] something that could uh we could work more closely with but um content

[2:55:17] creation is is difficult in large groups.

[2:55:24] Mr. Kelly, thank you. Um I think I'll support this

[2:55:28] motion uh at this time. Um, I I'm still kind of weighing weighing the pros and

[2:55:34] cons of expending public funds uh to to persuade versus also making sure we get

[2:55:39] a fair shake. Um, I haven't decided how I'm going to vote on the final ordinance

[2:55:43] or the resolution, but I uh support moving the conversation forward. Good,

[2:55:48] Miss Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can count votes.

[2:55:52] So, I'll remove my objection. But I I just will say when it comes to if we

[2:55:56] come to the point where we're talking about expending public money to provide

[2:55:59] information on citizen ballot citizen ballot initiatives, I will um not be

[2:56:05] able to support it. But for now, I'll remove my objection. Mr. Bryson,

[2:56:09] I had a question um for staff. If we did not allocate any funds, staff would not

[2:56:16] be able to go do something like go present at the Chamber of Commerce. Is

[2:56:20] that correct? We have to have an allocation of funds to allow city to be

[2:56:25] able to publicly speak about this. Is there some Could you maybe explain what

[2:56:29] that rule is? Madam manager. Yeah. I mean, you know, I

[2:56:34] don't there's no like Apoch guide book of what you can or cannot do in these

[2:56:39] circumstances. They're a matter. It's a matter of judgment and it's a matter of

[2:56:44] uh risking a Apoch violation. I would not feel comfortable uh speaking at a

[2:56:49] chamber or a um Rotary event on this topic outside of you know being asked

[2:56:56] questions. I would I think an assembly member could uh take that action but um

[2:57:02] like my I would not feel comfortable doing that or directing my staff to do

[2:57:06] that because it'd be very hard for it not to sound like advocating when you're

[2:57:10] like if you approve this we won't have money to fund the arburetum for example,

[2:57:15] right? like that's just going to come off as big bad city manager trying to

[2:57:19] influence my opinion by taking away the things I love. Okay,

[2:57:25] very good. We have a motion and I don't believe we have objection. Is there any

[2:57:29] objection to the motion? Very good. That motion is

[2:57:33] adopted. That I think gets us through our business this evening. Madam

[2:57:38] manager, do we have anything else? Very good.

[2:57:42] Nothing. No staff reports. Our next meeting date is Oh, I thought it was

[2:57:47] July 4th. Is July 14th. Seeing nothing before else before

[2:57:52] us, we are journ.

June 2, 2025 Assembly Committee of the Whole Worksession

Transcript