I call the assembly committee of the whole to order at 6 p.m. on June 2nd,
2025. Mr. Steininger, would you read the land acknowledgement, please? We would
like to acknowledge that the city and bureau of Juno is on click land and wish
to honor the indigenous people of this land. For more than 10,000 years,
Alaskan Native people have been and continue to be integral to the
well-being of our community. We're grateful to be in this place, a part of
this community, and to honor the culture, traditions, and resilience of a
clinka people.
Thank you, Mr. Shininger. Madame Clerk, would you please call the role? Thank
you, Mr. Chair. If I might just note that all members are present in person.
Thank you for being here. The quorum is present. Thank you, madame clerk.
Um, any changes to the agenda? Seeing none, we'll note the
agenda as approved. So, on to our agenda topics. First topic, Hescoberry
installation phase 1B/Future
phases. A dense memo in the packet. Um, the manager does seek some direction
from the assembly, but manager Kuster, start us off, please. Thank you, Deputy
Mayor Smith. So, I have pulled together a a very short presentation from images
included in this memo, uh, mostly as a way to help organize my thoughts and
walk you guys through the memo. So, um, uh, next slide.
This is an image of 1A at 17 ft. So if you recall last committee of the whole
you gave staff direction to um continue with installing Hesco barriers for um on
CBJ property. It was about a a half a million dollar project. We could do it
relatively quickly. That project is wrapping up. And I just want to um show
that at 17 ft the amount of public property that is protected there is
significant. Um at 18 ft you're protecting 271 parcels from inundation.
Um so again that that that work is being done that decision was made but uh I
think was a you can you can see here um the significant protection that that
decision made. Next slide.
So, um 1A at 18 feet does have some downstream impacts and specifically
there are nine homes on Meadow Lane that would be um adversely impacted as a
result of 1A. And so this slide just shows how staff is working to try to
mitigate that. And um the uh the proposed mitigation there would be a
3-ft tall 30 foot wide uh supersack, so sandbag barrier across the trail that
you see in the bottom right hand corner. And um we believe that would prevent uh
a lot of the water from flowing into the neighborhood. Uh and we do have
permission from DOT to um put that in a temporary manner. So that would be
something we would deploy like you know when we know that the basin is releasing
we would deploy those uh those supersacks and then we would remove
those supersacks. But but the good news is we do feel like we have a way to
protect not only the nine homes adversely impacted from 1A but also the
the remainder of the homes um in that neighborhood approximately 30 homes in
that neighborhood. Um so uh let's talk about 1B because really this memo is
about 1B. So, at the May 12th committee of the
whole, we also ask for input from you on uh extending continuing to extend Hesco
barriers all the way to Brotherhood Bridge. And this protects 96 additional
parcels. However, there's a lot of housing units there. Um a lot of multif
family housing. So, we calculated it to be about 190 housing units. Also,
there's a lot of commercial property there. So, you know, commercial
infrastructure. So, pretty high value property that uh that that protects.
However, extending that we don't have time to do any armoring there and it
needs about $1.4 million of armoring along that uh that bank. Um so that
would be something we would have to come back uh next year and do. There's also a
concern that the weight of the Hesco barriers on that uh river bank if we did
truly have a catastrophic event, right, we can't guarantee that there wouldn't
be uh be a failure there. just installing the Hesco barriers on that
just continuing on 1B is about an $850,000 project and again it's on non
CVJ eight non CVJ parcels and so you gave us direction on May 12th to go do
some public outreach and you know get some more information from that affected
area and we did meet with every one of the property owners along there and
everyone except for Riverview Senior Living was amendable to putting Hesco
barriers uh on their property. Um, you know, the memo states that without the
mandate of an LI, it would be difficult to enter into people's property and, you
know, install those barriers uh if they didn't consent to it. I think, you know,
we would use the same argument for um that we have emergency powers to be able
to do that and it and it's a very valid argument. It's just, you know, when we
had the LI and the buyin of all of those residents, it it's just a stronger
argument to be able to uh exercise those powers. So, there's no like legal
argument there. It it just is a stronger a stronger sense of purpose for phase
one and and the couple of properties that we have had that have been not
amendable to installing barriers. Another challenge with phase 1B is that
uh the armoring that it would be required there is not on uh so the the
the property owners that that the Hesco barriers would have barriers on it are
not the same property owners that would have the armoring. So in phase one we
were able to say hey you're significantly benefiting from the um
armoring so you should you should pay more uh for four properties and those
four properties did not object to phase one. In this case, the the riverfront
property is owned by a DOT and a private property owner that owns just the sliver
of Riverbank and and is not interested at all in armoring that property,
doesn't have value to them. Very amenable to the work being done and and
allowing us entry just is just a challenge. It's, you know, um and it
kind of weighs into that fairness issue as you guys evaluate how to proceed with
1B and who uh who pays for what. Um, so I think I I articulated uh some of the
cons of um 1B now and I guess another con would be uh participating in
financing for uh future stages and and phase two. It could disincentivize that
participation. I mean I made a strong argument on May 12th that we just are
going to have to uh count on our our residents, you know, agreeing to
participate in long-term solutions even if they're uh already benefiting. And I
think that argument is still valid. Uh nevertheless, uh we couldn't for example
go back and do an LI for any improvement that has already occurred. Right? So
like we could go back and do an LI maybe for the armoring but not for the Hesco
barriers because those Hesco barriers are already installed and the
improvement has to be before the L. So that takes me uh to chatting a little
bit about Oh, I'm sorry. I did do want to mention one other thing about phase
one uh B is there is a um kind of some new inundation in that lower uh that
middle square there. Uh there's just some some new uh water that we see uh in
like the near the Pavitz building and those parking lots and we're still um
working with Michael Baker to see how that uh that property would be in
inundated. But importantly, phase 1B cures the and protects those metal lane
homes that 1A adversely um impacts. So there are there are pros and those pros
and cons are outlined in your memo. But I think when uh fa you can next slide.
When I was thinking about this and trying to kind of figure out how to
present these different phases to you guys, I I really thought about phase
two. Well, we've always talked about phase two. And I think it's hard to make
uh you know make these incremental decisions about phase one without
thinking about phase two. And as originally envisioned, we uh propose
installing barriers all along all populated sides of the river for phase
two. This is um you know six months ago when we were advocating for funding from
uh the delegation and others. Uh that phase two uh the cost estimate is $17
million. That uh means it's $23.5 million for phase one and phase two. and
you really do get a diminishing uh level of return return on your investment the
more you spend. So, um and I think that's the one of the policy decisions
that the assembly is going to have to struggle with once we're able to give
you of course more information that uh with phase one 1A and 1B, you're
protecting all but 40 homes in a 17t event. And there's lots of assumptions
there, right? like what if we have an 18 event then we would uh you know
potentially protect other homes but but basically you know you're getting a lot
more expensive per parcel as you uh protect some of those outlying um
neighborhoods. Well, those neighborhoods are experiencing very real flooding,
very real uh events, but you know, there's that you you will have to weigh
that kind of public purpose of prot using public funds to protect the the
most uh the most people possible. So, as I thought about phase 1B and phase uh
two, I really wanted to be able to bring you guys more answers to help you make
those decisions, which is why, you know, when I was thinking about it, I thought
phase 1B is obvious, but but it's also something that it would be reasonable to
make a a riskbased analysis and say, how likely is an 18 foot event? Um, and can
we mitigate for phase 1 A? Yes, we can and delay that until next construction
season. The reality is we are going to know a lot more after um our yokaloop
season this year. And frankly, the public's going to feel um a lot more
motivated to participate and pressure you all for continuing flood mitigation
if we have a a a really uh high flood event. And if we don't, that pressure
will probably um not exist as much. So just to kind of walk you through my
thought process as I spent a significant amount of time trying to to think
through this uh next
slide. So the next next uh real question that you've all been facing is what
about View Drive? It's just a really tough pickle. This thumb of property of
20 properties. There's actually 22 properties, but two of them CBJ owns and
are unoccupied. is 20 homes very close to the lake uh makes it very their
elevation makes it very difficult uh to protect those properties. So um we have
uh the
US Mr. President mind if we ask questions right now while we're
Sure. So my understanding is that View Drive and some of those other low-lying
areas have flooded many more times than the two Yakahop floods that August 623
and August 624 that View Drive has been flooded numerous times that were just
high level or lower Yakal releases and like I've been on that river View Drive
has got like annual or bianual flooding on it. Do we have information about how
often View Drive was flooded prior to this
situation? Because they might have already had they were already facing
this um before the rest of the community was facing the Yakahop is my
understanding. It's a flooded area. Yes. So, some homes uh on View Drive flood at
13 ft uh and not all homes. Um, so many of the homes have experienced uh
repeated uh flooding. Some of the homes have taken um mitigation measures
themselves to help protect against that. When you look at an 18 ft flood event on
our interactive map, and that's a map that you can access through the CBJ
website. If you go to uh if you go to the CBJ homepage, there's a there's a
flood button, and then from there, it takes you to the University of Alaska
Southeast uh interactive map. And that map is really useful because you can
pick a flood stage and then toggle over individual homes and areas and and do
the depth. And so I did that before this meeting to say, okay, at 18 feet, how
deep is the water on View Drive? And the answer is really varies. So there are
some homes that are only a couple only have a couple feet of of like in that
image. The depth for some homes is only a couple of feet feet. For some homes,
it's nine feet. For some uh you know yards, it's 12 feet. So really uh
matters. details matter, right? But but you are correct that some of the homes
um on View Drive do routinely uh experience some some water. Um in fact,
two of the homes are in the flood way and the flood way is a more uh difficult
has a more rigorous level of permitting than the flood plane. And um so when we
talk about Hesco barriers, we're also concerned about being able to get
permitting and maintain our FIP status for those particular uh those particular
properties. Now, now that probably means that there's some combination of
solutions out there for Few Drive and Army Corps of Engineers has uh directed
some attention. and they've pulled pulled their um principal engineer from
the long-term solution and they are having them look at Vue Drive and do a
feasibility analysis for Vue Drive. I know that uh deputy director cotch and
uh deputy manager bar and mayor will be meeting with you drive residents this
week to talk about options for fug drive. We also have uh petitioned the um
um natural resources conservation service for participation in a um
program uh that uh it buyouts are one of the solutions, but it proposes other
solutions for homes that experience these multiple losses and understand
that they're looking at booking uh some travel this summer to come and do some
of that that analysis work. So, we're we're really trying to, you know, figure
out what uh what can be done with F Drive because it really is I mean I I
know that the um families that live there, I'm sure are very frustrated uh
because it because of just the elevation and the location of Vue Drive. So,
that's kind of the summary of View Drive. And um I think that's my last
slide. So, you can probably stop there. I we'll keep talking about um how to how
to pay for it if you guys uh with at your discretion. Uh Chair Smith. Okay.
Maybe we'll pause just for some questions on inundation or things. Mr.
Kelly, uh thank you. Uh you are mentioning that
the Riverview Senior Center uh would not it is not agreeing to the uh phase 1B.
Um, do we know what would be the impacts like if we had hesco barriers
everywhere but on on 1B except for Riverview Senior Center?
No, we haven't done modeling of individual uh properties. I mean,
generally speaking, that's the continuous line is uh most effective.
Thank you, Miss Wall. Thank you, Chair Smith.
Um, in your memo you talk about pros and cons of
1B now versus later. You don't mention do my question
there. There's mention here about the core being, you know, potentially
um challenged to help us if we're protecting areas that
are would be protected over 16 feet. Do you and this is probably just a guess
but based on your conversation with them do you feel like we if we don't move
forward with 1B this year we potentially lose ability to install Hesos in 1B next
year based on that conversation with the core or can we do it without them I
guess is the other part of that question. Yeah. So, so we have not asked
that specific question of the core. However, we do have those barriers on
site and we do have that preliminary engineering done. So, uh we could do
phase 1B without their uh technical assistance.
Miss Candies, thank you chair. My question is a followup kind of on the
same topic of the core kind of being out if it was more than 16
feet that you know in your memo will add to the expense if we're on our own.
Could you speak a little bit about how and what order of magnitude?
Yeah. So, um if the core were not to participate in flood mitigation for
phase two, uh they would not be providing the Hesco barriers uh for
free, which is what they're providing. And they're providing uh technical
assistance. I I want to say the cost of Hesco barriers would be a couple million
dollars for phase one. I don't know if I'm I'm getting so so let's say we phase
one uh a $6 million project um represented a couple million dollars of
hesco barriers. So you could you know let's say that $6 million in hesco
barriers uh and of course the value of their text technical assistance is
harder to quantify but almost more important because it adds that
legitimacy to uh to any work that we're doing. I will say, you know, this was a
conversation that we had with um with the Army Corps late last week. Um we
haven't, you know, we haven't pushed back on that because I really want to
understand a little bit more um what phase two looks like before we uh you
know do before we engage in kind of that that push and pull with um with the Army
Corps. They've been such valuable partners and I feel like we just need a
lot more information ourselves to be able to know what we're doing to be able
to kind of have those follow-up conversations. Uh I also think that the
event that we experienced this summer, I mean, if we have a higher event, then
we'll have a higher record event that we will need their assistance with. So I I
I'm not stop talking. Quick followup. I
Okay, I appreciate that. And I was thinking that it was much more the
technical assistance piece and the legitimacy piece and what that looks
like to go alone. But if it's something as clear-cut as you can't have our Hesco
if it's over 16 ft, am I understanding that correctly? Because that changes
everything in here. And I didn't get that from reading this. So are you
saying that's a conversation or a remark that happened really recently? So you
have you need more time to see if that is no you can't have our hesos but it
could be no you can't have our escos from I think it could be you
cannot have additional hesos and additional technical assistance for
flood fighting over the historical event. They're still providing uh
technical assistance of course for the long-term solution.
Okay, I'll hold for and wait till we get through this. Kelly,
just a follow up to that. Um, we you mean say they wouldn't they wouldn't
provide hesco barriers? Like we could still get them, but they would be at our
own expense, right? All right. Thank you. Correct.
Manager Ker, I just had one question from you said it. I just want to make
sure I understand it and maybe for others to hear too. You mentioned the
modeling shows with 1A which is nearing completion that it
would direct water onto certain areas of Meadow Lane. But you believe you have a
solution for that and that's the super sacking near the bridge or whatever to
pro that would so that that would protect those houses on Metal Lane. Is
that correct? Correct. It would protect uh those uh
nine homes that one would would impact in addition to other homes on Meadow
Lane. Okay. Thank you, Miss Wall.
I remember when we were talking about phase one and phase two and you know it
was you know the idea of phase two we just put barriers up along the whole
river felt like of course that was the best we
could come up with and we didn't know much at the time like after going
through the process of putting these up in a strategic place
where we were protecting ing most of the most vulnerable homes
and pushing water to the undeveloped side. Like, do we still feel like phase
two as originally envisioned is the
right going to be the right fit or like do we think it'll be we need less
barriers than we thought at that point or it's actually going to be really hard
when we get down to that lower river and because there's properties everywhere.
Um, do we have a sense after going through the last year of how much that
initial proposal really reflects what we think it would look like today?
Yeah, I think your thought process is definitely um some of the struggles that
I have had when looking at uh you know where do we stop right because we're
getting that diminishing level of return and it really depends on um how severe
of an event we think we're going to get. So if we think 17 which scientists
cannot tell us right but if we think 17 feet is a reasonable assumption then
doing phases one 1 a and 1b protect all but but 40 homes according to our
modeling which you know I think you'd be hardressed to spend an additional $17
million uh to protect those those 40 uh 40
homes. Um, but I think director Kotch talks about it just like chasing water,
right? We're chasing water and we do something here and then we're like, we
need to mitigate here and we need to So there's there's likely um some
additional mitigation and additional nuance that we can bring to you with
more time and with more engineering that can make, you know, that can do even
better than that. Um, but there will be a policy call that you will have to make
and and and you will make need to make sure that uh you get your questions to
me so I can get you the questions that you need to make that about like where's
the diminishing level of return. But certainly when I look at the work that
we have done it I feel like we've really done a lot uh to protect uh the menal
valley.
Mr. Bryson, thank you Mr. Deputy Mayor. So, I think I just want a real
clear answer. If we don't do 1B now, it's
going to be more expensive to do on our own, end of the summer, next
summer. If we do 1B now, while we still have everything set
up that we would have it substantial savings like we would get Hesco barriers
or where is the split? it it become it's not too expensive we do 1B now but it's
super expensive we do 1B later or am I wrong and it's just super expensive
whenever we do 1B I know I asked a confusing question
sorry about that yeah so your I think your question really revolves around the
efficiency of doing 1B while we're still mobilized and I do think there's some
efficiencies there however because we would have to come back and do armoring
we would essentially still have to be in that uh in that area so it may add some
project cost because you know we we will have to kind of remob uh the the some of
the hesco barrier filling etc but um I I don't don't see it in the in
exponentially more costly to do the entire project next construction season.
Okay. Thank you Mandes.
Thank you Mr. Chair. A follow-up question about armoring on that front.
We say in the memo here that we don't have time to do armoring and hescoing
this season, but we do have time to put hesos if we wanted to on
unarmored. I know we start getting into the season, but of course, minus the
fact that it seem to favor a specific day, we also don't know when it's going
to hit unless it hits green again, but um how can you give me a sense of how
long it would take to armor if we wanted to try to I guess I'm wondering if we
said let's armor and Tesco this season and we'll just see if we can beat the
flood if there is because also there could not be an event this year that's
also possible. How much longer does that add?
Well, I think that really all depends on contractor availability and we have
pulled our contractors from other CBJ jobs to be able to continue doing the um
1A work and we we would continue to do that for 1B. So I don't I don't have a
good question for you that's like well in one month we'd have it armored. I do
know that uh the armoring goes relatively quickly. Uh so is there a
scenario where you could authorize AR armoring and you know hope that we could
get it done before August? Our goal is to have all of this work done by July.
That's that's been the kind of goal that we've been working towards. So I I
imagine that there is a scenario where we could um you know have armoring
done at some point this this summer given contractor availability just not a
guarantee that it would meet that July deadline that we've set.
Okay. Thank you. So what I'm hearing if July wasn't the deadline we could do it
this summer. Well I I I I imagine possibly it's
possible. Yeah it's possible. Okay. Thank you,
Mayor Welen. Uh, thank you. But if we armored this summer without having an LI
in place, we would have to pay for that armor. And is there any way to collect
that money back? Um, you are correct that if you were to
armor uh this summer, you could not use an LI as a mechanism to uh help spread
those costs. uh you could use a special tax district
and I could start talking about mechanisms to pay for it. This is a good
segue. Uh
sure. Maybe keep it brief and then we can see which way we're going before we
get deep. But go ahead and give us a little overview. Thanks. Yeah. So um you
talked uh you've asked for information on establishing a uh service area and a
service area can be established by the assembly. The
um 100 voters or 10% of the affected voters uh can petition that and then it
goes to the voters. I and I think we would get that threshold right now. So
there is a scenario where you could decide to establish a service area and
use that as a mechanism to pay for uh improvements and the assembly sets that
mill rate. I do think there are some important questions that you would want
to have answered before you took that to the voters. The first question that you
would have to have answered of course is how big do you draw that circle? And um
as I struggle I struggled to be able to give you the information I felt like you
would need to make that decision, you know, in the next few months because we
don't know what our phase 2 project looks like, right? We don't know what
we're committing to. We don't know what uh and ergo we don't know what the
circle should look like. That being said, um there's certainly a way that we
could design a um tax district and nullify the LI to pay for those
improvements. Um, you know, I I did a little back of napkin math on the
assessed value of all the properties in the 18oot inundation, and it's about um
almost $900 million of value. One mil gets you shy of a million dollars, but
that's protecting every single property um that floods at 18 feet, which, you
know, I think we might struggle to do. So, you can see how I quickly got to we
haven't made that decision yet, so this might be difficult. And and so one
avenue that I propose is kind of reserving that special tax district to
when we have a long-term solution, we're going to need uh to pay for match and
and to pay for um a lot of things associated with the long-term solution.
And of course, we will know that the long-term solution will protect
everyone, right? Because uh because of the nature of that solution. Um,
nevertheless, there is definitely a scenario where you could introduce an
ordinance and we could send it back to the cow so we could do more discussion
and make that timeline for this fall's ballot. Uh, the memo goes into more
detail on what it would look like to do an LI for phase two, but I won't um uh
belabor what that looks like since you're all pretty familiar with the L
process.
Um, Miss Hall, did you have a question? Yeah, I uh have we discussed an LI for 1
A and B.
So, we cannot do an LI for 1A because we've already done the improvement. So,
there's nothing to assess them. Um the justification being it protects a lot of
public property. It also was rel I mean it was $500,000. So, it really was the
least expensive um project.
Sus Gandies and Mr. B. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You just referenced the strategic
decision waiting to establish a service area until you were trying to pay for a
match or something for the the longer term solution. And I want to make sure
I'm understanding what's strategic about that. So, you're saying in some ways you
could make that choice because your your entire circle is a lot larger. Is that
what you're saying? Yes. Yes. uh there's a lot more certainty in
that um long-term solution then and I think the body would struggle with
drawing a circle because first you would need to know what the project is and you
may want a different circle for like paying for flood fighting than you would
for paying for long-term mitigation which will I mean long-term mitigation
will protect to a 20 foot event. there there's like different different
decision points uh and risk analysis when you're talking about like a
short-term solution and when you're talking about the the solution for the
next hundred years follow so based on that answer you it's not
just the size it's also partly the policy argument that you're
making to those residents or am I wrong to read that in
Because one would be saying, "I'm building you a levy and you live in
this. We clearly you benefit. You benefit forever cuz I I built you a levy
and you helped pay for it versus I'm putting up super giant
sandbags next to your house and I feel pretty good about it." Is that part of
what you're saying as well? not just a geographic size or am I misunderstanding
that? Um I will
leave and easier question might be is it purely about the size the size of the
circle? Um I think it's about the size of the
circle and the um project that we would be funding with that. So, you don't need
to know the project obviously to to uh draw those back. You can say we're going
to protect this circle, but you kind of do cuz how do
you know what you're protecting if you don't know what the project is that
you're funding with by drawing the circle? So, so I think that it's
um I think that at this moment in time it would be a diff it would be difficult
to draw a circle but but you could draw that circle. You could say we want the
circle to be one 1 A and 1 B manager cast and bring us that uh ordinance at
the next meeting for introduction and then answer these five questions at the
next committee the whole so it's very much doable to uh to go down that path
of course it has very different you know payment uh implications right le every
parcel pays the same u mill rate is assessed is you know value of your
property um median property value in in that area. I I want to say it's
$415,000, but of course that includes vacant property as as well or you know,
so it's undeveloped property as well. Um so so that piece I'm not opining on as
far as like do you do a uh le you know and and that impact that it has on the
residents and that's very much an assembly level uh conversation. I just
struggle to give you the the advice on how to draw the circle.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bryson. Uh, thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. If we
wanted to do something, say like add a service area for the valley for flood
fighting and flood future flood protection. And one of the ballot
initiatives that capped the mill rate at nine, would that service area be
subjected to that 9% cap? um which would almost like eliminate our
ability to use it. Um I'm looking at Miss Wright because I
think that might be the question for her.
Who else? Thank you, Assembly Member Bryson. Yes, it would be uh subject to
that cap. The only thing that's not subject are the geo bonds um under that
ballot initiative.
And Mr. Kelly, thank you. And would um you were
mentioning that some DOT properties would be protected um since it's the
state would they I assume they don't pay property tax.
You are correct. Okay. Uh the DOT property would be uh we would need to
armor on DOT property and follow up like would would they be
contributing anything if it was the lid?
Um I think technically you assess you we do assess
uh state properties. I don't know what our success has been in getting those
state properties to pay those assessments. I know that I have dealt
with this a lot in a a former role and had um you know the the state agency
kind of depends on how they participate based on how they feel like they are
impacted. So I think There is a scenario where if if DOT is like that's vacant
land that you know we just have an easement on which we have a lot of
parcels like that um that they would make an argument that they would not
participate in the L. Thank you.
I think I'm good for right now. Thanks. Please.
Thanks Mr. Chair. Just a quick one. With Riverview Senior Living Complex being
the only hard no out of those other properties, we're communicating with the
out of town land owner that because they are the one who would be paying it. We
have that reflects nothing of the tenants living inside there or what the
families of the tenants might think. You are correct. Thank
you. This will That brought up a question for me and
Miss Ker, you you reflected a bit on it's harder to make an argument without
an LI to go into that property without their permission. Maybe this is a
question for the attorney. I imagine our legal risk is greater given that this
area hasn't flooded to go into someone's property to put up a to a barrier if
we're talking about 18 feet um instead of 16 ft. Um thank you for
that question. So I would um say that your legal risk is the same whether
something has flooded or not. if you have the maps um that show it has the
potential to flood, you still have the emergency power, police power to do to
go onto their land. Um so I I don't I I don't think that there is a increased or
decreased risk if it hasn't actually flooded yet because you've got the maps
that show there is a potential for a flood.
even if it's at a significantly higher water level that it would flood than it
has historically. Um that's correct. So my argument would
be that you've got the maps that show it could happen um and the science behind
it. The other lawyers on the other side if was there would say but it hasn't
flooded yet. But um you're relying on the scientific modeling to show um the
potential and you're responding using appropriate police power to do so.
Andrew Ker, I just want to make a clarification on something that I stated
earlier about if we have time to do armoring uh before uh next before this
yolk loop season. And the answer is we do not because we don't have time to do
the permitting.
Very good. More questions. Yes. Last one. More Hugh Scandies. Uh, last one.
Generous Jar Smith. Uh, just a quick one. The other funding sources that are
noted you did talk about the six million of CB CDBGDR
funding and it just made me curious because I know those funds can be used
for buyouts or I believe they can be used for buyouts. Do we have any sense
just because we referenced View Drive, but I'm also thinking of where we're
talking about diminishing returns, you know, seven houses, $17 million or
something like that, smaller and smaller. Have we done any work to have
any sense of what the dollar amount would could look like
buyoutwise? Um, so no, but we do know what the assessed
value of those properties are. Um I don't know that that would be uh the
total cost because of course there's uh for some programs we have to turn the
property into park space. So there is a significant additional cost with with
demolition. For example, the NRCS program is a uh cost share 75 the
federal government pays for 75% of that and um the local match whether homeowner
or municipality is 25%. And and then in addition to that, there would be some
like remediation costs.
Mr. Kelly, do you have a question? I think so. Uh this is in followup to to
manager Kers's um comment a moment ago. Um it's about the permitting. Like do we
currently have the processes to do an accelerated permitting if we needed to?
And if so, would we have the staff power to to do so?
Um So since I incorrectly stated that we
might be able to do per to do barriers this summer just because I know how
quickly Jean Cheeseman can work and I was corrected by my staff who said we we
could not do them this summer because of permitting. I'm going to answer that
it's not our uh it's not our staff that is limiting their the permits are uh
both through DNR and Army Corps and and CBJ to maintain an FIP status. Thank
you.
Very good. Seeing no further questions, maybe let's try a motion to get us going
here. Madame Mayor, did you have something? Um, certainly. Uh, tough
tough on this one. I will take option two, direct staff to further develop
concepts and LID for phase 1B aiming for construction next season.
And uh my second option would have been do nothing. But I think if we develop
the concepts, we can always go to defer to do nothing. I agree with you there.
Um you've heard the motion. Any objection, Miss Wall and Mr. Kelly?
um not objecting necessarily to the um option two relative to those other ones,
but kind of a question about you know I um my understanding of why we've been
talking about 1B is because it was potentially easy to get done quickly and
I would as we explore that I I'd want to know more about phase two and view drive
and you know having an extra year I lets us think about all of those because I
don't necessarily think if we have time um more time that we shouldn't be saying
1B is definitely the only thing that we're doing. I want to weigh that
relative to you know something more likely to flood or you know however I
realize it's the lowcost option and it saves a lot of homes but I just want to
consider it in the context of the other things we might do. So just going to
maybe this is a question to
staff. Is that kind of direction helpful right now or or is this option written
as in we want direction to kind of very clearly focus on 1B.
So the the way that I'm interpreting your direction is not to come back with
a process for initiating an LI for phase 1B, but to come back with more
information holistically about phase 2 and other options. So I I would think
that would be different than the mayor's motion, and I would take that
differently.
And can I ask why your motion focused on oneb for next year and not a larger
suite of options? Um yeah, I mean I think we
obviously still need to start keep thinking about phase two and I have so
many unanswered questions for you about phase two. So I don't think it would be
that there's an absence of that. Um, I just think uh and and speaking with
staff um that 1B we really should do 1B and it's hard to make the argument to go
super quickly because of the cons that have been expressed, but there's just no
way that I uh I it just I think that the the value of the infrastructure and the
properties being um protected, it seems like a no-brainer to to move forward
with 1B. Um, but I think if you want to pause and spend some more time thinking
about it in the context of phase two that you know I don't I don't think that
necessarily slows us down on 1B to a certain point right at like next couple
of months. Um, but at some point we'll have to be like we need to do move
forward with 1B regardless of of what we decide to do on phase two.
one clarifying question. It and is that because 1B is like high bang for the
buck I guess is what what I'm trying to make sure to understand it's it's not
necessarily that those properties are more valuable than some of the other
properties we could protect in phase two. It's that it's they're important
and it's an e easier solution. Does that make sense? You're correct. You correct.
Yes. Okay. Good. I'm just trying to make understand. I'm not questioning that
judgment. Thanks. Mr. Kelly, do you have a question? Uh, I
do. Yes. I'll I'll object for the purposes of a question
and it's my understanding from looking at the flood maps and I just want to
make sure I kind of get this from not just looking at the flood maps but also
from a conversation and I just want to make sure this is accurate
that I Well, yeah. So
would if we did not complete 1B this year and we did complete 1A there there
are additional homes from completing 1A that would be
at risk that wouldn't be that 1B would protect but if we don't do 1B this year
we're basically depending assuming we get like a high 18
foot we could be putting other homes
in the way of the water.
Mr. There would be 96 parcels if we did not do 1B that would flood in a uh 18 ft
event. We would attempt to mitigate the impact on 30 of those parcels uh that
are on meadow uh meadow link. Thank you. I'll maintain my objection.
Very good. Further questions or comments on the man on the mayor's
motion? I guess my comment is just that we don't seem to have a way to fund
this fairly this year. We don't have a way to armor the bank and ensure the
barriers are going to be properly installed this year.
So therefore, it doesn't to me it just doesn't seem like the right amount of
effort. I mean, obviously, we're Anyway, we want to do as much as we can, but
this one just doesn't seem to make sense to me to put in funds and put in I don't
just speaking to your motion in support of your motion. Um,
Miss Scandy's comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a comment on the motion
since that's a good thing for the public to hear when we're having public
meetings. Um I the reason I was asking about armoring is I think you made a
good point on trying to find a path
that talks about paying for things uh both to find the money and both to do it
fairly with regard to what we've already done with the first group of folks. But
if I'm hearing that we can't armor and we can't, you know, I don't have a lot
of is uh interest in hesing without armoring, which is why I asked about
armoring cuz I I think I could support saying, "All right, let's not take the
chance. Let's just keep going until it floods." And and that is a situation
where I could consider it. But no, hearing that no, that's not an option. I
just think that's yet another reason why this is the smart thing to do. And with
that, I remove my objection. You miss Candies. I'll actually object for a
purpose of a question. Um, with the mayor's motion, and should
it be approved, you you're still going to be there's still going to be work
being done on phase two. Correct. Yes. Very good. Thank you. I'll remove
my objection. We have a motion and
objection, Mr. Kelly. I'll remove my objection. Very good. Any further
objection to the mayor's motion? Seeing none, that motion is
adopted. Madame Mayor, uh, thank you. Um, and I think we do
have appetite for a service area. Perhaps not as quickly as it says in the
memo. So my motion would be um direct staff to continue developing
um concepts of a service area for the long-term
solution. Hopefully that gives staff enough
direction. We've heard the motion. Is there objection to the
motion? Seeing no objection, that motion is adopted as well. Andrew Ker, is that
all you needed on this agenda topic? Very good. Thank you. All
right. So close. Are we good to move to
RCV or do we need a Sorry. Very good. Moving to agenda item two,
ordinance 2025-13, HRC rank choice
voting. Who is firing off on this one.
Deputy Mayor Smith, I'd be happy just to let you know what is different about the
ordinance in front of you than um from the last time you discussed this. Um the
version uh in your packet today includes language that makes it possible to
implement um rank choice voting for um multicandidate seats uh without choosing
designated seats. Do you recall there was a lot of discussion last time you
talked about this about the schoolboard seats having to choose designated seats
and um after talking with Dominion who does our voting uh machines they can do
a cascade style voting and implement rank and trace voting for those uh those
seats without them having to kind of change change their practice. So I just
wanted to clarify that that's the um change in the version in your pack.
Very good. Thank you, Manager Kester. We also have Deputy Municipal Clerk Hirs
here who's pro on election things, but any questions on the topic on the
ordinance? Mr. Bryson, thank you. Uh, your previous explanation
was helpful, but uh what about in a uh an assembly election with it being
two seats? Would the the same effect be in play if there was like um I got a
one-year seat my first time out because there was two seats in that district 2
column. How would that how would this be impacted in an assembly race?
Thank you, Assembly Member Brace. And it's the same. So, um Cascade or
Dominion um has the ability to handle multi-member races. So, in a situation
where there's a resignation, um, last time we talked about having to break out
individual seats, we heard back from them that we do not need to do that. So,
whether it's an assembly member or school board, we have the ability to get
the first choice, second choice, um, and go from there.
Mayor Welen, thank you. I was asked this question
before, so I'm just getting it out to public. Um, so when I talked to Deputy
Clerk Hurst earlier today, one of my concerns was we still wouldn't get
election results on election night. And if I paraphrase her right, she could
race down here and change me. We still would get some results similar to what
we have. So if you had one candidate that was way ahead
of one candidate that was way ahead, you'd know that race. if there was only
two candidates and um any ballot propositions, you would probably have a
pretty good idea, but I will let her speak to that because she probably will
do a better job. Thank you. Um this is Andy, deputy uh municipal clerk Hersh.
Um so our current system, we do produce uh election results on election night.
Those generally reflect between 50 to 60% of the total votes. um by the Friday
or so after the election, our total votes are generally in the 80 to 90%
range. Um if we move to rank choice voting, we will have the ability to
prover produce first round or first rank results kind of like the state of Alaska
does. So um people's top candidates um will be available in the basically the
same proportions and at the same timing as we currently do. we would not be able
to run the rank choice um portion where you drop out lower candidates and um
figure out who the eventual winners are um until after the canvas review board
meets and we have all ballots approved for counting. So like Mayor Walden said
that means that for ballot propositions that are just a yes no we would have a
we probably would have a really good idea. um any race that's really close,
we still won't know until after the cameras review board, regardless of if
we're ranked choice or if we stick with our current method. But um ballot
propositions that are just a yes no. Um races that only have two candidates or
races with more than two candidates where one person has a very large u
majority or um has a very large lead over the other candidates. Um there
would be uh it is probable that the results that we produce on the Friday
after the election would um remain throughout the remainder of counting.
What we wouldn't know are um races that are very close. So if there's three
candidates um and they're all between 30 and 35%, we won't know that until we run
rank choice voting. We also would not know the candidates um for when we have
to use the cascade style. So that would be the um if in in the assembly if there
is a vacancy and there's multiple seats in that district or with the school
board. We may know just by looking who the top candidate is um that they will
win the first round. Um but we wouldn't know until after we run rank choice
voting which is after the canvas review board meets um to know any subsequent
winners.
Mr. Senator and then Atkinson is it a like a technical limitation or a legal
limitation that we couldn't run at each update for ballots that we
couldn't run a sample of the ranking?
It is not a technical limitation. Um I don't know if there is a legal
limitation. This is what the state um this is based off what the state of
Alaska does um with their rank choice voting. I will say
um one of the issues is with rank choice voting. Um the results can change pretty
dramatically when you don't have the full set. So what we when we ran between
on election night between 50 to 60% if we're actually ranking all of those
through that may look very different to the results that we produce on Friday.
Um and I um the more different results we produce um the more election
integrity um can get be called into question by the public.
Miss Ederson. Thank you Mr. Chair. I just want to
clarify on the cannabis review board timeline. Uh basically we wouldn't have
certain results for the your 30% 30% 30% spread or anything like that until at
the same time we'd have certified results for elections. So we do it
today. Correct. Thank you Mr. Kelly.
Uh thank you. So with the cascade system, it's it's um my understanding
from reading this that we could basically this first person winner would
would be winning with um a rank choice plurality I mean majority but the second
person would just have a plurality from the remaining candidates. Is that
correct?
I don't believe so. Let me see um I if I'm understanding your question
correctly. So, um, if we have two open seats and four candidates, people rank
their, uh, their top choice and that would run just like the state, right?
So, if somebody is a clear winner, they get 50% of the first place votes,
they're elected. If they don't, you drop the lowest candidate, and votes are
redistributed until you have a winner. Then to determine who the second winner
is, you would functionally remove the winner from everybody's vote uh ballot
and shift um everything up. And so in that case um then you run the results
again. And so every person who votes, presuming they fill out um or they rank
at least two candidates will their vote will count for both races. So it won't
necessarily be a plurality. Does that is that a better does that answer
your question? I I think so. So it'll it'll be a majority of the remaining
votes, but it'll be a it could be a plurality of the
um Never mind. I'll probably follow up offline. Sounds good. Um it's very
similar to how we do block voting now where um in a schoolboard race if there
are three open seats and there are six candidates you get to vote for three. Um
so this maintains um the ability for a person to basically vote in each seat.
Kelly. So, as a
followup, in block voting, um, so as you said, we get to vote for two people, but
in this system, we only get to vote. We're basically just voting once.
Like, we're ranking people, but we're just Okay. So, we do.
Okay. Um, I think we're having I we can
definitely follow up offline anytime you want. I think um we're having a bit of a
definition issue. Um so with the cascade
style, every person who votes, assuming that they just like in block style
voting, even though you can pick three candidates, some people still only pick
one, right? So not accounting for that but account um if people rank their
choices one of uh their choice counts towards picking both the first candidate
and picking the second candidate. They're not dropped from the system. Um
and so they get to vote basically in both races.
No, maybe maybe let me try one second just
because so my my understanding from watching the video and some other things
was say there say there's a school board election
with you know three seats available and there's six
candidates. The ballot would have the six names and people could rank them
one. They would just rank one through six or one through four or one through
two. I mean one and two, but they're just they're just ranking the
list. They're voting them down one time. Is that right? Correct.
So, you're just ranking the list as far down as you want to rank them.
Um, Mayor Welen Scandies. Uh, thank you. Um, another question I asked every clerk
earlier was um with the delay in waiting to the canvas review board change our
assembly reorganization meeting in October so I'll ask that question
it would not miss scandies I no longer have a
question
further questions on madam clerk
Um, following up on Mayor Weldon's question, it would not change the timing
of the results, but just so everyone is aware that it could, as has always been
the case, the canvas review board could be delayed by up to three days. That
then would have a domino effect on when the mayor can contact whoever is elected
and get the committees figured out. So there's a compressed time if you're
looking at um later in that week having the final decision and then having a
Monday meeting right after that to where your committee uh
reorganization deputy mayor process takes place.
Miss Atr Chair just to clarify on that last
point but currently the canvas review board can also be delayed. Yes.
If I might, Mr. Cherry, that's correct, Miss Atkinson. Um, it has been in our
code the entire time I've worked in this office that they can be delayed for on a
day-to-day basis for up to three days. It's happened once and that was during
COVID in my tenure.
Further questions from the
committee? See no further questions. Anyone interested in a
motion? Miss Hughes Scandies. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question
for not our staff, but I guess for this body. I wasn't here when you all
discussed this before. So, I guess I can just I'll I can keep my piece and see
what motions come forth from this committee. But I'll be especially
interested to know how much you all talked about public um feedback, which
I'm sure is something that everybody here wants. So, I'll wait for a motion.
Okay, Mayor Welen. Thank you. I would move ordinance uh
2025-13 cow version that takes care of the clerk's amendments uh to the full
assembly. Very good. Objections, Mr. Kelly and
Miss Atkinson, Miss Scandies. Um, thank you. I I think this uh Cascade
um amendment is is interesting. I'm not sure that I'm completely ready to
endorse it. I think it might be simpler for most people to maybe have, you know,
specific C's like a 1A and 1B or an area wide A and an area wide B in the case
where we have a resignation or or something along those lines. Um, it's my
understanding it wouldn't take a great deal more to to change that. We wouldn't
need a charter amendment. We could do that as well in the ordinance, but I
feel like, you know, candidates that would also not impact candidates because
candidates could also um you know, as long as they're within
the filing period, it's my understanding that they can just choose to um you
know, file in a different seat. I I've seen that happen um when I was running.
Um, so I think I would like to explore other
options more. I'm not sold on the cascade. Um, if anything, I would I
would probably move to to strike this portion, but I'll um wait for the
opinion of the rest of the assembly. Great. Miss Atkinson. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. I was going to say I think I I very much appreciate the mayor's motion,
but I'd also want to look at potentially a second public hearing so that we can
be sure that we do a good public process for this. But before I get into that, I
just want to address Mr. Kelly's concerns. So, um I would say for one, it
does not require a charter amendment to designate seats. So, that's one thing.
But also, there is some impacts to the candidate when you do designate seats
because while candidates can switch back and forth between seats, they have to
fill out a new petition for signatures every time they do that. And that's
particularly problematic for the school board. Um, if you're try there's no
functional difference between the seats, but if you want to run in an open seat
instead of one with three people in it, for instance, that can get complicated
fast. So, there's actually a lot of uh benefits for keeping the current system
and having the cascade of interest voting.
I'd miss you scandi next. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I don't have I I'm
eager to uh hear what the public thinks about this, you know, for getting into
the weeds of exactly how this works. I love that we do rank choice voting at
the state. I love that we voted to keep it. So, I don't have a problem saying,
"Yep, and this is how the state of Alaska votes, and this is how we vote
locally, too." It seems like you guys worked out the kinks in that. I was just
going to say sometimes I look at our mechanisms as a body. I've you
frequently heard me say, "Oh, we never get to talk to each other besides a cow,
but also we want to keep the cow moving." So, you know, we can only ever
talk to one or two people. Um, and the reason I say that is
because in some ways I'm very excited about our communications department and
how that will uh improve our ability to engage with the public. But this seems
like the perfect kind of thing where moving it to the full assembly almost to
me I'm like what would it look like if we had just a public meeting and we
said we're getting ready to move this to the full assembly and this is
aformational meeting and it's in the chambers kind of like we do when we're
doing something weird like kuna totem or uh you know some more of our oddball
projects. Um, so I'm just throwing that out there for our consideration because
I wonder what else public feedback. We've also taken public feedback at
committees like lands and public works. I feel like that doesn't I don't love
that cuz it doesn't feel that I feel like you don't get as much engagement as
you do with the full assembly and it's essentially the same thing. But uh I'll
certainly remove my objection, but I wish there was something better than
moving this to the full assembly just because I I feel like for people who
aren't geeking out over our process, then it feels, you know, it brings up
these strong emotions in them if they're not sure if they want this or not
because it feels like you're just a step away from making a law and you're not
you don't really want my opinion. You're you've already decided on this. So, I
just bring this up cuz I know people have strong feelings about elections,
but I'm happy to let it go to the full assembly. And with that, I remove my
objection. You're good. Mayor Welen, we could bring it to um the full
assembly as for public hearing and bring it back to the council. So, it's an
option.
It's an option. Further comments? Mr. Kelly, do you have a question or
anything? No. because um the mayor beat me to she said exactly what I was going
to say. Erica, just to I guess I'll object for a
question. Um do we I guess I'm just trying to think of what we would want to
show the public at a public hearing. I mean, I don't know if just having them
speak about an ordinance would be that useful or if they need to like see
examples of what it looks like. And anyway, I guess I'm just kind of
thinking about what's actually beneficial for the public to to better
understand. And I I mean, another thing we also need to recognize is this is not
impacting the 2025 election. If if it does pass, it will be impacting the
2026. But I I guess it's a question for staff,
like how quickly could we pull something, you know, with examples
or something that would like show they just show those ballots, I guess, and
then Okay. And then they just It doesn't really show the counting. I don't know
if you need to do that. If people feel like that's fine, I'm
fine with it. But it's just pieces of paper. Yes. Uh Mr. Chair, you have in
the memo in your packet a link to a video that demonstrates exactly what
you're asking for. Also in the packet are sample of what a ballot looks like
as well as what our current ballot um has been. So what the comparisons
might be. Um, we'd be happy to do a show and tell if the general public would
like, but it's already right there in the packet linked so that anyone that
has internet access can go and watch that if they would like,
Miss Atkinson. Um, I'm thinking I might as well just
make uh an amendment to the mayor's motion and add in uh that we also bring
it back after injection the assembly bring it back to the next cow for public
hearing. So the July 14th cow.
Mr. Chair, I didn't quite hear Miss Atkinson. Can you repeat your motion,
please? My motion my amendment to the motion was uh to also bring it back to
the cow the next cow for public hearing. have the public hearing in the cow
meeting second an additional public hearing at the cow. So it going to the
assembly having a public hearing at the assembly bringing it back for public
hearing at the cow. Mayor shaking her head. So, Madam Mayor, go ahead. Madam
Mayor, um I appreciate Miss Agass's sentiment, but I would think you'd do it
the other way. Have the next cow, have a public meeting on it, and then move it
to the assembly. But to move it to the assembly to have public hearing and back
here to have public hearing, it just seems a little awkward to me, but um I
can't remember. But you also said just have a public hearing. That might be a
way for people to be able to play with things a little too.
Madam Attorney, um if I may suggest just to keep your cows clean, um if you want
to have a special meeting to talk about um rank choice voting and a public
hearing at a special meeting, that's probably cleanest. I don't know that you
want to start opening up your cows um for public hearing. Um but you certainly
could schedule a a special meeting, you know, wherever you would like.
[Music] Comments, Mr. Bryson.
Um, Mr. Deputy Mayor, I was just going to offer up uh the Lands Housing and
Economic Development Committee. Uh, no, we've held public testimony, but if
not, if that's Thank you, Miss Scandies.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I I just would say that I I mean like now I think we're
getting making it messier. The what I was proposing before is we don't do
things like that in general by practice. A public meeting where you just schedule
a public meeting and you do a public it it wouldn't be a public meeting with us
sitting here on a day. It would just be wherever you put it and you would have
sample ballots and things. I think when you start adding public hearings at
other meetings besides the assembly, it gets messy as the clerk just noted. So,
I'm fine with this going to a public to the full assembly for a public hearing
and then sending it back to the cow, which I believe the mayor has already
amended her motion to do that, but maybe she didn't.
I believe the current Madame Clerk, would you remind us of the current
motion? Thank you, uh, Mr. chair and correct me
if I'm wrong, Madame Mayor, but the motion was to forward ordinance
202515 version cow to the assembly for introduction.
That would be at the June 9th regular assembly meeting next week.
I'm looking I'm looking for the will of the body. I'm I would h be happy to do
that to public hearing and move it back.
I guess a question for the team. I I mean I guess we could just
have public hearing at the June 9th regular assembly meeting. No. Okay. So
we need to do a special meeting for the July the the standard
public hearing would be July 28th. But I think we are saying we would like an
additional we would like an additional public meeting before adoption day. So
Mr. Bryson, Mr. Deputy Mayor, I definitely want to see this at public
testimony. Um, but I'd like to remind this body that we have tried to do extra
meetings for extra public testimony and not necessarily received a lot of extra
participation with the extra public testimony avail uh time available. Um, I
hear you there, Mr. Kelly. Thank you.
I I kind of hear Miss Husandi suggestion perhaps a little bit differently. Um, it
sounds to me, um, and correct me if I'm wrong, are you suggesting perhaps like
not an actual like other public meeting, but something that's a little more
informal, something more of a workshop where people can kind of bring bring
forth their thoughts and ideas or Yeah. Uh, through the chair, I I was
envisioning something like you do it here in the chambers. You have stuff on
tables. City staff are present. Someone plays a
video on the screen. People can just mill about and
ask questions. We've done that for other things. We did a presentation on the
assessments and how they work one time. So, I was envisioning just something
like that. And for the record, I now am at the point where I say move it to the
full assembly, introduce it, let it come to the public hearing. I'm sure it's
been in the empire now. I'm sure we'll get some public hearing about it. If we
get to the public hearing section, send it back to the cow if that feels right
to us. Um because I think if we're not going to do like a little standalone
informal meeting, then let's just follow our normal process and trust that we'll
get feedback because we always do get feedback on on all these topics.
Very good. The current motion is to Madame Clerk.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just about to ask if the amendment was on the floor
or not. I do not believe there's been an
amendment. So, Miss Hughes Candiy's amendment is withdrawn.
Yeah. To the ex. Yep. If I made one, then I withdraw.
To the extended. Very good. So the current motion is to
introduce this ordinance at the June 9th regular assembly
meeting. Are there amendments to that motion? Is there objection to the
motion? Seeing no objection, that motion is adopted. And we'll take a 7 minute
break. We'll be back at 7:25. Thank you, Deputy Clerk Hersh, for
your work. Thank you.
Very good. We are back to order for the committee the whole on that rank choice
voting item. Madame mayor, did you have another I have another motion for staff
to make sure that we're getting our sound like from our conversation. So, um
I would direct staff to come up with a educational uh outreach to the public
on rate choice voting. Very good. You've heard the
motion. Any objection to the motion? That's helpful for staff. Very
good. That motion is adopted. Moving on to the next item.
Trash. Let's talk trash. Manager Ker or is it
Director Cotch?
Cotch, please. Very good. Director Cotch, please start us up. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to see if we could get the uh the slides on
the screen, please.
If not, I I could go with just if you have it in your packet while the slides
are loading. There we go. Okay. Thank you very much. I am really excited to be
here tonight to talk to you about garbage and I am being sincere about
that. This is a a topic I uh really like to talk about.
Um so uh more recently uh in 2021 the assembly had established uh waste
reduction goals as one of the assembly's goals. Uh so we have been spending
probably about three years at the public works and facilities committee talking
about uh trash items. We actually um reclassified an existing position that
is Diana Robinson right here uh and created a new environmental project
specialist from a previous position to really uh dive deep uh and be a she's
our subject matter expert along with Stuart Ashton on waste items.
Uh and it's really interesting as we have looked at this issue uh we have a
great website and there's uh a URL to it at the at the back of this packet but uh
there's a bit of a a timeline and what caught my eye is that we have been
talking about trash in this community since
1984. Um in the early 2000s the estimate on the uh lifespan of the waste
management landfill in Juno was about 30 years. So here we are it was I think it
was 2004. So you know a little more than 20 years later and it's like oh I've
come to tell you that we've got about 10 years uh left of uh lifespan left on
that landfill. It's a little bit hard to know precisely how much uh lifespan is
left in that landfill because it's privately owned and operated. It's
sometimes hard to get really precise information, but uh we rely on some
information that they have to um disclose to the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation. And really the I'm going to go into a couple of
more details, but not much. But really to some extent I feel like the punchline
is I want us to think about trash and the future of trash for this community
because if we wait to the day where one day Waste Management makes an
announcement that uh their landfill is closing, they'll probably give us two or
three years worth of notice. And if we wait until that point to start having
this conversation, it will be too late. there's a long lead time on uh you know
getting the capital in place uh if we wanted to do something different uh the
permitting uh to do something different would take a long lead time so that's
that's really why uh we're talking about this today if we could do the next slide
please thank you uh this slide I think um is simple but powerful and it just
shows that most in most communities including in Alaska that uh those
communities have some level of control over their waste and Juno doesn't and
we're on the short list. So, we are uh the way that we uh don't handle trash uh
in this community, our hands-off approach is definitely an approach.
Hannes and Glenn Allen do it as well, but uh we're more the exception than the
rule. Next slide, please. Okay, so uh flow control. So
there are generally two ways at a really high level that uh communities uh
municipal governments interject themselves into the trash conversation.
They either uh own the waist they get into waste hauling. So they own um a
certificate of necessity and convenience from the regulatory commission of Alaska
uh or and or they uh have some control and over the solid waste disposal
methods. Um, and if you could go to uh the next slide,
please. I want to talk sort of more tangibly about uh what it means, I
think, for this community uh to not really not have any control over or over
its municipal solid waste. We do, I've said in the past, we nibble around the
edges. We do recycling. We do household hazardous waste. So, we do some really
good things. But um I wanted to give some tangible examples of you know uh
essentially I always say when it comes to things changing at the landfill uh
oftentimes I think and citizens understandably because in most
communities most communities have some level of control over their municipal
solid waste. So when residents have questions or concerns they come to you
as an assembly or they come to us as as staff. Uh, and I always say, you know,
we don't own for in terms of the waste management landfill. We don't own it. We
don't operate it. We don't regulate it. And what that means is the um the owner
of that landfill can change the hours of operation. They can change the disposal
rates. They can change the conditions uh under which they will accept waste. Uh
we just found out um because we did a public records act request to the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation um that uh there's a new plan at Waste
Management where they're going to require much more documentation for
construction and demolition uh waste and it's going to be more ownorous for
residents to bring in those uh those streams of trash. And that goes into
effect according to their plan today. And what I anticipate will happen like
when when the landfill has made other changes um people will come to the
assembly or to to staff and we just we we can't compel waste management uh to
to make any of those changes. Um next slide
please. So this is the uh the website I was mentioning just a few moments ago.
Uh we have the QR code there for anyone who's looking at the packet. But if you
go to juno.org or and you uh select the department of engineering and public
works, there's a solid waste planning website and uh that has been put up
thanks to Diana Robinson putting a lot of work into that trying to you know
piece together this fuller picture uh and the discussions that we've had uh
for several years. Um and with that I'm actually going to hand the next portion
of the presentation over to Tara at Jacobs. Hopefully she's been promoted as
a panelist. Uh and she could talk to you about um the most recent just quick
snapshot. Uh you may recall uh we have come to you as a body before to ask for
permission to do a waste characterization study which we have
done. Um that's kind of a foundational document to understand what's in our in
our waste. And then the next step uh we had come back to um the assembly and and
public works and facilities committee and had had asked for permission to uh
spend money to do a really high level study, a tech a capital study
essentially to get some um high level understanding of the different options
there are if uh the community decided that we did want to take uh a more
active role in waste. uh to look at what those capital costs would be. And before
I hand it over, I will just say and start maybe steal Terara's thunder, but
there are basically three options and all of those options include a transfer
station. Uh so keep that in mind. And with that, I will hand it to Tara from
Jacobs. Thank you. Director Coach, can you hear
me everyone? We can. Okay. Excellent. Well, thank you assembly for allowing us
to take the time to present the results of this feasibility and capital cost
estimate study. And so my goal here is to provide an overview of this study
that we conducted with the CBJ to evaluate the feasibility and the capital
costs of these three possible solid waste disposal scenarios for Juno that
were mentioned. Um, and myself and my colleague Lindseay Lopez, who is also
online, we will be available to answer questions at the end related to the
technical portions of the study. Um, and you're welcome to stop me throughout the
presentation if any urgent questions come up, but I'm hoping to keep this
relatively short so there's plenty of time for discussion at the end. Uh, next
slide, please.
All right. So this step was really just that first step in the planning process
for waste management. And the goal of the study was to conduct a limited
high-level review of capital cost and feasibility. And um we wanted to
initiate conversations around the future of solid waste management in Juno. Next
slide please.
And so given that this is an initial highle study, there are several factors
that could not be considered for the study and so we made several
assumptions. So we wanted to be transparent so everyone is on the pa
same page. So many of these assumptions are listed on the slide here and I'll
highlight just a few of them. So the first assumption that we made is that a
new transfer facility would be in the lower Lemon Creek property and this is a
207 27 acre site that's owned by the CBJ. So now we assume that the CBJ would
need to address zoning requirements for this property before construction and
likely sighting would also be necessary for construction of a new facility such
as for example a landfill or a waste energy plant. And then jumping to that
third assumption there. So this really highlights the results of the 2024 waste
characterization study uh which revealed that up to 59% of waste in Juno is
categorized as either recyclable, reusable or compostable with current
diversion programs. So this means that there is potential for increased waste
diversion in Juno. And then jumping forward to
assumption number five. Uh so in general there are other factors that are outside
of the scope of the study that could still impact capital and operating costs
and that includes things like the limited construction season in Juno. Uh
the ultimate selected location of these facilities and the chosen ownership and
operational model. And so because of these factors, it's important to
remember that the costs that I present in the next few slides um are just
initial approximations for comparison purposes. And so the CBJ will need to do
more detailed cost estimates before moving forward with significant
financial decisions or setting final budgets for these projects. Next
slide. All right. And this diagram here is is really the meat of the study. So
it shows the flow of waste in each scenario. And these dashed boxes on the
screen, there's three dashed boxes. and they indicate points where the CBJ has
an opportunity for increased control over the waist stream. And as you'll
notice, as director mentioned, a transfer facility, which is shown on the
box on the left, is a key component for all three scenarios. And this transfer
facility would serve as an interim waste management solution while the CBJS
explores other disposal options. It would also help to better manage large
influxes of waste from things like tourism or de disaster debris. and it
could act as a centralized point for waste management as well. All right. And
then in the center of the diagram, you have the three uh waste management
scenarios. So at the top we have scenario A. In this scenario, waste
would be routed from the transfer facility to a new landfill in Juno for
disposable for disposal. And in this scenario,
recyclables would be sold and transported to local export markets
ultimately. And then in the center we have scenario B. In this scenario, waste
at the transfer facility would first be consolidated and prepared for off-site
shipping by barge. And so this scenario would require a larger transfer facility
because um than the other two scenarios because there could be risks of
disrupted barge services. And then also a quick thing I wanted to note about
scenario B is that the c capital costs for this scenario are lower compared to
the other two scenarios because only the transfer facility would need to be
constructed. However, um the CBJ would need to
negotiate shipping costs and off-site disposal and fuel search charges. And
all of these factors could add up to significant operational costs that were
not included in the study. And then finally at the B bottom,
scenario C. So in this scenario, all waste recyclables from the transfer
facility would be routed to a waste to energy plant. And so there are a few
very important points that I want to make about a waste to energy plant here.
Um, and the first is that the CBJ's electricity currently comes from nearly
100% renewable hydroelectric power and AEL does not provide energy credits for
surplus generation. So, as it stands, the power produced by a waste energy
facility would not provide a direct electricity benefit for the CBJ. And the
second point to make here is that the waist stream in Juno is substantially
smaller than other regions where waste energy plants have been constructed. Uh
so Juno generates about 100 tons per day of waste while the majority of waste to
energy plants in the US are constructed to operate at 800 tons per day uh tons
per day of waste or more. And so in order to optimize the efficiency of the
waste energy plant uh it may not be in Juno's best interest to divert waste for
recycling or composting because essentially all of that waste would need
to be used to optimize the efficiency and
operations. Next slide please.
All right. So now we'll look at costs. And this slide looks at the anticipated
cap capital costs for a new transfer facility in particular. And so just to
talk about methods very quickly to get these estimates, we looked at the per
unit construction costs of five different transfer stations in the US.
And these transfer stations were at various stages of project development,
various sizes and locations to get a range. and the costs were escalated with
a cost index through December of 2024. So, it's a snapshot in time. And we
chose these facilities for comparison because they are relatively recent
projects in small to medium building sizes similar to Juno's needs. And I'll
I'll mention that the facilities are listed in that column on the left in the
table. Uh with the exception of that Anchorage transfer facility in the
middle. So, this is a larger facility as you'll see, but it does provide a data
point for an Alaska specific project. Now the the costs the forecasted costs
for Juno are on the right and the size and the capacity of the transfer
facility will depend on the scenario. So as I mentioned before a smaller transfer
facility would likely be sufficient when local disposal options are available and
that includes scenario A with the landfill and scenario C with the waste
to energy plant. So, a smaller facility size between 9,000 to 13,000 square feet
would cost between $9 million and $20 million in capital costs. And then on
the bottom right corner, we're showing the um the capital cost for a transfer
facility that's larger to accommodate increased storage for potential
disruptions in shipping for scenario B with off-site shipment.
And so in this scenario, we um estimate that we would need to accommodate 7 to
14 days of storage and additional processing space. And this larger
facility would be sized between 13,000 and 26,000 square feet and would be
estimated to cost between $14 million and $40 million in
capital. Next slide, please. Mr. Deputy Mayor,
Miss Miller Casman, we have a question. Uh yes, ma'am. Uh we knew that uh
previous times that we'd looked at waste to energy that Juno didn't produce
enough. Did you look at an incinerator so that we could potentially get rid of
that 100 tons or dent that 100 tons a day but not uh convert it to energy? Uh
was an incinerator uh looked at in in this process?
Uh director coach, would you like me to answer that?
Yes, please. All right. uh we did not consider just an incineration without
energy capture in this analysis. We only considered with energy capture to get
the
benefit. Any follow-up questions on that?
Doesn't appear so. So, please continue. Thank you. Okay. Thank
you. All right. Um All right. So now we'll present the landfill capital costs
and we use the same comparison method to estimate landfill costs and the
landfills that we considered on the left in the table. Uh and it's important to
note that the capital cost for landfills can vary significantly based on the
landfill geometry and design parameters. But for this estimate you we use very
conservative parameters. And the cost for a 50-year
landfill are at the top right. And we estimated that a 50-year landfill would
cost between 50 million and $162 million. And now a 100red-year landfill
is also listed. It would cost nearly double, but this would set the stage for
more regional waste management. And it's also important to note that the
there are differences in the timeline of investment between a landfill compared
to the transfer facility and the waste to energy facilities that I mentioned
because the capital costs for landfills are applied in phases as the cells reach
capacity and new cells are constructed. While in contrast, the capital cost for
transfer stations and waste energy facilities are required upfront and
likely would require significant replacement capital over the same time
period. Next slide.
All right. So, now looking at the waste to energy facility capital costs. Uh,
and as you'll see, the results are print presented differently here. And that's
because the Jacob's waste to energy team could forecast costs by modeling using
data from 18 different waste to energy plants that were built in thei United
States, United Kingdom, and Asia. And so, this graph plots the capital cost
for constructing a waste to energy facility. and that's on the y- axis per
megawatt of thermal energy. They're on the x- axis. And the black dots that are
in the center represent the comparison waste to energy plants, those 18
different waste energy plants. And the orange dot on the top left of the plot
indicates the forecasted capacity and cost for Juno at 30,000 tons of waste
generated per year. Uh and as shown by this orange dot, a
small waste energy facility to process 30,000 tons per year year of waste would
cost around $90 million. Uh and I will note that the
data on small waste to energy facilities is limited which could introduce some
uncertainty in the capital costs and so these are rough order of magnitude
estimates and the larger facilities in population dense areas are more
typically built because of the operational efficiency at a higher waste
capacity. Um and also the construction costs of waste energy plants are mainly
impacted by the facility size and the caloric value of the waist
stream. Um and as I mentioned before, waste energy can disincentivize
diversion or source reduction of waste because of the need for more waste to
operate the facility efficiently. All right, next slide. Miss
Miller Casman, I have a question for you. Yep. Go ahead. Following up on Mr.
Bryson's question about the incinerator, we do get questions about that. I guess
with your, you know, expertise, could you just let us know the rationale for
why that, you know, wasn't evaluated? I'm sure there is one, but Sure. Well, I
will say, you know, I would say that this was decision that was made in
conjunction with the CBJ. Um, but my understanding is that incinerators alone
without, you know, just incinerators in general, we're seeing more air quality
permitting requirements. There are many regulations for incinerators. And so
there are, you know, the cost to build an incinerator in general would be high.
And um so without the additional energy benefit and therefore potential revenue
benefit from either a um just pure direct energy or a a heat and energy
combination just would make you know somewhat of a wasteful um facility to
build. Very good. Thank you for that.
All right. Okay. So, based on this uh this
initial study, we present a preliminary ranking and these are based on criteria
that we agreed upon with the CBJ. And that includes things like capital costs,
the implementation timeline, diversion goals, and the relative ability to
address Juno's waist stream in the near term given the impending closure of the
existing landfill. And I do apologize for the small text. We wanted to present
all the information on the slide here, but I will say that the two columns on
the left are what I'll focus on for now. And we can address the other columns
during Q&A. Uh, but based on this initial
analysis, scenario B with off-site shipment is ranked first, followed by
scenario A with a new landfill. Now, I will say that both are worth pursuing at
this time. Uh, a new landfill comes with high capital costs and a lengthy
regulatory process. Though we do recognize that relying on off island
private landfills has its own inherent risk and we suggest that the CBJ explore
funding options and ownership models for a new landfill while engaging with
shipping partners and off-site landfills. Now scenario C with the waste
to energy facility does rank lowest for now. Um, and that's due to those high
relative construction costs that I mentioned, the low operating efficiency
with Juno's waist stream, lack of an energy benefit for Juno, as I mentioned,
and especially the need for specialized labor and technologies to build these
types of facilities, which could drive costs even higher. Uh, and I will say
that these rankings are just a starting point and are likely to change as the
CBJ investigates operating costs, funding opportunities, and starts to
engage with partners and vendors. Next
slide. All right. So, recommended next steps.
Um, so the first we're we're hoping that um the results of the study could help
this assembly and the CBJ determine the desired level of control that they would
like over the future of waste management in Juno because this decision is really
key to inform the subsequent next steps. Number two, we recommend constructing a
transfer facility as was mentioned. Um, and the transfer facility should be used
no matter which scenario is chosen and ideally include design considerations
for future expansion if desired. And this is especially important given the
upcoming closure of the landfill which could happen before another disposal
facility can be completed. Uh, and I'll note that there
are many ownership and operating models available to help finance and run these
facilities. So for example, one type of partnership um the public entity may
provide the land for this facility and work with a private entity to design,
build and or operate the facility. And so that division of control and
financing is determined by agreements between the public and and the private
entities at that time. Uh number three, the CBJ can start to gauge operational
costs by engaging with shipping partners and haulers. And finally, the CBJ should
continue to move forward with additional studies for one or more of these
scenarios or facilities. And in the next phase, we recommend an in-depth analysis
of operating costs or a life cycle evaluation of one or more of these
scenarios. And I believe the last slide is just our contact information. And I
will hand it back over to Director Coach to wrap us up.
All right. Well, thank you. Um, in terms of, you know, our coming to you today
and and functionally what's what's our ask um that I feel like we keep building
on uh this this topic of, you know, do we want to does the community want and
does the assembly want some level of control in in their waste? Do we want
something different than the model that we have right now or do we like the
model uh that we have right now in terms of our uh waste being handled in in the
private sector? Um and as I mentioned, we did the waste characterization study.
We've gotten uh some more information on the capital costs of the three different
options from this particular study. Uh I would recommend that uh we move forward
and look uh at the get a little bit more essentially each of these these studies
is getting a little bit more granular and trying to fill out a picture of what
a waste future could look like a different waste future a waste future
that CBJ had some level of control in. Um, and that next level of study, if the
assembly uh wanted us to move forward with that, would also drill down and try
and get some more clarity about what the costs would be for residents to dispose
of of their waste under these various options. Um, now I don't think they'll
get uh there's there's a lot of uh policy decisions to be made along along
the way. Um it could be, you know, there uh the cost to the end user can change
based on whether or not CBJ wants uh wants waste to be essentially an
enterprise fund completely uh paying for itself, whether there's some level of
subsidy. So there will still be a lot of discussions and policy points moving
forward, but I would recommend um that we move forward and and take this next
step to try and further flesh out uh these three options. But probably this
emphasis on on this these two options which would be uh shipping uh our waste
out and in general when you ship waste out um in this part of the world you are
shipping to Washington or Oregon. Uh there's a major landfill in Roosevelt,
Washington, and another large one in Columbia Ridge, Oregon. So we would
likely be those are mega landfills. They're regional landfills. Um and look
a little bit more closely at at that. Um and then that's I think probably the
most actionable um step that I wanted to pose to you to tonight and to see what
the as the will of the assembly is. Uh then the the second item in terms of
guidance requested because the next one doesn't require funding but uh as we
both mentioned if CBJ wanted to have any level of control in our waist stream uh
and we wanted to be involved in disposal uh all any kind of disposal option has a
transfer station on the front of it. whether you're shipping it the waste
out, whether you're taking it to a landfill, whether you're going waste to
energy. Um, and we are about to begin a planning uh study for uh the Lemon Creek
gravel pit. We're going to do some planning there. Um, that's where the
zero waste campus would would be. That's where we would have our compost
facility. That's where when the waste management landfill fills up and uh our
recycling center can no longer be located there, that would be located at
that location. Um, and I just wanted to gauge uh your interest in our even just
planning to have a transfer station as we're doing this planning process for
this for this waste campus. is a a transfer station interesting or enticing
enough for us to even plan for it as we're we're looking for the use of that
that site. So, those are the two that's the the two items I'll leave you with
and we'll I'll I'll pause for questions. Thank you, Director Cotch. Questions
from the assembly. I had Mr. Kelly, Missandis, Miss Atkinson, and then Miss
Wall. Thank you. Um, looking at these u these
hefty fries, it all looks uh pretty daunting, but I I was wondering if you
also I imagine like some of these are kind of spread out over 10 years. I was
wondering if you can maybe give a little bit of a breakdown on when we would be
needing to make some of these investments.
Thank you through the chair to Mr. Kelly. I I'll get started and then I'll
see if Tara wants to add anything else. Um, I think that we're a little ways
away from actually coming to you with a request for a CIP or a a revenue bond or
that sort of thing in terms of putting the cash up for a a transfer station.
Um, I think the next step would really be just looking at this uh South Lemon
Creek gravel pit, planning out what we want on a waste campus. um and and
continuing to evaluate, you know, moving forward with uh drilling down on the
operational study, looking at at costs and then if there were uh we that
information was gathered. Um and if there was a point where uh the assembly
really felt like, okay, yes, we do want to have a hand in our waste destiny. We
think that's an important thing for the community. Then um Tara started talking
a little bit about there are various uh I think financing mechanisms that
communities use for um for paying for a transfer station and it it it doesn't
necessarily just need to be um having a getting all the cash up front
functionally and building it ourselves. We could enter into some sort of
long-term agreement with a third party um that's somewhat similar. where it's
not an identical situation, but somewhat similar to what we've done with um
recycling, for example. We have a long-term I think it's 30-year contract
um almost with with waste management that we'd had in place, and the cost of
that the building was built into that long-term contract. So, there are there
are other mechanisms, but I think that, you know, that's uh probably a couple
couple years away. Follow up, Mr. Kelly,
thank you. And actually, yeah, I So, so yeah, I guess like what I'm
kind of just looking at like there's with these there's different stages. So,
we have can we have the the transfer station, which sounds like it's common
to to all of those. So, I'm kind of wondering like like when we would need
to have like the capital ready ready for that, you know, with all the options
that that you guys will come to us, but like when are we going to be ready for
at each of these stages? like assuming we give you direction today and we want
to do such and such option. Um like when are we going to need to have the capital
for a transfer station? When we going to need to have the capital for like if we
wanted if we wanted to do a dump uh with or a second a second dump when we going
to need to have that capital um be thinking
through the chair to Mr. Kelly. I think if uh today the assembly said we want a
transfer station go forth. Uh we would probably go back and we would huddle and
we would most likely come uh back to you with some uh some sort of financing
agreement with uh another vendor somewhat similar to what I mentioned for
recycle works. we would have conversations with different companies,
private companies that do this sort of work um and likely come to you to that
would be I think probably the most feasible way to get that rolling in in
the short term without having to have all of the the cash essentially up
front. You enter into a long-term agreement. And I'm not sure if if Tara
um not sure if you have any other uh comments that you want to add about
public private partnerships and some of Jacob's um expertise there. Yeah, I can
I can add on a bit and I'm sure Lindsay will have some more to say on that
topic. Um so I I did want to just also um dive into the details of the process
a little bit. And so what we've talked about is understanding operating costs
for all the facilities is important, but also a public engagement step would be
critical. Have starting to have those public discussions. And then from there,
you know, there's a few steps before you just go into the construction and that
includes permitting and design as well. Um, and so there you can bite off
something like this in in smaller chunks once you make the decision to move
forward with the facility. Lindsay, you want to add on to any of that? Sure. And
as as far as the different models there are, you know, with the the various
public private partnerships, you can structure it in whatever way is, you
know, best suits you. So, some projects have a publicly owned piece of property
and then the rest facility is actually funded by a private entity. Um sometimes
you it's best if you have your public entity is the owner of the facility as
well and then they just look out for contract operators. So the next phase of
the project we could explore uh you know which of those CBJ is most interested in
and do some pros and cons of the the various you know risks associated with
each model. Um but the more you know control that you want um then you you
take a little bit more of that public ownership
model. Thank you. Thank you. Uh I'd miss Hugh Scandi next.
Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you all for this presentation.
I'm trying to get a better sense of um I thought previously that we had said we
do want some relative control over our waste destiny because I think we
recognize at this point that having it work poorly with a having no control.
We're not really ever going to get to our diversion goals if we don't have
that control either of the waist stream or of the waste flow.
And I understand
there's wise or you know decision points all along the way and then you know that
requires a lot more study with each decision point but I'm trying to
determine with the next step um with that
cost study that you're talking about and forgive me the slide's not up however
you characterized it but if you could talk a little more about that and help
character that for me what you expect to get out of that or what that product
would look like because it's very hard for me to imagine that you would have
anything that's uh you know like a really
useful what comes out of it when there's so many still unknowns because how can
you know the operational cost of something if you don't even know how
much the thing costs you know we know everything costs more right now than we
think it'll cost I'll shut up but could you talk a a little more about that.
Sure. I I'll start off. Um actually, I guess I should ask director, is that all
right with you if I kick it off? Uh yes. And I I think I just frame it in terms
of also just uh before I hand it off to Tara. Uh that some of the things I'm
envisioning that we would do with this next step. For example, we talk about uh
this current study talks about a transfer station for shipping, but there
hasn't there haven't been any discussions with AML. We haven't had uh
those sort of discussions. I'm like, well, what does that shipping really
look like? We haven't had I mentioned the name of uh two major regional
landfills in in the Pacific Northwest. We haven't engaged them to talk about uh
what contracts could look like, you know, for them to accept our waste. We
just have there are a lot of uh it's a little bit I feel like it's like peeling
back this onion and you're right we're we probably uh at the next after that
next study if we got the appro approval to move forward we probably wouldn't
have all of the answers but we're we're getting more and more refined and with
that I would hand it over to Tara. Thank you. Yes, that's excellent framing. Um,
so you mentioned several key points there and that is having those
conversations with the the partners and the vendors and that is a a key aspect
because that will provide a lot of information that we don't have today.
For example, are these landfills available for off-site shipping given
the waste generation in Juno? Um, you know, at any point along the way we
could uncover something that could eliminate one of these options, uh, one
of these three options or put an option back on the table. Um but I I'll say
that for the operating cost evaluation that that we are you know we are uh
proposing here is really to look at um you know talking to those vendors
understanding what the forecasting costs are also um obtaining estimates for
shipping rates for example as well as um some construction estimates and
understanding for waste energy for example are there vendors available and
willing to build a waste to energy facility in Juno. So those are some of
the key questions that we would want to ask. We could also evaluate uh tipping
and collection fees under the different scenarios which would be important
information for the public to have to make some of these decisions.
Follow up, Miss Scandies. Yeah, just a quick followup because you have some
very gross uh estimates for capital costs. It the shipping trash one. that
one. I completely understand how you get that refined, but for something like
operating the you you it sounds like essentially you would dial in and do
more study on what the capital cost would more realistically look like. Is
this just vary back in the napkin?
That is the option. I'm more like tell me how you winnow that down from what
you've done here.
Director, do you would you like to start it off?
Go ahead, Tara. Okay. Um, so we it all depends on what level of analysis you
would like to do. So we could do another back of the napkin for operational
costs, which again would just be high level trying to ever uncover, you know,
failure points of these scenarios um and also high level operating costs. We
could also speak to other um landfills within the Alaska region to understand
what their operating costs would be and evaluate how that would change customer
rates um is a very important factor in all of this is understanding with a new
with construction of a new landfill and once it's up and running for one you
know what size of landfill should we consider is it something where we would
like to consider a regional approach or just local for Juno and how Do those
costs influence what customers will pay?
Miss Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh this is your
staff. Uh seems like unless we decide to throw up our hands and wait until the
landfill closes, we're going to be looking at a transfer station. Um my
only question is if we're putting it potentially into a site planning
process, how different is the transfer station for those three scenarios? Is it
like is your generic transferation to work for no matter what direction we go
or do we kind of have to call our shot when we're doing something like site
planning through the chair to Miss Atinson. Uh
Diana Robinson, environmental project specialist. Um oh my gosh, I just
completely lost my train of thought on that. Went through my whole intro. Um
will you repeat the question? Transfer stations.
Transfer stations. Yes. as a transportation. So what I would
recommend and uh I recommend this for all of the facilities that we're
planning uh I recommend planning for a phased approach right so we know that we
will need that smaller transfer station footprint regardless um you know it's
really common in solid waste and please correct me if I'm wrong Tara but uh to
to plan in these phases right for population growth
degrowth additions of new communities into like a regional waste authority. So
that would be my recommendation is that we start with that smaller footprint to
just get you know we're kind of with all of this there is a universe of
possibilities right we're trying to just narrow it down to what is going to be
workable for Juno so that would be my recommendation is um it just for the
purposes of what Denise and I are requesting um for the zero waste campus
that is more like a placeholder for a space on a map that that's kind of the
level of detail we're looking at currently. Um, but you know that's still
starting that ball rolling, right? So that's
Miss Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to be clear, so generally what you
guys would do would say we will need this much transfer station for any of
these options and when we get more clear direction, we'll start adding on to it
for whatever option. Correct. Okay. Thank you,
Miss Wolf. Thank you, Chair Smith. I think this kind of follows on that
question nicely. Um, I think when I first started getting
involved in city things, and this was maybe inaccurate, but I had the idea in
my head that someone had told me that we'd likely never be able to be
permitted to have another landfill in Juno. And, you know, you would have
never permitted a landfill in the middle of a salmon flood plane. And, you know,
that that would be very challenging. Um, is that still a challenge or do we in in
these scenarios, I know we were talking about potential transfer sites at Lemon
Creek that at that property? Are we talking about potential landfill there
or how would we go about identifying a site if that's a
possibility? Through the chair to Miss Wall, I'm going to get started and then
I'll see if uh Miss Robinson wants to add anything else. Uh, I think when
people think about the permitting for a landfill, they think a lot about the
current situation that we're in, which is an unlined landfill on the edge of of
a a wetland. Uh, I don't anticipate that we would be able to even get that sort
of facility. Like, I don't think that landfill could be permitted probably
today. Uh, but you can permit landfills. uh they just oftentimes they're now, you
know, as as you might imagine, the the rules tend to get more strict over time.
You tend to have uh lined landfills. Um but the permitting process is
um it's possible, but it is um probably going to be ownorous. I mean, anytime
that you do anything with with waste, there's often times the neighborhood is
not necessarily uh in favor of it. Um, permitting for landfills generally takes
a really long time. Uh, I would I would anticipate that there'd probably be a
lower level of push back, for lack of a better term, for a transfer station, but
it would still be handling waste. Uh, and I would still imagine would get a
lot that process would get a lot of scrutiny, but I still think it's
possible. Not sure if you have anything to add. Yeah. Uh, I would add a transfer
station is a relatively low lift in terms of permitting. Um, this it it
especially in the state of Alaska. Um, very minimal permit requirements
compared to a landfill. Denise is correct. Um, landfills take a long time
to permit, but not necessarily because of the environmental review process.
It's I think everyone here is familiar just the public process of going through
making all these decisions, right? It takes a very long time to do any solid
waste planning. It doesn't happen very often. Like something like this doesn't
happen very often. This is kind of a unique opportunity to retool the entire
waste system here, which is not something municipalities get to do very
often. Um but on the flip side, right, there's not a lot of examples of that.
So, and there's not a lot of examples of a
municipality taking control after not having it for a very long time. So,
that's going to add time to that public process, right? So, but environmentally
um with modern landfills and engineering changes, I I think the landfill you
could permit it in in Juno. And I'll let Tara add anything if she
disagrees. I don't disagree. I would just say that
a sighting study would be a step in moving towards a landfill is is doing a
sighting study to uncover where an appropriate location would be for the
landfill. As well as you have followup. Very good.
Mr. Bryson, thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Um, what's
kind of gotten us into this position is that we don't own the stream or the
holding facility. in one of the scenarios where we ship
down south. To me, that just adds a third entity that we don't control. So,
we still won't control the stream. We still won't control the transportation
because that'll be AML. And we won't control the
destination as we're trying to solve this. and we went um I'm just saying uh
maybe we picked Oregon and then Oregon says we no longer want any other state's
trash to be brought to Oregon. And so now we've done all this work and the
state that we want to ship our stuff to and then we're paying God knows how much
oil to ship our trash down south. So you have another environmental
issue there. Um, how does shipping our trash
eliminate the problems that we're trying to solve right now of not controlling
our trash? It seems that a transfer station to ship our waste out just makes
our it just literally adds a third element of of unknowns. How can shipping
waste down south for mis for a municipality be a sustainable long-term
solution when we just be facing the same problems that we're facing today? I I'm
I'm not seeing how shipping is helpful. Maybe somebody could help explain that
through the chair uh to Mr. Bryson. Uh, I think that's why there's certainly
vulnerabilities associated with shipping uh, waste down south, but many other
communities in Alaska do that. Uh, and I think that's why we're at the point
where even at this at this stage, there were essentially a high level three
major types of ways that you deal with uh, waste disposal. and there was a
ranking of them but not an elimination of any any of the options because we
would need uh through that next step of looking at operations really digging
into a little bit more about the the shipping piece. I still do think though
that even if the community made a decision to build a transfer station and
to ship that waste down south versus maybe putting it in a landfill, which is
its own its own why decision point, what we would gain is that uh a waste hauler
uh is regulated and they have to bring their waste to uh the the most lowcost
option. So we would wind up being the disposal. The transfer station is the
first step in the disposal. And having that step in disposal enables us to make
more decisions about you know if the community wants to do something
different with the way we we uh process tires or you know or uh the way that we
process our recycling. the fact that all the waste would be coming to a facility
that CBJ has some level of control over. Uh I mean we could either own it and
operate it, although I doubt that that's really the model. We would probably own
it and have some partnership with a private company, but that private
company, if CBJ owned it, they would CBJ would be able to direct um what we
wanted to do with that with that waste flow with diversion. Not sure if you
wanted to add anything else. Uh like Denise mentioned at the beginning of the
presentation, a lot of issues that arise there, it's not just because it's going
in a poorly designed land film, right? It's hours of operation, it is materials
accepted, it's rates like she mentioned if so just a
hypothetical CBJ decides to do nothing. Uh the p someone in the private sector
builds a transfer station because that will be what
happens. we then don't have any input into when they're open, what materials
they accept, um the rate again the rates. So yeah, it's not a perfect
solution by any means. Uh but it does also give us another opportunity to push
diversion if we are able to incentivize by you know like recycling's free. You
have and now you you know there's different uh models for payment also um
that we can look into. There's something called pay as you throw, right? you go
to the transfer station, you're just paying for that waste that you're
throwing out. Uh it's not like a, you know, right now we have a minimum charge
at Waste Management, right? So that's not really incentivizing you to have
less waste that goes through that transfer station. You can incentivize
recycling, composting, and reads, though. Um and if you control each of
those pieces, then it's it's the system just works better, right? So I would say
that's very good. It looks like you as a
followup, Mr. Bryson. So the answer that I heard is that the transfer station
regardless of the scenario is how CBJ can insert themselves into the waist
stream control. Is that essentially the what you're saying through the chair?
Yes.
Very well then. Did you have a question? I did.
Um, so a transfer I forget um how many acres the zero waste campus site is. Is
there room for a transfer station and its growth that's needed potentially
through the chair to Mayor Weldon? Uh yes that because that uh that site is um
more than 20 acres we would have we would have plenty of space to you know
make if the assembly wanted to make the decision and pro provide the guidance
that uh you're interested enough that we should at least include it in our plan.
Um, we would still have space to have recycling and compost and other things
on on that site and then even have we would design it such that uh the
transfer station um had a little bit of room for growth so that we could I think
we could accomplish all of those things in that in that site.
I actually had a question on this. I guess
just, you know, you're asking if we should include it at the Zurista campus
site. I mean, is there another site we should consider? This one just totally
makes sense. Okay. You just kind of Okay,
[Music] Mr. share. Uh that was that uh South
Lemon Creek gravel pit is the area that we had identified as um the area that
would be our waste campus. We know that even if um the assembly was not
interested in having a a transfer uh transfer station. Um the community has
been interested and has been running a recycling program for a long time and
running a household hazardous waste program for a long time. And the most
likely outcome is what when the local privatelyowned waste management landfill
closes or as it gets close to closing. They're going to need that that space
where we currently have our recycling and household hazardous waste. So at
some point uh CBJ will probably get pushed off of their private site. And if
those are uh services that uh the assembly and the community still want
CBJ to offer, we'd have to have another location to offer those those services.
And that's also where uh we had planned um to have a a compost facility that we
had pursued the congressionally directed spending for.
Very good. Any further questions from the assembly? Seeing none, anyone open
to making a motion? Mr.
[Music] Kelly? I'll uh start with the guidance
requested. Um, I move that we provide a motion of
support uh directing engineering public works to include a transfer station with
possible growth in the zerowaste campus um
site. Very good. Further motion. Any objection to the
motion? Seeing that, that motion is adopted. Any further motions?
Madame Mayor, I'm not quite sure if we need this or not, but we would give
staff direction. So, um, I would direct staff to use up to $100,000 from the
zero waste CIP number D12-103 for high level solid waste
facility operational cost. Very good. We motion. Any objection,
Miss Wall?
Um I was I didn't realize we were making a motion that specific, but um I see now
that that's the slide. Um I this I can follow up more with um
staff regarding whether we would need a amendment. But I'm interested as we move
forward with this on on making sure we include um as well as cost estimates
um looking at our carbon footprint and environmental concerns. I know we live
in a society that chooses to add that on, but I think we're increasingly in a
place where that should be just as important as our dollar values. And
although it's hard to think of this right now, someday those concerns will
drive our dollars potentially. So, um, if if staff could bring up a bit more
information on whether that would need additional dollars to include those
analyses, um, that would be helpful. So, maybe not an amendment, but just a
general direction that if we have to change that amount, we can. Yeah. Yeah.
If that was it was going to be provided, it would have changed the cost. Very
good. Any further objection, Mr. Um, yes. Um, probably just an objection kind
kind of on a a similar vein. I think uh what would be kind of useful for us in
making future decisions as well is um is a little more information. I I I realize
a lot of this is still kind of in the beginning stages, but I think it would
be helpful for me to have a little more information on on what sort of um what
sort of timeline things would see that. And um I think
also um it may be cost comparisons that possibly include the the cost for
shipping.
I'll remove my objection. Very good. Those comments, we've heard a
motion. Miss Gandis. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry for this just now popping
into my head. Will that include Are you already planning to include looking at
this also as a potential for a regional landfill? I think you mentioned that
earlier, Miss Scandi, I had a hard time hearing you. What did you say? Sorry,
Mr. Smith. I had a hard candy in my mouth. I believe earlier you said that
you would look at citing it as a regional landfill and just as a local
landfill or I'm asking will this include that?
through the chair to Miss Hugh Ganges. We certainly have been um participating
with Southeast Conference. We know that they're looking at uh regional waste
solutions and we're continuing to have that that dialogue with them.
Um we are I think a little bit um it's interesting a lot of the other
communities in the southeast who are t having this conversation about a
regional solution have more control over their waste than than we do. I think
there's certainly um it's certainly apparent that any regional solution in
terms of the economy of scale that they would get. Um, Juno is certainly the
most likely location that that that would happen. Um, so we are taking that
into account as we're as we're doing some of these plans, but it's a little
bit of this balancing act because we don't want to uh box ourselves in. And I
I wouldn't um probably proceed with or give our consultant the advice to
proceed with uh the focus of of us being a regional hub because we don't know if
that will wind up happening. I think that um we would give them the focus uh
ask them to focus on uh looking at these solutions primarily assuming that it's
just Juno's waist stream but knowing that you know keeping some openness so
that if there you know later on if once the regional planning catches up and if
it's the community and assembly's will to you know to be more regional that we
wouldn't shut any doors but I think it's um it's probably a little early for us
to plan based on that. Yeah, I will add that we can do look at
like the 50y year versus the 100year land though. I think that would be a
really reasonable thing to do to get a better because that 100year landfill
would be more.
Okay.
Okay. I'll
thank you. And uh in a similar vein of just comments under emotion, I actually
have one too. You had you had brought up and the thing
that I've talked about almost every time we talk about solid waste is like cost
to the residents because oh great, we have a $20 million solution, but it's
going to triple the cost versus a $50 million solution that will just increase
by a third, whatever. So anyway, I I thought I heard you mention that that
would be a component of this study. Again, if I was incorrect or that's not
going to be considered or something, I would appreciate, but I just wanted to
emphasize that three other people that emphasis
and I didn't want to be left out. Mr. Chair, you are correct. We are we we
really want to get this to a place where we understand what the cost is to the to
the residents. Uh there will be what I had mentioned earlier is that there are
probably opportunities for policy calls in there in terms of whether or not um
the assembly wants uh ways to be an enterprise fund if they were thinking
about it that way or if they were thinking about subsidy or not. But we
would certainly be driving to try and understand what the cost would be for
the resident because we really understand that's that's where the
rubber hits the road. Very good. Thank you very much. And with
that, I'll remove my objection for emphasis. Was there any further excuse
me any further objection on the
motion? Seeing none those that motion is adopted. Thank you all very much for
this information. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we have one last
item. Advocacy on ballot measures. Manager Kester. Thank you, Deputy Mayor
Smith. So, you have a memo. the very last page of your packet that just talks
about generally speaking advocacy on ballot measures. As you know, we are
required to uh appropriate funds and register with Apoch if uh the city wants
to do like more than kind of a basic just the facts public education
campaign. So, um we we have uh multiple ballot initiatives potentially on the
ballot, including a CBG initiated uh ballot measure for um seasonal sales tax
and an exemption of tax on food and utilities. We also have the um the uh
mill rate cap and the uh just the exemption of sales tax on food and
utilities that is being circulated. they are out getting additional petitions
right now. And just to highlight the impact of that exemption of of those two
measures, an exemption on food and utilities is about a 10 to 12 million
hit to our budget. And while the mill rate cap because it excludes uh debt
service, it would have a small impact on this year's budget. However, it would
really limit the ability of the assembly to make um budget decisions and respond
to community needs. So, you know, those are kind of our the um body's potential
interest in advocating one way or another on those. If we were to uh not
take if we were not to take any action to advocate, so no ordinance um
appropriating those funds, we would provide a a pretty robust FAQ. We would
respond to inquiries, but that would be from staff's perspective the the limit
of it. Of course, assembly members individually can take a more proactive
role, but um but staff would be very careful about that. Um in the contrast,
if we did uh if you did approve an advocacy campaign, we would recommend
hiring a third party consultant with experience in these types of um these
types of voter education campaigns. The new city hall campaign, we were quite
close to it. You know, we did some some great uh work, but I think I would uh
advocate for being a little bit more who's getting a really robust um media
and direct mail campaign organized uh through uh who a a company a consulting
firm that specializes in that. Um as you know the deadline to um have anything
put on the um ballot is um the end of July. So, this is really uh kind of fast
approaching in order to be able to uh meaningfully develop any type of a
campaign and I laid out a schedule on the memo. Um, if you're interested in
keeping the conversation alive on potentially advocating, I would
recommend uh introducing an ordinance at the next meeting. You don't have to pass
that ordinance, right? We have a very long time actually in between our June
9th meeting and our uh July 28th meeting. Lots of things can change, but
if you do um if you are interested in having that option, I would recommend
introducing an ordinance. And you know, I I don't I'm silent on a number in this
memo. Uh the new city hall campaign was under
$50,000. Um depending on kind of how many how many campaigns, how many
measures you want to advocate on, I think um would uh influence that number.
And I would just encourage you to use a higher number and use language because
again, you know, we're going to have a long time of between now and when you
have to make a final decision on that. So, I'm happy to answer any questions on
advocacy and I know attorney writes also very um involved in this issue. Madam
manager, just to frame it in and I'm sorry if you said it right there at the
end, the the information we need to provide on an ordinance, it's the amount
and do we do advocacy. It's not necessarily advocate for this or
advocate against that. Is that correct? You are correct. Very good. Thank you.
Questions from the assembly. Mr. Bryson,
does the uh the citizen group that is putting on uh these initiatives or
attempting to get these onto the ballot? Um have we looked at what's the right
way to ask this question? Um, would it be appropriate for the city's level of
information to be equal to the group's information of what they're trying to uh
get past? Would we try to like match the level of activity? Um, could you maybe
just speak to a little bit what we would do is in like a camp if you had a
campaign um to do with this manager. Thank you for that
question. So, uh, no, I I probably would not, um, I I really don't think there's
time to be have much of a reactionary campaign. Um, if approved, uh, I would
suggest a, um, social media presence where we do, uh, social media ads. I
would suggest radio ads. Uh, I would s direct mail is still the like best way
to get a hold of those individual voters. So I would um you know pro we
would probably be we would take the advice of the consultant who who does
those types of activities or the media marketing campaign but direct mail um
public speaking I would still be relying on I think assembly members to do many
of those requested public speaking events but I think it would probably be
uh mostly media focus.
Other questions? Miss Miss Hall and then I'll
come back to Mr. Preston. I I it it seems to me with the city hall campaign
that backfired on on us and so I guess I'm a little hesitant to you know how
common is it for um municipalities to advocate for something like this or do
we you know I the FAQ page and relying on
Q&A around election time would that be a wise er approach
than using public funds to have an advocacy committee.
Yeah. If you maybe go ahead and answer but then the thought I think was
interesting is you know what other communities have done advocacy for you
know something. Yeah. Um so I know that when I was in Homer we did a advocacy
campaign for um a public safety building. Uh when we looked it up last
year I believe Katchakan had done an advocacy campaign. I I don't think it's
very common. Often when you have a bomb proposition, for example, you have a
constituency group that is, you know, advocating for that. The reason why uh
we advocated for a new city hall campaign was it was just a it was really
hard uh for anyone else to be a champion of a new built new office space for uh
bureaucrats besides the bureaucrats themselves. And it would be really hard
for us to distance ourselves, we felt like, from anything just sounding like
advocacy. Um, I think your other question of like should we do it or
should we not do it is 100% a policy call that is squarely in your uh arena.
Mr. Bryson, then Mr. Kelly, could the advocacy advocacy be combined?
Let's say that two of the propositions were to cap the mill rate and um exempt
the for food and utilities. Would we be able to have like
one message out there or if they have two ballot initiatives, we'd have to
address them separately? Do you have any insight on how you might
handle if there was two or three ballot initiatives that we'd have to go against
or advocate against whatever appropriate phrases?
Um I think that there'd be a lot of synergy and similar messaging. I mean I
think really there's just a lot of messaging that uh CBJ could do that's
not specific to any ballot uh proposition. If you know if if
One option involves drastic cuts to our budget or a giant hole in our budget. We
could certainly do a lot of uh educating on what that could look like, things
like that. Um I think a more nuance level of your question that I don't have
an answer for is like how would we register with Apoch if we were like
doing a campaign here and a campaign there and and you know I would just have
to research that to make sure we were following the rules. I mean, we want to
be very very careful and very um a stickler on on all of those uh campaign
disclosure rules. Mr. Kelly, thank you. Um this might be a
little too creative. Um so I guess I'm asking if this is something that would
be permissible. I think a a big part of a lot of people's objections was they
they're getting mailers that were paid with their own tax funds trying to get
them to take an action. Um
would we have to would would all of the funds have to come from the city? Could
we coordinate with u maybe another interested citizen group and they could
also raise funds so this wouldn't be an entirely taxpayer funded effort?
Whoever would like that. Yeah. So I think that uh logistically it would be
difficult for the assembly to accept and appropriate donations for the purposes
of an advocacy campaign. I think a simpler solution would be for that
entity to register and and have their own advocacy.
Thank you.
Further questions from the assembly on this agenda
topic? Seeing none, would anyone like to make a
motion? Miss Wall, Mr. Smith, do you mind if I have a take a brief at ease?
Of course. a couple minutes or something.
We are back on the record. Um, Miss Wall,
do you have a motion? Thank you, Chair Smith.
Um, I move we direct staff to introduce an ordinance at the June 9th regular
meeting um in a corresponding RO res resolution on July 28th that would
provide up to um $50,000 for to provide public information that may influence
the outcome of future val ballot propositions. And if I could speak to my
motion. Very good. as well.
Um I I've been through this question of how we deal with these situations a
number of times on the assembly now and I've changed my mind a few times about
it. But um why I'm feeling motivated um this year um two things. One there is
something has changed in the last 5 years. We used to be able to just
provide public information on these ballot initiatives. Now, we cannot do
that without allocating public funding to do so. And so, it puts us in a tricky
position that there's really no way to be neutral. Um, I'm but I want to move
forward on this particular year because we're considering a seasonal sales tax.
I think a seasonal sales tax, we've got a bold proposal to transform the way
that we're collecting sales tax in Juno before us.
Um it is going to take um some work to make sure people understand why we are
proposing this um and and the information around that. I think it is
complex and I know that if we don't get ahead of the message um a lot of
misinformation will be put out there about the proposal. people see it as a
tax and and they'll um they'll we won't be able to provide a clear understanding
of why. Um and so um if it turns out there's there's other things on the
ballot, then I think we still have the option to um decide how we feel about
that. But for me, this is about seasonal sales tax. I actually think that I won't
vote for putting seasonal sales tax on the ballot if we don't allocate funding
to help educate the public about it. Thank you.
Thank you, Miss Wall. Any objection to the motion? Miss
Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I very much
appreciate where where Miss Wall is coming from, but I am hesitant to take
positions on any of the potential ballot measures as a city uh that could be
coming forward. I think that if the case of ballot measures proposed by the
citizens of Juno, uh there will be like if people reach out and ask what size
hole will that put in the budget, we are allowed to share that information. But I
don't think we should be taking a position on any of those potential
ballot measures because that's just I don't feel our place as the city to be
doing that and to be advocating for one or the other. Providing unbiased
information is one thing and advocating for a particular side is another. And as
far as the seasonal sales tax goes, I I understand that we that is complex and
it will be a heavy lift to educate the public, but also that's partially what
um people campaigning that year are for when city hall was on the ballot. I know
we got questions about city hall and every candidate forum. Um, and so that
is already sort of an organic part of the process that uh people running this
year can undertake if need be. And I just don't I think that it sends a bad
message to be using public dollars to advocate for anything on that.
Thank you, Mr. Bryson. So uh I was uh listening to Miss Atinson
and uh I bet in uh my first year I would have had that same thought. I'm
suspecting that the groups that are advocating for these are going to give
their version, their side of how this is going to go down. And if we don't give
city staff um the funding and ability to deal with this, we're going to be
dealing with a misinformation campaign that negatively harms the community in
the long run. We need to be as loud and as available with the real
information because some of these things that have already started to come out,
I've already heard some of their ads. We need to be as uh we need to be
as assertive um or we could find ourselves in a bit of trouble. Thank you
for the time. Thank you, Mr. Bryson. Miss Scandies.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just keep it brief. I I support it. You know, I
thought about this for a long time and specifically for me, how I can support
this and keep this alive and keep this moving and I appreciate the motion is
because of the work we're doing on the sales tax proposal and I want that to
have a fair shake and I want people to feel like they really understand the
whole proposal and the whole model and why we're doing it and I think this
allows us to do that. So, I'll be supporting this motion. um to give that
a a full chance. Very good. Mayor Welen, I'll just speak in support of the
motion, but everything I was going to say has been said, so I'll keep it
short. Mr.
Singer. Um, so I'm speaking support the motion because, you know, looking at the
potential on the ballot of what could be two very similar looking ballot
propositions put in front of the voters. I think it's important that we, you
know, give staff the ability to educate the public on what that choice means. I
see it not necessarily as an advocating for or against a citizens initiative,
but explaining to the voters. We're placing one option in front of them that
looks similar to another option being discussed in the public right now and
making it very clear what the impacts of both of those would be. You know, what
why we're proposing an option that looks similar to something being discussed for
the public. Um but and also if I can ask a question of staff very quickly. Sure.
With an objection. Um objection for a question. How how much control will we
as a body have over the actual content of the messaging and you know how much
how much can we direct the content and the tone and the type of messaging
that's done by this third party. Yeah. My my favorite is um drafting uh
FAQs by uh assembly. I've had experience with that. Super fun. Um I would uh
suggest that uh you know we come forward with a uh maybe a a uh plan for public
information and that the body have an opportunity to provide high level input
on that plan. But um I think it is difficult maybe I mean if you really
wanted some more granular level of control I maybe a small committee or
something that could uh we could work more closely with but um content
creation is is difficult in large groups.
Mr. Kelly, thank you. Um I think I'll support this
motion uh at this time. Um, I I'm still kind of weighing weighing the pros and
cons of expending public funds uh to to persuade versus also making sure we get
a fair shake. Um, I haven't decided how I'm going to vote on the final ordinance
or the resolution, but I uh support moving the conversation forward. Good,
Miss Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can count votes.
So, I'll remove my objection. But I I just will say when it comes to if we
come to the point where we're talking about expending public money to provide
information on citizen ballot citizen ballot initiatives, I will um not be
able to support it. But for now, I'll remove my objection. Mr. Bryson,
I had a question um for staff. If we did not allocate any funds, staff would not
be able to go do something like go present at the Chamber of Commerce. Is
that correct? We have to have an allocation of funds to allow city to be
able to publicly speak about this. Is there some Could you maybe explain what
that rule is? Madam manager. Yeah. I mean, you know, I
don't there's no like Apoch guide book of what you can or cannot do in these
circumstances. They're a matter. It's a matter of judgment and it's a matter of
uh risking a Apoch violation. I would not feel comfortable uh speaking at a
chamber or a um Rotary event on this topic outside of you know being asked
questions. I would I think an assembly member could uh take that action but um
like my I would not feel comfortable doing that or directing my staff to do
that because it'd be very hard for it not to sound like advocating when you're
like if you approve this we won't have money to fund the arburetum for example,
right? like that's just going to come off as big bad city manager trying to
influence my opinion by taking away the things I love. Okay,
very good. We have a motion and I don't believe we have objection. Is there any
objection to the motion? Very good. That motion is
adopted. That I think gets us through our business this evening. Madam
manager, do we have anything else? Very good.
Nothing. No staff reports. Our next meeting date is Oh, I thought it was
July 4th. Is July 14th. Seeing nothing before else before
us, we are journ.