[2:28] I call the assembly committee of the
whole to order at 6 p.m. on June 2nd,
[2:35] 2025. Mr. Steininger, would you read the
land acknowledgement, please? We would
[2:40] like to acknowledge that the city and
bureau of Juno is on click land and wish
[2:43] to honor the indigenous people of this
land. For more than 10,000 years,
[2:47] Alaskan Native people have been and
continue to be integral to the
[2:51] well-being of our community. We're
grateful to be in this place, a part of
[2:55] this community, and to honor the
culture, traditions, and resilience of a
[2:59] clinka people.
[3:03] Thank you, Mr. Shininger. Madame Clerk,
would you please call the role? Thank
[3:07] you, Mr. Chair. If I might just note
that all members are present in person.
[3:13] Thank you for being here. The quorum is
present. Thank you, madame clerk.
[3:18] Um, any changes to the
agenda? Seeing none, we'll note the
[3:24] agenda as approved. So, on to our agenda
topics. First topic, Hescoberry
[3:30] installation phase
1B/Future
[3:33] phases. A dense memo in the packet.
Um, the manager does seek some direction
[3:42] from the assembly, but manager Kuster,
start us off, please. Thank you, Deputy
[3:48] Mayor Smith. So, I have pulled together
a a very short presentation from images
[3:53] included in this memo, uh, mostly as a
way to help organize my thoughts and
[3:58] walk you guys through the memo. So, um,
uh, next slide.
[4:05] This is an image of 1A at 17 ft. So if
you recall last committee of the whole
[4:11] you gave staff direction to um continue
with installing Hesco barriers for um on
[4:18] CBJ property. It was about a a half a
million dollar project. We could do it
[4:23] relatively quickly. That project is
wrapping up. And I just want to um show
[4:27] that at 17 ft the amount of public
property that is protected there is
[4:32] significant. Um at 18 ft you're
protecting 271 parcels from inundation.
[4:39] Um so again that that that work is being
done that decision was made but uh I
[4:44] think was a you can you can see here um
the significant protection that that
[4:48] decision made. Next slide.
[4:52] So, um 1A at 18 feet does have some
downstream impacts and specifically
[4:58] there are nine homes on Meadow Lane that
would be um adversely impacted as a
[5:05] result of 1A. And so this slide just
shows how staff is working to try to
[5:12] mitigate that. And um the uh the
proposed mitigation there would be a
[5:18] 3-ft tall 30 foot wide uh supersack, so
sandbag barrier across the trail that
[5:24] you see in the bottom right hand corner.
And um we believe that would prevent uh
[5:30] a lot of the water from flowing into the
neighborhood. Uh and we do have
[5:35] permission from DOT to um put that in a
temporary manner. So that would be
[5:40] something we would deploy like you know
when we know that the basin is releasing
[5:44] we would deploy those uh those
supersacks and then we would remove
[5:48] those supersacks. But but the good news
is we do feel like we have a way to
[5:52] protect not only the nine homes
adversely impacted from 1A but also the
[5:56] the remainder of the homes um in that
neighborhood approximately 30 homes in
[6:00] that neighborhood. Um so uh let's talk
about 1B because really this memo is
[6:07] about 1B.
So, at the May 12th committee of the
[6:11] whole, we also ask for input from you on
uh extending continuing to extend Hesco
[6:17] barriers all the way to Brotherhood
Bridge. And this protects 96 additional
[6:21] parcels. However, there's a lot of
housing units there. Um a lot of multif
[6:26] family housing. So, we calculated it to
be about 190 housing units. Also,
[6:31] there's a lot of commercial property
there. So, you know, commercial
[6:34] infrastructure. So, pretty high value
property that uh that that protects.
[6:38] However, extending that we don't have
time to do any armoring there and it
[6:42] needs about $1.4 million of armoring
along that uh that bank. Um so that
[6:48] would be something we would have to come
back uh next year and do. There's also a
[6:52] concern that the weight of the Hesco
barriers on that uh river bank if we did
[6:56] truly have a catastrophic event, right,
we can't guarantee that there wouldn't
[6:59] be uh be a failure there. just
installing the Hesco barriers on that
[7:03] just continuing on 1B is about an
$850,000 project and again it's on non
[7:10] CVJ eight non CVJ parcels and so you
gave us direction on May 12th to go do
[7:15] some public outreach and you know get
some more information from that affected
[7:19] area and we did meet with every one of
the property owners along there and
[7:23] everyone except for Riverview Senior
Living was amendable to putting Hesco
[7:27] barriers uh on their property. Um, you
know, the memo states that without the
[7:33] mandate of an LI, it would be difficult
to enter into people's property and, you
[7:37] know, install those barriers uh if they
didn't consent to it. I think, you know,
[7:42] we would use the same argument for um
that we have emergency powers to be able
[7:47] to do that and it and it's a very valid
argument. It's just, you know, when we
[7:52] had the LI and the buyin of all of those
residents, it it's just a stronger
[7:57] argument to be able to uh exercise those
powers. So, there's no like legal
[8:02] argument there. It it just is a stronger
a stronger sense of purpose for phase
[8:07] one and and the couple of properties
that we have had that have been not
[8:11] amendable to installing barriers.
Another challenge with phase 1B is that
[8:16] uh the armoring that it would be
required there is not on uh so the the
[8:21] the property owners that that the Hesco
barriers would have barriers on it are
[8:25] not the same property owners that would
have the armoring. So in phase one we
[8:29] were able to say hey you're
significantly benefiting from the um
[8:33] armoring so you should you should pay
more uh for four properties and those
[8:38] four properties did not object to phase
one. In this case, the the riverfront
[8:42] property is owned by a DOT and a private
property owner that owns just the sliver
[8:47] of Riverbank and and is not interested
at all in armoring that property,
[8:51] doesn't have value to them. Very
amenable to the work being done and and
[8:55] allowing us entry just is just a
challenge. It's, you know, um and it
[9:00] kind of weighs into that fairness issue
as you guys evaluate how to proceed with
[9:05] 1B and who uh who pays for what. Um, so
I think I I articulated uh some of the
[9:13] cons of um 1B now and I guess another
con would be uh participating in
[9:19] financing for uh future stages and and
phase two. It could disincentivize that
[9:25] participation. I mean I made a strong
argument on May 12th that we just are
[9:28] going to have to uh count on our our
residents, you know, agreeing to
[9:34] participate in long-term solutions even
if they're uh already benefiting. And I
[9:38] think that argument is still valid. Uh
nevertheless, uh we couldn't for example
[9:42] go back and do an LI for any improvement
that has already occurred. Right? So
[9:47] like we could go back and do an LI maybe
for the armoring but not for the Hesco
[9:50] barriers because those Hesco barriers
are already installed and the
[9:54] improvement has to be before the L. So
that takes me uh to chatting a little
[10:00] bit about Oh, I'm sorry. I did do want
to mention one other thing about phase
[10:04] one uh B is there is a um kind of some
new inundation in that lower uh that
[10:11] middle square there. Uh there's just
some some new uh water that we see uh in
[10:18] like the near the Pavitz building and
those parking lots and we're still um
[10:24] working with Michael Baker to see how
that uh that property would be in
[10:28] inundated. But importantly, phase 1B
cures the and protects those metal lane
[10:33] homes that 1A adversely um impacts. So
there are there are pros and those pros
[10:38] and cons are outlined in your memo. But
I think when uh fa you can next slide.
[10:45] When I was thinking about this and
trying to kind of figure out how to
[10:48] present these different phases to you
guys, I I really thought about phase
[10:52] two. Well, we've always talked about
phase two. And I think it's hard to make
[10:56] uh you know make these incremental
decisions about phase one without
[11:00] thinking about phase two. And as
originally envisioned, we uh propose
[11:06] installing barriers all along all
populated sides of the river for phase
[11:10] two. This is um you know six months ago
when we were advocating for funding from
[11:15] uh the delegation and others. Uh that
phase two uh the cost estimate is $17
[11:20] million. That uh means it's $23.5
million for phase one and phase two. and
[11:28] you really do get a diminishing uh level
of return return on your investment the
[11:33] more you spend. So, um and I think
that's the one of the policy decisions
[11:37] that the assembly is going to have to
struggle with once we're able to give
[11:41] you of course more information that uh
with phase one 1A and 1B, you're
[11:47] protecting all but 40 homes in a 17t
event. And there's lots of assumptions
[11:52] there, right? like what if we have an 18
event then we would uh you know
[11:56] potentially protect other homes but but
basically you know you're getting a lot
[12:00] more expensive per parcel as you uh
protect some of those outlying um
[12:07] neighborhoods. Well, those neighborhoods
are experiencing very real flooding,
[12:11] very real uh events, but you know,
there's that you you will have to weigh
[12:16] that kind of public purpose of prot
using public funds to protect the the
[12:22] most uh the most people possible. So, as
I thought about phase 1B and phase uh
[12:29] two, I really wanted to be able to bring
you guys more answers to help you make
[12:36] those decisions, which is why, you know,
when I was thinking about it, I thought
[12:40] phase 1B is obvious, but but it's also
something that it would be reasonable to
[12:44] make a a riskbased analysis and say, how
likely is an 18 foot event? Um, and can
[12:51] we mitigate for phase 1 A? Yes, we can
and delay that until next construction
[12:56] season. The reality is we are going to
know a lot more after um our yokaloop
[13:01] season this year. And frankly, the
public's going to feel um a lot more
[13:06] motivated to participate and pressure
you all for continuing flood mitigation
[13:10] if we have a a a really uh high flood
event. And if we don't, that pressure
[13:16] will probably um not exist as much. So
just to kind of walk you through my
[13:21] thought process as I spent a significant
amount of time trying to to think
[13:25] through this uh next
[13:30] slide. So the next next uh real question
that you've all been facing is what
[13:35] about View Drive? It's just a really
tough pickle. This thumb of property of
[13:40] 20 properties. There's actually 22
properties, but two of them CBJ owns and
[13:44] are unoccupied. is 20 homes very close
to the lake uh makes it very their
[13:51] elevation makes it very difficult uh to
protect those properties. So um we have
[13:57] uh the
[14:02] US Mr. President mind if we ask
questions right now while we're
[14:08] Sure. So my understanding is that View
Drive and some of those other low-lying
[14:13] areas have flooded many more times than
the two Yakahop floods that August 623
[14:22] and August 624 that View Drive has been
flooded numerous times that were just
[14:29] high level or lower Yakal releases and
like I've been on that river View Drive
[14:36] has got like annual or bianual flooding
on it. Do we have information about how
[14:42] often View Drive was flooded prior to
this
[14:46] situation? Because they might have
already had they were already facing
[14:49] this um before the rest of the community
was facing the Yakahop is my
[14:54] understanding. It's a flooded area. Yes.
So, some homes uh on View Drive flood at
[15:00] 13 ft uh and not all homes. Um, so many
of the homes have experienced uh
[15:07] repeated uh flooding. Some of the homes
have taken um mitigation measures
[15:12] themselves to help protect against that.
When you look at an 18 ft flood event on
[15:17] our interactive map, and that's a map
that you can access through the CBJ
[15:21] website. If you go to uh if you go to
the CBJ homepage, there's a there's a
[15:25] flood button, and then from there, it
takes you to the University of Alaska
[15:29] Southeast uh interactive map. And that
map is really useful because you can
[15:33] pick a flood stage and then toggle over
individual homes and areas and and do
[15:37] the depth. And so I did that before this
meeting to say, okay, at 18 feet, how
[15:41] deep is the water on View Drive? And the
answer is really varies. So there are
[15:44] some homes that are only a couple only
have a couple feet of of like in that
[15:48] image. The depth for some homes is only
a couple of feet feet. For some homes,
[15:52] it's nine feet. For some uh you know
yards, it's 12 feet. So really uh
[15:58] matters. details matter, right? But but
you are correct that some of the homes
[16:03] um on View Drive do routinely uh
experience some some water. Um in fact,
[16:10] two of the homes are in the flood way
and the flood way is a more uh difficult
[16:15] has a more rigorous level of permitting
than the flood plane. And um so when we
[16:21] talk about Hesco barriers, we're also
concerned about being able to get
[16:25] permitting and maintain our FIP status
for those particular uh those particular
[16:32] properties. Now, now that probably means
that there's some combination of
[16:35] solutions out there for Few Drive and
Army Corps of Engineers has uh directed
[16:40] some attention. and they've pulled
pulled their um principal engineer from
[16:44] the long-term solution and they are
having them look at Vue Drive and do a
[16:49] feasibility analysis for Vue Drive. I
know that uh deputy director cotch and
[16:55] uh deputy manager bar and mayor will be
meeting with you drive residents this
[16:58] week to talk about options for fug
drive. We also have uh petitioned the um
[17:04] um natural resources conservation
service for participation in a um
[17:11] program uh that uh it buyouts are one of
the solutions, but it proposes other
[17:17] solutions for homes that experience
these multiple losses and understand
[17:21] that they're looking at booking uh some
travel this summer to come and do some
[17:24] of that that analysis work. So, we're
we're really trying to, you know, figure
[17:29] out what uh what can be done with F
Drive because it really is I mean I I
[17:33] know that the um families that live
there, I'm sure are very frustrated uh
[17:38] because it because of just the elevation
and the location of Vue Drive. So,
[17:42] that's kind of the summary of View
Drive. And um I think that's my last
[17:48] slide. So, you can probably stop there.
I we'll keep talking about um how to how
[17:55] to pay for it if you guys uh with at
your discretion. Uh Chair Smith. Okay.
[18:03] Maybe we'll pause just for some
questions on inundation or things. Mr.
[18:07] Kelly,
uh thank you. Uh you are mentioning that
[18:11] the Riverview Senior Center uh would not
it is not agreeing to the uh phase 1B.
[18:19] Um, do we know what would be the impacts
like if we had hesco barriers
[18:24] everywhere but on on 1B except for
Riverview Senior Center?
[18:31] No, we haven't done modeling of
individual uh properties. I mean,
[18:35] generally speaking, that's the
continuous line is uh most effective.
[18:42] Thank you, Miss Wall.
Thank you, Chair Smith.
[18:49] Um, in your memo you talk about pros and
cons of
[18:54] 1B now versus
later. You don't mention do my question
[19:02] there. There's mention here about the
core being, you know, potentially
[19:08] um challenged to help us if we're
protecting areas that
[19:13] are would be protected over 16 feet.
Do you and this is probably just a guess
[19:20] but based on your conversation with them
do you feel like we if we don't move
[19:25] forward with 1B this year we potentially
lose ability to install Hesos in 1B next
[19:32] year based on that conversation with the
core or can we do it without them I
[19:37] guess is the other part of that
question. Yeah. So, so we have not asked
[19:42] that specific question of the core.
However, we do have those barriers on
[19:46] site and we do have that preliminary
engineering done. So, uh we could do
[19:51] phase 1B without their uh technical
assistance.
[19:58] Miss Candies, thank you chair. My
question is a followup kind of on the
[20:04] same topic of the core kind of being out
if it was more than 16
[20:10] feet that you know in your memo will add
to the expense if we're on our own.
[20:17] Could you speak a little bit about how
and what order of magnitude?
[20:24] Yeah. So, um if the core were not to
participate in flood mitigation for
[20:29] phase two, uh they would not be
providing the Hesco barriers uh for
[20:34] free, which is what they're providing.
And they're providing uh technical
[20:38] assistance. I I want to say the cost of
Hesco barriers would be a couple million
[20:43] dollars for phase one. I don't know if
I'm I'm getting so so let's say we phase
[20:48] one uh a $6 million project um
represented a couple million dollars of
[20:54] hesco barriers. So you could you know
let's say that $6 million in hesco
[20:58] barriers uh and of course the value of
their text technical assistance is
[21:02] harder to quantify but almost more
important because it adds that
[21:06] legitimacy to uh to any work that we're
doing. I will say, you know, this was a
[21:11] conversation that we had with um with
the Army Corps late last week. Um we
[21:18] haven't, you know, we haven't pushed
back on that because I really want to
[21:23] understand a little bit more um what
phase two looks like before we uh you
[21:30] know do before we engage in kind of that
that push and pull with um with the Army
[21:36] Corps. They've been such valuable
partners and I feel like we just need a
[21:40] lot more information ourselves to be
able to know what we're doing to be able
[21:44] to kind of have those follow-up
conversations. Uh I also think that the
[21:49] event that we experienced this summer, I
mean, if we have a higher event, then
[21:52] we'll have a higher record event that we
will need their assistance with. So I I
[21:56] I'm
not stop talking. Quick followup. I
[22:03] Okay, I appreciate that. And I was
thinking that it was much more the
[22:06] technical assistance piece and the
legitimacy piece and what that looks
[22:10] like to go alone. But if it's something
as clear-cut as you can't have our Hesco
[22:17] if it's over 16 ft, am I understanding
that correctly? Because that changes
[22:21] everything in here. And I didn't get
that from reading this. So are you
[22:26] saying that's a conversation or a remark
that happened really recently? So you
[22:31] have you need more time to see if that
is no you can't have our hesos but it
[22:35] could be no you can't have our
escos from I think it could be you
[22:41] cannot have additional hesos and
additional technical assistance for
[22:47] flood fighting over the historical
event. They're still providing uh
[22:54] technical assistance of course for the
long-term solution.
[22:58] Okay, I'll hold for and wait till we get
through this. Kelly,
[23:04] just a follow up to that. Um, we you
mean say they wouldn't they wouldn't
[23:09] provide hesco barriers? Like we could
still get them, but they would be at our
[23:12] own expense, right? All right. Thank
you. Correct.
[23:18] Manager Ker, I just had one question
from you said it. I just want to make
[23:22] sure I understand it and maybe for
others to hear too. You mentioned the
[23:27] modeling shows with
1A which is nearing completion that it
[23:33] would direct water onto certain areas of
Meadow Lane. But you believe you have a
[23:39] solution for that and that's the super
sacking near the bridge or whatever to
[23:44] pro that would so that that would
protect those houses on Metal Lane. Is
[23:47] that correct?
Correct. It would protect uh those uh
[23:52] nine homes that one would would impact
in addition to other homes on Meadow
[23:57] Lane.
Okay. Thank you, Miss Wall.
[24:04] I remember when we were talking about
phase one and phase two and you know it
[24:09] was you know the idea of phase two we
just put barriers up along the whole
[24:15] river felt
like of course that was the best we
[24:19] could come up with and we didn't know
much at the time like after going
[24:24] through the process
of putting these up in a strategic place
[24:30] where we were protecting
ing most of the most vulnerable homes
[24:36] and pushing water to the undeveloped
side. Like, do we still feel like phase
[24:41] two as originally
envisioned is the
[24:47] right going to be the right fit or like
do we think it'll be we need less
[24:52] barriers than we thought at that point
or it's actually going to be really hard
[24:57] when we get down to that lower river and
because there's properties everywhere.
[25:01] Um, do we have a sense after going
through the last year of how much that
[25:05] initial proposal really reflects what we
think it would look like today?
[25:12] Yeah, I think your thought process is
definitely um some of the struggles that
[25:17] I have had when looking at uh you know
where do we stop right because we're
[25:21] getting that diminishing level of return
and it really depends on um how severe
[25:26] of an event we think we're going to get.
So if we think 17 which scientists
[25:31] cannot tell us right but if we think 17
feet is a reasonable assumption then
[25:37] doing phases one 1 a and 1b protect all
but but 40 homes according to our
[25:43] modeling which you know I think you'd be
hardressed to spend an additional $17
[25:47] million
uh to protect those those 40 uh 40
[25:51] homes. Um, but I think director Kotch
talks about it just like chasing water,
[25:58] right? We're chasing water and we do
something here and then we're like, we
[26:01] need to mitigate here and we need to So
there's there's likely um some
[26:05] additional mitigation and additional
nuance that we can bring to you with
[26:09] more time and with more engineering that
can make, you know, that can do even
[26:13] better than that. Um, but there will be
a policy call that you will have to make
[26:18] and and and you will make need to make
sure that uh you get your questions to
[26:22] me so I can get you the questions that
you need to make that about like where's
[26:25] the diminishing level of return. But
certainly when I look at the work that
[26:28] we have done it I feel like we've really
done a lot uh to protect uh the menal
[26:35] valley.
[26:39] Mr. Bryson, thank you Mr. Deputy
Mayor. So, I think I just want a real
[26:45] clear
answer. If we don't do 1B now, it's
[26:51] going to be more expensive to
do on our own, end of the summer, next
[26:57] summer. If we do 1B
now, while we still have everything set
[27:03] up that we would have it substantial
savings like we would get Hesco barriers
[27:09] or where is the split? it it become it's
not too expensive we do 1B now but it's
[27:15] super expensive we do 1B later or am I
wrong and it's just super expensive
[27:19] whenever we do
1B I know I asked a confusing question
[27:23] sorry about that yeah so your I think
your question really revolves around the
[27:26] efficiency of doing 1B while we're still
mobilized and I do think there's some
[27:31] efficiencies there however because we
would have to come back and do armoring
[27:35] we would essentially still have to be in
that uh in that area so it may add some
[27:40] project cost because you know we we will
have to kind of remob uh the the some of
[27:46] the hesco barrier filling etc but um I I
don't don't see it in the in
[27:52] exponentially more costly to do the
entire project next construction season.
[27:58] Okay. Thank you
Mandes.
[28:02] Thank you Mr. Chair. A follow-up
question about armoring on that front.
[28:08] We say in the memo here that we don't
have time to do armoring and hescoing
[28:15] this season, but we do have time to put
hesos if we wanted to on
[28:21] unarmored. I know we start getting into
the season, but of course, minus the
[28:30] fact that it seem to favor a specific
day, we also don't know when it's going
[28:35] to hit unless it hits green again, but
um how can you give me a sense of how
[28:43] long it would take to armor if we wanted
to try to I guess I'm wondering if we
[28:51] said let's armor and Tesco this season
and we'll just see if we can beat the
[28:56] flood if there is because also there
could not be an event this year that's
[29:01] also
possible. How much longer does that add?
[29:07] Well, I think that really all depends on
contractor availability and we have
[29:11] pulled our contractors from other CBJ
jobs to be able to continue doing the um
[29:18] 1A work and we we would continue to do
that for 1B. So I don't I don't have a
[29:23] good question for you that's like well
in one month we'd have it armored. I do
[29:26] know that uh the armoring goes
relatively quickly. Uh so is there a
[29:31] scenario where you could authorize AR
armoring and you know hope that we could
[29:35] get it done before August? Our goal is
to have all of this work done by July.
[29:40] That's that's been the kind of goal that
we've been working towards. So I I
[29:43] imagine that there is a scenario where
we could um you know have armoring
[29:51] done at some point this this summer
given contractor availability just not a
[29:57] guarantee that it would meet that July
deadline that we've set.
[30:01] Okay. Thank you. So what I'm hearing if
July wasn't the deadline we could do it
[30:06] this summer.
Well I I I I imagine possibly it's
[30:10] possible. Yeah it's possible. Okay.
Thank you,
[30:14] Mayor Welen. Uh, thank you. But if we
armored this summer without having an LI
[30:20] in place, we would have to pay for that
armor. And is there any way to collect
[30:24] that money back?
Um, you are correct that if you were to
[30:29] armor uh this summer, you could not use
an LI as a mechanism to uh help spread
[30:36] those costs.
uh you could use a special tax district
[30:41] and I could start talking about
mechanisms to pay for it. This is a good
[30:45] segue. Uh
[30:51] sure. Maybe keep it brief and then we
can see which way we're going before we
[30:55] get deep. But go ahead and give us a
little overview. Thanks. Yeah. So um you
[31:01] talked uh you've asked for information
on establishing a uh service area and a
[31:06] service area can be established by the
assembly. The
[31:10] um 100 voters or 10% of the affected
voters uh can petition that and then it
[31:16] goes to the voters. I and I think we
would get that threshold right now. So
[31:19] there is a scenario where you could
decide to establish a service area and
[31:24] use that as a mechanism to pay for uh
improvements and the assembly sets that
[31:29] mill rate. I do think there are some
important questions that you would want
[31:32] to have answered before you took that to
the voters. The first question that you
[31:35] would have to have answered of course is
how big do you draw that circle? And um
[31:40] as I struggle I struggled to be able to
give you the information I felt like you
[31:44] would need to make that decision, you
know, in the next few months because we
[31:48] don't know what our phase 2 project
looks like, right? We don't know what
[31:51] we're committing to. We don't know what
uh and ergo we don't know what the
[31:55] circle should look like. That being
said, um there's certainly a way that we
[32:00] could design a um tax district and
nullify the LI to pay for those
[32:07] improvements. Um, you know, I I did a
little back of napkin math on the
[32:13] assessed value of all the properties in
the 18oot inundation, and it's about um
[32:18] almost $900 million of value. One mil
gets you shy of a million dollars, but
[32:24] that's protecting every single property
um that floods at 18 feet, which, you
[32:29] know, I think we might struggle to do.
So, you can see how I quickly got to we
[32:33] haven't made that decision yet, so this
might be difficult. And and so one
[32:37] avenue that I propose is kind of
reserving that special tax district to
[32:42] when we have a long-term solution, we're
going to need uh to pay for match and
[32:45] and to pay for um a lot of things
associated with the long-term solution.
[32:49] And of course, we will know that the
long-term solution will protect
[32:52] everyone, right? Because uh because of
the nature of that solution. Um,
[32:56] nevertheless, there is definitely a
scenario where you could introduce an
[32:59] ordinance and we could send it back to
the cow so we could do more discussion
[33:03] and make that timeline for this fall's
ballot. Uh, the memo goes into more
[33:07] detail on what it would look like to do
an LI for phase two, but I won't um uh
[33:12] belabor what that looks like since
you're all pretty familiar with the L
[33:15] process.
[33:20] Um, Miss Hall, did you have a question?
Yeah, I uh have we discussed an LI for 1
[33:26] A and B.
[33:32] So, we cannot do an LI for 1A because
we've already done the improvement. So,
[33:38] there's nothing to assess them. Um the
justification being it protects a lot of
[33:42] public property. It also was rel I mean
it was $500,000. So, it really was the
[33:47] least expensive
um project.
[33:54] Sus Gandies and Mr. B. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. You just referenced the strategic
[34:02] decision waiting to establish a service
area until you were trying to pay for a
[34:08] match or something for the the longer
term solution. And I want to make sure
[34:13] I'm understanding what's strategic about
that. So, you're saying in some ways you
[34:19] could make that choice because your your
entire circle is a lot larger. Is that
[34:25] what you're saying? Yes.
Yes. uh there's a lot more certainty in
[34:32] that um long-term solution then and I
think the body would struggle with
[34:36] drawing a circle because first you would
need to know what the project is and you
[34:40] may want a different circle for like
paying for flood fighting than you would
[34:44] for paying for long-term mitigation
which will I mean long-term mitigation
[34:48] will protect to a 20 foot event. there
there's like different different
[34:52] decision points uh and risk analysis
when you're talking about like a
[34:56] short-term solution and when you're
talking about the the solution for the
[35:00] next hundred years follow
so based on that answer you it's not
[35:07] just the size it's also
partly the policy argument that you're
[35:13] making to those
residents or am I wrong to read that in
[35:22] Because one would be saying, "I'm
building you a levy and you live in
[35:26] this. We clearly you benefit. You
benefit forever cuz I I built you a levy
[35:31] and you helped pay for it
versus I'm putting up super giant
[35:39] sandbags next to your house and I feel
pretty good about it." Is that part of
[35:43] what you're saying as well? not just a
geographic size or am I misunderstanding
[35:49] that?
Um I will
[35:56] leave and easier question might be is it
purely about the size the size of the
[36:03] circle?
Um I think it's about the size of the
[36:07] circle and the um project that we would
be funding with that. So, you don't need
[36:13] to know the project obviously to to uh
draw those back. You can say we're going
[36:18] to protect this
circle, but you kind of do cuz how do
[36:23] you know what you're protecting if you
don't know what the project is that
[36:27] you're funding with by drawing the
circle? So, so I think that it's
[36:32] um I think that at this moment in time
it would be a diff it would be difficult
[36:39] to draw a circle but but you could draw
that circle. You could say we want the
[36:43] circle to be one 1 A and 1 B manager
cast and bring us that uh ordinance at
[36:49] the next meeting for introduction and
then answer these five questions at the
[36:53] next committee the whole so it's very
much doable to uh to go down that path
[36:59] of course it has very different you know
payment uh implications right le every
[37:03] parcel pays the same u mill rate is
assessed is you know value of your
[37:08] property um median property value in in
that area. I I want to say it's
[37:14] $415,000, but of course that includes
vacant property as as well or you know,
[37:19] so it's undeveloped property as well. Um
so so that piece I'm not opining on as
[37:25] far as like do you do a uh le you know
and and that impact that it has on the
[37:31] residents and that's very much an
assembly level uh conversation. I just
[37:35] struggle to give you the the advice on
how to draw the circle.
[37:41] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bryson.
Uh, thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. If we
[37:49] wanted to do something, say like add a
service area for the valley for flood
[37:54] fighting and flood future flood
protection. And one of the ballot
[38:00] initiatives that capped the mill rate at
nine, would that service area be
[38:05] subjected to that 9% cap?
um which would almost like eliminate our
[38:12] ability to use it.
Um I'm looking at Miss Wright because I
[38:17] think that might be the question for
her.
[38:21] Who else? Thank you, Assembly Member
Bryson. Yes, it would be uh subject to
[38:25] that cap. The only thing that's not
subject are the geo bonds um under that
[38:30] ballot initiative.
[38:34] And Mr. Kelly,
thank you. And would um you were
[38:39] mentioning that some DOT properties
would be protected um since it's the
[38:43] state would they I assume they don't pay
property tax.
[38:50] You are correct. Okay. Uh the DOT
property would be uh we would need to
[38:56] armor on DOT property
and follow up like would would they be
[39:01] contributing anything if it was the lid?
[39:09] Um I think technically you assess you we
do assess
[39:15] uh state properties. I don't know what
our success has been in getting those
[39:20] state properties to pay those
assessments. I know that I have dealt
[39:23] with this a lot in a a former role and
had um you know the the state agency
[39:28] kind of depends on how they participate
based on how they feel like they are
[39:32] impacted. So I think There is a scenario
where if if DOT is like that's vacant
[39:38] land that you know we just have an
easement on which we have a lot of
[39:43] parcels like that um that they would
make an argument that they would not
[39:47] participate in the L.
Thank you.
[39:55] I think I'm good for right now. Thanks.
Please.
[40:01] Thanks Mr. Chair. Just a quick one. With
Riverview Senior Living Complex being
[40:06] the only hard no out of those other
properties, we're communicating with the
[40:12] out of town land owner that because they
are the one who would be paying it. We
[40:18] have that reflects nothing of the
tenants living inside there or what the
[40:23] families of the tenants might think.
You are correct. Thank
[40:28] you. This will
That brought up a question for me and
[40:34] Miss Ker, you you reflected a bit on
it's harder to make an argument without
[40:40] an LI to go into that property without
their permission. Maybe this is a
[40:44] question for the attorney. I imagine our
legal risk is greater given that this
[40:50] area hasn't flooded to go into someone's
property to put up a to a barrier if
[40:56] we're talking about 18 feet
um instead of 16 ft. Um thank you for
[41:03] that question. So I would um say that
your legal risk is the same whether
[41:08] something has flooded or not. if you
have the maps um that show it has the
[41:12] potential to flood, you still have the
emergency power, police power to do to
[41:17] go onto their land. Um so I I don't I I
don't think that there is a increased or
[41:23] decreased risk if it hasn't actually
flooded yet because you've got the maps
[41:29] that show there is a potential for a
flood.
[41:32] even if it's at a significantly higher
water level that it would flood than it
[41:38] has historically.
Um that's correct. So my argument would
[41:42] be that you've got the maps that show it
could happen um and the science behind
[41:47] it. The other lawyers on the other side
if was there would say but it hasn't
[41:51] flooded yet. But um you're relying on
the scientific modeling to show um the
[41:57] potential and you're responding using
appropriate police power to do so.
[42:05] Andrew Ker, I just want to make a
clarification on something that I stated
[42:09] earlier about if we have time to do
armoring uh before uh next before this
[42:15] yolk loop season. And the answer is we
do not because we don't have time to do
[42:18] the permitting.
[42:26] Very good. More questions. Yes. Last
one. More Hugh Scandies. Uh, last one.
[42:33] Generous Jar Smith. Uh, just a quick
one. The other funding sources that are
[42:38] noted you did talk about the six million
of CB CDBGDR
[42:44] funding and it just made me curious
because I know those funds can be used
[42:49] for buyouts or I believe they can be
used for buyouts. Do we have any sense
[42:54] just because we referenced View Drive,
but I'm also thinking of where we're
[42:57] talking about diminishing returns, you
know, seven houses, $17 million or
[43:02] something like that, smaller and
smaller. Have we done any work to have
[43:06] any sense of what the dollar amount
would could look like
[43:12] buyoutwise? Um,
so no, but we do know what the assessed
[43:19] value of those properties are. Um I
don't know that that would be uh the
[43:25] total cost because of course there's uh
for some programs we have to turn the
[43:30] property into park space. So there is a
significant additional cost with with
[43:34] demolition. For example, the NRCS
program is a uh cost share 75 the
[43:41] federal government pays for 75% of that
and um the local match whether homeowner
[43:46] or municipality is 25%. And and then in
addition to that, there would be some
[43:50] like remediation costs.
[43:55] Mr. Kelly, do you have a question? I
think so. Uh this is in followup to to
[44:00] manager Kers's um comment a moment ago.
Um it's about the permitting. Like do we
[44:06] currently have the processes to do an
accelerated permitting if we needed to?
[44:11] And if so, would we have the staff power
to to do so?
[44:17] Um
So since I incorrectly stated that we
[44:22] might be able to do per to do barriers
this summer just because I know how
[44:26] quickly Jean Cheeseman can work and I
was corrected by my staff who said we we
[44:30] could not do them this summer because of
permitting. I'm going to answer that
[44:33] it's not our uh it's not our staff that
is limiting their the permits are uh
[44:39] both through DNR and Army Corps and and
CBJ to maintain an FIP status. Thank
[44:46] you.
[44:49] Very good. Seeing no further questions,
maybe let's try a motion to get us going
[44:56] here. Madame Mayor, did you have
something? Um, certainly. Uh, tough
[45:02] tough on this one. I will take option
two, direct staff to further develop
[45:06] concepts and LID for phase 1B aiming for
construction next season.
[45:12] And uh my second option would have been
do nothing. But I think if we develop
[45:17] the concepts, we can always go to defer
to do nothing. I agree with you there.
[45:23] Um you've heard the motion. Any
objection, Miss Wall and Mr. Kelly?
[45:29] um not objecting necessarily to the um
option two relative to those other ones,
[45:36] but kind of a question about you know I
um my understanding of why we've been
[45:42] talking about 1B is because it was
potentially easy to get done quickly and
[45:50] I would as we explore that I I'd want to
know more about phase two and view drive
[45:55] and you know having an extra year I lets
us think about all of those because I
[46:00] don't necessarily think if we have time
um more time that we shouldn't be saying
[46:07] 1B is definitely the only thing that
we're doing. I want to weigh that
[46:13] relative to you know something more
likely to flood or you know however I
[46:18] realize it's the lowcost option and it
saves a lot of homes but I just want to
[46:22] consider it in the context of the other
things we might do. So just going to
[46:27] maybe this is a question to
[46:33] staff. Is that kind of direction helpful
right now or or is this option written
[46:38] as in we want direction to kind of very
clearly focus on 1B.
[46:46] So the the way that I'm interpreting
your direction is not to come back with
[46:51] a process for initiating an LI for phase
1B, but to come back with more
[46:58] information holistically about phase 2
and other options. So I I would think
[47:02] that would be different than the mayor's
motion, and I would take that
[47:05] differently.
[47:08] And can I ask why your motion focused on
oneb for next year and not a larger
[47:18] suite of
options? Um yeah, I mean I think we
[47:23] obviously still need to start keep
thinking about phase two and I have so
[47:26] many unanswered questions for you about
phase two. So I don't think it would be
[47:29] that there's an absence of that. Um, I
just think uh and and speaking with
[47:34] staff um that 1B we really should do 1B
and it's hard to make the argument to go
[47:41] super quickly because of the cons that
have been expressed, but there's just no
[47:44] way that I uh I it just I think that the
the value of the infrastructure and the
[47:50] properties being um protected, it seems
like a no-brainer to to move forward
[47:56] with 1B. Um, but I think if you want to
pause and spend some more time thinking
[48:00] about it in the context of phase two
that you know I don't I don't think that
[48:05] necessarily slows us down on 1B to a
certain point right at like next couple
[48:10] of months. Um, but at some point we'll
have to be like we need to do move
[48:14] forward with 1B regardless of of what we
decide to do on phase two.
[48:20] one clarifying question. It and is that
because 1B is like high bang for the
[48:26] buck I guess is what what I'm trying to
make sure to understand it's it's not
[48:30] necessarily that those properties are
more valuable than some of the other
[48:33] properties we could protect in phase
two. It's that it's they're important
[48:39] and it's an e easier solution. Does that
make sense? You're correct. You correct.
[48:44] Yes. Okay. Good. I'm just trying to make
understand. I'm not questioning that
[48:47] judgment. Thanks.
Mr. Kelly, do you have a question? Uh, I
[48:52] do. Yes. I'll I'll object for the
purposes of a question
[48:56] and it's my understanding from looking
at the flood maps and I just want to
[49:00] make sure I kind of get this from not
just looking at the flood maps but also
[49:03] from a conversation and I just want to
make sure this is accurate
[49:09] that I Well, yeah.
So
[49:15] would if we did not complete 1B this
year and we did complete 1A there there
[49:22] are additional
homes from completing 1A that would be
[49:27] at risk that wouldn't be that 1B would
protect but if we don't do 1B this year
[49:33] we're basically depending assuming we
get like a high 18
[49:39] foot we could be putting other homes
[49:43] in the way of the water.
[49:49] Mr. There would be 96 parcels if we did
not do 1B that would flood in a uh 18 ft
[49:57] event. We would attempt to mitigate the
impact on 30 of those parcels uh that
[50:04] are on meadow uh meadow link.
Thank you. I'll maintain my objection.
[50:14] Very good. Further questions or comments
on the man on the mayor's
[50:22] motion? I guess my comment is just
that we don't seem to have a way to fund
[50:29] this fairly this year. We don't have a
way to armor the bank and ensure the
[50:35] barriers are going to be properly
installed this year.
[50:40] So therefore, it doesn't to me it just
doesn't seem like the right amount of
[50:45] effort. I mean, obviously, we're Anyway,
we want to do as much as we can, but
[50:49] this one just doesn't seem to make sense
to me to put in funds and put in I don't
[50:57] just speaking to your motion in support
of your motion. Um,
[51:05] Miss Scandy's comment. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. I have a comment on the motion
[51:10] since that's a good thing for the public
to hear when we're having public
[51:15] meetings. Um I the reason I was asking
about armoring is I think you made a
[51:22] good point on trying
to find a path
[51:26] that talks about paying for things uh
both to find the money and both to do it
[51:32] fairly with regard to what we've already
done with the first group of folks. But
[51:39] if I'm hearing that we can't armor and
we can't, you know, I don't have a lot
[51:43] of is uh interest in hesing without
armoring, which is why I asked about
[51:48] armoring cuz I I think I could support
saying, "All right, let's not take the
[51:53] chance. Let's just keep going until it
floods." And and that is a situation
[51:58] where I could consider it. But no,
hearing that no, that's not an option. I
[52:02] just think that's yet another reason why
this is the smart thing to do. And with
[52:07] that, I remove my objection. You miss
Candies. I'll actually object for a
[52:12] purpose of a question.
Um, with the mayor's motion, and should
[52:18] it be approved, you you're still going
to be there's still going to be work
[52:22] being done on phase two. Correct.
Yes. Very good. Thank you. I'll remove
[52:28] my
objection. We have a motion and
[52:34] objection, Mr. Kelly. I'll remove my
objection. Very good. Any further
[52:38] objection to the mayor's
motion? Seeing none, that motion is
[52:44] adopted. Madame Mayor,
uh, thank you. Um, and I think we do
[52:50] have appetite for a service area.
Perhaps not as quickly as it says in the
[52:54] memo. So my motion would be
um direct staff to continue developing
[53:01] um concepts of a service area
for the long-term
[53:10] solution. Hopefully that gives staff
enough
[53:13] direction. We've heard the motion. Is
there objection to the
[53:17] motion? Seeing no objection, that motion
is adopted as well. Andrew Ker, is that
[53:23] all you needed on this agenda topic?
Very good. Thank you. All
[53:30] right. So
close. Are we good to move to
[53:36] RCV or do we need a Sorry.
Very good. Moving to agenda item two,
[53:44] ordinance
2025-13, HRC rank choice
[53:49] voting. Who is
firing off on this one.
[53:55] Deputy Mayor Smith, I'd be happy just to
let you know what is different about the
[53:59] ordinance in front of you than um from
the last time you discussed this. Um the
[54:04] version uh in your packet today includes
language that makes it possible to
[54:09] implement um rank choice voting for um
multicandidate seats uh without choosing
[54:16] designated seats. Do you recall there
was a lot of discussion last time you
[54:19] talked about this about the schoolboard
seats having to choose designated seats
[54:24] and um after talking with Dominion who
does our voting uh machines they can do
[54:29] a cascade style voting and implement
rank and trace voting for those uh those
[54:35] seats without them having to kind of
change change their practice. So I just
[54:39] wanted to clarify that that's the um
change in the version in your pack.
[54:45] Very good. Thank you, Manager Kester. We
also have Deputy Municipal Clerk Hirs
[54:50] here who's pro on election things, but
any questions on the topic on the
[54:56] ordinance? Mr. Bryson,
thank you. Uh, your previous explanation
[55:02] was helpful, but uh what about in
a uh an assembly election with it being
[55:09] two seats? Would the the same effect be
in play if there was like um I got a
[55:16] one-year seat my first time out because
there was two seats in that district 2
[55:20] column. How would that how would this be
impacted in an assembly race?
[55:28] Thank you, Assembly Member Brace. And
it's the same. So, um Cascade or
[55:33] Dominion um has the ability to handle
multi-member races. So, in a situation
[55:39] where there's a resignation, um, last
time we talked about having to break out
[55:43] individual seats, we heard back from
them that we do not need to do that. So,
[55:47] whether it's an assembly member or
school board, we have the ability to get
[55:52] the first choice, second choice, um, and
go from there.
[56:02] Mayor Welen,
thank you. I was asked this question
[56:06] before, so I'm just getting it out to
public. Um, so when I talked to Deputy
[56:11] Clerk Hurst earlier today, one of my
concerns was we still wouldn't get
[56:15] election results on election night. And
if I paraphrase her right, she could
[56:20] race down here and change me. We still
would get some results similar to what
[56:24] we have. So if you had one candidate
that was way ahead
[56:30] of one candidate that was way ahead,
you'd know that race. if there was only
[56:35] two candidates and um any ballot
propositions, you would probably have a
[56:39] pretty good idea, but I will let her
speak to that because she probably will
[56:42] do a better job. Thank you. Um this is
Andy, deputy uh municipal clerk Hersh.
[56:48] Um so our current system, we do produce
uh election results on election night.
[56:54] Those generally reflect between 50 to
60% of the total votes. um by the Friday
[57:01] or so after the election, our total
votes are generally in the 80 to 90%
[57:05] range. Um if we move to rank choice
voting, we will have the ability to
[57:11] prover produce first round or first rank
results kind of like the state of Alaska
[57:17] does. So um people's top candidates um
will be available in the basically the
[57:22] same proportions and at the same timing
as we currently do. we would not be able
[57:27] to run the rank choice um portion where
you drop out lower candidates and um
[57:34] figure out who the eventual winners are
um until after the canvas review board
[57:40] meets and we have all ballots approved
for counting. So like Mayor Walden said
[57:44] that means that for ballot propositions
that are just a yes no we would have a
[57:49] we probably would have a really good
idea. um any race that's really close,
[57:53] we still won't know until after the
cameras review board, regardless of if
[57:56] we're ranked choice or if we stick with
our current method. But um ballot
[58:00] propositions that are just a yes no. Um
races that only have two candidates or
[58:06] races with more than two candidates
where one person has a very large u
[58:11] majority or um has a very large lead
over the other candidates. Um there
[58:17] would be uh it is probable that the
results that we produce on the Friday
[58:22] after the election would um remain
throughout the remainder of counting.
[58:28] What we wouldn't know are um races that
are very close. So if there's three
[58:33] candidates um and they're all between 30
and 35%, we won't know that until we run
[58:38] rank choice voting. We also would not
know the candidates um for when we have
[58:45] to use the cascade style. So that would
be the um if in in the assembly if there
[58:51] is a vacancy and there's multiple seats
in that district or with the school
[58:54] board. We may know just by looking who
the top candidate is um that they will
[59:00] win the first round. Um but we wouldn't
know until after we run rank choice
[59:04] voting which is after the canvas review
board meets um to know any subsequent
[59:09] winners.
[59:12] Mr. Senator and then Atkinson is it a
like a technical limitation or a legal
[59:19] limitation that we couldn't
run at each update for ballots that we
[59:24] couldn't run a sample of the ranking?
[59:30] It is not a technical limitation. Um I
don't know if there is a legal
[59:34] limitation. This is what the state um
this is based off what the state of
[59:38] Alaska does um with their rank choice
voting. I will say
[59:42] um one of the issues is with rank choice
voting. Um the results can change pretty
[59:49] dramatically when you don't have the
full set. So what we when we ran between
[59:55] on election night between 50 to 60% if
we're actually ranking all of those
[59:59] through that may look very different to
the results that we produce on Friday.
[1:00:04] Um and I um the more different results
we produce um the more election
[1:00:11] integrity um can get be called into
question by the public.
[1:00:18] Miss Ederson.
Thank you Mr. Chair. I just want to
[1:00:21] clarify on the cannabis review board
timeline. Uh basically we wouldn't have
[1:00:26] certain results for the your 30% 30% 30%
spread or anything like that until at
[1:00:31] the same time we'd have certified
results for elections. So we do it
[1:00:34] today. Correct. Thank you
Mr. Kelly.
[1:00:39] Uh thank you. So with the cascade
system, it's it's um my understanding
[1:00:43] from reading this that we could
basically this first person winner would
[1:00:49] would be winning with um a rank choice
plurality I mean majority but the second
[1:00:55] person would just have a plurality from
the remaining candidates. Is that
[1:00:59] correct?
[1:01:02] I don't believe so. Let me see um I if
I'm understanding your question
[1:01:07] correctly. So, um, if we have two open
seats and four candidates, people rank
[1:01:16] their, uh, their top choice and that
would run just like the state, right?
[1:01:20] So, if somebody is a clear winner, they
get 50% of the first place votes,
[1:01:24] they're elected. If they don't, you drop
the lowest candidate, and votes are
[1:01:28] redistributed until you have a winner.
Then to determine who the second winner
[1:01:33] is, you would functionally remove the
winner from everybody's vote uh ballot
[1:01:39] and shift um everything up. And so in
that case um then you run the results
[1:01:46] again. And so every person who votes,
presuming they fill out um or they rank
[1:01:53] at least two candidates will their vote
will count for both races. So it won't
[1:02:00] necessarily be a plurality. Does
that is that a better does that answer
[1:02:06] your question? I I think so. So it'll
it'll be a majority of the remaining
[1:02:09] votes, but it'll be a it could be a
plurality of the
[1:02:17] um Never mind. I'll probably follow up
offline. Sounds good. Um it's very
[1:02:22] similar to how we do block voting now
where um in a schoolboard race if there
[1:02:27] are three open seats and there are six
candidates you get to vote for three. Um
[1:02:32] so this maintains um the ability for a
person to basically vote in each seat.
[1:02:43] Kelly. So, as a
[1:02:47] followup, in block voting, um, so as you
said, we get to vote for two people, but
[1:02:52] in this system, we only get to
vote. We're basically just voting once.
[1:02:59] Like, we're ranking people, but we're
just Okay. So, we do.
[1:03:03] Okay.
Um, I think we're having I we can
[1:03:08] definitely follow up offline anytime you
want. I think um we're having a bit of a
[1:03:13] definition issue. Um
so with the cascade
[1:03:19] style, every person who votes, assuming
that they just like in block style
[1:03:26] voting, even though you can pick three
candidates, some people still only pick
[1:03:29] one, right? So not accounting for that
but account um if people rank their
[1:03:37] choices one of uh their choice counts
towards picking both the first candidate
[1:03:43] and picking the second candidate.
They're not dropped from the system. Um
[1:03:47] and so they get to vote basically in
both races.
[1:03:55] No,
maybe maybe let me try one second just
[1:03:59] because so my my understanding from
watching the video and some other things
[1:04:05] was say there say there's a school board
election
[1:04:10] with you know three seats available and
there's six
[1:04:15] candidates. The ballot would have the
six names and people could rank them
[1:04:19] one. They would just rank one through
six or one through four or one through
[1:04:25] two. I mean one and two, but they're
just they're just ranking the
[1:04:29] list. They're voting them down one time.
Is that right? Correct.
[1:04:35] So, you're just ranking the list as far
down as you want to rank them.
[1:04:44] Um, Mayor Welen Scandies. Uh, thank you.
Um, another question I asked every clerk
[1:04:50] earlier was um with the delay in waiting
to the canvas review board change our
[1:04:57] assembly reorganization meeting in
October so I'll ask that question
[1:05:03] it would not
miss scandies I no longer have a
[1:05:08] question
[1:05:13] further questions
on madam clerk
[1:05:19] Um, following up on Mayor Weldon's
question, it would not change the timing
[1:05:24] of the results, but just so everyone is
aware that it could, as has always been
[1:05:31] the case, the canvas review board could
be delayed by up to three days. That
[1:05:36] then would have a domino effect on when
the mayor can contact whoever is elected
[1:05:42] and get the committees figured out. So
there's a compressed time if you're
[1:05:47] looking at um later in that week having
the final decision and then having a
[1:05:52] Monday meeting right after that to where
your committee uh
[1:05:56] reorganization deputy mayor process
takes place.
[1:06:05] Miss
Atr Chair just to clarify on that last
[1:06:09] point but currently the canvas review
board can also be delayed. Yes.
[1:06:15] If I might, Mr. Cherry, that's correct,
Miss Atkinson. Um, it has been in our
[1:06:19] code the entire time I've worked in this
office that they can be delayed for on a
[1:06:25] day-to-day basis for up to three days.
It's happened once and that was during
[1:06:29] COVID in my tenure.
[1:06:35] Further questions from the
[1:06:40] committee? See no further questions.
Anyone interested in a
[1:06:44] motion? Miss Hughes Scandies.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question
[1:06:50] for not our staff, but I guess for this
body. I wasn't here when you all
[1:06:55] discussed this before. So, I guess I can
just I'll I can keep my piece and see
[1:07:03] what motions come forth from this
committee. But I'll be especially
[1:07:06] interested to know how much you all
talked about public um feedback, which
[1:07:12] I'm sure is something that everybody
here wants. So, I'll wait for a motion.
[1:07:22] Okay, Mayor Welen. Thank you. I would
move ordinance uh
[1:07:27] 2025-13 cow version that takes care of
the clerk's amendments uh to the full
[1:07:33] assembly.
Very good. Objections, Mr. Kelly and
[1:07:38] Miss Atkinson, Miss Scandies.
Um, thank you. I I think this uh Cascade
[1:07:45] um amendment is is interesting. I'm not
sure that I'm completely ready to
[1:07:51] endorse it. I think it might be simpler
for most people to maybe have, you know,
[1:07:57] specific C's like a 1A and 1B or an area
wide A and an area wide B in the case
[1:08:03] where we have a resignation or or
something along those lines. Um, it's my
[1:08:07] understanding it wouldn't take a great
deal more to to change that. We wouldn't
[1:08:12] need a charter amendment. We could do
that as well in the ordinance, but I
[1:08:16] feel like, you know, candidates that
would also not impact candidates because
[1:08:20] candidates could also
um you know, as long as they're within
[1:08:24] the filing period, it's my understanding
that they can just choose to um you
[1:08:29] know, file in a different seat. I I've
seen that happen um when I was running.
[1:08:35] Um, so I think I would like to explore
other
[1:08:41] options more. I'm not sold on the
cascade. Um, if anything, I would I
[1:08:46] would probably move to to strike this
portion, but I'll um wait for the
[1:08:50] opinion of the rest of the assembly.
Great. Miss Atkinson. Thank you, Mr.
[1:08:55] Chair. I was going to say I think I I
very much appreciate the mayor's motion,
[1:08:58] but I'd also want to look at potentially
a second public hearing so that we can
[1:09:02] be sure that we do a good public process
for this. But before I get into that, I
[1:09:06] just want to address Mr. Kelly's
concerns. So, um I would say for one, it
[1:09:11] does not require a charter amendment to
designate seats. So, that's one thing.
[1:09:14] But also, there is some impacts to the
candidate when you do designate seats
[1:09:19] because while candidates can switch back
and forth between seats, they have to
[1:09:22] fill out a new petition for signatures
every time they do that. And that's
[1:09:26] particularly problematic for the school
board. Um, if you're try there's no
[1:09:30] functional difference between the seats,
but if you want to run in an open seat
[1:09:33] instead of one with three people in it,
for instance, that can get complicated
[1:09:36] fast. So, there's actually a lot of uh
benefits for keeping the current system
[1:09:40] and having the cascade of interest
voting.
[1:09:46] I'd miss you scandi next. Uh, thank you,
Mr. Chair. I think I don't have I I'm
[1:09:52] eager to uh hear what the public thinks
about this, you know, for getting into
[1:09:58] the weeds of exactly how this works. I
love that we do rank choice voting at
[1:10:02] the state. I love that we voted to keep
it. So, I don't have a problem saying,
[1:10:08] "Yep, and this is how the state of
Alaska votes, and this is how we vote
[1:10:11] locally, too." It seems like you guys
worked out the kinks in that. I was just
[1:10:16] going to say sometimes I look at our
mechanisms as a body. I've you
[1:10:22] frequently heard me say, "Oh, we never
get to talk to each other besides a cow,
[1:10:26] but also we want to keep the cow
moving." So, you know, we can only ever
[1:10:30] talk to one or two people. Um, and the
reason I say that is
[1:10:35] because in some ways I'm very excited
about our communications department and
[1:10:41] how that will uh improve our ability to
engage with the public. But this seems
[1:10:46] like the perfect kind of thing where
moving it to the full assembly almost to
[1:10:51] me I'm like what would it look like if
we had just a public meeting and we
[1:10:57] said we're getting ready to move this to
the full assembly and this is
[1:11:03] aformational meeting and it's in the
chambers kind of like we do when we're
[1:11:07] doing something weird like kuna totem or
uh you know some more of our oddball
[1:11:12] projects. Um, so I'm just throwing that
out there for our consideration because
[1:11:16] I wonder what else public feedback.
We've also taken public feedback at
[1:11:21] committees like lands and public works.
I feel like that doesn't I don't love
[1:11:26] that cuz it doesn't feel that I feel
like you don't get as much engagement as
[1:11:30] you do with the full assembly and it's
essentially the same thing. But uh I'll
[1:11:35] certainly remove my objection, but I
wish there was something better than
[1:11:39] moving this to the full assembly just
because I I feel like for people who
[1:11:43] aren't geeking out over our process,
then it feels, you know, it brings up
[1:11:49] these strong emotions in them if they're
not sure if they want this or not
[1:11:52] because it feels like you're just a step
away from making a law and you're not
[1:11:56] you don't really want my opinion. You're
you've already decided on this. So, I
[1:12:01] just bring this up cuz I know people
have strong feelings about elections,
[1:12:05] but I'm happy to let it go to the full
assembly. And with that, I remove my
[1:12:08] objection. You're good. Mayor Welen,
we could bring it to um the full
[1:12:14] assembly as for public hearing and bring
it back to the council. So, it's an
[1:12:18] option.
[1:12:22] It's an option. Further comments? Mr.
Kelly, do you have a question or
[1:12:26] anything? No. because um the mayor beat
me to she said exactly what I was going
[1:12:30] to say.
Erica, just to I guess I'll object for a
[1:12:35] question. Um do we I guess I'm just
trying to think of what we would want to
[1:12:42] show the public at a public hearing. I
mean, I don't know if just having them
[1:12:48] speak about an ordinance would be that
useful or if they need to like see
[1:12:54] examples of what it looks like. And
anyway, I guess I'm just kind of
[1:13:00] thinking about what's actually
beneficial for the public to to better
[1:13:04] understand. And I I mean, another thing
we also need to recognize is this is not
[1:13:08] impacting the 2025 election. If if it
does pass, it will be impacting the
[1:13:14] 2026.
But I I guess it's a question for staff,
[1:13:18] like how quickly could we pull
something, you know, with examples
[1:13:27] or something that would like show they
just show those ballots, I guess, and
[1:13:32] then Okay. And then they just It doesn't
really show the counting. I don't know
[1:13:36] if you need to do that.
If people feel like that's fine, I'm
[1:13:40] fine with it. But it's just pieces of
paper. Yes. Uh Mr. Chair, you have in
[1:13:46] the memo in your packet a link to a
video that demonstrates exactly what
[1:13:51] you're asking for. Also in the packet
are sample of what a ballot looks like
[1:13:57] as well as what our current ballot
um has been. So what the comparisons
[1:14:04] might be. Um, we'd be happy to do a show
and tell if the general public would
[1:14:11] like, but it's already right there in
the packet linked so that anyone that
[1:14:16] has internet access can go and watch
that if they would like,
[1:14:23] Miss Atkinson.
Um, I'm thinking I might as well just
[1:14:27] make uh an amendment to the mayor's
motion and add in uh that we also bring
[1:14:31] it back after injection the assembly
bring it back to the next cow for public
[1:14:34] hearing.
So the July 14th cow.
[1:14:41] Mr. Chair, I didn't quite hear Miss
Atkinson. Can you repeat your motion,
[1:14:44] please? My motion my amendment to the
motion was uh to also bring it back to
[1:14:48] the cow the next cow for public hearing.
have the public hearing in the cow
[1:14:53] meeting second an additional public
hearing at the cow. So it going to the
[1:14:57] assembly having a public hearing at the
assembly bringing it back for public
[1:15:02] hearing at the cow. Mayor shaking her
head. So, Madam Mayor, go ahead. Madam
[1:15:07] Mayor, um I appreciate Miss Agass's
sentiment, but I would think you'd do it
[1:15:12] the other way. Have the next cow, have a
public meeting on it, and then move it
[1:15:17] to the assembly. But to move it to the
assembly to have public hearing and back
[1:15:20] here to have public hearing, it just
seems a little awkward to me, but um I
[1:15:26] can't remember. But you also said just
have a public hearing. That might be a
[1:15:29] way for people to be able to play with
things a little too.
[1:15:33] Madam Attorney, um if I may suggest just
to keep your cows clean, um if you want
[1:15:39] to have a special meeting to talk about
um rank choice voting and a public
[1:15:43] hearing at a special meeting, that's
probably cleanest. I don't know that you
[1:15:46] want to start opening up your cows um
for public hearing. Um but you certainly
[1:15:51] could schedule a a special meeting, you
know, wherever you would like.
[1:15:58] [Music]
Comments, Mr. Bryson.
[1:16:02] Um, Mr. Deputy Mayor, I was just going
to offer up uh the Lands Housing and
[1:16:07] Economic Development Committee. Uh,
no, we've held public testimony, but if
[1:16:13] not, if that's
Thank you, Miss Scandies.
[1:16:20] Thanks, Mr. Chair. I I just would say
that I I mean like now I think we're
[1:16:25] getting making it messier. The what I
was proposing before is we don't do
[1:16:31] things like that in general by practice.
A public meeting where you just schedule
[1:16:35] a public meeting and you do a public it
it wouldn't be a public meeting with us
[1:16:40] sitting here on a day. It would just be
wherever you put it and you would have
[1:16:46] sample ballots and things. I think when
you start adding public hearings at
[1:16:52] other meetings besides the assembly, it
gets messy as the clerk just noted. So,
[1:16:57] I'm fine with this going to a public to
the full assembly for a public hearing
[1:17:03] and then sending it back to the cow,
which I believe the mayor has already
[1:17:06] amended her motion to do that, but maybe
she didn't.
[1:17:11] I believe the current Madame Clerk,
would you remind us of the current
[1:17:15] motion?
Thank you, uh, Mr. chair and correct me
[1:17:20] if I'm wrong, Madame Mayor, but the
motion was to forward ordinance
[1:17:25] 202515 version cow to the assembly for
introduction.
[1:17:30] That would be at the June 9th regular
assembly meeting next week.
[1:17:39] I'm looking I'm looking for the will of
the body. I'm I would h be happy to do
[1:17:44] that to public hearing and move it back.
[1:17:49] I guess a question for the
team. I I mean I guess we could just
[1:17:55] have public hearing at the June 9th
regular assembly meeting. No. Okay. So
[1:18:01] we need to do a special
meeting for the July the the standard
[1:18:07] public hearing would be July 28th. But I
think we are saying we would like an
[1:18:13] additional we would like an additional
public meeting before adoption day. So
[1:18:27] Mr. Bryson, Mr. Deputy Mayor, I
definitely want to see this at public
[1:18:31] testimony. Um, but I'd like to remind
this body that we have tried to do extra
[1:18:36] meetings for extra public testimony and
not necessarily received a lot of extra
[1:18:42] participation with the extra public
testimony avail uh time available. Um, I
[1:18:49] hear you there, Mr. Kelly.
Thank you.
[1:18:53] I I kind of hear Miss Husandi suggestion
perhaps a little bit differently. Um, it
[1:18:59] sounds to me, um, and correct me if I'm
wrong, are you suggesting perhaps like
[1:19:02] not an actual like other public meeting,
but something that's a little more
[1:19:06] informal, something more of a workshop
where people can kind of bring bring
[1:19:09] forth their thoughts and ideas or
Yeah. Uh, through the chair, I I was
[1:19:16] envisioning something like you do it
here in the chambers. You have stuff on
[1:19:20] tables.
City staff are present. Someone plays a
[1:19:25] video on the
screen. People can just mill about and
[1:19:29] ask questions. We've done that for other
things. We did a presentation on the
[1:19:33] assessments and how they work one time.
So, I was envisioning just something
[1:19:38] like that. And for the record, I now am
at the point where I say move it to the
[1:19:43] full assembly, introduce it, let it come
to the public hearing. I'm sure it's
[1:19:48] been in the empire now. I'm sure we'll
get some public hearing about it. If we
[1:19:52] get to the public hearing section, send
it back to the cow if that feels right
[1:19:57] to us. Um because I think if we're not
going to do like a little standalone
[1:20:02] informal meeting, then let's just follow
our normal process and trust that we'll
[1:20:07] get feedback because we always do get
feedback on on all these topics.
[1:20:14] Very good. The current motion is to
Madame Clerk.
[1:20:18] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just about
to ask if the amendment was on the floor
[1:20:22] or not.
I do not believe there's been an
[1:20:25] amendment. So, Miss Hughes Candiy's
amendment is withdrawn.
[1:20:31] Yeah. To the ex. Yep. If I made one,
then I withdraw.
[1:20:36] To the extended.
Very good. So the current motion is to
[1:20:40] introduce this ordinance at the June 9th
regular assembly
[1:20:45] meeting. Are there amendments to that
motion? Is there objection to the
[1:20:55] motion? Seeing no objection, that motion
is adopted. And we'll take a 7 minute
[1:21:02] break. We'll be back at
7:25. Thank you, Deputy Clerk Hersh, for
[1:21:07] your work. Thank you.
[1:30:08] Very good. We are back to order for the
committee the whole on that rank choice
[1:30:14] voting item. Madame mayor, did you have
another I have another motion for staff
[1:30:20] to make sure that we're getting our
sound like from our conversation. So, um
[1:30:26] I would direct staff to come up with
a educational uh outreach to the public
[1:30:33] on rate choice
voting. Very good. You've heard the
[1:30:38] motion. Any objection to the
motion? That's helpful for staff. Very
[1:30:43] good. That motion is adopted. Moving on
to the next item.
[1:30:48] Trash. Let's talk trash. Manager Ker or
is it
[1:30:52] Director Cotch?
[1:30:57] Cotch, please. Very good. Director
Cotch, please start us up. Thank you
[1:31:01] very much, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to
see if we could get the uh the slides on
[1:31:07] the screen, please.
[1:31:22] If not, I I could go with just if you
have it in your packet while the slides
[1:31:27] are loading. There we go. Okay. Thank
you very much. I am really excited to be
[1:31:34] here tonight to talk to you about
garbage and I am being sincere about
[1:31:38] that. This is a a topic I uh really like
to talk about.
[1:31:43] Um so uh more recently uh in 2021 the
assembly had established uh waste
[1:31:51] reduction goals as one of the assembly's
goals. Uh so we have been spending
[1:31:56] probably about three years at the public
works and facilities committee talking
[1:32:00] about uh trash items. We actually um
reclassified an existing position that
[1:32:06] is Diana Robinson right here uh and
created a new environmental project
[1:32:11] specialist from a previous position to
really uh dive deep uh and be a she's
[1:32:17] our subject matter expert along with
Stuart Ashton on waste items.
[1:32:23] Uh and it's really interesting as we
have looked at this issue uh we have a
[1:32:28] great website and there's uh a URL to it
at the at the back of this packet but uh
[1:32:33] there's a bit of a a timeline and what
caught my eye is that we have been
[1:32:38] talking about trash in this community
since
[1:32:41] 1984. Um in the early 2000s the estimate
on the uh lifespan of the waste
[1:32:49] management landfill in Juno was about 30
years. So here we are it was I think it
[1:32:55] was 2004. So you know a little more than
20 years later and it's like oh I've
[1:33:00] come to tell you that we've got about 10
years uh left of uh lifespan left on
[1:33:06] that landfill. It's a little bit hard to
know precisely how much uh lifespan is
[1:33:11] left in that landfill because it's
privately owned and operated. It's
[1:33:15] sometimes hard to get really precise
information, but uh we rely on some
[1:33:19] information that they have to um
disclose to the Alaska Department of
[1:33:23] Environmental Conservation. And really
the I'm going to go into a couple of
[1:33:28] more details, but not much. But really
to some extent I feel like the punchline
[1:33:32] is I want us to think about trash and
the future of trash for this community
[1:33:38] because if we wait to the day where one
day Waste Management makes an
[1:33:42] announcement that uh their landfill is
closing, they'll probably give us two or
[1:33:48] three years worth of notice. And if we
wait until that point to start having
[1:33:53] this conversation, it will be too late.
there's a long lead time on uh you know
[1:33:59] getting the capital in place uh if we
wanted to do something different uh the
[1:34:04] permitting uh to do something different
would take a long lead time so that's
[1:34:08] that's really why uh we're talking about
this today if we could do the next slide
[1:34:13] please thank you uh this slide I think
um is simple but powerful and it just
[1:34:21] shows that most in most communities
including in Alaska that uh those
[1:34:26] communities have some level of control
over their waste and Juno doesn't and
[1:34:31] we're on the short list. So, we are uh
the way that we uh don't handle trash uh
[1:34:37] in this community, our hands-off
approach is definitely an approach.
[1:34:41] Hannes and Glenn Allen do it as well,
but uh we're more the exception than the
[1:34:45] rule. Next slide,
please. Okay, so uh flow control. So
[1:34:52] there are generally two ways at a really
high level that uh communities uh
[1:34:57] municipal governments interject
themselves into the trash conversation.
[1:35:02] They either uh own the waist they get
into waste hauling. So they own um a
[1:35:07] certificate of necessity and convenience
from the regulatory commission of Alaska
[1:35:12] uh or and or they uh have some control
and over the solid waste disposal
[1:35:18] methods. Um, and if you could go to uh
the next slide,
[1:35:27] please. I want to talk sort of more
tangibly about uh what it means, I
[1:35:33] think, for this community uh to not
really not have any control over or over
[1:35:38] its municipal solid waste. We do, I've
said in the past, we nibble around the
[1:35:42] edges. We do recycling. We do household
hazardous waste. So, we do some really
[1:35:46] good things. But um I wanted to give
some tangible examples of you know uh
[1:35:52] essentially I always say when it comes
to things changing at the landfill uh
[1:35:56] oftentimes I think and citizens
understandably because in most
[1:36:01] communities most communities have some
level of control over their municipal
[1:36:05] solid waste. So when residents have
questions or concerns they come to you
[1:36:10] as an assembly or they come to us as as
staff. Uh, and I always say, you know,
[1:36:15] we don't own for in terms of the waste
management landfill. We don't own it. We
[1:36:20] don't operate it. We don't regulate it.
And what that means is the um the owner
[1:36:25] of that landfill can change the hours of
operation. They can change the disposal
[1:36:30] rates. They can change the conditions uh
under which they will accept waste. Uh
[1:36:36] we just found out um because we did a
public records act request to the Alaska
[1:36:41] Department of Environmental Conservation
um that uh there's a new plan at Waste
[1:36:46] Management where they're going to
require much more documentation for
[1:36:50] construction and demolition uh waste and
it's going to be more ownorous for
[1:36:56] residents to bring in those uh those
streams of trash. And that goes into
[1:37:01] effect according to their plan today.
And what I anticipate will happen like
[1:37:05] when when the landfill has made other
changes um people will come to the
[1:37:10] assembly or to to staff and we just we
we can't compel waste management uh to
[1:37:15] to make any of those changes. Um next
slide
[1:37:20] please. So this is the uh the website I
was mentioning just a few moments ago.
[1:37:27] Uh we have the QR code there for anyone
who's looking at the packet. But if you
[1:37:31] go to juno.org or and you uh select the
department of engineering and public
[1:37:36] works, there's a solid waste planning
website and uh that has been put up
[1:37:41] thanks to Diana Robinson putting a lot
of work into that trying to you know
[1:37:45] piece together this fuller picture uh
and the discussions that we've had uh
[1:37:49] for several years. Um and with that I'm
actually going to hand the next portion
[1:37:54] of the presentation over to Tara at
Jacobs. Hopefully she's been promoted as
[1:38:00] a panelist. Uh and she could talk to you
about um the most recent just quick
[1:38:05] snapshot. Uh you may recall uh we have
come to you as a body before to ask for
[1:38:11] permission to do a waste
characterization study which we have
[1:38:15] done. Um that's kind of a foundational
document to understand what's in our in
[1:38:20] our waste. And then the next step uh we
had come back to um the assembly and and
[1:38:26] public works and facilities committee
and had had asked for permission to uh
[1:38:30] spend money to do a really high level
study, a tech a capital study
[1:38:35] essentially to get some um high level
understanding of the different options
[1:38:40] there are if uh the community decided
that we did want to take uh a more
[1:38:45] active role in waste. uh to look at what
those capital costs would be. And before
[1:38:51] I hand it over, I will just say and
start maybe steal Terara's thunder, but
[1:38:55] there are basically three options and
all of those options include a transfer
[1:38:59] station. Uh so keep that in mind. And
with that, I will hand it to Tara from
[1:39:03] Jacobs.
Thank you. Director Coach, can you hear
[1:39:08] me everyone? We can. Okay. Excellent.
Well, thank you assembly for allowing us
[1:39:16] to take the time to present the results
of this feasibility and capital cost
[1:39:21] estimate study. And so my goal here is
to provide an overview of this study
[1:39:27] that we conducted with the CBJ to
evaluate the feasibility and the capital
[1:39:31] costs of these three possible solid
waste disposal scenarios for Juno that
[1:39:37] were mentioned. Um, and myself and my
colleague Lindseay Lopez, who is also
[1:39:41] online, we will be available to answer
questions at the end related to the
[1:39:45] technical portions of the study. Um, and
you're welcome to stop me throughout the
[1:39:49] presentation if any urgent questions
come up, but I'm hoping to keep this
[1:39:53] relatively short so there's plenty of
time for discussion at the end. Uh, next
[1:39:58] slide, please.
[1:40:03] All right. So this step was really just
that first step in the planning process
[1:40:08] for waste management. And the goal of
the study was to conduct a limited
[1:40:12] high-level review of capital cost and
feasibility. And um we wanted to
[1:40:17] initiate conversations around the future
of solid waste management in Juno. Next
[1:40:23] slide please.
[1:40:28] And so given that this is an initial
highle study, there are several factors
[1:40:32] that could not be considered for the
study and so we made several
[1:40:36] assumptions. So we wanted to be
transparent so everyone is on the pa
[1:40:39] same page. So many of these assumptions
are listed on the slide here and I'll
[1:40:43] highlight just a few of them. So the
first assumption that we made is that a
[1:40:48] new transfer facility would be in the
lower Lemon Creek property and this is a
[1:40:53] 207 27 acre site that's owned by the
CBJ. So now we assume that the CBJ would
[1:40:59] need to address zoning requirements for
this property before construction and
[1:41:03] likely sighting would also be necessary
for construction of a new facility such
[1:41:08] as for example a landfill or a waste
energy plant. And then jumping to that
[1:41:13] third assumption there. So this really
highlights the results of the 2024 waste
[1:41:17] characterization study uh which revealed
that up to 59% of waste in Juno is
[1:41:23] categorized as either recyclable,
reusable or compostable with current
[1:41:27] diversion programs. So this means that
there is potential for increased waste
[1:41:31] diversion in
Juno. And then jumping forward to
[1:41:34] assumption number five. Uh so in general
there are other factors that are outside
[1:41:38] of the scope of the study that could
still impact capital and operating costs
[1:41:43] and that includes things like the
limited construction season in Juno. Uh
[1:41:47] the ultimate selected location of these
facilities and the chosen ownership and
[1:41:52] operational model. And so because of
these factors, it's important to
[1:41:56] remember that the costs that I present
in the next few slides um are just
[1:42:00] initial approximations for comparison
purposes. And so the CBJ will need to do
[1:42:04] more detailed cost estimates before
moving forward with significant
[1:42:08] financial decisions or setting final
budgets for these projects. Next
[1:42:14] slide. All right. And this diagram here
is is really the meat of the study. So
[1:42:20] it shows the flow of waste in each
scenario. And these dashed boxes on the
[1:42:26] screen, there's three dashed boxes. and
they indicate points where the CBJ has
[1:42:30] an opportunity for increased control
over the waist stream. And as you'll
[1:42:34] notice, as director mentioned, a
transfer facility, which is shown on the
[1:42:39] box on the left, is a key component for
all three scenarios. And this transfer
[1:42:44] facility would serve as an interim waste
management solution while the CBJS
[1:42:48] explores other disposal options. It
would also help to better manage large
[1:42:52] influxes of waste from things like
tourism or de disaster debris. and it
[1:42:57] could act as a centralized point for
waste management as well. All right. And
[1:43:01] then in the center of the diagram, you
have the three uh waste management
[1:43:05] scenarios. So at the top we have
scenario A. In this scenario, waste
[1:43:10] would be routed from the transfer
facility to a new landfill in Juno for
[1:43:14] disposable for
disposal. And in this scenario,
[1:43:19] recyclables would be sold and
transported to local export markets
[1:43:23] ultimately. And then in the center we
have scenario B. In this scenario, waste
[1:43:27] at the transfer facility would first be
consolidated and prepared for off-site
[1:43:31] shipping by barge. And so this scenario
would require a larger transfer facility
[1:43:37] because um than the other two scenarios
because there could be risks of
[1:43:41] disrupted barge services. And then also
a quick thing I wanted to note about
[1:43:46] scenario B is that the c capital costs
for this scenario are lower compared to
[1:43:51] the other two scenarios because only the
transfer facility would need to be
[1:43:55] constructed.
However, um the CBJ would need to
[1:43:59] negotiate shipping costs and off-site
disposal and fuel search charges. And
[1:44:03] all of these factors could add up to
significant operational costs that were
[1:44:07] not included in the
study. And then finally at the B bottom,
[1:44:11] scenario C. So in this scenario, all
waste recyclables from the transfer
[1:44:16] facility would be routed to a waste to
energy plant. And so there are a few
[1:44:20] very important points that I want to
make about a waste to energy plant here.
[1:44:24] Um, and the first is that the CBJ's
electricity currently comes from nearly
[1:44:29] 100% renewable hydroelectric power and
AEL does not provide energy credits for
[1:44:35] surplus generation. So, as it stands,
the power produced by a waste energy
[1:44:40] facility would not provide a direct
electricity benefit for the CBJ. And the
[1:44:45] second point to make here is that the
waist stream in Juno is substantially
[1:44:49] smaller than other regions where waste
energy plants have been constructed. Uh
[1:44:53] so Juno generates about 100 tons per day
of waste while the majority of waste to
[1:44:58] energy plants in the US are constructed
to operate at 800 tons per day uh tons
[1:45:03] per day of waste or more. And so in
order to optimize the efficiency of the
[1:45:08] waste energy plant uh it may not be in
Juno's best interest to divert waste for
[1:45:13] recycling or composting because
essentially all of that waste would need
[1:45:17] to be used to optimize the efficiency
and
[1:45:20] operations. Next slide please.
[1:45:25] All right. So now we'll look at costs.
And this slide looks at the anticipated
[1:45:30] cap capital costs for a new transfer
facility in particular. And so just to
[1:45:35] talk about methods very quickly to get
these estimates, we looked at the per
[1:45:38] unit construction costs of five
different transfer stations in the US.
[1:45:42] And these transfer stations were at
various stages of project development,
[1:45:46] various sizes and locations to get a
range. and the costs were escalated with
[1:45:51] a cost index through December of 2024.
So, it's a snapshot in time. And we
[1:45:56] chose these facilities for comparison
because they are relatively recent
[1:45:59] projects in small to medium building
sizes similar to Juno's needs. And I'll
[1:46:03] I'll mention that the facilities are
listed in that column on the left in the
[1:46:07] table. Uh with the exception of that
Anchorage transfer facility in the
[1:46:11] middle. So, this is a larger facility as
you'll see, but it does provide a data
[1:46:15] point for an Alaska specific project.
Now the the costs the forecasted costs
[1:46:21] for Juno are on the right and the size
and the capacity of the transfer
[1:46:26] facility will depend on the scenario. So
as I mentioned before a smaller transfer
[1:46:32] facility would likely be sufficient when
local disposal options are available and
[1:46:36] that includes scenario A with the
landfill and scenario C with the waste
[1:46:40] to energy plant. So, a smaller facility
size between 9,000 to 13,000 square feet
[1:46:46] would cost between $9 million and $20
million in capital costs. And then on
[1:46:50] the bottom right corner, we're showing
the um the capital cost for a transfer
[1:46:56] facility that's larger to accommodate
increased storage for potential
[1:47:00] disruptions in shipping for scenario B
with off-site shipment.
[1:47:04] And so in this scenario, we um estimate
that we would need to accommodate 7 to
[1:47:09] 14 days of storage and additional
processing space. And this larger
[1:47:13] facility would be sized between 13,000
and 26,000 square feet and would be
[1:47:17] estimated to cost between $14 million
and $40 million in
[1:47:22] capital. Next slide, please. Mr. Deputy
Mayor,
[1:47:28] Miss Miller Casman, we have a question.
Uh yes, ma'am. Uh we knew that uh
[1:47:36] previous times that we'd looked at waste
to energy that Juno didn't produce
[1:47:40] enough. Did you look at an incinerator
so that we could potentially get rid of
[1:47:45] that 100 tons or dent that 100 tons a
day but not uh convert it to energy? Uh
[1:47:51] was an incinerator
uh looked at in in this process?
[1:47:57] Uh director coach, would you like me to
answer that?
[1:48:01] Yes, please. All right. uh we did not
consider just an incineration without
[1:48:06] energy capture in this analysis. We only
considered with energy capture to get
[1:48:11] the
[1:48:14] benefit. Any follow-up questions on
that?
[1:48:20] Doesn't appear so. So, please continue.
Thank you. Okay. Thank
[1:48:23] you. All right. Um All right. So now
we'll present the landfill capital costs
[1:48:29] and we use the same comparison method to
estimate landfill costs and the
[1:48:32] landfills that we considered on the left
in the table. Uh and it's important to
[1:48:37] note that the capital cost for landfills
can vary significantly based on the
[1:48:41] landfill geometry and design parameters.
But for this estimate you we use very
[1:48:45] conservative
parameters. And the cost for a 50-year
[1:48:50] landfill are at the top right. And we
estimated that a 50-year landfill would
[1:48:54] cost between 50 million and $162
million. And now a 100red-year landfill
[1:48:59] is also listed. It would cost nearly
double, but this would set the stage for
[1:49:03] more regional waste management.
And it's also important to note that the
[1:49:08] there are differences in the timeline of
investment between a landfill compared
[1:49:12] to the transfer facility and the waste
to energy facilities that I mentioned
[1:49:17] because the capital costs for landfills
are applied in phases as the cells reach
[1:49:20] capacity and new cells are constructed.
While in contrast, the capital cost for
[1:49:25] transfer stations and waste energy
facilities are required upfront and
[1:49:29] likely would require significant
replacement capital over the same time
[1:49:32] period. Next slide.
[1:49:39] All right. So, now looking at the waste
to energy facility capital costs. Uh,
[1:49:44] and as you'll see, the results are print
presented differently here. And that's
[1:49:48] because the Jacob's waste to energy team
could forecast costs by modeling using
[1:49:52] data from 18 different waste to energy
plants that were built in thei United
[1:49:56] States, United Kingdom, and Asia. And
so, this graph plots the capital cost
[1:50:01] for constructing a waste to energy
facility. and that's on the y- axis per
[1:50:06] megawatt of thermal energy. They're on
the x- axis. And the black dots that are
[1:50:11] in the center represent the comparison
waste to energy plants, those 18
[1:50:15] different waste energy plants. And the
orange dot on the top left of the plot
[1:50:20] indicates the forecasted capacity and
cost for Juno at 30,000 tons of waste
[1:50:24] generated per year.
Uh and as shown by this orange dot, a
[1:50:28] small waste energy facility to process
30,000 tons per year year of waste would
[1:50:33] cost around $90
million. Uh and I will note that the
[1:50:38] data on small waste to energy facilities
is limited which could introduce some
[1:50:42] uncertainty in the capital costs and so
these are rough order of magnitude
[1:50:46] estimates and the larger facilities in
population dense areas are more
[1:50:50] typically built because of the
operational efficiency at a higher waste
[1:50:54] capacity. Um and also the construction
costs of waste energy plants are mainly
[1:50:59] impacted by the facility size and the
caloric value of the waist
[1:51:02] stream. Um and as I mentioned before,
waste energy can disincentivize
[1:51:06] diversion or source reduction of waste
because of the need for more waste to
[1:51:10] operate the facility
efficiently. All right, next slide. Miss
[1:51:16] Miller Casman, I have a question for
you. Yep. Go ahead. Following up on Mr.
[1:51:20] Bryson's question about the incinerator,
we do get questions about that. I guess
[1:51:24] with your, you know, expertise, could
you just let us know the rationale for
[1:51:29] why that, you know, wasn't evaluated?
I'm sure there is one, but Sure. Well, I
[1:51:34] will say, you know, I would say that
this was decision that was made in
[1:51:37] conjunction with the CBJ. Um, but my
understanding is that incinerators alone
[1:51:43] without, you know, just incinerators in
general, we're seeing more air quality
[1:51:47] permitting requirements. There are many
regulations for incinerators. And so
[1:51:52] there are, you know, the cost to build
an incinerator in general would be high.
[1:51:57] And um so without the additional energy
benefit and therefore potential revenue
[1:52:03] benefit from either a um just pure
direct energy or a a heat and energy
[1:52:09] combination just would make you know
somewhat of a wasteful um facility to
[1:52:14] build. Very good. Thank you for that.
[1:52:21] All
right. Okay. So, based on this uh this
[1:52:27] initial study, we present a preliminary
ranking and these are based on criteria
[1:52:32] that we agreed upon with the CBJ. And
that includes things like capital costs,
[1:52:35] the implementation timeline, diversion
goals, and the relative ability to
[1:52:40] address Juno's waist stream in the near
term given the impending closure of the
[1:52:45] existing landfill. And I do apologize
for the small text. We wanted to present
[1:52:49] all the information on the slide here,
but I will say that the two columns on
[1:52:53] the left are what I'll focus on for now.
And we can address the other columns
[1:52:57] during
Q&A. Uh, but based on this initial
[1:53:01] analysis, scenario B with off-site
shipment is ranked first, followed by
[1:53:05] scenario A with a new landfill. Now, I
will say that both are worth pursuing at
[1:53:09] this time. Uh, a new landfill comes with
high capital costs and a lengthy
[1:53:13] regulatory process. Though we do
recognize that relying on off island
[1:53:18] private landfills has its own inherent
risk and we suggest that the CBJ explore
[1:53:22] funding options and ownership models for
a new landfill while engaging with
[1:53:26] shipping partners and off-site
landfills. Now scenario C with the waste
[1:53:31] to energy facility does rank lowest for
now. Um, and that's due to those high
[1:53:35] relative construction costs that I
mentioned, the low operating efficiency
[1:53:38] with Juno's waist stream, lack of an
energy benefit for Juno, as I mentioned,
[1:53:44] and especially the need for specialized
labor and technologies to build these
[1:53:47] types of facilities, which could drive
costs even higher. Uh, and I will say
[1:53:52] that these rankings are just a starting
point and are likely to change as the
[1:53:55] CBJ investigates operating costs,
funding opportunities, and starts to
[1:53:59] engage with partners and vendors.
Next
[1:54:06] slide. All right. So, recommended next
steps.
[1:54:10] Um, so the first we're we're hoping that
um the results of the study could help
[1:54:17] this assembly and the CBJ determine the
desired level of control that they would
[1:54:21] like over the future of waste management
in Juno because this decision is really
[1:54:25] key to inform the subsequent next steps.
Number two, we recommend constructing a
[1:54:30] transfer facility as was mentioned. Um,
and the transfer facility should be used
[1:54:34] no matter which scenario is chosen and
ideally include design considerations
[1:54:39] for future expansion if desired. And
this is especially important given the
[1:54:44] upcoming closure of the landfill which
could happen before another disposal
[1:54:47] facility can be
completed. Uh, and I'll note that there
[1:54:51] are many ownership and operating models
available to help finance and run these
[1:54:56] facilities. So for example, one type of
partnership um the public entity may
[1:55:01] provide the land for this facility and
work with a private entity to design,
[1:55:05] build and or operate the facility. And
so that division of control and
[1:55:09] financing is determined by agreements
between the public and and the private
[1:55:13] entities at that time. Uh number three,
the CBJ can start to gauge operational
[1:55:18] costs by engaging with shipping partners
and haulers. And finally, the CBJ should
[1:55:23] continue to move forward with additional
studies for one or more of these
[1:55:27] scenarios or facilities. And in the next
phase, we recommend an in-depth analysis
[1:55:31] of operating costs or a life cycle
evaluation of one or more of these
[1:55:36] scenarios. And I believe the last slide
is just our contact information. And I
[1:55:42] will hand it back over to Director Coach
to wrap us up.
[1:55:49] All right. Well, thank you. Um, in terms
of, you know, our coming to you today
[1:55:55] and and functionally what's what's our
ask um that I feel like we keep building
[1:56:01] on uh this this topic of, you know, do
we want to does the community want and
[1:56:07] does the assembly want some level of
control in in their waste? Do we want
[1:56:11] something different than the model that
we have right now or do we like the
[1:56:14] model uh that we have right now in terms
of our uh waste being handled in in the
[1:56:20] private sector? Um and as I mentioned,
we did the waste characterization study.
[1:56:25] We've gotten uh some more information on
the capital costs of the three different
[1:56:29] options from this particular study. Uh I
would recommend that uh we move forward
[1:56:36] and look uh at the get a little bit more
essentially each of these these studies
[1:56:42] is getting a little bit more granular
and trying to fill out a picture of what
[1:56:46] a waste future could look like a
different waste future a waste future
[1:56:49] that CBJ had some level of control in.
Um, and that next level of study, if the
[1:56:56] assembly uh wanted us to move forward
with that, would also drill down and try
[1:57:00] and get some more clarity about what the
costs would be for residents to dispose
[1:57:06] of of their waste under these various
options. Um, now I don't think they'll
[1:57:12] get uh there's there's a lot of uh
policy decisions to be made along along
[1:57:17] the way. Um it could be, you know, there
uh the cost to the end user can change
[1:57:23] based on whether or not CBJ wants uh
wants waste to be essentially an
[1:57:29] enterprise fund completely uh paying for
itself, whether there's some level of
[1:57:34] subsidy. So there will still be a lot of
discussions and policy points moving
[1:57:38] forward, but I would recommend um that
we move forward and and take this next
[1:57:44] step to try and further flesh out uh
these three options. But probably this
[1:57:48] emphasis on on this these two options
which would be uh shipping uh our waste
[1:57:54] out and in general when you ship waste
out um in this part of the world you are
[1:57:58] shipping to Washington or Oregon. Uh
there's a major landfill in Roosevelt,
[1:58:04] Washington, and another large one in
Columbia Ridge, Oregon. So we would
[1:58:09] likely be those are mega landfills.
They're regional landfills. Um and look
[1:58:15] a little bit more closely at at that. Um
and then that's I think probably the
[1:58:20] most actionable um step that I wanted to
pose to you to tonight and to see what
[1:58:26] the as the will of the assembly is. Uh
then the the second item in terms of
[1:58:32] guidance requested because the next one
doesn't require funding but uh as we
[1:58:37] both mentioned if CBJ wanted to have any
level of control in our waist stream uh
[1:58:44] and we wanted to be involved in disposal
uh all any kind of disposal option has a
[1:58:51] transfer station on the front of it.
whether you're shipping it the waste
[1:58:55] out, whether you're taking it to a
landfill, whether you're going waste to
[1:58:58] energy. Um, and we are about to begin a
planning uh study for uh the Lemon Creek
[1:59:05] gravel pit. We're going to do some
planning there. Um, that's where the
[1:59:10] zero waste campus would would be. That's
where we would have our compost
[1:59:16] facility. That's where when the waste
management landfill fills up and uh our
[1:59:21] recycling center can no longer be
located there, that would be located at
[1:59:25] that location. Um, and I just wanted to
gauge uh your interest in our even just
[1:59:32] planning to have a transfer station as
we're doing this planning process for
[1:59:36] this for this waste campus. is a a
transfer station interesting or enticing
[1:59:42] enough for us to even plan for it as
we're we're looking for the use of that
[1:59:46] that site. So, those are the two that's
the the two items I'll leave you with
[1:59:51] and we'll I'll I'll pause for questions.
Thank you, Director Cotch. Questions
[1:59:58] from the assembly. I had Mr. Kelly,
Missandis, Miss Atkinson, and then Miss
[2:00:02] Wall.
Thank you. Um, looking at these u these
[2:00:07] hefty fries, it all looks uh pretty
daunting, but I I was wondering if you
[2:00:13] also I imagine like some of these are
kind of spread out over 10 years. I was
[2:00:18] wondering if you can maybe give a little
bit of a breakdown on when we would be
[2:00:22] needing to make some of these
investments.
[2:00:26] Thank you through the chair to Mr.
Kelly. I I'll get started and then I'll
[2:00:29] see if Tara wants to add anything else.
Um, I think that we're a little ways
[2:00:34] away from actually coming to you with a
request for a CIP or a a revenue bond or
[2:00:41] that sort of thing in terms of putting
the cash up for a a transfer station.
[2:00:46] Um, I think the next step would really
be just looking at this uh South Lemon
[2:00:52] Creek gravel pit, planning out what we
want on a waste campus. um and and
[2:00:57] continuing to evaluate, you know, moving
forward with uh drilling down on the
[2:01:02] operational study, looking at at costs
and then if there were uh we that
[2:01:08] information was gathered. Um and if
there was a point where uh the assembly
[2:01:13] really felt like, okay, yes, we do want
to have a hand in our waste destiny. We
[2:01:18] think that's an important thing for the
community. Then um Tara started talking
[2:01:23] a little bit about there are various uh
I think financing mechanisms that
[2:01:28] communities use for um for paying for a
transfer station and it it it doesn't
[2:01:33] necessarily just need to be um having a
getting all the cash up front
[2:01:39] functionally and building it ourselves.
We could enter into some sort of
[2:01:43] long-term agreement with a third party
um that's somewhat similar. where it's
[2:01:48] not an identical situation, but somewhat
similar to what we've done with um
[2:01:52] recycling, for example. We have a
long-term I think it's 30-year contract
[2:01:58] um almost with with waste management
that we'd had in place, and the cost of
[2:02:02] that the building was built into that
long-term contract. So, there are there
[2:02:07] are other mechanisms, but I think that,
you know, that's uh probably a couple
[2:02:12] couple years away.
Follow up, Mr. Kelly,
[2:02:18] thank you. And actually, yeah,
I So, so yeah, I guess like what I'm
[2:02:23] kind of just looking at like there's
with these there's different stages. So,
[2:02:26] we have can we have the the transfer
station, which sounds like it's common
[2:02:30] to to all of those. So, I'm kind of
wondering like like when we would need
[2:02:34] to have like the capital ready ready for
that, you know, with all the options
[2:02:38] that that you guys will come to us, but
like when are we going to be ready for
[2:02:42] at each of these stages? like assuming
we give you direction today and we want
[2:02:47] to do such and such option. Um like when
are we going to need to have the capital
[2:02:52] for a transfer station? When we going to
need to have the capital for like if we
[2:02:56] wanted if we wanted to do a dump uh with
or a second a second dump when we going
[2:03:02] to need to have that capital um be
thinking
[2:03:07] through the chair to Mr. Kelly. I think
if uh today the assembly said we want a
[2:03:14] transfer station go forth. Uh we would
probably go back and we would huddle and
[2:03:20] we would most likely come uh back to you
with some uh some sort of financing
[2:03:26] agreement with uh another vendor
somewhat similar to what I mentioned for
[2:03:30] recycle works. we would have
conversations with different companies,
[2:03:34] private companies that do this sort of
work um and likely come to you to that
[2:03:40] would be I think probably the most
feasible way to get that rolling in in
[2:03:46] the short term without having to have
all of the the cash essentially up
[2:03:50] front. You enter into a long-term
agreement. And I'm not sure if if Tara
[2:03:55] um not sure if you have any other uh
comments that you want to add about
[2:03:59] public private partnerships and some of
Jacob's um expertise there. Yeah, I can
[2:04:04] I can add on a bit and I'm sure Lindsay
will have some more to say on that
[2:04:08] topic. Um so I I did want to just also
um dive into the details of the process
[2:04:13] a little bit. And so what we've talked
about is understanding operating costs
[2:04:18] for all the facilities is important, but
also a public engagement step would be
[2:04:22] critical. Have starting to have those
public discussions. And then from there,
[2:04:27] you know, there's a few steps before you
just go into the construction and that
[2:04:31] includes permitting and design as well.
Um, and so there you can bite off
[2:04:36] something like this in in smaller chunks
once you make the decision to move
[2:04:39] forward with the facility. Lindsay, you
want to add on to any of that? Sure. And
[2:04:44] as as far as the different models there
are, you know, with the the various
[2:04:48] public private partnerships, you can
structure it in whatever way is, you
[2:04:54] know, best suits you. So, some projects
have a publicly owned piece of property
[2:05:00] and then the rest facility is actually
funded by a private entity. Um sometimes
[2:05:06] you it's best if you have your public
entity is the owner of the facility as
[2:05:12] well and then they just look out for
contract operators. So the next phase of
[2:05:16] the project we could explore uh you know
which of those CBJ is most interested in
[2:05:22] and do some pros and cons of the the
various you know risks associated with
[2:05:26] each model. Um but the more you know
control that you want um then you you
[2:05:33] take a little bit more of that public
ownership
[2:05:36] model. Thank you.
Thank you. Uh I'd miss Hugh Scandi next.
[2:05:44] Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you all for
this presentation.
[2:05:49] I'm trying to get a better sense of um I
thought previously that we had said we
[2:05:56] do want some relative control over our
waste destiny because I think we
[2:06:01] recognize at this point that having it
work poorly with a having no control.
[2:06:07] We're not really ever going to get to
our diversion goals if we don't have
[2:06:11] that control either of the waist stream
or of the waste flow.
[2:06:16] And I
understand
[2:06:20] there's wise or you know decision points
all along the way and then you know that
[2:06:25] requires a lot more study with each
decision point but I'm trying to
[2:06:31] determine with the next step um with
that
[2:06:36] cost study that you're talking about and
forgive me the slide's not up however
[2:06:41] you characterized it but if you could
talk a little more about that and help
[2:06:45] character that for me what you expect to
get out of that or what that product
[2:06:51] would look like because it's very hard
for me to imagine that you would have
[2:06:56] anything that's uh you know like a
really
[2:07:00] useful what comes out of it when there's
so many still unknowns because how can
[2:07:06] you know the operational cost of
something if you don't even know how
[2:07:09] much the thing costs you know we know
everything costs more right now than we
[2:07:13] think it'll cost I'll shut up but could
you talk a a little more about that.
[2:07:17] Sure. I I'll start off. Um actually, I
guess I should ask director, is that all
[2:07:22] right with you if I kick it off? Uh yes.
And I I think I just frame it in terms
[2:07:27] of also just uh before I hand it off to
Tara. Uh that some of the things I'm
[2:07:33] envisioning that we would do with this
next step. For example, we talk about uh
[2:07:37] this current study talks about a
transfer station for shipping, but there
[2:07:41] hasn't there haven't been any
discussions with AML. We haven't had uh
[2:07:47] those sort of discussions. I'm like,
well, what does that shipping really
[2:07:50] look like? We haven't had I mentioned
the name of uh two major regional
[2:07:55] landfills in in the Pacific Northwest.
We haven't engaged them to talk about uh
[2:08:00] what contracts could look like, you
know, for them to accept our waste. We
[2:08:05] just have there are a lot of uh it's a
little bit I feel like it's like peeling
[2:08:08] back this onion and you're right we're
we probably uh at the next after that
[2:08:14] next study if we got the appro approval
to move forward we probably wouldn't
[2:08:17] have all of the answers but we're we're
getting more and more refined and with
[2:08:22] that I would hand it over to Tara. Thank
you. Yes, that's excellent framing. Um,
[2:08:27] so you mentioned several key points
there and that is having those
[2:08:30] conversations with the the partners and
the vendors and that is a a key aspect
[2:08:35] because that will provide a lot of
information that we don't have today.
[2:08:39] For example, are these landfills
available for off-site shipping given
[2:08:44] the waste generation in Juno? Um, you
know, at any point along the way we
[2:08:48] could uncover something that could
eliminate one of these options, uh, one
[2:08:52] of these three options or put an option
back on the table. Um but I I'll say
[2:08:57] that for the operating cost evaluation
that that we are you know we are uh
[2:09:03] proposing here is really to look at um
you know talking to those vendors
[2:09:09] understanding what the forecasting costs
are also um obtaining estimates for
[2:09:14] shipping rates for example as well as um
some construction estimates and
[2:09:19] understanding for waste energy for
example are there vendors available and
[2:09:24] willing to build a waste to energy
facility in Juno. So those are some of
[2:09:28] the key questions that we would want to
ask. We could also evaluate uh tipping
[2:09:32] and collection fees under the different
scenarios which would be important
[2:09:35] information for the public to have to
make some of these decisions.
[2:09:42] Follow up, Miss Scandies. Yeah, just a
quick followup because you have some
[2:09:47] very gross uh estimates for capital
costs. It the shipping trash one. that
[2:09:53] one. I completely understand how you get
that refined, but for something like
[2:09:59] operating the you you it sounds like
essentially you would dial in and do
[2:10:03] more study on what the capital cost
would more realistically look like. Is
[2:10:08] this just vary back in the napkin?
[2:10:13] That is the option. I'm more like tell
me how you winnow that down from what
[2:10:17] you've done here.
[2:10:21] Director, do you would you like to start
it off?
[2:10:24] Go ahead, Tara. Okay. Um, so we it all
depends on what level of analysis you
[2:10:31] would like to do. So we could do another
back of the napkin for operational
[2:10:35] costs, which again would just be high
level trying to ever uncover, you know,
[2:10:39] failure points of these scenarios um and
also high level operating costs. We
[2:10:44] could also speak to other um landfills
within the Alaska region to understand
[2:10:49] what their operating costs would be and
evaluate how that would change customer
[2:10:54] rates um is a very important factor in
all of this is understanding with a new
[2:11:00] with construction of a new landfill and
once it's up and running for one you
[2:11:05] know what size of landfill should we
consider is it something where we would
[2:11:10] like to consider a regional approach or
just local for Juno and how Do those
[2:11:14] costs influence what customers will pay?
[2:11:20] Miss Atkinson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh this is your
[2:11:25] staff. Uh seems like unless we decide to
throw up our hands and wait until the
[2:11:29] landfill closes, we're going to be
looking at a transfer station. Um my
[2:11:32] only question is if we're putting it
potentially into a site planning
[2:11:36] process, how different is the transfer
station for those three scenarios? Is it
[2:11:41] like is your generic transferation to
work for no matter what direction we go
[2:11:44] or do we kind of have to call our shot
when we're doing something like site
[2:11:47] planning
through the chair to Miss Atinson. Uh
[2:11:52] Diana Robinson, environmental project
specialist. Um oh my gosh, I just
[2:11:57] completely lost my train of thought on
that. Went through my whole intro. Um
[2:12:03] will you repeat the question? Transfer
stations.
[2:12:07] Transfer stations. Yes.
as a transportation. So what I would
[2:12:11] recommend and uh I recommend this for
all of the facilities that we're
[2:12:16] planning uh I recommend planning for a
phased approach right so we know that we
[2:12:23] will need that smaller transfer station
footprint regardless um you know it's
[2:12:28] really common in solid waste and please
correct me if I'm wrong Tara but uh to
[2:12:32] to plan in these phases right for
population growth
[2:12:37] degrowth additions of new communities
into like a regional waste authority. So
[2:12:42] that would be my recommendation is that
we start with that smaller footprint to
[2:12:47] just get you know we're kind of with all
of this there is a universe of
[2:12:51] possibilities right we're trying to just
narrow it down to what is going to be
[2:12:55] workable for Juno so that would be my
recommendation is um it just for the
[2:13:00] purposes of what Denise and I are
requesting um for the zero waste campus
[2:13:04] that is more like a placeholder for a
space on a map that that's kind of the
[2:13:10] level of detail we're looking at
currently. Um, but you know that's still
[2:13:14] starting that ball rolling, right? So
that's
[2:13:19] Miss Atkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to be clear, so generally what you
[2:13:23] guys would do would say we will need
this much transfer station for any of
[2:13:27] these options and when we get more clear
direction, we'll start adding on to it
[2:13:30] for whatever option. Correct. Okay.
Thank you,
[2:13:35] Miss Wolf. Thank you, Chair Smith. I
think this kind of follows on that
[2:13:39] question nicely.
Um, I think when I first started getting
[2:13:45] involved in city things, and this was
maybe inaccurate, but I had the idea in
[2:13:50] my head that someone had told me that
we'd likely never be able to be
[2:13:55] permitted to have another landfill in
Juno. And, you know, you would have
[2:14:00] never permitted a landfill in the middle
of a salmon flood plane. And, you know,
[2:14:05] that that would be very challenging. Um,
is that still a challenge or do we in in
[2:14:11] these scenarios, I know we were talking
about potential transfer sites at Lemon
[2:14:17] Creek that at that property? Are we
talking about potential landfill there
[2:14:22] or how would we go about identifying a
site if that's a
[2:14:28] possibility? Through the chair to Miss
Wall, I'm going to get started and then
[2:14:31] I'll see if uh Miss Robinson wants to
add anything else. Uh, I think when
[2:14:37] people think about the permitting for a
landfill, they think a lot about the
[2:14:41] current situation that we're in, which
is an unlined landfill on the edge of of
[2:14:46] a a wetland. Uh, I don't anticipate that
we would be able to even get that sort
[2:14:52] of facility. Like, I don't think that
landfill could be permitted probably
[2:14:55] today. Uh, but you can permit landfills.
uh they just oftentimes they're now, you
[2:15:01] know, as as you might imagine, the the
rules tend to get more strict over time.
[2:15:06] You tend to have uh lined landfills. Um
but the permitting process is
[2:15:12] um it's possible, but it is um probably
going to be ownorous. I mean, anytime
[2:15:16] that you do anything with with waste,
there's often times the neighborhood is
[2:15:21] not necessarily uh in favor of it. Um,
permitting for landfills generally takes
[2:15:26] a really long time. Uh, I would I would
anticipate that there'd probably be a
[2:15:31] lower level of push back, for lack of a
better term, for a transfer station, but
[2:15:37] it would still be handling waste. Uh,
and I would still imagine would get a
[2:15:42] lot that process would get a lot of
scrutiny, but I still think it's
[2:15:45] possible. Not sure if you have anything
to add. Yeah. Uh, I would add a transfer
[2:15:52] station is a relatively low lift in
terms of permitting. Um, this it it
[2:15:58] especially in the state of Alaska. Um,
very minimal permit requirements
[2:16:03] compared to a landfill. Denise is
correct. Um, landfills take a long time
[2:16:08] to permit, but not necessarily because
of the environmental review process.
[2:16:13] It's I think everyone here is familiar
just the public process of going through
[2:16:17] making all these decisions, right? It
takes a very long time to do any solid
[2:16:22] waste planning. It doesn't happen very
often. Like something like this doesn't
[2:16:27] happen very often. This is kind of a
unique opportunity to retool the entire
[2:16:31] waste system here, which is not
something municipalities get to do very
[2:16:34] often. Um but on the flip side, right,
there's not a lot of examples of that.
[2:16:39] So, and there's not a lot of examples of
a
[2:16:43] municipality taking control after not
having it for a very long time. So,
[2:16:47] that's going to add time to that public
process, right? So, but environmentally
[2:16:53] um with modern landfills and engineering
changes, I I think the landfill you
[2:16:58] could permit it in in Juno.
And I'll let Tara add anything if she
[2:17:04] disagrees.
I don't disagree. I would just say that
[2:17:08] a sighting study would be a step in
moving towards a landfill is is doing a
[2:17:12] sighting study to uncover where an
appropriate location would be for the
[2:17:15] landfill.
As well as you have followup. Very good.
[2:17:20] Mr. Bryson,
thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Um, what's
[2:17:25] kind of gotten us into this position is
that we don't own the stream or the
[2:17:31] holding facility.
in one of the scenarios where we ship
[2:17:36] down south. To me, that just adds a
third entity that we don't control. So,
[2:17:42] we still won't control the stream. We
still won't control the transportation
[2:17:46] because that'll be AML. And we won't
control the
[2:17:50] destination as we're trying to solve
this. and we went um I'm just saying uh
[2:17:56] maybe we picked Oregon and then Oregon
says we no longer want any other state's
[2:18:02] trash to be brought to Oregon. And so
now we've done all this work and the
[2:18:08] state that we want to ship our stuff to
and then we're paying God knows how much
[2:18:12] oil to ship our trash down
south. So you have another environmental
[2:18:18] issue there.
Um, how does shipping our trash
[2:18:23] eliminate the problems that we're trying
to solve right now of not controlling
[2:18:28] our trash? It seems that a transfer
station to ship our waste out just makes
[2:18:34] our it just literally adds a third
element of of unknowns. How can shipping
[2:18:40] waste down south for mis for a
municipality be a sustainable long-term
[2:18:47] solution when we just be facing the same
problems that we're facing today? I I'm
[2:18:52] I'm not seeing how shipping is helpful.
Maybe somebody could help explain that
[2:18:58] through the chair uh to Mr. Bryson. Uh,
I think that's why there's certainly
[2:19:04] vulnerabilities associated with shipping
uh, waste down south, but many other
[2:19:09] communities in Alaska do that. Uh, and I
think that's why we're at the point
[2:19:14] where even at this at this stage, there
were essentially a high level three
[2:19:20] major types of ways that you deal with
uh, waste disposal. and there was a
[2:19:25] ranking of them but not an elimination
of any any of the options because we
[2:19:30] would need uh through that next step of
looking at operations really digging
[2:19:34] into a little bit more about the the
shipping piece. I still do think though
[2:19:39] that even if the community made a
decision to build a transfer station and
[2:19:45] to ship that waste down south versus
maybe putting it in a landfill, which is
[2:19:50] its own its own why decision point, what
we would gain is that uh a waste hauler
[2:19:58] uh is regulated and they have to bring
their waste to uh the the most lowcost
[2:20:05] option. So we would wind up being the
disposal. The transfer station is the
[2:20:10] first step in the disposal. And having
that step in disposal enables us to make
[2:20:17] more decisions about you know if the
community wants to do something
[2:20:20] different with the way we we uh process
tires or you know or uh the way that we
[2:20:27] process our recycling. the fact that all
the waste would be coming to a facility
[2:20:32] that CBJ has some level of control over.
Uh I mean we could either own it and
[2:20:38] operate it, although I doubt that that's
really the model. We would probably own
[2:20:42] it and have some partnership with a
private company, but that private
[2:20:46] company, if CBJ owned it, they would CBJ
would be able to direct um what we
[2:20:52] wanted to do with that with that waste
flow with diversion. Not sure if you
[2:20:56] wanted to add anything else. Uh like
Denise mentioned at the beginning of the
[2:21:01] presentation, a lot of issues that arise
there, it's not just because it's going
[2:21:05] in a poorly designed land film, right?
It's hours of operation, it is materials
[2:21:10] accepted, it's rates like she mentioned
if so just a
[2:21:15] hypothetical CBJ decides to do nothing.
Uh the p someone in the private sector
[2:21:21] builds a transfer station because that
will be what
[2:21:24] happens. we then don't have any input
into when they're open, what materials
[2:21:29] they accept, um the rate again the
rates. So yeah, it's not a perfect
[2:21:34] solution by any means. Uh but it does
also give us another opportunity to push
[2:21:38] diversion if we are able to incentivize
by you know like recycling's free. You
[2:21:45] have and now you you know there's
different uh models for payment also um
[2:21:49] that we can look into. There's something
called pay as you throw, right? you go
[2:21:53] to the transfer station, you're just
paying for that waste that you're
[2:21:55] throwing out. Uh it's not like a, you
know, right now we have a minimum charge
[2:22:00] at Waste Management, right? So that's
not really incentivizing you to have
[2:22:04] less waste that goes through that
transfer station. You can incentivize
[2:22:07] recycling, composting, and reads,
though. Um and if you control each of
[2:22:11] those pieces, then it's it's the system
just works better, right? So I would say
[2:22:17] that's
very good. It looks like you as a
[2:22:21] followup, Mr. Bryson. So the answer that
I heard is that the transfer station
[2:22:26] regardless of the scenario is how CBJ
can insert themselves into the waist
[2:22:34] stream control. Is that essentially the
what you're saying through the chair?
[2:22:41] Yes.
[2:22:44] Very well then. Did you have a question?
I did.
[2:22:47] Um, so a transfer I forget um how many
acres the zero waste campus site is. Is
[2:22:55] there room for a transfer station and
its growth that's needed potentially
[2:23:01] through the chair to Mayor Weldon? Uh
yes that because that uh that site is um
[2:23:08] more than 20 acres we would have we
would have plenty of space to you know
[2:23:13] make if the assembly wanted to make the
decision and pro provide the guidance
[2:23:17] that uh you're interested enough that we
should at least include it in our plan.
[2:23:22] Um, we would still have space to have
recycling and compost and other things
[2:23:28] on on that site and then even have we
would design it such that uh the
[2:23:32] transfer station um had a little bit of
room for growth so that we could I think
[2:23:38] we could accomplish all of those things
in that in that site.
[2:23:50] I actually had a question on this. I
guess
[2:23:53] just, you know, you're asking if we
should include it at the Zurista campus
[2:23:56] site. I mean, is there another site we
should consider? This one just totally
[2:24:00] makes sense. Okay. You just kind of
Okay,
[2:24:04] [Music]
Mr. share. Uh that was that uh South
[2:24:09] Lemon Creek gravel pit is the area that
we had identified as um the area that
[2:24:15] would be our waste campus. We know that
even if um the assembly was not
[2:24:21] interested in having a a transfer uh
transfer station. Um the community has
[2:24:27] been interested and has been running a
recycling program for a long time and
[2:24:30] running a household hazardous waste
program for a long time. And the most
[2:24:35] likely outcome is what when the local
privatelyowned waste management landfill
[2:24:41] closes or as it gets close to closing.
They're going to need that that space
[2:24:45] where we currently have our recycling
and household hazardous waste. So at
[2:24:49] some point uh CBJ will probably get
pushed off of their private site. And if
[2:24:54] those are uh services that uh the
assembly and the community still want
[2:25:00] CBJ to offer, we'd have to have another
location to offer those those services.
[2:25:05] And that's also where uh we had planned
um to have a a compost facility that we
[2:25:11] had pursued the congressionally directed
spending for.
[2:25:16] Very good. Any further questions from
the assembly? Seeing none, anyone open
[2:25:22] to making a
motion? Mr.
[2:25:27] [Music]
Kelly? I'll uh start with the guidance
[2:25:34] requested.
Um, I move that we provide a motion of
[2:25:41] support uh directing engineering public
works to include a transfer station with
[2:25:48] possible growth in the zerowaste campus
um
[2:25:54] site. Very good. Further motion. Any
objection to the
[2:25:58] motion? Seeing that, that motion is
adopted. Any further motions?
[2:26:05] Madame Mayor, I'm not quite sure if we
need this or not, but we would give
[2:26:09] staff direction. So, um, I would direct
staff to use up to $100,000 from the
[2:26:15] zero waste CIP number
D12-103 for high level solid waste
[2:26:20] facility operational cost.
Very good. We motion. Any objection,
[2:26:26] Miss Wall?
[2:26:32] Um I was I didn't realize we were making
a motion that specific, but um I see now
[2:26:39] that that's the slide.
Um I this I can follow up more with um
[2:26:47] staff regarding whether we would need a
amendment. But I'm interested as we move
[2:26:53] forward with this on on making sure we
include um as well as cost estimates
[2:27:01] um looking at our carbon footprint and
environmental concerns. I know we live
[2:27:07] in a society that chooses to add that
on, but I think we're increasingly in a
[2:27:12] place where that should be just as
important as our dollar values. And
[2:27:18] although it's hard to think of this
right now, someday those concerns will
[2:27:24] drive our dollars potentially. So, um,
if if staff could bring up a bit more
[2:27:29] information on whether that would need
additional dollars to include those
[2:27:33] analyses, um, that would be helpful. So,
maybe not an amendment, but just a
[2:27:39] general direction that if we have to
change that amount, we can. Yeah. Yeah.
[2:27:44] If that was it was going to be provided,
it would have changed the cost. Very
[2:27:48] good. Any further objection, Mr. Um,
yes. Um, probably just an objection kind
[2:27:55] kind of on a a similar vein. I think uh
what would be kind of useful for us in
[2:28:00] making future decisions as well is um is
a little more information. I I I realize
[2:28:07] a lot of this is still kind of in the
beginning stages, but I think it would
[2:28:10] be helpful for me to have a little more
information on on what sort of um what
[2:28:15] sort of timeline
things would see that. And um I think
[2:28:21] also um it may be cost comparisons that
possibly include the the cost for
[2:28:27] shipping.
[2:28:31] I'll remove my objection.
Very good. Those comments, we've heard a
[2:28:38] motion. Miss Gandis. Uh thank you, Mr.
Chair. Sorry for this just now popping
[2:28:43] into my head. Will that include Are you
already planning to include looking at
[2:28:49] this also as a potential for a regional
landfill? I think you mentioned that
[2:28:54] earlier, Miss Scandi, I had a hard time
hearing you. What did you say? Sorry,
[2:28:58] Mr. Smith. I had a hard candy in my
mouth. I believe earlier you said that
[2:29:03] you would look at citing it as a
regional landfill and just as a local
[2:29:08] landfill or I'm asking will this include
that?
[2:29:15] through the chair to Miss Hugh Ganges.
We certainly have been um participating
[2:29:21] with Southeast Conference. We know that
they're looking at uh regional waste
[2:29:25] solutions and we're continuing to have
that that dialogue with them.
[2:29:30] Um we are I think a little bit um it's
interesting a lot of the other
[2:29:37] communities in the southeast who are t
having this conversation about a
[2:29:41] regional solution have more control over
their waste than than we do. I think
[2:29:47] there's certainly um it's certainly
apparent that any regional solution in
[2:29:51] terms of the economy of scale that they
would get. Um, Juno is certainly the
[2:29:56] most likely location that that that
would happen. Um, so we are taking that
[2:30:03] into account as we're as we're doing
some of these plans, but it's a little
[2:30:07] bit of this balancing act because we
don't want to uh box ourselves in. And I
[2:30:13] I wouldn't um probably proceed with or
give our consultant the advice to
[2:30:20] proceed with uh the focus of of us being
a regional hub because we don't know if
[2:30:26] that will wind up happening. I think
that um we would give them the focus uh
[2:30:31] ask them to focus on uh looking at these
solutions primarily assuming that it's
[2:30:36] just Juno's waist stream but knowing
that you know keeping some openness so
[2:30:41] that if there you know later on if once
the regional planning catches up and if
[2:30:46] it's the community and assembly's will
to you know to be more regional that we
[2:30:51] wouldn't shut any doors but I think it's
um it's probably a little early for us
[2:30:56] to plan based on that.
Yeah, I will add that we can do look at
[2:31:01] like the 50y year versus the 100year
land though. I think that would be a
[2:31:06] really reasonable thing to do to get a
better because that 100year landfill
[2:31:09] would be more.
[2:31:13] Okay.
[2:31:16] Okay. I'll
[2:31:21] thank you. And uh in a similar vein of
just comments under emotion, I actually
[2:31:26] have one too. You
had you had brought up and the thing
[2:31:30] that I've talked about almost every time
we talk about solid waste is like cost
[2:31:36] to the residents because oh great, we
have a $20 million solution, but it's
[2:31:41] going to triple the cost versus a $50
million solution that will just increase
[2:31:45] by a third, whatever. So anyway, I I
thought I heard you mention that that
[2:31:49] would be a component of this study.
Again, if I was incorrect or that's not
[2:31:55] going to be considered or something, I
would appreciate, but I just wanted to
[2:31:59] emphasize
that three other people that emphasis
[2:32:03] and I didn't want to be left out.
Mr. Chair, you are correct. We are we we
[2:32:09] really want to get this to a place where
we understand what the cost is to the to
[2:32:13] the residents. Uh there will be what I
had mentioned earlier is that there are
[2:32:16] probably opportunities for policy calls
in there in terms of whether or not um
[2:32:21] the assembly wants uh ways to be an
enterprise fund if they were thinking
[2:32:27] about it that way or if they were
thinking about subsidy or not. But we
[2:32:30] would certainly be driving to try and
understand what the cost would be for
[2:32:34] the resident because we really
understand that's that's where the
[2:32:36] rubber hits the road.
Very good. Thank you very much. And with
[2:32:40] that, I'll remove my objection for
emphasis. Was there any further excuse
[2:32:46] me any further
objection on the
[2:32:52] motion? Seeing none those that motion is
adopted. Thank you all very much for
[2:32:58] this information. Appreciate it. Thank
you. Thank you. Okay, we have one last
[2:33:05] item. Advocacy on ballot measures.
Manager Kester. Thank you, Deputy Mayor
[2:33:11] Smith. So, you have a memo. the very
last page of your packet that just talks
[2:33:15] about generally speaking advocacy on
ballot measures. As you know, we are
[2:33:21] required to uh appropriate funds and
register with Apoch if uh the city wants
[2:33:26] to do like more than kind of a basic
just the facts public education
[2:33:31] campaign. So, um we we have uh multiple
ballot initiatives potentially on the
[2:33:37] ballot, including a CBG initiated uh
ballot measure for um seasonal sales tax
[2:33:44] and an exemption of tax on food and
utilities. We also have the um the uh
[2:33:52] mill rate cap and the uh just the
exemption of sales tax on food and
[2:33:58] utilities that is being circulated. they
are out getting additional petitions
[2:34:02] right now. And just to highlight the
impact of that exemption of of those two
[2:34:08] measures, an exemption on food and
utilities is about a 10 to 12 million
[2:34:12] hit to our budget. And while the mill
rate cap because it excludes uh debt
[2:34:18] service, it would have a small impact on
this year's budget. However, it would
[2:34:23] really limit the ability of the assembly
to make um budget decisions and respond
[2:34:28] to community needs. So, you know, those
are kind of our the um body's potential
[2:34:34] interest in advocating one way or
another on those. If we were to uh not
[2:34:40] take if we were not to take any action
to advocate, so no ordinance um
[2:34:45] appropriating those funds, we would
provide a a pretty robust FAQ. We would
[2:34:51] respond to inquiries, but that would be
from staff's perspective the the limit
[2:34:54] of it. Of course, assembly members
individually can take a more proactive
[2:34:59] role, but um but staff would be very
careful about that. Um in the contrast,
[2:35:04] if we did uh if you did approve an
advocacy campaign, we would recommend
[2:35:09] hiring a third party consultant with
experience in these types of um these
[2:35:14] types of voter education campaigns. The
new city hall campaign, we were quite
[2:35:18] close to it. You know, we did some some
great uh work, but I think I would uh
[2:35:22] advocate for being a little bit more
who's getting a really robust um media
[2:35:28] and direct mail campaign organized uh
through uh who a a company a consulting
[2:35:34] firm that specializes in that. Um as you
know the deadline to um have anything
[2:35:42] put on the um ballot is um the end of
July. So, this is really uh kind of fast
[2:35:49] approaching in order to be able to uh
meaningfully develop any type of a
[2:35:54] campaign and I laid out a schedule on
the memo. Um, if you're interested in
[2:35:58] keeping the conversation alive on
potentially advocating, I would
[2:36:02] recommend uh introducing an ordinance at
the next meeting. You don't have to pass
[2:36:07] that ordinance, right? We have a very
long time actually in between our June
[2:36:12] 9th meeting and our uh July 28th
meeting. Lots of things can change, but
[2:36:16] if you do um if you are interested in
having that option, I would recommend
[2:36:21] introducing an ordinance. And you know,
I I don't I'm silent on a number in this
[2:36:26] memo. Uh the new city hall campaign was
under
[2:36:30] $50,000. Um depending on kind of how
many how many campaigns, how many
[2:36:35] measures you want to advocate on, I
think um would uh influence that number.
[2:36:40] And I would just encourage you to use a
higher number and use language because
[2:36:44] again, you know, we're going to have a
long time of between now and when you
[2:36:48] have to make a final decision on that.
So, I'm happy to answer any questions on
[2:36:52] advocacy and I know attorney writes also
very um involved in this issue. Madam
[2:36:58] manager, just to frame it in and I'm
sorry if you said it right there at the
[2:37:01] end, the the information we need to
provide on an ordinance, it's the amount
[2:37:08] and do we do advocacy. It's not
necessarily advocate for this or
[2:37:12] advocate against that. Is that correct?
You are correct. Very good. Thank you.
[2:37:17] Questions from the assembly. Mr. Bryson,
[2:37:22] does the uh the citizen group that is
putting on uh these initiatives or
[2:37:28] attempting to get these onto the ballot?
Um have we looked at what's the right
[2:37:34] way to ask this question? Um, would it
be appropriate for the city's level of
[2:37:39] information to be equal to the group's
information of what they're trying to uh
[2:37:47] get past? Would we try to like match the
level of activity? Um, could you maybe
[2:37:54] just speak to a little bit what we would
do is in like a camp if you had a
[2:37:58] campaign um to do with
this manager. Thank you for that
[2:38:05] question. So, uh, no, I I probably would
not, um, I I really don't think there's
[2:38:09] time to be have much of a reactionary
campaign. Um, if approved, uh, I would
[2:38:15] suggest a, um, social media presence
where we do, uh, social media ads. I
[2:38:21] would suggest radio ads. Uh, I would s
direct mail is still the like best way
[2:38:27] to get a hold of those individual
voters. So I would um you know pro we
[2:38:32] would probably be we would take the
advice of the consultant who who does
[2:38:35] those types of activities or the media
marketing campaign but direct mail um
[2:38:41] public speaking I would still be relying
on I think assembly members to do many
[2:38:45] of those requested public speaking
events but I think it would probably be
[2:38:49] uh mostly media focus.
[2:38:55] Other
questions? Miss Miss Hall and then I'll
[2:39:00] come back to Mr. Preston. I I it it
seems to me with the city hall campaign
[2:39:07] that backfired on on us and so I guess
I'm a little hesitant to you know how
[2:39:15] common is it for um municipalities to
advocate for something like this or do
[2:39:21] we you know I the FAQ page and relying
on
[2:39:27] Q&A around election time would that be a
wise er approach
[2:39:33] than using public funds to have an
advocacy committee.
[2:39:39] Yeah. If you maybe go ahead and answer
but then the thought I think was
[2:39:43] interesting is you know what other
communities have done advocacy for you
[2:39:47] know something. Yeah. Um so I know that
when I was in Homer we did a advocacy
[2:39:53] campaign for um a public safety
building. Uh when we looked it up last
[2:39:57] year I believe Katchakan had done an
advocacy campaign. I I don't think it's
[2:40:01] very common. Often when you have a bomb
proposition, for example, you have a
[2:40:06] constituency group that is, you know,
advocating for that. The reason why uh
[2:40:10] we advocated for a new city hall
campaign was it was just a it was really
[2:40:15] hard uh for anyone else to be a champion
of a new built new office space for uh
[2:40:22] bureaucrats besides the bureaucrats
themselves. And it would be really hard
[2:40:26] for us to distance ourselves, we felt
like, from anything just sounding like
[2:40:30] advocacy. Um, I think your other
question of like should we do it or
[2:40:34] should we not do it is 100% a policy
call that is squarely in your uh arena.
[2:40:42] Mr. Bryson, then Mr. Kelly,
could the advocacy advocacy be combined?
[2:40:50] Let's say that two of the propositions
were to cap the mill rate and um exempt
[2:40:56] the for food and utilities. Would we be
able to have like
[2:41:01] one message out there or if they have
two ballot initiatives, we'd have to
[2:41:07] address them separately?
Do you have any insight on how you might
[2:41:12] handle if there was two or three ballot
initiatives that we'd have to go against
[2:41:18] or advocate against whatever appropriate
phrases?
[2:41:23] Um I think that there'd be a lot of
synergy and similar messaging. I mean I
[2:41:27] think really there's just a lot of
messaging that uh CBJ could do that's
[2:41:31] not specific to any ballot
uh proposition. If you know if if
[2:41:39] One option involves drastic cuts to our
budget or a giant hole in our budget. We
[2:41:43] could certainly do a lot of uh educating
on what that could look like, things
[2:41:48] like that. Um I think a more nuance
level of your question that I don't have
[2:41:52] an answer for is like how would we
register with Apoch if we were like
[2:41:57] doing a campaign here and a campaign
there and and you know I would just have
[2:42:00] to research that to make sure we were
following the rules. I mean, we want to
[2:42:03] be very very careful and very um a
stickler on on all of those uh campaign
[2:42:10] disclosure rules.
Mr. Kelly, thank you. Um this might be a
[2:42:17] little too creative. Um so I guess I'm
asking if this is something that would
[2:42:21] be permissible. I think a a big part of
a lot of people's objections was they
[2:42:26] they're getting mailers that were paid
with their own tax funds trying to get
[2:42:30] them to take an action.
Um
[2:42:34] would we have to would would all of the
funds have to come from the city? Could
[2:42:40] we coordinate with u maybe another
interested citizen group and they could
[2:42:45] also raise funds so this wouldn't be an
entirely taxpayer funded effort?
[2:42:52] Whoever would like that. Yeah. So I
think that uh logistically it would be
[2:43:00] difficult for the assembly to accept and
appropriate donations for the purposes
[2:43:06] of an advocacy campaign. I think a
simpler solution would be for that
[2:43:12] entity to register and and have their
own advocacy.
[2:43:18] Thank you.
[2:43:24] Further questions from the assembly on
this agenda
[2:43:29] topic? Seeing none, would anyone like to
make a
[2:43:33] motion? Miss Wall, Mr. Smith, do you
mind if I have a take a brief at ease?
[2:43:38] Of course. a couple minutes or
something.
[2:47:58] We are back on the record.
Um, Miss Wall,
[2:48:05] do you have a motion? Thank you, Chair
Smith.
[2:48:07] Um, I move we direct staff to introduce
an ordinance at the June 9th regular
[2:48:14] meeting um in a corresponding RO res
resolution on July 28th that would
[2:48:19] provide up to um $50,000 for to provide
public information that may influence
[2:48:26] the outcome of future val ballot
propositions. And if I could speak to my
[2:48:32] motion. Very good.
as well.
[2:48:35] Um I I've been through this question of
how we deal with these situations a
[2:48:41] number of times on the assembly now and
I've changed my mind a few times about
[2:48:46] it. But um why I'm feeling motivated um
this year um two things. One there is
[2:48:55] something has changed in the last 5
years. We used to be able to just
[2:48:58] provide public information on these
ballot initiatives. Now, we cannot do
[2:49:02] that without allocating public funding
to do so. And so, it puts us in a tricky
[2:49:07] position that there's really no way to
be neutral. Um, I'm but I want to move
[2:49:12] forward on this particular year because
we're considering a seasonal sales tax.
[2:49:17] I think a seasonal sales tax, we've got
a bold proposal to transform the way
[2:49:22] that we're collecting sales tax in Juno
before us.
[2:49:27] Um it is going to take um some work to
make sure people understand why we are
[2:49:35] proposing this um and and the
information around that. I think it is
[2:49:39] complex and I know that if we don't get
ahead of the message um a lot of
[2:49:45] misinformation will be put out there
about the proposal. people see it as a
[2:49:49] tax and and they'll um they'll we won't
be able to provide a clear understanding
[2:49:56] of why. Um and so um if it turns out
there's there's other things on the
[2:50:02] ballot, then I think we still have the
option to um decide how we feel about
[2:50:06] that. But for me, this is about seasonal
sales tax. I actually think that I won't
[2:50:11] vote for putting seasonal sales tax on
the ballot if we don't allocate funding
[2:50:16] to help educate the public about it.
Thank you.
[2:50:20] Thank you, Miss
Wall. Any objection to the motion? Miss
[2:50:25] Atkinson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I very much
[2:50:29] appreciate where where Miss Wall is
coming from, but I am hesitant to take
[2:50:34] positions on any of the potential ballot
measures as a city uh that could be
[2:50:39] coming forward. I think that if the case
of ballot measures proposed by the
[2:50:44] citizens of Juno, uh there will be like
if people reach out and ask what size
[2:50:49] hole will that put in the budget, we are
allowed to share that information. But I
[2:50:54] don't think we should be taking a
position on any of those potential
[2:50:56] ballot measures because that's just I
don't feel our place as the city to be
[2:51:01] doing that and to be advocating for one
or the other. Providing unbiased
[2:51:04] information is one thing and advocating
for a particular side is another. And as
[2:51:08] far as the seasonal sales tax goes, I I
understand that we that is complex and
[2:51:12] it will be a heavy lift to educate the
public, but also that's partially what
[2:51:17] um people campaigning that year are for
when city hall was on the ballot. I know
[2:51:21] we got questions about city hall and
every candidate forum. Um, and so that
[2:51:25] is already sort of an organic part of
the process that uh people running this
[2:51:29] year can undertake if need be. And I
just don't I think that it sends a bad
[2:51:34] message to be using public dollars to
advocate for anything on that.
[2:51:39] Thank you, Mr. Bryson.
So uh I was uh listening to Miss Atinson
[2:51:45] and uh I bet in uh my first year I would
have had that same thought. I'm
[2:51:51] suspecting that the groups that are
advocating for these are going to give
[2:51:55] their version, their side of how this is
going to go down. And if we don't give
[2:52:01] city staff um the funding and ability to
deal with this, we're going to be
[2:52:08] dealing with a misinformation campaign
that negatively harms the community in
[2:52:14] the long run. We need to be as loud and
as available with the real
[2:52:20] information because some of these things
that have already started to come out,
[2:52:24] I've already heard some of their
ads. We need to be as uh we need to be
[2:52:31] as assertive um or we could find
ourselves in a bit of trouble. Thank you
[2:52:34] for the time. Thank you, Mr. Bryson.
Miss Scandies.
[2:52:38] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just keep it
brief. I I support it. You know, I
[2:52:42] thought about this for a long time and
specifically for me, how I can support
[2:52:48] this and keep this alive and keep this
moving and I appreciate the motion is
[2:52:52] because of the work we're doing on the
sales tax proposal and I want that to
[2:52:58] have a fair shake and I want people to
feel like they really understand the
[2:53:03] whole proposal and the whole model and
why we're doing it and I think this
[2:53:06] allows us to do that. So, I'll be
supporting this motion. um to give that
[2:53:12] a a full chance. Very good. Mayor Welen,
I'll just speak in support of the
[2:53:18] motion, but everything I was going to
say has been said, so I'll keep it
[2:53:21] short.
Mr.
[2:53:24] Singer. Um, so I'm speaking support the
motion because, you know, looking at the
[2:53:30] potential on the ballot of what could be
two very similar looking ballot
[2:53:35] propositions put in front of the voters.
I think it's important that we, you
[2:53:39] know, give staff the ability to educate
the public on what that choice means. I
[2:53:44] see it not necessarily as an advocating
for or against a citizens initiative,
[2:53:50] but explaining to the voters. We're
placing one option in front of them that
[2:53:56] looks similar to another option being
discussed in the public right now and
[2:54:00] making it very clear what the impacts of
both of those would be. You know, what
[2:54:04] why we're proposing an option that looks
similar to something being discussed for
[2:54:08] the public. Um but and also if I can ask
a question of staff very quickly. Sure.
[2:54:14] With an objection. Um objection for a
question. How how much control will we
[2:54:22] as a body have over the actual content
of the messaging and you know how much
[2:54:29] how much can we direct the content and
the tone and the type of messaging
[2:54:33] that's done by this third party.
Yeah. My my favorite is um drafting uh
[2:54:41] FAQs by uh assembly. I've had experience
with that. Super fun. Um I would uh
[2:54:50] suggest that uh you know we come forward
with a uh maybe a a uh plan for public
[2:54:58] information and that the body have an
opportunity to provide high level input
[2:55:02] on that plan. But um I think it is
difficult maybe I mean if you really
[2:55:07] wanted some more granular level of
control I maybe a small committee or
[2:55:12] something that could uh we could work
more closely with but um content
[2:55:17] creation is is difficult in large
groups.
[2:55:24] Mr. Kelly,
thank you. Um I think I'll support this
[2:55:28] motion uh at this time. Um, I I'm still
kind of weighing weighing the pros and
[2:55:34] cons of expending public funds uh to to
persuade versus also making sure we get
[2:55:39] a fair shake. Um, I haven't decided how
I'm going to vote on the final ordinance
[2:55:43] or the resolution, but I uh support
moving the conversation forward. Good,
[2:55:48] Miss Atkinson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can count votes.
[2:55:52] So, I'll remove my objection. But I I
just will say when it comes to if we
[2:55:56] come to the point where we're talking
about expending public money to provide
[2:55:59] information on citizen ballot citizen
ballot initiatives, I will um not be
[2:56:05] able to support it. But for now, I'll
remove my objection. Mr. Bryson,
[2:56:09] I had a question um for staff. If we did
not allocate any funds, staff would not
[2:56:16] be able to go do something like go
present at the Chamber of Commerce. Is
[2:56:20] that correct? We have to have an
allocation of funds to allow city to be
[2:56:25] able to publicly speak about this. Is
there some Could you maybe explain what
[2:56:29] that rule is?
Madam manager. Yeah. I mean, you know, I
[2:56:34] don't there's no like Apoch guide book
of what you can or cannot do in these
[2:56:39] circumstances. They're a matter. It's a
matter of judgment and it's a matter of
[2:56:44] uh risking a Apoch violation. I would
not feel comfortable uh speaking at a
[2:56:49] chamber or a um Rotary event on this
topic outside of you know being asked
[2:56:56] questions. I would I think an assembly
member could uh take that action but um
[2:57:02] like my I would not feel comfortable
doing that or directing my staff to do
[2:57:06] that because it'd be very hard for it
not to sound like advocating when you're
[2:57:10] like if you approve this we won't have
money to fund the arburetum for example,
[2:57:15] right? like that's just going to come
off as big bad city manager trying to
[2:57:19] influence my opinion by taking away the
things I love. Okay,
[2:57:25] very good. We have a motion and I don't
believe we have objection. Is there any
[2:57:29] objection to the motion? Very good. That
motion is
[2:57:33] adopted. That I think gets us through
our business this evening. Madam
[2:57:38] manager, do we have anything
else? Very good.
[2:57:42] Nothing. No staff reports. Our next
meeting date is Oh, I thought it was
[2:57:47] July 4th. Is July
14th. Seeing nothing before else before
[2:57:52] us, we are journ.